Venice Beach Doesn’t Have a Homelessness Crisis

It has a quality-of-life enforcement crisis.

Last weekend, the New York Times Magazine ran an article on homelessness in Los Angeles. The article framed the problem of street vagrancy as almost entirely a result of insufficient housing. “The state needs to create 1.2 million more homes for low-income residents and those experiencing homelessness—which would cost roughly $17.9 billion annually,” the author, Jaime Lowe, reports. California needs to be smarter about building houses and apartments, but the facts Lowe uncovers don’t point to new housing as a solution to street homelessness.

The article zeroes in on Venice Beach, part of the Venice area of Los Angeles. Venice Beach is a once-gritty area that’s now “gentrified.” Except: it wasn’t that gritty. Twenty-five years ago, Lowe reports, the going rate for a house was $300,000. In 1996, the median home price in the U.S. was $112,000. If Venice Beach was ever the itinerant artist’s paradise that nostalgists depict it as, that was a long time ago. Today, the same house in Venice Beach goes for $2 million—a sign that its residents ought to consider some well-planned construction so that theirs doesn’t become a stagnant community.

In any case, though, such new housing won’t fix the homeless crisis. Nowhere in her 6,000-word article does Lowe find an example of the archetypal homeless person of casual understanding: a down-on-his luck, working-class man or woman who had a house in Venice Beach—whether rented or owned—and lost it after getting fired, having a spouse die, or suffering a disability or illness. That’s not to say that such cases don’t exist, but they’re certainly not the norm for the hundreds of people who have pitched tents and cardboard boxes or built plywood shanties along the beach, boardwalk, and sidewalks.

The homeless individuals featured in the article are all long-term transients afflicted with substance addiction, mental illness, or both. One young man tells Lowe that he came to Venice Beach from Washington State last year, “hoping for a new life apart from his estranged wife and children.” He appears to have no disability preventing him from working; he paints artwork to sell. He’s less a romantic artist than (likely) a child-support deadbeat who left someone else with the burden of making a living for his offspring. An older man, 64, says he’s been homeless for three decades, after “his family banished him because of his alcoholism.” The star of the story is a 19-year-old woman who goes by the name of “Angel.” She was recently arrested for weapons possession and recently refused government shelter inland, preferring the beach.

The story characterizes efforts to build housing for such individuals as facing a “fierce NIMBY pushback,” but it’s no mystery why Venice residents would oppose such measures as a 140-unit shelter building along the area’s main boulevard. It would be one thing if local officials could promise that after the area accepted the building, no one would ever sleep, defecate, or urinate on public property again. But nowhere does the article acknowledge that 140 new units—or 500, 1,000, or 10,000—in a resort town of 40,000 housed residents would not solve the problem. A beachfront community is by definition isolated from large employers in diverse industries. There’s little mass transit. This is a place where people buy property to relax or retire, not to invest in factories, warehouses, white-collar office buildings, or large-scale retail stores. Venice Beach is thus not the best place for a person with a short or nonexistent employment history and limited education to find an entry-level job and start to move up.

Venice Beach, then, faces not a displaced-persons problem but a transient problem. Owing to its nice weather, well-meaning volunteers who give out food and clothing, and Los Angeles’s lax approach to encampments, addicts and other lost souls are drawn there from around the country.

What kind of market housing could Venice Beach build that would be affordable to a 19-year-old woman with no job? The Times article is striking in its lack of curiosity about Angel’s background. A 19-year-old was a minor child not long ago. Where did she come from? If she could not live with her parents or guardians because of severe abuse, didn’t that town, city, or state have social services that would have put her into foster care or young-adult supportive housing and subsidize her college education or vocational training? Does her hometown have the same supposed severe housing shortage as Venice Beach does?

It’s dishonest to blame NIMBYs for this crisis or to paint local residents who don’t want to be harassed by vagrant men as somehow privileged. If Los Angeles does build subsidized, below-market housing around Venice Beach, why should that housing not go to people who already have stable jobs in the area, or who are interested in finding one—with a small fraction reserved for people who, at the very least, agree to start weaning themselves from alcohol and drugs, to learn skills needed for employment, and to pass each part of a mandated multistep program?

Rather than attempt to spend tens of billions of dollars a year to house the nation’s transients, California would be better off using limited resources to attempt to connect and re-integrate people like Angel into their home communities until they have the resources to start a new life by themselves. But to embark on such a strategy, Los Angeles would need a stick to go with the carrot. That could go something like this: the city will put you into temporary shelter if you have no other place to go, and it will get you inpatient mental-health and addiction treatment if warranted, but it will not offer transients with no long-term ties to the community any long-term housing—and no, you can’t live in a tent on a beach.

Nicole Gelinas is a City Journal contributing editor, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and the author of After the Fall: Saving Capitalism from Wall Street—and Washington.

This article was originally published by City Journal Online.

California Attorney General Sees State Moving Away From Death Penalty

As a legislator, Rob Bonta co-sponsored a proposed ballot measure that would have given Californians another chance to discard the death penalty, a repeal they narrowly rejected in 2012 and 2016.

As California’s attorney general, Bonta still opposes capital punishment, and he believes the state is moving in the same direction.

“I think the death penalty is inhumane. It does not deter. Studies show it’s long had a disparate impact on defendants of color, especially when the victim is white,” Bonta said in an interview. Three weeks earlier, his former legislative colleagues had confirmed the Alameda Democrat’s nomination by Gov. Gavin Newsom to succeed Attorney General Xavier Becerra, now U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services.

Bonta said the death penalty is also both irreversible and “fallible,” citing the exoneration and release of numerous Death Row inmates nationwide — 185 since 1973, including five in California, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. The nonprofit organization says it has also found “strong evidence” that at least 20 prisoners who have been executed since 1989, all in Southern states, were actually innocent. …

Click here to read the full article from the San Francisco Chronicle.

The CDC and Mask Mandates: Unmasking the Truth

A mask is as useless as Joe Biden.  The CDC has proven that belief.  In Kansas     , the State ended the mask mandate.  24 counties continued the mandate—81 counties did not.  The CDC used these counties to prove that wearing a mask was healthier.  Instead they found that wearing a mask or not wearing a mask made no difference in the virus.

