Mind in transition
This blog is about me, my family, and my social work career.
About Me

- Name: Jude
- Location: Canada
I'm confused, but still faithful; opinionated, but still thoughtful; steady, but still growing.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Scattered - Mate's thoughts on ADD
Sensitivity
Sensitivity is the reason why allergies are more common among ADD children
than in the rest of the population.Although the flare-up of allergies can certainly aggravate ADD symptoms, the one does not cause the other. They both are expressions of the same underlying inborn trait: sensitivity.
People with ADD are forever told that they are “too sensitive’ or that they should stop being “so touchy”. One might as well advise a child with hay fever to stop
being “so allergic.” (59)
Sensitive children come to be called “difficult” because adults have trouble understanding their temperament and because parenting methods that work with other children are frustratingly inadequate with this group. Like the related phrase “terrible twos,” “difficult child” shows grown-up bias. In the child’s experience, it is
the adult who is ornery. Were children the arbiters of language, we would hear
of the “difficult parent” and the “terrible thirties.” (60)
Attention
Given their automatic tuning out, ADD children forever find themselves being
told to “pay attention” – a demand that completely misunderstands both the
nature of the child and the nature of attention. The obvious monetary
connotation of “pay” is that attention is something the child owes the adult,
that the child’s attention belongs to the adult by right. The phrase takes for
granted that being attentive is always a consciously chosen act, subjest to
one’s will. Both of these assumptions are faulty.
Like language or locomotion, being attentive is a skill we acquire. As with all other skills, the conditions necessary for the development of attention have to be present. It is not an isolated attribute of the child’s but the product of a relationship between the child and her environment. (121)
Children's actions
We think that children act, whereas what they mostly do is react. Parent who
realize this acquire a powerful tool. By noticing their own responses to the
child, rather than fixating on the child’s responses to them, they free up
tremendous energy for growth. (160)
Emotional language
Parental love and understandingHelping the child to label her feelings … is …an important step in promoting
autonomy. Words are symbols. They stand for feeling and actions. Without the
capacity to put things into symbols, children are driven to act out every strong
feeling and every urge – it is the only way they can express themselves. They
are thus unable to take charge of themselves, impelled as they are to act by
emotions they cannot identify. Without learning to symbolize emotions they are
also likely to experience everything in terms of simple and opposing categories:
people are alternately mean or nice, good or bad. It’s either “I Love you,
Mommy” or “I hate you.” The child has greater autonomy, a greater choice of
possible responses, when she can say, “I didn’t like what Mrs. So-and-so said to
me in class today, “ than when she is restricted to “Mrs. So-and-so is mean.”
Language supports freedom, including freedom from one’s own impulses. (208)
Parental love is such a wise and powerful force of nature that when parents extend themselves in an effort to understand who their children are and why they do what they do, the right words and actions will follow almost of their own volition. An open mind, compassionate curiosity toward the child, letting go to the idea that one "knows” what the child thinks and feels and a striving to accept the child unconditionally will go a long way toward binding wounds inflicted by past mistakes, misjudgments and the parent’s own emotional blockages. Such attitudes are just as important when the ADD adult embarks on the journey of self-healing. (272-3)
unnecessary necessities
1. Bottled water. We buy it when we go on holidays, because I really do hate the taste of tap water. (I also have this weird thing about drinking water out of a bathroom tap. )But it's not an everyday thing. We have a Brita and I try to bring water along in reusable water bottles.
2. Second car. Yep, we have one. My job requires me to have a vehicle so I can do client visits. We tried staying with one vehicle for about 6 months after I started, and it was very inconvenient for Rob to never have a vehicle during the day. I think we could lose it quite easily if I had a job I could bus to. Sometimes I even enjoy the reading time on the bus.
3. Private school. No, we don't private school. They make a point that we already pay for school through our taxes, so one might say the same about homeschooling. But we have decided not to buy prepackaged curriculums, we make a lot of use of the library and internet resources. Just the cost of lunch time supervision at our old school, once Conor started school, would be many hundred dollars a year, not to mention what they charge for all sorts of little things that come up. All in all, I think it's cheaper for us to home school. However, that doesn't factor in the cost of Rob being unable to work much for pay.
4. Childhood parties. I, too, think the degree of expense in some parties are insane. We did go to that indoor park that used to be on confusion corner once, when we lived in the old house and had no room for guests. But the parties this year were low-key, in our home and I've let the kids know that we won't have parties for them every year because I think family is way more important than friends and it's okay if it's just us - we're fun too.
5. Pet grooming/walking. We've told our kids we're not sure we're responsible enough to have them, never mind another creature added to the mix. Next.
6. Daily latte. Well, not daily, but I do succumb to the lure of Timmies more often than I need to. I always make my own coffee in the morning, though.
7. Cable TV. Yes, we have it, but we really put thought into what we would actually watch and then went with MTS theme groups option rather than Shaw's full package. Could we live without it? Of course. But I don't want to. So there. Plus, we do see a lot of educational stuff with the kids, and for us that is part of homeschooling.
8. Manicure/pedicure. I have a peddy about once every 3 years. A doctor once told me I should have them regularly due to how callouses build up on my feet. Alas, they are not paid for by medicare so I must still class it as a luxury and get one when I get gift certificates.
9. Botox. As tempting as it is to get rid of the frown lines etched into my forehead (from concentrating, of course, I'm a very happy person) I think Botox is insane.
10. Cellphone. We do have one. If you count my work phone, we have two. I justified it when I was self-employed to make it easy for clients to contact me. Then it somehow just stayed. We do use a prepaid plan, which is probably less than half what a monthly plan would be, and use it minimally.
11. Lawn service. Ha ha ha. If only.
12. Clothes. I think we're worse with kids' clothes than we are with our own. It seems like we always think they need something new. I think it's parental guilt. I'm always concerned about my professional image. Does it look weird to wear the same 3 pairs of pants over and over? However, that said, I don't think I spend a lot on clothes. But like it said, could I stand to go a year with buying nothing? Probably.
How do you do on the list?
More on what sucks
“Love is where you find it.”
“Where bonds have been formed … and are especially strong, we need to be very circumspect about intervening and breaking those bonds in the service of some goal or objective our tribal child protection agencies might have. In other words, the agency is more concerned with advocating an agenda, a philosophy, than they are with examining each and every individual case.”
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
CFS crap
This sucks.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Dismantling a political ad
The latest one has a picture of a needle in a playground with the caption, "safe?" on it. Setting fear into the hearts of people is always a good tactic, even if you have no solid platform.
On the inside it says, "Junkies and drug pushers don't belong near children and families."
This ignores the fact that junkies and drug pushers are parts of families. They are dughters and sons, sisters and brothers, mothers and fathers. This part of the ad sets up a them vs. us mentality, encouraging stigma. People who are addicted don't benefit from further putdowns. Lack of belonging is often part of the reason they turn to substances. This kind of mentality will not encourage postivie change.
The next line is "They should be in rehab or behind bars." Rehab good. What are the wait times for Rehab? How willing are Conservatives to put $$$ towards rehab? How equipped are facilities to handle the complexities of problems that people with addictions bring with them. Example: lack of child care is a problem that often keeps women from entering treatment. They may have no one in their lives who is safe to leave children with, and waiting lists for subsidized spots can be years in length. But who has been the main political opponent to a child care system for Canada? Conservatives.
They then boldly make the statement that "The Conservative Government will clean up drug crime" with the first point being "Punish drug pushers with more jail time". Logically that should lead to more people being in jail. The question is, then - are you going to let other offenders out earlier? Or build more jails? Or have prisons with overcrowded, volatile conditions? And if it's the first two, how much is that going to cost and where is the money going to come from? All answers that somehow have not been addressed in this mailout.
There is also an underlying assumption, imo, that more jail time will be a deterrent. The deterent theory has been put to rest. Criminals, often under the influence of substances, generally have poor cognitive skills, often have untreated mental health problems, tend to be impulsive and jail time is not something they weigh out before deciding to commit a crime.
The brochure goes on to say that the conservatives will "Keep junkies in rehab and off the streets." That was tried with Ms. G here in Manitoba about 10 years ago. It didn't fly with the Supreme Court. What makes them think that will change. People with addicts might actually avoid going for treatment if they think they will lose their rights to make choices.
The third point on cleaning up drug crime is "Crack down on Cross border drug smuggling." I think the question here is how? More searches? Search everyone? Can you imagine the wait times at the border and the effect on trade? Or if they have something else in mind, what?
Almost all my friends on FAcebook list themselves as Conservatives, so I may be stepping on some toes here. But whatever party you lean towards, go past the slogans and ask the hard questions. Every action has pros and cons. Every promise has a cost. Know the depths before you wade in the water.

