Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 26, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

PSYCHOLOGY AND TORTURE....Here in America, doctors are officially opposed to torture. So are psychiatrists. But psychologists? Not so much. Arthur Levine reports in the current issue of the Monthly:

At around six-foot-eight and clad in combat fatigues, Kevin Kiley, the army surgeon general, cut an imposing figure. It was August 2006, and Kiley was in New Orleans to address the governing council of the American Psychological Association (APA) on the subject of psychology in the war on terror. It was Kiley's job to convince them not to bail out on interrogations.

....Ultimately, APA's governing council passed a blandly worded resolution that, most critically, left the definition of the phrase "cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment" up to current government interpretations.

This wasn't the first time the APA had declined to take a firm position against the administration's interrogation policies. After reports first surfaced in 2004 of psychologists participating in interrogation procedures, many of the APA's more progressive members demanded that the organization take a stand. In response, APA convened a task force to draw up guidelines for members but rejected efforts to ensure that they were specific and enforceable.

Why, then, was the leadership of the APA, an organization representing one of the most liberal professions imaginable, so willing to essentially acquiesce with a conservative administration's efforts to torture prisoners? The answer is that it fell into a classic Washington trade-group dilemma: It became so enmeshed in the gears of the federal machine that it could be influenced by a determined administration and ended up supporting policies that many of its own members opposed.

More at the link.

Kevin Drum 12:19 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Every day in every way, the bar is getting lower
—on the entrance to hell.

Posted by: Kenji on January 26, 2007 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

I read that one of the Army's top surgeons was killed in a helicopter crash in Iraq. Perhaps the insurgents should target the Army's psychologists, who have honored their profession with the anal ground.

When I first went to college my major was psychology, but when I learned about the anal ground I dropped it.

Posted by: Brojo on January 26, 2007 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

How rigorous a profession is psychology? What is the psychology of psychologists? If the association makes a craven decision, I'm encouraged to wonder to what extent it is a craven profession.

The "science" of psychology is in understanding human mental processes and behavior. It's benign wing helps people to help themselves and others and to inflict less harm.

But the money in psychology is in controlling human mental processes and behavior. Commercial interests, such as advertising, are understandably involved, and so it the military. The commercial and military aims boil down to this "How can I make you do what I want?" Now consider how much more menacing the question sounds coming from a soldier rather than a salesman.

Torture is a notoriously unreliable tool for extracting information, but it can be quite effective in coercing behavior. See how it all fits in?

A question for the APA membership: Is it time to bring a little more science and ethics into the association?

Posted by: Oil Drum on January 26, 2007 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

The whole scientific basis for military and intelligence interrogation practices is flimsy or nonexistent.

"There is little systematic knowledge available to tell us 'what works' in interrogation," says a new report from the Intelligence Science Board (Secrecy News).

Posted by: albedo on January 26, 2007 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

It has a distinquished history, but the APA is now dominated by soft science types for whom "PC" and "feel good" passions overwhelm scientific rigor. They've been obsessed with getting some of prescription action now controlled by the MDs.

It doesn't surprise me that they are wishy-washy on torture. They have been wishy-washy on everything else. Good behavioral psychologists would tell you that torture doesn't work. Skinner himself advocated against the use of coercive punishment. Biological psychologists who study stress could tell you torture doesn't work. Social Psychologists could tell you that torture doesn't work (and they might cite the Stanford Prison experiments as they made their case.)

The Psychological Scientists moved to APS some time ago.

Military psychology also has a distinquished history. They did groundbreaking work on the characteristics that predict performance. They have done outstanding work in leadership. Remember that the drive to torture came from the WH, not the generals.


Posted by: PTate in FR on January 26, 2007 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Psychologist: the wall mart greeters of mental health professionals.

Posted by: klyde on January 26, 2007 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

just another reason that Social Workers are better.

Posted by: e1 on January 26, 2007 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

Great article by Levine.

I urge anyone interested in the history of the psychological profession and CIA torture to read Alfred McCoy's book, "A Question of Torture." In it, he documents how psychological experiments laid the groundwork for the Kubark manual, which literally is the book on torture. Don't kid yourselves - the US is better at torture than anyone. It's despicable, degrading, and inhuman, and we're the experts.

One of McCoy's lectures is up at counterpunch.org. It's a good read.

What about the torturers? What happens to them? I just hope they don't move into my neighborhood after filling an interrogator position at one of our secret prisons. I'd rather live next door to a convicted rapist.

Posted by: John P on January 26, 2007 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

"What about the torturers? "

It's a legitimate question. Because a society that creates a climate in which that disease can spread ends up with a lot of really sick, unhappy people.

Behold the USA: a giant Argentina.

Posted by: Kenji on January 26, 2007 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

Not a whole lot of difference between marriage counseling and torture.

Posted by: jerry on January 26, 2007 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

jerry:

I'm guessing this is based on personal experience?

Joe Bob

Posted by: Joe Bob Briggs on January 26, 2007 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

this article in WaMo, and the counterpunch article {thanks John P.} makes me remember why i chose to get a Masters in Social Work as opposed to a PhD in Psychology, when i was in college and figuring out how to start a counseling career.

the peopl i knew who'd gotten Masters and Phd's in Psychology were taught how to test people. they were taught structured interviews, how to interpret self-reported scales, to adminiser IQ tests, "personality tests" etc. the info they were supposed to use to begin treatment on a person was academic, disconnected from the person. the client comes in fills in the blanks, the counselor takes the test, scores it at assumes s/he knows something about the client then.

the Social Workers were taught how to talk to the clients, how to listen to them to elicit information. they were taught how to put what the client was saying in context with the client's family and community at large. they got the clinical information they needed in a conversation that didn't come across like an interrogation.

and that made so much more sense to me.
if you look at a human being as a collection of data points to be analyzed then it's not that far to go to justify manipulating that data or using what you know about the aggregate data {in this case general strengths and weaknesses of all humans} to get additional data. it's like playing with statistics.

most of the practicing psychologists i've met don't do this, they don't act like this with their clients.
~~~~~~~~~~
btw, the APA, an organization representing one of the most liberal professions imaginable actually, you can't beat us SWers for bleeding heart liberalism. and i say that as a point of pride.

Posted by: e1 on January 26, 2007 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

i missed my html marker, the last bit should read:

btw, the APA, an organization representing one of the most liberal professions imaginable actually, you can't beat us SWers for bleeding heart liberalism. and i say that as a point of pride.

Posted by: e1 on January 26, 2007 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

The thing you need to understand about the field of psychology (and psychiatry for that matter) is that it's faddish, political and often howlingly pseudoscientific. During the Satanic Ritual Abuse/Multiple Personality Disorder hysteria of the late 80s and early 90s the APA responded by heroically offering seminars in how to identify propery ideantify and treat each.

Nowadays it's something they prefer not to talk about.

So color me unsurpsised that they've shown themselves to be a bunch of mealy-mouth bastards.

Posted by: Hieronymous Braintree on January 26, 2007 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Bob Briggs,

Absolutely personal experience -- I have been a marriage counselor for 20 years now.

Posted by: jerry on January 26, 2007 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

Kidding.

But my experiences with marriage counseling and "individual therapy" is that it is a complete load of horseshit and the field is rife with quacks.

Posted by: jerry on January 26, 2007 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

Torture is a notoriously unreliable tool for extracting information, but it can be quite effective in coercing behavior. See how it all fits in?
Posted by: Oil Drum on January 26, 2007 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, it's not even effective at that. Because the harder you oppress people, the harder they will fight back. Eventually. It only solves the control issue short-term.

The only thing Torture really is effective at - is getting the votes of rednecks.

Why do you think they let it be photographed and spread all over the web?

Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld on January 26, 2007 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

It's quite true that there's too much quackery among psychologists (and psychiatrists, and MFT's, and licensed and unlicensed therapists of all sorts, but it's the APA we're concerned with here.) Too bad, since there are clinically tested therapies for quite a few disorders now. I wonder what the connection is between psychologists being unwilling to confront the unscientific nature of much of what they do and their being unwilling to confront the ethical outrage of torture. [Note: "So are psychiatrists" is redundant, since psychiatrists are doctors.]

Posted by: Fred on January 26, 2007 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't the APA the organization that had homosexuality listed as a psychopathic personality disorder?

I don't know anyone else's experience, but in my experience of 12-step groups, it was always the psychologists who were there as group members who were the ones in most need of intervention. They're the "professionals" most likely to have sex with their clients and to cross every other ethical line. Calling them "witch doctors" is an insult to traditional healers.

The one time I ever went into a course of counseling, the halfwit managed to make things worse, and I am certain his "professional advice" led to my late brother's death since he managed to convince my brother that the one member of his family who was truly interested in trying to get him out of the hole he was in (me), was the cause of his troubles.

Most of these guys do well manipulating market research information and other nonessential things, but if there is a profession that desperately needs to be "de-certified" as being "professional," this is the one.

BTW - if you ever want to get off a jury, just tell them you think the testimony of any psychologist is "bullshit" and you'll be out of there like you were shot from a gun.

Posted by: TCinLA on January 26, 2007 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

TCinLA;
To their credit, my wife and I were in counseling several years ago, and after the first 4 or 5 sessions, we began to realize that the psychologist had no freaking clue how to do anything other than bill us for the thrice-weekly sessions.

What this did is got us talking. After each session, on the drive home, we talked about how stupid the counselor was, and how worthless her ideas and advice were. And in the process, we figured out what our problems were, (hint: it's what the counselor didn't "get") and worked things out ourselves. We're still married, 6 years later. Better than ever.

I can say that without the psychologist's incompetence, we might very well not have fixed our broken marriage.

When I talk to friends who are having marital problems, I tell them to go to counseling, but to not rely on the counseling to make things better.

Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld on January 26, 2007 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK
The only thing Torture really is effective at - is getting the votes of rednecks.

I dunno. I've always had the feeling that torture is probably a reasonably effective way of breaking, and making reliable to the regime, those who get seduced into being involved in doing the torture, since it increases the likely and perceived cost to them of regime failure.

Sort of like the logic behind a criminal gang having an initiate commit some serious crime to become a full member.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 26, 2007 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

Psychology is a very broad field and clinical psychology is only a small sliver of it, an applied field that studies abnormal behavior and how to treat it. MFT's, counselors, therapists are not psychologists, though some may have majored in psychology as undergrads. Some clinical psychologists do therapy, but most do not. Theoretical psychology studies how the mind works (in normal people) and why people behave as they do.

90% of the membership of the APA consists of clinical psychologists. The rest of psychology is represented by the APS (Assoc for Psychological Science) and a bunch of more specialized organizations within each subfield.

Like most applied fields, there is some science, some pseudoscience, and a bunch of "whatever works" in clinical psychology. Like medicine, clinical psychology is becoming steadily more evidence-based. It isn't a science any more than engineering is a science. In contrast, the theoretical fields of psychology are grounded in scientific method and consider themselves scientists in the full sense of the word. To judge other psychologists by the efforts of clinicians is wrong. It is doubly unfair to judge modern psychology by its history, which is no more beknighted than early physics, chemistry & biology.

The APA takes no firm stand on anything much because (1) its membership is diverse and not all as liberal as people think; (2) it lobbies the government heavily for increases to the NIMH budget which supports training of clinicians and clinical research; (3)it does not regard its role as commenting on political issues of the day, but rather advocacy for its members.

Any discovery emerging from science can be used for good or ill. Psychology takes as its subject matter understanding all of human behavior, but that doesn't mean psychologists are to blame for whatever people do.

Psychology initially classified homosexuality as a disorder, but changed that view as emerging research showed clearly that (1) it was not typically accompanied by any adjustment problems beyond those caused by social deviance, and (2) it was most likely biological not behavioral in etiology. It was never classified as psychopathy -- psychopaths are people lacking conscience and committing anti-social acts.

I am shocked by the hostility toward psychologists in the comments here, and also by the misunderstanding of what the field is (e.g., the conflation with therapy and even marriage counseling). Didn't you guys have to take an Intro to Psych course in college?

Posted by: Carlos on January 26, 2007 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry to hear that you are shocked, shocked, shocked Carlos, but a) engineering is a hell of a lot more science based than you make it out to be, b) we ain't talking about history, we're talking about current psychologists, and c) wtf? clinical psychology has nothing to do with therapy or marriage counseling? Do tell. Most of the therapists I have "seen" have Ph.Ds in Psychology and practice various therapies including psychotherapy and marriage therapy and all sorts of other bullshit.

But if what you are saying from UCSD is that Psychology is okay but all that therapy stuff is nonsense and bullshit, well, at least that seems to be a step towards progress.

Posted by: jerry on January 26, 2007 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

Carlos, "I am shocked by the hostility toward psychologists in the comments here..."

Yeah, me too! You'd think psychologists were conservatives, from the hostility.

Posted by: PTate in FR on January 26, 2007 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

"I am shocked by the hostility toward psychologists in the comments here..."

Actually, most of the hostility seems really directed toward mental health professionals more generally, and probably most especially toward those who do psychotherapy.

Really, are Social Workers better at psychotherapy than psychologists? Given their smaller amount of training, I don't see how you can make out that argument.

And how about psychiatrists? They have often have virtually no training at all in psychotherapy, and nowadays mostly focus on medications -- indeed many do little else.

The real problem is doing good psychotherapy is just hard. Often, it fails, even with the best, most perceptive of psychotherapists. Getting people to lead happier, more productive, less self defeating lives is not a piece of cake under the best of circumstances. In some ways, it's almost surprising that psychotherapy ever works.

But sometimes it does. And the best way to make it happen is to find a psychotherapist with some actual talent for therapy. This is not an easy thing to do; no degree, no institution, and no credential can guarantee that talent.

Probably the best thing to do is to rely on recommendations.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 26, 2007 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

Oh and one more thing: shop around. If you think the person you're seeing is giving useless or cracked advice, move on to someone else.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 26, 2007 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

Carlos: I am shocked by the hostility toward psychologists in the comments here...

PTate in FR: Yeah, me too! You'd think psychologists were conservatives, from the hostility.

I am also surprised.

Any professional field has its share of quacks and charlatans.There are good shrinks and bad ones, just as there are good MDs and bad MDs. Same goes for attorneys. But I will not generalize about pyschology as it being a pseudoscience.

