Just five days ago, I wrote that my local paper, the LA Times left out key facts in article on Bush Administration’s efforts to discredit a dishonest critic. Well, they’ve done it again today. In the paper’s article on the continuing “CIA leak investigation,” different reporters (from those who wrote on Monday) offer the same biased account of the claims that former Kerry campaign aide Joseph C. Wilson IV made in the summer of 2003. According to the Times:

Wilson later wrote in the op-ed piece that the claims were likely false and that intelligence cited by the Bush administration to support the invasion of Iraq “was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.”

Note that the reporters rely on Wilson’s writing to define the claims. Nowhere do they mention the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq which debunked what Wilson had written. Indeed, Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) wrote:

The former Ambassador, either by design or through ignorance, gave the American people and, for that matter, the world a version of events that was inaccurate, unsubstantiated, and misleading.

(more…)

I regret that I have not been able to blog as regularly as I would have liked for the past few weeks. I am delighted to see that since his return, my blog-league has been blogging up a storm and earning us links and accolades across the blogosphere. Bruce, I’m so glad you’re back.

I doubt that I will be able to return to regular blogging until the end of next week as I am currently engrossed in the latest Harry Potter while finishing up research for a paper on Carl Jung and Anti-Semitism (which I need to write by Monday).

While none of the Jews who worked with this great thinker and psychoanalyst found him to be anti-Semitic, some supporters of Sigmund Freud (who broke with Jung in 1913) have made much of Jung’s naivete vis ? vis the Nazis in the early 1930s, taken some of Jung’s comments out of context while relying on a mistranslated version of one of his articles to claim that he was a Nazi. When one studies the evidence, it is clear that while this great man did make a number of mistakes, including underestimating (as did many of his contemporaries) the Nazis’ capacity for evil, he did not collaborate with those vermin.

Nonetheless, that evidence is not enough for some of his intellectual adversaries, particularly some rather fanatic followers of Freud. In his essay, “Carl Gustav Jung: Defender of Freud and the Jews,” the noted child psychotherapist Ernest Harms wrote:

Of course, persons with hate-filled emotions may accept the presentation given here and yet may find the proof inadequate. However, the presentation here is made for sound and humanly adjusted minds and not for psychopathological personalities.*

(more…)

I asked a gay friend who knows Judge John G. Roberts, President Bush’s pick for the Supreme Court, what he thought of the court’s next justice. He wrote back that he “has extremely positive things to say about his intellect, judicial temperament, fairmindedness, and personality” and believes him “to be a true conservative, so that gay conservatives (or any other kind of conservatives) who want ‘no more Souters’ need not worry.”