As Ye Sowell, So Shall Ye Weep
Rodin’s The Thinker?
Tom Sowell, the embarrassment of the Hoohah Institute, which is, in turn, the embarrassment of Stanford, is at it again. His latest column is a yummy and scrumptioulicious stew of wingnuttery, as bracing as a warm shot of Aqua Velva and cheap tequila. And as good for you too!
The column is about things that don’t mean what they sound like and that really annoy Sowell. You know like why is it a hamburger when it’s made of beef? Why do we call it a driveway when we park in it? Except here Tom wonders why we use the phrase “giving back” for acts of charity when poor people have never given us anything. And why we tell people to “make a difference” as if it were a good thing when, of course, change is bad.
Let’s start with “making a difference.” Tom is perplexed that people who want to “make a difference” do things like feeding the hungry. In fact, that just allows hungry people to sit on their asses rather than get out there and actually work for their food:
Even the simplest acts have ramifications that spread across society the way waves spread across a pond when you drop a stone in it. Among those who make a difference by serving food to the homeless, how many have considered the history of societies which have made idleness easy for great numbers of people? How many have studied the impact of drunken idlers on other people in their own society, including children who come across their needles in the park — if they dare to go to the parks?
So the next time you aspire to be a Mr. (or Ms.) Goody-Two-Shoes and “make a difference,” just remember that for every homeless person you help, a baby steps on a dirty needle.
Next, Tom goes after “giving back”:
“Giving back” is a similarly mindless mantra. I have donated money, books, and blood for people I have never seen and to whom I owe nothing. But we are not “giving back” anything to those people because we never took anything from them in the first place.
And “rush hour” is pretty stupid too because there’s too much traffic then to “rush” anywhere.
Which, of course, brings Tom to slavery. Don’t ask me how. Something about how we should give back to our ancestors (not poor people). And we can give back to our ancestors by acknowledging that black people enslaved white people too. Don’t believe me? Just go read it for yourself and weep.
In next week’s column, Sowell responds to critics that say he’s a douchebag by pointing out that he neither douches nor is made of paper or plastic.
Drunks use needles?! Pretty inefficient way to consume alcohol, I’d think.
But I’m not at some fancy-schmanzy think tank, so what do I know?
Oh I see. Since the obligation to “give back” is owed only to our predecessors (who are conveniently dead and therefore unable to receive anything one might oh-so-altruistically give) he can repudiate the philanthorpic impulse with his conscience intact.
For whatever nanomicroscopically small value of “conscience” might inhabit a greedy, wealthy, savagely selfish fuckhead like Sowell.
Drunks use needles?! Pretty inefficient way to consume alcohol, I’d think.
Nikki Sixx disagrees.
Bean–apparently in SowellWorld, people take IV hits of Jim Beam all the time. The lack of ER records of this behavior is probably a liberal conspiracy.
For bonus stupid, this:
is a pretty good description of, you know, Periclean Athens and Renaissance Europe. Clearly, Western society would be better off if all those artists and philosophers had gotten off their idle behinds and gotten some real work done!
That guy always reminds me of the John Witherspoon in Friday. Except without Teh Funny.
And, Yes, he does go on to make some kind of equivocation argument about how slavery wasn’t that bad because white people were enslaved somewhere else after we outlawed it.
Wanker.
We get magazines like the National Review
It’s clear now– trust fund babies can *truly* “give back” by plowing a portion of their tax-free inheritances back into plantation maintenance. Everybody’s happy now! Justice served.
I stand corrected. My ire at comparing my current wage-slavish position with Sowell’s apparently cushy gig at The Big Suck Institute temporarily blocked my logic centers.
I’ll re-phrase it to: Shooting up alcohol is not a common way to consume alcohol… and aren’t those lieberal hospitals just awful for covering up IV alcohol use that way?!?!?! Shame on them!
I think Sowell would do best to follow his own advice. I’d prefer that from now on he avoid trying to make a difference or give back through his writing…something he has obviously not yet mastered.
Evertime I’m in the kitchen, you in the kitchen, eatin’ all my food.
I like pig’s feet. I like hog’s maws.
In ur kitchen, hooverin up ur foodz.
You guys are so yesterday, what with your injected alcohol.
Don’t you know that sherry enemas are all the rage these days?
You know what they say, “The quickest way to .4% blood alcohol is through the bunghole…”
Wait, what? They don’t say that?
Sorry.
Also, slave traders lost money on slaves who died (unless they went overboard), so it’s not like the people responsible for the slave trade didn’t suffer just as much. More, really, because their financial losses could be far, far greater than the value of one slave.
Wow, when you substitute economics for basic human decency you can say some really amazing things, huh?
all your Medved are belong to us
How dare those Barbary Coast Africans enslave my ancestors!
I demand reparations!
Tom Sowell, you cruel son of a bitch, you owe me big time!
It’s payback time!
And we can give back to our ancestors by acknowledging that black people enslaved white people too.
Worse, he actually claims the slavery of Europeans was greater in scope!
The Europeans enslaved on the Barbary Coast of North Africa alone were far more numerous than all the Africans brought to the United States and to the 13 colonies from which it was formed.
I’m guessing that he’s basing this on Robert Davis’ Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters, in which the author estimated the total number of European slaves from 1500-1800 to be about 1 – 1.2 million (the first to come up with any estimate, as far as i know). Of course Sowell may not even be familiar with Davis, and is just making shit up, as there were at least 10 -12 million Africans brought to the Americas alone during the years of Atlantic slave trade.
But then historical facts are not all that important to Sowell, anyway, as evidenced here:
What was unique about Western civilization was that it was the first civilization to turn against slavery, and that it stamped out slavery not only in its own societies but in other societies around the world during the era of Western imperialism.
That process took well over a century, because non-Western societies resisted.
Apparently the United States was a non-Western society.
Wow. The sherry story was just so…wow.
Thomas Sowell – yet more proof (if proof is needed) that the “conservative brain” (now THERE’S an oxymoron) is screeching to a collective halt, its rails unsprung, its boiler popping rivets… and its engineer dead at the switch.
I hate to resort to internet cliches, but I literally did a spit-take when I read “…just remember that for every homeless person you help, a baby steps on a dirty needle.”
And that was my last Diet Dr Pepper, dammit.
… with an needle full of alcohol sticking outta its arm vein…
Mantis – I almost got into the Davis business as well in this post. Some academics have found Davis’s numbers to be exaggerated since they are an extrapolation from the period of greatest activity by the corsairs. But trying to engage in an intelligent dialog (even in absentia) with Sowell is, as they say, like trying to teach a pig to sing: it doesn’t work and only upsets the pig.
You know what they say, “The quickest way to .4% blood alcohol is through the bunghole…”
The Mayans knew this a long, long time ago. Coolest part of my anthropology class.
Plus, what’s the deal with corn nuts? Is it corn, or is it a nut?
Hell of a way to go…
Wow. Just wow. What a collection of ignorance & stupidity.
All those hungry people are just scamming those private charities? Only experts should try to make a difference in flying planes? What?
And I thought we were supposed to use the extra money from our executive salaries and inheritance tax cut to privately support the charities since the goverment will be dead in the bathtube. Now I’m confused…
“Among those who make a difference by serving food to the homeless, how many have considered the history of societies which have made idleness easy for great numbers of people?”
Gee, I don’t know. You mean like how those evil Europeans work like 30 hours a week, have free health care, free education, and 2 months of vacation every year? That whole healthy, relaxed society thing must be a real drag.
“How many have studied the impact of drunken idlers on other people in their own society, including children who come across their needles in the park — if they dare to go to the parks?”
Yes, because the less fortunate are – to a person – drunken idlers who toss their needles about parks so that children may injure themselves upon them.
Man, I’m such a noob. I still just can’t get over the fact that this guy is black.
Sadly, No!, your introduction into my life is either the best or worst thing that’s ever happened to me.
The embarrassment of the Hoohah Institute
I’m not saying Sowell isn’t giving it his all, but he is up against some serious competition in those stakes, including Victor Davis Hanson, Ed Meese, and, of course, Donald Rumsfeld. So I’d like to see the score sheet before he is given the title.
So, Sowell only holds down a job for moral reasons? Otherwise he’d be enjoying the good life with all the other drunken, homeless idlers?
Honestly, what’s up with people who seem to believe that homeless and jobless people have it easy. Is it really that hard for them to imagine that being out on the street, at the mercy of criminals and of the elements, is a pretty rough life?
Don’t forget D’Souza. Sowell is freaking John Maynard Keynes compared to a lot of them.
But it would be pretty cool if George W Bush joined, given the colloquial meaning of “hoover”.
dear God clif. that was one stupid “article”.
“How many have even considered such questions relevant as they drop their stone in the pond without thinking about the waves that spread out to others?
Maybe some would still do what they do, even if they thought about it. But that doesn’t mean that thinking is a waste of time.“
Sowell should try it sometime.
“Among those who make a difference by not serving trust fund babies as food, how many have considered the history of societies which have made idleness easy for great numbers of people?”
Wait a second.
He besmirches the ‘idlers’, yet then extolls the virtues of sitting around thinking about stuff?
Pot, meet Kettle.
Yes. For me, their lack of empathy is the single clearest defining characteristic of your libertarian wingnut. That, and the drooling incoherence (which might in fact be explained if everyone at the Hoover is mainlining ethanol).
Yes, Sowell is a nut. But he isn’t necessarily wrong.
San Francisco lavishes money on the homeless and on drug addicts, the main result of which seems to be that SF attracts them.
And, it is true, there are parts of Golden Gate Park and other parks that you cannot walk safely through because the ground is littered with used syringes. (No doubt one side effect of giving away syringes to junkies is that they become disposable and are treated as such.)
Sometimes brevity is a virtue. Ayn Rand used eleventy hundred pages to say the same thing. (And she never mentioned slavery.)
OK, I read the whole thing, and is the stupidest piece of drivel I have ever come across. I mean it. World class stupidity. Is Sowell supposed to be an example of what passes for intellectualism on the right? This is the best they can come up with?
tde,
Used syringes and needles have value in cities with needle-exchange programs, so it’s unlikely the needle littering problem is a result of public health programs.
Please take your anecdotal stories elsewhere.
Hey, guys:
Crooks and Liars is neck & neck with Hot Air for Best Video Blog.
Show John and co. some love and vote for C & L.
Also, Ace is neck & neck with Hot Air for Best Conservative Blog.
Ace is a choader, but Malkin is just reprehensible.
Nah, he’s pretty fundamentally wrong. While it may seem coarse, even Stalinist to say this, even when he’s right, he’s still god-fucking wrong.
And, commie:
Sadly, Yes!
What a thorough and complete dickwipe.
Yes, Sowell is a nut. But he isn’t necessarily wrong.
San Francisco lavishes money on the homeless and on drug addicts, the main result of which seems to be that SF attracts them.
He’s not talking about public services. He’s talking about private charity.
San Francisco lavishes money on the homeless and on drug addicts
Excuse me. San Francisco does no such thing. If you’re from around here you ought to be ashamed of yourself. “Lavishes” indeed. Like you were recently accosted by a homeless guy in a spotless Armani suit or something.
“Among those who make a difference by serving food to the homeless, how many have considered the history of societies which have made idleness easy for great numbers of people?”
He means, great numbers of POOR people, right? Because I missed the part where he argued for jacking up the inheritance tax. Or do we only think idleness is a sin for those without trust funds? I get so confused.
San Francisco lavishes money on the homeless and on drug addicts
Can you cite the budget figures for homeless services? They are available to the public.
San Francisco lavishes money on the homeless and on drug addicts, the main result of which seems to be that SF attracts them.
if “they” are all so “lavished”, I wonder why they all seem so desparate.
Oh God, another apologist for imperialism. I honestly don’t know whats more disgusting, when a white British guy like Niall Ferguson does it, or when a black guy like Sowell does. I really don’t understand how anybody does it in this day and age. Although I didn’t Conservatives had adopted the dreaded “Moral Relativist” doctrine. Not only are they evil and stupid, but pathetic hypocrites as well.
What the fucking hell is WRONG with these people?
From what I can tell, a bum collecting and turning in aluminum cans for the money does more for society than Thomas Sowell.
This could be a companion piece to Limbaugh making fun of people who “Adopt-A-Highway”.
I’m surprised he didn’t discuss the negative long term ramifications and reckless abandon of The Good Samaritan.
By the way, what’s going on with that whole “Atlas-Pam and that Asshole with the hat Vs. the Liberal P.C. Muslim Love site Little Green Footballs” thing. It looked like it was really building up to something. I know they haven’t made up with one another, as that would require one of them to admit error, and that ain’t gonna happen.
“there are parts of Golden Gate Park and other parks that you cannot walk safely through because the ground is littered with used syringes.
Maybe they ought to give money and/or drugs to people who turn in used syringes. Invisible hand, bitchez!
I haven’t looked up the overall spending on the homeless, but last year SF spent over $780,000 to hand out approximately 2,000,000 syringes. The needle “exchange” places do not require a one for one “exchange” and will just hand out needles even if you don’t turn one back in.
I realize that this is a government program instead of a private “charity” but the point holds – there are consequences (sometimes unintended) of such acts.
I know that an argument can be made that free needle distribution might decrease transmission of AIDS. It probably does. But in exchange for that, I can’t let my dog step off the pave path when we walk through parts of Golden Gate park for fear that she will step on a needle.
And if people think this is an exaggeration – look of some of the photos that were in the SF Chronicle series this summer. Piles of hundreds and hundreds of needles.
“if “they” are all so “lavished”, I wonder why they all seem so desparate [sic].”
SF spends about as much on homeless programs as it does on its fire department. At least that was true a few years ago, something like $220 million.
tde,
Link?
doodle – I am not sure what you want a link for and I should probably just tell you to screw off given the tone of your first response to me but, instead, I’d suggest that you just google SF and needles. There were tons of stories in the SF Chronicle this summer.
tde,
even if it may be true that communities with better services attract more of those people needing the service, this is not sowell’s point.
Sowell’s saying you actually create more addicts when you feed them. Because life is so good that people are drawn to the lifestyle. And that is wacked. Just like describing services as “lavish” is wacked. Anyone who has “made a difference” by working with the homeless can tell you there is nothing lavish about it.
It ended just like (shudder) coitus would end between those two.
With a whimper.
Thomas Sowell’s New Testament: after creating the loaves and fishes, Jesus makes those lazy fuckers pay for the food, after a reasonable markup for his labor and overhead.
I see all those idle homeless people all the time. They live the high life! They know nothing of hardship what with their free food kitchens and shelters. If only they knew how hard it was to get paid six figures to pen lackluster columns, then those homeless would see just how easy they have it and how hard Sowell’s life is.
And don’t try to make me feel sympathy for babies stepping on needles. Babies are even lazier than homeless people. They do jack shit all day and get rewarded with a mouth full of titty.
Crooks and liars is five votes behind Hot Air for best video blog. Make a difference, people, and give something back.
Sowell’s saying you actually create more addicts when you feed them. Because life is so good that people are drawn to the lifestyle. And that is wacked. Just like describing services as “lavish” is wacked. Anyone who has “made a difference” by working with the homeless can tell you there is nothing lavish about it.
Like I said, Sowell is a nut – if for nothing else than his views on race. But, when not caricatured on this opinion on this makes some sense.
No government programs and private charity do not make homelessness and drug addiction “lavish” or “so good” that people just chuck their gig as school teachers and accountants and decide to live on the street.
What happens is that these good intentions make such a life a little more bearable. The change happens, as in all things, at the margins.
tde,
Ah, the ineffectual “I don’t like your tone” defense! lol.
I was asking for links to your assertions. Links to the ‘tons’ of photos of the ‘hundreds and thousands’ of needles. Links to the assertion that $78k was spent on needle hand-outs and $220 million for homeless services.
You know, backup to your assertions. Basic in any argument. Even one where one of the participants has a ‘tone’!
sorry doodle, links are for nice people. So far you are the only person to need links and if you can’t google San Francisco and needles, you ain’t worth convincing.
What Johnny C just said.
I just came here from C&L cause I just read this and it’s the most awesome-est thing ever and if you haven’t already read it you have to go read it right now and Keith Olbermann is just totally on fire.
Quote: That crime would mean George W. Bush is going to prison.
That sentence sends a sweet shiver up my spine.
But, yes, first go vote for C&L over prancing tools at hotair.
Mrs. Sowell: Craig, you know what your problem is? You have no game.
Craig Sowell: What do you know about game? I got ALL the game.
Mrs. Sowell: Now your father… he has game.
Mr. Sowell: [coming out of the bathroom] Don’t nobody go in the bathroom for about 35, 45 minutes. Somebody open up a window.
Craig Sowell: You call that game?
San Francisco lavishes money on the homeless and on drug addicts
This was a stupid phrase to write and that you have received attitude as a result shouldn’t be a shocker.
It’s always reasonable to question how much money is required for X amount of services and what the result is. You and Sowell however have used language that shitheads use when they’re trying to get away with something.
Those of us who are true connoiseurs of Thomas Sowell’s writings know that he wrote a column making these exact same arguments almost a decade ago.
I beleive it went something along the lines of, “yes, you might think you’re making a difference by working with anti-homeless groups, but you could be just as helpful fighting homelessness by being a home developer!”
So far you are the only person to need links and if you can’t google San Francisco and needles
Actually, I asked you to cite budget figures, too. And I asked nicely.
See, here’s how a civilized discussion goes:
Person A: Assertion!
Person B: Please provide a citation for your assertion.
Person A: Okay. Link.
tde, you seem to think it should go like this:
Person A: Assertion!
Person B: Please provide a citation for your assertion
Person A: Go google, idiot.
Sorry, tde. If you want to assert something and defend it, and be taken seriously, then bring your facts with you.
Otherwise you are engaging in typical troll-behavior: expecting those who question your “facts” to do your own work for you.
It’s always reasonable to question how much money is required for X amount of services and what the result is. You and Sowell however have used language that shitheads use when they’re trying to get away with something.
I am certainly not trying to get away with anything. $200 million dollars is a lavish amount. It is a generous amount.
Why the previous poster – and apparently you – believe that translates to “The homeless folks in SF are living high on the hog, chugging cristal and driving Bentleys” is another matter.
Oh – and you are a shithead, too.
tde, as re” San Francisco:
1. One of the reasons for SF’s current amount of homeless, is that for years other cities have literally given *their* homeless one-way bus tickets directly to San Francisco.
2. One of the reasons for the great numbers of schizophrenic homeless throughout California, is douchebag turned Governor turned Governor turned President Ronnie “Bonzo” Reagan. He cut the budgets for mental hospitals, so thousands of mental patients were just dumped on the streets to starve.
2. Spending money on helping the homeless is an act of humanity. They aren’t driving Mercedes, they are being given sandwiches because they are human, and should be treated better than dogs.
I am proud that San Francisco, a prosperous and beautiful city, chooses to help out their less fortunate fellow humans. And I find it pretty doubtful that this entices anyone to enter the wonderful, joyous lifestyle of being homeless drug addicts.
Ahem. Poor numbering above; preview is my friend.
g said – sorry, you’re going to have to learn how to google.
The fact that SF spends over $200M is just that, a fact. It isn’t something that I have to convince you of. (Oh, and this was over $200M a few years ago so I could be much more now.)
In all the time that you wrote out your snappy little dialogue, you could have found the answer which tells me that you don’t give a shit about the facts and determining what the facts are and, instead, you just want to hand out assignments. So, its http://www.google.com. Go on, its easy.
$200 million dollars is a lavish amount. It is a generous amount.
That’s not what you wrote. You wrote
San Francisco lavishes money on the homeless and on drug addicts
It’s nobody’s fault but yours if you can’t be clear in your writing. If I lavish money on you it’s a very different thing than spending a lot of money on programs that I think help you.
g said – sorry, you’re going to have to learn how to google….
instead, you just want to hand out assignments
Handing out assignments? Project much, tde?
As I said before, you made assertions. The burden of citations are on you.
You’re a troll, nothing more, and I have no further interest in hearing about your taste in pie.
tde, friend.
I think you have this site confused with another site that sucks a lot more.
You are entitled to your opinion, but we are civil to each other around here.
Unless your name is saul, Kevin, or Gary Ruppert.
And believe me, tde, that is not company you want to be identified with…
I googled, and found lots of information about the needle exchange program, a lot of stores for knitting equipment, and one article in the SF chronicle.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/29/BAG37R934A1.DTL
No pictures. The people trying to figure out what to do about the used needles are in favor of the program. They’re trying to decide whether drop boxes would be a good idea.
And I was trying to get a whole ‘Friday’ thing going, and you ruined it with your asshatted-ness.
jim – agree with 1 and 2. But for a while SF was also handing out bus tickets to help homeless people “get back home”.
Re 3 – “Spending money on helping the homeless is an act of humanity.” It is provided the money accomplishes something more than just making their life tolerable. Providing just enough food and shelter to keep someone alive on the streets isn’t an act of charity. The programs need to very consciously move people from homeless dependence to being self-sufficient.
I am proud that San Francisco, a prosperous and beautiful city, chooses to help out their less fortunate fellow humans. And I find it pretty doubtful that this entices anyone to enter the wonderful, joyous lifestyle of being homeless drug addicts.
Like I said above, I don’t think that school teachers in Des Moines read about SF’s programs and decide, “Hey, I think I will start living on 24th and Mission and putting a spike in my arm.” But what does happen is that people who have serious drug dependency or are otherwise unable to manage their affairs are certainly attracted to cities that provide many shelters, free transportation on Muni (yes SF does give out bus passes to the poor via charities), have world class trauma centers whose emergency rooms are free, provide at least one and sometimes two or three free hot meals at various locations around the city every day, and have a mild climate which makes it tolerable to sleep out in the park year round,
Look I think that aside from dependency issues, drug addicts make choices about as rationally as anyone. If I am a heroin addict, I would find it easer to survive and remain a heroin addict in SF – as opposed to Chicago, NY, Grand Junction Co., etc.
Why people apparently refuse to believe that junkies aren’t affected the the incentives that guide most of our decisions is just baffling.
And and is my favorite word.
t4toby – thank you so much for the pointers re civility.
I guess I was confused when my first post here (which contained not an uncivil word) was met with a response of “take your anecdotes somewhere else” and when a subsequent post said I was a shithead.
But now that you have explained that conversation here is conducted on such a high plane, I will try to do better my own self.
I don’t really think that absent the option of “surviving and remaining a heroin addict” in lovely SF, people are going to just shrug, stop using heroin, get a job and have 2.5 children in the suburbs. I think they’re just going to die.
The NIMBY attitude has consequences, after all.
It’s nobody’s fault but yours if you can’t be clear in your writing. If I lavish money on you it’s a very different thing than spending a lot of money on programs that I think help you.
I believe that “lavish” means to shower or to expend profusely, to be profligate, etc. That is actually the same thing as “spending a lot of money on”.
That may have been untoward, but escalation is certainly not the answer.
Needles are a problem. Homelessness is a problem.
The top 1% having 20% of the wealth in this country, that’s a problem.
The bottom 50% having 20% of the wealth, that’s a problem.
The multi trillion dollar tax breaks we ‘lavish’ on fat cat corporations? A problem.
I think where you got in trouble is aligning yourself with the kind of intellectual dishonesty that frickin’ Sowell espouses. That is a lose-lose situation.
a subsequent post said I was a shithead.
Whether you’re a shithead or not is up to you, but you were using the language of one and I pointed it out.
Readin’ and ritin’s tough I know.
Even the simplest acts have ramifications that spread across society the way waves spread across a pond when you drop a stone in it.
Kinda like how, when you write a stupid, hateful article, stupid hateful people find their own twisted worldview reinforced, and go do stupid, hateful things in response?
Among those who make a difference by serving food to the homeless, how many have considered the history of societies which have made idleness easy for great numbers of people?
You mean like horrible, awful America, whose technological innovations enabled millions of people to not have to work 18 hours a day, seven days a week, just to feed their families and maintain a shelter from the elements? Has idleness ever been easier for greater numbers of people than right here in 21st-Century America? Seems to me that societies like that land on the Successful side of the trendline, no?
How many have studied the impact of drunken idlers on other people in their own society, including children who come across their needles in the park — if they dare to go to the parks?
I can’t say I’ve studied, exactly, but I have noticed that drunken idlers tend to keep to themselves and sleep a lot. Not much of an impact, really, other than not contributing much to the general welfare of society. Sowell’s contribution to society, by contrast, is a largely negative one. I promise not to support any charities that do things to make it easier for wingnuts to spew their venom, OK?
I don’t really think that absent the option of “surviving and remaining a heroin addict” in lovely SF, people are going to just shrug, stop using heroin, get a job and have 2.5 children in the suburbs. I think they’re just going to die.
I think the the mortality rate for heroin addicts living on the street is pretty high. If the result of a program is to extend the time that someone lives on the street shooting up, that will lead to more deaths. If the result of the program is to move people into treatment and off the street, mortality will be decreased.
Looks like 200 million is a bit high….
“The citywide homeless budget for 2007-2008 is $186.0 million.”
here
I think tde could have been given a little more friendly reception, though “lavish” was a poor word choice to describe programs for the homeless. Let’s start freshly afoot, shall we? Let it be agreed that there are problems with the SF needle exchange program, and that problems have a way of being solved over the long run. Let it further be agreed that, ah fuck it. Go back to arguing.
I believe that “lavish” means to shower or to expend profusely, to be profligate, etc. That is actually the same thing as “spending a lot of money on”.
But it’s what you’re showering money on that makes the difference. Once again, if I lavish money on YOU it is not the same as lavishing money on programs that I think help you.
Look:
San Francisco lavishes money on the homeless and on drug addicts
Stupid sentence, no question about it. Go ask a guy sleeping on a bench if the city is lavishing money on him.
Whether you’re a shithead or not is up to you, but you were using the language of one and I pointed it out.
I guess that is one difference between me and you. If I think somebody is a shithead, I say they are a shithead.
You imply they are a shithead and then say that they are “using the language” of a shithead.
Oh, and I guess the other difference is that you are first to say such things.
Will you be serving tea later?
Yea, I donated blood yesterday. Not my own…
No, Craptain Ancient Pieces, I think you’re right.
tde is a victim of poor word selection.
Maybe he just got done with some Code Red and Cheetos?
He’s a bit high with the 200 million…
“The citywide homeless budget for 2007-2008 is $186.0 million.”
And, it is true, there are parts of Golden Gate Park and other parks that you cannot walk safely through because the ground is littered with used syringes. (No doubt one side effect of giving away syringes to junkies is that they become disposable and are treated as such.)
This is a sack of smelly, runny crap. I am routinely in the park, the presidio and ocean beach. I don’t ever recall seeing TWO discarded syringes. Occasionally you’ll find ONE, not on the paths or trails but in the bushes.
Oh, and tde? I don’t know him, never seen him before, but he certainly acts like a wingnut. Gets offended if you ask him to cite the sources of his assertions, and clutches his pearls and faints on the couch if somebody challenges him. He can lie with impunity, but to ask him to stop it is uncivil. tde? If you’re not a wingnut troll, you’re gonna have to do a better job of not acting like one…
mikey
If the result of the program is to move people into treatment and off the street, mortality will be decreased.
Now we’re talkin’ lavish.
Anyway the needle exchange program is to stop the spread of HIV and other blood bourne diseases between needle users (and their lovers, etc.). There are already plenty of programs for people who want to stop using heroin and get off the strett.
See, I did google looking for the scary needle pics and quickly realized why tde didn’t link to them himself…
That big pile of scary looking needles was found in Golden Gate, right?
Sadly, no.
J. John – the funny thing about all of this is that Sowell has a legitimate point but he makes a living and feathers his nest at Hoover by saying even common-sense things in a pointed and aggressive manner so that media attention will be generated.
I mean, saying that charity and government programs may have unintended effects is obviously true. Only an idiot would argue otherwise. But dress up that language with some slights and charged language and people just go all atwitter.
Here’s the mayor’s proposed budget for San Francisco’s homeless, fiscal year 2005-2006. While tde’s monetary figures are correct, this intensive program aimed at aiding the homeless is just getting started, from what I can tell, and it’s too early to start saying it isn’t working. It’s also not going to homeless shelters, but is largely an investment in HOUSING. The money is not being randomly handed out to the first crack head the mayor comes across on the street corner.
It’s being used to provide housing, including both rentals and home ownership. It’s being used to fund outreach teams.
It never ceases to amaze me how so many people seem to be deathly afraid that the poor will somehow get something better than they deserve. And after all, the homeless are all drug addicted adults right? None of them are children or old folks or veterans. This attitiude literally makes me feel sick.
I’m sure if tde had gone to the botheration of providing us with a linkie, he’d have found one to support his implication than SF is just throwing money out the limo windows as the city government cruises past Golden Gate Park.
RodeoBob – keep looking – you will find the right pics.
But where is the talk of the unintended consequences of giving corporations tax breaks while increasing taxes for the middle class?
How those who perceive themselves mighty like to pick on the weak always astounds me.
tde
“‘Spending money on helping the homeless is an act of humanity.’ It is provided the money accomplishes something more than just making their life tolerable. Providing just enough food and shelter to keep someone alive on the streets isn’t an act of charity.”
Why isn’t making suffering peoples’ life tolerable an act of charity? That’s exactly what it is in my book. Are you saying they’d be better off dead?
And by the way, spending $200 million isn’t always lavish. It depends on what the need is that one is addressing. I don’t really think “lavish” is a unit of measurement. It’s a value judgment. It really means “excessive.”
“charity and government programs may have unintended effects is obviously true.”
Inarguably so. But using those unintended consequences as reasons to cut charity or government programs, as Sowell seems to be doing here, is… what? Extreme? Unchristian? Stupid? Help me out here.
t4toby – oh, is the civility lesson over?
Were you actually looking for something from Sowell about the unintended consequences of giving money to the middle class? Seriously?
He makes a living being a well paid step and fetchit for the man, usually on race issues. He ain’t paid to be rational.
I’m entirely fucking amazed that anyone — anyone — would produce a column that says, “Why are we giving money to charity? Just keep it. The only good poor people are the ones we’ve killed in their beds after stealing what little green they had.”
RodeoBob – keep looking – you will find the right pics.
tde stands on the front steps of the library and gestures, “It’s all in here! refute that!!”
Oh, and Shorter tde: “Links? I’m not going to give you any links. That would just make it obvious that I’m lying like a rug.”
Let’s see, we have objections to ‘tone’, attempts to make him or herself the victim, assignments, implications of stupidity/ignorance of those who criticize his/her unfounded assertions and snark used against S,N! commenters…
Sadly, I’m calling new troll! Welcome to the fold, tde, such as it is.
Is Mud Pie ‘pie’, or is it more of an ice cream cake?
Because I could go for some Mud Pie right now.
Wally – you will see that another poster who just googled what I said confirmed that SF spends over $200M on the homeless. So your little insult is sort of flaccid now, isn’t it?
Oh and to the person who said that the City wasn’t just throwing money out the windows to the homeless. THat’s true. What they were doing was giving them a check every month – on top of any other government benefits. Newsome has largely eliminated that, with predictable results:
Care Not Cash began in May 2004, cutting the welfare checks to homeless people from a high of $410 a month to $59 a month, giving them either a shelter bed or a permanent room instead. The number of homeless people on welfare since then has dropped 72 percent, from 2,497 to 693 today.
Oh, and look a linky – but and oldie. The last time I looked into this in any depth was back in 2003 or 4 and it seems things have been changing: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/15/MNGTKBB73I1.DTL
Yes.
And I say that as someone who works at a conservative newspaper and experiences all the insane, nutty goodness of pretty much everything that oozes onto the opinion page.
It’s usually on Mondays that we publish Sowell, Cal Thomas AND William Rusher on the same day. It’s like looking under a rock. I call it the minefield.
tde stands on the front steps of the library and gestures, “It’s all in here! refute that!!”
Not quite. Actually the pictures were in the same flickr set that the poster above linked to. But instead of commenting on that s/he picked out one of the photos (of dozens in the flickr set) that was misleading.
Doodle –
If I am a troll then what do you call someone who plods away writing imaginary dialog about how one should post links instead of just googling two freaking words?
Hmmm? What is that called? What do you call someone who isn’t really interested in finding out what the facts are but, instead, engaging in petty arguments?
Yes, Mr Sowell, as Jesus said: You should Pass By On The Other Side!
Next Sowell column:
“People all over the world spend all day exhaling carbon dioxide and excreting ammonia and methane, deadly poisons all. Any act of charity that is intended to keep these people alive longer only increases the amount of deadly poisons in the environment that threaten my own existence. Now that you know all this, I think you know what the right thing to do is.”
Personally, I think that spending money to help the homeless and drug addicted is worthwhile unless it’s *proven* to hurt them.
– it gives people a chance to get on the right track, and some do
– even if it means they stay exactly the same – they are *human beings* who I think deserve, as I said earlier, to be treated better than dogs.
Spending enough of the money we are fortunate enough to have, so that they can stay alive and have a chance to recover, is for our humanity as well as theirs.
It’s basically an opinion. So, fine. But I am fucking revolted by the very concept that we should let people die in the street from neglect “for their own good”.
I’m not saying that’s exactly what you’re saying, tde ; that’s just the direction I’m coming from, when I say we should be for helping the homeless.
I definitely agree that giving them housing and a positive direction is of course even better, and a much better eventual goal that is productive of more good.
Sorry to get all serious ‘n stuff. This blog is awesome for it’s hilarious deflation of wingnut gassbaggery; thx y’all.
I’m afraid I don’t really understand the “his basic point is sound, he just used some charged language” defense.
If Sowell’s true “basic point” is that “things have consequences”, then his column is about as pointless as it can possibly get. But, yet, that is what you are using to defend him?
i.e.: “Sure he wrote that black people enslaved whites in greater numbers, but his underlying point is that history is important! He just dressed it up with some slights and charged language and people went all atwitter!!!”
From what I can tell, a bum who refrains from writing a conservative propaganda column does more for society than Thomas Sowell.
(Guys! I have shit to do today! I wasn’t going to sit around and do this today. I can resist making fun of PJ Comix. I can resist making fun of McAddled. I could probably get out of a Doughy Pantload thread with one gratuitous swipe. But I can’t resist a Thomas Sowell thread. He’s an embarrassment to everyone with a PhD in Economics. The fact that I have never seen a full page NY Times ad denouncing Sowell and signed by several hundred economists makes me suspicious of the entire profession.)
So, the result of giving homeless people a permanent place to live is a reduction in the number of homeless people? No one could have predicted that.
Wingnut gassbagery? We weren’t talking about old Krautie.
What do you call someone who isn’t really interested in finding out what the facts are but, instead, engaging in petty arguments?
It calls itself tde.
tde,
If I am a troll then what do you call someone who plods away writing imaginary dialog about how one should post links instead of just googling two freaking words?
Hmmm? What is that called? What do you call someone who isn’t really interested in finding out what the facts are but, instead, engaging in petty arguments?
I call him or her ‘tde’. Or a troll. You can take your pick!
(Thanks for the laughs, btw. I’m uploading a big quarterly report to our fair Commonwealth and your pathology has been quite fun during the wait times.)
Damn, G! You freakin’ beat me! Arrrrrggggghhhhh!!
For those interested in this sort of thing, C&L is now ahead of HotAir by 32 votes.
Mikey – I’ve never seen needles on Ocean Beach or in the Presidio, either. The GGNRA polices both of those areas and they are pretty brisk about kicking out campers.
Did you read the Nevius (phon.) articles in the Chron. He documented needles and went on needle clean-ups himself. As for myself, I have encountered piles of needles on the south side of Metson Lake, in the “dog run” area at the NE corner of ther park near Fulton, and also over on “goat hill” which is the unfenced portion above Randall Museum.
The ones over by Metson Lake were related to the fact that there were 6 or 8 junkies camped in bushes there this summer. Since then, the Parks department has sprayed herbicide on the vines and cut back the pine trees there and the Northern District police station started nightly patrols. The junkies – and needles – are gone, for now.
Doodle – from what I understand, a troll is someone who doesn’t discuss the topic of the thread but, instead, seeks to make personal attacks and throws up other diversions.
Why don’t you take a quick read through of your posts in this thread and then come back?
tde: Actually, a troll is someone who barges into a blog to throw in his two cents’ worth (it may or may not be about the topic at hand), then proceeds to challenge others in belligerent, insulting language. He flings alleged facts around, then, once he’s forced to admit he doesn’t have the sources to back up his facts, has the audacity to snarl at others and demand they do his work for him. Way bad form, not to mention ignoring the political inclinations of the blog and then repeatedly popping back in, insulting many of the blog’s regular commenters.
Ask not for whom the label “trolls”; the troll is thee.
Actually, a troll is usually someone who posts deliberately inflammatory comments that are likely to provoke a negative response and then refuses to support their comments with verifiable facts.
tde: Actually, a troll is someone who barges into a blog to throw in his two cents’ worth (it may or may not be about the topic at hand)
This is priceless. I wasn’t aware there was an invitation list for commenters. So, very sorry for “barging” in.
, then proceeds to challenge others in belligerent, insulting language.
Go back and review the thread. I insulted nobody with my initial comment and responded to being called a shithead by responding in kind.
Sorry to interject a bit of reality into your diatribe.
He flings alleged facts around, then, once he’s forced to admit he doesn’t have the sources to back up his facts,
The “fact” I was apprently flinging around are that SF spent over $200M on the homeless (the last time I checked) and that there were used needles littering the park. The first was confirmed by another poster who was kind enough to bother to google and the second is well-documented in a series of articles in the SF Chronicle this past summer and, in fact, photos were present in the flickr set that another poster linked to above. Why in the world you think that translates to being forced to admit I don’t have sources makes me think that you, at this very moment, are hitting a crack pipe or something.
has the audacity to snarl at others and demand they do his work for him.
This presumes that my “work” is to labor away to search out info for folks who are too lazy to google “San Francisco+needles”
“Way bad form, not to mention ignoring the political inclinations of the blog and then repeatedly popping back in, insulting many of the blog’s regular commenters.”
Were those “regular commenters” the ones who told me to go elsewhere or the one who called me a “shithead”. If so, I can see how you wouldn’t want to anything that might discourage a regular stream of such insightful comments.
I insulted nobody with my initial comment
Look:
San Francisco lavishes money on the homeless and on drug addicts
That’s pretty insulting and you still don’t get it. Boo hoo.
Since then, the Parks department has sprayed herbicide on the vines and cut back the pine trees there and the Northern District police station started nightly patrols. The junkies – and needles – are gone, for now.
What they should do, see, is give those guys a Caltrain ticket to Palo Alto and send ’em to the Hoover.
Actually no, there’s guys doing kendo or something in the woods outside the Hoover.
The point is, though, people are in places. It’s inarguably true.
San Francisco lavishes money on the homeless and on drug addicts
That’s pretty insulting and you still don’t get it. Boo hoo.
Are you speaking here as a) the City of San Francisco, b) the word lavish, c) the homeless or d) drug addicts?
Who or what, exactly, was insulted by my comment?
Who or what, exactly, was insulted by my comment?
I recommend looking it up on Google.
okay, tde, I’ll say it real slow.
To use a word like lavish to describe the treatment homeless people receive in this country is insulting to those of us who believe that human dignity cannot be measured in monetary value.
So the backlash was immediate and harsh.
Am I making sense here?
t4toby,
He’s (she? I rather doubt that, but hey – there’s Ann Coulter) not going to get it. If he even bothers to reply, he’ll dodge, repudiating any idea of insult to San Franciscans, the people who elect and (more than just about any city its size in the country) directly engage their policymakers.
t4toby – so you just didn’t disagree with what I was saying, you (and, presumably everyone else in the world who believes that human dignity cannot be measured in monetary value) were actually _insulted_ by that comment?
So, no, you are not making any sense.
he’ll dodge, repudiating any idea of insult to San Franciscans, the people who elect and (more than just about any city its size in the country) directly engage their policymakers.
Repudiating any idea of insult to San Franciscians? What?
And the reading I have done since this thread has been up demonstrates that Mayor Newsome – who is running virutally unopposed today by the way – has slashed the funds that were previously given directly to the homeless. (One might say “lavished” on them.)(From $450 to $59 per month)
So if you are beating the drum for the sanctity of the electoral process and the wisdom of San Francisco’s elected government, you might want to reflect on that fact first.
you might want to reflect
Indeed.
tde,
Speaking of making sense, you might want to decide whether you oppose San Francisco’s spending on homeless assistance programs or support it. That budget number you cited (and complained has such ugly consequences) is Newsom’s budget. The current one. Which includes the “Care Not Cash” reallocation of spending from General Assistance to services.
You appear to support Newsom’s move on the issue of homelessness, yet you also appear to condemn the amount of money spent on the issue of homelessness.
So, buddy, which is it?
And as for this:
So if you are beating the drum for the sanctity of the electoral process and the wisdom of San Francisco’s elected government, you might want to reflect on that fact first.
Thanks for misinterpreting me so thoroughly. Let me spell it out. If you decry city policies you implicate the judgement of its citizens. if you want to do that, fine, but don’t then turn around and use that judgement as support for your otherwise unsupported assertions.
tde,
Love the meltdown! Thanks for the laughs.
Hee hee hee hee.
Blam! Blam! I’m firin’ my gun in the air, folks.
tde: “Lavish” is a goodly-sized exaggeration. You can’t be surprised that people reacted to it. Also, you really gotta expect people at ANY political site to ask for links, and “Google it yourself” is kind of a bad form answer, as I understand the ol’ internettiquette.
Everyone dogpilin’ on tde: It DID get kinda bar-fighty in here kinda quick, and you all probably coulda been nicer.
Let’s all agree: some charitable institutions and governmental programs are inefficiently run, we should all provide links and not get defensive, and Thomas Sowell is a Randian fucktard. Now, shake hands and barkeep – bowls of Cheetohs and Code Red for everyone!
Oh, and Righteous Bubba,
Right on, man! Have a good one.
Keep your bowl of Cheetos, Dillon. I got no use for it.
tde, I’ll see you soon. I’ll see you soon.
tde, maybe you just need some petboots. http://www.petboots.com/
This presumes that my “work” is to labor away to search out info for folks who are too lazy to google “San Francisco+needles”
Yes, that would be your work, since you asserted it as fact, but apparently you were too lazy to provide links when requested to do so and thus put the responsibility upon others.
Were those “regular commenters” the ones who told me to go elsewhere or the one who called me a “shithead”.
Yes.
If so, I can see how you wouldn’t want to anything that might discourage a regular stream of such insightful comments.
Good. Then you’ll want to be fucking off now. Bye!
Thanks for misinterpreting me so thoroughly. Let me spell it out. If you decry city policies you implicate the judgement of its citizens. if you want to do that, fine, but don’t then turn around and use that judgement as support for your otherwise unsupported assertions.
I asked how my comment “insulted” anyone which drew your response which, even in this latest restatement, isn’t exactly crystal clear. I still don’t see how questioning the policies of the SF city government insults or “implicates the judgment” of its citizens. To the extent that it does, to do so is not to “insult.” That is a step away from saying that questioning the policies of the Bush administration “insults” Americans.
Also, you really gotta expect people at ANY political site to ask for links, and “Google it yourself” is kind of a bad form answer, as I understand the ol’ internettiquette.
Marshall – I agree that links are required when posting to controversial or hard to find info that one is stating as a fact and when that fact is important or pivotal to the debate. But, here, like I said google makes finding these facts a trivial exercise. Trivial in the sense of easily proven. I will note that since other’s were kind enough to google and post links, that nobody has really ever discussed those facts. Which, I think, confirms my suspicion that the folks who were demanding links were doing so just to be a pain in the rear end, and not because of any real concern with the accuracy of my statements. But, hey, you’re the sheriff, at least until Festus’s diabolical scheme plays out.
tde, maybe you just need some petboots. http://www.petboots.com/
Perhaps if the pet tried heroin it would enjoy trotting around in needles.
Yes, that would be your work, since you asserted it as fact, but apparently you were too lazy to provide links when requested to do so and thus put the responsibility upon others.
So, not only is it easy to verify this info via google, and not only have others done so and posted links, but you are still harping on this? Sorry, you’re barking at a train that has already left the station.
Good. Then you’ll want to be fucking off now. Bye!
Careful there MzNicky – you are going to draw a post about high-minded civility that prevails in these parts.
tde, maybe you just need some petboots. http://www.petboots.com
My precious bowser prefers these http://www.ruffwear.com/grip_trex_dog_boots?sc=2&category=11
Complete with vibram soles.
They’re fine for cactus in the desert, but I don’t trust them to keep out needles.
Finally, someone who gets it. Someone who understands the tragedy of my precious dog not being able to bound through the underbrush in Golden Gate Park.
I still don’t see how questioning the policies of the SF city government insults or “implicates the judgment” of its citizens.
You didn’t say that. You wrote this:
San Francisco lavishes money on the homeless and on drug addicts
Really, all you have to do is say “oops, my bad” and people calm down. Instead you insist your sentence means a bunch of other things. It’s pretty weird.
Snowwy, I forget – does that mean I’m your huckleberry? Or are you my huckleberry? I know that somebody’s SOMEBODYS huckleberry …
But giving huckleberries to the homeless is like sticking needles in babys’ feet.
Righteous Bubba – I didn’t say I said that. I was quoting someone who said I said that. The quotes in your first line” were lifted directly from another post.
But, if you want to go back to what I actually said. I do believe that when a city of 750,000 people (sorry, no link, you’ll just have to look it up) spends $200 million on homeless people, it is lavishing money on them. That doesn’t mean that the homeless and the drug addicts lead “lavish” lifestyles or that they are getting rich.
MzNickey,
You’re the one with the obviously female name and tde is attacking you the most. I’m thinking he’s a ‘he’.
Righteous Bubba,
tde is about as weird as Alec “Crazy Neck” Rawls. Not as much fun, though, but one can’t have everything. Yet now that he has found doggie-love, maybe he’ll get even funnier!
Finally, Marshall,
You can be my huckleberry! :o)
Doodle Bean: It seemed that way to me, too, but I didn’t want to be accused of playing the gender card.
According to San Francisco’s Office of the Mayor, the 2007 – 2008 proposed budget includes $84 million explicitly targeted to deal with homelessness, including related home ownership programs, as compared with a $57 million figure for 2005 – 2006 actual expenditures (presumably the latest figures subject to audit & review). A further $18 million is placed under “Housing & Urban Health”, and another $6 million on “affordable housing” ventures.
Information is available in this large (5+ MB, 477 pp) PDF from the mayor’s office, particularly on the budget outline page 63.
Mayor’s Proposed Budget 2007–2008, Gavin Newsom, Mayor
From the introduction:
It is not clear from the descriptive text, but the budgeting mentioned for housing appears to include all city efforts for housing, not exclusively homeless related spending, and from my quick overview, this figure may include spending on programs such as housing inspections, regulations, etc.
Meanwhile the liberal alternative weekly newspaper the San Francisco Bay Guardian has this recent editorial on the city’s sweeps to clear out homeless people.
Doodle – au contraire, between you and MzNickey, you are obviously much more of douche.
Sorry, here is the link for the Bay Guardian editorial.
http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=4695
What, there’s something wrong with being a drunken idler these days?
Well excuuuuuuuuuze me!
El Cid – that is the current proposal. As I mentioned above, Newsom has been steadily decreasing the direct payments previously made to the homeless.
I do believe that when a city of 750,000 people (sorry, no link, you’ll just have to look it up) spends $200 million on homeless people, it is lavishing money on them. That doesn’t mean that the homeless and the drug addicts lead “lavish” lifestyles or that they are getting rich.
If you want to write what you mean in your second sentence don’t write the first one. I do not care if you think what you’re saying is correct: it is not.
tde, I myself did attribute your views to pet owner concern rather than more nepharious things.
But I still think you’d be better off conceding that that “lavish” is a loaded word that raised a lot of legitimate hackles around here. It’s not so much that people were personally insulted, since I don’t think there are a lot of needle-dumpers here, but more that “lavish” seemed like the tip of a really ugly iceberg that we’re all really tired of seeing.
And I am not sure I really endorse pet boots. Up here in Idaho our dogs are too canine for that…..
Alternate title: “This Is Not Going To End SoWell.”
It’s not so much that people were personally insulted
I actually am insulted when people try to run that kind of myth-making language by me like I’m some rube. In tde’s case it’s done in ignorance, but it’s a short step from her to Rush waggling his fat head in agreement and adding something about welfare queens in Cadillacs.
“from her sentence” and not “from her”.
tde,
Again, love the meltdown! Thanks for the laughs!
Hee hee hee hee.
And MzNickey,
I’ve got your back. And it turns out we were right. You know how to call ’em!
Have a good one and keep that fighting spirit alive!
An ongoing SF Gate (Chronicle) series of stories on San Franciscno’s homelessness situation including photo essays from reporters who spent 4 months alongside the city’s homeless population mentions a figure of $200 million, but no citation for this figure, and the article from the series directly focusing on the city’s homeless-related spending does not issue this figure.
The 2004 San Francisco Plan To Abolish Chronic Homelessness (PDF, moderately large 1 MB) which was headed up by former Board of Supervisors leader Angela Alioto, also mentions in its introduction that $200 million is spent yearly on homelessness and directly related services. However, the sub-units of this figure were not identified nor was related analysis present in the text.
Why are we giving the homeless needles? How many of them even have turntables? or places to plug in their stereos??
what???
tde said,
November 6, 2007 at 22:24
San Francisco lavishes money on the homeless and on drug addicts, the main result of which seems to be that SF attracts them.
here’s the link:http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/7779.html#comment-330463
you said it. If you meant something else, well say that. But at least own up.
Tom Sowell gives back all he’s capable of giving every time he flushes the toilet. This writing gig is all about him.
Back in ’85 I had a clean needle business that was nothing short of a license to print money. I had guys who would steal shipping cartons of insulin rigs. Ten dozen bags of 100 rigs. I paid them in crank for the hot rigs. Then sold the rigs for a buck each. No needle exchange programs back then, but possession of a rig without a script was an infraction under H&S. I’d make a couple thousand bucks a week, risking nothing but a stolen property misdemeanor and an H&S infraction. Damn, it was a good time.
Plus, you could get a lot of hot chicks with ten fresh new rigs.
I never slammed anything, so it didn’t really matter much to me.
Great business. Ran for about a year, but eventually some other idiocy brought down the whole house of cards.
Dammit…
mikey
With reference to the original, drunken-layabouts-clogging-up-my-parks lark, I’d like to add that Finnish lasses have apparently chosen the vodka-soaked tampon as their alternative to laying on a park bench stewing in their own vomit. Hence they would probably cause no upset in Sowell, despite what that dire FInnish alcohol does to their delicate female parts.
With reference to the later segue into drunken-layabouts-leaving-syringes-in-my-parks, for one thing I’m not so sure that drunken layabouts do a lot of heroin, at least not the ones around here. Ours tend to be poor, dirty, sad old men, who until recent years were probably comfortably ensconced in a large local mental hospital (yes, our government too decided to set them free to spread their wings). Yes, they drink, to the extent that some local shops offered large bottles of metho and orange juice. Not much heroin in those parts, though.
Vis a vis the needles thing, our city council has needle drop boxes attached to many bins on the streets, and tucked shyly away in many public toilets. Consequently, we get very few needles left lying about.
That was easy, wasn’t it?
Oh, and I agreed with something t4toby and Mz Nicky said, although I can’t remember exactly what: there’s a lot of bloody comments here, you know!
tde,
Are you refusing to post links because you don’t know how to?
I’m just curious. You’ve been really stubborn about not posting links, dude.
It’s o.k. You can tell me. I won’t let anyone know…
Let’s get shitfaced.
Whoops, wrong thread. Or right thread, as the case may be.
tde: “Poster above” here. (Candy said,
November 7, 2007 at 0:06 ”
I found tha the figure you quoted (+200 million) was approximately the figure listed in the Mayor’s press release for the homeless budget for 2005-2006 FY. I THEN went on to say that although the figure was correct, your contention – or rather, clear implication – that all that money was being “lavished” on the drug addicted homeless and their needle program was NOT correct. I pointed out that the lion’s share was being targeted to housing, and most of the rest to outreach teams. Housing is pricey in the SF area. That doesn’t seem like a “lavish” figure at all, in CONTEXT.
you are a troll. And a douche. What have you got against posting links to back up your assertions? I only googled your figure to show how easy it is to do so, and because I suspected that your implication that the money was being blown on steak and caviar for all the junkies in needle part was not quite the case. And it wasn’t. Don’t use my comment for back up because it certainly wasn’t. Taking comments out of context is not going to work around here. Of course, I note that you didn’t actually “quote” me. You just referred to the “poster above”. And also referred to my statement that the money was not being thrown into the streets as though it were someone else other than the poster who “approved” your figure who said it.
See?
.
And again:
.
Sorry about the lengthy comment. It just kind of pissed me off. Oh, well, off to take some migraine pills and go to bed.
Wow. tde is almost blogs4brownback level of trolling. Either that or a vile human being.
Christ, what the fuck is wrong with this site lately? I must remember that whenever there are more than 100 comments not to read the thread because when there’s that many comments it’s either been hijacked by some douchebag like saul or there’s some asinine pissing match like the one that seems to be going on here. Sigh.
Geraldo Rivera is writing for Goofball News?
I’ve got your back. And it turns out we were right. You know how to call ‘em!
I’ve got yours too Doodle Bean, always. And I don’t care what the troll says, I insist that I’m douchier than you are.
I think Dick “Sporty” Johnson got it right: the troll du jour doesn’t know how to make la (le?) linky. Which makes him douchiest.
Let’s get shitfaced. —RB
Yes, let’s. I just fixed a way-dirty Sapphire Bombay martini on the rox. It’s been that kinda day.
In fact, given the sherry and vodka-soaked feminine products and whatnot, perhaps a Sapphire Bombay martini douche is in order.
In fact, given the sherry and vodka-soaked feminine products and whatnot, perhaps a Sapphire Bombay martini douche is in order.
I’m in. How do I…
Oh.
Dammit.
Never mind…
mikey
To be fair, I wouldn’t have minded an actual discussion of the SF homeless policies, I was just annoyed that he/she pulled the old “google it yourself” bullshit. And, compounding that, was too stupid or too stubborn to get the point that it was his/her obligation to cite the facts behind the assertion.
I mean – don’t most people learn “show your work” back in elementary school math class?
RE: the Sapphire Bombay douche – that shit stings.
g: “He.” Definitely “he.” Arrogance; sense of entitlement; belittling attitude; immediate marginalization of the scene, once he realized his opinions weren’t being deferred to automatically; sexist, rather than pan-political, use of the word “douche”; demand that others to do his bidding, and obvious expectation that same would be done—you don’t usually find that sort of behavior in the type of humans we classify as “she.”
uh, and:
RE: the Sapphire Bombay douche – that shit stings.
I would ask how you know this, but I—I really don’t want to know.
the embarrassment of the Hoohah Institute, which is, in turn, the embarrassment of Stanford
I’m not sure “Hoohah Institute” is really appropriate, especially given that it looks like a giant penis.
I dunno, MzNicky. I got a whiff of the “outraged harridan” from tde. Something about the problem of walking the dog in the park. In any case – a jerk of the highest order.
Oh, and I’m sorry if I caused any undue and uncomfortable speculation. The things we do when we’re young and adventurous. Um. well.
I prefer the little pickled onions with my martinis.
When Sowell started to talk about his own definition of “giving back” being paying homage to tradtion and predecessors and somesuch I thought he was about to quote Confucius. Confucius talked a lot about honoring the ancestors (the dead ones). Even though he quickly made it clear Confucius is off his radar with that ridiciulous comment about Western Civilization.
Confucius would probably like Sowell.
I have donated money, books, and blood for people I have never seen and to whom I owe nothing. But we are not “giving back” anything to those people because we never took anything from them in the first place.
None of those people were veterans who fought to protect him? None were teachers or road builders or sanitation workers or nurses, people who had educated his friends, helped him commute to a job, kept his city free of diseases, helped keep anyone he cared for alive? He never took anything from someone who later needed help?
What a flaming … words fail me.
It never ceases to amaze me how so many people seem to be deathly afraid that the poor will somehow get something better than they deserve. And after all, the homeless are all drug addicted adults right? None of them are children or old folks or veterans. This attitude literally makes me feel sick.
Its like the tossers in the 80’s used to bang on that homeless people chose to be homeless and were actually making hundreds of pounds a week. We had Thatcher, you had Reagan… same shit, different presentation….
I don’t know about the rest of the country, but here in Minnesota, forty percent of the homeless work full time. There are altogether too many homeless families, too many of the mentally ill and too many children. Many of the people that you think are alcoholic are really schizophrenics self medicating. They have no access to treatment and will use any drug they can to find relief. Schizophrenia is a horrible disease and people who suffer from it are in a great deal of psychic pain.
Of course, there is plenty of drug abuse on the streets but not all is by the homeless. Drug addiction is also a disease that we sadly neglect in this country.
tde is an idiot. Nowhere in America do we “lavish” money or services on the poor. It is extremely difficult to even get off the street. I know because I have been there. Government services are a nightmarish maze and there are far to few social workers to help you. No one is standing around waiting to escort you into your new life off the streets. You have to work your ass off just to get into some shitty Salvation Army program.
No tde, you know nothing about being on the street. If you did you would know what a fucking horror it is. You have no freedom, no privacy or control over your life and little to no hope that it will get better. Every single day is a crisis that you have to deal with RIGHT FUCKING NOW!
If you do manage to get off the street as I was lucky enough to, your nightmares have only begun. Government exists to DENY you services, it isn’t there to help you. You aren’t going to get anything like a break. You are going to have to make your own breaks and lose any petty moral scruples you may have before you realize that you are going to have to do whatever it takes to get out of the shit hole you’re in and into something better. Welcome to America my friend.
I don’t know if you are a troll tbe, though you do act like one. What I do know is that you are certainly one ignorant fuck. You sit there and judge people whose lives you know nothing about. Whose every day experiences you cannot even begin to imagine. And you sit there and pass judgment on ME?? You stupid, ignorant, self absorbed asswipe.
MzNicky,
I am soo-oo-ooo much douchier than you are! tde himself says so!!!!
Efficiency and progress is ours once more,
now that we have the Neutron bomb
It’s nice and quick and clean and gets things done.
Away with excess enemy.
But no less value to property.
No sense in war but perfect sense at home–
The sun beams down on a brand new day
No more welfare tax t’ pay
Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light.
Jobless millions whisked away.
At last we have more room to play.
All systems go to kill the poor tonight.
Gonna
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor. kill kill kill Kill kill the poor kill kill kill Kill kill the poor…Tonight
Behold the sparkle of champagne
The crime rate’s gone
Feel free again
O’ life’s a dream with you, Miss Lily White.
Jane Fonda on the screen today
Convinced the liberals it’s okay
So let’s get dressed and dance away the night
While they…
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor. kill kill kill Kill kill the poor kill kill kill Kill kill the poor…tonight…tonight!
I must’ve been too nice, because I did not recieve an ad hominem attack.
And is that really fair? I’m the one that gave the link to the sherry enema! Couldn’t I have at least garnered the elusive ‘enema bag’ insult?
The douche bag sentiment seemed to be running so high, I thought I was a shoe-in.
Curses! Foiled again!
When I first found this site, I made an assertion without backing it up. A dozen replies politely but sternly slapped me down, with links to show me the error of my assertion. I learned quickly that, while we’re never too restrained to let loose the invective about someone’s character, Sadly, No! is a place where you better bring your fucking bibliography if you’re going to argue in the world of facts.
That being said, I think that tde has been reasonable, calm in his own defense, and primarily a victim of the very human tendency to generalize. And the victory dances over his prostrate body are, well, unseemly, considering how nice he’s been. Let’s reserve our end-zone shenanigans for deserving events, like Michelle Malkin’s deportation, Ann Coulter’s testicle cancer, or Jeff Cumstain’s cock detachment.
noen,
Very nicely put.
What I do know is that you are certainly one ignorant fuck. You sit there and judge people whose lives you know nothing about. Whose every day experiences you cannot even begin to imagine. And you sit there and pass judgment on ME?? You stupid, ignorant, self absorbed asswipe.
If you will actually read what I wrote, you will see that my criticism was directed at the City of San Francisco’s programs.
I don’t think I said a single derogatory thing about homeless folks.
And, with your obvious charm and interpersonal skills, I find it hard to believe that you ever found yourself homeless.
If you will actually read what I wrote, you will see that my criticism was directed at the City of San Francisco’s programs.
I don’t think I said a single derogatory thing about homeless folks.
Yes you did. Look:
San Francisco lavishes money on the homeless and on drug addicts
Really, just give it up.
I don’t know if tde is a troll. I suspect he isn’t. The “t” does not stand for troll. It stands for “tedious.”
R-Bubba – saying “San Francisco lavishes money on the homeless and on drug addicts” does not derogate the homeless or drug addicts.
It is a criticism of San Francisco’s spending. (And, much of this is now irrelevant since the Newsome administration is apparently now targeting such funds more intelligently rather than simply handing out monthly checks to people.)
Here’s a test: If I said that Dennis Kozlowski (or however you spell his name) lavished thousand of dollars on shower curtains and umbrella stands, do you believe that is a criticism of shower curtains and umbrella stands?
R-Bubba – saying “San Francisco lavishes money on the homeless and on drug addicts” does not derogate the homeless or drug addicts.
Yes it does and that’s why people jumped on you. I know you don’t understand it, but you’ll have to live with it.
Here’s a test: If I said that Dennis Kozlowski (or however you spell his name) lavished thousand of dollars on shower curtains and umbrella stands, do you believe that is a criticism of shower curtains and umbrella stands?
This is fabulously off the wall. Nobody has lavished thousands of dollars on shower curtains. Shower curtains don’t have hands or bank accounts, and therein lies your offense: you simply don’t know how to use the word, therefore you wrote something offensive.
This is fabulously off the wall. Nobody has lavished thousands of dollars on shower curtains. Shower curtains don’t have hands or bank accounts, and therein lies your offense: you simply don’t know how to use the word, therefore you wrote something offensive.
Actually Dennis Kozlowski, former CEO of tyco did, in fact, spend $6,000 of a shower curtain. Sorry, no linky.
But let me try to make this even more simple so perhaps you will understand.
If one says that “Fred lavished a jewel-encrusted water bowl on this pet wheatland terrier”, is that derogatory toward the wheatland terrier?
Or, if one says that “Fred lavished his doorman with gold-plated suspender buttons”, is that somehow a criticism of the doorman?
Actually Dennis Kozlowski, former CEO of tyco did, in fact, spend $6,000 of a shower curtain.
OMG.
“To lavish” does not mean “to spend”. Really, seriously. You may perhaps lavish $6000 on a shower curtain but you’ll find that the notes get stuck in the drain.
Is English your first language?
To the offensiveness: using “lavish” correctly, meaning “giving generously to” the implication is that the homeless and drug-addicted are all wealthy.
Bubba sez:
“To lavish” does not mean “to spend”. Really, seriously. You may perhaps lavish $6000 on a shower curtain but you’ll find that the notes get stuck in the drain.
Is English your first language?
Webster’s dictionary says:
Main Entry:
lavish
Function:transitive verb
Date:1542
: to expend or bestow with profusion
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary
So here is the point in the discussion where you have a decision to make: You can say “Oh, you’re right – and sorry about that English as your first language jibe”. That would be the grown up thing to do.
Or you can say just about anything else, or come up with some sort of lame-ass insult.
Up to you, Sport.
To the offensiveness: using “lavish” correctly, meaning “giving generously to” the implication is that the homeless and drug-addicted are all wealthy.
Oh, I now understand. You simply cannot think rationally.
If you “give generously to” someone, that in no way implies that the recipient is “wealthy.” That is not a logical inference. I can “give generously to” my waitress (by, say, tipping her $50 or a $20 meal.) That will not imply that she is now “wealthy.” I don’t know if you are familiar with customs in the western, English-speaking world, but in most place such a tip would be considered “lavish” indeed.
Similarly, I can “give generously to” my local soup kitchen by writing them a check for $100,000. That will probably keep them in chicken stock and carrots for a a few years but it would not imply that they are now “wealthy.”
should be: $50 _on_ a $20 meal.
Any fool can misuse a dictionary. More definitions here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lavish
Pay careful attention to the example sentences in each usage as a verb:
to lavish gifts on a person.
lavished attention on his customers.
“He was showered with praise”
She lavishes too much money on that child.
You’ll note that in common usage “to lavish” means “gave a generous bunch of” and then the stuff follows and then the person to whom the stuff was given follows.
Follow this up with
San Francisco lavishes money on the homeless and on drug addicts
And you can see that what you wrote is awful.
A little dictionary is a dangerous thing in untrained hands.
I see what happened now.
You posted the first stupidity saying that lavish does not mean what it does and then you actually bothered to look at a dictionary and you realized (but didn’t have the spine to admit) that you made a mistake so you threw up the next post about how my use of the word was “offensive.”
So you have gone from saying that I don’t know what the word “lavish” means to arguing that my use of the word is offensive precisely because I am using it correctly. You are a class act, indeed.
Oh, I now understand. You simply cannot think rationally.
God you’re dumb. Look again:
San Francisco lavishes money on the homeless and on drug addicts
If you think this implies start and end times or whatever other than shoveling money at the homeless then just fuck off and do a phone-in to Rush see what he thinks about it.
So you have gone from saying that I don’t know what the word “lavish” means to arguing that my use of the word is offensive precisely because I am using it correctly. You are a class act, indeed.
What, you didn’t like To give or bestow in abundance as a definition? Which is what lavish means? You don’t realize that to expend or bestow with profusion might actually include “bestow” and therefore render your meaning suspect? You haven’t noticed that nobody has risen to your defense on that phrase?
Oh the enormity.
If you think this implies start and end times or whatever other than shoveling money at the homeless then just fuck off and do a phone-in to Rush see what he thinks about it.
Are you hittin’ the pipe?
tde, I want to nail you. I alone decide what this means.
Oh the enormity.
Or are you having flashbacks induced by Mr. Bubble?
tde, I want to nail you. I alone decide what this means.
Roger that.
Or should I say Jolly Roger that?
Or biscuits and gravy, ain’t I got no lavish shower curtain, that?
Everyone please stop lavishing us with a lavish debate about the lavish use of the word “lavish”.
What a complete and utter douchebag (and liar to boot) Sowell is. He claimed that “The Europeans enslaved on the Barbary Coast of North Africa alone were far more numerous than all the Africans brought to the United States and to the 13 colonies from which it was formed.”
The most rcent research on this topic has unearthed the apparently shocking figure of as many as 1.5 million white slaves taken on the Barbary Coast between 1530 and 1780:
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm
The same research, however, cites a figure of 10 to 12 million black African slaves transported to the U.S. and the British colonies that predated it. Like virtually every prominent conservative, Sowell resorts to outlright lies to support his weak arguments and expects that no one will call him on his bull****. God he must hate himself for being black…
t4toby,
You can be my enema bag anytime… Oh, wait… I mean…. Oh shit… never mind…
And, I may be a douche, but news such as this just breaks my heart. Even though they make up only 11% of the population, veterans make up 25% of the homeless population. This verifies what I have seen in programs I’ve worked with in Boston. There are Vietnam era vets here who still have PTSD. Can you imagine? Can you just imagine living with the interior hell for three decades?
Anyway, Thomas Sowell and tde think we shouldn’t do anything to help them even though it was their service to our country which led to their misfortunes. I’m sure tde will parse the hell out of my statement and the article, but the fact remains that if we are to be a civil society, we must help one another.
Finally, I think we should just ignore tde from now on. It’s been two days now. That’s long enough. I just skimmed but it looks like he is focussing on just one word now – ‘lavish’ – in order to justify his statements. Sheesh!
We all have better things to do then indulge him. If tde is a him. Who cares? Let’s move on and up.
Cheers!
Man, this is the lowest form of human discussion, on the internet or elsewhere: going back and forth about what words actually mean.
Man, this is the lowest form of human discussion
What might the lowest form of clam discussion be?
I think “tde is a shithead” was more than enough attention for him.
What might the lowest form of clam discussion be?
Releasing sperm and eggs into the sea at reproduction time!
Anyway, Thomas Sowell and tde think we shouldn’t do anything to help them
Doodle – got a link for that? I don’t think so since I never said anything of the kind.
Actually, I think we should help them instead of just throwing money at them to ease our consciences.
Formerly the City of SF handed out monthly checks of $450 to the homeless and drug addicts (two groups that have considerable overlap, of course.)
In SF, $450 isn’t even enough to get a room in a fleabag monthly hotel. It is enough to buy a fair amount of booze or drugs. So what do you think the result of this program was? Hmmm?
As I mentioned, this is now beside the point since Mayor Newsome has apparently cut that program in favor of more intervention directed programs. But, then again, when I was riding into work this morning, I was passed by a shiny new Prius hybrid with a blue sticker on the door for the City of SF, “Homeless Outreach Program”. I guess the thinking goes that you can’t really reach out to the homeless in an old Civic . . .
I don’t think I said a single derogatory thing about homeless folks.
And, with your obvious charm and interpersonal skills, I find it hard to believe that you ever found yourself homeless.
Fuck off tde-ous. I’m not one of those people who views passive agressive as not really agressive. As I’ve quoted, you contradict yourself in a single comment. (noen says she was homeless, you insult her, deny her experience, figure it out.) No wonder you won’t link shit; you won’t even acknowledge someone’s personal experiences when the implications fuck with your precious little world view. Your contempt demonstrates your disbelief that homeless people–a group you have already equated with drug addicts–could ever engage you like a human being. Y’know, with words, ‘n logic, ‘n such.
So, just Fuck Off.
Oh, and when you troll a blog where the participants always read all the comments, it is really not a good idea to try the rope-a-dope “if you read my previous comment” bullshit. Please let your trollnut sisters know that we prefer more interesting sport. (Yes I noticed how you buggered off after RB’s implication of your gender at 3:28–I’ve decided not to like you and I’m working on grinding your gears)
noen, glad you’re still hangin’ here. I was worried when you felt hurt last month and I didn’t see you around. You write damned well.
I guess the thinking goes that you can’t really reach out to the homeless in an old Civic
You will at least provide a link to the municipal fleet leasing plan for used cars.
At this point, I don’t believe you really have a dog.
in other words, tde, SF lavishes money on the homeless, except it doesn’t because the Mayor cancelled the offensive program, but you saw someone in a Prius, so that person is bad because they lavished an expensive car on themselves and so SF homeless programs (either current or past) are hypocritical because if you care about the homeless you should be poor too except the homeless aren’t poor because money is being lavished on them, except it’s not.
got-cha.
As I’ve quoted, you contradict yourself in a single comment. (noen says she was homeless, you insult her, deny her experience, figure it out.)
No contradiction there. I had not insulted homeless people in any of my quotes. And, if you will read Noen’s post- after you get past the profanity and insults directed at me ((oh, I notice you didn’t mention those, by the way)) – you will see that she _used to be homeless_. And, anyway, my comment was not directed at her as a (formerly) homeless person, it was directed at her as a ranting, foul-mouthed, loon. There is a difference.
(Yes I noticed how you buggered off after RB’s implication of your gender at 3:28–I’ve decided not to like you and I’m working on grinding your gears)
It’s kin of hard to know what to make of this. Are you suggesting that I was so freaked out after someone suggested I was a man or a woman that stopped posting??? Really, if so, what sort of turd are you who would take any delight in such a thing? Or think it was a valid way to argue with someone? I guess you probably think that using the word “cunt” is appropriate, too.
in other words, tde, SF lavishes money on the homeless, except it doesn’t because the Mayor cancelled the offensive program
Actually, he didn’t cancel the program, he cut the monthly checks from about $459 to $50 or so.
but you saw someone in a Prius, so that person is bad because they lavished an expensive car on themselves
Assuming it is now okay to use “lavished” in this blog now, you’re pretty much correct there. I think a new Prius cost something like $28 or 30 thousand, doesn’t it? Every penny spent on that is less money that can be spent on treatment/counseling/intervention/medical care, etc. for the homeless. Don’t you think it might be just a bit better to buy a Yaris or some $10 or $15 dollar car instead and spend the savings on programs that actually benefit the homeless?
and so SF homeless programs (either current or past) are hypocritical because if you care about the homeless you should be poor too
This just doesn’t make any sense. How can the City of SF be poor? The issue is wasting, I mean lavishing, money on a new Prius instead of spending the money on more useful and helpful things.
Can you understand this concept?
You will at least provide a link to the municipal fleet leasing plan for used cars.
Thank you for confirming that the request(s) for links is pretty much just an assholish rhetorical devise.
but you saw someone in a Prius, so that person is bad because they lavished an expensive car on themselves
Perhaps I wasn’t clear on this. The car is a City car. It had government plates and had a sticker on the side for City of SF Homeless Outreach Program. So the driver of the car (presumably) didn’t buy the car for himself – the car was purchased by the City of SF . . .
And, I am pretty sure it was a car purchased specifically out of this program’s budget (and not part of the fleet) because the usual City cars are white, whereas this one was not.
Hopefully SF will lavish money on routine maintenance for those Pria so they last a long time. And they don’t cost nearly $30K. You couldn’t lavish that much money on a Prius unless you tricked it out.
Lawnguylander – you’re right. I just checked and the MSRP is only 23K. Cheaper than I thought. Still about 2x the price of a Yaris, though.
so tell me, tde, you are sure that the money for a City Car comes from the homeless program right?
and not, say ,a federal grant that provides funds so cities can buy cars for programs across the board?
I’m not asking for a link, lord knows. Just your assurance that you have the knowledge to back up what you are saying.
Kathleen – what difference would that make? It was a city car dedicated to the Homeless Outreach Program. Why would it matter if the funds came from the feds versus my property taxes? It is still a fairly pricey little car.
The only way that this could be excused is if there were a federal program that said – Okay we are giving out money for cars, but you can only use it to buy Toyota Priuses (Prii?) or something like that. And no, I don’t have a link to that, and yes, I recognize that given the stupidity government mandates that this is possible, but I really doubt it. And – just to put a bullet in the head of this horse we have been whipping – if there is such a program mandate – it is really stupid, too, don’t you think?
Given how you twisted my previous statements into absurdity (e.g. “if you care about the homeless you should be poor, too.” – wtf is that nonsense?) I don’t know if you are seriously asking this question or just arguing for the sake of argument.
I am sad to report that tde does not apparently understand how the governments work.
Yes, tde it is not only possible but likely that the feds would provide grant money for cities to buy Priuses as city cars. Perhaps you have heard of global warming/car emissions? (and so this responds to your “pricey little car” issue. Cities aren’t going to buy used cars. Outfitting government vehicles with clean air technology is actually pretty cool. I am not surprised however, that you do not udnerstand this.)
back to the main point: The cars purchased under said federal grant would be used by city employees on gov’t programs. And that money could not be taken and handed out to the homeless, it has to be spent on cars.
That is why, for example, AC Transit has sweet expensive buses, but has cut service drastically because of funds.
My point isn’t whether or not this is a good system.
My point is that you are ranting about things with which you are sadly uninformed about.
If you want to take down the whole system of government spending, I am not sure why you feel that SF’s homeless programs are where to start, but you should at least know what you are talking about.
Given how you twisted my previous statements into absurdity (e.g. “if you care about the homeless you should be poor, too.” – wtf is that nonsense?) I don’t know if you are seriously asking this question or just arguing for the sake of argument.
this was before you clarified that you were refering to the outrage that a city car was a Prius, not a homeless case worker’s personal car. I could redo the rant with the update, but why bother.
this was before you clarified that you were refering to the outrage that a city car was a Prius, not a homeless case worker’s personal car
Here is what I originally posted:
I was passed by a shiny new Prius hybrid with a blue sticker on the door for the City of SF, “Homeless Outreach Program”.
I am so sorry that you were confused by that.
I am sad to report that tde does not apparently understand how the governments work.
Well you sure got me there. I was a budget analyst for the Senate finance committee for a small north-eastern state for 3 years and I was perpetually baffled by the programs. Still am.
Yes, tde it is not only possible but likely that the feds would provide grant money for cities to buy Priuses as city cars.
Do you have a link for that or are you just making shit up?
Homeless case worker? Should we get them a home before we get them a hybid car?
Yes, tde it is not only possible but likely that the feds would provide grant money for cities to buy Priuses as city cars. Perhaps you have heard of global warming/car emissions? (and so this responds to your “pricey little car” issue. Cities aren’t going to buy used cars. Outfitting government vehicles with clean air technology is actually pretty cool. I am not surprised however, that you do not udnerstand this.)
By, where to begin with this one. Do you have any evidence – any at all – that there is some federal program handing out grants to cities to buy only Toyota Prius’? Any at all – or are you just making stuff up?
And, even if there were such a program that would just mean that the federal government is involved in absurd spending programs. (Imagine that.)
And you are probably right, that you “udnerstand” more about global warming that I do. If you will re-read my post above, you will notice that I said I was riding to work. That was on a bicycle. Not in a car or even in some carbon spewing bus. But you just keep preachin’ it loud from up there on you high horse, sister!
Funny how it comes back to you demanding proof of another’s argument.
I am not sure why you think that someone working for the city has a “hybid” car, but not a home. Then again, you left all rationality long ago in this thread.
Expressing support for the purchase of clean air vehicles by the government is hardly “preachin’ it loud from up there on you [sic]high horse”, but then again, you left all rationality long ago in this thread. but I repeat myself.
Good Lord in Heaven! Is t-deous still being a total dick on this poor beleaguered thread? WHAT a crashing bore. Hey, Mr. “I don’t need to give no steenkin’ link” Guy: Give it up already. You are SO in over your head at this site. Or has that not dawned on you yet? Nah, probably not, given your track record for disingenuousness, your penchant for gratuitously insulting your intellectual superiors, and your total lack of a funny bone, all of which indicate you’re exceedingly out of your element here and don’t even realize it. It’s sad, really.
I am not sure why you think that someone working for the city has a “hybid” car, but not a home.
You are the one talking about “homeless case workers”, not me. I see that the lobotomy took out your sense of humor, tool
Expressing support for the purchase of clean air vehicles by the government is hardly “preachin’ it loud from up there on you [sic]high horse”
The problem is you are preachy and insufferable that you think it is normal. Reread your post where you talk about me not being able to “udnerstand” global warming and so forth.
Okay, t-deous, quit lifting from my comments to rag on previous commenters before you get to my comment to rag on me, no doubt with liftings from the comments of previous others.
MzNicky – I hope you feel better after that.
Okay, t-deous, quit lifting from my comments to rag on previous commenters before you get to my comment to rag on me, no doubt with liftings from the comments of previous others.
I hope you know what you are talking about, because I sure can’t make any sense of that . . .
Oh. And if you’re going to snidely do the “[sic]” and cute-quotes of others’ misspellings and grammatical gaffes, I’ll totally enjoy going back through your comments on this thread (alone!) and do the same. Except it’d be a monumentally lengthy comment, and I have more respect for the S,N! blog boys and girl than to inflict that on anyone. Even on an otherwise dead thread that’s about to go on to its great reward in Archives heaven.
But, ‘s up to U, dickwad.
I hope you know what you are talking about, because I sure can’t make any sense of that.
Quelle surprise!
MzNicky – Oh now I remember you. You were the one who – along with Doodle – was picking through my posts to decide if I was a man or a woman.
Very post-feminist of you there MzNicky – assuming you are a gal, of course.
Oh, it makes sense now:
Okay, t-deous, quit lifting from my biscuits to rag on previous biscuits before you get to my biscuits to rag on me, no doubt with liftings from the biscuits of previous others.
tde: Since I know it must mean a lot to you, I give you the last word on this thread.
MzNicky – that just I would expect a woman to say.
Sorry, meant to say that is what I would expect a biscuit to say.
Well, tde, I did some poking around the Googlenets, searching for ‘San Francisco Homeless Outreach Program Prius’ and this is all I could find:
That’s from the SF Board of Supes legislation calendar of July 31, 2007. So what it looks like to me is that the Supes greenlighted a Prius for ‘public outreach and demonstration’, then maybe somebody said, hey, let’s give it to the Homeless Outreach people, that’s a pretty visible program.
I don’t know, I only Gazoogled for, like, 2.4 seconds. I could be wrong. Maybe it’s like you say.
Also, tde, you should totally Confederate Yankee the SF Homeless Outreach Program on this matter of grave importance. You could be like, “Where’s the documentary evidence that shows that you don’t have a fleet of expensive electric hybrid cars delivering crack to the drum circle on Hippie Hill? Hmmm? I’m a citizen journalist, dammit, and I demand answers!”
Here is their publicly available contact information. Keep in mind, those shifty homeless lovers move shop mid-week to dodge John Doe-types such as yourself.
(415) 401-2660 Monday – Tuesday
(415) 554-8471 Wednesday – Friday
D.A. – Wow – that is even worse than I thought. You can buy one new for 23K and here they are spending $44K to convert one to a plug in. If this is the same car – I guess that is about $60K on a car for doing homeless outreach.
I might suggest that that money might be better spent elsewhere, consensus position among most posters hereabouts seems to be that the only thing you can do when mentioning the homeless is just bow your head reverently . Any suggestion that the $60K might have been better spent on, oh, I don’t know, soup or methadone, obviously springs from some hatred of the homeless so I won’t say anything.
Oh, and the drummers on hippy hill hit the 420, not the crack pipe – you can smell it all the way over on the tennis courts.