No, you should not have put your revised line in the subject
heading. A more accurate heading is "One more example of how much
some so-called progressives or leftists have in common with right-
wing Creationists and other manifestations of anti-scientific bias
and shoot-first, ask questions later or never".
A recent prior example is Amy Goodman's uncritical endorsement,
along with Fox News et al., of the "Guinea Pig Kids" demagoguery by
Omowale Clay and Ronaldo Bini. ("HIV is a myth, kids are being
tortured" etc.)
A reference to David Schaffer caught my eye. I met him
professionally decades ago, and subsequently talked with him a few
times. Just to make sure that the record confirms my impressions of
his integrity and humane concern for the well-being of children,
demonstrated by serious research instead of rhetoric, I reviewed his
publication record with special attention to items relevant to the
irresponsible attack you have re-posted.
When I calm down and have some urgent personal matters adequately
dealt with, I'll show how his record refutes specific allegations
and general innuendo. With citations.
For now, I'll just ask people with a serious interest in responsible
examination of complex social and scientific issues to at least take
the small step of reading through the FAQ section of the TeenScreen
website and see how many of the purported "facts" in that
Scientologist's diatribe are worth examining or discussing further.
With friends like this, who needs enemies?
GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out. There is no hope for the left
whatsoever if it cannot develop its capacity for critical thinking
and make insistence on rigorous intellectual honesty its highest
priority.
Here's the link and a list of the FAQs dealt with:
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.teenscreen.org/cms/content/view/107/139/
Setting The Record Straight About TeenScreen
Updated: October 17th, 2005
Recently, TeenScreen has seen growing amounts of inaccurate,
intentionally deceptive misinformation about mental health screening
and the TeenScreen Program proliferating primarily through one or
two individuals on the Internet. Some of this inaccurate
information has been posted on other websites.
The following is a summary and set of key facts for webmasters,
bloggers and others to use in vetting information about the program
and mental health screening. TeenScreen remains committed to
offering all parents the opportunity to have their teenagers receive
a voluntary mental health screening and making youth mental health a
national priority. We thank you for your continued support as we
work to help teens and dispel the myths about mental health
screening.
How prevalent is mental illness and suicide in teens?
Is TeenScreen a screening or diagnostic tool? What is the difference
between screening and a diagnosis?
Does TeenScreen require parental consent? What is the difference
between active and passive consent?
What mental health problems does TeenScreen screen for?
What is the goal of the Columbia University TeenScreen Program?
Does TeenScreen recommend anti-depressants for teens found to be
suffering from depression?
Even though you don't recommend medication, isn't that the primary
result of the program?
Is the pharmaceutical industry behind TeenScreen?
Do any local TeenScreen programs accept money from pharmaceutical
companies?
Does the Columbia University TeenScreen Program endorse mandated
mental health screening for all teens?
What about President Bush's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health?
Didn't they endorse mandatory screening and TeenScreen?
Why then are some people worried about mandatory screening?
But aren't the commission and TeenScreen in favor of universal
screening? Aren't mandatory and universal the same thing?
Are individual screening results shared with Columbia University?
I have heard about active vs. passive consent. What does this mean?
Does TeenScreen use free movie passes, food coupons, or other
rewards to encourage teens to participate in the screening?
Is TeenScreen related to TMAP, the Texas Medication Algorithm
Project?
Does talking about suicide encourage teens to attempt suicide?
What happens if a teen needs further evaluation and does not have
health insurance?
----------------------------------------------------
--Frank
===========================================================
--- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Richard" <rsierra7@xxxx> wrote:
>
> I should have put: "Re: A New Left View vs Bush's Psychiatric
> Establishment" and gone on to textually comment TeenScreen is a
Bush
> pro-drug (prescription) program while explaining the article is a
dissenting
> New Left voice. But being this "is" a New Left board why would I
trouble
> myself?
>
> Hey, folks, the article expresses the New Left vision throughout
and on a
> ALL points, that's why I sent it. Like it or not in the Sixties
Scientology
> was New Left and, far as today goes, when it promotes such views I
fully
> support THEM although, personally, I object to Scientology.
>
> You can know me when I say, "If you're New Left, or consistently
promote a
> New Left view, you're welcome, welcome to our new coalition." How
the hell
> do you think you build coalitions? Does everyone have to agree on
> everything? Of course not. You build on the bottom line and are
free to
> disagree on individual problems and solutions. Secular, religious,
> communist, agnostic, Scientologist, theosophist, anti-
Scientologist, black,
> occult, white, rich, poor, middle class, etc, etc; who cares? I
> don't....sick and tired of the bs left...and that's what we
are...full of
> it.
>
> Yeah, I know, "They're different"...from me. So? Who are you?
What MAKES
> your clock tick? Time for self-criticism?
>
> Forget the Right, we're the problem and we wonder why there's no
unity?
>
> An article like that should unite the left, not be used to keep it
divided.
> The issue isn't Scientology, it's unifying around a good left
> anti-psychiatric understanding and that's what THAT article
provided. Keep
> the focus and "....Forward, March!". /R
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of CraigGingold
> Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 6:17 AM
> To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: counterpunch@xxxx
> Subject: [NewPacifica] Re: Article on TeenScreen [was Left Foot
Forward,
> March!]
>
>
> [I nearly missed this post due to the inscrutable heading... ]
>
> To: "New Pacifica" <NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> From: "Richard" <rsierra7@xxxx>
> Date sent: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:28:35 -0800
> Subject: [NewPacifica] Left Foot Forward, March!
>
> +++++++++
>
> Reading the article (The Making of Mental Patients: Inside
TeenScreen)
> was quite maddening (in the colloquial sense of the term). On the
one
> hand, I am strongly sympathetic to the concerns it addresses. On
the
> other hand, owing to the author's affiliations, I find it nearly
impossible
> to evaluate her allegations and conclusions -- and I am at a loss
to
> understand why Counterpunch published the article without making
> a point of clarifying for its readers those affiliations, which
seriously
> undermine the author's credibility.
>
> Briefly, on a personal note, I have been extremely concerned about
> the overuse of psychiatric medications on school-children since I
first
> saw Ritalin come into widespread use starting in the early 1970's
for
> what was then called "hyperactivity." Secondly, I would have grave
> reservations about any screening program that puts more power in
> the hands of school bureaucracies. I know how they operate, and
> I know that their interests are often inimical to the best
interests
> of children, especially children who are perceived as "problems".
> (Which is one major reason why both of my own children were
> homeschooled -- not to imply that either of them were "problems").
>
> Having said all of that, I am nonetheless compelled to register my
> concerns about the article, fundamentally because I do not feel
that
> I can fully trust the author, Sandra Lucas, who is identified as
follows:
>
> "Executive Director of the Utah Chapter of the Citizens Commission
> on Human Rights, a mental health watchdog group."
>
> That bland description entirely omits the crucial fact that the
CCHR is an
> offshoot of the Church of Scientology -- an organization whose
avowed
> goal is nothing less than the extirpation of the entire profession
of
> psychiatry. (Their views are nothing less than hair-raising, see
below.)
>
> I find that omission astonishing -- and I think Counterpunch owes
its
> readers an explanation. Certainly, Counterpunch would never run an
> article written by an author affiliated with the Executive
Intelligence
> Review, without informing readers up front that the EIR is
published
> by none other than Lyndon LaRouche. So what gives??
>
> Craig Gingold
> (near) Midpines CA
>
> For those who aren't familiar with Scientology's long-running war
with
> psychiatry -- which traces back to the hostile reception
Scientology
> (and its forerunner, Dianetics) received from pyschiatrists in the
1950's
> -- I strongly encourage you to take a couple of minutes and read
these
> two web-pages for an introduction to the subject:
>
> Article on "Scientology and psychiatry" from Wikipedia:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_psychiatry
>
> "WHAT IS THE CITIZENS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS?"
> http://www.xenu.net/archive/infopack/12.htm
=================================================
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
For $25, 15 Afghan women can learn to read. Your gift can make a difference.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_smZ4B/SdGMAA/E2hLAA/xYTolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
New Pacifica Working Group
http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica
'Save Our Stations!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewPacifica/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
NewPacifica-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/