by Beverly K. Eakman
Friday, 21 August 2009 01:51
When a child gets in more trouble for opening a lemonade stand in a public park than does a “student” at a tax-supported university traveling to a foreign country to install a terrorist state detrimental to America’s existence, you know our nation is in trouble.
The specifics of this particular “disconnect” in U.S. law-making and enforcement involve two news reports in one week: First, an August 16 story in the New York Post revealing how police with the city’s Parks Department slapped a $50 fine, without warning, on a 10-year-old and her flummoxed dad, who responsibly accompanied her, for setting up an “unlicensed” lemonade stand, something every child used to do 25 years ago no matter where it was.
The very next day, the Washington Times carried a report by Iason Athanasiadis concerning how, in 1978 (the height of Boomer student activism), a brash young man named Moshen Sazegara “quit his studies at the University of Illinois to join Ayatollah Rubollah Khomeini’s return from exile to lead Iran’s Islamic Revolution” and to help establish “Iran’s Revolutionary Guard…an ideological army entrusted with safeguarding the principles of the revolution”.
Apparently, the student’s eventual fall-out with the abusive, terrorist regime proved a reality check, and Sazegara returned to the U.S. to lead a global opposition movement to the regime he once so brashly supported.
This story, picked up by several news outlets, unfailingly implied an endorsement of this “resistance leader,” despite the fact that in his youthful arrogance, Sazegara bears substantial responsibility for the overthrow of a pro-Western government and for plunging Iran into an 8th-century horror. One woman who escaped Iran relays how her young, female colleague, forced into burqa-like garb, accidentally allowed her black head shawl to slip backward. One of the Revolutionary Guards yanked the heavy scarf down to “where it ought to be,” took a short nail and hammered the shawl into the woman’s forehead. That’s the kind of “peace and nonviolence” the naïve, young Sazegara thought he was installing to replace the old shah — admittedly no saint, but at least with visions of a more democratic nation. Some of that was sparked when the shah was forced by old traditions to divorce his beloved wife, Soroya, when she could not bear him an heir. But such was forgotten in the rush to demonize anything pro-Western.
The larger point here is why Sazegara, who caused so much harm, was allowed to return, or indeed why he, and others like him, are allowed to intervene in the affairs of potentially hostile nations. Apparently, he was an undergraduate student at both Sharif University of Technology in Iran and the Illinois Institute of Technology while a leader of the student movement against the shah. This smacks of dual citizenship, but could not be confirmed in an online search.
What is striking is that both then and now Sazegara is a supporter of “civil disobedience” and “protest movements.” Where did he learn that? Not in Iran, for sure. He learned it in America, where universities are steeped in Marxist strategies of inciting dissent through mob psychology. He would have been better off setting up lemonade stands.
Sazegara’s post-graduate work in multiple countries is impressive, yet one has to wonder at our system of “law enforcement” which has since the 1970s glossed over important connections to terrorist organizations, illegal immigration, and other matters of national security and public safety, yet has no trouble delivering a citation to a ten-year-old over a lemonade stand.
From idiot programs like “click it or ticket,” to non-programs like “aggressive driver imaging” (which never focuses on anyone driving erratically), to so-called “airport security” that plays tough with elderly women, the message is: Good citizens are easy; but we don’t mess with really dangerous folks.”
There have been thousands of warnings since the volatile 70s that out-of-control, violent crime; terrorist attacks; and grandiose fraud scams, to mention just a few of the societal changes that now affect everyone, were coming — without intervention from the courts or “the law.” As By Ron Ewart, President of the National Association of Rural Landowners, put it in an article, “How Can We Undo It?”: “We are a country under the rule of law all right, but we have taken law and rule-making to the extreme edge of absurdity, if not insanity.”
Mr. Ewart cites the 80,700 pages in the Federal Register to make his case. “The United States Code is perched on multiple shelves and is 16,845 pages, according to the government printing office. The Tax Code, Title 26 [alone], is 3,387 pages. This doesn't even begin to cover millions of pages of state and local laws, regulations, restrictions and ordinances...[many of which] are patently without constitutional authority.
The duty of government is to protect Americans from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to support parents in their efforts to protect children from harm. But what if it is our own elected officials, both by their sins of omission (in failing to read the bills it passes, and insist on enforcement of existing criminal statutes) and its sins of commission (passing “gotcha” ordinances that restrict normal, everyday activities of individuals, such as “unlicensed” lemonade stands), who are doing the harm?
Beverly K. Eakman is a former teacher and retired federal employee who served as speechwriter for the heads of three government agencies and as editor-in-chief of NASA’s newspaper at the Johnson Space Center. Based now in Washington, DC, she is a freelance writer, the author of five books, and frequent keynote speaker on the lecture circuit. Her most recent book is "Walking Targets: How Our Psychologized Classrooms Are Producing a Nation of Sitting Ducks" (Midnight Whistler Publishers).
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Psychiatry Goes Back to the Future
Beverly Eakman has been a friend since we were in theater together at age 15. She has become a best selling writer and speaker. She so impressed me with her notes for a book that I insisted she publish it and she challenged me to publish it myself. Midnight Whistler expanded to include books at that point. Below is her latest article.
Psychiatry Goes Back to the Future
Friday, August 21, 2008
By Beverly Eakman
New American Magazine
The New York Times’ Benedict Carey reported this week that the Army “plans to require that all 1.1 million of its soldiers take intensive training in emotional resiliency.” The Times says it “learned of the [psychological resiliency training] program from Dr. Martin E. P. Seligman, chairman of the University of Pennsylvania Positive Psychology Center, who has been consulting with the Pentagon.”
The training is being billed as “the first of its kind in the military,” with a goal to “improve performance in combat and head off the mental health problems, including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and suicide,” allegedly affecting “one-fifth of troops returning from Afghanistan and Iraq.”
First to receive what is essentially psychological training will be “active-duty soldiers, reservists and members of the National Guard,” then it will be “made available to family members and to civilian employees.” The term “made available” implies that something is voluntary, but when government uses it, the word “mandatory” soon follows.
Ah, how quickly people forget the lessons of the past!
First off, this would not be “the first [training] of its kind in the military.”
In 1943, psychiatrist and British military officer, John Rawlings Rees, head of England’s famous Tavistock Clinic, an outgrowth of the Tavistock Institute of Medical Psychology, provided such “training” to American and British soldiers, ostensibly to prepare them for combat and capture or interrogation. What he wanted to ascertain, however, was whether, under conditions of induced or controlled stress, groups of normal individuals could be made to behave erratically. In particular, he wanted to find out whether they would “let go” of firmly held beliefs under pressure, including peer pressure, in order to conform to a predetermined set of “popular” beliefs. Like political organizer and activist Saul Alinsky later on, Rees believed that one of man’s worst fears was ridicule and ostracism, so his experiments centered on what we now know as “encounter”-style strategies — high-stress, spirit-breaking, psychological “conditioning.”
Rees also field-tested various techniques of inducing “mass neurosis,” based on methods established by — of all people — German psychologist Kurt Lewin (“thought reform” strategies) and infamous Soviet psychologist Alexander R. Luria (the “artificial disruption of behavior”). Luria’s defining book centered on “the artificial disruption of behavior,” in which he praised Kurt Lewin as being among the first to succeed in provoking “acute disruption of the psyche” by alternately applying stress and reassurance until individuals and groups became so confused that they couldn’t sustain their train of thought — i.e., “emotional chaos.” Rees, upon applying Lewin’s method to soldiers, boasted that he could turn an adult population into the emotional equivalent of little children.
So successful was Rees’ “Tavistock Method,” based upon a combination of Lewin’s and Luria’s work, that at the close of the war, Rockefeller Foundation Medical Director Alan Gregg toured the clinic and asked whether anyone would be willing to apply the Army’s enemy-analysis research in social psychiatry to civilian populations. Tavistock was not only willing, but able, and it received a Rockefeller Foundation grant that redirected its work and changed the clinic’s name in 1947 to Tavistock Institute of Human Relations.
Among the first visible successes attributable to this redirected “preventive psychotherapy” was the rebellion and protests of the 1960s. In an astounding turnabout, children of high-functioning, patriotic, and mostly religious World War II veterans — men and women who had sacrificed life and limb to protect their country and families — were suddenly “letting go” of the values they had been taught to cherish. These youngsters embraced, instead, an essentially foreign counterculture of promiscuity, drugs, virulent anti-Americanism, and irresponsibility. Their parents, for the most part, never knew what hit them. They didn’t realize that their kids were being “turned,” if you will, in school. Anti-authoritarianism was a psychological tool developed by Lewin, and colleagues like Erich Fromm, that undermined parental discipline, applied “social pressure” via songs, surveys, and encounter-style class “discussions.” These were takeoffs on wartime psychological experiments that, used with children, set the kids up to need their peers more than they needed their principles. Suddenly, young people did not want to be seen as mavericks or as sticking up for themselves; they wanted only to “fit in” and “be popular.”
The New York Times article reveals that the “new” $117 million psychological program, similarly aimed at “preventative psychology” for soldiers, will “be introduced at two bases in October and phased in gradually throughout the service, starting in basic training.” Then in a telling statement, the article states that the program “is modeled on techniques that have been tested mainly in middle schools.” (Italics mine.)
In the early 1990s, I exposed one of those programs in Pennsylvania schools under the banner of “assessment testing.” I pointed also to an infamous psychological training ground for teachers called the National Training Laboratory in Bethel, Maine. It was eventually run under the auspices of the nation’s largest teacher union, National Education Association, which lured teachers to undergo (and emulate) encounter-style, high-stress tactics, and take them back into in their classrooms. Teachers taking the course still have to sign a disclaimer prior to enrollment, absolving the NEA of all liability in the event that they experience an emotional breakdown while pursuing their studies at the NTL!
In a major article (Oct. 20, 1993) for Education Week, the primary newspaper of the education establishment, I wrote “It’s About Mental Health, Stupid!” describing the shift toward psychological calisthenics over academics. I explained how both test questions and curricula were increasingly focusing on personal opinions, emotional temperature-taking, “coping skills,” “self-esteem,” and “finding one’s own value system.” I explained how this instant-success concept was, in reality, having a demoralizing effect on the students, causing them to become apathetic with the lack of real, substantive challenges. I noted that teachers were becoming frustrated and emotionally drained from spending their days as babysitters and entertainers and that many were changing professions as a result.
Due to the outpouring of reader response to my article — including one irate bluster from the former head of Pennsylvania’s Division of Testing, who I named as complicit in the psychologizing of educational testing and curriculum — I wrote a follow-up on December 15 of that year, adding (in response to his demand), that I was submitting copies of everything to Education Week to provide “evidence substantiating that psychological curriculums had been devised to improve scores on the psychological tests” out of his office — all passed off to the public as “academics.” The federal monetary connection was often right on the covers.
Thus, it’s no surprise to me that this latest brainstorm in “emotional resiliency training” emanates from the University of Pennsylvania’s Positive Psychology Center.
As Jay Leno has famously quipped, “Gee, who could have seen that coming?”
