Saturday, December 17, 2005
HEY FRED! NEW POST
just a little posting-action for Fred. Thanks for checking up on me, buddy. Stop in anytime.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Mental Health Services Act FRAUD EXPOSED!!
City of Arcata Council Persons:
Michael Machi,
Dave Meserve,
Paul Pitino,
Harmony Groves,
Mark Wheetley
Re: Chronic Homeless con game
At the request of a majority of this council, I am furnishing a more complete discourse of the facts and figures presented by Humboldt County Mental Health Branch as if truth. The statistics presented in Humboldt County’s “Mental Health Services Act Community Services and Supports Three-Year Program and Expenditure Plan,” October 7, 2005 (MHSA CSS Plan) are a gross misrepresentation of the truth. Not being limited in my redress to 3 minutes, I hope to not only prove that a pernicious fabrication has been intentionally inflicted on the poor, but to also bring to light what the underlying purpose of such a lie might be, especially when compared with the suspicious lack of “chronic homeless” numbers in Humboldt State University’s “Arcata Homeless Services Plan.”
The “Chronic Homeless Initiative,” or what you refer to as “continuum of care, or “case management,” was undertaken because the percentages of “chronic” homeless persons are small and therefore seen as an achievable goal. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development and Veteran Affairs all agree that an individual must have a disabling condition to be identified as “chronic” homeless, and that the total number of “chronic” homeless nationwide is about 200,000 persons, or approximately 10% of the homeless. Humboldt County’s MHSA CSS Plan’s estimated number of “chronic” homeless individuals not only exceeds federal “chronic” homeless numbers by 4000%, but actually exceeds the total number of homeless in Humboldt County.
The State of California Alcohol and Drug Program’s “Blueprint for Change” (publication No. (ADP) 03-7072) breaks down the 10% of homeless that are “chronic” into 3 separate classifications. One of the classifications, physical disability, is not an issue of this thesis because genuine illnesses are clearly discernable by empirical observation and less likely to be fraudulent. The other two classifications, “serious mental ‘illness’ (SMI)” and “substance use disorder (SUD)” are topics of the “MHSA CSS Plan’s” fraudulent number padding.
“Blueprint for Change” states that 20% of the chronic are mentally “ill.” If 10% of the homeless are chronic and 20% of the chronic are mentally “ill” then 2% of the homeless are mentally “ill” (10% ÷ 100% = .1, 20% ÷ 100% = .2, .1 x .2 = .02, .02 x 100% = 2%). Likewise, “Blueprint for Change” states that 40% of the 10% chronic, or 4% of all homeless, have SUD. When we combine the two classifications we get a maximum combined SMI/SUD group of 6% of all homeless (2% + 4% = 6%), however, “Blueprint for Change” states that an estimated 50% of homeless adults with mental “illness” had a “co-occurring” substance abuse “disorders.” This means that half the 2% (mentally “ill”) are also counted in the 4% (substance use) group, the combined mentally “ill”/substance use group is 5% of all homeless (4% - .5(2%) = 3%, 2% + 3% = 5%). Thus we see the number of combined SMI/SUD “chronic homeless is one out of every 20 homeless.
Humboldt County’s DHHS Mental Health Branch in their MHSA CSS Plan comes up with extremely divergent results. In fact, not only do their numbers defy logic, but actually defy physics. The county claims on page 35 of their MHSA CSS Plan that “among the estimated 2000 homeless adults, 80% of homeless adults suffer mental health issues; 90% suffer substance abuse.” The maximum combined SMI/SUD homeless in Humboldt County would be 170% of the homeless (80% + 90% = 170%). It is both mathematically impossible and intuitively illogical to have more than 100% of anything!
In the MHSA CSS Plan they make the following statement as justification for the excessive numbers: “Rates generated by the 2004 sampling of 339 homeless persons for AB20234 contacts, estimates 590 homeless suffer from serious mental illness, 200 suffer from substance abuse, and 24 from both.” Using the 24 “co-occurring” to 590 SMI AB2034 estimate as a ratio, the co-occurring” estimate for 2000 homeless would be 65 people (24÷ 590 = C÷ (80%x2000), C=65), or approximately 4% of SMI also have “co-occurring” SUD. The combined SMI/SUD group then becomes 166% ((80%-4%)+70% = 166%) or 66% more than the total existing homeless numbers. Another way of stating it would be if we have a total of 2000 homeless in Humboldt County then we have 1333 more mentally ill and/or substance abusing homeless than actual homeless. If we use the 50% “co-occurring” rate, from “Blueprint for Change,” Humboldt County’s combined SMI/SUD group STILL exceeds 100% of homeless at 130%.
On the Surface it might appear that lucre is the motivation behind these obvious fraudulent numbers, especially in light of the game show type of hysteria displayed by local poverty pimps and grant whores before councils when “free” tax money is at stake, but upon deeper reflection, the history of psychiatrists, psychiatry, disease theory of behavior and pharmaceutical brain chemistry cures tend to paint a picture of genocide, social control, and vivisection, way more often then any type of cure or improvement is ever noticed. Mental health for the homeless will consist of poorly supervised regimen of ant-psychotics that produce aggression, psychosis, violence, suicide, permanent neurological disease, sudden cardiac death, and addiction as “frequent” side-effects, while showing only trivial improvement over placebos in test trials.
Bertrand Russell said, “I think the subject of which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology…although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated” (The Impact of Science on Society). Media, schools, and organizations are obvious sources of propaganda and social control, but don’t neglect to factor in the accumulative effects of food additive chemicals, water flouridization and the trillion dollar pharmaceutical industry.
Though I have investigated this subject most thoroughly, I haven’t assessed when I will be “round up” because of my concern that my government doesn’t have my best interest in mind, or, in psycho-babble, “paranoid delusional of the social reforming type” (USSR Ministry of Health term for political psychiatric prisoners Fainberg and Borisov, 1971). Regardless of whether I get “round up” with the 160% of the homeless, or with the political dissident like many of you, the Mental Health Services Act is paid by big money (people earning over a million dollars) to do the bidding of big money (gentrification). The “system” will not be “sunsetted” when a “final solution” to the homeless “problem” is “found.” No, it will continue until it has devoured everything that stands against it, and then like the “witch hunters” and the “nazi psychiatrists,” it shall even devour itself as it outlives its usefulness.
Love eternal
tad
cc: Humboldt County Board of Supervisors
Michael Machi,
Dave Meserve,
Paul Pitino,
Harmony Groves,
Mark Wheetley
Re: Chronic Homeless con game
At the request of a majority of this council, I am furnishing a more complete discourse of the facts and figures presented by Humboldt County Mental Health Branch as if truth. The statistics presented in Humboldt County’s “Mental Health Services Act Community Services and Supports Three-Year Program and Expenditure Plan,” October 7, 2005 (MHSA CSS Plan) are a gross misrepresentation of the truth. Not being limited in my redress to 3 minutes, I hope to not only prove that a pernicious fabrication has been intentionally inflicted on the poor, but to also bring to light what the underlying purpose of such a lie might be, especially when compared with the suspicious lack of “chronic homeless” numbers in Humboldt State University’s “Arcata Homeless Services Plan.”
The “Chronic Homeless Initiative,” or what you refer to as “continuum of care, or “case management,” was undertaken because the percentages of “chronic” homeless persons are small and therefore seen as an achievable goal. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development and Veteran Affairs all agree that an individual must have a disabling condition to be identified as “chronic” homeless, and that the total number of “chronic” homeless nationwide is about 200,000 persons, or approximately 10% of the homeless. Humboldt County’s MHSA CSS Plan’s estimated number of “chronic” homeless individuals not only exceeds federal “chronic” homeless numbers by 4000%, but actually exceeds the total number of homeless in Humboldt County.
The State of California Alcohol and Drug Program’s “Blueprint for Change” (publication No. (ADP) 03-7072) breaks down the 10% of homeless that are “chronic” into 3 separate classifications. One of the classifications, physical disability, is not an issue of this thesis because genuine illnesses are clearly discernable by empirical observation and less likely to be fraudulent. The other two classifications, “serious mental ‘illness’ (SMI)” and “substance use disorder (SUD)” are topics of the “MHSA CSS Plan’s” fraudulent number padding.
“Blueprint for Change” states that 20% of the chronic are mentally “ill.” If 10% of the homeless are chronic and 20% of the chronic are mentally “ill” then 2% of the homeless are mentally “ill” (10% ÷ 100% = .1, 20% ÷ 100% = .2, .1 x .2 = .02, .02 x 100% = 2%). Likewise, “Blueprint for Change” states that 40% of the 10% chronic, or 4% of all homeless, have SUD. When we combine the two classifications we get a maximum combined SMI/SUD group of 6% of all homeless (2% + 4% = 6%), however, “Blueprint for Change” states that an estimated 50% of homeless adults with mental “illness” had a “co-occurring” substance abuse “disorders.” This means that half the 2% (mentally “ill”) are also counted in the 4% (substance use) group, the combined mentally “ill”/substance use group is 5% of all homeless (4% - .5(2%) = 3%, 2% + 3% = 5%). Thus we see the number of combined SMI/SUD “chronic homeless is one out of every 20 homeless.
Humboldt County’s DHHS Mental Health Branch in their MHSA CSS Plan comes up with extremely divergent results. In fact, not only do their numbers defy logic, but actually defy physics. The county claims on page 35 of their MHSA CSS Plan that “among the estimated 2000 homeless adults, 80% of homeless adults suffer mental health issues; 90% suffer substance abuse.” The maximum combined SMI/SUD homeless in Humboldt County would be 170% of the homeless (80% + 90% = 170%). It is both mathematically impossible and intuitively illogical to have more than 100% of anything!
In the MHSA CSS Plan they make the following statement as justification for the excessive numbers: “Rates generated by the 2004 sampling of 339 homeless persons for AB20234 contacts, estimates 590 homeless suffer from serious mental illness, 200 suffer from substance abuse, and 24 from both.” Using the 24 “co-occurring” to 590 SMI AB2034 estimate as a ratio, the co-occurring” estimate for 2000 homeless would be 65 people (24÷ 590 = C÷ (80%x2000), C=65), or approximately 4% of SMI also have “co-occurring” SUD. The combined SMI/SUD group then becomes 166% ((80%-4%)+70% = 166%) or 66% more than the total existing homeless numbers. Another way of stating it would be if we have a total of 2000 homeless in Humboldt County then we have 1333 more mentally ill and/or substance abusing homeless than actual homeless. If we use the 50% “co-occurring” rate, from “Blueprint for Change,” Humboldt County’s combined SMI/SUD group STILL exceeds 100% of homeless at 130%.
On the Surface it might appear that lucre is the motivation behind these obvious fraudulent numbers, especially in light of the game show type of hysteria displayed by local poverty pimps and grant whores before councils when “free” tax money is at stake, but upon deeper reflection, the history of psychiatrists, psychiatry, disease theory of behavior and pharmaceutical brain chemistry cures tend to paint a picture of genocide, social control, and vivisection, way more often then any type of cure or improvement is ever noticed. Mental health for the homeless will consist of poorly supervised regimen of ant-psychotics that produce aggression, psychosis, violence, suicide, permanent neurological disease, sudden cardiac death, and addiction as “frequent” side-effects, while showing only trivial improvement over placebos in test trials.
Bertrand Russell said, “I think the subject of which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology…although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated” (The Impact of Science on Society). Media, schools, and organizations are obvious sources of propaganda and social control, but don’t neglect to factor in the accumulative effects of food additive chemicals, water flouridization and the trillion dollar pharmaceutical industry.
Though I have investigated this subject most thoroughly, I haven’t assessed when I will be “round up” because of my concern that my government doesn’t have my best interest in mind, or, in psycho-babble, “paranoid delusional of the social reforming type” (USSR Ministry of Health term for political psychiatric prisoners Fainberg and Borisov, 1971). Regardless of whether I get “round up” with the 160% of the homeless, or with the political dissident like many of you, the Mental Health Services Act is paid by big money (people earning over a million dollars) to do the bidding of big money (gentrification). The “system” will not be “sunsetted” when a “final solution” to the homeless “problem” is “found.” No, it will continue until it has devoured everything that stands against it, and then like the “witch hunters” and the “nazi psychiatrists,” it shall even devour itself as it outlives its usefulness.
Love eternal
tad
cc: Humboldt County Board of Supervisors
Saturday, November 12, 2005
HSU student assaulted and battered by police in downtown Arcata
HSU student Assaulted and Battered by police on the Plaza
It was July 4, 1987. The Statue of Liberty had just under gone a face-lift and “Proud to Be an American” was the number one song. I was eight years old at the time and I remember being so proud to be an American, so safe and free. Ah, the rose colored glasses of childhood. Throughout the years those glasses have become clearer and clearer, but on June 19, 2005, they were ripped off, thrown to the ground and stomped upon.
After exiting Toby & Jack’s Bar on the plaza, I was standing in a crowd of people, trying to locate my friend. A man handed me something: a pipe. I did not want it and was giving it to the person standing next to me when two police officers stepped into the crowd. They flashed their flash light into my eyes and asked me for my identification. I was a bit startled, having never been involved with the police before so, I asked them to please take the light out of my eyes so I could see. I then began reaching into my purse to retrieve my ID for them.
The next thing I knew, the officers had grabbed both my arms and slammed me up against the brick wall. I began crying, asking them why they were doing this, telling them that they were hurting me. I had never experienced such pain. Little did I know that there was more to come.
The two officers dragged me across the street and slammed me onto the hood of one of the police cars. I lifted my head off the car for a second to see if I could see my friend Ryan, and an officer, with his forearm, slammed my face back into the hood of the car. I was handcuffed and thrown into the back of the police car. I asked the officers repeatedly what they were doing, where they were taking me and why I was being arrested. They just looked at me and never answered any of my questions. I was just their chosen rag doll for the night.
They drove me to the Arcata police station. When we arrived they asked me to get out of the car and get into another police car. When I asked them why and to tell me were they were taking me they said, “If you don’t get out oft his car and get into the other one we will physically pick you up and throw you in.” I did as they said for fear of more injury.
We then arrived at the Humboldt County Jail, where an officer came up to the car, opened the door and basically pulled me out, giving me no chance to get out or even walk down the hall that he pulled me through. We came to a small room and the officer pushed me face-first up against a padded blue wall. Behind me stood five officers, three male and two female, all of which were wearing plastic gloves. I was petrified at this point and no one would answer any of my questions. I did not have handcuffs and with my hands at my sides, staying close to the wall, I began to turn around to look at the officers while saying, “You don’t have to do this, just tell me what’s going on.” Before I even turned a quarter of the way the five officers jumped me and dragged me into another room where they pulled off my shoes and socks, my earrings and necklace. The pain they were inflicting on me was tremendous and I felt so powerless.
The officers then brought me into a cell and full-body slammed me face down into the ground. The officers then got on top of me and were pulling my arms behind my back. It felt like they were going to pull my arms right out of their sockets. They also had their knees going into my back with what felt to be their entire body weights.
