PSEUDO PSYCHOLOGICAL THERAPY IS REPRESSING FREE SPEECH

PSEUDO PSYCHOLOGICAL THERAPY IS REPRESSING FREE SPEECH

By Domenick J. Maglio PhD. Traditional Realist

America’s culture has been based on moral values and practices that worked for centuries. The founders studied past civilizations compiling what things led to the wellbeing of successful nations. Natural law and many biblical practices were recognized for their effectiveness over time.

Our modern society has rejected many of these traditional thoughts and practices moving quickly to supposedly scientific ones. The media has successfully marketed these pseudo scientific theories. Many of these notions sound reasonable but often are based on false assumptions that they plug into complicated and sophisticated studies that cannot be duplicated. This has happened throughout our child development and family practices leading us astray from good parenting. We have seen in a relatively short time an epidemic of bitter divorce and childhood mental disorders.

One modern psychological theory that quickly became a fad was “venting therapy.” This idea was incredibly well sold to the public but it did not have the expected results. A patient was supposed to vent his anger through loud rants, screaming and exhausting physical exercises including hitting objects. Punching pillows was supposed to extinguish the feelings of anger. The problem was that it did not work. It had the opposite impact that prolonged and increased the instances of angry outbursts.

Nevertheless it became part of the pop culture and has taken on a life of its own. Venting has metastasized into many new irregular offshoots. Many experts are promoting youngsters as young as preschool to express their anger issues. This is translated in the child’s mind to telling others including parents and other adults how the child is bothered by these adults. It encourages the child to think he is equal or superior to anyone disciplining him for inappropriate behavior. This results in blatant disrespect of others.

Some children’s self esteem becomes so inflated that they will tell their peers, teachers and parents how they specifically annoy them and the way these people should change their behavior.  These untested practices have seeped into our culture as infallible advice that produced more harm than good. These children are inadvertently being trained to be disobedient and become future oppositional defiant personalities.

As these self-absorbed children have gotten older, they have moved from controlling anger to controlling others rather than learning new social skills to get along with them. In universities the venting of one’s feelings has morphed into telling others how they should act, think and speak. Anything that hurts their sensitivities is called “micro aggression.” This could be as simple as how they feel walking into a room with others. If they feel uncomfortable hearing certain accents or seeing mannerisms or witness certain expressions on other’s faces these innocent people are seen as “guilty of micro aggression.” The pampered individuals expect others to be punished for making them feel bad. The self-important students want others to conform to their personal view of the world.

When these emotionally immature students become upset they want the comfort of “safe spaces” on the university campus. This area should only be for people who think and speak in the same way. It does not stop at making special provisions for their delusional power but they want to go much further.

These students demand the right to cut off speech of anyone who has the audacity to possess a different point of view. Their “cheering squad,” the progressive politicians and media, encourages them to continue to disturb and halt the speech of anyone expressing traditional values. These students throw objects such as pies at speakers. They even go onto the stage to physically intimidate and confront the speaker. The elite cowardly leaders of the university do not take a stand to end this student tyranny. Instead they act like innocent bystanders or they actually legitimize the repressive and un-American actions.

These American attacks on the most important institution of the free exchange of ideas should alarm all of us who believe in our freedom.

The marriage between pseudo psychology and highly sophisticated marketing is dangerous. It could result in mind control, groupthink and an enslaved, brainwashed society without any understanding of true freedom as it was erased from the minds of the people.

Domenick Maglio, PhD. is a columnist carried by various newspapers, an author of several books and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. You can visit Dr. Maglio at www.drmaglio.blogspot.com.

TRUMP A MASTER AT BRANDING OTHERS AND HIMSELF

TRUMP A MASTER AT BRANDING OTHERS AND HIMSELF

By Domenick J. Maglio PhD. Traditional Realist

Donald Trump is a charismatic celebrity personality. He is a billionaire who knows how to wheel and deal with the big boys, which makes him a consummate big businessman in our materialistic culture. Trump does not make any excuses for playing the crony capitalistic games. Proudly he says he has given millions of dollars to politicians of every persuasion to win favors. This bypassing of regulations, which hold other businessmen back from accomplishing their projects, does not affect him. Many of his followers view this corruption as a normal part of business although they hope he will change his habits as soon as he is elected.

Trump says he is financing his own campaign and cannot be bought. He fails to say once he is in power how is he going to recover from his horse trading addiction. His modus operandi has become a life long method of accumulating power and wealth.

Trump’s impromptu speeches show a wit and fearless entertaining ability of pointing out the absurdity of politically correct speech in dealing with critical issues facing all of us. The credit for opening up discussion on previously taboo subjects belongs to Trump’s engaging style of talking directly to the people. This style can be mean spirited toward anyone who poses a threat according to him. He does not argue the merits of his ideas but goes directly for the jugular. His ability for personal destruction of his opponents is masterful. The opponent’s strength is attacked making it a weakness by repeating a narrative that is not supported by facts.

Donald Trump can take a statement and twist it into a pretzel. He can make it mean something very different. In one of the first debates Cruz criticized Trump for his “New York values”. Over the years Trump has taken many liberal stances. In 1999 he had an interview with Tim Rusert justifying his support of abortion and gays in the military stating: “I live in New York City, in Manhattan, all my life so you know my views are a little bit different then if I lived in Iowa.” Trump attacked Cruz for having no respect for New Yorkers. This blatant change of Cruz’s statement from an indictment of liberal values to Cruz belittling New Yorkers changed the news cycle against Cruz. Trump had the audacity to reinforce his position by calling Cruz” a nasty guy” for degrading New Yorkers.

This technique of labeling his rivals: “Little Marco”, “Low energy Bush” and “Lying Ted”, have stuck. Other times he uses a sleight of hand by making an offhanded rude comment like the “the face of Carly Fiorina, Megyn Kelly’s blood shooting out where ever, Ben Carson’s psychopathic profile of a child molester and Cruz’s six affairs without a shred of evidence. These innuendos plant “the seed of doubt” about these people that has a real impact on how they are viewed. The attacks disappear as soon as the person stops being a challenge but the branding sticks.

His branding and marketing skills are also used to build up his celebrity mystique. ”I am the best negotiator”, “I will make America great again”, “My business products have been top notch and successful” as he displays his Trump brand water, meat, clothing and hotels while not mentioning that many of these items have failed in the marketplace. It is all about Trump, with no credit given to the staff that actually did the work.  He is an egotist who uses the word “I” incessantly.

Trump’s complaints of rigging the Republican primary against him because the rules are different in each state is an indictment of his ignorance of our political system. Our founding fathers threw roadblocks in the way of populist candidates. They set up the Electoral College on the national level and left the nomination of candidates up to the political parties and states. They understood total democracy led to chaos. Instead they chose a representative government to nullify large swings in the direction of the country caused by a cult of personality.

Mr. Trump’s threat of running on a third party and riots at the convention should be a red flag that he does not understand that electing a president is not the same as the coronation of a king. The power of charisma was the key factor in President Obama’s victory. His bypassing of the rules of law has been devastating to our system. Trump is coming from the same perspective as Obama except he chose to run on the Republican ticket. Trump and Obama are believers in large central government, personality power and behind the scenes deals to disregard the other two branches of power. They are both proponents of crony capitalism/a fascist state.

The voters who want an America based on the restrictions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Judaic Christian moral values need to look elsewhere than Trump.

They should look for a candidate who adheres and follows a steady and slow course dictated by the power of the three branches of government instead of the power of a charismatic personality as the president.

Branding of self and others is a powerful skill that should not determine the selection of a presidential candidate. In America presidents have come and gone but we have had stability by following our Constitution and the rule of law. Our republic is the difference between us and all other countries throughout history.

Let us not give up on our founder’s wisdom for a quick fix. Our nation has taken a radical, progressive fix of statism that has to be corrected over time to put us back on course. We should follow the compass that our founders set down for our greatness.

"I TRIED MY BEST" DOES NOT GET THE JOB DONE

“I TRIED MY BEST” DOES NOT GET THE JOB DONE

By Domenick J. Maglio PhD. Traditional Realist

In our permissive culture hardly anyone is held accountable. People do not want to get involved with correcting anyone else. It is less aggravating to accept an unacceptable excuse than to investigate the circumstance to decide if the person’s reasons for their actions were legitimate. Even if the authority figure arrives at the truth of the person’s behavior he still has to confront the individual. This responsible approach will tarnish the person’s reputation as a “nice guy,” which has become more important than doing his duty. This same issue of having to be a “nice guy’ to my child rather than do my duty as a parent is permeating the way we are raising our children.

Parents are busy working and socializing with their peers. The quality time they spend with their children is limited. When the children are mature enough to contribute to the family, modern parents do not make the time to teach them how to do the activity in an effective and efficient way. The parent assigns a task but does not follow up to show the child the correct way to do it. Afterward the child gives the parent an argument that he cannot do it.

The child is told by the parent or other adult to “just do your best” when the child says, ”I can’t do it. The parent or other adult unwittingly gives him a built-in excuse to do as little of the task as the child thinks he can get away with. The child hems and haws making one excuse after another for not doing a credible job. The parent becomes exasperated and ends the confrontation by saying “just do your best.” This becomes the child’s built-in fall-back position for everything he does carelessly. “I tried my best.”

Today’s children are being taught that making the simple statement: “I tried my best” gets them off the hook for not putting quality or effort into completing an assignment. The majority of parents and other adults conveniently feel the youngster is too young to be accountable. These parents are ignoring the responsibility to show the child how to do a good job to become a more skilled and competent individual.

The bar for doing a good job is lowered not out of kindness but rather the laziness of not dealing with work ethic training. The same excuse is used over and over again with no one mentioning “this is not anyone’s best,” “I will show you what you have to do for an acceptable job.” This training is an act of kindness. The parent, teacher or any other authority is being responsible by calling out the child’s game and  showing him what makes an excellent job. This begins the process of ending the child’s shenanigans.

The follow–up is the key to reversing a bad habit. “Do you remember you were supposed to do this next step and in this way? After you accomplish this then it will be necessary to do all the required steps to do an excellent job.”

When the child realizes he cannot talk his way out by doing a non-caring, sloppy job without getting significant consequences, the job begins to approach some level of acceptability. Only when he obtains a level of quality should he receive praise that he now has earned.

Quality work is developed by repeatedly doing something correctly through a best effort. “I did my best,” and other excuse games can be conquered by due diligence from a concerned adult.  The longer the game has been used, the harder it is to reverse. It is best to start the training as soon as possible, depending on the physical and mental capacities of the child. Much of the training should begin in the toddler stage.

Doing a quality job is a great gift to instill in a youngster. It changes the way a person attacks any activity and arrives at an excellent result. It forms a framework for the young person to evaluate the completion of any activity. It sets up standards and expectations that guide the person in tackling any endeavor from schoolwork to chores and later professional work and everyday projects.

A parent or other authority figure such as a teacher who accepts a child saying “I did my best” statement when he did not, is doing the child a great disservice. It encourages the child to believe that lying pays dividends. Additionally it convinces him that adults are not too smart or do not care enough to give the child “the time of day.”

Children quickly come to the conclusion that most adults, even parents are phony as they do not truly care. This assessment is a pathetic although correct appraisal of too many adults. Children look for strong authority figures who show their love through discipline. Being honest with children about their deceptive games is more time consuming than the adult taking over and finishing the task, which produces a slacker.

This “slacker” will be a parasite on the family and eventually on society.  In the long run teaching the child to honestly do his best will be a blessing for everyone. A productive individual benefits all of society while an excuse maker is a burden on all of us. Watch for excuse games and eliminate them for everyone’s sake especially the one using them.

Domenick Maglio, PhD. is a columnist carried by various newspapers, an author of several books and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. You can visit Dr. Maglio at www.drmaglio.blogspot.com.

THE LUNACY OF WOMEN IN SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES

THE LUNACY OF WOMEN IN SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES

By Domenick J. Maglio PhD Traditional Realist

Females in the armed forces go back to the American Revolution. There were some women like Deborah Sampson who pretended to be men in order to fight in the war.

Clara Barton went in the middle of an active battlefield to tend the wounded during the Civil war as bullets flew around her. WWI and WWII saw women in supportive roles and a few of them were nearby combat zones. From Vietnam to the Iraqi war women’s roles have expanded in wars that have no defined fronts. Modern female soldiers in computerized combat using drones or sophisticated aircraft have ample ability to perform the mission as well as men.

President Obama’s administration has been pressuring the military to open up opportunities for women in direct combat. Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, recently finalized former Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta’s directive that stated all direct combat units will be available to women.  Females in all the Special Operations are close to becoming a reality.

Not everyone in the military thinks this is a viable idea. On April 4^th, 2015 a survey of Special Ops troops found a majority of them believe that women do not have the ability to withstand the physical and mental demands of elite combat. These incredible men should know better than anyone else the reality of these operations. Not surprisingly test results of females versus men in physical comparisons have mysteriously been lost. There were two different sets of standards being used to evaluate them.

Even if females were able to meet the vigorous, high physical standards in large numbers there are many other crucial issues to be considered before going farther down this radical path.  The decision to put women in special operations is not just another progressive gender diversity program to demonstrate that women can do anything men can do.  The stakes are much greater than appeasing and increasing the feminist-voting block. It is placing women in dangerous and treacherous situations that can arise anytime, any place in the world where their physical differences make them more vulnerable than men.

The success of these special operations is vital to the survival of the nation. Physical strength and endurance, coupled with the ability to function under physical pain, mental stress, lack of food or shelter are crucial criteria to be measured in choosing the unit’s members. Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the joint-chiefs of staff, made a clearly political decision when he tried to get around mandating different physical standards for males and females. He did this in a conniving, PC manner. The general placed the burden on the individual Special Operations forces to show why lowering the physical standards for female accommodation should not take place. This was done instead of requiring the commander to demonstrate the positive reasons why females would be equal or an asset in accomplishing these strategic missions. This was a top-down decision making process.

Besides these important physical differences there are strong cultural, religious and moral values that complicate sending females to these high risk and high value assignments. The close quarters will create an emotionally heightened situation producing a strong attraction among the opposite sexes. The emotional dynamics of an all male special Ops groups would change drastically with the addition of females. Obviously, the natural attraction and possibly romance could cloud the decision making process in these very tight groups.

Strong feelings or open romances could endanger the lives of the unit members and the entire operation. This cannot be controlled with orders. On the home front the implications for the military spouses’ relationships will destroy the cohesiveness of the military community. This could be curtailed and modified by micro- psychological monitoring of the group dynamics but it would add an unnecessary problem to an already difficult situation.

The more subtle although strong instinctual and cultural value is the urge by men to protect females. This can have a disastrous impact on a military mission.

The potential rape and torture of females by the enemy would complicate the decision making and be used to break down soldiers to give intelligence information to the enemy in order to prevent it from happening or stopping it.

The preserving of Special Ops unit readiness, cohesiveness, morale and ability to successfully complete the mission should be the number one priority. Being an equal opportunity employer should not be a consideration. The president and his military leaders’ major responsibility is to protect America, not use social engineering to advance their domestic agenda.

The use of the military to foster gender equality is lunacy and puts our nations’ survival in jeopardy. Placing females in special operations should be reevaluated taking all the physical, emotional and mental factors into consideration from a military perspective not a domestic reelection one.

Domenick Maglio, PhD. is a columnist carried by various newspapers, an author of several books and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. You can visit Dr. Maglio at www.drmaglio.blogspot.com.