Evil prospers . . .

Edmund Burke once said that, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." This is often quoted as simply, "Evil prospers when good men do nothing." In light of this statement, and 20th Century history, what should be the U.S policy towards genocide? As we discussed in class there have been numerous cases of genocide over the last 100 years from the Armenian genocide to The Holocaust, the killing fields of Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and the ongoing conflict in Darfur. These unfortunate events have provided opportunities for the U.S take the lead and make a stand on the issue of genocide. Do you believe that appropriate measures were taken? How might we have handled them differently?

What can still be done today, if anything? Historically speaking, what significance will our use of the word genocide, or lack thereof, have when referring to certain events? Should the U.S. officially recognize the Armenian genocide as an act of genocide or would this symbolic action, so long after the fact, be insignificant? What would it accomplish if Turkey officially recognized and apologized for the actions of those in power during the First World War? Is anything accomplished by distinguishing acts of genocide from other deaths during wartime, especially one with killing on the scale of WWI? Is this a significant distinction? Is the recent increase in awareness that System of a Down has brought to this atrocity significant? Why or why not?

Finally, what should be done about the ongoing crisis in Darfur? Should the U.S. have done, or be doing, more? Is it in our interest to intervene and if so how? Should we condemn with official statements, impose economic sanctions, or intervene militarily to protect innocent lives? Or, should we, as one of the comments on the video in the previous link declares, "Let the Arabs kill the blacks, that is what the war is about and since it doesn't affect the USA or Europe, it is of no great interest to the the world"? Can the U.S. police the world or must we choose our battles to prevent our military from becoming overextended? Follow the above links to learn more and let me know your position on these issues.

"Sybil"

"Sybil", a pseudonym to protect the identity of Shirley Ardell Mason, is arguably the most famous psychiatric patient in history. That being said, her case is also one that has been plagued with controversy.

The case was groundbreaking for several reasons. It was the first documented case of Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD), now known as Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), to be treated through classical Freudian psychoanalytic techniques. Dr. Wilbur's use of hypnosis and age-regression as a means of reintegrating the alters was a very creative, yet time-consuming approach to therapy (the therapy lasted for 11 years). It also opened Wilbur up to criticism after the book, and later the movie, was released to the public. Some claimed that the memories of abuse and the suggestion that Shirley had alters could have been "planted" by Dr. Wilbur while Shirley was under hypnosis. Others claimed that she was only creating this intriguing and heart wrenching story to cash in on the fame it would bring her, as evidenced by the book and movie deals. They claimed that she manipulated Mason for her own financial gain (a claim that seems odd in light of the fact that Wilbur shared the profits from the book and movie with Mason and also left her $25,000 when she died in 1992). Still others claimed that the close, loving friendship that Wilbur developed with Shirley was unethical and crossed too many lines in what should have been a doctor/patient relationship. They claimed that Wilbur's affection for "Sybil" clouded her judgment and made it impossible for her to remain objective about the case.

In addition to these detractors there are many supporters of Wilbur and Mason as well. Both women were active in providing information to Flora Rheta Schreiber, the author of the book, and Shirley reportedly said that everything in the book was true. Many praise Wilbur for her work in bringing this disorder to light and helping to get it included in the DSM as a documented mental disorder.
This case continues to give rise to many questions. What are your opinions on this case? Do you believe that "Sybil" was a true multiple? Do you think that Dr. Wilbur did anything unethical in becoming such a close friend of her patient? Why do you think that the number of diagnosed cases of MPD/DID skyrocketed after this case was publicized? Was it simply because of the new awareness and understanding of the disorder that the public was afforded as a result of the book and movie or was Sally Field's amazing portrayal in the film simply a blueprint for attention-seeking copycats? Do you even believe that this MPD/DID is a valid diagnosis or is it too difficult to prove? I would love to hear your thoughts on these questions as well as your own reactions to the film and any questions that arose in your mind related to this case. Check out the links in this post for more information.

A Just War?

Check out this article. First of all let me say that I am in no way endorsing the site on which this article is found. However, it does bring up a topic that we discussed in class last week. Was WWI a just war? What were we fighting for and what did we achieve? Were the individual and collective sacrifices that were made worth what was "won"? To make this argument more relevant to our lives lets extend it to the current War on Terror. The same questions apply: What are we fighting for? Is it a just war? Will the sacrifices being made by the men and women in uniform be worthwhile or in vain? What do we hope to achieve through our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan? The site that the above article is posted on is calling for the abolition of war. Is war always wrong or is it a necessary evil? What things in life are worth fighting for or is there nothing that warrants this course of action? What would you be willing to fight for, if anything? Finally, what about the premise of this website that is calling for the abolition of war? Is that a possibility or is that a Utopian dream that ignores the realities of life on this planet? Let the debate begin.

Genie

From the moment she was discovered nearly 40 years ago the girl that the world would come to know as "Genie" captivated the attention of many. The details of the abuse, neglect, and nearly total isolation that she had suffered at the hands of her own father were difficult to comprehend. Unfortunately for Genie her case also represented a once in a lifetime opportunity for neurologists, linguists, psychologists and others to test their theories of human development and socialization. Many in the academic and scientific communities hoped that the case could shed some light on the age-old nature vs. nurture debate. The concept that would eventually be known as tabula rasa, that humans are a "blank slate" at birth with no innate mental content and must gain all knowledge through experience, can be traced back to Aristotle. However, others believe that heredity (nature) plays a more important part in human development than environment (nurture). Genie's unfortunate upbringing, or lack thereof, provided a unique chance to investigate the influence of these forces on an individual's development. Of particular interest was the acquisition of language. Is the potential to develop language an innate aspect of the human brain, hardwired in at birth, or does the development of language rely solely on education received during one's formative years? Members of the Genie team, as the researchers working with her were often called, thought that Genie could either prove or disprove the critical period hypothesis, which had been popularized a few years before Genie's discovery by Eric Lenneberg's Biological Foundations of Language (1967). Unfortunately, many believe that in their zeal to perform groundbreaking research the Genie team lost sight of what was best for Genie. Her case leaves us with so many questions. Who deserves most of the blame for the condition that Genie is in today? Her father? Her mother? The Genie team? Does her brother deserve to share any of the blame? What can her case tell us about the importance of heredity and environment, or nature and nurture, on the development of a human being? Would Genie have been the way she is today regardless of her upbringing, as we can't rule out the possibility that she was in fact mentally retarded from birth (as her father was told and evidently believed)? Did her case prove the legitimacy of the critical period hypothesis or did the team give up on her too soon? Finally, and most importantly, how could this case have been handled differently and what could still be done for Genie today? What say you? I would love to hear your thoughts on this matter.

Secession?

Sould Vermont return to its former status as an independent republic? From 1777 until 1791 Vermont was known as The Vermont Republic. The Second Vermont Republic believes that a return to this status would solve a lot of our current problems. Check out this article and let me know what you think of this plan. What would be the positive and negative aspects of such a move for Vermont? Better yet, is such an action even possible? Would the federal government allow this to happen? I thought we answered this question back in 1865.

Economic Woes

Despite the best efforts of the Obama administration , the economic woes across the nation continue to grow. The news in Vermont is disturbing at best and other states are in dire straights as well. Check out this article and let me know what you think should be done to get the US economy back on track.