Sheesh. Committed to a mental institution…

So I go online and immediately get the impression that the whistleblower is being screwed over, that HIPAA violations have occurred (which is always bad), and that it’s all a crock of s**t. Moreover, the newspaper/blog/whatever-it-is, cannot be believed, and the very point itself if proof-positive that whistleblower must be right, else who would go to the trouble?

But just now, I browse again, and I read that the organization states he was “committed to a mental institution.” (I’m sure they said that prior, but this is the first I read it.)

When I hear the phrase “committed to a mental institution” I don’t routinely think of someone having a simple bad spell. I also don’t dismiss the information. I think, “sheesh, that dude was actually committed to a mental institution.”

At he same time I’m a big believer in the power of the mind, mental health, and its singular importance in life. In fact, since young, I’ve thought it ridiculous for people to believe that the liver, heart, kidneys, etc. can get sick, but the brain – the brain – is somehow impervious.

What I’ve seen today strikes me as lambasting the publication that wrote this, while at the same time, glossing over the significance of “committed to a mental institution.”

I’ve yet to see anyone acknowledging the seriousness of that phrase.

As far as I can tell, that’s actually a big deal.

Say I am a company owner and I’m accused of any number of awful behaviors. Say it’s all bologna. Say the accuser is a pathological liar (or something else) who was “committed to a mental institution.”

Does that not mean something?

What gives?

p.s. Forgive me for knowing nothing about “The Intercept,” it’s proclivities, or much else about their alleged history of smearing people.

p.p.s I want there to be ufos/uids/- whatever they are. I’m not a “bot” of <whomever is currently wronging everyone and hiding the truth.>

I’m nothing more than an inquisitive bystander watching the cars pass by. 🙂