Arizona Congresswoman shot

[a_majoor]

Correlation is not cause.

http://blog.american.com/?p=24876

The Golden No-Vitriol Age Wasn’t So Golden
By Jay Weiser
January 12, 2011, 9:52 pm

Denunciations of media vitriol in the wake of the Tucson shootings look back to an age of civil media discourse. That golden age existed in living memory: the 1960s and 1970s, when the mainstream media almost universally hewed to a belief in professional, objective, neutral journalism. The news industry could enforce this line, since it was more oligopolistic than at any time before or since. Most cities had only a few dominant newspapers. Television penetrated about 90 percent of American homes by the late 1950s, and the classic era of network television news began in September 1963, when the Huntley-Brinkley Report on NBC and the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite expanded from 15 minutes to 30 minutes. These newscasts rapidly became the primary news source for most Americans. No cable news, no Internet.

The result? Two decades of assassinations and assassination attempts against major political figures, starting with JFK just two months after the 30-minute newscasts started, and continuing through Martin Luther King Jr., Robert F. Kennedy, George Wallace, and Gerald Ford, until culminating with the Ronald Reagan assassination attempt in 1981. The no-vitriol news age featured widespread civil unrest, often politically motivated, including Southern white violence against African-Americans during the civil rights era, African-American riots destroying neighborhoods in major cities, and leftist political violence including future Barack Obama associate Bill Ayers’s Weather Underground bombing campaign.

You could even argue that the golden-age mainstream media made violence more likely by shutting out marginal voices; but it’s more likely that the tone of the media has little to do with the violent actions of radicals and crazies.

Jay Weiser is associate professor of law and real estate, Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College.

and; the issue has silenced President Obama (who is usually quick to "Bring a gun" or urge people to "Punish their enemies"). Like I said, there is no memory hole anymore and blowback happens quickly and effectively:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/01/what_the_left_did_wrong.html

What the left did wrong
By Jennifer Rubin

Why were the last four days a mini-disaster for the swampland of the left? It boils down to: facts, response and time.

Members of the left pounced first and didn't much care about the facts. Before it was clear just how crazy Jared Loughner is, the left blogosphere and their more high-minded print compatriots were ready to affix blame on their opponents. As the facts emerged, more quickly and thoroughly than every before in the 24/7, twitter-driven media environment, the narrative fell apart. A chorus on the left claimed causation between Sarah Palin and the killings (and then the amorphous "climate" and the deaths) and didn't much care for a careful analysis until it became clear their preferred narrative was false. As for the president, he doesn't buy it at all. He said: "And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths help usher in more civility in our public discourse, let's remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy, but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud." (Emphasis added.) Or, as I put it, rhetorical civility and mental illness are discrete problems. And it doesn't help the liberal line when it turns out this particular lunatic was a-political and didn't watch news.

So, for my friends on the left: facts count. You can't spin a narrative and not be expected to be called on the underlying, flawed premise.

The response was unlike anything I have seen since the emergence of the new media. It wasn't just conservatives that rebutted the left's narrative, but diligent reporters. We think of "rapid response" as a campaign skill, but in reality that is how pundits, activists, reporters and politicians now react. Because the left's narrative was so noxious -- Sarah Palin or a floating cloud of conservative meanness caused a mass murder -- the right was filled with indignation and responded passionately, quickly and effectively. And, meanwhile, in the race to report on the biggest story of the year, the working press furiously disclosed the facts, which, as I noted above, undercut the left's storyline.

And then there is time. The reason I believe that Obama entirely avoided politics, indeed rebuked the Krugman-Daily Kos narrative, is because he saw the pushing and shoving, read the polls, figured which way the wind was blowing, and steered clear of associating himself with the tone-deaf left. Conversely, because the left couldn't restrain themselves, they pounced immediately and left a trail of inanity on twitter and websites.

The final lesson for the left is this: for the sake of a second term, the president is willing to throw liberals under the bus. He's going to undo their economic mantra (by supporting the Bush tax cuts). He is going to undermine their approach to their war on terror (with drones, a long-term commitment to Afghanistan). And he is even going to make the liberal icons -- Krugman, the New York Times editorial board, Keith Olbermann and the rest -- look like fools. The "paper of record" has revealed, for any doubters, that the truth is the first casualty of its op-ed page.

Conservatives nevertheless should be wary. Should he manage to get re-elected, a second term no doubt will see the undiluted Obama return (to the extent Congress allows it). But in the meantime, conservatives frequently are going to enjoy the help of the president in pushing an agenda they care about -- a robust effort on the war on terror, tax reform with low marginal rates, cuts in domestic spending and the rest. The trick for Obama will be to turn out his base in 2012 after he has spent two years belittling their reasoning and betraying their agenda.

By Jennifer Rubin  | January 13, 2011; 8:30 AM ET

 

[kstart]

Thucydides wrote:

Correlation is not cause.

Exactly.

I don't like the political games aspect of media and the rigid ideological identification it calls upon, the splitting into 'camps', points for this side or that side; the taking one thing and distorting it outside of the contexts of the speakers, these agendas (all discourse involves that and we're all constituted to a certain degree [further reading: Foucault]), but it's always a hope we can go outside of those things to a level of reasonable debate (but it seems that it becomes frozen, a lot of noise-making, seems to have the effect of blurring and thwarting of reasonable debate?). 
There's a lot of distorted thinking and it's a good goal to work towards clearing it, as an on-going endeavour, as more facts are known.

I found Obama’s address/eulogy to be quite moving and appropriate to the purpose of memorial, honouring the victims, the heros and a call for unity as a nation grieves, some sense of common purpose and meaning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztbJmXQDIGA  He's a very sophisticated speaker, I have to give him that.

I'm interested in the mental health aspects of this case.  I have personally dealt with a person with 'paranoid schizophrenia' and the crisis of him being off his meds (as a support person to the family and the individual in crisis): it's a really tough challenge for families and in trying to work within the limitations of the mental health system (and that's even here, in Canada).  There's a shortage of hospital beds, when those are needed to help monitor medication responsiveness and stabilization of symptoms and follow-up monitoring of meds is required (outpatient).

I'll have to find the stats, but a person with severe debilitation by mental illness is at significant high risk for becoming victims of crime and I believe in humanitarian responses, aimed at prevention and intervention of mental health crises.  I believe this massacre was preventable and I'm interested in viewing systemic failures re: mental health law, procedure, access to treatment.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/opinion/11brooks.html

“All of this evidence, which is easily accessible on the Internet, points to the possibility that Loughner may be suffering from a mental illness like schizophrenia. The vast majority of schizophrenics are not violent, and those that receive treatment are not violent. But as Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, a research psychiatrist, writes in his book, “The Insanity Offense,” about 1 percent of the seriously mentally ill (or about 40,000 individuals) are violent. They account for about half the rampage murders in the United States.”


http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/2011-01-13-arizonalaws13_st_N.htm
Support of the law is there. Questions re: protocols, level of an infomed public re: mental health risks, communication about what to do, how to get help, etc.  Questions as well about access of help for poorer families, etc.




Nearly 50 Percent Of Mental Health Services Recipients In Giffords' County Were Dropped In 2010
First Posted: 01/11/11 03:26 PM Updated: 01/11/11 04:28 PM


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/pima-county-mental-health-services_n_807522.html

I have some ground-level experience re: intervening to get help on behalf of  family dealing with a seriously debilitated person by mental illness. Even when the laws support intervention, the other challenge is the hospital beds shortage.  It’s a lot of work, and in the case I was dealing with, we did all the legal measures, here was also working with J of P for “Form One” admittance for evaluation, 24 hour observation, interviewing.  We get him to the ER, but he knows the game, the words not to say. . ., while we know his condition is deteriorating (3rd condition for admittance, “Brian’s law”), so it’s a matter of waiting (on eggshells) till the person’s condition has deteriorated to a point where it is fully clear (and person has lost complete grounding, ’to play the game’) is an immediate risk to safety of self and/or others. 

In our case, this was 3 months, putting much of our own lives aside to handle this crisis and see it through to the intervention that was needed.  All is safe now, no lives lost.  We mobilized as a ‘team’, family and supporters, mediator with outside resources.  We were as prepared as anyone could possibly be, and yet it was a real challenge to work with the system.  I wrote out a report on the person’s behaviour, to help make it clear to the hospital what was going on (I used their own template for assessment re: behaviours, cognition, etc.  The social worker complemented on it‘s professionalism, lol)

Much of the behaviours that are being reported about Loughner, are consistent with my observations of a person suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.  Including the reports of the ‘stares’ (those are irksome, to be on the receiving end of them, creepy);  the ‘outbursts’; the ‘taking spontaneous flight’; the cognitive impairment (evidenced by the accounts on L’s you tube account); the shrine he made (the schizophrenic I observed got into ’magical thinking’, he felt unsafe and attempted to draw a circle of protection around his place of residence using laundry detergent. . . Paranoia about food poisoning and he trashed all his roommates food. . . Bizarre behaviours, secretive. . .)

I also have ground-level experience of living with a psychologically dangerous man (my dad and I was 10, 1979) who still had his guns.  It ended in fatality (.22 shot himself in the head), but we also lived for years in fear for our own lives, and when he hit the bottle hard (and through the times it looked like he was planning to take us all down with him).  I’ve had time to reflect on those experiences.  It makes me hyper alert to risks.  We were a family in crisis, afraid to reach out, not prepared, got used to the eggshells, but the inevitable did happen.

In my adult years, I volunteered and I got training in Suicide Prevention (Alberta Model) and I did help actively to save lives.  Keep a person alive and safe and to get mental health intervention.  I did this for 10 years in a volunteer-related capacity.  The model makes sense as well for homicidal risks and “access to the means” and in accordance to the “amount and quality of planning details”; predispositions (a presenting mental illness, intoxication, etc.); stressors (sudden loss, a triggering event, etc.).

I wrote a really long post, so I'll have to break it down into two.

 

[kstart]

Second part of post:

What concerns me about ideological-based inflamed rhetoric is that it appears to stay on the political ideological level vs. the pragmatic level of what needs to be done and what can be learnt from tragedy to initiate changes to prevent such tragedies from recurring.  It tends to be noise, and distracting from the real issues.

Improvement in mental health access and intervention costs the State money and this is aggravating and sometimes an area politicians don’t want to address because of their ideology and base of support (ideology, splitting of ‘us‘ and ‘them‘ and beyond the level of reason).  Do we consider this tragedy to be acceptable “collateral damage” because of the savings to taxpayers and trying to manage a seemingly unmanageable debt?  Which has many people experiencing some levels of panic, I just hate to see the loss of humanitarian values in the midst of it. 

I think we should be willing to acknowledge consequences and people don’t truly exist in a vacuum, that is a myth, IMO, “no man is an island“, there‘s an interplay among many things, a person‘s biology (genetic predispositions, substance abuse interplays); a person‘s relationships; the mobilization of skills and coping; a society’s safety net, etc.

Even if a person speaks with an informed perspective, genuine compassion and concern; the ideological labels come, the games come.  IMO, it makes it a frustrating environment/context to communicate in.

I noticed in Sarah Palin's 8 minute-long Facebook 'rebuttal" (?), but no mention of the mental illness issue, she's choosing to view only the criminal aspect.  This could have been done for political reasons, or a bias, and we all have biases, and how we choose (or unconsciously choose) where and how we focus.  It can also be because the mental illness issue isn't firmly established as fact.  I like Bernard Lonergan's maxim "looking is not knowing" (google terms:  transcentendal method", :The process of conscious knowing and deciding" distinctions between "reflective insight" vs. "pragmatic insight"..."interiority")   It's just interesting to me, addressing the mental health aspect can also be a political hotbed.

I agree with the notions that from tragedy, some learning can occur, some 'look within', 'who am I", 'am I an ideology"; 'what do I value". . .?  Do I care about how my neighbour is doing?

 

[Rifleman62]

With the census population approaching 312,000,000 he is not the only one out there.

 

[57Chevy]

Jared Lee Loughner mugshot on wikipedia dated 08 Jan 2011

Facebook photos ?????

Makes you wonder :

 

[kstart]

Exactly, 57Chevy, earlier photo, "the boy next door".
And yes, statistical probabilities, larger populations.

I had this training: http://www.suicideinfo.ca/csp/go.aspx?tabid=2

If we're going to coexist with guns, it makes sense to be vigilant and in acknowledging the risks.  Training is not that hard to get and it can help save lives, prevent deaths.  In the case of "access to means", with intent, disposition, stressors, in crisis, and those means are a gun, it's a 911 situation. 

This training even helped me support an 'on-line' friend, a US Marine, going through a hell of a time 're-acclimatizing', post-Iraq exposure, while in the wait re: VA, treatment access.  Both him and his wife were at risk.  He had the 'means' (gun); crisis, predisposition (temporal), 'planning, attempts', getting dangerously close.

It was an interesting interaction, me being a Canadian, lefty-orientated (but "experienced" a bit), yet understanding things about PTSD and anger (having it myself :-[). 

The suggestion about maybe placing his guns in safe keeping (since he indicated means, planning, and state of crisis) and I knew the reaction I was going to get, "not until you pry it from my cold dead hands"   

What was positive, very positive however, was his ability to recall "firearms safety protocol" (and a sense of "soldiering up") and we went into that, and it helped snap him out of it-- the training, and we debriefed.  Not much power, online, and at that time I didn't have personal information.  We have had our 'spats", ideological differences though having no place whatsoever to get stuck on.  He forgave me for being Canadian and liking folk music, lol.  (When he was heavy into the heavy metal. . . )  A good man, I'm glad he survived through the harder stuff and post-Iraq; he's alive and thriving today, loves his wife, they're thriving.  He got an honourable discharge and some interesting new ventures in his life, another door opened for him.

Training costs money, but freebees available usually in exhange for volunteer work.  There are some positive things about some training and protocals even in Canadian licensing re: arms.  It didn't exist back at the time when my family of origin needed it.

Positive outcomes are satisfying.  Others, not so positive are harder to live with, but it feels better when we're equipped with training and know-how and we do our best from there.. 

But yes, real human beings, real lives.  It can happen anywhere, with any person, regardless of class, or whatever other distinctions.  If it's not combat-related PTSD, it can be something biochemical happening in a person, the evnironment, triggers, etc.

It's still not known exactly where Loughner's motivations are coming from.  How bad the delusions were, the level of real conscious choosing, despite whatever his words were meaning, or the intent of those.

I have to take breaks from this subject area (I still experience ptsd-rumblings, pre-shaking-- I'm getting better with earlier recognition, before ptsd-overcomes me, know when to stop, ground).  I just wanted to humanize things a bit, as a break from the political-ideological aspects, bound to stir from this tragedy   Have a safe 24/7 

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Do we consider this tragedy to be acceptable “collateral damage” because of the savings to taxpayers and trying to manage a seemingly unmanageable debt?

It is acceptable collateral damage because of the alternative of unnecessarily infringing rights.  There are a lot of greater preventable and currently tolerated risks to be faced down before the risk of being wounded or killed by a mentally ill person.  Support for the mentally ill for the most part should be compassionate (not calculated economically) and entered into voluntarily, not forced upon them.

Too many academics and commentators have made too much noise in recent years about conservativism and right-leaning political ideologies being symptoms of a mental illness.  That is sufficient reason to keep the door to compulsory treatment and confinement more securely shut than it ever has been, and a lot of people need to walk back from their positions on the matter before they, and therefore government, can be trusted.

 

[57Chevy]

previous loner. 

People tend to be suspicious of those who don't socialize easily - however, some people simply enjoy their own company. If you find pressure to be more social is knocking your confidence, then here are some tips to cope.

How to cope with being a loner

People are always suspicious of someone who appears to be a loner. Sometimes there may well be good reason. Research into serial killings have shown us that the perpetrators are often loners, allowing social pressure and/or mental illness to warp their minds, without having social contacts with whom to share their frustrations. However, there are people who just appreciate their own company and, although not without friends, time alone is a necessary way of getting through life. Here are some ways that loners, who may otherwise consider themselves to be social misfits, can lead a happy and healthy life.

