Filed under: Activism Politics
Question:
afraid? 
(Why bald bearded faggots like Graeme F. Bacque, 319 Dundas St. E. #408, Toronto, Ontario M5A 2A2 CANADA, V: (416) 368-3366 F: Newsgroups: alt.support.attn-deficit,alt.activism.children,alt.homosexual, soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality,tor.general something wrong with being a queer Mark Morin? Obviously you believe so – isn’t that what all the obnoxious screeching and wailing’s about? Obviously something’s very wrong with fucking and sucking little boys, like you and Mark Morin do. Just ask Jesse Dirkhising.
Don’t forget Jeffrey Curley. See the web page in Chuck Lysaght’s message. Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality, rec.arts.poems, alt.arts.poetry.comments, alt.politics This sick organization needs to squashed like a cockroach. http://www.gjne.com/hope%20robbins/jeffrey_curley.htm Here’s another web page to look at: I am referring to the suit by the parents of murdered Jeffrey Curley against NAMBLA. See http://www.seacoastonline.com/2001news/10_5d.htm.
"Page Not Found". Freddie’s fantasies strike again. You will NOT get "Page Not Found." You WILL get the Portsmouth Herald with the Front Page headline: "Curley’s lawsuit against Man/Boy love goes forward." The person who posted. "Freddie’s fantasies strike again." Is Susan Cohen, the number-one supporter of NAMBLA on Usenet, and the number-one liar on Usenet. See her 221 line diatribe against me in the newsgroup alt.politics.homosexuality. I would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to drop the "thank.God.4AIDS" bit. My best friend had haemophilia, and he was killed by faggots contaminating the blood supply with their disease. After Chuck Lysaght posted his denunciation of NAMBLA, just about every faggot on Usenet came over to the newsgroup alt.arts.poetry.comments and lambasted Chuck with every imaginable lie. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party. This means YOU. Please come to the newsgroup alt.arts.poetry.comments, and post the type of comments that only YOU know how to make. Grand Duke of Yugoslobia Duke of Vulgaria Grand Muff-Diver of Jerusalem & Elector of Homophobia
Response:
<snip This sick organization needs to squashed like a cockroach.
No arguments there – but the same can be said about cowards who use anonymous remailing services to engage in illegal activity, hatred and violence. Let the cops and the courts deal with NAMBLA and their ilk. The rest of us would prefer to be spared from twisted vigilante fucks like the closet-case who started this sorry mess of a thread.
Response:
something wrong with being a queer Mark Morin? — This post was anonymized at http://www.xganon.com —
Response:
something wrong with being a queer Mark Morin?
Obviously you believe so – isn’t that what all the obnoxious screeching and wailing’s about? Fortunately not everyone shares your beliefs.
Response:
something wrong with being a queer Mark Morin?
not if that floats your boat. from the looks of things, your boat’s a floating. — Life naturally evolves in the direction of happiness. We must constantly ask ourselves if what we are doing is going to make us, and those around us, happy. Because happiness is the ultimate goal. It is the goal of all other goals. Deepak Chopra Creating Affluence http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm
Response:
says… not if that floats your boat. from the looks of things, your boat’s a floating.
Wrong. It sank quite a while ago.
Response:
To anyone else replying to this thread: Would you be kind enough to remove my contact info from the subject line and delete the newsgroup tor.general before sending your response? This is a matter of personal safety and privacy. Thanks! says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – something wrong with being a queer Mark Morin? Obviously you believe so – isn’t that what all the obnoxious screeching and wailing’s about? Obviously something’s very wrong with fucking and sucking little boys, like you and Mark Morin do. Just ask Jesse Dirkhising. I’ll let you suck on me, if you just HAVE to suck on someone. Leave the kids alone. If you scrape me with your teeth I’ll knock you senseless, bitch!
Response:
Question:
[Note: This goes to the communism mailing list at http:// homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ and to the Usenet newsgroups 'alt.society.revolution', 'alt.politics. socialism.mao', 'swnet.politik', 'eunet.politics' 'alt.politics.socialism', 'alt.politics.radical-left', alt.activism', 'alt.politics. communism', 'de.soc.politik.misc' and 'alt.politics.india. communist'.] A new forum on socialism and communism has been created at http://www.pwrhouse.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=272 It’s managed by the signature Fisk. I’ve been invited to join it and have done so today. Rolf M. Malmoe, Sweden
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [Note: This goes to the communism mailing list at http:// homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ and to the Usenet newsgroups 'alt.society.revolution', 'alt.politics. socialism.mao', 'swnet.politik', 'eunet.politics' 'alt.politics.socialism', 'alt.politics.radical-left', alt.activism', 'alt.politics. communism', 'de.soc.politik.misc' and 'alt.politics.india. communist'.] A new forum on socialism and communism has been created at http://www.pwrhouse.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=272 It’s managed by the signature Fisk. I’ve been invited to join it and have done so today. Rolf M. Malmoe, Sweden
Two questions: Why join the dusbinners of history? And, why bore us with your joining? Dennis
Response:
Two questions: Why join the dusbinners of history? And, why bore us with your joining? Dennis
Obviously you know nothing about either communism, socialism, or history. …..and its "dustbin".
Response:
Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So are the permanently homeless BUMS having fun trying to find a dry spot and sleeping in their own filth and urine? Are the so-called ‘homeless advocates’ PROUD of the fact that they make victims out of these people, and refuse to give them the type of motivation and direction they need to get off the streets? You were born in the wrong century, Stan. You would have made a good plantation owner in the old south since you certainly sound like you approve of slavery. You think that asking people to be responsible for their own actions constitutes advocating slavery? Once again, your ignorance shows, as one of the arguments used to justify slavery back then was that black folks couldn’t make it on their own or take responsibility for their actions, so the benevolent slaveowners made sure they were taken care of. In many ways this "plantation mentality" carries over to the modern philosophies of the Democratic Party, who scare the heck out of any of their constituency groups who try to wean themselves from the government teat… No, Stan. I’m saying that requiring people to take direction and applying motivation in the sense that you appeared to mean it is a good analogy to slavery.
To a liberal, it is. But then again, you are probably more interested in crowing about your compassion than dealing with the issue, and the Democratic Party doesn’t have much use for a constituency that can proudly stand on it’s own two feet, does it? :Oo – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Do the touchie-feelie goo-goos FEEL GOOD about handing beggars at intersections $5 and $10 bills, so they can absolve themselves of their ‘liberal guilt’, and support their alcohol and drug habits? Interesting. Are you claiming to be telepathic so that you know this silliness you spout to be true, or are you merely making it up out of your own strange fantasies. Are you claiming that money given out to beggars isn’t going to support drug and alcohol habits, especially since this is prevalent in homeless "magnets" such as Berkeley, SF, and Santa Cruz, where there are plenty of food banks and other resources for sedentary types (read: BUMS) to take care of their caloric needs? Nope, that’s not what I’m claiming. I’m claiming that that your comment on "touchie-feelie goo-goos’ amounts to your usual crap you spill out about liberals when you don’t have a clue.
Been around plenty of you, and you are just as predictable as the rest of them… Indeed, a fair chunk of homeless are on alcohol and/or drugs. Not all of them, mind you, but a good sized chunk of them. You’re good at assigning motives to others, Stan. The problem is that the motives you assign arise mainly out of you own peculiar beliefs rather than out of reality.
Yes, I guess the idea that we ignore the rhetoric and assess why these people are really homeless, and try to encourage some individual responsibility amongst them, certainly WOULD strike a rabid left-wing type like you as "peculiar". :Oo – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Will the hard-core Lefty Liberals continue to fight common-sense programs such as those instituted by Rudy Giuliani in NY to get these people off the streets and into supervised surroundings, because promotion of class warfare serves their Marxist agenda more than actually doing something to help out? We used to have supervised surrounding in California, but you conservative types got rid of them in order to save money. Actually, mental health ‘advocates’ went overboard and forced the release of thousands of mental cases in California and other places. I don’t suppose you were aware of that, huh? Giuliani, on the other hand, appears to be more of a lock ‘em up and/or shoot them kind of guy. Nice try, but if you were referring to homicides and police shootings, BOTH have dropped significantly from the days of Dinkins. Of course, given your shallow regard for such things as FACTS, you probably chose to ignore those little bits of information, as they certainly don’t fit into your Lefty Liberal agenda. Show some facts then for your claim. I’ll listen.
Try this for starters: NYC Murder rate YEAR COUNT 1993 1927 (last year of Dinkins) 1994 1582 1995 1181 1996 984 1997 767 1998 629 1999 667 2000 671 2001 ~600 http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/nypd/pdf/chfdept/cshist.pdf Murders Rate Is Lowest Since 1966 (dated Mar 1998) Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and New York City Police Commissioner Howard Safir today announced that overall crime for the first six months of 1998 has decreased by 49.3 percent and homicides by 69.3 percent citywide when compared to the same period in 1993. Preliminary figures for the first half of 1998 also show that crime fell by 9.7 percent compared to last year and that the murder rate for the first half of 1998 is at a 32-year low and has declined 24.7 percent since 1997. Preliminary statistics complied though the Department’s COMPSTAT reporting system show a dramatic citywide decreases: Category 1993 vs. 1998 1997 vs. 1998 Murder -69.3 percent -24.7 percent Rape -16.6 percent +0.6 percent Roberry -54.9 percent -12 percent Felonious Assault -29.2 percent -4.78 percent Burglary -50.7 percent -10.5 percent Grand Larceny -39.1 percent -8.1 percent Auto Theft -59.3 percent -12.1 percent Preliminary statistics for 1998 also reveal that the number of shooting victims and incidents have continued to decline: Category 1993 vs. 1998 1997 vs. 1998 Shooting Victims -66.3 percent -13.3 percent Shoooting Incidents -67.4 percent -13 percent http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/om/html/98b/pr310-98.html BTW, police shootings are the lowest they have been since the 1970’s, even though the NYPD also absorbed about 5000 additional officers (traffic/transit police and school police). You wanna see real crime, real police shooting problems, real corruption, try that liberal Democrat bastion Detroit. Yet you don’t hear the Lefty Liberals whining about their problems? Why is that? Perhaps it doesn’t make their arguments look very good, huh? :O( Detroit leads the nation’s largest cities in the rate of fatal shootings by police, according to a Free Press analysis of FBI statistics. The Motor City rate is nearly 2 1/2 times higher than New York’s rate and more than 1 1/2 times Los Angeles’ — two cities sweating under the national spotlight amid scrutiny for police misconduct. …The Free Press calculated fatal shootings on the basis of the FBI’s standard measure, 100,000 residents. Detroit had a rate of 0.92 fatal shootings per 100,000 residents, towering over New York’s rate of 0.39 and Los Angeles’ 0.56. Houston ranked second with 0.68. http://www.freep.com/news/locway/shoot15_20000515.htm – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Before 9/11 gave him a chance to look compassionate he certainly wasn’t that well regarded. Actually, he was quite well regarded amongst the bulk of the people who worked for a living and actually made the city run. What the self-appointed intelligentsia thought (or currently think) is less and less regarded as relevant, which is healthy for the city (and the nation). I mean, really, the guy had to drop out of a senate race against Hilary of all people. He also had cancer, which you chose to overlook. Nope. But the cancer wasn’t the primary reason for the drop-out. As you probably know.
Poor Ashland. You have spent so much time amongst the self-proclaimed liberal intelligentsia (you know, the ones who get it wrong all the time, and can’t admit it) that you really don’t have much of a clue, do you? :O( – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Will the media morons continue to spew nonsense by telling us that the homeless are ‘just like you and me’, and ignore the reality that most of these people are out on the streets today because they fried their minds on DRUGS? You appear to read some strange media. But then as a usenet loon I suppose that comes with the territory. Ah yes, from the guy who tucks tail and runs over every debate we have in this forum. Yawn…. Whatever you say, Stan.
Go ahead and look at the facts and data, such as the stuff I have included regarding the alleged "increase in police shootings" that you liberals scream about (which is a bunch of BS). You find … read more »
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Really? Actually, the programs were primarily mental health ones for the seriously mentally ill. I didn’t and don’t oppose such programs. I’m even happy to pay taxes for them. What I oppose is Stan’s mindless round them up and put them to hard labor approach. No, what you oppose is the idea that these people take responsibility for their actions, and make a material participation in their own recovery. However, I certainly understand why you hold this view. You are suffering from the affliction called Lefty Liberalism, which manifests itself in an inability to acknowledge that individuals can and should assume responsibility for their actions. However, being the compassionate conservative that I am, I will continue to work with you on this issue… Ah. Stan the mind reader strikes again. If you had a clue you might be dangerous, but I guess there’s no fear of that. Indeed, people can and should take responsibililty for their own actions. I don’t, for instance, buy into the concept that crimes committed while under drugs or alcohol should be treated any differently from other crimes. You should get out more, Stan. If your concept of lefty liberalism actually existed your thoughts on it might have some validity. Since it doesn’t you are basically just blowing wind. Given the hysterical nature of the replies I receive in this NG, and the idiocies you resort to (equating the idea of personal reponsibility with slavery), it’s clear that I’m dead on target, and you can’t bring yourself to accept it. Nice try… :O)
Hysterical? Interesting word. Do you mean hysterical as in funny, indicating that you have a sense of humor never before displayed here or do you mean hysterical as in ranting and fuming. If you take my replies in the first sense that’s fine with me for that’s how I find yours. If in the second sense you need to reread them. I don’t equate personal responsibility with slavery, Stan. From your original posting that you snipped it appeared that you were advocating a good bit more than just personal responsibility. More like setting them to hard labor for their own good. Of course I may have read more into it than you met. What sort of programs would you advocate and how would you administer and pay for them?
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Really? Actually, the programs were primarily mental health ones for the seriously mentally ill. I didn’t and don’t oppose such programs. I’m even happy to pay taxes for them. What I oppose is Stan’s mindless round them up and put them to hard labor approach. No, what you oppose is the idea that these people take responsibility for their actions, and make a material participation in their own recovery. However, I certainly understand why you hold this view. You are suffering from the affliction called Lefty Liberalism, which manifests itself in an inability to acknowledge that individuals can and should assume responsibility for their actions. However, being the compassionate conservative that I am, I will continue to work with you on this issue… Ah. Stan the mind reader strikes again. If you had a clue you might be dangerous, but I guess there’s no fear of that. Indeed, people can and should take responsibililty for their own actions. I don’t, for instance, buy into the concept that crimes committed while under drugs or alcohol should be treated any differently from other crimes. You should get out more, Stan. If your concept of lefty liberalism actually existed your thoughts on it might have some validity. Since it doesn’t you are basically just blowing wind.
Given the hysterical nature of the replies I receive in this NG, and the idiocies you resort to (equating the idea of personal reponsibility with slavery), it’s clear that I’m dead on target, and you can’t bring yourself to accept it. Nice try… :O)
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Didn’t you post this same troll a coupla weeks ago? No. I posted my Christmas greeting LAST week, and covered a different issue altogether: bums masquerading as Vietnam vets on order to win sympathy. This greeting discusses how the majority of the individuals involved in the homeless racket perpetuate the situation with their dogmatic assumptions and refusal to re-evaluate what are obviously failed policies. Sorry that your limited reading comprehension skills don’t allow you to grasp the difference. Well I DIDN’T read it cause as soon as one starts reading the "posting" the first noticeable aspect of the "posting" is the clear ranting of it. As a result one quicly dismisses pretty much of the "posting". In other words, it challenged your cherished views, so you chose to ignore it. Funny, however, that it didn’t keep you from ASSUMING what was in it, and making erroneous statements. Stupid twit.
Sorry knee-jerker, but the FACT is ALL your postings are the same – structure, content, material, direction, points…… ….PATHETIC TWIT….
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Didn’t you post this same troll a coupla weeks ago? No. I posted my Christmas greeting LAST week, and covered a different issue altogether: bums masquerading as Vietnam vets on order to win sympathy. This greeting discusses how the majority of the individuals involved in the homeless racket perpetuate the situation with their dogmatic assumptions and refusal to re-evaluate what are obviously failed policies. Sorry that your limited reading comprehension skills don’t allow you to grasp the difference. Well I DIDN’T read it cause as soon as one starts reading the "posting" the first noticeable aspect of the "posting" is the clear ranting of it. As a result one quicly dismisses pretty much of the "posting".
In other words, it challenged your cherished views, so you chose to ignore it. Funny, however, that it didn’t keep you from ASSUMING what was in it, and making erroneous statements. Stupid twit.
Response:
Didn’t you post this same troll a coupla weeks ago?
No. I posted my Christmas greeting LAST week, and covered a different issue altogether: bums masquerading as Vietnam vets on order to win sympathy. This greeting discusses how the majority of the individuals involved in the homeless racket perpetuate the situation with their dogmatic assumptions and refusal to re-evaluate what are obviously failed policies. Sorry that your limited reading comprehension skills don’t allow you to grasp the difference. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So are the permanently homeless BUMS having fun trying to find a dry spot and sleeping in their own filth and urine? Are the so-called ‘homeless advocates’ PROUD of the fact that they make victims out of these people, and refuse to give them the type of motivation and direction they need to get off the streets? Do the touchie-feelie goo-goos FEEL GOOD about handing beggars at intersections $5 and $10 bills, so they can absolve themselves of their ‘liberal guilt’, and support their alcohol and drug habits? Will the hard-core Lefty Liberals continue to fight common-sense programs such as those instituted by Rudy Giuliani in NY to get these people off the streets and into supervised surroundings, because promotion of class warfare serves their Marxist agenda more than actually doing something to help out? Will the media morons continue to spew nonsense by telling us that the homeless are ‘just like you and me’, and ignore the reality that most of these people are out on the streets today because they fried their minds on DRUGS? So what’s it going to be for the homeless in 2002? Are we going to get real, or just go through more of the same BS?
Response:
Didn’t you post this same troll a coupla weeks ago? No. I posted my Christmas greeting LAST week, and covered a different issue altogether: bums masquerading as Vietnam vets on order to win sympathy. This greeting discusses how the majority of the individuals involved in the homeless racket perpetuate the situation with their dogmatic assumptions and refusal to re-evaluate what are obviously failed policies. Sorry that your limited reading comprehension skills don’t allow you to grasp the difference.
Next thing you know, you’ll be accused of being a "racist".
Response:
Didn’t you post this same troll a coupla weeks ago? No. I posted my Christmas greeting LAST week, and covered a different issue altogether: bums masquerading as Vietnam vets on order to win sympathy. This greeting discusses how the majority of the individuals involved in the homeless racket perpetuate the situation with their dogmatic assumptions and refusal to re-evaluate what are obviously failed policies. Sorry that your limited reading comprehension skills don’t allow you to grasp the difference. Next thing you know, you’ll be accused of being a "racist".
That’s not hard to do. All you have to do is post something to alt.activism or ba.politics that the self-appointed thought police disagree with, and the R word comes flying at you…. :O|
Response:
So are the permanently homeless BUMS having fun trying to find a dry spot and sleeping in their own filth and urine? Are the so-called ‘homeless advocates’ PROUD of the fact that they make victims out of these people, and refuse to give them the type of motivation and direction they need to get off the streets?
You were born in the wrong century, Stan. You would have made a good plantation owner in the old south since you certainly sound like you approve of slavery. Do the touchie-feelie goo-goos FEEL GOOD about handing beggars at intersections $5 and $10 bills, so they can absolve themselves of their ‘liberal guilt’, and support their alcohol and drug habits?
Interesting. Are you claiming to be telepathic so that you know this silliness you spout to be true, or are you merely making it up out of your own strange fantasies. Will the hard-core Lefty Liberals continue to fight common-sense programs such as those instituted by Rudy Giuliani in NY to get these people off the streets and into supervised surroundings, because promotion of class warfare serves their Marxist agenda more than actually doing something to help out?
We used to have supervised surrounding in California, but you conservative types got rid of them in order to save money. Giuliani, on the other hand, appears to be more of a lock ‘em up and/or shoot them kind of guy. Before 9/11 gave him a chance to look compassionate he certainly wasn’t that well regarded. I mean, really, the guy had to drop out of a senate race against Hilary of all people. Will the media morons continue to spew nonsense by telling us that the homeless are ‘just like you and me’, and ignore the reality that most of these people are out on the streets today because they fried their minds on DRUGS?
You appear to read some strange media. But then as a usenet loon I suppose that comes with the territory. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So what’s it going to be for the homeless in 2002? Are we going to get real, or just go through more of the same BS?
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip rant Of course if you are not a Christian you can ignore the following: Matt 25: :31
Question:
You’re fucking retarded.
And you’re a genius.
Response:
Hey, if you never have to make choices or distinctions, you could be happy as a vegetable!
So, racialist persecutors fit this vegetable tag very well, since distinctions aren’t made between individuals.
Response:
*sniff sniff* I smell a troll.
Response:
Hey, if you never have to make choices or distinctions, you could be happy as a vegetable! So, racialist persecutors fit this vegetable tag very well, since distinctions aren’t made between individuals.
You’re fucking retarded. E. — Every time you play a metal CD, it makes jesus cry
Response:
What staggering reasoning. Hey, if you never have to make choices or distinctions, you could be happy as a vegetable!
That’s far too generic of a distinction to my statement. Just because i happen to hate all of humanity as a whole instead of just all the ones that aren’t my race doesn’t mean that i don’t make decisions, it just means i don’t make stupid ones. No goddamn sun, No goddamn pain I’ve searched my heart for love, but all in vain No goddamn soul, no goddamn pain
Response:
"I hate everyone equally, tee hee" fuck limited hatred? Fuck politically correct hatred is more like it.
politically correct hatred? what the gay are you talking about? racism is gay because it’s choosey hate and it’s limited, and it’s egotistical. everyone is shit. Deal with it.
exactly No goddamn sun, No goddamn pain I’ve searched my heart for love, but all in vain No goddamn soul, no goddamn pain
Response:
"I hate everyone equally, tee hee" fuck limited hatred? Fuck politically correct hatred is more like it. politically correct hatred? what the gay are you talking about? racism is gay because it’s choosey hate and it’s limited, and it’s egotistical. everyone is shit.
What staggering reasoning. Hey, if you never have to make choices or distinctions, you could be happy as a vegetable! E. — Every time you play a metal CD, it makes jesus cry
Response:
keep an eye out for new demo by Aussie Band HATE!!!
FUCK!!!! there is already a band called HATE that is on WW3 records! just tell them to change thier name to Hate Almighty hehehe… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – not NS not fucking anything except pure Hate!!!
Response:
by the way, why only hate certain races when you can hate them all? fuck limited hate.
"I hate everyone equally, tee hee" fuck limited hatred? Fuck politically correct hatred is more like it. Fuck these adolescent ‘misanthropes’ who break into tears and/or start foaming at the mouth with self-righteous indignation when racist sentiments or ideology is brought up. Racism is one of the cornerstones of human nature (and consequently of divergent human evolution). Deal with it. Total Death und Coldvoid uber alles!
Response:
keep an eye out for new demo by Aussie Band HATE!!! not NS not fucking anything except pure Hate!!! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I see people here often slamming bands for lack of musicianship, and others simply embracing mainstream bands. baaaaaaaaaaa I’ve heard enough black metal to know that "In Flames" is somehow a pretender band aren’t you true. in flames has absolutely nothing to do with black metal. that’s like comparing tina turner to tsjuder. once again i will state, black metal has nothing to do with politics, if you want to talk politics, do what most of poland should of done…..PUT DOWN THE GUITAR AND WRITE A BOOK, THAT WAY YOU DONT WASTE TIME WITH HALF ASS MUSIC AND YOU STILL GET YOUR POINT ACROSS! by the way, why only hate certain races when you can hate them all? fuck limited hate. No goddamn sun, No goddamn pain I’ve searched my heart for love, but all in vain No goddamn soul, no goddamn pain
Response:
I see people here often slamming bands for lack of musicianship, and others simply embracing mainstream bands.
baaaaaaaaaaa I’ve heard enough black metal to know that "In Flames" is somehow a pretender band
aren’t you true. in flames has absolutely nothing to do with black metal. that’s like comparing tina turner to tsjuder. once again i will state, black metal has nothing to do with politics, if you want to talk politics, do what most of poland should of done…..PUT DOWN THE GUITAR AND WRITE A BOOK, THAT WAY YOU DONT WASTE TIME WITH HALF ASS MUSIC AND YOU STILL GET YOUR POINT ACROSS! by the way, why only hate certain races when you can hate them all? fuck limited hate. No goddamn sun, No goddamn pain I’ve searched my heart for love, but all in vain No goddamn soul, no goddamn pain
Response:
Hello. I am a racist who has recently discovered black metal and hardcore music (Centurion 1488, Skrewdriver, The Boot Boys and Angry Aryans) with racist content. Since my political view is apocalyptic concerning the demise of my race, I consider this music one of the few effective areas of activism I can have according to my Aryan-designed rights as an American citizen. Here’s my question: I see people here often slamming bands for lack of musicianship, and others simply embracing mainstream bands. I’ve heard enough black metal to know that "In Flames" is somehow a pretender band. I can’t pull hundreds of words out of my ass to make a justification, but "In Flames" for example is closer to AC/DC than it is to Havohej. I like musicianship but recognize that in underground music it doesn’t often occur. Is there a happy medium? Bands I’ve discovered so far are Burzum. Graveland, Darkthrone, Gontyna Kry, Order From Chaos and Judas Iscariot. I don’t like Judas Iscariot and Order From Chaos as much as the first three, but these are also great albums just possibly in a less musical style. I am also familiar with the regular BM circle like Immortal, Emperor, Dimmu Borgir and Cradle of Filth and appreciate those bands although not as much as bands with racist lyrics. I’ve seen the bands on NSBM.COM and while they are OK am hoping for something where the songs don’t all sound so similar. Any mature responses appreciated. Thanks. (Please reply to alt.politics.usa aswwell as thati s the only group I read every day) — According to the FBI, African Americans are about two times more likely to commit a racially motivated crime than whites, and black assaults on whites outnumber white assaults on blacks by a ratio of more than 7 to one: "The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that in 1999, there were about 657,008 black-on-white crimes of violence, as compared to some 91,051 of the white-on- black variety." – Front Page Magazine www.natvan.com * www.nazi.org * www.nsbm.org "Take your medicine. Death to America. Death to Israel. Hitler is great." — you’ve just been emailed anthrax
Response:
Question:
I think that the main difference we have is in our frame of references. You seem to be very knowledgable about our recent cultures, but rely on inaccurate generalizations when it comes to cultures that pre-date ours
Yes, and we have very little material from that era, so inaccurate" generalizations" is maybe all we have about that time. I think like you, that for periods of time, at some places, people have lived fairly peaceful and harmonic lives. But the most important picture we have of a better world is the one most of us have in our heads, dreams about a better world. Those dreams are a natural reaction to the artificial way we live, how we use clocks to know when we want to do things, how power and powerlessness is poisoning our brains under capitalism. (the 200,000 years or so before the birth of what we call civilization). It’s a
We do not know so much about the history further back, so of course there could have been possibilities for a nice life, somewhere, sometime.. But what does it matter to us today, we still have to design and create whatever society we want to replace capitalism with. We use our dreams to change the world, it doesn’t matter much if our dreams are based on something which has existed somewhere, or if our dream is a new creation. It is our future which is important, not our history. Again, you describe societies within "civilized" culture. It’s so important to understand that things were not always this way.
The alienation, the mental condition of being trapped between being dominated or being a dominator, is a very destructive force, and it is let out of the box when a group of people leave the ordered society and try to start from scratch. Unless they are aware of such problems and have adequate tools to handle them with, I will not join them. The book "Lord of the flies" William Golding, could give you a general idea of the main problems with small independent groups of people. A group of children left on their own with no cultural history to guide them in their circumstances? Not really applicable.
I think it is very much applicable, a lot of people in this world have the mental and political maturity of "a group of children left on their own". Usually they have inadvertantly and unknowingly kept a lot of the rules of the social system under capitalism, and those socially dominating people try to impose their views on the others. It is no easy thing to break free of a culture that has dominated your thoughts your entire life. This would be so for any new culture. A reason not to try?
No, I just want to make clear from the start that there are serious problems to consider. I want to live in a community, but I am going to check up on my friends views on these things a lot more carefully than I did when I was young. I will make sure that the group I live with have the same views as me on individual rights, the right to privacy, etc.. Europeans are ready to sit down and discuss with the other people and will accept the democratic decision, whether it is for or against their own views. I think it’s funny how this notion of Europeans being more socially advanced than Americans seems to keep coming up when every bad habit America has was imported from Europe (and we have plenty of bad habits).
USA has been the most capitalistic country and its citizens have been more politically controlled than other countries. In the struggle against communism the country also hindered its own citizens to develop politically, and the political debate in the society was distorted and nullified. So they probably have some updating of their brains ahead. We live in a time of big changes on earth. The main reason behind all those changes is the decision by Gorbatjov and his team to end the cold war and open up the possibilities of a voluntary european union. The european union consists of many countries organised in a pyramid system. The inner circle of the central european powers, the full members of all parts of the union. The official member states are the next level, they are full members but not in all areas, Sweden for example is a full member of EU but we do not participate in the monetary system, yet. The countries who are becoming members are working hard to harmonize their system to fit into the general european model. The associated members are countries who are going to be members, or want a very close cooperation with EU. In that category are countries like Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and a lot of eastern european and middle east countries. Russia will surely become a member, after all the russians were the ones who made this whole manuever possible. Within 25 years. But already now the borders are open and the future EU is being built up everywhere and continously, as we are speaking. Political structures, infrastructure, new roads, buildings, trade, welfare systems, etc are being built up or existing structures are changed to fit into the EU model. At the same time this model being transformed and updated, much like a computer program, there is a new version every few months. EU is being designed and built up, and the blueprints are continously discussed and refined. The nordic countries are very active in the forming of the standards for an open democracy, which means that the public offices must work in the open, journalists have access to all papers and knows about everything the official does in her work. A journalist theoretically has the right to follow an official every step she takes during her work and read and hear everything which is said or done. People in the country have the right to know what their appointed officials are doing, and planning, and they have the right to suggest better ways of doing things or criticize how things are done, etc.. The whole european area is filled with optimism and and eagerness to get things going. We in eurasia are optimistic about the future. We are building the future, the material living standard is step by step raised to the same level all over the union, the judicial and political systems are harmonized, which means that a lot of local idiocy is bypassed and nullified. In 25 years India and China will have joined their systems to the rest of the continent. USA will of course follow Europe in this development, to modernize their systems and to harmonize their way of thinking with the rest of the planet. NATO seems to want to be the structure wich ties USA and Europe closer together, during the events that lay ahead. People don’t have very good memories, a few thousand tv-shows and you could be in another state of mind. So maybe things will go smoother and faster than expected. It is time for a new era in the history of mankind. We will soon be in a one-world one-country situation, where there are no borders between countries and no difference in living standard or democratic rights between people around the globe. We will all be very vulnerable, and we will all be aware of that. Learn to fight with arguments instead of weapons. Roger Johansson http://utopianow.cjb.net
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Agreed – work has always existed in the sense that some calories must be expanded to obtain life’s necessities. What is new is the idea of work as something separate from any other activity. In the sense you’re describing and discussing it, work is a relatively new phenomenon, created with the development of the phonetic alphabet hand-in-hand with the printing press. In that regard, nationalism is also also relatively recent. Do you believe times were better for the average man (or common man) then, or now? Actually, I would trace the origin of "work" (and our culture) back to the advent of totalitarian agriculture, some 10,000 years ago. The rate of expansion has accelerated in the past few hundred years, but we’re basically on the same track, with the same core beliefs. Oh, okay, I’m talking about work circa the rise of nationalism and industrialisation. So, we’re definitely not on the same page in that respect. IMO, "work" as we know it is much more recent than that. As for the same track and the same core beliefs? Not sure I’d agree. ISTM work has undergone — or, is currently undergoing — a revolution when we moved from industrialisation to information, from means to media. That’s very recent, by your standards, truly. We are in the midst of the revolution, the break between the two phases, breaking up or down, eventually yielding to breakthrough.
I don’t understand your last sentence. I’ll try to find some of your earlier posts for an explanation. I have worked on a farm, in factories, on construction sites, and as a software developer, so I may be able to relate when it is explained. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes, I do believe times were better for the common person. Anthropologists estimate that the average hunter-gatherer spent about 2-3 hour per day tending to his basic needs. I have read first-person accounts by people who have lived for extended periods with surviving tribal peoples, in Africa, South America, Australia, and North America. They seem to have some things in common amongst them. 1. They are self-contained – every person knows everything they need to know to survive. While we may see their technology as primitive, each of them is a master at what technology they have. There is some specialization, but not to the extent of being ignorant of the other skills required to live. How many of us could fashion a shelter, clothing, or basic tools, much less an automobile or a computer if left in a forest somewhere? 2. Their cultures are "people-based" rather than "product-based" (or "economy-based" if you like). Their customs and laws evolved over thousands of years because they work best for people, not because someone sat down and thought up a bunch of rules that they thought everyone should live by. There are no prisons, mental-illnesses like depression are rare, the children are remarkably well-adjusted, there is no priveliged class. What laws they do have do not rely on a model of some abstract concept of perfection – these laws work well for real people – taking into account that people can be disagreeable, selfish, spiteful, etc. 3. Without exception, each of these cultures has a rich tradition of social activity. Music, laughter, and courting are a main part of their lives, and not seen as a luxury to be indulged in only when time permits. We are content to take our leisure on the weekends, or in two week slices once a year. We are expected to feel guilty about the time we take for pleasure, because we are not "producing" anything. I understand the thrust of your points here; but, I am at a loss when it comes to how you might bring about the kinds of change your "better" world would require to be effective. In this world, we are units, statistics, and utterly discarnate. We are literally free to do what we are told. There’s no way out but out. I would ask you what you propose be done now that would achieve the culture you believe beneficial to humanity?
I can understand your fatalism. It’s pretty close to how I’ve felt in the past. I have hope now. Not a pat answer, but hope all the same. When you think about the hugeness and power of the social/political/economic forces that are brought to bear on us, consider the following: The human population is growing at an amazing rate – it took only 30 years for the population to double from 3 billion to 6 billion. Some forecasts indicate the acceleration is slowing, but even so, how long before we hit 12 billion? 24 billion? Species are becoming extinct at an alarming rate. Mainstream scientists have proclaimed the period we are in "The 6th Extinction". The previous extinctions were triggered by things like meteor impacts and drastic changes in climate, this one is being driven primarily by the actions of a single species. Resources and raw materials are being consumed at a rate that is not sustainable. I’m not going to argue with anyone over how long it will be before we start to run out of resources. Plug in your own numbers. Even if you only consider these three things, I will go out on a limb and say that we can’t go on as we are indefinitely. Again I’ll let you choose your own number – 50 years, 100 years, 500 years 1000 years. All mere eye-blinks in geological time. Whichever number you choose, I think I can state with a high degree of certainty that IF there are still humans living on this planet, they will be living in a way that you or I cannot even imagine from where we stand now. Just as those living during the time of the Rennaisance {sp?} could not imagine the world that would emerge at the end of that period, just as those involved in the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (even Eli Whitney or Thomas Edison) could not have imagined the life we have today, those who are still here will be different in ways that are beyond predicting – and this is so much bigger. Can any of us engineer what the outcome of this metamorphosis will be? Not a chance. Then what can we do to at least hedge our bet? We can try to re-establish the diversity of culture that was ours throughout our history until the Taker culture began its’ rabid assimilation campaign. We can start to re-claim the wealth that we gave up in exchange for membership in this doomed organization. I don’t mean material wealth – it’s overrated. I mean human wealth. Not religious salvation or transcendental communing with the earth’s aura. Not the flashes of community spirit or patriotism that we glimpse only occassionally during crisis situations. Real, solid wealth. My personal vision (opening myself up for some wisecrackers here). A group of people living together (at least in close vicinity to one another) with the knowledge and skill required to obtain life’s necessities. True belonging. Cradle to grave security and support. A group small enough that everyone knows everyone else personally, but big enough to provide variety in our social contacts. A group diverse in age, education, personality, and skills. NOT a group of perfect beings, but a group of people. Working toward a goal of becoming sustainable. Building a culture with new traditions. Learning to resolve differences without the oversight of some impersonal government. Ahhh yes, the logistics. First a place to be. I have some financial means and hope to hook up with others who do as well (as well as some who do not) to purchase some land. Although I find land ownership a silly concept on a philosophical level, I realize it’s the best chance to be left alone by those who do not. Second is hooking up with like-minded people who share a vision. I encounter people of this ilk regularly on-line and in person – just need to find them at a time when they are ready and have the courage (including myself) to make a change. Thirdly, the means to make a living. The most overlooked facet of this kind of venture and the reason most communities of the ’60s did not succeed. (Show me a tribe without a health-care plan, and I’ll show you a tribe that won’t last too long). {had to snip some or it wouldn’t let me post} Loneliness begins at home. Have you, by any chance, read Philip Slater’s The Pursuit of Loneliness? Prolly; but, I like some of his ideas very much. McLuhan-influenced, of course. Loneliness and the loss of privacy are the two most important issues facing human beings, being human. Loss of privacy equals loss of identity, as McLuhan might have said.
