THE TRULY IMPORTANT THINGS

"Kardashian is hoping for major weight loss!"

Yep, that's Huffington Post's lead teaser in one of it's pop-ups on my computer.

You see - that's the "real news". One wonders if it perhaps should be carried on a separate page entitled: "Huffington For Kids."

Yep, the real news would not be the recent Supreme Court decisions - their impact on this country - whether Proposition 8 in California was legal - if DOMA needed to be reversed - whether the state of Texas is truly wacko - and predicting whether or not Alabama and Missippippi will now decide they can go back to the 50's with their voting restrictions.

Honest, it is not even the Zimmerman trial - covered in it's entirety by Brighthouse's news channel 9 - nor is it about Paula Deen ( which we'll save for a future blog).

A popular media source informs us that the real priority in our country is to determine whether or not naming a baby "North West" really was a good choice.

Yep, that'll keep us all awake this week. Many sleepless nights of worry ahead.

What do I worry about? Well, important things - like proper historical research:

Did Paul Revere really proclaim: "One if by land - Two if by sea - and Three if the Widow Brown is home alone tonight?"

Maybe I can ask Kim and Kanye.

"Yeezus"?

JUST WONDERING

If those folks in Pittsburgh - so sure the city desperately needs professional basketball - are a little put off by the lousy coverage of the NBA finals in the PostGazette. It was like playing "Where's Waldo?"

Extra! Extra!: Michelle Bachman has decided Snowden is definitely a traitor. So, can we assume "It's a done deal?"

Where will the Pirates end up this year?  I reviewed USA Todays baseball coverage and found - with the exception of their own division -  they'd have been in first place in every other one. Please tell ESPN.

So, when you fire the guy who founded your business, one that had a 23% gain in the most recent 1/4 and revenue of 2.48 billion in the latest fiscal year - do you think it's fair to conclude somebody might be PO'd at George Zimmer  - and "didn't like the way he looked"?

When your 7,000 signature petition to the White House to rule against teaching creation in public schools (already agreed upon by The Supreme Court) needs another 93,000 petitions to be considered by Obama, want to wager a guess how many of the 7K -when on their deathbed-  will blow the dust off the family Bible and frantically search for loopholes?

Is it just a coincidence that those yahoos in Congress who are still busy looking for loopholes of their own as to the current restrictive standards for the banking industry receive "7 times" more campaign contributions from Da bankers than those who resist the bank lobbyists and who, correctly, fear another 2008 debacle?

Why are the Republicans continuing to resist filling the federal Court of Appeals openings for the District of Columbia Circuit and accusing Obama of "court packing" - a political strategy they had no problem with when "W' was President?

And, not to be overlooked, did you notice: Democrats have gone viral over the GOP tactics threatening filibusters to get their way. Which makes you wonder: "Does it matter not that Democrats allegedly blocked four times as many confirmation votes via filibusters against Bush nominees than the GOP has done against Obama's selections?"

Is voting in a Congressional election getting to the point when - if we still actually care - we'll just flip a coin - or simply not bother at all - go sip our tea - and watch as this once great country slowly goes to Hell.

After writing several blogs arguing that ethical and illegal business violations will continue to grow exponentially until such a time as we actually punish these guys as criminals, should I now be happy with SEC's forthcoming decision to do just that in the future - or wait for even more creative loopholes?

Again, just wondering.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc

Why Is It?

Why is it  - that it seems the reportedly 93,895 lawyers in Florida all appear to advertise on my TV?  Who has that kind of money?

I have interacted with both defense and plaintiff attorneys for about 35 years and found most of them to be honest. For those who might disagree, "being clever does not necessarily mean you're also dishonest".We need attorneys. Maybe just not 94,000.

This blog is just pleading for a more level playing field in this protractive attorney/insurance company debacle and is partially based upon a feeling that the  media - for years and years - have pretty much given the lawyers a free pass as to accuracy in their television ads.

Wouldn't you like to turn on the "6'clock News"and see an Investigative Report on attorney fees, legal conflict of interest, disbarment statistics, misleading ads, ambulance chasers, runners - rules for contacting the parties involved - and the bottom line net recovery by the victim?

When will our curiosity to determine the net recovery of Lottery winners include a similar desire to know the net recovery in a big legal settlement in the papers? The media answers questions only about the first.

The legal ads portray the attorneys as modern day "Robin Hoods"  - taking from "the rich insurance companies" to give to "the poor." Any day now, I expect to see two really overexposed legal "hams" adorn themselves with bows, arrows,  feathered hats, and pointed shoes.

That "Robin Hood" comparison might be accurate assuming "Robin and His Hoods" kept 33 1/3 to 40% of their take from King John.

Are all the insurance companies guilty of nefarious claim practices as the attorney ads would seem to imply?"  If not, what percentage are good insurance companies -  or do attorneys see that as an oxymoron?

Look! I'm all for cleaning up the unfair claim practices of any suspect insurer
and my insurance background/ethics involvement will attest to this.

However, I'm just not supportive of placing by inference "all insurers" in this same "bad egg" basket, as so many of the law firms continue to do in what I see as "misleading'' advertisements.

Why is it - I believe we continue to be deluged with these ads without our truly good investigative reporters and/or legislators taking a good look at the accuracy of those ads? Maybe I just missed them.

 Why is it - I'm starting to believe the alleged silence is simply because it's not just the military who enjoy membership in the "Good Old Boys" club?

THE PARTY LINE

Yeah, I know the title of this blog suggests yet another attack on the two political parties in this country. Not so!

The "party line" subject pertains to us as kids who dared to listen in to the conversations of other folks who shared our party line - and, yeah, we did get punished if caught.

But, it appears this is a different time. Not only are party lines a thing of the past, apparently, so is punishment. Ask Sanford and Weiner.

We have an amazing ability to forget and forgive. Partially that is due to the fact we are a forgiving culture and partially it's due to the fact the last devastating act committed by someone or some group is quickly surpassed by the news of a new and more devastating one.

This time the act in question was that of collecting a massive data base of telephone usage by millions of Americans who are not or were not suspected of doing anything wrong.

The next step was having to listen to 'the spinners"(not musicians per se)The initial responses were varied: "We need to relax. This isn't anything new". (Harry Reid). (This also apparently makes it OK).

Because we want to be unbiased, we also offer the observation from Georgian Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss: "I am unaware of any citizen who has registered a complaint about the program." ( Hey, anybody out there who had a clue your calls were being monitored?)

The administration hastened to advise us that no conversations were listened to" "It was just "metadata that was gathered - and patterns looked for - that would expose terrorists". (That's reassuring - who on earth would believe this administration would ever lie?)

You got to wish we had elected that Illinois Senator who advised us protectively in 2007:  "No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime." (Ah, s--t - we did elect him - twice!)

Of all the Senate members who came up with a reasonable comment about this so-called scandal - who would have thought it would be our globe trotting Republican member from Arizona - John McCain?

"Obviously if they are trying to track bad people, then I think there's legitimacy to it, but is there sufficient oversight? Is it sufficiently narrow in scope? We just need to hear more about it, but it is a matter of concern." (a-h-h, Johnny, that's why we voted for you.).

But, I want to retract that. Who wants to be investigated next because they uttered "The Party Line"?

THE MONEY GAME AND THE WOLF

A short blog.

You've got to laugh through your tears as to what is happening politically.

Congress calls in Apples CEO to chastise Apple for how they used foreign investments and our current tax laws to save one heckuva lot of tax dollars when Apple might have helped bail out this countries finances had it acted in the country's best interests.

It reminds me of the story about the Dad who gave his son a dollar if he would forego eating dinner and go up to bed instead.

The meal might have consisted solely of  Brussel Sprouts. The story does not inform us here. Therefore, we are left to assume that money was tight, so the son said, "OK." and grabbed the cash.

When Dad finished his dinner, he sneaked up to his son's bedroom - found him fast asleep - and retrieved the dollar bill - which he put back in his wallet.

So, who supported the liberal tax laws allowing corporations to keep their money overseas?

After exhaustive research we find that it was Congress who allowed the handling of overseas profits to continue. There is so much out there about this subject that it would be unfair to "cherry pick" only those articles that support my blog theme here. So, some sparse comments:

The party of "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf"' were probably quick to blame the people on the other side of the aisle - or at the very least - The White House.

Yet, we can only assume it was solely the Republicans who were responsible as the Democrats would never have allowed such a faux pas. We know this because we have been diligently listening to the liberal media and reading various blogs in lockstep that it is the Republicans - and only the Republicans - who are so tied into accepting Corporate largesse.

Matthew 7 (1 through 3):

"Judge not, that you be not judged For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with each measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why behold you the mote that is in your brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in your eye?"

Told you it would be a short one.

THE FRENCH CONNECTION

"You know your country is dying when you have to make a distinction between what is moral and ethical and what is legal." - John De Armond


Traditionally - at least long after D-Day - we have had a tendency to be suspicious of those who we often referred to as our "French Allies".

Cultural differences and politics have often been the cause of the rift between the two countries.

Many Americans seem to make an adjustment to their thinking only when the "New Beaujolais" hits our wine stores and our favorite local French restaurant.

For those of you who favor a non-alcohol consumption stance you are still free to abhor anything French.

In our last blog we addressed the ADHD diagnosis and a difference in treatment conclusions by France and our own country.

As you can assume from the comments above, many folks - particularly those who mistakedly won't even consume french fries or french toast in order to demonstrate their enmity - a difference in our medical approach to treating ADHD is no more of a surprise than the perceived difference in morality for the two countries.

In reading Dr. Marilyn Wedge's article in a recent "Psychology Today" I was struck by another cultural difference that she believes is contributing to the smaller percentage of ADHD diagnoses in France. It is that which pertains to the way we administer discipline to our children.

Warning: For anybody who has taken the time to study statistical conclusions it would be apparent the difference in the numbers of diagnosed ADHD cases may simply be based upon the way the numbers are compiled and what it takes in France to qualify your kid as ADHD.

Wedge reports a couple of distinctions in France. I was most impressed by the dietary rules in the two countries - and no - it doesn't have anything to do with possibly serving wine to French kids with their meals.

It is much more basic. Wedge bases many of her conclusions on the observations of  therapist Pamela Druckerman in her recent book, "Bringing Up Bebe."

Druckerman has determined "French children are generally better behaved than their American counterparts. "Whoa. That's a mouthful all by itself - but, it gets better." (depending on your point of view).

It also raises a question or two. Like, not having read the book, we have to be curious to determine at what age many of these "well behaved' children go through the Jekyl/Hyde transformation, grow into adults, and perceive all of us as Ugly Americans.

It is said by the authors that the behavioral differences of the children in the two countries are due to the varying child raising approaches.

The French allegedly provide their children with a firm "cadre" (frame or structure) particularly - but not limited to - how it has application to the consumption of snacks by the kids.

 "Children are not allowed, for example, to snack whenever they want. Meal times are at four specific times of the day. French children (reportedly) learn to wait patiently for their meals, rather than eating snack foods whenever they feel like it."

Furthermore. "French parents let their babies "cry it out" if they are not sleeping through the night by the age of  'four months'.

Despite this observation, Druckerman suggests that French parents love their children every bit as much as we do.

She offers as proof that they give them piano lessons, take them to sports practice, and encourage them to make the most of their  talents. (that seems to have worked well for the French born San Antonio Spurs Tony Parker.)

But, Druckerman believes the key to the way the French raise their kids is that they have an entirely different philosphy as to discipline: "Consistently enforced limits, in the French view, make children feel safe and secure. Clear limits, they believe, actually make a child feel happier and safer - something that is congruent with my own experience as both a therapist and a parent."

Druckerman, concludes: "French parents believe that hearing the word 'no' rescues children from 'the tyranny of their own desires. And spanking, when used judiciously, is not considered child abuse in France."

(If any of my children are reading this, be assured your Mom and I did not spend any time in France, although it may appear so. We decided to pitch the Dr. Spock manual - but did agree with him that the "one size fits all approach" in child raising was wrong.)

Why do the two therapists believe the French child raising techniques work?

They are convinced that "French children do not need medications to control their behavior because they learn self-control early in their lives.

They add, "This is because they grow up in families in which the rules are well understood and a clear family hierarchy is firmly in place."

And the crusher: "Parents are firmly in charge of  their kids - instead of the American family style - in which the situation is all too often vice versa."

The therapists (author's) conclusions as to proper therapeutic approaches are definitely more Gestalt oriented than our softer Rogerian approach - which often allows the patient/client to determine when they are cured."

My experience has been there is a reason for many types of therapeutic approaches and techniques for child raising. Each patient/client is different - as are their kids.

However,  this is the first time I have heard that a firm disciplinary approach can beget a positive medical consequence by reducing the explosion of ADHD diagnoses in this country.

Interesting conclusion.

NOT MY KIDS!

It is a tradition - handed down through the ages - for parents to declare:  "Our kids are the good ones."

It is also a tradition for those generations who preceded these same parents down the parenting highway to be critical as to how the following generations are raising their kids.

Currently, the terms "helicopter parents" - "narcissistic" - "over protective" - "neglectful"  etc are often used by so-called experts to describe today's parents.

One problem causing disagreement among these experts has to do with kids and health issues.

The problem is finding out why we appear to have so many more children in this country who are diagnosed with ADHD than are found in other developed nations.

You may recall ADHD. It's the condition allegedly responsibile for the extremely overactive physical displays and tantrums  demonstrated  - by our grandkids -  that often sends us grandparents to the local bar after a suddenly shortened visit to our kids.

The big question is how we treat the condition in this country. Are we doing all  we can do?

 Should we conclude that ADHD is a biological-neurological disorder that - while not being cured - can be masked with the use of psycho-stimulant medications such Ritalin and Adderall - and that's really all we can do for now?

I don't mean to startle anyone who is a parent of ADHD kids but the answer to that question may be found in - of all places - France. This is according to family therapist Marilyn Wedge Ph.D, as reported in Psychology Today.

Apparently France has a much lower number of diagnosed ADHD kids. It is said this is partially because French child psychiatrists view ADHD as a biological disorder that has psycho-social and situational causes, and, of course, some also suggest: partially because "it's France."

 I'm not so sure about the last conclusion regardless of the cultural differences in the two countries.

The French do not rely on our increasingly criticized DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual). It seems our medical folks recently decided to add - not subtract - a number of anomalies  - which, of course, can also be treated with prescriptions; but which we of my generation referred to as  "kids being kids."  - or in psychology friendly terms - "normal childhood behavior."

While definitely not possessing either the "authority" or "medical creds" of mental health experts in this county - I, as an observant parent and grandparent, have both studied and taught the therapy approach to changing behavior. That was a long time ago.

What is current in my thinking, however, is why we're so stuck on "curing" every perceived ailment for our kids by shoving a pill in their mouth.

As much as I question "the prescription approach" I'm quick to admit that therapy is not always the answer either. But, neither do I believe it should be ignored in appropriate circumstances.

I believe life is a continuom along which we often keep swinging from one extreme to the other during our lifetime based upon a variety of mostly environmental influences. Thus, I'm  seriously questioning what others and myself are seeing regarding the current methodology approach for treating ADHD.

Simply put, "Are we treating our kids emotional problems with drugs and failing to adequately explore other possibilities that may have had positive results in the past?"

When doctors appeared to have more time to seriously examine and question their patients - as opposed to today's trend of  "Wham Bam - Thank You Maam" and then frantically running from room to room and patient to patient because they overbooked -  are our medical practioners doing us a disservice?

It just seems to me that the old fashioned approach of taking the time to talk to their patients was often responsible for developing a rapport between doctor and patient that was often curative all by itself.

Similarly, your responsibility as a therapist is to determine causation and arrive at an appropriate treatment regimen for emotional problems by asking meaningful questions and listening carefully to the answers.

"It ain't gonna happen over night". It takes time to develop the required trust - but, when it works it usually has long lasting results. It takes a while to effectively peel an onion.

I'm as much concered about the growing "medical - pharmaceutical complex" as Ike was worried about the "industrial-military complex" and it's consequences back in his day.

Sure, it could also be because I hate sitting in the doctor's waiting rooms with my fellow seniors - proudly wearing our aging monogrammed golf shirts, shorts, and low cuts while we watch all those young, well dressed and beautifully coiffured drug sales people being ushered into the doctors office ahead of us in order to allow them to ply their trade.

I'm sure if I took up a collection in the waiting room from other impatient seniors, we too could come up with enough cash to buy donuts for the employees.

But, I'm sure my thinking goes much deeper than that feeble attempt at humor.

The French prefer to ignore our physically induced ADHD theories and instead treat the underlying psycho-social and 'situational issues' that may be the contributing factor for children.

It simply means that the approach in France is not so much to assume the problem is in a child's brain but that it possibly could be due to nutritional causes as well as the child's social context. They treat the symptoms with psychotherapy or family counseling.

They also examine the possible presence of foods with artifical colors, certain preservatives and or/allergens as a causation of ADHD. They are aware, as are clinicians in this country, that dietary interventions - including for ADHD kids - can sometimes help address the childs problems.

They also look at parenting styles for child rearing, particularly as it has to do with discipline that is consistent - no matter how inconvenient it may be for the parents to administer. To obtain that information takes time.

So, what's the answer? Would you rather have some psychologist or psychiatrist examining your child rearing skills and what kind of trauma you and your spouse might be causing to your children's growth - or simply give the kids a couple of pills and you all go back to sleep?

"Hey, my Johnny is a Good Kid - as long as he takes his meds."

---------------------------------------------------
More in a later blog on child rearing differences in the two countries - and NO - I don't want to move to France.

 I just want to understand why we're so dependent on drugs in this country and also apparently so afraid to look at another country's approach in raising both of our country's most important asset -our kids.