Hasta La Gadget!

The Super Bowl, the enormous advertising event that has some American Football between the commercial breaks, takes place this Sunday. If you’re not a fan, then you may have wanted to find some respite inside your Facebook feed but, unfortunately, th…

A California mayor has closed a city park in an effort to rid the area of homeless residents.

Starting on Monday, Boyd Park in San Rafael is closed to the public for 30 days in order for officials to respond to “health and security issues.”

Although the city does not mention homelessness as a factor regarding the park’s closure — specifying concerns over littering, vandalism and the presence of abandoned drugs instead — Mayor Gary Phillips had no reservations zeroing in on whom he believes to be the culprits.

“[The homeless people] sit [in the park], have their methamphetamine and go get a meal at St. Vincent de Paul,” Phillips said, according to Marin News, noting he wants to return the park to a “family-friendly” one.

But the homeless people in Boyd Park have claimed the closure is unfair, and that enjoying the space with families hasn’t been an issue.

Bill Lima, a homeless man who has stayed at the park, told Marin News that most homeless people congregating in the public space were law-abiding citizens.

“When one person messes up, the (police) blame it on everyone,” Lima said.

Marquita Robinson, who has been living without stable shelter for about 10 years, agreed with that sentiment, telling the outlet that police wait for “a catastrophe to happen,” and then go after the homeless people they recognize.

An uptick in homeless residents in San Rafael has caused tension in the middle class community in recent years. The San Francisco Chronicle reported in 2013 that the area was an increasingly popular spot for transient homeless people along the west coast.

The news source noted about 900 people were homeless in Marin County, which encompasses San Rafael.

“We have a small downtown — we can’t absorb it,” Carol Thompson, director of the city’s downtown business association, had told the San Francisco Chronicle. She noted that 70 percent of the area’s merchants claimed their business had been affected by the increase in homelessness. “People say they don’t want to come to downtown San Rafael because they’re afraid of the homeless. It’s very frustrating because there’s very little we can do about it.”

Eric Lloyd, a homeless person who’d been living in San Rafael, told the San Francisco Chronicle that he wasn’t there to start trouble — he just wanted to be part of the community like everyone else.

“I’m not out to get on people’s nerves,” he said. “I don’t want people bothering me, either. Just like anyone, I want peace and quiet.”

H/T Think Progress

<a href="https://www.facebook.com/HuffPostImp
act”> Like Us On Facebook
Follow Us On Twitter

Republicans continually make the case that the harder it is to pass legislation, the better. That is why the power to filibuster — a super majority in the U.S. Senate — is required to squash debate on an issue. The idea behind this is to slow down the growth and power of government and to protect the rights of minority views. It has always been a tool to keep government in check.

Back in 2013 we continually saw national headlines about how Democrats in the U.S. Senate applied the “nuclear option” on the voting for judicial appointees. Republicans, of course decried the action, “It’s a sad day in the history of the Senate,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters, calling the move a Democratic “power grab.” Now in power, it appears Republicans are singing a different tune. In the conservative site, Hot Air writer Jazz Shaw noted that “I was expecting some action out of the new Congress, but I really never saw this one coming. A group of Republican Senators led by Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) are floating the idea of further extending the nuclear option enacted by the Democrats to take filibusters off the table when considering nominees to the Supreme Court.” Many Republicans are delighted by this potential over reaching of power, in spite of how this is contrary to some of the most basic ideas of liberty.

Fast tracking (or halting) the ability to confirm nominees to the court is one thing, but in the new Texas Senate, there is an incredible power grab at play.

Lt. Governor candidate Dan Patrick argued that, if elected, he would be “the most conservative Lt. Governor” in the history of the state. His very first actions in that position makes his predictions doubtful, if one interprets “conservative” as a philosophy to weaken the power of government.

WFAA in Austin reported “With three strikes of the gavel, a new era began Wednesday in Texas politics as Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick officially took over the Senate. Patrick’s first order of business was to change a 64-year-old rule known as the ‘2/3rds rule,’ which will now silence Democratic opposition. ‘I think the consequences of this vote will be great,’ said State Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas).” For over 60 years, 21 Senators — or 2/3rds of the body — were necessary to bring a bill to the floor for a vote. But, there are only 20 Republican senators, so the GOP lowered the limit to 19. With this action, Democrats are no longer needed.