No, I haven’t read it. I’ll look for it. Don’t know this McLuhan guy either – I’ll add him to my list. You write very well — even though I find you a little too idealistic (I don’t mean naive, though, no) for what’s "out there" — it’s a pleasure to read your words on the page.
Why thank you. Although I think there is some kind of by-law on usenet that will sanction you for expressing anything that positive 
(I’m being called into service by my children – I’ll try to continue later Hope you read good bedtime stories and do all the voices convincingly; otherwise, I’m a gonna be very disappointed .
They won’t let me anymore. They’re too darn big. BTW, how can a prsn be lonely with children to love?
Well…with teenagers you have to accept that they don’t want to hang out as much anymore. Although they do frequently transform into humans for short periods, and we have great conversations, then they revert to being weird little monsters. I was NEVER like that Zo
Question:
Newsgroups: alt.activism, alt.government.abuse, alt.politics, alt.politics.bush, alt.war Followup-To: alt.activism Will the UN Demand an End to US Bombing?
NO!
Response:
Will the UN Demand an End to US Bombing? Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn’t Fit The Observer – Oct 21, 2001 via Guardian Unlimited – http://www.guardian.co.uk UN Set to Appeal for Halt in the Bombing by Jason Burke in Peshawar The United Nations is set to issue an unprecedented appeal to the United States and its coalition allies to halt the war on Afghanistan and allow time for a huge relief operation. UN sources in Pakistan said growing concern over the deteriorating humanitarian situation in the country – in part, they say, caused by the relentless bombing campaign – has forced them to take the radical step. Aid officials estimate that up to 7.5 million Afghans might be threatened with starvation. ‘The situation is completely untenable inside Afghanistan. We really need to get our point across here and have to be very bold in doing it. Unless the [US air] strikes stop, there will be a huge number of deaths,’ one UN source said. The move will embarrass Clare Short, the International Development Secretary, who said last week that there was no ’cause and effect’ between the bombing and the ability of aid agencies to deliver much-needed food and shelter. Aid workers yesterday strongly rejected Short’s statements. ‘Basically the bombing makes it difficult to get enough supplies in. It is as simple as that,’ an Islamabad-based aid official told The Observer . Dominic Nutt, a spokesman for the British charity Christian Aid, called Short’s remarks sickening. ‘Needy people are being put at risk by government spin-doctors who are showing a callous disregard for life,’ he said. ‘To say that there is no link is not just misleading but profoundly dangerous.’ Christian Aid report 600 people have already died in the Dar-e-Suf region of northern Afghanistan due to starvation, malnutrition and related diseases. Other agencies confirmed that the sick, the young and the old are already dying in refugee camps around the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif. The World Food Program has calculated that 52,000 tons of wheat must be distributed in Afghanistan each month to stave off mass starvation. Since the aid program was restarted – on 25 September – only 20,000 tons have been supplied and 15,000 distributed. The concern is that the coming winter will make relief efforts more difficult. The first snows have already fallen on the Hindu Kush mountains and the isolated highlands of Hazarajat. But though the WFP is accelerating the supply of food, it says it is unlikely to be able to bring in more than two-thirds of what is required. And it is clear that little aid is reaching the most remote areas where the need is greatest. A new assessment by aid workers on the ground in Afghanistan will be presented to UN co-ordinators in Islamabad this week. It shows that the effects of the three-year drought that has hit Afghanistan are far worse than previously thought. Areas in the north-east are of particular concern. In the western city of Herat food deliveries are barely keeping up with demand from the 1,000 people a day who are arriving at refugee camps. ‘We are getting a significant amount of food into the country and we are desperately trying to get it to more remote areas. The usual distribution networks are hugely disrupted. At the moment a trickle is getting through,’ said Michael Huggins, a spokesman for the WFP. He said the WFP operation was hampered by a lack of truck drivers willing to carry food through Afghanistan because of the bombing raids, high fuel prices and communication difficulties. The Taliban have also caused problems for aid agencies. A series of offices have been looted in major cities, prompting French agency M
Question:
GREAT post UP. There seems to be quite a few people that are waking up. What troubles me tho is that for those who haven’t got it yet, it’s going to just get harder and scarier to do. Maybe too hard, and too scary. And just too damn late anyway. There’s a slow train comin, and it ain’t so slow lately. G
Thank you for the compliments Gary They were Very appreciated,..That was so kind of you. I know..whatcha Mean about the train coming and it coming faster.It’s friggin scary. I just hope we can help people remember how to understand and get out of the way before it runs over thier lives.Too long has humankind been lost in fantasyland,like a moth fascinated with a candle flame..A desire it can’t touch without consuming itself….but is drawn to it nonetheless. Simple empathy,other directedness in balance with individuation, Self responsibility and genuiness that comes attached to any real freedom has been conditioned to appear less seductive or flashy than the deadly but profitable lure than the engineered inpetus of addiction,fantasy/escape ,control,fear ,power and overindulgence and reaction formations have over the mind of someone alone and in pain even when they deny or can longer feel the pain inside.. I am really scared for this world,Gary..and there is no God to bail us outI woish people would stop waiting Holy on Sunday asshole the rest of the week..and grow up.We must save ourselves by trusting and caring for ourselves more than self-feeding, then if we learn to love again,we can trust and love others..Until we do..we got this violent craziness. We have 2 sides to our brains,not just rational thinking side,there is an inuition/emotional side,and our culture has all but split our brains shut out the intuitive side.(or else) be inot taken serious ,labeled a’kook’ doubted without consideration, considered less’real’.. There is No objective reality beyond what someone can convince you"exists".If we are aware of influences and persuation of others,then we are more consious of it and can refuse the influences. What constitutes saving each other? Part of it is letting ourselves and each other share information,experince, think, feel, learn, express whatever who and what we are and want to become motionally alongside what we think or create or want to be,unhindered by any control,cocercion,conformity pressure,threats ,bigoted judgements, or fear..within or without ourselves.BUT demand each of us take responsibility for the choices each of us make with this freedom. I was looking at the gun threads in alt.activism..decided to apply a different perception.. The Pro-gun folks are right a gun is just a mechanical tool sitting in a locked gun cabinet it hurts no one.Hammers and cars are tools that do not harm if used responsibly too. The Anti-gun folks are right a can be a weapon used to kill in the wrong hands. It is a symbol of power and sexual dominance.It is a powerful tool many people lack the insight or knowlege to use safely. How can both sides be correct? We should have a right to guns,Yes but only if we understand our deep intentions honestly for wanting one. What nobody on any dual argument (and there are LOTS of them), sees is in any side of this There are countless more overlooked complex sides to what would inspire murder suicide or carlessness with a gun that everyone knows can be used to kill.. How many dare ask this question honestly without offering selective exclusion for a side they hate or like? What complex contributing factors are there lost in a two sided simplistic,selective perceptionlike this ? There are deep problems in the minds of people that sometimes get expressed at home,in our culture,in the bible,koran ect..the church,or the insane workings of the profit /wage slavery system ,our beliefs about each other and ourselves,fantasies,politics,..ect..ect.. Seek deeper to look for what is driving people to choose to shoot in anger and dominating others with death. If you ask this really honestly and think of as many inter related and connected threads of possibles as you can, you will find many things are to blame and they work together or alone to erode our sense of empathy.Some answers lie way beyond the gun manufacturers or violent movies. Some of it is in our supressed feelings denials and incidents we carry around inside and living in a cocercive culture that demands we lock inconveinent,sad,uncomfortable, or ugly feelings deep inside and forget them or never say it as if it had not happened,or had no worth ,no lesson or meanings. This builds up..Often we supress and repress ourselves because of the fear of what would others say /thing will they belive me? Or for "the benifiet of others’images,reputations ect.. We supress our emotions until they explode on each other. For who are too scared,,controlling, jealous,self absorbed or busy,to hear themselves they cannot hear others.If we do not learn to show compassion to a person,we insure they never work it out and a gun is his best option then to be heard..Unless they get therapy and pay outrageously for hired educated but insincere attention,plus nobody likes the social stigma"crazy"invalidating them so they avoid what gets that label put on..facing emotional pain and vunerability.So it festers in a deep recess like a cancer. Part of the violence is encouraged in our competitive unfeeling cultural atmosphere,also in the motives we deny in ourselves that are embarassing.. We fail to ask,what profits most from me feeling this way and confronting it non violently. Who really enjoys holding power over ending a person’s life,unless they do not respect free will responsibility and life? We are drowing in our own Hubris. It isn’t because we want to be god over god,It’s because soime of us want to be seen as gods ,OVER EACH OTHER.Dominating Consiousness,expression creations and EMOTIONS because we are insecure,jealous,empty disconnected..We need each other but we are too scared to admit how bad we do because we are convinced we deserve to be not trusted that we are monsters or some of us are..and we belive the bullshit we tell each other too..This faulty kind of limits on perception will kill us all unless we choose to stop feel,think..Find out why,and dig out the inner motives inside us ourself and look at them squarely no matter how sad,ugly embarassing or painful ..Looking in all the way to the depths the roots the origin of it.It is VERY hard work.As a species we have sat on our ass and playerd games for too long. We must support each other with the same attention,courage and compassion like we want for ourselves when we hurt. This awareness of each other can stop the train.It all depends on each of us choosing to stop being asleep to avoid feeling awake in the nightmare we all created together whether you see it now,or not.
Response:
I must honestly say, I am very impressed with you guys and your input. In other NG’s I’ve been witness to lately, people aren’t treated so kindly. There’s that old scapegoating, slam-dunk, crappola, This is quite unique, keep up the good work. I will go mind my own bizniz’ now:-)
Thanks, Love your creative words ,like the "bizniz’" I got some more fur ya.. dung-a-licious ,tweakazing…meowza! Peace, Peace ,Back at ya Jennifer Luv,The Pantheroni and Cheese..in the Sky? hmm not quite the same is it? LOL…
Response:
We should have a right to guns,Yes but only if we understand our deep intentions honestly for wanting one.
It doesn’t matter what our reasons are, we still have the right. Jaxi
Response:
GREAT post UP. There seems to be quite a few people that are waking up. What troubles me tho is that for those who haven’t got it yet, it’s going to just get harder and scarier to do. Maybe too hard, and too scary. And just too damn late anyway. There’s a slow train comin, and it ain’t so slow lately. G – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -It’s very hard to stop playing the game when you are born into it’s clutches and reared and conditioned to serve it instead of what you are. But it is the only way to find out what you really are.And for that reason alone the journey is priceless. Might I reccomend a book? The Paradigm Conspirasy by Denise Breton and Christopher Largent.
Response:
I must honestly say, I am very impressed with you guys and your input. In other NG’s I’ve been witness to lately, people aren’t treated so kindly. There’s that old scapegoating, slam-dunk, crappola, This is quite unique, keep up the good work. I will go mind my own bizniz’ now:-) Peace, Jennifer
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – … So now I’m finally being honest with myself, and I don’t like what I see. I know it’s not ‘right’ to feel the way I do, but it’s real. How do I deal with this? Has anybody else come to similar realizations? Help! … you have committed thought crime(s), you hosed-shit motherfucker. … I’m sure that’s not the knee-jerk reaction of PC thug, but rather a tongue-in-cheek comment by an enlightened person. Right?
i am not enlightened but i do share your disgust for pc thought This is not rocket science. I didn’t even see a black person until I was 8. Black people were pretty scarce in the north end of British Columbia 30 years ago. The first time I saw a black person, I was in a department store, and I said to my mother, "Hey, mom! Look! A chocolate man!" It was the coolest thing. I’d seen people with a tan before, but nothing like *that*! I didn’t even know that black people existed. We didn’t have TV.
i had a similar experience but with different results; when i was 4 i saw a black family for hte first time. it was in church and i said "look – root-beer people!" no lecture however – my folks just told me that they were really called "negros" or "colored" or something – i think i even continued to call them root beer people for a few weeks. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My parents knew, though. I sat through a lecture that same night. My parents told me very patiently that the "chocolate man" was a "negro". They explained how the "negro" had been hurt really bad in the past, and that if I ever saw a "negro" again, I should treat them very politely and respectfully, because they shouldn’t be offended. I was taught to be ultra polite to the "chocolate man". A few years later, when my father built a rental home on our property, he rented it to a "chocolate man". The "chocolate man" brought along a "chocolate woman", and a couple "chocolate kids". I knew the rule about the "chocolate man", but there were no rules about the "chocolate woman" or the "chocolate kids". They were regular people. They were right next door, too! We played together all the time. But I knew the rule about the "chocolate man". Be very polite and respectful to the "chocolate man". That lasted for years. When I ran across "chocolate teenagers" I got along with them fine. One guy by the name of Curtis taught me how to dance, and he was the guy to learn from, too. Curtis could dance the ass off anybody. He told me the only useful advice about dancing that I’ve ever heard from anybody: "When you’re dancing, the more embarrassed you are, the better you look." Then I became an adult. Now, all the black men I run across are the "chocolate man". Black women, teenagers, and childen are easy. They’re just people. But I have to be polite and respectful to the "chocolate man". That was drilled into me for eight years. For a long time, I didn’t notice it. I’m middle-aged, now, and I notice the details. I feel awkward and nervous around black men now. Not because I hate them or fear them. They are the "chocolate man". Since I was a boy, I was taught to treat black men politely and respectfully. I know that it’s an artificial standard. Black men don’t deserve that treatment simply because of the color of their skin. I treat black men like I treat nuns. I have no particular reason to treat a nun with respect aside from the fact that I was raised to treat them respecfully. I’m not Catholic. My mother is. I could care less about a nun’s supposed marriage with their putative God. If a nun wanted to have sex with me tomorrow, I’d probably take her up on the offer. But if I run across a nun on the street in full habit, I’ll block traffic for her, open doors, hold elevators, offer primacy in anything, and exit her company with a respectful bow. Because she’s a nun. She deserves respect for that reason alone. I know that I treat nuns differently than I treat ordinary women. I also know that I have no valid reason for doing so. But I can’t help it. I was raised that way. Treat nuns with respect. I recognise that in myself, and it makes me feel awkward and nervous around nuns. Not because I treat them differently. Because I know that I shouldn’t be doing that. I feel awkward and nervous around black men, too, and for the same reason. I treat them with respect, and I know that there is no reason for me to do that. For me to be preferentially respectful to black men is just as bad as if I were specifically spiteful to black men. It’s bigotry, but it’s the reverse of what people usually consider to be bigotry. It’s something that is learned. If it can be learned, then it can be unlearned. Once you realize that there is something wrong, the rest is straightforward. It just takes time.
just try to see people as individuals, not as a representative for their group. i admit that i don’t exactly practice this, sometimes it is necessary to make a quick judgement of someone, ex. when i have bought a used car, i have taken into account the sex of the person selling it with the assumption that a woman probably did not work on the car herself. still, people should be seen as individuals whenever possible, ex. at a job i had a few years ago, an indian brought in an application, as soon as he left, my boss threw it away. a co-worker remarked "oh, so you don’t care about affirmative action, huh?" my boss replied that "all indians are alcoholics, i dont hire alcoholics" (which is also funny because he did hire me, a clean-cut, white-boy, junkie) Before you buy.
Response:
… Is it because choosing what is wrong either makes them feel powerful,not to blame,or safe and excused on a social level? There are wrong choices and learned behaviors like this on individual levels in relationships,and it is on a community level,a national level that need to be questioned by every human being.
That is the painful part, though. When you have been raised from earliest childhood to believe in any given thing, it is not easy to throw that away, especially if the whole community in which you live works that way. For example, if you are a raised christian as a child of christians in a neighbourhood of christians in a bible belt, then what happens when you lose the faith and decide that christians are bogus? You can just attend church every week and recite the prayers and hymns, and simply do nothing. You will be accepted as a christian. But you will be hypocrite at the same time. What if you try to adopt and maintain a different religion? That is much more difficult. Everybody you see or talk to is fighting you. Simply following the community is always the simpler choice. It’s easier to just follow the crowd. It is the path of least resistance. That doesn’t make it right, though. That just makes it easy. … It shouldn’t be seen as crazy or weak to genuinely want the best for all people and the world.
More to the point, it shouldn’t be seen as ‘aberrant’ to simply want to be human. It shouldn’t be a necessary part of ‘humanity’ to simply follow the rest of the cows.
Response:
Johnny, you need professional help. Lynn
I love this. Your point is that because he has started to face himself *by his own volition*, he needs a shrink. Excuse me, but isn’t that what shrinks are supposed to do? If he’s doing it by himself, then why should he need a shrink? Because you don’t like the way it’s working out? Maybe you need a shrink, because you seem to need everybody else to latch their lips onto your own particular teat. That’s a tad obsessive. …
Response:
Johnny, you need professional help.
Lynn YOU need to get your head out of your ass,Troll. WAKE UP .This guy is in emotional pain,and he is waking up to how the social bigoted world is opressive to emotions to control people.A lot of shrinks are agents of social conformity telling everyone what"normal" is when the big secret is they too have no clue.. I say shrinks know nothing more about what"normal" is than what we all know.How can there be a "normal" when each of us sees the world in our own unique way?? Tell me do you know what"normal" is or is not without blithely consulting the judgements you co-opted from growing up in a cocercive manipulating status quo to define what "normal" means for you? You are such a Conformist culture coward.
Response:
That is the painful part, though. When you have been raised from earliest childhood to believe in any given thing, it is not easy to throw that away, especially if the whole community in which you live works that way.
Yes I agree..But when you begin throwing it out,you can struggle with it holding onto some pieces trying to make them fit into your shifing awareness some do this patch up stuff fitting co-opted ideas and old comfotrable ones together in a makeshift way for years. Until they realize the underlying socially cocercive control paradigm is permeating so many aspects of thier life it’s mind boggling.And the whole thing shatters down and they are free,but feel so alone in the deep void of awareness they have an existensial crisis.Then the job of self-discovery really begins.. For example, if you are a raised christian as a child of christians in a neighbourhood of christians in a bible belt, then what happens when you lose the faith and decide that christians are bogus? You can just attend church every week and recite the prayers and hymns, and simply do nothing. You will be accepted as a christian. But you will be hypocrite at the same time.
Some people can stomach lying to themselves and denying it better than others can. I myself can’t stand it.I can’t stand politics and mind games either. That distraction is why people work thier lives away ,play office politics with people they could care less about as freinds to distract from thier own sense of being used, lied to and dominated,and so they believe whatever releases them from psychological pain,fears,anxiety or pressure from other’s expectations. More to the point, it shouldn’t be seen as ‘aberrant’ to simply want to be human. It shouldn’t be a necessary part of ‘humanity’ to simply follow the rest of the cows.
People who conform are Not cows! Tthey are human beings like myself and you are..I prefer to not dehumanize people who are unaware like a blind unaware bigot does, So I call them"sleepwalkers" because it takes true integrity not to scapegoat people and react even if you see what they do is destructive…Calling them cows and yourself above it just recreates what you say you want to escape,controlling beliefs and social hierachy! I ask,instead what makes conformity look so nesessary to ’sleepwakers’socially? To me,as I see it it is a side effect of living under a life in domination in a cocercive worldveiw of another’s creation acted out in a social situations. It is hard to break out of this perception trap when the bullies have a culture for company and a set up system of inculculated psychological cocercion that is slipped into you in childhood and into the minds of so many people around you that they defend the beliefs in a reactive blind way.. When some people feel unsafe and they assume cannot flee,or change things in themselves or open thier mouth they try to blend in like a chameleon hoping they will not get harmed accused,harassed or bothered by others they percieve as ‘dominant’ or having what they need..This is an effect of a narrow focus on self-preservation,a"trnce" induction. This "trance" is created by being in a situiation that is perceived as not in your control, Sometimes life-or death there are many types of "death" not just physical death". Ideas die,beliefs die in your mind Relationships end,jobs terminate… the list goes on. Life is alive because it"dies"…Our culture’s esteemed powerful people,manipulators,and abusers, like to set up this type of limited self-focus on fearing"deaths",loss,or change.This illusion creates a very manipulable psychological conformity in the person’s mind’s perception multiply that by a family,a group a community an entire nation… This is a social CONTROL paradigm,it underlies and motivates many beliefs,reaction formations,denials, and psychological problems in people by pinging off of a person’s deep drives,psychology ,needs,beliefs,self-image,defining ability,and emotions it does it on a psychosocial level. It uses the hopes & fears we all have of not having or having safety,connection, social outlets,basic needs met,and security and esteem of those we admire by Enhancing and distorting the"life" side of life with the fear of loss or death..This paradigm of threat and death as a dual seperate concept is so profitable and so"invisible"to the sleeping consiousness of those conforming to it it is an effective multifaceted social motivator of"sleepwalkers" who are convinced they are not sleeping. It is a tool to get people to do anything or belive anything even give up thier only lives to some covert government scam and believe it is the right thing to do. They rally about the Chruistian symbol supporting the claim "thou shalt not kill,"as they go elsewhere others kill in masse with guns and rationalize atrocity of war because..They refuse tosee the contradiction between integrity and beliefs because they are narrowly focused on self-preservation as the govt.defines it and manipulated into that perception way before they ever donned a uniform… This "death" fear is an emotionally manufactured way to get people to stay’asleep’ to not question why they think what they think,ignoring thier shifting aware inner senses of genuine integritythat faces them everyday they defer to the"back burner" when work demands thier time or they must DO.. .Sadly somtimes this mental stuggle even leads to suicide..Sometimes suicide is a desperate way to maintain integrity and keep the security found in inculclated beliefs that give false security intact.Death is percived as "freedom" by some suicides. So they’d rather die fighting keeping a contradiction alive instead of doing the really painful hard psychologically draining emotionally agonizing work of killing the lies you love that takes removing the restraints of cocercive culture realizing others are afraid of facing what they grapple with,because they’re’asleep’,taking the EZ conformists way and the suicide opts out of life by removing themselves instead of the beliefs..I think this happens because they can’t see any other way out and no one around them can offer any perceptive doors to try.. So by accepting that is where the conformists around you are choosing to be is a way to avoid influences but it is lonely and this challege can make you feel so vunerable at times and very trapped until you think it through. It’s very hard to go on ‘bucking the system’percieving for your own sense of genuiness and keeping your integrity intact. When you feel all alone,questioning culture’s ‘values’ Cults and political beliefs ( all MEMES and thier salesmen) prey on your emergence and emotional needy searching vunerability in this state ,Many are offering EZ prefab solutions that"feel good"and give your mind a rest and a social club to distract you from the emotional pain and fixit for you.or tell you they with you will fix the world and they control you and shape yopu into a servant/sycophant over time.Then you leave when you wake up,three years wasted back where you left off before entering the seductive belief system.. Ads can seduce you to escape your mental confusion and pain with lures to buy shit,eat food ,party,decorate your home,get status, create a new you,escape yourself and pay later.The demands of the blind boss working for the wealthy that need no more wealth scream that you are not working good enough,not loyal to the company. Peers ,family,and social circles you once were in, call you crazy,weird,ignore and abandon you,gossip ,accuse,harass or shun you. Counter cultures different or"taboo"to what you were raised in,look freer than yours does ,but after living in them awhile you discover it’s another form of control ,just a different flavor..Substance addiction seduces you to escape All these things in a chemical euphoria that always comes down to having to face yourself,and who you are and the path you walk,as you struggle for your own integrity. IT friggin hurts! To wake up.But persevere..it has rewards. there are more things than I listed offering escape,..Be aware all of it has it’s pull to put you back into nacosized comfort of self-ignorance ,control and conformity ,all of these mental social controllers just are clamoring to relive you of your emotional awareness and integrity as you "wake up". You must ignore all those siren songs until they have no more appeal to you while you hurt,explore, discover,release,confront,accept,learn and heal. It’s very hard to stop playing the game when you are born into it’s clutches and reared and conditioned to serve it instead of what you are. But it is the only way to find out what you really are.And for that reason alone the journey is priceless. Might I reccomend a book? The Paradigm Conspirasy by Denise Breton and Christopher Largent.
Response:
What if we learned to treat our entire world with such respect, and kindness.We are taught many things ,sadly the things that can heal humanity are so limited..Respect is limited to "Chocolate people"or Nuns,to who you beniefiet from bosses authority… Don’t ALL people deserve the security created by genuine caring? Instead of rote conditioning responses. I am glad you question the rote conditioning,but I hope it doesen’t make you become cynical. It’s something that is learned. If it can be learned, then it can be unlearned. Once you realize that there is something wrong, the rest is straightforward. It just takes time.
Sad thing is when people choose to lie to themselves when they Do or contribute to something that is wrong in themselves,a relationship a commmunity..ect..,and rationalize it or throw out blame. This is so they do not have to do the raw soul searching required to learn or unlearn social conditioning.Sometimes unlearning and learning takes away the emotional comforts provided by a place in hierarchy or a belief system,you cherish.Questioning these things can make you feel betrayed,cuynical hurt or duped.So people sometimes prefer to remain limited because of this pain insight causes sometimes. Is it because choosing what is wrong either makes them feel powerful,not to blame,or safe and excused on a social level? There are wrong choices and learned behaviors like this on individual levels in relationships,and it is on a community level,a national level that need to be questioned by every human being. What if all human beings really did expect love and acceptance,only acceped freedom with responsibility and saw themselves in a reciprocal human relationship of difference instead of learning an intricate social war of power,status,greed ,attention,exploitation,dominance or submission? What if we all decided to re-learn how to foster genuine relationships,by being genuine ourselves? It shouldn’t be seen as crazy or weak to genuinely want the best for all people and the world.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – SureSexual Harrasment laws are a bit fierce,but guess what,guys you bought in the conditioning you guys never asked how to cook clean sew or raise kids,You want to tell women how to look act,respond and dress based in some fantasy in your heads culture conditioning created to like someones pocket!Why do,you feel yourselves Superior? Women have been dominated by men for many years it was only the 1920’s women could VOTE!Women could not own land in the days where all MEN were declared Equal!! So is it so EVIL for women to be disgusted at crass jokes or be ooogled at by a man she has no interest in,why be so offended..I’ll point out this,What if all women in this world,refused to care about men’s problems ,what if they all refused to let them oogle,drool and fondle them like toys what if porn was no longer made what if we said NO to sex until we felt like it,or used dildoes and related to women and left you guys out in the cold?..what if women gave you no children,and no care when you were sick and pathetic, ,no housecleaning,or the other countless tasks men never were taught by thier well conditioned old tyme mothers. Simple skills mny men freak over like not putting dark and light clothes together in a washload? Naw won’t happen in this century, women have been too conditioned to accept freedom. Sadly, you might be close to the mark or right on it in some cases concerning some women..But that can so easily change into another perspective once an idea catches consiousness.There is a syndrome called the 100th monkey where ideas that are fringe can slip into cultural consiousness when it gets to an’attentive’ "threshhold" ..then it is an understanding known on a large scale..In my life I have seen so clearly,Nothing is ever stable,constant and the same for too long ,or it fizzles out under the weight of it’s own inertia and changelessness. Things stay the same sometimes until the demands of dynamic creation itself tears it apart and builds something else,on it’s ruins…Shit,the condition of being alive it seems is a unsolid condition of transformation.Becoming something else..Life is constantly living from newness,to plateau to eventual death and reconstruction or newness Did you know according to science’s data by the age of five years old every molicule in our bodies have been exchanged for other ones? We are pattern swirls of matter in space..Just like trees and rocks and kitty cats are..It seems material reality is like holograms we percieve as we live in space time.So we are consiousness experincing itself,expericing’seperateness from itself,in matter illusions subjectively.
Did you know if you take a cell in the early embryo’s stages feet and placed it on the head it will start to develop in to a brain cell…. deep…*smirk* So go figure.. But hey I’m here to push the envelope, challenge stale ideas and I got a Biiiig Mouth and world wide axcess online to rile up consious dissent here..too.;) U.P.
Well I am in favor of the Bahai concept of Two Wings, in that the male and female positions change into two equally strong but different rolls. We have to look at the rest of society in a manner that displays it as a living organism, much in the same way that we view the entire ant hill as one living organism. One of the definitions of life is that it can reproduce, a single ant that we see crawling on the ground can not in its self reproduce with another ant only the queen, but she can not survive with out the other ants. Our society could not reproduce its self with just two people because its basic functions are why to complex for just two of the greatest geniuses studying their entire life. Albert Einstein with all of his command of Physics still would not be able to give a doctorial dissertation on Biology, Economics, Politics, Psychology, ect… In reality in the Cavemen days the male and female roles were equal, both existed in unbelievably harsh environments in which very clear roles were needed to survive, as society progresses one of the wings invariably becomes stronger than the other sending the whole civilization in to a tailspin, until one of the nations develops a better method and becomes more successful thereby influencing other nations to follow suit. With this constant changing of the system turbulence creates social upheaval, which is what we live in today. Societies either adapt or not, if not how well… then the society is dominated by other cultures. The really is no real answer, except to adapt.
Response:
Johnny, you need professional help. Lynn
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Help! I have recently discovered that I am scared. For most of my life, I have presented myself as a fair, reasonable person. I have aligned myself with ideals I knew intellectually to be ‘correct’, and have tried to act ‘correctly’; I have wrapped myself in a cloak of benevolence. Now, I realize that I am scared. I am afraid of things for no reason. For example, when I see a black person walking toward me, I tighten up. I feel awkward and nervous. I’m not sure why. This has always happened, and I have hidden it well, mostly to myself I suppose. But now I realize that somewhere in the deep recesses of my psyche, I am afraid of blacks. And homosexuals. And crying. And touching. And women. In fact, I’m afraid of much more. Some of my fears I’m even afraid to reveal. Unconsciously, I tried to deal with my fears by avoiding ‘anxious’ situations. Example: I won’t go to a movie where I might have the urge to cry. This urge is never a welcome friend. "Naw, that’s a ‘chick-flick’…" I also won’t visit the local gay bar, no matter how hip my girlfriend says it is. I’ve been before, but I was left alone (I don’t dance you see…) and I got anxious. I tried to pretend it wasn’t happening and that I was relaxed, but it was and I wasn’t. So now I’m finally being honest with myself, and I don’t like what I see. I know it’s not ‘right’ to feel the way I do, but it’s real. How do I deal with this? Has anybody else come to similar realizations? Help! Before you buy.
Response:
… So now I’m finally being honest with myself, and I don’t like what I see. I know it’s not ‘right’ to feel the way I do, but it’s real. How do I deal with this? Has anybody else come to similar realizations? Help!
… you have committed thought crime(s), you hosed-shit motherfucker.
… I’m sure that’s not the knee-jerk reaction of PC thug, but rather a tongue-in-cheek comment by an enlightened person. Right? This is not rocket science. I didn’t even see a black person until I was 8. Black people were pretty scarce in the north end of British Columbia 30 years ago. The first time I saw a black person, I was in a department store, and I said to my mother, "Hey, mom! Look! A chocolate man!" It was the coolest thing. I’d seen people with a tan before, but nothing like *that*! I didn’t even know that black people existed. We didn’t have TV. My parents knew, though. I sat through a lecture that same night. My parents told me very patiently that the "chocolate man" was a "negro". They explained how the "negro" had been hurt really bad in the past, and that if I ever saw a "negro" again, I should treat them very politely and respectfully, because they shouldn’t be offended. I was taught to be ultra polite to the "chocolate man". A few years later, when my father built a rental home on our property, he rented it to a "chocolate man". The "chocolate man" brought along a "chocolate woman", and a couple "chocolate kids". I knew the rule about the "chocolate man", but there were no rules about the "chocolate woman" or the "chocolate kids". They were regular people. They were right next door, too! We played together all the time. But I knew the rule about the "chocolate man". Be very polite and respectful to the "chocolate man". That lasted for years. When I ran across "chocolate teenagers" I got along with them fine. One guy by the name of Curtis taught me how to dance, and he was the guy to learn from, too. Curtis could dance the ass off anybody. He told me the only useful advice about dancing that I’ve ever heard from anybody: "When you’re dancing, the more embarrassed you are, the better you look." Then I became an adult. Now, all the black men I run across are the "chocolate man". Black women, teenagers, and childen are easy. They’re just people. But I have to be polite and respectful to the "chocolate man". That was drilled into me for eight years. For a long time, I didn’t notice it. I’m middle-aged, now, and I notice the details. I feel awkward and nervous around black men now. Not because I hate them or fear them. They are the "chocolate man". Since I was a boy, I was taught to treat black men politely and respectfully. I know that it’s an artificial standard. Black men don’t deserve that treatment simply because of the color of their skin. I treat black men like I treat nuns. I have no particular reason to treat a nun with respect aside from the fact that I was raised to treat them respecfully. I’m not Catholic. My mother is. I could care less about a nun’s supposed marriage with their putative God. If a nun wanted to have sex with me tomorrow, I’d probably take her up on the offer. But if I run across a nun on the street in full habit, I’ll block traffic for her, open doors, hold elevators, offer primacy in anything, and exit her company with a respectful bow. Because she’s a nun. She deserves respect for that reason alone. I know that I treat nuns differently than I treat ordinary women. I also know that I have no valid reason for doing so. But I can’t help it. I was raised that way. Treat nuns with respect. I recognise that in myself, and it makes me feel awkward and nervous around nuns. Not because I treat them differently. Because I know that I shouldn’t be doing that. I feel awkward and nervous around black men, too, and for the same reason. I treat them with respect, and I know that there is no reason for me to do that. For me to be preferentially respectful to black men is just as bad as if I were specifically spiteful to black men. It’s bigotry, but it’s the reverse of what people usually consider to be bigotry. It’s something that is learned. If it can be learned, then it can be unlearned. Once you realize that there is something wrong, the rest is straightforward. It just takes time.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Help! I have recently discovered that I am scared. For most of my life, I have presented myself as a fair, reasonable person. I have aligned myself with ideals I knew intellectually to be ‘correct’, and have tried to act ‘correctly’; I have wrapped myself in a cloak of benevolence. Now, I realize that I am scared. I am afraid of things for no reason. For example, when I see a black person walking toward me, I tighten up. I feel awkward and nervous. I’m not sure why. This has always happened, and I have hidden it well, mostly to myself I suppose. But now I realize that somewhere in the deep recesses of my psyche, I am afraid of blacks. And homosexuals. And crying. And touching. And women. In fact, I’m afraid of much more. Some of my fears I’m even afraid to reveal. Unconsciously, I tried to deal with my fears by avoiding ‘anxious’ situations. Example: I won’t go to a movie where I might have the urge to cry. This urge is never a welcome friend. "Naw, that’s a ‘chick-flick’…" I also won’t visit the local gay bar, no matter how hip my girlfriend says it is. I’ve been before, but I was left alone (I don’t dance you see…) and I got anxious. I tried to pretend it wasn’t happening and that I was relaxed, but it was and I wasn’t. So now I’m finally being honest with myself, and I don’t like what I see. I know it’s not ‘right’ to feel the way I do, but it’s real. How do I deal with this? Has anybody else come to similar realizations? Help! Before you buy.
you have committed thought crime(s), you hosed-shit motherfucker. Before you buy.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – SureSexual Harrasment laws are a bit fierce,but guess what,guys you bought in the conditioning you guys never asked how to cook clean sew or raise kids,You want to tell women how to look act,respond and dress based in some fantasy in your heads culture conditioning created to like someones pocket!Why do,you feel yourselves Superior? Women have been dominated by men for many years it was only the 1920’s women could VOTE!Women could not own land in the days where all MEN were declared Equal!! So is it so EVIL for women to be disgusted at crass jokes or be ooogled at by a man she has no interest in,why be so offended..I’ll point out this,What if all women in this world,refused to care about men’s problems ,what if they all refused to let them oogle,drool and fondle them like toys what if porn was no longer made what if we said NO to sex until we felt like it,or used dildoes and related to women and left you guys out in the cold?..what if women gave you no children,and no care when you were sick and pathetic, ,no housecleaning,or the other countless tasks men never were taught by thier well conditioned old tyme mothers. Simple skills mny men freak over like not putting dark and light clothes together in a washload?
Naw won’t happen in this century, women have been too conditioned to accept freedom.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – SureSexual Harrasment laws are a bit fierce,but guess what,guys you bought in the conditioning you guys never asked how to cook clean sew or raise kids,You want to tell women how to look act,respond and dress based in some fantasy in your heads culture conditioning created to like someones pocket!Why do,you feel yourselves Superior? Women have been dominated by men for many years it was only the 1920’s women could VOTE!Women could not own land in the days where all MEN were declared Equal!! So is it so EVIL for women to be disgusted at crass jokes or be ooogled at by a man she has no interest in,why be so offended..I’ll point out this,What if all women in this world,refused to care about men’s problems ,what if they all refused to let them oogle,drool and fondle them like toys what if porn was no longer made what if we said NO to sex until we felt like it,or used dildoes and related to women and left you guys out in the cold?..what if women gave you no children,and no care when you were sick and pathetic, ,no housecleaning,or the other countless tasks men never were taught by thier well conditioned old tyme mothers. Simple skills mny men freak over like not putting dark and light clothes together in a washload? Naw won’t happen in this century, women have been too conditioned to accept freedom.
Sadly, you might be close to the mark or right on it in some cases concerning some women..But that can so easily change into another perspective once an idea catches consiousness.There is a syndrome called the 100th monkey where ideas that are fringe can slip into cultural consiousness when it gets to an’attentive’ "threshhold" ..then it is an understanding known on a large scale..In my life I have seen so clearly,Nothing is ever stable,constant and the same for too long ,or it fizzles out under the weight of it’s own inertia and changelessness. Things stay the same sometimes until the demands of dynamic creation itself tears it apart and builds something else,on it’s ruins…Shit,the condition of being alive it seems is a unsolid condition of transformation.Becoming something else..Life is constantly living from newness,to plateau to eventual death and reconstruction or newness Did you know according to science’s data by the age of five years old every molicule in our bodies have been exchanged for other ones? We are pattern swirls of matter in space..Just like trees and rocks and kitty cats are..It seems material reality is like holograms we percieve as we live in space time.So we are consiousness experincing itself,expericing’seperateness from itself,in matter illusions subjectively. deep…*smirk* So go figure.. But hey I’m here to push the envelope, challenge stale ideas and I got a Biiiig Mouth and world wide axcess online to rile up consious dissent here..too.;) U.P.
Response:
Be honest and recognize that many of those fears are proper, rational, and justified. You should admit that you were not being realistic by pushing these fears into your subconscious (and denying their existence). Living in a realistic (the real) world is most healthy, instead of trying to live in a dishonest fantasy world.
Response:
Jonny if you want to knw how this fear is built in human beings to exploit us all I can share some ideas and thoughts. Help! I have recently discovered that I am scared. For most of my life, I have presented myself as a fair, reasonable person. I have aligned myself with ideals I knew intellectually to be ‘correct’, and have tried to act ‘correctly’; I have wrapped myself in a cloak of benevolence. Now, I realize that I am scared. I am afraid of things for no reason. For example, when I see a black person walking toward me, I tighten up. I feel awkward and nervous. I’m not sure why. This has always happened, and I have hidden it well, mostly to myself I suppose.
This is cultural conditioning. But now I realize that somewhere in the deep recesses of my psyche, I am afraid of blacks. And homosexuals. And crying. And touching. And women. In fact, I’m afraid of much more. Some of my fears I’m even afraid to reveal.
I know how it is I was that way too,eventually I just said FUCK hierarchies of any kind,and this notion of power and all it’s social bullcrap,to hell with wanting it recognizing it or believing in it or playing it’s games.Fuck those who exploit my emotions andf erode my confidence in my experinces thoughts and feelings.Fuck anyone who says being a human being is not worthy enough of receieving love or giving it.Fuck those demanding conformity AND rebellion.,Fuck all social peers opinions of me and my life experssions or being.I do what I do and say what I say and express what my heart and inner truth is regarless of ANYONE else.I do not turn away from possiblities and potentials because of others opinions or fears of it,I do not let ANYONE or any culture paradigm define me or what I do anymore. Every freedom has equal responsibility,or it’s a social trap…You can handle any chaos presented outside if your grasp of what you are and how you feel and your inner integrity is founded in your life experinces and honest feeling and thinking truth.Honesty needs no excuses or rationales. Unconsciously, I tried to deal with my fears by avoiding ‘anxious’ situations. Example: I won’t go to a movie where I might have the urge to cry. This urge is never a welcome friend.
I bawl over sunsets,thunderstorms and anything else beautiful or sentimental,that makes me well up.This is what FEELING people with a HEART do when faced with beauty or strong emotion,It’s NORMAL..I think those who cannot be moved to cry or have emotions byut refuse to own them have a PROBLEM feeling thier own feelings,and this inhibition harms people psychologically and makes them easier to control. "Naw, that’s a ‘chick-flick’…" I also won’t visit the local gay bar, no matter how hip my girlfriend says it is. I’ve been before, but I was left alone (I don’t dance you see…) and I got anxious. I tried to pretend it wasn’t happening and that I was relaxed, but it was and I wasn’t.
And who says dancing matters if it is done the"correct way" Dancing has been turned into a social game a mirror of inhibited emotions.When kids dance with glee do they fret over what they look like or who sees them? No! but they do it anyway because they are not condtioned to take other peoples judgements as valid over thier own feelings and experinces yet. So now I’m finally being honest with myself, and I don’t like what I see. I know it’s not ‘right’ to feel the way I do, but it’s real. How do I deal with this? Has anybody else come to similar realizations?
I have had these same realizations and guess what THEY ARE CORRECT,and SANE,and real.if you want to talk about this,feel free,I’m here. Underground Panther in the Sky – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Help! Before you buy.
Response:
Whadaya expect with all the feminist tripe heaped on us, all the conditions that are piled on men on how to deal with women? of course we’re afraid, when any innocent comment can get us men fired and busted… I’m not a bit surprised…
Question: Why do you feel this need rettig, to open your mouth in a place where it is not welcome, and say watever comment gets you in straights to begin with?? What drives you to say these things?You do not HAVE to say it or you will die do you? SureSexual Harrasment laws are a bit fierce,but guess what,guys you bought in the conditioning you guys never asked how to cook clean sew or raise kids,You want to tell women how to look act,respond and dress based in some fantasy in your heads culture conditioning created to like someones pocket!Why do,you feel yourselves Superior? Women have been dominated by men for many years it was only the 1920’s women could VOTE!Women could not own land in the days where all MEN were declared Equal!! So is it so EVIL for women to be disgusted at crass jokes or be ooogled at by a man she has no interest in,why be so offended..I’ll point out this,What if all women in this world,refused to care about men’s problems ,what if they all refused to let them oogle,drool and fondle them like toys what if porn was no longer made what if we said NO to sex until we felt like it,or used dildoes and related to women and left you guys out in the cold?..what if women gave you no children,and no care when you were sick and pathetic, ,no housecleaning,or the other countless tasks men never were taught by thier well conditioned old tyme mothers. Simple skills mny men freak over like not putting dark and light clothes together in a washload? Many men feel fine demanding that dinner be cooked by the woman who is just as tired as he is coming home from work and think nothing of it and then demand sex later that night..Men whine when the sock drawer gets low,but never seem to get off thier ass conveinently to wash thier own damn clothes,god forbid they wash a woman’s clothes too! Men moan when thier pants lose a button because of the beer gut but can’t learn to sew it back on by themselves.For this stupidity,I blame thier MOTHERS. Mothers as a duty need to train boys to take care of domestic things and to respect all human beings as worthy members of the living like they see themselves.Some mothers FAIL at teaching this to kids…Men in our culture are still fascinated with female boobs,yet many women I know would reduce them if they were not so fetishized by men and are led to think by males they are involved with that it keeps hubby interested.. Men make ALOT of mundane demands of women’s time and efforts in thier lives without realizing how much they do this.Keeping your trap shut when a woman does not want to be verbally fondeled isn’t a BIG request. Many women work just as hard as thier male partners but STILL get paid less and it is NOT the victorian ages..,WHY why arent’ as many men as women working to ease this burden on women who take care of the house , work at a career and bear and tend thier friggin kids and still worry about keeping stupid perky boobs looing good for you?? Men want mommies, a porn star and a gullible little girl all in one person. Golddigger women need to get some therapy and find out why they need to steal to feel dominating over men.Men culturally need to stop dominating everthing around them.WE all need to stop dominating each other and taking each other for granted as a human race on a planet we take for granted and dominate until it rebels and we all get sick or starve.. And I will tell you right now any interaction between human beings is a relationship. If women want to be respected in the culture-relationship like a man is in our culture,then they will have to step on some egos and stand up for what they need insdividually and use whatever helps them be it law or otherwise…Even if it inconveinences some men as to where men want wave thier dicks around. What goes around,comes around people..and historically what was done to women,and what women did to men before that,it will continue forever until people men and womyn ALL look at relaionships TOGETHER as EQUALS .Because all people as individuals are responsible for chamnging and creating sociey together as a relationship in a community of human beings we need to stop the bullshit..We all have needs and if those needs are not respected or honored and our efforts go unappreciated,then well ,we must go out an get it and do it right .That means without this DOMINATION Game or This silly tolerating being treated like objects when it gives us an ego stroke. In cultural conditioning,there are no get out of jail free cards in this game of Monopoly..So why Monopolize? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Before you buy.
Response:
Whadaya expect with all the feminist tripe heaped on us, all the conditions that are piled on men on how to deal with women? of course we’re afraid, when any innocent comment can get us men fired and busted… I’m not a bit surprised… Before you buy.
Response:
Jonny if you want to knw how this fear is built in human beings to exploit us all I can share some ideas and thoughts.
Beautifully, if somewhat profanely, stated!!! You continue to amaze me. Not fifteen minutes ago, I dismissed you entirely as a troll in another thread. Now I find myself admiring your perception and insight and admitting I was totally wrong in that dismissal. You are so correct in what you wrote to Johnny. Far too many people go through life feeling those vague fears, suffering from an undefined terror of not "measuring up," or "making a fool of myself," or being embarrassed or any number of other ultimately silly fears. Mistakes are normal — no need to feel shame for making them: that’s like being ashamed for being human. Emotions are normal as well and I envy those who can express and accept them unreservedly. Those feelings of discomfort and/or fear in strange or unnatural situations are also normal. Accept them, analyze WHAT it is precisely that’s causing those feelings, then act upon that knowledge. Don’t worry about what "they" will think. "They" don’t have to answer, ultimately, for what YOU did or didn’t do. "They" don’t have to worry about saying, at the end of your life, "I wish I’d…. ." Only YOU have to answer to you. Only YOU get to experience the joy of being you, get to pay for what you do wrong, get the euphoria for what you do right. Live your life the best you can answering to yourself for what you do. Life’s too short to worry about what others think of you. Now if you could only get rid of the anger indicated by that four-letter expletive and learn to truly enjoy that freedom you’ve learned to experience. … I hope you do. Really. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Help! I have recently discovered that I am scared. For most of my life, I have presented myself as a fair, reasonable person. I have aligned myself with ideals I knew intellectually to be ‘correct’, and have tried to act ‘correctly’; I have wrapped myself in a cloak of benevolence. Now, I realize that I am scared. I am afraid of things for no reason. For example, when I see a black person walking toward me, I tighten up. I feel awkward and nervous. I’m not sure why. This has always happened, and I have hidden it well, mostly to myself I suppose. This is cultural conditioning. But now I realize that somewhere in the deep recesses of my psyche, I am afraid of blacks. And homosexuals. And crying. And touching. And women. In fact, I’m afraid of much more. Some of my fears I’m even afraid to reveal. I know how it is I was that way too,eventually I just said FUCK hierarchies of any kind,and this notion of power and all it’s social bullcrap,to hell with wanting it recognizing it or believing in it or playing it’s games.Fuck those who exploit my emotions andf erode my confidence in my experinces thoughts and feelings.Fuck anyone who says being a human being is not worthy enough of receieving love or giving it.Fuck those demanding conformity AND rebellion.,Fuck all social peers opinions of me and my life experssions or being.I do what I do and say what I say and express what my heart and inner truth is regarless of ANYONE else.I do not turn away from possiblities and potentials because of others opinions or fears of it,I do not let ANYONE or any culture paradigm define me or what I do anymore. Every freedom has equal responsibility,or it’s a social trap…You can handle any chaos presented outside if your grasp of what you are and how you feel and your inner integrity is founded in your life experinces and honest feeling and thinking truth.Honesty needs no excuses or rationales. Unconsciously, I tried to deal with my fears by avoiding ‘anxious’ situations. Example: I won’t go to a movie where I might have the urge to cry. This urge is never a welcome friend. I bawl over sunsets,thunderstorms and anything else beautiful or sentimental,that makes me well up.This is what FEELING people with a HEART do when faced with beauty or strong emotion,It’s NORMAL..I think those who cannot be moved to cry or have emotions byut refuse to own them have a PROBLEM feeling thier own feelings,and this inhibition harms people psychologically and makes them easier to control. "Naw, that’s a ‘chick-flick’…" I also won’t visit the local gay bar, no matter how hip my girlfriend says it is. I’ve been before, but I was left alone (I don’t dance you see…) and I got anxious. I tried to pretend it wasn’t happening and that I was relaxed, but it was and I wasn’t. And who says dancing matters if it is done the"correct way" Dancing has been turned into a social game a mirror of inhibited emotions.When kids dance with glee do they fret over what they look like or who sees them? No! but they do it anyway because they are not condtioned to take other peoples judgements as valid over thier own feelings and experinces yet. So now I’m finally being honest with myself, and I don’t like what I see. I know it’s not ‘right’ to feel the way I do, but it’s real. How do I deal with this? Has anybody else come to similar realizations? I have had these same realizations and guess what THEY ARE CORRECT,and SANE,and real.if you want to talk about this,feel free,I’m here. Underground Panther in the Sky Help! Before you buy.
Response:
Help! I have recently discovered that I am scared.
I urge you to take advantage of UndergroundPather’s offer. This writer has obviously done some serious thinking, and has a deep understanding of how we are being manipulated. Furthermore, UP’s heart is in the right place, and you don’t have to worry about being f*ed over.
Response:
hi there i have been though the same things that you r going through, and i have lived my life like that, and i cant change it. I have just come to notice it now and i am letting it get to me< until i realize that this is me, this is what makes me and why i am special to the ones i love. i honeslty do not know what it is..have talked to SOO many people on this and of course just got some reasons why but i know in my heart i cannot change, and i should not change. Life sometimes is hard to understand, just like the reasons on why these sorta things happen to me, sometimes i think it was because at a younger age i had a bad experience with things and now growing up i still do..but thats not the case.. I try now not to let it bother me anymore..i life my life as i see fit and dont worry anymore. I wish i had some answers for you but all i can say is that i have followed if your foot steps and am probably thinking of the same things you do when you tense all up. Laura
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Help! I have recently discovered that I am scared. For most of my life, I have presented myself as a fair, reasonable person. I have aligned myself with ideals I knew intellectually to be ‘correct’, and have tried to act ‘correctly’; I have wrapped myself in a cloak of benevolence. Now, I realize that I am scared. I am afraid of things for no reason. For example, when I see a black person walking toward me, I tighten up. I feel awkward and nervous. I’m not sure why. This has always happened, and I have hidden it well, mostly to myself I suppose. But now I realize that somewhere in the deep recesses of my psyche, I am afraid of blacks. And homosexuals. And crying. And touching. And women. In fact, I’m afraid of much more. Some of my fears I’m even afraid to reveal. Unconsciously, I tried to deal with my fears by avoiding ‘anxious’ situations. Example: I won’t go to a movie where I might have the urge to cry. This urge is never a welcome friend. "Naw, that’s a ‘chick-flick’…" I also won’t visit the local gay bar, no matter how hip my girlfriend says it is. I’ve been before, but I was left alone (I don’t dance you see…) and I got anxious. I tried to pretend it wasn’t happening and that I was relaxed, but it was and I wasn’t. So now I’m finally being honest with myself, and I don’t like what I see. I know it’s not ‘right’ to feel the way I do, but it’s real. How do I deal with this? Has anybody else come to similar realizations? Help! Before you buy.
Response:
Help! I have recently discovered that I am scared. For most of my life, I have presented myself as a fair, reasonable person. I have aligned myself with ideals I knew intellectually to be ‘correct’, and have tried to act ‘correctly’; I have wrapped myself in a cloak of benevolence. Now, I realize that I am scared. I am afraid of things for no reason. For example, when I see a black person walking toward me, I tighten up. I feel awkward and nervous. I’m not sure why. This has always happened, and I have hidden it well, mostly to myself I suppose. But now I realize that somewhere in the deep recesses of my psyche, I am afraid of blacks. And homosexuals. And crying. And touching. And women. In fact, I’m afraid of much more. Some of my fears I’m even afraid to reveal. Unconsciously, I tried to deal with my fears by avoiding ‘anxious’ situations. Example: I won’t go to a movie where I might have the urge to cry. This urge is never a welcome friend. "Naw, that’s a ‘chick-flick’…" I also won’t visit the local gay bar, no matter how hip my girlfriend says it is. I’ve been before, but I was left alone (I don’t dance you see…) and I got anxious. I tried to pretend it wasn’t happening and that I was relaxed, but it was and I wasn’t. So now I’m finally being honest with myself, and I don’t like what I see. I know it’s not ‘right’ to feel the way I do, but it’s real. How do I deal with this? Has anybody else come to similar realizations? Help! Before you buy.
Response:
Question:
WASHINGTON, June 29 (LSN.ca) – Radical abortion supporters rejoiced at the US Supreme Court’s ruling in favour of partial-birth abortion, a ruling which also ordered federal appeals courts to take a new look at laws from Illinois and Wisconsin banning the infanticidal procedure. American citizens across the country, however, are reacting with outrage. The ruling may well have crossed a line in American politics, igniting intense criticism of the court, with the possibility of spurring actions for change to new heights. It is also likely to fuel the momentum in Canada of a growing movement demanding a halt to destructive judicial activism by the Canadian Supreme Court. The following quotes exemplify the growing fury in the U.S. : Family Research Council’s (FRC) Executive Vice President Chuck Donovan: "The Supreme Court’s odious partial-birth abortion ruling is the cruelest, most unjust ruling in American history. … The court ruled today that the American people, acting through their elected lawmakers, cannot stop an abortionist from puncturing the skull and sucking out the brains of a living, feeling infant. … This odious ruling must not stand. We call upon faithful Americans, upon people of goodwill everywhere, to peaceably protest this odious partial-birth abortion ruling. We call upon our elected officials to denounce this ruling. We call upon candidates for public office – at every level – to tell us what they will do now to end partial-birth abortion in America." http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/0 6-28-2000/0001254689&EDATE= David Stevens, MD, Executive Director of the Christian Medical Association: "This decision will go down in history alongside the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857, when the Court decided that Afro-Americans were not persons but pieces of property. Once again, an autocratic court has misinterpreted the constitution by removing the inalienable right to life of a baby just moments away from birth. … The Court’s decision will allow an abortionist to cut into the cranium of a developing baby, inflict a horrific level of pain, and then suction out its brain. If someone treated a dog in this inhumane way we would lock them up and throw away the key." http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/0 6-28-2000/0001254694&EDATE= Tom DeLay (R-TX), the House Majority Whip: "More than anything, this decision demonstrates the urgent need to put a President in the White House who will insist on appointing members of the Judiciary who do not view the Constitution as a launch pad for contrived legal theories. "The next President will likely be required to make several Supreme Court appointments. Those nominees will either push the Court back to the common sense values shared by the vast majority of citizens who oppose partial birth abortions or accelerate the Court’s alarming acceptance of the extreme judicial activism that is undermining American democracy. This decision is as wrong and misguided as the act of partial birth abortion itself." http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/0 6-28-2000/0001254599&EDATE= Joseph Scheidler, Exec. Director Chicago based Pro-Life Action League: "If Americans have no respect for the Supreme Court, the Court has only itself to blame. … Today’s decision confirms my suspicion that the very concept of a Supreme Court was a mistake from the beginning." http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/0 6-28-2000/0001254607&EDATE= Judie Brown, president of American Life League: "Ten, fifteen or twenty years from now, today’s Supreme Court decision will be cited to justify the selective termination of infants, toddlers, grandparents and the disabled." http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/0 6-28-2000/0001254574&EDATE=
Response:
Charles Roe <chas…@ihug.com.au> wrote: >WASHINGTON, June 29 (LSN.ca) – Radical abortion supporters rejoiced at >the US Supreme Court’s ruling in favour of partial-birth abortion, a >ruling which also ordered federal appeals courts to take a new look at >laws from Illinois and Wisconsin banning the infanticidal procedure.
