This is PaulS's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following PaulS's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Ok, Westsider... I'm glad you acknowledge that the "almost" probably shouldn't be there, that the Republic focused exclusively (not 'almost' exclusively) on Republicans although there were Democrats also involved, and that, by extension, the Republic is highly biased toward the left. No, strike "highly"... they're just flat out a propaganda provider for the Democrats.
1. Who has the authority to commit someone like this? Does a college have that specific authority? 2. Who, specifically, could have committed Lougher? 3. Why didn't they do so? 4. Would any change (increase or decrease) in spending on public mental health services affected their decision in this specific instance? How do you know for sure? See, the point we're all making, and which you don't seem to understand, is that in this specific case, a change in spending levels would not have changed the outcome. Therefore, it's unethical to use Loughner to promote increases in spending.
"I never used Loughner "as a poster boy." I didn't say you did. What I said was that he IS being used as one, and it's simply not the argument to use, since there was no way he could have either been diagnosed OR treated against his will prior to the act. And Robert Woodman, under what law could Pima Community College FORCE Loughner to be either evaluated to treated? "The situation cried out of a mental health evaluation." Perhaps. Even probably. But as far as I know, there's no process by which someone other than a family member can force someone to undergo either evaluation or treatment without their consent.
Oh, one more thought. In answer to your question "Should we spend any money at all on Mental health services?" - that's actually a nifty strawman. Who has suggested that we not spend anything? Greg certainly hasn't. What he has suggested - and the true thesis of this article - is that more spending would not necessarily have prevented Loughner's crime, since he could not have been forced to undergo treatment in the second place, nor did he seek out treatment on his own in the first place. Yet, as Greg correctly points out, Loughner is being used to justify increased spending, when - as you yourself acknowledged - " it is unclear if there is a direct connection between money spent and result." In short, using Loughner as a poster boy for increased spending is, at best, ill-advised (at worst, it's downright exploitation).
PaulS, I didn't say we should spend more money... Neither did Greg say we should spend less money. So your original argument falls flat.
So your logic is that, EVEN THOUGH Loughner never asked for help (the only way he could have been 'triaged' - and compelled to receive it), he might have been helped had we just spent more money. Tell me, exactly how would spending more money have forced him to either be diagnosed as needing treatment or to have been compelled to accept it? Don't forget - the question relates to BEFORE he committed the act. Afterwards, it's really easy compel him to accept it. And apparently, reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit; Greg's thesis is NOT "The implication being that more money spent on mental health treatment prevents huge costs in the future" - it's spelled out in the last sentence: "He doesn't want help and the state couldn't have forcibly medicated him simply because he acted strange." The fact you seem unable to acknowledge is that this is exactly the case.
Westsider, simple "yes" or "no" question: Would more funding have helped Loughner?
Westsider, I think you miss Greg's point. He isn't saying that Antenori has never been mentioned by the Republic. Nor is he saying that they didn't, in passing, mention that he wrote a book. Greg's point is that while the national press has been doing a lot of writing about the book AS a book, the local press (with the exception of the Star) has been oddly silent about the book itself. See the difference? It's the difference between a casual, offhand mention of the book in an article about the author, and reporting specifically on a book by a local hero.
"She was never my motivation," Pastor said. "I wasn't aware she was applying. If I knew, I would have contacted the chancellor and said, 'What kind of position does this put you and me in?' " Ok, so now you know. Have you now contacted the chancellor and asked (not 'said,' Ed), "what kind of position does this put you and me in?" If not, why not?
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it ironic that, in a screed regarding education, the individual's use of grammar is less-than-optimal? That should be "ridden" out of town, doofus!
One new site (been rolled out for a month or so, but still brand-spanking-new) is We're a site for pastors and church leaders. We'll be opening the site up for folks to post content, but the discussion boards are open already. Membeship is free, and you need to be a member to post to the forum, although not to read most of the threads. (There are some threads specifically for verified pastors and church leaders, to provide a safe place to discuss sensitive issues.)
Toggle Commented Jan 16, 2012 on New Christian websites at TallSkinnyKiwi
What I'm wondering is, where's Robert Woodman with a 2,000-word, unintelligible screed trying to spin this so it's all the fault of conservatives?
"... sham candidate..." STILL waiting for someone - anyone - to show me a legal definition of "sham candidate."
"I'd accept the argument that media bias is its own issue and deserves attention but in that case hasn't he made his point? " Obviously not... or Lemons wouldn't keep missing it.
Toggle Commented Oct 18, 2011 on Occupy This at Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit
Actually, the court opinion cited by Tony Sessions agrees with Greg. I quote, from the page at the link you listed, what the opinion actually says: "The Constitutional language means what it says: The Commission should favor creating more competitive districts to the extent practicable [and here's the important piece] when doing so does not cause significant detriment to the other goals." Therefore, Greg is right. Anti-Gerrymandering IS the purpose of the other goals, and the current districts ARE Gerrymanddered for political purpose, therefore the "competitiveness" clause cannot apply because to do so WOULD cause significant detriment to the anti-Gerrymandering requirements. Of course, they could always redraw the districts in a way that accomplishes all six of the goals.... but it doesn't seem likely with the current makeup of the committee.
