RE:Psych. label bible mocked in London Times

Liberty (
Mon, 01 Dec 1997 11:36:30 -0500


At 08:58 AM 01/12/97 -0500, Bruce D. Burleson wrote:

>That's not the argument I was making.  For those who feel they're ready
>for the workplace, I think *absolutely* they should be given placement
>assistance.  But if they fail at what they do, then there still needs to
>be a safety net for them to fall back on.

I am not saying this was the argument you've been making.  I am saying
this is the effect of saying the "some people cannot work" argument on
government policies and spending objectives.  People who want to work
and have mental health problems get zero help, while those that do not
want to work (or feel they cannot do it) get virtually all the resources.
I am arguing the focus should instead be on those that want to work and
become self-sufficient, instead of spending 100% of their scarce resources
on people that will likely get nowhere, regardless.

>Well I certainly respect your point of view.  I'm glad you "made it"
>as such, but don't expect that *everyone else* can or will live up to
>your standards.  Because ultimately you're not in their shoes and 
>they're not in yours. 

There's plenty more where I came from.  Believe me.

But, did you know that the provincial government does not even consider
me a person with a disability?  Once one is working, no matter how hard
it is for them, they get zero help and supports - I would only get the
supports if I quit working, whined, felt sorry for myself and asked for
handouts all the time, without the responsibility of bettering myself.

I am glad the Conservatives are making some changes to this philosophy,
which has been particularly engrained under the NDP, when the number
of people on welfare tripled from the time they were elected in 1990.