Speakeasy forum

General discussion

What's wrong with this NYT's article.

Editorial
Locked, Loaded and Looney
Published: August 30, 2007

As the Army?s suicide rate hits record levels in the Iraq war, there?s small wonder practically everyone in Congress wants to deal with the parallel emerging crisis of depressed veterans tempted to take their own lives. Everyone, that is, except Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma. He stands alone in blocking final passage of a suicide prevention bill in fear that the government?s record-keeping on troubled vets might somehow crimp their ability to purchase handguns.

Even the craven gun lobby should manage some shame over this absurd example of Second Amendment idolatry.

The House has unanimously approved a measure mandating the screening of all veterans for suicide risk, but Senator Coburn worries that veterans? medical data might be appropriated by other agencies to deny that all-encompassing right to wield arms on the domestic front.

The senator?s office points to another bill near passage ? prompted by the Virginia Tech gun massacre ? that would encourage states to do a better job of listing mentally troubled individuals on the federal roll of risky gun purchasers. But tying these two measures together is itself evidence of defective reasoning, or at least scurrilous politicking. The Virginia Tech measure has nothing to do with veterans and affects only those Americans formally judged by a court to be mentally disturbed.

It is an eminently good thing that the anti-suicide measure would require medical specialists to keep track of veterans found to be high risks for suicide. But that?s to care for them as human beings, under that other constitutional right ? to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Respect for the grave sacrifices by veterans requires the Senate to strike down the Coburn ploy and hurry this vital measure to President Bush.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/opinion/30thu3.html?ex=1346212800&en=5771d1b2efbc93eb&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: What's wrong with this NYT's article.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: What's wrong with this NYT's article.
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
I dunno. Too liberal? Too conservative?

In reply to: What's wrong with this NYT's article.

BTW the Times' own head for it is "editorial", not "article".

I have my own knee-jerk objection, of course.
"that other constitutional right ? to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
None of those availble to a soldier in wartime, so why discuss them?

And suicide is certainly sad; no doubt you have that in mind, but the Times agrees with us on that.

Collapse -
RE: "that other constitutional right"

In reply to: I dunno. Too liberal? Too conservative?

Article, editorial, facts, fiction. They lump them all together anyway.

"that other constitutional right ? to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" sounds suspiciously like an excerpt from the Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.

Think perhaps the author was thinking in regard to no man being deprived of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"? Or perhaps he was really trying to pull one over on the readers.

But then, with the vast resources of the NYT's, he may have been thinking of [anything] fictional.

Collapse -
Although stated as fact, it's your <opinion> of NYT that

In reply to: RE: "that other constitutional right"

"Article, editorial, facts, fiction. They lump them all together anyway."
But I suspect you would take your favorite medium messenger at face value for each.

Anyway ...

An American soldier, especially in combat, doesn't have a right to life; life depends on bullet trajectories.
He doesn't have a right to liberty; depends on ambush proximity and orders of superiors.
He doesn't have a right to pursuit of happiness; suicide rates bear that out.

So: If an armed GI with flak jacket and armored Humvee- they did all finally get armor, right?- and surrounded by elements of the mightiest army ever assembled, if he doesn't have these guarantees, of what value are they?

Perhaps he gives them up temporarily for the benefit of the civilians back home. But they also live in terror- there's an ongoing war against that, remember?- liberties eaten away by "necessary" restrictions and life threatened by Muslim MD's and such. Of what value are the words on the paper?

The bible has always had cogent commentary on these matters.

"Do not put your trust in nobles,
Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs.
[because] His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground;
In that day his thoughts do perish.
Happy is the one who has the God of Jacob for his help,
Whose hope is in Jehovah his God" Ps 146:3-5

"[Jehovah,] Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth" Mt 6:9

[In any case] "Whenever it is that non-Christians are saying: "Peace and security!" then sudden destruction is to be instantly upon them" 1 Thess 5:3

Instead, the Christian remembers
(Psalm 33:12) Happy is the nation whose God is Jehovah, The people whom he has chosen as his inheritance.
(Psalm 46:7) Jehovah of armies is with us; The God of Jacob is a secure height for us.
(Psalm 144:15) Happy is the people for whom it is just like [that]!" Happy is the people whose God is Jehovah!
(Jeremiah 17:7) Blessed is the able-bodied man who puts his trust in Jehovah, and whose confidence Jehovah has become.

