October 12, 2006

The Strickland Saga: A Psychologist and Cleveland Talk-Show Host Bob Frantz Exchange E-mails

Filed under: News from Other Sites,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 7:19 pm

I was copied, along with about two dozen others, many of whom have tedstrickland.com e-mail addys, on the message to radio host Bob Frantz at 1100 WTAM-AM in Cleveland this afternoon. I believe I was copied as a courtesy because the sender linked to BizzyBlog for the Floor Speech link that I have that is included in the sender’s e-mail.

I also was copied on Frantz’s response.

Given the wide distribution both e-mails already have, there’s no reason to keep what I received from either gentleman private.

I’m not sure either missive requires much in the way of commentary, especially given Frantz’s stick-to-the-facts response. Keep in mind that Frantz has made it very clear that he is not excited about either major party’s gubernatorial candidate.

Here’s Miller’s e-mail to Frantz, to which I added a couple of paragraph breaks for readability. I also created links at the end for two URLs that were not hotlinked with the full URL in the e-mail I received from him:

I heard your ignorant and scandalous claims this morning that concluded that Strickland supports pedophilia. The bill that Strickland voted “Present” on in 1999 was a political attack on a scientific study that did not report what the right wanted to hear. The purpose of scientific studies is to learn more about what is not know, NOT to support a political point of view. Strickland’s vote and subsequent comments should be interpreted as nothing more as an attack on the attempted politicalization of science. Please acknowledge that his subsequent comments strongly reference the 10 Commandments. Any conclusion that Strickland supports pedophilia is both false and libelous.

Any clinician knows from first hand experience the deleterious effects that incest and other child abuse can have on both females AND males. What is much less known, is how many people experience that level of impact, how many are less impacted, and do some experience little to no deleterious effects? That is what the study attempted to address. Fellow clinicians who work with survivors of childhood abuse also know that significant recovery is possible for many to most who are treated.

It is acknowledged by most, perhaps with the exception of Mr. Bush’s administration, that many of our troops who have gallantly served in Iraq have experienced various levels of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). What is not known, at least to my knowledge, is when troops are exposed to the exact same situation, who will/not experience PTSD? There is some general knowledge that those who were psychologically healthier before entering the service will generally suffer fewer effects than those who were less psychologically healthy before the service.

There is a real parallel between the effects of child abuse and the effects of war experiences. It is generally accepted that those troops who HAVE experienced child abuse will more likely experience PTSD than those troops who did not. I can’t cite specific studies, but know that they exist. Some of the issues that the study posed was whether the issues of age and consent were relevant to outcome, i.e., would a 16 yo in a consensual situation experience less deleterious effects than a 5 yo who was repeatedly raped?

I have never known of ANY psychologist that supports pedophilia.

I encourage you to read both the original article (link), as well as an article later by the American Psychological Association (link) that more cogently puts this whole situation in a political context than I have been able to do. You will find NO support for pedophilia.

Michael Miller, PhD
Psychologist

Here’s Frantz’s response (italics added to set off the resolution’s language):

One quick glance at the list of Cc’s on your address line to all the “tedstrickland.com” recipients makes it clear you are a Strickland campaigner.

The facts are these: Mr. Strickland was asked to say “yea” to the following:

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress–

(1) condemns and denounces all suggestions in the article `A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples’ that indicate that sexual relationships between adults and `willing’ children are less harmful than believed and might be positive for `willing’ children (Psychological Bulletin, vol. 124, No. 1, July 1998);

(2) vigorously opposes any public policy or legislative attempts to normalize adult-child sex or to lower the age of consent;

(3) urges the President likewise to reject and condemn, in the strongest possible terms, any suggestion that sexual relations between children and adults–regardless of the child’s frame of mind–are anything but abusive, destructive, exploitive, reprehensible, and punishable by law; and

(4) encourages competent investigations to continue to research the effects of child sexual abuse using the best methodology, so that the public, and public policymakers, may act upon accurate information.”

Mr. Strickland chose not to do so.

