This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - u s ehe r n a m e
« on: September 06, 2008, 04:42:07 PM »
Well, while delusions are a very important characteristic symptoms of Schizophrenia, hallucinations are just as significative for the diagnosis. For instance, you need only one Criterion A symptom if delusions are bizarre or hallucinations consist of a voice keeping up a running commentary on the person's behavior or thoughts, or 2+ voices conversing with each other.
Here it is a slightly different perspective on the issue, fortune:
"If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; If you talk to the dead, you are a schizophrenic."
While people behave and think in ways that are very disturbing, this does not mean they have a disease. To Szasz, people with mental illness have a "fake disease," and these "scientific categories" are in fact used for power controls. Schizophrenia is "the sacred symbol of psychiatry" and, according to Szasz, simply does not exist. To be a true disease, the entity must somehow be capable of being approached, measured, or tested in scientific fashion. According to Szasz, disease must be found on the autopsy table and meet pathological definition instead of being voted into existence by members of the American Psychiatric Association. Mental illnesses are "like a" disease, argues Szasz, putting mental illness in a semantic metaphorical language arts category. Psychiatry is a pseudo-science that parodies medicine by using medical sounding words invented over the last 100 years. To be clear, heart break and heart attack belong to two completely different categories. Psychiatrists are but "soul doctors", the successors of priests, who deal with the spiritual "problems in living" that have troubled people forever. Psychiatry, through various Mental Health Acts has become the secular state religion. It is a social control system, which disguises itself under the claims of scientificity. The notion that biological psychiatry is a real science or a genuine branch of medicine has been challenged by other critics as well, such as Michel Foucault in "Madness and Civilization."
State government by enforcing the use of shock therapy has abused Psychiatry with impunity according to Szaz. If we accept that "mental illness" is a euphemism for behaviors that are disapproved of, then the state has no right to force psychiatric "treatment" on these individuals. Similarly, the state should not be able to interfere in mental health practices between consenting adults (for example, by legally controlling the supply of psychotropic drugs or psychiatric medication). The medicalization of government produces a "therapeutic state," designating someone as "insane" or as a "drug addict". In "Ceremonial Chemistry" (1973), he argued that the same persecution which has targeted Witches, Jews, Gypsies or homosexuals now targets "drug addicts" and "insane" people. Szasz argued that all these categories of people were taken as scapegoats of the community in ritual ceremonies.
Similarly, psychiatrists R. D. Laing, Silvano Arieti, Theodore Lidz and Colin Ross have argued that the symptoms of what is called mental illness are comprehensible reactions to impossible demands that society and particularly family life places on some sensitive individuals. Laing, Arieti, Lidz and Ross were notable in valuing the content of psychotic experience as worthy of interpretation, rather than considering it simply as a secondary and essentially meaningless marker of underlying psychological or neurological distress. Laing described 11 case studies of people diagnosed with schizophrenia and argued that the content of their actions and statements was meaningful and logical in the context of their family and life situations. In 1956, Palo Alto, Gregory Bateson and his colleagues Paul Watzlawick, Donald Jackson, and Jay Haley articulated a theory of schizophrenia, related to Laing's work, as stemming from double bind situations where a person receives different or contradictory messages. Madness was therefore an expression of this distress and should be valued as a cathartic and transformative experience. In the books "Schizophrenia" and the "Family and The Origin and Treatment of Schizophrenic Disorders" Lidz and his colleagues explain their belief that parental behavior can result in mental illness in children. Arieti's "Interpretation of Schizophrenia" won the 1975 scientific National Book Award in the United States.
The concept of schizophrenia as a result of civilization has been developed further by psychologist Julian Jaynes in his 1976 book "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"; he proposed that until the beginning of historic times, schizophrenia or a similar condition was the normal state of human consciousness. This would take the form of a "bicameral mind" where a normal state of low affect, suitable for routine activities, would be interrupted in moments of crisis by "mysterious voices" giving instructions, which early people characterized as interventions from the gods. Researchers into shamanism have speculated that in some cultures schizophrenia or related conditions may predispose an individual to becoming a shaman; the experience of having access to multiple realities is not uncommon in schizophrenia, and is a core experience in many shamanic traditions.
Equally, the shaman may have the skill to bring on and direct some of the altered states of consciousness psychiatrists label as illness. Psychohistorians, on the other hand, accept the psychiatric diagnoses. However, unlike the current medical model of mental disorders they argue that poor parenting in tribal societies causes the shaman's schizoid personalities. Speculation regarding primary and important religious figures as having schizophrenia abound. Commentators such as Paul Kurtz and others have endorsed the idea that major religious figures experienced psychosis, heard voices and displayed delusions of grandeur. Psychiatrist Tim Crow has argued that schizophrenia may be the evolutionary price we pay for a left brain hemisphere specialization for language. Since psychosis is associated with greater levels of right brain hemisphere activation and a reduction in the usual left brain hemisphere dominance, our language abilities may have evolved at the cost of causing schizophrenia when this system breaks down.
« on: September 06, 2008, 04:25:00 PM »
It's interesting to see in what ways people react to the values of their parents and the like. John George Schmitz (1930-2001) — also known as John G. Schmitz — of California, born in Milwaukee, Wis., on August 12, 1930, was the father of Mary Kay LeTourneau. Schmitz was a member of California state senate; U.S. Representative from California 35th District; reprimanded by the California Senate in 1982 over a press release issued by his office, which characterized a critic and her supporters with crude slurs. Prominent member of the John Birch Society (a right-wing racist organization) and the American Independent Party candidate for President of the United States in 1972.
It may come as no surprise why Mary Kay acted the way she did -- in fact, in her biography she talks about her father, whose life also fell apart when he had an affair with a former student; her unhappy marriage, forced by her disapproving parents
; and her continuing love for Vili, the father of two of her children.
Mary Kay Letourneau, was 34, and the married mother of four children in 1996, when she and Vili Fualaau, her 6th grade student entered into a sexual relationship. She was arrested in 1997 when she was pregnant with their child and sentenced to 6 months in jail and ordered to have no contact with Vili. A month later she was caught in her car with him and she was pregnant with their second child. She served 7½ years in prison for having sex with a minor. She was released from prison on August 4, 2004. The movie "All-American Girl: The Mary Kay Letourneau Story" (2000) has been suggested to have accurately portrayed the anguish and the ecstasy of a true love occurring between an adult woman and a minor man, confronting the Talibanistic-Christian sexual repression that underlies far too much of American society.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13106958/
« on: September 06, 2008, 04:14:13 PM »
In a blistering new ad, John McCain's campaign accused Barack Obama of passing over Hillary Clinton as his running mate because she pointed out his flaws during the Democratic primaries. Obama announced Delaware Sen. Joe Biden as his vice presidential pick Saturday, following reports that Clinton was not even vetted for the job. McCain's ad capitalizes on the lingering tension between Obama and Clinton's supporters, with just one day remaining until the DNC in Denver.
"She won millions of votes. But isn't on his ticket. Why? For speaking the truth," the narrator in the ad says.
The ad then quotes Clinton criticizing Obama for being vague and "increasingly negative."
"The truth hurt. And Obama didn't like it," the narrator says.
WELL, I can tell you Clinton was never a real VP candidate (not that she really wanted to be in Obama's ticket, for that matter). It was all over when she conceded the race to him at the beginning of June.
Here it is am interesting articleHow To Debate a Girl, and Win
Joe Biden can beat Sarah Palin by pretending she's a man. And that he's not Joe Biden.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Dear Sen. Biden:
You have a problem. In less than a month, you will face off against Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in a vice-presidential debate in St. Louis, and were you anyone but Joe Biden, it would likely be a rout. Last week, Palin proved herself a charming, confident, and gifted reader of speeches. But that doesn't change the fact that two years ago she was the mayor of a town of 6,000, crusading against dirty books at the local library. You are a six-term senator and chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee. World leaders routinely friend you, unbidden, on Facebook ("Wait ... Is this the Angela Merkel?"). World leaders had never heard of Gov. Palin until last Friday. That's your problem, Joe. Everyone expects you to win the debate, and to trounce her on the substance. But the rules for debating Gov. Palin are different. If you lecture her, you'll be seen as a sexist bully. If you act too smart, you'll be seen as a sexist bully. If you condescend to her, you'll be seen as a sexist bully. So this longtime parliamentary debater (and longer-time female) is going to humbly offer you a few tips on how to debate a girl.
