Can we stop blaming mentally ill for violence?

Bipartisan bigotry:

It’s rare these days when Democrats and Republicans agree on anything. Yet lately I’ve seen a lot of liberal and conservative media personalities yakking about how armed assailant attacks are committed by people with “untreated mental illness.”

This nonsense is particularly aggravating to mental health advocates like me, because that talking point is not only tired — it is complete nonsense.

The fact is that decades worth of hard data proves that the vast majority of violence is not perpetrated by the “mentally ill.” The people who commit mass violence are cruel, not “crazy.” Media personalities need to STOP scapegoating an entire group of people just because they’re too dang lazy to learn a few basic facts. I suggest as an excellent starting point.


Grand Junction

Sitcom characters think voting for Prop CC is a punchline

Quotable Quotes from “Cheers” meets “Mayberry,” etc.

Gomer: The ballot text for Proposition CC says that the funds will be used for transportation and education...

Woody: Boy, you really do think I just fell off the turnip truck. There’s no legal definition that will require the funds to go toward these priorities.

Gomer: Well, gollllly!

Diane: Unfortunately, we’ve seen this before. In 2005 the Colorado Legislature committed to spending the TABOR refunds on healthcare, K-12 and higher ed. Instead, the state cut spending in these areas and spent the revenue elsewhere.

Andy: Yep! Once dollars are in the general fund, they can be spent however and whenever the Legislature deems appropriate.

Bush 43: Fool me once, shame on...shame on you ... fool me — you can’t get fooled again!

Gomer: Shezaaaaam!

Bush 43: See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again, for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.

Woody: Just be sure to catapult Prop CC on the November ballot.


Grand Junction

We don’t have to be jealous of Canada’s superior health care

My sister enjoys dual Canadian/United States citizenship. She lives in Canada and is covered by their excellent socialized medical care. She receives prompt medical attention for illnesses and injury. Her wait time for needed operations is no longer than what it would be in the USA.

I’m tired of being jealous of our neighbors to the north and their excellent health-care system. We can provide health care for all in the United States of America. Let your elected officials know this is an important issue for you when you vote.


Grand Junction

Administration’s revisions of NEPA are unacceptable

Following are my comments regarding NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act) revisions:

Thank you, chief of the Forest Service, for even bothering to make public, on June 13, the changes you wish to make, and asking for comment due Aug. 12.

You lament the backlog of 5,000 environmental impact statements, after systematically defunding and understaffing the Forest Service for 20 years. Your massively complex 16-page document in 9-point font over three columns is surprisingly clear in its intent.

You’d like us to know less, later and with not too much input about projects a private developer of federal lands may wish to move forward on.

My general comments are as follows. They build on a premise that, at a time of unprecedented degradation of natural resources, the intent to reduce the science and oversight of the development of precious roadless lands and water is a mistake that will disastrously accelerate depletion of the most valuable of our natural resources. Once lost, it is painfully slow to return.

First: I do not think it wise to take away the roadless status of 90,000 acres above the North Fork Valley for coal extraction. The value of coal is reducing at a rate similar to the increasing value of roadless land and the clean waters it produces.

Second: The reduction of the necessity for an EIS (environmental impact statements) is not advised.

I don’t want to reduce the complexity of EA (environmental assessments).

I want to require acceptable alternatives to be proposed in my EA.

I want to have input at a first scoping and subsequent reviews of a project, but increasing CEs (categorical exclusions) even for extending just one to four miles of road into roadless or adding four well pads (80 wells) takes that away.

I find your proposed revisions of NEPA unacceptable.



Recommended for you