Opinion
Why treating the Homesless as victims only makes the problem worse
This article is from Substack
Bestselling author Michael Shellenberger has just published a new book, “San Fransicko” about the homeless crisis in San Francisco. Shellenberger has lived in San Fransisco for 30 years. In “San Fransicko” Shellenberger argues one of the root causes of the homeless crisis sweeping cities all over America (and Canada) is the victimization of homeless people. In this article, Michael Shellenberger talks about the prevalent theory that homeless people are all victims as portrayed by TV Host John Oliver.
Why John Oliver Is Wrong About Homelessness
HBO TV Comedian Repeats Myth that the Homeless Are Just Poor People in Need of Subsidized Housing
The intelligent and hilarious HBO comedian John Oliver last night aired a 25-minute segment on homelessness. In it, he attributed homelessness to poverty, high rents, and NIMBY neighborhood activists who block new housing developments. Oliver showed interviews with homeless people who say they would like to work full-time but are unable to do so because they have to live in homeless shelters.
Unfortunately, Oliver’s segment repeated many myths that are easy to debunk. The vast majority of people we call “homeless” are suffering from serious mental illness, addiction, or both. We do a great job of helping mothers and others who don’t suffer from addiction or untreated mental illness to benefit from subsidized housing, but don’t mandate the psychiatric and addiction care that many “homeless” require. And the best-available, peer-reviewed science shows that “Housing First” agenda Oliver promotes fails on its own terms, worsens addiction, and is one of the main reasons homelessness has grown so much worse.
It’s true that we need more housing and voluntary addiction and psychiatric care, including what is called “permanent supportive housing” for people suffering from mental illness. In my new book, San Fransicko, I advocate for universal psychiatric care, drug treatment on demand, and building of more shelter space for the homeless. And Oliver is right that the U.S. lacks the social safety net that European and other developed nations have.
But Oliver badly misdescribes the problem. For example, he notes that some cities lack sufficient homeless shelter. But he doesn’t acknowledge that it has been “Housing First” homelessness advocates who caused the lack of shelter by demanding that funding be diverted to apartments often costing $750,000 each.
And Oliver promotes policies that have made addiction, mental illness, and homelessness worse. He claims homelessness causes addiction when it is far more often the other way around. And Oliver completely ignores the overwhelming body of scientific research showing that using housing as a reward for abstinence, rather than giving it away as a right, is essential to reducing homelessness by reducing addiction.
Oliver was wrong to encourage more of the same policies that caused homelessness to increase in the U.S. over the last decade, but also wrong for suggesting that anyone who disagreed with him were racist and NIMBY “dicks” who cause violence against homeless people. Oliver closes his segment by ridiculing a white woman who expresses concern about subsidized housing bringing the homeless into her neighborhood.
Why is that? Why does such an intelligent, thoughtful, and compassionate journalist repeat easily-debunked myths about homelessness?
Part of it is just ignorance. Oliver appears to have relied entirely on Housing First advocates and not read anything that questions their narrative. As I document in San Fransicko, homeless advocates are not just small service providers but major academics at top universities including Columbia University and University of California, San Francisco. Those “Housing First” advocates have received hundreds of millions in grants from Marc Benioff, John Arnold, George Soros, and other donors to promote the notion that Housing First works.
Another part of it is ideological. Housing First advocates believe that housing, not shelter, is a right, and that governments have a moral obligation to provide it. They have spent 20 years trying to prove that giving away housing to addicts and the mentally ill works, but the studies show that it fails to address addiction and thus even keep people in apartments at higher rates than other methods. The only thing proven to work is to make housing a reward for good behavior, mostly abstinence but also things like taking one’s psychiatric medicines, and going to work.
The dominant view among progressives of homelessness, drugs, and mental illness stems from victim ideology, which was born in the 1960s. Starting in the late 1960s, progressives attacked any effort to hold people who receive welfare or subsidized accountable as “blaming the victim.” Today, many progressives even view drug dealers as victims.
Victim ideology categorizes people as victims or oppressors, and argues that nothing should be demanded of people categorized as victims. This is terrible for the mentally ill, who often need to be coerced into taking their medicines, so they don’t end up breaking the law, hurting people or themselves, and winding up in prison. And this is terrible for addicts, who need to be arrested, when breaking laws related to their addiction, such as public drug use, shoplifting, and public defecation.
