Uptown viaduct fire reminder of hazards to homeless: 'There really is no
peace'
By Caroline Kubzansky and Rebecca Johnson
Chicago Tribune
April 13, 2024 at 5:00 a.m.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/13/uptown-viaduct-fire-reminder-of-hazards-to-homeless-there-really-is-no-peace/

Despite the headline, we learn IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH that the hazard
in question to other homeless people was from a homeless woman who, with
either reckless disregard or murderous intent, set her own tent on fire,
which led to all the other tents catching fire fire. Note that one of
the homeless men interviewed stated that the area under the viaduct is
usually fried, so there are fires set repeatedly.

That headline was misleading, and I'd say who set the fire should have
been stated in the first paragraph.

In paragraph six, the murder of a well-known homeless man (who walked
without disturbing others rather than just sitting in a doorway) was
conflated. But the crime against him was attempted murder by someone who
was not homeless; he was set on fire while sleeping. It became a murder
as he later died of injuries sustained.

This was just bad reporting entirely. The danger from homeless
encampments under viaducts is that one or more individuals will set
fires, and fires spread. Gee. Fires can even destroy viaducts. Maybe
allowing "permanent" encampments once people start fires is horrifically
bad public policy.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Uptown viaduct fire reminder of hazards to homeless: 'There really is no
> peace'
> By Caroline Kubzansky and Rebecca Johnson
> Chicago Tribune
> April 13, 2024 at 5:00 a.m.
> https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/13/uptown-viaduct-fire-reminder-of-hazards-to-homeless-there-really-is-no-peace/
>
> Despite the headline, we learn IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH that the hazard
> in question to other homeless people was from a homeless woman who, with
> either reckless disregard or murderous intent, set her own tent on fire,
> which led to all the other tents catching fire fire. Note that one of
> the homeless men interviewed stated that the area under the viaduct is
> usually fried, so there are fires set repeatedly.
>
> That headline was misleading, and I'd say who set the fire should have
> been stated in the first paragraph.
>
> In paragraph six, the murder of a well-known homeless man (who walked
> without disturbing others rather than just sitting in a doorway) was
> conflated. But the crime against him was attempted murder by someone who
> was not homeless; he was set on fire while sleeping. It became a murder
> as he later died of injuries sustained.
>
> This was just bad reporting entirely. The danger from homeless
> encampments under viaducts is that one or more individuals will set
> fires, and fires spread. Gee. Fires can even destroy viaducts. Maybe
> allowing "permanent" encampments once people start fires is horrifically
> bad public policy.
>

Newspapers typically have a dedicated headline writer, and it is standard
for them to base the headline entirely on the first paragraph the theory
being that the person writing the article is good enough to put all the
information you actually need in the first paragraph and do so correctly.
The system breaks down at every point.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 14:03:55 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Uptown viaduct fire reminder of hazards to homeless: 'There really is
> no peace'
> By Caroline Kubzansky and Rebecca Johnson
> Chicago Tribune
> April 13, 2024 at 5:00 a.m.
> https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/13/uptown-viaduct-fire-reminder-of-hazards-to-homeless-there-really-is-no-peace/
>
> Despite the headline, we learn IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH that the hazard
> in question to other homeless people was from a homeless woman who,
> with either reckless disregard or murderous intent, set her own tent
> on fire, which led to all the other tents catching fire fire. Note
> that one of the homeless men interviewed stated that the area under
> the viaduct is usually fried, so there are fires set repeatedly.

"The area under the viaduct is usually fried": what exactly does that
mean? I assume that the area isn't literally fried but I'm not sure what
euphemism you're attempting here.

>
> That headline was misleading, and I'd say who set the fire should have
> been stated in the first paragraph.
>
> In paragraph six, the murder of a well-known homeless man (who walked
> without disturbing others rather than just sitting in a doorway) was
> conflated. But the crime against him was attempted murder by someone
> who was not homeless; he was set on fire while sleeping. It became a
> murder as he later died of injuries sustained.
>
> This was just bad reporting entirely. The danger from homeless
> encampments under viaducts is that one or more individuals will set
> fires, and fires spread. Gee. Fires can even destroy viaducts. Maybe
> allowing "permanent" encampments once people start fires is
> horrifically bad public policy.

There was a major fire in a homeless encampment close to the Kitchener
and Cambridge boundary. It's a miracle there weren't some
fatalities. There's a homeless encampment in Kitchener that is very
close to the transit hub that is supposed to be built that has serious
problems with rats. The residents have also done significant property
damage to nearby businesses. The city and region have tried to evict
them but when it went to court, the judge was persuaded that the
residents couldn't be evicted because it violated their rights under
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That case now serves as a precedent
for the whole country making it hard to do much about homeless
encampments.

Three cheers for our bleeding-heart activist judges: fooey! fooey!
fooey!
--
Rhino

