I was reading an editorial in the paper just this morning and the writer was stating that the connection between depression (along with other mental illnesses) and brain chemistry may not be as strong as we once believed it to be. The pharmaceutical industry and various mental health organizations were both promoting this, albeit for different reasons, big pharma for the obvious financial gains and mental health groups pushed it because people seem to accept mental health problems better if they believe it's because there is something physically wrong with someone.
I'm not sure how much I believe it yet, but I know from my own experiences that my own depression seems pretty much impervious to anything out there, I do take bupropion though. @shinyblurry, I'll echo many others here by saying that hope is a carrot at the end of a stick that's leading you off a cliff, hope is a sign on a storefront that's reminding you that disappointment will be back in five minutes, for many people with depression, hope is bullshit.
Now, I believe that you meant perfectly well with your thoughts of hope but I do think it's important to know that to many people suffering from depression might see that as a glib statement, implying that we can just turn our suffering on or off like a light switch.
Oh, and my black dog has three heads and is not to be fucked with, he thinks the one in this video looks like a pussy.

Honestly, this is a settled question at this point.

No reasonable moral person believes you get your morality from god.

If you genuinely believe that, you are mentally ill.

Mental Illness is a growing issue...

Such a sad tale of complete and utter failure at every level of state for Colorado. Prosecutors tried to give the jury anything, that could provide and also be used against this, once, young and sane man to convict anyone (as it sounds) that fell into their gunsights.

Hardly any effort went into his defense (mostly because either the judge or prosecution allowed very little to be fought against--even the outright ridiculous claims OR claims that could be outright REFUTED...) as the state had found it's "poster boy"...

What a sick joke. It is so disheartening to know this is real and certainly not the worst to have happened (or happening) in this country...and across this world. To create mental illness in someone and then when said mental illness "bites back" and they use it for "whatever evidence" they need to keep him in solitary (without any treatment, even though multiple doctors have told the state he desperately needs it) and worse they use the illness to "strengthen" their age old case with evidence that is completely inadmissible.

What a sad story... "Out of Sight, Out of Mind", is a perfect title for this circus act.

I think he is mentally ill, such as Bi-Polar. It's possible he is not a douchebag, just broken. In fact, the mentally ill typically try to self medicate, and he definitely did that a time or two...

Pressing charges against someone who clearly has mental illness would be very cruel.

Congratulations! Your comment on PSA Against Driving While Deranged has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 3 Badge!

Your video, car go slow. train go fast., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Thanks.

My feeling was that if the message was really "Don't try to beat the train," it'd be someone driving fast and dangerously.

The driver in this just seems to be mentally ill. She's cruising slowly alongside the train tracks, then just because the guard rails come down she decides it'd be fun to see if she could possibly not kill everyone in the car? Just for kicks?

Unrealistic. Nonsensical. She must be sick in the head. Hence my awful title.

I'll work on changing it. Suggestions are welcome.

That was my thought too.
Are there people for mental illness?

Hey @enoch,

> dude,
> i totally appreciate the time you took to respond.

Sure, not a problem. It's a complex issue, and requires the time to consider and understand the details.

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither.
> IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

Uh-oh, I hope this isn't a "lesser of two evils" argument.. That is, "since we cannot have a free market lets go for full-blown socialism because it is supposedly better than fascism." It's a false choice and not one I think any true humanitarian would be willing to entertain.

> "should EVERYTHING be subject to a free market? police?
> firefighters? roads?"

In short, yes. Aversion to socialism is based on reality, in contrast to what you're saying. Socialism is failure. Central planning inevitably fails. Central planners do not have the required knowledge to plan an economy. You need economic calculation and economic calculation is impossible to achieve in a socialist "economy."

> "to me health should be a basic part of civilized society,by your
> arguments you disagree. ok..we both have that right."

Are you trying to conflate "socialized healthcare" with health? Let's not confuse the facts with personal attacks. You seem to be saying, "if you are against socialism you are against health." That makes no sense. None.
I might as well say, "If you are against free markets you are against health."

> "my argument is that some things should be a basic for civilized
> society. in my opinion health care is one of them."

In no way did I ever say that I am against healthcare. So what are you talking about?

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither."

You cannot have a free market without liberty any more than you can have liberty without liberty. This is obvious, so?

> "IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

So, if we had a free market, you wouldn't be "against" a free market? Hmm.

> "the reason why i dont feel a free market is the way to go is
> mainly due to the fact that politics and corporations have merged
> into one giant behemoth (plutocracy)."

That's fine, but this is not a matter of "feeling" but a matter of economic reality and empirical evidence and deductive truth.

> "i never really understood americans aversion to "socialism""

Perhaps some economic education will clarify things. Understanding economic calculation, for example, might be a good place to start.

> "i deal with the very people that could NEVER afford you."

You're wrong. For one thing, while I do work at a significant fee for my primary clients, I do a significant amount of pro bono work, as a choice, and because I, like you, believe that health care is a human right. And that's a key point you need to understand. You seem to believe that, if the state doesn't take care of people, then no one will, and so we need to steal money from people in the form of taxes, under the auspices of "helping the poor," when in fact, the bureaucrats ensure that only a portion (if any) of those taxes actually arrive with their intended recipients while those who would willingly help those people themselves are deprived of the resources to do so, by depleting their income with said taxes. It's an unnecessary middleman, and faulty logic. The fact that people have, do, and will continue to care about people is the fundamental fact the needs to be understood. As a "man of faith," I would hope that you have enough faith in other people that they would care about and for others (even without being coerced by the government to do so, by force).

Furthermore, we have to apply the free market in toto, not half-assed. You can't have a Keynesian corporatists and an over-regulated system and expect that people will be be able to afford healthcare. The fact is that in a free market, the number of people who cannot afford my services would actually decrease considerably, because many more options would arise for those who still couldn't afford me would but need my services.

> "in a free market there will be losers.the one who always lose.
> the poor,the homeless,the mentally ill."

The free market has ways of dealing with all of these. And yes some win, some lose. But in a socialist system, everyone loses (except for maybe the rulers and their lackeys). This seems, again, to be coming from a place of fear, a sense of helplessness without the government. But alas, nothing contributes to poverty, homelessness, and mental illness more than government does. Fact.

> "the free market is still profit driven and the poor will have it no
> better,possibly worse in such a system."

So, what is your proof that the poor will have it worse? How do you know? Or is this what you "feel" would be the case?

> "the reason why i suggested medicare is because it is already in
> place."

So was slavery when the South decided they wanted to keep it.

> "two things would happen if this country went the medicare route:
> 1.health insurance industry would obsolete.
> 2.the pharmaceutical industry would find itself having to negotiate
> drug prices"

1. Yes, the government would have a monopoly on health coverage, and by extension all of healthcare. Economic calculation at this point becomes utterly impossible. Chaos follows. And healthcare quality and service plummets. I have research studies to support this if you're interested.

2. Why not nationalize pharmaceuticals while you are at it?

> "i may be a man of faith but i am a humanist at heart.for-profit
> health care will still have similar results as our current because
> the poor and working poor population is growing."

Without appealing to moral superiority, allow me to assure you that there is nothing -- not one thing -- that is moral or ethical about allowing the government coerce, aggress, commit violence, and violate individual's inalienable rights to self-ownership and property rights, as you proposing with such socialist "solutions." In my humble opinion, a true man of faith would not stand for such things, but would stand against them.

> "the poor and working poor population is growing."

Indeed we do, and we all have inflation, cronyism, Lord Keynes' bogus economic "system" and government's meddling to thank for this.

> "i am all for an actual free market but some things should be done
> collectively."

By "collectively," I assume you mean "by central authorities," yes? Because the free market is, in fact, collective. But there is nothing "collective" about central planning. Except for the fact that the "collective" is mandated to obey the dictates of the central planners.

> "its not only the right thing to so but the human thing to do."

1. Whatever your "feelings" are about it, there is an economic reality to deal with. Such a sentiment misses the point, and will result in hurting more people than it helps.

2. There is nothing "human" (or humane) in aggression, coercion, and violations of sovereignty, all of which underpins an implementation of a socialized system.

"The right thing to do" is to respect self-ownership and property rights. Doing anything else will eventually backfire. "People are not chessmen you move on a board at your whim."

Any one who is serious about contributing to solving and/or ameliorating the issues of poverty, homelessness, and/or mental illness and many of the other symptoms of our social detritus, needs to develop real, sustainable free market solutions to these. Otherwise, their efforts will be in vain (even if -- or perhaps especially if -- they are adopted by government for implementation). Anything else will not improve any of these but will only serve to make matters worse.

Going back to the basics, free market competition will always provide better goods/services at lower prices than the monopolies (fostered and engendered by the lack of economic calculations due to governmental intervention and regulations). Healthcare is no exception to this. Why would it be? Furthermore, why believe that the central planners/kleptocrats aren't profit-driven? Why believe that a "government" monopoly doesn't suffer from a lack of economic calculation? And what's wrong with being profit-driven, however you may individually define "profit?" Do you/I/we not act for what you/I/we consider the best? (Having faith is not a part-time job.)

Do you not act to achieve desired goals?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you haven't fully thought things through. But as I'm sure you know, "It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost."

> "thats my 2 cents anyways.i could probably ramble on for a few
> hours but i dont want to bore you. always a pleasure my friend.
> namaste"

It's not boring, but does take a bit of time to consider and understand all of the details. It's complex, and certainly a challenge to navigate your way through the morass of rhetoric, conditioning, and cultural misdirection that is pervasive in our society, especially when considering what passes for "news" and "facts." This is particularly true with regards to the economy, which is heavily politicized, despite being a rational science that can be understood if one takes the time to learn about its mechanism.

Since you signed off with "namaste," perhaps it would be worth reminding you that the first principle of yoga is "ahimsa para dharma" : non-violence is the highest duty.

Perhaps videosift isn't the best medium in which to educate people on non-violence and economics, but alas, it can be entertaining and, possibly have have some positive effect at some point.

Hope this helps.

dude,
i totally appreciate the time you took to respond.

i was hoping to avoid the myriad directions and confluence of misinterpretation in regards to political and economic understandings may take.

we agree more than we disagree,believe it or not.
we agree we do not have a free market.
we agree that what we DO have is corporate socialism.

the reason why i dont feel a free market is the way to go is mainly due to the fact that politics and corporations have merged into one giant behemoth (plutocracy).

for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-adam smith
we have neither.
IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
at least not in totality.

i never really understood americans aversion to "socialism".its almost an allergic reaction and it bears no base in reality.
should EVERYTHING be subject to a free market?
police?
firefighters?
roads?

i feel this is where we diverge in our understandings.
to me health should be a basic part of civilized society,by your arguments you disagree.
ok..we both have that right.

another item we appear to diverge is HOW we view the system in place.
its all in the perspective.

you made a very strong argument on the current state of preventive medicine,health food stores and the like.
but lets examine where that perspective came from shall we?

the rich,the affluent,people with money and careers.
THEY can afford all those things you mentioned.

what about the poor,the working poor and the destitute?
where do THEY find the money to purchase items at the GNC,or at an organic food market?

what happens to them?

look man,
this is no simple issue and if i implied that it was i apologize.
my argument was not to suggest some utopian fantasy,as i assume yours was not either.
my argument is that some things should be a basic for civilized society.
in my opinion health care is one of them.

i deal with the very people that could NEVER afford you.
so my perspective is born from that perspective.
in a free market there will be losers.the one who always lose.
the poor,the homeless,the mentally ill.

the free market is still profit driven and the poor will have it no better,possibly worse in such a system.

you mentioned cuba.
ok...point.
how about france?germany?denmark?

again,i am not suggesting my idea is some utopian wonderland.this issue is complicated.the reason why i suggested medicare is because it is already in place.

two things would happen if this country went the medicare route:
1.health insurance industry would obsolete.
2.the pharmaceutical industry would find itself having to negotiate drug prices.

i may be a man of faith but i am a humanist at heart.for-profit health care will still have similar results as our current because the poor and working poor population is growing.

i am all for an actual free market but some things should be done collectively.
some we already do:police,fire,public schools etc etc.
i think many europeans got it right.
its not only the right thing to so but the human thing to do.

thats my 2 cents anyways.i could probably ramble on for a few hours but i dont want to bore you.
always a pleasure my friend.
namaste

Drugs or mental illness. =(

That wasn't what I perceived your initial comment to mean. I mostly agree with you, though.

And it IS true that I am decent enough example of this, though it's not out of an exaggerated sense of self-importance, but rather crippling anxiety caused by... well, things I won't go into here.

I still don't think you're entirely right, though. And I really don't think you have a reason to be worried. First of all, I would love it if I could get some help so that I could get myself out of the situation I am in, but it's never that easy when you're dealing with mental illness.

Second of all, I am the only person I know who is dealing with these issues. The vast majority of my peers since my late teens and now, when I am in my early twenties, have been perfectly willing to get their hands dirty, and they have been perfectly willing to get a job. Any job, in fact. Almost every last one of them is absolutely desperate to just be given a chance in a world where even entry-level positions now somehow require several years of experience and a driver's license. And everything costs a fortune.

Most of us youngsters aren't sitting on our asses because we're too lazy and self-important to get a job - we're sitting on our asses because, frankly, the world has changed, and we have been left behind in the process. When my dad was my age, there were so many jobs that there weren't enough people to fill all the positions. You would probably be working on a factory floor and you may not have liked the job, but the job was available and it paid.

And that simply isn't true anymore. In fact, most of the guys I know would leap at the opportunity to get a job like that because they are just out of options.

Great comment! You raised many interesting points.

One important thing to note that the modern human mind is essentially like an advanced piece of software which runs on antiquated hardware (sort of like running Skyrim on an N64). As many as 7% (though I don't currently have a source for this at hand) of the general population are estimated to experience auditory hallucinations, and surprisingly enough, most of those people aren't psychotically structured. This is why auditory hallucinations are seen as a secondary, rather than primary, symptom of schizophrenia.

Rather, what is actually happening is that the antiquated hardware, for whatever reason, is showing its faults. The primitive responses which tend to stay dormant for most people are finding their way to the surface.

In other words, the truth of schizophrenia is that it isn't so much an illness as it is a regression to a more primitive version of the human mind. And as both you an Eleanor pointed out, this can have both pros and cons. Another example of a broken system which can produce contextually positive results is eidetic memory, which causes a person to be unable to forget.

And this is also something that I find to be quite interesting, because what it means is that mental illnesses are, in fact, contextual illnesses. A schizophrenic person is essentially "sick" because he/she has a bug in his/her software and as a result is unable to download patches from the rest of society. Go back 3000 years and it is entirely possible that auditory hallucination would have been the norm.

The reason for the stigma being so harmful is that it simply focuses on the wrong thing. It takes a secondary symptom, i.e. hearing voices, and makes it seem like the actual disease. In truth, the auditory hallucination is just an externalized version of a process which is actually internal. Where most of us simply have thoughts, the schizophrenic might instead hear a voice. To turn stigmatize those auditory hallucinations is to potentially cripple the sufferer's ability to perform basic maintenance on themselves.