[Grovenet] Curiouser and curiouser

Ron D'Eau Claire ron at cobi.biz
Tue Jun 14 15:48:18 PDT 2005


Geri, I guess I'm coming at this whole thing from a different perspective
that has little or nothing to do with kids. 

First, let me say that I agree that it should be only rarely that a child is
forced to be medicated. There are precedents, of course, such as a child
suffering from a life-threatening illness or injury whose parents refuse to
provide treatment for philosophical or religious grounds. Even though it
takes a court order issued after careful review, as is should, that's still
"forced medication", not matter if it's to save the child's live.

But I wasn't talking about that.

I'm talking about the writers and editors behind these pieces. 

Keep this in mind. Right now, this instant, there are thousands - tens of
thousands - of writers out the banging away on keyboards trying to come up
with some copy an editor will buy. It has absolutely nothing to do with
"balanced journalism" and  only slightly can be called journalism at all.
The writer knows that if he/she wants to get paid, their article has to have
a spin that is still somewhat defensible should someone sue, but which
shocks, worries and causes the piece to be bought and read. 

These writers are no different from the business executive who will do
anything to make money short of getting him or herself thrown into jail or
sued. I'm not going to argue whether that's appropriate behavior, only that
it happens every day. 

Some, many, writers and their editors will write anything they can get away
with short of getting themselves thrown into jail or sued. Success to them
is making the reader say "OH! MY GOD!!!!" and tell everyone about it. That's
how they sell their stuff. 

In this case Ms. Levant wrote: "One of the state-of-the-art treatments, and
most expensive, is an implanted capsule - yes, that's right, implanted..."

Like you pointed out, she was accurate. Implanted medications are very
expensive, she said. That should be a clue that the likelihood that such a
thing might ever happen incredibly remote, but she put the statements in the
text in a way that caused you to say, OH MY GOD! and think that such
medication was somehow a possibility that didn't exist before. 

Of course it's a remote possibility. I'm only objecting to the fact that
nothing at all in this article suggests a reason why they are any more of a
possibility now that a year ago. 

Ms. Levant craftily tied the two together but only in your imagination. She
never says that's a greater possibility today than last year. But her
message is destructive. She implies that to keep an eye on children's health
will promote sick children through forced medication, therefore screening
children for disorders is dangerous. 

If anything, Ms. Levant has struck a blow against schools or any part of the
community being able to monitor children's health. If her words manage to
cause any child's illness to be overlooked out of this hysteria, she can
answer to her Creator for that some day. That won't help the child, of
course. 

It's all bizarre, weird reasoning intended to work on emotions and not
intellect. And it's not just on the internet. Just read the nonsense the
Oregonian likes to publish - especially headlines. I noticed last Sunday's
paper: "MEASURE 37 PROCLAIMS: SUBDIVIDE AND CONQUER The dismantling of
Oregon's Lands Use Laws Creates Heroes... " 

How many people stopped there and never read the article to see that the
statements in the headlines are incorrect: measure 37 does not "dismantle"
Oregon's land use laws? Indeed, it does not require a single change to any
land use or zoning. 

That headline was there to sell papers on the OH, MY GOD!! reaction, not to
inform the readers. 

Never forget, every newspaper, every magazine, every TV "report" is crafted
to get you to tune in and talk about it. Any useful information you get out
of it is secondary. 

It's been that way in print since the church allowed non-religious materials
to be printed on Gutenberg's invention.

It's been that way in Radio and TV news for almost half a century now, ever
since the FCC allowed stations to have sponsors for the news. Before then
stations were required to report the news as a "public service" they had to
provide to keep their license to use the radio spectrum in the "public
interest, convenience and necessity". 

Once stations were allowed to seek sponsors for the news, the sponsors
decided to sponsor only those news programs gaining the largest audience and
so the news departments had to report shock, not information. The history of
that change is an interesting study of its own, with leading newscasters of
the day holding requiems on the air saying that "the news will no longer be
news..." 

Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is. Some writers and editors are much
more extreme than others. Every journalist looks for a hook - something to
gain interest. It's all a matter of how far the editors and the writers want
to take it to get you to pay attention. 

Ron D'Eau Claire 









-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Geri
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 9:39 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Curiouser and curiouser


Ron, this is a real issue.  Sorry, I almost forgot to
get back to you on this ...

You seemed not to care for what you found out about
the writer of this opinion piece ...  You said: "Of course
the bombshell Ms. Levant drops in this article is the idea
of forced medication via implanted capsule: the idea that
the screening is not to help parents but to take away
parental responsibilities."

What she said was: "One of the state-of-the-art treatments,
and most expensive, is an implanted capsule - yes, that's right, implanted.
The capsule delivers medication into a child's body without the child having
to swallow a pill or the need for parental permission for dispensation."

I thought her meaning was not that the implantation method
of treatment definitely will happen, but that it could happen, given that 1)
parental rights are being stepped on here, and
2) that the screening process is skewed toward the benefit of pharmaceutical
companies.

BTW, I do NOT agree with everything Nancy Levant stands for ... which anyone
who has read things I've said here on GroveNet would know.  An example would
be that I am FOR public education.  Not only that, I am for private
education and home schooling.  I don't find them mutually exclusive, plus I
like the idea of a free society having choices.

