Dalrymple on Tony Blair

Tony%20Blair.jpgThe recent resignation of U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair provides an opportunity for British psychiatrist and author, Anthony Daniels (who writes under the pen name of Theodore Dalrymple), to provide this interesting early appraisal of the Blair years:

There undoubtedly were things to be grateful for during the Blair years. His support for American policy in Iraq won him much sympathy in the U.S., of course. He was often eloquent in defense of liberty. And under Mr. Blair’s leadership, Britain enjoyed 10 years of uninterrupted economic growth, leaving large parts of the country prosperous as never before. London became one of the world’s richest cities, vying with New York to be the global economy’s financial center. Mr. Blair did inherit a strapping economy from his predecessor, and he left its management more or less to the man who succeeds him, Gordon Brown. Still, unlike previous Labour prime ministers, he did not preside over an economic crisis: in itself, something to be proud of.
But how history will judge him overall, and whether it will absolve him (to adapt slightly a phrase coined by a famous, though now ailing, Antillean dictator), is another matter [. . .]
Tony Blair was the perfect politician for an age of short attention spans. What he said on one day had no necessary connection with what he said on the following day: and if someone pointed out the contradiction, he would use his favorite phrase, “It’s time to move on,” as if detecting contradictions in what he said were some kind of curious psychological symptom in the person detecting them.
Many have surmised that there was an essential flaw in Mr. Blair’s makeup that turned him gradually from the most popular to the most unpopular prime minister of recent history. The problem is to name that essential flaw. As a psychiatrist, I found this problem peculiarly irritating (bearing in mind that it is always highly speculative to make a diagnosis at a distance). But finally, a possible solution arrived in a flash of illumination. Mr. Blair suffered from a condition previously unknown to me: delusions of honesty.

Check out the entire op-ed. It’s worth the time.

Dr. Pou’s defense goes on the offensive

Anna%20M%20Pou072307.jpgThe state’s threat to prosecute Dr. Anna M. Pou for murder is a sad reflection of the incompetence in the Louisiana state government that permeated the preparations for and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. After almost two years now of legal limbo, Dr. Pou’s defense team is fighting back:

Dr. Anna Pou – the physician arrested in the deaths of four patients at a New Orleans hospital after Hurricane Katrina – filed suit against the Louisiana Attorney General on Monday, accusing him of using her arrest to fuel his re-election bid.
The suit, filed in state court in Baton Rouge, also seeks to force the state to provide a legal defense for Pou against civil lawsuits filed by families of three of the patients.
Last year, State Attorney General Charles Foti claimed Pou and two nurses killed four people with a ëëlethal cocktail” at Memorial Medical Center during the chaotic conditions after the August 2005 storm. The four were among at least 34 who died at the sweltering, flooded hospital in the days following Katrina. Pou, who is free on bond, has not been formally charged. A New Orleans grand jury is looking into the case.
Foti had Pou arrested, ëëcalled an international press conference the next day to announce the arrest, made extra judicial comments totally contrary to the Rules of Professional Responsibility, and culminated the week’s activity with an attorney general fund raiser to showcase his ëachievements’ in the arrest of Dr. Pou and the two nurses,” the suit says.
Foti was not immediately available for comment . . .

Go Dr. Pou!

The latest point shaving scandal

basketball-section.jpgWith the news from Friday that just-resigned National Basketball Association referee Tim Donaghy bet on NBA games that he officiated over the past couple of seasons, we have been deluged with media predictions over the weekend that the “integrity of the game” has been compromised and that this is a huge problem for the NBA.
Frankly, my reaction was quite similar to that of Captain Renault’s in Casablanca after the Nazis ordered him to close down Rick’s — “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!” (exclaimed while picking up his winnings).
In short, I don’t think the fact that an NBA referee was on the take will affect the entertainment value of the NBA one iota, and Dave Berri’s Sports Economist post explains why. My sense is that the biggest problem that the NBA will face in this entire episode is (1) explaining why the league office did not suspend Donaghy when it learned that he had a gambling problem and was somewhat of a loose cannon, and (2) if Donaghy, in an effort to obtain a more favorable sentence, starts fingering other point shaving referees. But as this NY Times article explains, NBA referees are already monitored closely, so the risk that a widespread point shaving problem exists among referees is unlikely.