“Resiliency” is not something learned in a “crash course.” It’s a backdrop for what we used to call “character,” something parents and religious organizations instilled over years. You can have all the “resiliency” classes and role-playing and “conflict resolution” strategies you like, but if it is not in keeping with the underlying personality of the individual, it won’t work in the end. Let’s face it: people are extremely complicated, which is why so many are enticed by psychology as a field of study. Yet, while behavioral “scientists” have concocted hundreds of labels to describe and categorize human behaviors, and devised manipulative strategies, some of them successful, to make folks amenable to suggestion (or “stimuli,” in technical parlance), nobody can quite explain why one person can hold up to years of torture and abuse, while the fellow next to him falls apart upon seeing a dead body in the road. This phenomenon speaks to the existence of “individuality,” or “soul,” which serves as an inborn antidote to manipulation and brainwashing. Mind-altering drugs can break down this inherent check, which is why the military (and terrorist training camps) sometimes resort to them. Drug-induced effects are heightened in children, vulnerable individuals and fanatic groups, who are easier to provoke into acting impulsively (for example, in response to surreptitious or inflammatory marketing campaigns). But the fact remains, most people in the end will “default” to their individual wiring — i.e., to conduct in keeping with their unique personality. This is what psychiatrists like Rees, Lewin, and Luria tried desperately to alter, with disastrous results, and which the U.S. Army, under the pretense of “teaching resiliency” now apparently is attempting to modify again.
As we pass the 60th Anniversary of World War II and the Holocaust — with its time-honored shouts of “never again!” — highlighting the grisly discoveries, critical milestones, battles, armistices and accords, let us also call on any American and British soldiers who may still be alive to attest to their ordeals at Tavistock in the 1940s. Now is the time for them to speak up, as it appears we are about to repeat history.
Beverly K. Eakman is a former educator and retired federal employee who served as speechwriter for the heads of three government agencies and as editor-in-chief of NASA’s newspaper “Roundup.” Today, she is a Washington, DC-based freelance writer, the author of five books, and a frequent keynote speaker on the lecture circuit. Her most recent book is Walking Targets: How Our Psychologized Classrooms Are Producing a Nation of Sitting Ducks (Midnight Whistler Publishers www.midnightwhistler.com).
Psychiatry Goes Back to the Future
Friday, August 21, 2008
By Beverly Eakman
New American Magazine
The New York Times’ Benedict Carey reported this week that the Army “plans to require that all 1.1 million of its soldiers take intensive training in emotional resiliency.” The Times says it “learned of the [psychological resiliency training] program from Dr. Martin E. P. Seligman, chairman of the University of Pennsylvania Positive Psychology Center, who has been consulting with the Pentagon.”
The training is being billed as “the first of its kind in the military,” with a goal to “improve performance in combat and head off the mental health problems, including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and suicide,” allegedly affecting “one-fifth of troops returning from Afghanistan and Iraq.”
First to receive what is essentially psychological training will be “active-duty soldiers, reservists and members of the National Guard,” then it will be “made available to family members and to civilian employees.” The term “made available” implies that something is voluntary, but when government uses it, the word “mandatory” soon follows.
Ah, how quickly people forget the lessons of the past!
First off, this would not be “the first [training] of its kind in the military.”
In 1943, psychiatrist and British military officer, John Rawlings Rees, head of England’s famous Tavistock Clinic, an outgrowth of the Tavistock Institute of Medical Psychology, provided such “training” to American and British soldiers, ostensibly to prepare them for combat and capture or interrogation. What he wanted to ascertain, however, was whether, under conditions of induced or controlled stress, groups of normal individuals could be made to behave erratically. In particular, he wanted to find out whether they would “let go” of firmly held beliefs under pressure, including peer pressure, in order to conform to a predetermined set of “popular” beliefs. Like political organizer and activist Saul Alinsky later on, Rees believed that one of man’s worst fears was ridicule and ostracism, so his experiments centered on what we now know as “encounter”-style strategies — high-stress, spirit-breaking, psychological “conditioning.”
Rees also field-tested various techniques of inducing “mass neurosis,” based on methods established by — of all people — German psychologist Kurt Lewin (“thought reform” strategies) and infamous Soviet psychologist Alexander R. Luria (the “artificial disruption of behavior”). Luria’s defining book centered on “the artificial disruption of behavior,” in which he praised Kurt Lewin as being among the first to succeed in provoking “acute disruption of the psyche” by alternately applying stress and reassurance until individuals and groups became so confused that they couldn’t sustain their train of thought — i.e., “emotional chaos.” Rees, upon applying Lewin’s method to soldiers, boasted that he could turn an adult population into the emotional equivalent of little children.
So successful was Rees’ “Tavistock Method,” based upon a combination of Lewin’s and Luria’s work, that at the close of the war, Rockefeller Foundation Medical Director Alan Gregg toured the clinic and asked whether anyone would be willing to apply the Army’s enemy-analysis research in social psychiatry to civilian populations. Tavistock was not only willing, but able, and it received a Rockefeller Foundation grant that redirected its work and changed the clinic’s name in 1947 to Tavistock Institute of Human Relations.
Among the first visible successes attributable to this redirected “preventive psychotherapy” was the rebellion and protests of the 1960s. In an astounding turnabout, children of high-functioning, patriotic, and mostly religious World War II veterans — men and women who had sacrificed life and limb to protect their country and families — were suddenly “letting go” of the values they had been taught to cherish. These youngsters embraced, instead, an essentially foreign counterculture of promiscuity, drugs, virulent anti-Americanism, and irresponsibility. Their parents, for the most part, never knew what hit them. They didn’t realize that their kids were being “turned,” if you will, in school. Anti-authoritarianism was a psychological tool developed by Lewin, and colleagues like Erich Fromm, that undermined parental discipline, applied “social pressure” via songs, surveys, and encounter-style class “discussions.” These were takeoffs on wartime psychological experiments that, used with children, set the kids up to need their peers more than they needed their principles. Suddenly, young people did not want to be seen as mavericks or as sticking up for themselves; they wanted only to “fit in” and “be popular.”
The New York Times article reveals that the “new” $117 million psychological program, similarly aimed at “preventative psychology” for soldiers, will “be introduced at two bases in October and phased in gradually throughout the service, starting in basic training.” Then in a telling statement, the article states that the program “is modeled on techniques that have been tested mainly in middle schools.” (Italics mine.)
In the early 1990s, I exposed one of those programs in Pennsylvania schools under the banner of “assessment testing.” I pointed also to an infamous psychological training ground for teachers called the National Training Laboratory in Bethel, Maine. It was eventually run under the auspices of the nation’s largest teacher union, National Education Association, which lured teachers to undergo (and emulate) encounter-style, high-stress tactics, and take them back into in their classrooms. Teachers taking the course still have to sign a disclaimer prior to enrollment, absolving the NEA of all liability in the event that they experience an emotional breakdown while pursuing their studies at the NTL!
In a major article (Oct. 20, 1993) for Education Week, the primary newspaper of the education establishment, I wrote “It’s About Mental Health, Stupid!” describing the shift toward psychological calisthenics over academics. I explained how both test questions and curricula were increasingly focusing on personal opinions, emotional temperature-taking, “coping skills,” “self-esteem,” and “finding one’s own value system.” I explained how this instant-success concept was, in reality, having a demoralizing effect on the students, causing them to become apathetic with the lack of real, substantive challenges. I noted that teachers were becoming frustrated and emotionally drained from spending their days as babysitters and entertainers and that many were changing professions as a result.
Due to the outpouring of reader response to my article — including one irate bluster from the former head of Pennsylvania’s Division of Testing, who I named as complicit in the psychologizing of educational testing and curriculum — I wrote a follow-up on December 15 of that year, adding (in response to his demand), that I was submitting copies of everything to Education Week to provide “evidence substantiating that psychological curriculums had been devised to improve scores on the psychological tests” out of his office — all passed off to the public as “academics.” The federal monetary connection was often right on the covers.
Thus, it’s no surprise to me that this latest brainstorm in “emotional resiliency training” emanates from the University of Pennsylvania’s Positive Psychology Center.
As Jay Leno has famously quipped, “Gee, who could have seen that coming?”
“Resiliency” is not something learned in a “crash course.” It’s a backdrop for what we used to call “character,” something parents and religious organizations instilled over years. You can have all the “resiliency” classes and role-playing and “conflict resolution” strategies you like, but if it is not in keeping with the underlying personality of the individual, it won’t work in the end. Let’s face it: people are extremely complicated, which is why so many are enticed by psychology as a field of study. Yet, while behavioral “scientists” have concocted hundreds of labels to describe and categorize human behaviors, and devised manipulative strategies, some of them successful, to make folks amenable to suggestion (or “stimuli,” in technical parlance), nobody can quite explain why one person can hold up to years of torture and abuse, while the fellow next to him falls apart upon seeing a dead body in the road. This phenomenon speaks to the existence of “individuality,” or “soul,” which serves as an inborn antidote to manipulation and brainwashing. Mind-altering drugs can break down this inherent check, which is why the military (and terrorist training camps) sometimes resort to them. Drug-induced effects are heightened in children, vulnerable individuals and fanatic groups, who are easier to provoke into acting impulsively (for example, in response to surreptitious or inflammatory marketing campaigns). But the fact remains, most people in the end will “default” to their individual wiring — i.e., to conduct in keeping with their unique personality. This is what psychiatrists like Rees, Lewin, and Luria tried desperately to alter, with disastrous results, and which the U.S. Army, under the pretense of “teaching resiliency” now apparently is attempting to modify again.
As we pass the 60th Anniversary of World War II and the Holocaust — with its time-honored shouts of “never again!” — highlighting the grisly discoveries, critical milestones, battles, armistices and accords, let us also call on any American and British soldiers who may still be alive to attest to their ordeals at Tavistock in the 1940s. Now is the time for them to speak up, as it appears we are about to repeat history.
Beverly K. Eakman is a former educator and retired federal employee who served as speechwriter for the heads of three government agencies and as editor-in-chief of NASA’s newspaper “Roundup.” Today, she is a Washington, DC-based freelance writer, the author of five books, and a frequent keynote speaker on the lecture circuit. Her most recent book is Walking Targets: How Our Psychologized Classrooms Are Producing a Nation of Sitting Ducks (Midnight Whistler Publishers www.midnightwhistler.com).
Sunday, August 23, 2009
We the people are coming!
While I do not want to turn this into a political statement, after all, the business of Midnight Whistler is publishing, I feel that given the state of the economy today, someone has to speak out. Here is a letter that says it as well or better than I could, so I am reprinting it here.
Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.
The following letter, read on Glenn Beck's show, is rapidly circulating around the country. Americans everywhere identify with this 53-year-old woman. She has given us a voice.
GLENN BECK: I got a letter from a woman in Arizona. She writes an open letter to our nation's leadership:
I'm a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me.
Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone.
Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?
Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:
One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution.
P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.
Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.
Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.
Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over.
There is more to say.
Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!
Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.
Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations.
I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.
Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why -- what do you have against shareholders making a profit?
Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.
Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band-Aid? We will pull together.
Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.
Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try -- please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.
Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now. Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some non-politicians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law.
I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired.
I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.
I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face.
I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.
From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane.
I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making.
We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington.
Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're morons.
We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you?
We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work, pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you.
For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have canceled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish.
We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when he will rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.
Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it.
You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired.
Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are.
If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent?
Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.
H/T Shelly
Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.
The following letter, read on Glenn Beck's show, is rapidly circulating around the country. Americans everywhere identify with this 53-year-old woman. She has given us a voice.
GLENN BECK: I got a letter from a woman in Arizona. She writes an open letter to our nation's leadership:
I'm a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me.
Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone.
Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?
Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:
One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution.
P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.
Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.
Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.
Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over.
There is more to say.
Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!
Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.
Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations.
I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.
Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why -- what do you have against shareholders making a profit?
Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.
Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band-Aid? We will pull together.
Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.
Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try -- please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.
Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now. Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some non-politicians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law.
I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired.
I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.
I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face.
I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.
From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane.
I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making.
We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington.
Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're morons.
We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you?
We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work, pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you.
For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have canceled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish.
We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when he will rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.
Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it.
You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired.
Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are.
If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent?
Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.
H/T Shelly
Friday, August 7, 2009
WALKING TARGETS makes a comeback
The economy. All you have to say is those two words to send shivers up the spine of most folks. Jobs have been lost, companies have gone under and predictions made in my novel of last year, DEADLY RESEARCH, are coming true. I'm afraid to write my next novel. So with money tight and attention elsewhere, it looked like WALKING TARGETS, B. K. Eakman's latest book, would not be selling much. Education, after all, is not on anyone's mind - unless you're a parent, or a teacher, or a home-schooler, or a policy maker, then your attention is firmly on education.
WALKING TARGETS, How Our Psychologized Classrooms are Producing a Nation of Sitting Ducks, is also coming true with a vengeance. Not that we wanted it to. But with two-income families becoming three-income families, which still doesn't pay the bills, the chapter on "Outsourcing Parenthood" is oddly foreboding.
Implant IDs are in the news again and being touted as the latest miracle to handle your missing pet, child, aging parent or soldier in the field. Bev's article, "Implanted IDs: Click Here" brings that into focus.
So WALKING TARGETS is still moving out to people who want a viewpoint on what's happening. And Beverly Eakman is still a trustworthy predictor of things to come. You can view the book and order it at http://www.midnightwhistler.com.
The short story blog is at http://jonbatson.blogspot.com
Jon
WALKING TARGETS, How Our Psychologized Classrooms are Producing a Nation of Sitting Ducks, is also coming true with a vengeance. Not that we wanted it to. But with two-income families becoming three-income families, which still doesn't pay the bills, the chapter on "Outsourcing Parenthood" is oddly foreboding.
Implant IDs are in the news again and being touted as the latest miracle to handle your missing pet, child, aging parent or soldier in the field. Bev's article, "Implanted IDs: Click Here" brings that into focus.
So WALKING TARGETS is still moving out to people who want a viewpoint on what's happening. And Beverly Eakman is still a trustworthy predictor of things to come. You can view the book and order it at http://www.midnightwhistler.com.
The short story blog is at http://jonbatson.blogspot.com
Jon
Scandal at Shady Point
From the collection: Murder at Thompson Bog
Episode 2
Randy Turner had been in love with Dana since he first saw her in history class. When his folks moved to the city, he changed schools and Dana took up with Mike. Randy hadn't seen her since. Now he was lying beside her all sweaty and warm. He felt as if he had completed something, like he could strike an item off of a list and move on with his life, now that it was complete. He had wanted to bed her since junior year; now he had.
But the front door opening made them both sit up. They didn't look at each other, they jumped up in different directions. Randy scooped up his tighty-whities from the floor and put them on, then his shirt. He looked for his jeans, then remembered he had left them in the living room. He picked up his boots and one sock. The other one wasn't within his field of vision and he wasn't going to waste valuable time looking.
Dana had thrown on her cleaning shift and ran out to cut off her husband, closing the bedroom door behind her.
“You're all sweaty and I'm in the middle of cleaning our bathroom.” Dana said, pushing him away before he could smell another man's cologne on her. “Go on into the other shower and get cleaned up before you even try to kiss me.”
When the door closed and the shower could be heard running, Randy Turner came out of the bedroom with his boots in his hand. He grabbed the jeans from the back of the couch and pulled them on, trying not to make a noise or fall down. He barely got them zipped when Dana motioned to him from the front door.
“Go!” she whispered, and she pushed him out, closing the door behind him.
Randy Turner wasted no time running, barefoot and holding his boots, to his dusty gray Honda up on the road. He jumped in, pulled the visor down and caught his keys in his right hand. Randy pulled out into the lane, thankful that it was a quiet Saturday afternoon and not a busy weekday. He was hoping none of the neighbors had seen him leave. He wondered if anyone had witnessed their innocent meeting at the book store or the way they warmed up to each other at the coffee shop next door. He hoped none of Mike's friends observed one thing leading to another until they fell into bed, heaving and sweating, entwined like grapevines.
Randy Turner pulled the up to the curb in front of his small townhouse, turned off the engine and sat, staring out of the windshield. Once inside the house, he threw down his boots, flopped on the couch and reflected on the mess he had made of things. “But at least,” he thought, “I got out of there without getting caught.”
Still it didn't feel right. He didn't feel right. Even his pants didn't feel right. There was a lump in his jeans that didn't make sense. He felt the front pocket and found a set of keys ― truck keys, and a house key. Randy could feel the blood drain from his face. These were not his jeans!
When Mike came in, he had in a long, dusty case from the garage. In the case was a rifle. He was one of the few residents of Shady Point who did not have a firearm handy, but that changed now, he had his old rifle in the house. He opened a box of .22 shells, pulled the bolt, loaded a shell into the chamber and closed the bolt. Dana heard the sound. She shuddered to hear it.
“Sooner or later,” he said, calmly to the bedroom door, “you will tell me who he is. Then I'll kill him.”
The locksmith charged triple to come out on a Sunday. Mike didn't care.
“Double-key, I want to be able to lock the door from both sides,” he said.
“Sure, no problem,” replied the locksmith.
Mike sat in the large, central living room, with a glass of whiskey in his hand, keeping an eye on every door and window, in case the culprit should come back to speak to his wife. He doubted the man would show up at the door to return his wallet and keys.
“I'm sorry,” Mike imagined him saying, “I got your jeans by mistake when I was stumbling over myself getting out of your house after banging your wife.” Yeah, Mike could just imagine that apology going down.
“All done,” said the locksmith.
Mike stood by the door watching the locksmith drive away. He closed the door and locked it with his new key. “No one's getting in – or out – of this house now,” he thought.
