Who needs the therapy in this cuckoo's nest?
in [Tourette]
|
From: Linda on 20 Feb 2007 01:11 X-No-Archive:Yes http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070219/A_OPINION0601/702190309/-1/A_OPINION06 Who really needs the therapy in this cuckoo's nest? By Susan Estrich Opinion Columnist February 19, 2007 6:00 AM Could you be the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby? Why not? Potential father No. 5 has stepped forward. Her former bodyguard says "there's always the possibility" he could be the baby's dad. He says Anna always wanted to have his children. There's also her dead husband's sperm as a contender. Weird and wild. Crazy people. But...it's no weirder or wilder than what allegedly was going on among the shrinks at UCLA, the people who are supposed to treat the crazy people. According to reports of a steamy sexual-harassment case in trial in Los Angeles, a male psychiatrist claims he slept his way out of the chief residency when he ended his relationship with his female supervisor. He claims the woman damaged his reputation by denying they'd had a sexual relationship, branding him a liar. She, in turn, countersued him for libel and slander, claiming the supposed affair with her was just a fabrication aimed at luring a second psychiatrist into a relationship. There's a third psychiatrist who reportedly is going to testify under a code name that she had a sexual relationship with the busy resident Casanova. It gets better. The woman who was the supervisor in the first case and claims she didn't sleep with the would-be chief resident is suing UCLA in a separate action, claiming harassment by a different male psychiatrist, who, she says, engaged in sexually degrading and demeaning behavior toward her. She claims she was retaliated against when she complained about it. This was after another case UCLA just settled for $2.9 million - sexual harassment and discrimination brought by yet another psychiatrist. These are people who are supposed to fix the rest of us. Plainly, more than one flew over this cuckoo's nest. University officials are taking the position they don't know whether the supervisor had an affair with the resident or not, and it doesn't matter. The lawyer for the university told the jury it was enough that there was such a perception. The "perception that people are getting chief residencies because they're sleeping with people" is unacceptable. If you can't even be perceived to be sleeping your way to the top, there's only one place to sleep your way to: the bottom. Or the door. Once you embark on the path, the destination becomes almost inevitable. According to the lawyer for the woman psychiatrist, "from the moment" the young resident arrived at UCLA, "what was most important to him was to be known as a (ladies' man)." If he thought sexuality was a route to power, he thought wrong. As so many before him have learned, when you succeed, you fail. If you believe the lawyer or credit the evidence, he lived by the sword, died by the sword and wants to be rescued by the law. No such luck. Sexual harassment law was never meant to guarantee your right to sleep to the top, or at least to try, free from the consequences of failure. Playing with fire, a girl can get burned. Or a boy. Because sexual-harassment law puts its emphasis on the "welcomeness" of the sexual advance, there are many who have a false sense it's all that matters - that sex is somehow protected as long as it's consensual. It doesn't work that way, not one bit. You're protected against coerced sex, not against the consequences of consensual stupidity. Sexual-harassment law doesn't make sex appropriate where it isn't, even if the two people involved don't seem to know that. If the flight attendant welcomes the movie star in the bathroom on the Qantas flight, she loses her job. If she's your girlfriend, you can't sponsor the program, even if you would otherwise. Seduce the supervisor, and she's liable to tell you she can't play favorites, at least she will if she's smart. Even the best Lothario might discover he's only one of many with no legal claim to show for it. Just ask the gold diggers who found the gold digger who found gold. They're all still digging. Estrich is a syndicated columnist based in Los Angeles. She can be contacted at www.creators.com.
