I wish people would stop treating this guy like he's a public intellectual. He's a middling philosophy professor at the U of T, who barely anyone knew about, who happened to catch lightning in a bottle by railing publicly against proposed legislation in Canada that he almost completely misinterpreted because he thinks he's smarter than he is (like literally - almost every credible legal scholar in Canada told him his interpretation of the so-called "pronouns" bill was wrong, but he of zero legal training, decided he knew the law better than any of them) all because he couldn't abide by the notion of extending common courtesy to trans people. That's it - that's the entire basis of his "fame".
But it tells you just how bereft the right wing is of serious people that this guy, whose only true gift as a public speaker is to make himself SOUND serious while spouting easily refutable, utter nonsense on a variety of topics of which he clearly knows almost nothing about is trotted out as some intellectual deep-thinker, instead of the sh*t talker who just uses big words, that he actually is.
The people trying to make the judiciary solve homelessness are in the legislature. That's what they are doing when they make it a crime; they are saying, here, judiciary, solve this for us.
The judiciary should push back. Tell them, we can't solve this. We aren't going to put people in jail because you refuse to solve this. It is not within our power to fix the problem and the Constitution doesn't allow you to put people in jail because you're too incompetent to fix it.
If they had addresses, they could vote. Throw them in prison and, depending on the state, they might never have the right to vote. I know it's not that simple, but in some ways it is.
Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and maybe even Roberts understand the problem the entire political class, including the Supreme Court, faces here. The President of Columbia University is starting to understand, too.
One can do one's duty to the rich and powerful. And that won't change the reality one faces. That doesn't mean Kids These Days will care why you made a ridiculous and cruel decision. All that will happen is that you lose authority and credibility.
Without credibility all you really have is force. And when your credibility has run out, you use up your capacity for force very quickly.
Doesn't matter what you think, or what your sponsors think. Sure, the Billionaire donor class wants the homeless to disappear out of their sight and they don't care how. They think Kids These Days are "fucking insane," and that "nobody would have criticized the United States right after Pearl Harbor." OK, fine; for the sake of conversation let's say they're correct.
And? Has that convinced the Kids These Days? Has that made the homeless disappear?
If not, then maybe these systems and institutions have just revealed their true value, haven't they.
i've been homeless . . . it's no fun trying to manage an oxygen concentrator and tank filler and the tanks that go with without access to electricity . . . and car sleeping sucks!
How is this supposed to work, exactly? What would the length of the sentence for vagrancy be, and then when people are (I assume eventually) released from prison, what are they supposed to do with exactly the same amount of resources they had when they went in?
Tell me you want give municipalities the ability to make laws to scare off homeless people without telling me you want to give municipalities the ability to make laws to scare off homeless people.
they'll just save time . . . on completion of sentence just ask where they intend to maintain a household . . . when they answer "i don't know" just turn them around and put them back in the cell.
With individual cells. With actual walls and doors lockable from the inside instead of the metal bars. Aafter all, walls are cheaper than metal bars and they're homeless, not dangerous murderers. Since they're basically harmless we can massively reduce the number of guards, and we can remove the outer fence. Centralized cooking is too socialist, so put a hot plate and water tap in each cell. And have mail delivered to a mailbox for each cell in the entrance hall instead of to a controlled central point, saving on distribution costs.
We could call this new version of prison cells "apartments".
Ta, Robyn. The network I work for has housing units; some are shelters, some are real apartments. What I want them to build more of (they have a few) is MICA housing. The acronym is mentally ill, chemically addicted.
Many, but not all, of the unhoused are employed. Throw these people in prison and where will businesses get new employees? And no prison slave labor working the produce section of your grocery.
I'm reading a book "Rough Sleepers", by Tracy Kidder, "Dr. Jim O'Connell's urgent mission to bring healing to homeless people", in Boston. 3/5th's of the way through and I am convinced that free or nearly free universal health care would go a long way towards solving the homelessness crisis. I am 68, with precious little SSI, and no retirement to speak of... thanks in part to my stupidity, and also to the way CA deals with STRS and SSI... but anyway, without a spouse with a decent job I don't know where I'd be. As it is we pay too much for a run-down house, and without a lease I constantly feel the stress of "30 days from mayhem", should the lords of land decide to kick us out. It ain't much, but it's a LOT better than nothing.
I just checked: Tracy Kidder also wrote "The Soul of a New Machine," the 1981 nonfiction book about the development of a Data General minicomputer. The book won a Pulitzer in 1982.
So, like, what happens if you - a person who has a house - decides to take a blanket to the park for a picnic and drowses off? Or if you sit on a park bench and drowse off? Is that illegal?
If SCOTUS actually enables this fucking thing, I don’t even know. I work in affordable housing and we need MONEY! This is one of those problems you can actually solve by throwing money at it. Infuriating.
I wish people would stop treating this guy like he's a public intellectual. He's a middling philosophy professor at the U of T, who barely anyone knew about, who happened to catch lightning in a bottle by railing publicly against proposed legislation in Canada that he almost completely misinterpreted because he thinks he's smarter than he is (like literally - almost every credible legal scholar in Canada told him his interpretation of the so-called "pronouns" bill was wrong, but he of zero legal training, decided he knew the law better than any of them) all because he couldn't abide by the notion of extending common courtesy to trans people. That's it - that's the entire basis of his "fame".
But it tells you just how bereft the right wing is of serious people that this guy, whose only true gift as a public speaker is to make himself SOUND serious while spouting easily refutable, utter nonsense on a variety of topics of which he clearly knows almost nothing about is trotted out as some intellectual deep-thinker, instead of the sh*t talker who just uses big words, that he actually is.
The people trying to make the judiciary solve homelessness are in the legislature. That's what they are doing when they make it a crime; they are saying, here, judiciary, solve this for us.
The judiciary should push back. Tell them, we can't solve this. We aren't going to put people in jail because you refuse to solve this. It is not within our power to fix the problem and the Constitution doesn't allow you to put people in jail because you're too incompetent to fix it.
If they had addresses, they could vote. Throw them in prison and, depending on the state, they might never have the right to vote. I know it's not that simple, but in some ways it is.
Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and maybe even Roberts understand the problem the entire political class, including the Supreme Court, faces here. The President of Columbia University is starting to understand, too.
One can do one's duty to the rich and powerful. And that won't change the reality one faces. That doesn't mean Kids These Days will care why you made a ridiculous and cruel decision. All that will happen is that you lose authority and credibility.
Without credibility all you really have is force. And when your credibility has run out, you use up your capacity for force very quickly.
Doesn't matter what you think, or what your sponsors think. Sure, the Billionaire donor class wants the homeless to disappear out of their sight and they don't care how. They think Kids These Days are "fucking insane," and that "nobody would have criticized the United States right after Pearl Harbor." OK, fine; for the sake of conversation let's say they're correct.
And? Has that convinced the Kids These Days? Has that made the homeless disappear?
If not, then maybe these systems and institutions have just revealed their true value, haven't they.
Getting tough with. .... Non-criminals. The real goal here is to disentice the homeless into going elsewhere.
i've been homeless . . . it's no fun trying to manage an oxygen concentrator and tank filler and the tanks that go with without access to electricity . . . and car sleeping sucks!
"I've had my ass in the grass. Lotsa bugs and too dangerous."
- Full Metal Jacket
How is this supposed to work, exactly? What would the length of the sentence for vagrancy be, and then when people are (I assume eventually) released from prison, what are they supposed to do with exactly the same amount of resources they had when they went in?
Tell me you want give municipalities the ability to make laws to scare off homeless people without telling me you want to give municipalities the ability to make laws to scare off homeless people.
they'll just save time . . . on completion of sentence just ask where they intend to maintain a household . . . when they answer "i don't know" just turn them around and put them back in the cell.
Build more prisons. Problem solved.
With individual cells. With actual walls and doors lockable from the inside instead of the metal bars. Aafter all, walls are cheaper than metal bars and they're homeless, not dangerous murderers. Since they're basically harmless we can massively reduce the number of guards, and we can remove the outer fence. Centralized cooking is too socialist, so put a hot plate and water tap in each cell. And have mail delivered to a mailbox for each cell in the entrance hall instead of to a controlled central point, saving on distribution costs.
We could call this new version of prison cells "apartments".
that's genius! only needs an investor.
The prison corporations think so
Ta, Robyn. The network I work for has housing units; some are shelters, some are real apartments. What I want them to build more of (they have a few) is MICA housing. The acronym is mentally ill, chemically addicted.
Many, but not all, of the unhoused are employed. Throw these people in prison and where will businesses get new employees? And no prison slave labor working the produce section of your grocery.
I'm reading a book "Rough Sleepers", by Tracy Kidder, "Dr. Jim O'Connell's urgent mission to bring healing to homeless people", in Boston. 3/5th's of the way through and I am convinced that free or nearly free universal health care would go a long way towards solving the homelessness crisis. I am 68, with precious little SSI, and no retirement to speak of... thanks in part to my stupidity, and also to the way CA deals with STRS and SSI... but anyway, without a spouse with a decent job I don't know where I'd be. As it is we pay too much for a run-down house, and without a lease I constantly feel the stress of "30 days from mayhem", should the lords of land decide to kick us out. It ain't much, but it's a LOT better than nothing.
State Teachers' Retirement System? Are you a victim of the WEP/GPO boondoggle?
I just checked: Tracy Kidder also wrote "The Soul of a New Machine," the 1981 nonfiction book about the development of a Data General minicomputer. The book won a Pulitzer in 1982.
What an amazing bibliography.
Preach!
#4MoreJustices
So, like, what happens if you - a person who has a house - decides to take a blanket to the park for a picnic and drowses off? Or if you sit on a park bench and drowse off? Is that illegal?
And where is the falling-asleep line? Deep REM? Or just shutting your eyes and breathing deeply?
Depends on your ethnicity, I assume
If SCOTUS actually enables this fucking thing, I don’t even know. I work in affordable housing and we need MONEY! This is one of those problems you can actually solve by throwing money at it. Infuriating.
These aren't the robed law wizards you'd want if you were writing fantasy novels for optimists.
Around here, there’s talk about fining people $250 for standing on medians and asking for money. Gotta be cruel to be kind!
This is one the cruelest decisions I’ve ever seen.
So what happens when all cities decide to do this, what then? We just start shooting them?
So they decided?