Readers of the S.F. Chronicle will have noticed recent half page ads promoting the works of columnist, C.W. Nevius.  The ads pat Nevius on the back for his columns on the homeless situation in the city of S.F.  They also praise the editorial courage of the Chronicle in printing C.W.’s hard-hitting revelations. The ads feature a large picture of Nevius in a contemplative, perhaps even scholarly, pose. No doubt, to the Chron editors C.W.’s stuff serves as ground-breaking journalism.

What prompts all this attention?   C.W. produced a series of columns on the many homeless types who hang out permanently in various spots in the City by the Bay.  C.W. only so gently probed the notion that city governance has gone too far in tolerating the bad behavior of the homeless crowd.  C.W. played reporter for a moment and bothered to ask around. Lo and behold, he found there are many, many citizens who are fed up with the situation. What makes all this praise for C.W. puzzling is that he merely pointed out in print what everybody already knew.

C.W. did point out that many, many ordinary citizens were sick and tired of the negative impact the homeless were having on life in the City.  Some of these negative thinkers even said they resent many of the homeless wandering about openly urinating and defecating in the streets.  Imagine that!

That’s what passes for leading-edge journalism at the Chronicle as it struggles for relevance.  C.W. dared to tread on prevailing liberal sensitivities and ask politely if homeless behavior should not be corralled ever so slightly.  My gosh, what a bold concept.

This is all symptomatic of a larger issue that escaped C.W.’s analysis. Conflicting liberal priorities forbid taking any action to control this bad behavior. For example, to a good lib it was new-era thinking when Mayor Newsom realized that it wasn’t such a good idea to issue monthly cash to the homeless as pay for just for being homeless.  That fundamental realization drew loud applause. The Mayor then came up with his “care, not cash” program that was just as expensive and not much more successful.  

Liberal thought is not bounded by logic. For example, the City embarked on a free needle exchange program for the homeless addicts.  The only problem is the addicts toss the used needles aside after use them rather than turn them in.  As a result, many people are afraid to walk in the city parks for that reason.  Meanwhile, some officials , liberal of course, react that perhaps there should be a free drug clinic. See what I mean?

One thing for sure, no other city is going to lure the homeless away from San Francisco.  This is the message the City sends to the world’s homeless:   “Come to San Francisco.  We offer more perks than any other city. You only have to do what you do best:  be homeless. We take care of the rest.  We guarantee you a hassle-free city.  As a plus, our streets are your toilet.”

The homeless situation in San Francisco is further proof that “Liberals Can’t Govern.”  Conflicting priorities tie the hands of liberals every time.  As a result, liberals sound like Chatty Cathy dolls programmed to say over and over “how much they care.” But, like Cathy they are all talk, but no action.   They are paralyzed by their endless counter arguments.

At least we should thank C.W. for so clearly painting this picture of liberal ineptitude.  And, he does so at an important moment.  Liberal candidates are trying to convince us that they should be running the country. San Francisco is proof that they couldn’t manage a popcorn stand. For example, the “biggie” action in the city by the Bay is their ban on plastic shopping bags, not all such bags, mind you, just those from “big”j stores.

Can we see that thoughtful pose again, C.W.?