Enabling Court Corruption
The defense lawyer said the defendant "was not criminally responsible for
the slaying because he had a mental illness and alcohol abuse problems at the
time." (Associated Press, "Lawyer details his client's ills," Boston Globe, June
9, 2007) Illness as a defense to crime is nothing new. Flip Wilson blamed the
devil for his misdeeds. If Twinkies, mental illness and alcoholism caused crime
why not simply lock up all alcoholics and mental patients?
The fallacy is that most alcoholics and most mental patients do not commit
crimes. They are often the victims of crime. That does not stop journalists and
lawyers from demonizing persons accused of mental illness.
During trials lawyers are permitted to exaggerate when arguing. It is
called "puffing." Fantasy is allowed in a courtroom.
Journalists report what lawyers and police say in court, the deceptions
used to win cases, as if they are facts. Readers depend on journalists for their
vision of reality. Does this help keep Americans misinformed?
The mental illness defense follows from American legal theory. If a person
does not know that his act is wrong he cannot be held liable for criminal acts.
Being accused of having a mental illness does not mitigate criminal
liability. It is the absence of knowing right from wrong. But the psychiatric
industry and its co-conspirator the drug industry promote irrational ideas as
part of their marketing campaigns. Corporate interests corrupt the legal system
as well as the social system in this country. The Boston Globe editors enable
these
abuses by with headlines and reporting.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Lawyer details his client's ills
Cites alcoholism and mental illness in Nantucket case
Boston Globe
By Associated Press
June 9, 2007
NANTUCKET -- A former New York bank executive charged in the fatal stabbing of
his former girlfriend was mentally ill, struggling with alcohol addiction and
suffering from "the ultimate rejection" of a spurned marriage proposal when she
was killed, his lawyer told a jury yesterday.
But prosecutor Brian Glenny said the relationship between Thomas Toolan III and
Elizabeth Lochtefeld "came to a violent end at the hands of Mr. Toolan."
[...]
June 11, 2007
T Fares Fund Roads?
T Fares Fund Roads?
Retiring Senator Jarrett "Barrios said that much of that [MBTA] debt
actually resulted from the Big Dig." Huh? (Marie Szaniszlo, "Barrios, Wolf urge
state to cover debt, thwart more T fare hikes," Boston Herald, June 08, 2007)
This is rational transportation policy? Two Democrats lament
counterproductive policy mandated under the one-party system in Massachusetts.
Rather than promoting mass transit for energy savings, and for saving the
environment, the one-party government in Massachusetts places the financial
burden of funding the $15 billion boondoggle road project on the users of mass
transit. That makes sense if you want to encourage vehicle usage and to
discourage mass transit usage.
Underlying the irrational Democratic policies is that there is more money
to
be made by pouring taxpayer funds into the MBTA pit. Using government agencies
to make money for criminal organizations is the new pattern of government in
this country. This is like using appropriations for gambling addiction to build
casinos.
Is this a surprise for Barrios and Wolf? Did they just learn about
the abuses? Where have they been all of these years? Why is the rest of the
legislature silent on these abuses?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Barrios,Wolf urge state to cover debt, thwart more T fare hikes
By Marie Szaniszlo/Boston Herald
Boston Herald
Fri Jun 08, 2007, 06:21 PM EDT
Boston -
Some of the MBTA’s harshest critics yesterday urged state lawmakers to support
two bills that would relieve the T of most of its massive debt, one reason why
the transit agency has doubled fares over the last seven years.
Senate bill 2029 and House bill 3694 call for the state to pay $2.9 billion
- or about $280 million a year - of the T’s $5.1 billion in debt, which
according to T officials would otherwise cost the agency $8 billion to pay off
over 30 years. In return, the bills, filed by state Sen. Jarrett T. Barrios and
Rep. Alice K. Wolf, both Cambridge Democrats, would limit future fare increases
to the rate of inflation.
“Without doing this, the cycle of fare increases will continue,” Lee H.
Matsueda, a community organizer at The T Riders Union, said at a press
conference before a hearing on the bills. “And that injustice needs to end.”
[...]
Retiring Senator Jarrett "Barrios said that much of that [MBTA] debt
actually resulted from the Big Dig." Huh? (Marie Szaniszlo, "Barrios, Wolf urge
state to cover debt, thwart more T fare hikes," Boston Herald, June 08, 2007)
This is rational transportation policy? Two Democrats lament
counterproductive policy mandated under the one-party system in Massachusetts.
Rather than promoting mass transit for energy savings, and for saving the
environment, the one-party government in Massachusetts places the financial
burden of funding the $15 billion boondoggle road project on the users of mass
transit. That makes sense if you want to encourage vehicle usage and to
discourage mass transit usage.
Underlying the irrational Democratic policies is that there is more money
to
be made by pouring taxpayer funds into the MBTA pit. Using government agencies
to make money for criminal organizations is the new pattern of government in
this country. This is like using appropriations for gambling addiction to build
casinos.
Is this a surprise for Barrios and Wolf? Did they just learn about
the abuses? Where have they been all of these years? Why is the rest of the
legislature silent on these abuses?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Barrios,Wolf urge state to cover debt, thwart more T fare hikes
By Marie Szaniszlo/Boston Herald
Boston Herald
Fri Jun 08, 2007, 06:21 PM EDT
Boston -
Some of the MBTA’s harshest critics yesterday urged state lawmakers to support
two bills that would relieve the T of most of its massive debt, one reason why
the transit agency has doubled fares over the last seven years.
Senate bill 2029 and House bill 3694 call for the state to pay $2.9 billion
- or about $280 million a year - of the T’s $5.1 billion in debt, which
according to T officials would otherwise cost the agency $8 billion to pay off
over 30 years. In return, the bills, filed by state Sen. Jarrett T. Barrios and
Rep. Alice K. Wolf, both Cambridge Democrats, would limit future fare increases
to the rate of inflation.
“Without doing this, the cycle of fare increases will continue,” Lee H.
Matsueda, a community organizer at The T Riders Union, said at a press
conference before a hearing on the bills. “And that injustice needs to end.”
[...]
June 6, 2007
Library Lights Go Off
Library Lights Go Off
Derrick Jackson argues rationally to encourage library use. (Derrick Z.
Jackson, "As TVs go on, library lights go off," Boston Globe, May 30, 2007)
Unfortunately the decisions regarding library funding are made by politicians or
politicians masquerading as City Managers.
Reading is dangerous from the perspective of deceptive politicians. People
who read books seldom give money to politicians. Few politicians read.
There is no tangible return from keeping libraries open. They are used as a
refuge by persons without homes. They encourage critics who learn that the
politicians may be misleading the public.
A way to overrule the interests of the self serving politicians is lacking.
That is why libraries are one of the first budget items receiving the axe.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
As TVs go on, library lights go off
By Derrick Z. Jackson,
Boston Globe Columnist
May 30, 2007
PLOP 'M DOWN. Kill the libraries. Fry the kids.
In a study in this month's Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine,
researchers found that 40 percent of children regularly watched television by 3
months old. By age 2, 90 percent watch an average of 1 1/2 hours of TV a day.
So much for doctor's orders. The American Academy of Pediatrics says children
should watch no television before age 2, as studies show that too much TV leads
to poor grades, attention deficit, obesity, and bullying. Denting the myth that
exhausted parents use TV merely as a cheap babysitter, two-thirds of parents
have convinced themselves the boob tube is a major educational and social
resource.
A combined 66.5 percent of parents say they let their infants and toddlers watch
television because the shows and videos are "good" for their brains, help them
relax, socialize with siblings, and get along well with others, and because they
"enjoy" them.
[...]
Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.
Derrick Jackson argues rationally to encourage library use. (Derrick Z.
Jackson, "As TVs go on, library lights go off," Boston Globe, May 30, 2007)
Unfortunately the decisions regarding library funding are made by politicians or
politicians masquerading as City Managers.
Reading is dangerous from the perspective of deceptive politicians. People
who read books seldom give money to politicians. Few politicians read.
There is no tangible return from keeping libraries open. They are used as a
refuge by persons without homes. They encourage critics who learn that the
politicians may be misleading the public.
A way to overrule the interests of the self serving politicians is lacking.
That is why libraries are one of the first budget items receiving the axe.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
As TVs go on, library lights go off
By Derrick Z. Jackson,
Boston Globe Columnist
May 30, 2007
PLOP 'M DOWN. Kill the libraries. Fry the kids.
In a study in this month's Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine,
researchers found that 40 percent of children regularly watched television by 3
months old. By age 2, 90 percent watch an average of 1 1/2 hours of TV a day.
So much for doctor's orders. The American Academy of Pediatrics says children
should watch no television before age 2, as studies show that too much TV leads
to poor grades, attention deficit, obesity, and bullying. Denting the myth that
exhausted parents use TV merely as a cheap babysitter, two-thirds of parents
have convinced themselves the boob tube is a major educational and social
resource.
A combined 66.5 percent of parents say they let their infants and toddlers watch
television because the shows and videos are "good" for their brains, help them
relax, socialize with siblings, and get along well with others, and because they
"enjoy" them.
[...]
Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.
World Class City Only for Residents?
World Class City Only for Residents?
The "Cambridge Water Department [...] wants to ban nonresident pooches from
roaming off leash." (Janice O'Leary, "Unleashed frustration," Boston Globe, May
30, 2007) Pete "Wilkins, of Belmont, wondered whether a park that receives
federal and state funding has the right to restrict access for people and
canines from out of town."
"If we make a decision, we need to have it be a reasonable one,"
[Councilor] Kelley said. Concurrrently the Council says it wants to make
Cambridge a World Class City. Taxes and reason aside, here is another example of
the Cambridge City Council promoting contradictory goals at one time. It
indicates how irrational City government is. How can a city be a World Class
City and prohibit dogs from nearby cities from using their parks? Will this
encourage visitors to Cambridge? Well, duh!
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
The proposed rules would require dog owners like Jeff Ginsberg of Somerville to
keep their pooches leashed at Fresh Pond Reservation. (Evan Richman/ Globe
Staff) The Boston Globe Unleashed frustration Out-of-town dog owners howl over Cambridge plan By Janice O'Leary, Globe Correspondent May 30, 2007
CAMBRIDGE -- If some Cambridge officials have their way, dogs like Babe, a
frisky yellow lab mix, will be sidelined at Fresh Pond Reservation.
What's wrong with Babe? She's from Belmont.
Fresh Pond is one of the few parks in the area where dogs are allowed to run
free. But the Cambridge Water Department, which oversees the park, wants to ban
nonresident pooches from roaming off leash and plans to outfit Cambridge canines
with bright red medallions, so the rangers who patrol the park can see which
dogs belong and which do not.
The Water Department says all those roaming out-of-town dogs are leading to the
degradation of the soil and water quality in the park.
[...]
The "Cambridge Water Department [...] wants to ban nonresident pooches from
roaming off leash." (Janice O'Leary, "Unleashed frustration," Boston Globe, May
30, 2007) Pete "Wilkins, of Belmont, wondered whether a park that receives
federal and state funding has the right to restrict access for people and
canines from out of town."
"If we make a decision, we need to have it be a reasonable one,"
[Councilor] Kelley said. Concurrrently the Council says it wants to make
Cambridge a World Class City. Taxes and reason aside, here is another example of
the Cambridge City Council promoting contradictory goals at one time. It
indicates how irrational City government is. How can a city be a World Class
City and prohibit dogs from nearby cities from using their parks? Will this
encourage visitors to Cambridge? Well, duh!
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
The proposed rules would require dog owners like Jeff Ginsberg of Somerville to
keep their pooches leashed at Fresh Pond Reservation. (Evan Richman/ Globe
Staff) The Boston Globe Unleashed frustration Out-of-town dog owners howl over Cambridge plan By Janice O'Leary, Globe Correspondent May 30, 2007
CAMBRIDGE -- If some Cambridge officials have their way, dogs like Babe, a
frisky yellow lab mix, will be sidelined at Fresh Pond Reservation.
What's wrong with Babe? She's from Belmont.
Fresh Pond is one of the few parks in the area where dogs are allowed to run
free. But the Cambridge Water Department, which oversees the park, wants to ban
nonresident pooches from roaming off leash and plans to outfit Cambridge canines
with bright red medallions, so the rangers who patrol the park can see which
dogs belong and which do not.