On 4/13/2024 8:37 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> Uptown viaduct fire reminder of hazards to homeless: 'There really is no
>> peace'
>> By Caroline Kubzansky and Rebecca Johnson
>> Chicago Tribune
>> April 13, 2024 at 5:00 a.m.
>> https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/13/uptown-viaduct-fire-reminder-of-hazards-to-homeless-there-really-is-no-peace/
>>
>> Despite the headline, we learn IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH that the hazard
>> in question to other homeless people was from a homeless woman who, with
>> either reckless disregard or murderous intent, set her own tent on fire,
>> which led to all the other tents catching fire fire. Note that one of
>> the homeless men interviewed stated that the area under the viaduct is
>> usually fried, so there are fires set repeatedly.
>>
>> That headline was misleading, and I'd say who set the fire should have
>> been stated in the first paragraph.
>>
>> In paragraph six, the murder of a well-known homeless man (who walked
>> without disturbing others rather than just sitting in a doorway) was
>> conflated. But the crime against him was attempted murder by someone who
>> was not homeless; he was set on fire while sleeping. It became a murder
>> as he later died of injuries sustained.
>>
>> This was just bad reporting entirely. The danger from homeless
>> encampments under viaducts is that one or more individuals will set
>> fires, and fires spread. Gee. Fires can even destroy viaducts. Maybe
>> allowing "permanent" encampments once people start fires is horrifically
>> bad public policy.
>>
>
> Newspapers typically have a dedicated headline writer, and it is standard
> for them to base the headline entirely on the first paragraph the theory
> being that the person writing the article is good enough to put all the
> information you actually need in the first paragraph and do so correctly.
> The system breaks down at every point.
>
Starting with "if all the information you need is in the first paragraph
why are all the other paragraphs included?"

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
> On 4/13/2024 8:37 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> Uptown viaduct fire reminder of hazards to homeless: 'There really is no
>>> peace'
>>> By Caroline Kubzansky and Rebecca Johnson
>>> Chicago Tribune
>>> April 13, 2024 at 5:00 a.m.
>>> https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/13/uptown-viaduct-fire-reminder-of-hazards-to-homeless-there-really-is-no-peace/
>>>
>>> Despite the headline, we learn IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH that the hazard
>>> in question to other homeless people was from a homeless woman who, with
>>> either reckless disregard or murderous intent, set her own tent on fire,
>>> which led to all the other tents catching fire fire. Note that one of
>>> the homeless men interviewed stated that the area under the viaduct is
>>> usually fried, so there are fires set repeatedly.
>>>
>>> That headline was misleading, and I'd say who set the fire should have
>>> been stated in the first paragraph.
>>>
>>> In paragraph six, the murder of a well-known homeless man (who walked
>>> without disturbing others rather than just sitting in a doorway) was
>>> conflated. But the crime against him was attempted murder by someone who
>>> was not homeless; he was set on fire while sleeping. It became a murder
>>> as he later died of injuries sustained.
>>>
>>> This was just bad reporting entirely. The danger from homeless
>>> encampments under viaducts is that one or more individuals will set
>>> fires, and fires spread. Gee. Fires can even destroy viaducts. Maybe
>>> allowing "permanent" encampments once people start fires is horrifically
>>> bad public policy.
>>>
>>
>> Newspapers typically have a dedicated headline writer, and it is standard
>> for them to base the headline entirely on the first paragraph the theory
>> being that the person writing the article is good enough to put all the
>> information you actually need in the first paragraph and do so correctly.
>> The system breaks down at every point.
>>
> Starting with "if all the information you need is in the first paragraph
> why are all the other paragraphs included?"
>

Lesser information. Each paragraph should have less important information
than the one before.

For instance:

*************

Ian is right.

Or so, he claimed, but this newspaper would disagree.

Ian is very seldom right; he was wrong three times this week.

Ian was wrong almost 17 times in the last month.

Some people are keeping count of how many times Ian has been wrong.

The odds favor assuming that in any given instance, Ian will be wrong.

*************

You’ve got even odds that the headline would be.

IAN IS RIGHT

Because headline writers are universally lazy and incompetent, and the
equally lazy and incompetent reporter, did not put the pertinent
information in the first paragraph.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

In article <uve3ca$31lpn$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Uptown viaduct fire reminder of hazards to homeless: 'There really is no
> peace'
> By Caroline Kubzansky and Rebecca Johnson
> Chicago Tribune
> April 13, 2024 at 5:00 a.m.
> https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/13/uptown-viaduct-fire-reminder-of-haza
> rds-to-homeless-there-really-is-no-peace/
>
> Despite the headline, we learn IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH that the hazard
> in question to other homeless people was from a homeless woman who, with
> either reckless disregard or murderous intent, set her own tent on fire,
> which led to all the other tents catching fire fire. Note that one of
> the homeless men interviewed stated that the area under the viaduct is
> usually fried, so there are fires set repeatedly.

The 'progressive' media and politicians never give these people any
agency. All of the ills they both experience and commit-- from drug
addiction, to crime, to sexual assault-- it's all visited on them from
some outside force beyond their control. They are *never* held
accountable for their own choices or their own lives. They're treated as
if they're helpless infants.

> That headline was misleading, and I'd say who set the fire should have
> been stated in the first paragraph.

A misleading headline, a misleading article, in the legacy media? Surely
you jest!

> In paragraph six, the murder of a well-known homeless man (who walked
> without disturbing others rather than just sitting in a doorway) was
> conflated. But the crime against him was attempted murder by someone who
> was not homeless; he was set on fire while sleeping. It became a murder
> as he later died of injuries sustained.
>
> This was just bad reporting entirely. The danger from homeless
> encampments under viaducts is that one or more individuals will set
> fires, and fires spread. Gee. Fires can even destroy viaducts. Maybe
> allowing "permanent" encampments once people start fires is horrifically
> bad public policy.

You should have seen the tortured leaps of illogic and linguistic
legerdemain that Newsom and Karen Bass went through to avoid admitting
the fact that it was a vagrant encampment that they let flourish that
was responsible for burning down the 10 freeway back before Christmas.

Nevertheless, the vagrants *were* responsible for the fire. So now we
have vagrants cutting one of the most traveled freeways in the nation.
When it was down, there was talking of merchandise shortages all the way
on the East Coast because of the blockage. The White House declared it a
national emergency. This is what vagrants are now doing and what has
been the response? Nothing. Vagrants are still being allowed to camp
under freeways because literally noting they do is bad enough to
inconvenience them in any way.

Take down a freeway? Not bad enough.

Burn down a forest, destroy a couple hundred homes and kill a few
people? You go ahead and keep camping in the hills. It would be
insensitive of us to bother you.

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>Sat, 13 Apr 2024 14:03:55 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>Uptown viaduct fire reminder of hazards to homeless: 'There really is
>>no peace'
>>By Caroline Kubzansky and Rebecca Johnson
>>Chicago Tribune
>>April 13, 2024 at 5:00 a.m.
>>https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/13/uptown-viaduct-fire-reminder-of-hazards-to-homeless-there-really-is-no-peace/

>>Despite the headline, we learn IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH that the hazard
>>in question to other homeless people was from a homeless woman who,
>>with either reckless disregard or murderous intent, set her own tent
>>on fire, which led to all the other tents catching fire fire. Note
>>that one of the homeless men interviewed stated that the area under
>>the viaduct is usually fried, so there are fires set repeatedly.

>"The area under the viaduct is usually fried": what exactly does that
>mean? I assume that the area isn't literally fried but I'm not sure what
>euphemism you're attempting here.

It's what the homeless guy said. He meant that other homeless people
have set fires under that viaduct and there are scorch marks on the
abutments and sidewalks and underside of the viaduct.
>>That headline was misleading, and I'd say who set the fire should have
>>been stated in the first paragraph.
>>In paragraph six, the murder of a well-known homeless man (who walked
>>without disturbing others rather than just sitting in a doorway) was
>>conflated. But the crime against him was attempted murder by someone
>>who was not homeless; he was set on fire while sleeping. It became a
>>murder as he later died of injuries sustained.

>>This was just bad reporting entirely. The danger from homeless
>>encampments under viaducts is that one or more individuals will set
>>fires, and fires spread. Gee. Fires can even destroy viaducts. Maybe
>>allowing "permanent" encampments once people start fires is
>>horrifically bad public policy.

>There was a major fire in a homeless encampment close to the Kitchener
>and Cambridge boundary. It's a miracle there weren't some
>fatalities. There's a homeless encampment in Kitchener that is very
>close to the transit hub that is supposed to be built that has serious
>problems with rats. The residents have also done significant property
>damage to nearby businesses. The city and region have tried to evict
>them but when it went to court, the judge was persuaded that the
>residents couldn't be evicted because it violated their rights under
>the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That case now serves as a precedent
>for the whole country making it hard to do much about homeless
>encampments.

>Three cheers for our bleeding-heart activist judges: fooey! fooey!
>fooey!

Was that judicial activism or is such a right created in law?

On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 19:12:03 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >Sat, 13 Apr 2024 14:03:55 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman
> ><ahk@chinet.com>:
>
> >>Uptown viaduct fire reminder of hazards to homeless: 'There really
> >>is no peace'
> >>By Caroline Kubzansky and Rebecca Johnson
> >>Chicago Tribune
> >>April 13, 2024 at 5:00 a.m.
> >>https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/13/uptown-viaduct-fire-reminder-of-hazards-to-homeless-there-really-is-no-peace/
> >>
>
> >>Despite the headline, we learn IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH that the
> >>hazard in question to other homeless people was from a homeless
> >>woman who, with either reckless disregard or murderous intent, set
> >>her own tent on fire, which led to all the other tents catching
> >>fire fire. Note that one of the homeless men interviewed stated
> >>that the area under the viaduct is usually fried, so there are
> >>fires set repeatedly.
>
> >"The area under the viaduct is usually fried": what exactly does that
> >mean? I assume that the area isn't literally fried but I'm not sure
> >what euphemism you're attempting here.
>
> It's what the homeless guy said. He meant that other homeless people
> have set fires under that viaduct and there are scorch marks on the
> abutments and sidewalks and underside of the viaduct.
>
Thanks for clarifying what the guy meant and sorry that I misunderstood
you as saying it in the first place.

> >>That headline was misleading, and I'd say who set the fire should
> >>have been stated in the first paragraph.
>
> >>In paragraph six, the murder of a well-known homeless man (who
> >>walked without disturbing others rather than just sitting in a
> >>doorway) was conflated. But the crime against him was attempted
> >>murder by someone who was not homeless; he was set on fire while
> >>sleeping. It became a murder as he later died of injuries
> >>sustained.
>
> >>This was just bad reporting entirely. The danger from homeless
> >>encampments under viaducts is that one or more individuals will set
> >>fires, and fires spread. Gee. Fires can even destroy viaducts. Maybe
> >>allowing "permanent" encampments once people start fires is
> >>horrifically bad public policy.
>
> >There was a major fire in a homeless encampment close to the
> >Kitchener and Cambridge boundary. It's a miracle there weren't some
> >fatalities. There's a homeless encampment in Kitchener that is very
> >close to the transit hub that is supposed to be built that has
> >serious problems with rats. The residents have also done significant
> >property damage to nearby businesses. The city and region have tried
> >to evict them but when it went to court, the judge was persuaded
> >that the residents couldn't be evicted because it violated their
> >rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That case now
> >serves as a precedent for the whole country making it hard to do
> >much about homeless encampments.
>
> >Three cheers for our bleeding-heart activist judges: fooey! fooey!
> >fooey!
>
> Was that judicial activism or is such a right created in law?

--
Rhino

On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 12:19:04 -0700
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <uve3ca$31lpn$1@dont-email.me>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> > Uptown viaduct fire reminder of hazards to homeless: 'There really
> > is no peace'
> > By Caroline Kubzansky and Rebecca Johnson
> > Chicago Tribune
> > April 13, 2024 at 5:00 a.m.
> > https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/13/uptown-viaduct-fire-reminder-of-haza
> > rds-to-homeless-there-really-is-no-peace/
> >
> > Despite the headline, we learn IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH that the
> > hazard in question to other homeless people was from a homeless
> > woman who, with either reckless disregard or murderous intent, set
> > her own tent on fire, which led to all the other tents catching
> > fire fire. Note that one of the homeless men interviewed stated
> > that the area under the viaduct is usually fried, so there are
> > fires set repeatedly.
>
> The 'progressive' media and politicians never give these people any
> agency. All of the ills they both experience and commit-- from drug
> addiction, to crime, to sexual assault-- it's all visited on them
> from some outside force beyond their control. They are *never* held
> accountable for their own choices or their own lives. They're treated
> as if they're helpless infants.
>
If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be pressure
to hold them accountable for their actions. That would undermine the
"progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything with vast new
and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs to help the poor
darlings. It's far better to just declare them all to be helpless
captives of their addictions and mental health so that "help" can be
applied in whatever fashion the government and their agents in the civil
service deem necessary. Many many billions of tax dollars can then be
wasted on schemes that won't solve the problem but WILL enrich
the agencies that run the schemes.

> > That headline was misleading, and I'd say who set the fire should
> > have been stated in the first paragraph.
>
> A misleading headline, a misleading article, in the legacy media?
> Surely you jest!
>
> > In paragraph six, the murder of a well-known homeless man (who
> > walked without disturbing others rather than just sitting in a
> > doorway) was conflated. But the crime against him was attempted
> > murder by someone who was not homeless; he was set on fire while
> > sleeping. It became a murder as he later died of injuries sustained.
> >
> > This was just bad reporting entirely. The danger from homeless
> > encampments under viaducts is that one or more individuals will set
> > fires, and fires spread. Gee. Fires can even destroy viaducts. Maybe
> > allowing "permanent" encampments once people start fires is
> > horrifically bad public policy.
>
> You should have seen the tortured leaps of illogic and linguistic
> legerdemain that Newsom and Karen Bass went through to avoid
> admitting the fact that it was a vagrant encampment that they let
> flourish that was responsible for burning down the 10 freeway back
> before Christmas.
>
> Nevertheless, the vagrants *were* responsible for the fire. So now we
> have vagrants cutting one of the most traveled freeways in the
> nation. When it was down, there was talking of merchandise shortages
> all the way on the East Coast because of the blockage.

"When it was down...." Am I correct in inferring from your verb tense
that 10 has been repaired and is now flowing normally? How did they
accomplish that so quickly? Infrastructure projects typically take ages
to plan and execute.

Please don't tell me that you brought in the Chinese to do some of
their notorious "tofu dreg" construction!

> The White
> House declared it a national emergency. This is what vagrants are now
> doing and what has been the response? Nothing. Vagrants are still
> being allowed to camp under freeways because literally noting they do
> is bad enough to inconvenience them in any way.
>
> Take down a freeway? Not bad enough.
>
> Burn down a forest, destroy a couple hundred homes and kill a few
> people? You go ahead and keep camping in the hills. It would be
> insensitive of us to bother you.

Who is running for governor this time around? I assume Newsom will have
an opponent or two. Are any of them likely to be competitive? I keep
thinking there must be lots of people in California who are beyond sick
of Gov. Hairgel and would love to see a change.

--
Rhino

In article <20240413162248.000059fe@example.com>,
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 12:19:04 -0700
> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <uve3ca$31lpn$1@dont-email.me>,
> > "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Uptown viaduct fire reminder of hazards to homeless: 'There really
> > > is no peace'
> > > By Caroline Kubzansky and Rebecca Johnson
> > > Chicago Tribune
> > > April 13, 2024 at 5:00 a.m.
> > > https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/13/uptown-viaduct-fire-reminder-of-
> > > haza
> > > rds-to-homeless-there-really-is-no-peace/
> > >
> > > Despite the headline, we learn IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH that the
> > > hazard in question to other homeless people was from a homeless
> > > woman who, with either reckless disregard or murderous intent, set
> > > her own tent on fire, which led to all the other tents catching
> > > fire fire. Note that one of the homeless men interviewed stated
> > > that the area under the viaduct is usually fried, so there are
> > > fires set repeatedly.
> >
> > The 'progressive' media and politicians never give these people any
> > agency. All of the ills they both experience and commit-- from drug
> > addiction, to crime, to sexual assault-- it's all visited on them
> > from some outside force beyond their control. They are *never* held
> > accountable for their own choices or their own lives. They're treated
> > as if they're helpless infants.
> >
> If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be pressure
> to hold them accountable for their actions. That would undermine the
> "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything with vast new
> and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs to help the poor
> darlings. It's far better to just declare them all to be helpless
> captives of their addictions and mental health so that "help" can be
> applied in whatever fashion the government and their agents in the civil
> service deem necessary. Many many billions of tax dollars can then be
> wasted on schemes that won't solve the problem but WILL enrich
> the agencies that run the schemes.
>
> > > That headline was misleading, and I'd say who set the fire should
> > > have been stated in the first paragraph.
> >
> > A misleading headline, a misleading article, in the legacy media?
> > Surely you jest!
> >
> > > In paragraph six, the murder of a well-known homeless man (who
> > > walked without disturbing others rather than just sitting in a
> > > doorway) was conflated. But the crime against him was attempted
> > > murder by someone who was not homeless; he was set on fire while
> > > sleeping. It became a murder as he later died of injuries sustained.
> > >
> > > This was just bad reporting entirely. The danger from homeless
> > > encampments under viaducts is that one or more individuals will set
> > > fires, and fires spread. Gee. Fires can even destroy viaducts. Maybe
> > > allowing "permanent" encampments once people start fires is
> > > horrifically bad public policy.
> >
> > You should have seen the tortured leaps of illogic and linguistic
> > legerdemain that Newsom and Karen Bass went through to avoid
> > admitting the fact that it was a vagrant encampment that they let
> > flourish that was responsible for burning down the 10 freeway back
> > before Christmas.
> >
> > Nevertheless, the vagrants *were* responsible for the fire. So now
> > we have vagrants cutting one of the most traveled freeways in the
> > nation in half. When it was down, there was talk of merchandise
> > shortages all the way on the East Coast because of the blockage.
>
> "When it was down...." Am I correct in inferring from your verb tense
> that 10 has been repaired and is now flowing normally? How did they
> accomplish that so quickly? Infrastructure projects typically take ages
> to plan and execute.

