Taking Care of the Poor, San Francisco Style, 2021

There is something humanly disturbing and wrong about how we Americans have decided to NOT handle poor homeless people in need. In some areas of the country people look down on street people as being lazy addicts who deserve whatever happens to them. In left-wing San Francisco we view our hands-off approach through the lens of individual rights and respecting the choice that people have… we honor the “decision” to do drugs, stay on the street, and survive however they can.

Our determination to let other humans rot on the street is apparently official.

Last Thursday afternoon I was sitting with a friend on a Castro Street parklet enjoying a cocktail.  While sipping our drinks we watched a disoriented man go back and forth on the sidewalk. He looked to be either on drugs or on an internal mental journey. But, he didn’t approach us so we pretty much lost track of him.

Then out of the side of my eye I saw him fall in the middle of the sidewalk.

How San Francisco Handles the Homeless - 1 of 5
Our attention shifted to see if he got up, moved, or otherwise looked okay. He did none of those things. Instead, we watched pedestrians change course to walk around him. No one stopped or took any action.

So, I called the Police Department to report a man down on sidewalk. I explained that he looked like a homeless man in bad health who collapsed. I tried to make the call urgent and wouldn’t speculate that he was drunk or otherwise a low priority.

Within a few minutes — and after a follow-up call or two — officers arrived.

How San Francisco Handles the Homeless - 2 of 5

They were nice officers. At least the one I talked to was friendly and reasonable. They made contact and assured themselves that the man did not need paramedics.

Then they followed apparent policy.

How San Francisco Handles the Homeless - 3 of 5They had the man crawl with his crutch over to the side of the walkway where he would not be in the way. Then they left.

How San Francisco Handles the Homeless - 5 of 5I was — and still am — stunned. Here’s a man who effectively cannot walk, and we respect his “right” to pass out by the side of a building.

When I was a police dispatcher 40+ years ago, I was trained that California’s Health and Welfare code is supposed to protect people who are either a danger to others or to themselves. Officers, doctors, and some other people are empowered to put people in a hospital for 72 hours… even if the person objects. I cannot conceive of a time when I would have sent a unit to a situation like the one I observed and the officers would have left the man still down on the sidewalk.

But in 2021 we do that in San Francisco. I don’t know the official policy wording that has police walk away from someone clearly gravely disabled. But, whether we say it’s”individual freedom” or other lofty reason, we are doing it wrong.

We need to take care of the crazy and the drug addled. I am not advocating making the streets “cleaner” or even safer. We simply owe each other enough care to give safe shelter and food to the desperate among us. Even if they say they don’t want it.

By |2021-09-07T12:46:46-07:00September 5, 2021|philippic, Social Justice|1 Comment

Repeating Today’s Big Lie,
or Defending Sessions’ and Trump’s Policy Separating Families

This week’s uproar on separating children from their asylum-seeking parents unpleasantly confirms how far apart on basic morality we are in this country.

American Flag CagedTo me, my Trump-approving friends ignore the imperative of the urgent human needs of the asylum seekers and their young children. Instead, they cite instances where Democrats years ago may have broken up families of asylum seekers. They mention that the government imprisons criminals with young children, thereby breaking up those families, so Trump’s policies aren’t new.

It’s great misdirection. First, even if the statements were accurate, the comments simply make the argument that two (or three or 100) wrongs make a right. They don’t.

Second, the people Sessions and Trump are locking up are not “criminals” in any real-world definition of the word.

Calling families entering the United States “criminals” is a Big Lie. Repeat it often enough and your teammates will believe it. But it’s not true. At most these people fleeing to traditional safe haven of the US may have violated a misdemeanor entry provision by not following technical rules in presenting themselves for asylum at the right place. They are not dangerous or violent. Sessions and Trump are criminalizing ignorance of proper procedure. That tactic is immoral. Asylum seekers are not criminals.

And, the sudden separation of families along the border with no plan for reunification or visiting cannot be truthfully compared to the incarceration of criminals who are given due process. The children of those convicted of crime generally remain where they are, in a familiar location, in the care of other family members. And, they get a schedule of visits with their parents. All things Trump and Sessions are denying the already traumatized kids being taken from their parents.

Trump’s defenders have an arsenal of reassuring statements they throw against the wall of public opinion to see if they’ll stick. One of these non-fact assertions was the claim by the head of the Department of Homeland Security that the young detainees are being treated wonderfully by DHS. That happy assessment of the children’s situation fell apart when the Director couldn’t answer any questions about the details of the treatment of kids. She really didn’t know what she was talking about. She made up the reassurance. Her story of wonderful treatment was simply a Big Lie

This family separation issue has many Big Lies. For example, blaming Democrats for the separation even though Republicans control Congress and the separation policy was formulated by Sessions. Big Lie.

One friend’s posts spit out words like “liberal” and go into mind-numbing detail of “liberal” 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decisions from years ago. More rational-sounding stuff to throw against the wall. Will it stick?

The problem for Sessions, Trump, and those still loyal to whatever he says is that today the issue is separating kids from parents… parents whose worst crime would be trying to get their kids to safety.

Regardless of what Hillary did with her email and what mistakes Obama, Bill Clinton, or Lyndon Johnson made, we know that our Trump/Republican government TODAY is ripping apart scared, tired, frightened families. Separating husband and wife, mother and child, and father and baby.

What has this country come to stand for?

Statue of LibertyWhat happened to the America I was taught about in school? You know the one. The one that says, “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”

What has this country come to stand for?

Has “Trump Ueber Alles” become our morality? Are HIS pronouncements more important that core human values? More important that the instructions of the Hebrew prophets, the words of Jesus, and the convictions of ethical humanists?

Trump’s technique is to say falsehoods over and over. His opinions. Accusations. Repeating his Big Lies.

Then, when enough people tire of a particular Lie, he says he was only kidding and Liberals have no sense of humor. That Trump way of admitting that he’s telling untruths is itself another Big Lie.

Besides, I don’t have a sense of humor when it comes to destroying the core values of America that I was brought up on. I don’t have a sense of humor about demonizing the weak and the powerless. I don’t have a sense of humor when it comes to another Big Lie.

I am not in the mood to play nice like Nancy Pelosi and intellectually and bloodlessly point out “discrepancies” between what Trump says and actual facts. It’s time to be as clear and direct as Mr. Trump.

Trump’s rational for separating families: a Big Lie. Trump’s assertion that winning a trade war is easy: a Big Lie. Trump’s declaration that we need not worry about a North Korean nuclear threat: a Big Lie. Trump’s claim that Iran was violating the multinational agreement: a Big Lie. Trump’s comments about the unfairness of the Mueller investigation: a Big Lie. Trump’s claim that the FBI probe cleared his campaign of colluding with the Russians: a Big Lie.

Big Lies are effective. They confuse people. They debase the power of facts.

Unfortunately, I don’t know how to combat a White House that spins out lie after lie after lie. Some get retracted, but even so many Trump supporters always remember and believe the facts made up by Trump in a middle-of-the-night Twitter storm.

I respect my friends who have different policy views than I. I respect them as they honestly believe and repost the latest White House Big Lie. But, I worry. Are there limits to the what Trump and those in power around him will do?

Have they no decency? True traditional American decency?

By |2018-06-20T12:44:00-07:00June 20, 2018|philippic, Politics|0 Comments

Rock Hudson Died of Alzheimer’s

In a wildly incorrect statement, Hillary Clinton yesterday praised Nancy Reagan and her husband, President Ronald Reagan, for helping America de-stigmatize AIDS and its victims.  In an MSNBC interview, Clinton expressed appreciation to the Reagans:

It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS in the 1980s,” Clinton said. “And because of both President and Mrs. Reagan — in particular Mrs. Reagan –we started a national conversation.”

The fact is that the Reagans were not helpful in starting a national conversation. They were completely closed-mouth and unhelpful, even when their supposedly close friend from Hollywood, Rock Hudson, was dying of AIDS.  They refused to issue any public statement of support for Hudson.  They managed only to later say that they were sorry that he had died.

The Reagans were role models for keeping AIDS out of polite conversation, for branding AIDS as a gay disease, and for delaying a medical response to the virus.

I am not comfortable trashing public figures who pass away.  So, I have not posted or LIKED on social media the “Good riddance, Nancy” comments. We don’t need to do that type of postmortem battling, no matter how emotionally satisfying it may seem.

On the other hand, it’s too much to let Hillary Clinton’s erroneous praise of the Reagans pass. Clinton is very much alive, very much embraced by the Gay political establishment (including the corporate-friendly Human Rights Campaign), and very much putting herself out there as a consistent champion for equality.

No!  No, damn it, you are not my champion!

No person of Clinton’s age (which is about mine) who has any real connection with the fight for gay rights would ever, ever, ever, praise Nancy or Ronald Reagan for helping fight — or even talk about fighting — AIDS. Never.

For Clinton to “misspeak,” supposedly conflating the fight against AIDS with the fight against Alzheimer’s disease, is evidence to me that she has no true connection to the struggle of gay people.

Clinton's Statement on her praise of the Reagan's AIDS work

Clinton’s “misspeaking” about AIDS shows her total disassociation from my world.  It’s a truly horrific statement, and one that couldn’t possibly come from the lips or brain of anyone of our generation that was remotely involved in — or even aware — of gay rights.

You misspeak when you say you call your dogs by your child’s name.  You misspeak when you say you went to Rochester instead of Richmond. You do something else when you create noble actions for people who in real life fought against the nobility you’re now praising.

Saying the Reagans were helpful in fighting AIDS is a moral outrage.  It’s akin to praising President George W. Bush for his fast compassionate action in helping hurricane Katrina victims.  Or, lauding Michigan governor Rick Snyder for his quick and transparent handling of the lead in Flint water.  Saying things that are factually wrong and which pervert morality is more than just a misstatement.  It’s a divorce from reality.

I remember in 2008 when Clinton “misspoke” about being under sniper fire when she landed in Bosnia as First Lady.  I wondered then how someone could not remember accurately whether or not they being attacked by snipers.  What was Clinton’s commitment to the truth as opposed to her desire to deliver a good-feeling public statement?

