By that I mean, make it a servant of the public again. I don’t know how this “serves the public”:
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -Local 10 first brought you the story of the 90-year-old man who was arrested for illegally feeding the homeless in Fort Lauderdale. Wednesday he was back to continue his cause.
“Illegally feeding the homeless.” No, seriously. It is now a crime, in Ft. Lauderdale, to use your own money, buy and prepare food, search out those in need of nourishment, and feed them.
I can’t get over that phrase – “Illegally feeding the homeless”.
Why? Well here, let this idiot explain:
Mayor Jack Seiler, who supports the ordinance, said he’s gotten massive feedback as well, though not always so positive. But he said the law is meant to help the homeless, not to keep them from eating.
“Mr. Abbott has decided that he doesn’t think these individuals should have to have any interaction with government, that they should be fed in the parks. We disagree,” Seiler said.
I’ll bet he’s gotten “massive feedback”. My guess is Mr. Seiler is probably Julia’s child. Imagine – not having “any interaction with government”. Dude, that’s a feature in my book. Who in the hell do these people think they are? So the fact that this little tin dictator disagrees, he’s happy to use the force of government to put a 90 year old feeding the homeless in jail? This is just homegrown authoritarianism.
What is this bit of totalitarianism based on? “Experts, of course:
“It’s a pubic safety issue. It’s a public health issue,” said Seiler. “The experts have all said that if you’re going to feed them to get them from breakfast to lunch to dinner, all you’re doing is enabling that cycle of homelessness. They don’t interact with anyone, they don’t receive the aid that they need.”
Blah, blah, blah … another authoritarian does a little appealing to authority.
They don’t interact with anyone? They interact with those they want to interact with, including the guy feeding them. Not good enough, say the “experts”.
As with most experts, however, their good intentions usually have crap outcomes:
“What the city is doing by cutting out feeding is very simple — they are forcing homeless people to go dumpster-diving all over again,” Abbott said. “They will steal. That’s what the mayor is forcing the homeless to do.”
Well, that’s a little overboard too, i.e. no one is “forcing” anyone to steal. The point, however, is if this is a public safety issue and if it is a public health issue then why in the world would one of the acceptable outcome of this idiotic law be to encourage dumpster diving or theft by removing the ability of the homeless to receive food from someone other than a government official? Why don’t they have a right to do that? Other than this stupid law and this idiot trying to justify it, when did feeding someone less fortunate than you become “illegal”?
One of the most useful things I’ve learned about communication is the importance of stating things plainly and concretely.* But thinking about that lesson frequently makes politics maddening.
Euphemisms are the health of politics. If a government really wants to get away with murder, even secrecy can be less useful than making that particular murder sound unremarkable, justifiable, sensible, or even dutiful.
You’re probably looking at the title and if you’re familiar with the story wondering why I announced it like that.
The story, if you’re not familiar with it, was reported today by AP in a story entitled “Cuba legalizes sale, purchase of private property”.
After the description of what Cuba will now allow, you run across this within the story:
"This is a very big step forward. With this action the state is granting property rights that didn’t exist before," said Philip J. Peters, a Cuba analyst at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Virginia.
Have you picked yourself up off the floor yet? That’s the most ridiculous statement you’re likely to see in some time (which is a bit surprising coming from someone at the Lexington Institute).
Let’s make something perfectly clear – property rights existed prior to and during the communist regime’s takeover. What the communists did was prevent the exercise of the right through the use of force. That’s entirely different than what Peters contends. In fact, the AP title comes closer to the truth than Peters. The communist regime had simply made the exercise of the right “illegal” and had used force to prevent the people of Cuba from exercising that right. The right didn’t go away, just the ability to exercise it.
Now, surprise surprise, the communist regime has all but admitted it was a foolish thing to do and has again made the right “legal”. Or said another way, they will no longer use the force of the state to prevent people from exercising their inherent right to property.
Oh, and as a bonus for the income equality crowd? If you want income equality, Cuba is your place. Everyone makes about the same there. Check it out.