Friday, May 29, 2009

Marijuana Is To Alcohol As Prozac (SSRI’s) Is To Cocaine

I have discussed on other blogs, if not this one, many times the logical disconnect in logic between the legalization of alcohol and the criminalization of marijuana. The main reason alcohol and tobacco are legal and pot isn’t, is due to a major marketing and lobbing effort by the two industries to push out a substitute good. The now cult classic flick known as “Refer madness” was originally produced as a public awareness message to warn of the dangers of marijuana usage. It was funded by the alcohol and tobacco industries. It contains wild and untrue assertions about the use of pot. It includes a scene of people taking it intravenously. It was meant to stir paranoia in the ignorant masses. It worked.

“Weed” had one major problem, it grows like a weed anywhere. Hard to make money off that. Unless you live in the lush climate of the south, you are not growing tobacco in your back yard. Certainly not in the quantities to support the average nicotine habit. So there is an industry. As a home brewer, I can tell you that brewing a drinkable beer is no easy chore even with today’s advances. So alcohol had an industry.

Cocaine can be grown and harvested then brought to the border pretty inexpensively. The biggest cost is the logistics in getting to the US consumer. And again, aside from the awful social affects that come with it, cocaine was pushed out by the alcohol and tobacco industries. Here they weren’t making up the socially unhealthy side affects. Prozac as it turns out is a very complimentary drug for the two industries. This is because its use increases the desire for their product. Go figure.

“So, LOL, besides the political and economical relationship, what else do they have in common? Right now this seems like a stretch.” Nice class, I am glad you asked. Cocaine acts on the brain by increasing the dopamine levels. Get this, it does this by “inhibiting” the cells to reabsorb dopamine. (If that doesn’t sound familiar, it will.) Dopamine is a response to pleasure signals. In your brain it makes you feel happy and pleasurable when warranted. So without the ability to absorb it, people become “euphoric”. Dopamine is a precursor (forerunner) of adrenaline and a closely related molecule, noradrenaline.

Now, for those who have been following along, Prozac and the class of drugs known as (Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) SSRI’s. Please note the word “inhibitors”. Serotonin does the exact same thing as dopamine from a slightly different perspective. SSRI’s stop the reabsorbing of this pleasure producing chemical back into the cells. The results of it’s presence in the brain is nearly mirrored to that of cocaine. So are the side affects.

So lets take this one step further and apply a little logic. Why don’t we want people openly using cocaine in our society. Most of us, especially reading this blog would agree that cocaine and any drug use that doesn’t negatively affect the community at large should be completely legal. If you want to sit in your living room and snort coke, destroy your house, and scream profanity at the top of your lungs, go to it. As long as you don’t have a spouse or children who will be effected by this activity, party on Skippy. What you do to yourself in your own home is your business. However, coke and crack alike has a personality altering affect that produces citizens that are not functional healthy members of the community. By that, I mean they loose the ability to be good parents, hold down a job, or do an important job that requires responsibility to the required level. It has been known to produce violent and other criminal behavior such as theft, fraud, and sexual crimes. So our freedom seeking American society has cast it out as too much of a threat to our goal of social harmony. However, these SSRI’s have been proven to produce the exact same result. Because they are not often identified as the cause, they are not demonized. So why are they handed out like jelly beans at Easter.

Look, when you are talking about messing with brain chemicals, there are no guarantees. That is basically what my own counselor told me. Handing people these drugs nothing more then treating them like lab rats. So if for no apparent reason your wife runs off with your child and then falsely files a police report that she has been kidnapped, it is thought that adjustments need made. We all know people who can drink like a fish and walk out generally sober. We also know people who after 1 drink act like they have been drinking all afternoon. I know people who if I told you they do coke with some regularity, you would curl up your face and say, “really”. God knows I did. These drugs have the exact same consistency. The results are often the same unhealthy personality emerges. The difference is that since they are FDA approved and doctor prescribed, people look right past them as the cause when somebody’s personality on these flip. The diagnosis is further complicated by the fact that some people’s brain chemistry naturally goes haywire and act similarly. This results on many supporters of these drugs to say, “see people do this all the time that haven’t taken this drug”. To that I say, “my foot gets wet whether I get caught in the rain or I piss on it. The difference is one is my fault, and you can’t do anything about the weather.”

There are countless cases of people on these drugs doing the most heinous crimes. Here are just a few high profile ones. . Then there are the ones that don’t make the news because nobody makes the connection. Then there are the grey areas where the personality flip ruins small individual lives as their person turns dysfunctional, but doesn’t do anything illegal. Children end up growing up in split homes, financial strains cause bankruptcy, disease are spread, abortions are had, and unwanted children are brought into the world. But we will leave that for another post.

The problem is that people who are already in a troubled state are going to doctors they trust and getting prescriptions for these antidepressants. Whether it be a vet returning with PTSD, a child who lost his mother at an early age, a deadly disease patient that is suffering from depressions, a mother suffering from post partum, or my favorite a wife who suffers from mild anxiety, anyone of them could be predisposed to heightened receptiveness to an increase in serotonin. Many times their adverse feelings are completely unrelated to a lack of serotonin level. You might as well snort coke or become an alcoholic. At the end of the day, whatever problem caused you to seek out mental health therapy, its still there. Now you have a deficiency in whatever was causing your problem and a serotonin addiction. Now you are headlong in the wrong direction at mach 2 with your ass on fire. Great job docs.

The trouble is how many people are getting rich off this. The drug companies are getting rich, the divorce lawyers are busy, the courts are full, the prisons are fuller, and the therapists who prescribed the drug often get business from the patients spouse, children, and even extended family members. Oh and don’t forget the doctors prescribing it.

Look, there are a select group of a few people who have serotonin deficiencies. For these people, SSRI’s are the answer. But what is becoming evident to me is that many of these people are not having their issues addressed. They are being prescribed aspirin for a brain tumor. I personally know of three people who were prescribed SSRI’s for to cope with anexiety. Caught early enough and having knowledgeable people around them they were taken off the drug quickly. One had a thyroid problem. The other had an androgen deficiency. The third just had deep rooted issues that needed brought into the open. A forth, well, I miss my baby.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Separated Parents: The Bible, The Courts, And The Science.

Those who read regularly know one of my pet peeve arguments is “ U.S. laws are based on Christianity”. It is total chutzpah. The reality is first “Christian values” were based on values that had evolved to be socially functional. “Don’t lie”, “don’t cheat”, “don’t steal”, “don’t kill”, “respect your parents”, “expect to be treated the same way you treat other people” are not profound revelations. They are rules for a community to reduce aggressive behavior. If in fact he was a deity, he came down only to point out the ideas we should already have been aware of. The US laws were designed around these basic understandings. However, with about 90% regularity, if a value falls in the grey area, the US laws are crafted in complete disregard for what the bible would council.

I could go on citing examples, but that would make a long post. Instead the one that is fresh on my mind is the lesson highlighted by the story of King Solomon. For reference sake I will sum it up. Two women had babies of about the same age. One woman’s child had died. Both women claimed the living baby as their own. (I know it is hard to envision this in our separated living type culture, but remember back then they were more tribal living arrangements.) Unable to resolve the dispute they were brought before the king. The King Solomon proposed to just “split the baby in half”. One woman actually agreed to the decision. The other broke into tears saying she would rather see her baby live then to suffer such a fate. The king recognized that the real mother would never allow her baby to be hurt and awarded the custody to the second woman.

In this area US laws are 180 degrees out of the teaching of the bible. Here our courts don’t just suggest, but often demand that the baby be “split in half”, at least emotionally speaking. First and foremost the laws are set up as such that the mother gets primary custody unless proven to be a vengeful homicidal abusive maniac. Even then the courts only want her to go through a program, and show that she has gotten her emotions under control. Even if one of the parents are proven to be to the extreme, the courts still generally allow some sort of visitation and custody rights. These are the extreme cases. The grey areas in between where a parent is shown to act irresponsibly and/ or out of the best interest of the child, that parent is still awarded custody. If it is the mother, she is often awarded primary custody. This is a situation that allows a parent who is looking to emotionally torment the other parent a link to do so. We all know people who have crazy ex’s that use the kids to do irrational acts.

Generally US family courts try to establish what they call “joint custody”. (Picture a thick burly royal guard with giant sword.) This is where the two parents share equally in decision making and often living arrangements. This only tends to work if the separation was something that both parents wanted and they had been emotionally sepaerated for years. They often became some variety of “friends” over the course of their together but separate lives.

Joint custody certainly doesn’t work if only one parent wanted the separation and the other is hurt and frustrated with the other parent. The parent often uses the child as a pawn in some game of emotional chess. They will say and do things to the child that shouldn’t even be consider acceptable. It also doesn’t work when neither parent wanted the split, but just became involved in some kind of hurtful game escalated to the extreme of divorce. I have seen this a few times personally where not only my friends ex is acting not on the best interest of the child by doing irrational activates, but so was my friend. Every now and then I would check him by saying, “what are you doing. I though you guys were through with each other. Why would you continue the drama?” One friend made my jaw drop when in a burst of raw honesty she said, “I still love him, and I hate him for that.” I mean what do you say to that? I ordered a round of shots.

So in this instance as in many others the US laws are not “based on biblical teachings”. But wait, there’s more. It turns out they don’t even act in accordance to scientific understanding either. Here is a study that was conducted by Professor Yongmin Sun of OSU released in early 2008.

It turns out that children of separated families have greatly varying chances of success depending on their custodial situation. First of all, as has been said by every councilor and even during the “separated parents” seminar I was forced to attend they stress that just having separated parents greatly reduces their chances at reaching their full potential. As Sun put it in this interview, “A stable family situation after divorce does not erase the negative effects of a divorce.” The study goes on to show that children of stable custodial environment are far more likely to succeed and be functional then children of changing custodial situations. The main point in the article showed that while children of single parent custody had the same chance of going to college as an “always married” family structure. However, the level of degree was reduced in the cases where sole custody was the norm. Children of “joint custody” environments fared half as well in most aspects as their other peers. Bottom line, divorce is a damming experience for a child. Passing the child back and forth is further damaging. Yet that is what the courts try to do.

The reasoning behind the disadvantage of the separated parents are no mystery. The fact that split parents suffer from reduced financial backing and social continuity was cited by the study. The courts attempt to recreate the “standard of living” in two places. Most couple could barely afford to do it in one. The second is a core understanding of the meaning of relationship and commitment to a common goal that are demonstrated by a divorce. These children often are more willing to give up on goals and commitments that are needed to drive their way up the ladder of success.

So as unusual, when I trash a social norm, I have a solution. Well part of one. In this case marginalizing the damage seems about the best one can do. First, obviously the situation has to be taken into account. A pregnant teen is a vastly different situation then an established marriage that were not “till death”. I have talked at length about teen pregnancy in the past, and will not address that here. But improving the fate of a child from a marriage that ends should have a different set of criteria.

First of all, I draw on wisdom from a short story I read I think in 6th grade called the “test”. The basic jest of the story was that people attempting to get their drivers license were put under hypnosis and made to believe they were involved in a horrible crash that killed their love ones. When they woke, if they still wanted their license they were committed. If they didn’t they were approved to get it. The first test of a parent should be making sure they understand the ramifications of separating. If they are still willing to go through with it, then maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to have custody of their child. This concept should not wait till people are in divorce court to be explained, it should be part of the marriage license process. If one of you are willing to separate, break your vows, or dissolve the family, then that person risks loosing access to their child. There has to be consequences. Now if the person is looking to separate for reason of abuse, then obviously the courts would have to consider. But simply wanting out is not an acceptable excuse. It demonstrates a selfish disregard for the child and the sanctity of marriage. It is damage that is actually felt financially upon the entire system and community as demonstrated by the study. Too many times marriages that have just reached minor lows end without properly addressing the issues has progressed. Making the consequences more dire might make the couple reconsider.

As a personal experience, I know a dozen or so divorced couples with children. Two of them stand out. Both of these children have very little interaction with more then one parent. In those cases, the children have grown to be very functional and are off to renowned success. Luckily, one of my friends recently got the chance to do it again with the right person. He is so ready it seems.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Defamation Of Character: In Depth

With the return of a few politicians and sports figures to public light, the word “defamation” has come up in conversation a few times. As a legal term it is interesting to consider what this means, and why it would be included in our legal system.

First let us define the term “defamation”. defines it as “the act of defaming another.” “Defaming is further defined as “to harm the reputation of by libel or slander.” So “libel” is “a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1): a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2): defamation of a person by written or representational means (3): the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures. “Slander” is just a restating of libel. Slander seems to be used for short indefensible verbal attacks. (Basically any political news conference ever aired.)

These definitions tend to miss the elements of truth and relativity. I think the Wikipedia article might get it a little closer. (I know Wikipedia is normally avoided as a source, but sometimes it is useful.) It says, “defamation In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel (for written words), slander (for spoken words), and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.” I have a joke at work when I am supporting somebody who is doing something dangerous. I say, “You know there are two ways to the top, either be better then the guy in front of you, or take him out.” From the perspective of defamatory statements, this would mean that a person would have something to gain by uttering a nonfactual statement. This issue is expressly addressed by the Bible as being one of the ten commandments. “Thou shall not bear false witness.” It turns out in England they don’t really care about the truth of the statement, just its intent. In their case even a truthful statement (juicy gossip) when uttered if the teller is trying to gain social or financial advantage is considered defamatory. This from the country most renowned for it’s gossip.

Another word often associated with this term is “derogatory”. Defined as the act of disparaging; belittling. The reasoning behind these forms of human communication are the same. A functional community needs both full and accurate information in order to continue functionally. Thus my outrage over the lies told by the previous administration in the rallying of the US public to war.

So why would our governing representatives adapt a negative attitude towards this activity? Simple, because the courts or their representatives are rarely present at the incident that ends up in front of them, and since often legal issues are decided by a jury of peers, falsely influencing public opinion can cause damage to justice of the outcome. Think of the Salem which trials here. In the days of small communities as well as in the days of mass communication, this truth in statement is very important. The sad part is that it is also important to our political system, but these types of statements are often used in politics. It is called “going negative”. Sometimes the truth and fiction are separated by a thin grey line that would take more resources to fight then they are worth.

They irony of the idea of defamation of charterer is that we have a 24hr news cycle that is dedicated to the process of walking that thin line. I gave a comparative of news stories mid last year that were posted by The Associated Press and the same story posted by FOX news. The story was about a protest at the WTO meeting. There were thousands of peaceful protestors that were also infiltrated by a few dozen self proclaimed anarchist. This was a fact included in the AP story. The FOX story was titled “Anarchist Disrupt meeting with violent behavior.” They went on to tell nearly the same story as the AP article which was titled “Few problems plague otherwise peaceful demonstration”. The group that organized the peaceful demonstration was defamed by FOX who had an agenda to advance to appeal to their demographic. However, the area was grey, so no court case could really stand the test.

Think about it this way. If you mailed a letter to the other side of the country but knowingly put a false address on it, whose fault is it that the information didn’t make it? So if there are not measures to stop defamation of character, libel, slander, perjury, and other deragative statements, then whose fault would it be if bad and damaging decisions were reached by the people who work for the governing system?

The dichotomy of the situation is that in order to have a healthy democracy speech needs to flow unhindered by opposing forces. But that speech must be truthful and relative in order to remain on a positive track.

On a personal note, I have never attempted to advance an agenda here. Almost all of my perspectives are backed up by links and/ or citations of my sources. Every post is about the quest for the truth or to answer the question “why” is this reality. I invite anybody to challenge me if they see it otherwise.

Disclosure post

So it seems that we have a couple of new readers to the “logic and politics” blog. Can everybody in the group say, “Hi wife, and wife’s lawyer.” Wow two years of me writing my deepest most inner thoughts and turning them into a format in which the world could relate, and now my wife takes time to read them.

So I am going to have to go over the last couple of post and make sure that there isn’t anything that isn’t clear. A feat that should take a couple of days. This very blog is about the search for truth. It is about cutting through all the bullshit, and asking, “Why was this law created?” “Why did society develop this moral value?” “How do you rationalize such as a school shooting or a mother killing her baby occur in today’s advanced community.” “Why did this political or social event not jibe with logic?” This is not a commercial endeavor for me, but a hobby. It is therapy for my endlessly wondering mind. Expressing these, usually researched, perspectives is what this place is about. I am an open and honest person who likes to share my observations with people who invite me to do so.

So as a disclosure, the opinions expressed here are my own and nobody else’s. As always I invite people to comment, debate, and try to convince me of my error of thought. Everything I say I believe to be true. In relationship to my personal situations everything I say and do is passed through a gambit of reasoning. Of which the first two “I love my child, so is what I am about to say danger or damaging to my child in any way shape or form?” the second is “I love my wife (estranged wife, ex-wife, or whatever the appropriate title is these days) is what I am about to say or do dangerous to the physical or emotional well being of my wife.” You can look over the post of the past 2 years and find that the answers to those questions are a “no”. If you know me, you can look over my actions and find the same answer.

So it seems that “The Divorce Chronicles” might actually be in violation of the divorce decree. It will have to wait till after this thing is settled. I have been writing here for 2 years. It is part of my normality. I am loosing a very important part of my life, but I do not have to, or intend to, loose everything. Writing my thoughts here has become a part of who I am. After all, according to my brother, back in October at the family weekend, my wife said, “(LOL) is the perfect husband, I couldn’t be happier. I just wish he didn’t spend so much time blogging.” Hey it was election season and Palin was way too close to being leader of the free world for my comfort. I have the ACLU on speed dial for anyone wanting to stop my right to freedom of speech.

In the end all of these recent post are just an extension of what they have always been, but on a more personal level. It is the quest of a man searching for the answer of how he could be told he was “the greatest husband in the world”, “the greatest father ever” and how a woman says, “she couldn’t be happier” and “our daughter deserves a sibling” to being hated and emotionally traumatized by the same person only a week later. At the very least, the person I came to know over those 12 years would have chose a more honorable way to end this. This series has been a search to resolve the question, “what if”. What if I am right about this situation being identical to those stories I found? What if it is cause by the same thing that the 50 other people have contacted me saying, they “did the same thing when under the influence of the Prozac.” “What if my wife did listen and take a couple of month break from the SSRI?” What if my daughter could stop screaming, “don’t leave me daddy” every time I walk out the door? What if I could get my family back? I can’t make this a reality for myself, but what f I touch some reader out there about to go through the same thing? Even if I am wrong, there are hundreds of stories out there that this would be a reality. Of course the drug companies call this 1/10 of 1%. A small figure unless you are one of them.

I would also like to say “Thank you” to the anonymous contributor who said many of the things that my wife would have said in the “comments” section of the “Personal story” post. Through her I got to have a pseudo conversation that i would have wanted to have with my wife. I would only add to my comments that there was nothing that was wrong that should have been a deal breaker. Her complaints were about physical attraction, a known problem with Prozac. I started this relationship asking her why she would be with me as I was the self proclaimed “ugliest man alive”. This situation only confirms what I had always assumed. I still managed to produce one beautiful child. And why now after 12 years does this all the sudden make a difference? Unfortunately, not something that I think anybody but my wife could answer though I guess.

Thanks for reading, now back to at least the “logic” part of logic and politics.

Friday, May 8, 2009

The Conundrum of Marriage Destroyed by SSRI’s

If you have reached this page because you or loved ones have experienced major personality changes that have damaged your family and you want to know if the antidepressants have played a role, I highly recommend you check out this site.(Sadly the original forum got removed. It contained a lot of stories. Lots of users and spouses reporting the most insane reactions emotionally and behaviorally.  There is a contributor named BTDT or BTD who is mentally off and obsessed with posting on the TOPIX forum. But he/ she does seem to provide comfort.  But the stories get lost in the "discussion" on this sight.  There is also a few different Facebook Pages.) 
Marriages Destroyed by SSRI/ SNRI's There are dozens of stories here that will make you say, "I could have written this story". Your are not alone. There are now 300 different stories on this thread ranging from a college professor who gave up her career in her 40's to go become a stripper and a prostitute to a couples who were married for 20 plus years. Another place to read and get info (maybe even post) is at Here the threads are a little easier to read, but there are less of these family support stories. Now on to the post. (I am just updating some info. I will do a look back in the near future.)If you don't mind giving up a little privacy, There is a great FB group called "Lives Destroyed by SSRIs". 

The system is broken. Who is going to do the research to find out if an otherwise happy marriage was effected by Prozac or any of the other SSRI related drugs? The prescribing information on every one of them require physicians to do a screening for bipolar disorder. This evaluation cost thousands of dollars and is often not covered by insurance if the patient should happen to have it. Drs get a large amount of what can only be described as kickback for prescribing them. (I spent 20 min. explaining to my doc how SSRI's had destroyed my life. This doc knew my wife and how close our relationship was. He was taken back by the events i described and said, "It sounds like she may have been misdiagnosed and is bipolar." At the end he still offered to prescribe me an antidepressant.)

Who is going to do the research to find out if Drs are talking to family members to find out if the patient is an alcoholic or bi-polar before the issue a prescription? They will tell you that they are just doctors and only go off the information their patience give them. Most are well meaning and think they are doing great work. Their patient is extremely happy. They are bared by HIPAA and doctor patient confidentiality from talking to the patient's family about personality changes. Of course that is exactly what the prescribing information says should happen. "Families and caregivers of patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder or other indications, both psychiatric and non psychiatric, should be alerted about the need to monitor patients for the emergence of agitation, irritability, unusual changes in behavior..." So how is this information exchange going to take place?

As a friend of mine put it, "I went to the doctors and said i was feeling stressed because I was unemployed and about to loose my house. He gave me an antidepressant and I didn't feel 'stressed' any more. I was still about to loose my house and was still unemployed, but i just didn't care. Heck I even stopped looking for work."

Once the doctor realizes the error of their ways they are stuck. If they get their patient off the drugs, they very well may find themselves defending a lawsuit.

So who else could have an interest in uncovering the damaging affects? The drug companies? They are making billions off these drugs. They are well aware of what they are doing. Ever noticed how every antidepressant commercial spend 20 seconds telling you how good the drug will make you feel, and then a minute and a half telling you about the dangers? Yet nobody finds this absurd. Do you think they have any incentive expose the grey area, non-life threatening dangers of these drugs?

Our watchdog agency the FDA has its hands so tied with bureaucracy that it takes an act of congress to change a drugs status once accepted. So much of the process is being driven by money and not the well being of the citizens the agency is supposed to be protecting.

To sum it up in real terms. The drug companies can show minimal side affect of the physical, life threatening nature. The Drs. give their patient the pills and the patient returns and says, “you know, I finally came to the realization that instead of being married, I wanted to sleep with everybody in town, spend all my money, and neglect my parental duties. Now I am happy.” They Drs say, “wow look I did a good job, my patient is “happy”. The pharmacies just take your money and completely feel disconnected.

Here is the reality of SSRIs. My wife went to consoling because after the birth of the baby, her obsessive/ compulsiveness and anxiety had increased. So she was given a drug that would “take the edge off”. Take the edge off it did. It take away your guilt and remorse feelings. Think about what you would do if you had no guilt or remorse? Think about what you would do if you couldn’t feel love or sadness. I can tell you a heart wrenching story of what you could do.

I too suffered from a disconnect in reality. For quite a few months I thought this whole thing had happened a lot quicker then it had. Luckily i like to write and stumbled upon old records and emails that I had kept to journal the irrational times. My wife was first prescribed Zoloft. This is when the feelings of agitation and suicide increased. She also became abnormally irritated with the baby. Only after this did our first fights where she mentioned not being happy in the marriage emerged. Prior to that it was never a consideration. As a good husband and completely in my character, she would calm down and ask for forgiveness. I would, and that meant that I forgave and forgot. I didn't know I should be watching for these as signs of adverse reactions to SSRIs. Even if i did, who would I tell?

A major sign for me should have been when my wife’s godmother died. She complained about the inability to cry. She said she just didn’t feel anything to this lady who had been an important part of her life. We thought it was just a part of her newly prescribed drug and it would pass. Now she is way passed that. Honesty, commitment, faithfulness, family, and duty were pillars of her character. Now she has none of those qualities. The problem is that if you ask her she will tell you how happy she is. If you didn’t have the guilt or remorse, wouldn’t you be ecstatic too?

Now she is out of reach of me. Her family is unaware of the many things she is doing. They have to be aware of the personality change, but probably figure it is just because she is "going through a hard time" with the divorce. They haven’t researched the effects of Prozac. Not to mention when you mix alcohol with it. So who is going to question her “happiness”. How can I rest assured that these uncaring feelings are not extended to include my daughter. From where I am standing there is nothing she is doing nothing that is in the interest of our child.

This is not my wife. Her very soul has been suppressed. There is not a shred of the values she once held dear. She almost seems not to realize the devastation that it is having on me or our daughter. My daughter has twice said to me, "I don't want to go to mommy's. I scared". This of course drives my own paranoia. Is she scared because she just dosn't want to leave home, and me? IS she afraid of some real threat? What do you say to a 2 yr old that she will understand. "Sorry munchkin, The courts say I have to send you to a place that 'scares' you". What kind of trust boundries am I breaking by doing this? I grow tired of this fight. But I can't give up until the unanswered questions about the dangers of the affects of these drugs are answered. I want to. That is the true "conundrum".

Friday, May 1, 2009

Breakout Post: Hiatus update

I wanted to separate this from the iraq post.

I am back party people. Grew a new skin and had to change directions. It will take a few weeks for me to get in the mix with where the country is and/ or should be standing on issues as I had lost the thread. Don’t know what the future holds for me, but it looks really sweet right now. I am writing post for “the divorce chronicles”, but it is a different writing style for me. I am not yet sure how I sit with sharing it with the world right this second. Also, I haven’t set up the tools to tell who is looking at it, and I have to be wary that anything I say can and will be used against me in a court of law. It is coming and will be an interesting read, but not right at this moment in time. Thanks to all of you who contacted me. Turns out there are more then 4 of you regulars. Who would have thunk it. Hasta for now.

Counter text

New counter