What do you think of Patch Adams?

[braluk]

---

Members don't see this ad.

any handlebar mustache by anyone is asking to be compared to an evil black and white film villain who traditionally ties their victim to the train tracks while a train is approaching, and all the while, he would be twisting his mustache.

Sheer villainy.

 

[jocg27]

Wars also prevent future injury, disease, and death and often have the beneficial effect of killing people who need to be killed. .

Clearly we are not about to agree.

I'd argue they engender more war.

We can "kill people who need to be killed" now, but keep in mind that a) they are rarely the only people to be killed/raped/maimed and b) even those we decide need to be killed, and may, in fact, need to be killed, are still fathers, sons, brothers, husbands. After everyone we decide needs to be killed is killed, there will be a generation of children who will have witnessed us invading their country, bombing their homes, raping their mothers (and sisters -- the most recent one being investigated by the US military was 15), killing their fathers and running around like we own the place. You don't believe this generation will grow up to hate us, to lash back at us, exactly as you or I would if another nation did this to our families? Then we'll have a new generation of terrorists and 'people who need to be killed.'

I don't consider myself a priest of a peace cult. But at this rate, Middle Eastern conflicts between Jews and Muslims will be over only when there is nothing left in the region but dust. Africans die at war every day and no one in the entire world gives a damn. This is an immense amount of human suffering, and as a profession interested in easing human suffering, I believe doctors do, or can - I'm not trying to argue for a forced entry into the 'priesthood'- play a role in this. Don't care about those/they're people who need to be killed? Fine. We have innocent American young men dying daily in an unwinnable war that's had little to no effect on our safety. No one knows quite what the goal is, nor the plan to get there.

Many of these men and women either become patients of American doctors when they are wounded in the field, or they complete their tour of duty, return, and are patients of American doctors when they return, and have long term health consequences that could have been prevented. I believe that in this case, our government is doing our nation's young people a great disservice for no purpose. I think it's perfectly valid for doctors to play a part in the discussion.

My personal philosophy is that things work best when politics is kept out of the bedroom, the boardroom, and the operating room.

Politics definitely has no part in any of those places. But...not all medicine is practiced in an operating room. I argue that any pediatrician, internist, family practicioner, obstetrician, or psychiatrist, at the very least, is not doing their job if they are not thinking of prevention. This means thinking outside the OR, maybe outside the clinic, even, about threats to your patients' well being beyond the details and specific treatments for one system given within 20 minutes within the walls of the office.

 

[Mr. McDuck]

I think it was meant more as a quotation, not to be taken literally.

 

[jocg27]

I think it was meant more as a quotation, not to be taken literally.

Clearly it's a quotation, not literal.. but i think the quotation is flawed. Politics should be out of the OR, absolutely. An open body in front of you is no time to be talking politics. But I see no need for politics to be kept out of the practice of medicine, and in fact, I think that it's impossible.

 

[notdeadyet]

Clearly it's a quotation, not literal..

Actually, it's not a quotation. Just something I wrote. But yeah, think of it symbolically.

Politics should be out of the OR, absolutely. An open body in front of you is no time to be talking politics.

...and that's exactly why politics should be kept out of the bedroom... ;-)

But I see no need for politics to be kept out of the practice of medicine, and in fact, I think that it's impossible.

To each their own. I know too may prostelitizing physicians.

Doctors tend to be type A personalities. Doctors tend to come into medicine straight out of college, with very limited real world experience. Doctors tend to very mistakenly believe that their opinions on anything outside of medicine should have added gravitas because they're physicians.

Because a doctor has witnessed lots of gunshot wounds does not make him an expert on gun control. Because a doctor has counseled many young women on birth control does not make her an expert on abortion. Empirical exposure does not make someone a policy wonk on an issue. Lots of doctors, and young folks with limited exposure to the outside world, tend not to understand this.

 

[notdeadyet]

This means thinking outside the OR, maybe outside the clinic, even, about threats to your patients' well being beyond the details and specific treatments for one system given within 20 minutes within the walls of the office.

An inner city ER physician has much less of an informed opinion on what the streets are like than does the guy across the street who owns the liquor store and lives in the apartment above it.

Lecturing a patient about the dangers of STDs, what playing with guns will do, and why drugs can kill you? You're qualified.

Pretending to be an expert on abstinance, gun control, and legalization of marijuana? No. No more than a mechanic is the go-to guy for engineering the most gas-efficient car since he's worked on a lot of 'em.

 

[8744]

Clearly we are not about to agree.

I'd argue they engender more war.

