Archives

June 30, 2003

"Doctor" Laura's 1996 Rant About the Burgess Move-away Decision (and other move-away links)

When the California Supreme Court in 1996 permitted Wendy Burgess to relocate with her two minor children, all hell broke loose. As I had expected, the control freaks in the fathers' rights movement were livid. I had been listening to Dr. Laura Schlessinger rant about the case on her radio show before the decision was made. Fully anticipating an outpouring of bile should the court rule in the mother's favor, I had audiotaped the show that day. I was not disappointed. "Doctor" Laura let loose.

I timed her.

She ranted for ten minutes. (Ten minutes and 59 seconds, to be more precise).

Below is the transcript of her bash fest. The text does not convey her sanctimonious tone of outrage. I did my best inserting when she laughed in indignation, when she raised her voice (caps), and when she uttered heavy sighs.

While she ranted about a custodial parent's new ability to move with their children, she did not express indignation about non-custodial parents who move away from their children. Just as many non-custodial parents as custodial parents move. No, she'd rather rant about mothers finding "a new stud."

The caller she refers to later in the text - the woman who had remarried and was pregnant - is interesting in and of itself. I was listening the day that woman called. It was the very first time I ever heard Dr. Laura on the air. I had never before heard of the good "doctor." That caller talked for maybe three minutes (that was when the good "doctor" did not butt in every other breath and throw in her two cents), and in no way did she want to eliminate dad from her children's lives. This "doctor" has decided she knew exactly how this particular woman felt and thought (or, in her case, the "doctor" believed she was apparently incapable of thinking) -- all based on a two to three minute phone conversation. She bashed that poor woman on her talk show -- a woman who was not on the air at the time to defend herself.

Take note the rotten advice she gives men regarding marriage. At the time, I recall she frequently provided the telephone number of a particularly nasty fathers' rights group. I think it was the National Congress for Fathers and Children.

This woman is horrendous. I can't believe she is still on the air. This self-appointed paragon of "family values" didn't even know her mother had been murdered. Her mother's body was left decomposing for several months before police found her.

I've highlit in bold some of her more judgmental, woman-bashing slurs.

"... and cried -- in frustration and exasperation. And I even sort of padded around the house, if you can imagine me doing this, saying "What's the point? (wry laugh) ... It's all hopeless; what's the point?" My kid walked in just before he left for school, and said (squeaky voice) "What's the matter, Mommy?" and I told him, "Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!" And he said, "You forgot the story of with woman with the starfish that you taught me." So, I got myself back in gear, and NOW I'M ANGRY!!! I'll tell you what's happened. The second stage in the United States of America to I think be completely immoral in a decision -- The California Supreme Court decreeing a major shift in family law ruled Monday that a divorced parent that has child custody can move to a new city or a new state, even if the other parent objects. The parent with primary physical custody, the court held need not show - NEED NOT SHOW - that the relocation is essential for a new job or any other reason. (looooong pause) If the other parent wishes to change the custody arrangement because of the move he or she must prove that the relocation would SEVERELY INJURE the child. (another long pause) I don't get it. The parent can up and move, and not demonstrate anything. But the one being left has to fight a losing battle. What does SEVERELY INJURE the child mean? (another long pause) Under - wha - how could you prove that? I mean, all of you who grew up feeling abandoned, or cheated out of a parent who died or walked out or your - your other parent moved away, did you not feel you were injured? Did you not feel that was a serious injury to lose the other parent? All you folks who have had that experience, you didn't think you felt ... REAL? I don't get this. I'm d- - I'm devastated. I am SO devastated. The ruling settles, at least in California law, one of the most wrenching dilemmas in custody. What burden, if any, should be placed on custodial parent who wants to take the children and move for a new job, a new marriage, or a new lifestyle? By refusing to place ANY burden on such parents - ANY - the Supreme Court has made it extremely difficult for a divorced parent to fight relocation by an ex-spouse (pause) with primary custody. Previously, custodial parent, usually the mother, had to go to court to obtain permission to move and sometimes faced choosing between the move and custody. In a moveaway case, writes Justice Stanley Mosque for the court, a change in custody is not justified simply -- SIMPLY -- SIMPLY!!! - because the custodial parent has chosen for ANY SOUND GOOD FAITH reason to reside in a different location. (pause) I'm SICK. I'm really - I'm sorry I ate lunch now - I'm just going through this again. It makes me sick. I couldn't understand it when we had courts that took adopted kids away from the only family they knew to give them back to some bio-folk. I figure kids are damned furniture, and the most important thing is what the adults want. And I remember when my husband and I decided we were going to make a kid, we sat long and hard and talked about our philosophies and our intentions. And my philosophy and intention matched his, and that is that once we have a child, the commitment to our own personal gain or each other is secondary to our obligation to provide appropriate home for the child. Period. Underline. End of sentence. (long pause) That's my philosophical point, and that's the one I give out on the air all the time. My show, my point. (wry laugh ... deep sigh) Now, this is making me change a stand that I've taken severely, a severe stand that I have taken. I'm now changing it, so be on notice. I've always been negative about joint physical custody; you know, two weeks with one, two weeks with the other, two weeks with one, two weeks with the other, 'cause I felt that the kid has no place to live. They're always visiting. I am now rescinding that. All you dads, if you're facing divorce go for either full physical custody, which you probably won't get, or - unless you've been the hands-on parent - or -- it's funny. They have the kid in full time daycare with a full time nanny and she'll still get custody. Okay, I mean you'll have to explain this to me sometime. But anyway, uh, if you're anticipating this situation, go for joint physical custody. It's probably the only way you can make sure she can't move with the kids. She gets a new stud, or wants to punish you, or whatever it is. So I'm changing that. Now, do I think this is a harm to the kids? Yeah. I don't like them moving every two weeks. But I think that is less evil, than somebody severely being able to move a kid away from the parent. That's more evil. That's more devastating. So I'm back on that. Now, some other things. Since women usually end up with custody; guys, we're getting towards June. Where there are marriages. I want you to rethink. You're going to have to start being smart in these things. Okay. Number one: if the girl you're going to marry comes from a divorced family, rethink marrying her. People from divorced families - of course if you're from one too all bets are off - but people from divorced families have a higher percentage of divorcing themselves. If she comes from a divorced family in particular, where one parent was totally absent, you may want to rethink marrying her again. Because after all, she made it. I think it gives more permission to not worry about your importance in a divorce; your importance to the kids. So, somebody divorced, from a divorce -- and if they've been divorced themselves, forget it -- so three strikes: their parents were divorced, they didn't have a parent there, and they're divorced, don't get married this summer. Unless you're not going to have kids. I'm going to start having to put out these warnings to men. I don't know what else to tell you. You're looking at me like I'm nuts, the two of you -- Larry and Carolyn -- I don't know what else to say. The courts have now said a woman can pick up and RIP the father out of the kids lives for NO reason, other than she feels like it, and this is WOMEN'S RIGHTS. This is not what I was all hepped about in the '60's for women's rights. I don't want any rights that carry with it no responsibilities. So that's New York and California to do this. I understand Maine is probably next. So, you can get married hardly knowing each other. You can get divorced 'cause you feel like it, with no-fault divorce. And you can take kids away from the non-custodial parent, and THIS is a family-oriented country? (long pause) I'm sick. Now, I must admit I had a big emotional reaction because I just said this is hopeless. Because over the span of 20 years, I've seen a difference. I'll never forget within the month I talked to a woman, divorced, does not live in the same state as the ex-husband, the kid - the two sons - spend the summer and Christmas with dad. But she's remarried and pregnant, so she sees no reason the kids have to go visit their dad anymore. Because she's - she's provided a new daddy, and she's providing a new sibling. Couldn't understand why they would want dad - after all, she doesn't want him. (pause) I couldn't believe this call! I was morally outraged, and a little embarrassed. I don't know how you all feel about ethnic groups and this groups, and religious groups, and that groups, but let's face it. When we identify with a group, and somebody in the group does something horrendous, I think we get embarrassed because it's a representative of who we are. That it were a woman. That embarrassed me. No clue. Mind you before she got rid of this guy whom she thinks her kids should never need again, you could not have talked her out of marrying him. Right? He was the bee's knees. But she's pregnant, and has a new guy. What's the problem? Why should the kids go visit dad? So guys, you got to be very careful. Check with attorneys about pre-nupts concerning custody and put down in advance that there's going to be full physical custody. I'm going back on the pre-nupts. I'm going back on everything. Because the courts are not supporting the children. (long pause) So, we've got to play dirty back. So, yeah. Joint physical custody and pre-nupts about custody. I've changed; I'm - I'm just changing everything. Because you're going to have to realize when you're up against lousy circumstances, you have to pick the least of the lousies. (pounding on table with fist three times) I cannot believe that a court would just summarily support moving out of state 'cause she wants to. Do you realize what that means if you're a dad? That means the kid plays baseball, kid has a parent night. The kid just wants to talk to you. The kid needs to sit in your lap. It just isn't gonna happen, 'cause she decided to move. 'Cause she felt like it. (pause) The way it is now, within four years of separation, in California, 75% of the mothers move at least once. Hauling around 11.5 million children. (long pause) Guys, be very careful who you marry. Look at their backgrounds of divorce and separation from a parent because it just heightens the percentages. Just like when they tell you for cancer, you know, don't have high fat foods, exercise; they tell you don't smoke, you know, all things which increase your chances of something bad happening. Well, get a girl who has a really good family, that's very religious (wry laugh), stayed together forever; really believe in commitment, haven't been losses and sacrifices and all that kind of thing. Or else, you're aiming for a problem. And make it clear - oh, and the other thing is stay home and be the -- which I recommend anyway -- stay home and be the at-home parent. And she can't off and take it anywhere. Of course, I'm assuming you won't either. (another wry laugh!!) I'm not saying you men corner the market on morality -- huh, huh, huh -- I wouldn't have a show. Alright, I'm Dr. Laura Schlessinger. The number, 1-800-DrLaura . . .

For more on move-aways, please see the following links.

Commentary by Dr. Judith Wallerstein on Braver's study. The article is also available here.

Trish Wilson Comments on Braver's Moveaway Study. [Also available on my web site]

Liz Comments on Braver's Moveaway Study.

posted at 8:59 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

A Compilation Of My Previous Posts About Iraqi Antiquities

Iraq's Cultural Heritage, Pt. 1

Iraq's Cultural Heritage, Pt. 2 (incl. damage assessment from first gulf war)

Bronze-Age Roads in Syria, Iraq, and Turkey Found Via Spy Photos

War in Iraq and Cultural Genocide

The Thieves of Baghdad

Getting to the Bottom of the Museum Looting in Iraq

Archeology News (incl. Treasure of Nimrud info)

Babylonian Musings Flamed Me

posted at 8:59 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

The Treasures of Nimrud as a White House Media Prop

Well, they are more exotic than an aircraft carrier...

Sean at Planet Sean is rightfully angry at the "big floppy happy ending bow" the Washington Post has tied around the looting of the Iraq National Museum.

Coalition forces are about "to stage the first art exhibition in post-war Iraq. The event, which is being planned for Thursday in Baghdad for an audience of international media, will show off the fabled Treasures of Nimrud."

As Sean pointed out, the timing smells. A big hoo-hah media shindig just in time for Independence Day on July 4. I wonder if coalition forces will hoist a "Mission Accomplished" banner over the exhibit?

posted at 8:00 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

The Baghdad Museum Project Urges Cosponsorship of H. R. 2009, The Iraq Cultural Heritage Protection Act

The Baghdad Museum Project

  TELL CONGRESS TO PROTECT IRAQ'S CULTURAL HERITAGE
Join Our Appeal to Members of Congress
[Add your comments to this appeal below.]

Dear Colleague:

We are writing to urge you to consider becoming a cosponsor of H.R. 2009, The Iraq Cultural Heritage Protection Act. This legislation intends to provide for the recovery, restitution, and protection of the priceless pieces of cultural heritage belonging to the nation of Iraq.

Imagine if the National Archives or the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC, were sacked and precious copies of the Constitution and other historical objects were stolen. That is literally what has happened to the Iraq National Museum in Baghdad. Many artifacts contained in the museum were excavated from what has come to be known as the "Cradle of Civilization" with experts fearing that some of the more sophisticated looters already had buyers lined up to purchase the more precious of these objects.

The Iraq Cultural Heritage Act is designed to close a loophole in current law which is a result of the current lack of a legitimate government in Iraq. This legislation would prohibit the importation into the United States of any archeological or cultural material removed from Iraq without appropriate documentation after the imposition of sanctions on that country by Executive Order 12722 of August 2, 1990.

We hope you will consider joining us in this effort to protect and restore some of the most important creations in the history of human civilization. Doing so is a duty we owe both the past and the future. If you have questions or need further information about The Iraq Cultural Heritage Protection Act, or to have your name added as a cosponsor, please contact Christine Rogala with Congressman English at (202) 225-5406 or Sarah Morgan with Congressman Leach at (202) 225-6576.

Sincerely,

Phil English
Member of Congress

James A. Leach
Member of Congress

posted at 8:00 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

Iraq Excavations To Resume Again Soon

"Coalition civil affairs officials conducted the first meeting of the ministry of culture interim cabinet to discuss the possible resumption of archaeological expeditions into Iraq beginning by September," the occupation administration said in a statement."

posted at 8:00 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

June 29, 2003

DR. JUDITH WALLERSTEIN COMMENTS on Sanford Braver's "Relocation of Children After Divorce and Children's Best Interests: New Evidence and Legal Considerations"

Also available here, at The Liz Library.

For More On Braver's Study and Joint Custody, see these links:

Trish Wilson Comments on Braver's Moveaway Study. [Also available on my web site]

Liz Comments on Braver's Moveaway Study.

"The Truth about Joint Custody," by Trish Wilson (Do not call it "shared parenting." There is nothing "shared" about it.)

"Myths and Facts about Fatherlessness," by Trish Wilson

"Debunking the Claims About Joint v. Sole Custody," by liz

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sanford Braver and his associates set out to prove that letting custodial mothers move with their children causes children harm. The researchers came up with no findings in support of their goal. What they did find is discussed here by esteemed researcher and divorce psychology expert, Dr. Judith Wallerstein.]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The study presented by Braver, Elman and Fabricious as the centerpiece of their argument that courts should bar the mother who has custody from moving with her children is based entirely on brief written responses to a questionnaire administered only once in the early weeks of their freshman year to youngsters enrolled in introductory psychology classes at Arizona State University in 1991.

There are no other data about these students or their families collected by these investigators other than the students responses to the questionnaire. The study analyzes their brief responses and draws a range of conclusions. Their analysis rests on this very limited body of information with no information about the economic or social circumstances of growing up in the families, no knowledge of the histories of these young people or of their parents, and no references to the developmental issues that youngsters entering college and separating from living with their families face at this time in their lives.

Despite their extraordinary lack of data about the lives of these young people and their families or even about the number of moves and the distance of the move the authors of this study make the astonishing and unwarranted assumption that moving as little as an hour's drive away from the other parent was a critical issue in their mental health and attitudes.

The 602 students who noted in their response that their parents had divorced were divided into 5 groups and compared in their responses to questions about their mental health and about the contributions of their fathers and mothers to their expenses during their first year at college.

The breakdown, in accord with the interest of the investigators, was that 38% or 232 had parents who did not move more than an hours drive away since the divorce, 25% or !48 moved with mother, 26% or 154 remained with the mother when the father moved. Only 8% or 46 remained with the father when the mother moved. And only or 4% or 22 moved away with the father.

Moving was defined as on hour's drive away or more. The distances moved or the number of moves was not sought, distinguished or reported. But the number of mothers and fathers who moved away was about almost exactly the same. The investigators do not mention whether any of these cases came to court or whether any of the moves were protested by the other parent.

It is important therefore to note that it is not possible to compare those children whose custodial mother decided not to relocate (because of a court order preventing her from leaving with her children) with children who were permitted to move in accord with the mother's request and over the father's objections. On this issue, as noted in our amica brief re Burgess, there remains no research anywhere directly on point, and it is necessary therefore to draw on the existing large body of developmental and clinical knowledge about children and the impact of divorce on the development of children.

Nevertheless it may be instructive to compare the findings of this very limited study of young people who remained with their custodial mothers with those that moved with the father or remained in his custody after the mother's move. On this issue the study has some striking findings.

We note that in the measures of psychological and emotional adjustment there are no significant differences between those children who remained in the same community with both parents not moving amd those who remained in the custody of the mother whether she moved or remained in the same community as before the divorce whether or not the father moved. The major psychological indices which show no significant differences in the youngsters in these groups include: their overall personal and emotional adjustment, substance abuse, patterns of friendship, dating behavior and general life satisfaction.

These findings certainly fail to support the argument that the move away affects the psychological adjustment or social behavior of the youngsters.

There are however astonishing differences in the emotional adjustment of those youngsters in the custody of their fathers whom either moved or remained in the samecommunity.

These youngsters in the custody of their fathers when the mother moved or who moved with the father were the only young people who showed troubled behavior. But they report that the youngsters who were, in their words. "noticeably less well adjusted were youngsters who moved with or remained with the father."

The authors make no effort to explain this truly astounding finding, and it is hard to see how these findings constitute an argument for barring the custodial mother's move with her children and changing the custody of the child from mother to father.

Another argument, which the study makes against permitting mothers to move with their children, is that fathers contribute more to the college expenses of their children when both parents remain in the same community. And indeed it appears to be so if we compare the dollar amount contributed. What we do not know is how reliable the cash figures are as estimated by these young people. Did they see the checks or did they report what one or both parents told them or were they guessing? Nor do we know which youngsters were paying the low in-state fees or the much higher out-of-state fees.

Most researchers would seek some corroborative hard evidence from college records or at the very least additional information from interviews with parents before relying on the financial reports of college freshmen who have little experience in financial matters and little hard data. The only information in this study is from the students.

What we also do not know except from the students is whether the more affluent parents who contributed more money to college were also the ones who were able to remain in the same general neighborhood as the family home after the breakup. And whether their fathers contained a subgroup that was well educated and more likely therefore to value college education.

It is well established that many parents are impoverished by the divorce especially middleclass women (Jay Teachman and Kathleen Paasch Spring 1994 Financial Impact of Divorce on Children and their Families The Future of Children, Children and Divorce, Vol. 4 no1. pp. 63 to 83). Hetherington, who reported a multimeasure long term study in which she talked with parents and children over more than two decades, notes that the poor women in her study moved 7 times in the 6 year period after the breakup in search of cheaper affordable rent. Obviously these poor custodial mothers would not have been able to remain in the same neighbornhood as the pre-divorce family home. So it may be that the economic condition of the fathers was different in these different categories of contribution to college and that those who gave more money included a larger group of more affluent business and professional men for whom moving away after the breakup was more problematic because of the constraints of licensure in different states and the obstacles to reestablishing professional practices and moving businesses.

We cannot answer any of these questions from the limited information available in this study. Nevertheless, according to the youngsters reports, fathers who along with mother did not move contributed approximately $6000 to the first year of college. They contributed approximately $5000 to the college expenses of youngsters where the mother remained in the same community. And close to that for children who remained in their custody. They contributed somewhat over $4000 to children who moved with their custodial mother. But once again we confront an unexpected difference in father and mother custody. Fathers contributed their lowest, only $3700 to children who moved with them. Why did the children in their custody get so much less ? This finding, which is germane to the issue of comparing children in father and mother custody receives no comment from the investigators.

There are other issues in understanding these amounts within their proper context, which are not discussed because we lack information. We are not told whether the children who moved were helped by grandparents or extended family, which they may well have been if the mother relocated to be with her family. We also are not told whether any of the young people had worked to accumulate their own college money during or after high school, or whether any enjoyed their own family trust or had received scholarships. It is unlikely that the young people knew the amounts contributed by stepparents which may have been an important part of tuition for those mothers who moved in order to remarry. We are left with many more questions than answers.

To note a few: was the amount of the father's contribution related to the father's income. Was it related to the mother's income? Did the contribution reflect a sacrifice by the father? Was it something they had planned for? Or was it an easy gift. Did the amount reflect the parent child relationship? Was less money provided if mother had remarried? Or if father remarried? Did the money reflect the friendship or animosity of the parents or the perhaps the attitude of the child or perhaps the academic promise and talents of the child? Was the gender of the child an issue or the number of children in the family? For all of these interesting and important questions we lack data.

But in the absence of information it seems highly questionable to conclude that if the mother and father refrain from moving that the child is likely to get $1000 more in college tuition during her freshman year at college. It also should be noted that even the $6000 dollar contributed by fathers for the freshman year, which was the top amount estimated by the youngsters whose parents had not moved, does not go much beyond one half or less of the college expenses at a state university, especially if clothing and transportation and entertainment are factored in.

The study also includes a welter of responses to questions put to the youngsters about how stressed they feel, about their anger their attitudes to their parents, and the extent to which they see their parents as getting along. In the absence of any history or personal information about the youngsters, the parent child relationships or about their families there is no way to evaluate their responses responsibly. We lack the most elementary information about how many youngsters experienced a second or third parental divorce. We do not know whether the youngsters who relocated with their mother had come a long distance from their home to the college or whether this was their first separation from their families, or whether they had some concerns about the effect of their leaving on the mother or siblings in a distant community. We are not told about whether they or their parents were in medical or psychiatric treatment during the child's growing up years. We are not informed about how old the children were at the breakup, the reasons for the move, or the extent or number of moves.

From a developmental standpoint it is important to note that the authors seem entirely unaware of the impact of developmental issues on the youngsters and their attitudes. The responses of the young people about how they feel about their parents or about themselves as they stand on the threshold of college, at a major life transition, need to be understood within a developmental context. Undoubtedly entering college and separating from living with family is a moderately stressful time. It is difficult for some young people to separate from their parents and familiar surroundings at this time. Entry into dorm life can be a shock. But these stresses are not ones likely to lead to lasting health problems. The public health studies that link stress to serious sequellae that the authors invoke deal with lasting severe stress not the mild to moderate stress of leaving home and moving from one developmental phase to another which these young people are engaged in doing.

The mental health responses already reported suggest that these students are mostly in good shape with the exception of those in the custody of their fathers. Those young people who thought of their parents as good or poor role models may at age 18 or 19 have accurately gauged their parent's behavior or may still be in the throes of adolescent rebellion against them. These kind of subtle judgments require the context of the relationship. One needs to know the circumstances and the details of the relationship in order to pass judgment. Furthermore it is likely that parents who get along are able more easily to stay in the same neighborhood where they resided prior to the divorce. Perhaps there was less remarriage among the parents who did not move, or less internal motivation or external pressure to remake their lives or perhaps some lingering affection between the divorced couple.

It is really too bad that the investigators did not interview even a small subgroup among the young people or their parents to shed light on these issues and to clarify and truly enrich their findings before trying to link the youngster's attitudes to whether or not they moved an hour away.or more.

To detail their reports which they failed to anchor within the context of the lives of the students or their families, the investigators report no significant differences in anger between those youngsters who remained with both parents and those who moved with their mother and those who remained with the mother, whether or not the father moved. They find a larger difference in distress from the divorce reported among those who moved with their mother than those who remained in the same community. But here again we lack information about the economic circumstances of the family, the mother child and the stepparent relationships, and other information that might cast light on their greater distress.

We are told that there is no difference in the responses in the different groups in the view of mother as providing good support. Those youngsters who moved and those who stayed did have significantly different view of the father as source of support. Whether those who moved were realistically disappointed in their father who did not, in their view, make the expected efforts to maintain their contact or whether they felt displaced by the stepchildren or whether they were influenced by their mother's feelings towards the father we cannot knowwithout knowledge of the history and the circumstances that prompted their responses.

Finally the authors note, "Our data cannot establish with certainty that moves cause children significant harm."

Actually their date cannot establish even tentatively that moves cause children any harm. The data as reported show very little about the impact of the relocation on children in mother custody families as compared with those that do not move. It would, in fact, be impossible for these data to show improvement or detriment since their study is entirely lacking in a baseline. We do not know how the child was before the move, or the reasons for the move, or the age and condition of parent and child before the move. The study tells us nothing about the impact of the move without this baseline against which the child could be compared.

The authors concede that all of "the data are correlative and not causative.They cannot establish with anything near certainty that the moves are a contributing cause." Exactly. It is important to emphasize that correlations never establish causality and that the entire method of this study is based on correlations.

Moreover it is just as likely that relocation is a consequence of a stressful and unhappy environment as a cause of it. The authors do not consider this obvious possibility. They do note that general data or averages cannot decide individual cases and they call appropriately for longitudinal studies, which this is not.

In their final conclusions the authors offer the unfounded generalization that the study establishes that relocation does not improve the condition of children. It is impossible to find any support for this statement in this study.

As we have noted, since the study has no information about the children prior to the move, the researchers have no basis whatsoever for evaluating whether the children did or did not improve. And since they have not enough information in their findings to examine different groups in the study, they cannot shed light on who benefited and who did not. In addition, since there were no differences among those groups of children who remained in the same community with both parents and those who moved with the custodial mother, the researchers' conclusion that relocation fails to improve the lives of children seems to be built not on the study itself but on the goals of the investigators.

The only group of children found to suffer were those who were in the custody of their fathers (whether or not the children moved). These children seemed significantly more troubled in all of the major mental health measures.

To conclude: The proper comparison group, which would be relevant to the relocation of the custodial parent with the child, is not simply cases where both parents continue to live in the same area. Rather the salient group would be built of cases where the custodial parent was prevented from moving. Such a study has not been conducted.

The important findings in this limited study are:

(1) the striking similarities in major mental health measures between children who moved with their mothers and those whose parents did not move (which supports granting custodial mothers' requests to move with their children), and (2) the unexplained psychological plight of the children in father custody (which contraindicates denying custodial mothers' requests to move with their children and requiring the children instead to remain with their fathers).

The similarities in mental health measures between those who remained in mother custody regardless of geographical location are overriding in their importance.

-- Judith Wallerstein, Ph.D.

posted at 2:00 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

June 26, 2003

Sanford Braver and Moveaways

Sanford Braver is on the horns of a dilemma.

On June 25, he (and his co-researchers Ira M. Ellman and William V. Fabricius) released a new study that contends that children are harmed by parental moveaways, especially when it is the custodial mother who wishes to relocate with the children. Braver wanted so badly to support his position that he ignored the findings of his own study.

The timing of this study and the deluge of press releases about it coincides with the upcoming California Supreme Court's decision on the LaMusga case, which fathers' rights groups hope will lead to the reversal of the California Burgess moveaway decision. The goal appears to be to influence public opinion against moveaways.

Braver and the fathers' rights groups who support him have long been opposed to custodial mother moveaways since the advent of the bellwether 1996 California Burgess decision, which ruled that, based on the best interest of the child, "a parent seeking to relocate does not bear a burden of establishing that the move is "necessary" as a condition of custody. Similarly, after a judicial custody order is in place, a custodial parent seeking to relocate bears no burden of establishing that it is "necessary" to do so. Instead, he or she "has the right to change the residence of the child, subject to the power of the court to restrain a removal that would prejudice the rights or welfare of the child." Fathers' rights groups have not shown the same level of indignation when noncustodial fathers move away from their children, nor do they voice opposition as loudly when it is the custodial father who wants to move with the children. The protests revolve around custodial moms who want to move with the children.

The Study: Who Was Studied, How They Were Studied, and The Findings

The study examined several hundred undergrad University of Arizona psych. students from divorced families. The students participated by filling out questionnaires. They were divided into the following categories: (1) Neither parent moved; (2) Student moved with mom; (3) Student remained with dad while mom moved; (4) Student moved with dad; (5) Student remained with mom while dad moved.

Braver claimed that "on most child outcomes, the ones whose parents moved are significantly disadvantaged."

There's one big problem: his own findings did not support such a sweeping statement.

Below are his findings, broken down by The Liz Library.

PERSONAL AND EMOTIONAL WELL-ADJUSTMENT: The most well-adjusted group in this category were children who remained with their mothers whose fathers moved away. They were better adjusted than children from divorced families where neither parent moved, albeit marginally so. Children who moved with their fathers, or who remained behind with their fathers scored significantly lower on personal and emotional well adjustment than children who remained in the custody of their mothers, regardless of whether the mother moved or not. GENERAL LIFE SATISFACTION: Children in the custody of their fathers scored lowest on general life satisfaction. Children of divorce whose fathers moved away and left them with their mothers were the most satisfied, marginally more satisfied than children from divorced families in which neither parent moved, and significantly more satisfied than children who either moved or remained behind with their fathers. HOSTILITY: Children who moved with their fathers, or who remained behind in the custody of their fathers had significantly more hostility than children in families in which neither divorced parent moved, or who either moved with their mothers or remained behind with their mothers. Children who moved with their mothers showed less hostility than children who remained behind with their mothers (i.e. whose fathers moved away), but children who remained behind with their mothers whose fathers moved away, while a little more hostile, also were a little more well-adjusted and satisfied overall. INNER TURMOIL AND DISTRESS FROM THE DIVORCE: Children from the group in which neither parent moved had the least inner turmoil and distress from the divorce itself. However, the group of children who moved with their mothers or stayed with their mothers when their father moved still had less inner turmoil and distress than children who either moved with their fathers or stayed behind with their fathers when their mothers moved. (It is unclear whether this factor was related to moving per se, or more difficult divorce circumstances, which in turn precipitated a move. Either way, it is uncorrelated with the children's overall well-adjustedness and life satisfaction.) PERCEPTION OF PARENT AS "SUPPORTIVE": Children across all categories tended to perceive the parent they lived with as more supportive. However, in general over all categories, children had a higher opinion of their mothers. "GLOBAL HEALTH": Children who moved away with their fathers reported significantly lower "global health" than children whose parents did not move, and also lower health than the remaining three groups, which otherwise had no significant differences among them, but did report somewhat lower health than the group whose parents did not move. CONTRIBUTIONS OF PARENTS TO COLLEGE: Among the moving categories, children who remained behind with their fathers received significantly less college assistance than did children who remained behind with their mothers (the second most supportive category), and children who moved with their fathers (the least supportive category) received significantly less college assistance than did children who moved with their mothers. Children whose parents did not move received significantly more financial assistance for college than children whose parents moved with or without them. (While actually relatively unimportant compared with things like a child's well-adjustedness overall, and probably most easily remedied by policies that would target this issue with particularity -- like more and better government funding for education for all children -- this is the finding Braver et al. and the anti-moveaway crowd are touting the most, and it's essentially echoed in the odd category immediately below.) FINANCIAL WORRIES OVER COLLEGE EXPENSES: This category mirrored the actual contributions of parents to children's college expenses, as we might have guessed.

If the goal of this study is to steer public opinion away from custodial mother moveaways, he can't do it by comparing child-with-mom cases to child-with-dad cases because the children with mom do so much better than the children with dad. So, he compares all moves to all non-moves, lumping moms and dads together as "parents" to disguise the poor outcomes when the children are with dad. The comparisons between all moves to non-moves are problematic because the study has not addressed home conditions prior to the move, nor does it address conditions in the homes where the parents did not move. His conclusions are correlations that do not prove causation. He should have compared families prior to the move to families post move.

About Parents Contributing To College Tuition...

Braver's comments about college tuition were interesting in that one targeted audience in particular would probably not be too keen on hearing what he has to say. Fathers' rights advocates (especially second wives who have children with the noncustodial dad) have expressed outrage and fear over possibly being "forced" to pay for college. They see tuition as post-18 child support; i.e., having to support his ex for several more years. For years they have complained that married parents are not required to pay for their children's college educations, so why should divorced parents be forced to pay? Most divorced parents won't be "forced" to provide for their children's post-secondary educations, but that is another issue for another article. Braver's concerns about college tuition isn't likely to appeal to fathers' rights advocates. They will either keep quiet about it or pay it the barest of lip services to look good.

Garbage In, Garbage Out:
Braver Cited Bauserman's Shoddy Joint Custody Analysis

Braver's position was so weak that he sought to bolster it by tagging on Robert Bauserman's debunked joint custody meta-analysis and made-up father-involvement nonsense. He wrote that Bauserman "concluded that children in joint custody arrangements are better adjusted than those in sole maternal custody ... This suggests that future research should be aimed at determining whether parental relocation in sole maternal custody families contributes to children's greater maladjustment in those families.

Bauserman was in the same position then that Braver finds himself now. He badly wanted to support joint custody over sole (maternal) custody, yet he did not have the material to make that leap. The research he misrepresented did not support joint custody over sole custody. It did find that that joint custody exacerbates conflict. Bauserman did not mention that studies prior to the mid-1980s involved rare couples who tended to have higher incomes, higher education, who had only one child, not much interpersonal conflict, and they chose joint custody because they wanted to make it work. Those were not representative of most divorces, yet he cited them to support his contention that joint custody is far superior and preferable to sole custody. It is not possible for him to conclude his analysis in favor of joint custody due to the problems and lack of consistency of those studies.

I had written the following in my critique of this analysis:

"Bauserman's method of selection omitted qualitative studies and permitted only studies that compared joint custody and sole custody households. He ignored the larger, credible, qualitative studies such as those conducted by Judith Wallerstein that have come out against joint custody in favor of small, early studies (some unpublished) and doctoral dissertations. Those smaller studies have numerous flaws such as small sample sizes, weak methods of contacting parents and children (like one hour phone calls with adolescents, lack of conclusions (more research needed), and not correcting for the self-selection of families who had chosen joint custody because they were amicable and had low levels of conflict to begin with. Misrepresentations of many of these same studies have circulated on fathers' rights web sites and mailing lists for many years."

Bauserman's analysis was shoddy in its own right. However, it does not help that he had co-authored the notorious Rind Study, which advocated calling it "adult-child sex" when when the adolescent was supposedly "willing" with "positive reactions" to the encounter. Why would Braver rely on the weak findings purportedly about child welfare from a "researcher" who was involved in something like that?

Braver cannot use Bauserman's weak analysis to prevent custodial mother relocations with the children. He also cannot use his own research findings to do the same thing. His own findings indicated that most difficulties were experienced by children who either remain with or move with their fathers. The most well-adjusted group was the children who remained with their mothers when dad moved away, even more so than the cases when neither parent moved.

Birds of a Feather: Braver Misrepresents Amato and Gilbreth ... And So Did Bauserman In His Joint Custody Analysis

Braver's misrepresentations of Amato and Gilbreth's findings about "authoritative parenting" as related to relocations were interesting in that Bauserman made similar misrepresentations of the same study in his support of joint custody. Both Braver and Bauserman ignored Amato's most important finding: the fathers' frequency of contact was the least significant predictor of child outcomes. That finding runs counter to Braver's claim that mom/child moveaways harm children because they interfere with dad's "parenting time." "Father absence" does not cause poor-child outcomes.

I had addressed "Authoritative Parenting" in my critique of Bauserman.

About "Authoritative Parenting"... Amato and Gilbreth defined "authoritative parenting" as "setting rules for children, monitoring their behavior, and dispensing discipline when children misbehave." Later in the paper he extended his definition to include "helping with homework, working on projects together, providing noncoercive discipline." They actually found that " the combination of high (child) support with a moderately high level of noncoercive control - authoritative parenting - is the parenting style that best predicts children's positive development." The type of authoritative parenting matters. They wrote that "parental control is harmful, however, if it is enforced with coercive punishment, such as hitting." In addition, mothers, not fathers, do most of the authoritative parenting. Contrary to popular belief, "fathers are not the main disciplinarians of their children; mothers are, particularly in the early years." Yogman, M. W., Cooley, J., & Kindlon, D. (1988). Fathers, infants, and toddlers. In P. Bronstein & C. P. Cowan (Eds.), Fatherhood Today: Mens Changing Role In the Family. (pp. 53-65). New York: John Wiley & Sons Amato and Gilbreth came to the same conclusion. They found that fathers tended to take on "fun" activities with their children. "Because fathers have limited time with their children, they want to ensure that their kids enjoy themselves. Consequently, many fathers go out to eat with their children, or take their children to movies or amusement parks, but do not engage in authoritative parenting practices, such as helping with homework, talking over personal problems, or explaining the difference between right and wrong. Furthermore, nonresident fathers tend to be more permissive and indulgent than other fathers. Because these men fear that their relationships with children are tenuous, they often are reluctant to set firm rules or to discipline their children for misbehavior. In general, the activities shared by many nonresident fathers and their children may be enjoyable, but these activities, in the absence of authoritative parenting, contribute relatively little to children's development."

Braver's contention that "it appears that noncustodial father, at least in past decades, did not usually engage in authoritative parenting, because that kind of relationship is more difficult to maintain for a parent who does not live with the child" cannot be supported by citing Amato. Nor can he use Amato to support this statement: "the child's relocation to a considerable distance from the noncustodial parent may make such a relationship not merely more difficult but essentially impossible."

Here is why (quoting Amato from the same study):

In short, the constraints of a traditional visiting relationship make it difficult for many men to practice authoritative parenting. Indeed, many nonresident fathers complain that visitation arrangements are insufficient to maintain anything other than a superficial relationship with their children. Nevertheless, the fact that some fathers manage to maintain close and authoritative relationships with their children, even with only modest visitation, indicates that there must be something else (other than traditional visitation arrangements) standing in the way of authoritative parenting. This leads to a second explanation that focuses on the characteristics of fathers. The truth is that some men are not highly motivated to be good fathers. Other men might want to be effective fathers but do not know how. And other men do not fully realize that how they spend their time with children has long-term consequences, and hence, do not make the effort to act authoritatively. These men would not benefit their children regardless of how much time they spent together.

Noncustodial dads are responsible for maintaining their own commitment to their parental roles. They must work on acquiring fathering skills themselves. He should not demand that mom to turn down a chance to improve her life by relocating solely so that he may maintain "frequent contact" with his children whenever and however he chooses. In fact, the moveaway case Schwartz v. Schwartz ruled that "'[the trial court] should not insist that the advantages of the move be sacrificed and the opportunity for a better and more comfortable lifestyle for the mother . . . and children be forfeited solely to maintain weekly visitation by the father . . . where reasonable alternative visitation is available[.]'"

Braver included an anecdote about a mother who wished to move with the children because she was jealous that dad had remarried.He insinuates that moms move for selfish reasons and are the direct cause of the breakdown between children and fathers. The anecdote does not match existing moveaway case law. When the mother's reason for the move is either vague or aimed at interfering with the noncustodial father's relationship with his children, courts tend to reject the mother's wishes. There should be a "good faith" reason for the move. So, mom moving out of jealousy is not nearly as likely to be a reason for her move with the children than a new job, a spouse's new job, a desire to be closer to her parents for support, or a remarriage. Such a move is even less likely to be approved by the court.

The studies Braver cites do not support his conclusions. They contradict them. His findings in many ways support mothers who choose to relocate with their children.

---

MORE RESEARCH AND ARTICLES

Dr. Judith Wallerstein's comments on Braver's findings.

Post-Divorce Move-aways. Braver's actual findings. By liz (The Liz Library).

Robert Bauserman on Joint v. Sole Custody, by Trish Wilson. Why is a co-author of the infamous Rind Stody -- which sought to label "willing" sexual relations between adolescents and adults "adult/child sex" -- so interested in joint custody?

Liz Critiques Robert Bauserman's Joint Custody Meta-Analysis. Rind Study co-author does another.

More on Joint Custody by Paul Amato. He does not support joint custody over sole custody.

Parental Dissatisfaction with Joint Custody. From "The Impact of the Custody Plan on the Family: A Five-Year Follow-Up".

The Truth About Joint Custody, by Trish Wilson -- Don't call it "Shared Parenting."

Joint Custody Is Not In The Best Interests Of Children, by Trish Wilson

Comments by Trish Wilson -- Testimony on SB 571 -- Rebuttable Presumption for Joint Legal Custody -- Family Law and Fathers' Rights Antics in Maryland.

Myths and Facts about "Fatherlessness," by Trish Wilson. "Fatherless" homes [read: single/divorced mother homes] do not cause poor-child outcomes.

Deconstructing the Essential Father, by Trish Wilson. A critique of the American Psychologist article. Addressing misrepresentations and propaganda about "responsible fatherhood" disseminated by David Blankenhorn, David Popenoe, and Wade Horn.

Friendly Parent Provisions, What's Wrong With Them, by Trish Wilson

Margaret Dore, Esq. on "friendly parent" provisions

Debunking Claims About Joint vs. Sole Custody, liz.

Those Joint Custody Studies: Debunked, liz

Joint Custody -- the Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions, liz

Myths and Facts about Fatherhood: What the Research REALLY Says, liz.

Myths and Facts about Motherhood: What the Research REALLY Says, liz.

What the Experts Say: A Review of the Scholarly Research on Post-Divorce Parenting and Child Well-being.

Misplaced Blame and Simplistic Solutions: DC's Joint Custody Presumption, by Margaret Martin Barry -- Scholarly article by law professor discusses what's wrong with a statute providing for a presumption of joint custody

When Paradigms Collide: Protecting Battered Parents and Their Children in the Family Court System, by Clare Dalton, 37 Fam. & Conciliation Courts Rev. 273 (1999)

Attachment 101 for Attorneys: Implications for Infant Placement Decisions, by Eleanor Willemsen and Kristen Marcel

Custody and Access: An NAWL Brief to the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access, March 1998 (Canada) and, new:
The Case Against Joint Custody (Ontario Women's Justice Network)

Joint Custody: Implications for Women, by Renee Leff
originally published on the internet at http://www.pgi.edu/pdf/1995journal.pdf

Understanding the Batterer in Visitation and Custody Disputes, by R. Lundy Bancroft. Why abuse may be reported for the first time at the time of a separation or divorce; critique of Janet Johnston's categories of batterer; more.

Spousal Violence in Custody and Access Disputes, Recommendations for Reform, Nicholas M.C. Bala et al. -- Scholarly article by Status of Women Canada Policy Research Fund (1998)

The Abuse of Custody, an interview with attorney Ruth Lea Taylor

Custody Order or Disordered Custody? by Joan Braun -- Law student article with research cites published in BC Institute Against Family Violence Newsletter

The Psychological Effects of Relocation for Children of Divorce, by Marion Gindes, Ph.D., AAML Journal, Vol. 15 (1998), pp. 119

What the Father's Rights movement really looks like, liz

What the "Responsible Fatherhood" movement really is about, liz ... and

Carol S. Bruch, Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation: GETTING IT WRONG IN CHILD CUSTODY CASES

posted at 6:20 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

June 26, 2003

What's Up With Atrios?

Someone left the barn door open over there. It looks like a Michael "Savage Nation" Weiner wannabe is a guest host today. Either Atrios has a bizarre sense of humor or the blog has been hacked.

I definitely need a higher octane brand of coffee...

posted at 9:25 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

June 24, 2003

What I'm Reading Today

I'm still very busy and unable to blog as much as I'd like to. These articles and blog entries caught my attention:

Halliburton: Principle Recipient of Iraq Reconstruction [originally appeared June 21, 2003 in Le Monde.]

FBI Files on Famous People (pdf format)

Leah at Atrios links to Making Light's latest entry about the looting of the Iraqi National Museum, including the Washington Post link I've posted below.

Calpundit on the two affirmative action rulings handed down yesterday. The concept was found constitutional. There is more detail at TalkLeft. Clarence Thomas voted against affirmative action. I'm not surprised.

Belgium Rejects War Crimes Charges Against Bush, Blair, and Franks Please take note of this threat by Donald Rumsfeld:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned last week that the United States may encourage NATO to move its headquarters out of Belgium unless the country changes the newly amended law to rule out complaints against Americans. The Justice Ministry acted within 24 hours after the complaints were filed, referring them to British and American authorities under recent changes designed to prevent frivolous or politically motivated use of the 1993 law. Under the statute, Belgian courts can hear war crimes cases regardless of where the crimes are alleged to have occurred.

posted at 7:41 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

Over 6,000 Missing Artifacts, Not 33

Looters Stole 6,000 Artifacts
Number Expected to Rise as Officials Take Inventory in Iraq

U.S. and Iraqi officials have confirmed the theft of at least 6,000 artifacts from Iraq's National Museum of Antiquities during a prolonged looting spree as U.S. forces entered Baghdad two months ago, a leading archaeologist said yesterday. University of Chicago archaeologist McGuire Gibson said the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement told him June 13 that the official count of missing items had reached 6,000 and was climbing as museum and Customs investigators proceeded with an inventory of three looted storerooms.

posted at 7:41 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

June 20, 2003

Talk about Gay Marriage in Canada

Andrew Sullivan, Colby Cosh, and Instapundit discussed the new Canadian law legalizing gay marriage. Cosh critiqued David Frum's National Review article on the subject, while throwing in a few jabs at liberals. Sullivan and Glenn Reynolds are in favor. Glenn's support seemed a bit whiggy in hinting that gay marriages may be like "Jerry-Springer types who are now allowed to get married." However, his main point is sound: gay marriage is not the big threat it's being painted to be.As I have stated numerous times, welfare reform marriage promotions, "responsible fatherhood" initiatives, and the backlash politics of the fathers' rights movement pose greater threats.

Speaking of marriage promotion, I agree with Radley Balko's assertion that the government should stay out of family construction altogether. It's not good to engage in social experimentation, especially when the people being experimented upon aren't in a position to protest.

I don't agree with quite a bit in his article, though. Contrary to Balko's opinion, left-wing feminist activists such as myself who work on family and motherhood issues have asked the following questions:

If leftists were smart, they'd point out the hypocrisy of conservatives on the issue of marriage incentives. They'd ask why conservatives trust people to make smart decisions without state intervention about how they spend and invest their money, but can't muster a similar trust when it comes to how people live their personal lives. They'd ask why conservatives -- who claim to be skeptical of government and its power of coercion -- insist on bringing that same state and those same powers of coercion into the most personal, intimate and important decision we make in our lives -- the decision to commit to another person. But leftists aren't all that smart. Instead, they want to expand the power of the state to grant its imprimatur and blessing on our relationships: state sanctioning of same-sex marriages.

Some leftists (not nearly enough, in my opinion), have pointed out conservative hypocrisy regarding marriage promotion. Not only do they question the intrusiveness of these policies, they question what right the state has to select marriage partners if the people are poor, particularly if the woman is pregnant or bore a child out-of-wedlock. This is in effect a state-sanctioned form of the shotgun wedding. The points in that paragraph were good ones. However, the faulty premise above is in comparing welfare reform "marriage promotion" to gay marriage. "Marriage promotion" and the "responsible" fatherhood initiatives that go along with it are primarily about reimbursing state welfare coffers and reducing the welfare rolls. The one thing fatherhood initiatives have been somewhat successful at is collecting child support. The DNA=father legal fiction borne out of welfare reform child support collection has caused numerous problems in non-welfare and adoption cases. It has reduced fatherhood to biology, while ignoring the much more important legal establishment of the fatherhood role a man takes on when he accepts responsibility and rights inherent in raising children. Some leftists such as family law reform feminist advocates have tackled these issues. They don't get as much media attention as the groups that hype fatherhood and welfare reform.

I've noticed that one thing no one seems to have brought up about Frum's National Review article is his gross misrepresentation of the Alice Hector/Robert Young case:

(Some years ago, a Florida court awarded custody to an at-home dad over his working wife, and feminists raised a huge fuss against the sexist court that extinguished maternal rights just because the mother worked 70 hours a week.)

Alice Hector is the mother in the Florida case described above. Robert Young (the husband) was not an at-home dad. He was an unemployed ne'er-do-well who left Florida for a year to have an affair with a woman in New Mexico. Hector's mother helped her care for the children while Hector worked. By the way, Hector appealed the court's decision to award custody to Young, and she won. She won because she was the primary caregiver of the children as well as the primary wage-earner. She deserved custody. Her now-ex husband, Robert Young, did not. The court was correct in reversing that original, bad decision. Feminists (including myself) did not "raise a fuss" because of alleged discrimination over Hector's work hours. They raised a fuss because with all the facts it was clear that Young did not deserve custody. He was no "at-home dad." Ironically, the link I've provided about this case is from a rather nasty father's rights web site. Even the spin favoring Young can't hide what he had done. This article was written before the latest decision that reverted custody back to Hector.

I wrote to Frum and National Review, stating that if Frum would really like to tackle threats to traditional marriage and child custody, he should write an article about welfare reform or the backlash fathers' rights movement rather than gay marriage. That's where he'll find the real threats. It'll be really interesting if National Review prints my letter, since I'm about as left-wing as they come.

posted at 10:37 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

June 19, 2003

More On Bush Administration Lies About Weapons of Mass Destruction

The outrage over the lies about the threat posed by WMDs in Iraq continue to pour in. Add Robert Sheer to the growing list of people calling for Bush's impeachment if he knew about the lies. The big news is that top White House counterterrorism advisor Rand Beers has resigned -- and soon after volunteered as national security advisor for Senator and Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry (D - MA). As I reported yesterday, the "germ warfare mobile units" have been determined to be helium projection factories. In one particularly outrageous case, "rigged droned aircraft" and "missiles" turned out to be a student project or model.

Former Aide Takes Aim At War On Terror

"The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure," said [former top White House counterterrorism advisor Rand] Beers, who until now has remained largely silent about leaving his National Security Council job as special assistant to the president for combating terrorism. "As an insider, I saw the things that weren't being done. And the longer I sat and watched, the more concerned I became, until I got up and walked out."

Washington Post
By Laura Blumenfeld
June 16, 2003

Banned Weapons Remain Unseen Foe
[via Frank at I Protest. Go to his blog for the rest of the story.]

"The latest U.S. intelligence, presented at a morning briefing here Friday and backed by satellite photos and reconnaissance reports, was specific and unnerving. Saddam Hussein, a team of U.S. and Australian weapons hunters was told, may have built drone aircraft rigged with nozzles to spray poison gases, plus two short-range missiles with warheads designed to carry deadly chemicals or germs, at the former Ibn Firnas aeronautics research center.

Donning flak vests and helmets, and loading their weapons, the 26-member team climbed into six Humvees and SUVs and sped to the sprawling complex just north of the reeking trash mountains of the Baghdad city dump. They quickly found the "drones": five burned and blackened 9-foot wings dumped near the front gate. "It could have been a student project, or maybe a model," the team's expert, U.S. Air Force Capt. Libbie Boehm, said with a shrug. The "missiles" were found too, after a bit of searching through a junk heap: two discarded casings of artillery rockets.

Their "intelligence" resulted in the discovery of a few pieces of a model or student project and a couple of artillery rocket casings. No wonder they're unhappy. But it gets worse. Most of the more than 300 sites that the teams have investigates "were so heavily bombed or looted that any potential evidence was long gone." Moreover, the teams have largely visited the same sites that U.N. inspectors searched last winter without result. They were never given any of the U.N. reports, so knew little about what was there before. Commanders have made such comparison more difficult by changing the names of some long-known U.N. sites."

By Bob Drogin
L. A. Times
June 15, 2003

The War Built On A Lie

"Why mince words? These are the facts:

1) President George W. Bush is a liar.

2) Secretary of State Colin Powell is a liar.

3) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is a liar.

4) National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice is a liar.

To the above facts we might add these: There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, none were there when our war against Iraq began, and none will be found unless we plant them there."

San Francisco Chronicle
View From The Left
Harley Sorensen
Special to SF Gate
June 16, 2003

11-country opinion poll shows disapproval of Iraq war

"The US-led military campaign in Iraq and the policies of President George W. Bush have been condemned in an 11-country opinion poll conducted by the BBC.

The publicly funded UK broadcaster - which questioned 11,000 people in the US, Europe, Middle East and Australasia - found that 57 per cent had an unfavourable attitude to the US president. The figure rose to 60 per cent when responses by Americans were excluded."

Financial Times, London
By Tim Burt, Media Editor
Published: June 16 2003

MoveOn Demands Answers Now on the Distortion of Evidence

"On March 17th, in the eve of the Iraq war, President Bush told the American people that "intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer said simply, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there." And Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld elaborated: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Now, after two months of searching by the most skilled teams in the military, not a single piece of solid evidence of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons programs in Iraq has been found. The top 87 sites identified by U.S. Central Command have turned up only vacuum cleaners, a swimming pool for Iraq's Olympic team, and a license plate factory."

---

"A President may make no more important decision than whether or not to take a country to war. If Bush and his officials deceived the American public to create support for the Iraq war, they need to be held accountable. "

The MoveOn Team
June 16th, 2003

Dereliction of Duty

"Last Thursday a House subcommittee met to finalize next year's homeland security appropriation. The ranking Democrat announced that he would introduce an amendment adding roughly $1 billion for areas like port security and border security that, according to just about every expert, have been severely neglected since Sept. 11. He proposed to pay for the additions by slightly scaling back tax cuts for people making more than $1 million per year.

The subcommittee's chairman promptly closed the meeting to the public, citing national security - though no classified material was under discussion. And the bill that emerged from the closed meeting did not contain the extra funding.

It was a perfect symbol of the reality of the Bush administration's "war on terror." Behind the rhetoric - and behind the veil of secrecy, invoked in the name of national security but actually used to prevent public scrutiny - lies a pattern of neglect, of refusal to take crucial actions to protect us from terrorists. Actual counterterrorism, it seems, doesn't fit the administration's agenda."

The New York Times
By Paul Krugman
June 17, 2003

... But Still Ruffling Feathers

"That sense of going it alone, of being so big and powerful that even the reluctant must follow, of being so right that persuasion and consultation are merely a waste of time and breath, has been the hallmark of the Bush foreign policy since its inception. It has won us a few allies, but not many friends -- and it is shortsighted. Over the horizon, in a place that will surprise and bedevil us, will come another challenge. America needs friends."

Washington Post
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, June 17, 2003; Page A21

What Did He Know and When Did He Know It?

"The Case of the Phantom Uranium raises questions about the president that could lead to legitimate calls for impeachment."

Robert Sheer
June 17, 2003

Australian expert to expose Iraqi weapons 'exaggeration'

"[Former Australian defence analyst Andrew] Wilkie told The Sydney Morning Herald he would expose the government's "exaggeration" of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and "concoction" of links between former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and terrorists in his appearance at the inquiry.

"The claim was obviously false. There is no doubt that Iraq did have weapons at one time and something will eventually be found and dressed up as justification, but it won't be anything of the magnitude we were led to believe," Wilkie said."

Associated Press
June 16, 2003

Andrew Wilkie welcomes inquiry into war intelligence

"Andrew Wilkie: "I think this is good news for Australia that there may be a full inquiry. There needs to be some explanation of why we went to war on the basis of a massive WMD program and an imminent threat, when the reality has been so different.

I think there needs to be an inquiry with the cooperation of the Government to work out who said what and why, and to what purpose. And I was concerned that we might have only had a Senate inquiry without Government cooperation, and that really wouldn't be adequate to get to the bottom of this.

---

Certainly my position all along, and I still stand by this judgment, is that the intelligence agencies did a pretty good job of coming up with a reasonably measured assessment and I still feel strongly that in fact it was the Government who exaggerated those reasonably measure assessments, exaggerated them a great deal in arguing the case for war."

PM (an Australian public broadcasting program)
June 16, 2003
Reporter: Alison Caldwell

Intelligence did not justify Iraq war

"Felicity Davey speaks to Andrew Wilkie, a former ONA analyst who resigned over the intelligence used in Australia's justification for war on Iraq. Mr Wilkie said he did not believe the intelligence being used to justify war with Iraq was credible."

Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Lateline
Late night news & current affairs
June 17, 2003

The Boys Who Cried Wolfowitz
[Should be entitled, "A War Hawk Pundit Backpedals: Insert Tail Between Legs"]
[via Busy, Busy, Busy]

"What the Bush administration did was gild the lily Ð disseminating information that ranged from selective to preposterous. The president himself gave credence to the claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa, a story that (as Seymour Hersh's investigations leave little doubt) was based on transparently fraudulent information. Colin Powell in his February performance at the U.N. insisted that those famous aluminum tubes Iraq bought were intended for bomb-making, although the technical experts at the Department of Energy had made an awfully strong case that the tubes were for conventional rocket launchers. And as James Risen disclosed in The Times this week, two top Qaeda planners in custody told American interrogators Ð one of them well before the war was set in motion Ð that Osama bin Laden had rejected the idea of working with Saddam. That inconclusive but potent evidence was kept quiet in the administration's zeal to establish a meaningful Iraqi connection to the fanatical war on America."

New York Times
By Bill Keller
June 14, 2003

posted at 8:40 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

June 17, 2003

Babylonian Musings Flamed Me

Marduk, the Bore of Babylon, is a frustrated and disappointed former archeologist. He bitched about the eight digs he went on. Sunburn. Scorpion bites (tiny ones). Diarrhea. He bitched that his parents introduce him to their friends as their "little Indiana Jones" (He was probably more of an irritant, like Short Round.) Invariably, the friends asked him where were the hat and the whip. Instead, he traveled the long road to "cuneiform studies and philology" and ranting on his blog.

Yesterday, he ranted about Teresa Nielsen Hayden, Seth Malloy, and me.

I saw Marduk's Babylonian Fiskings listed in NZ Bear's left frame, but I never bothered to visit the site. If what he writes is fisking, I'm disappointed. I thought fisking was an art form that was supposed to have a point. All he does is flame. He went after Teresa with a vengeance. I wondered if this was personal.

Marduck wrote: "[Juvenile flaming deleted]... it's not a matter of people minimizing the loss of 33 objects."

Uhm... yes, it is, actually. That's a part of it. It's a matter of accurately reporting what has happened.

Marduk wrote: "It is a matter that you and your ilk reveled in blaming the Americans for participating in one of the worst cultural rapes in history."

He admits it was one of the worst cultural rapes in history. Good. The Freepazoids won't even admit that much. However, her "ilk" in the blogosphere has not blamed Americans for this tragedy. Archeologists and curators "from around the world blaming the United States for failing to protect the institution. Some compared it to the 13th-century sacking of Baghdad by the Mongol hordes." Marduk needs to get his facts straight before he flames.

Marduk wrote: "That it is reduced to the random, non-systematic looting that is an unfortunate by-product of any armed conflict is a good thing in and of itself."

Teresa has mentioned in past posts that such looting is an "unfortunate by-product of any armed conflict." So have I. I brought up looting during the first Gulf War, in keeping with the topic at hand. It certainly wasn't a good thing. If you're going to flame, the least you could do is present our comments accurately. Stating that looting is an "unfortunate by-product" means that it is expected, and at the very least can be somewhat dealt with. The United States did not provide much help in protecting those sites and the Iraqi people. Bush and the coalition forces protected those precious oil wells rather than turn on the water and electricity in a timely fashion.

Marduk wrote: "The fact that you insist that because the press got it wrong, you get a free pass ... [flamebaiting deleted]."

No, dude. The press got it wrong, period. No free pass on anything. If you recall, I wrote that I don't want to get into a left vs. right fight over the damages. You do, apparently. Maybe you should read one of my earlier posts on the subject before you blow another artery.

Marduk wrote: "You might also ponder, however difficult that may be, questioning the reliability of a Baathist mouthpiece like Donny George, who owes his position in the thugocracy of Hussein's Iraq to his ability to shill for Hussein and his friends and broker some very nice little antiquity sales on the side."

Teresa did question his reliability. She criticized George for misrepresenting the situation. Does "fisking" mean you misrepresent what someone writes with hope that the readers are too lazy to check the links to see what you're up to?

Marduk wrote: "Next time, try actually talking to people in the field..."

It's "the people in the field" who are making the criticisms, dude. We've only publicized them on our blogs.

Amusingly, he mocked Teresa's hat. He said her photo made her "look like Indiana Jones on a really, really bad day." He told her to "get rid of the stupid hat."

I think the poor boy is jealous.

posted at 7:47 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

Talk About Frustrating...

The Bush propaganda machine has been so successful that a recent poll found that "a third of the American public believes U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to a recent poll, and 22 percent said Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons." [via Atrios

No weapons have been found. The threat of weapons of mass destruction has been oversold to the U. S. public. It looks like the public believes the lies.

In addition, "Before the war, half of those polled in a survey said Iraqis were among the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001."

Most of the hijackers were Saudi. None were Iraqi. The PNAC neo-cons butchering our foreign policy demanded that the Bush administration create a tie between 9/11, Al Qaeda, and Iraq. They appear to have been successful.

Steve Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes, explained why this is the cases: "Given the intensive news coverage and high levels of public attention," he said, "this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance. That is, having their beliefs conflict with the facts."

This "level of misinformation" may enable Bush to get re-elected, unless the public wakes up and the democrats grow a spine.

posted at 6:32 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

Commentary from Jenny Strauss Clay

Jenny Strauss Clay doesn't recognize the Leo Strauss described in recent editorials as the "mastermind" behind current neo-conservative foreign policy. She described his many facets from several positions -- the most interesting one being that he was her father.

posted at 6:16 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

I'm Going To Be Busy

This is going to be a busy week, so posting will be a bit scarce. I started real estate classes yesterday. I need to find the time to send another packet out to an agent (and then pray like mad). Expository Magazine is in deadline. School ends for the year on Friday. The weather is gorgeous. I'd much rather be outside or at the beach when I have the chance. Finally bought my resident beach parking sticker yesterday. There was no point in buying one until then because it had been raining so much around here that I felt like I lived on Venus. Plus, it's been hovering around 40 and 50 degrees -- in June. Not anymore. 75 degrees and climbing from now on.

posted at 6:00 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

June 15, 2003

Clean Up Your Mess!

Mary at The Watch provides many links showing how bad the "quagmire" in post-war Iraq has turned out to be. How quickly we forget that Bush reminded Americans during his race for the Presidency that he was not into nation-building. Judging from the mess he left in Afghanistan and now Iraq, that much is clearly evident.

posted at 9:40 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

Weapons of Mass Deception

Now that the two trailers have turned out to be helium production factories and not mobile germ warfare labs, Bush and his cronies, being the irresponsible power-crazed opportunists that they are, are deflecting blame for overselling the threat of WMDs by pointing fingers at CIA Director George Tenet. Rumsfeld is particularly vexed:

"Given the prominance that the WMD hunt has played in Bush Administration dogma, the shifting of repsonsibility from the DOD to the CIA means there will be no active WMD program found in Iraq. Rumsfeld is shifting responsivbility away from his Team B aides at DOD and dumping the mess in Tenet and Kay's lap. Neither man is particularly respected or liked by Rumsfeld and this political move clearly indicates he's trying to distance himself and the military from the issue."

Remember this past March when Rummy was so sure those weapons were there, just waiting to be picked off like cherries from a tree? He said "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat?" He's changed his tune. This past Thursday, June 12, he said this at NATO Headquarters: "We never believed people would just go out and be able to find a site, trip over it, discover it and say, 'Eureka, we found it.'"

How can he lie like that, and keep a straight face?

posted at 9:40 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

Smokers Provide a Valuable Public Service

Now here's a switch:

What some non-smokers who are anti-smoking should be concerned about is what form of behavior the anti crowd would choose as their cause should all smoking cease today. You know they have to have something to be against. It just might be your Big Macs, fat people, unhealthy diets, risky recreational activities, cell phones, dumb drivers, idiocy, couch potatos, or any other facet of life that strikes their fancy. So keep in mind that the anti-choice crowd may be targeting one of your choices when smokers are conquered. Which brings up another reason to show some gratitude to smokers. They may be taking the heat off you.

When I smoke, which is seldom, I smoke Shermans or Djarums. My s. o. like Djarums, but they can be too harsh. So, to pace things out, he also Marlboro Lights, which to me is the equivalent of inhaling packing foam. I occasionally buy his cigs for him. Some patronizing non-smoking busybody is often behind me, telling me how bad cigarettes are for my health. I just say that I hate Marlboros. They aren't for me. If I want to corrode my lungs, I'll smoke cloves.

posted at 9:40 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

Feminist Majority Action Alert on Burma Freedom Act

Urge Your Members of Congress to Co-sponsor the Burma Freedom Act

A U. N. envoy reports that Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi is uninjured, following her attack by Burma's military regime. She is under house arrest by her attackers. She and her traveling convoy were violently attacked on May 30. She is "one of Asia's most prominent leaders and the pro-democracy leader in Burma." Jeanne at Body and Soul, OxBlog, Calpundit, and Atrios have more about the attack and human rights violations in Burma.

Congressmen Tom Lantos (D-CA) and Peter King (R-NY), and Senators Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) have introduced the Burma Freedom Act (S1182 and HR2330) to increase pressure on Burma's brutal military regime by imposing sanctions on all imports from Burma to the United States and freezing the assets of the Burmese military regime in the U.S. The main goal of this legislation is to strengthen Burma's democratic forces by supporting the National League of Democracy as the legitimate representative of the Burmese people. Urge your members of Congress to co-sponsor the Burma Freedom Act now. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, one of Asia's most prominent women leaders and the pro-democracy leader in Burma, was violently attacked last week by Burma's military regime while her convoy was touring a town about 25 miles from the capital. Suu Kyi has been struggling for over 15 years to put an end to the dictatorship in Burma. She organized a political party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), which won 82 percent of parliamentary seats in 1990 in Burma's last election. The military regime refused to honor the results of the 1990 election, instead placing Suu Kyi under house arrest for almost a decade. Suu Kyi was released last year, but she and several members of the NLD were attacked last week and taken to an undisclosed location where she is being held under arrest. It has been reported that approximately 100 of her supporters were beaten to death with bamboo sticks, rods, and other weapons. In addition, the junta also closed all of the NLD offices and universities and colleges around the country.

This Action Alert calling for support for the Burma Freedom Act has been brought to you by the Feminist Majority -- one of those feminist groups the media claims has no interest in the lives of women living in third-world countries.

posted at 9:27 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

June 13, 2003

More on the Iraqi Looting

I updated my recent "Looting in Iraq" post. The update is longer than the original post. Go take a look-see. Hesiod, Sean Malloy, and Teresa Nielsen Hayden made some great points to which I direct you. [Thanks, Jeanne!!]

posted at 7:40 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

June 12, 2003

Pro-War Reactions to Charges that Bush Oversold the WMDs Threat.

Seems NZ Pundit (no relation to NZ Bear, apparently) thinks he has flogged my Carnival of the Vanities entry. He points everyone to my post, which he described as a (ha-ha!!) "useful digest of the paranoiac 'impeach the lying chimp Bush' crowd - from John (Nixon Suck-Monkey) Dean to Harold (It's The Oily Jews) Pinter."

It's safe to say he's not left wing.

I found the selective blindness in isolating those particular quotations revealing for the same reasons I take issue with John Hawkins at Right Wing News misrepresenting the anti-war position. The growing clamour is not that "Saddam had no WMD (or almost none) and that the Bush administration lied about the WMD threat." It is that the Bush administration had oversold the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to engage in war, not that WMDs have never been found. The lie is in the hard sell and scare tactics, not in the lack of weapons discovered.

Hawkins must have been inspired by Whiskey Bar's list of hard sell statements made by members of the Bush administration. He posted his (frankly) weak copycat list of statements made by democrats who supposedly lied about WMDs since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Of course, Clinton is quoted in there. When will the right wing and pro-war camp stop blaming Clinton for everything? The way they talk, you'd think Clinton caused Monkeypox. (You, there! Stop laughing!!)

If Hawkins wants to think his list renders criticism such as my list and Whiskey Bar's list null and void, I won't stop him. However, it was pointed out to him in his comments section that most of the quotes were old (1998), irrelevant, and the people who made them did not make a push for war.

Bush did that, leading to the deaths of hundreds of people in an unjustified war. The story won't go away, and that scares the hell out of the right wing.

posted at 11:32 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

Archeology News

Has the mummy of Queen Nefertiti been found? The expedition to determine if this mummy is in fact Nefertiti has been funded by The Discovery Channel, which will air the story on August 17.

---

The world's oldest human remains have been discovered in Addis Abada, Ethiopia. Excerpt from the article: "Scientists say the three near-complete skulls - one being a child - are the best-preserved remains and between 30,000 and 60,000 years older than previous finds. They are almost five times older than those found in Europe, and the oldest ever direct predecessors of humans. The earliest fossils of Homo sapiens found in Africa had been dated to about 100,000 years, although they were less complete and missing bones."

---

Such good news! The Treasure of Nimrud has been found in the flooded vault in the Iraq's Central Bank. Archeologists had hoped the treasures were within that vault. While it appears most items may have been recovered, important items remain missing.

The right wing has shoved this story in the left's face as proof that the looting had been exaggerated for political purposes. Not so. Iraq's past has been "ripped from the ground" -- "tens of thousands of artifacts have been dug up and smuggled out of the country or cast aside to disintegrate in the desert." While most of the National Museum's collection has been retrieved, looting and damaging continues away from urban areas. Looters have taken only the best items, including cuneiform tablets, and cast aside all others, including "intact pots, human bones from burials, animal bones, carbonized wooden beams, stone tools, even copper artifacts." The damage to the National Museum has also been greater than reported by the press since the treasure of Nimrud was recovered. McGuire Gibson, of the Oriental Institute, said that it was "nowhere near as bad as we initially feared, but they have lost several thousand objects. It's not 33," he said, referring to the U.S. administration's estimate of the number of items missing."

Other damage reports:

"At the Mosul Museum, there was extensive breakage of statues in the Hatra gallery and "targeted theft" in the Assyrian gallery. At the ancient Assyrian capital of Nimrud, two large stone Assyrian reliefs had been stolen from the walls, and thieves were trying to hack out a third when they were interrupted by guards. That panel was damaged by the hacking and bullets from the gunfight. At Larsa, now known as Senkereh, there were large holes in the buildings and artifacts had been scattered over the ground. The archeological dig at Babylon was intact, but the museum there had been looted and burned."

Update:

Hesiod and Sean Malloy have said much the same thing, albeit it with more spirit. [via Body and Soul.] I guess I'm of a different mind when it comes to the looting of antiquities in Iraq. I don't want to get into a left vs. right fight over the damages. I just want the artifacts to be recovered, as undamaged as possible. The loss is already too great. I was relieved beyond belief when that vault was drained, and so much was found inside. I knew for several weeks that it had been flooded, and everyone was keeping their fingers crossed in the hope that museum artifacts were within. They were immersed in sewage. Who knows what "sewage" means? I don't know how much damage exposure to sewage alone may have caused.

The world is best served by accurately reporting what's going on without letting politics get in the way. The importance of these artifacts is not determined by how much gold plates them or how massive they are. A few "unimportant potsherds" may seem like nothing to Joe Blow Pundit, but they mean a great deal to the people who study ancient civilizations. It might take something like the missing ancient and priceless gold-plated harp (lyre, actually) that had been publicized in media reports to catch the public's attention (if you want to see what it looks like, go here.), but the seemingly mundane is equally if not more important.

On a lighter note, Teresa Nielsen Hayden's Making Light made an interesting and amusing point: "... an obvious possibility. If I were the curator of the National Museum of Antiquities, and I knew I was facing a spell of civil chaos, I can only hope that I too would have the motherwit to stand up in front of the reporters and cry "Alas! Eheu! Welawey! All the good stuff has been looted! The cheap stuff too! We're stripped to the walls! There's nothing left!""

Beautiful! An equally obvious possibility is that the museum curators and archeologists all over the world already knew what to expect because of previous destruction and looting during the first Gulf War. I hope there was enough time to stash most of the Iraqi Museum artifacts away. I would have loved it if Museum staff would have been so cheeky as to mouthe Teresa's equivalent of "these are not the droids you are looking for."

By the way, Sean has a picture of a pumpkin blossom that doesn't do justice to the way those "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" blooms look when they sit on the vine. Those suckers are huge and pulpy. No wonder director Philip Kaufman thought it appropriate to create something like a pumpkin blossom when the pods were forming. Talk about giving me nightmares... when I could sleep at all...

posted at 10:09 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

June 11, 2003

Update for "Is It Time To Impeach Bush?"

I've added a few more quotes and links to my earlier post, Is It Time To Impeach Bush? I'll continue to update as the articles pour in.

posted at 10:49 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

I'm Going To Be Published in "off our backs"

I've just had an article accepted for publication by the pre-eminent feminist magazine, off our backs. I submitted a piece entitled "The Use of Psychological Syndromes Against Mothers In The Courtroom" for OOB's "Women and Psychiatry" issue, due to be published later this summer . I address the use of "junk" science such as Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) as well as the way court-ordered psychological evaluations in divorce, visitation, and custody cases have become a lucrative business. When the issue comes out, I'll post about it here.

This article is especially timely due to the death of Dr. Richard Gardner, who coined PAS. I've recently learned that Gardner had committed suicide.

The Independent did not mince words about the legacy left by Gardner's bogus syndrome.

It beggars belief that such a figure would be taken seriously by family court judges but, in an adversarial system where fathers often have more money to spend on divorce cases, Gardner's theories have proved remarkably persuasive. The journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry wrote in 1996 that a book of Gardner's, Protocols for the Sex-Abuse Evaluation, was "a recipe for finding allegations of sexual abuse false, under the guise of clinical and scientific objectivity. One suspects it will be a bestseller among defence attorneys." And so it has proved. Gardner's work has created a generation of mothers and children scarred psychologically and, in many cases, physically by the court rulings he has influenced. In one of his earliest cases, a Maryland physicist he labelled a "parental alienator", unfit to retain custody of her children, was subsequently shot dead by her ex-husband. Still Gardner did not change his view that the wife was the true villain; her lies, he insisted, had made the husband temporarily psychotic.

posted at 9:41 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

Making a Monkey Out of Bush

Jay Caruso and Moxiepop are snorting about Hillary Clinton's Photoshop face lift on the cover of her new, best-selling book. Airbrushing political figures to make them more attractive is nothing new. Cases in point: George and Jeb Bush

George and Jeb photo-op shots.





What they actually look like.



Photos from Bush or Chimp.

posted at 9:21 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

June 07, 2003

NYT Reporter Judith Miller Gets Jaysoned

It seems the Jayson Blair fallout has landed on New York Times reporter Judith Miller: Several bloggers, including Body and Soul and Tom Paine, jumped on Miller's recent article (co-written with William Broad) doubting that the Iraqi trailers were mobile labs used to make chemical weapons. That's quite an admission from Bush's NYT weapons of mass destruction hand-puppet. She admitted that her "primary unnamed source for a series of reports alleging Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction was an Iraqi exile leader with a vested interest in seeing the US overthrow the Baathist regime." That leader was Ahmad Chalabi, a Pentagon favorite. The Guardian suggested that the Pentagon and Chalabi had used the NYT and Miller to "help create justification for war." A series of embarrassing e-mails between Miller and rival Washington Post reporter John Burns threw more fuel on the fire. Burns was angry that Miller had filed an interview with Chalabi after he told her the Post was planning a major piece on him. During this angry exchange, Miller wrote that "[Chalabi] has provided most of the front page exclusives on WMD [weapons of mass destruction] to our paper."

posted at 6:41 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

Is It Time To Impeach Bush?

A must read:

Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?
by John W. Dean (Yeah. That John Dean)
[Reprinted at Common