It is a name that has echoed prominently through the Senate for years, even though most Americans know very little about the person himself.
'Mr. Akaka. ... '
Read the whole story at New York Times
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Paul Heroux: The NRA on Mental Illness: A Complete Lack of Understanding
On Sunday, Dec. 23, 2012 the NBC program Meet the Press, NRA CEO and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre repeatedly called people afflicted or suffering from mental illness who may do harm 'lunatics.' This view is so completely out of touch with what it means to be a person suffering from a mental illness that Mr. LaPierre has just made his point of view and that of the NRA irrelevant to any mental health advocacy and reform in America.
A Complete Lack of Logic
CEO LaPierre's comments on mental illness are completely devoid of any logic. Repeatedly calling someone suffering from mental illness a lunatic and getting this person off the street just doesn't make sense. It is the action that consequently defines the person as a so-called 'lunatic' or criminal. And no one is a criminal until that person commits a crime.
We all know someone who is or has suffered from mental illness or a neuro-developmental disability in one form or another. People afflicted from a mental illness are not considered a criminal until something awful happens. Otherwise, they are just a person afflicted with a mental illness. And stigmatizing someone afflicted from a mental health condition, criminal or not, as a lunatic is not only wrong, it is harmful.
Ignorance Causes Harm
Lunatic (or crazy) is not a legal, medical or psychiatric term. It is a leftover slur from an earlier time of lesser understanding.
The CEO of the NRA demonstrated how completely out of touch he is with what mental illness is and what it looks like. For example, would we call someone suffering from depression a lunatic? How about after a school shooting? If the answer is yes, then why didn't we take this person off the street and institutionalize them before such a person commit a mass shooting? If you say depression isn't serious enough, what if the condition was Generalized Anxiety Disorder, ADHD, Bipolar Disorder, or Schizophrenia? Do we civilly commit people because they have a mental health condition? What if they refuse treatment -- it is their right -- do we civilly commit someone even if they have not committed a crime?
The fact of the matter is that the NIMH estimates that approximately 45 percent of the population suffers from mental illness at some point in their life. At least 26 percent of the population suffers from mental illness in the past year.
This idea that we can suddenly round-up these so-called lunatics and the world would be a safer place is just plain ignorant.
Calling someone who suffers from a mental illness a 'lunatic' is not only insensitive and unprofessional it reflects a complete lack of understanding of what it means to be afflicted with a mental illness. Just imagine the shame and regret that a shooter afflicted with a mental illness would feel if they had the treatment and care necessary to appreciate the horror of such actions. Just imagine for a moment that of the many people in America who suffer from a mental illness, for the people who don't have adequate or even any mental health care, if these people receive treatment, they would likely live an otherwise normal life.
A mature conversation on the holes in the mental health system doesn't need to include unprofessional and ignorant terms like lunatic. No one asks to suffer from a mental illness. It is not a choice. No one reasonable thinks someone suffering from mental illness is an evil person purely based on the fact that someone suffers from a mental illness. But after the afflicted individual does something that may otherwise have been prevented, calling that person evil, a lunatic or crazy doesn't explain anything.
Living with mental illness is like living with diabetes or asthma; if you get proper treatment, you can live an otherwise normal life. The idea that there is some way to identify who may walk into a school and suddenly start shooting at children is a false sense of what the face of mental illness looks like.
Let me be absolutely clear, I am not excusing or defending the shooting of children and their school teachers. That was one of the worst atrocities in American history. It has been a tipping point. It made us realize that no one, not even 6- and 7-year-old children, are safe from horrific mass shootings. My point here is that in defending gun rights, NRA CEO LaPierre overattributed blame and demonstrated that he, and consequently the NRA, is completely out of touch with what it means to be suffering from a mental illness and have nothing of value to contribute to the conversation on mental health in America.
Paul Heroux is a State Representative-elect from Massachusetts. He previously worked as Director of Research for the Massachusetts Department of Correction, Assistant to the Commissioner of the Philadelphia Jail System, and he has a Bachelor's in Psychology from USC, a Master's in Criminology from the University of Pennsylvania and a Master's in Public Administration from Harvard. Paul can be reached at paulheroux.mpa@gmail.com.
Follow Paul Heroux on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PaulHeroux
Rev. Al Sharpton: 2012: The Year the Rich Couldn't Buy
The end of the year is often a time of reflection; a time to process all the great lessons of the past 12 months. While 2012 brought many challenges, it was also a remarkable year for progress and for the people. Whether it was our united response to voter suppression tactics, or our pushback against the continued attacks on women, or the dedication of countless Americans standing in line for hours to vote, we watched as the power of the wealthy faltered under the sheer will and power of the people. In conclusion, 2012 was simply the year that the rich couldn't buy.
