Dear Texas: Deinstitutionalization and the Definition of Crazy

 Dear Texas let's talk about: Deinstitutionalization and the Definition of Crazy

    Crazy is often defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. So, let's talk about how asylums of earlier days became popularly known as the snake pits of the 1940s and 1950s, likely due to the fact that public psychiatric hospitals were provided minimal resources to meet the needs of huge patient populations. These hospitals were progressively closed down, and the people who had worked there were vilified, perhaps as a way to assuage the guilt of what happened to their former residents. Kinda of like when Ann Simmons, a 62-year-old patient, died in February 2012 at Terrell State Hospital due to a pulmonary thromboembolism (blood clot). 

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2013/09/23/federal-investigation-state-hospital-caused-patients-death/10100687007/ 

    Ann was imprisoned in mechanical restraints for 55 hours. To be clear, we know that restraining a human is extremely risky and should only be for brief periods to prevent imminent harm, with strict limits: typically no more than 4 hours for adults, 2 hours for ages 9-17, and 1 hour for under 9, with frequent checks for circulation, skin, and vital signs, and immediate removal if risks increase or the person calms down, as prolonged restraint risks suffocation, cardiac events, injury, and death. Yes, folks, you can die from being restrained even without a cop standing on your neck. Still, the hospital's internal investigation and that of the Texas Department of State Health Services initially found no fault with her treatment- weird. After another investigation by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which found Ms. Simmons died from a blood clot that formed in her immobilized limbs, a condition associated with long periods of immobility and dehydration, the case led to a state-level overhaul of oversight and death review processes for all Texas psychiatric facilities. Ms. Simmons' death was also a factor in state officials exploring the privatization of the hospital's management. But how is privatization going to help? To phrase that same question differently, would capitalism (meaning selling it to a private owner who runs the hospital for a profit) provide better care? (a safer, more empathic, and kinder element to health care?)

    No. 

    The privatization of hospitals can boost their efficiency and cut costs. This happens by reducing staff, which means fewer people to take on the heavy workload, more work mistakes (DEATHS), and longer wait times for patients. In plain English, capitalism is crappy for people who need care, yall. If the hospital were to become a for-profit business and determine that a service is not profitable, it would simply not offer it, no matter how much people need it. In fact, capitalistic healthcare is always going to choose profit over people because capitalism must exploit people to make money. Working for someone else is inherent to capitalist relations. The word capital is just a term to describe a workers labor and the the control the company owner has over that workers time, body, and wellbeing. (Privatization overworks the employees, compromises community care, and completely ignores those who cannot afford their high costs.) Now consider that our taxpayer dollars fund medical research that drives scientific. Meaning we finance the discovery of new meds and treatments, either directly or through subsidies. (A subsidy is financial aid given by taxpayers to a government or public body to help an industry, business, or individual. The point of subsidies is to supposed to be to keep prices low, promote specific activities (like medical research), ensure essential services to the people, and achieve public welfare goals. Subsidies can take the form of direct cash payments, tax breaks, loan guarantees, or other benefits.)

    Let's take Pfizer as our example. Pfizer alone receives massive taxpayer-provided subsidies, especially from state/local US sources (hundreds of millions in loans and tax credits) for facilities and R&D = research & development. Pfizer is worth $145.98 billion but pays significantly low U.S. effective tax rates, often near zero or even negative in recent years (like 2023). Because they used offshore subsidiaries and exploited loopholes in the 2017 tax law, despite massive revenues from products (its overall effective tax rates (e.g., 5.4% in 2019, 9.6% in 2022) were far below the statutory 21% U.S. corporate rate. The needy Pfizer company's CEO Albert Bourla received approximately $24.6 million in total compensation for fiscal year 2024 in addition to our generous donations. That seems like a large paycheck for a guy getting government welfare out of taxpayer pockets, y'all. He kinda sounds like that able bodied guy on welfare we hate having to support. Pfizer then has the gall to charge American's outrageous prices for the very medicines we paid for them to develop. But I digress...

Let's get back to my main point: mental institutions are coming back!

    We should all be shocked and appalled after what we saw happen to Ann alone, but let's take a moment to recognize that Ann is only one of many stories. The question is, who is going to go into these asylums Abbott is spending billions on?

    I have a theory. Involuntary commitment for homeless individuals is a subject of ongoing debate and policy discussion in Texas and nationwide. Let's be clear here, historically, people involuntarily hospitalized included those with chronic mental illnesses (like dementia, neurosyphilis), but also: the elderly, the poor, women deemed "morally insane" for having premarital sex, political dissidents (i.e., Antifa), and even children for social control and abuses common under laws permitting commitment for vague legal reasons and by family members (think abusive husbands here). 

