Another one of those "it's a dirty job but somebody has to do it" thingy:
See this Headline:
Abnormal is the New Normal
* * * * * * * *
Abnormal Is the New Normal
Why will half of the U.S. population have a diagnosable mental disorder?
[exerpt from this post]:
Beware the DSM-5, the soon-to-be-released fifth edition of the "psychiatric bible," the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. The odds will probably be greater than 50 percent, according to the new manual, that you'll have a mental disorder in your lifetime.
Although fewer than 6 percent of American adults will have a severe mental illness in a given year, according to a 2005 study, many more--more than a quarter each year--will have some diagnosable mental disorder.
That's a lot of people. Almost 50 percent of Americans (46.4 percent to be exact) will have a diagnosable mental illness in their lifetimes, based on the previous edition, the DSM-IV. And the new manual will likely make it even "easier" to get a diagnosis.
If we think of having a diagnosable mental illness as being under a tent, the tent seems pretty big. Huge, in fact. How did it happen that half of us will develop a mental illness? Has this always been true and we just didn't realize how sick we were--we didn't realize we were under the tent? Or are we mentally less healthy than we were a generation ago? What about a third explanation--that we are labeling as mental illness psychological states that were previously considered normal, albeit unusual, making the tent bigger. The answer appears to be all three.
and so on ... see link for full article ... ( and if you do go there and read it I ask you to especially notice its introductory "tone" which is this: "Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears ... )
I applaud R.S. Rosenberg for giving us this article.
However, I take issue with his first conclusion: The answer appears to be all three.
That is, he is concluding that:
1. we didn't realize how sick (mentally ill) we were and
2. we are mentally less healthy today than we were a generation ago and finally
3. we are labeling as mental illness psychological states that are not mental illness.
Rather, I should say I disagree with 2/3rds of his conclusion and agree with 1/3rd: "we" (that is T.H.E.Y ) are labeling as mental illness psychological states that are not mental illness.
Mental illness is the loss of mental health. Mental health is the "unobstructed capacity for reality bound cognitive functioning and the exercise of this capacity". Mental illness is the sustained impairment of this capacity. [Branden]
DSM-5, that is DSM-Any Number, is ... a ... bad book.
It is designed to look and sound like a (Hand)book of science but it is nothing more than the dead sea scrolls of mystics past.
Like the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory)*--which is equally bad as a "psychological" test tool--the DSM-N series of books is nothing more than a "steering wheel" designed and used by BM's to control (steer) the entire body of individual citizens of our country in the direction of-the(any)-moment that T.H.E.Y desire.
You as autonomous individual can allow them to so drive you or you can increase your autonomy and ego strength and make sure you take care of yourself so that T.H.E.Y don't continue succeeding in driving America into the ground.
The foregoing I know some would say is ... "diatribe" ... is "dogmatic" ... is a "rant" ... is demagoguery.
But of course I don't call it this, rather I call it: Hypothesis.
And more, in these (Watch Dog) "pages" here and going forward I plan to explore this hypothesis of mine further (which I have already started and documented in my first Book, Yes, Is BiO-Spiritualism the answer? ) and present the new results here.
For starters cosider one simple question, the article says "fewer than 6 percent of American adults will have a severe mental illness in a given year" ... if--per that famous 20th century psychiatrist Thomas Szasz--it is true that mental illness is a myth then we have to ask, what is a "severe" myth?
* ( Minnesota MultiPhasic Personality Inventory is " ... a psychological test ... primarily intended to test people who are suspected [emphasis mine] of having mental health or other clinical issues".
This test we should remember has as its starting-point-baseline for "normal" the responses from a small number of people from St. Paul Minnesota who happened to walk into some St. Paul Hospital back in the late 1930s when "they" were getting a base line of peoples responses for this inventory. That is, its baseline for "normal" is from that same City that One Ex-Governor of Minnesota--The Honorable Jessie Ventura--said had streets designed and laid out by drunken Irishmen--I have driven these streets and though the Governor's remarks are not politically correct they are metaphorically correct.
How are "we" any different than the Muslims we are fighting the world over???
- see military sentiments within military people and man on the street ...
- "we" differ in degree not kind ...
- we believe in faith in god and doing god's will, they believe it more (see the religion called Islam)
- we believe in sacrificing your life to others for our soldiers, Muslims believe it more (see suicide bombers who apparently are so witless that they allow others to tell them to blow themselves up AND THEY DO IT!?!?!?)
A reader/friend emailed me a "why haven't we heard about this story in the main media" email. I do not want to put anyone on the spot so I'm not saying who it was.
But I am going to give my response to it here (I did not send this response to her...notice it could be a him and this is my "crafty" way of concealing identity...but I feel strongly enough about it that I have to put it somewhere and so am going to put it here):
(email contents below this)
Thanks for sending this.
I had not heard of it and I agree it is a very interesting story.
I don't want to start any controversy between us but I'm thinking you must know for sure that I think sacrificing your life for others is morally wrong (reference www.doorsign.biz that I know you have read many of).
The two guys in your story are no doubt great guys, but ...
They were no longer Navy Seals therefore not bound by the Navy Seal Oath that they apparently took voluntarily when they were Seals.
I know all this stuff is very sensitive stuff but ... could those two ex-Seals have saved themselves or were they doomed based on proximity?
If they could have saved themselves and chose not too BECAUSE they believe ALTRUISM is a moral ideal then ... well ... you know what I think about this ... again see www.doorsign.biz, especially the March 2011 and then September 2012 NewsLetters and also my books on amazon ( especially my last one: Selfish'ism.)
Again, thanks for sending and my goal here is NOT to dissuade you from sending me stuff in the future as I like all the stuff you send me, especially that Owens Corning one on glass surfaces computers etc., quite the thing and I've never seen anything on it except your email.
There's been others too, so keep sending and I'll only do this eval when you hit really close to (my) home (i.e., core).
I agree that the Hilary question is particularly pathetic and this article email of yours sure highlights it.
Many people mistakenly call a trade a sacrifice and I am not talking about this, but rather real sacrifice, i.e., giving up a higher value for a lower one.
[copy of initiating email sent to me by a reader/friend]
---------------------------------beginning of email content I responded to-------------------------------------------
very interesting, have any of you heard about this????????
"What difference does it make"
The stunning part of this story is that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty killed 60 of the attacking force. Once the compound was overrun, the attackers were incensed to discover that just two men had inflicted so much death and destruction.
The news has been full of the attacks on our embassies throughout the Muslim world, and in particular, the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others in Benghazi, Libya.
However, there's a little known story of incredible bravery, heroics, and courage that should be the top story.
So what actually happened at the U.S. embassy in Libya? We are learning more about this every day. Ambassador Stevens and Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, along with administrative staff, were working out of temporary quarters due to the fact that in the spring of 2011 during the so-called Arab Spring, the United States cut ties with then president Moammar Gadhafi. Our embassy was looted and ransacked, causing it to be unusable. It is still in a state of disrepair.
Security for embassies and their personnel is to be provided by the host nation. Since Libya has gone through a civil war of sorts in the past 18 months, the current government is very unstable, and therefore, unreliable
A well-organized attack by radical Muslims was planned specifically targeting the temporary U.S. embassy building. The Libyan security force that was in place to protect our people deserted their post, or joined the attacking force. Either way, our people were in a real fix. And it should be noted that Ambassador Stevens had mentioned on more than one occasion to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, that he was quite concerned for his personal safety and the welfare of his people. It is thought that Ambassador Stevens was on a "hit list."
A short distance from the American compound, two Americans were sleeping. They were in Libya as independent contractors working an assignment totally unrelated to our embassy. They also happened to be former Navy Seal's.
When they heard the noise coming from the attack on our embassy, as you would expect from highly trained warriors, they ran to the fight. Apparently, they had no weapons, but seeing the Libyan guards dropping their guns in their haste in fleeing the scene, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty snatched up several of these discarded weapons and prepared to defend the American compound.
Not knowing exactly what was taking place, the two Seal's set up a defensive perimeter. Unfortunately Ambassador Stevens was already gravely injured, and Foreign Service officer, Sean Smith, was dead. However, due to their quick action and suppressive fire, twenty administrative personnel in the embassy were able to escape to safety. Eventually, these two courageous men were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers brought against them, an enemy force numbering between 100 to 200 attackers which came in two waves. But the stunning part of the story is that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty killed 60 of the attacking force. Once the compound was overrun, the attackers were incensed to discover that just two men had inflicted so much death and destruction.
As it became apparent to these selfless heroes, they were definitely going to lose their lives unless some reinforcements showed up in a hurry. As we know now, that was not to be. I'm fairly certain they knew they were going to die in this gun fight, but not before they took a whole lot of bad guys with them!
Consider these tenets of the Navy SEAL Code:
1) Loyalty to Country, Team and Teammate,
2) Serve with Honor and Integrity On and Off the Battlefield,
3) Ready to Lead, Ready to Follow, Never Quit,
4) Take responsibility for your actions and the actions of your teammates,
5) Excel as Warriors through Discipline and Innovation,
6) Train for War, Fight to Win, Defeat our Nation's Enemies, and...
7) Earn your Trident every day
Thank you, Tyrone and Glen. To the very last breath, you both lived up to the SEAL Code. You served all of us well. You were courageous in the face of certain death.
And Tyrone, even though you never got to hold your newborn son, he will grow up knowing the character and quality of his father, a man among men who sacrificed himself defending others.
Former Staff Sergeant,
U. S. Navy Chaplain Corps (Ret.)
This should be passed on
and on and on.
NO TRUE AMERICAN WOULD OBJECT TO RECEIVING THIS MORE THAN ONCE ... SO PASS IT ON
And Let us never forget the Hillary Clinton Comment
"What Difference does it make?
----------------------------------end email content I responded to--------------------------------------