https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/12/27/progressive-calls-out-horrors-of-san-francisco-what-do-we-stand-for-n2601100

A progressive woman who lives in San Francisco took to Twitter over the
weekend and questioned Democrat leadership in the city.

Pointing out the city has one party rule, San Francisco native Michelle
Tandler noticed the massive shortfalls of politicians who claim to care
about the downtrodden. She also noted the United Nations deemed conditions
some of the worst in the world.

"In January, United Nations Special Rapporteur Leilani Farha visited
Oakland and San Francisco as part of a fact-finding mission about housing
and expressed shock and horror at the living conditions of homeless
residents in one of the wealthiest societies in the world," San Francisco
Curbed reports. "Farha’s presentation made only a few direct references to
the Bay Area, in the same breath as cities like Belgrade, Mumbai, Lisbon,
Buenos Aires, Delhi, Mexico City, and Santiago, where she visited
'overcrowded shacks,' 'damp abandoned buildings,' 'unrecognized
settlements,' 'half-demolished homes,' and even entire neighborhoods where
residents live in 'complete darkness during the daytime.'"

"The report recounted experiences in various impoverished communities
around the world, including violent mass evictions, garbage piles, and
teeming rodent populations," the article continues.

Tandler's entire thread is worth a read.

me?

Michelle Tandler
@michelletandler

Here is what confuses me about San Francisco. We have the most liberal,
left-wing government and population in the country. We have a $13 billion
budget. And we have 8,000 people sleeping in the rain this week.

Can someone please explain this to me? What do progressives stand for,
exactly?

I thought it was about making things more fair. About standing up for the
little guy. About human rights, equality (equity?), compassion.

San Francisco (to me) looks like the least compassionate city on the
planet. The slums of Mumbai look cleaner than the streets of downtown SF.
This isn't just the Tenderloin - it's SOMA, parts of the Mission,
Dogpatch...

We have thousands of people wandering around - looking like they are on the
brink of death. This is why people use the term 'zombie' to describe those
roaming our city streets.

I've been a registered democrat for 18 years. I grew up in a Progressive
family and went to a Progressive school, and have mostly Progressive
friends. Yet what I see in SF - if this what Progressive stands for - I
want the opposite.

The words used here: "harm reduction", "housing first", "criminal justice",
"social justice", "equity" -- they don't align with what I'm seeing at all.

Our strategy might as well be called "harm increased", "housing last",
"victim injustice", "social injustice", "unfairness".

Where is our $13 billion going, exactly? How do we only have 3,000 shelter
beds when 8,000 are unsheltered in the streets? How is this an American
city?

I just finished the book "San Fransicko - Why Progressives Ruin Cities". If
you care about San Francisco - if you care about cities - if you care about
America, give it a read.

I'm starting to develop a seriously dark view of the Progressive
politicians in charge of our town. They have absolute power - act like a
regime, and talk often of how "broken" the system is. Are the homeless
their foot soldiers? Mascots? Mercenaries?

You have to wonder, with the funds we have as a city, state and nation - is
this situation on purpose?

We saw what SF was capable of when pandemic hit. We had testing sites up in
days. Hotels converted into shelter. Funds flowing.

Progressives tend to blame Republicans for almost everything. Yet here we
are - not a Republican in sight - and I think we may be the most deranged
city on the planet. Nowhere is there such inequality. I have never seen
destitution at this scale. Yet here we are...

Is this purposeful? Is this nefarious?

So here are my questions to Progressives:

+ Why, after decades of Progressive rule in SF are 8,000 people in the
streets?
+ Why do we have the highest overdose rate in the nation?
+ Why do we have the highest property crime rate?
+ Why do we have fewest children per capita?

+ What are the biggest "wins" of progressives in SF?
+ What are progressives most proud of here?
+ Who are the strongest public servants of the progressive party?
+ Why do you think we should continue on this path?

Recently I have been having flashbacks to Junior year when I ran for class
representative and lost by five votes. My opponent promised candy vending
machines, parties - all kinds of fun things. He won and didn't do a darned
thing all year.

Thought experiment -- what would San Francisco look like if Republicans
were in charge? If moderates ran things? If we had two-party rule instead
of one?

Downtown is boarded up. The children of the Tenderloin are begging the
mayor to arrest drug dealers. Our school system is on the brink of state
takeover. Our district attorney is completely over his skis and a public
defender at heart.

We are in crisis. And - yes, we voted for this. We know.

We probably have more "Black Lives Matter" signs up than any city in the
nation. Yet 40% of our homeless people are black. Do their lives matter? Or
is this just about virtue signaling and moral grandstanding?

This past Thursday afternoon I dialed into the Board of Supervisors meeting
about the emergency order to refund the police. Our board sat through 10
hours of debate and public comment. It was astonishing. Caller after caller
saying "defund the police".

The #1 "advocate" for the homeless, Jennifer Friedenbach, called in to say,
"Vote no on black lives don't matter!" She is the head of the Coalition on
Homelessness and has for decades fought against shelters, saying they
warehouse people. She is for "housing first".

Well - here we are. I would really like to know if Friedenbach stands by
her advocacy. I personally believe she is the person most responsible for
this tragedy unfolding in our streets.

But we are all responsible. We are all allowing this insanity.

I'd also like to know why the loudest voices right now against changing our
approach are all white progressive women. We have Kate Chatfield from the
D.A.'s office, Jennifer Friedenbach from COH, Hilary Ronen of D8. All
yelling about defunding the police. What is this about?

Meanwhile our mayor, who grew up in the projects of SF - and our chief of
police - two of the most thoughtful, kind, and pragmatic people in SF - are
asking for funds and help. And they are getting shouted down as racists?

This is nuts!

