|
does anybody here really know?
your name says it all.
"Ignoramus14603" wrote in message ... In article , leon skunkers wrote: ...why the hell we invaded Iraq? I'll admit I can't come up with anything that makes sense. My guess is, as to what went behind the closed doors, is that there were two reasons: 1. Steal Iraqi oil and enrich Haliburton, etc, and lower oil prices in time for the next election. The old "liebensraum" (living space) concept. 2. Occupy Iraq and use it as a fixed aircraft carrier in the quest for world dominance. The thinking goes, occupying Iraq, it will be easier to get Saudis or Iran or whatever other nation might be "next". Unfortunately, it turns out that the Iraqis are not eager to pump out their oil to enrich us, and also that instead of a good platform for a conquest, Iraq consumed much of the US military manpower to the point that it is much harder to mount more victorious blitzkriegs elsewhere. i |
does anybody here really know?
Ain't it the truth...
Bill Andersen wrote: your name says it all. "Ignoramus14603" wrote in message ... In article , leon skunkers wrote: ...why the hell we invaded Iraq? I'll admit I can't come up with anything that makes sense. My guess is, as to what went behind the closed doors, is that there were two reasons: 1. Steal Iraqi oil and enrich Haliburton, etc, and lower oil prices in time for the next election. The old "liebensraum" (living space) concept. 2. Occupy Iraq and use it as a fixed aircraft carrier in the quest for world dominance. The thinking goes, occupying Iraq, it will be easier to get Saudis or Iran or whatever other nation might be "next". Unfortunately, it turns out that the Iraqis are not eager to pump out their oil to enrich us, and also that instead of a good platform for a conquest, Iraq consumed much of the US military manpower to the point that it is much harder to mount more victorious blitzkriegs elsewhere. i |
does anybody here really know?
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 08:24:39 -0700, "Bill Andersen"
wrote: your name says it all. came up with the most plausible answer so far. And your response to it says a ****load about you. "Ignoramus14603" wrote in message ... In article , leon skunkers wrote: ...why the hell we invaded Iraq? I'll admit I can't come up with anything that makes sense. My guess is, as to what went behind the closed doors, is that there were two reasons: 1. Steal Iraqi oil and enrich Haliburton, etc, and lower oil prices in time for the next election. The old "liebensraum" (living space) concept. 2. Occupy Iraq and use it as a fixed aircraft carrier in the quest for world dominance. The thinking goes, occupying Iraq, it will be easier to get Saudis or Iran or whatever other nation might be "next". Unfortunately, it turns out that the Iraqis are not eager to pump out their oil to enrich us, and also that instead of a good platform for a conquest, Iraq consumed much of the US military manpower to the point that it is much harder to mount more victorious blitzkriegs elsewhere. i |
does anybody here really know?
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 15:35:45 GMT, "Bill"
wrote: Ain't it the truth... awwww... ain't this CUTE? Bill Andersen wrote: your name says it all. "Ignoramus14603" wrote in message ... In article , leon skunkers wrote: ...why the hell we invaded Iraq? I'll admit I can't come up with anything that makes sense. My guess is, as to what went behind the closed doors, is that there were two reasons: 1. Steal Iraqi oil and enrich Haliburton, etc, and lower oil prices in time for the next election. The old "liebensraum" (living space) concept. 2. Occupy Iraq and use it as a fixed aircraft carrier in the quest for world dominance. The thinking goes, occupying Iraq, it will be easier to get Saudis or Iran or whatever other nation might be "next". Unfortunately, it turns out that the Iraqis are not eager to pump out their oil to enrich us, and also that instead of a good platform for a conquest, Iraq consumed much of the US military manpower to the point that it is much harder to mount more victorious blitzkriegs elsewhere. i |
does anybody here really know?
"Carolyn Louise leigh" wrote in message ... No Brainer! OIL. Toss out all the smoke and mirrors. Every argument GWB made for War with Iraq was an echo of the 60's. My how short memories become....:) Operation Iraqi Liberation = OIL Oh, wait, we better not call it that... |
does anybody here really know?
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 14:18:44 -0400, "Carolyn Louise leigh"
wrote: No Brainer! OIL. Toss out all the smoke and mirrors. Every argument GWB made for War with Iraq was an echo of the 60's. My how short memories become....:) Cites? Gunner "Bill Andersen" wrote in message news:zfPYa.38725$Bp2.38211@fed1read07... your name says it all. "Ignoramus14603" wrote in message ... In article , leon skunkers wrote: ...why the hell we invaded Iraq? I'll admit I can't come up with anything that makes sense. My guess is, as to what went behind the closed doors, is that there were two reasons: 1. Steal Iraqi oil and enrich Haliburton, etc, and lower oil prices in time for the next election. The old "liebensraum" (living space) concept. 2. Occupy Iraq and use it as a fixed aircraft carrier in the quest for world dominance. The thinking goes, occupying Iraq, it will be easier to get Saudis or Iran or whatever other nation might be "next". Unfortunately, it turns out that the Iraqis are not eager to pump out their oil to enrich us, and also that instead of a good platform for a conquest, Iraq consumed much of the US military manpower to the point that it is much harder to mount more victorious blitzkriegs elsewhere. i "What do you call someone in possesion of all the facts? Paranoid.-William Burroughs |
does anybody here really know?
|
does anybody here really know?
Cites?
Gunner You'll have to do your own research, but it shouldn't be hard to find Robt. McNamara's admission that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was staged to persuade a reluctant US Congress to authorize a Texas President to escalate the war in Viet Nam. Then, as now, the Haliburton/Brown and Root cartel got filthy rich as a result. Filthy. Don't misinterpret- I'm not stating that 9-11 was staged. But the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Even the White House admits that plans for invading Iraq were well under way in May of 2001, several months *before* 9-11. (The specific charges of WMD and the implications of a nuclear arsenal *are* fairly similar to the Gulf of Tonkin "incident.") |
does anybody here really know?
leon skunkers wrote:
talk about idiotic trolling. Yeah, I know. I replied to her bull**** so I guess you have a point in calling her a troll. Now back to you, idiot? ral blaaarg. |
does anybody here really know?
Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 14:18:44 -0400, "Carolyn Louise leigh" wrote: No Brainer! OIL. Toss out all the smoke and mirrors. Every argument GWB made for War with Iraq was an echo of the 60's. My how short memories become....:) Cites? Gunner Good grief...when did Gunner get released from the state hospital at Chattahootchee? -- * * * email sent to will *never* get to me. |
does anybody here really know?
"Gunner" wrote in message
... On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 23:15:12 GMT, "Jeff McCann" wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Gunner wrote: On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 14:18:44 -0400, "Carolyn Louise leigh" wrote: No Brainer! OIL. Toss out all the smoke and mirrors. Every argument GWB made for War with Iraq was an echo of the 60's. My how short memories become....:) Cites? Gunner Good grief...when did Gunner get released from the state hospital at Chattahootchee? Chattahoochee is in FLA; Gunner is in CAL, where Reagan closed down the state mental hospitals to save money. This was supposed to have been a "humanitarian" act, with the care to be provided by community-based facilities. Of course, the funding for community based mental health care never materialized. The resulting "curbing" of the mentally ill is at least partially responsible for CAL's reputation as a state full of loonies, of which Gunner is definitely not one. BTW, I once made an inspection tour of Chattahoochee. It was hellish, to say the least. Jeff One should also note..it was the Left whom demanded that the hospitals be closed. Only problem is..they didnt realise that most of the patients in there were more than happy to be out on the streets and refusing to take their meds, or go to outpatient clinics etc. Basicly..,the Libs created the homeless situation in California, and in doing so, are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill folks whom died and are still dying on the streets, not to mention those that are killed, raped etc etc by the more vicious members of the homeless nutcases. Sounds like typical revisionist neo-con spin to me; blame everything on the "Libs." Cites? Jeff |
does anybody here really know?
