ABOUT THIS BLOG -- I was once a writer published the old fashioned way. I am trying to relearn that skill after 15 years of silence, exploring a topic that many are scared to explore. Seeking or being involuntary placed in mental health treatment creates a stigma for the patient -- no matter how strong or trustworthy that patient was before treatment, they are somehow deemed weak and untrustworthy. In my 30 years of psychotherapy and 15 years of silence, I've observed that should something go wrong between clinician and patient, the clinician gets the benefit of the doubt. There are advocates and organizations that are supposed to counterbalance this tendency, but I feel even they are flawed. This is a blog about my journey.

Hiatus from net; life is for living

          I think this will be my last blog post for a while. I’m okay with being archived or submitted to the search engines as many people are. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen a blog like my own; the first one was the early 2000s – right around when the trio of evil started working at Samaritan. They were local blogs – yeah, pummel the locals because they are loco, right? Best thing to do when psychotherapy starts an eternity of apathy from all directions is to get ones’ story and perhaps advice out so that someone else knows they aren’t alone, and no its not in their head. I’ll be back in a month with the more posts about my decade of hell and a don’t bother list.
          These posts are getting rather long. The reason for this is because I feel like I need to spell everything out with the most concrete and concise language while talking to an intellectually challenged 3-year-old. The latter is difficult to achieve when one is trying to explain rather adults things that, according plenty of texts, a normal 3-year-old is supposed to have not mastered yet but be learning about, and all the while trying to make it obvious those things that I am simply going to be blaringly obvious about from here on out – equipping my blog with whatever proofs I cam find..

* * *

          I have a textbook on interpersonal communications from my own college years that I aced with flying colors and received an award from the department chair for, and that book says noise prevents people from understanding each other. That noise, even between two individuals, can be external noise such as the train that recently went by, a fussy baby, or the radio on in the background. That noise could be on behalf of the speaker or writer choosing the incorrect wording, stumbling over words or not speaking loudly, quietly, clearly or concisely enough. But that noise could also be the listener or reader’s internal noise.
          I do not know why some people assume/presume/believe the things they do when it pertains to me, what I say, write or do – to me their assumptions are controlled by their internal noise. I was actually writing the exact opposite way I once did – purposely using words that are homonyms to convey messages that were not said directly, purposely avoiding words that would have a vague meaning. Hm, the word assume. Dismiss is another example. To dismiss someone is to act as if an argument is invalid or illogical, unless you are talking about the things I am. If a politician, clinician, lawyer dismisses you while talking about these topics, it’s not just dismissive. I am one person that has justifiable reason not to trust. I don’t feel saying this should exploit or cause further lack of trust either. I am pumping these blogs out once a week or more. I found some of them sound plagiarized, but really – when you can’t say, or if its too hard to bear, and you shouldn’t have gone through that letlong repeatedly there’s only so many ways one can arrange letters and words to convey a message unless I lie like my pumpkin spice freind or I try to learn a new language, to which I can read five and nominally sign one.
          I presume the big obvious things –  I assume that since this world has become competitive enough to require firearms and associate collegiate degrees to find work, that we have all made it through Kindergarden or similar. Even though each home, place of business, village, town, city, county, state, province, nation, and heck – even religion -- has different laws, they are similar in the way they are intended to maintain a functioning and self-respecting people.

