BARBARA'S TCHATZKAHS

Just Because They Are Women

2009-11-23T22:04:00.001-05:00

My apologies if some or all of this offends any of my readers. But I feel strong about this issue and because far too many covert abusive persons (who try to come off as "good people" in the light of day) use porn to help them objectify others.

I am posting this here. Please scroll past if you don't care to read it. Thank you.

For years I never thought I was sexually abused because I wasn't really raped (same mentality as 'he didn't hit me'). A few years ago, my late therapist taught me -- you didn't have to be touched to be sexually abused and raped.

Porn, like any drug, can be lethal. Even aspirin can be lethal. I personally, never want to see porn again. That's hard living in NYC when even TV is so sexualized. Porn sells men & women the same kind of myth, in my opinion, that Cinderella & Snow White sell to girls who grow up waiting for that White Knight and feel its their fault when they become involved with an abuser.

And an abuser blames everything on them... even his own bad behavior. Especially being called on it.

I've watched women self-harm and even put on hundreds of pounds just to morph their bodies so they are no longer attractive to men. I understand this all too well as I deal with PTSD issues involving being looked at or even complimented. Because of the abusers that preyed on me, degraded me when I loved & cared about them - I will never be able trust anyone again.

Sex without intellectual or emotional intimacy is not just gross, disgusting and a type of rape. Sex without emotions is nothing.

Judging someone on their looks or even sexual performance is the lowest and most disgusting form of abuse in wide practice today.

And it's not harmless fun & games.

Pornography: The Paradox in the Mirror
by Robert Jensen

After an intense three hours, the workshop on pornography I have been leading is winding down. The 40 women all work at a center that serves battered women and rape survivors. These are the women on the front lines, the ones who answer the 24-hour hotline and work one-on-one with victims. They counsel women who have just been raped, help women who have been beaten, and nurture children who have been abused. These women have heard and seen it all. No matter how brutal a story might be, they have experienced or heard one even more brutal; there is no way to one-up them on stories of men's violence. But after three hours of information, analysis, and discussion of the commercial heterosexual pornography industry, many of these women are drained. Sadness hangs over the room.

Near the end of the session, one woman who had been quiet starts to speak. Throughout the workshop she had held herself in tightly, her arms wrapped around herself. She talks for some time, and then apologizes for rambling. There is no need to apologize; she is articulating what many feel. She talks about her own life, about what she has learned in the session and about how it has made her feel, about her anger and sadness.

Finally, she says: "This hurts. It just hurts so much."

Everyone is quiet as the words sink in. Slowly the conversation restarts, and the women talk more about how they feel, how they will use the information, what it will mean to their work and in their lives. The session ends, but her words hang in the air.

It hurts.

It hurts to know that no matter who you are as a woman you can be reduced to a thing to be penetrated, and that men will buy movies about that, and that in many of those movies your humiliation will be the central theme. It hurts to know that so much of the pornography that men are buying fuses sexual desire with cruelty.

It hurts women, and men like it, and it hurts just to know that.

Even these women, who have found ways to cope with the injuries from male violence in other places, struggle with that pornographic reality. It is one thing to deal with acts, even extremely violent acts. It is another to know the thoughts, ideas, and fantasies that lie behind those acts.

People routinely assume that pornography is such a difficult and divisive issue because it's about sex. In fact, this culture struggles unsuccessfully with pornography because it is about men's cruelty to women, and the pleasure men sometimes take in that cruelty. And that is much more difficult for people -- men and women -- to face.

Why it hurts
This doesn't mean that all men take sexual pleasure in cruelty. It doesn't mean that all women reject pornography. There is great individual variation in the human species, but there also are patterns in any society. And when those patterns tell us things about ourselves and the world in which we live that are difficult, we often want to look away.

Mirrors can be dangerous, and pornography is a mirror.

Pornography as a mirror shows us how men see women. Not all men, of course -- but the ways in which many men who accept the conventional conception of masculinity see women. It is unsettling to look into that mirror.

A story about that: I am out with two heterosexual women friends. Both are feminists in their 30s, and both are successful in their careers. Both are smart and strong, and both have had trouble finding male partners who aren't scared by their intelligence and strength. We are talking about men and women, about relationships. As is often the case, I am told that I am too hard on men. The implication is that after so many years of working in the radical feminist critique of the sex industry and sexual violence, I have become jaded, too mired in the dark side of male sexuality. I contend that I am simply trying to be honest. We go back and forth, in a friendly discussion.

Finally, I tell my friends that I can settle this with a description of one web site. I say to them: "If you want me to, I will tell you about this site. I won't tell you if you don't want to hear this. But if you want me to continue, don't blame me." They look at each other; they hesitate. They ask me to explain.

Some months before that someone had forwarded to me an email about a pornography site that the person thought I should take a look at -- slutbus.com. It's a web site to sell videos of the slutbus. Here's the slutbus concept:

A few men who appear to be in their 20s drive around in a minivan with a video camera. They ask women if they want a ride. Once in the van, the women are asked if they would be willing to have sex on camera for money. The women do. When the sex is over, the women get out of the van and one of the men hands the women a wad of bills as payment. Just as she reaches for the money, the van drives off, leaving her on the side of the road looking foolish. There are trailers for 10 videos on the web site. All appear to use the same "plot" structure.

In the United States there are men who buy videos with that simple message: Women are for sex. Women can be bought for sex. But in the end, women are not even worth paying for sex. They don't even deserve to be bought. They just deserve to be fucked, and left on the side of the road, with post-adolescent boys laughing as they drive away -- while men at home watch, become erect, masturbate, obtain sexual pleasure, and ejaculate, and then turn off the DVD player and go about their lives.

There are other companies that produce similar videos. There's bangbus.com, which leaves women by the side of the road after sex in the bangbus. And on it goes.

I look at my friends and tell them: "You realize what I just described is relatively tame. There are things far more brutal and humiliating than that, you know."

We sit quietly, until one of them says, "That wasn't fair."

I know that it wasn't fair. What I had told them was true, and they had asked me to tell them. But it wasn't fair to push it. If I were them, if I were a woman, I wouldn't want to know that.

Life is difficult enough without knowing things like that, without having to face that one lives in a society in which no matter who you are -- as an individual, as a person with hopes and dreams, with strengths and weaknesses -- you are something to be f*cked and laughed at and left on the side of the road by men.
Because you are a woman.

"I'm sorry," I said. "But you asked."

In a society in which so many men are watching so much pornography, this is why we can't bear to see it for what it is: Pornography forces women to face up to how men see them. And pornography forces men to face up to what we have become. The result is that no one wants to talk about what is in the mirror. Although few admit it, lots of people are afraid of pornography. The liberal/libertarian supporters who celebrate pornography are afraid to look honestly at what it says about our culture. The conservative opponents are afraid that pornography undermines their attempts to keep sex boxed into narrow categories.

Feminist critics are afraid, too -- but for different reasons. Feminists are afraid because of what they see in the mirror, because of what pornography tells us about the world in which we live. That fear is justified. It's a sensible fear that leads many to want to change the culture.

Pornography has become normalized, mainstreamed. The values that drive the slutbus also drive the larger culture. As a New York Times story put it, "Pornography isn't just for dirty old men anymore." Well, it never really was just for dirty men, or old men, or dirty old men. But now that fact is out in the open. That same story quotes a magazine writer, who also has written a pornography script: "People just take porn in stride these days. There's nothing dangerous about sex anymore." The editorial director of Playboy, who says that his company has "an emphasis on party," tells potential advertisers: "we're in the mainstream."

There never was anything dangerous about sex, of course. The danger isn't in sex, but in a particular conception of sex in patriarchy. And the way sex is done in pornography is becoming more and more cruel and degrading, at the same time that pornography is becoming more normalized than ever. That's the paradox.

The paradox of pornography
First, imagine what we could call the cruelty line -- the measure of the level of overt cruelty toward, and degradation of, women in contemporary mass-marketed pornography. That line is heading up, sharply.

Second, imagine the normalization line -- the measure of the acceptance of pornography in the mainstream of contemporary culture. That line also is on the way up, equally sharply.

If pornography is increasingly cruel and degrading, why is it increasingly commonplace instead of more marginalized? In a society that purports to be civilized, wouldn't we expect most people to reject sexual material that becomes evermore dismissive of the humanity of women? How do we explain the simultaneous appearance of more, and increasingly more intense, ways to humiliate women sexually and the rising popularity of the films that present those activities?

As is often the case, this paradox can be resolved by recognizing that one of the assumptions is wrong. Here, it's the assumption that U.S. society routinely rejects cruelty and degradation. In fact, the United States is a nation that has no serious objection to cruelty and degradation. Think of the way we accept the use of brutal weapons in war that kill civilians, or the way we accept the death penalty, or the way we accept crushing economic inequality. There is no paradox in the steady mainstreaming of an intensely cruel pornography. This is a culture with a well-developed legal regime that generally protects individuals' rights and freedoms, and yet it also is a strikingly cruel culture in the way it accepts brutality and inequality. The pornographers are not a deviation from the norm. Their presence in the mainstream shouldn't be surprising, because they represent mainstream values: The logic of domination and subordination that is central to patriarchy, hyper-patriotic nationalism, white supremacy, and a predatory corporate capitalism.

Pornography-as-a-mirror can take us beyond sex into even more disturbing territory, which leads back to masculinity.

This essay is excerpted from Robert Jensen's new book, Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity, published by South End Press. Jensen also has helped produce a slide show in PowerPoint with a script about the feminist critique of pornography. For information on how to get a copy, email stoppornculture@gmail.com.
_______

Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin

SOURCE

The Obama Myth

2009-11-23T05:39:00.000-05:00

I don’t mean to dismiss the Obama myth, his words, the change we need is real, its just his actions don’t even come close to measuring up. Just read the legal documents he has signed his name to. Read them. His actions are most often the opposite of what he says. I venture to say a 10 year old can recognize that after doing a school day’s worth of research.

Obama is a national tragedy. He is a symbol of the times. He is not a leader, just a symbol. He projects the change we need. He was our shortcut to correcting our diseased political system, a way to rid it of corruption. He symbolized the change millions so desperately need. People came out in the millions for the first time “hoping” if they could work and organize to put him in office, we would have some representation to defend against the economic elite that have put the overwhelming majority of US politicians on the payroll and brought humanity to a breaking point.

People just need to research how the Obama myth was hatched. Goldman Sachs saw Obama early on and said, “He’s our guy!” When Obama became THE MAN in Iowa, he was on the Goldman Sachs pay roll. Goldman financed the psychological operation that is the Obama myth, the Illusion of HOPE - something to keep a suffering nation pacified just a little bit longer. Obama is truly a national tragedy. His failure and inaction has disillusioned millions upon millions of desperate citizens who turned to him as their best chance for justice.

As further evidence of Obama’s duplicity — beyond repeatedly signing his name to documents covering up the Bush Adminstration’s highest crimes and increasing an already bloated military budget — in one of his very first moves as President he put Goldman Sachs’ criminal mastermind Tim Geitner in charge of the treasury.

A new report from the TARP Inspector General further exposes Tim Geithner’s role “in overpayments that put billions of extra tax dollars in the coffers of major Wall Street firms, most notably Goldman Sachs.”

SOURCE

Fifteen Signs American Society is Coming Apart at the Seams

2009-11-22T22:26:00.003-05:00

A lot of food for thought here. Comments welcome!:

Are we nearing a tipping point as rapacious elites push a heavily armed populace too far?

Edited excerpt from the Amped Status report, "The Critical Unraveling of U.S. Society."

The economic elite have launched an attack on the U.S. public and society is unraveling at an increased rate. You may have missed it in the mainstream news media, but statistical societal indicators are reading red across the board. Let's look at the top 15 statistics that prove we are under attack.

1) The inequality of wealth in the United States is soaring to an unprecedented level. The U.S. already had the highest inequality of wealth in the industrialized world prior to the financial crisis. Since the crisis, which has hit the middle class and poor much harder than the top 1 percent, the gap between the top 1 percent and the remaining 99 percent of the U.S. population has grown to a record high.

2) As the stock market went over the 10,000 mark and just surged to a 13-month high, the three big banks that took taxpayer money and benefited the most from the government bailout have just set a new global economic record by issuing $30 billion in annual bonuses this year, "up 60 percent from last year." Bloomberg reported: "Goldman Sachs, the most profitable securities firm in Wall Street history, had a record profit in the first nine months of this year and set aside $16.7 billion for compensation expenses." Goldman Sachs is on pace for the best year in the firm's history, and it is also benefiting by only paying 1 percent in taxes.

3) The profits of the economic elite are "now underwritten by taxpayers with $23.7 trillion worth of national wealth."

As the looting is occurring at the top, the U.S. middle class is just beginning to collapse.

4) Workers between the ages of 55 to 60, who have worked for 20 to 29 years, have lost an average of 25 percent off their 401k. During the same time period, the wealth of the 400 richest Americans went up by $30 billion, bringing their total combined wealth to $1.57 trillion.

5) Home foreclosure filings "hit a record high in the third quarter (of 2009)... They were the worst three months of all time... 937,840 homes received a foreclosure letter" in this three-month period; "3.4 million homes are expected to enter foreclosure by year's end, with some experts estimating that next year will be even worse."

President Obama has enacted a $75 billion taxpayer funded program that has been a spectacular failure in stemming the foreclosure crisis and has proven to be another massive waste of billions of taxpayer dollars.

6) 25 million people are unemployed or underemployed.

This means we have 25 million people who urgently need to increase their income, and they're quickly running out of options. The unemployment rate is expected to rise further and remain high for several years. "The president's chief economic adviser warned that the nation's unemployment rate could stay 'unacceptably high' for years to come."

The New York Times reports: "Americans now confront a job market that is bleaker than ever in the current recession, and employment prospects are still getting worse. Job seekers now outnumber openings six to one, the worst ratio since the government began tracking...." As this ratio continues to grow, it will lead to a further reduction in wages -- average worker wages have seen a sharp decline over the past year.

Economist Nouriel Roubini, a man who accurately predicted our current crisis, just reported on unemployment stating: "Think the worst is over? Wrong. Conditions in the U.S. labor markets are awful and worsening.... So we can expect that job losses will continue until the end of 2010 at the earliest. In other words, if you are unemployed and looking for work and just waiting for the economy to turn the corner, you had better hunker down. All the economic numbers suggest this will take a while. The jobs just are not coming back."

7) As the few elite banks thrive, there have been 123 U.S. bank failures thus far this year. Recently, three banks that the government declared "healthy" and gave taxpayer money, have folded. The Wall Street Journal reports: "U.S. regulators have seized or threatened at least 27 banks that got capital infusions from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, including some lenders government officials knew were troubled when they awarded the money. The troubles put taxpayers at risk of losing as much as $5.1 billion invested in the banks since TARP was launched in October 2008."

8) As bankruptcies surge across the board, 10 U.S. states are on the verge of bankruptcy, with several ready to declare a financial state of emergency. California, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island and Wisconsin are all "barreling toward economic disaster, raising the likelihood of higher taxes, more government layoffs and deep cuts in services."

9) This is occurring at a time when the "federal budget deficit for the fiscal year that just ended was $1.4 trillion, nearly a trillion dollars greater than the year before." In total, "U.S. public debt topped $12 trillion for the first time in history... The public debt topped $10 trillion in September 2008. The debt is quickly approaching the statutory limit of $12.104 trillion, meaning Congress would have to raise the ceiling to prevent a shutdown of government operations."

Economist Dean Baker explains the risk of running such a large deficit: "The debt limit must be increased at regular intervals in order to allow the government to function normally because the government is currently operating at a deficit. If the debt limit is not passed, then at some point the government will not be able to pay workers and contractors. It won't be able to send out Social Security checks or make payments for Medicaid and unemployment insurance to state governments. And, it will not be able to make interest payments on government bonds, effectively defaulting on the national debt."

Needless to say, all of this will make life drastically more difficult for American citizens. As the middle class continues on the path of economic decline, the number of citizens living in poverty has already hit an all-time high.

10) Although the government's official figure tries to low-ball the number, 47.4 million U.S. citizens live in poverty, and the U.S. poverty rate is the highest in the industrialized world.

Predictably, homelessness is rising at an increased rate as well. "The U.S. government does not tally the numbers but interested organizations say that more than 3 million people were homeless at some point over the past year.... The fastest growing segment of the homeless population is families with children."

Children have been hit especially hard by the economic crisis:

11) * 50 percent of U.S. children, one out of every two children, will need to use food stamps to eat.

One out of every two children in the United States of America will need to use a food stamp... to EAT!

If you didn't think starvation was a serious threat in the U.S., just read this new Washington Post report: "The nation's economic crisis has catapulted the number of Americans who lack enough food to the highest level since the government has been keeping track, according to a new federal report, which shows that nearly 50 million people - including almost one child in four - struggled last year to get enough to eat... Several independent advocates and policy experts on hunger said that they had been bracing for the latest report to show deepening shortages, but that they were nevertheless astonished by how much the problem has worsened. 'This is unthinkable. It's like we are living in a Third World country,' said Vicki Escarra, president of Feeding America."

The United States Department of Agriculture released these findings in a study that was completed in December 2008, which means these numbers don't take into account the millions more unemployed throughout 2009. The numbers of people living in poverty and struggling to eat has seen a significant increase since then.

This a national tragedy. But it gets much worse.

12) In 2008, according to the Census Bureau, the number of U.S. citizens without health care grew to a record 46.3 million. "The new figures, however, understate the severity of the economic downturn because a large portion of the nation's job losses and unemployment rate increases occurred after the Census survey data was collected in March as part of the annual Current Population Survey."

13) Lack of health insurance has caused 45,000 preventable U.S. citizen deaths in the past year. The American Journal of Medicine recently released a study that stated, "Nearly two out of three bankruptcies stem from medical bills, and even people with health insurance face financial disaster if they experience a serious illness."

A Johns Hopkins Children's Center study reported that 17,000 children have died due to lack of health care. You can also add in a recent report that revealed that 2,266 U.S. veterans have died in 2008 due to lack of insurance.

The 50 million now uninsured and the 45,000 preventable deaths per year statistics are expected to drastically rise over the next few years. As the Senate continues to strip meaningful amendments from a health care bill that wouldn't even take effect until 2013, it has become clear that, despite the media hype, the health care bill is going to fall far short of meaningful reform and continue to rig the game in favor of large insurance company profits at the expense of the U.S. population. With the highest cost healthcare in the world, current trends will continue and much needed change is not on the horizon.

Never before has the United States had so many citizens with so little means, little to no income and heavy debt. Debt and costs of living have now shackled U.S. citizens just as they have shackled people throughout the world. The economic hit men have now hit the United States as well and millions of American citizens are now effectively sentenced to a slow death.

Economic Imperial blowback has hit the mainland.

And the clock is ticking louder by the day...

And here's two more facts for you:

14) The gun and ammunition manufacturing industry in the United States has over 200 companies producing billions of dollars in annual revenues. This huge manufacturing base cannot fulfill demand quickly enough. The demand for guns and ammunition has hit a record high and the gun industry cannot produce enough bullets to keep up with orders.

Americans are arming themselves to the teeth!

15) In the past year, 100 new armed militia groups have been formed, as militia members have doubled in numbers. Federal authorities are gravely concerned about the "uptick in militia activities." One federal authority recently said, "All it's lacking is a spark. I think it's only a matter of time before you see threats and violence."

So let's break down these numbers.

You have a population of 50 million people who are in desperate need of money, they most likely have no health insurance and can't afford to get health care or help of any kind. Part of this population probably also has loved ones who can't get life sustaining medical treatments, or loved ones who have already died due to lack of costly medical treatment. The clock is ticking loud for these people and they are running out of options fast, and time delayed is time closer to death.

While the richest 1 percent have never had it so good, a significant percentage of the U.S. population now has firsthand experience in this. Millions upon millions of Americans are poor, broke, struggling, starving, desperate... and armed.

We are sitting on a powder keg!

We are now witnessing the critical unraveling of U.S. society.

Put Off Mammograms? No WAY!

2009-11-20T22:48:00.001-05:00

A couple days ago I was sitting at the doctor's office getting a series of bloodwork done when I saw this:

On Monday, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that doctors delay mammography screening for breast cancer until the age of 50. The recommendation goes against the American Cancer Society’s long-held position that women receive their first mammogram by the age of 40 and follow up with yearly mammograms until the age of 74.

WT#?? Are these people kidding?

Yes, I admit I am over 50. Because of having PCOS since age 9 I have been getting regular mammograms since I was about 35 years ago. Drug therapy for infertility as well as for my PCOS and subsequently my Atypical MS means I always err on the side of caution and my doctors agree. PCOS carries a high rate of cancer later in life. Thank God I dodged that bullet after this May's surgery. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't take care of my body - flawed as it is.

I have had a number of friends my age and younger now, have lumpectomies, mastectomies, needle biopsies of the breast and even some incidence of breast cancer that has killed women who were far too young to die. Every one of the survivors got mammograms from their late 30s.

At first I thought, 'Oh no, here we go with ObamaCare.' Now I am suspicious that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is funded by the HealthCare industry; who in my opinion are about money not 'caring.' If anyone has information on this, please let me know.

The misogyny in this country is blatant... now it seems we almost thought killing women with lack of health services was no big deal.

I remain shocked, but not surprised.

By JEREMY OLSHAN

The Obama administration yesterday all but disowned the federally commissioned study recommending that women put off getting mammograms until age 50.

"Keep doing what you have been doing for years," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said. "Our policies remain unchanged."

The US Preventive Service Task Force, which is appointed under the auspices of Sebelius' own department, had suggested that the rate of false positives and unnecessary biopsies prompted by mammograms for women in their 40s outweighed the benefits -- even if those benefits included saving lives.

After a huge outcry by doctors, radiologists, and the American Cancer Society, Sebelius said she was prompted to clear up the confusion.

"What is clear is that there is a great need for more evidence, more research and more scientific innovation to help women prevent, detect, and fight breast cancer, the second-leading cause of cancer deaths among women," she said. "Mammograms have always been an important lifesaving tool in the fight against breast cancer and they still are today."

In New York state, insurance firms are required by law to cover screening for women in their 40s, but some feared the new guidelines would have created pressure to revise such policies.

Some experts say the damage is already done because the confusion of the past few days will cause some to skip mammograms that might save their lives.

"Confusion over recommendations has been shown to result in decreased utilization of mammography," said Dr. Carol Lee, chair of the American College of Radiology's breast imaging commission. "It's like when someone is accused of a crime -- even if they are found innocent, people are always suspicious."

Lee said the Obama administration should evaluate the recommendation process.

"Secretary Sebelius should have come down a little bit harder," she said. "We need to call into question this entire process. This panel was not comprised of experts on breast cancer, but it does have three members with ties to the insurance industry."

The American Cancer Society, which has long recommended regular mammograms starting at age 40, said it did not fault the research, merely the conclusions.

"These are smart people, but we disagree with them that the harm of mammograms outweighs the benefits," said Dave Momrow, the society's senior vice president of cancer control for New York and New Jersey.

"We are pleased that it appears that insurers will not back away from covering mammography at this time, and the statement from Secretary Sebelius should assure that."

SOURCE

Can You Empathize?

2009-11-19T22:01:00.000-05:00

by Underground Panther in the Sky

When I was growing up and I faced people in school on the bus, people who rejected and bullied me, soon I felt strange, like I had been marked.

When kids from schools I had never attended, kids I never met spat on me, it felt like I had some invisible neon sign on my forehead -- I could not see it only bullies could see it. It felt bad like the mark of Cain. It was burned into my being by abusers. The contact I had with psychopathic evil that erased my self-hood as an innocent kid, in repeated blinding soul-shattering moments of senseless unspeakable horrors and betrayal, made a mark.

If you care and can feel, and see too much of the evil in the reality we live through, too soon, too close it changes you forever. I knew this was true even when I was 6 years old. I just didn't have the words to express it than like I do now. It felt as if abuse had made a change within me, a message I did not want to send out, advertising the damaged goods -- I am walking wounded.

I feared it signaled to the predatory sociopaths in this world to come and take me down like prey. I felt I couldn't erase, hide or fix the mark or make it go away. Seems my feelings were not just my depressed imagination.

I still suffer trauma effects years later, like many other abused kids and military vets who also never "get over it". It's like abusing a child turns them from gold to lead. Making a soldier shoot innocent people who caused him no direct harm gives the veteran PTSD.

Seems my feelings about abuse and its reality back then had a prophetic ring. The truth can seem weird or threatening to those out of touch or unfamiliar with certain realities some of us face. The mark was a reality for me. I felt it as if it was a physical scar, a bleeding wound that never stopped bleeding.

In the '80s my feelings would have been seen as a symptom instead of a fact, because abuse left no visible wounds.

Back in my youth it was an invisible injury. It was so easy to blame the victims back than, to keep them quiet. To tell them it is their fault they can't endure it, and harden their hearts. And it's all in their heads. Or even worse, the "get over it".

The underlying message of that says, your symptoms make me uncomfortable by revealing things I'd prefer to pretend never happen to good people in my just world fantasy.

Sociopaths do not get PTSD. They can't get it because they are incapable of feeling fear, or anxiety, or becoming attached to anyone. Sociopathy is not a "learned behavior," or environmentally caused behavior. The cerebral cortex in sociopaths' brains works differently than in non-sociopaths.

Sociopaths will deny real reality and assert their own "reality," until their victims have nervous breakdowns from all the lies, games, and mind-fucking.

It is impossible to coerce anyone to stop feeling anxiety or fear. You can bully them into hiding it or denying it, but you cannot coerce people into NOT feeling it. Sociopaths are born, not made. And when non-sociopaths are in contact with sociopaths, that situation creates victims with PTSD.

It has not yet reached the hearts and minds of the public that work trauma is a gross violation of human rights. Maybe the effects of everyday stress in today's culture may be so severe that they add up to chronic trauma, for everyone but the sociopaths. Invisible trauma effects, but always there. Does anxiety gnaw at you from different directions while you try to rest alone, in the dark? How often? Something to think about ...

Ironically, specific use of vengeance against a specific perpetrator of a crime by a victim does not make a victim into a bloodthirsty sociopath. But killing innocent people DOES create PTSD in non-sociopaths. And this fact goes contrary to popular beliefs about crime and victims that are just stupid, like the vampire myth that claims PTSD or child abuse "creates" sociopaths. Many popular myths blame the victims. It gets irritating dealing with these popular and asinine myths again and again.

Tim Field, author of Bully Online, gets it:

"The main lesson I have learnt is that when dealing with a sociopath, the normal rules of etiquette do not apply. You are dealing with someone who has no empathy, no conscience, no remorse, and no guilt. It is a completely different mindset. Words like 'predator' and 'evil' are often used. "

And killing off the sociopaths dominating a group does not have to create more of the same order every time. People can learn to create boundaries -- if baboons can do it, we can too.

Yet people are already calling us with the diagnosis of trauma as "dangerous", accusing survivors of malingering, saying trauma costs too much to treat. Ironic the things I already knew, deep inside, about abuse effects upon people and how it effects the world. They are being "discovered" now.

There is a scary side to such physical validation of prior traumatization. Which is, what will this information be used to do to US -- psychiatricly, socially, politically. For there are many psychopaths and predatory people in charge of society now, they HATE the victims of abuse, because if the victim is validated they have more than their voices and memories, they have EVIDENCE. The perpetrator cannot hide from his own shit now, unless the perpetrators act in the guise of helping create drugs to erase "the mark", or erasing our memories and our consciences.

Do you trust Sandoz or Astra Zeneca to be ethical with a drug that could make torture, rape, pedophilia, and war into "victimless" crimes, by simply erasing the scars it leaves inside its victims, so victims are left clueless, and therefore less wise and easy prey? We might suffer less, but we also might care less. Is it worth it to live without emotions, attachments, love, and beauty?

In the end this all boils down to a war between two kinds of essence, perpetrators and survivors. It's not just humans that are facing this serious situation Animals face it too. Animals go to war. Animals can thank the people who rescue them from abusers.

Female ducks are evolving bodily defenses to stop gang rape. Male ducks don't have much empathy for female ducks if they almost drown them while raping them.

Animals DO kill themselves. Like people do. Maybe suicide is universal, because the brutality of existence itself has made life unbearable for some animals too? LINK LINK LINK

Animal modeling of PTSD symptoms. People inducing the effects in animals, and it looks like when people gets PTSD. 'Coin-ki-dink?

The species, the identities and upbringing of these sociopaths, does not matter really. The real point here is: Can you empathize, do you care? Will you stand up for others, will you act upon the desire to protect the living beings in this world from those who abuse them?

Or not? Scientific evidence strongly suggests that to maintain emotional and physical health we have to know how to relate to each other in a caring way. The undeniable evidence is that anger, anxiety and depression, on one hand, and love and intimacy on the other, affect health and recovery from illness. This findings have been elaborated by Dean Ornish MD in Love and Survival: The Scientific Basis for the Healing Power of Intimacy (1997). He writes:

*…love and intimacy are at the root of what makes us sick and what makes us well... I am not aware of any factor in medicine -- not diet, not smoking, not stress, not genetics, not drugs, not surgery-that has greater impact on our quality of life, incidence of illness and premature death from all causes. ...

"Yet, caring (love to be blunt) which is presumed to be based on a mammalian instinct, strongly allied with survival is fraught with difficulties and is becoming increasingly difficult to exercise in our culture."

Society is slowly coming out of the haze of denial about systemic abuse by this civilizations' hierarchical domination and exploitation system. More people are finally seeing sociopaths for what they are. I hope the survivors win this war, because I could not live in a world without love. And apparently, even the animals agree with me on this one.

SOURCE

Uninsured Likely to Die in E.R. Study Shows

2009-11-17T22:15:00.001-05:00

ABSOLUTELY CRIMINAL FOR THE U.S.!

Uninsured patients with traumatic injuries, such as car crashes, falls and gunshot wounds, were almost twice as likely to die in the hospital as similarly injured patients with health insurance, according to a troubling new study.

The findings by Harvard University researchers surprised doctors and health experts who have believed emergency room care was equitable.

"This is another drop in a sea of evidence that the uninsured fare much worse in their health in the United States," said senior author Dr. Atul Gawande, a Harvard surgeon and medical journalist.

The study, appearing in the November issue of Archives of Surgery, comes as Congress is debating the expansion of health insurance coverage to millions more Americans. It could add fodder to that debate.

The researchers couldn't pin down the reasons behind the differences they found. The uninsured might experience more delays being transferred from hospital to hospital. Or they might get different care. Or they could have more trouble communicating with doctors.

The hospitals that treat them also could have fewer resources.

"Those hospitals tend to be financially strapped, not have the same level of staffing, not have the same level of surgeons and testing and equipment," Gawande said. "That also is likely a major contributor."

Gawande favors health care reform and has frequently written about the inequities of the current system.

The researchers took into account the severity of the injuries and the patients' race, gender and age. After those adjustments, they still found the uninsured were 80 percent more likely to die than those with insurance – even low-income patients insured by the government's Medicaid program.

"I'm really surprised," said Dr. Eric Lavonas of the American College of Emergency Physicians and a doctor at Denver Health Medical Center. "It's well known that people without health insurance don't get the same quality of health care in this country, but I would have thought that this group of patients would be the least vulnerable."

Some private hospitals are more likely to transfer an uninsured patient than an insured patient, said Lavonas, who wasn't involved in the new research.

"Sometimes we get patients transferred and we suspect they're being transferred because of payment issues," he said. "The transferring physician says, 'We're not able to handle this.'"

Federal law requires hospital ERs to treat all patients who are medically unstable. But hospitals can transfer patients, or send them away, once they're stabilized. A transfer could worsen a patient's condition by delaying treatment.

The researchers analyzed data on nearly 690,000 U.S. patients from 2002 through 2006. Burn patients were not included, nor were people who were treated and released, or dead on arrival.

In the study, the overall death rate was 4.7 percent, so most emergency room patients survived their injuries. The commercially insured patients had a death rate of 3.3 percent. The uninsured patients' death rate was 5.7 percent. Those rates were before the adjustments for other risk factors.

The findings are based on an analysis of data from the National Trauma Data Bank, which includes more than 900 U.S. hospitals.

"We have to take the findings very seriously," said lead author Dr. Heather Rosen, a surgery resident at Los Angeles County Hospital, who found similar results when she analyzed children's trauma data for an earlier study. "This affects every person, of every age, of every race."

SOURCE

MORE AT: SICK FOR PROFIT

Hannity OWNED by Jon Stewart

2009-11-16T06:09:00.000-05:00

The tea party protests continued last week, as Congresswoman Michele Bachmann held an anti-health-care-reform rally on the steps of the Capitol. While she estimated that 20,000-45,000 people attended the event, the Washington Post reported it was actually more like 10,000.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Sean Hannity Uses Glenn Beck's Protest Footage

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Still, that is a sizable number of Americans exercising their right to free speech and assembly, and that warrants news coverage. But Sean Hannity and his team did more than cover the event. They not only inflated the number in attendance with their words, but actually used footage from a heavily-attended protest this summer to make this health care rally appear more popular. Hannity even pointed out that this was a huge crowd for a Thursday, when the protest footage they used was from a Saturday.

HANNITY'S DAMAGE CONTROL

“…the aggressor is attempting to assert that his behavior isn’t really as harmful or irresponsible as someone else may be claiming. It’s the aggressor’s attempt to make a molehill out of a mountain…Neurotics frequently make mountains out of molehills, or ‘catastrophize.’ The disturbed character frequently trivializes the nature of his wrongdoing. Manipulators do this to make a person who might confront them feel they’ve been overly harsh in their criticism or unjust in their appraisal of a situation.”

