Did The Mental Health System Fail Cho Seung Hui?

Did The Mental Health System Fail Cho Seung-Hui? 

While it is difficult to show compassion to a man who was responsible for the worst shooting rampage in recent history and it is even harder to feel for one who showed enough gall to send rather revealing photos and an ill defined manifesto to NBC, we should remember one important fact surrounding this case, Cho Seung-Hui slipped through the mental health field. Shortly before he was accepted toVirginia
Tech
University he was lock up in a mental hospital, often drugged and under close suicide watch. He had been known as a loose canon so when he entered the school had should all the signs of someone of the edge of something that would consume him.  

From early on the professors and psychologists of Cho Seung Hui were well aware of the road he was going down. His personal counselor begged him to get help but, true to the narcissistic nature of some many mental disorders, Hui was working on an over emphasized sense of self, albeit a distorted sense. But from seeing the pictures and listening to the video, it is obvious that much of Hui’s Zarathustrian image of himself is reminiscent of another famous, and extremely angry and paranoid shooter, Valerie Solanas. While she only shot one person, Andy Warhol. Like Cho she created a justification of her anger which is true to form for anyone who suffers paranoid schizophrenia or other disorders that fit in various categories. But since mental illness is not taken seriously in the
United States until it comes back and bites US back. The common response to mental illness in the
United States is usually something like this, “Ah their making it up. Their not really sick.” Or “Why don’t they get over it?”  As the war in
Iraq is allowed to suck money from social programs, more over site and safeguards collapse, so what you have is a system that is barely functional and is forced to release both those who are safe to go but also those who are known dangers. To be fare though, it was his constitional l right to demand his release but most patience in situation remain under some care and medical information must be summated during the time anyone attends a college. While details usually are not given, for privacy reasons, counselors do have the right to request that any student is removed from an institution if there are signs that he or she is a clear and present danger. The head pf Virginia Tech does not have the privilege of denying any knowledge of any clear and present danger, both Cho’s teachers and his counselor gave plenty warnings as did Cho himself. So it seems curious why he was allowed to remain in the school system.  What ever the reason there is little doubt that the message the Cho sent will hopefully force Americans to rethink their stance on mental illness but from early responses, it is unlikely.  One more thing, while 32 people died in Virginia who will weep for, for the near future, 157 Iraqis were killed on the same day with barely blurb in the back of the news papers.  

  http://groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1177106944727.wmv 

http://groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1177106753430.wmv

http://groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1177107070867.wmv

http://groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1177107278633.wmv

Late Adoption

One of the bizarre stores that have come out of the
Florida news wire came about due to an act of love. Bob Wilkey, 63, worked as a janitor it

Citrus
County for the last several years. He had never married or fathered any children from pervious affairs; so it came about that the first daughter he has ever had is 47 years of age and a fellow co-worker.

 

 

Darlyn Beam and Bob Wilkey have been working together for more than 10 years. During that time they had formed an extremely close bond, undoubtedly due loneliness. The two fell in love with each other but not in the romantic sense. Wilkey thought of her as more of a daughter and offered to adopt her as his own daughter. As one could imagine, the bizarre offer took Beam a back but she did accept in the end. Now the two are father and daughter.  For more on this story, check out the link below.

 

Until Next time.

 

 

http://groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1176759077414.wmv

Democracy for Sale

When we hear about presidential candidates it this time a year, either during election years or pre-election years, it is usually regarding how much money they raised during their latest pandering tour. You can look at any one of the front runners in next year’s election. They have all eclipsed the record for the most expensive campaigns in history. This is not only the Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton camps but, also those of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, who now leads the both John McCain and Giuliani on fund raising. When the number two or three runner in a political race brings in $25,000 dollars or even 15,000 million dollars the year before the elections are even set to occur, the question that begs asking, what is the future in the importance of the voter. What has become so painfully obvious in the up election is that each candidate is set to represent the highest bidder.  

Let’s take a look at where the front runners from both parties stand on some key issues. Hillary Clinton supports perhaps the biggest weapon against the poor in the
United States that would be the Death penalty and the prison industrial system. As the first lady, she looked to expand the death penalty be demanding DNA testing to be involved in the sentencing process.  Monsanto will also make out like fat hogs if she gets elected.
Clinton is a huge supporter of ethanol. Those of use who have worked on energy issues can tell you this about any plant related fuel; the exhausted is methane gas which is a heavier and more dense green house gas that will only worsen the global warming situation. She is also in support of increased profits for the oil companies, as long as they invest them in alternative fuel. 

John Edwards also supports the death penalty which is odd considering he is running as the champion of the poor.  It has often been used against those who often can’t afford quality lawyers. Yes committing murder is wrong but, it has shown no statically relevance in working in curbing violent crimes. The vast majority of on death row come from the poorest communities across
America and often is people of color. No one on death row has a gold card. He also supports the increased funding in homeland security to sell off the
US’s borders.  

Rudolph Giuliani: Giuliani has taken the side of the big oil companies calling the human cause of global warming, debatable. This is despite endless testimony from environmental scientists who that there is little or no doubt that human activity is the main cause of climate change. He is also an avid fan of the death penalty. When it comes to health, he supports George W Bush’s plan to privatize our health care system and has come out against universal health care. Under his plan, there is no doubt more Americans would be uninsured. He also supports an increase in troops in
Iraq and an Immigration policy similar to that of George W Bush’s.  

John McCain: Well, he is clone of Bush so, just look over the last 6 years here and the listen to the Address the Nation speeches and you’ll know here McCain stands on the vast majority of the issues.  

Except for John Edwards, all the other candidates support a global economy, including Barak Obama. More importantly since the advent of institutions like IMF and WTO were formed, more major multi national corporations have had an open door into the offices of most of this nation’s major political figures. And now we can take look at the Bush administration as the perfect example of the outcome to this situation. The result has ranged from an energy policy written by the largest oil companies in the
US including Southern energy and First Energy. The reason why these two companies are important is because these are two power industries that were used in the movie “The China Project” according to Greg Palast. You also have environmental policies written by large logging companies and an international policy that lines the pockets of suck major arms dealers and paramilitary troops for hire, as “Shadow group,” Black Water,” “Doe Chemical” Monsanto and other war profiteers. If one were to listen honestly to what is being sold to us as “policy,” which is now little more than the selling off of the remainder of our rights, you will not hear about the fixing of a corrupted voting system or how to announce a war on poverty, though there does seem to be a war on poor people.  

The ugly fact that neither party can get around is the fact that they still need the voters. That ultimately goes into the political coffers of the leading candidates to persuade us why we shouldn’t vote in our own best interest, preferably a third party at this point. So while Ralph Nadar is still being paraded as a villain, it might be asked what the other side has to offer those that they come to all of once in four years,   

 

 

http://groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1175894015211.wmv

The Bush Administrations Aim At War Profiteering

 

It certainly seems the drums of war are being beaten once again and this time, the international steaks maybe far higher than they were for
Iraq. Unlike Iraq, however, Iran is a well connected country whose number one consumer in oil sales just so happens to be the main funder of the Bush administration’s failed policy not only in Iraq but, also in
Afghanistan. But with the recent capture of British soldiers, the White House now has a precursor to going to war with Iran with the support of
England.  The Bush administration certainly has plenty of incentive to going with
Tehran. This ranges from the ever increasing stocks value of such companies like Lockheed Martin, Black Water and Monsanto, Halliburton Exxon Mobile and Southern Energy, to the increased control of the world’s oil resources as a means to prevent the rise of any future super power that can challenge us either militarily or finically. The following is an in depth look at why the Bush White House is pushing so hard for a situation that would force us into war yet again.

 

 

During those dark days leading up to the War in
Iraq in March of 2003, few people noticed that the value of war stocks suddenly went through the roof. In 2001, Lockheed Martin’s sales went up 30% with tens of billions of dollars on the books for future purchases. Between the years of 2000 and 2004, their stock valve went up 300%. Halliburton also enjoyed similar gains.  In 2001, Dick Cheney’s old company was holding 3.2 billion dollars in contracts; in 2004 Halliburton was swimming in 11.1 billion dollars worth of contracts. Black Water’s stock value more than tripled. As the war continues to linger on, the value of these and other companies like Bechtel will undoubtedly continue their upward movement. In fact, as the
Iraq war continues to go “wrong” the more the Black Water’s stock value rises. But they are certainly not the only ones that fall under the privatization of the
US military. In fact, the company, “Shadow Group” has also made out well since the death toll escalated. As the war goes on the more privatized things will become in the war torn country. This brings US to
Iran. These and other companies are looking for similar gains in a possible war with Northern neighbor.  

The problem here is that
Iran is not going to be a push over. Unlike
Iraq, we are talking about a country that has a navy, air force and a well trained army. They have not been under sanctions, unlike
Iraq, for the past 16 years. They also have a network of allies that could very well nullify the US’s dominance in negotiations over
Iran’s nuclear production program. And as mentioned above, one of those countries is China which has been the sole reason for our countries current prosperity since our coffers are in fact bear which would hardly seem to put us position of dictating any situation. So what is the reason for going to war with
Iran? For those who ever read the book “The Grand Chess Board” by Zbigniew  Brzezinski, knows that the reason for such a move. In the book Brzezinski strongly supported the
US’s “control of the tap” of oil to prevent the emergence on any new super power that could challenge our position in the world. And this here is the real reason for the war, more than any other. With countries like China, Russia and
India all quickly becoming financial power houses, they are all in need of oil to keep their economies growing. But, the neo-cons thinking here is that as long we control the flow of oil the more the
US controls the rate of growth in these countries and the more we maintain the upper hand has the sole super power in the world. 

There is a fatal flaw in this plan, however.  China can pull the plug on the hog that we have grown fat on with the two simple actions, First they could unplug their currency from the dollar and plug it into the Euro, forming similar relations with many EU countries as they do with us today, Second, they could call in the debt that we owe them which would implode our entire economy. Remember, Iran is
China’s number one provider of oil and there is no way that they are going silently into that good night. If there is any good news here, as the US citizens cry against the War in Iraq continues to rise the more those in Congress are just starting to listen and with the elections next, it is unlikely going into war with Iran will be has easy as going into the Iraq war, 

Until next week.

 

 

http://groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1175551299977.wmv

 

http://groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1175293365086.wmv

 

Are Children Too Coddled?

Taking some time off from writing about the horrors of modern day politics, I have decided to take a look at one subject that often fascinated, not because it effects me personally, it doesn’t but, because as a political writer it is in my own best interest to try and scope the future landscape of possible situations that may effect our country. And with children being our future, so the saying goes, it seems as good a place as any to focus on. So the question that must be asked is, “are children too coddled.”

 

I’m not referring to the dangers of overall society here. More to the point, I’m more concerned with how over protective some parents maybe. For example, if a single parent were to decide to date again, common wisdom would suggest that the parent would have to dance in a mine field to have a life again. The processes would have to now include a negotiations process with the children before one could even hope to reach first base as it were. The fear is that the child would feel neglected or pushed aside for the new person in the parent’s life. While it is true that the single parent has to be careful in introducing a new person to the life of their child, it would seem that there has to be a trust in the child’s ability to cope with adversity. That is to say that any change in the life of the subjects should not become an over dramatized play for power between the child and parent.

 

The mother or father will have to introduce the “friend” to the child and explain that this new person is now a apart of their lives. Needless to the parent will have to focus on their child or children’s needs both emotionally and psychologically.  But there has to be an understanding by the child that they are going to have adversity in their life and, they are going to have to adapt to said situation.

 

For any single parents that want to chime in, I would like to hear your thoughts.

 

Until next time.

 

http://groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1175540640719.wmv