Canada: A Nation for ALL People

Dear Pride Supporters,

This article left my jaw hanging this morning... It's a Star article, describing the reactions of the Conservative party to a tourism stimulus grant that was given to support Pride Week, here in Toronto.

Pride week draws in millions of tourists who come to celebrate diversity and recognition of the equality for all persons. For some who hail from more "socially conservative" countries/regions, Canada is held in high esteem, and Pride week is considered the pinnacle celebration. I have a friend who runs a Bed and Breakfast, and his inn is full to the rafters before, during, and after pride. His visitors hail from all over the world, many of them being from our neighbouring US. During Pride week, bars and restaurants in the Church/Wellesley area are perpetually full of thirsty, hungry customers... the revenues from Pride are relied upon to turn accounting book ink from red to black. For the tourism engine in Toronto, Pride week provides a nice salvo to help it run smoothly.

Since I moved to Toronto, I've partaken in Pride week events every year. During Pride week, Torontonians who support Pride are encouraged to hang rainbow striped flags in their windows or on their homefronts. Honestly, I find it so overwhelming when I tour around Toronto during Pride week and see all those welcoming flags... It's like seeing a zillion little candles, welcoming weary travellers a place to rest in the dark hours of night. Somehow Toronto just feels more welcoming, safer even, during Pride.

Apparently, some of the "Social Conservatives" from Stephen Haper's Conservative party were incensed that a Federal grant was given to a cultural group that does not reflect "family values" and "pro-life" agendas. The article is below if you want to read it yourself.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/662566


Back in the day, "Conservative" in the political sense USED to mean economically conservative. Since when did political conservatism come to represent such ambiguous and arbitrary ideas as "family values?"

As far as I'm concerned, no government is allowed to dictate what happens in my bedroom. Furthermore, no government, sorry, no POLITICAL PARTY is entitled to decree exclusive ownership to the definition of morality, nor are they allowed to force me to live under the strictures of their definition.

I can make choices about my conduct and morality on my own, thank you very much. And if what I do is determined to be against the values of our vast, nature loving nation, as these values our etched out in our semi-secular laws, well then, try me in a court of peers and if I'm found guilty, just put me in jail. That's what our justice system is there for, to create a climate where ones conduct can be tried and judged against existing, writ rules, among their peers.

I'm adding this to my list of reasons NOT to vote Conservative. As if I needed more.

Incensed at the audacity of a minority of people within a minority government,
O.

PS. Harper, pretty bold of you to let this kind of shit storm leak out of your office. You must be feeling confident lately.

Mmmmm... Barbecued Kittens... Tasty!

Dear Readers of Sensationalist Newspapers,

I just want to make it clear that I am NOT a cannibal!!!

The newspapers have been spending a lot of time on the Tim McLean/Vincent Li tragedy, and have been painting Vincent Li, who has schizophrenia, as basically inhuman. It's true, the delusions and hallucinations that Vincent Li was experiencing as a result of his illness did compel him to do a very heinous and bizarre act, that fact cannot be denied.

The papers/press have invested a lot of time painting a mythological portrait of psychosis as it has manifested in the case of Vincent Li, and true to their sensationalist form, the press has spent zero words to explain that what happened in that incident was exceptionally rare. Indeed, they haven't spent any time at all discussing the actual crime statistics of persons living with a condition like psychosis. (Incidences of violent crime, committed by persons with severe mental illness, are very rare, rarer even than in "normal" populations.)

Sadly, because of distorted (should we call it deranged even?) media reporting, the public is left with a mistaken belief that a medical condition like psychosis will turn a person into a murdering cannibalistic zombies on a mission from some god. I don't want to leave the public with that mistaken impression, so I'm here to inform the public of the Truth of the Matter:

Myself, I'm not on a cannibalistic murder mission from god; I just like eating kittens. I find they're best roasted in barbecue sauce. After my meal of kittens, I finish with cupcakes, iced with ground unicorn horn frosting!!! Do you know how hard it is to catch a unicorn?


If we don't laugh, we cry right? Laugh. Hard. Then write your newspapers and tell them that you oppose sensationalist crime reporting.

Big love and kitten breath kisses,
O.

I'm calling you out Globe

Dear Readers of Newspapers and Consumers of Media,

I have a lot of respect for the Globe and Mail right now, a Canadian news publication.

Now, I'm not normally one to go off trumpeting the merits of various media or consumer products, but the Globe truly is doing a good (or better) thing. Right now, the paper is running a series of articles on mental health and the issues that surround it. In fact, an entire section of their online paper is dedicated to mental health. It's called the Breakdown Series.

I'm not quite sure why they've picked up on mental health, since most media outlets spend a lot of time either provoking contention in events that involve mental health, or they simply ignore the greater (and more serious) issues for want of an outrageous headline.

But here they are, the grand Globe, a national rag, doing a series on the lowliest and least popular of all health (and social) issues. And they're even trying to be sensitive to boot, it seems!

But I have an issue with their most recent online article relating to mental health, and this is an issues that has appeared in more than one article, by more than one author. (I know, I know, I should never expect perfection... and maybe I should be grateful for the ink we have right now, but I'm not one for table scraps under any circumstances!)

In Patients' rights frustrate families, the ugly issue of nomenclature - what to call people with schizophrenia - rears its ugly head.

You need to understand, this is a highly contentious issue, even among people themselves who live with the condition. Apparently no one likes to be called "patient;" and "nutbar" or "frutcake" or "schizo" are certainly unacceptable. And so a zillion fairly inaccurate euphemisms have been conceived and parlayed into our language; consumer, survivor, mentally ill, person with lived experience, client, and on and on and freakishly on and on. A million and one ways to politically or not-so-apolitically say something without saying it: A person who has the condition of schizophrenia. (Keep in mind that many of the euphemisms I stated are also generic catch-alls for basically any condition affecting mental health, and many have nuanced connotations... also so many are misnomers in and of themselves and their usage that I could likely write a volume of books about misnomers in mental health.)

So what evil word did Picard, the author of the article, use to describe a person with schizophrenia? He used the modifier "schizophrenic" in the 6th staccato sentence of an article of considerable length. He used the word schizophrenic to describe Matt, and basically every other person who lives with the condition of schizophrenia.

To be fair, Picard first described the inspiration for this article, Matt, as a person "who suffers from schizophrenia." And that's nice. We get an idea at least, that we are talking about a person with a disease that is harming them, until we get to pretty much the next sentence which basically identifies Matt (and people with schizophrenia in general) as a walking-talking disease process. To be sure, Matt's not got an easy ride, based on the description of his current circumstances, but I find it unfair to reduce the identity of a person to a disease process... to reduce all people who live with this condition... to the limited concept of what schizphrenia is.

And we know that the concept of schizophrenia as a condition affecting health is limited... especially in our media. Mostly our media is concerned with conjuring up images of the negative mythology that surrounds this illness. The media myths suggest that people with schizophrenia are crazed murderers, unpredictable people, untamable monsters with no access to logic or reason, and... you get the picture.

Since the Globe appears to be interested in dealing with the social issues surrounding problems and conditions of mental health, I have asked the Globe to put their money where their mouth is; to make a clear committment to a cause that they themselves seem to support.