I was then left in the cell for three or four hours when they let me out to sit in the waiting room. There they continued to be verbally rude and when it was time for me to be released, I had to ask them four times to call a cab for me. I spoke with my friend Ryan who was a witness to what happened, “After I watched them throw you against the wall and over eth hood of there car I was afraid for your safety. I walked up to one of the police officers to ask them why they were being so rough with you and where they were taking you. The officer immediately raised a tazer to my eyes and said if I didn’t step back she was going to taz me. I wasn’t coming at her in an attacking fashion I simply was trying to find out where they were taking you.”
They charged me with resisting arrest and possession of marijuana. They beat the crap out of me and charged me with resisting arrest! This is what our police force is here for? Their here to scare the crap out of good a biding citizens? Yes, I was holding a pipe and a ticket should have been issued but a beating was nowhere warranted and should never be. The police of Arcata seem to be bored and on a huge power trip. In the weeks that followed this incident I would freeze up every time I saw a cop behind me when I was driving or just walking down the street. I had always thought of them as protectors. Now I just don’t know what to think. I sure as hell know that I hate it when people call them “Peace” officers; I mean what kind of load of shit is that.
The other day a friend went up to a police officer and asked him if he was walking with the power stance to scare people. His reply was “What I don’t scare you?” as he took a step in her direction. I’m sorry but I didn’t realize that the police officers job was to scare the public. Maybe that is a new addition to the job description.
Now I am not saying that every police officer is bad, and I know that there are some officers that are truly trying to help the community but when situations like this occur it gives them all a bad name.
In the past few months there have been many incidents of police using aggressive force and nothing is being done about it. I spoke with Greg Allen, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer based in Arcata; he informed me that mine was not the only instance that he knows of and because of eth sensitivity of the cases the names of these people were left out. “In February 2005 I was contacted by and represented a woman who had an incident with a non uniformed officer from the Dept. of Forestry, she was pulled over at Samoa Blvd. and V in Arcata. After being instructed to produce her driver’s license and registration the victim complied and was looking in her purse. Without warning, the officer sprayed her in the eyes with pepper spray, dragged her out of the car and threw her to the ground. She was charged with speeding and resisting an officer. I went to court in March, and the District Attorney had declined to file.
Greg Also informed me of another instance that happened on the Plaza that was witnessed by a local shop owner. “One evening while looking out the window at the corner of 9th and H he saw three young women who appeared to be students walking north on H adjacent to the Plaza. He saw an Arcata police officer run behind the women and kick the legs out from one of them. She was taken to the ground and arrested. The women offered no resistance, and the violence seemed to the shop keeper to be unjustified.”
The ex-boyfriend of one of my friends was also beaten up outside of Toby and Jacks Bar. I spoke with Tyler Brown who was the bouncer at Toby and Jacks that evening. Tyler, “I watched the officers grab him by the shoulders and slam him into the ground. This was done after he was simply speaking with the officers about something that happened earlier. He then said he was going to just go home and took one step back and that’s when they grabbed him. They used over excessive force in the situation.”
I tried getting a hold of the Arcata police department for comments as well as statistics as to how many complaints are made against them each year but I was unable to get a response. Also it is not mandatory for these types of records to be available to the public. A government entity needs to put it into effect that the people be able to access these documents.
I asked Greg if anything was being done to get something happening in this community. Currently there is a group of people from different organizations in Humboldt such as the Human Rights Commission, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Civil Liberties Monitoring Project, as well as the Green Party working together to get something in place that monitors the police.
These people have formed a group called the Coalition for Police Review (CPR). What we need is community support so that the local government will acknowledge what is happening in our community. “We are not trying to attack the police; however it is difficult to expect them to investigate themselves. There is a small conflict of interest.” stated Greg Alan. If you are interested in helping with police review or would like more information please call the local branch of the ACLU at 707-215-5385.
We can not continue to let our government try to control our actions through fear of bodily injury. The police are being paid through our tax dollars. We are their boss’s not the other way around and its time somebody stands up and does something about it. We can not just talk about it we need to act on it in order to make a difference.
(for a picture of one of the injuries see: http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/11/1782998.php)
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)