CommentsGETTING THE FACTS-Recently there was a story on local NPR affiliate KPCC about how the homeless population, which disproportionately suffers from untreated mental illness, has exploded in recent years. This story was presented without ever mentioning that, during the 1960s and 1970s, the State of California consciously emptied out most of the state mental institutions of patients who knew their own names and what day of the week it was, irrespective of whether they were profoundly mentally ill and in dire need of treatment.
This was done to save money in the short-term by not having to expensively hospitalize and address the needs of this mentally ill segment of our population, a group that had no political power to advocate for itself.
At the time, State courts (with this undisclosed conflict of interest -- saving money for the State of California) determined that profoundly mentally ill people had the "civil right" to be free...and homeless. This decision to save the State of California a fortune in the short-term that is coming back to haunt us in 2017. Now, a half century later, we are faced with an even more massive homeless population, again, people who are often mentally ill. The historical context of this problem is never mentioned as one of the causes of today’s avoidable homeless crisis.
In brief, "news" is now consistently presented without relevant historic facts and context in order to manipulate the public. This is not an accident, but rather a conscious manipulation to keep us from understanding relevant historical facts and to limit our options so that those in government – along with their corporate supporters who financially profit from this perverse system -- are never held accountable for prior improper actions. This situation could have been avoided if the democratic process had not been allowed to be unconscionably mismanaged or completely ignored.
It’s not necessary to go back a whole half a century to find another illustration of how the public is manipulated by not being given all their options in deciding what action is best to take on a given issue.
In the recent LAUSD Board elections for the 4th District, the only two candidates with financial support were either someone from the for-profit charter industry – Nick Melvoin -- or a corrupt UTLA union leadership candidate -- Zimmer. Again, neither candidate ever addressed the important issues facing public education nor did they offer any ideas with the slightest chance of fixing what has been allowed to go wrong in public education – namely, the conscious subordination of all other considerations to corporate/vendor profits.
Maybe this is why only 8% of eligible voters bothered to cast ballots in the last LAUSD board elections. What's the purpose of voting when neither one of the candidates offers any hope for addressing the needs of the majority? What do you think would happen in this country if we had a third option on election day: “none of the above.”
(Leonard Isenberg is a Los Angeles observer and a contributor to CityWatch. He was a second generation teacher at LAUSD and blogs at perdaily.com. Leonard can be reached at [email protected]) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.
-cw
