Schizophrenia is like Diabetes Type One in that these diseases can come upon us later in life. I’m interested in the relationship between these two, and how one might study them in the field of psychoneuroimmunology.
The idea of attachment theory is that there is more to one’s early life with your parents than “potty training” where having some strange attachment to them will make you strange later on. That is, having a good relationship with one’s parents will help create in you the ability to have good relationships with others later in life.
The idea of psychoneuroimmunology incorporates how certain psychological issues interact with one’s neurology, endocrinology, and immune systems, and hence, one’s health. I’m saying we should incorporate into this idea the idea of attachment theory that one’s early relationships with one’s primary caregivers affect one’s later life, and so too, one’s later health.
There are probably many who don’t recognize that we are in a depression. They are themselves doing well. The following is a story about the effects this depression is having around the country. People who have lost their homes or their jobs are under stress and, they come to find out, develop clinical depression, thoughts of suicide, and hopelessness.
What will anyone do about this?
Close the Emergency Rooms as discussed in this report?
Close Emergency Rooms? When ED’s are used by so many people suffering from the economic depression? Or close mental health services provided by state funding?
A WORSENING PROBLEM
The National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD), an organization of state mental health directors, estimates that in the last three years states have cut $3.4 billion in mental health services, while an additional 400,000 people sought help at public mental health facilities.
In that same time frame, demand for community-based services climbed 56 percent, and demand for emergency room, state hospital and emergency psychiatric care climbed 18 percent, the organization said.
In November 1949, having returned to England from the United States, he was diagnosed with cancer of the prostate. The original diagnosis was optimistic. It was thought that with modern hormone therapy he could live in reasonably good health for another five or six years. But, as sometimes happens with this disease, he deteriorated rapidly and died on 29 April 1951. His sixty second birthday had fallen on the previous day. Before going into a coma he said to those attending him: “Tell them I’ve had a wonderful life.”
It has seemed odd to me that Wittgenstein would make this statement. I wondered if he might have thought about what others were thinking about him, Ludwig Wittgenstein. Maybe he supposed, “He gave up his riches. He lived alone. He seemingly denied his roots. He struck little defenseless boys. He must have had a miserable life.” And to this he wanted to defend himself. He wanted them, these faceless critics, to know that no, he wasn’t miserable. He had a wonderful life…
Or, maybe he didn’t care to put up much of an argument about the worth of his life. He didn’t want to go into the evidence that, in fact, he had a worthwhile fulfilling life. He didn’t much care about the evidence. But, he wanted people to know that it was, in his opinion, a wonderful life. He did what he wanted, after all. He had no responsibilities. No one was going to tell him what to do. He was the captain of his own ship and he could sail it wherever he wanted.
My view is that Rep. Ron Paul must be seen as an advocate of two different kinds.
First, he is an advocate of the Confederacy. That is, he thinks that the Federal government is too big and intrusive, and that the national government should be small and unintrusive in our lives, in the same way that the argument for the Confederate States of America was about just such a critique of the Federal government in the 1800’s. The problem with such a theory of government is that it does nothing to reign in the overwhelming power of private business which, in the case of the Confederacy, was responsible for the institution of slavery. So, yes, it might be a good thing to have a less intrusive federal government in our lives, but Paul’s Libertarianism does not allow us any way to protect us from the large corporate interests.
One might argue that the power of modern corporations and the corruption of government by corporate interests starts with there being an unchecked government. That is, Pep. Paul may be correct that we wouldn’t have the overwhelming powers of corporations if we first didn’t have an unchecked Federal government. So, Paul’s effort to reign in the Federal reserve and his attempts to reduce the size and influence of government are his attempts to attack bad corporate interests as well as bad government. I would be happy to hear him make the case that this is actually what he is doing. However, one argument for a larger Federal government is that it is needed just in order to check corporate power.
Second, he is an advocate of a number of likable policies. He consistently opposes the wars the last several administrations have gotten us into. He thinks the large number of foreign military bases and huge investment in military procurement is bad for the country. We are being impoverished, and we are being made the enemy in many parts of the world. He is a consistent advocate for the Bill of Rights and the protection of our civil liberties as a fundamental part of what our country should be about. And, he is against corruption in government and for the rule of law. These positions should be attractive to Republicans, Democrats, and independents. When Paul makes these claims, he’s like Gen. Robert Lee who attracted enlistees to the Army of Virginia because of his personal character and positions. The problem with this, however, is that though Paul has personal positions that might be attractive, even if they were put into practice in a Paul administration, they do not justify the kind of government that Paul advocates. That is, the government that allowed and lived on slavery did not deserve the kind of Generals and armies that it put in the field. We should not bring about a country that could not protect its people from corporate tyranny just because it’s advocated by an honorable man.
The following is an interview by CBS News asking Rep. Paul several questions about his candidacy.