Our current justice system, and too many of our elected political leaders, quite clearly illustrate. and unfortunately exemplify, that Talmudic dictum that goes … “He who is merciful to the cruel will end up being cruel to the merciful.”
Our elected leaders and judges are continuously showing compassion and are even rewarding those people who break our laws, and make life unbearable for honest law abiding people who just seek to live out their lives in peace and quiet. Illegal aliens invade our country at will at our borders; homeless addicts commit larceny, assaults, and other quality of life crimes with impunity; roving bands of thieves steal at will on an industrial scale.
A prime case-in-point is NYC’s Daniel Penny, the Marine veteran who is facing a murder charge for restraining a menacing combative homeless man on a New York subway; the homeless man, a repeat felon, tragically died.
Closer to home … look at the epidemic of property crimes, store lootings, car break-ins, etc., that occur without any consequences. Twisted criminal sympathizing district attorneys like Manhattan’s Alvin Bragg and L.A.’s George Gascon epitomize this all so true Talmudic dictum.
This list also includes our national leaders, including Joe Biden and Alexander Mayorkas who willfully and illegally allow millions of unknown people into our country, turbocharging the human and sex trafficking trade and illicit narcotics trade. This results in even more people living on the streets as well as sanctioning what can only be described as a 21st century system of slavery (sexual and otherwise) and countless numbers of American fentanyl deaths.
These elected lawyers are in fact anti-justice … they perpetrate and promote injustice, and their prosecution policies further spread chaos and fear throughout America.
A footnote: I literally just saw this news headline on Fox Business in which the California parole system has recommended parole for a convicted murderer who killed a toddler, an innocent and defenseless baby.
What kind of parole system do we have in California?!? Has it been staffed with ACLU lawyers and the faculty lounge at UC Berkeley?!?
Again … this just so clearly illustrates that Talmudic dictum.
The parole board rules dictate that they solely make their decision on someone's likelihood to re-offend, which allows them to largely ignore the crime itself. I suppose the thinking is that the eligibility date for the first parole hearing itself would incorporate the severity of the crime.
As you may know, I have too much familiarity with the parole system in California. Like our overall justice system, it's gone from crazy lenient in the 70s/80s, to much tougher in the 90s/00s/10s, and has now settled back to behaving as if Jerry Brown is governor again.
It's called "quality of life" issues. A civil society doesn't have to be exposed to public drunkenness, drug use, prostitution, defecation, public nudity, homelessness Infront of families, children, women etc. This stuff was never legal.
Homelessness is a symptom, not a disease. It's tied to housing prices, substance abuse, mental health, changes in the job market, education -- big, thorny, systemic social issues.
Until you address those underlying problems, you're going to have homeless people in cities, regardless of policies about encampments, sit/lie, etc.
I'm actually putting together a video that gets into the meat in that, since there's some truth to what you say. I find that two of those things -- drugs & mental health -- drive 95% of what we currently see on our streets. The economic issues affect a different, usually temporary, homeless class that we actually do a good job of housing.
Yet I also saw firsthand how Giuliani's carrot/stick approach fixed NYC's problems. The overt decisions to allow camping, open air drug use and selling, and other social norms plays a huge role as well.
I have an old friend who's a case study in homelessness. Her dad wasn't in the picture, her mom died of drug-related causes, she's bipolar and untreated, and she lost her job for showing up to work stoned. Once she was on the street she graduated from marijuana to meth, bounced in and out of jail for drug possession and domestic violence, and had a kid who's in foster care.
She insists she's "homeless by choice" because she loves the romance of living on the streets and outside society, but the facts tell a different story about falling through society's cracks.
It's a great example of, "How do we deal with that?"
Giving free houses to drug addicts with modest mental illness isn't really a solution. She seems apparently self-sufficient enough to not be involuntarily cared for. My best guess is to not allow even her to camp in front of In-N-Out and ensure that she's following society's laws. Beyond that, the government's responsibility and ability to help gets murkier.
Agree. The ideal solution is to provide enough services that people have every opportunity to build healthy, productive lives before they become homeless. At a certain point if they don't take advantage of those opportunities, it's on them. But you can at least minimize the problem.
Our current justice system, and too many of our elected political leaders, quite clearly illustrate. and unfortunately exemplify, that Talmudic dictum that goes … “He who is merciful to the cruel will end up being cruel to the merciful.”
Our elected leaders and judges are continuously showing compassion and are even rewarding those people who break our laws, and make life unbearable for honest law abiding people who just seek to live out their lives in peace and quiet. Illegal aliens invade our country at will at our borders; homeless addicts commit larceny, assaults, and other quality of life crimes with impunity; roving bands of thieves steal at will on an industrial scale.
A prime case-in-point is NYC’s Daniel Penny, the Marine veteran who is facing a murder charge for restraining a menacing combative homeless man on a New York subway; the homeless man, a repeat felon, tragically died.
Closer to home … look at the epidemic of property crimes, store lootings, car break-ins, etc., that occur without any consequences. Twisted criminal sympathizing district attorneys like Manhattan’s Alvin Bragg and L.A.’s George Gascon epitomize this all so true Talmudic dictum.
This list also includes our national leaders, including Joe Biden and Alexander Mayorkas who willfully and illegally allow millions of unknown people into our country, turbocharging the human and sex trafficking trade and illicit narcotics trade. This results in even more people living on the streets as well as sanctioning what can only be described as a 21st century system of slavery (sexual and otherwise) and countless numbers of American fentanyl deaths.
These elected lawyers are in fact anti-justice … they perpetrate and promote injustice, and their prosecution policies further spread chaos and fear throughout America.
Reference: https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/chief-rabbi-lau-halimi-case-an-abominable-injustice-calls-for-retrial-666557
A footnote: I literally just saw this news headline on Fox Business in which the California parole system has recommended parole for a convicted murderer who killed a toddler, an innocent and defenseless baby.
What kind of parole system do we have in California?!? Has it been staffed with ACLU lawyers and the faculty lounge at UC Berkeley?!?
Again … this just so clearly illustrates that Talmudic dictum.
See: https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-child-killer-who-beat-3-year-old-death-walk-free-unless-gov-newsom-overrules-parole-board
The parole board rules dictate that they solely make their decision on someone's likelihood to re-offend, which allows them to largely ignore the crime itself. I suppose the thinking is that the eligibility date for the first parole hearing itself would incorporate the severity of the crime.
As you may know, I have too much familiarity with the parole system in California. Like our overall justice system, it's gone from crazy lenient in the 70s/80s, to much tougher in the 90s/00s/10s, and has now settled back to behaving as if Jerry Brown is governor again.
It's called "quality of life" issues. A civil society doesn't have to be exposed to public drunkenness, drug use, prostitution, defecation, public nudity, homelessness Infront of families, children, women etc. This stuff was never legal.
Well written piece, and the truth.
Dems WANT THEM simple
They dont give a damn about those living, working there
Or theyed move them to the rursl areas minimum for LA say: Palmdale, Antelope Valley, Quartz Hill, Indio, Riverside, Cayucos, etc?
They need " services" which they DONT want
Homelessness is a symptom, not a disease. It's tied to housing prices, substance abuse, mental health, changes in the job market, education -- big, thorny, systemic social issues.
Until you address those underlying problems, you're going to have homeless people in cities, regardless of policies about encampments, sit/lie, etc.
The symptom/disease point is spot on.
I'm actually putting together a video that gets into the meat in that, since there's some truth to what you say. I find that two of those things -- drugs & mental health -- drive 95% of what we currently see on our streets. The economic issues affect a different, usually temporary, homeless class that we actually do a good job of housing.
Yet I also saw firsthand how Giuliani's carrot/stick approach fixed NYC's problems. The overt decisions to allow camping, open air drug use and selling, and other social norms plays a huge role as well.
I have an old friend who's a case study in homelessness. Her dad wasn't in the picture, her mom died of drug-related causes, she's bipolar and untreated, and she lost her job for showing up to work stoned. Once she was on the street she graduated from marijuana to meth, bounced in and out of jail for drug possession and domestic violence, and had a kid who's in foster care.
She insists she's "homeless by choice" because she loves the romance of living on the streets and outside society, but the facts tell a different story about falling through society's cracks.
It's a great example of, "How do we deal with that?"
Giving free houses to drug addicts with modest mental illness isn't really a solution. She seems apparently self-sufficient enough to not be involuntarily cared for. My best guess is to not allow even her to camp in front of In-N-Out and ensure that she's following society's laws. Beyond that, the government's responsibility and ability to help gets murkier.
Agree. The ideal solution is to provide enough services that people have every opportunity to build healthy, productive lives before they become homeless. At a certain point if they don't take advantage of those opportunities, it's on them. But you can at least minimize the problem.
Very true.
Ted, I hope you know how much I appreciate your thoughtful responses. Even when we disagree, we both offer good insight in our conversations here.