Childhood depression on the rise, but are smartphones really the cause? Or is it schools teaching them to fear?

So reports of a rise in childhood depression have lead some of the world's leading child psychologists into blaming social media, such as Facebook, and material things such as smartphones.  The telegraph quotes a child psychologist with 25 years of experience named Julie Lynn Evans:

“In the 1990s, I would have had one or two attempted suicides a year – mainly teen aged girls taking overdoses, the things that don’t get reported. Now, I could have as many as four a month.... “f I try to refer people on, everyone else is choc-a-bloc too. We are all saying the same thing. There has been an explosion in numbers in mental health problems amongst youngsters. Something is clearly happening,” she says, “because I am seeing the evidence in the numbers of depressive, anorexic, cutting children who come to see me. And it always has something to do with the computer, the Internet and the smartphone.”

She's basically saying that kids are exposed to too much stuff, to too much information. They get too much access to wisdom too fast, and making more and more of them increasingly depressed.  I understand that kids today have fast access to knowledge we had to go out of our way to find at a library or bookstore when we were kids.

However, rather than jump to conclusions, lets consider some other things that are going on in the world today that might cause kids to become increasingly depressed.

1. Kids being taught that God, the harbinger of hope and faith, does not exist
2. Kids being taught that man made global warming is destroying the planet
3. Kids learning hearing doomsday predictions in schools
4. High rate of divorce that has kids separated from their families and friends
5. High rate of single parent households 
6. High rate of kids growing up in poverty
7. Kids being taught that they are bad if they respect traditional marriage
8. Kids being taught to be afraid of eating foods they love based on theories
9. Kids, many of whom are overweight, taught that being overweight is bad
10. Government programs taking away the incentive to work, thus leading to families trapped in poverty
11. Kids not being able to eat the feel good foods they want to eat while in school
12. Fear that Muslims will try to kill them
13. Not being able to speak the truth about Muslims
14. Christian children not being able to pray in school, or being ridiculed for talking about their beliefs
15. Conservative children being mocked and ridiculed for talking about their beliefs
16. Children hearing their parents called Nazis, homophobes, idiots, gramma haters, due to their beliefs
17. Christians being persecuted all over the world, and no one doing anything about it
18. The country being "fundamentally transformed" from capitalism to socialism. 
19. A rise in laws that tell people what they can and cannot do; laws that take away liberties
20. Kids not being told the truth about the founding of this country, and being ridiculed when they do
21. Kids being told they are idiots for believing in a "fictional, mythological Bible."
22. An endless parade of hate, fear, and vitriol being taught in schools.
23. Kids being told they cannot grow up to be better than their parents. 
24. Parents having to go bankrupt because of the poor economy
25. Parents losing their jobs because of the poor economy
26. Parents being forced to work two or three part time jobs because of Obamacare
27. Fear that they will have less freedom than their parents
28. Fear of terrorism
29. Fear that they will be forced to go to war
30. Fear of a Muslim Caliph
31. Fear of Russia taking over Europe
32. Fear of WWIII

I mean, I could go on.  What do you think.  Is too much access to wisdom making kids depressed? Or is it all the exposure to hate, fear and vitriol? 

Theories are just theories, part 3

So you have this theory that the NFL causes brain swelling that can only be diagnosed on autopsy. You have a theory that the NFL causes an increase in suicides. None of this is proven, but you have the NFL accepting the premise and defending itself.

And you have guys like Shannon Sharpe blaming the NFL for intentionally allowing the game to go on while knowing all along that it caused brain damage.

So, based on one theory, all the people who run the NFL are evil and wicked and trying to make a buck at the expense of all the people playing the game.

So then the media buys into the theory. Because that's what the media does: every time a new theory comes out they consider it as fact. Instead of just reporting on it and letting the people decide what is true or not, they treat it as a fact.

So then you have people like Chris Borland reading what the media says. Then Borland gets scared, and he quits the NFL based on his fears. And of course there are other players in the NFL equally scared but don't want to risk giving up all that money.

Surely we should respect theories. Surely we should be careful. But we should not panic and change the game of football based on a couple theories.

I think people tend to over react to theories, and it is this that has lead to the rise in mental disorders in this nation.  Yet, in the meantime, people who believe every new theory postulated think the cause is smart phones. 

Theories are just theories, part 2

You may also replace big industry with progressive.

How many theories were postulated that told you that coffee is bad for you. Once it was thought that it would cause Parkinson's. Yet the same people -- who happen to be on a government panel -- who said that are now claiming that drinking four cups of coffee a day prevents parkinsons. They are also claiming it prevents heart disease and liver cancer.

I remember my mom, back in 1977, drank a beer a day while she was pregnant with my younger brother. Then she didnt' breastfeed, because one study came out that showed formula was better for a newborn. Yet that theory was proven to be false, and now the recommendation is that children should be breastfed until the age of three, which was how long most parents throughout history nursed their kids.

My point here is that we need to stop kowtowing to theories.

Another theory postulates that the NFL has lead to an increase in suicides among former players. So the NFL accepts the premise on the scanty evidence available, and defends itself against it. While a more sane solution would be to monitor the situation while waiting for more evidence to come out.

I have seen this (by my own study of medical history) over and over and over throughout history. It goes all the way back to the primitive and ancient worlds. You had people for thousands of years banned from touching a corpse, even for scientific purposes, because dead bodies were considered sacrosanct; that touching them would cause the gods or demons to cause famine and disease.

So what good did this result in. None. It resulted in slowing down of progress. It made it so people would have to wait until the 18th century to actually be able to look at and study a dead body without fearing death. It made it so people had to wait until the 20th century to get results. It made it so asthmatics had to needlessly suffer until the 1950s.

It's all because of senseless, cooky, mythological, feel good theories. It was all based on fear caused by theories that were later proven to be nothing more than theories; nothing more than myths.

Further reading:

• Theories are just theories: part 1
• Theories are just theories: part 3

Theories are just theories, part 1

As a person who has studied the history of medicine, I have seen over and over again throughout the history of mankind that people tend to overreact to theories. They forget that theories are just ideas that have yet to be proven true or false.

Look at global warming as a good example. You have people who are scared to death that the world is going to be destroyed if we don't do something to stop it, and yet there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1998. And yet they don't care, they continue to be scared, to champion for more regulations that harm economies.  No wonder kids these days are depressed. The so called experts like to blame it on stuff like iphones, but the real reason is probably that kids are taught to be scared based on "theories."

There once was a theory that asthma was all in your head. All the focus of physicians was aimed at finding medicine to soothe the mind, rather than soothe the bronchial muscles that spasm during an asthma attack. It was for this reason that asthmatics had to wait until the 1950s to get medicine that actually worked. You see, sometimes the most well intentioned theories are wrong.

Another good example is the NFL. Joesph Maroon was the first to discuss a study of the brain that produces Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), a brain disease caused by swelling of the brain due to violent head injuries, such as those produced by violent hitting during football.

This "theory" has yet to be proven, however. This was just the result of one study. Many initial studies have later been proven false. 

Another good example here is the hypoxic drive theory. Many COPD patients, for years, have been denied the oxygen they need based on a silly theory. While the theory may prove interesting in theory, real life experience has never corroborated it. Nearly all studies since its inception have proven it false. Yet out of fear of causing their patients to stop breathing, many physicians to this day continue to under oxygenate their patients based on this myth.

So based on one study, Chris Borland, a star defensive player for the San Fransisco 49ers, has decided to quit his million dollar job after only playing one season. He is turning down all sorts of fame and money based on a theory that has never been proven.

Years ago scientists came up with this theory that all cholesterol was bad for you. They believed that all foods high in cholesterol caused heart disease. So, based on this theory, you had many people afraid to eat foods that tasted good.

According to the Washington Post, there is now new scientific evidence that "eating foods high in cholesterol may not significantly affect the level of cholesterol in the blood or increase the risk of heart disease." The findings are so significant that the U.S. Government is "poised to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol."

According to National Review, March 9, 2015: "Few areas of science have seen greater advances in recent decades than medicine, but the cholesterol story shows that when dealing with highly complex systems, even the best-informed scientists, using the best available data with the best of intentions, can draw conclusions that turn out to be incorrect. Science deserves all the love we can give it, but that love should not be blind.

My point here is that people need to quit overreacting. Surely we should respect theories, but we must stop treating them as facts. And the last thing we should do is write laws that are nearly impossible to get rid of based on fear caused theories.

Further reading:

• Theories are just theories: part 2
• Theories are just theories: part 3
• Challenge the theory: 'Think for yourself'

Transabled and Transgender: to debate or not to debate?

So, we are told that, as a society, we must not judge.  If someone feels they are a woman in a man's body, we are told we must not judge this person.  We must allow him to become her.  We must accept transgenderism as normal. Those who don't accept transgenders as normal are now considered old school. Regardless of how you feel about this, I have found an article that will get you to thinking.

The media is using the story of Bruce Jenner not feeling comfortable in his own body and becoming Caitlyn Jenner as an opportunity to push an agenda forward, that we must not judge; that we must accept.  No matter where we go the next few weeks we will see a photoshopped photo of Caitlyn Jenner looking like a young Jessica Lang.  We are told we must accept Caitlyn as just another normal person.  If you don't you are old-school; If you think Caitlyn is weird you are weird.

Now, keep in mind that I'm not arguing whether or not what Bruce Jenner did to himself is right or wrong, I'm merely posing an argument here.  I'm merely going to present ideas that are presented by the so-called experts.  

So, traditionally gay thoughts and transgender thoughts were considered abnormal.  Those who had them were considered abnormal or sick.  Rather than enable them, they were sent to hospitals to get help.  They were fixed.  They were forced to conform.  I'm not saying that's what I think is right, I'm just relaying a truth about history here.  

Generally, the gay population is now accepted.  This is good.  And so too is the transgender population.  Yet the article I found might shed another light on the transgender population.  It won't, because the media won't report it.  But it should. If the media did it's job, it would report all the news, not just the news that advances their political agenda.  A non bias media reports both sides of both stories, and lets the people decide -- but true journalism rarely occurs anymore.

So anyway, Ed Morrissey wrote a column for Hotair called "The next wave of “body diversity”: Disabled by choice."  It discusses a "disease" that is mainly present in Germany and Canada called transabled.  He was basically commenting on an article published on Canada National Post titled "Becoming disabled by choice, not chance: ‘Transabled’ people feel like impostors in their fully working bodies." 

The article begins:  "When he cut off his right arm with a 'very sharp power tool,' a man who now calls himself One Hand Jason let everyone believe it was an accident. But he had for months tried different means of cutting and crushing the limb that never quite felt like his own, training himself on first aid so he wouldn't bleed to death, even practicing on animal parts sourced from a butcher. ... People like Jason have been classified as 'transabled' -- feeling like imposters in their bodies, their arms and legs in full working order..."

The article goes on:

People like Jason have been classified as ‘‘transabled’’ — feeling like imposters in their bodies, their arms and legs in full working order.“We define transability as the desire or the need for a person identified as able-bodied by other people to transform his or her body to obtain a physical impairment,” says Alexandre Baril, a Quebec born academic who will present on “transability” at this week’s Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities at the University of Ottawa. “The person could want to become deaf, blind, amputee, paraplegic. It’s a really, really strong desire.” Most of them are men. About half are in Germany and Switzerland, but he knows of a few in Canada. Most crave an amputation or paralysis, though he has interviewed one person who wants his penis removed. Another wants to be blind. Many people, like One Hand Jason, arrange “accidents” to help achieve the goal. One dropped an incredibly heavy concrete block on his legs — an attempt to injure himself so bad an amputation would be necessary. But doctors saved the leg. He limps, but it’s not the disability he wanted.

Then they have experts say this is a neurological problem and not a mental illness.  This expert says it's just another form of "body diversity" such as trangendnerism.  He says that a physician can help these people achieve their goals by planned cosmetic surgery, the same that occurs when a man no longer wants to be a man and wishes to become a female.

Look, I'm not forming an opinion here, I'm just repeating what is said by the experts.  I'm not forming an opinion either way on this.  I'm just sharing this information go get you to thinking, which is the intent of this blog: to articulate ideas.  

So, are we to think that this is normal? Are we to think that a person who is transabled is normal?  Others say this is not normal, and that these people should get the help they need.  Regardless, these people are not going to get help, because we are supposed to accept this as normal.  So, rather than get them the help they need, we are going to have physicians, cosmetic surgeons, help them to obtain their goal.  

So we have some experts who claim we should not judge these people as weird, but accept them as normal. They suggest physicians should help them obtain their goal. And any one who aims to deny them what they need are old school, homophobes, deniers, abnormal, the new weird, etc. They say we need to tolerate everyone, and we must be compassionate and not judge. The media says we should help these people.  The Academia says we should help these people attain their goals.  

Other experts claim that they are sick and need help.  They suggest that helping them obtain their goal is enabling their disease process.  They say that allowing a transabled person to cut off an arm, or allowing a trangender to have a sex change, is no better than allowing an alcoholic to have another beer.  It's no better than being the person who takes another whopper to the 600 pound lady who is so heavy she can't get off her bed.  By enabling them to engage in certain behaviors, they say, we are just as guilty as they are.

Bruce Jenner said he had a panic attack immediately following his surgery, saying to himself, "What have I done."  Studies suggest that the rate of depression doubles after having a transgender surgery to 20 percent. So, in light of these facts, are we, as a society, right to accept transgenderism as normal? Are we supposed to accept transsgenders as normal even though they represent 0.4% of the population? 

I don't know the answer.  I am not an expert in this regard.  I'm just asking you to think about this.  I'm asking you to think about this because we are expected no longer to judge people.  We are expected to accept such "behaviors" or "lifestyles" as normal or we are weird, we are old school.  

Surely we must love people for who they are, regardless of the choices they make.  And in a free society we should be allowed to make whichever choices we want.  But is letting these people change their bodies the right thing to do? Is it going too far? Is one or the other good or bad for society as a whole? 

Should we be celebrating and promoting the Bruce Jenner to Caitlyn Jenner story to show that it is normal?  Or should be not be celebrating and promoting it because it is abnormal? Of course the media is going to do the former and shun the later as old school.  But we are not the media here: We do not just go with the flow and tell people what they want to hear to advance an agenda and to make money.  We have no ads here to sell. 

So, do these people need prayer and help?  Or should we allow them to choose to make changes to their bodies that they can never undo.  Are we being compassionate when we help these people achieve their goal, or should compassion be defined as encouraging them to seek help? Or should we just not go there, and let people decide the course of their own lives?

You decide?  

Further reading:

• Hot Air: The Next Wave of “Body Diversity”: Disabled by choice
• National Post: Becoming Disabled by Choice, Not Chance: ‘Transabled’ People Feel Like Impostors in Their Fully Working Bodies - Sarah Boesveld
• Hollywood Life: Bruce Jenner has panic attack

Be careful with platitudes

Two of the most common platitudes used in the political realm are "I want to make a difference" and "I want to change the world."  The problem with these two "sayings" is this: "Who doesn't?"

I watched a Mrs. U.S.A. pageant a few years ago, perhaps the last time I will ever do this, and nearly half the women on stage said something along the lines of "I want to make a difference."

I watch the Disney Channel every day too, and listen as the children are made to say things like "we need people like x and x to show that together we can make a difference."

