Image 01 Image 03

Jindal blames cultural rot and shooter’s father for Oregon massacre

Jindal blames cultural rot and shooter’s father for Oregon massacre

Reaction pretty much what you’d expect

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has long maintained America’s cultural trajectory is paramount to her economic valuation.

In the wake of the horrific mass shooting at an Oregon community college, Jindal released a statement railing against culture rot.

Another week, another mass shooting, another press conference by the President lecturing us on the need for gun control, and now Hillary and Obama are in a race to see which of them can be the most extreme in trying to destroy the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Rinse and repeat.

But there is something missing from this discussion, and it’s a glaring omission that everyone knows deep down, but politicians are afraid to talk about.

I’m going to go ahead and talk about it, and I don’t care at all if some people don’t like it, the truth is important.

What is the root cause of all these evil acts? These people who go into classrooms and churches and murder innocent people? How did we get to this place?

These shootings are a symptom of deep and serious cultural decay in our society.

Let that sink in for a minute.

These acts of evil are a direct result of cultural rot, and it is cultural rot that we have brought upon ourselves, and then we act like we are confounded and perplexed by what is happening here.

Jindal then went on to blame the killer’s father for the mass shooting:

  • Now, let’s get really politically incorrect here and talk specifically about this horror in Oregon. This killer’s father is now lecturing us on the need for gun control and he says he has no idea how or where his son got the guns.
  • Of course he doesn’t know. You know why he doesn’t know? Because he is not, and has never been in his son’s life. He’s a complete failure as a father, he should be embarrassed to even show his face in public. He’s the problem here.
  • He brags that he has never held a gun in his life and that he had no idea that his son had any guns. Why didn’t he know? Because he failed to raise his son. He should be ashamed of himself, and he owes us all an apology.
  • When he was asked what his relationship was with his son, he said he hadn’t seen him in a while because he lived with his mother. Case Closed.
  • He closed by saying:

    This mess is not nearly as complicated as we pretend.

    It’s the old computer axiom – garbage in, garbage out. We fill our culture with garbage, and we reap the result.

    If anyone is at all serious about changing any of this, they must address the root problems, and those are cultural decay, the glorification of evil, the devaluation of human life, the breakdown of the family, and specifically the complete abdication of fathers.

    Meanwhile, the shallow and simple minded liberals will continue to blame pieces of hardware for the problem, and they will long for the days before firearms were invented.

    But the simple truth is, as long as we place no value on human life, as long as we glorify senseless violence and evil, we will get the exact same result.

    Not everyone was thrilled with Jindal’s straight talk though:

    He seems nice:

    Charles Pearce Esquire Punch Jindal in Dick

    Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Father’s absent from the lives of their children is not a bug, but a feature of the world feminist and their wimpy male allies. The social welfare war on poverty totally trashed the black family in America. Are there deadbeat dads? Yes. Is the percentage of women who are deadbeat moms higher? Yes. We have stacked the deck against marriage and men. My ex-wife hates me so much she would rather her children not have a father than we have decent relations. So back off Bobby.

      NC Mountain Girl in reply to Milwaukee. | October 6, 2015 at 11:10 pm

      Knock off the victim act. For every women you describe, I’ll show you one or more sperm donors who have an out of sight out of mind attitude towards the child they sired. Indeed, they often show more outward concern for the children of the women they are currently sleeping with than they do their own offspring.

        No. The over abundance of legitimate victims doesn’t mean any of the victims needs to stand down.

        Are there men out there playing and not giving a rip about the consequences of their sexual activity? Yes. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t men who have been chased away. Are there women out there who don’t give a rip about the consequences of their sexual activity? You bet there are. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t women who believe the lies they have been told and are now hurt.

        The individual men and women are hurt, as are the children.

        Those men who are players, there has to be something wrong with their souls for them to be so callously indifferent to their children.

    An excellent book, Takedown From communists to progressives how the left has sabotaged family and marriage. describes how those opposed to marriage have used same-sex marriage as a blunt instrument to continue a long-war against marriage. That social welfare net encourages single-mom parenting is a feature of progressive life. The Communists in Russia loved abortion and divorce, as it makes it easier for the state to get the children. Did the dad leave of his own accord, or did the mother make it perfectly clear that she wanted him gone and he was going to be gone?

