-
Deborah Martin 05/19/2011 6:50:00 AM
Is Brewer without a soul ? Is she a psychopath or a sociopath? There appears to be this old worman with a plastic smile who does not have a conscience or remorse. Her blood must be
like ice water. I bet before she even was in politics she had the best alarm system to protect
herself from "those people". Why is it always the good people? God Bless Gabby and family.
God Bless Obama and family.
-
Loosecannonsbluesband 02/22/2011 10:23:00 PM
I was citing tourism FROM Mexico, not from all sources. Take your own advice and read the post before you respond with your bigoted ignorance. Thank you for confirming my statement that tourism has gone down in this state since the bigots took over.
Wikipedia is found to be just as accurate, if not more accurate, than traditional encyclopedias.
-
Guest 02/14/2011 2:24:00 AM
I would expect better grammar out of an attorney. You're full of shit.
-
FuckBrewer 02/06/2011 4:28:00 PM
Maybe with a little luck, Brewer will be the next victim
-
Alialibubu 02/04/2011 6:11:00 PM
Why doesn't someone stand outside the State Mental Hospital, and when Brewer's son checks out to go to work on his new bike, interview him as to why he hates his mother and how he allowed to not only work, leave a state mental hospital, but who bought his new bike and pays for his state monitoring ANKLE BRACELET.
-
kit carson 01/31/2011 1:43:00 PM
As an someone who works internationally, and is an attorney, I state with absolute confidence that you are full of shit and don't have a clue about what you are talking about.
Someone whispered in your ear that everything is the fault of the lawyers, and you have mindlessly repeated it.
The reason Europe is safer is because they have reasonable gun laws.
Blame the law, not the lawyers.
-
Foralice 01/30/2011 3:02:00 PM
I can't believe that no reporter has mentioned the last shooting spree in Tucson - by another person who slipped through the mental health system!! An officer was struck down in the line of duty and others wounded in 2008. Is our memory that short? http://bit.ly/ibepJu
-
Pat 01/28/2011 9:33:00 PM
Arizona gun owners use the mentally ill for target practice until the regular hunting season starts? *Sigh*, yep, that would save the state a ton of money in mental-health services, all right. :(
-
01/27/2011 4:21:00 AM
about a month ago I sent the Phoenix new Times and several other news media a copy of a letter sent to Gov. Brewer by the CEO of the American psychiatric Association in that letter it made it very clear that the cuts that she had made to the mental health system were ill-advised and there would be consequences. Also signed by the mental health of America, Nami and a couple of others. It was dated June 15, 2010. The governor completely ignored the letter and never even replied. With her plan to drop 5200 more seriously mentally ill patients from the mental health system she is putting the public at risk with dire consequences. So where is that letter? No one published it. Shame on you, the tragedy in Tucson could have been avoided and many other deaths like Bernard Allen who killed a man at fiesta Mall and Joe Gallegos who killed those two boys with a bat and then there's Jill who after leaving the clinic went home to her apartment and stabbed her 87-year-old neighbor to death. There are others. So who is responsible Gov. Brewer who dropped 1300 seriously mentally ill patients from the mental health system who receive no services nor medications and the news media.
-
Crusty_contrarian 01/25/2011 2:10:00 AM
PS thank a lawyer today! That's why we have so many repeat criminals on the streets. Civilized countries in Europe don't have this problem. They have laws that are enforced, safe streets, and less lawyers. Saves $. And less crime! The legal biz is not such a huge part of the economy in these countries - and their laws don't endanger the public. Our system is a threat to public safety. RAP SHEET= tax dollars spent on lawyers over and over. Think.
-
Crusty_contrarian 01/25/2011 2:02:00 AM
Insanity plea. Advice from lawyers no doubt who will get large $ for a long time for doing this. Great. Our $. Perfect. Business as usual. Let's drag it out forever and spend millions on lawyers. Is this Washington? That's their MO.
-
Angelsng 01/25/2011 12:23:00 AM
may I suggest you use "spellcheck"
-
Majkumajku 01/24/2011 3:48:00 AM
and the irony of this is that Brewer's son is in the state mental hospital,and it's being paid for by the Arizona taxpayers.
-
01/23/2011 10:39:00 PM
But, hey! Talking about insanity.
The handgun industry and their outspoken advocates have a solution to the mental health care crisis in Arid-zona.
Just ask them.
-
01/23/2011 2:22:00 AM
If the laws are not followed [and in most cases, they are not] then the accountability has to be brought forth to change the culture and priorities. When the civil rights of these mentally disabled are recognized inside a packed courtroom, the state will act. When the lawsuit is won and the press prints the state's flaws and lack of taking responsibility for mental illness in Arizona, we will all pay. When the ACLU, the human rights advocates and the true caring citizens of this state show they care and speak with a more powerful voice to make a change, it will happen but not before. Civil Rights are being violated and nobody cares??? Isn't that a contradiction of how we live in this country. I would like to say that it takes a true Christian to understand this message but I also know this, whether you are a Christian, another religion, or a non-believer, you know it is not right for mankind to suffer. We are not a third world country, we are the United States of American and Arizona belongs to the USA.
-
lujlp 01/23/2011 2:08:00 AM
Well lets see, tens of millions of dollars in damages to the victims of the MSCO, lawsuits filed by the state against the state in order to force the state to make it illegal(and mandatory) for the state to teach mexican children english. Lawsuits to prevent the loss of welfare to illegal aliens, and legal residents. Lawsuits between cites of Maricopa county every time on city respnods to a accident or emergency in anothers boundries.
How much money do you suppose could be saved if the enire Pheonix valley was incorperated into ONE city? You'd drop the salaries of 29 mayors for one. Imagine only having to pay to the salaries of one school board? And only one school board office building? How many millions would taht save? You'd have one police cheif instead of 15 and 14 cites wouldnt have to pay the MCSO for piss poor police service. Without the patch work of unincorperated county islands and municipalites paying for his 'services' Arpio would forced to do his job in the rest of the county. Sad fact is were out of money and the firt people to be cut off are those who cant make a fuss about it.
How about istead of bitching all the time you acctually make some suggestions?
-
01/23/2011 2:08:00 AM
Let me just say this about mental health in Arizona and the laws. The laws are adequate but need to be paid attention to by the public officials in charge of public safety. Today, the spirit of the laws is apathy and the letter of the laws is not enforced. Arizona does not care for it’s mentally ill in the community and in their prisons. Their answer to mental health is to close their eyes and pretend it's not there and then hope they forget about it. This shooting incident brought it back up again and tomorrow another major story will bring it back to the front page but nothing will be done. The money is not there so the lawmakers [except a few] won’t bring it to the chambers for a vote as well as the fact that many don't care and those [lawmakers] who do care are in the minority, insufficient in numbers to get a bill passed to maintain some degree of accountability of these laws..
Non profit advocacy groups have been knocking on the doors of public officials for help and have received none being told they are too busy to see them. The lawyers [public defendants and prosecutors and judges] are ignorant of their civic duty to ensure these types of disabilities are addressed before pre-trial arraignment and incarceration recommendations are made. These individuals are simply ignored and cast away like a leper in a leprosy colony. NO HOPE for change, they become worse in behaviors and end up being lost forever. The risk assessment for pre-trail is horrendous, the understanding of acquiring a pre-trail mental health assessment is non existent, their history files for past treatment [if actually documented] are not transferred or shared thus lost in the shuffle starting the process from square one.
The community resources are oblivious to their role to share an individual’s bizarre or unusual behaviors while in school or community colleges and are not acting or rather being responsible for legitimate input to other entities, families or the law enforcement agencies. Lawmen and are inadequately trained to manage, communicate and comprehend those with disabilities already incarcerated. Mentally disabled persons become repeat offender because they never received an opportunity to be treated for a disability before, during or after release of prison.