From: John Jones on 20 Feb 2007 06:09 On Feb 20, 6:11?am, "Linda" <indomitab...(a)nospam.com> wrote: > X-No-Archive:Yeshttp://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070219/A_OPINIO... > > Who really needs the therapy in this cuckoo's nest? > > By Susan Estrich > Opinion Columnist > February 19, 2007 6:00 AM > Could you be the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby? Why not? Potential > father No. 5 has stepped forward. > > Her former bodyguard says "there's always the possibility" he could be the > baby's dad. > > He says Anna always wanted to have his children. There's also her dead > husband's sperm as a contender. Weird and wild. Crazy people. > > But...it's no weirder or wilder than what allegedly was going on among the > shrinks at UCLA, the people who are supposed to treat the crazy people. > > According to reports of a steamy sexual-harassment case in trial in Los > Angeles, a male psychiatrist claims he slept his way out of the chief > residency when he ended his relationship with his female supervisor. > > He claims the woman damaged his reputation by denying they'd had a sexual > relationship, branding him a liar. > > She, in turn, countersued him for libel and slander, claiming the supposed > affair with her was just a fabrication aimed at luring a second psychiatrist > into a relationship. > > There's a third psychiatrist who reportedly is going to testify under a code > name that she had a sexual relationship with the busy resident Casanova. > > It gets better. > > The woman who was the supervisor in the first case and claims she didn't > sleep with the would-be chief resident is suing UCLA in a separate action, > claiming harassment by a different male psychiatrist, who, she says, engaged > in sexually degrading and demeaning behavior toward her. She claims she was > retaliated against when she complained about it. > > This was after another case UCLA just settled for $2.9 million - sexual > harassment and discrimination brought by yet another psychiatrist. > > These are people who are supposed to fix the rest of us. Plainly, more than > one flew over this cuckoo's nest. > > University officials are taking the position they don't know whether the > supervisor had an affair with the resident or not, and it doesn't matter. > > The lawyer for the university told the jury it was enough that there was > such a perception. The "perception that people are getting chief residencies > because they're sleeping with people" is unacceptable. > > If you can't even be perceived to be sleeping your way to the top, there's > only one place to sleep your way to: the bottom. > > Or the door. Once you embark on the path, the destination becomes almost > inevitable. > > According to the lawyer for the woman psychiatrist, "from the moment" the > young resident arrived at UCLA, "what was most important to him was to be > known as a (ladies' man)." > > If he thought sexuality was a route to power, he thought wrong. As so many > before him have learned, when you succeed, you fail. > > If you believe the lawyer or credit the evidence, he lived by the sword, > died by the sword and wants to be rescued by the law. > > No such luck. Sexual harassment law was never meant to guarantee your right > to sleep to the top, or at least to try, free from the consequences of > failure. Playing with fire, a girl can get burned. Or a boy. > > Because sexual-harassment law puts its emphasis on the "welcomeness" of the > sexual advance, there are many who have a false sense it's all that > matters - that sex is somehow protected as long as it's consensual. > > It doesn't work that way, not one bit. You're protected against coerced sex, > not against the consequences of consensual stupidity. > > Sexual-harassment law doesn't make sex appropriate where it isn't, even if > the two people involved don't seem to know that. > > If the flight attendant welcomes the movie star in the bathroom on the > Qantas flight, she loses her job. > > If she's your girlfriend, you can't sponsor the program, even if you would > otherwise. > > Seduce the supervisor, and she's liable to tell you she can't play > favorites, at least she will if she's smart. > > Even the best Lothario might discover he's only one of many with no legal > claim to show for it. > > Just ask the gold diggers who found the gold digger who found gold. They're > all still digging. > > Estrich is a syndicated columnist based in Los Angeles. She can be contacted > atwww.creators.com. They are weird people. When I did a counselling course, there was a lot of weirdo's on that. And these were the trainers.
