Sunday, July 5, 2020

Joe Biden and the Politics of Dementia

Much more needs to said about this, especially by neurologists, but Victor Davis Hanson has a good go at the story of Joe Biden’s senile dementia. Surely, we have noted it in the past on this blog, but Hanson begins the arduous task of mining it, as a significant element in the upcoming presidential election.

How bad is Biden’s dementia? Rather bad indeed:

If Trump repeats vocabulary, Biden increasingly searches for words, any noun, whatever its irrelevance to the point he is making. Biden seems to suffer dyscognitive seizures, in which for moments he has no idea what he is doing or saying or where he is — a tragic, nearly epileptic condition. In scary episodes, the pale, scaly, and frozen visage of Biden appears almost reptilian, like a lizard freezing and remaining stationary as it struggles to process signals of perceived danger.

Inserting memorized answers into rehearsed questions, as if the entire con was spontaneous, only reveals how his once episodic dementia has become chronic as he loses his prompt and place. It was understandable that his handlers saw opportunity in secluding Biden during Trump’s tweeting, alongside the contagion, the lockdown, the recession, and the rioting that in voters’ minds had equated fear of chaos with the culpability of the current commander in chief.

And then, an interesting point. Keeping Biden isolated in his basement might cause the American people forget about his dementia, but it will aggravate his condition. 

One, seclusion, quiet, and the absence of intellectual stimuli often only enhance dementia, while travel, conversation, and new imagery and experiences tend to unclog for a bit the congested neuron pathways. The more Biden “rests up,” the more he seems to be non compos mentis in his rare staged interviews. His brain is like a flabby muscle, and restful disuse does not make it firmer.

But, the less we see Biden, the more stock we will grant to the instances when we do see him in action:

But by avoiding the campaign trail, Biden is only postponing the inevitable. He is compressing the campaign into an ever-shorter late-summer and autumn cycle. If he really agrees to three debates (he may not agree to any at all), and if he performs as he usually now acts and speaks, then he may end up reminding the American people in the eleventh hour of the campaign that they have a choice between a controversial president and a presidential candidate who simply cannot fulfill the office of presidency.

And if Biden is a no-show, Trump will probably debate an empty, Clint Eastwood–prop mute chair.

If the media and the medical profession had the least smidgeon of integrity they would hound Biden into taking a test that could demonstrate his cognitive abilities. Of course, the deranged psychiatrists who insisted that Donald Trump was suffering from some undefined narcissistic disorder-- an extremely dubious diagnosis-- have nothing to say about Biden’s neurological impairments:

We are not supposed to remember that Trump was hounded by progressive M.D.s, to the point that he took — and aced — the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test, an examination that no one in his right mind would suggest Biden now take, given that the results would be no surprise.

Hanson suggests that Biden will merely be a stand-in for a radical vice presidential candidate. And that once he is elected he will be quickly removed from office to make way for a leftist replacement:

Translated, that means the Democratic donor class accepts that they cannot win while siding with the mobs on the street and their appeasers and apologists — and yet the latter leftists are needed to provide the missing 5 to 7 points for victory. With a wink and nod, the vice-presidential candidate will be seen as assuming the presidency and giving to the Left what they could not achieve through a presidential election — while old Joe Biden from Scranton stares at the TV screen a bit longer to prove he’s not a raving socialist.

So, Hanson predicts that our media intellectuals will insist that we not have debates:

Expect more calls to cancel the debates as corrupt, fluff, reality-TV pizzazz and utterly unnecessary. Anticipate that the virus lockdown will be prolonged nearly until Election Day and will de facto lead Democrats to call for a Zoom campaign: Biden talking to the camera with a teleprompted script behind the screen.

Worse yet, and as hard as it is to believe, blue state governors are likely to keep their states shut down, the better to cause the kind of economic collapse that might well discredit the Trump presidency. It takes a large quantity of cynicism to believe such a thing, but it is certainly thinkable:

Expect blue states to remain economically mired in quarantines, in hopes of aborting a recovery. Democratic leaders will never really crack down on what heretofore have been blue-state rioting and looting; the chronic chaos and recession will be kept alive and geared to the November election.

The solution is to force Biden out of his rabbit hole, to give the American people a clear choice in November:

In the chaos of July, Biden’s handlers have been acclaimed geniuses for anesthetizing him. But in the different season of October, he may finally be forced out from his lockdown, in the wild manner that soon-to-be looters and arsonists at last emerged from quarantine in June — pent-up, angry, incoherent, and self-destructive.

Did Trump Break America's Brain?

We live in a time that calls for Tom Wolfe. We need a political satirist who can call out the fake intelligentsia on Park Avenue and hold the mirror up to their follies.

Alas, Wolfe is no longer answering his calls, so we turn to Matt Taibbi, a very talented writer and thinker, one who has a finger on the pulse of an America going stark raving mad.

To render the moment, you need a certain command of language and you need a healthy amount of pure cynicism. Because what is happening is completely nuts.

For the record Taibbi comes to us from the American left. For the record, it doesn’t really matter.

He encompasses, not just the madness of it all, but its utter and complete stupidity:

It’s the Fourth of July, and revolution is in the air. Only in America would it look like this: an elite-sponsored Maoist revolt, couched as a Black liberation movement whose canonical texts are a corporate consultant’s white guilt self-help manual, and a New York Times series rewriting history to explain an election they called wrong.

Much of America has watched in quizzical silence in recent weeks as crowds declared war on an increasingly incoherent succession of historical symbols. Maybe you nodded as Confederate general Albert Pike was toppled or even when Christopher Columbus was beheaded, but it got a little weird when George Washington was emblazoned with “Fuck Cops” and set on fire, or when they went after Ulysses S. Grant, abolitionist Colonel Hans Christian Heg, “Forward,” (a seven-foot-tall female figure meant to symbolize progress), the Portland, Oregon “Elk statue,” or my personal favorite, the former slave Miguel de Cervantes, whose cheerful creations Don Quixote and Sancho Panza were apparently mistaken for reals and had their eyes lashed red in San Francisco.

True enough, the New York Times seems to have descended into terminal dementia-- perhaps it’s a way to prepare for what the Times is hoping for: a Biden presidency.

Taibbi notes the decline and fall of the Times:

The New York Times, once the dictionary definition of “unprovocative,” suddenly reads like Pol Pot’s Sayings of Angkar. Heading into the Fourth of July weekend, the morning read for upscale white Manhattanites was denouncing Mount Rushmore, urging Black America to arm itself, and re-positioning America alongside more deserving historical parallels in a feature about caste systems:

Throughout human history, three caste systems have stood out. The lingering, millenniums-long caste system of India. The tragically accelerated, chilling and officially vanquished caste system of Nazi Germany. And the shape-shifting, unspoken, race-based caste pyramid in the United States.

When Taibbi talks about the people who run the country, he could well be talking about the deep state. Surely, he is onto something when he suggests that all the hoopla about the revolution is a way to disguise the fact that these solons have made a mess of the country. Note that he does not distinguish Republican and Democrat deep state operatives:

The people who run this country have run out of workable myths with which to distract the public, and in a moment of extreme crisis have chosen to stoke civil war and defame the rest of us – black and white – rather than admit to a generation of corruption, betrayal, and mismanagement.

It predates Trump, but the American economic model more closely resembles an oligarchy than a free market:

By 2016 Americans had lived for a generation under an economic model dominated by huge transnational companies that sold weapons into holocausts of urban violence, rejoiced in addiction to opiates or carcinogens as a revenue model, bled virtually all the savings of the American middle class (targeting minorities especially) through a succession of speculative bubble schemes, and relentlessly lobbied to be exempted from taxes, environmental laws, criminal penalties, and even their own business errors, through bailouts approved by the “politicians” they sponsored in both parties.

Interestingly, Taibbi explains clearly the rationale for the Trump presidency:

About those “deplorables”: the populist fury that drove the Trump campaign was obviously not rooted in concern over police brutality, and just as obviously Trump was using gross racial rhetoric to drum up support. I wrote about this repeatedly covering him in 2015-2016.

But he did stress other themes. In hunger to suck up discontent of every stripe, candidate Trump complained about everything from the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies (“the lines” around states prevented competition, he said half-coherently) to the “obsolete” mission of NATO, to “nation building” abroad (he pledged instead to “build the roads, highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, and the railways of tomorrow” at home), to NAFTA to the Fed to, yes, Most Favored Nation trading status for China.

And let’s not forget Trump’s wish to pull a few troops out of Germany, a reward for Germany’s refusal to pay its fair share of NATO dues and its willingness to be dependent on Russian gas. Think of it, Germany is making itself dependent on Russia while it is whining about how we are not going to defend it. As you know, the deep state and all of its Congressional toadies are up in arms about reducing our troop levels in Germany. 

Taibbi suggests that Trump broke the brains of America’s elite intellectuals. It make a lot of sense, if you listen to America’s elite intellectuals:

The best explanation for these sudden reversals in rhetoric is that Trump broke the brains of America’s educated classes. Like Russian aristocrats who spent the last days of the Tsarist empire flocking to fortune-tellers and mystics, upscale blue-staters have lost themselves lately in quasi-religious tracts like White Fragility, and are lining up to flog themselves for personal and historical sins.

In desperation to help the country atone for their idea of why Trump happened, they’ve engaged in a sort of moon landing of anti-intellectual endeavors, committing a generation of minds to finding a solution to the one thing no thinking person ever considered a problem, i.e. the Enlightenment ideas that led to the American Revolution.

America’s intelligentsia has lost faith in American, has lost faith in democracy and has lost faith in republican government. They want to erase American history, the better to pave the way for a new world order, defined by more diversity.

The same pols and pundits who not long ago were waving the flag for wars and insisting that American-style democracy was so perfectly realized that it made sense to bring it to all the peoples of the world, by force if needed (think Friedman’s hypothesis of a borderless utopia of forced wealth creation called the Golden Straitjacket), have now reversed course to tell us our entire history needs to be wiped clean.

Everything is a lie now. CNN even put “Independence” in quotes when describing the holiday today (i.e. “Reexamining ‘Independence’ Day”). This will end with Wolf Blitzer, dressed in a dashiki, pulling the switch to dynamite the Statue of Liberty.

Saturday, July 4, 2020

America on the Fourth of July

In a better world we would today be celebrating American independence, happily. Unfortunately, we do not live in a better world. We live in the world we live in. How's that for profound. In our current world, where America seems to be disintegrating before our eyes, we can be forgiven if our festivities are less than whole- hearted.

In a moment of uncommon lucidity Bret Stephens explains that the problem is not Donald Trump. America’s problems are the legacy of the political left, the elite liberals, the ones who do not know how to think, who have decided to do a hostile takeover of the American mind:

The more serious problem today comes from the left: from liberal elites who, when tested, lack the courage of their liberal convictions; from so-called progressives whose core convictions were never liberal to begin with; from administrative types at nonprofits and corporations who, with only vague convictions of their own, don’t want to be on the wrong side of a P.R. headache.

Considering that I have long since pointed out that today’s American liberals are not liberal and that today’s progressives are really a radical left, it’s good to see Stephens joining the crew.

The American left has become tyrannical and despotic. We are not talking about internet trolls or unhinged college students. We are talking about the mainstream corporate media:

This has been the great cultural story of the last few years. It is typified by incidents such as The New Yorker’s David Remnick thinking it would be a good idea to interview Steve Bannon for the magazine’s annual festival — until a Twitter mob and some members of his own staff decided otherwise. Or by The Washington Post devoting 3,000 words to destroying the life of a private person of no particular note because in 2018 she wore blackface, with ironic intent, at a Halloween party. Or by big corporations pulling ads from Facebook while demanding the company do more to censor forms of speech they deem impermissible.

Of course, if the idiots are allowed to control the public conversation, people will no longer be able to think clearly, if at all. Have you considered that the war against proper syntax, the war against grammatically correct pronouns, is designed to confuse and confound, to turn your brains into mush:

These stories matter because an idea is at risk. That’s the idea that people who cannot speak freely will not be able to think clearly, and that no society can long flourish when contrarians are treated as heretics.

As noted, today’s radical left wants monopoly control over the marketplace of ideas:

But those defenders are, on account of one excuse or another, capitulating to people who claim free speech for themselves (but not for others), who believe all the old patriarchal hierarchies must go (so that new “intersectional” hierarchies may arise), who are in a perpetual fervor to rewrite the past (all the better to control the future), and who demand cringing public apologies from those who have sinned against an ever-more radical ideological standard (while those apologies won’t save them from being fired).

Stephens concludes:

Right now, all the Twitter furors, the angry rows over publication decisions, the canceled speeches and books, the semantic battles about which words take an uppercase and which don’t, may seem remote to those who care about more tangible issues: depression, disease, police abuse, urban decline. Yet the issue that counts the most is whether the institutions that are supposed to champion liberal ideals will muster the moral confidence to survive. On this July 4, it’s very much in doubt.

