CONGRATULATIONS, TEAM USA !!!!!

CONGRATULATIONS, TEAM USA !!!!

GREAT LINK from USATODAY sports! Video included

https://www.usatoday.com/videos/sports/olympics/2-018/02/12/olympians-prepare-infamous-curve-9/110306236/

The luge seems to be a terrifying adrenaline rush! 

The article about Emily Sweeney's crash puts her at about 60-65 mph after it happened!  Normal speed for the luge is around 85-90 mph.  Just try to imagine hurtling down a narrow, curved hill of ice with many hairpin loops and curves on a little "sled" faster than most cars! Seeing these races is mind-blowing and leaves one shaking their head!  And with two people on one "sled", the one on the bottom likely can't see much at all! I mean, not that one could digest much at that speed anyway!

I heard from the announcers that as one starts weaving back and forth terrifyingly, one thing that stacks up points is how high off the course (!) the athlete clears.  Oh! I almost forgot - after the athlete clears terra firma, the number of in-air revolutions completed flawlessly ˆcount". If you check out some video, you will see this phenomenon.  And then, to more appreciate the sport, look at the aerial shots of this course.  Stupefying!

I have always had wondered about these athletes.  This Olympics has spurred me on to research this sport, especially the psychology of the kids that venture so deeply into this sport!

The 2018 Winter Olympics have seen some incredible highs for U.S. athletes (see Chloe Kim’s gold medal halfpipe, Mirai Nagasu’s historic triple axel, and Adam Rippon’s gorgeous Coldplay routine), but American Emily Sweeney’s terrifying luge crash on her final run today gave her teammates, family, and fans a scare. Sweeney was rounding the infamously difficult Curve 9 on the track when she began to speed back and forth out of control—at about 60 miles per hour. She fell off of her sled before rolling to a stop, as medical personnel rushed to her and the crowd held its breath.

https://twitter.com/StevenAlbritton/status/963424179033866240

Thankfully, Sweeney, who is 24 and a member of the National Guard, walked away from the accident on her own and was only “banged up,” according to an on-site doctor. Upon exiting the course, she received a standing ovation from the other lugers and was even able to say, “I’m fine,” which, if you weren’t crying already, certainly sealed the deal.

Thank you, President Obama!!!

Honor and Effort: What President Obama Achieved in Eight Years

Mute

Current Time0:03

/

Duration Time0:15

Loaded: 0%

Progress: 0%

By DAVID VON DREHLE

December 22, 2016

Excerpted from TIME’s “Barack Obama: Eight Years,” a definitive, one-of-kind 96-page, fully illustrated commemorative edition. Available at retailers and at Amazon.com.

Barack Obama entered the White House as something new in American history. He wasn’t chosen on the basis of experience, nor for his role as leader of a party or a movement. He had not been a governor or a general or a veteran legislator. He did not become president by the accident of his predecessor’s death in office.

Obama was elected purely for himself—his message, his persona and what he symbolized. In 48 brief months, he rose from the obscurity of a state legislature to become the first Democrat in more than three decades to win more than half of the popular vote. Messenger and message were inseparable; he offered himself as Exhibit A in the case for hope and change. Obama was a mirrorin which millions of people saw their cherished ideals reflected: tolerance, cooperation, equality, justice.

After two bruising and tumultuous terms in office—a period of economic crisis and geopolitical upheaval—it’s difficult to recall how the young candidate riveted the world simply by being Obama. As a mere nominee, not yet elected, he drew an estimated crowd of 200,000 people—in Germany. He filled a football stadium for his acceptance speech, a city park for his victory speech and, of course, much of the National Mall for his first inauguration. In October 2009, the Nobel Prize committee awarded him its most prestigious honor, the Peace Prize, before he’d had time to accomplish much at all. “Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future” the prize citation declared. A Nobel Peace Prize just for being Obama.

In a sense, there was nowhere to go but down. The most exalted position in American life has a way of humbling its occupants. Obama leaves office more human than he entered it, a mere mortal with a track record and the gray hair to show for it. And that track record contains much more than his enemies—or even many of his friends—have been ready to acknowledge.

Taking office in the midst of an economic meltdown, Obama seized on the massive federal response to make record investments in education initiatives, environmental research, industrial modernization and, most famously, health-care reform. He poured money into basic medical and scientific research and super-charged the U.S. alternative-energy sector. His high-stakes reorientation of American foreign policy worries many experts, and the results might not be fully understood for years. But the effort cannot be called small.

Indeed, Obama’s record is bigger and more substantial than even he allowed himself to admit through much of his time in office. A candidate known for his stirring speeches struggled, as president, to sell the public on what he was doing and why he was doing it.

Journalist Michael Grunwald has documented the scope of one of Obama’s ambitious achievements: the stimulus package known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In constant dollars, the ARRA was “more than 50 percent bigger than the entire New Deal, twice as big as the Louisiana Purchase and Marshall Plans combined,” Grunwald wrote in his 2012 book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It was “the biggest … education reform bill since the Great Society,” he continued. The “biggest foray into industrial policy since FDR, biggest expansion of antipoverty initiatives since Lyndon Johnson, biggest middle-class tax cut since Ronald Reagan, biggest infusion of research money ever.” And that was just one of several massive Obama undertakings. He stormed into the banking, automotive and health-care industries, winning changes that had been mulled, debated and dithered over for decades.

Yet the president was often downbeat—seemingly discouraged-about the impact he was having. He complained loudly and often of the obstructions put in his path by his Republican opponents. “The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government,” Obama said after the GOP captured the House of Representatives in 2010. Voters could be forgiven if they concluded that Obama must not be getting much done.

It was as if Obama had fallen under his own spell and began measuring himself not by real wins in the political trenches but by the ephemeral goals of his soaring speeches. “This is our moment,” Obama had said on the night he won the election. “This is our time to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth that, out of many, we are one.” At points in his presidency, Obama couldn’t hide his disappointment that his every dream had not come true.

Through eight years in office, Barack Obama used all the tools in a president’s kit to make significant changes: laws, rules, executive orders and the bully pulpit. Yet he couldn’t change the nature of politics itself. The irony of Obama’s presidency is that he achieved more than most presidents—yet millions of Americans grew convinced during his administration that Washington can’t get anything done.

The world economy was plunging like a runaway bobsled as Obama took the oath of office in January 2009 before one of the largest gatherings in the history of the nation’s capital.

After a steep run-up in housing prices in the U.S. and elsewhere, the bursting bubble sent millions of homes into foreclosure. This mortgage crisis in turn blazed through the global banking system, and only an extraordinary intervention by lame-duck president George W. Bush prevented a complete financial collapse.

Obama inherited the wreckage of what proved to be the worst U.S. recession since the 1930s. The economy contracted by more than 8%. Unemployment doubled, from 5% to 10%—a net loss of some 8 million jobs. Average housing prices dropped by 30%. The cumulative wealth of Americans fell by nearly a quarter: a loss on paper of some $15 trillion. As the Great Recession echoed around the world, Europe’s economy went into reverse. Nations from Greece to Iceland flirted with default on their sovereign debts, while emerging markets from Rio to New Delhi and Moscow to Beijing began to sputter and stall.

Having campaigned on “the audacity of hope” Obama was thrust into a contagion of fear. Fear of lending froze capital markets; fear of investment idled assembly lines and sent stock exchanges tumbling. And fear that something even worse might lie ahead caused consumers to hunker down and stop spending.

Obama’s new administration went immediately to work on the largest economic-stimulus bill ever enacted by Congress-about $8oo billion. Much of the money went to tax relief, unemployment insurance and other direct infusions of cash into the pockets of Americans who would, in tum, the administration hoped, spend or invest it. But the new president also seized the chance to pump billions into priorities that would normally struggle to receive much smaller sums. The stimulus bill was packed with record spending on renewable energy, a modern electrical grid, computerization of health-care records, high-speed rail, and new bridges and roads. Obama also directed billions to basic scientific research, hoping to sow seeds of discovery that would yield the next wave of American innovation.

“From the National Institutes of Health to the National Science Foundation, this recovery act represents the biggest increase in basic research funding in the long history of America’s noble endeavor to better understand our world,” Obama told an audience in Denver less than a month after taking the oath.” And just as President Kennedy sparked an explosion of innovation when he set America’s sights on the moon, I hope this investment will ignite our imagination once more, spurring new discoveries and breakthroughs in science, in medicine, in energy, to make our economy stronger and our nation more secure and our planet safer for our children.”

The extent of the economic emergency allowed Obama to fulfill a catalog of campaign promises in the first dizzy weeks of his administration—that is, to make good on pledges he made to invest. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the recovery act boosted growth in the U.S. by 1% to 4% in 2010, with smaller impacts in subsequent years. That’s not bad by historical standards, but Obama was reluctant to boast; it was not the rapid repair that he had envisioned, and it was hardly enough to cure such a deep recession.

