Sluggish cognitive tempo is the new ADD

Just when I thought that the shrinks already had too many excuses for drugging kids, the NY Times reports on a new one:

With more than six million American children having received a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, concern has been rising that the condition is being significantly misdiagnosed and overtreated with prescription medications.

Yet now some powerful figures in mental health are claiming to have identified a new disorder that could vastly expand the ranks of young people treated for attention problems. Called sluggish cognitive tempo, the condition is said to be characterized by lethargy, daydreaming and slow mental processing. By some researchers’ estimates, it is present in perhaps two million children.

Experts pushing for more research into sluggish cognitive tempo say it is gaining momentum toward recognition as a legitimate disorder — and, as such, a candidate for pharmacological treatment. Some of the condition’s researchers have helped Eli Lilly investigate how its flagship A.D.H.D. drug might treat it.

“This is a concoction to justify the giving out of medication at unprecedented and unjustifiable levels,” Keith Conners, a psychologist and early advocate for recognition of A.D.H.D., said of the rising rates of diagnosis of the disorder.

The Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology devoted 136 pages of its January issue to papers describing the illness, with the lead paper claiming that the question of its existence “seems to be laid to rest as of this issue.” The psychologist Russell Barkley of the Medical University of South Carolina, for 30 years one of A.D.H.D.’s most influential and visible proponents, has claimed in research papers and lectures that sluggish cognitive tempo “has become the new attention disorder.”

You can bet that the drugs for this will be abused.

Major League Baseball bans a lot of performance enhancing drugs, but if the player has a documented attention deficit, then he gets to take pills to increase his alertness.

Court stenographers not necessary

I have complained about the lack of court reporters, about courts not liking parties to make their own recordings. The NY Times has a debate:

Are Court Stenographers?

After a court reporter with a drinking problem left behind an incomplete record of at least six trials and two dozen other proceedings in Manhattan, the legal community was left to debate again if, in the age of digital recordings, court stenographers are needed.

Using automated tools would be a whole lot cheaper and more reliable.

Shove a spouse, lose a gun

I mentioned last month this US Supreme Court decision. Jeff Knox writes about it:

The U.S. Supreme Court came down with a decision in March that effectively expands the base of people prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms in this country. In a unanimous decision in the case U.S. v. Castleman, the Court ruled that the law banning possession of firearms by anyone ever convicted of any crime of violence against a spouse or significant other – often referred to as the Lautenberg law – applies not only to crimes labeled as “Domestic Violence” or to such crimes that involve what an average person would consider actual violence, but also to things like pushing, shoving, or grabbing, even when no harm was intended and no injury sustained.

Many states have intentionally drawn a distinction between minor contact among family members during an argument and violence intended to harm, intimidate, or control. Those states’ common-sense approach to the matter has now been overruled by the Court, and convictions for charges like simple assault in cases like a woman slapping a cheating spouse, or a man pushing his way out the door to get away from an argument, will now include the mandatory loss of firearm rights for life – even if the incident occurred decades ago.

Singer thinks she has Asperger

The London Guardian reports:

Throughout her life, Scottish singing sensation Susan Boyle has carried the label "brain damaged". Now, in an exclusive interview with the Observer, the 52-year-old has revealed that she was misdiagnosed after complications at birth and has actually had Asperger's, a high-functioning form of autism.

Boyle, who shot to fame on Britain's Got Talent in 2009 to become one of the bestselling British female artists, received the diagnosis a year ago but has kept it secret. "It was the wrong diagnosis when I was a kid," she says. "I was told I had brain damage. I always knew it was an unfair label. Now I have a clearer understanding of what's wrong and I feel relieved and a bit more relaxed about myself."

Boyle's success has recently led to a cameo role in the festive film, The Christmas Candle, while Fox Searchlight is interested in making a film of her life story with Oscar-winner Meryl Streep in the lead role. But her achievements have sometimes been marred by reports of volatile behaviour and emotional outbursts. ...

"I think people will treat me better because they will have a much greater understanding of who I am and why I do the things I do."