We all know that the mythology that is heavily circulated in the media exacerbates the public's negative (and in my opinion, harmful) perception of mental health conditions. And so here is my comment (more of a request) to them:

And the Globe and Mail can make a simple yet profound change by retiring the word "schizophrenic" to the annals of journalistic anachronisms that don't belong in a newspaper any more.

People have schizophrenia. They are not schizophrenia, and schizophrenia is not them. Furthermore, "schizophrenic" is not an accurate modifier to describe a human being... it says far too much about a health problem (and more to the point... the negative mythology surrounding a health problem), and far too little about the person who happens to have a health problem.

Let us put our proverbial money where our mouths are, dear Globe... if we are going to report on the social injustices of mental health care or lack thereof in Canada?

Unacknowledged and unarticulated widespread systemic discrimination is the foremost among those social injustices, and is the primary cause of the "secondary symptoms" of mental illness (the poverty, the instability, the homelessness, skewed laws, and distorted public perception among them).

So please, for the love of humanity, retire the word Schizophrenic. Be the first major media outlet to humanize, instead of sensationalize, this very serious condition of health.

My blog: addressed2occupant (dot) blogspot (dot) com


And so dear reader, what will the Globe do? Will they rise to the occasion of this challenge... to commit themselves to the social issues not only in the breadth of topics they cover, but also in the depth of how they write about the topics they cover?

We shall see.

Respecting the power of words,
O.

I don't *do* myths...

Dear Mythbusters,

We need you! Now! Fer realz!

Okay, we need to talk about psychosis and myths. We need to talk about those health conditions that make you lose contact with reality (psychosis as it relates to schizophrenia, severe depression, and bi-polar), and we need to talk about the myths that surround them.

Myth #1: People with psychosis are crazy axe murders.

The origins of this myth lie in two key areas: a) popular media; b) the heinously oversensationalized actions of people who are unwell.

Interestingly, the two origins of this myth conveniently play into one another. Popular media, like movies, for example, uses the medical condition of psychosis because it creates an alluring and seemingly complicated character that will do things that "normal" people would never do. And so axe murders are often described as psychotic, or insane, since it's just beyond comprehension that a person in possession of sanity would do such things.

When people with psychosis are in poor health, and are locked in the grips of a psychotic event, sometimes odd and even very unfortunate behaviour can happen... which tends to wind up in our news... over and over again, for any number of years following the event. Furthermore, since the behaviour of one in the grips of a psychotic event can be so unusual, this tends to make great fodder for semi-truthful, fictionalized tales, which supports the perpetuation of the mythology.

So, what is the truth? Are people with psychosis any more murderous or criminal than the regular population? Well, not really. The truth of the matter is that *most* crimes are committed by those who we would consider fairly sane people. However, people with psychosis still do commit crimes, at a fairly consistent rate with the rest of the population.

Can people with psychosis commit crimes that are motivated by their psychotic event? Of course. But you know how we can avoid that? By taking mental health seriously, and by ensuring that everyone has equal, compassionate, and appropriate access to preventative education and (if needed) timely treatments. (I'll discuss treatments and what I mean by this last sentence in another post, on another day.)

Just a last point about criminal behaviour and people: Crimes are more likely to be committed against us by people we know. The idea of "stranger danger" is a myth. And so the truth is that you will know, most likely, in some manner, the person who has broken into your home. Also, you are more likely to be assaulted, raped, and even murdered by someone you know and/or love than you are by a "crazed" stranger. Keep that in mind the next time you walk out your front door.


Myth #2: People with psychosis are possessed.

The origins of this myth lie in: Religion/Spirituality/Mysticism/Explaining the unexplainable by making up interesting tales that are not realistic given the information about the brain and its workings that we have today.

Okay, I'm not super religious, and I don't believe in spirits. I can understand that if you do believe in religion/spirits/ghosts/possession that this myth makes sense to you, since spirits are known to be pretty nasty, according to religious or spiritual lore.

But the truth is, psychosis is medical condition that has fairly clear symptoms, a pretty predictable progress, and a clear pattern in the activities and chemical actions in the brain. There is no definitive "test" for psychosis, but some tests will show unusual brain activity, and more refined tests (that are experimental and not used on people) will show problems with dopamine transmission. Furthermore, since medicine that deals with dopamine (and/or very good age-and-situation specific therapy) can help relieve the symptoms of psychosis, this gives us a lot of reason to think that this is a condition better treated by doctors, therapists, and loving families than preists or spiritual experts.

Consulting a doctor (or two, sometimes three) first, to rule out psychosis, would be more helpful than just attempting an exorcism or spiritual ceremony.


Myth #3: People with psychosis have access to "another dimension," "another world," "a different spiritual plane."

Origins of this myth: Religion/Animism/Shamanism/Mysticism/Delusional Thinking Itself (Yes, I said that one out loud.)

This myth is an interesting one, since it is heavily supported by some religious groups/belief systems. It is also supported by the condition itself, which can sometimes lean towards delusional thinking. (Delusions are what we call "false and fixed beliefs." They are beliefs that are not likely to be realistic, and they are beliefs that are held with a feeling of certainty, even if there is a lot of evidence to show they are wrong.) Furthermore, this myth is also supported by some older theories relating to mental health and its causes. (Perhaps I'll write more about this last point in another post as well, since I'm sure it begs for clarification!)

You know, I really wish that my psychotic event gave me visions of another world. I really wish it did. That would be a lot of fun, and it would make me a very special person who had a special view of life that others did not have access to.

But the truth is, my psychotic event really just gave me a lot of confusing and anxious feelings. What I think it did was mix up my memories and distort my concept of time, and spit it all out into the present like it was real and happening at that moment, with no order or clear logic that belonged to the context I was in. I was having thoughts and doing things that only made sense to me, and that sense of logic was next to impossible to describe to others, even though I did (and still do) understand it myself.

Confusing. Not fun. Not access to a new dimension. Definitely not "a vision." Really, I do wish it was a vision, since that would give meaning to an event that seems like it should be so meaningful.

I think my point is that the experience of psychosis can be very interesting, and can even seem insightful, but that mythologizing the "insights" or visions that come out of a condition of mental health can be very harmful. Many of us with psychosis experience painful emotions (anxiety, fear, suspicion, confusion), and feel disconnected from our loved ones when we first start to feel the symptoms of the condition. Things escalate and then our behaviour changes and people, our friends, families, and neighbours, find reasons to actively shun us for doing behaviours that none of us can predict.

Furthermore, in most cultures, a condition like psychosis has very serious social consequences. Even though a person can be revered for having visions by some groups, they are usually also feared (this is an interesting and tense paradox), and live on the fringes of society... Kind of like tigers in a zoo: fun to look at, interesting to interact with, but mostly unpredictable and fearsome, and thus always treated very, very carefully, and best if generally avoided.

In North America, we don't really think that people with psychosis have access to a special reality, and we just tend to think people with this condition are loonies or psychos or axe murderers... and so those of us with psychosis get pushed to edges of our social networks... this means, for us, fewer jobs, fewer friends, even being ostracized by our families. And really, all of that just amounts to a hell of a lot of loneliness and poverty and confusion for everyone involved.

