Schizophrenic
- Thread starter shadyonedeath
- Start date
TechnicalToker
Well-Known Member
People, for the most part, are sheep. " They " are afraid to be individuals. Be an island in a sea of diarrhea. Of interest to me is the various beliefs and how " they " came to those beliefs.
arf777
No longer dogless
I'm actually in a lot of ways more freaked by stuff that is officially in the open, but in such legalese that even many attorneys don't realize that rights are being severely undercut. My personal crusade is against a Robert's Supreme Court decision from a couple of years ago, Ashcroft v Iqbal (known generally as Iqbal), where the Court summarily changed the basic rules about even getting heard in federal court, in direct violation of 70+ years of Congressional action and Supreme Court precedent. Under Iqbal, the following cases would not even have been heard in Federal court: Brown v Board of Ed; Gideon v Wainwright; Miranda; and others.
Google either Iqbal or Twiqbal (from the immediately preceding related case, Twombley) for good summaries- but here's a link to the syllabus, with links to both the majority and dissenting opinions - http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-1015.ZS.html.
I think every American needs to read, and understand, the majority and dissenting opinions in Iqbal to get what is being done to our rights in this country. Especially the dissent - Souter had written the majority opinion in Twombley, but write the dissent in Iqbal, almost screaming that the majority had misinterpreted his prior opinion. He retired soon thereafter and has cited this as a reason.
Arguably more damaging than Citizens United or the recent Voting Rights Act decision.
Another terrifying one, also the Roberts Court, is Nicastro (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2010/2010_09_1343) . They ruled a UK company that admitted to aiming their product at the ENTIRE United States could not be sued in New Jersey by a man whose hand was almost removed by a fault in their product, because they had not specifically targeted New Jersey per se as a market. Despite that the company makes metal recycling equipment, and New Jersey was at the time the number 3 state in the country for that industry. In the Internet age.
Another example - Walmart v Dukes, which both gutted the ability to bring employee or consumer class actions, and also declared that empirical statistical data is generally inadmissible in Federal courts.
All of these were 5-4 decisions, Republicans v Democrats, all since 2008. And yet I hear people say Obama is attacking our rights. It is the Republican Supreme Court doing more damage than anyone else.
Last edited:
grokit
well-worn member
The executive branch needs to undeclare the state of emergency that has usurped the constitution as the supreme law of the land for the last 12 years or so, but that will never happen. Instead these bastards have found a way to re-define the constitution as a "living document". It goes right along with how the anti-war movement went away the moment a democrat got elected president, wtf happened to us(a).
And oh yeah, right now AIPAC is going after a "super(veto-proof)-majority" in the senate to force us into war with Iran, and they're almost there. The house is salivating and this will be the beginning of an open (we're already fighting it by proxy) WWIII/middle -east apocolypse if Reid lets it come to a vote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/lobbying-for-iran-war-aip_b_4569882.html
And oh yeah, right now AIPAC is going after a "super(veto-proof)-majority" in the senate to force us into war with Iran, and they're almost there. The house is salivating and this will be the beginning of an open (we're already fighting it by proxy) WWIII/middle -east apocolypse if Reid lets it come to a vote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/lobbying-for-iran-war-aip_b_4569882.html
Last edited:
arf777
No longer dogless
We do need to amend our Constitution - and we need to make it a little easier to amend.
Though even that doesn't always work - there is technically a guarantee of the right to vote in the Reconstruction amendments, for instance, but it took the VRA, almost a century later, to enforce it.
Though even that doesn't always work - there is technically a guarantee of the right to vote in the Reconstruction amendments, for instance, but it took the VRA, almost a century later, to enforce it.
arf777
No longer dogless
I have to admit, having been raised by two activist leftists from the Civil Rights movement days, I didn't realize how surprised most people would be until the stuff went really public. I had assumed something like what the NSA was doing had been happening most of my life, and I thought damn-near everybody knew it.
Then again, one of my earliest memories is watching the Animal Farm cartoon, with my dad explaining that Snowball was 'Trotsky, the good guy', then immediately going to a United Farm Workers march (odd for a USAF captain, which my dad was). And I never really knew one of my uncles, who left the US after being treasurer of the American Communist Party and being denied tenure at Rutgers for his Marxism. And I'm an Eastern European Jew - we assume we're being watched and plotted against a lot of the time, it's kind of historically valid
grokit
well-worn member
Then use the tools, don't invalidate them and 2nd-guess the founding fathers by usurping the document itself. The way I learned it, the constitution is the supreme law of the land, and is all that protects us from each other, and from an oppressive government. Usurping our freedoms, privacy, and other rights has nothing to do with national security, and everything to do with fascism.
What is happening now is we have is a corrupt government that is partnering with oppressive bankers and other multinational corporations for profit. The way these guys think, people are nothing but commodities to be profited from and the constitution is supposed to protect us from this kind of exploitation.
Just think if we actually took the trillion$ that we invest in warfare and other oppressive resources like this surveillance, and invested in people instead? Just fire up the presses and give everybody $100K, that will surely stimulate the economy out of recession!
edit:
NSA and GCHQ activities appear illegal,
says EU parliamentary inquiry
Civil liberties committee report demands end to indiscriminate collection of
personal data by British and US agencies
NSA and GCHQ operations have shaken trust between countries that considered themselves allies,
the report says. Photograph: Alex Milan Tracy/NurPhoto/Corbis
Mass surveillance programmes used by the US and Britain to spy on people in Europe have been condemned in the "strongest possible terms" by the first parliamentary inquiry into the disclosures, which has demanded an end to the vast, systematic and indiscriminate collection of personal data by intelligence agencies.
Last edited:
Magic9
Plant Enthusiast
Grokit must be crazy too because he's making a lot of sense here lol. The constitution should be a living document. The Bill of Rights should not be. That should be set in stone. Those are our very own personal rights. Guaranteed to us. When the Bill of Rights is shitted upon, it makes me sad for the future.
Negativebeef
New Member
Just wondering...have you you spoken to anyone at work why they are acting that way?
grokit
well-worn member
Look what I just found/back on topic:
Study: Cannabis Use Unlikely To Cause Schizophrenia
Thursday, 19 December 2013
Boston, MA: Family genetics, rather than adolescent cannabis use, increases risk of schizophrenia, according to a case control study published online in the journal Schizophrenia Research.
http://norml.org/news/2013/12/19/study-cannabis-use-unlikely-to-cause-schizophrenia
Study: Cannabis Use Unlikely To Cause Schizophrenia
Thursday, 19 December 2013
Boston, MA: Family genetics, rather than adolescent cannabis use, increases risk of schizophrenia, according to a case control study published online in the journal Schizophrenia Research.
http://norml.org/news/2013/12/19/study-cannabis-use-unlikely-to-cause-schizophrenia
Good question @Negativebeef ... @shadyonedeath, it could just be your perception that they are acting strange as well (not saying it is, just saying its a possibility ... I know I definitely suffer from this delusion at times but have learned to carefully--very carefully--consider thoughts like this before I attribute to them any truth ... just because I think it, does not make it true ... if after much careful thought, I still can't let these thoughts go, then action is required to deal with them ... as @Negativebeef suggests, maybe you should discuss this with someone from work to find out for sure one way or the other?)
shadyonedeath
Well-Known Member
Man, this stuff is frightening to me and reinforcing my 'paranoid' beliefs. Make me feel good though i'm not the only one seeing through the bullshit. How do you guys keep for losing your mind? Going into panic? How do you guys keep your mind centered on yourself and not feel like a cattle in a fenced pen ?
I spoke to my boss. She invalidated and denied everything. Despite having people under tell me otherwise. So it there was in congruency there. I talked to my best bud @ work about it, he denied it too. But his girlfriend has him wrapped around her finger, and she's wrapped around the boss's finger, so I couldnt trust him anymore. And if the cops DID get involved, i'm pretty sure they would be under direct orders not to disclose any information that was spread about me. No one acted like themselves anymore.
I worked for the city of los angeles. I'm pretty sure its a branch of the gov.
I spoke to my boss. She invalidated and denied everything. Despite having people under tell me otherwise. So it there was in congruency there. I talked to my best bud @ work about it, he denied it too. But his girlfriend has him wrapped around her finger, and she's wrapped around the boss's finger, so I couldnt trust him anymore. And if the cops DID get involved, i'm pretty sure they would be under direct orders not to disclose any information that was spread about me. No one acted like themselves anymore.
I worked for the city of los angeles. I'm pretty sure its a branch of the gov.
Negativebeef
New Member
Who told you otherwise and what did they say?
Your situation seems very strange. What exactly could the cops have told them though? That you are schizophrenic? If that's the case you can potentially sue them for disclosing your medical information.
shadyonedeath
Well-Known Member
But no one would admit it. I think they told them I was suicidal or psychotic. I would smoke with my bud from work often. And others once in a while, say ;co-worker socials. Then I stopped smoking. I think I had a drug induced psychosis from psychological stress and all this psychological personality-researching at the time didnt help. Then I start smoking again, and when some co-workers found out..they acted worried. Almost afriad. "You're smoking again? I thought you quit?" But not with casual concern...more like "Oh shit..he started smoking"...and thats when things got weird again. Gossip spread. People started acting different around me, afraid-like. Nothing was the same.
So I connected everything together and assumed someone told someone I had some type of dangerous side effects (psychosis) to Marijuana, and people were told something about it, and I was kept in the unknown. People playing 'roles', fainting concern but really trying to pull information. "Hey, how are you feeling?".....How am I feeling? Who the fuck ask's someone how they're feeling at work? Stuff like that raised red flags.
Magic9
Plant Enthusiast
Did you tell your friend? It's just highly unlikely your pdoc told the cops. The only way that happens, is if you are a threat to others or yourself. In that case, they will take you to be evaluated.
Nobody gains from telling people about your condition. At least as far as the pdoc/police are concerned.
How do I keep from losing my mind? It might already be lost. Somedays that is a blurry line. I try to live as stress free as possible. Enjoy the short time we have here. It makes us different and can give us an edge at times. Cannabis helps me a lot. Keeps me level. It seems to actually react in whatever way I need at that given time. Maybe that's crazy. Fuck it.
I'm newly medicated (pharma) and it's too soon to tell how much it helps. I figure it's worth a shot. I can always stop if I decide against it. I'm still trying to figure out how crazy I am.
Long story short, fuck stress and enjoy lifes ride.
*Not a Dr. blah blah blah...............
Nobody gains from telling people about your condition. At least as far as the pdoc/police are concerned.
How do I keep from losing my mind? It might already be lost. Somedays that is a blurry line. I try to live as stress free as possible. Enjoy the short time we have here. It makes us different and can give us an edge at times. Cannabis helps me a lot. Keeps me level. It seems to actually react in whatever way I need at that given time. Maybe that's crazy. Fuck it.
I'm newly medicated (pharma) and it's too soon to tell how much it helps. I figure it's worth a shot. I can always stop if I decide against it. I'm still trying to figure out how crazy I am.
Long story short, fuck stress and enjoy lifes ride.
*Not a Dr. blah blah blah...............
zymos
Well-Known Member
The idea that the founding fathers were these mythical prescient superheroes handing down the 10 commandments of murica is one of the worst things about living in the USA.
We need an amendment ( which still hasn't passed in all these years) just to say that women have equal rights to men.
We argue about a handful of words to decide whether individuals can own assault rifles and infinite amounts of ammunition.
We look to this ancient document to figure out if two consenting adults can form a marriage contract.
Damn right it needs to be amended!
arf777
No longer dogless
Don't even get me started on the guns. Before working in the law, I was a historian in the Foucault mode, and studied the discourse of that period. The term 'right to bear arms' had NOTHING TO DO WITH WEAPONS in the late 18th-early 19th Centuries. Especially in the full sentence, it is clear they are talking about something more radical. The entire amendment is:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed [emphasis added]
Well into the 19th Century, the difference between a 'militia' and an 'army' in most of the world was that a 'militia' was based on feudal levies, while an 'army' were paid professionals, answering directly to a king or national government.
And as most historians know, those militias were all run by local nobles, who all 'bore arms', that is, were armigerous - they had a COAT OF ARMS. European commoners could carry weapons for a century or more before the US came into being, in Britain at least since Cromwell; but they could not have a coat of arms, therefore could not duel if insulted, could not use their weapon against a noble, and could serve in a militia but could not organize or command one.
Read in the discourse of the period it was written, the amendment is far more radical than declaring a right to have a gun - it is a declaration that all US citizens (property owning white Xtians males) were all the social equal of any European noble. And therefore could organize a militia (not an army, which was made up of professionals, not citizens), and could duel if insulted, which was extremely common in early America. And many in the early US did adopt coats of arms - they're all over old architecture.
Pretty radical, when you recall almost no nobles settled this country. I'm working on an article on it for a DC law journal.
lwien
Well-Known Member
Yup. Some people view the Constitution like fundamentalists view the Bible. And when some of those people sit on the Supreme Court, like Scalia, it can pose more than just a problem or two. And when one realizes that a particular party, along with many of their constituents, have been afflicted with the double whammy of being both religious fundamentalists and constitutional fundamentalists (funny how they both kind of occupy the same space), it poses an even bigger problem.
Last edited:
Negativebeef
New Member
How are people at your new job treating you?
There has been some indication that nicotine is beneficial for those suffering from schizophrenia. Might want to look into that a bit more, if you haven't. I would be cautious about using weed...as beneficial as it can be for alot of things, any psychoactive drug can make matters worse, when you are dealing with illnesses like schizophrenia and other types of mental illness.
I suffer from severe depression and anxiety, and often find if I use too much Sativa, it will make me go bonkers. So I tend to stick to indica and hybrids and use them in a controlled manner, like my other medication. I also consulted with my former psychiatrist, who gave me the green light, as long as I used it sparingly. So even though you have had negative experiences, I would still encourage you to keep hunting for a good doctor...they are out there, and very important to have on your side, no matter the illness.
I suffer from severe depression and anxiety, and often find if I use too much Sativa, it will make me go bonkers. So I tend to stick to indica and hybrids and use them in a controlled manner, like my other medication. I also consulted with my former psychiatrist, who gave me the green light, as long as I used it sparingly. So even though you have had negative experiences, I would still encourage you to keep hunting for a good doctor...they are out there, and very important to have on your side, no matter the illness.
Magic9
Plant Enthusiast
I must be too high. Did @zymos and @lwien just try to equate the 10 commandments to the Bill of Rights? That's just silly.
And @arf777, I've heard some crazy shit involving the 2nd amendment, but that's absurd.
As a social progressive/radical liberal/independant libertarian, I'm open to discussion involving the constitution. The Bill of Rights portion, not so much.
And @arf777, I've heard some crazy shit involving the 2nd amendment, but that's absurd.
As a social progressive/radical liberal/independant libertarian, I'm open to discussion involving the constitution. The Bill of Rights portion, not so much.
arf777
No longer dogless
It's history, man. I don't argue we should interpret the Amendments as they were meant at the time of writing - it's originalists like Scalia who argue that - but highlighting how different the terms were used at the time undercuts the originalist argument. It is am empirical fact that that is what the terms meant at the time the Constitution was written - spent way to much time and money in grad school on this crap, and my current job is interpretation of Federal law. Find any English dictionary of the period and look up militia, arms, and army. Also read any pre-American novel of the 17th or 18th centuries - everyone is armed to the teeth, no matter what their social standing. For instance, John Lackland's chief mercenary, Abraham the Crossbowman, Jewish commoner who commanded a whole division of armed commoners in the 13th century. As part of the army, so not needing to 'bear arms', just carry and use weapons.
Those terms still meant what I describe above as late as WWI in parts of Europe - UK home defense in WWI was in part in the hands of the Lords Lieutenant of the feudal county militias.
Those terms still meant what I describe above as late as WWI in parts of Europe - UK home defense in WWI was in part in the hands of the Lords Lieutenant of the feudal county militias.
lwien
Well-Known Member
grokit
well-worn member
The US constitution is by far the longest surviving national governing document in the world. And it was never even questioned as the supreme law of the land until GWB called it "just a piece of paper", in violation of his sworn presidential oath. Just like he violated the geneva conventions:
'Avoiding the Handcuffs': George Bush Cancels Swiss Trip, After Human Rights Groups Seek Arrest on Torture Charges
John Nichols on February 6, 2011 - 3:20 PM ET
George Bush has done a pretty good job of positioning himself as an “elder statesman” in the United States—at least by comparison with Dick Cheney—but the rest of the world has not forgotten the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush-Cheney interregnum.
So the forty-third president will not be jetting off to Switzerland next week, as had been expected.
Bush was supposed to be the star attraction at a fund-raising gala in Geneva February 12. But the news that the former president would be in Switzerland set off a flurry of legal filings—and calls by members of the Swiss parliament—that sought to have Bush arrested upon arrival on torture charges.
He was right about one thing, that freedom isn't free.
And there is nobody better to twist the knife than our current constitutional scholar in chief. When the constitution becomes more easily "amendable" all will be lost.
I agree that it needs updating, and that it's a shame that we haven't passed the ERA amendment yet. But it will happen when the political will is there, and it's coming:
ERA Ratification Bills in the 113th Congress (2013-2014)
Two different types of ERA legislation have been introduced in the 2013-2014 session of Congress:
Maybe I'm just an old crank, but I wouldn't change a fucking thing.
'Avoiding the Handcuffs': George Bush Cancels Swiss Trip, After Human Rights Groups Seek Arrest on Torture Charges
John Nichols on February 6, 2011 - 3:20 PM ET
George Bush has done a pretty good job of positioning himself as an “elder statesman” in the United States—at least by comparison with Dick Cheney—but the rest of the world has not forgotten the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush-Cheney interregnum.
So the forty-third president will not be jetting off to Switzerland next week, as had been expected.
Bush was supposed to be the star attraction at a fund-raising gala in Geneva February 12. But the news that the former president would be in Switzerland set off a flurry of legal filings—and calls by members of the Swiss parliament—that sought to have Bush arrested upon arrival on torture charges.
He was right about one thing, that freedom isn't free.
And there is nobody better to twist the knife than our current constitutional scholar in chief. When the constitution becomes more easily "amendable" all will be lost.
I agree that it needs updating, and that it's a shame that we haven't passed the ERA amendment yet. But it will happen when the political will is there, and it's coming:
ERA Ratification Bills in the 113th Congress (2013-2014)
Two different types of ERA legislation have been introduced in the 2013-2014 session of Congress:
- Traditional legislation to ratify the ERA by the Constitution's Article V ratification process, and
- "Three-state strategy" legislation to remove the time limit on the ERA's ratification process and declare it complete when three-fourths (38) of the states ratify, thereby retaining the existing 35 state ratifications as viable.
Maybe I'm just an old crank, but I wouldn't change a fucking thing.