    This new idea for dealing with unhoused people just happens to come amid an affordability crisis in Texas. Greg Abbott is not looking for ways to improve the lives of Texans. Nope, instead he is suddenly on a crusade to crack down on public encampments (especially in Austin) and enforce anti-camping laws (HB 1925). (The lack of housing supply is cited as one of the primary reasons for rising house prices but we all know that tariffs have created a bottleneck in new housing development due to supply costs.) Even more ironic, Abbott cites public safety as his main concern for razing people make-shift homes because these unhoused people might have weapons. How does he keep a straight face while saying that, when he also allows all Texans to open-carry without so much as a safety class (HB 1927)? 

(It's the wild, wild west here, y'all and that's the perfect topic for a whole other blog about crazy I might write someday.)

     How much do you suppose it would cost to house all the unhoused people in Texas? (The 2024-2025 biennium provided $2.5 billion for state psychiatric hospital expansion and $239 million in grants for new local beds, aiming to expand inpatient care. $239 million, especially for new local mental health facilities in rural areas, adding hundreds of beds for you, MAGA.) I hear you screaming at me: "Nuh uh, I work!" You should probably consider that while it is difficult to determine the exact number of people who are employed and living in their vehicles, "hidden homeless," estimates indicate that 40-60% of all people experiencing homelessness nationwide are employed. If you sleep in your car and that car gets towed, now what? Why does anyone believe a working person should have to live in their car?  

AI says there are approximately 39,000 people who live unhoused in Texas, multiply that by Housing Forwards estimate of $25,925 per person to get them off the street and you get $1,011,075,000 which is one billion four hundred eighty-eight million nine hundred twenty-five thousand less than Abbott's 2.5 billion for asylums. I just saved us taxpayers over a billion dollars and prevented people from being killed in insane asylums y'all.   

    People are funny; they hate paying taxes to provide welfare for people, but then they will fight to their deaths to assert that people who flip burgers shouldn't make a living wage. Sit with that dilemma for a while. Everyone was born just as human as any other so it is a harsh belief that if your highest skill set happens to be bagging groceries, mopping floors, or flipping burgers, you don't deserve to live legally, y'all. Eight hours of work a day is still eight hours a day.

    So, lets follow our own American logic: because we are afraid we will be taken advantage of by poor and not debilitated enough people (the able-bodied guy on the couch), and we also don't believe certain "únskilled" jobs meet the necessary requirements of owing people a living wage, our answer to this dilemma is to simply throw people into asylums that we will also, as taxpayers, have to pay for. We think throwing people into asylums against their will, asylums, mind you, that have already proven to become abusive and inhumane, are a good solution to this problem. 

Hmm. It seems to me that people with these circular ideas of fixing things meet the criteria of crazy by definition. They just keep doing the same things, expecting different outcomes.

(Part 2 is coming and its called Are Conservatives Crazy, Y'all?)

Citations:

Edwards, C. (2025, March). Corporate Welfare in the Federal Budget. Cato.org. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-federal-budget-0

Fidler, F., & Wilcox, J. (2018, December 3). Reproducibility of scientific results. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-reproducibility/

Lindsay, J. (2025, April 28). Man with three faces: Politics, pathology, and the modern selves. New Discourses. https://newdiscourses.com/2025/04/man-with-three-faces-politics-pathology-and-the-modern-selves/

Sherman, R., Boutte, G. S., Cropf, R., Hirsch, R. L., Cupp, S. E., 30, H. B., Balta, H., Saha, Dr. K., Suto, R. J., Lowe, B., Abdallah, A., Goldberg, J., Lockard, A., The Fulcrum, Nevins, D. L., Corbin, S., & Moriarty, C. E. (2025, August 30). Shared psychosis or political pathology?. The Fulcrum. https://thefulcrum.us/ethics-leadership/mental-health-of-trump-supporters

 Wait, Am I a Narcissist? 

 

Most people have heard of gaslighting. It is often explained as having someone undermine your reality. I believe examples often use concrete things that make the term seem that only a bafoon could fall prey to such tactics. In fact, gaslighting commonly takes a more subjective form. Sure, those who harbor narcissistic traits may try to convince you that you are crazy by telling you the sky is red. However, it is far more straightforward and equally advantageous to exploit one's goodness by appealing to their conscience. They do this by bending your perception of yourself. If you spend any time on Facebook, you will find many memes and quotes about narcissistic abuse, and many of them hold merit. The problem is that projection, a standard tool in the narcissist's toolbox, uses the narcissist's own traits to explain your behavior. Because narcissism causes hostile attribution bias they believe others have bad intentions toward them. Believing the world is evil distorts the goodness of others for the narcissist. The projections of the narcissist leave those with a conscience thinking that their healthy defense mechanisms are, in fact, also narcissistic mechanisms of manipulation. 

Let's look at a few examples of gaslighting and projection vs. healthy coping mechanisms:

 

The narcissist will call you selfish for forming healthy boundaries or simply say no to them.

They may call you judgmental for pointing out how the narcissist's behavior hurts you especially if you begin to call out their maladaptive behaviors.

They might declare you self-righteous for asserting your knowledge gained in therapy or sharing understandings formed through learning about abuse.

They could accuse you of stonewalling for going no contact with them when hurtful situations cannot reach solutions.

They may call you vindictive for taking action against their abuses and no longer enabling their behavior.

They could say you are raging for being mad about their behavior, holding your ground, and maintaining vigilance against hurtful behaviors and unfair beliefs.

They will likely believe you are unfairly criticizing them for calling out hurtful behaviors and expressing your feelings in the relationship.

They will say you are manipulative for reframing situations to help them understand their biased perspectives. Using alternative scenarios to help create new understandings about behaviors will seem underhanded to them.

They will find your behavior entitled when you ask to be treated with respect and seek reciprocation in your relationship.

You will likely be called ungrateful for not expressing thankfulness for the times they met your basic rights and acted with the slightest decency in the relationship. 

 

 

The list makes it clear how actions taken to protect oneself from narcissistic abuse can look similar to the abuse itself. Knowing that confusion/gaslighting is the war tactic of a narcissist, consider that gaslighting often becomes self-perpetuating for the victim. By this I mean that as the narcissist forces their perspective on their victim, the victim begins second-guessing themselves. Once reality becomes so topsy-turvy that the victim cannot distinguish their actions from those of the abuser, they literally start gaslighting themselves.

 

The only real way to gain insight about people and steady the ground for ourselves is to consider the motivation behind behaviors- ours and theirs. 

We must also be mindful that narcissism doesn't refer to someone:

* having high self-esteem

* displaying social confidence

* being assertive

* being proud of real accomplishments

* taking care of physical appearance

* being competitive

* disliking you

*taking selfies

It is essential to understand that we all have narcissistic traits. The degree and commonality of our use of such characteristics indicate more than honing in on one incident we encounter. Making occasional snarky comments, having thoughts about revenge while angry, or exaggerating the praise one received from their teacher may be nothing more than a singular mood-directed reaction. Actual Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a constant trait of one's personality or a generalized attitude toward everyone else all the time. 

Still, we must beware because even without full-on NPD, being subjected to a relationship with someone who has a lot of narcissistic traits has detrimental consequences on a person. There is oppression in a one-sided relationship. Givers will suffer self-righteous defensive attacks. Even people with some narcissistic traits work to maintain control of a relationship and will systematically try to eliminate any restored self-esteem in the other person. They can hold grudges forever and smile while forming revenge plans to discredit, undermine, and blame others for everything in their life. There is no end to their drive to salvage their reputation and maintain dominance over their relationships. Everything comes down to influence and control so that they may repair the damage done to their self-esteem by your empowerment and possible escape (Roark, 2012).

Dousing Capult's Fire Upon the Earth

 

I couldn't resist answering an op-ed article in First Things magazine written by Charles J. Chaput, the archbishop emeritus of Philadelphia. He caught my attention when he claimed that happiness ties to wisdom. To be exact he says, "happiness grows out of risk and suffering, the beauty and hard edges of experiencing the real world." This bears asking: How many of his experiences would we commoners consider "real world?" For those, like me, ignorant of the class system within the church, a bishop is the highest rank of the Christian clergy. That translates to Chaput as a respected spiritual and administrative authority in the Christian churches. In fact, before his retirement, he was a man who oversaw all the priests and ministers within his church. After doing some research, I found that he made a public apology to the victims of sexual abuse by the Catholic clergy as part of that responsibility. Unfortunately, in that apology he glossed over the parameters of oversight his position entailed and blamed "the negligence of the church's pastors" for allowing the abuse to occur. It seems to me that because authority goes upward, Chaput himself carries a massive load of that blame. For me, this speaks to his character. 

I went on reading his op-ed, where Chaput, from his exalted place in society, warns that democracy advances "the forces of mass culture, which lower the tone of society… by lowering the aims of life from classical beauty, heroic virtues and otherworldly transcendence to the pursuits of work, material consumption, and entertainment." To be clear, the word 'democracy' is strange here. Democracy denotes freedom by way of our vote-by-majority representative governing. In fact, let's try the sentence again with that exchange: [Freedom] "advances the forces of mass culture, which lower the tone of society." Indeed, freedom to grow and change advances "the forces of mass culture." But do they, infact, lower the tone of society? No. I must disagree. Freedom to learn from past mistakes and develop new beliefs that fit our changing values evolves communities to match our better understandings and more accurate views. In short, I argue that it is antiquated beliefs and biases that lower the aims of human life, cloud our views on virtue, and make us believe we must battle one for survival. No, Mr. Chaput, I think it is oppression by generational prejudices that skew the intrinsic beauty of human empathy and block one person's tolerance for another.  

Chaput's viewpoint does carry merit, however, if we change the word 'democracy' to capitalism. Now in this op-ed we find an argument with actual merit. Let's first define the concepts of democracy vs. capitalism to analyze Chaput's theory better. A democracy is a governing system that allows the control of an organization or group by the majority of its members. On the other hand, capitalism is a system of economy that allows the intrinsic value of goods and services to determine the value of those things based on natural demand. These things are quite different and hard to confuse.

Chaput posits that democracy lowers the aims of life to the pursuits of work, material consumption, and entertainment which is a relevant argument against capitalism. He appears to have borrowed the Marxist theory of capitalistic alienation and illogically ascribed it to democracy. Chapult's critique of democracy echoes Marx's logical premise that capitalism alienates us from our purpose as people. Marx's theory is that the drive for ever more stuff that capitalism creates obscures the value of spending our time enjoying life rather than spending money. In other words, he emphasized experiences over owning things. Marx went further when he exposed how the appreciation for a day's work loses its satisfaction in a capitalistic system. When we work for a company or boss, we get little psychological pleasure from "a job well done." Marx believed that creativity and pride in our production entice us to do good work and produce quality products. When we feel a personal connection to our productions we take pride in our work because it brings intrinsic happiness through fulfillment. In Marx's words  "in your enjoyment, or use, of my product I would have the direct enjoyment both of being conscious of having satisfied a human need by my work, that is, of having objectified man's essential nature, and of having thus created an object corresponding to the need of another man's essential nature ... Our products would be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected our essential nature."

We, the workers, do not decide the craftsmanship and design of a product for a company. It's not even according to us, the consumers. The capitalist (company) or business owner makes all the product decisions, not based on quality or pride of creation. Instead, all decisions come down to extracting a maximal profit. Capitalism necessarily degrades products into cheap items that reap significant returns but bear no pride in creation. 

 I believe Chaput may have confused the terms democracy and capitalism purposely. Afterall, why would he he want to call out capitalism? Let's be honest, Capult is talking about materialism and capitalism thrives on materialism because if we, the consumers, become content with our lives we might stop constantly wanting and needing things. If we stopped buying junk the capitalistic economy would die out, and make no mistake; Capult is in the business of churches- capital-making machines. A quick Google search that the Vatican's wealth in 2022 at about $10 billion to $15 billion. Considering the church's priceless art, land, gold, and investments across the globe, it is easily one of the wealthiest institutions on Earth. The Vatican holds significant banking, insurance, chemicals, steel, construction, and real estate investments. (On a side note, It is also relevant to note that Pope Francis's Net Worth is $16 Million US Dollars.) Chaput claims to believe that materialism reduces us to "a one dimensional, animal existence that undermines human dignity and eventually leads to the abolition of man." How do we reconcile such an overwhelming amassing of money by a church that bemoans materialism? Further, Capult obviously upholds and uses the materialistic system of capitalism for its benefit while preaching the dangers of a fair and equality-based democracy. 

 Chapult talks about comfort as emollient we place between ourselves and the facts of everyday life. He claims that "a culture of pleasure and indulgence, a culture focused mainly on the pursuit of material wellbeing, is never really a culture of joy." His words ring particularly hypocritical in light of the riches of the church and his title, which bears the exact stamp of many "joyless" comforts. 

Again, he is correct though, capitalism is an excellent component of comfort for the upper classes who enjoy lives of leisure and freedom at the expense of the workers they rely upon to make their capital. 

Every American suffers in a lousy economy; however, to put Chapult's opinion into the bright light of reality, let's realize that the capitalist has the most to lose. To fully appreciate the fallout of a failing economy, let's discuss how money becomes power. The father of capitalism, John Adams, realized that money would intrinsically come with privilege at capitalism's conception. He knew that as people's wealth grew and the land got privately dispersed at disproportionate rates, unfairness would cause angst creating a need to protect inbalances of assets. I think that since capitalism was borne with the understood concept of exponential inequality and, perhaps even more alarming, the knowledge that justice would be another capitalistic commodity for sale, the threat of toppling the existing class system terrifies those with the most to lose. There is good reason for men like Capult to confuse terms and concepts to muddy waters. Religious America is a largely uneducated and tradition based group who are influenced by fear and magical thinking to be guided and molded into whatever the church pleases.   
He says that to change the world, we must love each other, get married, stay faithful to one another, have lots of children, and raise those children to be men and women of Christian character. That doesn't seem like a change to me. Haven't we already done that, and isn't that how we got here? Capult says that to create new life, we must live according to "convictions that are greater than ourselves and shared with people we know and love." This hardly screams education and evolution. It sounds more like listen to me and keep doing what you are doing and have been doing for generations. On a bettering ourselves scale isn't learning and sharing new beliefs and virtues as a nation the change we need? Strangely, it sounds a lot like what a democracy delivers. 

 It appears to me that Chapult is a man who lives very comfortably, and has no reason to want change. He is living large, retired in this highly oppressive materialistic world where most have to work until the day they die. He preaches from an exalted place in society not only as an archbishop but as a white male, all the while decrying others the same privileges he enjoys. Chapult is correct when he touts that the church is powerful, "an authority figure who is hard to break." He threatens that it a problem for those who would revise the American story into a "different kind of social experiment." He talks in circles about change and freedom, but I ask for clarity. Are we not the America who pledged to take the tired, the poor, and the huddled masses yearning to breathe free? Is this America, one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all? Exactly which of these social experiments does he threaten to unhinge? What exactly are the moral values that the majority of Americans hold dear? Does democracy, perhaps with its "liberty and justice for all," threaten his exalted place in society?
America is known for obscuring terms and confusing political understandings to the outside world. Confusion and delusion are propagandistic ways of controlling the masses- us. Words with manipulated meaning are things any public figure with a voice can use for his advantage. I hope you leave with a straightforward understanding from this writing: Democracy is not synonymous with capitalism or materialism. Democracy is your voice in society, and Capult would have you continue forever, allowing him to speak for you. Do not be afraid to look up words. You have a right to understand what is said to you.

 

 

Burning Witches: What's the Point?

 

 

   

  

There is a modus operandi that spurs a moral panic. But what is a moral panic? A moral panic is a social spreading of fear that causes people to believe an evil threatens their society’s well-being. Whether a natural phenomenon or a consequence of the human condition, a moral panic always begins with specific social actors: Compelling characters invoke “folk devils” who cause mass fear. (Bonn, 2015) These people are our law enforcement, media, politicians, and finally, the public. First, there is a discovery of some horror that provokes a belief in the boogeyman. This boogeyman can be anything from razor blades hidden in children’s Halloween candy to baby sacrifices by Satanists. The story is always extraordinary, hard to believe, and indeed, that is because they are often made up.

Nevertheless, such delectably wicked ideas inevitably lead to a spike in cases because people see what they want to see. Inflated media reports promise danger. A theory postulates five things believed to determine what makes it to our nightly news: 1) the person who owns the network, 2) the advertisers who fund it, 3) the outlets sourcing, 4) flak, i.e., strong criticism from influential people, and 5.) dictations of current fear ideology. But then, as if waking from a nightmare, logic bleeds through the stupor. No longer satisfying to the masses, the problems fade away, blending into the corpus of other past atrocities. Looking back, we are aghast; the whole thing is preposterous. As far as moral panics go, there is hardly a better example than the Salem Witch Trials.

 

  Witches are women. But these particular women have fallen from grace and are now pure evil. Clever, immoral, and soulless, these females have the potential to change the paradigm or, at least, challenge it, and they could be any one of us. Now, changes to the norm scare certain people--People who have something to lose. Psychology tells us that fear fogs our minds; Under stress, our perceptions distort, compelling us to be on guard, vigilant for things that could cause us harm. These attributes of fear meant to keep us safe sometimes go wrong. The very biological safeguards intended to protect us instead concoct mass paranoia. Panics snowball, growing by their own momentum of misconstrued events, false accusations, and fake news, and the aspects combine to culminate in our greatest inhumanity and miscarriages of justice. 

 

  In the witch trials, the most critical element was the church’s power that issued dominant control over Salem’s community. As could be expected, there were significant stresses and strife attached to making life in a new land. For instance, Salem lived under constant threat of attack by the native people whose land they stole. This perpetual danger alone kept communities on edge, priming their minds with hyper-vigilance. Famines punished settlers when their ignorance of farming new lands resulted in crop failures. Famines presage malnutrition, which in turn spawns disease. But rather than view circumstances rationally, these people turned to supernatural reasonings when the church convinced them that God was punishing them for moral missteps. Why? Three phenomena [explain the human condition]—hindsight bias, overconfidence, and our tendency to perceive patterns in random events—illustrate why we cannot rely solely on intuition and common sense.” (Chomsky, 2018) To put it simply, we are dopes who do not think straight, and fear fills the pews on Sunday morning. Natural disasters and self-derived hardships become forces of God’s will. Patriarchal views are also handed down by the church. The Bible itself damns women as lustful, hard to control, and unworthy individuals. The essential ingredients in Salem were dogma, caste systems, and superstitious nonsense. Martha Stewart couldn’t make a more perfect moral panic recipe. Salem was cooking up a batch of horror. 

