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?

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …