Kerby Anderson
In previous commentaries, I have quoted Michael Shellenberger and his book, Apocalypse Never, which deals with environmental issues. But his latest book documents the problem of homelessness in one city. The title is: San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities. He documents various reasons why the homeless problem has become worse.
Limited housing has been one reason. Expensive housing and warmer climates explain why the homeless can be found in California, Florida, and Hawaii. Not only is the climate warmer, but the real estate costs are very high.
Drugs and substance abuse are other issues. In the past, Michael Shellenberger promoted decriminalization of drugs but has changed his mind. For example, drug overdoses are the number one cause of accidental death.
He also notes this irony. “No state in America has taken more aggressive action to reduce the public’s exposure to chemicals, and to second-hand smoke, than California.” But while cities and the state focus on “the remote dangers of cosmetics, pesticides, and second-hand smoke, they downplay the immediate dangers of hard drugs including fentanyl.”
Mental illness is another reason for homelessness. While about 52 million people suffer from a mental illness, about 13 million adults are seriously mentally ill. A significant percentage of them are now on the streets because of policies that forced their release from psychiatric hospitals. People with serious mental illness are more likely to be homeless, to interact with drug dealers, and to be victimized.
His book reminds us that to deal with the problem of homelessness, we need to look at root causes, not just symptoms.

Penna Dexter
Because of a new rule the Biden-Harris administration issued last spring, students in nearly half the states face some disturbing changes as they return to their schools and colleges. The rule is the result of a rewrite of Title IX of the Education Amendments, enacted in 1972 specifically to protect women and girls. Title IX forbids discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program. The new rule expands the definition of sex to include gender identity.
Title IX was a hard-won feminist goal that has resulted in groundbreaking opportunities and protections for women.
In issuing the rewrite, U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona stated, “For more than 50 years, Title IX has promised an equal opportunity to learn and thrive in our nation’s schools, free from sex discrimination.”
With the stroke of a pen, the president erased this progress.
Attorney Sarah Parshall Perry is the Heritage Foundation’s expert in Title IX.  She explains that “In over half the nation, girls and women will no longer have any sex-separated bathrooms, locker rooms, housing accommodations, or other educational programs.” Despite disclaimers, Sarah Perry says “Women’s sports are likely on the chopping block too.”
On August 1, the new Biden rule went into effect with no celebratory statement from the White House. Perhaps the administration didn’t want to call attention to the rule’s unpopularity. Twenty-six states and several membership organizations and individual plaintiffs filed a total of 10 lawsuits against the new rule. The lawsuits describe the administration’s action as illegal, unconstitutional, and “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Sarah Perry says “Ultimately, the bulk of the litigation over the Title IX rule seems destined for resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court.” Meanwhile, in most of the lawsuits, the new rule is temporarily enjoined from taking effect. There’s going to be some uncertainty out there. Hopefully the Court stops this nonsense.

Kerby Anderson
If you type the words “tablet kids” into a search engine, up will pop all sorts of tablets for young children. If you look far enough, you will see a press report of a medical study that would warn you not to purchase one of those tablets.
The Journal of the American Medical Association on Pediatrics documents such concerns in the article on “Early-Childhood Tablet Use and Outbursts of Anger.” The researchers found that children who spend 75 minutes or more per day on a computer screen at age 3.5 are more likely to experience anger and frustration outbursts a year later. The study also warned that this cycle may continue, as children who are more likely to express anger and frustration at age 4.5 may spend even more time on a tablet a year later.
As you might imagine, the study was greeted by many skeptics with comments like: Tell me something I didn’t know. Any parent or grandparent who has children or grandchildren who are becoming addicted to digital devices has seen this behavior. The value of this study is to document it and predict that it will get worse over time.
There is some value in allowing a young child to look at a computer screen for a few minutes just to get some sanity as you are walking through “the valley of the diapers.” Giving a computer tablet to a young child might distract them for a moment. It might even help avoid a temper tantrum, but the long-term impact on the child is not good. It will perpetuate a cycle where a parent gives a tablet to an angry child, only to later have an even angrier child.
This study warns against allowing young children to become addicted to digital devices. If you allow that to continue, you will likely create an unsocialized, tech-dependent, angry child.