So it was that the unprecedented bill drew harsh criticism from both ends of the political spectrum: conservatives called it a wasteful “porkulus” while liberals complained that it was too small to be effective. Though there has been a clear positive influence, Obama’s advisers were not going to brag about the bill while millions of Americans were out of work—and besides, there wasn’t much time for bragging, because the president was rushing ahead into other crises.

The auto industry was facing disaster. At the onset of the crisis in October 2007, sales of cars and light trucks had been humming at about 16 million per year. But over the end stretch of the Bush administration, that production plummeted. By the end of February 2009, with Obama fewer than so days into the job, that number was down to 9 million, a year-over-year drop of more than40%. Two of the Big Three U.S. automakers—General Motors and Chrysler—teetered on the brink of bankruptcy, with Ford at risk of being dragged down with them. The entire auto supply chain, with millions of workers at countless companies across the country, was at risk.

Obama moved forcefully to shore up the industry. But rather than dole out tax dollars while asking little in return, he wielded the bailout funds to force rapid streamlining and reforms, such as having fewer dealerships and more flexible pay scales. Critics, appalled at what they felt was federal overreach, gave GM a new name: “Government Motors.”

Government is not an economics seminar, however—it’s the real world. Obama could see all the jobs at stake, and he pictured the families and communities behind those jobs. Initial estimates of the bailout price tag exceeded $8o billion, but as the bank industry recovered, taxpayers recovered all of the money Obama pumped into it and almost all of what went to Detroit. By 2015, American car and truck makers were banking record profits on booming sales—at little cost to taxpayers.

During those panicked early months, Obama was also pressing ahead with the unpopular bailout of the banking industry that began under President Bush. By most measures, it worked: instead of a cascade of bank failures, Americans ended up with a stronger financial system, and the public got its money back. All the tax dollars devoted to the bank rescue wound up being repaid.

But that didn’t matter much to the public.

Millions of Americans came to the conclusion that reckless Wall Streeters caused the financial crisis—and skated past the consequences thanks to political connections. Beginning with the Tea Party movement of 2010, populist candidates on both the right and the left fed on this widespread anger. Republican Donald Trump spoke ominously of a “rigged” system. In Obama’s own party, Sen. Bernie Sanders stirred up a fire from the embers of resentment. Though Obama spent the rest of his presidency tightening banking regulations, he never managed to shake off these critics.

And then there is “Obamacare:” The president’s hugely ambitious, yet troubled, health-care reform. Rammed through Congress without a single Republican vote, the Afford­able Care Act is Obama’s attempt to deliver on a promise that Democrats have made for generations: medical insurance for all. At the same time, the law is an unprecedented effort to break the fever of runaway medical costs.

The future of Obamacare is uncertain, and President-elect Donald Trump has expressed disdain for the act. The private-insurance exchanges at the heart of the plan appear to be at risk. Although millions of Americans have gained coverage, too many of those are among the chronically ill, and too few are young and healthy. The result: more claims and less revenue than projected, leading to higher premiums. Fears of a so-called death spiral, in which rising premiums drive off all but the sickest customers, have some Democrats once again calling for a government takeover, something opponents label “socialized medicine.”

But while that old argument heats up again, other provisions of Obamacare are spurring a revolution. Through a combination of carrots and sticks, the law has raised the proportion of doctors and hospitals using electronic medical records from about 1 in 5 to more than 4 in 5. Though this transition can be rocky, experts continue to believe that computerized records will work data-driven miracles, greatly reducing medical errors, cutting useless or redundant treatments, and steering health-care providers to the best approaches.

In other words, Obamacare is a work in progress. And this points to something important about the presidency: it always has the ring of unfinished business. No president, whether having served for many years or a partial term, has stepped away with his work complete, nor without some baggage left behind in the Oval Office. The presidency is a relay race with no known finish line, and America’s challenges and opportunities persist through each passing of the baton. Questions and issues—like the problem of afford­ able health care—will continue to evolve long after Obama’s tenure is done.

Still, Obama carried the baton a great distance, and he leaves America in a different place than he found it. Here are a few more of the many examples:

Private lenders no longer dominate the college-student-loan business. By making loans directly, rather than providing guarantees for private loans, government has transferred billions of dollars that used to pay lenders into new loans at cheaper rates.

Obama doubled the number of female justices in Supreme Court history, from two to four, and appointed the first justice of Hispanic heritage, Sonia Sotomayor.

Same-sex couples are free to wed, in part because Obama’s Department of Justice refused to support the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. Gays serve openly in the military because Obama ended “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Women can choose to qualify for combat roles.

Greenhouse-gas emissions are down some 12% in the U.S., and the White House projects even steeper drops over the next decade, thanks to massive investments in more efficient appliances, buildings, cars, trucks and power lines. America is generating more energy from renewable sources and less from coal. Meanwhile, Obama has deflected efforts from inside his own party to halt the fracking revolution—a technological win-win that has cut carbon dioxide emissions while freeing the U.S. from dependence on foreign oil.

When it comes to foreign policy, only time will reveal whether the baton Obama passes is stuffed with TNT. His opening to Cuba seemed overdue, given the collapse of Castroism in the shattered economies of Havana and Caracas. His cautious approach to China kept relations with the rising power steady even as Beijing struggled with economic growing pains. In fact, by some measures Obama leaves the U.S. in a stronger position in Asia and the Pacific than it was the day he took office.

But what about the Middle East? Obama delivered on his promise to get American troops out of lraq, and he greatly limited U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. But history is likely to judge him by the outcome of his high-stakes bet on Iran. A best-case scenario: five or 10 or 20 years from now, pragmatic leaders will have come to power from Tehran to Ankara, from Cairo to Riyadh, tempering the Sunni-Shia conflict in favor of regional peace. Obama leans this way because he is a big believer in pragmatism-maybe too big. Because the worst-case scenario is a regional conflagration in which the Shia mullahs of Iran and the Sunni sheiks of Saudi Arabia pile a nuclear-arms race atop their centuries-old religious rivalry.

Eight years after Obama took office with the economy crashing around his ears, people are still arguing about his accomplishments. What matters more: the stubbornly low growth that makes this the slowest recovery on record, or the longest string of consecutive job gains in recorded history? The U.S. economy is nearly $1trillion bigger today than it was before the crisis, and most other developed countries have fared worse.

Such debates are good. They are the stuff of history and the currency of a free society, and Obama’s impact will be discussed and reexamined for years.

Yet there is something that seems unassailable, and it goes a long way toward explaining the steady rise in the president’s approval ratings as Americans contemplate his last day at the helm. Despite his inexperience, Barack Obama gave a full measure of scandal-free service, a rarity among modern presidents. And he never lost hope, even when others wavered. There is no tougher job—an endless stream of difficult decisions, all guaranteed to stir fierce criticism. Obama did it with dignity and conscience. As was true at the beginning, it remains true at the end: who Obama was mattered at least as much as what he did. And start to finish, he was an honorable man.

"Parental Alienation Syndrome - The Parent/Child Disconnect"

Parental Alienation Syndrome — The Parent/Child Disconnect By Amy J. L. Baker, PhD Social Work Today Vol. 8 No. 6 P. 26 Divorce and separation can breed bad blood between parents and children when one partner uses the children to target the other partner. Among the many areas of concern for social workers working with divorced or separated couples with children are two related problems: parental alienation, or the efforts on the part of one parent to turn a child against the other parent, and parental alienation syndrome, or a child’s unwarranted rejection of one parent in response to the attitudes and actions of the other parent. Social workers may encounter these problems in a number of settings, such as family service agencies, schools, and family court, as well as in private practice working with high-conflict divorcing couples, parents who believe that the other parent has or will turn the children against them, alienated children refusing to see a parent, adults who are still alienated from a parent, or elders who have “lost” their children to parental alienation. While some social workers may be unaware of the name for this particular phenomenon, they have probably dealt with it over the course of their careers. For example, clients may enter individual therapy presenting with anxiety, depression, or relationship problems and later reveal that they have been cut off from one parent by another parent. These clients may be unaware of the meaning of the lost relationship and may even minimize its effect on their growth, development, and current mental health concerns. Children referred to a school social worker for acting out or experiencing academic problems may casually reveal that they have no contact with a “hated” parent. When questioned about the absent parent, these children may vehemently denounce the parent as “good riddance to bad rubbish.” The family of such a child may be maneuvering behind the scenes to exclude the other parent from the child’s school life by misrepresenting that parent’s intentions to school staff, withholding information from that parent to create the appearance of a lack of interest, and removing contact information from school records. A third scenario is represented by clients who enter therapy consumed with fear that the other parent is turning the children against them. Such parents will be desperate for advice and guidance about how to cope with the chronic provocation of the other parent. These parents live with anxiety, depression, and helplessness, as well as feelings of victimization by the other parent, the child, and myriad systems (legal, mental health, school) that are not always responsive to the needs of targeted parents. In all these cases, social workers may formulate a hypothesis that one parent has engineered the child’s rejection of the other parent. However, unless the social worker is familiar with parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome, he or she is missing a useful conceptual framework for understanding how one parent is able to poison a child’s relationship with the other parent in the absence of just cause. Parental alienation is a set of strategies that a parent uses to foster a child’s rejection of the other parent. Parental alienation syndrome develops in children who come to hate, fear, and reject the targeted parent as someone unworthy of having a relationship with them. Richard Gardner, PhD, who coined parental alienation syndrome, described in The Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Guide for Mental Health and Legal Professionals that there are eight behavioral components that have been validated in a survey of 68 targeted parents of severely alienated children (Baker & Darnall, 2007). Eight Manifestations of Parental Alienation Syndrome 1. A Campaign of Denigration. Alienated children are consumed with hatred of the targeted parent. They deny any positive past experiences and reject all contact and communication. Parents who were once loved and valued seemingly overnight become hated and feared. 2. Weak, Frivolous, and Absurd Rationalizations When alienated children are questioned about the reasons for their intense hostility toward the targeted parent, the explanations offered are not of the magnitude that typically would lead a child to reject a parent. These children may complain about the parent’s eating habits, food preparation, or appearance. They may also make wild accusations that could not possibly be true. 3. Lack of Ambivalence About the Alienating Parent Alienated children exhibit a lack of ambivalence about the alienating parent, demonstrating an automatic, reflexive, idealized support. That parent is perceived as perfect, while the other is perceived as wholly flawed. If an alienated child is asked to identify just one negative aspect of the alienating parent, he or she will probably draw a complete blank. This presentation is in contrast to the fact that most children have mixed feelings about even the best of parents and can usually talk about each parent as having both good and bad qualities. 4. The “Independent Thinker” Phenomenon Even though alienated children appear to be unduly influenced by the alienating parent, they will adamantly insist that the decision to reject the targeted parent is theirs alone. They deny that their feelings about the targeted parent are in any way influenced by the alienating parent and often invoke the concept of free will to describe their decision. 5. Absence of Guilt About the Treatment of the Targeted Parent  Alienated children typically appear rude, ungrateful, spiteful, and cold toward the targeted parent, and they appear to be impervious to feelings of guilt about their harsh treatment. Gratitude for gifts, favors, or child support provided by the targeted parent is nonexistent. Children with parental alienation syndrome will try to get whatever they can from that parent, declaring that it is owed to them. 6. Reflexive Support for the Alienating Parent in Parental Conflict  Intact families, as well as recently separated and long-divorced couples, will have occasion for disagreement and conflict. In all cases, the alienated child will side with the alienating parent, regardless of how absurd or baseless that parent’s position may be. There is no willingness or attempt to be impartial when faced with interparental conflicts. Children with parental alienation syndrome have no interest in hearing the targeted parent’s point of view. Nothing the targeted parent could do or say makes any difference to these children. 