Monday, October 31, 2005

New England Journal of Medicine - TASERS!!!

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/353/9/958
Volume 353:958-959
September 1, 2005
Number 9

Ventricular Fibrillation after Stun-Gun Discharge

September 02, 2005

original article by Alex Berenson

A shock from a Taser stun gun caused a teenager in Chicago to go into ventricular fibrillation, a usually fatal heart disturbance, according to a letter published yesterday in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Tasers are pistol-like weapons that fire electrified barbs up to 25 feet, immobilizing people with painful shocks.
Dr. Wayne H. Franklin, a pediatric electrophysiologist at Children’s Memorial and one of the letter’s authors, said that the teenager would have died if he had not received immediate care. An electrocardiogram or heart rhythm test, administered to the teenager, proved that he suffered fibrillation, Dr. Franklin said.
About 130 people have died after being shocked by a Taser, including 70 in the past 12 months, according to Amnesty International, which has called for a moratorium on the use of the guns.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/Arrhythmias/tb/1654
By Neil Osterweil, Senior Associate Editor, MedPage Today September 02, 2005 “An adolescent was subdued with a Taser stun gun and subsequently collapsed," "Paramedics found the adolescent to be in ventricular fibrillation and began performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation within two minutes after the collapse," wrote Paul J. Kim, M.D., and Wayne H. Franklin, M.D., of Children's Memorial Hospital in a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine. The letter was accompanied by electrocardiogram tracings showing the boy's heart rhythm before and after defibrillation.
At a meeting of the Academy of Forensic Sciences in February, electrical engineer James Ruggieri made a presentation in which he said that the electrical output of Taser's M26 model succeeds the fibrillation threshold for half the U.S. population. Primary source: New England Journal of Medicine

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/27/AR2005092700706.html
By BETH DeFALCO
The Associated Press Tuesday, September 27, 2005; 5:30 PM
The Securities and Exchange Commission inquiry into stun-gun maker Taser International Inc. is now a formal investigation with an expanded scope, the company said Tuesday.
Shares of Taser fell 96 cents, or 13 percent, to close at $6.35 Tuesday on the Nasdaq Stock Market, slipping below its 52-week range of $7.11 to $33.45.

Class Tensions and the Falsity of “Choice”

CHOICELESSNESS
Class Tensions and the Falsity of “Choice”

What kind of choice is working 40 or more hours every week just to spend over half of that money on rent for a place to sleep, eat, and have privacy, only to find out that you barely have any time to spend in this expensive place? What kind of freedom is conditional upon submission to the noxious reign of capitalism and private property to legitimize membership in the community?
What other choice is there but to withdraw from this sinister con-game that fools us into participating in our own demise, just to meet our immediate needs?
There has been much speculation in Arcata lately about those who “choose to be homeless.” For most homeless people, if not all, being homeless is not a choice. Most would prefer a safe warm place to sleep and to keep their stuff. Even the highly politicized research recently done by Humboldt State University makes this obvious. Even those who “choose” to be unhoused do so because their other options are too fucked-up to realistically consider.
The capitalist economic system, with its grip on space as private property to be paid for, demands scarcity. While buildings sit vacant with “For Sale” or “For Rent” signs, people are harassed off of cold concrete storefronts. Meanwhile, a vocal bunch of house-owning and business-owning individuals make excuses for this inane system, and blame the homeless for not doing enough to house themselves. Most of us are a paycheck away from being homeless ourselves, but as long as we stay obediently out of sight in our paid-for private dwellings, we will not be bothered.
If it hasn’t already been brought to your attention, perhaps the local debate on homelessness reveals the state of our freedom in this country. Those who choose to either boycott the rent/private property paradigm, or who simply cannot operate within its domain, are expected to hide from public view, and are harassed or cited for sleeping wherever they can. Some have been assaulted by the police with Taser stun-guns, which have been found to be LETHAL (New England Journal of Medicine, September 1, 2005 http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/353/9/958).
Does the community approve of the tax-funded police-enforced policies of keeping the poor and homeless living in fear and out of sight? Does the community know how much tax-money is spent on enforcing these policies compared to how much tax-money is spent making sure that everyone has enough to eat?
How much does the non-homeless community know about those labeled as “homeless by choice”?
What kind of choice do we have?

FREE SPEECH, the police, and the McKinleyville statue

FREE SPEECH, the police, and the McKinleyville statue at Food Not Bombs on the plaza
McKinley Quick Facts:
Under McKinley’s presidency, the United States invaded Cuba, Guam, the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Hawaii.
McKinley claimed that the invasions were humanitarian in nature, but instead inflicted suffering on the people and seized control of their LAND.


On three separate occasions, Arcata police overseers have shown up on the plaza when a man climbed the statue of McKinley (supposed to be in McKinleyville) and spoke in opposition to the current U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. All three times, police overseers have tried to intimidate the free-speech performer, but were halted by on-lookers who did not approve of the police mis-conduct.
Arcata police overseers Ron Sligh and Kevin Stoneberger attempted to intimidate those who spoke out publicly against the genocidal war that the United States and corporate co-conspirators are waging in Iraq. Their efforts went unheeded.
Arcata police overseers leave the plaza.
Why were they there in the first place?
Who called them? Why?
Why were the police trying to get the identification numbers of people who speak out against the illegal genocidal U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq?


Food Not Bombs! has chosen to take a stand against violence. We are committed to nonviolent social change by giving out free vegetarian food thus celebrating and nurturing life. Poverty is violence. One expression of the violence of poverty is hunger. Millions of Americans, almost half children, go hungry every day. By spending money on bombs instead of food, our government perpetuates and exacerbates the violence of poverty by failing to provide food for everyone in need

BRIBING RANGER BOB

Humboldt Property Management recently bought Arcata police department’s ranger Bob Murphy a $1600 bicycle to make his gentrification-enforcement efforts more comfortable and enjoyable. (See Arcata Eye 8/30/05)

Humboldt Property Management surely expects their business to flourish as the well-equipped ranger Bob drives away any individuals that might pose a threat to property values.

Is it immoral for a property management company that stands to make a significant FINANCIAL GAIN from ranger Bob’s routine VIOLATIONS of the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of unhoused people to give him a $1600 bike as a gift?
Of course it is!
But is it illegal?

Thursday, October 13, 2005

LET'S BE BLUNT

LET’S BE BLUNT
During the October 5th Arcata city council meeting, president of Humboldt State University Rollin Richmond spoke out against medicinal use of cannabis, contradicting most scientific findings and traditional wisdom.

His goal? To convince the Arcata city council to remain silently complicit while the University Police Department enforces HSU’s “zero tolerance” cannabis policy on targeted segments of the ARCATA population (not just campus).

Some notable quotes from Oct. 5th
Arcata city council meeting:
“We will not tolerate medical marijuana on campus and we will discipline students who have it and remove it from them.”

“One of the things we would hope to do is work with your police chief and your police force to collaborate more effectively than we already do in the use of our joint police forces.”

“I cannot ask the police at the university to work with the police force in Arcata if my police people cannot enforce the laws in the same way they do on campus within the city of Arcata.”

“We brought before you the other evening a Healthy Plaza Initiative, which is supported by the university, a number of business organizations in the community and a number of business people.”

He has also spoken at Homeless Task Force meetings, saying that some people just don’t fit into his idea of what society is.
Richmond suggests more police.

where's the "chronic"?

where’s the “CHRONIC”?

HSU professor Jane Holschuh and president Rollin Richmond at a task force meeting.Humboldt State University’s president, Rollin Richmond, has been attending Arcata City Council meetings with the purpose of blaming homeless people for declining enrollment at the university. In spite of his flimsy story, the HSU consultant team to Arcata’s Homeless Task Force has devised a plan for labeling people “chronically homeless” based on questionable and vague standards, and forcing mis-treatment on them, based on the presumption that they are “mentally ill,” have a “disabling condition,” and are a danger to themselves or others.

The definition of “chronic homeless”: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/homelessness/strategies03/ch.htm#ch2
HHS, HUD, and VA have agreed on the characteristics of persons experiencing chronic homelessness and use the following definition in their collaborations:
An unaccompanied homeless individual with a disabling condition who has either been continuously homeless for a year or has had at least four (4) episodes of homelessness in the past three (3) years.

The Homeless Services Plan (available at http://cdc.humboldt.edu/ahtf/), written by HSU representatives, to be enforced on the Arcata population, refers a number of times to “chronically homeless” people, but keeps the definition vague and broadly applicable. In fact, the federal definition, which includes having a “disabling condition” as a qualifier to fit the label, was REMOVED from the plan.

This definition was available in the 7/21/05 version of the plan (available at http://cdc.humboldt.edu/ahtf/), but is absent from later versions of the draft. After concern about the vagueness of the definition and broadness of its application (and seriousness of its implications) was brought up several times at task force meetings, HSU professor Jane Holschuh said that she would include the federal definition in the plan, but it is still not in the most recent version. Why not? Why was it removed in the first place?

The implication of the vague and broad use of the term “chronic homeless” is that every unhoused person could be labeled as being in need of involuntarily receiving the heavy-handed help of the State, including forced drugging and confinement in a mental “health” facility.

SELF HELP MAKES STRONG COMMUNITIES

SELF HELP MAKES STRONG COMMUNITIES

Food Not Bombs, a radical direct action group that serves free vegetarian meals, was recently approached and asked to cook at the Arcata Endeavor on Saturdays, where there is plenty of food that would otherwise go unprepared and unserved on weekends. This is in addition to FNB’s meals served throughout the week that are cooked in the homes of volunteers. It was discussed and decided that it would be tried.

For several months now, there has been healthy vegetarian food served at 1:00 pm on Saturdays at the Endeavor (at no extra cost to taxpayers), and there are still enough volunteers to prepare and serve dinner at 5:30 pm on the plaza. Many of the volunteers now cooking lunch at the Endeavor on Saturdays were not previously affiliated with Food Not Bombs.

These events make clear that the facilities exist for those in need to be given the opportunity to help themselves. Instead of acquiring large sums of money to study the obvious lack of basic necessities, and spending lots of money hiring people who reinforce the separations between service providers and service recipients, Arcata could allow the already existing facilities to be used by those who are willing to volunteer to provide services to themselves and others. The costs of operation (utilities, supplies) could be covered by the money saved.

Not only would this less-hierarchical approach save money, and time spent to acquire that money, but it would also set an example of this historically tested and trusted method of social planning that involves less professional authoritarianism, and the actual meeting of more needs. The D Street Neighborhood Center is a perfect place to open up. Currently is sits locked and empty most of the time.

The direct action of preparing and sharing meals helps to relieve some of the pressures that create tensions in our community. Healthy and nutritious meals provide relief from the immediate discomfort and anxiety of being hungry, and prevent the long-term negative effects of malnutrition. For those overwhelmed by the cost of living in today’s society, FNB’s free meals provide relief from the competition for ever more scarce dollars.

Preparing meals together is a good way to engage our innate ability to get along and work cooperatively to meet our common needs. By addressing the issue of hunger directly, FNB also demonstrates our ability to solve community problems from within the community.

Monday, September 12, 2005

definition: GENTRIFICATION

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification

Gentrification refers to the physical, social, economic, and cultural phenomenon whereby working-class and/or inner-city neighborhoods are converted into more affluent middle or even upper-class communities by remodelling buildings and landscaping, resulting in increased property values and in the outflow of poorer residents, either through displacement or succession.

TASK FORCE ARCATA

TASK FORCE ARCATA

The Arcata city government’s Homeless Task Force, without any “homeless representatives” (since they resigned in disgust), is in the final stages of putting together
the “PLAN” for Arcata.
The main focus of the plan is to keep unhoused people out of sight, and manufactures FALSE JUSTIFICATION for KIDNAPPING us off of the streets, forcing DANGEROUS PHARMACEUTICALS on us, and MANDATORY INTRUSIVE CASE MANAGEMENT that violates our rights to privacy and self-determination.
Drafts of the PLAN available at: http://cdc.humboldt.edu/ahtf/ (see main menu and Agenda for 8.4.05 pgs. 24-72)

SOURCES: Police Abuse and Psychiatric Repression of the Homeless (story from Arcata)
http://www.thestreetspirit.org/July2005/repression.htm

FDA warnings about anti-depressants
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/antidepressants/AntidepressanstPHA.htm
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/advisory/mdd.htm
http://theplazoid.blogspot.com/2005/08/fda-warnings-about-anti-depressants.html

Prop 63: Psychiatry Plundering The Golden State to Abuse Children
Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) http://www.cchr.org/prop63.htm

Psychiatric Drugs: An Assault on the Human Condition
http://www.thestreetspirit.org/August2005/interview.htm

Zyprexa: A Prescription for Diabetes, Disease and Early Death
http://www.thestreetspirit.org/August2005/zyprexa.htm

Psychiatric Abuses and the Homeless Community
http://www.thestreetspirit.org/August2005/psychatric.htm

The PLAN is based largely on the biased interpretation of the results of a biased SURVEY, conducted while most students were out of town on summer break, and interpreted by the Humboldt State University consulting team that lead the TASK FORCE.
Other “rectally extracted” data dictated the PLAN, including an interview with Arcata’s chief of police who concluded that “urban anarchists” are Arcata’s “#2” public health concern.
see the interview notes at: http://www.geocities.com/solarimix/AHSPTF_arcata_police_chief.pdf
see also: “Arcata's chief of police and McCarthyism” at:
http://theplazoid.blogspot.com/2005/06/arcatas-chief-of-police-and.html
The SURVEY, which polled the opinions of some Arcatans (homeowners over represented by 300%) and non-Arcatans (20% of respondents don’t live in Arcata, see pg.18 of the August 19 version of the plan, internet address above), used leading questions to push the ideas of “mandatory case management” and “required volunteerism.”
(see questions 11, 12, 13, and 17).

Survey available on the net at the end of the task force agenda for 8.4.05, pg 68-72: http://cdc.humboldt.edu/ahtf/
Survey results also available (incomplete) at same internet address. Notice missing data, including
question #26: “Annual income” of respondents.

Monday, August 29, 2005

RACIST ATTACK BY BLUE LAKE POLICE

RACIST ATTACK BY
BLUE LAKE POLICE

On May 16th, 2005, the Blue Lake police, including chief Gundersen, launched a racially motivated attack on a homeless mother and her children. The woman was shot with a taser electro-shock gun, forcibly medicated with the dangerous pharmaceutical Haldol, allegedly abused sexually while unconscious, and taken to jail. She was told by police chief Gundersen that she was not allowed in Blue Lake due to her race.

“Do you know what it feels like to fight for your life and kids lives and in a flash it’s taken from you for no reason, No reason at all?”
- from the diary of Yvonne Phillips, memo log of arrest.
Full account printed in the Humboldt Advocate, August 24-30, 2005, pg. 8.

Thursday, August 25, 2005

FDA warnings about anti-depressants

WARNING!
Withdrawal from psychiatric drugs should be done under clinical supervision.

http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/antidepressants/AntidepressanstPHA.htm
FDA Public Health Advisory
March 22, 2004

WORSENING DEPRESSION AND SUICIDALITY
IN PATIENTS BEING TREATED WITH
ANTIDEPRESSANT MEDICATIONS
Today the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asked manufacturers of the following antidepressant drugs to include in their labeling a Warning statement that recommends close observation of adult and pediatric patients treated with these agents for worsening depression or the emergence of suicidality. The drugs that are the focus of this new Warning are: Prozac (fluoxetine); Zoloft (sertraline); Paxil (paroxetine); Luvox (fluvoxamine); Celexa (citalopram); Lexapro (escitalopram); Wellbutrin (bupropion); Effexor (venlafaxine); Serzone (nefazodone); and Remeron (mirtazapine).


http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/advisory/mdd.htm
FDA Public Health Advisory
October 27, 2003

REPORTS OF SUICIDALITY
IN PEDIATRIC PATIENTS BEING TREATED WITH
ANTIDEPRESSANT MEDICATIONS
FOR MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER (MDD)

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would like to call your attention to reports of the occurrence of suicidality (both suicidal ideation and suicide attempts) in clinical trials for various antidepressant drugs in pediatric patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). While occurrences of suicidality are not unexpected in patients with MDD, preliminary data suggest an excess of such reports for patients assigned to several of these antidepressant drugs compared to those assigned to placebo. FDA has completed a preliminary review of such reports for 8 antidepressant drugs (citalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine*, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine) studied under the pediatric exclusivity provision, and has determined that additional data and analysis, and also a public discussion of available data, are needed.