Her Boyfriend's Best Friend Is a Woman


Carolyn Hax is enjoying a vacation somewhere, so she has brought back some of her oldies but goodies. Her column of March 15, 2006 is sane and sensible. She tactfully avoids the central issue and offers some advice that the letter writer, named K, might be able to use.

The situation is not good. It seems to be flashing warning lights on K's relationship. And yet, she has tolerated it for two years, so our own understanding that she has made a mistake must be balanced against the fact that she has a considerable investment in it already.

The problem is: her boyfriend’s best friend is a female, Apparently, they communicate constantly, regardless of whether K is present. K does not live with boyfriend, but when she visits, boyfriend and his best friend are in close contact vis instant messaging. All the time.

K explains that the relationship between boyfriend and his best friend has always been platonic, though she should have said: to the best of her knowledge.

So, you will be thinking that, regardless of whether the best friendship has always been platonic, and regardless of boyfriend’s intentions, female best friend might have a different intention. Boyfriend is fairly obviously being seduced by his best friend. His female best friend is obviously unconcerned about what the steady diet of communication is doing to boyfriend’s relationship. This tells us that, no matter what boyfriend thinks, his best friend has something else in mind.

Here is the letter:

Hi, Carolyn: My boyfriend of two years has a female best friend (they met in college) who lives a couple of hours away. Their relationship is and always has been completely platonic, but my issue is this: My boyfriend spends a lot of time on the computer and they are constantly instant-messaging each other. I'm not talking a few times a week; more like two or three times a day. He often chats online with her while I am visiting for the weekend, and I find this behavior rude and annoying.

When I try to talk to him about it, he just tells me he has never had feelings for her and they are just friends … but he doesn't ever understand that the real issue is that his "best friend" is taking time away from our being together. I think that in a healthy relationship, your significant other should be your best friend.

How can I get him to understand how disrespectful this is to me, and how much it hurts our relationship?

Of course, it matters that the best friend is a girl. In truth, no male worth his XY chromosomes would ever engage in this level of communication with a best male friend.

So, Hax makes the first salient point: boyfriend is monumentally rude to detach from K when she is present.

The first is that it’s rude and annoying for him to chat online two or three times a day on the weekends you’ve traveled to see him. If this is your real point, then it’s a good one — one that has nothing to do with the sex of his friend. All you want is a little courtesy; he can chat with his friend when you leave.

Obviously, it is extremely discourteous, though some of the responsibility must devolve on the female best friend.

The second point is also correct. Boyfriend is sharing intimacy with his best female friend. That means, I will put a finer point on it, he is being unfaithful. It doesn’t matter whether or not the couple are doing the beast with two backs. They are emotionally intimate, at a very high level.

The second point is that you feel the intimacy he shares with this female friend takes away from the intimacy you share with him — and as his girlfriend, you feel you’re entitled to it.

Hax veers briefly into nonsense when she starts asking whether K would feel the same if her boyfriend was being emotionally intimate with a male friend. The point is off the mark, because, as noted above, male friends do not maintain such constant connections. 

If this is what you really mean to say, then I think you also have a good point, but a complicated one. Were this best friend male, would you be feeling so threatened? And if it isn’t about sex but instead about best-friendship, then does it even make sense to ask to be someone’s best friend? And if it is her sex that makes his attentions to her seem “disrespectful,” are you ready to say that a man in a relationship shouldn’t have close female friends?

Most females understand that a male friend’s priority must be his relationship, and not with a friend. So, it is her sex that makes it all suspect, and one should be clear about it.

Hax, like yours truly, tends to prefer that people avoid confrontations and ulimata, so she asks this:

It’s an opinion you’re certainly entitled to have, but it’s also an opinion best thought through fully before dropped on a boyfriend’s lap. It’s got that whiff of “Take it or leave it,” for both of you, and you should know that before you go in.

It’s not a question of whether or not boyfriend can have female friends. The question is: should he be having an emotional affair with a woman while he is presumably having a real relationship with K.

We would feel more enlightened if we knew more about this throuple, but, at the end of the day, K should not lay down an ultimatum-- she should simply walk away.

Friday, July 3, 2020

Anger or Hate?

Are you angry yet?

Apparently, we are all very, very angry. And we could use some serious anger management skills. Elizabeth Bernstein has explained it in the Wall Street Journal and Elizabeth Chang has done the same in the Washington Post.

I will not summarize their excellent presentations, because I want to deviate from the general idea: first, that we can mitigate national anger with therapy; and second, that what people are feeling is really anger.

In truth, I would say that we are being consumed by hatred more than by anger. When you are angry with someone you attempt to reconcile. When you hate someone, you want to destroy him.

As for why we feel anger or hatred, the reason is simple: we have been told that these feelings are morally correct. If we are not enraged by racism and sexism we are moral eunuchs. If we do not hate those who brought us those evils, we are worse than moral eunuchs.

Group hatred differs significantly from the hatred you feel over the fact that someone stole your bicycle and you cannot get it back.

Since there is only one object of the hatred, President Donald Trump, the notion that those who despise him want to do anything but destroy him is risible. From the beginning of his presidency, Trump’s detractors have had only one object in mind: to destroy him, to destroy his presidency, to destroy all of those who supported him or voted for him.

While inveighing against hate they have been trafficking in hate. At the least, they are not very bright. The same applies to anyone who follows their lead.

It began with the #MeToo movement, organized in the name of the nation’s leading enabler of sexual harassment, organized by people who did not just hate men, but who also hated America and Jews, organized by people who were happy to give Bill Clinton a pass on sexual harassment and rape charges, but refused to do the same for any other white male.

Intellectually incoherent, the anger at white men quickly became hatred-- designed to destroy men, to destroy careers, to destroy families and lives. It did not even solve the problem it intended to solve. Male managers across America learned that they should not mentor young women, should not spend time alone with young women and so on. As for men mistreating women, relations between the sexes outside of the office were hardly suffused with respect and affection. Tinder dates were certainly consensual, but women who imagined that these dates would lead to something more were enraged when their hopes were not fulfilled.

And then American politics were all about hatred of Trump. From the Russian collusion hoax to the impeachment fiasco, it was all about hating Trump. It worked well enough in the 2018 presidential elections, so the media is trotting it out for the 2020 elections. It would be nice to think that our elite intellectuals have suddenly discovered that racism is wrong, but it is probably closer to the truth to say that they are working to gin up Black voter turnout.

Again, the George Floyd protests, led by a crypto-Marxist gang called Black Lives Matter, fully supported by America-hating bigots like Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan, will almost certainly set back the cause of civil rights. As we witness the witless attacks on American business and American institutions, do you feel a grain of respect for the people who are perpetrating these outrages? Do you want to hire them? Do you want to do business with them?

It would be good if someone would ask how it happened that the condition of Black America had improved under the Trump presidency. It would be good if someone would ask why the Obama obsession with social justice had not benefited Black people as much as Trumpian deregulation had.

Of course, no one is asking these questions. The goal, for today, is to destroy, and to pretend that one is destroying racism. In fact those who are leading the protests are working to elect Joe Biden and a Democratic Congress. Nothing more and nothing less.

As of now, they are clearly winning their bet. Of course, when they wake up to find out that they have won, they will also face the fallout from their absurd expressions of hate. They might find that the prize they sought is a poisoned gift. They might discover that with power comes responsibility. And they might discover that the skills required to gin up national hysteria, to give expression to hatred, and to destroy peoples's lives are of little use when it comes time to govern.

The Summer of Love in San Francisco

Here are some more fun facts about San Francisco. After all, when you think of the summer of love, you naturally think of San Francisco. While the media attention is focused on the pandemic in red states, blue states are doing an awful job keeping their citizens healthy and alive. After all, most coronavirus deaths have been occurring in places like New York, New Jersey and Michigan. They have been occurring because Democratic governors sent recovering coronavirus patients to nursing homes, where they infected the elderly.

Since the story does not make Trump look bad, the media has ignored it. 

As for San Francisco, the Wall Street Journal editorializes about its handling of the coronavirus. It locked down and enforced social distancing, except for the homeless:

San Francisco was the first U.S. city to lock down and strictly enforce its shelter-in-place order—at least against law-abiding citizens. Meanwhile, public officials and police let hundreds of the homeless crowd streets and use drugs in the downtown Tenderloin district, according to two new lawsuits against the city.

San Francisco’s homeless population increased by 20% between 2015 and 2019 but has surged since the city locked down in March. “The number of tents and makeshift shelters on Tenderloin sidewalks grew from 158 on March 3, 2020, to 391 on May 1, 2020,” one lawsuit notes. “However, the San Francisco Police Department has been directed not to remove or disturb those tents” even though “they block the sidewalks and shield criminals.”

The lawsuit includes pictures of people camping out and crowding sidewalks this spring. One worker deemed essential by the city claims she had to walk in street traffic because sidewalks were strewn with tents, human feces and trash. Businesses in the neighborhood say they have been vandalized.

The city has been filling luxury hotels with the homeless, and has been affording them access to drugs and alcohol:

Meanwhile, as a recent article in City Journal notes, San Francisco is “surreptitiously placing homeless people in luxury hotels by designating them as emergency front-line workers” and has spent $3,795.98 to buy guests alcohol, ostensibly to encourage them to shelter in place. The city has also provided complimentary cigarettes and marijuana.

Selective enforcement of the shelter-in-place order has ignored George Floyd protesters but has cracked down on anyone protesting Planned Parenthood:

Crime and drug use have increased around the hotels. Perhaps these entrepreneurs have discovered they can make a handsome profit reselling taxpayer-funded goods. Meantime, San Francisco police have cited ordinary citizens for violating the shelter-in-place order, including an 86-year-old protesting outside a Planned Parenthood clinic. George Floyd protesters have been exempt from enforcement.

So far 50 people in San Francisco have died of Covid-19. During the first six months of last year, 182 people died of drug overdoses. The lawsuits claim that San Francisco has created a public nuisance, taken private property without just compensation, and violated the equal protection of the law owed to businesses. They are asking for a court injunction to force the city to clean up the streets.

Good luck with that.

Seattle Mayor Comes to her Senses

Remember when Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan defended the rape of her city as: a “summer of love.”

As everyone but Durkan had predicted, the CHAZ/CHOP occupied zone turned violent, nasty and ugly.

So, Durkan was forced to end the occupation, via an executive order that she could have issued weeks ago.

Tyler O’Neil reports on the order, which offers a sobering glimpse of the CHOP dystopia: 

Durkan, in justifying her executive order finally clearing out the occupation, made some rather harsh admissions.

“After significant national attention, many protesters have left the area but the conditions in the Cal Anderson Park Area have deteriorated to the point where public health, life, and safety are threatened by activities in and around this area,” Durkan’s order states. The order lists a few key facts, including the three tragic shootings on June 20, 22, and 29, which claimed the lives of two black teenagers and left more wounded.

During the first of these shootings, the order notes that “first responders from the Seattle Fire Department and Seattle Police Department were denied safe access to the area by hostile crowds, including armed individuals, and obstructions.”

While these shootings represent the worst of the tragedies, they fail to capture the horrifying CHOP crime spike.

“In addition, SPD has received numerous reports of narcotics use and violent crime, including rape, robbery, assault, and increased gang activity,” Durkan’s order states. “An increase of 525%, 22 additional incidents, in person-related crime in the area, to include two additional homicides, 6 additional robberies, and 16 additional aggravated assaults (to include 2 additional non-fatal shootings) between June 2nd and June 30th, 2020, compared to the same period of time in 2019.”

That’s not all, folks:

“Residential [sic] and businesses in the area have documented incidents of harassment, graffiti, noise disturbances, and obstruction of vehicular traffic to residences and places of business, and multiple lawsuits and claims have been filed against the City by residents and businesses impacted by the activities in this area,” the order adds, referencing recent lawsuits. “Significant damage has been caused by those remaining unlawfully in the area to City property, including Cal Anderson Park and the East Precinct facility.”

And naturally, coronavirus cases spiked in the area, as they have throughout the nation after the George Floyd protests:

“An alarming recent rise in COVID-19 numbers across the region, coupled with a lack of social distancing in this area, and the daily attraction to this area of outside individuals place the neighborhood at opening businesses at increased risk for outbreaks,” Durkan’s order states.

If that is not enough:

Ongoing violations of the Seattle Parks and Recreation’s Code of Conduct have been observed, including camping and parking in the park, conduct that unreasonably deprives others of the use of parks, disrupting Seattle Parks and Recreation business, dumping trash and/or creating unsanitary conditions or health hazards that violate public health rules, behaviors that impede restroom use; urinating or defecating, except in designated restroom fixtures, blocking entrances, exits, fire exits, disabled access areas, public walkways; conduct that creates an unreasonable and substantial risk of harm to any person or property, and abusive and harassing behavior.

And so on and so on and so on.

Summer of love, you say. It was on the way to becoming San Francisco.