A coalition between the Liberals and the New Democrats could work. I went to the rally at Parliament Hill today - what a spectacle! An amazing show of support for the coalition. Canadians from all walks of life turned out: unionists, the unemployed, lawyers, athletes, students, anyone and everyone.
When I saw Duceppe take the mic I was star struck. I'm not sure why but the BQ leader is probably the most charismatic of all the federal party leaders. His character demands attention. However, he is a Quebecer through and through and I wish he would have spoken more about the coalition and less about the detrimental affects the continuace of a Conservative government would have for Quebec and Quebecers.
Even the MC for the day, a very fine speaker, spoke too much about what I felt were irrelevant matters: gay/lesbian issues, the environment, pro-choice, etc. I don't want to see anyone alienated in this fragile, fledgling coalition movement. We shouldn't be discussing those subjects. We need to be discussing the importance of a coalition and how it can work.
Dion was very formidable and gave an impassioned speech, rife with criticism for the Conservative government and Mr. Harper, and full of hope for this coalition movement.
I think this coalition could really work. Too bad we don't get to give it a chance until January 26th now. I'm hoping that this arrangement will still be on the table.
I wonder how many Canadians are for and how many are against. If every Canadian were asked, and every Canadian was given the literature and the background of the situation so that they would make a fairly informed opinion. I would like to say 80% would be for, with only 20% against. But you never know.
Still, I believe that, at the end of the day, no matter what facts/statistics are shown to some of the nay-sayers, they would still refute a coalition. It's interesting, but there is something about human nature - whereby when we have an opinion on something, or a feeling about something, i.e. pro-Harper, pro-Conservative, this opinion will never be broken. We all view the world through a different set of lenses, and as such, it would take a DRASTIC change in a person's life to knock of those lenses. The majority of Tories are decided Tories - they will never go to another party. What's interesting is that the Tories will often berate other party members (those of left and centre parties) for their political beliefs without ever checking their own. I believe that, even if every scientist and person of influence in the world were to tell the Tories and their supporters that this coalition government would be a great success for Canada - there would still be many, many, who would disagree. Look at the climate change debate. Some people still don't want to believe that the world's climate is changing due to carbon emissions.
We all tend to believe what we want to.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Why We Must Privatize OCTranspo
Absolutely ridiculous. The city has offered OCTranspo employees a 6.2% wage increase, and a $1400 bonus. OCTranspo is asking for a...wait for it...10.5% increase! They're going to strike as early as next week if their demands aren't met! The nation's capital is going to be without a bus system! This should be illegal.
10.5%!? Where the he&% are we going to get that kind of money in a time like this? Do bus drivers/employees not make enough? They have great benefits, they're unionized...perish the thought...and they have decent salaries. What the heck are they being so GREEDY!?
It's high time we privatize OCTranspo.
10.5%!? Where the he&% are we going to get that kind of money in a time like this? Do bus drivers/employees not make enough? They have great benefits, they're unionized...perish the thought...and they have decent salaries. What the heck are they being so GREEDY!?
It's high time we privatize OCTranspo.
Harper and the Bloc
Harper worked with the Bloc during his last minority government - Duceppe and the evil separatists propped up the Tories for over a year, seeing them through 145 bills! It was okay to accept their help then. What's wrong with the Liberals and NDP accepting their help now?
Why, why! in September 2004, did Harper and the Conservative Party ask then G.G. Adrienne Clarkson, to consider a coalition between them, the NDP, AND THE BLOC!?
Watch this if you need more proof:
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/question-period---dec-3/#clip118310
AND AND AND:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/03/day-bloc.html
tsk tsk, Tory hypocrasy at its finest.
Why, why! in September 2004, did Harper and the Conservative Party ask then G.G. Adrienne Clarkson, to consider a coalition between them, the NDP, AND THE BLOC!?
Watch this if you need more proof:
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/question-period---dec-3/#clip118310
AND AND AND:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/03/day-bloc.html
tsk tsk, Tory hypocrasy at its finest.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
All I Want For Christmas Is...A Coalition!
Excellent. The idea for a coalition is gaining steam across the country!
Here are some simple arguments: the parties involved in the coalition garnered 65% of the votes. Why should the Conservatives, a party which only gained 35% of the national, popular vote, feel entitled to run our country? 65% of us are unhappy with his government!
Some statements from today's National Post:
"It may be impossible to explain to a cynical public, but the essence of Harper's blunder is that he betrayed the trust of Parliament. After some initial posturing about co-operation, he reverted to his ruthless modus operandi, scheming to crush his opponents."
Cape Breton Post
Why did Harper, why did Harper, start off Parliament by introducing a budget that would cripple his political opposition? Cancelling public subsidies to political parties? Those public subsidies are the very lifeblood of our country's pluralistic, multi-party democracy! We are not Americans. Our parties don't need hundreds of millions to gain seats in the House. If that were the case, public office would be unattainable for 90% of the population. Public subsidies are essential to maintaining our multi-party system. BAD, BAD, move on his part. Is it any wonder, when faced with this threat of extinction (the Liberal Party is nearly bankrupt as it is), that the opposition parties might not band together to quash the bigger bully on the playground?
Peter Van Loan was on CTV earlier today, denouncing the "socialists, and separatists" who are going to take control of the country. What about when Harper tried to get into bed with the Bloc and NDP himself?
"Stephen Harper shows disdain and contempt for Canadians when he tries to fake outrage at opposition party attempts to work together to form a coalition government. Let us not forget the letter he signed on September 9, 2004 (along with Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton), which urged then Governor General Adrien Clarkson to consult with the opposition parties should Paul Martin's Liberal government fall. Mr. Harper asked the Governor General to see if the opposition parties could form a government because they formed a majority in the House. It is this type of cynical, conniving and manipulative politics that might ultimately prove to be Harper's Achilles heel.
Trevor Hache, Ottawa (National Post)
Alas, Conservatives and their supporters constantly pull this double-talk out of the bag. It's okay for them to do it, but not other parties. Think back to when David Emerson was elected as a Liberal in Vancouver in 2006, yet crossed the floor at the invitation of Mr. Harper for a cabinet post. Think back to when Michel Fortier, an UNELECTED party member from Montreal, was given a Senate post by Harper. Why is it always wrong for the other parties to do these things but not for the high and mighty Conservatives?
As Bill Casey, a former Conservative MP, put it: "He [Harper] doesn't get you can only push people around for so long before they push back."
Or this, from the Truro Daily News:
"When Stephen Harper and the Conservatives won their minority this fall and were headed back to Parliament, they said it would be a kinder, gentler session, one of cooperation to help Canada through tough times. Apparently they didn't mean it...should all this come to pass, the Conservatives can blame it on their own hubris."
Or this from La Presse:
"Stephen Harper committed an unpardoned error in putting his partisan interests ahead of those of the country."
Or finally this, from the St. Albert Gazette:
"Playing brinkmanship politics during a global financial crisis, when Canadians are worrying about their jobs and pensions, should cost Stephen Harper his job...Harper's actions are more about playing confrontation politics."
Thus Mr. Harper was beat at his own game. Why, why, did he attempt to cripple his opponents in such a Machiavellian fashion? He only has himself to blame.
Now as for the "separatists running the country" point that critics of the coalition bring up, I must report that:
-Duceppe has agreed to set aside Quebec sovereignty arguments for 18 months and work with this coalition;
-Jean-Claude Rivest, an independent Senator said: "there will be no threats or attempts by the Bloc to take the Canadian government hostage [with this coalition]...that's rubbish...the Conservatives will riase that point but it's really not serious."
Now, the "undemocratic" argument, that this coalition is somehow some "dirty", "backroom" deal:
-No. This is not illegal. Everything that the opposition parties are doing is legal and constitutional.
-Onyl 37 percent of Canadians voted Conservative; 63 percent voted for one of the other three parties. Are not the majority of Canadians now going to have their interests served? For example, only 54 percent of Saskatchewan voters cast their ballots for the Conservatives. That means that nearly 50 percent of Saskatchewan residents voted for someone else. The Conservatives DO NOT represent "the will of Canadians" as the Harper war room has been trumpeting.
Mr. Harper made another blunder by alienating the unions! The unions! As much as I may disagree with some of the tactics/powers unions employ and enjoy, you don't come out and say that! He went after the Public Service Alliance of Canada! Not allowing strikes and handing them only a minimal wage increase over the next 3 years. Totally fair perhaps, even to myself, but you don't actually say that! Now he's got 200,000 angry PSAC members. Add to that the Canadian Labour Congress and Harper's got some big opponents.
I'll sign off with a clip from Elizabeth May:
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/constitutional-chaos/#clip117846
p.s. The dinner table at my girlfriend's family's is going to be a warzone this Christmas.
Here are some simple arguments: the parties involved in the coalition garnered 65% of the votes. Why should the Conservatives, a party which only gained 35% of the national, popular vote, feel entitled to run our country? 65% of us are unhappy with his government!
Some statements from today's National Post:
"It may be impossible to explain to a cynical public, but the essence of Harper's blunder is that he betrayed the trust of Parliament. After some initial posturing about co-operation, he reverted to his ruthless modus operandi, scheming to crush his opponents."
Cape Breton Post
Why did Harper, why did Harper, start off Parliament by introducing a budget that would cripple his political opposition? Cancelling public subsidies to political parties? Those public subsidies are the very lifeblood of our country's pluralistic, multi-party democracy! We are not Americans. Our parties don't need hundreds of millions to gain seats in the House. If that were the case, public office would be unattainable for 90% of the population. Public subsidies are essential to maintaining our multi-party system. BAD, BAD, move on his part. Is it any wonder, when faced with this threat of extinction (the Liberal Party is nearly bankrupt as it is), that the opposition parties might not band together to quash the bigger bully on the playground?
Peter Van Loan was on CTV earlier today, denouncing the "socialists, and separatists" who are going to take control of the country. What about when Harper tried to get into bed with the Bloc and NDP himself?
"Stephen Harper shows disdain and contempt for Canadians when he tries to fake outrage at opposition party attempts to work together to form a coalition government. Let us not forget the letter he signed on September 9, 2004 (along with Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton), which urged then Governor General Adrien Clarkson to consult with the opposition parties should Paul Martin's Liberal government fall. Mr. Harper asked the Governor General to see if the opposition parties could form a government because they formed a majority in the House. It is this type of cynical, conniving and manipulative politics that might ultimately prove to be Harper's Achilles heel.
Trevor Hache, Ottawa (National Post)
Alas, Conservatives and their supporters constantly pull this double-talk out of the bag. It's okay for them to do it, but not other parties. Think back to when David Emerson was elected as a Liberal in Vancouver in 2006, yet crossed the floor at the invitation of Mr. Harper for a cabinet post. Think back to when Michel Fortier, an UNELECTED party member from Montreal, was given a Senate post by Harper. Why is it always wrong for the other parties to do these things but not for the high and mighty Conservatives?
As Bill Casey, a former Conservative MP, put it: "He [Harper] doesn't get you can only push people around for so long before they push back."
Or this, from the Truro Daily News:
"When Stephen Harper and the Conservatives won their minority this fall and were headed back to Parliament, they said it would be a kinder, gentler session, one of cooperation to help Canada through tough times. Apparently they didn't mean it...should all this come to pass, the Conservatives can blame it on their own hubris."
Or this from La Presse:
"Stephen Harper committed an unpardoned error in putting his partisan interests ahead of those of the country."
Or finally this, from the St. Albert Gazette:
"Playing brinkmanship politics during a global financial crisis, when Canadians are worrying about their jobs and pensions, should cost Stephen Harper his job...Harper's actions are more about playing confrontation politics."
Thus Mr. Harper was beat at his own game. Why, why, did he attempt to cripple his opponents in such a Machiavellian fashion? He only has himself to blame.
Now as for the "separatists running the country" point that critics of the coalition bring up, I must report that:
-Duceppe has agreed to set aside Quebec sovereignty arguments for 18 months and work with this coalition;
-Jean-Claude Rivest, an independent Senator said: "there will be no threats or attempts by the Bloc to take the Canadian government hostage [with this coalition]...that's rubbish...the Conservatives will riase that point but it's really not serious."
Now, the "undemocratic" argument, that this coalition is somehow some "dirty", "backroom" deal:
-No. This is not illegal. Everything that the opposition parties are doing is legal and constitutional.
-Onyl 37 percent of Canadians voted Conservative; 63 percent voted for one of the other three parties. Are not the majority of Canadians now going to have their interests served? For example, only 54 percent of Saskatchewan voters cast their ballots for the Conservatives. That means that nearly 50 percent of Saskatchewan residents voted for someone else. The Conservatives DO NOT represent "the will of Canadians" as the Harper war room has been trumpeting.
Mr. Harper made another blunder by alienating the unions! The unions! As much as I may disagree with some of the tactics/powers unions employ and enjoy, you don't come out and say that! He went after the Public Service Alliance of Canada! Not allowing strikes and handing them only a minimal wage increase over the next 3 years. Totally fair perhaps, even to myself, but you don't actually say that! Now he's got 200,000 angry PSAC members. Add to that the Canadian Labour Congress and Harper's got some big opponents.
I'll sign off with a clip from Elizabeth May:
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/constitutional-chaos/#clip117846
p.s. The dinner table at my girlfriend's family's is going to be a warzone this Christmas.
The Three Musketeers of Ottawa
Fascinating times in Canadian politics! History in the making people!
Huge controversy! Guns blazing!
The three opposition parties are banding together to topple the Conservatives. For thos who have a problem with it, watch this:
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/done-deal/#clip117761
Machiavellian politics backfiring baby. Harper, that sly old fox, thought he'd crush his opposition parties, thinking them weak and unable to recover from electoral defeats in a weak economy. By cancelling the $1.95/vote allotted to the parties (payed through by taxpayer dollars at the end of each federal election once all the votes have been tallied) Harper thought he'd throw a KO punch to the other three. WRONG! Rather, the opposition parties have signed a deal and there is a good chance we could have a new government by next week.
One thing however, the Conservatives are likely to porogue parliament, and put off the budget vote until the 26th of January. They will edit their budget and hope it will pass. However, the only problem is, that even with the amendments he makes to his budget, he's alienated the other parties! His true colours have shined through: he wanted to cancel funding to political parties! There is a reason for that funding: we have a pluralistic democracy. We don't have a 2-party system like our neighbours to the south. Parties don't need to have hundreds of millions of dollars to earn seats in the House. Public funding is ESSENTIAL to maintaining our pluralistic, multi-party system. Even if the Tories manage to produce a new budget in late January, this Parliament may not want to support it and instead forge ahead with their own plans for government. Excellent. There's always another way.
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/done-deal/#clip117764
Huge controversy! Guns blazing!
The three opposition parties are banding together to topple the Conservatives. For thos who have a problem with it, watch this:
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/done-deal/#clip117761
Machiavellian politics backfiring baby. Harper, that sly old fox, thought he'd crush his opposition parties, thinking them weak and unable to recover from electoral defeats in a weak economy. By cancelling the $1.95/vote allotted to the parties (payed through by taxpayer dollars at the end of each federal election once all the votes have been tallied) Harper thought he'd throw a KO punch to the other three. WRONG! Rather, the opposition parties have signed a deal and there is a good chance we could have a new government by next week.
One thing however, the Conservatives are likely to porogue parliament, and put off the budget vote until the 26th of January. They will edit their budget and hope it will pass. However, the only problem is, that even with the amendments he makes to his budget, he's alienated the other parties! His true colours have shined through: he wanted to cancel funding to political parties! There is a reason for that funding: we have a pluralistic democracy. We don't have a 2-party system like our neighbours to the south. Parties don't need to have hundreds of millions of dollars to earn seats in the House. Public funding is ESSENTIAL to maintaining our pluralistic, multi-party system. Even if the Tories manage to produce a new budget in late January, this Parliament may not want to support it and instead forge ahead with their own plans for government. Excellent. There's always another way.
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/done-deal/#clip117764
interesting article - personality disorders
I know from my own experience, that mood swings, anxiety, and paranoia really cripple a person. As a diabetic, my blood sugars often dictate how I feel. I can go from happy to sad in a matter of hours. As I get older I'm getting better at sorting it out and addressing my feelings, but it is a neverending struggle.
Most recently I felt like acting like a Soprano. If you act like something youre not, long enough, you actually change thought patterns and sort of become that other person - which is weird. But it caused a few fights in my personal life and I hope not to go down that path again.
