The Partial Truth
The Phoenix got it partially right. Few editorials recognize the fear
politicians have for police unions. But they also fear the police. (Editorial,
"The painful truth," Boston Phoenix, April 4, 2007)
The editorial errs saying, "better policing is the only hope the residents
of Boston�s troubled neighborhoods have." Better politicians and accountability
are essential.
Young people see politicians ignore inconvenient laws. They know that James
Bulger killed 19 persons while working for the FBI, which remains untrustworthy.
Massachusetts elected officials are poor role models. Where is the
motivation for young people to obey laws when the government does not?
More importantly there is a correlation between young males growing up
without a father and without religion, and crime and poor school performance.
It is not an easy problem to solve. But the current leadership in Massachusetts
state and city governments is encouraging crime by example. Just having the best
policing humanly possible will not end this crisis. It's gonna be around for a
long while.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
The painful truth
Boston Phoenix
Boston's murder crisis underscores the need to reform its police force
4/4/2007 11:33:23 AM
If it is painful to try to make sense of the ongoing plague of murders
afflicting neighborhoods in Roxbury, Dorchester, and Mattapan, try to imagine
what it is like to live there.
Life is already tough in these poor and working-class areas. For many of the
200,000 or so who live there, the simple acts of making ends meet, raising a
family, and getting an education are challenges.
We all know that life is unfair. But when the intrinsic inequities of birth are
compounded by a relatively small - probably no more than a couple hundred -
group of criminals, what are the rest of us to think? To expect? To do?
These are questions with inadequate and unsatisfactory answers.
[...]
May 28, 2007
Nonsensical Writing
Nonsensical Writing
What is the purpose of prominently stating in this report an allegation
about mental illness? (Associated Press, "Man who killed mother schizophrenic,
kin says," Boston Globe, April 9, 2007)
Let's see, his uncle said he "was prone to delusions and tantrums when he
didn't take his medication." And his uncle is a what? Can we ignore diagnoses
from psychiatrists if relatives can provide them? What are the standards for
making these nonsensical claims in print? Is everyone and anyone an expert on
psychiatry?
One more journalist ignorant about British studies proving a causal
connection between taking psychiatric drugs and violence. It is the drugs that
causes the violence not the person or the made up illness.
What is the connection of a psychiatric illness to an accusation of crime
or violence? The only connection is the irrational stereotyping by journalists,
police, prosecutors and many psychiatrists. This is a part of the 70-year
psychiatric PR campaign to promote drug usage for persons accused of mental
illness.
Why do limousine liberal journalists and politicians ignore such hate
filled mean spirited speech against persons with disabilities? It makes no
sense. But these same compassionate hypocrites would never make such claims
about women, blacks or homosexuals. Why is this bigotry tolerated?
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Man who killed mother schizophrenic, kin says
Expired license said to anger son
Boston Globe
By Associated Press
April 9, 2007
AUBURN, Maine -- An Auburn man who shot and killed his mother before being
fatally shot by police was a paranoid schizophrenic whose outburst might have
been triggered by the suspension of his driver's license, family members said.
James Michael Peters was prone to delusions and tantrums when he didn't take his
medication, and he often didn't, Paul McGrath, an uncle of Peters, told the Sun
Journal of Lewiston.
On March 30, Peters turned 42. That was also the day his license expired.
Peters went into a rage at not being able to drive, McGrath said. By the time
the day was over, police said, Peters had shot his mother in the head before
being fatally shot himself.
Despite his long history of mental illness, his refusal to take medication, and
his volatility, that day was the first time Peters had become violent, friends
and family members said.
[...]
What is the purpose of prominently stating in this report an allegation
about mental illness? (Associated Press, "Man who killed mother schizophrenic,
kin says," Boston Globe, April 9, 2007)
Let's see, his uncle said he "was prone to delusions and tantrums when he
didn't take his medication." And his uncle is a what? Can we ignore diagnoses
from psychiatrists if relatives can provide them? What are the standards for
making these nonsensical claims in print? Is everyone and anyone an expert on
psychiatry?
One more journalist ignorant about British studies proving a causal
connection between taking psychiatric drugs and violence. It is the drugs that
causes the violence not the person or the made up illness.
What is the connection of a psychiatric illness to an accusation of crime
or violence? The only connection is the irrational stereotyping by journalists,
police, prosecutors and many psychiatrists. This is a part of the 70-year
psychiatric PR campaign to promote drug usage for persons accused of mental
illness.
Why do limousine liberal journalists and politicians ignore such hate
filled mean spirited speech against persons with disabilities? It makes no
sense. But these same compassionate hypocrites would never make such claims
about women, blacks or homosexuals. Why is this bigotry tolerated?
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Man who killed mother schizophrenic, kin says
Expired license said to anger son
Boston Globe
By Associated Press
April 9, 2007
AUBURN, Maine -- An Auburn man who shot and killed his mother before being
fatally shot by police was a paranoid schizophrenic whose outburst might have
been triggered by the suspension of his driver's license, family members said.
James Michael Peters was prone to delusions and tantrums when he didn't take his
medication, and he often didn't, Paul McGrath, an uncle of Peters, told the Sun
Journal of Lewiston.
On March 30, Peters turned 42. That was also the day his license expired.
Peters went into a rage at not being able to drive, McGrath said. By the time
the day was over, police said, Peters had shot his mother in the head before
being fatally shot himself.
Despite his long history of mental illness, his refusal to take medication, and
his volatility, that day was the first time Peters had become violent, friends
and family members said.
[...]
Psychiatry about funding not protecting humans
Psychiatry about funding not protecting humans
Rep. Koutoujian's comment shows his focus like NAMI's is on more funding
for more treatment not protecting the rights of people. "Koutoujian said funding
cuts has meant fewer beds for mental health patients around the state." He does
not seem to be concerned for the abuses of the people only that the need for more
money for more abusive(?) treatment. (Rebekah Metzler, "M-Power questions ER
care," Daily News Tribune, April 05, 2007)
Koutoujian says he does not criticize the ER staff. Does he think that
they acted legally? He does not mention the over loading of the ERs as a result
of illegal aliens and uninsured citizens.
Why would DMH provide more protections of rights of people than DPH? The
government institutionalized violations of the rights of people. Politicians
serve the interests of drug companies and NAMI who contribute money to their
campaigns. How much does M-Power give to the legislators?
The comment by the psychiatrist Sandra Fitzgerald is a clear example of the
unlawful bias among psychiatrists. In the name of safety the hospital violates
rights and discriminates against the people they are supposed to help based upon
unlawful stereotypes. She expresses the psychiatric model not the legal model.
Psychiatrists are ignorant of and do not care about laws or rights. They think
in terms of their precious diagnoses which are mostly personal opinions based
upon made up illnesses.
This is nonsense.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
M-Power questions ER care
By Rebekah Metzler/
Daily News Tribune Correspondent
Thursday, April 05, 2007 - Updated: 10:52 AM EDT
BOSTON - Two months ago, a Waltham woman seeking treatment for anxiety entered
an emergency room, where she waited two hours before being brought to a small,
cold room.
According to Jane, whose real name is not being used to protect her privacy, she
was then asked to remove her clothes. Despite refusing, a young woman arrived
and began undressing Jane, who again insisted she stop.
Jane said she was left with nothing but her bra and a hospital Johnnie - the
nurse had removed all of Jane's clothes and other personal belongings, including
her cell phone.
Four hours later, according to Jane, she was transferred to another hospital,
after being traumatized and offered no direct care.
M-POWER, a grassroots advocacy organization of mental health patients, said Jane
was mistreated because she had been identified by the hospital as a psychiatric
patient.
M-POWER and other support groups for the mentally ill have rallied around
legislation proposed by state Rep. Peter Koutoujian, the House chairman of the
Committee on Public Health, concerning the licensing of emergency rooms for the
treatment of psychiatric patients.[...]
Rep. Koutoujian's comment shows his focus like NAMI's is on more funding
for more treatment not protecting the rights of people. "Koutoujian said funding
cuts has meant fewer beds for mental health patients around the state." He does
not seem to be concerned for the abuses of the people only that the need for more
money for more abusive(?) treatment. (Rebekah Metzler, "M-Power questions ER
care," Daily News Tribune, April 05, 2007)
Koutoujian says he does not criticize the ER staff. Does he think that
they acted legally? He does not mention the over loading of the ERs as a result
of illegal aliens and uninsured citizens.
Why would DMH provide more protections of rights of people than DPH? The
government institutionalized violations of the rights of people. Politicians
serve the interests of drug companies and NAMI who contribute money to their
campaigns. How much does M-Power give to the legislators?
The comment by the psychiatrist Sandra Fitzgerald is a clear example of the
unlawful bias among psychiatrists. In the name of safety the hospital violates
rights and discriminates against the people they are supposed to help based upon
unlawful stereotypes. She expresses the psychiatric model not the legal model.
Psychiatrists are ignorant of and do not care about laws or rights. They think
in terms of their precious diagnoses which are mostly personal opinions based
upon made up illnesses.
This is nonsense.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
M-Power questions ER care
By Rebekah Metzler/
Daily News Tribune Correspondent
Thursday, April 05, 2007 - Updated: 10:52 AM EDT
BOSTON - Two months ago, a Waltham woman seeking treatment for anxiety entered
an emergency room, where she waited two hours before being brought to a small,
cold room.
According to Jane, whose real name is not being used to protect her privacy, she
was then asked to remove her clothes. Despite refusing, a young woman arrived
and began undressing Jane, who again insisted she stop.
Jane said she was left with nothing but her bra and a hospital Johnnie - the
nurse had removed all of Jane's clothes and other personal belongings, including
her cell phone.
Four hours later, according to Jane, she was transferred to another hospital,
after being traumatized and offered no direct care.
M-POWER, a grassroots advocacy organization of mental health patients, said Jane
was mistreated because she had been identified by the hospital as a psychiatric
patient.
M-POWER and other support groups for the mentally ill have rallied around
legislation proposed by state Rep. Peter Koutoujian, the House chairman of the
Committee on Public Health, concerning the licensing of emergency rooms for the
treatment of psychiatric patients.[...]
Clerk Wrong Twice on Rules
Clerk Wrong Twice on Rules
"City Clerk Margaret Drury said that as long as none of city councilors
realized there was not a quorum, or a majority of members present, or called for
a quorum beforehand, the vote stands."
"Drury also [said] the City Council�s voting procedures had never been
questioned in the past." The most cooperative city employee is wrong twice.
(Erin Smith, "City Clerk: Don't question councilors who missed vote," Cambridge
Chronicle, Apr 12, 2007)
Erin Smith correctly notes more is in play here than Robert's Rules. The
City Council's rules require a quorum. Rule 5 states, "The Mayor shall declare
all votes. [...] the mayor shall declare the results, but no such declaration
shall be made unless a quorum of the City Council has voted."
It is wishful thinking to say the council was never questioned in the past
about rules violations. The Clerk verifies my belief that City Councilors and
City employees ignore public comment. During several meetings a few citizens
openly challenged the council about having less than a quorum present. Once the
Mayor threatened to have me removed when I noted that there was no quorum.
In many letters to the council I pointed out the frequent anomalies
on voting (most recently my letter in the April 9, 2007 agenda). On that day
there was no vote on a motion to table an item. It was tabled without a vote.
There are frequent violations of city council rules on suspending the rules. I
detailed the violations dozens of time.
It is clear that city officials hear selectively, see selectively, speak
selectively, and worst of all enforce rules and laws selectively. That is the
major problem resulting from nine councilors being intentionally ignorant of the
rules of running a meeting. The city council rules mandate that the meetings be
run by Robert's Rules. It is a recurring problem with one-party government.
The Mayor admitted on April 9, 2007 he is now taking classes on how to run
a meeting after being a councilor for 18 years. It is never too late to learn.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
City Clerk: Don't question councilors who missed vote
By Erin Smith/Chronicle Staff
Cambridge Chronicle
Thu Apr 12, 2007, 12:01 PM EDT
Cambridge -
There may have been only three city councilors voting, but that doesn't mean
that the Monday night vote didn't count, according to the city clerk.
The majority of city councilors exited the meeting through the doors of the
private "green room" before a discussion and vote to record a report from City
Manager Bob Healy on the Valentine's Day snowstorm.
City Clerk Margaret Drury said that as long as none of city councilors realized
there was not a quorum, or a majority of members present, or called for a quorum
beforehand, the vote stands.
"Robert's says that because of that, they don't go backwards on votes," said
Drury, referencing Robert's Rules of Order, a widely used parliamentary
guideline.
Drury also questioned why the Chronicle would highlight something as �diminutive�
as a vote to place a report on file, citing that the City Council�s voting
procedures had never been questioned in the past.
Only city councilors Craig Kelley, Denise Simmons and Mayor Ken Reeves were in
the room during the voice vote to place a city manager�s report on file. A
quorum, or majority of city councilors, is needed for all official votes,
according to the City Council�s rules. That means there needs to be at least
five city councilors present to take a vote.
City councilors Michael Sullivan, Anthony Galluccio, Marjorie Decker, Henrietta
Davis and Tim Toomey were all absent from the room during a discussion on the
city's response to the severe ice and snowstorm on Valentine's Day.
City Councilor Brian Murphy was absent from the beginning of the meeting due to
a family emergency, according to his fellow city councilors.
Several minutes after the vote was taken to record the report on the storm,
Decker and Sullivan emerged from the entrance to the green room.
The green room is an off-limits-to-the-public space where city councilors go to
relax, have private discussions or eat a catered dinner.
Galluccio entered the council chambers about a minute later, just in time to
speak on Healy's appointment of Robert Haas as the new police commissioner.
While some city councilors leave the chambers briefly to use the restroom or get
water or soda, others remain in the green room and are absent from the chambers
at weekly meetings for extended periods of time.
The Chronicle has been periodically reporting on voting delays and discussions
that take place when a majority of city councilors are in the green room and are
not present in the City Council chambers.
Last year, Mayor Ken Reeves set off a debate about the green room when he
asserted that the room was an extension of the meeting. He later backed down
from that view.
In February, City Councilor Craig Kelley attempted to get a legal opinion on
whether the City Council can conduct city business in their private green room,
but his colleagues shot down his bid. Only City Councilor Anthony Galluccio
sided with Kelley, voting in favor of the legal opinion.
"There are not five people in the back room at any time during the meeting,"
said Drury. "People can be other areas of the building."
Drury conceded that there is no way for the public to know when city councilors
remain in the green room because it is off limits to the public. She said she
monitors the room during recesses.
Said Drury, "I can look in that room quickly and say 'Come back in here.'"
"City Clerk Margaret Drury said that as long as none of city councilors
realized there was not a quorum, or a majority of members present, or called for
a quorum beforehand, the vote stands."
"Drury also [said] the City Council�s voting procedures had never been
questioned in the past." The most cooperative city employee is wrong twice.
(Erin Smith, "City Clerk: Don't question councilors who missed vote," Cambridge
Chronicle, Apr 12, 2007)
Erin Smith correctly notes more is in play here than Robert's Rules. The
City Council's rules require a quorum. Rule 5 states, "The Mayor shall declare
all votes. [...] the mayor shall declare the results, but no such declaration
shall be made unless a quorum of the City Council has voted."
It is wishful thinking to say the council was never questioned in the past
about rules violations. The Clerk verifies my belief that City Councilors and
City employees ignore public comment. During several meetings a few citizens
openly challenged the council about having less than a quorum present. Once the
Mayor threatened to have me removed when I noted that there was no quorum.
In many letters to the council I pointed out the frequent anomalies
on voting (most recently my letter in the April 9, 2007 agenda). On that day
there was no vote on a motion to table an item. It was tabled without a vote.
There are frequent violations of city council rules on suspending the rules. I
detailed the violations dozens of time.
It is clear that city officials hear selectively, see selectively, speak
selectively, and worst of all enforce rules and laws selectively. That is the
major problem resulting from nine councilors being intentionally ignorant of the
rules of running a meeting. The city council rules mandate that the meetings be
run by Robert's Rules. It is a recurring problem with one-party government.
The Mayor admitted on April 9, 2007 he is now taking classes on how to run
a meeting after being a councilor for 18 years. It is never too late to learn.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
City Clerk: Don't question councilors who missed vote
By Erin Smith/Chronicle Staff
Cambridge Chronicle
Thu Apr 12, 2007, 12:01 PM EDT
Cambridge -
There may have been only three city councilors voting, but that doesn't mean
that the Monday night vote didn't count, according to the city clerk.
The majority of city councilors exited the meeting through the doors of the
private "green room" before a discussion and vote to record a report from City
Manager Bob Healy on the Valentine's Day snowstorm.
City Clerk Margaret Drury said that as long as none of city councilors realized
there was not a quorum, or a majority of members present, or called for a quorum
beforehand, the vote stands.
"Robert's says that because of that, they don't go backwards on votes," said
Drury, referencing Robert's Rules of Order, a widely used parliamentary
guideline.
Drury also questioned why the Chronicle would highlight something as �diminutive�
as a vote to place a report on file, citing that the City Council�s voting
procedures had never been questioned in the past.
Only city councilors Craig Kelley, Denise Simmons and Mayor Ken Reeves were in
the room during the voice vote to place a city manager�s report on file. A
quorum, or majority of city councilors, is needed for all official votes,
according to the City Council�s rules. That means there needs to be at least
five city councilors present to take a vote.
City councilors Michael Sullivan, Anthony Galluccio, Marjorie Decker, Henrietta
Davis and Tim Toomey were all absent from the room during a discussion on the
city's response to the severe ice and snowstorm on Valentine's Day.
City Councilor Brian Murphy was absent from the beginning of the meeting due to
a family emergency, according to his fellow city councilors.
Several minutes after the vote was taken to record the report on the storm,
Decker and Sullivan emerged from the entrance to the green room.
The green room is an off-limits-to-the-public space where city councilors go to
relax, have private discussions or eat a catered dinner.
Galluccio entered the council chambers about a minute later, just in time to
speak on Healy's appointment of Robert Haas as the new police commissioner.
While some city councilors leave the chambers briefly to use the restroom or get
water or soda, others remain in the green room and are absent from the chambers
at weekly meetings for extended periods of time.
