Posted on 05/13/2005 9:50:08 AM PDT by FlyLow
The most irresponsible argument in the debate over John Bolton as the U.S. representative to the United Nations and there are many was the op-ed essay in The New York Times suggesting that his brisk management style demonstrates a criminal pathology and a psychopathic personality.
The piece, by a clinical psychologist who identifies herself as a consultant on "organizational psychology," was couched in the psychobabble of psychological expertise, based on one small, flabby survey, anecdotes and case studies built on innuendo drawn from "research" that illustrates what Shakespeare meant when he wrote about "the sound and the fury signifying nothing." Nevertheless, this psychobabbling received dramatic accompaniment in a bold cartoon of a man's head filled with "columny."
After reciting a string of unpleasant adjectives uttered by John Bolton's political opponents characterizing him as "dogmatic, abusive to his subordinates and a bully," Belinda Board, a British professor, embraces the all-inclusive theory that "these are the same characteristics that make someone successful in business or government." Not satisfied with tarring successful businessmen and government executives, she breathlessly leaps to link such men to criminal behavior.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Thank Thank you very much
Good article. Thanks.
It's the NYSlimes, not a reliable or credible source.
The NYT thinks this is major stuff and worth the ink and the space. This is the same paper that could not find the ink or the space to review Unfit For Command. The book was sitting at the top of their very own bestsellers list, but the NYT didn't have the ink or the space to acknowledge it's existence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.