No Apparent Solution to Homelessness in San Francisco

Christopher Rufo reports on escalating homelessness in San Francisco. As he reports, the city has tried many approaches, yet nothing seems to be working. It is, indeed, an incredibly complex issue that is taxing experts from many specialties. In his article at Real Clear Investigations, Rufo offers many facts and figures, as well as a concern that the currently favored approach, destigmatizing hopelessness and addiction, leads only to more of the same. Here are two excerpts:

The nexus between homelessness, addiction, and crime is clear: According to city and federal data, virtually all of the unsheltered homeless are unemployed, while at the same time, those with serious addictions spend an average of $1,256 to $1,834 a month on methamphetamine and heroin. With no legitimate source of income, many addicts support their habit through a “hustle,” which can include fraud, prostitution, car break-ins, burglaries of residences and business, and other forms of theft.

Boudin’s plan to decriminalize such property offenses – the mirror opposite of the low-tolerance “broken windows” approach adopted in the late 1980s as crime rates began historic declines – has contributed to the sense that he is not holding criminals accountable. In 2019, the city had an incredible 25,667 “smash-and-grabs,” as thieves sought valuables and other property from cars to sell on the black market. The following year, rather than attempt to prevent or even disincentivize this crime, Boudin has proposed a $1.5 million fund to pay for auto glass repair, arguing that it “will help put money into San Francisco jobs and San Francisco businesses.” In literal terms, Boudin is subsidizing broken windows, under the notion that it can be transformed into a job-creation program.

. . .

The final plank of San Francisco’s policy platform is “destigmatization.” Public health experts in the city have gradually abandoned recovery and sobriety as the ideal outcome, preferring the limited goal of “harm reduction.” In a recent task force report on methamphetamine, the San Francisco Public Health Department noted that meth users “are likely to experience high levels of stigma and rejection in their personal and social lives,” which are “often reinforced by language and media portrayals depicting individuals who use alongside images of immorality, having chaotic lives, and perpetual use.”

On the surface, this is a strange contention. If San Francisco’s perilous trifecta is any guide, methamphetamine use is heavily correlated with chaotic lives, perpetual drug abuse, crimes against others, and various transgressions against traditional morality. The harm reductionists’ argument, however, rests on the belief that addiction is an involuntary brain disease, akin to Alzheimer’s or dementia. In this view, addiction is better seen as a disability, and any stigma associated with it is therefore an act of ignorance and cruelty. According to the Department of Public Health, the goal of harm reduction policy is to reduce this unjustified stigma and focus public policy on “non-abstinence-based residential treatment programs,” “supervised injection services,” “trauma-informed sobering site[s],” and “training for staff on how to engage marginalized or vulnerable communities in ways that do not perpetuate trauma or stigma.”

Continue ReadingNo Apparent Solution to Homelessness in San Francisco

Matt Taibbi’s List of 21 False Claims About Russia by News Media

I'm still occasionally hearing people claim that the "stories" about "Russia" were "proven."

This article by Matt Taibbi was so well researched that I want to repost it, so you can have it ready to share. Written on March 18, 2021, the article is titled, "Master List Of Official Russia Claims That Proved To Be Bogus: The Director of National Intelligence releases a report, and the press rushes to kick the football again."

There were 21 such false stories, to which Taibbi cites, chapter and verse.

Taibbi himself tweeted the above article today, probably in response to this feeble tweet by the Seattle Independent:

Here is Volume I of Robert Mueller's March 2019 Report.

I've still occasionally hear from some people (informally, and on the street) that "Trump conspired with the Russians to interfere with the 2016 election."  When you next hear that claim, refer them to page 1 of Mueller's report and ask them whether, if Mueller had concluded the opposite, whether they would have believed that:

As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel’s investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Continue ReadingMatt Taibbi’s List of 21 False Claims About Russia by News Media

AOC’s Statements on the Israel-Palestinian Conflict Illustrate Modern Political Messaging Strategy and Tactics

When she condemns Israel's killing of Palestinian civilians (including children), why is AOC attacking mayoral candidate Andrew Yang instead of attacking the high ranking Democrat leaders who determine and implement the unquestioningly pro-Israel U.S. policy: Biden, Harris Pelosi, Schumer & Blinken? Glenn Greenwald offers a lesson in modern political messaging and fund-raising.

AOC said nothing about the State Department's ongoing defense of Israel. She condemned none of her powerful colleagues in Congress who did the same. She refused to call on the Biden administration explicitly to change its policies or denounce Biden's fanaticism on this issue. Her only previous utterance was a mealy-mouthed, barely cogent tweet in which she randomly threw the Israel/Gaza conflict into a laundry list along with “paramilitary violence in Colombia” and “the detention of children on our own border and the militarization of US police departments” to say: “the United States must seriously assess its role in state violence and condition aid.”

So when she finally worked up the courage on Monday to single out a political official for public scolding and shaming on the issue of Israel, she decided that it should be Andrew Yang.

Continue ReadingAOC’s Statements on the Israel-Palestinian Conflict Illustrate Modern Political Messaging Strategy and Tactics

University of Rhode Island Condemns its Women’s Studies’ Professor for Taking an Improper Position in her Op-Ed on LBGTQ

You would think it's a good thing for a Women's Studies' Professor to write an op-ed on an issue relating to LBGTQ. Much of the op-ed written by Donna Hughes criticized the the far right and its violent history and ideology. Her employer, University of Rhode Island had no problem with any of that.But she also criticized a position associated with the far left:

The American political left is increasingly diving headfirst into their own world of lies and fantasy and, unlike in the imaginary world of QAnon, real children are becoming actual victims. The trans-sex fantasy, the belief that a person can change his or her sex, either from male to female or from female to male, is spreading largely unquestioned among the political left.” She added that “[w]omen and girls are expected to give up their places of privacy such as restrooms, locker rooms, and even prison cells.

For criticizing LBGTQ ideology, she was publicly condemned by her employer in a flagrant assault on the First Amendment:

A faculty member’s First Amendment and academic freedom rights are not boundless, however, and should be exercised responsibly with due regard for the faculty member’s other obligations, including their obligations to the University’s students and the University community. As stated in the above referenced documents, faculty have a special obligation to show due respect for the opinions of others and to “exercise critical self-discipline and judgment” and “appropriate restraint” in transmitting their personal opinions.

The University, College of Arts and Sciences and Department of Gender and Women Studies are working to support our students and the community as we move through — and learn from — this situation.

The problem is, apparently, that if you criticize an ideology, it is the equivalent of doing violence to real life people. That's what happens when we make a high art of pretending that people are fragile (what we really need is anti-fragility).

Turley accurately concludes: "The only way that Hughes could not cause such harm would be to stay silent on her criticism of the movement. This is a matter that runs to the very core of her writings as an academic and identity as a feminist. , , The silence of other faculty at the university to support their colleague’s rights to free speech and academic freedom is, again, deafening."

Continue ReadingUniversity of Rhode Island Condemns its Women’s Studies’ Professor for Taking an Improper Position in her Op-Ed on LBGTQ