Toggle Commented Oct 18, 2011 on Replace Them All at Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit
Robert, your entire argument boils down to "Well, you guys did it, so we can too!" See what I did there? I just saved you quite a few words. Of course, the vacuousness of your argument is exposed when you don't obfuscate it with needless verbiage.
"My point was and is that Patterson has some biases of his own." - Which he's never denied, unlike the Republic. Which, by the way, is supposed to be unbiased if they're to maintain their role as watchdog. "Also, he is "the media" as much as any other reporter in this town..." - I feel for you if you can't tell the difference between the Republic and EspressoPundit. But to clarify it for you, Greg might be 'the media' but he is NOT considered by most people - INCLUDING the news media themselves - to be part of the news media itself. So no, he's not part of the news media. "Should I just post a copy of the complaint, summarize it, and assume it's true?" - You're assuming that Greg assumes it's true. Perhaps he does, perhaps not. That's not the point. The point is, why isn't the news media investigating the complaints? Why do they chose to ignore this issue, when they don't ignore others? More to the point, isn't that the actual JOB of investigative reporting? Why do you expect Greg to do their job for them?
Toggle Commented Oct 17, 2011 on Occupy This at Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit
"I highly doubt the Stoltz story was as captivating..." So it's important only when a 'firebrand' is involved. This kind of - your term - unethical behavior only matters when someone with a national name is in the mix. In other words, the Republic has the same journalistic standards as the National Enquirer. Thanks for the clarification!
Dave, I'm not the one throwing out the terms "fake" and such. All I'm saying is that using such terms is shady, if not outright lying. We agree that Cortes is a genuine candidate, entitled to be on the ballot and would be eligible - if not obligated - to take office if she should win. Greg's point is that (1) these things are not new, and have been done by both sides. It doesn't make it right (frankly, IF it's true [and I have no way of knowing Cortes' motives, and neither does anyone else here, unless they claim to be a mindreader] I'm not thrilled about the tactic. And, from a careful reading of the article, neither is Greg). But Greg's point (2) is that it's a bit ridiculous for the media to bring it up THIS time since they were happy to ignore it when it was done by the other side. This is something poopee can't seem to get - there's a double standard. Poosee, question for you: If this is not a case of media bias, why DIDN'T the Republic drag this shady behavior "out into the light of day for all of us to witness" earlier? Why wasn't it newsworthy before, but it is now?
You know, I just plain missed the "sarc" tag.... I read your comment like six times, and still missed it. My abject apologies, sir... Now, as for poosee.... it still applies to him
Poosee and RgP - If you can't read, please don't comment. Go back over the article, and see if you can find the paragraph where Greg said - pretty clearly - "But don't miss my point. I'm not saying that either of these tactics is right..." And I'm still waiting for someone to cite the A.R.S. section and paragraph where it delineates "genuine" from "fake" candidates.
'A phony Green Party candidate ..." Someday, Woodman will actually respond to my posts and cite the parts of the A.R.S. that define exactly what a "phony" candidate is, legally. Someday, we'll also all have unicorns that poop skittles....
"The other is fraud, putting up a sham candidate..." I'm STILL waiting for someone to cite the A.R.S. under which this constitutes 'fraud' - which is a specific legal term, with specific legal ramifications. I'll make it easy - you don't have to quote the entire legislation under which which qualifies as 'fraud' or as a 'sham / fake candidate' - JUST CITE THE DARNED SECTION AND PARAGRAPH!
"Choosing to not run a candidate and urging your supporters to vote for a real candidate for real reasons is much different than recruiting a sham candidate..." Please define the terms "real candidate" and "sham candidate" and cite the appropriate sections of A.R.S. to support your definition. AFAIK, the only defnition of a 'real' candidate is one who meets the legal requirements to hold office, who has declared as a candidate by filing appropriate paperwork, and who has gathered and submitted enough valid nominating petition signatures for the office for which they are running.
Thomas, I'd be interested in seeing the provisions in the A.R.S. that delineates a "real" candidate from a "fake" one. Certainly candidates without a possibility of actually winning are present (Ralph Nader was mentioned as an example). But as far as I know, the only requirements are the ones specified in the A.R.S. - anyone who fulfills those is a "real" candidate as far as the law is concerned, no matter what their motives. Or, put it this way: if a so-called "fake" candidate actually pulled off an upset and won, would they be eligible - and obligated - to take office? As Brian and RonJ said...
Toggle Commented Sep 27, 2011 on Really? at Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit