Hi readers! This post is a very long one. (It’s about 32 pages long in a document editing software).

It incorporates: subjects pertaining to psychology, themes about poverty in California, and it offers both praise and criticism for newly announced efforts.

This blog post entry is an in depth opinion article, giving perspective on psychology as it relates to homelessness in the USA. It offers significant suggestion, contributing to the CA state governor’s already announced intentions and concern for the same issue: proliferating poverty and disparity in this state. For many it’s a mystical topic; seeming out of control – is also a varied one, with many facets of social science and medicine.

How can poverty be reduced, while preserving liberty and rights? This will be explored here.

Not to be confused with socialist teachings, this article is a contribution from a perspective of liberty. It champion for the least possible extent of government intrusion; but, not by denying real and palpable collective flaws in need for responsibility It also touches on excesses of liberty that then can become problems for other people to live free themselves.

That’s why I will discuss corporate responsibility, responsibilities of the rich, responsibility of church, of family, and of government.

Inspired by points made by our state governor in the ‘State of the State Addresses’ (both last year and this year 2020), it is a post that I’ve been gearing up (subconsciously) to write.

I did not realize that I would have so much to say about it; and did spend much time thinking.

As the governor’s speeches were quite lengthy, too, I will incorporate quotations from it which have encouraged my response herein.

Poverty is real in unexpected and expected locales around our nation; despite patterns of growth and what could have resulted in much worse effect.

Having personal, paid, professional experience as a caregiver to both strangers in my community and a deceased senior relative, I have a decent amount of exposure to how stress affects different generations of persons in our country. Personal attention and interest in the area of psychological disorders also help me to share some deep perspective on this paper.

Not every post of mine can be fluffy and fun (though I enjoy writing those).

The governor’s attention to this issue in our state has been heard this month by many of us out here.

I’ve heard some people recently use a good phrase to identify the act of breaking down texts: “let’s unpack this”. I like that. It prompts reader comprehension, to break down complexities into simpler meaning, and practical attention. I think my post here can also help readers to think critically and to analyze legislative matters themselves for all of collective awareness.

So, I start by quoting some of the governor’s speech which was delivered February 19th of this month (February 2020).

He says, “We remain the fifth-largest economy in the world – enjoying 118 consecutive months of net job growth, some 3.4 million jobs created since the Great Recession and nearly 4 million small businesses call California their home.

More than half of all U.S. venture capital still flows to California companies.

We’ve averaged 3.8 percent GDP growth over five years- compared, respectfully, to 2.5 percent national growth.

Yes, California today is an enterprising, modernizing, pluralizing, unionizing, nation-state of opportunity.

Just consider this fact: 1 in 7 new jobs created by the U.S. economy since 2010 has been created right here in California.”

This is all good news!

But, my questions in reply to this: “Why, we still relatively so damn poor compared to the millionaires and billionaires – in our ‘Main Streets’, suburbs, farms, and other urban areas?”
I don’t want to be unfair, but this economic wealth is not winding up in most of our pockets.

“Why are populations in our state, still appearing on the streets to call that home?”

Economic deals with foreign investors, is certainly a positive note for their plants of production in our state. German, American, and Japanese automaker investments- to produce more fuel efficient cars, is not harmful per se. And, it defers to climate goals. Brokering those deals, however, depended upon standard combustion engine motorists and producers of them (the same companies still make them). Older models of cars too– so we should not be dumping blame for climate change, on people who have only been able to thus far afford the standard gas cars. Incidentally, modern technology batteries present a whole host of environmentally unsound impacts of their own. (But that’s a whole other paper).

Technology transitions of vehicles and the consumers have to be slow (by comparison to corporate investment in poverty), so that consumers can keep up with the pace of economic change in our state and save money for this very big transition.

Without that easing in, climate goals go nowhere without resistance; and cannot be achieved well on a large scale.

“There are 1.6 million fewer Californians living in poverty today than in 2011- a full quarter of the nation’s decrease.”

This statement requires a little closer focus: 2011 was a long time ago. In 19 years, we should hope to be much wealthier, not just less poor.

“- but there’s nothing compassionate about allowing fellow Californians to live on the streets, huddled in cars or makeshift encampments.” That is true; he’s right.

“These are systemic issues rooted in poverty and racial discrimination.”

Unfortunately, there are a multitude of ways that anyone fac(ed)/(es) discrimination of some kind. It becomes all the more important to be sensitive to differences among us and to take one another seriously. Yet, discrimination cannot be entirely prohibited when people are free to think –as we should be.

“It is our responsibility.” (Poverty)- I am glad to hear the governor say this.

“After decades of neglect and inadequate responses, we are putting our entire state government on notice to respond with urgency.”

While trailers appear to be a step in this plan of his, it is hard to believe that they’re necessary at all. But, we should trust his sincerity, which he says plans to rely also on his collaboration with other people.

“The first trailers have been deployed to Oakland and Los Angeles County.

The next, I’m pleased to announce today, are headed to Santa Clara, Riverside, Contra Costa, and Sonoma Counties, as well as the City of Stockton.

“That same Executive Order builds on our work last year to identify all excess spacing…”

Fortunately, I am not mentally ill. But, does the illness of other people affect me? Yes. Collectively, money has to come from more than one source, to solve the problem of street people.

As a retired caregiver, I’ve had assignments that exposed me to some people who were struggling psychologically. It was no wonder to me that a few of them were driven to madness or to exodus from the state, because of the stresses that they and family faced.

I know a very large man, who reminds me of the leading character in the Hollywood movie: “Green-mile”. Though I’ve not seen the entire film, I know that the character too is gentle- able to handle a tiny mouse in his huge hands despite his very large physique. Fortunately, my relative is in God’s good care. I tell you about him so that you know that I am not faking empathy for vulnerable persons. Not everyone however, is as special as my uncle. And not everyone is treated well.

I’d like to add here because of mentioning a film, that although a writer, I have no personal ambition to chase the “Oscar” awards. It’s a valid dream for many in the industry; and it’s no simple feat. I find it more important to make a good front-end deal on my writing sale and other financial returns. Critical acclaim is less important to me. Returning to main topic:

I find other concerns, shared by the governor, to be stressors that can make anyone ill. I identify a couple of them here (not the first person to): bullying (systematic or not), receiving death threats or other threats to one’s safety, experiencing hunger, experiencing severe stress, being deprived of sleep, no time for recreation and sport. These are just a few. I’m not advocating for people to become wimps; but, these stressors can be severe in degree and we need to take people seriously.

Big-money health fixes are pushed on consumers. Pressure is not only mounted on women, but on men too. Products are pushed for things like weight loss, immune support, joint health, sexual inadequacy claims, you name it. Illness has become a trade-able, lucrative, commodity – to detriment.

Let’s widen the lens here a bit to clarify why I bring this up. Healthy people, translate to stronger economy. The pressure to be healthy can be a huge stress of its own. Government would like all of us to be “Superman” and “Wonder-woman”, consuming all kinds of fitness products, never getting ill, never requiring vacations. But, is that a good life on your own terms? Aren’t you free?

Illnesses translate to “lost revenue” from a managerial perspective. I suppose some people don’t object to abortion and baby killing, because a baby boom simply isn’t profitable… unless you’re making money selling body parts from baby carcass.

Being a parent is a very important job. We should not be top-heavy, with only senior citizens and childless adults making up our population. How can one stay healthy then, to benefit oneself, one’s family, and those around you by extension?

One thing that is increasingly difficult to prevent, I heard elsewhere, is the ingestion of micro-plastic fragments in natural seafood. Does the government care about our health and environmentalism in this regard? How about exercise? Sleep? Clean water? Relaxation? Leisure? It becomes hard to do these things, when many people simply don’t; but, not having personal money reserves makes that fight worse. So, what happens when we get sick? Is it our fault if we get cancer that we did not earn? What if stress causes Bulimia or Anorexia? What if we have poor body image, or we begin to hate oneself, because there’s little joy or opportunity to build confidence in what we’re doing?

From a government’s viewpoint, this should be a concern, because some of the following issues have emerged – in part through defiance and rejection by some, of normal life: 1. Camping out on the streets. 2. Urinating and defecating on public walkways and roads. 3. People spreading their feces deliberately. 4. People spreading diseases born of inadequate shelter -the governor mentioned “typhus”. 5. Drug abuse, born from feelings of neglect, disconnection, and desperation. 6. Adoption of animal behaviors and engagement in crime because of selfish attitudes. 7. Lack of spiritual guidance, causing evil to enter their minds. Are they entirely at fault for that? Not once their pains become so corrosive and severe.

The first thing that these street people need is isolation from their street group; and, to get clean with medical methods. We all know that costs money. And, not all of these people are easy to help. But, it is important investment.

Tax increases threaten to increase the number of people on the streets. Otherwise healthy people, slowly become sick, trying to maintain life. And, eventually, without upward mobility, we witness more murders, stabbings, robberies, violent reprisals, even mass shootings! People who do such things may not be as many as we might expect… but, numbers appear to increase in a direct causality linked to abject poverty. The governor apparently believes and hopes that once housed, there will be fewer psychological disorders that manifest into such atrocious behaviors performed by such street people.

There are many legitimate reasons for people running out of money. Perhaps no one cared enough to keep that person on the job?

Maybe a person got cheated, could not afford an attorney, could not find someone willing to take on the case? Maybe, there was a sequence of deliberate and callous exclusions? Maybe, the person was fleeing a powerful corporation or a predatory organized religion? Maybe the person was a T.I. (“targeted individual”), for expressing views that spoke truth? Maybe the person experienced glass ceilings; and simply could go no higher? Maybe the person was escaping persecution, false accusations, and/or harassings? Maybe their family-member fell ill and required their full time help?

With signs of community stress, is there no way to health once more? No. It’s OK to have some periods of disillusionment, to be jaded at times. That’s human. And health can be recouped.

Also, examining one step further, we have to remember that forced-treatment can be an added stress to an already stressed person. Libertarians suggest that threatening to force medical treatment upon someone who is not ill, rather poor, is a tool of coercion designed to force uncompensated performance. And, it is a waste of resources that can benefit someone else who actually requires it. We need to also remember that some people cannot work, and should not work. That is not an example of illness. Not every street-person is actually ill either. Poverty and illness are not always linked. Some people are poor, yet happy.

In a society that historically overemphasizes productivity we need to remember that reprieve is beneficial to quality of work. Quality, not quantity, matters more. That is also why, inhumane work hours (with unrelenting impedance) is a bad idea for anyone. It’s abuse.

Personal stamina is built up through vacation time and rest. What could have ended up as being a terrible crime, could wind up being a minor infraction, if that person had sufficient mental reserves and recuperation to face life. This is another reason why having a social network matters too. Being able to talk with other people whom you’ve built up trust with is a key to good health. And this, you should not be required to pay anyone money for, though Internet connection and “social media” fosters free exercise of that freedom.

In California, we also experience many people leaving the state for good, because it is increasingly difficult to live here and afford to. Yet, many are still coming, due to new perceived attractiveness. Thanks to those who are leaving, we avoid the problem of placing too much more stress on our economy in limited space – metropolitan areas. This is one reason why many of us object to “open borders”, which would result in flooding our state with MANY more south-of-the-border migrants. And, massive unwanted migrations from anywhere else. I applaud the president’s firm stance on this issue and I share his view.
Back to the issue of workplace stress, some lose their jobs because they experience psychological problems. That is why pharmacy approved medicines help as issues are detected. And, in many cases the approved drug must be used for life, for the person to remain healthy. Again, this is expensive to supply for poorer people; but is necessary for community and it is the collective responsibility. That sounds socialist, but, community health and community liberties depend on corporate investment and honest government administration.

Some people like to point to a particular illness as being the culprit. But, this is not wise to do. It is a fact, that NO single psychological disorder should be identified as any worse or any better than another disorder. What matters, is the severity of any one of them. We’re talking, volume of symptom. Denial can be manifest in any type of illness. No one wants to admit for example illnesses such as unfounded jealousy. Or, rage. But, those are illnesses too.

People not skilled in identifying or diagnosing, can mistakenly speak of someone as having something- but they could be wrong. Sometimes even a doctor can make mistakes diagnosing a desperate patient, or be motivated by a lie and temptation to misdiagnose. Why? To include that person in a particular community; and to attach responsibility where societal failures currently exist. Urgency and a patient’s poverty might impede the identification processes. Time and payment by allocation of governed resources, are really important to healing one quickly- in more serious cases.

Healing-time in a person’s life should not be seen merely as lost collected revenue for the state. Healing is an investment in our security and the well-being of our community at large. We also don’t want to go so far as to seek to heal every single minor psychological disorder in every person. No person goes through life without experiencing at least one kind of illness. The cost of trying to be completely healthy at all times, and despite all age, would be absurd in my view. This would be government over-reach, and so practiced, an assault on the liberty and dignity of dying and living both.

Good health also has a component of subjectivity. Some people, though they do something unhealthy, can actually live quite well and long. When you look at a variety of countries, diets are varied and consumption patterns change.

Some countries enjoy rich foods, yet their health is quite good nonetheless. Some doctors might even recommend certain food and drink to help someone with symptoms such as anxiety. Some people benefit from caffeine while others do not.

So who is to blame for this crisis of poverty due to income disparity? I’ll get to that later in this post, but, I can also say that “identity politics” and pressure leveled by the “supply side” of health practitioners are largely at fault. Many have been lucky not to get sued.

This prior year (2019), in February, Governor Gavin Newsom has spoken ardently about this endeavor to see “people”, behind the affliction.

Good health, has a subjective quality for each person – who knows individually how best to exercise his freedom in a community that values the virtue. What I mean: we can increase communal coexistence in peace, by asserting individual happiness quotient. The benefit is that there is waning risk of acquiring another disease: namely, something like depression, suicide, or outward aggression.

Lack of liberty, is one of the largest risks to one’s psychological health. Restricting behaviors to an unreasonable extent is unwise as already stated. That is why some people refuse treatment in many cases, rebelling, by rejecting doctors. It’s justified if a doctor places unrealistic impositions.

There are cultural differences among us which inspire differing behaviors and attitudes. And, religious differences that health practitioners do not always respect. Many Germans enjoy eating pork with its skin on. But, they also enjoy eating healthy fish dishes. Many Americans love to eat their cheese-steak sandwich or their burger. But we also like rice and vegetables. Doctors’ advice cannot become a mandate.

So, where does the problem come in? For one, when children don’t get 3 round meals each day. This is terrible. It’s really “inexcusable”. The economy is touted as “strong”, but is it? Or, does the poverty force people to develop psychiatric illness?

Is such disparity all the rich people’s fault only? No, but, they have to do their part too. Our state governor spoke of the widening income gap; and, the ever increasing poor vs. the ever dwindling rich. I agree. Many capitalists seek unending and ever expanding profit. Are they re-investing by putting adequate share of their money to the state funds? It doesn’t seem so, yet they’re all too willing to enlist more fleet workers and pay them at low wage.

The governor refers to those suffering most, as [“members” of one body].

Intellectually, certain common pillars need to be widely accepted by those who have the capacity to think and to understand this, in order for our political leaders to help us in the right way.

In the state of California, with abundance of food exported to other countries, do we have enough of it for our growing populations of natives – poor living in our state? We’re told, “yes”. That doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. With so many homeless, it seems that the answer to that question is, “no”. I think that the problem is affordability for most; not a lack of compassion leveled by the lower classes.

In urbanized California, Californians have less contact with nature – retreat, peace and quiet. That is a shame, because our state has still nature reserves. Our native populations increasingly find it difficult to venture out into those places, because the demands of work are so very unforgiving for most of us. That includes people who work online from home, people employed at corporations, staffs in hospitals, staffs of restaurants, educators in schools, other public employees- all of us. Everyone seems to be clawing for money, or at least worried. Scams are on the rise. And our nature reserves are suffering from human encroachment too. The encroachment of man on nature, too, confounds us with more problems.

Statistically, it is in high concentrations of population – particularly in urbanized “concrete jungles”, that people being to turn on one another. Statistically, it is where crimes and violence are prominent. Statistically, it is where there is increase rate of heart attack, and early death. Populations worldwide, that are still connected to nature, appear to have a higher quality of life and greater longevity. They also have a deeper respect for the beauty of it. The result could very well also be: fewer people experiencing acute illness.

Sadly, our nature is no longer as pristine as it once was. Because of climate change, bark beetles move in, destroying our trees that lack enough rainy-season. Pollution impacts our clean-water, mass migrations diminish comfortable spaces of density per square foot; and crowding contributes to man-caused fires, each dry season. I feel relief every time we have rain.

Building homes in areas that used to be hills and forests untouched, is required for expanding immigration; though these areas of development have often been in the higher risk areas where brush fires lead to homes destroyed. Owners then are forced into trailers, campers, or out on the streets without adequate sheltered.

The state’s financial resources are apparently limited because we’re asked to pay for it through ever increasing levels of taxation!

Liberal millionaires and billionaires develop space tourism programs for other millionaires and billionaires. But, funding for homelessness is more urgent! They need to pay in!

The Internet technology should not only empower practices of free speech, it should continue to be a technology that merges ideas with practical solutions; inspiring elected leaders to organize the action.

Unfortunately, with corporate media, companies seek ways to increase viewership in a scope that dominates new space online. As if hundreds of TV channels were not enough from cable and satellite- the Internet (originally designed for intellectuals, scientists, policy leaders, and autonomous small business ventures), for collaboration, is a increasingly where the hugest media companies seek to expand their own territory further, as if they did not have enough territory already to shape their ideological agendas and politics through TV boxes.

This is encroachment on free speech, with an ominous familiarity. It even penetrates the social fabric of church, a place where government is prohibited by law from intruding.

Massive domination tends to shut out important voices. Especially, as those important voices critique liberal political agendas. And, yet, far less funded conservative voice is often attacked viciously from the other side, labeled as subversive, a threat to fair elections, and “meddlesome”-though not.

Some companies- built on foundations of free speech, become tools for political agendas at the top of government. They betray free speech.

The middle class cannot fund an end to homelessness on its own, through increased taxation. Instead, ueber-wealthy folks (especially liberals here in CA) who claim to care, running on such political statements that they do, need to give their money to the state fund- no strings attached. This is more productive than attacking Conservative speech.

Balking about new bond measure initiatives and higher taxation increases is neither motivated by stinginess nor greed.

When free speech is impinged, a whole audience of people becomes cynical and jaded (rightly so); as they become disengaged from the good quality books, literature, plays, music and movies that would otherwise inspire new life into them if presented in the mainstream. Furthermore, when only wealthy people are able to finance art by commission that support their own politics, the masses begin to slowly but surely lose faith and trust first in media, and second in political representation.

Whether through corporate sponsor, private sponsor, or both, money needs to go to the state.

And, as Conservative voices are shut out; we experience a huge imbalance.

How does that relate to homelessness? Well, when people are disenfranchised politically, they become financially poor and more susceptible to not being able to afford their home, bills, taxes, and essential services.

When speech is systematically blocked, this is not evidence of a worker’s stagnation or self imposed silence. No, it is evidence of unethical marketplace competition practices.

When voices are shut out, there is no collaboration or assistance in the production of marketplace value. Consequently, a whole segment of consumers pays the price for never getting the intellectual product that they would otherwise expect and enjoy consuming.

Duly punishing, is that they then have increasingly more expensive obligations for fixing societies’ problems that others can better afford than they.

Recently, “AB5” (Assembly Bill) demonstrates the desire to clamp down further on our state’s “gig economy”, which was enjoying the freedom and autonomy of its status. So we’ve been told. This freedom is enjoyed by millions, who find less regulation conducive to personal productivity and health. I understand why the vote came up. I can argue rationale for either vote. But many here too believe that liberty is seriously violated.

Again, liberty boosts economic productivity and wealth. Such liberty also reduces otherwise abusive restrictions imposed by bad bosses and/or organized labor. Liberty, therefore, reduces homelessness and co-dependencies between employee and employer in more traditional business models. Having variety of models, work best to satisfy varied preferences with how to perform work in the modern 21st Century.

So, quality of life increases a person’s quotient for achieving good overall health. And the state saves money in the long run too.

While an employer is often seen as the culprit, the state exploits the diligent worker indirectly.

Such exploitation increases the likelihood of job dissatisfaction, lack of peace at home, and risk of becoming “gravely disabled” (a.k.a. poor). But, poverty is not a crime even when that happens. The government works for us. Poverty can fall upon a victim through lies, cheating and abuses from cons, deceit, misbehaving society strata, and unethical business practices (to name a few). The victim, becoming ill, cannot be fairly and squarely blamed for this injustice.

Thus, increasingly, the state government has more that it is supposed to correct.

Even while drudging along in a less than ideal work arrangement, most employees cannot boast of the best situation. The job might have some benefits; the union might have collective bargaining. In my experience, unions called strikes so frequently and if you defied the strike, you were out. That translates to enough lost wage, to put a person into “grave disablement”. Even, if you’re otherwise of healthy mind and body!

This is a reason why many people are attracted to certain other modern business models-for example in the MANY “gig” economy jobs.

Small businesses too, do not always receive direct revenue investment infusions, “clout”, or ease of doing business, like large corporations do. This impinges community from being a well functioning “body” of many connected parts.

Business people want to be left to do their work. But desperation grows, as we’re being asked to finance the solutions to other people’s homelessness- upon our own dwindling incomes in most cases.

As we couple these problems with aging population, a tired middle aged workforce who has been hugely depended on, heavily taxed, and otherwise disparaged, is not callous – simply tired. Facing inflation, too, many are simply looking to retire.

We have to insist that others are not flip though, classifying we who experience minor psychological conditions as entirely spent and of no more use.

Having defended the homeland during multiple foreign wars, many of us have been at risk for illness and fatigue. While our brave brothers and sisters in uniform were stationed in battle, their “PTSD” (post traumatic stress disorder) is to be taken seriously. So too, we, who developed illnesses that were born of living here, while they were away.

I’d like to spread a practical attitude: give great care, and be most careful not to use minor psychological conditions as a “death sentence”. What I mean: diagnosis of illness has to be carried out with the most respect and objectivity. Impartial and free of incentive, doctors have to be most careful not to feel pressure to falsely diagnose for political purpose. They should never contribute to false statistics. Manipulation of medical data, in order to manipulate a person, and to serve a political agenda, must be discouraged always! It’s up to family members as first line of defense, to protect one another from this conceivable threat.
There are many Christian church-led organizations worldwide that at the local level do much to best tackle poverty. They are sincere, brave, and compassionate. We minister to persons who suffer. We need help from our government to do this, not attacks on religious liberty.

War affects all the population in some way. I use a term which encompasses generalized psychological anxieties and fatigues with effect families whose country has been mired in war(s) for many years: War neurosis. Unlike “PTSD” acquired from the battlefield, it’s intended to identify those of us who have suffered on the home-land side of any or many wars. Two of these contributors are: picking up “slack” for populations of citizens who are overseas for indefinite periods of time, and, suffering separation anxiety from loved ones serving far away.

Those of us donating to our churches are often struggling financially too; because of marketplace boycotts, unnecessary strikes, necessary strikes, segregation and exclusions that are aimed directly at Christian religion today. How can we help the ill, without falling into the same degenerative experience ourselves?

So now, let’s examine “mental health”/”mental illness”. Mental illness can contribute to loss of assets. And, loss of assets can contribute to mental illness. That is a cycle which the government can help out with, by never limiting free speech, and by never taxing more than what people can pay. Those are two points.

Pretty well understood by any lay person without a medical degree, is that stress is the number one contributor to shortened life span. That’s because we all recognize the pain we might be feeling: as a direct result of hefty portions of stress. And, when I say “professionally”, that includes work that is covert or not covert (Any kind of work).

Even parenting is work. And, no one gets civilian honor for being one. But, it still is the most important job that a person can do in life, for a young person. Man or woman, parenting is work, and income supports parenting. We fail our kids, when we fail our parents.

We all contribute in some way. Many even volunteer labor, out of the goodness of their hearts. And they fill jobs that are there for them. But, volunteering does displace wage unfortunately. All work, is not always rewarded adequately. Hopefully, it is, before a person becomes destitute. But, people fall through “the cracks” “all the time.”

One political strategy to combat street people homelessness: to treat “gravely disabled” people, does make sense; but, it’s most effective to treat people among them who want treatment first. Because, every person who wants it (and not just shelter alone), is one less person caught up in the tangled web of living on the streets, in a severely unhealthy commune. Furthermore, a willing patient is one that does not need to be argued with or resisted. A willing patient is one who wants treatment and has no other priority.

Each of those persons in turn, can be a good example for another; and, he becomes part of the solution also for someone else. (That’s assuming that the doctor is well qualified, experienced, not ill himself, and not burned-out himself).

Left then, with an overall smaller population of visibly ill persons out on the streets, some more individually tailored efforts may prove more successful. Remember, the term “severe” is subjective; and should never be used to inappropriately ID someone as such, who is not.

While civil rights’ protections may have “stymied progress in latter more recent decades”, I disagree and contend that we can now use funds in a more strategic way on smaller population, so as to not go back in time – recreating the supposed “failed systems of latter years” again. Forcing treatment is a losing proposition, often aimed at masking greater collective failures.

We don’t wish to see the problem to grow – burdening future generation(s) again.

We should not forget that neglect of poverty by those living in high society combined with loss of money allocations, increased trouble. Now, presumably, we have the money. That’s what we’ve been told in recent days. So, let them use it, while sustaining the highest level of respect for patient rights (rights that are protected by civil liberty, rightly). Ill people, remember, are not in a state of mind to defend themselves against abuse and trouble. Therefore, ill people who cannot defend themselves from a state of being destitute- are ones more likely to be more hostile, understandably.

‘Medi-Cal’ could be a good funding source solution, for many. Required, is a commitment on part of doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics, (everyone in the sector), to helping only those persons legitimately ill – rather than poor only. Poor people may need other more practical services, not mental condition treatments. Those both poor and ill can benefit from mental condition treatments.

Often, it appears that these are those who have lived on the street, with multiple addictions and/or serious contagions. Or, are otherwise severe menaces to the public.

Increasingly, however, homeless persons are not severely mentally ill. It’s an insult to a poor person, to be labeled mentally ill, simply because they are poor.

In order to keep people healthy as a [sum of all “parts”] (individual persons), we cannot have false diagnosis as part of the procedures. The temptation exists, for motivational and inspiring stories to be manufactured by the lives of certain patients. Many find opportunity to self congratulate, when touting a “comeback story”… even take credit for healing “powers”. In a fantasy world, some people are inspired by manufacturing a hero (i.e. a “rags to riches” story). But, making money from that in the arts is kind of sick.

How many of our golden state’s contemporary ‘Hollywood’ films, have been made to feature the “underdog” coming out in victory? That’s not inherently bad. But, when the reality is tainted by falsehood, stories get made based on a shifted paradigm. Widespread misunderstandings, unrealistic hopes and dreams, even false congratulation, could over time become the expected norm for everyone who is fighting something. Something, that in reality they just might not beat.

When one falls short of inspirational material, I suppose “we” look to everyone except Jesus Christ. We Christians should look to Him always. He gave us the will to not give up; and, the mandate to rely on truth (as opposed to fantasy), as supportive inspiration for our individual lives, compassion and attention to others, and respect for community.

Rather than “rags to riches”, I cite a variant: “mentally ill person becomes millionaire” story. The story might be biographical for a: “crack” addicted, alcohol addicted, methamphetamine addicted, heroine addicted, sex addicted, pot addicted, speed addicted, pain-killer addicted, blaspheming, dumb, angry, blind, deaf, etc. person. (The list can be long and include many of these, or even more of them). Everyone would agree he is mentally ill, right? And, he would be on course to die quickly.

What about someone who is a smoker of nicotine? Is he mentally ill, too; because, some health minister deems him suicidal? He depends on a nicotine hit in order to calm his nerves, yet knowing that its cancer inducing he’s suicidal. But, is it accurate to suggest that both of this man and the prior example are “equally ill”? No, degree matters. And liberty matters. The second example of person shows him to be one who is exhibiting significantly less evidence of mental illness and behavioral consequence. They both may be ill on some common level; however, it’s not enough evidence for a clinician to spend huge amounts of public resources on. Why bother to focus on small threats to that extent, as dire cases go unchecked and proliferate?

But, still, homelessness (not having shelter) singularly, is not proof or evidence enough of irresponsible living. That is why I cringe when any government hints at policies designed with explicit control of everyone’s behavior in mind. Extreme despairs in many people’s lives can make them into a “poster-boy” or “poster-girl” for a good cause. But, overarching efforts to impose behavioral restraints on everyone wastes our money – especially by any widespread application and density. It’s up to everyone who cares about liberty, to see that it does not happen that way.

Healing is of benefit, but it prompts and depends on individual motivation and free will.

Politicians might enjoy taking credit, as if they were saviors. Have I done things in my life to attempt to heal ill persons? I think so. But, I should remain humble and not take undue credit for these things. Christians believe that God rewards things done for Him in secret and without bombast. But, we also are wise to recognize that a pragmatic and sincere politician is welcomed to do a job well.

The governor said something nice: A few days ago, he said, “…our healthcare system has been designed to treat some of our parts, not the sum of our parts. That must change.”

Sincerely, that means that this is a collective effort. Healthcare includes at the smallest unit, compassion for our own family members.

I come full circle to the matter of perception. And, homelessness is not proof of one’s poor choices or even illness. Remember that movie featuring actor Will Smith, with his young son? His character was out on the street, because no one would sponsor his business idea. Maybe he was depending on long shots? But, the film is also a lesson of how not to treat a talented and striving person: with neglect. Government has a responsibility to connect venture capital with talented people in need.

Especially, it should not heal persons that are not severely ill. It should however make the marketplace more level; through spending money where it can cause reductions of disparity.

So, inspiring movies are good? Well, yes, they aren’t always inherently bad. But, inspiring movies don’t pay a poor person’s bills (unless that person profits from that movie-making production, directly).

Let’s focus again on street people with multiple addictions.

Understanding the governor’s reference to biblical teachings… the body of Christ is literally made of all members of Christ’s Church. I agree with this. Unfortunately, not all persons maintain or put into practice Christian principles daily. Even “self righteous” Christians, are frequently flawed at putting them into practice at all times: myself too. Such moral failures of Christians are exactly why God’s forgiveness is central to Christian life. And, this allows us to be part of solutions.

A “purist” and “literal” thinking person might take a medical analogy about that body, and say that an “amputation” is remedy to a body that has an infected appendage. Amputation would “heal” the rest of the body. But, this would result in loss of an otherwise important appendage. That’s why everyone should be tended to as is appropriate and suitable.

Let’s list a few common psychological disorders: Alzheimer’s, Hypochondria, Depression, Anxiety, Bipolar, Schizophrenia, Narcissism, Vanity, Compulsion (i.e. to lie), Delusion, Excessive need for approval, Obsession, Greed, Hallucination, – thick books list far more than this short list. How many of these are the topic of public focus and discussion? Why always simply the rarer few? The aim, from a public policy perspective, should be to recognize the vast variety of mental illnesses. (As opposed to putting on airs that one is superior to another).
Blaming those narrow few conditions, for all of societal discord, is wrong. That would be comparable to claiming that all of humanity’s woes come only from one type of sin instead of all sins!

The governor too seems to have suggested that there is over-emphasis on too few types of illness, that don’t seem to be successfully and entirely healed among all. I agree. I object too, to too hot a spotlight on anything, as I do, to too weak a spotlight. Time and money, is required for accurate diagnosis of debilitating combinations of illness with multiple drug addictions.

If we are to heal more people, we as common lay-persons, need to familiarize ourselves with all types of mental conditions; and learn how to identify them or at least suspect them in others around us. There is an encyclopedia that Psychiatrists use. You ought to read it yourself, and encourage your family to self diagnose. Or, diagnose one another.

Of course, doing that is speculative and theoretical (at first)… but, then you can talk with peers; you might encourage doctor visitation (without being an incessant vigilante about it). Recognize symptoms in yourself and in others. Suggest to others that they ought to seek treatment. If you think your employee who you often see at the workplace is ill, as an employer, you ought not to fire that person right away. Rather, suggest that they get checked out. False accusations require legal recourse as well though. Our Constitution and lawyers must protect us from false claims that are designed to illegally justify a job termination that has other unfair basis i.e. personality discrimination, gender discrimination etc. In the case of non-profits/religious based business, religious affiliation is justifiable ground for dismissal however.

I am thankful for healthcare workers and employers who defend religious belief and religious freedom. Also, for government leaders who do the same.

In the movie making and TV broadcasting Industry in CA, many low level workers shift from job to job very quickly. This is known as a “gig”, “internship”, or “project”. There may be new terms now. So, there’s little room for stability; thus, exploitation can happen very severely. I know how “impersonal” some jobs in that industry can become, for those who are new to it. With such high volume of eager-to-work individuals, employers had ability to take greater advantage and then to discard. It can be a lot like military deployment, followed by an abrupt discharge. This is a “hard knock” for many people. There’s too little competitive threat, for the well established members not to reject that incentive. But, those workers who are less established are the backbone known as “grunts”, despite union representation, can be focus of severe and egregious exploitation. Some efforts are publicly drawing attention to this.

So, back to general argument across industries in California: Why do we often talk of only one, two, or maybe three of illness types only? If we treat “the sum of our parts”, then as a community we all benefit when we treat more than just the one, two, or 3 illnesses we often hear about most, as they appear to be the most present. But, are they? What must be done is to give time for accurate diagnoses! People need to refrain from rumor milling, respect other people’s privacy – especially if they do not know them deeply and personally; or, if they’ve not spent time with one another regularly and recently. Stigma and labeling can ruin or disrupt a professional career! And, can encourage dumping on a scapegoat for totally unrelated other things! It is even an offense that can lead to litigation over lost revenues of lost wages! And, it is often difficult to address behavioral problems which take victims, at the hand of abuses of power. Even, the “healthy” are called “ill”, while the “ill” are called “healthy”.

What is nearly impossible – is for a seasonal employee working in a film or TV production, to simultaneously get adequate health consult. It can’t be done truthfully. One has to exit the industry to get treatment. And, then, the job is no longer there waiting for them in many cases.

Let’s talk pharmacy now. One particular drug might work for different types of illness; but, an illness requires time to be diagnosed by an ethical and well qualified physician. One diagnosis in psychology can be a “lifelong sentence”. And, that is more expensive for many, than some are admitting.

Also, we have to note that everyone cannot be healed of every illness. That cannot be financially accomplished.

It is good that the governor intends to work on this and enlist help and advice – beginning with shelter needs, of the state, for people suddenly out on our streets.

Concerning psychological disorder (as with any other ailment), we should resist temptations to consider such persons as parasites.

Some psychological disorders render a person unable to work, for the rest of that person’s life. This is not their fault, any more than it is fault of a handicapped person to require technologically advanced mobility devices… and constant 24/7 care-giving attention. Like special adaptations for autistic persons.

Also, for psychologically disturbed persons, while group therapy is very beneficial in most cases, ill people cannot be healed by other ill persons. Therapy and drug dispensing are the first critical step.

Group therapy is good for the confidence building, among persons who have been so dejected and ignored, that they need to be built up again in a constructive manner. Group therapy can be led by a fitness moderator, a musician, poet, etc. It can help a patient to understand that they are not alone with their particular type of illness, and can increase one’s range of self acceptance.

Being able to witness the distress that another person is going through – though not identical to your condition, can increase one’s sense of belonging. This is critical to healing.

Drug administration requires a healthy and ethical doctor to not overdose or to under-dose a patient in that therapy. Doctors should not be permitted to impose excessive visitation requirements in exchange for the medicine once the patient is asymptomatic. The right chemical compounds must be accurate. It takes time to determine that. The patient knows best though ultimately, what chemicals are working and what ones are not – with regard to psychological disorders. This is because results are very quick to be noticed and felt, unlike with drugs that are prescribed for most other types of physiology.

Compassionate nurses, too, are essential to ensuring that doctors stay morally upright, that they do not make sexual advances on the patient, and that patients feel comfortable to speak freely. As simple a need as being able to choose either a female or a male doctor, and one who shares your religion, are critical to patient well-being. This last point is true when speaking about mental health, just like in any other physiology.

I applaud “mental health parity”, in spirit, as the movement is described by healthcare reporter Sammy Caiola in this way: “A coalition of California lawmakers is currently pushing for mental health parity- the requirement that insurance benefits for mental health and substance use disorders are equal to coverage for other types of health care.

Advocates argue that behavioral health benefits, regardless of whether patients are in the private or public system, are too difficult to access.

Current state law only requires that commercial insurers cover treatment for nine severe mental illnesses, including major depression, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

A newly introduced bill could extend that coverage to all medically necessary mental health and substance use disorder treatments. Another proposed bill would eliminate some of the red tape for patients seeking substance use services.”

What I particularly agree with, I’ve already argued prior to this quote reference. But, additionally, know that the diseases mentioned are very expensive to treat in the private healthcare system. So are substance-abuse programs/de-toxicity and retreats. So, while they have public attention, the reason these illnesses become chronic to society, is because the treatment and healing is very expensive and time consuming for the patient. And, if a homeless person has one of these illnesses (or more), there’s no way they can pay for it without government paying for it. What’s critical in determining who is at fault for an illness and addictions, is whether the job only marginally contributed to them; or outright caused.

If a homeless person had cancer, would they be able to afford treatment? It matters little which type of illness/disorder one has, in light of the good spirit of this potential initiative. But, the problem remains, that workplace hazard is the responsibility of the employer. And, most employers don’t want to admit that. Government also does not usually want to harbor responsibility to itself for government or public employee work related injury that results in mental illness. But, this seems to be an untrue statement when we listen to Mr. Newsom’s speeches thus far. He wants progress he says.

If you have not fed a hungry person for a week, what would happen? Will that person eventually die? Yes. The same is true when neglect rules the day. Corporations can either infuse the state government with money, as gratitude for their commercial success; or, they can roll like “pigs” in their own profit-mud, carrying on without any sense of social responsibility.

If a person is boycotted or divested from a marketplace, long enough, and with enough persistence… that person will similarly, die. That is why the greatest compassion where it is most needed, (not where it is not), causes health boosts for the whole community.

The marketplace should be made and maintained to remain fair for all honest participants, regardless of bias (through the richness of diversity of PRODUCT). And, when people are well, the products become better and more relevant to the masses.

Remember, I’m a writer, so I’m speaking specifically about free speech. It doesn’t matter whether I’m brown, white, yellow, pink, or blue. What matters, is that the messages made from me and others, are diverse. What matters, is that no one necessarily knows what I look like; but, that my ideas get out there and that I get paid. I have to live up to my end of the bargain, but so do “you”.

We all have the same basic needs and requirements for life to be sustained. We have a collective responsibility there. And, that’s why taxation is required for funding. I concede that. It would be nice to never have to pay or collect tax. But, this is not where we are. Government requires funding as it also is required to administer. Corporations and institutions fundraise – that’s also a good model of business. Progress requires investment. And charity is investment also.

What we cannot do however, is lie about any one persons’ state of mental health in order to “qualify” them in the eyes of our laws. It’s tempting, for leaders in government, to create “sick-to-healed” stories. Remember, my “rags to riches” analogy? Who doesn’t appreciate a “come-back story”, whether ‘Rocky Balboa’ or ‘Cinderella’?

But, again, if the hero truly is NOT terribly ill… only marginally so, then the exaggeration and lie that he or she is or was, will serve no good end. The “ends” cannot justify the means; especially if our “hero” is an honest person. We cannot make liars out of us. Remember what I said about volumes? We’ve all gotten common colds in our lifetime, and all of us have had a symptom or two that is in the books of psychological disorders. And, every common cold is not “Covid-19”.

Claiming illness fictitiously, so as to raid public funds or to sue corporations, would also have terrible consequences. Such dishonest people impact us and bankrupt us and our institutions.

That said, increasingly, more and more of us are showing true symptoms. And, traumatic events can certainly bring those symptoms out in us; surfacing eventually. Diseases that are common in older Americans put huge strain on us too.

Clearly, many are more afflicted than others. I’ve witnessed people who are very afflicted. I’ve had afflicted, previous clients, while working in the private healthcare field for about 6 years. This is why, friends, my experiences point to the truth that medical treatment resources must be reserved for those who are truly ill. It also simply makes better economic sense not to treat every minor imbalance in a person.

Also, “doping”, (giving performance enhancing drugs), or imposing behavioral changes by way of force or incarceration, is to great extent inhumane and degrading. Now, if a person or a family is seeking treatment for one of its members; we have the resources for them we’re told. We’re dedicating those resources in good faith as a community, so that efforts and expenditures do not become a “boondoggle” for practitioners and insurance companies.

And, the millionaires & billionaires must chip in with fair level, financially. I think the governor agrees. And I’ve asserted this already earlier in this paper.

The most urgent cases for us can be spotted on our streets. They need the most help first; and quickly, because they do not appear to have direct family-members who will help them in time. You know what many of them look like: some of them smell very bad, they have little food and drink, they carry trash around with them as though their trash heaps were prized possessions. Showing a side-by-side photograph of someone like him, next to someone who is only moderately going through a temporary crisis and normal arguments, clearly would depict that substantial state intervention for the latter is not sensible. They’ll work it out for themselves; and they should. The state must be very reticent to open a door to intervening in family affairs that are between teens and their parents (a very normal rubbing of elbows). Incidentally, many cultural backgrounds inspire rancor and passionate confrontations internally. This is not a sign of poor mental health. It’s actually healthy, in many proven ways.

Adults and teens out on the streets, who want housing, and who say – “yes, I’m terminally ill” – agreeing to sign to it, swearing it to be true? Well, they must testify to that, or be denied treatment. But, if they are simply impoverished, coerced by a family member or the state into signing documents, they cannot get help unless they lie about their state of mind. Today, the state offers housing, coupled with humane medical treatment.

Many of our wonderful churches do so much for this problem. There are shelters all over our country. Care is coupled with faith based instruction. And, they (these organizations), many times today face discrimination from usually the far-left liberal politicians who seek to undermine, punish, and impose ideological restrictions on God’s works of charity through believers. Why? Because many of these organizations are correctly defying liberal impositions on liberty… abortion, being one of them. So, we have to be careful about accepting face value promises that might disappoint; and, in effect, perpetuate existing problems for people in need.

A writer, for example, on grounds of ideological resentments and hostility against Conservative value speech – is mindful of worthy litigation.

As explained before, private medical information can stigmatize a person. Especially that is true, if that person is widely known to many people. And, that person might not want to substantiate any such information, out of respect for any circumstance; and for all people (ill or not). For the sake of privacy of others, he or she might be an advocate of privacy with regard to medical disclosure laws. You see, the more we talk about our health to employers, the more we invite discrimination through official documents and work contracts, that potentially undermine our own collective civil rights. “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” in the military, was soundly based on this reasoning.

Every product in the marketplace, today, is developed not necessarily by a single person anymore. Rather, by a team or “supply chain” spanning the globe comprised of people who do not discriminate against one another. Whether you work for ‘Tesla’, ‘Amazon’, or ‘Fox-News’, your medical history should matter little, if you can do a good job now today. That’s the way it should be. And, as it was said already, EVERYONE has something to hide (as far as what an employer would or might consider incriminating).

So, for a company to say that a trained individual’s ideas simply are “junk”, or, “not to snuff”, in an increasingly interconnected society as ours today, clearly begs the question: Who exactly is taking qualified measurement? And, who’s acting hypocritical?

Or, when a “shoddy” autobiography gets edited 7 times, by experts, in order for the “shoddy” author to get published, who exactly gets the credit for including him or her in the marketplace?”

Do any of us really do anything at all alone anymore, on all of our own merits? No.

The “shoddy” author, who to some degree must live with the lie that he or she is talented, on an individual metric, still gets his money we hope. And, to credit of society, at least he or she will not starve from neglect. I understand that, don’t you? That’s reality. And, sometimes the most amazing work of individuals still gets shunned. I cite the brilliance of classical music composers such as Mozart; and others, who experienced poverty and illness despite their brilliance. But, today, credit goes usually to more than one person for any “masterpiece” – due to increased inter-connectivity. Arguably, it always has been that way, it just appeared different. This in no way implies that an original inventor or author has no intellectual property ownership. Still, the prevailing truth is, that the original author is the primary contributor who deserves the full credit for originality and labor.

History teaches us that brilliance is often punished and marginalized. Insanity and genius are often ridiculed. Should we then create “bad” art, allowing us to appear less gifted? Instead of risk being shunned for working? Yes, perhaps. But, when there are so many lies, it becomes all the more necessary to defend the truth as a community – even if that means standing by less marketable material. Speak out and demand high quality products and artistic works!

Today, work can be refined by a second, third, or even fourth qualified editor (NOT financed by the original author). Beware though. Scammers are everywhere trying to inject their “expertise” and make a quick buck off of originality.

Those among you, who follow my work, know that I respect indie film making and classic studio stories alike. That is because some works are best suited to be handled by fewer minds and smaller budget, while other works of art are best handled by more minds and larger budget.

Back to the topic of honesty and integrity, there is temptation to lie when filling out forms, so that we qualify for something. When answering some questions, interviewing for job, or collecting public benefit. Honesty prevents wastefulness and promotes equity. That’s what so many people are seeking more of in our country and our state – equity.

Now, lastly, there are jobs that are done in secret. This requires humility and secrecy. This is not lying, because secrecy is not being passed off as truth and because it has a qualified reason to be unspoken.

Secrecy is truth-neutral. I realize that many wouldn’t know what the heck I’m talking about here. They may say that is hypocritical. But, secret keeping is often necessary. A person has a right to be mute for example. Being mute is not justification for forced medical treatment. Being mute, secretive, or lacking actionable information from others, is not a clear sign of mental illness.

Behavior modification, especially under these circumstances, is a peak of abusiveness; and, I personally equate that with sexual battery. Because, it denies the dignity of a person’s identity, assumes that the person has knowledge that he may not, and robs him of his ability to be honest with the world. When I see certain people attempting to strip honorable people of their well deserved position or job, by asking irrelevant questions, I take great offense.

Back to my points about secrecy in work: “outsiders” may misunderstand work performed under cloak, as stagnancy – as not being “productive” enough in the eyes of a dollar-strapped authority. Supporting the theory that they are not well comes all too easily when truth is stranger than their fiction. When, other people lack the clear understanding of another’s circumstance.
Perhaps one is retired? Perhaps one’s work goes unnoticed, because they do their work quietly and without fanfare? Perhaps they’ve served an exhausting succession of years in military, or, secret service?
Perhaps a person’s honor has been stolen from; and no one else would know of it? Perhaps they’ve accomplished great things; allowing others to take credit for the paths they created? Why do I say all of this? Well, because, I’ve been through some challenges in my own life and I’m not detached from what I observe. I know. We know.

I’m also not a stranger to fact that huge numbers of people leave our state. Also, that huge numbers have been coming in – who may have no idea what they might be in for.

I do respect the governor’s optimism for our economy. I appreciate his confidence in people such as myself. With every day, young people step closer into taking on more responsibility and opportunities to prove their accountability.

If forced patient-care becomes a promise of revenues to health insurers, my interest will not be shared. Achieving good health only for those who most urgently need it, is more beneficial; rather than, ensuring that as many “mentally ill” patients will go to doctor visits that are subsidized by rampant taxation elevations.

To those who have not studied from the vast taxonomy of different psychological illnesses, I say this: every human being is in his life, a host of at least one kind of ill. So, why do we scapegoat persons with certain illness? Answer: (to accuse; and, to abuse). We couldn’t possibly, nor, realistically completely cure every single person of every single kind of illness in existence. The healthcare community has the cures for those that are in the spotlight. Those not in the spotlight are equally important, as I pointed out before. It’s a good time, though, to apply those treatments to whatever the street people who are ill suffer from each. Given a home too? Well that is good, provided that they don’t turn it into a drug-dealing outpost or disease hotbed. For that not to happen, they have to get clean. This often requires detoxification in hospitals.

Some psychological disorders have common taxonomy.

One symptom that is often cited in some psychological disorders is, “delusion of grandeur”. I’d like to comment about that one, as I’ve witnessed it many times simply by tuning in to certain TV stations. Some celebrities and entertainers suffer from it, because adoration begins to warp their reality. It can afflict a writer such as me if I allow it to. You see, “grandeur” is a reality for many people. If you are in a position of power and either high esteem or huge reproach, then you have “grandeur”. But, it’s important to note that “grandeur” in itself is human mythology, when we attribute it to ourselves. Yes, we’re special creatures. But, we would be wise to be more like Paul the apostle; remembering that we are “tools” of much higher power. I remind myself to be like Paul, so that I don’t have too high opinion of myself – as if I did not need God. What a disgrace that would be, if my ego got in the way of my work. I know that I do, need Him, for everything.

There are legitimately grand entities. Without citing religious text exactly, many human beings are plagued by delusions of grandeur. Many of us, considered healthy, are aspiring to be heroes who are loved by all. If someone is considered “grand” by multitudes, then we generally don’t call them delusional – because the multitude of alibis lends some credence. But, you know what? It actually is clinical delusion. I’ll tell you why. What you personally deem to be quite an accomplishment for yourself… might be worthless and irrelevant to an observer. Your hope is that they share in your joy. But, they might not. They may think that grandeur is a curse!
Look how people often rise and fall from fame; from “grace”. Most of us are “falling and rising” throughout each month of each year! So, be not fooled by the moments in which a “grand” person enjoys a few minutes of spotlight attention. Let them enjoy it, but don’t be fooled for a minute that they in their lives, are exempt from personal challenges.

So, what do doctors mean about “delusion of grandeur”? Well, objectivity is important in science, right? And, let’s not forget that medicine should be rooted in science, not politics.

Provided they are not jealous of you, they don’t have an ideological motivation to harass you, and they fear just reprisal, then a doctor or doctors might not say that you’re “delusional” on paper simply in order to pay their own bills. They might know not to classify your condition as such.

What if you don’t care if they do? What if you walk two miles with them when they ask you to walk one? Or, how do you prove to someone that you don’t have “delusion of grandeur” when you know that they think you do? Do you say, “Oh no, I’m actually worthless”? Of course not! You should not! Otherwise, you’ll be suffering another malady: low self image! God created each of us, unique… loved by Him more than by anyone else.

What if your awareness is such; and, your life story is such that you could prove clinicians wrong about clinical labels, if you were able to and willing to? Would you go through the trouble of doing so? Would it benefit you and the world beyond yourself?

I suppose that’s a personal question, best answered by you. It’s best to accept, that none among us can exceed the nobility and grandeur of Jesus Christ and God in 3 persons. Not everyone attempts to be like Him either. There is no way we can possibly measure up by true likeness. Not even, with the best intent of a physician. Nevertheless, our God loves us for trying. And we ought to be great in our work – exceptional. It’s a choice, and administering medicine is an extension of Christ’s nobility. The caveat is certain failure in trying to be equal to Him; which is in effect, a defiance leveled against His well established superiority over all of us humans.

So, we can’t fix everyone from the inside out 100% if we recognize humility; and, should not force all persons to be compassionate either. All of our solutions and actions will be flawed in some way, even when administering to others. But, without doubt, efforts of achieving better health nurture a love for self. Love for self, and love for other, should intertwine.

We can improve our own health; but we have to know why we want to do so. If the answer that we come up with is: only to make money, to be admired, or to make the state more powerful – there’s something not quite right with that equation. Good health should be about improving quality of life (for you, for me, for family, and for the sake of community lastly but not least).

That includes: doing away with treatment methods proven inhumane, sadistic, and ineffective. The cultural shift away from harsh institutionalization, in mental health, is a good evolution! The end to “medieval” procedures such as rendering brain death; and, toward private consultations using sound pharmacology, is arguably a very positive and good change with modernity. With liberalization of social attitudes and lifestyles, shift from institutionalization is complementary (and on par) with more humane therapies of today. I personally also find that medicines are completely beneficial, when the patient experiences symptomatic improvements which make him feel better in an instant. This is motivation to stay on it for continued good health!

Critics of pharmacy have said that psycho-active drugs are harmful. What do they know? They are not speaking truth unless they know that in their own life. Critics say that patients get addicted to a prescribed drug. Yes they do, but, this is not an addiction to a harmful substance. Rather, it is much like daily heart medication regulating blood coagulation, or daily essential hormone medication. While chemotherapy should not be a lifetime drug therapy, other conditions are lifetime drug commitments; and, as such they cannot be suddenly and abruptly discontinued by the patient simply because he wants to.

I quote CA’s current governor Gavin Newsom, from his State of the State Speech (2020), who adeptly invokes former US President John Kennedy’s quote also: [President Kennedy envisioned a system in which, in his words, “the reliance on the cold mercy of custodial isolation will be supplanted by the open warmth of community concern.”].

Again, it is very critical to mention, that volume/degree of patient’s symptom matters significantly. Voluntary custodial isolation is the wish of some. You might not believe me, but it is. What’s important to recognize, is that 1 week of humane treatment in such a place, cannot in anyway be likened to 1 month of humane treatment in such a place. Volume in everything, matters. Being ignored for 2 weeks by your friend is not equal to being ignored for an entire year!

Eating one meal in one day is not equivalent to eating three. And, with medicine, being doped with 100 mgs of “drug x”, is not equivalent to being administered 2 mgs of “drug x” – without overdose or under-dose. Mental treatment is an imperfect science, but, overall our situation in our history has improved due to the knowledge gleaned from research. Some people even volunteer for clinical trials. Arguably, they are exploited and enticed into it for pay. But, the research over time moves us all into general improvements for more people. I think I would make a decent Psychiatrist, however, I will not be going back to school for a medical degree.

Instead, I’d like to continue writing, be a good husband and dad- using God’s teachings as guiding principle for all that I do.

There’s another topic that I’d like you to be familiar with. This is educational. Some countries: Germany as one example, refer to this phenomena as “hetzen”. It is effort to drive a person through unmanageable provocation, to insanity. Essentially, we here in the USA, equate that term with the one that we use here: “harassment”. We’ve also referenced the targeting of individuals by large interest groups, using ordinary accomplices in large number.

For more understanding, read:
“https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gang%20stalking”

This is something everyone should be familiar with. At a time where our state rightly points attention to and fights against crimes as sexual battery, sexual slavery/trafficking, “pimping”, pedophilia, sexual crimes in general, and widespread abortions, this link is another abuse to add to that short list (which has detrimental sexual effects on persons). This kind of bullying – motivated by exclusion aims, ideological assault, character assassination, and other specified manipulative goals, is very harmful. It’s all driven to stoke annoyance or even fear. A form of terrorism, it aims to force conformity; murder in worst cases. These behaviors are hard to prosecute. They are linked to diminishing mental health.

I’d like to now refer to the governor’s speech recently given – and comment more on various points he made; and, his concrete plans at tackling poverty with its side effects:

“Today, we are making available 286 state properties- vacant lots, fairgrounds, armories and other state buildings- to be used by local governments, for free, for homelessness solutions.

We have lease templates ready to go- and we’re ready for partnership.

We have also directed Caltrans to make better use of other unoccupied spaces to get homeless housing up as fast as possible.

We have great examples under development in San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and Los Angeles.

We’re able to move faster than ever before on things like leases and land because we established a Strike Team across many agencies, including Health & Human Services, Caltrans, and the CHP- all with one goal: to break through bureaucratic barriers.

As the state moves fast, we must also move together with cities and counties who are critical allies in addressing this emergency.”

This portion of his speech talks about cooperation for setting up trailers. What I’m not quite sure of, is if he’s also talking about building permits and the building of houses on that land where trailers now are going to provisionally first. He seems to reference that idea, of permanent housing in those places where street people can go to live.

What is clear, however, is that this immediate temporary solution is required to help all families who were displaced by wildfires.

He said he’s meeting with people about this, during that week immediately following his speech that was then given.

“Dozens of communities across our state are stepping up.”

“In city after city, household after household, the hard work of this legislature is making dreams more real for more Californians than ever before.”

“Last year, because of your leadership, I was proud to sign two important bills.

One streamlined the permitting process for navigation centers statewide.”

This seems to me to be the first time that anyone hearing this speech for the first time has heard of a “navigation center”.

“In city after city, household after household, the hard work of this legislature is making dreams more real for more Californians than ever before.”

I doubt very much that Californians “dream” about living in trailers. But, for those who are street people, it is a dream fulfilled, yes! Is this still is a “far cry” from “California dreaming”?

When we hear the word “housing” – most are envisioning much more than a trailer-home.

Subsequently, his speech gets into the nitty-gritty of psychological issues that many Californian street people suffer from.

According to Sammy Caiola again (“a healthcare reporter”), it is said, [California mental health advocates are currently debating reforms to (this) law (concerning commitment), which governs involuntary commitments of “gravely disabled” adults].

The reporter continues by saying, “An unsuccessful bill last year would have expanded the definition to more clearly include people with severe mental health conditions.”

I’m wondering why anyone would endeavor to commit a person who does not exhibit “severe mental health conditions” without some nefarious motivation. This is a distressing prospect. Wider, forced committal to involuntary treatment requires a person to be exhibiting severe symptoms of illness. Not simply poverty aka: “gravely disabled” status. The definitions and scope are critically important to law. So my hope is that the governor is not simply seeking to expand treatment to those who endeavor to lie about their health in order to qualify for government funded psychological services.

Increasingly, many, many, people who need housing need it because their first house was destroyed in a fire; or, they can’t afford rent suddenly, they lost their job, they lived above their means, have excessive debt resulting in foreclosure. Many of the trailers being put out are for those persons and families it seems.

Those critics who are opposing legislative proposals to define “gravely disabled” adults more clearly as “those with severe mental health conditions” likely oppose this specificity not because they fear civil rights’ intrusions; rather, they seek to open up legal access to mental health services to folks who would not honestly qualify for benefits otherwise… if they are instead classified as poor only (a.k.a. “gravely disabled”). The lack of specificity or generality would exclude many impoverished people from legal access to voluntary care and/or housing provisions funded by taxation.

But, when we talk about committing a person to involuntary treatment, only individuals who are “gravely disabled” AND “harboring severe mental health conditions” should be considered eligible for forcible institutionalization (inpatient or outpatient). And, it should be a decision endorsed by a judge and county that is not otherwise facing lawsuit.

For that reason, and the risk of unjust institutionalization that are tax payer funded, penalizing people only “guilty” of poverty, I think the definition and requirements must always be specific, clear, and precise. This will also mitigate retaliatory lawsuits against health providers, law enforcement, cities, state, and country.

Mental health treatment is best reserved for those who are severely mentally ill. For example, (most evidently) someone who goes on a rampage shooting spree at a schools and public gathering places. We all have to be alert to intervene when necessary, so as to prevent something as that from happening. We see such crimes happening nationwide too frequently! Fortunately, it is a relatively rare population. Unfortunately, their damage is huge. For them, the law and incarceration is mostly required. And, those are the people who call our attention, to cry out that we need “mental health” initiatives to neutralize that kind threat.

Compassionate mental health treatment, is best for those who are both poor and who exhibit psychological disturbances, acutely. “Acutely” means sharply and intensely. “Chronically”, on the other hand, implies livable and managed. A chronically ill person can have terminal illness, but, does not need urgent attention and ongoing treatment. Conversely, an “acutely ill” person requires attention fast.

Additionally, mental illness treatment is not always suitable for those persons who are poor, but, not threats to others’ safety. If any of these persons should seek treatment voluntarily, then that’s their prerogative to seek it out. But, they may not be ill enough to qualify for first priority funding. The state budget should fund those municipalities’ local social service programs on an ancillary level. These are the people whom the governor seems to be speaking of also in his speech.

There really are these groupings, and important distinctions. Especially, in light of profit driven falsity and laws potentially misapplied. Civil rights matter here. It’s comparable to a discussion of the differences between petty crime and those worthy of longer punishment. For obvious reasons, a misdemeanor does not justify capital punishment. In the context of mental health treatment, institutionalization/forced treatment, is not always benevolent; rather harshly disciplinary and depriving.

So, the same distinctions matter when discussing “mental health” which is hugely general – lumping everyone into too narrow a defined topic. But, it’s a starter for conversation. I guarantee you, most people are not as concerned about their suffering with minor psychological disorders (everyone lives with some); rather, with those persons who carry out treacherous acts of mass violence, indiscriminately and unjustly. With that, most people are concerned about illicit drug use and poverty. By and large, the governor’s and our attention must be primarily on such menaces, while also helping the average street person – those without money, to confront their psychological challenges too, though separately.

The governor cites Supreme Court judicial ruling from [1975, (in which) a U.S. Supreme Court decision, ‘O’Connor v. Donaldson’, ruled that mental illness alone cannot justify a state locking a person up against his will.] Now, in 2020, would it be wise to re-examine this ruling in order to decide which particular offenses might justify lock-up of “criminally insane” persons? The legislative bills of today, presumably, can challenge this ruling depending on what the ruling asserted by precedent. Challenges to it, might stoke well founded paranoia among free people.

“Lock up” can imply incarceration, likened to criminal behavior. “Lock up” can also imply medical institutionalization; or, medical treatment (against that person’s consent). So, when ‘O’Connor v. Donaldson’ is revisited and invoked, we have to pay close attention to the significant difference between the “criminally insane” and the “psychologically ill”. Both of which might, but, do not necessarily justify the same kinds of state intervention. “Criminally insane” persons are those who are in an outlier category. Their behavior might constitute trial and jail sentencing.

Contrary to such case, “psychologically ill” persons (gravely disabled or not), should never be punished in a psychological way of deprivation. I argue also, that hardened criminals require compassion too, often overlooked as the expectation is to be tough with someone who is tough himself. For those persons who are completely non threatening, licensed care-giving homes are perhaps a good solution. And, all persons should be able to spend their time in a zone where they can smoke some cigarettes, read a book, listen to some music, and generally use some personal space and liberties if they so choose. Even private “care-homes” generally offer these freedoms; and they should have enough nutritious foods prepared for them 3 times daily.

The Governor in his speech said: “Laws were changed that made it harder to compel mental health treatment. Governor Ronald Reagan signed the ‘Lanterman-Petris-Short Act’ in 1967, designed to end the inappropriate lifetime commitment of people with mental illness.” This law is specific to commitment into institutions and hospitals (or converted homes), which by the way still exist as I’ve just referenced. This law was good; and it remains good.

When looking at a recent trend in monetizing “sobriety homes”, the impetus for those, is to fill gaps that were created when institutionalization began to be phased away. Like “sobriety homes”, psychological illness therapy today for patients can be administered through private homes that are licensed and staffed with clinician(s)/caregiver(s), nurse(s), cook(s), psychologist, or psychiatrist. Private and licensed outpatient “practices” can similarly exist in a private house converted for such purpose. This makes committing non-menacing “psychologically ill” patients in high security hospitals, less relevant. But, the temptation for case managers to wash their hands clean of responsibility, and advocate for forced inpatient or outpatient treatment is large, without such laws in place. There may even be economically motivated crime. The ‘Lanterman-Petris-Short Act’ of 1967 poses no threat to those voluntarily seeking healthcare; thus, its protections regarding forced care, are well required and more relevant than ever before.

What ended up happening in the 1990’s, in California is a lack of clarity between criminally insane and psychologically troubled individuals. The authorities responded to this confusion, by clamping down viciously on anyone who was suspected of being criminally insane (or political subversive). And, with the introduction of privatizing prisons- which make money from headcount of inmates, it seemed that no one cared whether a person was locked up in prison for psychiatric reason or for crime. There were no distinctions. And, this did a disservice to society.

Today, we have the opportunity to expand psychological treatment to those who choose to receive it. There are many who do. They want to access public funds so that they can become healthier. In some cases, they abuse illegal drugs by choice; and in others, they do not.
There are a lot of prospective patients; and no one needs to be forcibly treated unless they are criminally insane. Civil rights are just as pertinent and Constitutional today, as they were in the 1970’s. Eligibility standards for patients should still be clear and statisticians must be accurate.

Drug treatment programs differ from psychological treatment, for good reason. Drug abuse requires detoxification and behavior modification, while psychological illness treatment requires psychoanalysis and drug therapy.

“This year, we have proposed CalAIM, a once-in-a-generation reform of our Medi-Cal system, based on the obvious, but long-ignored principle, that physical health and brain health are inextricably linked.”

“Brain health” is physical health, but the brain is an extremely complex organ. And, no two differing psychological diseases can always be fixed by the exact same therapies.

As a simple example, smoking can accelerate one patient’s psychological healing, while it can result in the opposite effect for a person with a different psychological condition.

The governor cites a statistic next: “10 million Californians-1 in 4-suffer from some type of behavioral health condition.”

This means that doctors have many potential patients. But, it also means that many of these “behavioral health conditions” can be quite minor and livable/well managed for a patient – ergo, they do not require professional treatment or interventions.

Poverty is still the horrid thing. I’ve written to you about who should pick up these “tabs”.

“…our healthcare system has been designed to treat some of our parts, not the sum of our parts. That must change.”

The description, “sum of our parts”, implies that everyone has equal standing and legitimacy in voluntarily seeking psychological treatment therapies. That’s what all the “parts” have in common, to one another. Furthermore, no singular psychological disorder should get all the spotlight attention in the news.

To repeat: Sammy Caiola, a healthcare reporter, says, “A coalition of California lawmakers is currently pushing for mental health parity – the requirement that insurance benefits for mental health and substance use disorders are equal to coverage for other types of health care.

Advocates argue that behavioral health benefits, regardless of whether patients are in the private or public system, are too difficult to access.”

This sounds like a progressive motive, in which funding should be accessible for anyone seeking voluntary handling, regardless of what kind of psychological disorder he or she may be seeking treatment for.

The governor hinted that this would come from ‘Medi-Cal’, a Medi-caid Program (which receives Federal Tax Dollar Funding).
The governor also stated this month, that his “Whole Person Care pilots” will assist impoverished patients with transportation issues that they are facing, as they seek out and receive the healthcare voluntarily, that they wish to take advantage of.

He continues to say, “That’s the aim of ‘CalAIM’, transforming ‘Medi-Cal’ as we know it, backed by a $695 million budget request to make this real.”

I respect the governor’s willingness to clearly convey his motive for opening up funds-pool, for these specific and material reasons. We’ll have to observe how honorably those funds are utilized and if eligibility for patients to access is sensible.

The governor says, “That’s why we need better legal tools, ones that allow local governments, health providers, and law enforcement to more effectively help people access the treatment they need.”

It is to me unclear which “legal tools” he’s referencing, that would not turn back the clock to a day in which institutionalization (committal) became an arm of government overreach. Would these funds be made available for coercing less-than “severely” psychologically afflicted persons? I point back to the assertions I already stated earlier, regarding differences between “gravely disabled”, “criminally insane”, both, or merely “psychologically impaired”. Rounding up mentally disabled persons and institutionalizing them, certainly would outrage society too.

Mr. Newsom continues by saying, “We must tailor these policies to reflect the realities of street homelessness today, which are so different than they were 50 or even 15 years ago when these laws were enacted.”

He focuses on street persons.

He then says, “And while we made progress on limited and general conservatorships last year, further improvements are warranted.”

This is an area of family law, where a relative seizes control over the life of another relative: “conservatorship”. I caution everyone with these pushes by the government to get involved in this particular way.

Executor privilege can perpetuate abusive relationships. Patients must always have the legal backing to contest and refuse. Some patients prefer to be in state care that is entirely funded by the state. Family law attorneys should be appointed, in cases of objections by a defendant. Involvement, from the government, should always be limited. Any temptations to execute “conservatorship” that is unwanted by a patient should always be prevented – no exceptions.

Every adult has Constitutional authority to summon an attorney regardless of ability to pay for one by the state, before any imposition of forced health.

‘Laura’s Law’, allows relatives and service providers to ask courts to compel those who need treatment into community-based outpatient care according to the governor. “Need” is still subjective. While I do respect the spirit of this law in the case of minors still living under their parent’s or parents’ roof, I point to the fact that this law is not required to be applied to the criminally insane person who has committed a serious crime. Nor is it of much use for anyone who is older than 18 and refusing treatment as they should be given the choice to leave town at such juncture. When a member of a family (deemed ill by another member of that family) is told that they respectfully refuse health treatments, the decision must be respected. ‘Laura’s Law’, expanded, to lawfully commit adults who are suffering from psychological illness, will only encourage divorce, alienation, unlawful property acquisitions, or worse. And, it does little fairly, for decreasing homelessness in our society among increasing numbers of persons. A benevolent loved one can simply take an ill person in, without need for conservatorships. Conservatorship is not advised.

The governor continues by saying, “That said, we know that the most urgent issue is not the legal inability to conserve people but the unavailability of housing and care for those who most need it.”

I agree with that assertion and am glad to hear him say this. And, the demand for housing (in number) has expanded well beyond the needs of only the acutely psychologically ill population. The demand is larger, for the generalized sum of poor persons, independent of reason and cause.

The governor continues by highlighting ‘Proposition 63’, the ‘Mental Health Services Act’. I like that this Act, “from 2004”, shores up funding to ease financial burden on middle class, lower class, and destitute persons. This is most definitely good, in its enlistment of wealthy people being part of the solution. Specifically, for homeless persons who suffer psychologically.

According to Sammy Caiola, health care reporter, “The estimated total revenue from the act was nearly $2.4 billion in 2019, and is expected to stay in that range in 2020. The funding is distributed to counties on a monthly basis, to be used for mental illness prevention and community-based services.

Counties have come under fire in recent years for not using the funding appropriately, or not using it at all.”

He goes on to say that the Californian State Auditor found local mental health agencies to amass over $231 million in unspent funds by 2016.

This outrages me. These people need to be charged with crime. One relevant investigative question is: Did they not spend those funds because patients were not showing up? Unspent is OK, provided that dollars are spent as needed and not withheld; or worse, are embezzled and spent in other non-eligible ways.

Governor Newsom has said, “We are not proposing changing the funding formula for how much each county gets.”

He then says, “…reform must focus funding on street homeless, at-risk and foster youth, and those involved in the criminal justice system.”

California reporter Chris Nichols points out by comment, “In Newsom’s first year as governor, statewide home production dropped 7 percent to 110,000 units, according to figures from the California Building Industry Association. It was the first decline in a decade.”

He goes on to state, that the governor promised to lead the way on producing 3.5 million new housing units by 2025.

The governor said, “Many of our lowest-income residents understandably worry about being pushed out of their own communities because of gentrification.

It’s a vicious cycle and we own it.”

I sense the worry as well. Unfortunately, many liberals persist in rolling back tax protections for Californian homeowners – to make funding of needed programs an easier short term endeavor. Though, the increased cost of living will increase homelessness incidences if government is left to devices of unsustainable decision making. That is true of every level of government.

Millions of people “stand” on the precipice of financial ruin in 2020. And, the 1970’s law which continues to protect these same millions of Californians has been under ruthless and predatory threats of attack by the Democrat party, for many past years.

That is what leveled widespread public disdain against some of his predecessor governors. That is why we’ve been fighting tax hikes of all kinds ardently.

Many renters too, have voted for repeal of our protection. So, as we talk about homelessness, higher property taxation rates would add more homeless “per capita” to the existing crisis.

Homeowners cannot foot the bill alone through escalations in home tax, good for expansion of mental health services. Furthermore, there is increase each year in tax rate, despite any repeal of our protection. Repeal of that, would be catastrophic and hugely consequential.

The governor promotes home building. “When we don’t build housing for people at all income levels, we worsen the homeless crisis.” This is true as far as I can tell.

But also true, much of California consists of aging homes like everywhere else. These homes are usually passed on to grand-kids, kids, or are sold to immigrant residents. We’re fortunate to have them.

Out-of-state populations move in, and many longtime Californians also choose to leave. Many Californian houses have been upgraded and renovated before sales, so that higher market value prices can be acquired upon sales.

There’s a real economic incentive for realtors too, to upgrade homes prior to lucrative sales.

Many cities offer rental homes and apartments too.

The governor has offered the following outline to us: “In the budget I just submitted, I proposed a new California Access to Housing Fund, and, with it, a whole new way of investing in homeless solutions.

We have a clear purpose for this fund: paying for what works.

Gap financing for innovative housing models like hotel/motel conversions and securing vacant units wherever we can find them.

Stabilizing and expanding board and care homes.

And, preventing homelessness in the first place through rent subsidies and rapid re-housing to help people one job loss, one illness, away from homelessness.”

The last point especially, is an interesting offer. In exchange for that, I hope that renters will not continue to vote against the interests of their homeowner neighbors living in their cities and counties.

The governor criticized “the past funding model” when he said, “Up until now, state aid has been block granted to local governments by formula.

Spending decisions have been relatively unrestricted and locally driven. But the problem has gotten worse.”

While I’m not familiar with that spending model, he makes clear that the spending model was not successful; and that he has a new strategy.

The transcript of the governor’s speech was retrieved at: www.capradio.org .

All of my citations and quotations herein come from the transcript and interjections published there.

Before spending some days writing this paper of mine on this topic, I intended to write a paper on the differences and similarities between characterization and identification.

It was to be aimed at younger adults; an intellectual and scientific lecture about how we see other people. I was going to also embark on the meaning of predilection, bias, and what it means to be naive. Maybe I’ll revisit those topics later.

But, this political issue now written about here (and published) proved to me to require priority and achieve much of the same intention. Worthy of highlight, in its own specific context, I hope you enjoyed reading this position paper!

In the wake of some challenging weeks, I also took some time off.
As a prevailing attitude, for me, my Christian religion keeps me well. Many people have asserted that religion is “opiate of the masses”. But, if that is true, one need only read that Christ is the “living water” through which we Christians are eternally refreshed by. These “waters” inspire hope. That should not sound cheap.

During the beginning weeks of 2020, 2019 closed out with some very big challenges. The death of a friend to cancer, a second death of a different “old” friend, at the end of 2019 – a severe burn injury to an acquaintance; and, the death of US sport legend, who with him among the dead, was a wife of acquaintance to my parents. This all presented some sadness, among other simultaneous challenges and stresses for me.

Some of these writings are supported by a 4 units’ course at University, about former medical therapies and practices used in the United States of America (1800’s – early 1900’s).

The topic of “mental health”… was once taboo. “Everyone” has been talking about it for some time now here. And, I feel that this paper is beneficial for all.

Young, I was interested in psychiatry and psychology due to the wisdom of persons such as Dr. Sigmund F. and Dr. “Ruth” W.

Medicine is not only scientific and speculative, but, also anchored in religion and ethics. Hence, my great interest in the topic.