Gaudete Sunday.

Rejoice in the Lord always...

again I say, rejoice. Let your forbearance be known to all, for the Lord is near at hand; have no anxiety about anything, but in all things, by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be known to God. Lord, you have blessed your land; you have turned away the captivity of Jacob.

— Philippians 4:4–6; Psalm 85 (84):1

Despite the otherwise somber readings of the season of Advent, which has as a secondary theme the need for penitence, the readings on the third Sunday emphasize the joyous anticipation of the Lord's coming.

I like that our priest today did not deviate from the program; his homily was about rejoicing, and he didn't once address the tragedy out East.

Personally, we're not affected, especially the older people, the young kids awaiting Christmas, and the non parents with no kids in the schools to worry over. The media, including the new media blogs* looking to leach off these "hot" topics have reason -- $$$ -- to stir things up, the politicians not so much.

The more attention we pay the killer, the more trouble we're going to see from this demographic, particularly all the sheltered kids whose parents have been collecting monthly disability checks, plus caregiver supplements, for their child's mental disabilities, who age out and are unable to meet the higer level of adult disability.

Suddenly, all the individualized, specialized education plans the schools had to shield them from reality are gone; it's them and the real world, with a special education that does not prepare them for that. Some fight and fight (with parental help) to gain adult disability, but it takes time, years, to build the medical and vocational case that you really are prevented from ever being gainfully employed in life to justify the continued check until you're 65.

Not Downs' syndrome level disabilities, I mean the behavorial mental ones that the kids have spent their student years regularly medicated for.

I don't know about this latest killer's treatment plan, or alleged mental disability. But imagine all the kids coming up now who won't have a successful transition. Tough love for tantrums is probably easier at 7 or 8, or the teen years even, than it is for little boys in adult bodies at 20 and up.

Will we talk about that? Overhauling the childhood SSI program or addressing those left out at transition to adulthood time? Doubtful.

Will we talk about mandatory relinquishment of rights, so authorities can better monitor the drug.alcohol use of our mentally ill; make unannounced check-up's on them; or even require mandatory institutionalization, if it rises to that level? Doubtful too, even if we could afford to shift the savings from the defunct War on Drugs (it's over; we lost; declare it already.) and its imprisonment to rebuilding smaller and better mental health institutions again.

I represented a man once, who testified during his SSI hearing for alleged mental illness that, "the voices tell me to kill". The judge noted it, ended up awarding the disability, and the man walked out, heading home to his infant son (check for the offspring of a disabled person, too! ca-ching), girlfriend, and a work-free future. Social worker was ok with that. Judge maybe did not know. I didn't stick at that job long...

But I did learn enough to know that if you qualify for a monthly check based on a diagnosed mental illness that proves you are unable to work full time to support yourself or function in society, then you shouldn't walk away with the designation, the monthly payment AND the same rights afforded to competent free men and women.

Of course, the whole Social Security program will collapse before we address those things. Another: why does the disabled minor child of a wealthy man (say, Downs syndrome) need a monthly check for support, if the family is not indigent? For that matter, why are even ADULT offspring of the wealthy, again with something diagnostically unquestioned like Downs syndrome say, rewarded with a monthly check once they reach adulthood and the age of independence? Can't people take care of their own anymore?

Making the disabled rich, rich enough not to work yet to live a very, very comfortable lifestyle for their base needs, is not my idea of "safety net". Still, if you had a Downs syndrome child or otherwise disabled child and you were wealthy, I doubt you'd complain.

One mentally disabled man in a little town over (Barron) passed and left tens of thousands -- I forget the exact figure -- to charities around town. Seems with his subsidized housing, food stamps, no travel expenses and minimal needs, he was simply banking the checks and had enought to donate to liberal groups about town once he passed. Hello? That's not a "safety net" program either.

Those are just asides, but the overall "transitioning" troubles -- from minor childhood mental disabilities to the denial of so many 20-something adults coming up with no planned future -- that issue really should concern us more. Mom won't hold his interest at home forever, of course, and some are non- disabled just enough to have excellent planning abilities, and oh, all that free time on their hands.

Follow the money. We should not make it profitable for all these behavior challenged boys to get medicated in the first place, without a solid plan for their futures. Sometimes tough love, discipline, and constant supervision and attention can work wonders, especially early on. Then we can devote more resources to the truly mentally ill -- those who would benefit by specialized housing and care, and don't just qualify for the check and go back to living freely amongst us.

----------------

* This wins the award for the dumbest thing I read online about the tragedy out East, and by a UW law professor nonetheless:

ADDED: Why did Adam, after killing his mother, travel to the school where she worked? Shouldn't some suspicion fall on the mother? She looks like a victim, but could she and her son have been operating together? News reports say the guns were "apparently" hers, and Adam was buzzed past security at the school because the principal "recognized him as the son of a colleague." If she was a "colleague" and had such a troubled son, why hadn't she conveyed this information to them? If she was staying home from work to deal with his problems, why didn't they know it? What were her issues with them?

Oy vey. She was writing seriously, folks! Defended herself even:

Ann Althouse said...
Re. "The reports of the mother working at the school seem to be false. So, your speculation is over the top."

My link goes to the New York Times, the current version of the story. I have seen places saying maybe she didn't work there, but the Times is keeping its version up, including the part about why the killer was buzzed in. I check it out before speculating, which I kept circumspect. You should have been here in person for the conversation if you wanted to hear over the top. When I do over the top here, you will know it.

This is restraint, my faint-hearted friend.
12/15/12 9:45 AM

That is truly scary.
Don't you think?

Thankfully, there was pushback in the comments, though I don't think anyone ever convinced the professor how silly she sounds:

Granny Jan said...
AA: She looks like a victim, but could she and her son have been operating together?

OK, I agree, it's not "over the top".
It's worse than that. 12/15/12 9:57 AM

and

miss j said...
Of course you can be "over the top" on the internet and in your home. That is your right.

Certainly you realize that many find your wild speculations (based on no facts) to be cold-hearted and bizarre, my thick-skinned writer. 12/15/12 10:02 AM

Then today, there was this:

Ann Althouse said...
I know I'll be accused of "blaming the victim." But who is the victim? I'm trying to head off victimhood. At some stage the "mean kids" are perpetrators, perpetrators of non-crimes, of course, and if later they are murdered, we see them as the beautiful, golden children we have lost. Their goodness and the outsider's evil are sharp and clear at that point and that is all we see. I'm saying: look at an earlier point.

12/16/12 8:06 AM

Still no word out yet from the law professor on what exactly she thinks those 20 angel, golden children did that was so mean to set the 20-year-old man off like that. I mean, now that they're dead, we just see them as murdered innocents and all.

Wondering what exactly she thinks transpired between them at an earlier point to set the killer (and his mom???) off like that...

Althouse might want to read Dowd (capital D) on non-helpful hysteria today. ("stirring up hysteria in real life, whether to draw clicks, eyeballs or votes, is not a good idea.)

Ann Althouse said...
And I'm saying that however popular they are, children who are anything but the least popular, are part of a dynamic that has a risk to it. These children should become aware of the risk they are part of creating, If they are "exclusionary and judgmental," maybe they should be more insightful. It would be good for their development too.

12/16/12 8:02 AM

Oy vey, indeed.
---------------
and

Make it a great week!