Terrorism is a conspiracy. Amy Bishop and the Austin pilot are criminals not terrorists because are acting alone for their own unique issues. No conspiracy. Timothy McVeigh and the abortion bombers are terrorists. LETS WATERBOARD THEM!

So Tiger Woods is athletic, wealthy, and we now know he has sex with lots of women. Doesn't this make him an even better American role model?

Why does the distinction between terrorist and criminal matter? Either way, you are just as dead. I don't see why it matters if someone shoots you because they want your wallet, or if they shoot you because "they hate our freedoms".

I don't see why the # of actors matters. One man + one bomb + multiple victims (or hostages) would clearly equal terrorism . To me the difference is the intent. If a peron (or group) kills another (or group) with the purpose being only the elimination of the victims, that seems to be homicide. If the goal is to send a message (to future potential victims) regarding some poltical agenda or ideology then it is clearly "terrorism." If the Austin pilot was aiming only to destroy property because he hates the IRS, that seems no different than vandalization (on a much larger scale.) If he was trying to kill a particular tax assesor then that would be attempted murder (or homicide.) If he wanted to kill one (or more people) to make a political statement aimed at intimidating the public, that seems to clearly be terrorism. If he was only aiming to damage property to send a political message of intimidation to the public, then you get into the grey area of terrorism (IMO.) If the Weathermen were terrorists, then I don't see why this guy would be classified differently. The Fort Hood shooter

Haven't watched the DV, but just want to say that I think it's silly - and actually, dangerous - to argue over what constitutes "terrorism." As we saw from the Bush era, labelling criminals "terrorists" is often used as an excuse to deny them legal counsel, or even basic human rights... They should be just be judged on the content of their crime - murder is murder. (Same reason I oppose "hate crimes" legislation.)

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Why does the distinction between terrorist and criminal matter?

What does it matter?! Good one! I love your dry sense of humor.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: ...

Nailed it.

Quoting nikkibong: Haven't watched the DV, but just want to say that I think it's silly - and actually, dangerous - to argue over what constitutes "terrorism."

As we saw from the Bush era, labelling criminals "terrorists" is often used as an excuse to deny them legal counsel, or even basic human rights...

They should be just be judged on the content of their crime - murder is murder. (Same reason I oppose "hate crimes" legislation.)

nikkibong gets it in one! It's a pointless, semantically null conversation that only serves the interests of people interested in utilizing hysteria.

Quoting AemJeff: nikkibong gets it in one! It's a pointless, semantically null conversation that only serves the interests of people interested in utilizing hysteria.

Second that.

Quoting bjkeefe: Second that.

I thought you guys were talking about the Conn & LGF episode from a couple of days ago. That featured completely pointless word games too.

What's the solution to the "dangerous" problem of "argu[ing] over what constitutes 'terrorism'?" Should we stop using the word "terrorism?" Or does the word still have utility to differentiate between crimes with different motives?

Bob as Moral Animal

Quoting TwinSwords: What's the solution to the "dangerous" problem of "argu[ing] over what constitutes 'terrorism'?"

I don't think it's a "'dangerous' problem." I think it's largely a waste of time, is all.

Should we stop using the word "terrorism?" Or does the word still have utility to differentiate some acts of crime from others?

Of course we should not stop using that word. But we should also not cheapen it by seeking to label every last act of violence with it. My own sense is that we should reserve the word terrorist to describe someone who acts on behalf of (or who is used by, as with the Underpants Bomber) a group that is willing to use murder of innocents, and other attempts to create a feeling of terror in a population, in service of a specific ideology. Thus, I think Stack, just like Amy Bishop, is nothing more than a disturbed individual. That one can draw some connections to a few general things he said to other groups is of no significance. I mean, who doesn't hate the IRS, when you come right down to it?

There are similarities between Buddhism and therapy, so I'm not so sure it's necessary to place Buddhism in such a different category.

Quoting TwinSwords: What's the solution to the "dangerous" problem of "argu[ing] over what constitutes 'terrorism'?"

Should we stop using the word "terrorism?" Or does the word still have utility to differentiate between crimes with different motives?

The only functions I can see in pursuing that distinction would be to justify actions on the basis of an entirely rhetorical "war" on "terror" in militaristic terms, and to create a dehumanized category of person toward whom we're justified in withholding basic rights.

I largely agree but I think where it gets tricky is in areas like intimidation. I think burning a cross on somebodies lawn or mock lynching are substantially different from simple destruction of property. The mob, klan and other organizations have used the tactic of skating right up to the edge of what is "legal" to create atmospheres of fear that encroach on the rights of others. While I agree the terrorism/crime discussion is overplayed at times (and various sides frame it for political gain) I think that there are good reasons that these distinctions came about historically.

Human beings - maybe male human beings in particular - are subject to some powerful contradictions in terms of love and lust. And a guy in the position Tiger Woods was in is faced with those contradictions much more intensely because his temptations are so much more readily available and even aggressive. But that doesn't mean he doesn't also want a stable love relationship. The contradiction has to be very tough to deal with.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I largely agree but I think where it gets tricky is in areas like intimidation. I think burning a cross on somebodies lawn or mock lynching are substantially different from simple destruction of property. The mob, klan and other organizations have used the tactic of skating right up to the edge of what is "legal" to create atmospheres of fear that encroach on the rights of others. While I agree the terrorism/crime discussion is overplayed at times (and various sides frame it for political gain) I think that there are good reasons that these distinctions came about historically.

But, "Hate Crimes" are a category distinct from "terrorism." And hate crimes legislation doesn't seem to be an attempt to circumvent Constitutional concerns.

Agreed. I was responding more to Nikki and why I think hate crimes are different than just the physical action (grafiti, prank call etc.) that serve as their most prominent components. As far as the use of "terrorism" to get around constitutional protections, I whole-heartedly agree. I would add that due to a nasty cold and sleep-deprivation, I'm not at my most coherent this morning ;-)

Quoting Starwatcher162536: So Tiger Woods is athletic, wealthy, and we now know he has sex with lots of women. Doesn't this make him an even better American role model?

That would make him a terrorist, wouldn't it? I mean, by trampling on the sacred bonds of marriage, Tiger has done more harm to America than all of Bin Laden's chaste angels of destruction. Will America ever recover? Will the all American boy ever be the same again?

I don't care about sports, so I just watched the last two parts of the diavlog. I usually don't like Althouse, but here I thought she made some good points. I also think that we shouldn't waterboard (a theoretically useful technique that I don't trust the government with) even though I wouldn't categorize it as torture. Stack seems to me similar to Marvin "Killdozer" Heemeyer (though I have less problem with idolizing Heemeyer since he just destroyed buildings rather than people). He had a personal grievance with the government and decided it was better to go out "amok" than continue dealing with his problems. I have heard some commenters describe Stack as a communist, but I wouldn't say that. He quotes from the Communist Manifesto, but I think it was just to contrast an ideal expressed there to what he saw as the reality of the capitalist society he lived in. He's not really that political, and even his complaints about bailouts is not based on principle; just that he doesn't think rich Wall Streeters (and car companies) should receive them. He says that he tried to make use of the same tax exemptions as some companies, and he's upset

As far as the use of "terrorism" to get around constitutional protections, I whole-heartedly agree.

It's mostly used to instill fear to win elections, juice defense and "homeland security" budgets and for expedient political purposes. I agree that it's far better to talk about mass murderers on the one hand and unconventional or asymmetrical warfare on the other. The Littleton, Colorado kids are just mass murderers and Bin Laden is a mass murderer engaged in unconventional warfare. You lose some nuance avoiding the T word, but the advantage is you don't allow cheap and hysterical politicization. Hamas and Hizballah, for example, made the US terrorist organization list because they are at war with Israel. The IDF, however, can also be construed as a terrorist organization, but of course won't be a) because it is affiliated with a recognized state and b) because the state is a US ally. Hamas, just like the US in WWII and Vietnam, openly targets civilians but claims its main target is the Israeli gov and its army. The typical distinction that the IDF (and several other armies) don't deliberately kill civilians is misleading. The IDF won't USUALLY target civilians (with a 60-year rap sheet of many, many execeptions), but that's because it

Quoting Wonderment: ...

Hamas and Hizballah, for example, made the US terrorist organization list because they are at war with Israel. The IDF, however, can also be construed as a terrorist organization, but of course won't be a) because it is affiliated with a recognized state and b) because the state is a US ally.

Hamas, just like the US in WWII and Vietnam, openly targets civilians but claims its main target is the Israeli gov and its army.

The typical distinction that the IDF (and several other armies) don't deliberately kill civilians is misleading. The IDF won't USUALLY target civilians (with a 60-year rap sheet of many, many execeptions), but that's because it has overwhelming power.

I think you're applying a less than useful distinction here, Wonderment; and I think your contention that the IDF is deliberately targeting civilians - that is, as part of a deliberate strategy - is desperately wanting evidence. On the other hand, it's perfectly clear that Hamas and Hezbollah (and Fatah) have seen attacks on civilians as a perfectly acceptable leg of their approach to strategy. I see no evidence that the Israeli armed forces are any less (or more) constrained by generally accepted rules of warfare than any other Western force.

Needing to take a break from mind-deadening house work I tuned in to bhtv and started with the Charles/Conn diavlog (a C-, maybe) but halfway through went to Bob and Ann Althouse. I loved this one!! From the moment Bob asked the question "Is there a real anyone?" I knew this was going to be smart fun. Quoting Ann ( whom I now like a lot) the Tiger Talk was, actually, "very weighty" or at least pretty engaging on the human nature/celebrity nature subject. I'm feeling less and less real all the time. It's not all bad.

I'd have to say Stack (and of course Hasan) was a terrorist because he thought his murderous act against innocents would further his political goals (as rambling and incoherant as they were: anti-Bush, taxes, corporations, pro-communist but anti-capitalist??? go figger). That is why terrorists commit acts of terror. That is why Elton John proclaimed Jesus was gay but failed to venture his opinion on Muhammad, intimidation works. As to the olympics, I would happily exchange less American medals for a proportional decrease in the number of commercials and up-close-and-personal vignettes. I remember all the kids on my block sitting around the TV and watching what seemed like every high jump and long jump competitor at Mexico City and being rewarded with Bob Beamon and Dick Fosbury. Now all you get is the medal winners (maybe), the highest American (if different) and then 30 minutes of fluff, commercials and network promos. I could really care less about the infidelities of Tiger Woods. He amazes me with his talent, work ethic and focus regarding his golf game but the fact that he's a fraud regarding the good guy, family man persona he and his sponsors have cultivated

Quoting bjkeefe: Thus, I think Stack, just like Amy Bishop, is nothing more than a disturbed individual. That one can draw some connections to a few general things he said to other groups is of no significance. I mean, who doesn't hate the IRS, when you come right down to it?

So true. Or in my case, the Franchise Tax Board. I don't have no franchise dammit

Cause it's murder + conspiracy (terrorism) which are two totally different crimes. Conspircay (terrorism) doesn't merge with murder in common law, so one can be tried and found guilty of murder and conspiracy (terrorism).

I see no evidence that the Israeli armed forces are any less (or more) constrained by generally accepted rules of warfare than any other Western force.

Israel practiced widespread torture of Palestinians at least until 1999 when it was outlawed by the Israeli Supreme Court. I have often heard it said that it's virtually impossible to find a Palestinian family without a member who is a victim of Israeli torture. Israel also has openly practiced home demolition, assassination, abduction, black-site imprisonments, and various forms of collective punishment. The current siege of Gaza -- a collective punishment -- follows on the heels of the UN-mandated Goldstone Report which documents both Israeli and Palestinian war crimes. It is indisputable that Israel terrorizes the Palestinian population and has done so for decades. Many early Zionist " freedom fighters," lionized as national heroes to this day in Israel, were terrorists, including former Prime Ministers Begin and Shamir. Have other Western regimes behaved as badly? Yes. So?

Quoting Florian: That would make him a terrorist, wouldn't it? I mean, by trampling on the sacred bonds of marriage, Tiger has done more harm to America than all of Bin Laden's chaste angels of destruction. Will America ever recover? Will the all American boy ever be the same again?

LOL!