When the Supreme Court passed Citizens United and opened the floodgates for unlimited money to influence and shape our political process, many thought it would signal the end of the value of our individual vote. As Super PACs poured in unregulated amounts behind specific candidates while funding ugly campaigns against those they didn't support, the people could not be duped. At the same time, we saw many states pass tough new voter ID laws and other suppression tactics like the elimination of early voting days. But while those passing these new laws attempted to rig the election in their favor, we fought back. Rallying, educating and registering people to vote across the country, we turned up with as much commitment and enthusiasm as we did in '08. Against all monetary odds, the votes and resolve of the American people determined the direction we wanted this nation to go.
In February of this year, the country was once again paralyzed as we learned of the tragic shooting death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin. When the accused killer, George Zimmerman, roamed freely without arrest and invoked Florida's controversial 'Stand Your Ground' law, we rallied in that state and created a subsequent nonviolent protest across the country. Everyone from celebrity basketball players to kids on the street wore symbolic hoodies as a gesture of support for the teen whose young life was cut so short. We demonstrated in the state of Florida, and with virtually no prior notice, nearly 30,000 joined us that day to demand justice. It was in fact the protest and our unified response that yielded a special prosecutor who later charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder. It was the vocal opposition of folks from state-to-state, and their symbolic defiance in the face of local authorities that stopped this injustice from being swept under the rug.
For much of this year, there were a barrage of attacks on women, unions, immigrants, gays/lesbians, the middle-class and the poor. From attempts at eliminating women's reproductive rights to halting same-sex marriage, to methods of dismantling workers' collective bargaining and organizing rights, these disruptive actions proved only to further mobilize and unite the majority. No matter how many times they disparaged folks, at the end of the day, it was the men and women of this country that fought back either through our legal system, by demonstrating on our streets or by the ballot. Time and time again, we proved that truth and progress have more value than dollars and cents.
The notion of the masses determining their own fate wasn't unique to the United States either. We watched this year as the Arab Spring continued in earnest and folks from many nations stood up to monarchs with billions and chased them from their thrones. Some thought their families would rule unchecked for generations, but the people chose otherwise. In many places, years of dictatorship couldn't quell the thirst for individual freedom and democracy.
Back home, we witnessed horrendous cases like the Penn State child abuse sex scandal. Again, those with power and wealth thought they could hide from justice, but the facts and the truth eventually prevailed. Most recently, we suffered an enormous tragedy in Newtown, Conn. On the heels of other atrocious shootings like the movie theater massacre in Aurora, Colo., and against the backdrop of violence plaguing our streets everyday, the people have said enough. Despite what gun lobbyists may say, and despite the amount of money they will invest in pushing for more guns, we will remain unified and push back. They may have all the monetary backing on their side, but the desire of the people cannot be squandered.
In 2012, I was on the front lines of many of the battles we faced. Whether it was draconian voter ID laws, the shooting death of young Travyon Martin, or the attacks on women and the workers of America, I went into each challenge concerned that they had outmaneuvered us financially. But in the end, I left convinced that money could not buy genuine commitment.
That is the ultimate lesson of 2012.
Follow Rev. Al Sharpton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheRevAl
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Ben Affleck Makes Announcement About Political Future
Milton Young (R-N.D.)
<strong>Dates of service:</strong> March 12, 1945 to Jan. 2, 1981 <strong>Years of service:</strong> 35 years, 9 months, 22 days <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a> Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, left, chats to Senator John L. McClellan (D-Ark.), center, and Senator Milton Young (R-N.D.), at the White House in Washington, March 24, 1975. Young died on May 31, 1983 at the age of 85. (AP Photo)
Judge Deals Blow To Planned Parenthood
OKLAHOMA CITY -- A federal judge on Monday denied a request by Planned Parenthood to temporarily block Oklahoma from terminating a contract with the agency to provide nutritional services to low-income mothers.
U.S. District Judge Stephen Friot ruled that although the state's stated reasons don't seem to be sufficient cause for ending agreements with Planned Parenthood's three Tulsa-area clinics that have been in place for 18 years, the group's response to the state's concerns was insufficient enough to warrant ending the relationship.
The decision will likely mean that the group will have to close one of the clinics and eliminate six full-time staff positions when the contracts end on Dec. 31, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland's President and CEO Jill June said in a statement.
