"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:13:41 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:
I'm top posting without snipping because what you quoted (the part
below
your cites) is so exactly correct I don't want anyone to miss it. In
fact, I'm going to use it as a handout in my healthcare law class.
"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:27:31 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:
refusing to take their meds, or go to outpatient clinics etc.
Basicly..,the Libs created the homeless situation in California,
and
in doing so, are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of
thousands
of mentally ill folks whom died and are still dying on the
streets,
not to mention those that are killed, raped etc etc by the more
vicious members of the homeless nutcases.
Sounds like typical revisionist neo-con spin to me; blame
everything
on
the "Libs." Cites?
Jeff
Simply cannot accept that the Libs would do that to people? How
many
did Stalin kill?
Stalin's mass murders are connected to the mainstream beliefs of
American progressive politics how, exactly? Such an obviously
overblown
smear is really beneath a man of your intelligence, Gunner.
Hint..your criteria is flawed at its root. There is NO mainstream
belief in progressive politics. By definition, progressive politics
are Leftist at best, and the US is not by any stretch of the
imagination progressive in its mainstream beliefs.
Hint: Stop listening so much to El Rushbo. America is progressive in
it's soul. That progressive character has manifested itself in
everything from worker's health and safety laws, to free public schools,
to social security domestically, and ideas like the Nuremberg trials and
recognizing basic human rights internationally.
At the turn of the last century, the Conservatives and their corporate
overlords had to be brought to heel by Theodore Roosevelt and the
progressive movement in the Trust-Busting era to move the country
forward. We may see something similar in reaction to the current Far
Right Administration, Supreme Court and Congress.
Few Libs have ever heard about the Law of Unintended
Consequences, nor would they ever admit that their way is not the
Perfect way.....
Oh, like cutting taxes on the rich while paying $1+B per week for a
highly dubious war and offering no rational plan to control bloating
deficits and the resulting drain on the economy is wise, prudent, the
product of careful foresight, and the perfect way to help the
economy.
It seems to me that plenty of neo-cons are actually stupid enough to
believe their own rhetoric. The current situation in Iraq is the
perfect illustration of the Law of Unintended Consequences, or the
effect of neo-con wishful thinking and the triumph of ideology over
reason.
One should note..that the Recession, while cyclic in nature, started
under the auspices of the Clinton Administration, and had little to do
with Neo-cons. The Dems were bellied up to the trough right along side
of the Republicans during the Dot Com bubble.
One should note..that the economy is starting to move along just fine,
GDP is up, manufacturing is up and the markets are strong.
It's kinda tough to spend over $1B a week and NOT see an increase in
GDP. The millions of jobs destroyed under George II are another story .
.. .
While the Iraqi situation may or may not have been prudent..no one has
flown airliners into buildings since 9/11..which is a good thing, and
Bush hasnt bombed asprin factories either....and there is no Monica or
Wag the dog ....
Ah, the Polestar of the political Far Right. "At least we aren't
Clinton!" Can't you guys ever justify yourselves on your own merits
with reference to Clinton?
Now, let's look at what you've offered as cites supporting your
assertion that the "Libs" caused the problem in California:
http://www.psychlaws.org/GeneralResources/article45.htm
"In 1967, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act
(LPS), which went into effect in 1969 and quickly became a national
model. Among other things, it prohibited forced medication or
extended
hospital stays without a judicial hearing. . . .
As a practical matter, involuntary commitment was no longer a
plausible
option. . . .
In 1999, the Legislature finally funded pilot projects in Stanislaus,
Los Angeles and Sacramento counties that offered comprehensive
treatment
for the mentally ill. And they appeared to work. Within the first
four
months, the $10 million pilot program helped move 1,000 people off
the
streets and into support systems of care.
Last year, Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, sponsored
legislation to allocate $54.9 million to expand these pilot programs
to
24 counties and two cities during the next three years. . . . "
It seems a Democrat (gasp!) was trying to address the problem here.
Nothing attributes the problem to "Libs,", so the cited work doesn't
appear to support your original claim
Lanterman was a Republican btw..and to this day, states quite clearly
that it was a huge mistake.
Yeah, because community based care was never funded as he intended.
http://www.psychlaws.org/StateActivi...a/LPSoped3.htm
Nothing about "libs" causing the problem there, either.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...1streets.story
"This week the Assembly Judiciary Committee will consider legislation
by
Assembly- woman Helen Thomson (D-Davis) that would solve a key part
of
the problem. AB 1421 would amend the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, a
well-intentioned but ultimately misguided law passed in the 1960s
that
bars doctors, judges and counselors from compelling seriously
mentally
ill people to be treated unless it can be proven they are at imminent
risk of harming themselves or others."
Another Democrat trying to address the problem.
Note..that law came into effect in 1967...36 yrs ago. What took you
guys so long?
There were efforts at reform during that time. It's not like the
Republicans gave a rat's ass, we're STILL waiting for them to do
something for the mentally ill, other than build more prisons, etc., I
mean.
http://sftimes.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$82
That's a story about (Democrat) SF Mayor Willie Brown's efforts to
address the problems in San Francisco, caused by the Legislation Gov.
Reagan signed back in '67
Note..that law came into effect in 1967...36 yrs ago. What took you
guys so long?
There were efforts at reform during that time. It's not like the
Republicans gave a rat's ass, we're STILL waiting for them to do
something for the mentally ill, other than build more prisons, etc., I
mean.
http://www.namisonomacounty.org/reflect.htm
" 'The passage of California's Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act in
1967...made rational treatment for the mentally ill increasingly
difficult.' (Out of the Shadows, Confronting America's Mental Illness
Crisis, E. Fuller Torrey, M.D. , John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N.Y. 1997.
pg
10, pg 143)"
Nothing about the "libs" here either, I'm afraid.
Yet it seems clear that the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act was the source
of
the problem, or rather was the source when combined with the lack of
funding for community-based care, according to your own cites.
Gov. Reagan, a Republican, signed the Act. Frank Lanterman, a
Republican, chaired the committee responsible for the legislation, so
he
controlled what went into the Act. Nicholas C. Petris and Alan Short
were Democrats. All of them later expressed disappointment that the
funding for follow-on community based care was not provided. That
was
not their intent.
In 1967, the California Legislature was divided almost equally
between
Democrats and Republicans, with a 1 member Democrat edge in the
Senate
and a 2 member edge in the Assembly. Any legislation would therefore
require bipartisan support and could not be passed over a
governmental
veto. Furthermore, Gov. Reagan enjoyed the power of a "line item
veto"
over expenditures in the State budget. This was the year that Reagan
actually increased the state income tax rates on the wealthy (he did
so
again in 1971 IIRC); he was in a budget crisis and was more than
happy
to unburden the state budget from the cost of mental health care by
passing the buck to county and local governments that had no hope of
meeting the needs of the newly de-institionalized mentally ill.
Your assertion that "[b]asicly..,(sic) the Libs created the homeless
situation in California, and in doing so, are responsible for the
deaths
of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill folks whom died and are
still
dying on the streets, not to mention those that are killed, raped etc
etc by the more vicious members of the homeless nutcases[,]" doesn't
seem to be borne out by the facts, does it? Oh, I'm sure the
liberals
of that era played their part, but it's neither fair nor accurate to
blame them for the resulting mess.
Jeff
Sure it was fair and accurate. Reagan HAD to sign the legislation as
part of the Sop to the Dems for the tax increases.
Yep. Governors, unlike Presidents, can't just run up huge deficits and
let the grandkids worry about it.
You are also
forgetting the politics of 1967...I remember them well..Power to the
People! (raising a fist) and Death to the Pigs.....
The hippie radical left was on the outside, looking in, and not in
power. The "Establishment" was calling the shots, remember?
Hint..I live in California..and I know personally some of the players
in that rat ****..and to this day, they all say Lanterman was a
mistake.
Hint: So did I.
It was the Left whom pushed the law, and its been the Left,
whom for 36 yrs have not corrected its horror, as California has been
a Democrat run state for at least that long, with a large surplus for
much of that time.
Jeff