Post by: Deborah on March 04, 2007, 09:36:24 AM
Contact: Jeremy Cottle, PhD
801-227-2100
www.provocanyonschool.com (http://www.provocanyonschool.com)
Rosemary Tippett
770-435-8464
www.natsap.org (http://www.natsap.org)
Provo, UT (PRWEB) March 1, 2007 -- Dr. Jeremy Cottle, CEO of Provo Canyon School, is pleased to announce, ?As a member of the National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs (NATSAP), Provo Canyon School joins them in their intent to preserve and protect programs for children and families in need of specialized educational and treatment services.?
A national association serving as a resource for programs and professionals who assist young people suffering from emotional difficulties called National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs (NATSAP), announced its intent to preserve and protect programs for children and families in need of specialized educational and treatment services and called on other children?s advocacy groups to join them in their efforts.
?Children and their families face far too many barriers to access to the care they need, sometimes being forced to relinquish custody of their young son or daughter to obtain public mental health services,? according to Jan Moss, Executive Director of NATSAP.
How is that different than relinquishing custody to a program?
?We seek to ensure the availability of a full range of options with accredited programs using credentialed professionals, the highest ethical standards, and principles of good practice,? Moss continued.
How many programs would loose membership if that were the criteria? How many are Licensed to provide treatment? How many are Accredited? How many have credentialed professionals working with kids on a daily basis?
?The programs and professional provider members of NATSAP are committed to working with states and legislators by providing our leadership, expertise, and knowledge :rofl: to prevent and address the quality and availability gaps in therapeutic programs for children,? according to John Santa, Ph.D. NATSAP 2007 Leadership Award Recipient and co-owner of Montana Academy, ?We are prepared to assist anyone interested in improving the lives of children,? he added.
?With our extensive experience, educators and therapists working together in specialized therapeutic schools and treatment centers can speak with passion, expertise, and authority on the devastation caused by unmet needs and the need to provide opportunities for parental involvement, individualized care, measurable results, and collaboration with licensing boards to create an understanding of why these specialized programs are critical to the success of America?s youth in coping with the pressures of adolescence,? according to Jeremy Cottle, Ph.D. and member of NATSAP.
10 minute phone calls once a week, if lucky, and a few seminars is Parental involvement? Is one-size-fits-all, production line 'treatment' now considered "Individualized" care? Where are the "Measurable results", ie. Independent studies? Do teens really need to be warehoused in order to learn how to cope with "the pressures of adolescence"?
Jeremy has extensive education and experience in working with families and adolescents. His doctorate degree is in the philosophy of counseling, education and supervision with a minor in marriage and family studies. Jeremy is also an LCSW and has worked as a program director and therapist for five programs in Texas and Utah. He has devoted his entire career to serving the educational and emotional needs of children and families.
Andrea Barthwell, M.D., former White House Deputy Drug Czar for President George W. Bush kicked off the activity at NATSAP?s annual meeting where she encouraged attendees to join forces with others who devote themselves to families? needs for effective care and education of its young members. ?While H.R. 1738 is a bill to ?End Institutionalized Abuse Against Children? and intends to improve the quality of care in therapeutic settings serving our young people, its most recent iteration could have caused a collapse of the system of care that your clients depend upon. :question: Working with Rep. George Miller (D-CA), we can eliminate the bad programs and implement best practices in the rest,? she said. :rofl:
?Anecdotes told by family members harmed in a bad program do not begin to tell the story of real pain and destruction we could experience if this industry were regulated out of existence,? she added. :rofl: ?We need reform to eliminate programs that prey on desperate families while preserving vital components in the continuum of care.?
While the professionals of NATSAP are offering their expertise to Governors and Legislators, they will make their members available to governmental and other organizations interested in the health and mental health of young people.
Post by: Deborah on March 04, 2007, 10:18:45 AM
Upon entering the medical profession, Barthwell's ambition allowed her to reach executive positions. She became President of the American Society of Addiction Medicine and President of the Illinois Society of Addiction Medicine, an area of medicine that has been one of her specialties. She served as President of the Encounter Medical Group, an Oak Park, Illinois professional consortium that also focused on addiction healthcare. In nearby Chicago, Barthwell was president of two drug treatment centers: BRASS Foundation and Human Resources Development Institute. In 1997, Dr. Barthwell's peers named her one of the "Best Doctors in America" in addiction medicine. In 2003, Dr. Barthwell received the Betty Ford Award, given by the Association for Medical Education and Research in Substance Abuse.
Barthwell is a proponent of random student drug testing. In June 2004, she argued against a California bill that would have banned mandatory student drug testing. [1]
Barthwell is an outspoken critic of medical marijuana. She has labeled it a "cruel hoax" and "snake oil" while campaigning against Oregon and Illinois state medical marijuana initiatives. [2] [3] Since 2005, she has been a consultant for GW Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of Sativex, a marijuana extract spray. Her efforts for GW have been aimed at pointing out the distinction between Sativex, a consistently formulated medication developed under established regulatory procedures and safely dosed, and whole medical marijuana, a crude and impure plant that is smoked or otherwise delivered in imprecise consistency and quantity. [4] [5]
Barthwell is CEO of the global health care and consulting firm EMGlobal LLC.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Barthwell"
GW Pharmaceuticals
Medical Marijuana ProCon.org
1. Name: GW Pharmaceuticals
2. Medical Marijuana Position: Con to the question "Should marijuana be a medical option?"
3. Reasoning: "In its crude herbal form, No. As a prescription medicine standardized in composition, formulation, and dose, administered by means of appropriate (non-smoked) delivery systems, and tested in rigorous preclinical and clinical studies, Yes." (5/19/05)
4. Credibility Ranking: Those individuals and organizations involved in the Medical Marijuana debate which do not fit into the other star categories.
5. Organization
A. Mission: None listed
B. Description: "GW is a pharmaceutical company developing a portfolio of prescription medicines derived from cannabis to meet patient needs in a wide range of therapeutic indications."
C. Structure: U.K. Corporation
D. Members / Constituents: Non-membership
E. Annual Budget: None listed
F. Sr. Executive: Geoffrey Guy, M.D.
G. Title: Executive Director
H. Contact Info: Phone: 01980 557000 Fax: 01980 557111
E-Mail: www.gwpharm.com (http://www.gwpharm.com)
I: # of offices: 1
J: Staff: None listed
6. Relevant Affiliations: Licensed by U.K.'s Medicines Control Agency (MCA)
http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org/BiosOrg/GWP.htm (http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org/BiosOrg/GWP.htm)
Barthwell:
"It is not a medicine. You don't know what's in it. If there were compelling scientific and medical data supporting marijuana's medical benefits that would be one thing. But the data is not there." (10/04)
"As a crude plant, marijuana is so complex, unstable, and harmful that sensible physicians and researchers consider it unethical to expose individuals to the risks associated with smoking it." (2/17/04)
http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org/B ... thwell.htm (http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org/BiosInd/Barthwell.htm)
Barthwell Caught Red-Handed
Barthwell's Traveling Con Job
Not only has Andrea Barthwell been touring Illinois misleading people about the facts about medical marijuana, she has also claiming that her Illinois Marijuana Lectures were sponsored by Great Lakes Addiction Technology Transfer Center (GLATTC), an organization that "promotes state-of-the-art addiction science" and is funded through federal taxpayer dollars (through SAMHSA) and partners with such agencies as the Illinois Department of Human Services.
Andrea Barthwell is a former Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, where her job was to oppose medical marijuana, regardless of the facts. The function of the ONDCP as charged by Congress was one of propaganda. In fact, the GAO said as much (pdf) in a reply to Representative Ron Paul who was complaining about incorrect information being disseminated by another Deputy Director:
"... while the Deputy Director's statements pertaining to marijuana may be disputed by some with different viewpoints, they were made within the context of ONDCP's statutory responsibilities, which include taking such actions as necessary to oppose efforts to legalize certain controlled substances such as marijuana. ... Given this role, we do not see a need to examine the accuracy of the Deputy Director's individual statements in detail."
In other words, the ONDCP's purpose includes lying. Not a good background for the credibility of Dr. Barthwell.
In addition to lying about the evidence regarding the efficacy of medical marijuana, Andrea Barthwell adds further deceptions about marijuana and its use. One of her favorite claims is that today's pot is so much more potent it's creating problems of addiction and dependency.
She also talks about higher levels of youth in treatment for marijuana and infers that this is an indication of marijuana dangers -- something the government's own numbers refute.
Unfortunately, Andrea Barthwell is often assumed to be a qualified expert due to her medical background and her background in government service. Certainly, she is entitled to give her opinion. But it should be clear by now that she cannot be considered credible or an expert in this subject.
I hope that we'll be able to have a good discussion of medical marijuana in the Illinois legislature this year -- without the distraction of Andrea Barthwell's travelling con job.
Entire blog at:
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/ ... Redha.html (http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2005/02/13/andreaBarthwellCaughtRedha.html)
DrugWarRant Forum:
http://www.drugwarrant.net/forum/index. ... 3defc5e351 (http://www.drugwarrant.net/forum/index.php?sid=0b933f5f6e97cb5ef3226f3defc5e351)
Barthwell opposes McKeon's bill
"While there are no proven benefits to marijuana use, there are many short- and long-term risks associated with marijuana use," said Dr. Andrea Barthwell of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. "Even if smoking marijuana makes people feel better, that's not enough to call it a medicine."
In addition, Barthwell said several drugs already do the job, including Marinol, a drug using some chemicals from marijuana while blocking some of the side effects.
McKeon, the legislation's sponsor, and Shaw both said such medicine doesn't work for everyone and may cause more problems.
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n388/a03.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n388/a03.html)
Post by: Anonymous on March 04, 2007, 11:16:06 AM
Quote
real pain and destruction we could experience if this industry were regulated out of existence,
Oh, you have no idea. But it's the pain and destruction you would experience.. not anyone else.
Post by: psy on March 04, 2007, 11:39:08 AM
What is easier for kids to get: Alcohol or pot? Pot! Because there is no control at all. Which intoxicates? Which causes permanent damage (pot can be vaporized or eaten etc...)?
And these same people use pot as an excuse to incarcerate teens at an early age as possible on even a suspicion they might be smoking pot. How many kids get sent to program for smoking cigarettes? Which is more addictive?
They scare parents, creating demand, for a full range of products, from which the sale of they profit either directly or indirectly (pharmaceuticals, programs, political donations, jobs, etc...) It's such an old, used, tried and true scheme... The more I think about how broken the system is the more I say "burn it all down". Please God let there be a revolution...
Maybe it's because I've been doing midterm stuff the past week and have been away from Fornits but I'm really really far more pissed than usual today.
God damn this shit. I say we find a small state, migrate and secede. I'm sick to death of most people in this country. No wonder I'm moving back to Europe. This country is terminally ill.
Post by: Deborah on March 04, 2007, 12:41:51 PM
Four pre-conference workshops will be offered to our program members and their staff at the 2007 NATSAP Exploring our Profession Conference. The Public Policy Committee is pleased to present a pre-conference workshop on Legislation, Politics & Advocacy. We are fortunate to have Hon. Andrea G. Barthwell, M.D. and Michael C. Barnes as the facilitators of the workshop.
Dr. Andrea Barthwell served as deputy drug czar under President George W. Bush. While serving in the Executive Office of the President, Dr. Barthwell played an active role on the White House Task Force on Disadvantaged Youth and the White House Domestic Violence Working Group. Dr. Barthwell is a past president of the American Society of Addiction Medicine and the CEO of the health policy consulting firm EMGlobal LLC. Dr. Barthwell is an advisor to NATSAP and select member programs on matters of policy and practice.
Michael C. Barnes, Esq., is a principal in DCBA Law, PLLC, a Washington, DC, federal affairs firm with a niche practice in education, substance abuse, and mental health policy. Mr. Barnes formerly served as confidential counsel in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. DCBA Law provides counsel to NATSAP on federal legislative matters.
The Public Relations Committee has acquired the services of Media Specialist Matt Hagan, founder of Bulldog Public Relations to facilitate their Working with the Media workshop. Matt began his career working in front of a camera as a general assignment reporter for a CBS network affiliate and launched his career into public/media relations in Washington, DC. He has excellent news judgment and strong relationships with members of the media.
Advocacy for NATSAP Members Continues in Washington, DCNATSAP was the proud co-host of a reception in Washington, DC on December 14th. Prior to the reception, Dr. Karen Fitzhugh and Jan Moss were able to participate in several lengthy meetings with Congressional staffers from Representatives Van Hollen, Woolsey and Stark?s offices, each of whom are co-sponsors of Representative George Miller?s bill, HR 1738. The reception offered the opportunity for important networking where Dr. Fitzhugh and Ms. Moss met with Tommy Thompson (a presidential hopeful for 2008), providing him an introduction to NATSAP and the important work of our members. They also met the Senior Aide to Senator Diane Feinstein, just to highlight a few. It was quite extraordinary the level of welcome received from every visit and event on the Hill.
They met for several hours with Dr.Andrea Barthwell to discuss the process for NATSAP?s involvement in the language for Mr. Miller?s bill. Discussion is also in progress with Mark Covall, Executive Director of the National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems, and his staff, who have joined NATSAP?s efforts regarding this bill. Dr. Fitzhugh and Ms.Moss also had a wonderful visit with Mark Sklarow at IECA?s offices in Fairfax, VA, which both Michael Barnes, DCBA Law, and Dr. Andrea Barthwell attended. Mark expressed IECA?s interest in supporting NATSAP as we move forward to amend the bill. As the committees are finalized on the Hill and Representatives assigned, Dr. Fitzhugh, Ms. Moss and Rosemary Tippett will be escalating their efforts in DC, no doubt making frequent trips between now and our 2007 Conference.
Post by: ZenAgent on March 04, 2007, 01:02:17 PM
Quote from: ""Deborah""
They met for several hours with Dr.Andrea Barthwell to discuss the process for NATSAP?s involvement in the language for Mr. Miller?s bill. Discussion is also in progress with Mark Covall, Executive Director of the National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems, and his staff, who have joined NATSAP?s efforts regarding this bill. Dr. Fitzhugh and Ms.Moss also had a wonderful visit with Mark Sklarow at IECA?s offices in Fairfax, VA, which both Michael Barnes, DCBA Law, and Dr. Andrea Barthwell attended. Mark expressed IECA?s interest in supporting NATSAP as we move forward to amend the bill. As the committees are finalized on the Hill and Representatives assigned, Dr. Fitzhugh, Ms. Moss and Rosemary Tippett will be escalating their efforts in DC, no doubt making frequent trips between now and our 2007 Conference.
Unbelievable. The good news is, Sen. Miller will not be too keen on NATSAP's involvement in "the language" of his bill. Twenty years into fighting abusive programs, he's well aware of NATSAP. All he has to do is pick up the phone and call contacts at A START to get any info he wants on NATSAP to show the bias they bring to any "discussions". One quick scan of the requirements for NATSAP membership show what a toothless, self-serving smoke screen it is. "Bulldog PR" sounds like just the firm to handle NATSAP.
Post by: Deborah on March 04, 2007, 01:05:42 PM
Andrea Barthwell, M.D., Deputy Director for Demand Reduction, ONDCP, reported to the Council on ONDCP's Marijuana Initiative. The Office of Demand Reduction is targeting the large population of youthful nondependent users in this effort.
Marijuana is a powerful and potent substance, and initiation and use of the drug are at an all-time high. :question: The younger children are when they first use marijuana, the more likely they are to use cocaine and heroin and become dependent on drugs as adults. :question: The last National Household Survey on Drug Abuse showed there were 14 million American users of marijuana. If use is initiated before the age of 15, 9 percent use heroin, almost 54 percent misuse psychotherapeutics, and 62 percent use cocaine. :question:
More young people are now in treatment for marijuana than for alcohol. [Why? See below.] Marijuana use has increased dramatically as a cause for emergency room visits :question: , leads to changes in the brain :question: , and impairs the ability of young people to retain information :question: . Weekly users are almost four times more likely to engage in violent behavior. :question:
Recent ballot initiatives in three States calling for decriminalization, legalization, and medicalization of marijuana were rejected by voters. Obstacles to the demand reduction initiative include myths; cultural beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors; cynicism; and hypocrisy. Myths about marijuana use include the following.
Marijuana is harmless. There is clear and compelling scientific evidence that this is not true. :question:
Marijuana is not addictive. There is clear and compelling scientific evidence that this is not true. :question:
Youth experimentation with marijuana is inevitable. Although 51 percent of high school seniors have tried the drug, 49 percent have not.
Marijuana is not associated with domestic and international acts of terror or violence as are drugs like cocaine or heroin. There is clear and compelling scientific evidence that it is associated with violence. :question:
Prisons are filled with nonviolent, casual marijuana users. There is clear and compelling scientific evidence that this is not true. :question:
ONDCP will use this clear and compelling scientific evidence :rofl: to deliver its message to the American public. There are potential harms and risks associated with marijuana; there are increased health and public health complications; and there are multiple, negative consequences of marijuana use.
This initiative will be implemented within the framework of ONDCP's other programs, including the Anti-Drug Media Campaign, Just Say No, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools. The foundation for preventing the initiation of drug use is through strengthening the core values that are learned in the home. ONDCP is looking to faith-based programs, physicians, laws, and public expectations to reinforce and communicate the non-drug message. ONDCP is working with ED to deter drug use through drug testing in the schools and with the HHS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's program to disseminate information to treatment providers.
~~
Of course we knew this already but it doesn't hurt to have an official report to back up our contention that the ONDCP's propaganda about admissions to rehab programs for alleged marijuana addiction is driven almost solely by the criminal justice system. From NORML.
According to a new report published by the Drug and Alcohol Services Information System (DASIS), Fifty-eight percent of those entering drug treatment for marijuana in 2002 were referred by the criminal justice system, up from 48 percent in 1992. Referrals from schools and health care/drug abuse care providers comprised another 15 percent of all admissions...
"Contrary to the Bush Administration's claims, it is marijuana prohibition - not the use of marijuana itself - that is driving up rates of marijuana 'treatment' admissions," NORML Senior Policy Analyst Paul Armentano said. "The record increase in the number of individuals now seeking 'treatment' for cannabis is due to a proportional increase in the number of those arrested by law enforcement for marijuana violations and subsequently referred to drug treatment by the criminal justice system. Primarily, these are young people arrested for minor pot possession offenses, brought before a criminal judge or drug court, and ordered to drug rehabilitation in lieu of jail or juvenile detention."