“Many counties did opt-out, but the larger metropolitan areas did not. Overall, twenty-four counties implemented a mask mandate, and eighty-one opted out.

The CDC paper argues that the mandates were a success. In particular, the paper claims that “the increasing trend in COVID-19 incidence reversed” in the Kansas counties with mask mandates.

We noticed, however, that this conclusion is incorrect. As our paper shows, the trend did not reverse in those counties. Moreover, the growth in reported case incidence (and mortality) was, overall, virtually indistinguishable in counties with and without mask mandates.

It turns out that the CDC paper made an incorrect assertion because the authors used data that was later updated. As statistical studies go, this sort of mistake is surely forgivable.

However, the CDC’s refusal to publicly acknowledge this incorrect assertionwe corresponded with the main author, as well as several editors and an Associate Director for Policy at the CDCis inexcusable. There simply is no room in legitimate scientific study for refusal to admit mistakes.”

Note that they misrepresented the facts and when caught—they refused to publically admit it—masks are as useful as Joe Biden.  Trust the CDC—not with my life depending on them—they lie and cheat.  And get caught doing both.

The CDC and Mask Mandates: Unmasking the Truth

Norbert J. Michel, Ph.D,, Doug Badger , 5/1/21  Heritage Foundation,

The growth in reported case incidence (and mortality) was, overall, virtually indistinguishable in counties with and without mask mandates.

While many facts were unknown when the disease first took hold in the United States, a great deal of the evidence was quite clear by May.

As the public health emergency abates, Congress, the media, and the American public should heavily scrutinize the agency’s procedures and practices.

Copied

How reliable are government declarations that mask mandates prevent the spread of the coronavirus?

Our recent experience with researchers from the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention has left us less than confident that the public should trust the CDC’s published research, much less any pronouncements based on that research.

Our problem involves a paper that the CDC published in November. The paper studies mask mandates in Kansas because, in July, Gov. Laura Kelly issued an optional mask mandate. Counties could decide whether to enforce the mandate or opt-out.

Many counties did opt-out, but the larger metropolitan areas did not. Overall, twenty-four counties implemented a mask mandate, and eighty-one opted out.

The CDC paper argues that the mandates were a success. In particular, the paper claims that “the increasing trend in COVID-19 incidence reversed” in the Kansas counties with mask mandates.

We noticed, however, that this conclusion is incorrect. As our paper shows, the trend did not reverse in those counties. Moreover, the growth in reported case incidence (and mortality) was, overall, virtually indistinguishable in counties with and without mask mandates.

It turns out that the CDC paper made an incorrect assertion because the authors used data that was later updated. As statistical studies go, this sort of mistake is surely forgivable.

However, the CDC’s refusal to publicly acknowledge this incorrect assertionwe corresponded with the main author, as well as several editors and an Associate Director for Policy at the CDCis inexcusable. There simply is no room in legitimate scientific study for refusal to admit mistakes.

Our experience, sadly, is not unique. Even in those rare instances where government public health officials yield to scientific evidence and revise their recommendations, they seldom admit error.

On March 19, for example, the CDC abruptly changed its guidance for classrooms, saying that desks need only be separated by three feet, rather than six. The agency’s new “science brief” on the subject does not cite a single classroom-based study that found desks should be kept six feet apart, but lists numerous studies supporting the one-meter (3.3 feet) standard long favored by the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The agency brief did not cite a preprint study posted earlier in March that found, based on a review of numerous studies of classroom transmission, “no significant difference in student or staff case rates between schools with ≥3 versus ≥6 feet of distancing with a large sample size.”

The CDC changed its policy, but without acknowledging the damage its earlier recommendation inflicted on children, much less admitting error.

Unfortunately, throughout the pandemic, scientific facts have meant little. While many facts were unknown when the disease first took hold in the United States, a great deal of the evidence was quite clear by May.

Many facts are even clearer now.

For instance, most people who contract the coronavirus do recover, with the elderly and the sick, by far, the most vulnerable. Even ignoring the fact that many asymptomatic cases have gone unreported, the survival rate for anyone between ages 40 and 49 without regard to pre-existing health problemsis in the neighborhood of 99.7 percent. It’s even higher for younger people.

We also now know that lockdowns didn’t deliver on their promised health benefits. States that adhered to stringent lockdown strategies, like California and New York, report similar numbers of cases on a population-adjusted basis as those that imposed fewer restrictions, like Florida and Texas. Indeed, California’s overall rate of what epidemiologists call “excess mortality”the total number of deaths in a given period of time compared to historic trendis well above the national average and considerably higher than Florida’s, particularly among young adults.

The coronavirus retrospective must include a thorough evaluation of why, even after these facts were evident, so many government officials stuck to indiscriminate lockdown and mitigation policies. This kind of assessment will not be possible, though, without honest, legitimate scientific study.

recent op-ed written by Martin Kulldorff and Jay Bhattacharya does not bode well for such scientific rigor. It details how five prominent scientists “faced the modern-day inquisition” over their coronavirus-related work, and it is difficult to judge which of these cases is the most disheartening.

It is rather sad, for example, that the Journal of the American Medical Association published an opinion piece attacking Dr. Scott Atlas without engaging in his ideas.

Still, it’s difficult to judge if that case is worse than the one of epidemiologist Carl Heneghan, the head of the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. UK officials attacked Heneghan after he publicized serious errors in official UK coronavirus statistics, and an article in the Guardian implied that Heneghan is part of “the anti-science lobby” after he pointed out that the only published randomized study on mask-wearing suggests that masks may not be effective in protecting against a coronavirus infection.

Government officials and the American people depend on legitimate scientific study, and they have shown extraordinary deference to the CDC throughout the past year. This deference rests on the presumption that the agency’s recommendations to shutter businesses, close schools, restrict public worship, and enforce mask mandates have a solid basis in science.

That confidence, in many instances, appears to have been misplaced. As the public health emergency abates, Congress, the media, and the American public should heavily scrutinize the agency’s procedures and practices.

This piece originally appeared in The National Interest https://nationalinterest.org/blog/coronavirus/cdc-and-mask-mandates-unmasking-truth-183755

Suicides on the rise amid stay-at-home order, Bay Area medical professionals say

Which kills more: the virus or the results of government action?  In the Bay Area, it could be that shelter in place has been the cause of numerous suicides—maybe more deaths by suicide than the virus.

“– Doctors at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek say they have seen more deaths by suicide during this quarantine period than deaths from the COVID-19 virus.

The head of the trauma in the department believes mental health is suffering so much, it is time to end the shelter-in-place order.


“Personally I think it’s time,” said Dr. Mike deBoisblanc. “I think, originally, this (the shelter-in-place order) was put in place to flatten the curve and to make sure hospitals have the resources to take care of COVID patients. We have the current resources to do that and our other community health is suffering.”
There is a long term problem.  Government actions and the fear tactics have caused long term mental illness, a fear of others and people afraid to go out of their homes.  Children not only lost six months of education, so far, but are told by adults that other people will give them a deadly disease.  There are three winners of this virus:  1) Big government  2) attorneys getting to sue everybody  3) therapists who now have millions of new patients for a generation.  The big loser?  Freedom, honesty, trust, respect.

Suicides on the rise amid stay-at-home order, Bay Area medical professionals say

By Amy Hollyfield, ABC7,  5/21/20 

Doctors at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek say they have seen more deaths by suicide during this quarantine period than deaths from the COVID-19 virus.

WALNUT CREEK, Calif. (KGO) — Doctors at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek say they have seen more deaths by suicide during this quarantine period than deaths from the COVID-19 virus.

The head of the trauma in the department believes mental health is suffering so much, it is time to end the shelter-in-place order.


“Personally I think it’s time,” said Dr. Mike deBoisblanc. “I think, originally, this (the shelter-in-place order) was put in place to flatten the curve and to make sure hospitals have the resources to take care of COVID patients.We have the current resources to do that and our other community health is suffering.”

The numbers are unprecedented, he said.

“We’ve never seen numbers like this, in such a short period of time,” he said. “I mean we’ve seen a year’s worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks.”

Kacey Hansen has worked as a trauma nurse at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek for almost 33 years. She is worried because not only are they seeing more suicide attempts, she says they are not able to save as many patients as usual.

“What I have seen recently, I have never seen before,” Hansen said. “I have never seen so much intentional injury.”

The trauma team is speaking out because they want the community to be aware, for people to reach out and support each other and for those who are suffering to know they can get help.

John Muir Health provided a statement to ABC7 late Thursday, saying the organization as a whole is supportive of the shelter-in-place order in the Bay Area.

“John Muir Health has been, and continues to be, supportive of the Shelter-in-Place order put in place by Contra Costa County Health Services to prevent the spread of COVID-19. We realize there are a number of opinions on this topic, including within our medical staff, and John Muir Health encourages our physicians and staff to participate constructively in these discussions. We all share a concern for the health of our community whether that is COVID-19, mental health, intentional violence or other issues. We continue to actively work with our Behavioral Health Center, County Health and community organizations to increase awareness of mental health issues and provide resources to anyone in need. If you are in a crisis and need help immediately, please call 211 or 800-833-2900 or text ‘HOPE’ to 20121 now. We are all in this together, and ask the community to please reach out to anyone who you think might be in need during this challenging time. Thank you.”

The Contra Costa County Crisis Center has counselors available to answer their hotline 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The call is free and confidential.

The executive director says a call to the 1-800-273-TALK can make a huge difference.


“Generally speaking the vast majority of people say they feel better after they call and get the resources they need,” said Executive Director Tom Tamura. “With help comes hope. I think that there are people and organizations out there that you can contact that can get you the information you need and resources you need to get you through this tough time.”

He said calls to their hotline are up, but not dramatically.

He thinks that could be because people aren’t seeing their usual network of support. That is where the encouragement to make a phone call can come from.

“I think people have found themselves disconnected from the normal supportive networks that they have, churches and schools and book clubs, you name it,” Tamura said. “And that, coupled with the closure of some counseling services, people were maybe in a little bit of shock.They were trying to weather the storm a bit but as that isolation has grown people have come to realize this isn’t a sprint it is marathon.”

He says it’s important for all of us to be reaching out to people and making connections.

Hansen says in-person meetings are even OK if it will help mental health.

“Six feet away, wear a mask, wash your hands going in, don’t touch, you can see people socially distancing safely,” she said.


Hansen says a focus on mental health is very important right
“They intend to die,” Hansen said. “Sometimes, people will make what we call a ‘gesture’. It’s a cry for help.We’re just seeing something a little different than that right now. It’s upsetting.”

Hansen and deBoisblanc say they are seeing mostly young adults die by suicide.They are worried about the stress that isolation and job loss can bring as this quarantine continues.

If you or someone you know needs help, call 1-800-273-TALK. Or if you can’t remember that number, 211 can get you to the resource you need.

The shelter-in-place order is currently set to expire at 11:59 p.m. on May 31.

Contra Costa Health Services released a statement in response to the trauma team at John Muir Medical Center.

“We strongly encourage everyone in distress to seek help from mental health professionals and local resources such as 211 (the Crisis Center),” the statement read. “We understand that this is a very difficult time for many people and it can feel very isolating to practice social distancing. We want to stress that the shelter-in-place order is saving lives at the same time. It’s not uncommon for medical professionals can have differing opinions on courses of treatment for many health issues. The Shelter-in-Place order is no different. We will continue to look to the science of our identified indicators as we determine how best to move forward.”

SD City Council Moves Forward on $900 Million Affordable Housing Bond Measure

I hate when government lies.  Like most government, San Diego is refusing to tell the public that while “affordable housing” might get $900 million—it also means Wall Street will get another $90 million.  The real winners are the rich and greedy, the losers are the families of California.

“The San Diego City Council moved a step closer Tuesday to placing a $900 million bond measure on the November ballot in hopes of dramatically expanding affordable housing in the city to address homelessness.

On a 6-3 vote, the council approved a resolution clearing the way for its staff to craft a ballot measure and bring it back to the council for another vote in June. If approved again by two-thirds of the council, the bond issue would go before voters in November. It would also require approval from two-thirds of voters.

Will San Diego hack politicians tells the voters that in Los Angeles, that city built affordable housing at a cost of upwards of $700,000 per condo unit?  Or that in San Fran the average pay for a bureaucrat working on the homeless issue is $120,000 per year?  What is the plan to spend the money>  In the fine print you will note that only those that pay bribes to unions will be allowed to work—that means 15-20% payoff to the unions—money meant  to fix the problem, instead is used to payoff the political special interests.

City Council Moves Forward on $900 Million Affordable Housing Bond Measure

Times of San Diego,  1/14/20 

The San Diego City Council moved a step closer Tuesday to placing a $900 million bond measure on the November ballot in hopes of dramatically expanding affordable housing in the city to address homelessness.

On a 6-3 vote, the council approved a resolution clearing the way for its staff to craft a ballot measure and bring it back to the council for another vote in June. If approved again by two-thirds of the council, the bond issue would go before voters in November. It would also require approval from two-thirds of voters.

Council members Mark Kersey, Chris Cate and Scott Sherman cast the dissenting votes.

The idea of the housing bond was originally proposed two years ago by the San Diego Housing Federation. The bond is expected to fund roughly 7,500 affordable housing units. The bonds would be paid through an increase in property taxes of 19 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation, or roughly $18 a year for the average homeowner.

“I live in a nice house in Bay Ho and this will cost me less than $18 a year, that’s $9 every six months,” Councilwoman Jennifer Campbell said. “I would pay $100 every six months. That’s affordable.”

She added, “We have to make up for past sins, and we’re going to do it.”

Opponents of the proposal said the cost is too high and the government is too incompetent to effectively handle the crisis.

“Government caused this crisis,” Kersey said. “The government made it too expensive to build.”

Kersey, Cate and Sherman contended that raising the cost of living for their constituents was fundamentally unfair.

“We have low-income housing and we have luxury housing,” Sherman said. “And nothing in-between. We should be incentivizing developers. We have the solution, it’s so easy to do.”

In last year’s homeless point-in-time count, San Diego identified 5,082 people as homeless, including 572 chronically homeless. Of those, more than half were unsheltered, a significantly higher proportion than the national average of 24.6%, according to the National Alliance to End Homelessness. Of those numbers, 13% are veterans, 2% are families and 11% are youths.

Kathleen Ferrier, policy director for Council District 3, said San Diego “lags behind our peer cities” in providing affordable housing.

The 2018 Housing Inventory Annual Report found San Diego had 0.38 housing units per person, compared to Denver and Seattle, which came in at 0.45 and 0.48 units per person, respectively.

Stephen Russell, executive director of the San Diego Housing Federation, said the city needs the bond measure to address the humanitarian crisis, but also because it was losing money by simply not acting. He said the $900 million in municipal bonds would be paid with property tax revenue and a significant portion could be matched with state funds — a fact which has not escaped other California cities.

“San Francisco and Los Angeles are literally eating our lunch,” he said before imploring the council to vote to pass the resolution. “Give citizens of San Diego a chance. … We need solutions to respond to the scale of the problem.”

Councilwoman Vivian Moreno said passing a bond with local funding would be the first step in securing state funding and housing credits, and without the bond, San Diego is at a significant disadvantage compared to other large Californian cities.

Russell and Ferrier showed initial polling numbers indicating 71% of likely voters would support the ballot measure. The same poll showed that 83% of respondents considered homelessness to be a top issue in their community.

Jim Vargas, president/CEO of Father Joe’s Villages, praised the council for advancing the issue.

“The lack of affordable housing is the largest crisis facing our city and is a key barrier to ending homelessness,” Vargas said.

When Shelters Are Full, Can Cities Herd Homeless People Into Jails?

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to take on a case about how the city of Boise, Idaho, treats its homeless citizens, leaving in place a ruling that says it’s unconstitutional to punish people for sleeping outdoors if the city lacks alternatives.

The justices turned away Martin v. Boise, a case where a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled that Boise’s practice of citing homeless people for camping outdoors violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments since these people did not have alternative shelter options.

This doesn’t mean that people can just choose to sleep on sidewalks and in parks if they want to, but rather that a city cannot punish homeless people for camping in public space if the city has not provided enough shelter for them. It’s a ruling about shelters and housing, not an acknowledgment of some sort of right to live on public land.

The city of Boise has since changed its ordinances to state that they won’t be enforced against homeless people when shelters are full. But the Supreme Court’s refusal to take the case leaves big cities with large homeless populations along the West Coast (where the Ninth Circuit rules) with a clear message that they can’t use the law to try to run their homeless population out of town—the only way out is to build.

That’s a problem in places like Los Angeles and San Francisco, where overly meddlesome regulations and demands from the state and the cities make it very, very hard (if not impossible) for private developers to build any housing at all, let alone affordable housing for the poor. Expensive labor requirements drive up costs, and unions threaten environmental lawsuits against developers who don’t contract with them. There’s also the issue of homeowners who will lobby their local council members and city planners to block new housing or businesses (or turn to California’s overly broad environmental law to sue them, if lobbying fails).

It’s particularly telling that the Los Angeles Times describes this outcome as a “setback” for city officials in Los Angeles and elsewhere for getting rid of homeless encampments. Even though the city has committed more than $1 billion to build housing for its massive homeless population, resistance from within neighborhoods themselves have made it nearly impossible, and even where it is possible, regulatory and bureaucratic hurdles have made it absurdly expensive, approaching $700,000 a unit. …

Click here to read the full article from Reason.com

Canfield: Glossary: The Green Regime’s Eco-Speak.

Real words no longer have the meanings we have been taught in school or are listed in a dictionary.  The “woke” crowd have changed the meaning of words, to make the words less threatening.  Or then making new definitions for the words—so that educated people do not know what is really being said.  For instance:

“Biodiversity. Biodiversity Excludes Humans. Biodiversity seeks a large, unchanging, and static number of biological species except for one species, human beings. Biodiversity seeks to minimize human presence, habitat, mobility, health and existence. Advocates of biodiversity ban killing mosquitoes, expand species populations, limit family sizes, and control human populations–abortion, infanticide, gendercide.

Manmade biodiversity, horticulture, animal breeding, hybrid plants, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), e.g. productive agriculture feeding billions of human beings, is bad.”

You read that right—the killing of mosquito’s is bad based on biodiversity—but killing babies is OK.  Bet you never knew Democrats are protective of mosquito s and hateful toward babies.

Glossary: The Green Regime’s Eco-Speak.

By Dr. Roger B. Canfield, 12/17.19 

excerpt from Death by Ecology; Killing California, America Next  (https://www.amazon.com/author/rogercanfield 

)

The Green Regime has its own language, a politically correct distortion of language and reality to fit its ideological war on western civilization and capitalism. It is a language of ignorance and deceit, just like Orwellian Doublespeak and Newspeak. In Doublespeak, language is deliberately euphemistic, ambiguous, or obscure. Newspeak is doublespeak carrying political propaganda. In Orwell’s 1984, the Ministry of Truth promoted lies. Orwell’s ruling one party state declared War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength. Dissenting ideas were thought crimes.

Similarly, the language of the Green Regime strays far from logic, facts and reality. Ordinary words take on new meanings. Criticisms of the ideology rise to the level of thought crimes, religious heresy, disaster denials, or even hate speech (Environmental justice).

Below an alphabetical sample of eco-speak.

***

Access. Freedom is Mobility Denied.Access to high-density, high-rise (Soviet style) housing and public transit is virtuous. Actual access to cars, parking, single-family homes, commuting and designated “public” areas is prohibited, restricted or limited. Environmentally correct access abhors excessive mobility, freedom, and automobiles. Promoters of “access” routinely deny humans access to the safe spaces and habitat of other species in public forests, parks, monuments, wildernesses and scenic areas.

Big. Big is Evil. In environmental usage Big is a euphemism for evil as in Big Business, particularly Big Oil, Big Chemical, Big Pharma, Big Pesticide, Big Lumber, Big Diaper, Big Beverage, etc. Big is synonymous with corporate, capitalist, e.g. corporate agriculture. Big is the code name for the most evil thing, capitalism.  

Biodiversity. Biodiversity Excludes Humans. Biodiversity seeks a large, unchanging, and static number of biological species except for one species, human beings. Biodiversity seeks to minimize human presence, habitat, mobility, health and existence. Advocates of biodiversity ban killing mosquitoes, expand species populations, limit family sizes, and control human populations–abortion, infanticide, gendercide.

Manmade biodiversity, horticulture, animal breeding, hybrid plants, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), e.g. productive agriculture feeding billions of human beings, is bad.   

Capitalism. Freedom is Slavery. Capitalism is a stale and stagnant thing poisoning air, water, land and species for profit at the expense of the common good. Key elements of capitalism, individual freedom, private property and profits ought to be limited, confiscated, fined and taxed. 

Eco-speak turns upside down the wisdom of Frederick Douglass, to whom individual freedom was the answer to the real stagnant thing, slavery.  

CARB. All There is to Fear is Air Itself. California Air Resources Board is an Air Force, militantly exercising extreme prejudice against industrialization, manufacturing, irrigation, and small business. Carbon, methane, ozone, and just plain dust make virtually all air dirty and subject to CARB regulation.

Air is no longer free. It must be paid for in taxes, fees, property and regulations. 

CED. Tyranny is Democracy. Campaign for Economic Democracy is socialism by another name advanced by reducing capitalist plunder on the planet. Eco-tyranny will replace capitalist imperialism.

Clean. Green is Clean. Clean is no detectable level of any suspect mineral, chemical or substance in parts per trillion. Clean is cleaner than nature’s own river or spring water. Sewage water is cleaner than municipal drinking water. Summarily convicting corporations for poisoning clean air and clean water generates fear, hysteria and a straight path to political power of the accuser.

Climate. Weather is Bad. Manmade climate change causes undesirable dynamic changes in temperature, sunshine, wind, precipitation. See also the old school term extreme weather

Conservation. Less is More.Scarcity is Good. In California, conservation turned abundance resources into scarcity by prohibiting, reducing or rationing water, timber, minerals, e.g.  California’s 55 gallon a day ration of residential water use. Growing food wastes water. Conservation justifies stopping the building of roads, bridges, dams aqueducts, and suburban housing.

Diversion. Diversion is Theft. Diversion is the illegitimate excess human use of water that might otherwise rightfully passing through the gills of fish or the intestines of other wildlife. Humans divert water from suckerfish, salmon and Delta smelt.

It is considered an outrage that in some years, 90 percent of the Tuolumne River is diverted [to San Francisco], leaving only 10 percent for salmon and the Bay-Delta.

Equity. Some Are More Equal Than Others. Equity is dividing water equally, half to 40 million human beings, half to a few protected fish species. Trillions of gallons of “scarce” precious water equivalent to billions of dollars, are flushed past human uses to save handfuls of Delta Smelt. It would be far cheaper to construct fish hatcheries for all DNA varieties of salmon and smelt.

ESA. TheEndangered Species Act(s) of California and the USA are absolutist laws demanding the preservation of hundreds of species and their habitat from humans accused (with scant science) of threatening or endangering them. Environmental researchers typically down play the impacts of such forces of nature as weather and predators upon species and their habitats.  By law, the economic impact of the ESA upon human well-being or property rights may not be used in species preservation decisions.   

Facilitator. Censored Speech is Free Speech. A facilitator is a well-paid manipulator of stakeholder discussions toward a preconceived consensus.

Gas Tax. Grand Theft Auto. A highway user fee collected from those promised to benefit from spending the collected revenue on roads and bridges. Yet over some decades, California, has spent 80% of gas taxes, tolls, sales taxes on gasoline on “public” transit, bike paths, pedestrian crossings, curb cuts all benefiting very few at the expense of the many.  

Green House Gases (GHG). Deadly Vapors.Gases allegedly destroy the ozone layer subjecting human beings to sunburns or skin cancer (over a lifetime). The State of California has “determined” the guilty “greenhouse gases” are Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous oxide (N2O), Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

Regulators have left no suspects, from manufacturers to farmers, bakers, and hair salons, free from conviction by accusation. 

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Food is Unsafe. Man’s domestication of wheat, corn. rice, potatoes, fruits, vegetables and cattle, has modified them genetically. The war on GMOs is actually a war on Big Food and Big Chemical. To sow discord, the Russians have widely disseminated anti-GMO propaganda in the USA.

Green. Red is Green. Humpty Dumpty said, “When I use a word ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” What’s now called green was once openly authoritarian socialist, communist party red, and Nazi red and black. The Old Left red remains under green camouflage.

Irrespective of facts, the green regime arbitrarily defines what is green and what is not. Hence, the low emissions of natural gas compared to coal or oil and the actual zero emissions of nuclear power and of hydroelectric power are arbitrarily rejected as green or clean by the Green Regime. Facts do not matter. 

Habitat. Private Property is Theft. Air, land and sea is set aside for species to insure their protection from human beings. Designated species, given habitat, receive it from human housing, farming, lumbering, mining, and recreation. Habitat for humanity is condemned and limited

Housing. Do Not build It and They Will Go Away. Human housing is an unfortunate human desecration of soil, land and wildlife habitat. Suburban housing also violates the most enlightened aesthetic and enlightened sensibilities– e.g. ticky-tacky suburban housing tracts. Further, no growth, low growth and slow growth, and restrictive zoning have spectacularly succeeded in reducing housing supplies, making housing unaffordable for most Californians and stimulated mass evacuations.

Management. The Memo is Everything. The administration of processes and people contemplating problems, solutions and alternatives, but doing little about them, e.g. flood management displaces the actual building of flood control projects. No dams, levees, weirs, or flood plains, protecting human life and property, are built. Ideally, human habitat is prohibited or people are relocated from low ground where water flows. Human civilization has long been located close to water on flat ground and swamps were drained and filled in accommodate human habitation.

Forest management does little to manage the forest except to lecture and blame others for how little is done. 

Mitigation. Theft is Justice.Those presumed guilty of damaging theenvironment are required to mitigation, make amends, for their alleged violations of the environment. Mitigation is usually takes the form of taking cash or property in the form of extortions of high fines, fees and taxes and the taking of private property often without due process or compensation. 

Natural. Nature Good, Chemicals Bad. Environmentalists have a static, fixed view of nature whether it climate, species, foods and human bodies. Human modifications of climate, species and foods are dangerous.

“Natural” foods are free of chemicals and processing. Yet natural foods are not nutritionally different from other foods. Of course, all food preparation is some form of processing—washing, slicing, dicing, spicing, culturing, fermenting, cooking etc. Because foods are mostly safe and nutritious, the Food and Drug Administration sees no need for health standards for foods with tiny traces of chemicals.

Organic. Safe Food is Chemical Free. All things, animal, vegetable and mineral are chemical. There is no such thing as inorganic food. Lifeless dirt in inedible. All food is organic. Food designated organic is largely a consumer fraud detrimental not only to one’s pocketbook, but also to the health and nutrition of people terrified of safe food. Heavy regulations born, like Rosemary’s Baby, out of the anti-pesticide hysteria campaigns insured fresh fruits and vegetables became too expensive for poor people to buy.

Planning. The Plan is Final. Environmental planning is typicallyconsumed inthe writing of massive environmental reports, process memos, and the building of bureaucracies to achieve some ideal of things seldom possible or lethargically done, e.g. super fund cleanups, supposedly presenting great dangers to human health, take decades to cleanup, but provided long careers for a few bureaucrats.   

Progress. Progress is Moving Backwards.Progress demands halting industrialization, manufacturing, mining and farming and limiting growth, automobiles, suburban housing, water, and electricity. Going nowhere really slow is progress, a bullet train from Bakersfield to Merced.

Public Transportation. Neither Public Nor Transit. The public writ large avoids it and it transports close to no one.   

“Pure Water.” The Pure Water program recycles toilet water, both to replace water from Carmel River to save species and as an alternative to desalination polluting the salty Pacific Ocean. 

School Bond. Grand Theft Schooling. Money, collected and promised to build or repair student classrooms for schools with declining enrollments, is used instead to pay and office bureaucrats and to fund bankrupted teacher retirement systems. California has the best-paid teachers and administrators and the worst schools dedicated to environmental and progressive indoctrination.

Science. Science is Religious Orthodoxy. Science is whatever research governments, NGOs and foundations decide to fund. The 99% science occurs where the money goes. The Green regime deems, declares, denier and capitalist scientific research is just heresy. 

Smart. Stupid is Smart. Smart on crime means releasing all criminals or redefining down, decriminalizing, murder, rape, assaults and theft. Similarly, smart environmentalism opposes housing, the automobile, dams, aqueducts, roads, bridges. The smart environmentalist deplores all the advances of human civilization from agriculture to logging, trade, money, mining, industrialization and manufacturing.

Stakeholder. Crony Consensus. A stakeholder is a person or an organization selectively invited to participate in amicable rule making and in administrative law decisions. Those who might object, ordinary citizens or their elected representatives, are not informed of or not invited to help decide. Tight agendas and long meetings discourage and exhaust those who show up uninvited.

Sustainable. Sustainable is the Unattainable. To sustain a thing is to keep it static, the same. Neither Nature nor economics follow the doctrine of sustainability. Environmentalists dismiss dynamic natural forces such as the sun, earthquakes, and floods.  The dynamics of economic growth and technological innovations are often condemned.

The purest environmentalism is a utopian end state of no species extinctions and the absence of bad weather. The sustainability of species does not include the well-being of human species. The human species is only tolerated living and working at subsistence levels as low- income baristas, maids, chauffeurs, cooks. Such creatures are privileged to serve a leisure class usually given access to nature off limits to most others.

Sustainability was originally a compromise concept allowing “good development” of third world countries, while the rest of the world wound down growth, industrialization, and population.   

Takings. We Shall Steal is the first environmental commandment:. Environmentalists are very concerned with the taking of the lives and habitats of protected species. Such takings of species are ruthlessly prosecuted through the taking of private property with minimal due process under the 14th Amendment and without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Radical losses of the value of private property are routine.

Transportation. Going Nowhere Slow with High Costs and Low Benefits. “Public” transit is moving proportionately small numbers of persons short distances by all manner of trains, buses and bicycles, but not automobiles.

The best transportation for the environment is the most primitive for humans–hiking, biking, walking, and busing. California Republican leader Ross Johnson once said he was willing to spend billions on roads and bridges, but not a nickel on “transportation.”

The principal exception is billions spent on a bullet train, if ever built, going very, very fast from nowhere to nowhere, Bakersfield to Modesto.

Visionary. Fantasies are Visionary. The description the California Coastal Commission gave to San Diego’s no parking plan was “visionary,” a delusional fantasy. San Diego is over budgets for bikeways.

Vehicles Miles Traveled. VTM. Have Car Cannot Travel. The ideal is zero vehicle miles traveled. Dense housing, public transit, bike paths and pedestrian walkways replace car miles traveled.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Evil Vapors Are Everywhere, particularly in gas stations, body shops, hair salons and bakeries. VOCsare gases, smells, scents, often formaldehyde, emitted in paints, resins and coatings. Exposure is irritating to the senses and ought to be avoided.

Yet enviros have stimulated medieval fears of unseen things, vapors, as imaginary causes of multiple diseases usually by mere statistical association and over hum,an lifetimes during which other things can happen including nothing at all. 

Water Bond. Grand Theft Water. A promise to build new water storage, with only 12% of bond funds borrowed actually used to store water during wet years and to move water from the wet north to the dry south of California.   

Weather. Old school term used to describe changes in temperature, precipitation, wind speeds etc replaced by “climate” usually modified by cooling, warming or changing. Overlooking sun spot cycles, magnetic fields, volcanos, earthquakes and ocean currents, climate alarmists explain naturally occurring extremes in weather as entirely the result of manmade changes in climate.

Zero Emission Vehicles. ZEV. The Future of Mobility is Immobility. Many are led to believe electric cars are run by “clean” electricity produced by the sun and wind. In fact, electricity generated from natural gas, coal, oil, nuclear and hydroelectric power plants charge most car batteries. Generating electricity from burning fuels produces emissions. There is no such thing as a “zero” emission vehicle, until ancient sailing skills are returned.

37th Senate District Democrat Flip Target—Sen. John Moorlach

Not doing a voter registration drive since March, 2013 is having its effect on the Republican Party and its candidates.  It can be starkly seen in the Orange County 37th District.  In just three years, the District gained 1% Democrats and lost 4% Republican.  What could it have been if the GOP had been diligently working in that time?  Why 2020 is possibly the last time the GOP is relevant in California?  The conscious decision NOT to register voters.

Scott Lay, in the NOONER

October 24, 2016: 30.95% Democratic, 39.42% Republican, 25.12% no party preference

October 1, 2019: 31.96% Democratic, 35.27% Republican, and 27.87% no party preference.”

While this article is about one district, last week I noted the same problem in several congressional, state senate and assembly districts due to the lack of voter registration.  We are paying the price of bad policy—and continue to do so, since we still are not doing a serious voter registration drive led by the CRP.

“BATTLE STATION” IN THE OC: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee yesterday opened a “battle station” in Irvine, reports Brooke Skaggs in the OC Register. While the DCCC is working to defend the four seats the party flipped in 2018, the additional organizing likely will be a boost to the party’s efforts to flip Senate District 37, where John M.W. Moorlach will be seeking re-election.

Registration in the district has shifted significantly since 2016.

  • October 24, 2016: 30.95% Democratic, 39.42% Republican, 25.12% no party preference
  • October 1, 2019: 31.96% Democratic, 35.27% Republican, and 27.87% no party preference.

Democrats challenging Moorlach are Costa Mesa mayor Katrina Foley and UC Irvine law professor Dave Min. Min placed in third in 2018 for CA45.

Gavin Newsom won in the district 50.2-49.8% and Katie Porter (D) defeated Mimi Walters in the largely overlapping CA45 by a 52.1-47.9% vote. SD37 has the beach cities in it, which also now have a Democrat in Congress and the State Assembly with Harley Rouda and Cottie Petrie-Norris, respectively.

Katie Hill nude photo with staffer ignored by Los Angeles Times; more media hypocrisy

It took USA Today, the Fort Worth Star and the Washington Post less than 48 hours to report on the nude selfies of Texas Republican Congressman Joe Barton that had been circulating on the internet the week before Thanksgiving in 2017. Yet after close to a week, no local or national main stream media, including the Los Angeles Times, have yet reported on the troubling revelation, first published in Red State at www.redstate.com, that Freshman Democratic Congresswoman Katie Hill was in a three way sexual relationship with her husband and a 22 year old staffer, and that she obviously had inappropriately used campaign and taxpayers funds to keep her, and even another staffer claimed in the sexual allegations, employed. With photos and text messages to prove it all.

At least one of the photos of Hill has now long been released by Red State showing a nude Katie Hill grooming the hair of the young staff member.

The hypocrisy of the media is well reflected in the double standard afforded Hill in this case that was not also offered to former Congressman Barton. The media has been essentially silent about Hill’s obvious transgression against her public trust. But Barton was literally hounded by the press regarding details of a messy divorce and a separate sexual relationship that gave rise to his poor judgment in taking offensive selfies. The media had no problem in very quickly assisting in broad public dissemination of prurient matter when it sullied a Republican. Barton quickly announced his retirement from Congress at the end of his term in the face of the media storm.

Yet Democrat Katie Hill, a NeverTrumper, is being given a huge pass by a media apparently intent on applying a different, laxer standard of accountability to her. Even Twitter is in on the hypocrisy, by placing a censor monitor on news articles that allow click thru to even retouched (for decency) photos of Hill stroking her young staff member’s hair in the nude.

Hill must be held to account, but apparently the Los Angeles Times isn’t at all interested.

Kamala Harris Caught LYING—AGAIN—Media Mostly Quiet

The media jumps on every word said by President Trump, and declares it a lie.  Yet the Fake News media has been silent about the lies told by Kamala Harris.  The media hates that Trump has had “charges” made against him in re” women.  Yet Harris is PROUD that she was a mistress to a married man, to promote her political career—Willie Brown.  Here is another lie—besides her lie that she was bussed for “integration purposes” in BERKELEY In the 1970’s.

“Several immigration experts said these memos show Harris resisted the Obama-era policy, at least to some degree. But, they said, that resistance did not take place early on.

“The bulletin on detainers was meaningful,” UC Davis Law School Dean Kevin R. Johnson said in an email. “It allowed local law enforcement agencies” discretion “to not detain low level offenders.” 

“Attorney General Harris was not as aggressive in opposing President Obama’s immigration policies as Attorney General Xavier Becerra has opposed President Trump’s,” Johnson added. “She could be criticized for that but she was a Democrat wanting to work with a Democratic administration.  It is clear that Senator Harris now is quite willing to criticize the immigration enforcement policies of this Republican administration.”

Harris embellishes the truth and the Fake News is silent.  Anything Trump said is claimed to be embellished talk.  If it weren’t for double standards the media would have no standards.

Half-True

FACT CHECK: Did Kamala Harris really disagree with Obama’s deportation policy?


Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., listens to questions in the spin room after the Democratic primary debate hosted by NBC News at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Art, Thursday, June 27, 2019, in Miami. (AP Photo)

California Sen. Kamala Harris claimed yesterday that during her time as the state’s attorney general, she “disagreed” with President Obama’s use of the Secure Communities program that partnered local and federal authorities to deport people who were in the country illegally. 

Harris was elected California attorney general in 2010 and re-elected in 2014.

She made the claim about disagreeing with Obama during her breakout performance at the Democratic presidential debate in Miami, along with other impassioned assertions on civil rights and the economy that we fact-checked here

Harris was responding to a moderator’s question of whether a person living in the United States, “without documents, and that is his only offense, should that person be deported?”

“I will say — no, absolutely not, they should not be deported. And I actually —  this was one of the very few issues with which I disagreed with the administration, with whom I always had a great relationship and a great deal of respect.

“But on the secure communities issue, I was attorney general of California. I led the second-largest Department of Justice in the United States, second only to the United States Department of Justice, in a state of 40 million people.

“I disagreed with my president, because the policy was to allow deportation of people who by ICE’s own definition were non-criminals. So as attorney general, and the chief law officer of the state of California, I issued a directive to the sheriffs of my state that they did not have to comply with detainers, and instead should make decisions based on the best interests of public safety of their community.”

President Obama halted Secure Communities in 2014 following opposition from states and cities who said it eroded trust between local police and undocumented communities. President Trump restarted it shortly after taking office in 2017. 

Given the controversial history of the Obama-era policy, we wanted to know: Did Harris really disagree with it? And, if so, how much? And what did she do about it? 

We set out on a fact check. 

Our research

There’s some evidence Harris disagreed with Secure Communities. In 2014, then-AG Harris advised local police and sheriff’s departments, in the form of a bulletin, that they did not have to comply with ICE detainer requests. 

“Federal immigration detainers are voluntary and this bulletin supports the TRUST Act and law enforcement leaders’ discretion to utilize resources in a manner that best serves their communities,” Harris said in a news release that announced the bulletin. 

Former Gov. Jerry Brown signed The Trust Act  in 2013. It limited local police and sheriff’s cooperation with federal immigration agents, and was a precursor of the state’s sanctuary law, SB 54, signed by Brown in 2017, which further limited that cooperation. 

Harris’ news release said that two years earlier, in 2012, she issued another “information bulletin” to law enforcement agencies clarifying that federal immigration detainers “are not mandatory, but are merely requests enforceable at the discretion of the state and local agency.” 

Several immigration experts said these memos show Harris resisted the Obama-era policy, at least to some degree. But, they said, that resistance did not take place early on.

“The bulletin on detainers was meaningful,” UC Davis Law School Dean Kevin R. Johnson said in an email. “It allowed local law enforcement agencies” discretion “to not detain low level offenders.” 

“Attorney General Harris was not as aggressive in opposing President Obama’s immigration policies as Attorney General Xavier Becerra has opposed President Trump’s,” Johnson added. “She could be criticized for that but she was a Democrat wanting to work with a Democratic administration.  It is clear that Senator Harris now is quite willing to criticize the immigration enforcement policies of this Republican administration.”

Harris silent early on 

The Huffington Post published an in-depth report last week on Harris’ lack of action early in California’s debate over immigrant protections. 

It found Harris remained “largely silent,” from 2011 to 2013 as activists and lawmakers worked to pass the Trust Act, a landmark statewide sanctuary law over the objections of then-Gov. Jerry Brown and the Obama administration. 

“The Trust Act was a new way to limit ICE at the state level,” Angela Chan, policy director for Asian Americans Advancing Justice, told the HuffingtonPost. “We were at the forefront. She didn’t get why it was important to support it at the time. … She only signaled support when it was safe to do so.” 

Sameer Ashar, a UCLA law professor and former co-director of the UC Irvine Immigrant Rights Clinic, told us the record is mixed on Harris’ position. 

“My general sense is there was a lot of grassroots movement pressure on elected officials in California to direct local law enforcement not to cooperate with the federal government on immigration enforcement,” Ashar said. “And she responded to that pressure. She took some positive steps, but it was under great pressure.” 

He added: “She never led in California on the fight at the time. If anything, she led from behind … She has evolved over time.” 

Harris’ campaign cited a 2009 Los Angeles Times article that paraphrased then-San Francisco District Attorney Harris as saying, “It is not the duty of local law enforcement, she said, to enforce federal immigration laws.” 

The campaign also cited a 2011 San Francisco Chronicle report. It quoted then-AG Harris’ spokeswoman saying her office “was broadly examining the issue of Secure Communities and taking a serious look at the program.” 

By late 2012, Harris was more vocal in her opposition, describing the program in news articles as “flawed,” and “has not held up to what it aspired to be,” as her campaign pointed out.

Our ruling

Kamala Harris claimed she “disagreed” with the Obama administration on a deportation program where local police and sheriffs partnered with federal immigration agents to remove people who were in the country illegally.  

As attorney general in 2012 and again in 2014, Harris issued bulletins telling local law enforcement they did not have to comply with the program’s federal immigration detainer requests. She was also quoted in news articles in late 2012 strongly opposing the program.

But immigration experts say Harris was largely absent in California’s early efforts to pass laws limiting local cooperation with federal agents. She resisted the program, they said, only after pressure built to pass those state laws and then “led from behind,” as one expert described it. 

Harris’ statement about disagreeing is partially accurate, but it leaves out some key history and takes things out of context.

We rate Harris’ claim Half True.


HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.