Posted on

On Socialist Systems in America

The Current State of Government “Socialist” Systems Does Little For Its Reputation

Anytime you find yourself in a debate with one who espouses a positive view of “democratic socialism”, they frequently argue, “We have socialism all through America. You don’t seem to mind that!”

This argument assumes neither I, nor anyone, has a problem with such institutions. I began looking into these systems and institutions they so eagerly list when attempting to refute my claim that socialism is the “Gospel of envy”, as Churchill put it, and relies on government intervention whereby group A removes from group B against their will and giving it to group C. Let’s take a quick look at just a few and give them a grade.

Public Universities and Community Colleges

There has been a growing revelation over time that university in America is extremely progressive, to the point of willful suppression of papers, social pressure to conform, loss of employment, and ostracization from peer groups and career development opportunities. It’s widely been reported through many outlets that there no longer exists diversity in university faculty (Duarte et al., 2015) and political bias in university being abundantly in favor of progressive liberal ideology (Redding et al., 2023). Inbar & Lammers (2012) discovered a political bias so great, they found that 6% of social and personality psychologists identified as conservative. Lee Jussim (2012) released commentary on these findings, listing many privileges afforded to liberal psychologists and social psychologists as well as a warning to academia if they continue on this path. As a result, many are choosing not to attend such universities and the APA recently was advised they were being placed on suspension.

Grade: F

Public Schools

Public schools have failed students for decades. This is abundantly clear and obvious. Their spending is frivolous and incoherent to common business practices. One example, they allot a budget to a department within a public school. If that amount is not spent in full, they will be allotted a smaller amount next year because they did not utilize all of the money. What if they needed more the following year, but helped the county save money this year? Too bad. Automatic tenure enables lazy, ineffective, and sometimes harmful teachers to thrive under the umbrella of employment immunity. The fact that they have a monopoly on free education insulates them from competition and parental choice, shielding them from the need to improve quality or prove results.

Grade: F

Social Security

Social security has long been on a crash course with reality, financially speaking (Diamond & Orszag, 2005). Social security has created poor incentives that do not work (Friedberg & Webb, 2009). It has failed to provide adequate trade-offs, and like many social programs, fails to take into consideration behavioral consequences of policies and reforms intended to address social security (Mastrobuoni, 2009). It’s dysfunctional on a good day.

Grade: D+

VA Healthcare

Just ask a veteran how that’s going. You’ll get everything from, “I’ve been denied consistently” to “It takes forever to get anything done. I feel like I’m in Canada!” Their monopoly disincentivizes innovation. It runs about how I’d expect a government business to run.

Grade: C

DMV

Remember getting your driver’s license? Wait forever. No sense of urgency. Rude employees. Monopoly that eliminates the need for improved performance.

Grade: D-

Post Office

The phrase “Going postal” did not just arrive accidentally. This is an instance where they found themselves in panic mode when Amazon, UPS, and Fed Ex began to compete. They did not know what to do with competition. They’d never experienced it before. As a result, they are last in customer satisfaction, performance, and delivery standards among those delivery services.

Grade: D-

Lastly, the common phrase you hear in any government run business, whether school, government offices, DMV, government departments, any government run social program, is this, “That’s not my job.” That is what the government incentivizes, laziness.

I recently made this statement:

Placing decision-making for a society of over 300 million into the hands of those elite few who will have no change in employment status nor drop in income if they are completely wrong, and will likely gain financially from their decisions, as so many in politics have proven, can only lead to disastrous outcomes, alongside those elite few gaining power and wealth at the expense of those who didn’t do their homework on basic economics.

In Short

Intellectual honesty requires I concede one point. The concept of democratic socialist policies, ideas behind equalizing resources and results, and attempts to ensure the poor are lifted up through social programs are amazing ideas and would be beautiful to see enacted. The problem is it will never be realized in reality. Once individuals are denied the freedom to exchange at mutually determined prices, earnings are redistributed by political authority, and economic decisions are concentrated in the hands of an elite few, the question is no longer whether power will influence economic outcomes, but how and for whose benefit, and who decides. Human beings have seldom demonstrated immunity to the temptations accompanying concentrated power, greed, and tyranny, and installing any forms of socialism will open such tyrannical floodgates while completely annihilating any chance of innovation and expanded creation of wealth to further ignite the economy. Human nature simply won’t allow it.

The truth is, if I ran my business in the same fashion as the government, I wouldn’t have a business at all. So please save your breath coming to me with ways in which our current social systems work. No they don’t.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

Diamond, P. A., & Orszag, P. R. (2005). “Saving Social Security.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(2), 11–32.

Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. The Behavioral and brain sciences, 38, e130. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000430.

Friedberg, L., & Webb, A. (2009). “New Evidence on the Labor Supply Effects of the Social Security Earnings Test.” Tax Policy and the Economy, 23(1).

Inbar, Y., & Lammers, J. (2012). Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 496-503. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612448792.

Jussim, L. (2012). Liberal privilege in academic psychology and the social sciences: Commentary on Inbar & Lammers (2012). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 504–507.

Mastrobuoni, G. (2009). “Labor Supply Effects of the Recent Social Security Benefit Cuts: Empirical Estimates Using Cohort Discontinuities.” Journal of Public Economics, 93(11–12), 1224–1233.

Redding, R. E., Frisby, &., Craig L., O’Donohue, W. T., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (Eds.). (2023). Ideological and political bias in psychology: Nature, scope, and solutions. Springer.

Posted on

Discuss, Fight, Die

On the Various Levels of Commitment

This is another piece written as fast as I could type it. No resources. No thought out clever phrases. Just raw, unfiltered thoughts on the level of commitment to certain areas of civilization. I did, however, go back and summarize sections with more thought.

There are things I’ll discuss, things I’ll fight for, and things I’ll die for. I’ll discuss policies, practices, and ideas. I’ll fight for human rights, peace, and kindness in disagreement. I’ll die for my faith, my family, and the US Constitution.

Discuss

Policies

I’ll discuss policies. Like whether we need to remove the head start program because it hasn’t shown results… ever. Or maybe I’d discuss a policy setting term limits for politicians. Sometimes, a policy and its efficacy is known based on history. But sometimes they’re ideas that have never been tried. I’d discuss ideas of criminal rehabilitation for some, but not for all. I’d discuss policies being minimized to maximize liberty.

In short, I’ll discuss public policy by its demonstrated consequences and the constraints of human nature rather than by its intentions, however noble the origin may be.

