You must log in or register to comment.
Jesus, this is one hell of a biased article. Mostly soundbites of republicans, always framing them as the reasonable ones, and so forth. I don’t often read the LA Times. Is this supposed to be an opinion piece, or is this their standard of political news in general? Below is my nitpicking, in no particular order.
It represented his latest attempt — mostly failed — to solve California’s persistent problem of homelessness.
I believe that Newsom is probably not solving the homeless problem in California. Especially since the solutions so far don’t involve a housing-first approach, budgeting for state funded non-market housing, safe injection sites, or anything similar. Focusing on mental health isn’t a bad idea though. I haven’t looked at any statistics, but I bet mental health amongst homeless people is likely very poor, what with being homeless and all that. However, how has he ‘mostly failed’? How would a Republican governor do it better? What about the previous attempts ‘mostly failed’?
Her bill, SB 14, classified the pimping of kids under 18 as a “serious” crime. Duh! What’s to argue?
I’d say there’s plenty to argue. What’s to prevent drag queen book readings from being classified as “human trafficking of minors”? Why are we focusing on punishment and not rehabilitation? What purpose do long prison sentences serve? How is the state working to prevent human trafficking in the first place? Why are additional crimes being added to a bill that should be wholly scrapped and shouldn’t exist in the first place?
Dahle made sense and so did Sen. Kelly Seyarto (R-Murrieta), who argued: “Going on strike is a voluntary thing. And that’s not what unemployment insurance is set up for.”
Nice hidden bias there, “only republicans make sense, but the other side had things to say too”. It’s good for the economy when people aren’t struggling. It’s good for the economy when people are in unions. It’s good for the state to prevent union members from struggling while on strike. This feels like an old white guy complaining that this shouldn’t exist because he doesn’t personally and directly benefit from it. Of course a business owner (Dahle) would bitch about this. If UFW decided to go on strike, then he’d be shit out of luck because he can’t rely on waiting them out and might gasp have to actually bargain with them!
… expanded quietly and unexpectedly by $1.7 billion in the final three harried days of the legislative session. A little bait and switch? What’s another billion or two?
That’s not how this works, and this jackass knows it considering he’s been a political columnist for several years. Bills that are submitted for a floor vote can’t just get changed on a whim, they get amendments. Also, you were literally just bitching about how Newsom’s attempts to deal with homelessness has been terrible, but now you’re insinuating that we shouldn’t spend money to deal with homelessness? Fuck off.
The Senate later agreed to Assembly amendments that protected trafficked victims from being targeted by prosecutors, a stated liberal fear.
I like how this is implicitly framed as an unreasonable concern, when that literally happened last year in Iowa with a high profile sex trafficking case involving the prosecution of a child victim.
Her bill, SB 14, classified the pimping of kids under 18 as a “serious” crime. Duh! What’s to argue?
I’d say there’s plenty to argue. What’s to prevent drag queen book readings from being classified as "human trafficking of minors
I think targeting drag performers using this bill is a stretch, even for Republicans. Maybe they’ll try but that doesn’t seem to be what the ACLU and other organizations are arguing.
I had to do research and it seems the opposition is more nuanced.The UN reports that victims of trafficking are being forced to commit crimes. Imposing harsher penalties could cause victims of human trafficking who commit crimes to be more vulnerable and be pressured to work with law enforcement, in fear they will be imprisoned for their crimes. There’s nothing in the bill for victims who are forced to commit crime to get necessary resources they need
It’s very sad and not something the average voter would be aware of. It’s a shame this was swept under the rug as “Duh, what’s to argue” where the author could have informed the public about this.
There’s nothing in the bill for victims who are forced to commit crime to get necessary resources they need.
I didn’t know that, and either the writer was dishonest or didn’t know either. That’s a massive oversight for someone with allegedly 60 years of political journalism. The sign off for this article has an additional layer of gross now.
deleted by creator