According to a previous 2002 DASIS report, since 1995 the proportion of marijuana treatment admissions from all sources other than the criminal justice system has actually declined.
NORML Senior Policy Analyst Paul Armentano gets it right.
"At a time when tens of thousands of Americans are being denied access to drug treatment due to a lack of bed space or federal funding, it is unconscionable that these clinics are bursting at the seams needlessly housing marijuana smokers," he said.
Post by: TheWho on March 04, 2007, 02:26:25 PM
Quote
Unbelievable. The good news is, Sen. Miller will not be too keen on NATSAP's involvement in "the language" ozf his bill. Twenty years into fighting abusive programs, he's well aware of NATSAP. All he has to do is pick up the phone and call contacts at A START to get any info he wants on NATSAP to show the bias they bring to any "discussions". One quick scan of the requirements for NATSAP membership show what a toothless, self-serving smoke screen it is. "Bulldog PR" sounds like just the firm to handle NATSAP
Its this type of mentality that caused the bill to sit on the shelf for 2 years.
Quote
Working with Rep. George Miller (D-CA), we can eliminate the bad programs and implement best practices in the rest,? she said.
?Anecdotes told by family members harmed in a bad program do not begin to tell the story of real pain and destruction we could experience if this industry were regulated out of existence,? she added. ?We need reform to eliminate programs that prey on desperate families while preserving vital components in the continuum of care.?
Look, the bill has been stalled for 2 years. It was assigned to 2 committees for review * . Why not get all the people involved to discuss the language, reword it and get the thing passed? If Miller included everyone to begin with this would have happened 2 years ago. This is why we formed the congress so one person can?t silence opposing arguments and force a bill thru. Unless everyone is involved, the bill will stay on George Millers desk. George knows the drill!! All the work is done before the bill is introduced to congress, the introduction is just formality. If you don?t involve, sell or discuss your bill with everyone prior to introduction it is going to sit there until you do. If you remember Dale Kildee, Major Owens and Fortney Stark busted their humps to get by-in on this bill while the other (what 6 or 7 cosponsors) sat on their hands, worked on obscure local social security issues or maybe trying the approach of keeping people out of the process. More could have been done to pull people into the process.
The? House education and workforce, subcommittee on select education? has well over 130 measures pending committee consideration as of last month. HR 1738 isnt even on the list and is in the primary stage of the legislative process. If Miller pushes (or turns a blind eye) to alienate people from the process, I guarantee the bill will stay where it is.
* ? House education and workforce, subcommittee on select education and
House international relations, Subcommittee on Africa, Global human rights and international operations.
Post by: Anonymous on March 04, 2007, 02:53:05 PM
Deb, Zen, I'm sure George Miller is too shielded to bother listening to the scumbags, but what about his co-sponsors? Think they might need some grassroots political lovin'?
Post by: TheWho on March 04, 2007, 03:12:34 PM
Quote from: ""Milk Gargling Death Penalty""
And let's invite Osama bin Laden to discuss our next anti-terrorism bill while we're at it.
Deb, Zen, I'm sure George Miller is too shielded to bother listening to the scumbags, but what about his co-sponsors? Think they might need some grassroots political lovin'?
That didnt take long !! I rest my case..... "Lets just talk to the few people that agree with us, alienate the rest and then introduce the bill into Congess and see what happens...." Hmmmm... That was 2 years ago and counting..... I wonder what went wrong? Why didnt everyone support my bill?
Post by: ZenAgent on March 04, 2007, 03:13:27 PM
Quote from: ""Milk Gargling Death Penalty""
And let's invite Osama bin Laden to discuss our next anti-terrorism bill while we're at it.
Deb, Zen, I'm sure George Miller is too shielded to bother listening to the scumbags, but what about his co-sponsors? Think they might need some grassroots political lovin'?
I've got a friend at A START who's known Sen. Miller for twenty years. She interviewed my family last Sunday for part of A START's presentation at the conference in FL next week. I'll find out more about the co-sponsors. Miller is in charge of the committee since the Dems got a foothold again. We'll barrage the Republican members...
Post by: ZenAgent on March 04, 2007, 03:14:42 PM
Quote from: ""TheWho""
Quote from: ""Milk Gargling Death Penalty""And let's invite Osama bin Laden to discuss our next anti-terrorism bill while we're at it.
Deb, Zen, I'm sure George Miller is too shielded to bother listening to the scumbags, but what about his co-sponsors? Think they might need some grassroots political lovin'?
That didnt take long !! I rest my case..... "Lets just talk to the few people that agree with us, alienate the rest and then introduce the bill into Congess and see what happens...." Hmmmm... That was 2 years ago and counting..... I wonder what went wrong? Why didnt everyone support my bill?
Republicans were in charge. Dubya loves teen torture, his buddy Mel Selmer enlightened him.
Post by: Antigen on March 04, 2007, 03:41:11 PM
:roll:
Post by: TheWho on March 04, 2007, 04:02:52 PM
Quote from: ""ZenAgent""
Quote from: ""Milk Gargling Death Penalty""And let's invite Osama bin Laden to discuss our next anti-terrorism bill while we're at it.
Deb, Zen, I'm sure George Miller is too shielded to bother listening to the scumbags, but what about his co-sponsors? Think they might need some grassroots political lovin'?
I've got a friend at A START who's known Sen. Miller for twenty years. She interviewed my family last Sunday for part of A START's presentation at the conference in FL next week. I'll find out more about the co-sponsors. Miller is in charge of the committee since the Dems got a foothold again. We'll barrage the Republican members...
Here is a head start:
Miller cosponsors:
--Dale Kildee, U.S. Representative (D-MI)
--James (Jim) McDermott, U.S. Representative (D-WA)
--Major Owens, U.S. Representative (D-NY)
--Fortney (Pete) Stark, U.S. Representative (D-CA)
--Christopher (Chris) Van Hollen, Jr., U.S. Representative (D-MD)
--Nydia Velázquez, U.S. Representative (D-NY)
--Lynn Woolsey, U.S. Representative (D-CA)
--David Wu, U.S. Representative (D-OR)
Post by: ZenAgent on March 04, 2007, 07:48:57 PM
Quote from: ""TheWho""
Quote from: ""ZenAgent""Quote from: ""Milk Gargling Death Penalty""And let's invite Osama bin Laden to discuss our next anti-terrorism bill while we're at it.
Deb, Zen, I'm sure George Miller is too shielded to bother listening to the scumbags, but what about his co-sponsors? Think they might need some grassroots political lovin'?
I've got a friend at A START who's known Sen. Miller for twenty years. She interviewed my family last Sunday for part of A START's presentation at the conference in FL next week. I'll find out more about the co-sponsors. Miller is in charge of the committee since the Dems got a foothold again. We'll barrage the Republican members...
Here is a head start:
Miller cosponsors:
--Dale Kildee, U.S. Representative (D-MI)
--James (Jim) McDermott, U.S. Representative (D-WA)
--Major Owens, U.S. Representative (D-NY)
--Fortney (Pete) Stark, U.S. Representative (D-CA)
--Christopher (Chris) Van Hollen, Jr., U.S. Representative (D-MD)
--Nydia Velázquez, U.S. Representative (D-NY)
--Lynn Woolsey, U.S. Representative (D-CA)
--David Wu, U.S. Representative (D-OR)
Okay...I'll send them all some NATSAP truth. In theory, the government is supposed to have a check and balance system. Abusive programs can't oversee abusive programs. End of story.
Post by: TheWho on March 04, 2007, 08:31:47 PM
Quote
Okay...I'll send them all some NATSAP truth. In theory, the government is supposed to have a check and balance system. Abusive programs can't oversee abusive programs. End of story.
Zen, it is the way it works!! I haven?t followed your posts enough to know if you are from the US or not so don?t take this personally. Here in the US if you are setting up the rules and regulations for a parade, in down town powdock for ?Black History Month? the KKK (anti black (non white), antiJewish, anti catholic etc. organization) has a right to be there and voice their opinion and also to sign off on the details if they have enough support in the region. It?s the way it is designed from day one. You might want to move to Venezuela if you want to have the type of freedom you speak of.
I am sure you feel, deep down inside, they are all abusive programs and abusive people. But they feel they are helping kids and feel you are abusive for trying to deny the kids help because you had one bad experience and want to shut the whole industry down. Does that make you right? The schools right? No!! Everyone needs to be involved. It?s the way we do it here?.. ?let the people speak, all the people.?.
Post by: ZenAgent on March 04, 2007, 08:48:46 PM
Quote from: ""TheWho""
QuoteOkay...I'll send them all some NATSAP truth. In theory, the government is supposed to have a check and balance system. Abusive programs can't oversee abusive programs. End of story.
Zen, it is the way it works!! I haven?t followed your posts enough to know if you are from the US or not so don?t take this personally. Here in the US if you are setting up the rules and regulations for a parade, in down town powdock for ?Black History Month? the KKK (anti black (non white), antiJewish, anti catholic etc. organization) has a right to be there and voice their opinion and also to sign off on the details if they have enough support in the region. It?s the way it is designed from day one. You might want to move to Venezuela if you want to have the type of freedom you speak of.
I am sure you feel, deep down inside, they are all abusive programs and abusive people. But they feel they are helping kids and feel you are abusive for trying to deny the kids help because you had one bad experience and want to shut the whole industry down. Does that make you right? The schools right? No!! Everyone needs to be involved. It?s the way we do it here?.. ?let the people speak, all the people.?.
NATSAP doesn't speak for anyone but their own corrupt industry. Read up on it. One bad experience? One bad experience would not have produced Fornits, ISAC, CAFETY, A START, HEAL, etc.
122 deaths is not "one bad experience". If I'm "fixated" on PV, so be it, I know the place better than I do Tranquility Bay. I'm not trying to shut the industry down, just PV. Then, I'll study another known abusive facility and kick their doors down. One at a time.
Post by: Anonymous on March 04, 2007, 09:02:09 PM
We don't let child abusers write child abuse laws.
Post by: TheWho on March 04, 2007, 09:06:41 PM
Quote
NATSAP doesn't speak for anyone but their own corrupt industry. Read up on it. One bad experience? One bad experience would not have produced Fornits, ISAC, CAFETY, A START, HEAL, etc.
122 deaths is not "one bad experience". If I'm "fixated" on PV, so be it, I know the place better than I do Tranquility Bay. I'm not trying to shut the industry down, just PV. Then, I'll study another known abusive facility and kick their doors down. One at a time.
Of course they don?t!! you say you are fixated on PV, would you speak up for ASR because they don?t abuse kids the way you clam PV does? Of course not, because you are focused on PV, that?s what you care about now. Does that make you plight bad or useless, of course not. NATSAP is focused on NATSAP as they should be and they will push for the legislature they think is right and in the best interest of the kids, just like you are.
Would it be fair if they silenced you because they felt you were wrong?
Post by: TheWho on March 04, 2007, 09:12:35 PM
Quote from: ""Milk Gargling Death Penalty""
Zen. The pledge, remember?
.
Ya know, Lactose, I read that pledge and when people added....?except when it's funny.....it really pissed me off!! I mean, how do I take that? ?. "You think I'm funny? Funny how? Funny like a clown, like I'm here to amuse you?"
Post by: psy on March 04, 2007, 09:26:30 PM
Quote from: ""ZenAgent""
Quote from: ""TheWho""QuoteOkay...I'll send them all some NATSAP truth. In theory, the government is supposed to have a check and balance system. Abusive programs can't oversee abusive programs. End of story.
Zen, it is the way it works!! I haven?t followed your posts enough to know if you are from the US or not so don?t take this personally. Here in the US if you are setting up the rules and regulations for a parade, in down town powdock for ?Black History Month? the KKK (anti black (non white), antiJewish, anti catholic etc. organization) has a right to be there and voice their opinion and also to sign off on the details if they have enough support in the region. It?s the way it is designed from day one. You might want to move to Venezuela if you want to have the type of freedom you speak of.
I am sure you feel, deep down inside, they are all abusive programs and abusive people. But they feel they are helping kids and feel you are abusive for trying to deny the kids help because you had one bad experience and want to shut the whole industry down. Does that make you right? The schools right? No!! Everyone needs to be involved. It?s the way we do it here?.. ?let the people speak, all the people.?.
NATSAP doesn't speak for anyone but their own corrupt industry. Read up on it. One bad experience? One bad experience would not have produced Fornits, ISAC, CAFETY, A START, HEAL, etc.
122 deaths is not "one bad experience". If I'm "fixated" on PV, so be it, I know the place better than I do Tranquility Bay. I'm not trying to shut the industry down, just PV. Then, I'll study another known abusive facility and kick their doors down. One at a time.
Ya know. It would be one thing if NATSAP actually pretended to care, but they don't even do that. When i attempted to report Benchmark's lack of licensure they told me "well we don't investigate that". When i told them they were abusive, they didn't care either. When I told them They didn't follow NATSAP's own "principles of good practice" i was told that they were on an honor system. Schools don't join NATSAP unless they need protection and PR. I mean, if I ran an honest, caring, loving, Emotional Growth school, I would stay the hell away from an organization protecting the likes of PV, Benchmark, and countless others.
Besides. Natsap's board is stuffed with current and ex program directors, including the likes of Bucci Boy and Michael Allsgood (of Cascade infamy).
You want them to compromise and work together on this? They would only reach an agreement once NATSAP and it's schools had found a suitable loophole to exploit.
How hypocritical. "let the people speak, all the people."... What voice do the children have.... and even when they get out... few of them want to vocalize, much less protest, what happened to them... It's not just a few anomalies, if they were anomalous, the stories of survivors from supposed "good school" to "good school" would be random accounts of abuse, complete with pitchforks and goat sacrafice. Instead, we hear account after account of eerily similar testimony, decade after decade... Usually when different people are making things up, the stories do not match...
The "good schools" of yesterday are now defunct, their staff scattered to the winds to start their own schools and staff the "good programs" of today... of which I would bet the majority will end up being the defunct programs of tomorrow. Lawsuits solve little more than to bleed the owner dry of il-gotten gains... The henchmen, with little motivation to do otherwise, move on, more than welcomed by the next school craving the sort of "experience" that cannot be taught. I would like to see them prosecuted criminally... but with all the evidence either in the hands of the program.... Sure there is human evidence, but how easy is it to assassinate the charachter of a troublemaker, one who's own parents, would no doubt accuse of manipulation... To some degree it is the dilemma of the boy who cried, wolf. On the other hand, most of the time, the parents never bothered to check if there actually was one... trusting the comforing words of career con-artists, whispering soothing lies: promises of the perfect child if only they will stop interfering by asking so many questions
.
So mister Who:
So why don't the parent's just look at the evidence? Why don't you call your daughter? You don't want to know... It comforts you: believing you were right.. You can't face the possibility that you sent your kid to be abused, and ignored her cries for help. That's right, "Who", you did the right thing... your daughter is the perfect image of you, she loves you unconditionally. She thanks you for sending her there...
You cannot face this simple truth: There are certain things that can completely sever the ties of love between parent and child. There is no such thing as "unconditional". Fool yourself all you wish, but if I were you, I would at least ask those questions you are afraid to... on the off chance that your daughter might grant you the forgiveness you do not deserve.
Post by: psy on March 04, 2007, 09:28:47 PM
Quote from: ""TheWho""
Quote from: ""Milk Gargling Death Penalty""Zen. The pledge, remember?
.
Ya know, Lactose, I read that pledge and when people added....?except when it's funny.....it really pissed me off!! I mean, how do I take that? ?. "You think I'm funny? Funny how? Funny like a clown, like I'm here to amuse you?"
I admit you have to have a very sick sense of humor.
Post by: ZenAgent on March 04, 2007, 09:37:31 PM
Quote from: ""Milk Gargling Death Penalty""
Zen. The pledge, remember?
We don't let child abusers write child abuse laws.
Indeed. I'm aware of some good treatment facilities for adolescents. You never see them on this board or any other, and they don't consider themselves part of the "troubled teen industry". Regulations won't shut them down, they're already above the bar.
Let's say you're part of the peanut butter industry. You're lax, your facility isn't clean, and a batch of E.Coli-laden peanut butter goes out and sickens hundreds and a few people die shitting and screaming. The Feds come in, tighten your ass up and tell you to meet regulations. You're too fucking cheap to do it, dodge inspections, and another batch of poison peanut butter goes out. The Feds come back and regulate you out of existence No one bemoans the loss of your killer bread spread.
The same with this "troubled teen industry". They comply or die. If ASR is not abusive or slipshod, if their staff is qualified, they have nothing to fear, they'll continue on. All this crying about being "regulated out of existence" doesn't mean shit to me. This is Darwinism for the "industry". Meet or surpass regulations, or be shut down.
Post by: TheWho on March 04, 2007, 10:02:36 PM
Quote
So why don't the parent's just look at the evidence? Why don't you call your daughter? You don't want to know... It comforts you: believing you were right.. You can't face the possibility that you sent your kid to be abused, and ignored her cries for help. That's right, "Who", you did the right thing... your daughter is the perfect image of you, she loves you unconditionally. She thanks you for sending her there...
You cannot face this simple truth: There are certain things that can completely sever the ties of love between parent and child. There is no such thing as "unconditional". Fool yourself all you wish, but if I were you, I would at least ask those questions you are afraid to, and beg for the forgiveness that you do not deserve.
That is pretty intense and it is a good point,psy. Parents should keep a thumb on the pulse of their child and listen to how they are doing. If they sound distressed when they call you should ask to have another conference with them to insure that they are okay. I remember on a particular occasion, after my daughter ran away , that she sounded distressed and we scheduled another call back about an hour later and we talked it thru and spoke for about 45 minutes. She was struggling with a balance between her school work and what they expected to do during her off time which didn?t allow for her studies. She wasn?t use to working that hard. My daughter doesn?t thank me for sending her there but she understands that it was good for her (she wouldn?t want to do it over again, though).
I am not a big believer in ?unconditional love?. I think the bond between a parent and child is built upon a foundation started from infancy and is solidified over time from years of trust and formed from the natural dependency, nurturing and love that occurs and that the home is a safe place to grow, spread your wings, make mistakes, fall and start over. The home should never be a place to be embarrassed or feel ashamed it should be a place to practice life without being judged. If this process is interrupted or threatened the parent is the one who needs to step in and right its course.
If I asked my daughter tomorrow where she would rather be if there was trouble in her life I know she would chose home, because that is where her family is and that is where she feels safe. This is the place she comes to when she needs to sort out answers or scream at someone or ask for advice or feel safe.
Unconditional love, no it isn?t?but we continue to work on it every day and the working at it is what love is and it keeps us together.
Post by: TheWho on March 04, 2007, 10:38:22 PM
Quote from: ""ZenAgent""
Quote from: ""Milk Gargling Death Penalty""Zen. The pledge, remember?
We don't let child abusers write child abuse laws.
Indeed. I'm aware of some good treatment facilities for adolescents. You never see them on this board or any other, and they don't consider themselves part of the "troubled teen industry". Regulations won't shut them down, they're already above the bar.
Let's say you're part of the peanut butter industry. You're lax, your facility isn't clean, and a batch of E.Coli-laden peanut butter goes out and sickens hundreds and a few people die shitting and screaming. The Feds come in, tighten your ass up and tell you to meet regulations. You're too fucking cheap to do it, dodge inspections, and another batch of poison peanut butter goes out. The Feds come back and regulate you out of existence No one bemoans the loss of your killer bread spread.
The same with this "troubled teen industry". They comply or die. If ASR is not abusive or slipshod, if their staff is qualified, they have nothing to fear, they'll continue on. All this crying about being "regulated out of existence" doesn't mean shit to me. This is Darwinism for the "industry". Meet or surpass regulations, or be shut down.
Yes, but what if you are one of the good guys (above the bar), helping kids out left and right for decades, everyone calls you ?Skippy? and life is good. Then along comes some regulation created by a guy named ?Jif? that you were never invited to vote on or give your input to that requires all your employees to be specialists in ?Virginia group peanuts? . Well being in the peanut industry for decades you speak out and say all your employees have been trained in "Valencia group peanuts", which are more complex (more kennels in a larger shell) and require a higher degree of knowledge and are considered safer than Virginias peanuts, so we are superior to the requirement.
Ah, but the reply is, you don?t meet the letter of the law that we at ?Jif? created, we didn?t know that, wish you had spoken up earlier when we wrote the bill, looks like you will have to close down and the public will have to settle for a lesser quality peanut butter.
Is this how America should be run?
Post by: Anonymous on March 04, 2007, 11:32:14 PM
Post by: ZenAgent on March 04, 2007, 11:35:45 PM
Post by: nimdA on March 04, 2007, 11:41:40 PM
Post by: ZenAgent on March 04, 2007, 11:48:55 PM
Standards? Look, remind the "troubled teen industry" - Do no harm.
Don't kill kids.
Don't abuse kids.
Obviously the industry can't police itself. There won't be any inferior programs, they won't be allowed to exist. The regulations won't be impossible. Regulations would create better programs, don't you think? Imagine, being required to have qualified staff. Someone seems to be suggesting that without abuse the "troubled teen industry" would be ineffective. If ASR can't meet industry-wide regulations and survive, good riddance to bad rubbish. The industry's days are numbered.
Post by: Anonymous on March 04, 2007, 11:49:34 PM
Well, as funny as one can get on a forum about sadistic child abuse.
Post by: Deborah on March 04, 2007, 11:51:26 PM
Quote from: ""Milk Gargling Death Penalty""
That makes about as much sense as alligator tentacles convalescing with glowing Wahhabi spleen fish.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Thanks for the comic relief.
Post by: Antigen on March 05, 2007, 01:29:39 AM
Quote from: ""ZenAgent""
Okay...I'll send them all some NATSAP truth. In theory, the government is supposed to have a check and balance system. Abusive programs can't oversee abusive programs. End of story.
Yes, in theory there are checks and balances. That's the theory of limited government and real free market economy. Unfortunately, though, Who is right about how this game works these days but he's dead wrong about this having been the case since day one.
Under the original plan, no one could purchase this kind of power because it was not concentrated like it is now. Anyone with the money and the will can invest in public policy, effectively purchasing influence in any and all areas in which the government has authority (legit or not, so long as most people are wiling to accept it. Demand markets are fickle sons of bitches and often seemingly random. They simply cannot be purchased in this way.
I've said this before and I'll probably say it again. I've seen this song and dance too many times. Ask the kids who are now or have in the past 2 decades gone through SAFE and Growing Together how well all that nifty new HRS oversight worked out for them. Or ask the family of Martin Lee Anderson.
All good intentions aside, this is like drinking salt water. Might make you feel good for just a moment, but more regulation actually makes things worse because the people most motivated to wield that power are precisely the ones who should be least trusted with it.
Post by: Troll Control on March 05, 2007, 07:59:31 AM
Quote from: ""TheWho""
Quote from: ""Milk Gargling Death Penalty""And let's invite Osama bin Laden to discuss our next anti-terrorism bill while we're at it.
Deb, Zen, I'm sure George Miller is too shielded to bother listening to the scumbags, but what about his co-sponsors? Think they might need some grassroots political lovin'?
That didnt take long !! I rest my case..... "Lets just talk to the few people that agree with us, alienate the rest and then introduce the bill into Congess and see what happens...." Hmmmm... That was 2 years ago and counting..... I wonder what went wrong? Why didnt everyone support my bill?
The bill was killed in committee by Republicans fearing "regulation" of any private businesses, even abusive treatment centers.
Try corresponding with Congressman Miller's office, like I do, and you may actually get the facts and not have to make up stories about how the bill was stalled because "other viewpoints" weren't included.
The fact of the matter is that it was killed unilaterally by Republican congress members precisely because they didn't want the other side heard if regulation was part of the bill.
Go to the source. Call Mr. Miller's office and stop representing as "fact" the nonsense you post that has no bearing on reality. It's annoying and misleading.
Post by: TheWho on March 05, 2007, 09:24:42 AM
Quote from: ""Dysfunction Junction""
Quote from: ""TheWho""Quote from: ""Milk Gargling Death Penalty""And let's invite Osama bin Laden to discuss our next anti-terrorism bill while we're at it.
Deb, Zen, I'm sure George Miller is too shielded to bother listening to the scumbags, but what about his co-sponsors? Think they might need some grassroots political lovin'?
That didnt take long !! I rest my case..... "Lets just talk to the few people that agree with us, alienate the rest and then introduce the bill into Congess and see what happens...." Hmmmm... That was 2 years ago and counting..... I wonder what went wrong? Why didnt everyone support my bill?
The bill was killed in committee by Republicans fearing "regulation" of any private businesses, even abusive treatment centers.
Try corresponding with Congressman Miller's office, like I do, and you may actually get the facts and not have to make up stories about how the bill was stalled because "other viewpoints" weren't included.
The fact of the matter is that it was killed unilaterally by Republican congress members precisely because they didn't want the other side heard if regulation was part of the bill.
Go to the source. Call Mr. Miller's office and stop representing as "fact" the nonsense you post that has no bearing on reality. It's annoying and misleading.
Look DJ, If you were reading my posts carefully you would have gotten this. I?ll go slower this time. Here is the way it works and what happened:
The Bill (End Institutionalized Abuse Against Children Act of 2005) was introduced in April of 2005 by George Miller. The bill did not pass?.why? I think we discussed this at length, but in a nut shell not everyone was onboard (or included in the process).
The bill was referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs to be revised and then on to a sub committee on Select Education where it will go thru extensive revision. I believe it is still there (here take a look)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-1738 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-1738)
The next plan for this bill is:
?Congress and is expected to be re-introduced near the beginning of the 110th Congress in January 2007. That bill is likely to lead, given that its principal sponsor is now to be a House committee chair, to a promptly scheduled hearing and congressional action. ?
http://tinyurl.com/3ah7le (http://tinyurl.com/3ah7le)
(take a look under ?Commission on Youth At Risk?)
If the bill was reintroduced in the 110th Congress, then I missed it otherwise it doesn?t appear this has happened yet.
Have some coffee, DJ and calm down. This is America, you don?t have to call and annoy every Congressman for a Bill status.
Post by: ZenAgent on March 05, 2007, 09:48:16 AM
I think the industry is a neo-con tool, and people are showing their disgust with that camp. Look at the change in leadership that occurred. You programees will be crying for help to your GOP goons and you'll be weeping bitter tears when you find out the guys you relied on for so long don't have any teeth.
Also, to the guy who referred to what happened to my family as "one bad experience": Oh, my God. They don't refer to the kids who get sprung from these hellholes as "surviviors" for nothing. My step-daughter survived over-medication, physical abuse, mental abuse and under-education. Yeah, it was one bad experience, clown. Why don't you check out the other two PV survivor stories on here, so you won't think I'm raising hell about "one bad experience".
Better dead than red. Vote Democratic. Vote Independent. Vote for Donald Duck, but get rid of the Bush junta. Then people like George Miller can accomplish what they've been trying to do for twenty years. Miller's on the level of "hero" like Phil Elberg. In fifty years, the teen help industry will be viewed the same way we view child labor sweatshops now.
Post by: Troll Control on March 05, 2007, 10:22:24 AM
Now, what I'm telling you is that the bill was killed by Republican committee members. George Miller's office will confirm this fact.