Arizona will not fix this problem in the near future. It will put its blinders on and pretend it is not there. When someone holding a high office has the courage to say "enough is enough" he or she will seek the leverage needed to fund, to identify, to diagnose, to treat and/or medicate, to assist, to follow up, to maintain and THEN the process will be working as designed by our laws. Until then, we are blowing in the wind creating a sea of controversy, pointing fingers with conflicting ideas and political rhetoric blaming each other for the state's shortcomings in their important role to maintain public safety and to protect the civil rights of those persons who are mentally challenged and in many cases, depended or co-dependent on others for understanding, direction, treatment and yes salvation.
-
01/22/2011 4:22:00 PM
(the 'edit' function on this web site is not working... )
HEAVILY RESOURCED INQUIRY- WITH A BROAD-BASED TERMS OF REFERENCE- INTO THE CAUSES OF THE ARIZONA SHOOTINGS URGENTLY NEEDED!!!
Who is going to demand a formal inquiry into the causes of the Arizona shootings??
Where are the U.S.'s largest and most powerful mental health advocacy, service-provider and other stakeholder groups in this- other than 'only speaking when asked to' by the news media and related bodies??
Why aren't the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the Treatment Advocacy Center, American Psychiatric Association and other self-described as concerned groups raising an almighty fuss about the core causative factors in the Arizona shootings:
A) a deplorably inadaquate system of care, housing, support and rehabilitation for the mentally ill in Arizona;
B) dysfunctional mental health policies at Pima Community College; and
C) lack of avenues for Arizona police that are involved in incidents involving severely mentally ill people to get such persons into contact with community mental health care agencies and/or hospital based care...
Possible bodies that could conduct an inquiry into the Arizona shootings:
1) An impartially appointed tribunal;
2) Committee of Congress;
3) A State Ombudsman;
4) A Committee of the Arizona State legislature....
==============
==============
Intellectual honesty needed
A very mentally ill and getting sicker student's lack of referral to and support from adequately funded and resourced mental health services caused the recent grievous massacre...
Why are so few people with the ability and obligations to change these conditions that led to the massacre talking about this??
Involuntarily Committing and hospitalizing the mentally ill in increased numbers is not the solution to what apparently caused the recent shooting...
Just "Involuntarily Committing People" in large numbers without putting in place- AND MAINTAINING other components of a complete, balanced mental health system would only cause calamitous disruptions in the running of both general and psychiatric hospitals state-wide and would harm other parts of a state's health system...
In states like Arizona, sufficient annualized funding to pay for the establishment and ongoing operations of community-based outreach, support, supportive-housing and rehabilitation programmes for the mentally ill is plainly urgently needed...
With such services in place, if a person like Mr. Loughner is found to be decompensating/exhibiting a worsening of his condition- and appeared to be a threat to self or others- the community-based outreach worker assigned to the respective case could- and should- involve the police to have the decompensating person brought to a local general hospital psychiatric department for an evaluation and if necessary, a paid-for-by-the-state hospitalization until stabilized and deemed not a threat to his/herself or others...
A stabilized person with a mental illness- IE: a mentally ill person who's major mental illness symptoms have been minimized/eliminated- and who has been made a client/patient of a community's mental health care office is far more likely to be able to productively complete his/her University/College courses- and eventually become a benefit to wider society- than a mentally ill person who has the extensive avenues toward a better life that post-high school education can offer blocked due to him/her being thrown out of University/College because of his/her disruptive conduct- caused by him/her having an untreated mental illness...
_________________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
-
01/22/2011 4:18:00 PM
HEAVILY RESOURCED INQUIRY- WITH A BROAD-BASED TERMS OF REFERENCE- INTO THE CAUSES OF THE ARIZONA SHOOTINGS URGENTLY NEEDED!!!
Who is going to demand a formal inquiry into the causes of the Arizona shootings??
Where are the U.S.'s largest and most powerful mental health advocacy, service-provider and other stakeholder groups in this- other than 'only speaking when asked to' by the news media and related bodies??
Why aren't the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the Treatment Advocacy Center, American Psychiatric Association and other self-described as concerned groups raising an almighty fuss about the core causative factors in the Arizona shootings:
A) a deplorably inadaquate system of care, housing, support and rehabilitation for the mentally ill in Arizona;
B) dysfunctional mental health policies at Pima Community College; and
C) lack of avenues for Arizona police that are involved in incidents involving severely mentally ill people to get such persons into contact with community mental health care agencies and/or hospital based care...
Possible bodies that could conduct an inquiry into the Arizona shootings:
1) An impartially appointed tribunal;
2) Committee of Congress;
3) A State Ombudsman;
4) A Committee of the Arizona State legislature....
==============
==============
Intellectual honesty needed
A very mentally ill and getting sicker student's lack of referral to and support from adequately funded and resourced mental health services caused the recent grievous massacre...
Why are so few people with the ability and obligations to change these conditions that led to the massacre talking about this??
Involuntarily Committing and hospitalizing the mentally ill in increased numbers is not the solution to what apparently caused the recent shooting...
Just "Involuntarily Committing People" in large numbers without putting in place- AND MAINTAINING other components of a complete, balanced mental health system would only cause calamitous disruptions in the running of both general and psychiatric hospitals state-wide and would harm other parts of a state's health system...
In states like Arizona, sufficient annualized funding to pay for the establishment and ongoing operations of community-based outreach, support, supportive-housing and rehabilitation programmes for the mentally ill is plainly urgently needed...
With such services in place, if a person like Mr. Loughner is found to be decompensating/exhibiting a worsening of his condition- and appeared to be a threat to self or others- the community-based outreach worker assigned to the respective case could- and should- involve the police to have the decompensating person brought to a local general hospital psychiatric department for an evaluation and if necessary, a paid-for-by-the-state hospitalization until stabilized and deemed not a threat to his/herself or others...
A stabilized person with a mental illness- IE: a mentally ill person who's major mental illness symptoms have been eliminated- and who has been made a client/patient of a community's mental health care office is far more likely to be able to productively complete his/her University/College courses- and eventually become a benefit to wider society- than a mentally ill person who has the extensive avenues toward a better life that post-high school education can offer blocked due to him/her being thrown out of University/College because of his/her disruptive conduct- caused by him/her having an untreated mental illness...
_________________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
-
Marcy 01/22/2011 3:48:00 PM
Was his death REALLY a "preventable tragedy"? Short of incarceration, whether in a prison or a mental health facility, there is no way to ensure that the seriously mentally ill will take their medication.
-
Guest 01/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
Are you the guy who later whined about hidden insults in posts and how you would only engage in civil discussion?
Fuck off you fraud.
-
Kit Carson 01/22/2011 1:27:00 PM
One of the licensed, armed witnesses told the press that he almost drew down on one of the men who subdued Loughner, because that man was holding the gun he wrestled away from the nutjob.
The liberals, including a openly homosexual American, ran towards the gunfire to tackle the gunman and provide assistance to the wounded. So much for the backwater stereotypes ...
-
Kit Carson 01/22/2011 1:22:00 PM
Tea Bag Party is actually an old Indian phrase for "myopia."
-
Kit Carson 01/22/2011 1:19:00 PM
My post contained no insults. It asked a question: what else you got?
Read the quotes in context with the larger speech or letter, none of your quotes stand for the proposition that the founding fathers opposed regulating guns.
Look how far you have to reach to somehow tie these quotes back to the Tea Party agenda. Gandhi - seriously? You can read his book to learn that what I wrote concerning the need for firearms in Indian life. A pacifist, he would never support the idea that guns are needed to overthrow governments, be they tyrannical (like the British) or the result of democratic, free and fair elections (such as the Obama administration.)
Indeed, quoting Jefferson's letter to his 15-year-old nephew where he extols the virtue of using "the gun" for exercise does nothing to move forward the idea that Jefferson wanted, as he signed off on, a well regulated militia.
The context of Patrick Henry's words is that he was trying to raise an army for his side of the Revolution. He was not trying to persuade the people that Tories needed more guns. What is troubling about trotting out and misusing the Patrick Henry quote is that one has to ask: "Are you trying to raise an army to fight off a ruling government?" If not, then the quote, even misused, doesn't apply.