We can "kill people who need to be killed" now, but keep in mind that a) they are rarely the only people to be killed/raped/maimed and b) even those we decide need to be killed, and may, in fact, need to be killed, are still fathers, sons, brothers, husbands. After everyone we decide needs to be killed is killed, there will be a generation of children who will have witnessed us invading their country, bombing their homes, raping their mothers (and sisters -- the most recent one being investigated by the US military was 15), killing their fathers and running around like we own the place. You don't believe this generation will grow up to hate us, to lash back at us, exactly as you or I would if another nation did this to our families? Then we'll have a new generation of terrorists and 'people who need to be killed.'

I don't consider myself a priest of a peace cult. But at this rate, Middle Eastern conflicts between Jews and Muslims will be over only when there is nothing left in the region but dust. Africans die at war every day and no one in the entire world gives a damn. This is an immense amount of human suffering, and as a profession interested in easing human suffering, I believe doctors do, or can - I'm not trying to argue for a forced entry into the 'priesthood'- play a role in this. Don't care about those/they're people who need to be killed? Fine. We have innocent American young men dying daily in an unwinnable war that's had little to no effect on our safety. No one knows quite what the goal is, nor the plan to get there.

Many of these men and women either become patients of American doctors when they are wounded in the field, or they complete their tour of duty, return, and are patients of American doctors when they return, and have long term health consequences that could have been prevented. I believe that in this case, our government is doing our nation's young people a great disservice for no purpose. I think it's perfectly valid for doctors to play a part in the discussion.


Politics definitely has no part in any of those places. But...not all medicine is practiced in an operating room. I argue that any pediatrician, internist, family practicioner, obstetrician, or psychiatrist, at the very least, is not doing their job if they are not thinking of prevention. This means thinking outside the OR, maybe outside the clinic, even, about threats to your patients' well being beyond the details and specific treatments for one system given within 20 minutes within the walls of the office.

And yet, war is often necessary and much worse than the consequences of your so-called peace which is not peace at all but a constant state of hand-wringing and posturing.

Obviously you have a political axe to grind and equally obviously you have a sketchy understanding of both warfare and history which seems to be limited to the observation that war entails violence and sometime innocent bystanders are hurt and killed.

I repeat, it's easy to be anti-war, to moan and wail for those poor Africans being killed in job lots and to accept no responsibilty for not doing anything in the name of peace. Peace for you, that is, so you don't have to think about war.

All of which, actually, has nothing to do with the practice of medicine.

 

[8744]

I also want to add that the vision of the physician as some kind of super-powered social worker who needs to reach outside of his medical practice is the kind of mission creep which killed the Duke Family Medicine residency program and threatens to kill that entire specialty. You've got no business in your capacity as a physician advocating and proselytizing (sp?) your patients for your pet social causes.

See my blog for an in-depth analysis of what is wrong with the Patch Adams approach to delivering health care as exemplified by the concept of "Community Medicine."

P. Bear, MD
Emergency Medicine Resident
Somewhere in the Midwest, Keeping a Low Profile

 

[Mr. McDuck]

Clearly it's a quotation, not literal.. but i think the quotation is flawed. Politics should be out of the OR, absolutely. An open body in front of you is no time to be talking politics. But I see no need for politics to be kept out of the practice of medicine, and in fact, I think that it's impossible.

Well, being as you attacked it for assuming all medicine takes place in the operating room, I wasn't so sure it was that clear to you. 🙂

 

[MossPoh]

Yep, I was there. The only part I remember clearly is the day we shadowed doctors. I got to shadow surgeons and it was ridiculously awesome, especially for a high-schooler. I even got to scrub in and stand with my hands resting on the patient's thigh during an exploratory abdominal surgery. I remember thinking, "dude, he totally just took that woman's intestines out with his hand! And he's holding them right in my face! And she's still using those intestines! But he's holding them right in my face! This is the greatest day of my entire life!"

I generally got the shaft and got all the experiences that nobody wanted and they all turned out to be awesome. We cleaned up a park in san francisco and a little old man bought us all drinks and got thank you cards from the little kids, went to the airforce base and rolled around in cool planes and then saw all the digital radiology stuff before the digital was really a big in hospitals. Talked with an orthopedic spine surgeon. It was a great experience there and I really regret that I kind of lost focus in it once I entered college and thought I was doing it for my dad. I didn't like wearing the suit all the time but it helped. Hey PM me..maybe we met each other and didn't even know it. 😛

 

[MiesVanDerMom]

Yes. When you have a serious medical condition, you want your doctor to be serious about it, and to feel like that person is doing everything they can. I wouldn't want to be treated like "No big deal, ahahah, go hang out with this clown."

Also there is a statement from him which has the word "intimacy" in it like 5 times. I don't know. Something about that guy just gives me the heebie jeebies. I think you can care about patients without having an agenda.

I don't know. my son is sick and I HATE HATE HATE that his doctors have no sense of humor. My hubby and I would have thrown in the towel long ago if we couldn't laugh about it all... although for the record, Patch gives me the willies too and I don't know why. 😕

 

[MiesVanDerMom]

And yet, war is often necessary and much worse than the consequences of your so-called peace which is not peace at all but a constant state of hand-wringing and posturing.

Obviously you have a political axe to grind and equally obviously you have a sketchy understanding of both warfare and history which seems to be limited to the observation that war entails violence and sometime innocent bystanders are hurt and killed.

I repeat, it's easy to be anti-war, to moan and wail for those poor Africans being killed in job lots and to accept no responsibilty for not doing anything in the name of peace. Peace for you, that is, so you don't have to think about war.

All of which, actually, has nothing to do with the practice of medicine.

i'm a published ex-historian, so perhaps you'll accept my credentials in this debate. Your statement "sometime innocent bystanders are hurt and killed" is inaccurate. In fact, all wars involve enormous numbers of civilian casualties and not just simple maimings and gunshot wounds. War necesarrily (misspelled I know) creates gruesome, vile actions. There is no such thing as a civilized war. These gruesome acts hurt the ones committing them as much as the victims. We get this media coverage of night-cam shots of green bomb explosions miles away. War is: genitals being cut off and worn as hats, children decapitated, women raped. That is war. Always. War is also landmines left behin, depleted uranium weaponry left behind to give 10 year old girls breast cancer, atom bombs creating babies born with no skin. These aren't the actions of depraved individuals. These are good people sent into war, a situation that always creates atrocity. I can attest to this as an historian.

Further, the logic that peace is created through war is non-sensical. Peace is created by peace, violence by violence. I seem to recal a "war to end all wars"... how did that work out again??

And the idea that medicine and politics remain separate is naive at best and impossible in truth. Truth: a black man and white man of the same class with the same insurance still get different treatment in the ER. That's political. Truth: governmental decisions affect the health of our patients (air pollution controls, wars, etc.) and we are obligated to advocate for them. Truth: medicaid funding for disabled children has been cut while the wealthiest 1% receive a tax cut. Doctors hold a high position in our society. if we choose not to use that to improve life for our patients, we have done them a disservice.

 

[MossPoh]

I say we all get together for one big hug since this is just feeling like it will forever be cyclical and nobody will have their mind's changed......you know kind of like the middle east.

 

[notdeadyet]

MVDMom- I couldn't agree more with your disagreement with the notion of peace being the easy way out, peace through superior firepower, etc. I don't see this as even being controversial.

And the idea that medicine and politics remain separate is naive at best and impossible in truth.

This I part I disagree with, or maybe we're all looking at slightly different issues.

Politics affects doctors. Doctors can be involved in the political process. But for doctors to try to influence politics via their medical practice I think is misguided at best and an ethical conflict of interests at worst.

Voting and lobbying on behalf of your patients is noble. Pushing your political agendas through your practice, I feel, is inappropriate. If I visit a family practice physician and he had Bush political materials in the waiting room and during my appointment talked about how it's very important for the country's health that we support Senator Fisk and his latest initiative, for the sake of the babies or whatnot, I would find it extremely inappropriate. It is in this sense that medicine and politics need to be kept separate.

Ensuring that all your patients in your ER are treated the same regardless of skin color and educating your patients about potential health impacts they may face (due to recent political events or otherwise) is simply good medicine. Telling them why its in their best interest to vote a certain way is politics.

 

[BlazerMed]

Truth: a black man and white man of the same class with the same insurance still get different treatment in the ER. That's political.

That sounds more like racism, not politics.

 

[MiesVanDerMom]

MVDMom- I couldn't agree more with your disagreement with the notion of peace being the easy way out, peace through superior firepower, etc. I don't see this as even being controversial.


This I part I disagree with, or maybe we're all looking at slightly different issues.

Politics affects doctors. Doctors can be involved in the political process. But for doctors to try to influence politics via their medical practice I think is misguided at best and an ethical conflict of interests at worst.

Voting and lobbying on behalf of your patients is noble. Pushing your political agendas through your practice, I feel, is inappropriate. If I visit a family practice physician and he had Bush political materials in the waiting room and during my appointment talked about how it's very important for the country's health that we support Senator Fisk and his latest initiative, for the sake of the babies or whatnot, I would find it extremely inappropriate. It is in this sense that medicine and politics need to be kept separate.

Ensuring that all your patients in your ER are treated the same regardless of skin color and educating your patients about potential health impacts they may face (due to recent political events or otherwise) is simply good medicine. Telling them why its in their best interest to vote a certain way is politics.

Agreed. 100%

In this regard, I wish doctors were less political. I get tired of them getting angry with me about not vaccinating my kids. (Please let's NOT have a discussion about vaccinations)

 

[Beau Geste]

I don't know, but there is something about him that I don't feel comfortable with, that I can't put my finger on. I don't know if it is because his ideas are so different (look at that website) or what.

Or maybe because he tends to get involved in political issues for his own gain. Being raised in Chester, IL, I am familiar with his political activism toward an inmate at the mental health center in Chester, and it's not as it would seem.

 

[Beau Geste]

That sounds more like racism, not politics.

Definitely.

 

[8744]

Further, the logic that peace is created through war is non-sensical. Peace is created by peace, violence by violence. I seem to recal a "war to end all wars"... how did that work out again??

Whoa. That is utter nonsense. Many wars have resulted in long periods of peace. The idea that peace can be secured by just acting "peaceful" is ridiculous because war involves more than one party all of whom have to agree to be peaceful to avoid hostilities. When one party refuses to fight or is incapable of fighting you get something which can be worse than war.

What do you think? You think fewer people would have been murdered in Rawanda if we had sent in a Marine Expeditionary Unit to slap a few people down? What about Kosovo? How about World War II? The Japanese had butchered something like 20 million Chinese before we even thought about getting involved in that one.

Do you think things are going to be more peaceful in the Middle East if everybody continues to appease the islamofascists? Should we just leave 'em alone to feed their people into industrial shredders in peace?

Come on now. Can you at least admit that while war is horrific, sometimes its a necessary evil?

Additionally, there will never be a war to end all wars just like their will never be a perfect and eternal peace. There is no utopia and nothing will ever make conflict obsolete so long as human nature is what it is. The best we can hope for is long interval of relative peace.

 

[jackieMD2007]

Seems like the more we debate this Patch Adams fellow (the real one), the more my initial feeling of being uncomfortable with him was spot-on. I need to learn to trust that gut reaction more and more.

 

[MossPoh]

Nobody wants a group hug yet?

 

[Mr. McDuck]

Agreed. 100%

In this regard, I wish doctors were less political. I get tired of them getting angry with me about not vaccinating my kids. (Please let's NOT have a discussion about vaccinations)

I might be an idiot, but I don't see the connection to politics. It just seems like common sense to me. 😕

 

[San_Juan_Sun]

Hey all,

I watched Patch Adams again and I was really impressed about his methods so I checked up on the clinic he created (Gesundheit Institute). I think this guy is incredible, especially with his new approach to medicine. If you want to check out what he has done, check out his site at http://www.patchadams.org/home.htm.

I've met the real Patch Adams, and he's a jackball. This was 2 weeks post-9/11, and he said some of things that were pretty insensitive for such a caring guy. In fact, a bunch of people walked out on the meeting. He was pissed that Robin Williams made like $20 million from the movie and didn't donate a dime to his foundation. Now I can see why.

I liked the movie though.

 

[8744]

I liked the movie too. Probably for the wrong reasons. And I like Robin Williams as an actor and a comedian.

 

[notdeadyet]

When one party refuses to fight or is incapable of fighting you get something which can be worse than war.

One party refusing to fight or incapable of fighting is how wars end.

According to what you're saying here, war seems like a whole lot of death for nothing if the end result appears to be the same if you don't fight it.

 

[solocup]

i love the movie and i think it has good intentions of encouraging compassion and empathy. but many of patch's actions are dangerous if not unethical. e.g. shooting up adrenaline in an old man in critical care, opening a primary care center w/o permission, practicing medicine w/o a licence and stealing supplies from a hospital etc.

 

[8744]

One party refusing to fight or incapable of fighting is how wars end.

According to what you're saying here, war seems like a whole lot of death for nothing if the end result appears to be the same if you don't fight it.

Gosh, I hate to break it down into some kind of mortality calculus. How do you know the end result is going to be the same? Thats the point. A peace fetishist is never held accountable for the cost of not fighting, even though in many cases hindight makes it pretty obvious what the costs were.

Besides, were not just calcualting engines. I bet you if somebody broke into your house and threatened to rape and kill your wife and children you'd fight, if you could, and you wouldn't worry about the problem of killing more people than your family was worth.

Obvioulsy in this case you can tell right from wrong and good from evil. Hezbollah, as an example, is either a terrorist organization who use children as human shileds and wish to drag their society back into the dark ages after they slaughter or chase away all of the jews in the holy land or they're not. Killing them wholesale now, as well as the inevitable innocent bystanders which result whenever terrorists hide among civilans to exploit Western public opinion, is either a worthwhile endeavor or it isn't. Somebody's got right on their side and needs to fight to protect themselves.

They're not just people fighting over some silly ideals who can link hands and sing friggin' kumbayah.

 

[thefafo]

All I know about the real Patch, is that it would cost $10,000 to get him to speak at our pre-health group in Colorado. Apparently, he was trying to make up for the movie proceeds not going to him. Our $4,000 budget didn't quite stretch that far.

 

[chewsnuffles]

The movie Patch aka Robin Williams is much much nicer. The real life Patch Adams is a complete cocky prick.......and that is the nicer term I can think of. He gave a speech at my national youth leadership forum thing and it basically consisted of him talking about how great he was and how every other doctor is a complete piece of crap compared to his greatness. He also talked about how he read something ridiculous book wise....I remembered working it out and being (at the time) around 2 books a day for 30 years...he also made a point to say that each book was over 200 pages and that he could cite nearly ever poem he read from memory. Is his concept nice and pretty? Sure....doesn't keep him from being a douche though. It seems I share the same opinion of Patch with Panda. 😛

I heard about the same thing down at UC Berkley for a confrence of mine, and besides the pompus remarkers you stated, he really harped on the mental health issue...
However, I thought he did a bit better job of describing atleast realistic views when I heard him because he didn't so much as go into it as not being an illness, he just said he would never prescribe anti-depressants and there were other things that could and should be worked out first. While I don't agree entirely with that, I have no experience really, but I do think anti-depressants are over perscribed and a kind of way of numbing people sometimes to make them less of a burden without being what is nessesarily the best for the patient...

 

[Pkboi24]

I saw Patch Adams speak in college a few years ago, and while he's certainly done some amazing things, he also had some pretty unexpected ideas that I think caught a lot of people off guard, and they didn't go over especially well in the crowd that was at the lecture.

I do not want to take anything away from Patch Adams, his accomplishments, or the lecture. I thought it was a great talk, and while I didn't agree with everything he said, it definitely got everyone thinking. His career speaks for itself. He is clearly a compassionate and intelligent doctor who has come up with very creative ways of helping his patients and make an incredible difference in the world.

Most specifically I remember him arguing that mental health issues were fake. He said at one point that being mentally ill is one of the most "selfish choices" a person can make. When people brought this up during the question and answer session afterwards, arguing that mental health issues do have biological causes, people don't choose to be sick, these people need to be helped and not told how selfish they are etc, his reponse was, sure, when you break it down we're all really just 'bags of chemicals in solution,' but still, he considered the act of being mentally ill as an apparently active choice that entailed shirking one's responsibilities to self, to family, to humanity, etc.

There are all kinds of ideas out there about mental health and illness, and I suppose that whether or not that opinion is valid is up to each individual to decide.

It seemed, however, that for someone so skilled at thinking outside of the box, this was a surprising return to some very old-school opinions, and, depending on your viewpoint, not necessarily old-school in the good way. Many people have fought long and hard to break the stigma of mental health as a joke and mental health patients as weak or immoral or inferior, to convince people that it is an illness that should be treated with as much compassion as any somatic disease, and that it is treatable and is worthy of treatment. Many of us at the lecture felt it was disheartening to hear a doctor who has done so much good and helped the health of so many people around the world have this opinion about such a widespread and debilitating problem.

I saw him a couple years ago at my college too. Do you go to UT Austin? I attended the workshop he held and even sat in the front roll. I agree, he was a bit unorthodox, but in the end I was still swayed by his idealism. Call me naive...

 

[chewsnuffles]

Obvioulsy in this case you can tell right from wrong and good from evil. Hezbollah, as an example, is either a terrorist organization who use children as human shileds and wish to drag their society back into the dark ages after they slaughter or chase away all of the jews in the holy land or they're not. Killing them wholesale now, as well as the inevitable innocent bystanders which result whenever terrorists hide among civilans to exploit Western public opinion, is either a worthwhile endeavor or it isn't. Somebody's got right on their side and needs to fight to protect themselves.

Whoa Whoa whoa, while I agree with your posts in the most part, I think this black and white thinking your engaging in is a bit dangerous... (even though its how most people do think)
Hezbola may be terrible, but you gotta ask why they right now have such support of the entire Arab-muslin community in the region.
Saying that they are a terrorist organization, although by some accounts may be true, is not entirely accurate, and moreover moves to label them as something only worthy of compeate anhilation. It's selfish thinking, because not looking at hezbola as "a bunch of terrorists" justifies any actions against them and still allows everone to sleep well at night after what they did (kill lots of people)
Its just not true, they are supported by the people atleast to some extent (more than 50% I'm guessing), if they wern't they would have been kicked out of lebanon far earlier. (if not now with their country on the brink of collapse)
Furthermore, you have to look at what causes that support. Why has the arab-muslin community gone from being one of historically the most knowledge-rich communities to turning out international patents at a rate of something like 30 a year, when S. Korea alone gets over 10,000! What happened? This humiliation is what causes radical groups like Hezbola to be able to capture the support of the people. Then treating them like "terrorists" without dignity and "bombing them back to the stone age", when they are finally trying to get out of the stone age with a tourism based economy!!!
They want dignity back, and in the long run we want to give them it, its best for both communities and will stifle from the ground up this kind of religous fanaticism that can only take such a deep hold in countries where there is nothing else to hope in except perhaps religion.
just my two cents, feel free to comment.

 

[8744]

Whoa Whoa whoa, while I agree with your posts in the most part, I think this black and white thinking your engaging in is a bit dangerous... (even though its how most people do think)
Hezbola may be terrible, but you gotta ask why they right now have such support of the entire Arab-muslin community in the region.
Saying that they are a terrorist organization, although by some accounts may be true, is not entirely accurate, and moreover moves to label them as something only worthy of compeate anhilation. It's selfish thinking, because not looking at hezbola as "a bunch of terrorists" justifies any actions against them and still allows everone to sleep well at night after what they did (kill lots of people)
Its just not true, they are supported by the people atleast to some extent (more than 50% I'm guessing), if they wern't they would have been kicked out of lebanon far earlier. (if not now with their country on the brink of collapse)
Furthermore, you have to look at what causes that support. Why has the arab-muslin community gone from being one of historically the most knowledge-rich communities to turning out international patents at a rate of something like 30 a year, when S. Korea alone gets over 10,000! What happened? This humiliation is what causes radical groups like Hezbola to be able to capture the support of the people. Then treating them like "terrorists" without dignity and "bombing them back to the stone age", when they are finally trying to get out of the stone age with a tourism based economy!!!
They want dignity back, and in the long run we want to give them it, its best for both communities and will stifle from the ground up this kind of religous fanaticism that can only take such a deep hold in countries where there is nothing else to hope in except perhaps religion.
just my two cents, feel free to comment.

Hezbollah kidnapped those Israeli soldiers in the hopes of trading them for the release of several of their operatives. One of these operatives, to make a long story short, was part of a terrorist team that came ashore in Northern Israel, broke into people's homes and randomly murdered any jewish civilan they could find. This particular gentleman kidnapped an Israeli mother and her daughter, took them to the beach, shot the mother in the head in front of the daughter so it woud be the last thing she saw before he crushed her skull with the butt of his rifle.

Another mother accidently smothered her baby while she was hiding from this fellow as he randomly shot into the wall and ceiling of her house.

If this guy is ever exchanged he will return to Hezbollah as a great hero and they will probably have a car swarm or two in his honor. If that's not a terrorist organization then nothing is.

Your problem is that you have been indoctrinated to believe in moral equivalence and search desperately for it in every situation even to the point of absurdity. It is true that even the good guys occasionally bomb the wrong target or kill civilians. It is also true that every side in a war has it's share of atrocities. On the other hand yer' terrorist buddies use atrocity as their sole miltary tactic. It's what they do.

Come on now.

 

[8744]

....They want dignity back, and in the long run we want to give them it...

Their dignity is there own concern and it is not ours to give or take away.

 

[8744]

I saw him a couple years ago at my college too. Do you go to UT Austin? I attended the workshop he held and even sat in the front roll. I agree, he was a bit unorthodox, but in the end I was still swayed by his idealism. Call me naive...

You are naive. Being naive is nothing to be proud of. You are not getting points for retaining and nurturing child-like innocence. That's the half of the problem with our society, too many people trying to get in touch with their inner child....and being proud of it.

 

[jackieMD2007]

Your problem is that you have been indoctrinated to believe in moral equivalence and search desperately for it in every situation even to the point of absurdity. It is true that even the good guys occasionally bomb the wrong target or kill civilians. It is also true that every side in a war has it's share of atrocities. On the other hand yer' terrorist buddies use atrocity as their sole miltary tactic. It's what they do.

Come on now.

👍

 

[Beau Geste]

You are naive. Being naive is nothing to be proud of. You are not getting points for retaining and nurturing child-like innocence. That's the half of the problem with our society, too many people trying to get in touch with their inner child....and being proud of it.

Panda,

I 😍 you.

Ok, I'm married, but still, you're my SDN hero.

👍 👍 👍

 

[Pkboi24]

You are naive. Being naive is nothing to be proud of. You are not getting points for retaining and nurturing child-like innocence. That's the half of the problem with our society, too many people trying to get in touch with their inner child....and being proud of it.

Obviously, our views of the world differ. There's no point in arguing about that, but the same could be said about the other half of society who have lost sight of what is pure and ideal. Sometimes being cynical and calculating is nothing to be proud of either.

 

[8744]

Obviously, our views of the world differ. There's no point in arguing about that, but the same could be said about the other half of society who have lost sight of what is pure and ideal. Sometimes being cynical and calculating is nothing to be proud of either.

Cynical maybe, but not calculating. I think what you call "cynicism" I would call healthy skepticism.

I'm actually quite idealistic. I just that I have conservative ideals the formost of which is that human nature is unchangable and there is, consequently, no possibility of a utopia while there are two people left alive.

And there is nothing "calculating" about me. I just know when when smoke is being blown up my ass.

 

[MSTP?]

x

 

[velo]

The bottom line is that very few people can be Patch Adams, and that's a good thing. There's something to be said about having a few rebels out there, doing things radically different and making us reexamine the status quo, but if every doctor in America were Patch Adams things would come crashing down in a heap. You can't spend 4 hrs with every patient...not all of them want that and besides if you need that long you're being horribly inefficient. I establish report with the patient and take a ridiculously detailed MSIII H&P in an hour.

No one's going to make a movie about evidence based medicine, but that's the kind of stuff that really has a positive effect on healthcare...I can see it now, Robin Williams tackling the establishment with nothing but a 95% CI and a dream...

 

[notdeadyet]

Your problem is that you have been indoctrinated to believe in moral equivalence and search desperately for it in every situation even to the point of absurdity. It is true that even the good guys occasionally bomb the wrong target or kill civilians. It is also true that every side in a war has it's share of atrocities.

(Waiting for Panda to come out with either the classic "America: Love It or Leave It" or start calling people "Pinko"...)

 

[chewsnuffles]

Hezbollah kidnapped those Israeli soldiers in the hopes of trading them for the release of several of their operatives. One of these operatives, to make a long story short, was part of a terrorist team that came ashore in Northern Israel, broke into people's homes and randomly murdered any jewish civilan they could find. This particular gentleman kidnapped an Israeli mother and her daughter, took them to the beach, shot the mother in the head in front of the daughter so it woud be the last thing she saw before he crushed her skull with the butt of his rifle.

Another mother accidently smothered her baby while she was hiding from this fellow as he randomly shot into the wall and ceiling of her house.

If this guy is ever exchanged he will return to Hezbollah as a great hero and they will probably have a car swarm or two in his honor. If that's not a terrorist organization then nothing is.

Your problem is that you have been indoctrinated to believe in moral equivalence and search desperately for it in every situation even to the point of absurdity. It is true that even the good guys occasionally bomb the wrong target or kill civilians. It is also true that every side in a war has it's share of atrocities. On the other hand yer' terrorist buddies use atrocity as their sole miltary tactic. It's what they do.

Come on now.

Call me indocrinated to believe in moral equivalencies or what have you, you may be right, but don't spare youself from the same media viwepoints which have effected everyone who gets news from any other way besides seeing it in person. "My terrorist buddies" - I have neither ties to them nor love for them, but having lived in Turkey for a while I have been baraged my islam-arab opinions. To them terrorism is death coming from the skies. Ultimately, if peace is the goal in the middle east, death tolls for the lebense that are 10x what israel has suffered and a destroyed country are not going to leave good feelings in the region.

 

[8744]

Call me indocrinated to believe in moral equivalencies or what have you, you may be right, but don't spare youself from the same media viwepoints which have effected everyone who gets news from any other way besides seeing it in person. "My terrorist buddies" - I have neither ties to them nor love for them, but having lived in Turkey for a while I have been baraged my islam-arab opinions. To them terrorism is death coming from the skies. Ultimately, if peace is the goal in the middle east, death tolls for the lebense that are 10x what israel has suffered and a destroyed country are not going to leave good feelings in the region.

"Good feelings?" Good Lord, if that's all you're after then you will be sorely disappointed. The trouble here is that you confuse public opinion and the lunatic beliefs of the so-called Arab street with reality. Can you really take people seriously who believe that Osama was responsible for 9/11 but three minutes later tell you it was a zionist plot? Why play along with their delusions by lending them credence?

If you really want to get technical the biggest butchers of Moslems are other Moslems. For sheer Moslem body count the Israelis are pikers compared to the Iranians, the Iraqis, the Syrians, and the Egyptians.

Not to mention the Jordanians who butchered 10,000 of yer' precious Palestinians and drove the rest out of Jordan.

Screw peace. You folks throw the word around like it is some sort of magical talisman.

 

[notdeadyet]

Can you really take people seriously who believe that Osama was responsible for 9/11 but three minutes later tell you it was a zionist plot?

Can you really take people seriously who believe that there is a connection between the war on Iraq and the war on terror? For those with an MTV-span memory, we were originally going to invade Iraq because of WMDs. When those weren't found, the mission changed to war on Iraq due to complicity in 9/11. When those links weren't found, the mission changed to war on Iraq to bring them freedom.

Can you take these people seriously?

Why play along with their delusions by lending them credence?

Exactly!

Screw peace. You folks throw the word around like it is some sort of magical talisman.

Not a magical talisman. Just a sound political option. Not nearly as simple an option as bombing and invading; it requires more work and tact.

 

[Beau Geste]

Can you really take people seriously who believe that there is a connection between the war on Iraq and the war on terror? For those with an MTV-span memory, we were originally going to invade Iraq because of WMDs. When those weren't found, the mission changed to war on Iraq due to complicity in 9/11. When those links weren't found, the mission changed to war on Iraq to bring them freedom.

Yeah. Chemical weapons must not be WMDs. Oh, and Saddam would *never* get rid of any WMD evidence ahead of time if the UN told him in advance they were investigating. Saddam is such an innocent guy all around and he's the best friend of the good 'ol USA! When are people going to see that Saddam, Iran, Saudis, etc, etc. ALL have it out for the USA with help from France and Russia (oh and our UN buddies). Please.

👎

Missions evolve all the time. I think it was a good idea to help the Iraqis establish a sovereign nation rather than tear up the country looking for the hidden WMDs, then leave them to their own.

 

[8744]

Can you really take people seriously who believe that there is a connection between the war on Iraq and the war on terror?

You see? You're trying to establish a moral equivalence between a reasonable disagreement between "strategery" for fighting terrorism and lunatics who literally want to drag their societies back to the good old days of the seventh century. What's the appeal of radical islam to "progressives" (or whatever liberals want to be called now days)? The islamofascist death cult which you admire pretty much is against everything that you profess to hold as an ideal.

Just call me puzzled as to why anybody who professes to admire liberal democracy would be such a cheerleader for folks who make Jerry Falwell look like Boy George.

 

[8744]

Not a magical talisman. Just a sound political option. Not nearly as simple an option as bombing and invading; it requires more work and tact.

Peace is not a sound political option but the result of some kind of leverage against your enemy, either military or economic, which makes him decide that fighting isn't worth it. This includes utterly destroying either his capacity or his will to fight or both.

It is never going to result from talking and linking hands, especially not against an enemy that doesn't give a rat's ass about peace except as it can use your aversion to war as leverage for it's military inferiority. In this regard, the peace fetishists are either useful idiots or fellow travellers.

Basically, you advocate "peace at any cost." Your enemies, who know this, can always back you into submission as you are unwilling to do anything but talk.

 

[MossPoh]

I am still proposing that group hug. Panda..I know you want in..You seem like the hugging type of guy. 😛

 

[notdeadyet]

Saddam is such an innocent guy all around and he's the best friend of the good 'ol USA!

Guess Bush's dad shouldn't have sold him so much weaponry then.

Missions evolve all the time. I think it was a good idea to help the Iraqis establish a sovereign nation rather than tear up the country looking for the hidden WMDs, then leave them to their own.

Missions evolve. What's happened here is the justification for the mission keeps getting changed for political gain. The public supported invading Iraq because we were told Saddam had WMD to use. When we found out he didn't, we were told that he had links to 9/11. When we found out he didn't, we were told that we were doing it for... democracy.

Before the war started, if Bush tried to drum up support to invade Iraq for the sake of democracy, he'd have been shot down quicker than a scud.

 

[notdeadyet]

When are people going to see that Saddam, Iran, Saudis, etc, etc. ALL have it out for the USA with help from France and Russia (oh and our UN buddies).

We used to have allies before we started invading other sovereign nations who do not pose immediate threats to national security.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a total pacifist. I was supportive of the invasion of Afghanistan to find Bin Laden. But when it was proposed that we invade Iraq since they had WMDs they were about to use, like much of the world, I scratched my head and said "huh?"