I see three possible outcomes, based on the media reaction I have seen. For brevity, JLL will refer to the shooter in the Tucson incident. The
outcomes are based on the following media reactions I have seen:
1. JLL was a fringe fanatic of Tea Party ilk. He was mentally unstable, but first and foremost his political rants mirrored conspiracy theories of
"Sovereign Citizen" movements and conservative punditry by Sarah Palin, Glen Beck and others.
2. JLL was a fringe lefist. He was mentally unstable, but first and foremost his political rants reflected his reading of the Communist Manifesto.
He's a "left-wing pothead".
3. JLL was probably politically motivated, but first and foremost his psychological disorder caused him to undertake the shooting and killing or
injuring of so many people. His mental disorder should have been acknowledged by authorities prior to the massacre as there were plenty of warning
From these three points of view, we can see that depending on the political leaning of the person or network, FOX and Conservative AM radio espouse
the second view, MSNBC and liberal writers espouse the first view. However, overarching either of the first two views is the third, which is valid.
However, when the first and second view points are contextualized within the framework of the third viewpoint, I see a problematic scenario.
Today I passingly clicked over to FOX and heard Megyn Kelly interview a psychologist who stated that in Arizona the public has the right to report a
mentally unstable person to the authorities for mental evaluation.
Has anybody else heard such a response to this issue? Should we worry that people who hold non-official opinions about current political or social
issues be labeled "nuts" (clinically, mentally ill) and transferred to the custody of the State?
I'm just saying, aren't there historical occurrences of so-called fringe or non-mainstream thinkers being labeled as insane? Would this not be a
convenient way of dismissing or silencing people with alternative views on issues - views that are not mentioned by the government or news ("or" being
an optional word in that phrase).
My caution would be that all of a sudden, those of us who feel like opining here on ATS or on other cites, especially on topics such as the war,
economics, and other more tangent social or intellectual issues (not necessarily the even less accepted issues of UFOs, paranormal theories, religious
discussion and so forth) be labeled in this way. Hypothetically, mandating blanket psychological observations and potentially State-imposed
This need not be a conspiracy as I believe most would consider conspiracy to imply intent. However, insofar as conspiracy requires at least two people
ing towards an end result, even if that result is not nefarious in the conspirators' minds, this would still be a
conspiracy to rid society of undesirable thought. That is to say, whether the thought is labeled "unpatriotic" (as would be the product of a
traditional tyrannical government) or merely "hazardous to public safety" (as would be the product of a public awareness campaign seeking safer
schools, etc.), the end result would be the silencing of alternative or marginalized thought.
The psychologists enlisted to observe and pass judgment on the individuals would be modern day inquisitors, basically utilizing the "official story"
(not merely in the 9/11 truth movement's jargon) as the basis of stability and mental health. Anything straying away from that would be "not normal".
We'll see...I guess. Possibilities are endless, outcomes are singular.
EDIT: I know that here in Florida we have the Baker Act. How exactly the language in that act could be twisted to permit institutionalization at the
whim of a third party is not something I would know off the cuff. Perhaps a lawyer here? The psychologist interviewed on FOX said that Virginia and
Arizona both have the law I mentioned above that allows for concerned citizens to report a person for mental evaluations.
edit on 11-1-2011 by
Sphota because: in textu