Heartwarming story, but also laden with unintentional irony.

[No Elephants]

See if anything about this seems ironic to you.

20 year old Nick Simmons had disappeared from his parents home in upstate NY on New Year's Day. They saw their son in a photo taken by AP photog Jacquelyn Martin, and picked him up. Here are some of the details of the story.

The photo, taken Saturday by AP photographer Jacquelyn Martin, showed Simmons with his unshaven face pressed against a grate outside the Federal Trade Commission. He wore a ski jacket and a hood over his head. A thick gray blanket covered his lower body.


Martin was assigned to the White House that weekend, but with President Barack Obama still on vacation in Hawaii, she spent the day looking for shots that would illustrate the cold weather. That is how she found Nick Simmons, in an area where homeless people often gather when it is frigid outside. She found a cluster of men huddled around the grate, introduced herself and started taking pictures.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/truly-a-miracle-family-spots-missing-man-in-news-photo/


Homeless people in the nation's capitol, huddle around a grate outside the Federal Trade commission, of all agencies.

[Enthusiast]

1. There are a number of unanswered questions.

, questions about his relationship with his family, possible addiction or mental health issues.

[No Elephants]

2. Questions about whom? The guy huddled by the grate, or Obama?

Or both?

Your list of question areas fits both of them, so I am not sure which of them you have questions about.

[Enthusiast]

3. Why did he disappear?

Was he having mental health issues? Addiction problems?

Yes, the nation doesn't take care of the homeless. I agree. I guess having the world's greatest military and domestic surveillance is more important than taking care of the millions of unfortunates.

This homeless problem really took off with Saint Ronnie. It has never been addressed since.

It is all about priorities.

[No Elephants]

4. The guy by the grate? I would imagine mental problems.

Who in his right mind leaves his parents' home in frigid upstate NY in winter, leaving his wallet behind, to go huddle near a grate in Washington, D.C.?

Mental illness or investigative journalism by someone planning an expose or a book are the only two possible explanations that come to my mind.


More and more lately, every time I think something started with Ronnie, I learn it started under Carter, with a Democratic Congress. So, when someone mentions "Ronnie started X problem," I've begun googling "Carter and X problem."

Bear in mind, as you read the following, that I keep saying that every time I see the word "reform" anymore, I cringe. As in welfare "reform" by Clinton, "entitlement reform" proposed by Obama, etc.

The following is written by someone who blames Ronnie and Republicans, yet I believe it shows that Carter and a Democratic Congress took the first steps toward "reform" that led to increasing homelessness.

This paper provides an illustration of this co-optation by examining the policies regarding involuntary commitment of the mentally ill. The shifts in such policies were not the result of overt attempts at change, but rather part of an overall effort to realign the political economy to be more profitable for business. The overall result was that political discourse shifted from a focus on social policy to a focus on fiscal policy. As such, social programs that necessitated financial outlays on the part of the federal government were overlooked in favour of policies that seemed less costly.

Still, the administration did not, and perhaps could not, act in isolation and without public support. But they didn't have to. By the middle of the 1970s, there was a consensus among interested groups that reform of the Mental Health Care System was n ecessary. Lobbying on the part of special interest groups and a commitment on the part of President Jimmy Carter led to passage of the Mental Health Systems Act.

With the planned transfer of responsibility for the mentally ill to the states, reformers needed to build coalitions of fiscal conservatives concerned with the cost of social programs; "law and order" Republicans concerned with crime; and those who dea lt with the mentally ill who, in the absence of more comprehensive reform, sought more limited alternatives (Becker, 1993). Within this context, statutes and procedures dealing with involuntary commitment of the mentally ill were attractive. Easing standards cost relatively little, allowed the Administration to claim action simultaneously on mental health care policy, crime, and homelessness, and appeased health care providers and families of the mentally ill.

http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html

Yes, Carter gets a lot of credit for Habitat for Humanity, and deservedly so. However, that is a private program, not a public housing program or a public mental health program. Taking money from the states and their residents in the form of federal taxes while turning responsiblity for programs back to the states almost ensures problems. It is a very Pontius Pilate way of "addressing" a problem.

And then, good ole DLC President Bubba. True, Clinton had a Republican Congress for a good chunk of his Presidency, but he sure didn't veto Republican programs.

As a result of changes in the Congressional majority following the 1994 election, fundamental changes have also occurred in terms of national and state responsibility for low-income housing. The deep budget cuts proposed at the federal level has resulted in a shift from subsidizing public housing projects to additional Section 8 Certificates and rent vouchers granted directly to tenants. HUD apparently believes that shift to private landlords will allow them to maintain low-income housing subsidies for the largest number of people. The Republicans in Congress also intends to shift the responsibility for the provision and maintenance of subsidized housing to the state and local level.

http://rhol.org/rental/housing.htm


Mind you, I am not saying that Ronnie and Republicans did not jump all over this stuff like arsenic on rice. They did. But Jimmy and a Democratic Congress began many of the things for which Democrats automatically blame Ronnie and Republicans (and for which Republicans automatically praise Ronnie and Republicans).