Omaha police will be carrying books to distribute to traumatised children they encounter. This is being viewed as a crime prevention tool because literate children get in less trouble with the law (their claim, not mine). They also expect it to increase literacy rates-which sounds like a bit of a stretch unless they spend a lot of time with a particular child and end up building the kid a home library. I can however, appreciate the irony of the organisation sponsoring the program having the acronym, REACH. Yes, yes it is indeed.
People have this magical idea about books-that somehow just being in possession of one ensures an end to all problems. I say this as someone with a rather extensive home library.
What’s more, I really, really, really hope they aren’t (because they mentioned it) handing out copies of a book called "Hug Me" to rape victims.
First, there was THIS.
Fresh from being mocked in the Wall Street Journal for the stupidest newspaper article ever, the Journal Star gives us THIS.
They could have presented it with a quite or two from someone disputing the posibilty of ghosts. They could have presented it as a joke. Instead we get the linked article.
The next time a journalist sneers about "bloggers" and their lack of credibility, just give them THIS link, penned by a gen-u-ine, degreed, capital "J" journalist at the Lincoln Journal Star. I can believe someone wrote it, but I have a more difficult time understanding how this dreck made it past an editor.
In eight years of living in Nebraska I can honestly say I’ve met a total of two individuals I could describe as having any degree of intellectual curiosity. One is a Fundamentalist and the other (I’m pretty sure) is autistic. I might be wrong, but I’ll go out on a limb and assume neither would stay home to watch Nebraska’s favourite son, Larry the Cable Guy, who filled 50,000 seats at Memorial Stadium last weekend for a 4th of July show. I know, that’s a broad brush-but in a city of 250,000 people 50,000 isn’t statistically insignificant. Again, I’m not being a snob-I used to watch Hee Haw, and found it amusing, but I didn’t embrace Hee Haw as a way of life. I didn’t find in Minnie Pearl some sort of role model. Sometime between the 70’s and today we lost the ability to grasp parody. The fact that Bush was elected in 2000 based on his appeal as "A guy you’d have a beer with", should serve as a frightening example of where this sort of lacking intellectual curiosity can lead us.
The anti-intellectualism everyone found so shocking during the election seemed only more of the same from my daily existence here. Thankfully, the population is sparse, and I live on a farm so my dealings with people are mercifully limited. Lest you think I’m taking a cheap shot at those without degrees, let me assure you I am not. There are plenty of degreed idiots walking around, or sitting in newsrooms publishing rubbish like what is linked above. You don’t need a degree to crack a book, or give something more than ten seconds of consideration before forming an opinion-or better admitting that you can’t form an opinion. When was the last time you heard someone admit they didn’t have an answer or a conclusion to be reached? I swear, people treat it like they will lose points or something for saying: "I don’t know."
No, I’m talking about people who, when engaged in conversation respond with gems such as:
"Carter? Was he like a president or something?"
I don’t know, maybe I’m an old fuddy-duddy but I think that someone in their thirties with a university degree ought to know that Carter was president. I don’t think that’s setting standards too high. I’ll bet he knows what time Larry the Cable Guy comes on the telly.
I don’t know why the elitist smear works, as it ends up being cast at unlikely "elitists" like union organisers, and Catholic Workers. Perhaps it is simply a convenient, all-purpose insult like "Pinko" designed to marginalise anyone that might question whether they are as content as they’ve been told they are. I’m not convinced it has to do with money, or social status, or educational level. I do however worry that it is dangerous, if only because time and again we can see examples of how the mentality turns into witchunts. Elitist mobs might be irritating, but they don’t tend to get violent and burn crosses on people’s lawns, or beat them up because they feel threatened by their sexual orientation.
Obviously, it was a business decision to begin running stories like the one above in newspapers. These stories wouldn’t run if they didn’t generate page views. I clicked on it too, so I bear a good deal of responsibility in keeping the beast alive. The difference is that I don’t take the content seriously, and can still be mortified that the journalist treated the subject as though it had merit. If that makes me an elitist, I won’t shy from the label.