And, now, eight years later, I wonder again about Clinton’s true understanding, memory, and beliefs?

Mrs. Clinton, how deep is your commitment to LGBT equality?  How understanding are you of my struggles?  Are you equally clueless about African Americans, Latinos, or non-Christian minorities in this country?

Mrs. Clinton, where is your true soul?

By |2016-03-13T16:02:21-07:00March 12, 2016|philippic, Politics|0 Comments

What Is the Motive of the Roseburg Shooter?

Seriously? A motive?

The media demand to know why this murderer shot his arsenal in the classroom. They badger the police and interview professional television interviewees about what set off the shooting.

Every mass shooting plays out with similar, pointless questions.

The shooter is crazy. Do we need to “understand” his psychotic delusions?  Can we possibly follow the logic he used as he plotted mass murder?

Brain Puzzle

We Normals crave the ability to understand the psychotic’s mental process, presumably so we could argue with and save the next delusional man bent on exterminating random people around him. But, trying to translate crazy thought into a rational motive is nonsensical.  They exist in different worlds.

We experience the tortured search for a motive with every mass shooting… and there’s been enough of those recently that the pattern of reaction is becoming routine.  We want to know why.  We want to understand. We act like we expect to avoid future incidents  by somehow mitigating the crazy thoughts internally tormenting every disturbed person in the country.

  • Was the shooter bullied as a child?
  • Was he persecuted for being white? for being religious? for not being religious? for being short? for being gay?
  • Was Mom too tolerant and Dad too distant?  The other way around?
  • Was he flunking out? Going to be fired? Being dumped by his girlfriend?

But, folks!  Stop it! It doesn’t matter what perceived injustice causes a shooter to shoot. The fact is that the guy is crazy.  Dangerously crazy.  Dangerously crazy and able to obtain horrific firepower to kill real people that stand in for his mental demons.

Flooding the airwaves with speculation about motives and digging up details of how the man prepared for his moment of explosion focuses on the wrong issue.

The reporters and officials who try to normalize the psychotic shield us from the utter horror of the situation: we as a society allow mentally ill people to endanger themselves and other people, to buy heavy weapons, and to kill their neighbors.

There is no legitimate “motive” for the action of the Roseburg shooter, the Sandyhook shooter, the Charleston shooter, the Aurora shooter, …  They are crazy people.

We must identify, house, and treat similar crazy people before they commit their mass murder. And, we must stop those crazy people from obtaining weapons.

We need to spend time developing policies, programs, and laws that support treating crazy people and keeping guns out of their hands.  We don’t need to spend another second trying to divine a rational motive for their acts.

By |2015-10-03T16:45:51-07:00October 3, 2015|philippic|0 Comments

How to Increase the Power of Special Interests

Political Insider Facebook Picture post

Simplistic, Feel-Good Stupidity as Posted on Facebook

This Facebook sets me off.  It’s pathetically simplistic.   And supremely stupid.

How has the panacea of term limits worked for, say…, California?

The state legislature is at least as partisan and divided as Congress. Special interest-written bills pass routinely, and long-term needs of the state would not even be mentioned if it wasn’t for the long-lived, political hack and four-term governor, Jerry Brown.

Term limits have destroyed the ability for legislators of both parties to get to know each other, to learn what really matters to people on the other side of the aisle, and to govern.

Congressional term limits would insure that the only professionals in Washington would be the industry lobbyists.  They will have long careers, institutional memory, and the ability to mentor promising politicians who they can buy educate.

Punitive term limits has a curious emotional appeal.  Rather than voting out their own member of Congress, people push term limits.  It’s like an alcoholic voting for Prohibition because they know they are powerless against the attraction of demon rum.

Well, the analogy fails because alcoholics really do need to stop their binging and voters often are well-served by long-serving members of Congress.

If I were going to change any term limits I would eliminate them for President and state-wide offices.  I’d stop at the first line of the Facebook posting, “If term limits are good for the President…”  No, they have not been good.

Creating four-year lame ducks unreasonably weakens the national and state executives.  Term limits also narrows the universe of good candidates for office.  If term limits had been in place in the 1970’s when Jerry Brown served eight years as governor,  California would not have benefited from his leadership these past four years.  Instead we may have had the egotistical Meg Whitman. Or worse.

My annoyance at the posting of Congressional term limit posters on Facebook goes beyond a simple warning of “Be careful what you wish for.”  I am disappointed at the knee-jerk saluting of an obviously simplistic — and failed — response to the real problem of a corrupted Congress.

If we are going to spend any energy considering amending the Constitution, that effort should be to limit the power of cash in our elections.  I am for enshrining in amendments the principles that money is not speech and corporations are not people.

But, industry and special interests don’t like those limitations.  They’d rather suggest that we weaken our defenses against them by adopting feel good, but dangerous, term limits.

I hope my friends will not join in the effort to strengthen industry’s strangle-hold on Congress by suggesting limits the terms of its members. Just say NO to simplistic slogans for actions that will make corporations more powerful.

By |2015-03-23T13:57:10-07:00March 23, 2015|philippic|0 Comments
Go to Top