Practices

I’ll discuss practices such as diagnosing a 7-year-old with ADHD because he was born in August and doesn’t like sitting still for 8 hours during the day. Subsequently we give him a diagnosis that follows him through life. Should therapists be allowed to challenge a person with gender dysphoria? Should we be affirming a known lie? I’ll gladly discuss better ways. I’ll discuss whether CBT is a better fit than psychodynamic work with one particular client. I’ll discuss Supreme Court decisions and whether they are ruling on the established rule of law or inventing a new law by attempting to interpret the current, modern meaning behind the law. This falls into the concept that I’d trust the average many over the elite few. I’ll discuss how the accumulated knowledge of the average many will always be superior to the acute knowledge of the elite few.

In short, I’ll discuss whether the specialized knowledge of the elite few, however extensive in their relative fields of expertise, justifies allowance of their judgment upon the many in spite of, and in disregard to the inherent limitations of any individual knowledge, but juxtaposed to the accumulated knowledge, experience, and competing perspectives of the average many, whose collective wisdom is seldom confined to assumptions of any particular profession, and whose authority had become a substitute for scrutiny.

Ideas

I’ll discuss ideas about law and order, education, mental health, the role religion may play in our mental health, and ways in which most can live freely without government intervention. I’ll discuss the ideas you have as to how I can be a better friend, writer, counselor, husband, father, and leader. I’ll discuss ideas about new ways to treat individuals who come into the counseling office saying they have anxiety because they get nervous before dates with their girlfriend. I’ll discuss ideas concerning how men should treat women and how women should treat men.

In short, I’ll discuss ideas concerning not only how individuals ought to conduct themselves within families, communities, and society at large, but also the extent to which established assumptions, professional judgments, and government interventions facilitate and/or undermine the very outcomes they were intended to achieve.

Fight

Human Rights

I’ll fight for human rights. I will not fight for equal results, as this is completely impossible. Never, in the history of our planet, at any point in time or place, has there ever been true equality of results. This is because of human nature and the various motivational systems we employ. But I will fight for one’s right the same process. I’ll fight to restrict those who intend to harm and inhibit freedom so the majority of society can live freely to pursue happiness. Therefore, I will pursue the right to equal opportunity. Whether you take that opportunity or not is up to you. I’ll continue to fight for the right of children who have been physically and sexually violated, urging for stronger mandatory sentences for such offenders.

In short, I’ll fight for the protection of individual liberties, equal application of laws, and the preservation of opportunities through which individuals may pursue their own ambitions, recognizing that equality of opportunity seldom produces equality of outcomes, least of all among people whose abilities, motivations, and circumstances differ, while insisting that he freedom of the many must not be surrendered to the harmful actions of a few, particularly when those least capable of defending themselves are made to bear the consequences.

Peace

I’ll fight for peace. The reason I’ll fight for peace is because peace doesn’t come through passivism. Peace comes through boundary setting, firm expectations, and following through. Peace comes only when we place a hard line on how we will be treated and how we expect others to act when in our presence. Peace does not come by softly asking one to stop berating you in public. Peace comes when you no longer give that person access to your life because they don’t know how to act. If they desire to be back in your life, they must abide by your set of social rules. This produces peace. Yes, I will fight for peace.

In short, I’ll fight for a peace secured not through passivity, but through firm boundaries, mutual respect, and enforceable consequences, recognizing that peace is never achieved through mere tolerance of mistreatment nor at the expense of one’s own dignity and freedom.

Kindness In Disagreement

I will fight for disagreement to be delivered in kindness. We all have disagreements. Some disagreements invoke stronger emotions than others, and some invoke stronger emotions than they should. In any case, this should be done in kindness. There are many studies that show political polarization weakens when forced to have open discussion with someone who you see as a good person but sees politics from a different lens than you. It costs nothing to be kind. I’m kind to you even if you don’t reciprocate. The primary reason people don’t choose kindness in disagreement is they are very insecure about their own place in life. Those weighed down by insecurity often defend their convictions at any cost, resorting to hostility from fear of being wounded rather than confidence.

In short, I’ll fight for the preservation of civility amid disagreement, recognizing that differences of opinion seldom justify personal hostility, particularly when the strength of one’s convictions is mistaken for a license to abandon kindness and mutual respect.

To Die For

My Faith

I truly believe Jesus is exactly who He says He is. I believe he came to save the world. I believe that He is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one comes to the Father except through Him. I’d wager my life on it. I’m not asking you to agree with me on this. And I’m certainly not proselytizing. I’m merely sharing my perspective.

In short, I’d die for my faith, recognizing that genuine faith requires neither the agreement of others nor their submission to beliefs they do not espouse.

My Family

I’d die for my family, starting with my wife. Everyone comes after that. I’d die for my kids, their kids, my siblings and their families. I would willingly sacrifice my own life if it meant saving theirs.

The US Constitution

Yes, I would die for the Constitution. This seems to be a reach for many. Allow me to explain. The military swear and oath to the Constitution, not the president. The Constitution upholds the fundamental liberties that preserve a free life for anyone who will abide by the basic tenets of an agreed upon set of values. Now that the government has gotten way too big, the only salvation we may have against a tyrannical top-down takeover will be those citizens who are willing to defend the US Constitution. This document sets us apart from every other nation in the world. This document was the foundation of every good thing that has taken place in America, allowing us to be the best nation on earth, as viewed by every person trying to get here, as well as most Americans. The Constitution is the best defense against tyrannical rule. I’d rather die than live in tyranny. So yes, I’d die for the US Constitution.

In short, I’ll die for the Constitution and the liberties it was established to protect, recognizing that freedom is never preserved through passivity, especially when those entrusted with governmental authority become the very threat against which constitutional restraints were established.

Conclusion

I won’t discuss or fight among those whose rationality left the building a long time ago. I will not discuss ideas with those unwilling to subject their own convictions to the same scrutiny they demand of others, those refusing to test their own ideas. Meaningful discourse won’t be found where intellectual humility is absent. I will not fight for the imposition of equal outcomes, the establishment of authority without restraint or accountability, or a peace obtained through the surrender of individual liberty, especially when such demands are made in the name of some presumed “greater good” by the “anointed.” Lastly, I will not die for political personalities, ideological movements, or the ambitions of those who mistake their own usurped authority for moral superiority. I simply no longer have the bandwidth for those so weak they cannot form a sentence without an insult. Yes, I will discuss, fight, and die for certain things in life.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

America’s Unlikely Unrest

Why I Believe America is Not Headed in the Same Direction as France

Everything cited in this article is from “Intellectuals and Society”, by Thomas Sowell.