NPR is going Oprah. Bad science (not actually science at all) and bad journalism. Just bad all around, with a few laughable moments pertaining to magic mushrooms, but still really, really bad. And not science.
Sometimes, people just get fat from eating more than they should. It happens quite a bit. Really, look around. I saw a cartoon years ago where a character was reminiscing something to the effect of:
"You’re born, you go on a few diets, and you die."
I’d call that fairly accurate.
Reading THIS advice column today, I was struck not by the shallowness of the letter writers, but by the curious need people have to turn every fault into a psychological "problem." Gaining forty pounds is grounds for hauling someone off to counseling, and nagging them to work out? No wonder the poor chap in the first letter is depressed, if in fact he is. Living in that sort of an environment being micro-managed by your partner would be well… depressing The way doctors hand out anti-depressants, and slap diagnosis’ on people without much thought, he might do well to seek another opinion. I wonder at who’s urging he sought the diagnosis in the first place? Wonder, wonder, wonder. Worse, it seems to be commonly accepted that so long as one argues their actions are for the good of the other, any and all behaviour is excusable. She’s repulsed by her fat husband…but it is because he’s sick and needs "help." I reckon if he lost forty pounds there would suddenly be some other failing in need of "help."
People being people, they are going to want to control others. I get that. What I don’t understand is how it became socially acceptable to do so. It is the normalest thing in the world to fuck something up, and want to blame it on someone else. We all think that way at some point. We don’t however all act on those urges. At least, we didn’t used to.
People get fat, they leave their socks on the floor, they drink too much. Human beings-oh man, are we ever irritating. So incredibly irritating. That doesn’t make us sick, or in need of therapy-for our own good. Imagine the arrogance of telling your parter what they need to do…for their own good. Rather like reducing them to the role of a small child. Incredible, really. Why would anyone want to be in a relationship like that?
Again, I could care less about the individuals penning off these letters for advice-rather I find it fascinating that it has become completely acceptable to impose one’s nonsense on another person. Maybe it started with the horrendous practise of "interventions." Anyone can become a "therapist." Really, they don’t screen for being personally fucked-up. Just pay the tuition and you too can have a diploma-mill certificate qualifying you to offer helpful advice based on something you saw on daytime television. Here, have some Kool-Aid.
I’d really prefer a world where people could just be honest enough to admit they don’t like their parter any longer, rather than try to justify the dislike by pathologizing everyday life. Trying to impose a bogus psychological label on another human being seems a whole hell of a lot more shallow than saying you’re not attracted to fat people. But then, you wouldn’t get points for being such a good martyr, and suffering because they won’t get "help."
I cannot imagine how exhausting it must be to have that sort of a relationship. All that time and energy put into finding faults and agonising over them, and newspaper columns, television shows and the like making it seem respectable to do so. People are sleeping in the streets, eating from dumpsters and dying of treatable illnesses…and the middling classes (or what’s left anyway) are consumed with rubbish like this? Late Capitalism-fun, fun, fun.
I’ve spent days trying to figure out the best way to approach this story. It is so outrageous, that I was concerned my anger might come across as glib. For days, the only reactions I could summon sounded sarcastic, and probably still are.
If I were asked to define "chutzpah", THIS might be the perfect example. A child psychiatrist at Harvard who has been called as a witness in a lawsuit over the use of psychiatric medications in children has asked that the testimony be kept secret so that (wait for it) it does not damage his reputation. This is the man who failed to disclose the millions he was receiving from drug companies-but don’t worry, he promises it didn’t bias his research.
Certainly, he’s already damaged his reputation without the help of court testimony by not disclosing his drug manufacturer money. Letting the public hear accounts of people damaged, and in some instances killed by unsafe psychiatric drugs they may not have needed in the first place is incredibly important.
Who is telling your doctor what to prescribe? Who are the authorities writing the research? Who decides that psychiatric medications are so profitable that it results in two year olds being diagnosed as bi-polar? Who decides that 40% of the children who are wards of the State of Nebraska are on powerful psychiatric medications? Who? Who? Who?
No, the testimony should not be private and whatever facts come to light that damage his reputation will be solely his own doing. There’s a trail of damaged and dead children whose rights were so summarily dismissed as they were (force) fed the latest money-making miracle drug that would turn them into obedient zombies. To seal the testimony would only reinforce the idea that it is acceptable to use the vulnerable for experimentation and profits. Two decades ago it was foster children in New York being given experimental AIDS drugs without the consent of their guardians. The idea that there are children across this country being forcibly medicated because trusted authorities in the pay of pharmaceutical companies made such recommendations is horrific. Permitting it to go unreported, hidden in secret testimony and sealed court documents would only further declare that these children’s lives were simply the cost of doing business and that fundamental human rights do not apply to them. The testimony must be made public-and widely reported.
Reading THIS story in today’s paper, my bullshit alarm went off pretty loudly. Admittedly, it was penned by the crappy journalist I ridiculed in the previous post, so it has to be read as being written by someone that buys into the "scary bad things are happening to children" model.
I suppose what really sets off my suspicions is that the centre has an interest in keeping those numbers of abused children high-their existence depends on it. Nowhere in the article does it discuss the criteria they use to define sexual abuse. As we’ve seen from some of the pretty outrageous cases of people placed on the sex offender list, there is a pretty broad definition of sexual abuser. Flasher? Public urination? There was a state (can’t remember off the top of my head) that wanted to make being nude at home a sex offense. If a child ends up being seen by a counselor who is looking for something (say, in the case of a divorce where one parent has made an allegation) it would be pretty easy to latch onto anything as a "sign" of sexual abuse (absent any actual evidence). We saw this happen years ago when every day care centre was being scrutinised for being satanic rapists. Years later, the stories began surfacing from the then adult children telling how they were coached to testify. Deposing a three year old? When my kid was three you could convince him that Darth Vader was sitting in the refrigerator eating pie-and he’d insist it was true. Do we really want to be convicting people based on the testimony of three year olds? Apparently, if you run a business that relies on a steady stream of abused children, the answer is yes.
If you read down a bit, to the box with the advice for preventing abuse it starts bordering on the absurd. 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys are sexually abused before the age of 18? If they’re going to toss out numbers like that, they really need to define what abuse is. Does finding Dad’s Playboy collection count, or are we talking about actual sexual abuse? Who knows, the goal of the article is to scare parents shittless, not to back up the statistics.
Limit one on one situations with adults? Are they serious? So everyone is a potential child molester? Not only does this create an environment of fear (which is the goal) but it makes people pretty damn hesitant to have anything to do with one another. You’d have to be out of your mind to baby sit someone’s child, or have them over for a play date. No sane person would want to be a mentor, or Big Brother/Sister-I know I wouldn’t.
The advice to "Make a plan" in the event of sexual abuse is also pretty damn preposterous, but again, it establishes that it is something that is likely to happen and you should prepare for it-like a tornado drill.
If you click HERE you can read what they claim are signs of sexual abuse. I would note that if your child is complaining of an itchy butt, you should probably check for worms before assuming it is the result of sexual abuse-just make sure to do it at a Dr.’s office because if you try to look at your child’s rectum it might be a sign of sexual abuse. Oh, and keep your child away from men because they are all potential molesters. No wonder they can’t find any men willing to be school teachers. You’ve probably heard that airlines won’t seat children traveling alone next to men anymore.
I swear, the whole damn world has gone bat-shit-crazy.
-but hey, if you enjoy it who am I to tell you how to spend your money?
Oh, and the foot pads to draw the toxins out your feet? Yeah, they don’t work either.
You see, this is what happens when they stop teaching science in school. You go from the scientific method to speculating whether God made the earth in six days and ordered take-away Chinese on the seventh, to imaginary toxins being drawn out the soles of your feet or poop chute.
If you want to believe in little sprites that live in enema bottles ready to scour away ten years of binge drinking with magical little bottle brushes made from butterfly wings, Goji berries, and hairs plucked from the head of a sleeping Oprah Winfrey-hey, have at it! But it still won’t do anything.
I won’t bother teaching the kid science because the Community College is just going to offer a course on Ghost Hunting and well-fine, you win. OK? You win. I give up.
