tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post4071594128429691467..comments2023-09-16T05:17:59.903-07:00Comments on Developmental Disability System Reform: Capitalism, Freedom and InclusionDoug The Unahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04753071669562594194noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-12437235036734706382008-08-26T08:16:00.000-07:002008-08-26T08:16:00.000-07:00My posts, you will find, are clear, cogent and con...<I>My posts, you will find, are clear, cogent and concise. You really shouldn't need any others.</I><BR/><B>-Andy-</B><BR/><BR/>I agree – Andy is our Agnus Dei - the bomb...<BR/><BR/>But Anon, you should know that rumor has it that And(Y) and Stanl(eY) are one in the same and….when too many oysters are involved sometime Samm(Y) makes an appearance. Stanley works with both the savagery of Sitting Bull and military precision of Patton while Andy can be a fine policeman but is a cowboy at heart. Sammy is like a construction worker, and repairs the damage when Andy and Stanley play cowboys and Indians too long.<BR/><BR/>I like to think of t(him) as our <B>Y</B> people or more fondly….our Village People.<BR/><BR/><B>Vivat DDS</B><BR/><B>Memento Mori DDS</B>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-68118231702930016232008-08-25T17:30:00.000-07:002008-08-25T17:30:00.000-07:00Anonymous said... Is anyone other than me having a...<I>Anonymous said... <BR/>Is anyone other than me having a hard time following these posts? </I><BR/><BR/>Annon, the posts are <I>"all over the place" </I>because we can't, don't, or won't agree. <BR/><BR/>If your confusion extends beyond the unrelenting repetition of the arguments, I am certain it is due to the styles, talents, personalities, or interests of the posters. <BR/><BR/>Doug is refined to the point of vapor. Paul believes (i.e. wishes and prays) that Latin isn't really a dead language---it's just a sound sleeper. Stanley is a one-man cultural revolution. Jeffery disdains punctuation as yet another oppressive clampdown from The Man. <BR/><BR/>My posts, you will find, are clear, cogent and concise. You really shouldn't need any others.<BR/><BR/>Hope this helps . . .<BR/><BR/>--AndyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-43565142487511352162008-08-25T13:38:00.000-07:002008-08-25T13:38:00.000-07:00Sorry, everyone. I've been remiss on moderation an...Sorry, everyone. I've been remiss on moderation and posting. Let's call a draw on this conversation and I'll try to post something fresh this week.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous, I hope I'm not being defensive but I see no bogeymen in the original post. In the comments there tend to be many, but this is a fairly informal dialogue and flourishing demons are pretty common when people do politics informally. or formally.Doug The Unahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04753071669562594194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-41658508040918492962008-08-25T13:23:00.000-07:002008-08-25T13:23:00.000-07:00Is anyone other than me having a hard time followi...Is anyone other than me having a hard time following these posts? I read that DDS either does nothing or does everything; it either breaks the law or supports the law (ie, taking control of a regional center); RCs are in the gutter or constrained by law/DDS. Bogeymen all over the place!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-82122339711393902402008-08-17T12:57:00.000-07:002008-08-17T12:57:00.000-07:00"Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual lab...<I>"Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it."</I><BR/><B>- Samuel Johnson -</B>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-30365803564278212992008-07-31T19:18:00.000-07:002008-07-31T19:18:00.000-07:00Not "sweat" but sweet. I am NOT attacking you. I...Not "sweat" but sweet. I am NOT attacking you. I am not implying that you perspire too much. It was an accident. Or - the Bourbon<BR/><BR/>sorryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-55905570989878299602008-07-31T17:32:00.000-07:002008-07-31T17:32:00.000-07:00I am sorry – I know I can be a bit gruff. As I ha...I am sorry – I know I can be a bit gruff. As I have mentioned once before the point was not about you personally, but about your <B>habit</B>, your <B>behavior</B> of providing large conclusions with nothing for support. That is not helpful and is a public issue. <BR/><BR/>My jabs are poor attempt at humor and perhaps I should stop. Sensitivity is difficult to detect over the Internet. However, it seems from this end that you will accept nothing less than an obsequious sycophant in reply. Anything less you will interpret as a personal attack, or words that unequivocally condoning genocide and mayhem.