SpankyMcFarland
-
Posts
5,126 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SpankyMcFarland
-
-
Better than the Liberals expected three months ago. I boldly predict they won’t be wiped out.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, robosmith said:
Tell ^this to all the people whose homes were destroyed by climate change in Pacific Palisades at a cost of $250B.
Then add all the record setting East coast fires which burn out of control.
In Newfoundland we had less snow than usual with an early thaw. We’ve made virtually no preparations to slow down the progress of a massive fire in the centre of the island. I’ll be praying for lots of rain this summer.
-
28 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:
I 100% agree with you that "sanitariums", or whatever else you wanna call those barbaric hellholes, were not the answer. I saw some of the footage from Geraldo Rivera's exposé on a NY State sanitarium from the 1980s and it was beyond horrific. 1980s. It was like a concentration camp for the mentally disabled, but with more feces than you might imagine.
Anyone who says "trust the science" clearly has no idea what a dark and horrible history science has. Anyone who trusts vaccines has never heard of the Tuskegee Experiment, or the covid vaccines.
But I honestly think that now, in an age where transparency in mental institutions can be far greater than ever before, we can once again put public safety ahead of the freedom of dangerous people.
I fully believe that modern facilities would be far better for people with mental health issues than life on Hastings Street.
The old asylum system is long gone and nobody wants to see it back. What we need is a lot more psychiatric beds. The question is, are we willing to pay for them? -
2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:
That's still no counter to my claim that people who need to be on anti-psychotic drugs in order to be considered safe to society are let out onto the street to take their meds at their own discretion.
I wouldn’t know enough to talk about what the policy should be but I’ve seen more active measures work with one person. -
12 minutes ago, blackbird said:
This reminds me, years ago a met a man who receives an injection once a month for mental issues. If he doesn't show up for the injection, the police go and get him and take him to the health unit for the injection.
I would like to see some method of drug compliance-monitoring for potentially dangerous people, eg men under forty with paranoid schizophrenia and a history of violence. In most cases it wouldn’t have to be by the police.
-
1 minute ago, blackbird said:
I don't think people are locked up for simply being odd in their speaking.
The problem today is society has abandoned the safety of law-abiding citizens and the courts constantly release repeat offenders that should be in jail or in a mental institution. There should be no right to being out on bail or free if one is a serious danger to society. But sadly that is not how the law works now.
The statistics are that a few dozen offenders have been arrested and released several thousand times. The system has broken down.
Most offenders don’t have a treatable psychiatric illness. They’re more likely to suffer from poor impulse control than psychotic delusions.
-
My views on care for disturbed young adults are fairly paternalistic by modern standards. I would rate their safety (and the safety of others) as a major concern.
-
2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:
That's true, but:
- it's also truthful to say that a lot of people who are theoretically considered "only safe if medicated" are wandering our streets, and only taking their meds of their own volition
Many of the newer antipsychotic drugs are in tablet form which is fine for most patients but not for those who tend to stop taking them as they become more paranoid and violent. I know one person in another country whose life was changed for the better by going back to an injectable drug delivered by nurses at a clinic. If he didn’t turn up they came to the house.
-
1 hour ago, blackbird said:
When mental institutions were closed over the last 40 years, it was believed the communities would be better suited to take care of the mentally ill. It never happened.
The old asylums were horrible places and the arrival of effective antipsychotic medication in the Fifties brought a revolution in effective care, as disturbed patients suddenly required much less physical restraint. The first psychiatrist I can find that published his use of the French drug Largactil in Canada, and North America for that matter, was Heinz Lehmann in Montreal’s Verdun Protestant Hospital in 1954.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/archneurpsyc/article-abstract/651712?resultClick=1
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2655089/#b48-ndt-3-495
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Lehmann
At the time there was understandable concern about the conditions in psychiatric hospitals and the rights of patients. Community care, combined with medication and appropriate counselling, was seen as a more humane alternative. Unfortunately, the cost of such care and who was responsible for it were less well defined than the mechanics of running large public institutions, giving governments in Canada and across the world - we were by no means alone in this - the opportunity to greatly reduce current budgets while making commitments for the future that they never fulfilled. Thus the number of psychiatric beds in Canada declined from 430 per 100,000 in 1959 to 70 per 100,000 in 2017, a grossly inadequate number. For too many, the worthy goal of deinstitutionalization became simply dehospitalization.
https://madridge.org/journal-of-internal-and-emergency-medicine/mjiem-1000103.php
With the benefit of hindsight, it’s easy to see now that the goal should have been to improve institutional care, moving carefully selected patients to community care only when that was adequately funded. Looking back, the level of optimism about a new and completely untested system was absurdly high.
There is a sociological element to this story that we should be honest about. People with chronic psychotic disorders are not politically powerful. They don’t have the advocates for their care that sick children or breast cancer patients have. Unless money for them is ring-fenced, politicians will inevitably respond to what the public calls more loudly for.
-
1
-
2
-
-
32 minutes ago, August1991 said:
I understand the desire of politicians to create the term "Serbia & Montenegro" to describe a political entity.
"Newfoundland & Labrador" is a similar fiction.
That sounds Mr. Blanchet on the subject of Canada. In truth, all counties, provinces and countries are arbitrary constructs. We invent them and in time they will disappear.
-
33 minutes ago, August1991 said:
Newfoundland is not Labrador.
Newfoundland is an island. Labrador is a coast.
Like most Canadian provinces, NL consists of islands and part of the North American mainland. Labrador is vast. It is coastal but much more than a mere coast.
-
48 minutes ago, CdnFox said:
Did I say they were. Ford obviously wants the top job and Houston's conservatives have absolutely nothing to do with the federal conservatives and it's not even remotely the same party. It's like claiming there's friction in the liberal Camp because Carney and smith don't get along. The two have nothing to do with each other.
Ford is not a CPC conservative. He is in Ontario Progressive conservative. That party has absolutely nothing to do with the federal conservative party. It's clear that he would like to run for the conservative party federally but so did Jean Charest and he's got absolutely nothing to do with the conservatives he was a liberal
You're seeing imaginary fictional things that make you happy. You've taken two parties that have absolutely nothing to do with the federal conservatives at all even a little bit and try to suggest because they're not moving in lockstep with the federal party somehow this is a fracture. It isn't.
When the election is over if the conservatives lose there is going to be a review. There will be serious considerations as to what happened and whether or not the current leader should continue leading. Honestly I suspect he will be invited to continue leading because the result of 39% or better is actually fantastic. And as long as he admits to those things he did that he could have done better and that he'll improve next time then he'll stay.
I get that your blind hatred tends to cloud you vision but there's just no fractures there. Compare that to when Erin otoole lost, it was pretty obvious there were fractures and the knives came out and that was that.
And i'll remind you, he hasn't lost yet
I never said he had. Who can say?
But I am a little surprised about the way you talk about Progressive Conservatives. Their voters vote too.
-
On 4/6/2025 at 4:21 PM, CdnFox said:
It isn't. That's not happening. But it is part of the absolutely desperate narrative of the newspapers and other media to portray the conservatives in such desperate shape that conservative voters shouldn't give the money or even bother to show up voting.
Are the stories about tensions with Houston and Ford completely made up? They both could easily have dispelled such well-referenced rumours by making a bigger effort in this election.
All parties have fissures but I’m seeing consistent Tory instability along geographic and political lines.
-
If it happens it will be marvellous news for NL. At the moment we are somehow a have province heading rapidly for ruin, bankruptcy and territorial status. Contemplating the current Churchill Falls deal under these circumstance is dangerous for any resident of the province as apoplexy is a clear risk. When I listened to the Quebec side making the announcement I thought I noticed some desire to right a wrong. It also means that HQ get a reliable and enlarging source of clean power to sell to the Americans for the rest of this century.
-
I feel Balsillie could couch his message more positively, maybe with a larger dose of humour and starting with some mega mea culpas. Lord knows he can still afford the help on the style side. Maybe he doesn’t realize he needs it, a common affliction of the moneybags class? I very much think he does. We all know Canada’s productivity is a problem and many of us are ready for suggestions.
-
I never cease to be impressed by how resilient political leaders are. The low they experience in defeat must be extraordinary. You’re going from a life where you’re the focus and hope of all around you to being the despised and, even worse, pitied former leader subject to the unvarnished opinions of all your old comrades. It surprises me so few commit suicide. Indeed most bounce back impressively.
While I’ve no predictions to make I’d say Carney has less to lose, obviously. This was a late vocation for him, un beau risque. For Poilievre it is his life’s work.
-
7 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:
You think it's more likely there's a conspiracy theory amongst the vast majority of pollsters to misrepresent the CPC? LOL, far more likely the polls are accurate.
Pollsters don't make money if they're inaccurate and people stop believing them.
This wouldn’t be like Trump or Brexit where there was a neck and neck race and the polled lead went back and forth. The polls have consistently predicted a Liberal win. If they get this wrong I’ll lose faith in them, which is not to say there’s something nefarious going on here. I believe that, like scientists, pollsters want to be right above all things but they’ve had a problem with polling right-wing voters for at least a decade now. They seem harder to reach and more reluctant to give their candid opinion.-
1
-
-
People may be backing the Tories but from what I can make out the actual odds quoted still favour the Liberals with both US and British bookies. They are also heavily favoured to win a majority:
QuoteCanadian election odds continue to see Mark Carney's Liberals as massive favorites over the once-favored Conservatives. The Liberals' odds have shifted firmly in the Liberals' favor to -600 from -334 two days ago at bet365.
Those commanding odds could see them win a surprising majority with -175 odds.
https://www.oddsshark.com/politics/canadian-federal-election-oddsGamblers must feel the long odds given on a Tory win are generous, ie a Tory win is more likely than the odds suggest.
-
Another Globe story about another rift with a PC premier. There are a lot of allegations in here, some featuring Jenni Byrne.
QuoteThe current rift started in early November, when Mr. Houston was asked during a campaign event whether Mr. Poilievre would be helping on his campaign for re-election. Mr. Houston replied, “No, because … I’m not a member of any federal party.“ He said the federal party is a different party with a different leader, and he did not mention Mr. Poilievre by name.
The same day that a news story about the exchange was published, Ms. Byrne sent text messages to Mr. Houston’s chief of staff, Nicole LaFosse Parker, according to the three sources, including one who saw the exchanges. Ms. Byrne called Mr. Houston’s comments an insult.
Ms. Byrne then followed up with another text telling Ms. Parker that she would remember the incident, the sources said.
-
1
-
-
If the Tories win then a lot of pollsters need to hang up their boots or fundamentally change their methodology. Although it is a fairly close election, they’ve been generally forecasting a Liberal win all through it.
-
1
-
-
Carney is a PM in an election. As a candidate he’d be better off publicizing every disgusting insult Trump levels at Canada because it’s clear that such revelations stoke his side. But he’s also the PM trying to negotiate with this maniac and as a close friend and neighbour we are exquisitely vulnerable to retaliation.
-
10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:
Which is exactly what I said. You chose to reframe it so that the numbers were more favorable to your point of view.
Have the end of the day with our social safety nets and drug programs etc we are actually experiencing higher homelessness then even somewhere such as the united states. That should give us pause, and force us to rethink our models. I'm not for a moment suggesting we should do away with the social safety net but it's clearly not doing as well as we'd like to believe
What I think should be said is this. Homelessness comes in many forms. The worst is living unhoused on the street. Clearly, America has a great deal of the worst kind. Regarding less severe forms, there is considerable variability in how the numbers can be interpreted.
-
Bear in mind we are in an utterly unprecedented situation where revealing every grotesque thing the US president says could provoke him further. These are not normal times.
-
4 hours ago, CdnFox said:
They did, it seems you didn't like what they said and tried to reframe it
What I illustrated for a start was that those numbers do not reflect the number of people per capita living rough on the streets. Britain’s numbers there are not in America’s league.
Final predictions thread for 2025 election?
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Jason Kenney is encouraged by the number of new voters which he anticipates may have more of his supporters among them.