Feeding the Homeless Should Not Be a Crime

A North Carolina city council member wants to make feeding homeless people a misdemeanor.


A Charlotte, North Carolina, city council member's outrageous suggestion last week that people who share food with the homeless should face criminal charges has touched a nerve in the community.

"People [are] still bringing food and money and resources directly to the folks that are out there right now," said Charlotte City Council Member Tariq Bokhari, in remarks reported by local station WBVT. "They're only making themselves feel good, they're hurting the ultimate folks, perhaps we explore making that a misdemeanor."

Bokhari says he wants residents instead to donate to charities that provide services, rather than directly to homeless people. But some of the people who work with such charities appear dumbfounded.

"In what world when we as a society are at a place where we would criminalize the act of humanity, care, and consideration and compassion for others in any way, shape, or form—there's a huge problem," responded Kenya Joseph, of the nonprofit Hearts for the Invisible Charlotte Coalition.

"You shouldn't feel like 'I'm going to go to jail because I helped someone,' because you never know if they truly are on their last (dollar), if it's money needed to eat," Deborah Woolard, founder of Block Love Charlotte, told the Charlotte Observer, one of several who spoke out against Bokhari's proposal.

With good reason. Bokhari's cruel and oppressive suggestion would turn heroes such as ZaNia Stinson, a formerly homeless Charlotte teen who shares food with people in need in the city, into criminals.

But he's hardly the only person who wants to arrest good Samaritans. In fact, Bokhari's remarks came just days after a federal court in Orange County, California, ruled against an elderly man who was handcuffed, injured, and arrested while sharing food with the homeless at a state park.

In August 2018, police handcuffed Don Lemly, age 72, at Doheny State Beach as he tried to share food with homeless people gathered there. According to Lemly and his wife, the arrest involved excessive force. They allege park ranger Nicholas Milward "knocked a soda away from Don Lemly that he told jurors he feared could be used as a weapon, grabbed him and walked him over to a curb, cursed at him to sit down, handcuffed him and cited him for failing to comply with a police officer's orders." When Lemly cited an earlier ACLU settlement that protects the rights of people like him to share food with the homeless, Milward allegedly called the ACLU "a freaking joke."

Lemly isn't laughing.

"We believe that people, no matter what their circumstances, deserve to have decent food," Lemly, who volunteers with an interfaith coalition, told jurors. "If people who are in comfortable circumstances like I am don't stand up for what's right and call out somebody who's a bully in law enforcement, then our society is in big trouble."

Crackdowns on sharing food with the homeless and less fortunate, while odious, are nothing new. In my 2016 book, Biting the Hands that Feed Us: How Fewer, Smarter Law Would Make Our Food System More Sustainable, I detail how many major American cities, including 

Las Vegas, Orlando, Dallas, Houston, New York, Philadelphia, Birmingham, and San Antonio have banned people from sharing food with the homeless and less fortunate. Though public backlash and lawsuits have helped push back against some bans, this month's events in Charlotte and Orange County show the need for continued vigilance and concerted efforts to eliminate such laws.

And, at a time when most Americans recognize the need for sweeping criminal justice reforms, the examples provided by Bokhari's remarks and Lemly's arrest also drive home another important point: because law enforcement necessarily involves employing the power of the state to arrest people—often, as in the case of Lemly's arrest, through the use of physical force and violence—we shouldn't adopt any law that isn't worth using violence to enforce. 

Rampant overcriminalization is why Yale Law School Prof. Stephen L. Carter, for one, cautions his students against "invoking the power of law except in a cause for which they are willing to kill." That's just one of many reasons criminalizing the sharing of food with the homeless and less fortunate is abominable. Instead of endangering and arresting good people who share food with the homeless and others in need, we should be celebrating their generosity.

NEXT: When Kidnappings Were All the Rage

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Only authorized Top Men are allowed to to anything.

    1. ITT, Jeff calls HIMSELF a collectivist.

      1. USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

  2. They allege park ranger Nicholas Milward “knocked a soda away from Don Lemly that he told jurors he feared could be used as a weapon, grabbed him and walked him over to a curb, cursed at him to sit down, handcuffed him and cited him for failing to comply with a police officer’s orders.”

    He’s lucky he didn’t get charged for multiple counts of assaulting the officer’s fist with his face, or worse.

    1. As a park ranger he should know that if you feed them they will just keep coming back and will never learn to care for themselves

      1. I can guess that park rules prohibit feeding wildlife, so it all makes sense.

      2. @Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland: I love your comparison between people and bears but people are expected, probably without justification, to be a bit more crafty than bears.
        As for taking care of themselves, I am having problem with a bunch of junkies, beggars and criminals who live in those tent towns for the homeless. The vast majority of those will never take care of themselves. They don’t want to. Bears, on the other hand, are doing just fine.

    2. You can assault people from a distance with carbonated beverages. Cop feared for his life.

      1. CO2 is a deadly pollutant.

        1. So is HO2.

          1. Well, when I was a kid, one of my neighbors told me that water hasn’t killed anyone unless he was drinking it or taking baths in it. Unfortunately, he died relatively young, from the liver cancer.

        2. Not really. Without CO2 plants wouldn’t be able to grow. Without CO2 we would all starve, vegans first. Plants are converting CO2 to sugars and oxygen, the stuff we need to breathe. So, I have a suggestion: eat the animals that eat plants and help save the planet. Have a burger!

  3. Share digested food with the homeless. They will probably turn it away and stop bothering you.

  4. If you start handing food out to homeless people in the same place at the same time on the same day every week, you will create a public nuisance–not that this was an issue here, but I’ve seen it happen elsewhere (Hello Santa Monica!).

    I understand the concern, especially if public defecation and petty crime become a problem right before the homeless are usually fed and always seems to go away on the days they’re not around. People should certainly be free to feed the homeless en masse on their own property.

    If you wanted to shut down a competitor’s restaurant, feeding the homeless every week at six o’clock on the sidewalk in front of the entrance to their property might be a great way to do it.

    1. Now there’s an idea! Set up feeding stations for the homeless inside a secure fence next to the city dump, and lock them in for their own safety!

      1. And that’s exactly what I said.

        You’re an idiot.

        1. You’re an idiot if you think I was being serious.

          1. Lol. You always run to this when your bullshit is called out.

      2. The locked in area is for folks that conduct freelance homeless feeding.

        1. That’s funny!

      3. You seem to really care. When was the last time you did some charity work and fed the homeless?

        1. When the government picked his pocket.

          1. Thats not charity as it was not voluntary. I ask him because he seems to have attributed maliciousness to a post merely about human behaviors.

        2. The inability to consider other people’s points of view or the possibility that their concerns may be legitimate is probably fundamental to being progressive. That may ultimately be why (subconsciously or otherwise) they seek to dehumanize the people they oppose.

          Donald Trump has no upsides–so the people who support him are lunatics.

          Defunding the police has no downsides–so the people who oppose it are racists.

          The Green New Deal is a good thing–in every way–so the people who oppose it are stupid and anti-science.

          Feeding the homeless on public property can’t have any downsides–and the people who see some want to lock them up in the city dump.

          “Splitting (also called black-and-white thinking or all-or-nothing thinking) is the failure in a person’s thinking to bring together the dichotomy of both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole. It is a common defense mechanism.[1] The individual tends to think in extremes (i.e., an individual’s actions and motivations are all good or all bad with no middle ground).”


          FWIW, there may be upsides to not being able to see the downsides of the policies you favor (or not being able to see the upsides of the policies you oppose), but at the moment, I can’t think of any.

          1. I agree. I’ve talked to plenty of homeless people after reading a book of stories of the homeless in my 20s. I do so out of curiosity abd usually give them money for their time. I’ve also talked to business owners such as gas station owners so get their side of external costs to them. I’ve seen soccer leagues in town have to get security to keep homeless off of fields the leagues have paid the government for use.

            It is very simple to stop thinking of issues beyond facial discussions. It is one of the reasons I laugh at idealists. They usually have not gone deep in thinking about complex observations at all. It is why I understand there will always be some form of government at least at some level. It has to be limited, but exist.

          2. “The inability to consider other people’s points of view or the possibility that their concerns may be legitimate…”

            You may want to do some self examination in regards to whether you practice what your preach.

            1. Lol. Looks like he nailed you on the head.

            2. Are you illiterate?

              1. She’s a squawking bird named Dee.

                1. Caw! Caw!


            3. You may want to do some self examination in regards to your rank hypocrisy in accusing Ken of engaging in your modus operandi.

          3. The inability to consider other people’s points of view or the possibility that their concerns may be legitimate is probably fundamental to being progressive human.

            There, fixed it for ya Ken

            Why do you think progressives are the only intolerant ones?

            1. He has never said that.

              But yet again you run to the defense of any negative portrayal of a Democrat or progressive while saying you aren’t one.

              And white Mike joins in at the same time. Odd.

            2. But the inability not to give in to empathy and compulsive compassion is fundamental to bleeding hearts, who mostly line up on the left.

              1. Compassion and empathy are now “left-wing”?

                1. No, but being evil and retarded while saying it’s for the better is very progressive

                2. No, but the inability to consider the second order effects of them are.

                  1. Virtually every study done shows conservatives donate both more and time to charity than liberals.

                    Liberals want to shout loudly about charity but have others do the work.

                    1. Progs want to replace charities with government programs, which will give it a level of control over the recipients that charities never had.

                3. Compulsive compassion and empathy are current progressive fads, as well as a long term foundation valued by many on the left (see Haidt). And knee-jerk compassion can often lead to negative outcomes, even for the party the do-gooder wishes to help (see Bloom). And of course, a common epithet from progressives, against those they consider less compassionate.

                  So, yes.

                  1. Reactionary tribalism has rotted your brain.

            3. Nice projection Jeffy.

            4. You know what’s hilarious?

              Reason has at written at least a handful of articles in the past about studies that show that progressives have the hardest time considering other people’s point of view, progressives relying more on emotional iq than logic/reason, and sometimes being more empathetic than libertarians or conservatives.

              But you just can’t help yourself but to reflexively defend progressives.

          4. Yeah, sure. Because the people on the right here – particularly those that support Trump – are so tolerant of other opinions.

            I’m not even of the left. I detest the progressives. But it’s not worth speaking here because the attack dogs are always here. And most of them aren’t lefties.

            1. FWIW, the Trump supporters, here in threads, are fully aware that I fault Trump on his trade policy with China, for instance, and that I still support an open border treaty with Mexico. We argue about these issues in good faith, and although we don’t agree, they listen to what I have to say, and I listen to them. I’ve found Trump supporters to be generally more tolerant of opposing views than progressives. It seems to me that being intolerant of opposing views is actually inherent to being progressive. If there’s one thing bad about somebody, in the progressive mind, they need to be cancelled.

              1. I’ve found Trump supporters to be generally more tolerant of opposing views than progressives.

                Especially the ones who call for the mass murder of progressives!

                1. Dummy.

                2. chemjeff radical individualist
                  February.9.2021 at 8:56 am
                  Flag Comment Mute User
                  What is there to talk about?

                  From a libertarian perspective, Ashli Babbett was trespassing, and the officers were totally justified to shoot trespassers.

                3. The White Knight
                  January.6.2021 at 5:07 pm

                  It is now crystal clear Trump is monster. If you still support him, you are a bad person. There is no ambiguity, no wiggle room anymore.

                  1. Do I need to cite every single time Nardz and his buddies have demanded the mass murder of progressives? Do I need to cite every single time the right-wingers on this board have declared the only way to govern is to eschew compromise and “defeat the Left”? There are absolutely intolerant assholes on both sides and Ken claiming that Team Red is “more tolerant” is just revealing his intellectual blind spots and his biases in favor of Team Red. Look at you, lying and smearing me with your choice of handles. Totally tolerant and inclusive, right? GTFO.

                    1. “Do I need to cite every single time Nardz and his buddies have demanded the mass murder of progressives?”

                      How about one?

            2. Yeah the Trump supporters are always calling people cultists.

              1. And insurrectionist neanderthal conspiracy theorists.

            3. Is this about yesterday when you stood tied to a narrative easily refuted?

              1. Probably

          5. If you think I’m a progressive then you are functionally retarded.

            I know JesseAz is. But I thought you were more intelligent than that.

            1. Not the only one sweetie. Lol. You couldn’t even criticize biden the other day in a thread about his anti gun policy… you attacked the GOP instead.

    2. Right. But that’s at least as much a concern, probably more so, with the council member’s proffered solution of “charities that provide services”.

  5. Feeding the homeless: More like hanging a bird feeder in your yard to attract nuthatches or more like leaving your garbage can uncovered to attract bears?

    There are reasons you’re not supposed to feed wildlife – they become dependent on humans for food, they begin to see humans as a source of food rather than as a source of danger, they begin to congregate in areas where you don’t want them to congregate.

    So I can see where there might be arguments against feeding the homeless, you get more of what you subsidize. But guess who does the most subsidizing of the homeless? San Francisco didn’t become the shithole it is because random San Franciscans were buying a Big Mac for a panhandler, it’s because the government of San Francisco decided to buy the homeless $60,000 tents, allow them to shit in the streets, fund drug clinics for them, legalize urban camping, and a whole host of other “tolerance” measures. And why? Forget all the “compassion” bullshit, follow the money. I guaran-fucking-tee you the directors of these “helping the homeless” agencies are drawing $300,000 and $400,000 salaries, they’ve got every incentive to create more homeless people and no incentive whatsoever to solve the problem. And while San Francisco may be the epicenter of the problem, there are plenty of other cities following the same trajectory.

    1. Adam Smith wrote something about how there’s a proper role for government in sorting our rights out when they overlap and conflict with each other. AIR, his example was ash from your neighbor’s chimney landing on your newly laundered shirt. On the one hand, it was your neighbor’s ash that landed on your property. On the other hand, surely your neighbor has a right to burn things in his home to stay warm for the winter.

      We might apply that logic to someone playing music in his cond.
      Surely, his neighbors have a right to sleep in their condos, too. Do you have a right to feed the homeless? Of course you do! Do you have a right to bring in crowds of people to shit all over the place, steal everything that isn’t nailed down, and interfere with a girl’s softball tournament?

      Maybe not.

      Let’s say you want to open a bar that sells beer by the pitcher to people while they’re watching football, baseball, basketball, and hockey games. The plan is to get crowds of people to sit down and drink beer for three hours at a time. On the one hand, I’m sympathetic to the argument that the government shouldn’t force you to install restroom facilities so your customers aren’t going outside and pissing all over the place in front of your neighbors’ homes and businesses. One the other hand, if I’m on the jury, your neighbors might be in the right to sue you.

      1. Well reasoned, but let’s not stop before the logical conclusion, which is:

        The best way to reconcile these conflicting needs is to privatize the public places in which the homeless congregate.

        The result I would then expect is that the homeless would have to move to churches and similar places where they are welcomed and fed, while parks and streets would once again be usable by the normal population.

        1. Churches are still one of the biggest contributors of private charity. Hosting many shelters and kitchens.

        2. Well, the first thing Smith would tell us is that local mores and customs evolve to handle these things–much more effectively and with much less cost to society–than any government ever could.

          The reason most people in the condo don’t play their music so loud that their neighbors can’t sleep at night isn’t because it’s against the law. It’s because they don’t want to be an asshole and shit all over everybody.

          My guess is that the fight here isn’t really about the act of feeding the homeless at all. It’s about doing it somewhere that it wasn’t done before. The reason most titty bars, sex toy shops, and marijuana stores don’t locate their business between the local Mormon church and the Catholic girls school isn’t because they need zoning for a special use permit. It’s because the owners are too smart to needlessly create problems for themselves.

          My guess is that this feeding of the homeless is bringing homeless in where they weren’t before, and sometimes people do provocative things when they believe in a cause–just to be provocative. I once saw someone kneel during the national anthem at a football game for similar reasons. Finding a better place to do this is probably the ultimate solution. Arresting people for doing this probably doesn’t help anything.

          1. “The reason most titty bars, sex toy shops, and marijuana stores don’t locate their business between the local Mormon church and the Catholic girls school isn’t because they need zoning for a special use permit. It’s because the owners are too smart to needlessly create problems for themselves.”

            Well, and it’s a terrible business practice to locate where your customers aren’t.

      2. Do you have a right to bring in crowds of people to shit all over the place, steal everything that isn’t nailed down, and interfere with a girl’s softball tournament?

        Who is responsible for the crime? The people who commit the crime, or the people who feed them? This is absurd.

        Homeless people are not rats, bird, animals, ash from a chimney, or any other object or creature that lacks agency. They are people, and they are responsible for their own actions. If I feed a homeless person, and the homeless person then shits on the sidewalk, guess who’s responsible for the mess? The homeless guy.

        One the other hand, if I’m on the jury, your neighbors might be in the right to sue you.

        For what? Sue the bartender because the customers peed in the bushes? Who exactly did the peeing again? Who committed the aggression against the homeowner?

        This is basic libertarian stuff. If a NAP violation occurs, the person responsible is the person who actually committed the violation, not the person who fed him lunch.

        Your analysis only makes sense if you regard the homeless like a pest, vermin, some critter that lacks agency. Surely that is not what you are implying, is it Ken? Is it?

        And quelle surprise, here you are simping for Team Red again in contradiction to libertarian principles.

        1. Good ole fashioned sophistry and avoiding the arguments entirely. You amazingly are consistent.

          1. Because he doesn’t actually know much, and has to substitute an attempt at bombast for a coherent argument.

        2. Let’s feed them in front of your house.

        3. ^^Thinks Donald Trump is responsible for the Capitol Selfie Riot, where its shoot on sight

          1. Yep, Jeffy is consistently a hypocrite.

            1. When are you going to apologize for your lies?

              1. What is your address so we can feed the hobos on your sidewalk?

              2. Go fuck yourself Chemleft. You’re the biggest liar here, you fifty-centing piece of shit.

                1. Jeffy’s got me dead to rights. I called a state judge a federal judge. What impact did that have on my argument? I don’t know, and Jeffy can’t tell me. But it was very nefarious, somehow.

                  1. chemjeff has a weird definition of lying then. I guess that’s why he thinks that when he’s making shit up, he’s not actually “lying”.

                  2. Nope, that’s not it. You are even lying about what you lied about.

                    Lie #1:

                    You claimed that I claimed that “Detroit isn’t a corrupt city” when I made no such claim.

                    1. “That is one of the problem with these theories, corruption is assumed in the absence of direct physical evidence.”

                      Sophistry can’t save you Lying Jeffy.

                    2. The point of my argument, which evidently went over your head, is that it is invalid to use claims of generalized corruption to prove specific instances of a corrupt act. I’m not disputing a history of corruption within the city of Detroit (or in most major cities, for that matter). I’m disputing using the baloney handwaving argument that a general history of corruption is sufficient proof for any specific corrupt act. That is cynicism, not logic.

                    3. I already said sophistry can’t save you Lying Jeffy.

                    4. You must think it’s hilarious to lie and slander people around here and watch them get mad about it. Is that what makes you such a good troll?

                  3. Lie #2:


                    You claimed that I claimed that “it’s cool” for Hunter Biden to use racial epithets, when I claimed no such thing.

                    1. When you consistently defend and deflect, it indicates you’re cool with it.

                    2. Did I ever say “it’s cool” for Hunter Biden to use racial epithets? Yes or no?

                      The correct answer is “no”.

                      My objection in that discussion was about Republicans focusing on trivial shit, like whether Hunter Biden (what was he elected to, again?) was or was not using racial epithets, or ‘canceling’ Dr. Seuss, or transgender panic in the bathrooms, instead of anything of substance.

                      You know this, but you chose to lie.

                    3. “My objection in that discussion was about Republicans focusing on trivial shit”

                      So they should just be cool with it.

                    4. It’s not “cool”, and it’s also not important in the big picture.
                      See the difference?

                    5. So now that you understand the difference, are you going to apologize for abjectly lying about what I said?

                  4. By the way, you habitually call me a liar yet you never seem to present any evidence for your claims of me supposedly lying. Do you have specific evidence? Or is this yet another lie of yours?

                    1. Don’t need to. Everyone sees it daily.

                    2. So cite an example.

                    3. Youre entire defense of CRT has been exposed multiple times as a lie fucktard.

      3. A few years ago I saw a hilarious YouTube recreating probably von der Ahe’s combining beer sales with baseball. Recently arrived in this country, he visited a bar that was noticeably empty, and was told by the bartender that the customers would be back after the baseball game, because they didn’t allow drinking there. The newcomer, knowing nothing about baseball, is then dreamy-eyed, thinking about the profits to be had if someone had a baseball club that not only allowed, but provided for, booze.

    2. I was thinking more of rats than bears (and undoubtedly someone will come along to yell at me for equating the homeless with rodents) but I’m pretty sure that a person would face at least a misdemeanor for creating an environment which attracted rats and mice. Sure, it seems like the height of cruelty to forbid feeding homeless people. But there are externalities to the behavior to consider, as others have ably pointed out.

      1. But there are externalities to the behavior to consider, as others have ably pointed out.

        Only if you consider homeless people to have no agency, like rats or bears.

        1. Does the person giving out food on a weekly agency have agency? Especially knowing it will cause congregation of people?

        2. By the way, didnt you accuse trump of incitement? Lol.

          1. Come on, only certain types of people have agency, and only when convenient for Jeff.

          2. He would’ve be being a hypocrite AGAIN?!

        3. And here’s the person yelling about equating the homeless with rats, right on schedule. Well, that was predictable.

          1. You are the one calling them pests.

            1. It’s called an analogy, you mendacious fucksmear. I was not calling the homeless people pests. I was saying that doing something that causes an attraction which has externalities is something where the externalities should be considered. I used the attraction of rats and mice as a demonstration of the concept.

              1. Besides being dishonest, Jeffy’s also kinda dumb.

                1. Chemjeff is so habitually fucking dishonest he’ll take stances he knows are idiotic, solely out of an aversion to the truth.

                  1. Or he’s just reflexively against anything anybody he perceives as being slightly conservative says.

              2. I was not calling the homeless people pests.

                Oh yes you were.

                I’m pretty sure that a person would face at least a misdemeanor for creating an environment which attracted rats and mice.

                You used an analogy which compared people to animals and removed their agency. It is an offensive analogy that dehumanizes them and treats them like pests. No one made you make that analogy. What is wrong with you? Why can’t you make your point without resorting to dehumanizing homeless people?

                1. Lying Jeffy doesn’t understand what an analogy is.

          2. If you don’t want to be yelled at for making offensive comparisons, maybe you shouldn’t make offensive comparisons.

            1. jeff got triggered again, then posted more bullshit. Fuck off fatty

              1. No you fuck off. You post nothing of substance. It is just endless bitching.

                1. I know you are but what am I?

                2. No, that’s you, you mendacious piece of shit.

        4. Bears have more agency than extremely mentally ill people.
          They both maim and kill innocents because dogooders acclimate them to begging and dumpster diving

  6. I am thinking that “freedom of association” would include handing out food to whomever wishes to take it (when on public property.)

    1. Freedom of association died with mandatory integration and mandatory affirmative action.

      1. Mandatory segregation, General. Don’t forget mandatory segregation.
        (aka ‘safe spaces’)

    2. Is one segment of a population able to monopolize and trash a shared public utility? Are they free to treat parks as open air trash cans?

      Curious as to what you think the acceptable share of public resources is.

      I can point to homeless parks where they are monopolized and clean up efforts are fairly expensive. Is that truly a fair use of public goods?

      1. JesseAz:
        I am talking about handing out sandwiches. Geesh.

        1. The main impetus for these laws is to prevent what ken mentioned above and I did in my post. Isolating it to such a shallow level isn’t actually a discussion.

          I have no problem with one off charity such as giving someone food on a corner. I do have issues with someone setting up weekly food trucks foe the homeless in shared public areas due to the problems mentioned above.

          Also talk to an owner of a cornerstone about the homeless parked outside their business and the added costs for cleanup and security they bear from people handing homeless outside money and food.

          If it is a one off situation the person should be warned but not cited. But repeated actions in the same are do cause actual harm to others that you then have to weigh against the rights of others as Ken mentioned above.

          1. Corner store*

            1. “Isolating it to such a shallow level isn’t actually a discussion. ”

              The problem is that “handing out sandwiches” is perhaps the only thing the government should do directly.

              I have worked in several capacities with homelessness projects and programs. You would not believe the amount of dollars (just in staff hours) that the government wastes trying to house people. Actually, JesseAz, you probably would believe it.

              I have also seen, first-hand, how stats about the homeless have been manipulated for political purposes. (I know this, because I collected the stats).

              The government, quite frankly, needs to quit trying to solve the problem and we need to fund the non-profits who actually, occasionally, do have some success.

              1. Except we have examples where government doesn’t have to do it and it is done through charitable organizations such as food kitchens and shelters on private property funded by private dollars.

                1. Exactly.

        2. You are, and I am generally inclined to agree with your point about free association. But the point about the externalities of attracting lots of homeless people to a given location are worth considering as well, I think.

          1. That is true.

    3. …the right of the people to peaceably assemble…

      Tells you what they think of the homeless.

      1. ++

      2. Shitting on the sidewalk and vandalizing property isn’t “peaceful assembly” though.

  7. This councilman remembers the Bible story of the Good Samaritan.
    You recall how the GS finds the victim of violence along the roadside, ignores him, but goes into town to report the situation to the Roman authorities; then, feeling all puffed up about his good deed, organizes a GoFundMe campaign to raise money to treat victims of crime and poverty (with a healthy skim off the top so he can buy that Mediterranean villa he’s always deserved.)

    1. +

  8. In other news, Nike CEO declares Nike is a company of China and for China, no word yet on when Apple and Disney and the NBA are slated to follow suit in the admission that they are Chinese companies and not American.

    1. If I prophesied in 1999 that twenty years into the future Nike would use actual slaves to make shoes for African-American multimillionaires, people would’ve laughed.
      Somebody should make the NBA pay reperations.

      1. I think they’d have done something a lot more negative than laughing, but your point is taken.

      2. And impose racial and gender quotas on the teams.

  9. We need to start thinking about UFOs. Whatever else it is that the government is about to tell us about them, they’re also telling us that these objects are accelerating and changing direction in ways that defy any known technology–either from the U.S. military or abroad.