7. Presence of Borrowed Scenarios  Alienated children often make accusations toward the targeted parent that utilize phrases and ideas adopted from the alienating parent. Indications that a scenario is borrowed include the use of words or ideas that the child does not appear to understand, speaking in a scripted or robotic fashion, as well as making accusations that cannot be supported with detail. 8. Rejection of Extended Family Finally, the hatred of the targeted parent spreads to his or her extended family. Not only is the targeted parent denigrated, despised, and avoided but so are his or her extended family. Formerly beloved grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins are suddenly and completely avoided and rejected. In a recent study (Baker & Darnall, 2007), targeted parents rated their children as experiencing these eight behavioral manifestations in a way that was generally consistent with Gardner’s theory. Parents reported that their children exhibited the eight behaviors with a high degree of frequency. One exception was alienated children being able to maintain a relationship with some members of the targeted parent’s extended family, which occurred in cases where that relative was actually aligned with the alienating parent. This suggests that the context of the contact with the targeted parent’s extended family (that relative’s role in the alienation) needs to be understood prior to concluding whether this component is present in the child. Study of Adult Children of Parental Alienation Syndrome Gardner identified parental alienation syndrome only 20 years ago. However, researchers and clinicians have been concerned about these cross-generational alliances for much longer. For example, divorce researchers such as Wallerstein and colleagues (2001) have noted that some children develop unhealthy alliances with one parent while rejecting the other. Family therapists have observed that, when a child is “taller” than a parent (i.e., able to look down on), it is usually because he or she is standing on the shoulders of the other parent (i.e., being supported by). Although this problem has long been of concern to mental health practitioners, little research has been conducted on the specific problem of children rejecting one parent due to the overt or covert influence of the other. In contrast to the dearth of research, demand for knowledge about parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome is overwhelming. There are several Web sites devoted to this problem, many of which receive tens of thousands of visits each year. The few books on divorce that discuss this problem are best sellers, and there are several Internet chat groups comprised of anxious parents who fear that the other parent of their child is turning their child against them. Saddest of all are the parents who have already lost their child to parental alienation syndrome and want to know whether they will ever get the child back. This is the question that guided the current study on parental alienation syndrome of adults who as children had been turned against one parent by their other parent (Baker, 2007). In order to participate in the study, the individuals needed to have been alienated from one parent as a child and had to believe that the alienation was at least in part due to the actions and attitudes of the other parent. Forty adults participated in in-depth, semistructured telephone interviews. A content analysis was conducted. Some of the major themes and research findings relevant to the work of social workers are the following: Findings Different Familial Contexts Parental alienation syndrome can occur in intact families, as well as divorced families, and can be fostered by fathers, mothers, and noncustodial and custodial parents. The prototypical case is a bitter ex-wife turning the children against the father in response to postdivorce custody litigation. That is one but not the only pattern. Mental health professionals should be aware that other familial contexts exist within which parental alienation syndrome can occur so as to avoid ruling out parental alienation syndrome as an explanation because the family context does not fit the prototype. Emotional, Physical, and Sexual Abuse Many of the interviewees revealed that the alienating parent had emotionally, physically, or sexually abused them. These data should help put to rest the prevailing notion that all children (in their naive wisdom) will ally themselves with the parent better able to attend to their needs. The people interviewed appeared to side with the parent on whom they had become dependent and whose approval they were most afraid of losing, not the parent who was most sensitive or capable. Apparent Psychopathology A related finding is that many of the alienating parents appeared to have features of narcissistic and/or have a borderline or antisocial personality disorder, as well as being active alcoholics. Thus, social workers providing individual therapy with a client who may have been alienated from one parent by the other should be aware of the importance of exploring these other abuse and trauma factors in the client’s early history. Cult Parallels Cults offer a useful heuristic for understanding parental alienation syndrome. Alienating parents appear to use many emotional manipulation and thought reform strategies that cult leaders use. Awareness of this analogy can help individuals who experienced parental alienation syndrome (and their therapists) understand how they came to ally with a parent who was ultimately abusive and damaging. The analogy is also helpful for understanding the recovery and healing process. The research and clinical literature on recovery from cults offers useful ideas for therapists working with adult children of parental alienation syndrome. For example, the way in which a person leaves a cult has ramifications for the recovery process. Cult members can walk away from a cult, be cast out of a cult, or be counseled out of a cult. Those who walk away (come to the realization on their own that the cult is not healthy for them) and those who are counseled out (those who are exposed to a deliberate experience designed to instigate the desire to leave) tend to fare better than those who are cast out (those who are rejected from the cult for failing to meet its regulations and strictures) (Langone, 1994). Regardless of how the cult is abandoned, leaving represents only the beginning of the recovery process. Considerable time and effort is required (usually in therapy) to process the experience and undo the negative messages from the cult that have become incorporated into the self. The same may be true of adult children of parental alienation syndrome. Different Pathways to Realization There appear to be many different pathways to the realization that one has