 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / May 2009abc's crisis of the foster care system (cross-posted)
abc's primetime did a june 1 story on "the crisis of the foster care system"..............among abc's conclusions were 52 percent of foster children suffered from post-traumatic stress (a rate twice as high as soldiers returning from war).............thirty percent of the homeless have been in foster care............ twenty-five percent of those in prison are foster care alumnus............. like welfare, foster care is intergenerational (children growing up in foster care can become mothers with children in foster care........... "the highest ranking federal official in charge of foster care, wade horn of the department of health and human services, is a former child psychologist who says the foster care system is a giant mess and should just be blown up"............."there are no provisions for treatment, prevention, family support, or aging out - just for supporting things as they are"..........that status quo costs taxpayers $22 billion a year and works out to $40,000 a year to keep a child in foster care....................beyond abc's findings, the per annum cost per child in foster care would keep a child in a good boarding school............ > abc's primetime did a june 1 story on "the crisis of the foster care > system"..............among abc's conclusions were 52 percent of foster [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > child in foster care would keep a child in a good boarding > school............ Although I'm not going to debate statistics or argue about anything (I know for a fact how our system in this part of Canada works, and although I don't know how ABC's info adds up to how we are over here - but I am assuming numbers are not far off) You have to think of what's the lesser evil. The costs are so high. It's tiresome to a point, but in order to just up and dispose of any foster system, you need to no longer have a need for it. Is the money worth it for the statistics to be basically horrible as far as everything goes, or is it better to allow children to be in crisis situations? Every foster home and foster parent or family has guidelines, and they're fairly strict as far as every day life goes for the homes. How would numbers sit if there were no alternatives (such as foster care)? Would abandon rates go up? Would welfare numbers go up? Would there be even more cases of abuse, neglect, would the situations be better or worse if you assume society is the same minus foster care? No, I don't know those answers, but it is something to ponder. A good boarding school may offer a child less harm, a better education, more support, but when the home situation is generally not good, and without foster care to help a percentage, how would the statistics stand for homelessness, prison numbers, welfare rates, etc... If you think of it according to numbers, only 48% don't suffer pts, 70% will wind up with some sort of roof over their head, 75% stay out of jail. Also, I'm not at all agreeing to the comment about children growing up in foster care can become mothers with children in foster care. There *is* a dad for every child as well. Anyways, is there really a better answer, alternative, way to go about the obvious problems that are clear? >> abc's primetime did a june 1 story on "the crisis of the foster care >> system"..............among abc's conclusions were 52 percent of foster [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Anyways, is there really a better answer, alternative, way to go about the > obvious problems that are clear? Sure, sweep the problems under the rug, stop keeping any records on incest, beating deaths, starvation, deliberate injuries, drug effects, and those other things that CPS takes children for no good reason 0:-> and pretend it's gone. Soon the data on children will reflect only what the sick souls you answer in reply to want them to reflect. However, those children that survive will continue to flood, as adults, the mental health facilities, the prisons, and the graveyards...if they make it that far before they become adults. The illicit drug industry will continue to grow as those children no longer served by and protected by society self medicate into adulthood. The gangs will be overflowing with recruits, and illegal gun purveyors will fatten with the increased income. Hospital trauma centers will be overbooked 24/7 with lines out into the streets. We will have a lot of organ donors though, but sadly, many will have to be rejected because of drug and disease related injury and deterioration to organs. Meth will meet it's great potential and nearly replace most other drugs. Children will be made whores at an earlier age as they wise up to the truth around them, that society doesn't care what their parents do to them hence they have no worth other than what they have to sell. Sound weird. Well, ALL THIS IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. We ARE ignoring this problem, and it's being systematically lied about by those that DO want to do to their children just what they wish, no matter how damaging and cruel. They look like normal people, they can even talk like normal people, but in fact they are NOT normal people...yet they think they are. And they help each other by joining in special interest groups to lie about the problem as they number one strategic goal. You have met some here. Kane  Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) the point of the post wasn't the statistics............they can be debated endlessly by the simpleminded.............likewise, the notion that some bureaucratic glassware should be viewed as half full or half empty is equally irrelevant..............the newsworthiness is that a mainstream american television network devoted an hour-long segment of prime time programming and web site space to questioning the once sacrosanct system of foster care............as they might say at abc news, "that's the real story behind the story"............. > > abc's primetime did a june 1 story on "the crisis of the foster care > > system"..............among abc's conclusions were 52 percent of foster [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Anyways, is there really a better answer, alternative, way to go about the > obvious problems that are clear? > abc's primetime did a june 1 story on "the crisis of the foster care > system"..............among abc's conclusions were 52 percent of foster [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > child in foster care would keep a child in a good boarding > school............ You miss the point. In fact that IS about what is happening. Unfortunately THIS "boarding school" is about one, keeping the child safe from the abuses done to them by their parents and family...in 95% of the cases. This "boarding school" must include therapy for the mental confusion and suffering, rehabilitation for the developmental injuries, often medical rehab for physical injures. The truth is it costs a family, on average from birth to age 18 ... "According to a study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a family with a child born in 2000 can expect to spend about $165,630 ($233,530 when factoring in inflation) for food, shelter and other necessities to raise that child over the next 17 years. " That would pencil out, presuming they haven't abused their child into special needs category, as the vast majority of CPS foster placed children are, to $13,737.05 per year. Other sources estimates run as high as $13,900 per year. Do YOU know any foster parent getting 13k per annum foster subsidy per child? Do mental health and rehabilitative services come free? Should the workers and staff of CPS work for free, on overloaded case loads? What does it cost to support the legal services to the child? $26,263 is what's left from that $40,000. For all these other supports and services. INCLUDING THE FOSTER SUBSIDY itself. That averages about $5,400 per year (around $450 mo). Now we are down to $20,600 for the remainder of costs. A single session of therapy runs about $100 and are usually once or twice a week. It is not uncommon for a child to have multiple complaints, physical and mental, to be healed. Many are behind in school when they enter state custody. Some developmentally delayed. Some are so emotionally disturbed that they cannot even reside in a regular foster family but must be placed with a specially trained and higher paid "therapeutic foster family." Some, sadly, can't even manage there and have to go to a more secure and regulated setting where even line staff are trained therapists, and in addition, trained in dealing with dangerous clients. I worked in such a place. The children that came there from their bio families had a lot of interesting issues. Old untreated broken bones. Eye's eskew from from head injuries, and of course also untreated. Drug effects. Developmental disorders and disfunctions (meaning some were treatable and some not). And these was NOT the end of it. Some children were so bad off they could not even reside in a treatment facility, but had to be sent to a locked psychiatric hospital ward. Only a few, but there they were. Too sick and dangerous to live anywhere, but locked up. And those that work in the mental health child rehab and treatment field are notoriously underpaid. Those are the ones that do the day to day living with the children as surrogate temporary parents. $40,000 IS A BARGAIN, stupid. What proof do I have that you are observer? Easy. Your lack of information, your lack of intelligence, your propensity to lie continuously, and finally your unerring ability to make a complete fool of yourself. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) noooooooooooo, you missed the point, a.shole.....................when you've lost the mainstream media, your little pet overpriced make-work bureaucracy is screwed................... ]:^< runs around her dog lot barking you don't understand...............you don't understand...............you don't understand...............you don't understand...............you don't understand...............you don't understand...............you don't understand...............you don't understand............... > abc's primetime did a june 1 story on "the crisis of the foster care > system"..............among abc's conclusions were 52 percent of foster > children suffered from post-traumatic stress (a rate twice as high as > soldiers returning from war).............thirty percent of the homeless > have been in foster care............ twenty-five percent of those in > prison are foster care alumnus Hi, maggie, Former and present foster children represent the most endangered population in this country. Child welfare experts contend that the only way to reduce the abuse in foster care and the very poor outcomes for former foster children is to have less foster care. And reform movements are underway in many states and, on the federal level, to place less children into state custody and release foster children to their families earlier. Currently, the vast majority of children removed from their families were not abused. 69,000 of children placed in foster care in 2003 were removed from families CPS workers themselves unsubstantiated for risk of or actual neglect/abuse. These non-victims represent 30% of the foster care population. The majority of those who were substantiated were found to be at risk of neglect or neglected. Of those children substantiated as victims of abuse, the majority were substantiated because they were "at risk" of abuse, not actually abused. ............. like welfare, foster care > is intergenerational (children growing up in foster care can become > mothers with children in foster care........... "the highest ranking > federal official in charge of foster care, wade horn of the department > of health and human services, is a former child psychologist who says > the foster care system is a giant mess and should just be blown > up"............ The most vocal of foster care critics are professionals who are directly involved with it. Dr. Horn is one of the players in CPS reform efforts. ."there are no provisions for treatment, prevention, > family support, or aging out - just for supporting things as they > are"..........that status quo costs taxpayers $22 billion a year and > works out to $40,000 a year to keep a child in foster > care The total cost of raising the child takes up about $14,000 of that. Foster children's medical, dental and mental health needs are covered by Medacaid. The remaining $26,000 goes to principals and workers in the child welfare industry itself. Administrative costs are many times much higher than 2/3 of the funding going into foster care, although 66% is the general rule. For each foster child, there is a battery of GALS, social service workers, state caregivers, case managers, mentors, partridges, pear trees and the trees in which they roost. ....................beyond abc's findings, the per annum cost per > child in foster care would keep a child in a good boarding > school............ ....And pay for their college. The overcrowded and abusive foster care system described by ABC news became that way because of what the Pew Commission calls "the perverse funding incentive" provided state CPS agencies to remove children from their families. Federal Title IV-E Social Security Funding currently flows to the states on the basis of how many poor children CPS takes into custody. As long as the child stays in foster care, the state agencies pull down the uncapped, on demand Title IV-E funding. As the result of the Pew Commission report, Congress is currently at work to remove the strings to Title IV-E funding. The money will become a capped entitlement to the states, allowing CPS agencies to decide for themselves how to spend the money. This will cut the foster population by as much as 80% across the country. The reform legislation, partially because of Dr. Wade's support, will soon be passed by Congress. This is the reform legislation the Organization of American Counties and CPS attempted to defeat through a lobbying campaign about the Meth "epidemic." Meanwhile, individual states have reduced their foster care poplulation by applying for and being granted exclusions from Title IV-E funding restrictions. California, Iowa and other states were just granted Title IV-E waivers. We can expect the state that harbors close to half of the nation's foster children to reduce the population of state wards by 50% over the next three years. Mamouth reductions in foster care populations have occurred in Illinois, Oregon and other states granted Title IV-E waivers in the past. It won't be long, now. >> abc's primetime did a june 1 story on "the crisis of the foster care >> system"..............among abc's conclusions were 52 percent of foster [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Former and present foster children represent the most endangered population > in this country. And they came by it in the majority from their origins, the family they were born into. > Child welfare experts contend Some do. > that the only way to reduce the abuse in > foster care and the very poor outcomes for former foster children is to have > less foster care. And some do not. Some believe that adequately funding the system for lower caseloads WILL in fact move children through the system more rapidly to permanency. Better funding will result in not just lower caseloads...a problem pointed out BY EXPERTS even you have quoted, Doug, but allow for hiring and training more qualified workers. > And reform movements are underway in many states and, on > the federal level, to place less children into state custody and release > foster children to their families earlier. Which has NOT proven yet to be the safest course. Parents have been known, as you know perfectly well, to re-abuse these same children. YOU quoted, in another argument, figures showing high rates of re-offending. > Currently, the vast majority of children removed from their families were > not abused. That is only true if you count raw numbers of removals...and ignore those that are returned in short order. > 69,000 of children placed in foster care in 2003 were removed > from families CPS workers themselves unsubstantiated for risk of or actual > neglect/abuse. When you claim "not abused" you are ignoring the research I posted here that shows that "not abuse" and "unsubstantiated for abuse or neglect" are not the same thing, nor the same yardstick. Substantiation is a service needs driven assessment label, not a legal definition of abuse. > These non-victims represent 30% of the foster care > population. "Victim" and "substantiated" are not interchangeable terms, as you delusional claim. The study I provided you done for the USDHHS shows clearly that you are not correct, and your insistence on ignoring it is what earns you the title I give you of liar. > The majority of those who were substantiated were found to be > at risk of neglect or neglected. Yes? 0:-> > Of those children substantiated as victims > of abuse, the majority were substantiated because they were "at risk" of > abuse, not actually abused. Nonsense babbling again, Doug? > ............. like welfare, foster care >> is intergenerational (children growing up in foster care can become [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The most vocal of foster care critics are professionals who are directly > involved with it. Dr. Horn is one of the players in CPS reform efforts. R R R R, volume does not equate with accuracy or expertise, Doug. Wade Horn is identified as an anti-women's rights appointee to a political office. Wade makes the same mistake I've pointed out to you repeatedly and you have ignored or minimized. The concept of upfront services has two major stumbling blocks, closely related to each other. Those who NEED the up front services do NOT present themselves for those services. Criminals, addicts/substance abusers, mentally ill. And especially those guilty of abusing, or placing their children at risk. They are NOT your self development conscious population that self assess as needing help and seeking it. Which brings me to point to, and something that this administration is becoming a major concern of the public over: if up front services are to be delivered they will have to be delivered by heavy intrusive efforts. These take the disguise of "public services agents" calling up people to "volunteer" the services, but always with the hint and occasionally the open threat of action if the "services" are not "volunteered for." You and others here like you have even argued this very same thing yourself in the context of the current system. I suggest you carefully read Wade's statements from last year, for this very content. Nicely worded, not at all obvious, but to one that has followed CPS and related agencies, and the paths that legislation has taken, it is more than clear. It is moving the point of entry of government, not removing it. And it will have similar outcomes. Those that cannot or will not present themselves will be on a list. And the very thing YOU pissants claim is being done, that is not, WILL BE A FACT OF LIFE: That CPS will be charged with HUNTING child abuse, rather than taking incoming calls only. The agency may not BE CPS, but other agencies will apply for grants, hire new workers, and out they will go into the field. "Nurses," "community service Workers," from fields as diverse as health, and recreation (Recreation is a favorite place to focus on children and their parents and signs of abuse when government wants to intrude on families.) http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/olab/legislative/testimony/2004/cw_testimony.htm Then read: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/olab/legislative/testimony/2005/test_060905_chi ld.html And you will see the trend. As for Wade himself, and the politics surrounding him, (and don't EVEN try your bullshit of attempting to separate the quality and content of someone's claims from their character and milieu with me, a.shole), you might want to look at the criticisms: http://www.mediatransparency.org/personprofile.php?personID=89 The politics are, well, business as usual. YOU just want the money to move from one place to another. Do you have a personal interest in this, Doug? A financial one? > ."there are no provisions for treatment, prevention, >> family support, or aging out - just for supporting things as they [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The remaining $26,000 goes to principals and workers in the child welfare > industry itself. It isn't an industry. No profits accrue to anyone. > Administrative costs are many times much higher than 2/3 > of the funding going into foster care, although 66% is the general rule. > For each foster child, there is a battery of GALS, social service workers, > state caregivers, case managers, mentors, partridges, pear trees and the > trees in which they roost. You are lying. And YOU have applauded the use of GALS, and social workers. A case manager is a case worker. Stop your lying. There are no partridges, other than computer support, clerical support, utility fees, building rents, transport for children, and often parent clients, etc., and as far as I know, "no pear trees and the trees in which they roost." Trees resting in trees, Doug? You obviously aren't paying attention to what YOU are writing, and you most certainly ARE patronizingly playing on your belief in the ignorance and or stupidity of the readers. Who, hopefully really AREN'T as stupid as you patronizingly make them out to be with your nonsense. Bio families do not have the expenses related to abused children, unless they abuse and neglect and are responsible enough to pay themselves for the outcomes. We can presume the $14,000 per child figure is not for that population. > ....................beyond abc's findings, the per annum cost per >> child in foster care would keep a child in a good boarding [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > incentive" provided state CPS agencies to remove children from their > families. You are ignoring, and thus misleading (called "lying" in some circles) the rest of what the Pew commission found. And what others have found. The abuse and neglect has taken on a much more perverse color than in the past, with far greater injury with more serious outcomes that cost a great deal more to treat. Number ARE going up, NOT down. > Federal Title IV-E Social Security Funding currently flows to the > states on the basis of how many poor children CPS takes into custody. A simplistic way of describing something that is more comprehensive than just the poverty level. However, the poor neglect and abuse their children at a higher rate than the non-poor. It's just a simple fact. Nothing complex. They are often poor for reasons that are not just lack of ability to find a job. People that don't abuse, and become poor, do not start abusing because they are poor. People that live lifestyles that include abusive child rearing and are poor do not stop abusing even if you provide them money. This has all been tried before and failed. > As > long as the child stays in foster care, the state agencies pull down the > uncapped, on demand Title IV-E funding. Appeals to emotions with loaded word choice, like 'pull down' leading one to believe that they are 'making money' by this process. They are spending money at a faster rate than they are getting it because of the load on the system. As for the TRUE reaction to PEW commission report, you need to go beyond your bullshit propaganda, Doug. http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=63622 [[[ Notice they are saying the same thing I am saying. Funding has been a perpetual problem .. in all areas of child protection, including the courts. They too have been underfunded, badly. ]]] home today's news about USN USN services contact USN media services news sources search Strengthening Courts, Improving Foster Care: A Progress Report from the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care 4/5/2006 2:53:00 PM To: Assignment Desk, Daybook Editor Contact: The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, 202-687-0948; Web: http://www.pewfostercare.org News Advisory: -- Strengthening Courts, Improving Foster Care: A Progress Report from the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care -- Thursday, April 6, 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., U.S. Capitol Building, Room H-137, Washington, D.C. No child enters or leaves foster care without a judge's approval. Given the critical role of juvenile and family courts in children's lives, the nonpartisan Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care called for sweeping court reforms to protect children in foster care and secure safe, permanent families for them. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 includes new provisions to improve the juvenile and family courts that reflect some of the Pew Commission's recommendations. These new court improvements will help courts track and analyze their caseloads to improve outcomes for children in foster care, allow judges and other court personnel to receive needed training, and encourage collaboration between courts and child welfare agencies. The DRA provides $100 million over five years for these court improvements. These new court provisions add critical momentum to the efforts of states to improve their child welfare and court systems. At this briefing, members of the Pew Commission, Congressional leaders, judges, court leaders and federal officials will explore the potential impact of these court improvements on children in foster care throughout the United States. Participants include: THE HONORABLE BILL FRENZEL, Chairman, Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, Guest Scholar, Economic Studies, The Brookings Institution THE HONORABLE WALLY HERGER (R-CA), Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means THE HONORABLE WADE HORN, Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services THE HONORABLE JOAN OHL, Commissioner, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services THE HONORABLE LEE F. SATTERFIELD, Associate Judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Former Presiding Judge, D.C. Family Court WILLIAM C. VICKREY, Member, Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, Administrative Director of the Courts, California Administrative Office of the Courts CLARICE DIBBLE WALKER, Member, Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, Former Commissioner, D.C. Social Services http://www.usnewswire.com/ -0- /© 2006 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/ > As the result of the Pew Commission report, Congress is currently at work to > remove the strings to Title IV-E funding. The money will become a capped > entitlement to the states, allowing CPS agencies to decide for themselves > how to spend the money. This will cut the foster population by as much as > 80% across the country. It will defund, which will, of course, dump kids OUT of the foster system, or close the doors to them when they need protection. The pendulum will swing again. The size of the needed workforce will increase to "give" those upfront services that Wade is so supportive of. More AGENTS of the government will make attempts at entre' to homes and family. YOU, and they, are stupid. > The reform legislation, partially because of Dr. Wade's support, will soon > be passed by Congress. This is the reform legislation the Organization of > American Counties and CPS attempted to defeat through a lobbying campaign > about the Meth "epidemic." Bullshit. CPS has little to do with the reporting on meth. The news services are sending journalist and reporters out to find out for themselves and they are finding that indeed there IS such an epidemic and it's have devastating impact on families and children. You are a propagandist, and it appears you are one for the current administration on these matters. > Meanwhile, individual states have reduced their foster care poplulation by > applying for and being granted exclusions from Title IV-E funding [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It won't be long, now. It will be about two to three years before we see the first signs of this boondoggle. Watch. Just as I predicted the upsurge in meth related issues for child protection and the country I predict that child abuse rates, once we change administrations, will be correctly reported and they will skyrocket. Families will not present themselves for "up front services" and we'll see more and more clever "agencies" with specially trained, expensive, workers going out to find ways into homes. Having done so more abuse will be uncovered than ever before...because our system and society has resisted intrusion into the family...and that will break down. That IS the goal of certain factions now influencing legislation, and they are poised to do those intrusion under color of law. They are NOT family friendly...just "family model" friendly, and the objective is to NOT allow for non-biblical model families to exist. You will see the gates to hell open on this one, Doug. If they carry it off. 5 years at the outside before the public discovers they have been conned by you and your kind. 0:-> And for those that care, another opinion on Wade and his politics and values, which of course boils down to biases: http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=5474 Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) >>> abc's primetime did a june 1 story on "the crisis of the foster care >>> system"..............among abc's conclusions were 52 percent of foster [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > That is only true if you count raw numbers of removals...and ignore those > that are returned in short order. Doug is quite correct, the majority are not removed for abuse. They are removed for neglect. And as figures point out, neglect is by far the greater killer of children. Figures show that 2.1 kids per thousand were abused, but 7.4 per thousand were neglected. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/figure3_3.htm > > 69,000 of children placed in foster care in 2003 were removed >> from families CPS workers themselves unsubstantiated for risk of or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Substantiation is a service needs driven assessment label, not a legal > definition of abuse. Doug does not care about facts, they get in the way of his agenda. Ron >> These non-victims represent 30% of the foster care population. > [quoted text clipped - 327 lines] > > http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=5474 > >>> abc's primetime did a june 1 story on "the crisis of the foster care > >>> system"..............among abc's conclusions were 52 percent of foster [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > removed for neglect. And as figures point out, neglect is by far the > greater killer of children. So the claim made by Kane has been proven to be false? Here is the exact quote: "About a thousand children a year that die at the hands of their parents do so because of "discipline" that escalated to murder. In other words, two thirds of the total each year were "disciplined to death." " > Figures show that 2.1 kids per thousand were abused, but 7.4 per thousand > were neglected. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Doug does not care about facts, they get in the way of his agenda. Funny, the exact sambe thing can be said about Kane and his anti-spanking agenda! Doan > Ron the more you post, the more you sound like the old drunk joe mccarthy ranting about a communist under every bed................ ]:^< runs around her dog lot barking about abusive parents................ > the more you post, the more you sound like the old drunk joe mccarthy > ranting about a communist under every bed................ > > ]:^< runs around her dog lot barking about abusive > parents................ The following is from my mail today, received per my request from Oregon law enforcement, Sheriff's department of the state's most populous county. The subject, Meth involvement of children. From a document on Meth, not on children specifically. Quoting from the printed page: Stats from The Oregonian; Sunday, April 24, 2005 Children in foster care in Oregon 6,824 Foster homes: 4,800 Foster children with health issues so complex they require medical foster homes:2,394 (35% of all foster children have these complex medical issues) Medical foster homes: 179 (there is of course no way that 179 med.fost.homes can take 13 children a piece) Medical foster homes needed: 1,197 So of course, CPS hypes the meth epidemic (with collusion by the mental health profession, the drug treatment centers, the police, and the media..all lying, of course 0;-> ) so as to raise more money for things like medially fragile compromised children (often from substance abuse issues) instead of just letting them die, like Greg wishes. You on that boat, observer? Sailing soon, are you? Funny, the cops say, in this same document, that METH IS THE LEADING CAUSE OF CHILDREN NEEDING FOSTER CARE IN OREGON. Obviously they are lying to raise fund, right guys? Oregon Stats -- labs seized by LE 2003: 473 2004: 444 Isn't that nice to see such a significant drop? In 2005 they halved the labs. Things are really improving. Opps! Seems meth USE did not go down. In fact, it went up. How COULD that be. Well I don't know about Oregon, but MY county sheriff tells me it's Mexican superlab smuggled meth using the same systems in place that were laid down for Heroin and Cocaine. Wouldn't you know, just when we thought we were getting a handle on it and you guys could crow that my "epidemic" fizzled out. Poor boys. There's much more that I'd share with you, but obviously you are bored and have your own "truth" fed to you by Doug and your own simple fundamentalist bounded brain and thinking patterns. Heck I wouldn't want to make you boys uncomfortable or anything. Forget about the kids of the folks doing meth. They don't really matter, and CPS just picks them up from their poor families to make money off of. Well, except for the one's hauled in by cops after a drug raid. I still can't explain to myself how CPS arranged that, but according to you guys, who I trust implicitly, they must have. After all, they are just in it for the money. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) with the notable exception of oklahoma, meth is mostly a west coast phenomenon..........just as florida is known for its bizarre news stories, oregon is known for its meth labs..........that may be why oregon made pseudoephedrine, a key ingredient in meth manufacture, available only by prescription...........nationally, pharmaceutical giant pfizer reformulated a version of sudafed without pseudoephedrine and chain stores began limiting sales of over the counter pills containing pseudoephedrine..........the combination of state laws and corporate willpower helped cut the number of meth labs, which can be easily setup in motel rooms (never use the microwave) and rv's, found in early 2006...........despite dozens of sponsors for the legislation, there isn't enough of a meth problem nationally for a conservative congress to make the proposed "methamphetamine epidemic elimination act" the law of the land ............... ]:^< runs around her dog lot barking about the number of meth labs found in oregon............... ....yet another attempt at minimizing the meth issue..... How very sad. > with the notable exception of oklahoma, meth is mostly a west coast > phenomenon.......... No, you are very wrong, sir. It is rolling across the country and has been for some time now. http://www.dea.gov/pubs/pressrel/pr083005b.html I thank you, observer, and cohort, for motivating me to give you and others better information. In full from the DEA, 2005: "Prepared Remarks of DEA Administrator Karen P. Tandy at Operation WildFire Press Conference August 30, 2005 Washington, D.C. Over the past week, DEA agents and diversion investigators, state and local law enforcement, and prosecutors undertook the first coordinated nationwide methamphetamine enforcement sweep. We arrested and put out of business 427 meth cooks, dealers, and transporters in 200 cities across the nation, and specifically targeted meth cooks and repeat offenders removing 120 of them out of our neighborhoods. And, behind all these numbers….: * We saw -- and rescued -- meth’s youngest victims, like the Missouri infant and 6 year old girl we pulled out of a bug-infested home where meth was being cooked. The children had no beds to sleep in and no food to eat – they didn’t even have electricity – but the guard dog out front was well-cared for. * We saw a toxic meth lab set up in a hotel room in Minneapolis—a hotel that is across the street from an elementary school. * We saw in Missouri a sophisticated biker gang running a meth lab where three of the five manufacturers were repeat meth offenders. Their operation was surrounded with hi-tech video surveillance equipment that allowed them to detect any law enforcement a quarter of a mile away. * We saw a mailman in Michigan delivering more than letters—he delivered meth to houses on his route and was a user himself. * We saw meth cooks operating in an assisted living home in Pennsylvania. Two of the 90-year-old patients had to be hospitalized as a result of exposure to the meth lab. Those are just some of the examples of what we put an end to this past week. True to this operation’s name, meth has spread like wildfire across the United States. It has burned out communities, scorched childhoods, and charred once happy and productive lives beyond recognition. In addition to the arrests in Operation Wildfire, we closed down 56 meth labs and seized 208 pounds of meth – that’s enough to give a hit of meth to more than 284,000 people – roughly the population of Newark, New Jersey. We also seized more than a quarter million dollars of drug money. This focus on meth isn’t new to the DEA. Meth is America’s Own – homemade, cheap and readily available – we are making progress but this is going to be a long haul, which we have been fully committed to along with our state and local partners. Here in our neighborhoods, our courageous DEA agents are arresting meth cooks and traffickers—5,500 of them in the past year. * We have prioritized and deployed DEA’s Mobile Enforcement Teams to take down meth trafficking rings. * We are training our state and local partners to safely dismantle these toxic, volatile meth labs -- 9,300 of them since 1998 -- and arming each officer with $2,200 worth of equipment to raid meth labs. * Last year, DEA administered more than $18 million in funding for more than 10,000 meth lab cleanups * Together, U.S. and Canadian law enforcement and U.S. Attorneys drove most of the largest “super” meth labs out of America by arresting and prosecuting those who were supplying the bulk chemicals needed to manufacture pound quantities of meth. As a result, 65% of meth now sold in America is manufactured by Mexican trafficking organizations, and DEA is working with Mexican officials to block that flow. * The Justice Department and DEA are providing meth training to Mexico investigators and prosecutors. * DEA is attacking international meth cartels by denying them necessary chemicals, profits, and trafficking routes; by seizing their drugs and dismantling their U.S. distribution cells; and by working with our international partners to target meth kingpins themselves. * A little over a week ago, we concluded Operation Three Hour Tour where we targeted high-level Colombian and Mexican drug traffickers in the U.S. We dismantled three major transportation cells and 27 distribution groups and seized 155 pounds of meth – enough to give a hit of meth to more than 200,000 people. On a related front -- in the U.S. and beyond our borders -- we’re denying meth manufacturers—large and small—the necessary precursor chemicals they need to make their poison, particularly pseudoephedrine. In Operation Wildfire alone, we seized more than 400,000 tablets of precursors as well as 336 pounds of pseudoephedrine powder — which would produce more than 350,000 hits of meth. * Over the past 7 years, more than 2,000 pseudoephedrine-related chemical registrations and applications have been denied, surrendered, or withdrawn as a result of DEA investigations. * We’re taking this fight around the globe, because to win against meth in places like St. Louis or Sacramento, we have to go to places like Hong Kong—which is too often where meth cartels go for bulk pseudoephedrine. * In one international operation, we worked with partners from Hong Kong, Mexico, and Panama and prevented 68 million pseudoephedrine tablets from reaching meth cartels, which could have produced more than 2 metric tons of meth. * To continue that kind of success, DEA is forging international agreements -- between Mexico, Hong Kong and other countries -- to jointly pre-screen pseudoephedrine shipments to ensure they are going to legitimate Mexican companies for legitimate use and to stop those that aren’t. Finally, the American family room and classrooms are our most important fronts. * Today, DEA launches “justthinktwice.com” a cutting-edge website devoted to and designed by teenagers to give them the hard facts about meth and other drugs in “teenspeak,” with graphic photos and personal stories – about how meth will steal their future and their looks, and take control of their life. This straight forward website is aimed at stopping young people from going down the dark road of meth. * DEA’s Justthinktwice.com website is exclusively aimed at our teenagers and young adults for good reason: according to a recent study, nearly half of meth users began during high school. * The good news is that, since 2001, meth use has declined 25% among our teenagers. DEA’s website will help continue that downward trend. * Tomorrow morning, Channel 1 will broadcast a demonstration of the new DEA website in 12,000 middle and high schools, reaching 8 million teenagers and 400,000 educators. America has been scorched by the wildfire grip of meth. We cannot expect a cure overnight. But, with this nationwide operation, we extinguished some of those fires. And, DEA is fully committed to a sustained effort, here and abroad, to beat meth back. Our country and its children deserve nothing less. " just as florida is known for its bizarre news > stories, oregon is known for its meth labs.......... You were as routinely behind the times when you posted as observer as you are now. Possibly you are even worse today. > that may be why > oregon made pseudoephedrine, "Oregon?" You think Oregon is the only place? Hell, they are working right now in DC on a bill for nationwide limits. a key ingredient in meth manufacture, > available only by prescription........... Geez you are stupid. Medications with pseudoephedrine can be bought right NOW in any grocery store with a cold remedy section. My local grocer is a friend of mine, and I do meth education for my area, and he is ON the same panel as I. He reports regularly about people coming in and trying to buy more than the limit from his locked cabinet requiring ID to purchase. But there is NO perscription required. Imagine if you are a stupid and ignorant about this as you are, how ignorant and stupid you are about other issues. Determinedly miss- and underinformed, observer as maggie marches on with pronouncements and proclamations. sh.t man, you ARE stupid. nationally, pharmaceutical > giant pfizer reformulated a version of sudafed without pseudoephedrine > and chain stores began limiting sales of over the counter pills > containing pseudoephedrine.......... Yep, and you can buy the old cold remedies still with the pseudoephedrine in them. You must identify yourself and they are no longer on open shelves. Not that what you are posting isn't a good thing, and not that it's not coming about over time, but stop making a total fool of yourself. Your POINT is pointless, given that the meth issue, even by YOUR words, is obviously a very serious issue. Or were you trying to help me get the word out, "maggie?" the combination of state laws and > corporate willpower helped cut the number of meth labs, which can be > easily setup in motel rooms (never use the microwave) and rv's, found > in early 2006........... I have posted about six or seven times already that there are people making money providing disposable kits for cooking a one shot batch of meth ($3, 5K profits on per batch) out of the trunk of a car. > despite dozens of sponsors for the legislation, > there isn't enough of a meth problem nationally for a conservative > congress to make the proposed "methamphetamine epidemic elimination > act" the law of the land ............... Where is this "methamphetamine epidemic elimination act" you are talking about? The "meth" problem, as was pointed out in the press release from the DEA has been moving, even prior to 2005, from labs to imports. " As a result, 65% of meth now sold in America is manufactured by Mexican trafficking organizations, and DEA is working with Mexican officials to block that flow." About 5% of the US population used meth at least once. The source I cited yesterday, if anyone bothered to read it, showed that it is now becoming the drug of choice over both cocaine and heroin combined. And it's a popular youth drug, something neither were before...and I mean YOUTH. Kid of 10 years old and up, have used. "NPR : Federal Cuts May Hamper Efforts to Close Meth Labs in Tenn. In 2004, Tennessee ranked second nationwide in the number of meth labs seized. From member station WUOT in Knoxville, Matt Shafer Powell reports. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4674925 "Oregon," observer? "West coast," observer? Then how did Tennesee manage the above, dummy? How has Missouri become the hottest spot in the nation for Meth use? [PDF] Methamphetamine Impact: Nationwide Statistics File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Meth making operations have been uncovered in all 50 states. 2. Methamphetamine Lab Busts on the Rise. • In 2004, 17033 methamphetamine labs were seized, ... http://www.montanameth.org/documents/Fact%20Sheet_Meth%20Impact_US041906.PDF 17,003 Met lab busts in ALL 50 STATES in 2004, Drag-maggie? > ]:^< runs around her dog lot barking about the number of meth labs > found in oregon............... It's down. Not that that matters much to the overall picture. Meth use is down slightly, but we don't know, countrywide if that's real or just an overwhelm of law enforcement and they aren't making as many busts. The reason for the question? Because meth addicts presenting at rehab HAVE GONE UP. UP. UP. My tri-county are Psychiatric Hospital says they have nearly 8 times as many meth related psychosis patients now than they did five years ago. That kind of psychosis is a horror show for the victims. And for their caretakers and therapists. I think of it as fried brain. And a terrible loss, and often these people are parents. The loss, of course, is also to the children. You given a fine demonstration again, observer, of just how stupid you are. 0:-> Ref: KVOA News 4, Tucson, Arizona - Study shows methamphetamine #1 drug ... Peter Busch Reports Study shows methamphetamine #1 drug problem nationwide ... Before, meth was a problem only in the West and Midwest. ... http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=3559062 - 77k - Cached - Similar pages Hospitals Say Meth Cases Are Rising, and Hurt Care - New York Times In July, the association reported that an overwhelming number of sheriffs polled nationwide declared methamphetamine their No. 1 law enforcement problem. ... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/national/18drug.html?ex=1295240400&en=a6265bea 7279e80a&ei=5088&par... - Similar pages Indianz.Com > News > Meth blamed for increase in child abuse on ... Meth is a nationwide problem but the drug, often manufactured in Mexico but also produced in labs in reservations, ... Copyright © 2000-2006 Indianz.Com ... http://indianz.com/News/2006/013012.asp - 22k - Cached - Similar pages August 2005 - Pushing Back - ONDCP Bullet, Bush Administration Announces Huge Nationwide Meth Bust ... Putting the meth problem in a national perspective, ONDCP Director John Walters said, ... http://www.pushingback.com/archives/05aug.html - 75k - Cached - Similar pages Unified Judicial System In 1998 rural areas nationwide reported 949 meth labs. ... One of the ways the UJS is addressing the meth problem in South Dakota is by implementing a pilot ... http://www.sdjudicial.com/index.asp?title=2006&category=annual_report&nav=39 - 42k - Cached - Similar pages MATR News: Burns plans to spread Montana Meth project nationwide ... Burns plans to spread Montana Meth project nationwide - "Not Even Once". February 17, 2006, View for printing. Sen. Conrad Burns introduced a bill Thursday ... http://www.matr.net/article-18212.html - 16k - Cached - Similar pages Tribes across nation confront horrors of meth Despite such efforts, Native American officials nationwide report a meth-induced ... The rest of America can't even deal with the Meth problem it has do you ... http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special49/articles/0331indian-meth.html - 77k - Cached - Similar pages Nevada Appeal - Opinion The meth epidemic is so serious in Carson City and vicinity that Mayor Marv ... drug problem in a majority of communities nationwide," the Bee warned. ... http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20051023/OPINION/110230056&SearchID=7324635539073 - 20k - Cached - Similar pages [PDF] LISA MADIGAN File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML RSVP by September 20, 2006. New Developments in the Investigation and Prosecution of ... nationwide. To help you address the meth problem in your community, ... http://www.ptb.state.il.us/pdf/methinvite0406d.pdf - Similar pages Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > http://www.dea.gov/pubs/pressrel/pr083005b.html > > I thank you, observer, and cohort, for motivating me to give you and > others better information. In full from the DEA, 2005: > About 5% of the US population used meth at least once. The source I cited > yesterday, if anyone bothered to read it, showed that it is now becoming > the drug of choice over both cocaine and heroin combined. Hi, Kane, ..And around 0.3% of the US population is using meth now or within the last 30 days. Yes, 5.3% of the US population tried Meth at least once in their lives. But is hardly the drug of choice. Here is a breakdown from the source you cited. Tried at least once during lifetime: Marijuana 94,900,000 users 40.4% of total population Cocaine 33,000,000 users 14.4% of total population Inhalants 18,000,000 users 8.1% of total population Methamphetamine 12,000,000 users 5.3% of total population http://whitehousedrugpolicy.org/publications/factsht/drugdata/index.html Your quote above covers any meth use during a lifetime (5.3% of the total population). But note that marijuana use in a lifetime involves 40.4% of the total population over 12, cocaine 14.4%, and even inhalants were used by more people nationally (8.1%) than methamphetamine. > And it's a popular youth drug, something neither were before...and I mean > YOUTH. Kid of 10 years old and up, have used. According to the source you quote, "the good news is that, since 2001, meth use has declined 25% among our teenagers." http://www.dea.gov/pubs/pressrel/pr083005b.html Your claim that "Meth is becoming the drug of choice over both heroin and cocaine combined is absurd. Use of cocaine along is three times that of methamphetamine. And increases among ER admissions involving drugs are LOWEST for meth users. Methamphetamine 17,696 13% increase over 1995 http://whitehousedrugpolicy.org/publications/factsht/methamph/index.html Cocaine 199,472 47% increase over 1995 http://whitehousedrugpolicy.org/publications/factsht/cocaine/index.html Marijuana 119,472 164% increase over 1995 http://whitehousedrugpolicy.org/publications/factsht/marijuana/index.html > My tri-county are Psychiatric Hospital says they have nearly 8 times as > many meth related psychosis patients now than they did five years ago. > That kind of psychosis is a horror show for the victims. And for their > caretakers and therapists. Did your psychiatric hospital win a grant to treat "meth related" psychosis? Cases of methamphetamine induced psychosis almost always involve an acute condition experienced while under the influence of the drug. Cases where addicts exhibit psychotic symptoms after withdrawal are exceedingly rare -- although it does sometimes happen. Nationwide, such cases represent less than 1% of psychiatric hospital admissions. >> http://www.dea.gov/pubs/pressrel/pr083005b.html >> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Did your psychiatric hospital win a grant to treat "meth related" psychosis? I have no reason to think so. Do you? If so would you be prepared to do the research to prove it? > Cases of methamphetamine induced psychosis almost always involve an acute > condition experienced while under the influence of the drug. That's not news, Doug. Possibly to others here, but not to me. Problem is people use meth, or abuse it, can also have psychiatric disorders. Think about it. > Cases where > addicts exhibit psychotic symptoms after withdrawal are exceedingly rare -- > although it does sometimes happen. Yes. And it doesn't take many to fill the few psychiatric beds found in most larger hospital settings. > Nationwide, such cases represent less > than 1% of psychiatric hospital admissions. You confuse psychiatric hospital with hospitals that have a psych ward. http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3114.htm Just a few of many points brought up by the professionals: "Physical: Full physical and neurologic examination should be performed. Initially assess patients for medical stability and then for level of danger. * During physical examination, assess the patient for medical complications of amphetamine abuse, including hyperthermia, dehydration, renal failure, and cardiac complications. * During neurologic examination, assess the patient for neurologic complications of amphetamine abuse, including subarachnoid and intracranial hemorrhage, delirium, and seizures. * Mental-status examination should emphasize delusions, hallucinations, suicide, homicide, orientation, insight and judgment, and affect. Causes: * Amphetamine intoxication, binge pattern use, and long-term exposure * Comorbid psychiatric disorders * Abuse of other substances such as alcohol, OTC sympathomimetics, and illicit drugs * Dehydration * Fluoxetine (Prozac) - Increases CNS concentrations of amphetamine and potentiates its effects * Increased risk for HIV infection and acquiring other sexually transmitted diseases o In large metropolitan areas, gay men are at increased risk of HIV infection because of their use of crystal methamphetamine, also called Tina. o Crystal methamphetamine is commonly used in conjunction with gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) and/or prescription drugs to treat erectile dysfunction medications, which helps to reverse the impotence crystal methamphetamines cause. o During euphoria, unsafe sexual activity is common, and individuals have little awareness or concern about the risks of sexual encounters." And here's an interesting little piece out of South Africa, of all places. http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20060614022318578C733054 "Methamphetamine-induced psychosis is triggered by long-term abuse of tik. Common symptoms include paranoid delusions and visual or auditory hallucinations. In the first half of 2003, only 4 percent of patients receiving substance abuse treatment named tik as their drug of choice, according to the Medical Research Council. 'Increase in psychotic patients' In the latest study findings released by the MRC, the organisation's figures show that more than half of patients in treatment - 53 percent - report tik as the drug they primarily abuse. " [[[ tik = Methaphetamine ]]] http://www.utexas.edu/research/cswr/gcattc/Methamphetamine.pdf The Methamphetamine Treatment Project in California found participants had high levels of psychiatric symptoms, particularly depression and attempted suicide, as well as anxiety and psychotic symptoms. They reported high levels of problems controlling anger and violent behavior, with a..." http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/publications/methintf/3.html "When methamphetamine abusers do enter treatment, they encounter a variety of physical and mental health issues, many related to the biological effects of methamphetamine on the brain. Withdrawal symptoms, lasting between 2 days and 2 weeks, include depression, fatigue, anxiety, anergia, drug craving, and severe cognitive impairment. Also, research shows that protracted brain dysfunction persists for months after methamphetamine use stops. Other clinical issues include continuing paranoia, hypersexuality, irritability, drug craving in response to conditioned cues, and violence." How I know the data is incorrect? It's easy. Compare logically the related data from other issues of meth use. For instance, the figure on how many people are currently using. Compare them to the number of meth labs busted in a recent year, and ask yourself if even only ONE person ingested Meth made by those particular cookers (very unlikely to have been caught the first time out) from ONE completed cook, how it would compare to other figures about other issues of meth. http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/swt_0704p30.htm "The Drug Enforcement Agency reported breaking up more than 16,203 clandestine meth laboratories in 2002 and 2003 (National Clandestine Laboratory Database)." In fact you might find the rest of hte article interesting. http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/swt_0704p30.htm Then there's something for our friends below; http://www.tu.edu/user_files/10/26.html "Despite these problems, a number of investigators made efforts to assess the role of amphetamines in psychiatric hospitalizations. Askevold (1959) reported that at least 2% of the patients admitted to a Swedish hospital from 1947-1957 were there because of amphetamine abuse. Richards et al (1985) found that 10.7% of 300 admissions to the Iowa City VA Hospital Psychiatry Service admitted to use of CNS stimulants within six months prior to admission with 2.7% of these subjects' urines being positive for the psychostimulants, amphetamine or ephedrine. Interestingly, 21% of the schizophrenic and antisocial personality disorder admissions admitted using stimulants within six months prior to admission versus only 8% of all the other non schizophrenic admissions (Richards et al 1985). Thus, stimulant abuse can partially contribute to schizophrenic readmissions." I was just viewing, by the way, brain scans of alcohol induced dopamine release compared to meth induced release. Very interesting indeedy. I found the following an interesting view of us from outside. http://www.csam-asam.org/pdf/misc/Maxwell-methamphetamine.pdf Preliminary evidence fromthe literature on neuropsychological effects of methamphetamine use on neurotransmitters and cognition suggests that methamphetamine dependence may cause long-term neuronal damage in humans, with concomitant deleterious effects on cognitive processes such as memory and attention [40]. Abusers of methamphetamine have higher self-ratings of depression and anxiety than controls and they differ significantly in relative regional glucose metabolism: lower in the anterior cingulate and insula and higher in the lateral orbitofrontal area, middle and posterior cingulate, amygdala, ventral striatum, and cerebellum. The relationships between relative glucose metabolism in limbic and paralimbic regions and self-reports of depression and anxiety in methamphetamine abusers suggest that these regions are involved in affective dysregulation and may be an important target for therapeutic intervention during early abstinence and withdrawal when mood disturbances may complicate treatment [41]. Methamphetamine abusers who remain abstinent for 9 months or longer show modest improvement in performance on some tests of motor skill and memory and they appear to recover from some of the drug’s damaging effects on metabolism in the thalamus. However, drugrelated deficits appear to persist longer in the striatum. Persistent decreases in striatal metabolism in methamphetamine abusers could reflect long-lasting changes in dopamine cell activity and decreases in the nucleus accumbens could account for the persistence of amotivation and anhedonia in detoxified methamphetamine abusers. The recovery of thalamic metabolism could reflect adaptation responses to compensate for the dopamine deficits, and the associated improvement in neuropsychological performance further indicates its functional significance [42]." Other information in this piece is even more frightening. But do you care? 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > I was just viewing, by the way, brain scans of alcohol induced dopamine > release compared to meth induced release. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > performance further indicates its functional > significance [42]." Hi, Kane, Interesting. fMRI measurements can tell us a lot. There is significant evidence that less activation of certain areas of the brain during decision-making can predict relapse for recovering methamphetamine addicts. A study of 40 recovering methamphetamine addicts treated in a residential facility found that of the 18 who had relapsed (median time to relapse, 279 days, range 36-820 days) showed less activation of the dorsolateral, prefrontal, parietal and temporal cortices and the insula (Paulus, Tapert & Schuckit, 2005). 20 of the 22 addicts who did not relapse utilitized these areas of the brain much more during decision-making in 28-day residential treatment. While alterations in the parietal lobe have long been linked to chemical dependency, this was the first study to show the parietal cortex playing an important role. This may be unique to methamphetamine users. While the $700 an hour rate for fMRI measurements may at first seem cost-prohibitive, the results could be used as a benchmark for developing less costly assessments that would have the same predictive strength. Measurement of activation of these areas of the brain during decision-making in traditional, short stay residential settings could signal need for additional treatment for those prone to relapse. SOURCE: Paulus, M.P.; Tapert, S.F.; & Schuckit, M.A. (2005). Neural activation patterns of methamphetamine dependent subjects during decision making predict relapse. Achives of General Psychiatry 62 (7): 761-768. >> I was just viewing, by the way, brain scans of alcohol induced dopamine >> release compared to meth induced release. [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > patterns of methamphetamine dependent subjects during decision making > predict relapse. Achives of General Psychiatry 62 (7): 761-768. Yes, why do you suppose I mention it at all? Meth is a far more serious drug in effects and outcomes, until final resolution of course, which immediately levels the playing field. "Final," of course, being Death. More rapidly addictive, more debilitating in disabling the user more quickly. "Party" use is similar in effects, though of shorter duration per episode for booze. And while alcohol can in certain people produce violent belligerence, in meth users it can result in more active violence and harm. Anyone working with these populations knows this. Don't they, Doug? 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > Yes, why do you suppose I mention it at all? > > Meth is a far more serious drug in effects and outcomes, until final > resolution of course, which immediately levels the playing field. "Final," > of course, being Death. Hi, Kane, Fortunately, methamphetamine dependence is as treatable as other addictions, so something can be done before addicts reach the final resolution. There are other resolutions along the way that are far more digestable for addicts and their families. Emerging brain science is helping to improve those treatment interventions, as represented in the study I described. > More rapidly addictive, more debilitating in disabling the user more > quickly. More that what? Unfortunately, there was a great deal of misinformation distributed about methamphetamine addiction. Part of that misinformation was the myth that one becomes addicted to methamphetamine with their first "hit." The fact is that around 5% of all those who have tried methamphetamine at least once in their lifetimes were still using the last month of the survey. While 24% of those who tried cocaine in their lifetime were using crack cocaine the last month of the survey. And 15% of those who tried marijuana at least once in their life were still using the last month. Those who are addicted to a chemical are likely, of course, to be using during the last 30 days. The percentage using cocaine in the last thirty days is five times the percentage of those who continue to use methamphetamine. I have included the raw data and its source below. > "Party" use is similar in effects, though of shorter duration per episode > for booze. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Anyone working with these populations knows this. Don't they, Doug? LIFETIME USE Marijuana 94,900,000 users 40.4% of total population Cocaine 33,000,000 users 14.4% of total population Inhalants 18,000,000 users 8.1% of total population Methamphetamine 12,000,000 users 5.3% of total population USE OF DRUG DURING THE LAST MONTH Percentage of total Drug Number population Source Methamphetamine 597,000 0.3% http://tinyurl.com/krf4v Crack Cocaine* 8,000,000 3.6% http://tinyurl.com/s8j46 Marijuana 14,600,000 6.2% http://tinyurl.com/n7mkp >> Yes, why do you suppose I mention it at all? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Fortunately, methamphetamine dependence is as treatable as other addictions, If more cost, more time, and more risk of psychosis is taken into account. > so something can be done before addicts reach the final resolution. Yes. And that costs resources. And you have to be able to reach the addict. That too takes resources. > There > are other resolutions along the way that are far more digestable for addicts > and their families. Sure there are. And they all take money. And the damage done by the meth addict my cut them off from much of it. > Emerging brain science is helping to improve those treatment interventions, > as represented in the study I described. Yes, funny they aren't free. >> More rapidly addictive, more debilitating in disabling the user more >> quickly. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > was the myth that one becomes addicted to methamphetamine with their first > "hit." It is not claimed to be so in all cases. You are making that up, or taking one or two claims repeated and pretending they are common claims. Not so. I've found ONE source for that claim. Never any others that are credible as to prime source themselves. Bullshit, just like you post. The issue should not be the few that like all propagandist bullshitters such as you, Doug, try to blow up to something it is not. > The fact is that around 5% of all those who have tried methamphetamine at > least once in their lifetimes were still using the last month of the survey. That's hardly good news. > While 24% of those who tried cocaine in their lifetime were using crack > cocaine the last month of the survey. Cocaine is out of one's system in a few hours. Meth takes days. Any chemical while in one's system is doing it's damage for the duration of its stay. > And 15% of those who tried marijuana > at least once in their life were still using the last month. Marijuana is not addictive physically. > Those who are > addicted to a chemical are likely, of course, to be using during the last 30 > days. The percentage using cocaine in the last thirty days is five times > the percentage of those who continue to use methamphetamine. Using and continue to use are not exactly the same. > I have included the raw data and its source below. Yes. And you need to study this issue further without the influence of the propagandists YOU serve. >> "Party" use is similar in effects, though of shorter duration per episode >> for booze. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Marijuana 94,900,000 users 40.4% of total population Marijuana is not an addictive drug. > Cocaine 33,000,000 users 14.4% of total population > Inhalants 18,000,000 users 8.1% of total population > Methamphetamine 12,000,000 users 5.3% of total population > USE OF DRUG DURING THE LAST MONTH > > Percentage of total > Drug Number population Source > > Methamphetamine 597,000 0.3% http://tinyurl.com/krf4v Meth has a longer high. > Crack Cocaine* 8,000,000 3.6% http://tinyurl.com/s8j46 Short high and very expensive. > Marijuana 14,600,000 6.2% http://tinyurl.com/n7mkp Not and addictive drug. Effects are minimal compared to cocaine and virtually nonexistent compared to Meth. And Marijuana does little damage to the brain that I know of. You got any studies on that, Doug? There are few toxins in MJ. Just the smoked form, with particulate damaging the lungs. No brain and nervous system effects I've ever heard of rather than temporary. Know of many potheads doing violent crimes? Even to get the money to buy? Your arguments are stupid, as you are stupid to think you can sell your swill to all but the dysfunctional twits you cater to here. Meth is a killer like no other. It is spreading. It may be stopped or seriously slowed if we don't push it aside as we did other substances. We have become jaded about the others...and that has not stopped them wrecking families and hurting children. You want to consign this one to the same dustbin? See why I say you hate children and families yet? 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) >> Fortunately, methamphetamine dependence is as treatable as other >> addictions, > > If more cost, more time, and more risk of psychosis is taken into account. Hi, Kane, To the contrary, the same treatment, for the same length of time, at the same cost, is just as effective for methamphetamine addicts as those chemically dependent on other drugs. That was the salient point made by the research, many times duplicated. >> Fortunately, methamphetamine dependence is as treatable as other >> addictions, > > If more cost, more time, and more risk of psychosis is taken into account. Hi, Kane, To the contrary, the same treatment, for the same length of time, at the same cost is just as effective for methamphetamine addicts as those chemically dependent on other drugs. That was the salient point made by the research, many times duplicated. Kane wants to pretend that Meth is so much worse than other street drugs that it justifies LOTS MORE NEW AND SPECIAL FUNDING! The reports on treatability deflate his PR campaign. Fox News figured out the NACO PR idiot was just lobbying for dollars. The opposition group couldn't even show up, just cited statistics and still won out. Fox News must have figured out that NACO was just doing a money grab. The interview was not re-aired in their normal cycle of repetition. > >> Fortunately, methamphetamine dependence is as treatable as other > >> addictions, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > That was the salient point made by the research, many times duplicated. > Kane wants to pretend that Meth is so much > worse than other street drugs that it justifies > LOTS MORE NEW AND SPECIAL FUNDING! Nope. Equal funding. And in some aspects it is very much worse. One has to consume a whole hell of a lot more of other abused substances to get the ruinous effect of meth. And spend a whole lot more time at it. > The reports on treatability deflate his PR campaign. The report was not, if you didn't notice, not accompanied with a citation as to source. Read'em and weep, stupid: http://www.mihivnews.com/features/tina_and_msm.htm "The UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs Associate Director, Richard Rawson, Ph.D gave an excellent presentation in Kalamazoo about the signs, symptoms and effects on the body of methamphetamine. He also talked about treatment that has been successful at his clinic – which has been seeing meth addicts for about eight years. There are special issues for treatment of methamphetamine addicts. With mental states ranging from paranoid to psychotic, their behavior can put others at risk. Their brains have been physically altered by the drug and full recovery takes 6 months to two years, Rawson said. He said treatment needs to be behavior based, not cognitive based, since memory, cognition and reasoning are seriously impaired by meth. Rawson also emphasized the importance of positive reinforcement for treatment. The most important thing in the beginning of treatment is to keep them coming back. The Lancet (4.2.05) reported on a study at Rawson’s UCLA clinic. One of the researchers, Steve Shoptaw said that the treatment program specifically for gay men targeting drug use is also showing improvement at reducing sexual behavior. “It’s important, because by the time gay men show up at the clinic door, three out of five are HIV positive,” he said. Rawson’s real take home message to the audience in Kalamazoo was, by the time you see treatment admissions for meth addiction, you’ve already had a methamphetamine problem for seven years. Curry said he was not able to find a treatment program in Michigan that could deal with his meth addiction, so this spring he went out of state, where he graduated from a 28-day program in 16 days and was sent home with a 20-day relapse prevention plan. " Yer being lied to, Greg, and loving every minute of it, aren't you, boy? http://www.laramieboomerang.com/news/more.asp?StoryID=104194 [[[Why sure the same treatments will work with meth addicts.....R R R R R R R R R ]]] "“It became evident that this was a different drug that they weren’t admitting to,” Johnson said. “They were admitting to all the other drugs, but they wouldn’t admit to the meth. If that’s their drug of choice, then they don’t want you messing with their drug of choice.” Counselors also learned that traditional recovery programs — based on a 28-day inpatient model — wouldn’t work for meth: Addicts would relapse as soon as they finished the programs. It’s necessary to keep a meth addict in treatment for up to two years, allowing the brain to heal and allowing the addict to regain clear mental functioning, Warren said. “It’s like dealing with somebody who has severe head trauma,” she said. Because of the length of treatment — and because it takes so long for them to feel normal again — people often drop out and go back to using. As such, therapy is often complemented with anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medications. Even after treatment, recovering meth addicts are in danger of relapsing for seven or eight years, Johnson said. " http://web.kitsapsun.com/meth/treatmentworks.html [[[ Money boys, it takes MONEY to get the kind of treatment that works ... even partially with Meth addicts. ]]] ""Without such treatment upon release, it is likely that many offenders will relapse and re-offend, adding still further to the methamphetamine problem," a state policy paper said last July. Two-thirds of meth addicts at Kitsap Recovery Center relapse treatment. The relapse rate goes down significantly in programs specifically designed to deal with problems unique to meth. Such programs are not common in Washington, although they were recommended by the methamphetamine work group of the Governor's Council on Substance Abuse. "Twelve step doesn't work for meth addicts because their brain doesn't work for 30 to 60 days. ... Nobody wants a meth addict because they're a pain in the butt," said Roger Lake, a retired Washington State Patrol sergeant and official with the Washington State Narcotics Investigators Association. County jails, where offenders with sentences under a year serve their time, rarely offer drug treatment, and Kitsap's jail is no exception. They simply don't have the money, nor the resources to find outside funding. The model program at the Thurston County jail gets 25 percent of its money from the county and the rest from a grant. It costs $268,000 a year for about 50 prisoners and has been able to prove that the improved recidivism rate makes it worth the cost." http://www.ag.state.il.us/methnet/fightmeth/treatment.html#known [[[ This is not a treatment center. It has NO investment in meth treatment, and I have no investment in non-profits, or any other organizations that treat for meth addiction...but I've certainly been there professionally and know what goes on. You are being lied to Greg. We were just told by your mentor that it's the same for meth addicts as other substance abuser addicts. Kind of disagrees with a lot of professionals, no? ]]] "hat is the best treatment for meth addicts? Back to top Because traditional treatment models are not effective for meth addiction, meth-specific treatment programs have been developed. Successful meth treatment requires the use of cognitive-behavioral therapy. The cognitive-behavioral therapy approach, which focuses on how the way we think affects our feelings and actions, helps patients identify and plan for the triggers associated with the substance abuse. This approach prepares the addict for life-long recovery. A critical consideration in meth treatment is something known as the “wall.” Around 45 to 120 days into treatment, recovering addicts experience physiological changes that often lead to a return to meth use. This period of increased depression and need for the drug is the single significant factor today to the false perception that meth addiction is “untreatable.” Although recovering from meth addiction is challenging, it is not impossible. For meth treatment to be successful, it simply must meet the demands of meth addiction. Research shows that recovering meth addicts require a longer and more intense outpatient program than is the case for many other drugs. These outpatient services should be very structured and include frequent contact between the treatment provider and the recovering addict. " > Fox News figured out the NACO PR idiot was > just lobbying for dollars. The opposition group [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The interview was not re-aired in their normal > cycle of repetition. Fox News? R R R R R ...Oh no, they wouldn't have a slanted view of the issue. R R R R R >>>> Fortunately, methamphetamine dependence is as treatable as other >>>> addictions, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> That was the salient point made by the research, many times duplicated. Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > Rawson’s real take home message to the audience in Kalamazoo was, by > the time you see treatment admissions for meth addiction, you’ve already > had a methamphetamine problem for seven years. Hi, Kane, Dr. Rawson, who is at the forefront of researchers proving that methamphetamine dependency is treated just as effectively as addiction to other drugs, points out the reason why treatment center admissions are increasing now as use of the drug has been decreasing. http://www.laramieboomerang.com/news/more.asp?StoryID=104194 > It’s necessary to keep a meth addict in treatment for up to two years, > allowing the brain to heal and allowing the addict to regain clear mental > functioning, Warren said. It is necessary to keep an addict of most chemicals in outpatient treatment for up to two years after leaving residential treatment. There is nothing new in this. And certainly nothing unique for those in recovery from methamphetamine addiction. "Even after treatment, recovering meth addicts are in danger of relapsing > for seven or eight years, Johnson said. " Even after treatment, recovering addicts with any drug of choice are in danger of relapsing for seven, eight, nine, or ten years. I think everyone knows that. The danger of relapse after treatment is not unique to methamphetamine users. The success rate -- the numbers of recovering methamphetamine addicts that do NOT relapse -- is the same as it is for those recovering from other drugs, like cocaine. Dr. Rawson has pointed this out many times and proved it through his clinical trials at UCLA. > "Twelve step doesn't work for meth addicts because their brain doesn't > work for 30 to 60 days. ... Nobody wants a meth addict because they're a > pain in the butt," said Roger Lake, a retired Washington State Patrol > sergeant and official with the Washington State Narcotics Investigators > Association. You may want to ask members of Narcotics Anonymous, whose membership is made up of many recovering methamphetamine addicts. They work the steps. The NA members probably know a little more about 12-step programs than a retired cop, who is quoted above. The cop has it wrong. In reality, methamphetamine addicts respond very well to Minnesota Model approaches which heavily involve 12-step work. The standard, evidence-based treatment for methamphetamine addiction, like addictions to cocaine and other drugs, is cognitive behavioral approaches combined with a 12-step program. http://www.ag.state.il.us/methnet/fightmeth/treatment.html#known > Because traditional treatment models are not effective for meth addiction, > meth-specific treatment programs have been developed. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and plan for the triggers associated with the substance abuse. This > approach prepares the addict for life-long recovery. Cognitive-behavioral therapy is the standard, evidence-based approach for drug addiction. It is preferred over rational-emotive or cognitive approaches. Beck probably didn't understand this population -- people dependent on all drugs. You may want to check with someone involved with treatment. That your source mentions cognitive-behavioral therapy as the preferred approach supports my contention that meth addiction is treated the same as addictions to other drugs. “wall.” Around 45 to 120 days into treatment, recovering addicts > experience physiological changes that often lead to a return to meth use. > This period of increased depression and need for the drug is the single > significant factor today to the false perception that meth addiction is > “untreatable.” It is called "Post-Acute-Withdrawal" and these symptoms appear in people in recovery from many different drugs, including alcohol, during this time frame. The information is not wrong, it is just not unique in any way to those recoverying from methamphetamine. Depression, problems with short term memory and concentration, sleep disruption, hypersensitivity to stress and mood swings are experienced by people recovering from many different drugs, including methamphetamine. >> Rawson’s real take home message to the audience in Kalamazoo was, by >> the time you see treatment admissions for meth addiction, you’ve already [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > other drugs, points out the reason why treatment center admissions are > increasing now as use of the drug has been decreasing. Circular reasoning at its finest. Just your style. Of course if people are IN TREATMENT THEY ARE NOT USING, hence the drop in "users." They'll be replaced. Give it a little time. Unless, of course, the efforts SOME of us are making has effect. We've reason to think that education and strict law enforcement is having some impact. > http://www.laramieboomerang.com/news/more.asp?StoryID=104194 > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > new in this. And certainly nothing unique for those in recovery from > methamphetamine addiction. R R R R ...... count the rate of falling of the wagon, dummy. > "Even after treatment, recovering meth addicts are in danger of relapsing >> for seven or eight years, Johnson said. " [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > knows that. The danger of relapse after treatment is not unique to > methamphetamine users. It simply happens More often to meth addicts, stupid. > The success rate -- the numbers of recovering methamphetamine addicts that > do NOT relapse -- is the same as it is for those recovering from other > drugs, like cocaine. Dr. Rawson has pointed this out many times and proved > it through his clinical trials at UCLA. Then he's dealing in nonsense. Show his work here, with links to it at least. >> "Twelve step doesn't work for meth addicts because their brain doesn't >> work for 30 to 60 days. ... Nobody wants a meth addict because they're a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > members probably know a little more about 12-step programs than a retired > cop, who is quoted above. Gee, the person on the observing end, NOT a bleeding heart liberal and addiction apologist disagrees and you think he's not qualified. R R R R Of ALL the people that might come into contact with a meth addict THIS would be the one most likely to see the bad results. He and the addicts children, of course. > The cop has it wrong. No he doesn't. He's where the rubber hits the road, dummy. No clinical soft-peddling for him. He has to deal with the nitty gritty of what meth addicts actually DO. > In reality, methamphetamine addicts respond very well > to Minnesota Model approaches which heavily involve 12-step work. The > standard, evidence-based treatment for methamphetamine addiction, like > addictions to cocaine and other drugs, is cognitive behavioral approaches > combined with a 12-step program. Mmmm..hhhmmmmm...emphasis on the "heavily involved," Doug. > http://www.ag.state.il.us/methnet/fightmeth/treatment.html#known > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > drug addiction. It is preferred over rational-emotive or cognitive > approaches. Witch doctors and laying on of hands would be preferred to either one. > Beck probably didn't understand this population -- people > dependent on all drugs. You'd be amazed what cops understand. > You may want to check with someone involved with treatment. R R R R...only on a monthly basis now. Far less than I used to. You are full of sh.t. > That your source > mentions cognitive-behavioral therapy as the preferred approach supports my > contention that meth addiction is treated the same as addictions to other > drugs. Time, numbers of times the addict uses again, and the smaller number of meth addicts in treatment ALL contribute to your being wrong, Doug. > “wall.” Around 45 to 120 days into treatment, recovering addicts >> experience physiological changes that often lead to a return to meth use. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > frame. The information is not wrong, it is just not unique in any way to > those recoverying from methamphetamine. It is in intensity and duration, Liar. > Depression, problems with short > term memory and concentration, sleep disruption, hypersensitivity to stress > and mood swings are experienced by people recovering from many different > drugs, including methamphetamine. Yes, so? Now let me see. You managed to leave out paranoia, and dangerous violent rages. Why is that I wonder? http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/publications/methintf/3.html "Also, research shows that protracted brain dysfunction persists for months after methamphetamine use stops. Other clinical issues include continuing paranoia, hypersexuality, irritability, drug craving in response to conditioned cues, and violence." None of your arguments address the cost issue, Doug. Notice that? The fact that meth addicts are taking beds away from OTHERS that need treatment? All because YOU and those that think as you do, believe it can all be done without money, or on the cheap. Bullshit artists, the lot of you. 0:-> REF: http://itsnt166.iowa.uiowa.edu/uns-archives/2006/january/012506arndt_comments.html [[[ Recent enough for you, dummy? Considerably more recent than yours.]]] "The report issued Jan. 17 by the State of Iowa Office of Drug Control Policy credits the state's pseudoephedrine control law (Senate File 169), enacted in May 2005, with a decrease in meth lab incidents from an average of 119 per month before the law to 20 per month since the law was passed. Pseudoephedrine, a main ingredient in some cold and flu medications, is also a main ingredient in meth production. The law put the medications behind lock-and-key at pharmacies. However, the report also states that the law has not reduced the supply of imported meth or demand for the drug. " "However, the law hasn't done anything about addiction, use or some of the other negative consequences." For one, because imported meth is more pure, it increases people's chances of dependence and any associated medical problems. In addition, child endangerment and abuse problems overall have not been reduced because they are related to people's use of the drug, not its manufacture, Arndt said. The Iowa Consortium for Substance Abuse Research and Evaluation has been evaluating meth and other substance abuse prevention and treatment programs that are publicly funded. Meth treatment programs have a 65 percent success rate while alcohol treatment programs have a 47 percent success rate, the consortium reported in a September 2005 client treatment outcomes report. "Contrary to some national news reports, meth treatment programs make a notable difference. Paradoxically, meth's downside is one of its benefits toward treatment -- it's highly addictive so the speed at which people bottom out and need help is greatly accelerated," Arndt said. In just one year, people on meth can lose their jobs and families, be arrested and receive prison sentences. Yet people with alcohol or marijuana abuse can go decades without any obvious adverse affects or legal problems. From the sample of 1,039 Iowans in publicly funded treatment programs, 45 percent were being treated for alcohol, 25 percent for marijuana and 20 percent for meth. " That means that there has to be a 20% budget INCREASE, to not overload the system, Doug. Simple math, not your numbers trickery. Pretending that to fund one program another must be defunded is YOUR bullshit, not those that make the decisions. http://www.jointogether.org/news/features/2005/federal-addiction-caucus-puts.html [[[ Here's an interesting claim. Fits your model but for ONE little point, MINE....scarcity of resources. ]]] ""There's a false but widespread belief that methamphetamine treatment is ineffective," said Carol Falkowski, research communications director for the Hazelden Foundation, who will testify at the Capitol Hill briefing. "It's the same thing that happened when the crack-cocaine epidemic exploded. There are effective treatments, but they're not generally as available as they should be."" [[[ And I do not consider the treatment ineffective, as you've tried to portray my argument by your sly shifting from what I DID IN FACT SAY. I consider it more DIFFICULT. And more difficult to come by. And meth addicts to be less forthcoming for treatment. ]]] http://alcoholism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=alcoholism&zu=htt p%3A%2F%2Fwww.eurekalert.org%2Fpub_releases%2F2006-06%2Fuoia-se061206.php http://tinyurl.com/k9zdl ""Meth has such a rapid effect that you see parenting just break down literally," Ostler said. "Families change rapidly in that time and I think that's very terrifying for children," she said. Yet despite those conditions, the researchers found that when the children were asked about "sad or scary times," they talked first or most often about the experience of losing their parents, even months later, Haight said. "Most want desperately to be with their families and feel a great deal of pain and grief over being separated from their parents." Another complication is that some of these children had taken on the role of caring for their parents, as well as younger siblings, when their parents were under the influence. One child asked who would watch over her mother when she was "sick," Haight said. They also experience emotional harm from the stigma of being the children of methamphetamine users, many of whom face years in prison. The children often also carry a strong distrust of authority figures, passed on from their parents as a result of the criminal activity involved, sometimes reinforced by a meth-induced paranoia. Some have been actively socialized into a rural drug culture. "It becomes a huge blockage" to intervention in some cases, Ostler said. For children raised from an early age with their parents using methamphetamine, even routine aspects of family life, like regular meal and bed times, may represent "culture shock," the authors say. " Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > About 5% of the US population used meth at least once. The source I cited > yesterday, if anyone bothered to read it, showed that it is now becoming > the drug of choice over both cocaine and heroin combined. Hi, Kane, Actually, drug of choice involving crack cocaine alone is TEN TIMES that of methamphetamine. Percentage of total population Methamphetamine 597,000 0.3% http://tinyurl.com/krf4v Crack Cocaine* 8,000,000 3.6% http://tinyurl.com/s8j46 Marijuana 14,600,000 6.2% http://tinyurl.com/n7mkp *Note that this is limited to crack cocaine. Use of all forms of cocaine would be, of course, higher. >> Former and present foster children represent the most endangered >> population in this country. > > And they came by it in the majority from their origins, the family they > were born into. Hi, Kane, Actually, they find themselves where they are through a multitude of variables unfolding throughout their entire life. To determine the "why" of the exceedingly poor outcomes, one must measure the entirity of their life experiences, both before and during foster care. The removal itself, for young children, often causes irreparable harm. > And some do not. Some believe that adequately funding the system for lower > caseloads WILL in fact move children through the system more rapidly to > permanency. Better funding will result in not just lower caseloads...a > problem pointed out BY EXPERTS even you have quoted, Doug, but allow for > hiring and training more qualified workers. The key is in spending what money they already receive more wisely and in ways that address the best interests of children, rather than the agency. > > And reform movements are underway in many states and, on >> the federal level, to place less children into state custody and release [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > as you know perfectly well, to re-abuse these same children. YOU quoted, > in another argument, figures showing high rates of re-offending. I was not talking about children who were abused. The majority taken into state custody were not. Since they were not abused in the first place, it is impossible for them to be "re-abused." I quoted, in another argument, the fact that substantiated families who receive services are more likely to be re-substantiated than substantiated families that received no CPS services. >> Currently, the vast majority of children removed from their families were >> not abused. > > That is only true if you count raw numbers of removals...and ignore those > that are returned in short order. The average stay in foster care is around 2.1 years -- down slightly from an average of 2 1/2 years in 2002. That is not, in my opinion, "in short order." A very small percentage of children are returned within the time frame of an investigation. > > 69,000 of children placed in foster care in 2003 were removed >> from families CPS workers themselves unsubstantiated for risk of or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that shows that "not abuse" and "unsubstantiated for abuse or neglect" are > not the same thing, nor the same yardstick. They are, in fact, the same thing, according to the federal folks that compile the figures and pay for the research. However, "substantiated" does not mean abused or neglected, but in the main "at risk" of abuse or neglect. The USDHHS provides the criteria for each category and the definations to state CPS agencies, who organize their data under the criteria before reporting. Each of these state agencies follow state statutes that define "substantiated" and "unsubstantiated" in the same way. If CPS workers are operating under a different criteria, they are violating their state law. "Substantiated" is an investigation disposition from the state CPS agency that the allegation of maltreatment or RISK of maltreatment was supported by state law or state policy. "Unsubstantiated" is a finding by the state CPS agency that there was not sufficient evidence under state law to conclude or SUSPECT that the child was maltreated or AT RISK of being maltreated. http://tinyurl.com/g6on9 It's pretty simple, really. The state has to have a way of communicating a finding of an investigation or assessment -- whether the allegations are true or not. Children subject to substantiated dispositions are called victims. Children subject to unsubstantiated findings are called "nonvictims." In 2003, CPS removed 69,000 nonvictims from their homes after a child abuse investigation or assessment determined the allegations were unsubstantiated. Here are the USDHHS definations: a.. Substantiated: A type of investigation disposition that concludes that the allegation of maltreatment or risk of maltreatment was supported or founded by State law or State policy. a.. Unsubstantiated: A type of investigation disposition that determines that there was not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that the child was maltreated or at risk of being maltreated. http://tinyurl.com/g6on9 > Substantiation is a service needs driven assessment label, not a legal > definition of abuse. Nope. Substantiation is a legal, investigation disposition that concludes that the allegation of maltreatment or risk of maltreatment was supported evidence required by state law. In each state, these state statutes define the thesholds of evidence but do NOT address service needs. In fact, the majority of CPS services are forced upon unsubstantiated families. >> These non-victims represent 30% of the foster care population. > > "Victim" and "substantiated" are not interchangeable terms, as you > delusional claim. The study I provided you done for the USDHHS shows > clearly that you are not correct, and your insistence on ignoring it is > what earns you the title I give you of liar. They most certainly are interchangeable. A victim is a child subject to a substantiated disposition. A nonvictim is a child subject to an unsubstantiated disposition. In 2004, 77,000 non-victim children were removed from families CPS unsubstantiated for maltreatment or risk of maltreatment. Take a look at the table below. You see quite clearly that the number of child victims is precisely the same as the number of children subject to substantiated dispositions of investigations or assessments. Likewise, you will see that the number of "non-victim" children corresponds precisely to the number of children subject to unsubstantiated dispositions by state CPS workers. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table6_4.htm > The concept of upfront services has two major stumbling blocks, closely > related to each other. The CPS reform package being considered by Congress allows states to spend Title IV-E funding as they choose, rather than it being tied to foster care services. This means the state agencies will simply provide more of the in-home services they currently provide and much less of the more expensive and often times abusive out of home services. > Those who NEED the up front services do NOT present themselves for those > services. Criminals, addicts/substance abusers, mentally ill. CPS comes to them. They will continue to come to them, as they have in the past. The difference will be that CPS can now use federal Title IV-E social security funding to force parents to accept cheaper, in-home services rather than take the child into state custody. >>> Former and present foster children represent the most endangered >>> population in this country. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Actually, they find themselves where they are through a multitude of > variables unfolding throughout their entire life. Which adds nothing to my comment, but is diverting babble, Doug. ‘Spin’ as usual. I said, which is sufficient for the understanding of the reader of normal intelligence who does not need your interpretation, “And they came by it in the majority from their origins, the family they were born into,” covering easily what you babbled on about to divert. > To determine the "why" of > the exceedingly poor outcomes, one must measure the entirety of their life > experiences, both before and during foster care. Then why has your and other’s emphasis, including The Casey Family Foundation analysis ignored the family of origin in favor of focusing only on the foster experience? > The removal itself, for > young children, often causes irreparable harm. Riding in a car unbelted can cause irreparable harm. IF you have a wreck. In foster care the risks of harm are far less than in the family of origin the child was removed from. 95% of all harm to children that are the subject of open CPS cases comes from OTHER than foster caregivers, and most from parents and family members. That’s pretty good odds for children in foster care, compared to being anywhere else. My recent post from an Oregonian article quoted by an Oregon county sheriff’s office pointed out that around 50% of all children that come into foster care have such complex medical needs that they require a medical foster placement...which of course is NOT available from lack of funds. If 50% have ‘complex medical needs’ then we can assume some of the remainder have SOME more than average medical needs. >> And some do not. Some believe that adequately funding the system for lower >> caseloads WILL in fact move children through the system more rapidly to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The key is in spending what money they already receive more wisely and in > ways that address the best interests of children, rather than the agency. Caseload size is directly tied to quality of casework Doug. You have argued it and quoted Casey and Pew to that effect as well as other sources favored by YOU. The feds know it, the states know it, and you know it, but now you wish to change your story. Quality casework has now become, by the logic of the little propagandist, Doug, an “agency best interest” rather than a child’s best interest. Do I understand you correctly? >>> And reform movements are underway in many states and, on >>> the federal level, to place less children into state custody and release [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I was not talking about children who were abused. I was. YOU have. We debated issues that included it. YOU pointed out re-abuse as a critical element in child protection casework quality, and lack of quality. Stop your lying and dodging, and twisting and turning and changing your story, Doug. > The majority taken into > state custody were not. The same old misleading bullshit, Doug. The majority are returned when that is determined. There is a judicial hearing the determines placement. The children not returned are either abused, neglected, or at serious risk of harm. > Since they were not abused in the first place, it > is impossible for them to be "re-abused." The logic appears correct. Problem is you base it upon a lie. I have repeatedly proven that you are wrong. You simply ignore my posts to that effect. > I quoted, in another argument, the fact that substantiated families who > receive services are more likely to be re-substantiated than substantiated > families that received no CPS services. Which would go to the opportunity to OBSERVE, not a claim that services CAUSE the re-abuse. Families that are substantiated and receive no services are no longer clients. And CPS cannot march into their homes without a repeat allegation. CPS doesn’t control those. >>> Currently, the vast majority of children removed from their families were >>> not abused. >> That is only true if you count raw numbers of removals...and ignore those >> that are returned in short order. > > The average stay in foster care is around 2.1 years -- down slightly from an > average of 2 1/2 years in 2002. That is not, in my opinion, "in short > order." A very small percentage of children are returned within the time > frame of an investigation. What most readers, if they are bothering to read, will miss is the use of ‘average’ and what that really means. In the context of CPS, it means that the number that pulls the length of time upward is very large indeed compared to the number that returns quickly. And that large number are the most abused and at risk of re abuse. They stay in the system for a very long time. And for more than just the reasons of abuse. Many of them are in fact receiving rehabilitative services. Those take time. I worked with that population. Most of the youth had been in and out of foster care for years, re-abused by their parents. Normally for inpatient care, which they were, the length of stay was from 12 to 18 months. They were foster children. They usually came from a foster home, and they usually returned to a foster home, because their parents were incapacitated. Often by being confined. Themselves in treatment, or prison, or parental rights removed. >>> 69,000 of children placed in foster care in 2003 were removed >>> from families CPS workers themselves unsubstantiated for risk of or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > They are, in fact, the same thing, according to the federal folks that > compile the figures and pay for the research. However, "substantiated" does > not mean abused or neglected, Excuse me? That’s MY LINE. The gambit is noted. > but in the main "at risk" of abuse or neglect. Yes. You finally have told the truth. You are a good chess player, and I recognize a move to be exploited later when I see it. Gambit noted. > The USDHHS provides the criteria for each category and the definitions to > state CPS agencies, who organize their data under the criteria before > reporting. And, according to the study I posted here, they do NOT MEET THE FEDERAL CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SUBSTANTIATED. > Each of these state agencies follow state statutes that define > "substantiated" and "unsubstantiated" in the same way. No, they FAIL to follow it, just as the study pointed out. And YOU have argued yourself the assessment methods FAIL. Hence the numbers are NOT based on true abuse, nor true neglect, nor true risk...though the last item is the one they are closest to meeting according to federal definition. > If CPS workers are > operating under a different criteria, they are violating their state law. You have said so. I have said so. And the study I posted said so. I told you NOT to continue to argue the obvious agreed upon issue, but to stick to the issue under discussion...how ACCURATE are the numbers. You continue to beat the horse we both killed long ago to deflect attention from what you cannot win – that the numbers do NOT reflect reality so your claims are NOT based on fact. The major point you continually avoid is that UNSUBSTANTIATED undercounts the truth. The assessment tool is being used to determine the likelihood of services being effective, not the facts of abuse or neglect. A child can be abused, and still be unsubstantiated IF a worker assesses that the family’s circumstances will be more likely to support services being effective. This WAS the finding of the study, and it stands today. This has not changed. > "Substantiated" is an investigation disposition from the state CPS agency > that the allegation of maltreatment or RISK of maltreatment was supported by > state law or state policy. "Unsubstantiated" is a finding by the state CPS > agency that there was not sufficient evidence under state law to conclude or > SUSPECT that the child was maltreated or AT RISK of being maltreated. > http://tinyurl.com/g6on9 You post your ‘house-rules’ and I’ve posted the action at the table as it really happens. People are not playing by the rules. You get to use that for propaganda purposes. > It's pretty simple, really. The state has to have a way of communicating a > finding of an investigation or assessment -- whether the allegations are > true or not. Children subject to substantiated dispositions are called > victims. Children subject to unsubstantiated findings are called > "nonvictims." In 2003, CPS removed 69,000 nonvictims from their homes after > a child abuse investigation or assessment determined the allegations were > unsubstantiated. Faulty logic. We call it “spin,” when done deliberately to deceive. The “way of communicating” has been proven by research to NOT be matching the criteria of the USDHHS definitions. Thus what children are “called” no longer can be proven to match what the facts are. You have avoided again that in households where their has been a victim, there are likely sibs. The nature of the abuse or neglect can often be, and often is, that if that child victim is removed and the others are not, they too would be at risk of the same abuse the “target child” was subjected to. Hence they are removed, but by definition, not ‘victims.’ Do you think that is not a large number and that I make up this scenario? I speak to workers about it. Who do you speak to, God? > Here are the USDHHS definations: > > a.. Substantiated: A type of investigation disposition that concludes that > the allegation of maltreatment or risk of maltreatment was supported or > founded by State law or State policy. House rules. Not field practice. > a.. Unsubstantiated: A type of investigation disposition that determines > that there was not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or > suspect that the child was maltreated or at risk of being maltreated. > http://tinyurl.com/g6on9 House rules. Not field practice. Just as I’ve said before, and provided the study to prove. >> Substantiation is a service needs driven assessment label, not a legal >> definition of abuse. > > Nope. Substantiation is a legal, investigation disposition that concludes > that the allegation of maltreatment or risk of maltreatment was supported > evidence required by state law. You speak to the word, I to the actual field practice. House rules. Not field practice. > In each state, these state statutes define > the thesholds of evidence but do NOT address service needs. The worker and their supervisor do that. They often find that real life and “house-rules” conflict to the endangerment of the child. They go with the safety of the child. Naturally. > In fact, the majority of CPS services are forced upon unsubstantiated > families. And you want to argue that families that need services will come running, you and your buddies. >>> These non-victims represent 30% of the foster care population. >> "Victim" and "substantiated" are not interchangeable terms, as you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > They most certainly are interchangeable. A victim is a child subject to a > substantiated disposition. Because of actual field practice, and I’ve proven this in prior argument with you, many times, they are NOT. A victim is a child that has been injured, or is at substantial risk of harm. A substantiated disposition can include NON VICTIMS from the same family that would be at risk. > A nonvictim is a child subject to an > unsubstantiated disposition. In 2004, 77,000 non-victim children were > removed from families CPS unsubstantiated for maltreatment or risk of > maltreatment. Again with the spin. Siblings, returns from shelter hearings. They are counted as non-victims, are temporarily in foster care, so are counted as “removed,” even if for 48 hours. > Take a look at the table below. You see quite clearly that the number of > child victims is precisely the same as the number of children subject to > substantiated dispositions of investigations or assessments. Likewise, you > will see that the number of "non-victim" children corresponds precisely to > the number of children subject to unsubstantiated dispositions by state CPS > workers. > http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table6_4.htm And this supports what portion of your argument that I have not defeated before? >> The concept of upfront services has two major stumbling blocks, closely >> related to each other. > > The CPS reform package being considered by Congress allows states to spend > Title IV-E funding as they choose, rather than it being tied to foster care > services. In other words, my dire commentary when we first met, that YOU agreed with, concerning the need to fund better educated and trained workers, preferably MSWs in child and family specialty, is about to be overcome by the states doing that. They will have quality casework now, and children will be better protected and either not be in out of home placement or get up-front services that their parents will welcome with open arms. Let’s see how one state views child welfare, shall we...from an editorial TODAY, in the Oregonian. See if you don’t hear echoes from my comments three years ago on the lack of will of society to do what is right – the failure by trusting political solutions to social problems: http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1149294 347240370.xml&coll=7 You may have to go through a sign in routine. Search on “Oregonian” “Editorials” and click on “For many kids, Oregon is a state of neglect” each time you see it. You’ll get to this: For many kids, Oregon is a state of neglect Oregon must confront the alcoholism, drug abuse and parental failures driving more children into foster care Monday, June 05, 2006 The Oregonian T here is no barometer that better measures the health and safety of kids than the rise and fall in the number of children in foster care. In Oregon, the numbers show that far too many of its kids are caught in a tragic storm of alcohol, drugs, abuse and neglect. The Oregonian's Bill Graves reports that the number of children entering foster care in Oregon has ballooned by 25 percent in just the past two years. For three years running now, more children have been taken from homes of violence or neglect and put in foster care in Oregon than went back to their families, turned 18 or otherwise left the state-supervised care. Oregon is losing ground on kids, in spite of the best intentions of Oregon's top elected officials and all their rhetoric about putting kids first. Thousands of children in Oregon are less safe and more vulnerable to abuse today than they were even a few years ago. To balance the state budget, the Legislature has hacked away at drug and alcohol treatment, Healthy Start and other programs for children and families. The Legislature even decided in 2003 that maintaining one of the nation's lowest beer taxes was a higher priority than finding more money for alcohol treatment. That year Oregon cut its drug and alcohol treatment programs by 18 percent to help balance the shrunken state budget. Now two years later, state officials report that drug and alcohol abuse was a key factor in a sharp rise in child abuse and neglect cases in Oregon. Drug and alcohol abuse was involved in nearly half of the 11,255 substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect in fiscal year 2005, they say. Moreover, alcohol and illegal drugs, mostly methamphetamine, were factors in nearly every one of the 18 Oregon child deaths from abuse or neglect last year. All those people now chattering about whether the meth epidemic is little more than media hype ought to visit with some of those abused and neglected kids carrying their few belongings into Oregon foster homes. In Jackson County, about six out of every 10 children placed in foster care are taken from their parents because of meth abuse in the family, according to Carin Niebuhr, director of the county's Commission on Children and Families. Meanwhile, a national report next week is expected to detail the strains that meth abuse has put on the entire nation's foster care system. It is frustrating that so many Oregon leaders -- and the voters who put them in office -- still seem unable or unwilling to see the clear connections between such things as cuts in drug and alcohol treatment and increases in child abuse and neglect. When the Legislature debated the beer tax increase, most of the talk was about protecting the state's craft-brew industry and virtually none was about protecting children by funding alcohol treatment for their drunk and abusive parents. Even now, as this state prepares to send back more than $1 billion in tax revenues to comply with its kicker law, and girds for a likely vote on a new state spending limit, all the noise is about taxes and schools and what's good or bad for business. While Oregonians holler for their kicker, they all but ignore the cries of thousands of abused children. ©2006 The Oregonian ........... And Oregon residents are no different really than people anywhere in this country. Wallet first, social programs second. Or third. Or less. > This means the state agencies will simply provide more of the > in-home services they currently provide and much less of the more expensive > and often times abusive out of home services. You are naive beyond perception. Time and again you have put up arguments like this. And I have pointed out my very long history with observing and interacting with CPS. People who neglect and abuse their children do NOT step up for services. They WILL try to refuse them. They will, AS YOU YOURSELF HAVE POINTED OUT, pretend to comply and move on, and will have changed nothing. You claimed that when services were FORCED that would be the outcome. How do you, presuming you wish children to be safer and are NOT the child hating family hating fool I believe you to be, propose to get the very families that most need “services” to volunteer instead of be forced? What will be the bait? Free meth? >> Those who NEED the up front services do NOT present themselves for those >> services. Criminals, addicts/substance abusers, mentally ill. > > CPS comes to them. In other words, the very thing YOU have argued in the past with claims that forced services do not work. > They will continue to come to them, as they have in the > past. The difference will be that CPS can now use federal Title IV-E social > security funding to force parents to accept cheaper, in-home services rather > than take the child into state custody. “Force?” FORCE!!!!??? Do you recall your arguments about the certain failure of forced rehabilitative services, Doug? Did you know it is illegal to “spin” a car’s odometer backward? R R R R R R...lucky you, it’s not illegal to spin your spin backwards. And I have a surprise for you and your cronies, and the “experts” including political appointees you cite as your authority. An injured child, a developmentally delayed child, an emotionally traumatized child, a child that cannot learn like others, cannot socialize safely, is NOT LESS EXPENSIVE TO HELP IN HOME THAN OUT OF HOME. Now I have a new prediction....and you helped open my eyes to this high probability likelihood. THIS IS GOING TO BE AN HORRIFIC BOONDOGGLE, should it come to pass, more terrible in cost to our treasury AND THE LIVES OF CHILDREN, and to their parents, than anything we’ve seen so far. Yes, little man, it most certainly won’t be long now. 0:-> PS I've not seen you post this sloppily in some time. I hope things are well with you and you are not living with undue stress. Even your spelling, something I don't often concern myself with -- except jokingly -- has become so bad as to make me wonder. You know I'm right, Doug, and it's getting to you. No one can sustain, unless they are pathological, a continuous string of dishonest claims without it effecting them. K Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > >>> Former and present foster children represent the most endangered > >>> population in this country. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Which adds nothing to my comment, but is diverting babble, Doug. ‘Spin’ as > usual. Hi, Kane, It disputes your comment. > I said, which is sufficient for the understanding of the reader of normal > intelligence who does not need your interpretation, “And they came by it > in the majority from their origins, the family they were born into,” > covering easily what you babbled on about to divert. Precisely. And I said that the horrendous situation former and present foster children find themselves in is the product of their entire life experiences. That includes, in the main for most of them, their experiences in state custody. > > To determine the "why" of > > the exceedingly poor outcomes, one must measure the entirety of their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Foundation analysis ignored the family of origin in favor of focusing only > on the foster experience? The Casey Family Foundation concentrated on the child's total experiences thoughout life. It is true that a great deal of the cases involved children whose experiences in the main came in state custody. Many of these children were removed as infants. I have repeatedly stated that causes for the exceedingly poor outcomes for former foster children must be measured by evaluating the child's total life experiences. It is you that continues to insist that these problems are the result, in the main, of their experiences in their families. You are wrong, of course. > > The removal itself, for > > young children, often causes irreparable harm. > > Riding in a car unbelted can cause irreparable harm. IF you have a wreck. Being forcibly removed from one's family makes a emotional wreck out of a small child. > In foster care the risks of harm are far less than in the family of origin > the child was removed from. Children are maltreated in foster care at rates eight to ten times that of the general population. > 95% of all harm to children that are the subject of open CPS cases comes > from OTHER than foster caregivers, and most from parents and family > members. That’s pretty good odds for children in foster care, compared to > being anywhere else. The vast majority of children subject to substantiated findings are never removed from their families before, during or after the investigation. Children who are sexually abused are 42% less likely to be removed than children who are physically abused. In 2004, 77,000 children were placed into foster care after CPS itself determined that they were not maltreated by their families or at risk of being maltreated by their families. These 77,000 children are clearly more at risk of being abused in foster care than in the environment where CPS workers themselves found no reason to even suspect that they were maltreated or at risk of maltreatment. > >> Which has NOT proven yet to be the safest course. Parents have been > known, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > lack of quality. Stop your lying and dodging, and twisting and turning and > changing your story, Doug. I wasn't. I was talking about the children removed from families CPS had unsubstantiated for risk of or actual maltreatment. Since these children were not abused in the first place, they could not be "reabused." > > The majority taken into > > state custody were not. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The children not returned are either abused, neglected, or at serious risk > of harm. You are quite incorrect. The vast majority of children subject to unsubstantiated findings are not returned after the investigation is completed and findings made or are removed months after the unsubstantiated finding. Check AFCARS. > > Since they were not abused in the first place, it > > is impossible for them to be "re-abused." > > The logic appears correct. Problem is you base it upon a lie. I have > repeatedly proven that you are wrong. You simply ignore my posts to that > effect. Incorrect. You continually try to fog up the obvious. ...As I continually point out. > > The average stay in foster care is around 2.1 years -- down slightly > from an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What most readers, if they are bothering to read, will miss is the use of > ‘average’ and what that really means. Less than 10% of removed from their families are returned within 60 days of both substantiated and unsubstantiated findings. Their average stay is, instead, 2.1 years. > >>> 69,000 of children placed in foster care in 2003 were removed > >>> from families CPS workers themselves unsubstantiated for risk of or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > neglect" are > >> not the same thing, nor the same yardstick. They are, in fact, the same thing, according to the federal folks that compile the figures and pay for the research. However, "substantiated" does not usually mean actually abused or neglected, but in the main "at risk" of future abuse or neglect, maybe, sometime in the future. These "at risk" findings represent most of the "substantiated" cases. > > The USDHHS provides the criteria for each category and the > definitions to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And, according to the study I posted here, they do NOT MEET THE FEDERAL > CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SUBSTANTIATED. According to the USDHHS and the CPS agencies in the states reporting, they do meet the federal criteria for substantiated. The survey of one state in 1994 you reference pointed out that families were sometimes substantiated based upon the worker's relationship with her supervisors or general attitude in the workplace. The USDHHS revised its critera to its present defination and has maintained it for a decade. > The major point you continually avoid is that UNSUBSTANTIATED undercounts > the truth. The assessment tool is being used to determine the likelihood > of services being effective, not the facts of abuse or neglect. A child > can be abused, and still be unsubstantiated IF a worker assesses that the > family’s circumstances will be more likely to support services being > effective. An unsubstantiated finding has nothing to do with determining whether services will be effective or not. Unsubstantiated is a finding that the CPS worker has found no credible evidence to suspect that the child has been abused or neglected or is a risk of being abused or neglected. Thousands of substantiated families are forced to receive "services" and thousands of unsubstantiated families are forced to receive "services." > > "Substantiated" is an investigation disposition from the state CPS > agency [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > The “way of communicating” has been proven by research to NOT be matching > the criteria of the USDHHS definitions. Not at all. The "research" proved no such thing. ....Now, here comes the fog again: > You have avoided again that in households where their has been a victim, > there are likely sibs. The nature of the abuse or neglect can often be, > and often is, that if that child victim is removed and the others are not, > they too would be at risk of the same abuse the “target child” was > subjected to. Hence they are removed, but by definition, not ‘victims.’ Siblings of a child who is abused are, of course, substantiated as being as risk of being maltreated themselves. Since these siblings are subject to substantiated findings, they are, by USDHHS defination, "victims." As I have mentioned repeatedly, most cases are substantiated on the basis of risk of abuse or neglect, not actual abuse or neglect. Unsubstantiated cases involve children CPS has determined were neither at risk of maltreatment or actually maltreated. USDHHS definations are quite clear. "Victims" are child subjects of substantiated reports. "Non-Victims" are child subjects of unsubstantiated reports. Here are the USDHHS definations: > > a.. Substantiated: A type of investigation disposition that concludes > that > > the allegation of maltreatment or risk of maltreatment was supported or > > founded by State law or State policy. > > House rules. Not field practice. Nope. Statistics on field practice, gathered by those in the field. > > a.. Unsubstantiated: A type of investigation disposition that determines > > that there was not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > House rules. Not field practice. > Just as I’ve said before, and provided the study to prove. Standards as defined in state law. CPS caseworkers are required to follow state law, are they not? Are you saying that CPS field practice is being done unlawfully? Well, come to think of it, yes you have. We've agreed on that. > >> Substantiation is a service needs driven assessment label, not a legal > >> definition of abuse. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You speak to the word, I to the actual field practice. House rules. Not > field practice. I speak to the field practice and to federal and state law. > > In each state, these state statutes define > > the thesholds of evidence but do NOT address service needs. > > The worker and their supervisor do that. They often find that real life > and “house-rules” conflict to the endangerment of the child. They go with > the safety of the child. Naturally. Extralegally? > > In fact, the majority of CPS services are forced upon unsubstantiated > > families. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > injured, or is at substantial risk of harm. A substantiated disposition > can include NON VICTIMS from the same family that would be at risk. No. Children included in a substantiated disposition because they are at risk are, by USDHHS defination, "victims." They decidedly would not be included as "non-victims." Non-victims are children subject to an unsubstantiated finding. > > A nonvictim is a child subject to an > > unsubstantiated disposition. In 2004, 77,000 non-victim children were [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > counted as non-victims, are temporarily in foster care, so are counted as > “removed,” even if for 48 hours. If they were substantiated as being at risk, they are counted as "victims." > > Take a look at the table below. You see quite clearly that the > number of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > And this supports what portion of your argument that I have not defeated > before? It supports facts that you repeatedly fail to challenge. enough time has elapsed since the grand orchestrated love affair with foster care for former foster care victims to have come of age..............often, those with firsthand experience on the bottom rungs of the cps ladder seem to be the ones pushing for changes in the system................ doug confirms the crisis in foster care.............. > enough time has elapsed since the grand orchestrated love affair with > foster care for former foster care victims to have come of > age..............often, those with firsthand experience on the bottom > rungs of the cps ladder seem to be the ones pushing for changes in the > system................ Children stand on the top rung of the ladder, child hater. > doug confirms the crisis in foster care.............. He is part of the problem. Efforts to defund foster programs are what cause the cases of foster care shortfalls for the children. Those few you speak of above that do may have some among them that are justified. There are also some that were made anti social, and mentally incompetent, by their own parent's abusing them. Put simply, they do not tell the truth. Then there are the far greater majority that have nothing to say because their experience was either neutral, or helpful, and in some cases, lifesaving and they know it. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) oooooooooooooooh my, everyone is a child hater except those who think just like you..................like pedophiles, you seem to love other people children just a little too much.............on paper, children may be at the top.................in reality, they are at the bottom...............otherwise, as abc's primetime pointed out, a 13-year-old would not have been placed in 19 foster homes................ agenda-driven child protection was a squandered opportunity.............as with public education, money's not the problem...........a flawed design that stifled more creative thought processes makes the system its own worst enemy and thwarted more workable solutions for the foreseeable future............... ]:^< runs around her dog lot barking about my alleged hatred of children and how all cps needs is more money............... i agree with wade horn's statement that "governments ought to honor and support the family as the most critical structure for insuring the well-being of children who are, after all, our future" and have said much the same thing............the state contrived divorcement of child from parents (termination of parental rights) has not worked very well.............the new reality is that the easy money for child removal is drying up...........it also signals a withering of the "baby snatching" arm of gov'ment that the anti-spanking forces used so freely to threaten parents through the infamous mondale child abuse prevention and treatment act............with the reduced need for foster care will also come a diminished need for guardians ad litem and related make-work jobs..........the 35-year-old war on drugs, used as a springboard for the meth epidemic scare, is a bigger failure than vietnam and iraq put together..............like foster care, it is another example of a failed gov'ment boondoggle...........the 2004 pew report addressed both the financing of foster care and the role of the court system..........over a month ago, abc news devoted an hour to step families in crisis............with the myth of the brady bunch is busted the real question is whether adoption as an alternative to foster care represents a shifting of the financial burden away from taxpayers or is a workable solution............. > > abc's primetime did a june 1 story on "the crisis of the foster care > > system"..............among abc's conclusions were 52 percent of foster [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > > It won't be long, now. > i agree with wade horn's statement that "governments ought to honor and > support the family as the most critical structure for insuring the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > foster care represents a shifting of the financial burden away from > taxpayers or is a workable solution............. Doug's got to be pretty desperate to pick you up as yet another of his little boot lickers, but hey, he was never known to discriminate before when he found someone to agree with his bullshit. You are a fit toady, observer. And if Doug was being looked at as credible in any way by posters here....eheheheheh....you have taken care of that. It becomes pretty obvious what he's about by looking at what you are about. Post some more of these fantasies of yours. 0:-> >>> abc's primetime did a june 1 story on "the crisis of the foster care >>> system"..............among abc's conclusions were 52 percent of foster [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] >> >> It won't be long, now. Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Do you think the general public knows that when a family is "substantiated" for abuse or neglect the vast majority are put in that category under "AT RISK" and not from any actual abuse or neglect at all? Most people think if a family is "substantiated" that they were actually found guilty of abuse or neglect, by the agency goons. Is there a category within the "substantiated" group that is marked as having had genuine actual proveable abuse? How much of the "substantiated" group are true actual abuse? How many among the "substantiated" were people who just fell for the "stipulation scam" and were not guilty but were told it's easier to "just go with the flow" than to stand up for legal rights? These "surrenders" seem to be part of this huge block of "substantiated" cases that score the agency as far as FUNDING! It is interesting that even the accepted meaning of "substantiated" is so far from what the public thinks that it's scary. And 40% of removed kids don't even fit that VAGUE classification???? I had known that the hardcore stuff was some small buried portion, but I was thinking it was like a pea in a snowball. The truth seems to be that actual true child ABUSE among the kids removed is less than one sand particle in a snowball. In Santa Clara (area) California, in 2003 the NAACP was wondering why when they obtained data, 40% was missing and they met lots of resistance. Only recently it was discovered that the agency was reporting FRAUDULENTLY. In one case 2 kids were removed but for the purposes of FUNDING they reported that 5 were removed. The FBI is actually investigating Santa Clara CPS! > Do you think the general public knows that > when a family is "substantiated" for abuse > or neglect the vast majority are put in that > category under "AT RISK" and not from any > actual abuse or neglect at all? I can't say what the general public knows. Frankly I think it knows little and wishes it knew less, when it comes to child abuse and neglect. With the help of those such as you and Doug, they seem to be getting their wish. > Most people think if a family is "substantiated" > that they were actually found guilty of > abuse or neglect, by the agency goons. I don't believe you are right when you lead off with "most people," as most people are unconcerned about this issue. Society fails children. But, in this country, less than in many. More than some. > Is there a category within the "substantiated" > group that is marked as having had genuine > actual proveable abuse? I do not believe so, unless you have access to actual case records and can read the narrative yourself and draw your own conclusions. There are, for instance, police reports, medical reports from emergency rooms, and or the child's own physician, that sort of thing. It's not just what the worker finds and reports. It's what they collect as well, both from official sources, as above, and from interviews with witnesses. > How much of the "substantiated" group > are true actual abuse? The difficulty I have in answering you is based solely on my failure to obtain from you a set of standards to define abuse. If you can supply them, I'll answer. "Substantiated" also includes "at serious risk of abuse and dangerous neglect." You do know, and Ron posted yet again what we all know (why you and others simply ignore is beyond me). That is that neglect is more often the cause of serious injury and death than 'abuse.' Intelligent people (and professions) refer to neglect as another form of "abuse." And it's for that very reason. It's deadly, and can do very high levels of damage to a child, developmentally, and to their health, for life. > How many among the "substantiated" were > people who just fell for the "stipulation scam" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to be part of this huge block of "substantiated" > cases that score the agency as far as FUNDING! Substantiated is based on an assessment, not what the "people," "just fell for." Well, since you asked the question, then answered it erroneously yourself, your conclusion is flawed. That means, Greg, you are wrong. Shall I define "wrong" for you? > It is interesting that even the accepted meaning > of "substantiated" is so far from what the public > thinks that it's scary. Well, you managed three strikes in one sentence there. One, the public doesn't think about this at all. They believe what the media, and the captured media tell them. I consider the captured media those sources that derive from special interest groups, like you, and Doug and others that are antiCPS goons. Two, the public has no concept of what is or isn't "substantiated" (for further understanding, see item One. Three, anything you create yourself, as you did in the few previous paragraphs is, by your own scary nature, "scary." To anyone that actually studies, objectively, and digs deeply into such questions as these, the findings are "interesting," and or "challenging," but not the least bit scary. What IS scary is that there are thugs so depraved they will take portions of the whole, that appear to mean one thing, that when combined with the other elements of whole, do NOT mean that at all, and use those portions to mislead, no matter what it costs children and their parents in the long run. Injuries, lives lost, children taken...nothing seems to faze them. But then, there's Greg, eh? > And 40% of removed kids don't even fit > that VAGUE classification???? Since you don't understand that "classification," that according to Doug is NOT vague at all, and to me it is something other than the official definition (which would be closer to your loonytoons view of the world...I must be slipping) what would the 40% actually mean, in the real world? Yoohooo...over here, the real world, Greg. When children bleed and die, where their hearts are broken because some self centered little pissant moves in with mom and engineers a removal and they lose their mother and their mother loses them for their childhood? THAT REAL WORLD GREG. > I had known that the hardcore stuff was > some small buried portion, but I was thinking it > was like a pea in a snowball. You have a nullifying piece or two in that statement. The words "known" and "thinking." Sorry. You neither know nor think. > The truth seems > to be that actual true child ABUSE among the > kids removed is less than one sand particle > in a snowball. That depends. What IS abuse? It unnecessary grief abuse? Like Lisa's child has and probably still suffers? Is gross disruption of developmental work by the child abuse? Is it abuse for a child to live in a house with unpredictable terrors visiting now and then? Much abuse can't be easily seen by the lay person. But a profession testing a child can see it. The 9 year old that has the social skills of a 3 year old...a most dangerous situation to the child and to the society he or she is entering soon as an adult. (Three year olds aren't ready to "share their toys" and tend to be self centered and unaware of the needs of others...as is normal for that age). Is carrying a brain that has been stunted because of drug ingestion abuse? Is dysfunctional dangerous sexual behavior learned from family sexual molesters abuse? The list could go on, but you are probably totally confused at this point. Why punish you? > In Santa Clara (area) California, in 2003 the NAACP > was wondering why when they obtained data, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The FBI is actually investigating Santa Clara CPS! Would you mind posting a source for your claim? Or would that spoil the effect of your insinuations? For instance, how did the case come out, and was it a case of agency malfeasance, or was it a single person or a small group acting criminally without the knowledge of the CPS administration? Yes, tell us all the dirty details, but let us also see your source. Can we expect a reply to this request soon? 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Remember me pointing out that agencies LIE to AFCARS? This is only a more blatant example. I wish they would just LIE more and remove real kids less! Stealing the money is preferable to stealing the kids. the real drug epidemic in the united states isn't meth..............it comes from abuse of alcohol, use of tobacco, and popping prescription medications like candy................. > the real drug epidemic in the united states isn't meth..............it > comes from abuse of alcohol, use of tobacco, and popping prescription > medications like candy................. All problems. The last is the most serious of all. Unquestionably. But YOU don't know why, and YOU don't provide proof. I, in fact, posted recently that the state asst dir of substance abuse planning had told me that very same thing. Prescription drugs are the most serious problem, but not far ahead of meth as it turns out. I'd like to assume you post the above because you really care, observer, something you have never done in the past. In that vein here's a question for you: Would you want your doctor, should you have a suporrating rash on your butt, a compound fractured broken finger, severe high blood pressure, and gangrene in your left foot, to treat the first three and ignore the last? Well, meth is gangrene already UP TO YOUR a.s, dummy. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) the more you write, the crazier you get...............2005 was the watershed year for domestically produced pseudoephedrine.............the continued importation of pseudoephedrine from mexico only serves to underscore the failure of the war on drugs............... ]:^< runs around her dog lot barking like a meth-crazed chicken little............. > the more you write, the crazier you get...............2005 was the > watershed year for domestically produced > pseudoephedrine.............the continued importation of > pseudoephedrine from mexico only serves to underscore the failure of > the war on drugs............... What did I post that would be in disagreement with that? > ]:^< runs around her dog lot barking like a meth-crazed chicken > little............. In other words, you have nothing to debate, but a lot to say. We know. Try to get some rest. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) oooooooooh, so in your delusion, you think you're john phillip sousa............no one can take a step until you strike up the marching band.............sorry, bitch, your gig's up...............there is nothing to debate...............the $600 a second war on drugs has been a recognized failure for decades............your dumb little make-work bureaucracy lost public support long ago............now, it's lost the mainstream media..............the days of cps vultures easily picking families apart, as if they were roadkill, is over...........parents stopped listening to the anti-spanking misinformation years ago............about all that's left is you running around your silly little dog lot like some hyperactive yappy toy fox terrier..............except as a yappy noise-maker, you're useless when it comes to protecting children............. ]:^< runs around her dog lot barking as usual................ > oooooooooh, so in your delusion, you think you're john phillip > sousa............ I'd rather have been Segovia. Classical guitar is my instrument. > no one can take a step until you strike up the > marching band............. Why? I don't control anyone. Just me. > sorry, bitch, There's the woman hating thing again. > your gig's > up............... No, I've got lots of years left. > there is nothing to debate............... Not for you, obviously, observer. You never have been able to debate, so this is all you do or have ever done. Anyone can kvetch. Simple task for the simple minded. 0:-} > the $600 a > second war on drugs has been a recognized failure for > decades............ The alternative is chaos and a rejection and abandonment of society and responsibility. I know that's your preference but it's not mine, so expect me to continue, along with millions of other people. > your dumb little make-work bureaucracy lost public > support long ago............ That's not how it appears from all reports. Support for the fight against substance abuse seems healthy enough. > now, it's lost the mainstream > media.............. On the contrary. Drug issues are more in the media than ever before. > the days of cps vultures easily picking families > apart, as if they were roadkill, is over........... I know you'd prefer the children to be tortured, killed, abandoned but it's not going to happen. > parents stopped > listening to the anti-spanking misinformation years > ago............ Of course. Abusive ones have never listen to anyone but their junky, and the porno makers that want their children. > about all that's left is you running around your silly > little dog lot like some hyperactive yappy toy fox > terrier..............except as a yappy noise-maker, you're useless when > it comes to protecting children............. Really. And your solution? > ]:^< runs around her dog lot barking as usual................ Well, if you get tired you should stop barking, doggy. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) ooooooooooooh, so you think all women are "lewd," "immoral," "malicious," "spiteful," and "overbearing"..........actually, i don't...........it's just you and your cohorts, bitch............ ]:^< runs around her dog lot bitching about being called a bitch............ > ooooooooooooh, so you think all women are "lewd," "immoral," > "malicious," "spiteful," and "overbearing".......... No, but the term bitch usually refers to females. You used it. Live with it. actually, i > don't........... Not according to your posting history, and you continue to refer to me as female as an insult. it's just you and your cohorts, bitch............ Nope. I do not use female terms to insult. > ]:^< runs around her dog lot bitching about being called a > bitch............ I don't care what you call me. I care that you use female terms as insults. That denigrates females. Just how stupid are you that you would patronize the reader by presuming they'd believe your lies? 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) noooooooooooooow, i've forgotten....................exactly which female is that that objects to one female calling another female a bitch....................... ]:^< runs around her dog lot bitching about being called a bitch.............. > noooooooooooooow, i've forgotten.................... Sure you have. Your special talent is forgetting. > exactly which > female is that that objects to one female calling another female a > bitch....................... I would assume that generally women don't like hearing other women called bitch. > ]:^< runs around her dog lot bitching about being called a > bitch.............. No, I don't mind at all. I dislike using terms for females used as insults. You are still a misogynist then, OOM? 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Of the removed children, what percentage have been proven to have suffered blood, broken bones or sexual abuse? Certainly not the 40% portion the states admit have been removed for NO REASON.. Certainly not the NEGLECT portion... How big is the "AT RISK OF" portion? And how many have had actual injuries? These are vicious questions, no doubt. > Of the removed children, what percentage > have been proven to have suffered blood, > broken bones or sexual abuse? Look it up. > Certainly not the 40% portion the states > admit have been removed for NO REASON.. Non sequitur > Certainly not the NEGLECT portion... You don't know, can't prove it, but you sure can babble. > How big is the "AT RISK OF" portion? I don't know. Depends on how many boyfriends with a sex offender registry requirement are living in or visiting the household. That's one of the most common reasons for "at risk," offenders of various kinds that can and do present danger to children. Their parents, of course, should be horsewhipped for allowing such dangerous thugs to hang about, but what can you do, with in fact the hanging about has to do with sharing drugs, selling drugs, and even making drugs. > And how many have had actual injuries? Why would an "at risk" child have to have had actual injuries to be at risk? And who says they do not have or have had such injuries in the past? > These are vicious questions, no doubt. In the ongoing attempt to rationalize and deny your own culpability in Lisa and her daughter's case with the state of Iowa, by focusing on all the stupid insinuating questions to vilify the state, yes, I'd had to say "vicious questions" would be one of the more fitting labels for your questions, Greg. Why don't you answer your questions to prove they have merit and are based on events and conditions? You find a tiny percentage of anecdotal events that you repeat over and over again attempting to discredit a massive total number of agencies and people that work for them. That's not proof of anything but that one or two people were corrupt or inadequate to their tasks. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Kane: Did you ever speak out about how the system was hooking kids on RITALEN and similar psychotropics? Wasn't THAT more truly an epidemic? Some states stopped it. Some have not yet stopped it and the Ritalin insanity still goes on! What percentage of foster kids are put on Ritalen? > Kane: > Did you ever speak out about how the > system was hooking kids on RITALEN > and similar psychotropics? Far louder and more to the right people than you, pissant. (By the way, it's "Ritalin." And usually one doesn't need to shout it. What emphasis were you attempting to make? Possibly if you wanted to do a better insinuation you should have emphasized "DID YOU EVER SPEAK OUT." You don't remember my posting about being a speaker to a group that included both teachers and pediatric nurses, where I accused teachers of prescribing drugs for students? (I made the point that by refusing to teach children with "behavioral problems" until medicated they were forcing the education system to put pressure on parents and doctors). You have the most "convenient" memory. Others, myself included, might forget one or two things about a long ago post, but you seem to forget hundreds of long ago posts themselves. Weird. We had a rather hot debate, and at the end one could see AND HEAR both side (both in denial AT FIRST) starting to give this careful consideration. The nurses were seeing, mostly, very disturbed children, the rare ones that DO indeed benefit from drug therapy, while the teachers were asking about ways they could better understand what was a psychiatric problem, and what was a true learning disability....or other situational problem. The former calls for meds, the latter less often. You are trying to lie about me and harass me again, Greg. Don't you ever get tired of being proven wrong? > Wasn't THAT more truly an epidemic? It's difficult to compare. But I'll assign you that job. I personally consider both to be epidemic, and do not recall every saying anything that would lead a reader to believe that I approved of or minimized drugging children unnecessarily. You have posts of mine that say otherwise, do you? This post best expresses my thoughts on the drugging of children. And remember I worked with children that I fought against the drugging of in mental health settings, uncovered allergic reactions to foods that were effecting behavior, and argued with people that could fire me (they didn't because they learned I was right...I made sure of that before mounting the argument, just like here, scummy dummy) http://groups.google.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/browse_thread/thread/9ccb3 6337046c59f/ff10d14098de8f63?q=Kane+drugging+&rnum=5#ff10d14098de8f63 http://tinyurl.com/mlrdb In this I cite a long article on scientific work with brain scanning, and say about the researcher: "<<in addition...and a reason I tend to trust Dr. Teicher, my being very anti drugging of kids>> " Just for the hell of it, Greg, try ONE time answering a valid question from me. Try this one: If you think deliberate drugging of children with psychotropics, (some AMPHETAMINE DERIVED) is epidemic, how is it you seem to be against naming meth as an epidemic, as children are doped in Utero by their mother's use of meth? > Some states stopped it. Some states? Could you be more specific? I am currently looking for model legislation and I've found nothing worth bothering with. And the children are still be psychotropicly drugged. My wife is working with the "special needs" population and she sees too much of it, or wrongly applied instances, and even, occasionally a child that obviously has a medical condition that needs to be evaluated for cause and medication used if indicated. > Some have not yet stopped it and > the Ritalin insanity still goes on! That's right. See above. While I have a tendency to post with a lot of subjects in the air for consideration at once, I cannot cover them ALL at any one time. My NOT bringing up Ritalin at this time has nothing to do with the reality of the meth epidemic. It neither detracts nor adds to the issue. But it does allow you to continually dodge answering my challenges to you to PROVE there is no meth epidemic. Or that it's being lied about to raise money. Why would you pull a Douggie, and switch to, "yes but look at this OTHER problem?" Your counter challenge to my "meth epidemic" would look FAR BETTER if you could come up with some figures. At least Doug did that...only to discover that what I said was a "prediction" and NOT currently, at the time of our exchange, known by release of new data and information YET. And he is finding out the hard way I had done my homework, the figures are coming out. The problem has moved the Feds finally to start taking action. The health field is swamped. The mental health field is swamped. All just as I said. Now IF Ritalin is a problem of equal or greater proportions, make your argument with two things. The facts that prove it, and the possible remedies. Mine, for meth, is to fund the increasing education of the public. To tighten (as has happened, I'm happy to say) the laws regarding exposing children to all the sorry circumstances about and around meth, and to protect the children from the greatly heightened dangers meth addiction poses to them. You will see, as time passes, that the old 10% of CPS cases are sexual abuse, change as new data is tabulated and analyzed. Sexual abuse of children in settings where meth is present is very high, as workers, CARES personnel, and police have told me. Meth is a temporary aphrodisiac and children present are often molested as a result. > What percentage of foster kids are put on Ritalen? More than I consider acceptable, but much of the pressure for it's use comes from EDUCATION, not from child protection. I do not know the percentage. Do you? I have seen what I consider, due to the unreliable sources, claims of very high percentages, but when pressed they cannot find data except from their daisy chain, others like them that keep passing the information one to the other until it's assumed, because of volume, that it has to be true. The big lie. Why don't you study up. There's plenty of evidence that this is an ongoing problem for the mental health profession and there are many facets to the argument. Some valid, some shaky, but all worth learning about. Then, Greg, DO something rather than sit on your lazy a.s pissing and moaning to support your vicious and stupid attacks on CPS and people that ARE doing something. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Percentage+of+foster+children+on+ritalin&bt nG=Google+Search http://tinyurl.com/r6a9a Of course you will find some things you do not like, such as foster children come into the system with a much higher rate of mental illness than the general population of children. PARENT INDUCED, or genetic. Logically this would make sense. They are more difficult to parent. If the parent is an unstable mental case themselves more likely to result in harm to the child. Enjoy your studies. There will be a quiz, as usual: Topics- Activism Budget Business Child Welfare Comm Dev Crim Just ... The country's half-million children in foster care are more likely than others to struggle with mental illness. A startling 84 percent of foster kids have ... www.citylimits.org/content/articles/articleView.cfm?articlenumber=1167 - 34k - Cached - Similar pages ablechild drugs found that close to 5 percent of children on Medicaid had been ... large number of foster children, said doctors often relent and write a ... www.ablechild.org/newsarchive/use_of_drugs_to_control_kids_worries%20specialists %207-23-04.htm - 23k - Cached - Similar pages Article: Ritalin:Facts all foster parents should know Because Ritalin has proven to be moderately to markedly effective in 75 percent of hyperactive children (improving attention, concentration, ... ssw.unc.edu/fcrp/fp/fp_vol1no2/articles/ritalin_facts_all_foster_parents_should_know.htm - 7k - Cached - Similar pages [PDF] BEHIND THE GROWING NUMBER OF SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML one percent of children treated with. Ritalin or other stimulants develop tics. ... three medically-needy foster children in the Wilsons’ home. ... ssw.unc.edu/fcrp/Cspn/vol2_no3/cspnv2_3.pdf - Similar pages Two-thirds foster care children in Mass on psych drugs_Globe ... The organization says it does not keep track of how many children are prescribed psychotropic medicines such as Ritalin, Adderall, and Prozac. ... www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/08/11.php - 35k - Cached - Similar pages Fostering A Failure: the Fiasco of Foster Care in the US by Emily ... Estimates show that in New York City, “more than 60 percent of the homeless population in municipal shelters are former foster children” (Craig & Herbert:1) ... www.strangechord.com/writing/Pollard_fostercarepaper.html - 73k - Cached - Similar pages Ritalin Does Not Foster Drug Abuse, Study Finds - New York Times Ritalin Does Not Foster Drug Abuse, Study Finds ... The study covered 147 hyperactive children who were followed for 13 years into adulthood. ... query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C03EEDA143EF934A35752C0A9659C8B63 - 23k - Cached - Similar pages Texans for Safe Education Appeal Many millions continue to be taking the stimulant drugs like Ritalin and ... The reality of our foster care is that a high percentage of the children who ... www.wildestcolts.com/safeEducation/hupp.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Michelle Malkin Two federal policies abetted the Ritalin racket: the opening of the ... officials looking for expedient "chemical straitjackets" to manage foster children. ... www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin113099.asp - 15k - Cached - Similar pages [PDF] Best Interests Analysis of Mental Health Issues for Foster Children File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML http://www.mothering.com/articles/growing_child/education/ritalin-sham.html ... More than eighty percent of children in foster care have developmental, ... www.advocacycenter.org/documents/Handbook_on_Chemical_Restraint.pdf - Similar pages Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) When you spoke out, was in anonymous? Or did you identify yourself at the local PTA? Did you write Congressional Ways and Means? > When you spoke out, was in anonymous? No. > Or did you identify yourself at the local PTA? I don't belong, nor attend. My children are grown. The local schools all know me though. > Did you write Congressional Ways and Means? Yes. Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Greg wrote > Did you write Congressional Ways and Means? Kane ^7&* wrote > Yes. Please post a link! I gotta see this great diatribe against Ritalen abuse! Kane the magnificent! > Greg wrote >> Did you write Congressional Ways and Means? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Please post a link! No. > I gotta see this great diatribe against Ritalen abuse! No you don't. And I did not say, nor did you ask, if I wrote congress on Ritalin. You simple asked, about four posts after you brought up Ritalin, if I had written. The subject had been dropped. You don't know what I wrote about. Nor how many times. Nor how many other government agencies I've contacted over the years on different issues of political importance. Or social importance. I've worked in three areas of social issues, all overlapping. Child protection (You recall my student work study...I did an field study and submitted it to congress as part of their work on a bill), child and family mental health, and a third that's none of your business. > Kane the magnificent! <blush> No, just a responsible citizen. I'd like to think I made a difference. And you? You wish to sue the state of Iowa. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > You wish to sue the state of Iowa. So? >> You wish to sue the state of Iowa. > > So? Are you going to try and convince us that's about social responsibility through political action? That was my reason for being an activist and you challenged me as being megalomaniac and whatever other odd little bits and pieces of insinuation floating through your mind. Do you wish to reform CPS and how will a suit do that? 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) with rare exceptions, members of congress do not read constituent mail..............staffers do that............congressional committees have staffs, as do members of congress...............the question is not whether someone wrote congress...............it is whether they got a meaningful reply................in ]:^<'s case, given the contrived political slobber she's posted here, a staffer may have figured harmless nut-job and filed the correspondence in the circular file beside a desk............ gregory asks about ]:^< writing congress................ > with rare exceptions, members of congress do not read constituent > mail..............staffers do that............congressional committees > have staffs, as do members of congress...............the question is > not whether someone wrote congress...............it is whether they got > a meaningful reply................ No, they do NOT reply to all letters. How long have you been a citizen? in ]:^<'s case, given the contrived > political slobber she's posted here, Sorry you don't care for the truth, but then you haven't even back when you posted as observer. > a staffer may have figured > harmless nut-job and filed the correspondence in the circular file > beside a desk............ No, not on the issues I write about. > gregory asks about ]:^< writing congress................ "gregory" harasses. Nothing more. Not for facts, nor for the truth. He doesn't really want to know. His credibility, along with yours, is so inconsequential he AND you have nothing left but to attack others. That's all he and you do. Typical of those that have lost the debate and have been shown the door long ago and haven't the balls to admit defeat and don't want to leave in disgrace, they pretend they are still in the fray. Your 'team' lost, goober. You are little more than light entertainment, opinions. You never have been anything else, and now you even post like sound bites. You know as well as all the readers what a pipsqueak you were and are. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) sooooooooooooooooo, great purveyor of the one and only absolute truth, you admit that your version of reality on such an important subject as child protection didn't even rate a form letter response................that ought to tell you something about how far out of touch with reality your left-wing squandering of tax dollars has become in the new century.................. ]:^< runs around her dog lot trying to bury the fact that even peons in washington don't take her or her agenda seriously............... eric harris, lead gunman in the columbine shootings, had therapeutic doses of luvox in his system.........he had also taken zoloft until he reported being homicidal/suicidal............kip kinkle, the springfield, oregon murderer, had taken ritalin and prozac................kinkle reported hearing "goddamn voices" in his head.............. gregory understands the dangers of ritalin.................. > eric harris, lead gunman in the columbine shootings, had therapeutic > doses of luvox in his system.........he had also taken zoloft until he [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > gregory understands the dangers of ritalin.................. Everyone does. Few understand it's valid therapeutic uses. You and Greg most obviously. Can't speak to Eric Harris' case, but Kip Kinkle was diagnosis with physiological symptoms...that is brain disorders. One look at his face by a practitioner would dx him as mentally limited. In fact he had some characteristics of FAS. Current policy on education of special needs children kept him in school, where he should not have been. Too much pressure in highschool for a child with him psychiatric problems. The mistake with Kip was not in medication, but in his father allowing him to have firearms. He was both underage (illegal) and mentally ill (also illegal). His parents broke the law, in fact. His parents mistakenly thought guns were something he could focus on. The fact was his behaviors we're out of control long before he was medically treated. He was aggressive and dangerous. He was not on Ritalin but methylphenidate and Prozac. Unfortunately a psychologist failed to Dx Kip earlier in his illness correctly. I do believe that Prozac was not appropriate for Kip, but I'm not a physician so I have to leave that mistake to them to sort out and take responsibility for or not. Here is what another found, and despite this Kip abandoned his attempts to claim insanity -- which of course is insane given this: "Another psychologist who testified for the defense was Dr. Orin Bolstad who works with juvenile killers in the Oregon penal system. After Kip's arrest, he met with him for over 32 hours. In addition to interviewing Kip and performing a battery of psychological tests, Bolstad examined school and medical records, reports from other psychiatrists and psychologists, Kip's writings and other evidence. In his testimony, which lasted almost four hours, Bolstad said that it was clear to him that Kip suffered from a psychotic disorder with major paranoid symptoms, potentially some form of early onset schizophrenia. Many of Bolstad's tests indicated that Kip had a major learning disorder, manifested by difficulty spelling and writing. Other tests, Bolstad said, revealed a very depressed, alienated child who sees adults as unfair, arbitrary and untrustworthy. He has very low self esteem, and is manipulative and paranoid. Bolstad described a number of delusional beliefs that Kip related to him: his fear that the Chinese were going to invade America (Kip stored explosives under his house in order to be prepared); that Disney was taking over the world--the Disney dollar, with Mickey Mouse on the front, would replace the American dollar; that there were chips planted in his head by the government. Much of Bolstad's testimony detailed Kip's reported auditory hallucinations. They began, according to Kip, in 6th grade. Kip told him that he remembered the first time he heard a voice; it said, "You are a stupid piece of sh.t. You aren't worth anything." They scared and upset him, he said, and he tried various things to quiet them: biking, watching TV, punching his head. According to Bolstad, Kip said that he never told anyone about the voices because he was embarrassed. He didn't want anyone, especially girls, to think he was crazy. Bolstad also related his discussion with Kip about an incident in 1998 when he had disrupted English class by shouting, "God damn this voice inside my head!" This is the only time before the shootings that any mention of voices was recorded.' But you two amateurs babble on. It makes the case for balance, something you lack. Kip needed what his parents couldn't face, institutionalization and a safe structured regimen of supervision, therapy, and medication under supervised control. I've never looked closely at the two boys in the Columbine incident. Not much is known really. The families have managed to pretty well hide the circumstances leading up to the incident. No one knows exactly what went on in their households. With Kip it is different. Much was revealed. Before you babble next time, do a little research. Properly administured and supervised use of Rx for psychiatric conditions is useful and warranted. My beef is with misuse. And I've spoken out on it, as you ignore from my posted comments. In other words posting comments that would lead people to believe something I have not supported, observer, is lying. Why would you lie? At times I think maybe you don't like me. 0;-> R R R R RR Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Kane wrote > Properly administured and supervised use of Rx for psychiatric > conditions is useful and warranted. My beef is with misuse. And I've > spoken out on it, as you ignore from my posted comments. In other words > posting comments that would lead people to believe something I have not > supported, observer, is lying. Why would you lie? Kane, You pretended you lobbied against misuse of Psychotropics. When asked about your efforts you responded that you had written to Ways and Means. Then you partially negated your own assertion. Did you in fact write to Ways and Means about kids being put on psychotropics like Ritalen and similar? What other lobbying efforts did you make? Please understand that since you are a SYSTEM SUCK and since the primary movers toward arbitrary putting kids on Ritalken were SYSTEM SUCKS like caseworkers and Fosters hoping to "pacify" their population rather than cope with a "high energy child" or a kid acting out due to mild ATTACHMENT DISORDER caused by child removal. Let's face it, the system is and has been loaded with people totally unqualified to make such decisions yet totally willing to assert them anyway. > Kane wrote >> Properly administured and supervised use of Rx for psychiatric [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Kane, You pretended You base your judgment above on ... ? > you lobbied against misuse of Psychotropics. Yes, I did that. In more than one instance. > When asked about your efforts you responded that you had > written to Ways and Means. No, you did not ask until the subject had changed and we were not longer discussing the a specific reason for any actions of mine at that point. You asked out of the blue, and YOU had cut attributes that would show I am now right and you making it up as you go along. > Then you partially negated your own assertion. I explained how you made an incorrect assumption. > Did you in fact write to Ways and Means about kids > being put on psychotropics like Ritalen and similar? No. > What other lobbying efforts did you make? Buttonholing my representatives on state and national levels and talking with them. Mailing them letters. Providing them with educational material. Being interviewed by their staff collecting first hand information from someone in the field of child mental health. > Please understand that since you are a SYSTEM SUCK I understand you are lying. > and since the primary movers toward arbitrary putting > kids on Ritalken were SYSTEM SUCKS like caseworkers > and Fosters hoping to "pacify" their population rather > than cope with a "high energy child" or a kid acting out > due to mild ATTACHMENT DISORDER caused by child removal. Attachment disorder is rarely caused by child removal unless certain conditions are met. The child has to be under about 18-24 months old. If attachment as not formed with the mother by that time IT'S NOT GOING TO. It is more often caused by, and sometimes NOT the parent's fault at all, by disruptive life events that distract or remove the mother...like DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE HOME. CPS sees a great many children (the top of the age bell curve for removals is in the 6 to 9 year old) that are ALREADY ATTACHMENT DISORDERED. The list of suspected causes include DV, mental illness of family member, criminal violence of various kinds including drug issues where mom or others are more interested in drugs than parenting. What is seen when children are removed from their familiar surroundings, even if horrendous, is LOSS. Grieving. I personally do not believe, but am not current in the field, that medications do much to help with grieving. THIS was the primary issue that got me involved with helping relatives with child kin in their care. Helping them understand that the behaviors they were seeing were NOT disruption for its own sake, but survival behaviors learned in dangerous neglectful households, combined with normal reactions to loss...of their pets, their toys, their siblings, their parents, other extended family, the local neighbors, their playmates, their school mates, their teachers. The reason for and my LOBBYING for 'Neighborhood Foster Care' was, as a mental health professional, to reduce the amount of loss by keeping them close to all of that when removed from their home. The biggest hurdle we had to face was the very real problem OF NOT ENOUGH FUNDING to recruit, train, and certify foster parents. Children had to be placed where foster homes had an opening. I spent a lot of hours writing my own views and offered solutions. Some have been implemented, some not yet, and some will probably never be. > Let's face it, the system is and has been loaded with > people totally unqualified to make such decisions > yet totally willing to assert them anyway. You have not proof of your claim above, just bullshit rambling again. How can someone that is paid to make decisions about children and hired based on education and knowledge testing be "totally" unqualified? YOU are closer to "totally" than anyone posting here. Even Kathleen is more informed than you. You have lied again. Big surprise. I provided you the address for the thread, for you to read and see that we had left the subject of my lobbying about psychotropics. You asked me and UNQUALIFIED question appearing out of the blue, with NO attributions to even see if or what it might be connected to in your little mind. I answered ONLY what you asked in context. . Next time you have a question for me, remember that. And remember that you do these things to TRAP PEOPLE because you are too stupid and fact deprived by deliberate ignorance to argue. Why do you think I mentioned Doan as your butt buddy, stupid? 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) i do research..............i don't brag about it............you are someone i feel no need to impress.............fetal alcohol syndrome is highly speculative...........a history of mind-altering ritalin and prozac prescriptions is not............. ]:^< runs around her dog lot barking about doing research.............. > i do research..............i don't brag about it............ You don't cite it. > you are > someone i feel no need to impress............. That's nice. To what do I owe then the honor of your many posts to only myself? > fetal alcohol syndrome is > highly speculative........... Really? I hope you aren't about to try and prove it has little or no effect. > a history of mind-altering ritalin and > prozac prescriptions is not............. Is not speculative? True, but then FAS and FAE aren't "speculative" "highly" or otherwise. Your determined ignorance marks you, by the way, as both observer and opinions. Or possibly you are identical triplets. Say hello to your mother for me and tell her I'll send her the $2 if she'll prove you are all three mine. > ]:^< runs around her dog lot barking about doing research.............. And OOM sits on his fat a.s claiming he does research but offering no proof, and lot's of babbling non-fact superstitious nonsense, even about the US Constitution. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) you obviously don't know twentieth century supreme court decisions or their significance.................. ]:^< runs around her dog lot barking about how much she knows about the constitution........... you obviously don't know twentieth century supreme court decisions or their significance.................. ]:^< runs around her dog lot barking about how much she knows about the constitution........... soooooooooooo, why is ]:^< no longer bragging about her knowledge of the constitution and bill of rights............because her claim blew up in her face..............]:^< has a habit of trying to overwhelm any opposition with cut and paste, discounting their knowledge, and calling them liars...............she also has established a blueprint of political philosophy that may be politely described as unusual............actually, it is screwed-up............in this regard, her praise of the anti-federalists is disingenuous.............it fits her tactic of crafting a political profile most likely to be associated with those opposed to excessive gov'ment interference..........yet, the contradictions in her position are absolutely astounding for anyone acquainted with political philosophy.............her claim to support the second amendment, her references to constitutional freedoms, her dire warning about socialism, and her support for invading other countries in a war on terrorism create little more than a stereotypical caricature of the people she is wants to co-opt and, failing that, seeks to destroy...............yet, when it comes to support of the fourth amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches, such as making children strip before bureaucrats searching for evidence of spanking, the protections become quickly watered down.............when it comes to the children of others, she is in favor of fishing expeditions rather than due process...............for anyone who knows anything about the tendency of gov'ment to take a mile after being given an inch, legal fishing expeditions are frightening...........when children become the excuse, anything is possible...........the gambit is at least as old as the death of socrates...........the fourth amendment, with its demands for red tape paperwork narrowing the scope of any search, was specifically included in the bill of rights to prevent gov'ment voyeurism in search of a crime............those seeking to use gov'ment as a billy club to do their dirty work have always hated the fourth amendment and they always will..........that is why laws such as the patriot act try to weaken or get around the fourth amendment...........]:^< is typical of would be despots in being frustrated by that particular amendment because, without it, the rest of the bill of rights can quickly become a hollow shell of words on paper.................. > you obviously don't know twentieth century supreme court decisions or > their significance.................. > > ]:^< runs around her dog lot barking about how much she knows about the > constitution........... > He was not on Ritalin but methylphenidate and Prozac. Hi, Kane, LOL!!!!!! Methylphenidate IS Ritalin. Ritalin is the tradename for the generic drug, Methylphenidate. You were involved in mental health, right? ROFL! What's up with that mistake Kane? Or was I right when I guessed that your psychiatric knowledge comes from you being a PATIENT? > > He was not on Ritalin but methylphenidate and Prozac. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You were involved in mental health, right? >> He was not on Ritalin but methylphenidate and Prozac. > > Hi, Kane, > > LOL!!!!!! Why are you laughing at me for what is obviously an error composition rather than knowledge? > Methylphenidate IS Ritalin. Ritalin is the tradename for the generic drug, > Methylphenidate. > > You were involved in mental health, right? Yes, I was. Yes, thank you for catching the error. I meant to say "He was not ONLY on Ritalin, but Ritalin and Prozac. I used the generic from the article was reading unconsciously. I was pointing out the combination from the citation I made being more serious a situation than Ritalin alone. The combination of drugs in a child in his teens is a very risky business, especially adding a tranquilizer such as Prozac to a psychotropic like Ritalin. Again thanks for catching the error. By the way, no professional would have missed my obvious error in composition. Why did you? Why would you laugh at someone for an obvious error in forming and expressing an idea? You've never made a mistake then? 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) The BS Artist formerly known as Kane wrote: > You've never made a mistake then? Have you ever admitted to one? > Why are you laughing at me for what is > obviously an error composition rather > than knowledge? You can't just admit you screwed up! Why make this lame attempt to shift the blame? Is this "mental health"? All this defenestration just to obfuscate a typo? The BS Artist formerly known as Kane wrote > >> He was not on Ritalin but methylphenidate and Prozac. > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > 0:-> > The BS Artist formerly known as Kane wrote: > > You've never made a mistake then? > > Have you ever admitted to one? I just did. > > Why are you laughing at me for what is > > obviously an error composition rather > > than knowledge? > > You can't just admit you screwed up! I did admit it. What's with this accusation I didn't? > Why make this lame attempt to shift > the blame? I made no such attempt. I attempted to explain how I can to make the mistake I did. > Is this "mental health"? Darned of I know. Your mental health is beyond understanding. > All this defenestration just to obfuscate a typo? It wasn't a typo. It was a mixup in terms from having just read and article on the Springfield OR shooter to refresh my memory and get the facts straight. He was on double Rx, and that was my point. Attempting to clarify is not an attempt to obfuscate, unless your name is Doug or Greg. By the way, if you are going to swallow a dictionary, try reading it first. I made no attempt to throw anything out a window. You seem to have done your best to attack my credibility by using a perfectly ordinary kind of mistake though. It give folks a clearer picture of what you and Doug are about. Keep it up. 0:-> > The BS Artist formerly known as Kane wrote > > >> He was not on Ritalin but methylphenidate and Prozac. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > > > 0:-> Kane wrote (EXHIBIT A) > Why are you laughing at me for what is > obviously an error composition rather > than knowledge? Greg wrote > You can't just admit you screwed up! Kane wrote > I did admit it. What's with this accusation I didn't? Your own words EXHIBIT A Where did you admit making a mistake? The closest you get is in BLAMING the reader for missing what you assert is an obvious composition error. Greg wrote > Why make this lame attempt to shift the blame? Kane wrote > I made no such attempt. I attempted to explain > how I can to make the mistake I did. What about the part where you attempted to blame the reader for not seeing how "obviously" innocent you were? See EXHIBIT A <snip> Kane muttered these immortal words > Attempting to clarify is not an attempt to > obfuscate, unless your name is Doug or Greg. > Kane wrote (EXHIBIT A) >> Why are you laughing at me for what is [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> Attempting to clarify is not an attempt to >> obfuscate, unless your name is Doug or Greg. Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > Kane wrote (EXHIBIT A) >> Why are you laughing at me for what is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Your own words EXHIBIT A Where are they? You seem to have performed another attribution abortion. Why is that I wonder. > Where did you admit making a mistake? Two times in the same post? You missed that? As I said: "Yes, thank you for catching the error." and; "Again thanks for catching the error." > The closest you get is in BLAMING the > reader for missing what you assert is > an obvious composition error. No, Greg I did no such thing. This is a demonstration of your propensity to lie. > Greg wrote >> Why make this lame attempt to shift the blame? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "obviously" innocent you were? > See EXHIBIT A What "Exhibit A"? You have not actually produced my words here, liar. What about that part were I asked the "the reader" questions? For instance? "Why are you laughing at me for what is obviously an error composition rather than knowledge?" "Again thanks for catching the error. By the way, no professional would have missed my obvious error in composition. Why did you? Why would you laugh at someone for an obvious error in forming and expressing an idea? You've never made a mistake then? " All questions Greg, that you apparently felt compelled, because they would have made it clear what I actually said was NOT according to your lies above, to ... > <snip> This is the lowest kind of unethical posting, Greg. > Kane muttered these immortal words >> Attempting to clarify is not an attempt to >> obfuscate, unless your name is Doug or Greg. Yep. And I stand by them. Or are you willing to apply your standard to posts of others than myself? Of course not, you lying little sh.t. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Please be specific about your attribution complaint. If you simply made a mistake, just say so, without burying it in a full page document. > Please be specific about your attribution complaint. You removed the content of my post, then replied to what I posted. > If you simply made a mistake, just say so, without > burying it in a full page document. I said a number of times I had made a mistake, and asked more times why it was being made so much of. YOU removed my comments. How much more specific can I be than to quote then AGAIN what you removed? You have no argument. That's why you cut the other's. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Hi Kane! call 828.699.3093 for sex > abc's primetime did a june 1 story on "the crisis of the foster care > system"..............among abc's conclusions were 52 percent of foster [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > child in foster care would keep a child in a good boarding > school............ Covert Action Quarterly http://mediafilter.org/caq/Caq55.prwar.html http://www.io.com/%7Ebrettw/PR_War.html Deforming Consent: The Public Relations Industry's Secret War on Activists "The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." -- Alex Carey by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton All Lynn Tylczak wanted to do was keep a few kids from being poisoned. A housewife in Oregon, her imagination was captured by a PBS documentary about a technique used in Europe to prevent children from accidentally swallowing household poisons. Common antifreeze, for example, is made of ethylene glycol, whose sweet taste and smell belies its highly poisonous nature. As little as two teaspoons can cause death or blindness. About 700 children under the age of six are exposed to antifreeze each year, and it is the leading cause of accidental animal poisoning affecting both pets and wild animals.(2) European antifreeze makers poison-proof their products by adding the "bitterant" denatonium benzoate. Two cents worth makes a gallon of antifreeze taste so vile that kids spit it out the instant it touches their mouth. Tylczak launched a one-woman crusade, the "Poison Proof Project" to persuade antifreeze makers to add bitterant. Her storymade the New York Times and Oprah Winfrey, prompting a swiftbacklash from antifreeze makers. She remembers one company's PR representative threatening that he could pay someone $2,000 to have her shot if she didn't back off. When Tylczak began pushing for legislation to require bitterant, another PR firm was sent into the breach: National Grassroots and Communications, which specializes in "passing and defeating legislation at the federal and state level." Tylczak had never even heard of the firm until its CEO, Pamela Whitney, made the mistake of bragging about her exploits at a PR trade seminar. "The key to winning anything is opposition research," she said."We set up an operation where we posed as representatives of the estate of an older lady who had died and wanted to leave quite a bit of money to an organization that helped both children and animals. We went in and met with [Tylczak] and said, 'We want to bequeath $100,000 to an organization; you're one of three that we are targeting to look at. Give us all of your financial records..., all of your game plan for the following year, and the states you want to target and how you expect to win. We'll get back to you."' (3) Whitney claimed that the records she received contained two bombshells: The Poison Proof Project's tax-exempt status had lapsed, and it had taken funding from bitterant manufacturers. "Without leaving any fingerprints or any traces," Whitney boasted, "we then got word through the local media and killed the bill in all the states." (4) 1. isolate the radicals; 2."cultivate" the idealists and "educate" them into becoming realists; then 3. co-opt the realists When the story got back to Tylczak, she noted that only $100 of the $50,000 in family savings spent on the campaign came from bitterant makers. "She's got a very foolish client," Tylczak said. "Her story has got more bullshit than a cattle ranch." In fact,she noted, her bill requiring bitterant did pass in Oregon. What did the PR industry accomplish in its battle against Lynn Tylczak? Were news stories or legislation killed because of Whitney's intervention? In this and other cases, the degree of success PR firms have in manipulating public opinion and policy is almost imposssible to determine. By design, the PR industry carefully conceals many of its activities. "Persuasion, by its definition, is subtle," says one PR executive. "The best PR ends up looking like news.You never know when a PR agency is being effective; you'll just find your views slowly shifting." (5) Using money provided by its special interest clients -- usually large corporations, business associations and governments -- the PR industry has vast power to direct and control thought and policy. It can mobilize private detectives, lawyers, and spies; influence editorial and news decisions; broadcast faxes; generate letters; launch phony "grassroots" campaigns; and use high-tech information systems such as satellite feeds and internet sites. Activist groups and concerned individuals often fail to recognize the techniques and assess the impact of PR campaigns. And indeed, with its $10 billion-a-year bankroll and its array of complex, sophisticated persuasive weaponry, the PR industry can often out maneuver, overpower, and outlast true citizen reformers. Identifying the techniques of the industry and understanding how they work are the first steps in fighting back. Spies for Hire In 1990, David Steinman's book Diet for a Poisoned Planet, was scheduled for publication. Based on five years of research, it detailed evidence that hundreds of carcinogens, pesticides, and other toxins contaminate the US food chain. It documented, for example, that "raisins had 110 industrial chemical and pesticide residues in 16 samples," and recommended buying only organically grown varieties. (6) Diet for a Poisoned Planet enabled readers to make safer food choices. But before they could use the information, they had to know about the book so that they could buy and read it. In the weeks after it came out, Steinman's publisher scheduled the usual round of media reviews and interviews, not suspecting that the California Raisin Advisory Board (CALRAB) had already launched a campaign to ensure that Steinman's book would be dead on arrival. The stakes were high. In 1986, CAL RAB had scored big with a series of clever TV commercials using the "California Dancing Raisins" that pushed up raisin sales by 17 percent. Steinman's book threatened to trip up the careful PR choreography. To kill the Steinman book, CALRAB hired Ketchum PR Worldwide, whose $50 million a year in net fees made it the country's sixth largest public relations company. Months before the publication of Diet for a Poisoned Planet, Ketchum