Look after your health

You should pay close attention to your body and how you are feeling, particularly if you live alone. With no-one close to point out that your behaviour or health seems to be out of sync, it is easy for a loner to leave contacting a doctor until the last minute. Make sure that you eat well and get as much exercise as possible - it can be easy to forget to do so with no outside encouragement or pressure. You should take particular care of your mental health. If you are prone to depression, seek medical interventions - with limited opportunities to share your feelings, they can easily get out of hand. Don't be tempted to shut yourself away from everyone and everything.

Be honest with friends and family

People don't always understand that some of us just like to be alone. You may find it annoying or intrusive when people turn up on your doorstep unannounced, or, if you live with your family, enter your private area. Tell them how you feel. Explain that you prefer to be given notice before they come round. Stress that the fact that you like spending time alone does not mean that you don't appreciate them, but that you appreciate them all the more when they are not forced on you. Most importantly, don't push them away because of their attempts to engage you - they are just trying to be helpful and show that they care.

Plan ahead

When happy in one's own company, it is easy to spend far too much time alone, which is not good for mental health, particularly if you live and work alone. Plan ahead so that you have 'dates' - time for meeting with a friend, having lunch with a family member, going to an exercise class. You may not feel like it at the time, but being with other people does give you the opportunity to let off steam; something that is very important for a loner.

Don't be forced into a role with which you are not comfortable

It is so easy for people close to a loner to try to change them. Compromise is not necessarily a bad thing - you may discover that, once you have found a close friend or lover, you want to become more sociable a little to make them happy. However, if you find that they are trying to force you to do something that doesn't sit right with you, then make it clear to them that you are not happy. Forcing yourself to do something that feels unnatural will not make you happy in the long run.

Choose your job carefully

If you like your own company, you may find working in a team situation, or being in a job where you have to meet a lot of people, very stressful. Nearly all of us have to work; however, think about what you would be most suited to and take the time to research how to get such a job. We spend a large proportion of our lives working; if you are not happy in your job, it will effect your very existence. However, don't give up on a job you enjoy just because you cannot face a social aspect of it that you don't like - for example, giving presentations. Instead, give it a try, you may just come to like it and it may only be a very small part of a job that you otherwise like.

Remind yourself that you are independent and strong

Sometimes, with society's low opinion of those who are loners, it is easy to become despondent, believing that there is something wrong with you for not wanting to constantly be around other people. Try to focus on the positive side. If you spend a lot of time alone, you are likely to be very independent and strong, able to fend for yourself in most situations. Don't let other people's perceptions of how you should live affect you; you are your own person and are perfectly entitled to live the life of your choosing.

Considering these simple suggestions, a loner should be able to live life to the full, in good health and with the understanding of those around you.

                          (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)

 

[kstart]

>Too many academics and commentators have made too much noise in recent years about conservativism and right-leaning political ideologies being symptoms of a mental illness.  That is sufficient reason to keep the door to compulsory treatment and confinement more securely shut than it ever has been, and a lot of people need to walk back from their positions on the matter before they, and therefore government, can be trusted.

I don't think it's as bad or catastrophic as you imagine it to be?

Good mental health policy includes within it a system of checks and balances to prevent/minimize any abuse.  A system of access to a mental health advocate, ombudsman, an appeal process for decisions; the rights to ask for a second opinion, secondary diagnosis, or decisions re: confinement/hospitalization.  "Least restrictive", least amount of infringement on personal freedon, principle is optimally followed.

Arizona Mental Health Law, at least on the surface resembles our Mental Health Act here.  I agree with you that voluntary and respecting individual choice is always the best course of action and a principle to uphold.

But I do agree with some limitations, and these are last resort measures, but are included in our Mental Health Act as looking similar in part to Arizona Mental Health law.  The three exceptions, where involuntary hospitalization might be necessary: 1) person demonstrates immediate risks to harming oneself (suicide); 2) person demonstrates immediate risk to others (homicide), 3) the person’s condition without treatment is likely to deteriorate significantly (e.g. serious debilitation and impairment affecting the person’s ability to look after themselves).

There’s very specific diagnostic criterion and subsets of diagnostic criterion a person must meet to be considered a significant and immediate risk.  Thoughts alone usually aren’t enough.  There’s no way one’s political beliefs alone would constitute involuntary hospitalization.

Upon comphrehensive assessment of Loughner, I don't think they are going to find that this act, his condition was caused directly by political ideology. 

There's a vast difference between Libertarians and Schizophrenia, that is diagnostically recognizable.

A good book for understanding what a person with untreated schizophrenia experiences, is The  Day The Voices Stopped, by Ken Steele.  Takes one back to the darker ages of mental health care of the 1960s; this guy’s tour in life; the bad meds; the state hospital abuse; homelessness and trying to get by and living along side this very difficult illness.  He proclaimed brand new personal freedom via Resperdone, a newer type of anti-psychotic medication that made a marked improvement in his overall quality of life.  That with some support, some hand-up, they can make it, work towards independent living, hold jobs, etc.

 

[Bass ackwards]

This sudden focusing on loners is starting to become disconcerting (since I lean that way myself). Michael Ignatieff, the other day, talking about the need for strict gun control stated:

"There are a lot of loners in this society. There are a lot of lonely people and sometimes those people may get over the edge and we have to have the mental health services that make sure that nobody gets so far out there that they think they can solve a problem with a gun."

I can think of a lot of special interest indentifiable groups out there that no one would dare make a statement like that about. Even the article that 57Chevy posted deals with how to "cope" with being a loner.
Since when did that become a disability that needs to be coped with ? I always thought it was just a personality trait.   

 

[57Chevy]

The three exceptions........... 2) person demonstrates immediate risk to others (homicide).

Does that include violence/acting violently toward others causing harm ?  Or does that person demonstrate being a risk only after the homicide.
Because if violence demonstrates an immediate risk, then there are alot of not too sane people out there.


(The loner madman tangent because psycho-analysts seem to point the finger.........OMG.....he's a loner!!!!! )

As a result, A loner or persons living alone seem to be victimized as soon as a madman goes out
on a homicidal spree, check out these statistics in the USA:
link--->Persons Living Alone, by Sex and Age, 1990–2006
I think the Canadian statistics would read to be about the same rate.
Are they all insane ?
I think not.

 

[57Chevy]

Bass ackwards,
                        I posted that because I'm a widow and I live alone. ;D
    I always thought it was just a personality trait also.

 

[kstart]

57Chevy, Bass ackwards,

No being a loner does not mean a person is mentally ill nor in a mental health crisis.

It’s about assessing changes in behaviours.  There’s a whole series of mental health assessment modules that are used e.g. intake assessment at a psychiatric emergency.

And it’s to screen for risk to self, others, levels of deterioration and presence of possible mental health disorders.


Although there can be laws that order a psychiatric assessment, it doesn't mean that's a guarantee that a person will be hospitalized, nor in need of hospitalization, when an outpatient alternative is available and the person is not in imminent risk of harming self, others, or suffering a severe mental illness (like schizophrenia, and going by the severity of delusions, positive, negative symptoms).  It’s just an assessment, done by a professional. 

A person with schizophrenia though can withdraw from others in reaction to the contents of the “voices” they are experiencing, making it extra stressful for them to be around others.  There are themes to the voices, “commanding ones”: “Buy a gun”, “Kill yourself”, “End it now“; or “commenting voices”, “you’re a loser”; “they’re laughing at you”; “they’re plotting against you”.  Sometimes there are false beliefs in being able to hear voices coming from other people’s minds, and this delusion can create further aggravation and reactions.  A small percentage react violently, others might *withdraw/isolate more* to cope with it.  Substance abuse, e.g. alcohol can really aggravate and amplify symptoms and aggression.

Thought distortions:  Receiving messages from the radio, as specifically addressed personally to the person, as a code or set of instructions (ego) meant personally for that person to follow, or hearing the radio from a toaster (when it’s not conducting radio waves ).  “The government is trying to control my mind”, which abstractly can be real, re: deliberate propaganda, e.g. repetitive phrasing, ideological, but for a person suffering with schizophrenia, it can feed a real panic and they can’t come down off of it.

Hallucinations, perceptual distortions, delusions, a common delusion is-- messiah, anti-Christ, the whole world is depending on them, and voices chanting “do it“.  It’s a state of regular distractibility, difficulty concentrating as a result, more energy to try to concentrate (which may be another reason for withdrawal, isolation).

Cognitive impairment: inability to complete a thought, fragmented sentences; “flight of ideas”, loosely connected thoughts, problems of reference (taking things out of context)-- listening to a person with psychosis/schizophrenia, it’s not one instance or another, it’s frequent lapses, apparent confusion.

It’s believed to be a organic brain disorder, it shows up on brain scans, the affected regions of the brain.  There can be a ‘triggering event’ which starts it in motion, substance abuse, a traumatic loss, unhealthy work-life balance, various stressors, can set it off and also cause relapses of symptoms (even when on medications). 

It’s a really tough one for families to cope with, or to know or understand what is happening to their loved one.  There’s also shame, denial, etc. that can be occurring.  The person with schizophrenia may know something’s not right, but choose to be more secretive about it.  Or they may not realize there is a problem, and just slide into decline as the symptoms worsen, become more intense.

Hospitalization is better for stabilization vs. outpatient, for one the amount of distraction and inner noise, can in itself make it difficult for them to keep appointments when not medically stabilized and the symptoms are severe.  For another, meds are a main treatment option to help stabilize and  the hospital setting allows for a better space to assess effectiveness of meds (doctors, nurses, can keep notes, on progress, respond to any problems, or about side effects-- if side effects are bad, they may switch to another medication).  Gives the families a chance as well to learn and be brought up to speed and some break from the crisis and stirring of late.  PTSD can happen in families coping with a person with severe schizophrenia, because there can also be constant crisis-responding, on eggshells, etc.  Not fun times.

 

[kstart]

This sudden focusing on loners is starting to become disconcerting (since I lean that way myself). Michael Ignatieff, the other day, talking about the need for strict gun control stated:

"There are a lot of loners in this society. There are a lot of lonely people and sometimes those people may get over the edge and we have to have the mental health services that make sure that nobody gets so far out there that they think they can solve a problem with a gun."

I can think of a lot of special interest indentifiable groups out there that no one would dare make a statement like that about. Even the article that 57Chevy posted deals with how to "cope" with being a loner.
Since when did that become a disability that needs to be coped with ? I always thought it was just a personality trait. 

Well that's interesting how "loner" has entered the discourse as a catch phrase. 

As per guns, Canadian legistlation:
http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/gunlaws.htm#e
http://www.firearmstraining.ca/exam.htm

This is interesting:
http://www.proexams.com/files/921_e.pdf
Section F requires a reference person (so, you can't be a total loner).  Earlier in the form, questions about spousal relationship and past spouses.

I can't be that objective about the gun debate (domestic survivor).  I would wish for solid protocols to help others recognize if their buddy could be in trouble.  My dad's hunting buddy gave back the gun, but did that too early IMO, because he needed treatment first, but wouldn't go.  It ended badly, and the wife and us young kids, there were too many times, it was dangerous for us as well.  He was disturbed and had been contemplating taken us all out with him, there were several occasions.  Children don't have much power in those situations, but got good at deflecting tensions, hiding , etc.

 

[57Chevy]

kstart
I can understand the "total loner' scenario as being detriment to ones' mental health.
My understanding of lonliness is that it is simply a state of mind.
I do many things all by my lonesome, and so do many people.
Check out this article entitled Loneliness Is A State Of Mind
I think you will find it quite interesting.
                  _______________________________________________________________

Funerals bring closure after Arizona shooting that rocked U.S

A week filled with shock, mourning and a call to unity by President Barack Obama drew to a close as a federal judge killed in the Arizona shooting rampage was laid to rest Friday.

U.S. District Judge John Roll was remembered at a service at the same church in Tucson where a day earlier a funeral was held for the youngest victim, 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green. They were among the six people killed and 13 injured last Saturday. U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords remains hospitalized.
Keith Benavides of Albuquerque, N.M., a chaplain for firefighters and a member of International Fellowship of Chaplains, said, "We're here for spiritual support and comfort. We offer prayers, but mostly we just listen. ... People need to get their emotions out."
                              (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)

 

[a_majoor]

There is no closure for some people, as mentally unbalanced people are still being influenced by extremeist rhetoric:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/16/theres-more-evidence-that-the-liberal-media-influenced-eric-fuller-than-there-is-that-palin-influenced-jared-loughner/

There’s more evidence that the liberal media influenced Eric Fuller than there is that Palin influenced Jared Loughner
By Jim Treacher | Published: 9:33 AM 01/16/2011 | Updated: 1:07 PM 01/16/2011

Which is to say, there actually is some evidence.

On the left-wing Democracy Now radio show Friday, Fuller, a survivor of the Tucson shooting, said the following:

It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target. Their wish for Second Amendment activism has been fulfilled—senseless hatred leading to murder, lunatic fringe anarchism, subscribed to by John Boehner, mainstream rebels with vengeance for all, even nine-year-old girls.

This is indistinguishable from the sort of irresponsible, fact-free ranting we’ve heard this week from people like Keith Olbermann, Michael Moore, Markos “Kos” Moulitsas, Jane Fonda, Paul Krugman, and countless others. Standard lefty boilerplate. When I heard about it on Friday I rolled my eyes, but I said, “Hey, the guy’s been through a lot, give him a break. Sure, the professional left will lift him up on their shoulders and parade him around the room. Let ‘em.”

The very next day, Fuller attended a town hall meeting called “After the Tragedy: An American Conversation Continued,” conducted by Christiane Amanpour. It did not go well. The unfortunately named ABC affiliate in Tucson, KGUN, reports:

When Tucson Tea Party founder Trent Humphries rose to suggest that any conversation about gun control should be put off until after the funerals for all the victims, witnesses say Fuller became agitated. Two told KGUN9 News that finally, Fuller took a picture of Humphries, and said, “You’re dead.”

When State Rep. Terri Proud (R-Tucson) rose to explain and clarify current and proposed gun legislation in the state, several people groaned or booed her. One of those booing, according to several witnesses, was Fuller. Witnesses sitting near Fuller told KGUN9 News that Fuller was making them feel very uncomfortable.

The event wrapped up a short time later. Deputies then escorted Fuller from the room. As he was being led off, Fuller shouted loudly to the room at large. Several witnesses said that what they thought they heard him shout was, “You’re all whores!”

Fuller, age 63, is a political operative who specializes in gathering petitions for ballot initiatives.

Apparently, Eric Fuller wanted the news to be able to write an honest headline with both “Tea Party” and “death threat” in it.

After a solid week of diligent effort, our friends in the liberal media finally got what they wanted: a mentally unbalanced man, clearly influenced by uncivil rhetoric regarding the Tea Party, lashed out at a political opponent. Unfortunately for them, it was their rhetoric. The target of the death threat was someone they unfairly maligned. Will our moral, ethical, and intellectual superiors in the media accept responsibility?

Just kidding. This MSM kangaroo court hasn’t worked out the way they’d hoped, so it’s time to bury the story. You were useful for a day or so, Eric Fuller, but now you’ve imperiled the narrative. You’re no longer of any value to them, so you’ll find that you do bear responsibility for your own actions after all. You’re on your own.

P.S. Iowahawk says: “I’d like to see Eric Fuller’s phone records. It’d be instructive to see how fast his calls from MSNBC dropped off.”

P.P.S. Amanpour (@camanpour on Twitter) is not going to show the footage of Fuller making a death threat in front of a crowd at a national TV taping. It isn’t newsworthy, because he isn’t a teabagger.

P.P.P.S. Newsbusters: “ABC World News reports threat at its Tucson town hall, omits it was made to a Tea Partier.” Of course not. That’s not a designated victim group.

P.P.P.P.S. The wheels on the bus go ’round and ’round:

See if you can follow the logic: According to Olby & Co., Jared Loughner isn’t responsible for his own actions. Sarah Palin and the teabaggers are, despite a complete lack of evidence that there’s any connection. Whereas Eric Fuller is responsible for his own actions, despite parroting the same crap that the professional left has been spouting for a solid week.

P.P.P.P.P.S. According to Mediaite, This Week “aired” the death threat because you could sort of hear it in the background as Humphries was speaking, even though Amanpour didn’t mention it until the end of the program and you have to boost the audio to hear it. And she didn’t mention that it was a threat against the very people who were supposedly responsible for the shooting in the first place, before that story fell apart. If you didn’t know what Fuller was yelling or why he was yelling it, ABC didn’t help you out. It was just background noise. Once again, the media makes the audience do the work of figuring out these inconvenient stories on our own.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/16/theres-more-evidence-that-the-liberal-media-influenced-eric-fuller-than-there-is-that-palin-influenced-jared-loughner/#ixzz1BEbkh6lm

 

[kstart]

There is no closure for some people, as mentally unbalanced people are still being influenced by extremeist rhetoric:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/16/theres-more-evidence-that-the-liberal-media-influenced-eric-fuller-than-there-is-that-palin-influenced-jared-loughner/

I agree this is not responsible and is hypocritical and flame feeding as well and again, it is deflecting from honest debate.  Aparently, not everyone is in agreement on holding back from that type of discourse, and so the ideological, divisive-rhetoric wars continue.

We don't know what the results will be of the forensic investigations, forensic pscyhiatric assessments. 

I've gone with a hypothesis of 'paranoid schizophrenic', and somewhat deliberately to cool some tensions, both sides of it.  I think it's still the most probable direct causation, given other reports of his behaviours.  It's what we "do" with ideas, how we are engaged with them and how we decide to act from them (either by just considering them, or being motivated to take action using the tools of democracy, petitioning, etc., but killing over it. . .ill).  A person with psychosis, but not with a full case of schizophrenia, can easily be influenced by uncritical evaluation of ideas, hate speech, it's good to try to step back and be a responsible listener, have other constraints guiding our actions, ideally to be more responsible in both our speech acts, and other actions as well.

There's a lot going on though by the circus surrounding this case.  A lot of things appear to be broken.  I'm of the generation and class (no private school) who did not receive a good solid foundation in Liberal education (teaching about democracy, good citizenship, a shared understanding and value, a foundation)-- it seems this is also a part that is broken in our democracy, where people are having a hard time getting on the same page, and more division as a result?  I've only really just begun to self-educate more in those areas, but I have some foundations from which I can adapt and continue to learn. 

To support free-will, education is one part of that equation, mental health, stability in comunities and families I think is another important foundation.

And then there are the economics, how can these things be supported now? I feel that stress, I'm poor (as a result of disability), my family is poor, aging, and working poor, when wages are so low, credit sometimes just to meet basic needs and that's a bad direction, so we're pulling together are meagre resources to pull though, live as cheaply as possible.  Economic stresses are a big factor, can be a destablizing factor at the individual levels as well, but we are informed and aware and keeping grounded.  On a macro-level, the concerns I hear expressed Stateside, the tragedy of so many people losing their homes, the despair of that while very little hope for many in getting out and free from that trap.  The basic standard of living has really declined.  One family member, his employment choice, the expectation of wages while investing in education, to be so sorely disappointed, all that education for minimum wage, less hope for paying back those debts, let alone getting enough stability from poverty and month-tomonth survival, a small step away from homelessness (even as renters, as costs of living continue to escalate and wages don't keep up with it).

Socialism is feared, and yet the move to Keynsian solutions was sought to ameliorate conditions, post 1930's depression, but in this case, the debt is so enormously high.

But a select few have become enormously wealthy (e.g. the crooks on  Wall Street, the robbing of perpetrated among CEOs, no honour of a contract to employees, nor to government, nor country).  New generation, it's a long fight to get out of poverty, post-education expenses; higher costs of living.  Older generations benefitted and prospered from a healthier economic situation, but no loyalty to country either nor for fellow citizens of an economically displaced generation.

I don't know what the resolutions are, there's a very sad loss of sovereignty as a result of foreign power loans.  I can understand feeling stirred by an apparent value and priority of investment in a police state. . . I think I would feel irked as well.

From a poverty perspective, I feel the stress, yet my morals and values keep me in check, and they're still in line with the older dream, stay honest anyway (even though that doesn't pay, and I have many times misplaced my faith in the 'system', or the 'dream', American Dream/Canadian Dream, hard work=proprotionate benefits. . . and I just broke down eventually, and those delusions shattered.  Systemic repeated violations of the social contract we had been taught to expect. . . and trying to recover (other reasons for breakdown/ptsd) and find a new way through, adapting to changes in both in my self and in terms of opportunities).  At least I remember when I experience hopelessness, to hang on to faith, and try to trust myself that I will find a way through, regardless of external circumstances).

But what I'm seeing of the rise of hate, does disturb my soul.  More people are experiencing financial crisis, basic needs, sometimes the anger is displaced, and some can search for meaning and identification among groups perhaps 'less healthy"?  It's nervous, what happens with rising unemployment stability, lack of hope.  Somethings of the system that worked before, aren't working so well now.  Places of strengths have gradually been eroded, absorbed by progressive greed, and short-sighted, short-term profit for the few, while stolen from the people.

The hate rhetoric though I don't believe is constructive (though others in those groups may think that it is, there has to be other resolutions sought, before violent revolutions-- on the other hand there is disprortionate allocation of 'wealth' (which can also be an illusion, as is the system-- which I think Loughner was suggesting. . .maybe neo-libertarian. . .? )  Also these hate groups, when other non-violent courses of action using democracy as a tool for the greater good, and there are constitutional rights which still do belong to everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, etc. . .  .

I may be poor, suffer a debilitating illness (though there is hope to overcome and get back on my feet), but I won't let the external determine my internal and there are ways to become involved and engaged in democratic processes, and to learn, and to work together on common problems and challenges now and anticipated in the future.  And I already know from those previous experiences of being an actively engaged citizen, that disappointment is also a fact, but not a reason to stop as there's always things to learn, and ways to get better at it, and staying peaceful.  Be a child, continue to hope, but try to gain wisdom.  I really liked Obama's speech all the same.  We can still use the tools of democracy, with citizen action and enough people on the same page to stand up for what is right and fair, and for the health of our country.  It's not being accomplishd though by staying stuck in ideological based retoric, tip for tat, where's that going?  It's just circular, not meaningful dialectics towards change.

 

[kstart]

BTW, 57Chevy, good stuff re: coping with being a loner-- yes, I am one and I can be too comfortable being one.  I accepted company yesterday (for better or for worse : ), but yes, some very good practical tips.  Knowledge, recognition of wisdom and the self-discpline to work at it and apply it sensibly is power, and empowering.  I have to make some changes.

I've been reflecting generally on the subjects of Liberty, libertarians (and both 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' perspectives within).  Some things are broken in the system.  There's been a focus on 2nd Ammendment rights, but there's a lot of other areas that are broken, that aren't getting the attention they deserve. 

Mental health help, should fit into libertarian principles because it is assisting in free-will (freedom from the constraints of mental health impairments from interfering with apprehension of a truly freed-will, thoughtful, healthy-balanced mind).  I think it's just as important as Education, and in particular, some Liberal Education, understanding and knowing the foundations and intentions of democratic society and from the perspective of the good of the people, as it was intended to be.

But I reflected on that in my earlier post.  I feel really bad for what the States are going through, I worry about things here as well. 

I someitmes wonder about the politics and focus re: right to gun ownership vs. neglecting other important and supportive areas to support the health of democracy and it's people.  I think it's been co-opted, possibly deviously as a distractor.  It just seems like it's a lot of 'identity-politics', mobilize others through anger and sense of victimization, while ignoring or underplaying other serious issues, and agendas occurring.  It's almost cynically practiced, this is how we get that vote. . . while still being a part of that system, still many potentials for criminal actions among the most powerful. . . It looks like just a game and many people from whichever side are playing it-- well, that's what it is anyway, through the "People" a few bones, while others make off with millions. . .who are not really loyal to the State, to the Country.

 

[a_majoor]

More blowback. "Progressives" discover words words really do have meaning and consequences:

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2011/01/msnbc-libtalker-mark-levin-duke-it-out.html

IT'S WAR
MSNBC Libtalker, Levin Exchange Fire Over Suit Threat

Of all the "progressive" dishonesty over the past week, the idea that conservative figures such as Sarah Palin have self-servingly inserted themselves into the debate is the sleaziest. Lefties blamed Palin for the Tucson shootings almost immediately, instantly placing her a defensive position.

Talk show hosts were also wrongly singled out, including Mark Levin, who has decided to fight back against MSNBC and its smear machine. After a solid week of anti-talker/Palin attacks, lefties then rewrote history to claim they had willingly jumped into the fray for publicity.

Rather than stand by during the dirty tricks campaign, Levin is going on the offensive. Not only has he threatened to sue the far-left cable network, he's defending Palin as well, offering $100,000 for evidence she's "promoted the murder of anyone".

Levin's primary MSNBC target is loose cannon Chris Matthews, but fellow host Ed Schultz could be named in a suit as well, which clearly has the bloated blowhard sweating it out. During Friday's syndicated radio show, Big Eddie attacked Levin, accusing him of jealousy and other assorted crimes against broadcasting.

Schultz's rant is included below, followed by Levin's (exclusive to the Radio Equalizer) response:

ED SCHULTZ (04:19): But there's a radio talker at night who's threatening a lawsuit over comments by a host on MSNBC. [laughs] It's reduced to just an elementary school challenge and it's got a dollar amount to it. Which I find hilarious. The guy clearly is envious of anybody who's got a television show and he thinks he's a TV critic. At least that's what our emailers tell me. I don't listen to the guy but his rabid listeners and followers, I guess, they email me some hateful accusations, [mocking voice] 'you really said this?!' You know, how dare you?!

And it's, look, it's sheer entertainment. You know, every right-wing th-, [thug?] talker in America gets on Fox, it seems like, except this guy. But anyway, he's got a wimpy voice, he really has no range or skill, he's come in on somebody else's coattails, no innovation. He's just, all of his material is supplied by right-wing bullet points, the way most of 'em operate over there. So he's gonna sue. He's threatening to sue Chris Matthews! [guffaws]

He's threatening, you know, I tell you what, this freedom of speech thing, for this righty talker it's just gone over the line. But it's another classic example of somebody trying to make it about them. Just like Sarah Palin does. Oh, he's got the legal system behind him. Fact of the matter is, this guy couldn't carry Chris Matthews' briefcase and it's absolutely funny, he's gonna sue. [laughs]

In response, Levin said this in an email to the Radio Equalizer: "I notice this tough guy is actually a coward. We will be monitoring him. He's dumber than dumb, so he might actually step in it. As an aside, he has no ratings, so if two of my people monitor his show, that will double his ratings."

Perhaps the most absurd assertion here is the idea that Chris Matthews enjoys some kind of stature or viewer following. The sad truth: he's almost always the lowest-rated cable talker between MSNBC, Fox and CNN. Fox often has a 400% larger audience during that hour. It's absolutely amazing Matthews wasn't canned years ago for failing to capture an audience.

As for Levin, it's so rare anyone on the right fights back with an offensive strategy that "progressives" may well be unsure how to respond.

 

[Danke]

Putting "progressives" in quotations is the silliest passive-aggressive insult I've seen. Give people a snarky label, and you can discount their opinions without discussing them. Also: Socialist, fascist, communist, liberal, right-wing, etc.