And that's because the second-in-command, and current leader, of Jehovah's congregation relies on Him: Ps 22.
We also have this promise, if we keep clear man's wars and conflicts, and false guarantees of life:
"Happy are the mild-tempered ones, since they will inherit the earth." Mt 5:5

Collapse -
Sorry Guys....

In reply to: Although stated as fact, it's your <opinion> of NYT that

Didn't mean to p*** in everybodies Corm Flakes! Happy

Was refering to the confusion between the Constution and The Declarationof Independance.

Collapse -
RE: BTW

In reply to: I dunno. Too liberal? Too conservative?


ed
Collapse -
Well, pick mah nits, Bubba!

In reply to: RE: BTW

And perhaps "article" can be defined as 'an article that reports the news, w/o opinion'.

Anyway, you've already defined yourself as someone who doesn't care; your bad guys lump 'em together anyway. (And let Noah Webster sort 'em out?)

Collapse -
Data is gold

In reply to: What's wrong with this NYT's article.

Once data is collected, no matter for what reason it just doesn't sit idle. Someone or somewhat it becomes the basis for other actions besides what it was orginally intended for. Take for example the "EZ Pass" tool card data, being used for divorce cases. Your credit where you don't pay your electric bill on time causes your overall credit rating to be lessen. Your driver's data is used to solict you because you drive x-car and thus in 3-5yrs., time to buy a new one. Amzing, that I get from AARP offers because I'm now of thier age bracket, how did they know that? uuuummm. -----Willy

Collapse -
At least 50 years ago in "pre-computer" days.....

In reply to: Data is gold

..... "investigators" used to go from door to door talking to neighbors of people who had applied for insurance, certain employments, etc,

I don't know about now, but the phone company sold "unlisted" phone numbers.

People used to have their SS#s and license# printed on their checks.

Information was gathered when we filled out "chances" for prizes. In a wink we would get offers to buy whatever it was we didn't win.

Now that charge accounts once handled by the retailers are now by national banks, my spam has increased with unsolicited offers. So I have to write to notify them to not share with third parties.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator

Collapse -
Some references to suicide rates

In reply to: What's wrong with this NYT's article.

Latest NIMH study of US

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/press/vetsuicide.cfm

This has a table of the rates by state in the US general population at the bottom of the page,

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00049117.htm

Suicide rate of US soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/16/america/NA-GEN-US-Army-Suicides.php

...The increases for 2006 came as Army officials worked to set up a number of new programs and strengthen old ones for providing mental health care ....

Of course, we know that a self-inflicted gun shot is not the only way to commit suicide on the battlefield, but it's handy when the impulse strikes.

US veterans from 1917 on to today

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/11/vets.suicide/index.html

After adjusting for a host of potentially compounding factors, including age, time of service and health status, the study showed that those who had been in the military were 2.13 times more likely to die of suicide over time.

Still, Kaplan would not say that the study proves that military service itself results in an increased risk of suicide. "I never feel comfortable claiming a causal relationship," he said. "Life is too complex."

The VA has recently begun expanding its mental health screening facilities, but that may not solve the problem, said Kaplan, because three-fourths of veterans do not receive their care from VA hospitals. "Our concern is that that only touches a fraction of all veterans; that most of the veterans are not being perhaps properly screened outside the VA facilities."


As "most of the veterans " do not receive care through the VA system. it seems to me that what the Senator fears would have no effect on the 3/4ths who do not.

IMO, those who served and serve merit the best chance for a decent life. They have earned it.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator

Collapse -
What's wrong question...

In reply to: What's wrong with this NYT's article.

Are you referring to that article's leaving out something that was in the CNN story? Specifically, the words "Though the study did not include veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan..." in the CNN story.

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

SMART HOME

This one tip will help you sleep better tonight

A few seconds are all you need to get a better night's rest.