During a taping for WFAA-TV’s Inside Texas Politics, Patrick said this measure will prevent the minority from obstructing the majority. In other words, it will make the majority (Republicans) more powerful. It is designed to crush the voice of the minority. More importantly to those who support limited government (ostensibly, individuals like Lt. Governor Patrick), this rule will make it easier for government to grow and to be more powerful. Not only does it oppress the voices of the minority, but it also promotes the over reaching power of government. It makes it “easier” for government to take actions, of which advocates of less government are typically suspicious. How is a stronger, more powerful Texas Senate a good thing for those who want less power in the hands of government at any level?

Tea Party activists and conservative organizations, instead of being alarmed by the rule change, have largely ignored the story or celebrated it. Texas Breitbart flaunted the headline, “Texas Senate Tosses ‘Two Thirds” Rule, Paving Way for Conservative Agenda.” In that article, the President of the conservative group, Empower Texans (Michael Quinn Sullivan) is quoted as saying “‘Dan Patrick campaigned specifically on the need to reform the rule by which legislation is considered,’ said Sullivan. ‘That the leftists are going into an apocalyptic overdrive is indicative of just how important the Two-Thirds Rule was to them in killing conservative legislation — and how important it was for the Senate Rules to be reformed. Lt. Gov. Patrick and the Senate are to be complimented for doing what they promised.'” Note the words, “conservative legislation”. Actually, rules like the one discussed always cut both ways — they have the power to kill liberal legislation as well. Preserving liberty, supporting minority rights (rule by law and not mob rule) are fundamental in maintaining a free society. When liberals eventually take over the Texas Senate, these laws that back the Republican attack on freedom will then help Democrats do the exact same thing. It is amazing how opponents of “demagogues” and “despots” don’t mind such, as long as their party is promoting such. This rule change is the form of promotion of big and powerful government that you would not expect from a person who envisions himself “the most conservative Lt. Governor” of any state, particularly of one like Texas. It is only a matter of time when such a rule change will eventually haunt him and his supporters.

There are apps to help us with everything from dating to scheduling to networking. But is the technology more trouble than it’s worth? While your app’s location tracking services can point you to the best latte within a one-mile radius or give you directions to your friend’s apartment, this useful feature may be a double-edged sword.

According to research from cyber security firm Synack, poorly-coded apps that use location services can easily reveal a user’s daily movements to unintended audiences. Grindr, which came under fire last year for failing to fix a bug that allegedly helped Egyptian authorities enforce anti-gay laws, was a notable offender, according to security research engineer Colby Moore.

“Our case study we did was in San Francisco. We were able to see the locations of around 15,000 users,” he told HuffPost Live host Nancy Redd on Wednesday. “The issue here was, early on, Grindr actually didn’t respect user settings within the app to not show the location. Even though you thought you weren’t showing your location, your location was still being shared with Grindr servers, and an attacker could still query and find out where you are.”

While Nula O’Connor, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, urged users to be diligent about releasing their personal information, she argued that companies and governments should play a role as well.

“If companies want us to engage in a fully active digital life, they bear the responsibility of building good systems and making clear promises and being very transparent about how the data is being used,” she said. “Governments bear some responsibility to restrain themselves in the use of that information and to create good frameworks and expectations for this ecosystem.”

Watch the full HuffPost Live conversation about apps and cyber security here.

Sign up here for Live Today, HuffPost Live’s morning email that will let you know the newsmakers, celebrities and politicians joining us that day and give you the best clips from the day before!

“More than by fear of going astray, my hope is that we will be moved by the fear of remaining shut up within structures which give us a false sense of security, within rules which make us harsh judges, within habits which make us feel safe, while at our door people are starving.” – Pope Francis

It’s no secret many view Pope Francis as liberal and Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia as conservative. While Archbishop Chaput said such political labels are not useful and flawed, there’s certainly a difference between the two men. Therefore, it may be more appropriate to describe Francis as a reformist and Chaput as a traditionalist.

Differences between the pope and archbishop are far from minor. More importantly, these opposing views vindicate what many have been saying for years — no one view on what the Catholic Church is or may become is set in stone.

On the issue of civil unions, Pope Francis and Archbishop Chaput aren’t on the same page. In March of last year, Francis discussed whether the Catholic Church should consider recognizing civil unions for varying types of couples. Back when Pope Francis was archbishop of Buenos Aires, he privately favored civil unions for LGBT couples because he believed Argentina wasn’t ready for gay marriage. The then-archbishop worked behind the scenes in an attempt to compromise with lawmakers in Argentina.

Now compare that to Archbishop Chaput. In 2011, while still archbishop of Denver, Chaput praised lawmakers for killing a civil unions bill. Throughout the debate, Archbishop Chaput said civil unions weren’t about ensuring the basic human rights of LGBT couples but rather legitimizing their sexual behavior. Remember, this is the same archbishop that banned children with lesbian parents from attending a Catholic school in Denver.

More recently, Archbishop Chaput called for U.S. bishops to stop signing civil marriage licenses for all couples to protest what he called the “new marriage regime” of same-sex civil marriage.

On the issue of celibacy, Pope Francis has indicated he’s open to rethinking rules within the church. In 2012, prior to his papacy, then-Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio said celibacy is “a matter of discipline, not of faith. It can change.” When a priest from Austria visited Philadelphia in 2013 advocating priests being able to marry, Archbishop Chaput barred him from speaking in local churches.

In September, Pope Francis welcomed a discussion on divorced Catholics who are banned from receiving communion. Such a step is inspiring news to millions of Catholics who have divorced and remarried but are unable to receive the sacraments because they had no annulment. That same month, Pope Francis presided over the marriage of 20 couples — many who were divorced, lived together, or had a children out of wedlock.

Archbishop Chaput, on the other hand, has tried to deny Catholics communion simply because he disagrees with them on specific issues. Furthermore, Archbishop Chaput has stated any sexual activity outside of marriage is disordered.

During the Synods of Bishops last year, Pope Francis created an open atmosphere to discuss the issues of homosexuality and divorce. In an unprecedented move, the pope not only encouraged debate among bishops, but also gave his blessing to publicly publish the rejected documents calling for a softer tone on these issues. The process was so transparent that the Holy Father allowed the vote totals on the rejected documents to be released.

After the synod, Archbishop Chaput said he was very disturbed by the public debate coming out of the synod over homosexuals and remarried Catholics. Archbishop Chaput went on to say the media confused the message coming out of the synod, and stated, “confusion is of the devil.” It’s perhaps appropriate to ask, would such an open and transparent discussion have occurred if Archbishop Chaput ran the synod?

On issues dealing with government’s obligation to help the poor, Pope Francis and Archbishop Chaput once again differ.

Pope Francis has made economic inequality a central focus of his papacy. Last year, Francis went so far as to denounce ‘trickle-down’ economics and called on governments to aid the poor by redistributing wealth.

In 2012, when Congressman Paul Ryan claimed his Catholic faith inspired proposed budget cuts to government programs aimed at helping the poor, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops released a letter criticizing it as failing to meet an essential moral criteria. Archbishop Chaput and a handful of other US bishops were quick to come to Congressman Ryan’s defense. Archbishop Chaput asserted government is under no obligation to help the poor, and that we don’t have to pay taxes to help them. In this rare instance, Archbishop Chaput chose to take an open political stance that differed sharply from both the USCCB and the current pope.

In the coming months and years, we’ll see a debate between reformist and traditionalist Catholics play out among lay Catholics and bishops alike. Some will celebrate and encourage debate while others will lash out in fear of the unknown or unfamiliar. Both reactions to the ongoing debate within the Catholic Church is perfectly natural. In the final analysis, if a free and open discussion is stifled and our hearts and minds remain closed, a great injustice to both the Catholic faith and mankind would be perpetuated.