Fornits

Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora
An open discussion about the troubled parent industry

Good to hear from you Rachael.  Congrats on a great life!

Hamilton Fish 7th thought you'd like to read this:

Missile Counter-Attack

Axworthy fires back at U.S. -- and Canadian -- critics of our BMD decision in An Open Letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

Thursday, March 3rd, 2005

By LLOYD AXWORTHY

Dear Condi, I'm glad you've decided to get over your fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It's a chance to learn a thing or two. Maybe more.

I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results.

But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel are somewhat cautious types who can't quite see laying down billions of dollars in a three-dud poker game.

As our erstwhile Prairie-born and bred (and therefore prudent) finance minister pointed out in presenting his recent budget, we've had eight years of balanced or surplus financial accounts. If we're going to spend money, Mr. Goodale added, it will be on day-care and health programs, and even on more foreign aid and improved defence.

Sure, that doesn't match the gargantuan, multi-billion-dollar deficits that your government blithely runs up fighting a "liberation war" in Iraq, laying out more than half of all weapons expenditures in the world, and giving massive tax breaks to the top one per cent of your population while cutting food programs for poor children.

Just chalk that up to a different sense of priorities about what a national government's role should be when there isn't a prevailing mood of manifest destiny.

Coming to Ottawa might also expose you to a parliamentary system that has a thing called question period every day, where those in the executive are held accountable by an opposition for their actions, and where demands for public debate on important topics such a missile defence can be made openly.

You might also notice that it's a system in which the governing party's caucus members are not afraid to tell their leader that their constituents don't want to follow the ideological, perhaps teleological, fantasies of Canada's continental co-inhabitant. And that this leader actually listens to such representations.

Your boss did not avail himself of a similar opportunity to visit our House of Commons during his visit, fearing, it seems, that there might be some signs of dissent. He preferred to issue his diktat on missile defence in front of a highly controlled, pre-selected audience.

Such control-freak antics may work in the virtual one-party state that now prevails in Washington. But in Canada we have a residual belief that politicians should be subject to a few checks and balances, an idea that your country once espoused before the days of empire.

If you want to have us consider your proposals and positions, present them in a proper way, through serious discussion across the table in our cabinet room, as your previous president did when he visited Ottawa. And don't embarrass our prime minister by lobbing a verbal missile at him while he sits on a public stage, with no chance to respond.

Now, I understand that there may have been some miscalculations in Washington based on faulty advice from your resident governor of the "northern territories," Ambassador Cellucci. But you should know by now that he hasn't really won the hearts and minds of most Canadians through his attempts to browbeat and command our allegiance to U.S. policies.

Sadly, Mr. Cellucci has been far too closeted with exclusive groups of 'experts' from Calgary think-tanks and neo-con lobbyists at cross-border conferences to remotely grasp a cross-section of Canadian attitudes (nor American ones, for that matter).

I invite you to expand the narrow perspective that seems to inform your opinions of Canada by ranging far wider in your reach of contacts and discussions. You would find that what is rising in Canada is not so much anti-Americanism, as claimed by your and our right-wing commentators, but fundamental disagreements with certain policies of your government. You would see that rather than just reacting to events by drawing on old conventional wisdoms, many Canadians are trying to think our way through to some ideas that can be helpful in building a more secure world.

These Canadians believe that security can be achieved through well-modulated efforts to protect the rights of people, not just nation-states.

To encourage and advance international co-operation on managing the risk of climate change, they believe that we need agreements like Kyoto.

To protect people against international crimes like genocide and ethnic cleansing, they support new institutions like the International Criminal Court -- which, by the way, you might strongly consider using to hold accountable those committing atrocities today in Darfur, Sudan.

And these Canadians believe that the United Nations should indeed be reformed -- beginning with an agreement to get rid of the veto held by the major powers over humanitarian interventions to stop violence and predatory practices.

On this score, you might want to explore the concept of the 'Responsibility to Protect' while you're in Ottawa. It's a Canadian idea born out of the recent experience of Kosovo and informed by the many horrific examples of inhumanity over the last half-century. Many Canadians feel it has a lot more relevance to providing real human security in the world than missile defence ever will.

This is not just some quirky notion concocted in our long winter nights, by the way. It seems to have appeal for many in your own country, if not the editorialists at the Wall Street Journal or Rush Limbaugh. As I discovered recently while giving a series of lectures in southern California, there is keen interest in how the U.S. can offer real leadership in managing global challenges of disease, natural calamities and conflict, other than by military means.

There is also a very strong awareness on both sides of the border of how vital Canada is to the U.S. as a partner in North America. We supply copious amounts of oil and natural gas to your country, our respective trade is the world's largest in volume, and we are increasingly bound together by common concerns over depletion of resources, especially very scarce fresh water.

Why not discuss these issues with Canadians who understand them, and seek out ways to better cooperate in areas where we agree -- and agree to respect each other's views when we disagree.

Above all, ignore the Cassandras who deride the state of our relations because of one missile-defence decision. Accept that, as a friend on your border, we will offer a different, independent point of view. And that there are times when truth must speak to power.


In friendship,

Lloyd Axworthy


Lloyd Axworthy is president of the University of Winnipeg and a former Canadian foreign minister

The Myth of Addiction
  John Booth Davies
    Prologue


    One of the difficulties with putting across messages about drug use is that the problem is more complicated than many of us would like to believe. The drug issue usually attracts our attention through media presentations which seek to reduce the issue to a single, instantly comprehensible message but in the process an inaccurate and largely false impression is created. Even amongst many drug workers and researchers, there is an avoidance of anything that smacks of theory, and a preference for action, even if that action is based on nothing more than personal prejudice and guesswork.
        Furthermore, stereotyped and inaccurate views of addiction are not uncommon even within the ranks of those who work intimately with drug problems, where there is all too frequently a lack of coherence in terms of the work carried out, and an unwillingness to consider alternative interpretations. Perhaps most of all, there is the belief that the 'truth' about the nature and causes of addiction can be revealed by methods which rely principally on asking people to answer questions or express opinions about their own or other people's drug use.
        However, answering questions and stating opinions are behaviours in their own right, which have dynamics all of their own. For these reasons, it is important to consider existing knowledge on the way people answer questions and explain their actions, since understanding these processes may yield fresh perspectives on the issue under investigation. The present book attempts to provide such an alternative perspective in the area of drug use and misuse. Whilst the ideas contained are not new, they represent a species of argument which is neglected, primarily because it is slightly more complicated than the more popular theories of drug use.
        The argument presented in the following pages is basically that people take drugs because they want to and because it makes sense for them to do so given the choices available, rather than because they are compelled to by the pharmacology of the drugs they take. Nonetheless, we generally prefer to conceptualise our drug abusers in terms which imply that their behaviour is not their own to control. This picture arises because it is the picture we want to have, and the view is supported by a body of data consisting largely of people's self reports, opinions and statements of belief. This body of data, whilst potentially of great value in certain respects, is frequently put to uses for which it is ill suited; it does not always mean what we think it means.
        When asked questions by members of the research establishment, it is functional for drug users to report that they are addicted, forced into theft, harassed by stressful life events, and driven into drug use by forces beyond their capacity to control. The central argument of this book is that such self reports have their own internal functional logic which is independent of reality, and that other research methods and forms of analysis would consequently produce a different picture. Furthermore, the fact that the explanations people provide for their behaviour make some reference to their own motives and intentions is hardly new; it is a central feature of social interaction, and not specific to drug users.
        At the present moment, the standard line taken by a majority of people in the media, in treatment agencies, in government and elsewhere, hinges around notions of the helpless addict who has no power over his/her behaviour; and the evil pusher lurking on street corners, trying to ensnare the nation's youth. They are joined together in a deadly game by a variety of pharmacologically active substances whose addictive powers are so great that to try them is to become addicted almost at once. Thereafter, life becomes a nightmare of withdrawal symptoms, involuntary theft, and a compulsive need for drugs which cannot be controlled. In fact, not one of these things is, or rather needs to be, true.
        Whilst availability is probably a major determinant of the extent of drug use, the precise form taken by drug problems within any given society is determined in large part by that society's response to the problem. Consequently, if we were to observe that within some fairly limited time span a particular drug had become a matter of life-and-death on the streets, this would probably indicate that the policies we were currently implementing were extremely dangerous; more dangerous in fact than the drugs we were attempting to stamp out. Unfortunately, our own legislators look for advice with frightening regularity to nations where the attempt to control drug use has had the most grotesque and spectacular consequences, in the mistaken assumption that they have thereby demonstrated some sort of competence in this field.
        If we continue to base our policies on stereotypes and inaccurate perceptions of the helpless junkie, the evil pusher, and the substance with the capacity to enslave, we are already half-way to justifying the most extreme measures in order to eliminate drug use from our midst. If we persist in this lethal spiral, we can bring death and street warfare into our midst, in a manner that will mirror similar developments elsewhere.
        In fact, as the following chapters will attempt to show, our beliefs about drugs and drug users are largely inaccurate. We choose to believe in helpless junkies and evil pushers primarily because we want to believe in them, and because such beliefs serve functions for us. The helpless junkie only exists because we all want him/her to exist; and because drug research continues to make naive use of what people say about their addictions. It is now imperative that we start to view research based on what drug-users say about themselves in its true light; and in consequence, to expect something more dynamic and positive from those of us who encounter drug problems. The interrelationship of IV drug use with HIV/AIDS makes such a new dynamic and purposive perspective essential.
        What the book says, basically, is that most people who use drugs do so for their own reasons, on purpose, because they like it, and because they find no adequate reason for not doing so; rather than because they fall prey to some addictive illness which removes their capacity for voluntary behaviour. The book then points out the reasons why the second type of explanation is nonetheless more popular and is generally preferred; and why scientists and practitioners frequently seek out evidence relevant to that view rather than to any other and subsequently impose it on their clientele for reasons that have nothing to do with scientific knowledge. It is then argued that a different context or 'system' is required within which an alternative view of drug use can thrive; a view which stresses volition and control deriving from the ability to make and implement personal decisions.
        What the book does not say is that drugs have no pharmacological effect; nor does it deny that some individuals become terribly enmeshed in a cycle of substance use and misuse, sometimes with tragic consequences. The reader should note, however, that deaths due to illicit drug use per annum are generally in the order of 300-400. For comparison, smoking accounts for some 100,000 deaths; and whilst figures for alcohol-related deaths are more problematic, there are 17,500 admissions to psychiatric hospitals due to alcohol, and the direct effects of alcohol are implicated in three out of four of all deaths due to liver disease (The Royal College of Psychiatrists 1986; 1987). The drugs we regard as socially acceptable and that many of us use in a more-or-less habitual fashion can hardly be regarded as 'safe'.
        The final message is that dealing with drug problems rationally depends on giving back to people the sense of personal power and volition which they require if they are to control their drug use for themselves; a power which existing concepts of 'addiction' frequently seek to limit or deny at the outset as a precondition to further treatment. To take this apparently simple step, however, involves a major rethinking of contemporary moral attitudes to drugs and addiction, since these shape the nature of the help that we are prepared to offer. In the meantime, the existing system does not work. There is little indication that anything on offer at the moment does better than spontaneous recovery (that is, giving up all by yourself); and some evidence that punitive legislative interventions make things worse by institutionalising the type of harmful drug use that we most wish to avoid.
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?
query=The+myth+of+addiction&page=1&offset=
0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26
requestId%3D217460511aa5dbaa%26clickedItemRank
%3D5%26userQuery%3DThe%2Bmyth%2Bof%2Baddiction%2
6clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252
Fwww.macmillan.co.nz%252Fgetbook%252F9057022370%
252Fshowbook%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3
DnsBrowserRoll%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_
url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.macmillan.co.nz%2Fgetbook
%2F9057022370%2Fshowbook[ This Message was edited by: Hamiltonf on 2004-12-24 11:47 ]

From a democratic country to the north
http://ndp.ca/speechdetail/nid-2360

What is to be done?
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n1603/a08.html?999

Post Traumatic Stress disorder is very common amongst survivors.  Commonly people who resort to drugs in the first place are suffering sometimes from mental illness, such as depression.  The drug warriors such as O5, of course, have no concept of how or why this might be happening.  When correlations are seen between drug use and mental illness, too often the dryug warrior will say, "see marijuana use causes schizophrenia"  the "reefer madness" syndrome .  Well, correlation, of course does not equal causality.  I know a couple of schizophrenic's  for example for whom mj definitely has a calming influence, and recent researches in Germany have suggested that what schizophrenic joint smokers are doing is self medicating for the relief that THC brings for the storms going on in their brains.  
This is perhaps a long way of going about it, but you might want to look into a properly informed use of MDMA (Ecstacy) for the treatment of your  PTSD.  for more information the Multidisciplinary association for Psychedelic studies (I think that's what MAPS stands for) has some very interesting stuff.  you can find articles at:
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/md ... rch4.shtml
That'll give O5 a blue fit
    :idea:

President Declares "Ownership Society"
Tells Convention He's Ordered Invasion of Social Security Trust Fund
by Greg Palast

September 2, 2004 17:06

[New York]   Of all the bone-headed, whacky, breathtakingly threatening schemes George W. Bush is trying to sell us in his acceptance speech tonight is something he and his handlers call, "the Ownership Society."  Sounds cool, "ownership." Everyone gets a piece of the action.   Everyone's a winner as the economy zooms.  All boats rise.  

Sure.  Behind the hooray-for-free-enterprise crapola is that dog-eared game-plan to siphon off Social Security revenues to pay for making Bush's tax cuts for the rich permanent.  

Here's what the President has in mind.  Social Security is an insurance plan.  You pay in, you get back.  But it's hard to get your money back when there's a war where the Clinton surplus used to be.  It's not the war on terror, or the war in Iraq, though Lord knows those have cost us a bundle with nothing to show for all the lost loot.  I'm talking about the class war that Dubya and his Dick Cheney have waged on the average working person.

We're talking an economic Pearl Harbor here.  While firemen and policemen went running into falling buildings, the Bushmen were preparing to relieve some gazillionaires, such as say, the Bush family, of the need to pay the taxes that the rest of us pay.  Work as a teacher, you pay Social Security and income taxes on every darn penny.   Sit on your yacht and speculate in the stock market casino and you are off the hook on taxes on the "capital gains."

Bill Clinton proposed putting his big surpluses into a Social Security "lock-box" for that predictable rainy day.  But tonight, Bush instead proposes to give the stock-options class a boost by lopping off a chunk of Social Security insurance revenue for gambling in the stock market.  He had this same idea in 2000.  If he'd had his way on his inauguration day, the average "owner" in America, investing in the stock market, would be 7% poorer, many flat busted.  Some "security."  Happy elderly "owners" would be hunting for lunch in the garbage cans under Madison Square Garden.

Here's the latest report from the front lines of the class war: The World Bank reports the USA has more millionaires than ever -- we'll see them at the Garden tonight.  Median household income's down -- most of us are median -- while the bottom has fallen out for those at the bottom.  Our poorest 20% have seen incomes drop by a fifth. America's upper one percent now own 53% of all the shares in the market.  

And now the uppers want to crack open your retirement piggy bank, cut some of your retirement benefits, then "allow" you to give them the remainder of your money to fund their latest stock float schemes.  

If betting trillions on stock market ponies doesn't produce a big win, what does Mr. Bush propose to do with all the hungry old folk?   I think I heard George say, "Let them eat Enron certificates."

And the future market fall, Mr. President, is a slam-dunk certainty.  Let's do the math.  OK, class, we all buy stock this afternoon to fund our retirement.  In fifteen years, baby-boomers are ready to kick back, take it easy and retire on the stock they're about to sell.  Did I say, "SELL"?  And HOW.  Around 2020, tens of millions of "owners" will be selling their shares ? to whom?  CRRRRASH!

A deliberate policy of aiming for another 1929 is appropriate for the top-hat and pinky-ring party of Herbert Hoover.  

The big problem is that supposedly non-partisan and even Democratic poobahs are rushing to "reform" Social Security.  We have Alan Greenspan, who has barely a word to say about the multi-trillion dollar deficit wrought by Mr. Bush's tax cuts, yet is already warning about some disaster in Social Security based on "trends."  Well, if we go by his own trend, the Fed chief will soon be marrying a 12-year-old Girl Scout.

Hey, Alan, back to Economics 101 for you.  As the boomers hit retirement age, we're going to need added borrowing for transfer payments like Social Security to maintain purchasing power to keep the economy alive while millions of old folk dump assets.  

Listen, Mr. President, we had an "ownership" society once before.  Luckily, it came to an end when Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

****

Greg Palast, nominated Britain's Business Writer of the Year by the UK Press Association for his writings in the Guardian papers, is the author of the New York Times bestseller, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."  This month, Palast, who has returned to his native USA, will release, "Bush Family Fortunes," the film based on his investigative reports for BBC television.  Watch a preview of the film, out on DVD, at http://www.gregpalast.com/bff-dvd.htm  Sign up for Palast's reports at http://www.gregpalast.com/contact.cfm