Constant State of Mind

My mind is constantly in a state of analysis:

Am I following that car too close?

Does my hair need cut?

Is my geriatic cat limping?

But probably the most reoccuring thought is this:
What do I want to do with my life?

And following at a close second:
How do I reach that goal?

When asked about what interests me most, I tend to fluctuate between art/graphic design and writing. Some say it's really the same: the act of being creative. But I don't know. If it's basically the same coin, then why do I feel the need to choose one over the other? And why is it that I can be completely passionate about art one day, and the next the mere sight of my sketchbook makes me want to hurl it out the window? Why is it that on the commute to and from work, I can think of a million things to write about, but as soon as I reach my destination, I have no desire to pick up my pen and start writing?

Perhaps it has to do with what it means to write or to create art. Some say that whatever you create holds a bit of you within it. The Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowlings has been analysed up and down by psychologists searching to uncover the bits of the author sprinkled within the characters and plots.

As part of National Novel Writing Month this past November, I crafted a story in which the main character ended up struggling with many of the same issues I have experienced over the years. They say to write what you know, right? The funny thing is, it was never intentional. I never sat down and thought about making my protagonist walk down a path similar to my own. And in all honesty, our paths aren't completely identical; rather the underlying themes are reflective of our own individual journey. Is it possible to write or create art without bits of you binding to it?

Are you a WYSIWYG?

A few days ago I sat across from an acquaintance, and I watched as his hands danced delightfully in the air, a common occurrence whenever he’s telling a good story. A buzzing sound breaks his concentration. His cell phone, wrapped in a bright purple casing—a color usually favored by teenage girls rather than professional men—bounced around on the wooden desk, letting him know he had a new text message. He held up his index finger, a gesture to excuse himself for a moment, and turned in his chair. Picking up the phone, he smoothed out his bright green tie and tilted his head back to read the message through his glasses. He chuckled and then turned his attention back to his story. As he crossed his legs, I noticed his argyle socks were brown and dark orange. I smiled to myself as I looked at his pink shirt and wondered if he cared that he was the epitome of a fashion faux pas.

Having known this guy for a while, I know that he doesn’t care what people think about his choices—not just in clothing, but in other aspects of his life as well. He once told me he liked the color pink… so he wears it. He doesn’t have an affinity for the color purple, but he does enjoy knowing where his phone is and the purple color makes it stand out, making it easier to find.

I have come to know that he isn’t one to conform to rules just because they are rules, and he has no problem with questioning the status quo. He makes no excuses for the things he finds humorous and treats all four letter words as if they were equal.

Over the past few months, I have begun to think of him as a WYSIWYG: What You See Is What You Get. He doesn’t seem like the type to put on a facade just to try and fit in with a particular crowd. He appears to be genuinely comfortable with who he is, and I find that quite fascinating.

Has he always been a WYSIWYG? Or is it something you can only achieve when you’ve experienced a bit of life? I admit, I would like to be a WYSIWYG, but I think that would probably require knowing who I really am. It would also mean being self-confident and believing that it’s OK just to be me. I’m not quite there… yet. Maybe I just need to go through a little more BS in my life before I finally say ‘enough!’ and turn into a WYSIWYG. It seems like an attainable goal, don’t you think?

The debate over gun control and the mentally ill

My reaction to Fox News Sunday: Captain Mark Kelly and Wayne LaPierre (February 3, 2013)

I like to keep the local Fox news on while I go about cleaning on Sunday mornings. And when the local news signs off, I typically change the channel to something mindless. This past Sunday, I was in the middle of laundry so I just left the channel where it was. Fox News Sunday came on, and the discussion of gun control was the main topic.

Captain Mark Kelly, husband of former Representative Gabby Giffords, spoke out about the Americans for Responsible Solutions group he and his wife has formed in an effort to lessen gun violence in our country. I agree with their group’s overall goal of lessening gun violence. However, I take issue with the ease in which Cpt. Kelly groups the mentally ill with terrorists and criminals.

Throughout his interview with Chris Wallace, Cpt. Kelly spoke about how stronger background checks and limits on ammunition would make it difficult for “criminals and the mentally ill to get assault weapons and high capacity magazines and guns in general”.

Cpt. Kelly added, “I personally don't believe that we should have, you know, the average person on the street, including criminals, mentally ill and terrorists should[n’t] have easy access to those weapons.”

I had hoped that the news of mental illness in relation to the recent tragedies around our country would finally bring mental illness awareness to light and provide for an open discussion. I had hoped that America would see that mental illness is real and that funding is a priority. It seems that my hope has turned into something much less desirable. Mental illness is being used as a scapegoat to take the focus off of guns.

The result is that many people—people like Cpt. Kelly—are now looking at those suffering with mental illness as potentially violent individuals. People we should scoop up off the streets and force them into mental institutions. It seems quite obvious that Cpt. Kelly knows next to nothing about the world of mental illness. Fact is, the percentage of mental ill who commit violence crimes is not disproportionate to the crimes committed by the general, “sane” public. Fact is, those with mental illness are much more likely to be the victims of crime rather than the instigators. Fact is, an average of one in four adults will suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in any given year. Look around at your friends as you enjoy an evening dinner at your favorite restaurant. One of the four of you will or is suffering from a mental disorder. Does that mean they should be feared as being potentially violent?

In the same show, Wayne LaPierre, chief spokesman for the NRA, discussed the idea that mental records should be made available for background checks when purchasing guns. First, the NRA often points to the Constitution of the United States for their right to keep and bear arms. Did they happen to miss the part where we, as Americans, have the right to privacy? Does a person with glaucoma have to disclose that information when purchasing a gun? No? Doesn’t having an eye disorder make it dangerous to shoot a gun? Hmm.

Secondly, statistics show that nearly 50% of those with mental illness go undiagnosed. LaPierre points out in his interview that law-abiding people would essentially be the victims of background checks, getting “caught up in a bureaucratic nightmare” while the criminals bypass gun regulation by purchasing guns illegally. I would have to argue the same point applied to the access of mental health records. A law-abiding individual with a mental disorder on his or her record (whether under control or not) would become the victim of such regulations, while the undiagnosed pass the record check. I’m not suggesting that potential criminals lie only in the 50% of undiagnosed; I’m just pointing out that even if mental health records were made available, they would be largely ineffective.

Despite my own personal objection to guns, I don’t believe that more gun control is the answer to preventing the tragedies of late. Nor do I believe that the mentally ill are any more likely to commit these crimes than the average person. I honestly don’t know what would have prevented the innocent deaths from occurring.  Perhaps an article posted on the Facebook page for R.I.P. Sandy Hook Elementary School Children says it best:

The answer does not lie within changes to the state or government, it lies within ourselves. If we truly want to create a world of peace, it would require every single individual to have a change in their nature. A change in the way we view each other, and a change in the way we act. What is the solution? How would we do such a thing? I honestly wish I knew.

As this debate continues into the foreseeable future, I hope that we stop lumping those with mental illness in the same category as criminals and terrorists. They are not one and the same. There is already a stigma surrounding mental illness in our country, oftentimes preventing individuals from seeking the help they need. A stigma that causes individuals to suffer silently. Likening someone with a mental disorder to a criminal or terrorist will do nothing but perpetuate the problem.