Of Newtown and Magical Thinking

The Newtown tragedy brings to mind my experiences many years ago as an assistant district attorney when, among other things, I was assigned to cover the mental health hearings in the probate court of Bexar County, Texas. Every other Wednesday I met the probate judge and his clerk at his office in the courthouse and we drove together down South Presa street to the county mental health hospital. There we held involuntary and voluntary commitment hearings in a small conference room. At that time it was much easier to extend commitments than it is today.

Most of the inmates suffered from mental illnesses combined with related addictive behaviors. The hospital was pretty shabby but the inmates were at least housed, fed, medicated and protected from injuring themselves or others. The unintended consequences of the later movement to protect individuals from abuse of the mental health commitment processes of that day has been to drastically reduce mental health treatment and increase danger of injury to these patients and to the public. 

I read about twice as many calls for gun control legislation as I do for increases in funding for mental health. And I have not yet read or heard of anyone advocating changing the laws relating to involuntary commitments for those with potentially dangerous untreated mental illnesses. Yet the news today tells us that the shooter in Newtown may have become enraged because he knew that his mother was trying to get him committed to a mental health facility for treatment. That process is very cumbersome and takes too much time when a patient is in a potentially dangerous mental state.

As a society we tend to engage in magical thinking in times of tragedy like this. We think that the solution to tragedies like this lies in the legislative process. Pass some new laws to restrict gun possession and increase funding for mental health treatment and, VOILA, problem solved! 

I'm not saying new legislation in these areas is not needed, but neither will it be a cure. If not carefully thought through, new laws may bring negative unintended consequences, just as the well-intentioned changes in involuntary commitment processes resulted in growth of a troubled, untreated homeless population across the country.

I don't have the answers and I wish that I did. I do know there are too many  struggling with the problem of getting good, consistent treatment for mentally ill family members and that they also need counseling and training themselves in helping their loved ones manage these difficult, chronic conditions. 

It's going to take a lot more than magical thinking and political posturing to prevent future tragedies like Newtown. God help us.

State of the Union Burnout

In the good old days of the early Republic, the President sent a State of the Union message in writing to Congress. He didn't come to the Capitol building and give a speech.

Fast forward to the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Now the State of the Union address has become a big media event, hyped endlessly for days in advance.

I'm not sure when Presidents started the custom of inviting current heroes (like Captain Sully Sullenberger); youthful examples of good behavior and achievement; and -- inevitably--individual citizens with problems that demonstrate the need for whatever policies the Prez is advocating that year. Did it begin with Carter? Reagan? Earlier ? Later?

Whenever it began, I wish it would end. Props to the President who avoids the temptation to put people on display in order to prop up his policies--whatever his or her political persuasion. This is why I haven't watched the SOU address in many years.

Anyone with me on this?

Bill Cosby, Rare Voice of Reason

My Iranian "Little Sis"

Whenever Iran is in the news, I remember Maryam T.

Maryam was my "little sister" in my college sorority (Tri Delta at Cornell University) way back in the late 1960's. She must have been one of the very first Iranian women educated in the U.S. I remember her telling me that her family did not understand why her father allowed her to come here for college--or to go to college at all.

Maryam was an attractive girl and spoke English fluently but with a bit of an English accent and used more British than American terms when I first knew her. She was the first Muslim I ever knew, although she was not particularly devout. I remember being struck by how similar her dietary restrictions were with those of the Orthodox Jewish girl in the sorority (also a good friend of mine) and being distressed that these two "sisters" went out of their way to avoid talking to or eating with each other if at all possible. Apparently the ancient antagonisms between their ancestors were not overcome by the shared experiences in college and the sorority. But there was never any overt unpleasantness between the two of them.

From Maryam I learned that Iranians are not Arabs, but Persians and this was a very important distinction to them, despite their shared religious faith. There were very few Muslims or Arabs or Persians at Cornell or anywhere else in the country in those days. Now I live near a couple of mosques and have a number of Muslim neighbors out here in the Texas suburbs.

The last I heard, Maryam lived on the east coast and was married--but I don't know anything about her husband, family or life after college. I heard that her family fled Iran after the fall of the Shah so I imagine that she became an American citizen and made her life here. I hope it has been a good life.

What does Maryam think when she sees what is happening in Iran today? That young woman who was killed while attending a protest was probably the same age as her daugher, if she has one. Does she still have family there? Are they among the protestors? If the regime changed, would she want to return to visit or to live? I would like to know, but long ago lost touch with her.

My prayers are with those seeking freedom and democracy in Iran. May God be with them.

Remembering Conventions Past

As the Democratic Party's convention opened last night in Denver, El Jefe and I were reminiscing about the "old-time" political conventions we avidly followed in our youth. Those of you of a certain age will remember along with us the days when the (3) national networks went wall-to-wall with 24/7 coverage of every speech and caucus of both parties.

Back in my teens and early twenties, I was an idealistic political junkie. Along with my parents, I watched every minute of television coverage and read the analysis of the pundits in Time, The New Yorker, and the San Antonio Express-News. So did El Jefe. Except he read The National Review and the Borger News-Herald.

Yes, my children, in those days stuff actually happened at the conventions. The vice presidential nominee wasn't chosen in advance by the presumptive presidential nominee. Sometimes the presumptive nominee was very very presumptive and votes changed at the conventions. My ambition was to be a delegate at a national convention someday and take part in momentous decisions.

But all that changed. Now both conventions are tightly controlled and scripted. Their purpose is not to choose the nominees of the party or adopt the positions in the party platform, but to be infomercials touting the ticket and trying to woo undecided voters.

We're not undecided, so we won't find ourselves watching much convention coverage this year. But I do remember with wistfulness those days when my family gathered around the TV set and felt that we were a part of the great events of the day.