Ann Coulter nails it...

[Mad_Cabbie]

Whenever Ann Coulter opens her mouth -

I DON'T listen.

 

[BDBoop]

Well, I do when Al Franken shuts her up.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=susZ2ceEHwk]Ann Coulter, Al Franken: Who in History Would You Be? FDR & Hitler! - YouTube[/ame]

But other than that, no.

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually, spending was cut because the hospitals had been emptied by Lefties challenging involuntary commitments by using habeas corpus to get patients out so they could live on the streets and panhandle.

Were we all asleep at the switch? A personal reminiscence of psychiatry from 1940 to 2010 - Eisenberg - 2010 - Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica - Wiley Online Library

And I actually agree with leftists on a lot of this.

Mental hospital is NOT a quasi-prison.

Even if it is very tempting to make it such.

Some did.

Perhaps, but turning them out to live on the streets without medication or treatment wasn't the answer.

The danger would be allowing you to decide whether they stayed committed against their will. Involuntary commit is a legal sentence. And it must be constantly reviewable. Problem is the folks in the white coats with the drug candy have no scientific measurement of dangerous. And therefore there is no solid metric to decide whether the "medications" (with all the side effects prohibiting normal life) are really effective anyway..

What happened in Cali while reagan was governor started as a justifiable civil liberties question. The funding cuts were secondary. Compliance of a patient released on recognisance is a legal enforcement issue.

 

[Bfgrn]

"Mental illness was blindingly clear in the cases of Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech), Maj. Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood), Jared Loughner (Arizona shopping mall), James Holmes (Colorado movie theater), and a dozen other mass shootings in the past few decades.

But in every instance, Democrats' response was: Let's ban high-capacity magazines! Let's limit private gun sales! Let's publish the names of everyone who owns a registered gun!

Mass shootings don't correlate with any of these things. They correlate with not locking up crazy people. We're not worried about school kids being systematically gunned down by angry husbands, gang members or antique gun collectors. We're worried about a psychotic showing up in a public place and shooting everyone in sight.

Ann Coulter - Official Home Page

Now I'm still pissed at Annie for going gonzo for Christie for president, but most times she's bang on the money.

She nails this one.

You are always 'pissed' at somebody. See a psychiatrist and turn in your guns.

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't have any faith in psychiatry either....but when we determined that crazy people must be mainstreamed, we made a really bad mistake. Crazy people can't be mainstreamed, they're crazy. And when they're as crazy as those guys were (and everybody knew they were nuts) we should be able to lock them the fuck up without WAITING for them to nut out and kill huge numbers of people.

In the case of the Conn. Shooter, it appears his mother paid a huge price for enabling his aggression. We fail on every count of identifying these people and plans to have law enforcement invovled. Coulter may be right.. But the concept of declaring folks mentally incompetent or dangerous is a basket of snakes.. Perhaps we ought to just deny gun sales to anyone under psych care for a period of time. And ask for family cooperation in removing existing guns. Not many seriously ill folks are gonna rank gun ownership as more important then the relief of drugs or treatment. IMO...

But BECAUSE these diagnosticians are winging it so much---- needs to be simple and quick legal apppeal....If a parole board is trusted to decide if an offender is dangerous --- theyll do just as well as the battling shrinks.

Ps in the case of minors, PARENTS who have weapons should be held responsible if their kids have been diagnosed withnsevere mental issues.

And I vehemently DISAGREE. You will not remove my Constitutional rights by creating an unelected board of politically motivated people to determine my competence. The law already has a system for that.

You want someone declared incompetent? Follow the law.Report them have them investigated and if needed sent before a competent Judge to determine their competence.

I carefully stated that full and continuous legal appeal sould be ALWAYS available when youre dependent on an inexact science to determine your danger level. I fully suport 2nd amend issues. HOWEVER -- if youve been diagnosed with a potential to cause harm OR you are being "treated" with drugs that can impair judgement or mental capacity --- this SHOULD be elevated to a joint medical/LEGAL issue. You have no control over when you are "under the influence" of psych drugs as you do with drugs of CHOICE, such as alcohol or even weed. If you are doing it right --- You will be perpetually under the influence.. This applies to the 10s of millions of drugged out kiddies being pacified with drugs in the same genre as cocaine.

The military would never put weapons in the hands of folks being dosed with deep psych meds or who have been observed to be a potential danger. PERHAPS we can figure out a Constitutionally sensitive way to do the same due diligience in general society.

Psychiatry and neuroscience needs to get better to even attempt to connect mental health issues with legal implications. This shouldnt be a political issue.. Crazy dangerous people on drugs lprobably shouldnt vote or fly Cessnas or drive trains either.

