MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
I don't even know what to write about stories like this.
Maybe I do! Thank you, artappraiser, for getting me thinking. This and the gun issue are not at all unconnected. Everything in this country is a business - we have no social compacts like many cultures do as everything literally is about money, money, money. Foster kids and the children of broken families in general are the most likely to get a fake disorder slapped on them - as psychiatric care for children usually poses as a surrogate parent.
We are so off the deep end in having money over everything that the safety, health and well being of children no longer counts for anything at all. People act terribly shocked at children having their bodies riddled at Sandy Hook Elementary but the conditions for that to occur have been in this country for years. The same combination caused Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc. before.
The only thing that counts in America is making cash, cash, cash, and especially in times like these, the altered reality of pharmaceuticals and the sense of security of guns are hot commodities.
Comments
I went looking for more on this in the news, like a link to the Senate hearing mentioned and the related GAO report, to discover that the reason more wasn't easy to find is that the article you posted is from Dec. 2, 2011.
Here is a Wall Street Journal piece from the same date with more detail on the problem and the government approach:
After figuring that out, from what I saw in some more quick searches is that what appears to be in the process of happening since that hearing and report is that those states that had the highest numbers have been working on the problem, prodded by the Federal Medicaid people.
Do I need to explain that certain states like Texas aren't known to be too quick when the Feds say "jump"?
From this year's news, about working on it in Texas:
This is something that has to be attacked state by state.
I didn't check into what Massachusetts and the other "high" states are doing on it.
I do know that the Texas legislature, which has the power of the purse, works part time, and isn't fond of spending more money on anything; threats about federal Medicaid dollars might put a bee in their bonnet, and then publicized conferences that the Lt. Gov. attends might as well. But these wheels work slowly there....
by artappraiser on Tue, 02/05/2013 - 1:13pm
I would like to add that you have to look at this big picture, as regards spending on "welfare."
1) Medicaid reimbursement to providers is the lowest there is. Many providers won't take it. Those that do must not spend too much time on patients, but must serve them "assembly line" style, or go broke. Medicaid providers are too often the bottom-of-the-barrel in their fields, they are taking Medicaid patients because they can't get the other kind of patients.
2) Foster children bring with them more psychological problems than other children, simply because of their family situation being broken, even before they are placed. Then there is a serious problem of abuse of all kinds of foster children in this country. Cuts to local government budgets means fewer social workers overseeing many more foster children, and less oversight of their care.
3) Then the thing everyone knows but won't say because it besmirches those who take in foster children simply out of the goodness of their hearts: plenty of people who take in foster kids do it to get the support checks because they help make ends meet; often it's basically a "part-time job" substitute for women who only have experience keeping house and raising children. As is noted in the Texas article, the more "handicapped" the child, the more money you get. Conversely, the more obedient and quiet the child, the more children you can handle, the more checks you can collect. Prescription pyschoactive drugs sound like a convenient solution. to the last two points.....not to mention keeps the not-a-rocket-scientist-of-child-care caretaker from continually hitting the kid for misbehaving.
by artappraiser on Tue, 02/05/2013 - 2:05pm
Good finds!
by Orion on Wed, 02/06/2013 - 12:55am
Glad you found it helpful, Orion.
And I hope you don't take the criticism I put on your other thread the wrong way. I do enjoy interacting with you on this topic. I just think you have a tendency to sound like (whether intended or not) you are pushing a simple answer to many complex problems--i.e., stop with the psychiatric meds and so many problems will disappear.
I suspect the truth on that other thread issue is more like this: stop prescribing psychiatric meds like candy without serious monitoring and you will see maybe one less suicidal mass murder a year, because the people who do those are mostly seriously mentally ill and ready to crack whether on meds or not. But you will also see a lot lot less suicides a year.
And I suspect the truth on this thread's issue is more like this: stop handing out psychoactive meds to foster children like candy and you will reduce the number of children who grow up to be seriously damaged adults by a mall number. But don't expect miracles from that because they will all still have fucked-up childhoods, and many will still see lots of abuse in a cycle of dysfunction triggered by their own dysfunctional behavior not being tended to by someone with expertise. And without the doctor's drugs, many will self-medicate with street drugs or alcohol once they can access them, with similar damage.
Taking away the meds that don't work or exacerbate a situation doesn't seem to me to be a solution to the intial problems in most cases where it is related. To me it seems like in most cases it would just be removing one layer of the onion.
by artappraiser on Wed, 02/06/2013 - 5:35am
This may not be the response that you may be expecting buuut, I am aware of how much of what I'm writing sounds and there is a goal in mind to it.
