Skip to main content

mental health mondays :: when the right makes two wrongs

i don't put a lot of stock in arguments from the nra as to why factors other than the ludicrously lax gun laws in america are chiefly responsible for the amount of gun violence there. i believe that the only way to effectively reduce gun crimes is to limit the number and power of weapons available to the general public and that the men who wrote the constitution and the bill of rights never envisioned their second amendment being used in the way it is by the pro-gun lobby. that's my opinion and while i believe it's correct, it's clear that there are other opinions about this, particularly among the right flank of american politicians.

one of the latest scapegoats/ explanations for gun violence in the aftermath of mass murders in colorado, connecticut and at a military base near washington is the country's method of dealing with mental health issues. and for once, the right wing and i are in agreement that something needs fixing and that having more comprehensive gun control will be of limited use if people with severe mental disorders have greater access to weapons than they do to healthcare. at least, i thought that we were in agreement until my good friend martin sent me this article regarding senator al franken's initiative to improve funding for mental health support.

as i mentioned, i don't think that mental illness is responsible for all or even most of the gun violence in the united states, but if you're going to argue that it is, then it helps to put your money where your mouth is. you can't just say "this is a serious problem" and then actively block efforts to solve it. or at least, if you do, you should have to make your explanation clear.

the argument that individual states should be responsible for health care is pretty tenuous. it's a libertarian fallback position absolving the federal government from responsibility for doing just about anything, other than those things which are equally necessary for all the states, but beyond the capacity of individual states to provide. however, i think there's a very compelling argument that access to mental healthcare is exactly that kind of thing. resources vary wildly from one region to another, but the danger presented by a mentally ill person determined to cause harm to others is equal, no matter where one lives. [note :: i mean that the danger would be equal wherever the situation exists, not that there are equal numbers of people with mental disorders in every area of the country.]

the importance of states' rights may be another point on which right wing politicians and i differ. but eventually, i hope that some enterprising journalist will see fit to ask one of the men who has blocked this legislation what they are doing to combat the problem of mental illness combined with gun violence. we're very aware of what they're doing to stop individual initiatives, but i don't see a lot of action directed towards fixing it. this, really, is the larger issue. politicians can list off their reasons for opposing individual pieces of legislation ad infinitum, but if they're going to justify their salaries, they also need to provide an alternate vision.

of course, no one will likely ask those questions, because they've not been asked before. senator tom coburn is notable for having opposed multiple efforts engineered to get help for returning veterans. senator mike lee from utah was one of the strongest advocates of the government shutdown late last year and his most recent piece of legislation is actually designed to block the influence of the supreme court's decision to legalize marriage equality. [to be fair, lee has also done some proactive work on easing the burden on the american prison system.] instead of having to answer the hard questions, politicians like lee and coburn are able to skate their way around by shrugging and saying it's someone else's problem.

in the meantime, conditions in the united states remain dire for many in need of mental healthcare and as long as there are people who are content to view their job as being to oppose legislation they don't 100% agree with as opposed to fighting for legislation that will solve real problems, it seems like little is going to change.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …