Skip to main content

mental health mondays :: we've been saying this for years

there have been many, many, many controversies that have plagued the development of the latest diagnostic
and statistical manual of mental disorders, but in the debates over how conditions were included, excluded and evaluated, something new has slipped into the crazy playbook, something that coffee drinkers would salute as basic common sense: caffeine withdrawal is now considered a mental disorder.

so if you've been telling people for years that they shouldn't talk to you before you've had your coffee, or arguing that you're a different person when you're caffeine-deprived, you can now relax, because the psychiatric powers that be agrees with you.

in the most basic terms, this means that psychiatrists acknowledge that going without caffeine, when you're a junkie, can mess you up. however what's not clear- and what won't be clear until some brave soul decides to test it- is how much it can mess you up. does it mean that you can show signs of irritability and have an official name for it? does it mean that you can bill your morning joe to your group insurance plan? most importantly, if i stabbed someone in the eye for looking at me funny this morning before i'd had coffee, do i have a legal grounds to argue diminished capacity?

i really can't wait until the first "coffee killer" goes on trial. i'm kind of hoping that it isn't me.

in the meantime, you now have official license to call yourself an addict and claim that all the problems in your life are purely the result of being in the grip of the demon caffeine.

you're welcome.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

white trash

yes, my lovelies, i have returned from the dead, at least for the time it takes me to write this post. this is not just another piece of observational drivel about how i haven't been taking care of the blog lately, although i clearly haven't. on that front, though, the principal cause of my absence has actually been due to me trying to get another, somewhat related project, off the ground. unfortunately, that project has met with some frustrating delays which means that anyone who follows this blog [perhaps there are still a few of you who haven't entirely given up] would understandably be left with the impression that i'd simply forsaken more like space to marvel at the complexity of my own belly button lint. [it's possible you had that impression even before i disappeared.]

ok, enough with that. i have a subject i wanted to discuss with you, in the sense that i will want and encourage you to respond with questions, concerns and criticism in the comments or by em…

making faces :: a lip for all seasons [summer edition]

this may seem like an odd time to think about summer, but not to think about coolness. it can be hard to wrap your head around the idea that summer is considered "cool" in colour analysis terms and, in my opinion, reads as the coolest of the cool, because everything in it is touched with the same chilly grey. winter may have the coldest colours, but its palette is so vivid that it distracts the eye. everything in summer is fresh and misty, like the morning sky before the sun breaks through. in my original post on the season, i compared it to monet's paintings of waterlilies at his garden in giverny and, if i do say so, i think that's an apt characterisation.

finding lip colours touched with summer grey and blue is, as you might expect, kind of tricky. the cosmetic world seems obsessed with bringing warmth, which doesn't recognise that some complexions don't support it well. [also, different complexions support different kinds of warmth, but that's another…

i agree, smedley [or, smokers totally saved our planet in 1983]

so this conversation happened [via text, so i have evidence and possibly so does the canadian government and the nsa].

dom and i were trying to settle our mutual nerves about tomorrow night's conversion screening, remembering that we've made a fine little film that people should see. which is just about exactly what dom had said when i responded thusly:

me :: i agree smedley. [pauses for a moment] did you get that here?

dom :: no?

me :: the aliens who were looking at earth and then decided it wasn't worth bothering with because people smoked even though it was bad for them?
come to think of it, that might mean that smokers prevented an alien invasion in the seventies.

dom :: what ?!?!?

me :: i've had wine and very little food. [pause] but the alien thing was real. [pause.] well, real on tv.

dom :: please eat something.

of course, i was wrong. the ad in question ran in 1983. this is the part where i would triumphantly embed the ad from youtube, except that the governmen…