Category Archives: Psychiatry

UPADTED: Porno Mom And Her Freaky Family (The Noble Savage Model)

America, Celebrity, Ethics, Family, Gender, Psychiatry, Psychology & Pop-Psychology, Sex

The following is an excerpt from “Mother’s Day Disturbia: Porno Mom And Her Sucky Kid”:

“Unseemliness” is how Charles Murray might call the May 2012 Time Magazine cover, genuflecting to modern motherhood in America. In “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010,” the libertarian political scientist mentions the “collapse of a sturdy code” [of conduct] in American society, rendering the nouveau riche upper class indistinguishable in that sense from the ever-accreting lower class.

“Obscene” better captures the mien of the Madonna and child that brazenly stare into the camera—and at America. TIME’s cover-models are Jamie Lynne Grumet, 26, self-styled, “attachment” parent, and Aram, her chunky, garden gnome of a child. …

In any event, Aram is a real feeder, if you know what I mean.

Grumet junior is large for his tender age of four. His gaze is cunning, never cute. The miniature man already reaches up to his non-gnomic mom’s waist. To help Aram reach the prized pair—mom’s perky breasts—TIME’s artistic director has used a stool.

All the better to satisfy mom’s “maternal” urges, “Nudge nudge, wink wink. Say no-more, say no-more.”

One other tender touch: Porno-mom’s pelvis is tilted slightly in the direction of her gnome’s grubby hands.

At this stage, bullying would be the best corrective intervention this kid could hope for. In a better world—one in which propriety had not been pulverized—odious Aram would be taunted mercilessly at play school. Were he to make it that far, boob-boy is sure to be smacked about the head by a few manly college boys, later in life.

For now, Aram remains the play thing of bigger bullies, caught as he is in a maelstrom of mommy dearest’s making. Horrified, television spectators watched the advocacy for the onansim known as “attachment parenting,” with the fascination with which you’d watch maggots crawl in-and-out of a CSI corpse.

“A lot of people say, you know, you can’t really be intimate with your husband if you’re co-sleeping and … those are kind of myths, too,” vaporized Mrs. Grumet on NBC’s Today show, to the leering approval of the mad-hatter behind Jamie Lynne Grumet’s Method Parenting.

Dr. William Sears was on set to dispense Delphic advice to moms who don’t measure-up. “These are tools, not rules,” this tool of a doctor effused.

Viewers of this uniquely American vaudeville were assured by Mrs. Grumet that…

Read the complete column, “Mother’s Day Disturbia: Porno Mom And Her Sucky Kid,” now on RT.

If you’d like to feature this column in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

Support this writer’s work by clicking to “Recommend,” “Tweet” and “Share” “Return To Reason” on WND, and the “Paleolibertarian Column” on RT.

UPDATE: THE NOBLE SAVAGE MODEL. There is no way that what this “boob of very little brain” is doing is right. She has conditioned the boy to be a nuisance and a cling-on to satisfy her (possibly not maternal) needs.

Somehow people defer to Third-World women as a models to emulate. Why? Is it because backward is more natural? As I point out in my book, Into The Cannibal’s Pot, these women often breast-feed their toddlers even when they themselves are HIV positive, for fear of being stigmatized by their tribesmen and women. Is this model of magical, irrational thinking one that the morons of the western media are promoting?

Besides, in primitive, poor societies, what you see are women who are forced to let starving toddlers, who might weigh what a one-year-old western toddler would, hang on their shriveled breasts—breasts that yield very little by way of fluid. This “practice” is dictated, mostly, by starvation.

The Noble Savage argument is ignoble. It is no model for advanced, western societies. All Arguments from Primitive Cultures for the “onanism” of “attachment parenting” are plain pathetic.

Evil, Not ILL

Crime, Pseudoscience, Psychiatry, Psychology & Pop-Psychology

CNN’s Erin Burnett tweeted incoherently that “The grandfather of #Chardon H.S. shooting says ‘no one has the right to shoot people because he had a rough life.'” It is unclear from the news anchor’s tweet whose grandfather spoke so unconventionally in favor of conventional morality on her OutFront show.

I saw this “grandfather.” He surprised Burnett with his implicit suggestions that, contra to her other self-serving tele-experts, bad behavior should not be placed beyond the strictures of traditional morality, making it amenable to their “therapeutic” interventions. To listen to the nation’s psychiatric gurus is to come to believe that crimes are caused, not committed. Perpetrators don’t do the crime, but are driven to their dirty deeds by a confluence of uncontrollable factors, victims of societal forces or organic brain disease. The Drew Pinskys of the world conjure so-called mental diseases either to control contrarians or to exculpate criminals.

The paradox at the heart of this root-causes fraud is that causal theoretical explanations are invoked only after bad deeds have been committed. Good deeds have no need of mitigating circumstances. These liberals (including most conservatives, who are now liberals in all but name) acknowledge human agency if—and only if—adaptive actions are involved.

As the psychiatric shaman has it, a killer is not evil, but ill. The modern-day witch doctor’s potions can thus exorcise evil, as evil is merely a manifestation of organic disease. Just like cancer.

UPDATED: Drug Pusher & Purchaser Innocent In Libertarian Law (On Selecting for Low Character)

Celebrity, Free Will Vs. Determinism, Individual Rights, Justice, Law, libertarianism, Liberty, Psychiatry, Psychology & Pop-Psychology, War on Drugs

The trial of Dr. Conrad Murray, “the doctor charged in Michael Jackson’s death,” drags on. “Authorities contend Murray gave Jackson a fatal dose of the anesthetic propofol in the singer’s bedroom on June 25, 2009. Defense attorneys claim the singer gave himself the fatal dose.” (WAPo)

Murray agreed to become Jackson’s personal physician for $150,000 a month but was never paid because the singer died before the contract was signed.

Jackson, whom I defended when ‘Mad Dog’ [Thomas] Sneddon picked up the star’s scent and gave chase, was a deeply disturbed, body dysmorphic, drug-addicted man. But he was an adult, not a child. His decisions were his to make. He hired Murray to feed narcotics directly into his bloodstream.

If not for the medicine of this admittedly shoddy practitioner, Jackson would have ended-up dead, in a back alley with a needle in his stick arm, a long time ago.

In the libertarian law, Dr. Conrad Murray is innocent (if odious).

A drug purchaser and a drug pusher have agreed on an exchange. If it is voluntary and consensual, then both parties expect to benefit ex ante. A voluntary exchange is, by definition, always mutually beneficial inasmuch as, at the time of the exchange, the buyer valued the purchase more than the money he paid for it, and the seller valued the money more than the goods he sold.

There will always be meddling third parties seeking to circumscribe and circumvent a voluntary activity not to their liking. Some feminists want to stop lovers of pornography from making or consuming it. Other busybodies would like to stop adults from gambling. These third parties have no place in a transaction between consenting adults, unless these transactions infringe directly—not foreseeably—on their property or person.

Any transaction that was at the time of occurrence voluntary, and hence beneficial to the participants, can, retrospectively, be denounced as harmful and regrettable.

The legislator has no place in a voluntary exchange between adults, as dodgy and as dangerous as they may be (like dwarf tossing). Murray might be an unsavory character. He would not be my choice for a medic, but he does not belong in jail.

UPDATED (Oct. 27): ON SELECTING FOR LOW CHARACTER. Some interesting comments have been made below, under Comments. First, not to be schoolmarmish, but addiction is not a disease. Please click “Drug War,” on my Articles Archive, and read some of these titles. The category of “Psychiatry and The Therapeutic State” is also relevant to grasping that the disease model of misbehavior has no place in a free society:

Charlie Sheen’s Out of the AA ‘Troll Hole’
VICES ARE NOT CRIMES
HARRY’S HOUNDERS AND OTHER VILLAGE IDIOTS
Addicted To The Drug War
Tokers Are Terrorists Now
Medical Mumbo Jumbo Does Not Explain Addiction
Addictions Are About Behavior, Not Disease

As to the good points raised in Comments. We live in the real world which is encumbered by positive law. Analysis must avoid, in as much as possible, levitating between what “is” and what “ought to be” (although all libertarian analysis, given its deference to natural law, will so err).

The type of “service” Jackson required from this Murray man was one that few competent, above-board practitioners would agree to perform. I’ve used a similar argument to make the case that our immigration law selects for low character: yes, left-libertarians like to believe that the best and bravest of humanity will cross our borders illegally. As an immigrant who knows a bit about the US visa system, I assure you that this is seldom the case. (Read more.)

It appears that poor Jackson did not have the fiduciary and intellectual wherewithal to sign a contract specifying Murray’s responsibilities. But even had Jackson done that prudent thing, Murray would have likely flouted his obligations, irrespective of the Hippocratic oath he took. See comment above. Risk is implicit in buying a dodgy service such as anesthetizing yourself to sleep every night. However much I paid my doctor, I know she would refuse. She’s a go-by-the-book woman.

What is true is that if all drug dealing were licit, Jackson would have had access to a better practitioner. However, private medical associations would have probably not licensed Murray and would refuse to give their medical imprimatur to individuals who were prepared to anesthetized a man to sleep each and every night (give him his “milk,” as the warped Jackson called this deadly, almost necrophilic practice).

Either way, your best and brightest medics would not be willing to cease practicing in their area of specialty, and contend themselves, as professionals, with the nightly routine of hooking up a celebrity’s IV.

Here’s another clue Jackson ought to have used in assessing the risks of hiring Murray: the man is a cardiologist, for heaven’s sake, not an anesthesiologist. The latter is a specialty in itself.

Junking Gender

EU, Europe, Feminism, Gender, Homosexuality, Psychiatry, Psychology & Pop-Psychology, Sex

It is one thing to let children be who they are; a girl to play football, if she likes; a boy to bake bread. It’s quite another to engineer the obliteration of gender roles. And it is one thing for a private school to engage in “engineering equality between the sexes,” as the reporter euphemizes an experiment underway in a Swedish preschool based in Stockholm; it is quite another for the state to compel its tax base to pay and partake in such dangerous, invasive folly. Oh well, it’s good to know that American pedagogues are not the dumbest in the world:

At the “Egalia” preschool, staff avoid using words like “him” or “her” and address the 33 kids as “friends” rather than girls and boys.
From the color and placement of toys to the choice of books, every detail has been carefully planned to make sure the children don’t fall into gender stereotypes.
“Society expects girls to be girlie, nice and pretty and boys to be manly, rough and outgoing,” says Jenny Johnsson, a 31-year-old teacher. “Egalia gives them a fantastic opportunity to be whoever they want to be.”
The taxpayer-funded preschool which opened last year in the liberal Sodermalm district of Stockholm for kids aged 1 to 6 is among the most radical examples of Sweden’s efforts to engineer equality between the sexes from childhood onward.

The literature in developmental psychology is clear—it was at least when I attended university. The development of gender identity early in life is a function of biology, psychology and learning. A small sample develops the opposite gender identity, likely because of innate, biological processes. It is a blessing that a male or female child no longer has to agonize over an innate mismatch between his or her physical being (for example, male) and the gender identity that attaches to it (female).

In these cases, acceptance and kindness is key. But to engineer gender confusion is a horrible idea. Profoundly stupid too. Going overboard and parading sexuality, any sexuality, in schools and the workplace—that’s plain vulgar, regressive and uncivilized. (See “Libertarianism Lite”)