 

[koshergrl]

I don't have any faith in psychiatry either....but when we determined that crazy people must be mainstreamed, we made a really bad mistake. Crazy people can't be mainstreamed, they're crazy. And when they're as crazy as those guys were (and everybody knew they were nuts) we should be able to lock them the fuck up without WAITING for them to nut out and kill huge numbers of people.

In the case of the Conn. Shooter, it appears his mother paid a huge price for enabling his aggression. We fail on every count of identifying these people and plans to have law enforcement invovled. Coulter may be right.. But the concept of declaring folks mentally incompetent or dangerous is a basket of snakes.. Perhaps we ought to just deny gun sales to anyone under psych care for a period of time. And ask for family cooperation in removing existing guns. Not many seriously ill folks are gonna rank gun ownership as more important then the relief of drugs or treatment. IMO...

But BECAUSE these diagnosticians are winging it so much---- needs to be simple and quick legal apppeal....If a parole board is trusted to decide if an offender is dangerous --- theyll do just as well as the battling shrinks.

Ps in the case of minors, PARENTS who have weapons should be held responsible if their kids have been diagnosed withnsevere mental issues.

Bullshit. If you have a kid who has been diagnosed with multiple problems, but you haven't the option of having him committed in a lock down facility for long term, the state has to bear the brunt of that stupidity.

Either protect the kids with weapons, the same way we do our erstwhile prez, or lock up lunatics who show promise of someday targeting them. Regardless of age.

 

[Spiderman]

The NRA is gaurenteeing that the mentally ill have access to military grade weopons. Why is it such a big thing that all sales of such weopons, private included, have a background check? But sanity is not something valued by the Conservatives.

You can't buy military grade weapons.'

All you can get are semiautomatic rifles that look like military weapons.

 

[koshergrl]

Good.

 

[Dot Com]

I like when she MC'd HOMOCON for GOProud

Ann Coulter Dropped from Conservative Conference over Participation in Gay Republican Event "HOMOCON"

WorldNetDaily, a far right news website, posted on a story on its website stating that Coulter had been disinvited "because of her plan to address an event titled 'HOMOCON' sponsored by the homosexual Republican group GOProud that promotes same-sex marriage and military service for open homosexuals."

 

[koshergrl]

So?

 

[Dot Com]

SO? You're an eXtreme rw SOCON. THAT "so". She was an MC at an openly gay event.

 

[koshergrl]

Why does that offend you? All you're doing is pointing out your own misconceptions about who she is and what she does.

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't have any faith in psychiatry either....but when we determined that crazy people must be mainstreamed, we made a really bad mistake. Crazy people can't be mainstreamed, they're crazy. And when they're as crazy as those guys were (and everybody knew they were nuts) we should be able to lock them the fuck up without WAITING for them to nut out and kill huge numbers of people.

In the case of the Conn. Shooter, it appears his mother paid a huge price for enabling his aggression. We fail on every count of identifying these people and plans to have law enforcement invovled. Coulter may be right.. But the concept of declaring folks mentally incompetent or dangerous is a basket of snakes.. Perhaps we ought to just deny gun sales to anyone under psych care for a period of time. And ask for family cooperation in removing existing guns. Not many seriously ill folks are gonna rank gun ownership as more important then the relief of drugs or treatment. IMO...

But BECAUSE these diagnosticians are winging it so much---- needs to be simple and quick legal apppeal....If a parole board is trusted to decide if an offender is dangerous --- theyll do just as well as the battling shrinks.

Ps in the case of minors, PARENTS who have weapons should be held responsible if their kids have been diagnosed withnsevere mental issues.

Bullshit. If you have a kid who has been diagnosed with multiple problems, but you haven't the option of having him committed in a lock down facility for long term, the state has to bear the brunt of that stupidity.

Either protect the kids with weapons, the same way we do our erstwhile prez, or lock up lunatics who show promise of someday targeting them. Regardless of age.

Why should the state "bear the responsibility" if they had no knowledge of the threat?

You're all for individual soveignty and liberty -- so the mental care providers and the parents OUGHT TO INFORM the government of the threat. If they don't --- hold them responsible if they provide access to weapons or withhold evidence of specific threats.

Parents ought to have the option to not only INITIATE a commitment. But the the option to declare that the situation is beyond their control. Thus making it a LEGAL problem for the state to handle. If they dont --- they bear the responsibility of harboring a 'half-cocked' murder weapon..

 

[koshergrl]

Because it is the state who dictates that we can't restrain crazy people who should be restrained...BEFORE they walk into a school.

