On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:40:03 +0100, jake <nospamhere@all> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 19:22:30 GMT, Joe Parsons <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:11:07 +0100, jake <nospamhere@all> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>Still playing at university seminars?
>>
>>Do you mean, do I rely on primary sources (rather than second- or third- hand
>>accounts) wherever possible in any matter of importance?
>
>no..
>
>
>> Yes. Do I try to
>>apply critical thinking skills? Yes. Frankly, I think these are important
>>skills. Don't you?
>
>certainly..and one of the fruits of critical thinking is the ability
>to discern people like you.. rubbishing a source when you cant deal
>with the facts.
It appears that what you are saying is that a secondary or tertiary source, like
a newspaper, is as valid to you as any primary source of information.
O...kay. That explains a lot.
But you are right, in that I do view a tabloid newspaper as being less
immediately credible than some other non-primary source. These publications
rely a great deal more on sensationalism to sell newspapers than it does
journalistic integrity.
>1+1=2 whatever the souce of the information...
>
>you are very good at posing and answering your own questions...
Thank you. I try to ask reasonable questions and to suggest sensible answers.
>The question asked was... where is it happening?
>the answer is the USA.
>
>
>>
>>>Do you imagine Ms Lawson is lying?
>>
>>Do you believe the tabloid account tells the whole story?
>
>Ms Lawson tells her story articulately enough..It is only one of many.
>the black community could tell..
Does that mean that you *do* accept the newspaper account as being the entire
story? Nothing was left out? No backstory, no background information? And Ms.
Lawson doesn't tell her story articulately, at all; there are no quotes
attributed to her at all.
There was another, similar story, about three years ago. CPS got involved with
a New York couple who, if the newspaper accounts were to be believed, were told
to drug their child, or lose custody.
There was justifiable outrage about the heavy-handedness of the school and the
invasion of privacy on the part of Albany County Family Court Judge Gerard
Maney.
There were a few pieces of the story that were not widely reported, but which
are found in sources closer to the facts. Some of these pieces may change one's
evaluation of the situation, while others may raise some interesting questions.
First of all, Judge Maney did *not* say, "Drug your kid or lose him." He said,
"You cannot ignore the problem Kyle is having in school. Present some
alternative to the physician's diagnosis and prescription." They didn't--but
consented to an "adjournment in contemplation of dismissal." That meant that,
being unwilling to provide some alternative solution to Kyle's manifest
problems, they agreed to take the earlier solution.
Second: Michael Carroll, the father, had been investigated for domestic violence
toward his spouse and toward his children. As is common with many of these
kinds of cases, court action was not initiated. Was there actually a real
history of domestic violence in the household? There's no way to know for
certain, absent court records, and there are none--but it does raise the
question.
Finally, there is the interesting fact that Mr. and Mrs. Carroll had separate
attorneys: the father was represented by the Public Defender, while the mother
had her own attorney. While this fact is not conclusive of anything, it is not
typical in this type of hearing (AFAIK) and could lend credence to the idea that
there was something else going on in the Carroll household contributing to the
situation.
It's amazing what you can learn, if you look beyond lurid headlines daytime
television.
>>>New York is just one of many places it is happening ..as the NAACP
>>>point out. I dont expect you to address racial preducidice in
>>>diagnosis ..you delude yourself and others that it is some kind of
>>>objective assessment .
>>>
>>>never mind..
>>>The Child Safety Medication Act of 2003 is likely curtail the zeal..
>>
>>Have you ever bothered to read the actual text of HR 1170? Are you familiar
>>with its sponsors? The amendments? The debate? What actual changes it might
>>make, if any?
>
>"The Child Medication Safety Act of 2003 stipulates that as a
>condition of receiving funds under any program or activity
>administered by the Secretary of Education, each state will be
>required to establish policies and procedures that prohibit school
>personnel from demanding a child take drugs in order to attend school
>or receive educational services."
>
>sounds quite good enough for me.
>as I said.. it will curtail the zeal..
Since the incidence of "demanding a child take drugs" is *extremely* slight, it
is not likely to make a significant difference.
The "zeal" you speak of: is that related to the "skyrocketing" number of ER
interventions for methylphenidate abuse?
Joe Parsons
>"Commenting on the benefits of new legislation Fred Shaw, Compton
>NAACP Branch President said, The Child Medication Safety Act will
>help restore the partnership between parents and teachers, which has
>been harmed by teachers being forced to act as mental health
>clinicians.
>
>Parents need their rights safeguarded so they can make informed
>decisions on the health and educational needs of their children".
>
>You have some problem with that?
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Joe Parsons