birdog1960

i didn't say a resounding success. i said a better alternative than what we have now. there is no resoundingly successful progam of dealing with severe mental illness.

yes. it would be better and perhaps less expensive than using jails as mental hospitals and leaving people that should be committed and are a danger, without care http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/inside-a-mental-hospital-called-jail.html?_r=0

the big problems started in 1981, when reagan rescinded carter's mental health law. http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html. this resulted in a logarithmic increase in private psych hospitals. The final report of the commission to President Carter contained the recommendations upon which the Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 was based. Despite the methodological flaws of the earlier report, the act was considered a landmark in mental health care policy. The key to the proposals included an increase in funding for Community Mental Health Centers and continued federal government support for such programs. But this ran counter to the financial goals of the Reagan administration, these were of c ourse to reduce federal spending, reduce social programs, and transfer responsibility of many if not most government functions to the individual states. So, the law signed by President Carter was rescinded by Ronald Reagan on August 13, 1981. In accordance with the New Federalism and the demands of capital, mental health policy was now in the hands of individual states. Cuts in funding for mental health services continued throughout the 1980s, with the emphasis being on the provision of services via the private sector. Overall, the number of beds available to the mentally ill in public and private hospitals dropped ov er forty percent between 1970 and 1984 (Reamer, 1989). Most of this decline was due to cuts in public hospitals. During the 1980s, the number of beds provided by general hospitals in psychiatric wards and in private hospitals for the mentally ill increase d. In 1970, there were 150 private psychiatric centers; in 1980, there were 184; by 1988, there were 450 in the United States. General hospitals offering psychiatric services increased from 1,259 in 1984 to over two thousand in 1988 (Reamer, 1989, 25; LaF ond and Durham, 1992, 115-16). With such growth in the private sector, there were substantial profits to be made in mental illness, assuming that the patient had adequate health insurance. Those without medical insurance frequently did not receive adequat e care. soundsa like a typical liberal conspiracty to me....

wow. so any court decision is liberally motivated. good to know. i coulda sworn that citizen's united verdict was conservatively biased. silly me.

well, no. it was about money: In 1973, a federal district court ruled in (Souder v. Brennan) that patients in mental health institutions must be considered employees and paid the minimum wage required by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 whenever they performed any activity that conferred an economic benefit on an institution. Following this ruling, institutional peonage was outlawed as evidenced in the Pennsylvania's Institutional Peonage Abolishment Act of 1973. Many assume that the advent of modern psychotropic medications was the catalyst for deinstitutionalization in the U.S. However, large numbers of patients began leaving state institutions only after new laws made unpaid patient labor illegal. In other words, when patients no longer worked for free, the economic viability of many state institutions ceased and this led to the closing of many state hospitals.[21] at any rate, it wasn't a liberal idea .

clarence thomas and a majority of the supremes disagree with you.

saw the shots they're available here: http://www.usopen.com/en_US/scoring/index.html. click on any players score to see his card and video of each hole. you say tomahto and i say tomatoe. not worth the trouble...

can't be bothered. someone want to link to who was in charge when the massive closing of mental institutions occurred?

so yeah. it's a slim line but a finite and definite one.

he birdied 18 after doubling 17. he made the big shots when the pressure was on. and he was consistently excellent the rest of the time. that wins championships. that's the difference. it's not like this was dj's 1st rodeo either.

he made 3 bogeys on the final 9 and 3 putted from 12 feet on 18. as i recall he missed several putts inside 10 feet on the final 9. you don't win majors that way. i'd call it a meltdown but if not, it's definitely not champion level play.

what was fox analysts take on the greens? unsurprising, the usga analysts barely mentioned them but i only watched Sunday.

oh come on. there been multiple gun control bills from very simple to very complex put forth. all kinds of regulations proposed. but from the smallest to the largest, the gun lobby has opposed them all. they are unwilling to compromise the littlest bit. i'd start with better background checks and a longer waiting period and close loopholes like gun shows.

i play a course with this weed on the greens. to me, it's not a big deal but to an excellent, pofessional putter it is. if you put in 12 footers routinely, it's a big deal.

the obfuscation is in pretending that this incident had little to do with racism or gun laws.

i watched on usga.com since i cancelled direct tv. coverage was very good. i'm sure the video feeds were the same but there were 3 option: 360 view, featured group and featured holes. the commentators were 2 pros and a color guy. all pretty good x the female pro had an irritating voice. they were set up on the driving range and had a teaching pro showing how to make some of the shots the leaders had to make eg knock down long irons, tight lie chips... pretty good stuff. only bad thing was that coverage ended at 9pm and i had to read updates on the guardian site. almost glad i missed the meltdown but guess i need an antenna for local tv. that was one ugly golf course. the poa on the greens was atrocious. usga lost some cred with this tourney but it did accomplish the goal of flushing the cream to the top. i just wonder how much 2 speed greens (poa and fescue) played in the final outcome.

the reason they can't do what they want in regard to flying the flag at half mast is the highly racist and hopefully unprecedented, legislation that put those rules in place in sc. as the article points out, it's highly unlikely they will be overturned. the masters won't let them be. fortunately, the us supremes saw the light. even clarence thomas gets it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-texas-doesnt-have-to-allow-confederate-flag-license-plates/2015/06/18/d328b824-15c6-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html A person could simply attach a bumper sticker with a preferred message in bigger type next to the license plate, Breyer wrote. “But the individual prefers a license plate design to the purely private speech expressed through bumper stickers. That may well be because Texas’s license plate designs convey government agreement with the message displayed,” he wrote. could not the same be said of sc state confederate flag?

we all wish it were just one man. sadly it's not: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/19/why-south-carolinas-confederate-flag-isnt-at-half-mast-after-church-shooting/ more ugliness, see pic: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/21/AR2010122105341.html

gotta say, this was my first thought. in what ohio school would that not be severely castigated? wow!

rubbish. give me an example of a truly novel thought that you have posted. it's rare for anyone to put forth an idea that no one else as considered but given your ego you probably think it's an everyday occurence in your life. this particular piece gives data to support the conclusion that millenials are not more tolerant. linking to data - now there's a truly novel idea.

i don't agree. neither does this writer: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/06/18/charleston-racism-and-the-myth-of-tolerant-millennials/

if you don't care, why did you bother to seek a flag out in the first place? if it's meaningless, then why have it?

i'm arguing that it is a likely contributor. it's a part of racist culture, a culture that nurtures it's dissemination and intergenerational inheritance...but you knew that.

so you are arguning that racism is innate. it's not a question or nurture but nature. it's genetically predisposed... bs... highly unlikely. in fact, absolutely untrue.

likely is the appropriate word. it is not clearly or obviously.