With the unrest in France, I hear many saying, “This could happen in America! Beware!” While I appreciate the sentiment, I have reasons why I don’t think this will ever happen in America. It could possibly happen in Minnesota, New York, California, Michigan, or Oregon, but not America. The country as a whole, the vast majority, will never let this happen. I’ll explain.

World War II

In 1940, the French and British military had both resources and technology that far outmatched that of the German forces. Many advisers to Hitler repeatedly warned him to wait until he could match those countries in might. Hitler recognized something that even Prime Minister Chamberlain later recanted into agreement with. Hitler stood by and watched for the last several years as the French and British were passive. Their passivity moved into blind acceptance. Such blind acceptance moved into outrage at anyone in disagreement. Thus began the cancel culture of the 1930s.

Among the intelligentsia, Bertrand Russell, H.G. Wells, Aldous Huxley, among many others, building arms was a sign of malintent, a murderous nature, and neanderthal politics. Bertrand Russell brought an argument to the table that dated back to William Condorcet in which there could be no reason to attack a country that posed no threat. Russell stated,

“When disarmament is suggested, it is natural to imagine that foreign conquest would inevitably follow and would be accompanied by all the horrors that characterize warlike invasions. This is a mistake, as Denmark shows. Probably, if we had neither armaments nor Empire, foreign states would let us alone. If they did not, we should have to yield without fighting, and we should therefore not arouse their ferocity.”

Here you see such passivism being espoused by the “smartest” of their time. John Dewey said in 1922:

“If we succeed in really understanding each other, some way of cooperation for common ends can be found.”

Vietnam War

This concept continues through history when Communist military leader General Vo Nguyen Giap, who defeated the French in battle in 1954, and later commanded North Vietnamese forces against Americans, said,

“We are not strong enough to drive out a half-million American troops, but that wasn’t the goal.”

The goal was to break the will of the American government and people. They had watched American news and witnessed the rally against America being involved in war. They knew the resolve of the American people had weakened. Consequently, they capitalized on this for their victories.

Cold War

Again, in the Cold War, many elite, so-called, intelligentsia, criticized Reagan for quickly building arms and standing face to face with Gorbachev calling his bluff. Gorbachev was looking for that same passivist from the former Hollywood actor that Nguyen saw in America in the 1960s and Hitler saw in France in the 1930s. Reagan did not oblige. Following attack after attack on Reagan’s character and inability to lead this nation, along with predictions from the morally elite of nuclear war as a result of Reagan’s policies, the actual results were silencing. Reagan was right. Sowell puts it this way,

“The fact that the consequence of Reagan’s policy was the direct opposite of what the ‘arms race’ argument had predicted, that is, the consequence was the end of the Cold War, rather than the beginning of a nuclear war, has had as little effect on the prevailing vision [of the anointed] as other facts which directly contradict other premises of that vision.”

This beckons back to the idea by Thomas Sowell of different visions. Sowell wrote,

“The vision of the anointed is a vision of intellectual and moral elites being surrogate decision-makers, imposing an over-arching common purpose to supersede the disparate and conflicting individual purposes and individual decisions of the population at large. The power of the intelligentsia is demonstrated not only by their ability to create a general climate of opinion that strikes fear into those who oppose their agenda but also by their ability to create a climate of opinion which richly rewards those political leaders whose decisions are consonant with the vision of the intelligentsia.”

Conclusion

As we see here, such passivism not only espoused but required in order to be considered of the elite, lest you risk being ostracized, ridiculed, hated, or violently attacked, has been the modus operandi for such anointed leaders throughout history. These “geniuses” are who I have learned to ignore when it comes to issues of societal consequence. They present an idea, attack you with emotionally driven insults when you do not assimilate, the idea is tested and proven false, they shift the narrative to remove culpability, all the while, they bear no cost for being as wrong as they were, yet still dodge the cold fact they were wrong.

George Washington realized at one point he was leading a band of misfits. He was outnumbered, inferior in weapons and technology, and lacked any real experience among those he led. But he fought anyway. He eventually, after much ridicule, rallied troops to a very unlikely victory against the British Empire. He was the underdog. This is why we love a good underdog story. Because we were once the underdog.

We simply are not a country that lays down and takes whatever you send our direction. The vast majority of our country’s population does not embrace passivism. There are certainly areas that will embrace such infectious culture. But by and large, passivism will not take root throughout the majority of our country. We are not built like the British, French, or the Germans. We are American. We fight. We will fight for something and we will fight against something, but we will fight.

In short, this is why I believe America as a nation will never become France.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Darby Saxbe’s Advice to Steven Bartlett

Eight Points to Successful Parenting

L-R: Darby Saxbe and Steven Bartlett

I recently watched fellow stacker Darby Saxbe on the podcast Diary of a CEO with Steven Bartlett. During the podcast, Steven asked for advice for his eventual leap into fatherhood. The following points were her list. I chose to elaborate on each point from my perspective. Please keep in mind that these views may or may not necessarily reflect Darby’s views on these issues. Again, this is merely from my perspective as a therapist.

Shore Up the Couple First

This is vital. The strength and resilience of a couple will certainly determine their success or demise once children are introduced to the partnership. Marital satisfaction (Rhoades et al., 2009) is the key here, rather than duration. But duration is reflective of marital satisfaction. I’ll explain.

If we know that couples who cohabitate are significantly more likely to divorce than couples who marry before moving in together (Rosenfeld & Roesler, 2019), and we know that couples who cohabitated during their first child’s birth were cohabitating an average of 20.9 months before birth, as opposed to 36.7 months for married couples before having their first child (Guzzo & Hayford, 2012), then it is quite plausible to connect a reasonable duration of time as a mitigating factor of divorce after having children, knowing that children immediately put strain on a relationship in the beginning months. I encourage couples to wait at least 2 years, but not more than 4 or 5.

Divide the Load Early

This is important, but not in the way you might think. I see many couples who vary in their division of household and parental labor, and it works for them. What I find is satisfaction is tied to expectation. When parents don’t discuss their household and parental division of labor, this produces resentment. When they do discuss their household and parental division of labor, and it is carried out, there is great satisfaction. The percentage truly does not matter. Some prefer fathers’ engagement at 20%, 50%, or 70%. It’s different for every couple. But if the expectation is 50%, and the father does not fulfill this agreement, resentment and bitterness begin to erode the relationship through “relational death by a thousand cuts.”