No, no one will treat her any better. Asperger syndrome does not explain volatile behaviour and emotional outbursts. The diagnosis is just a stupid fad, and it is not even in the DSM-5 anymore.

Toddlers on long-distance sailboat trip

The NY Times reports on the latest parenting controversy:

As her family began what was supposed to be a monthslong journey in a 36-foot sailboat from Mexico to New Zealand, Charlotte Kaufman wrote openly of her misgivings about taking her two daughters — ages 1 and 3 — to sail the South Pacific, with her husband as captain and herself as the crew.

“I think this may be the stupidest thing we have ever done,” she wrote in her trip blog, before concluding: “It is a difficult self-imposed isolation that is completely worth it.”

Less than two weeks later, 900 miles off the coast of Mexico, Charlotte and her husband, Eric, unable to steer their ship, the Rebel Heart, called for emergency help. Their younger daughter, Lyra, who had been treated for salmonella just weeks before the trip, was covered in a rash and had a fever. After a complicated rescue effort orchestrated by the California Air National Guard and the United States Navy and Coast Guard, the Kaufman family was on a Navy ship heading to San Diego, scheduled to arrive on Wednesday.

But well before they set foot on dry land, the Kaufmans have become the focus of a raging debate over responsible parenting. Some readers of their blogs have left blistering comments suggesting that the authorities should take their children away, seizing on such details in Ms. Kaufman’s postings as the baby rolling around and unable to sleep because of the ship’s violent pitch, and soiled diapers being washed in the galley sink.

As far as I know, it is not child abuse or neglect to be a long distance from medical care when a child happens to get a rash.

I am not going to pile on here. What they do is their business. I might have said that kids might appreciate the trip more if they are a lottle older, but maybe the parents had good reasons.

Is ‘eat your peas!’ emotional abuse?

Here is an essay from England:

y friend’s eight-year-old son doesn’t like greens. Recently, when faced with a dinner plate containing fish, chips and peas, he was asked by his dad to ‘Finish it all up!’, to which the boy replied, ‘I feel very uncomfortable having to eat these peas’. It was a striking moment. It seemed he’d internalised the language of child protection, and then used it to get his own way; one of the mantras children are taught at school nowadays is ‘Never feel you have to do anything you are uncomfortable with’.

This may seem like a funny example, but it shows how the language of child protection can be used to undermine adult authority. I was recently in a bus station in London where some noisy teenage girls were throwing sweets around. An elderly man gently remonstrated with them; they responded by shouting ‘Paedo!’ at him.

Children are not stupid. They pick up on the general culture of fear and suspicion of adults that has sprung from society’s obsession with child protection.

The park in downtown Santa Cruz has a child play area that is fenced off and has a sign: "Adults must be accompanied by children."

Court appointed child abuse creeps

The Santa Cruz Sentinel printed a public relations pitch from CASA of Santa Cruz County:

Cynthia Druley: We all have a role in protecting children

By the time you finish reading this article, more than 30 cases of child abuse will have been reported to authorities nationwide. By the end of today, that number will swell past 9,000. And four of those children will die at the hands of their abuser. All in a single day.

When we take stock of these sobering statistics during April — National Child Abuse Prevention Month — it's easy to be overwhelmed.

You may ask yourself, "What can I possibly do to make a difference?" You can play a role in preventing child abuse and neglect by becoming advocates for children.

For some of us, that advocacy comes in a formal role. Teachers, child care workers, health care providers and others who come into daily contact with children can be vigilant for signs of abuse and neglect. Taking action to report suspected abuse or to offer extra time and attention to fragile children and their families can do more than make a difference. It can save lives.

CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate) volunteers stand up for abused and neglected children, giving them a voice in an overburdened child welfare (foster care) system that is hard-pressed to meet their individual needs. A CASA volunteer's comprehensive advocacy can support them during a very difficult time and break the cycle of abuse and neglect.

Children with CASA volunteers find safe, permanent homes more quickly, are half as likely to re-enter the foster care system, and do better in school. On a national basis, CASA organizations are making a profound difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of abused and neglected children across the country. Last year CASA of Santa Cruz County made a difference in the lives of over 200 such children in our community. But despite all the children we have helped, there are still far too many who are left to fend for themselves.

CASA of Santa Cruz County is one of more than 900 CASA programs across the country committed to ensuring that every child who needs a CASA volunteer has one.

She goes on to give instructions on how to volunteer, and how "you can report your suspicions confidentially."

Does any of this creep you out? I never heard of CASA and did not know that we have court appointed busybody volunteers to spy on kids, intervene in families, and facilitate CPS action.

I knew about real parents, foster parents, adoptive parents, and guardians ad litem, but I did not know that the court is appointing child advocates. What is this all about? I don't get it.

Update: A reader points out below that I missed Santa Cruz County court appointed advocate arrested for child molestation, and this leetter:

I'm beginning to feel like I'm trapped in the film "Groundhog Day." Thursday, Feb. 27, the Sentinel featured yet another headline about alleged child molester Brian Criswell, entitled "Former court advocate to face trial." Good grief. Since mid-October you have run nine articles about this topic -- with every single headline identifying the defendant as a "court appointed advocate." A bit of overkill, yes?

The local newspaper also had Friends of CASA hosts its annual fundraising luncheon at Serverino's.

As I check the archives, I did post the Criswell story, Court-appointed child molester, in Oct. 2013. I guess I forgot.

Mother killed baby with breast milk

I did not know that breastfeeding could be such a serious crime. S. Carolina news:

A Campobello woman has been found guilty of killing her daughter with a morphine overdose from breast milk.

She was sentenced to 20 years in prison and will serve 80 percent of the prison sentence before she is eligible for release.

Stephanie I. Greene, 39, was found guilty of homicide by child abuse, involuntary manslaughter and unlawful conduct toward a child after a 4-day jury trial in Spartanburg, according to Solicitor Barry Barnette.

Greene’s 46-day-old daughter, Alexis, was found dead in her parents’ bed on Nov. 13, 2010. Authorities said Greene appeared disoriented when coroner’s office investigators first arrived. They said she had trouble walking, slurred speech and had unfocused eyes, according to trial testimony.

A toxicology report showed toxic levels of morphine in her blood, liver and brain as well as other drugs, including Klonopin, in her system, Barnette said.

Greene's attorney, Wise Rauch, said he does not disagree the baby likely died of a morphine overdose. He questions how such a toxic level killed the newborn.

"When the average human being takes morphine, it's metabolized through the liver," said Rauch. "If it's not metabolized correctly, then yes, it has the possibility to build up, but no mother would know whether or not their child metabolizes morphine correctly without a genetic test."

Greene had been a nurse with a B.S.N Degree and failed to disclose her morphine prescriptions to her doctors and service providers and did not reveal her pregnancy and her breastfeeding of Alexis to her other doctors that were providing the prescriptions to her, according to Barnette.

He said Greene was on morphine and other prescription drugs during her pregnancy and while she was breast-feeding Alexis.

"The two doctors that were giving her the medications did not know she was pregnant," said Barnette.

Greene currently has 38 fraudulent prescription drug charges pending against her, Barnette said.

He said Greene’s prior criminal record includes a conviction for unlawful conduct toward a child and attempt to obtain controlled substance by fraud.

Usually a criminal conviction requires showing criminal intent. This woman was obviously an addict who was not intending to poison her child. Yes, she probably lied to get prescriptions, but that is what addicts do. I wonders why none of the medicos noticed her condition.

Debtors prison for unemployed dads

A New Jersey newspaper reports:

Back in December over 90,000 people in New Jersey saw an end to their unemployment with the expiration of federal emergency benefits. This was the highest share of any state. Another 89,000 New Jersey residents are also set to lose their benefits during the first six months of 2014 as 63 weeks of unemployment is shrinking to 26 according to a report published by the House of Representatives' Ways and Means Committee.

For the Bergen County Jail this means big business.

In Bergen County being unemployed may get you thrown in jail. Bergen County residents who are jobless and have fallen behind on child support or alimony payments face indefinite incarceration in the Bergen County Jail’s “Work Release” program.

Brought before a judge every two weeks unemployed parents incarcerated in the “work release” program are required to report their efforts in finding a job. Being unemployed in Superior Court in Bergen County is considered to be by choice and puts you in contempt of court.

For the long term unemployed this may mean a long term in jail.

Some day this will be seen as barbaric, just as slavery is seen as barbaric today.

Followup on demoted good judge

I posted before on Good judge gets demoted, but they could not get rid of him, and he is back on the job:

San Diego Superior Court Judge Gary Kreep, banished to Kearny Mesa traffic court for the past three months after city prosecutors said they would boycott his criminal courtroom, is on his way back to the downtown courthouse.

Kreep will start a new assignment in Department 7 in the central courthouse, handling a full calendar of landlord-tenant disputes, according to a court spokeswoman. He’ll also handle some civil cases that relate to landlord tenant disputes as well as credit card debt cases. ...

Being sent to traffic court was an unusual step, since those courts are usually staffed only by court commissioners, who are paid about 15 percent less than the $180,000 in salary a Superior Court judge earns. It was virtually unheard of to have a sitting Superior Court judge assigned to hear traffic infractions.

Common sense on Rawhide

I just watched this 1962 Rawhide episode:

The Boss's Daughters
Favor's herd is prevented from passing through private land that is the only tenable route going north to the Kansas destination. However the landowner will relent if Favor gives his permission to allow the landowner to adopt Favor's two young daughters (who happen to be visiting Favor) when he marries Favor's sister-in-law, who has been caring for the children. If Favor is opposed to giving up his children, and if he refuses the adoption scheme, he will be forced to either fight his way through the private land or head the herd south and around through the dessert, losing much or all of his herd to the severe elements.

The daughters look and act just like my daughters. Except that Favor's daughters are loyal to their real father. And the men settle their disputes with guns, wire cutters, cattle, and man-to-man confrontations, instead of shrinks, feminists, and judges.

After listening to an argument about "what's best" for his daughters, and how he would have visitation privileges comparable to how often he sees them anyway, the dad (Favor) says:

But logic and reason ain't got nothing to do with it. There is a big difference between thinking and feeling. No, I am not going to lose them at all. ... They are my daughters, and they belong with me.

Well put. He faced the same family court logic and reason that says that a dad should be willing to give up his kids as long as he is still writing support checks and getting visitation privileges, because that is what's best. No, it is not best. People had more common sense back in 1962.

The modern family court is a great mistake. We were much better off in an era where men were men and women were women. I am an anachronism like Favor or Clint Eastwood (who also starred on Rawhide).

Ad shows dad and hamster

A blog reports:

For decades, fathers and husbands have been depicted on TV programs and in ads as fools, incompetents, abusers and jerks. Sprint goes one better in its series of commercials about The Frobinson Family. Dad/Husband is depicted as a hamster trapped inside a plastic ball.

No, I am not urging a boycott. Just noting the trend.

Man ordered not to criticize cop

I posted yesterday about someone who got into trouble for criticizing family court officials online.

A free speech law professor writes about a police officer attempting to use the legal system to silence criticism:

You can read the ACLU complaint, the protection order — which was in effect for 12 days before being vacated — and Officer Bledsoe’s petition; you can also see the video embedded below.

The order that the Missouri court issued, and that the ACLU is now suing over, strikes me as outrageous. The relevant language read,

Respondent is further ordered to remove all videos, pictures, and text data showing Petitioner’s name and picture from the internet and respondent shall refrain from posting all such data in the future.

Such an order violates the First Amendment even if it referred to a private person, I think, and certainly when it bars the posting of the name of a police officer whom one is criticizing, and a video of the officer performing his duties. I’ve written in detail about such orders, and why they are unconstitutional, in my One-to-One Speech vs. One-to-Many Speech, Criminal Harassment Laws, and “Cyberstalking”; the article chronicles how harassment and stalking laws — which were designed to stop (among other things) unwanted speech to a person — are now being used to stop unwanted speech about a person. Yet so long as the speech about a person doesn’t consist of true threats or other unprotected forms of speech, it must remain constitutionally protected. This is just the latest such incident to hit the news; I wrote about several others in the article.

I do believe that citizens are performing a public service when they expose the work of govt officials. Most officials are doing good jobs, and should be happy to demonstrate that taxpayer money is well spent. Others are incompetent, destructive, or corrupt, and it is a public service to expose them.

And ex-cop explains: Everyone Behaves Better When They're on Video.

Reason TV sat down with former Seattle Police officer Steve Ward, who left the force to start Vievu, a company that makes body cameras for police officers.

“Everyone behaves better when they’re on video,” says Ward. “I realized that dash cams only capture about five percent of what a cop does. And I wanted to catch 100 percent of what a cop does.”

The cameras are small, light, and clip to the clothing of a police officer’s uniform. They turn on with a large switch on the front of the camera and have a green circle that surrounds the lens so that civilians know that the camera is recording.

Maybe you think that this is a little creepy, but this is where we are headed. The technology is here, and people are going to use it.

Anonymous anti-dad judge unmasked

Fellow Angry Dad Dan Brewington posts:

Indiana Appellate Judge John G. Baker: "It was Judge Ezra H. Friedlander who filed the Anonymous Decision in Brewington Divorce Appeal."

Dan is out of prison now, and I hope he is not risking himself again.

I dobn't understand how any judge could have ever issued an anonymous opinion in his case. They routinely hand down signed opinions against murderers, gangsters, terrorists, drug dealers, and others. Dan has never hurt anyone. His only crime is that he wants to see his kids, and he explains his saga on his blog.

Here is my guess for what the judge is thinking: Murderers and other criminals know that they have done something wrong, and that they deserves to get punished. No one can explain what Dan has done wrong.

Deep down, the judge probably realizes that he is doing a horrible thing to punish a good dad and his kid, and he is ashamed of himself. So ashamed that he did not want his name on his opinion.

Impossible to detect liars

I often blame courts for entertaining cases dependent on some accuser telling the truth. Often the accuser has a personal financial gain if t he lie is believed, and there is corroborating evidence.

Scientific studies have consistently shown that it is extremely difficult to figure out who is telling the truth by watching or listening to the witnesses. The NY Times reports:

Like the rest of us, airport security screeners like to think they can read body language. The Transportation Security Administration has spent some $1 billion training thousands of “behavior detection officers” to look for facial expressions and other nonverbal clues that would identify terrorists.

But critics say there’s no evidence that these efforts have stopped a single terrorist or accomplished much beyond inconveniencing tens of thousands of passengers a year. The T.S.A. seems to have fallen for a classic form of self-deception: the belief that you can read liars’ minds by watching their bodies.

Most people think liars give themselves away by averting their eyes or making nervous gestures, and many law-enforcement officers have been trained to look for specific tics, like gazing upward in a certain manner. But in scientific experiments, people do a lousy job of spotting liars. Law-enforcement officers and other presumed experts are not consistently better at it than ordinary people even though they’re more confident in their abilities.

Sometimes a wife will show up in family court with some story of abuse, even tho the events are long past with no witnesses, objective evidence, police reports, medical treatment, or other corroboration. She wants increased financial support. There is no practical way of determining whether she is telling the truth or not.

The TV show Lie To Me exaggerated and popularized the idea that psychological research has discovered people who can detect liars with 100% accuracy. If such abilities really existed, they would solve a lot of problems in court, TSA, and elsewhere. They do not exist.

Judge sides with CPS, kicks the can

I reported before on the case of Justina Pelletier, and Mass. CPS has continued to gets its way:

A judge in Massachusetts has sided with a state agency that just a day earlier was accused of contempt of court for not following a judicially approved plan for treatment for a 15-year-old girl.

According to a report from officials with Liberty Counsel, Judge Joseph Johnston in Boston ruled on Tuesday that custody of Justina Pelletier will remain with the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families “until a future hearing.”

That, according to Liberty Counsel officials, could not be any earlier than May 20.

“Once again, the court is kicking the can down the road. This is unacceptable,” said Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel. “DCF has no right to hold Justina like a prisoner. We will pursue every legal means to end this tragedy.”

Now we have a decision:

A long-running child custody case took a dramatic turn Tuesday, when a Massachusetts juvenile court judge awarded permanent custody of teenager Justina Pelletier to the state Department of Children and Families.

The ruling by Judge Joseph Johnston means the 15-year-old will probably stay in state custody until her 18th birthday unless her parents can prove they are fit to care for their child.

The judge’s four-page decision, which was provided to the Globe, was remarkable for its detail and forcefulness. Johnston faulted Connecticut’s child protection agency for its failure to get involved in a case involving a child from its state, and faulted Pelletier’s parents for their verbally abusive manner and haphazard decision-making that he says has sabotaged plans to move their daughter closer to home.

Johnston wrote that the parents called Boston Children’s Hospital personnel Nazis “and claimed the hospital was punishing and killing Justina. Efforts by hospital clinicians to work with the parents were futile and never went anywhere.”

This is weird. There seems to be some sort of turf war between Massachusetts and Connecticut, and between one hospital and another.

The judge said the parents accused hospital personnel of being "Nazis" for seizing their daughter and holding her for 7 months, while her health deterioates under a bad diagnosis. I thought that calling people Nazis was an American right. The judge also accused: "the parents use profanity directed at the MA DCF [CPS] personnel" [para.12].

In his ruling, Johnston, for the first time publicly, stated his belief that Pelletier suffers from “a persistent and severe Somatic Symptom Disorder,” a psychiatric diagnosis that doctors at Children’s reached in early 2013 when the girl was brought there because she had difficulty walking and eating. The parents objected to that diagnosis, leading to accusations of medical child abuse and setting off a monthslong battle over her care.

This is the weirdest thing. The term Somatic symptom disorder is a DSM-IV psychiatric disorder. It essentially means that the child is showing physical symptoms with no apparent physical cause, so they decide that the problem is all in the head. If that is true, then I would expect the symptoms to disappear after being under proper care for a couple of months. It has now been over a year.

Imagine if your 15yo daughter was being treated for serious medical problems, but then CPS seized her because some other shrink said that the problems were all in her head. Might you use profanity and call them Nazis?

This is a strange decision for a high profile case.

It concedes that CT has jurisdiction, but refuses to turn the case over to CT because of uncertainty about what CT would do.

It claims "neglect", but that seems to be just a difference of professional medical opinions.

It claims that the girl's physical problems are psychosomatic, but fails to report any improvement while 1 year in state custody.

It claims "best interest", but I thought that was not the standard unless the parents are divided.

The opinion against the parents seems largely based on the judge not likely the parents' attitude, and CPS not liking the publicity.

No guns after misdemeanor conviction

In the USA, nearly all crimes like murder, theft, and domestic violence are under state laws, while the feds are more concerned with things like income tax collection.

You have a constitutional right to have a gun, unless you are convicted of a felony. In a horrible federal feminist overreach, Congress made it illegal to have a gun after a mere misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. Complications from this stupid law keep going to the high courts.

NPR Radio reports:

The justices ruled unanimously that people convicted of minor domestic violence offenses are barred under federal law from possessing a gun, even though some states do not require proof of physical force for conviction on domestic violence charges.

James Alvin Castleman challenged his federal indictment for illegal gun possession. Backed by gun rights groups, he contended that his previous Tennessee conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence was not serious enough to disqualify him from possessing a gun because state law did not require proof of physical force.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument. Writing for the court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor acknowledged that minor uses of force may not constitute "violence" in the generic sense. But, she said, context is everything in domestic violence cases. Thus, a squeeze that causes a bruise to the arm may not normally be described as violence but "an act of this nature is easy to describe as 'domestic violence' when the accumulation of such acts over time can subject one's intimate partner to the other's control."

And if a "seemingly minor act like this draws the attention of authorities and leads to a successful prosecution for a misdemeanor offense," she continued, it qualifies as a crime of domestic violence.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia agreed with the ruling in Castleman's case, but took issue with Sotomayor's broader definition of physical force.

The court's ruling Wednesday is considered important because many states, like Tennessee, have domestic violence misdemeanor laws that make it a crime to threaten or cause bodily injury, without proof of physical violence. Sotomayor noted that "domestic violence often escalates in severity over time, and the presence of a firearm increases the likelihood that it will escalate to homicide. That was the rationale for Congress passing the law making it a crime for anyone convicted of domestic violence to possess a gun.

This case turned on the definition of "physical force", and did not address the bigger issues.

Meanwhile a California Democrat Chinese-American anti-gun child psychologist state senator was arrested:

A longtime California politician who was praised for his efforts to make government more transparent and authored gun control legislation was arrested Wednesday, accused of conspiracy to deal firearms and wire fraud.

The allegations against State Sen. Leland Yee were outlined in an FBI affidavit in support of a criminal complaint against him and 25 other people. The affidavit was unsealed on Wednesday, as Yee was scheduled to appear in court.

Yee performed "official acts" in exchange for donations from undercover FBI agents, as he sought to dig himself out of a $70,000 debt incurred during a failed San Francisco mayoral bid, according to court documents.

Yee is also accused of accepting $10,000 in January 2013 from an undercover agent in exchange for his making a call to the California Department of Public Health in support of a contract under consideration with the agency.

I don't know what to make of this. It confirms some of my prejudices about hypocritical corrupt politicians and child psychologists.

Lazy kids blamed on lazy moms

I am a big believer in following scientific evidence, which is why I am especially critical of experts who do not. But there is remarkably little evidence that any childrearing strategies are any better than any others. Here is a widely reported story saying moms should get more exercise to set a good example for their kids:

Parents who are physically active are more likely to have children who are physically active, but a new Cambridge-led study is the first to indicate a direct link between the activity level of a mother and that of her child.

The study analyzed the physical activity levels of 554 mothers and pre-schoolers, using activity monitors that were attached to participants and worn continuously to ensure accurate data. The mothers and children were monitored all day for up to seven days.

Research found that how active the mother was each day was closely linked to the activity level of the child. Yet the activity level of the mothers overall was quite low, with only 53% of mothers performing at least 30 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity at least once a week.

The study shows that children aren't "just naturally active" and take cues from their parents in regards to physical activity and other measures that make up a healthy lifestyle.

"We saw a direct, positive association between physical activity in children and their mothers -- the more activity a mother did, the more active her child. Although it is not possible to tell from this study whether active children were making their mothers run around after them, it is likely that activity in one of the pair influences activity in the other," said study leader Kathryn Hesketh (formerly of Cambridge and now UCL).

Here is the actual study:

METHODS: In the UK Southampton Women’s Survey, physical activity levels of 554 4-year-olds and their mothers were measured concurrently by using accelerometry for ≤7 days. ...

CONCLUSIONS: Physical activity levels in mothers and their 4-year-old children are directly associated, with associations at different activity intensities influenced by temporal and demographic factors. Influences on maternal physical activity levels also differ by activity intensity. Providing targeted interventions for mothers of young children may increase both groups’ activity.

This is just a correlation, so they cannot tell whether the moms are influencing the kids or the kids are influencing the moms. Or maybe the moms and kids are both mimicking the dads.

The more obvious explanation is that it is all in the genes. Many, and possibly all, human behaviors are heritable. That is, the genetic parents' behaviors are correlated with the kids' behaviors, even if the kids are adopted out and never meet their parents.

These research papers are cited cited as evidence-based advice for parents, with this one saying that moms should be more active in order to encourage more active kids. But the study does not show that at all. They could have randomly asked half the moms to increase their activity level, and then tested for an increase in the kids, but they did not do that.

Update on Kansas lesbian welfare moms

This is an update on Welfare lesbian fingers sperm donor and Kansas sperm donor is legal father. The Topeka Kansas newspaper reports:

Just before the 5 p.m. deadline on Friday, the attorney representing a Topeka man who provided sperm to a same-sex couple to become pregnant filed an appeal to the Kansas Supreme Court asking justices to direct a district court judge to block genetic testing of the man.

The order sought, called a writ of mandamus, also would instruct Shawnee County District Court Judge Mary Mattivi to conduct a Ross hearing to determine whether genetic testing would be in the best interests of the 4-year-old girl born as a result of the sperm provided to the couple.

A mandamus orders a public agency to perform an act required by law when it has neglected or refused to do so.

Topeka attorney Benoit Swinnen represents William Marotta, who gave the sperm to the couple.

"The state's claim that this action is merely a collection action for child support belies the reality that the child's emotional and physical well-being is being ignored," Swinnen wrote in the motion."The state is shopping for a person that can afford to pay and is hanging on the storefront a sign saying 'Males Only' that is reminiscent of discrimination patterns that society no longer tolerates."

This is all about finding a man and bleeding him for case, when the lesbians go on welfare.

When a gay male couple figures out a way to have a kid, at least they take responsibility for him. The lesbians appear to be much more likely to freeload off the welfare system or the sperm donor.

Mandatory vaccination debate

The NY Times has this debate:

An outbreak of measles in Manhattan showed that even doctors had overlooked the disease as childhood vaccination became widespread. But over the last decade more people have objected to immunization. Along with the religious exemptions that almost all states allow, 19 states allow exemptions for philosophical reasons.

But are broader outbreaks like those in Britain evidence that parents should no longer be allowed to get any exemption from having their children immunized?

An argument in favor:

Personal and religious belief exemptions should be curtailed because some people, whether because of age or compromised immune systems, cannot receive vaccines. They depend on those around them to be protected. Vaccines aren’t the only situation in which we are asked to care about our neighbors. Following traffic laws, drug tests at work, paying taxes -- these may go against our beliefs and make us bristle, but we ascribe to them because without this shared responsibility, civil society doesn’t work.

Public health is no different.

Is the concern here about people with AIDS?

One problem with this argument is that if the public health is so important, why is it only applied to kids? Most of the whooping cough cases come from teenagers and adults, and all of the measles cases come from foreigners. Not kids.

I agree more with the argument against:

This January lawmakers in the United Arab Emirates mandated that women breastfeed for two years, announcing that breastfeeding is a “duty, not an option.”

Officials should encourage childhood vaccinations, but they shouldn't have the right to force parents to vaccinate their children.

Should public health officials do everything they can to encourage, inform and facilitate breastfeeding? Yes. Do they have the right to force women to breastfeed? Not in a country that believes in freedom of choice.

There is tremendous evidence showing vaccinations prevent childhood diseases. Should public health officials do everything they can to encourage, inform and facilitate childhood vaccinations? Yes. Do they have the right to force parents to vaccinate their children? Absolutely not.

American compliance rates for childhood vaccination is about 98%, altho some parents do not get them on schedule. If we want to have a free society, we have to accept that 2% of the population may not do what it is told. About 30% of American moms do not breastfeed, in spite of all the official encouragement.

The same newspaper has a long article on The Scientific Quest to Prove Bisexuality Exists:

But in the eyes of many Americans, bisexuality — despite occasional and exaggerated media reports of its chicness — remains a bewildering and potentially invented orientation favored by men in denial about their homosexuality and by women who will inevitably settle down with men. Studies have found that straight-identified people have more negative attitudes about bisexuals (especially bisexual men) than they do about gays and lesbians, but A.I.B.’s board members insist that some of the worst discrimination and minimization comes from the gay community.

“It’s exhausting trying to keep up with all the ignorance that people spew about bisexuality,” Lawrence told me.

It was TL;DR, and I am assuming that the proof does not exist yet.