Agreed. And I am more and more convinced we shouldn’t be writing off people who hold one or two of these beliefs either social or economic. Of course, that begs the obvious question of where to draw the line and like all things social it’s messy. I just think it’s reasonable to argue we have swung a bit too far to one end.
I’m super guilty of this myself with people like iron to some degree although I don’t think I have ever claimed he is not one of us. Just that his ideas on justice and political norms are woefully outdated.
The center advertised these human specimens as being of “the highest quality found anywhere in the U.S,” helping bring in about $2.5 million a year in the process. Heads went for $649. A pair of feet brought in $330. The fee for a whole body: $1,400.
These are good examples but they raise another trend I’ve noticed. In terms of purity, we seem to be most ruthless with non-politicians. We don’t seem to hold actual politicians to the standard we expect of random people we know online or via social media.
Newsom supported investing $27 billion into providing communities for homelessness. The “cleanup” of encampments is obviously harsh and has the fucking police implementing a lot of it, but it’s also invested $737 million in 109 projects whech have helped 21k people transition out of homelessness.
These kinds of things are being built all over the state
All over. The bottom pic there is in San Jose, the top is in San Francisco. One of my daughters lives across the street from one in Oakland. I’ve seen several around town in the LA area.
I was out in the middle of nowhere CA (Barstow) a couple times recently and it was full of people wandering the streets and living in the plethora of small run down hotels. I think out there people getting some kind of assistance (social security/disability/etc) or holding irregular low paying jobs can afford private housing of some sort.
At any rate, the only “public housing” I’ve ever seen in CA in remote areas are the many prisons.
I happen to know someone who, not too long ago, went from sorta homeless (living in the barn in the backyard of the father-in-law of a guy I work with), to living in some kind of housing of that nature and he got there via getting sick, going to the hospital, having a social worker find him who then helped him get into a place.
It’s actually “knew” and not “know” because he died recently. It’s quite a story. He was in the military for a long time, but wasn’t getting any of his benefits. It turned out that he was owed a ton of money - like nearly a million dollars. He got the money. He got cleaned up (both physically as he looked like someone living in a barn for years and stopped drinking). And shortly thereafter he died. He was about 70 years old.
To the extent that there should be any purity testing for Democrats, I think the answer should be drawing lines on economic rather than social issues. The most very basic line one can draw is that Democrats oppose cutting things like Social Security and Medicare when some Republicans would like to go so far as to eliminate them if they could.
I think a significant percentage of homeless people get contacted by social workers and most are sane enough to receive help. The minority of homeless people who are raving maniacs get a disproportionate amount of attention.
I didn’t think it was a mania issue. I just didn’t think that there was much effort by the social workers to contact the homeless people. But maybe things aren’t as bad as I thought.
Hes targeted by the roght because they (probably rightfully) see him as next in line and they are trying to Hillary Clinton him as far out as possible.
He’s targeted by the left because he has smarmy politician mannerisms and is a bit involved in legacy politics.
Fwiw, I think the majority of his policies are good and progressive and support him as the next nominee. I would guess a lot of blue Californians feel the same.