sought to "obtain [a] copy of [the] book galleys or manuscript and publisher's tour schedule," wrote senior vice-president Betsy Gullickson in a secret September 7, 1990 memo outlining the PR firm's plan to "manage the crisis." All documents...are confidential. Make sure that everything -- even notes to yourself -- are so stamped. ...Remember that we have a shredder; give documents to Lynette for shredding. All conversations are confidential, too. Please be careful talking in the halls, in elevators, in restaurants, etc. All suppliers must sign confidentiality agreements. If you are faxing documents to the client, another office or to anyone else, call them to let them know that a fax is coming. If you are expecting a fax, you or your Account Coordinator should stand by the machine and wait for it. (7) Gullickson's memo outlined a plan to assign "broad areas of responsibility," such as "intelligence/information gathering," to specific Ketchum employees and to Gary Obenauf of CALRAB. She recommended that spokespeople "conduct one-on-one briefings/interviews with the trade and general consumer media in the markets most acutely interested in the issue .... [Ketchum] is currently attempting to get a tour schedule so that we can 'shadow' Steinman's appearances; best scenario: we will have our spokesman in town prior to or in conjunction with Steinman's appearances." (8) After an informant involved with the book's marketing campaign passed Ketchum a list of Steinman's talk show bookings, Ketchum employees called each show. The PR firm then made a list of key media to receive low-key phone inquiries. They tried to depict Steinman as an off-the-wall extremist without credibility, or argued that it was only fair that the other side be presented. A number of programs canceled or failed to air interviews. In the end, an important contribution to the public debate over health, the environment, and food safety fell victim to a PR campaign designed to prevent it from ever reaching the marketplace of ideas. (9) Divide and Conquer Ronald Duchin, senior vice president of another PR spy firm -- Mongoven, Biscoe,and Duchin -- would probably have labeled Steinman and Tylczak radicals. A graduate of the US Army War College, Duchin worked as a special assistant to the secretary of defense and director of public affairs for the Veterans of Foreign Wars before becoming a flack. Activists, he explained, fall into four categories: radicals, opportunists, idealists, and realists. He follows a three-step strategy to neutralize them: 1) isolate the radicals; 2) "cultivate" the idealists and "educate" them into becoming realists; then 3) co-opt the realists into agreeing with industry. According to Duchin, radical activists: want to change the system; have underlying socio/political motives [and] see multinational corporationsas inherently evil....These organizations do not trust the...federal, state and local governments to protect them and to safeguard the environment. They believe, rather,that individuals and local groups should have direct power over industry.... I would categorize their justice and political empowerment. Idealists are also "hard to deal with." They "want a perfect world and find it easy to brand any product or practice which can be shown to mar that perfection as evil. Because of their intrinsic altruism, however, and because they have nothing perceptible to be gained by holding their position, they are easily believed by both the media and the public, and sometimes even politicians." However, idealists "have a vulnerable point. If they can be shown that their position in opposition to an industry or its products causes harm to others and cannot be ethically justified, they are forced to change their position.... Thus, while a realist must be negotiated with, an idealist must be educated. Generally this education process requires great sensitivity and understanding on the part of the educator." Opportunists and realists, says Duchin, are easier to manipulate. Opportunists engage in activism seeking "visibility, power, followers and, perhaps, even employment....The key to dealing with [them] is to provide them with at least the perception of a partial victory." And realists are able to "live withtrade-offs; willing to work within the system; not interested in radical change; pragmatic. [They] should always receive the highest priority in any strategy dealing with a public policy issue.... If your industry can successfully bring about these relationships, the credibility of the radicals will be lost and opportunists can be counted on to share in the final policy solution.'' (10) Best Friends Money Can Buy Another crude but effective way to derail potentially meddlesome activists is simply to hire them. In early 1993, Carol Tucker Foreman, former executive director of the Consumer Federation of America, took a job for what is rumored to be an exceptionally large fee as a personal lobbyist for bovine growth hormone (rBGH), the controversial milk hormone produced by chemical giant Monsanto. With Foreman's help, Monsanto has successfully prevented Congress or the FDA from requiring labeling of milk from cows injected with rBGH. In fact, the company used threats of lawsuits to intimidate dairy retailers and legislators who wanted to label their milk "rBGH-free." While she is helping Monsanto wage its all-out campaign for rBGH, Foreman is also the coordinator and lobbyist for the Safe Food Coalition, "an alliance of consumer advocacy, senior citizen, whistle blower protection, and labor organizations." Formed by Foreman in 1987, the Coalition's members include such public interest heavyweights as Michael Jacobson's Center for Science in thePublic Interest (CSPI), Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, and Public Voice for Food and Health Policy. (11) Foreman said she saw no conflict of interest in simultaneously representing rBGH and the Safe Food Coalition. "The FDA has said rBGH is safe," she explained, adding "Why don't you call CSPI; they say rBGH is safe too?" Asked how much money she has received from Monsanto to lobby for rBGH, she angrily retorted, "what in the world business is that of yours?" Her D.C.consulting firm, Foreman & Heidepriem, refused to provide further information and referred journalists to Monsanto's PR department. (12) Both Sides of the Street William Novelli, a founder of the New York-based Porter/Novelli PR firm, cheerfully uses the term "cross-pollination" to describe his company's technique of orchestrating collusion between clients with seemingly conflicting interests. By "donating" free work to health-related charities, for example, Porter/Novelli gains leverage to pressure the charities into supporting the interests of the firm's paying corporate clients. In 1993, this strategy paid off when produce growers and pesticide manufacturers represented by Porter/Novelli learned that PBS was about to air a documentary by Bill Moyers on pesticide-related cancer risks to children. The PR firm turned to the American Cancer Society (ACS), to which it had provided decades of free services. The national office of ACS dutifully issued a memo charging that the Moyers program "makes unfounded suggestions...that pesticide residues in food maybe at hazardous levels." The industry then cited the memo as "evidence" that Moyers' documentary overstated dangers to children from pesticides. (13) Hill & Knowlton executive Nina Oligino used a similar "cross-pollination" technique in 1994 to line up national environmental groups behind "Partners for Sun Protection Awareness," a front group for Hill & Knowlton's client, Schering-Plough. Best known for Coppertone sun lotion, the drug transnational uses the Partners to "educate" the public to the dangers of skin cancer, cataracts, and damaged immune systems caused by a thinning ozone layer and an increase in ultraviolet radiation. (14) In the past, Hill & Knowlton has also worked for corporate clients who hired them to "disprove" or belittle the environmental warnings of global climate change. (15) Seamlessly shifting gears into "environmentalist mode," Hill & Knowlton convinced leaders of the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club to add their names to the "Partners for Sun Protection" letterhead. A representative (who asked not to be named) of one of the environmental groups said he was ignorant of the Schering-Plough funding and its hidden agenda to sell sunlotion. Had he examined the Partners campaign, however, he might have noticed that it offered no proposals for preventing further ozone depletion and failed to mention that covering up completely was the best sunscreen of all. Instead, the primary action the drug company funded coalition recommended was to "liberally apply a sunscreen...to all exposed parts of the body before going out doors." One of the campaign's clever "video news releases" shows scores of sexy, scantily-clad sun worshippers overexposing themselves to UV rays, while slathering on suntan oil. (16) Synthetic Grassroots PR firms often bypass activist organizations and custom design their own "grassroots citizen movements" using rapidly evolving high-tech data and communications systems. Known in the trade as "astroturf," this tactic is defined by Campaigns & Elections magazine as a "grassroots program that involves the instant manufacturing of public support for a point of view in which either uninformed activists are recruited or means of deception are used to recruit them.'' (17) Astroturf is particularly useful in countering NIMBY or "Not in my backyard" movements -- community groups organizing to stop their neighborhood from hosting a toxic waste dump, porno bookstore, or other unwanted invaders. John Davies, who helps neutralize these groups on behalf of corporate clients such as Mobil Oil, Hyatt Hotels, Exxon, and American Express, describes himself as "one of America's premier grassroots consultants." His ad in Campaigns & Elections (see image 1) is designed to strike terror into the heart of even the bravest CEO. It features a photo of the enemy: a "little old white-haired lady" holding a hand-lettered sign, "Not In My Backyard!" The caption warns, "Don't leave your future in her hands. Traditional lobbying is no longer enough....To outnumber your opponents, call Davies Communications.'' (18) Davies promises to "make a strategically planned program look like a spontaneous explosion of community support for needy corporate clients by using mailing lists and computer databases to identify potential supporters." He claims his telemarketers will make passive supporters appear to be concerned advacates. "We want to assist them with letter writing. We get them on the phone [and say], 'Will you write a letter?'' Sure. "Do you have time to write it?" Not really.' 'Could we write it for you?... Just hold, we have a writer standing by."' Another Davies employee then helps create what appears to be a personal letter. If the appropriate public official is "close by, we hand-deliver it. We hand-write it out on 'Little kitty cat stationery' if it's a little old lady. If it's a business we take it over to be photocopied on someone's letterhead. [We] use different stamps, different envelopes... Getting a pile of personalized letters that have a different look to them is what you want to strive for.'' (19) Blending In "Grassroots" PR is the specialty of Pamela Whitney at National Grassroots & Communications, the firm that spied on Lynn Tylczak. "My company basically works for major corporations and we do new market entries," she says. "Wal-Mart is one of our clients. We take on the NIMBYs and environmentalists." They also work for "companies who want to do a better job of communicating to their employees because they want to remain union-free. They aren't quite sure how to do it, so we go in and set that up." With its $10 billion-a-year bankroll and its weaponry of persuasion,the PR industry can often outmaneuver, overpower, and outlast citizen reformers. One of National Grassroots' first tasks, after information gathering/spying, is to setup its own local organizations by hiring "local ambassadors who know the community inside and out to be our advocates, and then we work with them," explains Whitney. "They report to us. They are on our payroll, but it's for a very small amount of money. [O]ur best community ambassadors are women who have possibly been head of their local PTA; they are very active in their local community -- or women who are retired and who have a lot of time on their hands." They are supervised by professionals with "field organizing experience" on electoral campaigns who "can drop in the middle of nowhere and in two weeks they have an organization set up and ready to go." These professional grassroots organizers dress carefully to avoid looking like the high-priced, out-of-town hired guns they really are. "When I go to a zoning board meeting," Whitney explained, "I wear absolutely no make-up, I comb my hair straight back in a ponytail, and I wear my kids' old clothes. You don't want to look like you're someone from Washington, or someone from a corporation.... People hate outsiders; it's just human nature." (20) With enough money, the same techniques can be applied on a national scale. As the health care debate heated up in the early days of the Clinton administration, Blair G. Childs masterminded the Coalition for Health Insurance Choices (CHIC). An insurance industry front group, CHIC received major funding from the National Federation of Independent Businesses and the Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA), a trade group of insurance companies. According to Consumer Reports, "The HIAA doesn't just support the coalition; it created it from scratch." (21) Health reform opponents used opinion polling to develop a point-by-point list of vulnerabilities in the Clinton administration proposal and organized over 20 separate coalitions to hammer away at each point. Each group chose a name with "a general positive reaction....That's where focus group and survey work can be very beneficial," explained Childs. " 'Fairness,''balance,' 'choice,' 'coalition,' and 'alliance' are all words that resonate very positively." (22) Childs, who has been organizing grassroots support for the insurance industry for a decade, wasn't the only PR genius behind the anti-health care campaign, but his coalition can honestly claim the kill. CHIC'S multi-coalition strategy assured numbers and cover, and took advantage of different strengths. "Some have lobby strength, some have grassroots strength, and some have good spokespersons," Childs said. In its campaign against "mandatory health alliances," CHIC drew in "everyone from the homeless Vietnam veterans....to some very conservative groups." (23) It also sponsored the legendary "Harry and Louise" TV spot which, according to the New York Times, "'symbolized everything that went wrong with the great health care struggle of 1994: A powerful advertising campaign, financed by the insurance industry, that played on people's fears and helped derail the process." (24) CHIC and the other coalitions also used direct mail and phoning, coordinated with daily doses of misinformation from radio blowtorch Rush Limbaugh, to spread fears that government health care would bankrupt the country, reduce the quality of care, and lead to jail terms for people who wanted to stick with their family doctor. Childs explained how his coalition used paid ads on the Limbaugh show to generate thousands of citizen phone calls from the show's 20 million listeners. First, Limbaugh would whip up his fans with a calculated rant against the Clinton plan. Then, during a commercial break, listeners would hear an anti-health care ad and an 800 number to call for more information. The call would ring a telemarketer who would ask a few questions, then "patch them through" electronically to their congressmembers' office. Staffers fielding the resulting barrage of phone calls typically had no idea that the constituents had been primed, loaded, aimed, and fired at them by radio ads paid for by the insurance industry, with the goal of orchestrating the appearance of overwhelming grassroots opposition to health reform. (25) When the health care debate began in 1993, Childs said, popular demand for change was so strong that the insurance industry was "looking down the barrel of a gun." By 1994, industry's hired PR guns had shot down every proposal for reform. Managing the Media Many PR pros think that the media, both national and local, are easier to handle than the public. To begin with, the media itself is a huge, profitable business, the domain of fewer and fewer giant transnational corporations. Not surprisingly, these transnationals often find that their corporate agenda and interest are compatible with, or even identical to, the goals of the PR industry's biggest clients. While this environment may be demoralizing to responsible journalists, it offers a veritable hog heaven to the public relations industry. In their 1985 book, Jeff andMarie Blyskal write that PR people know how the press thinks. Thus, they are able to tailor their publicity so that journalists will listen and cover it. As a result much of the news you read in newspapers and magazines or watch on television and hear on radio is heavily influenced and slanted by public relations people. Whole sections of the news are virtually owned by PR....Newspaper food pages are a PR man's paradise, as are the entertainment, automotive, realestate, home improvement and living sections... Unfortunately, 'news' hatched by a PR person and journalist working together looks much like real news dug up by enterprising journalists working independently. The public thus does not know which news stories and journalists playing servant to PR. (26) As a result, notes a senior vice-president with Gray & Company public relations, "Most of what you see on TV is, in effect, a canned PR product. Most of what you read in the paper and see on television is not news." (27) The blurring of news and ads accelerated in the 1980s, when PR firms discovered that they could film, edit, and produce their own news segments -- even entire programs -- and that broadcasters would play them as "news," often with no editing. Video newsreleases (VNRs), typically come packaged with two versions: The first is fully edited, with voiceovers prerecorded or scripted for a local anchor to read. The second, a "B-roll," is raw footage that the station can edit and combine with tape from other sources. "There are two economics at work here on the television side," explains a Gray & Company executive. "The big stations don't want prepackaged, pretaped. They have the money, the budget, and the manpower to put their own together. But the smaller stations across the country lap up stuff like this." (28) With few exceptions, broadcasters as agroup have refused to consider standards for VNRs, in part because they rarely admit to airing them. But when MediaLink -- the PR firm that distributed about half of the 4,000 VNRs made available to newscasters in 1991 -- surveyed 92 newsrooms, it found that all had used VNRs supplied free by PR firms. CBS Evening News, for example, ran a segment on the hazards of automatic safety belts created by a lobby group largely supported by lawyers. (29) Cyberjunk Mail The PR industry is innovating rapidly and expanding into cyberspace. Hyped as the ultimate in "electronic democracy," the information superhighway will supposedly offer "a global cornucopia of programming" offering instant, inexpensive access to nearly infinite libraries of data, educational material and entertainment. But as computer technology brings a user-friendlier version of the internet to a wider spectrum of users, it has attracted intense corporate interest. Given that a handful of corporations now control most media, media historian Robert McChesney finds it is "no surprise that the private sector, with its immense resources, has seized the initiative and is commercializing cyberspace at a spectacular rate -- effectively transforming it into a giant shopping mall." (30) PR firms are jumping on the online bandwagon, establishing "world wide web" sites and using surveys and games to gather marketing and opinion information about the users of cyberspace, and developing new techniques to target and reach reporters and other online users. "Today, with many more options available, PR professionals are much less dependent upon mass media for publicity," writes industry pro Kirk Hallahan in Public Relations Quarterly. "In the decade ahead, the largest American corporations could underwrite entire, sponsored channels....[which] will be able to reach coveted super-heavy users ... with a highly tailored message over which [corporations could] exert complete control.'' (3l) Fighting Back at Flacks The groups that most scare the PR industry are the local grassroots groups they derisively label "NIMBYs." Unlike national environmental groups and other "professional" reformers, the local groups are hard to manipulate precisely because they aren't wired into the systems that PR firms like to manipulate. Most "Not in My Backyard" activists commit to a cause after some personal experience drives them to get involved. Typically, they act as individuals or with small groups of citizens who come together to address a local, immediate threat to their lives, cities and neighborhoods. They are often treated with contempt by the professional environmentalists, health advocates and other public interest organizations headquartered in Washington, D.C. Many times, they lack organizing expertise and money. They don't have budgets or polished grant proposals needed to obtain funding from foundations and major donors. But corporations andthe US government are spending tens of millions of dollars on PR and lobbying to fight these local community activists. The most visible manifestations of NIMBYism, and its biggest success stories, have been in stopping toxic waste sites and toxin-belching incinerators from invading communities. Author Mark Dowie sees this new wave of grassroots democracy as the best hope for realizing the public's well-documented desire for a clean and healthy environment in sustainable balance with nature. "Today, grassroots anti-toxic environmentalism is a far more serious threat to polluting industries than the mainstream environmental movement," Dowie writes. "Not only do local activists network, share tactics, and successfully block many dump sites and industrial developments, they also stubbornly refuse to surrender or compromise. They simply cannot afford to. Their activities and success are gradually changing the acronym NIMBY to NIABY -- Not In Anybody's Backyard." (32) But before that can happen, local groups need to develop a strategy for confronting the powers-that-be in their backyard, and that means learning to recognize and fight the techniques of PR. Until they learn this lesson, local activists may continue to win local battles, while finding themselves outmaneuvered and outgunned at the national level. John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton edit PR Watch, a quarterly publication about the public relations industry, and are authors of the new book, Toxic Sludge Is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry published by Common Courage Press. The book can be ordered by phone by calling 1-800-497-3207, or by mail for $20/book (includes postage and handling) from the Center for Media & Democracy, 3318 Gregory Street, Madison, WI 53711. 1 Taking the Risk out of Democracy (Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales Press, 1995), p.18. 2. Associated Press, Zoos Take Action on Antifreeze, New York Times, Oct. 8, 1995. 3. Pamela Whitney, speech, "Shaping Public Opinion: If You Don't Do It, Someone Else Will," Chicago, Dec. 9, 1994 4. Ibid. 5. Susan B. Trento, The Power House: Robert Keith Gray and the Selling of Access and Influence in Washington (NewYork: St. Martin's Press, 1992) p. 62. 6. David Steinman, Diet for a Poisoned Planet How to Choose Safe Foods for You and Your Family (NewYork: Harmony Books, 1990). 7. Ketchum Public Relations Confidential Memo toCAL' RAB Food Safety Team, Sept. 7, 1990. 8. Ibid 9. Jean Rainey, Memo for Roland Woerner Regarding David Steinman Booking on Today Show," (no date). principal aims right now as social 10. Ronald Duchin, "Take an Activist Apart and WhatDo You Have?' CALFNews Cattle Feeder, June 1991,pp. 9,14. 11. News release, Safe Food Coalition, Nov. 4,1994. 12. Interview with Carol Tucker Foreman, Spring 1994. 13. Sheila Kaplan, Porter/Novelli Plays AII Sides, ~Legal limes, Nov. 22,1993, pp. 1, 21~23. 14. Press kit from Hill & Knowlton on behalf of Partnersfor Sun Protection Awareness, 1995. 15. Profiles of Top Environmental PR Firms: Hill & Knowlton," O'Dwyer's PR Services Report, Feb. 1994,p. 40. 16.Video News Release, Press kit from Hill & Knowlton on behalf of Partners for Sun Protection Awareness, 1994. 17. "Grassroots Lobbying Glossary, Campaigns & Elections, Dec./Jan. 1995, p. 22. 18. Advertisement, Campaigns & Elections, Dec./Jan.1995. 19. John Davies speaking at "Shaping Public ...," op. cit. 20. Pamela Whitney speaking at Shaping Public Opinion...,"op. cit. 21. "Public Interest Pretenders,' Consumer Reports May 1994, p. 317. 22. Blair Childs speaking at Shaping Public Opinion,' op. cit 23. Ibid. 24. Robin Toner, Harry and Louise and a Guy NamedBen," New York Times, Sept. 9, 1994. 25. Blair Childs, Shaping Public Opinion ... ,' op. cit. 26. Jeff and Marie Blyskal, PR: How the PublicRelations Industry Writes the News (New York:William Morrow & Co., 1985), p. 28. 27. Trento, op. cit., p. 233. 28. Ibid., p. 245. 29. David Lieberman, "Fake News,' TV Guide, Feb.2228, 1992, p. 10. 30. Robert W. McChesney, Information SuperhighwayRobbery," In These Times, July 10, 1995 p. 14. 31. Kirk Hallahan, Public Relations and Circumventionof the Press " Public Relations Quarterly, Summer 1994,pp. 17-19. 32. Mark Dowie, Losing Ground:American Environmentalism at theClose of the 20th Century (Cambridge:MIT Press, 1995), p. 133. http://mediafilter.org/CAQ/CAQ55prwar3.html BEST FRIENDS MONEY CAN BUY Another crude but effective way to derail potentially meddlesome activists is simply to hire them. In early 1993, Carol Tucker Foreman, former executive director of the Consumer Federation of America, took a job for what is rumored to be an exceptionally large fee as a personal lobbyist for bovine growth hormone (rBGH), the controversial milk hormone produced by chemical giant Monsanto. With Foreman's help, Monsanto has successfully prevented Congress or the FDA from requiring labeling of milk from cows injected with rBGH. In fact, the company used threats of lawsuits to intimidate dairy retailers and legislators who wanted to label their milk rBGH-free. While she is helping Monsanto wage its all-out campaign for rBGH, Foreman is also the coordinator and lobbyist for the Safe Food Coalition, an alliance of consumer advocacy, senior citizen, whistleblower protection, and labor organizations. Formed by Foreman in 1987, the Coalition's members include such public interest heavyweights as Michael Jacobson's Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, and Public Voice for Food and Health Policy. Foreman said she saw no conflict of interest in simultaneously representing rBGH and the Safe Food Coalition. The FDA has said rBGH is safe, she explained, adding Why don't you call CSPI; they say rBGH is safe too? Asked how much money she has received from Monsanto to lobby for rBGH, she angrily retorted, What in the world business is that of yours? Her D.C. consulting firm, Foreman & Heidepriem, refused to provide further information and referred journalists to Monsanto's PR department. BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET William Novelli, a founder of the New York-based Porter/Novelli PR firm, cheerfully uses the term cross-pollination to describe his company's technique of orchestrating collusion between clients with seemingly conflicting interests. By donating free work to health-related charities, for example, Porter/Novelli gains leverage to pressure the charities into supporting the interests of the firm's paying corporate clients. In 1993, this strategy paid off when produce growers and pesticide manufacturers represented by Porter/Novelli learned that PBS was about to air a documentary by Bill Moyers on pesticide-related cancer risks to children. The PR firm turned to the American Cancer Society (ACS), to which it had provided decades of free services. The national office of ACS dutifully issued a memo charging that the Moyers program makes unfounded suggestions...that pesticide residues in food may be at hazardous levels. The industry then cited the memo as evidence that Moyers' documentary overstated dangers to children from pesticides. Hill & Knowlton executive Nina Oligino used a similar cross-pollination technique in 1994 to line up national environmental groups behind Partners for Sun Protection Awareness, a front group for Hill & Knowlton's client, Schering-Plough. Best known for Coppertone sun lotion, the drug transnational uses the Partners to educate the public to the dangers of skin cancer, cataracts, and damaged immune systems caused by a thinning ozone layer and an increase in ultraviolet radiation. In the past, Hill & Knowlton has also worked for corporate clients who hired them to disprove or belittle the environmental warnings of global climate change.15 Seamlessly shifting gears into environmentalist mode, Hill & Knowlton convinced leaders of the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club to add their names to the Partners for Sun Protection letterhead. A representative (who asked not to be named) of one of the environmental groups said he was ignorant of the Schering-Plough funding and its hidden agenda to sell sun lotion. Had he examined the Partners campaign, however, he might have noticed that it offered no proposals for preventing further ozone depletion and failed to mention that covering up completely was the best sun screen of all. Instead, the primary action the drug company-funded coalition recommended was to liberally apply a sunscreen...to all exposed parts of the body before going outdoors. One of the campaign's clever video news releases shows scores of sexy, scantily-clad sun worshippers overexposing themselves to UV rays, while slathering on suntan oil. SYNTHETIC GRASSROOTS PR firms often bypass activist organizations and custom design their own grassroots citizen movements using rapidly evolving high-tech data and communications systems. Known in the trade as astroturf, this tactic is defined by Campaigns & Elections magazine as a grassroots program that involves the instant manufacturing of public support for a point of view in which either uninformed activists are recruited or means of deception are used to recruit them. Astroturf is particularly useful in countering NIMBY or Not in my back yard movements community groups organizing to stop their neighborhood from hosting a toxic waste dump, porno bookstore, or other unwanted invaders. John Davies, who helps neutralize these groups on behalf of corporate clients such as Mobil Oil, Hyatt Hotels, Exxon, and American Express, describes himself as one of America's premier grassroots consultants. His ad in Campaigns & Elections (see p. 18) is designed to strike terror into the heart of even the bravest CEO. It features a photo of the enemy: a little old white-haired lady holding a hand-lettered sign, Not In My Backyard! The caption warns, Don't leave your future in her hands. Traditional lobbying is no longer enough....To outnumber your opponents, call Davies Communications. Davies promises to make a strategically planned program look like a spontaneous explosion of community support for needy corporate clients by using mailing lists and computer databases to identify potential supporters. He claims his telemarketers will make passive supporters appear to be concerned advocates. We want to assist them with letter writing. We get them on the phone [and say], `Will you write a letter?' `Sure.' `Do you have time to write it?' `Not really.' `Could we write it for you?... Just hold, we have a writer standing by.' Another Davies employee then helps create what appears to be a personal letter. If the appropriate public official is close by, we hand-deliver it. We hand-write it out on `little kitty cat stationery' if it's a little old lady. If it's a business we take it over to be photocopied on someone's letterhead. [We] use different stamps, different envelopes.... Getting a pile of personalized letters that have a different look to them is what you want to strive for. BLENDING IN Grassroots PR is the specialty of Pamela Whitney at National Grassroots & Communications, the firm that spied on Lynn Tylczak. My company basically works for major corporations and we do new market entries, she says. Wal-Mart is one of our clients. We take on the NIMBYs and environmentalists. They also work for companies who want to do a better job of communicating to their employees because they want to remain union-free. They aren't quite sure how to do it, so we go in and set that up. One of National Grassroots' first tasks, after information gathering/spying, is to set up its own local organizations by hiring local ambassadors who know the community inside and out to be our advocates, and then we work with them, explains Whitney. They report to us. They are on our payroll, but it's for a very small amount of money. [O]ur best community ambassadors are women who have possibly been head of their local PTA; they are very active in their local community or women who are retired and who have a lot of time on their hands. They are supervised by professionals with field organizing experience on electoral campaigns who can drop in the middle of nowhere and in two weeks they have an organization set up and ready to go. These professional grassroots organizers dress carefully to avoid looking like the high-priced, out-of-town hired guns they really are. When I go to a zoning board meeting, Whitney explained, I wear absolutely no make-up, I comb my hair straight back in a ponytail, and I wear my kids' old clothes. You don't want to look like you're someone from Washington, or someone from a corporation.... People hate outsiders; it's just human nature. With enough money, the same techniques can be applied on a national scale. As the health care debate heated up in the early days of the Clinton administration, Blair G. Childs masterminded the Coalition for Health Insurance Choices (CHIC). An insurance industry front group, CHIC received major funding from the National Federation of Independent Businesses and the Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA), a trade group of insurance companies. According to Consumer Reports, The HIAA doesn't just support the coalition; it created it from scratch. Health reform opponents used opinion polling to develop a point-by-point list of vulnerabilities in the Clinton administration proposal and organized over 20 separate coalitions to hammer away at each point. Each group chose a name with a general positive reaction....That's where focus group and survey work can be very beneficial, explained Childs. `Fairness,' `balance,' `choice,' `coalition,' and `alliance' are all words that resonate very positively. Childs, who has been organizing grassroots support for the insurance industry for a decade, wasn't the only PR genius behind the anti-health care campaign, but his coalition can honestly claim the kill. CHIC's multi-coalition strategy assured numbers and cover, and took advantage of different strengths. Some have lobby strength, some have grassroots strength, and some have good spokespersons, Childs said. In its campaign against mandatory health alliances, CHIC drew in everyone from the homeless Vietnam veterans....to some very conservative groups. *23 It also sponsored the legendary Harry and Louise TV spot which, according to the New York Times, 'symbolized everything that went wrong with the great health care struggle of 1994: A powerful advertising campaign, financed by the insurance industry, that played on people's fears and helped derail the process. CHIC and the other coalitions also used direct mail and phoning, coordinated with daily doses of misinformation from radio blowtorch Rush Limbaugh, to spread fears that government health care would bankrupt the country, reduce the quality of care, and lead to jail terms for people who wanted to stick with their family doctor. Childs explained how his coalition used paid ads on the Limbaugh show to generate thousands of citizen phone calls from the show's 20 million listeners. First, Limbaugh would whip up his fans with a calculated rant against the Clinton plan. Then, during a commercial break, listeners would hear an anti-health care ad and an 800 number to call for more information. The call would ring a telemarketer who would ask a few questions, then patch them through electronically to their congressmembers' office. Staffers fielding the resulting barrage of phone calls typically had no idea that the constituents had been primed, loaded, aimed, and fired at them by radio ads paid for by the insurance industry, with the goal of orchestrating the appearance of overwhelming grassroots opposition to health reform. When the health care debate began in 1993, Childs said, popular demand for change was so strong that the insurance industry was looking down the barrel of a gun. By 1994, industry's hired PR guns had shot down every proposal for reform. MANAGING THE MEDIA Many PR pros think that the media, both national and local, are easier to handle than the public. To begin with, the media itself is a huge, profitable business, the domain of fewer and fewer giant transnational corporations. Not surprisingly, these transnationals often find that their corporate agenda and interest are compatible with, or even identical to, the goals of the PR industry's biggest clients. While this environment may be demoralizing to responsible journalists, it offers a veritable hog heaven to the public relations industry. In their 1985 book, Jeff and Marie Blyskal write that "PR people know how the press thinks. Thus, they are able to tailor their publicity so that journalists will listen and cover it. As a result much of the news you read in newspapers and magazines or watch on television and hear on radio is heavily influenced and slanted by public relations people. Whole sections of the news are virtually owned by PR....Newspaper food pages are a PR man's paradise, as are the entertainment, automotive, real estate, home improvement and living sections... Unfortunately, `news' hatched by a PR person and journalist working together looks much like real news dug up by enterprising journalists working independently. The public thus does not know which news stories and journalists are playing servant to PR. " As a result, notes a senior vice-president with Gray & Company public relations, Most of what you see on TV is, in effect, a canned PR product. Most of what you read in the paper and see on television is not news. The blurring of news and ads accelerated in the 1980s, when PR firms discovered that they could film, edit, and produce their own news segments even entire programs and that broadcasters would play them as news, often with no editing. Video news releases (VNRs), typically come packaged with two versions: The first is fully edited, with voiceovers pre-recorded or scripted for a local anchor to read. The second, a B-roll, is raw footage that the station can edit and combine with tape from other sources. There are two economics at work here on the television side, explains a Gray & Company executive. The big stations don't want prepackaged, pretaped. They have the money, the budget, and the manpower to put their own together. But the smaller stations across the country lap up stuff like this. With few exceptions, broadcasters as a group have refused to consider standards for VNRs, in part because they rarely admit to airing them. But when MediaLink the PR firm that distributed about half of the 4,000 VNRs made available to newscasters in 1991 surveyed 92 newsrooms, it found that all had used VNRs supplied free by PR firms. CBS Evening News, for example, ran a segment on the hazards of automatic safety belts created by a lobby group largely supported by lawyers. CYBERJUNK MAIL The PR industry is innovating rapidly and expanding into cyberspace. Hyped as the ultimate in electronic democracy, the information superhighway will supposedly offer a global cornucopia of programming offering instant, inexpensive access to nearly infinite libraries of data, educational material and entertainment. But as computer technology brings a user-friendlier version of the internet to a wider spectrum of users, it has attracted intense corporate interest. Given that a handful of corporations now control most media, media historian Robert McChesney finds it is no surprise that the private sector, with its immense resources, has seized the initiative and is commercializing cyberspace at a spectacular rate effectively transforming it into a giant shopping mall. *30 PR firms are jumping on the online bandwagon, establishing world wide web sites and using surveys and games to gather marketing and opinion information about the users of cyberspace, and developing new techniques to target and reach reporters and other online users. Today, with many more options available, PR professionals are much less dependent upon mass media for publicity, writes industry pro Kirk Hallahan in Public Relations Quarterly. In the decade ahead, the largest American corporations could underwrite entire, sponsored channels. ... [which] will be able to reach coveted super-heavy users ... with a highly tailored message over which [corporations could] exert complete control. FIGHTING BACK AT FLACKS The groups that most scare the PR industry are the local grassroots groups they derisively label NIMBYs. Unlike national environmental groups and other professional reformers, the local groups are hard to manipulate precisely because they aren't wired in to the systems that PR firms like to manipulate. Most Not in My Backyard activists commit to a cause after some personal experience drives them to get involved. Typically, they act as individuals or with small groups of citizens who come together to address a local, immediate threat to their lives, cities and neighborhoods. They are often treated with contempt by the professional environmentalists, health advocates and other public interest organizations headquartered in Washington, D.C. Many times, they lack organizing expertise and money. They don't have budgets or polished grant proposals needed to obtain funding from foundations and major donors. But corporations and the US government are spending tens of millions of dollars on PR and lobbying to fight these local community activists. The most visible manifestations of NIMBYism, and its biggest success stories, have been in stopping toxic waste sites and toxin-belching incinerators from invading communities. Author Mark Dowie sees this new wave of grassroots democracy as the best hope for realizing the public's well-documented desire for a clean and healthy environment in sustainable balance with nature. Today, grassroots anti-toxic environmentalism is a far more serious threat to polluting industries than the mainstream environmental movement, Dowie writes. Not only do local activists network, share tactics, and successfully block many dump sites and industrial developments, they also stubbornly refuse to surrender or compromise. They simply cannot afford to. Their activities and success are gradually changing the acronym NIMBY to NIABY Not In Anybody's Backyard. But before that can happen, local groups need to develop a strategy for confronting the powers-that-be in their backyard, and that means learning to recognize and fight the techniques of PR. Until they learn this lesson, local activists may continue to win local battles, while finding themselves outmaneuvered and outgunned at the national level. if you want a scary bedtime story about the wars on activism, read the following............. http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/332735.shtml http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/FBI_confidential_informant_also_said_to_0608.html it's gov'ment in action.................. Interesting how these agents instigate the crime they are there to catch. This is scary but I still think the PR plants can do more harm in the long run because of the large amounts of money available for LONG TERM activities. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/FBI_confidential_informant_also_said_to_0608.html FBI confidential informant also said to be provocateur Jennifer Van Bergen Published: Thursday June 8, 2006 According to activists from Des Moines, Philadelphia, Miami, Sacramento, and other locations, a young woman named "Anna" allegedly infiltrated peace and justice rallies and anarchist meetings, and even attempted to join protests against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) ahead of the DNC's national convention last year as a paid FBI confidential "informant." Activists say that she has tried to provoke conflict at various advocacy events and violent incidents with police to get people arrested. In other words, Anna is not just an informant, she may be a provocateur. Although she is known among activist groups as either Anna Davies or Anna Davidson, others know her as Grai Damiani. She focuses her efforts largely on "anarchist" groups. The McDavid Case In January 2006, Eric McDavid, Lauren Weiner, and Zachary Jenson were arrested in California and charged with knowingly conspiring to use fire or explosives to damage property. Their arrest was the direct result of work by Anna, who was "deeply embedded within the subjects' cell," according to FBI documents. The FBI affidavit in support of the complaint against the three defendants states that they planned on their own to engage in "direct action" - which the FBI agent equated with criminal activity - apparently without Anna's input or guidance. The direct action involved bombing one or several locations in California. However, McDavid's attorney, Mark Reichel, states that Anna was always pushing McDavid to do something criminal, taught the three how to make the bombs, supervised their activities, and repeatedly threatened to leave them if they didn't start doing "something." McDavid allegedly wanted to target banks, commercial trucks, mountaintop removal projects in West Virginia, Communist party office, and the U.S. Forest Service Institute of Forest Genetics in California, according to the affidavit. The affidavit, which was written by FBI Special Agent Nasson Walker, shows that the agency has identified the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) as "a recognized eco-terrorist group," which Walker states has been involved in over $100 million dollars worth of damage since 1997. Walker further notes that: "Environmental extremists under the ELF banner have been known to use arson and/or explosives to damage or destroy or attempt to damage or destroy government, commercial, and residential facilities." Walker also states that "ELF adherents share a strong philosophical connection to the anarchist movement," which he notes "seeks to end the current system of government, economy and replace them with systems characterized by a lack of authoritarian/hierarchical relationships." Walker states that all three of the defendants are anarchists. The FBI claims that Anna has "provided information that has been utilized in at least twelve separate anarchist cases" and that her "information has proved accurate and reliable." But just who is Anna and what makes her reliable? Organization of American States (OAS) Protests In June of last year, according to witnesses, Anna showed up in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida for an anti-OAS protest which drew approximately 1200 people. Wearing a shirt with a red cross on it and carrying a bag with the same logo, she appeared on the day the protests began and identified herself as a "medic" from California. One protester who had become ill during the event was treated by Anna. "She was pushy," said Barbara Collins, a retired Miami resident who says Anna gave her Gatorade with water and then left. "She gave me that drink that made me sick, but later on she didn't seem that interested in treating me. She wanted to get back to the others." Collins was subsequently hospitalized for heat stroke. Linda Belgrave, a sociology professor at University of Miami, who assisted Collins that day, had to go find Anna again when Barbara got worse. According to Belgrave, Anna told her she was "busy." Belgrave did not see Anna attending to any other person in need of medical attention. She was simply "hanging out" with the "kids." Indeed, Anna was busy, according to other protesters at the OAS rally. During the march to the rally where Collins fell ill, one Miami resident, who asked that her name not be used, heard people talking about doing a sit-in. Since the coalition had decided against sit-ins and had negotiated carefully with the police about routes and activities, she warned people individually not to participate in the sit-in. Most did not, but Ray Del Papa from Ft. Lauderdale subsequently saw Anna directing young people to sit down on the street directly in front of a line of police in riot gear. In describing what he saw, Del Papa motions with his arms to show how Anna instructed individuals to sit here and there. Del Papa felt that it was a "set-up," a "trap, similar to what the police did during the protests against the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) in Miami in 2003." The fences penned the protesters in completely except where the riot police were, which was exactly where Anna instructed the young people to do their sit-in, according to Del Papa. "She knew they could get their heads bashed in," notes Mark Reichel, based on conversations with the activists. "If you saw their faces as well, you would understand that these people were not lying." Under the Attorney General's Guidelines, the FBI and prosecutors are required to keep secret the identity of a confidential informant. However, Anna was seemingly "outed" last year by activists who recognized what they saw as disruptive and provocative tactics and posted pictures of her on the internet. The allegations were later confirmed by Reichel, who identified the unnamed FBI confidential source cited in the January 2006 complaint affidavit for the McDavid case as Anna. Reichel also viewed hundreds of hours of surveillance tapes of Anna and McDavid and his cohorts. He notes that Anna's forte is identifying "radical" young men and women and "getting them" to fall in love with her. The FBI will not discuss Anna's status or the specifics of her training or operations but denies that informants are trained to provoke. In response to RAW STORY's queries about Anna, FBI media representative Karen Ernst said that "Sources are admonished not to provoke criminal activity," "Sources operated by the FBI are closely monitored and the information received from them is corroborated through other investigative techniques." Additionally, Ernst explains that the FBI corroborates information obtained from an informant "before charges are brought" against an individual. "Charges are brought when the totality of the evidence is sufficient for either a criminal complaint or indictment. Information from a source would never be the only evidence used to bring charges; other evidence would include recordings, surveillance video, results of witness testimony, etc.," adds Ernst. Despite being outed, Anna continues to infiltrate groups and presently is living in a collective home with some young people in Iowa, according to Reichel. Criminal Activity Plus Salary According to the "Attorney General's Guidelines Regarding the Use of Confidential Informants" (AG Guidelines), a "Confidential Informant" or "CI" is "any individual who provides useful and credible information to [the FBI] regarding felonious criminal activities, and from whom the [FBI] expects or intends to obtain additional useful and credible information regarding such activities in the future." The FBI conducts a "suitability determination" for each informant, which includes consideration of the candidate's age, affiliations, motivations, reliability, truthfulness, and criminal and drug history. Every informant receives and must acknowledge her understanding of a written set of instructions, which are reviewed by an agent with the CI. The CI is not allowed to engage in criminal activity without authorization. A CI who is authorized to engage in "Tier 1 Otherwise Illegal Activity" - which includes involvement with violent activities by other persons, corrupt conduct by officials, and trafficking of controlled substances - becomes a "High Level Confidential Informant." Given Anna's involvement in the McDavid case, where she was involved in allegedly planning violent activities, she became a High Level CI. According to Ernst, all sources are operated in accordance with the Attorney General's Guidelines. Sources are required to meet on a regular basis with an agent who provides them guidance and instructions. Yet in a scathing report released by the Department of Justice in September of last year, DOJ inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, found "that FBI agents violated procedures in 87 percent of the cases, including some in which informants allegedly engaged in illegal activity without proper oversight or permission." As for Anna, she receives about $37,500 a year, plus expenses, for her work. In the McDavid case, for example, in addition to her salary, the FBI paid for Anna to rent a house in California, paid for helicopter surveillance at her behest, and ostensibly also paid for the audio and video surveillance rigged in the rental house. Are there other Annas? Although the FBI states that it does not target lawful activity or activity protected by the First Amendment, in Florida alone, groups advocating against the invasion of Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, the OAS, and the FTAA have all been infiltrated, according to participants -- who cannot prove that the suspicious persons were infiltrators or informants. But documents released last year show that a counter-recruitment meeting at the Quaker House in Lake Worth, Florida was infiltrated by the Department of Defense. And the revelations about Anna, who participated in at least two of the major protests in Florida, further confirm activists' fears. While officials have claimed that anarchists advocate violence, Fred Frost, President of the Florida AFL-CIO, stated in 2004 at public hearings after the FTAA demonstrations that anarchists "may look different from you and me, but they are some of the nicest, most peaceful people I've ever met, helping everyone - I have a great deal of respect for them." None of the above-mentioned peace and justice groups advocates violence; all advocate using peaceful and lawful means of expression. # Jennifer Van Bergen is a freelance journalist with a law degree. Her book "The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America" is available on Amazon. Her book "Archetypes for Writers: Using the Power of Your Subconscious" will be out next year. She can be reached at jvbxyz@earthlink.net. > Interesting how these agents instigate the crime they are there to > catch. I am more than mildly amused. Either OOM is off his meds today, or is stupider than he even appears, or YOU Greg, just got badly suckered. Remember you claiming, more than once, that I'm a "liberal?" I presume you mean as opposed to "conservative," which actually I am. I presume also you mean I am "Left" of center. Is that correct? Do YOU not recognize leftist propaganda when you see it? No, of course not. You swallow your sh.t milkshake happily if it appears to fit your paranoid delusions that someone is out to "get you." Especially if it can be seen as authority. Let me ask you this. If you saw an article like this coupled with an advertiser list like this, Absinthe Supply Cuban Cigars Salvia Incense King Of Spirits Dried Poppies Would you consider the source a centerist, rightist, or leftist rag? Kiddo, you didn't just bite on screeching liberals, but on the extremist LEFT, and their diatribes. Because you have cultivated the INCAPACITY to think critically over the years you overlook things in the article that are inconsistent with reality and how people actually behave. For instance, in the part where the 'culprit' puts people into a sitdown in front of the police, you really believe that no one in the crowd of people saw the danger and got people to opt out? Bullshit. Someone decide to provoke a police attack. On the other hand, notice what is MISSING right there. NO MENTION OF AN ACTUAL ATTACK BY POLICE. If this were a true story in its facts, and an attack happened, do you really think they wouldn't have mentioned it? > This is scary but I still think the PR plants > can do more harm in the long run because > of the large amounts of money available > for LONG TERM activities. YOU, Greg, don't "still think." You have NEVER thought as long back as your oldest archived posts to Usenet. THIS is typical of you. Or, Greg, own up. You have become a flaming LIBERAL. And of course that IS your excuse for being unable to think critically. It has fascinated me to see you accuse ME of being a liberal, when YOUR language, the jargon you use, the causes you espouse, the propaganda you rant is ALL from the liberal kant. What is wrong with you, boy? Are you fast asleep you bleeding liberal blatherer? 0:-> > http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/FBI_confidential_informant_also_said_to_0608.html > [quoted text clipped - 212 lines] > of Your Subconscious" will be out next year. She can be reached at > jvbxyz@earthlink.net. Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Kane, In the process of attempting to discount the article because it came from left wing activists, you seem to have overlooked the POINT, which is not in itself partisan. If anything, as a conservative, I am rather concerned about overbearing government intrusions and LEO spies sent in to FOMENT crime among political groups, even if they are kooky ultraliberal protesters. ( Hello LaVonne! ) While you don't agree with what they have to say, aren't you supposed to defend their right to say it? (recognize the alliteration?) Is THIS another case where you think that YOUR ENDS justify any means? Maybe you thought Watergate was a good idea? After the tailgunner Joe stuff you spewed I actually have to ask! > Kane, In the process of attempting to discount the article > because it came from left wing activists, you seem to > have overlooked the POINT, which is not in itself partisan. Are you blind? You just wrote, "it came from left wing activists." How would that not be partisan? Is this the one nonpartisan article they've written for "balance?" R R R R R It's deliberate made up bullshit ... if you can read with comprehension you could see the weasel language throughout. I pointed out ONE case in the article for example but it's rife with them. > If anything, as a conservative, Greg. You are deluding yourself. You are a liberal by the content of your postings. > I am rather concerned > about overbearing government intrusions and LEO > spies sent in to FOMENT crime among political > groups, even if they are kooky ultraliberal protesters. > ( Hello LaVonne! ) That's liberal talk, child. A conservative would say, If there is PROOF of this by the FBI hang those responsible. Emphasis on PROOF is deliberate. A liberal would say, "Hang those responsible." followed by, "NO, I DON'T NEED ANY PROOF. MY LIBERAL SOURCES TOLD ME IT'S TRUE AND THAT'S ENOUGH." What YOU do much of the time. If it's in the media and it agrees with you, it must be true. If it's in the media and doesn't agree with you it's a government plot. You are a pile of bullshit standing in shoes. > While you don't agree with what they have to say, I DID NOT SAY I DISAGREED. I pointed out the discrepancies YOU are avoiding dealing with. My pointing my finger is about showing PROOF, which they did NOT. And they weasel worded the entire article. NOTHING is for sure. Someone wants to keep their name out of it. A group has no proof, but they are "sure" she's a plant. People do her bidding without question when she suggests criminal acts, so they claim. Do you think it just MIGHT be possible these a.sholes that DO IN FACT, against their disclaimer at the bottom of the page, ADVOCATE VIOLENCE AND VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT. > aren't you supposed to defend their right to say it? > (recognize the alliteration?) No, "alliteration" is a from of repetition of phrases and words for a rhythmic effect. The word you seek is "attribution." Funny you should miss that one. R R R given your little abortion practice. As for defending their right to say it; Sure. I do. Did you see me say they couldn't, or shouldn't? I simply exercised MY right to identify what I believe to be their politics. By the way, no one, other than the police and military and government officials sworn into office or job is under any obligation to defend another's rights. Only not to violate them. I am none of those. But I do not try to violate anyone's rights either. > Is THIS another case where you think that > YOUR ENDS justify any means? What "means" are you referring to? Your bogus insinuation above that I am trying to stifle their free speech by questioning their politics? Show me the connection. Not one you make up in your fertile raging mind, but a real connection, if that is your claim. > Maybe you thought Watergate was a good idea? The break in? Have you ever seen me support law breaking? > After the tailgunner Joe stuff you spewed > I actually have to ask! You seem to forget he did in fact expose some dangerous spies. You continue, as many do, to mix McCarthy up with the House, and their abuses, which you've never seen me defend. He was a Senator. A drunk, and a fool, but he did in fact do what he set out to do. Only dumped his career in the way in which he did it. You've never seen me defend HIM or his methods, either. So precisely what in my comments about this 'news' source that OOM offered up, do you see as as "tailgunner Joe stuff?" I simply point out the extreme partisan manner of their writing (actually Her writing) and the sloppy fact absence. Even admissions that the accusers can't be sure...but the writer goes on just like YOU, insinuating through innuendo rather than a display of FACTS. I'll be happy to jump aboard if a reliable source finds some facts that shows this person did indeed provoke people to illegal acts and participate in them. You are all over the place today, aren't you, little frustrated child? You can't figure out what's going on by finding facts, so you make things up as you go along and YOU believe them. I'd rather deal with an out and out malicious lying fraud than you. One can usually catch them. You twist and turn and redefine your own position continuously, renaming yourself and your beliefs as long as they adhere to your own delusions. Sad case, you are. 0:-> but comical Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Kane, Did you miss the government stat that 80~ % of all FBI confidential informants did things that were improper like actually inciting the crime? > Kane, Did you miss the government stat > that 80~ % of all FBI confidential informants > did things that were improper like > actually inciting the crime? Quote them. Attribute them. Cite them by active link. Do something besides innuendo. Much thanks, growing boy. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) soooooooooooooo, dumb a.s, where's the news.......................blogs are to liberals as talk radio is to conservatives...................the web is an established liberal soapbox.............the alt.parenting.spanking newsgroup started as a dais for rabidly liberal anti-spanking spin...................running around your little dog lot barking that you're a conservative is about as compelling change of identity as an hispanic immigrant sporting a stars and bars confederate battle flag on his baseball cap.................. ]:^< runs around her dog lot trying to shed her rabid liberal coat................... you're looking at entrapment that is not legally defined as entrapment..................it's a reincarnation of the fbi's infamous cointelpro................most laws exist to protect gov'ment rather than citizens..................if you look closely at the way cps operates, it closely parallels the fbi's use of deception and intimidation................ gregory quotes from raw news blog on "anna"....................... definitely this is a good step and it needs to be appreciated!! i liked this site very much and so i have become its member!! ------------------------------- brad pitt [url=http://www.drugstrategies.org/Treatment/Tennessee]Tennessee Drug Treatment Centers[/url] |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.