My Rebuttal to Leftist Propaganda

The TRUTH About Oil Subsidies?? 

"Reality: What’s the harm in a little exaggeration? Well, if you actually employ less than 10% of the workers you claim, then Houston, we have a problem. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, in 2009 the industry directly employed only 800,000 in the US, comparable to the number of clerks who work in sporting goods, hobby, book and music stores — and much less than 1% of total American jobs. Studies have consistently shown that emerging, labor-intensive energy sources like solar and wind create far more jobs per dollar than mature industries like drilling and mining, which increasingly rely on machinery to cut labor costs."


"Reality: How stupid do oil lobbyists really think we are? Despite cheery ad campaigns with solar panels and sunflowers, the industry’s achievement in green energy clearly doesn’t extend far beyond the field of marketing. It’s true that the industry spent $98 billion on “renewable, alternative and advanced emerging energy technologies”  from 2000 to 2005. But 0nly about 1% of that went into clean energy including solar, wind and geothermal, while a whopping $86 billion went into “refining heavier sources of petroleum, including tar and oil sands and oil shale, and on turning waste and residue hydrocarbons into usable products” — more or less the opposite of clean energy — according to a Senate report."




What about all the employees who are INDIRECTLY employed by the oil industry? Why aren't you counting those people? You're talking about direct employees, as in employees directly on the payrolls of companies like Shell and Exxon. You aren't even taking into consideration the vast amount of various companies and industries that contract through these big, bad oil companies. You're also not talking about the companies who use crude to produce every day household products, and even a huge chunk of pharmaceuticals. What's the harm in a little exaggeration, you say? What's the harm in adding a tiny little word like 'directly', in order to attempt to debunk a claim made by the opposing side? That's the problem with small minded leftists. They tend to look at things at the most very basic level. They don't look at the big picture. Many, many industries and smaller companies are reciprocal, at the least, to the oil industry.  I am not a DIRECT employee to any big oil company, I'm not on their payrolls, DIRECTLY, but they darn sure pay my bills and pay for my children's education. That's the beauty of the versatility of the oil industry, and the very important part that propaganda like this tends to leave out. There is no industry that has it's hand directly in America's wallet like the oil industry does. You can thank the oil industry, even though we are not DIRECTLY employed, for the fact that our family will never use a cent of government assistance, for our tax dollars and for the fact that our children will not be drains on society.

Obama is wanting to yank 100% of funding to the entire petroleum industry. Take a walk around your house, and come back with a list of the items in your house that are made with crude oil/petroleum. Crude oil that's not even produced in the U.S..  The companies that manufacture those items for sale to consumers are reliant on the refineries that provide the refined crude to manufacture those products. That laptop you more than likely typed this nonsense on, that Ibuprofen you took to clear the headache it gave you, and the sandwich and glass of milk you ingested to wash it down are perfect examples of how the oil industry affects your own personal life and wallet.  How many of those sporting goods stores, book stores and hobby stores rely on the oil industry, from shipment of products to the manufacturing of the products? Remember, many products that those stores sell are made out of crude oil, in some form or fashion, not to mention their parking lots are made of asphalt, and, well.....you know where that is going. Shit rolls downhill, my friend. Like it or not, nearly every aspect of our lives relies on crude oil in one way or another, from the rubber your tree hugging bicycle tires are made out of, to the toilet paper you use to wipe your butt (It's got to get transported to the store, in order to make contact with  your butt, remember, and is packaged in..wait for it...plastic, made from crude oil).

So many people tend to forget that the oil industry is not just about energy. While the research and development of cleaner forms of energy are great, alternative sources do not have and cannot recreate the chemical properties that make up crude oil and make it so versatile. Personally, I have a huge problem with Obama taking MY tax dollars and investing them in companies that are now bankrupt (Solyndra, anybody?), while attempting to strip 100% of funding from successful companies who are working hard to develop alternative energy sources, independently, through donations to major universities and various programs. Funny how you mention, in your last 'myth', how much money oil companies have put towards developing and researching greener energy sources, however you don't mention the comparison to how much Obama has spent *cough* wasted *cough* on investing in failures, or even in general. Once again, you're talking about DIRECT contribution of the oil companies, and you're leaving out their INDIRECT contributions to research and development. How many oil companies own stock in domestic renewable energy sources? How much money is donated by big oil companies to even humanitarian causes, compared to Mr. Obama? Check out Mr. T. Boone Pickens, and his sole contributions to not only humanitarian causes, but also to renewable energy resources. Then, drive through the Texas Panhandle, and set your sites on the impressive wind farms. If that's not truly investing in renewable energy, I just don't know what is. Funny how Mr. T. Boone Pickens, a lowly, dirty, big oil company owner has solely made billions of dollars worth of contributions to universities, cancer research, renewable energy sources, at risk children, residential schools, hurricane Katrina relief, and was one of THE biggest charitable givers of 2005-2006. Not to mention, that evil, greedy rich man even jumped his happy butt in a bulldozer to go along with his donation to the Jubilee Park. That, my friend, is just the work of ONE little, old, adorable man. When was the last time Mr. Obama got his hands dirty to help the American people?  You're intentionally leaving out the fact that alternative energy sources are serious potential sources of revenue for the oil industry, as well, and we all can agree that they will line their pockets through any avenue they can, however their contributions to society somehow seem to balance out their 'greed.' Potential revenue, in itself, is motivation for oil companies to invest in the exploration of greener sources. At the same time, however, one can not discredit the worldwide, high, rising demand of crude oil production.

In conclusion, it makes absolutely no sense to only include direct employees of the oil industry in this little propaganda piece. Also, in conclusion, if Americans believe that big oil companies are capable of 'buying' our government, they should bet their booties that they are capable of everything you listed will not happen, once they aren't getting what they want, and have received for the past, what, hundred years. Instead of trying to impress America by making it seem like he's 'sticking it' to the oil corporations, which seems to be all the rage among the '99%' supporters, Obama should be working WITH this industry for the future of America. America needs to wake up and see through his smoke and mirror campaign tactics. Americans need to realize that Obama is relying on their ignorance of the oil industry, in order to be reelected.

Lingering Lies

Lingering Lies: The Persistent Influence of Misinformation

The Brain Holds on to False Facts, Even After They Have Been Retracted

After people realize the facts have been fudged, they do their best to set the record straight: judges tell juries to forget misleading testimony; newspapers publish errata. But even explicit warnings to ignore misinformation cannot erase the damage done, according to a new study from the University of Western Australia.

Psychologists asked college stu­dents to read an account of an ac­cident involving a busload of elderly passengers. The students were then told that, actually, those on the bus were not elderly. For some students, the information ended there. Others were told the bus had in fact been transporting a college hockey team. And still others were warned about what psychologists call the continued influence of misinformation—that people tend to have a hard time ig­noring what they first heard, even if they know it is wrong—and that they should be extra vigilant about getting the story straight.

Students who had been warned about misinformation or given the alternative story were less likely than control subjects to make inferences using the old information later—but they still erred sometimes, agreeing with statements such as “the pas­sengers found it difficult to exit the bus because they were frail.”

This result shows that “even if you understand, remember and believe the retractions, this misinformation will still affect your inferences,” says Western Australia psychologist Ullrich Ecker, an author of the study. Our mem­ory is constantly connecting new facts to old and tying different aspects of a situation together, so that we may still unconsciously draw on facts we know to be wrong to make decisions later. “Memory has evolved to be both stable and flexible,” Ecker says, “but that also has a downside.” [For more on how memory relies on connections and makes inferences, see “Making Connections,” by Anthony J. Greene;Scientific American Mind, July/August 2010.]

After reading this highly interesting article, I couldn't help but apply the information to children who have been victims of Parental Alienation and wonder if those children can ever truly heal from the misinformation that has been told to them about the target parent by the alienating parent.

From my experience, it is incredibly difficult for a child to be torn between the misinformation they are given by the alienating parent concerning the target parent, and the reality they experience while in the care of the target parent.  I have witnessed the destruction it does to a child, mentally, firsthand. The child's trust in not only the target parent, but also the alienating parent, is shattered. The child is fed negative, misinformation about the target parent on a constant basis, and everything the child does with the target parent is twisted into something negative, and met with disapproval from the alienating parent. The deterioration of trust starts with the target parent because the child is being given the misinformation from a person/people he/she loves and trusts, and the child either believes the misinformation, despite the child's reality contradicting the misinformation, or participates as a coping or survival method. The deterioration of trust continues to the alienating parent because the alienating parent continues to 'force' the child to visit the target parent, who they have led the child to believe is bad. The child is caught in a whirlwind of contradictions, and that whirlwind becomes his/her life.

We also know that brainwashing a child and implanting false memories into a child's mind are entirely possible. In cases of implanted, false memories of abuse, the memories and feelings about the abuse are very real to the child, even though the incident or incidents never really happened. If the child is told that the false, alleged abuse is false information and a false memory, and the child accepts and understands that, what happens next? Would the child be able to prevent the misinformation from determining how he/she reacts toward the target parent, or will those feelings associated with implanted memories and misinformation always be strong enough to affect the child's ability to form or maintain a strong bond with the target parent?

This is a very perplexing and disturbing psychological issue when it comes to battling PAS. I am going to email Dr. Warshak to see if I can get further insight on this issue, and will update the post once I get a response.

Does the US Family Court System Recognize PAS as a Valid Argument?

The following excerpt from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges is used by PAS is a Scam to attempt to discredit the theory of PAS.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2006).
Navigating Custody & Visitation Evaluations in Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judge’s Guide (2nd edition)

[excerpt]

“The discredited “diagnosis” of “PAS” (or allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the children’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be “alienated” have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the children’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating and/or discrediting ways toward the children themselves, or the children’s other parent. The task for the court is to distinguish between situations in which children are critical of one parent because they have been inappropriately manipulated by the other (taking care not to rely solely on subtle indications), and situations in which children have their own legitimate grounds for criticism or fear of a parent, which will likely be the case when that parent has perpetrated domestic violence. Those grounds do not become less legitimate because the abused parent shares them, and seeks to advocate for the children by voicing their concerns.” – page 24

In this post’s biased attack on Dr. Warshak and the theory of PAS, the author fails to comprehend that this excerpt does not ‘prove’ Dr. Warshak wrong, but only drives home his own key points throughout his work on PAS, as I have understood them through reading his materials and corresponding with him. This excerpt also contradicts the author’s stance that the US family courts do not recognize alienation, regardless of the term used to describe it. This excerpt clearly states:

“The task for the courts is to distinguish between situations in which children are critical of one parent because they have been inappropriately manipulated by the other…”.

Although taken out of context, that single quote clearly shows that the court recognizes alienation is a valid possibility, although it uses the term ‘inappropriately manipulated’. While taking alienation into account as a possibility, as well as other possibilities that could be the cause of the deterioration between a child and parent such as abuse, the excerpt shows that the court sees it as a responsibility to determine which is the true cause of the deterioration of the parent/child relationship. This excerpt seems to mirror Dr. Warshak’s point of view:

"Naturally the labels PAS and PA do not ask the court to conclude that a child's alienation is unreasonable. They merely direct the court to an alternative explanation for why a child would want to erase a mother from her life. It is up to the court to decide which explanation best accounts for the problems in the family and, more to the point, whether it is in the child's best interest to repair a damaged relationship with the parent being rejected." - Dr. Warshak (email correspondence)

This excerpt seems to show the court’s careful stance on PAS, being cautious to not only not disallow valid accusations of abuse and mistreatment under a blanket term or diagnosis such as PAS, but also expressing the knowledge that alienation is a real problem that has enough merit to be carefully considered in a custody case, even if it’s defined by a different term in order to not be confused with the rejected term of PAS.

Does PAS Turn the Tables on Parents Trying to Protect Their Children From Abuse?

Excerpt taken from PAS is a scam:

“Parent Alienation,” the idea that one parent (typically the mother) poisons the mind of the child against the other parent, is dangerous because it casts doubt on mothers’ claims of child abuse; the more she tries to protect her child and gather evidence, the more she exhibits “parental alienation.” If she fails–and she’ll face an uphill battle fighting bias, paying exhorborant fees, and fearing for her child(ren)’s safety trying to succeed–she can be fined, jailed and/or she could lose custody. PAS can and has turned the table on women trying to protect themselves or their child(ren) from abuse. (Several cases that have received media attention can be found here, here, and here."

While I am not disputing the fact that the situation described in the above quote does, in fact, happen, I will dispute the reason why this happens. The theory of PAS, in itself, cannot be blamed for the tables being turned on parents trying to protect themselves or their child(ren) from abuse. There are many things that the above statement fails to take into consideration, and in doing that, wrongly places the blame on the theory of PAS and Dr. Warshak.

In the scenario that the quote above is depicting, PA has been misinterpreted to the extreme by professionals assigned to investigate child abuse allegations, and has been haphazardly applied to parents who make child abuse accusations in the event of the allegations being determined as unfounded by investigators.

 This is not the fault of the theory of PAS, but rather the fault of apparently common misinterpretations and misapplications of the theory by 'professionals' who are not thoroughly trained or educated in neither child abuse nor PAS. In short, you have police officers and social workers trying to play psychotherapist. Rather than being willing to examine any ineptness or mistakes that might have been made during the investigation to warrant an unfounded result, or taking into consideration any alienating tactics the abusive parent may have used on the child, investigators wrongly assume the parent is making false allegations of abuse against the other.

 In the type of case the quote above is speaking of, abuse HAS taken place. The theory of PAS does not dispute that there are, in fact, very real cases of abuse, but it also acknowledges that false allegations of child abuse do, in fact, occur. While Dr. Warshak does focus on false allegations in cases of PA because PA is the focus of his work, he in no way states or insinuates that all parents who make abuse allegations are guilty of alienating their children.  In fact, Dr. Warshak clearly encourages parents to look at themselves objectively and try to determine any behavior they have exhibited towards the children that might have contributed to the alienation of their children.

Obviously, though, if a parent is abusive, they do not possess the capabilities to recognize such behavior in themselves and how that behavior negatively impacts their children, and are more likely to project that blame onto the parent who has made the abuse allegations by falsely accusing them of attempting to alienate their child from them. If you pair this with a child who feels compelled to protect their abuser and reject the parent making the allegations, as well as investigators who are not sufficiently trained to adequately navigate such complicated psychological matters with a child, the results are detrimental to everybody involved.

If you mix in what I like to call 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf' phenomenon, the complexity of the problem is magnified considerably more and the investigators job becomes even harder. It would directly undermine an investigator's intelligence to suggest to them that, in the heat of custody disputes and divorces, parents never use filing false allegations of abuse as alienation tactics or a way to gain the upper hand to win custody. Although such cases may not be the majority, it is obviously present enough to be widely recognized among investigators, without the help of Dr. Warshak or the theory of PAS. Investigators are forced to take what should be treated as isolated incidents of a parent's individual mental issues, and apply the possibility to cases that seem to 'fit' the typical set of circumstances where abuse is often falsely alleged.

It is also no secret that often, especially when dealing with children, it is difficult for an investigator to obtain enough evidence to create a solid case for prosecutors, even if the investigator believes the allegations are true. This is especially true with sexual abuse cases. The above quote fails to take into consideration all of the key players who determine the outcome of child abuse allegations, as well as the policies on these types of crimes. Many times, despite an investigator's personal feelings about the allegations of abuse, he/she has no choice but to follow policies that force them to determine the allegations as unfounded. This can be mispresented by the abusive parent and/or his/her attorney as the other parent making "false" allegations and claiming PAS when, in fact, there simply wasn't enough evidence to support the accusations.

 What other conclusion can an investigator come to if they feel as if their investigation was thorough, and the only logical conclusion to them based on the evidence they acquired or failed to acquire in their investigation is a case of unfounded allegations, or multiple cases of unfounded allegations?
    
Instead of playing the blame game and biasedly attacking PAS and Dr. Warshak based on misinterpretations and misapplications of both by the 'professionals' who are actually in charge of determining the outcome of each individual case, it seems a better tactic would be to help parents in this type of scenario and educate the professionals involved with our children on proper ways to investigate cases such as these.  It is absurd to claim that the theory of PAS is responsible for a problem that would exist even without the term.

Also, by vehemently denouncing the existence of PA, one is subsequently denying many of these parents of truly abused children the opportunity to understand how PA may very well be at the root of their children's rejection and prohibit them from fighting it successfully, or even keep the child from receiving the psychological help that they need. If a parent is truly mentally unstable enough to physically or sexually abuse their own child, it's not a far stretch to assume they may be the perpetrators of PA and HAP themselves, and use the abuse to frighten and subdue their child into remaining 'loyal' to only them. It's preposterous to claim that the argument of PA can successfully work against a loving parent in the favor of an abusive parent, yet simultaneously claim that the argument of PA cannot successfully work against an abusive parent in the favor of a loving, protective parent, as it is intended.

Losing a Child to Parental Alienation

The agony of losing a child to Parental Alienation is, in my opinion, worse than it would be to lose a child to death. In saying that, I am in no way minimizing the grief a parent experiences when their child passes away. To lose a child, by any means, is to lose an irreplaceable part of yourself.

Death is accepted as a natural part of life. Everybody lives, and everybody dies. Although it is unnatural for a child to die, especially in cases of accidents that are impossible to prepare for, death is still a natural occurance in life and one that we have to deal with many times over throughout our lives.  There is nothing natural about a parent and child being deprived of a normal, loving relationship.

Many times when a child looses their life, they are a victim, but once death takes place the child does not continue to suffer. When a parent loses a child to Parental Alienation, that child remains a victim and suffers from the severing of the once loving parent/child bond for the rest of their life. Many people are able to find at least some solace in thoughts of their child in Heaven, or some similar sort of an after life, surrounded by other loved ones who have passed. They know their child can never be hurt or sick ever again. Parents who lose their children to Parental Alienation do not know when their child is hurt, sick, cold, hungry, lonely, sad or crying. They have to live without knowing a single detail of their child's life, and they have to live with knowing that their child is in the care of the alienating parent who does not have the emotional maturity to realize the psychological scarring their alienating tactics leave on their child. 

Many people, by the time they have lost their child, have been through the grieving process of losing a loved one and have firm religious beliefs about death. Most religious beliefs have scriptures that help with the grieving process. No religion denounces the sanctity of a loving parent/child relationship, and many times it is hard to find a support system with people who can relate to your situation.

There is finality in death, closure. You know that your child is gone and is never coming back. When you lose your child to alienation, there is never any closure. You're left hanging in limbo, unable to completely let go, but also unable to continue the fight that leaves you emotionally exhausted. Even if the parent/child relationship is recovered successfully, they are never able to get back the time lost. When a child dies, their parents never get to hear their child say 'I love you' ever again, however sometimes they take solace in going to their child's place of rest and talking with them. Many people believe that, even though their child is gone from this Earth, they can still hear them. With alienation, a parent also does not get to hear their child say 'I love you.' Instead, they hear 'I hate you,' or they hear nothing at all. They do not have a symbolic place to visit their child, and they know that their child cannot hear them if they talk to them. Not only can they not physically hear them, but they are unable to mentally hear them through the hatred they have been taught for so long. Your child's love for you is dead, but yours for them continues on, unconditionally and unwelcome.

 Losing your child is an unimaginable, undescribable pain, but losing your physical child and your child's love, unnecessarily, because of another person's personal agenda magnifies the grief. The knowledge that your child is out there in the world and sometimes, as in my case, three houses down, yet still unreachable, goes beyond any pain in this world. Losing a child to alienation is the equivalent of having a wound that never scabs over. It is left raw, open and bleeding, and never heals because there is no natural closure. In death, a parent is forced to accept that their child is gone and never coming back. In alienation, it is impossible to accept the notion because your child is alive. It is impossible to accept the pain, knowing there is absolutely no feasible reason for it, no natural, understandable reason such as death to explain why you have to spend your life without your child.

Hindsight is 20 20

After being so angry, bitter and hurting so bad for so long over missing out on so much of my baby girl's life, I'm realizing that there are serious, complicated issues that surround Parental Alienation Syndrome, and that a lot of times, the way the target parent reacts to the situation can improve the situation or make it worse. In understanding alienation, I am forced to take responsibility for mishandling situations that I should have handled completely differently with my daughter, no matter how hard it is to swallow. Hindsight is 20 20.

Also, when you take time to understand the issues the alienator is suffering from that cause them to alienate their own child from the other parent, it's hard to not be sympathetic to a point. In a sense, it makes them appear more relatable as a person, albeit with serious issues, rather than a monster who is hurting your child, yourself and your entire family. All you can do is empower yourself with the knowledge you need to rectify the situation with your child(ren), and use the tools you learn to reverse the alienation process and stop it in it's tracks. When you make the choice to become proactive instead of defensive or passive in this kind of situation, you'll become amazed at the transformation in yourself & your outlook on life.

Once you begin to understand the Alienation process from a child's point of view and the position the alienating parent puts the child in, psychologically, it certainly helps you to be more receptive to the things that your child says and avoid being crushed by the hatred that the child expresses, even if he/she does not really feel that way, inside.

For anybody dealing with divorce issues with children, custody issues or what you feel like may be Parental Alienation, I HIGHLY recommend the book, 'Divorce Poison' by Dr. Richard A. Warshak.

As always, I do welcome all feedback and comments.