Here’s an issue that’s been near to my heart for a while.  My bachelor’s degree is in psychology, and I strongly considered becoming a psychologist as late as my senior year of college.  In grad school, I worked on a short-form documentary about milblogging - military blogging - and one of the main goals was to explore why it was a growing phenomenon. One of the reasons we uncovered was that blogging is a catharsis, and due to the high prevalence of post-traumatic syndrome in veterans, journal-writing is a self-therapy employed by many.  

If you’d like, you can watch the documentary here.  

According to multiple sources, the Pentagon has reached a decision not to award the Purple Heart to active-duty members or veterans of our military who suffer with PTSD.

Their rationale?

“The Purple Heart recognizes those individuals wounded to a degree that requires treatment by a medical officer, in action with the enemy or as the result of enemy action where the intended effect of a specific enemy action is to kill or injure the service member.”

“(PTSD) is not a wound intentionally caused by the enemy from an outside force or agent, but is a secondary effect caused by witnessing or experiencing a traumatic event.”

“Based on the definition of a wound, ‘an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent,’ other Purple Heart award criteria, and 76 years of precedent, the Purple Heart has been limited to award for physical wounds, not psychological wounds.”

“Current medical knowledge and technologies do not establish PTSD as objectively and routinely as would be required for this award at this time.”

I would, of course, dispute all of these findings.  

In traditional warfare, the goal of the enemy was, indeed, to “kill or injure the service member.”  But tactical warfare has expanded to include psychological warfare.  If our enemies are classified as “terrorists,” what is their goal?  Of course - it’s to increase “terror.”  That’s the primary goal, not a “secondary effect.”  On the complete, polar opposite side of the spectrum, what was the goal of our “Shock and Awe” operation in Iraq?  The name itself is explanatory.  The goal in any modern military offensive is to strike at a psychological level first and foremost.

We also need to expand our definition of what a “wound” is.  There’s not much of a debate in the medical community: the psychological is also physical.  In PTSD, neural pathways are indeed rewired.  Thoughts of those suffering from the disorder are processed in a different manner.  There’s a physical change in levels of neurotransmitters.  Ask anyone with PTSD if they have wounds.  They’ll tell you that their wounds are far, far worse than any physical one.  Physical wounds can ultimately be repaired (for the most part), but many with PTSD live and suffer with their wounds for the rest of their lives.

I’d also dispute the notion that there is no objective way to establish a presence of PTSD in a human being.  The DSM-IV, the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual,” had extremely objective and rigorous criteria that must be evaluated to diagnose the prevalence of PTSD.  It’s quite systematic.  Take a look at the criteria yourself.

Ultimately, we should look at was the original goal that was intended with the Purple Heart. My belief is that it was designed to honor courage, recognize strength through adversity, and identify those who have overcome unimaginable struggles.  Is that not what military heroes who battle PTSD should be appreciated for?

One thing that I should add: although I’m disappointed by the decision, I do, however, strongly respect Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ exploration of the subject.  It turns out that the notion of awarding Purple Hearts to those who suffer from PTSD was suggested as a question during a briefing back in May.  That suggestion prompted this panel to explore the option.  Ultimately, it was a suggestion that was taken seriously, and I commend Secretary Gates for his sincere effort in evaluating its merit.

What’s your take on this?  In your view, does PTSD constitute a “wound” worthy of the Purple Heart?

I’m recooperating after a little bit of election addiction.  It was pretty bad for a little while, but now, with no no polls to check, I’ve been working to fill the lull.  So far, it’s been filled with walks in parks (ah, air) and catching up on some needed sleep (I’ve been passing out at 9 PMish since Election Day).  Unfortunately, I’m still doing the MSNBC watching, but c’mon, Rachel Maddow’s show is the best, and it’s an exciting time.

Election night was incredible, and culminated into a parade to the White House.  I still can’t believe we did it - it was a nearly flawless campaign, and because I’m a democrat, I know better than to think about the possibilities of my candidate as president.  I couldn’t help it at times, and I’d “go there,” but man, to have it really happen..

With my mind liberated from the nightmarish horror that was the concept of a Sarah Palin presidency, who knows what might happen.

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

This morning, one of my grandma’s friends sent this e-mail to her:

Good Morning Shirley,

Leaving for Atlantic City with the Y in a few moments but am so inquisitive have to look at my messages before I leave.

Obama will be eternally grafeful to people like Brad and thousands of others throughout the United States.

He absolutely has spoken about all the hard work his volunteers are doing.

Brad is great. Can I adopt him?

Love you,
Rosie

Both Rose and my grandma are voting for Barack tomorrow.

A lot of us have been nervous about the Biden-Palin debate that will be taking place next month.  Since Biden plays the role of the “attack dog,” the concern is that by attacking Palin too much, his tone and body language might send subtle cues to the audience that may cause then to become more sympathetic to Palin.  It’s a fair concern, and I have to say that it’s certainly crossed my mind, as well.

I’ve said for a week now that Biden doesn’t need to attack Palin to win the debate, bur should rather stick to two things: 1) attack McCain, not Palin, and 2) debate Palin on policy.  Sticking to that script, I don’t think he can lose.  And the Obama-Biden campaign has largely focued on McCain rather than Palin - all evidence suggests that they know that Palin is a red herring.  Indeed, this is what Joe Biden recently said about the debate:

“I don’t care whether or not she built a bridge to nowhere. I don’t care if she sold a plane. What I care about is what in God’s name is she going to do along with John McCain about the thousands of people who don’t have health care.”

I’m writing about this because we got some good news today: Joe Biden’s debate prep partner is none other than Michigan’s Gov. Jennifer Granholm.  In that role, she’ll be playing the part of Sarah Palin, and giving advice and strategy over the course of four days.  Here’s some background:

“Jennifer Granholm (is) the 49-year-old Democratic governor of Michigan, mother of three and former Miss San Carlos, Calif…Ms. Granholm is particularly well-suited to the task, having herself faced questions of inexperience when she was first elected governor in 2002 against a field of male candidates with many years in public office, including former Michigan Gov. James Blanchard.”

A colleague of mine who’s done some new media work with Gov. Granholm tells me that she’s an exceptionally skilled debater, which pleases me to hear.

While it’s been hard not to let out a primal scream over the last few days, I’m trying my hardest not to get worried.  Well, too late.  By “not worried,” I really mean “not too worried.”

I know that the McCain post-convention bounce will fade and wither away, but there are two polls from yesterday that concern me greatly:

1) Barack is losing support from white women — for now. An ABC News/Washington Post poll released yesterday finds that among white women, McCain is leading 53 to 41.  The pre-convention numbers favored Barack at 50 to 42.  This is a key constituency that we absolutely need to win this election.  I can’t remember the time that the Democrats haven’t finished ahead in this demographic.

2) McCain is now winning a majority of Independents. Gallup has found that McCain’s support from Independents has also jumped from the low-40’s to the low-50’s.  Before the convention, Obama and McCain were tied at 42% apiece.  Now McCain has 52%.

Repeat the mantra with me and cross your fingers: “It’s just a convention bounce, it’s just a convention bounce.”

I’m hoping that today’s daily numbers show us doing better.  And I’m also hoping that as the state polls come in, we’re still looking good on the electoral map, because that’s the one that really counts.

Rumor is that Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska (yes, Alaska) will be McCain’s running mate, and some “sources” are starting to confirm this.

On the surface, it looks like a good pick.  You’ll hear the pundits say that Biden can’t go for the jugular, that it may take Hillary people away from Obama, helps solidify McCain’s persona as an independent…

But three things, quickly:

1. It undercuts any and all of the “Obama = not ready to lead” messaging.  Done, kaput.
2. I don’t buy the “Obama can’t say she has no experience!” thing. Obama has a lifetime of experience when compared to a governor of ONE YEAR.  And before this, she was the mayor of a town of approximately 8,000 people.
3. People know John McCain is really, really old.  People want to be assured that, should his health decline, we’d be taken care of.  What it ends up doing is that it makes McCain seem like a risky pick, too.  Any and all indications that I’ve been getting suggest that people go to McCain because they view Obama as risky. Add this to the mix, and everyday people will see this as a risky move, too — they’re gambling on McCain’s health.

The McCain campaign has just doubled-down on McCain’s age, which is a huge concern for voters.  I don’t think it’s smart, and I think this “hail mary” is going to backfire.

John McCain is quite the cranky old man in a TIME interview published today.  But more importantly, this interview needs to be shown to as many journalists as possible.  Read it here.

This is quite the exchange:

Q: Do you miss the old way of doing it?
A: I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Q: Really? Come on, Senator.
A: I’ll provide as much access as possible …

Q: In 2000, after the primaries, you went back to South Carolina to
talk about what you felt was a mistake you had made on the Confederate
flag. Is there anything so far about this campaign that you wish you
could take back or you might revisit when it’s over?
A: [Does not answer.]

Q: Do I know you? [Says with a laugh.]
A: [Long pause.] I’m very happy with the way our campaign has been
conducted, and I am very pleased and humbled to have the nomination of
the Republican Party.

The theme of late is that the press knows McCain’s a good guy, and they’re not so sure about Obama (perfect example is CNN’s John King). They’ll cite Obama’s restricted access to the press corp, as compared to what they perceive as tons of access to McCain.  That’s exactly why the press makes it seem like this election should largely be a referendum on Obama — because they’re sure that McCain is a “maverick.”  They know McCain, is what they’d say, so there’s no sense in reporting that he might not be quite the maverick he claims he is.  Well, I’d contend that they know the old McCain, but this new McCain is a separate entity unto itself, and this interview proves it.

If the press starts re-evaluating whether this is the McCain that they’ve come to respect, you better believe that such a narrative will be played out in the media.  They don’t like being played, betrayed or locked out, and you better believe that it’s exactly what the McCain campaign is doing right now.

Given the Obama campaign’s unwillingness to learn from the Swift Vets attacks of 2004 and their hesitancy to fight back against scathing GOP attacks that are now “sticking,” I am 100% convinced that this election rests squarely on the choice of Joe Biden for the V.P. slot. Pick him, we win. Don’t pick him, we lose.

This man is our only shot for an effective attack dog. Need I remind that he singlehandly destroyed the Giuliani campaign when he claimed at a debate that “everything the Giuliani says is a noun, a verb and 9/11.” Kaine and Bayh don’t have that kind of punch in them, and we need a knockout.

I’d normally back this up with explanation and points, but I’m on vacation, so this will have to do