Deinstitutionalization Is Madness ... J. D. Longstreet

Stolen From Faultline USA

The definition of "deinstitutionalization" is simple. It is taking mentally ill patients from mental institutions and placing them on your street corner and/or in local jails.

Ever wondered where all those mentally ill "homeless" people came from? Blame it on "deinstitutionalization."

Now, I realize there are millions of Americans who see or hear the word "deinstitutionalization" and have no clue what it means nor to what it is referring.

So let's see if we can shed a little light on it.

First we must understand the Law of Unintended Consequences. "The law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is this: that actions of people—and especially of government—always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended." SOURCE

So what makes the law of unintended consequences work? Well, the "Wise Geek" says the following: "The two top reasons why the law of unintended consequences works, according to Merton, is that the framers of a social change are either ignorant of possible far reaching effects of the law or make errors when they develop a change that don’t have the effects they desired. Other reasons why we sometimes see changes occur after any type of event, new scientific development, or treaty is passed may have to do with “self interest,” so much so that a person who desperately wants to see a change doesn’t evaluate the ultimate effects of that change." SOURCE

Deinstitutionalization is a clear result of the law of unintended consequences. They go together like bread and butter.

The idea behind deinstitutionalization was this -- that patients fare much better when they are looked after in a supportive and loving environment than when they are placed in a human warehouse, as mental institutions were sometimes referred to in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

So, America closed down many of its mental institutions without making sure the community supports were in place ad ready to receive the former mental patients. As a result, the mentally ill wound up on our streets, in our jails, and in unprepared homes where they created much discord and, in some cases, even committed heinous crimes that tore those families apart.

To understand what happened and the grievous error our government made by releasing much of the country's mentally ill onto society, we have to go back to the 1960's. (Surprise! Surprise!) Since, roughly, 1960 it has become almost impossible to hospitalize a person with a serious mental illness.

Deinstitutionalization is a clear case in which the "do-gooders" have managed to bollocks things up to a fair-the-well.

Civil Rights was the battle cry of the political left of the sixties and it was their actions at the time that led, eventually, to the mess we have now with the insane roaming the streets of America as "homeless" people. It was their actions that led to the courts placing a limit on involuntary institutionalization and on the courts setting minimum standards for care in institutions. Read more here.

Unfortunately, as the mentally ill were invited OUT of the mental hospitals they found few services or support waiting for them outside. In many cases, it fell to their families to take care of them, most often, those families were not prepared and were overwhelmed. Far too many of the formerly institutionalized mentally ill eventually wound up on the streets of America as homeless people and/or in the nation's jails.

Clayton E. Cramer, in a piece entitled: ‘Deinstitutionalization’: Mass Murder and Untreated Madness, which was published at PJMedia says the following: "For those of you under 40 — it used to be startling indeed to see people begging in the streets or obviously insane in public. Homelessness and various forms of urban degradation were byproducts of deinstitutionalization." SOURCE

In Mr. Cramer's book: "My Brother Ron: A Personal and Social History of the Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill." Mr. Cramer says: "... for centuries the connection between mental illness and violence was considered sufficiently obvious that the legal system provided various ways to hospitalize the severely mentally ill when they first provided clear indications that they were a hazard to themselves or others. Only in the 1960s and 1970s did our society decide that this system was unfair. It then embarked on a policy of “deinstitutionalization.” The idea: standards for long-term, involuntary commitment of the mentally ill should be just a bit less demanding than the standards of proof for criminal conviction.

Unsurprisingly, emptying out the mental hospitals and making it difficult to hospitalize people with serious mental illness problems meant that society as a whole became a bit more like a low-grade mental hospital."

There is a compelling argument that those supporting gun control in America are missing the importance of treatment for our mentally ill. Consider the role of mental illness in all the recent mass shootings all across the country."

Mr. Cramer says: "Supporters of gun control argue that we need stricter laws because ordinary, law-abiding people just “snap” and go on rampages. There are people who indeed snap and go on rampages (and not just with guns) — but they are seldom ordinary. Often, they are people with long histories of mental illness who in 1960 would have been hospitalized before they killed someone." SOURCE

Deinstitutionalization is not working. It is not going to work. It is far too late to even consider “fixing” it.

America needs Congress to step up on this problem and make the necessary changes to existing laws and/or pass new laws that will allow us to gather the mentally ill from our streets and prisons and from families that are at their wit’s end, and place them in institutions in which they will be cared for, and locked away from society -- for their sake AND for ours.

Deinstitutionalization was a "feel good" project. In action it has been worse than a train wreck.

When one considers all the harm to individuals, to families, and to the country as a whole, it is difficult to determine which is more insane – the patient, or the deinstitutionalization policy.

Bodies Not Cold Yet -- Left Cries: "Take Their Guns!" ~ By J. D. Longstreet

Hat Tip to Faultline USA

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms." -- Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840

Will it never end, indeed(?! ) ... I mean, the Left's relentless drive to violate the constitutional rights of the American citizen.

The bodies from the shooting at the Washington Navy Yard were not even cold yet, the smoke had not entirely cleared the air, and there was Senator Diane Feinstein, a "progressive" (21st century code-word for Marxist) from California, railing amid the metaphorical flow of verbal crocodile tears: "When is enough, enough?"

Oh woe, Oh woe, Senator. When, indeed, is enough, enough? Believe me when I proclaim to you, and your cohorts on the left, we have HAD far MORE than enough of your assault on our constitutional rights.

On the other hand, it is close enough to the 2014 elections that it might serve a good purpose for you democrats to begin beating the drum AGAIN for gun control.

Americans have had a belly-full of "you people" and we are currently on the cusp of driving you from power in Washington. That little added "umph" of attempted gun control could do the trick for us and give us a real chance to fumigate the halls of Congress of the stench of Marxism without you leftists in it continually creating a veritable fog of noxious communist propaganda.

So, go ahead, Senator. Give us more political ammo to use against you, and I assure you, madam, WE SHALL!

Why, oh why, after learning that the people committing these awful gun crimes are mentally ill, does the government insist on blaming perfectly sane law-abiding citizens for the erratic behavior of the mentally ill?

You want to stop the gun massacres? Get the mentally ill off the streets and into secure hospitals where they can be treated -- and the public can be safe from them. It is that simple.

BUT --- The gun control advocates won't even discuss this simple solution. Very much like "profiling," somehow, the left sees treating the mentally ill as a violation of THEIR constitutional rights. How convoluted is that?

They're throwing around that phrase "common sense" again. Have you noticed? Common sense gun control, restrictions/regulations, etc.

Look, anytime the left tosses around the words "common sense" Americans had better grab their guns and trot quickly to the barricades.

Common sense? Come on, folks! At the same time that thirteen bleeding dead bodies are lying on the ground beneath a blue haze of gun smoke, our fearless(?)/feckless President goes on national TV to ... make another political speech ... a POLITICAL SPEECH, while Americans lay dead and wounded just a mile and a half from the room in which he was speaking! THAT'S common sense???

That's callousness.

That's not caring.

That's hard-hearted -- not to mention that it is politically DUMB!

"In the wake of the shooting at the Navy Yard, Obama spokesman Jay Carney said the president is implementing executive actions and reiterated his commitment to strengthening gun laws, including expanding background checks to sales online and at gun shows."

“The president supports, as do an overwhelming majority of Americans, common-sense measures to reduce gun violence,” Carney said. SOURCE

Two things I'd like you to notice from Mr. Carney's words above: "Overwhelming Majority of Americans" and "Common-sense measures." Now. Ask yourself ... where is that overwhelming majority of Americans Carney speaks of -- and -- by whose definition are the intended gun control "measures" "common-sense?"

Think about this for a moment: The Ship Yard Shooting took place in a city with arguably the strictest gun control laws of any city in the United States. The Ship Yard, itself, is another gun free zone within that city. And yet, 13 people lie shot to death. Remember, the shooting did not stop until GOOD MEN WITH GUNS STOPPED IT!

The tsunami of calls for "common sense gun control measures" began, predictably, as if already planned and ready for dissemination. If one did not know better, one would think gun control advocates had really prepared, in advance, this hyper reaction to the shooting at the Ship Yard.

It is all Bovine Scatology carefully designed to make the weak-minded amongst us feel good about giving up their God-given rights to the government.

It is typical of the political left to play upon the emotions of the electorate. Their entire platform depends upon manipulating the emotions of the people. That's why, when the left is in power in America, the country is maintained on the very edge of one crisis, or another, every single day. That continued assault on the human psyche weakens the ability to focus and think logically. And, as we should all know by now, LOGICAL thinking will destroy the left's politics every time.

NOW you understand why America lurches from one near disaster to another during periods in which the Democratic Party is in control, marginally, or otherwise. If those crises do not create themselves, well, the left is not above assisting in the creation of such situations. A sort of "tail wagging the dog" kind of thing, don't you know.

Don B. Kates, writing on statistical patterns in gun crime said this: "...Virtually never are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people against whom gun bans are aimed. Almost without exception, murderers are extreme aberrants with lifelong histories of crime, substance abuse, psychopathology, mental retardation and/or irrational violence against those around them, as well as other hazardous behavior, e.g., automobile and gun accidents."

So, for gun owners, it is back to the barricades once more. It appears we are doomed to fighting the same battle over and over again. We have no choice, for the moment we let down our guard, we will no longer be citizens. We will be unarmed subjects.

It's Not The Guns, It's The Madman Doing The Killing!

After the tragedy of last Friday, the leftist of the nation, headed by President Barack Hussein Obama, are demanding that the nation dismantle the 2nd Amendment and take guns away from the citizens of the land.  It seems that every time a tragedy happens, the left want to remove the guns as if it was the panacea that will cure all the ills of the land.

This panacea has been tried through out Europe and other places.  In Great Britain they removed guns from the hands of the people and violent crime has risen by 25%.  The problem in some areas is so great that the average Brit is afraid to leave his or her home at night.  In fact home invasion robberies are on the rise and the new self-defense weapons (knives, baseball and cricket bats) are now being outlawed.  They are destroying their nation in order to achieve a Utopia.

In Australia guns were removed from the people 5 years ago.  Violent crime has risen 6000%.  The people are demanding their guns to be returned.  They are not safe, the police are not helping and they have no way to defend themselves.

In the City of Chicago there have been 436 murders so far this year.  That is up from 435 for the total of last year.  Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.  Yet the murder rate is climbing to be almost 2 murders a day.  That is about 60 deaths a month.  Way more than the 26 at Newtown, CT.  Yet the leftists in the city call for more gun control.  It doesn't work.

Now we are hearing the same cries.  Get rid of the guns.  Get rid of the assault weapons.  Get rid of the large magazines.  Get rid of the bullets.  But not the true reason for the massacres.

BLAME THE MURDERER!  GET THE MENTALLY ILL VIOLENT MURDERERS OUT OF OUR MIDST!!!

Now I've just said a horribly bigoted thing.  After all, these people have an illness.  They cannot be just thrown into a hospital.  The old State Mental Hospitals were eliminated because they were cruel placed.  The mentally ill have rights!   They need to be allowed out amongst us.  They have the right to a life.

What the bleeding heart liberals refuse to recognize is that not all the mentally ill are able to be amongst us.  In fact, it is for our safety that they need to be locked away.

The great number of the mentally ill (90%) take their medicine, see their doctor, live quite normal lives.  They are not violent.  They are our neighbors and friends.  They are no harm to themselves and others.

A smaller amount need a more structured environment.  A group home or the like will be fine for these people.  They need a person telling them how to live each day or even each hour at time.  They might become violent or self-destructive, but can be controlled better.

The last group, a very small minority, are extremely violent.  They WILL hurt themselves or others.  They WILL find a way to acquire guns, explosives or even knives.  These are the madmen who WILL commit a murder, murder/suicide, or even a mass murder.  They have no feelings for others, no consciences.  Killing is just another high for them.  These are the mentally ill that MUST be hospitalized before they kill.

Unfortunately there is no way to commit a young person to a State Hospital to protect society.  Until a person commits a crime, and is "in the system", one cannot commit a dangerous individual.  In fact it is only until a mentally ill commits the crime, he or she will not even get any help.  Over 50% of prisoners in US prisons are mentally ill.  In fact our prison system has become our State Mental Hospitals.  Prison budgets are being bloated by the care of the mentally ill.  By the drugs and therapy these people need every day.  And true criminals, many who will repeat their crimes over and over without any mental illness, are put upon the streets of our cities in order to care for the mentally ill.

This should not be.  In fact the tragedy in Newtown, CT could have been prevented if Nancy Lanza had been able to call a state run hotline, explained her fears, and gotten Adam into a state facility for evaluation.  If that had been an option for her, she would be alive and 26 innocent victims would be celebrating the season.

Should we not address the guns which did not kill anyone, but the mentally ill man who commits this crime.

The Right To Rape Children

In the near future your child will be walking home from school, a car pulls up, the man inside grabs your child and for days the child is sexually molested.  The police find both, but the man gets to keep the child and you are placed in jail for the crime of denying a Pedophile his right to rape children.

You feel this can never happen.  Yet recently members of the American Psychiatric Association attended a conference that proposed that pedophilia be accepted as a "lifestyle choice".

A group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals say it's time to change the way society views individuals who have physical attractions to children.

The organization, which calls itself B4U-Act, is lobbying for changes to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, the guideline of standards on mental health that's put together by the American Psychiatric Association.

The group says its mission is to help pedophiles before they create a crisis, and to do so by offering a less critical view of the disorder.

"Stigmatizing and stereotyping minor-attracted people inflames the fears of minor-attracted people, mental health professionals and the public, without contributing to an understanding of minor-attracted people or the issue of child sexual abuse," reads the organization's website.

B4U-Act said that 38 individuals attended a symposium in Baltimore last week, including researchers from Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University and the universities of Illinois and Louisville. According to the group, which said to not endorse every point of view expressed, the speakers in attendance concluded that "minor-attracted" individuals are largely misunderstood and should not be criminalized even as their actions should be discouraged.

Speakers also argued that people who are sexually attracted to children should have input into the decision about how pedophilia is defined in the DSM, which they said is supposed to be a guide to promote “mental health vs. social control.”

The American Psychiatric Association did not participate in the conference, and evidently does not condone the group's message.

"An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act and this is never considered normal or socially acceptable behavior," the APA wrote in a 2003 position statement.

Critics of the effort also note that the movement likens its fight for pedophilia acceptance to society's more recent embrace of homosexuality. They warn of a slippery slope to a time when pedophilia is "just another lifestyle choice" that won't warrant criminal charges—and will leave young children at risk.

Guess what none of the members of the American Psychiatric Association didn't do?  Yep condemn this idea out right.  Guess what they will be working to do instead?  Yep make it legal for your child, your grandchild to be molested legally.

Speakers also argued that people who are sexually attracted to children should have input into the decision about how pedophilia is defined in the DSM.

How about listening to the victims instead.  They are the ones who will have to live with the consequences of the actions of the APA and their sick views.

You can contact the APA here.
You can contact B4U-ACT here.

Let them know that in no uncertain terms you will ever accept Pedophilia will NEVER be acceptable to you and to US society.

Existential Depression In Gifted Individuals

I received this in an e-mail from a very dear friend of mine, Bob Markman.  I have known Bob since High School, and we do still share many common interests.  This being one of them. I hope those of you with gifted children or have been a gifted child gets something out of this.

Existential depression in gifted individuals

James T. Webb

Reproduced by permission of the Great Potential Press.

It has been my experience that gifted and talented persons are more likely to experience a type of depression referred to as existential depression. Although an episode of existential depression may be precipitated in anyone by a major loss or the threat of a loss which highlights the transient nature of life, persons of higher intellectual ability are more prone to experience existential depression spontaneously. Sometimes this existential depression is tied into the positive disintegration experience referred to by Dabrowski (1996).

Existential depression is a depression that arises when an individual confronts certain basic issues of existence. Yalom (1980) describes four such issues (or “ultimate concerns”)—death, freedom, isolation and meaninglessness. Death is an inevitable occurrence. Freedom, in an existential sense, refers to the absence of external structure. That is, humans do not enter a world which is inherently structured. We must give the world a structure which we ourselves create. Isolation recognizes that no matter how close we become to another person, a gap always remains, and we are nonetheless alone. Meaninglessness stems from the first three. If we must die, if we construct our own world, and if each of us is ultimately alone, then what meaning does life have?

Why should such existential concerns occur disproportionately among gifted persons? Partially, it is because substantial thought and reflection must occur to even consider such notions, rather than simply focusing on superficial day-to-day aspects of life. Other more specific characteristics of gifted children are important predisposers as well.

Because gifted children are able to consider the possibilities of how things might be, they tend to be idealists. However, they are simultaneously able to see that the world is falling short of how it might be. Because they are intense, gifted children feel keenly the disappointment and frustration which occurs when ideals are not reached. Similarly, these youngsters quickly spot the inconsistencies, arbitrariness and absurdities in society and in the behaviors of those around them. Traditions are questioned or challenged. For example, why do we put such tight sex-role or age-role restrictions on people? Why do people engage in hypocritical behaviors in which they say one thing and then do another? Why do people say things they really do not mean at all? Why are so many people so unthinking and uncaring in their dealings with others? How much difference in the world can one person’s life make?

When gifted children try to share these concerns with others, they are usually met with reactions ranging from puzzlement to hostility. They discover that others, particularly of their age, clearly do not share these concerns, but instead are focused on more concrete issues and on fitting in with others’ expectations. Often by even first grade, these youngsters, particularly the more highly gifted ones, feel isolated from their peers and perhaps from their families as they find that others are not prepared to discuss such weighty concerns.

When their intensity is combined with multi-potentiality, these youngsters become particularly frustrated with the existential limitations of space and time. There simply aren’t enough hours in the day to develop all of the talents that many of these children have. Making choices among the possibilities is indeed arbitrary; there is no “ultimately right” choice. Even choosing a vocation can be difficult if one is trying to make a career decision between essentially equal passion, talents and potential in violin, neurology, theoretical mathematics and international relations.

The reaction of gifted youngsters (again with intensity) to these frustrations is often one of anger. But they quickly discover that their anger is futile, for it is really directed at “fate” or at other matters which they are not able to control. Anger that is powerless evolves quickly into depression.

In such depression, gifted children typically try to find some sense of meaning, some anchor point which they can grasp to pull themselves out of the mire of “unfairness.” Often, though, the more they try to pull themselves out, the more they become acutely aware that their life is finite and brief, that they are alone and are only one very small organism in a quite large world, and that there is a frightening freedom regarding how one chooses to live one’s life. It is at this point that they question life’s meaning and ask, “Is this all there is to life? Is there not ultimate meaning? Does life only have meaning if I give it meaning? I am a small, insignificant organism who is alone in an absurd, arbitrary and capricious world where my life can have little impact, and then I die. Is this all there is?”

Such concerns are not too surprising in thoughtful adults who are going through mid-life crises. However, it is a matter of great concern when these existential questions are foremost in the mind of a twelve or fifteen year old. Such existential depressions deserve careful attention, since they can be precursors to suicide.

How can we help our bright youngsters cope with these questions? We cannot do much about the finiteness of our existence. However, we can help youngsters learn to feel that they are understood and not so alone and that there are ways to manage their freedom and their sense of isolation.

The isolation is helped to a degree by simply communicating to the youngster that someone else understands the issues that he/she is grappling with. Even though your experience is not exactly the same as mine, I feel far less alone if I know that you have had experiences that are reasonably similar. This is why relationships are so extremely important in the long-term adjustment of gifted children (Webb, Meckstroth and Tolan, 1982).

A particular way of breaking through the sense of isolation is through touch. In the same way that infants need to be held and touched, so do persons who are experiencing existential aloneness. Touch seems to be a fundamental and instinctual aspect of existence, as evidenced by mother-infant bonding or “failure to thrive” syndrome. Often, I have “prescribed” daily hugs for a youngster suffering existential depression and have advised parents of reluctant teenagers to say, “I know that you may not want a hug, but I need a hug.” A hug, a touch on the arm, playful jostling, or even a “high five” can be very important to such a youngster, because it establishes at least some physical connection.

The issues and choices involved in managing one’s freedom are more intellectual, as opposed to the reassuring aspects of touch as a sensory solution to an emotional crisis. Gifted children who feel overwhelmed by the myriad choices of an unstructured world can find a great deal of comfort in studying and exploring alternate ways in which other people have structured their lives. Through reading about people who have chosen specific paths to greatness and fulfillment, these youngsters can begin to use bibliotherapy as a method of understanding that choices are merely forks in the road of life, each of which can lead them to their own sense of fulfillment and accomplishment (Halsted, 1994). We all need to build our own personal philosophy of beliefs and values which will form meaningful frameworks for our lives.

It is such existential issues that lead many of our gifted individuals to bury themselves so intensively in “causes” (whether these causes are academics, political or social causes, or cults). Unfortunately, these existential issues can also prompt periods of depression, often mixed with desperate, thrashing attempts to “belong.” Helping these individuals to recognize the basic existential issues may help, but only if done in a kind and accepting way. In addition, these youngsters will need to understand that existential issues are not ones that can be dealt with only once, but rather ones that will need frequent revisiting and reconsideration.

In essence, then, we can help many persons with existential depressions if we can get them to realize that they are not so alone and if we can encourage them to adopt the message of hope written by the African-American poet, Langston Hughes:

Hold fast to dreams,

For if dreams die,

Life is a broken-winged bird

That cannot fly.

Hold fast to dreams.

For if dreams go,

Life is a barren field

Covered with snow.

Langston Hughes

References

Dabrowski, K. (1966). The Theory of Positive Disintegration. International Journal of Psychiatry, 2(2), 229-244.
Halsted, J. (1994). Some of My Best Friends Are Books: Guiding Gifted Readers from Pre-School through High School. Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press, Inc. (Formerly Ohio Psychology Press).
Webb, J. T., Meckstroth, E. A. and Tolan, S. S. (1982). Guiding the Gifted Child: A Practical Source for Parentsand Teachers. Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press, Inc. (formerly Ohio Psychology Press).
Yalom, I. D. (1980). Existential Psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.

Having been a gifted child and the mother of 2 gifted children I now can see many traits in myself and my children that would and did lead to depression.

I hope this article helps others.