Many people in SF came here to "change the world". They start companies,
fight for causes they believe in, recycle and compost, invest in "green"
products. This is all wonderful, but what about the humanitarian crisis in
our backyard?

I've been thinking a lot recently about the concept of "civic duty". What
is our responsibility as a citizenry? What is "civil society"? What does it
mean to "contribute" to your neighborhood, city, state, nation?

One of my friends recently woke up to find a homeless person sleeping on
the front step of her multi-million dollar home. I asked her what she did.
"We closed the blinds," she said.

I think this is such a metaphor for what's going on here. San Francisco is
turning its head.

San Franciscans believe they are righteous because they pledge allegiance
to the righteous tribe - Democrats. They believe they are moral because
they believe in higher taxes. They believe they are virtuous because they
believe in big government. So what is going on here? Is this all due to
tribalism?

Are San Franciscans so desperate to fit in, that they blindly follow the
liberal/left-wing causes - even when they make no sense? The book "Hate,
Inc.: Why Today's Media Makes Us Despise One Another" suggests as much.

I get messages almost daily from people who say they are afraid to speak up
for fear of professional ramifications. Some say they are even afraid to
like my tweets. I'm personally afraid to ask questions about the vaccine on
Twitter. What kind of "freedom" do we stand for out here?

In college I studied totalitarian governments and how they came to power.
The similarities I see to many elements of society today are harrowing. The
cancel culture, the "wrongthink", the adulation of "experts", the
cultishness towards "science", the blind support by party.

We're more worked up over gerrymandering than we are about people dying in
our streets. My friends in SF read article after article about the evils of
Trump - and don't even know who their city supervisor is. Since when did
local politics become so "pedestrian" so as to not warrant attention?

I've been critiqued for showcasing SF's problems - told that I'm "fueling"
the "Fox News Narrative". Accused of using "Trump-like" messaging to rile
people up.

On 2021-12-28 12:05 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
[snip most of lengthy k00kscreed from some concern troll flogging a book]
> Where is our $13 billion going, exactly?

Wealthy land developers?

> How do we only have 3,000 shelter beds when 8,000 are unsheltered in the
> streets?

Techbro NIMBYism?

> You have to wonder, with the funds we have as a city, state and nation - is
> this situation on purpose?

Of course it is. The uberrich tech moguls and powerful land developers
wouldn't have it any other way.

> Progressives tend to blame Republicans for almost everything. Yet here we
> are - not a Republican in sight - and I think we may be the most deranged
> city on the planet. Nowhere is there such inequality. I have never seen
> destitution at this scale. Yet here we are...

Most of the politicians in both parties are bought.

> Thought experiment -- what would San Francisco look like if Republicans
> were in charge?

Even worse.

> If moderates ran things?

If by "moderates", you mean people like Joe Manchin: worse, due to all
the sand in all the gears.

> If we had two-party rule instead of one?

Now that depends. If a party economically to the left of the
pro-business Dems established itself in the area and ran candidates, that
just might be a game-changer.

> Our school system is on the brink of state takeover.

Well, *there*'s part of your problem right there. Your school system
should have long *since* been subject to state takeover. Evidently it is
instead run for private profit. Ugh!

> The #1 "advocate" for the homeless, Jennifer Friedenbach, called in to say,
> "Vote no on black lives don't matter!" She is the head of the Coalition on
> Homelessness and has for decades fought against shelters, saying they
> warehouse people. She is for "housing first".

And the superrich land developers are adamantly against it, and so it
doesn't get done. Perhaps the superrich land developers need to go? I
suggest taxing that class into oblivion. Land value tax, giant
absentee-owner tax on all real estate whose owner doesn't live on it,
giant foreign-owner tax on top of that, and a steeply escalating
progressive tax on any land holdings much above what a middle class
person needs for a modest house -- with the threshold defined in square
meters, not dollars, so it won't be rendered meaningless by inflation --
and maybe land policies in the city will start to become sane.

Other cities could stand to do something similar ... *all* of them,
planet-wide.

> I feel ashamed of the inequality. Of our wasted budget. Of the corruption,
> the grift, and the greed.

What you're seeing is evidence that half-measures won't cut it. What's
needed is a vigorous left willing to make a direct frontal assault on
the wealthy classes and on capitalism itself, not just fiddle around the
edges of the existing system trying to find a way to solve the problems
without upsetting the applecarts of the richy-rich-rich.

There *is* no way to solve the problems without upsetting those
applecarts, so upset they must be. Upset they *will* be; the only
question is under what circumstances, legislation redistributing wealth
or revolution distributing chaos, death, and destruction? Because if
nothing is done, things *will* boil over, and instead of a Sanna Marin
or a Jacinda Ardern who gives Jeff Bezos a bit of heartburn, you'll get
a Stalin or a Castro who gives Jeff Bezos a full craniectomy, or else a
Syria-like civil war without end that he might run away from with his
sorry arse intact but sure won't do his investment portfolio any good.

In other words, a solid left turn that stays democratic is actually the
best case scenario *for those rich fuckwits*, not just everyone else.
The longer they use their wealth to buy propaganda and politicians and
stave off that left turn, the greater their likelihood of losing their
heads and not just a chunk of their wealth sufficient to limit them to
owning only *one* Lear Jet instead of *two* or something.

Why are they, and their supporters, so stupidly short-sighted? Well,
that's simple: they were born and raised and lived their lives-thus-far
in a milieu where any problem could simply be paid to go away. Now, when
the rich are faced with a problem that cannot be solved by just buying
off a judge or a politician or a witness or a business rival here and
there, or in extremis hiring a hitman, they are caught flat-footed, as
were their predecessors in Revolutionary France in the 1780s. History
repeats itself, the first time as tragedy and thereafter as farce.