The Chronicle has been periodically reporting on voting delays and discussions
that take place when a majority of city councilors are in the green room and are
not present in the City Council chambers.
Last year, Mayor Ken Reeves set off a debate about the green room when he
asserted that the room was an extension of the meeting. He later backed down
from that view.
In February, City Councilor Craig Kelley attempted to get a legal opinion on
whether the City Council can conduct city business in their private green room,
but his colleagues shot down his bid. Only City Councilor Anthony Galluccio
sided with Kelley, voting in favor of the legal opinion.
"There are not five people in the back room at any time during the meeting,"
said Drury. "People can be other areas of the building."
Drury conceded that there is no way for the public to know when city councilors
remain in the green room because it is off limits to the public. She said she
monitors the room during recesses.
Said Drury, "I can look in that room quickly and say 'Come back in here.'"
Cambridge School Super Violates Open Meetings Law
Cambridge School Super Violates Open Meetings Law
Cambridge Public Schools spokesman Justin Martin said, "It's a candid,
private, intimate setting." [referring to] "a closed-door meeting with school
representatives and parents." (Dawn Witlin, "Super conducting secret school
summits," Cambridge Chronicle, April 12, 2007)
The definition of a governmental body, stated in the Open Meetings Law
Chapter 39, Section 23C is, "'Governmental body,' every board, commission,
committee or subcommittee of any district, city, region or town, however
elected, appointed or otherwise constituted, [...]"
It appears that the Superintendent joins the City Council trying to keep
public business secret contrary to law. It is a pervasive problem in Cambridge
which shows it is a lawless city more each day.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Super conducting secret school summits
By Dawn Witlin/Chronicle Staff
Cambridge Chronicle
Thu Apr 12, 2007, 01:36 PM EDT
Cambridge -
Superintendent Thomas Fowler-Finn fled from a Chronicle reporter Wednesday
evening to avoid answering questions about a closed-door meeting with school
representatives and parents.
"Justin has already talked to you," Fowler-Finn said tensely outside the doors
of Wednesday�s meeting, referring to Cambridge Public Schools spokesman Justin
Martin. "I meet with lots of people all the time, OK?"
With that, Fowler-Finn scurried into the key communicators meeting, which was
set to start five minutes later. Key communicators, who are parents appointed by
the principal of each school, meet to air rumors, discuss concerns and school
business.
[...]
-dwitlin@cnc.com
Cambridge Public Schools spokesman Justin Martin said, "It's a candid,
private, intimate setting." [referring to] "a closed-door meeting with school
representatives and parents." (Dawn Witlin, "Super conducting secret school
summits," Cambridge Chronicle, April 12, 2007)
The definition of a governmental body, stated in the Open Meetings Law
Chapter 39, Section 23C is, "'Governmental body,' every board, commission,
committee or subcommittee of any district, city, region or town, however
elected, appointed or otherwise constituted, [...]"
It appears that the Superintendent joins the City Council trying to keep
public business secret contrary to law. It is a pervasive problem in Cambridge
which shows it is a lawless city more each day.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Super conducting secret school summits
By Dawn Witlin/Chronicle Staff
Cambridge Chronicle
Thu Apr 12, 2007, 01:36 PM EDT
Cambridge -
Superintendent Thomas Fowler-Finn fled from a Chronicle reporter Wednesday
evening to avoid answering questions about a closed-door meeting with school
representatives and parents.
"Justin has already talked to you," Fowler-Finn said tensely outside the doors
of Wednesday�s meeting, referring to Cambridge Public Schools spokesman Justin
Martin. "I meet with lots of people all the time, OK?"
With that, Fowler-Finn scurried into the key communicators meeting, which was
set to start five minutes later. Key communicators, who are parents appointed by
the principal of each school, meet to air rumors, discuss concerns and school
business.
[...]
-dwitlin@cnc.com
Misleading Report on TASERs
Misleading Report on TASERs
The report on Cambridge police wanting to use TASERs is misleading and
irresponsible. (Janice O'Leary, "Police will seek state OK on use of Tasers,"
Boston Globe, April 15, 2007)
"If the officer on the scene of a crime in East Cambridge in 2002, [...]
had had a Taser, [Lt. Robert] Ames said, the suspect who was shot might still be
alive."
Ames also quoted a TASER corporate document which says that persons with
disabilities have a higher tolerance level for pain. That is what police used to
say about black people.
In July 2002, the Cambridge police broke down the door on Porter Street in
East Cambridge and shot Daniel Furtado dead in his own home, with no court order
and no warrant to enter his home. He was accused of cutting a cable TV wire, a
misdemeanor. If Cambridge police had not violated state and US laws, there would
have been no death either. The police violated the US Constitution and killed a
citizen contrary to law.
Intimidating a person from the free exercise of a constitutionally
guaranteed right is a crime. Being secure in your home is one such right, the
Fourth Amendment.
If Cambridge police are negligently trained to respect the Constitution and
state laws, what is there to stop police from violating their own regulations?
The idea that "excited delirium," a non-existent PR creation is responsible
for deaths is fantasy. The Arizona Republic reported 167 deaths after being
TASEd. In March 2007 the New York Post reported another.
Canada and the United Kingdom do not permit these weapons to be used in
their countries. TASER Corp. uses the worldwide grease of money to persuade
local police to buy their weapons. Bernie Kerik, NYC Police Commissioner got $6
million in stock.
An alternative which the Cambridge police refused to consider is a net gun
which disables with no danger of of death.
Quoting Robert Winters a math instructor at Harvard, who is alleged to be
an FBI informant is like asking the Pope about religion. What do you expect he
would say? The ACLU in Massachusetts no longer criticizes the police. The ACLU
in Massachusetts works with the police. Their position on TASERs is the same as
the police's.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
CAMBRIDGE
Police will seek state OK on use of Tasers
Stun guns save lives, officials say; critics see needless deaths
By Janice O'Leary,
Boston Globe Correspondent
April 15, 2007
The last time a Cambridge police officer fired a bullet in service was in 2002,
according to the Police Department. And some city officials have said that the
man who died as a result might still be alive if he'd instead been zapped with a
Taser.
The Cambridge police could be one of the first Boston-area forces to arm its
officers with the controversial stun guns. Chelsea police began using Tasers in
2005, soon after the Legislature unanimously voted to OK their use in the state.
In 2005, Brookline police introduced the idea but postponed it because of
reports of Taser-related deaths elsewhere nationally.
[...]
The report on Cambridge police wanting to use TASERs is misleading and
irresponsible. (Janice O'Leary, "Police will seek state OK on use of Tasers,"
Boston Globe, April 15, 2007)
"If the officer on the scene of a crime in East Cambridge in 2002, [...]
had had a Taser, [Lt. Robert] Ames said, the suspect who was shot might still be
alive."
Ames also quoted a TASER corporate document which says that persons with
disabilities have a higher tolerance level for pain. That is what police used to
say about black people.
In July 2002, the Cambridge police broke down the door on Porter Street in
East Cambridge and shot Daniel Furtado dead in his own home, with no court order
and no warrant to enter his home. He was accused of cutting a cable TV wire, a
misdemeanor. If Cambridge police had not violated state and US laws, there would
have been no death either. The police violated the US Constitution and killed a
citizen contrary to law.
Intimidating a person from the free exercise of a constitutionally
guaranteed right is a crime. Being secure in your home is one such right, the
Fourth Amendment.
If Cambridge police are negligently trained to respect the Constitution and
state laws, what is there to stop police from violating their own regulations?
The idea that "excited delirium," a non-existent PR creation is responsible
for deaths is fantasy. The Arizona Republic reported 167 deaths after being
TASEd. In March 2007 the New York Post reported another.
Canada and the United Kingdom do not permit these weapons to be used in
their countries. TASER Corp. uses the worldwide grease of money to persuade
local police to buy their weapons. Bernie Kerik, NYC Police Commissioner got $6
million in stock.
An alternative which the Cambridge police refused to consider is a net gun
which disables with no danger of of death.
Quoting Robert Winters a math instructor at Harvard, who is alleged to be
an FBI informant is like asking the Pope about religion. What do you expect he
would say? The ACLU in Massachusetts no longer criticizes the police. The ACLU
in Massachusetts works with the police. Their position on TASERs is the same as
the police's.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
CAMBRIDGE
Police will seek state OK on use of Tasers
Stun guns save lives, officials say; critics see needless deaths
By Janice O'Leary,
Boston Globe Correspondent
April 15, 2007
The last time a Cambridge police officer fired a bullet in service was in 2002,
according to the Police Department. And some city officials have said that the
man who died as a result might still be alive if he'd instead been zapped with a
Taser.
The Cambridge police could be one of the first Boston-area forces to arm its
officers with the controversial stun guns. Chelsea police began using Tasers in
2005, soon after the Legislature unanimously voted to OK their use in the state.
In 2005, Brookline police introduced the idea but postponed it because of
reports of Taser-related deaths elsewhere nationally.
[...]
May 24, 2007
Parental Consent by Mary Collins
Parental Consent
by Mary Collins
TeenScreen, a program advertised as a "free" psychiatric "service" to
prevent suicide, has caused an uprising all across the U.S. Citing the
dangers of psychiatric drugs and important issues of parental rights,
individuals and determined groups have spoken out against TeenScreen as
a harmful factor in the attempts to care for the problems of children
and teens.
TeenScreen’s aim is to locate more children that can be identified as
mentally ill and routed into "mental health" treatment. Many of these
would be "treated" with psychiatric drugs, ignoring the fact that many
of these very same drugs carry FDA-mandated Black Box warning labels
because they are known to cause violence and suicide.
The dangers of drugs
Internationally, more than 19 warnings have been issued on the dangers
of psychiatric drugs since October 2004. The U.S. F.D.A., the European
Medicines Agency Scientific Committee, The British Medical Journal, the
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Norwegian researchers,
the Pediatric Advisory Committee, the UN Committee on the Rights of the
Child, etc., have all contributed to the awareness campaign. Through
scientific research, the destructive nature of psychiatric drugs has
been brought to light.
At least eight of the last 13 U.S. school shootings were committed by
teens taking prescribed psychiatric drugs known to cause violent and
suicidal behavior. A prime example is Columbine High School, where
18-year-old Eric Harris and 17-year-old Dylan Klebold killed 13 and
wounded 23 others. Harris was taking an antidepressant drug known to
cause violent behavior. Klebold’s family has never revealed whether he
was also taking medication. Privacy laws prevent that information from
being disclosed without their permission.
The adverse effects of the drugs are known. It’s unfortunate that the
warnings had to come so late for many. Perhaps Eric Harris’ parents
would have made different decisions if they were given the full truth
about the dangers of these drugs.
How TeenScreen works
The biggest threat that TeenScreen poses may not be the drugs at all.
How does it affect a young person to be told by an "authority" that he
or she has a permanent, incurable brain disorder? After a child takes
the TeenScreen survey, a mental health "professional" reviews his
answers and speaks to the child. In this conversation, the
"professional" can make disturbing statements to the child. He may tell
the child, without any brain tests, that his brain is abnormal, that he
has a permanent and potentially disabling disease, that he is "damaged
goods." The child will then be sent on his way with the new "knowledge"
that he is not a normal, healthy teenager as he thought in the morning
but rather that he has a "mental disorder" that can ruin his life. The
child hears this news alone, without parental involvement or knowledge.
Often, the parents do not even know that their child was taking a test.
In a lawsuit filed in September 2005, Chelsea Rhodes of Indiana alleged
that she took the TeenScreen test and was told that she had two mental
disorders, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Social Anxiety Disorder.
The lawsuit alleges that the examination itself and the ensuing
diagnosis caused both Chelsea and her parents severe emotional harm.
Chelsea’s parents were not made aware of the test in advance and gave no
permission for their daughter to participate.
TeenScreen playing the numbers game on parental consent
Some TeenScreen sites use "passive consent", in which each and every
parent is assumed to have consented, unless they specifically state
otherwise in writing. This is done by sending a letter or printing a
notice in a newsletter, informing parents of the upcoming TeenScreen,
giving very little information about it, and providing a form for the
parents to sign if they will not allow their child to be screened. Of
course there is never any certainty that the parents actually see the
letter or notice and it is also possible that the letter rejecting
TeenScreen may be lost in transit back to the school. Leslie McGuire,
TeenScreen’s Director, states: "Unless we hear from you that we can’t
screen your child we assume we have your permission and we’re gonna
screen them."
For any parent that did not see the notice and did not know that their
child would be participating in a TeenScreen test, this is clearly "no
consent," not "Passive Consent." When parents find out, many are
outraged by the violation of their rights.
TeenScreen’s website states that all TeenScreen sites must obtain
parental permission before offering screening to youth. Yet, passive
consent, in which many parents will have no knowledge of the event and
thus will not have given permission, is acceptable to TeenScreen.
Passive consent is a way to increase the number of children that are
screened. In response to the wave of protests from parents and organized
groups, TeenScreen has changed the wording on their website several
times to attempt to distance themselves from passive screening. At the
time of this writing, the website claims that TeenScreen "strongly
advises" the use of active parental consent but passive consent (which
can mean "no consent") is still in use.
The actual number of passive versus active sites is difficult to
determine. Various percentages have been reported by TeenScreen, with
numbers sometimes swinging wildly from one day to the next. In September
2005, The British Medical Journal published an article by freelance
Journalist, Jeanne Lenzer, in which it was stated that 15 to 20% of
TeenScreen sites use passive consent. According to Ms. Lenzer, Laurie
Flynn, TeenScreen’s Executive Director, was asked to confirm the
information. As of Monday September 26th, Ms. Flynn did not object to
the number of 15-20%. Then on Tuesday September 27th, she wanted to
change the number to 4%, quite a shift for one day. TeenScreen’s own
website has been playing with the numbers as well. In September 2005,
the website reported that 85% of sites used active consent, In October
this was altered to 98.4%, then later to 98.2%. The next update was
January 2006, when the percentage was removed altogether. Leslie
MacGuire once reported that 25% of their sites use passive screening.
Evidently it’s quite a secret about how many students are taken into the
TeenScreen program by way of passive consent. One thing that is known is
that passive screening increases the number of children screened
dramatically. In an email from a Florida school official, he stated that
the use of passive screening could increase their participation rate
from 50% to 95%. The Philadelphia Enquirer reported that in one school
using active consent, only 4.2% of parents allowed their children to be
screened.
With no reliable numbers available, one can only make guesses and
calculations as to how many children are screened every year without
their parents being informed. In a simple example, let’s take four
schools. One school (25%) uses passive consent and the other three
schools (75%) use active consent. If each school has 1000 students, the
single passive-consent school could screen as many as 950 children. All
three of the active-consent schools combined could screen as few as 126
children (4.2%, as in the one school district reported by the
Philadelphia Enquirer). And of the 950 screened using only passive
consent, not one child will have a written consent from his or her
parents.
The four levels of parental consent
1. No consent
2. Passive consent
3. Active parental consent
4. Full informed consent
"No consent" is just what it sounds like, simply screening children with
no parental consent at all. Supposedly, no TeenScreen sites operate on a
"no-consent" basis but, in practice, many children are screened without
the parent providing consent or even knowing about the screening.
Without the parent’s consent or prior knowledge, their children are
asked introverting questions such as: "Has there been a time when
nothing was fun to you and you just weren’t interested in anything?"
"Have you often felt nervous when you’ve had to do things in front of
people?" or "Are you still thinking of killing yourself?"
Then, still without parental knowledge, the child is sent to a
"clinician" who decides which label to use. It could be "Panic
disorder", "Active suicide ideation" or "Social Phobia", all of which
are simply lists of behaviors voted into existence as "mental disorders"
by psychiatrists. The child is then told to seek help from "mental
health" workers. No minister, priest, rabbi, medical doctor,
nutritionist, allergist or any other alternative help is recommended to
the child.
And finally, at the complete whim of the "mental health" practitioner,
the child may be deemed a danger to himself and others and forcibly held
in a psychiatric institution for up to 72 hours for observation. The
first time the parent hears about the screening could be from a
policeman calling to say that their 14-year-old is locked in the back
seat, behind a metal grate and locked in by unbreakable glass on the way
to involuntary commitment in the psych ward. Then, of course, the parent
or insurance company will get the bill.
There is a law that is supposed to protect and help parents, the
Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA). This federal law states
that prior, written parental consent must be obtained before a child can
be given a survey, analysis or evaluation. "Passive consent" is an
illegal, deceptive method used by Teen Screen to bypass the requirement
for parental consent and increase the number of children screened.
"Active consent" describes those schools and school districts that
require a written consent to be given prior to screening. This method
may be preferable to "no consent" or "passive consent" but is still
sorely lacking when it comes to protecting parental rights.
There are many troubles with TeenScreen’s "active consent." One
consideration is the matter of whether or not the parent actually saw or
signed the consent. With TeenScreen sites offering free pizza coupons,
movie tickets, or $50 mall gift certificates for returning consent
slips, how many teens have arrived at school the day of the TeenScreen
test without having the form signed and simply signed it themselves?
Even more important is the matter of what information is given to the
parents. There are federal and state laws requiring "informed consent,"
meaning that before someone agrees to participate in any medical
procedure or experiment, they must be informed of and must understand
the medical facts and the risks involved.
"Full informed consent" for TeenScreen would be a consent given only
after having received and understood all the pertinent data involved.
This would include:
• The purpose of screening (TeenScreen sells their service as suicide
prevention but no study has even shown a reduction in suicide or proven
even one prevented suicide.)
• Who is performing the screening (The screening may be performed by
employees or agents of a for-profit "mental health" treatment facility
but this may not divulged to parents).
• That the screening has an 84% rate of false-positives (meaning that as
many as 84% of students can be falsely identified as "mentally ill")
• The screening questions (TeenScreen will not reveal the questions to
parents)
• The potentially bad effect of presenting suicide as something to be
considered
• A full understanding of the basic foundation of psychiatry’s
"diagnoses," since there are no scientific tests that show whether a
person has or does not have a mental disorder
• The fact that Psychiatry’s "Diagnostic Statistical Manual" has over
300 behaviors that have just been voted on, according to whim; not tests
or real facts
• The fact that the child may be diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder
with no objective medical testing, a label which can remain with that
child for the rest of his life
• That some career paths may be closed to the child because of the
diagnosis and/or psychiatric treatment
• That the parents may lose their parental rights or even be criminally
charged with neglect if they refuse to accept the diagnosis and give the
child psychiatric treatment
• A full understanding of the dangers and effects of the drugs that may
be given to children for these "mental disorders" including deaths,
violence and suicide
NO TeenScreen sites use full informed consent.
The folly of teen "assent"
According to the FAQ page on TeenScreen’s web site, youth must provide
written "assent" to participate in the TeenScreen program.
However, as stated in the Rhoades family’s lawsuit in Indiana, a
teenager has no legal standing to make such a statement, "Any execution
of the assent form by Chelsea was not knowing, effective, or valid
consent to the administration of the TeenScreen test upon Chelsea
because she did not have the legal capacity to consent and she was not
aware of the purpose of the assent, the nature of the test to be given,
or the purpose for which the test was being given."
What you can do
Communicate.
Call your local school board or high school today. Find out if they have
used or are even considering TeenScreen. If they are, make a formal,
written request for records and find out if they are providing full
informed consent in accordance with the law. Demand that your rights be
protected. Write letters to the school and the school board, show up at
meetings and speak up for parental rights, inform and organize your
friends to do the same. Demand full informed consent, always. It is the
only way to protect the rights of parents.
It is TeenScreen’s responsibility to protect parental rights yet its
personnel are not doing it. The government makes laws to protect the
public from having their rights trampled but so far laws have had little
effect on TeenScreen’s operation. Only a concerted, grass-roots effort
can restore and protect parental rights. Your voice is needed. Now.
Mary Collins is a 72-year-old grandmother living in New Hampshire. She
attained a BA in English Literature with a minor in History in 1954 from
Millsap’s College in Jackson, Mississippi and was involved in education
for over 20 years.
Email: marycollins_16_2@(NOSPAM)rushpost.com
Note: Remove (NOSPAM)
by Mary Collins
TeenScreen, a program advertised as a "free" psychiatric "service" to
prevent suicide, has caused an uprising all across the U.S. Citing the
dangers of psychiatric drugs and important issues of parental rights,
individuals and determined groups have spoken out against TeenScreen as
a harmful factor in the attempts to care for the problems of children
and teens.
TeenScreen’s aim is to locate more children that can be identified as
mentally ill and routed into "mental health" treatment. Many of these
would be "treated" with psychiatric drugs, ignoring the fact that many
of these very same drugs carry FDA-mandated Black Box warning labels
because they are known to cause violence and suicide.
The dangers of drugs
Internationally, more than 19 warnings have been issued on the dangers
of psychiatric drugs since October 2004. The U.S. F.D.A., the European
Medicines Agency Scientific Committee, The British Medical Journal, the
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Norwegian researchers,
the Pediatric Advisory Committee, the UN Committee on the Rights of the
Child, etc., have all contributed to the awareness campaign. Through
scientific research, the destructive nature of psychiatric drugs has
been brought to light.
At least eight of the last 13 U.S. school shootings were committed by
teens taking prescribed psychiatric drugs known to cause violent and
suicidal behavior. A prime example is Columbine High School, where
18-year-old Eric Harris and 17-year-old Dylan Klebold killed 13 and
wounded 23 others. Harris was taking an antidepressant drug known to
cause violent behavior. Klebold’s family has never revealed whether he
was also taking medication. Privacy laws prevent that information from
being disclosed without their permission.
The adverse effects of the drugs are known. It’s unfortunate that the
warnings had to come so late for many. Perhaps Eric Harris’ parents
would have made different decisions if they were given the full truth
about the dangers of these drugs.
How TeenScreen works
The biggest threat that TeenScreen poses may not be the drugs at all.
How does it affect a young person to be told by an "authority" that he
or she has a permanent, incurable brain disorder? After a child takes
the TeenScreen survey, a mental health "professional" reviews his
answers and speaks to the child. In this conversation, the
"professional" can make disturbing statements to the child. He may tell
the child, without any brain tests, that his brain is abnormal, that he
has a permanent and potentially disabling disease, that he is "damaged
goods." The child will then be sent on his way with the new "knowledge"
that he is not a normal, healthy teenager as he thought in the morning
but rather that he has a "mental disorder" that can ruin his life. The
child hears this news alone, without parental involvement or knowledge.
Often, the parents do not even know that their child was taking a test.
In a lawsuit filed in September 2005, Chelsea Rhodes of Indiana alleged
that she took the TeenScreen test and was told that she had two mental
disorders, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Social Anxiety Disorder.
The lawsuit alleges that the examination itself and the ensuing
diagnosis caused both Chelsea and her parents severe emotional harm.
Chelsea’s parents were not made aware of the test in advance and gave no
permission for their daughter to participate.
TeenScreen playing the numbers game on parental consent
Some TeenScreen sites use "passive consent", in which each and every
parent is assumed to have consented, unless they specifically state
otherwise in writing. This is done by sending a letter or printing a
notice in a newsletter, informing parents of the upcoming TeenScreen,
giving very little information about it, and providing a form for the
parents to sign if they will not allow their child to be screened. Of
course there is never any certainty that the parents actually see the
letter or notice and it is also possible that the letter rejecting
TeenScreen may be lost in transit back to the school. Leslie McGuire,
TeenScreen’s Director, states: "Unless we hear from you that we can’t
screen your child we assume we have your permission and we’re gonna
screen them."
For any parent that did not see the notice and did not know that their
child would be participating in a TeenScreen test, this is clearly "no
consent," not "Passive Consent." When parents find out, many are
outraged by the violation of their rights.
TeenScreen’s website states that all TeenScreen sites must obtain
parental permission before offering screening to youth. Yet, passive
consent, in which many parents will have no knowledge of the event and
thus will not have given permission, is acceptable to TeenScreen.
Passive consent is a way to increase the number of children that are
screened. In response to the wave of protests from parents and organized
groups, TeenScreen has changed the wording on their website several
times to attempt to distance themselves from passive screening. At the
time of this writing, the website claims that TeenScreen "strongly
advises" the use of active parental consent but passive consent (which
can mean "no consent") is still in use.
The actual number of passive versus active sites is difficult to
determine. Various percentages have been reported by TeenScreen, with
numbers sometimes swinging wildly from one day to the next. In September
2005, The British Medical Journal published an article by freelance
Journalist, Jeanne Lenzer, in which it was stated that 15 to 20% of
TeenScreen sites use passive consent. According to Ms. Lenzer, Laurie
Flynn, TeenScreen’s Executive Director, was asked to confirm the
information. As of Monday September 26th, Ms. Flynn did not object to
the number of 15-20%. Then on Tuesday September 27th, she wanted to
change the number to 4%, quite a shift for one day. TeenScreen’s own
website has been playing with the numbers as well. In September 2005,
the website reported that 85% of sites used active consent, In October
this was altered to 98.4%, then later to 98.2%. The next update was
January 2006, when the percentage was removed altogether. Leslie
MacGuire once reported that 25% of their sites use passive screening.
Evidently it’s quite a secret about how many students are taken into the
TeenScreen program by way of passive consent. One thing that is known is
that passive screening increases the number of children screened
dramatically. In an email from a Florida school official, he stated that
the use of passive screening could increase their participation rate
from 50% to 95%. The Philadelphia Enquirer reported that in one school
using active consent, only 4.2% of parents allowed their children to be
screened.
With no reliable numbers available, one can only make guesses and
calculations as to how many children are screened every year without
their parents being informed. In a simple example, let’s take four
schools. One school (25%) uses passive consent and the other three
schools (75%) use active consent. If each school has 1000 students, the
single passive-consent school could screen as many as 950 children. All
three of the active-consent schools combined could screen as few as 126
children (4.2%, as in the one school district reported by the
Philadelphia Enquirer). And of the 950 screened using only passive
consent, not one child will have a written consent from his or her
parents.
The four levels of parental consent
1. No consent
2. Passive consent
3. Active parental consent
4. Full informed consent
"No consent" is just what it sounds like, simply screening children with
no parental consent at all. Supposedly, no TeenScreen sites operate on a
"no-consent" basis but, in practice, many children are screened without
the parent providing consent or even knowing about the screening.
Without the parent’s consent or prior knowledge, their children are
asked introverting questions such as: "Has there been a time when
nothing was fun to you and you just weren’t interested in anything?"
"Have you often felt nervous when you’ve had to do things in front of
people?" or "Are you still thinking of killing yourself?"
Then, still without parental knowledge, the child is sent to a
"clinician" who decides which label to use. It could be "Panic
disorder", "Active suicide ideation" or "Social Phobia", all of which
are simply lists of behaviors voted into existence as "mental disorders"
by psychiatrists. The child is then told to seek help from "mental
health" workers. No minister, priest, rabbi, medical doctor,
nutritionist, allergist or any other alternative help is recommended to
the child.
And finally, at the complete whim of the "mental health" practitioner,
the child may be deemed a danger to himself and others and forcibly held
in a psychiatric institution for up to 72 hours for observation. The
first time the parent hears about the screening could be from a
policeman calling to say that their 14-year-old is locked in the back
seat, behind a metal grate and locked in by unbreakable glass on the way
to involuntary commitment in the psych ward. Then, of course, the parent
or insurance company will get the bill.
There is a law that is supposed to protect and help parents, the
Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA). This federal law states
that prior, written parental consent must be obtained before a child can
be given a survey, analysis or evaluation. "Passive consent" is an
illegal, deceptive method used by Teen Screen to bypass the requirement
for parental consent and increase the number of children screened.
"Active consent" describes those schools and school districts that
require a written consent to be given prior to screening. This method
may be preferable to "no consent" or "passive consent" but is still
sorely lacking when it comes to protecting parental rights.
There are many troubles with TeenScreen’s "active consent." One
consideration is the matter of whether or not the parent actually saw or
signed the consent. With TeenScreen sites offering free pizza coupons,
movie tickets, or $50 mall gift certificates for returning consent
slips, how many teens have arrived at school the day of the TeenScreen
test without having the form signed and simply signed it themselves?
Even more important is the matter of what information is given to the
parents. There are federal and state laws requiring "informed consent,"
meaning that before someone agrees to participate in any medical
procedure or experiment, they must be informed of and must understand
the medical facts and the risks involved.
"Full informed consent" for TeenScreen would be a consent given only
after having received and understood all the pertinent data involved.
This would include:
• The purpose of screening (TeenScreen sells their service as suicide
prevention but no study has even shown a reduction in suicide or proven
even one prevented suicide.)
• Who is performing the screening (The screening may be performed by
employees or agents of a for-profit "mental health" treatment facility
but this may not divulged to parents).
• That the screening has an 84% rate of false-positives (meaning that as
many as 84% of students can be falsely identified as "mentally ill")
• The screening questions (TeenScreen will not reveal the questions to
parents)
• The potentially bad effect of presenting suicide as something to be
considered
• A full understanding of the basic foundation of psychiatry’s
"diagnoses," since there are no scientific tests that show whether a
person has or does not have a mental disorder
• The fact that Psychiatry’s "Diagnostic Statistical Manual" has over
300 behaviors that have just been voted on, according to whim; not tests
or real facts
• The fact that the child may be diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder
with no objective medical testing, a label which can remain with that
child for the rest of his life
• That some career paths may be closed to the child because of the
diagnosis and/or psychiatric treatment
• That the parents may lose their parental rights or even be criminally
charged with neglect if they refuse to accept the diagnosis and give the
child psychiatric treatment
• A full understanding of the dangers and effects of the drugs that may
be given to children for these "mental disorders" including deaths,
violence and suicide
NO TeenScreen sites use full informed consent.
The folly of teen "assent"
According to the FAQ page on TeenScreen’s web site, youth must provide
written "assent" to participate in the TeenScreen program.
However, as stated in the Rhoades family’s lawsuit in Indiana, a
teenager has no legal standing to make such a statement, "Any execution
of the assent form by Chelsea was not knowing, effective, or valid
consent to the administration of the TeenScreen test upon Chelsea
because she did not have the legal capacity to consent and she was not
aware of the purpose of the assent, the nature of the test to be given,
or the purpose for which the test was being given."
What you can do
Communicate.
Call your local school board or high school today. Find out if they have
used or are even considering TeenScreen. If they are, make a formal,
written request for records and find out if they are providing full
informed consent in accordance with the law. Demand that your rights be
protected. Write letters to the school and the school board, show up at
meetings and speak up for parental rights, inform and organize your
friends to do the same. Demand full informed consent, always. It is the
only way to protect the rights of parents.
It is TeenScreen’s responsibility to protect parental rights yet its
personnel are not doing it. The government makes laws to protect the
public from having their rights trampled but so far laws have had little
effect on TeenScreen’s operation. Only a concerted, grass-roots effort
can restore and protect parental rights. Your voice is needed. Now.
Mary Collins is a 72-year-old grandmother living in New Hampshire. She
attained a BA in English Literature with a minor in History in 1954 from
Millsap’s College in Jackson, Mississippi and was involved in education
for over 20 years.
Email: marycollins_16_2@(NOSPAM)rushpost.com
Note: Remove (NOSPAM)
May 18, 2007
Treatment is Punishment?
Treatment is Punishment?
BU's President Emeritus John Silber says, "We now rely on drug therapy to
protect us from those with serious mental illness." (John Silber, "To shield all
tragedy an impossible quest," Boston Globe, April 24, 2007) Oh? So psychiatry is
a form of preventive punishment? How can it be treatment, if there is no
informed consent?
If psychiatry is a scientific discipline why are its diagnoses enforced by
the police power of the state? The standards for involuntary commitment differs
from state to state. In Mass it is "a likelihood of serious harm." How do
observers identify who is potentially dangerous? What human lacks the ability to
commit serious crimes?
Silber's conclusion is not supported by facts, but by fear. Saying, "We
should restrict the sale of firearms, to the extent possible, to criminals and
the mentally ill." suggests that mental illness is a crime. Under what rational
system is an illness a cause of crime? Why does Silber ignore clinical studies
that prove that psychiatric drugs are causally connected to violence. Cho was
reportedly taking anti depressants. It is likely that forced drugging of youth
is the reason for so many violent crimes.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
To shield all tragedy an impossible quest
Boston Globe
By John Silber
April 24, 2007
AMERICANS BELIEVE that for every problem there is a solution. If we think and
work hard enough, we believe we can solve every problem. Of course, we also live
with the obdurate presence of contingency and uncertainty. We know that too, for
we believe in Murphy's Law.
But we rarely confront the absurdity of believing both. While the solution
mystique is only an act of faith, contingency is a fact we prefer to deny.
In the last half century, we have increasingly avoided unpleasant realities.
Obscuring the brutal uncertainties and tragedies inherent in human existence has
become a national preoccupation. We used to teach our children a familiar prayer
that included the lines "If I should die before I wake/ I pray the Lord my soul
to take." But now many parents believe that these lines, reminding the child of
its mortality, must go.
[...]
John Silber is president emeritus and university professor of philosophy and law
at Boston University.
BU's President Emeritus John Silber says, "We now rely on drug therapy to
protect us from those with serious mental illness." (John Silber, "To shield all
tragedy an impossible quest," Boston Globe, April 24, 2007) Oh? So psychiatry is
a form of preventive punishment? How can it be treatment, if there is no
informed consent?
If psychiatry is a scientific discipline why are its diagnoses enforced by
the police power of the state? The standards for involuntary commitment differs
from state to state. In Mass it is "a likelihood of serious harm." How do
observers identify who is potentially dangerous? What human lacks the ability to
commit serious crimes?
Silber's conclusion is not supported by facts, but by fear. Saying, "We
should restrict the sale of firearms, to the extent possible, to criminals and
the mentally ill." suggests that mental illness is a crime. Under what rational
system is an illness a cause of crime? Why does Silber ignore clinical studies
that prove that psychiatric drugs are causally connected to violence. Cho was
reportedly taking anti depressants. It is likely that forced drugging of youth
is the reason for so many violent crimes.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
To shield all tragedy an impossible quest
Boston Globe
By John Silber
April 24, 2007
AMERICANS BELIEVE that for every problem there is a solution. If we think and
work hard enough, we believe we can solve every problem. Of course, we also live
with the obdurate presence of contingency and uncertainty. We know that too, for
we believe in Murphy's Law.
But we rarely confront the absurdity of believing both. While the solution
mystique is only an act of faith, contingency is a fact we prefer to deny.
In the last half century, we have increasingly avoided unpleasant realities.
Obscuring the brutal uncertainties and tragedies inherent in human existence has
become a national preoccupation. We used to teach our children a familiar prayer
that included the lines "If I should die before I wake/ I pray the Lord my soul
to take." But now many parents believe that these lines, reminding the child of
its mortality, must go.
[...]
John Silber is president emeritus and university professor of philosophy and law
at Boston University.
City Council Quorum
City Council Quorum
[This letter was published in the Cambridge Chronicle print and online.]
After years and months of complaints about the Council violating their own
rules and Robert's Rules of Order, there is still no will to correct their
unlawful ways. (Erin Smith, "Clerks grapple to keep councilors in the room,"
Cambridge Chronicle, April 25, 2007)
It is not enough for the City Clerk to know the rules. All Councilors must
know them. That is the idea behind a point of order. Any Councilor can raise
that point which must be recognized immediately.
If only the clerk or even if the chairman knows the rules the rest of the
council remains in a coma if there are any violations. For too many years this
council ran its meetings without any rules. It is one certain indication of the
lawlessness of this one-party city.
The vigor with which officials retaliate against citizens who criticize
their lawlessness makes other citizens fearful of participating in the
governmental process. The councilors continue to be clueless about why young
people refuse to cooperate with the police. Clueless is as clueless does.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Clerks grapple to keep councilors in the room
By Erin Smith/Chronicle Staff
Cambridge Chronicle
Wed Apr 25, 2007, 09:58 AM EDT
Cambridge -
As a teary-eyed City Councilor Marjorie Decker continued her weekly tradition of
reading the names of the military dead in Iraq, only three other city councilors
remained in the room: Tim Toomey, Craig Kelley and Anthony Galluccio.
