Our Broken Mental Health System

Leaving aside the issue of WMM (Weapons of Mass Murder, aka guns), the massacre at Virginia Tech has something to teach us about the American mental health system. It’s farcically easy for an American to be diagnosed as mentally ill: All you have to do is squirm in your fourth grade seat and you’re likely to be hit with the label of A.D.D. and a prescription for Ritalin. But when a genuine whack-job comes along – the kind of guy who calls himself “Question Mark” and turns in essays on bloodbaths – there’s apparently nothing to be done.

While Cho Seung-Hui quietly – very quietly – pursued his studies, millions of ordinary, non-violent, folks were being subjected to heavy-duty labels ripped from the DSM-IV. An estimated 20 percent of American children and teenagers are diagnosed as mentally ill in the course of a year, and adults need not feel left out of the labeling spree: Watch enough commercials and you’ll learn that you suffer from social phobia, depression, stress, or some form of sexual indifference (at least I find it hard to believe that all this “E.D.” is purely physical in origin.)

Consider the essay “Manufacturing Depression” in the May issue of Harper’s. Hoping to qualify for a study on “Minor Depression” at the Massachusetts General Hospital, the author, Gary Greenberg, presents himself with a list of problems including “the stalled writing projects and the weedy garden, the dwindling bank accounts and the difficulties of parenthood,” in other words, “the typical plaint and worry and disappointment of a middle-aged, middle-class American life…”

Alas, it turns out he does not qualify for the Minor Depression study. “What you have,” the doctor tells him, “is Major Depression.”

In the early sixties, the renegade psychiatrist Thomas Szasz argued, in The Myth of Mental Illness, that the real business of the mental health system was social control. Normal, physically active, nine-year-olds have to learn to sit still. Adults facing “dwindling bank accounts” have to be drugged or disciplined into accepting their fate. What therapy aimed to achieve was not “health,” but compliance to social norms.

Szasz still rings true every time I’ve been confronted with a “personality test” which reads like a police interrogation: How much have you stolen from previous employers? Do you have any objections to selling cocaine? Is it “easier to work when you’re a little bit high”?

Then there is the ubiquitous Myers-Briggs test, which seems obsessed with weeding out loners. Presumably, someone in the HR department can use your test results to determine whether you’re a good “fit” – a concept the libertarian Szasz must cackle over. (And incidentally, Myers-Briggs possesses no category, and no means of detecting, the person who might show up at work one day with an automatic weapon.)

But for all the attention to “personality” and garden-variety neurosis, we are left with the problem of the afore-mentioned whack-jobs, and the painful question today is: If Cho Seung-Hui’s oddities had been noted earlier – say, when he was still under 18 – could he have been successfully diagnosed and treated? Journalist Paul Raeburn’s 2004 book, Acquainted with the Night: A Parent’s Quest to Understand Depression and Bipolar Disorder in His Children suggests that the answer is a resounding no.

When his own children started acting up, Raeburn found that there are scores of therapists listed in the Yellow Pages, as well as quite a few inpatient facilities for the flamboyantly symptomatic. But nothing links these various elements of potential care into anything that could be called a “system.” The therapists, who all march to their own theoretical and pharmaceutical drummers, have no reliable connections to the hospitals, nor do the hospitals have any means of providing follow-up care for patients after they are discharged.

Then there is the matter of payment. Between 1988 and 1998, Raeburn reports, managed-care plans cut their spending on psychiatric treatment by 55 percent, putting mental health services almost out of the reach of the middle-class, never mind the poor. Hence, no doubt, the fact that three-quarters of children and teenagers who receive a diagnosis of mental illness get no care for it at all.

If we have no working mental health system, and no means of detecting or treating the murderously disturbed, then there’s only one thing left to do: Limit access to the tools of murder, i.e., end the casual sale of handguns.

Comments

[Millard Fullbore]

Interesting that practically the first words out of the Virginia governor's mouth went to condemn those who would make the shootings their "political hobby horse" for gun control. It must have been his very first thought when he heard the news.

Here's the best short rant I've seen on "the casual sale of handguns":

http://www.gregpalast.com/the-accomplices-sundance-george-and-butch-reid-and-the-virginia-tech-massacre/#more-1696

Why can't we have both a mental health system AND gun control?

[Justin K.]

When I seen this on the news I jumped in to a flash back to high school. I'm talking about the Columbine High School massacre. My high school started doing lock down drills. This is where the teachers are to lock the doors to the class room and not open them intel told to. The schools also started doing back pack and locker searches. I was held by school security because I wrote a dark poem in my sketchbook before columbine. I believe Peace, Justice, and what once was the American way of life. I think that if we start under minding the constitution (Witch includes the right to bear arms) we might as well move to Russia or just give the U.S.A. to the mexican government.

I do feel bad that the student feels this was the only way. It is so sad. I believe that all people good or evil are deserving of salvation.

[Justin K.]

I should mention that I'm not a religious man. I'm a spiritual man.

[Maya's Granny]

You have said it so well. I have worked with kids and their parents since 1969 and the increase in little boys being diagnosed with ADD and medicated for being little boys is frightening. In all those years I met three children who I thought needed those meds, and their behavior with and without was wildly different.
Cho's professors tried to get him help and it didn't work.
Something is badly broken here.

[JML]

I currently work in a residential treatment center for children and adolecents. What these kids had to endure while growing up and then being placed into "the system" is horrific. What we have to face in our attempts to treat them from "the system" is also horrific. The money does not go to the correct places-- kids who could do quite well in a structured, loving home are sent to us and those who need our kind of setting are not sent to us, in the name of "community resources." Those community resources are overflowing and there are just not enough resources to go around. Medication is used to quickly fix a problem and the kids are thrown back out into the world. It's so hard to put them back together, time after time.

[Promentalbackwash]

Funny, I always figured that in order to be diagnosed with major depression you had to actually be suicidal or not be able to stop crying for days and weeks on end, even when good things were happening to you. I had this happen to me, and trust me, I *earned* my damn Zoloft and Effexor. Now they give that diagnosis to you just for not having a five-figure savings account? Can you say "drug company kickbacks," anyone?

The ADD diagnosis existed but was not fashionable in my youth, and I was not the disruptive ADD kid but the type whose mind wandered and missed crucial details and subsequently turned off what was happening in class altogether. I probably could have used some of those drugs back then, but they were not available to me. Back then the drug of choice for all forms of childhood neuropsych imbalance, short of spinning one's head around and vomiting pea soup, was simply yelling, "Try harder! Stop being so lazy! With your brains you should get straight A's!" It worked so well, at age 43 I'm still typing my brains out for a living instead of having a "real" career. Whee.

Here's the thing. In order to treat this VA shooter before he started shooting, the laws regarding involuntary commitment and treatment would have had to be completely different. Once you hit 18, you have the legal right to refuse any sort of treatment, and even if he'd gotten successful treatment before that (and that's not even a given, many people are untreatable on any level), there's no guarantee he'd have kept it up once he came of age. Many people with psychiatric illnesses get "lost to followup," and you can't have someone committed just because of what they wrote in class, there has to be physical evidence that they are a danger to themselves or to others.

So yeah, making it a lot harder for someone like that to get a gun would be the place to start. Agreed there.

[realpc]

Very little is known in western medical science about mental illness. Even if Cho's parents and teachers had tried to help him when he was young, it might have turned out the same.

Just because we have advanced technology does not mean we understand mental illness. Drugs may tranquilize and dull symptoms but they do not cure.

I agree with Barbara E. that guns should not be a casual purchase. We have to pass tests to drive a car, so we should have requirements for buying a gun.

Cho's background and personality should have been checked. He could have bought them illegally, but it should not be so ridiculously easy for a maniac to acquire a gun.

[Tom McCarthy]

Barbara: I was disappointed to see you (of all people!) dismissively refer to such gravely ill people as Cho--who, as a group, already face ignorance, bigotry and (as Cho's case demonstrates) an appallingly weak system of care--as "whack jobs." Would you be so dismissive of diabetics or cancer patients? Mental illness is a physical problem, too--it just affects a different organ.

And while Szasz makes some valid points, he also does a great disservice to millions of suffering people by simplistically eliding the biological and the sociological aspects of this enormously complex topic.

Way to perpetuate the stigma, Barb!

[lc2]

I have to agree w/Tom.

Seems to me you can't have it both ways ... write an essay that cries out for the treatment of serious mental health problems ... and at the same time condone and perpetuate the stigma that's a barrier to treatment.

Would you like us to refer to breast cancer patients as diseased-tit jobs? Or maybe we should just go back to the days when that was called a "female problem." Really, really unfortunate, Barbara.

But you're human. And I'll keep reading your blog.

[Monica]

The fact that nothing could be done legally (there are abuses and more severe jurisdictions or people in charge) is actually a good thing. You would not want people to be locked up for merely looking different.

This is complicated by cultural issues if the person is an immigrant or naturalized citizen, as this man was. It's hard to draw the line between cultural differences and things like a foreign accent or other foreign speech patterns, on one hand, and serious mental problems, on the other hand. There are also things, such as body piercing or Muslim clothing, that some people find odd or terrible but other people like or find normal.

Do you really want to live in a society where one can be locked up and drugged for "disorganized" speech in a language not their own, for unpopular or unconventional political or economic ideas, for not being in a great mood or for piercings, funny clothes, wearing a headscarf or a funny hairdo, and so on? Should people be afraid to cry in their own home (in public, they already can't do it) in case they are found out and dragged to a mental hospital? We already live in that kind of society, except that non-criminals who are neither known mental patients, nor homeless, and who don't come to the attention of the police or psychiatrists still get less scrutiny and more opportunities to avoid the long arm of the mental health system.

[Perry]

Most people with major psychosis are not violent, but Cho should have been helped. I find it incomprehensible that in the face of a tragedy caused by mental illness you would rant against overdiagnosis and hint at some conspiracy to control. Shouldn't behavior such as Cho's have been controlled? By the way, serious psychologists are severely critical of the Myers-Briggs. You are not distinguishing between pop psychology and real psychology, nor between business uses and professional ones.

[Larry]

Our society ignores those with mental health problems and it concentrates on those who make their own way.

How many more like this are in workplaces, schools and in places of responsibility!

www.lydiacornell.com

[Monica]

Well, he used to speak in a funny way that sounded like mumbling. Some Asian languages, which seem to have the accent on the first syllable of the word, may give the impression that the speaker is arguing, especially if speaking somewhat loudly. In fact, in some cultures, speaking loudly and/or very fast in ways that may sound argumentative or agitated here is just normal. And the issue of raising one's voice may even have something to do with the way words are emphasized in a sentence. To a person whose native tongue is not English, "How can I HELP you?" (with the accent on "help") may sound as if the speaker is very surprised (I used to feel that way when I was fresh of the boat, so to speak). Well, you, English-speakers, may find the way HE speaks, and where HE puts the accent, strange. With that, he may mumble some comments that you don't understand or that only make sense in his culture, and right in the loony bin he goes, if someone is looking for signs of mental illness.

It is also possible to have trouble articulating words and sound intoxicated for that reason. I must have sounded that way years ago, when I called to inquire about the test I had to pass if I wanted to get into some English course. The person on the phone assumed by the way I spoke that I was not up to that level yet, but I was better in writing and I did pass after all.

Moreover, don't assume that everybody will try to understand what the immigrant really meant. There were cases when someone who speaks Hungarian or some other language was just locked up, because it was assumed that his speech was just psychotic "gibberish".

In case my post sounds anti-immigrant: I have been an immigrant myself and I am now a naturalized Canadian citizen.

[david]

"Whack-job"...I don't like the word. Sounds like a word Limbaugh would use.

[Jon]

I think Barbara was right on the money...and I mean that literally.

The big pharmaceutical companies make a fortune by having anti-depressants and ADD drugs widely precribed to middle and upper class people with mild emotional disorders if any real "disorder" at all, but whom have the insurance or income to pay for expensive drugs.

I used to do volunteer work for an organization that had many severely mentally ill clients. Those who are severely mentally ill, as Cho was, tend to be unemployable adults and therefore have little money and no insurance. They are not a lucrative market even though they have the real need. Of course there is a strong financial incentive to devise tests to help sell drugs to functional gainfully employed adults rather than the severely ill. Also there is increasing off prescription abuse of psych meds, anti-depressants and ADD drugs. Upwardly mobile professionals are sold on the idea that feeling "OK" is not good enough and they should use meds to feel better than perfect.

Yes we have a thriving "cosmetic" mental health industry but services for those unable to fuctiojn are not there.

[Monica]

We do have some so-called services, but they consist of locking up and drugging them before any other help is provided, or without even providing such help. Or, in such a system, before he actually became violent, Cho was fairly functional for a mentally ill person. He had things like housing, food, clothing, some money, close relatives, and so on. Before it became obvious that he was dangerous, locking him up would only have seemed to unnecessarily ruin his life. And as a student, he may well have had a chance of becoming employable, no matter how hard or unlikely that may have been. We can't lock up all marginally functional adults who are not dangerous yet and may never be.

[X: THC]

Question Marks
-------------------

"This didn't have to happen", Cho Seung-Hui said, after murdering thirty-two people at Virginia Tech University.

And this terrible tragedy of sons, daughters, mothers and fathers didn't have to happen, if we'd only listened.

But we never listen.

We never listen to those that are different from us- the outcasts, the lonely, the homeless, the ones that are unspoken for. We don't try to understand. We shun them and put them out of our minds because of our fear that we will become like them.

And these people become more and more lonely and alienated in their isolation.

Words like "creep", "deranged misfit" and "psycho" devalue this killer's humanity so we don't have to face how similar he is to us. Cries of "how could he have been stopped" are uttered by media quick to sensationalize and gain market share, when the words "how could he have been listened to" are never considered.

Because we don't want to listen.

We don't want to hear about loneliness and alienation when we're all so busy with our lives, making money and making friends. And the unpopular, the ones that don't fit in, the lonely ones are ignored or made fun of because we don't care to understand anything about them.

This man who clearly needed help, Cho Seung-Hui, devalued himself so much that he called himself "Question Mark".

There are more "Question Marks" out there. There are millions of them. And if we don't listen to them, they will follow the same path again and again, because people are not connecting. We are becoming more and more disconnected from each other, creating more and more "Question Marks" every day.

Most "Question Marks" don't become murderers. Some just kill themselves. Most harm no one and live just as we do, needing antidepressants to appear what we call "normal". They may be someone you know, someone you love.

This "Question Mark" was once a little boy, who cried, and smiled and loved, He wanted to fit in just like you and I. But that desire to fit in transformed itself into anger towards a society that shunned and ignored him.

How many more times will we shun and ignore the one that doesn't fit in, the one in the corner, the one that's different? When all we have to do is listen, before it's too late.

But we won't.

Thirty-two human beings who did not know Cho Seung-Hui were murdered.
They were sons, daughters, fathers and mothers, with dreams of futures that will never come and children that will never be born. The thirty-two leave behind people that love them. People that are now scarred for life by this horrible day of death.

To most of us that have not been directly involved, this tragedy will become a memory and fade like all the others that came before.

And the "Question Marks" will appear with more frequency, again and again, because we don't listen.

We never do.

---------------

http://www.x-thc.com

[realpc]

[dismissively refer to such gravely ill people as Cho--who, as a group, already face ignorance, bigotry and (as Cho's case demonstrates) an appallingly weak system of care--as "whack jobs."]

If Chos wasn't a whack job, then I don't know who is. Do you really see maniacal killers as victims of our system? You gravely insult all mentally ill people when you absolve Chos of moral responsibilty, just because he had a mental illness.

There is no cure for schizophrenia, but schizophrenia is not a license to go on a murderous rampage. Most mental patients have no desire to hurt or kill anyone.

Cho was a wack job, and he was also a deeply evil person. He wanted to kill and he had no compassion for his innocent victims. He was a wack job, a maniac, an evil hateful monster.

Cho was not a victim. The people he killed were victims. No amount of drugs or psychotherapy could have made him a decent trustworthy human being.

I agree with Barbara E. that we need tighter gun control. And I see nothing wrong with her calling him a wack job. He deserves to be called much worse than that.

[lc2]

I could not agree w/xthc more. I also was thinking today how Cho was caught up in the "recent Asian immigrant" stereotype ... stoic, resilient b'c of atrocities in their homelands, hyper-focused on success, etc. Indeed as a group their social and economic prowess is revered in our culture ... you hear variants of "why can't the black and latino kids be like the grateful hardworking Asian kids?" almost everyday in public school settings. This is not a person who would've been on a high school's "at risk" radar simply by virtue of his ethnic status.

Watching interviews, I've also been struck by the concern and patience Cho's previous roommates afforded him (it was one of those roommates who got him help in Dec. '05). I'm ashamed to say that my college peers and I laughed at our weirdo dormmates, only sometimes behind their backs, especially the ones who never spoke to anyone. Cho's roommates showed an admirable level of maturity and tact in their dealings with him. It's entirely possible that their concern kept him from going over the edge earlier ... and that we all would do well to try to be our most humane. It could literally save lives.

[Monica]

His roommate did not get him help. He denounced him as a potentially suicidal person, which lead to his imprisonment (not for long, it is true) in the hands of the mental health system. In fact, it's worse than imprisonment, since the mental health system is using powerful drugs on its victims and can physically attack them to do so, or make them afraid of such forced drugging. Cho was, in fact, sentenced to outpatient treatment.

[Tom McCarthy]

>>You gravely insult all mentally ill people when you absolve Chos of moral responsibilty, just because he had a mental illness.

This statement echoes our society's common obtuseness about the nature of mental illness. Where do reason, judgment, impulse control and the ability to distinguish meaningfully between right and wrong originate? In the brain. What organ does mental illness attack? The brain.

No, mental illness is not a "license to kill." But imposing normal standards of behavior and "responsibility" on a person whose brain is severely malfunctioning is nonsensical. What's needed here, again, is a much more thoroughgoing, responsive and better tailored system of care for the mentally ill--as well as a better educated public.

[Monica]

But such terrible crimes are not committed by normal people. In fact, at his psychiatric evaluation, he had insight and did not seem psychotic, and it is possible that he was not even dangerous to himself but that the judge just erred on the side of caution. He was not declared dangerous to others, for example. So it is really the atrocity of his crime that makes him look so sick. The rest may well have been some sad feelings, cultural adjustment, a misunderstanding, and so on. At least, it would have looked that way, if he did not commit a serious crime. But few people would argue that one can commit such a crime and be mentally normal. And he knew what he was doing and did some thorough planning.

[anon]

I like to see Bullies be consider mentally defective. They should be committed too. Mr. Cho was English Lit major in his last semester, obviously with no job prospect. He wasn't going to go back to his parent's dry cleaning business. Collages are a lottery system only a lucky few are able to pay back the loans.

[Monica]

He may not have had many good job prospects in the near future, but maybe his English Lit major would have helped him improve his English and show a measure of academic success. It was only a matter of time before, with hard work, he would have had a chance to get back into the program of his choice or into some other program offering better job opportunities. In fact, there is college and college. He may well have been good enough for another school, although staying at Virginia Tech without killing people would not have been a bad idea. It would have given him time to adapt to his new environment. And if he had to graduate from the English Lit program, there is no law that says that a student can't get a second degree or that it must be from the same university. If Virginia Tech wanted him to graduate and get out of here, he could have studied somewhere else.

[Justin K.]

We are nothing like god. Not only do we have limited powers, we are sometimes driven to become the devil him self.

There’s a kid…he’s lost in his sole. His head echoes day and night with the sounds of self-doubt and pity. Words of discouragement and despair. And what do we do? We start looking for people to blame. It’s human nature to place blame.

It’s because guns are easy to buy. Oh never mind, it’s because people picked on him. Maybe his mom and dad didn’t hug him enough.
Truth is I don’t know about any of that. More to the point, it doses not mater. Because WE made him. The fact is, there’s no one left to accept responsibility.

[Justin K.]

hmmm......

[realpc]

With all its technological success, our civilization has no answers for some of the most serious problems and questions. Our science does not understand mental illness or evil, or much at all about the human mind.

Does brain imaging tell you how the mind works? Not at all. It's cool technology, but it gives only an illusion of undestanding.

Cho was evil and he also happened to be mentally ill. This sort of crime has been committed by people with no diagnosed mental illness. You can't blame it on mental illness.

You can't blame the capitalist system, lack of health insurance, the parents, teachers, roommates, for this. You can only blame Cho himself, the individual, and the ignorance of modern science.

I don't know if this would have happened in ancient times (with arrows instead of guns). We have lost most of the ancient wisdom regarding the human soul. Tranquilizing drugs are a poor substitute for understanding.

Our scientists and medical professionals have taken on the role of high priests in our culture. They have the impressive magic, but they don't have the wisdom.

Of course the ancients were as confused and helpless as we are. But at least they acknowledged the reality of evil and had some techniques for controlling it. All we can do is feel stupid.

[Tom]

The growing gap between the super rich, the upper class 1%, and everyone else is not to be overlooked. Apparently Cho resented rich people's arrogance, lack of concern for others, and the unequal distribution of wealth that our system perpetuates and decided he wasn't having it. His problem was that he took it out on his classmates and not corporate America (not that i'd like anyone shot, mind you, he was not very effective in his rampage). Perhaps he should have graduated and begun a writing career pointing out how unfair, impersonal and toxic our social environment is to live in - he'd have plenty of evidence and anecdotes.

[Anarcissie]

realpc: '... I don't know if this would have happened in ancient times....'

There are plenty of instances of people going on violence benders in the ancient world, as well as in every other time and place. However, it is only in the modern world, with the general acceptance of the idea of the perfectable state, that we think than human beings can be so closely regulated as to preclude any acts of violence (or other unpleasant behaviors) on anyone's part. This has led to not only totalitarian visions of social order but actually totalitarian social orders which, of course, did more violence than any individual possibly could have.

I predict that the Virginia massacre will be used to further efforts along the same lines. That is, it will be used to further energize the movement for authoritarian control of individuals, especially eccentric individuals, by the state, e.g. surveillance, "therapy", lifetime monitoring, "gun control", etc. etc. etc.

[Monica]

Also, in ancient times and even more recently, the population would not have been so helpless and passive. People, or at least males, would have been armed and willing and able to fight.

[realpc]

"Cho resented rich people's arrogance, lack of concern for others, and the unequal distribution of wealth that our system perpetuates"

As far as I know, Cho was not starving. His parents probably came here to give their kids a prosperous middle class life and college education. Compared to most people in the world he was very lucky (materialistically, that is).

Envy is a terrible source of evil, but we will never get rid of envy. Someone else will always have more. Maybe the more we have the more we want, so our capacity for envy is infinite.

You want to make everyone equal, the same. But that won't get rid of envy, because someone will always be slightly better in some way.

Envy does not explain Cho's act. He was intensely envious, but that's because he was intensely miserable.

[Barbara E]

Sorry that the diagnostic term "whack job" offended so many. I think my anger at Cho was showing.

[lc2]

Apology/explanation accepted Barbara. I wasn't suggesting btw that there should be an effort to pc-ize mental health terms among us laypeople. It's clear those words and phrases serve the purpose of insulating us from the reality that mental illness is just as likely to affect us as are physical ailments. But I would hope that someone of your stature would show some leadership and restraint in this regard. I personally cringe at the word "retard" but have given up on getting the students I work with to omit it from their exchanges. I've finally accepted that it counts for something that they're likely to treat truly retarded people w/respect ... if not their able-minded peers. Sad but true.

I reject the idea that forums like these are efforts to assign blame. I see it as nothing more than an attempt to put together the pieces of the puzzle, much like detectives and forensic experts are trying to do. Let's not forget that an enhanced understanding of situations like these might prevent further bloodshed ... rather than just writing Cho off as evil incarnate or nations as "axes of evil," "they want to kill our freedoms," etc. What possible productive value is there in assigning such pat explanations to vast carnage? I mean most "evil" people do their work quietly, molesting children (which seems a possible trigger for Cho's rampage btw), abusing spouses or making coworkers' lives hell for example ... or perhaps even posting hostile screeds dripping with contempt on forums like these. They don't embark on killing sprees. I think with the scientific tools we have available we might try to discern what is different in a case like this, and what unique tip-offs might be worth noticing.

Realpc, you're missing Tom's straightforward, non-value-laden analyis of mental illness. If it turns out that Cho had a brain tumor or defect as the Univ of Texas sniper in the 60s did ... would that convince you that a characterization of mental illness is legitimate?

[realpc]

"If it turns out that Cho had a brain tumor or defect"

He was definitely mentally ill, but I don't consider that an excuse. It's possible to be both mentally ill and bad, and it's possible to be mentally ill and good.

Mental illness should not be a license to kill. That stigmatizes all mental patients, most of whom would never hurt anyone.

[No-PC]

Some of your commentators should look up the Rosenhan Experiment (I have provided a link below) which showed that most psychiatists couldn't correctly identify the sane from the insane.

There has always been some doubts as to how effective modern diagnosis is, with the strong possibility that we have merely created pyschosis names and then fill them with patients.

Certainly, there is an argument that we now just drug people as a form of control rather than an attempt to cure them.

In Roman times, Cicero devised a form of interrogation for people exhibiting mental issues, that appears to be as effective as modern diagnostic techniques.

We often rely on a patiants self diagnosis e.g. "I feel depressed" or "I feel suicidal" before a form of treatment is devised. How far is that from Roman times?

Therapy via a stranger has all but replaced friends and family, and we are now creating a whole group of drug dependent, mentally ill people who are not cured; they are just controlled by the drugs, or rather their own expectations of what taking the drugs will do.

Links of interest:
Rosenhan Experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

My Blog on the more general issue (I am not looking for linkers, it just relates to this blog's subject).
http://no-pc.blogspot.com/2007/04/is-modern-mental-health-treatment.html

[Sharon DiLeo]

This Virginia Tech shooting is a symptom of our sick world. I am glad to see that so many are now looking at how so many students are treated in schools. Bullying whether it be in work, school, or other places can only lead to disaster. We must learn to accept those who are different from ourselves; create an atmosphere of kindness and openness to dialogue.

My heart goes out to the many families of those who lost family members and friends to this desperate and brutal act. May the family of Cho find peace and understandig; they must be in excruciating pain.

[lc2]

Sigh. Tom's whole point is that impulse control over "bad" and "good" behaviors is a mental process, so if there's mental damage or illness, it's pointless to talk about morality.

That doesn't give anyone license to kill others. It also doesn't paint the ill person as a victim. It's just a dispassionate analysis of the situation.

Of course there's enormous diversity among mental health patients since they encompass a total cross-section of society. I don't know anyone (and I know a lot of bigoted people) who thinks that mentally ill people as a group are dangerous. The bigger (and probably truer) stereotype is that they're a danger to themselves. I mean it's common knowledge that the mother in Houston who drowned her kids is not a typical post-partum depression or even post-partum psychosis patient ... but does that mean we shouldn't acknowledge she was ill? This just seems like a silly point to me.

[chris]

First, calling Cho a wack-job is far too kind. He was a depraved, demented monster. His monstrousness exceeds description.

Nevertheless, in death, he has found many defenders. His defenders are those who remind us he was “mentally ill”, those who paint his mental illness as a condition that earns sympathy for Cho, as though he had the bad luck to develop cancer despite living a healthful life.

His defenders – those who see his inherent and consuming evilness as an illness – look for external forces and influences that might have caused an otherwise innocent person to kill 32 people while devastating and perhaps destroying their families.

The guy was a psychopathic murderer. He wasn’t a person with an illness impairing or destroying a portion of his body. He was a wholly deranged person devoid of a conscience. He was not calling for help. He did not seek a doctor’s care because he sensed something was wrong within him. Instead, he indulged himself more and more. What were the first signs? Who knows? But he reached the point where others knew he was coming unhinged. He experimented with playwriting to test his murderous ambition through an artistic medium.

But that failed to satisfy his madness. He needed the real thing.

Why? What explains this mutant mind? No one knows. Nevertheless, explanations and excuses are appearing. Meanwhile, this murderer of 32 people is receiving more consideration than the average child molester, another example of a person suffering from a mental illness.

Interestingly, our society does not believe sexual predators ever free themselves of their obsessions. If we believed they were curable, we would not require child molesters and others convicted of sexual crimes to register their whereabouts and we would not prohibit them from living near schools. But we do. Because we don’t believe they ever recover. Moreover, few people seem troubled by this view of sexual predators and the demands society makes upon them. In fact, people freely admit they’d willingly kill a child molester.

Why is Cho different? He’s dead. That’s one reason. Some sensitive souls claim a brain tumor might have caused it all. Nonsense. No doctor or scientist will state that a brain tumor causes a person to buy guns, plot mass murder, buy ammo clips on e-bay, write violent plays or create disturbing videos. One poster here mentioned Charles Whitman, the shooter who killed about 16 people at the University of Texas in 1966, as a person whose brain tumor made him do it.

Whitman left a suicide note, in parts. He wrote of his intentions to kill his mother and sister, whom he killed with knives. But he didn’t mention his pending shooting spree at the UT Tower or his acquisition of weapons and ammunition. He mentioned headaches. But he never mentioned hearing voices or having hallucinations.
Plainly and simply, the guy was nuts. But his madness, like Cho’s, defies analysis. Why? Because the forces that warp a mind are found inside the body and out.

Son of Sam – David Berkowitz – murdered about 7 people in New York City in the summer of 1977. After he was caught he admitted he heard voices, that he took his instructions to kill from a dog. He was a schizophrenic; he experienced hallucinations.

On the other hand there is a culture of death in the middle east. This culture seeks volunteers to kill groups of innocent civilians, mostly Jews, with bombs worn by the killers. Or, in at least one case, flying passenger jets into buildings. The would-be killers are schooled in the art of suicide bombing. Are there many dropouts from these programs? Are the aspiring suicide bombers insane before they find their calling? Or are pliable minds warped into a state of willingness?

Japan had some luck with a similar strategy in World War II. Kamikaze pilots were frightening weapons. However, following Japan’s surrender, there were few instances of mass murderers killing themselves along with groups of innocent victims until 1983, when middle-east muslims embraced the practice.

Are they insane? Are their actions caused by physiological impairment? Or is the mind so flexible that it’s possible to bring anyone to the point of committing an unspeakable crime?

The 1978 Jonestown mass suicide in South America, which took about 900 lives, suggests the right charlatan can convince the willing to do almost anything.

The mass murders in Rwanda, where 800,000 Tutsis were slaughtered by Hutus swinging machetes and shooting guns, were committed by willing executioners whipped into a frenzy of hate by local leaders. Was the Hutu population of Rwanda stricken by a mass psychosis that drove them to shoot and hack to death 800,000 neighbors?

What suspension of sanity led Germans to exterminate 6 million Jews? Was the nation mentally ill? The depravity humans willingly undertake is beyond comprehension.

Nevertheless, there are plenty of people who want to bathe a psycho wack-job like Cho with the same sympathy or sensitivity offered to those who are helpless, hapless and hopeless due to observable, identifiable and measurable physical impairments of the mind. Why? Rather than wait for beliefs about mental illness to change, the best we can do is to follow the directions offered every day on the New York City subway: “If you see something. Say something.”

If the police are called by concerned citizens giving a reason to visit a would-be psycho-murderer at home, the cops ask if there are any guns in the house. They’d probably check the database to see if cracked-pots like Cho had purchased weapons. Maybe nuts like Cho would succumb to the deterrent effect of knowing the police were alerted. Maybe calling the cops, rather than a psychiatrist, when people issue bizarre threats, would prevent a significant number of shattering tragedies.

[Monica]

But cops are called to remove a mental patient who refuses to go to the hospital, or else they bring someone to the hospital when they think that a person must be mentally ill. But the problem, aside from the fact that innocent people may be reported, is that it's hard to know when someone is a "potential psycho-murderer". What would be a reason to visit him? And then, what if he seems calm and rational and no guns are found?

[realpc]

Ic2,

You can acknowledge someone is ill, but not let them use it as an excuse. The insanity defense is an insane idea.

[Monica]

The insanity defense may not be such an insane idea. It was supposed to be used for individuals who really had no idea what they were doing. The problem is that it has been abused to include people who knew what they were doing but their bad decision was influenced by mental illness. Cho knew that he bought guns, for example. He did not do it without even realizing it.

[Rhea]

If we want to keep kids in schools safe, we have to start by keeping kids at home safe. Kids like Cho are not born that way. They grow up in environments of abuse, violence, neglect and shame. Read James Gilligan's book "Violence" for the best explanation I've ever found of why men do violence. I agree, Barbara, if kids who are disturbed and cannot be treated, then gun control is a must.

[Anarcissie]

Rhea '... Kids like Cho are not born that way. ...'

I sure wouldn't count on it across the board. It has already been noted in this discussion, and in many other places, that in many cases serious violence can't be predicted -- not by genetics, not by childhood conditions, not by environment, social or physical, not by race or religion or demonic possession or any of a host of other theories.

Gun, or rather, weapons control would be an interesting idea, but it would be necessary to figure out some way of disarming governments, criminals and others of that sort. Most plans for disarmament focus only on the law-abiding, submissive and unimaginative.

[realpc]

" Kids like Cho are not born that way. They grow up in environments of abuse, violence, neglect and shame. "

The news reports I heard never said Cho had been abused or neglected. They said he had always been autistic and abnormal. His parents did not know how to reach him. I don't think mental health professionals would have done much better.

There is no simple explanation.

[chris]

Tom wrote:

"The growing gap between the super rich, the upper class 1%, and everyone else is not to be overlooked."

In other words, Tom seeks to explain Cho's rampage as a rational response to economic factors. Nice. But Cho was attending Virginia Tech, a bucolic school where life for every student is about as pleasant as life gets.

Tom is suggesting Cho was raging like a rapper against the inequities of life, as though Cho could claim he'd grown up in an inner-city combat zone where murder and abuse were daily events. What nonsense.

Tom mind-reads:

"Apparently Cho resented rich people's arrogance, lack of concern for others, and the unequal distribution of wealth that our system perpetuates and decided he wasn't having it."

Tom, how do "rich people" express arrogance? How do they show their "lack of concern for others"?

What are YOU claiming when you suggest Cho is railing against the "unequal distribution of wealth that our system perpetuates"?

It's clear you have not read Cho's mind. But you have imposed your own vision on the situation. Moreover, your assessment of his bugaboos addresses both irrational and rational concerns. Wealth distribution is a fair subject for debate. Economic, financial and tax policies are central to US politics at every level. But there's no indication Cho showed the slightest concern or interest in the mechanisms and processes that affect our decision-making system.

Your belief that Cho was offended by the attitudes of affluent people is scary stuff. Why? Because your casual acceptance of his insane animus indicates you are sympathetic to rage of this nature. That's further supported by your following statement.

You wrote:

"His problem was that he took it out on his classmates and not corporate America (not that i'd like anyone shot, mind you, he was not very effective in his rampage)."

"His Problem"? In other words, if he'd shot 32 people in the headquarters of a corporation you love to hate, he would have addressed "his problem" appropriately.

Though you issued a disclaimer in parentheses following your chilling assessment of his carnage, you don't condemn HIM in the most extreme terms. You only mention that YOU wouldn't "like anyone shot". Do you think Cho was insane, or do you think he was simply reacting to a fact of life that rankled him, one that rankles you too?

Then you offer another chilling thought:

"Perhaps he should have graduated and begun a writing career pointing out how unfair, impersonal and toxic our social environment is to live in..."

In other words, he might have benefited from weighing his options. Become a crusading journalist? A rational thought. Or become a mass murderer? An insane thought. What to do?

How did that little internal soliloquy go? Hmmm, says playwright Cho to himself, should I become an avenging journalist, skewering corporate evil-doers with my murderous prose? Or should I blow the brains out of 32 students on campus who offend me with their apparent happiness? What to do? Eeny meeny. Nah. Flip a coin. Nah. They gotta die. That's all there is to it.

The fact that you characterize Cho's murder spree versus his possible pursuit of journalism as two career options is, well, bizarre. As though one mind evaluates these two choices.

You close with:

"...he'd have plenty of evidence and anecdotes."

I see. You mean that life on a college campus in the hills of Virginia is toxic and life there is an environment defined by unfairness?

The greatest misfortune here is that he did not begin his shooting spree with his suicide.

Killing himself after killing so many others is proof that he was not only outside the realm of real life, but that he hated life so much that he wanted to steal as much happiness as possible and inflict as much misery as possible on as many strangers and their families as possible, and then get off unpunished by putting himself beyond reach. Pure evil.

[Justin K.]

The insanity defense is NOT an insane idea. People found not guilty by temporary insanity don't get to walk out of the room on there own free will. In fact they remain in a state institution where they get treatment, Also, it's because of the insanity defense we understand mental disability's better. As I said before, "I believe that all people good or evil are deserving of salvation."
I under stand that a lot of bad people take advantage of the insanity defense to get off. witch is bad. But remember, not guilty by temporary insanity dose not mean a slap on the rist.

[anonymous]

I didn't read all the comments. I only read Barbara's post. Thank you, Barbara, for raising this topic.

I have a severely mentally ill sibling who clearly needs care from the "system." The problem is the system, even in a wealthy state, just plain sucks. Every so-called expert and so-called solution out there means nothing without the full force of the government and the money behind it.

Neither are there. My sibling is just one of many people whom our system chooses to ignore. If we are so enlightened a culture, why can't we help these people?

[Benni]

BE closes by saying "If we have no working mental health system ... "

But we do have one! It is the prison system. Lock 'em up and let them get worse.

[Sharon DiLeo]

On another entirely different note, it must be said that Cho and many others throughout time who have committed massive acts of violence have been on prescription medication. It is becomming more well-known that a one-size-fits all approach to prescribing anti-depressants is simply not always effective. In fact, it is down right ludicrous.

Moreover, cautions are now being required of anti-depressants as it has been shown that in many cases, anit-depressant use causes suicidal rage (homicidal rage is the same rage turned outward.)

It is amazing to me that when you go to a medical doctor for a medical condition, many tests are performed before medication is prescribed (of course,money-driven-abuse rests in this area as well), but with a person who is depressed, anti-depressants are liberally prescribed without any consideration to the unique brain chemistry of the person for whom the medication is prescribed.

More care and concern is placed on what a person puts in their car than in their own body or in the bodies of those they love.

Parents and caregivers are always looking for a quick-fix for those suffering under their care. Empathy, love, understanding,education and an appreciation of the time required to care for children is paramount. As Barbara E. has acknowledged, that the care of children requires large blocks of time.

In 1966, The shooter at the University of Texas had been taking amphetamines before he killed his wife and mother-in-law and then the next day opened fire on those crossing the mall at UT during the noon hour.

I am further dismayed at how so many are only willing to slap blame on the offender and not ask the important questions. I am not taking up for Cho or anyone else, but we must come to a place of deep understanding before this behaviour will end. It requires personal and collective responsibility.

However,to understasnd this is a tall order as we have indeed become a society all invested in the "self"--a sense of responsibility for the other has become something only known to past generations. It is precisely this judgmental nature tht perpetuates hate.

As the poet Menanders has said: "In a way the saying 'know thyself' is not well said' it is better to say: 'know others'.

[John]

About the ubiquitous Myers-Briggs test, I've always heard that among serial killers, most were INTJs.

Of course, most INTJs are NOT serial killers.

[Tom McCarthy]

Barbara: Thanks for the apology.

lc2: Thanks for the backup. You get it: it's meaningless to talk about choice or morality when one's thoughts are disordered. That's not to "excuse" Cho, only to lament that the science and the system were inadequate to prevent this needless tragedy.

[lc2]

I'd like to know where I ever used or implied the term "insanity defense" or painted Cho as a victim. chris, in your tireless quest to isolate others' quotes and then rip them to shreds ... I'm sure you will find such a comment if I made it.

Part of the problem is that when confronted with such horror we fall back on our collective fairy tale mythology of good and evil, with us or against us, victim and villian, ogre and hero, etc. So when someone like Tom M. suggests we should take a hard-headed look at the situation with the tools we have available ... people get confused and portray him as being sympathetic to a mass-murderer. We can all shake our heads and mutter "whack job" and "sicko" and it makes us feel better for a couple of minutes. But it gets us no closer to preventing future tragedies.

One has choices about entering or resisting treatment, giving in to murderous impulses or committing suicide, etc. ... but let's remember all that "thought process" occurs within the context of the illness. In other words, it's not schizophrenic one moment, lucid thoughtful mature decision-maker the next. Can we put our scientific hats on for a moment and at least acknowledge that these are debilitating illnesses that do not stabilize or improve without treatment? One certainly has options in the early stages of a mental illness ... but it is no more useful to talk about the choices of an end-stage psychotic than it is to talk about how a cirrhosis-riddled alchoholic should really think about laying off the sauce. Both the liver and the brain in these cases, the *organs,* are diseased beyond the pale ... and the measure of treatment success is nothing grander than preventing or delaying an early death. If you're unlucky enough to come down with, say, schizophrenia and fail to get early treatment ... the future is not real bright. And Cho's treatment was derailed by a system that had a high burden of proof to secure involuntary confinement (notice I'm not saying "poor Seung-hui"). This is a huge dilemma facing colleges like VA Tech that treat students as adults ... at the age when they're most likely to experience the onset of mental illness.

Sure, there are undoubtedly killers who have no trace of mental illness but instead act out of passion, greed, whatever ... but no one has disputed that Cho had a documented mental illness. So where's the quibble, exactly?

I'm acquainted with the family of a former bond trader who now lives in a cardboard box, someone who up and decided over a period of 3 months that baths, toothbrushing, and later the comforts of indoor housing were just not for him, let alone Wall St. bonuses. Sound like someone making choices in his "right" mind?

[Monica]

It is not true that mental illness does not improve or stabilize without treatment. In fact, in some cases, treatment makes it worse because the brain gets used to the medication, or stopping it too quickly creates problems. Medication can also create physical problems the patient did not have, such as severe weight gain, and ultimately reduce the patient's lifespan, not to speak of the quality of a life spent sleeping, sleepy and unable to concentrate. In cirrhosis, the liver is physically damaged. In mental illness, the brain either seems physically normal, or it may have been damaged by the "treatment" itself.

But why is the bond trader living in a cardboard box if he has family and possibly some money from his former employment? And do you realize that at least now, he is free to use his time as he pleases, which is an advantage few people have nowadays? In a way, he may have found happiness. Ask yourself why exactly he would be better off if he got off the street.

[chris]

lc2, you wrote:

"Part of the problem is that when confronted with such horror we fall back on our collective fairy tale mythology of good and evil, with us or against us, victim and villian, ogre and hero, etc."

Speak for yourself.

You wrote:

"So when someone like Tom M..."

Two Toms have posted here. One is identified as Tom McCarthy. He operates a blog -- The Contrarian View. The other is plain old Tom. No last name. The two Toms do not seem to be the same person. Plain Tom suggests Cho was merely misguided in who he attacked.

You wrote:

"Tom M. suggests we should take a hard-headed look at the situation with the tools we have available..."

Perhaps. But the battle is between those who believe individuals have the right to be crazy all day every day in public and those who think society has the right to protect itself from its wackos, weirdos and nut jobs.

Wackos, weirdos and nut jobs are not the eccentric characters among us. They are the ones whose behavior we cannot explain. They are the ones, like Cho, who others with close-up knowledge believe will commit a deadly crime. Not psychiatrists who rarely witness the scenes or hear the rants of people like Cho. But classmates, room-mates and others with day-to-cay contact, do hear and see them.

A nut went on a murder spree in New York City in mid-March. He walked into a Manhattan pizza shop, where he'd been a regular customer for a while, and shot an employee, then went outside and shot several more people, including two auxiliary cops. He was finally shot by cops. Had cops not appeared at the scene in minutes, the murder spree would have continued. The shooter carried a couple of weapons and plenty of extra ammo. He was ready for a street war.

Putting aside an analysis of the shooter's insanity, it's crystal clear that when a madman starts shooting, the first order of business is to stop the rampage. That calls for an armed response.

You wrote:

"One has choices about entering or resisting treatment, giving in to murderous impulses or committing suicide, etc. ... but let's remember all that "thought process" occurs within the context of the illness."

Choices? Choices about accepting treatment? Hardly. Coercion, perhaps. No one is "choosing" when faced with two alternatives, one painful versus one that is tolerable.

You further suggest that a person weighs the merits of murderous and/or suicidal impulses. First, an impulse is short-lived. Therefore, "choice", a deliberative act, is hardly the term that explains impulses.

Meanwhile, Cho prepared for his big day for more than a month. He bought two guns, purchased at the legal rate of one a month. His mental state had reached the point of readiness for murder well before he pulled the trigger.

Perhaps if his room-mates and teachers had called the cops instead of referring him to counseling, he would have been under the control of capable people when his crisis hit its peak. That's a key factor for handling wackos.

You said:

"In other words, it's not schizophrenic one moment, lucid thoughtful mature decision-maker the next."

My experience with schizophrenic friends, relatives and classmates says it is. They are normal at times and crazy at times.

You asked:

"Can we put our scientific hats on for a moment and at least acknowledge that these are debilitating illnesses that do not stabilize or improve without treatment?"

Your statement, unfortunately, is not supported by the facts. However, the fact that some mentally ill people outlive their madness explains nothing, unfortunately.

You surmised:

"One certainly has options in the early stages of a mental illness..."

Maybe. Maybe not. The afflicted may well be the last to know he's got a problem.

You equated:

"...but it is no more useful to talk about the choices of an end-stage psychotic than it is to talk about how a cirrhosis-riddled alchoholic should really think about laying off the sauce."

Nonsense, liver transplants are big business. A friend of mine got two. He was not a drinker. He'd contracted hepatitis in Vietnam as an infantryman. He believed his exposure to Agent Orange was the cause. Meanwhile, Mickey Mantle also received two livers. He was a big drinker.

However, we're a long way from doing routine brain transplants.

You said:

"Both the liver and the brain in these cases, the *organs,* are diseased beyond the pale ... and the measure of treatment success is nothing grander than preventing or delaying an early death."

My aunt has been afflicted with schizophrenia since she was a young woman. She's now 85, medicated, but in declining health.

You said:

"If you're unlucky enough to come down with, say, schizophrenia and fail to get early treatment ... the future is not real bright."

Science still knows little about schizophrenia. Some drugs work for some people. Sometimes the drugs lose their effectiveness. In short, progress has been slow.

You said:

"And Cho's treatment was derailed by a system that had a high burden of proof to secure involuntary confinement (notice I'm not saying "poor Seung-hui"). This is a huge dilemma facing colleges like VA Tech that treat students as adults ... at the age when they're most likely to experience the onset of mental illness."

Schools have huge liability problems. A few years ago at Harvard, a woman committed suicide. She had contacted counselors at the school. Her parents sued because the school did not do enough to prevent the suicide. In another case at Harvard, a woman killed her room-mate. The parents again sued, claiming the school knew enough about the unstable student to have taken preventive measures.

In both cases the parents received settlements from Harvard. Cho's case appears clear cut. He instability was known. Based on the enormity of his crime and the school's awareness of his troubles, a big payout lies ahead.

You said:

"Sure, there are undoubtedly killers who have no trace of mental illness but instead act out of passion, greed, whatever..."

Those guys form a different class of killers.

You said:

"...but no one has disputed that Cho had a documented mental illness. So where's the quibble, exactly?"

This is key. People who are not crazy can reliably spot people who are well outside the realm of normal. The abnormal people are not all future Cho's, but profiling works. Keeping an eye on abnormal people benefits society.

You wrote:

"I'm acquainted with the family of a former bond trader who now lives in a cardboard box, someone who up and decided over a period of 3 months that baths, toothbrushing, and later the comforts of indoor housing were just not for him, let alone Wall St. bonuses. Sound like someone making choices in his "right" mind?"

Sounds schizophrenic to me. If he's become an urban camper, he's proof of the difficulty of imposing care that is "for his own good," as well as for the good of society.

[Justin K.]

Chris Likes to break up every thing people say in little chunks and undermined every little word people type. At first I thought he made some good points. How ever, after about 2 or 3 blogs I lost what little respect I had for him.

read back in to past blogs and see for your self.

[Justin K.]

hmmmm.......

[chris]

Justin, you wrote:

"Chris Likes to break up every thing people say in little chunks and undermined every little word people type."

Justin, people write comments that fail when examined. You can be sure that any well written statement stands up to a close look. But writing prose that holds together from start to finish is tough work. Most writers on blogs blurt out their thoughts without testing the validity of their own views.

Some people consider and think about the words they write. But even that doesn't mean they produce quality arguments. What's fascinating is the unintended irony infusing so many comments. Writers often have no idea how readers will interpret their words. Most are careless and use the wrong words or assume readers will understand some point that is anything but clear.

Moroever, some statements are matters of opinion. Some are matters of fact. But too often posters try to whip an opinion past readers as though it's a fact. Sometimes they don't know that's what they've done. Sometimes it's deliberate.

You wrote:

"At first I thought he made some good points. How ever, after about 2 or 3 blogs I lost what little respect I had for him."

Don't ever go to court represented by an attorney who has a casual relationship with words and your opponent's use of them. Also, don't expect to write anything for publication that isn't reviewed by an editor willing to demand changes.

[Justin K.]

ha ha ... Think you Chris for further demonstrating my point. But lets get back on track, I have not done to much research on the subject yet, but I remember the news showing a video of Cho as if he was talking to some one but he never said a name. Was he talking to some one or was he just speaking to the general public?

[Justin K.]

hmmm.....

[Anarcissie]

Justin: 'Chris Likes to break up every thing people say in little chunks and undermined every little word people type. ...'

It's a Usenet method. The idea is not to make a point or points but to totally destroy the "opponent". I suggest taking the good points, if any -- hardly anyone fails to make a good point now and then -- and forgetting the rest; it's just an exercise in petty domination.

[Kevin]

Chris, I can really sympathize with you here. I get the same type of reaction when arguing with my girlfriend: "Hey, I am just using my emotions in this argument so you are bringing me down with your sensible reasoning. Now Im going to take the focus off of my lack of ability to go toe to toe using logic."

[Justin K.]

oops....... What I said was not meant to take the focus off of the real topic. As interesting as Chris may or may not be. He did not just kill a large group of people. Lets get back to Cho!

[lc2]

Ha ha ... well said Justin.

Kevin, this is a longstanding tradition here on this forum ... how to keep chris from wresting all the fun and spontaneity from these discussions. And are you saying that every post except chris's is devoid of logic? Please. I could rip apart and cross-examine every post like a lawyer too ... but this is SUPPOSED to be fun and thought-provoking, not work or an attempt at producing iron-clad arguments. chris might not be a psychopath but his failure to read social cues, even in this cyber context, is pretty revealing of deeper probs. imo.

Back to the top, per Justin's request: I just heard a radio essay by a conservative commentator in which he blamed political correctness for this massacre. (To be fair, he made commments about our litigious society and lack of collective common sense that I agreed with).

But then (speaking as a former college administrator) he said that teachers and students were probably afraid to report Cho's bizarre behavior for fear of being labeled anti-Asian.

Hmmm... as I posted here before, I think the opposite was prob. the case, that b'c on the surface (stalking allegations aside) Cho lived up the "recent Asian immigrant" stereotype ... hardworking, stoic, minds his own business, etc. ... his actions were prob. chalked up to putting his work/school life before his social life. So I agree w/this commentator that racial stereotypes prob. played into Cho's path but not in the way he suggests.

There was a (lesser, in body counts) college massacre in New England in the mid-1990s ... Wayne Lo, a Chinese-American student killed 3 students, I believe. And I was reminded today that an adult Jamaican student was responsible for the Long Island Rail massacre, also in the 90s. So it seems that mass-killings in America are pretty racially diverse.

[Anarcissie]

I believe Cho _was_ noticed by various mental-health types. I don't think it's surprising that in a country of 300 million individuals, a few go off the rails now and then. Most who do probably do harm to themselves rather than someone else. In any case we can't lock everyone up just because they act funny or seem depressed or angry.

What is more curious is that of those who do appear to be off the rails, we elect so many to high office where they can do some serious damage. Cho killed 30-odd people; Bush and his crew may have killed 600,000 or more.

[chris]

Anarcissie, you wrote:

"What is more curious is that of those who do appear to be off the rails, we elect so many to high office where they can do some serious damage. Cho killed 30-odd people; Bush and his crew may have killed 600,000 or more."

What are you saying? We elect people by popular vote. Therefore, by extension, are you claiming the majority of voters are nuts if they elect a nut to office?

Moreover, by comparing Cho's body-count with what you believe is the Bush body-count, you are establishing the body-count as a measure of presidential fitness. Nice.

[Anarcissie]

chris: 'What are you saying? We elect people by popular vote. Therefore, by extension, are you claiming the majority of voters are nuts if they elect a nut to office?'

Could be. If you believe in democracy, you believe people can make a collective choice that is reasonable with reference to their needs and desires. So if they elect people who do and cause evil, and especially if they reelect these people, then they must be either (1) evil or (2) deranged or (3) not paying attention. And (3) is really (1) or (2) or both, because obviously paying attention is part of the deal with democracy.

What I intended by referring to Cho's body count versus Bush's was to draw attention to the curious fact that Cho and his type are supposed to be a tremendous problem necessitating radical changes in mental-health care (and enforcement) and possibly new gun control laws, whereas Bush and his type, who have seen off far, far more people, are just business as usual. Does that make sense?

[Monica]

Bush and Company are just exercising the right of the state and its representatives to dispose as they see fit of their subjects, which includes their life, body and property, whether by sending them to war, executing them, imprisoning them, committing them to a mental hospital, and so on.

This may not be so obvious nowadays because rulers, as well as things like criminal penalties (no more lashings and getting hanged for stealing a sheep) and even institutions like the army are supposed to be more humane. However, the individual was never as helpless before the state. In the past, the individual, with a little bit of luck and help or money, could run away where it was not possible or practical for the government to find him. In fact, in the more distant history, although that was more in Europe, some groups, such as Protestant cities in Catholic France, could be physically protected from the long arm of the law by the fortifications surrounding a city or large dwelling. Now, the state can find you anywhere, the individual is helpless, and most homes or their doors offer little protection.

So Bush is not doing anything new. He is just using the milder but wider power of the State to control the individual.

[Anarcissie]

True, we live in the total State, from which there is no escape. So are you saying people like a bit of mass violence as long as it's carried out collectively? Sort of like a slow-motion lynch mob? That does seem to be the way they vote most of the time. But then it's hard to figure out why they're so excited by Cho. Sure, it's Americans he killed, but Bush did that too, although not half a million of them (so far).

[lc2]

Anarcissie,

Let's not forget Hurricane Katrina ... Bush has the blood of those bloated, floating bodies on his hands too. It's truly shocking when you think about it ... like a nightmare.

I was just thinking the other day .... our gov't presumably has no official documentation (films, interviews, etc.) of Katrina for our nat'l archives. No, I'm not advancing a paranoid conspiracy theory here. I'm just pointing out that we will have no official historical record of that event aside from Spike Lee's documentary film. Maybe 5 or so administrations down the road we'll commission aimless bloggers to interview survivors/evacuees, like the former-slave interviews during the New Deal (same group, diff. century)?

Is it a bad sign that in 15 years .... our students won't know a thing about Katrina? I asked them recently what they knew about the Panama invasion and they looked at me blankly. They thought I was talking about the army's takeover of the canal during its constuction. Curiously, their contemporary US history book barely mentioned Panama in 1989. And when I say "barely," I mean one sentence. This in a class in which at least 3 students are planning to enlist in the armed services. They have no idea how capriciously this country gets involved in conflicts and forgets about them within months or weeks.

What kind of civilazation are we, anyway? It really begs the question: how civilized are we, period?

[chris]

lc2, you wrote, you wrote a comment I find staggering in its range and inaccuracy of its accusations and conclusions. Really a stunner:

"Let's not forget Hurricane Katrina ... Bush has the blood of those bloated, floating bodies on his hands too. It's truly shocking when you think about it ... like a nightmare."

Yes. He called in a hurricane to destroy part of a city and drive out half its population, which is heavily black.

If you were asked to describe a fictional US city whose citizens were dangerously exposed to violent acts of nature, where would you expect to find that city and what characteristics would it have?

New Orleans has two-hundred year history of holding back the tide. The levee system has NEVER been adequate. But it took until Katrina to send a barge into one of the levees with the force to smash through it and flood the Lower Ninth Ward.

What you and most others seem to willfully overlook is the real rescue efforts that occurred during the storm. The serious rescue efforts were not reported because reporters got nowhere near the sites where Coast Guard rescue teams operated.

However, after it was all over, the coverage began to appear.

Here in NY City, I've noticed the appearance of new signs designating certain roads as "Flood Evacuation Routes".

This is funny and grim at once. If a huge storm hit NYC and flooded the low-lying sections, I'd stick around, not evacuate. Attempts to evacuate NYC would fail. Too many cars, not enough roads. But because no parts of the city, except the subway system, below sea level, the only people likely to drown are homeless people caught in tunnels.

Anyway, it's way too clear that New Orleans suffered because the government of N.O. and the government of Louisiana chose to spend available capital on projects other than levees repair and maintenance. The president doesn't micromanage spending.

You wrote:

"I was just thinking the other day .... our gov't presumably has no official documentation (films, interviews, etc.) of Katrina for our nat'l archives."

Do you think the government sends out official federal photographers to record weather catastrophes? Or any other event?

Recall that the only close coverage of the Kennedy assassination is the Zapruder film, shot by a local guy with his Super-8 movie camera.

Are you thinking the federal government should keep the film rolling 24/7 everywhere just in case something big happens?

You said:

"I'm just pointing out that we will have no official historical record of that event aside from Spike Lee's documentary film."

When did Spike Lee start working as a government journalist? Spike Lee does not film documentaries. He is a feature film maker who has one major plot line: Everyone with power is corrupt to the point of being driven by evil.

There's little difference between Spike Lee and Michael Moore.

That aside, what do you mean by "official record"?

Meanwhile, the official record comprises all the information gathered after the fact. Like the Warren Commission. The 9/11 Commission. The Starr Report, etc.

With respect to a weather catastrophe, well, I think you can count on the existence of vast quantities of recorded news coverage, both print and video. Better may be the stories told by people who were trapped in New Orleans who proved capable of giving accurate accounts of their personal experience.

We learned the mayor of N.O. is a sucker for wild and crazy stories, the less credible the better, especially when the stories involve blacks purportedly murdering children in the Super Dome.

In any case, there is so much coverage and documentation of Katrina it would fill vast quantities of storage space, virtual and real.

You claimed:

"Maybe 5 or so administrations down the road we'll commission aimless bloggers to interview survivors/evacuees, like the former-slave interviews during the New Deal (same group, diff. century)?"

Are you kidding? This has become a business. People in N.O.. were blogging away real-time. I have relatives there. I was watching the blog action for information on their neighborhood. I knew they were safe. But I didn't know how their homes fared. There's endless records of commentary available from people who lived through it all.

You wrote:

"Is it a bad sign that in 15 years .... our students won't know a thing about Katrina?"

They'll know whatever their teachers ask them to study. But you are attempting to change the teaching of history. Since when have big storms been part of history class? Perhaps, in this case, the storm is relevant because it proved the vulnerability of N.O. residents and we will see that it prompted a big change in the politics of the otherwise buffoonish government running that incredibly corrupt city.

You said:

"I asked them recently what they knew about the Panama invasion and they looked at me blankly."

Try the Korean War. Their response may be the same. But why would they know about this relatively minor military expedition of the US? Most adults have forgotten it. But there's plenty of information about it on the internet.

You wrote:

"Curiously, their contemporary US history book barely mentioned Panama in 1989. And when I say "barely," I mean one sentence."

Based on your earlier indictment of the Bush administration and your belief that it has not made an "official record" of the Katrina debacle, it seems to me you think the US government is responsible for writing history texts.

The weakness of this history book, if, in fact the exclusion of the Panama battle is a weakness, is the result of the historian, the publisher, and perhaps the people on the board of education who decided to purchase this text. Who's to blame?

You wrote:

"This in a class in which at least 3 students are planning to enlist in the armed services."

Any of the three heading to West Point, Annapolis or the Air Force Academy?

You said:

"They have no idea how capriciously this country gets involved in conflicts and forgets about them within months or weeks."

Is this ignorance the result of public-school education? Lousy textbooks? Limited acquaintences with members or former members of the US military?

They probably don't know calculus either. But schools don't force that course on every student. Anyway, how much knowledge can students absorb in a short period, and what knowledge is most important?

You wondered:

"What kind of civilazation are we, anyway?"

We are the most complicated civilization in history.

You said:

"It really begs the question: how civilized are we, period?"

Depends on whom you ask. The cracked-pot leader of Iran and I would give different answers.

[lc2]

Ha ha chris ... nice try, but I'm not taking the bait!!! Good effort though. Maybe eventually you will rile me enough to respond, but not today!

Cheers!

[Justin K.]

good for you lc2 for standing your ground.

In my job I see a lot of bad things via photographs. Things like racist killing. And death because of war. I am one of the people that archive both photographs and video in a national archive. Go to

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/

and type in "Hurricane Katrina" and click search. There are about 1000 photograph's taken by the military during the time of Katrina. I think there is more but you have to call and ask for them. The web page wont have the photo's of injured or dead people on it. But that to could be ordered if the government approves the release of the photographs to you.

[Matt Dioguardi]

Thomas Szasz has commented on this issue himself.

Here is the link:
http://www.fee.org/in_brief/default.asp?id=1257

[chris]

Justin, you wrote:

"In my job I see a lot of bad things via photographs. Things like racist killing."

Could you be more specific? What race were the killers and what race were the victims?

You wrote:

"Go to http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/
and type in "Hurricane Katrina" and click search."

I did. There are 884 photos. Most appear to be public relations shots. Some show the destruction. But most show smiling soldiers about to provide aid to the people. Virtually every shot is taken on bright sunny days well after Katrina had passed.

I think photos taken by the press and by individuals who remained through the storm cover much more of the story and cover it far better.

No matter what, the photographic and text archives of this event are with us forever. Anyone who chooses to become a student of urban planning for mass evacuation has a lifetime of data to study thanks to Katrina and the boobs in charge of Louisiana and New Orleans.

[Justin K.]

Yes Chris it is true that the government is keeping the bad photos off the web page. That’s because it’s a public domain. Or that’s the answer given to me. I would call that censorship. The photos of deaths are not released to the public. You know how the government works. There only going to give you the good parts.

As for the race of the killers and the victims. Well that depends. In what case. There are the black killed by a mob of KKK. Then there are white people killed by black people. The Mexican killing the……you get the point. Right now I see a lot of photos of people getting killed in the name of war. I think we should put the death photos on the web page. But it’s not my call.

You said “No matter what, the photographic and text archives of this event are with us forever.” That was the point I was trying to make. Thx for the help.

[theresa]

The other problem associated with Cho:

The Cops Come Only When You're Dead

http://www.counterpunch.org/liddell04272007.html

[Monica]

The relatives of people featured in the "photos of death" (and the dead people themselves, as human dignity also applies to human remains) have the right not to be featured on the Internet in their after-death condition, or not to have their relatives' pictures there. How would you feel if someone who knows you told you that s/he recognized one of your relatives in a terrible-looking corpse shown for everybody to see?

But the real reason not to show such pictures is that nowadays, death has become the kind of taboo that sex and reproductive functions used to be.

Once upon a time, death was more common and more likely to happen in the individual's own home. Animals, too, were seen dying, and there were public executions. But then, sex was supposed to be a secret revealed after marriage, and better-informed people had to fake ignorance in polite society while everybody could see death, often prominently showcased on a raised platform.

Now, it's the opposite. Sex is everywhere, but the great fake mystery is how exactly people disappear from the face of the Earth, since few people actually get to see that happen.

[Justin K.]

The question: “How would you feel if someone who knows you told you that s/he recognized one of your relatives in a terrible-looking corpse shown for everybody to see?”

You make a good point Monica. I don’t know how I would feel. Just because it never happened to me before. However I tell ever one I know, “If my rotting corps can some how be used as art then give me to an artist.” And now that I think about it …… If I where killed I would want every one to see my beaten and dead body. I would want people to see what we do to each other. The other day I was working on a bunch of photos shot in Iraq. They where of little kids who got caught in the cross fire. When you see photos of infants with missing limbs and covered in 3ed degree burns. Lets just say people need to see what we do to each other.

Oh … I could have gone my whole life with out some one comparing death and sex. Thanks a lot!

[Monica]

Well, it's not that sex is like death. It's just that in the past, people were more prudish about sex than about death and severe physical pain, whereas now, it's the other way around.

[Justin K.]

ha ha ha

[Vietnam travel]

Your post's very good. I like it.
-----------------------
http://www.vietnam-travelinfo.com/

[Jessica]

I have suffered from disabling depression for more than 30 years. The cause is apparently genetic as it has afflicted my family for at least 3 generations. I don't know what happened in the family before that.

Thomas Szasz, in my opinion, was both right and wrong.

He is wrong about the ultimate causes of mental illness. There is too much work in brain imaging showing neurological differences in the brains of mentally ill people to argue that mental illness is a non-entity, a moral problem, or a social construct.

He is, however, exactly correct in what happens to people once they enter the mental health system. The system is designed to assess and increase the degree of conformity to social norms and not to relieve the suffering patients feel.

It seems that right now those of us struggling with psychiatric problems must find our own answers. With a few wonderful individual exceptions, the mental health profession is not a helping profession but an apparatus of social control.

[Monica]

Some of the neurological differences may actually be due to the harmful effects of medication or electroshock therapy. The studies cannot be valid unless those people were never "treated" (effects may last forever or for a long time). Also, there are differences, such as the changes that make learning a foreign language very hard after a certain age, that can actually be an advantage (actually, in this example, the advantage is if they do NOT happen, because they are supposed to happen). A brain that remains more "immature" by not undergoing those changes (or not on time/completely) remains able to learn almost as easily as in childhood when the individual is supposed to be too old for that. Or a "genius" such as a scientist or a great artist may well have a brain that does not look normal, or maybe that was the case and it was not possible to find yet, due to the state of technology at the time.

[green tea review]

Not much on my mind lately, but that's how it is. My life's been dull these days, but such is life. I haven't been up to much recently.

[cigarette boat for sale]

Restrict every household to 60 gallon can on trash a week

[beer heineken layout myspace]

People should be allowed to go naked in certain recreational areas only

[kelly blue book automobile]

Uno spazio per dire la vostra sull'operato del governo e dell'opposizione.

[angeles book los store used]

I can't be bothered with anything lately. Such is life. Basically nothing seems worth thinking about. I've just been staying at home not getting anything done. I haven't been up to anything today, but oh well. I haven't gotten much done lately.

[bulk candy chocolate]

Prayer in public schools are wrong, not wrong

[vinyl tote bag]

I feel like a fog, not that it matters. I've pretty much been doing nothing , but eh. Today was a loss. I haven't gotten much done for a while.

[cat suit pic]

I can't be bothered with anything recently. I've just been sitting around doing nothing. Today was a loss. I just don't have much to say. Nothing seems worth thinking about.

[car hire perth]

I haven't been up to much recently, but whatever. I just don't have much to say lately. Basically nothing happening to speak of. So it goes. My mind is like a complete blank. Such is life.

[homer simpsons dad]

Males should be allowed to go shirtless at home only - Or vary with places for another persuasive speech topic

[casino gambling guide]

Children in ... fill in the nation of your choice ... are living better

[bed frame poster]

Sex offenders should be, should not be castrated

[dealer discount tire]

An integrated, segregated society is better

[attorney florida orlando real estate]

More or less nothing seems important. It's not important. Shrug. Whatever. I've just been hanging out doing nothing, but eh. I can't be bothered with anything lately.

[2 b tourist visa]

Agree with a flat tax system

[100 free condom]

My life's been basically boring recently. I've basically been doing nothing to speak of. That's how it is. I just don't have much to say recently. Oh well.

[arrangement bridal flower perfect wedding]

I can't be bothered with anything lately. Such is life. Basically nothing seems worth thinking about. I've just been staying at home not getting anything done. I haven't been up to anything today, but oh well. I haven't gotten much done lately.