Prev-IndexNL-Next

Nederlog

Sunday, Feb 5, 2017

Crisis: FBI's Control, Populism, Warren, National Security, Frances On Trump

Sections                                                                     crisis index
Introduction

1.
The FBI Is Building A National Watchlist That Gives Companies
     Real Time Updates on Employees

2. Only True Populism Can Save Us From Donald Trump's Cheap
     Knockoff Version

3.
Elizabeth Warren To Democrats: Only an 'Opposition Party'
     Can Defeat Trump

4.
Ready... Fire... Aim: How an Unhinged Trump Is Threatening
     US National Security

5. Don't Call Trump "Crazy": The Dangers of Pathologizing Bad
     Politics
Introduction:

This is a Nederlog of Sun
day, February 5, 2017.

Summary: This is a crisis log with 5 files and 5 dotted links: Item 1 is about the FBI, that us compiling watchlists on extremely many Americans (in secret); item 2 is about an - I think - far too optimistic article about the Democratic Party and populism; item 3 is about Elizabeth Warren, who also does not honestly face the Democratic Party's corruption since Bill Clinton; item 4 is about a not very good article about Trump (I agree mostly with the writer's values, but these are personal); and item 5 is a fairly mad article that seeks to prove that Trump is not insane, but that is - as stated in this article - bullshit.
As for today (February 5, 2017): I have changed my site on February 1, 2017 to make it easier that it might be read, because it now happened for most of last year that both of my sites are not uploaded properly:

On xs4all.nl it may be days, weeks or months behind to show the proper last date and the proper last files (in the last 4 years always on the date it was that day) and of course it was yesterday already not uploading; on one.com it may be shown as December 31, 2015 (and often was!!!) but it was OK yesterday; and indeed I am sick of being systematically made unreadable and therefore changed the site to allow most readers of reading it more easily.

For more explanations, see
here - and no: with two different sites in two different countries with two different providers, where this has been happening for a year (and not over 20 and over 12 years before) now I'm absolutely certain that this happens and that it's not due to me.
1. The FBI Is Building A National Watchlist That Gives Companies Real Time Updates on Employees

The first item today is by Ava Kofman on The Intercept:
This starts as follows:
The FBI’s Rap Back program is quietly transforming the way employers conduct background checks. While routine background checks provide employers with a one-time “snapshot” of their employee’s past criminal history, employers enrolled in federal and state Rap Back programs receive ongoing, real-time notifications and updates about their employees’ run-ins with law enforcement, including arrests at protests and charges that do not end up in convictions. (“Rap” is an acronym for Record of Arrest and Prosecution; ”Back” is short for background). Testifying before Congress about the program in 2015, FBI Director James Comey explained some limits of regular background checks: “People are clean when they first go in, then they get in trouble five years down the road [and] never tell the daycare about this.”
Probably yes, for you cannot trust people.

Then again, if you cannot trust people, you cannot trust Comey nor the FBI, and indeed these are far less deserving of trust than ordinary people because they know very much more about very many people than the people know themselves; because their knowledge is mostly built in secret; and because their knowledge serves their own control and those of the people they serve, who are the rich employers.

Here is some more on this "Rap Back" schema:
A majority of states already have their own databases that they use for background checks and have accessed in-state Rap Back programs since at least 2007; states and agencies now partnering with the federal government will be entering their data into the FBI’s Next Generation Identification (NGI) database. The NGI database, widely considered to be the world’s largest biometric database, allows federal and state agencies to search more than 70 million civil fingerprints submitted for background checks alongside over 50 million prints submitted for criminal purposes.
This means in fact that the FBI has the means - the finger prints - to unlock the computers of over a 100 million Americans.

Here is more on the propaganda that is used to propagandize "Rap Back" plus what it really does:
Rap Back has been advertised by the FBI as an effort to target individuals in “positions of trust,” such as those who work with children, the elderly, and the disabled. According to a Rap Back spokesperson, however, there are no formal limits as to “which populations of individuals can be enrolled in the Rap Back Service.” Civil liberties advocates fear that under Trump’s administration the program will grow with serious consequences for employee privacy, accuracy of records, and fair employment practices.
Here is more on the fingerprints and on the fact that employees have no power whatsoever:
The FBI has the license to retain all submitted fingerprints indefinitely — even after notice of death. Employers are even offered the option to purchase lifetime subscriptions to the program for the cost of $13 per person. The decision to participate in Rap Back is at employers’ discretion. Employees have no choice in the matter.

“This type of infrastructure always tends to undergo mission creep,” explained the ACLU’s Jay Stanley, referring to how agencies often find secondary uses for data beyond its original function.

There are no laws preventing the FBI from using the data it collects for other purposes, said Jeramie Scott, an attorney with the Electronic Privacy Information Center. A massive trove of digital fingerprints collected by the FBI, he noted, could be used to open up devices like smart phones without the owner’s consent.
Precisely, as I pointed out above. Here is another fact: "Rap Back" collects vastly more that from civil settings than from criminal justice purposes:
Fact sheets from January 2015 through August 2016 show the database growing at a much higher rate from its collection of data from civil settings than from criminal justice purposes. During that period, civil submission rates constituted nearly 70 percent of new submissions. Through the Rap Back program the FBI is collecting biographical and biometric data on potentially millions of civilians for purposes not associated with criminal justice,” Scott said.
The article ends as follows (after a lot more that I leave to your interests):
Jay Stanley, of the ACLU, views the Rap Back program as part of a larger trend toward the monitoring and policing of everyday life. “The whole purpose of program,” he said, “is for people to be fired.”
Yes, but I think the purpose is wider: It is "the monitoring and policing of everyday life" indeed to the extent that people will be employed only if they are approved by the FBI, which again will tend to only approve those whose political records it approves.

2. Only True Populism Can Save Us From Donald Trump's Cheap Knockoff Version

The second item is by Conor Lynch on AlterNet and originally on Salon:
This is from near the beginning, and comes after a summary of some of Trump's delusions (about the size of the crowd at Trump's inauguration):

It is not surprising, then, that the Trump administration, so detached from reality, is now wildly overestimating the president’s popularity and public support. In this respect, Trump actually has broken some records — but not in the way he had hoped. According to Gallup polls, Trump already has a negative approval rating after two weeks in office, which took years for any of his predecessors — going back to Ronald Reagan — to achieve. The president has also prompted massive, relentless protests and demonstrations since he entered office, unlike any other president (including Nixon).

In other words, Trump is already the most unpopular and divisive president in modern history (which is truly something, considering George W. Bush was president not too long ago). Yet he and his team are currently acting as if they have a massive popular mandate.  The White House has become a giant safe space for delusional right-wingers, where only “alternative facts” that the president reads on Infowars and Breitbart are permitted.

Yes, this seems more or less correct (but not according to psychiatrist Allen Frances, below: He says the president is not insane, and that not because Trump fits Frances definition of Narcissistic Personality Disorder to a t, according to thousands of of psychologists and psychiatrists but because ... he "doesn't show clinically significant distress" [1]).

Then there is this on Trump's voters:

The 2016 election was a repudiation of neoliberalism and the political establishment, not an endorsement of Trump or the Republican Party’s far-right agenda. Indeed, on economics in particular, Americans overwhelmingly reject the GOP’s reactionary platform and tend to agree with Sen. Bernie Sanders’ social democratic policies. Luckily for Trump, no one symbolized neoliberalism and establishment politics more than Clinton — and he won because just enough voters reluctantly gave him their vote.

This reality is evinced by exit polls, which reveal that 20 percent of those who voted for Trump did not think he had the “temperament to serve effectively as president,” and a whopping 51 percent only voted for him because they “disliked the other candidate.”
I think this is mostly misleading, because it seems to attribute more rationality and more knowledge to most voters than they really have, as indeed is illustrated by the "20 percent of those who voted for Trump did not think he had the “temperament to serve effectively as president”": If you think that, you should not have voted for him - if you had been rational.

Then there is this:
Though the populist right is now in control of Washington, polls make it clear that a majority of Americans reject President Trump and his overall agenda. By contrast, Americans broadly support Sanders’ progressive platform, and the Vermont senator has been consistently ranked as the most popular politician in America. It seems obvious, then, that the way to defeat Trump and his reactionary movement is for the Democratic Party to embrace its populist wing and reject the “third way” centrism that it came to represent during the Clinton era.
This seems to be a program that - it seems to me - is bound to fail as long as the Democratic Party is led by Clintonites, as it is now: These depend on the support of the rich bankers whom they have to repay in deregulations for the money they receive.

This article ends as follows:

The populist explosion isn’t going away. What is needed now more than ever is a popular movement on the left to combat the destructive populism of Trump, as well as the destructive force of neoliberalism. Only time will tell whether the Democratic Party is ready to face this reality head on.
No, that seems far too optimistic to me: The Democratic Party has been the party of the rich bankers ever since Bill Clinton became president of the USA, and it will be the party of the rich bankers until the Democrats decide to stop receiving millions from the rich bankers whose desires are enacted by the Democrats - which the Clintonites, who are in power, never will really do.

There is more on the Democrats in the next article:

3. Elizabeth Warren To Democrats: Only an 'Opposition Party' Can Defeat Trump

The third item is by Jon Queally on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows:

Speaking to members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus on Saturday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) delivered a searing critique by telling her fellow Democrats that the party should not let themselves "off the hook" when it comes to explaining horrific reality of President Donald J. Trump.

In order to defeat Trump and take on the Republicans, she said, Democrats can no longer play it safe or cozy up to powerful interests at the expense of everyday concerns and the needs of working people.

"Our moment of crisis didn’t begin with the election of Donald Trump," Warren told CPC members gathered at their annual retreat in Baltimore, Maryland. "We were already in crisis. We were already in crisis because for years and years and years, Washington has worked just great for the rich and the powerful, but far too often, it hasn’t worked for anyone else."

Hm. In fact the Democratic Party has been sold to the rich bankers by the Clintonites (and Bill and Hillary Clinton also made something like $150 million dollars that way) - which means that the Democratic Party, indeed including Obama, who was a Clintonite, has been corrupted now for close to thirty years now.

But this is not clearly said by Warren. Here is more of what she did say:

Though one of Trump's most aggressive critics anywhere, Warren said that she recognizes, and understands, why many hard-hit and working-class voters who once voted Democratic cast their ballot last year for a billionaire reality television star who vowed to shake up the system.

"People don’t just wake up one day," she said, "and elect leaders like Donald Trump because 'Hey, everything is awesome, but what the hell, let's roll the dice and make life interesting.'"

As the Republicans pushed further and further to right in recent decades, Warren continued, it must be admitted that Democrats "have been unwilling to get out there and fight."

But those days, Warren said, must now be over.

"We are not the minority party," declared Warren. "We are the opposition party."

She concluded: "We will resist every single effort to make America into a small and spiteful place. We will resist every injustice. We will resist every effort to divide us. We will resist every effort to disgrace our Constitution. We will resist every single step toward the takeover of our government by billionaires, bankers and bigots."

I am sorry but these are mere words, that seem bullshit to me, for the Democrats will claim verbally that they "resist every single effort" to any badness whatsoever, while they keep being funded by the millions from the bankers they helped to make billionaires.

As long as the hundreds of millions by the rich bankers are not rejected by the Democrats, the Democrats will mostly do as the rich bankers want them to do, and as the Democrats have been doing ever since Bill Clinton was president and started his serious deregulation programs that gave the rich bankers almost all they wanted.

4. Ready... Fire... Aim: How an Unhinged Trump Is Threatening US National Security

The fourth item is by John Atcheson on Common Dreams:

This is from near the beginning (that explains how Trump's first Yemini strike misfired):

How did Trump make the decision? Over dinner, with a collection of advisors that included foreign policy "experts" like his son-in-law Jared Kushner and former Breitbart whack-job Steven Bannon. Oh, thank god they were there. Reports suggest that the intelligence for the raid was inadequate and filled with uncertainties. And White House spokesman Sean Spicer's claim that the raid had already been approved by the Obama administration turned out to be false—you know, what we call a lie.

But this is vintage Trump. He declined to meet with intelligence officials for briefings every other President has considered vital, he wants to simplify the process for deciding when to conduct such strikes … on and on the madness goes. And when it blows up in his face, he calls it a "success."  The buck stops … well … not here … somewhere else.  Anywhere.

Yes, indeed. (But professor Allen Frances insists Donald Trump is sane and bad, and not insane: see item 5. Presumably you can lie 70% of the time during a year; say you can grab all the pussy you want; scold all your opponents interminably; and say you can shoot someone and still be popular but - if you are rich and powerful enough - rich and powerful psychiatrists will cover for you.).

Here is some more on Trump's ban:

Many of the people who had cleared vetting and were scheduled to immigrate to the US, had been interpreters, intelligence operatives, or had otherwise supported the US efforts in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and the Sudan, and they were in danger because of it.  Aside from the grotesque immorality of leaving these people to suffer at the hands of brutal extremists, there’s a practical issue here that could seriously compromise US security now and in the future.

How successful will we be if we need to recruit support from populations in countries we might engage militarily with—whether covertly or in an open war—in the future, given this kind of track record?  Not very.  And with troops in over 150 countries across the world—many of them in small, covert roles that rely directly on the goodwill and support of the people living there—we need to demonstrate that we keep our word and protect those who help us.

Bottom line?  Trump’s ill-conceived and poorly executed ban on immigration, just increased the risk to our military troops overseas, and made it more difficult for us to recruit support in any future misadventures. Even on its own imperialist terms, the decision was a disaster.

Hm. Let me put it thus: While I agree that Trump's "decision was a disaster", Trump and the Trumpians totally disagree - which means this is, in considerable part, at least, a matter of one's values - and one's own values are not facts (outside one's own mind).

Here is Atcheson's ending:

Bottom line: Functionally, Trump's decision-making is straight out of Lord of the Flies: adolescent, violent, cliquish, competitive, and dangerous.

I more or less agree, but my agreement is mostly based on my values. And my values must be incorrect, according to psychiatrist Allen Frances, because I have M.E. (like some 17 million others) all of whom are insane according to some leading psychiatrists (which implies that my ex and I now are 38 years insane, albeit we never did anything criminal or wrong all these years, while we both also got excellent M.A. degrees in psychology while being ill - or "ill" - all the time): 

5. Don't Call Trump "Crazy": The Dangers of Pathologizing Bad Politics

The fifth item today is by Kelly Hayes on Truthout:
This starts as follows:
The word "crazy" is deployed in many contexts in our society, often in a manner that implies abhorrent behavior must be linked to mental illness. Throughout Donald Trump's presidential campaign, and the early weeks of his presidency, it has proven nearly impossible to traverse social media -- or press coverage of the president -- without encountering language that describes Trump as "insane," a "lunatic" or clinically narcissistic. Some have even argued that it's "okay" to assess a public figure's mental health from a distance, despite longstanding psychiatric standards that prohibit such speculative diagnoses. The ethics that prohibit such diagnoses have, however, had little effect on public narratives that depict Trump as being "insane."
First let me say I have no idea who Kelly Hayes is, nor what she does (she is - according to Truthout "a direct action trainer and a cofounder of The Chicago Light Brigade and the direct action collective Lifted Voices. She is community relations associate" and she also is "an organizer against state violence" and she seems to make money from these nearly totally incomprehensible functions (?)).

Second, I do not "
traverse social media", but I am a psychologist who agrees with many psychologists and many psychiatrists that Trump is not sane. Miss Hayes is no psychologist, but she thinks - it seems - that psychologists like John Gartner, and some tenthousand others, must be not sane for saying things like this:
Psychologist John Gartner, a part-time assistant professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University Medical School, has publicly stated that Trump has "a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States," diagnosing him with "malignant narcissism." Gartner has gone so far as to create a petition, which encourages mental health care professionals to cosign his assessment, and demand Trump's removal on the basis of his supposed mental health problems. The petition has accrued 17,479 signatures, though it's unclear which of these individuals are mental health care professionals, since many did not fulfill Gartner's request that all signatories list their psychiatric credentials.
I am much in favor of John Gartner's initiative, as are - it seems - at least tenthousand other psychologists and psychiatrists (and psychologists do not have "psychiatric credentials", though they all have psychological credentials of some sort).

But Allen Frances sees it quite differently, and tweets firmly against them. Here is some about Frances:
However, not all psychiatrists are jumping on board with the narcissism diagnosis. One such skeptic is Dr. Allen Frances, who wrote the clinical criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Frances was the chair of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV Task Force and of the department of psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine, in Durham, North Carolina. He is currently a professor emeritus at Duke University. Frances, whose criteria for narcissism are still used today, has stated that Trump does not meet those criteria, and has been outspoken in his critiques of efforts to pathologize Trump from a distance. After firing off a series of tweets that once again stirred attention around his arguments, Frances agreed to talk with Truthout about the controversy, and why characterizing Trump as mentally ill is downright dangerous.
It so happens that I know of Frances since late 2010, when I first read
which taught me (among other things, and I am adding some that I learned later, for I did read rather a lot of psychiatry between 2010 and 2013 [2]):
  • that Allen Frances can't define madness, but he is a specialist on it;
  • that psychiatry was not a science till 1980 - see e.g. The Past of A Delusion - when Robert Spitzer (<-Wikipedia) almost singlehandedly transformed it by writing the DSM-III mostly by himself and made it a real science [3];
  • that the DSMs are all the private initiative and the private property of the American Psychiatric Association, that earned at least a hundred million dollars selling - very expensive - copies of them;
  • that the process of compiling the DSMs is totally private and depends on the decisions of the APA, many of which are secret;
  • that since then the number of "psychiatric disorders" has risen from between 40 and 50 in 1952 till over 400 (!!!) in the DSM 5 (and the DSM IV) [4];
  • that the APA's professionals together with the pharmaceutical corporations made
    many billions of dollars prescribing "psychiatric medicines" [5]; and
  • that I, my ex, and 17 million of others with M.E. are not physically ill with some unknown disease, but are insane according to the vast majority of psychiatrists, and namely because we do not have a disease that current medical science - that exists at most 150 years - can find: Those without an identifiable disease all are insane according to the majority of all psychiatrists [6], and also that
  • according to the psychiatry of the DSM-IV 78% of all the British are not sane.
There is a lot more I could tell about pyschiatry - and see my  DSM-5: Question 1 of "The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis" of 2012, that is a long but well-founded criticism of modern psychiatry - but these are some of the facts that
convinced me that psychiatry never was a real science, and still is not a real science at all. [7]

Here is Kelly Hayes (opening up - a very small bit - about her own neuroses [8]) with Allen Frances:

As a writer who's been open about my own struggles with mental illness, I've always found characterizations of Trump as being "crazy" or "narcissistic" troubling. But those of us who've objected have found it nearly impossible to interrupt the "insanity" narrative. Can you talk about why you've chosen to be outspoken on the subject?

It's an insult to people who have real mental illness to be lumped with Trump. Most people with mental illness are well-meaning, well-mannered and well-behaved. And Trump is none of these. Trump is bad, not mad. And when bad people are labelled mentally ill, it stigmatizes mental illness.

First about Kelly Hayes: She is bullshitting if she is speaking about the media or the press (and I am not stupid enough to read the asocial media), for I found almost nothing in them about Trump's insanity, and I am reading 35 magazines and papers every day and since close to 4 years.

Also, I see no reason at all why a neurotic would find "characterizations of Trump as being "crazy" or "narcissistic" troubling" - given the fact that Trump offended absolutely everyone who opposed him; he claimed he grabbed pussy and thinks he is entitled to do that (as a famous man); and given the fact that 70% of the things he said the last year have been found to be lies.

Then Allen Frances.

First, apparently I must feel insulted because I am supposed to have a real mental illness according to him (since a mere 38 years), namely because I believe I am physically ill while doctors find no evidence (and therefore I am crazy, according to Frances and his psychiatrists: Medical science knows everything there is to know about illness and therefore people who claim a disease for which there is no evidence are clearly insane [9]).

Second, he quotes bullshit: "Most people with mental illness are well-meaning, well- mannered and well-behaved", which is bullshit because "mental illness" is totally ill- defined (there are 10 times more forms of supposed "mental illness" now as there were in 1952, which shows either that the APA's psychiatrists are extremely liberal in saying such-and-such is a mental illness, or else that they are and have been talking nonsense that favored their own financial interests).

Third he invokes an utterly arbitrary moral norm he invented: "bad people are labelled mentally ill, it stigmatizes mental illness" - I assume because he assumes that "mentally ill" people are not stigmatized (which is an utter lie) and are not "bad" (which just is bullshit, for badness is a personal value and a personal judgement, and not a psychiatric jugdement).

Here is more bullshit by Frances:

Can you explain why Trump doesn't fit the criteria for narcissism?

In order to qualify for a mental disorder you not only have to have the personality features, you also have to have clinically significant distress or impairment caused by them. Trump causes distress, but there is no evidence that he experiences it. And instead of being impaired by his narcissistic behavior, he is rewarded for it, to the extent of being elected president of the United States.

This is utter bullshit because Frances cannot deny that the criterions he himself formulated for a Narcissistic Personality Disorder do apply to Donald Trump - as I myself and tenthousand other psychologists and psychiatrists also inferred.

Now if you are a person without power and it turns out that tenthousand or more psychologists and psychiatrists agree that you have some form of insanity, then you - very probably - will be supposed to have that form of insanity. [10]

But not if you are a person with power. Then it becomes suddenly also necessary that you not only have all "the personality features" (which Trump has), but also a "clinically significant distress (..) caused by them".

And "there is no evidence that he experiences it" (if only because he does not want to be investigated by psychiatrists or psychologists).

Therefore - according to Allen Frances - Trump is not mad (though Frances doesn't like Trump, and also does not disagree he satisfies all the criterions that Frances himself compiled as a diagnosis for having a Narcissistic Personality Disorder).

O Lord!

---------------------------------
Notes
[1] This is utter bullshit in my eyes, but indeed that is also typical for most psychiatry I know of (not: all) : It really is not a science and never was one. For more see item 5 below.

[2] The following list is just a small set of the many things I learned about psychiatry between 2010 and 2013, and if you are interested at all you should not miss
Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness (although I also don't agree with all of that).

There is very much more to say about the DSM-5 and about psychiatry than I can do here, but here is a selection of 131 articles I wrote about the DSM-5 (mostly in connection with my disease M.E., which doesn't exist according to psychiatrists, because medicine can't find it, and medicine knows everything there is to know about medicine.

Incidentally, that last statement - that
medicine knows everything there is to know about medicine - is utterly false (medicine exists at best for 150 years, and knows very much less than there is to know), but you should not say so to most medics or most psychiatrists.

[3] Clearly, this is bullshit, but it is the bullshit that is believed by most psychiatrists (and Robert Spitzer did type most of the diagnosis in the DSM-III himself, and was a very dishonest man).

[4] This itself should make any rational person think: between 40 and 50 mental disorders in 1952; over 400 in 2010 - and most of these disorders connected to - very recent - "psychiatric medicines", which are fed to tens of millions in the USA alone, for billions of dollars.

[5] And that is the real point of psychiatry and psychiatrists: Because they are also medical doctors (in the minimalistic sense of having passed a B.A. usually), psychiatrists (unlike psychologists) may prescribe medicines, and medicines are extremely profitable, both to the pharmaceutical corporations and to psychiatrists who prescribe them (and the more they prescribe, the more money they get).

[6] This is the very sad fact about M.E.: As long as the physical cause is not found nearly all psychiatrists and most medical people besides will insist that - because they know absolutely everything about every possible disease every person can get (except that they never honestly formulate this claim of absolute science of every disease) - everybody without a presently identifiable disease is insane.

That is the plainly idiotic prejudgement on which very much of modern psychiatry is founded (and which makes it very much money): Everything medical science cannot currently explain must be due to insanity (except if it concerns powerful and rich persons, for these are wholly different from ordinary people: see below).

[7] But I did study psychology; did finish with a 9.3 average (out of 10 maximal); and am ill since I was 28, so I've never even earned a legal minimal income in Holland in the last 38 years. (For more, reread note [6])

[8] I still presume the old distinction between normal, neurotic and psychotic persons, but the supposed science of psychiatry c.q. Robert Spitzer himself deleted that as well from psychiatry in 1980.

[9] In case you did not notice: This is a prejudgement that may be compared to the Catholic prejudgement that those who are not Catholics MUST go to hell, for Catholics KNOW. That is: psychiatrists KNOW that whatever is not known to current medical science does not exist, and therefore everybody who claims an illness current medical science cannot find MUST be insane, for psychiatrists KNOW.

[10] This is true of everyone who has no power (like myself and 17 million people who are ill with M.E.). For people with power and money, the situation is - of course! - totally different, for the powerful and the rich simply cannot be mad (according to most psychiatrists and dr. Allen Frances, it seems).

       home - index - summaries - mail