In previous commentaries, I have quoted Michael Shellenberger and his book,
Apocalypse Never, that 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 another issue. 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.

The English language is changing rapidly because progressives have been giving new definitions to words and phrases. Apparently, we can’t even define what a woman is, what a recession is, or what free speech entails. The latest redefinition is the word “freedom” courtesy of California Governor Gavin Newsom.

As part of what may be a run-up to a presidential bid, the governor began an ad campaign in Florida boasting that California is America’s true “free state.” Most of us would think that a free state would be one with lower taxes and less government intrusion, but that is not what the governor suggests makes a “free state.”

Victor Davis Hanson grew up in California, went to college and graduate school in California, and lives there to this day. That is why he wrote about “Gavin Newson’s Weird Idea of Freedom.”

He reminds us that California has the most burdensome regulations and tax rates in the country. “California’s once-vaunted freeway system is near the bottom of all state comparisons. California’s Highway 99, which runs the length of the Central Valley, is one of the deadliest roads in America based on miles driven.”

Half of the nation’s homeless population are found in that state’s major cities. A third of all the nation’s welfare recipients can be found there. A fifth of the resident population lives below the poverty line. Test scores for the public schools in California are consistently in the bottom ten states.

San Francisco has the highest per capita property crime rate in the country. No wonder the district attorney in the city was recalled by the voters. The district attorney for Los Angeles will likely be recalled as well.

The governor may believe his state is a “free state” but hundreds of thousands of Californians have left the state for truly free states in the rest of the country.

Politicians and pundits are starting to take a closer look at ESG, which is a system that evaluates companies and countries with an index of Environmental, Social, and Governance concerns. For example, Senator Tom Cotton has been speaking about his concerns with how the system is deployed.

Andy Kessler, writing in the Wall Street Journal, argues that ESG is a loser and that you pay higher expenses for a fund with similar stocks but worse performance. In fact, he encourages investors to buy stocks of companies with great prospects over the next decade at reasonable prices.

But aren’t the companies and countries with a high ESG score better investments? A professor at the University of Colorado evaluated the system in the Harvard Business Review and made four key points about ESG.

First, ESG funds have underperformed. Second, companies that tout their ESG credentials have worse compliance records for labor and environmental rules. Third, ESG scores of companies that signed the UN Principles of Investment, didn’t improve after they signed, and their financial returns were lower for those who signed.

His final point was even more significant. He concluded that often companies publicly embrace ESG as a cover for poor business performance. In other words, when earnings are bad, the company cites its ESG score.

We might also add the political aspects of ESG scores. Two months ago, I wrote that Tesla was removed from the S&P 500 ESG Index when it used to have the fourth largest weighting in the index. Was it because of some of the “controversial” statements and actions of Elon Musk?

We should be encouraged that more leaders in Congress and in business are taking a second look at ESG.

Rich Lowry argues that “the climate-obsessed green movement is the most stupidly self-destructive force in the world today, leaving a trail of irrationality and folly wherever it goes.” He points to the collapse of Sri Lanka. But he could use other countries as examples of what happens when destructive green policies are adopted by a country’s leaders.

He laments that proponents of the green agenda “seek to throw the gears into reverse on the millennia-long human quest for cheaper, more abundant, and more reliable sources of energy.” Sri Lanka achieved one of the highest ESG scores (environmental, social, and governance scores) in the world. It did so by banning chemical fertilizers last year and hurtled the country towards economic ruin and now social collapse.

Danish environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg has for many years argued that many of the costly measures proposed by politicians will have little impact on the rising temperatures of the world. What he calls “the climate elite” will spread misery in the near term to reach future climate standards.

He reminds us that humans can adapt to rising temperatures and cites research in Spain that documents those rising temperatures led to fewer heat deaths. He also reminds us that low temperatures are much more dangerous that high ones. “Half a million people die each year from heat, but more than 4.5 million die from cold.” He also cites a recent Lancet study that found rising temperatures since 2000 have on net reduced the number of temperature-related deaths.

Most people are worried about the rising cost of fuel and the rising cost of food. Destructive green policies make both problems worse.

Seven years ago, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, struck down laws mandating traditional marriage. We were told at the time, that the decision was settled even though it was enacted by the slimmest of margins.

But last month, Democrats in the House of Representatives pushed through legislation, deceptively labelled the “Respect for Marriage Act.” It was intended to codify into law the Supreme Court decision. This would be an unnecessary protection. But the bill’s sponsors point to a statement by one Justice (Clarence Thomas) who raised the possibility of revisiting the 2015 decision on same-sex marriage.

Seven years ago, it was clear that nearly all Republicans and many Democrats disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling. But times have changed. When the House voted on the bill, 47 House Republicans voted for it.

When the bill went to the Senate, three dozen Republicans said they were “undecided” while at least four Republicans came out to support the bill. To frame Republicans as bigots, the bill includes protections for interracial marriage. This is not even an issue and was decided long ago in the historic Supreme Court decision of Loving v. Virginia.

When the Supreme Court redefined marriage, it tore up three dozen state laws and over 50 million ballots cast in various state elections that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. At the time, the US was only one of 23 countries out of 195 that redefined marriage. Citizens and state legislatures were discussing and debating the issue of marriage, but the Supreme Court stepped in and stopped the debate, as it did in the Roe v. Wade decision back in 1973.

I would welcome an honest debate about marriage, but I believe this current attempt is merely a ploy to make same-sex marriage another campaign issue in these midterm elections.

Has Christianity made a positive impact on Western civilization? That was a question I posed a few months ago in a commentary and provided a short list of atheists who would agree with that statement. Now, there are more atheists coming to that conclusion.

Jonathon Van Maren writes about a number of atheists who he calls “King Agrippa Christians.” After the Apostle Paul gave his testimony and the gospel, the king said he was nearly persuaded. None of the atheists Van Maren mentions have become Christians, but they do acknowledge the important contribution of Christianity to our world.

One example is the historian Tom Holland, who often writes about the ancient world. His new book, Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World, makes a convincing case for Christianity. Christian writers who have read the book praise it because it provides examples that various Christian historians have documented.

The ancient world was cruel. Spartans, for example, routinely killed off “imperfect” children. The bodies of slaves were treated like outlets for physical pleasure. Only a few citizens had rights.

Holland explains that Christianity changed the prevailing views about sex and marriage. It demanded that men control themselves. It placed sex within marriage and within monogamy. And Christianity elevated the status of women. To put it simply, Christianity transformed the world.

Without Christianity, the Western world as we know it would not exist. If the West had not become Christian, Holland writes, “no one would have gotten woke.”

This growing list of atheists who say positive things about Christianity is encouraging. They are willing to admit that Christianity has been a force for good in our world.

What might change if Republicans retake the House and Senate in 2022? Dr. Merrill Matthews suggests that one change might be welfare reform. Back in the 1990s, a Republican Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, a welfare reform package. But some aspects (like the work requirement) have been removed by later administrations. He believes that Senator Rick Scott’s “Let Get Back to Work Act” could pass next year.

Decades ago, one of the Republican leaders on welfare reform was former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson. Heritage Foundation expert on welfare is Robert Rector. He explained that: “Thompson initiated a series of reforms that cut welfare dependency during the late 1980s” and then added other work-related reforms in the 1990s. This ultimately cut the welfare case load in half.

Merrill Mathews talks about a program in Oregon that not only had a work requirement but also included a program that provided welfare recipients with assistance in finding a job. If the employer and the beneficiary were satisfied after a period, the employee was given a full-time job and dropped from welfare benefits.

It worth mentioning the past success of welfare reform because the younger generation will be susceptible to the same warnings and complaints critics used last time. We know how effective welfare reform can be. But passing similar legislation will still face an uphill battle in Congress.

Senator Scott points out, “A job creates income, independence, and security – it’s the foundation of the American Dream.” He adds that, “The American people want to work. People want to support themselves and their families, and be independent, not reliant on government programs.”

Welfare reform is one of several changes that might be implemented if we see a change in the control of Congress this fall.

More than a year ago, I quoted a social commentator who argued that more and more employees would be working remotely. That is exactly what we are finding. In fact, employers are finding it difficult to get workers back to the office.

Notice the difference in employment statistics. Life is returning to normal at restaurants, airlines, and sporting events. They aren’t exactly back to pre-pandemic levels but approaching them. By contrast, companies with offices (especially in major cities) are having a difficult time getting people back to the office. This is due to the three C’s.

Commuting is one of the reasons. New York, Chicago, Washington, DC, and San Francisco have some of the nation’s longest commute times. They also have some of the lowest return-to-the office rates.

Crime is another reason. Office workers are concerned about crime and their personal safety. When a gunman killed a Goldman Sachs employee on a New York City subway, other Goldman office workers expressed their concern about coming back to work. Crime statistics for Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco have risen.

Covid is also a concern. Office workers wonder why they should risk infection or reinfection when gas prices are $5 a gallon and crime in in the street. Even if they make it into the office, they discover that many of the people they need for a meeting are at home on any given day.

One survey found that two thirds (68%) of office workers in North America said they would consider looking for another job if their managers insist they return to their workplace full-time. Most workers prefer a job that provides a mix of remote and in-person work.

The workplace in America will look very different the rest of this decade, due in part to the pandemic and lockdowns.