Entertaining conversation! I don't know what's the big fuzz that Ann and Bob were making about the relevance of their topics, but, this was a good example of how relatively trivial topics can be made quite interesting by finding the right angle to discuss. On the issue of defining terrorism, Ann brought up the need to define first what the purpose of the definition is. Whether there is a precise, narrow definition to serve legal purposes, to a wider definition to understand the origin or process through which terrorism comes about, the definitions have to be tied to their purpose. On Tiger Woods, Ann made very interesting observations about whether celebrities should or not be made to be role models for young people and the risks involved when that is the case. On sex addictions, Bob questions the validity of such diagnosis and the purpose of it as well as how the treatment is conducted since abstinence would not be a goal of treatment. On Buddhism and therapy, they make some interesting comments about the apparent contradictions between them. All and all, lots of thought provoking arguments. Whether the

I thought that it was almost my obligation to add something about addictions since it was a topic in this diavlog. Please see the questionnaire below in order to assess the possibility of a diagnosis of addiction. In Tiger's case, read "woman" or "women" instead of "substance(s)", "drug(s)", or "prescription drug(s)". Pun intended.

Do You Have a Problem?
The following questions were written by recovering addicts in Narcotics Anonymous and published in NA's brochure "Am I an Addict?" If you have doubts about whether or not you’re an addict, take a few moments to read the questions below and answer them as honestly as you can.

* Do you ever use alone?

* Have you ever substituted one drug for another, thinking that one particular drug was the problem?

* Have you ever manipulated or lied to a doctor to obtain prescription drugs?

* Have you ever stolen drugs or stolen to obtain drugs?

* Do you regularly use a drug when you wake up or when you go to bed?

* Have you ever taken one drug to overcome the effects of another?

* Do you avoid people or places that do not approve of you using drugs?

* Have

Quoting Wonderment: Israel practiced widespread torture of Palestinians at least until 1999 when it was outlawed by the Israeli Supreme Court. I have often heard it said that it's virtually impossible to find a Palestinian family without a member who is a victim of Israeli torture.

Israel also has openly practiced home demolition, assassination, abduction, black-site imprisonments, and various forms of collective punishment. The current siege of Gaza -- a collective punishment -- follows on the heels of the UN-mandated Goldstone Report which documents both Israeli and Palestinian war crimes.

It is indisputable that Israel terrorizes the Palestinian population and has done so for decades. Many early Zionist " freedom fighters," lionized as national heroes to this day in Israel, were terrorists, including former Prime Ministers Begin and Shamir.

Have other Western regimes behaved as badly? Yes. So?

The Israeli Right, emphatically including Likud, are just as culpable as the Palestinian leadership, I agree. (And I've said so here, more than once.) Israel is not without deep moral failings. But the deliberate, strategic targeting of the children of their enemies is a special sin that the Israelis have not indulged. Hamas cannot make the same claim.

Tiger, Ann, and the racial angle again. Yawn. Bob - he did the presser to be liked and respected. No. I don't think Tiger gives a shit about us. Ann - he wants a lot of sex with hot slutty women. Ok, now you're getting somewhere. Bob and love and Tiger? Noooo. Bob - is there a real anyone? Yikes. Clicking off now. Yes, about the galleries - yes, yes. They are AWFUL since Tiger. Awful.

But the deliberate, strategic targeting of the children of their enemies is a special sin that the Israelis have not indulged. Hamas cannot make the same claim.

There are lots of dead Palestinian children whose parents would find that distinction misleading. I find it misleading because the Israelis make a huge deal out of the claim that there is "no moral equivalence" between what they do (the moral high ground) and what their enemies do ("terrorism"). The IDF is portrayed as a rational force for democratic good and the Palestinians are portrayed as demented religious fanatics and sociopaths. Doesn't add up. In the cycle of endless bloodshed and oppression, intransigence and occupation are also forms of "terrorism." Plus, last time I looked 120 Israeli children had been killed by Palestinians in this century, while 1,440 Palestinian children had been killed by Israelis. Do the math.

Quoting Wonderment: There are lots of dead Palestinian children whose parents would find that distinction misleading. I find it misleading because the Israelis make a huge deal out of the claim that there is "no moral equivalence" between what they do (the moral high ground) and what their enemies do ("terrorism"). The IDF is portrayed as a rational force for democratic good and the Palestinians are portrayed as demented religious fanatics and sociopaths. Doesn't add up. In the cycle of endless bloodshed and oppression, intransigence and occupation are also forms of "terrorism."

Plus, last time I looked 120 Israeli children had been killed by Palestinians in this century, while 1,440 Palestinian children had been killed by Israelis. Do the math.

I don't think we should go round and round on this, but I'm fairly certain that none of the dead Palestinian children were specifically targeted.

Quoting AemJeff: I don't think we should go round and round on this, but I'm fairly certain that none of the dead Palestinian children were specifically targeted.

You guys are talking about the difference between murder and manslaughter. Either way it's a crime.

If I hadn't been so lax in reading Cato Unbound I would have already read and (as a result) linked this from Max Abrahms on "lumpers" vs "splitters" on terrorism. It was written before Bishop & Stack, but still relevant.

Why on Earth wasn't

sex with hot slutty women

the title for this diavlog? Hits, Bob, hits!!!

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't think it's a "'dangerous' problem." I think it's largely a waste of time, is all.

Just to be clear, I was quoting Nikkibong's observation that it's "dangerous" to "argue" about what's terrorism vs. what's crime.

Quoting bjkeefe: Of course we should not stop using that word.

Okay, thanks; that's all I was really after. It seems some people would like to see the word retired.

Quoting bjkeefe: But we should also not cheapen it by seeking to label every last act of violence with it.

Absolutely.

Quoting bjkeefe: My own sense is that we should reserve the word terrorist to describe someone who acts on behalf of (or who is used by, as with the Underpants Bomber) a group that is willing to use murder of innocents, and other attempts to create a feeling of terror in a population, in service of a specific ideology.

I think that's a nearly perfect definiton. Just to clarify my own opinion: I don't think a terrorist has to be acting on behalf of a group (nor am I clear precisely what it means to be acting on behalf of a group. can a single person acting alone also be acting on behalf of a group? Or does "acting on

Quoting AemJeff: The only functions I can see in pursuing that distinction would be to justify actions on the basis of an entirely rhetorical "war" on "terror" in militaristic terms, and to create a dehumanized category of person toward whom we're justified in withholding basic rights.

I totally agree with you that the word "terrorism" has been abused and used to manipulate the public and create a special class of people in exactly the manner you describe. And to the extent that this was NB's point, I agree with him, too. However I still think there's value in using the word simply as a means to accurately describe a certain kind of activity. I'm sure I must be taking you too literally, because the way I read your comment, it sounds like you would like the word "terrorism" to be retired from the language.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I largely agree but I think where it gets tricky is in areas like intimidation. I think burning a cross on somebodies lawn or mock lynching are substantially different from simple destruction of property. The mob, klan and other organizations have used the tactic of skating right up to the edge of what is "legal" to create atmospheres of fear that encroach on the rights of others. While I agree the terrorism/crime discussion is overplayed at times (and various sides frame it for political gain) I think that there are good reasons that these distinctions came about historically.

Well said -- again. It's the "substantially different" piece that justifies the use of a differentiating word.

Thers catches AA dipping her toe in the denialist waters. (I suppose it makes her a "moderate" that she did not dive in headfirst like some others (e.g.).)

Quoting TwinSwords: Just to clarify my own opinion: I don't think a terrorist has to be acting on behalf of a group (nor am I clear precisely what it means to be acting on behalf of a group. can a single person acting alone also be acting on behalf of a group? Or does "acting on behalf of a group" mean to imply some kind of tangible connection between the terrorist and the group he's acting on behalf of?). My own feeling is that a single individual acting alone can be a terrorist.

A person who commits suicide, who has no group connection that specifically relates to his or her final act, doesn't strike me as a terrorist. This seems more like an instance of "that'll show 'em!" petulance to me. And yes, I am thinking of Stack here.

In addition, I'm not convinced terrorism has to include violence; I think a case could be made that death threats, for example, are a form of terrorism.

Okay. Edit my proposed definition to read "violence or threats of violence."

I haven't seen any indication that Bishop was a terrorist. But I think Stack is almost a textbook example of a terrorist. His

Quoting bjkeefe: A person who commits suicide, who has no group connection that specifically relates to his or her final act, doesn't strike me as a terrorist. This seems more like an instance of "that'll show 'em!" petulance to me. And yes, I am thinking of Stack here.

For purposes of your definition, where you said terrorism was possible when "acting on behalf of a group," does that require contact with the group? Or could you become a terrorist if you strapped a bomb to yourself and blew yourself up "on behalf of the Palestinian people" at an IDF checkpoint somewhere in the West Bank without having ever first talked to any Palestinian person about it? What about the Unibomber? Was he a terrorist, in your view?

Quoting bjkeefe: Nah, I don't buy it. What would have been the point of this attempt, given that he was going to die from it and he wasn't acting on behalf of some comrades?

He explained it in his manifesto:

Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life

Quoting TwinSwords: For purposes of your definition, where you said terrorism was possible when "acting on behalf of a group," does that require contact with the group? Or could you become a terrorist if you strapped a bomb to yourself and blew yourself up "on behalf of the Palestinian people" at an IDF checkpoint somewhere in the West Bank without having ever first talked to any Palestinian person about it?

Eh, maybe. But if I take your example literally, I'd say no. Without any prior contact, by which I mean among other things some sense of acting in concert with a group, this to my mind would just be another attempt to glorify a selfish act, like Stack's attempt to identify himself with all put-upon Americans or whomever.

What about the Unibomber? Was he a terrorist, in your view?

Yes. Because (as I remember) he did a series of violent actions that were intended to have some larger effect, and he did them in an ongoing fashion. He also augmented these actions with communications. More to the point, none of his actions, let alone his first one, was a suicide (bombing).

He explained it in his manifesto:

As I said before, this reads as

Having seen a couple of Althouse's previous BHTV appearances, and having witnessed her willingness to assert anything for the sake of being provocative, I swore I'd never watch her again. However, despite the mental discipline I'd developed over many years, I found myself lured into watching this diavlog (like Tiger Woods, I guess my self-control is no match for the siren song of a "hot slut" (to cite a meme that Althouse repeatedly invokes). I found this diavlog interesting only in that Wright called out Althouse on her more ridiculous assertions. It seemed to me that while Wright was genuinely interested in Woods' predicament as a means of exploring the mystery of who we are and why we do the things we do, Althouse merely repeated simplistic, shallow notions of Woods' motivations (he likes to have lots of sex with hot slutty women) and made flippant prescriptions for what Woods should do (in order to be true to "himself," Woods should become a latter-day Hugh Hefner). Whenever Wright seriously probed her replies to his questions, Althouse just cast about for some line of thinking that would justify her intellectual laziness.

We have Chuck Colson to thank for the public redemption routine in this modern era, with Tiger giving us the latest performance. One thing people should admire about Richard Nixon is that he sneered at this "hang out" route. Either way, the victim looks bad. The sinners are the media and the hypocrites on the religious right.

sex test from the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbo...add_user.shtml

Quoting listener: Having seen a couple of Althouse's previous BHTV appearances, and having witnessed her willingness to assert anything for the sake of being provocative, I swore I'd never watch her again. However, despite the mental discipline I'd developed over many years, I found myself lured into watching this diavlog (like Tiger Woods, I guess my self-control is no match for the siren song of a "hot slut" (to cite a meme that Althouse repeatedly invokes).

I found this diavlog interesting only in that Wright called out Althouse on her more ridiculous assertions. It seemed to me that while Wright was genuinely interested in Woods' predicament as a means of exploring the mystery of who we are and why we do the things we do, Althouse merely repeated simplistic, shallow notions of Woods' motivations (he likes to have lots of sex with hot slutty women) and made flippant prescriptions for what Woods should do (in order to be true to "himself," Woods should become a latter-day Hugh Hefner). Whenever Wright seriously probed her replies to his questions, Althouse just cast about for some line of thinking that would justify her intellectual laziness.

I interpreted Ann's point

Quoting SkepticDoc: sex test from the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbo...add_user.shtml

Eh, needz moar boobies. Plus, I got to the part where it said "you'll need a ruler for this part," I checked out. [Added] For the record, though, I got 18/20 on the line-angle test (before first cup of coffee, no less!), I did terrible on the "which objects have moved?" test, and I was especially happy to see I scored 8/10 on the eyes test.

Ocean, what do think is the baseline # of "yes" answers that makes for serious consideration of addiction? I ask because I would imagine that almost every person I've known in my adult life would answer at least 2-3 and few of them would be serious addiction risks, in my judgement. Note: I do tend to run with a crowd that does or has done their fair share of experimentations, so the data-set is certainly skewed away from the norm.

I have reduced this essential diagnostic tool to its most essential components. Your health insurance provider may cover some or all of the costs of treatment. * Do you regularly use BloggingHeads when you wake up or when you go to bed? * Has your job or school performance ever suffered from the effects of your Bloggingheads use? * Have you ever lied about how much you use BloggingHeads? * Do you put spending time at BloggingHeads ahead of your financial responsibilities? * Have you ever tried to stop or control using BloggingHeads? * Does using BloggingHeads interfere with your sleeping or eating? * Does the thought of BloggingHeads shutting down terrify you? * Do you feel it is impossible for you to live without BloggingHeads? * Do you ever question your own sanity? * Is your BloggingHeads use making life at home unhappy? * Have you ever thought you couldn’t fit in or have a good time without BloggingHeads? * Have you ever felt defensive, guilty, or ashamed about your using BloggingHeads? * Do you think a lot about BloggingHeads? (Have you had nightmares and/or sexual fantasies about Bloggerheads guests?) * Have you had irrational or indefinable fears? * Has using BloggingHeads affected your

Quoting Wonderment: [...]

LOL!

Quoting Wonderment: I have reduced this essential diagnostic tool to its most essential components. Your health insurance provider may cover some or all of the costs of treatment.

* Do you regularly use BloggingHeads when you wake up or when you go to bed?

* Has your job or school performance ever suffered from the effects of your Bloggingheads use?

* Have you ever lied about how much you use BloggingHeads?

* Do you put spending time at BloggingHeads ahead of your financial responsibilities?

* Have you ever tried to stop or control using BloggingHeads?

* Does using BloggingHeads interfere with your sleeping or eating?

* Does the thought of BloggingHeads shutting down terrify you?

* Do you feel it is impossible for you to live without BloggingHeads?

* Do you ever question your own sanity?

* Is your BloggingHeads use making life at home unhappy?

* Have you ever thought you couldn’t fit in or have a good time without BloggingHeads?

* Have you ever felt defensive, guilty, or ashamed about your using BloggingHeads?

* Do you think a lot about BloggingHeads? (Have you had nightmares and/or sexual fantasies about Bloggerheads guests?)

* Have you had irrational or indefinable fears?

* Has using BloggingHeads affected your

Yes, the same questions can be adapted to any imaginable addiction.

Quoting Wonderment: I have reduced this essential diagnostic tool to its most essential components. Your health insurance provider may cover some or all of the costs of treatment.

* Do you regularly use BloggingHeads when you wake up or when you go to bed?

* Has your job or school performance ever suffered from the effects of your Bloggingheads use?

* Have you ever lied about how much you use BloggingHeads?

* Do you put spending time at BloggingHeads ahead of your financial responsibilities?

* Have you ever tried to stop or control using BloggingHeads?

* Does using BloggingHeads interfere with your sleeping or eating?

* Does the thought of BloggingHeads shutting down terrify you?

* Do you feel it is impossible for you to live without BloggingHeads?

* Do you ever question your own sanity?

* Is your BloggingHeads use making life at home unhappy?

* Have you ever thought you couldn’t fit in or have a good time without BloggingHeads?

* Have you ever felt defensive, guilty, or ashamed about your using BloggingHeads?

* Do you think a lot about BloggingHeads? (Have you had nightmares and/or sexual fantasies about Bloggerheads guests?)

* Have you had irrational or indefinable fears?

* Has using BloggingHeads affected your

Heh. I hadn't had the chance to look into this link until now. I took this test a long time ago, and I remember it was somewhat surprising...

Quoting AemJeff: ... a pointless, semantically null conversation that only serves the interests of people interested in utilizing hysteria.

Doghouse does raise some good questions, though: "Dead Horse Flails 3/25¢."

Hmmm, Is Bob guilty of serious stereotyping??? http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/262...4:15&out=04:21

Quoting Ocean: Yes, the same questions can be adapted to any imaginable addiction.

True, but anyone can find their way to freedom once they see the error of their ways... Thinkers Anonymous It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now and then to loosen up. Inevitably, though, one thought led to another and soon I was more than just a social thinker. I began to think alone—"to relax," I told myself—but I knew it wasn’t true. I was thinking all the time. I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and employment don’t mix, but I couldn’t stop myself. I began to avoid friends at lunchtime so I could read Thoreau and Kafka. I would return to the office dizzied and confused, asking, "What is it exactly we are doing here?" Things weren’t going so great at home, either. One evening I had turned off the TV and asked my wife about the meaning of life. She spent that night at her mother’s. I soon had a reputation as a heavy thinker. One day the boss called me in. He said, "Skippy, I like you, and it hurts me to say this, but your thinking has become a real problem. If you don’t stop thinking on the job, you’ll have to find another

So, any thoughts on the disease model of addiction?

Yes, I've encountered that kind, not many, just a few. A lot of them are out there wasting their lives away immersed in oceans of thought...

I'm just a social thinker. I have a thought or two with dinner and at special family events. And I never think by myself. Besides, why should I worry? There's no history of thinking in my family.

Quoting Wonderment: I'm just a social thinker. I have a thought or two with dinner and at special family events. And I never think by myself. Besides, why should I worry? There's no history of thinking in my family.

LOL. Win for the week.

Let's not, says one NY Times reader.

Quoting graz: So, any thoughts on the disease model of addiction?

It is bogus. eventually it will be abandoned. People will look back on it as one more bizarre aberration of science/medicine - like phrenology. sapeye, while quite humorous above, also makes a serious point about why that view is ridiculous (whether intentional or not - don't want to imply i know sapeye's view). It is too broad and pathologizes The exact type of dedication and focus that makes people champions in sports, visionaries in business, and groundbreakers in science. my $.02

Quoting popcorn_karate: It is bogus. eventually it will be abandoned. People will look back on it as one more bizarre aberration of science/medicine - like phrenology.

sapeye, while quite humorous above, also makes a serious point about why that view is ridiculous (whether intentional or not - don't want to imply i know sapeye's view). It is too broad and pathologizes The exact type of dedication and focus that makes people champions in sports, visionaries in business, and groundbreakers in science.

my $.02

You are obviously ignorant of the concept. Are you in perfect health?

Quoting SkepticDoc: You are obviously ignorant of the concept.

Would you mind offering your understanding of the concept? The textbook or "wiki-nition" is clear enough, but it leaves me with a nagging sense of a solution searching for a problem.

Quoting SkepticDoc: You are obviously ignorant of the concept.

a little sensitive, eh?
if you feel like getting over your hurt feelings and presenting your opinions, i'd be interested in your point of view. My history with addicts is probably much more extensive and personal than yours, and informs my beliefs on the subject.

Quoting SkepticDoc: Are you in perfect health?

unlikely. probably undefinable and/or unknowable. Am in in relatively good health? - for the time being (knock on wood) yes, i'm in reasonably good health, thanks for asking. how about you?

Quoting popcorn_karate: a little sensitive, eh?

if you feel like getting over your hurt feelings and presenting your opinions, i'd be interested in your point of view. My history with addicts is probably much more extensive and personal than yours, and informs my beliefs on the subject.

unlikely. probably undefinable and/or unknowable. Am in in relatively good health? - for the time being (knock on wood) yes, i'm in reasonably good health, thanks for asking. how about you?

We need to agree on the terms: http://www.google.com/search?source=...=disease+model The traditional concept originated with infectious diseases, a bacteria was present, the organism was ill, if the bacteria was introduced into a healthy organism, it became ill with the same disease. In the lab, an antibiotic killed the bacteria, if the antibiotic was isolated, was less toxic than the infection, and could be delivered to the organism, the antibiotic was the "cure" for the infection. Most of the medical conditions we treat are significantly more complex than the infectious model. I am fat and sedentary (too much sitting in front of the computer ), I have elevated cholesterol, family history of coronary artery disease, and already have several stents in my coronaries, I use Lipitor and Beta-blockers to extend my life and fulfill

Just to clarify, despite my satire, I am definitely in agreement with the scientific community consensus on causes and treatments of addiction as outlined by Skeptic Doc. Of course, some treatment programs are better than others, but the underlying addiction to substances like coke, heroin, alcohol and behaviors like gambling are real. I don't really have an opinion on eating disorders or "sex and love" fitting the addiction model. I'd be interested in hearing SD and Ocean's views on the application of addiction models to other compulsive behaviors.

Quoting sapeye: True, but anyone can find their way to freedom once they see the error of their ways...

Thinkers Anonymous

It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now and then to loosen up. Inevitably, though, one thought led to another and soon I was more than just a social thinker.

I began to think alone—"to relax," I told myself—but I knew it wasn’t true. I was thinking all the time. I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and employment don’t mix, but I couldn’t stop myself.

I began to avoid friends at lunchtime so I could read Thoreau and Kafka. I would return to the office dizzied and confused, asking, "What is it exactly we are doing here?"

Things weren’t going so great at home, either. One evening I had turned off the TV and asked my wife about the meaning of life. She spent that night at her mother’s.

I soon had a reputation as a heavy thinker. One day the boss called me in. He said, "Skippy, I like you, and it hurts me to say this, but your thinking has become a real problem. If you don’t stop thinking on the job, you’ll have to find another job." This gave me a lot to think about.

I came home

Quoting Florian: Unlike drugs or sex...thinking requires effort

well, for some of us finding drugs and sex can be a hell of a lot of effort too!

Quoting graz: Would you mind offering your understanding of the concept?

The textbook or "wiki-nition" is clear enough, but it leaves me with a nagging sense of a solution searching for a problem.

Can you wiki that? Crack a medical book much? Don't sound like you do.

Quoting claymisher: Crack a medical book much? Don't sound like you do.

Not often. But I'm fully aware of the concept of the disease model of addiction.

Can you wiki that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease_model_of_addiction

Critics of the disease model, particularly those who ascribe to the life-process model of addiction argue that labeling people as addicts keeps them from developing self-control and stigmatizes them. They also argue that the disease approach has not discovered any biological mechanisms to identify addictive behavior, and that it therefore does not fit the definition of disease. However, such arguments are premised upon an incorrect medical definition of disease, which in reality does not require that a mechanism necessarily be identified.

Sounds like semantics to me. I know a drinking problem when I see it. But calling it a disease doesn't do much more than to give it a name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-pr...l_of_addiction

This was the difference that I was alluding to. I'm actually not sure what to make of the distinction, but personal evidence has lead me to be skeptical of the stigma attached to labeling. Or conversely, the responsibility that can be deflected by using the label as a crutch or get out of

and a whole lot of thought, as well!!

Quoting SkepticDoc: We need to agree on the terms:

http://www.google.com/search?source=...=disease+model

The traditional concept originated with infectious diseases, a bacteria was present, the organism was ill, if the bacteria was introduced into a healthy organism, it became ill with the same disease. In the lab, an antibiotic killed the bacteria, if the antibiotic was isolated, was less toxic than the infection, and could be delivered to the organism, the antibiotic was the "cure" for the infection.

Most of the medical conditions we treat are significantly more complex than the infectious model.

I am fat and sedentary (too much sitting in front of the computer ), I have elevated cholesterol, family history of coronary artery disease, and already have several stents in my coronaries, I use Lipitor and Beta-blockers to extend my life and fulfill the destiny of this existence. I am trying to exercise and lose weight, but my knees hurt and I enjoy sedentary activities.

In the real world, I am certified to prescribe buprenorphine to treat narcotic addiction and have over 50 active patients. I also prescribe methadone and other opioids to treat chronic pain.

Ocean can elaborate on the disease model of psychiatric disease, H. sapiens is infinitely more complex than single cell organisms and

Graz, you Phila-dummy! I was doing Philly Boy Roy!

Banned for life!

There is no disease model for stupidity...

Quoting SkepticDoc: There is no disease model for stupidity...

you are just way too easy of a target for me to go at it with you. if you ever feel like answering these questions:

Quoting popcorn_karate: also, is there any activity that does not fall into the "disease" model? some sort of natural breakpoint between activities that fall into this model and those that do not?

i.e. gambling seems to have been added in, then sex, is there something in the model that would stop you from seeing it as operational in any activity that people are obsessive about?

I'd be interested in your responses. Have a good day PK

A greater belief in the disease theory of alcoholism and higher commitment to total abstinence were found to be factors correlated with increased likelihood that an alcoholic would have a full-blown relapse.

A disease model of alcoholism does not require a commitment to total abstinence. Although many treatment programs recommend (or demand) total abstinence, reduction of drinking/using is not inconsistent with the disease model. It's also true that many alcoholics and addicts believe that a relapse is the end of the world, but that doesn't make it so.

Quoting Wonderment: I don't really have an opinion on eating disorders or "sex and love" fitting the addiction model. I'd be interested in hearing SD and Ocean's views on the application of addiction models to other compulsive behaviors.

I read this thread of comments and I've been trying to figure out what the real topic is behind the arguing, but I failed miserably. Perhaps I'm just too tired after a long day at work, seeing many patients with all kinds of psychiatric problems including addictions. Also, I had to offer some emotional support to staff members who were tearful and upset because one of the patients, a very young adult was found dead, apparently from an overdose on substances he was addicted to. Anyhow, what's the point of discussing disease model of addictions? If someone can clarify that, perhaps I could provide a more meaningful opinion. This is the way I think about addictions: People can get addicted to certain neurotransmitters in their brains that produce pleasurable states. Those neurotransmitters can be released by substances that are ingested in one way or the other, or sometimes they can be released by engaging in certain activities that are

Anyhow, what's the point of discussing disease model of addictions? If someone can clarify that, perhaps I could provide a more meaningful opinion.

I think there is an underlying conservative political agenda. People sin and break the law. To so-called conservatives it's all about "personal responsibility," not about mental "diseases." You know, heroin use is a crime; throw the addict in jail. You drink too much? Just be a man and stop. You committed the homicide because the voices in your head made you? Not buying it; get the lethal injection ready. Thanks for sharing your views on addiction. Seems pretty straightforward. Makes sense. Hope tomorrow is a better day at the office

Quoting Ocean: I don't know whether there should be much discussion about disease models. It seems to me that it's more important to identify the treatment modalities that are more effective in solving the problem.

My two cents.

that seems perfectly sensible to me. and if you want to leave it there - no problem. The questionnaire, although a joke, just got me thinking and i had these questions:

Quoting popcorn_karate: also, is there any activity that does not fall into the "disease" model? some sort of natural breakpoint between activities that fall into this model and those that do not?

i.e. gambling seems to have been added in, then sex, is there something in the model that would stop you from seeing it as operational in any activity that people are obsessive about?

no obligation to answer, but i'd be interested in your thoughts if you're up for it.

Quoting Wonderment: I think there is an underlying conservative political agenda. People sin and break the law. To so-called conservatives it's all about "personal responsibility," not about mental "diseases." You know, heroin use is a crime; throw the addict in jail. You drink too much? Just be a man and stop. You committed the homicide because the voices in your head made you? Not buying it; get the lethal injection ready.

wow - its whole-hearted belief in the disease model of addiction or believe your screed above? sorry - i don't fit into your facile caricature, wonder. I don't think addicts should be thrown in jail, and the idea that "drug" use is a sin is truly weird to me. I also think they are making bad decisions that they and the people that care about them have to deal with - and they are morally obligated to start making different decisions when the see the pain they are causing their loved ones. ( i also think many people use drugs without addiction or causing problems for their loved ones, btw) its not a matter of "just being a man" - I imagine there is actually a lot more addiction among males. It takes

Quoting popcorn_karate: well, for some of us finding drugs and sex can be a hell of a lot of effort too!

Yeah, some of us can't perform the latter without the former. :-)

wow - its whole-hearted belief in the disease model of addiction or believe your screed above? sorry - i don't fit into your facile caricature, wonder.

Don't take it personally. I really didn't have you in mind. I'm just saying that in general the right wing has tried to discredit psychiatric/psychological explanations of behavior as "excuses." That is why we have a more punitive than rehabilitative prisons system. Countless Americans go to prison for treatable addictions. Untreated and criminalized addiction goes a long way to explaining why the US leads in world in per capita incarceration (which the right wing views as a badge of exceptionalist honor). Also, clinical definitions of mental illness have been eroded in our court system. Again, the right wing has pushed for a higher bar for defendants who claim they are not guilty for reason of insanity or diminished capacity. That's why if the prosecution in murder trials can establish that a defendant has some inkling of "right and wrong," she is deemed fit to stand trial, even if she's actively hallucinating.

I guess I can see the angle you're coming from. Perhaps what bothers you is the "pathologizing" of certain behaviors that can at times be kept within boundaries. You can think of a continuum of behaviors where in one end you have use of substances, or engaging in behaviors without any significant negative consequences, and in the other end the true addictions with all the negative effects on the individual and society. As you move from one end to the other, it's important to keep in mind at what point it becomes a problem and why. There are times when the problem resides heavily in the substance used, other times it may be on some predisposition the individual carries, and other times it may be pressures from the environment, or a combination of all of them. In terms of determining when it becomes a problem, it is a general rule in psychiatry to state that in order for something to be a disorder there has to be some impairment of function (social, occupational) or clinically significant distress (suffering). There have been similarities drawn between the use of substances

Quoting grits-n-gravy: Yeah, some of us can't perform the latter without the former. :-)

And I know many young women that obtain the former with the latter.

Quoting popcorn_karate: ... if you ever feel like answering these questions:

I'd be interested in your responses.

Have a good day

PK

I have better things to do than starting a flame war, but I will respond in kind... This may clarify some of your questions: http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2009-rst/5240.html Ocean is more qualified to answer your questions, she is more patient.
Read her posts carefully, she already clarified the issues.

Quoting popcorn_karate: well, for some of us finding drugs and sex can be a hell of a lot of effort too!

Then why bother? If the effort to obtain drugs (or sex) made the reward (=pleasurable sensation) less pleasurable, no one would engage in addictive behaviors.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: and a whole lot of thought, as well!!

Really? Unless you are exceptionally poor acquiring drugs requires no effort. And unless you are exceptionally ugly or very old, sex is readily available too. I don't believe you for a moment Uncle Ed.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: Yeah, some of us can't perform the latter without the former. :-)

If sex is such an effort without drugs, and drugs are such an effort to acquire, why bother with either? Of course, both hypotheticals are false.

Quoting listener: It seemed to me that while Wright was genuinely interested in Woods' predicament...Althouse merely repeated simplistic, shallow notions of Woods'...that would justify her intellectual laziness.

It seems to me that you're just indulging in your own shallow, simplistic, lazy Althouse hate. The diavlog is actually fairly interesting on several subjects.

I'm late to this party but will weigh in just the same. I live in Austin. I was at the crash site within 15 minutes because it is my job. Local officials explained they did not use the word terrorism because it causes - wait for it - terror. People simply react differently to that word than they do when words like "intentional act" or homicide. My conclusion is that an act officially becomes terror when those in authority want the public to be terrorized. When they want calm, it is something else. All in all, I am glad our local authorities attempted to make us less afraid and not more so.

I was joking, Flor. Although, I think women would be amazed at how much thought we men put into getting laid. And if the girls that you're after are the ones who value intellect (as is generally the case for me) then that's all the more thinking one must do to get to the promised land.

Quoting ohcomeon: I'm late to this party but will weigh in just the same. I live in Austin. I was at the crash site within 15 minutes because it is my job. Local officials explained they did not use the word terrorism because it causes - wait for it - terror. People simply react differently to that word than they do when words like "intentional act" or homicide.

My conclusion is that an act officially becomes terror when those in authority want the public to be terrorized. When they want calm, it is something else. All in all, I am glad our local authorities attempted to make us less afraid and not more so.

I appreciate your insight. Good to see you!

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I was joking, Flor. Although, I think women would be amazed at how much thought we men put into getting laid. And if the girls that you're after are the ones who value intellect (as is generally the case for me) then that's all the more thinking one must do to get to the promised land.

"If the girls you are after are the ones who value intellect," you are not after sex. Or not only. So my point stands: getting sex requires little or no effort. Your effort is being spent on getting something other than sex.

Quoting Florian: "If the girls you are after are the ones who value intellect," you are not after sex. Or not only.

So my point stands: getting sex requires little or no effort. Your effort is being spent on getting something other than sex.

Especially for a musician in a band, Eb.

Unfortunately I've found that the fantasy lifestyle of a musician, is mostly just that, fantasy. Maybe I'm just lacking that George Johnson swagger!

I appreciate your insight. Good to see you!

+1 to that. Good to see you back OC.

Thanks for the warm welcome. I'm pretty busy these days but I hope to check in here more often.

Quoting TwinSwords: I totally agree with you that the word "terrorism" has been abused and used to manipulate the public and create a special class of people in exactly the manner you describe. And to the extent that this was NB's point, I agree with him, too.

However I still think there's value in using the word simply as a means to accurately describe a certain kind of activity. I'm sure I must be taking you too literally, because the way I read your comment, it sounds like you would like the word "terrorism" to be retired from the language.

Not retired from the language. I've used it, and it represents what ought to be a useful distinction. But, the emotional baggage it now carries outweighs that usefulness (which is why I claim it's essentially semantically "null.")

Quoting AemJeff: Not retired from the language. I've used it, and it represents what ought to be a useful distinction. But, the emotional baggage it now carries outweighs that usefulness (which is why I claim it's essentially semantically "null.")

There's something to this, I think. It's not there yet, but calling something "terrorist" is getting close to playing the "just like Hitler" card.

Quoting AemJeff: Not retired from the language. I've used it, and it represents what ought to be a useful distinction.

Thank you for the response, Jeff. With this added point, I agree with everything you've said on the subject, including the important points you've made about how the term is selectively used for political purposes. Obviously if the Austin IRS bomber was a Muslim, it would not only have been "obvious" he was a terrorist, it would have been played as yet another crisis in the Obama administration, and proof he was "failing to keep the country safe from terrorism." This...

Quoting AemJeff: But, the emotional baggage it now carries outweighs that usefulness (which is why I claim it's essentially semantically "null.")

... makes me uncomfortable, because I hate to surrender parts of the English language to the wingnuts. But I can't deny that it's true.

Quoting bjkeefe: There's something to this, I think. It's not there yet, but calling something "terrorist" is getting close to playing the "just like Hitler" card.

The term became totally ridiculous during the Iraq war, when every enemy fighting our soliders was classed as a "terrorist." And now, pretty much every person who opposes our military adventures in the Middle East is automatically considered a terrorist. I'm still strongly inclined to hold onto words and their true meanings and not surrender to wingnut efforts to abuse or coopt them.

Yes, I take your point that there were some fairly interesting points raised and discussed. And I admit that Althouse just annoys the hell out of me and I may have a hard time being fair to her. Because of that, I probably should have just skipped this diavlog altogether.

Quoting TwinSwords: The term became totally ridiculous during the Iraq war, when every enemy fighting our soliders was classed as a "terrorist." And now, pretty much every person who opposes our military adventures in the Middle East is automatically considered a terrorist.

I'm still strongly inclined to hold onto words and their true meanings and not surrender to wingnut efforts to abuse or coopt them.

Good points.

Quoting SkepticDoc: I have better things to do than starting a flame war,

you should have though of that before you tried to start one. but good on you for coming to your senses, belatedly.

A little late, but Glenn Greenwald is always worth listening to. Before he comes on to discuss Stack with Rachel Maddow, she spends a few minutes looking at what Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) had to say in the immediate aftermath.

Quoting bjkeefe: A little late, but Glenn Greenwald is always worth listening to.

Before he comes on to discuss Stack with Rachel Maddow, she spends a few minutes looking at what Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) had to say in the immediate aftermath.

And of course, there is Glenn Beck and his eliminationist rhetoric. (via)