Obama's adamant refusal to associate Islam with terrorist attacks has long since passed the point of ludicrousness. Starting with his characterization of Major Hasan's killing of 14 at Ft. Hood as ordinary "workplace violence," Obama has consistently turned a blind eye to the obvious jihad-like nature of the attacks.
Obama also said this past week that it was ridiculous that a man like Mateen, who had been investigated (and cleared) by the FBI, would have ready access to guns. What Obama didn't say was that organizations like the FBI are reluctant to go after Muslims precisely because of the politically correct atmosphere promoted by his own administration.
Every operative at a federal agency knows that it's worth his career if he shows any "bias" or "prejudice" or does any "racial profiling" against a member of an Obama-favored group.
Obama did say this week, as he has said several times in the past, that guns have to be "kept out of the wrong hands." But if he's not referring to those bent on jihad, then which exactly are the "wrong hands" he is referring to?
Obama mentioned that mental health records should be cross checked when gun purchases are made. But very few young people (most mass shooters are young) actually have publicly available mental health records.
And who exactly is Obama referring, anyway, when he talks of the "mentally ill?" Exactly which people, with which syndromes, is he talking about?
People who suffer from depression? Someone who is suicidal might possibly be thinking in terms of taking somebody with them. Should Robin Williams, Isaac Asimov, Charles Dickens, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Abraham Lincoln, and John D. Rockefeller all have been denied a gun for that reason?
People who are bipolar? Should Dick Cavett, Carrie Fisher, Phil Ochs, Lou Reed, Ted Turner be denied permits? Should Edgar Allan Poe, Vincent Van Gogh, and Virginia Woolf have been denied them?
Schizophrenics? Even when they're medicated?
Most Americans believe that any jihadist who thinks he is going to receive 72 virgins in Paradise is delusional, i.e., psychotic. But of course, going by that definition, Christians who believe in Heaven and Hell are similarly misled.
Or how about people with narcissistic personality disorder? That includes an awful lot of people too: just think in terms of everyone you know who thinks he's better than he is at various things. Or everybody who seems inclined to take more credit and less blame than he deserves. That would seem to include a high percentage of those in Congress.
Sociopaths? At first glance, this would probably be the first group you'd want to prevent from having access to firearms. But would Barack Obama want to prevent Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Wendy Davis, Carly Fiorina, Joe Arpaio, and even himself from having guns?
How about the gays? Homosexuality was classified as a mental illness by the DSM until quite recently. And male homosexuals punch way above their weight when it comes to serial killing. So should they be excluded from the gun-carrying fraternity?
Or how about transgenders, who put the "T" in LGBT? The DSM does still list them as having "gender dysphoria," an identifiable syndrome. So….should Caitlyn Jenner and Chaz Bono not be allowed the right to defend themselves? You'd think that of all people, they need protection most.
Neurotics? (That includes most of us.)
Or how about people with ADD or ADHD? That's an awfully big segment of the population, too. But lapses in concentration can lead to lapses in judgment.
People with OCD? Would Obama have prevented Charles Darwin, Howard Hughes, Michelangelo, and Ludwig Van Beethoven from owning weapons? Doubtful. Would he prevent Donald Trump from owning one? (Probably.) But what about Howard Stern, Harrison Ford, Martin Scorsese, and Leo DiCaprio?
People with Aspergers? Would Obama not allow Al Gore to have a gun? Would he have prevented Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, George Orwell, and Thomas Edison from obtaining permits?
Or how about war heroes with PTSD? Certainly if there's one category of people who've earned the right to defend themselves, it's those who've defended the country. But, some of them have been known to turn violent.
The "mentally ill" is an awfully vague category that covers a whole lot of people.
On top of that, does Obama have any idea how few young people have actually visited a psychiatrist? Is he aware that the vast majority of people with these various syndromes go undiagnosed? And does he realize that if they have visited a psychiatrist, that doctor is unlikely to have given his records to law enforcement, because of privacy concerns?
Is Obama aware that the vast majority of people with these various syndromes never turn violent? Wouldn't this type of program, if aimed at, say, an entire ethnic group, be deemed "discrimination?"
Think in terms of how black people commit a vastly disproportionate share of handgun violence, yet at the same time the vast majority of black people are law-abiding. Wouldn't keeping guns from blacks be viewed as discriminatory? The very idea seems unthinkable; yet wouldn't keeping guns from "the mentally ill" be equally discriminatory?
