John McCain Proves Cactus Is Not The Biggest Prick In The Desert

images-2.thumbnailJohn McCain is famous for his symbiotic love affair with the national press. McCain plopped his raunchy carpetbag down in Arizona, married up the local liquor heiress and suckered her, her family and their friends into fronting every penny of his campaign for the elected office he felt he was entitled to, as a matter of right, for having been a prisoner of war. From that second forward, the press has slurped his fraudulent milkshake. A candy coated prick for the suckers in the press.

The MSM has fawned over him on the 2000 Straight Talk Express, cavorted at his backyard barbeques, and helped him cover his affairs and corruption. But the bloom may be coming off the faded, old, wrinkly rose. The new Time article from Jay Carney and Michael Scherer really shows how dramatically the relationship between McCain and the press has changed.

That was then:

For years, John McCain’s marathon bull sessions with reporters were more than a means of delivering a message; they were the message. McCain proudly, flagrantly refused direction from handlers, rarely dodged tough questions and considered those who did wimps and frauds. The style told voters that he was unafraid, that he had nothing to hide and that what you see is what you get.

This is now:

But his mood quickly soured. The McCain on display in the 24-minute interview was prickly, at times abrasive, and determined not to stray off message.

Boy howdy; Carney and Scherer weren’t kidding either. Check out this exchange:

TIME: There’s a theme that recurs in your books and your speeches, both about putting country first but also about honor. I wonder if you could define honor for us?

McCAIN: Read it in my books.

TIME: I’ve read your books.
McCAIN: No, I’m not going to define it.

TIME: But honor in politics?
McCAIN: I defined it in five books. Read my books.

McCain is so old, addled, and strung out on Karl Rove inspired message discipline that the closest he can come to any of his so called personal honor is to refer to some self aggrandizing fluffer books. Well, that is sure impressive. Or not. Really not.

But wait! There’s more! From that high point of intellectual discord, McCain goes on to deny the very things he has written in his precious "books" and said in the past. When hit with a direct quote he made in one of his rewritten histories, McCain suddenly claims he is misquoted and taken out of context lo those many years ago.

TIME: Jumping around a bit: in your books, you’ve talked about what it was like to go through the Keating Five experience, and you’ve been quoted as saying it was one of the worst experiences of your life. Someone else quoted you as saying it was even worse than being a POW …

McCAIN: That’s another one of those statements made 17 or 18 years ago which was out of the context of the conversation I was having. Of course the worst, the toughest experience of my life was being imprisoned, so people can pluck phrases from 17 or 18 years ago …

John McCain has always been an angry, mercurial, petulant and self serving man who believes that John McCain is entitled to say, do and take whatever John McCain wants and John McCain needs. In this regard, he has no honor, and no shame. Those of us native to Arizona, where we recognize a big prick when we see one, have always seen and known this about McCain, but when he is slipping so bad that he can no longer snow the national media, who he has affectionately, and truthfully, called "my base"; you have to wonder just how badly McCain’s faculties have, in fact, slipped.

With all the mistakes, lapses, confusion, and now this; is it a sign that McCain really is suffering from diminished capacity? Is this something the American public should know about? It very well may be. A friend of the blog that happens to be a psychiatrist, emailed the following:

Folks trying to cover for cognitive impairment will often use a very rigid response pattern. For people like McCain with pre-existing labile mood, the problem with this strategy is that the conflict it creates can easily elicit the mood lablity: hence the prickliness.

Maybe the national media should start asking some of these questions, the American public has a right to know. You have to read the full article, but it really shows McCain for what he is – a thuggish, surly, angry old man who is all ambition and no honor. Who’d a thunk it? Anybody who knows McCain, that’s who.

UPDATE: Is the Bush/Cheney clan so desperate to get another Republican, McCain, in the White House to succeed them (sure might come in handy to put an end to all the talk of investigations into criminal behavior that have been proposed by an Obama administration) that they are willing to start a mini-war to improve the odds? Turns out DFH bloggers are not the only ones thinking this might be possible. (h/t Noonan in comments) CNN is reporting that Vladimir Putin thinks so:

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has accused the United States of orchestrating the conflict in Georgia to benefit one of its presidential election candidates.

