Opinion Page
home > weblog > 2005 > march > blog030705.php
"This country is building jails instead of creating affordable housing." I got this quote from an article on cities that are reportedly "mean" to homeless people. By homeless people, they mean lazy people, drug users, and drunks.
I have looked at this and said "Good! we need more jails, and less homeless people." Before you think I'm too much of an asshole, (too late for some of you, I'm sure,) I would like to ask you where in the Constitution of this fine country it specifies that the government is supposed to "create affordable housing"? I know that the government is supposed to build jails, as that is part of the judicial mandate that keeps the rest of us safe. When someone breaks the law, and is caught, and is tried by a jury of their peers, and found guilty, it is the job of the government to serve sentence upon that individual. And if that sentence includes incarceration, it is to be carried out at a place that is a jail (or prison).
I find it interesting that this quote above comes, not from someone interviewed in the article, but from the author of the article himself. The job of a journalist is to report news, not editorialize (hear that, Dan Rather??). This journalist should be commenting on OTHER people's views, not stating his own. He is supposed to be unbiased in his reporting. How can you be objective with such an axe to grind?
I like the entire tone of the article. If the government enforces the law, they are "mean" to the homeless. What about the effect that homeless have on the rest of us? Who wakes up and says, "Gee, I hope I get hassled by homeless beggars this morning?" How about "Boy, I sure love the stench of the homeless person who's blocking the sidewalk as I walk past my office! I know he's adding property value by his very presence!"
All kidding aside, homeless people are a blight on a city. Their choices are what got them where they are, and they don't add to society. Any city that is "mean" to the homeless is being "kind" to the taxpayers. If the homeless don't like it, guess what? They're homeless anyway, let them go be homeless someplace else! They can find some nice place like San Francisco, which welcomes the homeless, and allows them to pee and crap all over the city without fear of arrest.
I live in a city in the top 20, and I just moved from another city in the top 20. I have lived in other cities in the top 20, and I found that all of them did a good job in keeping homeless people out. The article accuses these cities of violating their "civil rights". I love how these people have a "right" (according to this homeless advocacy group, as if being homeless is a desirable trait) to squat wherever they want, but the lawful owners of property have no Right to keep illegal quatters off their property. What a crock of crap.
If you read the article, look at the second to the last paragraph. By "refusing to... legislate living wages, or to provide necessary health care, [they are] hindering these individuals’ basic civil liberties."
How is refusing to give them something for nothing taking away their Freedom? Since when are they at Liberty to demand (and be entitled to) my money to pay for their healthcare? Where in the Constitution does it say that?
This pompous ass of a so-called "reporter" misses the point. These cities are smart. They get it. Homeless people don't contribute. They drink, they use drugs. They litter. They cause crime. They escalate costs to cities. Cities that treat homeless people as a blight are being responsible to the taxpayers. If the Liberals who love the homeless so much spent as much money as they did time bemoaning the "fate" of the homeless, the homeless could have nicer boxes. Homeless people suck.
Previous
day's rant
If you have ideas, comments, or criticisms, tell me about it.