Not your best interest

From Non Sequitur. I do think that "best interest" is the worst idea that is widely accepted.

Deadline for Joseph comments

I mentioned below that Commissioner Ivwin H. Joseph is being considered for a judge appointment, and public comments are being accepted until Monday. If you have experience in his court, or if you otherwise have info about what an incompetent a-hole he is, then please send an email to the state Bar committee that is evaluating him.

Your child is your future

NPR radio has a story about a songwriter of I Drive Your Truck , with this line:

"Your child is your future, and when you've lost your child, you've lost your future. And I think one of the reasons so many Gold Star parents drive their children's trucks is 'cuz they have to hold on. They just have to hold on."

That is why I drive my daughter's truck, even tho it is only 3 inches long.

Meanwhile, here is a stupid advice column:

Dear Prudence,
I am the middle of three boys and we are all in our 20s. Our parents separated shortly after my younger brother was born and eventually they went through a bitter divorce. Recently, my father, brothers, and I went to a camping-style family wedding together. The facilities were spartan and we all ended up in a communal shower. ...

Dear No ...

You want to establish that your baby brother isn’t really a member of the tribe. But pursuing your hunch will only make a cock-up of things because nothing can change the fact that your father has always embraced all of you as his three sons.

I am not quoting the gist of this because I think that the letter is a fake. The answer is just stupid. If the mom was unfaithful, the face would be the most obvious clue. A DNA test would tell for sure, if there is really doubt. The kid has a right to know.

CPS complainer gets bad advice

Here is this week's dangerous newspaper advice:

Dear Annie: I am a single mom of a 4-year-old boy who is being abused by my ex-husband and his wife. ... My son sees a child therapist, and she is worried for his mental health. My son's teachers, pediatrician and therapist have all called Child Protective Services, but for some reason, they don't investigate. I was told they don't consider this abuse.

How can people say that? My son has such horrible nightmares after coming home from his Dad's house that he has bedtime accidents. I have gone to court and used all of my money to retain lawyers, and I have lost every time. I am now broke and on the verge of going on the run to protect him. What can I do? Is there anybody who can help? — Angela, No State, Please

Dear Angela: We do not understand how Child Protective Services could ignore abuse reports from teachers, pediatricians and therapists. Something isn't adding up. We called the Department of Children and Family Services in Chicago, and they suggested you contact your state child abuse hotline and report the situation. You also can try the Childhelp National Child Abuse Hotline at 1-800-4-A-CHILD (1-800-422-4453) (childhelp.org).

No. She reported the allegations, and they were investigated. There is nothing more to do.

I post this to show that not only will bitter ex-wives make false allegations over and over, but also her friends and counselors will also do it and encourage her to keep doing it.

Sure, it sounds like abuse if you just hear the accuser's side of the story. It sounds terrible that Dad might be causing the boy to have bedtime accidents. But millions of 4yo boys have bedtime accidents, and they may have nothing to do with the dad. This mom is paranoid, delusional, obsessive, and threatening to kidnap a 4yo boy. As Annie says, her story does not add up. Everyone would be much better off if she would just try to help the boy during her custodial time, and ignore the other time.

Actress is most trusted

Sandra Bullock became the highest paid actress a couple of years ago, and now she is named the most trusted woman in America.

This is pitiful. She is a nearly 50-year-old actress. Here is her personal story:

Bullock married motorcycle builder and Monster Garage host Jesse James on July 16, 2005. They first met when Bullock arranged for her ten-year-old godson to meet James as a Christmas present.

In November 2009, Bullock and James entered into a custody battle with James' second ex-wife, former pornographic actress Janine Lindemulder, with whom James had a child. Bullock and James subsequently won full legal custody of James' five-year-old daughter.

In March 2010, a scandal arose when several women claimed to have had affairs with James during his marriage to Bullock. ... James had checked into a rehab facility "to deal with personal issues" and "save his marriage" to Bullock. However on April 28, 2010, it was reported that Bullock had filed for divorce on April 23 in Austin. Their divorce was finalized on June 28, 2010, with "conflict of personalities" cited as the reason.

Bullock announced on April 28, 2010, that she had proceeded with plans to adopt a baby boy born in January 2010 in New Orleans. Bullock and James had begun an initial adoption process four years earlier. The child began living with them in January 2010, but they chose to keep the news private until after the Oscars in March 2010. However, given the couple's separation and then divorce, Bullock continued the adoption of the baby, named Louis Bardo Bullock, as a single parent.

So she waits until her 40s to get married, steals another mom's daughter, arranges an adoption with her husband, dumps her husband, and takes the adopted kid and forces him to grow up without a daughter. It is not clear whether she abandoned the girl whom she fought to get shared legal custody.

Would you trust this woman? For what? I don't get it. I liked a couple of her movies, but they were nothing special. Somehow America has become a country where women are admired for all the wrong reasons. Don't we have some American woman who is a loyal wife and responsible mom?

Another highly paid actress is Angelina Jolie. She has 3 kids with Brad Pitt, and 3 more from Third World countries. She just had her breasts removed, because of a faulty BRCA1 gene. She says that her breast implants look like "just Mommy" to her kids, and do not diminish her femininity in any way.

Most people probably know more about these celebrities than I do, and may have more informed opinions about whether they are model parents. I am just passing on some news.

California school brainwashing

I have posted before a bout how anti-family, anti-Christian, anti-science California legislators have passed laws for enforce their ideology on the public.
A couple of years ago, California passed the LGBT History Bill, requiring that LGBTQIA be taught in all the K-12 schools.

It is codified here, here, and elsewhere. It was also called SB48.

Now California has taken the next step:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California education officials took the first step this week toward complying with a law that requires public schools to include prominent gay people and gay rights' milestones in the curriculum, adopting a set of classroom material guidelines that prohibit "pejorative descriptions" based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The California Board of Education on Wednesday unanimously approved new standards stating that textbooks, workbooks and other teaching materials purchased with state funds must avoid "descriptions, depictions, labels, or rejoinders that tend to demean, stereotype, or patronize individuals" who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.

"Materials should not convey the impression that persons of gay, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, or transgender identity, are any different from other people in their emotions or their ability to love and be loved," the standards read.

Really? I thought that the leftoid doctrine was that gay men were born different from other people, and do not have the ability to make love to a women as a heterosexual man can. If gays and straights are all the same, then I can only assume that gay men are choosing to reserve their love for other men, and not women.

I follow the scientific research, not ideology. Whether homosexuality is inborn or not, you can be sure that California teachers will ignore the science and teach whatever suits the LGBTQIA lobby. And teach it in grades K-12, whether you like it or not.

California officials took away my kids because, in part, a prejudice that a mathematician is not able to love and emotionally connect with his kids like other parents. No evidence or research to support that prejudice was ever presented. To the contrary, repeated forensic psychological evaluations all showed that I had no disorders and no parenting defects.

Cornell eliminated due process

I have pointed out that the constitutional right to confront witnesses is hanging on by a thread in the US Supreme Court, with Justice Scalia being the most vocal defender.

The accused do not necessarily have those rights outside criminal court, and federal regulators are pressuring colleges to weaken those rights. Here is the latest:

Cornell is planning to change its disciplinary procedure for sexual assault claims by dispensing with the requirement that witnesses testify in person. It will, instead, allow written statements of witnesses. See here and here. The change is a significant blow to the rights of the accused. It flies in the face of judicial authority holding that in college disciplinary cases that are essentially credibility contests, the cross-examination of witnesses is essential to a fair hearing. An accused student cannot cross-examine an affidavit.

The change is being made to benefit accusers. The basis for the change seems to be anecdotal evidence suggesting that accusers may find hearings intimidating, and, therefore, they may be deterred from reporting misconduct. Narda Terrones, a member of the school's Women’s Resource Center, explained: “The most terrifying thing is getting in front of the panel and telling their story in front of the person they are accusing.”

The right to confront one's accuser is fundamental to due process. Its roots extend back to Roman law. In our modern criminal and civil jurisprudence, there are expansive protections to guard against the admission of hearsay evidence that can't be cross-examined.

I believe that people should be innocent until proven guilty. Sometimes I think that I am in the minority on this.

Video shows armed cops taking baby

This story of CPS abuse has gotten national coverage:

A state lawmaker has joined the fight demanding answers to why Child Protective Services took a 5-month-old baby from his parents after they took the child to get a second opinion.

Nikolayev's family's story got national and international attention, and now that spotlight has led to increased scrutiny of CPS.

"They've committed no crime, why are they not just free to determine what is in the best interest of their child?" Assem. Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks, asked.

It's a question a lot of people have been asking since News10 broke the story of Alex and Anna Nikolayev's battle with CPS. The couple took their son Sammy to Sutter Memorial Hospital for treatment after he developed flu-like symptoms. When doctors suggested that Sammy get heart surgery for a heart murmur he had since he was born, the couple left the hospital without a formal discharge and headed to Kaiser Permanente for a second opinion.

RELATED STORY: Couple fights to get their baby boy back from authorities

After a police officer and a doctor cleared that Sammy was not in any danger by remaining in his parents' care, they went home. The next day, CPS and police officers arrived at Alex and Anna Nikolayev's home and took Sammy into protective custody. CPS has refused to comment directly on the case and have repeatedly cited privacy laws when asked them about the case.

On Monday, Anna and Alex Nikolayev were overjoyed when a judge returned legal custody of their baby boy, but they had to agree to future visits by CPS, a prospect that makes them worry about Sammy's future even after he is released from the hospital.

At least the parents got the baby back. CPS is way out of line here, but it is possible that they had a legitimate health concern.

In my case, armed cops took my kids from my house, and I did not get them back. There was no abuse or neglect allegation, except for some trivial complaints about setting the alarm clock for 7:00 and other such matters. Even the crooked court psychologist agreed that there was no abuse or neglect, and that I was just as good a parent as my ex-wife.

So I have mixed feelings when I see these stories. I am happy to see CPS get public scrutiny for authoritative anti-parent over-reactions, but I wonder why the press ignores all the worse cases. CPS does outrageous things all the time.

This blog no longer censored

I reported previously that this blog was being censored. Now I am happy that John Kimble writes:

I haven't heard any updates from O2 and Symantec recently over their defamation and censorship of men's human rights sites, so I decided to reexamine the list of sites (it now stands at almost 90). It seems to have been worth my while and there is a least a little good news.

Previously, following my complaints, Glenn Sacks of Fathers and Families had his site unblocked, similalrly the other unblocked site also pertained to fathers' issues. O2 appeared to be standing by their hate smears, indicating as such on Twitter just yesterday and have not mentioned any more sites being unblocked. In reality, my testing shows a number of additional father related sites have been unblocked and are no longer suffering this vile defamation. These include:

• http://www.angrydad.blogspot.com
• http://www.framedfathers.blogspot.com

This now leaves father-related sites as quite a small minority on the "hate" list, and suggests that Symantec and O2 are slowly coming round to the idea of equality for fathers being a legitimate issue.

Guilty of abuse without evidence

I followed the Jodi Arias trial mainly to see how forensic psychologists and domestic violence experts would perform in a nationally televised criminal trial. It was worse that I expected. Alyce LaViolette testified that Jodi was abused, even tho there was no objective evidence of it, except for some scatterned name-calling in emails.

LaViolette argued that the worst kind of abuse is emotional abuse, and the worst kind of emotional abuse is the kind that is so subtle that only an expert like herself can recognize it. The reason is that Jodi could not get any emotional support from her friends for the so-called abuse, because they might think that the incidents were trivial.

I was glad to see that the jury did not accept such an illogical argument. It reminded me of my own custody trials, where I was accused of being an abuser even tho no one could even find an example of abuse.

On Jan. 11, 2008, Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph issued a ruling against me, saying:

First, one does not have to beat their child to be an abuser.

Second, one doesn't have to have one spectacular event easily recalled and reported in detail to be an emotional abuser. ...

And I grant you, Mr. AngryDad, that taken singularly, if you were to come in this court and Ms. Travers were to say, "Dad resets the alarm clock," this would have been a five minute hearing that had a very different result. But that's not the only event. That's an indicative event, a representative event. But the events go on and on and on. I read reread last night the report of Dr. Johnson in this which Father said, quote, nothing bad ever really happened, almost the identical words that I heard in this hearing.

Dad at that time confirmed that he does tend to do the same thing, quote, over and over again, not inconsistent with the Costco visits and the meal plans. Dad says, "My parenting habits may be somewhat unorthodox, but they achieve good results. And I never put my children into any danger." ... Their dinner with Father may include macaroni or potatoes with asparagus. ...

Yeah, I not only set the alarm clock for my kids, I fed them potatoes!

Now Joseph is being considered for appointment to be a real judge. He is a disaster. California is accepting public comments on him. Please write to the state, and beg them not to appoint Joseph.

Jodi Arias guilty

Jodi Arias was just found guilty of first degree (premeditated) murder in the killing of Travis Alexander. This is a firm repudiation of forensic psychology testimony of PTSD and battered woman syndrome.

I wonder if the psychologist or domestic violence counselor professions will attempt any damage control. They could claim that the jury did wrong, or repudiate the expert testimony. As it stands, the televised trial gave the impression that these experts are crooked quacks.

Cleveland kidnapping discovered

A six year old girl in Cleveland in being separated from her father. Usually I object. Not this time. The Amanda Berry story is shocking.

Court psychopath test revealed

A 2011 book, The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry, by Jon Ronson exposes Robert D. Hare's Psychopathy Checklist, Revised (PCL-R). The test is kept secret, and is the leading psychopath test used in court. You can temporarily get the text of the book here.

Hare is a bit of a psychopath himself, and has gotten rich and famous from this test, and has even sued to block criticism for 3 years in an academic paper:

The paper is a critique of a rating scale that is widely used in criminal courts to determine whether a person is a psychopath and likely to commit acts of violence. It was accepted for publication in a psychological journal in 2007, but the inventor of the rating scale saw a draft and threatened a lawsuit if it was published, setting in motion a stultifying series of reviews, revisions and legal correspondence. ...

Dr. Skeem and Dr. Cooke warned in their paper that the checklist was increasingly being mistaken for a complete definition of psychopathy — a broader personality construct that includes deceitfulness, impulsivity and recklessness, though not always aggression or illegal acts. The authors contended that Dr. Hare’s checklist warps that concept by making criminal behavior a more central component than it really is.

Hare was furious that the above book told too much about his PCL-R:

Ronson received permission from the organizers to attend the workshop to facilitate research for his book, with a clear indication that the workshop would not qualify him to use the PCL-R. As a participant in the workshop, he was privy to a considerable amount of empirical information, mostly available in the literature on psychopathy, and a copyrighted Item Handout –- that we require participants to return at the end of the workshop –- containing formal detailed descriptions and scoring criteria for each of the 20 PCL-R items. Ronson included in his book item-titles (OK) and brief excerpts (not OK) from the Item Handout. ...

I particularly was disturbed by some of Ronson’s contrived descriptions of his interactions and conversations with me. For example, not only does he conflate my early studies of threatened pain (mild shock to the fingers) with much later ones on brain function, his descriptions of these early studies and my reactions to them are convoluted, and false. Referring to these studies (pp. 95-96) Ronson said, “It was inevitable that civil rights groups would eventually force a reining in of the experiments. And sure enough, disastrously for Bob Hare, electric shocks were outlawed in the early 1970s …. He seemed annoyed by the legislation, even now, years later.”

I think that scientific and court data should be public, but I don't want Hare suing me. He says that the item titles are okay to publish, so here they are:

The Hare PCL-R Checklist - Trait

Item 1: Glibness/superficial charm
Item 2: Grandiose sense of self-worth
Item 3: Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Item 4: Pathological lying
Item 5: Conning/Manipulative
Item 6: Lack of remorse or guilt
Item 7: Shallow affect
Item 8: Callous/lack of empathy
Item 9: Parasitic lifestyle
Item 10: Poor behavioral controls
Item 11: Promiscuous sexual behavior
Item 12: Early behavior problems
Item 13: Lack of realistic long-term goals
Item 14: Impulsivity
Item 15: Irresponsibility
Item 16: Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
Item 17: Many short-tem marital relationships
Item 18: Juvenile delinquency
Item 19: Revocation of conditional release
Item 20: Criminal versatility

As you can see, this is just a list of character flaws, and not a singular psychological disorder. Hare has even admitted that his psychopathic test-takers break down into two factors, (1) aggressive narcissism and (2) socially deviant lifestyle. Furthermore these break down into (1a) narcissistic personality disorder and (1b) histrionic personality disorder, and to (2a) antisocial personality disorder and (2b) criminality. And even these factors do not includes traits like promiscuous sexual behavior. Others say psychopathy is just a combination of boldness, disinhibition, and meanness.

Fortunately there is now a free psychopath test that is better than the PCL-R. You can take it online, if you wish. There are people sitting in prison because of Hare's prejudices, and the psychopath diagnosis needs to be better understood.

Some kids are alleged to be psychopaths:

Children with severe behavioral problems have a suppressed response to others' pain, according to new brain-scan research.

Researchers examined brain scans of kids with conduct disorder, which is marked by aggression, cruelty to others and anti-social behavior. Some kids with conduct disorder also display what psychologists call "callous-unemotional traits," which means they lack guilt and empathy.

The patterns seen in these children's brains may reveal a vulnerability to psychopathy in adulthood, researchers report today (May 2) in the journal Current Biology. Psychopaths are manipulative and lack empathy and remorse.

This is just psychobabble for bad behavior.

Meanwhile the NY Times reports on the DSM-5 that is about to be released:

“As long as the research community takes the D.S.M. to be a bible, we’ll never make progress,” Dr. Insel said, adding, “People think that everything has to match D.S.M. criteria, but you know what? Biology never read that book.”

The revision, known as the D.S.M.-5 and the first since 1994, has stirred unprecedented questioning from the public, patient groups and, most fundamentally, senior figures in psychiatry who have challenged not only decisions about specific diagnoses but the scientific basis of the entire enterprise. Basic research into the biology of mental disorders and treatment has stalled, they say, confounded by the labyrinth of the brain. ...

Dr. Insel is one of a growing number of scientists who think that the field needs an entirely new paradigm for understanding mental disorders, though neither he nor anyone else knows exactly what it will look like.

The DSM-IV has been the bible of clinical psychology because it was thought to be the most scientific thing. But as I have posted here repeatedly, there are more and more experts admitting that the DSM-5 is unscientific.

Untimely FOAH submitted

My ex-wife just send me proposed "Findings and Order After Hearing" for a couple court hearings over a year ago. The first said:

Proceeding on August 10, 2011 at 10:30 Dept. C
IT IS ORDERED:

CUSTODY:
The court shall grant temporary sole legal and physical custody of minors [Mary AngryDad] and [Jenny AngryDad] to Juiie Travers, Petitioner. There shall be no modification to the custody order for two (2) years.

VISITATION:
The parties are provided with the Court Supervised Visitation Provider list. Mother has selected four (4) supervisors from the list, Father shall call one of them and begin supervised visits with the minor children. Mother shall provide the girls schedule to Father; Supervised visitation shall be at Mother's discretion and at the minor's request. Father shall contact the professionally supervisor and set up the supervised visits. Father shall provide Mother all his available dates for supervised visits.

CONTEMPT:
Father withdraws his time waiver at this time and his last date for trial is September 26, 2011. All briefs and responses are due by September 2, 2011. Father is advised he can obtain counsel for the contempt proceedings.

The contempt charge was for posting info about the case on this blog. I had to remove several (accurate) quotes as a result of the contempt hearing. I think that it was a denial of my free speech rights, as I was only reporting on court evidence used against me.

The second said:

Proceeding on January 4,2012 at 1:30 Dept. C

FINDINGS AND ORDERS:

The Court finds that there is no change of circumstance and that the prior order of 8/10/11 states that there shall be no modification to the custody and visitation orders of 8/10/11 for a period of 2 years.

Petitioner, Julie Jae Travers, shall continue to have sole legal and physical custody of the minors, [Mary AngryDad] and [Jenny AngryDad]. Respondent, George AngryDad, is to have supervised visitation at the discretion of the Petitioner.

The Respondent shall continue with supervised visitation and contact the other 2 remaining professional supervisors on the list or 2 more approved by Petitioner about resuming supervised visitation with the minors.

The Court notes that Dr. Perlmutter has declined to do a brief update on the status due to negative statements made by Respondent on his blog and C.J. Neustadter has declined to continue with the supervised visitation due to Respondent's failure to comply with the rules and regulations pertaining to the supervision.

Respondent's request for modification of custody and visitation is denied.

Not exactly. Perlmutter was unhappy that I reported his ethics violations. Neustadter did not accuse me of refusing to comply with any rules.

The problem with Neustadter is that she kept putting false and derogatory allegations in her reports. For example, we went to a climbing gym for one supervised visit, and my kids had a lesson scheduled. While they were waiting for the lesson to start, I told them to climb on the "boulder" that was provided for the purpose. Neustadter wrote in her report that I was violating the gym rules to tell them to climb on the boulder. There was no such rule. She could have just asked anyone at the gym, and they would have told her that the boulder was for such climbing. A sign on the boulder even said so. However I asked Neustadter to correct her report, and she refused.

Neustadter was also horrible with kids. I did not like her around my kids because of her negative attitude. And I did not like her over-opinionated reports. She told me that she like to put at least one negative thing in each report, because that makes her sound more credible. I tolerated her for a while, but when she refused to correct objectively false statements, she became intolerable.

I mention this at yet another false Neustadter allegation is going on the court record, and she will not do anything about it. I have tried to avoid criticizing her, but she leaves me no choice.

I don't know why my ex-wife is submitting this paperwork at this time.

The cover letter said:

April 30, 2013
RE: AngryMom v. AngryDad
FOAH for January 4,2012 hearing ...

Enclosed, please find the Findings and Order After Hearing in the above-entitled matter. Please sign where indicated and return in the envelope enclosed for your convenience.

If we do not receive a response from you within five days of the date of this letter per California Rules of Court Rule 391(a), the proposed order will be submitted to the court for the Judge's signature.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Julie Travers

My 5 days were already up when I got the letter. There was no enclosed envelope.

Proposed laws to retain parental rights

Here is a promising proposed law:

A number of Missouri lawmakers are supporting an amendment to the state constitution that essentially formalizes the fundamental right of parents to raise their children as they see fit.

In late April the House gave its approval to a measure, House Joint Resolution 26 (HJR26) that says parents have the right to make all decisions regarding the "discipline, education, religious instruction, health, medical care, place of habitation, and general well-being" for their own minor children.

Such a law should not be necessary. My problem with such a law is that it might be interpreted to mean that parents only have the rights if they agree on how to exercise the rights. In my opinion, each parent should have that fundamental right.

Vox Day recites a news story about CPS abuse, and adds:

CPS is one of those evils where the cure is much worse than the disease. It is far better for the occasional unfortunate child to be abused by his parents than for every single child, parent, and guardian in the country to be privy to this sort of abuse by bureaucrats.

CPS not only doesn't reduce the amount of child abuse that takes place, it actually increases it because children in the foster care system are much more likely to be abused than are children who are not in it. It can't even be justified by its own purported rationale for existence. And as for those police, this just underlines the fact that they are the bad guys, every bit as evil and far less accountable than the everyday criminals.

The police in America are not the "thin blue line" defending civilization from savagery, as they would have you believe, they are now little more than the enforcement arm of the authoritarian state. The short-term occupation of Boston is, from their perspective, the ideal state of affairs towards which we should all aspire. Yes, there are the occasional righteous throwbacks, but this doesn't change the observable fact that they have become the American Ofstapo, the not-even-remotely secret state police.

I agree that CPS does more harm than good.

AP reports on a California attempt at parental rights:

SACRAMENTO, Calif.—The state Senate passed a bill Thursday that would allow parents to remove their children's personal information from social networking sites, over the objection of Facebook and other tech companies that say it would be impossible to implement.

Sen. Ellen Corbett, D-Hayward, said her SB501 gives parents the right to protect their children by removing addresses, telephone numbers, Social Security numbers, and bank or credit card account information. The bill applies to children under age 18.

Her bill passed 23-10 and moves to the Assembly.

In an opposition letter signed by Facebook Inc., Google Inc., Zynga Inc., Tumblr and others, the companies described Corbett's bill as unnecessary. They said it would require a social networking website to validate a minor's identity and age within 96 hours or face a $10,000 fine.

Of course those companies do not want parents to interfere with companies marketing products directly to teenagers. Here is SB-501.

Facebook and Google have long histories of refusing to comply with privacy laws and policies. And they are also anti-parent.

A gay-rights group, The Trevor Project, also warned that the bill could prevent young people from accessing support services if they face family rejection. The project is a West Hollywood-based crisis center that helps lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth by providing a social networking community.

In other words, the LGBTQIA lobby does not want anyone interfering with its ability to recruit teenagers.

She said the legislation doesn't just protect children but also allows adults to protect themselves from stalking, identify theft and other crimes by letting them request the removal of private information. Other information that can be removed under the bill includes driver's license numbers, state identification numbers, employee identification numbers and mother's maiden name.

"This information should not be available and posted on the Internet," Corbett said before Thursday's vote. "It would allow stalker to know where an adult or child physically is living and even provide a direct opportunity for a criminal to commit identity theft."

Sen. Joel Anderson, R-Alpine, said he opposed the bill because verification would be too burdensome for social networking companies to verify a user and his or her parent.

"I know for a fact that this bill is not fully cooked," Anderson said.

Yes, it is not fully cooked. My mother's maiden name is on Wikipedia, and I am sure no law will block that.

As long as parents have the responsibilities for a minor, they should also have the right to edit her Facebook page. And not just to remove ID numbers.

Even Pres. Barack Obama, who is a leftoid ideologue but also has two daughters, wants some limits on what teenaged girls can do:

President Barack Obama said Thursday he was comfortable with his administration's decision to allow over-the-counter purchases of a morning-after pill for anyone 15 and older.

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday had lowered the age at which people can buy the Plan B One-Step morning-after pill without a prescription to 15 — younger than the current limit of 17. The FDA decided that the pill could be sold on drugstore shelves near condoms, instead of locked behind pharmacy counters. ...

The Justice Department's appeal responded to an order by U.S. District Judge Edward Korman in New York that would allow girls and women of any age to buy not only Plan B but its cheaper generic competition as easily as they can buy aspirin. Korman gave the FDA 30 days to comply, and the Monday deadline was approaching.

The judge and various leftoid feminist groups want 12yo girls to be able to buy birth-control pills on their own.

Defense attorney Nurmi argued yesterday that Travis Alexander was a pervert for commenting that Jodi Arias sounded like a 12yo girl when she faked an orgasm during phone sex. I am not sure how that is supposed to justify Jodi killing Travis. No, private pillow talk between consenting adults is not sick. What is sick is the way our society denies parental rights and insists on sexualizing teenagers over parental objections.

AP also reports:

An Iowa agency's refusal to list both spouses in a lesbian marriage as parents on their children's birth certificates is a violation of their constitutional rights and must stop, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The court, which made history by legalizing gay marriage in 2009, ordered the Iowa Department of Public Health to start listing the names of both female spouses on the birth certificates of their children. The ruling was backed by all six justices who participated.

Iowa had been the only state in the nation that allowed marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples, but refused to list both spouses on birth certificates of their children, according to Camilla Taylor, an attorney for Lambda Legal, a gay rights group involved in the case.

Justice David Wiggins said the state government "has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification" for treating lesbian parents differently than parents of opposite sex. He said the only explanation for doing so was "stereotype or prejudice" that violated their rights to be treated equally under the Iowa Constitution.

"It is important for our laws to recognize that married lesbian couples who have children enjoy the same benefits and burdens as married opposite-sex couples who have children," Wiggins wrote. ...

Hundreds of same-sex couples in Iowa have been denied accurate birth certificates since 2009, Taylor said, and suffer a range of problems as a result of one of the spouses not being considered legal parents. They've had hassles enrolling their children in schools, taking them to the doctor and traveling, she said.

The birth certificates are accurate if they list the natural mom and dad. No, it is not just a prejudice to want birth certificates to identify the true parents. More and more parents are being defined by what some judge thinks is advancing some political cause. More and more, same-sex marriage is all about cutting off dads from kids.

Witnesses using bogus statistics

I explained below how court psychologists use bogus statistics to bluff the court. Now a statistics professors offers a list of ways to separate lies from statistics:

1. “Focus on how robust a finding is, meaning that different ways of looking at the evidence point to the same conclusion.”

2. Don’t confuse statistical with practical significance.

3. “Be wary of scholars using high-powered statistical techniques as a bludgeon to silence critics who are not specialists.”

4. “Don’t fall into the trap of thinking about an empirical finding as ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ At best, data provide an imperfect guide.”

5. “Don’t mistake correlation for causation.”

6. “Always ask ‘so what?’”

7. Make your data and analysis public.

Sure enough, the Jodi Arias psycho experts made all 7 mistakes.

Some of the best questions came from the jury:

10:16 p.m. ET: Juror question: Why did you write in autopsy report that the membrane that protects the outside of the brain was intact but the brain was damaged?

Dr. Horn said that was a typo, and it’s just part of their standard from.

Wow, how could he make this mistake? And how did all the lawyers miss this?

I guess the psychologist Geffner caught this. The significance is that the prosecution claims that Arias shot Alexander after the stabbings and throat-slashing. Arias claims that she shot first. If the prosecutor is right, then she is surely still lying to cover up her guilt, but I was unconvinced that she shot last.

The closing arguments are now being given in the Arias trial. The evidence for her guilt is overwhelming, and the only question is how much the jury was softened and confused by psychologist testimony. The validity and relevance of that testimony is questionable. The core scientific backbone is the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria, and the use of multiple-choice questionnaires to help make diagnoses. Now I read this:

In a potentially seismic move, the National Institute of Mental Health – the world’s biggest mental health research funder, has announced only two weeks before the launch of the DSM-5 diagnostic manual that it will be “re-orienting its research away from DSM categories”.

Update: The defense attorney Nurmi is making its closing statement, and saying that the case is "not about the sexual orientation of the witnesses". He is referring to Alyce LaViolette, the domestic violence expert. Her expertise was not based on any facts or research, but her personal experiences. And her experience, apparently, is that she has been unable to have a successful relationship with a man. Yes, the case is not about the witnesses, but common sense ought to tell you than her domestic violence opinions were bogus.

Nurmi's main argument so far is that if Arias had carefully planned the murder, then she would not have made the mistakes that she did. Also, if she drove 1000 miles to kill Travis, then why did she bother to have sexual relations with him before killing him? Why would she take pictures? Nurmi says that doesn't make any sense. It makes sense to me if she wanted vengeance, and she was going to delete the pictures. My guess is that she went there to try to talk Travis into taking her to Cancun instead of another woman, and was enraged when he refused.

Update: here is more on DSM-5 criticism:

The DSM is a manual for diagnosing and classifying mental disorders and is widely used by doctors and researchers. As Thomas Insel writes in his post, the goal of the manual is to “provide a common language for describing psychopathology.” The problem, however, is a “lack of validity.” He writes:

Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure. In the rest of medicine, this would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain or the quality of fever.

The alternative, Insel writes, is a new NIMH project called Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), which will incorporate genetics, imaging, cognitive science, and other information into diagnoses. Mental health researchers are taking on more molecular- and cellular-focused tools , such as those based on DNA analysis or brain scans, in the hopes of improving diagnoses and treatment (see “The Hunt Is On for Biological Signs of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder” and “Why Obama’s Brain-Mapping Project Matters”).

The hunt is for this:

“The goal is to develop quantitative biomarkers, such as from a blood test, urine analysis, or fMRI, that can be used to determine objectively if someone has PTSD,” says Len Polizzotto, Draper’s vice president in charge of the program. The markers could also help reveal whether treatment is working, he says.

That would make psychiatry a lot more scientific, but it is just not possible today.

Since I became a science writer 30 years ago, I have heard countless claims about breakthroughs in our understanding and treatment of mental illness. And yet as the NIMH decision on the DSM indicates, the science of mental illness is still appallingly primitive.

Update: Here is another good article on how psychologist could become more scientific. And here is another psychology fraud about a study that "suggested that dancing is a signal for sexual selection in humans". Plausible conclusion, but the data was suspect. Here are more statistical tips.

Last psychologist for Arias defense

The Jodi Aria trial wrapped up, with testimony of defense psychologist Robert Geffner. He has some books on Amazon. I mentioned him below.

He has 30 years experience and assorted credentials. He got his psychology PhD at UC Santa Cruz. That is the university that just celebrated 4-20 day by everyone smoking dope on the fields overlooking the bay. I mentioned a couple of their wacky psychology professors who died last year.

As part of his expertise, he testified that he trained psychologists to do child custody evaluations, and he trains judges on how to order and interpret them. So it is important to understand the thinking of a snake like this.

He testified a lot about psychology tests:

The particular manufacturer of the test has the copyright, so they are the only ones who can computer score it. Because it has so many scales, you really don't want to do it by hand. ...

Yes, Pearson is the company that has the copyright of this test. It means two things. One is, they are the only ones who are allowed to score this by computer, which is major lawsuits 10 years ago because others did it and they could not anymore. The other means somebody in my profession could not give somebody else who is not a trained professional licensed psychologist copies of the raw data or the questions. So in other words, we are not allowed to release that because it would defeat the purpose of the test.

Q: How does it defeat the purpose of the test?

If people knew what the exact questions and answers were, and how that scores, then you could fake the test. Because then I would know that I don't want to answer this way or that way. So in all the tests that we're talking about, they all are copyrighted. Meaning that we are only allowed to release the information to another licensed psychologist or trained mental health professional who then is bound by not releasing it to others, so the confidentiality of the test itself is not breached.

That is not a correct statement of the first-sale doctrine of copyright law. That doctrine was just upheld by the US Supreme Court in Kirtsaeng v Wiley, and it allows the purchaser of a copyrighted document to resell it as he pleases.

In fact lawyers can legally obtain copies of these tests, as well as instructions on how to fake them. Lawyers can also use this info to train clients on how to beat the tests, and avoid revealing the process to the court by using attorney–client privilege. I have considered posting the info to this blog, but I don't want to deal with the lawsuits.

Geffner was an extremely experienced expert witness, but he made one minor rookie mistake early. He said:

I did not study floating profiles, because they are not valuable. [paraphrased]

The problem with this is that once he says that he did not study it, then he has conceded that he has no expertise on it, and therefore he should not be giving any opinion on it. He should have said something like, "The floating profiles are not valuable, so I do not use them." That way he can still criticize someone who does use floating profiles.

He said that the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory was better for diagnosing personality disorders than the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. I have mentioned the Millon test being used in family court, such as here, here, here, and here. He had some gripes about which are the best psychological tests to be using, such as arguing that the psychologist should always using whatever the publisher says is the latest version. Arias got the PSI in 2010 and 2011, but Geffner said that the PSI-2 was announced in early 2011 and could have been used for the second test.

Geffner also gave some testimony about how disabling was the gunshot to Alexander's head. I actually had some doubts myself about the prosecution expert's testimony on this subject, but Geffner is not an expert on the matter, so I don't know why he was giving an opinion.

There are many problems with this testimony about psychological tests. First, the results are based on Jodi Arias filling in bubble sheets, and are therefore subject to what is delicately called malingering or secondary gain. These terms understate the problem, because there is no primary gain. Arias has no incentive to tell the truth, as she needs a particular psychological diagnosis to avoid the death penalty. Usually, patients are seeking the primary gain of getting treatment to help the condition, and it is assumed that they will tell the truth in order to get better treatment. But Arias does not want treatment. She will just tell whatever story helps her court case.

The next big problem is that the test results just give statistical correlations, not diagnoses, and
correlation does not imply causation.

Another big problem is that the test scores do not necessarily have statistical significance. There was a lot of discussion about scores that were elevated but not above the threshold for clinical significance. This is a technical issue that trips up nearly everyone except profession statisticians.

Finally, even if you believe that that tests imply an 80% likelihood of a PTSD or borderline personality disorder diagnosis, it is not clear what any of this has to do with guilt or innocence. Those diagnoses are just professional buzzwords that are used to bill insurance or qualify for veterans benefit, but not to distinguish criminal behavior.

Judge evaluation email update

I posted below about informing the California Bar Assn Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission about the fitness of Irwin H. Joseph to be a judge. Now their office tells me:

Please email your commentary to the lead investigating commissioner, Lara Krieger.

The contact info for Lara Krieger is posted. Please send your comments. I sent mine.

Comparing moms and dads

AP reports:

It may be a man’s world, as the saying goes, but lesbians seem to have an easier time living in it than gay men do.

High-profile lesbian athletes have come out while still playing their sports, but not a single gay male athlete in major U.S. professional sports has done the same. While television’s most prominent same-sex parents are the two fictional dads on “Modern Family,” surveys show that society is actually more comfortable with the idea of lesbians parenting children.

And then there is the ongoing debate over the Boy Scouts of America proposal to ease their ban on gay leaders and scouts.

Reaction to the proposal, which the BSA’s National Council will take up next month, has been swift, and often harsh. Yet amid the discussions, the Girl Scouts of USA reiterated their policy prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, among other things. That announcement has gone largely unnoticed.

I am guessing that there is less concern about lesbian scout leaders because they do not go around penetrating girls in order to turn them into lesbians. But my interest here is with the parenting prejudices:

Still, while many see the two dads on the “Modern Family” sitcom as groundbreaking, others have a sense that the societal discomfort with gay men as parents is at the root of many of the jokes.

“A good portion of that is for comedic effect,” says Don Todd, a 32-year-old father in a two-dad family in Orange, Calif. He doesn’t think most people would think it was as funny if the characters were two moms.

Herek, the researcher at UC-Davis, has, in fact, found in surveys that heterosexuals think lesbians would be better parents than gay men.

Nancy Dreyer, a mother in a two-mom family, has noticed this in her own life.

“With gay male friends of ours who have kids, people will say, ‘My gosh, who takes care of this baby?’ — as if they’re not capable,” says Dreyer, whose 57 and lives in suburban Boston.

The assumption, she says, is that men aren’t nurturing. And if they’re too nurturing, she says, people get suspicious, noting that no one has ever questioned her and her partner about their ability to raise their son, who’s now in college.

So which is more accepted, the gay (adoptive) parents or the lesbians? This article has conflicting messages. My impression is that the lesbians are a lot less likely to face social stigma. But the gays are more accepted on TV. Is that because the gays are accepted, or because people are laughing at the gays?

I live in one of those leftoid communities where everyone bends over backwards to show tolerance for LGBTQIA folks, so I don't kmnow. I have heard, anecdotally, that those familiar with gay and lesbian parenting usually say that the gays are doing okay but the lesbians make horrible parents.

The Wikipedia article on LGBT parenting announces a "consensus":

Scientific research has been generally consistent in showing that gay and lesbian parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.[3][4][5] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9]

Politifact analyzes this claim:

Assertions that it makes no difference whether children are raised by heterosexual or homosexual parents have been "shattered by the latest and best social science and research."

Politifact says that hte claim is overstated, and concludes:

A prudent scholar, he said, would conclude that "the question is by no means settled, either by the literature as a whole or by the Regnerus study, the latter having far too many problems and issues to be considered ‘definitive.’"

The claim did not say that the Regnerus study is "definitive". The question of how homosexual couples acting as legal parents compare to heterosexual parents is not settled, meaning that the latest and best social science and research does not resolve the issue.

Wikipedia is biased and false to say that there is a consensus on the issue. There is not. I follow the scientific evidence, and I am happy to post it either way it goes. Those "major associations of mental health professionals" are corrupt, and refuse to recognize evidence like the Regnerus study.

One judge argued in 2010:

These reports and studies find that there are no differences in the parenting of homosexuals or the adjustment of their children. ... As a result, based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption.

You can spot the fallacious legal reasoning from phrases like "no differences", "irrational", "best interests of children", and double negatives. Of course there are differences. The psychology professors have blinders on.

Now that our society has embarked on a vast and irresponsible in parenting by non-parents, I am hoping that at least we get some academic studies comparing male and female parenting styles.

As I write this, an NBA player is being celebrated as the new Jackie Robinson:

In a first-person article posted Monday on Sports Illustrated's website, Collins begins: ''I'm a 34-year-old NBA center. I'm black. And I'm gay.'' ...

''I have a feeling he's got a whole new career,'' King said. ''I have a feeling he's going to make more in endorsements than he's ever made in his life.''

Sports equipment maker Nike released a statement Monday saying: ''We admire Jason's courage and are proud that he is a Nike athlete. Nike believes in a level playing field where an athlete's sexual orientation is not a consideration.''

A black lesbian basketball player, Sheryl Swoopes, has already been down this path:

Swoopes was married from June 1995 to 1999 to her high school sweetheart, with whom she had a son, Jordan Eric Jackson in 1997. In October 2005, with her announcement that she is gay, Swoopes became one of the highest profile athletes in a team sport to do so publicly. She and her partner, former basketball player and Houston Comets assistant coach, Alisa Scott, whom Swoopes at the time said she would like to someday marry, together raised Swoopes's son, Jordan. ..;

As of 2011, Swoopes had broken up with Alisa Scott and was reportedly engaged to a man.

I guess the leftoid psychologists will say that the child will turn out just as well as any other child because lesbians are born that way and their lesbian relationships are just as good as any others. I hope someone studies these ideas objectively, before everyone goes nuts.

Update: Pres. Barack Obama said:

Yeah, I’ll say something about Jason Collins. I had a chance to talk to him yesterday. ... I told him I couldn’t be prouder of him. ... the LGBT community deserves ... not just tolerance but a recognition that they’re fully a part of the American family. ... this is who I am, I’m proud of it, I’m still a great competitor, I’m still seven feet tall and can bang with Shaq and, you know, deliver a hard foul — ... I’m very proud of him. All right?

Really? Is this what makes our President proudest? There is no word about Collins having a domestic partner or lover, but apparently he does "deliver a hard foul" and "bang with Shaq", whatever that means. And tolerance is not enough, so I have to give my approval? No, I do not have to approve of him banging with Shaq.

Drugging our kids

The NY Times reports:

Nearly one in five high school age boys in the United States and 11 percent of school-age children over all have received a medical diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, according to new data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

These rates reflect a marked rise over the last decade and could fuel growing concern among many doctors that the A.D.H.D. diagnosis and its medication are overused in American children.

The rate is 20% among boys aged 14-17.

The figures showed that an estimated 6.4 million children ages 4 through 17 had received an A.D.H.D. diagnosis at some point in their lives, a 16 percent increase since 2007 and a 41 percent rise in the past decade. About two-thirds of those with a current diagnosis receive prescriptions for stimulants like Ritalin or Adderall, which can drastically improve the lives of those with A.D.H.D. but can also lead to addiction, anxiety and occasionally psychosis.

“Those are astronomical numbers. I’m floored,” said Dr. William Graf, a pediatric neurologist in New Haven and a professor at the Yale School of Medicine. He added, “Mild symptoms are being diagnosed so readily, which goes well beyond the disorder and beyond the zone of ambiguity to pure enhancement of children who are otherwise healthy.”

And even more teenagers are likely to be prescribed medication in the near future because the American Psychiatric Association plans to change the definition of A.D.H.D. to allow more people to receive the diagnosis and treatment. A.D.H.D. is described by most experts as resulting from abnormal chemical levels in the brain that impair a person’s impulse control and attention skills.

Maybe ADHD is described that way, but no one has even been able to link it to abnormal chemical levels in the brain.

A.D.H.D. has historically been estimated to affect 3 to 7 percent of children. The disorder has no definitive test and is determined only by speaking extensively with patients, parents and teachers, and ruling out other possible causes — a subjective process that is often skipped under time constraints and pressure from parents. It is considered a chronic condition that is often carried into adulthood.

The C.D.C. director, Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, likened the rising rates of stimulant prescriptions among children to the overuse of pain medications and antibiotics in adults.

“We need to ensure balance,” Dr. Frieden said. “The right medications for A.D.H.D., given to the right people, can make a huge difference. Unfortunately, misuse appears to be growing at an alarming rate.”

Of course the experts will claim that they somehow have the ability to give the right drugs to the right people, but the evidence is that they cannot.

AP reports on efforts to drug more kids:

In an effort to find a treatment for autism, scientists at the University of California, Los Angeles, are leading a $9 million experiment that aims to evaluate the effectiveness of drugs within weeks rather than years. ...

Federal statistics show one child out of 88 in the U.S. is believed to have autism or a related disorder. The number of cases has jumped in recent years mainly because of wider screening and better diagnosis. Children with autism may make poor eye contact or exhibit repetitive movements such as rocking or hand-flapping.

The causes of autism are unknown, but scientists lately have focused on genetics, which is thought to account for roughly 20 percent of cases. People with autism are often prescribed drugs to manage hyperactivity and aggressiveness, but the medications do not target the core problems, doctors said.

So they don't know the cause of autism, but they are going to fast-track experimental and unproven drugs to kids with poor eye contact and repetitive movements, even tho they know that the drugs are not treating the core problem.

Parents with diagnosed kids are eager for whatever they can get, and demand insurance coverage:

In the past few years, more than half the states have passed legislation mandating some level of autism coverage, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. But some families of autistic children say they've received little or no benefits. ...

Professionals identify one in 88 children as having Autism Spectrum Disorders, which can cause social and behavioral challenges. It's often treated through applied behavior analysis, known as ABA, an intensive one-on-one therapy that focuses on specific goals, such as toilet training.

I wish that there were some effective treatment for the kids who need it, but there is not. Spending a lot of insurance money on toilet training really isn't helping much. Some problems cannot be solved with money.

Update: The Santa Cruz Sentinel has another story:

While the number of families affected is small, their plight underscores the huge changes on the horizon for health care consumers as they navigate ongoing state and federal health care reforms.

Parents say they were promised the move would not disrupt services for autistic children.

But many now say they feel betrayed after weeks of conflicting or unclear answers about whether their children can continue a popular and effective therapy, applied behavioral analysis, that can cost $20,000 to $50,000 a year.

Catalena's therapy has been discontinued and restarted twice -- and is now scheduled to end again Tuesday.

Those services cost a lot of money, and do not help much.

Update: Here are more signs of persecuting autistic kids:

That’s the opinion of Fehmi Kaya, head of the Health and Education Associations for Autistic Children in Adana, Turkey. Autistic children are atheists, he said, “due to a lack of a section for faith in their brains.”

From TimeTurk (English edition) 4/22/13:

“Autistic children do not know believing in God because they do not have a section of faith in their brains,” Kaya said, according to daily Milliyet.

Kaya said the underdevelopment of faith sections in the brain caused autistic children to not believe in God.

“That is why they don’t know how to pray, how to believe in God. It is needed to create awareness in these children through methods of therapy.”

Kaya added that autistic children should undergo treatment to “create areas of faith in their brain.”

Other autism news says the problem is in the placenta:

"We can look at the placenta at birth and determine the chance of being at risk for autism with extremely high reliability," said Dr. Harvey Kliman, a research scientist at Yale University.

And in the gut:

More than 90 per cent of children with autism spectrum disorders suffer from chronic, severe gastrointestinal symptoms. Of those, about 75 per cent suffer from diarrhea, according to current literature.

This is crazy.