<BR/><BR/>I disagree about offline/online – as I said, it is not about you but about the general need to have some substance behind our accusations, and besides, offline you use swear words and call me the exit end of digestion.<BR/><BR/>Online you are civil and sweat.<BR/><BR/>You can have the last word, and then I will cease to comment on your input. You and doug have the tete-a-tete.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-12225428781732487992008-07-31T16:47:00.000-07:002008-07-31T16:47:00.000-07:00[paul say] whateverAs someone pointed out previous...<I>[paul say] whatever</I><BR/><BR/>As someone pointed out previously paul/stanley should have off blog discussions...<BR/><BR/>soo <BR/><BR/>stanley will nor comment here...if anyone is interested (doubt if anyone is) in paul’s fetish w/ stanleyflaws there may be, maybe not, comments on DDRights...<BR/><BR/>paul too cute put downs of stanley been going on for too long...see CAL-DD archives for same old same old.<BR/><BR/>stanley seiglerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-47379527011978564102008-07-31T07:41:00.000-07:002008-07-31T07:41:00.000-07:00“Gawd it must be great to be so certain...”Stanley...<I>“Gawd it must be great to be so certain...”</I><BR/><B>Stanley Siegler</B><BR/><BR/>Comrade Stanlin,<BR/><BR/>I used to laugh at such comments believing that you intended humour through irony. I am learning that this is not the case – albeit slowly.<BR/><BR/>The assertions that you make based upon Welf. & Inst. Code, § 4434 subc. (b) have been made by Capitol People First in CPF v. DDS. After some details and arguments [your betes noires] the Court of Appeal stated that Capitol People First failed to show that DDS failed to perform its ministerial duty as required by Lanterman.<BR/><BR/>Of course, a failure to <I>demonstrate</I> does not mean the accusations by Capitol People First, and youself are not warranted or incorrect.<BR/><BR/>Capitol People First amended it's complaint and preserved the cause for appeal. The amended complaints contain your beloved section 4434. Capitol People First alleges, as you do, that DDS has violated your section 4434(b) as well as other subdivisions of this section.<BR/><BR/>Before you celebrate and brag about your litigious skills and your “cut and paste” skills that rival those of judges there is a BIG distinction between what you provide this blog and what Capitol People First will do, in it’s attempt to demonstrate that what they assert is true. The mere mention of a statute does not a guilty party make. The plaintiff’s will do MUCH more than cut and paste section 4434(b).<BR/><BR/><I>“So much prattle to justify DDS not obeying the law... why justify not obeying the law.”</I><BR/><B>Stanley Siegler</B><BR/><BR/><I>the only simple wish is that DDS obey the law and stakeholders hold them accountable for same...at least ask why not obey the law...vice saying it's OK...”</I><BR/><B>Stanley Siegler</B><BR/><BR/>I do not recall saying that it is OK for DDS to disobey the law. In fact I have not accused them of obeying the law [intended]. I have only asserted that simply quoting a section of Lanterman ad naseum does not proof of guilty party make. Such a comment causes you to accuse people of saying “It’s Ok” not to obey the law. Should we just quote section 187 of the penal code everytime we have a murder trial? It would, faster, and more efficient. Is this southern justice? <BR/><BR/>If I disagree with one thing that Mary C says you accuse me of dismissing 105% of everything she says. Even if I irrefutably show that she was in error.<BR/><BR/>If I disagree with something that Right-Wing Andy sez (that you approve), you will probably accuse me of hating his guts, his kids, wife, and his gold fish Bernie.<BR/><BR/>You think that DDS is not performing it duties under 4434. FINE – I do not necesssarily disagree. I just assert that it is an OPINION until you provide more. That means that when someone disagrees with you, and there is nothing wrong with that, then that retort is an OPINION as well. Neither is worth more than the other. <BR/><BR/>Now you know when I laugh when you say, “Gawd it must be great to be so certain...”<BR/><BR/>I am NOT, and probably never will be..<BR/><BR/>When I ask you why you ARE so certain that DDS is guilty the question brings accusations of condoning blatant state violations of the law. If such responses are not a reflection of certainty then I not know what is.<BR/><BR/>Comrade,<BR/><BR/>I would not be surprised to hear you say, “I am the humblest man I know”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-65421968421637685612008-07-30T08:17:00.000-07:002008-07-30T08:17:00.000-07:00”Isnt quoting the law what judges do in their argu...