    Too many men in prison didn’t have fathers in the home. Not having a father in their life is a common denominator amongst such shooters. But society isn’t helping the dads.

    How about that dad in Ohio. His wife was having an affair with another man, and separated for a while. They had a brief re-union which didn’t work out, but lo and behold, she is pregnant. He gets stuck with child support and alimony and she goes back to the boyfriend she left him for in the first place. Turns out DNA testing that the boyfriend was the father, but the cuckolded husband is paying child support for another man’s child.

      Valerie in reply to Milwaukee. | October 6, 2015 at 11:59 pm

      It always comes down to the money, for the absent father.

        Milwaukee in reply to Valerie. | October 7, 2015 at 12:33 am

        Not always.
        There are indifferent dads. But some are driven away.
        When my grandmother left my grandfather back in 1932 her lawyer advised her to ask for child support in order to keep the father away. She did, just out of spite. Sometimes it is the mother who wants the father gone and the money is just a blunt instrument to force that. My mother has struggled with the sense of abandonment all her life because of the lies my grandmother told her about her dad leaving.

        Milwaukee in reply to Valerie. | October 7, 2015 at 12:52 am

        “The pain of abandonment by a parent is immense and long-term. “

        Absolutely. So how do we strengthen families so they can nurture each other and provide for the health and wellbeing of their children?

          forksdad in reply to Milwaukee. | October 7, 2015 at 1:16 pm

          The answer is anathema to liberals and libertarians but we strengthen marriage, fatherhood, and re-stigmatize divorce and bastardy.

          Unfortunately far too many families have one or more women who have had children out of wedlock for that to be palatable. Widow used to mean something. Single mother didn’t exist as a term. Now it is a societal norm. Force women to deal with the results of their choices, no free money from the state, no child support unless you were married.

          Watch the rate of illegitimate children drop.

        forksdad in reply to Valerie. | October 7, 2015 at 1:11 pm

        And for the mother. She has the entire force of the media and law behind her. Why stay when she can simply leave and get the money?

    For him to be catching that much flak, he must be directly over the target.

    Well said, Governor Jindal.

      DaveGinOly in reply to 2KC. | October 6, 2015 at 10:43 pm

      Neat metaphor!

      Eastwood Ravine in reply to 2KC. | October 7, 2015 at 1:31 am

      Jindal has an uncanny ability to cut to the heart of the matter, and speak truth to power.

      userpen in reply to 2KC. | October 7, 2015 at 3:12 pm

      I would hardly call blaming someone else as being over the target. In fact, I do not think Jindal was anywhere near the target. If, however, he had blamed the person who did it and proclaimed that the shooter himself is responsible for his own actions I would say that he was starting to move a little closer toward the target.

      On the other hand, if the shooter had lived to face trial Jindal would have made an excellent defense attorney.

    Nice of you to give him some space, but he’s not going anywhere. Yeah, he’s a governor. But we’ve got 49 others. Plus, Hillary and Biden in this mix.

    The left’s reaction seems to be the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears, and going “Na na na na na I can’t hear you!”.

    “Shut up!”, they explained.

    Jindal is correct. This father essentially wrote off his son and moved on to his new and improved family.

    Jindal has a point, and he sounds like he is speaking from close observation.

    The pain of abandonment by a parent is immense and long-term. There is no substitute for an absent, living parent. The children of such parents suffer. People who say that such children “will be fine,” are lying. Such children may eventually recover, but they are not uninjured.

      JoAnne in reply to Valerie. | October 7, 2015 at 12:41 am

      Yes, agree, and I speak from experience. There is nothing worse than being abandoned by a parent. In my case it was my mother.

    MouseTheLuckyDog | October 7, 2015 at 2:18 am

    Jindal is playing a political game almost as bad as Obama’s.

    It’s hard to say what the fathers role in all this was, but it was not a major one.

    Apparently the shooter was some sort of BLMer or “jihadist” and even left behind some sort of manifesto behind, which we for some reason are not getting to see.

    Blaming the father just takes the spotlight off that.

      tom swift in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | October 7, 2015 at 3:49 am

      Your causality is a bit messed up.

      The shooter didn’t become a homicidal fruitcake because he wrote a manifesto. Jindal is saying that something else caused it; which is probably true.

      Apparently the shooter was some sort of BLMer or “jihadist”

      You need to stop believing everything you read over at The Conservative Nut House.

        Sammy Finkelman in reply to Amy in FL. | October 7, 2015 at 10:31 am

        He was more interested in the Irish Republcan Army (not for their ideology, though)) and previous shooting spree killers.

        When it came to religion, judging from reports he was either an strongly anti-Christian atheist or a Satanist.

        One report is he believed he would be given a good job in Hell by Satan if he killed a good number of Christians.

    To be sure each situation is unique.

    To be sure, also, Jindal makes a clarion observation: a decidedly moral culture and strong familial ties are the supports a society needs. These ARE the indispensible welfare nets.

    I would add that economics is tertiary and far behind. And, knowing the true God is primary and of utmost import.

    This guy, from the information at hand, was a loner and separated from a support system of faith, hope and love. As such, he turned to “pure” power over others when his feelings of powerlessness overcame him. He came to his conclusion with the aiding and abetting reinforcement of the dark side of the internet, an evil part of this culture where nothing is good or true.

    Guns laws have much the same effect as “Gun Free Zone” signage. Those blinded by having blotted out all light of hope – change for the “better” – do not see them. Gun laws do not create morality. Material well-being does not create morality. But during the course of one’s life strong family ‘bridges” and a morally supportive culture stand “athwart [your] history yelling ‘Stop!’.”

    Without the above supports in place to bump into in the dark willful blindness becomes utter outer darkness.

      Yesterday’s Chicago Sun Times (ST) headline has Chicago’s City Council’s Black Caucus calling for the firing of Chicago’s Top Cop Garry McCarthy. Ald. Roderick Sawyer (6th) is quoted as saying,

      “The crime and violence in our communities have grabbed national headlines across the country…It is clear that the current approach has been ineffective.”

      If anyone should be fired it should be Chicago’s City Council and Mayor Rahm Emanuel for making Chicago a Sanctuary City. Take a look any day at the police blotter in the Sun Times and then read this…

      “The Chicago City Council approved an ordinance Thursday that aims to prevent some undocumented immigrants from being detained or deported by federal immigration authorities.”

      Chicago’s “Welcoming City Ordinance” will protect undocumented immigrants from being held for immigration authorities after coming in contact with city police, unless they have been convicted of a serious crime or are a wanted criminal for whom an arrest warrant has already been issued.

      It would appear that Chicago City Council along with the Mayor has brought the dire circumstances down upon themselves.

      Frederic Bastiat, a French classical liberal theorist and political economist, said, [It is to be] “asserted that the sole purpose of government is to protect the right of an individual to life, liberty, and property, and why it is dangerous and morally wrong for government to interfere with an individual’s other personal matters.”

      Chicago City Council’s Black Caucus had better reconsider the “Welcoming City” harboring of crime perps and also consider deeply delving into their own personal matters to see where the real problem of gun violence lay-in the heart of its people and not in its hand.

        Sammy Finkelman in reply to jennifer a johnson. | October 7, 2015 at 10:36 am

        it should be Chicago’s City Council and Mayor Rahm Emanuel for making Chicago a Sanctuary City.

        I don’t know where you get the idea that these people are criminals (probably false propaganda emanating from the Border Guards union and other sources) but these people are more likely to be crime victims.

        Everybody who lives in the real worls knows that – everybody knows that the subgroup of the ppulation most likely to be a criminals (since approximately 1935) are people whose ancestry in this country goes back to well before 1865.

          I knew two people killed by illegal aliens. I heard the shot fired from my front porch. My wife knew three people killed by illegal aliens.

          Tell me more since you’re an expert on the subject.

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to jennifer a johnson. | October 7, 2015 at 10:26 am

      His mother, like Adam Lanza’s mother (the Sandy Hook shooter) was very interested in guns, and got her son interested in guns. And she was divorced.

      One dfference: This killer didn’t kill his mother. But then, he could take the guns without raising an alarm.

    Sammy Finkelman | October 7, 2015 at 6:48 am

    These acts of evil are a direct result of cultural rot

    That’s probably true, in some respect, but it is irrelevant. You can’t do anything about the cultural rot. There will always be some. On the pother hand, Most people have strong enough ethical values, or at least perceived self-interest in not becoming mass shooters.

    In some cases, the perceived self-interest in continuing to live, and live free, disappears, perhaps because the person in question believes his free life is about to be over, or never got started and never will, and he seeks revenge on the world.

    These shootings are already strongly deterred. It is almost never done except when the person in question anticipates that he will die, but the person usually wants to rack up the score, and avoids venues where he feels might be interrupted sooner.

    He is not only almost totally disatisfied with his life, but feels, or fears, things will get much worse for him soon, and he’ll lose whatever satisfaction in life he has.

    There is usually a period between about two weeks or so and eight or nine months in which this is planned, but the guns or the first guns, were acquired earlier.

    Gov Jindal is on target and the number of liberal complaints will tell you how accurate he is. Since the 70’s and 80’s we had the same number of guns and people who owned them but had no or very few mass shootings. Why? It was the crumbling of our society and it’s morals that have changed. The one iron fist that held most of us in check, whether we were members or not, was religion. It really didn’t matter which one because they all had basic decency as its core. That has changed dramatically and the peer pressure that came from that core is gone too. People today are live and let live types who don’t condemn uncivil or unethical behavior. Look at the scum we call Hollywood! In the 40′ and 50’s actors were held to a high standard by the public but not now. Fame comes from how antisocial a person can be and get away with it.
    The other part of this issue is the single parent family. Look at the similarities of the Sandy Hook shooter and this one. They both had absentee fathers and mothers who used guns and shooting to solicit love from their impaired child. Both children were outcasts and lonely. In today’s world that kind of person has no friends or anyone who cares because we have learned that caring will only get us into trouble. Gun control for the 99.99% of law abiding citizens is not the answer. The answer is no more “Gun Free” zones!

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to inspectorudy. | October 7, 2015 at 1:49 pm

      Since the 70’s and 80’s we had the same number of guns and people who owned them but had no or very few mass shootings. Why? It was the crumbling of our society and it’s morals that have changed

      A letter oin the Wall Street Journal todat (by Robert L. Kirkman, M.D. of Rangeley, Maine) says maybe what’s changed is the introduction of serotin uptake inhibitors like Prozac or Paxil.

      He says what they do is reduce inhibitions that old people in check. (i.e. make them bolder) Dr. Kirkman thought that maybe that was their conscience. I think such people don’t really have a conscience in the first place, but what they do have is caution.

      But there’s no word here on whether or not Oregon shooting gunman Chris Harper-Mercer was taking Prozac, but he was taking something for his Aspergers * – at one point he refused to take whatever he was being given at the time, or they wanted to give him at the time (Risperidone) and his mother had him locked up.

      Sometimes, when someone is being given something to make him or her more confident and bold, the decision the person can take is suicide, or even homicide. But you can say this for it: it won’t be an impulsive decision. And this wasn’t.

      * Aspergers was abolished as a diagnosis in 2012, but is still used informally, and he had been diagonosed before, when the label existed. One of his screen names was “lithium love” and his moher said he has some mental problems, (as evinced by his aversion to cockroaches?!)

    Henry Hawkins | October 7, 2015 at 9:47 am

    Both the shooter and his mother had Asperger’s Syndrome (according to mother’s online history):

    “Asperger’s syndrome, also called Asperger’s disorder, is a type of pervasive developmental disorder (PDD). PDDs are a group of conditions that involve delays in the development of many basic skills, most notably the ability to socialize with others, to communicate, and to use imagination. There is a spectrum within the PDD disorders.”

    It was the dad! It was the mom! It was cultural rot! = false trichotomy. It could have been one, all, or none of these. But, once again, we apparently have a shooter with a history of mental illness and there are limits to what a parent can do in response, especially once a child reaches adulthood.

    If the shooter does have Asperger’s, his social isolation and resultant pathology is explained, but after the fact, too late for the victims.

    While an Asperger’s person has problems with social interaction, they can easily manage the weapons purchase and licensing procedures. The shooter’s mother, also with Asperger’s by her report, legally owned several weapons and took her son, the shooter, to the range regularly. One of these two Asperger’s people apparently lived an otherwise normal, law-abiding life, while the other shot and killed nine people.

    This is the problem with the necessary action of MH screening as a predictor of violence – research shows a high prevalence of mental illness among mass shooters – depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, personality disorders, etc. – but only a very small percentage of any one diagnostic group ever gets violent at all, and far fewer than that ever go on mass killings. So, you get a microcosm of the larger issue of taking away the gun rights of everyone in order to stop a very small percentage of potentially violent people from obtaining a weapon legally.

    There have been some mass killers who had no apparent mental illness history prior to the killing, but a confluence of traumatic experiences was identified. The guy, for example, who loses a child to illness, then gets laid off, then his wife leaves him – not an uncommon set of problems among a population of 300 million people. Even then, only a very small percentage of men in that situation will go to a mall or school and start killing people.

    Almost all mental illness screen-outs on gun purchase background checks are because of records of their having been adjudicated mentally incompetent, but again, only a small number of mentally incompetent people end up adjudicated as such in a court of law.

    The more I think about it, the less I see a role for the government or mental health system* in screening out the potentially violent mentally ill from legal gun purchases. I think it can only be accomplished by responsible people in a knowing proximity to the person – family, friends, co-workers, church members, etc. – people who need education on the signs of potential violence as a result of mental illness.

    Even conservatives like me have to work hard to not automatically assume answers will come from government or institutions.

    *RE: Giving mental health agency professionals authority to identify and report patients they believe too dangerous to legally own a weapon…. in my experience, which is long and wide, about 99% of mental health professionals are liberal, many to the extreme. They will identify EVERY patient as too potentially dangerous for legal gun ownership. The mental health field is more liberal than the public education field, if that’s possible. The liberal anti-gun lobby would immediately co-opt any such apparatus within the MH field to further their own ends, and the MH field would welcome them with open arms. Such a system would be politically poisoned before it ever started.

      If I were a psychiatrist and I had to tick a box for every patient, “safe to own guns” or “not safe to own guns,” I’d always go with the latter, for the sake of avoiding liability if nothing else. In the one in a million case that one of your patients did end up going out there and shooting up a school, you wouldn’t want to be the one who had okayed them to have guns.

      But then, of course, once it gets out that the mere fact of seeking professional help means that you’re going to be banned from owning guns for the rest of your life, there are going to be a lot of people who could probably do with some help but who are going to avoid it for precisely that reason.

      It’s really a stupid position to put mental health professionals in.

        Semper Why in reply to Amy in FL. | October 7, 2015 at 11:52 am

        We just spent 20 years getting states to finally take the decision of “may have permit” / “may not have permit” out of the hands of local law enforcement because it was being abused. It was handled in widely different ways and opened up a pathway for corruption, favoritism and actual harm due to stubborn individuals with power.

        Why on earth would we start up a new arbitrary & corrupt system when we had just ditched the old one?

        forksdad in reply to Amy in FL. | October 7, 2015 at 1:33 pm

        Not how it works. They despise guns but are okay with pedophiles in many cases. I argued once with a psychologist about it. Most of those the state released would harm another child at some point and she said, “But we have to give them the chance!”

        On the other hand she believed no one should own or use guns even to defend their own life.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Amy in FL. | October 7, 2015 at 3:34 pm

        “If I were a psychiatrist and I had to tick a box for every patient, “safe to own guns” or “not safe to own guns,” I’d always go with the latter, for the sake of avoiding liability if nothing else.”

        That’s how a lot of people get committed involuntarily, by liability conscious docs letting the admitting facility take the risk of releasing the patient.

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 7, 2015 at 1:24 pm

      The more I think about it, the less I see a role for the government or mental health system* in screening out the potentially violent mentally ill from legal gun purchases. I think it can only be accomplished by responsible people in a knowing proximity to the person – family, friends, co-workers, church members, etc. – people who need education on the signs of potential violence as a result of mental illness.

      That’s what I said about ten people – AT LEAST THREE FROM THE OPPOSITE SEX – vouching for someone, with some sort of disincentive to avoid being wrong.

      But what’s this about signs, and “education” If there’s a problem, there’s no secret.

      forksdad in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 7, 2015 at 1:36 pm

      I also have a long and deep experience with the mentally ill and the psychiatric profession. They would very quickly certify everyone who asked for an ambien as unsafe to own a gun. In addition they would get to evaluate people for everything from a DUI to DV certainly to include ‘hate crimes’ in the future.

      Very quickly no one who had anything to do with the health care field would be able to own a gun.

    I completely agree, Henry. I would give you a “Thumbs Up” but my work computer doesn’t allow me to do so.

    I could imagine that centralized government using state “licensed” MH professionals to ‘weed out” troubled persons would quickly devolve, like most government programs, into a social engineering experiment and from there into mental eugenics and some serious profiling. I could imagine all young white guys being rounded up and hauled off to a sanctuary somewhere without question. The young black guys would be told they need jobs to succeed in life.

    Two recent books come to mind, also:
    Robert Whitaker, author of Anatomy of an Epidemic, asks the question, here paraphrased…
    Is there a correlation between the increase of prescribed psychotropic medications over the past twenty-five years and the current epidemic of disabling mental illness? He notes that the disabled mentally ill place a significant burden on society.
    Admirable Evasions by Theodore Dalrymple

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to jennifer a johnson. | October 7, 2015 at 2:03 pm

      Anatomy of an Epidemic id a very good book.

      Did you notice that not only do these drugs severely reduce the quality of life, but they shorten lifespan as well.

      Drugs given to “schizophrenics” are twice as harmful to life expectancy as smoking. See page 211 and footnotes 2 and 3 on pages 279-280. Whittaker doesn’t make the comparison to smoking but smoking is known to reduce life expectancy by 8 years and antipsychotic drugs reduce life expectancy by 15-20 years.

      People may find that hard to believe but it is absolutely true. The boggest thinbg is cardivascular effects maybe but it’s a lot of other things too, just like smoking. And smoking has a more positive and non-disabling mental effect.

      It’s the drugs given to treat it not whatever may be the condition being treated that does this. And “recovery rates” are far better for those people not given drugs. (pages 115-117)

      When the patients reject these drugs as poisons – and they almost universally do, even after taking them – they are right. Any desirable effects that someone may think they are getting is actually a side effect.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to jennifer a johnson. | October 7, 2015 at 3:49 pm

      “Is there a correlation between the increase of prescribed psychotropic medications over the past twenty-five years and the current epidemic of disabling mental illness?”

      Definitely, but causation is another matter. The last 30-40 years of psychiatry has seen a slow abandonment of therapy and counseling in favor of a greater reliance on medications. While that same period of time has seen some remarkable medication success stories, there is, in my opinion, an overreliance on meds. The past 30-40 years has also seen what I’d call a washing out of the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual (DSM), with a lot liberal/sociological additions and substractions made for other than clinical/scientific reasons. Any/most uptick in diagnoses may be due to redrawing all the diagnostic lines in a more inclusionary direction.

      There is also a vested interest for MI tx providers – the more your practice is ‘med-heavy’ vs. counseling + meds, the cheaper your costs. It takes less time, therefore less staff, and takes less space in your appointment book (a 5 minute med check vs a one hour counseling session and a 5 min med check).

      Most contributory to MI disability, if you mean the ‘officially-signed-up-for-gov-benefits’ definition, is the fact that virtually every mental health, substance abuse, developmental disability, and social services agency of any size has staff dedictated to nothing else but getting patients signed up for every possible benefit they can – so they have more benefits they can bill them for, of course. When we talk about people being dependent on government benefits, it is impoirtant to note that a great many agencies, facilities, hospitals, etc., etc., are every bit as dependent on them too.

        forksdad in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 7, 2015 at 5:28 pm

        We couldn’t do anything else if we wanted to. We’ve closed the facilities, we haven’t trained staff like we used to in decades, we’ve written laws and administrative codes that make the involuntary commitment not just impossible but a pipe-dream.

