Archive for the ‘Social Policy’ Category

ISIS, measles, and the new front in the battle against mind manipulation

February 22, 2015

ISIS can only exist when a critical mass of people are susceptible to mind manipulation. The photos on the news of those 3 British teen girls on their way to join ISIS are truly bone chilling. Susceptibility to mind manipulation is nothing new, nore are its horrific consequences.  I see the current crises as an outcome of a sort of epidemic of psychological immunodeficiency. Why don’t we eradicate this susceptibility in everyone like we eradicated small pox? We practically eradicated measles in the US but our suscpetibility to mind manipulation allowed it to come back as a real and present danger. We can no longer just dismiss our own vulnerability to it by saying it just happens to the stupid or weird elements of our society. The sad thing is that we already have the knowledge to prevent mind manipulation. We came about this knowledge when so many American Korean War POWs were brainwashed by the Chinese compared to other nationalities that the phenomenon was able to be identified and properly studied and understood. The military learned from it and fixed it. We need to teach those skills to everyone, especially our youth. It ought  to become a worldwide public health campaign with special emphasis on vulnerable peopulations. We can’t wait on the current power structure to do it, especially when they are often so dependent on mind manipulation themselves.

Each of us can start now with a simple internet search. For tweens and up I recommend What’s the Catch: How to avoid getting hooked and manipulated by Denise Winn. For adults try The Manipulated Mind by Denise Winn or Battle for the Human Mind: A physiology of conversion and brainwashing – How Evengelists, Politicians, Psychiatrists, and Medicine Men can change your beliefs and behavior by William Sargeant.

Please share this  blog post. We are at war. I don’t think that overstates it.

Je suis Wim Chase

January 11, 2015

Just be yourself.  

Defend everyone’s right to do the same as long as they are not violating 6-10 of the Ten Commmandments.

1-4 of the ten commandments are  personal and social development recommendations.

They seem to become dangerous to the human psyche and human communities when not taken together with 6-10.

I think they actually simply point  you should aim to do the best you can by holding to the highest standard in ALL things.  Why have low standards when you can have high ones?

If you believe that there is a highest that preceeds and exceeds reality – you can call that Reality and try to make it the one thing you remember as often as you can.

That effort is religious effort – available to all of us, even if prefer to remove the R and make it an r.

 

RrRrRrRrRrRr

or rrrrrrrrrr

Whatever or WhateveR…

 

 

 

 

Two ways to raise the debt ceiling without Congress

October 7, 2013

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve can waive the Federal Reserve Act’s prohibition against the Fed lending directly to the treasury.

The Secretary of the Treasury can hold the 14th Amendment as the overriding instruction as it says that ” the debt of the United States government, lawfully issued,  shall not be questioned.”

Each would risk being impeached or fired.

But it is expected that one of them would take the risk considering the alternative.

So when you hear all the bluster from both sides before the 17th, keep this in mind. They are counting on being bailed out.   They want to look tough, but they are really not tough at all.  

They are just compensating for being horrible negotiators.

Thoughts on George Zimmerman’s true intentions the day he shot Treyvon Martin

July 15, 2013

 I’d like to say the following to George Zimmerman:

“When you follow a stranger, you know you  are going to be seen as a threat. It is reasonable for them to be afraid of you. You know it is also reasonable for them  to choose  force to end the threat. You know that may happen. And if it does, if you have a gun, to defend yourself, you know you will shoot the person you followed and scared to the point  that they assaulted you. You had to know ahead of time that you would shoot them if they defended themselves  from a threat any reasonable person would feel in the situation you put them in by following them.  But were you really interested in safety, in defending yourself,  when you decided to follow them? Of course not. If you weren’t interested in safety, what motivated your decision? You wanted something else. You must have. You wanted to scare them,  and if they didn’t  run away or stand down, but dealt with the threat they felt with force,  you planned to shoot them . Why else would you follow a stranger with a gun other than to be  absolutely sure you would  get them to submit  to your will for them?  There was an easy way and a hard way,and it turned out to be the hard way,  but you were going to get your way George,  no matter what,  that day.  You were tired of feeling like a victim.  You had had it.  ”

Is there any reasonable doubt that GZ was aware of all of the above. None at all. He knew all that I just wrote beyond a reasonable doubt. Anyone knows this stuff beyond a reasonable doubt. It is common sense.  That is why only predators  follow strangers. Regular folk never follow strangers.

 The victim mentality turns people into predators. That’s what  it did to George Zimmerman.

Vatican conference about children and psychotropics

June 22, 2013

Barry Duncan

This is Robert Whitakers presentation from the Vatican conference about children and psychotropics. The bottom line to all of our presentations was that given the evidence regarding minimal benefit and substantial risk, psychosocial options should be first.

This is Joanna Moncrieff’s presentation from the Vatican conference about children and psychotropics. The bottom line to all of our presentations was that given the evidence regarding minimal benefit and substantial risk, psychosocial options should be first.

Let’s elect a Sequester Jester

February 27, 2013

Budget problems fester

We don’t mean to pester

But is that the best you can come up with? a  sequester !

We’d be better off being governed by a  jester.

PCOMS now a SAMSHA evidence-based practice

January 27, 2013

Hi Everyone!

Consumer privilege, partnership, and outcome accountability scored a victory today! The Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS), as disseminated by the Heart and Soul of Change Project, is now included in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) National Registry of Evidence Based Programs and Practices (NREPP). PCOMS incorporates the most robust predictors of therapeutic success into an outcome management system that partners with clients while honoring the daily pressures of front-line clinicians. www.heartandsoulofchange.com

The NREPP process is an arduous one that includes both a research and dissemination review. All three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that enabled our application for evidence based practice status were conducted by Partners of the Heart and Soul of Change Project. We are committed to the ideas of client feedback and outcome management and to the values of consumer privilege, partnership, and service accountability, and we put our efforts in proving that a value-based client feedback system can really make a difference. When Morten Anker and I were first talking about the design of the first RCT, the Norway Feedback Trial, back in 2005, the possibility of PCOMS attaining EBP status was born. In many ways, I knew that that we could talk about these ideas and values, even though they were well supported by empirical evidence, until we were blue in the face, but that they would never be widely disseminated until we attained RCT credibility. And with this SAMHSA designation, we have accomplished this in spades.

 

A great stride in empowering consumers to have a voice in their own recovery and partnership in decisions about their care has happened—our goal from the very beginning. Thanks to all those who made the RCTs happen, including but not limited to the Norway Outcome King, Morten Anker (and Geir Skauli, Berger Hareide, Ann Kristin Stapnes , leaders at Bufetat who helped make the project happen), the University of Kentucky superstar, Jeff Reese (and coauthors: Larry Norsworthy, Steve Rowlands, Michael Toland, and Norah Slone), and the irrepressible client and social justice advocate, Jacqueline Sparks.

 

Thanks also to those who have successfully implemented PCOMS and CDOI in the real world and made the research palpable where it matters most. Bob Bohanske, Mary Haynes, and Dave Claud believed in these ideas and values long before the RCTs. They implemented PCOMS/CDOI in large public agencies, and proved that it made a significant difference in not only outcomes but in efficiency as well (see Bob’s chapter in The Heart and Soul of Change for details). Without these pioneers of major implementation, who had the vision to bring the ideas and values to fruition, none of this would have been possible.

 

Check it out at the NREPP Web site.

Best,

Barry

It is your gun, so ….

January 27, 2013

I’m big on storing guns properly and gun owners being held accountable if their guns get in the wrong hands and are used to hurt someone. Yes – jail time if they were negligent in how they secured them. And it should be mandatory to have to appoint someone legally responsible who will take over your guns if you are incapacitated or die, or who will call the police so they can take them. Guns are a huge responsibility and they should be treated like explosives or toxic materials.

Trying to get it right about neuroleptics at the NY Times?

September 27, 2012

Take a look at  the from the NY Times.  It purports to be something of an expose on theover use of neuroleptics, but instead promulgates just more lies about psychotropic meds.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/health/a-call-for-caution-in-the-use-of-antipsychotic-drugs.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=1

 (thanks Mary Haynes from the Heroic Agencies listserve) 

What negotiation has to do with the tragic crimes at Penn State

July 25, 2012

 

Once you start paying attention to negotiation in life as I have, you see many failures and tragedies in the media through that lens.  Thinking about Penn State, we know that a lot of people including Joe Paterno knew what Jerry Sandusky had done to boys.  It seems that no one could bring themselves to do the right thing in that culture, something that most believe should be so simple and obvious, namely, call the police and ban Jerry Sandusky from Penn State and its facilities.

I’ll tell you what makes it hard – thinking that no one is going to listen. Has that ever happened to you, or is it happening to you now? You know about an unethical or ineffective practice going on somewhere, but you just think it is pointless to say anything, or that you will somehow suffer negative consequences if you say anything.

You may prefer to see yourself as someone who would always do the right thing, but what does that really reveal about you? I hate to break it to you, but being absolutely sure that you will always do the right thing reveals arrogance on your part. I am not preaching here, because I carry that same self-righteous arrogance, maybe more than many of you.

So what’s the real problem? Well- we know that Joe Paterno had one interest – winning football games. That’s it.  And a lot of people profited from his focus on winning football games.  Many if not all involved parties failed to have a mission and purpose of their own. Who included in their mission and purpose the honor and respectability of  Penn State University?  If someone did, they were not strong enough negotiators to move their agenda forward.  Most just thought they were good people, and believed that was enough to protect themselves and what they cared about. They were dazzled by Joe Paterno, and lost sight of themselves and their own responsibility to think beyond their own self-interest. Joe Paterno’s success led to their laziness. They just rode his coat tails.

Imagine anyone going to Joe Paterno or another Penn State official and asking them if they were willing to sacrifice winning seasons for the honor of the university. Notice I am not saying that their mission and purpose needed to be to protect children. It is dishonorable not to protect children, so their mission and purpose would have made it crystal clear what they ought to do when they found out about Sandusky. 

Mission and purpose are very necessary to all of us because we are surrounded by decision makers who have faulty or shallow motives. We can’t just make excuses anymore. We know what it takes now. We need to elevate our game as negotiators and develop a mission and purpose that will help all parties connected to our institutions build the vision they require to make decisions that will benefit those that they are supposed to serve.  These decision makers need you and I to help them to see themselves going down very hard if they don’t act. No one did that for Joe Paterno, because everyone was wanting Joe Paterno to do something for them.

At CNI, you have an opportunity to become a strong and effective enough negotiator to actually do some good, and prevent some bad, rather than just talk about the good you think you’d do when you see the latest human failing in the news.


%d bloggers like this: