Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, October 08, 2018

The heroin needles, the pile of excrement between parked cars, the yellow soup oozing out of a large plastic bag by the curb and the stained, faux Persian carpet dumped on the corner. It is a scene of detritus that might bring to mind any variety of developing-world squalor. But this is San Francisco, the capital of the nation's technology industry, where a single span of Hyde Street hosts an open-air narcotics market by day and at night is occupied by the unsheltered and drug-addled slumped on the sidewalk.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

As a life long resident of the City, I had grown used to certain areas of the City being littered and havens for the homeless, but it has gotten so much worse in the past decade that it is clear that we are failing the less fortunate in our never ending search for wealth.

San Francisco is much better than this, our elected leaders need to try harder to help those that need it most rather than the developers who push them further into the Tenderloin.

#1 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2018-10-08 12:46 PM | Reply

The Scanner: San Francisco ranks No. 1 in US in property crime

www.sfchronicle.com

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-08 12:58 PM | Reply

While elitists like LCL were studying at Boalt Hall (kidding, kind of), commoners like his future wife and I were toiling away at UC Hastings, which is in the heart of the Tenderloin. Back in the early 90's, it was pretty bad but nothing like it is now. Sure, we had two methadone clinics right around the corner from the school, but there weren't many needles and no human feces on the streets. Now, fecal matter and feces are everywhere.

Now, you literally have to hold your breath in a three block area near City Hall and hope that you don't get a drug needle stuck in your shoe. It really is sad how the City ignores the soul crushing poverty literally on the steps of City Hall.

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-08 01:08 PM | Reply

When the DOTCOM bubble was being burst the San Francisco police were herding homeless into downtown en mass to cause rioting. It was the only news for several days. My roommate couldn't even get into the Art Institute because the fountain was a congregating place and too dangerous. He was actually accosted and had to quit as the school was shut down for several weeks. Two friends from England visited, it was perhaps the most embarrassing aspect of showing off the city. It was hideous then, and the police were deliberately making it worse.

When I had initially left Portland for the bay there were eleven womens shelters operating at capacity and when I returned there were three overflowing and homeless girls everyplace. A deliberate destruction of the social network was in full effect, oxy was prescribed to blossoming professional addicts including my family and I had only then discovered that marijuana helped my condition as well as veterans suffering PTSD. I risked a LOT getting them weed so they could avoid ambien, oxycontin and alcoholism among the other dangerous drugs.

Feinstein should be shot in the face. That evil whore destroyed so many lives at the behest of the pharmaceutical industry.

Even now, I can't use marijuana in a state that is legal because drug testing is at the whim of corporations.

Those who are addicted to heroin are screwed. Methadone is even more addictive as an invention to take that money for big pharma.

Doctors are scum. Simply the absolute worst elements of humans who sell out their fellow man.

#4 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2018-10-08 03:38 PM | Reply

If only the Democrats had power, something could be done. - Heavy Tears

#5 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-08 04:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

This is what Dem policies produce.

#6 | Posted by sawdust at 2018-10-08 04:19 PM | Reply

If only the Democrats had power, something could be done. - Heavy Tears
#5 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM AT 2018-10-08 04:03 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 1

You really don't have any understanding of the dynamics at work. Let me educate you: most of the city planning and construction are run by extreme conservatives who hate the liberal-leanings and flower children DNA, such as what you profess. I have seen several lesbian owned businesses close because of their tactics.

Why do you imagine that exposing the names and locations of those who voted for measure 7 (to repeal "gay marriage") were livid at being exposed?

This is what Dem policies produce.
#6 | POSTED BY SAWDUST AT 2018-10-08 04:19 PM

Democrats that act like Republicans and accept corporate money, yes this is the result. Feinstein is a piece of trash. People have died because of hers and Pelosi's continual anti-marijuana warmongering and hatred for the poor.

#7 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2018-10-08 05:01 PM | Reply

"It's almost impossible to get convicted in this city," said Healy, who works in the Police Department's narcotics division. "The message needs to be sent that it's not OK to be selling drugs. It's not allowed anywhere else. Where else can you walk up to someone you don't know and purchase crack and heroin? Is there such a place?"

San Franciscans love to think their city is like nowhere else, but this distinguishing factor isn't anything to brag about.

www.sfchronicle.com

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-08 05:04 PM | Reply

#6 | Posted by sawdust

Actually this is what corporations and the GOP produce.

1. Shut down all the Mental Health Centers / Institution - push it "local" then don't fund them so they are never built.
2. Hook the nation on narcotics at the behest of big Pharma and when they are caught lying don't do anything worthwhile to them. i.e. Let them off the hook when people belong in prison in the name of capitalism.
3. Fight a century long war on Drugs (intensified and militarized in the 80s) - aka PROHIBITION - that has destroyed large segments of the population.

Look no offense truth be told I think there is plenty of blame to go around but don't be ignorant of that. Even if there were shelters and treatment clinics it wouldn't clean up the area - those are voluntary. The price of property in SF alone ensures there is not cure for the problem. Even a serious amount of rent controlled / income controlled properties wouldn't fix the issue. From the look of this the problem is main the drug addicted and/or mentally ill - can't violate their rights so there is no clear answer.

#9 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2018-10-08 05:09 PM | Reply

Sorry for the grammar in that post... hasty typing as usual.

#10 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2018-10-08 05:11 PM | Reply

Democrats that act like Republicans and accept corporate money, yes this is the result.

Like 98% of the Democrats in public office today? Those guys and gals?

Congratulations, you cracked the code.

#11 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-08 05:11 PM | Reply

Why don't they export the "homeless" that cant afford to support themselves to where the jobs are? Or should they not be expected to support themselves like everyone else?

#12 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2018-10-08 05:22 PM | Reply

The Scanner: San Francisco ranks No. 1 in US in property crime

www.sfchronicle.com

#2 | Posted by nullifidian

Get used to it.

This is what results from extreme inequality.

Keep fighting for the rich man's party for another couple decades and the whole country will have the same problems.

#13 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-10-08 06:06 PM | Reply

Why don't they export the "homeless" that cant afford to support themselves to where the jobs are? Or should they not be expected to support themselves like everyone else?

#12 | Posted by bogey1355

Having -------------- tends to make quarterly profit conference calls a little troubling for investors.

Hell it makes people not trust you to put cheese on their burger.

A society that doesn't fund treatment and shelter for its crazy people ends up with crazy people on the streets.

#14 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-10-08 06:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Keep fighting for the rich man's party for another couple decades and the whole country will have the same problems.

#13 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2018-10-08 06:06 PM

San Francisco has been owned and controlled, lock stock and barrel, by the Democrats for over 60 years, so have they been "fighting for the rich man's party"?

#15 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-08 06:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

A society that doesn't fund treatment and shelter for its crazy people ends up with crazy people on the streets.
#14 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

And yet every flappy Dem GoFundMe cause reaches a million dollars a week.

I wonder how much the Clinton's "Scream at the Moon" US Tour will rake in for themselves?

And Poor Obama, trapped in his gated mansion raising two Ivy League cigarette smokers. Can't do nuffin' bout'it

#16 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-08 06:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We could increase our world-leading prison population: www.cnn.com

It's putting duct-tape on a systemic flaw, but that's the American way of profits before people. Actually doing what's right and taking care of people who need help costs money.

#17 | Posted by hamburglar at 2018-10-08 06:36 PM | Reply

Keep fighting for the rich man's party for another couple decades and the whole country will have the same problems.

#13 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2018-10-08 06:06 PM

San Francisco has been owned and controlled, lock stock and barrel, by the Democrats for over 60 years, so have they been "fighting for the rich man's party"?

#15 | Posted by Rightocenter

No surprise you can't read.

I said san fran is a example of extreme wealth inequality. And as that inequality increases, every city will become like san fran.

The republican party is the party that creates more wealth inequality. So if you want your city to look like san fran, keep voting repub.

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-10-08 07:16 PM | Reply

Ridiculous to blame SF's problems on Republicans.

#19 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-10-08 08:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I said san fran is a example of extreme wealth inequality.

And I said "San Francisco has been owned and controlled, lock stock and barrel, by the Democrats for over 60 years".

Cause meet effect.

#20 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-08 08:57 PM | Reply

San Francisco is an privare sector economic powerhouse. Sounds like democratic governance isn't so bad.

#21 | Posted by bored at 2018-10-08 09:12 PM | Reply

No surprise you can't read.
I said san fran is a example of extreme wealth inequality. And as that inequality increases, every city will become like san fran.
The republican party is the party that creates more wealth inequality. So if you want your city to look like san fran, keep voting repub.

#18 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

You literally blame everything on the GOP. It's pretty funny to watch. You probably blame Detroit's problems on the GOP too. Wealth inequality is NOT a problem, BTW. Poverty is a problem. Some of the worst countries in the world have very little wealth inequality. That has got to be the dumbest talking point out there.

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-09 10:15 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Cause meet effect.
#20 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Liberal billionaires pour hundreds of millions into midterms hoping for Blue Wave - www.foxnews.com

Liberal billionaires are throwing hundreds of millions of dollars behind the Democratic Party in the upcoming midterm election in November, raising questions whether the so-called "blue wave" is really a grassroots effort that activists led many to believe.

Hundreds of Democrats in this election cycle came out against the influence of America's super-rich. "We've got people; they've got money," New York Democratic socialist candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who won against top Democrat Joe Crowley earlier this year, declared in a campaign ad.

Many progressive candidates have since followed suit, making the pledge not to take money from the PACs financed by the ultra-rich, while simultaneously slamming Republicans for continuing, in their view, to rely on the multi-million dollar support from the rich.


"Water, water, every where, Nor any drop to drink"

#23 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-09 04:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Wealth inequality is NOT a problem, BTW."

One of the most idiotic comments ever posted on the Drudge.

Keep reaching for the stars, Jeffy.

#24 | Posted by Angrydad at 2018-10-10 07:55 AM | Reply

this should send Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana back to a dem next election

In the richest nation to ever exist on this planet, it is indeed a problem.

If you want to compare us to Somalia or the Congo, i guess maybe that's your standard of living but it's not mine.

#25 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-10 08:04 AM | Reply

Oops. Had tried to copy Jeff's comment.

#26 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-10 08:05 AM | Reply

In the richest nation to ever exist on this planet, it is indeed a problem.

I disagree. Wealth inequality is the reason this is the richest nation to ever exist. Again, you can level the playing field and make everybody poor, but that doesn't seem like a very good thing to me.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-10 10:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-- Again, you can level the playing field

Only possible with a totalitarian state. Leftists are willing accept that in the name of "social justice."

#28 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-10 10:32 AM | Reply

you can level the playing field and make everybody poor

Literally wouldn't happen, but if that's your outlook on things then you have no idea how much wealth is concentrated at the top of our society and there's no point in discussing this with you.

#29 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-10 10:49 AM | Reply

I'm very well aware of how much wealth is concentrated at the top of our society.

Confiscating their wealth isn't going to help the poor.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-10 10:52 AM | Reply

Making poor people not poor wouldn't help them?

Significant investment in the institutions that have failed our poor wouldn't help the poor?

#31 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-10 10:57 AM | Reply

Solution for one of SF's many problems: Snapcrap

www.latimes.com

#32 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-10 11:31 AM | Reply

Confiscating wealth doesn't make poor people no longer poor.

How many trillions have been invested in the war on poverty yet the needle has barely moved over several decades.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-10 11:41 AM | Reply

Local and targeted programs enacted at a local level is the best assistance the poor can receive.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-10 11:42 AM | Reply

How many trillions have been invested in the war on poverty yet the needle has barely moved over several decades.
#33 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

That's because people like you elect wasteful bureaucrats that have no real interest in reducing poverty.

#35 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-10-10 12:00 PM | Reply

Confiscating wealth doesn't make poor people no longer poor.

By calling it "confiscating wealth" you're deliberately ignoring what might be done with that money on the other side that might, literally, make someone not poor, or create infrastructure to make it easier to bring themselves out of poverty and harder to become poor.

How many trillions have been invested in the war on poverty

Just about every program designed to help the poor is intentionally underfunded by people who want to see the programs fail.

#36 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-10 12:00 PM | Reply

Bureaucrats don't get elected, Dr. Jones.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-10 12:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

By calling it "confiscating wealth" you're deliberately ignoring what might be done with that money on the other side that might, literally, make someone not poor, or create infrastructure to make it easier to bring themselves out of poverty and harder to become poor.

We need to back up a bit. Are you talking about increasing income taxes on the top brackets or are you advocating some kind of a wealth tax? Or both?

Just about every program designed to help the poor is intentionally underfunded by people who want to see the programs fail.

That is just a talking point. Programs such as welfare or food stamps are not under-funded. They are also not designed to lift people out of poverty, nor should they be. Paying someone a middle class level of money so they never have to work is a recipe for disaster, not just for the individual but on a macro scale.