The concept of keeping guns from "the mentally ill," without being very specific about exactly whom you're referring to, seems extremely problematic.
Posts
29 comments:
this is yet another very insightful blog post (or A VERY GOOD QUESTION), I think this blog is really being LED BY THE LORD (so to speak)
it turns out that everybody but critical race theory leftists are mentally ill...all racists, all religious people, all conservatives...everybody except for the gabbling witches from sjwiki.org will be determined to be too crazy to have a gun
seriously, we know that large parts of the soft social sciences are just made-up leftist politically-correct lies...Obama and his dirtbag tribe are eager to medicalize dissent and give everybody but themselves a diagnosis...this was one of the hidden aims of Obamacare, to get all doctors working for the government, then to medicalize and report wrongthink through these newly dependent and supine doctors
Anon --
Thank you. And yes, the social sciences are all about propaganda these days. If you're at a university and tell the truth about group differences, you'll lose your job.
The really funny thing is, Obama himself obviously suffers from narcissistic personality disorder, and is dishonest to the point where it's hard not to conclude that he's downright sociopathic. I've heard it said that he's probably bipolar as well.
Don't forget the mental illnesses Islamophobia, homophobia, and xenophobia. Presumably we need to keep guns from the hands of sickos with those conditions too.
Mark --
Ha, good point!
And who exactly is Obama referring, anyway, when he talks of the "mentally ill?" If he were actually serious about limiting gun purchases to those with identifiable syndromes, exactly which syndromes is he referring to?
...
The "mentally ill" is an awfully vague category that covers a whole lot of people.
...
The idea of keeping guns from "the mentally ill," without being very specific about exactly whom you're referring to, seems extremely problematic.
It seems problematic only to us. To those in power vague categories offer complete control as, without exact definitions, the category "mentally ill" will be interpreted by the establishment. It offers wonderful flexibility and once the principle of denying "mentally ill" guns, all that remains is to put racists, homophobes, excessively patriotic, the religious and global warming denialists into the category.
What Obama didn't say was that organizations like the FBI are reluctant to go after Muslims precisely because of the politically correct atmosphere promoted by his own administration.
Exactly. If FBI was permitted to discriminate and focus on Muslims this shooting could have been avoided. Instead people are so terrified of being labeled racists that they not only don't do their job responsibly but actually ignore red flags.
This whole thing comes back to insanity of liberal principles of equalism, non-discrimination and anti-stereotyping. If one positions these principles as the foundations of morality, then, in order to be moral, one must literally deny reality. The result of this denial is Orlando, Paris, Brussels, Cologne, Rotherham and many more to come.
Rona --
The Soviets used to do that, send dissidents to Siberian gulags on the pretext of insanity. I don't think the US is close to that point, but the vagueness of Obama's suggestion does make you wonder.
I agree, the reigning religion of equalism these days is all about denial of reality.
I agree with the first commenter, about this blog possibly being "led by the Lord," having never really thought of this way until I read the comment. Regarding Obama, the man is a socialist, intent on stripping Americans of their Constitutional rights, one of them being the Second Amendment, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I don't think that Obama acts alone (obviously). There's a plan in place and he's attempting to carry it out. My question is for these Communists, if you love communism so much, why not go and live in an actual communist country, instead of destroying and trying to "transform" the country that you hail from? As a Christian, I do think about the book of Revelation, questioning if the times we are currently living in weren't foretold in the last book of the Bible. My take is that it all is coming together, making sense.
-birdie
Birdie --
You and that other commenter are going to have to cut this out, otherwise I'm going to get a complex. And it's a little ironic that you would both say that about a post in which I implicitly criticized Christianity.
(It has occurred to me, though, that the reason I enjoy this blog, the reason I keep writing it, is partly because it allows me to play god; there, is that enough blasphemy for one post?)
Regarding Obama, the good news is that he's running out of time. The only problem is, Hillary's election would effectively give him a third term. I can't think of another election where I've cared so much about the outcome, not even 2012.
Ha! I'm pretty sure that we don't have to worry about you ever having or developing a god complex. The Big Guy (upstairs) could be using you for His purposes. In the past, I really haven't had much of an interest in politics. Maybe due to middle age, I now care and am interested in things that concern the country/world. It could also be because the times we live in are so topsy- turvy, unsettling (at times).
-birdie
Birdie --
If He is using me, I have to confess, I'm entirely unaware of it.
Then again, I've always been a little on the naive side, unaware of when people are using me.
John,
This is a question I have been proposing to various prog/lib groups for some time without getting a response.
To further add to the generally vague statement of "the mentally ill" consider who will be on the panel making the determination of competence: Only after going through the entire list of political favours owed, appointments due to nepotism, old college friends, and favorite interns will those who work in the field of mental health be considered. Even then, sex, race, handicaps, and the sex of one's domestic partner will be more important than such mundane items as number of peer reviewed papers published.
Of course at the most basic level, the national government is making a case for removal of civil rights based on nothing more than some administrative "star chamber" procedure. Why not just go whole hog and get it over with. Toss out that pesky Miranda thing as well. Haul the suspects into the back of the p police station and beat a confession out of them.
Better not say that to often. It might give someone in DC ideas.
Luke
Luke --
The reason you haven't been getting an answer is because there IS no answer. Too many people hear a vague statement like "we have to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill," which sounds reasonable enough on the surface, and think, oh yeah, of course, without really thinking about what such a policy would entail, and who exactly would be included in that group.
I'm starting to think that Mark Caplan (above) had it right: that the mentally ill will end up being defined as those who suffer from those dread diseases homophobia, Islamophobia, etc.
Great description of how academia works, btw.
A fantastic and refreshing post. My only gripe with it is too much harping on the evil of Islam. Regardless of what all is going on with the Islamist world these days (and it is evil, no doubt about it), the fact is that the vast majority of mass shootings in this country have been perpetrated by non-Muslim American men. No amount of Muslim profiling would have prevented Columbine or Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech. The problem is with testosterone! Just kidding... No, really. The problem really is that we are, apparently, a species with a hell of a lot of aggression and mutual hatred embedded in us. Hate --- maybe the DSM elders can make that into a diagnostic category? Fat chance.
I agree with you and many of the comments on here. We all live with a degree of dysfunction, neurosis and frustration. These are simply problems of living and being human. To try and map out a psychiatrically-based profile of what constitutes normal is a sure road to totalitarianism. Soon enough everyone would be required to take a pill -- or a handful --- to adjust their 'social adjustment' levels.
As for the tired Obama comments, yeah. It's really old and irritating. I think it's just a politically-correct convenience --- I don't believe he believes any of that dookie himself. That's what all the progressives want to hear. They all just want to pat themselves on the back and reassure themselves that they 'care.'
Ambivalent Misanthrope --
You're female! Somehow I had missed that earlier, both from your other comment under this name and the ones under the "D" name. Yes, you're absolutely right, testosterone is to blame for most of the mass killings, females simply don't do this type of thing. The reason I don't dwell on that, the reason I don't find it all that interesting, is because it's okay to say so. If you say that, no one will bat an eyelash. There are other equally factual differences, of gender and race, which, if you mention them, will get you cast out of polite society. And which, for that reason, I find more interesting.
You're right, this was a messy post; I shouldn't have tried to squeeze two separate points in, I should have just made it about mental illness, it would have been cleaner. Too late to revise it now, though, that would make some of the comments above seem as if they were coming from nowhere.
I just checked out your blog. I should have checked it out earlier, and that too makes it clear you're female. Either that or you're the kind of guy who can admit he cries over The Velveteen Rabbit, which would make you extreeeeeeeemely confident in your masculinity.
LOL John Craig! You are right, I'm totally a female and I admit I cry over sentimental children's stories --- though I'd forgotten that little tidbit on my profile. Speaking of gender, I don't know --- these days it's becoming politically incorrect to insist that any gender differences are innate or essential. The progressive battle cry is that gender is purely a social construct. I remember piping in a class a few years ago and commenting on the fact that prisons are filled predominantly by males because men are statistically more prone to violence. My professor (who was female) took great offense at that, rebutting me by saying in an outraged tone that women can be violent too. "Well of course," I thought as I choked on my own unexpressed anger at her. "It's just that women are far less likely to act on it."
Ambivalent Misanthrope --
I was going to say, in that previous comment you sounded more like an unambiguous misandrist, but in this one you sound more like a misogynist, so I guess that sorta averages out to misanthrope….
Arggh, too bad you're not a male, otherwise you could have kicked the crap out of that dumb professor and proven her wrong -- sorta. Or, maybe you should have done it anyway, though that would have been proving her right.
My worry with this sort of thing is that people who need help would stop seeking it if they knew it would lead to loss of privileges, and they'd suffer in silence. Mental health issues are a massive burden on the economy so it's in everyone's interest for them to be treated. I doubt Obama thought this through.
- Gethin
Gethin --
I suppose that could happen. And yeah, given that Obama fits a few of these categories himself, I don't think he thought it thorugh either.
It's a myth is that if a schizophrenic takes his meds, it's a magic cure. The meds only stop the hallucinations and ease paranoia sometimes, but they do prevent violence to a good degree which I believe may have been your point if you already knew that. Numerous behavioral therapies and psychological visits are necessary, the meds don't do everything. Like depression, anti depressants won't cure, you have to work on your own depression. Schizophrenics have to help themselves as well.
Schizophrenia has 3 categories of symptoms:
Hard/Positive: Hallucinations, paranoia, delusion, meds ease these (not cure, thats like saying anti depressants fix depression), and 1/3rd do not respond to any medication, they have to be kept in psychiatric hospitals for the rest of their life unfortunetly. And often some patients require extremely high dosages that cause terrible side effects, weight gain, nausea, Parkinson like tremors, brain damage, and more leading to new problems.
Soft/Negative: Apathy, withdrawal, poor social abilities, stupor, disorganized though, verbal problems, flat affect, in some severe cases catatonia or psychomotor retardation. Anhedonia, apathy, amotivation, alogia, echopraxia (like autistic echolalia, except repeating movements rather than words).
Cognitive: Poor working memory, weak central coherance, poor planning skills, difficulty performing daily tasks, cases can even cause IQ to rapidly decline if there is no response to treatment or early intervention to halt it. (They are similarily developing technologies to screen for risk of autism in infants. Some are born with it, others like me have a late onset between 2-3 years old. Cases of children developing it when 6-10 are rare, but not unheard of, it's called "childhood disintegrative disorder" but they are considering lumping it with Autism Spectrum Disorder"
Schizophrenia is very heterogeneous like autism, people can vary wildy. I am incredibly obsessive, more paranoid, and depressive while another autistic person I know has better life skills, has less ability for insight, has meltdowns, but is nowhere near as neurotic or depressed as I am and has better self esteem. I am clumsy but she can play squash quite well.
Only 10-20% make some recover, the rest: 1/3rd enter remission and gain some control but are still affected, 1/3rd stay the same, 1/3rd worsen severely no matter what treatment you give. About 70% of schizophrenics are unemployed, even ones who respond to medication well. They have trouble with social communication and performing complex tasks in a work environment, and extreme anhedonia and apathy also don't help. and the one's who do recover are still not the same as the way before.
A common stereotype among schizophrenics is heavy smoking, possibly because it reduces the side effects of medications and it can ease some "soft/negative" symptoms. Interestingly people with autism are less likely to be tobacco smokers, but respond well to marijuana or ADHD stimulants in many cases. People with schizophrenia often get worse when they use marijuana or ADHD meds.
If you look at the symptoms I listed, Schizophrenia sorta seems like some weird counterpart to autism. Like clumsiness in autism but stiff rigid movements in schizophrenia, or obsessive repetitive routines and stimming/hand flapping yet stupor and psycho-motor retardation in schizophrenia. Repetive pedantic speech in ASD but alogia in schizophrenia. Echolalia in autism but echopraxia in schizophrenia....weird.
But they have meds to begin with. Meds for autism are not available. They have found stuff that seems to help (suramin, african sleeping sickness drug) causing improvements in social skills and stopped meltdowns during a trial, but the patients developed rashes and nearly had organ failure within a week!...it just seems if something comes along to help ASD, it ends up being dangerous. So why the fuck don't they find a way to make it safer? Lithium caused numerous health problems and organ failure back then, but they found ways to make it safer.
I think some of it is that there is little profit to be made if something is too effective. Also Neurodiversity has shifted the goals of numerous research organizations from finding ways to directly control autism to just finding ways to "accomadate it", boils my blood.
They say "I was born this way", but there are numerous cases of late onset autism like mine which I developed between the ages of 2-3 (and it was gradual, I made perfect eye contact as a toddler, when I was 8 I had trouble but still played with other kids, then at 12 my aunt said I made no eye contact and could barely reciprocally communicate.) The big myth is that autism is only a different brain, while yes it is developmental and grows abnormally, there is ample evidence of mechanism, and the brain changes over time, children and adults have differences that keep shifting around. Autism is a condition that also AFFECTS the brain, IT IS A DISORDER , there is stuff happening to it causing problems. It is a disease, clear and simple. And the risk of seizure or psychosis is higher in middle aged adults with ASD than in the normal population.
I once brought these up on a debate on that dreaded forum. They say "those are comorbidities, those aren't real autism." "The kids who seem normal up till 2-3, that's not real autism, they must have been exposed to toxins or something".
As for whether autism is going up or not, I understand better diagnoses plays a huge role. However, I looked and checked, the reported incidence of "regressive autism" where a child is talking, cooing, making eye contact, playing up till the age of 2 or so then suddenly stops speaking, becomes mentally disabled, and bangs his head against the wall has gone up disproportionately in reports. This kind saw an increase in reports 6x during the 70s when recognition was taking place. The plain autism from birth was only reported to increase in reports by 2-3x which would be from better recognition, but this "regressive" or "late onset" going up was hard to believe to be a coincidence. I would say maybe the incidence has not gone up, but SEVERITY has. More people are developing low functioning severe autism and those with it may soon outnumber people with aspergers/high functioning. Even schizophrenia and bipolar has risen slowly, by maybe 40-50%.
And homosexuality too, Rock Hudson and DaVinci were gay but was masculine. Now we have Perez Hilton and other flaming over the top gays. If being gay hasn't gone up, maybe "effeminate gays" have gone up.
Thanks for letting me post my autistic monologue here, I have to repress the urges to do it in public. I really just wish I had no such urge. I am exaggeratting here, but one thing I deeply resent is that my condition has made me "bad". If I were born without it, I feel I would not have to worry about hurting others or just being annoying at most. I regret so much of how I acted, what a little shit i was when younger, and I think "man, if I didn't have it, I would not have sinned" So I am angry I was made to be born "baaad" because I would not have done those things if I had not. I just think if I had woken up normal during my shithead years as a screechy autistic whiny kid or teenager, I would be immediately a good person with nothing to worry about. And now I still wish to be rid of it to secure my feelings that yes, I won't do any harm.
-Ga
Anonymous (I'm assuming this is Ga) --
Thank you for that education in schizophrenia. You make a lot of points I had only been vaguely aware of before.
I actually do know someone with schizophrenia, and he's a heavy smoker. I hadn't made that connection before. And he stays on his meds, but he's still in tough shape, so he fits your profile.
Ga --
Okay, just saw the second half of your comment, it IS you.
You should do something with your knowledge of psychological conditions. You know more about this than just about anyone I know, and you have more understanding of it - and a better feel for it -- than professionals in the field. And that's particularly impressive give your age.
The smoking is one of those cases where "stereotypes exist for a reason".
I saw a video of Nash (the mathematician from the movie a Beautiful Mind) son who inherited his dad's condition, except it was worse in him. He was smoking and walking in circles and had a hard time sitting still for the interview. I saw another video to check to see if there is smoking.
I was once placed on a terrible anti depressant and anti-psychotic by a bad psychiatrist from the USA who refused to prescribe me regular anti depressants and adhd meds.
I was smoking like a chimney until they took me off and the craving went away.
I'm just being a little professor, autistic people monologue a lot and it annoys and pisses people off. I figure I can write as much as I want here and you have no obligation to read or reply so helps me let out some of the repressed "special interest" urges.
Oh and I was high on a ton of valium when writing that. So less inhibition was there too.
Being an academic sounds nice or a professor, I get summer breaks and long holidays...
but is that where the wind is blowing? Tech is the new frontier, and becoming a computer scientist is where the big bucks are, and they usually answer to no one. They are like the Sergeant Major of a company, they are outranked by their boss, but don't you dare force them to salute the boss since they have everything in their hands.
Dunno, but I gotta work on my depression first. Don't also misinterpret my blathering of facts for intelligence, real intelligence is knowing how to survive, wit. I was just indulging myself on a valium high. Thank's for your tolerance.
-Ga
Ga --
You make intelligent comments, they're always welcome, though I don't always have the time or energy to respond.
No question, computer scientists make more than professors, but psychology seems to be your passion, for better or worse. So why not go into that field?
Special interests come and go, and I cannot predict them. I wonder if I can do more than one thing at a time....or spend my young years doing computer science but then retire with psyciatry (not exactly psychology, that's like freud and stuff, I am more interested in organic stuff).
And I hate to repeat, but please don't misinterpret my special interest and obessession with facts with true passion. Because I've made that mistake in the past, I had an obessession with becoming a chef for years but i lost that special interest. I don't think I have a true work passion for psychiatry stuff.
What did you do for a living growing up? What was your job and education history like?
-Ga
Okay sorry for writing so much, but I've figured out what I mean. Psychiatry/brain stuff is my passion, but not my work passion. Like your fascination with sociopaths, you don't want to become a professor on psychopathy but you enjoy discussing and writing about it, reading and learning about it. You could say the same thing about me and Autism and Schizophrenia (I am fascinated by it since I've already exhausted my knowledge on Autism, and schizophrenia is also neurodevelopmental).
My work passion may be something else, and I think tech is where it is at.
Sorry for writing so much, if I could I would go back and re-edit my replies to make them more concise. I write so much because I am all over the place in my head. I need to write 10 sentences to get an idea across someone could easily do in 1.
And you have no obligation to read or reply which makes this a good place for me to write. Sorta like practice.
-Ga
Ga --
The job I had which gave me financial independence was being a bond trader at Goldman Sachs for twelve years. I didn't have a stellar career there, but I saved my money and invested it well.
I went to Harvard. My father taught there, so I can't take credit for having gotten in on my own.
Ga --
I would have loved to have been a "professor of sociopathy," but no college will hire you if you don't have a PhD in the subject. I think I would have been good at it though.
Just had a valium high thought, I realize something contributing to the stigma against the mentally disabled or ill. The idea meds are magic. They are not.
On schizophrenia: "He's taking his meds, why is he unemployed and needs care? He must be lazy" (Those meds may be harming his IQ, I'll get to that)
On depression: "He's taking his meds, why won't he freaking cheer up, he's just so negative!"
On ADHD: "He's taking his meds, why is he still struggling to pay attention, must be ignoring me on purpose!"
On Bipolar: "He's taking his meds, why is he struggling to find employment?" (Manic and depressive episodes are not mood shifts, they are chemical imbalances that damage the brain repeatedly, if they catch it early before damage is done they have good chance to recover, but if they don't it will be chronic and disabling, even causing in some cases negative/soft symptoms like schizophrenia or leading to psychosis in severe cases, it's not just a mood swing disorder, that's another myth, it's an organic)
On Autism: "He's taking his meds, why is he still stimming or melting down? Must be trying to get attention" (To add, meltdowns aren't just tantrums, I don't have them but I googled about them, apparently they believe it's caused by a build up of transmitters that can't communicate or reach the front part of the brain, and may cause cell damage in parts of the brain if chronic. Don't the freaking pride groups ever consider maybe it's not such a harmless condition? Hell, severely autistic people get seizures and can die from them! IDIOTS!)
Or even people who quit drugs:
"He is clean from heroin/alcohol/speed for 5 years, why is he unemployed still?" (drugs use causes brain damage, it doesn't always heal overnight and can disable a person)
On Schizophrenia (my next favorite mental health topic besides Autism), the sheer high dosage of drugs needed is almost toxic. I once was given abilify for a month to help my depression, it made me horrible, sick all the time, restless legs, blurry vision, like 20 side effects. I googled it, and the dosage given for schizophrenia along with other similar antipsychotics was anywhere from 10-20x higher than the plain dose for cases of OCD or depression. It also said it can cause the brain to be damaged and lose brain matter/decay, and the side effects may be permanent even if they stop taking them. No wonder they smoke (since it eases side effects).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SizS1nOOeJg
John Nash son, it portrays the other side of the condition well, he is smoking too..., he isn't hallucinating so he is probably well medicated, so you can see the soft/negative and cognitive symptoms (there is no way of medicating them, drugs only ease hard/positive symptoms unfortunately). He is tense and has restless legs, doesn't sit still, probably side effects from the meds. Poor guy, I feel for him, John Nash maybe should have considered whether to have a child because he could pass the condition, and he did, and it is more severe in his son.
Speaking of which I found out about a disease where you have to smoke! Ulcerative colitis (don't google it if you have a weak stomache, it's a disease where you have polyops, inflammation, and decay in your colon and chronic bloody diarrhea, there is no cure). Nicotine is prescribed if all other drugs fail to control it.
Jesus why did I write all this? I need a cup of coffee, it will sober me up. (No I am not a druggie, I've only done valium twice the last two months! I don't snort it, maybe I should try doing that next month? ughhghghg)
-Ga
Post a Comment