Parents with insane children are repeatedly frustrated in our country because there are no options for them. They aren't allowed to institutionalize their own kids...they can't afford to stay home and babysit them 24/7 (at any rate, they are often ultimately killed by the kids anyway)...and yahoos like you want them PUNISHED when their crazy kids wander off the reservation...but refuse to allow them to restrain them.

When crazy people weren't roaming the streets, and schools didn't advertise the fact that they'd do nothing to protect the children in their halls, school shootings were rare...now they're a regular event.

Thanks, progressives! More evidence that your policies are great at getting kids killed, and wonderful for demonizing parents! You guys are great!

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

SO? You're an eXtreme rw SOCON. THAT "so". She was an MC at an openly gay event.

I'm very happy that she did that, if she really felt it necessary.

While I don't think very much of Ann C. in general - I am all for standing up for principles.

Good for her.

 

[flacaltenn]

Because it is the state who dictates that we can't restrain crazy people who should be restrained...BEFORE they walk into a school.

Parents with insane children are repeatedly frustrated in our country because there are no options for them. They aren't allowed to institutionalize their own kids...they can't afford to stay home and babysit them 24/7 (at any rate, they are often ultimately killed by the kids anyway)...and yahoos like you want them PUNISHED when their crazy kids wander off the reservation...but refuse to allow them to restrain them.

When crazy people weren't roaming the streets, and schools didn't advertise the fact that they'd do nothing to protect the children in their halls, school shootings were rare...now they're a regular event.

Thanks, progressives! More evidence that your policies are great at getting kids killed, and wonderful for demonizing parents! You guys are great!

It's a hard problem. Even for the invested orgs NRA or the Brady group. In OUR case, NEITHER of us recognize Psychiatry as a fully mature QUANTITATIVE science.. So we're somewhat hosed to depend on THEM for a judgement or treatment. But that doesn't mean that PARENTS are qualified to "restrain their precious dangerous weapons".. Especially if they make bad decisions that aid and abet the behaviour defects. Like f'instance, access to weapons, or excess "privacy" so they are unaware that their garage is a bomb-making facility.

Having parents declare that they lack the ability to avert the danger -- would open up the path to commitment and treatment (however helpful that is).. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY -- oversight by law enforcement personnel ..

This is different from holding ADULTS against their will. But i would even provide safeguards for the minors to appeal their status. Guess you're gonna have to show me that parents cannot function as guardians and make the commitment part of the decision NOW for minors. ((Realize that a kid "committed" for cutting or suicidal behaviour is not in any way a threat to general society without further evidence -- for example))

Not just PARENTS -- but the colleges and schools that are responsible for the safety of young ADULTS --- should have the ability to declare a LEGAL emergency and become unbound by "privacy" requirements enough to inform the state law enforcement of potential threats.

If this is ABUSED --- trainloads of reliable Civil Libertarians will fix the abuse..

 

[koshergrl]

Adam Lanza's mother was attempting to get him locked up, and was waiting on the courts when he nutted out.

You were saying?

 

[flacaltenn]

Adam Lanza's mother was attempting to get him locked up, and was waiting on the courts when he nutted out.

You were saying?

I'm fully aware of the stories that Lanza's mom had filed for a court date.. What I don't have is evidence that this was unduly delayed or denied or otherwise thwarted by govt.

She made MANY errors. One of which was letting her patient KNOW of the commitment or her plans to put him in "special school".. USING THOSE AS THREATS for years could very well have contributed to the crisis and further mental instability. Planning on buying him a handgun for Christmas was equally foolish i suppose..

That's my point about bad decisions that parents make to ENABLE the crimes. In the case of Columbine, we have to accept the parents that the parents were completely unaware that their garages were bomb factories. Or that those kids were amassing an arsenal..

Were these parents never made aware that those MEDS required some increased supervision and vigilance?

 

[koshergrl]

The child wasn't HER patient. He was her child.

The ridiculous and time-consuming red tape that has to be approved before securing nut jobs is directly attributable to her death, and his rampage.

Neither of which were HER fault. Again...this isn't about kids amassing arsenals that make them go nuts. It's about not being able to adequately contain nutjobs...and not being allowed to provide the barest PROTECTION of our children to cover the slight, but very real, chance of them being targeted by one of these nutjobs.

 

[Dragonlady]

A further crisis was caused in the early 1980s by the Reagan Administration’s policies to reduce other federal human service program costs. A policy of accelerated reviews of individuals on the federal disability rolls left hundreds of thousands of people with mental illnesses without income as it exposed the inappropriateness of federal rules for assessing disability for this population.

This is on page 8 (not 28) of the document linked. It is the only mention of Reagan or his policies, either in California or the US.