        Where once we could commit those who were dangerous to themselves and others we simply cannot keep any but the most dangerous (usually to themselves) or least functional.

        Therapy and a safe environment are not on the table any more. So it’s drugs or nothing. And while we are on the subject most schiz types I have dealt with who are not in a facility try everything under the sun to self medicate besides their Rx stuff. Plus, they engage in behaviors that are distinctly risky for themselves and others. Many wind up in jail or prison not exactly known for extending your life expectancy.

        Combine that with the rough living many do and you’ll have a hard time separating what is caused by the Rx drugs (which they need to keep from eating the neighbor’s cat) and the rest of their environmental factors.

        One major example: The LGBT “community” has lobbied aggressively to remove an inference of neurosis or psycho-somatic abnormalities from the DSM even though the group’s number in toto is minuscule compared to the general population. Their abnormal behavior sticks out especially when so much public narcissistic whining goes on….

        Conversion therapy: Sadly, Illinois Gov. Rauner recently signed a bill into law banning conversion therapy in Illinois. “Illinois [became] the fourth state (and the District of Columbia) to ban the abusive practice of “conversion therapy” for minors, which unsuccessfully seeks to turn gay people into heterosexuals. Quote from…

        I know of several groups who have successfully done reparative therapy with regard to homosexuality. These groups and the people they have helped would refute the terribly inaccurate and irresponsible statement by TWO above. I know of several former homosexuals who have removed themselves from the lifestyle with the help of para-church organizations. Groups like TWO make no bones about the fact that they devoutly hate Christianity and any thought of relinquishing their narcissism.

        The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) has in fact helped those homosexuals who want to leave that “abusive” lifestyle. But it is not easy to do this in this Age of Feelings. Like AGW there is a lot of bad and politicized scientism when it comes to homosexuality and variations of deviant sexuality and gender dysphoria.

        Just from lobbying aspect alone, one could easily imagine, say for example, the Congressional Black Caucus and those who pander to the Black Caucus lobbying to put away people who they even think is “white privileged.”

    No fault divorce makes marriages disposable like everything else.

    The State-establishment of a pro-choice cult, including elective abortion, congruences (e.g. “=”), [class] diversity, superior rights (e.g. affirmative action), anti-native immigration policies, inequitable trade, liberal and progressive expansion of man-made conflicts, etc. has sponsored progressive corruption.

    Sammy Finkelman | October 7, 2015 at 2:19 pm

    The cultural rot that may be the ultimate underlying cause is much more basic than anyone I think would readily contemplate doing without.

    The problem is premarital sex.

    This is so deep rooted now, that I read an advice columnist in the Wall street Journal say (what’s at the link will change next weekend)

    Breakups are one of the great universal human experiences.

    In Dan Arielly’s universe they are, They didn’t use to be universal.

    Libs love to compare guns to licensing to cars. So ok, lets license guns like cars.
    You can get a license at 16 or 17 depending on the state just like a drivers license. Pass the written test and take a few shots at the range to get your license.
    Now you take your gun everywhere you can take a car. Hello NYC, Chicago, D.C. etc.
    Forget to carry your license and get stoppped? Here’s your ticket, pay it and the offense drops off in 3 years. Doesn’t keep you from owning the gun though.
    No one has to undergo a background check or mental health check.
    I can put a muffler on the gun to keep the noise down.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to 4fun. | October 7, 2015 at 9:17 pm

      Plus many states hand out driver licenses to illegals. Why not gun permits? Are they allowed to drive but not defend themselves or hunt? The horror!

    Dan Qayle had something similar to say and was just as intelligent. Unfortunately society didn’t listen to him,either.

    Char Char Binks | October 8, 2015 at 3:33 pm

    How was Ian Mercer responsible while his ADULT son was living with his mother? Why aren’t people blaming Laurel Harper, and showing her face all over TV and the net, for following in the footsteps of Nancy Lanza, only without the deserved death at the hands of her son?

    An absentee father and a mother who shielded her son who had obvious mental issues, but it it the fault of a gun. For many this an emotional issue, and no amount of facts will persuade them. Additionally the mainstream media never wants to mention the use of psychotropic drugs either.