Robin Williams, Rehab, and... "...how can we allow the fraud of “rehab” to continue?"

...since some people go to rehab and still suffer relapses afterwards, rehab is clearly “ineffective.” Robin Williams actually went to rehab, and shortly thereafter took his own life. Does that not clearly indicate that rehab is not only ineffective, but downright harmful? In addition, there are surely people who consume alcohol or use illicit drugs but are still able to function and make productive contributions to society — so there is obviously nothing inherently wrong with alcohol or drugs. Allowing people who struggle with their alcohol or drug use to seek professional help to discontinue them implies there is something wrong with them — thus reinforcing the unfair social stigma which attaches to people who use alcohol and drugs. And surely “family intervention” to force someone into rehab is a violation of their personal autonomy. In light of all these concerns, how can we allow the fraud of “rehab” to continue?

Source: FRC Blog » Robin Williams, Rehab, and Reorientation.

Tom1

Tom Usher

We've been arguing for years that the standards applied against Sexual-Orientation-Change Efforts (SOCE) are not demanded of any other treatments. Why the double standard/hypocrisy? If SOCE must be subjected to standards that can be applied to any and all other treatments under the same "logic" that forces those standards on SOCE, then all other treatments must be subjected to exactly those same standards or something evil is afoot.

By the way, the following is part of the more than compelling reason that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to "marry" under the law:

Why would someone want to change their sexual orientation? ... Some have legitimate concern about the well-documented health problems associated with homosexual conduct (especially among men), such as high rates of sexually transmitted diseases, of which HIV/AIDS is only one example.

Other reasons, among many, are the extremely high rates of infidelity and dissolution within such unions.

The point is that legally sanctioning such unions as being on par with the goal and/or right of heterosexual marriages, sends a decidedly detrimental signal to the youth of the nation that all is fine with homosex because a little tweaking here and there can readily fix whatever has been going wrong with homosexuals who want to "marry" or are "married" or don't want to marry at all. The rare exceptions, if there truly are any, make the rule. The truth though, as I've stated time and time again, is that homosexuality is itself a mental disease, just as were Robin Williams' various addictions into which he unfortunately relapsed.

I do hope that the lawyers arguing against same-sex marriage before the various federal appellate courts have the sense to raise these fundamental points. If not, the nation will have to suffer through a long and harmful learning curve. Tradition and procreation (as central as that has been to the idea/point of marriage) are not the main reasons to block same-sex marriage.

Just read how thickheaded some judges can be though: "Judges blast Ind., Wis. gay marriage bans." Pray for the nation that it doesn't continue its terrible slide further into Hell on Earth.

The lawyers and judges {for instance: Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Timothy Samuelson, Judge Richard Posner (7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals), and Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fischer} didn't even argue what matters most. Heaven help us.

And of course, being raised by both father and mother together is superior, regardless of what some poorly designed "studies" attempt to suggest. See: New Australian Study Can't Tell Same-Sex Parenting Better: Mark Regnerus.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Ishaan Tharoor's Putin Confusion: "Was Putin right about Syria? - The Washington Post"

Ishaan Tharoor correctly quotes President Vladimir Putin from September of 2013:

Mr. right all along and Mr. might catch on

Mr. right all along and Mr. might catch on

A strike [by the US on Syria] would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
...
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria?

Ishaan Tharoor though throws in the following statement that is as ignorant as were the naysayers in September of 2013:

Nor is it necessarily vindication for Putin, who in the past year has turned into the hobgoblin of the liberal world order. As my colleague Adam Taylor wrote this year, the Russian president's op-ed makes awkward reading for Moscow when held up against its own aggressive meddling in Ukraine. Putin's solemnizing over the integrity of international systems is hard to take seriously considering his government's controversial annexation of sovereign Ukrainian territory in March and continued obstruction of a diplomatic resolution to the Ukraine crisis in the U.N. Security Council.

Was Putin right about Syria? - The Washington Post.

Ishaan Tharoor is paying homage to Vladimir Putin for having been right about Syria, which of course he was and remains, while at the same time Ishaan states emphatically that Vladimir has been "meddling" in Ukraine. I hope people can see the problem here.

Let me make it clear. Mr. Putin was, and still is, correct concerning Ukraine. Perhaps Mr. Tharoor hasn't availed himself of the open knowledge that the Kiev regime is heavily weighted with Fascists and neoliberals/neoconservatives, who are looking out for themselves and the general welfare of the people as whole be damned.

See also:

Why Obama Should Do a 180 Concerning Assad, Putin, Ukraine, Iran, Israel

The Putin Doctrine, Tom's take: "Putin Has Stumbled in Ukraine"? | The St. Petersburg Times

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

On: "Colonization by Bankruptcy: The High-stakes Chess Match for Argentina" and More

Ellen Brown is closing in on getting it. She only has a minor hangup regarding interest, per se. Even if the Public Bank returns it to the people's government or system that isn't about the elites, it remains not only unnecessary but subject to Michael Hudson's critique of the interest-system.

Ellen Hodgson Brown

Ellen Hodgson Brown

As much as I admire Ellen (and I do), Ellen wants to leave the decisions in the hands of commercial bankers working with the Public Banks she envisions. I want the decision making moved to the people as directly as possible: grassroots up.

Colonization by Bankruptcy: The High-stakes Chess Match for Argentina | WEB OF DEBT BLOG.

I've been having a closed discussion/debate with several MMTers (Modern Money Theorists), some of which I've posted previously: Modern Money Theorists Need Instructional Videos!

In that discussion, I've brought up Public Banking, interest-free United States Notes, grassroots democracy replacing the commercial-banking system, a new monetary authority replacing the current Federal Reserve System, and a number of other topics.

When I get more time, I'll try to update the blog with my side of the conversation.

I'd post the whole thing, but as I said, it's a closed discussion. I haven't and won't be revealing the names of the participants without their prior written approval.

Posted in Monetary Reform, United States Notes | Leave a comment