"We are truly disappointed with today's court ruling and the impact it will have on the women and children in the Tulsa area who have relied on Planned Parenthood for (the federal Women, Infants and Children program) and the many other services we provide," June said. "While we are convinced of our claim, we will weigh all our possible options going forward."
The Oklahoma State Department of Health notified Planned Parenthood in September that it planned to end agreements it had with three Planned Parenthood for the last 18 years, citing the uncertainty of federal funds, declining caseloads and a higher cost-per-participant rate at clinics in west Tulsa, midtown Tulsa and Broken Arrow.
A spokeswoman for the attorney general's office, which represents the health department, said in a statement that she was pleased with the judge's decision.
"Judge Friot looked at the facts of the case and understood that the decision by the health department was based on legitimate business reasons," said spokeswoman Diane Clay.
But Planned Parenthood contends that the actual reason the state, whose leadership is among the most conservative in the country, decided not to renew the contracts was because the organization offers abortion services at some of its U.S. clinics, although it doesn't at the three Tulsa-area clinics.
Terry Cline, the state's health commissioner, testified during a hearing about Planned Parenthood's motion last week that the group's abortion-related activities should "absolutely not" factor into the state's decisions on whether to renew or end the contracts. Cline and other Health Department administrators have said the contracts weren't renewed because of a variety of long-term managerial and administrative problems, including a decline in caseloads, increasing client costs and a failure to resolve budgetary questions.
This year, the clinics received a total of $454,000 to provide WIC services and averaged about 3,000 client visits per month, or about 18 percent of all WIC client visits in Tulsa County, according to state Health Department data.
In his ruling, Friot wrote that while Planned Parenthood's performance deficiencies, primarily its declining caseloads, do not appear to be enough to result in the termination of its contracts, he added: "But a routine, solvable problem can become a justifiable basis for strong action when it is compounded by persistent unresponsiveness in addressing the challenge. Moreover, the frustrations in getting information out of (Planned Parenthood) on what should have been routine administrative matters rubbed additional salt into the wound."
Other conservative-led states have also taken steps to cut funding to Planned Parenthood.
Indiana passed the first law meant to deny Planned Parenthood federal funding for general health services, but a federal appeals court in October upheld a lower court's finding that Indiana violated federal regulations when it enacted the law. A judge in Arizona blocked that state from applying a similar law to Planned Parenthood.
In Texas, the GOP-controlled Legislature passed a law last year that sought to exclude Planned Parenthood clinics that provide family planning and health services to poor women as part of the Texas Women's Health Program.
In response to Texas' decision to ban any clinic affiliated with abortion providers from taking part in its Women's Health Program, federal authorities announced they would cut off funding that accounts for 90 percent of the program's family-planning costs and half of its administrative costs. Texas tried to block the funding cut, but a federal judge last week sided with federal authorities, who say the state's exclusion of Planned Parenthood violates U.S. Department of Health and Human Services guidelines.
___
Also on HuffPost:
Rachel Ryan: There's No Christ In My Christmas
This Friday, President Obama delivered a statement on the fiscal cliff, urging policymakers to compromise, admitting idealistic optimism that Congress can come to an agreement within the next ten days. Then he wished "every American a Merry Christmas." The Christians, the Jews, the Muslims, the Atheists, the Buddhists, the Nudists. Every. Single. American.
As an aggressive antitheist, my knee-jerk reaction was to be outraged. "How dare he! That's basically state imposition of religion!"
But actually, it's quite the opposite.
Christmas has, without a doubt, morphed into more of a cultural holiday than a religious one. Offices around the country close their doors and families gather to imbibe eggnog, unwrap gifts, laugh, hurl insults, eat too much chocolate, and fall asleep cuddling with the dog by the crackling fire. It's magical.
I have been affirmatively opposed to organized religion since about the age of 14. Since reading Christopher Hitchens' magnum opus, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, my freshman year of college, I've become an aggressive "agnostic teetering on the brink of Atheism," to quote Martin Amis.
But alas, I love Christmas. As you can imagine, this is often a point of contention in debates, which usually go something like this:
"So, you hate religion and think it's evil, but you love and celebrate Christmas? Christmas wouldn't be here if it weren't for Christ, so how can you say 'religion poisons everything'?"
Now, I could devolve into the argument about the pagan origins of Christmas, but I'll leave that to the Hitch. Mostly, the reason I can love Christmas without entirely debasing my argument is because Christmas has become more cultural than it is religious. There's nothing remotely religious about eggnog, "chestnuts roasting on an open fire," or a sparkling evergreen. There's certainly no Christ in my Christmas. Lots of family though!
Even if you don't celebrate Christmas, you passively partake in the festivities by merely walking down the street. Municipalities from Los Angeles to New York City invest funds in eccentric Christmas displays. Townspeople gather around the lighting of the big tree in the square. Main Street is adorned with twinkling lights and Christmas carols hum from every corner of the shopping mall.
In college, I lived with three of my best friends -- all Jewish. We always had a miniature Christmas tree and, let me assure you, I deserved no credit for its proud placement on our dining room table.
One of the three friends is the granddaughter of a man and woman who were sent to Riga and Auschwitz concentration camps during World War II. Her family keeps kosher. She fed us latkes during Hanukkah. And the moment the calendar flipped to December, Christmas carols could be heard blasting from her room for the next few weeks.
Look, if you want to "keep Christ in Christmas," by all means, set up your Nativity scene and go to midnight Mass on Christmas Eve. It's a free country. I, along with the increasing number of non-Christians, on the other hand, will be by the fire, glass of wine in-hand, listening to some Nat King Cole, snug as a bug in my new Christmas pajamas.
13 of the best "All I Want for Christmas" covers:
Follow Rachel Ryan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rachelryan1004
Monday, December 24, 2012
Michael Moore: Celebrating the Prince of Peace in the Land of Guns
After watching the deranged, delusional National Rifle Association press conference on Friday, it was clear that the Mayan prophecy had come true. Except the only world that was ending was the NRA's. Their bullying power to set gun policy in this country is over. The nation is repulsed by the massacre in Connecticut, and the signs are everywhere: a basketball coach at a post-game press conference; the Republican Joe Scarborough; a pawn shop owner in Florida; a gun buy-back program in New Jersey; a singing contest show on TV, and the conservative gun-owning judge who sentenced Jared Loughner.
So here's my little bit of holiday cheer for you:
These gun massacres aren't going to end any time soon.
I'm sorry to say this. But deep down we both know it's true. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep pushing forward -- after all, the momentum is on our side. I know all of us -- including me -- would love to see the president and Congress enact stronger gun laws. We need a ban on automatic AND semiautomatic weapons and magazine clips that hold more than 7 bullets. We need better background checks and more mental health services. We need to regulate the ammo, too.
But, friends, I would like to propose that while all of the above will certainly reduce gun deaths (ask Mayor Bloomberg -- it is virtually impossible to buy a handgun in New York City and the result is the number of murders per year has gone from 2,200 to under 400), it won't really bring about an end to these mass slayings and it will not address the core problem we have. Connecticut had one of the strongest gun laws in the country. That did nothing to prevent the murders of 20 small children on December 14th.
In fact, let's be clear about Newtown: the killer had no criminal record so he would never have shown up on a background check. All of the guns he used were legally purchased. None fit the legal description of an "assault" weapon. The killer seemed to have mental problems and his mother had him seek help, but that was worthless. As for security measures, the Sandy Hook school was locked down and buttoned up BEFORE the killer showed up that morning. Drills had been held for just such an incident. A lot of good that did.
And here's the dirty little fact none of us liberals want to discuss: The killer only ceased his slaughter when he saw that cops were swarming onto the school grounds -- i.e, the men with the guns. When he saw the guns a-coming, he stopped the bloodshed and killed himself. Guns on police officers prevented another 20 or 40 or 100 deaths from happening. Guns sometimes work. (Then again, there was an armed deputy sheriff at Columbine High School the day of that massacre and he couldn't/didn't stop it.)
I am sorry to offer this reality check on our much-needed march toward a bunch of well-intended, necessary -- but ultimately, mostly cosmetic-- changes to our gun laws. The sad facts are these: Other countries that have guns (like Canada, which has 7 million guns -- mostly hunting guns -- in their 12 million households) have a low murder rate. Kids in Japan watch the same violent movies and kids in Australia play the same violent video games (Grand Theft Auto was created by a British company; the UK had 58 gun murders last year in a nation of 63 million people). They simply don't kill each other at the rate that we do. Why is that? THAT is the question we should be exploring while we are banning and restricting guns: Who are we?
I'd like to try to answer that question.
We are a country whose leaders officially sanction and carry out acts of violence as a means to often an immoral end. We invade countries who didn't attack us. We're currently using drones in a half-dozen countries, often killing civilians.
This probably shouldn't come as a surprise to us as we are a nation founded on genocide and built on the backs of slaves. We slaughtered 600,000 of each other in a civil war. We "tamed the Wild West with a six-shooter," and we rape and beat and kill our women without mercy and at a staggering rate: every three hours a women is murdered in the USA (half the time by an ex or a current); every three minutes a woman is raped in the USA; and every 15 seconds a woman is beaten in the USA.
We belong to an illustrious group of nations that still have the death penalty (North Korea, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran). We think nothing of letting tens of thousands of our own citizens die each year because they are uninsured and thus don't see a doctor until it's too late.
Why do we do this? One theory is simply "because we can." There is a level of arrogance in the otherwise friendly American spirit, conning ourselves into believing there's something exceptional about us that separates us from all those "other" countries (there are indeed many good things about us; the same could also be said of Belgium, New Zealand, France, Germany, etc.). We think we're #1 in everything when the truth is our students are 17th in science and 25th in math, and we're 35th in life expectancy. We believe we have the greatest democracy but we have the lowest voting turnout of any western democracy. We're biggest and the bestest at everything and we demand and take what we want.
And sometimes we have to be violent m*****f*****s to get it. But if one of us goes off-message and shows the utterly psychotic nature and brutal results of violence in a Newtown or an Aurora or a Virginia Tech, then we get all "sad" and "our hearts go out to the families" and presidents promise to take "meaningful action." Well, maybe this president means it this time. He'd better. An angry mob of millions is not going to let this drop.
While we are discussing and demanding what to do, may I respectfully ask that we stop and take a look at what I believe are the three extenuating factors that may answer the question of why we Americans have more violence than most anyone else:
1. POVERTY. If there's one thing that separates us from the rest of the developed world, it's this. 50 million of our people live in poverty. One in five Americans goes hungry at some point during the year. The majority of those who aren't poor are living from paycheck to paycheck. There's no doubt this creates more crime. Middle class jobs prevent crime and violence. (If you don't believe that, ask yourself this: If your neighbor has a job and is making $50,000/year, what are the chances he's going to break into your home, shoot you and take your TV? Nil.)
2. FEAR/RACISM. We're an awfully fearful country considering that, unlike most nations, we've never been invaded. (No, 1812 wasn't an invasion. We started it.) Why on earth would we need 300 million guns in our homes? I get why the Russians might be a little spooked (over 20 million of them died in World War II). But what's our excuse? Worried that the Indians from the casino may go on the warpath? Concerned that the Canadians seem to be amassing too many Tim Horton's donut shops on both sides of the border?
No. It's because too many white people are afraid of black people. Period. The vast majority of the guns in the U.S. are sold to white people who live in the suburbs or the country. When we fantasize about being mugged or home invaded, what's the image of the perpetrator in our heads? Is it the freckled-face kid from down the street -- or is it someone who is, if not black, at least poor?
I think it would be worth it to a) do our best to eradicate poverty and re-create the middle class we used to have, and b) stop promoting the image of the black man as the boogeyman out to hurt you. Calm down, white people, and put away your guns.
3. THE "ME" SOCIETY. I think it's the every-man-for-himself ethos of this country that has put us in this mess and I believe it's been our undoing. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps! You're not my problem! This is mine!
Clearly, we are no longer our brother's and sister's keeper. You get sick and can't afford the operation? Not my problem. The bank has foreclosed on your home? Not my problem. Can't afford to go to college? Not my problem.
And yet, it all sooner or later becomes our problem, doesn't it? Take away too many safety nets and everyone starts to feel the impact. Do you want to live in that kind of society, one where you will then have a legitimate reason to be in fear? I don't.
I'm not saying it's perfect anywhere else, but I have noticed, in my travels, that other civilized countries see a national benefit to taking care of each other. Free medical care, free or low-cost college, mental health help. And I wonder -- why can't we do that? I think it's because in many other countries people see each other not as separate and alone but rather together, on the path of life, with each person existing as an integral part of the whole. And you help them when they're in need, not punish them because they've had some misfortune or bad break. I have to believe one of the reasons gun murders in other countries are so rare is because there's less of the lone wolf mentality amongst their citizens. Most are raised with a sense of connection, if not outright solidarity. And that makes it harder to kill one another.
Well, there's some food for thought as we head home for the holidays. Don't forget to say hi to your conservative brother-in-law for me. Even he will tell you that, if you can't nail a deer in three shots -- and claim you need a clip of 30 rounds -- you're not a hunter my friend, and you have no business owning a gun.
Have a wonderful Christmas or a beautiful December 25th!
Follow Michael Moore on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MMFlint
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)