rickyp wrote:In countries with socialized medicine there's no problem. The crazies get the care they require whether they can afford it or have insurance or not.

Coincidentally, I'm currently reading a novel set in Sweden, by a Swedish author, where one of the characters is a famous psychiatrist who is trying to get Sweden to reverse their policy of not adequately funding institutions for the mentally ill. The lack of resources that might be used to keep the dangerously insane from committing mass murders is a feature of the narrative. It's just a novel, so I can't say anything here about the facts of the situation, but Ricky's unsupported statement says even less. It's easy to say how wonderful socialism is; my guess is that's it's a bit more difficult to actually support the assertion.

FYI the novel is The Girl Who Played With Fire by Stieg Larsson.

Ricky: does this remind you of anything?

PCHiway wrote:Yeah Tom! Take a haaaard look at yourself if you think it's all right for politicians to use rhetoric and metaphor. *snort...snicker...**

You know what I mean, PCH. I am not laughing at the murder of innocent people, and to suggest that I am is pretty much as low as you seem to be saying I am.

Bwa-hah! All new Redscape, same old Dan. You've found a perceived moral high ground and are going to defend it to death are you Dan? Good man. Target maps and real-life shootings?? Oh you'd never be so bold as to say that it proves cause and effect but you'll quirk and eyebrow and say, "coincidence?". How brave...how noble... how dare you dress such smarmy behavior up as moral superiority?

How dare I? I have the right to express an opinion, do I not? Well, here is mine. You may want to read between the lines and come up with a narrative behind it, but I still wish to say that the juxtaposition is shocking, whether or not there is proof that Loughlen was influenced by what a particular person did or said or not.

What's that? Oh...you're not actually SAYING that Palin's target list caused this horror...you're just clucking your tongue at the atmosphere such rhetoric engenders. And if, by implication, a political figure that you hate with a white-hot flame is inconvenienced, so much the better.

Seems I can do less to hurt Palin than she does herself. Responding by using the words 'blood libel'? Putting your position up against that of the Jews who were persecuted by vengeful Christians for hundreds of years?

Yes, I am 'clucking my tongue'. Of course, it's not that I've suddenly been converted here, on the 'old' Redscape I have criticised the polarised nature of US politics, some of the more overt examples of outrageous comments, and I admit that in that I tend to notice more from the 'right' than the 'left', but I don't deny that there are hotheads on both sides who, in my opinion, go too far to be described as part of civilised rational political discourse. You may not agree with me, but I am not being hypocritical here.

It is not the case that other people have not been objecting to this kind of thing before, either. Giffords herself complained about Palin's approach, months ago. DC saw a bunch of people rally against too much idiocy and insanity on both sides (yes, most of the rally-goers were probably liberals, and Jon Stewart is too). The message Stewart was trying to put across was that this kind of stuff is not healthy.

The shooting brought it to mind, particularly as there was not one, but two coincidental uses of the imagery of guns aimed at the same woman who was the target of an actual shooter.

I'll take up your gantlet Dan. I think any sort of rhetoric or metaphor any candidate wants to use is ok with me. If it is in sufficiently bad taste, that person won't get elected.

Ah yes. Of course. because, as Tom tells us:

GMTom wrote:Feed the people such slop as news and you will get a great many who will believe it, they will believe anything that suits their fancy.

So, there are apparently a great many gullible people, and perhaps news and political messages are received in a similar way. Perhaps they may also be the type to not find such stuff distasteful. Perhaps they will back it?

However I was not asking if they should have the right to do it. I was asking if they should do it. In other words, I was asking Tom (and anyone else) if you, personally, find such things objectionable.

I mean. You got mighty angry at me using a juxtaposition. Would you be as annoyed if, for example, a politician standing in your area, for the party you tend to support, put out a video in which they shot at a target bearing the picture of an opponent? Or who said that someone should be 'put up against a wall and shot'? Do you have less of a problem with those juxtapositions?

I'm not asking an esoteric question about rights, I'm asking for a judgement on this kind of stuff from your perspective as an observer.

Would you just shrug and say it's just a bit of banter? Would you cringe and say well, that went a bit far, but no harm no foul? Would you run to a computer and search for an opposing politician who did something similar so you can fall back on equivalency in a debate? Would you quietly decide not to support them, and hope others do the same? Would you complain to them or others about it? Would you do anything?

I'll even go a step further. I think it's completely ok for candidates to ignore the crazed maunderings of constituents at town hall meetings. That such behavior might send imbalanced sorts who can't determine fact from fiction into years-long murderous obsessions is a burden I don't think candidates should have to take on themselves.

This is a different issue, one that is of relevance, but you are answering a question I never asked. I will say (having been a politician who has had angry people shout at him at town hall meetings), that you are right. Sometimes it is a good idea to ignore them. Well, at least not think about them too much after having dealt with them politely.

hahahaha, good one Ricky
Did YOU actually scroll back and read the threads start? Three of the first 4 postings insinuated such links that simply did not exist.

And lets assume this jerk did have insurance and mental health care available, unless he wanted to seek help, nothing would have changed. This is yet another leap of unfounded assumption. I don't think we have any evidence that this guy thought he had trouble himself and we have no evidence he wanted mental help. Yes, he should have had help, but unless he was willing to check himself in, there was no difference whatsoever, but nice try to link things that just are not there.

GMTom wrote:And lets assume this jerk did have insurance and mental health care available, unless he wanted to seek help, nothing would have changed. ... I don't think we have any evidence that this guy thought he had trouble himself and we have no evidence he wanted mental help. Yes, he should have had help, but unless he was willing to check himself in, there was no difference whatsoever...

Tom, THIS is the very first thing I posted in this thread. Please read it this time. There's such a thing as involuntary committal. I don't know enough about it to say how likely, under various different scenarios, it would have been for Loughner to end up getting treatment, but people do get committed at times.

At a level below that, if funding to the NIMH was radically increased, it's possible they'd spend some on programs that would educate people about how to recognize when someone has become a danger to themselves and others. Maybe that would have helped. And it seems clear to me that Loughner suffers from a devastating mental illness. Please don't call him a "jerk". It's that attitude and failure to understand mental illness that's responsible for some of the underfunding.

I think someone up above implied that Democrats are for more $$ for mental health care and Republicans are agin' it. It's been my observation that those politicians who've been most vocal in seeking to improve care for the mentally ill are those, regardless of party, who have a mentally ill relative. But Democrats are indeed generally willing to spend more on public health and healthcare than Republicans, so there's no need to defend yourself, whoever you were.

Green Arrow wrote:Certainly the pilots flying the hijacked planes on Sept. 11th were qualified to fly, yet it happened. I believe Atta was qualified as well. Shall we outlaw aircraft as well? Maybe there should only be military grade aircraft flying, right Fax?

Planes are designed to fly, assault rifles are designed for war. If you don't see a very fundamental difference between those two then i guess we just have a different worldview.
I certainly understand the wish of people to own a gun for personal protection, or hunting or sportsshooting, but there's no earthly reason for John Q Public to own an assault rifle, hand grenades or rocketlaunchers. The fun factor of said weapons is by far outweighed by their potential abuse.

and how would this guy have been committed involuntarily based on his health care held? Yes he could have been involuntarily committed but that would have absolutely nothing to do with what kind of health care plan he held. THAT was the point of the criticism, the point was raised that had insurance been different he might have had psychiatric care ...not so.

You mention maybe if we had more money spent on educating people on mental health, he might have been treated, I seriously doubt that, he was in a world of his own and did not think rationally, to expect any sort of rational behavior from this person is a dream.

and excuse me, I will continue to call those who gun down innocent people "Jerks" it fits quite well, they get no sympathy from me whatsoever, mentally ill or not.

Credit where credit is due: Obama gave a very good speech.

Yes it was!
Palin on the other hand, she kinda blew a good opportunity. It wasn't time for politics, Obama avoided the politics (as he should have) Palin could have defended herself very briefly but she went too far on that political angle.

Great speech by the President, agreed.

GMTom wrote:You mention maybe if we had more money spent on educating people on mental health, he might have been treated, I seriously doubt that, he was in a world of his own and did not think rationally, to expect any sort of rational behavior from this person is a dream.

and excuse me, I will continue to call those who gun down innocent people "Jerks" it fits quite well, they get no sympathy from me whatsoever, mentally ill or not.

Well, 'Jerk' implies intent. And if you say we can't expect rational behaviour from the guy, how can we expect him to pass an 'intent' test. Some people who are mentally ill cannot tell the difference between right and wrong. If you are right and so far gone he was totally irrational, you do realise that is a pretty good defence against a murder charge, right?

As a less violent comparison, let's say that you are in a busy bar and someone vomits on you. That's pretty much a 'jerk' action, right? If they have been drinking all sorts, then it's their own fault. Yeah, what a jerk.

Still, what if it's not booze. What if they have food poisoning and can't actually avoid puking on someone as they try to reach the bathroom because it comes on too quick. Still a jerk? No sympathy at all?

Puke on ME?
Yeah, he's a jerk. He couldn't have turned the other way? He couldn't have puked on the floor? As far as this shooting jerk, he planned this and while he is certainly mentally unstable he had enough whits about him to plot and plan. If he didn't know it was illegal, that's one thing but he knew it was wrong but didn't care. No matter what you tell me about his mind, he's still a jerk in my eyes. Since it was my opinion and what I said, you simply can't tell me my opinion is wrong!

Tom, it's a crowded bar, brim packed with analogies. Standing room only, perhaps. Turning away would just direct this imaginary puke to someone else (or he got you because he was avoiding someone else).

I don't think your opinion is 'wrong' Tom. I just think it reveals a crass attitude towards people who are mentally ill.

You say he's too mentally ill to have possibly been influenced by anything people have said, or to be expected to behave rationally, and at the same time you say he did know was wrong from right.

How do you make such diagnoses of a man's mental state from thousands of miles away, based only on what has come out in the media? I imagine that if you could reveal your secrets, the psychologists and psychiatrists of America would be throwing money at you for letting them know.

Oh... I see, it's ok for you to make definitive statements about what Loughner was thinking or may have caused him to do what he did, but I have to be castigated for merely pointing out a correlation.

Got it.

and I can't tell you that your feeling I am crass is wrong, it's your opinion! I think anyone who guns down innocent people is a jerk, you can think he is a lovely warm person you enjoy to be around ....suit yourself.

and similarly, puke on me for any reason and I will think of you as a jerk as well, if I puke on you and you want to think of me as a poor unfortunate soul, good for you!

A contributor from the Daily Kos has a name for angry rhetoric leading to acts of violence: Stochastic Terrorism. Here is an artilcle from Daily Kos on it: www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/10/934890 ... e-shooters

A reliable friend send me a compilation of quotes from Glenn Beck (which I checked as well). Here they are:



"Boy, I hope that's not true, but I can tell you there will be rivers of blood if we don't have values and principles."

"On his June 10 show, Beck warned that "anarchists, Marxists, communists, revolutionaries, Maoists" have to "eliminate 10 percent of the U.S. population" in order to "gain control." They couldn't achieve such a goal when Richard Nixon was president, Beck stated, because "the family was together" and the government under Nixon "wasn't as corrupt as it is now." Beck added: "Now they can. Now they can."

"The government is full of vampires, and they are trying to suck the lifeblood out of the economy." Beck then suggested "driv[ing] a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers." Beck returned to that imagery on his January 19 radio show, warning listeners that progressives are "vampires" who now have a "taste of blood" and are "gonna start getting more and more violent."


"So, Speaker Pelosi, I just wanted to -- you gonna drink your wine? Are you blind? Do those eyes not work? There you -- I want you to drink it now. Drink it. Drink it. Drink it.

I really just wanted to thank you for having me over here to wine country. You know, to be invited, I thought I had to be a major Democratic donor or a longtime friend of yours, which I'm not.

By the way, I put poison in your -- no, I -- I look forward to all the policy discussions that we're supposed to have -- you know, on health care, energy reform, and the economy.

"Beck: "Grab a torch." Asserting that politicians are addicted to spending, Beck stated: "When do we ever run those who are bankrupting our country and literally stealing our children's future out of town? Grab a torch." [Glenn Beck, 1/6/10]

"Beck: "The revolution of 1776 was a picnic compared to what the revolutionaries of today would like to do. ... Usually, millions of people die." On June 9, while discussing "radicals" in the country, Beck told his audience: "Here's what you'll learn. The revolution of 1776 was a picnic compared to what the revolutionaries of today would like to do. It's not a lot of fun. Usually, millions of people die."

"Beck: "To the day I die, I am going to be a progressive hunter." Telling his listeners that they "are going to learn so much on Friday," Beck compared himself to "Israeli Nazi hunters" and commented: "I'm telling you, I'm going to find these big progressives and, to the day I die, I'm going to be a progressive hunter."

"Beck: "Violence will come. And violence will come from the left. Violence is part of the plan." Beck warned listeners that "if you don't think violence is coming, I'm going to share some audio of Frances Fox Piven that will boggle your mind." Beck said that "they don't mind violence. Violence will come. And violence will come from the left. Violence is part of the plan. Not mine, not yours." [The Glenn Beck Program, 9/13/10]

Beck on progressives: When the "soft revolution" fails, they "just start shooting people." Beck claimed that progressives are engaging in a "soft revolution" designed to silence voices like his. He added: "If somebody starts to turn on them, or they can't get everyone to silence, that's when the arrests come, or that's when they start a hard revolution. That's when they start just shooting people. I hope we don't get to that point. I pray that we don't get to that point, but I never thought this country would get to the point where we are today." [The Glenn Beck Program, 5/27/10]

Beck warns of violence: "Trouble" by the "most violent" progressives "is coming." Beck suggested that Obama would respond to potential GOP victories in November elections by "going right directly" to the "most progressive, most violent, the worst of the worst on the left and stir 'em up. 'Get out into the streets. Cause trouble.' It's what's coming. It's what's coming." [The Glenn Beck Program, 9/24/10]


"Beck: "Violence is coming" and "the left will blame me." Beck said that people need to "wake up" and see "what is coming," which Beck described as "violence." He added that "the left will blame me." [The Glenn Beck Program, 8/2/10]"

"Beck suggests Obama is "trying to destroy the country" and is pushing America toward civil war. While discussing the ongoing controversy over Arizona's immigration law, Beck told his listeners that "we are being pushed" toward civil war and that Obama is "trying to destroy the country." [The Glenn Beck Program, 5/19/10]"

"Beck's advice to Liberty grads: "Shoot to kill." During his May 15 commencement speech at Liberty University, Beck told graduates that they "have a responsibility" to speak out, or "blood ... will be on our hands." His advice for graduates (as well as his daughter) included "shoot to kill."

Beck: "I fear a Reichstag moment, a -- God forbid -- another 9-11, something that will turn this machine on." During an interview with Newsmax.com in which he discussed opposition to Obama's Federal Communications Commission policies, Beck said: "I fear an event. I fear a Reichstag moment, a -- God forbid -- another 9-11, something that will turn this machine on, and power will be seized and voices will be silenced. God help us all.'' [Newsmax.com, 10/7/09]

X

Coincidentally, I'm currently reading a novel set in Sweden, by a Swedish author, where one of the characters is a famous psychiatrist who is trying to get Sweden to reverse their policy of not adequately funding institutions for the mentally ill. The lack of resources that might be used to keep the dangerously insane from committing mass murders is a feature of the narrative. It's just a novel, so I can't say anything here about the facts of the situation, but Ricky's unsupported statement says even less. It's easy to say how wonderful socialism is; my guess is that's it's a bit more difficult to actually support the assertion.

Its a great novel X. But I can confidentially compare the mental health services offered to citizens in Sweden and those in Arizona and say that Sweden does better, at least when you compare what Swedes can afford versus what most Americans can afford. Since its free to Swedes...
That its not perfect...well, your reading a book from a Swedes point of view. The characters in your novel think that mental health services are poor by Swedish standards....
I daresay that "character" or any real Swede would be appalled by the standard in Arizona.
Here's an article from someone who worked in Arizona's mental health and now works in Canada. Its just to give a point of view)
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/920162--mental-health-workers-in-u-s-praying-for-reinforcements
You'll note that even comparing the disparity of "early phycosis intervention" between Ontario and Arizona, there was still a desire expressed in Onrario for more resources... Kind of like your reference to Sweden. But by Arizona standards Ontario would be incredible...

I'll stand by my claim that the issue of mental health funding, and insurance will be prominent. How else are you going to intervene to help someone like Loghren before he hurts people if there is no public mental health system? He had no job. (I'll assume here no insurance for expensive therapies).How does a "private" medical system respond to this very public problem? Maybe you could explain that X rather than taking an ill considered shot...

I've been listening, when I'm in the car at the right time, to a CBC radio special on mental illness hosted by Steven Page (Bare Naked Ladies).
A couple of things...I hereby apologize for using derogatory terms like nutbar, crazies etc. I shall refrain going forward. Its as stigmatizing as other terms like faggot, @#$! etc. .
95% of mentally ill people ARE NOT violent
95% of violent acts are not committed by Mentally Ill people.
1 out of 5 people are affected by mental illness in some way during their life (I think that's personally or in their family, but not sure)
All of those things make me wonder how it is in the US, that mentally ill people like Loghner are going to be helped and healed so that innocents can be protected.