* * *

          I think instead of trying to categorized the mental illnesses that have existed since the beginning of humanity into neater, smaller, tidier, plentiful and possibly manipulative categories, we need to go the other direction. First, what is the involuntary period and is it legally mandated – I have seen, heard or experienced 48 and 72 hours, 7, 14, 21, 28, 30, 45, 60 and 120 days. These people don’t use their real names and send mixed messages – that’s very noisy. How is someone who is already distraught supposed to make heads or tails of that noise?
          Then let’s take the next most obvious -- voluntary versus involuntary because involuntary, inpatient or outpatient, generally indicates more problematic. The next levels -- mental illness that's inherent or mental illness that arises out of an experience, dangerous versus not dangerous; and hurt self versus hurt another. Some of us are indeed dangerous. Some aren’t. Not only does every patient have a different trigger for whatever symptoms or “symptoms” they experience, every human and every mammal has a different trigger.
          Then there is this other level that I feel shouldn’t exist: willing or unwilling insanity. Some people have come to like it. Maybe they get a rise out of it. Or maybe they don’t know there is anything else.
          I don’t want to be scared, depressed, anxious; single, or battle insomnia or migraines. I don’t want the fatigue, brain fog or to be involuntarily placed in the same room with a pyromaniac, or the same ward with a man with uncontrolled (psycho)sexual desires.
          I don’t want to be stuck in a ward of a bunch of broken and financially broke people with candida infections getting testy or touchy as we watch some indifferent shrink show off large print vividly colored photographs of their expensive vacation to their coworkers. Don’t you think that’s a bit risky? Is the clinician going to think I mention this out of malice and not concern for their or my own well-being? And why do the patients have yeast infections? Is it the same reason they need to run our urine through a large gauge expensive metal syringe? What if a violent patient got a hold of one of those? No urine cups that couldn’t second a weapon available for the psych ward? I guess they’re blind and can’t do a visual inspection for sediment or stones. They rather take people coming in from house fires and gunshots and traumatize them further visually.
          Freud said that we have nightmares because of unresolved conflict. I’m going to have nightmares for the rest of my life just from their laziness and unwillingness to use their God-given eyeballs.
          The amount of time it took to push that urine through that syringe they could have set the cup down, had a short conversation showing the patient they’re actually human or even pompously talked with their coworker about their fancy vacation, then pick up the cup and friggin looked at it. And… and is this place a modern psychiatric unit with a modern hospital that had positive outcomes since WWII– or have they opted to be a bedlam? Y’know what folks, avoid hospitals with the name Samaritan. Avoid Troy. For your own best interest.
          To prize the dangerous’ behavior is not going to make that dangerous person less dangerous. To punish the dangerous because they remain calm solely to stroke the clinic’s ego out is not going to help that dangerous person. To punish the passive because they act out is not going to help that passive person. To reward the passive simply because they’re passive isn’t going to help that passive person – that last one is a big problem in the entire system. Clinician don’t want an argument. My kind of passive don’t want an argument either, but I have the right to self-preserve. People have the right to know what they are getting into and decide for themselves if that is the form of therapy that is going to be useful.
          What therapeutic quality would it serve to make patient with PTSD and the patient that’s a pyromaniac roommates? Am I supposed to simply “toughen up”? Was I supposed to channel my inner firefighter granddaddy? No other roommates available? And what happens when the entire ward is complaining about cottage cheese in their underwear? Yes, but keep the blood pressure low, sure, buddy because raging yeast infections are going to keep blood pressure low.
          I think clinicians need to rigorously and at random tested at random to assess the strength of their character. If the clinician banks off subversion, then hides behind a diagnostic manual, then we need to design assessments that reveal this. We should build assessments to reveal those weaknesses in clinician’s personality and moral code, big and small, to reveal tendencies from everything from mistreatment to fraud to torture to other most damaging. And have assessment results be available should the patient, clinician or system be called into question. I think it would make for a safer, more effective and efficient system than even all these complaints that can be found in this information and digital era. Unfortunately, these words I write are already censored. I think it would be most efficient if we combined both concepts. I feel those in positions of power, such as police and politicians, should also go through these assessments, but I will feel lucky if simply clinicians are assessed because police are, at this point, at the whim of an anonymous clinician. And many politicians, I guess, are willing to be at the whim and make those they allegedly represent be at the whim of the clinician.
          Instead, the most disadvantaged (on average) are expected to placate a system where an anonymous person can take away a patients freedoms’ and (federal) rights without the legally required due process of things worse than simply mental illness, and a clinician and do that without even a warrant. Yes, I understand that there are those of us who are indeed dangerous, but I think an assessment of the clinician should be aimed at assessing if the clinician has the strength of intellect, deductive reasoning, and moral standard to deduce who is a real danger, who is a perceived danger, the real reason why that real or perceived danger is acting out, and perhaps most importantly the appropriate amount of force used against someone who is acting out.
          Here’s a question that should be on tests and textbooks -  patient A is a 127lb mid 30-something female with known severe anemia and alopecia. She has been in obvious poor health for many years, where she experiences episodes of fainting and vomiting. She has sought emergency services and has been hospitalized in a medical setting for her physical symptoms. She has an even longer medical proven medical history that does not involve the aforementioned symptoms. (i.e. we all should be able to plainly observe with our eyeballs she is weak.) She sought psychological care as a voluntary outpatient and waited an entire year because her local clinic has a waiting list. She does has a history with mental illness, but her records indicate she is nonviolent. She also does not have a criminal record. Her town is having a massive spike in violence and street crime. She resides in part of town that, even during the average year is prone to more crime than other areas. Children reside in her building. The public opinion of police in this town is undesirable. This patient is a rape survivor; she sought out therapy for anxiety, depression and trust issues. One day she acts out within her own home. What is the appropriate response?
A.) Send two uniformed men that weigh over 200lbs each without documentation of her arrest to escort her, like a criminal, to a psychiatric evaluation.
B.) Send two uniformed men that weigh over 200lbs each with documentation of her arrest to escort her, like a criminal, to a psychiatric evaluation.
C.) Send an ambulance with just enough physical strength to subdue her, if necessary, without any documentation of her arrest to escort her, like a patient, to a psychiatric evaluation.
D.) Send an ambulance with just enough physical strength to subdue the patient, if necessary, to present her with a psychiatric arrest warrant, and escort her, like a patient, to a psychiatric evaluation.
E.) Treat her brain, body, or existance like it’s a racecar driver’s uniform.

          Even though I fear (1) putting the wrong idea into the wrong mind because (2) for a reason unbeknownst to me or anyone else, it is more effective to broadcast ones’ problems to the open Internet instead of going to private therapy, group therapy, or privately contacting the authorities; (3) being perceived as simply crazy; or (4) point out that psychological trauma is treated by the mental health industry and psychological trauma arises from all kinds of negative experiences, I point out some things. This paragraph should inspire policy-makers to consider what I say instead of using ignoring, mocking, or locking horns with me, or any crazy. I know it will be mocked, but: something’s wrong if only one soldier with high end insurance says it is right.
          (I risk appearing crazy --  someone who says to themselves, “I know I’m not a criminal, so why are they after me” also points out police and military uniforms are easily and affordably purchased from the Internet. I know this because I have owned military surplus bags and military boots. I have dated military brats. My family was once proud to be American and willingly were part of the military. I, as someone, who does not have a criminal record, have no knowledge to discern one badge from another – that badge could be the security guard’s of the local mall. Perhaps, Tanski and Koch can tell badges apart, but I can’t. This information is of little use to me on a day-to-day basis.)
          They say I am crazy but I feel the proper answer is (D). If (B) or (D) occurred I would not have received marks (not scars, but this situation resulted in them too) on my body that still exist on my body today. If my case study background was different; I might say what they did was justified – he’s 6’5” tall, in good health, weighs 300lbs, lifts weights, an angry drunk and is currently intoxicated – sure, it’s better than being brought to jail in my opinion! But 5’4”, slim, voluntary, so clean it hurts, a softy, and is the one everyone knows is she’s sick– no. And (E) results in strange passing out inside-out brain, or friends that have known each other for 26 years that somehow forget we don’t do maple nut crunch in our coffee. (Now imagine the latter in a relationship like parent and child.)
          I think the system is unjust. It takes away the patients’ ability to question the system, and American law was and is supposed to be written so Americans can question it. It was and is supposed to be done this way to create a stable, productive and self-respecting people; not just a happy life for select people. If the clinician is judge and jury, I think they need to prove themselves to a greater whole of the state or country as both judge and jury would, especially if they refuse to do so for the patient. Please keep in mind that prior to Covid 33% of American have dealt with mental illness in their lifetimes, and many of those get jury summons. I truly hope I do not receive one *folds arms*.

