Month: February 2007

Saturday Night At The Movies

Arise, Commie Pinko Hollywood Lefties

By Dennis Hartley

Every time I see our illustrious VP’s mug on the tube or hear mention of Halliburton, I always flash on my favorite scene in Warren Beatty’s Reds. Early in the film, we are first introduced to the story’s protagonist, journalist/activist/Communist John Reed (Beatty), as he attends a meeting of the Liberal Club, where the discussion has turned to America’s involvement in the current war (WWI). Reed, who has just returned from reporting on the European Front, is asked what he thinks the conflict is “about”. Reed stands up, faces the group, mumbles one word, then sits back down. The word is: “Profits”. The crystalline brevity of that answer really blew my (then) twenty-something mind back in 1981.

Indeed, it is a testament to Beatty’s sense of conviction and legendary powers of persuasion (or, as Tom Hanks put it so succinctly at the recent Golden Globe Awards, “Balls”) that he was able to convince a major Hollywood studio to back a 3 ½ hour epic about a relatively obscure American Communist (who is buried in the Kremlin!).

As we know now, of course, the film turned out to be a critical success, and garnered a dozen Oscar noms (it won three, including Best Director). Almost unbelievably, it was not released on DVD until late 2006. If you haven’t seen it in a while or (gasp!) have never seen it-you owe yourself a screening (particularly if you are a history buff).

Diane Keaton turns in one of her best performances as Reed’s lover, writer and feminist Louise Bryant. Maureen Stapleton (who we sadly lost last year) certainly earned her Best Supporting Actress trophy with a memorable portrayal of activist Emma Goldman. Jack Nicholson’s take on the complex, mercurial playwright, Eugene O’Neill is a wonder to behold. And Beatty deserves special kudos for assembling an amazing group of surviving real-life participants, whose anecdotal recollections are seamlessly interwoven throughout, like a Greek Chorus of living history. No one makes ‘em like this anymore.

If you really want to make a night of it, a certain rousing anthem that figures prominently in the “Reds” soundtrack is the sole spotlight of another recent DVD release. Blending archival footage with thoughtful commentary, The Internationale takes a look at the origins and continuing historical impact of its namesake, from its 19th century roots in the French Commune movement to Tiananmen Square and beyond, packed into a breezy 30 minutes. Arguably one of the most idealized (and frequently misinterpreted) rallying songs ever composed (just the melody alone gives me goose bumps), the tune has been embraced by Socialists, Marxists, anarchists, anti-Fascists, workers and labor activists alike over the years, transcending nationalist and language barriers. The most interesting aspect the film examines concerns the bad rap the song received after it was “officially” adapted by the oppressive, post-revolutionary Soviet regime. Pete Seeger (a perfect choice, no?) emcees the proceedings, with support from historians, musicologists, and multi-national participants (veteran and current) in some of the aforementioned movements. British punk agitprop troubadour extraordinaire Billy Bragg also makes a brief appearance. C’mon everybody (You know the words!)

Marx brothers: October (Ten Days That Shook the World), Battleship Potemkin, Kino-Eye/ Three Songs Of Lenin, Anastasia (1956), Nicholas and Alexandra, Doctor Zhivago ,Bound for Glory,Land and Freedom, The Motorcycle Diaries, I Am Cuba. And on the lighter side: Good Bye, Lenin!, Children of the Revolution, Bananas.

.

Crisis Schmisis

by digby

Like the wingnut he’s become, the ever more unctuous Joe Lieberman threatens a “constitutional crisis” if his colleagues don’t do what he wants:

Even as our troops have begun to take Baghdad back step-by-step, there are many in this Congress who have nevertheless already reached a conclusion about the futility of America’s cause there, and declared their intention to put an end to this mission not with one direct attempt to cutoff funds, but step by political step. No matter what the rhetoric of this resolution, that is the reality of the moment. This non-binding measure before us is a first step toward a constitutional crisis that we can and must avoid.

Lieberman believes that said crisis is being precipitated because the congress has the temerity to try to rein in a rogue president who has no respect for the wishes of the American people or the constitution.