Read the entirety of Fed #46, then read commentary from neutral academics, not the right or the left, and you will learn he was not supporting your cause. Cobbling phrases from different paragraphs and representing it as one quote is not good form. You should ask yourself - why did the person who butchered Madison's words do so? If they tried to mislead you there, where else have they mislead you? Heck, for that matter, anyone who tells you Obama raised taxes on the middle class, was born in Kenya, wants to take your gun or signed health care legislation that was job-killing (all demonstratively false claims) really can't be trusted on any political issue.
Finally, quit being so sensitive. If I wanted to insult you, I would have. Don't search for hidden meaning. I write the way I speak - directly and only after consideration.
-
Kit Carson 01/22/2011 1:01:00 PM
Getting bent out shape over a typo on the Internet tells me you're not the brightest bulb out there. A misspelling, a fat-fingered word, a dropped word here and there, those are all excusable.
Being a lout, however, for that there is no excuse. Don't be a twit. Answer the call of the question of the post or just shut-up.
-
01/22/2011 8:19:00 AM
If it is an actual discussion on the subjects you desire, do not associate Loughner with the typical gun owner. It is insulting and an intentional mis-characterization of gun owners as a whole. It has no place in an open and honest discussion, as it serves only to demonize the innocent for the actions of the guilty. If you have read any of my posts, you would realize that I belong to the majority of lawful gun owners who have been subjected to stereotyping by a majority with with an agenda and little actual knowledge of us. Where their smears become accepted as fact.
As to the Washington quote, I will defer to you. In reading it over, it does sound unlikely. Though I don't have any doubt as to Washington holding a great value in the role of the Second Amendment being just as important as the First.
I will research the quotes and the site that linked. Though in passing through the site, while one is a partial quote by Jefferson, that has been linked with one of unknown origin, it does show the following (I copied and pasted it directly from the site you linked without the benefit of fixing its spelling):
1785 August 19. (Jefferson to Peter Carr). "As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a mederate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independence to the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks.
As far as your issue with the Madison quote, the site you link to does say it is falsely attributed as such, even though it admits some of the elements are contained in the writing, which may be why it was attributed as such. More likely than not it was done after someone paraphrased the statement, intermingling his and their own words.
"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."
The concept of militia in that time is different than what is considered as such now. When this was written, a militia was not a standing one in the scope of what it has now, it was one that was raised in a time of need. The current National Guard is supported logistically to a great degree by the federal government, to the point it would collapse into chaos if it was to oppose the federal government. Not just that but do you really think that it would? It would be citizens and not National Guard soldiers who would have to stand up to the federal government. To imply that they would mean the current National Guard, who while falling under the control of the governors can be called to serve under the President, which of late has been their most typical role. So aligning what they referred to as a militia then, with what we consider one to be now would be a misuse of sorts of the term since the militia of today is more dependent on the federal government than the one of their time.
As far as Ghandi being out of context, you make that assumption based on your personal belief of the relevance of firearms in modern society. And placing a jab at those who belong to the Tea Party as being anti-democracy, besides being a useless inflammatory statement that does nothing for your argument, is utterly false. It would be more correct to state they are anti-socialist, as they are against the governments over-reaching when it comes to its authority. The government expanding to meet the needs of the government, and such.
I am sorry that you don't like the quote by Sheldon Richman, or the man apparently. I did not include for who spoke it, but rather that it speaks to the truth. Firearms are equalizers that give those who are week the ability to defend themselves against those who are stronger who would otherwise use brute force. I don't think that statement can really be argued. As far as your statement that we can state with confidence he is not a founding father, it sounds like an attempt to dig at me for a mis-representation, however since I would hope we all know Gandhi was not a founding father, it is safe to assume I wasn't attempting to imply otherwise.
As to your comment on Patrick Henry saying "able men" to mean those who agreed, it may be true, it may not be. Able men did have the same meaning then as it does now though, that if one was able to fight, then they were able. It would be more likely that if he was trying for your intended meaning, he would say "like-minded", however if you have something that shows you are correct, I am open to seeing it.
I will look over the rest this weekend sometime. And if you are open to an actual civil discussion rather than inflammatory mis-characterizations and name calling, so am I. But I have no desire to stoop an intellectual debate into an extremist argument with no manner of civility, so if you cannot live with that, just leave a comment that reflect that, and I will withdraw myself from the conversation.
-
Gerry_C 01/22/2011 4:30:00 AM
I believe we are being set up for increasing numbers of random homicidal acts by mentally ill that should be receiving help instead of being out on their own. The inability to predict when it will happen next is a hallmark of a terrorist attack as well as at attack by a mentally disturbed person.
-
Kit Carson 01/22/2011 12:54:00 AM
Nice cut and paste - too bad many are false quotes or used out of context.
Your Washington quote on "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution" is completely bogus and has been acknowledged as such for decades. Didn't the "prairie wagon" and "rifle" references, both inventions of the century that followed Washington's death give it away?
Patrick Henry wrote about "able men." In the context of "able men" in the 1700's, that meant those who favored Henry's side. Able is the same as approved.
The Jefferson quotes are bogus. All of Jefferson's writings and speeches are available, and searchable at http://wiki.monticello.org/. Think I am wrong, give me an original source to prove me wrong. (By original source, I do not mean a link to some wingnut website.)
The Madison quote is similarly false. Sometimes it is attributed to Federalist #46, but anyone reading Fed 46 knows it's not in there. http://boston1775.blogspot.com/2011/01/another-fake-founders-quotation.html Read in context, Madison speaking about a well regulated militia.
Sheldon Richman is a Cato Institute wingnut, why you quote him and expect people to take you seriously seems recondite. Given that he is still alive, we can state with confidence he is not a founding father.
The Gandhi quote is out of context. Unlike contemporary Americans, the Indians truly needed firearms for their livelihood. Gandhi was a pacifist and advocated peaceful resistance. I doubt he would advocate the "second amendment remedies" the anti-democracy Tea Party members desire because Obama won a free and fair election.
So, what else you got? Your only true quote from a founding father, from Patrick Henry, doesn't support your position as he was discussing raising an army and he limited gun ownership to able men. Was Loughner able?
Again I ask: what else you got.
-
01/21/2011 7:50:00 PM
I just scrolled down here to post that very comment - very nice mind reading sir!
-
brd 01/21/2011 5:20:00 PM
I know she's homely, but did you really need to air brush Brewer's picture.
-
01/21/2011 9:18:00 AM
The fact that you spelled dumb as d-u-m speaks greatly to your argument. The fact that you are apparently too lazy to either use spell-check on your rampant errors, and too lazy to even bother with punctuation does give me hope. If you are too lazy to make the simplest efforts in forwarding your political efforts effectively, it only stands to reason that you are also too lazy to vote. And that is of great benefit to those of us who both care about our state, and know what we are talking about.
I am actually tempted to properly rewrite your post, if for no other reason than for you to use it as a learning experience. One who cannot put together an intelligent thought, has no place insulting the intelligence of someone else. I can forgive occasional errors in writing, we all make them. Plus, this is the internet, not the Harvard Law Review. But your complete disregard for any sign of education given the nature of your argument, is unforgivable at best.
-
01/21/2011 8:59:00 AM
Thank you for completely (though either ignorance, or intent) missing the entire point of what was being said. I was drawing the parallel that Brewer was in the same situation as Obama, in walking into a fiscal mess. Yet individuals exactly like you, as you just showed (thank you by the way, for completely proving my point in every aspect) jump to the defense of Obama while condemning Brewer.
The difference between Brewer and Obama however, is that Brewer is now being bashed for trying to reign in government spending, whereas Obama is taking it to a record high.
Thanks to Obamacare, I know two people who lost their jobs as a direct result. And thanks to Obamacare, I was notified by my insurance company that my monthly premiums would be going up as a direct result of them being required to now cover "children" into their late twenties under the new regulations.
As a side note, capitalization, proper sentence structure, and a civilized well presented argument will go further in proving your points and quantify you much better as someone who knows what they are talking about than what your dribble does.
-
01/21/2011 8:50:00 AM
I don't think you read the materials you posted, or you would have noticed that Arizona had a smaller drop than most other destinations, and very few places did not have a drop. Also, none of the data that you provided examined in any facet the nexus between immigration law enforcement, and revenue by business entities. Further, it also showed that Arizona as a destination has gone up and down since Sheriff Joe took office, which by your indiscriminate application of the relevance of his job in relation to tourism means that he is also responsible for making tourists feel safer to come to Arizona during its high years. Which again, applying your logic, the reason that people aren't coming now is because they are upset that after the highlighting of the lack of the rest of the state and the federal government to enforce immigration laws, they are going elsewhere. That is true right, because people vacationing in Arizona has everything to do with Sheriff Joe, and not the fact the entire country has taken a downturn right?
As far as the "recession" ending in 2009, that is great that they determined it ended since we started 2009 with 7.8% unemployment, and ended with 9.9% unemployment.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000
I am sure that everyone who is out of work will be pleased to know that they changed the title away from being a recession. Unfortunately, as of last month 9.4% of the country is still out of work. But I guess we should be excited for the .5% who got work since the previous year. But since they were probably all stimulus money jobs, once the initial money runs out and there is no longer funding to be borrowed from China, they will probably be back out of work.
Also, as a side note, while using the government website for the first point is valid, even though it doesn't substantiate any aspect of your actual argument, even public schools don't use wikipedia as a source, as they are unreliable at best, as the following links display (which are actually pertinent to the point being made, for the first time in this discussion I might add):
http://www.comedycentral.com/tosh.0/2010/02/03/your-wikipedia-entries/
http://www.spinner.com/2009/05/13/student-pranks-media-using-dead-composers-wikipedia-page/
http://spring.newsvine.com/_news/2006/08/01/307864-stephen-colbert-causes-chaos-on-wikipedia-gets-blocked-from-site
Best of luck though on any future attempts at disputing others with unrelated facts, and inaccurate conclusions substantiated by them. I would suggest actually reading what you are quoting, and ensuring they are in the context of what is actually being discussed next time though.
-
01/21/2011 8:10:00 AM
No, I am not. But I quite some years ago I worked in a hotel, and both we and the businesses we dealt with were dependent to a degree on tourism. You are correct that golf is a luxury. However, if your choice is to go to one of several states of similar climate, and attractions, the cost of the local economy does come in to play.
You are incorrect in the assumption however, that tourists are not tight with their money. Many of those who I dealt with were frugal to the extreme. Being a tourist does not mean you have money in excess. Most tourists are people who save their money for long periods of time so they can finally get away from their lives at home. They expect a lot for the money that they have managed to scrimp together so they can go to a theme park with their kids before they get too old, or take their kids to see spring training in Peoria because their team is playing there, or sons who take their fathers to golf because the course was designed by a golf legend and the courses in their state are garbage.
We could all live without McDonalds or Pizza Hut, or the movies. But if you take your kids out to them for a weekly treat, that doesn't make you any less tight with your money. People only spend their money according to the perceived value, and if it costs less to golf in California than Arizona, then that is where they will perceive the greater value.
-
01/21/2011 7:58:00 AM
I agree, in a situation like this, as fast as it happened, there wasn't much the typical person could do. Even though I have more training and experience than most, I am doubtful as to my ability to react to something in as effective was with a firearm as the individual who brought him down without one. That being said, if it had not been resolved in the manner it was, and he had been able to continue his insane rampage, then yes, someone with the ability to shoot back could have prevented him from killing more than if there was no one there to shoot back, and no one close enough to him to stop him. But the entire line of reasoning would be purely speculative either way. It is fortunate though that in type of situation that usually requires deadly force (or threat of deadly force), this type of incident is in the minority. Unfortunately, the few exceptions always seem to get highlighted by many to take away the rights of the thousands who have otherwise been saved by firearms.
-
01/21/2011 7:44:00 AM
I can't find the exact one offhand, I used it once as my status for facebook, but now it escapes me. In the meantime though, here are a few of my favorites.
“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.” - Patrick Henry
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” - Thomas Jefferson
“No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson
“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon, and citizen's firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes; we need them every hour.” - George Washington
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison
“When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs. When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent. When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun. Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet “ - Lyle Myhr
“If you own your life, then you have the right to defend yourself against anyone who would deprive you of it. ... And, if you have the right of self-defense, it follows that you have the right to act ... to obtain means appropriate to that defense. That brings us to firearms, particularly the handgun, which so many people would outlaw. The handgun has been called the equalizer ..., and for good reason. It affords smaller, weaker people the chance to defend themselves against bigger, stronger people who threaten them. Handguns offer the otherwise defenseless a convenient, practical, inexpensive method of safeguarding themselves and their families. Banishing handguns -- even if the big and strong were also denied them -- would leave the small and the weak defenseless.” - Sheldon Richman
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi, in Gandhi, An Autobiography
It is strange, but were the founding fathers in our society today, they would be attacked as radicals. People would call them crazy for the notion of encouraging citizens that if the government was not working for their best interests that they should replace it by force if necessary. But then, they also did not expect the government that they established to outlast their children. People forget, that the first attempt at our federal government was a failure. People say that the average citizen doesn't need the same type of guns as the military, but the whole reason for the Second Amendment was for the people to be able to rise up against the government and its military if need be. The guns that fought the British were the ones that hung over the fireplace of the common citizen. The Second Amendment was to preserve the ability of those citizens to fight again, whether or not the tyranny they fought was from a foreign government, or their own. While that may not be needed in our lifetime, we cannot guarantee that will be the case in a hundred years, which is why the Second Amendment must be protected as, if not more vigorously than the others.
Most likely though, the only thing my guns will ever do is put holes in paper. And I am quite content with that.
-
Frank Rider 01/21/2011 4:15:00 AM
I agree this is a thoughtful and informative piece of journalism, attempting to put immediate events in much larger contexts.
Wouldn't it be something if we could ever know what murdered victims in the January 8 "Tucson tragedy" might envision Arizona's behavioral health and social service system should look like?
In fact, in the case of Hon. John C. Roll, the federal district court judge left us a detailed vision of that system. It can be found within a 17 page document, a settlement agreement Judge Roll ratified on June 26, 2001 in his courtroom in Tucson. Yes, ten years ago Judge Roll approved the settlement of a class action lawsuit, J.K. vs. Eden et al., which literally includes a written description of "The Arizona Vision and Principles" of the state's public behavioral health system.
The J.K. Settlement bears the name of a young man in Tucson with mental health challenges, but was accepted, in fact, on behalf of roughly 36,000 children and youth and their families who depend on Arizona's behavioral health and social service systems.
Many of the people interviewed for this story are among scores who have fought to bring that vision of a worthy behavioral health system to life for the past ten years. It would be a fitting way to honor Judge Roll's memory for the state's legislators, chief executive and cabinet members to dust off that visionary document and rededicate themselves to it as the roadmap to guide operation of the public system of services Judge Roll knew Arizona's children, families and citizens deserve.
Frank Rider - riders4@nc.rr.com
-
rocks1 01/21/2011 1:34:00 AM
Mr Obama protect the seriously mentally ill adults and an additional 21,900 adults and children in need of general mental health care and substance-abuse come on you know it wants to be said
-
Nomis 1 01/20/2011 8:19:00 PM
Brian,
I was raised by a former Marine and gun enthusiast so I am very keen to the rights that the second amendment provides and how to effectively lay down fire. My question to anyone who thinks they are a bad ass with a gun? Do you really think you could have shot him in time to save lives? Scenario: You have 13 seconds from when he first pulled the trigger to when he stopped shooting! This while your dodging bullets and people who are screaming their heads off.
My money is on the determined crazy guy with a gun?
-
Nomis 1 01/20/2011 8:02:00 PM
Johnny Ringo, Budget cuts alone will not fix this mess. It has to be coupled to appropriately raising and spending tax revenue, attracting new jobs and people to Arizona to raise the level of money in the States pockets.
We ran up the debt in good times and no one wants to pay for it when we are broke.
This state will have to raise taxes and spend responsibly to get us out of the red,
-
Guest 01/20/2011 2:59:00 PM
So Johnny ( love the reference to an outlaw cowboy by the way) to you Diapers and weapon projectiles are in the same category of necessity, very interesting insight to how you think.
A more appropriate analogy would have been to use a sales tax increase on Movie ticket to match my proposed sales tax increase on weapon projectiles.
Interesting that you use State workers as your reference. You use a group of workers who have the protection of a union to argue against a tax increase and for budget cut solely.
So what is your option for those workers who do not get paid by public funds and do not have the protection of a union contract that can go to arbitration to address grievances of its PAYING members?
You use the phrase "irresponsible government continuing to create and fund entitlement programs" and then use publicly funded UNION jobs as the ones to suffer for the funding of "entitlement programs"
You are basically arguing that Janitor Joe cleaning the city courthouse should not have to take a non raise just because Little Jimmy AppleCheeks needs more money to see an AHCEES doctor or so his mom can buy more fresh vegetables because she is under employed.
"More of the same will have to be done to get us out. Raising taxes will not solve the problem of over spending."
You are absolutely correct with your partial thought here. Raising taxes are only one part of solving the debt that the state of AZ has. ELIMINATION of GUARANTEED tax payer funded jobs is a must. Lets get rid of the UNION jobs that you have used in your example and then find workers to do those jobs at a MUCH lower NON-UNION mandated wage.
"Do you think there will be no Mental health services? Don't be ridiculous"
I was around and remember when the state stopped the funding to the Arizona state mental hospital and released all those folks that still needed help.
I can't remember HOW many conferences I attended in Phoenix in that time frame that were disrupted by folks in NEED of mental health services, but I do remember how many I attended the next couple of years at those same locations - ZERO.
But hey at least the air lines got my company's money for me to fly to where those conferences were being held.
Your right, it is not rocket science - Lets start by eliminating UNION jobs with their mandated benefits and pay less to have the same work done.
Man Johnny you make a strong case for eliminating UNIONS.
-
azcowpoke 01/20/2011 5:36:00 AM
Too bad most of the "professionals" you quote are more interested in getting their paycheck at the expense of helping others.
-
01/20/2011 4:55:00 AM
Talk like that is all well and good when you are not a member of the worthless class. There are a lot of hardworking families, through no fault of their own, have entered the worthless class. Perhaps someday you or one of your loved ones becomes worthless. Since these people are worthless, it would be great if they left really quickly don't you agree? Say something like a modern day death camp, get rid of them all. Then the US won't have worthless people only beautiful, wealthy, super intelligent people who are all star atheletes and artists. At some point sickofit you would be the last person left alive, since obviously no-one can compare to your grace and omipotence.
-
Guest 01/20/2011 4:52:00 AM
When you write : Loughner's case doesn't represent an intrinsic flaw in the system, nor the dereliction of any particular authorities. The Glock he used was obtained legally," some would see a contradiction between the glock was obtained legally and there is no intrinsic flaw in the system.
He was a nutjob, the system didn't weed him out, people died. On the surface, it looks like a problem, one that I would like more facts about so as to determine, at a deeper level, if there is a problem that needs fixed.
-
Guest 01/20/2011 4:47:00 AM
Yes, I am for real. Where is the opinion in the article? I see a lot of facts, but you don't like those facts, you want others.
The reporting is classic new journalism style, and perfectly acceptable. My review is independant of my thoughts, and use of this style is common in conservative papers as well.
I'd like to see you go down to Tucson and tell the parents that it was just too much strain on the budget, and they just happened to hit the unhappy lottery. That is, after all, your position.
-
Loosecannonsbluesband 01/19/2011 9:09:00 PM
There are ways to avoid cuts for mental health funding in Arizona - they've been presented to the State Legislature. The State legislature has ignored these options, mainly because they affect tax subsidies to businesses.
-
Loosecannonsbluesband 01/19/2011 8:54:00 PM
Income from tourism from Mexicans who visit our State (both legal and illegal) was huge prior to crap Arpaio and his nativist bigots pulled. Lots of Arizona businesses suffered as a result of all the mis-steps by our so-called leaders.
http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/outreachpages/inbound.general_information.inbound_overview.html
By the way ONeil, the most recent recession ended in June of 2009! You appear to need to research, just a pinch, before spouting off inaccurate information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_recession
The problem is that now, people who wish to vacation in a spot that is not dangerous will skip Arizona because of all the crazies we've got roaming the streets.
-
Earthdayaz 01/19/2011 8:38:00 PM
This is where the Tea Baggers are wrong. Spending a little now to stop spending a lot down the road is a economic theory that's a little to high for their low-brow heads to be aware of.
Housing people who are convicted of violating laws created to convict otherwise non-prison type crimes is extremely expensive. 70% of all inmates are there for illegal drug use. Spending a small amount up front with drug rehab cuts millions out of the budget for incarceration. The whole illegal drug racket is just that - a racket - designed to make the people who invest in commercial prisons and drug importation schemes rich.
-
David 01/19/2011 7:02:00 PM
"It was once stated by the founding fathers, that it is the duty of every American to own guns."
Please site exactly where I can find this exact phrase, I would love to print it out and show all of my gun fearing co-workers that it is our duty to own own.
Thank You
-
Guest 01/19/2011 6:59:00 PM
Tourists by the very definition of the term are not tight with their money. Someone who is tight with their money would not spend it an frivolity.
Golf as much as anyone does not want to admit it is a LUXURY item.
You do not need to golf to survive so it is not a Necessity so that makes it a Luxury.
From how you are stating this you appear to be a small business owner who is dependent on Tourism to make your money.
Is this a correct assumption?
-
Guest 01/19/2011 6:54:00 PM
From the tone of your prose you sound like you are a small business owner.
Is this correct?
-
Johnny Ringo 01/19/2011 6:17:00 PM
Facts! Just the facts mam.
-
Johnny Ringo 01/19/2011 6:16:00 PM
So continuing your argument, if you want to keep welfare services will you increase the sales tax on diapers? Where will it end???
The realistic idea is cutting spending. It's not rocket science. Services across the board will have to take a hit. That's what happens when you have irresponsible government continuing to create and fund entitlement programs. Look at all the AZ state workers who have had to take a hit. Layoffs, no more raises, fur-low days, increased healthcare costs. That's what happens. More of the same will have to be done to get us out. Raising taxes will not solve the problem of over spending.
Do you think there will be no Mental health services? Don't be ridiculous
-
Bubba99 01/19/2011 6:11:00 PM
Jan Brewers response? Your kidding right? The article has some good points and mental health is certianly right at the top of important issues that need good solutions.
However I doubt that these cuts are in any way related to Jared Loughner. I can't see her looking at the situation and saying "Lets cut mental health funding as a response to the shootings in Tuscon."
I'm betting it's just one more of the diffucult cuts this state is facing due to the current budget shortfall. There is never a good place to cut money, police, fire, parks, mental health, streets, utilities, ect.
I understand it's tough to get sympathy for mental health paitents and since I've had personal experience with my son I also know for a fact that help hard to find.
What most people don't understand when you have a child with emotional or mental health issues it's not usually due to bad parenting. In fact most parents in those situations put in way more effort, time, money ect. to make a difference in the child's life.
Here is my challenge... If you are a parent of an emotionally stable and mentally healthy child what are you doing to teach your child empathy towards those who are less fortunate.
-
Guest 01/19/2011 5:43:00 PM
So you would rather have the same journalistic standards used by William Randolf Hearst and the Hearst news paper empire?
Well it is good to know that FOX news has kept up the WR Hearst journalistic standards.
Oh and "Remember the Maine"
-
Guest 01/19/2011 5:34:00 PM
Where would like to see the funding cuts come from? Lets here your Ideas on how to correct the budget.
I would like to keep the funding for the treatment of mental illness and increase the sales tax on projectiles to pay for it, How do you like that idea.
It is just like a home budget, if you want something and can't afford it but you need it urgently then you go out and make more money. A responsible person would get an additional job and a responsible government entity would increase the taxes on luxury goods and services.
The irresponsible person would get loans that they really can't afford and the irresponsible government entity would like wise get money with a promise to pay it back later.
