Site Meter Touch the Hand: June 2007

Friday, June 22, 2007

A Psychiatric Disorder?

Addiction to video games seems to be stirring a debate: a psychiatric disorder?


The Associated Press and the Winston Salem Journal in North Carolina share this theory from professionals in regard to video games and addiction. I personally believe there is substance to this, and could very well be measured on the same scale along with computer addiction. There doesn't seem to be a age limit where it actually begins, but attacks all ages. However, this is focused directly with teenagers and younger children.

The telltale signs are ominous: teenagers holed up in their rooms, ignoring friends, family, even food and a shower, as grades fall and belligerence soars. The culprit is not alcohol or drugs. It is video games, which for certain children can be as powerfully addictive as heroin, some doctors say.

A leading council of the nation’s largest doctors’ group wants to have this behavior officially classified as a psychiatric disorder, to raise awareness and enable sufferers to get insurance coverage for treatment.

Wouldn't you agree that if coverage can be applied to video games addicts, that a study should be done for computer addicts, who, some have committed suicide for whatever reason just from becoming addicted to the Internet and whatever that scenario held there for them? There is a wider step outside of the box, than just looking at video games alone. Most go hand in hand.

Under no certain conditions am I taking this situation light, because I have a twelve year old son myself, who seems to want to be playing this more than he really should. I'm just saying that there are many addictions that can be added to the list. Perhaps we should use the term Technology addiction, that would cover it all.

Please take the time to read opinions and research below. :-)

In a report prepared for the American Medical Association’s annual policy meeting starting Saturday in Chicago, the council asks the group to lobby for the disorder to be included in a widely used manual on mental illness created and published by the American Psychiatric Association.

It probably will not happen without heated debate. Makers of video games scoff at the notion that their products can cause a psychiatric disorder. Even some mental-health experts say that labeling the habit a formal addiction is going too far.

Dr. James Scully, the psychiatric association’s medical director, said that the group will consider the AMA report in the long process of revising the diagnostic manual. The next edition will be completed in 2012.

As many as 90 percent of American youngsters play video games, and as many as 15 percent of them - more than 5 million children - may be addicted, according to data quoted in the AMA council’s report.

Joyce Protopapas of Frisco, Texas, said that her son, Michael, 17, was a video addict. Over nearly two years, video and Internet games transformed him from an outgoing, academically gifted teenager into a reclusive manipulator who failed two 10th-grade classes and spent several hours day and night playing a popular online video game called World of Warcraft.

“My father was an alcoholic ... and I saw exactly the same thing” in Michael, Protopapas said.

“We battled him until October of last year,” she said.
“We went to therapists; we tried taking the game away.

“He would threaten us physically. He would curse and call us every name imaginable,” she said. “It was as if he was possessed.”

When she suggested to therapists that Michael had a video-game addiction, “nobody was familiar with it,” she said. “They all pooh-poohed it.” Last fall, the family found a therapist who “told us he was addicted, period.” They sent Michael to a therapeutic boarding school, where he has spent the past six months - at a cost of $5,000 a month that insurance will not cover, his mother said.


A support group called On-Line Gamers Anonymous has numerous postings on its Web site from gamers needing help. Liz Woolley, of Harrisburg, Pa., created the site after her son, 21, fatally shot himself in 2001 while playing an online game that she says destroyed his life.

In a February posting, a 13-year-old identified only as Ian told of playing video games for nearly 12 hours straight, said he felt suicidal and wondered if he was addicted. “I think I need help,” the boy said.

Postings also come from adults, mostly men, who say that video-game addiction cost them jobs, family lives and self-esteem.

According to the report prepared by the AMA’s Council on Science and Public Health, based on a review of scientific literature, “dependence-like behaviors are more likely in children who start playing video games at younger ages.”

Overuse most often occurs with online role-playing games involving multiple players, the report says. Blizzard Entertainment’s teenager-rated, monster-killing World of Warcraft is among the most popular. A company spokesman declined to comment on whether the games can cause addiction.

A woman in the New Haven, Conn., area who bought the game for her 15-year-old son last year, says that he got hooked on it. “Now that I look back on it, it’s like I went out and bought him his first Jack Daniel’s,” said the woman, who did not want her name used to spare her son from ridicule.

Dr. Martin Wasserman, a pediatrician who heads the Maryland State Medical Society, said that the AMA proposal will help raise awareness, and called it “the right thing to do.”

But Michael Gallagher, the president of the Entertainment Software Association, said that the trade group sides with psychiatrists “who agree that this so-called ‘video-game addiction’ is a mental disorder.”

“The American Medical Association is making premature conclusions without the
benefit of complete and thorough data,” Gallagher said.

Dr. Karen Pierce, a psychiatrist at Chicago’s Children’s Memorial Hospital, said she sees at least two children a week who play video games excessively.

“I saw somebody this week who hasn’t been to bed, hasn’t showered ... because of video games,” Pierce said. She said she treats it as she would any addiction, and that creating a separate diagnosis is unnecessary.

Dr. Michael Brody, the head of a TV and media committee at the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, agreed.

Brody praised the AMA council for bringing attention to the problem, but said that excessive video-game playing could be a symptom for other things, such as depression or social anxieties that already have their own diagnoses.

Saturday, June 9, 2007

Starbucks Refuses to Donate Coffee to U.S. Troops



Isn't it interesting how those on the left are always stating that they support the troops - it is just the war they oppose? At least in the case of Starbucks this seems to be false. For some time there has been speculation that Starbucks not only opposes the war, but in fact they do not support our troops either. Many think the actions of Starbucks indicates that they believe our troops are not worthy of support because they are standing on the front lines so we can sleep easy at night. My research has convinced me that this is not speculation.

A friend recently sent me an email about the efforts of a Marine Corps League detachment in Ohio that was raising items to include in care packages that they were going to send to our troops over seas. This is a 501(3)(c) charitable organization made up of former Marines. As part of their effort to collect donations they approached an Starbucks outlet and were told that Starbucks would not donate coffee for their care packages because they do not support the war. Pretty amazing, especially given the below incident.

Sgt Howard C. Wright,1st Force Recon Co 1st Plt PLT RTO wrote a letter to all of his email buddies telling them how Starbucks wouldn't support the troops in Iraq, only to retract it five months later. Text of Sgt. Wright's Email:

Dear Readers,

Almost 5 months ago I sent an e-mail to you my faithful friends. I did a wrong thing that needs to be cleared up. I heard by word of mouth about how Starbucks said they didn't support the war and all. I was having enough of that kind of talk and didn't do my research properly like I should have. This is not true. Starbucks supports men and women in uniform. They have personally contacted me and I have been sent many copies of their company's policy on this issue. So I apologize for this quick and wrong letter that I sent out to you.

I'm sure Starbucks did contact Sgt. Wright. Here are parts of Starbucks' response by David Campbell,Customer Relations regarding supporting out troops:

Starbucks has the deepest respect and admiration for U.S. military personnel. We are extremely grateful to the men and women who serve stateside or overseas. We sincerely appreciate that they are willing to risk their lives to protect Americans and our values of freedom and democracy. While Starbucks as a company cannot directly donate to military personnel, many of our partners (employees) show their support by donating coffee.

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify Starbucks policy regarding charitable contributions. We are able to donate to nonprofit organizations that are designated as public charities under Section 501(c) (3) of the IRS Code...The U.S. military or individual military personnel do not qualify as a public charity.

However, on an individual level, many Starbucks partners have collected and shipped numerous pounds of Starbucks coffee overseas. Starbucks partners receive one pound of free coffee each week as an employee benefit...Many of our partners have elected to send their weekly mark-out of coffee to members of the military or military families, and related organizations.

First, Mr. Campbell is wrong. There is no law prohibiting Starbucks, or anyone else from donating things to the military - it happens all the time. what Mr. Campbell means is that Starbucks does not get to deduct their donation for tax purposes. In other words, it seems that Starbucks wont donate coffee to our troops because they cannot deduct the donation from their taxes. A rather Machiavellian view if you ask me. See Legalzoom.com for the law.

We should all thank the Starbucks employees who donate to our troops, but tell me how can Starbucks take credit for the good deeds of their employees? More importantly, how can Starbucks imply, like Mr. Campbell did, that the only reason they do not donate to our troops is that they only donate to 501(3)(c) charities...and then turn around and refuse to donate to the Marine Corps League detachment that is just such a charity? Also, if Starbucks is so appreciative of the sacrifices of our troops, then why did the people at the store state that they would not donate coffee because they do not support war? No one asked them to support the war - only to support our troops by donating some coffee to a 501(3)(c) charity. A strange way to show one's support. In fact, based on what I have learned, I do not believe they are supporting our troops at all, and honestly wonder if they are even appreciative of their sacrifices.

I have drank my last cup of Starbucks coffee until they can demonstrate, with more than a press release, that they support our troops.

Thursday, June 7, 2007

Calling ALL Bloggers, Jack McClellan Is Back!


While reading one of my favorite blogs, Mike at the Lamplighter has yet another posting about Jack McClellan who had a site up Entitled “Seattle - Tacoma - Everett girl love,” the site offers a listing of events in the Seattle-Tacoma, Washington area where Girl Lovers (referred on the site as GLs) may find large groups of little girls (referred on the site as LGs) to view and photograph. He is an admitted pedophile who told reporters that he feels he is doing nothing illegal and that he gets "a kind of a high" from being around young girls.

Stephen McCaskill
added in the Crime Scene Blog how this sicko of a human being goes to public events and takes pictures of children with his favorite being young girls and posts them on his web page, refusing to take them down. That is unless someone who actually knows the children and resends him a confirmation pic and then he very well may not take them down. His words states below as:

The photos of children on this site are legal, non-voyeuristic images taken in public places, and I am under no legal obligation to remove them if you demand that I do so. However, I may honor such requests if you can convince me that you do indeed know the girl (probably by sending me a confirmation pic), and are not an anti-pedophile crusader unrelated to her. I am not likely to remove girls in performance poses (such as on a stage or in a parade), and I’ve endeavored to obscure the facial identities of girls in non-performance poses — so the number of children I’d agree to remove or edit is probably very low.

Of course he wants pics and probably has a wall full of them... I'd wager he sits there every waking hour with a jar of vaseline, when he's not out there snapping more pics. Recently he was able to find a new web host - Epifora based in Canada - that is hosting his new and improved how to molest children site. Please take the time to read both blogs, Mikes and Stephens and take a stand in sending out the message that this man is on the move, has packed his bags and is heading for California, and he needs to be shut down permanently! Enclosed in this blog as well as in Lamplighter are telephone numbers to call, email addresses to write to. We all need to take a stand and stop this guy right now...

The contact information for Epifora is:
abuse@epifora.com

Phone (514) 913-0968

Address:
Epifora, Inc.
6595 St-Hubert
P.O. Box 59054
Montreal, Quebec
H2S 3P5
Canada

Contact information for Steadfast Networks is:
Abuse Department:
Email - abuse@steadfast.net
Fax - 312-602-2688

For further information please click the links.

Monday, June 4, 2007

A Small Ban Of Terrorist? WTH Hillary?


Wow, what a Democratic debate we had Sunday as the eight Democratic presidential candidates faced off in New Hampshire. There seemed to be new strategy in the air. John Edwards forcefully challenged front-runners Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama over whether they had demonstrated leadership on key issues.

Of course Hillary insisted Democrats should focus their policy critiques on Republicans, especially President Bush. She understands there are differences among her running candidates, but dissed them off with this comment, one John Edwards brought to the podium again. She states:

"The differences among us are minor.The differences between us and Republicans are major and we don't want anybody in America to be confused."

Obama who seemed terribly nervous in the first debate was more gathered this round, who gave a smoother delivery this time and a more detailed grasp of policy issues.It must have been the triggered eye rolls or looks Mistress Hillary can give, not to mention the fits... Come to think of it, it very well may be a conspiracy, that when all have their say and the democratic people vote, it will be the three stooges, Clinton, Obama, and then, yes... wagging his tail behind and following proudly the "OTHER" Clinton.

So, this left Edwards to catch up with the polls and try to bring forth a new strategy that would place him up to their level. What more efficient means to do this, than to bring forth to the table the truth about issues and differences between them. So he threw out there the sharpest elbows, accusing them of being passive and cautious on urgent issues, like Iraq , health care and gay rights. I think before this is all over with, we will see exactly more of their hidden agenda, as all they have at this moment is to bash President Bush and to vote against our Military and the funding of them in Iraq. I mean what other excruciating damage could they possibly vote against than to refuse OUR Military funding? I'm ABSOLUTELY sure the United Nations , the whole world, must be very proud of our Senator's in Washington who would vote against their own Military. Hey... what a way to give morale, right?

There was differences between Obama and Edwards as well:



His rivals, Edwards said,"did not say anything about how they were going to vote, they were among the last people to vote," Edwards said.
"I think all of us have a responsibility to lead on these issues."

"There are differences between us, and I think Democratic voters deserve to know the differences between us," he said
"You're about four and a half years late on leadership on this issue,"Obama said.


Now is that calling the kettle black or what? But my all concern hit like a bullet when Clinton used this statement to define how she really understands terrorism. This is scary folks that this woman who is one of OUR senators within the United States approach toward 911 is labeled. Not only did she compare Edwards over his contention, that the war on terror is little more than a "bumper sticker" slogan she stated :

"I am a senator from New York. I have lived with the aftermath of 9/11, and I have seen firsthand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists," she said.


A small band of terrorists? WTH is she talking about? A small band? That must be why Osama Bin Laden can't be found, right? That must be why the Bin Laden and his gang "hidden"who clearly sent us a message when Hussein was executed for all of his animalistic torturous crimes, not verbatim, but still the same message, that the USA will pay, who yet still remain in many countries around the globe. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

However, after saying the above, these words are verbatim, taken from a
video tape on January 20, 2006 in which Bin Laden clearly states:



The war against America and its allies will not be confined to Iraq, the voice on the tape said,adding that Iraq has become a magnet for attracting and training talented fighters. It's only a matter of time, the voice said, referring to attacks. They are in the planning stages, and you will see them in the heart of your land as soon as the planning is complete.

Perhaps all should go back through my blogs and see what these small ban of terrorist have done to our nation and others. I've repeatedly said and will continue to say that WE AS A NATION, can't afford to let a woman run this country, especially one with a hidden agenda, and one who visions the attacks on 911 as just a small ban of terrorist! WTFU people!

Sunday, June 3, 2007

Red Cross Scam

Mike at the Lamplighter sent me an email in regard to a scam targeting the spouses of our troops in Iraq. People call the spouse of a person serving in Iraq and tell them they are from the Red Cross. They then tell them that their loved one has been injured and flown to Germany, and they need info to fill out some forms before they can help - like SSN and date of birth. This has got to be stopped! I see this as up there with some of the worst crimes one can commit. Stealing off of the same people who are fighting for not only their lives and others freedom, but ours as well. Here is the link you may read and I urge all to take a stand in helping to stop these thugs.

Saturday, June 2, 2007

Mr. Duke Sir?

Have I told you, your still my hero Sir? :-)

Misinterpret, I Don't Think So !


Folks, the cake needed a topper and we now have it. It seems John Edwards misunderstood the question when asked if he was For or Against going to war in Iraq.
Former Senator John Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate, told an interviewer on Wednesday that he had read the classified October 2002
National Intelligence Estimate before voting to authorize force in
Iraq,
but his campaign retracted the statement yesterday. A spokesman for Mr. Edwards said the candidate had "simply misunderstood the question" and noted that Mr. Edwards had read only a declassified version of the intelligence report.
You mean to tell me we had a Senator that had no clue what the intelligence report said, yet voted? What else was left to understand. All of congress had been sitting there since September 11th having discussions from A to Z! No, he fully understood what he was voting for, as did Hillary. She only made her excuse sound a bit more believing. Can I for one believe that Edwards was forced to vote against what he believed in because to do anything other than vote 'For," would help guarantee his win for the seating of vice- president? Well, yes I can see where given some power as vice-president would make him vote against his own morals. According to his running-mate John Kerry that's exactly what happened.

That fall, as a vote loomed on the resolution giving Bush authority to go to war, Edwards convened a circle of advisers in his family room in Washington to discuss his decision. He was skeptical, even exercised about the idea of voting yes. Elizabeth was a forceful no. She didn't trust anything the Bush administration was saying. But the consensus view from both the foreign policy experts and the political operatives was that even though Edwards was on the Intelligence Committee, he was too junior in the Senate; he didn't have the credibility to vote against the resolution. To my continuing regret, I said he had to be for it. As I listened to this, I watched Edward's face; he didn't like where he was being pushed to go.

Scott at Election Blog- The Stump, speaks loud in regard to this. He states;

I find it hard to believe that a candidate of Edwards experience with a background as a lawyer "misunderstood" the question. It's evident he read the NIE and voted based not on what was contained in the document but for political expediency according to 2004 running-mate John Kerry.

As I said, he voted not with his heart but with the political portion of his brain. He looked at the blow back and decided to vote for it to increase his chances of becoming vice president.

For his campaign aides to say he "misunderstood" the question is wrong. He knew the threat, he knew that it was the next logical step in the War on Terror and he knew what the consequences may have been in the short-term. I believe him when he says he's against the war because he's always been against the war. I'd have respected him more if he'd said it from the beginning and voted no. Instead he voted as he thought he'd had to, not how he'd wanted to.

I ask, is this the kind of man you would want in the Oval Office? A man who makes decisions not out of conviction but to score political points? How would the former senator handle a crisis being of this mindset? Short answer: not well. Edwards will be out by next April if not sooner and it will come down to a two-way race between Clinton and Barack Obama.

The American people got to know Edwards in 2004 and have now seen him even more in the last several months. They may personally like him and feel for what his wife is going through, but they don't want him as the president.

It would seem as if Scott titled his blog correctly, "John Edwards Stumbles Again" Being from the "Tarheel" state, Edwards certainly understands the southern slang when I say " Bless His Heart"


Now, For The Women And Children

The pictures below are but few in regard to how the women and children were murdered and battered under the reign of Saddam Hussein. They are graphic but need to be seen to be a reminder as to why not only do we fight for our freedom and protection from evil and terrorism but also for other mankind.

US-led investigators have located nine trenches in Hatra containing hundreds of bodies believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the 1980s. The skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys. The victims are believed to be Kurds killed in 1987-88, their bodies bulldozed into the graves after being summarily shot dead. One trench contains only women and children while another contains only men. The body of one woman was found still clutching a baby. The infant had been shot in the back of the head and the woman in the face.





















On the borders of Kurdistan

On the borders
Where throats are
Choked with good-byes
And eagerness is
Suspended in the eyes
And people asked
When.. where are we ? why..?!

Here a child dies..
There a baby lies, and
Another face-down cries:

My wound is hurting
My breath is hurting
My stomach is hurting,
Mother: Am I to die ?
And my white pigeon ?!
Are we going to die ?

In tears she said:
There beyond the border posts..
Only days: we won't die
For us, God will try..

Again, the child cries:

Will my pigeon die ?
Mother: I love her..
She is my life
Because I love,
She does not deserve to die
I love her...

All broke in tears

Dear.. your pigeon died
When the planes pried

And she broke in tears
My white pigeon was gassed ?!
My Kurdish pigeon died

Mother.. my hair is falling
why ? Am I do die ?

Some water please..
W-a-t-e-r ...

And you dare speculate as to why we are there? Shame on you all.

America, Just Another Reminder

And to think we have a Presidential candidate John Edwards who would dare say,

protest the war at Memorial Day Parades and gatherings, take photos and then he will place those photos on his website. 'Buy a bunch of poster-board and markers,' the website says. “At a picnic or with family and friends, make signs that say ‘SUPPORT THE TROOPS - END THE WAR.’ Bring them to your local Memorial Day parade. Then take a digital photo of yourself and your family or friends holding up the poster and tell us about it. We’ll include it in a 'Democracy Photo Album' on our site

To be frank here, I'm ashamed he is from North Carolina and this behavior is a small price to pay should this nation elect such a person as he is. "Memorial Day is a solemn occasion to remember the service and sacrifice of more than 1 million American servicemen and -women who gave their lives to create our nation, to save our union, and to help free the world from tyranny.

Have We Forgotten this day below? Just a reminder that nothing comes free in this world that we don't protect and make sure it never happens again.







By the way, the American Eagle cries not only for what was done to our nation on September 11, 2001, it cries also for men who will never understand what freedom really means. Men such as John Edwards.