The Water Department says all those roaming out-of-town dogs are leading to the
degradation of the soil and water quality in the park.
[...]
Doctor’s Bias Undeniable
Doctor’s Bias Undeniable
[Published in print edition June 7, 2007, online June 5, 2007]
Cambridge Chronicle
Tue Jun 05, 2007, 05:05 PM EDT
http://www.townonline.com/cambridge/opinions/x1121275257
Cambridge -
Byron Diggs’ denial is not unique among medical professionals who seldom admit
their negative bias toward persons with disabilities. Who would believe that
doctors are prejudiced? Ahem! (Byron R. Diggs, “Psychiatric care needs medical
care,” letter, Cambridge Chronicle, May 31). This doctor celebrates and boasts
of his bias.
Diggs declares that statements with which he disagrees are inaccurate and
distorted, showing his intolerance. Diggs denies that he suggested that all
persons with disabilities are violent by citing two extreme cases of criminal
acts. But that is what journalists, police and prosecutors do all of the time.
Diggs is part of the clueless majority hateful population who fear and demonize
persons with disabilities.
Medical professionals are a major barrier to persons with disabilities being
treated the same as ordinary persons. Diggs is unaware that saying his “answer
contended that such patients are potentially dangerous,” shows his prejudice.
How are persons with disabilities more potentially dangerous than the rest of
the population? They are only so in Diggs’ biased mind.
Diggs shows intolerance by stereotyping all persons who arrive at the ER in an
unconventional manner. If a person with muscular dystrophy who uses a wheelchair
arrived at the ER, would Diggs forcibly drug him because he was unable to walk
and acted funny? Diggs is unable to perceive that being upset may be a person’s
disability. He equates being upset to violence and crime. He recognizes that
there may be other reasons than psychiatric causes. But he asserts, “Such
patients are suffering greatly and out of control.” Oh?
Diggs would never generalize about women, homosexuals or blacks as he does about
persons with disabilities. That is evidence of his prejudice. He needs some
sensitivity training. Shame on this clueless, prejudiced doctor.
ROY BERCAW, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
[Published in print edition June 7, 2007, online June 5, 2007]
Cambridge Chronicle
Tue Jun 05, 2007, 05:05 PM EDT
http://www.townonline.com/cambridge/opinions/x1121275257
Cambridge -
Byron Diggs’ denial is not unique among medical professionals who seldom admit
their negative bias toward persons with disabilities. Who would believe that
doctors are prejudiced? Ahem! (Byron R. Diggs, “Psychiatric care needs medical
care,” letter, Cambridge Chronicle, May 31). This doctor celebrates and boasts
of his bias.
Diggs declares that statements with which he disagrees are inaccurate and
distorted, showing his intolerance. Diggs denies that he suggested that all
persons with disabilities are violent by citing two extreme cases of criminal
acts. But that is what journalists, police and prosecutors do all of the time.
Diggs is part of the clueless majority hateful population who fear and demonize
persons with disabilities.
Medical professionals are a major barrier to persons with disabilities being
treated the same as ordinary persons. Diggs is unaware that saying his “answer
contended that such patients are potentially dangerous,” shows his prejudice.
How are persons with disabilities more potentially dangerous than the rest of
the population? They are only so in Diggs’ biased mind.
Diggs shows intolerance by stereotyping all persons who arrive at the ER in an
unconventional manner. If a person with muscular dystrophy who uses a wheelchair
arrived at the ER, would Diggs forcibly drug him because he was unable to walk
and acted funny? Diggs is unable to perceive that being upset may be a person’s
disability. He equates being upset to violence and crime. He recognizes that
there may be other reasons than psychiatric causes. But he asserts, “Such
patients are suffering greatly and out of control.” Oh?
Diggs would never generalize about women, homosexuals or blacks as he does about
persons with disabilities. That is evidence of his prejudice. He needs some
sensitivity training. Shame on this clueless, prejudiced doctor.
ROY BERCAW, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
May 28, 2007
The Partial Truth
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.
[...]
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.
[...]
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.
[...]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