In an exclusive interview with CNN’s Matthew Chance in the Black Sea city of Sochi Thursday, Putin said the U.S. had encouraged Georgia to attack the autonomous region of South Ossetia.

Putin told CNN his defense officials had told him it was done to benefit a presidential candidate — Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama are competing to succeed George W. Bush — although he presented no evidence to back it up.

"U.S. citizens were indeed in the area in conflict," Putin said. "They were acting in implementing those orders doing as they were ordered, and the only one who can give such orders is their leader.

Well, it is safe to say that the Republicans have no compunction about using false war to put a mental incompetent in the White House. Pooty Poot thinks they are doing it again. Who knows, but he sure doesn’t have any less credibility that Bush, Cheney and Rove now does he?

  1. noonan says:

    Wow, hate to be OT with the first comment, but CNN’s reporting that Putin is saying the US is behind Georgia’s attack that he claims led to the Russian invasion in order to aid an unnamed US Presidential candidate’s campaign. Which candidate would it be?

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      Whoa.
      When I clicked my comment, I saw yours @1.

      But isn’t Putin saying something that even many Americans suspect…?

      Whoever is backing McCain — and given his lobbyist-strategists, it sure as hell looks suspicious and depraved. CNN reported it?!

      Off to the fainting couch…

      • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

        Apologies — should have been ‘whoever is backing McCain… the timing of this action sure looks suspicious and depraved.’
        CNN, eh?

        Newsflash; water runs uphill.

  2. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    Interesting ‘tea leaves’.

    The GOP/wingnuts are reaping what they sowed by destroying McCain in 2000.
    I think the psych friend of the blog makes a point that needs much wider discussion, despite the fact that it will make millions of people uncomfortable. The stakes are too high to screw around with impaired cognition in another US President.

    Although I’m sure Mr Putin wouldn’t be upset… makes his life much simpler, no doubt.

    • sojourner says:

      I was wondering about some of this last evening… What if McCain is nominated, but is subsequently shown to be losing it? Do the Repubs try to pull a rabbit out of the hat? Do they try to run with whoever he selects to be his VP candidate? What if he does not want to bow out gracefully?

      • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

        Dunno, but grownups would discuss it.

        Meanwhile, NYT has an article that ought to further worry the GOP and McCain: cable viewership up significantly since 2004 (this doesn’t count online viewership, as near as I can tell — the companies may be keeping their online viewership as proprietary info).

        Anyone know code for ‘cable viewership’? (I think it translates roughly to ‘younger viewers’).
        Prickly news for McCain, perhaps…?

  3. brendanx says:

    Sorry, OT. It’s going to be all about the columns.

    This is from John Dickerson at Slate:

    Now he’s not only accepting the party’s nomination, he’s practically arriving on a chariot. (He won’t, of course, but the neoclassical theme could evoke such images.) His progress is a testament to the American dream, but the symbolism could turn into a political nightmare.

  4. nomolos says:

    for the elected office he felt he was entitled to, as a matter of right, for having been a prisoner of war.

    Idle thoughts while cooking lead me to ask if McPrick is the only POW from Vietnam and if not why aren’t some of the others married to a bimbo as rich as croesus and living off the fat of the land? And wouldn’t some of the other POWs be as well if not better qualified to be codpiece in chief? I take it that McPrick must be a special case deserving of only the best and most.

  5. R.H. Green says:

    During the Georgia fracas, I heard on the radio, accounts of refugees fleeing the onslaught. I could not escape the image of a young peasant woman running from a battle scene carrying an infant in her arms. Wondering why this image was so darned clear, I suddenly realized I’d seen this movie before. it was Wag the Dog.

  6. Mary says:

    OT – I haven’t been able to follow the convention as much as I thought I would. I have had a wide assortment of people say nice things about Biden and his speech and his personal story.

    The things I’ve wondered about a bit

    a) I found and downloaded Schweitzer’s speech – why wasn’t that the keynote?!? Talk about a guy who gets it – – almost the only Dem I’ve seen mention the real world figures that the US only (absent invading other countries) controls about 3% of oil reserves, so no matter how you drill, you’ll never drill your way out.

    b) Has Murtha fallen off the earth the last year – are they hiding him away bc of his Haditha statements?

    c) Has Chris Dodd been given any major role so far? Or Feingold? I guess I can kind of see with Feingold that his concept of the country actually having a constitution and laws is too radical an issue for the convention, but Dodd was one of the candidates in the primary, so I thought they’d work him in and they may have, but with the lousy coverage I just haven’t found out anything about it yet.

    • noonan says:

      I’ve been disappointed since I haven’t seen Russ at all, is he even there, or is he campaigning for state candidates? (not for me yet, unfortunately)

      I wish Kucinich’s speech got more air time other than what the Daily Show did last night, making fun of his hand gestures at the end of his speech.

      • Jesterfox says:

        Did you hear about the line they cut from Kucinich’s speech?

        “The Republicans want 4 years. In a just world, they’d get ten to twenty.”

    • bmaz says:

      No role at all for Dodd. Says he was offered a minor speaking role, but declined. Russ Feingold appears to have no role either (other than addressing the Wisconsin delegation; guess that is the best Obama could do for him).

      See, both these guys actually care about the Constitution and things like accountability; can’t risk letting them get near a microphone and saying so. Would detract from the carefully crafted image of the Obama/Democratic party.

    • WilliamOckham says:

      Apparently Schweitzer ad-libbed most of the speech. He had trouble with the Obama folks on the content.

      • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

        Oh, man, that is baaaaddd news.

        Besides, Harry Reid gave similar information to what Schweitzer stated — and maybe it was only me trying to recollect back 28 years ago, but it wasn’t much of a leap to get the gist that Carter got in the way of the oil lobby. Which is not exactly shocking to commenters here, but does underscore Carter’s fundamental sanity and also points to WHY the ‘GOP’ has been so focused on running the show all these years.

        My heavens, WO… that is not a good symptom.

  7. chetnolian says:

    OT BMAZ but to your torture piece yesterday you need to add the breaking story in the UK on the Binyam Mohamed story. The initial judgement last week was pretty damning,as the judges clearly felt they had seen classified information on his torture which was important to his defence. Now it turns out that some legal bozo in the US State Dept has e-mailed threatening the UK with reduced intelligence co-operation and saying the UK’s security would be threatened if the INFORMATION WAS MADE AVAILABLE ONLY TO HIS DEFENCE TEAM, both of whom are US security cleared and one of whom is a US Lieutenant Colonel. Just how mad is that. John Amato has the story.

  8. plunger says:

    Oh, now I get it…it’s a “GOP Sucker.”

    The only problem is to figure out where to start sucking first!

    Got Wide Stance?

  9. Oval12345678akaJamesKSayre says:

    Thanks to O/T #1:

    Did Rove help promote the Georgian genocide against the South Ossetians in early August 2008? Funny, American military forces were in Georgia helping to train the Georgian soldiers. For what? Nobody was threatening Georgia…

    Today Putin suggested that the Georgian attack was possibly an election ploy by the Bush regime to help a certain candidate. See RussiaToday web site for more details: http://www.russiatoday.com.

  10. R.H. Green says:

    In line with Noonan’s overthetop rhetoric, I want to urge some caution in our own impulse toward the same. The reference to old, cranky McC, seems to be suggestive of a slip into Alheimer’s, and the use of the clinical term of cognitive imparment suggests too much armchair diagnosis, especially carried out in a highly political context. Lashing out emotionally when caught lying, or otherwise being illogical; or in circumstances of not getting what one wants, as in childish temper tantrums, are behaviors which do not require any reference to a hidden impairment in cognition, rather only to a pattern of learned behavior, which is political “fair game” as Rove would call it. What we seem to be calling attention to is a pattern of bullying, and that has political implications for foriegn relations, as well as law enforcement, and congressional relations, the rightful stuff of political discourse.

    • bmaz says:

      I have watched McCain over the years, seen him in social situations too. I am flat out stating that he appears to have the signs of diminished cognitive ability. It is not a hint. And that is in addition to his normal arrogant bullying behavior, with which I am also familiar. This is not to be suggestive, it is directly accusatory. The man is unfit to lead this country on every scale.

      • R.H. Green says:

        Ouch! Getting cranky this afternoon,eh? My point is (for those who care) that references to craziness, or cogitive impairment are ad hominem attacks that ignore the political issues. What could be important though is what you refer to as “signs”. These so-called signs are objectivly observable behavior, which very well could be relevant to the national well being. Having an ongoing cancerous condition, a failing memory, irrational ideation, bouts of depression or mania, all could lead to an inability to complete the term of office, if elected, or to undesirable political activity. These problems are of political importance to consider, but the discourse has to be on the facts, not heresay and innuendo, which is just what long distance armchair diagnosis is. Consider Dr. Irwin and his so called diagnostic input into the Ivins case.

        ASs an aside, I note with some unease that Pat Lang has recommended that McC select Gen Petrayus to run for VP. After the convention John may decide to take his Dr’s advice and retire, leaving us with… .

        • stryder says:

          ASs an aside, I note with some unease that Pat Lang has recommended that McC select Gen Petrayus to run for VP. After the convention John may decide to take his Dr’s advice and retire, leaving us with… .

          Oh boy a military coup!!
          Somehow it all seems so well timed

        • sailmaker says:

          Can people in uniform serve in civilian government? I can understand someone with a civilian job, like mayor of a small city, who is in an activated unit in the reserves, going off to war and still being mayor. But salad platters as VP? I thought they couldn’t even appear in uniform at a political event.

        • stryder says:

          He’d have to resign if, their elected ,like Hayden did.
          What a perfect opportunity for the dems.Either more military madness over oil or the development of alternative energy.

        • skdadl says:

          Well, I care, and I think I understand why it matters to you to make the point, although damned if I’ll be able to explain it very well myself.

          It’s actually not that hard to measure cognitive impairment, which is a pretty broad term and may have many many causes. If there is serious worry about that, then you’d think it wouldn’t be so hard for the party elders to arrange an assessment? Or maybe they don’t care. If so, that’s both sad and wicked.

          I’m guessing that a lot of people here have read Susan Sontag’s Illness as Metaphor and have thought on the problem of how we talk about these things. Of course if someone is impaired and he has public responsibilities, that may be a public problem. But it really does matter that the illness be named and talked about and treated specifically and practically, not as a generalized metaphor. If you’ve been through the grind, for some reason it becomes so important to tie everything you say about any illness to the best facts you can get. I don’t know why that is true, but it is, or at least it has been for me.

          Sorry to have drifted so far, bmaz, because I was shocked by the Time interview, and I’m grateful to you for catching it here. McCain’s responses are so starkly bad, rude, disjointed, etc, that you can’t help wondering why.

          But at least Time published that.

        • R.H. Green says:

          Explaining why I say these things is difficult, as they are based on “inside baseball” within the field of Psychological theory, and would take, well, a book to explain clearly. The term “cognitive impairment” is a clinical term that means the same as the lay expression “can’t think straight”. It can only be legitemately used when based, as you suggest, on being appropriately assessed or measured, which cannot be done in a context of a political discussion. (Shades of Wittgenstein for those so acquainted). It also is a summary judgement of a number of specific observations, that lead to the conclusion that the observations have the common feature of failing to demonstrate proper reasoning. As part of these specific observations, context is vital to understanding any observable unit of behavior. Now applying this to Mr Mc, we have a history of playing up to reporters in a friendly, off-the-record context, in which inconsistent remarks are not scrutinized. Then when off the cuff remarks are scrutinized, and CRITICIZED, we see a change. Handlers then advise the candidate to stay on message, not to extemporize, possibly to whisper in his ear. Now if this structure is not easily absorbed, then what can occur is a ridgid, afraid to make a mistake, inability to think on his feet. We all do this when under pressure. It may be that the candidate can’t recall what he is now supposed to say about tax policy, or how many houses he has, since his wife actually owns them, and some are just tax shelters anyway. Its easy to get so tongue tied as to come off as a blithering fool, but its not what we generaly think of as a cognitive impairment, and not appropriate to tar him with that brush.

          This is not to write off any possible examination of aberrant behavior. As I said before what bmaz referred to as “signs” are what we see; they in fact are those specific observations about which we can make judgements, even at the layman’s (citizen’s) level. For example, being so rigid as to need a script to face reporters, of easily getting flustered in a formal setting, of flying off the handle when frustrated, are all legitimate food for political consideration, indeed, I don’t think we do enough “character analysis” of our leadership candidates.

        • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

          As I’m often guilty of the sort of innuendo you point to, I appreciate the caution. However, I’m not in bmaz’s position of having any history of being ‘in the loop’ with people who know McCain.

          It’ll be interesting to see which faction wins the GOP VP assignment; here’s hoping eBay Meg doesn’t commit political hari-kari, because it seems like a terrible waste of talent.

      • stryder says:

        Ot
        In a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, Senators Leahy and Specter asked Mr. Fielding to turn over ten specified legal memoranda and other OLC documents on detention and interrogation policies.

        The Senators set a deadline of Friday, August 29 at 10 AM for delivery of the requested documents. They did not indicate how they might respond if the documents are not received.

        Update and clarification: The Department of Justice has provided copies of all OLC opinions dealing with CIA interrogation policy to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The dispute between the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Justice Department reflects in part a disagreement over jurisdictional boundaries between the two Committees

        Juridictional boundaries ?

        • bmaz says:

          Haven’t read the background, but my guess is that might be a reference to the jurisdictions of Judiciary versus Intelligence, and there are some peculiar distinctions.

  11. maryo2 says:

    Regarding Putin’s remark: Is Robert Wood the same person as Joseph R. Wood?

    Joseph R. Wood, Cheney’s deputy assistant for national security affairs, was in Georgia shortly before the war began. But, the vice president’s office says, he was there as part of a team setting up the vice president’s just-announced visit to Georgia.
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.co…..a-war.html

    U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Robert Wood concurred, and labeled Putin’s statements as “ludicrous.”
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/…..index.html

  12. Mary says:

    29 -that makes it even more a wow, doesn’t it? Very smart guy behind that string tie. Not having either Schweitzer’s, or Wm Clinton’s (and I’m not a big Bill fan, but he stirred the excitement) speeches in the prime time coverage was a mistake I think, bc they were the adrenaline speeches, but while I was thinking Biden had a good solid speech, apparently to several of the Indies or Repub leaning Dem this election people I talked to, he registered much better than that, they all seemed to really like Biden’s speech a lot.

    • stryder says:

      ” Numerous congressional records on national security policy have been published in the last couple of weeks, including those listed below (mostly pdf). Some of them may have continuing reference value.

      “Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: Administration Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules (Part I),” House Judiciary Committee, May 6, 2008.

      “Diplomatic Assurances and Rendition to Torture: The
      Perspective of the State Department’s Legal Adviser,” House
      Foreign Affairs Committee, June 10, 2008.

      “Improving Detainee Policy: Handling Terrorism Detainees Within the American Justice System,” Senate Judiciary Committee, June 4, 2008.

      “The National Security Letters Reform Act of 2007,” House Judiciary Committee, April 15, 2008.

      “Federal Bureau of Investigation (Part II),” House Judiciary Committee, April 23, 2008.

      Torture and the Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment of Detainees: the Effectiveness and Consequences of ‘Enhanced’ Interrogation,” House Judiciary Committee, November 8, 2007

      and more
      http://www.fas.org/blog/secrec…..rings.html

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      msnbc.com has a clip of him talking with Joe Scarborough about guns, and as I watched it the thing that crossed my mind is that it’s taken some bad losses for the Dems to start listening to more Americans, and Schweitzer is evidence of that.

      Man, watching the heartfelt, unpretentious emotional interactions of this Dem convention is remarkable.

  13. R.H. Green says:

    Just turned on NPR to hear what sounded like Richardson calling for Obama to say on dayone that he pledges to uphold the constution, respect the bill of rights, stop torture, shut down Guantanamo, & stop spying on citizens. Bug crowd reaction. Whoopee!

  14. Kirk James Murphy, M.D. says:

    John McCain sure evinces “cognitive impairment” as psychiatrists use the term and the concept.

    John McCain recently been has been unable to recall:

    – what make of automobile he drives

    – how many homes he posseses

    Those are two basic pieces of “overlearned” information. McCain’s difficulty in retreiving even this data matters to me as a voter.

    Describing McCain’s evident cognitive impairment as “cognitive impairment” describes brain function. Brain function is relevant for those who use their brain to carry out there occupational duties…like executives…or deciderers…or the Chief executive.

    Some people have signs of liver disease. FDR had signs of polio. Muhammed Ali has signs and symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease.

    Factual observations of an individual human being’s biology aren’t ad hominen attacks.

    The attempt to falsely classify such factual observations as ad hominem atacks would serve to preclude basic and easily observable manifestations of John McCain’s cognitive impairment from discussion.

    Last time I checked, brain dysfunction (and signs of brain disease) was evident in Reagan and are evident in Bush.

    I can see how the McCain campaign wouldn’t want the question raised. As a citizen of America, I don’t want information and questions fitered through Republican preferences.

    I want to know which Prez candidates display signs or symptoms of cogntive impairment. Wittgenstein is dead, and psychological theories are all too often merely debates over hypotheses which can never be falsified, and hence never tested.

    Whatever devotees of philosohy may prefer, I’m glad to see public discussion of signs and symptoms of cognitive impairment in a major party’s nominee for President.

    I’m sure there’s a philosophical theory I’m not respecting in the views I expressed. The theory can go wank — I’ll keep writing. I hope others who choose to write about John McCain’s cognitive impairment will, too.

    Our future is too important to sacrifice on the altar of Wittgenstein or the inside baseball fields of “Psychological theory”.

    • bmaz says:

      And the professional cavalry shows up, and not a moment too soon. I am no expert, but I have watched the decline of too many seniors; there comes a time when you really kind of know the degradation is happening. I have never liked McCain, and he has been horrid for the state of Arizona. He has also never been cognitively bright and has always been ill and quick tempered; but there are just gaps and tics that were not there before. Nothing sufficient for any conclusions, but far past the threshold for genuine suspicion and inquiry.

      • R.H. Green says:

        “Nothing sufficient for any conclusions…”. That’s basically what I’ve been trying to get across in my clumsy way. “…far past the threshold of suspicion and inquiry”. So go for it. “There are just gaps and tics that were not there before”. Now this is the stuff of a proper analysis. I didn’t mean to imply that your observations were irrelevant, or incorrect, but in your essay, you seem to be jumping to a conclusion of a cognitive impairment that may not be justified, as other possibilities could also account for the seemingly erratic behavior. I only wanted to inject a word of caution, lest we overreach as in the Terry Schivo case. Now I note that your cavelry has arrived to put down this little intellectual rebellion of mine. Although I see he’s riding high on his medical degree horse, I think he’s shooting blanks.

        • bmaz says:

          I don’t disagree with you; however if you read the piece you will see that I phrased things in terms of questions. Strong inferential questions, but still questions, not statements. I’ll stand by them, but do not disagree with what you have said. The man wants to be President; I am hardly the first to put his mental temperament and coping ability in question. Serious people who know McCain have been doing that for well over a decade; from what I can discern, and from what I hear from people that are a lot closer than I am, the grounds have become even more acute.

        • Kirk James Murphy, M.D. says:

          lest we overreach as in the Terry Schivo case

          Who’s “we”, R.H. Green?

          Last time I checked, progressives weren’t joining Frist on that.

          I don’t hang with Frist or the Frist family’s Medical Corporation of America, or the Fundies or the Rethugs who pull the Fundies’ puppet strings.

          They’re the folks who pulled the Schiavo propaganda stunt.

          Who’s “we”, R.H. Green?

          Umm…while waiting for more concern trolling, here are few references about MD’s assessing cognitive impairment.