Sen. Biden, let's be clear. Great Supreme Court oral advocates will tell you that a flawless oral argument will never win a case, but a bad argument can lose one. You have a similar problem. If you engage, fight, bicker, or bluster, you can lose this debate. Think Rick Lazio. So my advice, in a nutshell: Don't lose it. Your real problem with Palin is not actually going to be her gender. Assuming you don't gaze fixedly at her breasts or ask her to fetch you a coffee, you probably won't do anything truly career wrecking on the sexism front. Your real problem is that Palin is not a serious candidate. I don't mean to suggest that she is not a serious person or even a seriously impressive first-term governor with real potential to shake up national politics. Nor do I want to imply for an instant that Palin is not a serious competitor. I just want to state here what you will be unable to say out loud at the debate: That by every obvious metric—experience, knowledge base, decades of public service, policy experience, understanding of the world—Palin is an unserious candidate for the vice presidency of the United States. And as any college debater will tell you, it's far harder to beat a clumsy opponent than a good one. (That's why you do better in your judiciary committee hearings with John Roberts than with Alberto Gonzales.) But if you even hint that Sarah Palin may be opining on the Israel-Palestinian peace process with something Piper pulled off Wikipedia that morning, you will look like a snotty professor lecturing an undergrad. And if you look like a snotty professor, you will come across as a sexist bully.
There is no easy way to tell you this, Joe Biden, but the surest way for Joe Biden to lose a debate against Sarah Palin is by being Joe Biden. If you are windy, pompous, unctuous, or pushy, you will come across as patronizing and condescending—the guy who puts the "boy" into "old boys' network." If you flirt and smirk and flatter (Did you truly tell an Ohio crowd you thought Palin was "good-looking"? Did you really introduce us to your wife, Jill, by leering that she is "drop-dead gorgeous"?), you're going to sound like the creepy guy in the trench coat at the back of the porn theater. If you can manage to be your warm, amiable self, even if you're going batshit on the inside, you will do fine. And that's why the best way for you to approach Sarah Palin will be to forget that she is a woman. Tell yourself that she is a machine in 3-inch heels that has been programmed to make you look brutish and aggressive. She will attack, and you will smile. She will make jokes, and you will laugh. Do whatever you need to do—take four Percocet, deploy Zen breathing techniques—to prevent yourself from attacking this woman. And do just as much not to pay attention to her. Even if she pulls out her breast pump during commercials, keep your eyes glazed over on the middle distance. No compliments. Don't say you like her shoes. Just the facts, Joe.
You will need to match Palin point for point in the blue-collar-off. If she invokes her sister's gas station, bring up your cousin's Laundromat. (Try to locate one in the coming days, if you aren't in possession of one already). If she mentions the threshers, you need to see her the threshers and raise her the bailers. If she mentions the Washington media elite that hate her, you can truthfully tell her they've been calling you a blowhard for decades. Caution: Sarah Palin is funny. And it's the kind of jeering Ann Coulter-funny that's assuredly going to irritate the heck out of you. She'll suggest you are a coward and unpatriotic and also (heh heh) that you are corrupt and dishonest. Keep your poker face. Poker face when she says you plan to raise taxes on the middle class. Poker face when she says she has plans to sell Barack Obama's next celebrity memoir on eBay and give all the money to special-needs children. Don't lunge (a la Lazio). Don't sigh (a la Gore). Don't roll your eyes (a la Where the Wild Things Are) or look longingly into the camera as if to plead "This is the best they could find for me?" Just nod sagely and refute logically. Get off a zinger if you can. ("You're nice enough Sarah" does not constitute a zinger.) But you are not going to beat her at the victim game, or the regular-folks game, or the humor game. You have to beat her on the fact that you are qualified to be a heartbeat from the presidency and that in 10 years she may be, as well.
Take a page from Campbell Brown's book and ask politely (and like you really want to know the answer and not just hear yourself say the question) what she learned while leading the Alaska National Guard into that war against Saskatchewan. But play to your strengths. Know stuff. Say it briefly. Don't accuse her of not knowing things. Just know more. An insanely successful college debate friend told me recently that the way he won against women was by always behaving like they were men. My senior year in college, I debated in Glasgow, Scotland, against men who all stood up when I entered the room. One guy called me a "little flower" in the quarterfinals. Welshmen asked me to fetch coffee. What I learned from that experience was how deeply glad I was to live in a country where, for the most part, a woman can argue, tell jokes, kick ass, or get her ass kicked, just like a man. In 2008, in St. Louis, against a charming, cocky Alaska governor, that will only be truer. Thank goodness we live in a time and place in which nobody expects you to pull the chair out for your opponent or compliment her brooch, and nobody will be offended if you shake her hand firmly and pound her on national security. My best advice to you for dealing with Gov. Palin? Fight like a man. She will.
« on: September 06, 2008, 04:07:48 PM »
Meantime that we're talking here, Caylee's mom gets out of jail again
ORLANDO, Florida (CNN) -- For the second time in 15 days, a Florida woman suspected in the disappearance of her 3-year-old daughter walked out of jail, this time after somebody anonymously posted the $500,000 bond. Wearing the same "Where Is Caylee?" T-shirt she had on when she was arrested, Casey Anthony was released from the Orange County Jail at 10:09 a.m. ET, officials said. She kept her head down and said nothing as attorney Jose Baez and two burly bodyguards dressed in black escorted her through a gathering crowd and into Dodge Durango that then sped away. Television news helicopters followed the sport utility vehicle during the short drive to the home of Anthony's parents. The SUV, its windows darkly tinted, nosed past a crowd of about 30 people and into the garage. Some carried signs supporting Anthony. Others had signs condemning her. The garage door closed, keeping Anthony out of sight of cameras and gawkers alike.
Anthony is confined to her parents' home and is wearing a monitor, officials said. She will receive weekly visits from a case manager from the Orange County Corrections Department. Anthony's 3-year-old daughter, Caylee, disappeared in mid-June, and her mother waited nearly a month before reporting the disappearance. Since then, evidence has mounted that Caylee is dead. Police have labeled the mother "a person of interest." CNN law enforcement analyst Mike Brooks said that while it may appear that Anthony keeps going through a revolving jailhouse door, authorities would prefer she remain in custody. "I think law enforcement would rather keep her in jail, putting pressure on her to break her," Brooks said.
Anthony initially explained that she didn't report her daughter missing because she was conducting her own investigation. Later, she told police she gave Caylee to a babysitter. But investigators soon learned that the address she gave them was an apartment that hadn't been occupied for months. Anthony's mother -- Caylee's grandmother -- continues to insist that the toddler is alive. Brooks said that authorities may try again to jail Anthony as the forensic evidence continues to suggest a grim outcome. "They may make another move to keep her behind bars," Brooks said. "The Anthonys keep saying they are looking for Caylee alive, but all the evidence points to not finding her alive, that she's deceased."
Authorities have not revealed who posted the bail, which allowed Anthony's release on the original charges -- child endangerment, obstructing an investigation and giving false statements to police. Anthony also faces recently filed theft charges. The story of Anthony and her missing daughter has garnered national headlines, been the nightly fodder of cable TV crime shows and brought a stampede of reporters to stake out the home of Anthony's parents. As Anthony was arrested, bonded out of jail, was rearrested and bonded out again, investigators disclosed that they have uncovered some evidence in the case. Authorities said they have found traces of chloroform in the car Anthony drove and Internet searches of chloroform Web sites on her computer. Investigators said they had found evidence of human decomposition in the trunk of Anthony's car. Law enforcement sources also suggested that a strand of hair found in the trunk of the car was Caylee's.http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/09/05/fla.missing.girl/
« on: September 06, 2008, 04:00:41 PM »
In an amazing scientific discovery, we have now come to know that antihomicidal defenses start early in life -- even before we are born, when we still inhabit the presumably cozy environment of our mother's womb. As Harvard biologist David Haig has discovered, even the womb presents its own dangers; a chief one of those is what is known as spontaneous abortions, many of which happen before a woman even knows she is pregnant. Indeed, we now know that many women who experience late periods and worry that they are pregnant, only to be relieved later when their periods begin again, have actually experienced spontaneous abortion of the growing fetus. According to Haig's findings, these often undetected miscarriages occur when the mother's body has sensed that the fetus is in poor health or possesses genetic abnormalities.
Remarkably, Haig also discovered that a defense mechanism has evolved to outwit the mother's body and protect the fetus. This is the fetal production of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), which is a hormone the fetus secretes into the mother's bloodstream. The female body appears to "interpret" high levels of hCG as a sign that a fetus is healthy and viable, and so does not spontaneously abort. Even the womb is a hostile environment where one's own interests must be protected at the cost of another's. Even in that most sacred place we are potential murder victims.
For the sake of truth, clog, hCG is produced by the placenta, not the fetus itself. Shortly after a woman's egg is fertilized by her male partner's sperm and is implanted in the lining or the womb (uterus), a placenta begins to form. This organ will help nourish the developing new life. The placenta produces hCG, whose presence, along with other hormones, helps maintain the early stages of pregnancy. After implantation, the level of detectable hCG rises very rapidly, approximately doubling in quantity every two days until a peak is reached between the weeks 6 and 8. Over the next 10 or more weeks, the quantity of hCG slowly decreases. After this point, a much lower level is sustained for the duration of the pregnancy.