I am quite influential and watching 3 episodes of Sopranos a day for almost a week was not a good idea. I will be watching no more of The Sopranos.
It's hard to be one's self when you're hurt or shit on - you feel that if you put up a bit of a front then it's only your front that gets hurt. It sort of serves as a "buffer", not allowing people to really get close to the real "you". However, you do give up something when you behave like this - yourself. And when you give up being yourself, forget who you are and what you stand for, you have a problem.
From now on, no matter how much I get annoyed or crapped on, I will always be myself. I not only owe it to myself to behave this way, but also to everyone that is important in my life.
1 in 5 young Americans has personality disorder
Fewer than 25 percent of college-age suffers get treatment, study finds
The Associated Press
updated 5:10 p.m. ET, Mon., Dec. 1, 2008
CHICAGO - Almost one in five young American adults has a personality disorder that interferes with everyday life, and even more abuse alcohol or drugs, researchers reported Monday in the most extensive study of its kind.
The disorders include problems such as obsessive or compulsive tendencies and anti-social behavior that can sometimes lead to violence. The study also found that fewer than 25 percent of college-aged Americans with mental problems get treatment.
One expert said personality disorders may be overdiagnosed. But others said the results were not surprising since previous, less rigorous evidence has suggested mental problems are common on college campuses and elsewhere.
Experts praised the study's scope — face-to-face interviews about numerous disorders with more than 5,000 young people ages 19 to 25 — and said it spotlights a problem college administrators need to address.
Study co-author Dr. Mark Olfson of Columbia University and New York State Psychiatric Institute called the widespread lack of treatment particularly worrisome. He said it should alert not only "students and parents, but also deans and people who run college mental health services about the need to extend access to treatment."
Particularly vulnerable
Counting substance abuse, the study found that nearly half of young people surveyed have some sort of psychiatric condition, including students and non-students.
Personality disorders were the second most common problem behind drug or alcohol abuse as a single category. The disorders include obsessive, anti-social and paranoid behaviors that are not mere quirks but actually interfere with ordinary functioning.
The study authors noted that recent tragedies such as fatal shootings at Northern Illinois University and Virginia Tech have raised awareness about the prevalence of mental illness on college campuses.
They also suggest that this age group might be particularly vulnerable.
"For many, young adulthood is characterized by the pursuit of greater educational opportunities and employment prospects, development of personal relationships, and for some, parenthood," the authors said. These circumstances, they said, can result in stress that triggers the start or recurrence of psychiatric problems.
According to the National Institute of Mental Health, an estimated 1 in four U.S. adults suffers from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.
Highlighting a need
The study was released Monday in Archives of General Psychiatry. It was based on interviews with 5,092 young adults in 2001 and 2002.
Olfson said it took time to analzye the data, including weighting the results to extrapolate national numbers. But the authors said the results would probably hold true today.
The study was funded with grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the New York Psychiatric Institute.
Dr. Sharon Hirsch, a University of Chicago psychiatrist not involved in the study, praised it for raising awareness about the problem and the high numbers of affected people who don't get help.
Imagine if more than 75 percent of diabetic college students didn't get treatment, Hirsch said. "Just think about what would be happening on our college campuses."
The results highlight the need for mental health services to be housed with other medical services on college campuses, to erase the stigma and make it more likely that people will seek help, she said.
In the study, trained interviewers, but not psychiatrists, questioned participants about symptoms. They used an assessment tool similar to criteria doctors use to diagnose mental illness.
Dr. Jerald Kay, a psychiatry professor at Wright State University and chairman of the American Psychiatric Association's college mental health committee, said the assessment tool is considered valid and more rigorous than self-reports of mental illness. He was not involved in the study.
Personality disorders showed up in similar numbers among both students and non-students, including the most common one, obsessive compulsive personality disorder. About 8 percent of young adults in both groups had this illness, which can include an extreme preoccupation with details, rules, orderliness and perfectionism.
Kay said the prevalence of personality disorders was higher than he would expect and questioned whether the condition might be overdiagnosed.
All good students have a touch of "obsessional" personality that helps them work hard to achieve. But that's different from an obsessional disorder that makes people inflexible and controlling and interferes with their lives, he explained.
Obsessive compulsive personality disorder differs from the better known OCD, or obsessive-compulsive disorder, which features repetitive actions such as hand-washing to avoid germs.
OCD is thought to affect about 2 percent of the general population. The study didn't examine OCD separately but grouped it with all anxiety disorders, seen in about 12 percent of college-aged people in the survey.
The overall rate of other disorders was also pretty similar among college students and non-students.
Substance abuse, including drug addiction, alcoholism and other drinking that interferes with school or work, affected nearly one-third of those in both groups.
Slightly more college students than non-students were problem drinkers — 20 percent versus 17 percent. And slightly more non-students had drug problems — nearly 7 percent versus 5 percent.
In both groups, about 8 percent had phobias and 7 percent had depression.
Bipolar disorder was slightly more common in non-students, affecting almost 5 percent versus about 3 percent of students.
More on personality disorders
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28002991/?gt1=43001
Most recently I felt like acting like a Soprano. If you act like something youre not, long enough, you actually change thought patterns and sort of become that other person - which is weird. But it caused a few fights in my personal life and I hope not to go down that path again.
I am quite influential and watching 3 episodes of Sopranos a day for almost a week was not a good idea. I will be watching no more of The Sopranos.
It's hard to be one's self when you're hurt or shit on - you feel that if you put up a bit of a front then it's only your front that gets hurt. It sort of serves as a "buffer", not allowing people to really get close to the real "you". However, you do give up something when you behave like this - yourself. And when you give up being yourself, forget who you are and what you stand for, you have a problem.
From now on, no matter how much I get annoyed or crapped on, I will always be myself. I not only owe it to myself to behave this way, but also to everyone that is important in my life.
1 in 5 young Americans has personality disorder
Fewer than 25 percent of college-age suffers get treatment, study finds
The Associated Press
updated 5:10 p.m. ET, Mon., Dec. 1, 2008
CHICAGO - Almost one in five young American adults has a personality disorder that interferes with everyday life, and even more abuse alcohol or drugs, researchers reported Monday in the most extensive study of its kind.
The disorders include problems such as obsessive or compulsive tendencies and anti-social behavior that can sometimes lead to violence. The study also found that fewer than 25 percent of college-aged Americans with mental problems get treatment.
One expert said personality disorders may be overdiagnosed. But others said the results were not surprising since previous, less rigorous evidence has suggested mental problems are common on college campuses and elsewhere.
Experts praised the study's scope — face-to-face interviews about numerous disorders with more than 5,000 young people ages 19 to 25 — and said it spotlights a problem college administrators need to address.
Study co-author Dr. Mark Olfson of Columbia University and New York State Psychiatric Institute called the widespread lack of treatment particularly worrisome. He said it should alert not only "students and parents, but also deans and people who run college mental health services about the need to extend access to treatment."
Particularly vulnerable
Counting substance abuse, the study found that nearly half of young people surveyed have some sort of psychiatric condition, including students and non-students.
Personality disorders were the second most common problem behind drug or alcohol abuse as a single category. The disorders include obsessive, anti-social and paranoid behaviors that are not mere quirks but actually interfere with ordinary functioning.
The study authors noted that recent tragedies such as fatal shootings at Northern Illinois University and Virginia Tech have raised awareness about the prevalence of mental illness on college campuses.
They also suggest that this age group might be particularly vulnerable.
"For many, young adulthood is characterized by the pursuit of greater educational opportunities and employment prospects, development of personal relationships, and for some, parenthood," the authors said. These circumstances, they said, can result in stress that triggers the start or recurrence of psychiatric problems.
According to the National Institute of Mental Health, an estimated 1 in four U.S. adults suffers from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.
Highlighting a need
The study was released Monday in Archives of General Psychiatry. It was based on interviews with 5,092 young adults in 2001 and 2002.
Olfson said it took time to analzye the data, including weighting the results to extrapolate national numbers. But the authors said the results would probably hold true today.
The study was funded with grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the New York Psychiatric Institute.
Dr. Sharon Hirsch, a University of Chicago psychiatrist not involved in the study, praised it for raising awareness about the problem and the high numbers of affected people who don't get help.
Imagine if more than 75 percent of diabetic college students didn't get treatment, Hirsch said. "Just think about what would be happening on our college campuses."
The results highlight the need for mental health services to be housed with other medical services on college campuses, to erase the stigma and make it more likely that people will seek help, she said.
In the study, trained interviewers, but not psychiatrists, questioned participants about symptoms. They used an assessment tool similar to criteria doctors use to diagnose mental illness.
Dr. Jerald Kay, a psychiatry professor at Wright State University and chairman of the American Psychiatric Association's college mental health committee, said the assessment tool is considered valid and more rigorous than self-reports of mental illness. He was not involved in the study.
Personality disorders showed up in similar numbers among both students and non-students, including the most common one, obsessive compulsive personality disorder. About 8 percent of young adults in both groups had this illness, which can include an extreme preoccupation with details, rules, orderliness and perfectionism.
Kay said the prevalence of personality disorders was higher than he would expect and questioned whether the condition might be overdiagnosed.
All good students have a touch of "obsessional" personality that helps them work hard to achieve. But that's different from an obsessional disorder that makes people inflexible and controlling and interferes with their lives, he explained.
Obsessive compulsive personality disorder differs from the better known OCD, or obsessive-compulsive disorder, which features repetitive actions such as hand-washing to avoid germs.
OCD is thought to affect about 2 percent of the general population. The study didn't examine OCD separately but grouped it with all anxiety disorders, seen in about 12 percent of college-aged people in the survey.
The overall rate of other disorders was also pretty similar among college students and non-students.
Substance abuse, including drug addiction, alcoholism and other drinking that interferes with school or work, affected nearly one-third of those in both groups.
Slightly more college students than non-students were problem drinkers — 20 percent versus 17 percent. And slightly more non-students had drug problems — nearly 7 percent versus 5 percent.
In both groups, about 8 percent had phobias and 7 percent had depression.
Bipolar disorder was slightly more common in non-students, affecting almost 5 percent versus about 3 percent of students.
More on personality disorders
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28002991/?gt1=43001
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Moral Scruples
Sorry, but I have to rob you
He also agrees to owner's request that dollar bills be left behind
The Associated Press
WEST DANVILLE, Vt. - A man who held up a general store in Vermont was apologetic — and more — about it.
The owner of Joe's Pond Country Store in West Danville says the man who held him up at knifepoint this week told him, "I'm very sorry I have to do this."
And when owner Jeff Downs asked the thief to leave behind the one-dollar bills, so that the workers on the next shift would have something in the till, he agreed.
A state police spokesman says no arrests have been made. He says the robber may be someone who's "just desperate, but isn't a career criminal."
As for the store owner, he's suggesting money is scarce in the wrong places. Downs says, "Wall Street tycoons can't live on millions and here is this kid willing to be shot or go to jail for a couple of hundred bucks." In his words, "Something is not right."
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27843551/
The link to this story was "Robber apologetic". A lot of people feel that robbers and the baddies out there are a different breed of people, a breed of people with no scruples or morals. They forget that first and foremost, we are all human. Of course!!! robbers feel bad when they rob a place. What, do people honestly believe that people who commit bad deeds don't suffer from their bad deeds, or a feel pangs of guilt? Dangerous offenders have been interviewed countless times and confess that they regret what they did and that they can't stop thinking about the event/misdeed. Post traumatic stress disorder for soldiers. It's hard to shoot someone and not feel guilty afterwards. Remember the NYC police officer that tasered a suspected criminal a few months back. The suspect fell to his death. The NYC went back to the precinct and shot himself in the basement.
People always feel guilty. No one is born a criminal. Yes of course there are those out there who are mentally disturbed to the point that it would appear that they have no qualms about their misdeeds, but I suspect that even the most deranged offender has flashbacks and guilt pangs. After all, we are all human. Our minds and bodies are affected and influenced by the same factors. Happy events = we feel good. Bad events = we feel pain/sadness/remorse.
It's funny. Cause the link to that story, "robber apologetic" tells me that a certain percentage of the population still feel that people who commit bad deeds are bad apples and that they never feel any remorse/regret. We are all human - of course they do. And this is all the more reason to get these people help before they get to this point. Perhaps the robber in the story owed money (gambling problems, foreclosure on his mortgage, etc.) or was a drug addict. We have to provide people with gambling/drug addictions REHABILITATION and apply preventative measures (most important), so that people aren't forced to do such things.
Now the pundits will say, forced to do such things, no one is forced to do such things. Why do people do them then? Of course there are other options, but people who are down and out and who have not had a good upbringing don't always know of the other options. They haven't had the same guidance that us more privileged folk have had.
Now the libertarian in me will say that, well how about just live and let live? Why should our tax dollars go to supporting people who have made poor life decisions? I made good decisions, I shouldn't have to pay for the mistakes of others. Does this sound like you? Well do you enjoy driving downtown without getting carjacked?
Do you enjoy not being forced to have a security system or an armed guard at your residence? If we let the people who make poor decisions suffer all the consequences of their poor decisions, without providing rehabilitation and assistance, we risk seeing our peaceful society turn into one of upturned, flaming cars, armed militias roaming the streets, etc. Let's fix things before such things occur.
He also agrees to owner's request that dollar bills be left behind
The Associated Press
WEST DANVILLE, Vt. - A man who held up a general store in Vermont was apologetic — and more — about it.
The owner of Joe's Pond Country Store in West Danville says the man who held him up at knifepoint this week told him, "I'm very sorry I have to do this."
And when owner Jeff Downs asked the thief to leave behind the one-dollar bills, so that the workers on the next shift would have something in the till, he agreed.
A state police spokesman says no arrests have been made. He says the robber may be someone who's "just desperate, but isn't a career criminal."
As for the store owner, he's suggesting money is scarce in the wrong places. Downs says, "Wall Street tycoons can't live on millions and here is this kid willing to be shot or go to jail for a couple of hundred bucks." In his words, "Something is not right."
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27843551/
The link to this story was "Robber apologetic". A lot of people feel that robbers and the baddies out there are a different breed of people, a breed of people with no scruples or morals. They forget that first and foremost, we are all human. Of course!!! robbers feel bad when they rob a place. What, do people honestly believe that people who commit bad deeds don't suffer from their bad deeds, or a feel pangs of guilt? Dangerous offenders have been interviewed countless times and confess that they regret what they did and that they can't stop thinking about the event/misdeed. Post traumatic stress disorder for soldiers. It's hard to shoot someone and not feel guilty afterwards. Remember the NYC police officer that tasered a suspected criminal a few months back. The suspect fell to his death. The NYC went back to the precinct and shot himself in the basement.
People always feel guilty. No one is born a criminal. Yes of course there are those out there who are mentally disturbed to the point that it would appear that they have no qualms about their misdeeds, but I suspect that even the most deranged offender has flashbacks and guilt pangs. After all, we are all human. Our minds and bodies are affected and influenced by the same factors. Happy events = we feel good. Bad events = we feel pain/sadness/remorse.
It's funny. Cause the link to that story, "robber apologetic" tells me that a certain percentage of the population still feel that people who commit bad deeds are bad apples and that they never feel any remorse/regret. We are all human - of course they do. And this is all the more reason to get these people help before they get to this point. Perhaps the robber in the story owed money (gambling problems, foreclosure on his mortgage, etc.) or was a drug addict. We have to provide people with gambling/drug addictions REHABILITATION and apply preventative measures (most important), so that people aren't forced to do such things.
Now the pundits will say, forced to do such things, no one is forced to do such things. Why do people do them then? Of course there are other options, but people who are down and out and who have not had a good upbringing don't always know of the other options. They haven't had the same guidance that us more privileged folk have had.
Now the libertarian in me will say that, well how about just live and let live? Why should our tax dollars go to supporting people who have made poor life decisions? I made good decisions, I shouldn't have to pay for the mistakes of others. Does this sound like you? Well do you enjoy driving downtown without getting carjacked?
Do you enjoy not being forced to have a security system or an armed guard at your residence? If we let the people who make poor decisions suffer all the consequences of their poor decisions, without providing rehabilitation and assistance, we risk seeing our peaceful society turn into one of upturned, flaming cars, armed militias roaming the streets, etc. Let's fix things before such things occur.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
