I guess you didn’t read the article, Rosenberg lives in Westlake Village, CA—not in SF. Or are we indicting all people who live in CA now?
I agree with the premise of the article, just not Empire’s classless remark. Or yours. A dead child is something you never recover from.
What is the premise of the article? It seems to simply relate the events and Mr. Rosenberg’s newfound ire at a situation only recently made known to him.
I think some derision might be healthy in this case. The article is short on details, but seems clear enough that Mr. Rosenberg is only aware of even one aspect of significant problems in California because of the death of his son, and his “solution” is to focus like a laser with all of his ire on only the aspect that most immediately caused his son’s death.
The article even goes out of its way to mention how the children of the man who killed his son are a new-found burden for Mr. Rosenberg to deal with.
I am not impressed.