I think psychiatry should a consensual, adult phenomenon. It should be a crime and seen as an atrocity to force children in to it. Doing so has never helped a child and led to alot of death. Alot of death.
Right now it's literally a million dollar industry to tell children that they have chemical imbalances - all so that teachers can get bigger subsidies from the federal government and pharmaceutical companies can make money off of ADHD drugs, anti-anxiety drugs, etc. It makes so much money, actually, that ADHD drugs are now being handed out to kids who don't even have ADHD. 14 million prescriptions apparently - do we really believe all those are people who legitimately have ADHD? Really? If that many have ADHD, it must not really be a disorder.
Sandy Hook was the 9/11 of this ongoing atrocity. Mentally ill are everywhere in society along with guns. Most of the worst mass shootings keep happening in schools or involving young adults. Seriously mentally ill folks of older generations somehow keep it together and don't go firing assault weapons as frequently. That's not a coincidence.
I also don't think it's a coincidence that the first generation to do worse financially than their parents is also the first to have grown up being told there was something wrong with their brain.
by Orion on Wed, 02/06/2013 - 8:24am
BTW is there a way to message you privately, artappraiser?
by Orion on Wed, 02/06/2013 - 8:40am
You can use the contact feature here but you have to notify me publicly here somehow (like in a comment) that you have done so. Because I am registered with an email account that I use mainly as a junk email address and I don't check it regularly, but will check it if I am told to do so. Also make it clear in the subject somehow that you are from DagBlog or you are Orion.
Must warn you that I'm not into getting into lengthy private discussions, I much prefer spending the time on public discussion where there is the chance of more input than just two people. I really should be answering emails right now, but I'm not, I'm posting here--that should tell you something.
by artappraiser on Wed, 02/06/2013 - 7:53pm
I am very open to this argument. But I also have heartbreak for the stories I have read of parents who are not just at wit's end dealing with violently mentally ill teen males of considerable size, but actual physical abuse and threats to life from them. Do you allow the parents to just abandon them to the street, have them locked up in prisons, or put the kind of institutions of yore where physical restraints and electro shock were used instead of meds?
by artappraiser on Wed, 02/06/2013 - 7:45pm
I wanted to contact you privately about alot of the research you pulled together.
The police are there for a reason in nearly every part of the world - because even the best people commit even minor crimes of some kind at some point. I wish family had called police when I really flew the coup during SSRI withdrawal - they do bring clarity to situations.
Of course, I wasn't doing anything like these folks have done so my projection may be a problem, like you've said. Perhaps training police to be able to deal in situations like that would be a good idea.
It's obvious that kids now are being brought in to the dehumanizing world of psychiatry for reasons that have nothing to do with them being a real threat to other's safety. I used to get told that my keeping action figures in their cases (I did so because they'd be worth more money that way) instead of playing with them was evidence I had OCD - or something like that? These poor kids are growing up in a climate of total fear - they will never get to really be themselves because they will have to worry constantly that literally anything they do is proof of some chemical imbalance.
There was a line in the book The Kite Runner, which applies to how kids grow up now - one guy said of the Taliban, "They don't let you be human." It's the same mentality in psychiatry. Just like organized religion, much of psychiatry is based on stuff that's not real - so people who believe in it find themselves torturing themselves as they try to adhere to principles that were made up.
Your bit about "leaving people on the street" sticks out too. Our entire economic system leaves alot of people in the streets - after I got baptized LDS, I spent more than a few nights "sleeping outside" (that's how he and I put it) with a guy from church who simply couldn't afford to live anywhere in the Seattle area. That's a whole separate issue, of course.
At this point, also, that number on ADHD prescriptions I mentioned was actually 14 million per month. It's obvious that not that many people really have ADHD. If they did, it wouldn't be a disorder.
by Orion on Thu, 02/07/2013 - 3:51am
I don't have a lot of research stored on my hard drive or anything like that, that's not what's going.on. More and more from our discussions I am starting to think this is what's going on: I am much older and have followed these issues for a much longer time than you. You see the current horror and think it's a negative progression. I see the current horror and the past horrors, I don't see things as worse, just different, from attempts by society to make things better that haven't worked out as planned. So I can quickly google examples to counter your rosy view of the past and a more nuanced view of the present.
