Page 2 of 58
Posted on May 28 at 10:31 a.m.
@Lynne Gibbs (author of the letter)
I agree, that the "mental health system" is a broken machine--I think purposely broken, but that an old argument which I will avoid.
To your point(s), I think that it's a confusing thing, that you state that law enforcement should not be "the gatekeepers for mental health", and yet seem to be against simply being reactive in our societal response to events such as the shooting ("tragedy before treatment"). I mean, I get that you are separating the responsibilities of the police with those of the "mental health system" (which I continue to double-quote, because there really is no such thing--psychiatrists are not Brain-cops, but doctors...persons who seek to aid those with psychiatric issues, but they do not enforce any laws--and on that, there are no "psychological laws" either.
Overall, our (American) society tends to be more REACTIVE rather than PROACTIVE, because that is part of how we are afforded our liberties ("Innocent, until proven guilty"). However, that does leave the door open for just these sort of tragedies.
Y have taken the side of Elliot Rodgers, in that "the current systems failed him and his family throughout his life". I also read the kid's autobiography-manifesto, and I took away from it that he would seek help, yet at the same time always deny that there was anything they could do to help him--and once even simply invalidated the medicine prescribe to him, because he researched the drug on the internet and decided that it wouldn't work for him. Elliot Rodgers failed himself.
Lastly, I think that your letter is more of a collection of a few talking points, written simply to support the introduction of the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act of 2013 (HR 3717). Yet, there is no description of what the act entails, only the assertion that, "Supporting this bill will help avert future tragedies such as this."
[I decided to look into the cons of the act. Anyone reading this that is interested: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives...
On Demand Mental Health System Changes
Posted on May 28 at 10:04 a.m.
"You and your wife imply that the solution is to create a panel of free speech judges that would decide what speech is acceptable (including artistic expressions of violence?) and what activities (skydiving?) are allowed."
You overreached on that one--apparent in your use of the word "imply". Bernard Sandler and his wife *implied" nothing. The letter listed some possible causes of an event like the shooting, and offered but a single suggestion: "If we are to move in the direction of progress as a culture and society, we must stop paying tribute to violence and praising only beauty.”
The difference is, that Mr. and Mrs. Sandler decried the glorification of certain actions, whereas you read into their letter that they were for stopping the supposed causes outright.
On Why Does the I.V. Tragedy Surprise Us?
Posted on May 2 at 11:37 a.m.
Taken one way, this could be a case of "Two wrongs don't make a right". However, the difference in The Independent and La Opinion, is that the former is meant to be inclusive of all things and people of Santa Barbara, whereas the latter is directed towards a particular racial/social group.
This is similar to complaining about the lack of white people on Black Entertainment Television (BET), which is also more narrowly focused--although, I doubt that the producers, actors, and behind the scenes workers actually think that way.
I would hazard to say that these types of media are intended to reach groups that are left out of the "norm", when the norm equals "white". And, while that makes a logical sense while the white-norm isn't all-inclusive, the rub is that it not only reinforces the status quo, it also demonizes any attempt to create a strictly "for whites" counterpart. [Honestly though, I can't really think of anything that is specifically "for whites", except possibly bigotry towards non-whites!...Then again, there is an industry for tanning....]
On Diversity Scarcity
Posted on April 28 at 1:44 p.m.
"However I cannot on principle believe that sacrificing individual liberty for the 'greater good' is the best position, even when that liberty pertains to recreational activities. Punishing somebody who is on average a better driver than everybody else on the road simply for a BAC reading causes too much cognitive dissonance for my brain to handle."
Remember what you were taught: Driving is a *privilege*, not a right. When it comes to DUI laws, the state can be as draconian as it wishes.
Also, I don't consider "public safety" to be the same as "the greater good", although I know you're simply using it to convey the idea of a sort of plurality.
On Freeway Closed at Castillo Due to Triple-Fatality DUI Crash
Posted on April 28 at 1:27 p.m.
"My premise is that if it's the other driver's fault (or pedestrian), 100%, then no fault should be assessed to the DUI driver either.
Some commentors on here have insinuated that the DUI driver should not be on the road, so it doesn't matter whose fault the accident is. It can always be blamed on the DUI driver simply for existing at that place in that moment, even if they did not make any errors in judgement or break any traffic laws."
I said that your premise is false, because you're setting up the percentage-assignment aspect of your "what-if" scenario, by *pre-assigning* the fault to the other person. This excludes the secondary person from being assigned fault on the face. However, it's also a misleading construct, because--as I already addressed--there is no test for being DWT (Driving While Tired). You cannot use my explanation of excusing a "tired" driver and substitute a drunk one--they are not the same. [Note: If a driver actually say, fall asleep because of being "tired", and causes an accident, then I believe the violation would be assessed on the outcome (failure to maintain a lane, property damage, endangering others, related death/dismemberment) , and not the causation. In the case of a DUI, one could be charged with the outcome, and the DUI is not only (probably) causative, but it's ILLEGAL TO BEGIN WITH.]
Lastly, don't overlook that the driver of the Mazda--had s/he survived--could have also been charged with something, considering the loss of control. This would mean that both drivers bear some fault, but one is dead while the other is not (and happen to be the one that was DUI).
Posted on April 28 at 12:45 p.m.
Anyone else have "Tsing Loh, Sweet Chariot", playing in their heads?
On A Woman Unglued
Posted on April 28 at 12:33 p.m.
On The Ghost of Ableism
Posted on April 23 at 2:50 p.m.
"equus_posteriori, what if somebody is tired, who shouldn't be on the road, gets into an accident and it is the other driver's fault, 100%? Do we blame the tired driver for that, too, since they shouldn't have been on the road? I'm a big fan of principles and consistency, so help me out here."
1) As far as I know, there is no legal limit to "tired".
2) You're premise is contradictory-- If the accident is "the other driver's fault, 100%", then no fault can be assesses to the tired "somebody".
However, a "what if" scenario might be possible to adversely affect "principles and consistency", as there is open room for speculation. For example, what about if a motorist with a suspended license still drives, and collides with a person DUI? How about if a DUI meet a DUI, comin' through the rye?
Posted on April 21 at 2:15 p.m.
ANY time driver is found to be DUI (in Morua's case his BAC was 0.17), s/he is considered at fault because THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DRIVING. This does not necessarily mean that alcohol was a *causative factor* of the actual event, but it is STILL ILLEGAL, and so the person may/will be charged.
The idea is that a person with an illegal BAC should not be on the road, and therefore would not be able to be involved in in any collision<--this term used, as "accident" implies that the event(s) is/are unavoidable, and happened by chance.
Posted on April 14 at 3:13 p.m.
The two comments that I think are closest to the truth:
"First Amendment does not protect her right to attack a minor with a poster." _JohnLocke (This is worded badly. The correct part here is that she attacked someone--according to the article, "scratched and pushed". Also, the First Amendment doesn't protect the "right to attack", nor is there really such a thing--unless the "attack" is a defensive response.)
"I was willing to give Prof. Miller-Young benefit of pregancy [sic] doubt; but soon after she should have at least apologized and admitted her mistake instead of doubling down like a Survivors of Abortion Holocaust kook." _Ken_Volok (Pregnancy hormones might be a factor in the professor's reaction. However, even if accepted as an absolute condition, an apology would be a fitting "punishment"--it's unlikely that she will think she wasn't right, but being forced to apologize might make make her realize that she did something wrong.)
This issue is really unworthy to be elevated to requiring a "First Amendment Defense", for either side.
On UCSB Professor Pleads Not Guilty to Theft and Battery