From: Linda on 20 Feb 2007 10:09 "John Jones" <jonescardiff(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:1171969741.812592.95470(a)q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 20, 6:11?am, "Linda" <indomitab...(a)nospam.com> wrote: >> X-No-Archive:Yeshttp://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070219/A_OPINIO... >> >> Who really needs the therapy in this cuckoo's nest? >> >> By Susan Estrich >> Opinion Columnist >> February 19, 2007 6:00 AM >> Could you be the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby? Why not? Potential >> father No. 5 has stepped forward. >> >> Her former bodyguard says "there's always the possibility" he could be >> the >> baby's dad. >> >> He says Anna always wanted to have his children. There's also her dead >> husband's sperm as a contender. Weird and wild. Crazy people. >> >> But...it's no weirder or wilder than what allegedly was going on among >> the >> shrinks at UCLA, the people who are supposed to treat the crazy people. >> >> According to reports of a steamy sexual-harassment case in trial in Los >> Angeles, a male psychiatrist claims he slept his way out of the chief >> residency when he ended his relationship with his female supervisor. >> >> He claims the woman damaged his reputation by denying they'd had a sexual >> relationship, branding him a liar. >> >> She, in turn, countersued him for libel and slander, claiming the >> supposed >> affair with her was just a fabrication aimed at luring a second >> psychiatrist >> into a relationship. >> >> There's a third psychiatrist who reportedly is going to testify under a >> code >> name that she had a sexual relationship with the busy resident Casanova. >> >> It gets better. >> >> The woman who was the supervisor in the first case and claims she didn't >> sleep with the would-be chief resident is suing UCLA in a separate >> action, >> claiming harassment by a different male psychiatrist, who, she says, >> engaged >> in sexually degrading and demeaning behavior toward her. She claims she >> was >> retaliated against when she complained about it. >> >> This was after another case UCLA just settled for $2.9 million - sexual >> harassment and discrimination brought by yet another psychiatrist. >> >> These are people who are supposed to fix the rest of us. Plainly, more >> than >> one flew over this cuckoo's nest. >> >> University officials are taking the position they don't know whether the >> supervisor had an affair with the resident or not, and it doesn't matter. >> >> The lawyer for the university told the jury it was enough that there was >> such a perception. The "perception that people are getting chief >> residencies >> because they're sleeping with people" is unacceptable. >> >> If you can't even be perceived to be sleeping your way to the top, >> there's >> only one place to sleep your way to: the bottom. >> >> Or the door. Once you embark on the path, the destination becomes almost >> inevitable. >> >> According to the lawyer for the woman psychiatrist, "from the moment" the >> young resident arrived at UCLA, "what was most important to him was to be >> known as a (ladies' man)." >> >> If he thought sexuality was a route to power, he thought wrong. As so >> many >> before him have learned, when you succeed, you fail. >> >> If you believe the lawyer or credit the evidence, he lived by the sword, >> died by the sword and wants to be rescued by the law. >> >> No such luck. Sexual harassment law was never meant to guarantee your >> right >> to sleep to the top, or at least to try, free from the consequences of >> failure. Playing with fire, a girl can get burned. Or a boy. >> >> Because sexual-harassment law puts its emphasis on the "welcomeness" of >> the >> sexual advance, there are many who have a false sense it's all that >> matters - that sex is somehow protected as long as it's consensual. >> >> It doesn't work that way, not one bit. You're protected against coerced >> sex, >> not against the consequences of consensual stupidity. >> >> Sexual-harassment law doesn't make sex appropriate where it isn't, even >> if >> the two people involved don't seem to know that. >> >> If the flight attendant welcomes the movie star in the bathroom on the >> Qantas flight, she loses her job. >> >> If she's your girlfriend, you can't sponsor the program, even if you >> would >> otherwise. >> >> Seduce the supervisor, and she's liable to tell you she can't play >> favorites, at least she will if she's smart. >> >> Even the best Lothario might discover he's only one of many with no legal >> claim to show for it. >> >> Just ask the gold diggers who found the gold digger who found gold. >> They're >> all still digging. >> >> Estrich is a syndicated columnist based in Los Angeles. She can be >> contacted >> atwww.creators.com. > > They are weird people. When I did a counselling course, there was a > lot of weirdo's on that. And these were the trainers. Koochers Kooks unwillingness to accept the consequences of their choices inspired Koochers Kooks to embed the Nuremburg defense in their ethics code. Hence, it's no surprise Koochers Kooks seek to make someone other then themselves pay for the consequences of their sex-capades. Begging the question---Who the hell needs the "therapy" offered by Koochers responsibility shirking Kooks?
From: Dr. Wee Hung Lo on 20 Feb 2007 10:25 "Linda" <indomitable2(a)nospam.com> wrote in message news:zaECh.150$PL.113(a)newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net... :: Begging the question---Who the hell needs the "therapy" offered by Koochers : responsibility shirking Kooks? : You shirk your responsibilities, why not everyone else?
|
Pages: 1 Prev: Why does Linda Gore hate children so much? Next: Koocher's profession. |