One would think a person so concerned with the constitution would have stepped up at some time in the last few years to denounce this:

When President Bush signed the new law, sponsored by Senator McCain, restricting the use of torture when interrogating detainees, he also issued a Presidential signing statement. That statement asserted that his power as Commander-in-Chief gives him the authority to bypass the very law he had just signed.

This news came fast on the heels of Bush’s shocking admission that, since 2002, he has repeatedly authorized the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant, in flagrant violation of applicable federal law.

And before that, Bush declared he had the unilateral authority to ignore the Geneva Conventions and to indefinitely detain without due process both immigrants and citizens as enemy combatants.

All these declarations echo the refrain Bush has been asserting from the outset of his presidency. That refrain is simple: Presidential power must be unilateral, and unchecked.

But the most recent and blatant presidential intrusions on the law and Constitution supply the verse to that refrain. They not only claim unilateral executive power, but also supply the train of the President’s thinking, the texture of his motivations, and the root of his intentions.

They make clear, for instance, that the phrase “unitary executive” is a code word for a doctrine that favors nearly unlimited executive power. Bush has used the doctrine in his signing statements to quietly expand presidential authority.

And Lieberman has been with him every step of the way. He is in no position to talk about constitutional crises ever. He supports the most aggressive executive power grab in American history even to the extent that he votes for torture, indefinite detention without due process, and anything else his “commander in chief” says he wants to do. He has no more credibility to warn this nation about a constitutional crisis than his BFF George W. Bush has to claim it’s “preposterous” to suggest he would manufacture evidence that Iran is provoking a military confrontation. Please.

.

Power Slurp

by digby

“Yes, there was a separate [national security] staff set up by the vice president, and yes, they created a certain mystique,” the source said. “But the real power of the vice president was that he could go in and talk to the president about whatever he wanted, and staff didn’t always know what he was saying.”

I think we can imagine it though:

DC: “You’re a strong man, a manly man, a man who makes women quake and men tremble in your presence. You’re a gut player, a man who knows instantly the right thing to do. So when I tell you that your brilliant idea to bomb Iran will go down in history as the boldest decision a world leader has ever made, I think you know I mean it. Thank you for making the tough decisions and sticking with them.”

GWB: “Yeah, it’s hard work bein’ the most powerful man on earth. But Dick, I don’t remember giving the order to bomb Iran. Did I?”

DC: “All of us were very impressed with your resolute boldness and bold resoluteness. Years from now, after you’re dead, people will build monuments to commemorate your valiant leadership”

GWB: “Right, right. It had to be done. Uh, when did I order them to start the bombing again?”

DC: “Already on their way. Here’s your speech.”

GWB: “Great. Feels good.”

.

“Bewildered, Confounded and Miserably Perplexed”

by digby

With wingnuts peddling phony Abraham Lincoln quotes left and right, it’s probably a good idea to take a closer look at what Abraham Lincoln actually said. Queequeg found a speech he gave on the House floor in 1848 during a debate on the Mexican War. And guess what:

Lincoln brought up three issues, all of which are found in the debate over the occupation of Iraq: funding of the occupation, deception about the reason for war, and predictions about the ease and brevity of the fighting. On all three issues, today’s Democrats echo Lincoln’s arguments.

And they do. This passage, though, is far more scathing and insulting than anything a Democrat has said:

As to the mode of terminating the war, and securing peace, the President is equally wandering and indefinite. First, it is to be done by a more vigorous prosecution of the war in the vital parts of the enemy’s country; and, after apparently talking himself tired on this point, the President drops down into a half despairing tone, and tells us that “with a people distracted and divided by contending factions, and a government subject to constant changes, by successive revolutions, the continued success of our arms may fail to secure a satisfactory peace.” Then he suggests the propriety of wheedling the Mexican people to desert the counsels of their own leaders, and trusting in our protection to set up a government from which we can secure a satisfactory peace; telling us that “this may become the only mode of obtaining such a peace.” But soon he falls into doubt of this too; and then drops back on to the already half abandoned ground of “more vigorous prosecution.” All this shows that the President is, in no wise, satisfied with his own positions. … His mind, tasked beyond its power, is running hither and thither, like some tortured creature on a burning surface, finding no position on which it can settle down and be at ease.