WARNING!
Withdrawal from psychiatric drugs should be done under clinical supervision.

Monday, August 22, 2005

the CHRONIC


According to the Homeless Task Force’s HSU consulting team, anybody who has been homeless for “longer periods” (whatever that is) is “chronically homeless,” which, defined by HUD (federal department of Housing and Urban Development), means that they have a “disabling condition.” If that “disabling condition” isn’t physical, then it is presumed to be mental, and so HSU seems to suggest that anybody who has been homeless for more than a short while is mentally ill, unless that person has a physical disability that causes homelessness.
Using this rationale, HSU then interjects the insidious idea of mandatory case management...


from the Humboldt State University’s
Homeless Services Plan draft:

“Research shows us that most people who experience homelessness (80%) are homeless for only a short period and can be housed either through assistance in locating suitable housing or with a rent subsidy. Other people are homeless for longer periods or cycle in and out of homelessness. These chronically homeless people may need permanent supportive housing and more extensive support services to remain housed.”
http://cdc.humboldt.edu/ahtf/index.php?module=pagesetter&type=file&func=get&tid=2&pid=28&fid=file1
The draft of the plan starts on page 24 of the Homeless Task Force Agenda for 8.4.05
http://cdc.humboldt.edu/ahtf/

also see the survey results, page 45 of the draft plan: “By strong majorities, often more than 2 to 1, respondents in both samples reported that case management should be required to receive basic services including overnight shelter and that there should be time limits on receiving these services.”





DEFINITION: “CHRONIC HOMELESS”

Ending Chronic Homelessness Strategies for Action
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Report fromthe Secretary’s Work Groupon Ending Chronic Homelessness
March 2003
This report is available on the Internet at:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/homelessness/strategies03/

“HHS, HUD, and VA have agreed on the characteristics of persons experiencing chronic homelessness and use the following definition in their collaborations:

An unaccompanied homeless individual with a disabling condition who has either been continuously homeless for a year or has had at least four (4) episodes of homelessness in the past three (3) years.”
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/homelessness/strategies03/ch.htm#ch2

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Letter from Rosemary to the Arcata Eye

Arcata City Homeless Task Force Blatantly Ignores Needs of Northern Humboldt's Disadvantaged Youth and Families

This letter is past due. Originally, I was excited at the opportunity of sitting on a committee designated to find solutions that I thought would not only find multiple solutions to aide homeless/houseless in the community but also empower them. My job as the Homeless Outreach Coordinator for the High School District requires knowledge, an open heart, and trench boots. Unlike many of the homeless you see at the Endeavor or on the Plaza, the population I work with are invisible. Eighty one families were enrolled in the Northern Humboldt Homeless Outreach Project in the 2004-2005 school calendar year. Thirty nine of these students (48%) are Arcata residents. Many of these students “couch surf”: The practice of sleeping in the homes of acquaintances or other helpful people on a rotating basis, from home to home. Couch surfing, along with other forms of temporary housing arouses feelings of anxiety, depression, anger, uncertainty, and often is accompanied by hunger. Fortunately, most of these kids still make it to school and yet have hope.

Interestingly enough, many people assume welfare assistance is enough to get by on. Unfortunately, the assistance level is far below poverty level. One of the parents I work with receives $600.00 a month in assistance and $240.00 in food stamps for her and her two boys. Try to make rent on that budget!

A January 2003 rental survey conducted by Pacific Municipal Consultants found that the median rental price for a two bedroom apartment was $575.00 and a two bedroom house was $650.00. This is beyond the affordability of the families I work with and leads many families to double up in occupancy. It is not uncommon when interviewing families to hear that they sleep in the kitchen and on the living room floor just to have a roof over their heads, and these are families that are paying rent! Humboldt Bay Housing Company, Arcata’s solution to aide low-income families with rentals, asks that monthly income be at least twice the amount of the rent. On average their rental price for a family of three is set by *Housing Urban Development(HUD) to be between $477.00-$678.00. After assisting ten families over the year to apply for this program, not even one qualified. Even with minimum wage jobs, $6.75hr x 40 hours x 4 weeks(month) –25%(taxes/medical insurance/retirement) =$810.00.

Single parents are not making enough money to even qualify for an apartment rental. Even with HUD and *Section Eight as a solution, chances are slim that you can even get on the waiting list. Just yesterday, I spoke with a mother enrolled in my program who has been on the waiting list for housing in Humboldt County for three years. Even if families are granted governmental-housing assistance, itÂ’s unlikely to find a landlord who accepts it.

Where are these families supposed to go? This is a weekly struggle for me. With no solution, many families live in parked cars or trailers that they have to move every two weeks to a different camp ground because the majority of campgrounds in the area have a two week limit.

“This year will be the first year without emergency shelter. Last year the winter shelter in Eureka housed over 90 families, in a three month period. Because of county policies, we will see more families outside in the colin ofdassistancestance. With our overloaded Mission providing the only emergency services, it will not be able to care for many of Arcata’s population” -John Shelter, Operations Manager at Arcata Endeavor.

Some of my teens will camp in the community forests. I can’t say I myself would be that brave as a teenager. It seems quite a few of my teens have been desperate for shelter. I have spoke to young girls who have had sex just to ensure a place to stay. It brings tears to my eyes to sit on a Task Force who chooses to look the other way rather then recognize the situation at hand. I was told at our last Task force meeting that the reason why the draft of the Homeless Task Force is not pushing a teen shelter is that “it is too expensive to operate” Shelly Mitchell (HSU consulting team member). I realize a teen shelter similar to the limited one through RCAA in Eureka may be costly, needing 24hr staffing, however there are feasible solutions to the money crunch. Community churches could be asked for funding as well volunteer time for staffing. Where there is a will from the community, there is way! Consider the alternative.

Inadequate shelter is a HUGE educational barrier for many of the teens enrolled in my program. When youth do not have shelter it is hard for them to learn. They worry about where they will sleep that night, they are tired from the night before, and feel heightened stress. All of these factors leave little energy for education. Arcata needs long term and emergency shelter to provide services for high school aged youth.

It is extremely frustrating to sit on a non compassionate Homeless Task Force after working on the front lines with families who are experiencing houselessness. My families seek legal places to camp for free or at the least a legassleep in to sleepin their vehicles with out harassment and yet the majority of the Task Force refuses to even research possible locations for camp grounds and safe zones.

It would also be proactive to have satellite workers from both Social Services and Mental Health provided at locations where these populations could conveniently receive services such as the Arcata Endeavor or at the school sites. This would alleviate transportation hardships and missed appointments. Not to mention opening doors for services to families who cannot make the distance to Eureka to receive counseling and all other services for their family. Try being a mother of three trying to make a Social Services appoin00 amt at 9:00AM with three children on a limited bus schedule and then deciding that bus tickets had to override your purchase for a gallon of milk and cereal for breakfast that morning for your kids.

Even after these issues have been brought to the attention of Task Force by way of public forums, letters, public comment, and interviews, it refuses to “move in that direction, as it's not very feasible” –Davis from the (Homeless Task Force Loses Paul Billups as a Member, issue no. 27). The reality of it is that the only “homeless population” that people want to be concerned with, are those on the plaza that are allegedly effecting the business community. The reality is many of the people on the plaza are not “homeless” yet there are many homeless that need help that aren’t on the plaza.

It has also been requested several times for the site selection Committee to look at numerous sites not just for the movement for the Arcata Service Center but for other sites as well such as apartment buildings for a teen shelter, temporary housing for women and children, and community gardens. However, the site subcommzoning locations of zoninglocations has been replaced by a régime to relocate the Arcata Endeavor while all other sites that be solutions to the problem at hand fall to the wayside.

There can be supportive solutions for finical and staffing assistance besides major state *CDBG grants and HUD monies. The Task Force does not have to limit itself to one major funding source, ealternative all other alterative solutions to a minority report. Arcata has a reputation for creative solutions, so why hasnÂ’t this been addressed in the draft of the plan? If the community can agree on a few solutions as a whole, surely we can band together collaborating agencies such as the High Schools, the University, encouraging churches and the All Faith Partnership creating sustainable solutions to many of tasks at hand requiring little federal or state funding.

Humanity has been ignored. I strongly encourage people to come to our Task Force and City Council meetings and speak up. With out your voices this plan could leave out major portions of the houseless population, namely northern Humboldt disadvantaged youth and families. Your voices your letters, your petitions, your participation and support are needed! Great issues are being ignored and need your support such as:

Shelters for teenage youth
Emergency shelters for families
Satellite workers from Mental Health and Social Services located at school sites or at the Arcata Endeavor
Safe Zones community gardens and campgrounds for families
Alternative sustainable solutions with community support and funding, and staffing
Rent control and more low income housing
Public restrooms with 24hr use

As the Arcata City Homeless Task Force, legally and ethically it was our charge to assist the houseless/homeless, improving the services and conditions by way of filling in the barriers they face and find solutions to improve the quality of life. I feel that we have moved away from this goal and have forgotten the task at hand. Huge populations of homeless have been ignored, victimized, and targeted as unworthy of compassion. I can only have faith that my time and energy committed to this task force has not been in vain.

Rosemary Loftis, MA Homeless Outreach Project Coordinator
*HUD:US Department of Housing and Urban developmenthe governmenthousing: thegovernment provides funds directly to apartment owners, who lower the rents they charge low-income tenants.
*Housing Choice Vouchers (formerly called "Section 8") place to find your own placeto rent, using the voucher to pay for all or part of the rent
To be eligible, you need to fall with in a certain income rage.
*CDBG Grants Program Objective: The primary statutory objective of the CDBG program is to develop viable communities by providing decent hliving environmentable livingenvironment and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low-and moderate-income. The State must ensure that at least 70 percent of its CDBG grant funds are used for activities that benefit lowpersons overate-income personsover a one-, two-, or three-year time period selecgeneral objective This generalobjective is achieved by granting "maximum feasible priority" to activities which benefit low- and moderate-income families or aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight. Under unique circumstances, States may also use their funds to meet urgent community development needs. A need is considered urgent if it posses a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community and has arisen in the past 18 months.
Yours Truly, Rosemary

Friday, August 05, 2005

Arcata's Homeless Task Force FALLS APART!!!

Last night, Thursday August 4, the 2 unhoused members of Arcata's homeless task force resigned, leaving the homeless task force without any homeless members.

Agenda item 7.B. for the evening was "Vote to endorse Homeless Services Plan and provide feedback regarding the emphasizing or de-emphasizing of components in the Draft of the Homeless Services Plan."

Tad asked for the agenda item to be removed from the agenda so that the incomplete services plan could be discussed before being endorsed. As facilitator Tim Doty denied the request, citing time restraints, tad denounced the task force as hurting those that it should intend to help, and resigned. After applause from the members of the public present, facilitator Tim Doty called a recess.

When the meeting reconvened, Kim Starr read her letter of resignation, also refusing to have her name on HSU's (incomplete) Homeless Services Plan. After more applause from the viewing public, facilitator Tim Doty threatened to close the meeting to the public.

The draft of HSU's incomplete Homeless Services Plan is available on the internet at:
http://cdc.humboldt.edu/ahtf/index.php?module=pagesetter&type=file&func=get&tid=2&pid=28&fid=file1
The draft of the plan starts on page 24.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Homelss Task Force UPDATE

HOMELESS TASK FORCE UPDATE

On Feb. 2, 2005, the Arcata silly council appointed 14 people to the homelessness task farce. Included were 3 “homeless advocates”: Tad, Kim Starr and Paul. Paul has since been removed from the task force for being “disruptive.”

The task force meetings have been dominated by a “run the bums out of town” atmosphere and an attitude of dismissing public participation, including violations of the Brown Act (law that requires public access to meeting and requires the elected officials to let the public speak). As the issues that “homeless advocates” wish to speak about get pushed indefinitely aside, they are then called “disruptive” and their input ignored.

The subcommittee initially charged with looking into human rights abuses by the police against homeless people have instead changed their name from the “human rights” subcommittee to the “community impact” subcommittee and are acting as the voice of certain business owners who blame their financial woes on homeless people.

They continually accuse people that hang out on the plaza during the daytime of causing a whirlwind of problems, but they are contradicted by captain Tom Chapman of the Arcata police who responded during a city council study session (June 29, 2005) that most of the problems on the plaza occur on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights between 9pm and 3am, and are directly associated with alcohol and the bars.

Meanwhile, there has still been no discussion about Arcata’s recently twice-defeated anti-sleeping ordinance, the rampant use of tasers by the police against homeless people, the profiling of homeless people for selective-enforcement by the police, and no discussion of a legal place for someone to sleep who doesn’t have a home or rental.

Early on in the process there was a vote on whether or not to televise the (public) task force meetings, as city council meetings are televised. The “homeless advocates” all supported this as a measure that would help insure accountability for what goes on in the meetings. The other members of the task force voted overwhelmingly against it, and carried the vote. Nonetheless, “homeless advocates” have taken it upon themselves to video-record the meetings and get them televised. They are sometimes shown on Thursday nights (maybe at 6pm?). Contact Rob Amerman for details.

For more news and current updates, check out:
theplazoid.blogspot.com
on the internet

Friday, July 29, 2005

the MILGRAM experiment

http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Milgram_experiment

Milgram experiment

The Milgram experiment was a
famous scientific experiment of social psychology. The experiment was first described by Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University in an article titled Behavioral Study of Obedience published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology in 1963, and later summarized in his 1974 book Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. It was intended to measure the willingness of a participant to obey an authority who instructs the participant to do something that may conflict with the participant's personal conscience.

The experiments began in July 1961, a year after the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised the experiment to answer the question "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?" (Milgram, 1974)

Milgram summed up in the article "The Perils of Obedience" (Milgram 1974), writing:
"The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous import, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation."


Results
Milgram created a documentary film showing the experiment and its results, titled "Obedience", legitimate copies of which are hard to find today. He also produced a series of five other films on social psychology with
Harry From, some of which touched on his experiments [1] (http://www.stanleymilgram.com/films.html). They may all be obtained from Penn State Media Services (http://www.mediasales.psu.edu/).
Before the experiment was conducted Milgram polled fellow psychologists as to what the results would be. They unanimously believed that only a few
sadists would be prepared to give the maximum voltage.
In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent of experimental participants administered the experiment's final 450-volt shock, though many were quite uncomfortable in doing so. No participant stopped before the 300-volt level. Variants of the experiment were later performed by Milgram himself and other psychologists around the world with similar results. Apart from confirming the original results the variations have tested variables in the experimental setup.
Thomas Blass of the University of Maryland (who is also the author of a biography of Milgram, called The Man who shocked the World) performed a meta-analysis on the results of repeated performances of the experiment (done at various times since, in the US and elsewhere). He found that the percentage of participants who are prepared to inflict fatal voltages remains remarkably constant, between 61% and 66%, regardless of time or location (a popular account of Blass' results was published in Psychology Today, March/April 2002). The full results were published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology. [Blass, 1999]

Reactions
The experiment raised questions about the
ethics of scientific experimentation itself because of the extreme emotional stress suffered by the participants (even though it could be said that this stress was brought on by their own free actions). Most modern scientists would consider the experiment unethical today, though it resulted in valuable insights into human psychology.
In Milgram's defense, 84 percent of former participants surveyed later said they were "glad" or "very glad" to have participated and 15 percent chose neutral (92% of all former participants responding). Many later wrote expressing thanks. Milgram repeatedly received offers of assistance and requests to join his staff from former participants.
Why so many former participants reported they were "glad" to have been involved despite the apparent levels of stress, one participant explained to Milgram in correspondence six years after he participated in the experiment, during the height of the
Vietnam War:
"While I was a subject [participant] in
1964, though I believed that I was hurting someone, I was totally unaware of why I was doing so. Few people ever realize when they are acting according to their own beliefs and when they are meekly submitting to authority. ... To permit myself to be drafted with the understanding that I am submitting to authority's demand to do something very wrong would make me frightened of myself. ... I am fully prepared to go to jail if I am not granted Conscientious Objector status. Indeed, it is the only course I could take to be faithful to what I believe. My only hope is that members of my board act equally according to their conscience..."
In contrast to the life-changing experience reported by some former participants, however, participants were not fully debriefed by modern standards and many seemed to never fully understand the nature of the experiment according to exit interviews.
[
edit]
Variations
Milgram describes 19 variations of the experiment that he conducted in Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. In general, he found that when the immediacy of the victim was increased, compliance decreased, and when immediacy of the authority increased, compliance increased (Experiments 1-4). For instance, in one variation where participants received instructions from the experimenter only by telephone (Experiment 2), compliance greatly decreased; interestingly, a number of participants deceived the experimenter by pretending to continue the experiment. In the variation where immediacy of the "learner" was closest, participants had to physically hold the learner's arm onto a shock plate, which decreased compliance (Experiment 4). In this latter condition 30 percent still completed the experiment.
In Experiment 8, women were used as participants (all of Milgram's other experiments used only men). Obedience did not differ significantly, though they indicated experiencing higher levels of stress.
In one version (Experiment 10), Milgram rented a modest office in
Bridgeport, Connecticut, purporting to be run by a commercial entity called "Research Associates of Bridgeport" with no apparent connection to Yale, in order to eliminate the prestige of the university as a possible factor influencing participants' behavior. The results of this experiment did not significantly differ from those conducted at the Yale campus.
Milgram also combined the power of authority with that of
conformity. In these experiments, the participant was joined by one or two additional "teachers" (who were actually actors, like the "learner"). The behavior of the participants' apparent peers strongly affected results. When two additional teachers refused to comply (Experiment 17), only four participants of 40 continued the experiment. In another version, (Experiment 18) the participant performed a subsidiary task with another "teacher" who complied fully. In this variation only three of 40 defied the experimenter. [2] (http://www.stanleymilgram.com/oldanswers.html)
[
edit]
External links and references
Blass, Thomas. The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1999, Vol. 25, pp. 955-978.
Blass, Thomas. (2002), "The Man Who Shocked the World", Psychology Today, Mar/Apr 2002, Vol. 35 Issue 2.
Blass, Thomas. (2004), The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram. (
ISBN 0738203998)
American Scientist book review Official site (http://www.stanleymilgram.com/main.html)
Milgram, Stanley. (1963). "
Behavioral Study of Obedience (http://www.radford.edu/~jaspelme/gradsoc/obedience/Migram_Obedience.pdf)." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.
Milgram, Stanley. (1974), Obedience to Authority; An Experimental View (
ISBN 006131983X)
Milgram, Stanley. (1974),
"The Perils of Obedience" (http://home.swbell.net/revscat/perilsOfObedience.html), Harper's Magazine
Abridged and adapted from Obedience to Authority
Miller, Arthur G., (1986). The obedience experiments : a case study of controversy in social science, New York : Praeger, 295 p.
Parker, Ian, Obedience, published in Granta magazine (
http://www.granta.com/ ), issue 71, Autumn 2000. Includes an interview with one of Milgram's volunteers, and discusses modern interest in, and scepticism about, the experiment.
Wu, William, (
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/psychology/compliance.shtml) Practical Psychology: Compliance: The Milgram Experiment.
[
edit]
Film
Obedience (http://tango.outreach.psu.edu/Tango/wpsx/medianew2.taf?function=detail&Layout1_uid1=43955), May 1962. (link broken 2005-04-29) Black-and-white film of the experiment, shot by Milgram. Distributed by The Pennsylvania State University Media Sales
The Milgram Reenactment (http://www.milgramreenactment.org), 2002. Colour, Exact reenactment of one condition of the obedience experiment. Created by conceptual UK artist Rod Dickinson

Saturday, July 23, 2005

ANOTHER VICTORY IN COURT!!!

ANOTHER VICTORY IN COURT!!!

Thursday, July 21, 2005
According to local Arcata man, Rasta John, the case against him was thrown out of court at the Humboldt County court house on Thursday. He was charged with having cannabis medicine.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

EARLY TARGETS of nazi persecution

The Early Targets

The first concentration camp in Germany opened in Dachau in 1933, at a time when the Nazi government was still consolidating its power. Accordingly, it focused on political prisoners—communists, social democrats, and dissidents who posed a threat to the new regime and were unpopular with most other Germans.

Soon Nazi authorities and the police began to consign members of other groups to the new camps: homosexual men arrested as criminal offenders; Jehovah's Witnesses who refused to obey demands to cease their activities; women accused of prostitution; people labeled "asocial" because they were homeless, begged, or for some other reason did not fit into Nazi society.

In 1936, in preparation for the Olympic Games in Berlin, German police "cleaned up" the city, arresting people deemed inappropriate—prostitutes, street people, petty thieves—and forcing hundreds of Gypsies (Sinti and Roma) into makeshift camps.

All of these early victims were easy targets, people whom other Germans did little or nothing to protect, and whose disappearance from the public scene they often welcomed.


Nazis Increase Power and Targeted Populations

Mass attacks on Nazi targets that included widely respected members of German society did not start until 1938, five years after Hitler was named chancellor. By then Nazis had firm control of all the instruments of state power—the police, courts, laws, civil service, military and press—so they could afford to be less cautious.


The "Euthanasia" Program

During the following year, 1939, Nazi authorities began deadly attacks on one of their major targets: people considered handicapped. Rather than sending them to concentration camps where they would have to be housed and fed along with people who were being held and then sometimes released, disabled people were taken from hospitals and other institutions and sent to designated locations for "special treatment." That "special treatment" was killing. In just a few years, with the cooperation of scores of doctors, social workers, hospital administrators, and others, Nazi officials organized and carried out the murder of at least 70,000 Germans deemed "unfit for life." To the extent possible, the authorities tried to hide these killings from the rest of the population, so that family members would not protest.
http://www.pbs.org/auschwitz/40-45/background/ideology.html

All of these early victims were easy targets, people whom other Germans did little or nothing to protect, and whose disappearance from the public scene they often welcomed.
http://www.pbs.org/auschwitz/40-45/background/ideology.html

“Do not forget that every people deserves the regime it is willing to endure!”
from the first leaflet of the “White Rose.” The White Rose began distributing anti-government leaflets in mid 1942 protesting against the brutality and evil of the nazi government, and against the extermination of the Jews, which was beginning to become known to more and more people at this time.
http://www.jlrweb.com/whiterose/leafoneeng.html

the Stanford Prison Experiment

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/relaged/970108prisonexp.html

The Stanford Prison Experiment

In the prison-conscious autumn of 1971, when George Jackson was killed at San Quentin and Attica erupted in even more deadly rebellion and retribution, the Stanford Prison Experiment made news in a big way. It offered the world a videotaped demonstration of how ordinary people ­ middle-class college students ­ can do things they would have never believed they were capable of doing. It seemed to say, as Hannah Arendt said of Adolf Eichmann, that normal people can take ghastly actions.

Details of the experiment are well known. They are included in most basic psychology texts and in a public television psychology course, "Discovering Psychology," that Zimbardo wrote and narrates. Movie rights have been optioned, "60 Minutes" has filmed a segment on the experiment, and even a punk rock band in Los Angeles calls itself Stanford Prison Experiment.


In summary:

On Sunday morning, Aug., 17, 1971, nine young men were "arrested" in their homes by Palo Alto police. At least one of those arrested vividly remembers the shock of having his neighbors come out to watch the commotion as TV cameras recorded his hand-cuffing for the nightly news.

The arrestees were among about 70 young men, mostly college students eager to earn $15 a day for two weeks, who volunteered as subjects for an experiment on prison life that had been advertised in the Palo Alto Times. After interviews and a battery of psychological tests, the two dozen judged to be the most normal, average and healthy were selected to participate, assigned randomly either to be guards or prisoners. Those who would be prisoners were booked at a real jail, then blindfolded and driven to campus where they were led into a makeshift prison in the basement of Jordan Hall.

Those assigned to be guards were given uniforms and instructed that they were not to use violence but that their job was to maintain control of the prison.

From the perspective of the researchers, the experiment became exciting on day two when the prisoners staged a revolt. Once the guards had crushed the rebellion, "they steadily increased their coercive aggression tactics, humiliation and dehumanization of the prisoners," Zimbardo recalls. "The staff had to frequently remind the guards to refrain from such tactics," he said, and the worst instances of abuse occurred in the middle of the night when the guards thought the staff was not watching. The guards' treatment of the prisoners ­ such things as forcing them to clean out toilet bowls with their bare hands and act out degrading scenarios, or urging them to become snitches ­ "resulted in extreme stress reactions that forced us to release five prisoners, one a day, prematurely."

Zimbardo's primary reason for conducting the experiment was to focus on the power of roles, rules, symbols, group identity and situational validation of behavior that generally would repulse ordinary individuals. "I had been conducting research for some years on deindividuation, vandalism and dehumanization that illustrated the ease with which ordinary people could be led to engage in anti-social acts by putting them in situations where they felt anonymous, or they could perceive of others in ways that made them less than human, as enemies or objects," Zimbardo told the Toronto symposium in the summer of 1996.

"I wondered, along with my research associates Craig Haney, Curtis Banks and Carlo Prescott, what would happen if we aggregated all of these processes, making some subjects feel deindividuated, others dehumanized within an anonymous environment in the same experimental setting, and where we could carefully document the process over time."

full article on the ineternet at: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/relaged/970108prisonexp.html

Public Servants or SECRET POLICE?!?

ARCATA POLICE DEPARTMENT:
PUBLIC SERVANTS
OR
SECRET POLICE?
One Saturday night, May 21 2005, Arcata police officer Ed Cashman shot James States with a taser stun-gun as he walked away from the officer on the plaza in downtown Arcata.

After public pressure, Arcata police captain Tom Chapman conducted an internal investigation. According to chief of Arcata police Randy Mendosa, the results of the investigation will NOT be disclosed to the public because the investigation into officer conduct is a personel matter.
(see the Arcata Eye, 7/5/05)

Don’t the people of Arcata deserve to know if their tax dollars are paying to commit assault with a deadly weapon against an innocent person?
right in front of everybody?
Is it ok NOT to know?