Saturday, April 18, 2009
Gordon Brown's mental health
In badscience blogs I note the comment:
"In the past I have hinted at disapproval for the many political bloggers who smear Gordon Brown with allegations about his mental health and behaviour, I should make this more explicit. When people like Guido Fawkes or Janet Daley speculate about the mental state of the prime minister it is worth bearing in mind, as Guido says “this is not a professional judgement”, in other words they do not know what they are talking about, have no conclusive evidence and their arguments can be considered to lack credibility. And, as Anthony Cox points out, smearing political opponents as mentally ill is not a particularly new phenomenon and those that make such claims typically argue from a position of political partisanship, a misplaced confidence in their own objectivity or a combination of both. I regard the opinions of Guido and Daley on mental health as barely worth a response."
IMO: I have to agree that badscienceblogs often contains gems of truth but I do think we should not dispute the fact that such persons such as Gordon Brown, who after all is supposed to 'lead' a 'country' of over 50 million people, and to (possibly) be able to let off nuclear bombs etc. should be of good mental health. In other words, it has practically got to the point where the public deserve assurances of Gordon Brown's sanity, provided by reputable medical practitioners. After the double and conflicting autopsy on the corpse of the victim of the recent apparently alleged police murder at the G20 demos, nobody can doubt that such an opinion should also be impartial. It has been said that historical records suggest that many former US Presidents have actually been insane, often whilst in office, and there should be ways of avoiding this sort of thing, for the sake of leaders as well as subjects. Obviously many directors of large companies often give the impression of being eccentric or even insane, but the head of a large country falls into an even more serious category.
"In the past I have hinted at disapproval for the many political bloggers who smear Gordon Brown with allegations about his mental health and behaviour, I should make this more explicit. When people like Guido Fawkes or Janet Daley speculate about the mental state of the prime minister it is worth bearing in mind, as Guido says “this is not a professional judgement”, in other words they do not know what they are talking about, have no conclusive evidence and their arguments can be considered to lack credibility. And, as Anthony Cox points out, smearing political opponents as mentally ill is not a particularly new phenomenon and those that make such claims typically argue from a position of political partisanship, a misplaced confidence in their own objectivity or a combination of both. I regard the opinions of Guido and Daley on mental health as barely worth a response."
IMO: I have to agree that badscienceblogs often contains gems of truth but I do think we should not dispute the fact that such persons such as Gordon Brown, who after all is supposed to 'lead' a 'country' of over 50 million people, and to (possibly) be able to let off nuclear bombs etc. should be of good mental health. In other words, it has practically got to the point where the public deserve assurances of Gordon Brown's sanity, provided by reputable medical practitioners. After the double and conflicting autopsy on the corpse of the victim of the recent apparently alleged police murder at the G20 demos, nobody can doubt that such an opinion should also be impartial. It has been said that historical records suggest that many former US Presidents have actually been insane, often whilst in office, and there should be ways of avoiding this sort of thing, for the sake of leaders as well as subjects. Obviously many directors of large companies often give the impression of being eccentric or even insane, but the head of a large country falls into an even more serious category.
# posted by uv : 12:47 AM
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