> Mark Twain wrote, "To lodge all power in one party and keep it there is to
> ensure bad government and the sure and gradual deterioration of the public
> morals."

So, time to start up a party on the left flank of the Democrats to
challenge them for power.

> I'm considering pivoting my company,

Note: author is rich or upper middle class, hence why they are so
reluctant to consider a solution that transfers power away from that
class and to the people. But no solution that lets the wealthy classes
retain their political power will work, due to the inherent conflict of
interest they have when building public housing will depress the price
of land they own, and many of the solutions would require raising taxes
on themselves. Always rich technocrats will be tempted to fiddle at the
edges of the system while avoiding deep reforms that might impact their
own status, even if they would still be assured a comfortable standard
of living afterward. That is why the power must be returned to the
people, in a left-populist party.

> This week I'm doing a lot of thinking, writing and reading.

Unfortunately for you, your salary depends on your not understanding a
whole lot of things, so you will never be able to find the real solution.

--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate

On 12/27/2021 11:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/12/27/progressive-calls-out-horrors-of-san-francisco-what-do-we-stand-for-n2601100
>
> A progressive woman who lives in San Francisco took to Twitter over the
> weekend and questioned Democrat leadership in the city.

I didn't see anything that brands her as "progressive." More lies.

On 2021-12-28 4:15 AM, kensi wrote:
> On 2021-12-28 12:05 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
> [snip most of lengthy k00kscreed from some concern troll flogging a book]
>> Where is our $13 billion going, exactly?
>
> Wealthy land developers?
>
>> How do we only have 3,000 shelter beds when 8,000 are unsheltered in the
>> streets?
>
> Techbro NIMBYism?
>
>> You have to wonder, with the funds we have as a city, state and nation
>> - is
>> this situation on purpose?
>
> Of course it is. The uberrich tech moguls and powerful land developers
> wouldn't have it any other way.
>
>> Progressives tend to blame Republicans for almost everything. Yet here we
>> are - not a Republican in sight - and I think we may be the most deranged
>> city on the planet. Nowhere is there such inequality. I have never seen
>> destitution at this scale. Yet here we are...
>
> Most of the politicians in both parties are bought.
>
>> Thought experiment -- what would San Francisco look like if Republicans
>> were in charge?
>
> Even worse.
>
>> If moderates ran things?
>
> If by "moderates", you mean people like Joe Manchin: worse, due to all
> the sand in all the gears.
>
>> If we had two-party rule instead of one?
>
> Now that depends. If a party economically to the left of the
> pro-business Dems established itself in the area and ran candidates, that
> just might be a game-changer.
>
>> Our school system is on the brink of state takeover.
>
> Well, *there*'s part of your problem right there. Your school system
> should have long *since* been subject to state takeover. Evidently it is
> instead run for private profit. Ugh!
>
>> The #1 "advocate" for the homeless, Jennifer Friedenbach, called in to
>> say,
>> "Vote no on black lives don't matter!" She is the head of the
>> Coalition on
>> Homelessness and has for decades fought against shelters, saying they
>> warehouse people. She is for "housing first".
>
> And the superrich land developers are adamantly against it, and so it
> doesn't get done. Perhaps the superrich land developers need to go? I
> suggest taxing that class into oblivion. Land value tax, giant
> absentee-owner tax on all real estate whose owner doesn't live on it,
> giant foreign-owner tax on top of that, and a steeply escalating
> progressive tax on any land holdings much above what a middle class
> person needs for a modest house -- with the threshold defined in square
> meters, not dollars, so it won't be rendered meaningless by inflation --
> and maybe land policies in the city will start to become sane.
>
> Other cities could stand to do something similar ... *all* of them,
> planet-wide.
>
>> I feel ashamed of the inequality. Of our wasted budget. Of the
>> corruption,
>> the grift, and the greed.
>
> What you're seeing is evidence that half-measures won't cut it. What's
> needed is a vigorous left willing to make a direct frontal assault on
> the wealthy classes and on capitalism itself, not just fiddle around the
> edges of the existing system trying to find a way to solve the problems
> without upsetting the applecarts of the richy-rich-rich.
>
> There *is* no way to solve the problems without upsetting those
> applecarts, so upset they must be. Upset they *will* be; the only
> question is under what circumstances, legislation redistributing wealth
> or revolution distributing chaos, death, and destruction? Because if
> nothing is done, things *will* boil over, and instead of a Sanna Marin
> or a Jacinda Ardern who gives Jeff Bezos a bit of heartburn, you'll get
> a Stalin or a Castro who gives Jeff Bezos a full craniectomy, or else a
> Syria-like civil war without end that he might run away from with his
> sorry arse intact but sure won't do his investment portfolio any good.
>
> In other words, a solid left turn that stays democratic is actually the
> best case scenario *for those rich fuckwits*, not just everyone else.
> The longer they use their wealth to buy propaganda and politicians and
> stave off that left turn, the greater their likelihood of losing their
> heads and not just a chunk of their wealth sufficient to limit them to
> owning only *one* Lear Jet instead of *two* or something.
>
> Why are they, and their supporters, so stupidly short-sighted? Well,
> that's simple: they were born and raised and lived their lives-thus-far
> in a milieu where any problem could simply be paid to go away. Now, when
> the rich are faced with a problem that cannot be solved by just buying
> off a judge or a politician or a witness or a business rival here and
> there, or in extremis hiring a hitman, they are caught flat-footed, as
> were their predecessors in Revolutionary France in the 1780s. History
> repeats itself, the first time as tragedy and thereafter as farce.
>
>> Mark Twain wrote, "To lodge all power in one party and keep it there
>> is to
>> ensure bad government and the sure and gradual deterioration of the
>> public
>> morals."
>
> So, time to start up a party on the left flank of the Democrats to
> challenge them for power.
>
>> I'm considering pivoting my company,
>
> Note: author is rich or upper middle class, hence why they are so
> reluctant to consider a solution that transfers power away from that
> class and to the people. But no solution that lets the wealthy classes
> retain their political power will work, due to the inherent conflict of
> interest they have when building public housing will depress the price
> of land they own, and many of the solutions would require raising taxes
> on themselves. Always rich technocrats will be tempted to fiddle at the
> edges of the system while avoiding deep reforms that might impact their
> own status, even if they would still be assured a comfortable standard
> of living afterward. That is why the power must be returned to the
> people, in a left-populist party.
>
>> This week I'm doing a lot of thinking, writing and reading.
>
> Unfortunately for you, your salary depends on your not understanding a
> whole lot of things, so you will never be able to find the real solution.
>
When every one of their policies is failing miserably, trust the
"progressives" to learn exactly the wrong lesson and double-down on
every ridiculous thing they're doing. Way to go Tovarish, you're proving
your own irrelevance to anyone with eyes to see!

Your policies don't work and in fact just make everything worse. People
need to ignore you unless they actually *want* Maduro's Venezuela and/or
Pol Pot's Cambodia.

Open your eyes man! Crack open a history book and learn how horribly
your ludicrous notions panned out in the 20th century and how they
continue to build nothing but misery in places like North Korea,
Venezuela and Cuba to this very day.

Are you incapable of learning? Or just unwilling?

--
Rhino

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> On 2021-12-28 4:15 AM, kensi wrote:
>> On 2021-12-28 12:05 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>> [snip most of lengthy k00kscreed from some concern troll flogging a book]
>>> Where is our $13 billion going, exactly?
>>
>> Wealthy land developers?
>>
>>> How do we only have 3,000 shelter beds when 8,000 are unsheltered in the
>>> streets?
>>
>> Techbro NIMBYism?
>>
>>> You have to wonder, with the funds we have as a city, state and nation
>>> - is
>>> this situation on purpose?
>>
>> Of course it is. The uberrich tech moguls and powerful land developers
>> wouldn't have it any other way.
>>
>>> Progressives tend to blame Republicans for almost everything. Yet here we
>>> are - not a Republican in sight - and I think we may be the most deranged
>>> city on the planet. Nowhere is there such inequality. I have never seen
>>> destitution at this scale. Yet here we are...
>>
>> Most of the politicians in both parties are bought.
>>
>>> Thought experiment -- what would San Francisco look like if Republicans
>>> were in charge?
>>
>> Even worse.
>>
>>> If moderates ran things?
>>
>> If by "moderates", you mean people like Joe Manchin: worse, due to all
>> the sand in all the gears.
>>
>>> If we had two-party rule instead of one?
>>
>> Now that depends. If a party economically to the left of the
>> pro-business Dems established itself in the area and ran candidates, that
>> just might be a game-changer.
>>
>>> Our school system is on the brink of state takeover.
>>
>> Well, *there*'s part of your problem right there. Your school system
>> should have long *since* been subject to state takeover. Evidently it is
>> instead run for private profit. Ugh!
>>
>>> The #1 "advocate" for the homeless, Jennifer Friedenbach, called in to
>>> say,
>>> "Vote no on black lives don't matter!" She is the head of the
>>> Coalition on
>>> Homelessness and has for decades fought against shelters, saying they
>>> warehouse people. She is for "housing first".
>>
>> And the superrich land developers are adamantly against it, and so it
>> doesn't get done. Perhaps the superrich land developers need to go? I
>> suggest taxing that class into oblivion. Land value tax, giant
>> absentee-owner tax on all real estate whose owner doesn't live on it,
>> giant foreign-owner tax on top of that, and a steeply escalating
>> progressive tax on any land holdings much above what a middle class
>> person needs for a modest house -- with the threshold defined in square
>> meters, not dollars, so it won't be rendered meaningless by inflation --
>> and maybe land policies in the city will start to become sane.
>>
>> Other cities could stand to do something similar ... *all* of them,
>> planet-wide.
>>
>>> I feel ashamed of the inequality. Of our wasted budget. Of the
>>> corruption,
>>> the grift, and the greed.
>>
>> What you're seeing is evidence that half-measures won't cut it. What's
>> needed is a vigorous left willing to make a direct frontal assault on
>> the wealthy classes and on capitalism itself, not just fiddle around the
>> edges of the existing system trying to find a way to solve the problems
>> without upsetting the applecarts of the richy-rich-rich.
>>
>> There *is* no way to solve the problems without upsetting those
>> applecarts, so upset they must be. Upset they *will* be; the only
>> question is under what circumstances, legislation redistributing wealth
>> or revolution distributing chaos, death, and destruction? Because if
>> nothing is done, things *will* boil over, and instead of a Sanna Marin
>> or a Jacinda Ardern who gives Jeff Bezos a bit of heartburn, you'll get
>> a Stalin or a Castro who gives Jeff Bezos a full craniectomy, or else a
>> Syria-like civil war without end that he might run away from with his
>> sorry arse intact but sure won't do his investment portfolio any good.
>>
>> In other words, a solid left turn that stays democratic is actually the
>> best case scenario *for those rich fuckwits*, not just everyone else.
>> The longer they use their wealth to buy propaganda and politicians and
>> stave off that left turn, the greater their likelihood of losing their
>> heads and not just a chunk of their wealth sufficient to limit them to
>> owning only *one* Lear Jet instead of *two* or something.
>>
>> Why are they, and their supporters, so stupidly short-sighted? Well,
>> that's simple: they were born and raised and lived their lives-thus-far
>> in a milieu where any problem could simply be paid to go away. Now, when
>> the rich are faced with a problem that cannot be solved by just buying
>> off a judge or a politician or a witness or a business rival here and
>> there, or in extremis hiring a hitman, they are caught flat-footed, as
>> were their predecessors in Revolutionary France in the 1780s. History
>> repeats itself, the first time as tragedy and thereafter as farce.
>>
>>> Mark Twain wrote, "To lodge all power in one party and keep it there
>>> is to
>>> ensure bad government and the sure and gradual deterioration of the
>>> public
>>> morals."
>>
>> So, time to start up a party on the left flank of the Democrats to
>> challenge them for power.
>>
>>> I'm considering pivoting my company,
>>
>> Note: author is rich or upper middle class, hence why they are so
>> reluctant to consider a solution that transfers power away from that
>> class and to the people. But no solution that lets the wealthy classes
>> retain their political power will work, due to the inherent conflict of
>> interest they have when building public housing will depress the price
>> of land they own, and many of the solutions would require raising taxes
>> on themselves. Always rich technocrats will be tempted to fiddle at the
>> edges of the system while avoiding deep reforms that might impact their
>> own status, even if they would still be assured a comfortable standard
>> of living afterward. That is why the power must be returned to the
>> people, in a left-populist party.
>>
>>> This week I'm doing a lot of thinking, writing and reading.
>>
>> Unfortunately for you, your salary depends on your not understanding a
>> whole lot of things, so you will never be able to find the real solution.
>>
> When every one of their policies is failing miserably, trust the
> "progressives" to learn exactly the wrong lesson and double-down on
> every ridiculous thing they're doing. Way to go Tovarish, you're proving
> your own irrelevance to anyone with eyes to see!
>
> Your policies don't work and in fact just make everything worse. People
> need to ignore you unless they actually *want* Maduro's Venezuela and/or
> Pol Pot's Cambodia.
>
> Open your eyes man! Crack open a history book and learn how horribly
> your ludicrous notions panned out in the 20th century and how they
> continue to build nothing but misery in places like North Korea,
> Venezuela and Cuba to this very day.
>
> Are you incapable of learning? Or just unwilling?

As I said in a different thread, none of these self-described socialists or
communists ever sees himself as a worker in their future collectivist
paradise. They all imagine themselves as some kind of party official,
dictating doctrine from a posh office or cushy dacha, while all the other
poor bastards hammer steel all day, stinking of turnips and filth.

No doubt kensi/seamus is exactly that type of collectivist. It no doubt
envisions itself ensconced comfortably on the politburo of the new utopia
rather than waiting in one of its breadlines

kensi <kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:

> On 2021-12-28 12:05 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>
>> I'm considering pivoting my company,
>
> Note: author is rich or upper middle class

And here is where kensi/seamus accidentally lets its full communist freak
flag fly.

All the ranting about the 'richy-riches' and the 'ultra-wealthy' but it
doesn't stop there with kensi/seamus. The middle class gets their property
stolen by the redistributionists also.

> That is why the power must be returned to the people

'The people'.... the great refrain of communists throughout history, where
a small class of party elites wield dictatorial power over society and
constantly claim every atrocity they commit is for 'the good of the
people'.

Ask the folks in Venezuela how the kensi/seamus model is working out for
them. They're eating their pets now to survive.

On 2021-12-28 12:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> On 2021-12-28 4:15 AM, kensi wrote:
>>> On 2021-12-28 12:05 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>>> [snip most of lengthy k00kscreed from some concern troll flogging a book]
>>>> Where is our $13 billion going, exactly?
>>>
>>> Wealthy land developers?
>>>
>>>> How do we only have 3,000 shelter beds when 8,000 are unsheltered in the
>>>> streets?
>>>
>>> Techbro NIMBYism?
>>>
>>>> You have to wonder, with the funds we have as a city, state and nation
>>>> - is
>>>> this situation on purpose?
>>>
>>> Of course it is. The uberrich tech moguls and powerful land developers
>>> wouldn't have it any other way.
>>>
>>>> Progressives tend to blame Republicans for almost everything. Yet here we
>>>> are - not a Republican in sight - and I think we may be the most deranged
>>>> city on the planet. Nowhere is there such inequality. I have never seen
>>>> destitution at this scale. Yet here we are...
>>>
>>> Most of the politicians in both parties are bought.
>>>
>>>> Thought experiment -- what would San Francisco look like if Republicans
>>>> were in charge?
>>>
>>> Even worse.
>>>
>>>> If moderates ran things?
>>>
>>> If by "moderates", you mean people like Joe Manchin: worse, due to all
>>> the sand in all the gears.
>>>
>>>> If we had two-party rule instead of one?
>>>
>>> Now that depends. If a party economically to the left of the
>>> pro-business Dems established itself in the area and ran candidates, that
>>> just might be a game-changer.
>>>
>>>> Our school system is on the brink of state takeover.
>>>
>>> Well, *there*'s part of your problem right there. Your school system
>>> should have long *since* been subject to state takeover. Evidently it is
>>> instead run for private profit. Ugh!
>>>
>>>> The #1 "advocate" for the homeless, Jennifer Friedenbach, called in to
>>>> say,
>>>> "Vote no on black lives don't matter!" She is the head of the
>>>> Coalition on
>>>> Homelessness and has for decades fought against shelters, saying they
>>>> warehouse people. She is for "housing first".
>>>
>>> And the superrich land developers are adamantly against it, and so it
>>> doesn't get done. Perhaps the superrich land developers need to go? I
>>> suggest taxing that class into oblivion. Land value tax, giant
>>> absentee-owner tax on all real estate whose owner doesn't live on it,
>>> giant foreign-owner tax on top of that, and a steeply escalating
>>> progressive tax on any land holdings much above what a middle class
>>> person needs for a modest house -- with the threshold defined in square
>>> meters, not dollars, so it won't be rendered meaningless by inflation --
>>> and maybe land policies in the city will start to become sane.
>>>
>>> Other cities could stand to do something similar ... *all* of them,
>>> planet-wide.
>>>
>>>> I feel ashamed of the inequality. Of our wasted budget. Of the
>>>> corruption,
>>>> the grift, and the greed.
>>>
>>> What you're seeing is evidence that half-measures won't cut it. What's
>>> needed is a vigorous left willing to make a direct frontal assault on
>>> the wealthy classes and on capitalism itself, not just fiddle around the
>>> edges of the existing system trying to find a way to solve the problems
>>> without upsetting the applecarts of the richy-rich-rich.
>>>
>>> There *is* no way to solve the problems without upsetting those
>>> applecarts, so upset they must be. Upset they *will* be; the only
>>> question is under what circumstances, legislation redistributing wealth
>>> or revolution distributing chaos, death, and destruction? Because if
>>> nothing is done, things *will* boil over, and instead of a Sanna Marin
>>> or a Jacinda Ardern who gives Jeff Bezos a bit of heartburn, you'll get
>>> a Stalin or a Castro who gives Jeff Bezos a full craniectomy, or else a
>>> Syria-like civil war without end that he might run away from with his
>>> sorry arse intact but sure won't do his investment portfolio any good.
>>>
>>> In other words, a solid left turn that stays democratic is actually the
>>> best case scenario *for those rich fuckwits*, not just everyone else.
>>> The longer they use their wealth to buy propaganda and politicians and
>>> stave off that left turn, the greater their likelihood of losing their
>>> heads and not just a chunk of their wealth sufficient to limit them to
>>> owning only *one* Lear Jet instead of *two* or something.
>>>
>>> Why are they, and their supporters, so stupidly short-sighted? Well,
>>> that's simple: they were born and raised and lived their lives-thus-far
>>> in a milieu where any problem could simply be paid to go away. Now, when
>>> the rich are faced with a problem that cannot be solved by just buying
>>> off a judge or a politician or a witness or a business rival here and
>>> there, or in extremis hiring a hitman, they are caught flat-footed, as
>>> were their predecessors in Revolutionary France in the 1780s. History
>>> repeats itself, the first time as tragedy and thereafter as farce.
>>>
>>>> Mark Twain wrote, "To lodge all power in one party and keep it there
>>>> is to
>>>> ensure bad government and the sure and gradual deterioration of the
>>>> public
>>>> morals."
>>>
>>> So, time to start up a party on the left flank of the Democrats to
>>> challenge them for power.
>>>
>>>> I'm considering pivoting my company,
>>>
>>> Note: author is rich or upper middle class, hence why they are so
>>> reluctant to consider a solution that transfers power away from that
>>> class and to the people. But no solution that lets the wealthy classes
>>> retain their political power will work, due to the inherent conflict of
>>> interest they have when building public housing will depress the price
>>> of land they own, and many of the solutions would require raising taxes
>>> on themselves. Always rich technocrats will be tempted to fiddle at the
>>> edges of the system while avoiding deep reforms that might impact their
>>> own status, even if they would still be assured a comfortable standard
>>> of living afterward. That is why the power must be returned to the
>>> people, in a left-populist party.
>>>
>>>> This week I'm doing a lot of thinking, writing and reading.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately for you, your salary depends on your not understanding a
>>> whole lot of things, so you will never be able to find the real solution.
>>>
>> When every one of their policies is failing miserably, trust the
>> "progressives" to learn exactly the wrong lesson and double-down on
>> every ridiculous thing they're doing. Way to go Tovarish, you're proving
>> your own irrelevance to anyone with eyes to see!
>>
>> Your policies don't work and in fact just make everything worse. People
>> need to ignore you unless they actually *want* Maduro's Venezuela and/or
>> Pol Pot's Cambodia.
>>
>> Open your eyes man! Crack open a history book and learn how horribly
>> your ludicrous notions panned out in the 20th century and how they
>> continue to build nothing but misery in places like North Korea,
>> Venezuela and Cuba to this very day.
>>
>> Are you incapable of learning? Or just unwilling?
>
> As I said in a different thread, none of these self-described socialists or
> communists ever sees himself as a worker in their future collectivist
> paradise. They all imagine themselves as some kind of party official,
> dictating doctrine from a posh office or cushy dacha, while all the other
> poor bastards hammer steel all day, stinking of turnips and filth.
>
> No doubt kensi/seamus is exactly that type of collectivist. It no doubt
> envisions itself ensconced comfortably on the politburo of the new utopia
> rather than waiting in one of its breadlines

On 12/28/2021 11:11 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> kensi <kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2021-12-28 12:05 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>> I'm considering pivoting my company,
>>
>> Note: author is rich or upper middle class
>
> And here is where kensi/seamus accidentally lets its full communist freak
> flag fly.
>
> All the ranting about the 'richy-riches' and the 'ultra-wealthy' but it
> doesn't stop there with kensi/seamus. The middle class gets their property
> stolen by the redistributionists also.
>
>> That is why the power must be returned to the people
>
> 'The people'.... the great refrain of communists throughout history, where
> a small class of party elites wield dictatorial power over society and
> constantly claim every atrocity they commit is for 'the good of the
> people'.
>
> Ask the folks in Venezuela how the kensi/seamus model is working out for
> them. They're eating their pets now to survive.

That's interesting, I hear the right wing does that here for fun.

> kensi
> > BTR1701
> >
> > How do we only have 3,000 shelter beds when 8,000 are unsheltered
> > in the streets?
>
> Techbro NIMBYism?

Because of its preposterously generous welfare system combined
with a pleasant climate, California has become a Mecca for bums
and hobos from all over the U.S.

> > Our school system is on the brink of state takeover.
>
> Well, *there*'s part of your problem right there. Your school system
> should have long *since* been subject to state takeover. Evidently
> it is instead run for private profit. Ugh!

The schools are run by the city school board, with the state, feds
and teachers union doing their part to help fuck it up.

School vouchers across the nation would correct this. After all,
the are MY kids and it's MY money so it should be MY decision
how the schools are run (if I had any kids).

> > The #1 "advocate" for the homeless, Jennifer Friedenbach, called in to say,
> > "Vote no on black lives don't matter!" She is the head of the Coalition on
> > Homelessness and has for decades fought against shelters, saying they
> > warehouse people. She is for "housing first".
>
> And the superrich land developers are adamantly against it, and so it
> doesn't get done. Perhaps the superrich land developers need to go?

No, regular working-class Americans are against it, as the Woketards
want to provide "free" homes to drugs addicted bums right in their
neighborhoods.

> > I feel ashamed of the inequality. Of our wasted budget. Of the corruption,
> > the grift, and the greed.
>
> What you're seeing is evidence that half-measures won't cut it. What's
> needed is a vigorous left willing to make a direct frontal assault on
> the wealthy classes and on capitalism itself, not just fiddle around the
> edges of the existing system trying to find a way to solve the problems
> without upsetting the applecarts of the richy-rich-rich.

All that will get you is an exchange of one group of elitists for another,
as the Communists learned to their dismay.

Mandatory conversion to worker owned co-operatives of any business
beyond the level of a “family business” is the only viable route to stability
and equality, as it puts the wealth and thus the power in the hands of the
People and not a tiny clique of parasitical do-nothing elitists.

On 2021-12-28 12:11 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
> kensi <kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>> That is why the power must be returned to the people
>
> 'The people'.... the great refrain of communists throughout history, where
> a small class of party elites wield dictatorial power over society and
> constantly claim every atrocity they commit is for 'the good of the
> people'.
>
> Ask the folks in Venezuela how the kensi/seamus model is working out for
> them. They're eating their pets now to survive.

If you'd bothered to read the full article, you'd know that I am not
only *not* advocating that sort of authoritarian, Stalinist system, but
warning you that you will likely get that sort of authoritarian,
Stalinist system if you *fail* to heed my warnings.

What I actually advocate is more like a super-Sweden than North Korea.

--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate

On 2021-12-28 4:06 p.m., Ed Stasiak wrote:
> School vouchers across the nation would correct this. After all,
> the are MY kids and it's MY money so it should be MY decision
> how the schools are run (if I had any kids).

That widens the door to for-profit education outfits, which is the
opposite of desirable.

You should be exercising your authority via politics at the appropriate
level, and voting when they have school board elections or similarly.

Vouchers are just a scam upon the taxpayer, giving DeVos's scummy
organization a nice steady stream of corporate welfare.

If it needs to be paid for out of the public purse, it should be run by
the public on a not-for-profit basis and the decision makers should be
politically accountable to the people. This applies whether "it" is
schools, public transit, prisons, policing, or national defense (so
goodbye also to Halliburton and all those other mercenary outfits).

> No, regular working-class Americans are against it, as the Woketards
> want to provide "free" homes to drugs addicted bums right in their
> neighborhoods.

You presume to speak for all "regular working-class Americans"?

>> What you're seeing is evidence that half-measures won't cut it. What's
>> needed is a vigorous left willing to make a direct frontal assault on
>> the wealthy classes and on capitalism itself, not just fiddle around the
>> edges of the existing system trying to find a way to solve the problems
>> without upsetting the applecarts of the richy-rich-rich.
>
> All that will get you is an exchange of one group of elitists for another,
> as the Communists learned to their dismay.

They did it wrong. It has to be done democratically, rather than by
instituting an authoritarian government. The latter will inevitably
corrupt itself, however benign its initial intentions.

> Mandatory conversion to worker owned co-operatives of any business
> beyond the level of a “family business” is the only viable route to stability
> and equality, as it puts the wealth and thus the power in the hands of the
> People and not a tiny clique of parasitical do-nothing elitists.

Now that is an idea I can get behind: small-d democracy not only in the
state but in the workplace. Down with the rentier class, in the name not
only of Marx but also Adam Smith!

--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate

> kensi
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > School vouchers across the nation would correct this. After all,
> > the are MY kids and it's MY money so it should be MY decision
> > how the schools are run (if I had any kids).
>
> You should be exercising your authority via politics at the appropriate
> level, and voting when they have school board elections or similarly.

Come on now, we all know this is useless for parents and nowadays, can
even result in parents being thrown in jail when they dare question the
school board why the tranny kid who raped their daughter is still going
to the school.

> Vouchers are just a scam upon the taxpayer

No, it’s public schools that have become a scam, with most parents (who
aren’t highly paid unionized public school teachers…) being unable to send
their kids to better schools, as they’re still forced to pay public school
tax. Meanwhile, their kids are being brainwashed with woke bullshit like
“Critical Race Theory” by the highly paid unionized public school teachers.

> > No, regular working-class Americans are against it, as the Woketards
> > want to provide "free" homes to drugs addicted bums right in their
> > neighborhoods.
>
> You presume to speak for all "regular working-class Americans"?

I speak AS a regular working class American and these “free homes for
the homeless!” plans always seek to settle them among regular working
class Americans, fucking up previously nice communities.

> > All that will get you is an exchange of one group of elitists for
> > another, as the Communists learned to their dismay.
>
> They did it wrong.

LOL! “But that wasn’t _real_ Communism, just give us yet another chance!”
https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/pol-pot-khmer-rouge.jpg

> > Mandatory conversion to worker owned co-operatives of any business
> > beyond the level of a “family business” is the only viable route to stability
> > and equality, as it puts the wealth and thus the power in the hands of the
> > People and not a tiny clique of parasitical do-nothing elitists.
>
> Now that is an idea I can get behind: small-d democracy not only in the
> state but in the workplace.

Money = power and the vast majority of us have neither. Worker owned co-ops
would not only enrich the working class (who actually create the wealth) but
pull the rug out from under the 1%er parasites (be they corporate boards of
directors or politburos) who control government via bribing officials but also
drastically cut taxes, as most people wouldn’t need handouts as they could
pay their own way.

Plus it’s in the interest of the workers to keep the company viable to provide
jobs for their children and grandchildren, instead of being sold off to some
Wall Street investment group that guts the company for a quick profit and
sells off the assets.

> Down with the rentier class, in the name not only of Marx but also Adam Smith!

I don’t have a problem with landlords, as until very recently, most were
average working class types who scrimped and saved enough to buy a
rental house or two for a bit of extra income.

Of course nowadays, Wall Street corporations have gotten into the game and
are buying up vast swaths of homes as rentals and gouging the fuck out’a
renters, while driving up homes prices to insure everybody will eventually
_have to_ rent from them.

On 2021-12-29 7:55 p.m., Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> kensi
>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>
>>> School vouchers across the nation would correct this. After all,
>>> the are MY kids and it's MY money so it should be MY decision
>>> how the schools are run (if I had any kids).
>>
>> You should be exercising your authority via politics at the appropriate
>> level, and voting when they have school board elections or similarly.
>
> Come on now, we all know this is useless for parents and nowadays, can
> even result in parents being thrown in jail when they dare question the
> school board why the [slur deleted]

[citation needed] for any instance of a parent being thrown in jail for
expressing a bigoted opinion in America, the land of the "so free, even
hate speech is legal there".

>> Vouchers are just a scam upon the taxpayer
>
> No, it’s public schools that have become a scam, with most parents (who
> aren’t highly paid unionized public school teachers…) being unable to send
> their kids to better schools, as they’re still forced to pay public school
> tax. Meanwhile, their kids are being brainwashed with woke bullshit like
> “Critical Race Theory” by the highly paid unionized public school teachers.

It's so much worse than that. Not only are they being taught to ask
questions like "if the kid riding that bike in Florida had been white,
would the cops still have run him off the road, killing him?"; they're
also being taught that the earth is round and way, *way* older than 6000
years, too! And that slavery was bad! Also, evolution.

*eyeroll*

Parents should be able to send their kids to better schools, by the
schools they are already going to being better. You seem to want a two-
tier system in which only *some* parents (wealthy? White?) get to send
their kids to decent schools, while *other* kids remain relegated to
crappy schools.

I would rather see America adopt a one-tier system in which schools of
acceptable quality are available to *all* children, rather than only
those with the "right" parentage!

Or is it instead that you want parents who wish to steep their sprog in
bizarre superstitions, bigotry, and ignorance rather than prepare them
to actually one day become adults living in the real world to be able to
have their cake and eat it too, by being able to send their kids to
private religious schools and still have this "education", if I may use
that word loosely, paid for by the state?

I'm perfectly fine with parents having to pay out-of-pocket to
miseducate and abuse their children in this manner, or even being
forbidden entirely from doing so. I am *not* fine with public money
being used for non-secular purposes; your country has an "establishment
clause" in its constitution for a reason. Undermine it and you open
Pandora's box. For example, devout Muslims will be able to use public
money to fund sending their children to Wahhabist schools that will
groom them to grow up to be terrorists. Is that something you want?
Because that's also a consequence of allowing public money to be spent
on religious indoctrination.

>>> No, regular working-class Americans are against it, as the Woketards
>>> want to provide "free" homes to drugs addicted bums right in their
>>> neighborhoods.
>>
>> You presume to speak for all "regular working-class Americans"?
>
> I speak AS a regular working class American and these “free homes for
> the homeless!” plans always seek to settle them among regular working
> class Americans, fucking up previously white communities.

There, fixed that for you. Now there's no danger anyone will miss
hearing your dogwhistle.

So, chalk one k0ok up as against housing desegregation ...

>>> Mandatory conversion to worker owned co-operatives of any business
>>> beyond the level of a “family business” is the only viable route to stability
>>> and equality, as it puts the wealth and thus the power in the hands of the
>>> People and not a tiny clique of parasitical do-nothing elitists.
>>
>> Now that is an idea I can get behind: small-d democracy not only in the
>> state but in the workplace.
>
> Money = power and the vast majority of us have neither. Worker owned co-ops
> would not only enrich the working class (who actually create the wealth) but
> pull the rug out from under the 1%er parasites (be they corporate boards of
> directors or politburos) who control government via bribing officials but also
> drastically cut taxes, as most people wouldn’t need handouts as they could
> pay their own way.

You do realize that to achieve that requires *solidarity* among the
working class, which is incompatible with bigotry continuing to divide
them on the basis of race, sex, sexuality, religion, and so forth?

> Plus it’s in the interest of the workers to keep the company viable to provide
> jobs for their children and grandchildren, instead of being sold off to some
> Wall Street investment group that guts the company for a quick profit and
> sells off the assets.

Indeed.

--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate

On 12/28/2021 11:11 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> kensi <kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2021-12-28 12:05 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>> I'm considering pivoting my company,
>>
>> Note: author is rich or upper middle class
>
> And here is where kensi/seamus accidentally lets its full communist freak
> flag fly.

Fascinating. People have lost sleep worrying about what "kensi" is doing.