The cuckoo’s nest is expanding and visible at major city intersections

Every time I see one of those homeless people holding a sign at a busy street corner, I think about One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.  Or is it 1984?  Either way, both novels have to do with individual freedom.  Both also have to do with what it takes for a person to fit in society.

Cuckoo’s Nest, both the book and the movie, resonated with Baby Boomers who felt a connection to personal freedom and sanity.  The story is set in a mental institution in the early ’60s when along comes a criminal patient with the sardonic charm of an untamed animal.  Jack Nicholson plays the role and won the Oscar, probably for his portrayal of receiving electric shock therapy—a minute or so of tortured convulsions, every second believable and painful to watch.

The satirical novel by Ken Kesey asks us: Who is really crazy?  What is crazy?  Aren’t we all a bit crazy?  The story propelled a movement to change the courts and psychiatric care by not locking up everyone who simply doesn’t fit in with society.  Individualized and more humanistic therapies evolved in hospitals nationwide which allowed for triaging levels of psychiatric need and care.  Also, instead of leaving psych patients to vegetate, residents were encouraged to leave the premises for activities like swimming, biking, shopping and visiting movies, restaurants, amusement parks and museums.  If treatment works, which may include medication along with psychotherapy, individuals with diagnosed mental illness can hold jobs and careers and live in group homes or on their own.  The changes made for better healthcare so people who struggle with mental illness are able to live in society.

 Loony Tune

From a sociological viewpoint, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest leaves a lingering impression because of the theme: a conflict between the rulers and the unruly—the rulers being doctors, nurses, teachers, police, judges, parents, all authority figures; the unruly being the weak and the misfits.  Nice, polite, orderly, really meaning no harm, the rulers expect everybody to follow, obey, and believe in society’s rules.  Then someone like Nicholson’s anti-social R.P. McMurphy is sent inside a white sterile mental hospital where he sees pathetic patients never getting better.  Even the sedate quasi classical music sounds warped played from old albums.  The entire situation was crazy to McMurphy’s way of thinking.  He couldn’t help but shake it up, to the quiet discontent of calm and stern Nurse Ratched.

In the late ’60s, societal conflict was similar as the young counterculture bravely said no to the Man.  Youth longed to feel total freedom, allowed to make their own mistakes and choices and live life on their own terms.  Rules be damned.  It happens every few generations: the younger finally unwilling to follow the older way of life.  It’s a natural societal progression.  But it always begins with painful arguments: the mature empowered yet disrespected; youth suppressed and rebellious.

Finally McMurphy has had it with all the rules and no fun micro managed by the dreaded Nurse Ratched.  But she has the ultimate power to force his obedience.  He’ll never trouble her again.  Still all the men in the ward are influenced by McMurphy’s lust for life, rebellious spirit, fighting rules and institutions—which for most patients should be a temporary stay.  The most important lesson he imparts to the mental patients is: You’re no crazier than anybody else out there.  One of McMurphy’s disciples escapes the institution, busting out by sheer force and will, running across the manicured lawn, following his heart into the woods.  Because his character is Native American, his escape to freedom is musically enhanced by the sounds of a simple drum beat representing the heart, rattles for moving bones, and a strange flute melody personifying his unique spiritual path.

CrAzY

So back to the street people.  How do we explain our nation’s growing homeless population and the problem of chronic homelessness?  It’s got to be caused by more than unemployment or jobs replaced by robotics, low skills or intelligence, drug addiction or veterans returning from war.  The problem has got to be mostly about spiraling mental illness … and families who cannot deal with a relative amidst any or all of the above.  Families used to feel they didn’t have to.  Mental illness was society’s problem because although the majority of the mentally ill are not dangerous, there are people with homicidal and/or suicidal tendencies.  It’s tragic—a huge cosmic joke.

In the early 1980s as federal budget cuts included mental facilities, funding was shifted from large institutions to community hospitals and psych wards.  The feds expected states and cities to continue paying for such care and mental health maintenance locally.  Those in charge also were persuaded by pharmaceutical advancements that helped many patients with everything from depression to paranoid schizophrenia.  Somehow when neo mental health philosophy met the tax buck and many institutions were closed, mental patients literally were given a one-way ticket to various American cities, perhaps where they had family, and forced to figure out how to cope.

Legislators assumed the issue of mental illness was and should remain a private matter and family affair.  They did not realize the stress of modern American life: folks too busy earning a living; too tired working two or more jobs; raising kids and teens; dealing with their own issues of finances, divorce, health, depression and anxiety.  The last thing the average adult can handle is a ‘crazy’ relative, even blood kin.  Caring for a mentally ill loved one may very well require a degree in psychology.  It’s that difficult of a problem, complicated, and extremely serious, sometimes a matter of life or death.

The homeless population is increasing throughout the U.S.  Street people in Dallas increased more than 20 percent in the past year.  And wasn’t Dallas a city that enacted a law to fine citizens who give to beggars, especially those standing at busy highway intersections?  Take a good look at the homeless, who stand everywhere to be seen and ask for help.  They are severely ill body, mind and spirit.  They are not crazy-as-a-fox just because they pick the busiest intersections to hold signs promoting their plight and financial need.  A couple of bucks from strangers will not solve their problems, often exacerbated by addiction.

It appears homelessness, for whatever the reasons, can’t be fixed and has become acceptable.  Maybe homelessness remains by the powers that be as a fearful reminder to the rest of us who look away in disgust or thoughtfully refrain, “There but by the grace of God go I.”  Freedom requires people be healthy inside and out while maintaining a positive, optimistic outlook.  But not everyone is born to handle total freedom that comes with making a life in America.  Ironically, in the technologically efficient state-controlled society of 1984, the homeless, though shunned and neglected, are the ones who live freely.

An affair to remember, courtesy of the United States Congress

What?  Was?  That?!  Our U.S. Congress—having nothing better to do this long hot summer—spent more than one work day grilling an FBI agent, live on cable news, about ‘anti-Trump’ emails.  How dare they (interrupt my daytime cable news watching)?  Have they no decency, sirs?  No.  No, they really don’t.  Particularly humorous was Texas’ own Rep. Louie Gohmert’s moral scolding of FBI Agent Peter Strzok for the many times he looked his dear wife right in the eyes while keeping secret his extra-marital affair. This from the party of Donald J. Trump.

Ignoring at least a dozen women’s claims of sexual harassment by Mr. Trump, the boys in Washington found plenty of time to brand a scarlet letter A on an FBI agent.  At issue was the agent’s affair with a female colleague whose government–issued cell phone texts became a matter of public record.  As the couple carried on conversations during 2016, they sent each other texts pondering a Trump win as president: the female concerned, the male assuring Trump would never be president, punctuating his certainty with the words, “We will stop him.”

American idiots and conspiracy buffs alike took that to naturally mean the FBI would, let’s just say ‘make Trump go away.’  Just like the CIA made President Kennedy take a permanent leave of office.  Like the Illuminati has a plan for one-world government.  Like the devil infiltrated the Vatican and continues to run loose among us to steal our very souls.  Like the U.S. Air Force redacts documented proof of extraterrestrial aliens.  See, I watch the “X-Files,” too.

But I never took the text by a secret agent lover man to literally mean any physical harm to Trump.  I naturally thought “we” referred to the People of the United States, all 300 million of us, at least 150 million, who would take to the streets if Trump were elected and never shut up about how the 2016 election was indeed rigged.  The day following that boring Congressional hearing, a dozen Russian agents were indicted by our federal government for just that: interfering with a U.S. presidential election by using the internet.  Coincidence?  [There are no coincidences.]

Have you or anyone you know ever been a member of the Party?

To those of us willing to endure a few hours of pointless testimony and pontification, party affiliation and allegiance was the focus of the very Republican Congressional inquiry.  Again and again, Congressmen questioned the federal agent about his ability to truly separate his feelings toward Trump while investigating Trump-related affairs, no pun intended.  The agent swore and attested to his professionalism in doing his job as a federal investigator even if delving into the Trump campaign.  It did not matter if the agent were Democrat, Republican or Independent, he maintained he could do his job and do it well with utmost clarity.

Nahhh, replied the Congressional chorus.  They would not believe an educated, mature, seasoned professional federal investigator with the F B I could put aside thoughts, feelings, impressions, gut instincts and educated guesses while performing a vitally important investigation.  Can’t be done, the inquisitors declared.

Yes it can.  Maybe immature kids out of college or elected officials are not yet capable of putting aside religious and political inclinations, but someone with an important federal job that calls first for an intense persona can push away unsubstantiated suspicions at the snap of a finger.  Federal investigators are that good.  And thank goodness, don’t you agree?  Though the American people continue to be divided by deeply-held yet opposing political views, more feelings than thoughts, a professional in any field is obliged to separate opinion from the job at hand.  We expect just that, or a lot of jobs won’t get done.  This dual mindset, called a poker face, is expected every day of teachers, law officers, judges, doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, counselors, surgeons, lawyers, reporters, military personnel, just about any profession.

The Congressional Inquisition really wanted to know the party affiliation of one Peter Strzok, as if they had him pegged as a pinko liberal Communist Democrat.  Nahhh, just about all the FBI agents involved in the Trump investigation are known Republicans.  And everyone knows the FBI never liked the Clintons.  It’s just that the very strange and peculiar 2016 presidential election had a lot of Democrats voting for Trump and a lot of Republicans voting for Hillary Clinton.  We’re some screwed up nation, huh?

The Congressional scrutiny of an FBI agent smacked of forthcoming loyalty oaths, something Trump reportedly had wanted from his cabinet picks and department heads, perhaps other appointments like a Supreme Court Justice.  Let’s just hope ‘loyalty oaths’ are yet another massive American conspiracy theory.  Imagine, a U.S. president demanding loyalty oaths among every federal employee.  We still have free speech, thought and ideas, right?  Americans who think differently than the U.S. president won’t lose their jobs, be publicly humiliated, or sent to special ‘camps,’ right?  (Whistling “The X-Files” theme.)

Shoot, what’d you think would happen?

It must have been 1996, after Texas approved that right-to-carry law, allowing citizens to acquire a permit to wear concealed handguns in public.  I was a reporter at a small newspaper in northeast Texas.  Soon as the law went into effect in January, folks from all around came to the newspaper office.  They stood in line outside the photo studio, and one by one entered for a head shot for their legal permits, like a driver’s license.  They all left smiling and chatting with one another, happy to finally see this day come to pass.

I, on the other hand, kept my big fat liberal thoughts to myself.  Still, I thought, “What in the world is going on out here!?!!”  Seemed like I’d stepped into a parallel universe.  To my mind, everyone carrying a gun in public was unimaginable throughout my lifetime, at least to the people I knew, mostly city dwellers.  But ever since that mass shooting in 1991 during lunch at Luby’s, millions of Texans remained on edge.  One of the survivors, whose gun was restricted to her car, swore she could have stopped the murderer if she had been allowed to carry her firearm into the cafeteria.  She determined to get legislation passed so everyone in Texas could have a shot at stopping a  public massacre next time … because, even though back then we didn’t know it, there most definitely would be a next time—dozens and dozens of mass shootings across the nation to this very day.

Back in Dallas for a New Year’s Eve party in 1995, my city friends and I laughed and laughed at the ludicrous gun law, a Wild West solution inappropriate to modern times given the nation’s enormous population most who live in close quarters.  We made fun of how gun-slingin’ might go down, pointing our fingers like a gun or holding a pretend rifle at each other: “You better smile when you’re lookin’ at me, cowboy.”  “You lookin’ at me?  I don’t see anyone else around, so you must be lookin’ at me!”  “Why you starin’ at me?” “What do you mean I owe $40 for a bar tab?  I don’t owe you s&^$!”  Pow!  Pop pop pop.  Rat-a-ta-a-ta-a-ta-a-ta-a.  We laughed so hard, we cried real tears.

