Can’t we all just get along?

Don’t you hate partisan politics and political mudslinging?

If you’re a Republican or a Democrat, I’ll bet you are lying, if only to your enlightened self.

Mudslinging, whether you like it or not, is politically effective.

I know, I know . . .you (and just about everyone else) say you want your elected officials to hold hands, sing Kumbaya and back-slap each other while working to ensure that their constituents are well represented and cared for.

But do you?

Really?

A little more than a year ago, our nation called a bi-partisan 15-minute timeout to honor those who died in a senseless massacre in Tucson; and a little more than a decade ago both Republicans and Democrats joined hands to show national resolve in the wake of the horrific 9-11 attacks.

Those moments were more theater than anything else; orchestrated political moves full of sound and fury, signifying practically nothing.

That’s why I was heartened this morning to read the comments from Chris Potholm, a professor of government at Bowdoin College and one of Maine’s most pre-eminent political analysts, when he was asked about the second annual lovefest during the national State of the Union address by president Obama.

You know, Republicans have to find a Democrat to sit with, and vice-versa.

“It’s symbolic political theater of the worst kind,” Potholm told Bill Nemitz of the Maine Sunday Telegram. “It’s utterly useless and silly, and it’s not a substitute for them getting together and solving our nation’s problems.”

Nemitz points to a recent Real Clear Politics poll, which shows more than 80 percent of those polled disapprove of the job Congress is doing.

But that poll, and all the warm-fuzzy sentiment expressed by groups like No Labels, One Maine and others, contradict what we see happening every day in this country, in our state and in our local town halls.

A lack of political dissent, party opposition and hardcore nationalism can have distavorous results. 1938 Germany should give all of us pause.

Americans intuitively know that they are better served when the balance of power is split between the dominant political parties…from Ronald Reagan/Tip O’Neil to Bill Clinton/Newt Gingrinch…these were the times when America was functioning at its best.

Democrats want Republicans to fail. Republicans want Democrats to fail. This is the cost of a two-party system. But it makes sense, and it even has value right up until you understand that Rome is burning while our leaders are jockeying for a better corner office.

What too many people describe as bipartisanship would be better described as having the other guys do it our way.

If you’re an ardent Democrat, you want the Tea Party to dissolve and relocate to Pakistan. If you’re a Republican, you want to see President Obama leave office yesterday and take Joe Biden with him. Can we just admit that truth?

Sure, a growing number of Americans (myself included) describe ourselves as Independents, but even we have strong feelings on issues, and don’t like to “compromise” if one of our core “principles” is being threatened.

There are some things that should never be negotiated. There are some principles that should never be compromised.

The hard part is determining where you can bend; and what you are willing to sacrifice for the greater good.

That kind of effort requires political and emotional maturity, not a staged seating arrangement.

Eliminating political friction in the name of efficiency and policy expediency could yield some attractive, short-term benefits. But such a move would also set the stage for potentially disastrous outcomes, the implications of which could be more than our Republic can bear.

Wealth Inequality: An Inconvenient Truth

Don’t you just hate the 1 percent? You know . . . all those fat cats who have way more than they need. Meanwhile, the rest of us…the 99 percent…are struggling for survival and getting screwed by the system.

Sound familiar? It’s the anthem of the Occupy Movement, a mantra that can be traced back through civilization, but was not talked about much before the US economy tanked in 2008.

Take from the rich and give to the poor. It’s the stuff of fairy tales, fables and it makes for easy and convenient talking points, centered upon a powerful emotional message of righteous indignation.

But do you really loathe or even hate the 1 percent?

Well, maybe you should look in the mirror because you are part of the 1 percent.

Make no mistake, millions of Americans remain unemployed, and they are genuinely struggling to put food on the table and to stay warm in their homes during these difficult economic times.

But a bit of perspective is in order, especially when considering that the United States remains as one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

I hate to tell you this, but we – you and me—are the 1 percent.

Ask a 12-year-old boy in Tanzania about poverty. But before you do, give him some data about how we define poverty here in the United States. Each year, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that as many as 40 million Americans live in poverty.

The Census Bureau calculates the poverty level each year. In 2009, a typical family of four with a household income of $22,000 was considered living in poverty.

Meanwhile, the United Nations reported that more than 925 million people in the world are hungry. Roughly 2 percent of them live in developed nations such as the United States, Japan, Canada, Britain, France, etc.