Toomey, who was chairing the City Council meeting, appeared confused when Deputy
City Clerk Donna Lopez told him there were not enough city councilors in the
room.
So, Lopez held up four fingers for emphasis.
As Lopez and Toomey continued to discuss what to do about the absent councilors,
City Councilor Denise Simmons walked back into the room to create a meeting
quorum.
A quorum, or majority of city councilors, is needed for all official votes,
according to the City Council's rules. That means at least five city councilors
must be present at meetings to take a vote.
Later in the evening, as discussions of the City Council policy orders began,
there were only four city councilors in the room: Denise Simmons, Anthony
Galluccio, Craig Kelley and Ken Reeves. City Clerk Margaret Drury quietly
stepped into the green room to motion more councilors into the room.
The green room is an off-limits-to-the-public space adjacent to the City Council
chambers where city councilors go to relax, have private discussions or eat a
catered dinner.
When Drury emerged from the green room a few moments later, she looked toward
the doorframe expectantly, but no one followed her into the council chambers.
Drury breathed a noticeable sigh of relief as City Councilor Henrietta Davis
exited the green room just seconds before a vote ended.
Last week, after a Chronicle report that only three city councilors were present
for a recent vote, Drury said she tries to monitor the green room when she
notices that not enough city councilors are present in the meeting chambers.
Drury told the Chronicle two weeks ago, "I can look in that room quickly and say
'Come back in here.�'"
[This letter was published in the Cambridge Chronicle print and online.]
After years and months of complaints about the Council violating their own
rules and Robert's Rules of Order, there is still no will to correct their
unlawful ways. (Erin Smith, "Clerks grapple to keep councilors in the room,"
Cambridge Chronicle, April 25, 2007)
It is not enough for the City Clerk to know the rules. All Councilors must
know them. That is the idea behind a point of order. Any Councilor can raise
that point which must be recognized immediately.
If only the clerk or even if the chairman knows the rules the rest of the
council remains in a coma if there are any violations. For too many years this
council ran its meetings without any rules. It is one certain indication of the
lawlessness of this one-party city.
The vigor with which officials retaliate against citizens who criticize
their lawlessness makes other citizens fearful of participating in the
governmental process. The councilors continue to be clueless about why young
people refuse to cooperate with the police. Clueless is as clueless does.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Clerks grapple to keep councilors in the room
By Erin Smith/Chronicle Staff
Cambridge Chronicle
Wed Apr 25, 2007, 09:58 AM EDT
Cambridge -
As a teary-eyed City Councilor Marjorie Decker continued her weekly tradition of
reading the names of the military dead in Iraq, only three other city councilors
remained in the room: Tim Toomey, Craig Kelley and Anthony Galluccio.
Toomey, who was chairing the City Council meeting, appeared confused when Deputy
City Clerk Donna Lopez told him there were not enough city councilors in the
room.
So, Lopez held up four fingers for emphasis.
As Lopez and Toomey continued to discuss what to do about the absent councilors,
City Councilor Denise Simmons walked back into the room to create a meeting
quorum.
A quorum, or majority of city councilors, is needed for all official votes,
according to the City Council's rules. That means at least five city councilors
must be present at meetings to take a vote.
Later in the evening, as discussions of the City Council policy orders began,
there were only four city councilors in the room: Denise Simmons, Anthony
Galluccio, Craig Kelley and Ken Reeves. City Clerk Margaret Drury quietly
stepped into the green room to motion more councilors into the room.
The green room is an off-limits-to-the-public space adjacent to the City Council
chambers where city councilors go to relax, have private discussions or eat a
catered dinner.
When Drury emerged from the green room a few moments later, she looked toward
the doorframe expectantly, but no one followed her into the council chambers.
Drury breathed a noticeable sigh of relief as City Councilor Henrietta Davis
exited the green room just seconds before a vote ended.
Last week, after a Chronicle report that only three city councilors were present
for a recent vote, Drury said she tries to monitor the green room when she
notices that not enough city councilors are present in the meeting chambers.
Drury told the Chronicle two weeks ago, "I can look in that room quickly and say
'Come back in here.�'"
Promoting Mental Illness
Promoting Mental Illness
The discussion about mental health allegedly addressing "stigma" sounds
more like a promotional seminar by industry lobbyists. (ARIANNA MARKEL,
"Barreira Clarifies Mental Illness," Harvard Crimson, April 24, 2007) It is what
NAMI does. NAMI gets $2 to $3 million per year from drug companies to promote
drug treatment. They masquerade as an advocate for patients. Their idea of
addressing stigma is to accuse the legislature of discrimination if they do not
appropriate enough money.
Stigma is in the minds of people who shun and fear other persons accused of
mental illness, not in the minds of the patients. The rationale for this
"discussion" spins the idea of stigma to recruit more patients to accept their
"illness" which they did not know they had.
If stigma was the real focus Professor Barreira would hold seminars with
police, prosecutors, lawyers and journalists. That is where the most offensive
stigma comes from.
Harvard's administration is just recruiting more patients with this
perspective. Teaching people about fake illnesses without explaining how they
are created (by consensus) is misleading more of the students. This is a
business seminar masquerading as a discussion of health.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Barreira Clarifies Mental Illness
Psychiatry professor tries to remove mystery from mental disorders
Published On 4/24/2007 5:01:49 AM
By ARIANNA MARKEL
Harvard Crimson
Contributing Writer
Depression is as much a thinking problem as it is a mood problem, a psychiatry
professor told students at a discussion last night intended to reduce stigma
about mental illness.
Paul J. Barreira, director of Behavioral Health and Academic Counseling for
University Health Services, met with students in the Lowell House Junior Common
Room yesterday for an information session called Mental Illness 101.
The discussion dealt with general definitions of mental illnesses, but did not
extensively address their prevalence in a college setting or delineate the
mental health resources currently available at Harvard.
[...]
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=518464
The discussion about mental health allegedly addressing "stigma" sounds
more like a promotional seminar by industry lobbyists. (ARIANNA MARKEL,
"Barreira Clarifies Mental Illness," Harvard Crimson, April 24, 2007) It is what
NAMI does. NAMI gets $2 to $3 million per year from drug companies to promote
drug treatment. They masquerade as an advocate for patients. Their idea of
addressing stigma is to accuse the legislature of discrimination if they do not
appropriate enough money.
Stigma is in the minds of people who shun and fear other persons accused of
mental illness, not in the minds of the patients. The rationale for this
"discussion" spins the idea of stigma to recruit more patients to accept their
"illness" which they did not know they had.
If stigma was the real focus Professor Barreira would hold seminars with
police, prosecutors, lawyers and journalists. That is where the most offensive
stigma comes from.
Harvard's administration is just recruiting more patients with this
perspective. Teaching people about fake illnesses without explaining how they
are created (by consensus) is misleading more of the students. This is a
business seminar masquerading as a discussion of health.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Barreira Clarifies Mental Illness
Psychiatry professor tries to remove mystery from mental disorders
Published On 4/24/2007 5:01:49 AM
By ARIANNA MARKEL
Harvard Crimson
Contributing Writer
Depression is as much a thinking problem as it is a mood problem, a psychiatry
professor told students at a discussion last night intended to reduce stigma
about mental illness.
Paul J. Barreira, director of Behavioral Health and Academic Counseling for
University Health Services, met with students in the Lowell House Junior Common
Room yesterday for an information session called Mental Illness 101.
The discussion dealt with general definitions of mental illnesses, but did not
extensively address their prevalence in a college setting or delineate the
mental health resources currently available at Harvard.
[...]
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=518464
Guns Kill People; People Don't
Guns Kill People; People Don't
Spector's defense team argues that the gun did it not the record mogul.
(David Li, and Todd Venzia, "SPECTOR TEAM'S SUICIDE 'PROOF,'" NYPost, April
27, 2007, page 15) This is a fresh spin on the NRA's argument that guns don't
kill people, people do.
These lawyers will prove that the gun did it, and that it was an accident.
And if the gun didn't do it by itself, the devil made Spector do it.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
SPECTOR TEAM'S SUICIDE 'PROOF'
New York Post
By DAVID K. LI in Los Angeles and TODD VENEZIA in N.Y.
April 27, 2007 -- Phil Spector's defense raised the volume yesterday on his
claims of innocence, claiming to have evidence that the gun that killed Lana
Clarkson was loaded by the B-movie actress herself - and not by the mad music
mogul.
In opening statements in L.A. criminal court, Spector's lawyers said Clarkson's
DNA was found on the bullets left inside the .38-caliber Colt revolver that blew
her head off in the songwriter's castle-like mansion four years ago.
"They found only Lana Clarkson's DNA and [that of] some other unknown person,"
said attorney Linda Kenney Baden.
She added that none of Spector's DNA was found on the bullets - boosting defense
claims that Clarkson loaded the gun herself and committed suicide.
The foppish pop has-been - the musical mind behind '60s hits like "Be My Baby"
and "Da Doo Ron Ron" - is on trial for murder. Prosecutors say he shot Clarkson
to death in his Alhambra, Calif., home on Feb. 3, 2003.
[...]
david.li@nypost.com
Spector's defense team argues that the gun did it not the record mogul.
(David Li, and Todd Venzia, "SPECTOR TEAM'S SUICIDE 'PROOF,'" NYPost, April
27, 2007, page 15) This is a fresh spin on the NRA's argument that guns don't
kill people, people do.
These lawyers will prove that the gun did it, and that it was an accident.
And if the gun didn't do it by itself, the devil made Spector do it.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
SPECTOR TEAM'S SUICIDE 'PROOF'
New York Post
By DAVID K. LI in Los Angeles and TODD VENEZIA in N.Y.
April 27, 2007 -- Phil Spector's defense raised the volume yesterday on his
claims of innocence, claiming to have evidence that the gun that killed Lana
Clarkson was loaded by the B-movie actress herself - and not by the mad music
mogul.
In opening statements in L.A. criminal court, Spector's lawyers said Clarkson's
DNA was found on the bullets left inside the .38-caliber Colt revolver that blew
her head off in the songwriter's castle-like mansion four years ago.
"They found only Lana Clarkson's DNA and [that of] some other unknown person,"
said attorney Linda Kenney Baden.
She added that none of Spector's DNA was found on the bullets - boosting defense
claims that Clarkson loaded the gun herself and committed suicide.
The foppish pop has-been - the musical mind behind '60s hits like "Be My Baby"
and "Da Doo Ron Ron" - is on trial for murder. Prosecutors say he shot Clarkson
to death in his Alhambra, Calif., home on Feb. 3, 2003.
[...]
david.li@nypost.com
Intellect Doesn't Fill a Wallet
Intellect Doesn't Fill a Wallet
The study considered "factors such as race, marital status, education and
age" in accumulating wealth. (Mike Lafferty, "Intellect doesn't fill a wallet,
study says," THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, April 25, 2007) More basic is common sense,
goals, and integrity. In this "Cheating Culture" (by David Callahan) some people
would rather maintain their own standards than join the corrupt establishment.
Many people who are willing to go along to get along have lower intelligence and
lower standards. They often succeed.
How are the findings of this study any different from what was found 2,000
years ago among the population by the survey takers? Have people changed at all?
OK, if there were survey takers then.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Intellect doesn't fill a wallet, study says
Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:43 AM
By Mike Lafferty
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
People with lower IQs are just about as likely to become wealthy as Mensa
members, according to new research.
"I was quite surprised," said study author Jay Zagorsky, an economist and
researcher at Ohio State University's Center for Human Resource Research.
"Individuals of low intelligence shouldn't believe they're handicapped in
accumulating wealth. Basically, anyone can do well in the financial world."
The results, published online in the journal Intelligence, confirm findings that
people with higher IQ scores tend to earn more.
But people of below-average and average intelligence are in the same league as
the supersmart in accumulating wealth or facing financial pitfalls.
[...]
mlafferty@dispatch.com
The study considered "factors such as race, marital status, education and
age" in accumulating wealth. (Mike Lafferty, "Intellect doesn't fill a wallet,
study says," THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, April 25, 2007) More basic is common sense,
goals, and integrity. In this "Cheating Culture" (by David Callahan) some people
would rather maintain their own standards than join the corrupt establishment.
Many people who are willing to go along to get along have lower intelligence and
lower standards. They often succeed.
How are the findings of this study any different from what was found 2,000
years ago among the population by the survey takers? Have people changed at all?
OK, if there were survey takers then.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Intellect doesn't fill a wallet, study says
Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:43 AM
By Mike Lafferty
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
People with lower IQs are just about as likely to become wealthy as Mensa
members, according to new research.
"I was quite surprised," said study author Jay Zagorsky, an economist and
researcher at Ohio State University's Center for Human Resource Research.
"Individuals of low intelligence shouldn't believe they're handicapped in
accumulating wealth. Basically, anyone can do well in the financial world."
The results, published online in the journal Intelligence, confirm findings that
people with higher IQ scores tend to earn more.
But people of below-average and average intelligence are in the same league as
the supersmart in accumulating wealth or facing financial pitfalls.
[...]
mlafferty@dispatch.com
Protesters Disrupt FBI Speech
Protesters Disrupt FBI Speech
FBI Director Mueller said. "We [strike a balance between safety and
informing the public] with substantial input and oversight from Congress,
privacy groups, and the ACLU. We should not be protected from scrutiny. (MALCOM
A. GLENN, "Protesters Disrupt Mueller's IOP Speech," Harvard Crimson, April 27,
2007)
How does the FBI explain the silence from elected officials regarding the
murder frame-up of four men in Mass, the 32 murders by FBI informants in New
York and 19 in Boston?
If the FBI works with the ACLU, and the police work with the ACLU what does
that say about the independence of the ACLU? If state and US legislatures, local
officials and journalists refuse to criticize the FBI about their serious
abuses, what good do congenial disagreements with their policies do to maintain
any
freedoms?
Under what system of constitutional law enforcement does the FBI provoke
and harass suspects? Why are there no state protections from FBI abuses?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Protestors Disrupt Mueller's IOP Speech
Published On 4/27/2007 3:36:42 AM
By MALCOM A. GLENN
Harvard Crimson Staff Writer
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) director Robert S. Mueller was interrupted
by protestors last night, during a speech at the Institute of Politics John F.
Kennedy Jr. Forum.
Mueller, who was set to speak before a full crowd managed by tight security
detail, had just begun his prepared remarks when the first protestor interrupted
with screams from the second floor.
[...]
Staff writer Malcom A. Glenn can be reached at mglenn@fas.harvard.edu.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=518560
FBI Director Mueller said. "We [strike a balance between safety and
informing the public] with substantial input and oversight from Congress,
privacy groups, and the ACLU. We should not be protected from scrutiny. (MALCOM
A. GLENN, "Protesters Disrupt Mueller's IOP Speech," Harvard Crimson, April 27,
2007)
How does the FBI explain the silence from elected officials regarding the
murder frame-up of four men in Mass, the 32 murders by FBI informants in New
York and 19 in Boston?
If the FBI works with the ACLU, and the police work with the ACLU what does
that say about the independence of the ACLU? If state and US legislatures, local
officials and journalists refuse to criticize the FBI about their serious
abuses, what good do congenial disagreements with their policies do to maintain
any
freedoms?
Under what system of constitutional law enforcement does the FBI provoke
and harass suspects? Why are there no state protections from FBI abuses?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Protestors Disrupt Mueller's IOP Speech
Published On 4/27/2007 3:36:42 AM
By MALCOM A. GLENN
Harvard Crimson Staff Writer
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) director Robert S. Mueller was interrupted
by protestors last night, during a speech at the Institute of Politics John F.
Kennedy Jr. Forum.
Mueller, who was set to speak before a full crowd managed by tight security
detail, had just begun his prepared remarks when the first protestor interrupted
with screams from the second floor.
[...]
Staff writer Malcom A. Glenn can be reached at mglenn@fas.harvard.edu.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=518560
Addiction to Violence
Addiction to Violence
Steve Almond says, "We must begin to confront our addiction to violence."
(Steve Almond, "Our addiction to violence," Boston Globe, April 26, 2007) But he
ignores the addiction to psychiatry and to psychiatric drugs which we know are
the cause of violence among young people.
Without this factor his conclusion is flawed. Journalists remain mostly
unaware of the correlation between increased funding for psychiatry and violence
in this country.
e What is needed is an open discussion of psychiatric abuses, open to
persons other than lobbyists for the drug companies and spin doctor
psychiatrists. Journalism leaves its skepticism at home when writing about
psychiatry. It is time to bring it along.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Our addiction to violence
Boston Globe
By Steve Almond
April 26, 2007
LAST WEEK'S massacre at Virginia Tech, in which a student named Seung-Hui Cho
killed 32 people, then took his own life, set off a predictable frenzy of media
coverage. For a full week -- while bodies of presumably less divine origin piled
up in Iraq and elsewhere -- America threw itself an elaborate, televised wake.
This has become a national specialty in the age of perpetual news, a ritual
deeply satisfying to all involved: the handsome, anguished anchors, the
sponsors, we loyal viewers. It's that rare chance to experience our
rubbernecking as ennobling, to indulge in the histrionic pleasures of collective
shock.
But Cho's rampage came as no surprise to me. It was merely the latest
manifestation of a culture firmly dedicated to pornographic violence.
[...]
Steve Almond is the author of the forthcoming essay collection "(Not That You
Asked)," to be published in September
Steve Almond says, "We must begin to confront our addiction to violence."
(Steve Almond, "Our addiction to violence," Boston Globe, April 26, 2007) But he
ignores the addiction to psychiatry and to psychiatric drugs which we know are
the cause of violence among young people.
Without this factor his conclusion is flawed. Journalists remain mostly
unaware of the correlation between increased funding for psychiatry and violence
in this country.
e What is needed is an open discussion of psychiatric abuses, open to
persons other than lobbyists for the drug companies and spin doctor
psychiatrists. Journalism leaves its skepticism at home when writing about
psychiatry. It is time to bring it along.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Our addiction to violence
Boston Globe
By Steve Almond
April 26, 2007
LAST WEEK'S massacre at Virginia Tech, in which a student named Seung-Hui Cho
killed 32 people, then took his own life, set off a predictable frenzy of media
coverage. For a full week -- while bodies of presumably less divine origin piled
up in Iraq and elsewhere -- America threw itself an elaborate, televised wake.
This has become a national specialty in the age of perpetual news, a ritual
deeply satisfying to all involved: the handsome, anguished anchors, the
sponsors, we loyal viewers. It's that rare chance to experience our
rubbernecking as ennobling, to indulge in the histrionic pleasures of collective
shock.
But Cho's rampage came as no surprise to me. It was merely the latest
manifestation of a culture firmly dedicated to pornographic violence.
[...]
Steve Almond is the author of the forthcoming essay collection "(Not That You
Asked)," to be published in September
Boston Globe Bullying Editorial
Boston Globe Bullying Editorial
The Globe's opposition to bullying makes an erroneous assumption which
ensures a flawed conclusion. (Boston GLOBE EDITORIAL, "Standing up to bullies,"
April 26, 2007)
Recognizing that "some children get picked on for being smart" the Globe
fails to recognize that adults get picked on for the same reason when exposing
illogical policies and corrupt actions by politicians, police and journalists.
Do "schools, churches, parents, coaches, clubs, friends, and others who
rise up and say bullying is unacceptable" extend to condemning psychiatric
bullies, teacher bullies, police bullies, elected official bullies, etc? Giving
government and psychiatric bullies a pass fails "to ensure that fear is not a
barrier to
participating in everyday life." This is especially important under a one-party
government as in Massachusetts.
Does the Olweus approach include intervening when the bully is a teacher, a
police officer, a psychiatrist or a politician? This is another case of do as we
say but ignore what we do. Young people are aware of the hypocrisy of the adult
world at least as much as some of the smart kids years ago when there was no
internet or IM.
This perspective on bullying is one more business created by the
psychiatric industry, a continuing boondoggle for the drug companies to promote
more illnesses.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Boston GLOBE EDITORIAL
Standing up to bullies
April 26, 2007
MANY FACTORS led to the tragic school shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech.
But part of the poisonous mix was bullying, which can be a risk factor for
violence in young people. The nation is left to wonder what would have happened
if someone had intervened. Short-circuiting bullying is a big job that demands
more respect and restraint from children and adults. But it's also a vital job.
Tales of bullying are told time and again. There are youngsters who put up with
it. Maybe they outgrow the abuse. Maybe they don't. Or there's the story about
the bullied victim who throws an undreamed-of punch and hits the bully hard
enough to make this point: I can be more violent than you are. And there are the
kids who just watch, maintaining a corrosive code of silence.
[...]
The Globe's opposition to bullying makes an erroneous assumption which
ensures a flawed conclusion. (Boston GLOBE EDITORIAL, "Standing up to bullies,"
April 26, 2007)
Recognizing that "some children get picked on for being smart" the Globe
fails to recognize that adults get picked on for the same reason when exposing
illogical policies and corrupt actions by politicians, police and journalists.
Do "schools, churches, parents, coaches, clubs, friends, and others who
rise up and say bullying is unacceptable" extend to condemning psychiatric
bullies, teacher bullies, police bullies, elected official bullies, etc? Giving
government and psychiatric bullies a pass fails "to ensure that fear is not a
barrier to
participating in everyday life." This is especially important under a one-party
government as in Massachusetts.
Does the Olweus approach include intervening when the bully is a teacher, a
police officer, a psychiatrist or a politician? This is another case of do as we
say but ignore what we do. Young people are aware of the hypocrisy of the adult
world at least as much as some of the smart kids years ago when there was no
internet or IM.
This perspective on bullying is one more business created by the
psychiatric industry, a continuing boondoggle for the drug companies to promote
more illnesses.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Boston GLOBE EDITORIAL
Standing up to bullies
April 26, 2007
MANY FACTORS led to the tragic school shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech.
But part of the poisonous mix was bullying, which can be a risk factor for
violence in young people. The nation is left to wonder what would have happened
if someone had intervened. Short-circuiting bullying is a big job that demands
more respect and restraint from children and adults. But it's also a vital job.
Tales of bullying are told time and again. There are youngsters who put up with
it. Maybe they outgrow the abuse. Maybe they don't. Or there's the story about
the bullied victim who throws an undreamed-of punch and hits the bully hard
enough to make this point: I can be more violent than you are. And there are the
kids who just watch, maintaining a corrosive code of silence.
[...]
Campus Police Want to Carry Arms
Campus Police Want to Carry Arms
The violence villain is hiding in plain sight. University administrators
are unable to see him. (Marcella Bombardieri, "Campus police renew call to carry
arms," Boston Globe, April 28, 2007) If universities stopped drugging their
students they could greatly reduce the potential for violence. Psychiatric drugs
are a known cause of violence among young people. It continues to be ignored by
journalists and university officials due to public discourse controlled by the
drug companies. This would free young people to grow and to learn without being
subjected to psychiatric abuses.
Arming police will not stop such determined murderers, unless you would
have officers in every classroom. Arming civilians would prevent some of the
killings. If a student had a pistol when the shootings began at VA Tech, he or
she could have stopped it immediately.
A further problem with arming campus police is that they are mostly
unaccountable for their errors and abuses of power. Unless and until they are
held to the same oversight and accountability as city police they should not be
permitted to carry deadly weapons.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Campus police renew call to carry arms
Va. Tech slayings rekindle debate
Lieutenant Pam Curtis, an officer at Framingham State College, patrolled a
corridor of the science building yesterday. School officials are discussing
whether the police should be armed. Lieutenant Pam Curtis, an officer at
Framingham State College, patrolled a corridor of the science building
yesterday. School officials are discussing whether the police should be armed.
(BILL POLO/GLOBE STAFF)
By Marcella Bombardieri,
Boston Globe Staff
April 28, 2007
Campus police at several Boston-area colleges are renewing calls to be allowed
to carry arms in the aftermath of the mass shootings at Virginia Tech.
Brandeis University, which has rejected calls to arm its police in the past, has
agreed to reconsider the idea. Framingham State College officials are talking
about it, and students at Suffolk University are circulating a petition calling
for an armed force.
[...]
The violence villain is hiding in plain sight. University administrators
are unable to see him. (Marcella Bombardieri, "Campus police renew call to carry
arms," Boston Globe, April 28, 2007) If universities stopped drugging their
students they could greatly reduce the potential for violence. Psychiatric drugs
are a known cause of violence among young people. It continues to be ignored by
journalists and university officials due to public discourse controlled by the
drug companies. This would free young people to grow and to learn without being
subjected to psychiatric abuses.
Arming police will not stop such determined murderers, unless you would
have officers in every classroom. Arming civilians would prevent some of the
killings. If a student had a pistol when the shootings began at VA Tech, he or
she could have stopped it immediately.
A further problem with arming campus police is that they are mostly
unaccountable for their errors and abuses of power. Unless and until they are
held to the same oversight and accountability as city police they should not be
permitted to carry deadly weapons.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Campus police renew call to carry arms
Va. Tech slayings rekindle debate
Lieutenant Pam Curtis, an officer at Framingham State College, patrolled a
corridor of the science building yesterday. School officials are discussing
whether the police should be armed. Lieutenant Pam Curtis, an officer at
Framingham State College, patrolled a corridor of the science building
yesterday. School officials are discussing whether the police should be armed.
(BILL POLO/GLOBE STAFF)
By Marcella Bombardieri,
Boston Globe Staff
April 28, 2007
Campus police at several Boston-area colleges are renewing calls to be allowed
to carry arms in the aftermath of the mass shootings at Virginia Tech.
Brandeis University, which has rejected calls to arm its police in the past, has
agreed to reconsider the idea. Framingham State College officials are talking
about it, and students at Suffolk University are circulating a petition calling
for an armed force.
[...]
The Violence Virus
The Violence Virus
Susan C. Scrimshaw says, "law enforcement, [...] is only part of the
solution" to youth violence. (Susan C. Scrimshaw, "The violence virus," Boston
Globe, April 22, 2007)
One element is the role of psychiatric drugs. Psychiatric drugs created a
generation of violent monsters from chemicals ingested under advice of the adult
community that should know better.
Another element is the effect of elected officials and police on setting
standards for young people. Police treat victims as suspects. Politicians ignore
abuses of police and the FBI.
Young people recognize hypocrisy in application of the laws. Public
officials ignore inconvenient laws. University development offices pressure
local communities to approve projects contrary to laws. There is no outrage
among the educated voters in eastern Mass. The one party-system permits abuses
of law and power not usually tolerated under a democratic republic.
There is no accountability for harms by wealthy and powerful persons. Young
people know this as well as adults. They join gangs for self protection. The
police do not perform their primary function, i.e., to protect citizens from
harm. Gangs fill the vacuum.
Respect for individuals will end much violence. But there is no respect for
poor powerless person by politicians and police and journalists.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
The violence virus
Boston Globe
By Susan C. Scrimshaw
April 22, 2007
IN URBAN areas across our nation, hardly a day goes by without news of a
shooting. Many such incidents start with a rash argument between young people
armed with guns. The typical response, when shootings increase, is to enhance
law enforcement, but that is only part of the solution.
This deadly cycle of shootings is a public-health epidemic. By approaching it as
such -- as a contagious disease of underlying expectations and pressures, one
that is both treatable and preventable -- we can make significant progress
toward halting it.
Urban violence is spread largely by expectations among youths in many gangs: If
you insult or harm me, I must harm you. That powerful peer pressure and behavior
is transmitted, like a virus, from person to person and gang to gang -- until
there's a violent outbreak, and someone is killed. Then the virus is quiet until
another outbreak .
[...]
Susan C. Scrimshaw is president of Simmons College in Boston.
Susan C. Scrimshaw says, "law enforcement, [...] is only part of the
solution" to youth violence. (Susan C. Scrimshaw, "The violence virus," Boston
Globe, April 22, 2007)
One element is the role of psychiatric drugs. Psychiatric drugs created a
generation of violent monsters from chemicals ingested under advice of the adult
community that should know better.
Another element is the effect of elected officials and police on setting
standards for young people. Police treat victims as suspects. Politicians ignore
abuses of police and the FBI.
Young people recognize hypocrisy in application of the laws. Public
officials ignore inconvenient laws. University development offices pressure
local communities to approve projects contrary to laws. There is no outrage
among the educated voters in eastern Mass. The one party-system permits abuses
of law and power not usually tolerated under a democratic republic.
There is no accountability for harms by wealthy and powerful persons. Young
people know this as well as adults. They join gangs for self protection. The
police do not perform their primary function, i.e., to protect citizens from
harm. Gangs fill the vacuum.
Respect for individuals will end much violence. But there is no respect for
poor powerless person by politicians and police and journalists.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
The violence virus
Boston Globe
By Susan C. Scrimshaw
April 22, 2007
IN URBAN areas across our nation, hardly a day goes by without news of a
shooting. Many such incidents start with a rash argument between young people
armed with guns. The typical response, when shootings increase, is to enhance
law enforcement, but that is only part of the solution.
This deadly cycle of shootings is a public-health epidemic. By approaching it as
such -- as a contagious disease of underlying expectations and pressures, one
that is both treatable and preventable -- we can make significant progress
toward halting it.
Urban violence is spread largely by expectations among youths in many gangs: If
you insult or harm me, I must harm you. That powerful peer pressure and behavior
is transmitted, like a virus, from person to person and gang to gang -- until
there's a violent outbreak, and someone is killed. Then the virus is quiet until
another outbreak .
[...]
Susan C. Scrimshaw is president of Simmons College in Boston.
Gentle Brutality
Gentle Brutality
Jeff Jacoby quotes Robert F. Kennedy an abrasive upper class politician
with little compassion and mercy for his opponents saying, "Let us dedicate
ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of
man and make gentle the life of this world. Let us dedicate ourselves to that,
and say a prayer for our country, and for our people." (Jeff Jacoby, "A time for
tears and silence, not politics," Boston Globe, April 22, 2007) Isn't it typical
of politicians to say one thing and to do the opposite? How soon Jacoby forgets if
he ever noticed.
Answering those prayers is the psychiatric industry and the drug companies,
who tame "the savageness" of man with the approval of control freak
journalists. Using the police power of the state to force an alleged medical
diagnosis shows how brutal contemporary officials are who are making people more
gentle. Friendly persuasion under threat of police powers and chemicals is not
the way to end the cycle of violence. Using psychiatric drugs, often the cause
of violence, in the name of ending violence is expert spinning of the facts.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
A time for tears and silence, not politics
Boston Globe
By Jeff Jacoby
April 22, 2007
Paul Helmke didn't miss a beat. The bodies of the Virginia Tech shooting victims
weren't yet cold when the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence was out with a press release.
"Details are still forthcoming about what motivated the shooter in this case to
act," Helmke's statement said. "It is well known, however, how easy it is for an
individual to get powerful weapons in our country. . . . It is long overdue for
us to take some common-sense actions to prevent tragedies like this from
continuing to occur."
[...]
Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.
Jeff Jacoby quotes Robert F. Kennedy an abrasive upper class politician
with little compassion and mercy for his opponents saying, "Let us dedicate
ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of
man and make gentle the life of this world. Let us dedicate ourselves to that,
and say a prayer for our country, and for our people." (Jeff Jacoby, "A time for
tears and silence, not politics," Boston Globe, April 22, 2007) Isn't it typical
of politicians to say one thing and to do the opposite? How soon Jacoby forgets if
he ever noticed.
Answering those prayers is the psychiatric industry and the drug companies,
who tame "the savageness" of man with the approval of control freak
journalists. Using the police power of the state to force an alleged medical
diagnosis shows how brutal contemporary officials are who are making people more
gentle. Friendly persuasion under threat of police powers and chemicals is not
the way to end the cycle of violence. Using psychiatric drugs, often the cause
of violence, in the name of ending violence is expert spinning of the facts.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
A time for tears and silence, not politics
Boston Globe
By Jeff Jacoby
April 22, 2007
Paul Helmke didn't miss a beat. The bodies of the Virginia Tech shooting victims
weren't yet cold when the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence was out with a press release.
"Details are still forthcoming about what motivated the shooter in this case to
act," Helmke's statement said. "It is well known, however, how easy it is for an
individual to get powerful weapons in our country. . . . It is long overdue for
us to take some common-sense actions to prevent tragedies like this from
continuing to occur."
[...]
Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.
Dangerous Propaganda
Dangerous Propaganda
Marc Seigel asks, "Is there any science behind the fears of these useful
meds?"(MARC K. SIEGEL, "DANGEROUS WARNINGS," New York Post, May 12, 2007, Page
21) Better unasked questions are "Is there any science behind the mental illnesses
created by consensus? Is there any science behind the fantasy that there is a
biological basis to mental illness? Is there any science behind the personal
opinions of psychiatrists?" The answers are no, no and no.
The American Psychiatric Association is unable to provide any evidence of
their claim of a biological basis for mental illness. Does Marc Seigel receive
any funding from any of the drug companies or their lobbyists? What explains his
misguided propaganda encouraging use of anti depressants which are a proven
cause of violence among humans?
[Dr. Siegel responded to my email assuring me that he does not get any money from drug companies.]
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
DANGEROUS WARNINGS
New York Post
By MARC K. SIEGEL
May 12, 2007 -- CONGRESS may soon increase the Food and Drug Administration's
oversight of pharmeceuticals. I certainly don't think we should simply trust
what drug companies tell us, but I have my worries about the FDA, too.
Why? Consider one of my patients. Last year, the teen was in trouble - fighting
with both parents during an ugly divorce and becoming severely depressed and
violent. He'd had a fistfight with a relative and been expelled from his school
[...]
Dr. Marc K. Siegel is author of "False Alarm."
Marc Seigel asks, "Is there any science behind the fears of these useful
meds?"(MARC K. SIEGEL, "DANGEROUS WARNINGS," New York Post, May 12, 2007, Page
21) Better unasked questions are "Is there any science behind the mental illnesses
created by consensus? Is there any science behind the fantasy that there is a
biological basis to mental illness? Is there any science behind the personal
opinions of psychiatrists?" The answers are no, no and no.
The American Psychiatric Association is unable to provide any evidence of
their claim of a biological basis for mental illness. Does Marc Seigel receive
any funding from any of the drug companies or their lobbyists? What explains his
misguided propaganda encouraging use of anti depressants which are a proven
cause of violence among humans?
[Dr. Siegel responded to my email assuring me that he does not get any money from drug companies.]
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
DANGEROUS WARNINGS
New York Post
By MARC K. SIEGEL
May 12, 2007 -- CONGRESS may soon increase the Food and Drug Administration's
oversight of pharmeceuticals. I certainly don't think we should simply trust
what drug companies tell us, but I have my worries about the FDA, too.
Why? Consider one of my patients. Last year, the teen was in trouble - fighting
with both parents during an ugly divorce and becoming severely depressed and
violent. He'd had a fistfight with a relative and been expelled from his school
[...]
Dr. Marc K. Siegel is author of "False Alarm."
Inadvertent Theft?
Inadvertent Theft?
Cambridge City Manager Robert "Healy said the city would not take back the
extra money and would instead try to treat all employees equally." (Janice
O'Leary, "One way to support the troops: full pay," Boston Globe, City Weekly,
May 13, 2007) The Manager has a generous way with taxpayer funds. Isn't that
called theft?
Councilor Decker declared at the council meeting, "It is only a handful of
employees." Oh? If only a handful of people commit a crime it is not a
violation? Not many people commit murder in Cambridge. It is only a handful. If
they are military veterans who need money for food shall we approve?
Councilor Galluccio shut off all debate saying, "No one would disagree with
this." If the handful of police officers did not demand equal treatment would
the "inadvertent illegal pay" be revealed?
These city officials wonder why young people refuse to cooperate with the
police. Well, duh.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
CAMBRIDGE
One way to support the troops: full pay
Firefighter Stephan Jeffres received full pay from the city when he served in
Iraq with the Air National Guard. Firefighter Stephan Jeffres received full pay
from the city when he served in Iraq with the Air National Guard. (Christina
Caturano FOR THE BOSTON GLOBE)
One way to support the troops: full pay
By Janice O'Leary,
Boston Globe Correspondent
May 13, 2007
City employees called up to serve in combat would get their full salaries in
addition to military pay, under a home rule petition sponsored by the Cambridge
City Council.
The council voted unanimously last Monday to endorse the bill, which now must go
before the state Legislature because it differs from state law.
Councilors recently discovered a disparity between several city departments in
how military personnel were being paid. The Fire Department, for instance, paid
full salary to a firefighter while he was deployed in Iraq.
However, the Police Department was paying its enlisted officers the difference
between their normal salaries and their military pay, which is what state law
dictates. Twenty officers appealed to the council this month for equal
treatment.
"If you have a family, it's beneficial for spouses, especially those with kids,"
said Stephan Jeffres, the firefighter who received full pay in addition to his
military salary. "Military pay, even with special allowances, is usually less
than you normally make. It keeps you from detail and overtime pay, which you
count on."
City Councilor Marjorie C. Decker, who chairs the council's Veterans Committee,
said she learned of the inequity when she was putting together a welcome home
package for returning soldiers.
At last week's meeting, the council approved the language for the petition
presented by City Manager Robert W. Healy, who said the city has no authority to
institute the policy without approval from the state, despite any urgency
councilors may feel.
"I am not authorized to make such a payment unless the home rule petition goes
through," he said.
While noting that the Fire Department "inadvertently" paid Jeffres his full
salary, Healy said the city would not take back the extra money and would
instead try to treat all employees equally.
[...]
Cambridge City Manager Robert "Healy said the city would not take back the
extra money and would instead try to treat all employees equally." (Janice
O'Leary, "One way to support the troops: full pay," Boston Globe, City Weekly,
May 13, 2007) The Manager has a generous way with taxpayer funds. Isn't that
called theft?
Councilor Decker declared at the council meeting, "It is only a handful of
employees." Oh? If only a handful of people commit a crime it is not a
violation? Not many people commit murder in Cambridge. It is only a handful. If
they are military veterans who need money for food shall we approve?
Councilor Galluccio shut off all debate saying, "No one would disagree with
this." If the handful of police officers did not demand equal treatment would
the "inadvertent illegal pay" be revealed?
These city officials wonder why young people refuse to cooperate with the
police. Well, duh.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
CAMBRIDGE
One way to support the troops: full pay
Firefighter Stephan Jeffres received full pay from the city when he served in
Iraq with the Air National Guard. Firefighter Stephan Jeffres received full pay
from the city when he served in Iraq with the Air National Guard. (Christina
Caturano FOR THE BOSTON GLOBE)
One way to support the troops: full pay
By Janice O'Leary,
Boston Globe Correspondent
May 13, 2007
City employees called up to serve in combat would get their full salaries in
addition to military pay, under a home rule petition sponsored by the Cambridge
City Council.
The council voted unanimously last Monday to endorse the bill, which now must go
before the state Legislature because it differs from state law.
Councilors recently discovered a disparity between several city departments in
how military personnel were being paid. The Fire Department, for instance, paid
full salary to a firefighter while he was deployed in Iraq.
However, the Police Department was paying its enlisted officers the difference
between their normal salaries and their military pay, which is what state law
dictates. Twenty officers appealed to the council this month for equal
treatment.
"If you have a family, it's beneficial for spouses, especially those with kids,"
said Stephan Jeffres, the firefighter who received full pay in addition to his
military salary. "Military pay, even with special allowances, is usually less
than you normally make. It keeps you from detail and overtime pay, which you
count on."
City Councilor Marjorie C. Decker, who chairs the council's Veterans Committee,
said she learned of the inequity when she was putting together a welcome home
package for returning soldiers.
At last week's meeting, the council approved the language for the petition
presented by City Manager Robert W. Healy, who said the city has no authority to
institute the policy without approval from the state, despite any urgency
councilors may feel.
"I am not authorized to make such a payment unless the home rule petition goes
through," he said.
While noting that the Fire Department "inadvertently" paid Jeffres his full
salary, Healy said the city would not take back the extra money and would
instead try to treat all employees equally.
[...]
Psychiatric Abuse in NJ Schools
Psychiatric Abuse in NJ Schools
Superintendent Glenn Kamp said "any time a student threatens someone, they
are immediately suspended and must undergo a psychiatric evaluation before they
are allowed back in the school." (BARBARA WILLIAMS, "West Milford teacher may
lose job," The Record, May 4, 2007) Under what system of mental health care is
psychiatry punishment?
Does the school system believe that mental illness is a cause of crime or
violence? If an allegation of mental illness is made the schools must protect
the student against disability based discrimination. It does not matter if the
student in fact has a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. What
matters is that the government has that perception.
Moreover is the school system stereotyping the student that they accuse of
having a disabilty violates state and US laws, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, etc.
All too often school
administrators use psychiatry to control students. Their regulations show that
the schools have unlawful regulations.
Psychiatry is a means of social control with no due process protections. It
is a system of personal opinion masquerading as science. But their illnesses
are created by consensus not science. Here the teacher is not being protected
from criminal threats. The administtarors usadministratorsnstead of the criminal
justice system. It is what the Nazis did, i.e., medicalize social problems.
There is no appeal from a medical diagnosis.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
West Milford teacher may lose job
Friday, May 4, 2007
By BARBARA WILLIAMS
The Bergen Record
STAFF WRITER
WEST MILFORD
A high school teacher may lose her job in a battle with the administration over
who should discipline poorly behaving students.
Cheryl Bachmann is claiming the decision to offer her tenure was reversed after
she fought to have a female student permanently removed from her class. She said
the teen was heard screaming in the hallways of West Milford High School using
expletives and threatening to stab her after Bachmann told her to leave the
class for using inappropriate language.
Administrators are saying it's ludicrous to think the district doesn't take
threats seriously. Rather, a memo states that Bachman will not be rehired
because of poor management skills. Superintendent Glenn Kamp said anytime a
threat is made, an established protocol is immediately followed.
[...]
E-mail: williamsb@northjersey.com
Superintendent Glenn Kamp said "any time a student threatens someone, they
are immediately suspended and must undergo a psychiatric evaluation before they
are allowed back in the school." (BARBARA WILLIAMS, "West Milford teacher may
lose job," The Record, May 4, 2007) Under what system of mental health care is
psychiatry punishment?
Does the school system believe that mental illness is a cause of crime or
violence? If an allegation of mental illness is made the schools must protect
the student against disability based discrimination. It does not matter if the
student in fact has a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. What
matters is that the government has that perception.
Moreover is the school system stereotyping the student that they accuse of
having a disabilty violates state and US laws, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, etc.
All too often school
administrators use psychiatry to control students. Their regulations show that
the schools have unlawful regulations.
Psychiatry is a means of social control with no due process protections. It
is a system of personal opinion masquerading as science. But their illnesses
are created by consensus not science. Here the teacher is not being protected
from criminal threats. The administtarors usadministratorsnstead of the criminal
justice system. It is what the Nazis did, i.e., medicalize social problems.
There is no appeal from a medical diagnosis.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
West Milford teacher may lose job
Friday, May 4, 2007
By BARBARA WILLIAMS
The Bergen Record
STAFF WRITER
WEST MILFORD
A high school teacher may lose her job in a battle with the administration over
who should discipline poorly behaving students.
Cheryl Bachmann is claiming the decision to offer her tenure was reversed after
she fought to have a female student permanently removed from her class. She said
the teen was heard screaming in the hallways of West Milford High School using
expletives and threatening to stab her after Bachmann told her to leave the
class for using inappropriate language.
Administrators are saying it's ludicrous to think the district doesn't take
threats seriously. Rather, a memo states that Bachman will not be rehired
because of poor management skills. Superintendent Glenn Kamp said anytime a
threat is made, an established protocol is immediately followed.
[...]
E-mail: williamsb@northjersey.com
One-sided slant on psychiatry
One-sided slant on psychiatry
Letter to John Wilpers, Publisher of Boston NOW.
I noticed two articles within two days by Scott Wachtler promoting
psychiatry. I am aware of the control of the public discourse on psychiatry by
the big four -- the drug corporations, the psychiatric industry, the human
services industry and the academic research industry. There are great unreported
abuses by psychiatrists.
Regarding "Massachusetts missing courts for mentally ill," May 10, 2007,
page 6, having separate courts for persons with disabilities is an egregious
violation of state and US discrimination laws. I am aware of the extreme
negative bias among lawyers, journalists, police, judges and the court system
toward persons accused of mental illness. Having a separate court for certain
hated persons does not mitigate the abuses by psychiatrists. All persons are
entitled to the same due process protections. There are no exceptions in the
constitution for persons accused of mental illness.
Regarding "Children's mental health system fractured," May 8, 2007, page 6,
here again is the industry focus on promoting drug treatment instead of
protecting the rights of persons with disabilities. The drug companies hide
behind a made up grass roots organization called NAMI which gets $2 to $3
million per year from drug corporations to promote drug treatment. The state
Dept. of Mental Health also promotes drug treatment. How is the MA DMH different
from a lobbyist for drug companies?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
Letter to John Wilpers, Publisher of Boston NOW.
I noticed two articles within two days by Scott Wachtler promoting
psychiatry. I am aware of the control of the public discourse on psychiatry by
the big four -- the drug corporations, the psychiatric industry, the human
services industry and the academic research industry. There are great unreported
abuses by psychiatrists.
Regarding "Massachusetts missing courts for mentally ill," May 10, 2007,
page 6, having separate courts for persons with disabilities is an egregious
violation of state and US discrimination laws. I am aware of the extreme
negative bias among lawyers, journalists, police, judges and the court system
toward persons accused of mental illness. Having a separate court for certain
hated persons does not mitigate the abuses by psychiatrists. All persons are
entitled to the same due process protections. There are no exceptions in the
constitution for persons accused of mental illness.
Regarding "Children's mental health system fractured," May 8, 2007, page 6,
here again is the industry focus on promoting drug treatment instead of
protecting the rights of persons with disabilities. The drug companies hide
behind a made up grass roots organization called NAMI which gets $2 to $3
million per year from drug corporations to promote drug treatment. The state
Dept. of Mental Health also promotes drug treatment. How is the MA DMH different
from a lobbyist for drug companies?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
Let Truth Win by Mary Collins
Let Truth Win
by Mary Collins
http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2006/09/846258.shtml
Dark, black clouds are covering all our lands. These clouds are formed
by lies, dishonesty and fraud, so much that no bright sun can send its
rays of truth to penetrate and reach the view of man.
The clouds come from Psychiatry, the new born faith that's based on
whim, on false created ills and deadly drugs given "to help" but which
instead cause suicides and death.
Schools are temples for TeenScreen, and other screenings now run by the
priests of the God known as �Drug�. They carry out their sacred ritual
with devotion and make sure that no priests or ministers of other creeds
or faiths offer and do help. Drug is a jealous God; spiritual help is
now forbidden, and help for the real diseases of the body are not looked
for and are left without real help.
Our children do not get the skills of reading, writing and arithmetic.
Instead of giving them the help they need to learn their language, they
are given drugs; instead of teaching honesty and morals they are given
substances that cause violence; instead of helping them with math, they
then are told they have a mental problem called a �disorder� and can
only learn by obeying the God Drug.
From Media, we hear psychiatry's disciples preach each day of ills that
are "so rampant" in our lives. They warn us of the horror of these ills,
and encourage us to be afraid we'll suffer greatly. We hear them
advertise the great salvation � drugs that have been made to "cure"
those ills. They speak without intelligence, with no true knowledge, but
with certainty that's based on blind devotion and blind faith.
Though "mental illness" is but fraud, since no facts are there that can
prove a mind disorder really is, and so all are false, the faithful
still cry out in great alarm that these are valid ills. They cry out,
"The children left without the sacred drugs are doomed". And because so
many dark clouds hide the truth, our children get addicted, become ill,
both in their minds, but also physically; have twisted drug-induced
hallucinations, kill friends, their families and themselves.
And all because they followed the commands of Drug, the deadly God who
rules.
They're falsely told their brain has an "imbalance" which can only then
be helped by taking drugs. They're told they have a �mental illness�,
and so are stigmatized for life. They're normal beings who have
problems, yet real help is lost to them as soon as they bow down and
worship Pharma, Psychiatrists and those who follow the God Drug.
In clouds of false euphoria, children, people, millions, feel so "good"
and act out all their lives like puppets, now subservient to the God
named Drug. The substances are of a nature same with morphine, opium and
cocaine. The God Drug's slaves hope they can continue to feel numbed;
yet do forget the spark of life has dimmed and finally gone.
There are among us Knights of Decency, Giants of Intellect, those men
who are courageous, who are strong, and who are really our true leaders.
They are the doctors, teachers, parents � all who will and do speak out
against the crimes that others dare not look at, the crimes that many
cannot see because the horrors are so covered with the false, deceitful
darkness.
These Knights of Decency can see the truth; they see that children die,
they see that suicides are happening, that violence does occur, that
minds are altered for the worst, and all from the devotion to God Drug
and Psychiatry.
We must stop the evil acts that kill our children and adults. When we do
this, we'll have people who're sane. Happiness will fill the atmosphere
and artists can create the beauty we all need, the beauty which will
lift our spirits and will give us hope for better lives; we'll make our
country one where creativity, intelligence and advances in the arts and
science can thrive.
Let�s see and tell the truth, take away the dark clouds and be free
again, so Human Rights can then be sacred, and honesty is king.
http://www.petitiononline.com/TScreen/petition.html
Mary Collins is a 72-year-old grandmother living in New Hampshire. She
attained a BA in English Literature with a minor in History in 1954 from
Millsap's College in Jackson, Mississippi and was involved in education
for over 20 years. You can contact her here:
--
Mary Collins
Email: marycollins_16_2@(NOSPAM)rushpost.com
Note: Remove (NOSPAM)
by Mary Collins
http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2006/09/846258.shtml
Dark, black clouds are covering all our lands. These clouds are formed
by lies, dishonesty and fraud, so much that no bright sun can send its
rays of truth to penetrate and reach the view of man.
The clouds come from Psychiatry, the new born faith that's based on
whim, on false created ills and deadly drugs given "to help" but which
instead cause suicides and death.
Schools are temples for TeenScreen, and other screenings now run by the
priests of the God known as �Drug�. They carry out their sacred ritual
with devotion and make sure that no priests or ministers of other creeds
or faiths offer and do help. Drug is a jealous God; spiritual help is
now forbidden, and help for the real diseases of the body are not looked
for and are left without real help.
Our children do not get the skills of reading, writing and arithmetic.
Instead of giving them the help they need to learn their language, they
are given drugs; instead of teaching honesty and morals they are given
substances that cause violence; instead of helping them with math, they
then are told they have a mental problem called a �disorder� and can
only learn by obeying the God Drug.
From Media, we hear psychiatry's disciples preach each day of ills that
are "so rampant" in our lives. They warn us of the horror of these ills,
and encourage us to be afraid we'll suffer greatly. We hear them
advertise the great salvation � drugs that have been made to "cure"
those ills. They speak without intelligence, with no true knowledge, but
with certainty that's based on blind devotion and blind faith.
Though "mental illness" is but fraud, since no facts are there that can
prove a mind disorder really is, and so all are false, the faithful
still cry out in great alarm that these are valid ills. They cry out,
"The children left without the sacred drugs are doomed". And because so
many dark clouds hide the truth, our children get addicted, become ill,
both in their minds, but also physically; have twisted drug-induced
hallucinations, kill friends, their families and themselves.
And all because they followed the commands of Drug, the deadly God who
rules.
They're falsely told their brain has an "imbalance" which can only then
be helped by taking drugs. They're told they have a �mental illness�,
and so are stigmatized for life. They're normal beings who have
problems, yet real help is lost to them as soon as they bow down and
worship Pharma, Psychiatrists and those who follow the God Drug.
In clouds of false euphoria, children, people, millions, feel so "good"
and act out all their lives like puppets, now subservient to the God
named Drug. The substances are of a nature same with morphine, opium and
cocaine. The God Drug's slaves hope they can continue to feel numbed;
yet do forget the spark of life has dimmed and finally gone.
There are among us Knights of Decency, Giants of Intellect, those men
who are courageous, who are strong, and who are really our true leaders.
They are the doctors, teachers, parents � all who will and do speak out
against the crimes that others dare not look at, the crimes that many
cannot see because the horrors are so covered with the false, deceitful
darkness.
These Knights of Decency can see the truth; they see that children die,
they see that suicides are happening, that violence does occur, that
minds are altered for the worst, and all from the devotion to God Drug
and Psychiatry.
We must stop the evil acts that kill our children and adults. When we do
this, we'll have people who're sane. Happiness will fill the atmosphere
and artists can create the beauty we all need, the beauty which will
lift our spirits and will give us hope for better lives; we'll make our
country one where creativity, intelligence and advances in the arts and
science can thrive.
Let�s see and tell the truth, take away the dark clouds and be free
again, so Human Rights can then be sacred, and honesty is king.
http://www.petitiononline.com/TScreen/petition.html
Mary Collins is a 72-year-old grandmother living in New Hampshire. She
attained a BA in English Literature with a minor in History in 1954 from
Millsap's College in Jackson, Mississippi and was involved in education
for over 20 years. You can contact her here:
--
Mary Collins
Email: marycollins_16_2@(NOSPAM)rushpost.com
Note: Remove (NOSPAM)
Censorship at Tufts University
Censorship at Tufts University
Dear President Bacow,
Dear Professor Grossman,
The decision to reprimand the editors of the Primary Source was misguided.
I've followed the details and wrote to the Primary Source on previous occasions
supporting their expression.
I know the First Amendment does not apply to Tufts, but that is no reason
to promote less free expression on a university campus. This is a national
problem of citizens supporting censorship. What ever happened to rational
speech? Silencing expression increases the number of misinformed people.
The principle used to justify censorship at Tufts, is not applied equally
to all groups. Negative speech is only an issue if the targeted group is wealthy
and/or powerful. I see this regularly as I try to raise awareness of the issue
of demonizing persons with disabilities. Criticizing certain ethnic, religious,
racial and gender groups is prohibited. But it is still acceptable for public
humiliation of persons with disabilities.
The action at Tufts is no different from elected officials catering to
wealthy and powerful interest groups. That abomination has spread to the campus
which is unfortunate at best.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
Dear President Bacow,
Dear Professor Grossman,
The decision to reprimand the editors of the Primary Source was misguided.
I've followed the details and wrote to the Primary Source on previous occasions
supporting their expression.
I know the First Amendment does not apply to Tufts, but that is no reason
to promote less free expression on a university campus. This is a national
problem of citizens supporting censorship. What ever happened to rational
speech? Silencing expression increases the number of misinformed people.
The principle used to justify censorship at Tufts, is not applied equally
to all groups. Negative speech is only an issue if the targeted group is wealthy
and/or powerful. I see this regularly as I try to raise awareness of the issue
of demonizing persons with disabilities. Criticizing certain ethnic, religious,
racial and gender groups is prohibited. But it is still acceptable for public
humiliation of persons with disabilities.
The action at Tufts is no different from elected officials catering to
wealthy and powerful interest groups. That abomination has spread to the campus
which is unfortunate at best.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
Censorship at Brandeis University
Censorship at Brandeis University
Dear President Reinharz,
The decision to reprimand the editors of the Gravity was misguided. I know
the First Amendment does not apply to Brandeis, but that is no reason
to promote less free expression on a university campus. This is a national
problem of citizens supporting censorship. What ever happened to rational
speech? Silencing expression increases the number of misinformed people.
The principle used to justify censorship at Brandeis, is not applied
equally
to all groups. Negative speech is only an issue if the targeted group is wealthy
and/or powerful. I see this regularly as I try to raise awareness of the issue
of demonizing persons with disabilities. Criticizing certain ethnic, religious,
racial and gender groups is prohibited. But it is still acceptable for public
humiliation of persons with disabilities.
The action at Brandeis is no different from elected officials catering to
wealthy and powerful interest groups. That abomination has spread to the campus
which is unfortunate at best.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
Dear President Reinharz,
The decision to reprimand the editors of the Gravity was misguided. I know
the First Amendment does not apply to Brandeis, but that is no reason
to promote less free expression on a university campus. This is a national
problem of citizens supporting censorship. What ever happened to rational
speech? Silencing expression increases the number of misinformed people.
The principle used to justify censorship at Brandeis, is not applied
equally
to all groups. Negative speech is only an issue if the targeted group is wealthy
and/or powerful. I see this regularly as I try to raise awareness of the issue
of demonizing persons with disabilities. Criticizing certain ethnic, religious,
racial and gender groups is prohibited. But it is still acceptable for public
humiliation of persons with disabilities.
The action at Brandeis is no different from elected officials catering to
wealthy and powerful interest groups. That abomination has spread to the campus
which is unfortunate at best.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
Too Many Police Meetings?
Too Many Police Meetings?
Let's see, in recent weeks Cambridge MA held City Wide Task Force meetings on Neighborhood Crime, Sergeants meetings with Riverside, Cambridgeport, North Cambridge, two meetings promoting the use of TASERs on persons with disabilities. That takes up a lot of time of supervising officers. How can they supervise if they are attending meetings? How can a committee run a police department?
Why focus on the police when the City Manager Robert Healy is the chief law enforcement officer of the city according to state statute? All decisions regarding what laws to enforce and what ones to let slide come from him.
The Manager and the City Councilors have a relaxed notion of law enforcement. It
is to be expected that some persons realize that there is little reason to obey
laws. If the elected and appointed officials violate laws and say it is
inadvertent why should civilians obey laws?
The problem with lawlessness is a state wide problem. The legislature, the
courts and the Governor all selectively follow the laws. Young people and
criminals recognize the lawlessness of the government and imitate the role
models.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
Let's see, in recent weeks Cambridge MA held City Wide Task Force meetings on Neighborhood Crime, Sergeants meetings with Riverside, Cambridgeport, North Cambridge, two meetings promoting the use of TASERs on persons with disabilities. That takes up a lot of time of supervising officers. How can they supervise if they are attending meetings? How can a committee run a police department?
Why focus on the police when the City Manager Robert Healy is the chief law enforcement officer of the city according to state statute? All decisions regarding what laws to enforce and what ones to let slide come from him.
The Manager and the City Councilors have a relaxed notion of law enforcement. It
is to be expected that some persons realize that there is little reason to obey
laws. If the elected and appointed officials violate laws and say it is
inadvertent why should civilians obey laws?
The problem with lawlessness is a state wide problem. The legislature, the
courts and the Governor all selectively follow the laws. Young people and
criminals recognize the lawlessness of the government and imitate the role
models.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
Patients with Disabilities Sue State
Patients with Disabilities Sue State
Dr. Judy Ann Bigby, health and human services secretary, said "Providing
comprehensive services in the most appropriate setting to persons with
disabilities, including brain injuries, is a priority for the administration,"
she said. "Overall, the [state] spends over $900 million per year in
community-based, long-term-care services." (Raja Mishra, "Brain injury patients
sue state, Boston Globe, May 18, 2007)
A bigger priority for the Harvard corporate lawyer Governor is providng $1
billion to the bottomless biotech research industry pit. Like all deceptive
politicians they make it up as they go.
Why is the Globe silent on this issue for so many years? Journalists share
perspective with business interests, providing goods and services but not rights
to persons with disabilities shows their lack of concern.
Why did it take the taxpayer funded lawyers so many years to bring this suit?
The ADA is law since 1990, the Rehabilitation Act since 1973.
There can be no damages unless the Dept. of Justice brings the action. That
is why the state court judges make agreements and then ignore them. Persons with
disabilities have no protection from lawless, shameless psychopathic government
officials.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
Brain injury patients sue state
Lawsuit seeks community care
By Raja Mishra,
Boston Globe Staff
May 18, 2007
Catherine Hutchinson strolled in from gardening one day 11 years ago and
collapsed in her Attleboro home, suffering a brain-stem stroke that left the
single mother of two paralyzed from the neck down and mute.
Yesterday, in a written statement composed with the aid of caretakers and
special computers, Hutchinson said that her life in nursing homes since the
stroke has heaped misery on her mis fortune.
"I feel isolated from the real world. I have little to no privacy. I don't want
to live this way, and I can't think of anyone else who would," she said in the
statement, read during a press conference in Boston.
[...]
Dr. Judy Ann Bigby, health and human services secretary, said "Providing
comprehensive services in the most appropriate setting to persons with
disabilities, including brain injuries, is a priority for the administration,"
she said. "Overall, the [state] spends over $900 million per year in
community-based, long-term-care services." (Raja Mishra, "Brain injury patients
sue state, Boston Globe, May 18, 2007)
A bigger priority for the Harvard corporate lawyer Governor is providng $1
billion to the bottomless biotech research industry pit. Like all deceptive
politicians they make it up as they go.
Why is the Globe silent on this issue for so many years? Journalists share
perspective with business interests, providing goods and services but not rights
to persons with disabilities shows their lack of concern.
Why did it take the taxpayer funded lawyers so many years to bring this suit?
The ADA is law since 1990, the Rehabilitation Act since 1973.
There can be no damages unless the Dept. of Justice brings the action. That
is why the state court judges make agreements and then ignore them. Persons with
disabilities have no protection from lawless, shameless psychopathic government
officials.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
Brain injury patients sue state
Lawsuit seeks community care
By Raja Mishra,
Boston Globe Staff
May 18, 2007
Catherine Hutchinson strolled in from gardening one day 11 years ago and
collapsed in her Attleboro home, suffering a brain-stem stroke that left the
single mother of two paralyzed from the neck down and mute.
Yesterday, in a written statement composed with the aid of caretakers and
special computers, Hutchinson said that her life in nursing homes since the
stroke has heaped misery on her mis fortune.
"I feel isolated from the real world. I have little to no privacy. I don't want
to live this way, and I can't think of anyone else who would," she said in the
statement, read during a press conference in Boston.
[...]
May 10, 2007
Lobbyist PR
Lobbyist PR
In two Cambridge Chronicle notices PR flacks for the psychiatric
industry and the drug companies promote more treatment and pretend to be
advocates for persons accused of psychiatric illness. ("Cambridge
media co. wins accolades," Cambridge Chronicle, June 1, 2006, page 28; and
"Vinfen hosts mental health forum," page 32)
The first the notice describes the award being for "significant
contributions to people with mental illness . . . advocacy, public education,
treatment, research and rehabilitation." Advocacy can be for anything. Is there
any advocacy to protect the basic constitutional rights of persons accused of
psychiatric illness? There are few individuals or organizations which treat
persons accused of psychiatric illness as citizens with rights. They are almost
always treated as consumers or patients. Corporate professionals always speak
for the patients. Under what system is the patient denied their voice?
The second notice mentions NAMI, which is a lobbyist for the drug
companies. Vinfen is a not for profit human services corporation providing
treatment. Vinfen's president earns more than $300,000 per year plus benefits.
NAMI gets millions from drug companies to promote drug treatment.
NAMI masquerades as an advocate for patients. They are advocates for the
drug companies not for humans. The MA Department of Mental Health is a taxpayer
funded lobbyist for the same corporate interests as NAMI. The DMH provides no
protections against psychiatric abuses of vulnerable citizens in the
Commonwealth.
Through campaign contributions, Vinfen and NAMI influence the legislature
to fund more and more treatment. The money goes for made up illnesses denying
treatment to poor persons who have real diseases.
This is a boondoggle that must defunded. The Chronicle does a disservice to
taxpayers and to persons accused of psychiatric illness by printing these
press releases.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
In two Cambridge Chronicle notices PR flacks for the psychiatric
industry and the drug companies promote more treatment and pretend to be
advocates for persons accused of psychiatric illness. ("Cambridge
media co. wins accolades," Cambridge Chronicle, June 1, 2006, page 28; and
"Vinfen hosts mental health forum," page 32)
The first the notice describes the award being for "significant
contributions to people with mental illness . . . advocacy, public education,
treatment, research and rehabilitation." Advocacy can be for anything. Is there
any advocacy to protect the basic constitutional rights of persons accused of
psychiatric illness? There are few individuals or organizations which treat
persons accused of psychiatric illness as citizens with rights. They are almost
always treated as consumers or patients. Corporate professionals always speak
for the patients. Under what system is the patient denied their voice?
The second notice mentions NAMI, which is a lobbyist for the drug
companies. Vinfen is a not for profit human services corporation providing
treatment. Vinfen's president earns more than $300,000 per year plus benefits.
NAMI gets millions from drug companies to promote drug treatment.
NAMI masquerades as an advocate for patients. They are advocates for the
drug companies not for humans. The MA Department of Mental Health is a taxpayer
funded lobbyist for the same corporate interests as NAMI. The DMH provides no
protections against psychiatric abuses of vulnerable citizens in the
Commonwealth.
Through campaign contributions, Vinfen and NAMI influence the legislature
to fund more and more treatment. The money goes for made up illnesses denying
treatment to poor persons who have real diseases.
This is a boondoggle that must defunded. The Chronicle does a disservice to
taxpayers and to persons accused of psychiatric illness by printing these
press releases.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
Immigration Laws and Police
Immigration Laws and Police
Do police say if they enforce pot smoking laws and gambling laws that they
would not be able to solve other crimes? (Casey Ross, "‘Out of control’
Immigration laws make local enforcement a joke," and "Police fear backlash in
crime-fighting," Boston Herald, June 5, 2006)
Wakefield Police Chief Rick Smith said “We have to operate within the
rules.” Lowell Police Superintendent Ed Davis said, “We clearly need some
direction from the federal government.” I thought police took an oath to defend
the Constitution. What are state laws for?
Immigrant advocates and police lament, "You can’t have significant numbers
of your population afraid to call the police." This is disingenuous.
American citizens are reluctant to cooperate with the police. During
prohibition, the Volstead Act, ordinary citizens feared cooperating with the
police then too.
So it is not the immigration laws which are the problem. Perhaps it is a
problem with the police. If FBI agents likely cooperated with organized crime
hitmen in New York and in Boston, why should citizens trust local police?
Therefore, police don't enforce immigration laws because illegal immigrants
fear reporting other crimes. Police don't enforce pot smoking laws because pot
smokers would not help police in other investigations. And, police do not
enforce gambling laws because bookies would not help police solve other crimes?
Do the Herald editors and reporters believe this?
If those laws are not enforced criminals know they can exploit illegal
immigrants, pot smokers and gamblers too. It is a question of priorities.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
‘Out of control’ Immigration laws make local enforcement a joke
By Casey Ross
Boston Herald Reporter
Monday, June 5, 2006 - Updated: 05:44 PM EST
Police officials statewide are decrying revolving-door treatment of illegal
immigrants they are forced to release when overwhelmed federal authorities fail
to take action, a Herald review found.
Immigration and the law
Police fear backlash in crime-fighting
ICE query statistics
Even in cases when cops verify a person is illegal, police chiefs say their
officers often can do nothing because federal immigration agents with the power
to detain them are seldom available to respond.
“It’s out of control,” Wakefield Police Chief Rick Smith said. “A lot of
them (illegal immigrants) are running around gainfully employed and it’s tough
to get a handle on it. We have to operate within the rules.”
The nation’s rules on immigration enforcement discourage local police from
becoming involved because authority is almost exclusively vested in Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the federal agency empowered to detain illegals
and initiate deportation proceedings.
[...]
Do police say if they enforce pot smoking laws and gambling laws that they
would not be able to solve other crimes? (Casey Ross, "‘Out of control’
Immigration laws make local enforcement a joke," and "Police fear backlash in
crime-fighting," Boston Herald, June 5, 2006)
Wakefield Police Chief Rick Smith said “We have to operate within the
rules.” Lowell Police Superintendent Ed Davis said, “We clearly need some
direction from the federal government.” I thought police took an oath to defend
the Constitution. What are state laws for?
Immigrant advocates and police lament, "You can’t have significant numbers
of your population afraid to call the police." This is disingenuous.
American citizens are reluctant to cooperate with the police. During
prohibition, the Volstead Act, ordinary citizens feared cooperating with the
police then too.
So it is not the immigration laws which are the problem. Perhaps it is a
problem with the police. If FBI agents likely cooperated with organized crime
hitmen in New York and in Boston, why should citizens trust local police?
Therefore, police don't enforce immigration laws because illegal immigrants
fear reporting other crimes. Police don't enforce pot smoking laws because pot
smokers would not help police in other investigations. And, police do not
enforce gambling laws because bookies would not help police solve other crimes?
Do the Herald editors and reporters believe this?
If those laws are not enforced criminals know they can exploit illegal
immigrants, pot smokers and gamblers too. It is a question of priorities.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
‘Out of control’ Immigration laws make local enforcement a joke
By Casey Ross
Boston Herald Reporter
Monday, June 5, 2006 - Updated: 05:44 PM EST
Police officials statewide are decrying revolving-door treatment of illegal
immigrants they are forced to release when overwhelmed federal authorities fail
to take action, a Herald review found.
Immigration and the law
Police fear backlash in crime-fighting
ICE query statistics
Even in cases when cops verify a person is illegal, police chiefs say their
officers often can do nothing because federal immigration agents with the power
to detain them are seldom available to respond.
“It’s out of control,” Wakefield Police Chief Rick Smith said. “A lot of
them (illegal immigrants) are running around gainfully employed and it’s tough
to get a handle on it. We have to operate within the rules.”
The nation’s rules on immigration enforcement discourage local police from
becoming involved because authority is almost exclusively vested in Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the federal agency empowered to detain illegals
and initiate deportation proceedings.
[...]
Let's Keep it Rational
Let's Keep it Rational
A repeating problem with local reporting on the City Council is the focus
only on comments made by public officials. Many concerned citizens take the time
to speak to the Council but the journalists ignore them just as the arrrogant
officials do. Now we are told that concerned citizens are haters. (Erin Smith,
"Haters: Illegal immigrants should move in with Tim," Cambridge Chronicle, July
6, 2006)
Illegal immigration is a major problem straining the emergency services and
health care systems. The solution is not easy. There is no consensus. But
designating a group of persons as haters, because a journalist does not agree
with their position on this issue is journalism at its worst. Ad hominem attacks
have no place in rational debate. It has less of a place in a newspaper that
pretends to be objective. Save the personal attacks for the political hack's
back rooms where they belong.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
Haters: Illegal immigrants should move in with Tim
By Erin Smith/ Chronicle Staff
Thursday, July 6, 2006
If you're an illegal immigrant, one anti-immigration group wants you to pack
your bags and move to Sixth Street.
A Washington, D.C.-based organization, angered by the council's vote to keep
Cambridge an immigrant sanctuary, is advertising city councilors' personal
contact information and home addresses on its Web site. The group, ProjectUSA,
has launched a campaign to move immigrants from New Jersey to Cambridge and
urges Web browsers to buy an illegal immigrant a bus ticket to Cambridge.
ProjectUSA concentrates most of its ire on Vice Mayor and state Rep. Tim
Toomey, who recently co-sponsored the measure.
On the Web site, Toomey is depicted wearing two golden halos, and immigrants
are urged to call him for any of their needs.
"Tim's house. Looks big. Move in," reads the caption over a satellite view
of Toomey's East Cambridge home, which is circled in red. [...]
Erin Smith can be reached at esmith@cnc.com.
A repeating problem with local reporting on the City Council is the focus
only on comments made by public officials. Many concerned citizens take the time
to speak to the Council but the journalists ignore them just as the arrrogant
officials do. Now we are told that concerned citizens are haters. (Erin Smith,
"Haters: Illegal immigrants should move in with Tim," Cambridge Chronicle, July
6, 2006)
Illegal immigration is a major problem straining the emergency services and
health care systems. The solution is not easy. There is no consensus. But
designating a group of persons as haters, because a journalist does not agree
with their position on this issue is journalism at its worst. Ad hominem attacks
have no place in rational debate. It has less of a place in a newspaper that
pretends to be objective. Save the personal attacks for the political hack's
back rooms where they belong.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
Haters: Illegal immigrants should move in with Tim
By Erin Smith/ Chronicle Staff
Thursday, July 6, 2006
If you're an illegal immigrant, one anti-immigration group wants you to pack
your bags and move to Sixth Street.
A Washington, D.C.-based organization, angered by the council's vote to keep
Cambridge an immigrant sanctuary, is advertising city councilors' personal
contact information and home addresses on its Web site. The group, ProjectUSA,
has launched a campaign to move immigrants from New Jersey to Cambridge and
urges Web browsers to buy an illegal immigrant a bus ticket to Cambridge.
ProjectUSA concentrates most of its ire on Vice Mayor and state Rep. Tim
Toomey, who recently co-sponsored the measure.
On the Web site, Toomey is depicted wearing two golden halos, and immigrants
are urged to call him for any of their needs.
"Tim's house. Looks big. Move in," reads the caption over a satellite view
of Toomey's East Cambridge home, which is circled in red. [...]
Erin Smith can be reached at esmith@cnc.com.
Grass Roots
Grass Roots
Tom Davis reports, "Mind Freedom has developed an international
coalition that unites 100 grassroots groups -- as well as thousands of
its members -- who seek to protect the human rights of people diagnosed
with psychiatric disabilities." ("Drug-free treatment promoter," The Record, May 23, 2006)
One problem with some of these groups is that the corporate public relations industry has turned the notion of "grass roots" on its head. Most of the alleged disability rights organizations are fronts for human services corporations. Davis mentions that MindFreedom "clashed" with NAMI, a lobbyist funded by the drug industry.
One concern with the focus of MindFreedom is their effort to protect the "human rights" of persons accused of psychiatric illness. Human rights are rights that we want for humans. Constitutional rights can be enforced in courts. Few advocates for rights of persons accused of psychiatric illness use the state and US laws that prohibit discrimination, e.g., the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Police, lawyers, judges and journalists regularly violate rights to privacy and portray persons accused of psychiatric illness as if they are criminals. The public discourse on psychiatry is currently under the control of the drug companies and their well funded lobbyists. The 70-year PR campaign to persuade the public, the legislatures and the media executives that psychiatry is scientific is well established in the minds of the opinion makers.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
The (Bergen, NJ)Record
Drug-free treatment promoter
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
By TOM DAVIS
RECORD COLUMNIST
David Oaks has a simple philosophy about life: If the mind isn't free,
there's no freedom.
Thirty years ago, he was "locked up" five times because of emotional
episodes he had as a Harvard student. He was diagnosed with
schizophrenia.
Each time, he was forcibly drugged. Each time, he was told he'd feel
"better." He says, however, he felt like a prisoner.
"For me, [the drugs were] torture," said Oaks, now [50]. The drugs were
"a wrecking ball to my mind."
[...]
A few years ago, the group held a hunger strike and challenged the
American Psychiatric Association to "prove their claim" that medication
was necessary for managing a chemical imbalance.
In a September 2003 statement released after the protest, the
association expressed dismay that "a small number of individuals and
groups persist in questioning the reality and clinical legitimacy of
disorders that affect the mind, brain and behavior.
"While the membership of the American Psychiatric Association respects
the right of individuals to express their impatience with the pace of
science, we note that the human brain is the most complex and
challenging object of study in the history of human science."
Mind Freedom also has clashed with the National Alliance on Mental
Illness and other organizations for developing "unholy" alliances with
drug companies and accepting money for research.
Tom Davis reports, "Mind Freedom has developed an international
coalition that unites 100 grassroots groups -- as well as thousands of
its members -- who seek to protect the human rights of people diagnosed
with psychiatric disabilities." ("Drug-free treatment promoter," The Record, May 23, 2006)
One problem with some of these groups is that the corporate public relations industry has turned the notion of "grass roots" on its head. Most of the alleged disability rights organizations are fronts for human services corporations. Davis mentions that MindFreedom "clashed" with NAMI, a lobbyist funded by the drug industry.
One concern with the focus of MindFreedom is their effort to protect the "human rights" of persons accused of psychiatric illness. Human rights are rights that we want for humans. Constitutional rights can be enforced in courts. Few advocates for rights of persons accused of psychiatric illness use the state and US laws that prohibit discrimination, e.g., the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Police, lawyers, judges and journalists regularly violate rights to privacy and portray persons accused of psychiatric illness as if they are criminals. The public discourse on psychiatry is currently under the control of the drug companies and their well funded lobbyists. The 70-year PR campaign to persuade the public, the legislatures and the media executives that psychiatry is scientific is well established in the minds of the opinion makers.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
The (Bergen, NJ)Record
Drug-free treatment promoter
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
By TOM DAVIS
RECORD COLUMNIST
David Oaks has a simple philosophy about life: If the mind isn't free,
there's no freedom.
Thirty years ago, he was "locked up" five times because of emotional
episodes he had as a Harvard student. He was diagnosed with
schizophrenia.
Each time, he was forcibly drugged. Each time, he was told he'd feel
"better." He says, however, he felt like a prisoner.
"For me, [the drugs were] torture," said Oaks, now [50]. The drugs were
"a wrecking ball to my mind."
[...]
A few years ago, the group held a hunger strike and challenged the
American Psychiatric Association to "prove their claim" that medication
was necessary for managing a chemical imbalance.
In a September 2003 statement released after the protest, the
association expressed dismay that "a small number of individuals and
groups persist in questioning the reality and clinical legitimacy of
disorders that affect the mind, brain and behavior.
"While the membership of the American Psychiatric Association respects
the right of individuals to express their impatience with the pace of
science, we note that the human brain is the most complex and
challenging object of study in the history of human science."
Mind Freedom also has clashed with the National Alliance on Mental
Illness and other organizations for developing "unholy" alliances with
drug companies and accepting money for research.
Politikal Langwich
Politikal Langwich
Letter to editor
Councilor Toomey said, "No one knows what the federal government will do.” (Chris Helms, “City: Let’s shelter Immigrants, Cambridge Chronicle, April 27, 2006) U.S. immigration laws remain in effect. Will the Council repeal them?
He wants to "reaffirm the rights of all immigrants." What Constitutional rights do illegal immigrants have? Why are the “rights” of illegal immigrants more important than the Constitutional rights of American citizens with disabilities? Are journalists incapable of reasoning?
Toomey says, “as long as immigrants don’t commit crimes, they shouldn’t be hassled by police.” Is it OK to harass citizens who haven’t committed crimes?
The American heritage Dictionary Second edition defines crime as "1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law, forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction. 2. Unlawful activity."
Councilor Sullivan says, “immigration is being criminalized.” Illegal immigration is criminal by definition. Everyone supports legal immigration. Deceptive language pollutes the discourse.
Politicians make ridiculous and irrational comments which go unquestioned. When this goes on long enough the politicians get bolder and bolder. George Orwell said, "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give solidity to pure wind."
Salvadorian Monsignor Gregorio Rosa Chavez said young people in El Salvador have only three options. But he omitted one, i.e. to leave their country and participate in gang activities in other countries. That is what is happening.
He said they have a war with no one to negotiate in his country. With whom does the U.S. have to negotiate? Politicians defend all immigrants, but ignore the majority of Americans. One poll on April 26, 2006 said 68 percent of Americans want to deport the illegals.
The Chronicle says that taxes will rise again. Will this help to pay for the schooling, and medical care of illegal immigrants, and the car accident victims? Will it help to pay for police overtime, prisons, court system, appointed attorneys and translators too? It is not the politicians’ money!
The Council thumbs its nose at the rights of persons with disabilities, and runs from FBI informants who kill with government protection. The Council wants to thwart the laws of the state and the U.S. They are misled about their self-importance. Do you know who they are?
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
Letter to editor
Councilor Toomey said, "No one knows what the federal government will do.” (Chris Helms, “City: Let’s shelter Immigrants, Cambridge Chronicle, April 27, 2006) U.S. immigration laws remain in effect. Will the Council repeal them?
He wants to "reaffirm the rights of all immigrants." What Constitutional rights do illegal immigrants have? Why are the “rights” of illegal immigrants more important than the Constitutional rights of American citizens with disabilities? Are journalists incapable of reasoning?
Toomey says, “as long as immigrants don’t commit crimes, they shouldn’t be hassled by police.” Is it OK to harass citizens who haven’t committed crimes?
The American heritage Dictionary Second edition defines crime as "1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law, forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction. 2. Unlawful activity."
Councilor Sullivan says, “immigration is being criminalized.” Illegal immigration is criminal by definition. Everyone supports legal immigration. Deceptive language pollutes the discourse.
Politicians make ridiculous and irrational comments which go unquestioned. When this goes on long enough the politicians get bolder and bolder. George Orwell said, "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give solidity to pure wind."
Salvadorian Monsignor Gregorio Rosa Chavez said young people in El Salvador have only three options. But he omitted one, i.e. to leave their country and participate in gang activities in other countries. That is what is happening.
He said they have a war with no one to negotiate in his country. With whom does the U.S. have to negotiate? Politicians defend all immigrants, but ignore the majority of Americans. One poll on April 26, 2006 said 68 percent of Americans want to deport the illegals.
The Chronicle says that taxes will rise again. Will this help to pay for the schooling, and medical care of illegal immigrants, and the car accident victims? Will it help to pay for police overtime, prisons, court system, appointed attorneys and translators too? It is not the politicians’ money!
The Council thumbs its nose at the rights of persons with disabilities, and runs from FBI informants who kill with government protection. The Council wants to thwart the laws of the state and the U.S. They are misled about their self-importance. Do you know who they are?
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
Only Us!
Only Us!
Aaron says, "respect for the establishment and the people working there is something he finds sorely lacking. Generally it involves self-absorption and not paying attention to surroundings." Well duh!(Luke O'Neill, "Dude, YOU ordered the burger," Weekly Dig, 04.26.06, page 10)
Is it only restaurant patrons who are self absorbed? What about women putting on makeup while driving, and cell phone freaks everywhere?
Is it only waitstaff who have feelings? What about the poor politicians and the journalists who also have feelings? All right maybe there are only a couple of politicians and journalists.
It is all people in all settings that are inconsiderate, Aaron.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
Aaron says, "respect for the establishment and the people working there is something he finds sorely lacking. Generally it involves self-absorption and not paying attention to surroundings." Well duh!(Luke O'Neill, "Dude, YOU ordered the burger," Weekly Dig, 04.26.06, page 10)
Is it only restaurant patrons who are self absorbed? What about women putting on makeup while driving, and cell phone freaks everywhere?
Is it only waitstaff who have feelings? What about the poor politicians and the journalists who also have feelings? All right maybe there are only a couple of politicians and journalists.
It is all people in all settings that are inconsiderate, Aaron.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
May 9, 2007
Distorted Public Discourse
Distorted Public Discourse
Letter to Editor
While it's true the Cambridge City Council passed a proposed order to create an immigrant commission, the Globe report omits essentials. (News Briefs, Boston Globe, City Weekly, May 7, 2006)
The order was passed with no discussion by Councilors or any input from the public. Two provisions prohibiting discrimination, omitted persons with disabilities from the list of protected groups. Do journalists share the unlawful prejudice of elected officials in Cambridge toward persons with disabilities?
Rather than "promot[ing] equality for non-US citizens in the city" this commission will create inequality for non-US citizens. It will make non-US citizens eligible for benefits meant to compensate historical discrimination against native-born Americans. In short it will make non-US citizens more equal than citizens.
A ridiculous requirement is that prospective members of the commission must have a belief in immigration. This is silly. The government may not dictate beliefs. That's a violation of the First Amendment.
This superficial report is an example of why so many Americans ignore their government and journalists. Lies and half-truths can fool many people much of the time. Once trust is lost it almost impossible to regain it. Is this more advocacy journalism in Boston?
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
Letter to Editor
While it's true the Cambridge City Council passed a proposed order to create an immigrant commission, the Globe report omits essentials. (News Briefs, Boston Globe, City Weekly, May 7, 2006)
The order was passed with no discussion by Councilors or any input from the public. Two provisions prohibiting discrimination, omitted persons with disabilities from the list of protected groups. Do journalists share the unlawful prejudice of elected officials in Cambridge toward persons with disabilities?
Rather than "promot[ing] equality for non-US citizens in the city" this commission will create inequality for non-US citizens. It will make non-US citizens eligible for benefits meant to compensate historical discrimination against native-born Americans. In short it will make non-US citizens more equal than citizens.
A ridiculous requirement is that prospective members of the commission must have a belief in immigration. This is silly. The government may not dictate beliefs. That's a violation of the First Amendment.
This superficial report is an example of why so many Americans ignore their government and journalists. Lies and half-truths can fool many people much of the time. Once trust is lost it almost impossible to regain it. Is this more advocacy journalism in Boston?
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
Loss of Patient-Loving Harvard Psychiatrist
Loss of Patient-Loving Harvard Psychiatrist
Here is an announcement of the death of a Harvard psychiatrist. As usual he
is described as a "caring" man by his attorney. What else would you expect?
Isn't it only caring psychiatrists and brutal, violent patients who make up the
universe? Forced drugging and forced treatment is only done out of love and
caring for the poor unfortunate ones. Ahem!
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
John Mack, Pulitzer Prize winner, alien abduction researcher, dies
By Associated Press
Boston Globe
September 28, 2004
BOSTON --Dr. John E. Mack, the Harvard Medical School professor of psychiatry
who won a Pulitzer Prize for his biography of Lawrence of Arabia and also
conducted research on people who claimed to be abducted by aliens, has died.
Mack was struck and killed by an alleged drunken driver in London on Monday
while attending the T.E. Lawrence Society Symposium in Oxford, England,
according to a release on the John E. Mack Institute Web site. He was 74.
Harvard Medical School spokesman Don Gibbons confirmed the death.
Mack, who won the Pulitzer Prize for biography in 1977 for "A Prince of Our
Disorder" on the life of World War I British officer T.E. Lawrence, better known
as Lawrence of Arabia, was one of several speakers at the symposium.
Mack made two presentations at the symposium on Monday, and was struck in a
crosswalk while walking to the home at which he was staying, according to
police. He was pronounced dead at the scene.
Mack's extensive research of about 200 people from around the world who claimed
to have had encounters with space aliens found that they had a heightened sense
of spirituality and environmentalism.
He wrote about his subjects' experiences in two books, 1994's "Abduction" and
1999's "Passport to the Cosmos: Human Transformation and Alien Encounters."
His work was also the subject of the 2003 documentary film "Touched."
His efforts, which found that people claiming to be abducted came from all walks
of life and generally had no evidence of mental illness, met with skepticism and
criticism from some elements of the academic community.
In 1994, Harvard Medical School established a committee of peers to review his
clinical care and clinical investigation of the people he interviewed in the
course of his alien abduction research and initiated proceedings to determine
whether he should retain tenure.
After the 14-month investigation, the school "reaffirmed Dr. Mack's academic
freedom to study what he wishes and to state his opinions without impediment."
"I am just so devastated by this news," said Roderick MacLeish, the attorney who
represented Mack during the Harvard investigation. "This is a great loss. John
was one of the kindest, most compassionate mental health clinicians I have ever
met, and I have represented many psychiatrists."
Mack's early work focused on clinical explorations of dreams, nightmares and
teen suicide and how world perception affects relationships. He advocated a move
away from materialism in Western culture, blaming it for the Cold War and global
ecological problems.
"He was so caring to his patients, and I hope that is what he is remembered for,
and not for being the guy who believed in people's stories of alien abductions,"
MacLeish said.
Mack was born in New York City. He earned an undergraduate degree from Oberlin
College in 1951 and his medical degree from Harvard Medical School in 1955. He
served in the U.S. Air Force from 1959-61.
No funeral or burial information was immediately available.
On the Web: http://johnmackinstitute.org
Here is an announcement of the death of a Harvard psychiatrist. As usual he
is described as a "caring" man by his attorney. What else would you expect?
Isn't it only caring psychiatrists and brutal, violent patients who make up the
universe? Forced drugging and forced treatment is only done out of love and
caring for the poor unfortunate ones. Ahem!
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
John Mack, Pulitzer Prize winner, alien abduction researcher, dies
By Associated Press
Boston Globe
September 28, 2004
BOSTON --Dr. John E. Mack, the Harvard Medical School professor of psychiatry
who won a Pulitzer Prize for his biography of Lawrence of Arabia and also
conducted research on people who claimed to be abducted by aliens, has died.
Mack was struck and killed by an alleged drunken driver in London on Monday
while attending the T.E. Lawrence Society Symposium in Oxford, England,
according to a release on the John E. Mack Institute Web site. He was 74.
Harvard Medical School spokesman Don Gibbons confirmed the death.
Mack, who won the Pulitzer Prize for biography in 1977 for "A Prince of Our
Disorder" on the life of World War I British officer T.E. Lawrence, better known
as Lawrence of Arabia, was one of several speakers at the symposium.
Mack made two presentations at the symposium on Monday, and was struck in a
crosswalk while walking to the home at which he was staying, according to
police. He was pronounced dead at the scene.
Mack's extensive research of about 200 people from around the world who claimed
to have had encounters with space aliens found that they had a heightened sense
of spirituality and environmentalism.
He wrote about his subjects' experiences in two books, 1994's "Abduction" and
1999's "Passport to the Cosmos: Human Transformation and Alien Encounters."
His work was also the subject of the 2003 documentary film "Touched."
His efforts, which found that people claiming to be abducted came from all walks
of life and generally had no evidence of mental illness, met with skepticism and
criticism from some elements of the academic community.
In 1994, Harvard Medical School established a committee of peers to review his
clinical care and clinical investigation of the people he interviewed in the
course of his alien abduction research and initiated proceedings to determine
whether he should retain tenure.
After the 14-month investigation, the school "reaffirmed Dr. Mack's academic
freedom to study what he wishes and to state his opinions without impediment."
"I am just so devastated by this news," said Roderick MacLeish, the attorney who
represented Mack during the Harvard investigation. "This is a great loss. John
was one of the kindest, most compassionate mental health clinicians I have ever
met, and I have represented many psychiatrists."
Mack's early work focused on clinical explorations of dreams, nightmares and
teen suicide and how world perception affects relationships. He advocated a move
away from materialism in Western culture, blaming it for the Cold War and global
ecological problems.
"He was so caring to his patients, and I hope that is what he is remembered for,
and not for being the guy who believed in people's stories of alien abductions,"
MacLeish said.
Mack was born in New York City. He earned an undergraduate degree from Oberlin
College in 1951 and his medical degree from Harvard Medical School in 1955. He
served in the U.S. Air Force from 1959-61.
No funeral or burial information was immediately available.
On the Web: http://johnmackinstitute.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
