Re: I did not know that
 

Well, I guess if you sincerely believe that it's possible to pray away the gay, then maybe it's not evil.

I think that's silly and that it isn't possible to pray away the gay, and that telling a patient who is seeking help that it is possible only does further damage to the person and sets them up to feel even worse when they try and fail to pray it away. And I think its evil for a mental health professional to knowing do additional damage to their patient.

Re: I did not know that
 

That's a pretty damn low standard for evil.

Something to condemn, sure. Evil may be stretching it, tho, and seems a word choice intended mainly to get a rise out of those (who I think include no one here) who might be sympathetic to the ex-gay element of Christianity.

Re: I did not know that
 

Pick whatever word you want. I was only trying to explain why Marcussss felt the need to stress that his practice was limited to only the first scenario.

But really, does anyone ever use "evil" as anything other than caricature or hyperbole?

Re: I did not know that
 

People who recommend prayer as an approach to "fix" anything generally don't lack for sincerity. Reason? Professionalism? Sense? Sure, they may lack all those things, but not sincerity. A therapist who says "let's pray to fix this" likely believes that's really good advice.

Is it a good thing to do? Again, who are you to judge? Assume a man truly believes that being gay will cause him to burn in hell for eternity, and truly believes in the power of prayer to make him not-gay (whether that means "not attracted to men" or, much more likely, "able to control the attraction so I don't act on it"). In your view, it seems like the only "good" (as in, "not evil") thing to do is to convert that man to a different religion. That would be a pretty abusive act by a therapist, don't you think?

My own experiences, background, preferences, values, etc. would lead me never to try and "un-gay" someone. If your hypothetical guy comes to me, as a friend, and says "I don't want to be gay, and my therapist is helping me thru prayer," I would tell him that he should get a different therapist and a different religion. But I wouldn't think the therapist evil, or believe that no therapist should ever do this, any more than I would say no man should ever ask a woman to his hotel room if he's in an elevator with her at 4am.

Re: I did not know that
 

Um, yeah, including many of those in politics who you disagree with (nearly) completely.

And, of course, in relation to certain Mitteleuropans of last century, it's actually apt.

Re: I did not know that
 

Right. See my first sentence above.

An advocate. But I think there is a real question here about professional standards. It's not clear to me whether Bachmann has medical or other licenses, and I don't know what the rules are even if he does, but my understanding is that there is little support in the community of mental health professionals for praying away the gay as effective treatment.

By the way, I assume that Bachmann and company know that and do it anyway, based on their religious beliefs.

Huh? The therapist can't say he can't help and decline to charge the patient for treatment? He can't refer the patient to a spiritual advisor who isn't purporting to be a mental health professional? He can't explore with the patient why he has this deep-seeded self loathing and whether it's not rather than religious belief that is causing the problem?

Re: I did not know that
 

He "can" do all of those things.

He can also do what I would do: Rather than recommend that the patient pray his way out of being gay, I would recommend that he butt-fuck his way out of being religious.

You're the only one saying he "can't" do something.

Do you think that an adult who finds a therapist who recommends prayer is likely to be surprised? "Gosh, Mary at the church group recommended you but i didn't realize you were going to talk god and all."

Re: I did not know that
 

So when you said the "only" thing he can do, you didn't mean only then?

There are lots of things the therapist can do that don't involve potentially harmful and ineffective treatment.

But yes, if he chooses to pray away the gay I am going to think less of that therapist as a human being. I'm not sure why that troubles you.

Now you are just making shit up. Sure, if the a person actively seeks out someone to pray the gay away with them, then yeah, that's less evil. I happen to still think it's bad, but at least they are only duping someone who asked to be duped.

Re: I did not know that
 

So Nixon asked Kissinger to pray with him, and does anyone wonder what they were praying for?

Re: I did not know that
 

I'm thinking about getting religious, like if you go to them conventions where people who doubt there is a god go, the chicks are all like, "I don't want to fuck you so don't ask." I know the chances of getting laid at a church group prolly ain't great, but it's gotta be better than that, doesn't it?

Re: I did not know that
 

Hank, really, go with Islam, you get multiple wives. And, after all, with Obama in the White House, it's just going to be forced on you eventually anyways.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Re: I did not know that
 

What I actually said is this:

"In your view, it seems like the only "good" (as in, "not evil") thing to do is to convert that man to a different religion."

So, um, maybe you ought to pray for reading comprehension?


Someone whose religious beliefs cause him to hate himself for being gay, and to think he is damned, is pretty far gone. I'm not sure that there is any treatment for that that is effective, and not harmful in some respect.

But, apparently you are aware of treatments that are not even "potentially" harmful or ineffective. You should patent those.


It doesn't trouble me. I would also recognize the very difficult circumstance that a therapist is put in, by a patient with a deep conflict between his human nature and his religious beliefs.

But, hey -- that's just me. I think calling people "evil" is a little goofy. YMMV.

Re: I did not know that
 

You should come to SF and hang with The Sisters of The Perpetual Indulgence. Those are some fun-loving nuns.

Re: I did not know that
 

So when you said the "only" thing he can do, you didn't mean only then?

Or, in other words, I know what you said, and no, I don't see any reason for you to have felt that it "seemed" like the only non-evil thing I think he could do is convert the patient to a new religion. If you thought it seemed that way, it was only because you made an error of logic (that not doing one thing implied only doing another thing).


This right after a reading comprehension lecture? The treatment is potentially harmful and it is ineffective. My understanding is that medical professionals generally don't do that. Potentially harmful and effective they might do (but see Vioxx), but not potentially harmful and ineffective.

