City progs still clueless about homelessness

I've been posting about San Francisco's homeless problem since 2005 (Death for the homeless). City progressives were clueless about the issue then and are still clueless now, as evidenced by the recent report touted by Public Press on the homeless and Business Improvement Districts like the Union Square BID.

Since the city is unwilling/unable to police Union Square to deal with its homeless problem in that important retail and tourist neighborhood, the Union Square BID tries to deal with it itself.

City progs and Berkeley liberals are upset that merchants on Union Square try to keep the homeless from camping out on their streets. After all, those streets are "public" spaces, and the homeless have a right to be there:

Many of the groups use assessments levied on business and property owners — and collected by local tax authorities — to hire security patrols that work to keep homeless people moving and limit their presence on public streets.

No shit! This is seen as a great injustice to the homeless who are, you understand, just poor people who can't afford housing in San Francisco. 

This is at best a half-truth long parroted by city progs, since anyone not blinkered by a goofy version of left-wing ideology can see that many of the homeless on our streets have crippling drug and alcohol issues or are mentally ill.

Recall that Gavin Newsom's Care Not Cash program---which stopped the city from providing cash to the homeless that was helping them remain homeless---was called "an attack on homeless people" by city progs.

Not surprisingly, once Care Not Cash went into effect, 1,000 of the homeless dropped off the "cash" rolls! They just wanted cash, not care.

See also City voters disappoint progressives---again.

God and guns in our schools

Senator Ted Cruz

From the Friendly Atheist:

What was the most disturbing part of last night’s debate between Republican Ted Cruz and Democrat Beto O’Rourke as they fight for a seat in the U.S. Senate?...Cruz responded to a question about gun safety by saying mass shootings were the result of “removing God from the public square”:

It is horrific, and let me say, as the father of two daughters, there is something deeply wrong that we have these shootings. There are a lot of things behind it that have nothing to do with government. They have things to do with...things like removing God from the public square. Like losing the moral foundation of much of our society. Like losing the binds of community and family…

No shooter has ever walked into a school and said, “I’m killing everyone because no one posted the Ten Commandments on the wall.” 

Cruz is using the deaths of shooting victims to force Christianity on public school students. It’s despicable and absolutely ignorant. And remember that other nations that are far less religious than the United States have far less violence.

O’Rourke’s response was much more sensible: “Thoughts and prayers, Senator Cruz, are just not going to cut it anymore...The children of Texas deserve better.”

Cruz shot back that he wasn’t calling for prayers alone, and that he wanted more officers with guns in every school as a way to protect students from guns. If you live outside the U.S., then you know how absurd that sounds. But this is America, where that’s considered sensible gun policy in conservative areas.

More guns always equals fewer gun deaths, according to the same people who say logic proves the world is 6,000 years old...

Daily Kos