Between genealogy and caring for a MI spouse, I learned it went down like this.
Late 18th to early 19th c. people with compassion and insight opened sanitariums to provide care for folks with brain disorders. Much of the care was truly revolutionary and helpful. Some of it was other things. The public was impressed and inspired.
The founders died off and institutions continued on without their vision. The public lost interest; funds waned but need did not.
By the 1980s institutions were no longer safe or caring. The public had moved on. Few in power knew or cared.
Politicians saw funding streams they could grab w/o risking reelection and forced our MI population into homelessness.
We're still there. My 5 state institutions are dangerous hellholes. Homeless are everywhere here.
source: w/o long-term inpatient care, wife left the family to become homeless
I completely agree that mental institutions are important and need more funding/attention. However, your comment implies that all homeless people have mental problems that need treatment. Many are just very poor and most of their problems (mental or otherwise) are caused/exacerbated by homelessness itself. I consider myself sane but if I didn't have a permanent shelter and had to face the streets every night I'd go crazy too
It implies nothing of the sort. What it states, without making implications, is that the very mentally ill who would otherwise be in institutions, are instead homeless. Which is the case.
>We're still there. My 5 state institutions are dangerous hellholes. Homeless are everywhere here.
Implies that "Homeless are everywhere here" wouldn't be the case if the institutions were good. I disagree. I believe that if the institutions were good there would still be homeless people, unless somebody declares to be living on the streets to be a mental condition that warrants forced institutionalization.
OPs view is that lack of MI (A) results in homelessness (B). You're taking that further and making the argument that the existence of homelessness (B) implies lack of good institutions (A) - an argument OP didn't make.
A mental institution in Texas in 1970 was likely quite undifferentiated from a prison, and one that you could be sent to without having been convicted of anything. Just needed a state-employed doctor to declare you insane.
Yeah that stood out. There's basically zero mental health resources now after Reagan gutted it. Now the shooter would himself be shot or thrown in jail only to come out worse. Repeat.
...whereas that of New Hampshire is 'Live free or die'
Incidentally, NH licence plates are stamped out by prison inmates.
Now THAT is cruel and unusual punishment, right there!
Edit: For those not well versed in NH plates, the state motto is embossed on each and every number plate. (This may be the case for every US state, for all I know)
On the subject of bullet holes in 1% of the thing, NH also has way laxer gun laws than Texas. (Or at least had laxer laws 5 years ago, I suppose Texas probably has loosened gun laws in recent years)
No permit for carrying, no duty to inform, no "no guns" signs for buildings that carry any legal weight beyond trespass. NH allows guns in bars, Texas does not. NH you can still protest with guns, which is rare in most states after the 1960s era civil rights protests with guns. Texas nominally prohibits carrying guns for 5 yrs after a violent offense, NH does not. Etc etc.
Yeah, Texas has been all hat no cattle for a long time re: guns. Still looser restrictions than California though.
If you want real ‘wild west’ living, the closest you’ll come is Nevada (except for Clark County), Wyoming (except for Jackson), and Alaska (except for Anchorage). A few other places too.
> This may be the case for every US state, for all I know
Nope. What the jurisdictions choose to write on plates varies, often for a fee you can have something different, either of your choice (within limits) or from some limited selection.
Famously DC has plates quipping about the "Taxation Without Representation" which was notionally the reason the United States wanted independence. The District of Columbia of course does pay federal taxes but does not receive proper democratic representation in exchange, exactly the situation the colonists complained of and with exactly the same retort offered in response†.
[This is a very small hypocrisy compared to say declaring that "All men shall be free" and continuing to literally enslave some of them for example]
† The Congress insists, just like the Westminster Parliament, that these tax payers are represented, but virtually, with the entire institution actually somehow representing their interests. If this strikes you as poppycock for Westminster, it should feel no different closer to home.
It seems to me that it makes a great deal of sense for the seat of the federal government to be located in a federal district independent of any state’s control. It also would not make sense for that federal district to be represented as a state — that would end up being a circular dependency, since the federal government is created by the states, and it doesn’t make sense for the federal district to participate in creating and sustaining itself.
Those who choose to live within the federal district have a privilege others in the United States do not have: direct physical interaction with and influence over the individuals composing the federal government. It makes sense to me that the privilege is balanced with a lack of representation in the Senate and House. Note that they do have representation in the Electoral College.
It also makes sense to me to retrocede the majority of the current federal district back to the state of Maryland.