Chose not to “condemn and denounce all suggestions…that indicate sexual relationships between adults and children…might be positive for willing children.”

Chose not to “vigorously oppose any public policy or legislative attempt to normalize adult-child sex, or to lower the age of consent.”

Chose not to “urge the President to likewise reject and condemn…any suggestion that sexual relations between children and adults–are anything but abusive, destructive, etc.”

Chose not to “encourage competent investigations to continue to research the effects of child sexual abuse using the best methodology…”

The rest of your psychological commentary is little more than political double-talk to cover the fact that Mr. Strickland was one of only 13 House members present that day who did NOT join his Democrat and Republican colleagues in standing as one to denounce the notion that there may be some benefit to children who are victims of pedophilia.

Frantz did an excellent job during his program of deflecting a caller who tried Ted Strickland’s “no hope of recovery” angle that yours truly dissected in Part 3 of Tuesday’s series of posts, pointing out that the resolution itself did not contain that language.

Right Angle Blog has a link to Frantz’s full program today.

_________________________________________

FOLLOW-UP, Oct. 13: Psychologist Michael Miller Violates First Rule of Holes (Keeps Digging), and Ignores Why the 1999 Resolution Was So Important

Share

3 Comments

  1. Amid pedophilia questions, Strickland looks for cover…

    It looks like recent criticism of Ted Strickland’s stance on pedophilia has prompted some urgent damage control by the Strickland campaign. Don’t miss NixGuy’s takedown of a leftie blogger’s feeble attempt to pooh-pooh the issue. — Update: Radio t…

    Trackback by Brain Shavings — October 12, 2006 @ 11:09 pm

  2. Ted Strickland still silent on pedophilia…

    The morning host on Cleveland’s blowtorch talk radio station WTAM, Bob Frantz, wants to know where Ted Strickland stands on pedophilia. Tom Blumer at BizzyBlog has been agitating for a straight answer from Strickland too. Maybe Mike Trivisonno will as…

    Trackback by Brain Shavings — October 13, 2006 @ 8:56 am

  3. [...] I expect a lot of news coverage on this today, so this will stay near the top of the blog. 10/17: Akron Beacon-Journal: Blackwell accuses Strickland of pedophile support. new! 10/17: The CPD shills for Strickland, blames Blackwell for bringing it up. new! 10/17: The Dayton Daily Worker: Blackwell Steps Up Attack. new! 10/17: The Toledo Blade’s article. 10/17: The Enquirer covers the debate. Guess what’s the major focus? new! 10/17: WND: Jerome Corsi has much, much more on the mystery staffer. new! 10/17: RAB: Bob Burney talks about the mystery staffer last Friday. 10/17: Columbus Dispatch on the debate and Stricklands positions. new! 10/17: NixGuy: 4th Debate notes, (in which Blackwell brings up the vote and Strickland responds). new! 10/16: NixGuy: Why did Strickland oppose H Con Res 107? 10/14: NixGuy: Trouble in Stricklandtown. 10/13: Robert Novak highlights the Strickland problem in his column, giving it national exposure. 10/13: BSB calls us ’sick’ but keeps up on the Foley stuff, heh. 10/13: Scott Pullins post about the mystery campaign staffer. 10/13: More man-boy sex research supported by Strickland. 10/13: BizzyBlog takes apart lefty psychologist 10/12: Bob Frantz vs. Psychologist 10/12: Bob Burney audio. 10/12: Bob Frantz show audio 10/12: Cunningham show report 10/12: NixGuy: Strickland Smarter than Dobson? 10/11: Modern Esquire’s attempted linkage to Deb Pryce and Nixguy’s response. 10/11: WorldNetDaily Article. 10/10: Nixguy has more man-boy sex research that apparently Strickland approves of. 10/10: Bizzyblog’s index 10/3: WMD’s original post on the subject. Filed under: Ohio Governor, Strickland by — Dave @ 6:53 am [...]

    Pingback by NixGuy.com » Super Index on Strickland Problems with Foley and the 1999 Vote — October 17, 2006 @ 7:03 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.