In the end, Oliver’s 25 minute segment on homelessness is a perfect encapsulation of victim ideology and why it is so wrong on both the facts and on ethics. On the facts, Oliver misdescribes a homeless woman who is likely suffering from mental illness and/or drug addiction as merely down on her luck. And Oliver mixes together apparently sober and sane homeless families, temporarily down on their luck, with people are on the street because of addiction and untreated mental illness. Doing so is wrong, analytically, but also wrong, morally, since most addicts and the mentally ill need something very different from just a subsidized apartment unit.
If we are to solve homelessness rather than make it worse, we need intelligent and thoughtful comedians and influencers like Oliver to do their homework, rather than to repeat myths. I researched and wrote San Fransicko, in part, to make it easier for people to get the facts, rather than repeat what we were told, and to see that there’s a better way to help the homeless, whether addicted to drugs, mentally ill, or not.
The good news is that the conversation around drugs and homelessness is changing rapidly because the situation on the ground has grown so much worse. Environmental Progress and the California Peace Coalition are at the very beginning of our efforts to educate journalists, policymakers, and the public. And San Fransicko was published just three weeks ago.
As time passes, many Americans will see the consequence of treating what is fundamentally a problem of untreated mental illness and addiction as a problem of poverty, high rents, and NIMBYs. And some of them, perhaps even comedians like John Oliver, will come to find humor, and humility, from the fact that so many of us got it so wrong.
 |
This article supplied by Troy Media.
The supply management system is cracking. With imports climbing, strict quotas in place and Bill C202 on the table, we’re struggling to feed ourselves
Canada’s supply management system, once seen as a pillar of food security and agricultural self-sufficiency, is failing at its most basic function:
ensuring a reliable domestic supply.
According to the Canadian Association of Regulated Importers, Canada imported more than 66.9 million kilograms of chicken as of June 14, a 54.6 per cent increase from the same period last year. That’s enough to feed 3.4 million Canadians for a full year based on average poultry consumption—roughly 446 million meals. Under a tightly managed quota system, those meals were supposed to be produced domestically. Instead imports now account for more than 12 per cent of this year’s domestic chicken production, revealing a growing dependence on foreign supply.
Supply management is Canada’s system for regulating dairy, poultry and egg production. It uses quotas and fixed prices to match domestic supply with demand while limiting imports, intended to protect farmers from global price swings and ensure stable supply.
To be fair, the avian influenza outbreak has disrupted poultry production and partially explains the shortfall. But even with that disruption, the numbers are staggering. Imports under trade quotas set by the World Trade Organization, the Canada-United States Mexico Agreement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership are running at or near their allowable monthly share—known as pro-rata
levels—signalling not just opportunity, but urgency. Supplementary import permits, meant to be used only in emergencies, have already surpassed 48 million kilograms, exceeding total annual import volumes in some previous years. This isn’t a seasonal hiccup. It’s a systemic failure.
The system, designed to buffer domestic markets from global volatility, is cracking under internal strain. When emergency imports become routine, we have to ask: what exactly is being managed?
Canada’s most recent regulated chicken production cycle, which ended May 31, saw one of the worst shortfalls in over 50 years. Strict quota limits stopped farmers from producing more to meet demand, leaving consumers with higher grocery bills and more imported food, shaking public confidence in the system.
Some defenders insist this is an isolated event. It’s not. For the second straight week, Canada has hit pro-rata import levels across all chicken categories. Bone-in and processed poultry, once minor players in emergency import programs, are now essential just to keep shelves stocked.
And the dysfunction doesn’t stop at chicken. Egg imports under the shortage allocation program have already topped 14 million dozen, a 104 per cent jump from last year. Not long ago, Canadians were mocking high U.S. egg prices. Now theirs have fallen. Ours haven’t.
All this in a country with $30 billion in quota value, supposedly designed to protect domestic production and reduce reliance on imports. Instead, we’re importing more and paying more.
Rather than addressing these failures, Ottawa is looking to entrench them. Bill C202, now before the Senate, seeks to shield supply management from future trade talks, making reform even harder. So we must ask: is this really what we’re protecting?
Meanwhile, our trading partners are taking full advantage. Chile, for instance, has increased chicken exports to Canada by more than 63 per cent, now accounting for nearly 96 per cent of CPTPP-origin imports. While Canada doubles down on protectionism, others are gaining long-term footholds in our market.
It’s time to face the facts. Supply management no longer guarantees supply. When a system meant to ensure resilience becomes a source of fragility, it’s no longer an asset—it’s an economic liability.
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.
This article supplied by Troy Media.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s chaotic foreign policy is unravelling years of pressure on Iran and fuelling a surge of Iranian oil into global markets. His recent pivot to allow China to buy Iranian crude, despite previously trying to crush those exports, marks a sharp shift from strategic pressure to transactional diplomacy.