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-10 12:06 PM | Reply

But lets return to the actual content of your idiocy - that making our poor not poor would "make everyone poor." This is false.

Before you accuse me of advocating a universal basic income, let me state that i am only bringing it up to illustrate that you could actually, by definition, make every poor person in America "not poor" without dragging the rich people you worship down into poverty.

works.bepress.com

Again - i have not studied UBI extensively enough to support or oppose it, and i doubt you have either. I only raise this to point out that you could, literally, make poor people not poor without even putting a dent in the federal budget, especially if other entitlement programs were reformed or eliminated alongside it.

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-10 12:06 PM | Reply

But lets return to the actual content of your idiocy - that making our poor not poor would "make everyone poor." This is false.
Before you accuse me of advocating a universal basic income, let me state that i am only bringing it up to illustrate that you could actually, by definition, make every poor person in America "not poor" without dragging the rich people you worship down into poverty.

FYI - What I put in bold is why so many people have been calling you "Little Joe".

Again - i have not studied UBI extensively enough to support or oppose it, and i doubt you have either. I only raise this to point out that you could, literally, make poor people not poor without even putting a dent in the federal budget, especially if other entitlement programs were reformed or eliminated alongside it.

#39 | POSTED BY JOE

In Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Freidman argues that if we are going to have a safety net the most efficient and effective means of delivering it would be UBI. Eliminate all of the layers of bureaucracy and just put money directly in people's hands and make them responsible for making it work.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-10 12:14 PM | Reply

Now, the goalposts have moved. Instead of talking about income or wealth inequality, which really is little more than a class-envy issue, we are discussing ways to help the poor, which is where the discussion should be IMO.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-10 12:16 PM | Reply

Even with UBI wealth inequality wouldn't be affected.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-10 12:20 PM | Reply

Now, the goalposts have moved

No they haven't. You said that to level the playing field would be to make everyone poor. You may define "level playing field" differently than I do, but at minimum it appears to be the case that you could make every poor person "not poor" without "making everyone poor." That isn't moving the goalposts, that's directly refuting your initial assertion.

#43 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-10 12:20 PM | Reply

Even with UBI wealth inequality wouldn't be affected.

Now that's just stupid, Jeff. If it is paid for in part by a tax on the 1% (as it should be), it absolutely would narrow the chasm of wealth inequality.

#44 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-10 12:21 PM | Reply

"Even with UBI wealth inequality wouldn't be affected."

Great. More Republican Math™.

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-10 12:26 PM | Reply

--If it is paid for in part by a tax on the 1% (

There's nothing a tax on the 1 percent can't achieve: End poverty. Free college tuition. Free healthcare. Cure cancer. Free rent. Build a base on Mars. Cure athlete's foot, etc.

#46 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-10 12:27 PM | Reply

"Even with UBI wealth inequality wouldn't be affected."
Great. More Republican Math™.

#45 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

UBI to replace the safety net. You cherry-picked my post.

#47 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-10 12:42 PM | Reply

it absolutely would narrow the chasm of wealth inequality.

#44 | POSTED BY JOE

Not in any kind of meaningful sense it wouldn't.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-10 12:43 PM | Reply

"UBI to replace the safety net. "

The safety net isn't U.

#49 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-10 12:55 PM | Reply

Not in any kind of meaningful sense it wouldn't.

Speaking of moving goalposts....

#50 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-10 01:11 PM | Reply

This thread clearly got hijacked, although the UBI discussion is worthwhile. The question of how San Fran wound up with this problem is just one in a series of similar questions that all combine to form a larger question: How is it that homelessness is most prevalent per capita in large liberal cities in liberal states like California, Oregon, Michigan, Washington, New York, Hawaii and Illinois? Are the homeless immigrating in or are they from the area? I was just in Portland...it's a giant homeless encampment.

#51 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2018-10-10 01:53 PM | Reply

- I was just in Portland...it's a giant homeless encampment.

They're not homeless, just campers. notice the REI logos.

#52 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-10 01:57 PM | Reply

Speaking of moving goalposts....
#50 | POSTED BY JOE

Feel free to point to a successful project run by democrats where the population of homeless is shrinking.

Any city will do.

#53 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-10 02:00 PM | Reply

#53 Ask the spokesman for the DNC; that has nothing to do with anything i've said in this thread.

#54 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-10 03:15 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort