VT Ramblings
For some deep reflections on the Virginia Tech incident, I'll refer you to my wife's post.
I can say that my own thoughts as bits of the story were revealed to me took a turn down a strange alley. I heard that the kid had written some rather disturbing plays that indicated psychological problems. So my initial thought was, "Why didn't someone intervene?" I immediately realized that this is easier said after the fact. Before the fact, you have a problem distinguishing "dangerous" from "bizarre", "freaky", "outlandish", "peculiar", "quaint", and so on.
I vaguely remember an outcry 20+ years ago when Reagan was supposed to have closed all state mental hospitals, kicking all the patients out into the streets and the treatment of choice became jail. As usual, this was a myth of partisans who put far too much stock in the power and prestige of the executive, people who want a benevolent king to take charge and solve the world's problems*. It seemed to matter little to them that there is little practical difference between being locked up in a mental hospital and being locked up in a prison when these people are really a prisoner of their own minds. Such partisans usually forget (as was the case at that time) that the opposition controls much of the power and that there are larger currents at work in society**; Reagan, after all, was not Congress, which is who decides what programs to fund, and Reagan also had no authority to direct states to close anything***, insofar as anyone still genuflects at the whole "federalism" idea. But we would benefit from a reading of Foucault on the subject: how many ways do we try to correct atypical behavior, and how are we justified in doing so? At what point did Andy Kaufman's schtick cross the line from strange performance comedy to sick behavior when he began "wrestling" and even faked a neck injury? Was it deranged or brilliant? In smaller societies, such behavior was likely to get you the shaman's job. Do you want to live in a society where such people are tolerated, re-educated, sequestered, locked up, or simply liquidated?
There is far too much attention being paid to whether or not gun laws or video games are worth reviewing here. Those are puerile arguments made by partisans on both sides of the aisle looking to score political points off a tragedy, much as the identical people did after 9/11. The problem isn't guns: there are millions of guns not being used for crimes and far more people are killed by cars each year. The problem isn't video games: teenage violence declined during the entire video game expansion period. The real tragedy here is the mental illness. It crossed the line from idiosyncratic to dangerous when he pulled the trigger while pointing the weapon at other people. Let's try a thought experiment: what kind of life was he likely to have in the complete absence of guns? Does anyone believe that his life would have been enjoyable? This was a serious signal of distress, but it seems to be getting lost in the other noise. What was this guy's problem, what could have been done, and how many other people are suffering, undiagnosed, from it? I want to live in a society where we place some emphasis on the root cause of Cho's problem. What causes such anomie, how do we detect the dangerous variety of deviance, and how can we re-orient that back to something positive?
*The world selected a passel of such leaders in the 1920s and 1930s, and it didn't end well.
**As I have written before, partisans are largely animated by their opposition, not principles.
***Note in this timeline, which I found referenced as a proof of Reagan's responsibility, that the Act was passed in 1980: it would therefore have been President Carter who failed to sign it since a new Congress starts after the election and the president elected in 1980 takes office in 1981. Also note in this much more detailed timeline that the act in question, the National Mental Health Systems Act "asserted that the federal government would continue to shape mental health policy but assume less of the burden of paying for treatment." The Act was written by No Child Left Behind author Ted Kennedy. In other words, Reagan was blamed for cutting funding in this bizarre manner: despite the fact that that is what the bill contains, by vetoing it in 1980, before he took office, he was responsible for what would have happened if he had signed it. The timeline then goes on to point out that funding was cut in the 1981 Omnibus Reconciliation Act passed by C-O-N-G-R-E-S-S, and that throughout the 1980s, spending for mental health was increased via block grants. Yet for those years, Reagan typically takes hits for spending too much (which is actually correct insofar as by not vetoing the spending bills he is in part responsible, but it puts Democrats in a bind of accusing Reagan of spending what the Democratic Congress passed). So the game is: take money out of communities, send it to Washington, send some of it back, and dictate how it is used. Great.
P.S. I didn't intend to get off onto a political rant, but there is something else on my mind that I'll get to in a post or two which was set off by the emphasis on the executive. I therefore apologize for and admit to having done exactly what disgusted me about the reactions to this incident. To the families of the victims and the perpetrator, I am deeply sorry for your loss.
I can say that my own thoughts as bits of the story were revealed to me took a turn down a strange alley. I heard that the kid had written some rather disturbing plays that indicated psychological problems. So my initial thought was, "Why didn't someone intervene?" I immediately realized that this is easier said after the fact. Before the fact, you have a problem distinguishing "dangerous" from "bizarre", "freaky", "outlandish", "peculiar", "quaint", and so on.
I vaguely remember an outcry 20+ years ago when Reagan was supposed to have closed all state mental hospitals, kicking all the patients out into the streets and the treatment of choice became jail. As usual, this was a myth of partisans who put far too much stock in the power and prestige of the executive, people who want a benevolent king to take charge and solve the world's problems*. It seemed to matter little to them that there is little practical difference between being locked up in a mental hospital and being locked up in a prison when these people are really a prisoner of their own minds. Such partisans usually forget (as was the case at that time) that the opposition controls much of the power and that there are larger currents at work in society**; Reagan, after all, was not Congress, which is who decides what programs to fund, and Reagan also had no authority to direct states to close anything***, insofar as anyone still genuflects at the whole "federalism" idea. But we would benefit from a reading of Foucault on the subject: how many ways do we try to correct atypical behavior, and how are we justified in doing so? At what point did Andy Kaufman's schtick cross the line from strange performance comedy to sick behavior when he began "wrestling" and even faked a neck injury? Was it deranged or brilliant? In smaller societies, such behavior was likely to get you the shaman's job. Do you want to live in a society where such people are tolerated, re-educated, sequestered, locked up, or simply liquidated?
There is far too much attention being paid to whether or not gun laws or video games are worth reviewing here. Those are puerile arguments made by partisans on both sides of the aisle looking to score political points off a tragedy, much as the identical people did after 9/11. The problem isn't guns: there are millions of guns not being used for crimes and far more people are killed by cars each year. The problem isn't video games: teenage violence declined during the entire video game expansion period. The real tragedy here is the mental illness. It crossed the line from idiosyncratic to dangerous when he pulled the trigger while pointing the weapon at other people. Let's try a thought experiment: what kind of life was he likely to have in the complete absence of guns? Does anyone believe that his life would have been enjoyable? This was a serious signal of distress, but it seems to be getting lost in the other noise. What was this guy's problem, what could have been done, and how many other people are suffering, undiagnosed, from it? I want to live in a society where we place some emphasis on the root cause of Cho's problem. What causes such anomie, how do we detect the dangerous variety of deviance, and how can we re-orient that back to something positive?
*The world selected a passel of such leaders in the 1920s and 1930s, and it didn't end well.
**As I have written before, partisans are largely animated by their opposition, not principles.
***Note in this timeline, which I found referenced as a proof of Reagan's responsibility, that the Act was passed in 1980: it would therefore have been President Carter who failed to sign it since a new Congress starts after the election and the president elected in 1980 takes office in 1981. Also note in this much more detailed timeline that the act in question, the National Mental Health Systems Act "asserted that the federal government would continue to shape mental health policy but assume less of the burden of paying for treatment." The Act was written by No Child Left Behind author Ted Kennedy. In other words, Reagan was blamed for cutting funding in this bizarre manner: despite the fact that that is what the bill contains, by vetoing it in 1980, before he took office, he was responsible for what would have happened if he had signed it. The timeline then goes on to point out that funding was cut in the 1981 Omnibus Reconciliation Act passed by C-O-N-G-R-E-S-S, and that throughout the 1980s, spending for mental health was increased via block grants. Yet for those years, Reagan typically takes hits for spending too much (which is actually correct insofar as by not vetoing the spending bills he is in part responsible, but it puts Democrats in a bind of accusing Reagan of spending what the Democratic Congress passed). So the game is: take money out of communities, send it to Washington, send some of it back, and dictate how it is used. Great.
P.S. I didn't intend to get off onto a political rant, but there is something else on my mind that I'll get to in a post or two which was set off by the emphasis on the executive. I therefore apologize for and admit to having done exactly what disgusted me about the reactions to this incident. To the families of the victims and the perpetrator, I am deeply sorry for your loss.
Labels: doggerel, failure, philosophy
<< Home