Have the Values Talk Now

Truly, this should have happened a long time ago. Values should be discussed prior to cohabitation or engagement. What type of living arrangements?

  • Where?
  • Children?
  • How many?
  • Religion or not?
  • Type of school?
  • Discipline style?

All need to be discussed prior to engagement. But, if for some reason this hasn’t been covered, yes, now is a good time to get this all sorted out. Household negotiation can be a mitigating factor of divorce, or its biggest contributor.

Build Your Support Network/ Find Your Community:

For clients with depression, we discuss:

  1. Service
  2. Community

Among the benefits of serving others, beyond whatever assistance is provided to them, is the perspective gained when attention is directed away from our own struggles and toward others’ difficulties. Because no individual remains equally strong under all circumstances, community involves not only receiving help in moments of weakness but providing such help when the weakness of others presents itself. One person stumbles and is stabilized by another. Later, the reversal is almost inevitable. It truly does take a village. There’s no way around this. If you are one that doesn’t enjoy the company of people, this is an area which will require acquiescence. We were never meant to do life alone.

Protect Your Sleep

Among the consequences of inadequate sleep, particularly during care for an infant, are difficulties in memory, attention, and the ability to function effectively. Because sleep plays an important role in memory consolidation, its absence leaves the mind heavily burdened. The practical question you must ask is not whether you will lose sleep, as this is inevitable, but rather how such loss is distributed. When our baby woke, I changed the diaper and my wife handled feeding. Such a routine allowed both of us to obtain comparable amounts of sleep, rather than leaving one parent consistently deprived. The particular arrangement matters less than finding one that works.

Take Every Chance to Bond

This is an area I wish I could get back. Don’t jack this up! When you have a free moment, it should be with your children. This means putting the phone down. Many surveys are available where kids were asked if they could have their parents do one thing different, they stated their desire for their parents to put down devices and play with them. Don’t be that guy. I can promise you from firsthand experience, you will regret it to the point of dysfunction. I had to relearn how to refrain from hating myself over this. Although my daughters have assured me that my self-perceived failures were not as massive as I imagined, accepting this required learning that regret can instruct and does not have to become another form of self-punishment.

Give Yourself Grace

There are perfect parents, they just don’t have children yet. In reality, there are no perfect parents. And you won’t be the first. So relax. Settle in. I highly recommend the work of Dr. Laura Dimler, PhD in this area. She is likely the best at helping parents determine what is satisfactory and what it means to be a Good Enough Parent.

In one such writing, Dr. Dimler states:

Experience-expectant development refers to experiences the human brain evolved expecting across development:

  • language exposure
  • visual input
  • movement
  • caregiving
  • social interaction

The brain is biologically prepared for these experiences and relies on them to organize neural systems normally. Experience-dependent development is different.

These are experiences unique to the individual:

  • learning piano
  • reading
  • gymnastics
  • chess
  • speaking a particular language
  • playing soccer
  • coding

These experiences are not universally expected by the brain, but they help shape the brain over time through learning and repeated practice.

Provide what is expected, and you, too, can be a good enough parent. Relax. You got this!

Protect Time Together

Don’t. Skip. Date. Night. I don’t care how you do it, just make it happen. It doesn’t need to involve great expenses. Make some PB&Js, throw them in a basket, lay a blanket down at the park and have some eyeball to eyeball time, in hopes for eventual belly-button to belly-button time. I’ve had some couples decide that following an 8pm bedtime, 8-10pm is their time to connect while device-free. You’re not being selfish by protecting your time together, you’re consistently reigniting your relational fire to ensure your children get what’s best, rather than what’s left of you.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

Guzzo, K. B., & Hayford, S. R. (2012). Unintended fertility and the stability of coresidential relationships. Social science research, 41(5), 1138–1151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.002

Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2009). The pre-engagement cohabitation effect: a replication and extension of previous findings. Journal of family psychology : JFP : journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43), 23(1), 107–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014358

Rosenfeld, M. J., & Roesler, K. (2019). Cohabitation Experience and Cohabitation’s Association With Marital Dissolution. Journal of Marriage and Family, 81(1), 42; 42–58; 58. 10.1111/jomf.12530

Posted on

Undiagnosed

On the Tragedy of Labels

Recently, I had the honor of telling a young man that he had no mental health diagnosis.

Backstory

A new client comes to my office for court-ordered alcohol and drug counseling. We begin with the usual intake questions. As we move through the process, I’m doubting the validity of the claim that he has a substance problem. Upon further inquiry in subsequent sessions, this young man, indeed, does not have a substance problem. He has a stress problem. He showed zero signs of substance use disorder (SUD) but was very stressed about recent events.

This young man (let’s call him Jim) has had a run of recent troubles involving his ex-wife and their shared 5-year-old son. He’s been accused of many things that he maintains never happened, along with everyone that knows Jim, including his new wife. Regardless of where the truth appears in those situations, I’m here to help him with his “diagnoses.” Jim was told he had certain problems and that this was now who he is. He was virtually told to accept his new identity, his new label.

Jim told me a great deal of the stress he is under because he is trying to raise a family as the sole provider so his wife can simply raise the children at home, something both agreed is beneficial and desired. He tends to cope with alcohol, though he does not display any addictive behaviors, as confirmed by his wife.

As Jim and I continue to meet, we find areas in his childhood and early adulthood that have caused him the most trouble. Among them are his diagnoses of general anxiety disorder (GAD), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and major depressive disorder (MDD). How he escaped an ADHD diagnosis in this climate of psychiatric cocktail mixers leaves me baffled.

I began treating him as if he indeed had those diagnoses. The problem was, the more questions I asked, the less I saw symptoms consistent with such diagnoses. I went as far as to administer several screeners to help me determine the level of each diagnosis. The conclusion to which I arrived was that he did not have any of the diagnoses.

Unwanted Good News

Here’s the trick, this isn’t the first time I’ve delivered news that someone either

  • no longer has such diagnoses or
  • never had such diagnoses.

And was usually met with reluctance and disbelief.

A couple of years ago, I wrote about a client who was upset:

  • Her: I’m upset because my child isn’t being treated like everyone just because he has autism.
  • Me: How would you feel if he had no diagnosis at all?
  • Her: (quickly recanting her sentiment) Oh I know he has it.
  • Me: Why is it important that he has a diagnosis?
  • Her: It makes him special.
  • Me: To whom?
  • Her: I guess to me
  • Me: So the diagnosis isn’t about him, it’s about you?
  • Her: (speechless)

So I was prepared for whatever Jim was about to dish out as I said, “Jim, you have no current diagnosis.” To my slight surprise (I don’t get surprised anymore), he had a look of relief on his face. I called the expression out and asked why. He stated that he never wanted the label and over the last 10 years he had feared he would be stuck with this for his entire life. I explained to him what I did to arrive at such conclusions and how he did not even come close to meeting any of the diagnoses. I also admitted that I did not know him when he was diagnosed, so it may have been valid at the time (other than PTSD, he’s never possessed such symptoms. This was a misdiagnosis), but that it no longer appears applicable.

Presumptuous Diagnosing

Jim had been living in both:

  • Fear of being “stained goods” his entire life
  • while simultaneously trying to live up to the label he was given.

When I proposed the idea of removing the label altogether, he smiled. Big smile.

I won’t presume I know the circumstances surrounding this man’s trip to the head doctor. But it truly appears someone was eager to diagnose. As if when a new patient enters their office, they shift into

  • Cognitive bias- where they see symptoms they want to see to ensure diagnosis and ignore those which don’t line up with preconceived ideas, and
  • Motivational reasoning- where they are actively searching for such symptoms just in case they don’t easily present themselves.

Freedom

Whatever the state of affairs, this man had a restful sleep that night. I know because he sent me a text the next day to tell me so.

Don’t settle for a quick diagnosis. And even if you receive one, don’t run to medicine. At least not right away. I hope and pray we return to medicine and diagnosis as last resort rather than first solution. There’s nothing noble, beneficial, moral, or efficacious about slapping labels on individuals that will follow them the rest of their lives. If a diagnosis is necessary, this should be found, not assumed.

I’m grateful to have undiagnosed this young man. I look forward to many more.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

I Am Sowellian

The Resurgence of Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell

I came to learn of Thomas Sowell through Jordan Peterson. He kept mentioning this name and I became curious. As I began to look into Sowell, I found myself drawn to his philosophy. The interesting part is I have never been one for economics. But that’s just it, Sowell is much more than an economist. The more I looked into Sowell, the more I found a sense of resurgence in his ideas and celebrity. It caused me to ask the question: why the sudden resurgence of Thomas Sowell?

To answer this, I began asking around. Some answers I received:

  • They’re sick of the absurd
  • Because he’s a truth teller with no condescension
  • There’s a systemic ache for logical thought
  • Lost sheep looking for a shepherd
  • Common sense is making a comeback
  • Probably Charlie Kirk, he mentioned Sowell often

Who is Thomas Sowell?

As a child, he was raised in the Jim Crow south, namely North Carolina. When he was eight years old, his family moved to Harlem, New York City. It was there he found his love of books. He began to search for avenues of expression in a time that prohibited interracial collaboration. He made a series of mistakes, including dropping out of high school and getting in various forms of trouble.

He then heard of a very interesting philosophical idea that finally posed an alternative to what he could clearly see was not working. This idea was Marxism. Such philosophy felt like a fresh drink of water to Sowell. Sowell received his bachelor’s degree at Harvard University and his master’s degree from Columbia University. It is no wonder that Marxism was appealing to him.

Sowell then went to the University of Chicago to get his PhD in economics under Milton Friedman. Even after taking courses by Friedman, Sowell remained a Marxist. It was only when he got the opportunity to see the federal government up close that he shifted his stance away from Marxism to free market capitalism.

Sowell’s Turn From Marxism

The enlightenment came when he was tasked to investigate the natural disasters causing unemployment in Puerto Rico. He noticed that the employment reduction took place at precisely the same time they implemented a minimum wage law. When he presented this to his employers at the US Department of Labor, they immediately rejected this notion because much of their budget came from enforcing this minimum wage law. He quickly saw that the government prioritized their own self-interests over that of the poor people affected by such laws.

This led him directly out of Marxism and into the pursuit of Milton Friedman, among others. He began writing and became senior fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. It was here he presented hid positions on economics and philosophy. He wrote countless articles for newspaper publications.

A Career of Criticism

In the midst of this, he was scorned, mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized by the black leaders of his time for his position that when asked about the plight of the black family, black people were saying one thing, and the so-called self-appointed leaders were saying something entirely different. He pointed this discrepancy out and such leaders attempted to suppress his voice as often as possible, quiet vigorously. Though he will never say this, it burned him. It extinguished his desire to affect the nation as a whole. He was quite satisfied to sit in the background, write books and cultivate his love of photography. Thus the reason he never became a household name quite like that of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

He, along with Walter Williams, began writing from their perspective, representing a small but growing faction of people who felt represented by these two men. It was once said that Sowell and Williams could not get onto the same airplane for fear that it would go down carrying the entire black conservative movement with it.

Reasons for Resurgence

Some have speculated that Sowell had a knack for delivering answers to questions in succinct ways that most anyone could understand. This made for YouTube gold. There is also a notion that the current national rebellion taking place plays into Sowell’s philosophy to distrust the elite, the Anointed, in favor of free thinking average workers who both benefit and suffer cost from decisions made on their behalf. Sowell routinely discredited those who believed they had all the answers, suggesting that this is impossible. Such rhetoric stemmed from his reading of Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek.

My sense is that his message of following the facts and letting that determine the perspective is currently foreign to many up-and-coming thinkers. To many young people who have been told they can identify with a microwave today if they want to and realizing this makes no real sense, someone like Sowell sounds like a huge breath of fresh air in common sense, something largely lacking in universities today.

Much like I said in a previous article, this new generation has been told lies based on a feeling of the moment, rather than a truth to be lived among the masses for eternity. They have been told only their feelings matter, and if they feel it, it must be right. They have heard the noise and it didn’t make sense.

Along comes Sowell and says:

This makes sense. To them and to me.

Personally, I’m grateful for the uprising of Thomas Sowell fans. Due to another Substacker, I now refer to myself as Sowellian. I strongly encourage a deep dive into the man’s work.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Capitalism Didn’t Create Human Nature

When Ideology Searches For Evidence

I stumbled on an article that I won’t link because I don’t want him digitally doxed. But the summation of his piece was that couples’ issues and the rise of Mankeeping as a burden is because of capitalism’s insistence on very different definitions of normal workloads for male and female.

Here we are again, telling the same, tired story. If you’re exhausted reading about it, imagine being the one who feels the need to write about it. Oh well, here I am writing anyway. There still exists individuals who insist on blame-shifting and placing total causation on one entity for the that plague men, as if that one aspect of male plight will solve all social ills. News flash, there is no single solution, because there is no single problem. The problem varies, as do the solutions.

