It turns out that "fixing broken windows" can be done by means other than trashing the 4th Amendment and declaring war on law-abiding citizens who happen to live on the wrong street. Boston has gotten similar results not by treating poor neighborhoods like occupied territory, but rather by working with people in poor neighborhoods. It turns out that a lot of them don't like crime either. Once the police demonstrate that they're capable of distinguishing between guilty poor people and innocent poor people -- in other words, when the police stop acting like just one more gang of thugs with a bad attitude -- everybody gets along okay. I understand that this is less aesthetically satisfying because nobody gets a broom-handle up the ass, but we're willing to surrender the aesthetic high ground to Il Duce down there in NYC if that's what it takes.

A curious side effect of Giuliani's policies is that violent crime in northeastern Pennsylvania has gone through the roof. Giuliani has not, in fact, done a damn thing to stop crime. He just shifted some of it out of his jurisdiction.

Do you really think the homeless people just vanish when you pass a law forbidding their existence? I know they're not human beings, that's obvious, even if some of them are white. They can't be human beings, because they smell funny. They have no more rights than a rock or a stray dog. So don't get me wrong, I'm not making a moral point here. It's more of a logistical thing: Mass can neither be created nor destroyed, not even by Rudy Giuliani (he tried to get that one repealed but those goofy guys at the Institute for Advanced Study are all a bunch of . . . you know . . . and they wouldn't listen). Are the homeless people still alive? If so, they've gone somewhere. It would have been more efficient to kill them. They're not productive, are they? Hardly. The vol^H^H^Hpeople of the United States must not tolerate unproductive units.