Menace in Europe Podcast

We are talking today to journalist,Claire Berlinski, whose new book, Menace in Europe : Why the Continent's Crisis Is America's, Too, comes out today. Claire is back in the States from Istanbul to promote her new book and she took the time to talk with us about radical Islamists in Europe, the problems with assimilation, the psychological trauma facing Europe, and the possible need for a national therapist in France! I would sign up but I don't think I am up to that job. Perhaps Shrinkwrapped, Dr. Sanity, Neo-neocon, or Shrinkette would qualify.

You can listen to the podcast (you don't need an iPod) by clicking here or you can subscribe to iTunes.

You can find a dialup version here, and there's a collection of all our podcasts here.

As always, comments and suggestions are welcome.

Medical Grand Rounds is Up

Grand Rounds is being hosted by A Chance to Cut is a Chance to Cure blog.

Carnival of Homeschooling

The Carnival of Homeschooling: week #9 is being hosted at the Why Homeschool Blog. The theme this week is Greek mythology--"In ancient Greek mythology, nine muses or goddesses were believed to inspire artists, musicians, writers and poets. It was common in ancient schools to have a shrine to the Muses called mouseion, the source of the modern word 'museum.' We review these mythical goddesses as applied to home education. We hope you are a 'mused.' " I find it amusing that they filed my post under the muse of comedy--oh well, that's probably where it belongs. Go check out some of the interesting posts.

Questions Needed

Glenn and I are doing an up-coming podcast on heart health with two professionals in cardiac care. We would like to know your areas of concern. If you have a question in the area of heart attacks, cardiac rhythm problems, diet, cholesterol etc. for our guests, please leave them below and I will pick some to ask on the show. Thanks so much for your help!

Update: This comment thread is closed.

Propaganda for Kids

I was just listening to a podcast from the Northern Alliance Radio Network on Powerline's blog--the guest was Jeremy Zilber, author of a new "children's book," Why Mommy is a Democrat. Zilber's site describes the book as bringing "to life the core values of the Democratic Party in ways that young children will understand and thoroughly enjoy. Using plain and non-judgmental language, along with warm and whimsical illustrations, this colorful 28-page paperback depicts the Democratic principles of fairness, tolerance, peace, and concern for the well-being of others."

Yes, in this "non-judgmental" book, one illustration shows a rampaging elephant crushing a homeless man's bench which is his only possession. But on the radio show, Zilber insists that the elephant isn't necessarily supposed to be a Republican! (Mr. Zilber commented below that he did not say this--you can read more in the comment section). And Zilber has such ignorance of child development as to state that most young kids would not know that the elephant stands for the Republican party and be able to put two and two together to get the message that Republicans are heartless brutes who trample even over the homeless.

Yes, Mr. Zilber, your non-judgmental messages certainly teach tolerance, peace, and concern. Given how little you obviously know about children, what makes you think you should be giving any advice to children at all? You obviously know very little about how sensitive young kids can be about the nuances of how politics work. I have had a four year old that knew enough about the system to pick up my phone and call 911 to report me for child abuse for asking him to take an IQ test. What makes you think four to seven year old kids don't understand the mesage you are selling. Republicans are thugs who are heartless while Democrats are good people who make no judgements. Well, let's hope the kids are smart enough to see through the irony of your non-judgmental book.

Oh, and by the way, if you are ever wondering about the warmth and kindness your "compassionate" Democratic Party has towards the homeless, why don't you check out the critical responses from homeless advocates in San Francisco when the mayor there actually found a solution called Care not Cash? The mayor is providing housing and services for the homeless and the better that works, the more upset the adovocates become. Are they so afraid of losing their own platform that they would jeopardize a program that works? Is throwing other people's money at a problem the only solution you can come up with?

Update: Yes, the mayor of San Francisco is a Democrat--but when you are accused of Republican-style attacks on the city's "most vulnerable" for providing the homeless with shelter and services, you know that you are dealing with housing justice activists so far left that they would rather throw other people's money at a problem than see a real solution put in place. But it's activists like this who set the tone for the Democratic Party. Housing and providing services to people is cruel? Somebody should tell the children.

Update II: Dr. Sanity has a more appropriate title for Zilber's book.

Update III: Here are more thoughts from Neo-neocon.

Podcast on Creativity, Writing and Science Fiction

Today we are talking with John Scalzi, author of a new science fiction book, The Ghost Brigades, and Tim Minear, Executive Producer and writer of such shows as Wonderfalls,Serenity, Angel and Firefly. Scalzi tells us how the internet has changed the way he works, writes and promotes his novels. Minear discusses his 13 hit wonders, his new projects and the aggression of girls (and talks about how violence can be a good thing!)


You can listen to the podcast here or subscribe via iTunes. You can also find a dialup version here, and there's an archive of our previous podcasts here.

As always, suggestions and comments are welcome.

I'm Not Really Talented and Gifted, I Just Play One for the PC Crowd

Thanks to Soccer Dad for pointing out this article in the Washington Post that discusses replacing the Gifted programs in schools in Montgomery County, Maryland with magnet classes for everyone:

But this fall, educators decided to try a different approach. Instead of selecting a few hundred students for traditional school magnets, officials opened magnet programs at three middle schools to everyone.

"We've changed from labeling children to labeling services," Horn said. "It's not whether you're gifted, it's what's appropriate for you."

Oh sure, this method will really fool the kids--think they don't understand the hypocrisy of leveling the playing field? Of course they do. In my daughter's school, when the mentally handicapped kids are called over the intercom for special classes, they announce, "Will all of the 'Smart' kids come to Room 101." The whole school, from kindergarteners to 5th graders look at each other in amusement that the school is calling the handicapped kids smart. How silly is that? And how silly is it to let teachers observe kids to determine if they are "gifted" instead of allowing for some set of standards to do the sorting for them?

At two elementary schools, Georgian Forest in Silver Spring and Burning Tree in Bethesda, that means piloting an approach in which students are not formally labeled "gifted and talented" solely through traditional testing. Instead, teachers spend more time watching how individual students perform and place them based on those observations. The change doesn't necessarily mean that all students will be in the highest-level reading group, but it is a strategy for reaching out to kids who might have been overlooked in the past, said Georgian Forest Principal Donald D. Masline.

And their remedy for the lack of diversity just gets sillier:

Educators hope that the new approach will help them address why black and Hispanic students continue to lag behind white and Asian counterparts in achievement and why so few take advanced classes or are admitted into accelerated programs.

I don't see how this question is being answered by having teachers make biased decisions about which kids to place in these "gifted" programs--what does "observation" have to do with whether a child is gifted? Shouldn't there be some actual measure of what a person knows than whether or not the teacher thinks they "look smart?" This is no better than calling the mentally handicapped children smart. Wouldn't the proper way to answer the question of why Blacks and Hispanics are lagging behind Whites and Asians be to conduct research on the factors that may be causing the discrepancies and remedy those rather than setting up a phony group of gifted students whose only gift may be that they have a teacher who holds self-esteem and looking diverse in higher regard than children actually learning anything?

With such unscientific inquiry, it is no wonder more and more parents are homeschooling or turning to private schools to educate their children. I foresee that the more schools substitute "diversity" for education, the more parents will take flight from the public schools.

Podcast on War, Assimilation and Homeland Security

Back by popular demand (over 125,000 downloads and counting on each episode)--we are talking yet again to Jim Dunnigan and Austin Bay on war issues, how technology affects assimilation, and Homeland Security, including a discussion of the Port controversy. We have Democrats acting like hawks and Republicans broadcasting their independence from Bush--is it politics as usual or a real concern for safety issues? Or something else? Tune in and find out. Click here to listen or subscribe on iTunes. And there's a low-fi version for dialup users here. An archive of podcast episodes is here.

Please leave any comments or suggestions below.

When Will People Learn?

I will say it again, appeasement (and rewarding negative behavior) doesn't work--it doesn't work in the case of paying off welfare recipients for violent behavior nor does it work for paying off blubbering feminists at Harvard. Sorry to see you go, Mr. Summers, but I would personally be thrilled to see a guy like this replace you:

Summers unfortunately gave in to the feminist multiculturalists. He apologized and gave them $50 million. Such a Neville Chamberlain-like approach doomed his presidency. Once the radicals knew he could be intimidated he could never again do anything they opposed. My hope is that you have fired Summers so as to put someone in place who can and will take on the radicals now in control of your Arts and Science Faculty. I am such a person.

If made president of Harvard I would spend the $50 million Summers pledged to the feminists to instead set up a center to study genetic differences in intelligence between men and women. The center would prove that Harvard, once again, is committed to free inquiry.

...If you allow the feminist multiculturalists to win this battle then intellectual diversity in higher education will be imperiled. Consider the fate of a graduate student or untenured professor who holds "politically incorrect" views. If the president of Harvard can be fired for expressing such views, surely lesser beings in the academic world will fell compelled to self-censor or leave academia. The best hope for academic freedom is that you don't let the radical feminists win, and choose someone they will despise even more than Larry Summers.

Wouldn't Summers have been better off standing up boldly to the dyspeptic "I'm going to be sick" feminists in his audience then hightailing it out of Harvard in shame? Afterall, women with such sick stomachs don't belong in the scientific world. What will they do if their research is rejected--throw up on the reviewers? I would rather have gone out with my dignity intact and knowing that my actions served as a proper role model to future generations than to lamely leave with my tail between my legs.

Carnival of Homeschooling

The 8th week of the Carnival of Homeschooling is up--be sure and check out the post on teacher's unions and John Stossel's recent report on the state of schools.

Holocaust Denier Gets Three Years in Prison

I think this prison sentence is wrong--I hate what this guy says but I defend his right to say it. What do you think?

Update: Dr. Sanity weighs in on the free speech issue.

The Failure of Feminism?

There is an interesting article in the Chronicle of Higher Education this week by Phyllis Chesler, author of The Death of Feminism: What's Next in the Struggle for Women's Freedom. The article (only available through a subscription), entitled, The Failure of Feminism, speaks volumes about why feminist academics and journalists in the US fail to support women who are truly being abused in the Islamic world:

Islamic terrorists have declared jihad against the "infidel West" and against all of us who yearn for freedom. Women in the Islamic world are treated as subhumans. Although some feminists have sounded the alarm about this, a much larger number have remained silent. Why is it that many have misguidedly romanticized terrorists as freedom fighters and condemned both America and Israel as the real terrorists or as the root cause of terrorism? In the name of multicultural correctness (all cultures are equal, formerly colonized cultures are more equal), the feminist academy and media appear to have all but abandoned vulnerable people Muslims, as well as Christians, Jews, and Hindus to the forces of reactionary Islamism.

Because feminist academics and journalists are now so heavily influenced by left ways of thinking, many now believe that speaking out against head scarves, face veils, the chador, arranged marriages, polygamy, forced pregnancies, or female genital mutilation is either "imperialist" or "crusade-ist." Postmodernist ways of thinking have also led feminists to believe that confronting narratives on the academic page is as important and world-shattering as confronting jihadists in the flesh and rescuing living beings from captivity.

It is as a feminist — not as an anti-feminist — that I have felt the need to write a book to show that something has gone terribly wrong among our thinking classes. The multicultural feminist canon has not led to independent, tolerant, diverse, or objective ways of thinking. On the contrary. It has led to conformity, totalitarian thinking, and political passivity. Although feminists indulge in considerable nostalgia for the activist 60s and 70s, in some ways they are no different from the rest of the left-leaning academy, which also suffers from the disease of politically correct passivity.

