All this new-found interest in the "mentally ill" is kind of unsettling to me.

[Stinky The Clown]

The discussion has gotten (re?)started for reasons rooted in issues that have no direct connection to mental illness. In many ways, the whole discussion is a deflection from the issue of guns.

I am one who is directly affected by mental illness to no greater degree than anyone else. A depressed friend, a child who learns a bit differently than most people (but who finished school in the top 10% of his peers), an associate with general anxiety, that sort of thing. Most of the people I know with "mental" issues, are fully functional, normal, mainstream people who, unless you know them well, function normally.

No one is tracking them.

But now there are groups out there calling vaguely for the tracking of people with mental illness.

To those calling for that, STOP IT. Stop it RIGHT NOW. Get a grip.

Who do you think you'll be tracking?

It seems to me a person with depression severe enough to cause them some social difficulties is not a good candidate to own a gun. Not for any danger to others, but because of the danger that person would pose to self. Are you calling for the tracking of that person?

How about the bulimic kid? Put them on a list?

How about the introverts who spend a lot of time, alone, playing computer games? That gets kinda close to the current scare being fomented by people who really know little about mental illness. That kid may not even have a mental illness. But he stays in his room and has less social contact than some of his peers so he must be mentally ill. Right? Right?

Can you imagine, as I can, this whole notion of "tracking the mentally ill" running amok? Even if not one single law, rule, or regulation comes of it, the mentally ill can suffer real harm. Shunning by "good" people in "good" society. Harmful discrimination from the knuckle dragging community.

A new scapegoat. After all, Muslim has been so done already. Time for the next target of our fears and hatreds.

No. Not again.

Back away from the idea.

Or . . .

Since this all came about because of a GUN incident, let's apply some rational limits to the idea. How about nobody gets a gun unless they can pass a mental examination? Would Wayne LaPierre pass such a test?

But wait. There's more.

Who gets to do the examination? Wayne's gun totin' pal?

No.

A board of gun examiners. Credentialed doctors, licensed, board certified, and regulated, who must examine each applicant to buy a gun. Who must examine each applicant for a CCL. If you fail to pass this, or any other, examination, THEN you get listed as unfit for gun ownership. Other reasons for being on The List could be crime related, active long term chronic alcohol or drug abuse, any other reason for which a person would be unfit to own a gun. Up to and including a demonstrated need for a gun, if you ask me.

But just "tracking the mentally ill" ought to be a non starter.

I am uncomfortable to even talk about this. The more we talk about it, the more people with a need for a target group to use for their own issues around hatred, derision, discrimination, general antisociality might find it all too easy to hate the mentally ill, "just because."

Talk about the real issue: Guns.

Discussing the real need for a broad increase in mental health services is long overdue. But getting the conversations started **within the frame of gun talk** is not a good idea. The mentally ill will not be well served.

[Turbineguy]

1. I think the idea was

to continue to profit from gun carnage but also figure out how to profit from people with mental issues.

[JohnnyLib2]

4. For sure. The managed care companies would move right in on the action.

The target population is, of course, in the million$.

[woo me with science]

13. +10000

Anything to use more of us as profit spigots. And I mean anything.

[JohnnyLib2]

2. K & R from this mental health professional!

In practical terms, my current credentials would probably land me in the examiner pool. As you've described, the concept
of "A List" is preposterous as well as alarming.

[zabet]

3. One thing

That has popped into my mind every time I have read threads or postings about 'tracking the mentally ill' is......hasn't any single one of these people considered patient/doctor confidentiality? Otherwise....how do you know who is or isn't?

An ugly can of worms to skew debate on gun control over to controlling mentally ill individuals.

I speak from personal experience (search my recent posts)...as a gun owner (not NRA member or supporter) and as someone whose husband had paranoiid schizophenia for the 27 years we were together til his death.

Yes, we need to close the gun show loopholes for a start...and continue on reforming the laws. BUT we need to show nothing but compassion and treatment for mentally ill (now don't twist that I say I think they should be excused from their actions)...if a crime happened...due punishment is needed but also treatment if they are mentally ill. If you seek to understand...you gain knowledge that can be applied in future cases.

[dembotoz]

5. how likely will it be for someone to seek treatment if there is an eternal mark placed against their

name

ruin chance for housing
ruin chance for better or any employment
harrassment by law enforcement--speeding ticket now becomes dangerous use of a motor vehicle by a know mental patient...

list goes on and on

[Stinky The Clown]

38. Not sure I see the connection between your point and the OP.

[lunatica]

6. Beware the scapegoaters

and the blamers. They brandish their banners of fear and forever blame the weakest and most vulnerable among us who can't defend themselves.

Assholes are like that.

You're right. I hate the whole mental illness vein of this incident.

Maybe LaPierre should be diagnosed because he obviously suffers from something in his thinking processes. Then keep guns away from him.

[riverbendviewgal]

21. he dodged the draft for viet nam using nervous disorder for

Not going In army during the Viet Nam drat. His number came up and he got his doctor to write that. He is a hypocrite.

[OldDem2012]

7. Just wait until someone mentions eugenics as a possible solution....

....to mental illness in the US. Oh, wait....

Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States

QUOTE:

American eugenics refers inter alia to compulsory sterilization laws adopted by over 30 states that led to more than 60,000 sterilizations of disabled individuals. Many of these individuals were sterilized because of a disability: they were mentally disabled or ill, or belonged to socially disadvantaged groups living on the margins of society. American eugenic laws and practices implemented in the first decades of the twentieth century influenced the much larger National Socialist compulsory sterilization program, which between 1934 and 1945 led to approximately 350,000 compulsory sterilizations and was a stepping stone to the Holocaust. Even after the details of the Nazi sterilization program (as well as its role as a precursor to the "Euthanasia" murders) became more widely known after World War II (and which the New York Times had reported on extensively and in great detail even before its implementation in 1934), sterilizations in some American states did not stop. Some states continued to sterilize residents into the 1970s.

The recent discussions about mental illness in the US is placing us at the top of a very slippery slope that could very easily send us back to the horrible and totally reprehensible practices described above. This is NOT a direction we want to go.

[michigandem58]

8. The "mentally ill" aren't an ethnic group

Keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people seems like common sense, not bigotry. Surprised I'm seeing the concept oppposed on a progressive forum.

[Neoma]

11. So you believe that if I had a gun, I'd go on a shooting spree.

It's called ABLEISM.

[thucythucy]

19. Hello Neoma!

Glad to see you're calling out ableism when you see it.

[Neoma]

22. Might have to start another damn thread about it in meta.

The, "I will post a thread everyday" thing might actually be becoming true. I'm not one to lie.

[backscatter712]

32. +1! n/t

[Posteritatis]

24. If you're talking about them as a monolithic entity, they might as well be. (nt)

[JoeyT]

27. Lots of things aren't an ethnic group

that would still be considered ridiculously bigoted to start making special laws depriving them of things others had access to.

A group (Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, women, men, GLBTs, mentally ill, cancer patients, people with mullets*, people with kids, people without kids, etc) should be tracked and have their right to privacy violated while everyone else gets a pass still bigotry.

Even if we don't recognize guns as a right, we should certainly recognize due process and privacy as rights. Being diagnosed as mentally ill isn't a crime.

*I'm flexible on oppressing the bemulleted.

[michigandem58]

34. Regulations are clunky and imperfect by nature

We don't allow kids to drive, even though some are capable and some adults aren't. Age is used as an imperfect but useful rule-of-thumb. I'd agree that we need to be careful how we go about it, but some type of background check that includes history of mental illness isn't unreasonable, IMO.

[Stinky The Clown]

41. Goodgawd . . . . where do you get this shit?

[HereSince1628]

50. Yes but there is THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT to the US Constitution...

no citizen is supposed to be denied rights without due process.

The actuarial risks linking criminal violence and mental illness are extremely low, as are the risks of criminal violence and consuming prescribed SSRIs.

Having your name put on a list because your name is associated with a prescription or a billing code associated with a psychiatric diagnosis with such actuarially low risks doesn't really feel a lot like due process to the tens of millions of people who actuarially speaking present absolutely no elevated risk of crime to society.

Society has an interest here, let them use it WISELY, rather than in an arbitrary and overly broad way simply because it will be facile in a digital age.

[JoeyT]

55. Age isn't a privacy issue.

It doesn't lead to due process issues either. Age is gotten by subtracting your date of birth from the current year. A diagnosis is gotten by comparing a large and sometimes arbitrary set of symptoms and criteria against what a person says or what the examiner infers.

It really isn't uncommon for someone's diagnosis to change every time they change doctors. If the system is that arbitrary, it can't be used as a basis to deny people their rights. Denying someone a right has to have a much higher burden of proof than potential diagnostic criteria. A diagnosis is useful as a direction to take in determining someone's treatment to make them better, nothing more.

If we make mental illness part of any background check, no one will ever get help because they know they'll never get a job again. Once a list is created it will be available to future employers. We can hope that isn't the case all we want, but it will happen and we all know it.

I say this as a gun owner: I'd sooner see guns banned entirely than see a segment of society turned into second class citizens.

[Stinky The Clown]

39. Yeah, I'm sure you're "surprised"

[Denninmi]

45. Define at exactly what level of "mentally ill" these restrictions should kick in.

Clearly, someone who hallucinates and threatens or commits acts of violence needs to be restricted.

But, in this argument, I never hear anyone on the "restrict access" side of the argument ever even acknowledge that "mental illness" is an entire spectrum of conditions from developmental and cognitive disabilities to addictive behaviors to depression to PTSD to eating disorders to the more serious schizophrenic and sociopathic disorders.

So, the middle aged widow who seeks treatment for depression after losing her husband to a long battle with cancer deserves to be put on a database, labeled, have any guns she may already legally owned taken away? How about a college kid with anorexia or social anxiety disorder? How about me, bipolar but perfectly capable of handling anything I want to, including, if I so chose, shooting for the purposes of sport or recreation?

The argument by the proponents of this is "they're all untrustworthy" - when in fact it's a minuscule percentage of people with mental health issues who have any propensity to violent anti-social behavior, just as it is in the general population.

Finally, the proposal to identify, register, and restrict people based on their medical histories competely overlooks the fact that people who have been or are being treated for these conditions are often, as in my case, in a better frame of mind with better self-control, judgement, and faculties than those undiagnosed and/or untreated.

So, again, exactly why should my civil rights be restricted if I haven't done anything wrong, nor am I any greater future risk statistically than anyone else in the society.

[michigandem58]

54. Thanks for a thoughtful reply

It seems you agree some should be restricted. And I couldn't agree more about making distinctions about different conditions. Circumstances do change for people, and that should be a consideration in any system.

[Lordquinton]

66. How about a woman who suffers from PTSD

because she was dragged into a dark alley and raped and now she wants to have a concealed gun to feel like she can go outside alone again (which is a very common sales tactic to get women to buy guns) but she can't because she is on a list?

Mental Illness is even worse defined than assault weapons, and the NRA knows even less about it than the media does about guns.

[uponit7771]

70. +1 because this is an NRA meme the people who accept it hasn't thought it through yet

[Fire Walk With Me]

46. One in four have varying degrees of mental illness in the US. Why not simply make guns harder to get

instead of demonizing an entire group, much less expanding services for them (which are always under the republican knife) and expanding education to the general public on the subject? Instead of spreading NRA talking points instead? Don't fall for their distraction. 38 states already have a registry for this. And the majority of "mental illnesses" do not result in a danger to one's self or others. The NRA would have you believe that all mentally ill do, in order to further their power grab and sales for arms manufacturers.

[lbrtbell]

9. Although the issue IS mental illness

Crazy ideas like tracking are not the solution.

Compassionate treatment is.

Here's what uncompassionate treatment does to a boy with mental illness:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022054562

[Katashi_itto]

10. Yep, the mentally ill will be the new scapegoats, instead of guns

[yardwork]

12. Anything to distract from the guns.

[marble falls]

14. The real issue is crazy people with guns. The guns doen't shoot themselves. We allow the ill to live

in the streets, shelters and jails barely treated except with pharmaceuticals and imprisonment. That doesn't bother you? Being allowed to throw them away is OK, but following and following up bothers you?

[thucythucy]

18. The OP mentions expanding services

for people who need them, and so "being alowed to throw them away" is a definite straw man.

[marble falls]

23. And its about time. It was one thing getting folks out of "snake pits" during Nixon's term .....

but putting them in the streets or dependent on family not able to cope was wrong and with more and more programs and hospital closed as financial "conservatives" defunded them and more hospitals were torn down and no new ones built, as insurance does less and less about mental treatment and less and less folks have health insurance we've reached a perfect storm of the ill and weapon availability. With a .88 gun per capita rate, the horse is too far gone from the barn to simply "ban" all guns. We need to take a more dynamic and realistic approach to the increasing violence in this country than 'get rid of all the guns'.

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. Institutions suck.

Better funding for community supports is needed, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the shooting-spree topic.

[marble falls]

59. They suck something terrible. I worked doing intake interviews at an Ohio state facility and had ...

a wife become paranoid schizophrenic. But they don't have to be snake pits. there are other countries that deal with the mentally ill in constructive and therapeutic ways. The US isn't one of them and in states like Mississippi or Arkansas or Missouri the treatment is worse than third world. And keeping guns out of the hands of the ill by legislating them out of the hands of everybody else means nothing and will not work. What it will do is increase the criminal enterprise of black market guns and give the criminals an increased income. No country has a tougher anti gun regime than Mexico (maybe North Korea does) - hows it working out for them? The cartels will move from pot to weapons. Nothing like putting the gun market into the hands of criminals to get guns off the street. Look at how well drug interdiction is going. Not very well, at all. Sorry. It ain't the guns.

[Lordquinton]

67. Mexico has so many gun issues

because you can buy a Santa's sack full of them and walk them across the border.

Their problem with violence comes from our problem with stupid gun regulations.

[Stinky The Clown]

42. Maybe I'll start a collection to get your comprehension lessons.

You sounded as if you were lecturing me to do what I suggested be done. (<---- If this sentence doesn't make sense to you, lemme know. I'll speak slower.)

[marble falls]

69. why the snark?

[Denninmi]

61. Who exactly are we following, why, who gets to decide who is under surveillance?

What safeguards would be put in place to preserve the civil rights of those under surveillance?

Are we following people who committed crimes, or anyone who might, a la 'Minority Report'?

Wow, your perceptions are half right. Far too many mentally ill are homeless without proper care. And they do deserve better, but not by being registered, monitored, and treated like felons on parole if they have never committed and been convicted of a crime.

But far from all of them.

Furthermore, I have no intention of living like an ex-con on probation, now or ever. You wanna talk about my criminal history, I'll lay it all out for you in gory detail, here's my entire psychosis-induced rap sheet:

June 1994 - civil infraction, speeding 7 miles over, going 32 in a 25 zone. $100 fine and 2 points against license.

Hardened criminal, ain't I?

Oh, and FWIW, I'm not exactly homeless on the streets, since I come home from work every night to a neighborhood filled with 1, 2, 3, 4 million dollar homes. Trust me, economically my community may be far above average, but there is plenty of crazy to go around in this town, too. People here are just able to hide it well due to their wealth. Do you think THESE people are going to take this Gestapo approach quietly? Guess again.

[rhett o rick]

15. I can see it all now. We will all be given a Profile Index.

The index will be determined by things like mental history, current medications, of course ethnicity, religion, political affiliations, etc.
We would then be evaluated once a year and all this information would be factored into our Profile Index (PI) which we will have to carry with us via micro chip embedded in our body. The PI could be accessed via scanner before you get on a plane for instance, or buy a gun, attend a political event, or go to dinner in a fancy restaurant.

I envision a multi-zillion dollar business here.

Dog save us from ourselves.

happy holidays everyone

[oldhippydude]

16. what concerns me

is the practice of the right wingers to separate people onto "us and them" with the mentally ill being the latest them...

[Posteritatis]

35. This place *really* doesn't get to throw stones in that particular glass house. (nt)

[thucythucy]

17. Thank you for this.

A cogent call to reason, and an articulate stand against prejudice and ableism.

[Denninmi]

20. Well, as someone who was recently diagnosed as bipolar, it's more than a little unsettling.

It's actually pretty terrifying to think that there is a segment of our society who thinks that I deserve to be put on an official list of enemies of the state simply because of the fact I have a medical condition, one which affects no one in any way except for me. Frankly, due to the fear of stigma, and even my own stereotypes and prejudices about mental illness, no one in my flesh-and-blood world even knows this has happened. Sure, a few questioned why I was so anxious and drained earlier this year, but it was easily explained away as the routine stress of life. I've told no one except my mother and mental health professionals about this.

So, a few deeply disturbed individuals commit horrific acts, but I and millions and millions of others who are completely innocent should be identified, labeled, and blacklisted? Guilt by association much? How profoundly fair, how very American of you.

Please enlighten me, exactly what are my crimes, and why should my Constitutionally guaranteed rights be curtailed if i have committed absolutely no crime?

So, I'm a little confused, is this 21st Century America where we are all equal under the law, or is this Berlin 1936, where the official Enemies of the Reich must be identified, labeled, and ultimately purged from the society?

If you want to take away my rights, I think basic human decency mandates you give me one hell of a good explanation first as to why I'm so dangerous to you and exactly what my crimes are?

[redStateBlueHeart]

31. +1000

I believe that releasing confidential medical records and forcing someone diagnosed with a mental illness to keep some form of identification will affect much more than gun access control. It can and most likely will be used in a discriminatory manner in other areas - for instance, an employer may not hire a person diagnosed with Bipolar disorder (like me) because they'd feel like they couldn't get the job done, although with treatment and vigilance one can essentially lead a normal life. More stigmatization will be the only result.

Besides, most gun deaths (I think 70% in the US) are suicides, so it seems the mentally ill may be more of a danger to themselves if they obtain a gun, but that should be addressed by better mental health care. To be honest - I myself would not own a gun because I don't like them and although I'm stable now I don't trust myself around a gun because I might be a danger to myself (which has always been the case in not-so-great times), not to others.

But yeah, the criminalization of the mentally ill that's becoming more prevalent right now fucking sucks.

[PatrynXX]

25. haven't been watching Fox lately have you

Don't know anyone talking about that sort of tracking. But either way as one with Mental Illness probs. I clearly see 2 thinks from the CT shooting. lack of $$ for Mental Health and Guns. Guns aren't fully to blame here.. Bout time we had some discussion on upping the funding back up. Some anti gun people have taken control of the message here and it's for the negative for those with mental illness problems.

[backscatter712]

33. Wayne LaPierre was talking about that sort of tracking.

He was demanding a national database of the mentally ill.

Might as well make them wear flair on their clothing...

[kestrel91316]

26. First they came for the muslims. Then they came for the mentally ill.

[backscatter712]

28. K&R!

Thankfully, EarlG fired a shot across the bow at the cowardly ableist bigots posting here of all places...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=264598&sub=trans

[Lone_Star_Dem]

29. It smacks of removing one groups right to privacy for another's right to own guns.

If we were to call for a mental examination before you could purchase a firearm, I'm sure the NRA would consider that invasive.

This is all nothing more than a distraction to divert the attention from gun violence. You've got that right.

[redStateBlueHeart]

47. BINGO n/t

[TwilightGardener]

36. I'd prefer we track and profile gun owners, and assess their

fitness and reasons to own a gun. Go right to the source. If Nancy Lanza had to prove to a psychiatrist or law enforcement that everyone in her household was emotionally and mentally stable and mature enough for responsible gun ownership, might this whole thing have been prevented?

[redStateBlueHeart]

37. Ah, but it's not just the mentally ill who kill people with guns...

You also have criminals, and people who are just plain stupid, like the guy who shot a girl on his lawn because he thought she was a skunk (there are a lot of gun deaths caused by stupidity and negligence, but can't do anything about those). I've a better idea:

How about making it more difficult for EVERYONE to get a gun? This would be less discriminatory than some of the proposals made on this thread.

[Neoma]

57. I agree wholeheartedly.

Concentrate on the guns, not the group of people that are highly stereotyped and stigmatized.

[AgingAmerican]

40. A lot of this 'mental illness' is brought on by right wing crazy

Especially the tea party craziness. The shootings, especially since 2006, are clustered around times when the republican rank and file are publicly throwing fits.

Through the 2008 election season and immediately thereafter there were a cluster of attacks and same with this election.

The attacks rise and fall with republican anxiety. Coincidence?

[ReRe]

43. Relax, Stinky...it's going to be alright...

Wayne LaPierre doesn't run this country. Just because he made a speech yesterday and asked for a list of the mentally ill in the USA doesn't mean he's going to get it. If he wants something to do, he could research his NRA membership rolls for mentally ill gun owners. Send 'em a Rohrshak (sp?) (or other) test, and add extra copies for their dependents to take too. He could start with himself. He would fail it big-time. One doesn't have to be a psychiatrist to know the man is a sociopath.

I liked your idea of making it a requirement for all gun buyers to take a test, but it too would have to extend to their family members or anyone who lives at his/her home.

Here's one: Before they can have a gun, they have to show how they propose to keep the gun out of others hands when he's not around (i.e., would have to show where his gun will be kept safely out of others hands in his home.) Also, they should be required to take a gun safety test. If they fail it, they can't buy the gun. Period. And ATF administers all the tests and does the home safety inspections. After all, drivers have to take a written exam & drivers test when they first apply for a drivers license to prove that they are responsible and know the rules of the road.

Yeah, if we need to track anyone, it's the gun owner's mental health.

[Fire Walk With Me]

44. Considering the source, forget the demand and regulate guns instead.

Thank you. We will not be used as a bogeyman by the powerful gun lobby which seeks to expand markets for arms dealers and manufacturers.

[No Compromise]

49. The irony is that our national 'leaders' have a mental illness, they are sociopaths ruining lives

Ruining lives on a national scale, selfishly mindlessly catering to themselves and their wealthy friends with no regard for the general public, treating us as if we are bugs stuck on their shoes....And no one is talking about having them tracked or committed.

Lanza used his mom's guns so obviously tracking him, and stopping him from buying guns wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference if he has clueless familiy members or friends with guns.

Lanza was not suffering from lack of mental health care, but too much mental health care in the form of drugs that alter and permanently destroy a developing mind.

Anti psychotics, Anti depressants work for most of the people most of the time, but in a small percentage of people they have the exact opposite effect of what was intended ie prozac makes a percentage of people suicidal, anti psychotics have a small percentage of people react in a psychotic manner.

What we need is to go after the FDA for approving drugs with no testing. We are not guinea pigs. Adams uncle said that he was on FANAPT which never should have made it through the FDA approval process. Knowing what our FDA has allowed, from Aspartame to GM foods, telling us they can't do anything about fake Fish, Olive Oil and Honey....they are failing miserably. Our FDA is bought off, and BIG PHARMA is the major purchaser.

Look at corporate media, half of the commercials are Big Pharma, so instead of pursuing what drugs Adam Lanza was on, they are telling everyone we need MORE mental health treatment, more drugs that have been approved by a faulty FDA.

Instead of people who do take anti depressants reacting with anger, try to think for a minute, this isn't all about you.

We are talking about a small percentage of people who react badly to these drugs, and given what might occur if they do, these drugs should be heavily regulated and people taking them should be watched closely in the first few months to see how they react.

Young people whose brains are still developing react differently to these drugs, and the chemical changes they make might just be forever. A teenager might be having a bad day, irresponsible apathetic parents would rather drug than deal with them, kid would have learned and gotten through it, now his brain chemistry is altered and no longer feels anything. The making of a monster, when the child should have been taught to deal with their feelings and work through them.

These drugs are not always the answer, but doctors are handing them out like candy, and they get angry if you will not accept their drugs. They are like pushers, and are not always behaving in their patients best interests.

[rainlillie]

51. "All this new-found interest in the "mentally ill"

I think it's good, if it helps families in desperate need, get help for their loved ones and if it increases much need resources.

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. +1*10^6 n/t

[PufPuf23]

56. Thanks for thoughtful post.

[fizzgig]

58. my life would just bore them to death

but seriously, this is some spooky shit. not saying it's going to happen, but the fact that there are people - including some on du - who would like to strip me of my right to privacy simply for having a chronic condition that is well-managed by medication.

all people have the potential to be violent and the rampant ableism here is disgusting.

[HiPointDem]

60. "No one is tracking them." = i wouldn't be so sure.

[DonCoquixote]

62. Amen

and to those wanting to throw the aspies and others under the bus, let me offer this, do you really want the insurance companies to get more power,or even better yet, the "charter scghools" whose main RX will be to make the little boy or girl "see Jaizuzz?"

[spanone]

63. it's deflection. they couldn't care less.

[Fire Walk With Me]

64. DUer Neoma has given me the definition of "Ableism" and it fits this situation perfectly:

"Ableism; A term used to describe normal assumptions and practices that often lead to unequal treatment of people with apparent or assumed physical, intellectual, or behavioral differences. It could be said, ableism is about categorization and exclusion."

[duwizrd]

65. You point to the seed of a powerful business model here - without tracking mentally ill

No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it. Albert Einstein
i.e. think outside the box ~ waaaayyy outside ~ The brain and heart are the common denominators of all who commit violent crimes.

In a dynamic world governed by universal laws such as this, playing the game that currently exists is a sure path to failure if what you want is a new game. No doubt violent crimes against school children signals deep issues and it is profitable for FEAR mongers to suggest we fight such issues with lockdown architecture, armed guards, anti-terrorism staff training, and the new 'break-this-glass for an Uzi in case of a terrorist attack' classroom wall safe. Of course, going this way puts more money into the coffers and control of pro-weapons supporters, paying for more lobbyists and legislative protection.

Violent crimes are not committed by people who are mentally, emotionally, and spiritually clear, balanced, and compassionate regardless of the means at hand or the life issues they encounter. A recent study by the Center for Disease Control indicates that many chronic illnesses (physical and mental) have their genesis in childhood, especially between the ages of 2 and 7.

Forward thinking corporations and private schools are already taking action through integration of innovative programs at the demand of leaders and educated, well-to-do parents who are more likely than their public and home-school counterparts to seek out and demand non-traditional support for their family members. They do this because they understand that whatever is in vogue today for the masses is likely least thirty years behind current, cutting edge developments. This has to change.

Leading edge technologies that constitute Spiritual, Physical, Emotional Action Resources (SPEAR) have the power to help secure mental clarity, emotional stability, and spiritual compassion while also promoting better test scores, more productive social interaction, and fewer growing pains. Just as college was the ultimate personal and economic growth vehicle until the Internet and instantaneous communication, computation and data access arrived. There is an evolving drive for SPEAR pushing institutions that supported the old guard to change or perish. Public schools must embrace the new and business models must be created to enable it without government control or funding to bypass soulless corporate lobbyists.

There is no lobby against the multi-billion dollar personal development industry and there is a growing movement toward new forms of commerce and currency

Solutions being embraced by companies, private schools, and individuals seeking to maximize their potential include:

* Development of Emotional Intelligence (EQ), reducing inner conflicts resulting from Pavlovian conditioning of every kind (Ivan Pavlov was nominated by CocaCola as the father of modern advertising),
* Biofeedback Training to reignite the strength of heart and brain frequencies depressed by cognitive insults (e.g. fetal misadventure, alcohol/drug exposure, head bumps, etc) and emotionally traumatic experiences.
* And an array of new benefits including coaches, yoga classes, meditation instruction and other complementary alternative practices to help reduce and ameliorate stress.

These sources are offered for your evaluation and good starting points for your own exploration:

Center for Diseace Contro Study on Adverse Childhood Experience - http://www.cdc.gov/ace/index.htm
Lead poisoning - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning
Classical conditioning - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning
Wired for Violence or Peace -

The brain is the organ of destiny. It holds within it humming mechanism secrets that will determine the future of the human race. ~ Canadian Neuroscientist Wilder Penfield

[IDemo]

68. The discovery or invention of a new "Other" to fear and loathe

is something humans are sadly quite adept at. Which means, like it or not, the topic of tracking the "Mentally Ill", regardless of their actual underlying syndrome, will likely become all the rage over the next few months.