This was posted on a website that I go to sometimes it kinda talks about a question that Liquid raised in another thread. The twist is different but scary just the same.
Prison Planet | January 10 2005
A story that ’s been circulating for the last few days centers around Senator Bill Frist and a proposed plan to introduce a bill that would define political paranoia as a mental disorder.
What does that mean? If you think raping Iraqi children is wrong, you ’re insane, if you think making Iraqis jump off a bridge for breaking a curfew is wrong you ’re insane, if you think people being arrested under the Patriot Act for playing with toy lasers is wrong you ’re insane, if you think pregnant women being beaten and arrested for talking too loudly on a cellphone is wrong you ’re insane. If you think people in wheelchairs being tasered is wrong you ’re insane.
Even without such a bill the attitudes and labels being thrown around by the establishment media and shock-jock Neo-Con, Neo-Fascist talk show hosts have created an Orwellian double standard whereby we should support the government because they are spreading 'freedom' while taking our freedom away.
Is the propoed bill real? The only source we can find on this at the moment is a left-wing website called the Swift Report, which seemingly carries some serious stories and some which look like satire. If anyone can dig out either way whether this is accurate or not we would appreciate the help. Calling Frist's office in Tennessee is probably going to be of little value. We called earlier today and all you get is an automated system asking you to leave a message (how's that for representative government!)
However, if this is true just think of the implications. This is what the Soviets did, they defined opposition to the government as mental instability and then imprisoned people on that basis. In the United Kingdom similar legislation is already being passed. The Mental Capacity Bill defines mental illness as the inability to make a decision even if that ’s temporary. So if you ’ve had one too many whiskies, they can burst in your home, call you mentally incapacitated, grab you and imprison you indefinitely.
So even if this isn ’t true we ’ve seen moves in the past, and in fact top Soviet defectors have gone on record to warn about it, that they want to define basic political activism or opposition to authority as mental instability.
We hope to have full confirmation on whether the bill is legitimate or not in due course.
I've heard of this potential bill, as well. I'm not certain if it is valid or not. However, the goal is nothing new.
It seems to be of the same stink that gave rise to the "New Freedom Initiative". This is one of Bush's brain childs that would require national screening for mental illness, and mandated medication and treatment.
To me this just seems like another hook for the all powerful pharmaceutical industry (who funds this government's players quite nicely). It also seems to be another move to make political dissent illegal, if not an "illness"..
Truly a phuqing mockery of what is advertised as a just system. Guess I'll need to take some Paxil, or Xanax and just let it go...
New Freedom Initiative
I have heard of that one to.
Congressman Ron Paul was like the only goverment official fighting against it.
billy, just went to both Frist's website and the US senate website..I checked all submitted senate bills for the 106th and 107th congresses..while I was disturbed by the number of clearly Christian influenced bills, there was nothing of what you spoke of... I could be wrong but I think it a hoax
remember, even though the house cards are stacked, any bill still has to be introduced, debated, committee-ed ( both houses) floored, voted, conferenced, reworded, voted and passed.....they want to make political dissent a mental illness by the time it gets passed no one in this country will hold any delusions about where our "leadership" is taking us...if we still are asleep, we get what we deserve
wish they had done that with patriot act 1 and 2.
I hope it is a hoax.
This would be an Orwellian nightmare to the extreme if it were true.
only time will tell.
worry not about phantom goblins..there are enough real demons about to keep an eye on
I agree but with all the disinfo and propaganda out there it gets real hard to sort it out.
If any such bill is going to pass, it is most likely going to do so in incriments, piggybacked upon bills that have nothing to do with "political paranoia." Or it will be contained within another one of those omnibus 1200 page anti-terror/Homeland Security bills that gets passed but probably not really read by Congress in a 5 day railroad session...Like as most people know, Patriot 2 failed in 2003, but what happened is that the 2004 Intelligence Reform Bill is a watered down version of Patriot 2....so, expect that once a director is chosen as the National Intelligence Director, and the Anti-Terror Command Center is up and fully operational....oh, wait, I better not say anything else.....the government might be listening....actually, I'm pretty certain they have an account on Tribe....
I'd say youre right on mark with this one.
Piggybacking is a perfect way to dupe the masses.
I'm pretty certain they have an account on Tribe....
I would say youre right on this one too.
o come on kids...think big.
the don't 'have an account'
they own it.
naw..political chat is no fun, they are all in the kiddie porn chat sites
"In the United Kingdom similar legislation is already being passed."
I can find no mention of this anywhere. Maybe the article was written in 2006.
lets try and find a source...doesn't seem to come up on google news.
either way, frist is a real grade-A jackass.
Blog with some info on the story...
....actually, its quite entertaining....lots of good little political tidbits and links to specific matters of the posts...
The Actual Swift Report
And the Disinfo...
IF, and this is a big IF, this was a real thing going on...does anyone honestly think that the Conservatives, who are in complete control, would publicize such a mandate before its passage? I mean, come on, such a move is political suicide...it it was defined that "political paranoia" was a "mental illness," half the nation would be medicated or locked up...
...then again....it has become accepted by the dominating half of American politics that dissenting opinions, anyone who is not a Christian, and Liberals are all UnAmerican, Terrorist-Loving, UnPatriotic Heathensd.....
...hmmm...that makes me wonder.....paranoid liberals talking about an unconfirmed bill making "political paranoia" a mental illness versus Fundamentalists who believe that anyone who doesn't follow their mindset should be silenced and made to dissappear, any way possible....
frist is a cat-killer. he seems like a potential eugenicist to me...
does anyone honestly think that the Conservatives, who are in complete control, would publicize such a mandate before its passage? I mean, come on, such a move is political suicide
Look at how they have been running the Country so far.
this adminstration has given the biggest fuck you to the american people in history as far as I know any way.
I think they would try and push something like this through if they wanted to.
People are waking up and seeing what is happening not just in our goverment but in their own. the more educated we get the more dangerous we become to them.
* or the more useless we become*
Many of us are putting the pieces together not just here in this country but world wide.
This would be the perfect law to put people back in thier place and shut them up. Fear is a powerful tool, fake terror alerts are not doing it any more so they have to do something.
"New Freedom Initiative".
this too was considered disinfo when it was first exposed, but it is now on the books.
When the guys on prisonplanet.com put that one out there they were accused of disinfo then too...... but now its for real.
I have found that Alex Jones and company as korny as their approach is, is almost allways dead on.
They were not claiming it was a real they were just asking the question and asking people for more info!!!!
qoute from prisoplanet artical. Is the propoed bill real? The only source we can find on this at the moment is a left-wing website called the Swift Report,
I dont think this should get them labeled as disinfo.
I get touchy bout these guys they have never steered me wrong.
i agree, basically things that sound conspiratorial have often turned out to be actual policy initiatives of the DC Republicans in the last 4 years. this kind of thing is surely not out of line with the bushes and frists' governing philosophy.
Does anyone have a non-blog link to this story?
I searched for "political paranoia" AND Frist and didn't find any on yahoo...
This is a Trojon horse in my opinion but for what I cant say.
Bush plans to screen whole U.S. population for mental illness
Sweeping initiative links diagnoses to treatment with specific drugs
Posted: June 21, 2004
5:00 p.m. Eastern
By Jeanne Lenzer
© 2004 Jeanne Lenzer
A sweeping mental health initiative will be unveiled by President George W Bush in July. The plan promises to integrate mentally ill patients fully into the community by providing "services in the community, rather than institutions," according to a March 2004 progress report entitled New Freedom Initiative (www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ne...2004.html). While some praise the plan's goals, others say it protects the profits of drug companies at the expense of the public.
Bush established the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health in April 2002 to conduct a "comprehensive study of the United States mental health service delivery system." The commission issued its recommendations in July 2003. Bush instructed more than 25 federal agencies to develop an implementation plan based on those recommendations.
The president's commission found that "despite their prevalence, mental disorders often go undiagnosed" and recommended comprehensive mental health screening for "consumers of all ages," including preschool children. According to the commission, "Each year, young children are expelled from preschools and childcare facilities for severely disruptive behaviours and emotional disorders." Schools, wrote the commission, are in a "key position" to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adults who work at the schools.
The commission also recommended "Linkage [of screening] with treatment and supports" including "state-of-the-art treatments" using "specific medications for specific conditions." The commission commended the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) as a "model" medication treatment plan that "illustrates an evidence-based practice that results in better consumer outcomes."
Dr Darrel Regier, director of research at the American Psychiatric Association (APA), lauded the president's initiative and the Texas project model saying, "What's nice about TMAP is that this is a logical plan based on efficacy data from clinical trials."
He said the association has called for increased funding for implementation of the overall plan.
But the Texas project, which promotes the use of newer, more expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs, sparked off controversy when Allen Jones, an employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General, revealed that key officials with influence over the medication plan in his state received money and perks from drug companies with a stake in the medication algorithm (15 May, p1153). He was sacked this week for speaking to the BMJ and the New York Times.
The Texas project started in 1995 as an alliance of individuals from the pharmaceutical industry, the University of Texas, and the mental health and corrections systems of Texas. The project was funded by a Robert Wood Johnson grant – and by several drug companies.
Mr Jones told the BMJ that the same "political/pharmaceutical alliance" that generated the Texas project was behind the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission, which, according to his whistleblower report, were "poised to consolidate the TMAP effort into a comprehensive national policy to treat mental illness with expensive, patented medications of questionable benefit and deadly side effects, and to force private insurers to pick up more of the tab" (psychrights.org/Drugs/ AllenJonesTMAPJanuary20.pdf).
Larry D Sasich, research associate with Public Citizen in Washington, DC, told the BMJ that studies in both the United States and Great Britain suggest that "using the older drugs first makes sense. There's nothing in the labeling of the newer atypical antipsychotic drugs that suggests they are superior in efficacy to haloperidol [an older "typical" antipsychotic]. There has to be an enormous amount of unnecessary expenditures for the newer drugs."
Olanzapine (trade name Zyprexa), one of the atypical antipsychotic drugs recommended as a first line drug in the Texas algorithm, grossed $4.28bn (£2.35bn) worldwide in 2003 and is Eli Lilly's top selling drug. A 2003 New York Times article by Gardiner Harris reported that 70 percent of olanzapine sales are paid for by government agencies, such as Medicare and Medicaid.
Eli Lilly, manufacturer of olanzapine, has multiple ties to the Bush administration. George Bush Sr. was a member of Lilly's board of directors and Bush Jr. appointed Lilly's chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, to a seat on the Homeland Security Council. Lilly made $1.6m in political contributions in 2000 – 82 percent of which went to Bush and the Republican Party.
Jones points out that the companies that helped to start up the Texas project have been, and still are, big contributors to the election funds of George W Bush. In addition, some members of the New Freedom Commission have served on advisory boards for these same companies, while others have direct ties to the Texas Medication Algorithm Project.
Bush was the governor of Texas during the development of the Texas project, and, during his 2000 presidential campaign, he boasted of his support for the project and the fact that the legislation he passed expanded Medicaid coverage of psychotropic drugs.
Bush is the clear front runner when it comes to drug company contributions. According to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), manufacturers of drugs and health products have contributed $764 274 to the 2004 Bush campaign through their political action committees and employees – far outstripping the $149 400 given to his chief rival, John Kerry, by 26 April.
Drug companies have fared exceedingly well under the Bush administration, according to the centre's spokesperson, Steven Weiss.
The commission's recommendation for increased screening has also been questioned. Robert Whitaker, journalist and author of Mad in America, says that while increased screening "may seem defensible," it could also be seen as "fishing for customers," and that exorbitant spending on new drugs "robs from other forms of care such as job training and shelter programmes."
But Dr Graham Emslie, who helped develop the Texas project, defends screening: "There are good data showing that if you identify kids at an earlier age who are aggressive, you can intervene... and change their trajectory."
Important response to the clinicalisation of forced 'normalcy'
Dont let em do it!
Back in 1989 we dubbed Adbusters "the journal of the mental environment," and since that day we’ve explored this terrain and tried to give it the respectability and prominence it deserves. We’ve watched the "battle of the mind" intensify to the point where thousands of commercial messages per day are now discharged into the average North American brain. We’ve tracked the rise of addictions, anxieties and mood disorders as they have grown into what some public health officials now describe as an "epidemic" of despair. We’ve watched the media megacorps merge, consolidate and vertically integrate until a mere handful of them now control the bulk of all the news and entertainment flows around the planet. Throughout this journey, we’ve marvelled at human resiliency. Just how toxic would the mental environment have to become before some threshold of tolerance was exceeded, and people got pissed off and demanded a cleaner, less cluttered, more democratic mass media?
So far it hasn’t happened. Nobody is throwing their TV set out of the window, in hopes it will land on Rupert Murdoch. No anti-trust legal action is pending against AOL-Time Warner. No media reform movement has gelled. The best that media activists have been able to muster is lots of loose talk about media democracy, public access to the airwaves and a fundamental new human "right to communicate" for this communications age of ours.
But now a number of provocative psychosocial studies have appeared that may rejuvenate this whole debate. These groundbreaking studies point to a growing toxicity in American culture. They suggest that cultural toxins have now reached dangerously high levels, helping to explain the high school shootings, the skyrocketing use of legal and illegal psychoactive drugs, our growing problems with obesity and psychosomatic illness, rage in public places, and the general sense of cynicism and hopelessness that is enveloping our culture.
Yet because these studies are so controversial, because they point an accusing finger at American culture and suggest that the "American Dream" itself may be one of the root causes of our deteriorating mental health, they remain in the margins – disputed, denied and ignored. So, as the journal of the mental environment, we figure it’s up to us to set things straight and give these studies the prominence they deserve. We surveyed 15 of them and in the following pages, offer brief synopses of the most compelling. Detailed summaries of all 15, with references and hyperlinks, can be read here.
This is fascinating, alarming, revolutionary stuff. Enough of this kind of research may finally politicize the mental environment the way Rachel Carson politicized the physical environment 30 years ago. See for yourself. Wade in, be skeptical, but don’t ignore the alarm bells in your head. This new evidence could transform you, if you haven’t already been transformed, into a mental environmentalist, fighting to stop pill-popping American spiritual emptiness from spreading across the globe.
In a fascinating study published in 1998 in the Archives of General Psychiatry, William Vega, an American public health researcher at Rutgers University, showed just how psychologically corrosive American culture can become for those who drop into it from the outside.
Vega focussed on recent immigrants from Mexico. When they first arrived in the US, he found, they were much healthier than the Americans they settled among, with half the incidence of psychological dysfunction. But the longer they stayed, the sicker they got. During the first 13 years, their chance of developing a disorder in their lifetime was 18 percent. After 13 years, whatever cul-tural protection their Mexican heritage offered them had worn off, and their rates of depression, anxiety and drug problems had risen to the same level as the general population’s (32 percent).
Among Mexican-Americans born in the US, meanwhile, the rate of those afflictions soared to 49 percent. Mexican men born in the US were five times as likely as recent immigrants to experience a "major depressive episode." Drug misuse among Mexican women born in the US was seven times as high as that of recent immigrants.
Could it be that Mexicans are somehow uniquely vulnerable to this particular American cultural virus? Apparently not. Other studies have both replicated William Vega’s findings and extended them to other ethnic groups and problems, such as domestic violence. Acknowledging that "components of Mexican culture are protective against mental health problems," Vega concludes that "socialization into American culture and society [will] increase susceptibility to psychiatric disorders."
The findings present a puzzle. The Mexican immigrants Vega studied were better adjusted psychologically, even though they fall far below the US average in education and income. But that’s just the point. Income and education lose their meaning in a world of rising mental expectations and reduced life satisfaction. The former are rooted in our consumerist, media-saturated society, while the latter emerge out of the loss of collective family and community life in the face of American individualism. The real puzzle is how a problem so big can draw almost no attention at all.
If moving to the US tends to put people at risk for psychological afflictions, clearly a strange cultural malaise is at work. And the problem appears to be getting worse.
Social epidemiologist Myrna Weissman at Columbia University, along with a lengthy list of collaborators, has explored this question in detail, looking at the US as well as other countries. Reporting in 1992 and 1996 in JAMA – the Journal of the American Medical Association – Weissman and colleagues found that more and more Americans are becoming depressed, they are getting depressed at a younger age, and the severity and frequency of depression is rising.
These results are neither small nor spurious. Each generation born in the twentieth century has suffered more depression than the previous one and since WWII, the overall rate of depression has more than doubled. A more recent study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry in 2000 and conducted by another team of researchers, showed more than a doubling of depression in women from 1970 to 1992. Psychiatric drug use has skyrocketed as a result. American schoolchildren today are taking four times as many psychiatric meds as all of the rest of the world combined.
What’s going on? The commonly sold narrative is that every instance of the blues, and certainly every case of clinical depression, is the result of some in-born biochemical imbalance – treatable only by serotonin drugs like Prozac. Yet these studies make it clear that something larger is at play. If your brain is indeed out of balance, the source of the trouble may very well reside in your cultural environment, not in your genes.
Fortunately, Congress does not have the ability to create a mental disorder classification. That power rests with the American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the DSM, recognized in North America as the official list of mental disorders. The next edition of DSM will not be out for several years.
Uh, folks, the Swift Report blog is satire. There is no vote at May's APA to add a mental disorder. There will be no new DSM diagnoses for several years, until DSM V comes out. And the DSM specifically excludes political views as a mental disorder-- and exclusion put in because the old Soviet Union sent political dissidents to mental hospitals.
In the future, when you see "Swift" in the name, chances are it is a satire.