Well, then we agree. Hyperbole and caricature tend to set out for goofy. :rolleyes:

New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Wall Street Journal announces new editorial standards: will now exercise restraint before criticizing, assume all self-serving statements are true.

I note one thing the WSJ would not have done prior to the Murdoch error: write this self-serving editorial.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

The WSJ editorial page jumped the shark way before Murdoch bought the paper.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Well, that was always my view, good to hear it from you.

But isn't this a sort of double-somersault over a school of sharks kinda thing?

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

It happened when Gigot took over. Same thing happened at National Review once Buckley was gone.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Thanks for the link. It connected me to this - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read .

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Yea, read that this morning. Scary.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Shoulda thrown in property taxes, gas taxes, cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes and national park user fees. Surely he coulda gotten a marginal rate over 100%.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Yes, easily. Do you think he worries about the bogeyman under his bed at night?

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Don't mock, Adder. The WSJ cartoon of Uncle Sam taking someone's pie is right. The fact that adding the maximum federal income tax rate to the highest state rate you can find makes a big number = no taxes can be raised on anyone in any bracket ever ever ever and Obama is bad. Please do try to keep up.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Per the article -- "As Milton Friedman taught decades ago, the true burden on taxpayers today is government spending; government borrowing requires future interest payments out of future taxes."


Is that true? If so, Milton Friedman was full of shit. Everyone knows that government borrowing creates a tax burden for tomorrow, not today.

And, of course, a few years ago the GOP was gleefully explaining that it didn't matter, that burden was illusory because growth fueled by low tax rates would take care of it. (Where is Spanky these days, anyway?)

Fucking baby-boomers. As Thomas Friedman said in the NYTimes this weekend, never before in human history has one generation been so blessed by its parents with freedom and prosperity, and never before in human history has one generation so thoroughly fucked its children.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Good thing it's nonsense.

Or, alternatively, for one example, I don't see how the numbers work out for the required 32% increase in all tax rates. My guess his that he's comparing apples to oranges -- using the CBO alternate base case, which assumes we keep all of the Bush/Obama tax cuts and do other stuff like the doc fix that blow up the budget -- for his deficit projections. The whole discussion now is how to deviate from that base case, which everyone except maybe McConnell agrees we should.

But even with his numbers, I'm not sure how a deficit of roughly 5% of GDP implies a need for 32% higher taxes.

I also don't know who the "some" are that argue that we can bear pre-Reagan tax rates. Exactly no one I know of is advocating for that. But Plenty of people have noted that Saint Reagan's early tax cuts didn't result in the massive Laffer effects that some projected, and, in fact, growth rates were higher after Saint Ronny raised taxes. Suggesting the author's asserted Econ 101 principle might not be universally right (as anyone teaching Econ 101 could tell you).

And I don't see how the example of California, a relatively high tax state, is meant to be informative for the country as a whole (although it's of more interest to Californians).

On to the politics, I don't know which "many democrats" these are that demand no changes in social security and Medicare. I know of many democrats who won't agree to changes in those programs without doing other things that would also help the deficits and share the burden, but I've only seen one party insist that no compromise could ever be reached.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Huh? That's what he said.

Of course I think he is also assuming incorrectly that we will at some point have to pay off the debt entirely, which is not the case and will never happen. And would be very bad.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Ah, channelling 11 year-old Esquire stories.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

There's not enough info in the piece to figure it out. But in CA, when the Bush tax cuts sunset, the highest bracket will be paying between 45-50% marginal rates, without factoring in increases for Obama care, raising of the various ceilings, etc. And I think we all agree that there will need further tax hikes to keep current entitlements. So while perhaps not 70%, the number will be rising significantly.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

How do you feel about the effective tax increase the Republicans are threatening the country with -- the additional cost of borrowing (public and private) that would come with default?

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Oh, Ty. Leave it to you to spin in this direction. Can't teach a dog new tricks.

There.Will.Be.No.Default.

There also will not be a deal until the 11th hour. But someone will blink.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

if we stop borrowing and spend only what we make there will be no additional cost. it really simple, and how I run my household, although if the Dems get their 70% tax rates I may need to borrow myself. Sad.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

I bet if you read the major blogs of the "out there railing at the surf crowd" you'd find one in recent days that made Ty's "point." I may start soliciting Copyright infringement cases against these jokers here.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Yes, that kind of thinking sounds a lot like how a lot of Americans run their households.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

all good R households, but not those poor people that have been ruined by the "great society" and it's incentive killing give-aways.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

I know he said that, it was a rhetorical question.

My quibble goes not just to him making the assumption that we will pay off the debt entirely, but the notion that the cost of borrowing impacts taxpayers "today." It doesn't, and that's perhaps the major reason behind deficits. Pleasure today, pain tomorrow (and hopefully after I'm no longer paying taxes).

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

It sounds so simple that one wonders why the Republicans have never tried it -- given their love of simple solutions. The Paul Ryan budget that they all voted for -- for example -- would have obliged them to raise the debt ceiling since it increased the budget deficit.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

You don't have a mortgage?

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

If the market starts to worry about default, or that lending to the US is riskier because this nonsense will repeat the next time we near the ceiling, then the government has to pay more to borrow, an effective tax increase on all of us. Just threatening default has costs.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

There is a theoretical threat of default right now. Look at yields. Haven't moved much.

As much as the Rs are posturing, what I find most comical is how Obama has now become deficit cutter in chief, after the budgets he submitted actually increased the deficit. Now he will veto anything that isn't "big". What he means is he will veto anything that doesn't take this issue off the table in 2012.