There thats my idea to fund Mental health without increasing the State deficit whats your idea to balance the budget?
-
Guest 01/19/2011 5:24:00 PM
"But had there been armed security or an armed citizen to take this guy down when he started shooting, many of these people may still be alive. Damn trajedy."
There were armed citizens present when the looney started shooting, they did what everybody else did, take cover till the shooting stopped. Then they assessed the situation and took action, Namely taking down the looney without endangering anyone else.
You Gun nuts really crack me up with the same line of crap, "If I WAS there with MY gun, THEN I WOULD HAVE SHOT HIM before he even got off a single round, then all of you would see me and my gun as the HERO I see myself as already!"
A reasonable gun owner would NOT intentionally open fire on a gun wielder that was IN the middle of/ or behind a group of people unless they had an absolutely clear line of sight to and beyond the target. If you did just open fire with out care of the other people who could be hit then you are no better then the first looney and if someone else was injured by your own action then you would still deserve the full punishment that would be delt out.
-
Guest 01/19/2011 5:10:00 PM
So you are OK with reducing the funding of Mental help services as long as you can SHOOT the person who was not a problem till the support they received was removed?
Would you support a requirement of a mental stability test as part of buying a gun or ammunition?
Would you support the prosecution of a private owner if they sold to someone who is mentally unstable?
Or do you just want the chance to shoot another human being because you have a gun and have not yet had a mental illness?
-
cajungman 01/19/2011 3:39:00 PM
get a grip brian bama walk into a night mare when bush left off ice instead of trying to come up with answer asswipes like you want to blame somebody.
-
cajungman 01/19/2011 3:24:00 PM
i love all women,my mother told a long time ago to respect women but this one dum woman cant talk prob-ly cant wipe herself clen without help from uncle russel between the 2 this state is domed instead of trying to work with the feds and our president she does the opposite i sure wish somebody wold tell that frog the old saying you more flies with sugar than you get with salt water but once an idiot always an idiot.
-
Ronnie434 01/19/2011 2:04:00 PM
This is thoughtful, top-notch journalism and I thank the writers for taking the time not to scream and shout about everything.
-
01/19/2011 12:20:00 PM
your a fucking parrot..you hear and believe with out fact..and talk like a parrot
-
sickofit 01/19/2011 11:53:00 AM
another socialist pundit who believes that the working class should pay for the worthless class' problems. how bout this? we stop GIVING these worthless pieces of crap welfare, housing, and free health care,they starve or migrate to some where else.
-
01/19/2011 9:18:00 AM
Kathy,
First, if you are who I think you are, and even if you aren't, I am deeply sorry for your loss.
If the individual is as mentally unstable as he appears to be, honestly I doubt anything would have dissuaded him. He seems to have accepted as a fact before anything began that he was going to be killed or caught.
Most people who are armed, don't look to drawing their guns first. It is a misconception, and something perpetuated by those who disagree with a lawful citizen owning and carrying a firearm. Those who receive training and are responsible gun owners are taught to avoid drawing their firearm if possible, and instead be a good witness for police unless absolutely necessary. There are so many ramifications for discharging a firearm, even with cause that it is not the preferred first step. Only in the movies do we see the shoot first, ask questions later gun owner.
If I had been there, I would likely not have drawn as well with all the people around. In any gun fight, even with proper training an estimated 75% are misses. With a crowd around, you have to be sure of your shot, your target, and know what is behind it.
The term semi automatic is thrown around a lot by people and the media who are adverse to guns in general. Being semi automatic does not determine the lethality of a firearm, or how much damage it can inflict. It just means that you the gun will fire one round as fast as you can pull the trigger. It is a term used to demonize firearms, as if the feature itself was unnecessary or evil.
In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compare to the 10.4% drop for the rest of Georgia as a whole. A study showed that 57% of felons agreed that they were more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into police. And 74% stated that the reason that burglars avoid homes when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime. In the twenty-five years following the DC gun ban, its murder rate increased 51%, while the national rate decreased 36%. Guns will not deter every crime, but they do act to deter crime when criminals know that the general public in an area is more likely to have a gun than not. If someone who is mentally unstable, or just someone who is intent on killing large amounts of people is committed themselves to do so no matter what the consequence, it is foolish to think that any one thing could deter them. But every year, over a million instances occur in the United States where an individual draws a firearm in self defense. Whether people like guns or not, they do save lives as well. And while they may not deter someone from committing a crime in each instance, they do offer the individual carrying them a chance to not become the next victim. And that is a right that I believe should be preserved.
-
01/19/2011 9:14:00 AM
Site is messing up my posting dang it.
-
01/19/2011 8:38:00 AM
Which is why you should exercise your Second Amendment rights, and purchase a firearm to protect yourself and your family. Get yourself trained through the available programs, and become a responsible gun owner, and join the ranks of millions of us in this state.
-
01/19/2011 8:36:00 AM
I keep looking for statistics on the efficacy of semi automatic weapons used as effective deterrents for criminals using semi automatic weapons in the types of crimes we saw here in Tucson. As I understand it, one of the men who "took down" this mentally deranged killer was armed but didn't draw his weapon. How would someone else with a semi automatic weapon have been able to either prevent or minimize the damage from Loughner's crime?
-
01/19/2011 8:32:00 AM
It was once stated by the founding fathers, that it is the duty of every American to own guns.
I get people who aren't comfortable with guns, that is okay. However, those who oppose them to the point that they expect that other peoples rights should be lessened because of their moral objections are the bottom end of the intellectual spectrum.
It is a fact that those areas of the country that are more friendly to the Second Amendment have lower instances of gun related crime. If you don't believe me, check out Washington D.C. where guns are pretty much illegal, but people get killed by them all the time, and not by people with mental issues, just people who are the lowest common denominator of society.
In speaking with one individual some years ago who used to commit home invasions, he told me that the one place he wouldn't go to rob was Sun City. When I asked why, he told me that all the old people there had guns because so many used to be military, and he was not willing to break into a house where he was so likely to get shot.
I would say Brewer and the legislature care more deeply about the actual safety of the common Arizona citizen, than they care about panhandling to the misinformed and misguided in our society who believe only criminals should have guns, and we should run on a budget deficit forever.
-
01/19/2011 8:31:00 AM
As the middle child sister of a paranoid schizophrenic on one end and a murder victim in the state of AZ on the other, I can tell you that the men who murdered my sister receive FAR more of my taxpayer dollars than my living, innocent mentally ill brother has or ever will. And if my brother still lived in the state of AZ, he would likely be outlived by the men who have lived on DEATH ROW for the last 20 years at the expense of taxpayers for the murder of our sister. Due to the serious absence of services for him here.. Millions, literally millions of taxpayer dollars spent on fighting for murderers and keeping them clothed and fed and a murder victim's family can't get admitted to any hospital here no matter how sick he is. Not to mention that his mental illness exacerbated because of the murder. That's some irony for ya right there. Good food for thought Amy and Paul.
-
01/19/2011 8:22:00 AM
So during a recession, where people are already tight with their money, we want to tax golf courses: an industry that brings in tourists, and their out of state money into our state? We want to make them pass on more costs to tourists who will then have less money to spend at the other small business locations in the area? We want to tax them enough to discourage them into going to Florida, California, or Nevada instead? Bravo, on thinking outside the box on that one.
-
01/19/2011 8:17:00 AM
The only damage done to our economy in any way is those whose business catered to illegals in the first place. More people are upset because of Obama and the burden he is placing on small business with his health care reform than are mad at Brewer. The only ones mad at her are 1) people who shouldn't be here in the first place, and 2) people who pander to and side with the first group. Because of the new health care regulations, businesses that barely make any money already are going to have to close their doors rather than pay for employee health care programs. Which means small business's and those in the lower income groups will be hit hardest. And the strip malls have been empty since before Brewer, but since the government was giving away so much free stuff (that now we have to pay for) no one cared.