This one is a harmful myth indeed. A soothing myth for the egos of some, maybe, but a very harmful one.

Myth #4: Psychosis is caused by a demanding and abusive world that won't accept people who deviate from what is "normal."

Origins of this myth: Early psychiatry. Reductionist environmental/social psychology.

Early psychiatry and even modern environmental psychology has invested a lot of time and energy trying to explain that psychosis is caused exclusively by the life and circumstances of the person who develops the condition. This is known as the Environmental/Social Model.

Another model is also trying to explain psychosis, this is called the Biopsychosocial Model. Before I tell you about the Biopsychosocial Model, I want to talk about one of science's Great Debates: Nature vs. Nuture. This is an important debate to talk about, since it will help us to understand why resolving this myth is important, and it will help us better understand the Biopsychosocial Model.

One of the big discussions that is happening in healthcare and mental health and psychology is what is called the nature/nurture debate. This debate is trying to pinpoint the origins of all kinds of things affecting people. On the "nature" side, we would bring up things relating to the genes (the traits that we inherit from our parents, like hair colour, skin colour, and on and on) and we discuss how a variety of things are caused by or related to our genes or our basic biology. On the "nurture" side, we talk about how our looks or behaviour or ideas are related to or caused by the places and people we grow up with.

And so if we were to take an issue like psychosis, the nature side would say: having an event of psychosis is a condition that is related more closely to the biology of the person who has it. We think this because psychosis can run in families; you are more likely to have a psychotic event if you have a family member who has lived with a condition related to psychosis (schizophrenia, severe depression, bi-polar). There is early genomic evidence that shows that psychosis (the psychosis that appears in schizophrenia) exists in a number of genes.

More support for the nature side says that psychosis happens when you change the dopamine levels; specifically, increases in dopamine amounts can increase your likelihood of having a psychotic event. And so changing the chemicals in the brain tells us that this is a condition that happens in the wiring/transmissions that happen in our heads.

For the other side, the nurture side, the debate tells us that people who grow up in certain environments or with certain life circumstances are more likely to get psychosis. In families where there is a lot of stress, there is also a tendency for more psychosis. And so psychosis can happen more often in families where a number of crises or tragedies occor, or when the family is poor and can't have the "stabilizing" effects of financial prosperity (talking about a stable supply of healthy food, a stable supply of medications for family members with health problems, access to supportive or even just higher education systems, stable access to transit to get to work or even to get to a doctor if needed!) In short, the nature debate tells us that those who are "assaulted" by life consistently, in terms of poverty, abusive or neglectful social/family conditions, food/necessity shortages, and unstable finances and housing, or just major life changes, are more likely to develop psychosis.

Well, here's the truth to this psychosis myth: In this case, both the nature and nurture debators win. Nature tells us that psychosis can be passed down through families. Nature tells us there are "genes" for psychosis, just like there are genes that mark cancer, just like there are genes that dictate eye colour. Nature tells us that we can change a person's brain chemistry to "create" or "take away" psychosis.

But!

It gets complicated. The genes, science is thinking, become "activated" by a stressful environment. (Stress is translated by the body through a chemical called cortisol... A stressful event happens or even if you *think* a stressful event will happen, and your body makes more of this hormone, and then your body reacts to it by doing all kinds of things like having a faster heartbeat, feeling very hot or very cold, feeling nervous, and so on... more fodder for the biology discussion.) And so someone can be born with a "tendency" towards having this condition (the same way one can have a higher chance of getting a type of cancer because of their genes). But the condition may or may not come out, depending on the life circumstances/stressors/sensitivity to cortisol (stress) hormones of the person who has the genes.

And so people with a lot of stress in their lifetime would find these genes activated. And we're not just talking once in awhile work pressure stress, we're talking fairly consistent patterns of stressors. Stress that relates to uncertain living circumstances... stress that relates to being poor, like worrying all the time about food, medicine, and how to pay the next bill... stress that relates to big life changes, like going to university or even getting married... and you get the picture.

This blending of both sides, nature AND nurture, is called the biopsychosocial model of psychosis. It takes into account the traits a person is given to by their parents (bio), the environment and circumstances of the person (social), and even the person him or herself in terms of their age and experience and how they deal with life and its details (psycho).


Forever chipping away to find the truth and hoping these tidbits have helped a bit,
O.

I feel your pain, but this is unreasonable...

Dear Citizens,

There is an alarming situation arising in our legal system. The following is taken from CBC.ca:

Family of man killed on Greyhound bus pressing for 'Tim's law'

Last Updated: Thursday, February 26, 2009 | 2:11 PM ET

CBC News

The family of Tim McLean is stepping up its lobbying efforts for victim protection legislation they call "Tim's law."

McLean, 22, was brutally killed aboard a Greyhound bus last July near Portage la Prairie.

His mom, Carol deDelley, has said Tim's law would put the rights of a victim of crime ahead of those of the perpetrator. The proposed legislation would prevent a person found not criminally responsible of a crime from being released into the community.

It would mean that the most violent, unpredictable people who have committed a crime would face incarceration for life, with no possibility of parole.

"I don't know what the outcome is going to be, but we want to inspire Tim's law to become a reality, to make sure that his life isn't wasted," said McLean's aunt Paulette Speer. "We want there to be more [support] provided to protect the victim and not the guilty person."

McLean's family is selling T-shirts, buttons and fridge magnets to support its effort to press the government for the legislation. The items are made by Speer and her husband, who operate a promotional product business in Winnipeg.

The family will sell the items at a rally in Brandon on Friday.

McLean was returning home from a job in Edmonton when he was stabbed to death by a fellow passenger aboard the bus about 8:30 p.m. on July 31, 2008.

Vince Weiguang Li, 40, of Edmonton, has been charged with second-degree murder. His trial begins March 2 in Winnipeg. The case was moved from Portage la Prairie because Li has received death threats.

At trial, it's expected the issue will not be whether Li killed McLean but whether Li can be held criminally responsible for the death if he was suffering from a disease of the mind.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I respect the family's anger and frustration with this situation. I respect also that the family fears that someone "will get away with" killing their young son. But I think, in their anger, the family has lost perspective.

If we imagine laws as rules that are meant to protect citizens, this law that the McLean family is advocating for does nothing to protect anyone.

Hear me out.

Central to the creation of the law is the idea that people with mental illness who have committed a heinous crime should be held accountable for their crimes by being incarcerated for the rest of their lives. Now, we aren't suggesting that these mentally ill people be incarcerated in jail; no, we are saying that they should spend the rest of their lives in a psychiatric facility. I have been inside a psychiatric facility, and honestly, it's not much different from a prison cell. Especially if you are not there willfully.

These are the issues I have with this law and its implications:

Number One:

Imprisonment is imprisonment, no matter where it occurs. Thus, under this law that is being advocated for, we are asking that a person with a psychiatric problem is locked away while we as a society throw away the key and proclaim that we are done with them. Essentially this is a death sentence, in a nation where we have decided that death sentences are immoral.

In Canada, a life sentence for a crime of 1st degree murder is 25 years to life, with a chance for parole at 25 years. Keep in mind that in this case the accused is being charged with second degree murder. A second degree murder charge carries a punishment of a life sentence with a possibility for parole at 10 years. We cannot disburse a lifetime of imprisonment with no chance of parole, ever, at all (essentially a prolonged death sentence), and proclaim then that our nation is death sentence free. This would be a legal paradox, and a national moral hypocrisy.

The paradox would exist in the fact that there would be a dualistic legal system where "normal" criminals get due process in a system that believes they can be rehabilitated, where a death sentence can NEVER be applied. (The death sentence being a life sentence without option for parole.) And "crazy" criminals would get punished by a system where a death sentence can be applied to them, and only to them, because of their mental health status.

Number Two:

Our laws are designed with the idea that criminal behaviour is rehabilitative. Thus we have designed punishments and in-jail treatment programs that help people to understand the harms their behaviour has caused. After they have served their time, we allow people the opportunity to go back into society to try to carve a new path. Sometimes we even let people out of jail earlier (on parole), if they have demonstrated a consistent pattern of good behaviour and rehabilitation.

Our mental health care system believes that people who have experienced a mental health event can be rehabilitated. In fact, there are many successful treatment programs that have enabled people who have had disruptive health events to find their way to a state of good health and to move on in their lives to be productive and community-oriented citizens.

The consequences of this law; lifetime imprisonment in a psychiatric facility with no chance of parole; contradits not only the philosophy of our healthcare system, it also contradicts the central philosophy of the Canadian legal system:

People who have committed crimes can be rehabilitated, our legal system dictates.

Science and mental health research tells us that people with mental illness can move on to healthy productive lives (rehabilitation).

So when a person with a mental illness commits a crime, how does the scope of the context change to dictate that the person is beyond our reach for rehabilitation? How can we begin to imagine that a person with mental illness who has committed a crime should be locked up in perpetuity with no chance for parole?

The implication of this advocated law is not that the person is the problem (as is the case with regular criminals where we believe that rehabilitation is possible, and where our "life" sentences potentially max out at 25 years). Implied in this law, is that the mental illness is the problem. In effect, this law is not punishing people, persay, it is punishing mental illnesses, and the people who happen to have mental illness. Which leads us to point...

Number Three:

This advocated law is flagrantly discriminatory.

In no other circumstance of health do we tell people that they should be treated differently because of their medical condition.

Mental illness is a medical condition that can have regretful effects on behaviour, but which can be relieved by medical intervention.

Why does having a medical condition allow our legal system to consider throwing its values out the window? Again, our legal system believes that criminals can be rehabilitated. Why does a health condition change the scope of this belief? Locking a person away in a psychiatric facility in perpetuity without the chance for parole is a declaration that the person is beyond rehabilition.

Mental illness can be rehabilitaed, medicine tells us.

Mental illness can even be prevented, research suggests.

Thus, the crimes perpetuated during a mental health event are likely PREVENTABLE.

According to our evidence from science and medicine, it would make more sense to consider laws relating to access to treatment.

If we are imagining that laws are created with the intent to protect citizens, then laws relating to treatment would protect citizens in two ways:

a) The person with illness would be protected from the ravages of an untreated medical condition.

b) All citizens would be protected from crimes that are perpetuated during a mental health crisis.

The advocated law makes no steps to ensure protections for any citizens. In fact, the advocated law entrenches not only the status quo of systemic discrimination, but further deepens the social marginalization of persons with mental illness and establishes an indefensible precedent for widespread systemic discrimination. After all, if our own legal systems are allowed to treat people with mental illness differently than every other citizen, then why shouldn't ordinary citizens follow the lead of our political/judicial systems?

Number Four (Last Point):

Our legal system already has a way to deal with issues relating to mental health and the law. If the accused is found not guilty by reason of mental defect or insanity or whathaveyou, he will be shipped to a forensic psychiatric facility where he will have to undergo a minium number of years in treatment. Furthermore, he will not just "be set free," he will have to prove that he has been rehabilitated, and if he is even let out, he will have to live a certain number of years under the combined watchful eyes of the legal system and his health care team.

So really, the accused will get the kind of treatment he needs, and he will get it where he needs it, if he is found not criminally liable due to his health condition. Under our current laws, the accused will be punished by a legal system that believes he is capable of being rehabilitated, whatever shape that rehabilitation takes.

This is the same right that all persons entering the legal system are entitled to. Having a health condition makes Mr. Li's access to legal rights no different from any one else's.

He just won't get the death sentence that this family is advocating for.

Respecting the rights of every Canadian citizen,

O.

Exit Night, Enter Light...

Dear Wonderers,

Some people may be wondering why January 31st was chosen as the date for the annual Light In the Dark event. After all, in Canada, that date tends to fall right in the dead of winter, where the nights are long, and the days are far too short and far too cold, probably, for an activity like this.

The date, January 31st, was chosen because it is a fairly accurate metaphor for the state of mental health awareness today.

Sadly, even though we are in the 21st century - the age of technology and easy access information - so much of our public knowledge about matters concerning mental health is based on superstitions, pervasive negative mythology, and rumor. In the year 2009 the public is forced to rely mostly on information from popular media to learn about mental health and related issues.

I'm sure we all understand that while media has its benefits, it also has its bias. Today, we live in a media culture where the following motto reigns: If it bleeds, it leads. The most sensational stories make their way into the headlines of our newspapers, where we hear tales of wicked depravity blended with hints of mental malfunction.

We as spectators follow along with the likes of Britney Spears as her bipolar manifestations compel her to act out. As spectators, we read of cases of post-partum mothers, addled by hallucinations, who drown their children in bathtubs. We watch our TVs and webcasts in horror as a man allegedly affected by psychosis swings a machete in the air after he has decapitated a fellow bus passenger.

And this is what we know of mental illness. This is what our media informs us that mental illness is; graceless celebrities who self-destruct, horrific women who should be sterilized for their sins, and dangerous men who deserve nothing less than to die mercilessly for their acts.

Well, maybe the media doesn't arrive at these conclusions, but with their half-hearted attempts at reporting, with no follow-up, with no actual explanation for the events, and with no description of the collision of circumstances that caused the arrival of the newsworthy event, this is what the media allows us to believe. This is the flavour of "mental illness" that the media imparts - destructive, disturbed, untrustworthy... fearsome.

It is not the fault of the media that conditions of mental health and their related issues are as misunderstood as they are. As of January 2009, the government or any social service agency has yet to assume control of education and awareness relating to mental health. Where the government has the breadth of reach, power of oversight, and access to the most recent medical information, it is fairly reprehensible that our public conceptions of mental health are allowed to remain so skewed and so hideously inaccurate.

In the year 2009, the reality is that we Canadians still remain in the Dark Ages of mental health. In the year 2009, we Canadians remain absurdly unenlightened. This is one of the reasons why January 31st, one of our darkest and coldest days of winter, was chosen for Light In the Dark.

Yet there is more to this date, January 31st, than the darkness... There is more to the metaphor for why this date was chosen.

For anyone who is familiar with winter, you know that there comes a point in that season where you become tired of the frigid darkness; you become tired, and you begin to wish, sometimes even to plan, for spring.

And so January 31st was chosen also because it represents a wish: A wish to thaw the chilling effects of ignorance and move towards a warmer, more promising, day.

We want to move towards education and awareness. We want mental health education to become a priority among our government and its beneficiary agencies. A more educated public, and a more aware public, means that we will get to live in a world without fear. A knowledgeable society will be an accepting society.

Show your support for those living with conditons and issues that affect their mental health.
Show your support for education and awareness.
Show your desire for a more knowledgeable and accepting society.

Let your light shine.
Let our light shine.

Love,
O.
PS. I lit my candle last night!

Trying to understand is not the same as understanding...

Dear People Who Want to KNOW,

I read this (excerpt below) in the Toronto Star this morning. This quote is derived from an article about a dad who longs to understand his daughter's experience.

For caring, exorbitant caring – about the meaning of a passing glance from a stranger, the look in a news broadcaster's eye on television, the fixed fired thoughts in one's head – is the psychotic's curse. ("Skinless" is a therapist's term for those who cannot tolerate stimulation.) "To depart from reason with the firm conviction that one is following it," reads a definition of madness from an 18th-century encyclopedia.

And, indeed, inordinate conviction is the chief warning sign of our delusions. For the patient to burn low, to be half asleep, to take no notice, is the medical goal – for the patient to live in a kind of emotional cordon sanitaire. Psychosis is the opposite of indifference. Indifference, therefore, would seem to be its logical cure.

The full article can be found here.

First, I think it is extremely important to say that I respect this father's committment to his daughter and her experience. I respect the raw emotions that his family went through. I respect that the father is trying to enter into his daughter's experience by himself participating in her treatments. And interestingly, I respect that he went so far as to try her medication... although, I know that in practice this is not recommended, nor is it necessarily safe.

My issue with the article is the simplification of the experience. The father seems to endorse ideology of an antipsychiatry and antimedication approach by suggesting that the fundamental purpose of medication is to create "indifference" in the person.

I would like to offer this father a different perspective, having myself crawled out of the long, dark tunnel that is known as psychosis: medication (at its worst) can produce indifference (lack of motivation, apathy, exhaustion, etc.), especially if the dose is too strong, and even more especially if the medication is a poor fit for the person. At its best medication produces the effect of organization.

Consider the neurological "causes" of psychosis: Dopamine is cascading through neurons at an unmitigated and uncontrolled rate. This neurotransmitter is partially responsible for the rate and strength of our transissions, and so the repercussions of this barrage are confusing for a person experiencing it. (Being high on pot feels a lot like the early stages of a psychotic break, by the way... the loose associations, the multiple layers of meaning in any given context, the sense of mental fog, etc. Interestingly, the "high" effect from pot is caused by dopamine cascading though your neurons.)

The problem is not that a person with psychosis "cares" too much about the events around them (suggesting that a person with psychosis is oversensitive), the problem is actually that a person with psychosis cannot control their attenuation of sensory stimulus around them.

The "average" person is able to control the stimuli around them by focusing their attention on the stimulus that requires attention in any given context. Generally this is a passive and almost unconscious process. In the "average" brain, a stimulus from the environment penetrates the neurons which then mobilize to organize the meaning within the context. For example, when walking on the street in a crowd, one generally understands that when they hear a siren, they need to stop to look around and see how they need to respond. And so despite the sounds in the crowd, despite the bustling of moving cars and people, despite the visual stimuli of light, and shapes of buildings and people and trees; the sound of the siren takes precendence above all other stimulus, and so one would most likely focus on that one stimulus and therefore act as necessary depending on the circumstances.

From my experience, the passive process of stimulus absorbtion, interpretation, and organiation is detrimentally impeded in a person with psychosis. A person with psychosis is unable to filter through and focus on a particular theme or element of the stimulus that exists in the sounds of the crowd, the siren, the glare of the sunlight, the red of the emergency vehicle. And not only are they neurologically "forced" to attenuate to all of any incoming stimuli at once, their ability to make sense of the stimuli is also altered.

For me, it wasn't that I cared in particular about what I was taking in around me; it was that I could not control what to take in and what not to take in. I could not organize my attention for the life of me, and so all at once, everything became significant, even the things that were completely irrelevant to the context.

During a psychotic break, a brain that is unfamiliarly overridden with stimuli (caused by an influx of dopamine) also recieves a second punch: Not only does dopamine open the floodgates to hyperstimulation, but this chemical also primes the brain to make connections in an effort to "organize" those stimuli. And so in our human brains that are innately compelled to create order and to explain chaos, we now begin to make bizarre associations and start to manifest delusions in a very literal attempt to organize the influx of information.

Let's make no mistake, it's not so much that people with psychosis are more attuned, morally weak, sensitive, or lazy, or stupid, or any of the pervasive negative myths that tend to circulate: A person living with a psychotic brain is a person who is living with an overworked brain. A brain that won't stop revving its engine, so to speak.

From what I understand about biology, all organisms need rest. And rest often involves having a "quiet" brain. It was my brain's inability to passively organize the intake of stimulus that made up the greater part (and the most exhausting part) of my psychotic experience. My brain needed help to quiet itself so that it could better work through the process of organization. Part of helping my brain to be quiet was taking medication, but another significant part was ensuring that my environment allowed my brain some quiet time.

Futhermore, there was a lot of "training" involved... but that's complicated, and perhaps the subject of another post.

Organizing for clarity,
O.

Memories of My Era: The Age of Turmoil

Dear People who Sell Fear (and Those who Buy It),

When I hear people describe or reminisce about times gone by, the say things like, "It was the age of innocence!" or "It was the era of the enlightenment!" or "It was the Quiet Revolution!"

It seems that the days of yore have a lot of positive ascriptions. And I wish I would be able to remember my history with as much reverence.

Unfortunately, I don't think I will be able to have a positive regard for the days of my youth. The times I have grown up in are times of confusion, frustration, and of deep dark closets creaking open.

In my short life-span on Earth I have seen major advancements in technology, and I have witnessed how it has torn us apart (as it paradoxically unites us in a vast network). These advancements have motivated people to question our human capacities and motivations; as we now, like never before, have a capacity to do the work of the gods.

I have seen how the scope of war has changed. It seems that wars are just easier to initiate, since all we really need to do is push a few buttons and move around a few big toys. And it seems that wars and strife have become a tool to suit economic needs instead of relieving oppression and promoting freedom. (Although, I'm sure a cynic could argue that most wars, in the end, are about economy, and always have been.)

Relating to the issue of war, North America is currently suffering as the economy reorganizes itself around emerging countries who are introducing new competition; thus destabilizing the status quo. All political figures recognize this as a period of transition, and all are scrambling for control so that their nation will wind up at the top of the heap at the end of the day. (Whenever that comes!) And in their scramble for economic success; leaders are engaging their citizens in battles at home and abroad that are exhausting and tormenting their people.

I'm now watching two countries endure elections. Elections that have major consequences for all. And as I watch the media coverage, all I can see is that the candidates are more interested in pointing out why their opponents are bad choices, instead of why their own candidacy is the good choice. In this, I see our fellow countrymen more divided than ever, and more rigid in opinion and ideology than ever.

To add to the list, political scandal and health and environmental crises compound the problems enough to whip the ordinary citizen into a froth of fear.

It seems the time of innocence is lost; and that our modern era of technology that was once hailed as the new enlightenment has come with a heavy burden: Change. And with change, comes turmoil. Welcome to the age of change; welcome to the era of turmoil.

Hiding behind my hands until it's over,
O.

Dear Robert Quinn from Japan,

robert quinn from Japan writes: Well, I see Emma's posted, so I feel duty-bound to kick sand all over her comments, and every other certain-to-be-offended sufferer. You, the hordes of mentally ill (20% of the population, according to Michael Kirby...why is it old soldiers fade away but old Liberals end up with lucrative government sinecures? And when you factor in the multitudes with cancer, spina bifida, Carpel Tunnel Syndrome, heroin addiction, existential ennui, etc., it's a wonder there's anyone capable of showing up for work), who spend their days feeling misunderstood, picked on, ignored or suicidal, may be missing the big picture. A nurse with many years of experience once told me such is what happens when one-pound babies survive. For whatever reason--bad luck, bad genes--there's something wrong with your wiring. Sorry. But it could be no amount of money, drugs or professional bafflegab will help. Long ago, a lion would have spotted you lagging behind, distraught, and...culled you. All things considered, that might not have been the worst thing to happen, in a circle-of-life sense. Maybe you really would be happier dead. The question should be: Could I feel worse than I do right now if I top myself? And if you're dead, and an atheist, the answer has to be...no. There are organizations other than the Mental Health Commission that can satisfy your sincere longing for an EXIT from emotional hell. No pain, no shame. / (excerpted from the comments section of the Globe and Mail.)


Dear Robert,
While you do reserve the right to have an opinion in all matters, sometimes you just shouldn't voice those opinions. Why? Because they can fall under the legal classification of "Hate Crime."

Hate Crimes are defined as abusive/aggressive/aggravating/victimizing behaviours that are directed towards individuals (or groups) based on their cultural or religious backgrounds, their sexual orientation, their disability, age, gender, identity, or political affiliation.

So, my dear Robert, in your lovely comment, you have not so subtly told a rather large group of people who fall under the umbrella of "disability" that they simply do not deserve to live among the rest of the members of the planet. Furthermore, you also suggested that said group of people engage in what pretty much amounts to mass suicide.

Legally, this constitutes verbal harrassment.

So fuck you very much for your abrasive, unwanted, and ignorant opinions. Since I can't track you down to bring you to justice for your crimes, I would like to impose upon you the most serious of curses that I have recently learned of: May the flies of a thousand camels infest your nether regions.

Sincerely yours,
O.

PS. robert quinn from Japan is the first ever winner of the SISD award. The Stupid Is, Stupid Does Award goes out to those wonderful people who have a bizarre desire to make the world a crappy place for all.

Globe and Mail Series: Breakdown

Dear Readers of Newspapers and Other Things,

I tried to post this from work the other day, but the text seems not to have made it, although, oddly enough, the title did.

Anyways, this post was referring to a recent series done by the Globe and Mail of Canada about the mental health crisis.

It is a fairly comprehensive series that outlines many of the issues that relate to problems of mental health.

Unfortunately, the publications of the Globe fell victim to the same tendencies of many other publications of this nature: It outline the problems, but it doesn't explain what is currently being done. Also, the Globe tended to combine very different forms of health problems under one umbrella of "mental illness," often using those words in their headlines, despite the fact that the article spoke about only one specific condition.

Everyone with a "mental illness" understands that problems of mental health a pretty specific and don't fit neatly under one catch-all umbrella. Depression is not schizophrenia, is not bi-polar, is not anxiety, and so on. Every condition has its own profile, its own precipitating factors, its own treatment, its own course for recovery, each has its own outcome, and sadly each has its own brand of stigma/discrimination.

Frankly in all of that great reporting, I had serious problems with the glomming together of the variety of mental health conditions. Throwing all of these health conditions into the same pot doesn't allow us to tease out the idiosyncratic issues related to the them. For example, we are unlikely to think that someone with depression is capable of murder, but we easily make this kind of association when we hear that a person has a diagnosis of schizophrenia (even though these associations aren't correct). I think we need to differentiate in our writing, so that we

Anyways, here is the link to the Globe series: Breakdown: Canada's Mental Health Crisis.

Keep up the good work, Globe!
O.

dignity is hard to come by...

Dear fans of music and people who feel the burn of daily life,

I love a good line. Some people just really know how to say something, without needing to say much.

I love these lyrics by Clap Your Hands Say Yeah:

"So go salvage some of your human dignity,
'cause it'll be a long hard road."

For some reason, I think that people don't think enough of themselves. The ennui of daily life, with all the complaints, and aggressions, and all the saddness, and the irritations... the ennui eats away at us a little, day by day, by day.

We don't see our sadness or frustration or anger. We don't see that we are leaden with the burdens of our daily lives. These ennuis build up slowly, like grains of sand on a table. As we move about our lives, the grains are added, one by one, by one... until the legs of the table begin to wobble beneath the weight of its burdens.

These song lyrics remind me, that no matter what negative things happen in my daily life, I am human, and I deserve respect, kindness, and to be treated in a manner that is free of judgment or stereotyped thinking. Nobody has a right to impose their burdens, anger, or general shit on me.

So every day, I salvage my dignity by standing up for my beliefs and convictions, by commanding respect from those who would rather put me down than see me as an equal, and by offering the same dignities to every single person I meet... respect, kindness, and freedom from judgment and discrimination.

Forever yours, in dignity and in respect,
O.

more comments on post secret postcards...

Dear post secret poster (and anyone else who works with people with mental health problems),

"I work as a counselor for people with mental illness and it scares me how much I can relate to them. I'm afraid of ending up like them."
See this secret on : www.postsecret.com


I can relate to you too! Wow! Isn't that amazing?

I can relate to your desire for a happy, fulfilled life. I can relate to your wishes for people who love you unconditionally. I can relate to your need for arms you can fall into when you feel weak, tired, afraid, or unhappy. Arms that will support you, and warm your heart in your coldest and loneliest hours.

I can relate to the notion that some aspects of your life might be dissatisfying. I can relate to feelings of frustration, anger, or despair. I can relate to thinking I'm not being paid enough for my skills. I can relate to wanting a better home, or car, or job, or better health... or even just more energy!

I can relate to feelings of low self esteem. I can relate to feeling unloved, or unwanted, or just unneeded. I can relate to feeling useless, incompetant, and frankly overwhelmed; feeling like I can never do enough, or that the things I do don't even matter because the problems of the world are so big... and I... well, I am so small.

Isn't it amazing how much we can relate to eachother?

Or does this scare you for some reason?

Why does that scare you?

Are you afraid of me?

Are you afraid of being "like" me? (Whatever that means!)


Relating to you in more ways than you will ever know,
O.
PS. Sometimes I'm afraid of winding up like you too!

consumers are people who EAT a lot, and people who SHOP a lot...

Dear people who persist in using the outdated and derogatory term "consumer,"

I am not a consumer, fuck you very much. Calling me a consumer to my face will get you a strong admonishment and a rather long lecture on the history of that word. The history of that word isn't pleasant, and in fact, it is downright insulting. And the word consumer is as derogatory to me as the "n-word" is to a person of African or Caribbean heritage.

Here is a little bit of the history of the word consumer (excerpted from my previous post):

"If you don't know what the word "consumer" is, here is an explanation:

Consumer is what the mental health professionals call people who have mental illness. People with problems of mental health are called "consumers" because historically people with mental illness have been dependent on health care and social services... Their logic in using this term is that people with mental illness "consume" social services in the same way that people with money voraciously consume products on the market.

This is a dangerous term because in the word "consumer" is implied that people who require the help of health care professionals and social services don't give back to their communities. It is implied, by using this word, that people with problems of mental health only take from their communities. Examples of giving back include volunteerism, using experiential knowledge and skills in the workplace or to help peers, contributing to the community and social services through paying taxes, and so on.

I LOATHE the term consumer."

So in my quest for equality for everyone and in my quest to free all individuals from systematic oppression, I say we should do away with the term consumer.

And if you're wondering how in the world the word "consumer" is systematically oppressive; think of why white people are no longer allowed to say the the word nigger. Seriously. Think about it.

In the event that you need some help with this analogy, I will help you through it. Although I'd like to think that most people don't need me to hold their hand through a thought experiment...

Think about how the n-word evolved. Think about how it is/was used. Think of the people this word is applied to and how they feel/felt about that word. Last, think about why we no longer use the n-word.

Now, think about the c-word. Think about how it came to be. Think of how we use it, and who we talk about when we use that word. Think about how those people feel about that word. Last, think about why we should no longer use that word.

Draw a little chart if you think it will help you.

Keeping the pots of controversy abrewing and hoping you're thinking over there on your end of our fibreoptic connection,
O.

PS. Email me if you need me to spell things out for you. Above all, I am here to help and to educate.

forgive me (proverbial) Father, for I have lost... my motivation

Dear (proverbial, because I'm not religious) Father,

Father, forgive me, for I have lost my motivation. At least I think I have. I feel I have...

I am currently "between jobs" as my too kind and supremely diplomatic friend put it, after I told her that I am an unemployed dirtbag. In truth, I have been "between jobs" for about four months now. Granted, I have been dealing with health problems and waiting on a contract that keeps getting pushed back, but still, that does not stop me from feeling like a giant sack of shite every day. (My health problems are of the "physical" variety this time around, as opposed to the "mental" variety... as if that distinction should actually exist in our day and age, so please don't worry too much, dear readers!)

My partner saunters off to work every morning. And I bury myself deeper into my blankets, thankful for one or two more hours of sleep, dreading that I have to wake up and find things to occupy myself with that day.

Four months ago, finding things to do was easy, since me and my SO had recently moved into a new apartment. I occupied my days with painting, arranging furniture, cleaning, and organizing, while simultaneously trying to manage my health problems. He went to work. It was a great formula because we were both contributing to building our new life, just in different ways.

All of that is done now. There are no more changes to be made to the apartment. There is not one curtain left to hang, or one measly door to paint. He goes off to work. I wake up to another day... another day of feeling like a dirtbag.

So I sit, every morning, on my couch, and wonder, what the hell am I going to do with myself today? And I think; I feel like a sack of poop. I feel like all I do is cook, clean, and waste a lot of valuable time that should be spent working and earning an income.

The other day I visited my too kind and disgustingly diplomatic friend. We had a chat about what we were up to recently. I actually haven't seen her since I moved into the new place four months ago.

I told her how I haven't really done much in the months I've been at the new place. But I told her about the work I've done on the apartment. The furniture I've refinished, the rooms I've painted, the shopping I've done to get the place looking somewhat livable. I chatted about the gardening I've done, and the more that I plan to do. I told her about the meetings I've attended in order to "harvest" the job that I'm waiting on in the hopes that it will open up soon. I told her about the book I'm trying to write. How I sit for about four hours a day, three or four days a week, tap tapping on my digital computing machine (erm, my craptop). I told her that I'm averaging about two pages a day during those sessions. I talked about this blog that I've started. I talked about the books that I've read. I talked about the pets that I feed and give love to every day. I talked about all the baking I've done since I've moved in and so on.

At the end of our chatting, she interjected, "Wow, you sound pretty busy!"

I looked at her in total disbelief. I was shocked that she had said that; totally and speechlessly shocked in fact.

Here I've been beating myself up for being "unmotivated," and my friend, my blessed, wonderful, generous friend, in one simple sentence totally put my life into perspective (at least, the last four months of my life, anyway).

I guess it's all a matter of how we look at things, huh? And it's possible, that my goggles are a little screwed up or something, given all the hangups I have about wanting to be a "contributer" not a "consumer." How else do you explain why I've been castigating myself for the last three months?

Here's to waiting one more week for that mythological job to open up... and here's to one more week of "doing nothing!"

The busiest, yet most unmotivated, girl on this side of the pond,
O.

PS. If you don't know what the word "consumer" is, here is an explanation: Consumer is what the mental health professionals call people who have mental illness. People with problems of mental health are called "consumers" because historically people with mental illness have been dependent on health care and social services... Their logic in using this term is that people with mental illness "consume" social services in the same way that people with money voraciously consume products on the market.

This is a dangerous term because in the word "consumer" is implied that people who require the help of health care professionals and social services don't give back to their communities. It is implied, by using this word, that people with problems of mental health only take from their communities. Examples of giving back include volunteerism, using experiential knowledge and skills in the workplace or to help peers, contributing to the community and social services through paying taxes, and so on.

PPS. I LOATHE the term consumer.

no, i am not crazy... let me explain...

Dear readers of the previous two posts,

Ya'll are prolly thinking, what the h-e-double hockey sticks is she talking about?

Well, those two posts are essentially criticisms of Scientology, and really any institutionalized dogmatic thinking that makes false promises.

Scientology, in my opinion, is an especially dangerous breed of cult. It is dangerous because it offers cures to people living with mental health problems. Unfortunately, the cures that Scientology offers are costly to access, and due to the secrecy surrounding the activities of the cult, it is impossible to substantiate the claims that the 'cures' actually do anything besides rob vulnerable people of their hard earned cash.

Scientology, in my opinion, preys upon the vulnerable; those living with mental illness, and those looking for quick access to a better life.

I think the people who are a part of this cult are participating in and endorsing a mass delusion. And for those who think mass delusions are impossible, go do a little research on the subject, and you may come to see that such events are much more than a theoretical possibility.

With Scientology the saying, 'He went in normal, and came out crazy,' is truly applicable.

A concerned informant,
O.

L. Ron Hubbard... I invoke thee!

Dear God (aka. L. Ron Hubbard),

One of the wonderful symptoms of psychosis is delusional thinking. So, given the possibility that I could become delusional at any given moment due to the lack of cooperation between my neurons and my neurotransmitters, I have made a vow to turn my delusional thoughts into the opportunity of a life time that will earn me scads of dough.

*L. Ron Hubbard, I invoke your spirit to guide me through my quest, should I ever be given the opportunity to enact it.*

While in a delusional state, I am going to write a manifesto. After writing said manifesto, I am going to call a media conference and proclaim that the manifesto was inspired by a power that is older, more experienced, and more knowledgeable than myself and the average human.

Since I will be in a delusional state, I will be so convinced in my beliefs that people can do nothing but succumb to my enthusiasm and share in my delusions... er, beliefs.

I will prey especially on women by offering them promises of a patriarchy free life, based on the teachings of my manifesto. The only caveat is that they have to give up their relationships with men, they must conform their thoughts and behaviour to the teachings of the manifesto, and they must live in a commune that is located in the remote forests of upper Siberia.

By eschewing relationships with men, and surviving the hardships of upper Siberia, my manifesto will promise that the women will be rewarded in the afterlife with a harem of youthful, muscular, tanned, shirtless, and extremely anxious to please cabana boys.

In order to become a part of my cult... uh... clan, my followers must first pay a small fee of $19.99 to buy the manifesto. After they have read the manifesto, they must enroll in the 'clearing' classes. Which will be available for the low low cost of $49.99 per session. These 'clearing' classes are designed to educate my followers in great detail about the central tenets of the manifesto so that they can live a better, more fulfilling life.

If I deem a follower worthy, she (maybe even he) will be invited to engage in what I like to call 'full and fulfilling membership.' Meaning, the follower will be given the opportunity to donate all her earthly goods to the clan, and move to the compound in upper Siberia where she can live her life in the fullness of the freedom and enlightenment that our manifesto promises.

If a follower reads the manifesto and engages in the clearing classes, it is *possible* that she will have the riches of the after life. However, by donating all of her earthly goods to the clan and moving to upper Siberia, it is *guaranteed* that the follower will have access to the riches promised in the afterlife.

Your Leader In Training,
O.

PS. This fresh and fundamentally original doctrine will be called, The Enlightened Teachings of Olivia Beck: Foundations of Mythtology.

/tongue in cheek

dear readers... i am appealing... wait! that came out wrong!

Dear readers; lovers, haters, and those who care not a whit,

I'm making an appeal here.

I love mail. I love mail that is positive and supportive in nature. I also love mail that contradicts my opinions as they are expressed through my writing.

If you want to send mail of any type, feel free.

Also, if you want to comment on a specific post, comment at will.

I will do my best to respond to your mail and comments in the most appropriate manner. That is to say, if you are an ignorant hating ass, I will return in kind. Unless I take pity on your sorry uneducated ass and just try to teach you something despite yourself. If you are supportive and loving, I too will reciprocate with an equally pleasant reply. Emails and comments of an ambiguous nature will be treated on a case by case basis. I reserve the right to be tenacious and bullheaded at all times.

Send me mail! Please!
*does the make it mail dance*

Your eager recipient,
O.

the true tragedy of illness and mental illness

Dear Directors of Unhappiness and Stewards of Despair (and Everyone Else to Whom This May Apply),

I think the greatest myth of our time is that we are supposed to be "happy." Not content, not satisfied, not well fed or comfortable; we are supposed to be happy in that pathetic sappy Hollywood way.

I have never met anyone who is happy. I have met content people. I have met satisfied people. I have met successful people. I have met comfortable people. And I have certainly met people who are well fed. But I have never met a happy person.

In actuality, I have met a lot of sad people. I have also met lot of people who are stressed and anxious. And I have met many, many people who are afraid. But mostly, I have met people who are lonely.

I'm not sure what causes loneliness, except for the obvious; an absence of people to share your life and experiences with. But I think most people can attest to feelings of being alone even when they are surrounded by a substantial number of people who love them.

My feelings of loneliness are most likely to happen when I feel like I can't communicate with the people around me. And I'm not talking day to day stuff, like, how's the weather, and oh, how are you. I'm talking about being unable to share my feelings, being unable to share how an experience has affected me, and generally being unable to relate important aspects of my life to people who I think would generally want to know that information.

So when people talk about feeling lonely, it's not always because they don't have friends. Loneliness can be a result of the people in your life not being 'active participants' in your life.

When I first became symptomatic many, many moons ago, the memories that are most vivid in my mind are the memories of loneliness. It was a feeling that sat deep inside of my chest. A feeling that bore the weight of a stone, and a feeling that often resonated as if it had just been struck with a great force.

In a world where mental illness is effectively swept under the carpet, and where discourse is not free and open, I think the everyday person does not have access to the language that is needed to discuss issues of mental health. I also don't think that there is enough accurate knowledge of the everyday experiences of people living with mental illness residing in our 'collective consciousness.' (Our collective consciousness being the sum of experiences and knowledge that most people of our country are likely to come across in their lifetime.)

The little knowledge that does exist in our 'collective consciousness' has been coloured by negative stereotypes and dangerous mythology. Some of these stereotypes and mythology include: i) That people with psychosis are dangerous and more likely to hurt others. ii) That we can't trust the somatic complaints of women because they are more emotional and are thus more sensitive to the effects of stress (ie. histrionic). (Thanks for your wonderful contributions, Freud, you misogynistic ass!)

So I think the true tragedy of illness and mental illness is that too many people who live with conditions that affect their mental health are unable to communicate their experiences with their loved ones. I think this breakdown in communication is what creates the loneliness and despair that resides in the hearts of people affected by illness.

So when I despair about the disease, that is my despair... that I cannot communicate with the people I love. And when I think about the tragedy of illness, that resounding sense of loneliness is the first thing that materializes in my mind.

Your doorman (to the portals of communication),
O.

dear people who post on postsecret.com

Dear postsecret.com poster,

You said this (posted on the April 20/2008 edition of postsecret.com):

"When my schizophrenic brother finally succeeded after 15 years of suicide attempts, I was relieved."

As a person who was diagnosed with schizophrenia, and who has successfully managed the condition for over 10 years, I want you to know, that reading this statement made a part of me die a little.

Please understand that I know that I am a burden to my family, and to society in general. And please understand that I know that my actions can cause problems, stress, and pain.

I already know this. Why do you have to reinforce how shitty I am and how much people like myself make your life miserable?

You need to know that this is why we kill ourselves. We despair and we suicide because we are acutely aware that we cause problems (for ourselves, and for the people we love). We suicide because mental illness HURTS everyone it touches and that pain is often unrelenting.

You need to know that mental illness hurts its sufferers from the bottom of our toenails to the top of the hairs on our heads. I'm not talking about a literal pain; I am talking about a relentless ontological throb that we endure from our daily toils in a fast, competitive, and unforgiving world that cries for conformity (and punishes those who do not fit neatly into those compartments you have all neatly sorted out for yourselves).

Please realize that I can understand where this sentiment comes from, and that I respect your feelings, but fuck, what about me?

My sympathies for your loss,
O.

dear controversial art person

Dear Aliza Shvarts,

Thank you for being a screamer in a world full of sleepers.

Your New Fan,
O.

PS. Visit this site to see what I'm talkin' 'bout. http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513