At the time most of my city friends were not Texans and indeed hailed from way up north.  They’d never heard of people carrying guns in public.  Well now Texas is not called the Lone Star State for nothing.  Yet I shared my northern buddies’ ‘blown minds’ at the reality of allowing everyone to pack heat.  Even with so-called background checks, we could see what was bound to happen with more people carrying guns everywhere they go: more bloody shootings, maybe more shootings with the right-to-carry law than if we civilians weren’t allowed to have guns in public.

During the state’s controversial gun debate, I covered every step and talked with police chiefs and sheriffs, men who did not support the forthcoming law no way no how.  They stuck to their guns, so to speak, and tried to convince the public everybody should not be allowed to carry guns.  And then off the record, those same law officers advised me, a single young lady at the time, to keep a handgun for my protection and suggested tucking it underneath the driver’s seat of my car.  No way, I protested.  I was a city girl and didn’t like guns at’all.  I didn’t think anyone except the military and law officers should carry them.  It was how I was raised, the era in which.

Pointed right at me

So everyone was allowed to carry concealed guns including a fellow reporter.  This was brought to my attention with silent alarm during a weekly editorial meeting.  The staff would sit around the editor’s desk and toss story ideas for upcoming issues.  My reporter colleague folded one leg across the other so his foot was resting in my direction.  I could see his shoe and pant leg … and a small handgun pointing right at me.  He wore it in an ankle holster.  Unbelievable!  What in the world!?!  Guns everywhere I turn now!?  Trying not to make a scene, I got up and moved to another chair across the room and allowed someone else to take the bullet just in case of a discharge.  We hear about accidental gun blasts all the time, usually in homes.

After the disconcerting staff meeting, I privately talked with the editor about the situation, how unsafe I felt at work now with a co-worker packing heat, his desk right next to mine, and sitting next to me in meetings with a gun in an ankle holster.  Seemed like my right to work in a safe environment was being violated, I pointed out.  Weeks later businesses began posting “No Guns Allowed” signs including the newspaper where I was an employee.

As a reporter, on occasion I inadvertently raised the community’s ire, whether a column promoting a politically or socially liberal stance or news articles about a lawsuit against a major industry or how city committees were spending tax dollars.  The newspaper was embroiled in a lawsuit with the city before I came on board as government reporter.  Unaware of the suit, in my early days I sensed hostility from city directors.  They didn’t want to answer questions for articles or work with me as I reported on city affairs.  Nevertheless, I persevered.  I had to play hardball every once in awhile when it came to government entities all the way up to the feds.  A thoroughly redacted document comes to mind from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.  What I learned as a government reporter is government officials do not like reporters questioning anything they’re doing.

The loop

Having worked at a half dozen newspapers since high school, I was not surprised to hear about an irate citizen storming into a newsroom with a gun and commencing to shoot everyone in sight.  Reporters have a long if not ancient history of dealing with those who would shoot the messenger.  Security officers were provided at major city papers where I’ve worked.  Officers were stationed in the front and back entrances of large looming downtown buildings.  There were monitors and cameras on every floor, too, along with computerized entry cards we employees had to use to unlock steel doors, probably impenetrable to bullets.

But the small-town papers had no such security measures.  They were much more laid back with friendly staff and doors open to the public.  Anyone could step inside, even ignoring a “No Guns Allowed” sign.  And America has hundreds of community newspapers still in business by having websites with breaking news and advertising.

What is different about this day and age, besides everybody’s right to openly carry guns, is a leader who proclaims ‘the media is the enemy of the people’—as if we are living in an Orwellian society—and furthermore calls ‘fake’ news real and real news ‘fake’ just to confuse the masses and control the truth.  The American media is not and never has been the enemy of the people.  Free press is listed in our nation’s Bill of Rights.  It is and was that important because our Founding Fathers respected and expected the press, which would evolve into the mass media, to watch over the day-to-day work of all government branches—this to ensure our still burgeoning democracy.

Another difference in this era from the past is more reporters, usually war correspondents, have been killed doing their jobs: informing humanity about what’s going on and why it matters.  Here in America, now a newsroom enters the mass shooting loop: blood and gore, fear and panic, thoughts and prayers, family condolences, candlelight vigils, funerals and community mourning, sustained grief and emotional trauma … and then as always the deadly silence.