Excerpts

“I think the biggest factor behind Mankeeping is capitalism’s gendered division of labor. That’s where our so-called traditional ideas about what’s natural about men and women come from.”

So-called? So, thousands of years of evolutionary psychology means nothing? Studies on gender preferences being biological mean nothing?

Let’s take a look at such meaninglessness:

  • It has been established that the greater the economic development, the greater the gender differences in preferences (Falk & Hermle, 2018).
  • Among those differences, it has been shown that as a generalization, more males tend to choose things-oriented careers while most females tend to choose people-oriented careers (Su et al., 2009).
  • Yet another study, years later, turned up similar results. When looking at male and female apprentices, females had natural inclinations to occupations oriented towards people, where males had natural inclinations to occupations towards things (Kuhn & Wolter, 2022).
  • When looking at something more specific, like application rates and hiring rates in STEM fields, one group found that the more gender-equal the country, the greater the difference in gender representation in STEM fields, irrespective of similar achievement rates and ability among males and females (Stoet & Geary, 2018).
  • Yet another group noticed that when looking at all of this, it should now be expected that vast majority of psychological sex differences should either remain unchanged or grow more pronounced with improvements in living conditions, like gender quality, education, and economic flourishing (Herlitz et al., 2025).

Biology determines much of what we like, do, and pursue. But don’t let facts get in the way of a good heart-string story.

Another Excerpt:

“Women were told that they’re naturally caring, relational, soft, and feminine. Men were told that we’re naturally stoic, tough, action-oriented, competitive, and masculine. These ideas were aimed at putting women in their place: in the home.”

I’m struggling to see the connection between stating biological fact and an attempt at control. But let’s review the data:

  • In one meta-analysis, Women scored higher in every category related to caring, tenderness, trust, nurturing, and empathy-related traits (Feingold, 1994), as well as compassion and openness in the Big Five personality traits (Weisberg et al., 2011).
  • In the previously mentioned study, they found women more relational (Su et al., 2009).
  • One study found women significantly less aggressive, supporting the idea that they are softer than males, on average (Archer, 2004).
  • Lastly, women showed more feminine traits across time and culture (Costa et al., 2001).
  • In each of these studies, they found the idea of men being naturally stoic, tough, action-oriented, competitive, and masculine true.

Maybe, just maybe, this is why women were told this. Because it is verifiably, biologically and psychologically true.

He Turns to Marx

Where it seemed to take a comical turn was when the writer was criticized for tying capitalism to relational strain. He then said that he uses Marx’s original definition of capitalism and then adds a modern Marxist Feminist’s assessment to complete his formulation.

I… I don’t even know what to say. Like… speechless. Ok, maybe not totally.

The argument isn’t rational, coherent, linear in any way. His ideas don’t even connect to one another. The closest his argument came to some form of actual reality was the unfounded fear porn of “returning to gender norms.” But even then, evolutionary psychology debunks that along with half of his article. I’ve still yet to encounter a man who wishes to return to the norms of yesteryear that place men psychologically and physically abusing women.

When I see a great writer drink ideological Kool-Aid without attempting to do his own research, it doesn’t anger me. It saddens me. This writer has talent.

But he has been told that if he feels it, it’s true. I could give 25 examples in 15 seconds that would completely debunk that notion.

Anti-capitalists fail to recognize that they’re enjoying the right to be misinformed with great confidence because some capitalist created that possibility. No socialist did it. A socialist would have already been tyrannized by his own promises. The very system he would have been supporting would have ensured he, along with everyone else under the systemic corruptive power machine were equal— equally poor and miserable.

But here, a very talented writer is almost babbling. The argument is so incoherent. I wanted to get excited about a new or different viewpoint. Instead, I was left with the fairy tale style utopian delusion that permeates the feeling > fact crowd.

I’m sorry to burst bubbles, but no economic system, nor a vile, malevolent way of viewing successful people are to blame for couple’s issues. The couple is.

We’ll get a lot further talking about a lack of third spaces than shifting blame to an inanimate economic structure. More on that in a later post. For now…

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

Archer, J. (2004). Sex Differences in Aggression in Real-World Settings: A Meta-Analytic Review. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 291-322.

Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(2), 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322

Falk, A., & Hermle, J. (2018). Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science, 362(6412), eaas9899. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aas9899

Feingold A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 116(3), 429–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429

Herlitz, A., Hönig, I., Hedebrant, K., & Asperholm, M. (2025). A systematic review and new analyses of the gender-equality paradox. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 20(3), 503–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231202685

Kuhn, A., & Wolter, S. C. (2022). Things versus people: Gender differences in vocational interests and in occupational preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 203(203), 210–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2022.09.003

Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719

Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and Things, Women and People. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 859–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017364

Weisberg, Y. J., Deyoung, C. G., & Hirsh, J. B. (2011). Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five. Frontiers in psychology, 2, 178. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178

Posted on

What Identity is Not

Knowing What It Is Not Helps Discover What It Is

I recently wrote about what forgiveness is not. We talk a lot about identity. It is helpful to know what identity is not so we can discover what identity is. We often confuse many aspects of our lives with identity, when in reality, they’re not identity at all.

Identity Is Not Your Vocation

Vocation is an assignment, not an identity. A job can change overnight. Careers rise and fall. A title may impress people for a season, but titles are temporary. If your sense of self is rooted in what you do, then failure, retirement, unemployment, or success itself can destabilize you. Many people lose themselves because they built their identity around productivity rather than personhood. Work matters, but work is a tool, not the foundation of the self. Your vocation is meant to express something deeper already established within you. It serves your identity, not create it. You are not a teacher, writer, pastor, mechanic, or executive first. Those are functions.

Vocation is what you do, not who you are.

Identity is Not Your Belief System

Beliefs are important, but beliefs are still capable of change. Rigidity of beliefs hinder. Human beings grow through correction, learning, suffering, and experience. It’s the stretching that produces positive change. Such malleability fluctuates. A person may hold one worldview at 20 years old and another at age 40. If identity is fused completely to a belief system, then every challenge to those beliefs feels like a threat to agency itself. That elicits a defensive and fearful reaction coupled with intellectual rigidity. Proper growth requires the ability to change without losing yourself. Truth should refine us, not destroy us. A mature person allows better information to reshape flawed understanding while remaining grounded in something deeper than opinion. Identity is deeper than opinion, beliefs are not. Beliefs should serve identity, not become identity. Your beliefs can evolve while your core self remains steady, rooted, stable, and anchored beyond shifting ideas and perspectives.

Beliefs are what you hold, not who you are.

Your Identity is Not Who You Marry

Marriage is sacred and meaningful, but it is still a relationship between two changing human beings. People grow, drift, mature, fail, and sometimes leave. Death itself inevitably culminates in separation of marriage. If your identity depends entirely upon another person remaining beside you, then your foundation is fragile. Many people lose themselves inside relationships because they confuse companionship with identity. A spouse is meant to walk with you, not define your existence. Marriage can enrich life, strengthen character, and deepen love, but it cannot bear the full scope of your identity. Your value existed before marriage and remains after loss.

A spouse helps you navigate, they’re not who you are.

Your Identity is Not Being a Parent

Parenthood is one of the most meaningful responsibilities a person can experience, but yet again, a role rather than identity. Children grow older, move away, develop independence, and eventually build lives of their own. Genesis 2:24 discusses leaving one’s mother and father to join to a spouse. They will leave eventually. Some parents lose themselves (and their marriage) because their entire sense of worth becomes attached to their children’s success, affection, or need for them. When that season changes, they feel empty and disoriented. Parenting should flow from identity, not replace it. A healthy parent guides, nurtures, disciplines, and loves from a stable center rather than using children to create personal meaning. Your existence does not begin with your children, nor does it end when they leave home.

Parenting is what you do, not who you are.

Your Identity is Not Your Political Affiliation

Political systems change constantly. Parties evolve, ideologies shift, leaders disappoint, and cultural movements rise and fall. When identity becomes fused with politics, disagreement begins to feel personal and opposing views feel like attacks on internal agency. This produces hostility, tribalism, pride, and even fear. A political affiliation may reflect values or priorities, but it cannot define the eternal nature of a person. Human beings are deeper than voting patterns or ideological categories. If your identity rests in politics, then every election becomes an emotional crisis and every shift in culture threatens stability. Politics should remain a tool for engaging society rather than the foundation of self.

Politics is a malleable mechanism for interacting with broader society, not who you are.

Your Identity Comprises Your Past, Present, and Future Self

True identity must remain consistent across time. If something can disappear, change, or be taken away, then it cannot be the deepest definition of who you are. Identity is the thread connecting your past, present, and future self into one continuous reality. Careers change, beliefs mature, relationships shift, and societal expectations and affiliations evolve, but identity remains stable beneath each movement. This understanding creates humility and flexibility because the ego no longer depends on always being correct. New information does not threaten existence, it simply refines understanding. A secure identity allows growth without collapse. We can admit error, abandon false ideas, and become wiser versions of ourselves because our core self is not built upon temporary external realities that constantly shift and change.

My Identity

This is not aimed to proselytize, only to share my sense of identity. My identity is that I am a child of God the Father. While you may ascertain this as a belief, a belief about ultimate reality is different from ideological attachment because it concerns ontology rather than opinion. I’m not arguing against convictions. I’m arguing against grounding the self in temporary or contingent things that possess the capacity to remove the ground from under us. Therefore, my identity rests in an immovable and unchangeable target.

This is the foundation beneath every other part of my life. I cannot be the ultimate reality in my life. I must gaze, with focus, on the ineffable telos. It’s in that upward aim that I can relinquish the need for being perfect, yet aim for such perfection, given that it only makes my life better. Because of such aim, as life flows, my identity remains untouched. It existed in my past, stands firm in my present, and extends into my future.

Consequently, I do not need temporary things to define me. Anything I do serves the purpose of being a child of the living God. My marriage serves that purpose. My children, convictions, relationships, and responsibilities all flow from that singular reality. This identity cannot be threatened by change because it is rooted beyond circumstance. Everything else in life is secondary and exists to support that eternal truth.

This is how we avoid identity crises. By rooting them in an eternal, unmoved, mover.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

A Man Without Guardrails

What the Miller’s Story Teaches Us About Accountability

John-Paul Miller and Mica Miller

Spoiler alert, details found in the documentary will be given here. If you’d rather watch the documentary, then read this, save this article for later.

Another pastor is under fire, but this time it’s worse than most. John-Paul Miller, pastor of Solid Rock Church in Myrtle Beach at the time, has been accused of some horrific things, that, by all accounts, likely happened.

Backstory

A 13-year-old girl, Mica, begins attending Solid Rock with her family. She continues in this church and becomes embedded into the culture there. Eventually, meets a young man, gets married at 18, and Pastor John-Paul marries them.

Mica gets on staff and some time after getting on staff begin having an affair with pastor PJ. PJ’s wife finds incriminating texts, pastor John-Paul confesses, and they divorce. Mica leaves her husband. Eventually, Mica and John-Paul begin an official relationship and ultimately get married.

Once married, pastor John-Paul began urging Mica to get a breast augmentation to be “as pretty as the other girls.” Once out of surgery, Mica had an adverse reaction to the anesthesia. She was hallucinating and speaking in ways no one could understand. She was eventually placed on medication and diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

Where the Story Changes

Once in this condition, John-Paul began capitalizing on her weak mental state. His sexual desires had grown bizarre and he needed Mica to fulfill such fantasies. This involved homeless men and women to be included in their sexual escapades.

When Mica came to the realization this wasn’t healthy and she was being abused, she made an attempt to leave. This is where the stalking began. Slashed tires. More than 50 texts and calls in a day. She changes her number, he manages to find that number, and the stalking continued.

In the midst of this, an elder finds out that he is having multiple affairs with women from all over the country, including a woman in his congregation. She brings it to the rest of the elders and they do nothing. This is where the story turns for the worst.

He pushes her so aggressively, through his stalking, that she gets to a point where she believes the only way away from him is to end her own life. There is speculation that she didn’t pull the trigger. All evidence points to one person being there. I, personally, believe that she ended her own life as an escape from his relentless torment. John-Paul goes on to marry the woman he was already having an affair with.

John-Paul denies all of these allegations. But the sources are many different people that do not all know each other. It’s like someone once said to me, “If you say you don’t have bad breath, but 10 people all say you have bad breath, you probably have bad breath!”

Reactions

The copy and paste reaction to this was something along the lines of, “Of course, another pastor cheating and hurting!” And while this is true, it’s not because he’s a pastor, it’s because he’s a spoiled, sick, brat that never had consequences in his life carrying into his career as a pastor with no accountability to his elders.

It raises questions for me.

  1. Why have elders if you’re not going to be accountable to them?
  2. Why is the infraction almost always sexual in nature?
  3. Exactly what does this say about the pastoring profession?

Elders

Elders in the church are traditionally installed to hold the pastor accountable. In some congregations they are the deciding factor in the pastor’s tenure, and at times, his salary. Other congregations place elders as spiritual leadership to oversee, but not to have final decision-making authority. In every church, they are looked to as spiritual leaders.

Sexual Healing

The fact that most sins committed by pastors are sexual in nature, I believe, has multiple elements. Often, in today’s era, if the pastor is successful, he is probably attractive. He’s visually presentable and easy to focus on during lengthy messages. Therefore, he gets “offers” from “options” regularly.

Also, according to the book of James, leaders in the church are to be held to a higher standard than the general population. This standard is often set so high by the general population that no one can reasonably meet such standards. Therefore, they attempt to exercise impulsive desires in secret, which allows the cultivation and excessiveness of such desires to burn out of control without guardrails in place to preserve proper alignment with the position they hold as pastor. Fire without a border will destroy everything in its path. A man without accountability will hurt everyone they encounter.

Representation of Pastors

The Bible teaches that leaders (pastors, elders, deacons) are to be a “man of one wife.” The Bible teaches us to lay your life down for her. To serve her. To treat her with the same kindness taught to us by Jesus. It teaches us to be a man of respect. To get your house in order prior to offering wisdom to someone else’s house.

Therefore, this man does not represent what it means to be a pastor, in the truest sense.

  • He represents a man that did not fully understand consequences.
  • He represents men who haven’t learned the art of delayed gratification.
  • He represents men who haven’t learned how to control impulses.

The Apostle Paul said, “I do what don’t want to do, and yet I don’t do what I want to do.” He was illuminating the ongoing struggle with our senses.

If A=B and B=C, then A=C. The reality is that pastors are people. People are messy. Therefore, pastors are messy. There are no perfect pastors. The only perfect person to ever live isn’t pastoring any church. And given that pastors are people, boundaries must be in place to correct and instruct pastors who have stepped out of the biblical qualifications of a pastor. Any human is prone to power, greed, and tyranny, if given the opportunity. Therefore, we must all agree to guardrails and accountability.

It wasn’t supposed to be like this. And some will never attend church again because of this little cowardice manlet. There are roughly over 400,000 pastors in America. This man does not represent most pastors. This is a very rare case or else a Netflix documentary would not be needed.

My encouragement here is to not let this fool dissuade you from exploring church or continuing to attend. He doesn’t represent God or anything like God.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Two Truths at Once

Justice and Mental Illness

Lindsay Clancy waits for Judge Sullivan to call a prospective jury member into court. Day three of jury selection in the triple murder trial of Lindsay Clancy who is accused of strangling her three young children in 2024 at their Duxbury, Mass, home. He case is being tried in Plymouth Superior Court. Wednesday, July 22, 2026 Pool Photo Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger

Everyone has their own take here. I am a man. So, somehow, my take is irrelevant. But I’m also a therapist. So, maybe, just maybe, I’m allowed to speak. The beauty is, I’m going to anyway.

Sympathy

Before I get into anything else, I need to state areas where I totally agree with sympathizers of Lindsey Clancy. She has suffered greatly. She had severe postpartum psychosis. She asked for help and what she received was apparently lacking, according to her supporters. Should we bring attention to the problem of postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis? Absolutely. Do I feel bad for her in this way? Yes. I do.

It is quite plausible that Lindsey knew she was going to commit suicide and wanted to be with her kids in the afterlife. It is possible in her mind, she was doing the noble thing, the merciful thing, in not making her children go through life without her. She has now lost her children and her husband. Where I differ from the protesters is I also hope she’s lost her freedom. At least for now.

Thanks for reading Tidbits of Audacity! Subscribe for free to receive new posts every Tuesday.

Others to Show Sympathy For

If she should not go to prison for murder, then the following people need to be let out as well:

  • Esteban Santiago – killed 5. Serving 5 consecutive life sentences, plus 120 years. Was diagnosed with Schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.
  • Travis Reinking – Killed 4. Serving 4 consecutive life sentences without parole. Was diagnosed with Schizophrenia.
  • Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa – Killed 10. Jury reject insanity defense. Serving 10 life sentences. Was diagnosed with Schizophrenia.
  • Ethan Crumbley – Killed 4. Serving life without parole. Was diagnosed with MDD with severe psychosis.
  • Chad Doerman – Killed his 3 children saying, “God told me to”, similar to what Lindsey Clancy said while she was killing her children. Serving 3 consecutive life sentences, plus 16 years. Suffered from psychosis.
  • Travis Decker – Killed his 3 children. BPD and PTSD. Travis Decker is dead, but he needs to be exonerated and mentioned as mentally ill, not that of a killer, apparently.

There’s one problem that stands out, none of them are women. So no one cares. They were all mentally ill. They all needed help they did not receive. But they were cursed with being male. There’s not a chance Lindsey’s supporters are hoping these men get the help they deserve.

Note: Of the total federal health research budget in the US, 20% goes to sex specific research. Of that 20%, 15% go to females and 5% to males. This is in spite of the fact that males are more likely to die on the job, will live approximately 6-8 years shorter lives than females, more likely to die of the big four (cancer, diabetes, heart disease, stroke), and 4 times more likely to die by suicide than a female. No one cares.

The Precedent

Some ask, “How could you sympathize with a murderer?” Easy, she wasn’t in her right mind. I agree that she needed help. I agree that she wasn’t herself and likely had no idea what she was doing. I agree she suffered and very likely did not receive adequate help. I genuinely feel bad for Lindsey. But not bad enough to let her live among the rest of the population. If you don’t put her in prison, you send a real message to all the Cluster-B gals out there soaking up the sun, basking in the child-free life, as if it is some moral high ground they landed on, that they, too, can just free themselves of the problems that children pose by killing them and claiming insanity. This falls into the conversation I’ve had about emotional empathy and its dangers (READ HERE).

Lindsey Clancy has something in common with Covid. They both showed us who we really are. We really get to see the spotlighting effect of unbridled emotional empathy, just like we got to see ourselves give permission to be tyrannized by the federal government over Covid.

The Real Tragedy

At the end of the day, I both a) understand that Lindsey may not have gotten the help she needed and b) believe she should spend the remaining years of her life away from the public. Two things can be true at once. This, to me, all comes down to the lives of the children who will never graduate high school, get a job, or have kids of their own, because of Lindsey Clancy.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger