... and his wife Helen Smith — Dr. Helen — for lunch.
You might think we all already know each other, but in fact, I'd never met them.
Glenn had to go to his conference, and Helen and I went off to indulge in a little shopping.
Are you the kind of shopper who enjoys getting your shopping companion to buy things? I am!
ADDED: Helen says she loves the shoes. Glenn says he felt like we were old companions. Good point.
पोस्ट्स
१३४ टिप्पण्या:
Which restaurant did you go to?
Lucky man that GHR, having lunch with two beautiful women! Looked like fun.
Pascal: Give people what they want, then later you can give them what you want
Big Night (1996)
How were the puppy smoothies?
I can't tell from the pictures: was he wearing shorts?
Did you get a chance to ask her why she's adamant that the APA endorse the junk science known as reparative therapy?
What a hateful bigot she is.
Professionally Done Meat Photography in an Ohio Kroger's today.
New York doesn't get all the action.
I am sensing another Vortex!
The Power of the InstaCouple with the Power of the Althouse in the Power of the City That Never Sleeps. Irresistable and immutable. We are putty in your handz.
I just want to know if there is a way to get a real time video stream of Michelle Malkin in Graeme Frost's bushes in their yard on my iPhone, multi-tasked with simultaneous collection of their financial records, spending habits, and the last 5 years of tax filings.
If the owner of the restaurant posts this pic on his wall, do all three of you sign the letter threatening litigation or have you appointed a spokesman to handle it?
Did you ask Glenn about whether we are "winning in Iraq"?
Or whether he read Mr. Greenwald's work today?
"Ricks is describing the incomparably dishonest simpletons and war-crazed (war-avoiding) cheerleaders who have been -- and continue to be -- little more than drooling propagandists for years, as epitomized by the truly humiliating record of leading right-wing "war blogger" and law professor Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds of the University of Tennessee, who has been tirelessly surveying and promoting these vapid, misleading cheers for years.
Led by the likes of Lowry, our pro-war cheerleaders have held themselves out as some sort of resolute warriors and deep thinkers while spitting out idiocies literally copied from a seventh-grade pep rally. Instapundit readers over the years have heard this..."
* May 9, 2006: "AL QAEDA SAYS WE'RE WINNING: That's not news, really, if you've been paying attention."
* January 19, 2006: "YES, WE'RE WINNING."
* September 12, 2003: "LEXINGTON GREEN WATCHED THE OSAMA VIDEO and observes: 'This is the best they can do? Ha. Dude. We're winning.' Yes."
* August 27, 2003: "AUSTIN BAY WRITES THAT WE'RE WINNING: . . . 'It's war. It's also a war we are winning.'"
(short, edited version)
"And on and on and on and on, with no end."
Much more at GG's Salon site. But it's probably too long for Ann to read through.
I'll bet ya danny's real name starts with the initials gg
That first photo of Glenn Reynolds is not very flattering.
In fact, all these photos are not flattering. I hate to say it, but you all look terrible. Victims of a point-and-shooting. Too bad.
I understood that Dr. Helen (who is a REAL conservative, BTW, unlike her 'wet' Tory husband) wasn't interested in clothes or fashion at all. I always thought, though, that she was the sort who went around looking cute in jeans and sweatshirts.
Boy, was I wrong. That jacket is a crime. She needs some serious fashion advice.
I hope that Professor Althouse was able to do some meaningful shopping with her and give her some hints. Althouse always is so well turned-out that some of that is bound to rub off.
What a striking honker Dr. Helen has. And good teeth.
Ann,
It looks like a lovely lunch spent with a couple of interesting and engaging friends.
Ignore the bitchy, shrill, bitter, angry, self-centered and snarky trolls who have left their perpetually dull detritus on this thread. They're just jealous.
When I read comments like some of the ones above, I feel for those on the liberal side of the aisle. You all apparently have some of the same wackos that the conservatives have.
Such rampant sexism from a party that "claims" to be the party of women.....
Oh, that's right. Women and their opinons ONLY count when they conform to the "approved party views" absolutely. If they dare to have a different opinion, they don't even count as human.
Too bad we can't gather all the wackos in their own party and the rest of us adults can get on with discussing the serious issues.
As to Dr. Helen .... I have always been impressed by her somewhat unconventional beauty. I can't help but think that it has a lot to do with her internal peace with the person that she is. As to Glenn, he's darn lucky and wise enough to say it often.
dtl: You need to link to the comment of Helen's that you are offended by. I think you don't because you know it doesn't support your allegation.
I do want to apologize if I sounded "bitchy, shrill, bitter, angry, self-centered" or "snarky" in that last comment.
It was late, and I was very irritated by another thread here.
Actually, I am a little jealous, as it would be great to have a chance to chat with Glenn Reynolds and Dr. Helen.
I also should say I agree with a lot Professor Reynolds has to say, especially about technology offering potential solutions to global warming and other environmental problems. Someone once called him, "the managing editor of the center-right blogosphere," and that is a pretty good characterization. He seems like a brilliant and fascinating person. I can't say I agree with about 40% of what he seems to stand for, but I still like him and his work.
As for Dr. Helen, I disagree with about 75% of what she has to say, but, again, I like her as a person and admire what she has done. Her movie Six is at once chilling, fascinating, and well worth the price to buy a copy. Like OhioAnne, I, too, think she is beautiful in an unconventional way, and that it's obviously one of her salient characteristics. She and her husband seem like attractive, interesting people, and I mean no disrespect at all in what I said.
But Dr. Helen herself has said that she has no interest in clothes and is terrible at fashion. At the same time, Professor Althouse is always so stylishly and tastefully dressed, that I just had to say I hoped a little would rub off on Dr. Helen.
And, really, that first photo of Glenn Reynolds does make him look bad.
That women believes in reparative therapy?
That is upsetting.
Looks like you guys had a nice time.
The trolls are sad, really.
Well done, Inspektor.
I was about to respond to your first effort, but no need.
They seem like nice people. Lacking any useful sense of fashion myself, I have to wonder when people are criticized for their dress. I read Fugly and the Manolo on occasion. And while I can see where the egregious errors deserve to be mocked, I have great difficulty discerning quality among the remainder. It seems rather random, arising by decree from the modern French courtiers. That is, not an art, but a mere trend. Therein the plebes and proles are disdained, and the merchant class are sneered at, as here.
I saw two bright and quite pretty women, and a smart -and very lucky- guy having lunch. Sounds like fun. Me? I worked through lunch that day, making some stupid presentation to higher mucky mucks in another office Kabuki performance.
Count me jealous.
You fashion experts who are bitching about the jacket, it's obviously a Burberry jacket, so explain how you know it's unfashionable.
I knew it was Burberry by the sleeve.
Bush derangement syndrome is obviously spreading and taking over readers of Helen and Ann's blogs.
Dr. Helen is a mess. Sorry I just read her blog on reparative therapy.
So did you guys talk about how you can turn the gays straight by beating a pillow and yelling about how your father didn't love you.
And then having the patient "cuddle" with another gay man but with no sexual feelings?
Was Phylis Schafly with you? She wears designer clothes too.
Regardless if the coat is Burberry or not, it looks awful and her hair is a mess. I am sorry you had to be seen with that.
They sell Burberry in Knoxville? Is the Burberry store in Knoxville next to Gucci?
To those disparaging that first pic of the Puppy Blender:
"Hey! You try looking all 'Suave Bola' after taking out five hobos on the Lower East Side."
Also judge a great city by their fabulous stores.
Requirements are Niemies, Saks and Bloomings.
Next is Prada, Gucci, Commes des Garcon, Armani, Jill Sander, Barneys.
Unfortunately, few American cities hit all of these requirements.
Reparative therapy, when practiced in Iran, has been very effective.
"Also judge a great city by their fabulous stores."
Among us, a master of the superficial and trivial, a French courtier in fin de siècle pre-9/11 America, or the erotic decadence of Weimar Berlin, après la guerre, or the flamboyant gays of the late 70s-early 80s, and yet the band plays on.
Titus, both women look great. For a man, turn-and-stare good.
Naming glitzy stores as if it shows anything meaningful about a town is a bore. All it says is: money buys expensive things. Who knew? Jesus christ on roller skates, you grew up in Wisconsin, no? So whence the attitude? I hate such high school bitchiness ("Did you see what she's wearing? Oh. My. God!")
Pogo, correct I grew up in Wisconsin and still have many of my midwestern way.
But I did move because I wanted more fabulousness, sorry.
I like to shop and nice clothes and comment on people's clothes.
Clothes are important to me, again sorry, just the way I am.
If my manager comes into the office wearing some fabulous or not I tell. She appreciates my honesty.
Speaking of which, I need to get to work.
Also, this table may turn heads in Kankakee but not in NYC. There is just too much fabulous it makes your head spin. It is a competitive and cut throat city and I love it.
Have a great day.
I think you all are the best.
Hugs,
Pogo, correct I grew up in Wisconsin and still have many of my midwestern way.
But I did move because I wanted more fabulousness, sorry.
I like to shop and nice clothes and comment on people's clothes.
Clothes are important to me, again sorry, just the way I am.
If my manager comes into the office wearing some fabulous or not I tell. She appreciates my honesty.
Speaking of which, I need to get to work.
Also, this table may turn heads in Kankakee but not in NYC. There is just too much fabulous it makes your head spin. It is a competitive and cut throat city and I love it.
Have a great day.
I think you all are the best.
Hugs,
If clothes are important to you, then indeed, judge a great city by its fabulous stores.
If not, other measures might include: architecture, restaurants, historical significance, safety, museums, nightlife, music, books, ocean view, mountain view, outdoor activities, and more.
Fabulousness of its patrons? Meh. Like me, they will die and soon be forgotten. Who gives a shit?
Geez, Pogo: you seem somewhat fatalistic today. You must be on call or something. :)
Sorry.
I blame weak coffee, a calendar that leaves no time to void, and that I can't see Interpol play this weekend in Minneapolis.
Must be the Interpol tix, Pogo. Take the people out of a city and you have an archeological site.
Take the people out of a band and you have the Red Hot Chili Peppers.
People like Downtownlad and Titus are the reason I left this and Dr. Helen's blog. I saw the photo over at Insta and followed the link. It was fun to see the blog and recognize a few of the names here.
But I was there for Dr. Helen's comments on repairative therapy. DTL and Titus are either lying or completely incapable of understanding English written at an 8th grade level. I leave the readers to cast their vote as to which.
The babblings of idiots, signifying nothing. And a waste of time and bandwith.
Trey
Hurt Feelings: When Ann went shopping with Dell, Ann refused to enter the bargain shop Dell fancied.
When Ann goes shopping with Helen, Ann is extremely affable, and accommodating.
Ann seems to have a rather flexible shopping disposition, depending on the shopping companion at hand.
Love, Maxine
When Ann went shopping with Christoper, in Austin, last April, Ann was very enthusiastic and eager, despite those Austin shops being stricly bargain basement.
Me thinks there's a problem with Dell, and the two sisters differing shopping styles are merely a symbol for a much deeper problem.
Watch Ann delete a post when it hits too close to home!
--Even though all I'm trying to do is repair a fractured relationship, as evidenced by the shopping issues.
Love, Maxine
Did you ask Glenn about whether we are "winning in Iraq"?
Or whether he read Mr. Greenwald's work today?
Danny, I doubt Reynolds is embarrassed by Greenwald's column, or that he'll think twice before continuing his mindless "we're winning in Iraq" babbling. And Reynold's certainly isn't concerned about being right. He seems far more interested in being loud and consistent, even if it involves significant reality-denial.
I can't imagine why Greenwald bothers to keep track of what bloggers like Reynolds and Lowry are spinning. It's not as if the people who like Reynolds and Lowry read critically. On that basis, who really cares what stupid things these people have been writing for the past 5 or so years?
And so, what are we to make of Glenn eschewing, and bowing out of the ladies shopping expedition ???
Yeah, Glenn sure did beat a hasty retreat.
Far more macho men than Glenn, peruse lingerie departments to shop for bras, and underthings.....for their wives of course.
Yet, Glenn is petrified to be seen carrying a bag, and fingering the merchandise, on a simple shopping trip with Althouse and Helen.....lest anyone gets the "wrong idea".
Maybe I'll run into natty Glenn at the local Fabric Shop, touching and selecting fine fabrics for his next ensemble!
Love, Maxine
Try forcing your camera to fire the flash, so you get some light on the face of people which are dark because of the background light.
I can guarantee you that my initials are NOT GG. I merely found it interesting to read his column about Lowry and Reynolds being consistently wrong, yet having no qualms about claiming "we are winning" again and again. And I found it hilarious to read about Lowry's visit to Iraq, in which he realized that no one knows what they are talking about, yet continue to opine about anyway. And Mr. Reynolds, whose blog consists of other people's links and words, and the occasional grunt of approval, can only gather that yes, we are winning!
And so, Cyrus, I don't know why GG would bother either, but that wasn't really the point; what about Ann? Does the professor maintain the same unflinching lack of knowledge-disguised-as-conviction as her lunch friends, or does reality occasionally intrude and inform her?
With respect to reparative therapy, what little data there is suggests that it is difficult to change one's sexual desires with psychosocial interventions. There are some case studies that have reported that, when intervening with some children with sexual identity problems, behavior change can take place under selected circumstances. There is not enough data to make any generalizations however, and there are alot of reports of failed treatment efforts.
I suspect that this is Dr. Helen's stance on the matter.
However, on her blog, I have taken her to task for presenting herself as a forensic psychologist and being so publicly vocal about her ideological beliefs. While I have my own ideology and will acknowledge it, I also attempt to minimize it's impact on my professional work.
If Dr. Helen, for example, were to testify as a forensic specialist in court, and her conclusions were consistent with her ideology, I believe her blog postings could diminish her credibility as an expert witness in such a case. If I were asked to review Dr. Helen's work, I would bring all of her relevant blog postings to court to suggest that her pre-existing ideology could be biasing her conclusions.
Dr. Helen took exception to this opinion when I commented on it at her blog, but it makes sense to me.
Geee...Reynolds doesnt look like the antichrist. Who knew.
Will someone provide the link to where Helen talked about reparative therapy? I probably read it at the time, but I'm just going to assume it was something libertarian about how people should be allowed to offer and pursue the therapies they want regardless of whether it's effective or ideologically appealing to others. If an individual is unhappy with himself and wants to change, who are you to say, no he is required to try to find a way to be happy without changing? What about freedom of religion and the case of a person who believes he'll go to hell? Is there nothing for that person but to change his religion? Basically, there's a freedom of expression and freedom of belief idea in there that you ought to take seriously.
Ann, I believe your rendition of Dr. Helen's position is pretty accurate, from my reading.
However, a while back I got into a respectful exchange with Dr. Helen where I suggested that being so publicly vocal about one's political ideology (be it conservative, libertarian, liberal, whatever) seemed inconsistent with best forensic practices. I wrote that one's public statements could be used to undermine one's credibility as a forensic scientist and expert witness, particularly in cases when one's conclusions are consistent with one's political ideology. Basically, I suggested that the nature of Dr. Helen's blog left her professionally vulnerabile as a forensic psychologist and expert witness.
She did not seem to appreciate what I had to say.
It lasted all of five minutes?
The abrupt end to the Ann Althouse/Helen Smith friendship.
The two had nothing in common, anyway.
Still, now that she's shaked off Tonya Brito.... No Nina Camic in site. ---Criticizing Dell's bargain hunting....
No further female friends left.
Everyone knows Althouse doesn't get along with women, anyway. That's why God gave her sons, instead of daughters.
Peace, Maxine
Peace, Maxine
An oxymoron.
Basically, I suggested that the nature of Dr. Helen's blog left her professionally vulnerabile as a forensic psychologist and expert witness.
She did not seem to appreciate what I had to say.
It's funny...but I am now recalling some of Dr. Helen's counter arguments. She felt like I was trying to restrict her speech as a conservative and that because her blog was a personal one, it shouldn't have any impact on her professional persona or reputation. Clearly she didn't get what I was saying, so we agreed to disagree.
What exactly does a married woman, living in the South have in common with Althouse ?
Can someone please tell me how those two are the least bit compatible?
Reparative Therapy, manipulating Helen into buying shoes.....the way Althouse chews...
It hardly matters why the friendship came to a screeching halt. The two would-be "friends" simply aren't well-suited for eachother. End of story.
I'm sure Althouse can find some guy friends in the City to go shopping with. She and other women don't mix.
Love, Maxine
Oh yes, let's all pretend it was Helen's views on "Reparative Therapy" that signalled the death knell to the Althouse/DrHelen relationship.
Nevermind that Althouse was too jealous of Dr. Helen's huband, her youth, her looks --(hint: blondes usually resent brunettes!)
But yes, we'll all pretend it was "Reparative Therapy" that caused the rift!
Anyone else counting the minutes till Dr. Helen is removed from Althouse's blogroll ???
Peace, Maxine
Here's what she said
Personally, I'm skeptical about turning gay people straight. But shouldn't the client be the one to choose, not the APA? The APA has decided that the answer is no.
about the therapy.
http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2006/03/if-youre-gay-you-better-stay-that-way.html
Pyschic Maxine:
Christopher's on the phone with Ann --right this very minute.
For once, he's doing the talking, while she listens, silently, figuring.
As soon as the conversation ends, Ann yanks both Dr.Helen and Glenn from her Blogroll, and freezes them out completely.
Easy come, easy go.
Today fast friends, tomorrow bitter enemies.
Love, Maxine
Let's consider this for a moment: Who needs who? Does Glenn need Althouse...??
Or, does Althouse need Glenn?
Can Althouse maintain her traffic without Instapundit funneling readers to her site?
Christopher is a Gemini, and if there's one thing you don't want to do is upset a Gemini. Geminis don't necessarily have a temper, but they will find a way to retaliate.
Hard to believe Ann Althouse would choose Glenn and Dr. Helen over her own son.
But, far be it for me to foment discord and acrimony.
Would I do that? Sweet little me?
(Loving this. Good times.)
Peace, Maxine
At last you meet! Your and Glenn's blogs are first on my morning tour of the Web... Just last week, I was wondering, "I wonder what they'd talk about if they met..." Wish I could have been a fly on that restaurant wall.
Now that you mention it, I do enjoy getting others to buy things. Particularly my wife. She's quite restrained fiscally, and when she overcomes this tendency, I take vicarious joy in her acquisition of a new sweater, etc.
professionally vulnerabile
That certainly applies to a few commenters here.
Freudian slip aside, I tend to agree with mindsteps--anything Dr. Helen writes is fair game for opposing counsel, and as we've seen recently, opinions can easily be distorted (and too many folks are easily decieved).
Hypothetical: Althouse finds out a good friend of hers has Nazi leanings. She had no idea, but makes all sorts of "assumptions" that the views were in the past, and not of any consequence in the present.
QUESTION: Isn't Althouse responsible for the views and opinions of every single person listed on her Blogroll?
Certainly, if you dine, and shop, with someone who's views conflict with your own sons...
..yes, I'd think that would be a problem.
Love, Maxine
Kick 'em to the curb! What's the big deal? Are Dr. Helen and Glenn that valuable to the Althouse Machine ??
Althouse has frozen many people out with much less cause.
Prickly Althouse routinely sloughs off and dumps friends in the blink of an eye.
One day you're pals with her...... the next day you don't exist.
Goodbye Glenn and Dr. Helen, you've burned your bridges around here. Finished! And, if you should ever come upon Althouse in public, just pretend like you don't know her.
That's whatcha git for humiliating Althouse with unorthodox views....about anything!
Peace, Maxine
Will someone provide the link to where Helen talked about reparative therapy? I probably read it at the time, but I'm just going to assume it was something libertarian about how people should be allowed to offer and pursue the therapies they want regardless of whether it's effective or ideologically appealing to others. If an individual is unhappy with himself and wants to change, who are you to say, no he is required to try to find a way to be happy without changing? What about freedom of religion and the case of a person who believes he'll go to hell? Is there nothing for that person but to change his religion? Basically, there's a freedom of expression and freedom of belief idea in there that you ought to take seriously.
Here's the link.
http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2006/03/if-youre-gay-you-better-stay-that-way.html
It's entitled "If You're Gay - You better Stay that Way". Which in itself implies that people can change their sexual orientation.
I stated that "Did you get a chance to ask her why she's adamant that the APA endorse the junk science known as reparative therapy?" which is correct. Dr. Helen thinks that the APA should give course-credit for ex-gay therapy. This includes such tactics as putting rotten meat under gay men's noses while showing them pictures of naked men - in order to turn them straight. Course credit for that? Give me a break.
Not to mention that ex-gay therapy has been proven to increase suicide rates and increase depression amongst its participants.
What is wrong with the APA saying that is junk-science and not giving course credit for such crap. Should the American Medical Association give course credit for a class on using leeches to cure cancer? Of course not.
This has nothing to do with freedom of religion. If you don't want to be gay and want to waste your time with ex-gay therapy, fine - go to an unaccredited psychiatrist. But why should the APA endorse junk science? They have said that homosexuality has nothing to do psychology. Thus, it's absolutely unethical for a psychiatrist to try and cure something that has nothing to do with psychiatry.
If you think being gay is a sin, then I suggest you visit an exorcist. If you think it's a sin and want to talk to your psychiatrist about how to remain celibate - fine. But to say they can "cure" you when they can't is junk science - and why should the APA endorse that?
The APA is an independent organization. Their stamp of approval means a lot. Good for them for looking at the research, that has shown that reparative therapy is dangerous, and thus choosing not to encourage that practice.
Dr. Helen has a right to her opinion. I just think its not only wrong, but dangerous. I went to high school with two people whose parents disowned them when they wouldn't become straight. That was before reparative therapy really took off though. They both commited suicide.
Downtownlad,
You are twisting my words because of your negative experiences. As Ann stated above, I have a libertarian view of those clients who are distressed and seek treatment to change their sexual orientation. I believe that patient autonomy and choice is more important than a political position. You linked to my post, people can read it for themselves and make up their own mind. BTW, I notice that you didn't mention that in the comments to my post, you threatened to sue me and wished me to have a second heart attack. What a lovely person you are.
Ann,
Can you please put Maxine (and the rest of us) out of her misery?
Helen said...
I believe that patient autonomy and choice is more important than a political position.
While I too believe that patient choice and autonomy is more important than a political position (another reason, in a clinical context, to attempt to maintain one's neutrality as a psychologist/therapist), I do not believe it should trump science, at least as far as the APA or any other organization purported to represent professional and scientific psychology (for example the American Psychological Society).
From my perspective the APA does not show enough political restraint. From where I sit, reparative therapy does not rise to the level of an empirically supported intervention, therefore the APA should not endorse it. Rather, the APA, the APS, along with research and professional psychologists should gather data on it to determine it's effectiveness, safety, and limitations. If you as a psychologist want to make referrals for reparative therapy, or provide the treatment to individuals yourself, you should, as in all treatments, make clear the potential benefits and liabilities, along with it's scientific limitations in as unbiased and comprehensive manner as possible.
While you, Dr. Helen regularly and understandably rail against the political biases of the APA, I also believe that your politicization of psychology, at times, does the science, the profession (both clinically and forensically), and the public a disservice.
"your politicization of psychology"
It says something that trying to keep politics out of medicine is considered politicization by others.
Ralph said...
"your politicization of psychology"
It says something that trying to keep politics out of medicine is considered politicization by others.
True....and to completely eliminate politics from medicine and science is an ideal as opposed to a reality. Thomas Kuhn, in his brilliant analysis of the history of science argued this quite persuasively. At least he persuaded me.
However, one can make efforts to limit bias (and this is not an exhaustive list) by (a) honest self-appraisal, (b) opening one's work up to be scrutinized by others from various persepctives (c)attempting to use methods and procedures that limit bias, (d) allow for replication and refutation (e) providing an estimate as to the extent to which one's own conclusions may be biased.
Obviously, there are other non-scientific methods that attempt to manage bias as well (e.g. an adversarial approach, philosophical techniques), however I am less knowledgeable about the strengths and drawbacks of these other approaches.
Manhattan?! Feh. Why didn't you drag them over to the restaurant row on Smith Street in Brooklyn?
>And Mr. Reynolds, whose blog consists of other people's links and words, and the occasional grunt of approval, can only gather that yes, we are winning!
No, dude. You got that wrong. _We_ are winning. You and the islamists are losing.
If anyone is twisting words, it is Dr. Helen.
I never "wished" you had a second heart attack. I said I would stop visiting your blog, because it bored me (it does) and that if you have a second heart attack I'll be back to send my condolence. How that is wishing you dead is beyond me. Any literate person could read it for what it was - a good riddance to your BLOG, along with a good insult. After you've insulted every gay person - I was being too kind.
As for the suing, you also misconstrue my words. Where I said "But when it fails - you have every right to be held accountable for destroying people's lives. It's called malpractice."
And yes - when you do practice reparative therapy and it leads to suicide - damn right you should be sued. But nooooo, "Doctor" Helen thinks that psychiatrists can try and cure gay people, and then if the patient commits suicide (as they HAVE), that she can just wash her hands of it. Nope. Sorry. Doesn't work that way.
Face it. You are endorsing junk science.
Your position has NOTHING to do with libertarianism. Like your husband, you like to tout the fact that you are libertarian - but you practice nothing of the sort. You are pseudo-fascists who favor torture over due process, "safety" over freedom.
The APA is allowed to define what they see as acceptable psychiatric treatment. That's the libertarian view. If you don't approve, then start your own organization. You know - kind of like conservapedia if you don't like wikipedia.
Would they approve of a psychiatrist treating your heart disease? I don't think so.
Have a good day.
Can you please put Maxine (and the rest of us) out of her misery?
I enjoy Maxine's comments. Kirk, if you don't like her comments, may I suggest that you skip them?
downtownlad said:
"It's time to sue Dr. Helen and make her defend this hocus pocus crap in front of a jury of her peers."
"I'll come back when Dr. Laura has her next heart attack to give my condolences . . ."
Disgusting.
Quoting out of context again.
I am convinced that Pogo is a closeted gay by the way.
Perhaps Dr. Helen is interested in making condolence calls to my two high school friends.
We KNOW she's happy about their suicides.
Dr. Helen said: "I have a libertarian view of those clients who are distressed and seek treatment to change their sexual orientation"
In your post on your blog, you criticize the APA for refusing to provide continuing education credit for the study of reparative therapy and for attempting to classify reparative therapy as unethical. This you have characterized as "intolerant and close-minded."
That's not the same thing as having a libertarian attitude about the right of clients to seek out treatment to change their sexual orientation. Why would a libertarian care if the APA thought it was unethical?
The APA is supposed to evaluate types of psychological treatment for their scientific validity. So your objection seems to be more rooted in a belief that they are wrong, or that there is enough uncertainty about whether or not they are wrong that they should refrain from any conclusions. There is little to no scientific evidence to support the notion that reparative therapy has any value, so there doesn't seem to be a scientific reason to question the APA's stance.
You write I believe that patient autonomy and choice is more important than a political position.
But why are you classifying the APA's stance as a political position? It is supported by the evidence.
It would seem you, not the APA, are the one with the political position.
Bravo Darkbloom.
And Dr. Helen wants to wash her hands of the consequences (suicide and depression) when the "therapy" goes astray. The "therapy" includes putting rotten meat under gay people's noses. Google it if you don't believe me. Of course, I know (but can't prove) that Dr. Helen doesn't care less about the consequences.
You're also convinced you are a reasonable man.
If you become convinced that you can fly, please stay away from the windows.
The APA is supposed to evaluate types of psychological treatment for their scientific validity.
Like most such organizations, politics rather than science runs the show. What the APA is supposed to evaluate and what they actually evaluate are not the same things.
I am beginning to suspect that downtownlad is not in fact gay.
Like most such organizations, politics rather than science runs the show. What the APA is supposed to evaluate and what they actually evaluate are not the same things.
If this is true with respect to reparative therapy, let's see the scientific evidence to back it up. To the best of my knowledge, no such evidence exists. If you know otherwise, please enlighten us.
I am beginning to suspect that downtownlad is not in fact gay.
Most people assume that when they meet me. That's how I know most straight people are anti-gay bigots. Because they assume I'm straight, then let their guard down, and start making blatant homphobic remarks.