* * *

          To make ends meet, I once worked as an under the table maid – not the pretty frilly uniform variety, but vacancies, borderline hazmat and jobs few were willing to take. Some of them were pleasant – teachers, psychiatrists, famous writers would leave parts of their book collections behind. Legally, I was supposed to throw them away, but I put them in a box next to the dumpster. If they were there 24 hours later, I took them home. Between my lifelong collection, old textbooks, freebies given away, and books I found next to the dumpster, I have more books than bookshelves.
          In hindsight, I look back at the names written inside these books, sometimes next to their course codes. These people should have known better, but they rather cause or allow to happen terrible traumas and destructions. People, who have the power to do something about it, don’t. They must get a rise out of fighting and I don’t. So, my end of the fight is a losing battle; the locals will be able to find my archived blog as I have found others’ archived and non-archived blogs.  Hopefully, they and/or I will be alive to read it. The lack of doing something about this, or any other problem, sounds wasteful to me – all the wasted tax money could have been independent housing for a lot of people, but that’s the obvious statement. The upheaval from not doing something about this, and other, problems will probably keep the same people the same kind of single, scared, and unsuccessful for eternity. I (we) have better things to do than waste. I have concluded the fields of psychiatry, psychology, law and politics employ the most manipulative and lazy people on the planet. Either that or they have some the slowest reaction times in the universe. And those who work in survivor are because of their experiences flawed, and may fall to the same tendencies as those that hurt them. It’s unfortunate. Further unfortunate these problems will probably be allowed and perhaps even promoted by those who should shun it the most.
          I think I have figured out he or she that claims to read emails twice and will be sharing that information about that in my upcoming don’t bother list. Don’t worry – I won’t say their names, but I wonder if this is synonymous with Green Island admitting they lost both of my housing applications? Or the two comas my grandfather was in? I think they accidentally, on purpose, confuse me with my mother. Anyways, this one rather channel that clinician that hurt the patient, and use the lousy excuse that it has something to do with love  – no, its about a little pattern they use to understand their lifeworld and I guess, no one else’s. It’s about proving your value to people who are just as guilty as those you are fleeing from. I don’t know how much more honesty they needed, but if anyone needs honesty to the point of excruciating pain, chances are honesty isn’t going to do any good. The feeling of falling in love is not a sane process, so why exploit it and make it worse? (We must not tolerate the morally devoid’s answer to this question.)
          I prefer to put an honest effort into trying to be helpful, for myself or possibly another, rather than act as pretense. Leave the pretension to the nightclub, where it is supposed to be, in some forms, anticipated and less harmful. People like me set out for information and support because they’ve already been played. Getting played again is jubjub. People like me have already been abused by a bureaucracy, or what I am going to call the bureaucrazy; we don’t need to fight against more people. We need less fight.

* * *

          Dang - y'know even war has rules

* * *

          We don’t just simply waltz into each others’ home or bedrooms without knocking, ringing the doorbell or asking. It is commonly accepted that we don’t pick up someone else’s phone, device or computer and go through it’s contacts, photos, documents and other contents without the owner’s permission, if not passcode.
          When I meet someone new to me, I don't just go up to them and violate physical boundaries until told to stop. For those who need everything to be as lewd and obvious as possible -- I don't know anyone who walks up to a complete stranger and starts fondling those stranger's loins until told to stop; that's a way to get yourself killed. If this physical violation is unacceptable, then it is sane and logical that it is also unacceptable to violate other boundaries. In the psychotherapist's office, just as it would be in the doctor's office, what would become lovers first time meeting, or what would become old friends meeting for the first time, a slow, gradual testing of boundaries is normal. If boundaries are pushed too far, the potential relationship generally ceases or conflict occurs. If both parties agree that the other has not pushed boundaries too far, then a relationship -- professional, public, personal, educational, familial, intimate, business, legal, all types -- is formed. In the professional, i.e. psychology and workplace training manuals, it is called 'building rapport'. In the casual or personal world, it is called 'getting to know each other' or 'building trust.'
           Now, we level up -- an individual meeting a new group of people for the first time. The new employee, religious worshipper, tenant, club-goer, or member of the think-tank or discussion group is not allowed to waltz in and offend the group. In return and in politeness, the group should approach the new individual with neutrality.
          Now we level up – the same applies to the individual entering a larger group. The school, workplace, nightclubs – but it is somewhere around this level where these lessons from pre-K and kindergarten that should continue to a macro-level smoothly, don't. It creates the dilemma for the older sibling, parents, pre-K teacher’s aide, and high school English teacher's aide, but more importantly, it creates a dilemma for the student, who is supposed to be fixated on their more obvious schoolwork. Some would say learning or the creation of new thought is, in essence, insanity – I do not agree with the components of this theory, but I understand what they were getting at. I do not feel the process of learning requires traumatization – this is punishment, not learning. I feel this theory leaves an equal vulnerability to also “forget” that which is learned. 

* * *

          Think back to that moment you were concentrating on that difficult concept you were learning and then someone throw a spitball at you or some jerk stole your pencil. That spitball, that missing pencil is dilemma. Well now, you just lost 5 or more points off your test score, and those 5 or more test points could have been the make or break you needed for that scholarship you may or may not require because of your family’s socioeconomic condition (oh, look another dilemma), to stay on the school club/team, or to perhaps simply to pass or fail. And why? Because someone wanted to be an asshole.
          There are groups that send the message of "we like to wear lots of black clothes and peaceably listen to loud music; please join us for entertainment" and from what I found mmm, yeah for the most part. But, where’s anything else? Is this the example we are to use to reaffirm to children and adolescents that this is supposed a seamless transition from micro to macro? A whole world relying on black clothes and big black boots to show the entire world there is hope for a seamless transition and peaceful self-respect?
          But then here comes the reader that somehow is devoid of all moral code – less compassionate than the wildest of animals that will interpret this blog with utmost amount of jackassery. Perhaps that reader requires a dilemma then --
Here is another group that says, "hey your therapist fucked up, my therapist fucked up, I understand you could be too mindfucked or sick to speak or walk; I am supportive; let's join forces" or even worse “we are representatives of the law and permit only proper therapy, you can come to us,” but not really. So far no answer, or told to, basically, shut up by both sides? Yet I know what my rights of self-respect are, and I understand others have the same rights.
          Here is another group that says, 'we are the authority of the mind, we are the Gods of what behaviors are acceptable, you can trust us" but eh, not really. I have to self-censor myself, and they get away with doing whatever they want – even using a diagnosis of another as a shield for their shameless behaviors.  

* * *

          And then there is this other group that sends the massage of "we are the policy-makers, we write the rules, we have the most level-headed understanding of what the rules are and how each law or policy keeps our people safe, productive and self-regarding; therefore we are trustworthy" but eh, not really. Taxes pay for all of us to familiarize ourselves with these rules, but for some reason the policy-makers aren’t required to follow, or even uphold, the rules.
          How is one supposed to show the impressionable mind that the most basic concepts that we are supposed to learn in childhood are supposed to apply to situations big and small, or should I also have to include medium as well to cater to the morally devoid, and least tactless boundary pushers?
Those devoid of moral character conclude these simple concepts don’t exist, or don’t exist in certain situations. And the rest of us desperately want these simple concepts apply to each of us and the greater whole, but we never see them, and those times when we don’t see them coincide when all of us are getting hurt.
          What is the pre-K teacher's aide, high school English teacher's aide, older sibling, or parent supposed to reaffirm that these ways are legitimate? The best thing the teacher, teacher's aide, sibling, or parent can do is say, then you don't want to be part of that group. It does nothing to reaffirm what someone should be able to expect of what are supposed to be well-adjusted individuals or groups.. And it has damaging effects too: Personalities at entire different ends of the extremes. One may end up violent, the other a pacifist. One may be branded with “problem with authority” yet have absolutely no qualms with the rules or how to pursue changing unjust rules. Another may have a blatant disrespect and get away with it.

* * *

          From my perspective, clout would rather target the weakest to bolster their own ego and claim they got the job done – not very high quality work. When in fact, clout has created a situation where the worst players get away with, if not are rewarded, for the gravest manipulations. This only shows that the person exerting exurbanite amounts of control over a pacifist is the one who needs to control themselves the most.
          OK, so we skip over the middle – it’s the bully in the room that for some reason we can do nothing about. Go about life peaceably and make the best of it – I’m sure we all can understand that having survived the Covid shelter in place orders. So, why waste our time resisting the unjust? The morally devoid person inquires with a tone of derision, ’yes, why waste your time resisting your oppressor?’ The same reason why we try to cure disease. Because your interpretation is unjust and disrespecting to me, to you and to everyone else. That’s why!
         
There was once upon a time in a land we call home that despite someone else's disapproval, we peaceably lived our lives. It was part of the way of life for many people in and outside of America – it isn’t illegal and according to science and at least half of non-science, does no harm, so we’re going to do it. Once upon a time we said, yes, we are going to Howe’s or Secret Caverns despite the bully we are all paying has an unlawful beef with us. But the bully has won, and it has become too great for any of us to handle. Keep plugging along… but nope. Poverty, gunfire, house fires, unethical therapists, ever increasing apathy even from those who claim they or are paid to do otherwise. And the morally devoid feels, ‘hm, these sound like great things to inflict on my enemy.’
          No level up – not even to the gemstone cavern two hours away from me and as a family despite the same rules that apply in pre-K are supposed to apply.
          No level up, yet there are those among us that still have the knowledge. Whether it’s a different town, county, state, province, country or continent – it’s best to familiarize oneself with the risks, rules and social norms of wherever it is to be visited, so one  knows what, if any, boundaries can be pressed as to best enjoy the visit, do no harm, and return home unscathed. Nope, the bully disagrees; the bully says life is not meant for living.  The rest of us say life is for living.