“Harry,” Mike told his boss on Monday morning, “I'm taking some time. I've got leave coming, so I'm taking it.”
“Everything OK, Mike? Is Dana OK?”
“I'll get back to you on that.”
“Well if there's anything I can do...”
“Thanks, Harry. I'll let you know.”
Mike hung up the phone. The call was a courtesy to Harry; Mike didn't care about the job – not anymore. He still had on the same khaki pants and shirt. He had slept on the couch in them. He nibbled at snacks, but wasn't hungry. He hadn't drunk much of the whiskey, most of it was left. He wasn't drowning his sorrow, he was numb to it.
If he had thought about it, he would have wondered if Dana was hungry, but he didn't think about it. He didn't think about her at all.
At nine, he showered in the guest bathroom. He heard Dana moving about the house. When he came out, he saw the bedroom door open; Dana was not in sight. Mike went into the bedroom, dressed in clean slacks and a shirt and left for the bank; without his wallet, there were arrangements to make.
Upon his return, Mike found Sheriff Willis waiting for him outside the house. Sheriff Willis had caught Mike and Dana necking after the prom a few years back, warned Mike not to drive drunk at his bachelor party and later, attended their wedding in his only fitting suit. Now he was at their door in his uniform.
“Dana tells me you've locked her in,” said Sheriff Willis.
“I locked the door to keep strangers out. If she was inside when I did it, then there you are.”
Mike took out his house key and went to the front door. He opened it to find Dana standing there in blue jeans, cloth shoes and a large, cable-knit sweater. She had been crying. She wore no makeup and her hair was pulled back into a hasty pony-tail. She looked terrified.
Sheriff Willis stepped through the door and looked from Mike to Dana.
“Doors open, Dana,” said Mike. “If you want to leave, no one's stopping you. There is one thing I'd like to know: the name of your lover.”
Dana turned pale as fear overcame embarrassment. Sheriff Willis looked from her to Mike, sizing up what he had to deal with. Dana ran past them out of the door, up the drive and onto the road.
“Let me talk with her. Maybe I can help you sort this out,” said Willis.
“If she won't tell me, I'll find out sooner or later,” said Mike, throwing the keys on the counter. “Until then, she can stay out there for all I care.”
“Mike, don't do anything hasty. Let this simmer some, you and Dana have a good thing going. Don't let one stupid mistake screw it up.”
Mike just looked at the sheriff with lowered eyes, tight lips and clenched fists. It was plain that the conversation was over.
All through the night, Mike's demons danced through his head, keeping him only half asleep. His jeans, his house, his wife; his anger. The man had taken his wallet and keys. He could steal his truck anytime, but he couldn't get into the house, not anymore. He could still get into his wife, though, wherever she was. So what! He didn't care anymore. He was cold and numb. Priorities had shifted.
Episode 2
Randy Turner had been in love with Dana since he first saw her in history class. When his folks moved to the city, he changed schools and Dana took up with Mike. Randy hadn't seen her since. Now he was lying beside her all sweaty and warm. He felt as if he had completed something, like he could strike an item off of a list and move on with his life, now that it was complete. He had wanted to bed her since junior year; now he had.
But the front door opening made them both sit up. They didn't look at each other, they jumped up in different directions. Randy scooped up his tighty-whities from the floor and put them on, then his shirt. He looked for his jeans, then remembered he had left them in the living room. He picked up his boots and one sock. The other one wasn't within his field of vision and he wasn't going to waste valuable time looking.
Dana had thrown on her cleaning shift and ran out to cut off her husband, closing the bedroom door behind her.
“You're all sweaty and I'm in the middle of cleaning our bathroom.” Dana said, pushing him away before he could smell another man's cologne on her. “Go on into the other shower and get cleaned up before you even try to kiss me.”
When the door closed and the shower could be heard running, Randy Turner came out of the bedroom with his boots in his hand. He grabbed the jeans from the back of the couch and pulled them on, trying not to make a noise or fall down. He barely got them zipped when Dana motioned to him from the front door.
“Go!” she whispered, and she pushed him out, closing the door behind him.
Randy Turner wasted no time running, barefoot and holding his boots, to his dusty gray Honda up on the road. He jumped in, pulled the visor down and caught his keys in his right hand. Randy pulled out into the lane, thankful that it was a quiet Saturday afternoon and not a busy weekday. He was hoping none of the neighbors had seen him leave. He wondered if anyone had witnessed their innocent meeting at the book store or the way they warmed up to each other at the coffee shop next door. He hoped none of Mike's friends observed one thing leading to another until they fell into bed, heaving and sweating, entwined like grapevines.
Randy Turner pulled the up to the curb in front of his small townhouse, turned off the engine and sat, staring out of the windshield. Once inside the house, he threw down his boots, flopped on the couch and reflected on the mess he had made of things. “But at least,” he thought, “I got out of there without getting caught.”
Still it didn't feel right. He didn't feel right. Even his pants didn't feel right. There was a lump in his jeans that didn't make sense. He felt the front pocket and found a set of keys ― truck keys, and a house key. Randy could feel the blood drain from his face. These were not his jeans!
When Mike came in, he had in a long, dusty case from the garage. In the case was a rifle. He was one of the few residents of Shady Point who did not have a firearm handy, but that changed now, he had his old rifle in the house. He opened a box of .22 shells, pulled the bolt, loaded a shell into the chamber and closed the bolt. Dana heard the sound. She shuddered to hear it.
“Sooner or later,” he said, calmly to the bedroom door, “you will tell me who he is. Then I'll kill him.”
The locksmith charged triple to come out on a Sunday. Mike didn't care.
“Double-key, I want to be able to lock the door from both sides,” he said.
“Sure, no problem,” replied the locksmith.
Mike sat in the large, central living room, with a glass of whiskey in his hand, keeping an eye on every door and window, in case the culprit should come back to speak to his wife. He doubted the man would show up at the door to return his wallet and keys.
“I'm sorry,” Mike imagined him saying, “I got your jeans by mistake when I was stumbling over myself getting out of your house after banging your wife.” Yeah, Mike could just imagine that apology going down.
“All done,” said the locksmith.
Mike stood by the door watching the locksmith drive away. He closed the door and locked it with his new key. “No one's getting in – or out – of this house now,” he thought.
“Harry,” Mike told his boss on Monday morning, “I'm taking some time. I've got leave coming, so I'm taking it.”
“Everything OK, Mike? Is Dana OK?”
“I'll get back to you on that.”
“Well if there's anything I can do...”
“Thanks, Harry. I'll let you know.”
Mike hung up the phone. The call was a courtesy to Harry; Mike didn't care about the job – not anymore. He still had on the same khaki pants and shirt. He had slept on the couch in them. He nibbled at snacks, but wasn't hungry. He hadn't drunk much of the whiskey, most of it was left. He wasn't drowning his sorrow, he was numb to it.
If he had thought about it, he would have wondered if Dana was hungry, but he didn't think about it. He didn't think about her at all.
At nine, he showered in the guest bathroom. He heard Dana moving about the house. When he came out, he saw the bedroom door open; Dana was not in sight. Mike went into the bedroom, dressed in clean slacks and a shirt and left for the bank; without his wallet, there were arrangements to make.
Upon his return, Mike found Sheriff Willis waiting for him outside the house. Sheriff Willis had caught Mike and Dana necking after the prom a few years back, warned Mike not to drive drunk at his bachelor party and later, attended their wedding in his only fitting suit. Now he was at their door in his uniform.
“Dana tells me you've locked her in,” said Sheriff Willis.
“I locked the door to keep strangers out. If she was inside when I did it, then there you are.”
Mike took out his house key and went to the front door. He opened it to find Dana standing there in blue jeans, cloth shoes and a large, cable-knit sweater. She had been crying. She wore no makeup and her hair was pulled back into a hasty pony-tail. She looked terrified.
Sheriff Willis stepped through the door and looked from Mike to Dana.
“Doors open, Dana,” said Mike. “If you want to leave, no one's stopping you. There is one thing I'd like to know: the name of your lover.”
Dana turned pale as fear overcame embarrassment. Sheriff Willis looked from her to Mike, sizing up what he had to deal with. Dana ran past them out of the door, up the drive and onto the road.
“Let me talk with her. Maybe I can help you sort this out,” said Willis.
“If she won't tell me, I'll find out sooner or later,” said Mike, throwing the keys on the counter. “Until then, she can stay out there for all I care.”
“Mike, don't do anything hasty. Let this simmer some, you and Dana have a good thing going. Don't let one stupid mistake screw it up.”
Mike just looked at the sheriff with lowered eyes, tight lips and clenched fists. It was plain that the conversation was over.
All through the night, Mike's demons danced through his head, keeping him only half asleep. His jeans, his house, his wife; his anger. The man had taken his wallet and keys. He could steal his truck anytime, but he couldn't get into the house, not anymore. He could still get into his wife, though, wherever she was. So what! He didn't care anymore. He was cold and numb. Priorities had shifted.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Health Care – Yes! Mental Parity – No!
Dear Mr. President,
What has not been mentioned in the debates about mental health, because there are those who don't want it mentioned for fear that we will realize that the wool is being pulled over our eyes, is Mental Health Parity. MHP (ask your doctor if heavy drugs are right for you) is the mistaken belief that a medical doctor and a psychiatrist are the same, that a broken leg and a feeling of depression are equal.
The medical health world has tests and cures. You check this, you see that, you drink this bottle, you're cured. The mental health world has no tests; there are only hunches, best guesses and things that certain chosen ones agree should be what a certain thing should be called. The names change. Schizophrenia is not Bi-Polar, but not quite. There are invented names, RLS – Restless Leg Syndrome, PPD, Postpartum Depression – which, incidentally, can be handled hundreds of ways which involve no drugs. I could go on, but you are the President and your time is valuable.
Two outlandish lies become glaringly obvious if you look closely, which is why mentioning it in the debates is frowned upon. One is that the whole end product of the mental health industry is to sell drugs, not to heal the sick. The end game is profit, not wellness. Water is more effective than Prozac, with no side effects. Chocolate is a better treatment for depression than any drug on the market. The second lie is that anything gets cured. As there are no tests, there is no test for a patient being well. When a student goes crazy from his medication and shoots his classroom pals, the doctors say he needed more medication or different medication, or he went off his medication – meaning you should take it for the rest of your life. There are plans in place to screen every new mother, every student, and to put those who have a disorder on drugs. There's a defiant disorder, like when your teen doesn't want to clean her room – if you want to sell drugs, everything's a disorder. The Big Pharma companies want every man, woman and child, even your pet, on drugs for life – at seven times the cost of any other country.
Psychiatrists admit that there is no cure and no way to test for a cure, just as there is no way to test for the disorder. It's all opinion and “what do we have to do to sell drugs?” So to place “Mental Health” on an equal par with “Physical Health” is like comparing apples and albatrosses. The drug companies and those who make a fortune dispensing their poisons are hoping it will pass with parity because then they can insist that people see a shrink and take the drugs. It will then be law that they have to take the drugs, that the average person will have to pay for the psychiatric research to find new and more serious mental disorders for which they just found the “cure” in the form of a new pill – that you can get for only a small king's ransom.
In short, Health Plan? Yes! Mental Health Parity – No! Mental health, of which the great proliferation of drug ads on television is just a symptom, is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on this country. If you give it legitimacy, you also give a death sentence for the sanity of this country.