<I>”Isnt quoting the law what judges do in their arguments...writing opinions, etc”</I><BR/><B>-Stanley-</B><BR/><BR/>Sorry<BR/>yes they do...along with some other "stuff"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-91271735188762653772008-07-29T22:40:00.000-07:002008-07-29T22:40:00.000-07:00”a difference in one RC at a time...a pilot RC tha...<I>”a difference in one RC at a time...a pilot RC that followed the intent of Lanterman vice being a bean counter for the state...”</I><BR/><B>-Stanley-</B><BR/><BR/>Comrade,<BR/><BR/>Thank you so much for making my point. Back in 1965, over 40 years ago, Assembly Bill 691establishing two pilot regional centers to do what you demand. They failed. Now you propose a redux, a mulligan, take-over, doesn’t count?<BR/><BR/>Please see re: getting of the loo.<BR/><BR/><I>”Isnt quoting the law what judges do in their arguments...writing opinions, etc”</I><BR/><B>-Stanley-</B><BR/><BR/><B>No</B><BR/><BR/><I>“...is this just an indication of their ability to cut and paste...”</I><BR/><BR/><B>No</B>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-87872081648708958642008-07-29T19:20:00.000-07:002008-07-29T19:20:00.000-07:00[paul say] I am certain that at least one person I...<I>[paul say] I am certain that at least one person I know who desires DDS intervention would be the first person to criticize that intervention should he get his way. How do you say it, be careful what you wish for? How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct.</I><BR/><BR/>Gawd it must be great to be so certain...the only simple wish is that DDS obey the law and stakeholders hold them accountable for same...at least ask why not obey the law...vice saying it's OK...cause it really wouldnt make a difference anyway.<BR/><BR/><I>[paul say] In my opinion, we are well beyond DDS intervention and such intervention would be nothing more than thimbles of water</I> <BR/><BR/>DDS intervention in sending paul carleton to run a RC was substantially more than a thimble of water...and Carleton's intervention was orders of magnitude more than a thimble in my daughter's life...<BR/><BR/>perhaps DDS intervention could make a difference for one person at a time (follow a carleton example)...<BR/><BR/>a difference in one RC at a time...a pilot RC that followed the intent of Lanterman vice being a bean counter for the state...<BR/><BR/>perhaps DDS could submit a budget based on needs vice meaningless historic data.<BR/><BR/><I>[paul say] Quoting a section of WIC multiple times is unfortunately NOT an argument, but only shows competence in ones ability to cut and paste.</I><BR/><BR/>Isnt quoting the law what judges do in their arguments...writing opinions, etc...is this just an indication of their ability to cut and paste...<BR/><BR/>So much prattle to justify DDS not obeying the law... why justify not obeying the law.<BR/><BR/>stanley seiglerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-74677790652718640322008-07-29T13:35:00.000-07:002008-07-29T13:35:00.000-07:00Doug,Thanks for the examples. I promise that I wi...Doug,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the examples. I promise that I will not report that there is someone, someplace, west of the Mississippi who enjoys marijuana. I am sure that they did not inhale. But – I certainly hope that the staff are not allowing the consumers to go blind!!<BR/><BR/><I>“I don't think debating both sides of the case regarding how activist DDS ought to be is worthless.”</I><BR/><B>-Doug-</B><BR/><BR/>Nor do I. But – <I>“not worthless”</I> is a pretty low bar and I think that it is likely that the majority has much more serious and pressing concerns. Jefferson and Washington discussed the vices and virtues of liberty and government tyranny. I highly doubt that their slaves did the same. Without a doubt those slaves where likely much too busy trying to find the other 2/5th of their corpus before they bled to death. No matter – I believe any discussion has worth, even if I believe that there is not worth in the issue at hand.<BR/><BR/>Doug,<BR/><BR/>I would bet the basement of the outhouse that the examples that you have provided are realized because of the actions, policies, and procedures of the Regional Centers. As you stated earlier those actions are probably NOT sanctioned by the law. This would not be the first time the internal policies of the Regional Centers violated the Lanterman Act.<BR/><BR/>It has been said that the greatest threat to free speech is not from our government, but from our neighbor. Even if a person disagrees with the specifics I think this could apply to our realities. The greatest threat to the liberties of the consumer does not come from the state, but the Regional Center.<BR/><BR/>Over 20 years ago it was time for the Regional Centers to conduct business or get off the pot. Today, the Regional Center system is still sitting on the potty, and few demand that they do their business or leave. Perhaps it is because we know that we will have to wipe up should we ask them to leave. Their continual excuse is that they need more TP. While at times this may be true, most of the time it is not, but we continue to pander. <BR/><BR/>It is my belief that those most responsible, those that allow the Regional Centers to enjoy endless time with Uncle John's Bathroom Reader Series do NOT work for the state. I also believe that having the RC occupy the loo endlessly DOES benefit some, and the some are the ones that decide whether to provide a laxative, ask the RC to leave, or – the popular choice. Do nothing…<BR/><BR/>My prating might certainly seem like a build up to advocating DDS intervention – maybe, but probably not. I think that <I>an</I> argument for <I>some type</I> of intervention probably exists and has some merit, even though no good arguments have been provided here. Quoting a section of WIC multiple times is unfortunately NOT an argument, but only shows competence in ones ability to cut and paste.<BR/><BR/>Whether or not the state has authority to act in any given situation depends upon the details. But details are such a pain. Conclusions and criticism are so much easier and make us look like we care to boot!!!<BR/><BR/>In my opinion, we are well beyond DDS intervention and such intervention would be nothing more than thimbles of water upon the flames of Big Sur. If this is the case then we might as well save the cost of the water. If things are going to improve it is solely upon our non-governmental participants. If any serious intervention by the state should occur I would like it to be burning sections 4400 – 4906 of the Welfare and Institution Code and starting from scratch. But since this will help EVERYONE at the expense of the bluebloods, the chances of such an event is slim to none…<BR/><BR/>I am certain that at least one person I know who desires DDS intervention would be the first person to criticize that intervention should he get his way. How do you say it, be careful what you wish for? How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct.<BR/><BR/>No matter - regardless of the details, or the merit of intervention I do not think intervention is likely. As already mentioned, those that could serve as a catalyst for state intervention are better served with little or no intervention, and our silent majority does not even know what a Regional Center is…So – we need not worry much.<BR/><BR/>We probably have more to fear from the potential blogocide that might result from Agent Stanlin dropping propaganda bytes from Sacromoscow. So – what to do what to do….<BR/><BR/>Well – Over the last 15 years I have seen a single consistent pattern amongst our advodivas (Comrade Stanlin is the only person that I have experienced that breaks the mold. Perhaps he really is the real McCoy, a genuine reincarnate of Eugene Debbs). Combine my experience with “when in Rome” and the pathway is clear. If intervention benefits me and mine then do it, if not then not. So – if DDS intervention costs me less money then Yahooooo, if it will cost me more money then long live laissez-faire!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-7530330707557178422008-07-27T12:21:00.000-07:002008-07-27T12:21:00.000-07:00OFF Subject...but important.warning...beware of do...OFF Subject...but important.<BR/><BR/>warning...beware of doug's subliminal messages...eg, see the pic of his dog (sad eyes and all) embedded in the pic of stars attached to <I>Entitled to what</I> discussion<BR/><BR/>maybe seeing things as i did see stalin's face in my grits the morn.<BR/><BR/>stanley seiglerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-29255917563633968832008-07-27T11:50:00.000-07:002008-07-27T11:50:00.000-07:00[doug say] Stanley, choice is the point. That's wh...<I>[doug say] Stanley, choice is the point. That's what you get with a market model and not with a traditional command and control social services model. Also, arguably, quality.</I><BR/><BR/>Not sure how suggesting DDS enforce IPP goals and needs support became “a traditional command and control social services model”...or as that bastard john birch makes DDS enforcing IPP goals an <B>All power in the hands of a chosen few? All directives emanating from Sacramoscow</B><BR/><BR/>as asked how does one get more choice than 200,000 individual programs...granted this is utopia...but it is basically the intent/goal of Lanterman...the goal DDS is asked (mandated) to enforce.<BR/><BR/>There are w/o doubt more instances, where DDS has enforced Lanterman...than the one (take over of a RC) Andy related and the personal instance w/ my daughter...but based on the state of the system...enforcement has been lax to non existent<BR/><BR/>BTW DDS action on both of the above mentioned instances was due mainly to the effort of one individual, paul carleton. <BR/><BR/>Who in my daughter’s case immediately took action...just wonder if he has any idea of the enormous effect his phone call had on my daughter’s life...and <BR/><BR/>I’ll bet the farm there were many similar instances where his actions (enforcing Lanterman) had immeasurable (compared to what might have been) positive effects on the lives of many w/ special needs...<BR/><BR/><I>[doug say] A client looking for residential services is typically required to not only work, but specific kinds (vendored) of work.</I><BR/><BR/>What does the client's IPP say re work she/he wants to do...guess what happened at Valley Village...<BR/><BR/>client and families were encouraged to make the <B>?-choice-?</B> that created less problems for Valley Village rate negotiations w/RC...consultants (paid by VV) encouraged the encouragement (hard to believe, eh!) <BR/><BR/><I>[doug say] I'm one who thinks that authorities sitting down and shutting up is rarer than it should be and being the boss way more common. Even under circumspect authorities like the current DDS leadership.</I><BR/><BR/>seems if DDS had enforced Lanterman from day one...the system just may have been the model some stakeholders believe it to be (because for their precious child it is...actually better than the model)...ie;<BR/><BR/>if DDS had <B>taken ALL necessary actions to support regional centers to successfully achieve compliance with this section (4434 b) and provide high quality services and supports to consumers and their families.</B><BR/><BR/>as asked andy, would you have DDS continue to do nothing...well do less than now...will them doing less improve the system...will doing less ensure choice for 200,000 individuals...<BR/> <BR/>stanley seigler<BR/><BR/>ps. am glad paul carleton didnt sit down and shut up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-14190067621162362462008-07-27T09:21:00.000-07:002008-07-27T09:21:00.000-07:00Stanley, and we do consider BS at length.Andy, "ba...Stanley, and we do consider BS at length.<BR/><BR/>Andy, "bastard'"s fine. I used it recently.<BR/><BR/>Stanley, choice is the point. That's what you get with a market model and not with a traditional command and control social services model. Also, arguably, quality.<BR/><BR/>Paul, I actually can't give specific examples, because of confidentiality, but I can give some specific examples:<BR/><BR/>A) A client who enjoys marijuana but has mandatory reporters in his/her home.<BR/><BR/>B) Every client accepting services through a regional center agrees to have a relative stranger come in and negotiate with them about their preferences.<BR/><BR/>C) Choosing not to take medications may often be dumb but it doesn't risk judicial involvement until you have support staff around.<BR/><BR/>D) A client looking for residential services is typically required to not only work, but specific kinds (vendored) of work.<BR/><BR/>I agree with your premise that every regulation and law impinges freedom but I don't think debating <I>both sides </I> of the case regarding how activist DDS ought to be is worthless. It's a specific version of the great American tradition of seeking the right size and role for government.<BR/><BR/>Stan, we all agree that we want DDS to obey the law, along with regional centers, vendors and clients. But sometimes "all necessary actions to support compliance" is sit out and shut up, sometimes its partnership, and sometimes it means being the boss. I'm one who thinks that authorities sitting down and shutting up is rarer than it should be and being the boss way more common. Even under circumspect authorities like the current DDS leadership.Doug The Unahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04753071669562594194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-49279264665720680912008-07-26T18:40:00.000-07:002008-07-26T18:40:00.000-07:00[andy] Is that what you want, Comrade? All power i...<I>[andy] Is that what you want, Comrade? All power in the hands of a chosen few? All directives emanating from Sacramoscow? A Stanley Stalin at the head of the Department?. . . ya’ old red bastard!</I><BR/> <BR/>All wanted is for DDS to obey the law: <BR/><BR/><B>The department [DDS] shall* take ALL necessary actions to support regional centers to successfully achieve compliance with this section and provide high quality services and supports to consumers and their families. (4434 b)</B> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DDRIGHTS/message/4021<BR/><BR/>As they did when they sent paul carleton to run a RC that was NOT implementing Lanterman...<BR/><BR/>Would you have DDS continue to do nothing...at no time has anyone, including stanley stalin espoused all power in the hands of a chosen few...from day one all stanley stalin suggested is that DDS obey the law.<BR/><BR/>cute...but why do you keep harping on this power to the chosen few bs...<BR/><BR/>stanley seiglerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-43905165291790386772008-07-26T13:04:00.000-07:002008-07-26T13:04:00.000-07:00“There is no question that, practically, clients a...<I>“There is no question that, practically, clients and families surrender some liberty to have sovereignty over their supports. Legally, however, they don't.”</I><BR/><B>Doug</B><BR/><BR/>Doug<BR/>While my imagination can produce several examples of the above, I aways try to keep my imagination in a cage. The vision of Brer Stan siting at his computer in proletariate gray with a picture of Frank D. Lanterman on the wall is chilling.<BR/><BR/>Can you give an example of clients and families surrendering some liberty to have sovereignty over their supports?<BR/><BR/>As for Rousseau, I agree. The analogy is not perfect, and maybe not even good. My basic thought is that something is needed to viably weave your point, based on Milton Friedman’s ideas, into our developmental service system. A belief in ideological oil does not mean that it mixes with every other liquid.<BR/><BR/>If I understand the basics correctly – if Milton Friedman had his druthers he would have replaced Social Security with lump sum cash in hand with no strings attached. Fine – but the bard’s rub comes in regards to a question asked of Friedman by a University of Chicago student some 3 years ago.<BR/><BR/>“If you did that, how would you protect people from making really stupid decisions?”<BR/><BR/>Friedman replied. “I don’t! Why should I? You mean freedom does not include the freedom to make a stupid decision?”<BR/><BR/>I think that you mirror Friedman’s comments when you state that, “the wise counselor is usually about as brilliant as the fool you are trying to correct and, anyway, nobody likes nosey nancies.” Friedman’s comments got a laugh in chicago I wonder if they would have gotten a laugh in our context?<BR/><BR/>For the moment lets ignore Birch’s comments. Lets assume that the “consumer” is the ultimate consumer. Let’s pretend that every consumer is able to act, participate, and exert the same liberties that our urban 10% can exert.<BR/><BR/>Are we willing to allow consumers to have unencumbered freedom over their supports and the funding for those supports?<BR/>Are we willing to allow the chips to fall as they may (and I hope nobody will deny the possibilities), because freedom of the consumer includes the freedom to make stupid decisions?<BR/><BR/>If the answer to both question is a yes then I will understand your basic point/position (but not necessarily agree)<BR/><BR/>If we are <B>not</B> willing to allow the chips to fall as they may then we find ourselves sniffing for Andy’s armpits. If we are not completely hands off then we begin to encumber the freedom and inclusion of people with disabilities. If we begin to distance ourselves from our nirvana then the real question is how far will distance ouselves, and how far will we move our slider bar to the left. <BR/><BR/>The comment, “the more activist we ask DDS to be, the less able our system will become to model the inclusiveness we promote”, may be true but might very well be, for all practical purposes, quite useless as well. Every single law, rule, or norm encumbers my liberty and my freedom suffers. That is not rocket science. The tougher question is when the laws, rules, or norms become insufferable.<BR/><BR/>I agree with Doug’s basic thoughts about government intervention vis-à-vis freedom. However, I view this perspective as a <B>tool</B> to be utilized when trying to reach an objective. I do not see it as an ideology. <BR/><BR/>Be that as it may, this discussion may just be nothing more autocerebalism. I also cannot help but wonder if this discussion, as it reflex on EVERY consumer, is two decades outta season. From the beginning the 21 Regional Centers have bowled gutter balls time and time again. As a result DDS has intervened and held their incapable hands through the building of the board of managers, to eligibility standards, to telling them when they should poop and pee.<BR/><BR/>However, in regards to the bluebloods and all the cutting edge hands off approaches this discussion is still viable, and since the bluebloods set the agenda….<BR/><BR/>In othe words, I disagree that, "nobody likes nosey nancies.” I think that are some consumers begging and praying for a nosey nancy, and would probably love to give up the freedoms that they never really had in order to get a chance to discuss the loss of freedom. But we dont wish to discuss these folks at our tea parties. Lets face it, the tea parties are NOT for them...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-90552926336033499502008-07-26T12:27:00.000-07:002008-07-26T12:27:00.000-07:00Well – I pondered a response that I hoped would pr...Well – I pondered a response that I hoped would provide some amount of proof of my upright position and opposable thumbs, or my pedagogic flair, but then Birch pointed to an emperor that needs some sun…or was it an elephant BBQ in the Potemkin village?…chess game in wonderland?…<BR/><BR/>No matter… all I have to say now is <B>Hallelujah</B><BR/><BR/><I>“When someone else retains the access to the market, acting as the customer’s proxy to find and purchase the service, the needs and interests of the proxy will often direct the purchasing decision. Particularly when there is no free market of proxies!!!”</I><BR/><B>-Johnny B-</B><BR/><BR/><B><I>“Particularly when there is no free market of proxies”</I></B><BR/>you won’t read that on CDCAN!!!<BR/><BR/>Although I agree with the thoughts oozing from Doug, Milton, Andy, and Johnny in regards to government intervention vis-à-vis freedoms it may be, in this case, like mixing oil and water. <BR/><BR/>The choices, freedoms, entitlements we bandy are created whole cloth by the government and are all but completely vouchsafed from the same. And as Johnny has articulated, choice is often a delusion that includes no real choice to choose who will exercise my choice. <BR/><BR/>Unless you are part of our urbane 10% with powdered wigs and T-shirts that say “do the Right thing”, underwear embroidered with “Just follow Lanterman” and a perfect “proverbial mousetrap” it is hard to show that there are any real freedoms and liberties actualized for the entirety therein. If this is the case then any discussion about state reducing freedom’s via intervention is merely autocerebralism.<BR/> <BR/>I guess if you stir hard enough oil and water will mix, but it needs constant stiring and in my case my wrists and forearm should be spent in altenative and more valuable pursuits.<BR/><BR/>But, but…and…OTOH<BR/><BR/>“name one”<BR/><BR/>Yeah Johnny – name one! The interrogator here has done nothing but graciously answer every question asked of him! There is a severe question deficit! It is high time he gets to ask some questions!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-43602536039743915332008-07-26T03:02:00.000-07:002008-07-26T03:02:00.000-07:00[jb] I think many of the principles and forces of ...<I>[jb] I think many of the principles and forces of a free market, for a service industry, can be great for its customers</I><BR/><BR/>name one<BR/><BR/><I>[jb] he agrees with absolutely everything I say</I><BR/><BR/>do not<BR/><BR/>stanley seiglerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-61136386702895675392008-07-25T22:49:00.000-07:002008-07-25T22:49:00.000-07:00Okay . . . one more thoughtful and startling contr...Okay . . . one more thoughtful and startling contribution. I think many of the principles and forces of a free market, for a service industry, can be great for its customers. Assuming those customers have wide and easy access to the market. When someone else retains the access to the market, acting as the customer’s proxy to find and purchase the service, the needs and interests of the proxy will often direct the purchasing decision. <I> Particularly when there is no free market of proxies!!! </I> <BR/><BR/><B><I>And then</I></B> . . . when quality and demand have <I>NOTHING</I> to do with the price of the service!!!! . . . well, you get something pretty darn stupid . . . but you don’t get a free market. <BR/><BR/> . . .but, but, . . . none of this matters. Blather on, Brownie. A free market is superfluous subterfuge . . . promoted by the go along to get along, fat cat, steak-eating stakeholders vested in the status quo. If DDS would just flex its muscles and squash a few thousand proxies and peasants, we’d be well on our way to the dawning of “Utopia Developmentia.” A simple mandate to implement the will of the People, from the Central Committee of DDS, like the highly successful collectivization of Ukrainian farms . . . (ignore the famine behind the curtain) . . . would be the start of our great leap forward ( . . . sorry if I’m confusing my commies). Is that what you want, Comrade? All power in the hands of a chosen few? All directives emanating from Sacramoscow? A Stanley Stalin at the head of the Department?. . . ya’ old red bastard! <BR/><BR/>(Sorry, Doug . . . “bastard’s” not a profanity, is it? I certainly don’t mean it in its pejorative sense. Stanley and I have been playing very nicely, lately, offline . . . in the shadows of my inbox, he agrees with absolutely everything I say . . . he just can’t show that side of himself—the extremely intelligent side---when others are watching. I love <I>all</I> sides of the man . . . even the nasty pink one)<BR/><BR/>--John BirchAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-8878266946029428342008-07-25T20:33:00.000-07:002008-07-25T20:33:00.000-07:00PAUL WROTE (a way up yonder): The more freedoms w...PAUL WROTE (a way up yonder): <I>The more freedoms we provide for the consumer the more freedom we remove from state. <B>The key, is finding the sweat spot.</B> </I><BR/><BR/>I suggest first looking under the armpits. If not there, try the spot behind the shin, just below where the calf ends . . . or maybe that’s just me. <BR/><BR/>Freedom results only after much blood, toil (aka sweat) and tears. <BR/><BR/>Glad I could contribute to the discussion.<BR/><BR/>--AndyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-26657803432891760292008-07-23T20:48:00.000-07:002008-07-23T20:48:00.000-07:00[doug] Stanley, I sometimes find you a little too ...<I>[doug] Stanley, I sometimes find you a little too enthusiastic for conflating disparate issues. [...] In my experience, the wise counselor is usually about as brilliant as the fool you are trying to correct and, anyway, nobody likes nosey nancies.</I><BR/><BR/>Conflate: a: to bring together :FUSE b:CONFUSE2:to combine into a composite whole<BR/><BR/>Fuse or confuse?<BR/><BR/><B>too enthusiastic for conflating disparate issues</B>...shouldnt disparate issues be conflated...<BR/><BR/>Sorry have no idea what you say...but makes no differenence as all is bs...and has little...no effect...on the lives of those w/ special needs.<BR/><BR/>OTOH<BR/><BR/>maybe there is something in the bs for providers (all stakeholders) to consider.<BR/><BR/>stanley seiglerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-65725660187578903932008-07-23T12:13:00.000-07:002008-07-23T12:13:00.000-07:00OK, getting caught up. Paul, philosophy is only m...OK, getting caught up. <BR/><BR/>Paul, philosophy is only my strong suit insofar as it is indistinguishable from BS. Happily, this is the case. Rousseau, who I wrote a report on in 8th grade a limerick in French about in or around 2006 and still haven't read might have been right and might have said what you said. To my thinking, though, the social contract is a trade-off between liberty, the freedom to act as I please and sovereignty, defined for this discussion as the freedom to control others. The social contract in our constitution is essentially a surrender of sovereignty in exchange for liberty. <BR/><BR/>My opinion of this system is less, well, systematic, than that. There is no question that, practically, clients and families surrender some liberty to have sovereignty over their supports. Legally, however, they don't. That means there is either a problem in the law or its implementation. While we patiently hold our breath for that to be solved, though, I'm inclined to think service providers ought to place an emphasis on returning the lost liberty.<BR/><BR/>Stanley, I sometimes find you a little too enthusiastic for conflating disparate issues. I absolutely agree that the mortgage meltdown, credit crisis, etc. are the products of liberty and the free markets. But it is very easy to see the dumb things that people do as evidence that someone else should be in control. In my experience, the wise counselor is usually about as brilliant as the fool you are trying to correct and, anyway, nobody likes nosey nancies.<BR/><BR/>Paul, I agree that the POS II study was deeply flawed. They did a pretty good job demonstrating that we treat similar people similarly, which was the question but did not demonstrate that we treat different people differently, which is a much better question.<BR/><BR/>Stanley, I agree. In fact, the evidence that where you choose to live is the main factor in funding which suggests that the system probably underestimates the needs of people who live on their own or with families while overestimating the needs of people in group homes. This is not a surprise. <BR/><BR/>OK, I think I'm caught but apologies if I missed something. Carry on.Doug The Unahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04753071669562594194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-89053736692053771902008-07-21T07:10:00.000-07:002008-07-21T07:10:00.000-07:00[paul say] If it could be convincingly shown that ...<I>[paul say] If it could be convincingly shown that the most predictable variable that determines the type and amount services that a consumer ultimately receives is his or her socioeconomic status. Would that be a problem?</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps I misunderstood the comment. I took it as a question should, rich folk pay (all or part) for programs...thus my comment it would not be a problem, but that this was not a free market argument.<BR/><BR/>If it is a statement of fact that rich folks can advocate and get more funding than po folks...it is a problem to be corrected...the #1 (perfect world) consideration, as dictated by law, is the need of the consumer...and this must be enforced.<BR/><BR/>stanley seiglerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com