I guess for these postmodern feminists, it would be seem too "masculine" to take any real action to help the women in Islamic countries. God forbid, they might be accused of the same type of imperialistic behavior they have been blaming on the current administration. Then they might have to admit to themselves that the United States is not so bad afterall. In their mind, what a failure of feminism that would be.

Need a Welfare Check? Just Threaten to Riot

"If you reward cruelty with kindness, with what do you reward kindness?"
--Hillel

You would think that governments as well as people in general would understand that appeasing and rewarding negative behavior doesn't work. It's basic psychology 101--but one that not even most psychology professors understand or put to use. And apparently, this concept is foreign to many of the politically correct persuasion outside the classroom as well--for them, their feeling of moral "superiority" trumps human nature and causes liberals to turn a blind eye to justice and acts of violence.

In Bruce Bawer's new book, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within,the side effects of the appeasement of Muslims by the Danish government are clear--as their government pumps more and more welfare money into the pockets of disgruntled Muslims, the rate of violence against "infidels" there increases.

Bawer points out that in Denmark, Muslims make up only 5% of the population but receive 40% of welfare outlays. Many of these immigrants are told by their leaders that Muslim law gives them the right to "cheat and lie in the countries that harbor them." They are told to view the benefits they receive as jizya--the tributes that "the infidel natives of Muslim-occupied countries are obliged to pay to Muslims in order to preserve their lives." And the welfare offices in Denmark can be the setting for violence--termed "culture clashes" by Danish journalists. "Some clients lay waste to social security offices and hit social workers--not out of frustration but because they've learned that bullying gets them what they want. The Danish government is not repressive; welfare workers tend to be sympathetic and eager to help. Many immigrants perceive this as weakness, and exploit it, 'tyrannizing' the social workers." The Danish solution? More PC behavior--get translators to translate not only between languages but between cultures. Yeah, that will work.

Having worked with social security disability clients for 15 years, I can tell you that human nature is the same all over. The more competent clients who had held jobs and had truly bad misfortunes happen to them were often kind and treated me with respect. Those who had never worked, been fed a steady diet of entitlement and justification of the "system owing them" from family members and society were the most abusive, often threatening me or treating me as an object to be used to get them what they wanted (not that it worked one way or another--I just wrote an objective report regardless of threats etc.). I learned to talk in a big booming voice that commanded authority and never swayed from speaking in an objective manner-of-fact tone. Once the potentially violent client saw that I was not intimidated by threats or strong language, they often settled down and cooperated. Too bad European countries haven't learned this lesson--appeasement of violence doesn't work.

I think the last paragraph of Bower's book summarizes the conflict of the PC Danish approach to conflict best:

"The irony was tragic: .......having instituted a welfare system meant to safeguard every last one of them from so much as a moment's financial insecurity, and having built up a culture of extraordinary freedom and tolerance that promised each of them a life of absolute dignity and perfect equality, postwar Dutch men and women had raised up their children into tall, strapping, healthy, multilingual young adults--
...and yet they'd turned a blind eye to the very peril that would destroy them."

Dutch cartoons anyone?

Update: Sorry, Right Girl, didn't mean to interrupt your brunch.

The Nurture Assumption

In her 1998 book,The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do, author Judith Rich Harris discussed how parents played a smaller role than originally thought in how their children turn out. She postulates that genes and peers are the most important influences on kid's lives and as a psychologist, I have to say that from what I have seen, this can sometimes be true. Have you ever wondered how you can have one kid who is so calm and good-natured and another who is hell on wheels? Well, you're not alone.

Many of the parents of my young patients spend years wondering what went wrong with the child they loved and nurtured who later turned out to be a vandal, cheat, scoundrel, or worse. They rack their brains trying to find the lack of love or nurturance on their part that led to their little darling ending up in legal trouble. I sometimes have to just say, "You know, it's not your fault." I think that if parents would read the Nurture Assumption, they might understand more about how heredity and the peers one picks play a heavy role in how the kids turn out and quit blaming themselves so much. It would be time better spent trying to surround a child with peers who are good role models.

Now Ms. Harris has another book that comes out next week, No Two Alike: Human Nature and Human Individuality, in which she tackles the question, "Why do twins who grow up together have different personalities?" They have the same genes, same parents, so what makes them different? The book description at Amazon sounds fascinating:

Her solution is a startlingly original one: the first completely new theory of personality since Freud's. Based on a principle of evolutionary psychology—the idea that the human mind is a toolbox of special-purpose devices—Harris's theory explains how attributes we all have in common can make us different.

This is the story of a scientific quest, but it is also the personal story of a courageous and innovative woman who refused to be satisfied with "what everyone knows is true."

Here is a question and answer session with Ms. Harris at Gene Expression. I can't wait to read her book and find out more.

Mental Health Blogging

Dr. Sanity has a round-up of posts from the Psychosphere. If you want a laugh, be sure and check out G.M. Roper's post on surgery jokes or just go by and wish him well--he just had surgery for lung cancer and is still laughing.

Throw the Book at Her

I have no sympathy for this woman--I say, she should get the same punishment she set the men up for. Read it and tell me what you think.

Update: Why is it that hypocritical women like those at the Feministe Blog always use girls being abused in Islamic countries to make a point about the "mistreatment" of women in the US and yet, when you call for anything to be done, such as freeing the Iraqi people--women included--they suddenly turn a deaf ear and start preaching the virtues of peace and the sins of President Bush?

Podcast on the Avian Flu with Senator Bill Frist and CPAC Bloggers

Have you given any thought to an outbreak of the Avian Flu? I didn't take it too seriously until doing some research and talking today to Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist. This is an important podcast for all Americans as Senator Frist talks about the threat to the US, what private citizens can do to prepare and the problems with developing a vaccine. I must warn you, our audio was not the best, as we have construction workers digging up the phone lines in our neighborhood, but please listen anyway to this important interview.

We also have "on the fly" interviews with bloggers and others of interest at the CPAC conference--the list includes Little Miss Attila, Lashawn Barber, Joel Miller, Ana Marie Cox (ex-Wonkette), The American Mind, Chris Nolan, Americans for Rice, and Muslims for Bush.

You can listen here (no ipod is necessary) or go to iTunes--please subscribe to boost us in the rankings. We are now #6 in Talk Radio. Thanks!

Oh, and if you want a low-bandwidth version for dialup, it's here!

As always, any comments and suggestions are welcome!

Daycare, Social Skills and Cognitive Development

A number of readers have emailed me to comment on the recent studies on the pitfalls of daycare on the development of children. One such British article points out that nurseries harm small children--Note that these daycares are run as part of a government involved program:

Steve Biddulph, whose books have sold more than 4m copies worldwide, says that instead of subsidising nurseries, which do a “second-rate” job, the government should put in place policies to enable mothers to stay at home with their babies. The advice signals a reversal of views for Biddulph, an Australian with more than 20 years’ experience as a therapist, whose previous bestsellers
include Raising Boys and Raising Girls.

In his new book Biddulph will admit he has changed his mind because of growing evidence of increased aggression, antisocial behaviour and other problems among children who have spent a large part of their infancy being cared for away from home.

He argues that such children may have problems developing close relationships later.

In another Canadian study on Quebec's Universal Childcare Program, the researchers found that the children in universal daycare were worse off on every measure when compared to other children, which included fighting more and being aggressive(Hat Tip to J W Well's blog for pointing out this study).

My instincts tell me that something is amiss in these studies--they both look at other countries with subsidized/government-involved childcare. I wonder how government involvement and the quality of caregiving play a part in the negative outcomes of these studies? What about American daycares that are private--what do those outcomes look like? I took a look at a recent study in the American Psychologist this month that summarizes findings from the National Institute of Child Health and the Human Development Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development.

Briefly, the study recruited participants from hospitals in various states and compared children who had exclusive maternal care with children who experienced at least some child care (with others or in a daycare center) on a variety of developmental outcomes. The researchers also examined child-care characteristics and included only children observed in their child-care setting. What did they find?

In the maternal vs. child-care kids, use of child care was not significantly related to cognitive outcomes at 15, 36,or 54 months or to social or peer outcomes at any age. Not surprisingly, the quality of the child care was important. Children in the study who experienced higher quality child care scored modestly higher on all cognitive measures, most ratings of social outcomes, and some peer outcomes. Now for the bad news--in comparing kids with high and low hours of child care per week--caregivers tended to report more problem behaviors and fewer social skills at 54 months when children had more hours of child care. Those with center care compared to those without center care had better cognitive and language outcomes and more positive peer interactions but lower ratings of social skills by the caregiver and more problem behaviors at 36 months.

So, what does this mean? Child-care quality (sensitive and responsive caregiving as well as cognitive and language stimulation) is important! And if you decide to use a daycare, research the place very thoroughly and make sure the caregivers are attentive to your child and talk to him or her. Pop in unexpectedly and see how the place runs when no one is really watching.

Quantity of child care--hours per week--is a predictor of social functioning as children who spent more time in child care displayed more negative behavior at 54 months. So, perhaps limiting some hours in day care centers for very young children may be a possibility if one of the parents can put in more time until the child is older. But, in this study, exclusive maternal care was not related to better or worse outcomes for children--so overall, children may not be worse off.

I am concerned with the problem behaviors displayed by some kids with full time child care experiences--the reason is that in elementary school, some may be harder to manange and the other children may try to imitate them and increase problems in the classroom. My advice would be to get to know the personality of your child. For my daughter, fewer social skills was not a problem, but if you have a child who is more aggressive, temperamental or hard to control, it might be better to restrict the number of hours in daycare. Overall, there are no easy solutions to the child care problem and each family will have to decide what is right for them until further research can clarify some of these issues.

The Jason Foundation

The Jason Foundation is a private charity dedicated to educating the public on youth and suicide. Phil Fulmer, our football coach at the University of Tennessee, became involved with the foundation after the death of Jason Flatt, a young athlete:

Jason Flatt: 3/20/81 – 7/16/97
In 1997, The Jason Foundation was founded in response to a family and friends loss of Jason Flatt - Age 16 - to the tragedy of youth suicide. JFI’s mission is to provide information, tools, and resources to confront the “silent epidemic” and prevent the tragedy of youth suicide.

Jason's father found him the day he killed himself:

Jason was my youngest son. He was an average 16-year old. He got mostly B’s on his report card, and he loved sports. Especially football. He was active in a youth group and he had a lot of friends. Jason was the one who was always up for going places and trying new things. From all appearances...my son loved life.

But on July 16, 1997, he placed a .38 caliber pistol to his head and pulled the trigger. I was the one who opened the door to his room and stumbled over his body. Believe me when I say, there are no words to describe that kind of pain.

I helped with a news segment on Volunteer TV in Knoxville which aired tonight to help the Knoxville area become more aware of youth suicide--I wish they would have mentioned more about the high rate of boy's suicides but at least they are pushing the idea that youth suicide is a concern. Here is a short print version of the segment.

Update: Video of this segment on teen suicide is now up. Click here and then again to the left where you see a red camera icon.

PC Alternative Weeklies

Do you have a PC alternative weekly paper in your area? We do here in Knoxville--it's called the Metro Pulse and while it can sometimes have some articles of interest to me, I have pretty much given up on reading it. Why? The tone of the paper has gotten steadily more PC over the past few years and I am frequently confronted with insulting and belittling editorials and features that paint suburbanites as bourgeois capitalists, Americans as rubes, and criminals as just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. For example, in a cover feature on Greg Thompson, an African American male who murdered an innocent woman, the Metro Pulse had a cover story entitled "Not Crazy Enough."

