Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), is a condition that becomes apparent in some children in the preschool and early school years. It is hard for these children to control their behavior and/or pay attention.

It is estimated that between 3 and 5 percent of children have ADHD, or approximately 2 million children in the United States. This means that in a classroom of 25 to 30 children, it is likely that at least one will have ADHD.

ADHD was first described by Dr. Heinrich Hoffman in 1845. A physician who wrote books on medicine and psychiatry, Dr. Hoffman was also a poet who became interested in writing for children when he couldn’t find suitable materials to read to his 3-year-old son.

The result was a book of poems, complete with illustrations, about children and their characteristics. “The Story of Fidgety Philip” was an accurate description of a little boy who had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Yet it was not until 1902 that Sir George F. Still published a series of lectures to the Royal College of Physicians in England in which he described a group of impulsive children with significant behavioral problems, caused by a genetic dysfunction and not by poor child rearing–children who today would be easily recognized as having ADHD. Since then, several thousand scientific papers on the disorder have been published, providing information on its nature, course, causes, impairments, and treatments.

A child with ADHD faces a difficult but not insurmountable task ahead. In order to achieve his or her full potential, he or she should receive help, guidance, and understanding from parents, guidance counselors, and the public education system. This document offers information on ADHD and its management, including research on medications and behavioral interventions, as well as helpful resources on educational options.

Because ADHD often continues into adulthood, this document contains a section on the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD in adults.

Symptoms

The principal characteristics of ADHD are inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. These symptoms appear early in a child’s life. Because many normal children may have these symptoms, but at a low level, or the symptoms may be caused by another disorder. It is important that the child receive a thorough examination and appropriate diagnosis by a well-qualified professional.

Symptoms of ADHD will appear over the course of many months, often with the symptoms of impulsiveness and hyperactivity preceding those of inattention. Which may not emerge for a year or more. Different symptoms may appear in different settings, depending on the demands the situation may pose for the child’s self-control. A child who “can’t sit still” or is otherwise disruptive will be noticeable in school, but the inattentive daydreamer may be overlooked.

The impulsive child who acts before thinking may be considered just a “discipline problem,” while the child who is passive or sluggish may be viewed as merely unmotivated. Yet both may have different types of ADHD.

All children are sometimes restless, sometimes act without thinking, sometimes daydream the time away. When the child’s hyperactivity, distractibility, poor concentration, or impulsivity begin to affect performance in school, social relationships with other children, or behavior at home, ADHD may be suspected. But because the symptoms vary so much across settings, ADHD is not easy to diagnose. This is especially true when inattentiveness is the primary symptom.

According to the most recent version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders2 (DSM-IV-TR), there are three patterns of behavior that indicate ADHD. People with ADHD may show several signs of being consistently inattentive. They may have a pattern of being hyperactive and impulsive far more than others of their age. Or they may show all three types of behavior.

This means that there are three subtypes of ADHD recognized by professionals. These are the predominantly hyperactive-impulsive type (that does not show significant inattention); the predominantly inattentive type (that does not show significant hyperactive-impulsive behavior) sometimes called ADD–an outdated term for this entire disorder; and the combined type (that displays both inattentive and hyperactive-impulsive symptoms).

Hyperactivity-Impulsivity

Hyperactive children always seem to be “on the go” or constantly in motion. They dash around touching or playing with whatever is in sight, or talk incessantly. Sitting still at dinner or during a school lesson or story can be a difficult task. They squirm and fidget in their seats or roam around the room. Or they may wiggle their feet, touch everything, or noisily tap their pencil. Hyperactive teenagers or adults may feel internally restless. They often report needing to stay busy and may try to do several things at once.

Impulsive children seem unable to curb their immediate reactions or think before they act. They will often blurt out inappropriate comments, display their emotions without restraint, and act without regard for the later consequences of their conduct.

Their impulsivity may make it hard for them to wait for things they want or to take their turn in games. They may grab a toy from another child or hit when they’re upset. Even as teenagers or adults, they may impulsively choose to do things that have an immediate but small payoff rather than engage in activities that may take more effort yet provide much greater but delayed rewards.

Some signs of hyperactivity-impulsivity are:

Feeling restless, often fidgeting with hands or feet, or squirming while seated Running, climbing, or leaving a seat in situations where sitting or quiet behavior is expected Blurting out answers before hearing the whole question Having difficulty waiting in line or taking turns.

Inattention Children who are inattentive have a hard time keeping their minds on any one thing and may get bored with a task after only a few minutes. If they are doing something they really enjoy, they have no trouble paying attention. But focusing deliberate, conscious attention to organizing and completing a task or learning something new is difficult.

Homework is particularly hard for these children. They will forget to write down an assignment, or leave it at school. They will forget to bring a book home, or bring the wrong one. The homework, if finally finished, is full of errors and erasures. Homework is often accompanied by frustration for both parent and child.

The DSM-IV-TR gives these signs of inattention:

Often becoming easily distracted by irrelevant sights and sounds.

Often failing to pay attention to details and making careless mistakes.

Rarely following instructions carefully and completely losing or forgetting things like toys, or pencils, books, and tools needed for a task.

Often skipping from one uncompleted activity to another. Children diagnosed with the Predominantly Inattentive Type of ADHD are seldom impulsive or hyperactive, yet they have significant problems paying attention. They appear to be daydreaming, “spacey,” easily confused, slow moving, and lethargic.

They may have difficulty processing information as quickly and accurately as other children. When the teacher gives oral or even written instructions, this child has a hard time understanding what he or she is supposed to do and makes frequent mistakes. Yet the child may sit quietly, unobtrusively, and even appear to be working but not fully attending to or understanding the task and the instructions.

These children don’t show significant problems with impulsivity and overactivity in the classroom, on the school ground, or at home. They may get along better with other children than the more impulsive and hyperactive types of ADHD. They may not have the same sorts of social problems so common with the combined type of ADHD. So often their problems with inattention are overlooked. But they need help just as much as children with other types of ADHD, who cause more obvious problems in the classroom.

Is It Really ADHD?

Not everyone who is overly hyperactive, inattentive, or impulsive has ADHD. Since most people sometimes blurt out things they didn’t mean to say, or jump from one task to another, or become disorganized and forgetful, how can specialists tell if the problem is ADHD?

Because everyone shows some of these behaviors at times, the diagnosis requires that such behavior be demonstrated to a degree that is inappropriate for the person’s age. The diagnostic guidelines also contain specific requirements for determining when the symptoms indicate ADHD.

The behaviors must appear early in life, before age 7, and continue for at least 6 months. Above all, the behaviors must create a real handicap in at least two areas of a person’s life such as in the schoolroom, on the playground, at home, in the community, or in social settings. So someone who shows some symptoms but whose schoolwork or friendships are not impaired by these behaviors would not be diagnosed with ADHD. Nor would a child who seems overly active on the playground but functions well elsewhere receive an ADHD diagnosis.

To assess whether a child has ADHD, specialists consider several critical questions: Are these behaviors excessive, long-term, and pervasive? That is, do they occur more often than in other children the same age?

Are they a continuous problem, not just a response to a temporary situation? Do the behaviors occur in several settings or only in one specific place like the playground or in the schoolroom? The person’s pattern of behavior is compared against a set of criteria and characteristics of the disorder as listed in the DSM-IV-TR.

Diagnosis

Some parents see signs of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity in their toddler long before the child enters school. The child may lose interest in playing a game or watching a TV show, or may run around completely out of control.

But because children mature at different rates and are very different in personality, temperament, and energy levels, it’s useful to get an expert’s opinion of whether the behavior is appropriate for the child’s age. Parents can ask their child’s pediatrician, or a child psychologist or psychiatrist, to assess whether their toddler has an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or is, more likely at this age, just immature or unusually exuberant.

ADHD may be suspected by a parent or caretaker or may go unnoticed until the child runs into problems at school. Given that ADHD tends to affect functioning most strongly in school, sometimes the teacher is the first to recognize that a child is hyperactive or inattentive and may point it out to the parents and/or consult with the school psychologist.

Because teachers work with many children, they come to know how “average” children behave in learning situations that require attention and self-control. However, teachers sometimes fail to notice the needs of children who may be more inattentive and passive yet who are quiet and cooperative, such as those with the predominantly inattentive form of ADHD.

I am an incurably ill American male forced to leave America to afford the medical care I needed. I live in Mexico. I now live in a country where “pulling the plug” for whatever reason is illegal!

I am not terminally ill. I have a lifelong disability that will never get better. I am much like Terri Schiavo, the woman who the State of Florida killed because she had a lifelong, incurable disability. Notice, like me, Terri Schiavo was not terminally ill but handicapped. There is a difference!

Every handicapped person in America has to ask, “Am I next?”

Am I the next disabled person about whom, at some point in the future, someone will make a claim that I said something about the issue of life-and-death and a judge will believe it without the benefit of due process? Will someone come along without a preponderance of evidence (And should not there be a preponderance of evidence and not the word of one individual?) and have some judge some court somewhere order my death by starvation–Or by whatever means that is convenient to the court?

I wonder what the criteria will be. Will the courts be the ones who now determine whether you serve some usefulness to society? Who will define usefulness?

Moreover, I wonder why someone was not asking these questions:

Did Terri Schiavo tell anyone other than the man who stands to make a bundle of money from a malpractice suit that she did not want to be kept alive via a stomach tube? (He claims he has already spent the money on her care. I want to see that proof!)

Why is the court taking only her adulterous husband’s word on this issue of life-and-death? Is that a preponderance of evidence?

Can’t the court see that this man has some nefarious motives?

Have the allegations of spousal abuse been investigated fully?

Why didn’t her husband allow Terri, ever, to have physical therapy that might have improved her state?

Is any one aware that others, in so-called vegetative states, have awakened years later?

Can science dictate morality? Though science sometimes can tell us why something is, can it tell us what is right and what is wrong?

Something smelled fishy in this entire thingand it still does.

What is next? Will disabled Americans whose families tire of them be able to find a judge who will order their deaths too? On the other hand, perhaps we will be told too much money has been spent on us in disability pension payments and now it is time to check out of living.

You have used up your quota! Now it is time to die.

I do not offer this as an exaggeration but an honest question. Just what is next? Every disabled person should be asking this question.

I wonder if the judge who ordered Terri Schiavo’s death forgot, or ever knew, the words of Hubert H. Humphrey:

“It was once said that the moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”

My God, in heaven, what has America become?

Thank God, in heaven, I live in Mexico!

Doug Bower is a freelance writer and book author. His most recent writing credits include The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Houston Chronicle, and The Philadelphia Inquirer, and Transitions Abroad. He lives with his wife in Guanajuato, Mexico.

His new book Mexican Living: Blogging it from a Third World Country can be seen at http://www.lulu.com/content/126241

October makes me think of Halloween, and Halloween makes me think of masks, and masks remind me that sometimes when we’re grieving, we wear masks without even realizing it. We may never stop to think about how other people perceive our appearances, our images and our behaviors. Over time, we may gradually drift into a pattern of “being” that is so familiar to us we never realize that others might be seeing us in a totally different way.

Our pain may have caused us to have an outwardly distorted appearance, even when inwardly we may actually feel we are reconciling to our losses. Some people appear to be continually anger and bitter, when in fact it is only a reflection of their sadness. Even though their inward hostilities have begun to soften and resolve, on the outside they have kept their protective masks of fierceness. In reality, they are starved for love and companionship, but they are afraid to let their true feelings show. What if they were ridiculed, violated or abandoned and therefore hurt anew?

On the other hand, there are those who have adopted a perpetually “sunny” countenance that covers an internal sorrow. Their hearts and minds and faith may be splintered, but they are determined that the people around them will never guess their secret. They may believe that showing sorrow is a weakness that will drive away the people they think they need.

It would appear that masks are psychological props that seem to protect us from something we fear. For some people, self disclosure is as repulsive as public nudity! It seems safer for mask-wearers to endure the lack of support and attention they so sorely need rather than to honestly reveal their innermost feelings.

I wonder what would happen if we all let down our guards and allowed our families, friends, neighbors and co-workers to discover our real pain. Would our revelations really make us any more weak or vulnerable? Would we really be at any more emotional risk? Could we be hurt any more than we’ve already been?

Naturally, if we take the chance of disclosing our true selves, revealing where we are weak or frightened or hurt, there is always the possibility that we might become prey for the predators. The vultures seem always to be circling. But there is also the chance that we will provide an opportunity for the intelligent, strong and compassionate of our peers to offer their support. Where there is evil, there is also good. Where there is pain, there is also healing. Nature teaches us that in life, there is balance.

Precisely because we have suffered the ultimate woundthe death of one who was truly lovedperhaps eventually we can afford to take more risks. It’s a tough issue: Dare we risk the pain of being hurt again if we disclose? Or have we become strong enough and brave enough to take a chance on the rediscovery of love and the richness of new attachments? Is it true that what does not kill us makes us stronger?

Perhaps it becomes a question of giving ourselves enough time to form scar tissue. We may need to proceed cautiously, taking baby-step risks at first, trusting our most private thoughts, feelings and needs to only one or two close and dependable friends. We may need to test the formation of delicate new bondingseven in old relationships!

Gradually, we may be able to uncover enough of our hidden courage to feel safe in abandoning our protective masks and revealing our true feelingsnot only to the world at large, but more importantly, to ourselves.

Good Grief Resources (http://www.goodgriefresources.com) was conceived and founded by Andrea Gambill whose 17-year-old daughter died in 1976. Almost thirty years of experience in leading grief support gropus, writing, editing, and founding a national grief-support magazine has provided valuable insights into the unique needs of the bereaved and their caregivers and wide access to many excellent resources. The primary goal of Good Grief Resources is to connect the bereaved and their caregivers with as many bereavement support resources as possible in one, efficient and easy-to-use website directory.

Many environmentalists are against roads through the forest because it could disrupt wildlife, hunting areas for other mammals. They also worry about the affect on all the species living there. Mankind generally from a historical perspective has not been all that kind to the natural surroundings. We have seen this even in Indian Cultures, which had been thought to take care of the land, yet on further scrutiny used the land and left debris and litter from their activities. Archeologists have seen this on all continents so it is not a negative statement about our American Indians, for they are some of the finest tribes ever to walk the face of the planet.

We should be worried about the pollution from fires even though it is natural, because that too affects the air flows and climate. One way to fight these smaller fires, but certainly not all of them would be to remove the underbrush and smaller trees to keep the forest healthy and happy. This would simulate the smaller fires, by removing the smaller underbrush. There is much debate on this topic to say the least. Now then if we have few roads to fight fires or to bring in the logistical supplies necessary to fight them it could certainly help. It would also make it easier to remove the smaller trees and underbrush and use it for things like paper and building materials. The government is not going to stop producing paperwork any time soon.

Since firefighters like armies move on their stomachs and have bodily needs such as sleep, food, shelter and clothing? They need a way in and a safe way out. Due to the potential for fires shifting direction and firefighters being cut off from supply lines, the more roads the better. Since it takes years to put in roads necessary for such inevitabilities, fires must be fought from the air. And we have hap hazardously done this. Although we have not given the same level of budgetary concern for a combatable situation that Mother Nature casts upon us every time a huge lightening storm passes overhead.

The debate rages on. Do we build roads to remove the underbrush and allow us to fight the fires? Or do we allow Mother Nature to bring smaller fires to clear the brush? Do we take the smaller trees, which will be burned anyway for lumber and paper needs? Do we let the courts decide and do nothing? What say you? Think about it.

“Lance Winslow” - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/wttbbs/

I had the pleasure of sitting next to Jane at a networking meeting a few of weeks
ago. Random chance placed we two somewhat introverted people at the table next
to each other, and for the first 5-10 minutes we didn’t speak to each other at
all. This of course defies traditional networking convention.
Within 30 seconds of sitting down shouldn’t I have introduced myself, given her
my sales pitch and business card? Am I losing a sale here, and should I just forget
about networking because I am not good at it?

In a word, “no”.

It turns out that after a while Jane and I finally did get to talking, I learned
that Jane is a fine artist, that’s what she does, but beyond that I learned she
has a background in computer graphics, 3d modeling and working with a very high
profile computer gaming company - all of which I find interesting. And this, rather
than focusing on how I can help her business and vice-versa was the topic of conversation
over the next 10 minutes. I learned about Jane as a person, an artist and a small
business owner, and not once during the conversation did she ever focus on what
she and her business could get out of talking with me. Jane focused on establishing
a personal connection rather than making a sale.

Congratulations Jane, you get it.

Well, after we talked Jane did ask me for my business card - that’s important!
She asked for the card. Do you see the value that has over me springing
the card on her and moving on to the next person? This is called Permission
Marketing, and it absolutely best way you can network your business. I in turn
asked for her business card, and at that point I was truly interested in learning
about her business and how I might be able to help her. But it wasn’t until we
both had made a small investment in the personal relationship first.
Jane even was kind enough to offer to email over a software program that she was
using to test drive - that’s huge value.

Again, Jane gets it.

So why and how did this networking connection work? You can come up with your own theories, I am convinced it worked because each person:
* Invested in the relationship first rather than what they can get
* Gained permission first to market their business
* Wanted to provide value for the other person

Since that meeting I’ve emailed Jane a couple of times, got her permission to send her our weekly email bulletin called the “Can-Do Confidence Builder”, and in turn I’ve looked at Jane’s web site and artwork - she’s fantastic, you can view her artwork at www.janebradleyart.com. If I meet people in the future that are looking for her type of artwork, I will be more than happy to send them to Jane - all because of a 10-minute conversation.

I help small businesses build more confidence and credibility into their business brand. Through marketing and design initiatives; I help you feel better about your company. Making you feel good about your business gives you more confidence and less anxiety when you are networking, promoting or selling your business. If your business needs the reliability and talent of an in-house marketing and design department but doesn’t want additional employees, salaries and benefits, give me a call at 480.391.0704 - I have a new approach for you.

If you are looking for more free insight and inspiration, you’ll want to get in on the “Can-Do Confidence Builder”. Emailed weekly, the Confidence Builder provides you with essential marketing and design insights that help you get the most out of your investment and help you to stay one step ahead of the competition. Email me at comments@candographics.com and I’ll make sure you receive our bulletin every Wed.

Just when we think we’ve reached our mobile limit, something always comes around to blow our minds. PDA’s hit the mobile business world and exploded into an overnight sensation. Laptops use to be a rare purchase, but are becoming almost as common as a regular desktop now. Tablet PC’s haven’t taken off like everyone had hoped, but they do have some great uses. PDA phones and other internet ready phones are almost a necessity, not only delivering email and internet, but now video and other mobile entertainment. What could possibly be next? How do you get better than what we have now?

Introducing the Ultra Mobile PC (or UMPC) standard. What is an Ultra Mobile PC? It’s a standard developed by Microsoft, in what they dub the “Origami Project”. An Ultra Mobile PC will be similar to the tablet pc, but much smaller, and with a much more specific purpose.. to deliver information and entertainment “on the go”, in a small form factor mobile pc. It would essentially be a cross between an internet ready pda, and a tablet. A UMPC will be larger than any pda on the market, but still small enough to carry around easily, without all of the bulk you get from a laptop or tablet.

It’s important to remember that UMPC is a standard though, like the term PDA is a standard. There won’t be two exactly alike, except maybe certain brands that have similar models, but they will all be similar in most ways.

So how is a UMPC going to be so small, yet powerful enough to do anything?

Well, quite honestly, it’s actually pretty simple to make such a thing so small and still powerful. Without a full sized keyboard, with a touch screen replacing any mouse or touch pad, and with usb and memory stick slots replacing floppy and cd drives, you’ve reduced the necessary size tremendously. So you essentially end up with something nearly as powerful as a laptop, yet less than half the size, and so much easier to carry around.

While most of the specs from the different brands will be slightly different, here are some features that you can come to expect among most Ultra Mobile PC’s.

People say and do the dumbest things by Kenn Gividen HillarysVillage.com

When Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Spector exercised his right to free speech last week, he prompted a quick response from Robert Bork. Known for being the first Supreme Court Justice nominee to be, well, “borked,” the judge was in no mood for Spector’s silliness. “I know Specter,” he retorted, “and the truth is not in him.”

What prompted Bork’s remark was the Senator’s suggestion make that accusation that the judge “had original intent, and if his original intent stood, we’d still be segregating the United States Senate with African Americans on one side and Caucasians on the other side.”

Both remarks were made Sunday on CNN’s Late Edition.

While Spector’s right to free speech is a highly valued freedom is without question. But the right to speak freely falls short of excusing some of the asinine excesses and down right abuses that often accompany that right.

It’s one of the of living in a free society. People have the right to say and do dumb things. And they exercise that freedom liberally.

Columnist Morton Marcus, for example, may have out-trumped Spector. While musing in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s recent eminent domain decision, he wrote that private property is “a privilege conferred by the government.” That, of course, would have come as a shock to the founders of nation whose sacrifices provided the framework for private ownership. It also irked Ross Bell, a Wayne County Libertarian. In response to Marcus opinion, Bell quipped, “Welcome to the USSA.”

Then there was the incident at the University of Georgia’s School of Journalism, reported in the Athens Banner-Herald.

John Soloski’s expressed concern for a co-worker’s safety coupled with a compliment for her appearance got him in hot water for sexual harassment. The compliment on his part turned to a complaint on her part and Soloski was found guilty. At the time, she didn’t act offended, he claimed. The event took place at a fundraiser for the school where the “offender” is dean.

Another recent abuse of free speech occurred in Victorville, California.

Bethany Hauf, a 34-year student at the local community college, requested permission to write a term paper. The subject? The effect of Christianity on the development of the United States. Her professor, apparently unacquainted with free speech or common sense, granted permission. But he added one stipulation: “No mention of big ‘G’ gods, i.e., one, true god argumentation.”

The professor, it seems, feared other students would be offended at the mere mention of a “big ‘G’ god.” Common sense prevailed. Hauf ignored the nutty professor and mentioned God 41 times. She receive and F. The professor received a law suit, compliments of American Center for Law and Justice. The story was reported in The Daily Press.

More insanity was seen in nearby Long Beach, California. According to The Los Angeles Times, a representative of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) voiced his objection to the Aquarium of the Pacific’s cafeteria including fish. “Serving fish in its cafeteria. serving fish at an aquarium is like serving poodle burgers at a dog show,” he said.

Speaking of animal rights, silliness isn’t uniquely American. The French have their own share of curious folk. According to AFP reports, Jacques Peyrat, the mayor of the Riviera city Nice, was accused of being cruel towards the rat he killed last week. The report noted that Peyrat was visiting a trash collection area in Nice’s historic center when he spotted “a rat almost as big as a cat.” He grabbed a shovel and brought it down on the rodent, killing it.

France’s Society for the Protection of Animals (SPA) has lodged a criminal complaint against the Mayor. The report quoted SPA’s regional chief as saying, “A huge rat-clearing operation is necessary, but nothing justifies going off on a punitive expedition against these animals, which are attracted to the trash cans left out at night in the Old City by restaurants.”

But most noticeable is the good ol’ boy from Tennessee who is expressing his right to free speech by toting a Confederate Battle Flag across Dixie. H.K. Edgerton’s 1,300 odyssey is designed to draw attention to Southern heritage. He plans to march all the way to Texas.

Upon entering Marysville, Tennessee, Edgerton took time to lambaste the flag-banning school board for practicing what he termed, “cultural genocide” that is dividing blacks and whites, according to the Marysville Daily Times.

“I’m just an ordinary country boy from the South who loves the Southland,” he added. Edgerton, by the way, is black. And that causes one to wonder if he would agree that Arlen Spector’s attack on Robert Bork was, indeed, out of line.

According to the Bible one day the world will return to a monarchy. After the return of the Lord Jesus Christ the world will be ruled by Him for one thousand years before eternity begins and even then He will rule. So how good is majority rule for now, can it compare to what is next.

The idea that the majority shows the will of the people is a pretty good fix for now but it is not without its faults and weaknesses. That everyone decides to do something with one will is not now nor has ever been the promise of a perfect decision, direction or choice of any kind.

Looking way back in time we might start with the ancient Israelites who grew restless while roaming the wilderness. Moses took a bit more time than they expected to go up the mount to see God, and with a majority voice they decided to make a new God. Yeah, the old golden calf god, you remember. Moses returned and heads flew because of this little majority rule blunder.

The picture of people collectively exercising their will to their own hurt is repeated many times across the historical panorama. We could peruse many but let us note just a few of the more familiar ones. Getting a good leader with a whole new way of viewing things was one of the ideas of the German people not that long ago, enter Hitler. A wave of popular ascent swept Chinas youth not that long ago and the world watched in amazement as they tore every established institution to shreds and murdered and removed all those who didn’t get into the sweep of Chairman Mao.

We pride ourselves in America with the safety measures we have in place to ensure that these kinds of mass hysteria won’t fly in and wreck our system of government. Specific length of terms for public officials is one example. That leaves only one question, how has it been working?

Between 1880 and 1920 America went into a lynch mob mentality. Crowds of vigilante citizens managed to hang people as if they were mere Christmas ornaments on trees throughout this land. More people were lynched here in that short period than in all the lynching throughout the rest of the world combined, at any time in history. Churches were established in many of the places where these hangings took place. Apparently, the Bible teaching about not following a crowd to do an evil thing was not preached too very often. Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment, Ex 23:2. The will of the majority was no threat to our government in these lynchings, but it became a very real threat to many people right under the shadow of the government.

For a much broader example of the failings of the will of the majority we can jump ahead to the nineteen seventies and something more familiar. In one moment a confident and eager majority voted for Mr. Richard Nixon on his second term as President. In a landslide victory unparalleled in our history Mr. Nixon sailed into his second term. Only a few short years later, the same majority angered and fed up, wanted to give Mr. Nixon his walking papers via the good old American boot in the… impeachment. This majority may have been the best example in our history of how wrong a whopping big majority can be.

Twin - public opinion has its history as well. As a lad, I recall sitting in front of a small black and white television as newsmen revealed the shocking result of a recent opinion poll. Public polling, so new that they had to explain to viewers how they had calculated the result. They said that the people were asked, who are the three people they trusted the most in their lives? The shock was that only a few years earlier the answers were almost totally contraverted. The poll concluded that the three people Americans trusted the most were first, some close family member, then their doctors and lastly their ministers or priests. Previous polls had the order in reverse. I can remember the lingering doubt this poll left with me, were Americans more fickle than founded?

Next to the right to vote, Americans pride themselves with their right to voice their opinion. In fact sometimes people use their right to vote to express their opinion. Who has not heard someone say that they cast their votes for former presidential candidate Ross Perot knowing he had no chance to win. The reason for this wasted ballot many said was to… state their opinion or its little pal…to make a statement.

Enter the computer, now we can cast our opinion around instantly at nearly the speed of light. Daily news shows are calling for our votes on everything from noted trials to whether we support euthanizing someone. All too often our opinions are far removed from the trend or the actual event, but that seems to have no effect on the outcome. One example would be our opinions on, Roe V Wade. Americans have been casting their opinions on this rumbling volcano for decades; the numbers have been crunched repeatedly in favor of pro life. Like war wounded, these opinions lie tattered and defeated in the trenches of indifference. Twins, majority rule and public opinion die a tragic death alone as liberals ride off to the victory party.

The only thing worse than having an unlearned, prejudiced or heavily biased opinion is to let our opinion be tainted by…public opinion! It happens regularly. Go with the flow opinions as are common to our countrymen as are pop culture trends that burn for a time and fizzle out just before the fashions and accessories for each have flooded the market. If a war doesn’t seem popular anymore we start nay saying before the dust has settled only because the dust being kicked up at home is rising faster than the dust of our uncompleted battles. The offences cited, or the reasons for our battles notwithstanding.

Public opinion also fails to see the larger answer because it is often not asked the larger question. As an example consider how many cast their negative opinions on the heap against George Bush because, hey, where are those weapons of mass destruction? Little did we notice that right under our noses our forces had isolated, captured and detained one of the most deadly weapons of mass destruction to ever plague or threaten any people. That weapon of mass destruction is…Saddam Hussein.

Now we are being polled as to whether we think prayer should be allowed to open a session of congress or a sports event. Here is my opinion. Let’s not stop praying about anything at anytime. We need all the prayer we can get in this country and at this time. Oh, and lets not forget to pray for the twins.

Censorship, Our Enemy

By Punkerslut

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” — George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” — Evelyn Beatrice Hall, The Friends of Voltaire (1906)

“It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves.” — Thomas Paine, On First Principles of Government (1795)

“Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.” — Heinrich Heine, Almansor (1821)

“You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.” — John Morley, On Compromise (1874)

If we want to know if someone believes in freedom and liberty, the prophets of creativity and passion, we may simply tell them, “When I told a person my opinion, they resorted to threats and physical violence.” If the person we are telling this to believes in freedom, they will express their absolute horror at such a situation, but if the person does not believe in freedom, then they will ask, “What was the opinion?” As true liberty and freedom does not have borders or restrictions, unless another’s liberty is at risk. If a man becomes the chorus of freedom and sings the songs of happiness, but states it ought to be illegal to express some opinion they believe to be heinous or ghastly or an abomination, then this man is nothing but a hypocrit and a traitor to the advancement of civilization. When a leader says, “You can say anything you want, but you may not say this or this or this,” then it is the beginning of Censorship and the devaluation of opinion. And as they make it illegal for us to open our mouths, they make it illegal for everyone else to open their minds. Shackles attached to the strings of the heart as much as they are bondaged to the sentiments of the mind, and civilization, and its institutions of art and love and community and peace and freedom, as Censorship advances, civilization becomes crippled and debilitated. When we can no longer sing the song which has enchanted our hearts, unless we are rigidly following the notation of a biased authority, then we are no longer living in freedom, but in the foul chambers of Censorship.

There is nothing more obscene when the cry is made that literature is obscene in nature and should be censored. What can honestly be said of a person when they say we are not allowed to think a certain way, or to express our opinions in a way they dislike? What can be said when a Conservative states all Liberal texts should be banned, or when a Christian states all heretical texts should be banned, or when a person states that a radical opinion should be supressed and not heard? If a person wishes to prove that a theory is correct, they should do so openly and using evidence. To silence your opponent and not allow them to argue their case is to disable the advancement of truth and liberty. Those who are desirious of learning the truth and expanding their knowledge of both sides will be disheartened to find that they cannot find a text of anyone who opposes one theory. The government which approves of Censorship does a disservice to society.

The crime stipulated by Censorship is not one of action, but one of knowledge. It is in knowing that we become criminals. And in all of the Totalitarian nations where Censorship is in full force, artists and writers and comedians and musicians and thinkers, or any individual that is part of a creating class, will find themselves to be criminals. Not criminalized because they are the source of some evil, or that they cause misery or distress, but solely because they hold opinions, that they have thoughts, that they are capable of judgments. The members of the criminal class then are not only the poor who have no means of production, but the thinkers, the geniuses, the researchers, the scientists. And as Censorship masquerades as protection, as it continues its love affair with ignorance, all classes of men who find themselves allured to liberty, will detest Censorship against any group, in any form.

There have been thousands who have been persecuted for holding an opinion, let alone expressing the opinion. The church has been notorious for killing heretics all the way into the 20th century, with the death of Francisco Ferrer. The Red Scare and Senator McCarthy spent his political career by destroying others. And there came to be no more smug and cruel an institution as the Unamerican Activities Committee in our modern world. Lives were destroyed and futures were crushed, as the persecutors gained in fame, glory, and wealth. As the bog-god, terrorist machine of government crushed more souls into consumerist fodder for its never-ending goal of control and oppression, the world was thrown into a madenned craze. Even investigation of theories of Communism was tantamount to being recognized as a Communist in the eyes of the government.

What have our lives come to, when there are laws and regulations that say we cannot read certain things, that we cannot think certain things, that we may not question and understand certain things? Can there be any ideology, any belief system, any religion, or philosophy that is so taboo or foreign, that we must not permit anyone to know about it? The idea that is so dangerous that it must be banned from the mind is the idea that does not exist. Censorpship of an idea proves nothing. It only proves that someone must resort to physical force to put down their opponents. When someone cannot disprove their opponent with argumentation and evidence, they will resort to Censorship. And it is true that the censor-morons have been responsible for Censorship in all its forms, whether it is the destruction of the printing presses or killing those who hold an opinion.

The gluttonous beast of tyranny will do all in its power to disable and handicap the progression of civilization. It may try to crush our hearts, destroy our desires, and fill us with the idea that hope is vanity, truth is vice, and lust is sin. But before the cruel servants of brutality do anything — before they construct their prisons, before they enforce compulsary education, before they force us to work in dangerous factories, before they tax us so they can support their luxurious lifestyles, before they massacre us in the streets — before the cyclopse of iniquity raises his fist to take a blow at civilization, the first thing he will do is to put a clamp on our lips and our minds. He will burn our libraries, control all means of communication, and will make it punishable to hold or express a taboo opinion. And once Censorship is in place, all sorts of injustices and unfairness may be committed upon the tender flesh of innocense, upon the crying infant of life.

Can it not easily be predicted that these with enough brazen attitude will be met with healtfelt sorrow when they discover tha their questions are illegal? What kind of country would we be living in if questions and their answers are illegal? There may be those in full support of Censorship who will claim that we should remove obscenities from books, and allow only material to be published that respects sacredness. There can be nothing more sacred than liberty and freedom, the mother of inquiry and justice. Among the cruelty of the Censor-morons, there is the villification of the human body. The Fig-Leaf Campaign is notorious for this. In their never-ending quest to destroy freedom and creativity, only the greatest artists, be they Renassaince men or pornographers, have been persecuted. And by what writ can they claim that our bodies are obscene? Of all things, it is the least obscene! We are all born into this body, this bundle of loosely connected nerves, given the hormones of lust, allowed thought and contemplation. Such a magnificent machine and such a wonderful experience, but upon inspection of this spectable, the Censor-morons claim it is an obscenity! There is no expression more sincere in its cruelty and outright ignorance, when it claims that we are obscene, disgusting, vile, terrible, horrible, based on the way our bodies look to others. Perhaps if it were humanly possible, they would pass laws making it ilegal to see our own nudity.

The question really presented to us is this: can any idea, based on how radical or altrenitave, be so dangerous that we must silence it? If our means of communication and thought are free, then the journey to truth is only given permission to pass. When we can question everything, present ideas, and express evidence, only then will we have a free nad clear view of everything. The just courts of the world will not supress evidence. By what writ can a just society supress a view? It is not a question as to who is right or wrong. Many who censor Racists may say it is because they cannot be right. But if it is true that Racism is wrong, then allow it to be observed and investigated. If it is untrue, it’s publication will be detrimental to its cause. But to supress the opinion, disallow investigation of any opinion, is slavery off thought and destructive to truth.

As the noose around our mind tightens, with government regulation, we will find that our liberties in all areas of our lives are degrading. With excessive harshness, trying to govern what we are allowed to think and what we are allowed to say, we will become indoctrinated into a drone-like trance, without humanity, with creativity, with love or hate. Becoming mindless fools following a set path determined by an unjust power, the ability to carry out justice and fairness will be severly debilitated. Deviation will be punishable. As the crimson sky of vitality and knowledge darkens to a lifeless, breathless mass — as it becomes illegal to investigate and pose questions — as the book fires reach further and further towards the skies and the condition of life sinks lower and lower — and as intelligence becomes a sign of criminality, we wil discover that our lives are without freedom, our minds full of barriers, and the never-ending journey of education has turned into a slug-race. Censorship is our enemy, so much as ignorance, cruelty, and brutality are our enemies.

www.punkerslut.com

For Life, Punkerslut