-
01/19/2011 8:06:00 AM
Was there ever a time where journalism was as noble as they like to portray? It used to be that they covered stories, and printed them for the industrial machine that owned them. Now they post for the liberal machine. Stories are written, not to show truth, but to substantiate a conclusion that the writer wants the populous to agree with. It is tragic the rights, and the liberties that those in the industry take, with no regard to truth or the consequences of their actions. And if people want to know who to blame for the cuts, look to who is running Homeland Security. Before she jumped ship and ran off, she was a huge reason for the condition the state is in. The same people who bash Brewer right now, are the same ones leaping to the defense of Obama for his mishandling of the economy, raging how he is just cleaning up the mess Bush left for him. Cuts have to be made, and they have to come from somewhere. Either suck it up, or vote to raise your taxes. Years of overspending has to be overcome. And if a politician is popular in all their choices, it means they aren't doing their job. Our government is democratic, not socialist. Which means that it was the intent when the country was created for the government to be as small and as limited as possible. It was not a vehicle to ensure that people didn't have to worry about taking care of their own affairs, or shift the burden of being responsible for the choices of individuals to the rest of society. But anytime you have a system built on robbing Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul. And right now it is Paul who is complaining about the cuts, they expected Peter to pay for.
The founding fathers would be the first to cry for a revolution if they saw how big the government has become. The government has expanded to meet the needs of the government, and we have let them eat away at our freedoms in doing so. We have sacrificed what made this country great, for our own comfort out of sheer laziness to do anything on our own. We hold our politicians accountable, but not ourselves.
And as a side note, the fact that the writers would choose to use this tragedy as a such an obvious one-sided political tool is appalling and in the poorest of tastes. These tragedies did not occur because one point in the process failed, or because the government could have foreseen or stopped them. They occurred because of a number of factors that intersected perfectly to create the situation. To try to simplify it to such a degree is not only an insult to those who have made the mistake to read their dribble who can think for themselves, it is tragic because invariably no matter how incorrect or biased their assumptions are, someone will believe them.
-
james crocker 01/19/2011 7:01:00 AM
The mentally ill should be cared for by their families, at least enough to turn them over to the state for treatment/imprisonment. The state Department of Corruptions medical provider is inept and very inadequate. They only try to overmedicate patients, and not even try to deal with mental disfunctions.
-
Johnny Ringo 01/19/2011 5:34:00 AM
Dude? LMAO! There's opinion in the title alone. Are you for real? I suppose then, according to your thought process, you favor the article primarily because you like the point? You just wear the t-shirt and it doesn't matter who's right or wrong. Go team go.
You want to capture where I stand? Please no vitriol here. That's incendiary.
We don't have the money! How are you going to continue funding things with money we don't have? You don't have the money to buy the new 52" tv...guess what you don't buy it. Or maybe you just pile of the credit cards and then file for bankruptcy. Oh wait, that's pretty much what got us into this.
As far as the risks vs. reward...um your mean, er, like living? Yes I'll risk the whack-job killing spree, since hmm, the odds of that happening are lets see astronomical! I suppose I'll take the bigger risk of driving my car everyday on our freeways and hope the tax money is put to good use with DOT and DPS.
By the way here's definition - still don't see the connection to this article.
New Journalism was a style of 1960s and 1970s news writing and journalism which used literary techniques deemed unconventional at the time. The term was codified with its current meaning by Tom Wolfe in a 1973 collection of journalism articles he published as The New Journalism, which included works by himself, Truman Capote, Hunter S. Thompson, Norman Mailer, Joan Didion, Robert Christgau, and others.
-
Kit Carson 01/19/2011 5:08:00 AM
Dude, you're just plain wrong.
The ACLU was not involved in with this guy, and if they were, they couldn't have won him the right not to take his meds.
Look here for more information: http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/spring03/forcedmedication.html
"In the context of the criminal justice system, however, incarcerated individuals-even those who are awaiting trial and still retain the presumption of innocence-have a reduced right to refuse unwanted medical treatment. Within prison walls the rights of the state must be balanced with the prisoner's right to refuse treatment. Thus, the state may offer a variety of medical and legal reasons to forcibly administer medical treatment to a prisoner, including the need to quell the spread of disease within prison walls; to ensure the physical safety of prisoners and prison personnel; and to "restore" competency to an incompetent defendant so that he may stand trial or even be executed."
It's okay not to know the law, but I sincerely don't understand your contempt for America and the freedoms it protects and respects.
Like the thinking majority of Americans, the ACLU position on Mental Health detention is that it is perfectly fine, perfectly legal, so long as it is done in such a way the leads to fair determinations of mental health.
Learn more here: http://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/mental-health-care
So, rather than just making up claims out of whole cloth, how 'bout next time you do some research in advance?
Ultimately, if you have a problem with the ACLU, then you likely have a problem with the US Constitution, then you should just leave America.
-
Kit Carson 01/19/2011 4:59:00 AM
Dude - google "reportage and new journalism" Learn a thing or two before going all Grumpy Old Man on us. (And by new, we mean something that has been around since the 60's)
There isn't much opinion in this article, and where there is it is dicta, but it is driving towards a point, it's just a point you don't like.
But's lets be clear - you are okay with the occassional massacre if that is what it takes to keep your taxes down. Hey - risk v. reward is a part of life. I just want to capture exactly where you stand.
-
Johnny Ringo 01/19/2011 4:30:00 AM
You two "reporters" are pathetic! Leave your opinions out of the piece and just provide the facts! Cuts have to come from somewhere, anywhere. Do you want to be taxed into oblivion? Where is the money going to come from? Keep taxing and spending, taxing and spending? Blah blah blah...One whack-job gunman and the whole country comes to a complete stop. Go live in Europe if you want to exist in the European state of mind!
-
Johnny 01/19/2011 4:18:00 AM
Amazingly enough, yet not surprising, Jan Brewer is a total hypocrite.
Definition of HYPOCRITE
1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
Don't you have a mentally ill son, Jan Brewer?? Oh wait. You can afford to pay for his services... I'm guessing you believe every other mentally ill person in Arizona can afford to pay for their own services as well.
By the way, didn't you get arrested for DUI a while back? Did you know if a person that owns a liquor license gets a DUI their establishment gets shut down and they will lose their right to own said license permanently?? It's a trust thing. In other words, they can't be trusted to serve liquor properly to the public.
Perhaps you shouldn't be trusted to serve as a politician as well. Why? Oh, you know, the DUI thing. That's right. You are responsible for many more people in this state than a simple bar owner/liquor license holder ever could be.
Sure, an irresponsible bar owner/liquor license holder may screw up badly enough to kill a person or two, or maybe a family, by over serving a patron. But you. You are proposing to unleash as many as 14,600 seriously mentally ill adults to the general public. I wonder how many deaths could arise out of such an act...
Jan Brewer, please do Arizona a favor and resign already. For crying out loud, you can't even keep your composure during a debate or in front of news reporters. What an embarrassment to Arizona you are. Clearly you are not competent enough to perform your job properly. Please, resign ASAP. The sooner you do the better.
Enough said...
-
Carmen 01/19/2011 3:30:00 AM
wow, you people are screwed, you got your heads so far stuck up your ass all you see is shit, if you spent 1/10th of what you spend on military and ways to kill each other we could all have decent health care. you deserve gun happy nut jobs and i hope you get more of them
-
01/19/2011 2:57:00 AM
How on earth are you comparing a standard carjacker with an assassin?
It is really easy to be a little bitch and complain about a decision when you are not facing the very real budget crunch. Oh, and it had NOTHING to do with the shooting, so calling it a "response" to it is just plain bullshit journalism on the part of Paul and Amy. (It took TWO people to write this bullshit article? Holy shit. When you are so bad at writing that you can't even write a BLOG by yourself, you KNOW it is time to head for the welfare lines.
-
blackHat 01/19/2011 2:39:00 AM
You're right in the sense that it's not a gun problem. Furthermore, Loughner's case doesn't represent an intrinsic flaw in the system, nor the dereliction of any particular authorities. The Glock he used was obtained legally, and the telltale signs of mental illness are all hindsight anecdotes, none of them egregious enough to warrant mandatory treatment at the time. That "something was off about him" doesn't qualify someone as a future mass-murderer, and i should hope it never does. Perhaps more security at Giffords' event would have resulted in fewer people dead or injured, but that's really all that could have been done differently. As for the Pima County Sheriff, i'm not sure why you say he should be removed from his position. As far as i've read, there was no dereliction of duty on his part. While it may be true that some mentally ill people cannot be cured, i'm not hearing you propose a solution. i object, also, to your statement about child molesters; not because i have any sympathy for them, but because the facts simply don't support it. Yes, there are *some* pathological paedophiles for whom treatment continually fails, but many, many more are one-time offenders who do their time and don't wind up back in the system.
However, i think your main gripe is fundamentally intertwined with your ignorance of the way the justice system works (not that it works all the time, but i digress). In every state's penal code there are statutes that determine the minimum and maximum sentence a judge can hand down for a given charge. How did Molina rack up 7 felonies, yet was on the street? Quite easily. Not all felonies carry lengthy prison sentences, (though we know from the article above, he did do 7 years at one point). Some felonies are only a year, some are a few months. Molina wasn't exactly a kid, and he had an extensive criminal history. However, many of his crimes could have been prevented with just a bit more practical mental health care. We'll never know if his illness or criminal behaviour was incurable, but he certainly was neglected by a system whose specific function it was to help him.
-
al 01/19/2011 1:57:00 AM
and every time his liberal lawyer fought for his "rights" to get him released. the ACLU made sure that he couldn't be forced to take his medication and made sure he had to be released from the mental hospital when he "was no longer a threat to himself or others" so just another article from the NT bashing republicans, bad mouthing cops and promoting pot.
-
barney 01/19/2011 1:49:00 AM
Don't be silly. According to present law, unless a person breaks significant laws, or until that person seeks mental health care themselves, they are free to do what they want. No amount of money thrown into providing free healthcare services will do anything for someone who doesn't want it.
-
Stephanieandnina 01/19/2011 12:59:00 AM
I was driving downtown last saturday night and was stopped at a red light off 24th st and van buren and there was was appeared to be a homeless man crossing the street pretending to hold a rifle or something pulling the trigger and everyone and the sky waiving his hands around like crazy and screaming to himself. I thought, My God, if he had a gun right now it would be another shooting spree right here in Phoenx and I would be dead right now.
-
01/19/2011 12:47:00 AM
Dude, I never thought about it like that before, Makes sense dude.
www.anon-tools.edu.tc
-
Joe M. Owens 01/19/2011 12:11:00 AM
If Molina had racked up his 7th felony and was on the street, it was because some half wit judge never did their job and had him locked up long term. Both of these men have obvious mental issues, but dont be naive enough to call this a gun problem or issue, it's not. They could and would have done the same thing or worse with a knife, a bat, or a stolen car. Fact, if Tucson would have had security on scene last week, this would have either been eliminated or at least they could have shot him when he started shooting innocent people. The Tucson sheriff should be looking for a job right now. Some people are just mentally not right, and frankly I dont believe you can cure them. Child molesters are a great case in point, they just keep doing it regardless of their punishment. History has shown that countless times, yet the justice system continues to let them go? I feel deep sorrow for those innocent victims and their poor families. But had there been armed security or an armed citizen to take this guy down when he started shooting, many of these people may still be alive. Damn trajedy.
-
LC 01/18/2011 11:54:00 PM
Deport Loughner? To where? He's a US citizen, mentally ill but a citizen that now deserves the Death Penalty.
-
Docbob498th 01/18/2011 11:27:00 PM
Yes, guns are easy to get here. Unfortunately the common sense required to practice, learn the laws regarding the use of deadly force, and know the ballistic data about the ammunition they use, isn't. Might be a safer alternative to wear a kevlar suit.
-
Docbob498th 01/18/2011 11:19:00 PM
You sure they didn't get the captions mixed up.
-
Guest 01/18/2011 10:55:00 PM
Since the election of Even Mecham, a lot of Republican candidates for Governor have aimed their rhetoric at people who had been living in the state for less than 5 years. These people don't have the history or understanding of what is really going on in this state. Ditto to those retirees that come here. They don't understand the history or needs of the state. So these politicians prey on their fears for votes.
Brewer played the same game and she won.
-
01/18/2011 10:49:00 PM
Loveless, your arguement actually goes both ways. Some believe that by giving gun owners more rights we are in fact being empowered to protect ourselves and our families. So from this point of view, the AZ government is in fact looking out for our safety and well being. As for the easy access to guns, I know quite a few people that would list this as one of many reason for living here.
-
Justme 01/18/2011 10:37:00 PM
if the state wouls stop cutting jobs and forcing these companies to cut jobs, then I'd say the economy is on its way up, but as long as the state, county, city and local corporations continue to cut the labor force, our states income is going to be too low and the answer according to the politicians is to cut yet more. When will the jobs stop being cut and the state take some responsibility? No jobs = lost wages = more unemployment = budget downfalls = states inability to survive costs = people leave state = taxes are not collected = homes and business's close their doors, and then it start over
-
Justme 01/18/2011 10:18:00 PM
maybe 20 years ago, but she has turned into a hateful person, and all the Photoshop improvements means nothing when the hearth has so much hate in it. I think Jan Brewer needs to be forced into seeing a Psychiatrist, she seems to have enough hate bottled up inside her that it makes her one of the ugliest animals on this rock.
-
Justme 01/18/2011 10:15:00 PM
I feel that when someone shows that kind of hate against others, that they should not be allowed to deny the help they despirately need.
-
Justme 01/18/2011 10:13:00 PM
Loveless, you have a very good point... Why would business's want to move here and hire, when the state openly denies the facts that Arizona is nothing more then a bigamist state anymore. This state use to be one of the best states to live in, but now it is ranked as the worst... thanks to politicians that think they are special and we are garbage. Now a Representative lies on a death bed and several already died for the legislatures "Budget Cuts".... Problem is it isn't going to stop, unless the entire populace of Arizona stands up and shows their courrage to stop this governmental hate game against it's citizens.
-
Justme 01/18/2011 10:05:00 PM
I think that the state is not looking at the mental health issue, all the state is doing is paying an arm and leg to keep Gifford alive, but never gave a second thought to the people that have to pay for that. This is why I feel that any politician that thinks of cutting the peoples health and welfare, should also be forced to adhere to the same things. Now if Moline was critically wounded and died, but Gifford was also critically wounded but is still alive tells us that a politician has the right to life and the public has a right to die clause in our government. I feel our politicains need to learn to old rules again, "Lead by Example" not by "My life is worth more then yours and I get special privileges that you don't deserve". Time to force these politicians to have the same coverages that they force upon the people, and no more of this "Special Treatment/Privileges". Come on People the politicians are an elected individual, and if they do a bad job, you the people vote them out just like firing them, and that means they get no added bonuses, no more medical, no more special treatments, and definitely no more Retirement, just like the common person.
-
Nreep 01/18/2011 9:54:00 PM
Unfortunately a lot of the people who need psychriactic care refuse it. Some recognize their need and receive it. It is great for the people who recognize their need. On the flip side it is often tragic that those who need it the most do not recognize their need until after they do something as drastic as this. This young man probably would have refused treatment if it had been suggested that he needed it. While I feel bad for him, my heart goes out to his parents. They have to be so heartbroken beyond words.
-
Fred Rawe 01/18/2011 9:42:00 PM
Is that really Jan Brewer? Talk about working overtime with Photoshop!
-
Mgpari 01/18/2011 9:33:00 PM
There's only excuses about mentally, see the reality people is getting sick of all the politicians and political hate. Jan Brewer is one of those, racist and her discriminatory laws.
-
01/18/2011 9:29:00 PM
Thanks for the well written article. Brewer and the AZ legislature clearly don't care about the safety and well being of Arizonans. They also clearly don't understand what cost-saving measures pro-active intervention can be. Cut the case manager to save some pennies, incur thousands of dollars in costs for resulting inpatient care, for example. It's idiotic and it's dangerous. And why again would anyone want to move here or do business here, when we have mentally ill people with easy access to guns?