I hate the smell of rotten meat, but it wouldn't make me kill myself. I suspect people who seek reparative therapy are already desperate and suicidal. I doubt it could turn someone hetero, but it might make the homo urgings easier to control or ignore.
I read the linked post and didn't see anything insulting to gay people.
"To the best of my knowledge, no such evidence exists."
I dunno. Not my area of expertise. What I read suggests there's a "maybe" in there.
What difference would it make if it were actually true? Would that be a bad thing? If it's false, and a fixed orientation, then fine. Why not find out?
DTL can beef about suicide, I suppose. I doubt that's a real concern, except in his fevered brow.
Let science work. Or don't. But be honest and say you don't believe that should be known. And I think that is the real issue here.
I think we need reparative therapy for Christians. We already know that Christians are certifiably insane.
They think that Jesus rose from the dead! Crazy.
Helen, dear, you should know that Reparative Therapy is a flawed philosophy because it flies in the face of abstinence. You can't preach both the gospel of abstainence and Reparative.
I love the way the trio of Helen, Glenn & Ann literally take over that restaurant---place themselves right in the center of the room, while the other poor unwashed masses are forced against the wall.
Placement. The well-located people in a restaurant are always holding court at the center table.
Althouse and friends don't take a backseat to anyone. They demand to be noticed. Every single other diner in that restaurant is forced to acknowledge the trio..the triumvirate (Glenn, Helen , Ann)
No back-booth-at-the-Bistro for them. No way was Althouse going to be place in outer Siberia, like all the other unwashed masses at that restaurant.
Yes, all the really "important" people are always at the center table where they demand to be SEEN by others.
Fascinating how the three managed to take over that Restaurant, leaving every single other diner in the dust.
....Until I enter the room and take away their thunder. I can steal the scene from even the most self-important types like Althouse and company!
Love, Maxine
Speaking of junk science, to my horror my wife took my diabetic 5 yr old to a chiropractor for a "consultation". His specialty is "applied kinesiology", and apparently assured my wife he could help, and in fact has helped other diabetic children get off insulin. I don't get pissed easy, and after a talk w/ my wife, and this quack - needless to say there will be no more chiropractor visits from the Mahal Family.
What I don't get is how these people can obtain licenses to practice on real live actual people.
Crooks.
Best part is that they successfully lobbied to be covered under many insurance programs, mandatory coverage.
My stepmother flies from DC or Colorado to San Diego every 10 weeks to visit her latest quack MD. Her local doctor also gives her lots a pills to take. She once had all her fillings extracted because she thought the amalgam was killing her. She was an RN, you'd think she'd be a little more skeptical.
What difference would it make if it were actually true? Would that be a bad thing? If it's false, and a fixed orientation, then fine. Why not find out?
Let science work. Or don't. But be honest and say you don't believe that should be known. And I think that is the real issue here.
I won't say "I don't believe that it should be known" because that is not my opinion. If the evidence pointed in the other direction, or was inconclusive, then I would have a different point of view. I am being honest about it (and, frankly, you don't know me well enough to suggest I wasn't).
There have been people who have studied this, and the evidence overwhelmingly shows that reparative therapy is without value. Because some people want to cling to this possibility in the face of evidence is not a reason for the rest of us to continue to wonder if maybe, just maybe, there's something to it. Should I keep an open mind about phrenology too, while I'm at it?
"Doctor" Helen must think that Larry Craig is straight!
And Ted Haggard was cured. Now he's straight too!
http://www.mikhaela.net/weblog/2007/02/new-toon-ted-haggards-ex-gay-revolution.html
Woo hoo!
And "Doctor" Helen must know that words have consequences. I've obviously offended her, but hey, it was my intent to offend. She's offending gay people and she knows it. She just doesn't have the guts to admit it.
Hope you're enjoying New York though. You know it's a bastion of liberalism that you're supposed to be shunning. And tolerance too. And people who are not afraid to speak their mind and call you out.
Look, maybe there's an issue of what the APA should accept, but that doesn't change the fact that it was wrong to call Dr. Helen a bigot. Why don't you just apologize, dtl?
I'll apologize for the heart attack comment which was made about two years ago.
But I won't apologize for calling her a bigot. I really do think she's a bigot. The title of her post was very condescending towards gay people. And I am absolutely convinced that reparative therapy is killing gay people, especially teenagers who are forced into that therapy. And the use of reparative therapy is growing exponentially. It's wrong and dangerous.
An ethnic-looking brunette, with the last name "Smith".
That's plausible, I guess.
Teri Hatcher is white. Demi Moore is Irish, of course. And, Helen Smith is English.
Just change your name, and nobody has to know. I just love how these crafty brunettes operate.
I'm gonna change my last name to "Jones" and see if I can pass.
Love, Maxine
Well, try this on for size: I'm against all THERAPY:
http://www.cchr.org/
I'm also against a trio of outsiders stomping into a neighborhood restaurant and acting like they own the place.
Althouse is simply a visitor around those parts. Glen and Helen are tourists, yet they walk into the joint and immediately comandeer the place.
The grandiose air of self-importance, the smug arrogance exhibited by those three in that restaurant.
---The vast majority of the American public doesn't know what "Instapundit" is.
---80% of the Internet doesn't read blogs, and has never heard of Althouse.
Yet these three sit perched at the table, regally holding court as if they were somebodies, and the rest of poor schmucks are their peons.
Back in Madison, Althouse was simply this bohemian, funky lady wandering here and there.
All of the sudden, she hits Gotham and puts on airs...
Love, Maxine
And if you want to see how successful reparative-therapy is, take a look at this statement by Courage, an ex-gay Catholic foundation founded in 1988.
http://www.courage.org.uk/articles/article.asp?id=5
After ten years, however, six spent running residential discipleship courses, followed by years of weekly group meetings, it was increasingly clear that however repentant people were, and however much dedicated effort they put into seeking change, none were really “successful” in the long term in “dealing with the deeper issues”. This is not to say that people gained no benefit! Many matured greatly. A few went ahead and married, doing so “in faith” that this was God’s perfect will for their lives. However, their same-sex attractions remained an ongoing issue for them (and in quite a few cases, usually after struggling for a number of years, sadly this struggle has brought their marriage to an end). So the kind of change everyone really hoped for—which was to “re-orientate” and reach a point where their struggle against homosexuality was well and truly over, remained at best elusive—and at worst, the disillusionment which set in destroyed their faith.
As I've said before - it's junk science.
Yes, and have you noticed the biggest proponents of reparative therapy are women....with sons !!!
It's no coincidence that Althouse has sons, and so does Dr. Helen.
Dr. Laura, Phyllis Schafly---they too have sons.
Show me a supporter of Reparative Therapy with daughters. Mothers of daughters couldn't care less.
It's these mothers with sons that are fearful, so these moms embrace Reparative Therapy....
Abstainence and Reparative Therapy aren't compatible.
Dr. Helen was right!!!
http://panasonicyouth.buzznet.com/user/video/play/189010/
I am beginning to suspect that downtownlad is not in fact gay.
"Gay"? Definitely not. He's sullen, angry, petulant, humorless and self-obsessed. In addition, reading his comments provides pretty strong evidence that he's also paranoid.
But "gay"? Give me a break.
But much, much richer than you Gediliya. Ha ha.
oh
the human
vomedy
"I wear the chain I forged in life," replied the Ghost. "I made it link by link, and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore it. Is its pattern strange to you?"
Scrooge trembled more and more.
"Or would you know," pursued the Ghost, "the weight and length of the strong coil you bear yourself? It was full as heavy and as long as this, seven Christmas Eves ago. You have laboured on it, since. It is a ponderous chain!"
With all of Pogo's hate, he must have a very, very long chain . . .
But much, much richer than you Gediliya. Ha ha.
Ah, isn't it too bad that money can't buy happiness?
Gedaliya - Such a jealous gal.
a very, very long chain
Heavy, too.
With all of downtownlad's lies, he must have a very, very long nose...
When I sift through this thread, and eliminate the back and forth between Helen and DTL over insults and other digressions, I notice that Helen has not responded to anyone's questions or comments about the APA issue. If she's actually stated that the APA ought to acredit those therapies, then wow, she's got some 'splainin' to do. She can't just toss that off as a "libertarian" choice issue. But she has avoided that in her comments here.
Helen, you're weaseling on this one. Ann, what do you think about that?
His woodcarver was Guccione Gepetto--it ain't his nose that grows.
Beth, go to the post linked below and figure it out for yourself. It reads to me that she isn't pro-reparative as much as she is anti-anti-reparative. If it can't work, some people may need to learn that the hard way, which may be good for them in the long run (it may also have precipitated dtl's suicides). Some people seem to have a hard time accepting that other people might not want to be gay.
Helen
What the hell is happening to this city? First Althouse and now the ole perfesser. It makes me long for the days of Ed Koch when you yokels were too afraid to come here.
Granted the ole Perfesser has that deer in the headlights look like he thinks some islamo fachist may pounce on him at any moment. (Did you have to order for him, Ann?) And even though it took him 2 days to figure out how to get out of here at leat the rube is gone.
Beth, I think Ralph has the right read on it.
According to the APA: "Although there is little scientific data about the patients who have undergone these treatments, it is still possible to evaluate the theories, which rationalize the conduct of "reparative" and conversion therapies."
Yet just before this they note "To date, there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of "reparative" treatments", with only "sparse scientific data" and "anecdotal reports" of reparative change.
This is a dishonest approach. The best they can say is that there are not enough data to decide, but that the underlying theory is not consistent with current thought on sexual orientation (and therefore unscientific).
But lots of ideas are called unscientific and later proven to be true. The APA itself changed its own 'mind' on the issue in 1973, as you know, so it's a little disingenuous to get bent out of shape now. The bacterial origin of stomach ulcers was felt to be 'unscientific' for the same reason, but later became dogma.
This is a political battle, not a scientific one. I have no dog in this fight and suspect reparative therapy is a fools errand. But let it be shown to be false. If not, it goes underground and becomes an entity with "outsider" status, which gives it a certain romantic cache amongst the many anti-science types around.
Look, chirpractic therapy has little scientific proof endorsing its primary theories of success (i.e pathophysiology). The AMA lost that battle of science in court, however.
It will be a Pyrrhic victory for gays to forcibly shut down this effort. It can be proven wrong, as I suspect it will for all but a few individuals who may or may not even be gay. And then it will be a limited tool to use for those folks.
And why would that be a bad thing? (As for the suicides; yes, if true that itself will shut the study down very quickly, and for good). Shouting them down looks evasive to your opponents , however, like there's something you want to hide.
Winner: most deranged comments thread ever
Pogo writes:
Yet just before this they note "To date, there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of "reparative" treatments", with only "sparse scientific data" and "anecdotal reports" of reparative change.
This is a dishonest approach. The best they can say is that there are not enough data to decide, but that the underlying theory is not consistent with current thought on sexual orientation (and therefore unscientific).
What is dishonest about it. There is a very serious movement afoot in psychology and medicine to ideintify empirically supported treatments and encourage there use, while limiting refuted or unsupported interventions. According to my reading your snippet from APA, they are being relative descriptive, not prescriptive.
Pogo continues:
But lots of ideas are called unscientific and later proven to be true. The APA itself changed its own 'mind' on the issue in 1973, as you know, so it's a little disingenuous to get bent out of shape now. The bacterial origin of stomach ulcers was felt to be 'unscientific' for the same reason, but later became dogma.
So you think the APA, in spite of the current scientific status indicating that anecdotal positive responses do not outnumber negative outcomes should encourage reparative therapys' availability to the public, stay completely mute, or what based on the idea that sometime in the future, it could be proven effective in some cases? This seems unrealistic and inappropriate for a science based professional organization.
My position is that the APA, as a fundamentally scientific-professional organization, should stick as closely as possible to the data when describing reparative therapy, acknowledge that there is extremely limited empirical support for it, note also the risk of failure and iatrogenic harm in some cases, and not endorse it as an empirically supported treatment.
I don't think they should encourage it's availability to the public. The APA can, in my opinion, provide support for well-designed ethical research studies that examine the treatment approach to learn more about the modifiability and immutability of patterns of sexual desire and to serve the public.
Dr. Helen has at times been correct, in my opinion, in exposing the liberal political biases of the APA. However, it seems that her answer is to infuse her brand of psychology with another political ideology. It seems like simple logic to me, but two wrongs, in this case, do not make a right.
If I were to advise Dr. Helen (of course she hasn't asked for it), I would encourage her to de-accentuate her public personae as a Dr. and forensic psychologist (for example change the title of her blog) in order to achieve greater personal and professional separation. While her blog may be strenghtening her image as a conservative-libertarian, I don't think it is enhancing her reputation as a stellar forensic psychologist.
Beth: "Ann, what do you think about that?"
I think she has a very lenient standard for letting people practice a profession. It's obviously libertarian. I haven't the slightest suspicion that she's anti-gay.
Mutaman: "What the hell is happening to this city? First Althouse and now the ole perfesser. It makes me long for the days of Ed Koch when you yokels were too afraid to come here."
Sorry, loser, I lived here for years when Ed Koch was mayor.
I love how people hide behind the libertarian label.
"Libertarian" seems to be a catch-all for all sorts of extremist views.
I guess you can excuse anything by calling yourself a Libertarian.
"Sorry, loser, I lived here for years when Ed Koch was mayor."
I forgot, I guess you didn't make much of an impact.
And is it just a coincidnce that you mention Ed and Ms. Ole Perfesser's homophobia in the same post.
My "extreme" postition is also held by the president of the APA:
"Highlighting the importance of client autonomy and self-determination, Dr. Koocher stated, 'APA has no conflict with psychologists who help those distressed by unwanted homosexual attraction.'"
In addition, Dr. Koocher offers some good recommendations here.
My "extreme" position also includes psychologists helping those who are gay to accept that lifestyle if they are distressed by it because of discrimination or societal pressures.
Helen said...
My "extreme" postition is also held by the president of the APA:
"Highlighting the importance of client autonomy and self-determination, Dr. Koocher stated, 'APA has no conflict with psychologists who help those distressed by unwanted homosexual attraction.'"
You will note however, that Koocher's responses were not an endorsement of conversion therapies by any means. In fact, Koocher's quotes make no references to therapies affecting changes in homosexual behavior or attraction.
In an effort to understand some of the exchange here - this being my first time of reading a thread on this blog - Mindsteps and downtownlad, you are both gay?
br549 said...
In an effort to understand some of the exchange here - this being my first time of reading a thread on this blog - Mindsteps and downtownlad, you are both gay?
br549: Try to put my comments in the context of someone who tries to remain faithful to and support the scientific basis of psychology.
OK. I am just trying to understand the various points of view. Although not gay myself, I have my personal reasons for asking. I did not mean to offend, or make you feel as if you had to dodge a direct question.
You are a psychologist, then?
Beth: "Ann, what do you think about that?"
Ann: "I think she has a very lenient standard for letting people practice a profession. It's obviously libertarian. I haven't the slightest suspicion that she's anti-gay."
Beth again, having lost track of this thread for days.
Ann, I don't hold the "Dr. Helen is anti-gay" position, but I do think the 'libertarian' label wears thin. You objected vehemently to "lenient standards" for say, business owners wanting to deny service to people based on race when confronted with the idea of libertarian-style "lenient standard for letting people practice a profession" months back at your meeting with some libertarian folks.
I'm not keen on urging an accrediting body to endorse practices that aren't proven to be effective and that can be used for greater harm than help. As Helen points out, the APA has some leniency -- but the position she takes is that the APA ought to credit the therapies, not just allow some leniency for practice.
Beth, I haven't said anything about what the APA should or shouldn't license. I'm only fighting those who are calling Helen a bigot, which isn't you. I support some regulation, both by government and by private associations. As you remember, I'm not a big libertarian. I think this is more like the FDA refusing to approve ineffective treatments for cancer, although I do suspect the APA of being too ideological. I think an awful lot of treatments they countenance are ineffective.
br549 said...
You are a psychologist, then?
Yes, I work with alot of schools, facilities, kids, and families. Interesting though, I am defeated by my own children on a regular basis. My wife, a non-psychologist, is a far more competent parent.
I am wondering of the exchanges I have read here, that's all. Not a mensa candidate or scholar.
I can see where there are people who believe being gay is wrong. I can see where there are people who believe being gay just, well, IS. It is who they are, not something they have.
I can see there are people who feel they are gay, they feel it is wrong, perhaps it is not how they wish to be, and they want desperately to change. Perhaps they need a way to be able to pursue that, being their wish.
Sorry, no more depth than that. Just perhaps, true equal rights.
Beth said...
As Helen points out, the APA has some leniency -- but the position she takes is that the APA ought to credit the therapies, not just allow some leniency for practice.
Beth:
I stopped visiting Dr. Helen's blog after reviewing it for three or four months. I find her judgments regarding the science and profession of psychology and the APA clouded more by a rabid anti-liberal ferver than a libertarian bias. Personally, I believe that professional psychology and the APA best serve the public when they adhere closely to their scientific principals. Publicly, I try to maintain a clear distinction between my role as a psychologist and my personal political ideology.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा