Long’s teaching focuses on freeing the individual from unhappiness which he defined as ‘happy today, unhappy tomorrow’. He stated that this fluctuating condition is set in motion and maintained by an addiction to thoughts and the emotions they create. These emotions encourage other thoughts and so a vicious cycle is initiated. We are trapped in this cycle, he suggested, until we follow “the way of truth”. It includes:

*constant vigilance in observation of one’s thoughts, emotions and actions;

*meditation to still the mind and connect with life within i.e. what “I” call “me”; “feeling the well-being in the body”;

*being, without thought; the next step on from meditation;

*getting your life right, taking action in those areas of your life which disturb you because something is wrong.

The sexual aspects of his teaching gained great notoriety, assuming a greater prominence in the public mind than Long wished. He maintained the relationship between man and woman caused the greatest unhappiness in the post-industrial West. He taught and wrote in detail about sexual love between man and woman and its use to purify them both, ridding them of what he called ‘personal, human love.’, He responded to controversy by pointing out that getting one’s life right in all its aspects, and prolonged selfless giving were more important. He suggested that a person practicing this would naturally attract a loving sexual partner. In response to an article by Andrew Cohen he wrote ””On

Long also wrote about many other aspects of “Love, Life, Truth, God and Death”. In ”The Origins of Man and the Universe” he presents his cosmology. Speaking of this book he stated, ”There’s so much in this book ….it’s like a base which my whole teaching goes back to, or extends from. My current teaching might be more refined, but is always consistent with it” . He taught and spoke about family life and the importance of raising children from birth in justice and truth not just love. In response to the September 2001 terrorist attacks in the USA, an extract on terrorism from his ”Origins” book written in 1983 was published separately as well as a new book ‘A Prayer for Life: The Cause and Cure of Terrorism, War and Human Suffering’.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article Barry Long, under the G. N. U. Free Documentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

No related posts.

These days, it is hard to come by an individual who does not know someone who has been divorced, or who has not been divorced themselves. In Hollywood, divorce is seemingly becoming a common occurrence, while paving the way for a society where we?re not only getting married later in life, but also searching for an almost unrealistic level of happiness in our marriage.

Many couples considering divorce refuse to believe that divorce can have a negative effect on their children. But many studies have been conducted that prove otherwise.

A long term study released in 2002 by the Institute for American Values found that ?unhappily married adults who divorced were no more likely to report emotional or psychological improvements than those who stayed married.

According to this study, divorce does in fact NOT improve your emotional health. I think it would be safe to assume that this is due to the stress and financial burden divorce inflicts upon couples.

Here?s another fact you might not know…

The Institute for American Values study found that almost eight out of 10 couples who avoided divorce were happily married five years later. Surprising, isn?t it?

Here?s another fact…

Half of all American children will witness the breakup of a parent?s marriage. Of these, close to half will also see the breakup of a parent?s second marriage.? (Furstenberg, Peterson, Nord, and Zill, ?Life Course?)

Many couples divorce, and then remarry without knowing the true cause of their marriage problems in the first marr

Here?s are some statistics specifically about the effects of divorce on children…

- Studies in the early 1980?s showed that children in repeat divorces earned lower grades and their peers rated them as less pleasant to be around. (Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage ?Harvard University Press 1981)

- Forty percent of children growing up in America today are being raised without their fathers. (Wade, Horn and Busy, ?Fathers, Marriage and Welfare Reform? Hudson Institute Executive Briefing, 1997)

- Teenagers in single-parent families and in blended families are three times more likely to need psychological help within a given year. (Peter Hill ?Recent Advances in Selected Aspects of Adolescent Development? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 1993)

- Compared to children from homes disrupted by death, children from divorced homes have more psychological problems. (Robert E. Emery, Marriage, Divorce and Children?s Adjustment? Sage Publications, 1988)

That statistic is truly amazing, isn?t it? But let me continue on…here are are some more shocking statistics on the effect of divorce on children…

- Children living with both biological parents are 20 to 35 percent more physically healthy than children from broken homes. (Dawson, ?Family Structure and Children?s Health and Well-being? Journal of Marriage and the Family)

- Most victims of child molestation come from single-parent households or are the children of drug ring members. (Los Angles Times 16 September 1985 The Garbage Generation)

- A Child in a female-headed home is 10 times more likely to be beaten or murdered. (The Legal Beagle, July 1984, from ?The Garbage Generation?)

- The study of children six years after a parental marriage breakup revealed that even after all that time, these children tended to be ?lonely, unhappy, anxious and insecure”. (Wallerstein ?The Long-Term Effects of Divorce on Children? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 1991)

- Children of divorce are four times more likely to report problems with peers and friends than children whose parents have kept their marriages intact. (Tysse, Burnett, ?Moral Dilemmas of Early Adolescents of Divorced and Intact Families. Journal of Early Adolescence 1993)

- Children of divorce, particularly boys, tend to be more aggressive toward others than those children whose parents did not divorce. (Emery, ?Marriage, Divorce and Children?s Adjustment, 1988)

- Children of divorce are at a greater risk to experience injury, asthma, headaches and speech defects than children whose parents have remained married. (Dawson, ?Family Structure and Children?s Health and Well Being? National Health Interview Survey on Child Health, Journal of Marriage and the Family)

- People who come from broken homes are almost twice as likely to attempt suicide than those who do not come from broken homes. (Velez-Cohen, ?Suicidal Behavior and Ideation in a Community Sample of Children? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 1988)

- Children of divorced parents are roughly two times more likely to drop out of high school than their peers who benefit from living with parents who did not divorce. (McLanahan, Sandefur, ?Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps? Harvard University Press 1994)

- Seventy percent of long-term prison inmates grew up in broken homes. (Horn, Bush, ?Fathers, Marriage and Welfare Reform)

- Following divorce, children are fifty percent more likely to develop health problems than two parent families. (Angel, Worobey, ?Single Motherhood and Children?s Health?)

- Of all children born to married parents this year, fifty percent will experience the divorce of their parents before they reach their 18th birthday. (Fagan, Fitzgerald, Rector, ?The Effects of Divorce On America)

I hope these statistics may eventually cause you (or your spouse) to seriously consider all the consequences of divorce before you make that final decision.

Based on these statistics, it becomes obvious that children need stable, loving homes with both mom and dad. There is, of course an exception to every rule, and in this case it is households where abuse is taking place. Children should under no circumstances remain in an abusive atmosphere that is unsafe for them.

But if there is no abuse taking place in your marriage and the two of you have simply “grown apart”,or fell out of love, I urge you to seek out help for your marriage before you give up completely. For your children?s sake, even if you?re feeling hopeless right now, get help for your marriage today.

Larry Bilotta

Author Bio

With an 88% success rate, Larry Bilotta?s Marriage Lifeline Program, gives you hope for your marriage – even if you?re the only one who wants to Save the marriage. For FREE, straightforward, no-nonsense advice you can use to save your marriage, with or WITHOUT your spouse?s participation visit Larry?s web site: Stop Your Divorce.

No related posts.

I receive a daily news feed from Salon, and for the past two days I have received articles about Obama-Hagel and McCain-Lieberman unity tickets. I have just three words for those who believe such events will happen: it ain’t happening.

Abraham Lincoln was the last president to choose a vice president from the other party, when he ran for re-election in 1864. But Lincoln didn’t run as a Republican. He ran on a fusion ticket, the National Union Party, comprised of Republicans, northern Democrats and southern Democrats who opposed the Confederacy. Lincoln’s vice president, and eventual successor, Andrew Johnson was the military governor of Tennessee. He was later impeached, and the National Union Party was soon dissolved. But there is a lesson to be learned: if something happens to the president, and you have a vice president from the other party, you might inadvertently hand the responsibility of governing to your opponents.

That’s why it makes no sense for either party to select a vice presidential candidate that their rank and file will not accept, not to mention it is an insult to party loyalists – quite often fine candidates – who want to be Vice President. It doesn’t say much for party leadership when they believe that their best chance of winning is to persuade someone to jump ship. It also shows that the party may lack strong candidates who appeal to an important voting bloc, for instance pro-choice or pro-life, pro-military or anti-war, that could mean electoral victory.

Of the two major p

Webb, an acclaimed author and former Navy Secretary under Ronald Reagan is the better known of the two, though he is only a first-term senator. He is the primary sponsor for new G.I Bill and a pragmatic voice on military policy and criminal justice. Nelson, a member of the Senate Armed Services, Budget, Commerce, Foreign Relations, and Intelligence committees, was re-elected in 2006 in a landslide, with 60 percent of the popular vote. He is the most powerful Democrat in a pivotal and largely Republican state. Either man would unify Democratic voters better than a Republican defector. Between Nelson and Webb, I’d prefer Nelson, though I like the other man. Nelson has stood the test of re-election and Florida has been the more important battle ground in the last two presidential elections. Bill Clinton won the Sunshine State in 1996, while no Democratic presidential candidate has won Virginia since 1964.

A Democratic president could also appoint Republicans to his cabinet and vice-versa. John F. Kennedy followed that example; he appointed Republicans (C. Douglas Dillon) to serve as Treasury Secretary and Defense Secretary (Robert McNamara). Bill Clinton’s last Secretary of Defense (William Cohen) was also a Republican. Even in fiction this happens: in Robin Gerber’s novel Eleanor and Ike, Democratic candidate Eleanor Roosevelt proposes that she will name General Dwight Eisenhower as Secretary of Defense and in the West Wing Democratic president Jed Bartlet asks Arnold Vinnick, Republican senator and presidential candidate, to become his Secretary of State (though he refused).

If a President McCain or a President Obama is serious about the politics of inclusion, he should appoint key cabinet members from the opposite party for advice and counsel and to try to create a win-win situation when nothing else will do. The war in Iraq is one good example; we are in this war, like it or not, and it will take wisdom from both parties to develop the diplomatic, humanitarian and military solutions to extract our soldiers from there. We are responsible for the reconstruction of that country. Other areas where we must create bi-partisan win-win solutions are emergency management, Social Security, Medicare, energy independence and health care.

But neither president needs to risk their line of succession to create the wins.

Stuart Nachbar

No related posts.

They come for the free food. And they come back for everything else.

Students on 340 college campuses worldwide say that a highlight of their (stressful) week is Friday night at the local Chabad. While the current economic crisis is causing some Jewish campus organizations to cut back and charge for their meals, Chabad is continuing to provide the same service, at the same price: free.

?I had never heard of Chabad before Harvard,? says Andrew Obus. ?A friend invited me to tag along for dinner at the Rabbi?s house in my sophomore year, so I went.? He is still going, though now as a PhD student at the University of Pennsylvania. ?There are many Jewish organizations on campus, offering classes and Shabbat programs. But Chabad is the only place where you find a homey, spiritual feeling.?

Obus is hoping his peers will get that vibe from this week?s Penn Grad Student Shabbat Dinner. The annual dinner, co-sponsored by Chabad and Hillel, attracts 350 graduate students from 13 different schools. ?There are a lot of people who don?t attend other events, and many don?t even know that Chabad exists,? explains Obus. ?This could be their only Shabbat dinner this year, but that?s better than nothing, right??

Rabbi Levi Haskelevich and his wife, Nechama, lead Chabad at the University of Pennsylvania. Typically the couple hosts 50 students each Friday night. But specialty weekends, like the Hawaiian-themed Shabbat following President Obama?s inauguration or the Philly Shabbat after the Phillies won the World Series, shoot their numbers out of the b

?Right now, I am behind on my thesis which is due in two months,? confesses Obus. ?Shabbat is my only chance not to think and stress about it.?

Benjamin Lewis, a first-year veterinary student at the University, is a regular at the Haskelevich?s Shabbat services and dinner. ?Students are willing to give up a night of partying for the warmth and free food that Chabad offers,? reasons Lewis.

Growing up in a conservative home and attending a Jewish day school all his life, Lewis has plenty of experience doing Shabbat. Still, if not for Chabad?s presence on campus, he says, ?I wouldn?t bother doing Kiddush, or having challah, or a proper meal with prayers. Chabad facilitates my observance of Shabbat, allowing me to do things I wouldn?t otherwise do because of laziness or time constraints.?

A widely-touted 2006 study emphasized the significance of Chabad?s campus presence, especially on Friday nights. Researcher Barry Chazan, an education professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, explained that positive Jewish experiences are imperative at a time when students are making occupational and marriage decisions. Chazan concludes that for the 5,000 students who attend each week, the Friday night dinners are not solely about the free food and camaraderie, but a seminal facet of the young Jewish student?s entire feeling towards his religious observance.

?The mainstay of our campus activities is Shabbat,? explains Rabbi Dovid Gurevich of Chabad at the University of California, Los Angeles. The Rabbi and his wife host 30 students each Friday night, but this past weekend saw 600 pass through their doors. Chabad of UCLA celebrated its 40th year on campus, playing host to students from 20 West Coast schools. Gene Ivanov, a third-year chemistry major, helped fund and plan the 6th Annual Intercollegiate West Coast Shabbaton.

?I like the whole Jewish unity thing. I like when a bunch of my fraternity brothers get together for something Jewish. For college students,? continues Ivanov, ?Shabbat is our one time to relax. Six days of the week, we work. On the seventh, we live.?

Over 50 Colorado and Kansas students also lived it up this past weekend during their ?Shabbat in the Rockies.? University of Colorado Finance major, Rachel Cohen, helped plan the weekend of Shabbat, workshops, and winter sports.

?Basically, I met a guy from University of Kansas named Matt at the big Shabbaton last semester in New York City,? Cohen says. ?He is a cool guy and I wanted to see him again. So when I got back to campus, I said, ?let?s make it happen.? The Rabbi was totally supportive and we had an amazing time with students from five schools.?

Rabbi Yisroel Wilhelm, Chabad?s representative to the University of Colorado?s Boulder campus, was thrilled with the weekend?s outcome. ?We wanted the students to feel the energy, the Jewish pride. They took their Jewish experiences to a whole new level and had a lot of fun.?

Today Cohen is enthusiastic about Jewish pride, but she initially visited her local Chabad for more tangible reasons. ?I was so sick of dorm food,? she says. ?My friends begged me to come to the Rabbi?s just once and promised I would like it. The Rabbi and Leah were so welcoming. I come from a reform background and it was comforting to see that they respect a Jew as a Jew. It was very refreshing.?

They come at first for the food, and they stay on for better reasons.

Dvora Lakein

Author Bio

This article was posted by chabad lubavitch news website
Chabad,
Coming Back for Seconds: Friday Nights with Chabad on Campus

No related posts.

?Dzienkuje? Sacha Baron Cohen!

We were waiting for Godot, but you sensed what we really needed and instead sent us Borat! And Borat is if nothing else a moveable feast and a gift that keeps on giving. You managed simultaneously to offend Kazakhs, frighten Jewish anti-defamation groups, outrage the orientalism monitors, tee off hypocritically thin-skinned Americans, provoke laughter across the Beavis and Butthead, Southpark, and Archie Bunker generations, and last?but certainly not least?provide glorious opportunity for Western intellectuals for criticize and debate merit, meaning, and interpretation of celluloid masterpiece. Finally, thanks to you, we can now confirm that rumors of Yakov Smirnov?s death were greatly exaggerated. It turns out he is fine and doing well, having found gainful employment in great American city called Branson, Missouri (?Hours great?auditorium, career, and pockets less filling?but what a country!??ok, bad example)! Slamma dunk, emission accomplished, and hiyya-fiyva, to you Sacha!

Talk about a movie that led to theatergoers being bombarded?even before they checked cinema times?with conflicting cues and instructions from cultural elites, trendsetters, and peers:

1) Go the movie. Laugh, have fun!

2) If you go to the movie, don?t laugh!

3) Go the movie, laugh, but later feign outrage!

4) Don?t go the movie?in part because you might laugh!

5) If you do go, there?s something wrong with you.

6) If you don?t go, there?s something wrong with you.

Borat!: Cultural Learnin

This article attempts to address some of the controversies and larger ramifications resulting from Borat the character and Borat! the movie (hereafter Borat!). It does so by tapping some of the wide-ranging film criticism, op-eds, and Internet postings that the film has spawned. An admission and disclaimer of sorts about the film seems in order before I begin: I went?I laughed?I wept ?(but because I was laughing, not because I went).

Is for make fun of Kazakh peoples!?NOT!!!

Let us begin with a question that has consumed so many keystrokes in recent months. In part we can do so because Sacha Baron Cohen?s intent (i.e. production/supply side) is so much more straightforward than is the question of how the movie is or has been interpreted and used by audiences (i.e. consumption/demand side).

Shortly after the American release of Borat! an interview with Sacha Baron Cohen appeared in the 14 November 2006 edition of Rolling Stone. Clearly, a lot of people don?t know about the interview, haven?t read it, or don?t wish to, because on the Internet the debate about who Baron Cohen satirizes in the film rages on. While there can be, are, and will be many interpretations of who gets hurt as a result of Borat! (more on this below), Baron Cohen?s comments to the interviewer Neil Strauss really eliminate much of the speculation about what Baron Cohen intends the film to do. That Baron Cohen may have realized too late that there was real value and power in keeping mum about his intentions with Borat is possible when you consider that, according to Strauss, Baron Cohen was bothered enough by the encounter that he called Strauss back a week after the interview to discuss it.

Here is what Baron Cohen said that should?although probably won?t?once and for all dampen speculation about his motivations in making Borat!. Baron Cohen was reacting to news that the Kazakh government was thinking of suing him and placing a full-page ad promoting the country in The New York Times (they eventually did the latter):

I was surprised, because I always had faith in the audience that they would realize that this was a fictitious country and the mere purpose of it was to allow people to bring out their own prejudices. And the reason we chose Kazakhstan was because it was a country that no one had heard anything about, so we could essentially play on stereotypes they might have about this ex-Soviet backwater. The joke is not on Kazakhstan. I think the joke is on people who can believe that the Kazakhstan that I describe can exist?who believe that there?s a country where homosexuals wear blue hats and the women live in cages and they drink fermented horse urine and the age of consent has been raised to nine years old.

Thus can end much of the debate about Cohen?s intentions. It?s about the people Borat interviews?in the film, Americans?not about Kazakhstan and Kazakhs. The film is designed to be about Americans.

Certainly, this was what Ryan Gilbey of London?s leftist weekly, New Statesman, took away from the film. An article introduced as ?Sacha Baron Cohen?s exposure of crass Americana? and ?The Kazakh ace reporter uncovers uncomfortable truths about the US? summarized the film as follows:

The violence that Borat encounters on the New York subway after trying to greet male strangers with kisses is frighteningly real?.There?s an aging cowpoke who requires only the mildest of prompts to endorse the murder of gays and Muslims. Others indict themselves as much by what they don?t say as what they do. A redneck rodeo crowd shows no compunction about cheering Borat?s gung-ho speech about Iraq, clearly not realizing that what he actually said was: ?We support your war of terror!? And it?s shocking to witness the tacit acceptance with which Borat?s ghoulish requests are greeted. Trying to find the ideal car for mowing down gypsies, or seeking the best gun for killing Jews, he encounters only compliance among America?s salespeople. The customer, it seems, is always right, even when he?s far right.

An April 2003 article by Lucy Kelaart in the British daily The Guardian, suggests that some Kazakhs?at least those with some exposure to the West?understood this about Borat even back then (based on his British television show visits to the US). Most of Kelaart?s interview subjects on the streets of Almaty were unamused, rather than really offended, and thought Borat was just plain stupid:

Ainura, 25, recently spent a year living in the US. Does she think Borat is giving Kazakhstan a bad name. ?Borat?s not making fun of Kazakhs, he?s making fun of Americans,? she says. ?They are gullible. Not one of them said, ?No way – that can?t be true.? The show describes a US stereotype, not a Kazakh one. It lays bare the American attitude towards foreigners: strong accents, loud voices, stupidity, male chauvinism.?

Of course, as I stated earlier and we shall see, were Baron Cohen?s intentions the be-all and end-all of the criticism this article would be far shorter than it is. Particularly in the age of post-modern criticism, the audience and any real or potential sub-audiences take center-stage.

The ?Full? Sacha Baron Cohen: Beyond Borat

Lest Americans who see Borat! think in ethnocentric terms that we are Baron Cohen?s principal target in his work, it is instructive to look at the ?Full? Sacha Baron Cohen, or at latest a broader array of the characters he has played on television and in film.

In Baron Cohen?s other signature role in Hollywood films in 2006, he played Will Ferrell?s foil and antagonist in the movie Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby. Baron Cohen?s character, Jean Girard, is a French ?Formula Un? driver who takes the NASCAR circuit by storm. He is a walking embodiment some might say of the ?freedom fries,? ?red(neck) state? American stereotype of the French?a snobbish, effete, espresso-sipping, opera-listening, L?Etranger-reading (adding insult to injury all while he drives!), Perrier-sponsored homosexual (his longtime partner played by Conan O?Brien?s one-time latenight sidekick Andy Richter).

It is hard to see this as a role in which Baron Cohen is somehow exploiting the American audience, other than that by playing a stereotype intended to be maximally offensive he is in a sense condescending that audience and its intelligence. Rather, his role as Jean Girard seems quintessentially English (a la Benny Hill), and in that sense sheds light back on Borat, as we learn from his Rolling Stone interview that Baron Cohen grew up idolizing Peters Sellers and loved Sellers? infamous French stereotype, Inspector Jacques Clouseau:

Baron Cohen?s future was set when he was roughly eight years old by two significant events. The first was seeing one of Peter Sellers? Pink Panther movies at a friend?s ninth birthday party?setting off a lifelong admiration of the British comic actor?s work. The other was when his older brothers snuck him into a theater to see Monty Python?s Life of Brian.

Certainly, Baron Cohen?s most famous character?and the one whose success probably was responsible for Borat getting a chance over the long-run?is the faux ?gangsta? rapper Ali G.. Indeed, it is instructive to note that in Ali G.?s first full-length feature film in 2001, Ali G. Indahouse, instead of an epic quest for Pamela Anderson, Ali G. is in pursuit of the supermodel Naomi Campbell. Much of the criticism of ?Ali G.? sounds in fact remarkably familiar when we see allegations about Baron Cohen?s insensitivity to Kazakhs. Within the UK, Ali G. precipitated comments like the following from Felix Dexter, a comedian on a British television series. Substitute ?Kazakhs? for ?black street culture? and one could get a characterization similar to what we see in the wake of Borat!: ?But a lot of the humor is laughing at black street culture and it is being celebrated because it allows the liberal middle classes to laugh at that culture in a context where they can retain their sense of political correctness.?

Tell It to the Kazakhs!?Nevertheless, Why Exactly Kazakhstan?

The forefather and prototype for Borat was the character of a Moldovan television reporter, named Alexi Krickler, who Cohen played in the mid-1990s on British television. According to Cohen that character was based on a doctor he met at a free beach getaway in Astrakhan, southern Russia: ??there was a guy there who was a doctor, and the moment I met him, I started laughing?He had some elements of Borat, but he had none of the racism or the misogyny or the anti-Semitism. He was Jewish, actually.?

This is revealing inasmuch as that the personal characteristics are separated from the views he ascribes to his artistic creation, which some might complain is the essence of stereotyping.

It was as Alexi Krickler that Baron Cohen hit upon what Strauss terms ?a tiny epiphany that would eventually fuel Baron Cohen?s career?:

For example, when interviewing someone about the rugby team British Lions, he?d go back and forth with the interviewee for ten minutes, seemingly unable to comprehend that they don?t have actual lions playing rugby. ?I was struck by the patience of some of these members of the upper class, who were so keen to appear polite?particularly on camera?that they would never walk away,? Baron Cohen says.
Of course, there was a difference that may have petered out over the years?at least in Borat!: originally, Baron Cohen heavily concentrated on the genuinely powerful, whether celebrities or those with money and power, but in Borat! he clearly started sliding toward ?taking the piss out of? more average citizens. Perhaps this is where he ?crossed the line.?

Greetings from ?Post(card)-Commiestan?

The Borat of Borat! was still to have several incarnations from Alexi Krickler to the Borat Sagdiyev of today. After Alexi Krickler came an Albanian television reporter named Kristo. Only later did Baron Cohen?s ?Borat? become Kazakh: first as Borat Karabzhanov, then as Borat Dutbayev, and finally in 2003 as Borat Sagdiyev. This is perhaps important for it suggests that although Sacha Baron Cohen and Kazakhstan have become inseparably intertwined, Borat?s ?Kazakhness? was almost incidental. One is inevitably reminded here of mistaken intention sometimes conveniently read into retrospective analyses: Bram Stoker?s Dracula is today inextricably associated with Romania, yet Dracula apparently started out in Stoker?s imagination as ?Count Wampyr? from Styria (Austria) and only later (like Borat) migrated eastward to Transylvania.

Still, Moldova, Albania, and Kazakhstan have a clear common theme?they are all part of the post-communist world of the former Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union. And it is worth recalling here Baron Cohen?s own comments mentioned earlier: ?And the reason we chose Kazakhstan was because it was a country that no one had heard anything about, so we could essentially play on stereotypes they might have about this ex-Soviet backwater.? In other words, a generic post(card)-Commiestan of sorts.

Baron Cohen has not commented specifically on why Krickler had to leave Moldova and change his name and why his television reporter is always from the post-communist world, but we can speculate. In this way not much has changed from Bram Stoker?s time: the need to find a setting that is simultaneously exotic and yet familiar, that acts as a prop but not distraction from the underlying goal of the artform. One wonders to what extent Borat?s migration from Moldova to Albania to Kazakhstan was dictated directly or indirectly by real world events?Albania certainly losing some of the ?unknown? character that is key to this plot device, because of heavier news coverage surrounding Kosovo in the late 1990s (witness perhaps, the film Wag the Dog). Distance of course makes parody easier (witness the infamous Weird Al Yankovic song and video parody ?Amish Paradise??talk about a disenfranchised community who was unlikely to get upset!) But only up to a point: Go eastward young man!?but not too far east because then you become unrecognizable and your audience can?t relate and the power of the satire is lost!

Molvania, Romanovia, and Kreplakistan?Oh My!

This still leaves a key question unanswered: why has Baron Cohen sought to have his mock reporter come from real places?however fictionally-described? If, as Baron Cohen suggests, Borat is not from the real Kazakhstan, but from a fictional Kazakhstan so absurd that ?the joke is on people who can believe that the Kazakhstan that I describe can exist,? why choose a real country name to begin with? Mirroring the separation, reclamation of independence, and micro-state phenomena of the region itself during the post-communist era, recent years have seen an explosion of ?really imagined communities? in the form of fictional countries placed in the post-communist space.

As John Tierney opined in a New York Times op-ed,?I wish Cohen had instead invented a country like Molvania,? rather than have Borat come from Kazakhstan. Molvania is, of course, the well-known fictional land of the Jetlag Travel Guide series Molvania: A Land Untouched by Modern Dentistry, described as ?somewhere north of Bulgaria and downwind of Chernobyl.? (Despite the fictitious country?s name, stipulated location, and characteristics, its three Australian authors maintain it was not modeled on Moldova or even Romania, but was inspired by travels in Portugal. ) Among many other things, Molvania is home to Europe?s oldest nuclear reactor, and as one of its authors relates: ?It?s a very beautiful country now that radiation levels have dropped to acceptable standards.?

Unsafe nuclear power plants, environmental degradation, and genetic mutation are also the punchline in Ben Stiller?s 2004 comedy Dodgeball, in which we are introduced to Fran Stalinofskivichdavidovitchsky of Romanovia: ?In her home country of Romanovia, dodgeball is the national sport and her nuclear power plant?s team won the championship five years running, which makes her the deadliest woman on earth with a dodgeball.?

Then there is Mike Myers? creation of Kreplakistan in the Austin Powers series: Kreplakistan is a former Soviet republic apparently unable to protect its nuclear warheads and in a state of perpetual chaos (as mock CNN clips of people running pell-mell convey to us). There is speculation on the Wikipedia that Kreplakistan is ?likely based on the real Karakalpak Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, now the Republic of Karakalpakstan.? More convincing, however, is the idea that ?kreplak? is inspired by ?kreplach, an Eastern European Jewish dish consisting of meat-filled dumplings.?

But is inventing a country the solution to the problems of negative stereotyping and prejudice? If the Internet is any indication: apparently not. Molvania comes in for sharp criticism from those who view it as yet another variation on the (neo-)orientalist theme. There are angry denunciations particularly of the photos the authors use in the book and on the Molvania website?for while they play the role of fictional, mockworthy Molvanians, they are indeed real people. Nor have criticisms of Molvania been consigned merely to the orientalism monitors. In comments similar to those of Kazakh officials about Borat, in 2004 former UK minister for Europe Keith Vaz criticized the book because ?it does reflect some of the prejudices which are taking root in Europe?The sad thing is, some people might actually believe that this country exists.? Ironically, too, the choice of a fictional ?everycountry? can in fact be interpreted as even more insulting because it treats the people of an entire region or group as an essentially undifferentiated ?them???I can?t tell ?em apart, they all look alike…?

Borat, Class, and Urbanity

The parallel drawn by John Tierney between Borat! and Molvania is arguably a natural one, and thus one that many, especially on the Internet, have made. Particularly as stories began to come out about how Borat?s mock ?Kazakh? home village in the movie was filmed in a poor Roma (gypsy) village in Romania?where the villagers received as payment for their work the feast of ?a pig? and while Sacha Baron Cohen reportedly spent the night in the swanky mountain retreat of Sinaia ?the issue of class entered the discussion about Borat!. It is difficult not to conclude that the issue of class can become funny in the film precisely because it is portrayed by a ?safe cultural environment.? That is: poverty becomes broadly funny when it is portrayed by the comparatively unknown or culturally unprotected?be it Kazakhs or ?trailer trash? in ?red(neck) state? America.

The Polish author of the blog ?Beatroot? captured this well in a post on the Molvania guidebook entitled: ?Why is it that the only people ?liberals? think it?s OK to laugh at these days are the white working class and Central and Eastern Europeans??

Europe’s ‘white trash’

?There is something a bit strange happening in the West. If this sort of book had been written about, say, African people, then, quite rightly, there would have been uproar and outrage. Words like ?racism? would have been used by lefty-liberal reviewers. But it seems that Political Correctness extends to all groups these days except poor whites from urban, rural or semi-rural areas in America and Europe.

Indeed, I would venture to speculate that had the villagers in Borat! been presented as Roma or ?gypsies,? rather than as fictional Kazakhs, there might have been greater outrage about this, precisely because of the hierarchy of officially-recognized discrimination that prevails in cultural and political circles in the West. By being presented as the comparatively-unknown Kazakhs, however, it made it ?easier? to laugh freely. And had the English tabloid press not taken an interest in the village of Glod (meaning ?mud?!) and shown clips of the movie to the villagers, it is possible that these fictional Kazakhs would have been every bit as disenfranchised as the Amish relative to Weird Al Yankovic: according to the journalists, ?not a single villager we spoke to had ever been able to afford a trip to the nearest cinema, 20 miles away?!

Sun-Baked Mud or When Things Get All Bollixed Up: The Uses of Borat

That finished cultural products can become intermediary inputs or be reprocessed for things their creators never could have dreamed of and might not even agree with is well-known. A few years back I remember seeing a television report in a major US metropolitan area where real estate agents were being investigated for using the shorthand ?Archie Bunker? to describe clients with ?discriminating tastes,? thinking that by using such language they were somehow remaining within the bounds of equal opportunity regulations. Similarly, US troops in Iraq have described their incorporation of the satirical jingoistic ballad ?America, **ck yeah!? from Team America: World Police on their missions. So it has been with Borat. This is undoubtedly the complaint of Jewish anti-defamation groups: that it doesn?t matter that Baron Cohen is Jewish and seeks to highlight anti-Semitic prejudice, if his audience laughs with, rather than at, Borat?s anti-Semitism.

The London tabloid The Sun, well-known for its ?misgivings? over immigration and some would argue pandering to racist and xenophobic attitudes, searched for its pitchfork to make hay out of Borat! in the context of the looming immigration debate connected with Romania and Bulgaria?s entry into the European Union on 1 January 2007. The paper delighted in quoting Gheorghiu Pascu, 46, as saying ?Borat is a son-of-a-bitch who made us look like savages. This is Transylvania, home of Dracula. If he ever returns we will stick a stake in his backside and impale him. Then I would cut his b***s off.? Two weeks later, under a headline blaring ?We?re leaving Romania? was a picture of villagers in horse-drawn carts with the caption ?Horse and cart … Romanians are heading our way for a better life; slowly.? The article quotes a villager saying ?people will simply get around the restrictions by working in the black market or being self-employed,? and ends with another pledging, ?Borat should watch out. He might bump into some of us in London soon.?

America the Stereotype?Now Coming to a Theater Near You:
Getting America?s Wrongs Right, its Rights Wrong, and its Right Wrong

Borat! is replete with what might be called ?nesting occidentalisms? or ?nesting anti-Americanisms?: that is, it creates and plays on foreign and domestic hierarchies of Americans, good, bad, and ugly. Chris Jones hits on the triteness and tawdriness of Baron Cohen?s itinerary in the film as follows:

?Borat starts his American trek in New York, land of the cold and the distant, where the only communication is by epithet. Then he heads to the South, land of the obsequiously and idiotically polite, where the local gothics haven?t changed their outlook since the days of Scarlett O?Hara. He takes a turn for Texas?where outsize nuts in cowboy hats chew their cuds on every corner. And after a brief sojourn in the ghetto?where every street is named ?Martin Luther King Blvd.??he ends up in Southern California, where surgically enhanced breasts heave in every swimsuit.

In other words, Baron Cohen took the road so-frequently-travelled through the European?s amusement park of American stereotypes (and some would have us believe only Americans view the world as an extension of Disneyland!) ?Othering,? it turns out, does not acknowledge the class struggle or political correctness.

Baron Cohen certainly takes?or at least wishes to portray?himself seriously. It should thus come to no one?s surprise that those Americans who come off best in the film are a religiously-observant elderly Jewish couple who run a bed-and-breakfast and an African-American callgirl (variously claimed on the Internet to be an actress):

I think part of the movie shows the absurdity of holding any form of racial prejudice, whether it?s hatred of African-Americans or of Jews?Borat essentially works as a tool. By himself being anti-Semitic, he lets people lower their guard and expose their own prejudice, whether it?s anti-Semitism or an acceptance of anti-Semitism?.I remember, when I was in university I studied history, and there was this one major historian of the Third Reich, Ian Kershaw. And his quote was, ?The path to Auschwitz was paved with indifference.? I know it?s not very funny being a comedian talking about the Holocaust, but I think it?s an interesting idea that not everyone in Germany had to be a raving anti-Semite. They just had to be apathetic.

But is that really what we are talking about with the ugly Americans Baron Cohen meets in Borat!? For one thing, Chris Jones poses a good question: did Baron Cohen really have to ?cross the pond? to find such disturbing stereotypes?

Because Cohen is now reportedly the highest paid comic in Britain?and because he styles himself as a radical?here?s the movie he should now make. Let?s see his Borat make some Cultural Learnings of his own smug world. It wouldn’t be hard for him to chat up a racist in a London pub. He could go to any British soccer game and find a cacophony of anti-gay slurs. Get an Irishman on the street chattering about Eastern European immigrants and someone will put a foot in it. Borat could spend time with French gothics from the Dordogne. He could teach us about the way Europe has integrated (or not) its Muslim citizens. Don?t they have hookers in Hamburg? Let?s see if they?re welcome at your better class of German party.

As Andrew Mueller notes about the movie: ?What astonishes about every American he encounters is not their naivete, but their politeness, hospitality, and the extraordinary degree to which Borat has to inflame situations to provoke reaction. Had he attempted these antics in many other countries?bringing a hooker to dinner, desecrating the national anthem in front of a rodeo audience?he?d have conducted the publicity campaign in traction.?

I would argue that Baron Cohen to some extent misinterprets the reactions of those he ?exposes.? Is what he sees with most of the Americans he captures on tape the same as what he claims of the ?upper-class Englishmen?so keen to appear polite for the camera?? I don?t think so. The reserve, the failure to act, the consensual behavior of the Americans Baron Cohen meets, I would argue, is born of a desire not to offend the guest, no matter how odd he is, not to speak or ask questions lest one show one?s ignorance. After all, the biggest faux pas one can make in today?s globalized day and age, we are told, is to mock or express ignorance of our interlocutor?s culture. Don?t be judgmental, just play along, go along to get along?

This is American socio-cultural laissez-faire ?also known as American self-centeredness?at its best and worst, a world where individual privacy can reach absurd proportions, whether it be not asking a neighbor about his salary or the worth of her house, or not interfering with the neighbor next door even though you might question the noises you hear at night as indicating physical or mental abuse. Indeed, the very American counter to Borat! can be seen in the final episode of the long-running comedy series Seinfeld, where the four main characters are hauled into court for failing to fulfill a newly-passed ?Good Samaritan? law and helping a man in distress, whom they instead made fun of because of his weight?an homage, intended or not, to American self-centeredness.

Is it safe??Is it safe?

?Is it safe??Is it safe?? is no longer just something you hear at the dentist anymore. It is the thought that crosses people?s minds before, while, or after they laugh in our post-modern world. Perhaps the lesson here, however, is to not to take all this overly-seriously.

Americans should actually be thankful for such a movie: it holds a mirror up and tells us how some in the rest of the world view us. As has frequently been said, in the past many who disliked the United States had a compartmentalized view that separated U.S. foreign policy from the American people; increasingly surveys of foreign public opinion suggest that foreigners are no longer drawing this distinction (although it may indeed be that the perceptions of the former are negatively affecting the latter). Like it or not, Baron Cohen has tapped in effectively to foreign perceptions of the United States and he found enough Americans to play the ugly stereotypes he expected of them brilliantly.

On the other hand, yes, Virginia, it is safe to laugh at Borat. Andrew Mueller explains why:

The reason that Borat is such a liberating hoot is Baron-Cohen?s understanding that nothing is funnier than what we?re not supposed to laugh at?and, in the early 21st century, the pressure upon us not to laugh at the backwardness and stupidity of foreigners has been considerable. We are expected to take seriously people who want to execute cartoonists for drawing, and stone women for having sex?neither of which, as ideas, are dafter than the Kazakh custom, described by Borat, of compelling gay people to wear blue hats.

Nor should we cry too much for Kazakhstan (Moscow certainly doesn?t). As one poster on a website debating whether Borat is good or bad publicity for Kazakhstan stated: ?Without Borat, Kazakhstan is just another obscure Central Asian republic.? Another pointed out, Borat is portrayed as ?naïve, but he is not cruel or bad.? Others suggest, the Kazakhs could pull off a real coup if they were now to use the Borat character in a film to market ?the real Kazakhstan.? Professor Sean Roberts notes that, according to GoogleTrends, Borat more than doubled Kazakhstan?s usual google hits during the lead up and height of the Borat film?s PR campaign.

All that remains then is the final plot device for Baron Cohen to kill off Borat, so that nobody is upset anymore. A modest proposal: How about a ?Dallas?-like plot twister with ?Who shot Borat?? Was it the Americans, the Kazakhs, the villagers of Glod?? Why it was the Baron Cohen himself

Richard Andrew Hall

Author Bio

Richard Andrew Hall holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from Indiana University (1997), where he focused his studies on east central Europe. He is the author of articles on Romania, Hungary, nationalism, and east central Europe in general, in academic journals and more recently on the Internet.

No related posts.

Do you know who an Entrepreneur is? He is a person who assumes business responsibility and the risks that come along with it. As an entrepreneur, one would expect to make profit, whether big or small, depending on the nature of the business.

An entrepreneur takes all the risk of the business, decides on which product to sell and service to render. The entrepreneur obtains the needed facilities such as an office, furniture and fixtures and many other things that cost money.

The main goal of an entrepreneur is to make profit. This is dependent on many factors such as his technical abilities and product knowledge, a loyal labour force, amount of capital, the right attitude, skills and qualification. Being an entrepreneur requires a lot of research, handwork and dedication.

At this point, the idea of working from home appeals to lots of people, making the consideration of an online business very lucrative and convenient. An Online Business Entrepreneur is a term used to refer to what is popularly known today as an Internet Home Business Owner.

Internet Home business comprises of forms of businesses done on the online, either by providing services or by promoting products which might be personally owned or belong to other people.

Online work from home business allows more people to work at their paces, create more time for the family and reduce their commuting costs. If you do not have a job or a career, this is the time to start a market research about the best Home Based Business Opportunity that suits you.

One opt

Another option is to own a business providing a product or rendering a service. The business would then be promoted online to reach a larger market through the use of a website. This would involve a lot of hard work but will eliminate the problems of dealing with orders and shipments if your website is well created.

The major aspect of making money online is the promotion and marketing aspects that come with their own risks of failure. Though not every body that goes into making money online makes a success of it but many people have been able to successfully make a living doing some business on the Internet and not surprisingly, many earn money enough to quit their jobs after learning the ropes. Ever heard of the following people – Mile Filsame, Jon Cohen, Andrew Fox, Mark Braunstein, Alex Jeffery or Jeff Johnson? They all have one thing in common. They are all multi millionaires who have succeeded in online businesses in their various niches. Interested in finding out how they did it and where to start? Do some online market research about the niche you are interested in, for example online surveys. Start a business today!

ABIMBOLA AKOMOLAFE

Author Bio

Abimbola Akomolafe writes about Home Business Opportunities and various Work at Home Ideas. For more tips on Top Rated Reviewed Home Business Ideas, try http://www.homebizopps10.com/407.html

No related posts.

A former high school drop out from North Ireland, Andrew Fox left high school with no qualification’s or prospects for the future.

With nothing but raw determination and an unrelinquishing desire to succeed he was able to turn the tables and started a profitable home based internet business that sell millions dollars worth of educational products.

After working as a movie store assistant and car washer, Andrew started his own Internet Company back in 1999.

After a string of successes and failures Andrew’s business really exploded when he was invited to speak alongside several millionaire business owners at Car Galletti’s ‘Internet Marketing Super Event’ held in Treasure Island Hotel, Las Vegas.

Andrew, just 21 years old shocked the crowd with his powerful speech.

His latest product shows how the ordinary person can start an instant internet business selling products they don’t even need to

create. For anyone on a shoe string budget it the perfect entry model.

It’s presented in a video tutorial format for easy learning for anyone wishing to start a new and profitable home based internet business.

Andrew said “I find video teaching much better than a standard ebook or even audio. I’m glad it’s helping so many people out there’

For more information on Andrew Fox and his latest products visit his website on the link in the resource box!

Cris Cohen http://wealth-magnet-team.com LINK TO Dominating ClickBank: h

No related posts.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN –”Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any other one thing.” ABRAHAM LINCOLN –”You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of thepeopleallthetime.” ABU BAKR A’L-WARRAQ –”The spiritual warrior is he who has no enemy.” ACARANGASUTRA –”One who is rich with enlightenment will not indulge in sinful action, since his conscience is guided by the intellect, fully illumined with Truth.” ACHARYA MAHAPRAJNA –”Actually the whole world is passing through the age of transition. For truth this age has been very costly. Being eternal, it is neither new nor old so, on both sides, the doors to it are closed.” ALBERT EINSTEIN –”We cannot solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” ALICE WALKER –”People do not wish to appear foolish; to avoid the appearance of foolishness, they are willing to remain actually fools.” AMRITA PRITAM –”When i draped myself with your being Our bodies were turned within in meditation. Then our limbs entwined like flowers in a garland As an offering at the altar of the soul. You and i, incense offered at a sacrificial fire Our names slipped out of our lips To become a sacred hymnal, That was a sacred ceremony for you and me. Religious rituals came much later.” ANDREW COHEN –”It is very important to consider what evolution and development at the lev

please

No related posts.

The first event of the 2009 World Series of Poker (WSOP) is a modest affair only available to Casino Employees Texas No Limit Holdem. The event was run over 2 days with a total of 866 Entrants paying the $500 Buy in. At the end of the first day we were down to eighty one players each one guaranteed at least $974.

Casey Kuhn was eliminated in 3rd Place ($33,923) – Cohen raises to 45,000 from the small blind Kuhn calls from the big blind and the flop comes down [3d] [Ks] [5c]. A bet a raise all in and then a call even before the cards are on the felt.

Cohen shows [5s] [2s] he is behind to Kuhn’s [Kh] [4c]. The turn is a [5h] making Cohen a big favourite, the river [Ts] changes nothing. A cruel catch for Kuhen who is eliminated in 3rd place.

Andrew Cohen has shown the necessary aggression on the final table to put himself in good shape to take the first WSOP bracklet, Paul Peterson moves all in with [Qc] [Qs] and Cohen calls pre flop with [As] [8s]. The flop makes it very interesting [3h] [6s] [Ts] giving Cohen the nut flush, the turn strengthens Peterson with trip queens. The river comes a [Th] making Peterson’s full house and doubles him up to over 400,000 chips.

Andrew Cohen was the first recipient of a World Series of Poker Bracklet and a first prize of $83,833, runner up was Paul Peterson who received $51,787. The winning hand was a coin flip with Cohen marginally ahead with his [6c] [6h] against Paul Peterson’s [As] [Qc], the board came

WSOP 2009 Event 1 Casino Employees No-Limit Hold’em Results

Number of Entries: 866 Buy in: $500 Prize pool: $389,700 Start Date: 27th May 2009 Duration: 2 Days Players in the money: 81

Place Winner Prize (US$) 1. Andrew Cohen $83,833 2. Paul Peterson $51,787 3. Casey Kuhn $33,923 4. Grant Yasui $23,483 5. Dulay Elpidio $17,127 6. Robert Rooney $13,125 7. John Mcavoy $10,545 8. Ferdinand Boleski $8,865 9. Sam Porter $7,782 10. Jonathan Williams $5,502

Stay up to date with all the latest World Series of Poker (WSOP) News at LTDPoker.com, Top Poker Room Reviews including Betfair Poker, Bwin Poker, PokerStars and our exclusive Online Poker Bonuses.

No related posts.

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (DDP) is an evidence-based and effective form of treatment for children with trauma and disorders of attachment[1]. It is an evidence-based treatment, meaning that there has been empirical research published in peer-reviewed journals. Craven & Lee (2006) determined that DDP is a supported and acceptable treatment (category 3 in a six level system). However, their review only included results from a partial preliminary presentation of an ongoing follow-up study, which was subsequently completed and published in 2006. This initial study compared the results of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy with other forms of treatment, ‘usual care’, 1 year after treatment ended. It is important to note that over 80% of the children in the study had had over three prior episodes of treatment, but without any improvement in their symptoms and behavior. Episodes of treatment mean a course of therapy with other mental health providers at other clinics, consisting of at least five sessions. A second study extended these results out to 4 years after treatment ended. Based on the Craven & Lee classifications (Saunders et al. 2004), inclusion of those studies would have resulted in Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy being classified as an evidence-based category 2, ‘Supported and probably efficacious’. There have been two related empirical studies comparing treatment outcomes of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy with a control group. This is the basis for the rating of category two. The criteria are:>

* 1. The treatment has a sound theoretical basis in generally accepted psychological principles.

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is based in Attachment Theory (see texts cited below

* 2. A substantial clinical, anecdotal literature exists indicating the treatment’s efficacy with at-risk children and foster children.

See reference list.

* 3. The treatment is generally accepted in clinical practice for at risk children and foster children.

As demonstrated by the large number of practitioners of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and it’s presentation as numerous international and national conferences over the last ten or fifteen years.

* 4. There is no clinical or empirical evidence or theoretical basis indicating – that the treatment constitutes a substantial risk of harm to those receiving it, compared to its likely benefits.

* 5. The treatment has a manual that clearly specifies the components and administration characteristics of the treatment that allows for implementation.

Creating Capacity for Attachment, Building the Bonds of Attachment, and Attachment Focused Family Therapy constitute such material.

* 6. At least two studies utilizing some form of control without randomization (e.g., wait list, untreated group, placebo group) have established the treatment’s efficacy over the passage of time, efficacy over placebo, or found it to be comparable to or better than an already established treatment.

See ref. list

* 7. If multiple treatment outcome studies have been conducted, the overall weight of evidence supported the efficacy of the treatment.

These studies support several of O’Connor & Zeanah’s[2] conclusions and recommendations concerning treatment. They state (p. 241), “treatments for children with attachment disorders should be promoted only when they are evidence-based.”

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, as with any specialized treatment, must be provided by a competent, well-trained, licensed professional. Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is a family-focused treatment[3].

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is the name for an approach and a set of principals that have proven to be effective in helping children with trauma and attachment disorders heal; that is, develop healthy, trusting, and secure relationships with caregivers. Treatment is based on five central principals.

At the core of Reactive Attachment Disorder is trauma caused by significant and substantial experiences of neglect, abuse, or prolonged and unresolved pain in the first few years of life. These experiences disrupt the normal attachment process so that the child’s capacity to form a healthy and secure attachment with a caregiver is distorted or absent. The child lacks a sense trust, safety, and security. The child develops a negative working model of the world in which:

Ø Adults are experienced as inconsistent or hurtful.

Ø The world is viewed as chaotic.

Ø The child experiences no effective influence on the world.

Ø The child attempts to rely only on him/her self.

Ø The child feels an overwhelming sense of shame, the child feels defective, bad, unlovable, and evil.

Reactive Attachment Disorder is a severe developmental disorder caused by a chronic history of maltreatment during the first couple of years of life. Reactive Attachment Disorder is frequently misdiagnosed by mental health professionals who do not have the appropriate training and experience evaluating and treating such children and adults. Often, children in the child welfare system have a variety of previous diagnoses. The behaviors and symptoms that are the basis for these previous diagnoses are better conceptualized as resulting from disordered attachment. Oppositional Defiant Disorder behaviors are subsumed under Reactive Attachment Disorder. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder symptoms are the result of a significant history of abuse and neglect and are another dimension of attachment disorder. Attention problems and even Psychotic Disorder symptoms are often seen in children with disorganized attachment[4].

Approximately 2% of the population is adopted, and between 50% and 80% of such children have attachment disorder symptoms[5]. Many of these children are violent[6] and aggressive[7] and as adults are at risk of developing a variety of psychological problems[8] and personality disorders, including antisocial personality disorder[9], narcissistic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and psychopathic personality disorder[10]. Neglected children are at risk of social withdrawal, social rejection, and pervasive feelings of incompetence[11]. Children who have histories of abuse and neglect are at significant risk of developing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as adults[12]. Children who have been sexually abused are at significant risk of developing anxiety disorders (2.0 times the average), major depressive disorders (3.4 times average), alcohol abuse (2.5 times average), drug abuse (3.8 times average), and antisocial behavior (4.3 times average)[13] (MacMillian, 2001). The effective treatment of such children is a public health concern (Walker, Goodwin, & Warren, 1992).

Left untreated, children who have been abused and neglected and who have an attachment disorder become adults whose ability to develop and maintain healthy relationships is deeply damaged. Without placement in an appropriate permanent home and effective treatment, the condition will worsen. Many children with attachment disorders develop borderline personality disorder or anti-social personality disorder as adults[14].

FIRST PRINCIPAL. Therapy must be experiential. Since the roots of disorders of attachment occur pre-verbally, therapy must create experiences that are healing. Experiences, not words, are one “active ingredient” in the healing process.

For example, one eight year old boy who had Reactive Attachment Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, and a variety of sensory-integration disorders wrote about his past therapy and attachment therapy this way (More details of this story can be found in the book Creating Capacity for Attachment, edited by Arthur Becker-Weidman & Deborah Shell):

My first therapy was with Dr.Steve. The therapy was FUN!!!! We ate lots of snacks. I had a bottle. We played lots of cool games like thumb wrestling, pillow rides, giant walk, Superman rides, guess the goodies, eye blinking contests, hide and go seek goodies. I had to follow the rules and play the games just like Dr. Steve said.

Dr. Steve taught me how to play and have fun with my Mom. But I still didn’t know how to love. I would still get real mad and try to hurt Mom and break things. Inside I still thought I was a bad boy. I was still afraid Mom and Dad would get rid of me. I had lots of tantrums at home. Sometimes I would still get out of control and break things and try to hurt Mom. I was getting even worse when I got mad.

Stuff Dr. Art Taught Me

I learned about my feeling well. Sometimes I stuff too many feelings like mad, scared and sad into my feeling well. Then the well will overflow and I could explode with behaviors. But I can stop that by expressing my feelings. Then the well can’t overflow because I let some of the feelings out.

I also made pictures of my heart. I was born with a nice heart but then when I went into the orphanage I got cracks in my heart. My heart cracked because they couldn’t take good care of me. I was a baby and I needed someone to hold me and rock me. But they couldn’t because there were too many babies. Then I put 16 bricks around my heart. I was protecting my heart so it wouldn’t get hurt anymore. But the bricks kept the love out too. I wouldn’t let Mom’s love in. I had lots of mad in my heart.

My hard work in therapy got rid of all the bricks. Then Mom’s love got in. The love made the cracks heal. Now I have a bright red heart with no cracks.

I really liked Dr. Art now and am proud that I am strong. I still don’t need therapy. I still let Mom’s love into my heart!!!!!! Sometimes I send e-mail’s to Dr. Art. I tell him how good I’m doing.

I started missing Dr. Art and told Mom. Mom was confused and thought I wanted more therapy. I told Mom “I don’t need therapy. I just want to have lunch with Dr. Art.” So I sent Dr. Art an email to let him know that I wanted to have lunch with him. Then one day we had lunch together.

Sometimes it’s still hard. I still get mad and sometimes I don’t express my feelings well. Sometimes when Mom helps me ? I can express my feelings and say “I don’t want to pick up my toys. It makes me mad that I have to ? but I will”. When I say that it doesn’t make me feel mad anymore. It helps me to listen to Mom. But sometimes when I get mad I pout and stomp my feet and run to my room if I forget to express my feelings. But now I let Mom help me so that I can talk about my feelings and do what she says

It’s been a really longtime since I tried to hurt Mom or break things when I’m mad. I feel good about love now. I know that my Mom and Dad love me. I know that I love Mom and Dad. I don’t feel like I’m a bad boy anymore.

Effective therapy uses experiences to help a child experience safety, security, acceptance, empathy, and emotional attunement within the family. A number of techniques and methods are used including psychodrama, interventions congruent with Theraplay, and other exercises.

SECOND PRINCIPAL. Therapy must be family-focused. Therapy helps the child address the underlying trauma in a supportive, safe, secure environment in “titrated” and manageable doses so that what the parents have to offer can get in and heal the child. It is the parents’ capacity to create a safe and nurturing home that provides a healing environment. Being able to have empathy for the child, accept the child, love the child, be curious about the child, and be playful are all part of the “attitude[15]” that heals. Parents are actively involved in treatment.

THIRD PRINCIPAL. The trauma must be directly addressed. Therapy helps healing by providing the safety and security so that the child can re-experience the painful and shameful emotions that surround the child’s trauma. Revisiting the trauma is essential if the child is to begin to revise the child’s personal narrative and world-view. It is by revisiting the trauma and sharing the anger and shame with an accepting, empathetic person that the child can integrate the trauma into a coherent self.

FOURTH PRINCIPAL. A comprehensive milieu of safety and security must be created. Traumatized children are often hyper-vigilant, insecure, and deeply distrusting. A consistent environment that is safe and secure is essential to creating the experiences necessary for the child to heal. This milieu must be present at home and in therapy. Good communication and coordination among home, school, and therapy is another important element of effective treatment. “Compression-wraps,” invasive and intrusive stimulation designed to evoke rage, “re-birthing,” and other provocative techniques are not part of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. These intrusive and invasive techniques are not therapy, not therapeutic, and have no place in a reputable treatment program.

Fifth Principal. Therapy is consensual and not coercive. At our center we are very clear that physical restraint is not treatment and is not used in treatment in any manner. Treatment is provided in a manner consisted with the Association for the treatment and Training of Children’s White Paper on Coercion in treatment.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is a treatment developed by Daniel Hughes, Ph.D., (Hughes, 2008, Hughes, 2006, Hughes, 2003,). Its basic principals are described by Hughes and summarized as follows:

A focus on both the caregivers and therapists own attachment strategies. Previous research (Dozier, 2001, Tyrell 1999) has shown the importance of the caregivers and therapists state of mind for the success of interventions.

Therapist and caregiver are attuned to the child’s subjective experience and reflect this back to the child. In the process of maintaining an intersubjective attuned connection with the child, the therapist and caregiver help the child regulate affect and construct a coherent autobiographical narrative.

Sharing of subjective experiences.

Use of PACE and PLACE are essential to healing.

Directly address the inevitable misattunements and conflicts that arise in interpersonal relationships.

Caregivers use attachment-facilitating interventions.

Use of a variety of interventions, including cognitive-behavioral strategies.

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy interventions flow from several theoretical and empirical lines. Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1980, Bowlby, 1988) provides the theoretical foundation for Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. Early trauma disrupts the normally developing attachment system by creating distorted internal working models of self, others, and caregivers. This is one rationale for treatment in addition to the necessity for sensitive care-giving. As O’Connor & Zeanah (2003, p. 235) have stated, “A more puzzling case is that of an adoptive/foster caregiver who is ‘adequately’ sensitive but the child exhibits attachment disorder behavior; it would seem unlikely that improving parental sensitive responsiveness (in already sensitive parent) would yield positive changes in the parent-child relationship.” Treatment is necessary to directly address the rigid and dysfunctional internalized working models that traumatized children with attachment disorders have developed.

Current thinking and research on the neurobiology of interpersonal behavior (Siegel, 1999, Siegel, 2000, Siegel, 2002, Schore, 2001) is another part of the foundation on which Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy rests.

The primary approach is to create a secure base in treatment (using techniques that fit with maintaining a healing PACE (Playful, Accepting, Curious, and Empathic) and at home using principals that provide safe structure and a healing PLACE (Playful, Loving, Acceptance, Curious, and Empathic). Developing and sustaining an attuned relationship within which contingent collaborative communication occurs helps the child heal. Coercive interventions such as rib-stimulation, holding-restraining a child in anger or to provoke an emotional response, shaming a child, using fear to elicit compliance, and interventions based on power/control and submission, etc., are never used and are inconsistent with a treatment rooted in attachment theory and current knowledge about the neurobiology of interpersonal behavior.

The usual structure of a session involves three components. First, the therapist meets with the caregivers in one office while the child is seated in the treatment room. During this part of treatment, the caregiver is instructed in attachment parenting methods (Becker-Weidman & Shell (2005) Hughes, 2006). The caregiver’s own issues that may create difficulties with developing affective attunement with their child may also be explored and resolved. Effective parenting methods for children with trauma-attachment disorders require a high degree of structure and consistency, along with an affective milieu that demonstrates playfulness, love, acceptance, curiosity, and empathy (PLACE). During this part of the treatment, caregivers receive support and are given the same level of attuned responsiveness that we wish the child to experience. Quite often caregivers feel blamed, devalued, incompetent, depleted, and angry. Parent-support is an important dimension of treatment to help caregivers be more able to maintain an attuned connecting relationship with their child. Second, the therapist with the caregivers meets with the child in the treatment room. This generally takes one to one and a half hours. Third, the therapist meets with the caregivers without the child. Broadly speaking, the treatment with the child uses three categories of interventions: affective attunement, cognitive restructuring, and psychodramatic reenactments. Treatment with the caregivers uses two categories of interventions: first, teaching effective parenting methods and helping the caregivers avoid power struggles and, second, maintaining the proper PLACE or attitude.

Treatment of the child has a significant non-verbal dimension since much of the trauma took place at a pre-verbal stage and is often dissociated from explicit memory. As a result, childhood maltreatment and resultant trauma create barriers to successful engagement and treatment of these children. Treatment interventions are designed to create experiences of safety and affective attunement so that the child is affectively engaged and can explore and resolve past trauma. This affective attunement is the same process used for non-verbal communication between a caregiver and child during attachment facilitating interactions (Hughes, 2003, Siegel, 2001). The therapist and caregivers’ attunement results in co-regulation of the child’s affect so that is it manageable. Cognitive restructuring interventions are designed to help the child develop secondary mental representations of traumatic events, which allow the child to integrate these events and develop a coherent autobiographical narrative. Treatment involves multiple repetitions of the fundamental caregiver-child attachment cycle. The cycle begins with shared affective experiences, is followed by a breach in the relationship (a separation or discontinuity), and ends with a reattunement of affective states. Non-verbal communication, involving eye contact, tone of voice, touch, and movement, are essential elements to creating affective attunement.

The treatment provided often adhered to a structure with several dimensions. It is pictured in Figure 1, below. First, behavior is identified and explored. The behavior may have occurred in the immediate interaction or have occurred at some time in the past. Using curiosity and acceptance the behavior is explored. Second, using curiosity and acceptance the behavior is explore and the meaning to the child begins to emerge. Third, empathy is used to reduce the child’s sense of shame and increase the child’s sense of being accepted and understood. Forth, the child’s behavior is then normalized. In other words, once the meaning of the behavior and its basis in past trauma is identified, it becomes understandable that the symptom is present. An example of such an interaction is the following:

Wow, I see how you got so angry when your Mom asked you to pick up your toys. You thought she was being mean and didn’t want you to have fun or love you. You thought she was going to take everything away and leave you like your first Mom did, like when your first Mom took your toys and then left you alone in the apartment that time. Oh, I can really understand now how hard that must be for you when Mom said to clean up. You really felt mad and scared. That must be so hard for you.

Fifth, the child communicates this understanding to the caregiver.

Sixth, finally, a new meaning for the behavior is found and the child’s actions are integrated into a coherent autobiographical narrative by communicating the new experience and meaning to the caregiver.

Past traumas are revisited by reading documents and through psychodramatic reenactments. These interventions, which occur within a safe attuned relationship, allow the child to integrate the past traumas and to understand the past and present experiences that create the feelings and thoughts associated with the child’s behavioral disturbances. The child develops secondary representations of these events, feelings and thoughts that result in greater affect regulation and a more integrated autobiographical narrative.

As described by Hughes (2006, 2003), the therapy is an active, affect modulated experience that involves acceptance, curiosity, empathy, and playfulness. By co-regulating the child’s emerging affective states and developing secondary representations of thoughts and feelings, the child’s capacity to affectively engage in a trusting relationship is enhanced. The caregivers enact these same principals. If the caregivers have difficulty engaging with their child in this manner, then treatment of the caregiver is indicated.

Children who have experienced chronic maltreatment and resulting complex trauma are at significant risk for a variety of other behavioral, neuropsychological, cognitive, emotional, interpersonal, and psychobiological disorders (Cook, A., et. al., 2005; van der Kolk, B., 2005). Children and adolescents with complex trauma require an approach to treatment that focuses on several dimensions of impairment (Cook, et. al., 2005). Chronic maltreatment and the resulting complex trauma cause impairment in a variety of vital domains including the following:

Ø Self-regulation

Ø Interpersonal relating including the capacity to trust and secure comfort

Ø Attachment

Ø Biology, resulting in somatization

Ø Affect regulation

Ø Increased use of defensive mechanisms, such as dissociation

Ø Behavioral control

Ø Cognitive functions, including the regulation of attention, interests, and other executive functions.

Ø Self-concept.

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy addresses these domains of impairment. Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy shares many important elements with optimal, sound social casework and clinical practice. For example, attention to the dignity of the client, respect for the client’s experiences, and starting where the client is, are all time-honored principles of clinical practice and all are also central elements of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy

In summary, therapy for traumatized children who have disordered attachments must be experiential, consensual, and provide an environment of security, acceptance, safety, empathy, and playfulness.

[1] Becker-Weidman, A., (2006) “Treatment for Children with Trauma-Attachment Disorders: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy,” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. Vol. 23 #2, April 2006, 147-171.

Becker-Weidman, A., (2006). “Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy: A multi-year Follow-up,” in, New Developments In Child Abuse Research, Stanley M. Sturt, Ph.D. (Ed.) Nova Science Publishers, NY, pp. 43 — 61.

Becker-Weidman, A., (2007) “Treatment For Children with Reactive Attachment Disorder: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy,” http://www.center4familydevelop.com/research.pdf

Becker-Weidman, A., & Hughes, D., (2008) “Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy: An evidence-based treatment for children with complex trauma and disorders of attachment,” Child & Adolescent Social Work, 13, pp.329-337.

Craven, P. & Lee, R. (2006) Therapeutic interventions for foster children: a systematic research synthesis. Research on Social Work Practice, 16, 287–304.

[2] O’Connor, T., & Zeanah, C., (2003) Attachment Disorders: Assessment strategies and treatment approaches. Attachment & Human Development, 5, 223-245.

[3] Hughes, D., (2008) Attachment-focused Family Therapy. NY: Norton.

[4] Lyons-Ruth, K., & Jacobvitz, D., Attachment disorganization: unresolved loss, relational violence and lapses in behavioral and attentional strategies. In Cassidy, J. & Shaver, P., (Eds.) Handbook of Attachment. pp 520-554, NY: Guilford Press, 1999.

Solomon, J. & George, C. (Eds.). Attachment Disorganization. NY: Guilford Press, 1999.

Main, M. & Hesse, E. Parents’ Unresolved Traumatic Experiences are related to infant disorganized attachment status. In Greenberg, M.T., Ciccehetti, D., & Cummings, E.M. (Eds.) Attachment in the Preschool Years: Theory, Research, and Intervention, pp.161-182, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.

Carlson, E.A. (1988). A prospective longitudinal study of disorganized/disoriented attachment. Child Development 69, 1107-1128.

[5] Carlson, V., Cicchetti, D., Barnett, D., & Braunwald, K. (1995). Finding order in disorganization: Lessons from research on maltreated infants’ attachments to their caregivers. In D. Cicchetti & V. Carlson (Eds), Child Maltreatment: Theory and research on the causes and consequences of child abuse and neglect (pp. 135-157). NY: Cambridge University Press.

Cicchetti, D., Cummings, E.M., Greenberg, M.T., & Marvin, R.S. (1990). An organizational perspective on attachment beyond infancy. In M. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & M. Cummings (Eds), Attachment in the Preschool Years (pp. 3-50). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[6] Robins, L.N. (1978) Longitudinal studies: Sturdy childhood predictors of adult antisocial behavior. Psychological Medicine,. 8, 611-622.

[7] Prino, C.T. & Peyrot, M. (1994) The effect of child physical abuse and neglect on aggressive withdrawn, and prosocial behavior. Child Abuse and Neglect, 18, 871-884.

[8] Schreiber, R. & Lyddon, W. J. (1998) Parental bonding and Current Psychological Functioning Among Childhood Sexual Abuse Survivors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 358-362.

[9] Finzi, R., Cohen, O., Sapir, Y., & Weizman, A. (2000). Attachment Styles in Maltreated Children: A Comparative Study. Child Development and Human Development, 31, 113-128.

[10] Dozier, M., Stovall, K.C., & Albus, K. (1999) Attachment and Psychopathology in Adulthood. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.). Handbook of Attachment (pp. 497-519). NY: Guilford Press.

[11] Finzi, R., Cohen, O., Sapir, Y., & Weizman, A. (2000). Attachment Styles in Maltreated Children: A Comparative Study. Child Development and Human Development, 31, 113-128.

[12] Allan, J. (2001). Traumatic Relationships and Serious Mental Disorders. NY: John Wiley.

Andrews, B., Varewin, C.R., Rose, S., & Kirk (2000). Predicting PTSD symptoms in Victims of Violent Crime. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 69-73.

[13] MacMillian, H.L. (2001). Childhood Abuse and Lifetime Psychopathology in a Community Sample. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 1878-1883.

[14] Allan, J. Traumatic Relationships and Serious Mental Disorders, NY: Wiley, 2001.

Andrews, B., Varewin, C.R., Rose, S. & Kirk. Predicting PTSD symptoms in Victims of Violent Crime. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, vol. 109, 69-73, 2000.

[15] Hughes, D., (2007) Building the Bonds of Attachment, 2nd. Edition, NY: Guilford Press.

Arthur Becker-Weidman, Ph.D. received his MSW from the University of Maryland at Baltimore and his Ph.D. from the University of Maryland’s Institute for Child Study. He has achieved Diplomate Status in Child Psychology and Forensic Psychology from the American Board of Psychological Specialties.

As Director of the Center For Family Development he consults with Department’s of Social Services, Residential Treatment Centers, and Mental Health Clinics throughout the US, Canada, and Internationally. Dr. Becker-Weidman’s work has focused on the evaluation and treatment of adopted and foster children and their families, Complex-Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Alcohol Related Neurological Dysfunction (Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder or FAS). Dr. Becker-Weidman practices Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and trains therapists in the practice of this evidence-based and effective treatment.

Dr. Becker-Weidman is on the Board of Directors of the Association for the Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children, serves on the Research Committee and Training Committee, and chairs the Registration Committee. He is an adjunct Clinical Professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo.

Dr. Becker-Weidman has published over a dozen papers in peer-reviewed professional journals and has presented at numerous international, regional, and local professional meetings. He is the co-editor of the book, Creating Capacity for Attachment, published by Wood ‘N’ Barnes in 2005. He is finishing work on a book about Attachment-Facilitating Parenting that is expected to be published in 2009.

No related posts.