 

  It’s a good thing we don’t have to worry about silly things like witches today. However, moral panics, on the other hand, are still very much a part of the menu. For instance, the 1980s provided another example. The Vietnam War had just ended, and many women were entering the job market, requiring a change in family life. Notice this is another moment of societal change involving the roles of women. Perhaps to some public portions, this change was like Salem, a perceived threat to the church’s teachings. Children were separated from their mothers and entrusted to daycares for the first time. Those who feel threatened then ignite a belief that these changes will menace society. Any opinion of a detriment to the status quo’s tilt becomes political and cultural stresses. The people must identify a boogeyman. This time daycares serve as the demon and get blamed in a host of far-fetched molestation allegations by sketchy individuals. Interestingly, this wave of child molestation cases crashed onto the nightly news just after the government introduced the Mondale Act-- an act that provided a boon of tax funding to child protection agencies. Though, I’m sure there is no connection.

 

  Identical to the witch trials, the daycare cases stemmed from a mixture of Christain’s cultural beliefs and unreliable (and even coached) child testimony. Also, in-step with the witch trials, the first daycare allegations stemmed from incredible stories that became more streamlined and uniform as time went by. This assimilation is a known phenomenon called “socially cued symptom enactments,” which speaks of socially instigated twinning stories by “victims.” We must remember that “certain types of behaviors and actions are “rational” not because they are logical... or serve our self-interest, but because they fulfill... a broader goal, meet... a higher moral standard, or serve [our political] purposes.” (Pham) To put it simply, some people will report because they believe making up a story supports a cause to fight evil, some because they want attention, others just want to profit from the claims whether or not they are true. The point is that these are lies spurned by moral outrage and righteous indignity that keep the narrative going by being immoral and unethical. By reigning in the accusations that exceed what even the most beguiled believers can swallow, the powers that be keep the figment alive a bit longer.

Daycares stood accused of raping children with knives even though the children alleging the abuse incurred no wounds. Other fantastic stories told of magic rooms and children tied naked to trees in the middle of the day on a well-traveled street, testimony that sounds ridiculous to us today. Realize, though, these tall tales about the daycares eerily resemble the Salem children’s claims of visions, mind-reading, and superhuman strength. As cases piled up against the daycare, social pressure mounted, and stigma accrued. If it involved a daycare, any evidence, no matter how ridiculous, became a sacred truth. Salem’s term “sacred truth” meant that contradicting the girls was a blasphemy crime punishable by hanging the blasphemer. My point is that rules like this don’t exactly instill a drive for justice.

 

  While many people suffer and even face atrocities during moral panics, others see an immense benefit. Consider in the Salem Trials a “witch” burned without confessing could pass her property on to her family. However, if she pleaded guilty, she was far more likely to be shown mercy and live. Of course, confessing meant she was required to surrender her property to the government. To put it another way, if you wanted to live, you paid a ransom: a sacrifice of your property bought you your life. Ironically, in the first daycare case, a similar happening occurs when less than a month after the child’s allegations, the mentally unstable parent places a lien on the uninvolved daycare owner’s property. (The business owner, a woman, paid $50,000 to have the claim removed only to have insurance pay that same parent another $2 million again later.)

 

  Moral panics may stem from organic and natural occurrences, but they attach to social and political happenings. The suggestion of a monster in our midst begins the moral dissonance. Soon, ambition finds footing, and the situation becomes a sinister way to benefit. When people stoop to exploiting others for political and monetary profits, it causes conspiracy theories of a more orchestrated explanation. It certainly stands to reason that influential people might try to incite a moral panic if it means their betterment. “Deep culture” and mythological signification can, using the schema proposed here, be understood as practical accomplishments—rhetorical responses to particular situations that, when performed successfully, legitimate violence and other forms of domination,” which in these cases serve to maintain the status quo. (Reed, 2015) 

“The task of propaganda, Hitler argued, was to bring certain subjects to the attention of the masses. Propaganda should be simple, concentrating on a few essentials, which then had to be repeated many times, with emphasis on such emotional elements as love and hatred. Hitler concluded that through the continuity and uniformity of its application, propaganda would lead to results “that are almost beyond our understanding.”

None of us are ever going to be perfect but we can learn to think critically. 

• Note people’s assumptions and values. 

• What perspective or bias underlies their argument?

•  Evaluate evidence. Is it anecdotal? What is their source? Is it based on statistics and informative experiments? 

• Assess conclusions. Are there any alternative explanations 

 And remember! The study of psychology can help teach you how to ask and answer important questions—how to think critically as you evaluate competing ideas and claims. You don't need a class you only need to read a book or two.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1542966140?tag=upjourney-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062664573?tag=upjourney-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062219693?tag=upjourney-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1

Should We Sacrifice Grandpa?

 Texas Governor comes right out and asserts that we should all sacrifice our lives for the economy while he works from home. (Dallasnews.com)

 

American's are being asked to make a call--To assert their choice of life or money. 

We are not one's to hide from hard work. This country came together and won WWII by filling factories with workers who had never worked outside their homes before. We are a nation of men and women who, despite our differences, work together for the greater good during times of struggle. It is our adherence to our social duty to make a united stand that makes us strong. 

But we don't organize and find a common path alone. We accomplish it through good leadership- smart leadership, fair, and just leadership. 

Roosevelt was an actual war president who brought a nation together. He said, 

"Today we have learned in the agony of war that great power involves great responsibility. We, as Americans, do not choose to deny our responsibility." 

He was right. But we aren't the ones in power and it is not our responsibility to protect those who are...  A leader willing to take responsibility and stand behind his word is precisely what the representatives of today are missing. What is our responsibility as a society? Is it our duty to risk our lives, go to war, for money? Are we so expendable that our sentience is outweighed by our monetary potential? I think not.

A wartime president does not lead out of incompetent, self-glorifying, delusion. He does not shift his responsibility onto others or tie ego-stroking requirements to life-saving measures. 

THE PRESIDENT: I think they should be appreciative because you know what? When they're not appreciative to me, they're not appreciative to the Army Corps. They're not appreciative to FEMA. It's not right. These people are incredible. They're working 24 hours a day. Mike Pence — I mean, Mike Pence, I don't think he sleeps anymore. These — these are people that should be appreciated.

He calls all the governors. I tell him — I mean, I'm a different type of person — I say, "Mike, don't call the governor of Washington. You're wasting your time with him. Don't call the woman in Michigan." All — it doesn't make any difference what happens —

Q You don't want him to call the governor of Washington?

THE PRESIDENT: No, no. You know what I say? If they don't treat you right, I don't call. He's a different type of person. He'll call quietly anyway. Okay? But he's done a great job. He should be appreciated for the job he's done.

Trump makes ridiculous decisions, blatantly asserting his personal opinion, and then when his ignorant decision tanks, he hides from the repercussions with lies and blame. Any reasonable mind can follow a timeline and discern what happened- if they care to. When Trump blames the Governers for harming the economy and denies the severity of this pandemic, he puts undue pressure on the Governors. Then those governors take all that excessive pressure and pass on to the Mayors. Our poor mayors must try to weed through the nonsense strewn by the higher-ups so they can try to help the people of their communities. People who are also inundated with misinformation and despite all logical processing, actively fighting against staying at home and demanding aid from our government. This wide-spread dissonance places real facts- that their decision puts every other person at risk- behind their want to continue business as usual.  

We who understand what is at stake, who are following the science, realize we are at the mercy of the most ignorant, greedy, and misinformed among us. We cannot give in to their demands. We cannot sit idle while our Fox News neighbors and officials decide that we should sacrifice our lives for their economic needs. 

As thinking people, we know we should never place money ahead of human beings. As we watch what is happening, will they realize? Will they see in time that we must ignore this uneducated, yet highly opinionated President and his poor decisions? Denial will be harder and harder as our nation is sicker, and millions are dying, and those who survive are angry. Kissing Donald Trump's ass is going to become a painful discrediting of your own intelligence and integrity. Mistakes are being made, and people depend on leaders to listen to our doctors and do no harm.

Who worries about an economy or their political campaigning strategies when their country is fighting a pandemic? 
People who get to sit in their homes while others risk their lives to keep the economy running.

Who withholds aid to American communities because their governor disagrees with him? 
Malignant narcissists who feel they are owed exceptional treatment for negligent behavior.

Who says he will not abide by a bipartisan bill passed by both houses but instead do as he likes? 
A president who has no understanding of his limitations and who thinks he is above the law.

The facts are that Trump is defeating himself by allowing American's to suffer and succumb to an utterly beatable virus. If Trump had listened to experts, we would not be in the situation we are in now. We could have recovered quicker if they had locked everything down. Experts are still saying shelter in place is the fastest way to get back to our regular economy. Business minds are panicked and are not thinking long term, but we are going to lose millions of lives because he is stubborn and egotistical, and people are listening to him without using their brains to the weigh facts.

Does Trump think we will forget these decisions? Does your boss think you will forget? Does Trump think he can lie his way out of this as usual? I doubt it psychology tells us that death is a pretty powerful emotional re-enforcer of memory and anger. 