The story reports that Greg Thompson is psychotic but the state says he's sane enough to execute. I have no issue with the paper discussing the death penalty but in addition to implying that this murderer was in the wrong place at the wrong time, they paint his victim's innocence as almost the reason that the all-white jury gave him the death penalty. The victim, Brenda Lane, was a newlywed, church secretary, soloist in the church choir and the 1982 Outstanding Woman of Bedford County. Thompson forced Lane at knifepoint from a Wal-mart parking lot to a soybean field where, "on impulse," he stabbed her with a rusty knife, stole her car and left her to die. The lawmen who found her say they can remember the horror on her face when they found her body. Where in the hell does "wrong place at the wrong time" come into play in that gruesome senario? I guess if you are African American and you kill a white woman with a church going impeccable background, you should be found innocent just based on the bourgeois credentials of your victim.

And if I thought the Metro Pulse was PC, it looks fair and balanced compared to the Critical Moment, an alternative weekly in Ann Arbor, Michigan. On the back of a recent issue that a reader sent me, there is a large stenciled template (done by this outfit) of Tookie Williams, the four-time murderer on the back page with a caption, "No More Death Penalty" and "No More Prisons."

Huh, "no more prisons?" What do you propose we do with murderers, thieves, and crooks? or to use language you can understand, what do you propose we do with the CEO's of Enron, etc.? Send a social worker to their house to help them feel the pain for what they did?"

I could go on with various weeklies and the propaganda they spout (and I accept their right to put such nonsense out there) but I don't have to like it or read it. Do you have an alternative weekly in your neck of the woods that you read or ignore? Let me know or provide a link in the comment section so we can see what other gems are out there to keep us enlightened on the shortcomings of capitalism, the war, suburban life, our terrible prison systems that entrap murderers and thieves, and American Imperialism.

Raising Nonviolent Girls

Kudos to Child magazine for having a small but worthwhile blurb about how to raise a nonviolent girl. The blurb mentions the work of James Garbarino, author of See Jane Hit : Why Girls Are Growing More Violent and What We Can Do About It,a new book coming out this week. Girls are getting meaner and Garbarino, professor of psychology at Loyola University Chicago, says that "positive social changes are behind the emerging aggressiveness." "Girls today are taught to communicate their feelings rather than bottle them up and feel victimized, and are encouraged to express themselves physically in sports. While these are positive developments, they can have negative side effects", says Dr. Garbarino who offers these violence-prevention tips:

Treat girls equally. Research has shown that boys who are taught the boundaries of being physically aggressive are less violent. Through roughhousing and playing sports, parents can also teach girls ways to be aggressive that aren't harmful to themselves or others. Explain to them that "it's okay to be aggressive during soccer, but you can't punch people in the nose or pull their hair. You have to follow the rules."

Develop character. Teach your child to identify her emotions and recognize how others feel. Remind her that while it's okay to speak up for herself, it's never okay to hurt others with words.

Limit exposure to violence. Protect kids from the violence shown in the media. In recent years, TV shows and video games have been flooded with female action stars--which can send the wrong message.

Well, I don't agree fully with all of these points--unlike Dr. Garbarino, I do not think it has been that positive a social change for girls to be told they are victims who have to communicate every feeling of displeasure. If you see yourself as a victim, it is easy to believe you cannot hurt others, even when you punch, hit and verbally abuse people. I think that some exposure to aggressive video games can be okay--but it would be best if the star is not seen as a hero who is cruel to others and rewarded. But, on a positive note, maybe parents and society will take heed from Garbarino's book and quit it with the "You Go Girl" culture. Because, sometimes, convincing a girl that she is a victim and that her only recourse is to spit venom can backfire into her becoming a full-grown bully--or the next Maureen Dowd.

More Pictures from CPAC

Here are bloggers Northamericanpatriot and Wendy Sullivan of Rightgirl. I asked them to do something embarrassing to entertain my readers and all I got was Ms. Sullivan saying, "I'm Canadian, is that good enough?" I guess it will have to be. Northamericanpatriot has more pictures on her blog including Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter.







Here is yet another picture of Glenn being interviewed by NRAnews.com about his book.

Pictures from CPAC

There was a booth called Blogger Row at the conference--Here is Girl on the Right, Tom Bridge of Metroblogging DC, and Lashawn Barber.




Here is Glenn talking to C-Span about his upcoming book.

The Holocaust Memorial Museum

I just went to see Glenn do his book signing at CPAC where there were bloggers, journalists and reporters galore! From there, I went to the Holocaust Museum to look at the exhibits. As a psychologist, I found the exhibition on "Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race" the most interesting. The Nazi emphasis on health and fitness was certainly intriguing--while it sounds good in theory, it reminds me of why I feel upset with all the fitness gurus in this country with their propaganda that makes smokers seem like outlaws and those who eat at McDonald's one step away from a heart attack and lifelong reliance on the health insurance system. It is all about more government control--even to the point of telling people how to eat and exercise. Heck, I ate at McDonald's on the trip up and it was fairly healthy.

The National Socialist Party is an amazing representation to me of the worst characteristics of the authoritarian mixed with far left leaning propaganda. While the far left sometimes likens the right to Nazi's, it seems to me that Hitler also had traits of the left--I guess that's why they called it the National Socialist Party. One of the displays in the Deadly Medicine exhibit mentioned a quote from Hitler that I did not write down--but the gist was that the goal of the National Socialist Party was to have children as its top priority (in a 1938 speech, Hitler proclaimed the mother to be the most important citizen in his state) and that the selfishness of the individual was to be overlooked for the good of the collective society. Sounds very much like a form of socialism to me.

My question is, why do so many of the left tout Nazism as a creation of the right when there were so many traits of the left embedded in it's theology?

Update: Ed Driscoll has more.

Update II: Wow, these guys think I am calling them terrorists and Nazis. I didn't have that in mind at all--but it's interesting that they think I did. Can anybody say, guilty conscience?

Update III: Reader Ardsgaine in the comment section gives a lesson in logic to Tboggians:

All Nazis were socialists.

All socialists are leftists.

Therefore, all Nazis are leftists.

And she ended with the question, so why do the leftists call the right Nazis?

Now, if you had a basic philosophy class in college, you probably remember how this works. The statement "all Nazis are leftists" does not imply that all leftists are Nazis. It just means that some leftists are Nazis. It's the same as with "all horses are mammals." You can't flip it around and say that all mammals are horses. Got it? Or should I sketch you out a Venn diagram?

Travel Plans

I am heading to Washington D.C. today with Glenn to attend the CPAC conference. He will be there signing his book, An Army of Davids : How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths, at the conference on Friday. Blogging may be light for a few days or typical, depending on my access to a computer. I am taking my camera and will post some pictures from the conference if I can find some blogger celebrities or other points of interest.

In the meantime, take a look at an interesting interview at Right Wing News with Kate O'Beirne.

This is good news. But not good enough.

Podcast on ManHunt: The 12-Day Chase for Lincoln's Killer

We are interviewing James Swanson today, the author of a new book, Manhunt : The 12-Day Chase for Lincoln's Killer. The narrative is so dramatic, it has been optioned into a movie with Harrison Ford playing Col. Everton Conger, the Civil War cavalryman who led the search for John Wilkes Booth. Word is still out for the part of Booth--but we're hoping for Johnny Depp or maybe Orlando Bloom.

If you are a Civil War buff or just interested in an intriguing tale of murder and mayhem about the chase and capture of Booth, listen to this fascinating podcast. Click here to listen or subscribe on iTunes. If you check out the front page of iTunes, you will see that the Glenn and Helen podcasts have been chosen as one of their featured podcasts. If you have not done so, please subscribe to help boost our ratings.

As always, any comments or suggestions are welcome.

The Nanny State Trap

Have you read the New York Times op-ed piece today regarding,"The Parent Trap" by the goddess of domestic dysfunction, Judith Warner?

We women have, in many very real ways, at long last made good on Ms. Friedan's dream that we would reach "our full human potential — by participating in the mainstream of society." But, for mothers in particular, at what cost? With what degree of exhaustion? And with what soul-numbing sacrifices made along the way?

The outside world has changed enormously for women in these past 40 years. But home life? Think about it. Who routinely unloads the dishwasher, puts away the laundry and picks up the socks in your house? Who earns the largest share of the money? Who calls the shots?

Is it my imagination or is the NYT's crowd stuck forever in a bad 1950's sitcom? And Ms. Warner's solution? More government control, of course:

Ms. Friedan said last year, "We are a backward nation when it comes to things like childcare and parental leave." That's just the beginning. We need universal preschool, more and better afterschool programs, and policies to promote part-time work options that don't force parents to forgo benefits, fair pay and career prospects.

If only the men of the world would keep working those 50-70 hour weeks without complaint, keep the dishes clean, do the laundry, and leave their wives to make most of the decisions like the smart ladies on today's tv sitcoms, the world would be a wonderful place. Oh, and throw in free daycare and a part-time job with full benefits for women and Oiula, problem solved. What a selfish view of the world Ms. Warner has and the worse part? If she can't control the men in her household, she will look to the government to step into that role.

We're Number 10!

The Glenn & Helen podcasts are now featured as new and notable on iTunes, and they're in the Top 10 for "talk radio" podcasts. If you've got iTunes, you can click on the link and it'll take you to the podcasts page. Also there is "Snapped," the Oxygen Channel TV show I used to consult for--there are video podcasts of the show if you want to take a look at women who kill.

The Carnival of Homeschooling is up--week 6 is being hosted at the Why Homeschool Blog.

Cathy Young had an article yesterday in the Boston Globe on "The Lost Boys" as well as a post on the same topic at her blog. Many people tell me that this boy topic is getting "beaten to death" but at least it's getting some attention which might lead to further research and study into the area of boy's and men's high rates of suicide, etc.

Boys and Suicide

Did you know that 86% of all adolescent suicides in the U.S.are comitted by boys? And the real problem? Nobody gives a damn. A reporter at The San Franciso Chronicle is puzzled by this apathy as well:

It occurred to me that if 86 percent of adolescent suicides were girls, there would be a national commission to find out why. There'd be front-page stories and Oprah shows and nonprofit foundations throwing money at sociologists and psychologists to study female self-destruction. My feminist sisters and I would be asking, rightly, "What's wrong with a culture that drives girls, much more than boys, to take their own lives?"

So why aren't we asking what's wrong with a culture that drives boys, much more than girls, to take their own lives? Even in academia, where you can find studies on the most obscure topics, there is little research explaining why boys are disproportionately killing themselves. The Center for Adolescence at Stanford, a nationally recognized clearinghouse on teen behavior, has no one on its long roster of experts who can speak on the topic. Neither does the American Association of Suicidology, an organization dedicated to suicide prevention since 1968.

Unfortunately, the solution for this reporter to boy's suicide is to treat them more like girls or to tie their seeking help to what they can do for women:

If fathers say openly and repeatedly that acknowledging depression and sadness is not a sign of personal weakness but of superior judgment, if they say that getting help is their obligation as men so they can be good partners and providers, then maybe we have a chance at changing the centuries of hard-wiring that makes boys and men so much more violent than women -- whether toward others or toward themselves.

I am not exactly sure of all the complex psychological reasons that boys are taking their lives more now than in the past, but I do know that without studying the reasons for the increase, we will not be on our way to finding a solution.