    Let’s assume the technology is of alien origin for the sake of argument.

    General Premise: When civilizations are more technologically advanced than they are friendly, their intentions towards more primitive societies usually range from exploitative to hostile.

    Specific Premise: The civilization behind these UFOs is more technologically advanced than we are, but they apparently do not wish to communicate with us or establish friendly relations.

    Conclusion: Their intentions towards us probably range somewhere between exploitative to hostile.

    Facts: I’m not just thinking about the treatment of Native Americans by Columbus, Spanish explorers, etc., or even of examples like the experience of aboriginals with British imperialism in Tasmania. I’m also thinking of examples like the Nazis and the Soviet Union.

    The Nazis had advanced rocket science. They were putting jet fighters up before anyone else (Me 262). Their tanks were better than ours. If they hadn’t been so stupid about antisemitism, they might have had the atom bomb before we did. They were certainly more technologically advanced than they were friendly.

    The Soviet Union was also more technologically advanced than they were friendly. They had problems putting their technology into civilian use because of their screwed up economic policies, but they produced some of the world’s best technology–from Sputnik to the hydrogen bomb and from space exploration to nuclear physics. Like the Nazis, their technological advances mostly had military applications–and that’s the point.

    There are primitive people today living on North Sentinel Island, and while the international community mostly leaves them alone, it isn’t because we refuse to communicate with them. It’s because they refuse to communicate with us. Our intentions are not somewhere between exploitative to hostile with the Sentinelese.

    IF IF IF these UFOs are from a technologically advanced, alien civilization, and they refuse to communicate with us or establish friendly relations, I say it is probably because their intentions are somewhere between exploitative to hostile.

    1. Far more likely to be radar glitches. Radar is weird, especially near the water and waves.

      I don’t doubt there are aliens. I don’t doubt that some might visit once in a while. I don’t doubt that some visitors might behave like tourists. But radar glitches are far more likely.

      1. Many of the videos are visible band and IR sensor glitches tend to be blinking individual pixels, not moving blobs across multiple pixels with consistency.

        1. Amazing how many military officials are individually claiming that they’re demons or spirits that we are seeing, and not interplanetary visitors. Not just in the obvious places like the US, Saudi Arabia and Israel, but in Russia, China, Denmark, Canada, Germany and Australia. It’s an undiscussed but remarkably prevelant opinion.

          Before I get dumped on, I don’t believe this myself. The reason I mention it is that it seems strange that so many diverse military men, in the 21st century, have voiced a view that seems to be medieval.
          It’d be neat if an actual journalist would investigate why.

          1. Honestly, those explanations don’t seem any more wild or unbelievable than extraterrestrial visitors. Not when you think about the actual physics of interstellar travel.

            1. There may be something about the physics of interstellar travel that makes objects invisible to telescopes or radio telescopes as they approach the earth, but I have wondered how they arrived without us seeing them.

              Another explanation may be that they’ve been here for a long time.

              The appearance of the wheels and their workings was like the color of beryl, and all four had the same likeness. The appearance of their workings was, as it were, a wheel in the middle of a wheel.

              When they moved, they went toward any one of four directions; they did not turn aside when they went.

              As for their rims, they were so high they were awesome; and their rims were full of eyes, all around the four of them.

              When the living creatures went, the wheels went beside them; and when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up.

              —-Ezekiel 1: 16-19

              Our neocortex evolved to accommodate the benefits of religion, and people have been using religion to interpret what they can’t really comprehend for a long time. Our neocortex hasn’t changed significantly in 150,000 years. If people turn to religion to explain what they don’t understand, that just makes them pretty much like all the other Homo Sapiens that have lived on this earth for the last 150,000 years.

              Incidentally, I find the idea of religious explanations for these UFOs more plausible than, say, the idea that Joe Biden is better at making qualitative choices for each of us, on our behalf, than 325 million individuals can make for themselves–each from their own unique perspective through markets.

              The idea that these UFOs are religious artifacts is certainly more plausible than the progressive belief that Joe Biden has god-like powers. What should we find more surprising–that UFOs are aliens that came to observe us from another world or that Joe Biden came to be the president of anything?

              1. “more plausible than the progressive belief that Joe Biden has god-like powers”

                You’re going to make chemleft and White Mike have a sad.

        2. IR sensors are just as glitchy as radar.

          Ever heard of mirages?


          1. No one is saying that there aren’t any arguments that can be made against them being alien spacecraft. You can’t eliminate uncertainty entirely with the scientific method. Are you saying that you have evidence that the images in question were the result of a glitch, or are you saying that’s a possibility?

          2. Yes I have. But it again doesn’t explain concurrent IR and Visible band identification of the same object, or did you ignore part of my post intentionally. And generally mirage are fairly quick and form and then disappear, not move across a screen in random direction but consistent shape.

            You may want to argue even that it is a thermal pocket, but it would not explain visible bad co identification. And there is even cross IR RF band mentioned in a few cases.

      2. One of the films I saw was taken in infrared. The object accelerates beyond our capabilities, changes direction, etc.–on infrared camera–without any apparent plume from an engine and no apparent heat.

        I’m not denying the evidence, and I’m not saying the evidence is conclusive. I’m saying that if we assume this is alien technology, we should probably make some other conclusions that go along with that. That’s what I was doing above.

        If you want to assume this is not alien technology, then you may need to consider some other explanations that would be even stranger–for instance that dozens of people in the U.S. military are colluding to defraud the American people and have been doing so on a wide scale for decades.

        Otherwise, you may need to assume that the Russians or the Chinese or some evil genius in Silicon Valley has world changing technology (something like cold fusion), that they haven’t bothered to tell anyone about or market yet–because rather than make trillions of dollars and ridding us of greenhouse gases and poverty forever, they just want to freak out our military pilots.

        You might need to assume that the three laws of thermodynamics are bunk.

        Plausibility is certainly no guide to truth. Plenty of lies are plausible. It’s the things that have survived the most and best scrutiny that are most likely to be true–regardless of whether they seem plausible. The evidence that’s being released seems to be withstanding a tremendous amount of quality scrutiny and so have the laws of thermodynamics. The alien technology explanation may not be the correct one, but the hypothesis deserves serious consideration.

        Someone told me recently that doctors knew how to cure cancer for a few dollars, but they weren’t telling anybody and curing us because they were colluding to keep us all scared and rake in the money. I mentioned that Steve Jobs died of cancer, and he’d have been happy to pay any doctor tens of billions of dollars to save him. And none of these supposedly greedy doctors that knows how to cure cancer, offered to cure him–because they want to make a few hundred thousand a year treating dying patients?

        That’s how I treat the Chinese/Russian/Silicon Valley origin explanation.

        1. The upcoming report and buzz surrounding it is meant to distract us from Fauci’s crimes.

    2. IF IF IF they are hostile or exploitative, and have superior technology, history also tells us we are fucked. The only upside is they may bring those of us they allow to assimilate the intergalactic equivalent of aqueducts and wine.

      1. What history are you referring to? The movie Independence Day? Lol.

    3. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples

      It’s not just the Sentinelese. There are remote tribes all over the world (most in South America) that have virtually no contact with the outside world. This non-contact is usually officially sanctioned by national governments.

      If there are advanced alien beings here, then they’re probably analogous to park rangers checking up on a wildlife preserve.

      1. From your link:

        “Indigenous rights activists call for indigenous peoples in isolation to be left alone, saying that contact will interfere with their right to self-determination as peoples.[6] Countries have been legislating policy to leave them alone, though such laws are often difficult to enforce or suffer deprioritization. Since isolated peoples lack immunity to common infectious diseases, up to half of them can die of respiratory disease following first contact.[3][7]

        Another approach has been to make controlled contact such as on rare occasions employed by the Brazilian state organization National Indian Foundation (FUNAI) to prevent some conflicts and deliver vaccinations.[8] Some isolating peoples might even want to have trading relationships and positive social connections with others, but choose isolation out of fears of conflict or exploitation.[9]


        In regards to policy on uncontacted people, there seems to be a general consensus that there’s a difference between peoples who want contact and people who don’t.

        I mentioned the Sentinelese because my understanding is that they have reacted to people trying to contact them with extreme hostility. The international community respects their desire not to be contacted and their decision not be contacted, and this is how we know that the international community’s intentions towards the Sentinelese is not on the spectrum between exploitative and hostile–because we respect their desires.

        We are not like the Sentinelese in this regard, and if we’re talking about an alien civilization, they are not like us in this regard either. We want to be contacted. We broadcast signals out into the universe in the hope that an alien civilization will contact us. And they, apparently, do not wish to communicate with us at all–despite our desire to communicate with them. If the Sentinelese expressed a desire to communicate with us and have us contact them, we would try to do so–and send in a team to immunize them.

        If you keep calling a girl–and she keeps not answering the phone and not calling you back–it is generally because she does not have a desire to pursue a relationship with you. We’re calling. They’re not answering.

        1. Who’s we? Haven’t you ever watched the documentary film “Men in Black”? For all we know, there’s already a non-contact agreement in place.

          At the end of the day, we’re discussing the theoretical intentions of theoretical entities. I just figure that if the goal were exploitation and/or hostilities, then it either would have been done already or it already has been done.

          1. There’s a way to react when you’re friendly, and there’s a way to react when you’re not.

            Indifference can be just as bad as nefarious, too. Haven’t you read anything by Lovecraft?

            1. I haven’t actually. Recommendations?

              1. The whole point of Lovecraft is that the universe is indifferent to humanity. We imagine we’re important, but we’re flies splattered on the windshield of events that we can’t even comprehend. This total indifference to our existence, our desires, and our welfare is interpreted by humanity as evil by weak minds who don’t deserve to see and understand our insignificance.

                You also get the same thing from a good episode of Rick and Morty, which is presumably why we see Cthulhu chasing the main characters after they’ve stolen a baby Cthulhu at the beginning of every episode of that show. Some episodes are great. Most suck. They’re constantly arguing about their significance in the universe.

                The point I was making was that if the aliens were benevolent, they would respond to us, and technologically advanced societies that aren’t benevolent wouldn’t respond to our attempts at communication.

                We might assume that they’re indifferent to us, but the distinction between being indifferent to humanity and evil may be a distinction without a difference. We are indifferent to the microbes we destroy when we sanitize our rest rooms. I’m sure we’d seem evil to them if they were conscious and could comprehend our existence.

                I broke down a syllogism. Please, somebody, show me where it’s wrong. Is it wrong on the facts? Is the form of the argument irrational?

                General Premise: When civilizations are more technologically advanced than they are friendly, their intentions towards more primitive societies usually range from exploitative to hostile.

                Specific Premise: The civilization behind these UFOs is more technologically advanced than we are, but they apparently do not wish to communicate with us or establish friendly relations.

                Conclusion: Their intentions towards us probably range somewhere between exploitative to hostile.

                1. I think that you missed his point. They were saying, “maybe they *have* made contact and the vast majority of people don’t know about it.”

                  But to answer your specific question, I think that your syllogism is correct.

                  1. It’s possible they’ve made contact and we don’t know.

      2. They’re just checking up on the universe’s number one reality tv show.


    4. Well, if they exist, I’m going to hope the lack of contact is because they’ve got some sort of “Prime Directive” that prevents it because “we’re not ready” or something. Other than that, frankly, I have enough crap to worry about that *definitely* exists as a verifiable threat. Don’t need to worry about things that only *might* exist.

    5. To the extent that these UFO’s are displaying not only an advanced technology but a technology that appears to violate laws of physics, I’m guessing the UFO’s are merely glitches in our sensors and not real.

      1. We need to deal with the eyewitness accounts, too. Some of the military pilots are saying they saw the same phenomena every day for years. In one of the accounts, the eyewitness accounts of the pilot, the video footage, and the radar all confirm the same thing.

        My understanding is that radar had the tic tac moving at some 46,000 mph. Meanwhile, both the pilots’ eyewitness testimony and the video footage from their flight had tic tac object stop at the surface of the ocean, where it then blasted out of sight at incredible speeds. It had no visible flight surface and no visible means of propulsion. It was shaped like a white tic tac.

        I don’t see any good reason to dismiss what the pilots saw, what their video confirmed, and what the radar on the ship saw. I think there’s more uncertainty in the explanation than there is in that observation if they all show more or less the same thing.

        One of the other explanations I’ve seen floated is hologram technology by foreign powers–finding ways to make it seem like there are things that aren’t there. I don’t think that would account for the disturbance the craft created on the water, but I could be mistaken about that or anything else.

    6. How about the documentary film crew in a blind at an African waterhole. Are they avoiding communication? Are they hostile?

      1. Is the wildlife trying to communicate with them?

        1. Yes, if the wildlife wander over and sniff the camera lens. We also know when the wildlife are taking an aggressive posture, whether it is due to fear or not. Like when our fighter planes weapons systems are on

          1. Travis the chimpanzee.

          2. When a military vessel is at sea and they see an unidentified jet coming in, they presumably ask the pilot to identify himself and his intentions. After a while, if the pilot doesn’t respond, they need to make some rational assumptions about the pilot’s intentions. Maybe the pilot’s radio is malfunctioning, but I don’t think that’s likely in this case. At some point, if the pilot refuses to respond, it’s rational and prudent to assume that his intentions are nefarious.

            1. when a male babboon spots a cameraman behind a blind, he barks at them as well

    7. These may be prudes from outer space who have discovered the Voyager explorer with it’s picture of naked people and have come to stop us from porning up the universe.
      Seriously there may be more to physics that we are unable to comprehend because of our limited senses. There may be unknown forces faster than the speed of light or something that connects the universe instantaneously. Maybe a few evolutionary advances will heighten our perceptions.

    8. If they are directed by some intelligence (whether from another place or otherwise), don’t assume the “people” who made them are so technically advanced. They may have just gotten lucky and had the means to produce this effect (which may not be as it seems) fall into their laps.

  10. Apparently the big get for the NY Da against the Trump Organization was the CEO notifying fringe benefits on his IRS tax income. Benefits that most tax experts claim are virtually never declared and if the IRS does investigate ends up in a tax bill, not a felony grand jury indictment.


    To put it succinctly… this is a benefit most public union members and government workers also receive. Think of the car lease program congress members get. Should they receive a felony for not claiming the benefit? Or various governors who live in state mansions, do they owe thousands in taxes foe the free residence? The President and the White House? Security costs for secret service agents?

    The left has continued its legal lawfare against political opponents with many libertarians remaining quiet because the targets seem acceptable to them. It is quite embarrassing.

    1. You almost wonder if this will backfire horribly for the Dems. Ok, let’s say they manage to make Trump ineligible for office. So now the Repubs don’t have to worry about the internal strife he brought, and his supporters are fired up. This seems like… not a good strategy for the Dems.

      1. Rick Santorum and the sweater vest brigade have their fingers crossed.

  11. Stipulated. But shooting them should be ok, too.

  12. O/T: So here is the next phase of the Arizona Audit Grift. Watch a livestream movie for $45 full of frauds and hacks telling you what you want to hear.


      1. White Mike and chemjeff have a real problem: nobody hires 100 lawyers to hide a “legitimate” election victory. Nobody has the DOJ interfere in a state ordered audit because they won fair and square.

  13. O/T: This is exactly spot-on.


    The right-wing war against CRT is not a battle against CRT itself, but against any teaching of race and racism that they disapprove of. They don’t want to hear that there may be a systemic component to racism so they want to ban it.

    1. Yes, those people disapprove of the teaching of racism, e.g. Whiteness is a viral disease, whiteness is the cause of the worlds problems. You must reject Whiteness, and interlocking concepts such as equality, merit, promptness, etc.
      They do indeed object

      1. “Whiteness” just means “White culture”. How is it racist to discuss “white culture”, or any culture?

        1. Wtf is “white culture?”

          1. WTF is “Black culture” or “Asian culture”? I hear those mentioned a lot.

            1. So you don’t even know what you said. Maybe you need to use your “phone a friend.”

              1. So is “Black culture” a thing? Is there an identifiable culture of certain individuals based on skin color? If so, why can’t it also apply to Whites?

                And what is racist about discussing cultures?

                1. Yes Jeff, it is. And is defined by OJ Simpson, Idi Amin, John Lee Malvo, Bill Cosby, Lebron James and Mike Tyson. Textbooks should be written defining black culture based on the habits and actions of these people. And we should interact with people based on this government-approved and provided indoctrination /sarc See how stupid that is? Pigeon holing people based on race and interacting with them as such instead of their character and actions is ignorant. And racist.

                  1. Okay, then there are approximately 1 million articles written by conservatives over the years discussing and diagnosing “Black culture” and how it ought to be improved upon, that are now “racist” and bad. Not to mention all of the recent articles discussing “Whiteness”.

                    It is definitely collectivist to be discussing any culture in racial terms, but I would reserve “racist” for if that discussion judges individuals based on race in a bigoted manner.

                    I don’t see anything wrong per se with simply making observations based on race. Is it wrong to say “Blacks are disproportionately incarcerated compared to Whites”? Is it racist to take note of that? No. It would be racist IMO if one were to then take that observation and form a conclusion that Blacks were inferior or something, like what the so-called ‘race realists’ do. Or, to conclude that Whites deliberately put Blacks in prison out of racial hatred, or some such thing.

                    Of course there is no single unifying “Black culture” that every Black person adheres to based on skin color, just like there is no single unifying “White culture”. But I also think it can be valid to discuss something like “a particular microculture that groups of individuals tend to adhere to, in particular geographic locations, and is most popular among individuals with a particular skin color”. I think that is what the phrases “Black culture” or “White culture” or “Asian culture” are shorthand for. And if you were to press someone like John McWhorter on what he precisely means when he uses the phrase “Black culture” he would have a definition something like that.

                    The big problem though is that while there are a lot of nutty aspects to CRT which are absolute garbage, the reaction against CRT is producing as well some nutty results, such as the idea that generalizing about race *at all*, even if it is done in a nonbigoted or nonprejudicial manner, is ipso facto racist and wrong and should be eschewed. That is also wrong. Simply making observations about race is not wrong.

                    Again I would ask: Suppose there is a person who is opposed to the drug war because this person notes Blacks are disproportionately incarcerated for drug crimes compared to Whites (this is true), this person believes it is wrong, and is opposed to the drug war *for this reason*. Is this person racist? Should we as libertarians, long opposed to the drug war, kick this person out for being a filthy racist?

                    1. “Okay, then there are approximately 1 million articles written by conservatives over the years discussing and diagnosing “Black culture” and how it ought to be improved upon, that are now “racist” and bad.”

                      You should take that up with the authors, you radical individualist you.

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist
                      June.26.2021 at 2:04 pm
                      Flag Comment Mute User
                      “Whiteness” just means “White culture”.

                      It is definitely collectivist to be discussing any culture in racial terms

                      Jeffy just admitted he’s a collectivist.

                    3. One can discuss collectivist concepts without BEING a collectivist. I would not expect someone like you to understand that, however.

                    4. “It is definitely collectivist to be discussing any culture in racial terms,”

                    5. Nope, you don’t understand that.

                2. I know that racial culture is an article of faith for progressives. Joe Biden explained it all pretty well,

                  Joe Biden said in remarks on Wednesday that the Latino community is “incredibly diverse,” “unlike” the Black community.
                  “Unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly diverse attitudes about different things,” Biden said. “You go to Florida, you find a very different attitude about immigration than you do in Arizona. So it’s a very diverse community.”

                  It’s been my observation that culture has a lot more to do with region and class. A middle class black man in St. Louis has a lot more in common with a middle class white man in St. Louis than he does with a gang banger in a Chicago hood. So no. I don’t think “black culture” or white culture” are real things. These ideas are just another tool for our masters to keep us all in line.