Look, both Hitler and Stalin had goals to make a difference, and they created fascist governments with social reforms that forced people to give up personal liberties for the good of the state.  Then they forced people to comply by killing them if they didn't.

But don't worry, because they did it to make a difference.

What is fascism?

Fascism, commonly known as Marxism, is a form of government whereby the state is worshiped as a religion, and experts in the state make rules that attempt to prevent many of the flaws of men.

The police-state then enforces these laws, and the end result is an ideal world or euphoric world where everyone has a job with equal pay, and everyone has healthcare, and there is world peace.

Fascism is a movement that began around the turn of the 20th century, and it grew roots in nearly every western nation. What forms it took depended on what country it was formed in.

In most nations, there is no constitutional restraint against writing laws, and this empowered powerful men in certain nations to build powerful fascists governments. Examples include Stalin's Communism in Russia, Mussolini's Socialism in Italy, and Hitlers Naziism in Germany.

You also have to understand here that Nazism is National Socialism. Hitler decided who got healthcare and how much. Hitler decided who lived and who died. Hitler decided what programs were going to be formed, and he took money from the people to create them. He mesmerized the people with his Utopian agenda, and that is how he gained the support of the people. He did not tell them that, in the process of giving Hitler what he wanted, that they were signing away their freedom.

Under Hitler's appeal, his promise for a Fascist Utopia, that people lost total sight of reality  This is how they became so obedient. They were doing what they were told by their radical leaders. There was not an individual strain of thought, at a certain point. It was much more involved than that, but that's the gist of it. And it was all just another version of fascism.

But that can't happen in the United States.  Or, it couldn't happen, so long as the Constitution was respected. That's right! In the United States, the Constitution stood in the way of fascism, mainly because it was a document that told the state what it could not do.  For this reason, fascism had to take on a more gentle form.  This posed a problem for those who yearned to advance a fascist agenda.

In the U.S., progressives, which is the name they chose for themselves, quickly realized their agenda was unpopular.  So, in order to move their agenda forward, they had to take baby steps: they had to gradually, by way of assimilation, change minds.

One of the best ways of changing minds and inculcating change, so they learned, was by taking advantage of tragedies.  So when people lost their life savings during the Great Depression, they called on progressives to save the day.

Progressive experts in Washington, both republican and democrat, convinced the people that it as okay to surrender some of their personal liberties to the state for the benefit of society.  They convinced them by saying things like, "It's for your own good."

So the progressive movement took off, becoming the original fascist movement in the United States. Of course, power breeds arrogance, and arrogance breeds corruption.  The federal government went on an "it's for your own good" rampage, passing bill after bill after bill forcing people to cede their liberties to Uncle Sam.

This is what happened when the progressives managed to get into the White House during the election of 1912.  Woodrow Wilson was their man, although, if he would have lost, Teddy Roosevelt had an even more aggressive progressive agenda than Wilson.

Through Wilson, progressives were able to convince Americans that some laws were necessary to prevent bank failures and create jobs.  They convinced people it was necessary to enforce compliance with the state, and for a police state to arrest and jail anyone who spoke ill of the state cause.

They believed compliance to the state would create a more perfect union, sort of like the euphoria Christians talk about finding in the afterlife.  This euphoria was the ultimate goal of Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler, and it was also the ultimate goal of Woodrow Wilson as well.

They had all created fascist governments that were unique to their respective states.  Yet they were, in fact, sister governments, all falling under the rubric term fascism.

It is in this way that we can fairly say that fascism gave birth to socialism, communism, Nazism, and progressivism.  We can also fairly say it gave birth to liberalism because liberalism is basically a racemic (watered down) form of progressivism. You might even call progressivism and liberalism neo-communism.

So, in this way, we can fairly say that fascism, communism, socialism, Nazism, progressivism, liberalism, statism, and even totalitarianism, are all sisters and are all one and the same form of government. They all propose to take from those who have and redistribute it to those who have not in an attempt to create a perfect, an ideal, world.