          Cognitive and functional impairment
          American Family Physician, Feb 15, 1995

          A Clinical Approach To Mild Cognitive Impairment

          The Goteborg MCI study: mild cognitive impairment is a heterogeneous condition

          Background: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has been considered a transitional state between normal aging and dementia, characterised by memory impairment but normal general cognitive functioning. Recently other cognitive deficits have been reported. This has led to a modification of MCI criteria.

          Objective: To examine which neuropsychological tests most clearly distinguish MCI subjects from normal controls.

          Methods: 112 consecutive MCI subjects and 35 controls were included in the study. The diagnosis of MCI was based on an objective history of cognitive decline and a neuropsychiatric examination, comprising instruments STEP, I-Flex, MMSE, and CDR. Participants were examined with 21 neuropsychological tests in the cognitive domains speed/attention, memory and learning, visuospatial function, language, and executive function.

          Results: Controls were significantly older. No differences were found in education or general intellectual capacity. Controls performed significantly better than MCI on tests within all five cognitive domains. The clearest differences were seen on language tests, followed by executive function, and learning and memory. Only two subjects (1.8%) were purely amnestic; 17% showed no impairment compared with controls, with a cut off of 1.5 SD below age mean. These subjects were better educated and performed significantly better on measures of general cognitive capacity.

          Conclusions: The results illustrate the heterogeneity of MCI, with a significant degree of impairment in all five cognitive domains. When examined with a comprehensive neuropsychological battery, very few subjects had an isolated memory impairment.

          Oh, what the hell do a lot of clinicians and medical researchers know? Those assholes assess cognitive behavioral therapy the same way all the shrinks I was trained with — and all the shrinks I practiced with in a major medical center assessed cognitive impairment.

          Jeebus, I just don’t know how a UC teaching hospital’s psychiatric consultation-liasion service got along and functioned and diagnosed and referred patients without knowing how Wittgenstien and “Psychological theory” told us what we were doing was invalid.

          Oh, wait – now I remember.

          Quite well.

          Of course, “cognitive impairment” wasn’t such a loaded term then: we didn’t have a major party nominee with such obvious symptoms running for President.

          Lordy, lordy, lordy.

          All these uppity MD’s assessing — and publishing assessments of — cognitive impairment.

          All these clinicians don’t seem to heed “Psychological theory”. What’s the post-modern theoretical wing of academy coming to if the doers aren’t listening to them?

          Oh – I forgot. I don’t give a flying jump.

          Some of us do — others theorize.

          Here in SF, we’ve got Good Vibrations. Far more pleasurable wanking than that provided by untestable theories.

    • R.H. Green says:

      The words and phrases in your comment mirror some of mine in my remarks @ 46, so I take it that you are directing your remarks at them. I don’t know at this point whether to take up the challenge as it is late, has been a long day, and a lot of seemingly unrelated points to cover. Indeed I tend to take the approach that you can lead a horse to water, but..well you know the rest, and it sometimes isn’t worth the bother. I’ll sleep on it, and consider a rejoinder. But before I go, a couple of questions, and a couple of quick points.

      Are you a psychiatrist; is that your medical specialty? A quick Google look indicated that you are a Cognitive Behavior Therapist; is this true? The answers may provide the basis for a meaningful discussion.

      You wrote: “Wittgenstein is dead”. This is true, and so is Socrates, and for that matter Pasteur, but we can still benefit from an understanding of their works.

  15. Kirk James Murphy, M.D. says:

    R.H. Green, seemed like the good ship Psychological theory — and those concepts so profound as to require a book to contain — were helping you ride you pretty high.

    I can’t recall which Nobel Laureate (in biology, if I recall), held forth that anyone who truly undertood their own field could explain their work to a three-year old.

    Perhaps when you dismount, your could help us find the reference.

      • bmaz says:

        “This breaking news just in” – “Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead!”

        Okay, lots of dead people, lots of alive ones too; and some that aren’t quite dead yet. I am not quite sure what the argument is over at this point; there has been agreement that hard conclusions should not be drawn but questions are warranted. Am I missing something?