The "Right" to Know?

This whole VT massacre has been horrible. I feel so bad for the families and students and staff of VT. I can understand all the questions running through the minds of people in the rest of the country because I am right there asking the same questions:

How could this have happened?

How could anyone do such a thing?

Where were the parents?

We want to know everything about how that day happened. We want to know why this man decided to take 32 lives. We want to know why the police and campus security didn’t stop the second killing spree from happening. We want to know the names of those killed and the circumstances and whether they were brave or not. We want to know what kind of people they were and the kind of lives they lived before this maniac ended them. We want to know what they studied and how many siblings they had and WE JUST WANT TO KNOW!

But do we have the RIGHT to know?

Is it any of our business?

I am just as nosy and worried and concerned as the next person. I admit to tuning in when the news pipes out the very latest dramatic information. But just last night I was watching the nightly news and a reporter was interviewing the brother of one of the slain students. A single tear slid down his cheek and anyone could see that the poor guy was barely keeping it together, but the reporter held that microphone. The guy is gulping and can barely speak, but the reporter keeps asking questions about his dead sibling. “What were her goals? What did she want to be?” Finally, there was my favorite: “If she hadn’t been murdered, where do you think your sister wanted to be in ten years?” Finally, mercifully, the camera turned away.

And I had to wonder what kind of world we live in that this awful torture counted as news. Not just news, but entertainment. What right do we have to ask such obviously painful questions? Do we really have the right to know such personal, painful information? And what about the cost to those who should be allowed to grieve in peace?

What kind of people are we?

Just a thought...

Today at work, I was listening to the news and it was as depressing as usual. 12 GIs died in a helicopter crash in Iraq. Several more American's were killed in an attack of a military compound in Iraq that was carried out in broad daylight. Numerous Iraqi civilians have been killed or wounded in the last several days as the fighting and bombings escalate even further out of control. (The situation continues to NOT be a civil war...) On and on it goes, just getting sadder and more depressing with each passing minute. The number of soldiers killed in Iraq now totals more than 3,000. My mom lives in a town with a smaller population than that.

Meanwhile, at work, the commercial break comes on and I hear the same old bitching from customers and co-workers. Lately, its taxes and the strange cold snap we've been suffering through. Hardly anyone talks about the war our country continues to fight. If you hear someone talk about it, it has more to do with whether or not they support the president or if they think the dems are cut and runners. No one really seems to be thinking about the fact that every minute we sit here, obliviously living our lives, there is another 18 year old fresh out of high school carrying his M16 into danger for reasons none of us can agree on.

If we do stop and think about the war, it's in the most general and meaningless terms. We complain that Bush lied, or remind our neighbors that Saddam was a bad man. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the same two stupid lines repeated in some form or other. "We can't leave Iraq till we've cleaned it up." "We need to cut our losses and get the heck out of that place." What do either of those statements even mean? Do the people spouting them even know? Do they have any clue about the true situation?

Where is the guilt? Where is the understanding that we allowed our country to go to war against another country? Where is the knowledge that literally hundreds of thousands of people are dead from a war that we don't know why we're fighting?

Where is the god damned guilt?

What's So Bad About Feeling Good #2

Allow me to post on a comment left by Mr. Dayton in my comments section. (Note: The entire lengthy comment can be read on the comments page of my last post. Also, these are direct quotes and any errors are his.)

Okay...there is so much I want to respond to in the above mentioned comment that I simply had to take a moment and reflect. What, I wonder, is the main point of that long-winded, poorly-edited, and badly shaped piece of nonsense? Was it that Mr. Dayton feels that he has the "right" to do whatever he wants as long as it only hurts himself? Was he arguing for a change in the laws dealing with prescriptions and how they are doled out? Or, was Mr. Dayton simply on the defensive because he thoughtlessly went on national television and admited to using a chemical in a way that is not provided for by the law of the land and we, the nobodies on the internet, called him on it? He makes any number of arguments in his "defense." Most of them do not make a lick of sense.

Lets just think about this for a moment. First, Mr. Dayton hints that happiness, or at least the pursuit of it, is provided for by the constitution. Of course the words are there, but has anyone ever successfully argued in a court of law that knowingly breaking the law was okay because it made them happy? This country would be a much different place if that worked. Who would pay taxes or obey street signs?

Dayton follows with a list of behaviors that while anti social or questionable, are not actually illegal and says that "as long as those people aren't hurting anyone else I would never dream of supporting a law to coerce them to stop those behaviors." Of course, he wouldn't have to, because those behaviors, unlike his own, are not illegal! I have heard a great many people argue that illegal behavior should be allowed as long as it doesn't "hurt anyone else." It's a favorite of drug users. Suicides also come to mind. In America, we "coerce" people who attempt to commit suicide into treatment, despite the fact that it could be argued that just letting them hurt themselves might allow them some form of happiness, or that they are "only" hurting themselves.

Dayton claims that:

"Most people only take antidepressants if something is wrong. Most people only go to a therapist or get a coach if something is wrong. Why can't drugs and therapy be evaluated on the basis everything else we do in the pursuit of happiness is evaluated?

Do the benefits outwiegh the risks? Does the value outwiegh the costs?

You, Nurse Ratched and others make it sound as if the risks associated with taking antidepressants changes based on why it's taken. That is false and an absurd notion. The risks are constant. It is the benifits and the value palced on them that changes with purpose. (sic)"

What Dayton ultimately fails to realize, is that antidepressants are not harmless candy. I am not a doctor, however I know that anytime a doctor prescribes a medication, they are performing a delicate balancing act. They have to know that the problem is bad enough to risk any of a number of known and unknown side effects. They have to figure in any number of elements, including possible interactions with other medications. A quick search on the internet shows that Wellbutrin can cause seizures, sexual problems, sleeplessness, increased agressivness or mania, as well as other risks. If there is nothing wrong, why would any legitimate doctor allow a patient to risk any or all of these side effects in the pursuit of a state that Dayton himself describes as "a fleeting feeling?"

Dayton ends with this outraged nugget: "Assuming you agree with the current laws around prescribing medication, how dare you support denying me and my doctor the right to choose the course of therapy we see fit!"

I "dare" because denying him the "right to choose a course of therapy" for a problem that doesn't exist happens to be the law in the United States. I "dare" because, as Nurse Ratched noted, that denial happens to make common, and medical, sense. Finally, I "dare" because Dayton can't argue his way out of a paper bag.

(This picture doesnot belong to me, but I found it highly appropriate & amusing.)

"What's So Bad About Feeling Good?"

Once again, Nurse Ratched provides me with plenty of food for thought. She writes:

"Yesterday, CNN released a story about a guy who takes antidepressants. The problem is the guy doesn’t suffer from depression. He said he takes Wellbutrin because it makes him feel good, really good.

Troy Dayton started taking Wellbutrin when he was kicking cigarettes, but now he doesn’t want to give his little helpers up. Troy said the medication makes him feel great, and that the medication gives him the ability to think more clearly. It sounds like Troy has found pharmaceutical nirvana. Some of my past patients have told me that Wellbutrin gives them a rush, the same kind of rush they get when they take amphetamines.

Now hear this! Antidepressants aren’t sugar pills, they are serious medications that have risks as well as benefits. If you take them long enough, you might become physically or psychologically dependent on them, and they can trigger manic-depressive illness in susceptible people."

(Check out the complete post here: Nurse Ratched's Place.


I have mixed feelings about anti depression meds. I took them for nearly a year in college and I truly feel that they saved my life. However, it is nice to know that now, I am able to cope without chemicals that make me feel "normal." I still suffer from episodes of depression, but for the most part, I know how to make myself feel better naturally; I take a walk through the local park, eat more fresh fruit and veggies, enjoy a night out on the town with my husband, or hole up in the apartment and play gory video games and eat pizza for 24 hours...

I know that sometimes, I am just not going to feel "happy." Still, when I look back at the last few years, I see a trend - most of the time, I am content with my lot in life. If I am not usually super happy, than I am at least somewhat emotionally even, and not super sad or distressed either.

I worry about people for whom feeling "normal" isn't good enough. At what point did we become a society that had to be super happy all the time? How do we know what happiness really is if we haven't allowed ourselves to experience the opposite of it? Life is about experiences. We know this, but we seem to have a much harder time admitting to ourselves that not all of Life's experiences are, or should be, good ones. Life is made up of a strange and ever-changing mixture of good and bad that Mr. Dayton, however "happy" he may be, is not getting to fully appreciate.

(By the by, the pictures used in this post were taken by yours truly somewhere in southern AZ and CA...)

Post Election Day Rah Rah

So, I am very tired from listening to NPR late, LATE into the night. But it was all worth it. What a great night. What a great day. The sun is shining, the weather is warm, not hot (remember that I'm in AZ), and the President just went on national TV and admitted that the Republicans got spanked because we just plain don't like him. Not, "we" the Democrats, or "we" the liberals, but "we" the AMERICANS. Yes, its simply a gorgeous day, Darling!

Still... I want to provide a small voice of reason for those who want to be over exhuberant and stomp all over thier Rupublican neighbors. Lets try to rember what got us here. It wasn't the simply irresistable Democratic platform, it was that American's are tired of Bush and his never ending war. The next time around (2008) Democrats had better have a better stratigy for winning this thing, because Bush won't be there for America to vote against.


Democrats had better get busy and get something done in the next two years. Now is not the time to pretend that Americans have spoken in favor of Dems, but to remember that Americans spoke against an unpopular war and President who was seemingly incapable of joining the rest of us in reality. Dems have been given a chance to prove thier worth, not a mandate to do whatever the heck they want to.

I've heard several Dems talking about what they will be doing when they get to Washington. I hope they keep in mind that Americans as a whole, and Democrats in particular, do not like bullies. If the Dems get caught up in revenge and other such pettiness, they better believe that it will be a short two years. Instead, Dems could and should actually do what the Republicans talked about a few years ago. I would like to see a busy, cooperative Congress that remembers what they are supposed to be doing - representing us, not bickering between themselves and getting nothing useful done. If this doesn't happen, you better believe that the Republicans will be the proud holders of another "mandate" in 2008.

Liquid Terrorism?

So, I found this picture on BBC News online. I don't own it, can't claim it, didn't take it.

But it seemed to fit. What is up with this refusal to allow people the basic "neccessities" for plane travel? I understand that a "major terrorist plot" has been detected, but it seems that everyone is failing to notice that we should be celebrating. Our English allies discovered the plot before anyone was hurt (the would-be terrorists hadn't even bought tickets yet), and several sick people are in jail. Why are we all screaming and crying? Why will I not be allowed to take my carry-on onto the next plane I fly on? (I am a total baby - I have to take "stuff to do" on a trip to the grocery store.)

According to a news report on cnn.com, some people were fine with all the trouble, including Tisha Presley who was quoted as saying, "I assume before too long we'll be naked on the plane -- and that's fine with me." But it isn't fine with me. (Think about the last person you sat next to on a plane - do you really want to see them nakid?) Travel, by plane or otherwise, will never be truly safe. We'd be stupid to think otherwise. Still, it shouldn't be so horribly uncomfortable. If our intellegence services are half as competant as those in England, I see no reason to worry. I will still fly - though doing so without a book, I-Pod, or my crochett would be pretty painful.

What's in a Promise?

So, I was listening to the news again (bad habit – just makes me angry), and I heard that the U.S. military is planning on keeping 3500 troops in Iraq past their yearlong tour. This despite the promise of the administration that soldiers would not be asked to serve in Iraq for more than a year. The reporter was oddly happy to point out that this would mean a significant increase in the numbers of overall troops in Iraq.

What happened to the plan of slowly withdrawing troops? What happened “Mission Accomplished? Hell, what happened to keeping the promises we make to the men and women who go into harms way so that we can be free to sit at home on our asses and watch reality TV? I am beginning to feel silly and a little naive and stupid even asking those questions, but I can’t seem to quit asking them. Like a scab, I just keep picking at them. What I expect of that picking, I really couldn’t say. To release the swelling pus underneath so that healing can occur? Maybe. Or maybe I just haven’t become as cynical as I thought.

Of course, no one actually came out and said that this was just one more indication of the absolutely nasty situation that Iraq is becoming. No one had to. It was clear. Like the pink elephant, we can all see it, even if many people refuse to admit that it’s dancing in the living room under all of our noses.

"It's the end of the world as we know it..."

The news is so depressing and scary lately. I watch it constantly at work, and it horrifies me. While I don’t share the apocalyptic views of some of the ultra Christians I hear about on TV, I do find the Middle East situation terrifying. It makes it worse that we (Americans) can’t seem to quit mucking about in the area. Maybe the trouble in Iraq isn't part of this, but our blundering presence can't be all that helpful. Plus, we are so pushy about everything. In the same 15-minute news segment, I hear that we’re advocating two groups of “multi-nation peace-keeping troops” but at the same time making clear that we are in no way going to provide any of those troops. It strikes me as breath-taking arrogance to insist on a plan that everyone else is supposed to follow, but refusing to commit our own troops to help. What kind of bossy country are we?

I was angry to hear that our citizens were being forced to agree to pay for their evacuations from Lebanon. I believe that one of the reasons our government exists is to protect its citizens. What the hell happened to “for the people?” We can spend millions on bombs, but we can’t afford to remove our own people from dangerous situations? Since when did bombs become more important than people? What if people can't afford to pay whatever the government decides to charge?

Several Democrats went on record promising to push a bill through Congress that would change the law that caused this whole issue, but I have to wonder why it took a situation like this one before the law became a problem. Much as I would like to believe that the Democrats have the best interests of all the eveacuees at heart, I remain cynical. It seems unlikely that the chance to show up the Republicans had nothing to do with the quick response of these polititions.