Update: JW Wells has similar thoughts on males and suicide.

Update II: If suicide is just about men's natural predisposition of violence towards others or themselves, as some commenters and emailers stated, why do more women than men kill themselves in China?

Just Walk Away

Wow, I really admire people who can just walk away and quit the profession that they spent a good part of their life preparing for--I wish I had. I used to be one of those people who would persevere through anything, despite the unhappiness it caused me. Since my heart attack six years ago, I have cut down my private practice to one day a week--and those cases I take must really interest me in some way or give me a sense that I am making a difference for an individual or society. In my profession, I find it rare to feel that fulfilled. Many courts, agencies, attorneys etc. have an agenda or underlying objective for why they want a forensic evaluation--and it does not always mesh with the truth. For this reason and for many others, I rarely practice my field.

Have you ever dreamed of just quitting your day job, staying home to read your favorite books, write or just spend your time blogging? You know, you see all those ads that tell you how to be a full time blogger--anyone out there succeeding at this or wish they could?

"Stats" that Make the World Worse

I was listening to Kate O'Beirne, the author of Women Who Make the World Worse : and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports,on C-Span last night. Okay, so I don't agree with some of her points on why women should stay married even if unhappy, for the sake of children, blah blah blah. But she had a number of interesting things to say, including a discussion of how some feminists continue to exaggerate the extent to which women are abused and involved in domestic violence, etc. Yes, some women are being abused as are some men, but some feminists see fit to call psychological abuse and "controlling behavior" domestic violence--hell, this would make all of us victims (and perpetrators) of abuse at one time or another. This overexaggeration of what constitutes abuse as well as a distortion of the number of women who are physically abused has resulted in over a billion federal dollars being funneled to domestic violence causes as well as to the passing of sexist laws such as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

One of O'Beirne's most salient points to the smirking journalist/interviewer on C-Span was that girls and women are being sold a bill of goods that there is danger lurking around every corner. How will this message help our girls and young women build the real confidence and assets they need to go into the working world as fully functioning adults if they resort to victimhood as a way of life? These messages of the lurking dangers for women are blatant at times, but in other ways are subtle enough to be excused, even by intelligent people.

For example, at the Volokh Conspiracy this week, Professor Eugene Volokh pointed out to an Oregon State University newspaper that it was not possible to have 2000 rapes a day, one every five minutes, as a press release and website from the Oregon State University Women's Center stated. Well...duh. It is admirable that Professor Volokh points out the problem to the women's center but they do little about it, as you can see, they did not even remove this lie -- I mean, "fact" -- from their Myths and Facts sheet. But in the comments section, Professor Volokh defends these distortions as a problem with numbers:

Here is commenter Smithy's take on the "mistake":

Typical leftist exaggeration from the unhinged feminist left. You can chalk it up to enumeracy -- I chalk it up to plain craziness.

And Professor Volokh's reply:

Smithy: It's not exaggeration; it's mathematical error. It's not "enumeracy"; it's "innumeracy." I know of no "craziness" that manifests itself as the inability or unwillingness to do arithmetic. There's little reason to think that the authors of the underlying web page or of the newspaper article are "unhinged." There's nothing inherently leftist in high estimates of the level of rape; conservatives should be and are concerned about rape, too. As my original post suggested, there's a debate among serious scholars about the true incidence of rape; the 2000 per day figure is not outlandish, though it is on the high end of the estimates.

I tend to agree with Smithy--although I will go a step further and say it is not craziness on the part of unhinged feminists--it is craftiness. There is a logic and the subtle art of propaganda in these feminists' statistics that scream "give me more funding for women's issues ASAP." Heck, this exaggeration of stats even sells books out of fear--In Gavin De Becker's,The Gift of Fear,he has a chapter on "Intimate Enemies" that reminds us that before our next breakfast, twelve women will be killed by domestic violence--man, that will really get you choking on your Cheerios. However, if we take a look at the tables by the Bureau of Justice, I am a little puzzled that so many women's lives are being cut short before I have had my first meal of the day. I counted 1193 women killed by intimates in all of 2002--if 12 were killed before breakfast that would mean 4380 women would be killed during that time period.

I guess all we can deduce from this is that feminists with agendas can't do math.

Podcast on the Military, Oil and a Priceless Picture

We are talking yet again to military sleuths, Austin Bay and Jim Dunnigan, about recent world events. We also hear from Roger Stern of Johns Hopkins and Lynn Kiesling of Northwestern University on the rising price of oil. Surprisingly, Glenn got a call from Michael Yon today, and we added him to the podcast on the spur of the moment to discuss the taking of this photo and why he was not credited with its release. He also talks about how the blogosphere supported him in his work in Iraq and continues to help now that he is back in the US.

You can listen to the podcast here or subscribe via iTunes. Please leave any comments or suggestions below.

PC TV

Is it my imagination, or do the primetime TV shows seem even more desperate to portray PC ideas and make stabs at Republicans? I was watching a few shows last night--watching would be a little strong--maybe glancing at them as I flipped through the channels. Will and Grace seems to be getting worse and worse with PC innuendos tossed in for good measure on every show. On this one, Grace mentions the "uppity Canadians, what with their free health care and gay rights." The message? Americans refuse healthcare to many and are hung up on homophobia. And the digs about homophobia continue in another scene, while at a resort of some sort, Jack tells his son not to hug him on a street corner since one corner is named Murder and the other Homophobia. Yes, that is typical of most Americans--just ready to kill or maim any two men they see hugging. And finally, after being exasperated with this show, I watched a few minutes of the following sitcom entitled The Four Kings--apparently about four guys who live together. Forgive me if I am vague on the plot--these shows are usually too silly to follow. The gist of it seemed to be that a couple of the guys wanted their friend, brother or whatever to attend or help out with a Democratic function in order to beat a "sleezebag Republican." The dude they are talking to has to let the audience know that he is "as good a Democrat as anyone who doesn't vote" (the guy is a slacker) but does not want to attend.

Okay, I watched less than thirty minutes of TV last night and saw at least three jabs at conservatives and/or Americans in general. The Democrats are portrayed as being the norm with the conservatives being abberant racists, homophobes or sleezebags. It's no wonder people are turning away from watching primetime TV and heading to the internet for entertainment and news.

Gender Differences in Heart Disease

The Washington Post had an article today (hat tip to Business of Life blog) looking at a different form of heart disease in women as compared to men:

Instead of developing obvious blockages in the arteries supplying blood to the heart, these women accumulate plaque more evenly inside the major arteries and in smaller blood vessels, the researchers found. In other cases, their arteries fail to expand properly or go into spasm, often at times of physical or emotional stress.

These abnormalities, which appear to be particularly common in younger women, can be as dangerous as the better-known form of the disease, strangling vital blood flow to the heart muscle, causing severe and sometimes debilitating pain and fatigue, and sometimes triggering life-threatening heart attacks, the researchers found.

I find this article interesting as the doctors told me I had clear arteries but could have had a coronary spasm that resulted in a heart attack. I wonder what will happen to the many women out there that the study mentions that have this condition and don't even know it?

How to Spot a Nutcase 101

Many college professors often write or ask me how to cope or deal with students with emotional problems who might be a danger to them or someone they know. There is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to predicting violence; it is an inexact science with a high level of false positives, yet because of the seriousness of what can happen if we miss a potentially violent person, it is important for us to at least have a lay person's ability to be aware of the warning signs if they are present. This does not mean that we need to round up students who seem odd---many of us are odd but not a threat. How do you tell the difference? Following is the type of question I get from teachers or professors that may help you determine if odd behavior is a problem or not:

"I am a professor at a college and am afraid of one of my students. He seems angry and has even gone as far as to make threats. I have been trying to placate him by being nice but his behavior is getting worse since failing my course, despite some extra points I gave him. What are the warning signs I should look for and what do I do?"

According to Gavin DeBecker (1997, source is below), the warning signs of violent students include but are not limited to 1) a tendency to use threats, intimidation, manipulations, or escalations; 2) adverse reaction to criticism; 3) rigid ideas and resistant to change; 4) sullen, angry, or depressed appearance; 5) refusal to accept responsiblity for actions; 6) paranoid thoughts that others are "out to get" him or her; 7) tendency to always be involved in some grievance, crusade or mission; 8) odd behavior that produces uneasiness and apprehension in other people 9) jokes about having weapons or praise for other perpetrators of violence; and 10) expresssions of dispair or hopelessness, such as, "What's the use? Nothing changes anyway."

The first step in preventing violence before it starts is to quit being Mr. or Ms. Nice Guy--it doesn't work. Violent people often attack the very people who are helping them. Why? Because you are there and not giving them all of the help they often feel entitled to have. For example, Peter Odighizuwa shot and killed his dean at the Appalachian School of Law after the dean went out of his way to assist him in getting a car, scholarship and back in the law school after doing poorly. It is not a kindness to keep bending your grading scale by giving a few points to a marginal student. Students with a sense of entitlement will only exploit your generous nature if you give in time and time again. Be alert to manipulation from students in the form of flattery. "You are the only professor who cares" or "I don't know what I would do if I didn't have you to talk to" are examples of manipulative behavior. Never become a student's counselor. Observe teacher/student boundaries at all times. Refer the student to the student mental health clinc if he or she seems to be chronically angry or stressed where services are generally free or included in the student activities fee. While records of counseling sessions are confidential, the counselor of a troubled student can be asked to report to school officials whether the student is attending sessions as scheduled.

Never permit verbal abuse from a student, in the classroom or anywhere else. Tell the student to leave the class if they make rude inflammatory remarks. Many faculty now include civility clauses in their course syllabi, setting expectations at the beginning of the semester for classroom decorum.

Don't count on your school to help you--especially if you do not have tenure--your adjunct contract may just not be renewed. One law professor told me that his school didn't care if students made threats because "if they shot a professor, the administration could just hire someone else cheaper." Okay, maybe this is a little cynical but some colleges take little or no action against threats of violence. Apparently, it is more important to put on a PC air of superiority than to protect their professors and students. For example, I wrote a paper along with some colleagues for law professors on how to deal with angry or violent students. We submitted it to the Journal of Legal Education at Georgetown who turned it down--stating that we "must be working with John Ashcroft" given the suggestions we made. Our outrageous suggestions? Have a designated person assigned in the school to handle reports of inappropriate behavior. Do remember, however, that your school is supposed to provide you with a safe environment. The Appalachian Law School recently settled their case for one million dollars for failure to warn students and faculty about Peter Odighizuwa's dangerous behavior. You are well within your rights to ask for stepped up security or discipline for the student etc.

I have some suggestions for books for those of you who want more information on how to protect yourself from violence. The first is The Gift of Fear. It is a bit too PC for my taste at times but the author, Gavin De Becker, gives some good tips and explanations for how to avoid violence. In addition, it is an interesting and easy read. The second book is J. Reid Meloy's Violence Risk and Threat Assessment: A Practical Guide for Mental Health and Criminal Justice Professionals (Practical Guide Series (San Diego, Calif.). Meloy presents some excellent descriptions of how to assess and understand those who are potentially violent. Also check out his book, The Psychology of Stalking, if you want to understand more about the stalker in your life.

"Psychosphere" Blogging

Dr. Sanity has a round-up of mental health blogging up. Check out the post by GagDad Bob on how the political parties now represent maternal and paternal archetypes. Can you guess which party is paternal and which is maternal?