With psychotherapy, the therapist (providing that you found a good one) is only as good as the patient's willingness to do the work, to face denial, pain, grief, the banished knowledge (repression) that Alice Miller wrote of, and to have the courage to heal.

I can say without reservation that I have had the good fortune of the best psychotherapy money can buy. And it saved my life and helped me recover from PTSD many, many years ago. Without it, I would probably would have killed myself. Providing that one has found a bona fide licenced clinical psychologist who specializes in the trauma or in the injury/neurosis that the patient suffers, psychotherapy works if the patient is willing to do the work. No doubt about it, therapeutic work is hard work and perhaps that is why some therapies fails. The prime directive of the brain is to avoid pain, and with psychotherapy, one has to override that directive. Tough stuff that requires developing self-awareness.

The APA is an association. So I'm reluctant to make an assumption about all psychologists.

I have found a lot of psychiatrists who just dispense pills. But that isn't true about all of them. I had an excellent shrink who worked in tandem with my PTSD therapists to help me mitigate a temporary "emergency stage."

Tragically, I have a cousin, a Gulf War vet who suffered from PTSD. He didn't get the help he needed -- macho men don't' need no steenking therapy -- and as a consequence, self-medicated with booze. His wife was diagnosed with cancer and that caused him to lapse into a deep depression. On one unfortunate night, the cops were called out when he was drunk and brandishing a shotgun. He was killed...suicide by cop. His shotgun wasn't loaded. If only he had gotten some help...

Bascially, what I'm saying is finding a good shrink is like finding a good MD. You've got to check their credentials and preferably rely on the referrals of people you trust or actual patients who can offer recommendations. Never pick a doctor out of a phonebook. My two cents.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on January 26, 2007 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINK

And what frankly0 said. Sage advice.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on January 26, 2007 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK

frankly0:Really, are Social Workers better at psychotherapy than psychologists?

1} "social workers are better" was a tongue in cheek reference to the fact that NASW {the Social Work lobbying group} had written a strongly worded letter condemning torture, which was at the link. it wasn't a reference to the profession as a whole being better at psychotherapy than psychologists.

2} my second comment {poorly written, perhaps} was about my personal choice to choose MSW over a Master's in counseling or a PhD in Clinical Psychology. by the time i'd finished my masters i had more face to face client contact, and more credit hours than people who'd gotten Masters in Psychology or Counseling from the same university. just like there are different kinds of psychologists, there are different specialities in Social Work, and i chose clinical.

the point i was trying to make in that comment was that the "academic" way of getting info from clients that i observed seemed like it could pave the way justifying using psychological techniques in torture, more easily that the more holistic 'client-in-community' approach taught in most SW schools.

But sometimes it does. And the best way to make it happen is to find a psychotherapist with some actual talent for therapy. This is not an easy thing to do; no degree, no institution, and no credential can guarantee that talent.

this is true. i've known brilliant, empathic and competent psychologists, MFTs, and SWers. i've also know lazy, narcissistic and incompetent "practitioners" in each field.

Posted by: e1 on January 26, 2007 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

Psychiatrists are doctors. There's no distinction to be made - you ought to correct that.

Posted by: reader on January 26, 2007 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, considering I'm half-way through my last year of med school, and I'm going into psychiatry, that's sorta a slap in the face. Come on, Kevin. You don't wanna slap me in the face. Do ya? Do ya? :0)

Posted by: Garrett on January 26, 2007 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINK

You don't wanna slap me in the face. Do ya? Do ya?

I can't speak for Kevin, but that is treatment I reserve for Residents...:)

Why might I do such a thing, you ask? Two decades of trauma team - the first one as a flight nurse and the second one as a CLS (ASCP, SBB).

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 26, 2007 at 11:25 PM | PERMALINK

Extradite Rumsfeld:What this did is got us talking. After each session, on the drive home, we talked about how stupid the counselor was, and how worthless her ideas and advice were. And in the process, we figured out what our problems were, (hint: it's what the counselor didn't "get") and worked things out ourselves. We're still married, 6 years later. Better than ever.

This strikes home for me -- in a somewhat opposite way. My wife of 13 years (at the time) and I went to a counselor/therapist for over a year. In the end, I credit her for helping us to see what was right for us. Not to be together. Hey -- sometimes it is just that way.

Six years later, I am remarried and am as happy as a clam. My ex also remarried to someone more suited, and we both share the same view that this marriage counsleor saved the marriage -- by helping us to get basically the fuck out of it.

Not how one would think it is drawn up.

Posted by: E. Henry Thripshaw on January 27, 2007 at 12:08 AM | PERMALINK

Here in America, doctors are officially opposed to torture. So are psychiatrists. But psychologists? Not so much.

That's not the case.