More disturbing are findings of the Heritage Foundation’s research report that used data from U.S. Government reports and surveys, including those by the U.S. Energy Department and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

For example, in 2005, the typical U.S. household defined as poor had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.  In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a washing machine, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

I am not attempting to diminish the struggles of those who live in poverty, rather I am hoping to illustrate that we too often ignore or dismiss how very fortunate we are in the United States. Even the poorest among us is far wealthier than most of the world.

If you or someone you know thinks you are poor, ask yourself the following questions:

Do you own or have access to a computer?

Do you have a cell phone? A refrigerator? Indoor plumbing? A change of clothes? A television? A stereo? A car or truck? A microwave oven? An air conditioner?

Despite the current bump in the economy, the vast and overwhelming majority of Americans are living in greater prosperity than has any other generation before.

We are the 1 percent.

Achtung, Baby!

I remember it like it was yesterday.

We were standing in Monument Square, night after night, holding candles shielded by clear plastic cups and stamping our boots on the ground to stave off the cold and howling winds of a Maine winter.

There were maybe 15 of us who would show up every night.

If memory serves, we were protesting the nuclear arms race. It didn’t matter; we could have been protesting the high cost of broccoli for all I cared.

Occupy Wall Street protesters rally in a small park on Canal Street in New York, Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

It was a social event, and we were bonding in our noble sense of self-righteous sacrifice. We were the enlightened ones, those willing to take a stand for peace, much unlike all those ignorant lemmings driving past us on Congress Street in their Volvos, BMWs and Ford pickup trucks.

Forgive me for being a cynic but that’s what a quarter century of living in “the system” will do to you.  I no longer have the luxury of spending several weeks in a public park. I’ve got responsibilities: a wife, two kids, a job and lots of bills to pay. If I lose my job or my house, I still have responsibilities: my country, my neighbors, my family…the list is endless.

In a strange way, I almost envy those OWS folks and their rage. They seem content in the chaos, as if now they have found their calling by blaming the system.

They are making a statement. “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!”

But lately my near envy has been slowing morphing into a deep sense of resentment.

Who are these people? I wonder as I drive by the tent city erected in the courthouse park. “Don’t they have homes, families, jobs, commitments?”

The answer is simple. No, many of them do not.

Too many of them have been screwed by “the system.” They were laid off, evicted or otherwise maligned by a terrible economy. It could happen to any of us. But before we go any further can we at least acknowledge that some of these people are also just simple malcontents?

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it ironic, watching some clown with an I-Pad, the latest LL Bean camping gear and a Patagonia fleece vest rail against the system?

Do these folks think the world will change because they sit around playing guitar, smoking weed and living in a tent? If change were that easy, we’d be changing the system every four days.

Real change requires real work and sacrifice. There is a lot to do in this country, and every voice matters.  Maybe it’s time for the OWS folks to get off their asses and work to change the system they loathe.

Maybe it’s time to stop complaining and join the 98 percent of us who understand that there will always be evil in the world, and it must be confronted head on; not by defecating on a police car or smashing a storefront window. Real change happens when just one person is willing to lead by example. And so far, the examples from the OWS folks have been less than impressive, to say the least.

In closing, and for the record, I am still against thermo-nuclear war, despite my mortgage and American Express card.

Thoreau said, “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” Thank, Christ….otherwise who could afford to buy his books?

I am the 98 percent, and now it’s time to go do laundry.

Still haven’t found what I’m looking for

I am a racist.

Well, at least according to actor Morgan Freeman.

During an interview on CNN this week, Freeman told interviewer Piers Morgan that racism is at the heart of the Tea Party and that racism has been made worse in the United States since the election of President Barack Obama.

Condelezza Rice

I wonder how Freeman would feel about supporting Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as a nominee for the high court’s chief justice slot; or about a presidential run by Condolezza Rice? I’m betting he would not support either of them; just as he is not supporting Herman Cain, an African American who is also seeking the GOP nomination for president.

I also don’t recall Freeman hosting any fundraising dinners for Alan Keyes, a fellow African American who made two unsuccessful bids for the presidency.

From my perspective, Freeman is screaming racism because he cannot handle the real reasons that Obama’s re-election in 2012 is anything but certain.

The things that are making Obama increasingly unpopular, even among members of his own party, are the same things I listed as reasons for not supporting him in 2008:

  • His inexperience in the realm of business and finance;
  • His failed economic policies;
  • His desperate need to be liked rather than be strong.

I do think it’s worth noting that I actively worked on behalf of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 nomination process, and ultimately voted for John McCain.

I attended President Obama’s inauguration. It was an awe-inspiring experience; several days of basking in a revived sense of hope and change for a country that seemed tragically off-course and without direction.

Morgan Freeman

I’ve got news for you, Mr. Freeman: I do not want to vote for this hip, attractive and intelligent man because he is woefully out of his league, much the same as his predecessor was.

But unless John Huntsman gets the GOP nomination ( a scenario as likely as Susan Lucci receiving an Oscar) I will be forced to give Mr. Obama another four years of on-the-job training, because inexperience and idealism still trumps stupidity.

Does that make me a racist?

An American Girl

I like Sarah Palin.

I can almost hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from my liberal friends, but…there it is . . . I said it. I put it out on the world-wide web for all to see. You betcha…

It feels good to have that off my chest, sort of like finally admitting that you are powerless over alcohol, corn dogs or soft porn — and are willing, even if only reluctantly, to accept a Higher Power to help you live one day at a time.

Well, she was an American girl, Raised on promises…

I like Sarah Palin, but there a lots of reasons why I don’t want to ever see her occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.(Liberal Democrats, please pause here and catch your breath)

So, how can someone like me “like” Sarah Palin and simultaneously be terrified by the idea of her sitting in the Oval Office, clutching for the suitcase with the ICBM codes?

It’s such a simple lesson in human psychology, yet it apparently lies beyond the grasp of most pundits, late-night talk-show hosts and even seasoned Democratic strategists. I like Sarah Palin because she is just like me.

She couldn’t help thinkin’ that there was a little more to life, somewhere else…

From my perspective, this is the disconnect that seems to fuel an ever expanding divide in American politics. In fact, it’s safe to say that Sarah was the spark, which ignited the roar of the Tea Party…those angry folks with their “Don’t Tread on Me” flags. I know some of these people…these Tea Party malcontents. In fact, one of my closest friends is a devout Tea Partier.

I asked him why he likes Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. His response?

“Not many people want to look at the facts,” he explained. “Our national debt is crushing, and it cannot be blamed on any one political party. We are driving off a cliff of spending, and Americans are busy on Facebook, contemplating their own navels and unwilling or perhaps unable to comprehend the madness that has become our federal government.”

After all it was a great big world, with lots of places to run to . . .

In his book What’s the Matter with Kansas? Thomas Frank discusses how many so-called Red States that were once bastions of Democratic power became the epicenter of resentment against Washington, D.C., academia, the media and all those other elites.

Recent political discourse, Frank says, shifted dramatically from traditional talking points that relied upon economic well-being, strong national defense and the virtues of democracy toward a new focus on hot-button cultural issues, including gay marriage, gun ownership, abortion and so-called “traditional family values,” which are as hard to define as the word irony.

Yeah, and if she had to die, she had one little promise, she was gonna keep

Palin has tapped into that anger and resentment better than anyone else in the last two decades. To her followers and supporters, the relationship is myopic and not sparingly ego-centric.

Sarah Palin is just like me, they say….although not always with such clarity.

Despite that painfully obvious and rather narcissistic response, too many Democrats sneer at the very mention of her name.

Oh yeah, all right. Take it easy, baby. Make it last all night…

Sarah Palin hunts, she shops for diapers at Wal-Mart. Her vernacular is combination of west Kentucky slang laced with Detroit rhythm and swing.

Watching the roaring crowds cheer her name, a housewife can almost imagine herself running for president while her NASCAR-watching husband cracks a beer and admires Sarah for many different reasons.

Face it, the woman looks damn good in a bikini. And maybe that is why so many of Sarah’s most voracious critics are women. Maybe not, but it’s not an original theory of mine.

The more Sarah is attacked, the stronger she seemingly becomes, not only to her base but her own inner strength and eagerness to go in swinging is only fueled by snide remarks, whether they come from Katie Couric or John Stewart.

Sarah Palin is class warfare defined. The more that middle America feels disenfranchised, the greater the odds that Sarah will be thrust even further into the stratosphere of popularity and adoration.

Otherwise normal, rational and level-headed people come completely unglued at even the mention of her name. They don’t talk about the values and importance of their own political ideals and policy goals. Instead, they attack Palin’s lack of education, her vernacular and her lack of sophistication.

They might as well drive into a trailer park and start swinging at toddlers with a baseball bat.

You don’t help someone see your point of view by giving them two black eyes.

When you attack Sarah Palin, you attack everything she has hijacked for her self-promotional agenda.

The vast majority of Americans do not consider themselves elite, yet few people are willing to stand up and proclaim their lack of cognitive reasoning skills, basic geography or limited vocabularies.

Sarah Palin is an American girl, and when you attack her, her beliefs or her simpleton viewscape of the world, you are attacking God, the Bible, gun ownership, simple living, rural values, the American family, people who shop at Walmart, motherhood, and a whole set of iconic images that are as subjective as they are varied.

The title of Frank’s book is evidence of the left’s arrogance and self-induced superioty complex. What’s the matter with Kansas implies that there’s something wrong with Kansas. A more objective title might be…How did the Democrats lose so much of the middle?

That latter title would require some painful introspection. Otherwise, the Democrats will continue to see themselves further marginalized by Sarah Palin and so many others who are following in her footsteps.

After all, Sarah Palin is an American girl…

Rebel, rebel . . .

It’s been almost 10 years since the United States decided to wage a war on terror by launching air strikes in Afghanistan. Back then, most Americans would be hard pressed to find that country on an un-labeled map.

Today, nearly a decade later– after losing 1,581 U.S. troops, and spending in excess of $440 billion on Operation Enduring Freedom — most Americans would still be hard-pressed to find Afghanistan with or without a map.

Rebel, rebel, you’ve torn your dress . . .

Unlike the ongoing war in Iraq, Operation Enduring Freedom has been somewhat more politically palatable, a bit easier to digest and certainly understandable, given the horrific events that transpired on a bright and clear Tuesday morning in September 2001.

In the days and weeks following Sept. 11, Americans were increasingly ready for revenge. We wanted Osama bin Laden’s head on a stick.

Nobody had to sell us on this war. We had all the justification we needed.

Rebel, rebel, your face is a mess . . .

Many of those who otherwise could be consistently counted upon to criticize use of U.S. military forces remained either silent or ambiguous during the ramp-up of Operation Enduring Freedom. Others became suddenly hawkish on the subject of the Afghan War.

You love bands when they’re playing hard. You want more, and you want it fast

Consider, for a moment, the remarks made by presidential candidate Barack Obama nearly seven years after the war had started.

“The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won’t. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.” (July 15, 2008)

But as the war on terror continues taking its toll on the pocketbooks and the psyche of the American public, support for Operation Enduring Freedom is waning.

An Associated Press poll conducted shortly after the war began in October 2001, showed that nearly 94 percent of Americans supported the war on terror. By August 2009, support for the ongoing war in Afghanistan dropped to less than 50 percent.

As we approach the dreaded 10-year anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the war on terror seems again at a crossroads. Events of the last few days do not bode well for those who say that Operation Enduring Freedom should continue.

On Friday, Aug. 5, following several weeks of an especially divisive Congressional debate regarding America’s burgeoning debt, Standard & Poor’s downgraded the credit rating of the United States government.

Less than 24 hours later, America suffered its deadliest single loss in the decade-old war when a Chinook helicopter carrying members of the elite U.S. Navy Seal Team Six was shot down in Afghanistan. Thirty-one U.S. soldiers, seven Afghan commandos and an interpreter were killed. The Taliban claimed responsibility.

According to a report in the Christian Science Monitor, Saturday’s loss of coalition forces renewed pessimism among the Afghan people about the possibility of ever diminishing the Taliban’s cling to power.

Here at home, as we begin the dog days of August, Americans seemed subdued.

Perhaps the reality of the war and its cost are finally starting to sink in.

Only weeks earlier, we celebrated the death of Osama bin Laden, thumping our chests with nationalistic pride. It seemed as if our mission was drawing to a close. As a friend of mine said several weeks ago, “You don’t fuck with U.S. Navy Seals.”

We had our revenge.

Or did we?

From my perspective, the objectives of the so-called War on Terror are as murky and as hard to explain as the bottom of . . .well, I don’t know.

Fighting a War on Terror is like fighting a War on Poverty, a War on Drugs or a War on Jealousy.

Noble in its intentions, perhaps . . . but never-ending.

Although I was only 11 years old, I can still recall watching as American military forces and civilian personnel were evacuated from a Saigon rooftop in April 1975. The Vietnam War was finally coming to a close.

I remained a political and news junkie through my adolescence and into my adulthood. I cheered for the Afghan insurgents who stood up to the mighty forces of the Soviet Union. The Russians invaded their southern neighbor on Christmas Eve 1979. Not quite 10 years later, the battle-weary and nearly bankrupt Russians withdrew without victory.

The words of George Santayana come to mind. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to fulfill it.”

But maybe Mr. Santayana’s other well-known quotation is more appropriate. “Only the dead have seen the end of war.”

Janie’s Got A Gun

It was 12 years ago last week when two students at Columbine High School used a variety of weapons, including homemade propane bombs, a shotgun, a semi-automatic rifle and a 9mm handgun in a massacre that left 12 of their classmates and one teacher dead before both shooters committed suicide.

In the days before the attack, the two students prepared several bombs and modified their weapons. These two students were in violation of several federal laws, including the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, even days before the shooting began.

The incident shook our nation, and once again the national debate over gun control consumed media outlets all over the world.

In response, the U.S. Secret Service, in conjunction with the National Education Association, undertook a study of school violence and published their report three years later, in 2002

The Secret Service Report concluded that schools were taking false hope in physical security, when they should be paying more attention to the pre-attack behaviors of students.

There’s a reason all of this sounds familiar.

Nearly eight years to the day of the Columbine tragedy, a distraught student at Virginia Tech shot and killed 32 fellow students and injured scores of others on April 16, 2007. He also committed suicide.

There was more political fallout. Other nations criticized a U.S. culture that is seemingly enthralled with guns and violence. More gun control laws were introduced and passed. It should also be noted that the university had a campus firearms ban before that massacre happened.

Sadly, I could go on and on with more examples of gun violence and the ways in which those horrific events are exploited by politicians and pundits from both sides of the gun control debate.

But what’s the point?

The point, my friends, is not about the guns. It’s about people and human behavior.

I am treading into this topic as a response to a friend’s Facebook post in which she was commenting on an editorial from the Lewiston Sun Journal regarding a bill before the Maine Legislature that would allow lawmakers to carry handguns.

“In the wake not only of Tucson, but also the shooting at NY City Hall (’03 – one Councilman shot another dead) and various examples of ‘going postal,’ this seems . . . wise?”

I have immense respect for the woman who wrote the above posting on her Facebook wall. She is extraordinarily smart and equally passionate. If I’m going to debate her, I need to bring my A game, and even then the odds are stacked against me.

But it was just two words from her pithy post that jarred me: “going postal,” just another catchy euphemism that grants us permission to brush off and dismiss a much darker topic: The cost of mental illness and our society’s unwillingness to acknowledge the ramifications of a grossly insufficient treatment system.

The genesis of the term “going postal” can be traced back to the early 1980s, when a spree of shootings by U.S. Postal workers became a macabre trend.

The term is now comic relief, as best evidenced by frequent double entendres on the Seinfield show, in which “Newman, the postal worker” was often teased for his bizarre behavior and frequent angry outbursts.

We laugh.

Some say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. Keep laughing, if you can.

I am a big believer in the Second Amendment. I tell my friends that the Second Amendment ensures the continuation of the much more beloved First Amendment.

But I must admit that I am sometimes conflicted. After all, our society understands and accepts limitations on freedom of speech and expression. It is a violation of federal law to say, “I am going to kill the president.” It is also against the law to scream “Fire” in a crowded theater.

Former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously quipped “ I know it when I see it,” as he struggled to define what is and what is not pornography.

Reasonable people can agree to be reasonable, right?

Sure, but what about the unreasonable people? That is a different subject altogether.

The bottom line is this: Guns represent power.

You never see news footage of refugees slinging rifles over their shoulders as they are forced to leave their homeland because of a tyrannical government, do you?

Alan Keyes, a conservative African American and a perennial presidential candidate, once quipped, “This nation would have never had a slavery problem if the people of Africa were armed.”

Any half-rate student of history can rattle off a litany of government abuses, which all began with the collection of the public’s firearms.

Guns are part of our American culture and psyche. One of my core beliefs is that power should be equally distributed and held by the people.

Thoreau seemingly agreed with my stance, when he wrote, the government that governs least governs best. Of course, he wrote Civil Disobedience in 1849, so it’s hard to know where he would come down on the post Columbine gun control debate.

I own three guns (a .22 rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and a 20-gauge shotgun). Ironically, I don’t allow firearms in my home. My guns are stored in a gun-safe at my father-in-law’s home, some 15 miles away. They are used for hunting.

There are two reasons for not having firearms in my home.

1.) I have teenage sons who are often alone at home while Laura and I are working; and

2.) I have a responsibility to acknowledge and manage my own mental illness.

I feel safer without firearms in my home, but I am also troubled by any further encroachments on my Second Amendment rights. It doesn’t mean I think everyone should own an Uzi. Then again, reasonable people can agree to be reasonable.

But what are we going to do about the unreasonable people?

Laugh, or introduce legislation requiring background checks on the sale of propane tanks?

Pocketful of Kryptonite

Although it was 30 years ago this week, I still remember the day like it was yesterday.

I came home from high school and flipped on the television. The news was on, and that was strange because this was long before the days of CNN, MSNBC or Fox News. Back then, there was no such thing as the internet.

So why was the news on during the afternoon?

The president had been shot.

Only a few months earlier, John Lennon was gunned down in front of his New York City apartment building. We didn’t know it then, but in a few more weeks there would be an assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II.

Violence was everywhere, it seemed.

Welcome to 1981. I am a junior at Rumford High School. My orthodontic braces had just been removed, and I am living with my uncle and aunt in West Peru, Maine while my parents continue a bitter divorce process.

I am going back there tomorrow. I am going back to my old high school, where I painted a mural on the wall of my English teacher’s classroom.

I am also reminded that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” said 19th Century philosopher George Santayana

When Ronald Reagan was president, U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was 11 years old, John Lennon was buried, and I was struggling with acne.

John Lennon, Ronald Reagan, Gabrielle Giffords, Pope John Paul II.

And Maine Governor Paul LePage.

Wait! What? Paul LePage?

No, LePage was not shot, but he did receive a death threat from Michael Thomas, a Portland man who allegedly vowed to assassinate him and reportedly suffers from a history of mental instability.

John Lennon, Ronald Reagan, Gabby Giffords, Pope John Paul II and Paul Lepage. Now there’s an interesting group of people, all of whom stir some sort of reaction.

But what about this next group of individuals?

Mark Chapman, John Hinckley, Jared Loughner, Mehmet Ali Ağca and Michael Thomas. They all have at least two things in common.

One: They are all currently in jail.

While some folks may use these tragedies to demand tougher gun laws, or to discuss political motivations, the other common thread shared by our second group of men is almost always sensationalized by both the media and general public .

Each of these men has a mental illness.

(Sidebar: There are several theories, including a Tom Clancy novel, about Ağca, the man who attempted to assassinate the Pope,and his political motivations and reported connections to the KGB, but there is little doubt that he is mentally unstable, especially if you begin perusing transcripts of interviews with him after the shooting in Vatican Square.)

We like to ignore mental illness. It is an uncomfortable topic, but not one that should be dismissed. Otherwise, as demonstrated above, the consequences can be fatal.

These high-profile crimes and the men behind them add to the burden of mental health advocates who fight daily against the stigma associated with mental illness.

In fact, violent acts committed by people with serious mental illness comprise an exceptionally small proportion of the overall violent crime rate in the U.S. They are more likely to be the victims of violence, not its perpetrators, according to the National Association of Social Workers (NASW)

In its March 2011 article, “Budgets Balanced at Expense of Mentally Ill,” the NASW newsletter also mentions a new report by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration that documents a nationwide decline in behavioral health care spending as a share of all health care spending, from 9.3 percent in 1986 to just 7.3 percent, or $135 billion out of $1.85 trillion, in 2005.

Moreover, high-profile incidents such as John Hinckley’s attempted assassination of President Reagan also give apparent permission for the media to stereotype and hype mental illness as one that will likely produce violent crime.

In the days following the 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech, “Nightly newscasts reported “no known motive” and focused on the gunman’s anger, sense of isolation, and preoccupation with violent revenge. No one who read or saw the coverage would learn what a psychotic break looks like, nor that the vast majority of people with mental disorders are not violent. This kind of contextual information is conspicuously missing from major newspapers and TV,” wrote Richard Friedman in “Media and Madness,” an article published in the June 23, 2008 issue of The American Prospect.

Friedman goes on to explain that “Hollywood has benefited from a long-standing and lurid fascination with psychiatric illness,” referencing movies such as Psycho, The Silence of the Lambs, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and Fatal Attraction.

According to Friedman, “exaggerated characters like these may help make “average” people feel safer by displacing the threat of violence to a well-defined group.”

As a former journalist and a current communications consultant, I am naturally drawn to issues surrounding journalism and those who are employed by the so-called Fourth Estate.

And as someone who has been battling mental illness all my life, I know a thing or two about the effects of stigma.

And that’s why I’m going back to my old high school. I will be the keynote speaker at a symposium on mental health stigma.

The Carter Center does a succinct job of defining the problems associated with stigma:

“In ancient times the word stigma was defined as ‘A mark burned into the skin of a criminal or slave, a brand.’ This inhumane treatment was metered out to criminals and anyone felt to be a threat to society. Have we really come so far today? Just mention depression or worse Bipolar to most employers, family or friends and the reaction’s generally a negative one.”

Superman and Lois Clark

Maybe you remember the 1978 movie Superman.

The movie may have been cheesy, but the cast was stunning. Some of Hollywood’s most enduring and iconic figures were featured in that film, including Marlon Brando, Gene Hackman, Ned Beatty, Valerie Perrine and Margot Kidder.

The film also launched the career of Christopher Reeve, a handsome, muscular man who was cast in the leading role as the Man of Steel.

While participating in a 1995 equestrian competition in Virginia, Reeve was severely injured and became paralyzed. His injuries elicited support from all over the globe. He spent the rest of his brief life trying to help others with spinal cord injuries and established the Christopher Reeve Foundation.

He was a sympathetic hero. He touched us all. The man of steel could not escape this batch of Kryptonite. He died in October 2004 and millions mourned his passing.

Now, let us examine the fate of Superman’s leading lady, Margot Kidder, a successful actress who was cast as the petulant, cynical and manic reporter, Lois Clark.

A year after Reeve was paralyzed, Kidder was found by police hiding in the bushes in a suburban neighborhood near Los Angeles, California. She was taken into custody for a psychiatric evaluation.

The world was not so nice to Ms. Kidder.

Kidder has a bipolar disorder, so she became fair game for the media, late night comedians and a slew of derisive web site commentary. She was certainly no Superman.

She was human, frail and vulnerable but in a different way than her co-star, and that difference was best amplified by the ridicule that continues to follow her today, some 15 years after her illness became fodder for her former Hollywood colleagues.

Maybe that’s why fellow Superman star Marlon Brando spent so many years keeping his mental illness a secret.

By the time Superman was released in 1978, Brando was already known as one of Hollywood’s most iconic figures. The star of “On the Waterfront” and “The Godfather,” he was a tough guy’s tough guy.

But his mental illness apparently was a bit tougher.

Brando was a deeply troubled man struggling with depression, anger, and loneliness, according to those who knew him and detailed in an article by the National Center on Physical Activity and Disability.

Brando was from a generation of those who didn’t talk about mental illness. A generation that believed depression was little more than self-pity run amok or some other sort of character flaw.

It was that same generation of actors which produced the original Superman, George Reeves.

George Reeves (no relation to Christopher) was an actor best known for his leading role in the 1950s television series, The Adventures of Superman.

Reeves’ untimely death at age 45 was officially ruled as a suicide by police, although there is much speculation about that fact, most notably in the 2006 film Hollywoodland, which stars Ben Affleck as George Reeves.

Whether Reeves committed suicide is irrelevant and will probably remain a mystery for a long time to come.

But we do know how Hollywood would have treated him if he had talked publicly about battling depression.

Just ask Lois Lane.

Tucson shootings and the costs of stigma

(originally published in the January 11, 2011 Portland Press Herald)

The horrific event that transpired in Tucson on Saturday has inspired more than ample discussion regarding the tone and spirit of our nation’s political discourse.

Despite all the fervent commentary, there is one piece of this puzzle that remains largely glossed over, however.

And this is where it gets a bit personal.

When I was 22, I was living in Tucson and attending college part-time. Just like Jared Loughner, I was removed from school for many of the same reasons.

But I got lucky. I ended up at the Southern Arizona Mental Health Center (SAMHC) and spent the next several weeks there as an inpatient client.

I did not have insurance. I did not have any assets or even a job. My family was in Maine, thousands of miles away. So, my ability to receive life-saving treatment and long-term support services was funded primarily on the backs of Arizona taxpayers.

Nearly a quarter century later, I like to think that investment has, so far, paid significant dividends. But I can assure you, it was a long-term and risky investment.

Make no mistake. Mr. Loughner committed horrific, criminal acts that warrant the full weight of justice. But if society expects and demands justice, we must also recognize that there is a very deep and painful cost associated with scaling down or the elimination of community-based mental health services and treatment options.

According to its web site, SAMHC was officially established in 1962 as a state-owned and operated outpatient mental health facility under the aegis of the Arizona State Hospital.  The campus-style facility, then located at the intersection of Campbell Avenue and 6th Street, was purchased through legislative appropriation.

Nearly 50 years after its founding, SAMHC continues to provide crisis behavioral health services to the entire community, regardless of ability to pay, insurance status or age.

As of this writing, it is unclear whether Loughner attempted to access those services or if he or members of his family made any attempt to deal with his now-obvious illness.

What is clearly known, however, is the commentary our society freely tosses around when describing mental illness.

Unfortunately, the terms “sicko” “whack-job” and “nut case” are apparently acceptable on social media outlets, reader comment pages and even in the so-called mainstream media.

Yet, we wonder with righteous indignation why those affected by mental illness are reluctant to seek services or get help before their illness manifests itself into a deadly outcome.

If I were dealing with testicular cancer, I could expect to be described as a “hero” or as a “survivor.”  I am praised for my courage to acknowledge my illness and for my willingness to fight it tooth and nail with all available resources.

Heck, you might even put a bumper sticker on your car, wear a pink bracelet or post something supportive on your Facebook page.

But what if I tell you I have a diagnosed mental illness; an illness that affects me every day; an insidious, almost-invisible illness for which there is no cure?

I get some nervous head nods or even some encouragement in the form of: “pull yourself up by your bootstraps, try positive thinking, you should appreciate things more.”

Well-intentioned, perhaps, but the stigma and its costs are clear.

Though we have made much progress, I can assure you that we have a long, long way to go.

Only because I was able to access services and am willing to deal every day with my disease am I able to do things now that I once thought impossible: hold a job, enjoy a wonderful marriage, own a home and even hold a driver’s license.

So, some may choose to focus on the debate regarding our nation’s political rhetoric.

But whether we’re talking about John Hinckley, Mark Chapman or the more recent example of Jared Loughner, one thing we should all be able to recognize is that mental illness can be a fatal illness – and if left untreated, its costs are overwhelming.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, one of every five Americans suffers from some form of mental illness.

I hope you agree with me that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

An Inconvenient Truth

Originally posted June 2009:

The tide has turned on our economy.

Millions of Americans are out of work.  The real estate market is in the toilet and consumer confidence is at an all-time low.

Our nation’s current economic picture is very similar to what was  happening in 1930s Germany, a country that was especially hit hard by the Depression that also rocked America in 1929.

The time is ripe to rise up  against the corporations. You know those legalized collections of people who
like to make a profit. It seems profit is a bad thing now.

In the midst of all this economic crisis, our country is focused upon “reforming” our nation’s health care system.

Many people, it seems, are fed up with the greedy insurance companies that would rather focus on profits than healing the  sick. But just beyond the sound bites and the rhetoric there are some  inconvenient truths.

Take, for example, the following nuggets of  information that you will not hear from the folks at Change For America or Michael Moore, a man who is making a pretty penny on his latest movie, which did not
use union workers.

According to a PricewaterhouseCoopers’ study, in 2007 health plans had an average profit margin of 3% (THREE  PERCENT)

According to a study by RAND Health for the California  HealthCare Foundation “…medical costs explain nearly 89 percent of [health plan]  revenue increases.”

According to Kaiser Health News (not exactly a bastion of conservative thought), “the major causes of health care’s escalating  costs are the rising prices and the increased use of medical services, including hospital stays, prescription drugs, new technologies and doctor  visits.”

According to CMS data, over 40 years, the real costs of private health insurance have grown at an annual rate of 5.2 percent. Benefits, as  measured by the cost of health care services to members, have grown at real rate  of 5.3 percent over the same time period. Administrative costs have grown more slowly, at a real rate of about 4.9 percent since 1966.

According to Kaiser Health News, “With the nation’s health care spending estimated at $2.5  trillion this year, even the elimination of insurers’ profits and executive  compensation would lower health care spending by just 0.5 percent.”

In 2006, health plan profits of the top 10 for profit health plans accounted for 0.5%of total health care spending; in 2007, 0.6%; and, in 2008, 0.5%.

Well, there you go.

There’s no question that our current system  needs reform and that working Americans should have access to adequate and safe  health care, but Congress ought to focus on solving the problem.

Don’t hold your breath. It will never happen because it requires leadership, not class warfare rhetoric.