Individualism

"...Individualism is touted as the core value of American culture, yet most of us meekly submit , as we are supposed to, to the tyranny of the corporate state..." - Chris Hedges "Empire Of Illusion - (2009)

Modern western democracies are based on the idea of individualism / personal freedom (IE. "You can do anything you put your mind to"), yet this is a bunch of crap (even darker according to Hedges).

Firstly, originality (which is the result of a free-thinking person) is not embraced, in fact it's condemned except when it's originates from someone "acceptable" or already known (such as known artist).

Secondly, individualism flies in the face of the biological fact that humans are a social animal. Even the most individualistic (and in turn selfish) person needs others.

Also, the entire premise of individualism is contradicted by its most hardened promoters, as they simultaneously promote group pride through (most often) nationalism and / or religious affiliation.

So the message goes something like this:
- You are free to be as you wish, but we'll decide on its validity.
- When you are original, it will (more often) be accepted when your originality has already passed our validation.
- We can also do anything we put our mind to, and need your approval, as long as you are "one of us".

This contradictory message leads to justification for anything:
EX: See a homeless person.

Are they:
A) Not helping themselves?
B) Choosing it?
C) Just "one of them"?

All 3 of those answers can be justified, yet neither is true.

When it comes to the mentally ill, we have different treatment approaches in different cultures. For example, in the United States, de-institutionalization (for different reasons) has been prevalent since the 1960s. This has lead to a number of mentally ill people not getting treatment, and in turn becoming homeless or ending up in prison. It is estimated 135,000 people with schizophrenia are incarcerated in the USA.

In Japan on the other hand hospitalization is still dominant, and astonishingly, the Japanese psychiatric hospitalization system is so lengthy, that estimates show close to 330,000 people as hospitalized, with more than half of them having been hospitalized for over 5 years. Furthermore, some 72,000 show no medical reason for hospitalization.

As diametrically opposed as these stats seem to be, perhaps there's a common thread here, a much more sinister one.

In the USA as in Japan, the patient is ABANDONED. Defenders of the American model would say that the person has the freedom to access treatment as they please. Japanese system proponents would say that the person is in the hands of professionals.

Truth is the American system is one of "cost / efficiency" (IE. Don't spend money on people), and the Japanese one is a system based on shame, shame of having someone close to us mentally ill.

Either way, the person needing help is the one left alone.


P.S. Thanks to Yuko Kawanishi's "Families Coping with Mental Illness (Stories from the US and Japan) " for statistics.

BC Governement proposing to force homeless into shelters

I am still strongly opposed to the government intervening in homeless people's lives (unless they properly offer them the medical help they need, but we know that won't happen because "it costs money").

Then again, this is the same government (BC Provincial) which (as stated in previous post) came back on a promise to not bring in the HST (in today's paper, there's even a quote by Premier Campbell DEFENDING it). While the Canada Line (Rapid transit system linking downtown Vancouver to the Airport) was being built, several small businesses (a group this government claims to work for) along Cambie street could not operate for several months due to the construction. How did this government help? Why they said it was TransLink (the transit authority's) responsibility (IE. "Not out problem"!!)

To come back to the homeless issue, there could be a positive if they do go through with the proposed law.

If they do pass the law and the police actually pick homeless people off the street, they may get into an even bigger problem. There are (more than likely) much more homeless than they would have calculated.

If shelters can't take in all the people, what are they going to do? What if they decide to pick and choose some homeless people to look good in the public eye. How would they explain that they're not treating them all equally? What if (god forbid), despite going through with it something happens to a homeless person?

If they go through with this, they'll be way over their heads. Well more so than even now!!!

Homelessness a choice?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/its-our-duty-to-protect-the-homeless/article1296414/

This (BC Provincial) government never ceases to amaze me with their hypocrisy. If Tracey (homeless woman who died on street last winter - See article) had not died, and the Olympics were not being held here next winter (2010), they would not even be discussing this.

If you truly want to help homeless people, get them in hospitals, in therapy, counseling, and rehab. Yes, they will need a place to stay similar to shelters while they get the medical / psychological help they need, but FORCING them into shelters "during periods of extreme weather" (at a very convenient time. See Olympics.) is nothing but political. Premier Gordon Campbell couldn't care less about the homeless (among others), I'm convinced that if he could but them on a bus or train and ship them away from the city during the Olympics (without it getting public of course), he would.

This is the same person who during the last Provincial election PROMISED no new taxes, especially to the middle class, and one of the very first pieces of legislation his government passed was the Harmonized Sales Tax which in essence a tax on the MIDDLE CLASS.

If this government treats the middle class like that, can we really trust them to care about the homeless?