Yes, psychiatry is pitifully primitive and "they" don't know what they are doing fiddling chemically with everyone's neurotransmitters and how they fiddle with them is furthermore influenced by the profit motive. But this fiddling was instituted by a desire to make miserable and sick people feel better, Orion, and to stop the widespread cruel institutionalization of abnormal people and to stop behavior like dropping out of school, not learning to read and write, running away from home, self-medicating with alcohol or addictive street drugs and getting involved with crime thereafter, getting pregnant at 14, parents beating or tying up children they couldn't handle, etc.
From my historical perspective, I just don't see the poorly prescribed psychoactive drugs as much of an underlying cause of anything as you do. It is just another bad complication from trying to solve a major human problem. Taking them away is not going to solve what |I see as longstanding underlying problems.
Another example comes to mind right now raising the issue of homelessness. When I first moved to NYC in the early 80's, we had a major serious problem of more than a few violently mentally ill people on the streets. Anyone who spent time in Manhattan knew about them, you didn't even have to read a newspaper to know, you ended up seeing them dosomething scary yourself, and it made people afraid of all the homeless. They are now gone. Gone. You don't see them anymore. I find it hard to believe they all died and weren't replaced by more like them, they are either on meds that make them less violent or locked up.
I think your equation of the damage that overuse of psychoactive drugs does and violence against society is faulty. I am sure that the overuse and misuse is making a lot of people's lives miserable. I am less convinced of the connection between that and violence. I've seen where letting mentally ill free on the streets unmedicated and unsupervised adds to violence. I have found few of your recent claims that spree killers were pushed to act by meds to be credible or provable. I actually feel from my reading that most of them might have not done it if they had been more heavily and correctly medicated; I don't know for sure, but I just don't see much evidence for your side of it. I am staying open on that, but you haven't shown me much of a case.
An example of where I am coming from right now: so far looks to me like people like James Holmes and Jared Loughner were seriously mentally ill with violent tendencies, not normal people pushed to mental illness by meds! The meds were not the problem, the mental illness was. You have two choices in our current pitiful state of psychiatric medicine with people like this: let them freely move about but forcibly medicate them to a state of partial sanity and monitor their state of mind and monitor their activities, or institutionalize them. Neither of those choices are pretty. But I just don't agree that in the past|Jared Loughner or James Holmes would have been leading a happy life on the farm with family and friends keeping them in line. More likely they would end up like Ed Gein or the fictional Norman Bates.
I think you often confuse the save-able with the un-saveable, that's part of the problem. And BTW, by doing so, you risk making people afraid of people like you,.stigmatizing people who would never act out on violent thoughts they might have from time to time for whatever reason, whether the thoughts are because of SSRI's or an unstable blood sugar problem.
by artappraiser on Thu, 02/07/2013 - 3:59pm
Please read up on this recent killing by a young 20 something year old female - she wiped out her entire family with a handgun. No history of mental illness mentioned yet in the news reports. She shot her own toddlers in the head.
I realize the past has never been peachy keen but surely this all is a bit abnormal?
Holmes and Loughner are the really obvious people. People like that young woman - they are the ones that really illustrate something being amiss. The instances of violent individuals in the past - natural born killer types, the homeless, seriously mentally ill - those aren't the ones committing alot of these shootings. Very normal people seem to literally be "going off."
by Orion on Thu, 02/07/2013 - 5:29pm
Seriously mentally ill folks of older generations somehow keep it together and don't go firing assault weapons as frequently.
BUT THEY DID do that when they could, from Worst mass shootings in U.S. history slideshow, My San Antonio:
What's different? I would argue:
1) Many more assault weapons and ammunition in circulation and much easier access to them.
2) Mass emotional reaction to such events and mass media coverage of them gives some mentally ill thoughts of "Fame! I'm going to live forever!" and delusions of empowerment from plotting similar. Must of course be bigger and better than the last to get a rise out of the country (video games and terrorist attacks can assist if the person is lacking in imagination.)
3) We don't lock mentally ill up in institutions and throw away the key, we try to treat them outside institutionalization. (You only need to look to the movie Rain Man for an example of what was standard: an autistic, sent to an institution as a child by his family after putting too much hot water in his baby brother's bath. Worse cases were locked up less pleasantly.)
by artappraiser on Wed, 02/06/2013 - 9:21pm
Isn't there some sort of middle road here? At this point, psychiatric medication and treatment is a commercial enterprise - it's literally advertised on television!
I think there's got to be some sort of place in between that and the sort of institutionalization we used to have.
by Orion on Thu, 02/07/2013 - 3:31am
Wait till "Johnnie comes marching home again"; they’ve been trained to kill?
Charles Whitman: The Texas Bell Tower Sniper — Lost Innocence ...
by Resistance on Thu, 02/07/2013 - 5:46am