Margalis: They have absolutely no perspective. They have zero ability to objectively examine their own field.

As a wise old man once said to me, "You cannot evaluate the discipline from within the discipline."

_____________________

Nequals1: There is also a tremendous amount of medicating without formal diagnosis - stimulants for 16 hr on 8 hr off perpetual missions, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, sleep enhancers and sedatives for personnel with self-reported symptoms of anxiety, sleep disturbances, depression, etc.

You might be interested in a post Chris Floyd did:

Dead Souls: The Pentagon Plan to Create Remorseless "Warfighters"

Written by Chris Floyd; Friday, 11 January 2008

(Link at sig.)

referencing the article noted below.

Pentagon, Big Pharma: Drug Troops to Numb Them to Horrors of War

By Penny Coleman, AlterNet. Posted January 10, 2008.

The DoD is flirting with the idea of medicating soldiers to desensitize them to combat trauma -- will an army of unfeeling monsters result?....

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/72956

________________________________

USERNAME: News porn.

Whoa! I like that. Do you share?

________________________________

lateagain: BEBOP. What is s/he all about? Delightful but strange.

Among other things, a *carefully* protected species. Hang in. Your ears will become attuned in time.

I took umbrage at Greenwalds equally self-congratulatory style, showing how cute and flippant he could be with his cute and flippant turns of phrase.

Some examples of "cute and flippant" turns of phrase would be nice.

In a word - projection - sums up your comments. Why so angry? Why so bitter? Tenure revoked? Class schedule increased?

And do consider the poor apostrophe. I do believe it comes standard on all keyboards.

I was going to thank Prof. Smith for giving his real identity but now feel foolish if that is not who he is. But if that was in fact Prof. Smith, I do appreciate him offering his identity and background for scrutiny, even if his view is disagreeable.

It is far more likely that our 'Prof. Tim Smith' is a hired hand at the American Enterprise Institute than a tenured faculty member at Kent State University.

As it happens, there's no direct evidence either way - except that our 'Prof. Tim Smith' pointedly neglects to offer any argument against GG's point of view which is based on either facts or reason, but instead resorts to a rather condescending insult.

This is a tactic perfectly characteristic of right-wing lurkers and trolls, including propagandists contracted by AEI and similar outfits. The Scaife's have a lot of money and are known to fund this kind of activity, and so do other wealthy right-wingers.

GG, on the other hand, deals exclusively in facts and reason and could be refuted on that basis only with difficulty. Which, if you look closely, never happens. You must ask yourself why that is.

People are not always what they seem. And certainly not on the internet. It's rare for anybody on boards like these to offer any credentials that can be checked, so you might be wise to consider any such claims to be little more than the game of a clever poseur, possibly one who is paid to pursue a dishonest agenda.

http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/editorialsoped/todayseditorials/index.html?offset=24612&fid=.f656da7/24612

timeout77 - 6:27 PM ET October 13, 2004

... i need to justify my pay from the RNC!

'Nuff said.

Yes, I am indeed I. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt on that, though I assure you (as I have been assured by many others) no one else wants to be me (h/t Bill Owen).

I do not read Glenn's post the way you do. Instead I observe a report of what transpired, followed by a reiteration of the same seemingly rote responses from other reporters, politicians, and public information officers whom Glenn has similarly challenged on facts and on practices.

It's not my perception that Glenn Greenwald "pretend[s] to be a serious critic of journalism." He's a blogger, who happens to get a lot of hits because his writing is on a popular website and a bunch of people are regular readers.

Other than your accusation of pretense, your critique seems to be limited to your "umbrage" at "how cute and flippant he could be with his cute and flippant turns of phrase." But what, ultimately, does that mean other than that you don't like his writing style?

I mean, de gustibus non est disputandum, but as someone once said, "That's not criticism. That's just showing off."

That url was too long for me to capture. Can you tinyurl or link at your name?

It sounds kind of mean. Have you ever fallen for it?

I used my real name, title and school.

Like I said, it's rare for anybody on boards like these to offer any credentials that can be checked. You certainly haven't done so. I could as easily claim to be any of a number of people, and could even present 'evidence' sufficient to make the claim plausible.

You still haven't offered any refutation of GG's critique of John King based on facts or reason. You do squirm fairly well, though. May I offer you a larger shovel?

This is a tactic perfectly characteristic of right-wing lurkers and trolls, including propagandists contracted by AEI and similar outfits. The Scaife's have a lot of money and are known to fund this kind of activity, and so do other wealthy right-wingers.

Given that we trolls only succeed in making ourselves look stupid why on earth would someone pay us to do that?

Oh, and as long as I'm trolling anyway I would like to get paid for it.

Where do I apply?

I'm sorry, but it's not possible. The NYT archived that thread from the Paul Krugman forum years ago. That was just an example.

Given the encouragement similar to what I gave timeout77 on that occasion, we can be assured that the right-wingers here will make similar confessions in due course.

The occasional sip of water says thanks to the constant effortless fountain, always flowing always inviting.

Professor Smith, it shouldn't surprise you that some here have doubted that you are who you say you are. All those accomplishments, all those years of experience, and yet when someone sticks a rhetorical pin in you, the noises which come out of you are those of the petulant fifteen year old you must have been once, however long ago. (To be fair, though, you do seem to have acquired an Oxford English Dictionary somewhere along the way from there to here.)

It really is hard for me to understand. How is it that a professional with your credentials can behave like this in public? Not only is your reaction to Glenn's post juvenile, but it's also angry out of all proportion to the supposed offense. Is there something in the water in your part of Ohio?