![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 24 of 24. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Thomas W on October 6, 2000, at 8:17:41
Come on you guys. Do you really feel that putting the Democratic ticket in the White House
is actually going to help? Do you really think any politicians are going to make a difference?
Gore has had 8 years to persuade his mentor to do investigate the state of mental health,
and I ask you, are things that much different? I for one think not. It's amazing to me that all
of you think electing democrats will "help the cause". They have had it for long enough.
Besides that, someone said Nader would help the Republicans cause; just like Ross Perot
helped Clinton get in office and we had 8 years of his antics. Guys, face it, all either party is
looking for is VOTES right now. As soon as the thing is over, it will be politics as usual in
Washington. Get real....
Posted by Nibor on October 6, 2000, at 11:39:29
In reply to Re-visit of post on Oct. 18th/ wake up, posted by Thomas W on October 6, 2000, at 8:17:41
> Come on you guys. Do you really feel that putting the Democratic ticket in the White House
> is actually going to help?Do you really think any politicians are going to make a difference?
> Gore has had 8 years to persuade his mentor to do investigate the state of mental health,
> and I ask you, are things that much different? I for one think not. It's amazing to me that all
> of you think electing democrats will "help the cause". They have had it for long enough.
> Besides that, someone said Nader would help the Republicans cause; just like Ross Perot
> helped Clinton get in office and we had 8 years of his antics. Guys, face it, all either party is
> looking for is VOTES right now. As soon as the thing is over, it will be politics as usual in
> Washington. Get real....
# # # # # # #Yep, I sure do. Especially as far as stigma goes. Have you seen Tipper in action?
Then...and I hate to look at it this way, but I am being realistic. Maybe Gore/Lieberman won't get done all that I would like...but at least what they would try to accomplish is closer to what I want. Bush/Cheney won't even try to do things the way I would like them to be. They, more than dos dems, cater to the wealthiest among us.
And good old Ralphie...well, he's a good guy, but he doesn't know how to compromise. And sorry, but that's the way life is. You have to compromise SOMETIMES...and you have to be willing to accept that that's the only way to get some things done. He and his style caused the area we live in to completely lose the local hospital; he wasn't willing to allow some necessary cutbacks and merges...and the outcome was that the whole thing collapsed and NOTHING remains. There is only an emergency unit to stabilize a patient and get them to a hospital in another town.
Yes, I wish we could have Mr. Perfect running. But tell me who you think that would be. I think such a saint would not be able to get all the different egos together; he'd be crucified. So there you have it. My opinion for what it's worth.
Take care,
Nibor
Posted by noa on October 6, 2000, at 12:19:05
In reply to Re: wake up...Oh, you, Doubting Thomas, posted by Nibor on October 6, 2000, at 11:39:29
One thing I like about this election---there is a real choice between two teams who come from two very different places philosophically, and really have substantive differences on issues. It is something people can really bite into and chew on, rather than focusing so much on image. Although I know image is and always will be a major component (let's not be naive, here), both teams have managed to present themselves with respectable enough images to pass, given the cynicism of our times, and have had to address issues because they seem fairly even in terms of the image contest. So the contest now focuses on the issues, and there are real differences there, so people can really go out and vote on behalf of what they believe is the better (notice I did not say "best") approach for the next 4 to 8 years (or more, if you count the Supreme Court implications).
So now, they each have to figure out how to best communicate the substance of their policy ideas.
But I think it is refreshing to hear about issues again, and to see at least some examples of candidates debating issues without disparaging their rivals as human beings. I am refering more to the vice presidential candidates, of course, since the presidential candidates still did some pretty lame jabbing at each other, whether through lame jokes, or goofy body language. I hope they will cut this out in the next two debates, and take a lesson from their subordinates.
At the very least, perhaps the VP debate provides some glimmer of optimism that the next round of elections will offer choices between candidates who can demonstrate more mature demeanor and confidently communicate their positions to the people without engaging in the more primitive antics we have had to endure for so long now.
Posted by noa on October 6, 2000, at 12:29:22
In reply to Re: wake up...Oh, you, Doubting Thomas, posted by noa on October 6, 2000, at 12:19:05
PS--
I know that Green Party supporters, and other non-major party supporters, would argue that the two major parties are too similar and don't offer any real choice, and from the perspective of a defined set of issues, I agree. But, for me, I feel I need to consider the wider range of issues and not limit myself to a narrow set, as I believe Ralph Nader does.
I have always been a fan of Nader. I remember seeing him on TV in the 60's, when I was just a kid watching the evening news with my Dad (my Dad worked several jobs to make ends meet, but dinner and the evening news were consistently time to be with him), and from a young age understanding that he was leading a noble effort to advocate for all of our rights and well being, causing the big and powerful to become more accountable so that the ordinary people could live our lives more safely and have corporations pay more attention to how their products affect our lives.
I will likely continue to be a Nader fan, but for now, I do not support him for President because I believe his focus is too narrow for that position. However, I support the idea of him and other non-major parties running, as it stimulates the discussion of important issues. I would like to see Nader serve a role in government, perhaps, working for a president, doing what he does best.
Posted by mist on October 6, 2000, at 13:00:51
In reply to Re-visit of post on Oct. 18th/ wake up, posted by Thomas W on October 6, 2000, at 8:17:41
What matters most is not who is in office but that voters do more than vote on election day. It's important that more people get active with like-minded others in influencing the political process throughout the year. I know this is easier said than done given the demands of life for most people in this society and especially for those of us dealing with depression, avoidance, and similar issues that may sap our motivation, energy, and hope. However, personally I think it's the only thing that will really make a difference.
Posted by stjames on October 6, 2000, at 15:25:33
In reply to Re: Re-visit of post on Oct. 18th/ wake up, posted by mist on October 6, 2000, at 13:00:51
To me to process to get elected has gotten so out of hand and has nothing to do with what will really go on after they are elected. It is about do whatever it takes to get into office. Remember "Read my lips, no new taxes" ?
I look more at what was done in the past as an indicator of where they really stand on the issues.james
Posted by CarolAnn on October 6, 2000, at 17:17:37
In reply to Re-visit of post on Oct. 18th/ wake up, posted by Thomas W on October 6, 2000, at 8:17:41
Gore-Lieberman, 'nuff said!
Posted by Greg on October 6, 2000, at 17:29:33
In reply to Re: Choosing the lesser of two evils..., posted by CarolAnn on October 6, 2000, at 17:17:37
OK,
I may get hammered on this one....We always have have and always will continue to pick the lesser of two evils (thanks for stealing my title Carol...), until.... we elect women and minorities into the Pres and VP seats. I don't know about you, but I would feel better and safer knowing that a strong woman was running my country. It's time for the "good old boy" network to meet it's timely demise. IMHO, of course.
Anybody with me on this? Or shall we let the Greg bashing begin? :^).
In the mean time, it's definitely Gore/Lieberman.
Greg
Posted by shellie on October 6, 2000, at 18:50:32
In reply to Re: Choosing the lesser of two evils..., posted by Greg on October 6, 2000, at 17:29:33
Presidents are temporary, but they appoint the supreme court, which is permanent. Take a look at Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and imagine them multiplied by two. That will be our future if Bush gets in, a sickening (literally) thought to me. shellie
Posted by Sunnely on October 6, 2000, at 21:18:55
In reply to Re-visit of post on Oct. 18th/ wake up, posted by Thomas W on October 6, 2000, at 8:17:41
In a recent interview, when asked by Larry King of CNN as to what Tipper's primary cause will be if she becomes the next First Lady, she said she will champion the cause of mentally ill especially the homeless and forgotten ones.
I really admire her for choosing such a politically unpopular cause; an unrewarding goal. Why should politicians care about these homeless and forgotten sector of our society? They usually do not vote and even if they want to, some states do not allow them to.
While those big oil magnates comfortably and cozily dine/sleep in their own warm mansions tonite, the poor, forgotten and homeless mentally ill, with hunger pangs, will crowd themselves in the "warmest" corner of a street, bridge, park, etc.
Finally, someone is listening to the message of these "voiceless" human beings. Are you?
Posted by Abby on October 7, 2000, at 2:13:12
In reply to Tipper will pave the way, posted by Sunnely on October 6, 2000, at 21:18:55
I freely admit to a visceral hatred of Gore. I am currently trying to decide between voting for Nader or voting for Bush. I just want Gore to lose, and it's not entirely rational.
I really liked Bill Bradley, and I was disgusted by Gore's claims that Bradley's proposals for health care would hurt black people. I do have very real concerns that Gore is not smart enough to address these problems without doing a lot of harm, that he hasn't learned about unintended consequences. I don't like Bush, but a tax cut may be better than a poorly designed Gore program. I'm not saying that the lesser of two evils approach doesn't apply, but I'm looking ahead to the next election. I think that the Democratic roster is strong enough to get Bush kicked out. The Republicans are in trouble, and we would never be able to get rid of that pretentious condescending man.
Abby
Posted by CarolAnn on October 7, 2000, at 10:40:14
In reply to Just a word against Gore, posted by Abby on October 7, 2000, at 2:13:12
Abby, I'm not big on Gore as president, but shellie makes an excellent point about the supreme court appointees. It is a fact that the next president will appoint the next two judges, who will probably be around longer then whoever wins the election. If the Republicans are allowed to appoint the judges, women's rights are going down the tubes. And no matter how bad Gore may be, you can bet that he will protect the environment, while Bush will certainly harm it. I can't understand how so many Americans can be so short sighted when it comes to natural resources. After all, if we kill the planet, there won't be any America at all, and our descendants will be to busy dying to worry about who lives in the White House.
CarolAnn
Posted by Sunnely on October 7, 2000, at 14:43:14
In reply to Just a word against Gore, posted by Abby on October 7, 2000, at 2:13:12
Abby,
I am not hot on Gore, either. But if his wife says she will bring to the forefront the sad plight of the homeless and chronically abused mentally ill human beings, that is more than good enough for it.
Having witnessed how a major mental illness (schizophrenia) ravaged 2 of my relatives (cousins) at the prime of their lives, it will be heartless of me not to support a future influential leader of this country who is supporting their cause.
While our elected officials keep building more prisons and beautifying our parks, the funding for the mentally ill continues to dwindle. Well, at least as a consolation, people with chronic mental illness have more prisons where they can be housed for petty crimes (they don't belong there), and beautiful parks where they can sleep the night.
I don't label a person's character based on superficial knowledge of the individual. You really have to know a person's way of relationship with his/her family, day in and day out, before you come to a conclusion. A person may be the model for positive social relationships outside the home but at the same time a wife-beater and poor provider at home. On the other hand, a person may be clumsy or nasty with social relationships but a loving husband, father and an excellent provider. The reality of it is, all is not fair in love, war, and politics.
Posted by alicefranklin on October 7, 2000, at 20:21:53
In reply to Just a word against Gore, posted by Abby on October 7, 2000, at 2:13:12
For christ's sake, then vote for Nader.
Posted by Thomas W on October 8, 2000, at 19:22:36
In reply to Tipper will pave the way, posted by Sunnely on October 6, 2000, at 21:18:55
> In a recent interview, when asked by Larry King of CNN as to what Tipper's primary cause will be if she becomes the next First Lady, she said she will champion the cause of mentally ill especially the homeless and forgotten ones.
>
> I really admire her for choosing such a politically unpopular cause; an unrewarding goal. Why should politicians care about these homeless and forgotten sector of our society? They usually do not vote and even if they want to, some states do not allow them to.
>
> While those big oil magnates comfortably and cozily dine/sleep in their own warm mansions tonite, the poor, forgotten and homeless mentally ill, with hunger pangs, will crowd themselves in the "warmest" corner of a street, bridge, park, etc.
>
> Finally, someone is listening to the message of these "voiceless" human beings. Are you?Politically unpopular and unrewarding goal? The Democrats have for years built their "diverse" power base on the "homeless and forgotten" as you refer to them, or at least since I was old enough to notice politics. One notable administration being Lyndon Johnson's admin. and his "great society" projects. Do you recall to what segment of out society this was intended to benefit? The Democrats have always pandered to the minority and special interest groups; thus expanding their base of votes. If you have further doubts, look at who put the current administration in office. It was not the slice of the population that is called upon to fund social programs in the country.
Posted by Sunnely on October 9, 2000, at 1:12:11
In reply to Re: Tipper will pave the way, posted by Thomas W on October 8, 2000, at 19:22:36
I believe you missed my main point. I am only referring to the homeless chronically mentally ill who usually do not vote and, even if they want to, in some states are not allowed to vote. Do you consider this particular issue politically rewarding? If you can find a politician who considers championing the cause of the homeless chronic mentally ill as his/her main campaign priority, let me know. We need to clone him/her fast before his/her breed becomes forever extinct.
Party affiliation is immaterial for me. If Bush's wife says she will champion the cause of the homeless mentally ill people, I will compare her program to that of Tipper's then vote for the one with the better plan.
Posted by Abby on October 9, 2000, at 2:33:58
In reply to Re: Just a word against Gore » Abby, posted by Sunnely on October 7, 2000, at 14:43:14
I really dislike Tipper Gore. My knowledge of Al Gore comes from friends who worked at the Pentagon who say he is abusive of his staff. I also know that he abandoned a long-standing family friend, because he wrote a favorable review of a book about Israeli human rights violations.
I think that Tipper Gore is a real ditz, and I've posted before about how much her approach to mental health has offended me. She says she wants to fight the double standard in mental health. Her husband talks about his son's accident and his sister's death from lung cancer. She talks about her thyroid treatment, but she won't describe her treatment for depression which only goes to show how much she is as influenced by the status quo as anyone
Posted by Abby on October 9, 2000, at 2:38:57
In reply to Re: Gore is not the point..., posted by CarolAnn on October 7, 2000, at 10:40:14
CarolAnn,
Supreme Court Justices have a funny way of behaving differently from what you expect. I think it's highly unlikely that an outright ban on abortion will come before the court. Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, that would turn power over to the states, and I'm sure that, many of them would keep it.
Bush's environmental record is horrible, but Al Gore's is nothing to write home about either. He was instrumental in getting drilling permits for Occidental petroleum --on government land which democrats had opposed for ages. Likewise, he does not seem to care much about the environment outside of the U.S. He wants Occidental to be able to do whatever it wants in Columbia, even if it means forcibly displacing the Uwa people.
Abby
Posted by Sunnely on October 9, 2000, at 17:40:23
In reply to Re: Tipper Gore and the mentally ill » Sunnely, posted by Abby on October 9, 2000, at 2:33:58
> I really dislike Tipper Gore.
Is this based on your personal encounter with her or differences of opinion on certain issues?
==================================================
> I think that Tipper Gore is a real ditz, and I've posted before about how much her approach to mental health has offended me.
In what way did this offend you?
==================================================
>She talks about her thyroid treatment, but she won't describe her treatment for depression which only goes to show how much she is as influenced by the status quo as anyone
I beg to disagree with you on this matter. I have heard her talked about her depression and the treatment she received not just recently but several months ago. In fact she will be talking about her bout with depression tomorrow on "60 Minutes" at 8:00 pm CST, CBS station. Watch the show then judge her views afterward, not before.
BTW, what is a ditz? Does it have anything to do with her depression. At one point in my life I also suffered from depression. Does it make me a ditz? Are people who suffer or have experienced depression or some form of mental illnes ditzes? Sounds like a very hurtful and cruel label. Sorry to disappoint you but we "ditzes" have feelings too.
Posted by Thomas W on October 9, 2000, at 22:02:38
In reply to Re: Tipper Gore and the mentally ill » Abby, posted by Sunnely on October 9, 2000, at 17:40:23
> > I really dislike Tipper Gore.
>
> Is this based on your personal encounter with her or differences of opinion on certain issues?
>
> ==================================================
>
> > I think that Tipper Gore is a real ditz, and I've posted before about how much her approach to mental health has offended me.
>
> In what way did this offend you?
>
> ==================================================
>
> >She talks about her thyroid treatment, but she won't describe her treatment for depression which only goes to show how much she is as influenced by the status quo as anyone
>
> I beg to disagree with you on this matter. I have heard her talked about her depression and the treatment she received not just recently but several months ago. In fact she will be talking about her bout with depression tomorrow on "60 Minutes" at 8:00 pm CST, CBS station. Watch the show then judge her views afterward, not before.
>
> BTW, what is a ditz? Does it have anything to do with her depression. At one point in my life I also suffered from depression. Does it make me a ditz? Are people who suffer or have experienced depression or some form of mental illnes ditzes? Sounds like a very hurtful and cruel label. Sorry to disappoint you but we "ditzes" have feelings too.-----
Is Tipper or Al running for President?
And, anyway, what kind of treatment do
you think Tipper Gore could afford as
opposed to what most of us can afford. I bet
she wasn't at all concerned about her pdoc's
bills, and I for one bet she got, or could
get her hands on the best possible treatment
known to mankind. How about us? Do you
think that we would have that privilege; I
seriously doubt it. If these guys (Al and Tipper)
have some secret solutions for the plight of
mental health, then why in H**l have they
been holding it back for 8 years; or could
we be playing politics again??????
Posted by Abby on October 9, 2000, at 23:49:19
In reply to Re: Tipper Gore and the mentally ill » Abby, posted by Sunnely on October 9, 2000, at 17:40:23
Sunnely,
I hope that I'm not missing sarcasm, but by 'ditz' I meant a bimbo, less than bright. I think, however, that I will try to refrain from political discussions from here one out. I do want to make clear that I did not mean to suggest that stupidity was in any way connected with mental illness or depression. Equating depression with stupidity would only serve as an indictment of myself, and it would be a peculiar form of self-loathing on my part.
I care very much about the problems of the mentally ill homeless, and I know only too well how devastating these conditions can be. It is precisely because I care as much as I do that I am worried. Her attempts to ban offensive lyrics seemed to me misguided and to miss the point. I worry that her association with mental health will only make people take the issues less seriously.
Insofar as we both want better access to care for those suffering from mental illness, we can agree. As for the means I think it's just best if we agree to disagree.Abby
Posted by Sunnely on October 10, 2000, at 0:13:47
In reply to Re: Tipper Gore and the mentally ill, posted by Thomas W on October 9, 2000, at 22:02:38
> Is Tipper or Al running for President?
> And, anyway, what kind of treatment do
> you think Tipper Gore could afford as
> opposed to what most of us can afford. I bet
> she wasn't at all concerned about her pdoc's
> bills, and I for one bet she got, or could
> get her hands on the best possible treatment
> known to mankind. How about us? Do you
> think that we would have that privilege; I
> seriously doubt it. If these guys (Al and Tipper)
> have some secret solutions for the plight of
> mental health, then why in H**l have they
> been holding it back for 8 years; or could
> we be playing politics again??????Thomas,
You are way off left field again. I am not playing politics, here. May be you are. I already expressed my opinion in an earlier posting, but to refresh your memory, I will repeat it. If Bush's wife (or Bush himself) has a plan to help the homeless mentally ill, then let me hear it. Then I will compare with the Gore's and will choose which one is better. I have no party affiliation. I have my own agenda when it comes to choice for the President. I am sure you have yours, too. Whatever your agenda and whoever your choice for the President is, is your right. IMHO, most people vote for the candidates who support their interests/cause.
As to your comment as to why the Gores have been "holding it back for 8 years" their solution to the plight of the mentally ill, you can say the same thing with the Republicans who were in office, not just for 8 years but for 12 straight years. In fact, the Reagan-Bush administration was the one who massively cut the funding for the mentally ill.
Posted by Thomas W on October 10, 2000, at 8:28:36
In reply to Re: Tipper Gore and the mentally ill » Thomas W, posted by Sunnely on October 10, 2000, at 0:13:47
> > Is Tipper or Al running for President?
> > And, anyway, what kind of treatment do
> > you think Tipper Gore could afford as
> > opposed to what most of us can afford. I bet
> > she wasn't at all concerned about her pdoc's
> > bills, and I for one bet she got, or could
> > get her hands on the best possible treatment
> > known to mankind. How about us? Do you
> > think that we would have that privilege; I
> > seriously doubt it. If these guys (Al and Tipper)
> > have some secret solutions for the plight of
> > mental health, then why in H**l have they
> > been holding it back for 8 years; or could
> > we be playing politics again??????
>
> Thomas,
>
> You are way off left field again. I am not playing politics, here. May be you are. I already expressed my opinion in an earlier posting, but to refresh your memory, I will repeat it. If Bush's wife (or Bush himself) has a plan to help the homeless mentally ill, then let me hear it. Then I will compare with the Gore's and will choose which one is better. I have no party affiliation. I have my own agenda when it comes to choice for the President. I am sure you have yours, too. Whatever your agenda and whoever your choice for the President is, is your right. IMHO, most people vote for the candidates who support their interests/cause.
>
> As to your comment as to why the Gores have been "holding it back for 8 years" their solution to the plight of the mentally ill, you can say the same thing with the Republicans who were in office, not just for 8 years but for 12 straight years. In fact, the Reagan-Bush administration was the one who massively cut the funding for the mentally ill.Sunnely,
As far as me being "way off in left field" that
may very well be true. I have been in the past,
and probably will be again. I know that I don't hvae all understanding
regarding politics. I too, am affiliated with
neither party, and never plan to be. I was affiliated
with the Democrats at one time, and then the Republicans
at one time, and since the previous presidential
election, neither party. I can make some basic
observations and I think you are going about protecting
the image of the Gore camp. You mention that the
Reagan admin. cut funding for the mentally ill. That may
be true; but that was a decade ago. If the Clinton/Gore
camp had intentions of correcting the blunder that
Reagan/Bush made by cutting funding, then what have
they been waiting for? If you think that Al and Tipper
are going to put this as a priority on their agenda, then you
go ahead and hold out your hopes for that. I'm not
going to put hope in either ticket, party, whatever. They
will all let you down and leave you disappointed. That is all
I'm trying to say. They want to get elected, that's the bottom line.
I don't doubt that Al/Tipper are well
intending people; but I'm just saying that if you are counting
on them to "make anything happen", you, and most of us
will end up disappointed, again.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 11, 2000, at 0:44:12
In reply to Re: Tipper Gore and the mentally ill » Thomas W, posted by Sunnely on October 10, 2000, at 0:13:47
> You are way off left field again. I am not playing politics, here. May be you are.
Talking politics is fine, but especially since people often have opposing views, please be civil while doing so. Thanks!
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.