Jon Batson
Raleigh, NC
What has not been mentioned in the debates about mental health, because there are those who don't want it mentioned for fear that we will realize that the wool is being pulled over our eyes, is Mental Health Parity. MHP (ask your doctor if heavy drugs are right for you) is the mistaken belief that a medical doctor and a psychiatrist are the same, that a broken leg and a feeling of depression are equal.
The medical health world has tests and cures. You check this, you see that, you drink this bottle, you're cured. The mental health world has no tests; there are only hunches, best guesses and things that certain chosen ones agree should be what a certain thing should be called. The names change. Schizophrenia is not Bi-Polar, but not quite. There are invented names, RLS – Restless Leg Syndrome, PPD, Postpartum Depression – which, incidentally, can be handled hundreds of ways which involve no drugs. I could go on, but you are the President and your time is valuable.
Two outlandish lies become glaringly obvious if you look closely, which is why mentioning it in the debates is frowned upon. One is that the whole end product of the mental health industry is to sell drugs, not to heal the sick. The end game is profit, not wellness. Water is more effective than Prozac, with no side effects. Chocolate is a better treatment for depression than any drug on the market. The second lie is that anything gets cured. As there are no tests, there is no test for a patient being well. When a student goes crazy from his medication and shoots his classroom pals, the doctors say he needed more medication or different medication, or he went off his medication – meaning you should take it for the rest of your life. There are plans in place to screen every new mother, every student, and to put those who have a disorder on drugs. There's a defiant disorder, like when your teen doesn't want to clean her room – if you want to sell drugs, everything's a disorder. The Big Pharma companies want every man, woman and child, even your pet, on drugs for life – at seven times the cost of any other country.
Psychiatrists admit that there is no cure and no way to test for a cure, just as there is no way to test for the disorder. It's all opinion and “what do we have to do to sell drugs?” So to place “Mental Health” on an equal par with “Physical Health” is like comparing apples and albatrosses. The drug companies and those who make a fortune dispensing their poisons are hoping it will pass with parity because then they can insist that people see a shrink and take the drugs. It will then be law that they have to take the drugs, that the average person will have to pay for the psychiatric research to find new and more serious mental disorders for which they just found the “cure” in the form of a new pill – that you can get for only a small king's ransom.
In short, Health Plan? Yes! Mental Health Parity – No! Mental health, of which the great proliferation of drug ads on television is just a symptom, is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on this country. If you give it legitimacy, you also give a death sentence for the sanity of this country.
Jon Batson
Raleigh, NC
I hope he fails – and by 'he' I mean Rush.
I voted for the other guy. But say what you will, after the dust had settled, the other guy is not in the oval office. The guy who is now running things is my president and I will stand behind him. While I do not agree with everything he is doing and has done, I also don't have all the facts, so it's a moot point and not one I'm going to debate here. No, here my only point is that Rush Limbaugh said on radio for all to hear, “I hope he fails!” Well, I don't. For that and many other thoughtless statements, I hope Rush fails.
If President Obama fails, the implications will resound for decades to come, but it will also resound today for you and for me. If he fails, the economy fails, the major companies fail and an awful lot of minor companies will fail. I have held opinions that bailing out people who already get billion dollar bonuses is wrong. But I hope he proves me wrong. I hope he succeeds and the economy recovers. I hope we enter into an era of prosperity hitherto unknown and that everyone who, like me, voted for the other guy says to himself, “Boy! Was I wrong! The guy succeeded!”
So you might be saying that I sound like one of those “My president, right or wrong” guys. Perhaps that's what I've become. I want his decisions, his programs, his leadership to be spot-on the money each and every time. Sure, I've heard all the nay-sayers before and after the election, all the junk shooting around the Internet, all the “proof-positive” about this, that and the other – and if he screws up, there will be a lot of very smug people folding their arms and saying that they told us so. I hope they never get the chance. For one thing, I hate that! But I hope they never get the chance because I hope he doesn't screw up, I hope the economy recovers and we bring the troops home victorious and that the nations of the world will come to love us and a hundred other things that were impossible but a few months ago.
Call me a cock-eyed optimist, but I want our President to succeed beyond our wildest expectations. May healthcare be easy, cheap and fun, yet rewarding for the practitioners. May the economy spur a new era of growth and well-being for all, with jobs and opportunities a-plenty. May art and music flourish, may other nations see the goodness in us and seek to emulate us, creating a world-wide prosperity boom. May there be peace on Earth, without everyone dying in order to achieve it. I hope he succeeds.
If President Obama fails, the implications will resound for decades to come, but it will also resound today for you and for me. If he fails, the economy fails, the major companies fail and an awful lot of minor companies will fail. I have held opinions that bailing out people who already get billion dollar bonuses is wrong. But I hope he proves me wrong. I hope he succeeds and the economy recovers. I hope we enter into an era of prosperity hitherto unknown and that everyone who, like me, voted for the other guy says to himself, “Boy! Was I wrong! The guy succeeded!”
So you might be saying that I sound like one of those “My president, right or wrong” guys. Perhaps that's what I've become. I want his decisions, his programs, his leadership to be spot-on the money each and every time. Sure, I've heard all the nay-sayers before and after the election, all the junk shooting around the Internet, all the “proof-positive” about this, that and the other – and if he screws up, there will be a lot of very smug people folding their arms and saying that they told us so. I hope they never get the chance. For one thing, I hate that! But I hope they never get the chance because I hope he doesn't screw up, I hope the economy recovers and we bring the troops home victorious and that the nations of the world will come to love us and a hundred other things that were impossible but a few months ago.
Call me a cock-eyed optimist, but I want our President to succeed beyond our wildest expectations. May healthcare be easy, cheap and fun, yet rewarding for the practitioners. May the economy spur a new era of growth and well-being for all, with jobs and opportunities a-plenty. May art and music flourish, may other nations see the goodness in us and seek to emulate us, creating a world-wide prosperity boom. May there be peace on Earth, without everyone dying in order to achieve it. I hope he succeeds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)