been manipulated by a parent to unnecessarily reject the other parent. Eleven catalysts were described by the interview participants. This represents both good and bad news. The good news is that there are many different ways to evolve from alienation to realization. The bad news is that there is no silver bullet or magic wand to spark that process. For some participants, it was a matter of time and gaining life experience. For others, it was the alienating parent turning on them and, for others, it was becoming a parent and being the target of parental alienation from their own children. For most, the process was just that—a process. There were a few epiphanies, but most experienced something like a slow chipping away of a long-held belief system, a slow awakening to a different truth and a more authentic self. Most gained self-respect and a connection to reality and were grateful to know “the truth.” At the same time, they acknowledged that this truth was hard won and quite painful. Once they were aware of the parental alienation, they had to come to terms with some painful truths, including that the alienating parent did not have their best interest at heart, that as children they had probably behaved very badly toward someone who did not deserve such treatment, and that they missed out on a relationship that may have had real value and benefit to them. Long-Term Negative Effects Not surprisingly, the adult children with parental alienation syndrome believed that this experience had negative long-term consequences for them. Many spoke of suffering from depression, turning to drugs and alcohol to numb the pain, failed relationships and multiple divorces and, most sadly, becoming alienated from their own children later in life. In this way, the intergenerational cycle of parental alienation syndrome was perpetuated. Wide Range of Alienation Tactics The adult children with parental alienation syndrome described a range of alienating strategies, including constant badmouthing of the targeted parent, chronic interference with visitation and communication, and emotional manipulation to choose one parent over the other. These same strategies were confirmed in a subsequent study of close to 100 targeted parents (Baker & Darnall, 2006). More than 1,300 specific actions described were independently coded into 66 types, 11 of which were mentioned by at least 20% of the sample. There was considerable but not complete overlap in the strategies identified by the targeted parents with those described by adult children. Working With Targeted Parents Social workers counseling parents who are facing parental alienation need to offer support, education, and guidance. The social worker’s primary role is to help the client become educated about parental alienation (what are primary behaviors that turn a child against the other parent) and parental alienation syndrome (what are the behavioral manifestations of an alienated child) so the parent can determine whether this is in fact the problem. These clients must be encouraged to look at themselves and their relationship with their children prior to blaming the other parent for their difficulties. If the conclusion is that parental alienation is at work, the targeted parent should be taught a series of responses to parental alienation that can allow the targeted parent to maintain the high road while not becoming overly passive or reactive. Such parents need ongoing validation and support in dealing with the pain and suffering associated with parental alienation. Working With Alienated Children Social workers who come into contact with children currently alienated must be self-reflective and aware so that they do not ally with the child against the targeted parent. A second concern is avoiding becoming intimidated or manipulated by the alienating parent. The child should be helped to develop critical thinking skills in order to enhance his or her ability to resist the pressure to choose sides. The targeted parent and the child’s relationship with that parent must be validated for the child. The social worker can be a role model who values and respects the targeted parent in order to counter the ongoing message that this parent is inadequate and someone to be discarded. In private practice, family service agencies, and school settings, social workers may work with clients affected by parental alienation. Some of these individuals may even be unaware of the source of their pain and suffering and/or uninformed about the name and nature of this phenomenon. Familiarity on the part of the social worker is the first step in providing the client with information, guidance, and hope when dealing with this complicated and painful issue. — Amy J. L. Baker, PhD, is director of research at the Vincent J. Fontana Center for Child Protection in New York City and author of Adult Children of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Breaking the Ties That Bind. Resources for Targeted Parents Amy J. L. Baker, PhD: Information about Baker’s book and e-paper, as well as links for Internet and face-to-face support groups for targeted parents and a free 45-minute video, www.amyjlbaker.com Custody Calculation: Web site with information about a program designed to help parents have input into the creation of custody orders, www.custodycalculations.com Divorce Support: Web site with information about divorce, www.divorcesupport.com Parental Alienation Awareness Organization: Web site with information about parental alienation, www.parental-alienation-awareness.com The Rachel Foundation for Family Reintegration: Organization offering reintegration programs and services for targeted parents and alienated children, www.rachelfoundation.org References Baker, A. J. L. (2007). Adult children of parental alienation syndrome: Breaking the ties that bind. New York: W. W. Norton. Baker, A. J. L. & Darnall, D. (2006). Behaviors and strategies employed in parental alienation: A survey of parental experiences. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 45 (1/2), 97-124. Baker, A. J. L. & Darnall, D. (2007). A construct study of the eight symptoms of severe parental alienation syndrome: A survey of parental experiences. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 47(1/2), 55-75. Gardner, R. (1998). The parental alienation syndrome: A guide for mental health and legal professionals. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics, Inc. Langone, M. (ed) (1994). Recovery from cults: Help for victims of psychological and spiritual abuse. New York: W. W. Norton. Wallerstein, J., Lewis, J., & Blakeslee, S. (2001). The unexpected legacy of divorce: The 25-year landmark study. New York: Hyperion.