                3. Jeffy radical racist.

        2. jeff you hate yourself and anything that is not far left and fits in your own worldview. using “white” as a pejorative is racist and you know it. teaching CRT is racism and by the government’s own laws will not be permitted or tolerated. you lost.

          1. I see. So when commenters around here say things like “if only black culture would stop glorifying violence and reject single parenthood, then things would be better in the cities”, is that racist?

              1. You tell me. Is that racist in your view? But it stands to reason that if a discussion of “whiteness” or “white culture” is off-limits, then a discussion of “blackness” or “black culture” ought to be as well.

    2. Vox and its writers are racist Eugenicists, I’m not particularly interested in what they have to say on the subject.

        1. Vox: CRT is about antiracism.

          Gallant: How! Everything they’re saying about race is straight out of a 30’s Nazi textbook, just with the villains switched. It’s what the Klan has been arguing for a century.

          Vox: You’re speaking against antiracism and must be racist.

          1. Really. So Vox is arguing that whites are subhuman filth who must be murdered? That is news to me.

            1. Only because you refuse to listen to anyone or think in the slightest.

  14. Tangential:

    Citing ‘dire conditions,’ 33 King County Superior Court judges urge immediate shutdown of Seattle’s City Hall Park

    Thirty-three King County Superior Court judges and four court commissioners on Friday signed a letter to Seattle Parks and Recreation Superintendent Jesús Aguirre, requesting that he shut down City Hall Park and relocate residents of a sprawling encampment immediately south of the downtown county courthouse.

    “We are writing out of deep concern for the safety of jurors, Courthouse employees, the general public and those who find themselves unhoused and sheltering in and around City Hall Park,” the judges and commissioners wrote.

    “As you know, conditions in and around the King County Courthouse vicinity, including City Hall Park, have been in a critical, unsafe and unhealthy stage for years. As a matter of last resort to address these issues, we are requesting that you close City Hall Park.”


    Citing the recent homicide, a call to police about an abandoned toddler in the encampment, employee resignations and jurors’ trepidation about serving at the courthouse, as well as ongoing assaults and harassment of court visitors and unsanitary conditions in the park, the judges and commissioners wrote they are urging the city of Seattle, which owns the park, “to act swiftly and immediately close the park.”

    The conditions in City Hall Park threaten the community’s access to justice, inhibit safe travel to and from the courthouse, and risk the judges’ ability to fulfill their constitutional duties, says the letter, which expresses hope that arrangements can be made to provide alternative housing to the park’s residents.

    Ok, only about 7 years too late, but I guess progress is progress, right?

    Oh, what’s not in this story, but in another related story (which I won’t link because only spammers post multiple links, It Is Known), city officials found a 2 year old girls living by herself in that park. I guess no one wanted to be seen as “separating children from their families”.

    Social Justice Progressives really are an existential threat to humanity.

    1. sorry, it was in this story, but there is more detail in an earlier article.

    2. Progressives are America’s most horrible people.

      1. Seattle just needs some San Fran style tents.

      2. I can assure you that I know several progressives who, despite the error of their political beliefs, are salt-of-the-earth, wonderful people. Can say the same for several Trump supporters I know.

        Maybe stop demonizing whole swaths of your fellow Americans.

        1. Maybe stop squawking like a bird all the damn time.

          1. Caw! Caw!

            1. The sad thing is poor Dee never even figured out why she’s a squawking bird.

        2. Dee, just know that if you look good most guys here still would.

        3. Maybe stop demonizing whole swaths of your fellow Americans.

          Without the demonization and dehumanization techniques, then argumentation would have to be on the merits of specific ideas, and that’s no fun! It’s more fun to call everyone you don’t agree with some terrible name!

  15. I used to have a neighbor who would feed the stray cats. You know what happened? The neighborhood became infested with stray cats. The Denver metro area has become infested with the homeless. It is one of the reasons I am considering moving.

    1. I haven’t been there in years but it was bad back in 2013 tons of homeless and smell of mary jane and urine all over LoDo. Hickenlooper wasn’t good for Denver or Colorado.

      Funniest thing I saw was the McDonald’s on 16th street mall playing opera music outside to drive the bums away.

  16. OT lots of hand wringing by lefites over Thiel’s Roth IRA investments. I love it. Hopefully Congress tries to adjust the law and tax him. It will turn the middle class firmly against democrats for decades when they realize they’ve been had by mafia criminals that run our federal government.

  17. Yeah I missed Hickenlooper’s term as mayor. I was in OK. Here in Aurora there is a major tent city by Mississippi and 225. And 225 and Parker. The while metro area is lousy with them.

    1. Don’t they freeze to death in winter?

      1. Some do. Denver is not as cold as people assume. The winters are much milder than New York for instance.

        1. Does their homeless person sidewalk poop freeze in winter? If so, is it called Denver nuggets?

  18. On Topic

    Billions in Funding Spent
    “It is a national disgrace,” Villanueva said.

    “All those 501 C-3 organizations … we’re going to talk about money; there is a homeless industrial complex, and they’re raking in money, not by the millions, not by the hundreds of millions, by the billions.”

    Villanueva shared salary data equating to over $2.8 million of the top earning employees compensated by the Venice Family Clinic revenue, a nonprofit organization that provides comprehensive healthcare services to low-income residents in Venice.

    “But what actually gets out to the actual service provided by individuals is just not there,” he said.

    Villanueva slammed the state’s “housing first” policy, a theory officials have adopted that building permanent and supportive housing units immediately will solve the homelessness crisis. However, Measure HHH, a $1.2 billion bond obligation passed in 2016 by Angeleno voters to build 10,000 supportive housing units, has only constructed a total of three buildings.

  19. “Bokhari says he wants residents instead to donate to charities that provide services, rather than directly to homeless people.”

    Not to mention all the graft he gets form those scammers, which the actual homeless do not give him.
    Follow the money.

  20. O/T: He. Can’t Let. It. Go.


    His ego forbids him from admitting that he lost. That and the incredible grifting opportunities that remain.

  21. O/T: She’s baaaaack!


    “Pro-Trump attorney Sidney Powell continued to fuel baseless voter fraud theories on Saturday by suggesting that the 2020 election can still be overturned.

    Speaking to conservative commentator Brannon Howse, Powell claimed that state legislators have the power to “recall the electors for fraud,” which she argues would “undo” President Joe Biden’s election win.”

  22. Unless there’s something identified as food borne illnesses among the homeless linked to ” home made meals ” and the public acts of charity, government mindset overreacting. As much as it may consternate some commenters, many people still believe in a “Christian duty” to help the less fortunate. Other religions have similar sentiment to a duty to help others as an individual responsibility.

  23. Giving money to panhandlers and giving food to itinerants are indeed crimes against the environment (for the rest of us).
    I think such acts should indeed be criminalized, for the sake of “our” environment.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.