Calling IDE abortions "infanticide" just goes to show that abortion opponents are liars and narrow-minded bigots. — Ray Fischer It is a strange desire to seek power and to lose liberty. r…@netcom.com Francis Bacon
Response:
Question:
I’m surprised that Stephen Hauskins, who I’d previously assumed was a typical retard biology department cage cleaner, has even heard of the Constitution. Your assumptions can remain intact. Check your headers.
Do you know that the word "irony" is not in any dictionary? –Tim May — Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Response:
I’m surprised that Stephen Hauskins, who I’d previously assumed was a typical retard biology department cage cleaner, has even heard of the Constitution. Your assumptions can remain intact. Check your headers. Do you know that the word "irony" is not in any dictionary?
Ah, yeah — Tim’s version of "I knew that". I guess that he picked up that behavior from the animals that he hangs out with. Note to Tim: "dating" should not involve a pooper-scooper. — Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – you are fighting for the right to sleep *in certain places*. The constitution doesn’t grant you the right to sleep downtown on the sidewalk, nor should it. The Constitution, last I checked, doesn’t even discuss sleeping at all. From this argument, one might also say that *no* sleeping is guarenteed under the Constitution, so anybody sleeping, even in their homes, is breaking the law. That would be an idiotic leap of broken logic.
Just trying to follow yours. The fact that "the right to sleep on the street" is absent from the constitution is NOT what makes it illegal. The law which declares it illegal is what makes it illegal.
I wasn’t discussing the illegality of it, there. I was following your discussion of the constitutionality of sleeping. The only reason the constitution comes into this is that the homeless advocates are claiming that people have a "right" to sleep in public places. That is false.
Ah, *I* get it, now! The only rights that exist in the universe are those given to us in the Constitution. Funny, though, most of the people in the world are neither controlled nor protected by the Constitution and they seem to have rights. Heck, our government is often yammering on about "human rights violations" that are not even mentioned in the constitution. Sleeping in your home is legal because there’s no law against it, and it doesn’t violate anyone else’s rights. It doesn’t need to be guaranteed by the constitution.
Every time that you (for example) take a breath, it depletes oxygen that I might have been able to use. Do either vof us have a right to breath? Please get off the Constitutional argument. The Constitution, itself, is little more than a history of what *used* to be, anymore; and your use of it only demeans it further. I’m not the one bringing the constitution into this.
Perhaps not, but you sure picked up the banner and ran with it. Great, more of this. Is that a straw man? I was never that good at putting the names to the fallacies. Anyway, nobody is criminalizing "people who sleep at night", they’re criminalizing "people who sleep where it’s illegal to sleep at night". So by a small group of businessmen *declairing* that is is illegal to sleep in certain places, it is suddenly now morally unacceptable to sleep in those particular places? No, it’s illegal because it was declared by a small group of the people’s representatives. That’s the way the law works.
Here and now, perhaps. You seem to be doing two things that I find troubeling. One is that you seem to think that the Constitution is universal and the other is that you seem to think that right now is the epitomy of all things. Try going to some other country and telling them about *your* Constitutional rights. Hope you don’t mind laughter while you are being beaten. I DEMAND TO BE ALLOWED TO DEFECATE IN PUBLIC DEFECATION IS A BASIC HUMAN NEED AND SHOULD NOT BE CRIMINALIZED LIFT THE BAN ON POOPING
And you suggest that *I* made "an idiotic leap of broken logic."? First, there is nothing inherently wrong with going to the bathroom in public. It is done in many parts of the world. As long as the waste is delt with properly, what’s the harm? Again, the elimination of wastes from the body is pretty fundimental to life. Because you happen to have been brought up with toilet processes being done in private does not mean that this is the only way that it *should* be done. Like sleeping, it is a human need to eliminate our bodily waste. Unlike going to the bathroom, though, a person sleeping in public does virtually no harm. This is an issue simply because you and others don’t like the homeless. Simply say that and forget about the pretense of the sleeping ban. — Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.
Response:
Yep, the 9th says all rights not specifically mentioned are left for the states and their citizens.
The 10th says all rights not specifically mentioned are left for the states and their citizens. The ninth says that rights not specifically mentioned are allowed, and that just because they are not mentioned does not mean that they don’t exist. Steve "Now I’ll probably get shot" Daniels
Response:
Hell, I can remember when I was a kid. After the prom we went to the beach. After staying up all night partying (quite different definition, in those days), we badly needed sleep. In fact, were I to have driven home over 17 in that state, I would have been a danger. Instead, we slept in the car for a few hours — right on a public street. Nobody said a word about it.
They can’t really. According to the California Vehicle Code, if while driving you become sleepy, you must pull over and rest before continuing. A friend of mine came to town and did just this. He received a ticket for ‘camping’ and had it dismissed on this reasoning. If the idiot ‘homeless living in cars’ did the same thing, they wouldn’t need to whine about how unfair the local guvment is to them. "the law is fair in the fact that rich people as well as poor must pull over and rest before continuing" –Geoffrey Wells
Response:
They can’t really. According to the California Vehicle Code, if while driving you become sleepy, you must pull over and rest before continuing. A friend of mine came to town and did just this. He received a ticket for ‘camping’ and had it dismissed on this reasoning.
I think that I remember you saying this some time ago. If the idiot ‘homeless living in cars’ did the same thing, they wouldn’t need to whine about how unfair the local guvment is to them.
What they need, apparently, is a high-priced lawyer to set them straight on the loopholes. But then, that’s what a lot of us need. — Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.
Response:
I’m surprised that Stephen Hauskins, who I’d previously assumed was a typical retard biology department cage cleaner, has even heard of the Constitution.
Your assumptions can remain intact. Check your headers. — TBO Before you buy.
Response:
Steve "Now I’ll probably get shot" Daniels
Not if you use the pepper spray judiciously. Glen (and run fast) Appleby — Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.
Response:
I believe that’s all lumped under the 9th Amendement. Yep, the 9th says all rights not specifically mentioned are left for the states and their citizens. I’m surprised that Stephen Hauskins, who I’d previously assumed was a typical retard biology department cage cleaner, has even heard of the Constitution.
And I’m surprised that you have not learned to read headers. — Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.
Response:
tickled my privates with this: The Constitution, last I checked, doesn’t even discuss sleeping at all. From this argument, one might also say that *no* sleeping is guarenteed under the Constitution, so anybody sleeping, even in their homes, is breaking the law. I believe that’s all lumped under the 9th Amendement.
Yep, the 9th says all rights not specifically mentioned are left for the states and their citizens. I’m surprised that Stephen Hauskins, who I’d previously assumed was a typical retard biology department cage cleaner, has even heard of the Constitution. –Tim May — Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Response:
you are fighting for the right to sleep *in certain places*. The constitution doesn’t grant you the right to sleep downtown on the sidewalk, nor should it. The Constitution, last I checked, doesn’t even discuss sleeping at all. From this argument, one might also say that *no* sleeping is guarenteed under the Constitution, so anybody sleeping, even in their homes, is breaking the law.
That would be an idiotic leap of broken logic. The fact that "the right to sleep on the street" is absent from the constitution is NOT what makes it illegal. The law which declares it illegal is what makes it illegal. The only reason the constitution comes into this is that the homeless advocates are claiming that people have a "right" to sleep in public places. That is false. Sleeping in your home is legal because there’s no law against it, and it doesn’t violate anyone else’s rights. It doesn’t need to be guaranteed by the constitution. It also doesn’t grant you the right to sleep in city hall, public parks after dark, or many other public places. You have as much a right to sleep as you have a right to pursue happiness. Find an appropriate place to do it. Please get off the Constitutional argument. The Constitution, itself, is little more than a history of what *used* to be, anymore; and your use of it only demeans it further.
I’m not the one bringing the constitution into this. The people crying about their "right" to sleep wherever they want are. All I’m doing is telling them that they’re wrong. Great, more of this. Is that a straw man? I was never that good at putting the names to the fallacies. Anyway, nobody is criminalizing "people who sleep at night", they’re criminalizing "people who sleep where it’s illegal to sleep at night". So by a small group of businessmen *declairing* that is is illegal to sleep in certain places, it is suddenly now morally unacceptable to sleep in those particular places?
No, it’s illegal because it was declared by a small group of the people’s representatives. That’s the way the law works. That the people might have been businessmen is irrelevant unless you want to discuss the issue of whether they are *good* representatives of the people. I can’t wait for the law making it illegal to clean one’s self by holding the their left hand after going to the bathroom.
I can’t wait for you to make sense. Come on, guy — it is simply a blind declairation that makes it illegal. It is not by an act of gawd or even a long tradition.
Do you consider all laws "blind declairations" [sic]? What about laws against parking your car in certain public places? Does that fit your definition of "blind declaration"? Or is that one ok because it only inconvenient to people fortunate enough to own cars? I DEMAND TO BE ALLOWED TO DEFECATE IN PUBLIC DEFECATION IS A BASIC HUMAN NEED AND SHOULD NOT BE CRIMINALIZED LIFT THE BAN ON POOPING -Neal Tucker
Response:
Since you’re too dense to "get it", it means this person can’t refute his points directly, so chooses to trash him w/o giving him an opportunity to respond.
What does my "specific gravity" have to do with "getting it?" (By the way "dense" precious metals are considered "noble" by virtue of their ability to ward off corosive elements—-perhaps my "density" wards off May’s corosive and nihilistic precepts). Regarding your second "point," his opportunity to "respond" has certainly never been denied him. A mere post about Census Job Openings is enough of a catalyst to set him off with a vitriolic response! * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
scruz.general,=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=A7m=F0t=AC=A9=E5=AC=A9=E5?= FUCK YOU *AND* YOUR CAUSE. AND SINCE, AS A TAXPAYER, *I* AND MY *ILK*
Got Ilk? — Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.
Response:
you are fighting for the right to sleep *in certain places*. The constitution doesn’t grant you the right to sleep downtown on the sidewalk, nor should it.
The Constitution, last I checked, doesn’t even discuss sleeping at all. From this argument, one might also say that *no* sleeping is guarenteed under the Constitution, so anybody sleeping, even in their homes, is breaking the law. It also doesn’t grant you the right to sleep in city hall, public parks after dark, or many other public places. You have as much a right to sleep as you have a right to pursue happiness. Find an appropriate place to do it.
Please get off the Constitutional argument. The Constitution, itself, is little more than a history of what *used* to be, anymore; and your use of it only demeans it further. Great, more of this. Is that a straw man? I was never that good at putting the names to the fallacies. Anyway, nobody is criminalizing "people who sleep at night", they’re criminalizing "people who sleep where it’s illegal to sleep at night".
So by a small group of businessmen *declairing* that is is illegal to sleep in certain places, it is suddenly now morally unacceptable to sleep in those particular places? I can’t wait for the law making it illegal to clean one’s self by holding the their left hand after going to the bathroom. Come on, guy — it is simply a blind declairation that makes it illegal. It is not by an act of gawd or even a long tradition. — Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.
Response:
You can’t discuss rights, when you talk about where a homeless man or woman might sleep tonight. Hundreds of square miles of woodland, coastal hills, nice scenery… Heck, if I had to sleep outdoors around Santa Cruz, it cerntainly wouldn’t be downtown.
Problem is that all of that "wilderness" is owned — either privately or by government. If it is owned by government, they wanna get Buk$ for people staying there (or they simply don’t want to risk the liability of someone staying there). If it is owned privately, sleeping there without permission is often referred to as "trespassing". In either case, it is owned and the owner’s permission is usually required. Of course, the same is true of any of the streets that a homeless person might sleep on. The difference is that if one sleeps in a car on the street in *most* communities, it’s not illegal. Hell, I can remember when I was a kid. After the prom we went to the beach. After staying up all night partying (quite different definition, in those days), we badly needed sleep. In fact, were I to have driven home over 17 in that state, I would have been a danger. Instead, we slept in the car for a few hours — right on a public street. Nobody said a word about it. — Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.
Response:
Sounds like Wacknut Red had dedicaed an entire HTML page to trashing Tim May. This must mean that Tim is an effective writer who gets his point across. exactly is your "point" in making this claim???
Since you’re too dense to "get it", it means this person can’t refute his points directly, so chooses to trash him w/o giving him an opportunity to respond.
Response:
Mmm hmm. You can post a spelling flame, but you WILL NOT RESPOND TO A SINGLE ISSUE RAISED BY YOU IN THE PAST, SUCH AS YOUR RAMPANT ANTI-GAY BIAS, RIGHT ASSHOLE? FUCK YOU *AND* YOUR CAUSE. AND SINCE, AS A TAXPAYER, *I* AND MY *ILK* ARE THE ONES WHO DECIDE WHETHER YOUR SO-CALLED "CAUSE" EVER GETS A HEARING, I’D SAY YOU’RE PRETTY…UH….*FUCKED*. NOW; CRAWL OFF WITH THE BUMS AND *DIE*. JUST FOR THIS RESPONSE, I NO LONGER GIVE OUT SPARE CHANGE OR FOOD. YOU CAN JUST FUCKING STAVE TO *DEATH*. RUN *THAT* THROUGH BABELFISH IN FRENCH, YOU FUCKING RETARD.
Hmm Mmm. Vous pouvez signaler une flamme d’pellation, mais NE REPONDREZ-VOUS PAS une QUESTION SIMPLE AUGMENTE PAR VOUS DANS LE PASS, TEL QUE VOTRE ANTI-GAY EFFRN DE BIAIS, ABRUTI DROIT? BAISEZ-CVous * ET * VOTRE CAUSE. ET PUISQUE, EN TANT QUE CONTRIBUABLE, * I * ET MON * ILK * EST CELUI OMS DECIDEZ SI VOTRE PRTENDUE " CAUSE " OBTIENT JAMAIS Une AUDITION, je DIRAIT que VOUS tes le JOLI… uh….*fucked * MAINTENANT; RAMPEMENT HORS FONCTION AVEC LE BUMS ET * MATRICE *. JUSTE POUR CETTE REPONSE, JE NE DONNE PLUS HORS DU CHANGEMENT OU DE LA NOURRITURE DE PICES DE RECHANGE. VOUS POUVEZ JUSTE BARRE FUCKING * LA MORT *. Ok, ‘mpt,)e,)e? Maintenant vous pouvez prendre un Bromo, homo, et reveillez le sentiment vous-meme encore.
Response:
If everybody made it his business to set fire to one homeless person, just think of all the precious bandwidth that’d be saved. It brings a tear to my eye, it does… Geoff — "The world is full of idiots. That’s what’s so frustrating about anything. The voice of intelligence and reason is drowned out by
Response:
Sounds like Wacknut Red had dedicaed an entire HTML page to trashing Tim May. This must mean that Tim is an effective writer who gets his point across.
exactly is your "point" in making this claim??? As usual, the self-proclaimed ‘activists’, in their Eternal Quest for Instant Moral Gratification, assert that THEY alone are the only ones with good intentions, and that all contrary positions are borne out of ‘hatred’, ‘mean-spiritedness’, ‘ignorance’, or whatever the Buzz-word du Jour is.
Charlie, I’m as much an activist as you are "Chicken of the Sea." I also don’t recall claiming any "good intentions." Furthermore, that web page cited isn’t even mine! It’s author doesn’t necessarily have "good intentions" either. I was merely helpful in distributing Tim May’s "weltanschauung" over the WWW. And "that" has less to do with "good intentions" than settling an old debt of honor (i.e. I owe Tim and I intend to pay him!) Oh, and by the way, how can you yourself suggest that the following "mantra" isn’t borne out of "hatred, mean-spiritedness, or ignorance"? Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren’t even speed bumps on the information superhighway." XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Shores/5053/crypto.html
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
Homeless people don’t have rights, because they’re not valid citizens. No job, no taxes, no respect, no representation, no heroes. You can’t discuss rights, when you talk about where a homeless man or woman might sleep tonight.
I have to take exception with these statements. Of course they’re valid citizens, and of course they have rights. It doesn’t matter if someone doesn’t pay taxes; they still have rights just like you or me. Think of it this way: if you saved up your money, bought a bunch of food, quit your job and became self-sufficient for a year, would you lose your basic rights for that year you didn’t pay taxes? Of course not. Of course, I completely agree with you that homeless people don’t have a right to sleep wherever they want, just as I don’t. Their need for a place to sleep does not change their rights. -Neal Tucker
Response:
(Grrr. I posted this tonight, and today I can’t find this post on Concentric’s news server, nor has it made it to deja. I’m reposting. Apologies in advance if you get duplicates.) Note: to my post via email. Because I am (repeatedly) urged to debate the matter further on his public call-in radio show, I am going to assume I am also free to continue to debate the matter here, where it started. I have no interest in calling into a radio show to further someone else’s career and agenda. I’ll make my points as I see fit, in my own good time, which means taking my time to choose my words and put them down the way I like, not being rushed on a live radio program. That said: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 X-UIDL: 363fd95c353e43dd97fabd64fe39c32f —–Original Message—– Newsgroups: alt.society.homeless,scruz.politics,scruz.general,soc.rights.human,alt.act iv ism,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics scruz.politics, scruz.general, soc.rights.human, alt.activism, (forwarded): —–Original Message—– To: Lee Quarnstrom, San Jose Mercury News Community Action Board of Santa Cruz Re: Your May 16th column on Sleeping Ban Repeal Dear Lee Quarnstrom: <snip What we know is that most homeless people are only homeless for 3 to 5 months. We know that more than 30% of homeless people are working; that the fastest growing segment of the homeless population is families with children, primarily single female headed households; that many families are living in their cars, sending their children to school, trying to find work that will support the high rents in Santa Cruz county and trying to avoid being ticketed by the police for illegal camping or parking overnight. We also know that violence against Shelterless people has increased. And letting them sleep on the streets will help solve this how? 1, Homeless people are afraid to sleep in well-lighted areas now because all sleeping in vehicles or in public spaces is banned in Santa Cruz, criminalizing 700-1500 people (emergency shelter exists for 28 people only from May 1 to when the Winter Armory Shelter opens again in November). 2. Homeless people who want to sleep in groups for protection are afraid to do so because it is more likely they will be noticed by police and harassed or ticketed, since sleeping per se is now illegal. 3. Currently outstanding tickets and warrants for sleeping make homeless people who are assaulted reluctant to use police services for fear they themselves will be jailed or harassed. If an amnesty is added to this law, it will remove this barrior to using the police for protection.
So we are supposed to exonerate law breakers from breaking this inconvenient law, encouraging them to further feel comfortable breaking the laws they don’t like, and equally comfortable utilizing taxpayer supported services when it pleases them? Can I have some of that too? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The 1999 Community Assessment Project report by the United Way found that more than 13% of the residents of the county who earn less than $16,000 per year have been homeless for at least 3 months at some time in the past five years. That’s over 7,500 people. A new survey, the first in 10 years, called the "Homeless 2000 Census and Needs Assessment" will be released in July and will give a clearer picture of who homeless people are and what we as a community can do to design programs and policies that will make a difference. David Silva, a key player in designing the recommended ordinance for ending the sleeping ban says that the measure will restore dignity to the homeless population The homeless population that wants to sleep on the streets is not the same homeless population being touted at the beginning of this paragraph. Those who are "homeless for only 3-5 months" are not without resources, including friends, churches, shelters, etc. They are momentarily without a permanent address, but in the great majority of cases (I don’t want to say ‘all’ cases because someone will come up with a single example to try to falsely demonstrate a "need") they don’t wish to (or need to) sleep on the public streets. Few people choose to sleep on the streets. However spiraling rents, the lack of available campgrounds, and jobs that do not pay affordable wages contribute to a situation that forces hundreds in the city and thousands in the county to do so. This is simple fact.
It is a damn lie. A person earning $6 per hour who works a 40 hour week makes over $12,000 per year. I dare you to "prove" that 4 people, pooling resources, can’t live quite comfortably in Santa Cruz on a combined salary of $48,000 per year (4 people in a 2 bedroom rental apartment, two to a bedroom). There are your facts. Sharing a bedroom in an apartment is no worse than sharing a dorm room in college. Plenty of people have done it while at college and after, when necessary. Unfortunately, Santa Cruz’s homeless bums don’t want to demean themselves by stooping to getting a "menial job" and earning their own keep and keeping a roof over their head. Why should they? They have found that Santa Cruz will feed them (at soup kitchens) and change the laws to let them sleep on the streets in our mild climate. Plenty of people who now rent came to Santa Cruz and struggled by sleeping in their vehicles. The situation now is significantly worse than a decade or two ago.
And the reason for that is? I’ll tell you. Because of stupid policies, Santa Cruz has become a mecca for people seeking more of the very handouts that you advocate. Giving them handouts hasn’t worked yet, giving them more handouts will NOT solve the problem! To try to get services for one group by pretending that they are another group is unwise. By twisting the truth in this manner you make *everything* you say suspect. Allowing people to sleep in certain select non-residential areas is not really a "service". It is rather a restoration of a civil right to sleep without being arrested.
What about my right to walk the street without being hassled? What about my right to walk through a parking lot without stumbling in some human waste from someone who is too lazy to bother to find a bathroom when in need? What about my right to have a business in a business district that is welcoming and attractive to my potential customers instead of having one in a business district infested with shiftless panhandlers who intimidate my customers? And now you want to let them sleep there as well as loiter there during the day and using the streets as a bathroom? The homeless do NOT have a "right" to live or sleep on the streets in the business district where they infringe on the rights of law abiding tax payers. This is just plain common sense. It would be idiotic to legislate this. While Santa Cruz might continue to survive (but not thrive) in our current booming economy, the moment the economy goes downhill tourists are going to avoid Santa Cruz like the plague and a downtown infested with homeless bums sleeping in the street will become a ghost town of empty stores. How about proposing a REAL solution instead? Here’s an idea. If there was ever a time when we (society) had the collective prosperity to help solve homelessness, this is it. We can fund programs to GET people off the street. And we can give the homeless of Santa Cruz 2 options: Sign up for the program (and diligently work it until successful) or move on. Make repeatedly sleeping on the streets (being cited again after previously being cited for sleeping on the streets) a crime that can be punished with 6 months in jail. Jails too crowded? I understand that a city can ship inmates off to private prison camps in Arizona. Perhaps after 6 months of that the homeless bums will decide that mooching off the citizens of Santa Cruz is a bad idea and either get themselves a job or move on. The program would provide temporary housing, job training, job placement, responsibility counseling, and 6 months for the participants to get and keep a regular 40 hour a week job and support themselves. The program can place them in restaurant kitchens, washing dishes. The program can place them as manual laborers, mowing lawns, loading and unloading delivery trucks, cleaning horse stalls, and 1001 other READILY AVAILABLE jobs that don’t require anything more than the willingness and responsibility to show up and follow instructions. The program can help place the newly employed in group homes (4 to a 2 BR apartment as I outline elsewhere in this post), so that their income CAN afford them food and housing. If we can’t fund a project like this now, what on earth are we going to do when the economy goes sour? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -and the city itself by no longer criminalizing people for what they
… read more »
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – … Allowing people to sleep in certain select non-residential areas is not really a "service". It is rather a restoration of a civil right to sleep without being arrested. … Neal, the same logic is applied by the skateboad crowd – … in front of Safeway on Saturday afternoon. When asked to move, they go through their usual mantra "skateboarding is not a crime". (… Aren’t dots wonderful? … ) Homeless people don’t have rights, because they’re not valid citizens. No job, no taxes, no respect, no representation, no heroes. You can’t discuss rights, when you talk about where a homeless man or woman might sleep tonight. But they do have needs. Try this test some day: leave your money and ID and all your keys at home, and lock yourself out. Then search for the place where you have a "right" to eat, sleep, go to the bathroom, or wash. After a couple of days, search for a dentist where you have a "right" to get a tooth fixed. Watch them laugh when you ask for cleaning, of flouride. Try to get medication from a doctor who doesn’t know you. Try to get to other side of town. Yikes! I’ve just revealed a bias in my heart. Maybe there’s some anger there, too. Bye from home, Dan Cohen in Calgary
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – … Allowing people to sleep in certain select non-residential areas is not really a "service". It is rather a restoration of a civil right to sleep without being arrested. … Neal, the same logic is applied by the skateboad crowd – … in front of Safeway on Saturday afternoon. When asked to move, they go through their usual mantra "skateboarding is not a crime". (… Aren’t dots wonderful? … ) Homeless people don’t have rights, because they’re not valid citizens. No job, no taxes, no respect, no representation, no heroes.
No job? Sounds like a deal… to them. No taxes? Sounds like a deal… to me. No respect? Gee, can you REALLY pass that out like a welfare check? Or does it have to be EARNED? No representation? What do they care? They don’t work. They don’t pay taxes. No heroes? maybe it has something to do with the fact that being "homeless" isn’t something to be admired. You can’t discuss rights, when you talk about where a homeless man or woman might sleep tonight.
Hundreds of square miles of woodland, coastal hills, nice scenery… Heck, if I had to sleep outdoors around Santa Cruz, it cerntainly wouldn’t be downtown. But they do have needs.
Sure do… they need to get off their lazy asses and do something for themselves for a change. Try this test some day: leave your money and ID and all your keys at home, and lock yourself out.
Simple deal. I call a locksmith, and if I don’t have anough cash on me, I put his services on my credit card. An hour of inconvenience at the most. I’ll be pissed off at my own stupidity, but I will live. Then search for the place where you have a "right" to eat, sleep, go to the bathroom, or wash.
As I said, being smarter that the average homeless advocate, I would call the locksmith first. :O) However, just for laughs, I’ll play your silly game. I am within 10 minutes walking distance of a McDonalds, a Taco Bell, a Carrow’s, and a Denny’s. In addition, there is a community college located a half a mile away. Heck, as long as I didn’t look like a bum, I could crash on the grass like a lot of the students do during lunch. I could even wash and shave (do bums actually shave?) in the men’s room. I might get some looks, but nobody would get worked up about it, provided I wasn’t drunk, stoned, violent, or smelled like puke or urine. After a couple of days, search for a dentist where you have a "right" to get a tooth fixed.
After a week of panhandling at the beach, I could get a tooth filled, provided I didn’t spend it on alcohol, methamphetanime, or crack cocaine. Watch them laugh when you ask for cleaning, of flouride. Try to get medication from a doctor who doesn’t know you.
Smart doctor, he doesn’t want to lose his license. Try to get to other side of town.
There’s the bus, and if you can’t panhandle a few quarters, you can always walk. Keep walking, and you’ll be out of town in before sundown (we hope). Yikes! I’ve just revealed a bias in my heart. Maybe there’s some anger there, too.
No, just typical bleeding-heart ignornance. You obviously have NEVER been to Santa Cruz.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Published Tuesday, May 16, 2000, in the San Jose Mercury News Additional comments from the author appear below. City’s voters won’t take this measure lying down BY LEE QUARNSTROM Mercury News Staff Columnist TALK ABOUT LIVING in an ivory tower! Most Santa Cruz City Council members sound and act like they never get out of City Hall to go and talk with just plain folks in our neighborhoods.
Of course not! Most of these self-appointed busy-bodies are too self-important and convinced of their own intellectual and moral superiority to seek the input of others who bear the costs of their arbitrary and capricious decisions. May I suggest a reading of "The Vision of the Annointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Public Policy" for more insight into this type of behavior? Instead of finding out what the majority of their constituents want and believe, these city pooh-bahs seem isolated. They seem to get all of their information and input not from the neighborhoods but from the small claque of loudmouths who dominate council meetings. The loudest are those few self-important individuals who have for years harangued the council demanding repeal of laws banning sleeping in public. They call themselves “homeless advocates.” I call them bums.
Who, the transients or their self-appointed advocates? Then again, you may have a point, sice the appelations seems to fit both groups quite nicely. They are people who think the world owes them a living — because they’re thinking through an alcoholic or drug-induced haze, or are just plain lazy. They prefer the free-roaming and responsibility-free life.
1969 forever. And the rest of us are merely being repressive for insisting that its 2000 already, and time for these people to get with the program. Did the hippies think that they could live the rest of their life like irresponsible teen-agers? And is their view of government just like that of Mommy and Daddy – to rebel and fight against, yet ask for an allowance at the same time? They aren’t looking for a place to live. They want to sleep in their cars, wherever they want. They want to sleep in the bushes down the street. Now the city council seems poised to give them what they’ve been demanding.
Haven’t you figured it out yet? There are thousand of acres of woodland in the local hills where they could just disappear and camp out w/o being harrassed. However, this would deprive them of what they REALLY want: ATTENTION and the opportunity to just GET IN THE WAY of others going about their daily business. This is the same approach that most pimply adolescents with skateboards use: of all the places to skate, the best ones are ALWAYS where you can get in the way. That way you can scream "skateboarding/homelessness/whatever is not a crime" when the people you have been deliberately trying to piss off tell you to move on. THERE are many folks here in unfortunate circumstances who need and deserve our care, compassion and financial help. Just as there are some truly needy homeless people, there also are field hands and their families who can’t afford food or decent housing. The truly homeless, as far as I’m concerned, are those who through unfortunate circumstances have lost their homes and are looking for someplace to live. They may have medical conditions or weaknesses that make it difficult to pay the rent, but they want to. Anyone with no place to sleep deserves shelter. But when they sleep in front of your house or business, there’s a good chance they’re also going to relieve themselves and toss their trash out there as well.
Fact of the matter is that there ARE shelters available, but most of the homeless don’t want to live under certain rules of conduct, like refraining from substance abuse. Their definition of "help" is cash handouts and free meals; not anything that would force them to change their lifestyle and attitudes.
Response:
Note: to my post via email. Because I am (repeatedly) urged to debate the matter further on his public call-in radio show, I am going to assume I am also free to continue to debate the matter here, where it started. I have no interest in calling into a radio show to further someone else’s career and agenda. I’ll make my points as I see fit, in my own good time, which means taking my time to choose my words and put them down the way I like, not being rushed on a live radio program. That said: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 X-UIDL: 363fd95c353e43dd97fabd64fe39c32f —–Original Message—– Newsgroups: alt.society.homeless,scruz.politics,scruz.general,soc.rights.human,alt.act iv ism,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics scruz.politics, scruz.general, soc.rights.human, alt.activism, (forwarded): —–Original Message—– To: Lee Quarnstrom, San Jose Mercury News Community Action Board of Santa Cruz Re: Your May 16th column on Sleeping Ban Repeal Dear Lee Quarnstrom: <snip What we know is that most homeless people are only homeless for 3 to 5 months. We know that more than 30% of homeless people are working; that the fastest growing segment of the homeless population is families with children, primarily single female headed households; that many families are living in their cars, sending their children to school, trying to find work that will support the high rents in Santa Cruz county and trying to avoid being ticketed by the police for illegal camping or parking overnight. We also know that violence against Shelterless people has increased. And letting them sleep on the streets will help solve this how? 1, Homeless people are afraid to sleep in well-lighted areas now because all sleeping in vehicles or in public spaces is banned in Santa Cruz, criminalizing 700-1500 people (emergency shelter exists for 28 people only from May 1 to when the Winter Armory Shelter opens again in November). 2. Homeless people who want to sleep in groups for protection are afraid to do so because it is more likely they will be noticed by police and harassed or ticketed, since sleeping per se is now illegal. 3. Currently outstanding tickets and warrants for sleeping make homeless people who are assaulted reluctant to use police services for fear they themselves will be jailed or harassed. If an amnesty is added to this law, it will remove this barrior to using the police for protection.
So we are supposed to exonerate law breakers from breaking this inconvenient law, encouraging them to further feel comfortable breaking the laws they don’t like, and equally comfortable utilizing taxpayer supported services when it pleases them? Can I have some of that too? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The 1999 Community Assessment Project report by the United Way found that more than 13% of the residents of the county who earn less than $16,000 per year have been homeless for at least 3 months at some time in the past five years. That’s over 7,500 people. A new survey, the first in 10 years, called the "Homeless 2000 Census and Needs Assessment" will be released in July and will give a clearer picture of who homeless people are and what we as a community can do to design programs and policies that will make a difference. David Silva, a key player in designing the recommended ordinance for ending the sleeping ban says that the measure will restore dignity to the homeless population The homeless population that wants to sleep on the streets is not the same homeless population being touted at the beginning of this paragraph. Those who are "homeless for only 3-5 months" are not without resources, including friends, churches, shelters, etc. They are momentarily without a permanent address, but in the great majority of cases (I don’t want to say ‘all’ cases because someone will come up with a single example to try to falsely demonstrate a "need") they don’t wish to (or need to) sleep on the public streets. Few people choose to sleep on the streets. However spiraling rents, the lack of available campgrounds, and jobs that do not pay affordable wages contribute to a situation that forces hundreds in the city and thousands in the county to do so. This is simple fact.
It is a damn lie. A person earning $6 per hour who works a 40 hour week makes over $12,000 per year. I dare you to "prove" that 4 people, pooling resources, can’t live quite comfortably in Santa Cruz on a combined salary of $48,000 per year (4 people in a 2 bedroom rental apartment, two to a bedroom). There are your facts. Sharing a bedroom in an apartment is no worse than sharing a dorm room in college. Plenty of people have done it while at college and after, when necessary. Unfortunately, Santa Cruz’s homeless bums don’t want to demean themselves by stooping to getting a "menial job" and earning their own keep and keeping a roof over their head. Why should they? They have found that Santa Cruz will feed them (at soup kitchens) and change the laws to let them sleep on the streets in our mild climate. Plenty of people who now rent came to Santa Cruz and struggled by sleeping in their vehicles. The situation now is significantly worse than a decade or two ago.
And the reason for that is? I’ll tell you. Because of stupid policies, Santa Cruz has become a mecca for people seeking more of the very handouts that you advocate. Giving them handouts hasn’t worked yet, giving them more handouts will NOT solve the problem! To try to get services for one group by pretending that they are another group is unwise. By twisting the truth in this manner you make *everything* you say suspect. Allowing people to sleep in certain select non-residential areas is not really a "service". It is rather a restoration of a civil right to sleep without being arrested.
What about my right to walk the street without being hassled? What about my right to walk through a parking lot without stumbling in some human waste from someone who is too lazy to bother to find a bathroom when in need? What about my right to have a business in a business district that is welcoming and attractive to my potential customers instead of having one in a business district infested with shiftless panhandlers who intimidate my customers? And now you want to let them sleep there as well as loiter there during the day and using the streets as a bathroom? The homeless do NOT have a "right" to live or sleep on the streets in the business district where they infringe on the rights of law abiding tax payers. This is just plain common sense. It would be idiotic to legislate this. While Santa Cruz might continue to survive (but not thrive) in our current booming economy, the moment the economy goes downhill tourists are going to avoid Santa Cruz like the plague and a downtown infested with homeless bums sleeping in the street will become a ghost town of empty stores. How about proposing a REAL solution instead? Here’s an idea. If there was ever a time when we (society) had the collective prosperity to help solve homelessness, this is it. We can fund programs to GET people off the street. And we can give the homeless of Santa Cruz 2 options: Sign up for the program (and diligently work it until successful) or move on. Make repeatedly sleeping on the streets (being cited again after previously being cited for sleeping on the streets) a crime that can be punished with 6 months in jail. Jails too crowded? I understand that a city can ship inmates off to private prison camps in Arizona. Perhaps after 6 months of that the homeless bums will decide that mooching off the citizens of Santa Cruz is a bad idea and either get themselves a job or move on. The program would provide temporary housing, job training, job placement, responsibility counseling, and 6 months for the participants to get and keep a regular 40 hour a week job and support themselves. The program can place them in restaurant kitchens, washing dishes. The program can place them as manual laborers, mowing lawns, loading and unloading delivery trucks, cleaning horse stalls, and 1001 other READILY AVAILABLE jobs that don’t require anything more than the willingness and responsibility to show up and follow instructions. The program can help place the newly employed in group homes (4 to a 2 BR apartment as I outline elsewhere in this post), so that their income CAN afford them food and housing. If we can’t fund a project like this now, what on earth are we going to do when the economy goes sour? and the city itself by no longer criminalizing people for what they can not help but do, the bodily function of sleeping each night.
Eliminating bodily wastes is also something people can’t "help but to do". We still (rightly) have laws that
… read more »
Response:
Question:
<snip Oh, jeez, I forgot and opened a posting from a lunatic, Fred Shaw.
Have the nitwits been spawning again? Rob
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The good news is that the Clinton administration is recognizing in its own dim, feeble way that AIDS is a global crisis with enormous geopolitical ramifications (let along the human and ethical dimensions which seem to be lost on them). I say feeble because the "doubling to $254 million" of the budget is damned little. Others have calculated a figure closer to a billion to be more in line with what is needed. The bad news, is, of course, that Repugnican scum like Trent Lott would just as soon dismiss the whole thing as irrelevant to his mission of making the rich richer while the rest can simply die. Thank you, Repugnican Hypocrit Carter. After all, HIV-negative YOU have gotten richer off of these drugs while promoting them to people who have died as a direct result of using them! No different than Spencer Cox, Carlton Hogan, Marty Delaney (DGiunti), Bennett, "Gary Stein" and the rest of your Repugnican colleagues of Pharmaceutical Corporate Activism. Fucking murderers! The more complex ramifications of what a "threat to national security" actually means raises concerns in me. You haven’t the slightest clue, obviously. While it seems to be a miserly move in a more or less right direction, I don’t trust Clinton. You are a heroin addict. You trust nobody. Remember, Pfizer has underscored their guilt in this process by developing their fluconazole distribution program only for South Africa. The need for fluconazole–and many other drugs and micronutrients–is acute in many places. Ha ha ha ha ha hahaahahahahahahahaa! "Micronutrients", as in the "micronutrients" you are PAID to push as treatments for HIV through your "employment" with the pharmaceutical middleman DAAIR New Yawk? As in NAC? Can we say "SPV-30"? How about "Arkopharma payola"? When it is on the scale of the AIDS pandemic globally, it is genocide. Gee, George Moron, with the hundreds of thousands of "antiviral treated" dead folks in the U.S. (thanks in part to your efforts, as well as the paid effort of the other Pharmaceutical Corporate Activists on this newsgroup), I don’t blame you for blaming everyone else for what you and your pals have done right here at home! fred Naturally, George Moron doesn’t ask the critical question as to WHY AIDS is perceived as a threat to our national security.
The thing is self-evident — when the third-world countries find that their populations are being decimated and decimated again by a disease that is TREATABLE the survivors will be very cross indeed, they may even fall into paranoia like that of poor Fred and, in this way, destabilize the fragile balance in Africa —— the world. At that point, with a substantial portion of the population as mad as our little Freddie, ANYTHING may happen. Pure geo-politics, separate from any humane considerations — ward "The Earth is degenerating today. Bribery and corruption abound. Children no longer obey their parents, every man wants to write a book, and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching." – Assyrian tablet, c. 2800 BC
Response:
snip… Thank you, Repugnican Hypocrit Carter. After all, HIV-negative YOU have gotten richer off of these drugs while promoting them to people who have died as a direct result of using them!
LOL! Thank you, HIV-negative Frod! You’re back again. How charming. Oh, yes. Fabulously wealthy…just rolling in dough. And all because I want to bring PhRMA to court on a charge of genocide. Yes, indeedy, they sure as shit love me! You’re always good for a laugh, frodlet. George Mary
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The good news is that the Clinton administration is recognizing in its own dim, feeble way that AIDS is a global crisis with enormous geopolitical ramifications (let along the human and ethical dimensions which seem to be lost on them). I say feeble because the "doubling to $254 million" of the budget is damned little. Others have calculated a figure closer to a billion to be more in line with what is needed. The bad news, is, of course, that Repugnican scum like Trent Lott would just as soon dismiss the whole thing as irrelevant to his mission of making the rich richer while the rest can simply die. Thank you, Repugnican Hypocrit Carter. After all, HIV-negative YOU have gotten richer off of these drugs while promoting them to people who have died as a direct result of using them! No different than Spencer Cox, Carlton Hogan, Marty Delaney (DGiunti), Bennett, "Gary Stein" and the rest of your Repugnican colleagues of Pharmaceutical Corporate Activism. Fucking murderers!
Oh, jeez, I forgot and opened a posting from a lunatic, Fred Shaw. — For my correct e-mail address, please post request and your e-mail address. John De Salvio
Response:
The good news is that the Clinton administration is recognizing in its own dim, feeble way that AIDS is a global crisis with enormous geopolitical ramifications (let along the human and ethical dimensions which seem to be lost on them). I say feeble because the "doubling to $254 million" of the budget is damned little. Others have calculated a figure closer to a billion to be more in line with what is needed. The bad news, is, of course, that Repugnican scum like Trent Lott would just as soon dismiss the whole thing as irrelevant to his mission of making the rich richer while the rest can simply die.
Thank you, Repugnican Hypocrit Carter. After all, HIV-negative YOU have gotten richer off of these drugs while promoting them to people who have died as a direct result of using them! No different than Spencer Cox, Carlton Hogan, Marty Delaney (DGiunti), Bennett, "Gary Stein" and the rest of your Repugnican colleagues of Pharmaceutical Corporate Activism. Fucking murderers! The more complex ramifications of what a "threat to national security" actually means raises concerns in me.
You haven’t the slightest clue, obviously. While it seems to be a miserly move in a more or less right direction, I don’t trust Clinton.
You are a heroin addict. You trust nobody. Remember, Pfizer has underscored their guilt in this process by developing their fluconazole distribution program only for South Africa. The need for fluconazole–and many other drugs and micronutrients–is acute in many places.
Ha ha ha ha ha hahaahahahahahahahaa! "Micronutrients", as in the "micronutrients" you are PAID to push as treatments for HIV through your "employment" with the pharmaceutical middleman DAAIR New Yawk? As in NAC? Can we say "SPV-30"? How about "Arkopharma payola"? When it is on the scale of the AIDS pandemic globally, it is genocide.
Gee, George Moron, with the hundreds of thousands of "antiviral treated" dead folks in the U.S. (thanks in part to your efforts, as well as the paid effort of the other Pharmaceutical Corporate Activists on this newsgroup), I don’t blame you for blaming everyone else for what you and your pals have done right here at home! fred Naturally, George Moron doesn’t ask the critical question as to WHY AIDS is perceived as a threat to our national security… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -AIDS Is Declared Threat to Security http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40503-2000Apr29.html By Barton Gellman Washington, Post Staff Writer Sunday , April 30, 2000 ; A01 Convinced that the global spread of AIDS is reaching catastrophic dimensions, the Clinton administration has formally designated the disease for the first time as a threat to U.S. national security that could topple foreign governments, touch off ethnic wars and undo decades of work in building free-market democracies abroad. The National Security Council, which has never before been involved in combating an infectious disease, is directing a rapid reassessment of the government’s efforts. The new push is reflected in the doubling of budget requests–to $254 million–to combat AIDS overseas and in the creation on Feb. 8 of a White House interagency working group. The group has been instructed to "develop a series of expanded initiatives to drive the international efforts" to combat the disease. Top officials and some members of Congress contemplate much higher spending levels. The urgency of addressing AIDS has also touched off internal disputes over long-settled positions on trade policy and on legal requirements that aid contractors buy only American supplies. The new effort–described by its architects as tardy and not commensurate with the size of the crisis–was spurred last year by U.S. intelligence reports that looked at the pandemic’s broadest consequences for foreign governments and societies, particularly in Africa. A National Intelligence Estimate prepared in January, representing consensus among government analysts, projected that a quarter of southern Africa’s population is likely to die of AIDS and that the number of people dying of the disease will rise for a decade before there is much prospect of improvement. Based on current trends, that disastrous course could be repeated, perhaps exceeded, in south Asia and the former Soviet Union. "At least some of the hardest-hit countries, initially in sub-Saharan Africa and later in other regions, will face a demographic catastrophe" over the next 20 years, the study said. "This will further impoverish the poor and often the middle class and produce a huge and impoverished orphan cohort unable to cope and vulnerable to exploitation and radicalization." Dramatic declines in life expectancy, the study said, are the strongest risk factor for "revolutionary wars, ethnic wars, genocides and disruptive regime transitions" in the developing world. Based on historical analysis of 75 factors that tend to destabilize governments, the authors said the social consequences of AIDS appear to have "a particularly strong correlation with the likelihood of state failure in partial democracies." Another mobilizing factor is American politics. African American leaders, such as former representative Ron Dellums (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-Ill)., have adopted the cause of AIDS in Africa. Their interest is converging with that of long-standing AIDS activists in the United States and Europe, where the course of the epidemic has been slowed by preventive efforts and life-saving combinations of anti-retroviral drugs. They are angry at policies that price those medicines beyond the reach of the developing world. In June, those activists disrupted Vice President Gore’s presidential campaign announcement in Carthage, Tenn., and two other speeches that week–"blindsiding us completely," as one senior adviser put it. The activists, and several senior Clinton administration officials, say that pressure accelerated the White House’s response. There is no recent precedent for treating disease as a security threat. So unfamiliar are public health agencies with the apparatus of national defense that one early task force meeting was delayed when Co-chairwoman Sandra Thurman, whose Office of National AIDS Policy is across the street from the White House, could not find the Situation Room. For all the stakes they now describe, Clinton administration officials do not contemplate addressing them on a scale associated with traditional security priorities. Gore’s national security adviser, Leon Fuerth, freely acknowledged that the 2001 budget request of $254 million to combat AIDS abroad–a sum surpassed, for example, by drone aircraft in the Pentagon budget–provides "resources that are inadequate for the task." He called the work of the task force "an iterative process" aimed at slowing the plague’s rate of increase and alleviating some of its effects. Before this year, federal spending on AIDS overseas remained relatively flat. Other officials noted that the United States has endorsed U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan’s declared five-year goal of reducing the rate of new infections by 25 percent. That falls close to the CIA’s best-case, and least probable, scenario. Because such a turn of events would demand resources from U.S. allies and multinational bodies, the new White House group has been instructed to "develop a series of expanded initiatives to drive the international efforts." Fuerth, a member of the "principals committee" that takes up the most important foreign policy questions, told representatives from 16 agencies on Feb. 8 that the panel wanted a package of proposals for Clinton within a several weeks. The working group is scheduled to finish drafting its proposals in May. Fuerth said the government is looking for "the kind of focus and coordination on this issue that we normally strive for on national security issues." "The numbers of people who are dying, the impact on elites–like the army, the educated people, the teachers–is quite severe," he said. "In the end it was a kind of slow-motion destruction of everything we were trying, in our contact programs and our military-to-military programs, to build up, and would affect the viability of these societies, would affect the stability of the region. . . . In the world that we’re facing, the destiny of the continent of Africa matters. And it isn’t as if this disease is going to stay put in sub-Saharan Africa." Twenty-three million people are infected in sub-Saharan Africa, with new infections coming at the rate of roughly 5,000 a day, according to World Health Organization figures. Of 13 million deaths to date, 11 million have been in sub-Saharan Africa. In the developing world, the disease spreads primarily through heterosexual contact. The intelligence estimate portrays the pandemic as the bad side of globalization. Accelerating trade and travel–along with underlying conditions favorable to the disease–are pushing much of Asia, and particularly India, toward "a dramatic increase in infectious disease deaths, largely driven by the spread of HIV/AIDS," the intelligence report said. "By 2010, the region could surpass Africa in the number of HIV infections." The number of infections now is relatively low, but the growth rate is high and governments have been slow to respond. Infections are also growing rapidly, and largely unchecked, in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The intelligence estimate said this growth will "challenge democratic development and transitions and possibly contribute to humanitarian emergencies and military conflicts to which the United States may need to respond." The report also anticipates that "infectious disease-related trade embargoes and
… read more »
Response:
There is good news and bad news. See the article below. The good news is that the Clinton administration is recognizing in its own dim, feeble way that AIDS is a global crisis with enormous geopolitical ramifications (let along the human and ethical dimensions which seem to be lost on them). I say feeble because the "doubling to $254 million" of the budget is damned little. Others have calculated a figure closer to a billion to be more in line with what is needed. The bad news, is, of course, that Repugnican scum like Trent Lott would just as soon dismiss the whole thing as irrelevant to his mission of making the rich richer while the rest can simply die. The more complex ramifications of what a "threat to national security" actually means raises concerns in me. While it seems to be a miserly move in a more or less right direction, I don’t trust Clinton. I don’t trust what this may mean for the US government’s ongoing efforts to compromise the sovereign integrity of other nations’ rights to adopt compulsory licensing or parallel import laws, if indeed this move has any relation. Remember, Pfizer has underscored their guilt in this process by developing their fluconazole distribution program only for South Africa. The need for fluconazole–and many other drugs and micronutrients–is acute in many places. And Pfizer has said no to the needs of people in Central America and elsewhere. Essentially and KNOWINGLY condemning people with cryptococcal meningitis to death. Holding their lives hostage to a perverted notion of intellectual property rights. When companies commit acts that they know will result in suffering and death, they are committing murder. When it is on the scale of the AIDS pandemic globally, it is genocide. George M. Carter **** AIDS Is Declared Threat to Security http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40503-2000Apr29.html By Barton Gellman Washington, Post Staff Writer Sunday , April 30, 2000 ; A01 Convinced that the global spread of AIDS is reaching catastrophic dimensions, the Clinton administration has formally designated the disease for the first time as a threat to U.S. national security that could topple foreign governments, touch off ethnic wars and undo decades of work in building free-market democracies abroad. The National Security Council, which has never before been involved in combating an infectious disease, is directing a rapid reassessment of the government’s efforts. The new push is reflected in the doubling of budget requests–to $254 million–to combat AIDS overseas and in the creation on Feb. 8 of a White House interagency working group. The group has been instructed to "develop a series of expanded initiatives to drive the international efforts" to combat the disease. Top officials and some members of Congress contemplate much higher spending levels. The urgency of addressing AIDS has also touched off internal disputes over long-settled positions on trade policy and on legal requirements that aid contractors buy only American supplies. The new effort–described by its architects as tardy and not commensurate with the size of the crisis–was spurred last year by U.S. intelligence reports that looked at the pandemic’s broadest consequences for foreign governments and societies, particularly in Africa. A National Intelligence Estimate prepared in January, representing consensus among government analysts, projected that a quarter of southern Africa’s population is likely to die of AIDS and that the number of people dying of the disease will rise for a decade before there is much prospect of improvement. Based on current trends, that disastrous course could be repeated, perhaps exceeded, in south Asia and the former Soviet Union. "At least some of the hardest-hit countries, initially in sub-Saharan Africa and later in other regions, will face a demographic catastrophe" over the next 20 years, the study said. "This will further impoverish the poor and often the middle class and produce a huge and impoverished orphan cohort unable to cope and vulnerable to exploitation and radicalization." Dramatic declines in life expectancy, the study said, are the strongest risk factor for "revolutionary wars, ethnic wars, genocides and disruptive regime transitions" in the developing world. Based on historical analysis of 75 factors that tend to destabilize governments, the authors said the social consequences of AIDS appear to have "a particularly strong correlation with the likelihood of state failure in partial democracies." Another mobilizing factor is American politics. African American leaders, such as former representative Ron Dellums (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-Ill)., have adopted the cause of AIDS in Africa. Their interest is converging with that of long-standing AIDS activists in the United States and Europe, where the course of the epidemic has been slowed by preventive efforts and life-saving combinations of anti-retroviral drugs. They are angry at policies that price those medicines beyond the reach of the developing world. In June, those activists disrupted Vice President Gore’s presidential campaign announcement in Carthage, Tenn., and two other speeches that week–"blindsiding us completely," as one senior adviser put it. The activists, and several senior Clinton administration officials, say that pressure accelerated the White House’s response. There is no recent precedent for treating disease as a security threat. So unfamiliar are public health agencies with the apparatus of national defense that one early task force meeting was delayed when Co-chairwoman Sandra Thurman, whose Office of National AIDS Policy is across the street from the White House, could not find the Situation Room. For all the stakes they now describe, Clinton administration officials do not contemplate addressing them on a scale associated with traditional security priorities. Gore’s national security adviser, Leon Fuerth, freely acknowledged that the 2001 budget request of $254 million to combat AIDS abroad–a sum surpassed, for example, by drone aircraft in the Pentagon budget–provides "resources that are inadequate for the task." He called the work of the task force "an iterative process" aimed at slowing the plague’s rate of increase and alleviating some of its effects. Before this year, federal spending on AIDS overseas remained relatively flat. Other officials noted that the United States has endorsed U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan’s declared five-year goal of reducing the rate of new infections by 25 percent. That falls close to the CIA’s best-case, and least probable, scenario. Because such a turn of events would demand resources from U.S. allies and multinational bodies, the new White House group has been instructed to "develop a series of expanded initiatives to drive the international efforts." Fuerth, a member of the "principals committee" that takes up the most important foreign policy questions, told representatives from 16 agencies on Feb. 8 that the panel wanted a package of proposals for Clinton within a several weeks. The working group is scheduled to finish drafting its proposals in May. Fuerth said the government is looking for "the kind of focus and coordination on this issue that we normally strive for on national security issues." "The numbers of people who are dying, the impact on elites–like the army, the educated people, the teachers–is quite severe," he said. "In the end it was a kind of slow-motion destruction of everything we were trying, in our contact programs and our military-to-military programs, to build up, and would affect the viability of these societies, would affect the stability of the region. . . . In the world that we’re facing, the destiny of the continent of Africa matters. And it isn’t as if this disease is going to stay put in sub-Saharan Africa." Twenty-three million people are infected in sub-Saharan Africa, with new infections coming at the rate of roughly 5,000 a day, according to World Health Organization figures. Of 13 million deaths to date, 11 million have been in sub-Saharan Africa. In the developing world, the disease spreads primarily through heterosexual contact. The intelligence estimate portrays the pandemic as the bad side of globalization. Accelerating trade and travel–along with underlying conditions favorable to the disease–are pushing much of Asia, and particularly India, toward "a dramatic increase in infectious disease deaths, largely driven by the spread of HIV/AIDS," the intelligence report said. "By 2010, the region could surpass Africa in the number of HIV infections." The number of infections now is relatively low, but the growth rate is high and governments have been slow to respond. Infections are also growing rapidly, and largely unchecked, in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The intelligence estimate said this growth will "challenge democratic development and transitions and possibly contribute to humanitarian emergencies and military conflicts to which the United States may need to respond." The report also anticipates that "infectious disease-related trade embargoes and restrictions on travel and immigration also will cause frictions among and with key trading partners and other selected states." "The thing that’s most staggering, and people are just beginning to grasp, is that Africa is the tip of the iceberg," Thurman said. "We are just at the beginning of a pandemic the likes of which we have not seen in this century, and in the end will probably never have seen in history." Senior administration officials, some of them apparently frustrated, said that the government does not dispute estimates by the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS that it would take nearly $2 billion to fund adequate prevention in Africa, and a like sum for treatment. What the United States has been spending, by contrast, "is a rounding error for county budgets" inFairfax and … read more »
Response:
Next page
Previous page