Thursday, October 8, 2015

"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" Here's a Thought, post blog 10.8.2015

Hey there thoughters!  I hope you watched my show from today, October 8th with the theme of "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" and if you missed it, you can watch the show in the archives at this link:  HERE'S A THOUGHT 10.8

It was fun having my mum on as my special guest.  I thought she did great!  



After you watch the episode, post in the comments section below on anything you want to from today's episode, even if you disagree with me!  

THEN    . . .

Be sure and pick YOUR 6 people that you would choose to have in the BRAINS TRUST THINK TANK to SAVE the World!! That was my "What If?" question for all of you.  If you could pick 6 people to all get together and put them in a room to hash out the problems we are all facing now, who would it be and why?  

Let me hear your thoughts . . .
Charlie

28 comments:

  1. Charlie I said your special guest would be your Mum

    ReplyDelete
  2. What a wonderful show! It was a delightful surprise to see your Mom as his special guest. She was great and looked amazing! It must have been interesting meeting The Beatles way back in the early years of their success! So cool!
    Watching today's show, reminds me why I became a fan of Charlie. It was because, for the most part, reading his blog right from when he started writing it, was like seeing a lot of my own thoughts put into words! Today, it was true again!

    I loved the clip from Network, and I do feel it applies to how a lot of us feel nowadays. I think that people have to get angry before they will do something. The challenge is to get more people to care enough to get angry! To turn off their reality TV and get in touch with reality!!

    Though I think I have said enough on Trump, I have to begrudgingly admit that he has done us a service by running, even if it is just to highlight the kind of person we do NOT want to run our country!

    Then we have the gun issue! Such a difficult problem here in the US. I do not understand the need or desire some people have to own a gun, but it is their right under the constitution, and that is not going to change. We do, however need to accept that more has to be done to keep guns out of the wrong hands. We, as a nation, are failing miserably. There has to be tougher restrictions on owning guns. Getting a license to own a gun should be harder than getting a license to drive a car! I think a data base containing everyone who has been diagnosed with mental illness is a great idea. Any form of mental illness should bar a person from owning a gun. Perhaps it should be taken even further, and people convicted of a violent crime should be added to it. The problem is, of course, so many people go undiagnosed, until it is too late! This is where families and teachers need to step up!

    Now to my selection of my Super 6! It would be wonderful if a group of super smart people could form a 'Think Tank' and solve the problems of the world. They would have to put religion, race and nationalism aside and see the world ad a 'global community '. I have been thinking hard on who my 6 would be! Both Charlie and Janelle had great choices. I think you would need a mixture of intellect, morality and business acumen. That being said, here are my choices-
    1. Warren Buffett
    2. Pope Francis
    3. Neil deGrasse Tyson
    4. Stephen Hawking
    5. The Dalai Lama
    6. Richard Branson
    Thanks for another interesting and thought provoking show I thoroughly enjoyed it! Looking forward to next week!

    ReplyDelete
  3. loved the show today the best every i have 6 people for that room but have to write them down two i like to have is you bill gates corey jenking trump the pope charlie and me how about that why who else would would do better them us ...i can;t think of anyone else would be this good looking forward next show ,

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have a mental illness and I think they are awful hat you say had we Inherent killers because I am a huge fan and have suffered in May half to death by the nanny and akurat purchased the new out givelsen of the nanny and the thar 32 days and get it to Norway. but inconspicuous åper you Senner a personal apology for this is very sore

    sorry typo has dyslexia too

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh my word, your mum is just darling Charlie! How fun to "meet" her finally after seeing your photos of her all of these years. Haven't heard the name "Mary Quant" in AGES! I hope she's enjoying her visit with all of you.
    I did LOL though...on the blog following your first HaT of this season, I posted this: " and to quote Peter Finch "they're mad as hell and not going to take it any more" ". Great minds, and all that. Amazing though, that movie was made in 1976, I was a senior in high school. Almost 40 yrs later, and Chayefsky's words still apply as if they were written this morning.
    OK....the gun issue. I was very pleased to hear you say that you wanted to allow responsible people to keep their guns. That was a fascinating discussion I read on Huffington Post ("Where are the Moderate Gun Owners"), with commenters saying that they are bleeding heart progressive liberals, but will not even discuss the issue without an iron-clad promise that confiscation of all guns is not the "real" agenda. I struggle with the patient privacy for mental illness though. Will people be less likely to seek help, if they know it will be put in some data-base to be used against them some day(and not just for gun purchases)? And the truly psychotic (many or most of whom have schizophrenia) are paranoid. They don't seek help because they don't think they need it, and because they don't trust doctors who will "poison them" with pills. But we definitely need stricter background checks and closing loopholes for gun shows. It's a mess and I think that it may be too late, the cow is out of the barn.
    As for my 6 people, that was hard!! There are so many issues in the world, if you come up with an expert in each...it's a long list!! So I tried to come up with some who are "different" to be mixed with others' lists. 1) Like Janelle, my first thought was Malala. She is just so amazing. Religion is such an issue today, I'd have 3 people who can speak for the 3 main faiths. Instead of the Pope, I'd have 2)Billy Graham, because, well....I agree with him LOL. 3)Shimon Peres who is a more moderate voice for Israel, and 4) Queen Rana of Jordan. She not only speaks for moderate Islam, but lives in the region and understands the workings of radical Islam. She also brings a lot to the table regarding human rights, etc. #5 would be Henry Kissinger, as someone with a lot of experience in negotiation and world issues. And the sixth would be Åsa Skogström Feldt. I'll fess up...I had to google that one. I feel that world hunger is just so important, so I looked for a well-rated world hunger program, then put the president on my list. She is Pres/CEO of "The Hunger Project".

    ReplyDelete
  6. Loved the show!! Your mum is so precious, such a refined lady!!
    Gun Issue - There are many, many responsible gun owners who take responsibility for their "weapons". My brother has rifles in his house because he belongs to a skeet shooting club, but they are always locked up in a gun safe in a closet. He doesn't have young children/adults in the house any longer but still locks them up with the ammunition.

    There are always going to be illegal guns on the streets from gun runners that cross state lines and know the areas to target for buyers. Just by word of mouth anyone can buy a gun in a heartbeat. Guns are stolen everyday from homes and businesses, and, of course, land in the wrong hands. Your right, to get a license is a joke, even at stores and gun shows. How much of a background check do they really do; do they do fingerprinting and run through the local law enforcement and FBI files? Doubt it.

    Mental Health Issue - It would be a nearly impossible and monumental job to have a national database as you suggest. Because of the strict HIPPA laws it would be an invasion of people's privacy to put them into such a base. I worked for a mental health and substance abuse facility for 15 years and it was always stressed privacy, privacy, privacy. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of people who are not getting services for their disabilities. We covered a four county area and I can't even begin to tell you all the "new" clients we got each day that were living in the community without services. Every time someone new came in they were assigned a medical record number and it was endless. Whether they came in via voluntary, family or Baker Acted by police or other medical facilities, we treated them, We had five inpatient units from short-term to long-term, including a children's unit. They left with treatment plans and follow-up appointments. Unfortunately, you cannot demand they follow through with treatment, unless through a court order, and even then they do not. It's a revolving door system. They take their meds, follow treatment and when they feel better they stop and end up back in the system again. Mental Health and Substance Abuse are very low on the budget when it comes to funding. Our CEO was always in Tallahassee, FL asking for money but they kept cutting funding.

    There are those who DO follow their treatments, and should they be denied a license to drive, absolutely not. Many, many lead very productive lives. It may sometimes be just needing to find the right meds or treatment.

    For the six people - 1) The Pope, because of the inspiration he gives whether you are Catholic or not; 2) Malala Yousafzai, because of the struggles she endured and never gave up her desire for education and to inspire other young women; 3) Warren Buffet, because he is just so brilliant; 4) someone from the National Center for Children in Poverty because 1/3 of children are presently living in poverty; 5) Ashton Carter, Secretary of Defense, because we need to keep our military strong and give them what they need to do their jobs; 6) James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence (yes I looked him up), because we need better relations throughout Europe and the Middle East.

    I am not a fan of Donald, but isn't it great that he got people talking??!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. It was great to meet your mother, Charlie. I'm glad she was able and willing to come on as your special guest.
    Starting with Trump, he is a non-example of a politician. He is an entertainer and that's what he is trying to do in a political forum. It's an example of the way we wait until things get to an extreme before deciding to take action, going to a completely different extreme. The political outcasts Charlie talked about are at an extreme level of frustration with politicians in general. Trump's taking it to an opposite extreme by pretending to be a politician. He is acting out the part of the polar opposite of a politician.
    However, it's not fully accurate to say that he appeals to the outcast crowd. Speaking as a political outcast, I see him as a businessman turned entertainer who is now trying to pretend he's a politician by being louder and more offensive than anyone else. He's taking the "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore" attitude to the extreme because he knows that what's many Americans want want in the news headlines. As a political outcast, I often get so frustrated with everything related to politicians that I throw my hands in the air and say forget about it because of people from both extremes doing nothing but bickering, fault finding and finger pointing. I often grow weary of politicians who try to schmooze their way into everyone's favor. That's what Trump is trying to capitalize on, no matter how much we can see through his act because it's the opposite extreme of where we currently stand and he is willing to do anything possible to prove he isn't a politician. Instead he acts as the "Angry and Offensive Anti-Politician". But he still doesn't represent the political outcasts, at least not for me.
    Now to gun control. Do we need to have tighter control on guns within the country? Yes. Should we take away all guns from every single citizen? No, and I don't think we could if we tried. Is a database a good idea to keep track of people diagnosed with mental illnesses? Yes, however, I will make a counter argument to the concept that every person EVER diagnosed with ANY mental illness should be prevented from owning a gun. Under that logic, one of my friends who was diagnosed with postpartum depression after she and her husband had their last child because her body chemistry was completely out of whack would not be able to own a gun.  She was treated with medications to train her body to have the right chemistry again, and has not since had any signs of any mental health issues. That was over ten years ago. She and her husband later divorced because of his violent temper, though he'd never been convicted of a violent crime. Because of his temper, and a fear for the safety of her kids, she purchased a gun, which she keeps stored safely away from kids. At one point, her ex lost his temper and posed a threat to them. Having the gun ready to use, which luckily she only had to show him, was the only thing that kept him from harming either her or the kids. Again, he was not charged with a violent crime. Based on "no one ever diagnosed with a mental illness should ever be able to own a gun", my friend would not own the one thing that kept her family safe. Yet, even if it were to include the idea that anyone charged with a violent crime could not own a gun, he, with his violent temper, could. 
    The database concept would be a step in the right direction, but saying no one with any mental illness in their background at all could ever own a gun, would be too much of the kind of extreme reaction to an extreme situation I referenced before. Perhaps a clause that allowed for people who have proven to not have any continual problems with mental health for x number of years, and do not currently require medication, could be effective. If there is any kind of relapse, then it becomes a different discussion.
    I'm still working on the Big 6 question.

    ReplyDelete
  8. OK...I hear you loud and clear! What I said about mental illness was outrageous in it's brevity and lack of empathy. Let me try to explain myself.
    There HAS to be a change in our position on GUNS :who should be able to purchase them and how easily they should be able to do so. I understand the opposition of those who hold the 2nd. Amendment in high regard. All our Amendments should be taken very seriously. The 2nd. Amendment, is, however, very clear in it's intent, which is laid out in the first few words. It is to ensure the "readiness" of a citizen army of militia in case of external or internal threat. It has nothing to say about how we, the society, should regulate the distribution of those arms, so long as the right to raise a militia is not infringed. Clearly what has been happening recently in America has had NOTHING to do with a militia. Guns, with the potential for mass destruction, have been finding themselves in the hands of individuals who should not be afforded that right. Even where background checks have been done, they have been half-hearted at best, sloppy most of the time. That said, there need also be an attempt to define and identify individuals who have shown a "potential" for this kind of violence. What is also clear is that most of the recent murderers HAD shown noted and documented signs of violent behavior/ threatening behavior and speech/ extreme racist or bigoted opinions..and, in many cases,symptoms of psychiatric illness. The issue of psychiatric illness is one of the biggest we face in our delicate society today. Since the 80s, many of the federally funded institutions that helped the mentally ill have been defunded or closed. Insurance companies often refuse to accept a diagnosis as grounds for coverage. There is a social stigma that drives many sufferers "into the closet" where they feel isolated, ignored and irrelevant. Of course, none of this "creates" a mass murderer BUT it is becoming clear, at the same time, that a mass murderer like those that we have been witnessing lately, angry, unheard, violent, conscience-less, has a mathematical probability of coming from the ranks of those untreated, undiagnosed, unrecognized sufferers. What I AM saying is that a.) we need to take mental illness seriously, as seriously as we take cancer or AIDS. b.) we need to have an over-haul of the institutions and personnel that treat these diseases. c. ) back-ground checks, prior to the purchase of firearms should include this medical history as a possible criterion for refusal, not as a stigma, but as a reasonable preventative. IF there is a history of mental illness that could exhibit violent, anti-social behavior it should preclude gun purchase. A history of domestic abuse or violence should also preclude gun purchase. That is NOT EQUATING the two, any more than refusing a driver's licence because of repeated DUIs should not be equated with refusal because of bad eyesight. Clearly this is a HUGE subject and deserved a far more thoughtful and sensitive opener than I gave it. I apologize to Kim-Alexander and the many good people that I inadvertently hurt and insulted: it was never my intention to do so. Both Mental Health and Guns are big issues and should not be conflated despite the obvious overlaps.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for clarifying. And now, I can say okay, I can agree with you on the fact that something needs to be done about the ease with which people, mental illness or not, are able to acquire guns designed specifically for mass destruction and killing. That's where the biggest fallacy in the current system lies.The phrase that many people often want to gloss over in the second amendment is that it should be "well regulated" militia, meaning there have to be regulations and strict rules or we end up in chaos. We are obviously not talking about taking everyone's guns away. We are talking about the fact that regulations need to be changed and enforced. The background checks are obviously not enough, since mass shootings are becoming a common occurrence in the news. And it's not enough that we simply say that we "send thoughts and prayers to the victims' families" because, in the end, that doesn't do much. Moral support can really only go so far when it can't change the tragedy. Guns need to be more difficult to come by for everyone, no matter their mental state, abilities or health. The citizen's militia needs to be far better regulated. The rules should apply across the board, not just to one group or another. I will also very much agree that mental health needs to be taken more seriously within the U.S. So many people with mental illnesses feel marginalized simply because it's an illness that often has no outward signs and people who have never had to deal with mental health difficulties have a difficulty in understanding mental illness. Part of the requirements for anyone wishing to purchase a gun should be to prove that they don't have any history or propensity for violence. A medical component could be useful, though it could violate privacy laws if not done properly. A medical approval could easily be a component, however, as long as the medical information is kept strictly between doctor and patient. A sign off by a doctor in the application process could allow the doctor to decline based on concerns over the applicants mental health with regards to owning a gun. It would also allow for a fluid process that could deny gun purchase only until sufficient mental health requirements are met by the applicant. An additional component of the background check could also include something as simple as getting a number of letters of reference, from reputable sources, for the individual's character and history, verifying that they are not predisposed to violent and hateful speech or behaviors.These kinds of letters are acceptable, and often required, for people to apply for jobs, so I can't see why it couldn't be a requirement for purchasing a gun. Thank you for your clarification. Blanket descriptions rarely ever fit 100%. While both mental health and gun regulation need to be considered, as well as the overlap, they are two different subjects that should only considered together with regards to the overlap.

      Delete
  9. First of all, thank you for another great Here`s A Thought! It was lovely meeting your mum, what a lovely lady she seems to be. Hope she enjoys her visit with you and your family.
    I don`t usually share my thoughts on topics like this on your blog. It feels wrong somehow, discussing, maybe even criticizing American laws or politics, when I live in this small, cold country on the other side of the world. I didn`t want to keep my mouth shot this time, I wanted to be more than just a passive observer sneak reading the blogs and following the discussions from the side line.
    Owning guns may be, as you say, in the “DNA of America”, but I get chills when people say things like “I have one cause it`s my right”, or “it`s for my own protection”. Even though it`s not fair to categorize all people with mental illness as potential threats, I do also believe they should not own a gun. I have my reasons for saying that. This summer I lost a friend who ended his own life by shooting himself, leaving behind two young children. I work with mentally ill teenagers, I see every day what a struggle it is for some of them to go on living, when all they want is to end their life to stop the hurting! In 2011 I saw my friend bury her brother who was shot and killed, along with 60 other teenagers at a political youth camp outside Oslo. We now know the killer had mental issues from a very early age, but society didn`t consider him a threat cause he kept mostly to himself, studied hard and appeared “normal”! This was however the first mass-shooting in Norway since WW2. Why?
    In order to own a gun in Norway, you have to be at least 21. First you have to apply to the local police, they do a background check. If you get cleared, the approval takes six months. If you get a yes you will need a medical exam, approval by a doctor. If you pass that, you have to attend both a theoretical course, study for an exam, then pass the practical course.
    “For my own protection”, or “it`s my right” is not on the list for why you should be able to have a gun. Hunting, sports (in this case you have to be approved by a public pistol club) or in the line of duty ( police and security only).
    The black marked is of course a different story, harder to control, but by making it harder to legally own a gun, you do eliminate some potential killers. We haven`t had a single no school shooting here, and the police has not shot and killed a single person in the last 15 years. In my mind, that means we are doing something right. Not all people with a mental illness is a threat! Of course not, but ask yourself this: If you knew the boy down the street had a mental issue, minor or serious, would you trust him with a gun around you child? I know I wouldn`t!

    ReplyDelete
  10. First of all, thank you for another great Here`s A Thought! It was lovely meeting your mum, what a lovely lady she seems to be. Hope she enjoys her visit with you and your family.

    I don`t usually share my thoughts on topics like this on your blog. It feels wrong somehow, discussing, maybe even criticizing American laws or politics, when I live in this small, cold country on the other side of the world. I didn`t want to keep my mouth shut this time, I wanted to be more than just a passive observer sneak reading the blogs and following the discussions from the side line.

    Owning guns may be, as you say, in the “DNA of America”, but I get chills when people say things like “I have one cause it`s my right”, or “it`s for my own protection”. Even though it`s not fair to categorize all people with mental illness as potential threats, I do also believe they should not own a gun. I have my reasons for saying that. This summer I lost a friend who ended his own life by shooting himself, leaving behind two young children. I work with mentally ill teenagers, I see every day what a struggle it is for some of them to go on living, when all they want is to end their life to stop the hurting! In 2011 I saw my friend bury her brother who was shot and killed, along with 60 other teenagers at a political youth camp outside Oslo. We now know the killer had mental issues from a very early age, but society didn`t consider him a threat because he kept mostly to himself, studied hard and appeared “normal”! This was however the first mass-shooting in Norway since WW2. Why?

    In order to own a gun in Norway, you have to be at least 21. First you have to apply to the local police, they do a background check. If you get cleared, the approval takes six months. If you get a yes you will need a medical exam, approval by a doctor. If you pass that, you have to attend both a theoretical course, study for an exam, then pass the practical course.

    “For my own protection”, or “it`s my right” is not on the list for why you should be able to have a gun. Hunting, sports (in this case you have to be approved by a public pistol club) or in the line of duty ( police and security only).

    The black market is of course a different story, harder to control, but by making it harder to legally own a gun, you do eliminate some potential killers. We haven`t had a single school shooting here, and the police have not shot and killed a single person in the last 15 years. In my mind, that means we are doing something right. Not all people with a mental illness are a threat! Of course not, but ask yourself this: If you knew the boy down the street had a mental issue, minor or serious, would you trust him with a gun around your child? I know I wouldn`t!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly my point Janne! It should be as hard as possible to get a license to own a gun. And to answer your question, no I would not!

      Delete
    2. I've been trying to think of how to explain the concept that gun ownership in the United States is a part of the country's DNA and why some people feel the need to claim it as a right because they feel the need for their own safety. It goes back to the attempts to completely disarm the people before the establishing of the country. The concept was to keep the citizens from using guns to defend themselves against the government that, in turn would often use force to keep people in submission. That makes it a symbol, for many, of independence and patriotism. As for personal protection, it starts with the idea that the colonists needed to protect themselves against oppressing governmental and militant forces and has evolved into a feeling today feel that it's the best way to protect oneself against the criminal element who have been able to get guns with so much ease. Not everybody feels this way today, but many people do because of the way it has been a part of the country's culture from it's infancy. The biggest problem is that, even though the right says we are allowed to own guns, it also says it should be well regulated, but the regulations currently in place actually make it fairly easy to legally purchase guns. People are actually able to legally buy high powered rifles simply under the pretense that it's their right. That's not how it should be. Sure, allow people to have guns, but it shouldn't be as easy to get them legally. It may be a cultural difference in understanding the concept of it being an American's right to own a gun, but the ease with which guns can be legally bought in the United States is a huge problem that doesn't require any cultural understanding. When it comes to your question, I will turn it into a different question. Is the boy down the street being treated with the dignity and respect that he deserves as a human being? Is he being offered the support services and treatment options he needs? Has he been taught and shown the value of human life to keep him from being marginalized within society?.If the answer to any of these, is no, then the problem is not simply him having a gun in his hands, because he could just as easily turn something other than a gun into a weapon and attack another child or a group of children. If all he's seeing is that way someone with a mental illness can get the attention he needs is by violently attacking others, then the problem goes beyond him having a gun in his hands, since some of the horrible attacks we have seen in the country's history have not involved guns at all. Every time there's attack like this, there is an immediate outcry for reform in the way mental health issues are treated, but that outcry dies down far too quickly.

      Delete
    3. Thank you Becky, for explaining the reasoning behind having guns in America(protection against a tyrannical government). That said...the term "well-regulated" is in dispute. Does it mean "the guns must be regulated" or "the militias must be well-ordered, disciplined, trained"? The word "regulated" MAY mean "a clock is well-regulated". I find it hard to believe that the Founding Fathers, fearful of government tyranny, would have written a "right" that says the government can control the guns! At the same time, I don't think they could have imagined the level of weaponry we would have today, or that private citizens would have them. In those times, having a gun at home was the norm. If we are going to complain about the corruption in our government(and the outcries of many anti-gun proponents to confiscate them all...a minority, but a LOUD one), there is definitely a feeling of "government out of control" in the nation. Even moderate, common-sense gun owners are hesitant to give an inch, for fear that the government will take a mile. We are living in a very frightening and chaotic world, where people who would have never considered owning a gun, are thinking about it. But as we've all said...it should not be EASY to get a gun, and I think many of us are just realizing now how lax the background checks are. We just 'assumed' it was more strict. I had to provide my vet's name and TWO character references, plus wait a week....to adopt a cat. Sounds like it's easier to get a gun...sigh.
      Now the harder issues, mental illness. Marianne's reply was so informative.....privacy, privacy, privacy added to the patient's "right" to not take medication. I have had to deal with this issue with a close family member(not violent, praise God)....and it's a nightmare. It is VERY hard to convince doctors of what you are seeing at home(espec. if the patient is denying it), and they must want/need to seek help. Remember, this person is not thinking clearly, but you're going to "rationally show them" that they have an illness and need to see a doctor?! Good luck with that. And as Marianne said, if you CAN do that(or if they feel badly enough to finally seek help, usually after family members are ready to poke their eyes out with a stick)...they very often stop taking medication because they "feel fine" or they don't like the side effects, or the side effects are so bad they need to keep trying new meds. It's a nightmare to live and it's heart-breaking to watch a loved one suffer. I think it's really hard for people to comprehend the "system", and how saying "we need to get help for people with mental illness". It's not easy, the patients are adults, and the illness itself denies there is a problem. Add the stigma to that, and it's even harder.

      Delete
    4. The phrase "well regulated" is definitely one of the biggest components in the current debate. As you said, Jo, a small but very loud extremist group who feel that, since we don't actively have to have militias at this point in the country's history, all guns should be banned from the private citizens. At the same time, there is a very small, but equally loud, faction of the pro-gun advocates who fear that the government will come in and try to take away all of their guns and revoke the second amendment completely and are therefore taking the knee jerk reaction in the opposite extreme of saying they had to pass a background check and have to follow certain rules because they aren't allowed to carry weapons in certain places or in certain ways so there really doesn't need to be any more regulations.The majority of people, however, even many gun advocates, simply feel that the regulations need to be tightened, particularly regarding the acquisition of guns. Most people of moderate opinions fit into the group that says that the current regulations are not functioning on the level that they should in order to keep powerful guns out of hands that should not have them.
      I have also seen the struggle of someone you love facing mental health issues and the struggles and difficulties experienced in trying to convince someone with severe depression that they need help. It takes many people a long time to determine that something is not right with the way they think or the way they react to different situations. If they do start treatments, and then begin to feel "normal" again, they stop treatment in the same way the we stop treatment if we have the flu and start feeling better. We can't obligate people with any illness to accept treatment, especially when they know the stigmas associated with it. Some people say that mental illness is all psychosomatic and that people need to just learn how to function in life. Others will look at someone diagnosed with any mental illness as a weakness in the individual's character and mental resolve. When they are told that everyone gets down or feels like they are not fitting in at some point in their lives, but they just learn to suck it up and move on. It's almost like people need to reach an extreme before they feel like they can recognize that something is wrong because so much of it is subjective to the individual's perception of the world around them.I mean, everyone gets down, and everyone goes through times when they want solitude. Studies show that people sometimes need solitude to connect with themselves and the world around them and to overcome the down times, so it's difficult for them to see that it's beyond what is considered normal.

      Delete
  11. I understand that a data base might not be feasible as there are all kinds of privacy issues related to having one, but there has to be something. It is obvious to everyone that what we have right now is not working. The process of buying a firearm has got to be difficult and we have to come up with a way to stop people, who are psychotic or have violent tendencies, from being able to legally buy one. If this means that people who were diagnosed, at some point in their life, with a mental illness, have to get a clean bill of health from a mental health specialist to be removed from, for the want of a better word, a data base, then that is what they need to do if they want or need to purchase a firearm. It is hard on those who have never done a violent deed ever, but then, buying a gun, should be hard.
    No matter what we do, guns will fall into the wrong hands, but perhaps if it was harder for some people to get them legally, we can make a dent in this problem. We have to do something!

    ReplyDelete
  12. as we speak about GUNS another shooting in AZ again today who will be next everyday its all we hear its funny how its in the western states more offend i guess guns get in the wrong hands this time not a mental illness but i believe a normal person did it i this time think they got the person yes i agree something must be done about it but is the answer ! ?

    ReplyDelete
  13. As everyone here agrees, we definitely need stricter gun controls. Will it ever happen, who knows, but probably not, because there will always be a way to obtain a gun illegally. It may put a small dent on those getting a gun, but it certainly won't stop guns from falling into the wrong hands.

    A national registry for those with mental illness will never happen, in my opinion anyway. Having seen so much mental illness, I can tell you for a fact that NOT EVERYONE is dangerous, either to themselves to others. As JoAnn explained, she is living it. I have seen clients come in to the facility crying hysterically because they don't know what to do anymore and are begging for help. They can't stand the voices in their heads. If you have never heard voices, you cannot imagine what it is like. Through one of our trainings we all had to listen to a recording of what it sounds like to hear voices constantly telling you that you're no good, that no one cares about you, that you'll never amount to anything, that no one loves you. It gives a new dimension to what clients are living with day in and day out. And we only had to live with it for a few minutes. It was an absolutely frightening and eerie feeling. Medication may help somewhat but not totally alleviate the problem.

    Oh sure, there are those that ARE a danger to themselves or others. As I said previously, that's what the Baker Act is for. It is an order to hold someone for 72 hours for observation. The psychiatrist can either release it if he/she feels that client is not a threat, or extend for longer term for further observation and stabilization. The important component is that the client must follow through with the treatment plan they are given. Many do, but just as many do not. Again, as JoAnn said, the side effects are not always pleasant whether it be lethargy, weight gain, personality changes, suicidal tendencies, or a myriad of others. For that reason, people stop taking their meds. On the inpatient units, we had people "cheek" their meds because they thought they didn't need them. You become wise to them very quickly.

    But.....on the opposite side of the coin, we had clients that did wonderful and lead very productive lives with the proper treatment. Sometimes, it takes several combinations of meds to find the right treatment that works. We had one individual, in particular, that did so well that he went on to achieve 2 Master's degrees and landed a great job. He was certainly the exception, but he did it! All because he was willing to follow treatment orders and wanted a better life for himself. With a national registry, this person would never have found a job. Where do you cut the line with what's acceptable and what's not acceptable? And that is why we have the HIPPA laws we do.

    Until mental health is treated and accepted as a legitimate diagnosis, there will always be those that say it"s just in your mind, get over it, get some rest, it will go away with time. Sorry folks, but that's not the case. And those people who did all the shootings were probably not taken seriously, didn't know where to go for help, or just listened to the voices telling them what they had to do. And don't think for a minute that drugs weren't involved in some sort. They self-medicate with alcohol and drugs, which we all know is a lethal combination. The new "in" drug on the streets is Flakka and it has horrendous side effects. Worse than weed, cocaine, or heroin ever was. I won't even go into some of the stories here because they are too sickening.

    Mental illness is not a joke!



    ReplyDelete
  14. I agree that buying a gun should be hard but it's also understanding the responsibility that comes with it. Too many kids have easy access to Dad or Mom's gun.

    As for Trump, he's loco. I do find him amusing generally, but I'm not going to lie, as a Hispanic, I've had my fill of him and I don't even live in the States!

    Here's my team for the think tank:
    -Pope Francis
    -Malala
    -Stephen Colbert (he'll keep it real with humour)
    -Jacques Attali
    -Hubert Reeves
    -Obama
    Hang in there everybody, as long as we are not indifferent, there is always hope.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh my! How is it that you know Hubert Reeves and Jacques Attali!!!!!???
      So my list would be exactly the same as yours except for S. Colbert that I would replace by Stephen Hawking! I could name other french-speaking personnalities that I like but who knows them in the US except you lol :-))

      Delete
    2. Don't worry, even a lot of non-Hispanics have had their fill of the man. His remarks against Hispanics were very offensive to me as well, as I have worked with many wonderful, honest Hispanics over many years and even spent a year and a half of my life dedicated to serving the people of Bolivia. His whole purpose in this election seems to be to offend as many people as humanly possible, since he is trying so desperately to be the opposite of all the politicians from all political sides who will do anything possible to not offend anyone. The saddest part about him and his actions is that, despite the fact that so many people are talking negatively about him, he still gets people to talk about him, giving him the attention he craves and keeping him in the spotlight. Negative attention is still attention, afterall.

      Delete
    3. Exactly Becky! I absolutely agree with you. Trump doesn't care at all if he gets negative publicity, as long as he gets publicity! If it gets him on all the magazine covers, all the entertainment shows and on the news, he has done what he set out to do!

      Delete
    4. Nadia, Jacques Attali came to my attention in an article I read on the BBC news website. I was impressed, and read more. Very interesting man. Hubert Reeves is a homeboy, lol, born in my neck of the woods, Montreal. Both men are brilliant and eloquent.

      Becky, it's thanks to people like you that I can tell others to not generalize when it comes to the States. Trump does a disservice to your country by coming off like a Yahoo for all the world to see. Have to say though, I got a huge kick out of poor Kelly Osbourne when she tried to show her support for Hispanics with her clumsy 'who is going to be cleaning your toilet?' comment. My family and I milked that gem for a week, lol.

      Delete
    5. Thank you. Fighting stereotypes and generalizations is one of my goals. I think that one of the biggest problems of being human is that we simply tend to generalize about people and whatever groups they happen to fit into. That goes for everything from race, to religion, to political leanings and affiliation, to anything under the sun about which we could disagree. It really seems to be a part of the tribalism that Charlie has mentioned so many times before. We look at people and base everything that we believe about them on the few that exemplify the stereotypes. Perhaps one of the most perplexing issues with this when we get offended by the people who do generalize based on one example, but will turn around and generalize about somebody else based on some stereotype of a single bad example. I don't like being lumped in the same category as Trump simply because I'm a white American because that is very much the limit of anything I have in common with the man. He's a bad example of what many of the American's that I know represent, no matter their political leanings. And I know that Kelly Osbourne was trying to be glib in supporting Hispanics, but it's still inappropriate that she would generalize a group of people simply based on a minority representation of people who have come from a different country in hopes of better opportunities and learn that the country doesn't recognize some of their foreign credentials and therefore have to take a menial labor jobs. No matter where they come from or to which side they are directed, generalizations are not an effective way of viewing people or circumstances. I say that fully understanding that I have generalized before, but also knowing that I am try very hard to avoid doing so, regardless of how much I agree or disagree with a group of people.

      Delete
    6. Ha! LOL :-p I didn't realize you were Canadian! Of course sorry!

      Delete
  15. About Donald Trump, as I said previously : I am scared that this man could be president of the USA.
    Scared for you AND for us!
    Really hope not, despite the disappointment caused by the 2 other parties :-(

    About guns : it is something that isn't common in Europe because the system is everywhere pretty close from the one Janne described : only few people and the police can own a gun.
    For sure, a lot of stuff/object can be potentially used as a DEADLY weapon when you have bad motivations but it is not easy to kill someone with a knife for example. But much easier to shoot! No?

    Anyway, I am not an American and can't judge the situation properly. The only thing I can say is that 2 facts scared me when I came to visit the US during 1 month a few years ago :
    - the authoritarianism and nervosity of the policemen ;
    - people (common people like you and me) in the street or in a shop with a gun in the pocket!
    In both situations I didn't feel well at all!

    ReplyDelete
  16. First I would like to say what a joy it was to see your mum on the show. She is such a beautiful woman and was so precious.
    Now on to the rest of the show. I must say that I was very upset (to say the least) about your remark about mental illness. I did read your comment here and seen your apology. However I would like the opportunity to say how I felt, that I wasn't able to do when the blog first went up, as I was out of town. My first initial reaction was shock, which quickly changed to sadness and embarrassment. Even thought it wasn't personally directed at me or anyone person. It still hurt! You see I have bipolar depression and anxiety. I take medication everyday, which I know I can never just stop taking them because I feel better. A diabetic would not take their meds just because their sugar is low that day. It works the same with someone on medication for mental illness. Unfortunately there are people who just don't take their medication right. With that being said and as JoAnn has said you can't force someone to go to the doctor or take their medication, especially when they don't think they have a problem. I am very proactive in my treatment and work closely with my doctor. I DO NOT agree that all people who have a mental illness are bad or are psychopaths. That is the stigma that goes with mental illness and stops people from getting help. I know when I was first diagnosed (years ago), I just sat in the doctors office and cried. My doctor to me that I needed to look at it as a disease like any other. He said a diabetic needs medication to control their blood sugar, and that I needed medication to help the chemical imbalance in my brain. Unfortunately that is easier said than done because of the stigma of having a "mental illness." As soon as someone sees or hears the word bipolar they automatically assume or think you're nuts. It's a shame! There are very few people who even know I have a mental illness for that reason. I actually thought about if I wanted to share my disease here on the blog. I actually lead a very productive life and no one would ever know I have a mental illness. I also have a great support system in my family and the few friends who know.
    Now for the gun issue. I do not believe that people who go out and commit mass shootings should even be lumped into the same group as someone like myself. Those people have NO VALUE for human life, just like your gang members don't. Whenever you buy a gun from a store of legitimate dealer you are required to fill out Federal Form 4473 Firearms Transaction Record. On the form they ask; have you been convicted of a felony, are you addicted to drugs, have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective, are you subject to a court order, restraining order...ect. Are there loopholes in the system. Oh yes...big time! While I do support the 2nd Amendment, I do think there needs to be some changes to the gun laws. Personally I have grown up around guns and we do own guns. Gun safety and responsibility has always been a priority. Our guns are kept locked in a gun safe with trigger locks on the guns. I do not agree that someone needs to own an assault rifle. To be honest he only people that I see that the changes to the gun laws would have any effect on...are the people who already follow the gun laws. Until we can stop the sale of guns on the streets or even by private sellers, guns are going to fall into the wrong hands. Should someone like me who has a mental illness, but is not violent be able to buy a gun? Yes! If the person has mental illness with violent tendencies, then NO they shouldn't be able to purchase a gun or any weapon.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I ran out of space and have to add my 6 people on this post
    1.) Pope Francis; he is so humble and peaceful (and not just because I'm catholic)
    2.) Malala: She is so inspiring and is still standing strong even through adversity
    3.) Ellen Degeneres: Because the world needs more kindness and humour
    4.) The Dalai Lama: Because he is a peaceful person
    5.) Daisaku Ikeda
    6.) Mussie Zerai
    To be honest I did a Google search and found the last two, and found them in a n article called Nobel Peace Prize 2015: Likely Contenders, and liked what I read about them.

    ReplyDelete

Charles Shaughnessy on YouTube

Loading...

Followers

Charles Shaughnessy visitors

Total Pageviews