Trump's Movement On Psychiatric Care

 President Trump has consistently advocated for expanding access to long-term psychiatric care facilities, often using outdated terminology like "insane asylums" or "mental institutions," as a strategy to address issues such as homelessness, serious mental illness, public safety, and crime. This approach has been a recurring theme in his rhetoric since at least 2019, when he linked it to preventing mass shootings by removing "mentally deranged" individuals from the streets.

So there's likely to be two big thing going on....first....to encourage states to broaden laws allowing courts to order individuals with severe mental illness (SMI) into inpatient or outpatient treatment if they pose a risk to themselves or others.

Second....implicitly support the construction or reopening of psychiatric facilities to provide "long-term institutional settings for humane treatment." In this case....a state will come up with a program....maybe to build three facilities...getting the fed funding to cover 80-percent of the cost to build (not  run).

So, I'll offer five humble thoughts:

1.  Red states will proceed on this....blue states will do nothing.  About three years into this....blue state leadership will be sued to such a level...that resisting won't be a option.

2.  At least 10-percent of the folks arrested/detained by the police for real crime....will meet a judge who questions  their defective nature, and get forced into a evaluation....so the mental holding unit will become a mental-prison.  I'm not saying this is a improvement....just a change.

3.  Drug addicts/crazies....will find this to be a one-way trip, and probably never exit.  

4.  A fair number of people in red states who show physical violence  tendencies....are going to be long-term residents of such places.

5.  Finally, people who readily ID themselves as anger-management players....are probably going to get a 90-day stay to chill out.  A lot of us know co-workers, relatives or neighbor in this group, and would probably agree....90 days in some state-park forest compound...fills a public need.

The ID Chatter

 I sat this AM...watching a  interview with a 'View' moderator. 

The guy running the show asks about requiring an ID to vote.

The View-gal sums  it up....blacks in general and  women would have a disadvantage...because they don't have IDs.

I've heard the blacks-don't-have-IDs chatter over and over....with zero evidence or studies to ever back it up.

The suggestion that some women don't have IDs?  I've never heard this suggestion before.

In the 1960s/1970s growing up in a rural area....you'd note that maybe 40-percent of the women over age 50....didn't drive, and I'd assume they didn't have an ID.  You'd also note that girls/ladies between 16 and 20....it was a 99.9-percent deal....yeah, they had a license/ID.

This still correct today?  No....there seems to be a fair number of younger women (say under the age of 25) who survive in some fashion  (probably in urbanized areas) without a car or license (or ID).  A couple of studies suggest this....but whether these are fair assessments....I can't say.

How these people set up bank accounts, or get prescription drugs?  Unknown. How they fly without an ID?  Also unknown.

I'm not necessarily buying into this discussion.  

Can anyone survive in Europe without an ID?  No.  That's the one thing I've noticed over 40-odd years.....once you make it mandatory, everyone plays in a legit way.

This leading to a Trump-mandate?  By early 2027....I think a requirement will be set, and voting can only occur if you present a  legit ID.  The amusing thing....a fair number of Democrats will proclaim this the end of the world....that these 'poor' people can't get an ID.

The Thing About Tariffs

 Last night, I read through a fair amount of social media commentary....how the tariff crap is going badly for US consumers....with consumers  paying 95-plus percent of the cost involved.

I sat for about 10 seconds....then started laughing.  It was a massive bogus story....fake news.

X-product made in France.....gets to the US, and has a 20-percent tariff attached.  The single US consumer interested in that French product...buys it (I  have no argument about this)...paying the tariff.

The problem is....what products made in  France....does the typical working class American buy?

You line up a thousand Texans....asking them  to list French products they buy, and fewer than 50 will raise their hand....mostly saying wine or cheese.  They are the ones paying  the extra cost.  The other 950? They have no relationship to the product, tariff, or cost.

The same is true of a Swiss-made pen that sells for $1,400 (with the tariff inserted). Only the consumers hyped-up on Swiss quality....will pay that much.

The same is true for a German who buys American-made products with a tariff inserted....a typical German won't be a US-product-consumer. 

Is this really so hard for a normal person to view and grasp? Or is it mostly BS-propaganda?