Refer to this response by the APA.

Posted by: Maeven on January 27, 2007 at 2:21 AM | PERMALINK

Psychologists tend to be sick fucks. You only have to take a psychology course or two to realize that people who force dogs to eat until they die, wire a monkey's brain up to a computer and perform extremely damaging psychological experiemnts in an attempt to see how easy it is to get some people to kill others probably lack any real moral center. I wouldn't ever trust a psychologist.

Posted by: soullite on January 27, 2007 at 7:30 AM | PERMALINK

Soulite,
Humanist, Jungian, and transpersonal psychologists don't practice the types of behavioral modification that you described. Many different branches of psychology these days.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on January 27, 2007 at 9:16 AM | PERMALINK

Two Words: Monster Study

(I criticize Psychology tentatively. At the time I was studying for a degree in neuro-physiology, it was a nascent field, the bastard child of the Psych and Biology departments at that particular school.)

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 27, 2007 at 9:56 AM | PERMALINK

At last something on which I can perhaps intelligently comment---it is a mistake to see the APA position as a reflection of psychologists in general. The fact is alot of us have been very concerned and very active about our opposition to psychologist involvement in Guatanamo and others. Robert Erard has written on this extensively, and last midwinter meeting of the Society for Personality Assessment there was discussion of this issue. Even the ethics class I took this year in SF dealt specifically with Koocher's non-ethics, and talked about how to get personally involved.

Military psychology has power though within the community. Partly because it has big money for research and can generate studies with a very large "N". Partly because its responsible for some truly important discoveries and diagnoses. And partly because its one of the few remaining areas of psychology which is dominated by men, and therefore is associated with dollars. I think also there is a way that psychologists worry that what we do every day is not "real" enough, and so it hangs onto these divisions. The truth is, even military psychologists are freaked about this issue and are discussing it.

It makes no more sense to judge psychologists by the failure of Koocher to take a stand, than to judge all politicians by the behavior of George Bush. There is an administration at work with bad intent, but there are good people who care struggling to face it.

(And for the record, one reason why LCSW's sometimes appear beter at therapy than MFT's or PhD's is that they have to do their 3000 hours of clinical experience AFTER the degree, as opposed to half before and half after. This usually means they start out with more clinical experience when they step onto the field. But after a few years it tends to even out.)

Posted by: shrink in sf on January 27, 2007 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

As a psychologist, I'm neither surprised nor particularly bruised by the many "anti-psychologist" comments here. Like any field (yes, even engineers), there are decent practitioners and there are lousy ones, no matter the sub-discipline. The lousy ones tend to leave a rightfully foul memory, and as several of the comments have noted, the history of the field is predictably dicey and therefore memorable in that light. Again, not unlike many disciplines - I don't want to think too hard about the legacy of bloodletting or skull-puncture when I go to my primary care doc for a stubborn sinus infection, ya know?

A key point of the post, though, is posing the APA as representative of all psychologists. It's not; it's not even representative of all (most?) member psychologists. It is, politically speaking, an organization awash in cowardice, despite a constant drum-beating over ethics (ultimately resulting in a perspective that has as much to do with legalistic hedging as it does with honorable practice). Further, the organization is so linked to the insular, impractical and impracticable navel-gazing of academia that issues of "best practice" are often rushed through, stifled by the strictures of alarmingly limited research, or reduced to how-to-do-it procedurals that start with glaringly basic elementals and jump straight to teeth-gnashing over third-party payment strategies. It's disheartening.

Still, it seems a given that the majority of psychologists oppose torture, even those employed directly by the military. Not because they're psychologists, or APA members (or non-members like myself), but because they're human, and among the vast majority of Americans who recognize the failures of decency at the heart of the current political administration and its subsequent activities in the name of a monstrous "war on terror." Social workers, psychiatrists, and further, engineers, laborers, and on and on, see this truth. It's why we're a majority, and probably always have been. The APA, like any other clucking, self-important professional organization, defines us no more than the worst of our kind defines us.

The APA is, at its core, a dysfunctional bureaucracy mistakenly identified as representing not just its members (wrong), but the field as a whole (worse wrong). Welcome to the 21st century; no discipline, no science (soft, hard, or otherwise) seems to be doing all that well in avoiding such a trap, as far as professional organizations go. Sidestepping, or soft-soaping, an issue as egregious as torture is par for the course in such a light. This is, finally, the root of the term "dysfunctional" - a term originally coined for organizations, not for individuals.

In any case, gouge away.

Posted by: Ripley on January 28, 2007 at 1:29 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly