Gun rabies

Conservatives have gone off the deep end regarding gun control. At one point, most supported ideas like not letting people who had violent histories or mental illnesses that in some way or another impair their ability to differentiate between right and wrong own guns. However as of late, this is not the case. Do not impede the criminal's right to bear arms they say. Don't stop the guy who has more voices in his head than the Wu Tang Clan from getting a gun that can fire 100 bullets in 15 seconds. After all, he might need that to go hunting they say (because sometimes you just need to turn the deer into hamburger on site I guess). Don't you dare do any background checks. They'll just get their guns some other way on the black market they say. 

Ladies and gents I'm first to admit I'm pro Second Amendment but like every other Amendment there are limits. Making bomb threats is not free speech and human sacrifice is not valid religious practice so certainly there are limits on the Second Amendment. Limits like “if you've proven that you flat out won't control your actions or that you are incapable of understanding the physical, moral and social ramifications of your actions, you shouldn't have a gun.”

Most people find such an idea reasonable. After all, proving that you don't care about the rights of others or simply don't understand the idea that other people actually have rights, such as the right to walk into a movie theater and not leave with bullets in all their organs, kind of disqualifies you as a “responsible gun owner.” But to some people, this isn't the case. According to them, anyone should be able to waltz into any gun store at any time they wish, buy as many guns and bullets as they wish and waltz back out armed to the teeth, with no questions asked about mental stability, gang affiliation, drug abuse, or criminal history. To call these types pro-gun would be inaccurate. What we're looking at is “gun rabies.”

Gun rabies is this idea that everyone should be allowed to have any kind of gun no matter how powerful the gun is or how screwed up the buyer is. This idea used to only be tossed around in the most radical circles but gained steam when the President became a photo negative of all the others. As much as I hate to bring race into anything (largely because it just degenerates into accusations of racism from everyone) , it's true. Enforcing regulations already in place in lieu of making new ones was once the battle cry from pro-gun conservatives. Now, the battle cry is shred any and all regulations no matter how reasonable. This change is in part due to the election of President Obama and the rise of so-called militias. Apparently, they think gang members and the mentally unstable would be inclined to join them in an armed uprising against the government rather than do what gang members and psychos are more inclined to do in such situations.

Their justification is that banning guns for people who can't or won't control themselves was never specifically mentioned in the Constitution so we shouldn't do it. Still no consistent word from these types on the War on Drugs or using our military to interfere in other countries internal conflicts, which also fail the “specific mention” test though. Funny how that works.

They claim that guns aren't the problem. We have significant social problems and no amount of gun bans or taxes or regulations will stop gun violence. The social problems have to be addressed.

The weird part is, they're right. They are entirely right. You can talk about banning guns all you want but you'll never get anywhere unless you do something about the people pulling the trigger.

So do they advocate fixing our mental health system and making treatment easier to get for people with mental illness who tend to be the ones who go on the murder sprees? No because that would be socialism. Do they advocate overhauling our education system and making it easier to obtain in light of the fact that most of the people committing gun crimes are uneducated and the other fact that people who are educated are far less likely to commit crimes? No that would also be socialism. What about making it easier for a person to turn his life around after he gets out of jail? Do something tp expunging a criminal record easier for a guy who wants to get on the straight and narrow so he can provide for himself (and thus, far less likely to commit a gun crime or any crime for that matter)? Anyone who suggests that better be ready for the “law and order” types to yowl so loud it would be heard from outer space. Do they advocate finally dropping the Drug War, thus taking power away from the street gangs that commit large portions of gun crime? The law and order crowd would scream.

Well since they reject the obvious solutions what do they suggest? Brace yourself for this one (and by that I mean get some high quality booze): School prayer. Yes their only real “solution” is Miss Jenkins leading her first grade class in school prayer. If only we prayed in schools, there would be less crime. After all, it worked in the 50s and there was less crime then so that must be the solution right?

Ignoring the fact that most of these people making this stupid comment weren't even born, or at best not even out of diapers, there were a lot of other things that were different in the 50s. When a person got out of jail it was much easier for him to start over. We didn't cry socialism every time someone suggested investing in our people and infrastructure. We invested in our mental healthcare (imperfect though it was) instead of just throwing them on the street to save money. Yet none of them want to go back to that. I suppose it's easier to pray than actually do anything productive about the problem. But then rabies does impair judgment. Perhaps gun rabies does the same.

People Not Baggage (a follow up)

So I was spreading my last story around to some forums that were primarily populated by people who saw Liza Long's post and ongoing media tour are "acts of courage." Every forum needs a few dissenting voices after all. I was surprised to get a  such a  rather scathing reaction. The forum is made up of whose leanings are "left of center" shall we say?

One of the posters said that I should just ignore the fact that this kid is having his darkest secrets  aired on  NBC  without his consent because "it's not my decision" or right to criticize. Historically, this has been the exact same justification used by basically every child abuser. So I was a tad surprised to hear it coming from him.

And in a technical sense he is right. However, it is my decision to stand up and show people that there's difference between "courage" and "dangerous recklessness." She wants to have the discussion on a lack of mental health services in this country. I say great! Let's have it. Just not at the expense of another, and say it with me now, human being. And  I will now contribute my bit to the discussion. One of the biggest problems in this country is that in the public sphere we see the disabled, of all types and ages, as primarily extensions of their parents/guardians. Baggage. As a society, we're more concerned for families of people with disabilities than we are for those with disabilities themselves. Liza Long is just another example. Whenever some parent steps forward with their disabled child's private and very personal struggles, we get so focused on the parent's struggles that we conspicuously ignore that there's another person here who probably didn't want the notoriety they receive. Especially the  kind that could be rather negative. I very much doubt the younger Long wanted  the world to see his picture on a blog wherein he is compared to a guy who gunned down 27 people as well as every other person who went on a murder rampage in the last 16 years. And we reflexively call any attempt to bring up said fact an "attack" on the message. Even though it isn't. No one who is criticizing Long is attacking her message. We're calling into question the wisdom of using another person's photos and personal info to make the case. And we're attacked.   Here's a question: In all of the press coverage that’s transpired on mental illness and violence the past few days, how many people with mental health diagnoses have we heard from? Outside of the disabilities corner of the blogosphere, zip. In her media tour, have we heard from the other Long? Nope. And I very much doubt it will get any better. Not when disclosing very sensitive (and easily dangerous in the wrong hands) information of people with disabilities on Huffington Post is seen as an act of "courage." I'm going to be blunt. As a society (note that phrase before hitting the comment section), we don't like acknowledging the fact that people, especially children, with disabilities are people. Just look at all the sheer hate for IDEA, the ADA and EEOC. As a society, we don't like people with disabilities and we don't like hearing their views (especially when it concerns what society is doing wrong). Sure we're much more polite about it. All the same, hearing someone say something like "that kid with autism is a person, not a cross to bear on TV," tends to bring  negative reactions. We don't like it because disability makes us feel very uncomfortable for two reasons. 1. Disability doesn't discriminate. You can be a WASP in a gated community and you could still become disabled. Every able bodied person is one freak accident away  from blindness, one car crash away from using a wheelchair, and one severe concussion away from a brain disorder of some type.  A rich man is just as likely to have a kid with autism as a poor man. A white mom could have a doctor make a mistake that gives her newborn cerebral palsy just as easily as a black mom can. The sheer randomness  of it makes us cringe so we don't like to think about it.   2. Acknowledging people with disabilities as people rather than extensions of their guardians, reminds them of the impact their decisions on the political or personal levels have.  A mom violating her  autistic son's privacy on a global scale, people with developmental issues being subject to violent electroshock therapies, people with trauma or emotional disturbances being  kidnapped in the middle of the night and dragged out to a "school" in the wilderness run by a sociopath who pretends he was in a military, are all very easy pills to swallow when it happens to someone with the same legal status as a lawn chair.  And when people such as myself, or any of these guys: http://www.disabilityandrepresentation.com/2012/12/16/no-you-are-not-adam-lanzas-mother/ http://mypoorgeneration.wordpress.com/ point out that this is a person that this stuff is happening to, we're told we're being insensitive to the parent's struggle or how it's their "right" and how we should just "deal with it." Note that it's all about the parent/guardian in these debates. They are simply too wrapped up in their "courage" or "struggle" to acknowledge that there is another person in these situations who might not like what happens and rightly so. Someone has to acknowledge it. Now, more than any other time in history, we need to acknowledge that people of any age with disabilities, be they physical, developmental, or psychiatric, are people. Not just property or some mother's cross to bear on NBC. Doing so would improve the mental health dialogue in this country and it might just help more than a few people who have disabilities to know that our society sees them as people rather than baggage.

In Defense of the Son of Liza Long

So the whole "I Am Adam Lanza's Mother" post has gone viral. I'm not posting the link here and you'll hopefully see why in a moment. If you  haven't read it go do so.

Half the Internet is basically ready to nominate the writer, Liza Long, for the patron  saint of special needs moms. Before we do, I think it would be wise to consider the broader implications of her writing.

In the blog she discusses how hard and expensive it is for a parent to get adequate treatment for a child with mental illness. And it is hard especially if you want trained professionals and not pseudo spiritual loons, religious quacks looking for farm hands, or sociopaths pretending they were in the military getting their jollies beating on kids.  On its face, the point is very much valid. But like they say, "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." And there is so much wrong with how she said it.

For starters, she publicly compared her son to Lanza, Harris, Klebold and a few others on the basis they had violent tendencies and mental disturbances. Regardless of what issues they have, comparing your child to mass murderers in front of a worldwide audience is incredibly disgusting. But on the day after  a mass murder? While posting a picture of him for the entire world to see? She may as well send him out into the community with a target on his back. That is basically what she has done. For the rest of his life this article will always be hovering over him. Yet no one seems to care about that.

Those pictures are  a second problem. She says she gave him a fake name. However, the fact that she originally posted it under her own name, on a blog that had his name on it while putting a picture of him up makes this irrelevant. Giving him a fake name after that is like setting your PIN number to 1234.  Everyone is still going to know that he's the one his mom said was Eric Harris and Adam Lanza. Worse yet, all this personal information being plastered all over the Internet puts the child at risk. People with disabilities are often the targets of the same sexual predators we try to protect kids from by telling them not to post their private information on the Internet. Yet with the large amount of information she's posted on her blog, any sicko can easily get to him. But it gets worse.

People with disabilities are often the victims of hate crimes and after something like this, the rate will be even higher. It is very possible that some ignorant twit might brand him as the next Adam Lanza and try to do harm to him somewhere down the line  after seeing the photo and his mother actually comparing him to a mass murderer. Such a thing is not unheard of.

Consider this: After 9/11, Muslims, and those that looked like them were often attacked on the basis they were future terrorists by white supremacist lunatics and many Muslim schoolchildren were bullied on a larger scale than ever. A few were actually killed. Maybe it's me but screaming to the world that her son has a mental disturbance while posting his photo and publicly comparing him to the most hated person in America currently is incredibly irresponsible and given how dumb some people are, could lead to another tragedy.   So you can see at least one reason why this might be bad for his physical well being. But this damages his emotional well being too.

She willfully and recklessly divulges his private medical information. This is stuff only family members, teachers and  doctors need to know. Now every sicko and sociopath looking for some kicks knows nearly everything about his history and location (or enough to fill in the gaps within ten minutes) and how it could be exploited.Now he, and for that matter the rest of the kids, most likely think they can't share anything with the mother for fear of her telling all on NBC. As a human being, he has a right to have some things not shouted from the rooftops. Medical information being one of those things.

Before anyone fires back that he's just a kid, let me make it clear: Kids have a right to have at least some things kept private. It is not the right of the parent to share information that could damage a kid for years to come with everyone from New York to Timbuktu. As a human being, age and mental illness  notwithstanding, he is entitled to this simple dignity.

Yet now she's going on a media tour and divulging said information reckless abandon without regard for how he feels about having his dirty laundry aired. If this were an able-bodied child, there would be much more criticism. But since he has a disability, the rest of the world thinks it's okay. It's not.

And this is  the biggest problem I have. The implication here is that it's entirely okay to divulge a person's darkest moments, regardless of the consequences to their physical and emotional well being and reputation so long as the guardian thinks the ends justify the means.

I can get that she's desperate and needs help. But how does effectively painting a target on her child's back help him? To be blunt, it doesn't. A child with disabilities needs at least one rock of support. His only rock of support has betrayed his trust and effectively painted a target on his back for dangerous reactionaries.  Even if this led to him getting the help he needs, this will always follow him like a shadow.

Perhaps she meant well. Maybe she legitimately wants to start a conversation about our broken mental health system and get him help. It does not matter. Airing his personal information to the Internet was not the way to go here.

Unspeakable

I've been trying to gather my thoughts on the CRPD treaty failure. All I can say is that it is  unspeakable. It is unspeakable that the GOP filed past Bob Dole in his wheelchair--still fighting for veterans--only to vote against him. It is unspeakable that the GOP would thumb their noses at the veterans who fight and die for our freedom. It is unspeakable that people who are fiscally conservative have to deal with the fact that the only party allegedly for fiscal conservatives is run and controlled by conspiracy nuts who legitimately believed that this treaty that affirmed the rights of people with disabilities would somehow pave the way for the Antichrist to seize disabled children or some such nonsense.

Here's the truth: The treaty was modeled after the ADA, with a lineage involving 3 Presidents, two of them Christian conservatives mind you. The world was being asked to live up to a moral standard set by the U.S. Isn't this the American exceptional-ism that conservatives preach about?

What should have been a proud moment for America was instead turned into something shameful by religious loony toons. Instead of standing for our veterans and our disabled, they stood against them. What's more shameful is that they did this because people who allegedly follow Jesus demanded and are now celebrating it.

The party that gave us the Birthers and nutcases that even Agent Mulder would believe were crazy, again turned American leadership into yet another insane rant about black helicopters, anti-Christian conspiracies that did not exist, and fevered fantasies of anti-UN nutjobs. Had they put down "Left Behind" long enough to read the actual text of the treaty, they'd have realized that none of the things tossed about by the religious kooks at the Homeschool Legal Defense Association and the like were actually true.

Let's face it: There is a reason people believe religion harms human progress. The failure of the CRPD is yet more evidence of this theory. This treaty was not about unseen moochers or religion—it was about the disabled receiving the same legal respect upon which all of us rely--a decency and fairness that comports with American law. A decency Jesus talked about:

Luke 14 12-13: "He said also to the man who had invited him, “When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind,"

But not even the words of Christ himself could stop good Christian conspiracy theorists from turning a hearing on good and moral legislation into a circus act and then a total tragedy with their conspiracy theories about how UN shocktroops in the employ of Satan or something would storm their houses and steal their disabled  children. I hope the alleged Christian who helped torpedo this treaty are proud of  themselves because Jesus is not.