Newsom waived all the environmental regulations and bureaucracy relating
to contractor bidding with emergency executive orders. They had it
partially open within a week and completely fixed within a month.

Amazing what can happen when government gets the hell out of the way,
isn't it?

> > The White
> > House declared it a national emergency. This is what vagrants are now
> > doing and what has been the response? Nothing. Vagrants are still
> > being allowed to camp under freeways because literally noting they do
> > is bad enough to inconvenience them in any way.
> >
> > Take down a freeway? Not bad enough.
> >
> > Burn down a forest, destroy a couple hundred homes and kill a few
> > people? You go ahead and keep camping in the hills. It would be
> > insensitive of us to bother you.
>
> Who is running for governor this time around? I assume Newsom will have
> an opponent or two. Are any of them likely to be competitive? I keep
> thinking there must be lots of people in California who are beyond sick
> of Gov. Hairgel and would love to see a change.

There is no governors race this year. Newsom is only halfway through his
second term. After that he can't run again so he won't have any
opponents.

On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 14:26:26 -0700
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <20240413162248.000059fe@example.com>,
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 12:19:04 -0700
> > BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <uve3ca$31lpn$1@dont-email.me>,
> > > "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Uptown viaduct fire reminder of hazards to homeless: 'There
> > > > really is no peace'
> > > > By Caroline Kubzansky and Rebecca Johnson
> > > > Chicago Tribune
> > > > April 13, 2024 at 5:00 a.m.
> > > > https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/13/uptown-viaduct-fire-reminder-of-
> > > > haza
> > > > rds-to-homeless-there-really-is-no-peace/
> > > >
> > > > Despite the headline, we learn IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH that the
> > > > hazard in question to other homeless people was from a homeless
> > > > woman who, with either reckless disregard or murderous intent,
> > > > set her own tent on fire, which led to all the other tents
> > > > catching fire fire. Note that one of the homeless men
> > > > interviewed stated that the area under the viaduct is usually
> > > > fried, so there are fires set repeatedly.
> > >
> > > The 'progressive' media and politicians never give these people
> > > any agency. All of the ills they both experience and commit--
> > > from drug addiction, to crime, to sexual assault-- it's all
> > > visited on them from some outside force beyond their control.
> > > They are *never* held accountable for their own choices or their
> > > own lives. They're treated as if they're helpless infants.
> > >
> > If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be
> > pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
> > undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix
> > everything with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly
> > futile - programs to help the poor darlings. It's far better to
> > just declare them all to be helpless captives of their addictions
> > and mental health so that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion
> > the government and their agents in the civil service deem
> > necessary. Many many billions of tax dollars can then be wasted on
> > schemes that won't solve the problem but WILL enrich the agencies
> > that run the schemes.
> > > > That headline was misleading, and I'd say who set the fire
> > > > should have been stated in the first paragraph.
> > >
> > > A misleading headline, a misleading article, in the legacy media?
> > > Surely you jest!
> > >
> > > > In paragraph six, the murder of a well-known homeless man (who
> > > > walked without disturbing others rather than just sitting in a
> > > > doorway) was conflated. But the crime against him was attempted
> > > > murder by someone who was not homeless; he was set on fire while
> > > > sleeping. It became a murder as he later died of injuries
> > > > sustained.
> > > >
> > > > This was just bad reporting entirely. The danger from homeless
> > > > encampments under viaducts is that one or more individuals will
> > > > set fires, and fires spread. Gee. Fires can even destroy
> > > > viaducts. Maybe allowing "permanent" encampments once people
> > > > start fires is horrifically bad public policy.
> > >
> > > You should have seen the tortured leaps of illogic and linguistic
> > > legerdemain that Newsom and Karen Bass went through to avoid
> > > admitting the fact that it was a vagrant encampment that they let
> > > flourish that was responsible for burning down the 10 freeway back
> > > before Christmas.
> > >
> > > Nevertheless, the vagrants *were* responsible for the fire. So now
> > > we have vagrants cutting one of the most traveled freeways in the
> > > nation in half. When it was down, there was talk of merchandise
> > > shortages all the way on the East Coast because of the blockage.
> > >
> >
> > "When it was down...." Am I correct in inferring from your verb
> > tense that 10 has been repaired and is now flowing normally? How
> > did they accomplish that so quickly? Infrastructure projects
> > typically take ages to plan and execute.
>
> Newsom waived all the environmental regulations and bureaucracy
> relating to contractor bidding with emergency executive orders. They
> had it partially open within a week and completely fixed within a
> month.
>
> Amazing what can happen when government gets the hell out of the way,
> isn't it?
>
I remember reading that a previous Cali governor did that when a major
expressway was damaged by an earthquake (probably the Northridge one).
The road was back up and running in 9 days if I remember correctly.

What's the latest estimate on getting the Key Bridge back up? Seven
years? Ten years?

> > > The White
> > > House declared it a national emergency. This is what vagrants are
> > > now doing and what has been the response? Nothing. Vagrants are
> > > still being allowed to camp under freeways because literally
> > > noting they do is bad enough to inconvenience them in any way.
> > >
> > > Take down a freeway? Not bad enough.
> > >
> > > Burn down a forest, destroy a couple hundred homes and kill a few
> > > people? You go ahead and keep camping in the hills. It would be
> > > insensitive of us to bother you.
> >
> > Who is running for governor this time around? I assume Newsom will
> > have an opponent or two. Are any of them likely to be competitive?
> > I keep thinking there must be lots of people in California who are
> > beyond sick of Gov. Hairgel and would love to see a change.
>
> There is no governors race this year.

Oh yeah; I forgot about the staggered governor elections and thought he
was up for election again.

> Newsom is only halfway through
> his second term. After that he can't run again so he won't have any
> opponents.

At least you have the benefit of term limits in the governorship! Two
more years and he's done forever, at least as governor. Of course it's
pretty obvious he still has Presidential ambitions so you may not have
seen the end of him even after he leaves the governor's mansion....

--
Rhino

On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 12:46:31 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>There was a major fire in a homeless encampment close to the Kitchener
>and Cambridge boundary. It's a miracle there weren't some
>fatalities. There's a homeless encampment in Kitchener that is very
>close to the transit hub that is supposed to be built that has serious
>problems with rats. The residents have also done significant property
>damage to nearby businesses. The city and region have tried to evict
>them but when it went to court, the judge was persuaded that the
>residents couldn't be evicted because it violated their rights under
>the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That case now serves as a precedent
>for the whole country making it hard to do much about homeless
>encampments.

I was wondering about that comment as well. On the other matter
Vancouver also had a case where those camped out in city parks were
allowed to remain by bleeding heart judges - which included weapons
and open drug use.

No question though Kitchener-Waterloo in winter is much colder than
Vancouver in winter. (K-W is somewhat similar to NYC and Boston in
winter whereas Vancouver is more like Seattle cliimactically. Neither
is as cold as Minneapolis St Paul though Winnipeg is 10-15 degrees
colder than M-StP in January. And except for NYC and Boston I have
been in all those cities in the month of January...)

On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be pressure
>to hold them accountable for their actions. That would undermine the
>"progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything with vast new
>and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs to help the poor
>darlings. It's far better to just declare them all to be helpless
>captives of their addictions and mental health so that "help" can be
>applied in whatever fashion the government and their agents in the civil
>service deem necessary. Many many billions of tax dollars can then be
>wasted on schemes that won't solve the problem but WILL enrich
>the agencies that run the schemes.
>
You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
though you'd have a devil of a time convincing a judge that the
outdoor camping homeless were mentally ill even when they refused free
indoor accomodation. (Though I remain highly dubious about judges that
allow campouts in public parts particularly when used needles and
weapons are found there)

On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 14:03:55 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>Uptown viaduct fire reminder of hazards to homeless: 'There really is no
>peace'
>By Caroline Kubzansky and Rebecca Johnson
>Chicago Tribune
>April 13, 2024 at 5:00 a.m.
>https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/13/uptown-viaduct-fire-reminder-of-hazards-to-homeless-there-really-is-no-peace/
>
>Despite the headline, we learn IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH that the hazard
>in question to other homeless people was from a homeless woman who, with
>either reckless disregard or murderous intent, set her own tent on fire,
>which led to all the other tents catching fire fire. Note that one of
>the homeless men interviewed stated that the area under the viaduct is
>usually fried, so there are fires set repeatedly.
>
>That headline was misleading, and I'd say who set the fire should have
>been stated in the first paragraph.
>
>In paragraph six, the murder of a well-known homeless man (who walked
>without disturbing others rather than just sitting in a doorway) was
>conflated. But the crime against him was attempted murder by someone who
>was not homeless; he was set on fire while sleeping. It became a murder
>as he later died of injuries sustained.
>
>This was just bad reporting entirely. The danger from homeless
>encampments under viaducts is that one or more individuals will set
>fires, and fires spread. Gee. Fires can even destroy viaducts. Maybe
>allowing "permanent" encampments once people start fires is horrifically
>bad public policy.

Accurate and honest reporting is dead. Everything is selling an
agenda and propaganda.

On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
> >If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be
> >pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
> >undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything
> >with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs
> >to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
> >to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
> >that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
> >their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions
> >of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
> >problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
> >
> You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities

Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that. I'm not sure
which words gave that impression. Time and time again, I've heard the
opinion expressed by experts (or those paraphrasing experts) that you
can't force people to get clean. Rehab only works if the addict WANTS
to get clean and even then it is far from a certainty that it will
work. If that is true - and I'd certainly like to know if there are
indications to the contrary - forcing people into rehab doesn't seem
like a plausible solution.

> though you'd have a devil of a time convincing a judge that the
> outdoor camping homeless were mentally ill even when they refused free
> indoor accomodation. (Though I remain highly dubious about judges that
> allow campouts in public parts particularly when used needles and
> weapons are found there)

I don't know what good solutions exist or even if there ARE any good
solutions. The documentary I saw on safe supply which showed it caused
many negative consequences, especially making increasingly younger
children junkies, made me strongly oppose that approach. I resent like
hell seeing public money being spent on people who contribute nothing
to society and who use the money we give them to get and stay high
while everyone else works their asses off to let them live that
lifestyle. This profoundly undermines society as a whole by giving too
many people the idea that it is just fine to get high all the time at
public expense.

We need to rediscover human agency in this whole situation and agree
that if people choose to buy drugs and get high instead of working,
THEY MADE THAT CHOICE and need to pay the consequences.

--
Rhino

In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
> > <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >
> > >If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be
> > >pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
> > >undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything
> > >with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs
> > >to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
> > >to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
> > >that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
> > >their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions
> > >of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
> > >problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
> > >
> > You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
>
> Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.

You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 11:58:16 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>I don't know what good solutions exist or even if there ARE any good
>solutions. The documentary I saw on safe supply which showed it caused
>many negative consequences, especially making increasingly younger
>children junkies, made me strongly oppose that approach. I resent like
>hell seeing public money being spent on people who contribute nothing
>to society and who use the money we give them to get and stay high
>while everyone else works their asses off to let them live that
>lifestyle. This profoundly undermines society as a whole by giving too
>many people the idea that it is just fine to get high all the time at
>public expense.

Well one thing for sure - my meds cost me roughly $150-200 / month
beyond what the medical system pays for (I haven't filed my taxes yet
to have the complete number for 2023 - but Canadian income taxes
aren't due till 04/30 so no panic yet) so I tend to react extremely
badly when I hear of these folks getting non-prescription drugs for $
0.00 given what I'm paying and I'm well aware what I do pay is well
below US rates for the same medications

As a taxpayer I'm happy to pay big bucks to get those who want to get
clean clean, but I bitterly resent.paying a nickel for support
services for those who just want to go on getting high day after day
until the music finally stops.

It's not as if I obtain pleasure from doing the ones I do (all of
which are prescribed by a GP or specialist) after all and its
certainly not something I do for fun. (My cache is literally arms'
reach from my monitor with the only non-prescribed drugs there being
tylenol and some vitamins)

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 12:10:48 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
>around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
>from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
>then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
>have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
>your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.

Agreed - and to me that VERY much includes the guy vaping on the
outdoor patio at McDonalds in downtown Vancouver who was asked by the
dad at the next table to stop blowing his marijuana (which he was
taking by 'vape') into the guy's two year old's face. The response was
to whip out a 12" knife and fatally plunged it into Dad's neck.

I was outraged when the newspaper reporter said all that could be done
was a 5 year sentence (which generally means release after 2 1/2) - I
would have gone for indefinite sentence until the guy had demonstrated
he was clean of all drugs and only then begun his sentence for 2nd
degree murder.

Does any sane person believe this individual is safe to have on the
streets?!?

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 12:10:48 -0700
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
> > The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
> > > <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be
> > > >pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
> > > >undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix
> > > >everything with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly
> > > >futile - programs to help the poor darlings. It's far better to
> > > >just declare them all to be helpless captives of their
> > > >addictions and mental health so that "help" can be applied in
> > > >whatever fashion the government and their agents in the civil
> > > >service deem necessary. Many many billions of tax dollars can
> > > >then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the problem but WILL
> > > >enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
> > > >
> > > You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health
> > > facilities
> >
> > Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
>
> You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
> around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
> from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
> then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us
> should have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire,
> whatever your delusions are telling you to do just going about our
> daily lives.

I agree with you completely that they MUST be held accountable for
their actions. We cannot treat them like small children or drunks that
aren't responsible for what they do. (I still remember a case where a
drunk ran over and killed 3 women in a crosswalk and was sentenced to
30 days in jail, to be served weekends, because the judge didn't want
him to lose his job. That was in the early 80s here in Ontario when
drunk drivers weren't felt to be terribly culpable for killing
people.)

If a drug-addled homeless person sets people on fire, stabs them or
whatever, then I have no problem with them going to jail or forced into
a secure mental facility. I want to believe that most of them aren't
that bad and don't need that kind of treatment but I'm prepared to be
proven wrong.

--
Rhino

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 17:14:21 -0700
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 12:10:48 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
> >around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
> >from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
> >then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us
> >should have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire,
> >whatever your delusions are telling you to do just going about our
> >daily lives.
>
> Agreed - and to me that VERY much includes the guy vaping on the
> outdoor patio at McDonalds in downtown Vancouver who was asked by the
> dad at the next table to stop blowing his marijuana (which he was
> taking by 'vape') into the guy's two year old's face. The response was
> to whip out a 12" knife and fatally plunged it into Dad's neck.
>
> I was outraged when the newspaper reporter said all that could be done
> was a 5 year sentence (which generally means release after 2 1/2) - I
> would have gone for indefinite sentence until the guy had demonstrated
> he was clean of all drugs and only then begun his sentence for 2nd
> degree murder.
>
> Does any sane person believe this individual is safe to have on the
> streets?!?

I hadn't heard about that case. It is truly awful. I agree that THAT
individual needs a very lengthy prison sentence and needs to get off
the drugs. Was this guy aboriginal? I wonder if he got a Gladue
recommendation for a reduced sentence....

I posted the other day about a drunk driver who killed a teenager here
in Ontario in a hit-and-run. He hid the car very effectively for 15
years and eluded 140 investigators before an anonymous tip finally
brought him down. When he started through the judicial process last
fall, the prosecutor and defense came to an agreement for a plea deal
and had him sent to prison for just 2.5 years! The most appalling thing
is that the police had a recording of him telling his daughter about
the accident after he was arrested: he told her that he had never once
considered turning himself in. This put the family and friends of the
victim into a horrible place for 15 years but the lawyers in their
infinite wisdom didn't seem to count that AT ALL.

--
Rhino

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 17:09:42 -0700
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 11:58:16 -0400, Rhino
> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't know what good solutions exist or even if there ARE any good
> >solutions. The documentary I saw on safe supply which showed it
> >caused many negative consequences, especially making increasingly
> >younger children junkies, made me strongly oppose that approach. I
> >resent like hell seeing public money being spent on people who
> >contribute nothing to society and who use the money we give them to
> >get and stay high while everyone else works their asses off to let
> >them live that lifestyle. This profoundly undermines society as a
> >whole by giving too many people the idea that it is just fine to get
> >high all the time at public expense.
>
> Well one thing for sure - my meds cost me roughly $150-200 / month
> beyond what the medical system pays for (I haven't filed my taxes yet
> to have the complete number for 2023 - but Canadian income taxes
> aren't due till 04/30 so no panic yet) so I tend to react extremely
> badly when I hear of these folks getting non-prescription drugs for $
> 0.00 given what I'm paying and I'm well aware what I do pay is well
> below US rates for the same medications
>
> As a taxpayer I'm happy to pay big bucks to get those who want to get
> clean clean, but I bitterly resent.paying a nickel for support
> services for those who just want to go on getting high day after day
> until the music finally stops.
>
> It's not as if I obtain pleasure from doing the ones I do (all of
> which are prescribed by a GP or specialist) after all and its
> certainly not something I do for fun. (My cache is literally arms'
> reach from my monitor with the only non-prescribed drugs there being
> tylenol and some vitamins)

Did you see the documentary Canada is Dying on YouTube?
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=canada+is+dying [1 hr, 23
minutes]

A lot of it is focused on Vancouver where the presenter seems to be
based, although I think the title is based on "Seattle Is Dying".
Anyway, the presenter shows that safe consumption sites are much more
of a problem than a blessing. Apparently, anyone can go to a doctor,
say "I have an addiction problem" and the doctor will write them a free
prescription for something that is supposed to mitigate drug addiction,
like methadone or dilaudid. The self-declared addict goes to the
pharmacy, leaves with his free prescription, then sells or trades his
free drugs, often to middle school kids (or YOUNGER!), for the stronger
stuff he actually wants, then gets high on that. Meanwhile, the kids
who bought his "dillies" soon find that they aren't strong enough and
start looking for harder stuff, amplifying the addiction cycle even
farther. This is some horribly warped nonsense!!

The documentary pointed out that Danielle Smith is trying some far more
plausible stuff in Alberta. Definitely worth checking out!

--
Rhino

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:30:44 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>I hadn't heard about that case. It is truly awful. I agree that THAT
>individual needs a very lengthy prison sentence and needs to get off
>the drugs. Was this guy aboriginal? I wonder if he got a Gladue
>recommendation for a reduced sentence....

Was the killer aboriginal? That wasn't mentioned in the newspaper
report on sentencing which it almost certainly would have been were it
true. My personal view on the Gladue decision would be strongly
expletive laden - I think it one of the worst Canadian legal decisions
in the last 100 years.

>I posted the other day about a drunk driver who killed a teenager here
>in Ontario in a hit-and-run. He hid the car very effectively for 15
>years and eluded 140 investigators before an anonymous tip finally
>brought him down. When he started through the judicial process last
>fall, the prosecutor and defense came to an agreement for a plea deal
>and had him sent to prison for just 2.5 years! The most appalling thing
>is that the police had a recording of him telling his daughter about
>the accident after he was arrested: he told her that he had never once
>considered turning himself in. This put the family and friends of the
>victim into a horrible place for 15 years but the lawyers in their
>infinite wisdom didn't seem to count that AT ALL.

Unless there are facts in this case that you haven't mentioned, that
could have happened either in the US or Canada. Either way I'm
appalled for the same reasons as you.

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:40:24 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>The documentary pointed out that Danielle Smith is trying some far more
>plausible stuff in Alberta. Definitely worth checking out!

A word of advice - >I< know very well who Danielle Smith is but I
suspect most of our American friends don't.

She is the premier of Alberta (equivalent to a state governor) and
could reasonably be called "Canada's Ron DeSantis"

On 4/14/24 3:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be
>>>> pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
>>>> undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything
>>>> with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs
>>>> to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
>>>> to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
>>>> that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
>>>> their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions
>>>> of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
>>>> problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
>>>>
>>> You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
>>
>> Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
>
> You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
> around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
> from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
> then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
> have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
> your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
>

So, MAGA, then. Good idea!

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 04:45:23 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>> You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
>> around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
>> from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
>> then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
>> have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
>> your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
>>
>
>So, MAGA, then. Good idea!

No - hardly. I think it's clear not everyone is curable and pretending
they are means you do have genuinely dangerous people walking freely
in the street - like that vaper I referred to earlier who when asked
to stop blowing smoke on a 2 year old reacted by fatally stabbing the
father who had asked him to stop. (It was an extremely well covered
story in Vancouver, BC about 6-8 months back)

For what it's worth I did not write that longer quoted section above
though I'm sympathetic at least in the more extreme cases like the
fellow in Manitoba 2-3 years back who literally beheaded the guy in
front of him on the bus and is now walking the street because some
psychiatrist says his condition can be controlled by drugs - though
offers no protection to the public at all if the mental patient
decides he doesn't need his drugs and can do without them.

I'm just glad I don't live within 1000 miles of there though 35 years
ago I did.