2011-01-10 15:07![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
digitaldiscipline
digitaldiscipline[from a reply to a locked post I made else-LJ]
I caught a bit of NPR's discussion of the question of whether or not he had seen a mental health professional, and if so, whether there had been any kind of diagnosis or whatever, but it was being framed in the context of firearms-purchase background checks (the NIX system, etc).
Michio Kaku put it this way on his Twitter feed:
"It's tragic that it is easier for the severely mentally ill to get a gun than adequate mental care."
People are complex, situations are complex; sound-bite reactions to them are not, and that's where the media that covers and surrounds politics and related issues makes its hay right now.
Sex sells; so does anger.
Passion = dollar signs.
"Us vs. Them" has been amped up to become "You're with us, or you're with the terrorists." The screeching disconnect caused by calling what happened this weekend an act of domestic terrorism (leaving aside whether that's an apt label for it, at least for the moment), and the recasting of folks of a certain political stripe in the role of Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11 (as the Rude Pundit did this morning)... it causes an uncomfortable moment of self-evaluation that people who are invested in being solidly and stolidly "right" in their thinking are not necessarily willing to engage in.
Politics has become dodgeball, when it should be more like othello.
Do I blame the media? Indirectly.
Do I blame one political side more than the other? Yes.
Do I blame the shooter? Absolutely. Nobody else pulled the trigger, even though they may have wanted (and, heck, may still want) to.
An event like this presses so many hot-button issues that it's easy to get riled up (and, hey, at my place? there was quite a spirited discussion yesterday). I'm not sure that it's even possible to talk about a lot of the particulars without taking into context the inflammatory environment on both sides; there's Keith Olbermann's mea culpa from yesterday, though there has not been anything similar from the other side of the commentary spectrum...
... and that last sentence illustrates just how quickly that even calm discourse is almost impossible to divorce partisanship from a full conversation, because we ARE in a highly politicized society now (and a discursion and discussion on the roots of that would make for a wall o' text all their own).
It's donkeys, and elephants, and turtles, all the way down.
I caught a bit of NPR's discussion of the question of whether or not he had seen a mental health professional, and if so, whether there had been any kind of diagnosis or whatever, but it was being framed in the context of firearms-purchase background checks (the NIX system, etc).
Michio Kaku put it this way on his Twitter feed:
"It's tragic that it is easier for the severely mentally ill to get a gun than adequate mental care."
People are complex, situations are complex; sound-bite reactions to them are not, and that's where the media that covers and surrounds politics and related issues makes its hay right now.
Sex sells; so does anger.
Passion = dollar signs.
"Us vs. Them" has been amped up to become "You're with us, or you're with the terrorists." The screeching disconnect caused by calling what happened this weekend an act of domestic terrorism (leaving aside whether that's an apt label for it, at least for the moment), and the recasting of folks of a certain political stripe in the role of Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11 (as the Rude Pundit did this morning)... it causes an uncomfortable moment of self-evaluation that people who are invested in being solidly and stolidly "right" in their thinking are not necessarily willing to engage in.
Politics has become dodgeball, when it should be more like othello.
Do I blame the media? Indirectly.
Do I blame one political side more than the other? Yes.
Do I blame the shooter? Absolutely. Nobody else pulled the trigger, even though they may have wanted (and, heck, may still want) to.
An event like this presses so many hot-button issues that it's easy to get riled up (and, hey, at my place? there was quite a spirited discussion yesterday). I'm not sure that it's even possible to talk about a lot of the particulars without taking into context the inflammatory environment on both sides; there's Keith Olbermann's mea culpa from yesterday, though there has not been anything similar from the other side of the commentary spectrum...
... and that last sentence illustrates just how quickly that even calm discourse is almost impossible to divorce partisanship from a full conversation, because we ARE in a highly politicized society now (and a discursion and discussion on the roots of that would make for a wall o' text all their own).
It's donkeys, and elephants, and turtles, all the way down.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Please see my own LJ on this. The knee jerk "OMG Mentally Ill!!!eleventy one!!111!" needs to stop. It benefits no one and harms A LOT of people.
(no subject)
I feel, while I can't put words into Dr. Kaku's mouth, that his comment was more an indictment of the parlous social services available to folks who are apt to need them (whether or not this guy did), and a commentary on the skewed priorities of our country (and the profit motive, and, and, and).
I know a bunch of places where I could buy a gun on the way home from my office. If I hadn't gone to see a mental health professional, I wouldn't have any idea where the nearest one is without checking online. That's the situation he's decrying (or at least the message I'm hoping to amplify by repeating it).
I'm not a psych-anything; I'm not making any kind of armchair diagnosis beyond, "What he did was not what an otherwise normal person, who was not under extreme duress, would do." Whatever it was that caused, or allowed, him to view this as what he should do, bears consideration, whether it's medical, chemical, social, economic, or, as is entirely possible, a combination of all of these.
(no subject)
~The following is not directed at you. Please keep that in mind. It's my frustration with the whole thing.~
Mental health services in this country, at best, suck. Calling them inadequate, bordering on incompetent would be kind in face of the reality. Waiting lists are years long and copayments, assuming insurance covers treatment, are generally around 20-50% of total costs for office visits. Inpatient treatment typically has a time limit of around a week. Sliding scale clinics do exists, but have even longer waiting lists. And heinously inadequate funding. Social workers pick up ~some~ of the slack, with their very small paychecks and huge lists of clients.
The sad thing is that there are also huge waiting lists of people trying to get into clinical psychology programs. Program funding is the biggest limiting factor. Public education funding is being gutted around the country, especial the liberal arts schools that house clinical psychology programs (the program a friend of mine heads is harder to get into than the medical school here - it's almost as competitive as the vet school). NIH's funding is being held at 2008 levels, even though demand for health related research and services is way up. I suppose we should just expect everyone to pick themselves up by their bootstraps, or something.
A Major Event happened and now the pundits want to have The Conversation. Except they really don't. They ~want~ to say "OMG Mental Illness" without investigating further, as if it's an excuse. They don't want to connect Healthcare to Mental Health Care. They ~want~ to say "OMG Gun Control" without investigating what the implications are. This man had never, to our knowledge, been diagnosed with anything. No law put in the books today would be able to change his access to anything or his actions. Even if he had access blocked at all avenues, given enough motivation and enough intelligence he'd be able to find a way.
(no subject)
No, I do not believe you wanted to physically eviscerate your foes...any more than I believe that Sarah Palin actually wanted her folks to shoot politicians. That's the problem, though...Pretty much any time I hear someone say "Well that side does it more/worse" it's while the commentator is doing the exact same thing they complain about.
(no subject)
/Alfred E. Neuman
I think that trying to defend the actions of someone who shoots somebody else (and several innocent bystanders) in cold blood is taking, shall we say, a very tenuous moral position, especially before most of the facts are known. That's not going to change.