That said, it turns out her item wasn't the one I meant to send! However, I
can't find the other one -- which I thought I'd bookmarked.  So, I've sent
other links (below), plus an attachment.

Here are a few more links:  (And I'll go ahead and write my disclaimer, that
I don't stand for everything these writers may stand for!)

           http://tinyurl.com/66e8x   9/13/04

           http://tinyurl.com/9uvjb    9/19/04

           http://tinyurl.com/55bt8   11/11/04

           http://tinyurl.com/a4zoc    2/08/05

..... and a document dated June 2005, to read (attached).

Ron said: "To some extent I agree with interfering with parental control. I
see too many parents teaching kids to hate, teaching kids that breaking the
law is fine as long as one 'gets away with it' and teaching kids that the
American society is a great cash register there to make them rich if they
'work it right'."

Well, I agree that there may be times parental control
would need to be curtailed, especially in cases of abuse
of children by parents.

But this idea of a sweeping screening of all school children
is over the top.  I may not like how some folks parent, but
it doesn't mean their children must be medicated because
the children are inconvenient to the Bushies.  You do see
that the Bushies do not like independent thinkers, right?

Besides, where is the freedom for these children to grow up, make mistakes,
learn from them, evolve and develop as human beings were meant to do?!


Geri


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Geri 
To: ron at cobi.biz ; Forest Grove local interests list 
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Curiouser and curiouser


Have an extremely busy week (starting about now),
and will send you more documentation in a few days,
when I have time to be on GroveNet again.

In the meantime, you could research it yourself,
starting with the Texas Dept. of State Health Services.

Have a good week, everyone!


Geri


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Ron D'Eau Claire 
To: 'Forest Grove local interests list' 
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 9:16 AM
Subject: RE: [Grovenet] Curiouser and curiouser


Who are the people who published this on the 'net? 

The only indication I can find is at the bottom of the "home page" were it
say: "Focusing on News that is ignored and under reported by the corporate
media. Also giving independent artists a place to promote their work." 

Under the author, Nancy Levant, I find a web page that describes her as
follows:

Nancy Levant is a life-long writer, a believer of God, country, and
Constitutional and individual rights. She resides in rural Southwestern
Ohio.

She has worked professionally with children since 1974 and is an ardent
supporter of home schooling. Her social commentaries are found in The Sierra
Times, the Paragon Foundation's Powerhouse Magazine, MichNews.Com, The Free
Republic, The Federal Observer, The ACL, Range Magazine, The Klamath Bucket
Brigade, and many other national and international newspapers and websites.

Nancy Levant has done radio and television interviews, has been a guest
speaker in many venues including college campuses, schools, Indian
reservations, human service organizations, and has been the president of a
youth sports organization. Most recently, she was interviewed by Bill
Moore's Outspoken Sportsman radio program in Escanaba, Michigan.

Ms. Levant just completed The Collapse of Intuition, a non-fiction book
about the decline of instinctual and intuitive abilities in American women.

-------------------------------------------------

As a society I think we've done a terrible job monitoring the emotional
health of our children. Not just the children of our family, but all the
children in our communities. I am very much in favor or more careful
scrutiny of kids everywhere.

Of course the bombshell Ms. Levant drops in this article is the idea of
forced medication via implanted capsule: the idea that the screening is not
to help parents but to take away parental responsibilities. To some extent I
agree with interfering with parental control. I see too many parents
teaching kids to hate, teaching kids that breaking the law is fine as long
as one "gets away with it" and teaching kids that the American society is a
great cash register there to make them rich if they "work it right". 

But forced medication? Where did that come from? No citations are made in
the article suggesting where that little tidbit came from. The link to the
sierratimes at the bottom of the page does not work, nor does an attempt to
locate the sierratimes home page by other means. 

So what it appears to be is a bleat of someone in Ohio. My gosh, half of my
"concerned bleats" here on Grovenet have credentials better than that, since
I put links to my source in the text, and I'm just a concerned guy in a
little town in Oregon! Shoot, I've done radio and television interviews too!


If this is true it is important. But if it is true, then Ms. Levant has done
a thoroughly un-professional job of documenting it. 

Ron D'Eau Claire 



-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Geri
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 7:27 AM
To: GroveNet
Subject: [Grovenet] Curiouser and curiouser


Texas (poor Texas) leads the way ...  Yes,
I have friends and relatives in Texas who
hate this.

I find this horrific.
                                                          Geri


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


"In the 2005-2006 school year, all parents will receive written notice of
new policies from your children's schools. Many schools will ask you to sign
permission slips, allowing school counselors or 'advocates' to have
conversations with your children. You will be told how your local schools
are now involved in vision and dental screenings, learning disabilities and
speech impediment screenings, and other acts of kindness, but watch for the
small print or the extra little blurb, which states that your children will
also be evaluated for emotional wellness. Watch for wording like 'happiness
indicators' or 'family participation.' The fact is that our president has
mandated that every American child, age 3 through 18, is federally ordered
to be evaluated for mental health issues and to receive 'enforced'
treatment. Welcome to President Bush's New Freedom Initiative and New
Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Welcome to life-long profiling and drug
addictions, New Freedom-style."


The rest here --
                |
               \|/
                '

"Under Reported:  Mental Health Screening in Schools Signals the End of
Parental Rights"  http://tinyurl.com/8eag8 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet 





More information about the GroveNet mailing list