This unpredictability isn’t just confusing allies—it’s transforming global oil flows. One day, Trump vetoes an Israeli plan to assassinate Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. Days later, he calls for Iran’s unconditional surrender. After announcing a ceasefire between Iran, Israel and the United States, Trump praises both sides then lashes out at them the next day.
The biggest shock came when Trump posted on Truth Social that “China can now continue to purchase Oil from Iran. Hopefully, they will be purchasing plenty from the U.S., also.” The statement reversed the “maximum pressure” campaign he reinstated in February, which aimed to drive Iran’s oil exports to zero. The campaign reimposes sanctions on Tehran, threatening penalties on any country or company buying Iranian crude,
with the goal of crippling Iran’s economy and nuclear ambitions.
This wasn’t foreign policy—it was deal-making. Trump is brokering calm in the Middle East not for strategy, but to boost American oil sales to China. And in the process, he’s giving Iran room to move.
The effects of this shift in U.S. policy are already visible in trade data. Chinese imports of Iranian crude hit record levels in June. Ship-tracking firm Vortexa reported more than 1.8 million barrels per day imported between June 1 and 20. Kpler data, covering June 1 to 27, showed a 1.46 million bpd average, nearly 500,000 more than in May.
Much of the supply came from discounted May loadings destined for China’s independent refineries—the so-called “teapots”—stocking up ahead of peak summer demand. After hostilities broke out between Iran and Israel on June 12, Iran ramped up exports even further, increasing daily crude shipments by 44 per cent within a week.
Iran is under heavy U.S. sanctions, and its oil is typically sold at a discount, especially to China, the world’s largest oil importer. These discounted barrels undercut other exporters, including U.S. allies and global producers like Canada, reducing global prices and shifting power dynamics in the energy market.
All of this happened with full knowledge of the U.S. administration. Analysts now expect Iranian crude to continue flowing freely, as long as Trump sees strategic or economic value in it—though that position could reverse without warning.
Complicating matters is progress toward a U.S.-China trade deal. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters that an agreement reached in May has now been finalized. China later confirmed the understanding. Trump’s oil concession may be part of that broader détente, but it comes at the cost of any consistent pressure on Iran.
Meanwhile, despite Trump’s claims of obliterating Iran’s nuclear program, early reports suggest U.S. strikes merely delayed Tehran’s capabilities by a few months. The public posture of strength contrasts with a quieter reality: Iranian oil is once again flooding global markets.
With OPEC+ also boosting output monthly, there is no shortage of crude on the horizon. In fact, oversupply may once again define the market—and Trump’s erratic diplomacy is helping drive it.
For Canadian producers, especially in Alberta, the return of cheap Iranian oil can mean downward pressure on global prices and stiffer competition in key markets. And with global energy supply increasingly shaped by impulsive political decisions, Canada’s energy sector remains vulnerable to forces far beyond its borders.
This is the new reality: unpredictability at the top is shaping the oil market more than any cartel or conflict. And for now, Iran is winning.
Toronto-based Rashid Husain Syed is a highly regarded analyst specializing in energy and politics, particularly in the Middle East. In addition to his contributions to local and international newspapers, Rashid frequently lends his expertise as a speaker at global conferences. Organizations such as the Department of Energy in Washington and the International Energy Agency in Paris have sought his insights on global energy matters.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.
Ontario man launches new challenge against province’s latest attempt to ban free expression on roadside billboards
Ottawa Funded the China Ferry Deal—Then Pretended to Oppose It
FDA Exposed: Hundreds of Drugs Approved without Proof They Work
New Peer-Reviewed Study Affirms COVID Vaccines Reduce Fertility
-
Business1 day agoLatest shakedown attempt by Canada Post underscores need for privatization
-
Business1 day agoWhy it’s time to repeal the oil tanker ban on B.C.’s north coast
-
Aristotle Foundation2 days agoHow Vimy Ridge Shaped Canada
-
Alberta1 day agoPierre Poilievre – Per Capita, Hardisty, Alberta Is the Most Important Little Town In Canada
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta Provincial Police – New chief of Independent Agency Police Service
-
International2 days agoCBS settles with Trump over doctored 60 Minutes Harris interview
-
Energy1 day agoIf Canada Wants to be the World’s Energy Partner, We Need to Act Like It
-
MxM News1 day agoUPenn strips Lia Thomas of women’s swimming titles after Title IX investigation