continued

an update on my last post . . . i'm listening to kqed's forum with michael "crazy dog" krasny, and they're talking about this issue.  very interesting.  the spokespeople in support of it say that there is a wave of violence in the haight (though crime levels are down) and residents are fearful to make complaints, so cops need a way to preemptively arrest criminal youth before they commit a crime.  it's a pretty incredible argument.   criminalizing something (that supporters admit isn't the real problem) to reduce crimes that are only peripherally related, if at all.  crimes, by the way, which are already, by definition, illegal.  we're assured that the cops will exercise discretion in only using this law against undesirables (as opposed to, say, well-dressed kids running a lemonade stand).  but is that really how the laws are supposed to work?   we're supposed to give the cops whatever constitutionally doubtful "tools" they request, so long as they pinky swear they won't use them against us "regular people?"

also, the callers, my lord.  so many rich people in this city are under the impression that their share of property taxes entitles them to a representative share of influence in city policy.