Daily Archives: April 15, 2008

Times Argus Ho-Hum on Astonishing Taser Statement from Attorney General

I’m not sure what to make of this, but I damn sure want to find out.

Yesterday’s Times Argus editorial was another milquetoast affair, blandly dancing around the notion that tasers seem like a good idea in cases where an individual (either law enforcement or civilian) life may be threatened  – but refusing to firmly or authoritatively address where the restrictions on use should be drawn, what punishments should greet those officers that deviate from them, and whether we should spend any time considering the clear infractions that have already occurred. Instead, we were greeted to what amounts to yet another easy restatement of cookie-cutter common sense, all in the vague defense of Attorney General Sorrell’s perpetual refusal to hold any police officer anywhere in the state accountable for any excesses, ever.

Except for one truly astonishing line which the TA drops as casually as they might drop a byline:

Critics of Taser use say Tasers have caused fatalities or serious injuries, but Sorrell said that just last year there were hundreds of instances of Taser use in Vermont with only one minor injury.

Say what?!?! Hundreds???

Lets take that value at its most minimal, and assume “hundreds” only means around two “hundreds.” That’s approximately 4 tasings in Vermont every week. And “one minor injury?” Says who? Who is defining “minor?” What was the injury? In fact, what is this “Sorrell says…” business? What is the source of this figure?? As definitive as its presented, it had better be more meaningfully sourced than Sorrell’s so-vague-as-to-be-meaningless line from his press conference from the other day (you know, the one where he contradictorily insisted we couldn’t have statewide standards for taser use, but went on to define which current tasings reported in the media could be considered appropriate, and to what degree? Please.).

Now consider two things.

ONE: Tasers are a use of force – something supposed to be a “last resort.” When someone is in danger of life or limb. According to the Attorney General and the Times Argus, this condition is now being met at least 4 times a week in Vermont? What massive cultural shift has occurred in the state of Vermont to so dramatically change things from the era before tasers (last decade) to now, to create such an apocalyptic transormation in our public safety? Should I be letting my kid play outside under such circumstances?

TWO: Which is more disturbing, that the AG apparently felt no compunction about cranking this sorely-in-need-of-sourcing (it happens “hundreds of times”) rationalization out for public consumption, or that the Times Argus – our beloved fourth estate – didn’t even stop to think about the actual implications of what they were uncritically regurgitating?

To Ponder the Matter of Suicide

As I’ve just posted on iBrattleboro in response to the recent Wardsboro tragedy, I submit the same to fellow readers of Green Mountain Daily:

This entire topic speaks to my heart.  Vincent Van Gogh once wrote in a letter (1898) to his brother, Theo; “As for me you must know that I shouldn’t precisely have chosen madness if there had been any choice.  What consoles me is that I am beginning to consider madness as an illness like any other, and that I accept it as such”.  The word “madness” in this case is interchangeable with any other mental health label.

It’s all about ignorance and stigma, fear of what we don’t know and generalizations of what mental illness is all about.  A NAMI quote often used is “The most shocking thing about mental illness is how little people understand it.”   (Two meaningful ways to interpret that quote.)

With the utmost respect for the family of this woman and her two children, I have to say that I find it unbelievable that there were no indications of any underlying illness.  It is more that no one recognized them for what they were, or, if the signs were recognized, what became most important was the reality that many people feel they must keep this type of illness a secret.  The stigma is unbearable for most people.  Credibility is lost, blame is often times assigned, and the resulting reactions and opinion of the families, friends and society in general is one of fear, disgust or cruel indifference.

This is the root of the problem  We cannot expect a man or woman in uniform to be able, in one short interchange, to instantly (or close to it) undo all of these historic and deeply rooted discriminations, denials and indifferences that have been suffered often times, for a lifetime.  Although a mental health professional may be better equipped to try, we all must appreciate the fact that a person who has suffered a long period of time will have already concluded from past experience, that a few moments of compassion, even if that compassion gives any hope that things will one day be better, is fleeting at best.  I’m not implying that nothing can be done to save others from suicide intention, only speaking from a viewpoint that brings an entire history on both a personal level, and a societal level, to that point of running into a church, or a river, or a medicine or gun cabinet.  

I would easily be able to assume that any person who is doing something out of the ordinary, in certain situations, is suffering from mental illness and in a crisis.  To expect that any person can talk someone into or out of an act of one sort or another while in a crisis is expecting the impossible.  I feel we’ve all been mislead into thinking it’s a reasonable expectation.  While it can sometimes work out (I recall someone with a weapon in Brattleboro where the police were in fact able to bring things to a safe and meaningful conclusion) it is certainly nothing that ought to be relied upon as an end all to a crisis being experienced by an individual that for the most part, the responders do not know.

I’m not sure what to do about that.  I don’t know what to do about people who are in treatment and despite that, choose suicide.  I can only guess. But, it’s long overdue that we all find ways to embrace all sorts of people and their labels into our lives because I’m feeling that it’s the utter isolation (regardless of the reasons) that shrink a person’s world into one decision to live or die.  Seems to me that when a person’s whole world has become so small, the decision can be an easy one to make.

About  45 years ago, I lost an older sister to suicide.  She had been discharged a week earlier from a hospital.  I had been helping her with her two young children for a short while, and I had over heard a number of conversations she had with other people, that when I look back on, were in fact her final attempts to deal with her underlying disorder (fill in the blank) in some practical ways,  while at the same time, living her life with the responsibilities of parenting and keeping up the appearance of normalcy as best she could.

In the aftermath of her suicide, blame was going around in circles; it was her upbringing; it was her insensitive husband; it was this and it was that. I heard some of this directly from a person who had no idea I was her sister.  I heard about how, even if she had been saved from her suicide attempt, that she’d no longer be seen as a credible or significant member of society. I heard ways in which her children would be ostracized as they grew into adults, and labeled as somehow different from the rest of us even without a label, just for who they had as a mother.

Meantime, still living here with my parents and surviving siblings, too much emphasis was put on hiding this tragedy from our own neighbors; and for those who did find out the truth, that she did not die in some other tragic way (like a car accident; we were supposed to say), we were all held suspect.  Feared and given labels of a different sort ; there must be something “wrong” with all of us – there must be unspeakable things going on in our home – there must be someone to blame for the terrible flaw that no one could see or we, her family, all somehow drove her to her final act.  And all the while, as everyone reacted to this terrible event, they were all showing me the very reason my sister ended up in a world so tiny that her choice may have been one of the easiest of her lifetime.  

No therapist or psychiatrist could have helped her with that reality.  No policeman ,or even an entire swat team, could have saved her, either.  It’s us as a whole; it’s all of us together. Not one single person could have changed a thing.  

As long as the stigma remains so vibrantly alive and the practice of fear, blame, shame and lack of understanding that is born from that, continues to encapsulate lives into tiny, confining spaces, we will continue to hear of these tragedies.

Ensure vs. insure

We’ve had a lot of medical insurance programs put in place over the years around our United States.

I remember when the non-profit medical care system was being dismantled by the feds back in the eighties, and “they” offered us HMOs. Remember? The “H” stood for “Health” and the “M” for “Maintenance”?

These organizations offered low premiums under the guise they’d work with us to keep us out of the emergency rooms and hospitals. The sales line was about prevention and how much less expensive that could be … until they had millions signed up.

And in the end HMO became just another acronym in the insurance business belt.

The newest medical care scam comes to us under the paradigm of mandated health insurance. Both Clinton and Obama have some variation of this. States are diving into this mandated medical insurance cesspool under the guise of experimentation.

The idea is to force all of us into purchasing insurance of one sort or another from private companies who’s primary objective is to show profit. As a matter of fact it’s a legal fiduciary responsibility of these investment corporations that they put the welfare of those who earn money off them ahead of those they insure!

Here’s a great example:

Health insurance companies are rapidly adopting a new pricing system for very expensive drugs, asking patients to pay hundreds and even thousands of dollars for prescriptions for medications that may save their lives or slow the progress of serious diseases.

With the new pricing system, insurers abandoned the traditional arrangement that has patients pay a fixed amount, like $10, $20 or $30 for a prescription, no matter what the drug’s actual cost. Instead, they are charging patients a percentage of the cost of certain high-priced drugs, usually 20 to 33 percent, which can amount to thousands of dollars a month.

. . .

Insurers say the new system keeps everyone’s premiums down at a time when some of the most innovative and promising new treatments for conditions like cancer and rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis can cost $100,000 and more a year.

(Co-Payments Soar for Drugs With High Prices, NY Times, 04/14/08)

Once upon a time insurance was about shared risk, but apparently now they’re about keeping costs down … for some. And of course they’re very much about profit (see here and here for examples).

What do all the above have in common? It’s all about insurance, and deliberately ignores ENsurance (yeah – made that word up – but it ought to make it into the mainstream lexicon).

As Europe and Canada have proven time and again: when dealing something as universal as the need the for medical care, the best insurance is a nationwide and paid for on a national level (yes … taxes).

That is the only insurance that can provide ensurance that we will all have access to appropriate medical care in times of injury and illness.

Insurance programs, even those as we have in here in Vermont, will never do it.

State of Vermont Linked to Sweatshops. (Yes, I said sweatshops)

You.  Have.  Got.  To.  Be.  Kidding.  Me.

Per The Rutland Herald:

t least three companies that contract with the state of Vermont for clothes and other materials are linked to overseas sweatshops, according to human rights advocates.

Several U.S. companies that recently supplied the state with shoes, boots, uniforms and other work-related clothes have some of their materials made in factories where there are reports of forced overtime, poor ventilation, union busting and even death, activists said.

“It does appear that the state of Vermont contracts with companies that are linked to sweatshops,” said Martin Cohn of Brattleboro, the owner of a public relations firm that conducted the research. “That means our taxpayer dollars are going to subsidize overseas sweatshops.”

Yikes.

On the plus side, this seems to be ready to change in the future, but, I mean, really.  Doesn’t anyone even care with whom they do business?  And can’t we find someone, you know, in Vermont who produces work clothes?  If not Vermont, can’t we at least find someone in ^&@! New England?

More from the Herald:

A bill promoted by a group of Brattleboro high school students that would prohibit the state from purchasing clothes from such companies has passed both legislative chambers and is scheduled to be signed into law by Gov. James Douglas.

Robin Orr, the director of internal services at the Vermont Department of Buildings and General Services, said the state never considered if its contractors are linked to sweatshops, but said she is taking this information seriously.

“If these allegations turn out to be true, we will not be contracting with these companies again in the future,” she said Monday.

Once the sweatshop bill is signed into law, all contractors with Vermont will be required to show assurances that the materials don’t have questionable origins. Orr said the state plans to put that into practice as soon as possible.

Why do I get the feeling that “as soon as possible” means “during the next administration?”

Argh.