The reason it never came to a vote is the same reason why NO regulatory legislation drafted by Democrats made it to the table under the previous congress: Republicans killed it unilaterally without debate of any kind.
And I bug Congress members. Very often, in fact. It's called "Democracy" and you and the Rethuglicans ought to give it a try some time.
Post by: Antigen on March 05, 2007, 11:04:28 AM
Big brother is watching, that's true. But he's got a sadistic, lascivious gleam in his eye, as usual.
Usually, whenever we go through all these kinds of linguistic contortions and political gesticulations it's the same story. There are already laws of the older variety, those consistent with our traditions, that could be enforced if we had the will to do it. Frustrating as hell that we lack the will. But please look once again to Martin Lee Anderson. It's a damned important case even though the rest of the nation seems to have written it off already. It's important because of the big name culprits in the case. Where are they now?
Guy Tunnell
Founder of the Bay County Boot Camp, longtime BOA member DFAF (just like Andrea), appointed by Steve Meadows, state attorney for the 14th Judicial Circuit, to be a coordinator of cold case squads in the 14th judicial circuit's six counties.
Frank McKiethen
Still sheriff of Bay County"If you have any comments or suggestions please feel free to contact our Public Affairs Specialist at (850) 747-4700 Ext. 2117"
http://www.bayso.org/ (http://www.bayso.org/)
Florida Sheriff's Bootcamp program
Renamed Star Academies, handed over from one faction of the toughlove hategroup to another and funding doubled.
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/arti ... Camps.html (http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/053106BootCamps.html)
Martin Lee Anderson
Still deader than hell.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Anderson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Anderson)
Post by: Deborah on March 05, 2007, 11:05:17 AM
What's all the fuss by the opposition? This bill doesn't even make state licensing/regulation of domestic programs mandatory. It only allows for grants to create regulations/monitoring of "treatment services for children with emotional, psychological, developmental, or behavioral dysfunctions, impairments, or chemical dependencies". Participation appears to be voluntary.
All the language about fines for operating without a license (if a state chooses to license/regulation programs), abuse/neglect, etc. are standard and common to all regulations I've read.
What specifically about this bill would have a devastating effect on the industry?
H.R. 1738 [109th]: End Institutionalized Abuse Against Children Act of 2005
HR 1738 IH
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1738
To assure the safety of American children in foreign-based and domestic institutions, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 20, 2005
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California (for himself, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. OWENS, Mr. MCDERMOTT, and Mr. VAN HOLLEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
----------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To assure the safety of American children in foreign-based and domestic institutions, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `End Institutionalized Abuse Against Children Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATIONS.
(a) In General- In order to assure the safety and welfare of American children residing in foreign-based institutions, the Attorney General shall seek the cooperation of appropriate foreign authorities in order to investigate such facilities or institutions periodically. Such an investigation shall include a determination of the institution's compliance with any local safety, health, sanitation and educational laws and regulations, including all licensing requirements applicable to the staff of the institution and compliance with this section. The Attorney General shall seek the cooperation of appropriate foreign authorities to remedy any threat to the safety or welfare of those children, discovered through such an investigation.
(b) Rules and Enforcement- (1) The Attorney General shall make rules to protect the safety and wellbeing of American children who are kept in a foreign based institution for purposes of behavior modification.
(2) Whoever, being a United States citizen or national, or other private entity organized under the laws of the United States or of any State or political subdivision of the United States, violates a rule made under this subsection shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $50,000.
(c) Definitions- As used in this section--
(1) the term `foreign-based institution' means any facility or institution--
(A) owned, operated, or managed by a United States citizen or other private entity organized under the laws of the United States; and
(B) for persons, including persons who are residing in such facility or institution, for purposes of receiving care or treatment or behavior modification; and
(2) the term `American children' means American citizens or nationals 18 years of age or younger.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO DEPARTMENT OF STATE'S COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES.
(a) Part I of Foreign Assistance Act of 1961- Section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151n) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(g)(1) The report required by subsection (d) shall include, wherever applicable, a description of the nature and extent of child abuse or human rights violations against persons who are 18 years of age or younger at institutions described in paragraph (2) that are located in each foreign country.
`(2) An institution referred to in paragraph (1) is a facility or institution--
`(A) owned, operated, or managed by a United States citizen or other private entity organized under the laws of the United States; and
`(B) for persons, including persons who are residing in such facility or institution, for purposes of receiving care or treatment or behavior modification.'.
(b) Part II of Foreign Assistance Act of 1961- Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2304) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(i)(1) The report required by subsection (b) shall include, wherever applicable, a description of the nature and extent of child abuse or human rights violations against persons who are 18 years of age or younger at institutions described in paragraph (2) that are located in each foreign country.
`(2) An institution referred to in paragraph (1) is a facility or institution--
`(A) owned, operated, or managed by a United States citizen or other private entity organized under the laws of the United States; and
`(B) for persons, including persons who are residing in such facility or institution, for purposes of receiving care or treatment or behavior modification.'.
SEC. 4. GRANTS TO SUPPORT INSPECTIONS OF CHILD RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITIES.
(a) In General- The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new title:
`TITLE III--GRANTS TO STATES TO SUPPORT INSPECTIONS OF CHILD RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITIES
`SEC. 301. GRANTS TO STATES.
`The Secretary is authorized to make grants to States to support inspections of child residential treatment facilities.
`SEC. 302. APPLICATION.
`The Secretary may not make a grant to a State under section 301 unless the State submits to the Secretary an application for the grant at such time, in such form and manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
`SEC. 303. ELIGIBILITY.
`(a) In General- The Secretary may not make a grant to a State under section 301 unless the State has in effect laws to require the licensing of child residential treatment facilities in accordance with the requirements of subsection (b) and the State is enforcing such State laws in accordance with the requirements of subsection (c).
`(b) Licensing Requirements- The licensing requirements referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
`(1) The State requires any person who operates a child residential treatment facility to be issued a license for the operation of the facility, and the license is in effect.
`(2) The facility meets applicable standards of the State for the provision of treatment services for children with emotional, psychological, developmental, or behavioral dysfunctions, impairments, or chemical dependencies.
`(3) In the case of each child who is a resident of the facility and whose domicile is another State, the facility meets the standards of such other State for the operation of such a facility, including any licensing standards.
`(4) With respect to State law that prohibits the physical or mental abuse of children and the neglect of children, the law of the State in which the facility is located applies to the facility standards for the care of children who are residents of the facility, including enforcement standards, that are equivalent to the standards applied by the State to parents or legal guardians.
`(5) The State requires periodic, unannounced inspections of the facility to determine compliance with applicable law, including law regarding the licensing of health professionals and law regarding the standards referred to in paragraph (4).
`(c) Enforcement Requirements- The enforcement requirements referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
`(1) IN GENERAL-
`(A) CIVIL PENALTY- A person who operates a child residential treatment facility in violation of the requirements under subsection (b) is subject to a civil penalty of $250 per day until the violation is corrected, except that the number of days for which the penalty is assessed may not exceed 60 days.
`(B) ORDER TO TERMINATE OPERATIONS- With respect to a violation of the requirements under subsection (b), if a civil penalty under subparagraph (A) for the violation is assessed for 60 days, the State orders that the child residential treatment facility involved terminate all operations.
`(2) ABUSE OR NEGLECT-
`(A) CIVIL PENALTY- If a child residential treatment facility engages in the abuse or neglect of a child who is a resident of the facility, each person who owns or operates the facility, and each of the officers, employees, or contractors thereof who engaged in the abuse or neglect, is subject to a civil penalty for each such violation in an amount determined by the State, but not less than $20,000 for all violations adjudicated in a single proceeding.
`(B) CRIMINAL PENALTY- If a child residential treatment facility engages in the abuse or neglect of a child who is a resident of the facility, each person who owns or operates the facility, and each of the officers, employees, or contractors thereof who engaged in the abuse or neglect, shall be fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
`(C) ABUSE OR NEGLECT- For purposes of subparagraphs (A) and (B), the term `abuse or neglect', with respect to a child, means a knowing act or omission that the officer, employee, or contractor involved knows or should know will result in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation, or will present an imminent risk of serious harm.
`SEC. 304. USE OF FUNDS.
`A State that receives a grant under section 301 shall use amounts under the grant to--
`(1) hire and train individuals who have appropriate expertise in the health profession, including the mental health profession, to carry out periodic, unannounced inspections of child residential treatment facilities in accordance with section 303(b)(5); and
`(2) collect and maintain data from the inspections of such child residential treatment facilities to be included in the report required by section 306.
`SEC. 305. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.
`A State that receives a grant under section 301 shall use amounts under the grant only to supplement the level of non-Federal funds that, in the absence of amounts under the grant, would be expended for activities authorized under the grant, and not to supplant those non-Federal funds.
`SEC. 306. REPORT.
`The Secretary may not make a grant to a State under section 301 unless the State agrees that it will submit to the Secretary for each fiscal year for which it receives a grant under such section a report that contains such information as the Secretary may reasonably require, including a detailed description of the number of child residential treatment facilities located in the State, the number of children residing at such facilities, the State domicile of each child prior to entry at such a facility, and the age, gender, and disability (if any) of each child at such a facility.
`SEC. 307. DEFINITIONS.
`In this title:
`(1) CHILD- The term `child' means an individual 18 years of age or younger.
`(2) CHILD RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY; FACILITY- The term `child residential treatment facility' or `facility' means a facility that--
`(A) provides a 24-hour group living environment for one or more children who are unrelated to the owner or operator of the facility; and
`(B) offers for the children room or board and specialized treatment, behavior modification, rehabilitation, discipline, emotional growth or rehabilitation services for youths with emotional, psychological, developmental, or behavioral dysfunctions, impairments, or chemical dependencies.
`(3) SECRETARY- The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
`(4) STATE- The term `State' means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
`SEC. 308. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
`There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this title $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006 and 2007.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5101 note) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`TITLE III--GRANTS TO STATES TO SUPPORT INSPECTIONS OF CHILD RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITIES
`Sec. 301. Grants to States.
`Sec. 302. Application.
`Sec. 303. Eligibility.
`Sec. 304. Use of funds.
`Sec. 305. Maintenance of effort.
`Sec. 306. Report.
`Sec. 307. Definitions.
`Sec. 308. Authorization of appropriations.'.
Cosponsors
Rep. Dale Kildee [D-MI]
Rep. James McDermott [D-WA]
Rep. Major Owens [D-NY]
Rep. Fortney Stark [D-CA]
Rep. Christopher Van Hollen [D-MD]
Rep. Nydia Velázquez [D-NY]
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D-CA]
Rep. David Wu [D-OR]
Post by: TheWho on March 05, 2007, 11:51:42 AM
Quote from: ""Dysfunction Junction""
Sure, Who, you can read what's posted on a government website and try to find out how the status quo was arrived at - you can see the procedural moves.
Now, what I'm telling you is that the bill was killed by Republican committee members. George Miller's office will confirm this fact.
The reason it never came to a vote is the same reason why NO regulatory legislation drafted by Democrats made it to the table under the previous congress: Republicans killed it unilaterally without debate of any kind.
And I bug Congress members. Very often, in fact. It's called "Democracy" and you and the Rethuglicans ought to give it a try some time.
DJ, I admire your simplistic view on Democracy ?the good guys versus the bad guys?. But one needs to step back and look at the larger picture. If you are trying to get a bill passed you have to include everyone and position the wording so that it covers the majority of the peoples needs, it is just the way it works. How have the kids been helped by drafting a bill that included only one party and is now unimplemented and on a shelf? If more were included, initially, the bill might have gone thru and regulation would moving forward (maybe not with all the original requirements) but moving forward all the same.
Of course if you call George Millers office they are going to tell you it was the Republicans fault, what else would you expect. If you called Ford motor company and asked why they are 10 years behind the Japanese they will point their finger at GM for dragging the pollution requirements out for over a decade and driving up the costs so that other improvements had to be put on the shelf. If you called GM you would get a different story.
Post by: ZenAgent on March 05, 2007, 12:00:47 PM
Post by: TheWho on March 05, 2007, 12:36:44 PM
Quote from: ""ZenAgent""
I did call Sen. Miller. He blamed you.
You know that really sucks!! He and I always saw eye to eye on every issue until this one. I merely suggested we include NATSAP and tweak a few of the words, I never lobbied against it or spoke to any Republican regarding how they should position their vote.
Post by: Troll Control on March 05, 2007, 12:37:54 PM
Quote from: ""TheWho""
PSY Wrote:QuoteSo why don't the parent's just look at the evidence? Why don't you call your daughter? You don't want to know... It comforts you: believing you were right.. You can't face the possibility that you sent your kid to be abused, and ignored her cries for help. That's right, "Who", you did the right thing... your daughter is the perfect image of you, she loves you unconditionally. She thanks you for sending her there...
You cannot face this simple truth: There are certain things that can completely sever the ties of love between parent and child. There is no such thing as "unconditional". Fool yourself all you wish, but if I were you, I would at least ask those questions you are afraid to, and beg for the forgiveness that you do not deserve.
That is pretty intense and it is a good point,psy. Parents should keep a thumb on the pulse of their child and listen to how they are doing. If they sound distressed when they call you should ask to have another conference with them to insure that they are okay. I remember on a particular occasion, after my daughter ran away , that she sounded distressed and we scheduled another call back about an hour later and we talked it thru and spoke for about 45 minutes. She was struggling with a balance between her school work and what they expected to do during her off time which didn?t allow for her studies. She wasn?t use to working that hard. My daughter doesn?t thank me for sending her there but she understands that it was good for her (she wouldn?t want to do it over again, though).
I am not a big believer in ?unconditional love?. I think the bond between a parent and child is built upon a foundation started from infancy and is solidified over time from years of trust and formed from the natural dependency, nurturing and love that occurs and that the home is a safe place to grow, spread your wings, make mistakes, fall and start over. The home should never be a place to be embarrassed or feel ashamed it should be a place to practice life without being judged. If this process is interrupted or threatened the parent is the one who needs to step in and right its course.
If I asked my daughter tomorrow where she would rather be if there was trouble in her life I know she would chose home, because that is where her family is and that is where she feels safe. This is the place she comes to when she needs to sort out answers or scream at someone or ask for advice or feel safe.
Unconditional love, no it isn?t?but we continue to work on it every day and the working at it is what love is and it keeps us together.
This says a lot about you, Who. Thanks for at least sharing that you believe there is no unconditional love from a parent to a child.
This is precisely the type of mentality (or mental defect) that the industry is based upon. Pretty sick concept, but you did a lot with that little admission to shine a light on how parents in this industry behave.
These people just aren't right in the head or the heart. That's why they think it's just fine and dandy to sever all communications and punish their "bad" kid into a "love-worthy" one (i.e. one that does everything they say and acts exactly how they want). Twisted.
Quote
Ya know. It would be one thing if NATSAP actually pretended to care, but they don't even do that. When i attempted to report Benchmark's lack of licensure they told me "well we don't investigate that". When i told them they were abusive, they didn't care either. When I told them They didn't follow NATSAP's own "principles of good practice" i was told that they were on an honor system. Schools don't join NATSAP unless they need protection and PR. I mean, if I ran an honest, caring, loving, Emotional Growth school, I would stay the hell away from an organization protecting the likes of PV, Benchmark, and countless others.
Besides. Natsap's board is stuffed with current and ex program directors, including the likes of Bucci Boy and Michael Allsgood (of Cascade infamy).
You want them to compromise and work together on this? They would only reach an agreement once NATSAP and it's schools had found a suitable loophole to exploit.
Spot on. I personally have copies of dozens of abuse reports from HLA kids/parents to NATSAP, but when you call and ask, they dutifully reply that they have "received no complaints." It's a flat-out lie, but they keep saying it until you go away.
NATSAP is next on my list. Who wants some?
Post by: Troll Control on March 05, 2007, 12:42:25 PM
Quote
Of course if you call George Millers office they are going to tell you it was the Republicans fault, what else would you expect.
It's part of the congressional record, Whooter. It was killed by the Repubs in committee. You're so fond of looking up congressional records, go ahead and verify. Your speculation ADDS NO VALUE to the conversation.
At least I asked. You just make up your side of the story... as usual...
Post by: psy on March 05, 2007, 12:51:41 PM
Quote from: ""Dysfunction Junction""
NATSAP is next on my list. Who wants some?
I do. It's next on my list too.
Post by: Troll Control on March 05, 2007, 12:53:59 PM
Quote from: ""psy""
Quote from: ""Dysfunction Junction""NATSAP is next on my list. Who wants some?
I do. It's next on my list too.
We need to get together.
Post by: TheWho on March 05, 2007, 12:59:14 PM
Quote from: ""Dysfunction Junction""
QuoteOf course if you call George Millers office they are going to tell you it was the Republicans fault, what else would you expect.
It's part of the congressional record, Whooter. It was killed by the Repubs in committee. You're so fond of looking up congressional records, go ahead and verify. Your speculation ADDS NO VALUE to the conversation.
At least I asked. You just make up your side of the story... as usual...
Hmmm... make up a story....I think I was the only one to provide links (proof) to the official records, you clamed to make a phone call.
Here take another look:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-1738 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-1738)
http://tinyurl.com/3ah7le (http://tinyurl.com/3ah7le)
Post by: TheWho on March 05, 2007, 05:05:22 PM
Be interested to compare it to the rewrite when it becomes available.
Post by: TheWho on March 05, 2007, 05:13:24 PM
Post by: Antigen on March 06, 2007, 03:49:46 PM
Google: cadca "pathway family center" (http://http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=mXL&q=cadca+%22pathway+family+center%22&btnG=Search)
Take some time and look around. Let your curiosity be piqued. X-reference the various surnames and entity names you find along the way and you'll see what I mean. If you're looking for funding to spread brainwashing programs you'll have no problem getting all you could want. If, on the other hand, you're looking for money to prevent the spread of thought reform programs you'll fight and fight and fight and never see a dime. Why? It's a really simple formula by which all public entities, no matter how complex, must function. It's as true and immutable as the law of gravity. He who pays the piper calls the tune and it does not serve the interest of government anywhere at any time to have a bunch of free thinking, independent people under it's charge. It does serve the interest of government nicely to have a bunch of dependent, cowed, predictable people under it's charge.
So they'll go on funding CADCA and DFAF and PDFA and all of the dozens of other false fronts under which DFAF has operated over the last 3 decades or so.
Turning to the government for help in this matter is about as effective as sending up a chain of command through staff.
Post by: TheWho on March 06, 2007, 04:39:36 PM
Quote from: ""Antigen's Ghost""
Depends on what the particular welfare mothers in question are panhandling for. Compare
Google: cadca "pathway family center" (http://http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=mXL&q=cadca+%22pathway+family+center%22&btnG=Search)
Take some time and look around. Let your curiosity be piqued. X-reference the various surnames and entity names you find along the way and you'll see what I mean. If you're looking for funding to spread brainwashing programs you'll have no problem getting all you could want. If, on the other hand, you're looking for money to prevent the spread of thought reform programs you'll fight and fight and fight and never see a dime. Why? It's a really simple formula by which all public entities, no matter how complex, must function. It's as true and immutable as the law of gravity. He who pays the piper calls the tune and it does not serve the interest of government anywhere at any time to have a bunch of free thinking, independent people under it's charge. It does serve the interest of government nicely to have a bunch of dependent, cowed, predictable people under it's charge.
So they'll go on funding CADCA and DFAF and PDFA and all of the dozens of other false fronts under which DFAF has operated over the last 3 decades or so.
Turning to the government for help in this matter is about as effective as sending up a chain of command through staff.
Your right, it is heavily stacked in favor of the industry....
.....So why not take the ?End Institutionalized Abuse Against Children Act of 2005 and knock a few teeth out of it so it appeals to everyone or is so benign that opposition doesn?t care, just to setup shop and do the bare minimum like require all RTC?s to register to a national database and report number of foreign students/US citizens etc. just to have something to build upon and get future funding for?
Post by: Deborah on March 06, 2007, 05:10:51 PM
And for all the wrong government does, and for all the times DHS has failed to keep kids safe, it is better that all programs be under the jurisdiction of an outside entity, not a panel of their peers. Because, it sometimes happens that regulations protect kids, even if only a few cases or minimally. Without them, you're fighting a private corporation and no one has the jurisdiction to go in and investigate, except CPS, and they only go if their is some proof that abuse is occuring.
Licensing is also a way to gather statistics on not only deaths, but accidents, injuries, assaults, etc.
Mandatory licensing has value in the bigger picture. But should not be seen as insurance that kids will be treated well.
Post by: Anonymous on March 06, 2007, 05:41:06 PM
There's only two ways to put a final end to this business. One is legally. The other is not legally.
Again, we don't let child abusers write child abuse laws.
Jesus TheWho is a real piece of shit.
Post by: TheWho on March 06, 2007, 06:10:23 PM
Quote
it is better that all programs be under the jurisdiction of an outside entity, not a panel of their peers.
I agree with this at all levels
Quote
Licensing is also a way to gather statistics on not only deaths, but accidents, injuries, assaults, etc.
Mandatory licensing has value in the bigger picture.
Until reading here, I always assumed this information was being captured everywhere children were being housed, taught or given medication. Maybe there is a different way the government is tracking this stuff? Meds being dispensed? etc.
Post by: Antigen on March 07, 2007, 08:41:51 PM
Quote from: ""TheWho""
Maybe there is a different way the government is tracking this stuff? Meds being dispensed? etc.
Ask Bobby DuPont about that. Or maybe Donald Ian MacDonald has some info. Or possibly Bill Oliver or Richard Schwartz. But I suspect Bobby would be the go to guy on research and stats about the effects of LGA/Synanon style treatment of children.
Post by: psy on March 07, 2007, 11:09:34 PM
Quote from: ""TheWho""
Quoteit is better that all programs be under the jurisdiction of an outside entity, not a panel of their peers.
I agree with this at all levelsQuoteLicensing is also a way to gather statistics on not only deaths, but accidents, injuries, assaults, etc.
Mandatory licensing has value in the bigger picture.
Until reading here, I always assumed this information was being captured everywhere children were being housed, taught or given medication. Maybe there is a different way the government is tracking this stuff? Meds being dispensed? etc.
Regarding this industry, you should never assume anything. My parents assumed the counselors at Benchmark were licenced. My parents assumed they would have teachers and some sort of academics. Benchmark claimed their academic Head, Flo Reynolds, was working on her PHD. In reality, she doesn't even have a BA!
As for meds... They were dispensed by unqualified, unlicenced, non-medical personnel, who were convicted felons and self-admitted drug-addicts. Nope. Not joking.
So much was advertised, so much was assumed and so little of it proved to be true. You have got to wake the hell up about this industry. If I wanted, to I could move to Montana, buy some property, set up a website, and BINGO i have a school... Then all I have to do is pay my NATSAP dues to get on their list, pay off a few ed-cons, and watch the dough roll in.
Post by: Antigen on March 08, 2007, 02:36:05 AM
Quote from: ""psy""
If I wanted, to I could move to Montana, buy some property, set up a website, and BINGO i have a school... Then all I have to do is pay my NATSAP dues to get on their list, pay off a few ed-cons, and watch the dough roll in.
Sure, if you were actually and not just allegedly black hearted. Tell that to the fuckin little staff member in your head!
But that's the frustrating difference between those who get it and them others who are getting it or are about to. We know how damned easy it is for even strong minded, intelligent, compassionate people to be tweaked and adjusted by well trained (not necessarily skilled) monkeys. The dumber the better as far as the trainers go.
It's really fucking simple shit to ppl who are naturally inquisitive and for those among us who have been forced through circumstance to further develop those faculties. I think damned near every vet who comes along here starts out at Google or Yahoo or Myspace with a vague notion of finding out just what the fuck is wrong inside their own head.
Them others, they honestly can't extrapolate enough to visualize that this could possibly happen to them; some of them even after their son blows his brains out in the middle of a brawl over getting sent back.
It's amazing how effective and affective these methods are. Now, if America ever was half the promise, I guess we'll pull out effective, practical resistance instead of jingoism. If only...
Post by: psy on March 08, 2007, 05:40:05 AM
Quote from: ""Antigen's Ghost""
Quote from: ""psy""If I wanted, to I could move to Montana, buy some property, set up a website, and BINGO i have a school... Then all I have to do is pay my NATSAP dues to get on their list, pay off a few ed-cons, and watch the dough roll in.
Sure, if you were actually and not just allegedly black hearted. Tell that to the fuckin little staff member in your head!
But that's the frustrating difference between those who get it and them others who are getting it or are about to. We know how damned easy it is for even strong minded, intelligent, compassionate people to be tweaked and adjusted by well trained (not necessarily skilled) monkeys. The dumber the better as far as the trainers go.
It's really fucking simple shit to ppl who are naturally inquisitive and for those among us who have been forced through circumstance to further develop those faculties. I think damned near every vet who comes along here starts out at Google or Yahoo or Myspace with a vague notion of finding out just what the fuck is wrong inside their own head.
Them others, they honestly can't extrapolate enough to visualize that this could possibly happen to them; some of them even after their son blows his brains out in the middle of a brawl over getting sent back.
It's amazing how effective and affective these methods are. Now, if America ever was half the promise, I guess we'll pull out effective, practical resistance instead of jingoism. If only...
Oh I hear you. But without the spark, and the minds congregating here, there will never be the change we all want. That is why Fornits is so valuable. I would be more open with the plans I have, but I don't want to tip off my target. I will not stop with Benchmark and once they are waylaid, i will explain exactly how I did it (with the help of many others, without Fornits of whom I would have found none.)
Effective practical resistance is very very effective. People just need to see a demonstration that it works. Once that is done, others will follow.
The psychology and culture of program is very similar to that of "communist" countries.
Both survive through:
- Control of communication, media, even self identity through "re-education".
- reliance on self-reporting and a system of "secret police", creating an atmosphere of mistrust not-conducive to "resistance movements".
- keeping people in the dark about how the system works.
- demand for compliance and conformity
- i could go on and on...
What worked in communist countries? "voice of america", "radio free europe"or the "BBC", although propaganda, gave people hope. Hope that resistance was possible. The communists harshly punished those who were caught listening to such broadcasts but they were never able to stamp it out... and their opposition to it created curiosity, even amongst the true believers. Eventually, dissent built up to the point where something snapped. In Romania all it took was one respected guy to stand up refuse to give in. So I guess I was wrong when I said "everybody breaks"... A priest, known to be a troublemaker (he wouldn't shut up about rights and stuff like that), was kept under house arrest. The problem was, he was popular with the locals. When they tried to evict him, a protest gathered around. He gave others, who felt the same, but were afraid to speak up, hope, and determination. They started singing songs that had been banned, chanting slogans etc. Long story short. Once the communists fell in Timisoara, it spread to the rest of the country, by word of mouth and underground radio... staff(whoops i mean army generals) elsewhere in the country realised they were losing and decided to aid the revolution, saving their asses and looking like heroes. the rest is history.
Effective, practical resistance is easiest in a situation with a over 18 school, but it is definitely possible to set off such a chain of events in another school... Look at what happened to Cascade for example...
I'm proposing an underground.
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution_of_1989
Post by: Anonymous on March 08, 2007, 10:36:24 AM
I love each and every one of you, I really do.
Post by: RobertBruce on March 20, 2007, 03:40:13 PM