Catch 22: Treating Mental Illness in America

“He has to be crazy to keep flying combat missions after all the close calls he’s had.  Sure I can ground Orr.  But first he has to ask me to.”

- Joseph Heller, Catch 22

In the aftermath of the Orlando massacre, many are focusing more on a criminal investigation and less on the human condition that led up to this horrific act.  Other nations have experienced and mourned acts of violence with multiple victims, but America is remarkable for its level and frequency of mass murders.

Since 2009 there have been eight separate mass shootings which claimed over 200 lives and resulted in hundreds of injuries.  Reporters and politicians often focus on the availability of firearms as provocation for these incidents while overlooking the other common theme in each event: Mental illness.

An attorney friend likes to say: “Crazy is a medical term. Sanity is a legal term.”  This is true.  One’s “sanity” does not come into question until he or she has committed a crime.  Then, courts must determine whether the person 1) had the capacity to tell the difference between right and wrong at the time of the crime, and 2) can participate in their own defense.

Numerous studies indicate one-third of America’s homeless population suffers from mental illness.  We see these people in our surroundings talking to themselves and looking confused.  We rightly assume they must be on drugs.  Without medical support, people suffering with depression or anxiety often will self-medicate with street drugs to control symptoms that are compounded by frightening living conditions.  The homeless represent a small minority of America’s mentally ill.

How many people who are described as “crazy” by friends and family members maintain homes and jobs?  According to a report by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2014), nearly one in every five people or 42.5 million Americans suffer enduring or chronic conditions such as depression, bipolar disorder(s) or schizophrenia.  The study also indicated 9.3 million Americans experienced mental illness so severe that the condition impeded their day-to-day activities.  To answer my own question, 33.2 million people are trying to hold their lives together while dealing with a mental health issue.

Although most of us have run into people who clearly have some “problem,” most of us are not directly impacted by their struggles.  We know them, talk to them, and develop opinions about whether they are people with whom we want to associate.  We describe them as “weird,” “irrational,” “unreliable,” “angry,” or “creepy.”  We brace ourselves for brief neighborhood and workplace encounters.  Sometimes we feel upset when the “crazy guy” attacks us verbally for something minor or nothing at all.  We seldom think that maybe he cannot control himself.  It isn’t until the same person threatens us that we consider reporting the incident to authorities.

It is at this point that our systems fall apart.  The police will ask if there has been an assault or property damage.  When there was none, we are told the police can’t do anything unless a person is a danger to himself or others.  Likewise, crisis hotlines will say that unless someone is willing to commit themselves to care, there is nothing they can do.  Families are left without support.  Friends can’t help.  Coworkers are hamstrung by company policy.  Even federal agents cannot intervene when the alarming bragging of a person who claims to have ties to terrorist organizations are found to be factually and legally meritless.  In the absence of a clear and present danger, people with mental illness escalate in the privacy of a personal hell.

This is the Catch 22.  Crazy is not a crime until thoughts are acted upon.  There is no safety net for the mentally ill or proactive safeguards for the American society upon which criminal insanity is eventually inflicted.

This incredibly complex problem is at the crux of every mass shooting and every murder-suicide in America.  Legislatively curbing the availability of firearms to prevent mass murder is akin to taking shoelaces away from a person who is suicidal.  People with intent to harm themselves or others will find a way to do so until we address the intent.

We need to remove barriers to mental healthcare and remove the stigmas associated with these medical conditions.  Mental health screenings should be performed routinely by pediatric specialists.  High schools and colleges should be able to fund mental health programs to help people at the time when disorders like schizophrenia begin.  We must do more to educate Americans to not only recognize mental illness symptoms but also to intervene on a sufferer’s behalf.  Rather than reacting in anger to someone who is politically incorrect in the throes of a manic episode or a paranoid delusion, we can compassionately approach that same person to ask: “Are you OK?  Can I help?”

After every violent incident, American communities unite to say that hatred is not who we are.  We promise we will not be broken by the evil that inspired such violence.  Yet, until we unite as a compassionate nation to overcome the causes of such violence, mental illness will continue to break our hearts.

I urge leaders to acknowledge our nation’s mental healthcare crisis and to treat its current state of devastation as an emergency.

Judge, Jury and Executioner

   Sunday morning arrived with horrible news from Orlando, Florida.  Fifty people in a city that also is home to the “Happiest Place on Earth” were killed and another 53 were wounded by a lone gunman in the deadliest mass shooting in our nation’s history.

   In America the word “terrorism” almost always arises when the name of the alleged perpetrator sounds Middle Eastern.  Investigations regarding ties to ISIS are almost automatic.   However, even the killer’s own claims to ISIS sympathy made in a 911 call shortly before the crime proves little about his real motive.

   Humans usually justify their beliefs by seeking agreement from others with similar beliefs.  What better place for a would-be mass murdered to find acceptance than in the philosophies of people who justify homicidal acts with a twisted interpretation of the doctrines of a peaceful faith?

   According to Meriam-Webster, “terrorism” is: “the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal.”  Clearly, any crime of this magnitude is terrifying, but it was not, by definition, terrorism.

   Mateen’s father, Kir Saddique, gave us a window into the world of his son’s mind when he reportedly told investigators that Mateen recently became upset after seeing two men in Miami kissing.  Saddique also reportedly said that his New York-born son’s crime “had nothing to do with religion.”

   Taking away terrorism as a motive, observers are left with the picture of a man who was mentally unstable.  He was a security guard with a firearms license that allowed him to legally purchase an AR-15 assault rifle.  He was a man for which federal law enforcement agencies opened and shut investigations on at least two occasions because they had no legal merit.  He was a man so consumed with hatred of gay men kissing in public that he drove almost two hours to personally shut down the Pulse nightclub, a business that called itself “Orlando’s hottest gay bar…”

   This tragedy was not terrorism.  It was a hate crime.  By definition a “hate crime” is: “A crime, usually violent, motivated by prejudice or intolerance toward an individual’s natural origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.”

   LGBT people are often the targets of hatred and violent crimes.  While Mateen is no longer a threat to them, other people with bias toward the LGBT community still inspire fear.  Bigotry is not a crime and yet its insidiousness perpetuates violence against countless innocent victims.

   We do not ask to be born into any nation, we just are.  We do not ask to be born Black, white, Latino, Asian, or into a lower caste.  We do not ask to be left-handed, short, tall or disabled.  We do not ask our parents for names that cause us to be bullied in schoolyards or placed on a government watch list.  We do not wake up one morning and “decide” who we will be physically attracted to.  If we had a choice in these matters, we surely would choose a path that kept us out of harm’s way.  Unfortunately, none of us can exercise such an option.

   Americans live in a nation in which we are able to love and hate equally.  We can feel sad, happy, fearful, bored, optimistic, pessimistic, or apathetic with complete immunity.  Generations before us fought and died so our government cannot deny us access to our emotions.  Personal rights come with great responsibility, however.  Though we have the freedom to feel a spectrum of emotions, we are bound by law to express those emotions responsibly.   My rights end at the tips of my fingers, and should never be at the business end of a gun.

   Sadly, the great tragedy in Orlando is one that will be repeated over and over on a small scale every day, everywhere.  One person claims his right to fear and irrational hatred.  The joy and love of another person is, therefore, so unconscionable that it must be stopped forever.  Insanity is not a crime until it acts on the person of another.

   Judge.

   Jury.

   Executioner.

Feeling the Afterburners

   June 8^th dawned with an echo of last night’s news.  Writ large and in color across the face of every major newspaper in America, Hillary Clinton is the Democratic party’s nominee.  Alas, the sidebar story is that Senator Bernie Sanders (D,Vermont) is not.  I knew Sanders had an outsider’s chance of winning the nomination, but I like his message and his moxie.  His platform encouraged hope even though I am not a Millennial.

   With regard to elections, the media feeds on statistics in an attempt to predict voter outcomes and to be the first to forecast winners.  Consequently, the media repeatedly has noted Sanders’ supporters are primarily “younger” voters.  Millennials are now old enough to work and vote.  Everyone should understand this generation’s priorities and how their ascent will impact our future because they will be at the helm of the world’s economic, political and social ships very soon.

   Millennials are 13 to 34 year-olds raised by Baby Boomers who prioritized health, the environment, gender equality, and a college education.  Boomers were told by their Silent Generation parents that if they worked hard and went to school they would have “a better life.”  As a result, most Millennials are latchkey kids raised by working parents who struggled to maintain work/life balances so they could manage the kids’ music lessons, sports and the math tutoring that could propel them through the gates of universities.

   Raised with cell phones and home computers, Gen Y made Google a verb.  “Play time” moved from the yard to the den.  “Friends” were on Facebook or invited in through the doorway of high speed Internet to “game.”  While adults did household chores in the second or third work shift of their day, teens and tweens shook hands electronically with peers around the globe.   American kids learned Korean from YouTube pop sensation Psy and clicked Japan’s Funky Monkey Baby into stardom.  Asian teens returned the favor by getting their sag on for American Hip Hop.   It is no wonder that Millennials everywhere embrace diversity in a world made small by connectivity.

   This generation also was uniquely impacted by human tragedy.  Terrorism in New York.  Wars in the Middle East.  Columbine.  Malala.  Trayvon.  Hate crimes.  Hunger.  Homelessness.  Sandy Hook.  Global warming was viewed through the eyes of children who cried for a polar bear clinging to a shrinking piece of ice.  These were not just search images for Generation Y.  World events made them compassionate humanists rather than national patriots.  Because they were raised in a mass-marketed world, early Millennial social movements were tied to t-shirt slogans offering “Free Hugs” in the hope that a friend could someday learn “To Write Love on Her Arms.”

   During the Great Recession, old promises fell over dead at dinner tables where parents apologized for Ramen noodle meals after months of unemployment.  College dreams were dashed.  Gen Y was orphaned by a corrupt corporate system gone terribly, terribly wrong.  Times demanded they become self-reliant, so Millennials studied Gates and Jobs, took their lap tops to the job market and “did better” for themselves with no help from the authority figures that disenfranchised them.

   Bernie Sanders spoke for them.  Unlike the 2010 Occupy Movement, Sanders offered solutions in the form of organizational skill and the legislative expertise to back his proposals with the power of law.  Although Sanders is not going to be the U.S. President this year, he has vowed to continue to fight for change.

   Because they are young and in some cases unable to vote, Millennials will look toward outside leadership for now.  But as they age and fully grasp the mantel of adulthood, they will need to look no further than the mirror for the leadership they now seek.  In the not-too-distant future, a generation adept at networking and passionate about raising the down-trodden will take power and speak for the world.  As Baby Boomers have aged and passed away, Millennials now are the statistical majority generation in our economy.  Their numbers are making up for their current lack of individual financial influence.  Maturity and increasing wealth will soon alter the balance of power.

   In my lifetime, Millennials will change the world.  There will be free college tuition.  There will be equity in an America where divisive terms like “race,” “preference” and “gender” no longer apply.  There will be inventions and meaningful interventions to protect the environment.  Americans will not be denied access to health care because their physical problem is somehow “morally objectionable” to someone who is not living in their skin.  Corporations will not crash under the weight of honest accountability but will learn to become responsive to the customers they serve or risk the economic fall-out of well-organized boycotts.  The neo Jim Crow laws that make unarmed people run from trigger happy police will be reversed.  The homeless and hungry will not be given a sandwich for the day, but will be lead to a life without needless suffering.

   Millennials, you may be sad about Bernie today but you need not be.  Military jets use afterburners to create thrust. Hit that button on your consoles.  Be the rush.  Be burners.

For Whom Does He Stand?

In the weeks leading up to the California primary election, much has been said about Donald Trump and his political agenda. According to the Positions page at www.donaldjtrump.com , his most important agenda item is building a wall at the U.S./Mexican border.  Trump also opposes the Affordable Care Act, wants to renegotiate U.S./China trade agreements, favors using tax reform to increase employment, wants to “fix” the Veterans Administration, strengthen the rights of Americans to bear firearms, and launch “real immigration reform.”

While Trump’s stump speeches provide an intriguing spin on each of these agenda items, the platform, itself, is just a regurgitation of previous conservative talking points.  There is nothing new or imaginative here.

My question of the Trump camp is not what the GOP presidential candidate stands for, but for whom he stands.

Immigrants

Trump plans to deport immigrants lacking legal status.  According to a 2013 report by the Department of Homeland Security, 11.4 million people currently fall into this category.  Like it or not, illegal immigrants represent three percent of the U.S. population.

Latinos

In his speech declaring his presidency, Trump shocked people here and abroad by declaring all Mexican immigrants to be “drug dealers” and “rapists.”  His bias is not limited to immigrants.  For approximately a week, Trump has leveled his sights on U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel citing the Mexican heritage of this Indiana-born magistrate as a reason to disqualify him from hearing the fraud case against the now-defunct Trump University.  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 55 million Americans, or 17 percent of the U.S. population, is Hispanic.

African Americans

A Huffington Post article (March 11, 2016) provided eight reasons Trump would not be an ideal president for African Americans.  Trump reportedly was sued by the U.S. Justice Department in 1973 for racial discrimination.  In a 1991 tell-all book by John R. O’Donnell, Trump was quoted as saying, “Laziness is a trait in blacks.” Trump’s clearly stated antipathy toward Muslims tacitly includes black Americans who represent 23 percent of all U.S. Muslims.  There are 42 million African Americans in the United States comprising 13.2 percent of the total population.

Muslims

Trump has targeted all Muslims, regardless of their race or presence within or outside of our borders as “terrorists.”  He has called for a “total ban” on all persons of this religious faith from entering the United States.  This stance is unconstitutional and was particularly offensive to Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London.  There are 3.3 million Muslims in the U.S. representing one percent of the total population.

Women

Trump has been particularly insulting to women, using epithets like “pigs” and “fat” to describe them.  Trump also has promised to further reduce access to gynecological health care services.  According to the U.S. Census Bureau there are 168 million women in our nation comprising 50.8 percent of the total population.  If we reduce that number by women Trump admires (women like his wife who are European immigrant/supermodel/business owners), that population percentage does not change at all.

People Who Disagree With Trump

Trump predictably turns on critics and all who question his veracity.  Fellow GOP affiliates and elected officials who disagree with him like New Mexico’s Republican Governor Susana Martinez are told they are “not doing a good job” and Trump calls upon voters for their ouster.  (Not surprisingly, Martinez and other prominent GOP party members refused to be his running mate.)  Journalists recently were called “scum bags” and “sleazy” when they asked about the short-fall in promised donations to veterans’ organizations.  His list of detractors are labeled as “insane,” “stupid,” and “slobs.”  According to a recent survey in the Los Angeles Times, a whopping 71 percent of likely voters “disapprove” of Trump.  According to the latest tally, 146.3 million people are registered to vote in America.  Statistically speaking, Trump would be openly insulting toward 103.9 million voters.

And the Winner Is…

By simply adding up the numbers in five of the categories listed above, 85 percent of the U.S. population likely will be treated with great disdain by a Trump administration.

Certainly in the remaining 15 percent, Trump’s biggest supporters reportedly are conservative white males.  Alas, many prominent, conservative males have lodged vociferous opposition to Trump saying he would be bad for business, international relations, national security and GOP party unity.  While many Republican members of Congress now begrudgingly support Trump in the spirit of party cohesion, they will not support his agenda legislatively.  As they oppose him on legal and Constitutional grounds, he will turn on them, too.

Who will be left?  Many conservative, white male voters are still in Trump’s corner because he speaks to their fear that mobs of immigrants now rain the terrors of unemployment and escalating tax expense upon the land while liberals are taking away their guns.  As soon as these people live through predictable Trump policy repercussions such as joblessness spawned by international trade disputes, inflation, heightened public unrest due to racial and religious discrimination, and war, they will question Trump as well.

To Trump, all who question him or disagree with him are his enemies.

In the final analysis, only Trump will remain as a beloved party of one.

Political Circus

   This week CNN’s Anderson Cooper was joined by other political pundits who agreed Hillary Clinton should be more assertive in her presidential campaign and more accessible to the media.  Given Donald Trump’s indefatigable ability to single-handedly occupy the 24-hour news cycle with his histrionics, journalistic broadcast directors likely feel nervous about the “equal time” rule and an appearance of favoritism toward one candidate or another.

     I disagree.

   The television news media always has attracted audiences with bold headlines and stories that capture the attention of the part of human nature that cannot look away from a house fire.  Our innate fascination with disaster allows us to count ourselves fortunate to cling to life, limb and property.  So, when a political candidate does not look like a car wreck, isn’t that a good thing?

   In this writer’s opinion, Secretary Clinton’s tone and media accessibility have been pitch perfect for this situation.  While talking with a colleague on Wednesday, I said, “if I were her I would stand by and let The Donald slam his own foot in the door and then simply point at him.”

   Clinton did just that.  On a June 2^nd campaign stop in San Diego, California, she gave one of her best campaign speeches to date.  Using quotes from the presumptive GOP presidential nominee as evidence, Clinton made the case that Trump is “temperamentally unfit” to be president.

   “It is not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us to war just because someone got under his very thin skin,” said Clinton.  She called Trump’s political plans “dangerously incoherent” and stated “This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes.”

   Try as they may, not even Trump’s advisors can control his message.  His fellow Republicans warn of the devastation a Trump presidency would have on our economy, (party) unity, diplomatic relations, religious freedom, and Constitutional rule.  Unabashed, Trump’s most fanatical supporters chant “Build The Wall! Build The Wall!” with all the charm of pitchfork-bearing movie extras, and defiantly cling to the hope that if their hero can simply lock out foreign invaders order and safety will be restored in a terrifying world.

   If news-hour political reports seem to be one-sided, the problem does not lie in any candidate's lack of accessibility to reporters.  The problem is in the definition of “news worthiness.”

   For conservative, moderate and liberal media outlets alike, Trump’s incendiary language is like a smoldering cigarette burning into the fabric of a comfortable, American-made armchair.  While Trump fans the flames of anger, fear and hysteria with one scathing, insult-laced speech after another, the media reports with a mix of dread and excitement when protesters’ tempers’ ignite another riot. The metaphorical smoldering cushions caught fire and sparked the curtains in America’s dream home.  It is breaking news.  So, we watch, unable to look away.

   The media has the power to adjust the message.  Currently selling tickets to a circus of their own making, reporting agencies can offer the public something they have not provided for years: Unbiased information.  Report on Trump without extrapolation.  Give equal time to Clinton, Sanders, and third-party candidates.  Allow reports on public protests to become a sidebar rather than play-by-play sports reports.  Stop being the ringmasters at a show that prides itself on displaying performances by scary clowns who work for free.

   This writer urges the news media to put the wild animals back into their cages and restore sanity to the political discussion.