Jon Stewart and his team caught this discrepancy and ran with it, pointing out neither the color of the leaves nor sky in the tacked-on video matched that of the actual footage. They went on to mock Fox by adding more video to the interview, this time from Woodstock and the movie "300."

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Sean Hannity Apologizes to Jon

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

The Shame of it All - The Torture of Silenced Victims

2009-11-15T22:29:00.002-05:00

This is what happens when abuse victims (ANY kind of abuse, and any religious or cultural background) are silenced!:

By SUSAN EDELMAN and KIRSTEN FLEMING

A Brooklyn newlywed who jumped to his death from a hotel balcony the night after his wedding was tormented by memories of being sexually molested as a Jewish student, sources say.

After joyfully singing and dancing at their lavish celebration in Williamsburg on Nov. 3, Motty Borger, 24, bared his secret anguish to his bride, Mali Gutman, the next day -- and the revelation caused a strain, a source close to the family told The Post.

"That entire day he discussed it with her. He told her the story of his life, how he felt so awful and he couldn't go near her," the source said. The couple had met just last July, after a matchmaker set them up.

"When he got married, he realized he couldn't face up to it, and he told his wife that he needed help."

The stunned bride responded, "So, why did you marry me?"

Borger reportedly answered, "You are absolutely right. It was not right of me to get married."

At 6:45 a.m., while Mali slept, Borger climbed a railing outside their seventh-floor room at Avenue Plaza Hotel and leaped, police say. He died hours later at a hospital.

Friends insist that Borger -- described as fun-loving, smiling and cheerful -- wouldn't take his own life.

"I know Motty, and I know he didn't jump. It was an accident," one said. The rabbi who spoke at his funeral called reports of suicide "wickedness."

A security video at the hotel shows him looking "agitated" in an elevator with his wife, cops said.

The city Medical Examiner ruled his death a suicide. The NYPD is investigating the sex-abuse allegations, said a police official.

A source familiar with the tragedy said Borger had confided in close relatives that he was molested while a teen attending a yeshiva, possibly by a rabbi, but they never went to police.

SOURCE

Major hat tip: DovBear
~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Real Shonda in Revealing Abuse

by Rabbi Mark Dratch
JSafe: The Jewish Institute Supporting an Abuse Free Environment

Victims of abuse are often told by others to keep their secrets. They are warned that making their abuse public would be a shonda (a shame and embarrassment) for the Jewish community, for their families, and for themselves. Even worse, they are told that going public is a hillul Hashem, a desecration of God’s Name. And this warning is used as a tool to silence those who need to speak.

It is unfathomable that concerns for God’s reputation would condemn a victim of abuse to a life of suffering. What really is hillul Hashem, the desecration of God’s Name?
Hillul Hashem and its corollary, Kiddush Hashem (the sanctification of God’s Name), are predicated on the idea that our behavior has consequences. How we act makes a difference. And it matters not only to the people around us and not only to our own reputations, but it matters to God and His reputation as well. Our duty as Jews, as a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation,” is to bring the world closer to a recognition and appreciation of God. We are God's representatives to the world, and all that we do impacts upon how others view Him. We are responsible, through our actions, to make God beloved by others,1 and to glorify His honor in their eyes. Thus, the Torah is concerned about Kiddush Hashem (the sanctification of God's Name) and Hillul Hashem (the desecrating of His Name): "And you shall not desecrate My holy Name but I shall be sanctified amongst the Children of Israel" (Lev. 22:32). Although nothing that we do can violate God's ultimate sanctity, everything we do can affect His Name (read: reputation).

While this discussion will focus on human activity that affects the sanctity of God’s Name, it is worth noting that God Himself is also responsible for His own reputation, and He too is capable of committing both kiddush and hillul Hashem.

Moses convinced God to forgive the Jewish people for the sin of the golden calf by raising the threat that such divine punishment will have on His reputation: “What will the Egyptians say?” And Ezekiel said that it is God who personally desecrated His own Name when He exiled the Jewish people from its land.3

Although the concepts of kiddush Hashem and hillul Hashem are most often discussed in relation to the obligation, in extraordinary circumstances, to sacrifice one's life for the sake of God and His Torah,4 we will focus on the significance of kiddush Hashem and hillul Hashem in less ultimate, yet equally consequential, situations, one's daily conduct, and then turn our attention to its significance in exposing abuse and abusers.

The term hillul comes from the Hebrew root, HLL, meaning vacuum or empty space.5 Forms of the three-letter root HLL refer to a corpse, the desecration of sacred property and the violation of honor.6 By engaging in hillul Hashem, we diminish God’s honor and void the world of His influence.

Hillul Hashem is such a grievous transgression that it is more difficult to atone for it than for any other sin. Not even repentance, the atonement of Yom Kippur, and personal suffering can absolve one of this offense.7 In the past, collective punishment of families and communities was prescribed in order to prevent hillul Hashem.8 And we are taught that should allow oneself to be killed, rather than desecrate the Name of God.9 The only redress for a hillul Hashem may be the performance of kiddush Hashem, an act that will heal the damage done to God and His reputation.10

Of such great concern is the avoidance of hillul Hashem that the Talmud offers radical suggestions for its avoidance, suggestions that have not been accepted as normative Jewish law. 11 Their significance is in their articulation of the profound concern our tradition has regarding the potential hillul Hashem. The Talmudic sage R. Abahu said in the name of R. Hanina, "It is better for a person to violate a sin in private than to desecrate God's Name in public."12 Other Talmudic statements prescribe extreme measures for individuals to follow in order to avoid the public desecration of God’s Name, including stealthily disguising oneself and sinning surreptitiously, and even worshipping idols.13

What constitutes hillul Hashem?
There are five general categories:

1. Kiddush Hashem14 and hillul Hashem find expression in the requirement of martyrdom when one is threatened with death unless he transgresses one of the laws of the Torah. Self-sacrifice for the sake of God sanctifies His Name; failure to martyr oneself desecrates it. While this obligation maintains primarily when one is forced to violate the three cardinal sins of murder, idolatry and consensual, forbidden sexual relations, it calls upon one to sacrifice his life when faced with the forced violation of any mitzvah or Jewish expression during times of organized anti-Torah persecution.15

2. Committing a sin as an act of rebellion (le-hakh'is) is a hillul Hashem, even if committed in private, as it is a defiant rejection of God's authority.16 If such a transgression is committed publicly—in the presence of ten fellow Jews17—it is deemed as the more serious violation of hillul Hashem ba-rabbim (public desecration of God's Name).18 Whereas private transgression affects only an individual sinner's relationship with God and the sway of Torah in his life, public transgression has the added dimension of diminishing God's reputation in the eyes of others. The negative consequences increase geometrically.

3. Committing a sin le-tei'avon, when one is overwhelmed by seemingly uncontrollable appetites, is not in itself an act of rebellion, and does not automatically constitute a desecration of God's Name. However, if such a sin is committed publicly, it does rise to the level of hillul Hashem. As far as an undiscriminating observer is aware, a sin was committed; the circumstances and mitigating factors are unknown to him and are irrelevant.19 Likewise, publicly confessing a sin that is otherwise unknown to others is prohibited.20

4. There are certain sins that, by their very natures, constitute hillul Hashem:21 declaring false oaths or swearing in vain,22 offering one's children to idol Molekh,23 idolatry,24 illicit sexual relations,25 desecration of holy objects,26 mentioning God's Name in vain,27 improperly adjudicating in non-Jewish courts,28 perverting justice,29 cheating in business30 and lying.31

5. Other activities which, although technically not sinful, do constitute kiddush Hashem or hillul Hashem.32 Like those behaviors already detailed above, these, too, impact either positively or negatively on the reputation of God and the esteem in which He and His Torah are held by others, Jew and non-Jew alike.33 These are activities that are judged by others as either notably decent and respectable, or as unseemly and inappropriate. They reflect either favorably or poorly on Judaism and Torah as, through them, others assess Judaism’s role in shaping the conduct and character of the purported representatives of God and Torah. The purpose of restricting those behaviors deemed to be hillul Hashem is not to promote ethical standards qua ethical standards—although that may be a side benefit. The aim is to preserve the respect of the world for Judaism.34 Maharal writes that this obligation can be deduced from the verse “And you shall love the Lord, your God (Deut. 6:5).”

He observes that the Torah need only have written “And you shall love the Lord”. “Your God” is extra and teaches us that one must conduct himself in such a way that “others will acknowledge that He is your God, that His Name is manifest through you, and they come to love Him because of that.” 35

Violation of Ethical Norms is Hillul Hashem
What kinds of activities constitute hillul Hashem? Various rabbinic sources enumerate: failure to pay bills on time; giving the appearance that one is lax in his studies or observance;36 embarrassing one’s colleagues due to the nature of the rumors that are spread about oneself,37 or embarrassing them by the less-than-dignified activities in which one engages;38 engaging in permissible activity which others assume is prohibited;39 being an unsociable, unpleasant or angry individual; degrading the honor of Torah;40 and being unkempt.41 In each of these cases, the conduct of God’s representatives causes themselves and their God to be seen in a less than noble and honorable light.

However, hillul Hashem is not merely defined by objective acts; it is dependent upon the caliber of the individual involved. An adam hashuv, an important, well-known and well-respected person, and a talmid hakham, a pious, learned scholar, are expected by others to live according to strict moral standards — therefore, the greater the desecration when he fails to live up to these expectations.42 His failures reflect positively not only upon his personal reputation, but upon the Torah that he claims to uphold and upon the God he represents.43 Thus, as Abraham set out to the Promised Land, he was troubled lest he cause a hillul Hashem as others might accuse him of abandoning his elderly father.44

While the sources seem to restrict the imposition of higher ethical standards to an adam hashuv,45 one can easily argue that, in our day, each observant Jew is considered an adam hashuv, to one degree or another, vis-à-vis the non-observant community, and that all Jews have such a status vis-à-vis the non-Jewish world. The great R. Israel Meir ha-kohen Kagan, known as the Hafetz Hayyim, once chastised his son for committing an act which, he believed, constituted a hillul Hashem. In response to his son’s protest that these standards do not apply to him because he is not a talmid hakham (Torah scholar), his father responded, “As far as the standards of hillul Hashem are concerned, you are considered a talmid hakham.”

Sefer Hassidim warns that a person should not add additional chumra-ot (stringencies) to his ritual behavior unless he will be consistent in their observance. After all, such adherence to greater strictures in ritual behavior might be seen to imply a higher level of spiritual commitment. One who thereafter violates these self-imposed stringencies commits a hillul Hashem.46

Precisely defining the parameters of hillul Hashem is difficult and is probably best articulated by the standards that the United States Supreme Court set in a different context, “I know it when I see it.” The standards are not objective Torah standards, but, rather, popular ones, shaped by conventional wisdoms and popular opinions. The parameters are subjective and the criteria shift. They depend upon the opinions and values of any particular community at any particular time. Conduct that may appear to the actor to be appropriate, may in fact be a hillul Hashem if it is so deemed by the larger population. Rambam writes that a person should refrain from those activities which are unseemly in the eyes of others, even if in his own eyes they are not unseemly.47 As quoted above, “If one's colleagues are ashamed of his reputation, that constitutes a profanation of the Name.”48

Concern for the opinions of non-Jews
And we are concerned not only about Jewish opinion, but about the biases of non-Jews as well. Thus, when, after saving Lot and the captives of Sodom, Abraham returned the spoils that he recovered to its original owners,49 he is credited with sanctifying God’s Name.50 Abraham asserted that by destroying Sodom and ‘Amora God would perform a hillul Hashem.51 Moses, in pleading for forgiveness following both the sins of the golden calf52 and the acceptance of the evil report of the spies,53 invoked the reaction of the non-Jewish world to the possible destruction of the Israelites.54 And God’s concern over the exile of Jews from the Land of Israel is for the desecration of His reputation in the eyes of the nations of the world.

This concern about the biases of non-Jews finds expression in Jewish law as well. While there are individual authorities who do not extend the biblical prohibition of stealing to property owned by idolaters, the Talmud proves that the prohibition of stealing restricts the stealing of any property, whether owned by Jews or non-Jews.55

Shimon ben Shetah refrained from keeping an object that was lost by a non-Jew lest he be considered a barbarian by the non-Jew. “More than I want all of the money in the world,” he declared, “I want to hear the Gentile say, ‘Blessed be the God of the Jews.’”56

R. Moshe of Coucy, author of SMaG, put it succinctly, “All those who steal from Gentiles are guilty of hillul Hashem for they cause the Gentiles to say ‘the Jews do not uphold the Torah (ein Torah leYisrael)’... and they cause them to say ‘see how God chose for His portion a people of thieves and frauds.’”57 Many authorities who ruled that, as a matter of law, one is not permitted to steal from a Gentile, prohibited it due concerns of hillul Hashem as well. Thus, “stealing from a Gentile is worse than stealing from a Jew because of [the added factor of] the desecration of God’s Name.”58

There is another element of hillul Hashem as it relates to non-Jewish opinion. Sefer Hassidim puts it simply: “If Gentiles don’t do it, Jews should not do it!”59

Real Life Applications in Rabbinic Literature
Practical applications of this concern about non-Jewish opinion can be found throughout rabbinic literature: refusing to testify in a civil court, when such is required by civil law;60 accepting charity from a non-Jew61 because, in accepting the
handout, a Jew degrades himself before him62 and casts aspersions on the Jewish community, implying that it cannot take care of its own;63 64 and disrespectful behavior in the synagogue, including talking during the prayer services.65

Exposing the Hillul Hashem of Abuse
Because of the close relationship between God and His representatives, i.e., the Jewish people, protecting both God’s reputation and the reputation of the Jewish people have become intertwined. At times they are synonymous, and their demands are often confused. Although we are instructed to “expose hypocrites to prevent the desecration of the Name,”66 many have advocated cover-ups of scandals in which Jews are involved because of concerns of Hillul Hashem.67 However, this concern about protecting the reputation of God and the Jewish people by repressing public discussion of behaviors and actions that may be deemed a “shanda”, scandalous and disreputable, may in fact itself be a Hillul Hashem.

First, as we have seen above, unethical behavior in and of itself is a desecration of God’s Name.

It is the abuser and not the abused that has committed Hillul Hashem, and it is those who cover up and silence victims, not those who seek justice and the protection of innocent victims that desecrate God’s Name.

The initial denials and suppression are bad enough. When these efforts are exposed, the scandal is even greater. And all Hillul Hashem will eventually be exposed, despite efforts to keep it hidden.. The Mishnah, Avot 4:4, states, R. Johanan b. Berokah said: Whoever profanes the Name of Heaven in secret, they exact the penalty from him in the open. [In this respect, it is all] one [whether one has acted] in error, and [it is all] one [whether one has acted] with presumption, in [a case where the result is] the profanation of the Name.

Of course, there were cogent reasons for the development of this attitude of self protection by a vulnerable, exposed minority. Historically, invoking hillul Hashem was a way of protecting a Jewish minority from retribution by an anti-Semitic majority in response to the wayward activity of one of its members. Jews were vulnerable and the majority population was often hostile. Acts of hillul Hashem made the Jewish community even more vulnerable.68

Furthermore, when faced with actions that are, in and of themselves, shameful desecrations of God’s Name, there is much precedent not only to allow its exposure, but to require it. Prohibited sha’atnez is forcibly and publicly removed from a person in the street69 following the precedent of the biblical Judah, who, despite the shame he brought to himself, publicly admitted his sin with Tamar, thereby sanctifying God’s Name.70

And if hillul Hashem is creates a godless vacuum in the world and in people’s lives, then the assault that abuse victims suffer not only on their bodies, but on their psyches and their souls, is itself a tremendous hillul Hashem.

Many victims of abuse are exploited first by their Jewish perpetrators and then are betrayed by the reaction of the family and community they thought would help them, nurture them and find them justice. In many cases, these victims lose faith in themselves, in the community and in God. Those who do not reject their Judaism find strength in their faith, despite all that has been done to them. But in many cases victims are disillusioned by the institutions and leaders they thought they could trust. Too many of them abandon mitzvah observance and their connections to the Jewish community are weakened. This is the real hillul Hashem!

Furthermore, there are many who are afraid to speak because of the damage it may do to their reputations, the acceptance of their families in their communities, or the ability of their children or siblings to find appropriate marriage partners. This is the shonda. If the values of our community demand cover-up and silence because of “what the neighbors might say” then those values which prevent victims from seeking help and innocents from being protected from assault need to change.

What are the priorities of our community? These victims are innocent. They did nothing. And they should not have to pay the price and carry the burden of a community that would like to see itself in ways other than it is. If anything, victims and their advocates who do speak out should be admired for their courage in facing up to and overcoming adversity. The hillul Hashem is when the community, proud to be made up of people who are merciful, modest and magnanimous (rahmanim, bayshanim ve-gomlei hassadim)71 has its values wrong.

Circumstances have changed. In democratic countries, Jews are more secure and more respected than they have ever been and their rights are protected by law. In such countries, there is, generally, respect for religious, ethnic and moral diversity. Although individual behavior can evoke critique of a moral and religious system, enlightened people recognize that the failings and faults of individuals do not necessarily represent the community from which those individuals come. Their judgment is tempered by their understanding of the values that a community espouses and, more important, how that community reacts to infractions of its mores. In our day, the greater shonda occurs not when abuse is revealed, but when it is systematically covered up by Jewish leaders and communities.

Conclusion
What enormous power we humans have. What tremendous consequences there are to our actions. What we do matters! Our actions have significant consequences, perhaps beyond our wildest imagination. Improper, indecent, immoral behavior can destroy not only our reputations, but God’s as well. Improper and immoral actions can further victimize those who are victims of violence and abuse, further inflicting their psychological and spiritual well-being.

We can, through speech and deed, through action and inaction, make this world godless. And yet, we have the ability to make it a godly place as well. We can bring people closer to a love of God and closer to feeling God’s love for them. We can help them appreciate the value of Torah and of mitzvot. We can bring the world closer to the time when all people recognize the One God and human society is a complete expression of His will. God’s sanctity and desecration are in our hands. By committing ourselves to decent and moral living it may be said of us, “‘Happy the parent who taught you Torah, happy the teacher who taught you Torah; woe unto people who have not studied the Torah; for this person has studied the Torah, look how fine his ways are, how righteous his deeds! Of this person does Scripture say: ‘And He said unto me: ‘Thou art My servant, Israel, in, whom I will be glorified.’”

REFERENCES & CITES AT ORIGINAL SOURCE - CLICK HERE

COMMON SYMPTOMS OF ABUSE SURVIVORS (excerpted)
Victoria Polin, MA, ATR, LCPC and Gail Roy, MA, ATR, LCPC

1. Low self-esteem, feeling worthless.

2. Fear of abandonment and other abandonment issues.

3. Acting out behavior. Not knowing how to identify, process and or express intense feelings in more productive ways.

4. Unexplained fears of being alone at night, nightmares and/or night terrors. . .

5. Feeling overly grateful/appreciative from small favors by others.

6. Boundary issues: lack of, needing to be in control, power issues, fear of losing control...

7. Eating disorders including: anorexia, bulimia, compulsive over-eating etc...

8. Headaches, arthritis and/or joint pain, gynecological disorders, stomach aches and other symptomology.

9. Unexplained anxiety/panic.

10. Extreme guilt/shame.

11. Obsessive/compulsive behaviors (not necessarily Obsessive/Compulsive Disorder).

12. History of being involved in emotionally, psychological and/or physically violent relationships(emotionally,physically).

13. Memories of abuse in childhood.

14. Poor sexual boundaries, using sex to substitute for "love", acting out,

15. Distorted body image/poor body image.

16. Hypervigilance.

17. History of ambivalent or intensely conflictive relationships.

18. Depersonalization. Feeling oneself to be unreal and everyone else to be real (or vice versa).

19. Blocking out periods of one's life (usually ages 1-12) or a specific person or place. Blocking out certain incidents.

20. History of multi-victimizations in other forms. (see #12)

21. Extremely high or low risk taking.

22. Obsession with suicide at various times of the year or after triggering events.

23. Wearing layers of clothing, even in the summer - caused by body image issues.

Obambi - Oh-OUCH!

2009-11-14T23:50:00.000-05:00

READ THE WHOLE REPORT HERE!

The Woman: Skewer Her... and LOOK WHAT HAPPENED!

2009-11-14T18:07:00.000-05:00

If you read nothing else today, PLEASE READ DONNA DARKO

This appears to be an updated post from August that begins by accounting the history of how the primaries and caucuses were used to skewer The Woman. The updates are a complete account of what women are thinking since the House betrayed them this week. The bottom line is blind trust of the third wave in Barack Obama endangers pretty much all their rights as human beings of the “Wrong” gender. This is a huge wakeup call for the Third Wave of lax feminists. We owe them this because they are about to have a lot of water to carry. Well, maybe we don’t owe them this, but the truth is Women’s Rights are in huge danger all the way around under this congress and administration. This is not over. It’s just the start. If the House can do what they did under Democratic Leadership in the House, Senate and White House, they can and will do it again. It’s as simple as that. Wake Up Sleeping Giant! or lose your rights as a person.

Even if the Stupak amendment dies, women must remember that the fact that it even passed the House is a huge Sign of the loss of respect women have incurred since the skewering of Hillary in the primaries, and it bears repeating to say that women should instinctively know that if this has been tried once, the future holds another shot at them with any of their rights. It is time for the Third Wave to realize that things are not all candy bars and flowers, there are people in power who are working daily to put them back into the kitchen as sex objects. You have installed people in power who are not what they convinced you they were. This goes all the way to the White House so stop protecting Barack Obama. None of this would be happening if he were really fighting for your rights. He is the LEADER of the party that controls BOTH houses, friends! And he created this environment of disrespect at every turn in his own behaviors. He is The Enabler. Please consider realizing that.

This piece is long and worth every single minute you spend reading it. The links you need to read are all there, the outrage is huge. If you think I hit the nail on the head yesterday in my post, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.

Consider this an open thread on Donna Darko’s piece. I can tell by the responses yesterday, this discussion must continue. My grandmother used to say, “Whatever a man will do once, he will do again”. Third wave, please believe it! In just a few short years, you have become objectified. We are seeing behaviors that no one would have dared exhibit ten years ago. We see it in political rhetoric. We see it in TV commercials. And it’s rampant in the media. It’s escalating. Only YOU can turn back the clock to your Rights again. If you don’t, Abortion is going to be the least of your worries.

“Caught Off Guard”??? You may have been caught “Off Guard” but plenty of us weren’t. We smelled this stench nearly two years ago. In fact, it was obvious. Sorry but it’s true.

MAJOR HAT TIP: Uppity Woman!

Let's Hope Effective Treatment is Just Around the Corner!

2009-11-13T06:41:00.000-05:00

By DENISE GRADY

Many people with chronic fatigue syndrome are infected with a little known virus that may cause or at least contribute to their illness, researchers are reporting.

The syndrome, which causes prolonged and severe fatigue, body aches and other symptoms, has long been a mystery ailment, and patients have sometimes been suspected of malingering or having psychiatric problems rather than genuine physical ones. Worldwide, 17 million people have the syndrome, including at least one million Americans.

An article published online Thursday in the journal Science reports that 68 of 101 patients with the syndrome, or 67 percent, were infected with an infectious virus, xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus, or XMRV. By contrast, only 3.7 percent of 218 healthy people were infected. Continuing work after the paper was published has found the virus in nearly 98 percent of about 300 patients with the syndrome, said Dr. Judy A. Mikovits, the lead author of the paper.

XMRV is a retrovirus, a member of the same family of viruses as the AIDS virus. These viruses carry their genetic information in RNA rather than DNA, and they insert themselves into their hosts’ genetic material and stay for life.

Dr. Mikovits and other scientists cautioned that they had not yet proved that the virus causes the syndrome. In theory, people with the syndrome may have some other, underlying health problem that makes them prone to being infected by the virus, which could be just a bystander. More studies are needed to explain the connection.

But Dr. Mikovits said she thought the virus would turn out to be the cause, not just of chronic fatigue, but of other illnesses as well. Previous studies have found it in cells taken from prostate cancers.

“I think this establishes what had always been considered a psychiatric disease as an infectious disease,” said Dr. Mikovits, who is research director at the Whittemore Peterson Institute in Reno, a nonprofit center created by the parents of a woman who has a severe case of the syndrome. Her co-authors include scientists from the National Cancer Institute and the Cleveland Clinic.

Dr. Mikovits said she and her colleagues were drawing up plans to test antiretroviral drugs — some of the same ones used to treat HIV infection — to see whether they could help patients with chronic fatigue. If the drugs work, that will help prove that the virus is causing the illness. She said patients and doctors should wait for the studies to be finished before trying the drugs.

Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, said the discovery was exciting and made sense.

“My first reaction is, ‘At last,’ ” Dr. Schaffner said. “In interacting with patients with chronic fatigue syndrome, you get the distinct impression that there’s got to be something there.”

He said the illness is intensely frustrating to doctors because it is not understood, there is no effective treatment and many patients are sick for a long time.

He added, “This is going to create an avalanche of subsequent studies.”

SOURCE

Blind Diversity = Death

2009-11-12T22:07:00.000-05:00

When I believe they're right - I am happy to give these opinions more bandwith on my blog:

TERROR IN TEXAS
The nation today ponders the irony of the slaughter of US soldiers, not on a battlefield in some dusty and distant land -- but on an Army base deep in the heart of Texas.

But there is no irony.

In the terrorists' war on America, every square inch of the nation is a potential battlefield, including Ft. Hood, Texas.

The point of terrorism is to terrorize.

It matters not at all whether the victims are soldiers on a military base, or office workers in downtown Manhattan, as long as the results are so shockingly bloody that they sap the will of Americans to stand up for their way of life.

But is the alleged gunman -- Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan -- really a terrorist?

Well, with no warning and less provocation, Hasan on Thursday suddenly shouted "Allahu Akbar!" (Allah is great!) and opened fire on soldiers and civilians at a Ft. Hood deployment center. Thirteen people died, with 38 others wounded. Moreover:

* In Internet postings, Hasan reportedly praised suicide bombers.

* He opposed America's missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and suggested that Muslims "fight against the aggressor" -- presumably, America.

* A classmate said he "viewed the war against terror" as a "war against Islam."

Now there's (so far) no reason to suspect that Hasan's name will turn up on an al Qaeda duty roster somewhere. But terrorism also can be a state of mind -- and, anyway, terrorists don't need Osama-issue dog-tags to be effective.

Hasan was nothing if not effective.

What is truly astonishing, though, is that someone like Hasan -- whose background was replete with bright red flags -- was allowed by the Army to be anywhere near troops.

Let alone serving as a psychiatrist.

Were his superior officers asleep?

More likely, they just closed their eyes, fearing for their careers. Political correctness is everywhere -- including, alas, in the highest reaches of the Pentagon.

Certainly there's more to be learned about what motivated Hasan.

But be careful of glib excuses (it's being suggested, for example, that he had been traumatized by treating traumatized soldiers -- as if trauma can be transmitted like the mumps).

Fact is, the lesson of Ft. Hood is simple enough: Terrorists terrorize -- and innocent people die.

So terrorists can be given no quarter.

They intend to give America none.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/terror_in_texas_f5gQYgSrO0LuMHfe9bmECI#ixzz0Wi4JfQRx

THE ROAD TO FORT HOOD
By Michelle Malkin

The violence at Fort Hood, President Obama told mourners yesterday, was "incomprehensible." The "twisted logic that led to the tragedy," he reiterated, may be "too hard to comprehend."

What exactly is so hard to comprehend? The signs foretelling Fort Hood jihadist Maj. Nidal Hasan's rampage were all too clear for those willing to see and hear. In his 2007 slide presentation to fellow Army doctors on "The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the Military," he spelled it out: "We love death more then (sic) you love life!"

Slide 11 stated: "It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims." Slide 12 cited Koranic sanctions for killing fellow believers. And Hasan made clear he wasn't alone among Muslim soldiers who "should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly."

Slide 13 ominously listed "adverse events" involving Muslim soldiers -- including the fatal 2003 fragging attack on American soldiers in Kuwait by Sgt. Hasan Akbar (who was sentenced to death but remains alive while his case is on appeal); the desertion case of Lebanon-born Muslim Marine Wassef Ali Hassoun; and the espionage case of Muslim chaplain James Yee (the charges were dropped, but the case raised lingering security concerns about Muslim chaplains at Gitmo and elsewhere trained by terror-linked Saudi-subsidized institutes).

Hasan missed a few "adverse events" that have faded from public memory in our reflexive age of "Islam is peace" emotionalism-over-comprehension:

* John Muhammad, the Beltway jihadist put to death last night, was a veteran of the Army's 84th Engineering Company.

As I've reported previously, Muhammad was suspected of throwing a thermite grenade into a tent housing 16 of his fellow soldiers as they slept before the ground-attack phase of Gulf War I in 1991. And he was admitted to the Army despite being court-martialed while serving in the Louisiana National Guard for willfully disobeying orders, striking another noncommissioned officer, wrongfully taking property and being AWOL.

Although Muhammad was led away in handcuffs and transferred to another company pending charges for the grenade attack, an indictment never materialized. He was honorably discharged from the Army in 1994. He later brainwashed young Lee Malvo in black nationalism and jihad -- and the two carried out the three-week killing spree that left 10 dead in 2002 in the name of Allah.

* Muslim American soldier Hasan Abujihaad was convicted last year on espionage and material terrorism-support charges after serving aboard the USS Benfold and sharing classified information with al Qaeda financiers, including movements of US ships just six months after al Qaeda operatives had killed 17 Americans aboard the USS Cole in the port of Yemen.

* Jeffrey Leon Battle was a former Army reservist, convicted of conspiring to levy war against the United States and "enlisting in the Reserves to receive military training to use against America." He had planned to wage war against American soldiers in Afghanistan.

* Egyptian Ali A. Mohamed joined the US Army while a resident alien despite being on a State Department terrorist-watch list before securing his visa. An avowed Islamist, he taught classes on Muslim culture to US Special Forces at Fort Bragg and obtained classified military documents. He was granted US citizenship over the objections of the CIA. Honorably discharged from the Army in 1989, he then hooked up with Osama bin Laden as an escort, trainer, bagman and messenger. He used his US passport to conduct surveillance at the US Embassy in Nairobi. He later pleaded guilty to conspiring with bin Laden and admitted his role in the 1998 African embassy bombings that killed more than 200 people, including a dozen Americans.

The grievance lobby has plied the Muslim-jihadist-as-victim narrative for nearly a decade now.

They prevail. In June, Muslim domestic-terror suspect Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad went on another shooting spree at an Arkansas recruiting station that left one serviceman dead. The Obama Justice Department response: to redouble its efforts to use "criminal and civil-rights laws to protect Muslim Americans."

Next week, Attorney General Eric Holder will speak at a banquet featuring the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism-financing case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.

How did Fort Hood happen, obtuse Washington asks. Simple: Blind diversity equals death.

http://michellemalkin.com/

Abusive, Frightening Behavior... from Law Enforcement!

2009-11-08T22:18:00.000-05:00

My father, of blessed memory, was a respected Lieutenant with the NY State Troopers. And a Type II Diabetic, as was his mother and her whole family. That said, he would never, ever have done this. It is so horrible when bad apples are encouraged to be worse... and below this I will tell you why I find this so personally scary.

On the other hand, having given some seminars to law enforcement officers on the dynamics of domestic violence, I can say that many police officers do not get it about abuse (and don't seem to care, either). And they don't get how abusers can seem quite normal and even charming while they sit in a precinct office blaming their victims or even filing false charges to blame shift. In some cases, if an officer wasn't on one side of the bars, some would probably be on the other.

That said, I still have high respect for police officers - many of whom do a difficult and often thankless job - day in and day out.

Police cadets urged to go cause PTSD

Slogan of graduating cadets in Idaho draws ire of academy leader

A state police academy leader has disavowed the slogan of the most recent graduating class urging one another to "go out and cause" post-traumatic stress disorder.

Each class at the Idaho Police Officer Standards and Training Academy is allowed to choose a slogan that is printed on its graduation programs, and the class of 43 graduates came up with "Don't suffer from PTSD, go out and cause it."

According to the Veterans Association, tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers suffer from PTSD, which causes nightmares, flashbacks and physical symptoms that make sufferers feel as if they are reliving trauma, even many years later. Crime, accidents and other trauma can cause it in civilians.

Ada County Sheriff Gary Raney, who attended the Dec. 14 graduation, pointed out the slogan to the academy's director, Jeff Black, minutes before the ceremony began, Raney said. A photograph of the program was e-mailed anonymously to news outlets throughout the state.

"That's not something we encourage or condone," Black said. "It shouldn't have been there. It was inappropriate."

Black said the class president was ex-military, and that the slogan "slipped in." He declined to identify the graduate. Black said future slogans would be vetted by academy leaders.

SOURCE

And why its so disgusting & frightening to someone like me (I am not diabetic but I am insulin resistant and at risk for it):

Managing PTSD May Reduce the Risk for Type 2 Diabetes

Risks, Coorelation and Prevention
By Chrissy & Company

Experiencing a traumatic event can have life altering implications. For many individuals, the traumatic event often results in the development of mental health complications, including depression and anxiety. For some individuals, the mental health complication may result in the development of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

With PTSD, the management of emotional or mental health complications can be quite complex. Compounded by this, the development of PTSD may also lead to the development of physiological complications, including the development of type 2 diabetes.

When suffering from PTSD, it is important that your health care team approach your care with not only the emotional and psychological complications in mind, but also managing any co morbid health complications. Because medication management of type 2 diabetes is important to long term health outcomes, without it, the complications of type 2 diabetes can be persistent resulting in compounding effect to the PTSD symptoms.

If you suffer from both PTSD and type 2 diabetes, there is a cyclic effect that can occur with your health. If PTSD symptoms are not managed effectively, the psychological and emotional impact may result in your tendency to become non-compliant in your medication regimen which will only further compound your diabetes complications. Conversely, if your diabetes symptoms are not managed correctly, this can lead to continued and uncontrolled blood glucose levels which lead to psychological and depressive type symptoms.

Whether you are seeking healthcare services for type 2 diabetes or PTSD, it is important to talk with your physician about the connection between these two health complications. In many cases, when PTSD develops, there is a greater tendency to suffer from a variety of progressive illnesses and diseases. Because type 2 diabetes can lead to kidney complications and cardiovascular disease, the management of PTSD may, ultimately, be the primary focus of care.

As we continue to learn more about the mind and body connection, physicians are becoming more involved in collaborative healthcare. Rather than limiting the treatment of your condition to that which is discussed in one appointment, physicians, today, are referring patients out to specialists in other healthcare settings. In doing so, a multi-disciplinary form of care is provided working to manage existing disease and then working to build physical and emotional strength to prevent the onset of other diseases.

If you, or someone you love, is suffering from PTSD, it is important to manage all healthcare complications as the development of disease is quite common as a secondary risk of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

With type 2 diabetes as the most common risk factor, managing and monitoring blood glucose levels may be most important.

SOURCE

MUST WE FORGIVE?

2009-11-06T15:04:00.000-05:00

As many of you already know, I am not a fan of the current psychobabble 'forgive & forget' model of adult discourse. Some things are unforgiveable.

I am always willing to listen, discuss, open the door to considerate communication that doesn't attack or blame and of course - genuine apology that owns the behavior that caused the rift in the first place. No one should be expected to forgive without repentance by the perpetrator. No one.

But blanket forgiveness? Sorry. That, in my humble opinion, is for suckers.

excerpts
From the political to the personal, Americans are caught in an orgy of forgiveness. Failure to pardon, we're constantly admonished, will blight our lives. Now a psychotherapist counters that popular claim. You can refuse to absolve your lover, spouse, parent, sibling or friend, she declares, and still be emotionally healthy.

Flip to any television station these days and chances are we'll be witness to some dramatic episode of forgiveness. We see a mother and daughter estranged for years kiss and make up, a long-feuding couple holding hands and renewing vows, scandal-plagued politicians asking for absolution and granting it to their accusers. Tears flow, hugs proliferate, and the inevitable psychological experts solemnly intone that traditional psychotherapy has neglected this essential element of cure and that studies show that forgiving alleviates depression and enhances self-esteem.

What's wrong with this picture? The capacity to forgive is an essential part of an examined life. However, enshrining universal forgiveness as a panacea, a requirement or the only moral choice, is rigid, simplistic and even pernicious. Yet that is exactly what we have done. Today we demonize not forgiving as much as we idealize forgiving.

Failure to forgive, therapists caution, is to "doom yourself to be a victim for the rest of your life," while clergy warn that it inexorably leads to a "recycling of evil."

Yet some of the most admirable, sane and emotionally healthy people that I know have not forgiven on occasion. Not forgiving needs to be reconceived. It is not an avoidance of forgiveness or a retreat into paranoia, but a legitimate action in itself, with its own progression, motivation and justification. There are many circumstances in which it is the proper and most emotionally authentic course of action.

I have found that there are three types of healthy unforgivers. For moral unforgivers, refusing means telling the truth, asserting fundamental rights and opposing injustice. Psychologically detached unforgivers accept the painful reality that they cannot experience the positive internal connection with a betrayer--usually a parent--which forgiving would require. Reformed forgivers have faced conflicts between feelings, religious principles, ethics or social responsibilities, and reject the conventional attitudes they once accepted. None of these three types is vindictive or against forgiveness in principle; they share the capacity to forgive but do not exercise it indiscriminately.

MORAL UNFORGIVERS
"In my family, the very act of unforgiveness is an extortion of my soul," declares Sandy Katz, a psychotherapist. "It endorses what they did, which was to deny the truth and pressure me to sacrifice myself. For me not to forgive my brother at my parents' behest is my self-affirmation."

Sandy's parents had looked the other way when her violent bully of an older brother thrust a screwdriver up her rectum--even when he set her on fire. "Afterward they didn't leave tools or matches lying around, but they never acknowledged what he did to me. He continued to behave this way and they continued to insist that I submit; my mother would say, 'He's just trying to get close to you because he doesn't know how to be friends.' She'd confuse me by saying it was all out of love, and I had no recourse."

Parents define a child's world; there is no escape. Unsure of their own reality, children who have no validation and no protection become prisoners mentally as well as physically. Not forgiving is a recourse they can create only as independent adults, a way to free themselves from years of being coerced to agree that hate is really love.

Under the pressure of promoting family harmony, parents who need to deny one child's viciousness and their own negligence often try to force the victimized child to be "mature" and "rise above it." These more intact, "good" siblings continue to make the same demands of themselves. Their willingness to accept bad treatment, to feel they deserve it, or to define it out of existence then extends beyond their families and damages their later lives. Even those in less extreme circumstances tend to absorb parental values as an unexamined template for their own responses, making it difficult for them to distinguish what they truly feel from what has been imposed upon them.

Ten years ago, at age 35, Sandy finally defied her parents by refusing her brother's phone calls. "I started getting guilt-inducing messages from them saying that I was abandoning him and destroying the family. They became increasingly angry and accusatory, haranguing me to forgive and forget without admitting there was anything to forgive and forget. I wrote him a note detailing what he had done and said I wouldn't speak to him until he was willing to acknowledge it. He sent me back a letter taking the moral high ground: that he was just as hurt as I, that all children fight--as if these were normal childhood squabbles--and that he was willing to let bygones be bygones. Why couldn't I?"

Sandy hasn't attended a family function with her brother since she received that letter. "I've taken a strong position that he's out of my life, even though my parents still try to bully me into capitulating. I know it's difficult for them to have two separate sets of holidays, but I forbid them to talk to me about it because their Pollyanna attitude enrages me."

The moral unforgiver makes a distinction between the extreme circumstances where a relationship must be severed and other, more commonplace, injuries. "It's not so much what my brother did as a child, but what he continues to be as a man that I find unacceptable," Sandy explained. "He never changed, never grew, and just found new ways to feel entitled. It would only be right to forgive what he did as a child--it would be legitimate and healthy for everybody. But it would be wrong not to hold him responsible for being an undeveloped person now; I would be colluding in creating a false reality, which was what allowed me to be violated in the first place."

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, refusing to forgive or have further contact with an unrepentant, abusive relative is therapeutic. "My lack of forgiveness has not impeded my development or my relationships at all; in fact, it's cured me," she said. "Before I took a stand I was always depressed and acceding to others' needs, always confused about my rights and about what was real." It is commonly believed that forgiving promotes mental health and alleviates depression. But doing the opposite can express a person's very right to live.

Responsible unforgivers are never antiforgiveness; Sandy regularly forgives outside her family, even when the offender fails to apologize. "In a good relationship--not a perfect relationship--it's different; how bad are the screwups? If the person is still loving enough it comes naturally." By recognizing the distinction between actions worthy and unworthy of tolerance, and upholding her own moral point of view, a child triumphs over the masochistic role her family assigned her. Her insistence on truth and justice, which lead her to refuse to forgive, is the foundation of her sense of self. Says Sandy of her decision: "I've never had a moment's regret."

Proponents of universal forgiveness refuse to recognize that moral unforgivers exist. They find it inconceivable that unforgiving victims of injustice could be outraged but not obsessed by their injuries, that they could even sympathize or retain conditional connections with those they refuse to pardon.

What about Sandy's relationship to her parents, who at very least share responsibility for her childhood torment? She has not entirely severed her tie to them, though she holds them culpable. "I need some sense of family, as long as they accept my terms," she explains. "And with this huge exception, they have made genuine efforts in my behalf in recent years." Her attitude toward her parents is one of conditional unforgiveness.
~~~~~

Partial nonforgiveness requires a person to bear alone the burden of intense ambivalence and continuing grief. The illusion of family harmony is lost forever, but it is replaced with something limited, painful and real.

DETACHED UNFORGIVERS
Anybody who struggles with intimate betrayal must reengage with the experience, actively choosing to think and to feel what was once unbearable. But understanding need not lead to forgiveness. Indeed, it is a major accomplishment for some men and women to temper their hatred and tolerate their indifference. For the sake of their own emotional survival, they can do no more.

Disengaging from a fatally flawed parent or intimate, sometimes seems to come naturally, without anguish. Biochemist Annie Travers remembers never feeling anything but contempt for her father. "He was a selfish brute who considered his children his property. Once when I was a teenager, he said, 'I can do anything I want with you'--and he would have if my uncle hadn't threatened to call the police." Annie's uncle, a blind biologist who lived with the family, was her protector, mentor and soulmate. "He taught me how to think," she said.

Annie discussed what must have been a miserable situation with scientific detachment, and not a hint of recrimination. Throughout our interview, she referred to her father as "this guy," and seemed surprised when I asked what qualities she had inherited from him. "I'm my uncle's daughter," she said. Many children who had a poisonous parent identify someone else as their "real" parent.

Under the right circumstances, a traumatic past can be left behind without being consciously mourned. Living with a beloved, admirable uncle who shared and validated her feelings -- "I always knew we would be better off without my father and my uncle agreed with me," Annie said -- made her solution possible.

Still, no daughter is born despising her father; what became of her original love? "You have deep feelings, but they get lost," Annie admitted. "What love there was initially got strangled." As Annie matured, her fear and hatred evolved into indifference, and though she still speaks of her father with distaste, she is not bitter. "People are much too willing to blame others. Since I moved out 30 years ago, my life has been what I make of it--I'm responsible." A self-reliant attitude, the opposite of vengefulness, circumscribes the influence of a bad father.

Annie was away on a fellowship when her father died, and she had no qualms about not coming back for the funeral; in their last conversation he had berated her for not going to medical school. Annie is the first to acknowledge that her father had a negative impact on her life--"It took me a long time to feel men could be trusted," she said but she claims never to have been disturbed by her unwillingness to reconcile with her father. "I never felt the slightest need to do it."

Though friends and therapists have repeatedly warned her that her unforgiving attitude would eventually be her downfall, she isn't afraid they're right. "People try to convince me that because I didn't make peace with him I'd suffer for it down the line; they feel that there hasn't been closure. I think it's more about them and their own fathers. I'm fine. It hasn't been a trauma for me." For others to find Annie wanting because of what she has not done is an imposition of alien values. Annie is a woman at peace, at a price that does not seem excessive.
~~~~~~~

In the conventional view, the decision to forgive must not be based on whether the perpetrator deserves it; only then can the independent will of the victim be guaranteed. In fact, refusing to forgive a heartless mother or other betrayer expresses a person's right to his or her own feelings. Recognizing that you are under no obligation to profess love you do not feel is a hard-won freedom.

REFORMED FORGIVERS
We tend to think of forgiveness as the best, healthiest way to resolve an intimate injury, and of learning to forgive as one of life's greatest lessons. Sometimes the opposite is true. Learning not to forgive, after a life in which forgiveness has been compulsive, imposed or unconsidered, is an impressive achievement.

Daily life provides many circumstances where offensive and unchangeable behavior should not be excused and where forgiving is confused with submerging normal reactions to mistreatment. Yet even when the culprit is a peer and not a parent, and the injury is mundane, it can take years for a person to stop extending second chances.

Rita Bergman reversed her lifelong tendency to do what she was told when she turned 75. "As I've grown older I've begun to think more about what I need. Screw it, I don't have to forgive anymore," she exclaimed. The object of Rita's newfound insight was an old friend who had become so obnoxious and critical that she was offending everyone she knew. "I felt terribly sorry for her. She hasn't been the same person since she lost her husband and son a few years ago, and she's all alone."

Repeated infuriating lunches, in which every aspect of her appearance was scrutinized and found wanting, made Rita vow to sever the tie, but she always ended up reconsidering for old times' sake. Only after Rita's closest friend refused to see her if this woman accompanied them did Rita realize enough was enough, stopped making the dates she had come to dread, and ended the relationship.

As with more serious injustices, understanding the source of someone's inexcusable behavior--even feeling sympathy for her plight--does not justify endless exposure to it; there is a fine line between compassion and compliance. "I don't believe in carrying grudges at this point in my life," Rita said, "but how long could I continue to ignore my own feelings? I was always very timid and never opened my mouth, but now that has changed." Rita's refusal to overlook her unfortunate friend's hostility any longer is an act of self-respect that took a lifetime to attain.

Forgiving without reconciling is acceptable; why not reconciling without forgiving? People often wound one another in the name of truth; a person has a right to employ judicial dishonesty to protect him- or herself against being wounded by others.

~~~~~~~~~

Forgiveness and unforgiveness are not polar opposites but points on a continuum. The same internal processes can lead to emotionally authentic resolutions in either direction. Anyone who has gone through the profound and punishing process of conscious forgiving or not forgiving emerges more self-aware, more related to others, and less burdened by the past.

When it is genuine, forgiveness is a capacity not a compulsion; this is why the same person can grant it or withhold it, depending on the circumstances. The ability to discriminate signifies maturity and freedom.

Madame de Stael was wrong. Understanding need not lead to forgiveness -- but it can lead to wisdom.

Adapted from Forgiving & Not Forgiving: A New Approach to Resolving Intimate Betrayal by Jeanne Safer, Ph.D. (Avon Books, August 1999).

SOURCE - Read this whole great article here

Mortified About Being Deployed?

2009-11-06T06:16:00.000-05:00

By James Dao

Born and reared in Virginia, the son of immigrant parents from a small Palestinian town near Jerusalem, he joined the Army right out of high school, against his parents’ wishes. The Army, in turn, put him through college and then medical school, where he trained to be a psychiatrist.

But Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the 39-year-old man accused of Thursday’s mass shooting at Fort Hood, Tex., started having second thoughts about his military career a few years ago after other soldiers harassed him for being a Muslim, he told relatives in Virginia.

He had also more recently expressed deep concerns about being sent to Iraq or Afghanistan. Having counseled scores of returning soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder, first at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington and more recently at Fort Hood, he knew all too well the terrifying realities of war, said a cousin, Nader Hasan.

“He was mortified by the idea of having to deploy,” Mr. Hasan said. “He had people telling him on a daily basis the horrors they saw over there.”

Disturbing postings
The Federal Bureau of Investigation had earlier become aware of Internet postings by a man who called himself Nidal Hasan, a law enforcement official said. The postings discussed suicide bombing in a favorable light, but the investigators were not clear whether the writer was Major Hasan.

In one posting on the Web site Scribd, a man named Nidal Hasan compared the heroism of a soldier who throws himself on a grenade to protect fellow soldiers to suicide bombers who sacrifice themselves to protect Muslims.

“If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory,” the man wrote. It could not be confirmed, however, that the writer was Major Hasan.

Major Hasan was wounded and taken into custody by the Fort Hood police after the shooting spree, in which 12 people, many of them soldiers, were killed, and at least 31 others were wounded. The shootings occurred at a readiness center where soldiers are put through a series of medical, dental, legal and other paces in preparation for being deployed.

Though Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas reported that Major Hasan was to be deployed later this month, that could not be confirmed with the Army Thursday night.

Family shocked at news
Nader Hasan said his cousin never mentioned in recent phone calls to Virginia that he was going to be deployed, and he said the family was shocked when it heard the news on television Thursday afternoon.

“He was doing everything he could to avoid that,” Mr. Hasan said. “He wanted to do whatever he could within the rules to make sure he wouldn’t go over.”

Several years ago, that included retaining a lawyer and making inquiries about whether he could get out of the Army before his contract was up, because of the harassment he had received as a Muslim. But Nader Hasan said the lawyer had told his cousin that even if he paid the Army back for his education, it would not allow him to leave before his commitment was up.

“I think he gave up that fight and was just doing his time,” Mr. Hasan said.

Nader Hasan said his cousin’s parents had both been American citizens who owned businesses, including restaurants and a store, in Roanoke, Va. He declined to confirm reports that they were Jordanian, but said the parents, who are both dead, had immigrated from a small town near Jerusalem many years ago.

His mother’s obituary, published in The Roanoke Times in 2001, said she was born in Palestine in 1952. It described her as a restaurant owner “known for her ability to keep sometimes rowdy customers out of trouble and always had a warm meal for someone who otherwise would not have anything to eat that evening.”

Successful family
Records show that Major Hasan had received his undergraduate degree at Virginia Tech University and his medical degree at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md.

He did his residency at Walter Reed Medical Center and then worked there for several years before being transferred to the Darnell Army Medical Center at Fort Hood earlier this year.

Major Hasan was not married and had two brothers, one living in Virginia and another in Jerusalem, his cousin said. The family, by and large, had prospered in the United States, with various members working in law, banking and medicine, Mr. Hasan said.

Nader Hasan, 40, a lawyer living in Northern Virginia, described his cousin as a respectful, hard-working man who had devoted himself to his parents and his career.

He said his cousin had been a practicing Muslim who had become more devout after the deaths of his parents, in 1998 and 2001. But he said he had not expressed anti-American views or radical ideas.

“His parents didn’t want him to go into the military,” Mr. Hasan said. “He said, ‘No, I was born and raised here, I’m going to do my duty to the country.’ ”

SOURCE

UPDATE: Sharia Punishment - Behind the Wheel

2009-11-04T23:46:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: This scumbag excuse for a Father? His daughter died of her injuries.

Can Arizona put this POS out in the SONORAN DESERT, naked, covered in snake bait please? Or impale him on a Saguaro? Or a needle in the arm would do just fine.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

My question - WHY DO THESE PEOPLE MOVE TO THE U.S. IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT?

from the awesome Uppity Woman:

Arizona police are looking for an Iraqi man who they allege ran down his daughter and her friend because he believed his daughter had become “too Westernized.”

Peoria, Arizona, police said Wednesday that Faleh Hassan Almaleki, 48, struck his 20-year-old daughter, Noor Faleh Almaleki, and her friend Amal Edan Khalaf with a vehicle he was driving in a parking lot Tuesday afternoon

Faleh Hassan Almaleki was angry with his daughter “as she had become too ‘Westernized’ and was not living according to [the family's] traditional Iraq[i] values,” Peoria police said in a statement released Wednesday.

Noor Faleh Almaleki is hospitalized with life-threatening injuries, according to the statement. Khalaf, 43, received injuries that are not life-threatening but is still in the hospital, police said

What do you suppose should be done with this animal once he’s caught…… if he’s ever caught? I suggest we run over his face with a 4×4 and back over him again and leave the tire on what’s left of him. I’m sure we could find plenty of volunteers.

Vitter's Lack of Responsibility to Rape Victims

2009-11-04T23:10:00.001-05:00

In COMPLETE agreement with UppityWoman here:

Here’s a rape victim who confronts that Weasel David Vitter and asks him why he didn’t support the bill that allows a rape victim to confront her rapist in court. This is the bill I discussed here, prompted by the Haliburton employee who was gang-banged and locked in a shipping crate. This is the bill where Vitter was one of the 30 weasels who voted “No”.

Watch this shitbag blame Barack Obama and then walk out of the building while she is still talking to him, showing once more just how little respect this POS has for women in general and rape victims specifically. I always thought he was a slime ball, but this is beyond the pale.I found myself wishing somebody in the parking lot would rape this beast in every available orifice before he got into the car. Twice. Any woman in Louisiana who votes for this shithead is voting for her oppressor.

We all remember Vitter, don't we??

When The Body Turns On Itself

2009-11-03T22:30:00.000-05:00

I was greatly pleased and not surprised to see this in JPost in Sept. 2007. Israel has been a shining light in healthcare advances for many years. I believe that Israel may cure a number of autoimmune diseases within 4 years, including diabetes and M.S.

Having been disabled 14 years I barely remember that other person I was. The person who could walk without pain, worked 18 hour days with no trouble and had a life outside her home. My limbic system was damaged 12 years ago and my emotions & decision making was affected by it as well as my whole body functioning. I can't always think straight and the last few weeks - walking has been excruciating. This past couple months I have had such intense pain and it doesn't seem to be letting up. I am frustrated, angry and often deeply depressed.

This is a wonderful article and I still pray, every day, that Hashem blesses the medical minds to find relief and even affordable cures for people like me... whose bodies have turned on them.

by Judy Siegel-Itzkovich

The human body's immune system is like a fort - a collection of mechanisms that protects against infection. It does so by identifying viruses, bacteria, parasitic worms and sometimes even tumor cells, and then killing the strangers. But the system isn't foolproof, and pathogens can evolve to find new ways to infect a host.

But in 2% of the population, the body's immune system goes haywire and fails to recognize its own parts as "self," which results in an attack on healthy cells. This can occur from before birth (as in type 1 diabetes) into old age.

There are about 80 different kinds of autoimmune disease, which can attack any organ in the body, including the brain, heart, nerves, skin, glands, joints and bones. Among the best known, besides type I diabetes, are rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus, ulcerative colitis (Crohn's disease), Graves' disease, vitiligo, glomerulonephritis, chronic liver inflammation, Sjogren's syndrome, Hashimoto's thyroiditis, pernicious anemia and myasthenia gravis. While a high level of autoimmunity can harm the body, a low level, called natural autoimmunity, is apparently beneficial, as some autoimmune responses are vital to the body's functioning and the development of tolerance to self-antigens.

ALTHOUGH THE general public don't know much about autoimmune diseases, people do sit up and pay attention when someone close is diagnosed with one. While these diseases usually don't kill, they are chronic, so pharmaceutical companies "love" them because of the expensive medications that need to be purchased for life.

Scientists are developing a better understanding of the immune system and autoimmune diseases, although much remains to be discovered. Among the Israelis who have been prominent in the field is Prof. David Naor of The Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School, whose 70th birthday and official "retirement" were marked recently with a two-day international symposium at the medical school's Magid Auditorium.

The event - attended by more than 150 doctors and researchers (including Prof. Marc Feldman of Imperial College in London, who delivered a major lecture) - concentrated on similarities and differences between cancer and autoimmune disease - a topic on which Naor has invested 40 years.

BORN IN HADERA, Naor studied at The Hebrew University, specializing in immunology. "I didn't want to be a physician; it didn't attract me," says Naor, who is tall, white-haired and fit. He worked on the side "milking" venom from vipers, which was used to produce anti-snakebite serum in horses and camels. It was Pini Amitai, the veteran Jerusalem reptile expert, who taught Naor how to "milk" snakes. His interest in autoimmune diseases and cancer, he says, didn't result from anyone close to him having such a disease. Naor's 1967 degree thesis was published in Nature. He did post-doctoral studies at the University of California at Berkeley and at the University of California in San Francisco. Since 1972, he has been a HU faculty member, teaching and researching immunology.

"Seventy is just the beginning," Naor says in a Jerusalem Post interview during the symposium. "I'm not retiring; I'm only starting, working on all kinds of projects. We have our own company, Maimonidex, in Tel Aviv that makes antibodies against rheumatoid arthritis. And I continue to teach."

NAOR EXPLAINS that the reaction of the body to cancer is an autoimmune reaction. "Tumors are like any other tissue, but unfortunately, the immune system's reaction to cancer is weaker than to bacteria or other pathogens, and often can't be seen. As I see it, cancer cells know how to deal with the immune system, as they divide faster and release toxic materials that act against the immune system, which doesn't know how to counterattack. Our challenge is to understand why the immune reaction to cancer is so weak. Knowing the answer will be a great advance."

During the symposium, Israeli and foreign lecturers presented research and theories on how to induce the immune system to destroy malignant cells without harming healthy tissue. Naor said he hoped the gathering would help further this important line of research.

In both cancer and autoimmune diseases, healthy cells are destroyed - in the former due to cells that grow and spread in an uncontrolled fashion, and in the latter due to the body's immune system mistakenly destroying vital tissue.

"This is a paradoxical situation," states Naor, "since if only it were possible to induce an autoimmune reaction against cancer cells, we could eliminate cancer."

Indeed, it has been known for years that the immune system is not indifferent to some malignant tumors, and tries to eliminate them in the same way it fights off bacteria. But this phenomenon shows up only rarely, and the immune system is usually not successful in fighting off cancerous cells.

Naor says he doesn't think there will be a single solution for all autoimmune diseases. "Each involves a different antigen, so I think there has to be a separate treatment for each, just as cancer is a collection of diseases with different treatments, depending on the affected organ."

PROF. YEHUDA SHOENFELD, a leading clinical immunologist (one of 150 in Israel), and an expert in rheumatology and allergy at Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer, praises Naor for his "great contributions in the development of antibodies for the treatment of autoimmune diseases and cancer."

Shoenfeld, who spoke at the opening of the symposium, noted that several factors trigger autoimmune disease.

"There is a genetic component, but it's not 100%; if a parent has an autoimmune disease, it increases the risk of it being contracted by the child, but this is far from inevitable," says Shoenfeld. Another factor, he says, is a viral, bacterial, parasitic, fungal or other type of infection that causes an immune reaction. Since the pathogen has a protein structure similar to that of healthy body cells, the immune system may attack healthy tissue as well. Any infection can bring it about, but only about 2% of the population gets autoimmune diseases, so there must be a combination of factors, including damage to the normal immune reaction.

"We all have several lines of defense. If one breaks down and other factors are present, autoimmune disease can appear at any time, although it happens more frequently as people age." Certain drugs may also trigger the autoimmune reaction by affecting the regulating mechanism. There are various environmental factors such as the sun (which can trigger lupus attacks), paints (scleroderma) and even living near an airport. Women are much more susceptible than men to autoimmune diseases, the Sheba immunologist notes, because their sex hormones affect their immune systems.

IN HIS LECTURE, which he titled "Smelling Autoimmunity," Shoenfeld focussed on systemic lupus erythematosus, which affects a large number of organs and tissues. It may also affect the central nervous system (CNS) and a person's mental state. CNS involvement in lupus is very common, and linked with more than 20 antibodies, he says. Among the symptoms of lupus is depression. "If a psychiatric manifestation is caused by an autoimmune disease, could it be that other psychiatric conditions whose cause we don't yet know are also due to autoimmune diseases?"

Shoenfeld and colleagues injected one of these lupus antibodies, called anti-P-Ribosomal (anti-P-R), into the brain vescicles of mice. They quickly developed "depressive behavior," which in mice is observed when they are put into containers of water containing a maze and expected to swim to safety. Those that became depressed just floated rather than swimming to find safety. This was the first evidence that injecting a specific antibody into the brain can cause depression, relates Shoenfeld, whose findings were published last March. "Then we injected [the anti-depressant] fluoxetine [Prozac] into the depressed mice, and they swam."

The human-purified anti-P-R antibodies were shown to bind to CNS structures (the limbic system) in the brain, where the smell apparatus functions. When they bind with this part in the brain, it can create depression and harm the sense of smell.

"We found that in many psychiatric conditions, patients lose their sense of smell, opening up the possibility that aromatherapy with certain odors can relieve the condition. We tried exposing depressed rats to lemon and citrus fragrances. This helped more than antidepressants, and the mice started to swim. Aromatherapy has already been tested in elderly Japanese. Perhaps we will be able to repair depression with good smells," Shoenfeld suggested. "A sniffing test may even predict who will develop Alzheimer's. We have neglected smell in the treatment of central nervous system disorders."

Autoimmune diseases are difficult, but there is hope. Steroids may be taken to suppress the immune system, but these can be harmful if taken for too long because they affect a variety of organs and expose patients to infections. A variety of major new drugs such as Remicade have been developed that are alleviating several inflammatory diseases, allowing patients to live normal or near-normal lives.

"There is a revolution with biological drugs for autoimmune diseases, and the discoveries are also occurring in Israel," says Shoenfeld. "As they may afflict not only the elderly but also young people - as with multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis - treating them has a major economic as well as personal impact. Successful new medications can help go back to work."

SOURCE

"Barry Knows Best" Show - Irksome

2009-11-01T19:36:00.000-05:00

With difficult state elections and a crucial military decision looming, President Barack Obama sat down with his wife Michelle last month to give an in-depth magazine interview about a subject that has hitherto not ranked highly on the White House political agenda — the state of the first couple’s marriage.

The president used the occasion to complain that when he recently hopped aboard Air Force One to fly his wife to New York for dinner and a Broadway show, “people made it into a political issue”.

Obama went on to insist that his marriage was “separate and apart from a lot of the silliness of Washington”. He then proceeded to discuss his romantic ups and downs in startling detail with a reporter from The New York Times Magazine.

Publication of that unusually candid interview highlighted an intriguing contradiction that has begun to haunt the Obama White House. The president’s family has become one of his most valuable political assets. Yet the attempts by the Obamas to shield their private lives from scrutiny are increasingly being subverted — by the Obamas themselves.

When the interview appeared on the paper’s website ahead of publication today, it prompted a flood of reader reactions from “They are a beautiful couple” and “exceptional role models” to “Why should I care about their marriage?” and “This stuff is none of my business”.

There were also several expressions of concern, echoed privately by Democratic strategists, that the openness of the Obamas about what Michelle described as the “bumps” in their relationship, may help turn a historic presidency into a soap opera. “All this scrutiny cannot be good for a marriage,” worried one of the readers of the Times.

The sense that the Obamas are flirting with disaster by parading their happy family life was magnified by Michelle’s Marie Antoinette-like appearance this week on the cover of Glamour magazine — at a time when many Americans continue to lose their homes or jobs every month.

In the interview with Glamour, Michelle discussed her fashion choices and appeared to tease her husband: “One thing I’ve learnt about male role models is that they don’t hesitate to invest in themselves.” The timing and content of the piece prompted Sally Quinn, a veteran Washington style-watcher, to suggest that the first lady had been badly advised.

“I’m not sure if I had been her adviser I would have said for her to do the Glamour cover because it might begin to trivialise her and what her role is,” she said.

The enthusiasm for the Obama family has until now obliged most Republicans to bite their tongues when discussing Michelle and the children, but there were mutterings last week that the president might be using his enviable private life as a diversion from awkward political realities — notably the prospect this week of Democratic defeats in elections for state governors in New Jersey and Virginia.

“Funny how every time there’s a crisis we end up reading about Michelle,” noted one Republican insider. “It’s great to see that the first couple have such a wonderful relationship,” added a Times website reader. “Now can the president please get down to solving the country’s problems?”

Yet even the hardest-nosed Washington operatives confessed last week that reading about the Obamas’ love life was a lot more fun than ploughing through 1,900 pages of the revised healthcare bill.

In their tell-nearly-all interview, the Obamas came across as a thoughtful, sensible and undeniably appealing couple who have nonetheless experienced the professional and personal strains that any working couple would recognise.

At one point Michelle expressed frustration at her secondary role after the years she spent as a high-earning hospital executive in Chicago: “Clearly Barack’s decisions are leading us. They are not mine, that’s obvious,” she said. “I’m married to the president of the United States, I don’t have another job.”

That the marriage experienced “bumps” came as no surprise: Richard Wolffe, a Newsweek journalist, has already described in his book on Obama’s rise how Michelle at one point became “angry at [Barack’s] selfishness and careerism; he thought she was cold and ungrateful”.

Asked if their marriage had come close to rupture, Obama told The New York Times: “That’s over-reaching it. But I wouldn’t gloss over the fact that that was a tough time for us. There were points in time where I was fearful ... that she would be unhappy.”

Michelle said the strains had been “sort of the eye-opener to me, that marriage is hard. Going into it, no-one ever tells you that. They just tell you, ‘Do you love him ... what’s the dress look like’?”

Valerie Jarrett, the couple’s close friend and White House adviser, said last year’s campaign had initially caused problems when Michelle was depicted as bitter and unpatriotic. Yet she eventually became a valuable surrogate, impressing huge crowds when her husband was absent.

“They both rallied to each other’s defence and support,” said Jarrett. “By having to work hard at it, it strengthened their marriage.”

In the White House, the couple seems to have settled into a comfortable routine of public affection and teasing — Barack sometimes addresses Michelle as Flotus (first lady of the United States) but both sought to dispel the notion that everything in the White House rose garden is pink.

“The strengths and challenges of our marriage don’t change because we move to a different address,” said the first lady. The image of a flawless marriage was “the last thing we want to project . . .this perfection that doesn’t exist”.

Currently condemned to a photogenic but stultifying life as chief fashion plate and do-gooder, Michelle is widely assumed in Washington to be desperate to sink her teeth into a meaty political issue.

Yet she protested, a little too fiercely some thought, that she was “so not interested in a lot of the hard decisions that he’s making ... I have never in my life ever wanted to sit on the policy side of this thing”.

Those latter remarks were in striking contrast to the magazine article’s portrayal of the Obamas as the model of a modern presidential couple. Many Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton, now Obama’s secretary of state, have noted that Michelle seems closer to Laura Bush, wife of George W, in choosing a non-political role.

Hillary Clinton, who famously took an aggressive role in presidential policy-making, notably on healthcare, was the “truly modern and transformational first lady”, noted one of her Democratic supporters. “Michelle has proven to be utterly conventional.”

Yet the bottom line for Obama remains the state of the economy and the progress of the wars he is fighting abroad. While Michelle’s approval ratings remain buoyant, the president’s continue to slide. A poll last week showed only 31% of Americans believe he can control federal spending (down from 52% at his election) and only 28% believe he can heal political divisions (down from 54%).

For all Obama’s glamour and sophisticated intellect, he is in danger of being seen as a failing politician. And familiarity with the details of his private life may quickly turn to contempt.

SOURCE

Women and Health Insurance - Surprise!

2009-10-30T14:36:00.002-04:00

From a consistently great & illuminating blogger -- Rabble Rouser Rev. Amy:

There has been a great deal of talk and debate about health care in the country recently as the Democrats push Heath Care Reform. A lot of animosity has been directed at the Health Insurance Industry as a whole. As it turns out, some is justified, but some is not. I was surprised by what is NOT justified, and I think you might be, too

But first, another reason to be angry at insurers, especially if you are female, and living in one of thirty-nine states in the union, as this article highlights, Women Pay Up To 50% More For Health Insurance Premiums. Now, maybe I was just naive to not realize this was happening, but happening it is. This article focuses on the state of Colorado:

Checking the “female” box when buying health insurance is likely to cost extra — perhaps up to 50 percent more than a man would pay for the same coverage.

Gender-rating — or what some term as flat-out sexual discrimination — is linked to the simple fact that women, particularly those under age 50 or so, go to the doctor more often than men.

But outrage over how women are treated in the individual health insurance market is mounting as stories emerge of companies refusing to cover maternity benefits and denying coverage because of past domestic violence or cesarean sections, including a Colorado woman who was told she would have to get sterilized to qualify for insurance.

Federal proposals, as well as pending state legislation, would ban gender-rating and require maternity coverage, even as the insurance industry warns that lowering premiums for younger women could mean higher premiums for most everyone else.

Colorado women age 40 and under shopping for health insurance in the individual market, not through an employer, pay from 10 percent to 59 percent more than men, according to analysis by the National Women’s Law Center.

They pay more even when maternity coverage is not included. And in many cases, a female nonsmoker pays more for health coverage than a man who smokes.

“Women should not be penalized because their plumbing works differently and needs ongoing maintenance,” Colorado Insurance Commissioner Marcy Morrison told a state health care task force.

Holy smokes. Did you know this?? So, being a woman is a pre-existing condition? That’s a pretty difficult one to overcome. Especially since we’re the only ones who can get pregnant, which has its OWN set of issues:

As a state lawmaker, Morrison fought insurance companies to stop “drive-through deliveries” so women could stay in the hospital longer after childbirth. She said gender-rating is discrimination tied to decades-old salary disparity, particularly in female-dominated professions such as nursing and teaching. And she is skeptical of insurance company claims that “the sky is going to fall” and premiums would rise if gender-rating were outlawed.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s national association, proposed ending gender-rating and the practice of rejecting customers based on pre-existing conditions. In exchange, insurance companies want powerful legislation that would compel everyone to buy insurance.

Discrimination against women in the insurance market goes far beyond premium rates, reform advocates said.

And you are not even going to believe how:

Sterilization Suggested

Take, for example, Centennial resident Peggy Robertson, who was denied insurance by Golden Rule Insurance Co. because she delivered her second child by cesarean section in 2006. Maternity benefits weren’t even part of the package.

Robertson, whose husband is a self-employed chiropractor, contacted the International Cesarean Awareness Network and filed a complaint with the state Division of Insurance, arguing the denial was unfair and that the company had asked her offensive questions during the application process.

Later, she received a letter from Golden Rule telling her the company would consider covering her if “some form of sterilization has occurred since the caesarean-section delivery.”

“It was just really horrific and terribly insulting,” said Robertson, a stay-at-home mom of two boys. “You felt like you were a herd of cattle or something.”

Robertson’s recent testimony before the U.S. Senate health committee in part prompted Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., to write a letter to Senate leaders adding his voice to the call for reform to ban gender-rating and other “harmful insurance industry practices.”

Since denying Robertson, Golden Rule, an Indianapolis-based division of United Healthcare, now covers women who have had cesarean sections but only with increased premiums to cover the risk of a future cesarean birth or with exclusionary riders — clauses that deny coverage for cesareans for a certain number of years or forever.

“This helps us extend coverage to more people while keeping premiums lower for all of our customers,” said Ellen Laden, public relations director for Golden Rule. “The real issue is how to deal broadly with providing access to health care for everyone while still keeping health insurance from being cost-prohibitive.”

Sterilization??? What, are we back in the mid-1950’s or something?? I noticed that they didn’t suggest sterilization for MEN, which makes a lot more sense for the health insurers since it’s CHEAPER, and doesn’t require hospitalization. This is just staggering in this day and age. Thank heavens there are people fighting this suggestion:

Bennet and others, including the National Women’s Law Center, are calling for an end to coverage denials based on pre-existing conditions such as pregnancy and surviving domestic violence or sexual assault — a problem revealed in a recent report from the law center.

Along those lines, there is another big issue that applies to women only:

Lack Of Maternity Benefits

Another common frustration among women who buy insurance individually — and there are 125,000 such women in Colorado — is that maternity benefits are almost nonexistent.

Suzanne Pariser, a Denver lawyer and mother of 2-year-old Willa, is putting off expanding her family because she cannot find an affordable insurance plan that includes maternity coverage.

“That’s the main reason we’re not having a baby right now,” she said. “We definitely want to have another child.”

Pariser is annoyed that insurance company executives, in essence, are determining her family planning.

“My anger is mostly that insurance companies view having a baby as a medical complication that costs them money,” she said. “They view it as a disease.”

The only plan she could find that offered maternity coverage was more expensive in the long run than paying out of pocket to have a baby, Pariser figured.

Costs vary by hospital or birthing center, but the average bill for a vaginal birth with no complications is about $7,500 and for a cesarean section, $13,200.

Viewing having a baby as a “disease.” That is quite an indictment, especially taken in conjunction with suggesting sterilization.

Back to the overall concept of gender-biased insurance:

The insurance industry in Colorado has not taken an official position on statehouse bills that would ban gender-rating in the individual market and require maternity coverage. Their stance likely depends on national reform — and in particular, whether federal law will force everyone, even the healthiest people, to buy insurance.

But industry officials point out that higher premiums for women are based on analysis from actuaries, which show women are much more likely to visit the doctor. The rate at which women visit primary care physicians is more than 50 percent higher than for men, according to the New America Foundation.

By about age 50 or 55, men typically begin using health services more than women, and premiums for older men are typically more expensive than those for older women, said Ben Price, executive director of the Colorado Association of Health Plans.

“The insurance industry is engaged in its own internal discussion on this issue, and health plans here in Colorado are of course taking a fresh look at gender-rating and many other issues that have been raised as a part of the debate both in Washington and here in Colorado,” he said.

Officials with Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Colorado have “strong reservations” about eliminating gender-rating and requiring maternity coverage. The practice is rampant in the auto insurance industry, they argue.

“The most expensive purchase in auto (insurance) is the young, invincible male; they are the risk-takers,” said Rebecca Weiss, director of government affairs. “For some reason, auto insurance doesn’t seem as inflammatory to people as health insurance.

“Shouldn’t health insurance premiums be based on some degree on how many medical services you receive so that everyone is paying according to what they are using?”

I am no doctor, or health insurer, but if women go go the doctor more often, isn’t it possible that will keep them out of the hospital more often? Unless it’s for a “disease” like having a baby or something. Ahem. But you know what the bottom line is:

"It Would Raise Prices”

Insurance companies probably would have to raise prices on other groups to make up the difference if they were forced to lower prices for younger women, said Tom Gosselin, director of small-group underwriting at Anthem.

“It definitely would raise the prices, is the simple thing,” he said. “You are now charging the 22-year-old guy who has no concept in the world about having a baby for maternity. He’s more likely to choose not to have health insurance at all.”

Eleven states ban gender-rating in the individual insurance market.

A review by the National Conference of State Legislatures found that those states had not determined whether their bans caused health insurance rates to rise.

In Montana, which outlawed gender-rating in 1983, some lawmakers want to repeal the ban, arguing fewer insurers are willing to operate in the state because of it.

Colorado is among several states that have banned gender-rating in the small-group insurance market, which in this state applies to businesses with 50 or fewer employees. For businesses with more than 50 employees, insurance companies can consider age and sex when setting rates — but the risk is spread throughout the company so everyone’s premiums are equal.

Reform advocates argue the policy adversely affects businesses where the workforce is predominantly female, such as child-care centers or home health agencies.

I just wonder if this issue is being addressed by the Congress as it looks at this whole health care reform thing? Seems to me it is a pretty big issue, as is the cost in general:

Care Requires Doctor Visits

A Denver Post review of online health insurance quotes found that a woman living in the same Denver ZIP code with the same date of birth would pay $20 to $35 per month — or up to $420 more per year — than a man for the same coverage. The rates reviewed were for basic, high-deductible plans, ranging from $71 to $158 per month.

NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado is among those fighting for change in the law, arguing that women are typically the responsible sex when it comes to birth control and that those prescriptions often require an annual doctor visit.

“Under the current health care system, women are penalized for taking responsibility for their own health,” said Toni Panetta, NARAL’s political director.

State Rep. Beth McCann, a Denver Democrat sponsoring the bill banning gender-rating, said insurance companies failed to produce “sufficient factual basis to charge different premiums for women and men.”

“It seems as though it’s somewhat arbitrary,” she said. “It’s a matter of equality and fairness.”

If the state legislation passes during the next legislative session, it probably would take effect about two years ahead of national reform.

Mary Saracino, a self-employed writer in Lafayette who has had to purchase insurance on the individual market, said she is shocked “and, dare I say, angry” that monthly premiums for women are higher.

“It seems highly discriminatory,” said Saracino, 55. “Would consumers put up with that if, say, men had to pay more for tires than women because some statistic says that male drivers are harder on their cars than female drivers?”

Uh, hell to the yes, it seems discriminatory! There just isn’t a whole helluva lot we can do about being female (without getting into the whole issue of gender-realignment surgery, that is). Or want to do anything about it. A whole lot of us are actually happy to be women. To make us pay more money, especially when we typically make less money, for health insurance is reprehensible.

Here are the places you can live without fear of being charged for being a woman:

Some Protection

These 11 states ban gender- rating by insurers in the individual insurance market:

California, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, and Washington. (Jennifer Brown: 303-954-1593 or jenbrown@denverpost.com)

That’s it.

And now for the big surprise. I am telling you, I was really shocked when I learned this. Would you like to take a guess as to how much Insurers actually make in profits? About 2.2% above the amount of money they take in. In fact, they are 35th out of 53 for industries. I have no love lost for insurance companies, especially in light of articles like the one above, but that is startling. It is in complete opposition to EVERYTHING we have heard about them. Are they a pain in the ass to deal with in general, like filing claims, or having claims paid? Often, yes. But are they raking in the cash hand over fist as we have been hearing from Congress on a daily basis? Apparently not. That shocked the crap out of me. That doesn’t immediately absolve them, of course, but it does greatly affect the very foundation for the arguments about health care in this country. Something to consider.

And since we are talking about women and health care, October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Many of us, myself included, need to take the appropriate actions for our health.

Along those lines, I would like to leave you with the following, a recent interview with Elizabeth Edwards:

A brave soul, Elizabeth is. And one who is in my thoughts and prayers as she continues to live with breast cancer (I am trying really hard not to say something snarky here about her husband…). All the best to her. And to all women who are living with this disease, and hopefully, being cured of it.

SOURCE

Emotional Rape: What Is It?

2009-10-28T22:40:00.000-04:00

Emotional rape can be defined as:

Emotional abuse characterized by patterned and purposeful behavior which purpose is to undermine and control the victim. It is an attack on the victim's personality rather than their body.

The term "emotional rape" implies a horrific crime, and that is exactly what the victim is going through.

In sexual rape, the term "without consent" refer to the victim having not agreed to sex. Emotional rape is the abuse of someone's higher emotions -love, self-respect, compassion, admiration - without consent. That is, the 'rapist' doesn't tell the truth to the victim and coerces them into sharing these emotions with them while having a covert agenda. (i.e. - sex, money, etc)

Experts agree that emotional rape is far more complex than verbal abuse. While the latter tends to be erratic and direct response to specific situations, emotional rape is, quite simply, a systematic destruction of someone's personality.

Emotional rape is the exploitation of a person's higher emotions through manipulation and/or deception. In her true story, two people began a romantic journey and ended up completely estranged because of his need to use her emotions to get what he wants.

For this reason, it is important that people become more educated about issues of psychological and emotional abuse. There are several forms of psychological abuse, like: Brainwashing, emotional blackmailing, emotional exploitation, emotional rape, and sometimes even hurtful verbal insults. I bet that most people don't even know that there is something called "Emotional rape."

Emotional rape aims to undermine the victim's self-respect and self-image leaving that person vulnerable to abuse. The victim starts developing a sense of dependence on the abuser, and thus feels incapable of escaping the emotional abuse circle. If they abuser discards them - they can stay in a downward spiral for years, if not a lifetime.

Brainwashing or NLP techniques are widely practiced without people's knowledge, in emotional-rape relationships. Because of lack of awareness about brainwashing, we find that numerous people become victims to this emotional rape technique.

from R.M.; one of the women I counsel on her abuse issues:

It is a heartless con game they play to keep their need for sexual supply or mind games filled. They know the words to say and the role to play to manipulate you into a relationship with them, but at the first sign that you are figuring them out or becoming 'inconvenient' to use & abuse, they will turn on you as if you were nothing.

No, others do not understand because they were not in your shoes. They don't want to know or believe you.

To the legal system and people on the outside of the situation, it is easier for them to buy into the explanation that the emotional rapist gives, that you are just "scorned, crazy" and "want revenge", if you voice your pain and trauma.

A man can profile a woman for months or years, set the stage for her vulnerability with circumstances (such as divorce, illness, break-ups) and then use her confusion and distress to literally devour her mentally with all sorts of false compassion and canned lines designed to lure her in. It's manipulation at its most evil.

He just moves on to the next person he finds to take advantage of.

It is the same grooming tactics used by pedophiles, but if you happen to be of age, no one cares. It doesn't matter that maybe you were very vulnerable, or that you may already be in an abusive situation and you were exploited, conned, and used. Even the emotional rapist will say you 'knew what you were getting into' or 'you were an adult' and blame you.

The legal system is blind to it.

People have actually come forward to expose these types of emotional rapists that go around exploiting women or men.

The perpetrators will do whatever they can to discredit their target, they will file false charges with some law enforcement friend to back them up, file frivolous law suits using 'selective' information, start hate sites or post their victims on websites with a bunch of lies designed to minimize the rapist's role.

They will sue if they know their victim is broke, and find an attorney that gets off on hurting the innocent victims themselves. Yes, they find the most asinine lawyer they can. And that is if the lawyer believes or doesn't expose their lies too!

What does it say about our judicial system whenever they can't even see the system being manipulated by these types of victimizers? You'd be surprised how many of them get away with physically or cyberstalking someone and then turning it around on their victims. They will go to great lengths to appear to be the victim!

They make their victims get rid of any evidence during the grooming of the target, while THEY keep records of contact with them to use later as their defense. Yes, this happens! In one incident a man who was exposed actually coerced his victim throughout the relationship telling her repeatedly to get rid of proof of contact; told her to do the contacting (to later -- make HER look like a stalker); to keep his number off her phone records, then used his records of her calls to file a harassment charge on her!

And anything that may have been kept - the emotional rapist will say was a lie, made up, planted by the scorned other party!

This was vindictive revenge. Period.

We need to be aware of what these sick individuals are capable of, even more, our legal system needs to get a clue! EMOTIONAL RAPE IS IN FULL SWING these days. Victims suffer devastating symptoms like PTSD and it is real!

EMOTIONAL RAPE CAN LEAD TO:
Social anxiety, also called social phobia, is a disorder characterized by overwhelming anxiety and excessive self-consciousness in everyday social situations. People with social anxiety have a persistent, intense, and chronic fear of being watched and judged by others and of being embarrassed or humiliated by their own actions. Their fear may be so severe that it interferes with ordinary activities. While many people with social anxiety recognize that their fear of being around people may be excessive or unreasonable, they are unable to overcome it. They often worry for days or weeks in advance of a dreaded situation.

Physical symptoms often accompany the intense anxiety of social phobia and include blushing, profuse sweating, trembling, and other symptoms of anxiety, including difficulty talking and nausea or other stomach discomfort. These visible symptoms heighten the fear of disapproval and the symptoms themselves can become an additional focus of fear. Fear of symptoms can create a vicious cycle: as people with social anxiety worry about experiencing the symptoms, the greater their chances of developing the symptoms. Social anxiety often runs in families and may be accompanied by depression.

How Common Is Social Anxiety?
• About 3.7% of the U.S. population ages 18 to 54 - approximately 5.3 million Americans - has social anxiety in any given year.
• Social anxiety occurs in women twice as often as in men, although a higher proportion of men seeks help for this disorder.

What Causes Social Anxiety?
Research to define causes of social anxiety is ongoing.

• Some investigations implicate a small structure in the brain called the amygdala in the symptoms of social anxiety. The amygdala is believed to be a central site in the brain that controls fear responses.

• One line of research is investigating a biochemical basis for the disorder. Scientists are exploring the idea that heightened sensitivity to emotional triggers may be physiologically or hormonally based. This may develop as a result of PTSD.

What Treatments Are Available for Social Anxiety?
There are two effective forms of treatment available for social anxiety: certain medications and a specific form of psychotherapy called cognitive-behavioral therapy. Depression medications include antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), as well as drugs known as high-potency benzodiazepenes.

Cognitive-behavior therapy is also very useful in treating social anxiety. The central component of this treatment is exposure therapy, which involves helping patients gradually become more comfortable with situations that frighten them. The exposure process often involves three stages. The first involves introducing people to the feared situation. In emotional rape situations, it would be ideal to have some sort of planned reconciliation or restorative restructuring between abuser and victim but this rarely, if ever happens. Because of this - the victim often develops an overwhelming fear of their abuser. The abuser often finds excuses to not see their victim - and it becomes a vicious cycle.

The second level is to increase the risk for disapproval in that situation so people build confidence that they can handle rejection or criticism.

The third stage involves teaching people techniques to cope with disapproval. In this stage, people imagine their worst fear and are encouraged to develop constructive responses to their fear and perceived disapproval.

Cognitive-behavior therapy for social anxiety also includes anxiety management training - for example, teaching people techniques such as deep breathing to control their levels of anxiety. Another important aspect of treatment is called cognitive restructuring, which involves helping individuals identify their misjudgments and develop more realistic expectations of the likelihood of danger in social situations.

Supportive therapy such as group therapy, or couples or family therapy to educate significant others about the disorder, is also helpful. Sometimes people with social anxiety also benefit from social skills training.

What Other Illnesses Co-Occur With Social Anxiety?
Social anxiety can cause lowered self-esteem and depression. To try to reduce their anxiety and alleviate depression, people with social anxiety may use alcohol or other drugs, which can lead to addiction. Some people with social anxiety may also have other anxiety disorders, such as panic disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

MORE ON EMOTIONAL RAPE

A NEW BOOK FOR VICTIMS

Welcome to the ObamaCare Hotline!

2009-10-28T22:27:00.003-04:00

by Ed Morrissey

Concerned Women for America has a series of humorous videos highlighting their objections to ObamaCare. They cleverly use one of the most annoying inventions of the modern age, the voice-mail menu system, to underscore their specific points as well as an unsubtle reminder of the bureaucracy to come after the government-forced overhaul of the American medical system. The first video actually has a human being pick up the phone, although the caller may not be terribly happy that she did in the end:

Next, CWA depicts what elder care will be like once the government-imposed overhaul fails to control costs and top-down rationing has to be implemented instead. It’s, ah, considerably shorter:

CWA has more of these videos at their site, and more to come as well.

Going Public

2009-10-27T06:48:00.000-04:00

Going public about any abuse you have endured can be a very healing and empowering experience. But it takes caution, thought and courage.

Before I went public about some of the abuse I experienced in my life I agonized about it. My main reason for doing it was to help others. To validate them so they'd know weren't alone. I did this remembering how alone I felt for many, many years with what went on my life. How isolated I felt and how it had destroyed most of my self-esteem.

I realized I would be laughed at, those who exploited me would deny it or call me names, I might look weak, stupid, vulnerable or all three. And my family would be affected.

I made very careful choices about what information I wanted to put out and what I didn't. I didn't want my family or anyone else's family hurt. I am adamantly against the concept of revenge. It's immature and silly. And that's not a good reason to do it because its just wrong.

As far as my family was concerned I didn't feel comfortable until my parents, of blessed memory, had both passed on and my sibling was o.k. with it. I am very protective of my children and my friends as well.

I've been accused of all sorts of things since coming forward. Lying, Loshan Hara, imagining it, being crazy, being jealous, being vindictive, being a whore, being called fat or old or insane... and so on. I've been threatened with harm and/or death and my children have been threatened. People I know have either been contacted to join in the public stoning of my character or asked not to speak to me. I've also received close to 100 letters of thanks, support and relief from fellow victims who are grateful I spoke out and provided them with information; which has made it all worth it.

All of these things are things victims have to think carefully about. Its very easy to have a knee jerk reaction and want some 'instant karma' but please think about the ripple effect. I believe telling is empowering and healing and can help others who think they are the only ones.

That said, I read this on THE AWARENESS CENTER's site and am reposting it here. The Awareness Center has a great site for Jewish Sexual Abuse Survivors and abuse survivors in general. I have a lot of admiration for Vicki Polin and Rabbi Dratch at JSafe.org for continuing their tireless work for victims like me:

Questions to Ask Yourself Before Disclosing, Confronting or Going Public About Surviving Sexual Violence

by Vicki Polin

WARNING

Survivors of various forms of sexual violence childhood sexual abuse, sexual assault, clergy abuse, professional sexual misconduct and sexual harassment) often want to disclose their experiences, confront their perpetrators, and/or speak-out about their victimization. This is done in an attempt to try to help educate the public.

Often the urge to share personal information about one self occurs during various stages of healing.

If you are considering speaking out PLEASE review the many questions listed in this pamphlet. You may also want to refer to "The Courage to Heal" (by Laura Davis and Ellen Bass) and "The Courage to Heal Workbook" (by Laura Davis).

It is also highly suggested that you consult with your family, friends and or therapist prior to speaking engagements.

Unfortunately, the reality is that our society has NOT been very accepting and/or understanding to the various issues faced by many adult survivors of sexual violence. The majority of the survivors who have confronted individuals, and/or have gone public -- shared that they had negative experiences after sharing their abuse histories with others. These survivors have all been met with disbelief -- been considered to be crazy, hysterical and/or delusional.

Too often survivors state that after the disclosures, they felt that they have lost a level of credibility. We, as survivors can not be responsible for the reactions of others. What we can do is take control of our actions and be prepared for the outcome if we decide to share our histories with others. It is vital for each individual decide for him/her self, and be sure that they are not being pressured to going public.

This is a reminder that once you share information about yourself -- you can NOT take it back!

If you thinking about going public, it is important to consider how you are going to do it.

1. Are you going to use your real name or a pseudonym?

2. Will you wear a disguise of some sort?

3. Will you be paid? How much?

4. If you are going on television will the producer of the show agree in writing to use a computer and distort both your voice and face (this is strongly suggested for the beginner)?

5. Will you have to sign a contract or an agreement? What will it say? It is strongly suggested you read the agreement BEFORE the day you are supposed to speak-out (and if possible have an attorney review it too)!

6. Will your attempt to educate the public cause harm to your credibility? Are you allowing yourself to be exploited?

7. Will it hurt you in your present or future career, social life, family life (including your partner/spouse and children)?

The Following are some questions you can ask yourself to help you make up your mind if disclosing, confronting and/or going public is right for you.

Directions: Answer the following questions on a separate piece of paper. Think about the following questions and your answers. Share your responses with at least one trusted support person. Ask for Feedback! BEFORE you disclose and/or confront someone.

1. Whom do I want to tell? Why?

2. Is someone or something internally/externally pressuring me to disclose my abuse history or confront my perpetrator(s)? Who and/or What is pressuring me?

3. If my plans includes going public, what are my motives? (It's suggested you consider all of the following questions before speaking in any public forum).

4. What do I hope to gain from this disclosure and/or confrontation? What could I loose by this disclosure and/or confrontation? Are my expectations realistic?

5. Have I thought about safety issues? What are they for me?

6. What are my motives for confronting my perpetrators? Do I have to be concerned about my safety?

7. Am I confronting my perpetrator(s) to gain information? Can anyone else supply me with the information I desire?

8. Would I be risking something I still want from my family (i.e. financial and/or emotional support, inheritance, employment in family business, other)?

9. Could I live with the possibility of being excluded from family gatherings (i.e. Holidays, Weddings, Deaths in my family. . .)? What would that mean to me? How would I deal with the loss?

10. Am I willing to take the risk of losing contact with other family members with whom I want to stay connected? What would that mean? Would I deal with the loss?

11. Am I grounded and stable enough to risk being called crazy?

12. Could I maintain my own reality in the face of denial?

13. Can I withstand the anger that I am likely to face from others?

14. Could I handle my own anger and/or other feelings? How would I do that?

15. Could I handle no reaction at all?

16. Do I have a solid enough support system to back me up before, during and after the confrontation?

17. Which support people agreed to be available before, during, and after?

18. Can I realistically imagine both the worst and best outcomes that might result? Could I live with either one?

19. How have I prepared myself for the Confrontation and/or disclosure?

20. Other issues I've considered regarding going public?

Remember!: It is important that you focus on yourself and your own personal needs before deciding to go disclose, confront and/or go public. This is also true before, during and after any confrontation.

Try to remember what you want or need to say (for your own personal needs and not anyone else's), how you want to handle the situation, rather than on any response you may hope to get.

Plan to process the confrontation and/or disclosure with your therapist and/or trusted support person(s).

Remember, this can be an ongoing task (and that's ok).

CLICK HERE FOR A PRINTABLE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT

MORE

Rush: P'WNED!

2009-10-26T06:18:00.000-04:00

For goodness sake, Rush! I am not a fan of Obambi's (and I am certainly not a fan of yours) but can you just PRETEND to have some journalistic integrity and check things before you bloviate about them? Oh wait! I forgot - you don't have to - you're Rush!

It must have seemed so perfect. An obscure blogger unearths some pages of President Obama's college thesis. The report supposedly comes from big-time journalist Joe Klein of Time magazine. And the thesis has some real gems: like Obama's disdain for the Constitution.

The whole thing was nothing more than a satirical post on a humor blog. But Rush Limbaugh, who quoted from the supposed thesis on his radio show, sure wasn't laughing. Here's how it went down.

An unknown blogger picked up on a made-up post meant as a joke, which claimed that Joe Klein had gotten his hands on 10 pages of student Obama's college thesis. Rush Limbaugh jumped on it, which immediately sparked Web searches on "obama thesis."

Supposedly titled "Aristocracy Revisited," the excerpt revealed the president had "doubts" about the "so-called founders." Juicy. Except not true. Limbaugh discovered halfway through his show that he'd been had, but defended himself by saying basically the thesis felt true. Listen in to Rush's mea sorta culpa.

Joe Klein finally jumped in, and called the report "nonsense" on his Swampland blog, and the blogger who thought the hoax was real also apologized.

Let's hope someone kept their sense of humor in all this. Still, for a humble post to go from humor blog to major media outlet sure seems impressive. Someone ought to write their thesis on it. For real.

SOURCE

NARCISSISTS ARE NEVER WRONG
The foundation of narcissism is self-inflation. It is hard for someone with normal self-awareness, who acknowledges their shortcomings and vulnerabilities, to understand how anyone could have total and unquestioning belief in their own perfection, superiority and greatness. It is inconceivable that ordinary, fallible humans could have such exaggerated beliefs about themselves.

Our inability to understand such delusion leads most of us to assume that problem behaviour must be the result of low self-esteem and over-compensation. But throughout history into modern times countless dictators, religious and cult leaders, aristocrats, royals and tyrants have believed they had the right to control and dominate other people or even the entire world.

The philosopher Bertrand Russell was perhaps only slightly exaggerating when he claimed that all men (and presumably many women) want to be God and that some can’t believe they are not. The narcissist, the heartbreaker, may not be a potential dictator believing they have an inalienable right to dominate (although some are) but their self-images of superiority are not poles apart.

In the narcissist’s mind they are not only the centre of their own world but the centre of the lives of everyone around them and more important to other people than they are to themselves. They are the star and everyone else the supporting cast.

Just as we might see ourselves blown up to giant size in the distorting mirrors at a carnival, narcissists see themselves magnified, as bigger, better, and more important than they actually are. Narcissists believe they are already automatically whatever they want to be, that they need no teacher or role model to learn from, that they need no achievement to work towards, no maturity or growth to strive for, no ideals to pursue. They are perfect just as they are.

Narcissists truly believe they are more important than anyone else. They may have talent and ability, but never as much as they think. They exaggerate the smallest asset and if they lack some quality, they will create it in their imagination or denigrate it as being beneath them. They might, for example, despised and disparaged anything at which they do not excel. They may be the most ordinary of men and women or even far below average yet still believe themselves to be superior to almost everyone.

Narcissists believe they are unique and extraordinary and expect others to acknowledge and applaud their superiority whether or not there is any evidence to support it. Such self-inflation makes them immune to self-doubt and allows them to convince themselves they are all the things they have ever wanted to be. They are incapable of seeing themselves as ordinary or average.

Like Narcissus, they love and admire an illusion, an inaccurate, idealized self and not the reality of a whole, authentic, if imperfect self. Beyond the image of perfection though, they are hollow because he or she denies, ignores, and neglects any aspect of themselves that is less than perfect and so rejects who they really are. They have no interest in discovering the whole self beneath the image of perfection, preferring to avoid self-awareness and self-examination with the assurance that if they believe something (that they are perfect) then it is so.

Such grandiosity leads to a feeling of invincibility, to recklessness, and an overestimation of one’s ability. The narcissistic girl for example will be casual about birth control because she does not believe she will get pregnant, drugs hold no danger because the narcissist never believes he could become addicted, speeding is OK because he is the best driver and accidents only happen to other people, not him. He or she will not listen to advice or let others contribute to decisions because their judgment is better than anyone else’s. Peter Sellers for example, thought nothing of telling specialist professionals - directors, cameramen, writers, even veteran actors - how to do their jobs. Although he left school at thirteen he didn’t think anyone else was as clever or talented as him and believed no matter what the circumstances or area of expertise, he knew best.

The narcissist may never actually say the words ‘I am better than you, I am perfect, infallible, invincible’. They may not even consciously think such things but they feel, know, and experience them as reality. Such a sense of superiority cannot help but affect relationships. The narcissist does not believe in equality or democracy but a hierarchy with them at the top. They don’t really believe that anyone, with the possible exception of a small elite they may admire, is their equal and they see no reason why they should waste time on lesser beings (unless they are of some use).

Narcissists make poor romantic partners because their lovestyle is so damaging. Any partner is naturally their inferior so can never be their equal and the relationship will never be equal. A partner is expected to be forever eager to please, to be devoted, accommodating, obliging, and singularly focussed on the narcissist’s needs, feelings, and desires. They demand obedience, unconditional surrender and total, unquestioning commitment. They on the other hand give only what they are inclined to, which is never as much as they expect to receive. Once a narcissist defines someone as ‘less’ than themselves (which is virtually everyone) it is impossible to prove, or to convince them, otherwise.

Because the narcissist believes they are innately superior they never feel the need to make an effort at anything. They believe everything should come to them automatically, and by never testing their abilities, never have to find them lacking. They don’t need to study or work hard because with their superiority they will naturally excel, and if they don’t, then the goal is not worth wanting. They don’t need to take care of their health, drive carefully, or weigh risks like ordinary people because nothing bad can happen to them. Their sense of security comes from their feelings of superiority rather than from any real achievements or close relationships.

To sustain their sense of superiority narcissists deny faults, limitations, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities. They never admit to being wrong or to making mistakes. They reject anything that challenges their narcissism because to them, by definition, anyone or anything that does not feed their ego or agree with their view of themselves as superior is automatically wrong and worthless.

Asking for help, advice, or directions is beneath them as that would mean admitting needing assistance, which would mean that they are less than perfect. Anyone needing help is an inferior who can’t survive on his or her own. Narcissists think they should automatically know everything and if they don’t, they will pretend to. It is impossible to learn from mistakes when you don’t believe you make any, and difficult to learn anything when you believe you know it all and in any case, how can lesser beings have anything to teach their superior? As a student for instance, the artist Picasso used to brag that there was nothing he could learn from any of his art teachers. Being perfect means you have nothing to learn

The Danger of Denial

2009-10-24T23:49:00.000-04:00

This article is another gem from Kathy Krajco on Narcissism. It is part of my blogging about emotional, verbal or mental abuse this month on this as well as my other blog to raise awareness about non-physical Domestic Violence.

"Where were you when I was burned and broken?
While the days slipped by from my window watching
Where were you when I was hurt and helpless?
Because the things you say
and the things you do
surround me
While you were hanging yourself
on someone else's words
Dying to believe in what you heard
I was staring straight into the shining sun"
Coming Back to Life - PINK FLOYD/The Division Bell

But just a note: Apply this to the current political correctness and denial of the DANGER of the Islamofascist tide in the U.S. - and you may just get the big wakeup call you needed.

FACING FACTS
by Kathy Krajco

One reason why the victims don't face facts about a narcissist is because we don't want to face the fact that we mean nothing to them. The ego doesn't want to know that. For, being valued by another at absolute zero is a degrading value judgement.

When this is someone in your family, that fact is traumatic. We think about how much we have loved them, how often we have stuck up for them, how many times in the past we sacrificed for them. And here all along they cared NOTHING for us in return!

They just fed off us like a parasite, taking us for a sap.

Outside the rain fell dark and slow
While I pondered on this dangerous
but irresistible pastime
I took a heavenly ride through your silence
I knew the moment had arrived
For killing the past and coming back to life
Coming Back to Life - PINK FLOYD/The Division Bell

This is why denial is so dangerous. Facing facts, no matter how unpleasant, is better. Because when you do address the issue in your mind, you see who is degraded by the narcissist's refusal to relate humanly to human beings.

Not the human beings, that's for sure.

Knowing that makes you able to accept the truth about them.

And when you accept the truth about them, you break the cycle of abuse.

SOURCE

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO JBLOG ME