We have a group of spineless leaders and business owners who will not stand up for their fellow man. They resort to manipulation and bullying to try and get their needs met while discrediting any logical conversation that does not meet their immediate needs. The problems are compounded when our local officials allow businesses to influence their better judgment with illogical arguments. They second guess safety concerns that threaten a buck rather than stay strong for their constituents.

We've talked about leaders but what about heroes? What about those among us who go beyond the average?

"What would a "hero" do in a pandemic?"

 A hero would first take the measures that save others from hurt, suffering, and death. They whip into scary situations and stare into the face of horror to do all they can to stand between innocent people and tragedy. They don't act for glory or notoriety. They need no pat on the back for doing well by others and they do not base their ethics on what looks best for economic advantage. Heroes act on innate reactions and respond to people's immediate needs to stay alive and healthy. They help in times of need because they value life and it is empathy that propels them. To put it simply, they do good because they are good. We need that right now. We need people who see others as worthy and necessary. This is a time of extraordinary need and as the thinkers of this world, we must discard our hierarchy of privilege and realize that every life is precious, equal, and worthwhile. 

Watch who does what now. This is our chance to clean out the corrupt. We are being handed the perfect situation to elect politicians who embody our American morals. People who place value on humans and humanity. Politicians work for us. We pay them through tax revenue to represent us, and that means it is their job to serve, protect, and ensure our safety. They should be focused of every human's right to life. That is the whole reason we form governments and the main point to consider when choosing who represents us. The well-known and influential philosopher on government said
 that the fundamental law of nature is that, as much as possible, mankind is to be preserved.

"Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal. Legitimate political government requires a social contract where people transfer some of their rights over to the government to ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property."

This moment is telling because a person with leadership qualities is humble and knows his/her limits. 

Forbes says of leaders:

1. "Being a good leader is standing up for team members in crisis and conflict.
2.  It’s giving proper credit for accomplishments, acknowledging mistakes, or putting safety and quality first, great leaders exhibit integrity at all times.
3. They know that listening is an integral part of communication.  
4. They hold themselves accountable first and foremost.  
5. They inspire, motivate, mentor, and direct. A good leader has faith in their ability to train and develop the employees under them. Because of this, they have the willingness to empower those they lead to acting autonomously. 
6.  Every one of these qualities is absolutely essential to great leadership." (Forbes, 2018) 

A capable representative of the people puts the best mind's at the table with him to provide himself/herself an informed base for his important decisions. Without enough brains, you only have brawn. Ineffective leaders resort to sarcasm, lies, silencing, and brow-beating to demand everyone abide by their biased opinions rather than facts. The resort to threats and harassment to control rather than lead. See:

14 Signs of Psychological and Emotional Manipulation

I believe we have to support rational discussion and make arguments for responsible and ethical decisions but to decide who "should" sacrifice themself for the economic betterment of others is not only unethical, it is illegal. Laws prevent discrimination for many things, including age. Let's vote for leaders who set aside their self-interests to make decisions for the greater good while the traits are clear and easy to discern. Human-based values are safety, protection from harm, and support of society. It is leadership that takes responsibility for decisions, work practice, and never wastes time blaming others.  

Will you forgive these economy-obsessed leaders after they have killed your loved one? Will that paltry $1200 check afford you peace?

 Will Trump still be your hero when you are sharing a ventilator with two other sick people, and an exhausted nurse dressed in a trash bag and wearing a three-day-old mask is caring for you? 

What are you going to think when your husband, wife, or child is gasping for their last breath, and you can't even be in the room with them? 

Will you still be wearing your MAGA hat?

Roosevelt also said, "We must go on to do all in our power to conquer the doubts and the fears, the ignorance, and the greed, which made this horror possible." He was talking about Nazi Germany, of course, but I'm saying we must do that same thing about Trump- right now.

I am a damn good grandma. I am healthy and strong, and I am one little girl's Ninny--Now, by God, I am worth more than dying for a stockmarket, a paycheck, and a bunch of rich slave-drivers. And so are you. 

DEFY THE HIERARCHY AND STAY HOME. PROTECT THE PEOPLE AND SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN. WAKE UP AND REALIZE WHAT MATTERS.

"Determining whether businesses qualify as an exempted service and should remain open during a shelter in place order related to COVID-19 will require intelligent consideration. Many companies do not fall neatly into identified exempted lines of business. Those businesses will have to weigh the risk of reputational harms, fines, and other liabilities as they decide whether to stay open." 

Are the people still working essential to immediately sustaining life? https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/cutting-through-the-fog-how-to-navigate-72516/ That is the question to base decisions. If you are not out there saving a life today with your work, you are putting cities, employees, and, most dangerous of all-- medical personnel at an elevated risk of death. For what? For someone else's economic gain. Greed continues to be the things that threatens to kill us all.

When we look back on this, we will recall the acts done and the decisions made. Make sure you can be proud of you.