Again, it is a singular omission in this message that it nowhere intimates when the President expects the the war to terminate. … As I have before said, he knows not where he is. He is a bewildered, confounded, and miserably perplexed man. God grant he may be able to show there is not something about his conscience more painful than all his mental perplexity!

Why that’s downright uncivil. Call a blogger ethics panel immediately!

Lincoln said a few other things that the wingnuts might not like to hear:

Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose – and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable – a most sacred right – a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.

The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly, the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of liberty.

My dream is of a place and a time where America will once again be seen as the last best hope of earth.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

Today we have the new poster girl of the Republican Party saying this:

I have to tell you, in general, I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it.”

The old gray Republican party ain’t what it used to be.

h/t to Jeff C

My Conversation With Barack’s Fundraisers

by poputonian

This is pretty much how the telephone solicitation went down:

FUNDRAISER: [Opening script] … can we count on you for $150?

ME: I will vote Democrat, but I won’t give any money to Obama’s campaign. I disagree with him when he says it does no harm to children when adult authorities force them to stand and recite the pledge ritual.

FUNDRAISER: [Long follow-up script] … can we count on you for $50?

ME: No, Barack Obama doesn’t respect the separation of Church and State the way I believe he should.

FUNDRAISER: But but … we’re a Christian nation … that’s what we are. Weren’t the Founders Christians?

ME: Not necessarily; some were, but some were also atheists and some were deists. You can track the way Virginia law asserted in the positive that atheists were eligible for public office. If Obama gets the Democratic nomination, I will vote for him, and I will vote for him in the primary above Edwards or Hillary. But he won’t get money from me as long as he panders to the religious nuts in this country. Please tell Obama that I said that.

FUNDRAISER: OK – thank you for your time.

I gotta admire him, though, that his is the first call I’ve gotten. His campaign appears organized and serious, and I like the way he’s skewering Hillary “I don’t make mistakes” Clinton for her war vote.

One other thing, too, about Mr. Happy, Terry McAuliffe. Last week this millionaire consultant and frequent golfer appeared on several talk shows stating how each and every day, he tells Hillary to just go out and have fun.

Yeah – why am I not surprised? What’s there for her to get all serious and introspective about?

What’s In A Pseudonym?

by poputonian

The other day I posted about the pseudonyms used by Samuel Adams in publishing anonymous political essays.

It took a long time for Samuel Adams to come to the surface of Boston politics, even though his father was a powerful figure in the caucuses and the General Court. One reason for the delayed “arrival” is that Adams is almost alone in history as a man who sincerely desired anonymity. His major writings were signed not “Adams” but “Determinatus,” “Candidus,” “Vindex,” “Populus,” “Alfred,” “Valerius Poplicola,” “T.Z.,” “Shippen,”, “a Bostonian,” “a Tory,” “E.A.,” “a Layman,” “an Impartialist,” “a chatterer,” — even later, when he could have gained great credit by acknowledging his full opus, he would not take the trouble. The writings had done their work; that was what he wanted. He often ended his letters with the command “Burn this,” and he took his own advice by consigning nearly all his correspondence files to the flames, leaving behind a relatively small amount in the hands of others or in public print.
…
In the eighteen months from December 1770 to June 1772 he turned out 36 political essays for the [Boston] Gazette, an output not matched by any other writer of the time.

But the use of pseudonyms wasn’t restricted to the Boston radicals; right-wing blowhards had them too, and they were coming after Adams:

Hutchinson had split Hancock away from the faction; only Adams remained a danger to the provincial government, and the governor had plans for him. “I have taken much pains to procure writers,” he said, “to answer the pieces in the newspapers which do so much mischief among the country people.” He had two or three writers contributing to Draper’s Massachusetts Gazette, he said, besides the help of a new press and a young printer “who says he will not be frightened and I hope for some good effect.” The Crown writers sallied into print — Chronus, Probus, Benevolus, and Philanthrop — to “blow the coals,” as Hutchinson put it.

Oh brother. Probus? Some things never change. And I’ll take Benevolus and Philanthrop to be more evidence of the upper-crust wingers holding themselves in high esteem, a fact also consistent with modern times.

I’m surprised Hutchinson didn’t write under the pseudonym, TRUSTUS, a label befitting a man who held a plurality of key offices. In the pitch of James Otis’s battle against the illegal Writs of Assistance, Boston born and bred Hutchinson held the following offices all at once: lieutenant governor, chief justice of the Superior Court, president of the council of the General Court, judge of the probate in two different counties, and commander of Castle William, the fort controlling Boston harbor. When Otis so gallantly fought in court against the Writs, it was Hutchinson, the staunch loyalist and Chief Justice of the court who stymied the effort. It was not until more than five years later, in the mid-1760s that Connecticut pushed through the opposition to the Writs and Parliament finally acknowledged their illegality.

As to the use of pseudonyms, my own is an accidental concatenation of two of Adams’s – Populus and A Bostonian; I didn’t mean for it to happen that way (I misread the list,) but I’m satisfied with it nonetheless.

An Inconvenient Truth

by digby

Howie Kurtz’s new bff spills the beans:

Right-wing author and pundit Michelle Malkin filled in for Bill O’Reilly tonight on The O’Reilly Factor. During a segment on a newly-proposed Airline Passengers Bill of Rights, Malkin said, “So you’re behind this Passengers’ Bill of Rights move. I have to tell you, in general, I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it.”

How unsurprising. Now can we stop the pretense that the rightwing of American politics is anything but a braindead, authoritarian cult?

.

Resolve This

by digby

Reader BK has been sending me links to this resolution for a couple of weeks now and I failed to look at them closely enough. (I had a bunch of people in Nigeria who needed my attention and I won the Norwegian lottery!) Anyway, he reminded me of them today and I went back and looked at them:

Here’s the resolution:

RESOLUTION

Disavowing the doctrine of preemption.

Whereas President Bush has declared in a variety of documents and fora that the United States has the right to unilaterally exercise military action, including preemptive nuclear strikes, against nations that have not attacked the United States, creating what has been termed the `doctrine of preemption’;

Whereas the doctrine of preemption contemplates initiating warfare against a nation that might not pose an imminent threat of harm to the United States and far exceeds the commonly understood view, set out in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in international and United States law, that nations enjoy the right of self-defense, and that such self-defense might include undertaking military action to prevent an imminent attack;

Whereas the doctrine of preemption represents a radical departure from the official position of the United States since the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations;

Whereas the doctrine of preemption threatens to set a dangerous precedent that might then be cited by other countries, including other nuclear powers, to justify preemptive military action against perceived threats;

Whereas United States policy has long recognized the value to our national security of advancing the respect for and adherence to the international rule of law;

Whereas actions that diminish the international consensus on normative legal behavior and leave open the prospect that nations will readily resort to military force outside of those normative boundaries increase international instability and undercut the national security interests of the United States;

Whereas the doctrine of preemption contradicts the Charter of the United Nations to which the United States is a signatory, which, as a result of its ratification by the United States, is incorporated into United States law, and which reads, in part, `All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations’ (Article 2, section 4);

Whereas the Charter of the United Nations, while disallowing preventive war, does not preclude military actions of self-defense, reading in part, `Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security’ (Article 51); and

Whereas under the United States Constitution, the President, as Commander in Chief, possesses the authority to use military force to protect the United States from attack or imminent attack: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That–

(1) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States possesses the inherent right to defend itself against imminent or actual attack, as codified in the Charter of the United Nations and embodied in the traditions of international law, but that right does not extend to undertaking military action in the absence of such an imminent or actual attack; and

(2) the House of Representatives disavows the doctrine of preemption because it poses a threat to international law and to the national security interests of the United States.

This sounds eminently reasonable to me.

Representative Barbara Lee has been submitting this bill since 2003. That year she had 23 co-cponsors:

Rep. Corrine Brown [D-FL]
Rep. Julia Carson [D-IN]
Rep. John Conyers [D-MI]
Rep. Sam Farr [D-CA]
Rep. Bob Filner [D-CA]
Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D-AZ]
Rep. Alcee Hastings [D-FL]
Rep. Rush Holt [D-NJ]
Rep. Jesse Jackson [D-IL]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
Rep. Stephanie Jones [D-OH]
Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D-OH]
Rep. John Lewis [D-GA]
Rep. James McDermott [D-WA]
Rep. James McGovern [D-MA]
Rep. George Miller [D-CA]
Rep. Eleanor Norton [D-DC]
Rep. Major Owens [D-NY]
Rep. Donald Payne [D-NJ]
Rep. José Serrano [D-NY]
Rep. Hilda Solis [D-CA]
Rep. Fortney Stark [D-CA]
Rep. Maxine Waters [D-CA]
Rep. Diane Watson [D-CA]
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D-CA]

In 2005 it was down to 15:

Rep. John Conyers [D-MI]
Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA]
Rep. Maurice Hinchey [D-NY]
Rep. Rush Holt [D-NJ]
Rep. Stephanie Jones [D-OH]
Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick [D-MI]
Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D-OH]
Rep. James McDermott [D-WA]
Rep. George Miller [D-CA]
Rep. Donald Payne [D-NJ]
Rep. José Serrano [D-NY]
Rep. Fortney Stark [D-CA]
Rep. Maxine Waters [D-CA]
Rep. Diane Watson [D-CA]
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D-CA]

She reintroduced it this year and here’s the current list of co-sponsors*:

Rep. Maxine Waters [D-CA]

It’s possible that it just hasn’t been on the radar screen yet, but it’s also possible that now that the Democrats are in power they don’t want to have to deal with this thing. I think that’s a huge mistake. Anything that has Bush’s name on it is poison right now with the American people. If the shoe were on the other foot and a Democratic president had a 30% approval rating and an even lower rating on foreign policy, you know the Republicans would.

Oh, and incidentally — it might just keep both the US and Iran from making a big fat mistake. The nationa and the world needs to see that the US is not united behind this preventive war doctrine.

.

*The web site this is linked from says that co-sponsorship can be out of date.

Now You’re Talking

by digby

Bill Richardson figured out a way to talk about Iran without sounding like he’s talking underwater. He’s asking people to sign a petition:

I am joining Bill Richardson to send a clear message to the Bush administration that we will not tolerate ill-conceived and unauthorized aggression against Iran. It would be a mistake for the US to take military action in Iran before exhausting all diplomatic avenues. Tough, direct diplomacy backed by strong international alliances can work. This is exactly the strategy that worked in North Korea and it can work in Iran.

I demand this administration start direct diplomacy with Iran immediately and stop the irresponsible aggression.

This administration has stubbornly refused to pursue real, honest diplomacy in Iran and engage our allies around the world to help negotiate a solution. Instead, they are pursuing a strategy of non-negotiation and threats of possible US military action. We are clear and united – we want negotiations now and no unauthorized and unwarranted attacks in Iran.

See how easy it is to not sound like like a Republican asshole? And to think he did it without making a fetish of saying “all options are on the table.” Why, someone might even think the man has some experience doing this type of thing.

There are other ways too. Dover Bitch sent me this YouTube of Congressman Sandy Levin yesterday. I think you’ll find this part particularly satisfying:

“The debate we are having today is about the future of our nation’s policy in Iraq. So my main focus will not be to catalog the litany of the Administration’s past grave mistakes and misstatements over the last four years.

“At the same time, as a lesson for the future, it is important to remember that the war in Iraq was the first application of what has become known as the Bush Doctrine. This policy was unveiled by the President in his commencement speech at West Point in June of 2002 and made policy a few months later in the Administration’s 2002 National Security Strategy.

“The Administration’s doctrine stressed preemptive attack, U.S. military superiority, and U.S. unilateral action. This flawed policy has proven to be disastrous. It has destabilized Iraq and threatens to undermine the stability of the entire region. The doctrine blinded the Administration to the Pandora’s Box it was opening when it invaded Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist, and 9-11 terrorists that were not there.

“Far from strengthening U.S. security, this misguided doctrine has put our nation’s vital interests at greater risk. The elevation of unilateralism has helped erode our nation’s standing in the world

.

Easy as pie.

.

The Fallacy Of The Disembodied Mind

by tristero

This is woo-woo hoo-hah. Take this little anecdote:

Now let’s say that a man loses his job, becomes depressed, and wants a prescription for Prozac. What made him depressed isn’t the imbalance of serotonin in his brain but the loss of his job. Yet science continues to offer this kind of wrong explanation all the time. It mistakes agency for cause. The brain is serving as the agent of the mind, it isn’t causing mind.

Where to start? Chopra confuses anger, sadness, and possibly guiilt with what is clearly a medical condition. Or he confuses the colloquial use of the word “depressed” with the medical term “depressed.” Either way, he fails to recognize that there is a difference between the state of serious depression – which requires clinical treatment and shouldn’t rule out medication – and the complex of emotions felt normally when one loses a job – which doesn’t rise to the level of clinical seriousness. Those of us who either know someone who has clinical depression or who have personally suffered depression – perhaps most of us fall into one or other, if not both, categories – know that the depth of major depression and its very real dangers goes far beyond a mere reaction to the vicissitudes of life. In regulating emotion during depression, clearly the brain is badly misfiring, and that misfiring is indeed the cause of the disorder, among other causes.

To repeat, essentially, depression – in the technical sense – is a medical condition caused along the biochemical axis by certain dysfunctions in the apparatus that regulates the release of neurotransmitters, and not just serotonin (it is a gross oversimplification to limit the cause of depression merely to serotonin levels, dopamine plays an important role, as do other neurotransmitters). Depression manifests itself in behavioral symptoms detailed in the DSM-IV and it can be exacerbated (or brought on) by the brain’s reaction to life problems. However, clinical depression in no way is caused exclusively, or even predominantly, by life situations (with exceptions duly noted for extreme suffering: eg, the onset of depression after being tortured at Abu Ghraib, after losing your home in New Orleans, being arrested and detained indefinitely in solitary confinement a la Padilla, and so on). It is a brain disorder.

And then Chopra falls into one the hoariest errors in dualism. If the brain does not cause mind, then what does? And if that “what” is some non-material cause, say God, how does the non-material interact/interface with the material?

Now, whether or not we assume that Chopra is invoking something like God here – for example, he might be saying that what “causes” mind is the individual embedded in a culture – we are left, to Chopra’s misfortune, with the inescapable fact that there is no reliable evidence that an individual mind persists after the destruction/death of the brain, which really puts kind of a dent in his notion that the brain doesn’t cause mind.

Now if Chopra argued that mind cannot exist either without both brain and human society, he would be saying something I could agree to, but also something trivial. No one disagrees. But he seems to be asserting some kind of notion of mind that exists over and beyond physically-instantiated causes. And that is absurd. All he ends up doing is illustrate the pointlessness of attempting to argue by logic for the existence of the supernatural.

Likewise, another of Chopra’s point – the assertion that the wrong level of analysis often is brought to bear on the issue of depression – is very well-known. Again, speaking in generalizations, it is naive to talk about the “cause” of something like depression. It has many causes (including possible genetic ones), as do many other diseases for which Chopra doesn’t and wouldn’t claim supernatural cause – eg, diabetes. I would immediately agree that any psychiatrist who treated merely the neurotransmitter imbalances of depression without asking about life situations is doing his/her patient a grave disservice. But an efficacious treatment for depression does not, in any way require some kind of vague invoking of a supernatural, extra-material cause. In fact a resort to supernatural explanations would be worthless, if not counterproductive.

It is people like Chopra, who can’t wait to call upon woo woo, who make it extremely difficult to articulate criticisms of present-day scientific paradigms of depression and other complex human conditions. It seems reasonable to claim that the combination of personal biological functions and predispositions in concert with certain kinds of life situations is a more plausible cause of depression than the once trendy focus on the isolated chemistry of one individual. But that is a far cry from Chopra’s vague, and to my mind (ahem) at least, vaguely unpleasant, new age thinking.

There are responsible people who can talk about these very same issues. Depression, for instance, is a very important topic. What Chopra has to contribute to the discussion, other than his celebrity, seems roughly equal to zero. I fail to understand why HuffPo is giving him a platform and not some qualified physician.