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:27:31 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote: refusing to take their meds, or go to outpatient clinics etc. Basicly..,the Libs created the homeless situation in California, and in doing so, are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill folks whom died and are still dying on the streets, not to mention those that are killed, raped etc etc by the more vicious members of the homeless nutcases. Sounds like typical revisionist neo-con spin to me; blame everything on the "Libs." Cites? Jeff Simply cannot accept that the Libs would do that to people? How many did Stalin kill? Few Libs have ever heard about the Law of Unintended Consequences, nor would they ever admit that their way is not the Perfect way..... http://www.psychlaws.org/GeneralResources/article45.htm http://www.psychlaws.org/StateActivi...a/LPSoped3.htm http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...1streets.story http://sftimes.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$82 http://www.namisonomacounty.org/reflect.htm Lanterman, Petris, Short Act The state mental hospitals of the fifties and sixties were overcrowded. A tug of war existed between the federal government and the local governments as to which was responsible for the funding of care for those afflicted with mental illness. California had pioneered a more progressive program for the care of the committed patients. But a movement began to stem entry into state hospitals and encourage community systems to accept more patients. In the climate of the sixties there were even those who claimed that mental illness was not a real biological reality but instead a socio-political attitude. There were some who argued that mental illness was a myth perpetuated by totalitarian governments. A pivotal bill called the Lanterman, Petris, Short Act (LPS act) was signed into law in 1967 by Ronald Reagan which abolished 1700 hospital staff positions and closed many state operated care facilities. The intention of the LPS act was for the most part well meaning. It's intent was to eliminate inappropriate commitment of individuals to hospitals. It was intended to affirm the civil rights and the right to fair treatment to those with mental illness. However what should have happened and did not was having the monies which use to be allocated to state hospitals be reallocated to areas of community support for patients entering the community. Instead what happened is a continuing tragedy today. Patients were turned out in huge number with little support system in place. Many individuals in this category soon found themselves in trouble with the law and society. Today we have a tremendous number of those suffering from mental illness in jails or homeless. "...deinstitutionalization has helped create the mental illness crisis by discharging people from public psychiatric hospitals without ensuring that they received the medication and rehabilitation services necessary for them to live successfully in the community. Deinstitutionalization further exacerbated the situation because, once the public psychiatric beds had been closed, they were not available for people who later became mentally ill, and this situation continues up to the present. Consequently, approximately 2.2 million severely mentally ill people do not receive any psychiatric treatment." (Out of the Shadows, Confronting America's Mental Illness Crisis, E. Fuller Torrey, M.D. , John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N.Y. 1997. pg 10) "...the total number of homeless people in the United States appears to have increased between 1980 and 1988 by approximately 300 percent, whereas the total U.S. population increased by only 7.6 percent. (402,000 homeless in 1988)" "If the definition of 'mentally ill' includes alcohol and drug addictions, then studies indicate that 75 percent or more of the homeless are mentally ill. If, however only severe mental illness is the criterion, as defined in 1993 by the National Advisory Mental Health Council...then approximately 35 percent of the homeless persons qualify." (Out of the Shadows, Confronting America's Mental Illness Crisis, E. Fuller Torrey, M.D. , John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N.Y. 1997. pg 10, pg 17) "Over the last 30 years, the number of patients who once might have been in State hospitals, but are now on the streets, or in our jails and prisons, has risen significantly. In 1968, the year before LPS was implemented, the year-end population in State hospitals was 35,739. Today, state hospitals are primarily forensic and house fewer than 4,000 mentally ill patients. Between 20,000 and 30,000 people with mental illness are in our jails and prisons. At least an equal number are homeless on the street."(L.P.S., A New Vision for Mental Health Treatment Laws, A Report by The LPS Reform Task Force, editors: Carla Jacobs, Elizabeth M.D. , Beth Howard, published by The LPS Reform Task Force, Long Beach, Calif, March 1999, pg 32-33) So today we are in the situation in which we have replaced one inadequate and in some cases inhumane system of care with another inadequate and often inhumane system or lack of system of care. The economic cost of this dysfunctional system, or lack of system is more than a humane and proper system would be. It is not efficient and inexpensive to deal with individuals with mental illness through the justice system. It is not efficient and inexpensive to house these individuals in jails. It is not humane for these individuals to be living on the streets or in a whirlwind cycle from the streets to the jails to the hospitals and so on. The result of this lack of system is too many suicides, too much unnecessary suffering and too much unnecessary expense and waste. NAMI and other organizations acting as advocates are proposing a major overall of the LPS legislation. One of the realities of severe mental illness is frequently an acute lack of insight about the illness. Consequently advocates for those suffering the effects of mental illness are, for the most part, seeing a need for the provision of involuntary hospitalization in some cases. It is argued effectively that it is inhumane to not have these individuals hospitalized. Frequently the result of no hospitalization is untimely death or unnecessary and severe suffering. These advocates in no way want inhumane conditions in a hospital setting. They advocate for no unnecessary restriction and respect for patients human rights within and without the hospital setting. (passim, L.P.S., A New Vision for Mental Health Treatment Laws, A Report by The LPS Reform Task Force, editors: Carla Jacobs, Elizabeth M.D. , Beth Howard, published by The LPS Reform Task Force, Long Beach, Calif, March 1999, pg 22-44, pg 66-83) "The passage of California's Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act in 1967...made rational treatment for the mentally ill increasingly difficult." (Out of the Shadows, Confronting America's Mental Illness Crisis, E. Fuller Torrey, M.D. , John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N.Y. 1997. pg 10, pg 143) Summary The stigmatizing of the individual afflicted with mental illness has always been a significant and major problem. Sadly it sometimes presents more of a problem for the individual involved than the illness itself presents. Also historically there has been societal stigmatization of the family of the individual afflicted with particular focus on blaming stigmatization of the mother of the individual afflicted. Some progress has been made in alleviating this problem through education resulting in a somewhat more enlightened public. However, regrettably, stigmatization continues to be a major problem. The effect of stigmatization has had many ramifications. There has been a tendency to blame bad parenting, laziness or reckless behavior on the condition of mental illness. Legal consequences include the lack of parity in insurance and a resulting inadequacy of hospital care, the relegating of many afflicted individuals to a homeless existence and the improper incarceration of many afflicted individuals in our jails and prisons. A lack of understanding of the symptoms of mental illness can result in punitive treatment on the part of society, even on the part of close family and even on the part of those we call caregivers. It takes insight on the part of healthy normal individuals to realize that the afflicted individuals resistance to treatment or dependency abuse of illicit drugs, the seemingly lack of commitment to showing up for appointments, the lack of cognitive thinking and the lack of insight into their own illness is all symptomatic of the illness itself. These type of dysfunctional behaviors are extremely frustrating for all involved but there is a serious need to not resort to punitive treatment. When punitive treatment escalates in our prisons and even in our hospitals to the unethical use of physical restraint resulting in actual deaths, the behavior on the part of caregivers and justice personnel is actually criminal. There are many legislative issues that need to be advocated and addressed for those afflicted with mental illness. The closing of mental hospitals in the 1980's has been a disaster which has aggravated conditions and resulted in unacceptable conditions for the vast majority of those afflicted. The body of this paper contains a short discussion of the major concerns: -Compulsory hospitalization/lack of insight/humane conditions -freedom from restraint -housing -gainful activity -juvenile justice -LPS act What to do for individuals can be complex especially because the individual often suffers from a lack of insight into their own illness. The objective however should be clear. Advocates want fairness for those afflicted. Fairness should include compassionate understanding from communities and equitable treatment by insurance and medical infrastructure. We want to see fair and humane treatment within hospital settings, within the justice system and in our communities. With regards to treatment there is basis for some optimism. Medical science continues to make significant advances towards the understanding of mental illness from the biological perspective. New medications are available and more are being developed which can provide significant improved help for many. The emphasis in treatment weighs heavily towards only the biologic and mechanistic approach. This is promoted in large part by the influence of the pharmaceutical industry and the economic pressure of managed care. In my view this approach needs to be balanced with more emphasis on the whole person and the whole context in which we find the individual. This should be done avoiding the pitfalls of blaming and stigmatization. The emphasis of course should be in how to improve the quality of life for the individual and the family and ultimately even the whole community. Advocates such as E. Fuller Torrey have contributed tremendously to our understanding and our compassion for those afflicted. At the same time there is room for the holistic approach as well and even alternative methods which are being explored as a supplement to medications, not as a replacement for the much needed medications. These are being explored on the growing edge of psychiatry and will lead to better ways of treatment. Gunner "What do you call someone in possesion of all the facts? Paranoid.-William Burroughs |
does anybody here really know?
I'm top posting without snipping because what you quoted (the part below
your cites) is so exactly correct I don't want anyone to miss it. In fact, I'm going to use it as a handout in my healthcare law class. "Gunner" wrote in message ... On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:27:31 GMT, "Jeff McCann" wrote: refusing to take their meds, or go to outpatient clinics etc. Basicly..,the Libs created the homeless situation in California, and in doing so, are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill folks whom died and are still dying on the streets, not to mention those that are killed, raped etc etc by the more vicious members of the homeless nutcases. Sounds like typical revisionist neo-con spin to me; blame everything on the "Libs." Cites? Jeff Simply cannot accept that the Libs would do that to people? How many did Stalin kill? Stalin's mass murders are connected to the mainstream beliefs of American progressive politics how, exactly? Such an obviously overblown smear is really beneath a man of your intelligence, Gunner. Few Libs have ever heard about the Law of Unintended Consequences, nor would they ever admit that their way is not the Perfect way..... Oh, like cutting taxes on the rich while paying $1+B per week for a highly dubious war and offering no rational plan to control bloating deficits and the resulting drain on the economy is wise, prudent, the product of careful foresight, and the perfect way to help the economy. It seems to me that plenty of neo-cons are actually stupid enough to believe their own rhetoric. The current situation in Iraq is the perfect illustration of the Law of Unintended Consequences, or the effect of neo-con wishful thinking and the triumph of ideology over reason. Now, let's look at what you've offered as cites supporting your assertion that the "Libs" caused the problem in California: http://www.psychlaws.org/GeneralResources/article45.htm "In 1967, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), which went into effect in 1969 and quickly became a national model. Among other things, it prohibited forced medication or extended hospital stays without a judicial hearing. . . . As a practical matter, involuntary commitment was no longer a plausible option. . . . In 1999, the Legislature finally funded pilot projects in Stanislaus, Los Angeles and Sacramento counties that offered comprehensive treatment for the mentally ill. And they appeared to work. Within the first four months, the $10 million pilot program helped move 1,000 people off the streets and into support systems of care. Last year, Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, sponsored legislation to allocate $54.9 million to expand these pilot programs to 24 counties and two cities during the next three years. . . . " It seems a Democrat (gasp!) was trying to address the problem here. Nothing attributes the problem to "Libs,", so the cited work doesn't appear to support your original claim http://www.psychlaws.org/StateActivi...a/LPSoped3.htm Nothing about "libs" causing the problem there, either. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...1streets.story "This week the Assembly Judiciary Committee will consider legislation by Assembly- woman Helen Thomson (D-Davis) that would solve a key part of the problem. AB 1421 would amend the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, a well-intentioned but ultimately misguided law passed in the 1960s that bars doctors, judges and counselors from compelling seriously mentally ill people to be treated unless it can be proven they are at imminent risk of harming themselves or others." Another Democrat trying to address the problem. http://sftimes.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$82 That's a story about (Democrat) SF Mayor Willie Brown's efforts to address the problems in San Francisco, caused by the Legislation Gov. Reagan signed back in '67 http://www.namisonomacounty.org/reflect.htm " 'The passage of California's Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act in 1967...made rational treatment for the mentally ill increasingly difficult.' (Out of the Shadows, Confronting America's Mental Illness Crisis, E. Fuller Torrey, M.D. , John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N.Y. 1997. pg 10, pg 143)" Nothing about the "libs" here either, I'm afraid. Yet it seems clear that the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act was the source of the problem, or rather was the source when combined with the lack of funding for community-based care, according to your own cites. Gov. Reagan, a Republican, signed the Act. Frank Lanterman, a Republican, chaired the committee responsible for the legislation, so he controlled what went into the Act. Nicholas C. Petris and Alan Short were Democrats. All of them later expressed disappointment that the funding for follow-on community based care was not provided. That was not their intent. In 1967, the California Legislature was divided almost equally between Democrats and Republicans, with a 1 member Democrat edge in the Senate and a 2 member edge in the Assembly. Any legislation would therefore require bipartisan support and could not be passed over a governmental veto. Furthermore, Gov. Reagan enjoyed the power of a "line item veto" over expenditures in the State budget. This was the year that Reagan actually increased the state income tax rates on the wealthy (he did so again in 1971 IIRC); he was in a budget crisis and was more than happy to unburden the state budget from the cost of mental health care by passing the buck to county and local governments that had no hope of meeting the needs of the newly de-institionalized mentally ill. Your assertion that "[b]asicly..,(sic) the Libs created the homeless situation in California, and in doing so, are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill folks whom died and are still dying on the streets, not to mention those that are killed, raped etc etc by the more vicious members of the homeless nutcases[,]" doesn't seem to be borne out by the facts, does it? Oh, I'm sure the liberals of that era played their part, but it's neither fair nor accurate to blame them for the resulting mess. Jeff Lanterman, Petris, Short Act The state mental hospitals of the fifties and sixties were overcrowded. A tug of war existed between the federal government and the local governments as to which was responsible for the funding of care for those afflicted with mental illness. California had pioneered a more progressive program for the care of the committed patients. But a movement began to stem entry into state hospitals and encourage community systems to accept more patients. In the climate of the sixties there were even those who claimed that mental illness was not a real biological reality but instead a socio-political attitude. There were some who argued that mental illness was a myth perpetuated by totalitarian governments. A pivotal bill called the Lanterman, Petris, Short Act (LPS act) was signed into law in 1967 by Ronald Reagan which abolished 1700 hospital staff positions and closed many state operated care facilities. The intention of the LPS act was for the most part well meaning. It's intent was to eliminate inappropriate commitment of individuals to hospitals. It was intended to affirm the civil rights and the right to fair treatment to those with mental illness. However what should have happened and did not was having the monies which use to be allocated to state hospitals be reallocated to areas of community support for patients entering the community. Instead what happened is a continuing tragedy today. Patients were turned out in huge number with little support system in place. Many individuals in this category soon found themselves in trouble with the law and society. Today we have a tremendous number of those suffering from mental illness in jails or homeless. "...deinstitutionalization has helped create the mental illness crisis by discharging people from public psychiatric hospitals without ensuring that they received the medication and rehabilitation services necessary for them to live successfully in the community. Deinstitutionalization further exacerbated the situation because, once the public psychiatric beds had been closed, they were not available for people who later became mentally ill, and this situation continues up to the present. Consequently, approximately 2.2 million severely mentally ill people do not receive any psychiatric treatment." (Out of the Shadows, Confronting America's Mental Illness Crisis, E. Fuller Torrey, M.D. , John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N.Y. 1997. pg 10) "...the total number of homeless people in the United States appears to have increased between 1980 and 1988 by approximately 300 percent, whereas the total U.S. population increased by only 7.6 percent. (402,000 homeless in 1988)" "If the definition of 'mentally ill' includes alcohol and drug addictions, then studies indicate that 75 percent or more of the homeless are mentally ill. If, however only severe mental illness is the criterion, as defined in 1993 by the National Advisory Mental Health Council...then approximately 35 percent of the homeless persons qualify." (Out of the Shadows, Confronting America's Mental Illness Crisis, E. Fuller Torrey, M.D. , John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N.Y. 1997. pg 10, pg 17) "Over the last 30 years, the number of patients who once might have been in State hospitals, but are now on the streets, or in our jails and prisons, has risen significantly. In 1968, the year before LPS was implemented, the year-end population in State hospitals was 35,739. Today, state hospitals are primarily forensic and house fewer than 4,000 mentally ill patients. Between 20,000 and 30,000 people with mental illness are in our jails and prisons. At least an equal number are homeless on the street."(L.P.S., A New Vision for Mental Health Treatment Laws, A Report by The LPS Reform Task Force, editors: Carla Jacobs, Elizabeth M.D. , Beth Howard, published by The LPS Reform Task Force, Long Beach, Calif, March 1999, pg 32-33) So today we are in the situation in which we have replaced one inadequate and in some cases inhumane system of care with another inadequate and often inhumane system or lack of system of care. The economic cost of this dysfunctional system, or lack of system is more than a humane and proper system would be. It is not efficient and inexpensive to deal with individuals with mental illness through the justice system. It is not efficient and inexpensive to house these individuals in jails. It is not humane for these individuals to be living on the streets or in a whirlwind cycle from the streets to the jails to the hospitals and so on. The result of this lack of system is too many suicides, too much unnecessary suffering and too much unnecessary expense and waste. NAMI and other organizations acting as advocates are proposing a major overall of the LPS legislation. One of the realities of severe mental illness is frequently an acute lack of insight about the illness. Consequently advocates for those suffering the effects of mental illness are, for the most part, seeing a need for the provision of involuntary hospitalization in some cases. It is argued effectively that it is inhumane to not have these individuals hospitalized. Frequently the result of no hospitalization is untimely death or unnecessary and severe suffering. These advocates in no way want inhumane conditions in a hospital setting. They advocate for no unnecessary restriction and respect for patients human rights within and without the hospital setting. (passim, L.P.S., A New Vision for Mental Health Treatment Laws, A Report by The LPS Reform Task Force, editors: Carla Jacobs, Elizabeth M.D. , Beth Howard, published by The LPS Reform Task Force, Long Beach, Calif, March 1999, pg 22-44, pg 66-83) "The passage of California's Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act in 1967...made rational treatment for the mentally ill increasingly difficult." (Out of the Shadows, Confronting America's Mental Illness Crisis, E. Fuller Torrey, M.D. , John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N.Y. 1997. pg 10, pg 143) Summary The stigmatizing of the individual afflicted with mental illness has always been a significant and major problem. Sadly it sometimes presents more of a problem for the individual involved than the illness itself presents. Also historically there has been societal stigmatization of the family of the individual afflicted with particular focus on blaming stigmatization of the mother of the individual afflicted. Some progress has been made in alleviating this problem through education resulting in a somewhat more enlightened public. However, regrettably, stigmatization continues to be a major problem. The effect of stigmatization has had many ramifications. There has been a tendency to blame bad parenting, laziness or reckless behavior on the condition of mental illness. Legal consequences include the lack of parity in insurance and a resulting inadequacy of hospital care, the relegating of many afflicted individuals to a homeless existence and the improper incarceration of many afflicted individuals in our jails and prisons. A lack of understanding of the symptoms of mental illness can result in punitive treatment on the part of society, even on the part of close family and even on the part of those we call caregivers. It takes insight on the part of healthy normal individuals to realize that the afflicted individuals resistance to treatment or dependency abuse of illicit drugs, the seemingly lack of commitment to showing up for appointments, the lack of cognitive thinking and the lack of insight into their own illness is all symptomatic of the illness itself. These type of dysfunctional behaviors are extremely frustrating for all involved but there is a serious need to not resort to punitive treatment. When punitive treatment escalates in our prisons and even in our hospitals to the unethical use of physical restraint resulting in actual deaths, the behavior on the part of caregivers and justice personnel is actually criminal. There are many legislative issues that need to be advocated and addressed for those afflicted with mental illness. The closing of mental hospitals in the 1980's has been a disaster which has aggravated conditions and resulted in unacceptable conditions for the vast majority of those afflicted. The body of this paper contains a short discussion of the major concerns: -Compulsory hospitalization/lack of insight/humane conditions -freedom from restraint -housing -gainful activity -juvenile justice -LPS act What to do for individuals can be complex especially because the individual often suffers from a lack of insight into their own illness. The objective however should be clear. Advocates want fairness for those afflicted. Fairness should include compassionate understanding from communities and equitable treatment by insurance and medical infrastructure. We want to see fair and humane treatment within hospital settings, within the justice system and in our communities. With regards to treatment there is basis for some optimism. Medical science continues to make significant advances towards the understanding of mental illness from the biological perspective. New medications are available and more are being developed which can provide significant improved help for many. The emphasis in treatment weighs heavily towards only the biologic and mechanistic approach. This is promoted in large part by the influence of the pharmaceutical industry and the economic pressure of managed care. In my view this approach needs to be balanced with more emphasis on the whole person and the whole context in which we find the individual. This should be done avoiding the pitfalls of blaming and stigmatization. The emphasis of course should be in how to improve the quality of life for the individual and the family and ultimately even the whole community. Advocates such as E. Fuller Torrey have contributed tremendously to our understanding and our compassion for those afflicted. At the same time there is room for the holistic approach as well and even alternative methods which are being explored as a supplement to medications, not as a replacement for the much needed medications. These are being explored on the growing edge of psychiatry and will lead to better ways of treatment. Gunner "What do you call someone in possesion of all the facts? Paranoid.-William Burroughs |
does anybody here really know?
and really smart would actually do something radical like trim the headers
-- Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines |
does anybody here really know?
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:13:41 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote: I'm top posting without snipping because what you quoted (the part below your cites) is so exactly correct I don't want anyone to miss it. In fact, I'm going to use it as a handout in my healthcare law class. "Gunner" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:27:31 GMT, "Jeff McCann" wrote: refusing to take their meds, or go to outpatient clinics etc. Basicly..,the Libs created the homeless situation in California, and in doing so, are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill folks whom died and are still dying on the streets, not to mention those that are killed, raped etc etc by the more vicious members of the homeless nutcases. Sounds like typical revisionist neo-con spin to me; blame everything on the "Libs." Cites? Jeff Simply cannot accept that the Libs would do that to people? How many did Stalin kill? Stalin's mass murders are connected to the mainstream beliefs of American progressive politics how, exactly? Such an obviously overblown smear is really beneath a man of your intelligence, Gunner. Hint..your criteria is flawed at its root. There is NO mainstream belief in progressive politics. By definition, progressive politics are Leftist at best, and the US is not by any stretch of the imagination progressive in its mainstream beliefs. Few Libs have ever heard about the Law of Unintended Consequences, nor would they ever admit that their way is not the Perfect way..... Oh, like cutting taxes on the rich while paying $1+B per week for a highly dubious war and offering no rational plan to control bloating deficits and the resulting drain on the economy is wise, prudent, the product of careful foresight, and the perfect way to help the economy. It seems to me that plenty of neo-cons are actually stupid enough to believe their own rhetoric. The current situation in Iraq is the perfect illustration of the Law of Unintended Consequences, or the effect of neo-con wishful thinking and the triumph of ideology over reason. One should note..that the Recession, while cyclic in nature, started under the auspices of the Clinton Administration, and had little to do with Neo-cons. The Dems were bellied up to the trough right along side of the Republicans during the Dot Com bubble. One should note..that the economy is starting to move along just fine, GDP is up, manufacturing is up and the markets are strong. While the Iraqi situation may or may not have been prudent..no one has flown airliners into buildings since 9/11..which is a good thing, and Bush hasnt bombed asprin factories either....and there is no Monica or Wag the dog .... Now, let's look at what you've offered as cites supporting your assertion that the "Libs" caused the problem in California: http://www.psychlaws.org/GeneralResources/article45.htm "In 1967, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), which went into effect in 1969 and quickly became a national model. Among other things, it prohibited forced medication or extended hospital stays without a judicial hearing. . . . As a practical matter, involuntary commitment was no longer a plausible option. . . . In 1999, the Legislature finally funded pilot projects in Stanislaus, Los Angeles and Sacramento counties that offered comprehensive treatment for the mentally ill. And they appeared to work. Within the first four months, the $10 million pilot program helped move 1,000 people off the streets and into support systems of care. Last year, Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, sponsored legislation to allocate $54.9 million to expand these pilot programs to 24 counties and two cities during the next three years. . . . " It seems a Democrat (gasp!) was trying to address the problem here. Nothing attributes the problem to "Libs,", so the cited work doesn't appear to support your original claim Lanterman was a Republican btw..and to this day, states quite clearly that it was a huge mistake. http://www.psychlaws.org/StateActivi...a/LPSoped3.htm Nothing about "libs" causing the problem there, either. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...1streets.story "This week the Assembly Judiciary Committee will consider legislation by Assembly- woman Helen Thomson (D-Davis) that would solve a key part of the problem. AB 1421 would amend the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, a well-intentioned but ultimately misguided law passed in the 1960s that bars doctors, judges and counselors from compelling seriously mentally ill people to be treated unless it can be proven they are at imminent risk of harming themselves or others." Another Democrat trying to address the problem. Note..that law came into effect in 1967...36 yrs ago. What took you guys so long? http://sftimes.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$82 That's a story about (Democrat) SF Mayor Willie Brown's efforts to address the problems in San Francisco, caused by the Legislation Gov. Reagan signed back in '67 Note..that law came into effect in 1967...36 yrs ago. What took you guys so long? http://www.namisonomacounty.org/reflect.htm " 'The passage of California's Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act in 1967...made rational treatment for the mentally ill increasingly difficult.' (Out of the Shadows, Confronting America's Mental Illness Crisis, E. Fuller Torrey, M.D. , John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N.Y. 1997. pg 10, pg 143)" Nothing about the "libs" here either, I'm afraid. Yet it seems clear that the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act was the source of the problem, or rather was the source when combined with the lack of funding for community-based care, according to your own cites. Gov. Reagan, a Republican, signed the Act. Frank Lanterman, a Republican, chaired the committee responsible for the legislation, so he controlled what went into the Act. Nicholas C. Petris and Alan Short were Democrats. All of them later expressed disappointment that the funding for follow-on community based care was not provided. That was not their intent. In 1967, the California Legislature was divided almost equally between Democrats and Republicans, with a 1 member Democrat edge in the Senate and a 2 member edge in the Assembly. Any legislation would therefore require bipartisan support and could not be passed over a governmental veto. Furthermore, Gov. Reagan enjoyed the power of a "line item veto" over expenditures in the State budget. This was the year that Reagan actually increased the state income tax rates on the wealthy (he did so again in 1971 IIRC); he was in a budget crisis and was more than happy to unburden the state budget from the cost of mental health care by passing the buck to county and local governments that had no hope of meeting the needs of the newly de-institionalized mentally ill. Your assertion that "[b]asicly..,(sic) the Libs created the homeless situation in California, and in doing so, are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill folks whom died and are still dying on the streets, not to mention those that are killed, raped etc etc by the more vicious members of the homeless nutcases[,]" doesn't seem to be borne out by the facts, does it? Oh, I'm sure the liberals of that era played their part, but it's neither fair nor accurate to blame them for the resulting mess. Jeff Sure it was fair and accurate. Reagan HAD to sign the legislation as part of the Sop to the Dems for the tax increases. You are also forgetting the politics of 1967...I remember them well..Power to the People! (raising a fist) and Death to the Pigs..... Hint..I live in California..and I know personally some of the players in that rat ****..and to this day, they all say Lanterman was a mistake. It was the Left whom pushed the law, and its been the Left, whom for 36 yrs have not corrected its horror, as California has been a Democrat run state for at least that long, with a large surplus for much of that time. So tell me Jeff..what took you guys so long to even start to correct the mistake? Hummmmmmmmm? Chuckle...if Willy Brown and the Dems, is wanting to do something that will inconvience the mentally ill..the problem must be Really bad...(and it is.. Fixing the problem will remove a lot of their public protestors..though it will save the Dems on cigarette and booze money......(you are aware they pay the homeless to come out and protest with booze and smokes are you not?) Gunner Lanterman, Petris, Short Act The state mental hospitals of the fifties and sixties were overcrowded. A tug of war existed between the federal government and the local governments as to which was responsible for the funding of care for those afflicted with mental illness. California had pioneered a more progressive program for the care of the committed patients. But a movement began to stem entry into state hospitals and encourage community systems to accept more patients. In the climate of the sixties there were even those who claimed that mental illness was not a real biological reality but instead a socio-political attitude. There were some who argued that mental illness was a myth perpetuated by totalitarian governments. A pivotal bill called the Lanterman, Petris, Short Act (LPS act) was signed into law in 1967 by Ronald Reagan which abolished 1700 hospital staff positions and closed many state operated care facilities. The intention of the LPS act was for the most part well meaning. It's intent was to eliminate inappropriate commitment of individuals to hospitals. It was intended to affirm the civil rights and the right to fair treatment to those with mental illness. However what should have happened and did not was having the monies which use to be allocated to state hospitals be reallocated to areas of community support for patients entering the community. Instead what happened is a continuing tragedy today. Patients were turned out in huge number with little support system in place. Many individuals in this category soon found themselves in trouble with the law and society. Today we have a tremendous number of those suffering from mental illness in jails or homeless. "...deinstitutionalization has helped create the mental illness crisis by discharging people from public psychiatric hospitals without ensuring that they received the medication and rehabilitation services necessary for them to live successfully in the community. Deinstitutionalization further exacerbated the situation because, once the public psychiatric beds had been closed, they were not available for people who later became mentally ill, and this situation continues up to the present. Consequently, approximately 2.2 million severely mentally ill people do not receive any psychiatric treatment." (Out of the Shadows, Confronting America's Mental Illness Crisis, E. Fuller Torrey, M.D. , John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N.Y. 1997. pg 10) "...the total number of homeless people in the United States appears to have increased between 1980 and 1988 by approximately 300 percent, whereas the total U.S. population increased by only 7.6 percent. (402,000 homeless in 1988)" "If the definition of 'mentally ill' includes alcohol and drug addictions, then studies indicate that 75 percent or more of the homeless are mentally ill. If, however only severe mental illness is the criterion, as defined in 1993 by the National Advisory Mental Health Council...then approximately 35 percent of the homeless persons qualify." (Out of the Shadows, Confronting America's Mental Illness Crisis, E. Fuller Torrey, M.D. , John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N.Y. 1997. pg 10, pg 17) "Over the last 30 years, the number of patients who once might have been in State hospitals, but are now on the streets, or in our jails and prisons, has risen significantly. In 1968, the year before LPS was implemented, the year-end population in State hospitals was 35,739. Today, state hospitals are primarily forensic and house fewer than 4,000 mentally ill patients. Between 20,000 and 30,000 people with mental illness are in our jails and prisons. At least an equal number are homeless on the street."(L.P.S., A New Vision for Mental Health Treatment Laws, A Report by The LPS Reform Task Force, editors: Carla Jacobs, Elizabeth M.D. , Beth Howard, published by The LPS Reform Task Force, Long Beach, Calif, March 1999, pg 32-33) So today we are in the situation in which we have replaced one inadequate and in some cases inhumane system of care with another inadequate and often inhumane system or lack of system of care. The economic cost of this dysfunctional system, or lack of system is more than a humane and proper system would be. It is not efficient and inexpensive to deal with individuals with mental illness through the justice system. It is not efficient and inexpensive to house these individuals in jails. It is not humane for these individuals to be living on the streets or in a whirlwind cycle from the streets to the jails to the hospitals and so on. The result of this lack of system is too many suicides, too much unnecessary suffering and too much unnecessary expense and waste. NAMI and other organizations acting as advocates are proposing a major overall of the LPS legislation. One of the realities of severe mental illness is frequently an acute lack of insight about the illness. Consequently advocates for those suffering the effects of mental illness are, for the most part, seeing a need for the provision of involuntary hospitalization in some cases. It is argued effectively that it is inhumane to not have these individuals hospitalized. Frequently the result of no hospitalization is untimely death or unnecessary and severe suffering. These advocates in no way want inhumane conditions in a hospital setting. They advocate for no unnecessary restriction and respect for patients human rights within and without the hospital setting. (passim, L.P.S., A New Vision for Mental Health Treatment Laws, A Report by The LPS Reform Task Force, editors: Carla Jacobs, Elizabeth M.D. , Beth Howard, published by The LPS Reform Task Force, Long Beach, Calif, March 1999, pg 22-44, pg 66-83) "The passage of California's Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act in 1967...made rational treatment for the mentally ill increasingly difficult." (Out of the Shadows, Confronting America's Mental Illness Crisis, E. Fuller Torrey, M.D. , John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N.Y. 1997. pg 10, pg 143) Summary The stigmatizing of the individual afflicted with mental illness has always been a significant and major problem. Sadly it sometimes presents more of a problem for the individual involved than the illness itself presents. Also historically there has been societal stigmatization of the family of the individual afflicted with particular focus on blaming stigmatization of the mother of the individual afflicted. Some progress has been made in alleviating this problem through education resulting in a somewhat more enlightened public. However, regrettably, stigmatization continues to be a major problem. The effect of stigmatization has had many ramifications. There has been a tendency to blame bad parenting, laziness or reckless behavior on the condition of mental illness. Legal consequences include the lack of parity in insurance and a resulting inadequacy of hospital care, the relegating of many afflicted individuals to a homeless existence and the improper incarceration of many afflicted individuals in our jails and prisons. A lack of understanding of the symptoms of mental illness can result in punitive treatment on the part of society, even on the part of close family and even on the part of those we call caregivers. It takes insight on the part of healthy normal individuals to realize that the afflicted individuals resistance to treatment or dependency abuse of illicit drugs, the seemingly lack of commitment to showing up for appointments, the lack of cognitive thinking and the lack of insight into their own illness is all symptomatic of the illness itself. These type of dysfunctional behaviors are extremely frustrating for all involved but there is a serious need to not resort to punitive treatment. When punitive treatment escalates in our prisons and even in our hospitals to the unethical use of physical restraint resulting in actual deaths, the behavior on the part of caregivers and justice personnel is actually criminal. There are many legislative issues that need to be advocated and addressed for those afflicted with mental illness. The closing of mental hospitals in the 1980's has been a disaster which has aggravated conditions and resulted in unacceptable conditions for the vast majority of those afflicted. The body of this paper contains a short discussion of the major concerns: -Compulsory hospitalization/lack of insight/humane conditions -freedom from restraint -housing -gainful activity -juvenile justice -LPS act What to do for individuals can be complex especially because the individual often suffers from a lack of insight into their own illness. The objective however should be clear. Advocates want fairness for those afflicted. Fairness should include compassionate understanding from communities and equitable treatment by insurance and medical infrastructure. We want to see fair and humane treatment within hospital settings, within the justice system and in our communities. With regards to treatment there is basis for some optimism. Medical science continues to make significant advances towards the understanding of mental illness from the biological perspective. New medications are available and more are being developed which can provide significant improved help for many. The emphasis in treatment weighs heavily towards only the biologic and mechanistic approach. This is promoted in large part by the influence of the pharmaceutical industry and the economic pressure of managed care. In my view this approach needs to be balanced with more emphasis on the whole person and the whole context in which we find the individual. This should be done avoiding the pitfalls of blaming and stigmatization. The emphasis of course should be in how to improve the quality of life for the individual and the family and ultimately even the whole community. Advocates such as E. Fuller Torrey have contributed tremendously to our understanding and our compassion for those afflicted. At the same time there is room for the holistic approach as well and even alternative methods which are being explored as a supplement to medications, not as a replacement for the much needed medications. These are being explored on the growing edge of psychiatry and will lead to better ways of treatment. Gunner "What do you call someone in possesion of all the facts? Paranoid.-William Burroughs "What do you call someone in possesion of all the facts? Paranoid.-William Burroughs |
does anybody here really know?
Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:27:31 GMT, "Jeff McCann" wrote: refusing to take their meds, or go to outpatient clinics etc. Basicly..,the Libs created the homeless situation in California, and in doing so, are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill folks whom died and are still dying on the streets, not to mention those that are killed, raped etc etc by the more vicious members of the homeless nutcases. Sounds like typical revisionist neo-con spin to me; blame everything on the "Libs." Cites? Jeff Simply cannot accept that the Libs would do that to people? How many did Stalin kill? Few Libs have ever heard about the Law of Unintended Consequences, nor would they ever admit that their way is not the Perfect way..... Now I know you're off your rocker; you think Stalin was a liberal. BTW, I've coined a new verb to describe simple-minded rightie thinking, as you demonstrate with your diatribe about the mentally ill. The verb is LIMBAUGH, or, to LIMBAUGH. That's how one describes the process in which a rightie tries to walk away from responsibility for action or inaction and then blame it on the other side. That's what Rush does...and it is what you do, too. You LIMBAUGH. Smells as bad as it sounds. -- * * * email sent to will *never* get to me. |
does anybody here really know?
erniegalts wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:40:18 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Gunner wrote: On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:27:31 GMT, "Jeff McCann" wrote: refusing to take their meds, or go to outpatient clinics etc. Basicly..,the Libs created the homeless situation in California, and in doing so, are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill folks whom died and are still dying on the streets, not to mention those that are killed, raped etc etc by the more vicious members of the homeless nutcases. Sounds like typical revisionist neo-con spin to me; blame everything on the "Libs." Cites? Jeff Simply cannot accept that the Libs would do that to people? How many did Stalin kill? Few Libs have ever heard about the Law of Unintended Consequences, nor would they ever admit that their way is not the Perfect way..... Now I know you're off your rocker; you think Stalin was a liberal. BTW, I've coined a new verb to describe simple-minded rightie thinking, as you demonstrate with your diatribe about the mentally ill. The verb is LIMBAUGH, or, to LIMBAUGH. That's how one describes the process in which a rightie tries to walk away from responsibility for action or inaction and then blame it on the other side. That's what Rush does...and it is what you do, too. You LIMBAUGH. Smells as bad as it sounds. Nice neologism! Hopes it becomes popular. As a challenge, can you come up with one to describe those who insist that there is no difference between Nazism and Communism? :-) Neo-Newsgroup-Phytes For extra credit, one that includes that all-purpose hate word "socialism"? Anti-Societal-New-Newsgroup-Phytes. I have to giggle when the Konservatrash (another word I coined) go after socialism. They are clueless. -- * * * email sent to will *never* get to me. |
does anybody here really know?
The verb is LIMBAUGH, or, to LIMBAUGH.
(with apolgies to W.E. Strange and Karl Mann) Every Limbaugh boy and girl All around the Limbaugh world Gonna hear the Limbaugh talk They can't see it's all a crock Rush be Limbaugh, Rush be quick Rush keep up the Limbaugh Schtick They can't see it's all a crock Tunin' in the Limbaugh talk Limbaugh lower now Limbaugh lower now How low can he go? You rehearse your Limbaugh lines To confuse the Limbaugh minds Limbaugh love the radio Make big bucks with Limbaugh show Rush be Limbaugh Rush be quick Rush keep up the Limbaugh schtick Folks don't know it's all a crock Gonna do the Limbaugh rock la la la la la la la, (etc, instead of instrumental break) Get yourself a Limbaugh spin Sure to start a Limbaugh grin There's a Limbaugh attitude Righteous rowdy loud and rude Rush be Limbaugh, Rush be quick Rush keep up the Limbaugh schtick They don't know your deal's a crock Hey, let's hear some Limbaugh talk Just repeat that Limbaugh lie You will be a Limbaugh guy! How low can you go? |
does anybody here really know?
Gould 0738 wrote:
The verb is LIMBAUGH, or, to LIMBAUGH. (with apolgies to W.E. Strange and Karl Mann) Every Limbaugh boy and girl All around the Limbaugh world Gonna hear the Limbaugh talk They can't see it's all a crock Rush be Limbaugh, Rush be quick Rush keep up the Limbaugh Schtick They can't see it's all a crock Tunin' in the Limbaugh talk Limbaugh lower now Limbaugh lower now How low can he go? You rehearse your Limbaugh lines To confuse the Limbaugh minds Limbaugh love the radio Make big bucks with Limbaugh show Rush be Limbaugh Rush be quick Rush keep up the Limbaugh schtick Folks don't know it's all a crock Gonna do the Limbaugh rock la la la la la la la, (etc, instead of instrumental break) Get yourself a Limbaugh spin Sure to start a Limbaugh grin There's a Limbaugh attitude Righteous rowdy loud and rude Rush be Limbaugh, Rush be quick Rush keep up the Limbaugh schtick They don't know your deal's a crock Hey, let's hear some Limbaugh talk Just repeat that Limbaugh lie You will be a Limbaugh guy! How low can you go? A lyricist! -- * * * email sent to will *never* get to me. |
does anybody here really know?
"Gunner" wrote in message
... On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:13:41 GMT, "Jeff McCann" wrote: I'm top posting without snipping because what you quoted (the part below your cites) is so exactly correct I don't want anyone to miss it. In fact, I'm going to use it as a handout in my healthcare law class. "Gunner" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:27:31 GMT, "Jeff McCann" wrote: refusing to take their meds, or go to outpatient clinics etc. Basicly..,the Libs created the homeless situation in California, and in doing so, are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill folks whom died and are still dying on the streets, not to mention those that are killed, raped etc etc by the more vicious members of the homeless nutcases. Sounds like typical revisionist neo-con spin to me; blame everything on the "Libs." Cites? Jeff Simply cannot accept that the Libs would do that to people? How many did Stalin kill? Stalin's mass murders are connected to the mainstream beliefs of American progressive politics how, exactly? Such an obviously overblown smear is really beneath a man of your intelligence, Gunner. Hint..your criteria is flawed at its root. There is NO mainstream belief in progressive politics. By definition, progressive politics are Leftist at best, and the US is not by any stretch of the imagination progressive in its mainstream beliefs. Hint: Stop listening so much to El Rushbo. America is progressive in it's soul. That progressive character has manifested itself in everything from worker's health and safety laws, to free public schools, to social security domestically, and ideas like the Nuremberg trials and recognizing basic human rights internationally. At the turn of the last century, the Conservatives and their corporate overlords had to be brought to heel by Theodore Roosevelt and the progressive movement in the Trust-Busting era to move the country forward. We may see something similar in reaction to the current Far Right Administration, Supreme Court and Congress. Few Libs have ever heard about the Law of Unintended Consequences, nor would they ever admit that their way is not the Perfect way..... Oh, like cutting taxes on the rich while paying $1+B per week for a highly dubious war and offering no rational plan to control bloating deficits and the resulting drain on the economy is wise, prudent, the product of careful foresight, and the perfect way to help the economy. It seems to me that plenty of neo-cons are actually stupid enough to believe their own rhetoric. The current situation in Iraq is the perfect illustration of the Law of Unintended Consequences, or the effect of neo-con wishful thinking and the triumph of ideology over reason. One should note..that the Recession, while cyclic in nature, started under the auspices of the Clinton Administration, and had little to do with Neo-cons. The Dems were bellied up to the trough right along side of the Republicans during the Dot Com bubble. One should note..that the economy is starting to move along just fine, GDP is up, manufacturing is up and the markets are strong. It's kinda tough to spend over $1B a week and NOT see an increase in GDP. The millions of jobs destroyed under George II are another story . .. . While the Iraqi situation may or may not have been prudent..no one has flown airliners into buildings since 9/11..which is a good thing, and Bush hasnt bombed asprin factories either....and there is no Monica or Wag the dog .... Ah, the Polestar of the political Far Right. "At least we aren't Clinton!" Can't you guys ever justify yourselves on your own merits with reference to Clinton? Now, let's look at what you've offered as cites supporting your assertion that the "Libs" caused the problem in California: http://www.psychlaws.org/GeneralResources/article45.htm "In 1967, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), which went into effect in 1969 and quickly became a national model. Among other things, it prohibited forced medication or extended hospital stays without a judicial hearing. . . . As a practical matter, involuntary commitment was no longer a plausible option. . . . In 1999, the Legislature finally funded pilot projects in Stanislaus, Los Angeles and Sacramento counties that offered comprehensive treatment for the mentally ill. And they appeared to work. Within the first four months, the $10 million pilot program helped move 1,000 people off the streets and into support systems of care. Last year, Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, sponsored legislation to allocate $54.9 million to expand these pilot programs to 24 counties and two cities during the next three years. . . . " It seems a Democrat (gasp!) was trying to address the problem here. Nothing attributes the problem to "Libs,", so the cited work doesn't appear to support your original claim Lanterman was a Republican btw..and to this day, states quite clearly that it was a huge mistake. Yeah, because community based care was never funded as he intended. http://www.psychlaws.org/StateActivi...a/LPSoped3.htm Nothing about "libs" causing the problem there, either. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...1streets.story "This week the Assembly Judiciary Committee will consider legislation by Assembly- woman Helen Thomson (D-Davis) that would solve a key part of the problem. AB 1421 would amend the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, a well-intentioned but ultimately misguided law passed in the 1960s that bars doctors, judges and counselors from compelling seriously mentally ill people to be treated unless it can be proven they are at imminent risk of harming themselves or others." Another Democrat trying to address the problem. Note..that law came into effect in 1967...36 yrs ago. What took you guys so long? There were efforts at reform during that time. It's not like the Republicans gave a rat's ass, we're STILL waiting for them to do something for the mentally ill, other than build more prisons, etc., I mean. http://sftimes.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$82 That's a story about (Democrat) SF Mayor Willie Brown's efforts to address the problems in San Francisco, caused by the Legislation Gov. Reagan signed back in '67 Note..that law came into effect in 1967...36 yrs ago. What took you guys so long? There were efforts at reform during that time. It's not like the Republicans gave a rat's ass, we're STILL waiting for them to do something for the mentally ill, other than build more prisons, etc., I mean. http://www.namisonomacounty.org/reflect.htm " 'The passage of California's Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act in 1967...made rational treatment for the mentally ill increasingly difficult.' (Out of the Shadows, Confronting America's Mental Illness Crisis, E. Fuller Torrey, M.D. , John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N.Y. 1997. pg 10, pg 143)" Nothing about the "libs" here either, I'm afraid. Yet it seems clear that the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act was the source of the problem, or rather was the source when combined with the lack of funding for community-based care, according to your own cites. Gov. Reagan, a Republican, signed the Act. Frank Lanterman, a Republican, chaired the committee responsible for the legislation, so he controlled what went into the Act. Nicholas C. Petris and Alan Short were Democrats. All of them later expressed disappointment that the funding for follow-on community based care was not provided. That was not their intent. In 1967, the California Legislature was divided almost equally between Democrats and Republicans, with a 1 member Democrat edge in the Senate and a 2 member edge in the Assembly. Any legislation would therefore require bipartisan support and could not be passed over a governmental veto. Furthermore, Gov. Reagan enjoyed the power of a "line item veto" over expenditures in the State budget. This was the year that Reagan actually increased the state income tax rates on the wealthy (he did so again in 1971 IIRC); he was in a budget crisis and was more than happy to unburden the state budget from the cost of mental health care by passing the buck to county and local governments that had no hope of meeting the needs of the newly de-institionalized mentally ill. Your assertion that "[b]asicly..,(sic) the Libs created the homeless situation in California, and in doing so, are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill folks whom died and are still dying on the streets, not to mention those that are killed, raped etc etc by the more vicious members of the homeless nutcases[,]" doesn't seem to be borne out by the facts, does it? Oh, I'm sure the liberals of that era played their part, but it's neither fair nor accurate to blame them for the resulting mess. Jeff Sure it was fair and accurate. Reagan HAD to sign the legislation as part of the Sop to the Dems for the tax increases. Yep. Governors, unlike Presidents, can't just run up huge deficits and let the grandkids worry about it. You are also forgetting the politics of 1967...I remember them well..Power to the People! (raising a fist) and Death to the Pigs..... The hippie radical left was on the outside, looking in, and not in power. The "Establishment" was calling the shots, remember? Hint..I live in California..and I know personally some of the players in that rat ****..and to this day, they all say Lanterman was a mistake. Hint: So did I. It was the Left whom pushed the law, and its been the Left, whom for 36 yrs have not corrected its horror, as California has been a Democrat run state for at least that long, with a large surplus for much of that time. Jeff |
does anybody here really know?
"Jeff McCann" wrote Hint: Stop listening so much to El Rushbo. America is progressive in it's soul. That progressive character has manifested itself in everything from worker's health and safety laws, to free public schools, to social security domestically, and ideas like the Nuremberg trials and recognizing basic human rights internationally. Don't forget those dusty old chestnuts, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the first part of the Declaration of Independence. As recently as 2 1/2 years ago, people at least paid lip service to them... Dan |
does anybody here really know?
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:18:18 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:13:41 GMT, "Jeff McCann" wrote: I'm top posting without snipping because what you quoted (the part below your cites) is so exactly correct I don't want anyone to miss it. In fact, I'm going to use it as a handout in my healthcare law class. "Gunner" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:27:31 GMT, "Jeff McCann" wrote: refusing to take their meds, or go to outpatient clinics etc. Basicly..,the Libs created the homeless situation in California, and in doing so, are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill folks whom died and are still dying on the streets, not to mention those that are killed, raped etc etc by the more vicious members of the homeless nutcases. Sounds like typical revisionist neo-con spin to me; blame everything on the "Libs." Cites? Jeff Simply cannot accept that the Libs would do that to people? How many did Stalin kill? Stalin's mass murders are connected to the mainstream beliefs of American progressive politics how, exactly? Such an obviously overblown smear is really beneath a man of your intelligence, Gunner. Hint..your criteria is flawed at its root. There is NO mainstream belief in progressive politics. By definition, progressive politics are Leftist at best, and the US is not by any stretch of the imagination progressive in its mainstream beliefs. Hint: Stop listening so much to El Rushbo. America is progressive in it's soul. That progressive character has manifested itself in everything from worker's health and safety laws, to free public schools, to social security domestically, and ideas like the Nuremberg trials and recognizing basic human rights internationally. At the turn of the last century, the Conservatives and their corporate overlords had to be brought to heel by Theodore Roosevelt and the progressive movement in the Trust-Busting era to move the country forward. We may see something similar in reaction to the current Far Right Administration, Supreme Court and Congress. Snicker..I listen to Larry Elder, and seldom bother listening to Rush. However..it may behove you to spend a little time listening to both of them. Few Libs have ever heard about the Law of Unintended Consequences, nor would they ever admit that their way is not the Perfect way..... Oh, like cutting taxes on the rich while paying $1+B per week for a highly dubious war and offering no rational plan to control bloating deficits and the resulting drain on the economy is wise, prudent, the product of careful foresight, and the perfect way to help the economy. It seems to me that plenty of neo-cons are actually stupid enough to believe their own rhetoric. The current situation in Iraq is the perfect illustration of the Law of Unintended Consequences, or the effect of neo-con wishful thinking and the triumph of ideology over reason. One should note..that the Recession, while cyclic in nature, started under the auspices of the Clinton Administration, and had little to do with Neo-cons. The Dems were bellied up to the trough right along side of the Republicans during the Dot Com bubble. One should note..that the economy is starting to move along just fine, GDP is up, manufacturing is up and the markets are strong. It's kinda tough to spend over $1B a week and NOT see an increase in GDP. The millions of jobs destroyed under George II are another story . Which millions are those? The ones that went tits up as a result of the Clinton Administration? Btw..how long was Enron going on..and whom was at the helm during that time? Hummmmmmmmmm? . . While the Iraqi situation may or may not have been prudent..no one has flown airliners into buildings since 9/11..which is a good thing, and Bush hasnt bombed asprin factories either....and there is no Monica or Wag the dog .... Ah, the Polestar of the political Far Right. "At least we aren't Clinton!" Can't you guys ever justify yourselves on your own merits with reference to Clinton? Sure can, but its lots of fun using YOUR guy as a counter when you blokes start spewing the DNC party line. Now, let's look at what you've offered as cites supporting your assertion that the "Libs" caused the problem in California: http://www.psychlaws.org/GeneralResources/article45.htm "In 1967, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), which went into effect in 1969 and quickly became a national model. Among other things, it prohibited forced medication or extended hospital stays without a judicial hearing. . . . As a practical matter, involuntary commitment was no longer a plausible option. . . . In 1999, the Legislature finally funded pilot projects in Stanislaus, Los Angeles and Sacramento counties that offered comprehensive treatment for the mentally ill. And they appeared to work. Within the first four months, the $10 million pilot program helped move 1,000 people off the streets and into support systems of care. Last year, Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, sponsored legislation to allocate $54.9 million to expand these pilot programs to 24 counties and two cities during the next three years. . . . " It seems a Democrat (gasp!) was trying to address the problem here. Nothing attributes the problem to "Libs,", so the cited work doesn't appear to support your original claim Lanterman was a Republican btw..and to this day, states quite clearly that it was a huge mistake. Yeah, because community based care was never funded as he intended. Yup. And why not? You Dems have been in charge in California for 36 yrs. So why didnt you get off your asses and do something about the funding? God knows we got taxed enough..... http://www.psychlaws.org/StateActivi...a/LPSoped3.htm Nothing about "libs" causing the problem there, either. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...1streets.story "This week the Assembly Judiciary Committee will consider legislation by Assembly- woman Helen Thomson (D-Davis) that would solve a key part of the problem. AB 1421 would amend the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, a well-intentioned but ultimately misguided law passed in the 1960s that bars doctors, judges and counselors from compelling seriously mentally ill people to be treated unless it can be proven they are at imminent risk of harming themselves or others." Another Democrat trying to address the problem. Note..that law came into effect in 1967...36 yrs ago. What took you guys so long? There were efforts at reform during that time. It's not like the Republicans gave a rat's ass, we're STILL waiting for them to do something for the mentally ill, other than build more prisons, etc., I mean. Why bother with the Republicans? California has had a Democratic Majority for nearly 36 yrs, with only a couple Republican Govs, whom didnt veto any funding initiatives. How come its only NOW that the Dems are climbing up on the ride? Hummmm? http://sftimes.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$82 That's a story about (Democrat) SF Mayor Willie Brown's efforts to address the problems in San Francisco, caused by the Legislation Gov. Reagan signed back in '67 Note..that law came into effect in 1967...36 yrs ago. What took you guys so long? There were efforts at reform during that time. It's not like the Republicans gave a rat's ass, we're STILL waiting for them to do something for the mentally ill, other than build more prisons, etc., I mean. Why bother with the Republicans? California has had a Democratic Majority for nearly 36 yrs, with only a couple Republican Govs, whom didnt veto any funding initiatives. How come its only NOW that the Dems are climbing up on the ride? Hummmm? http://www.namisonomacounty.org/reflect.htm " 'The passage of California's Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act in 1967...made rational treatment for the mentally ill increasingly difficult.' (Out of the Shadows, Confronting America's Mental Illness Crisis, E. Fuller Torrey, M.D. , John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N.Y. 1997. pg 10, pg 143)" Nothing about the "libs" here either, I'm afraid. Yet it seems clear that the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act was the source of the problem, or rather was the source when combined with the lack of funding for community-based care, according to your own cites. Gov. Reagan, a Republican, signed the Act. Frank Lanterman, a Republican, chaired the committee responsible for the legislation, so he controlled what went into the Act. Nicholas C. Petris and Alan Short were Democrats. All of them later expressed disappointment that the funding for follow-on community based care was not provided. That was not their intent. In 1967, the California Legislature was divided almost equally between Democrats and Republicans, with a 1 member Democrat edge in the Senate and a 2 member edge in the Assembly. Any legislation would therefore require bipartisan support and could not be passed over a governmental veto. Furthermore, Gov. Reagan enjoyed the power of a "line item veto" over expenditures in the State budget. This was the year that Reagan actually increased the state income tax rates on the wealthy (he did so again in 1971 IIRC); he was in a budget crisis and was more than happy to unburden the state budget from the cost of mental health care by passing the buck to county and local governments that had no hope of meeting the needs of the newly de-institionalized mentally ill. Your assertion that "[b]asicly..,(sic) the Libs created the homeless situation in California, and in doing so, are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill folks whom died and are still dying on the streets, not to mention those that are killed, raped etc etc by the more vicious members of the homeless nutcases[,]" doesn't seem to be borne out by the facts, does it? Oh, I'm sure the liberals of that era played their part, but it's neither fair nor accurate to blame them for the resulting mess. Jeff Sure it was fair and accurate. Reagan HAD to sign the legislation as part of the Sop to the Dems for the tax increases. Yep. Governors, unlike Presidents, can't just run up huge deficits and let the grandkids worry about it. Chuckle..would you care to say the magic words...Gray Davis? You are also forgetting the politics of 1967...I remember them well..Power to the People! (raising a fist) and Death to the Pigs..... The hippie radical left was on the outside, looking in, and not in power. The "Establishment" was calling the shots, remember? Really? ROFLMAO! Tom Hayden etc had no effect..right? Hint..I live in California..and I know personally some of the players in that rat ****..and to this day, they all say Lanterman was a mistake. Hint: So did I. Good, then we are in agreement that Lanterman was a rat ****. It was the Left whom pushed the law, and its been the Left, whom for 36 yrs have not corrected its horror, as California has been a Democrat run state for at least that long, with a large surplus for much of that time. Jeff No response to the last? Im shocked G Gunner "What do you call someone in possesion of all the facts? Paranoid.-William Burroughs |
does anybody here really know?
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:40:18 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Gunner wrote: On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:27:31 GMT, "Jeff McCann" wrote: refusing to take their meds, or go to outpatient clinics etc. Basicly..,the Libs created the homeless situation in California, and in doing so, are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill folks whom died and are still dying on the streets, not to mention those that are killed, raped etc etc by the more vicious members of the homeless nutcases. Sounds like typical revisionist neo-con spin to me; blame everything on the "Libs." Cites? Jeff Simply cannot accept that the Libs would do that to people? How many did Stalin kill? Few Libs have ever heard about the Law of Unintended Consequences, nor would they ever admit that their way is not the Perfect way..... Now I know you're off your rocker; you think Stalin was a liberal. Sure was. A totalitarian to the core, as are most current liberals. BTW, I've coined a new verb to describe simple-minded rightie thinking, as you demonstrate with your diatribe about the mentally ill. The verb is LIMBAUGH, or, to LIMBAUGH. That's how one describes the process in which a rightie tries to walk away from responsibility for action or inaction and then blame it on the other side. Ive coined a new verb to describe simple minded leftie thinking, as you demonstrate with your diatribes about every thing. the Verb is Kennedy, or to Kennedy. Thats how one describes the process in which a leftie tries to walk away from responsibility for action or inaction then blame it on the other side. Btw..how is Mary Jo Kopeckney these days? Still dead? That's what Rush does...and it is what you do, too. You LIMBAUGH. ROFLMAO... Perhaps I should coin a second verb..Hillary. Still dreading that old Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? Snicker.. You Hillary! Gunner Smells as bad as it sounds. "What do you call someone in possesion of all the facts? Paranoid.-William Burroughs |
does anybody here really know?
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:02:20 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: erniegalts wrote: On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:40:18 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Gunner wrote: On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:27:31 GMT, "Jeff McCann" wrote: refusing to take their meds, or go to outpatient clinics etc. Basicly..,the Libs created the homeless situation in California, and in doing so, are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill folks whom died and are still dying on the streets, not to mention those that are killed, raped etc etc by the more vicious members of the homeless nutcases. Sounds like typical revisionist neo-con spin to me; blame everything on the "Libs." Cites? Jeff Simply cannot accept that the Libs would do that to people? How many did Stalin kill? Few Libs have ever heard about the Law of Unintended Consequences, nor would they ever admit that their way is not the Perfect way..... Now I know you're off your rocker; you think Stalin was a liberal. BTW, I've coined a new verb to describe simple-minded rightie thinking, as you demonstrate with your diatribe about the mentally ill. The verb is LIMBAUGH, or, to LIMBAUGH. That's how one describes the process in which a rightie tries to walk away from responsibility for action or inaction and then blame it on the other side. That's what Rush does...and it is what you do, too. You LIMBAUGH. Smells as bad as it sounds. Nice neologism! Hopes it becomes popular. As a challenge, can you come up with one to describe those who insist that there is no difference between Nazism and Communism? :-) Neo-Newsgroup-Phytes For extra credit, one that includes that all-purpose hate word "socialism"? Anti-Societal-New-Newsgroup-Phytes. I have to giggle when the Konservatrash (another word I coined) go after socialism. They are clueless. Socialists are clueless? Then why are there so many of them? You nattering nabob of negativism...snicker Gunner "What do you call someone in possesion of all the facts? Paranoid.-William Burroughs |
does anybody here really know?
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 04:42:45 GMT, Gunner
wrote: On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:02:20 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: erniegalts wrote: On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:40:18 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Gunner wrote: On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:27:31 GMT, "Jeff McCann" wrote: refusing to take their meds, or go to outpatient clinics etc. Basicly..,the Libs created the homeless situation in California, and in doing so, are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill folks whom died and are still dying on the streets, not to mention those that are killed, raped etc etc by the more vicious members of the homeless nutcases. Sounds like typical revisionist neo-con spin to me; blame everything on the "Libs." Cites? Jeff Simply cannot accept that the Libs would do that to people? How many did Stalin kill? Few Libs have ever heard about the Law of Unintended Consequences, nor would they ever admit that their way is not the Perfect way..... Now I know you're off your rocker; you think Stalin was a liberal. BTW, I've coined a new verb to describe simple-minded rightie thinking, as you demonstrate with your diatribe about the mentally ill. The verb is LIMBAUGH, or, to LIMBAUGH. That's how one describes the process in which a rightie tries to walk away from responsibility for action or inaction and then blame it on the other side. That's what Rush does...and it is what you do, too. You LIMBAUGH. Smells as bad as it sounds. Nice neologism! Hopes it becomes popular. As a challenge, can you come up with one to describe those who insist that there is no difference between Nazism and Communism? :-) Neo-Newsgroup-Phytes For extra credit, one that includes that all-purpose hate word "socialism"? Anti-Societal-New-Newsgroup-Phytes. I have to giggle when the Konservatrash (another word I coined) go after socialism. They are clueless. Socialists are clueless? Then why are there so many of them? You nattering nabob of negativism...snicker Ah that brings back some memories, but it does show your age, Gunner. Besides, am pretty sure the correct quote involves "nabobs", not "nabob" so will base search on this Searched the web for "nattering nabobs of negativism". Results 1 - 10 of about 1,090. Search took 0.24 seconds. ===================== AUTHOR: Spiro T Agnew, US Vice President QUOTATION: In the United States today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism. ATTRIBUTION: Address at San Diego 11 Sep 70 http://www.wordwizard.com/clubhouse/founddiscuss.asp?Num=3310 ======================= No need to thank me, but you are welcome. :-) Gunner "What do you call someone in possesion of all the facts? Paranoid.-William Burroughs "_Magna est veritas et praevalebit"_ (Truth is mighty and will prevail). {erniegalts} {Australia} {misc.survivalism} |
does anybody here really know?
Harry Krause wrote in message ...
Gunner wrote: On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:27:31 GMT, "Jeff McCann" wrote: refusing to take their meds, or go to outpatient clinics etc. Basicly..,the Libs created the homeless situation in California, and in doing so, are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill folks whom died and are still dying on the streets, not to mention those that are killed, raped etc etc by the more vicious members of the homeless nutcases. Sounds like typical revisionist neo-con spin to me; blame everything on the "Libs." Cites? Jeff Simply cannot accept that the Libs would do that to people? How many did Stalin kill? Few Libs have ever heard about the Law of Unintended Consequences, nor would they ever admit that their way is not the Perfect way..... Now I know you're off your rocker; you think Stalin was a liberal. BTW, I've coined a new verb to describe simple-minded rightie thinking, as you demonstrate with your diatribe about the mentally ill. The verb is LIMBAUGH, or, to LIMBAUGH. That's how one describes the process in which a rightie tries to walk away from responsibility for action or inaction and then blame it on the other side. That's what Rush does...and it is what you do, too. You LIMBAUGH. Smells as bad as it sounds. Sh** I blew the joke... I meant to say I call it a Harry not just Harry. |
does anybody here really know?
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:40:18 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Harry- just a "heads up" that this thread is being crossposted across several unrelated newsgroups, along with your responses. "Don't feed the bears....er...trolls". :o) Regards, noah Courtesy of Lee Yeaton, See the boats of rec.boats www.TheBayGuide.com/rec.boats |
does anybody here really know?
|
does anybody here really know?
noah wrote:
On 12 Aug 2003 05:47:48 -0700, (Backyard Renegade) wrote: Scotty- I don't know if you noticed, but Gunner is crossposting across several unrelated newsgroups, along with your responses. Regards, noah Courtesy of Lee Yeaton, See the boats of rec.boats www.TheBayGuide.com/rec.boats Ahh, thanks. I should have looked. -- * * * email sent to will *never* get to me. |
does anybody here really know?
"Gunner" wrote
Snicker..I listen to Larry Elder, and seldom bother listening to Rush. However..it may behove you to spend a little time listening to both of them. It might behoove you to stop listening to all those blowhards and doing a little *thinking* on your own for a change. |
does anybody here really know?
"Gunner" wrote in message
... On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:18:18 GMT, "Jeff McCann" wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:13:41 GMT, "Jeff McCann" wrote: I'm top posting without snipping because what you quoted (the part below your cites) is so exactly correct I don't want anyone to miss it. In fact, I'm going to use it as a handout in my healthcare law class. "Gunner" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:27:31 GMT, "Jeff McCann" wrote: refusing to take their meds, or go to outpatient clinics etc. Basicly..,the Libs created the homeless situation in California, and in doing so, are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill folks whom died and are still dying on the streets, not to mention those that are killed, raped etc etc by the more vicious members of the homeless nutcases. Sounds like typical revisionist neo-con spin to me; blame everything on the "Libs." Cites? Jeff Simply cannot accept that the Libs would do that to people? How many did Stalin kill? Stalin's mass murders are connected to the mainstream beliefs of American progressive politics how, exactly? Such an obviously overblown smear is really beneath a man of your intelligence, Gunner. Hint..your criteria is flawed at its root. There is NO mainstream belief in progressive politics. By definition, progressive politics are Leftist at best, and the US is not by any stretch of the imagination progressive in its mainstream beliefs. Hint: Stop listening so much to El Rushbo. America is progressive in it's soul. That progressive character has manifested itself in everything from worker's health and safety laws, to free public schools, to social security domestically, and ideas like the Nuremberg trials and recognizing basic human rights internationally. At the turn of the last century, the Conservatives and their corporate overlords had to be brought to heel by Theodore Roosevelt and the progressive movement in the Trust-Busting era to move the country forward. We may see something similar in reaction to the current Far Right Administration, Supreme Court and Congress. Snicker..I listen to Larry Elder, and seldom bother listening to Rush. However..it may behove you to spend a little time listening to both of them. Actually, I listen regularly to Rush, but I understand that he is just an entertainer, not the fount of all wisdom. I also listen to Sean Hannity and watch Faux News and Joe Scarbourough (we once worked together), so I stay pretty current on the Right wing view of things. Few Libs have ever heard about the Law of Unintended Consequences, nor would they ever admit that their way is not the Perfect way..... Oh, like cutting taxes on the rich while paying $1+B per week for a highly dubious war and offering no rational plan to control bloating deficits and the resulting drain on the economy is wise, prudent, the product of careful foresight, and the perfect way to help the economy. It seems to me that plenty of neo-cons are actually stupid enough to believe their own rhetoric. The current situation in Iraq is the perfect illustration of the Law of Unintended Consequences, or the effect of neo-con wishful thinking and the triumph of ideology over reason. One should note..that the Recession, while cyclic in nature, started under the auspices of the Clinton Administration, and had little to do with Neo-cons. The Dems were bellied up to the trough right along side of the Republicans during the Dot Com bubble. One should note..that the economy is starting to move along just fine, GDP is up, manufacturing is up and the markets are strong. It's kinda tough to spend over $1B a week and NOT see an increase in GDP. The millions of jobs destroyed under George II are another story . Which millions are those? The ones that went tits up as a result of the Clinton Administration? Btw..how long was Enron going on..and whom was at the helm during that time? Hummmmmmmmmm? Do try to stop blaming everything on the Clinton Regime, will you? It's becoming a tiresome refrain. The plain fact is that there was steady job growth under Clinton and steady job loss under George II. As for Enron and the like, it seems to me that the current administration is settling the theft and fraud cases for pennies on the dollar, letting the wrongdoers keep most of their ill-gotten gains. They are also watering down or stalling real efforts at reform while putting on a few show trails of mid-level crooks like Martha Stewart. While the Iraqi situation may or may not have been prudent..no one has flown airliners into buildings since 9/11..which is a good thing, and Bush hasnt bombed asprin factories either....and there is no Monica or Wag the dog .... Ah, the Polestar of the political Far Right. "At least we aren't Clinton!" Can't you guys ever justify yourselves on your own merits with reference to Clinton? Sure can, but its lots of fun using YOUR guy as a counter when you blokes start spewing the DNC party line. Clinton definitely wasn't MY guy. As for wag the dog, are you referring to Reagan's invasion of Grenada to distract public attention from the hundreds of body bagged Marines coming home from his Lebanon debacle? Now, let's look at what you've offered as cites supporting your assertion that the "Libs" caused the problem in California: http://www.psychlaws.org/GeneralResources/article45.htm "In 1967, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), which went into effect in 1969 and quickly became a national model. Among other things, it prohibited forced medication or extended hospital stays without a judicial hearing. . . . As a practical matter, involuntary commitment was no longer a plausible option. . . . In 1999, the Legislature finally funded pilot projects in Stanislaus, Los Angeles and Sacramento counties that offered comprehensive treatment for the mentally ill. And they appeared to work. Within the first four months, the $10 million pilot program helped move 1,000 people off the streets and into support systems of care. Last year, Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, sponsored legislation to allocate $54.9 million to expand these pilot programs to 24 counties and two cities during the next three years. . . . " It seems a Democrat (gasp!) was trying to address the problem here. Nothing attributes the problem to "Libs,", so the cited work doesn't appear to support your original claim Lanterman was a Republican btw..and to this day, states quite clearly that it was a huge mistake. Yeah, because community based care was never funded as he intended. Yup. And why not? You Dems have been in charge in California for 36 yrs. So why didnt you get off your asses and do something about the funding? God knows we got taxed enough..... Democrats have a full share of blame, but that's not your original claim. You blamed the entire mess on the "libs." On that point, you were wrong. http://www.psychlaws.org/StateActivi...a/LPSoped3.htm Nothing about "libs" causing the problem there, either. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...1streets.story "This week the Assembly Judiciary Committee will consider legislation by Assembly- woman Helen Thomson (D-Davis) that would solve a key part of the problem. AB 1421 would amend the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, a well-intentioned but ultimately misguided law passed in the 1960s that bars doctors, judges and counselors from compelling seriously mentally ill people to be treated unless it can be proven they are at imminent risk of harming themselves or others." Another Democrat trying to address the problem. Note..that law came into effect in 1967...36 yrs ago. What took you guys so long? There were efforts at reform during that time. It's not like the Republicans gave a rat's ass, we're STILL waiting for them to do something for the mentally ill, other than build more prisons, etc., I mean. Why bother with the Republicans? California has had a Democratic Majority for nearly 36 yrs, with only a couple Republican Govs, whom didnt veto any funding initiatives. How come its only NOW that the Dems are climbing up on the ride? Hummmm? At least somebody is. http://sftimes.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$82 That's a story about (Democrat) SF Mayor Willie Brown's efforts to address the problems in San Francisco, caused by the Legislation Gov. Reagan signed back in '67 Note..that law came into effect in 1967...36 yrs ago. What took you guys so long? There were efforts at reform during that time. It's not like the Republicans gave a rat's ass, we're STILL waiting for them to do something for the mentally ill, other than build more prisons, etc., I mean. Why bother with the Republicans? California has had a Democratic Majority for nearly 36 yrs, with only a couple Republican Govs, whom didnt veto any funding initiatives. How come its only NOW that the Dems are climbing up on the ride? Hummmm? The Democrats have merely demonstrated that they are quite as capable as the Republicans when it comes to mismanaging government. This surprises you somehow? ;-) http://www.namisonomacounty.org/reflect.htm " 'The passage of California's Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act in 1967...made rational treatment for the mentally ill increasingly difficult.' (Out of the Shadows, Confronting America's Mental Illness Crisis, E. Fuller Torrey, M.D. , John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N.Y. 1997. pg 10, pg 143)" Nothing about the "libs" here either, I'm afraid. Yet it seems clear that the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act was the source of the problem, or rather was the source when combined with the lack of funding for community-based care, according to your own cites. Gov. Reagan, a Republican, signed the Act. Frank Lanterman, a Republican, chaired the committee responsible for the legislation, so he controlled what went into the Act. Nicholas C. Petris and Alan Short were Democrats. All of them later expressed disappointment that the funding for follow-on community based care was not provided. That was not their intent. In 1967, the California Legislature was divided almost equally between Democrats and Republicans, with a 1 member Democrat edge in the Senate and a 2 member edge in the Assembly. Any legislation would therefore require bipartisan support and could not be passed over a governmental veto. Furthermore, Gov. Reagan enjoyed the power of a "line item veto" over expenditures in the State budget. This was the year that Reagan actually increased the state income tax rates on the wealthy (he did so again in 1971 IIRC); he was in a budget crisis and was more than happy to unburden the state budget from the cost of mental health care by passing the buck to county and local governments that had no hope of meeting the needs of the newly de-institionalized mentally ill. Your assertion that "[b]asicly..,(sic) the Libs created the homeless situation in California, and in doing so, are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill folks whom died and are still dying on the streets, not to mention those that are killed, raped etc etc by the more vicious members of the homeless nutcases[,]" doesn't seem to be borne out by the facts, does it? Oh, I'm sure the liberals of that era played their part, but it's neither fair nor accurate to blame them for the resulting mess. Jeff Sure it was fair and accurate. Reagan HAD to sign the legislation as part of the Sop to the Dems for the tax increases. Yep. Governors, unlike Presidents, can't just run up huge deficits and let the grandkids worry about it. Chuckle..would you care to say the magic words...Gray Davis? Ayup. So, who you gonna vote for to replace him? You are also forgetting the politics of 1967...I remember them well..Power to the People! (raising a fist) and Death to the Pigs..... The hippie radical left was on the outside, looking in, and not in power. The "Establishment" was calling the shots, remember? Really? ROFLMAO! Tom Hayden etc had no effect..right? Hint..I live in California..and I know personally some of the players in that rat ****..and to this day, they all say Lanterman was a mistake. Hint: So did I. Good, then we are in agreement that Lanterman was a rat ****. It was the Left whom pushed the law, and its been the Left, whom for 36 yrs have not corrected its horror, as California has been a Democrat run state for at least that long, with a large surplus for much of that time. Common Democrat fallacy. Good intentions aren't enough. But the Republicans bear their full weight of responsibility for the resulting horror, as well. I don't care for Democrat screw-ups either. Don't confuse my very deep concern and occasional abject horror at the current regime's doings as blanket approval of the alternative. Jeff |
does anybody here really know?
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 18:53:09 -0400, "Gary Warner"
wrote: "Carolyn Louise leigh" wrote in message ... No Brainer! OIL. Toss out all the smoke and mirrors. Every argument GWB made for War with Iraq was an echo of the 60's. My how short memories become....:) Operation Iraqi Liberation = OIL Oh, wait, we better not call it that... Operation Isralie Lackeys Oy vey, ve kan't call it zhat either. . . __________________________________________________ ____________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com The Worlds Uncensored News Source |
does anybody here really know?
"Ignoramus14603" wrote in message ... In article , leon skunkers wrote: ...why the hell we invaded Iraq? I'll admit I can't come up with anything that makes sense. My guess is, as to what went behind the closed doors, is that there were two reasons: 1. Steal Iraqi oil and enrich Haliburton, etc, and lower oil prices in time for the next election. The old "liebensraum" (living space) concept. 2. Occupy Iraq and use it as a fixed aircraft carrier in the quest for world dominance. The thinking goes, occupying Iraq, it will be easier to get Saudis or Iran or whatever other nation might be "next". Unfortunately, it turns out that the Iraqis are not eager to pump out their oil to enrich us, and also that instead of a good platform for a conquest, Iraq consumed much of the US military manpower to the point that it is much harder to mount more victorious blitzkriegs elsewhere. You forgot: 3. It was Osama's wish, and a way to accede to his demand that we leave Saudi Arabia yet still feel like we had a presence in the region. Note: we have given in to essentially all of his post-911 demands. Way to go George! 4. It was a way to forestall the changeover of the valuation of oil to Euros, instead of USDollars. A true win-win if there ever was one. Dan |
does anybody here really know?
"Gunner" wrote in message ... On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:27:47 -0700, "Dan" wrote: "Jeff McCann" wrote Hint: Stop listening so much to El Rushbo. America is progressive in it's soul. That progressive character has manifested itself in everything from worker's health and safety laws, to free public schools, to social security domestically, and ideas like the Nuremberg trials and recognizing basic human rights internationally. Don't forget those dusty old chestnuts, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the first part of the Declaration of Independence. As recently as 2 1/2 years ago, people at least paid lip service to them... Dan Yup, sure did. Too bad none of them were Dem Politicians. Amazing. His lips hardly moved... Dan |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com