Filed under: Youth activism
Question:
squawked in alt.poverty: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In Re James Warner Eichorn, the Court REVERSED a trial court’s ruling disallowing use of the "necessity defense" and conviction following a non-jury trial. Having read the ENTIRE opinion, I conclude the same errors recognized by the Justices required Mr. Eichorn be granted the "necessity defense." Moreover, the facts offered into evidence establish our society provides for its homeless (albeit not completely) thus cannot be deemed a CRUEL society. Society’s shortfall in providing complete relief hardly makes our society GUILTY of being CRUEL. There must be a reason why most but not quite all are taken care of in the US. I’m forgetting for the sake of argument how it’s theoretically impossible for me and thousands of others to not live in poverty as defined by government yet i continue to not do so. It’s seems impossible to explain to homeless and their supporters why when only a few dollars more is all that is needed to end poverty and yet we spend billions on the foreign aid for peoples who aren’t even US citizens. Maybe it has something to do with financing. Maybe the agreement is you can have X amount of dollars as long as you promise to spend it on infrastructure and not do away with the problem.
Again, I say that our society on a whole is cruel, particularly in its love for the dollar over love for human decency. It’s a sad fact to me, a harsh life-lesson to learn, when I see many programs in place to "help" homeless when the MAIN point of them is to line the pockets of those administrators over said programs. If those salary dollars actually went to the people, well, we’d have fewer homeless; fewer in need. — Deneen Sparks, editor, THE GREAT SPECKLED BIRD http://thebird.org banners: http://thebird.org/links/banner.html It’s almost the millennium. Do you know where your peace flag is? http://thebird.org/store/flags
Response:
Again, I say that our society on a whole is cruel, particularly in its love for the dollar over love for human decency. It’s a sad fact to me, a harsh life-lesson to learn, when I see many programs in place to "help" homeless when the MAIN point of them is to line the pockets of those administrators over said programs. If those salary dollars actually went to the people, well, we’d have fewer homeless; fewer in need.
Nothing in your post suggests a legal issue, rather it focuses on political and social issues. This is "misc.legal" addressing issues of law and its application. I noticed your "header" includes many other newsgroups, all of which seem to sustain commentary on these important political and social issues. BUT as far as defining a society as CRUEL when it provides a defense to an otherwise criminal act, from the "necessity" of the perpetrator, we can agree to disagree. The social issue cuts to the nature of man, his greed and how he lives with his neighbors. These are matters addressed by laws but no law is addressed by your post. Maybe rethinking HOW law exists unfairly, when applied to SOME but not ALL, homeless folks would raise some good legal discussion. Just a thought.
Response:
In Re James Warner Eichorn, the Court REVERSED a trial court’s ruling disallowing use of the "necessity defense" and conviction following a non-jury trial. Having read the ENTIRE opinion, I conclude the same errors recognized by the Justices required Mr. Eichorn be granted the "necessity defense." Moreover, the facts offered into evidence establish our society provides for its homeless (albeit not completely) thus cannot be deemed a CRUEL society. Society’s shortfall in providing complete relief hardly makes our society GUILTY of being CRUEL.
There must be a reason why most but not quite all are taken care of in the US. I’m forgetting for the sake of argument how it’s theoretically impossible for me and thousands of others to not live in poverty as defined by government yet i continue to not do so. It’s seems impossible to explain to homeless and their supporters why when only a few dollars more is all that is needed to end poverty and yet we spend billions on the foreign aid for peoples who aren’t even US citizens. Maybe it has something to do with financing. Maybe the agreement is you can have X amount of dollars as long as you promise to spend it on infrastructure and not do away with the problem. Proverty is NOT the essential element in "camping limitations" on the general population. Camping limitations apply to everyone. It is only when the poor violate its limitations, WITHOUT showing good cause as provided by the "necessity defense," is it applied. Here, Mr. Eichorn proved entitlement to defend on grounds of necessity. Before trial, he offered proof determined by the Judge to be inadequate to establish all elements of the "necessity defense." The Court of Appeal overturned the decision of that Judge. That judge weighed facts offered to prove entitlement to the defense. He reached a conclusion that other Justices found unsupportable. The reversal proves the "system" worked. O’Melveny & Myers represented this indigent. That firm is one of the largest in the Country. It is certain he did not pay for their services but that our society did.
The mistake James Eichorn made was by allowing the attorneys to represent him (or is that our fault). No doubt they gave him a free meal or two and a slap on the back in order to earn themselves a vacation or to pay for their own life style or further their own $cause$. Eichorn wasn’t really camping was he? Why doesn’t he just keep getting arrested when ever necessary? Because he’s following the rules set down by social services which dictate how a person who has nothing should behave? His problem is in acknowledging the system as having complete and unquestionable control over him. He should just do what he has to do. If he says he’s afraid to cross town late at night what right does the court have to question why he was in that situation. And why answer? Is it to qualify for further benefits? If it was me i’d just keep getting arrested – can’t take away your birthday! The system appears to have no problem with poverty as long as you do it completely their way and they can turn a profit (ie receive more funding from those who have). Seems to me homeless people with nothing to loose could do more for them selves as a group by dragging their feet a little more rather then giving in to the system – checking into a facility at specified time and place, etc, or having other’s stand up for them only acknowledges defeat, IMO. CRUEL, no!
It does show one thing and that is the level to which some Americans will stoop. That is to allow lawyers in on the looting -bad enough they made the laws -wait a minute, maybe this is why the laws are the way they are 
Response:
Newsgroups: alt.society.homeless, alt.poverty, alt.org.food-not-bombs, alt.activism, alt.thebird, alt.gathering.rainbow, alt.society.civil-liberties, alt.society.civil-liberty, misc.legal Proverty is NOT the essential element in "camping limitations" on the general population. Camping limitations apply to everyone. It is only when the poor violate its limitations, WITHOUT showing good cause as provided by the "necessity defense," is it applied.
"Showing" good cause, or "having" good cause? Here, Mr. Eichorn proved entitlement to defend on grounds of necessity. Before trial, he offered proof determined by the Judge to be inadequate to establish all elements of the "necessity defense." The Court of Appeal overturned the decision of that Judge. That judge weighed facts offered to prove entitlement to the defense. He reached a conclusion that other Justices found unsupportable. The reversal proves the "system" worked. O’Melveny & Myers represented this indigent. That firm is one of the largest in the Country. It is certain he did not pay for their services but that our society did. CRUEL, no!
Wrong. The defendant paid in terms of oppression costs. Society "paid" the attorneys for a case which shouldn’t have even gone to the courts. There were no real services performed, only a bunch of self-dealing homeless exploiters extorting their victims into their courts, paying homage to a feudal values, and gouging for themselves what they could. "Cruel" may be a bad choice of words because it tells only part of the story. I’ve included Mr. Botello’s comments below for you to re-read. dhm – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – in alt.poverty: Reading the following brought back memories to me of how I read in my youth stories of debtors prisons. "Wow!" I thought, "I’m so glad that I don’t live in those times! It’s good that people now understand the paradox of that. What a great time and country this is in which to live, and how lucky I am to be an American!" Forgive me. Then I was naive. We truly have become the Country of the Cruel. Poverty should not be a crime. Below is the major part of a written opinion from an intermediate court of appeals in California, plus a few comments first from a couple of the nation’s top homeless advocates: —–Original Message—– <snip IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE In re JAMES WARNER EICHORN on Habeas Corpus G022777 <snip Like the old adage, it took 40 years for Moses to get out of Egypt, and 40 years for Egypt to get out of Moses. It sickens me how the fascists, i.e., judges, lawyers, politicians and bureaucrats, refuse to talk in plain English, in order to confuse the masses. Good ruling you sent me, but it’s like Egypt, a tangled web of lies and deceit designed to oppress and exploit us. I know and understand the legal mumbo-jumbo, but I refuse to bank on it, anymore. How much pain did the homeless have to suffer, and how many thousands of dollars did it cost taxpayers, for a bunch of wealthy old farts to conclude that the homeless have the right to sleep? Justice is not found in such a vicious game with people’s lives. peace, Ruben Botello
Response:
Deneen is right, J.R. Wiser is wrong. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The reversal proves the "system" worked. O’Melveny & Myers represented this indigent. That firm is one of the largest in the Country. It is certain he did not pay for their services but that our society did. Reading the following brought back memories to me of how I read in my youth stories of debtors prisons. "Wow!" I thought, "I’m so glad that I don’t live in those times! It’s good that people now understand the paradox of that. What a great time and country this is in which to live, and how lucky I am to be an American!" Forgive me. Then I was naive. We truly have become the Country of the Cruel. Poverty should not be a crime.
Response:
In Re James Warner Eichorn, the Court REVERSED a trial court’s ruling disallowing use of the "necessity defense" and conviction following a non-jury trial. Having read the ENTIRE opinion, I conclude the same errors recognized by the Justices required Mr. Eichorn be granted the "necessity defense." Moreover, the facts offered into evidence establish our society provides for its homeless (albeit not completely) thus cannot be deemed a CRUEL society. Society’s shortfall in providing complete relief hardly makes our society GUILTY of being CRUEL. Proverty is NOT the essential element in "camping limitations" on the general population. Camping limitations apply to everyone. It is only when the poor violate its limitations, WITHOUT showing good cause as provided by the "necessity defense," is it applied. Here, Mr. Eichorn proved entitlement to defend on grounds of necessity. Before trial, he offered proof determined by the Judge to be inadequate to establish all elements of the "necessity defense." The Court of Appeal overturned the decision of that Judge. That judge weighed facts offered to prove entitlement to the defense. He reached a conclusion that other Justices found unsupportable. The reversal proves the "system" worked. O’Melveny & Myers represented this indigent. That firm is one of the largest in the Country. It is certain he did not pay for their services but that our society did. CRUEL, no!
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – in alt.poverty: Reading the following brought back memories to me of how I read in my youth stories of debtors prisons. "Wow!" I thought, "I’m so glad that I don’t live in those times! It’s good that people now understand the paradox of that. What a great time and country this is in which to live, and how lucky I am to be an American!" Forgive me. Then I was naive. We truly have become the Country of the Cruel. Poverty should not be a crime. Below is the major part of a written opinion from an intermediate court of appeals in California, plus a few comments first from a couple of the nation’s top homeless advocates: —–Original Message—– <snip IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE In re JAMES WARNER EICHORN on Habeas Corpus G022777
<snip
Response:
in alt.poverty: Reading the following brought back memories to me of how I read in my youth stories of debtors prisons. "Wow!" I thought, "I’m so glad that I don’t live in those times! It’s good that people now understand the paradox of that. What a great time and country this is in which to live, and how lucky I am to be an American!" Forgive me. Then I was naive. We truly have become the Country of the Cruel. Poverty should not be a crime. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Below is the major part of a written opinion from an intermediate court of appeals in California, plus a few comments first from a couple of the nation’s top homeless advocates: Good decision. We’ve been circulating it here too (as has Ruben Botello, …). Unfortunately it doesn’t help infraction cases much (we predict) because there’s no jury involved. Still, if enough people tried to use it, it might do lots of good. – Robert Norse and Becky Johnson Like the old adage, it took 40 years for Moses to get out of Egypt, and 40 years for Egypt to get out of Moses. It sickens me how the fascists, i.e., judges, lawyers, politicians and bureaucrats, refuse to talk in plain English, in order to confuse the masses. Good ruling you sent me, but it’s like Egypt, a tangled web of lies and deceit designed to oppress and exploit us. I know and understand the legal mumbo-jumbo, but I refuse to bank on it, anymore. How much pain did the homeless have to suffer, and how many thousands of dollars did it cost taxpayers, for a bunch of wealthy old farts to conclude that the homeless have the right to sleep? Justice is not found in such a vicious game with people’s lives. peace, Ruben Botello —–Original Message—– IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE In re JAMES WARNER EICHORN on Habeas Corpus G022777 (Super. Ct. No. AP-10221, Muni. Ct. No. 93CM02515) O P I N I O N Original proceeding; petition for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge a judgment of the Municipal Court of Orange County, James M. Brooks, Judge. Writ granted. O’Melveny & Myers, Phillip R. Kaplan, Brett J. Williamson, Todd A. Green, and Robert G. Loewy, for Petitioner. Michael R. Capizzi, District Attorney, Scott G. Scoville, Deputy District Attorney, for Real Party in Interest. James Eichorn was convicted of a misdemeanor violation of a City of Santa Ana ordinance banning sleeping in designated public areas. The appellate department affirmed his conviction and denied his request to transfer the cause. Eichorn thereafter petitioned for writ of habeas corpus in this court. We conclude his conviction must be set aside. I James Eichorn was cited for violation of the city’s anti-camping ordinance (Santa Ana Mun. Code, ch. 10, art. VIII, **10-402) on the evening of January 25, 1993. Following a detour to the Supreme Court that established the ordinance was facially constitutional (Tobe v. City of Santa Ana (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1069), Eichorn’s case eventually went to trial. In a significant pretrial ruling, the court (Judge Brooks) determined Eichorn could not present a necessity defense (see CALJIC No.*4.43) to a jury. Eichorn had offered to prove that on the night of the violation every shelter bed within the city that was available to a homeless single man with no children was occupied, and that he was involuntarily homeless, i.e., he had done everything he could to alleviate his condition. Due to circumstances beyond his control, defendant, a 14-year resident of Santa Ana, had been unable to find work as a manual laborer that paid enough to allow him to find an alternative place to sleep. The court determined defendant had not made a sufficient showing to allow a jury to consider his necessity defense: "It appears that the defense of necessity is not supported by the offer of proof. The first element wasn*t satisfied, in the court’s view, no significant, imminent evil for this defendant or any other person." Defendant objected that the court*s ruling "not only goes against what we understand to have been the statements and admissions by the People and by [Judge Margines, who had previously handled the case] but undermines the whole reason why we were going forward at trial . . . it’s clearly eviscerated our entire defense." In light of Judge Brooks* ruling on the necessity defense, and noting there was no dispute Eichorn was in a sleeping bag in the civic center on the night in question, Eichorn’s lawyer agreed to go forward without a jury on the constitutional issue whether the ordinance was unconstitutional as applied to him based on his alleged involuntary homelessness. Trial commenced without a jury in May 1996. Officer Carol Craig testified defendant was in a sleeping bag on the ground at about 10:30 p.m. outside a county office building in the civic center. He was using his clothes as a pillow. Graig asked (as she always did) why Eichorn wasn’t at the National Guard Armory (a homeless shelter several miles away). A bus from the civic center to the armory usually picked up people between 5 and 6 p.m. According to Craig*s police report, defendant replied he had tried *a while back.* It was full, so he never returned. The court judicially noticed that the walk between the civic center and the armory was *through very dangerous areas of town.* Police photographed and cited Eichorn, then asked him to move on. He complied. James Meeker, a professor at the University of California, Irvine in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society, testified he had conducted a study on homelessness in January and February 1993. There were more than 3000 homeless individuals in Orange County during this period. Most homeless were longtime residents of Orange County (average 14 years) who had lost jobs and could not afford housing. The County had relatively little affordable housing, and it had been decreasing. Single men had a particularly difficult time because they were less likely to receive the support from family, friends, or governmental agencies. Most were sleeping outdoors because they had no other choice. Homeless individuals were 10 times as likely to be victimized by crime than the average population. Many homeless stayed in urban areas because of proximity to assistance providers (food, clothing and shelter), day jobs (just eight percent were unemployed and not looking for jobs), public facilities (restrooms etc.) and the lack of transportation. Timothy Shaw was the executive director of the Orange County Homeless Issues Task Force. He pegged the number of homeless in Santa Ana at about 1500 persons in 1993. There were about 118 shelter beds available for single men like Eichorn, most available on a first-come, first-serve basis. In addition, the armory could accomodate 125 persons during the winter (although it frequently exceeded its capacity). As was routine, these shelters were full on the night Eichorn was cited. Maria Mendoza was the county*s homeless coordinator and oversaw use of the armory as a shelter. The armory was available only on cold winter nights. She explained how the bus to the armory would leave from the civic center in the late afternoon. Those on the bus had priority at the armory. Eichorn had spent some 20 nights there in December and January. On January 25, the armory was 13 persons over capacity, which was not uncommon. That the armory would accept excess capacity was not a given. Usually, only those "at risk" (e.g., women and children) would be admitted after the maximum was reached, and generally only when it was raining. Eichorn, 49 years old, testified he had moved to Costa Mesa in 1972, a few years after his discharge from the Marine Corps. The Vietnam veteran lost his job in a machine shop in 1980, and subsequently ended up without a place to live. He moved to Santa Ana because a friend told him about a job driving an ice cream truck. He sold ice cream for about a year and was able to afford a motel room. When he lost that job, he frequented the casual labor office in Santa Ana until it closed. When he worked and could save enough, he would live in a motel. He also relied on general relief and food stamps. However, general relief was no longer enough to secure affordable housing because most of the less expensive motels had been torn down. If he could not get into a shelter, Eichorn would sleep in the civic center, where he was close to services (including restrooms) and where there was "safety in numbers" (i.e., where it was less likely someone would steal or attack you while you slept). He loved to work and did so every chance he got. He did not like living outside. He had been turned away from the armory in the past and had a "nervous walk" back to the civic center. On January 25, he did not recall whether he had tried to find a spot at a shelter or whether he heard that the shelters were full. He recalled eating around 7 p.m. He was in his sleeping bag listening to his radio when Craig arrived around 10:30. Eichorn’s mother and stepfather lived in Long Beach, but staying with them was not an option because he was "an adult responsible for" himself. Defendant denied a problem with alcohol or drugs.
… read more »
Response:
Below is the major part of a written opinion from an intermediate court of appeals in California, plus a few comments first from a couple of the nation’s top homeless advocates: Good decision. We’ve been circulating it here too (as has Ruben Botello, …). Unfortunately it doesn’t help infraction cases much (we predict) because there’s no jury involved. Still, if enough people tried to use it, it might do lots of good.
- Robert Norse and Becky Johnson – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Like the old adage, it took 40 years for Moses to get out of Egypt, and 40 years for Egypt to get out of Moses. It sickens me how the fascists, i.e., judges, lawyers, politicians and bureaucrats, refuse to talk in plain English, in order to confuse the masses. Good ruling you sent me, but it’s like Egypt, a tangled web of lies and deceit designed to oppress and exploit us. I know and understand the legal mumbo-jumbo, but I refuse to bank on it, anymore. How much pain did the homeless have to suffer, and how many thousands of dollars did it cost taxpayers, for a bunch of wealthy old farts to conclude that the homeless have the right to sleep? Justice is not found in such a vicious game with people’s lives. peace, Ruben Botello —–Original Message—– IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE In re JAMES WARNER EICHORN on Habeas Corpus G022777 (Super. Ct. No. AP-10221, Muni. Ct. No. 93CM02515) O P I N I O N Original proceeding; petition for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge a judgment of the Municipal Court of Orange County, James M. Brooks, Judge. Writ granted. O’Melveny & Myers, Phillip R. Kaplan, Brett J. Williamson, Todd A. Green, and Robert G. Loewy, for Petitioner. Michael R. Capizzi, District Attorney, Scott G. Scoville, Deputy District Attorney, for Real Party in Interest. James Eichorn was convicted of a misdemeanor violation of a City of Santa Ana ordinance banning sleeping in designated public areas. The appellate department affirmed his conviction and denied his request to transfer the cause. Eichorn thereafter petitioned for writ of habeas corpus in this court. We conclude his conviction must be set aside. I James Eichorn was cited for violation of the city’s anti-camping ordinance (Santa Ana Mun. Code, ch. 10, art. VIII, **10-402) on the evening of January 25, 1993. Following a detour to the Supreme Court that established the ordinance was facially constitutional (Tobe v. City of Santa Ana (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1069), Eichorn’s case eventually went to trial. In a significant pretrial ruling, the court (Judge Brooks) determined Eichorn could not present a necessity defense (see CALJIC No.*4.43) to a jury. Eichorn had offered to prove that on the night of the violation every shelter bed within the city that was available to a homeless single man with no children was occupied, and that he was involuntarily homeless, i.e., he had done everything he could to alleviate his condition. Due to circumstances beyond his control, defendant, a 14-year resident of Santa Ana, had been unable to find work as a manual laborer that paid enough to allow him to find an alternative place to sleep. The court determined defendant had not made a sufficient showing to allow a jury to consider his necessity defense: "It appears that the defense of necessity is not supported by the offer of proof. The first element wasn*t satisfied, in the court’s view, no significant, imminent evil for this defendant or any other person." Defendant objected that the court*s ruling "not only goes against what we understand to have been the statements and admissions by the People and by [Judge Margines, who had previously handled the case] but undermines the whole reason why we were going forward at trial . . . it’s clearly eviscerated our entire defense." In light of Judge Brooks* ruling on the necessity defense, and noting there was no dispute Eichorn was in a sleeping bag in the civic center on the night in question, Eichorn’s lawyer agreed to go forward without a jury on the constitutional issue whether the ordinance was unconstitutional as applied to him based on his alleged involuntary homelessness. Trial commenced without a jury in May 1996. Officer Carol Craig testified defendant was in a sleeping bag on the ground at about 10:30 p.m. outside a county office building in the civic center. He was using his clothes as a pillow. Graig asked (as she always did) why Eichorn wasn’t at the National Guard Armory (a homeless shelter several miles away). A bus from the civic center to the armory usually picked up people between 5 and 6 p.m. According to Craig*s police report, defendant replied he had tried *a while back.* It was full, so he never returned. The court judicially noticed that the walk between the civic center and the armory was *through very dangerous areas of town.* Police photographed and cited Eichorn, then asked him to move on. He complied. James Meeker, a professor at the University of California, Irvine in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society, testified he had conducted a study on homelessness in January and February 1993. There were more than 3000 homeless individuals in Orange County during this period. Most homeless were longtime residents of Orange County (average 14 years) who had lost jobs and could not afford housing. The County had relatively little affordable housing, and it had been decreasing. Single men had a particularly difficult time because they were less likely to receive the support from family, friends, or governmental agencies. Most were sleeping outdoors because they had no other choice. Homeless individuals were 10 times as likely to be victimized by crime than the average population. Many homeless stayed in urban areas because of proximity to assistance providers (food, clothing and shelter), day jobs (just eight percent were unemployed and not looking for jobs), public facilities (restrooms etc.) and the lack of transportation. Timothy Shaw was the executive director of the Orange County Homeless Issues Task Force. He pegged the number of homeless in Santa Ana at about 1500 persons in 1993. There were about 118 shelter beds available for single men like Eichorn, most available on a first-come, first-serve basis. In addition, the armory could accomodate 125 persons during the winter (although it frequently exceeded its capacity). As was routine, these shelters were full on the night Eichorn was cited. Maria Mendoza was the county*s homeless coordinator and oversaw use of the armory as a shelter. The armory was available only on cold winter nights. She explained how the bus to the armory would leave from the civic center in the late afternoon. Those on the bus had priority at the armory. Eichorn had spent some 20 nights there in December and January. On January 25, the armory was 13 persons over capacity, which was not uncommon. That the armory would accept excess capacity was not a given. Usually, only those "at risk" (e.g., women and children) would be admitted after the maximum was reached, and generally only when it was raining. Eichorn, 49 years old, testified he had moved to Costa Mesa in 1972, a few years after his discharge from the Marine Corps. The Vietnam veteran lost his job in a machine shop in 1980, and subsequently ended up without a place to live. He moved to Santa Ana because a friend told him about a job driving an ice cream truck. He sold ice cream for about a year and was able to afford a motel room. When he lost that job, he frequented the casual labor office in Santa Ana until it closed. When he worked and could save enough, he would live in a motel. He also relied on general relief and food stamps. However, general relief was no longer enough to secure affordable housing because most of the less expensive motels had been torn down. If he could not get into a shelter, Eichorn would sleep in the civic center, where he was close to services (including restrooms) and where there was "safety in numbers" (i.e., where it was less likely someone would steal or attack you while you slept). He loved to work and did so every chance he got. He did not like living outside. He had been turned away from the armory in the past and had a "nervous walk" back to the civic center. On January 25, he did not recall whether he had tried to find a spot at a shelter or whether he heard that the shelters were full. He recalled eating around 7 p.m. He was in his sleeping bag listening to his radio when Craig arrived around 10:30. Eichorn’s mother and stepfather lived in Long Beach, but staying with them was not an option because he was "an adult responsible for" himself. Defendant denied a problem with alcohol or drugs. June Marcott, program manager for food stamps and general relief of the County of Orange, testified Eichorn received food stamps on a regular basis from 1989 through 1993, except when he was employed in parts of 1991 and 1992. He was eligible for $307 monthly in general relief if he participated in a work program (working nine days a month) and looked for work (four job applications per day). He last received general relief in November 1990 and was terminated because he did not submit a job search report. He applied for relief in March and June 1992, but was denied. The court found Eichorn had violated the camping ordinance and was not involuntarily homeless on the night in
… read more »
Response:
Question:
Sometimes I wonder where the truly radical queer activists are. Perhaps if we had shiny guns and bunkers like the radical right, we’d get increasing money and membership too.
…….yadda,yadda,yadda Why do you (and a whole lot of other people/breeders) insist on using the term "queer"? That is denigrating and oppressive phraseology. I am gay and I have gay and lesbian friends. Militant gay activism is a neccessary platform to combat the evils of US/Western inculcation. Let us NOT lower ourselves to adopt right-wing/fundmentalist rhetoric and persecution. Remember "Stonewall", rem. the Gay Activist Alliance, the Boston Alliance of Gay and Lesbian Youth and most of all Matthew Howard! Other than your use of an offensive term I do agree w/your views. We need "shiny guns and bunkers"… although now we only have a tiny foxhole to throw rocks and politicism from. Well, it’s OUR foxhole, so throw big rocks! Replies and comments greatfully requested, Dee Jones
Response:
Sometimes I wonder where the truly radical queer activists are. Perhaps if we had shiny guns and bunkers like the radical right, we’d get increasing money and membership too. Why is it that queer leadership isn’t incensed over the fact that we don’t have the right to marry? What a basic right that is. Shouldn’t we be rioting in the streets? The queer community is still celebrating one little riot that’s decades old, and a small one at that. Pride isn’t about merchandise. It’s about creating political change. It’s about being responsible for the world around you, and the state it’s in. Sorry about the tirade, it’s just that sometimes I want to kick the apathetic among us. *sigh* _____ Subscribe to Political Dykes! http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/politicaldykes
Response:
Question:
Sherry, Thank you for sharing this. It is a good reminder of perspective and balance. Love, Metro
Response:
Amie Yaussy wrote: > This is an interesting list, and though I personally also wonder if suicide > is appropriate in many cases, and cringe a lot over the case of a CFS/FM > patient who used assisted suicide to end her pain, I find such statements as > "11. Suicide is selfish, cowardly, and loathsome" pretty uncompassionate. I > believe there may be valid situations for assisted suicide in humans (we > already accept it for animals) and it is such an intensely painful and > personal situation that the only thing required of me until it’s something I > have to face myself _is_ compassion. I am not omniscient and cannot judge > it. I leave that to the god or gods of the person involved.
I can honestly say that if I were in dire straights and had put all my ducks in a row, e.g., talked with my family and friends, got all my documents set, made peace with everything I knew, and knew that everyone understood me wanting to leave this world for lands unknown, I would definitely consider assisted suicide. Caring for someone day and night with no relief in sight *can* lead to resentment. I understand my children not wanting to spend a good portion of their lives grieving over me while I’m alive. If I am suffering that much, then I want to go so I can be reborn somewhere else, hopefully where DDs don’t exist… A member of my own family committed suicide the cowardly way, and "Good riddance," I say. This is a personal issue that needs no feedback but had he lived, I would have died. –Jaimes
Response:
The following was shared with me and I thought it was a wonderful piece for us all to read and perhaps pass along. SUICIDE IS NOT AN OPTION Twenty-five Reasons to Avoid Suicide by Susan Dion As a person with CFS/FM, I faced a serious depression by the eighth month of oppressive, intolerable flu symptoms. My life had been turned inside out and upside down. The depression was an unwelcome first in my life. It was a dreary, defeating, dangerous, dark tunnel. Thankfully, I received good care for the depression. And although vestiges of it lingered for several years, it was eventually overcome. This was true even though the restrictive limits, the bone-crunching pain, and the debilitating flu-like symptoms remained. I am so glad my doctor sent me to a life-affirming psychiatrist (rather than to a life-defeating pathologist like Dr. Kervorkian). Later, a superb psychologist continued to assist me in learning how to better cope and live with this awful illness. Similar to getting help for allergies, sleep disruptions, pain, arrhythmias, hypertension, mitral valve prolapse, etc., I sought care for the emotional tidal waves of sadness, depression, loss, and other difficult and confusing respoinses to a tough illness. I wanted so desperately to learn how one lives with such heavy sickness and limits. I persevered. Indeed, over time, I’ve even flourished in some ways — despite the constraints of the illness. For several days in late August 1996, I pondered with great anger and sadness the suicides of several individuals with CFS. What a waste of human life! What a terrible tragedy for the family, friends, and other loved ones left behind! In order to provide a constructive way to think through the raw emotions, I started a list of reasons to avoid suicide and champion courage — in spite of the disruptive, life-changing pain and symptoms of CFS/FM. The fragments of the list formed in my mind. Only later did I attempt to write the thoughts down. I propose we all create and share powerful lists that reject suicide as an option. We need to help each other through the despair and darkness of depression in whatever small ways are open to us. TWENTY-FIVE REASONS TO AVOID SUICIDE: 1. Suicide is too horrible a legacy to inflict upon your family, friends, and other loved ones. For children — whether age three or twenty-three — the suicide of a parent is a blacker-than-black tragedy. They cannot ever truly recover from such a loss. Suicide leaves deep canyons of pain, sorrow, and chaos for each person touched. Each and every day, the survivors will be haunted by "Why?" We cannot inflict that kind of pain on others. 2. The symptoms may improve. The illness may even resolve itself. It has happened to others — many of whom also experienced periods of despair and hopelessness in the midst of life-wrenching sickness. There is much room for hope. 3. There are always new and better ways to learn to live with the losses, limits, and pain imposed by sickness. Each individual can look forward to mastering new coping skills in order to improve his or her life with llness. Indeed, you can throw yourself into learning such skills. You can consciously choose to live better and smarter – in spite of awful symptoms. You can seek help. 4. Your experiences in learning to successfully live with illness may assist others in similarly mastering such approaches. You can help. You can generously give to those who are still struggling. You have much to offer. 5. New and better treatments may be found next week, next month, or next year. You’ll want to be the beneficiary of such gains. You need to be here to benefit. 6. There are new people yet to enter your life — people you’ll appreciate, cherish, and love. These might include a grandchild, a special friend, a delightful neighbor, an intimate soulmate, a lover, a long-distance pal, an unexpected child (your own, a friend’s, a sibling’s, or one you tutor), and more. It is one of life’s great magical mysteries to welcome new people into our lives. This is true even when one is homebound, or bedbound, or severely restricted. 7. A cause or causes for the illness may be uncovered sometime in the near future. Your innate curiosity requires that you find the anwsers. As different pieces of the puzzle are put in place by researchers, one sees the momentum for further significant advances. And, finding the causes will lead to a cure. 8. There is so much more to enjoy: more sunsets and sunrises, more garden tomatoes, more films, more food, more friendships, more creative pursuits, perhaps some travel, more books, more, more, more, more . . . . 9. You may contribute to significant medical research by volunteering to participate in scientific studies. If you’re unable to do so or if you don’t fit the research criteria, you can encourage others to participate. These volunteers are absolutely essential to finding cause and cure. The value cannot be overstated. We’re all in this together. 10. You may be needed to offer a crucial piece of advice to a loved one or a friend facing a crisis. You’ve got to be there to do so — regardless if it is next week or ten years from today. You want to be there for them. 11. Suicide is selfish, cowardly, and loathsome. We must repeat to ourselves and others: "Suicide is not an option. Suicide is not an option. Suicide is not an option." 12. You’ll be needed to sustain others: your parents, partner, children, grandchildren, larger family, friends, pets, other patients, a stranger at the bus stop, still yet unknown companions, and more. 13. Suicide does not promote advocacy or activism. It does not help others to learn about the illness. Suicide kills. 14. Depression can be overcome. While it is a common response to debilitating, life-changing illness and disruptive pain, it is treatable. Time, counseling, medications, support, self-love, and prayer all contribute to a successful battle over depression. Many, many people have made it through the darkest depths of depression. They’ve gone on to live and love. There is light at the end of the darkest tunnel. There is life with sickness – even when one is paralyzed from the neck down and a respirator is required to breathe. 15. Each person is valuable. Each individual is filled with promise. Each human being has a multitude of gifts to share with the world. This is true even when we’re uncertain as to our purpose and abilities at any given time. It will come – with courage, persistence, and patience. 16. Suicide lays waste to the value, promise, and gifts one has to share. Forever. 17. There are more smiles yet to enjoy. There is much more laughter to embrace. 18. Suicide hurts everyone. It does not aid anyone. 19. Living on offers so many possibilities. There are so many angles of life to watch unfold. There are many, many stories-in-progress (including our own) to follow. What will happen by 2001 or 2015 — to family and friends, to the neighborhood, to the nation? What will be discovered about our illness and other poorly-understood medical problems? Will Liam Neeson and Will Smith still be making movies? Will I be symptom-free? Will the Phillies make it to another World Series? Will I be able to be more physically active? Will we finally elect a woman as resident of the U.S.? Will I have less oppressive daily "flu" symptoms? Will my children have children? Will parts of California be lost under the sea? Will I be able to resume gainful employment? Will UConn continue to foster powerhouse women’s and men’s basketball teams? I want to know how zillions of stories unfold. More importantly, I want to be around to observe, reflect, and participate – in whatever ways are open to me. We all are a part of many stories. 20. Suicide is bad P.R. It confuses the public. 21. Suicide is the result of lousy judgment rooted in depression and pain. It cannot be blamed on insensitive doctors, unsupportive friends, lack of a cure, and failures by others. While all of these things may exacerbate emotional lows, suicide is the decision of one individual. If that individual were ill with SD, CFS or FM, but not suffering from depression, that person would never ever choose suicide. It would be inconprehensible. We need to do a better job acknowledging and receiving help for depression in its earliest stages. We need to help each other. 22. Do not confuse living with doing. Life is also be-ing. A rich life is possible even in the midst of dismal symptoms. (Read M. Scott Peck’s book, "A Bed By The Window.") 23. You would not counsel a loved one living with a difficult, lengthy illness to give up and die. You would not tell a person living with SD,CFS or FM that she or he is of no value and therefore is not worthy of living. You wouldn’t pick up the phone and solicit help from "Dr. Death" just because a person faces depression while suffering with a painful, debilitating illness. No. You’d compassionately urge your loved one to value his or her self — despite the rotten, despicable illness. You would fight relentlessly to have the person find a ray of hope. You would seek assistance and intervention from professionals. You’d recount how you and others have made it beyond the darkness. *** Counsel yourself in the same loving, life-affirming manner in which you would counsel another. 24. Disability rights activists have several slogans, one of which is a dog tag which requests that "no expense be spared" to keep you alive. The philosophical and political slants are readily apparent. It is wrong to judge a person as "unfit" to live because of horrific, ugly, painful illnesses. Don’t succumb to false images of what it means to lead a "normal" life. Find strength and inspiration in the stories of so many severely disabled persons who courageously pursue life’s … read more »
Response:
Tough subject…. I know that in my youth I used to say "please kill me if I ever get to that", usually looking at a severely disabled person. In facing scleroderma, I came to know that my will to live is very strong and I no longer think like that…. I want to live as long as I can think clearly and communicate with others. Two years ago I visited Sun n Fun, the 2nd biggest airshow in the country, with my friends from Memphis. One of the group was a paraplegic (train cut off both legs when he was 18 or so). He had always wanted to fly so my friend had built this guy a legal ultralight with hand controls, modified his trainer ultralight with hand controls and taught this guy to fly. He adores flying… says it is the only time he can look down on other people!! This guy pulls the airplane out of the hanger himself, preflights, straps in, and flies away with no assistance (I think he might need help fueling it up). Pushing him around the airshow and going to restaurants taught me a lot about how people treat paraplegics. People would not talk to him, they would ask us what he wanted to eat…. etc. This really got him mad… he had a brain… just no legs. He is an inspiration to me. One more thing… He has endured a crash landing in the river when his engine quit (I’m sure that this had nothing to do with my friend’s building technique!)…. he did need helping getting from the river bank to the airport! Bottom line… physical disabilities are limiting to the extent of your ingenuity (within in limits) and I WILL NOT let the thought of future disabilities hinder my current actions. One other thing… we were all pilots and I think my new friend loved being with the group because he was a full member of the fraternity (as a female, I hate using that word… but it works). His airplane was a little different than others but we all talked pilot talk and he was just one of the gang… contributing to the patter and commenting on events as a full partner. One other note… we were all making fun of one of the airshow performers as a very boring act… it was a hang glider launched from the runway and then circling down. We got very quiet when the announcer stated the pilot was a paraplegic! We all stood up (even for my new friend, he raised himself up in his chair) and applauded (while still agreeding it was a boring act). Pain… there is no excuse for pain. If your doctor is too scared of the FDA to prescribe what is needed, then you need to find another doctor and/or visit a pain management clinic. Our society is so worried about addiction that they let the FDA prosecute "good doctors" and are able to turn their back and let people suffer needlessly. The pharmacists in the area know the bad doctors (writing narcotic Rx for cash) and the AMA is aware of them… but the AMA will protect their own at all costs. I had a recent spate with my gynecologist (a new one that I switched to when my HMO didn’t cover the old one) because she wanted to operate on me rather than let me take a couple of Darvocet a year for "bad periods". Fortunately my HMO now covers my old gynecologist, he gave me a more thorough work-up, agreed that surgery was probably pre-mature at this point, and gave me the Rx for Darvocet. (There’s a lot more to this story… but the point is the new doctor flat refused 2 years in a row to refill a 5 year old Darvocet prescription… which I felt was proof that I wasn’t exactly abusing the stuff!) I personally think the furrow over "physician assisted suicide" is ridiculous. Compassionate doctors have been helping patients for years… It was not as blatant as Dr. Kevokian, much more subtle. Modern day people are not very subtle. I agree with what Jaimie wrote… there might come a time when your will to live is not as strong as your desire to end it. Depending on the circumstances, people in this situation have my empathy. I worked with a lady whose high-school son committed suicide and nobody could understand it. His parents have my empathy. He has my sympathy but not my understanding…. a tragedy. But when you can not handle the pain and suffering that your existence is creating for others (and you are damn sure that is the case), and you get your ducks in a row, it is your choice and no others. I’ve finished my morning coffee… so I"ll quit ranting, llg – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Amie Yaussy wrote in message <71f65o$…@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>… >This is an interesting list, and though I personally also wonder if suicide >is appropriate in many cases, and cringe a lot over the case of a CFS/FM >patient who used assisted suicide to end her pain, I find such statements as >"11. Suicide is selfish, cowardly, and loathsome" pretty uncompassionate. I >believe there may be valid situations for assisted suicide in humans (we >already accept it for animals) and it is such an intensely painful and >personal situation that the only thing required of me until it’s something I >have to face myself _is_ compassion. I am not omniscient and cannot judge >it. I leave that to the god or gods of the person involved. >>TWENTY-FIVE REASONS TO AVOID SUICIDE: >>1. Suicide is too horrible a legacy to inflict upon your family, >>friends, and other loved ones. >>2. The symptoms may improve. >>3. There are always new and better ways to learn to live with the >>losses, limits, and pain imposed by sickness. >>4. Your experiences in learning to successfully live with illness may >>assist others in similarly mastering such approaches. >>5. New and better treatments may be found next week, next month, or next >>year. >>6. There are new people yet to enter your life — people you’ll >>appreciate, cherish, and love. >>7. A cause or causes for the illness may be uncovered sometime in the >>near future. >>8. There is so much more to enjoy: >>9. You may contribute to significant medical research by volunteering to >>participate in scientific studies. >>10. You may be needed to offer a crucial piece of advice to a loved one >>or a friend facing a crisis. >>11. Suicide is selfish, cowardly, and loathsome. >>12. You’ll be needed to sustain others: >>13. Suicide does not promote advocacy or activism. >>14. Depression can be overcome. >>15. Each person is valuable. >>16. Suicide lays waste to the value, promise, and gifts one has to >>share. Forever. >>17. There are more smiles yet to enjoy. >>18. Suicide hurts everyone. >>19. Living on offers so many possibilities. >>20. Suicide is bad P.R. It confuses the public. >>21. Suicide is the result of lousy judgment rooted in depression and >>pain. >>22. Do not confuse living with doing. >>23. You would not counsel a loved one living with a difficult, lengthy >>illness to give up and die. >>24. Disability rights activists have several slogans, one of which is a >>dog tag which requests that "no expense be spared" to keep you alive. >>The philosophical and political slants are readily apparent. It is wrong >>to judge a person as "unfit" to live because of horrific, ugly, painful >>illnesses. Don’t succumb to false images of what it means to lead a >>"normal" life. Find strength and inspiration in the stories of so many >>severely disabled persons who courageously pursue life’s >>challenges and joys. Get mad. Get angry. >>25. Suicide ends life. It is terminal.
Response:
This is an interesting list, and though I personally also wonder if suicide is appropriate in many cases, and cringe a lot over the case of a CFS/FM patient who used assisted suicide to end her pain, I find such statements as "11. Suicide is selfish, cowardly, and loathsome" pretty uncompassionate. I believe there may be valid situations for assisted suicide in humans (we already accept it for animals) and it is such an intensely painful and personal situation that the only thing required of me until it’s something I have to face myself _is_ compassion. I am not omniscient and cannot judge it. I leave that to the god or gods of the person involved. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->TWENTY-FIVE REASONS TO AVOID SUICIDE: >1. Suicide is too horrible a legacy to inflict upon your family, >friends, and other loved ones. >2. The symptoms may improve. >3. There are always new and better ways to learn to live with the >losses, limits, and pain imposed by sickness. >4. Your experiences in learning to successfully live with illness may >assist others in similarly mastering such approaches. >5. New and better treatments may be found next week, next month, or next >year. >6. There are new people yet to enter your life — people you’ll >appreciate, cherish, and love. >7. A cause or causes for the illness may be uncovered sometime in the >near future. >8. There is so much more to enjoy: >9. You may contribute to significant medical research by volunteering to >participate in scientific studies. >10. You may be needed to offer a crucial piece of advice to a loved one >or a friend facing a crisis. >11. Suicide is selfish, cowardly, and loathsome. >12. You’ll be needed to sustain others: >13. Suicide does not promote advocacy or activism. >14. Depression can be overcome. >15. Each person is valuable. >16. Suicide lays waste to the value, promise, and gifts one has to >share. Forever. >17. There are more smiles yet to enjoy. >18. Suicide hurts everyone. >19. Living on offers so many possibilities. >20. Suicide is bad P.R. It confuses the public. >21. Suicide is the result of lousy judgment rooted in depression and >pain. >22. Do not confuse living with doing. >23. You would not counsel a loved one living with a difficult, lengthy >illness to give up and die. >24. Disability rights activists have several slogans, one of which is a >dog tag which requests that "no expense be spared" to keep you alive. >The philosophical and political slants are readily apparent. It is wrong >to judge a person as "unfit" to live because of horrific, ugly, painful >illnesses. Don’t succumb to false images of what it means to lead a >"normal" life. Find strength and inspiration in the stories of so many >severely disabled persons who courageously pursue life’s >challenges and joys. Get mad. Get angry. >25. Suicide ends life. It is terminal.
Response:
> This is an interesting list, and though I personally also wonder if suicide > is appropriate in many cases, and cringe a lot over the case of a CFS/FM > patient who used assisted suicide to end her pain, I find such statements as > "11. Suicide is selfish, cowardly, and loathsome" pretty uncompassionate. I > believe there may be valid situations for assisted suicide in humans (we > already accept it for animals) and it is such an intensely painful and > personal situation that the only thing required of me until it’s something I > have to face myself _is_ compassion. I am not omniscient and cannot judge > it. I leave that to the god or gods of the person involved.
Amie I agree. I also read # 11 that way but I think the point they were making is that in some cases at least it would be like giving up to commit suicide. But I agree that there are cases where I can see where assisted suicide would enter someones mind. What I hope others will read from this item is that there are alternatives to choose for most of us. — Love and Hugs From Sherry Messick Surviving Scleroderma http://www.SclerodermaSupport.com "Get Up, Stand Up and Fight to survive because Scleroderma Kicks you when you are down" "We are all Beacons Of Light for Each Other " Oprah Winfrey Tomorrow is promised to no one. Learn to say ‘I love you’…. Any way you can! / ____/_________ //////\\\ Have a Bewitching Halloween!! /// Q Q \ /// U \ // ___/ \
Response:
And the alternative is at places like: http://www2.privatei.com/hemlock/ Sherry Messick wrote in message
<363B277F.2A3FD…@sclerodermasupport.com>… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Amie I agree. I also read # 11 that way but I think the point they were >making is that in some cases at least it would be like giving up to >commit suicide. But I agree that there are cases where I can see where >assisted suicide would enter someones mind. What I hope others will read >from this item is that there are alternatives to choose for most of us. >– >Love and Hugs From >Sherry Messick >Surviving Scleroderma >http://www.SclerodermaSupport.com >"Get Up, Stand Up and Fight to survive because >Scleroderma Kicks you when you are down" >"We are all Beacons Of Light for Each Other " Oprah Winfrey >Tomorrow is promised to no one. >Learn to say ‘I love you’…. Any way you can! > / > ____/_________ > //////\\\ Have a Bewitching Halloween!! > /// Q Q \ > /// U \ > // ___/ \
Response:
Question:
Looking for a limelight and publicity, a group of US representatives went to Cuba to offer their services to Castro in his fight agains the so called embargo. I find this attitude shameful and absurd. Shameful because there is no need for an elected representative of his people goes to kiss up to a dictator and dance at his beat. Absurd because no other country in the world has an embargo on commercial ties with Cuba. That country is free to trade with EVERY COUNTRY on earth, especially Canada and Mexico. Everything American is available to Cuba with the cooperation of the authorities of those countries and even that of the mini-nations of Central American and the Caribbean. The presence in Cuba of American representative is an affront to our nation and warning to those who elected them to defend our interest, and instead they see them defending not only foreign interests, but the interests of a sworn enemy who once wanted our nation bombed by the Russians, and if it were not for the fact that the Soviet Union crumbled down, would be today creating guerrillas all over the world and presenting a more tangible threat to this nation.
Response:
Do you really believe there’s nothing wrong with the american embargo to Cuba? Whats the real threat Cuba represents to the United States. In most off the european countries there are comunist parties and democracy sanctions them out of power. What have America’s democracy to fear from Cuba. Maybe american parties have more to fear from cubans radicated in America, who dislike (hate) Castro and do not accept the end of something as stupid and, so you reveal, so useless as the embargo. By the way, can’t you see that the fight against the embargo is the only solid argument of fidel Castro to defend his political attitude?
Dammit, quit crossposting you dumbass! [alt.politics.youth and alt.activism.youth-rights trimmed from crossposts]
Response:
Sounds good to me as an unrepentant communinst. Lucien Lenoire – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Looking for a limelight and publicity, a group of US representatives went to Cuba to offer their services to Castro in his fight agains the so called embargo. I find this attitude shameful and absurd. Shameful because there is no need for an elected representative of his people goes to kiss up to a dictator and dance at his beat. Absurd because no other country in the world has an embargo on commercial ties with Cuba. That country is free to trade with EVERY COUNTRY on earth, especially Canada and Mexico. Everything American is available to Cuba with the cooperation of the authorities of those countries and even that of the mini-nations of Central American and the Caribbean. The presence in Cuba of American representative is an affront to our nation and warning to those who elected them to defend our interest, and instead they see them defending not only foreign interests, but the interests of a sworn enemy who once wanted our nation bombed by the Russians, and if it were not for the fact that the Soviet Union crumbled down, would be today creating guerrillas all over the world and presenting a more tangible threat to this nation.
Response:
Do you really believe there’s nothing wrong with the american embargo to Cuba? Whats the real threat Cuba represents to the United States. In most off the european countries there are comunist parties and democracy sanctions them out of power. What have America’s democracy to fear from Cuba. Maybe american parties have more to fear from cubans radicated in America, who dislike (hate) Castro and do not accept the end of something as stupid and, so you reveal, so useless as the embargo. By the way, can’t you see that the fight against the embargo is the only solid argument of fidel Castro to defend his political attitude? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Looking for a limelight and publicity, a group of US representatives went to Cuba to offer their services to Castro in his fight agains the so called embargo. I find this attitude shameful and absurd. Shameful because there is no need for an elected representative of his people goes to kiss up to a dictator and dance at his beat. Absurd because no other country in the world has an embargo on commercial ties with Cuba. That country is free to trade with EVERY COUNTRY on earth, especially Canada and Mexico. Everything American is available to Cuba with the cooperation of the authorities of those countries and even that of the mini-nations of Central American and the Caribbean. The presence in Cuba of American representative is an affront to our nation and warning to those who elected them to defend our interest, and instead they see them defending not only foreign interests, but the interests of a sworn enemy who once wanted our nation bombed by the Russians, and if it were not for the fact that the Soviet Union crumbled down, would be today creating guerrillas all over the world and presenting a more tangible threat to this nation.
Response:
Question:
Hey there. Myself and a group of teenage volunteers are proud to announce a new site called Teen Advice Online. It’s a cool e-zine/help page in which teens help other teens with their problems. http://www.winternet.com/~tfenner/advice/ Please give it a try! Even if you don’t have a problem, you can read others, plus our advice! We will help with ANY problem you may have, from what to get your sis for her birthday, to relationship troubles, or problem parents… http://www.winternet.com/~tfenner/advice/ See you there! Trev
Response:
Hey there. Myself and a group of teenage volunteers are proud to announce a new site called Teen Advice Online. It’s a cool e-zine/help page in which teens help other teens with their problems. http://www.winternet.com/~tfenner/advice/ Please give it a try! Even if you don’t have a problem, you can read others, plus our advice! We will help with ANY problem you may have, from what to get your sis for her birthday, to relationship troubles, or problem parents… http://www.winternet.com/~tfenner/advice/ See you there! Trev
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hey there. Myself and a group of teenage volunteers are proud to announce a new site called Teen Advice Online. It’s a cool e-zine/help page in which teens help other teens with their problems. http://www.winternet.com/~tfenner/advice/ Please give it a try! Even if you don’t have a problem, you can read others, plus our advice! We will help with ANY problem you may have, from what to get your sis for her birthday, to relationship troubles, or problem parents… http://www.winternet.com/~tfenner/advice/ See you there! Trev
In alt.activism.youth-rights and alt.activism.age-restrictions, this message is known as SPAM. (The off-topic variety). This is also SPAM in alt.activism.death-penalty, alt.activism, and alt.activism.d Please carefully choose where you crosspost next time.
Response:
Question:
Newsgroup: alt.activism W
Question:
This article was manually transcribed by the System Operator of the "Banished CPU" computer bulletin board system, which is located in Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.
This article was transcribed by Dan Gannon, who owns and operates the computer system known as "b-cpu" under the appropriate pseudonym… Sysop: Maynard "the Main Nerd"
Dan Gannon’s system, with his knowledge and consent, has been used to promulgate racial hatred and the infamous "$50,000.000 Offer". Dan Gannon has consistently refused to respond to demands from those who wish to accept this "offer" that he provide specific legal names and addresses of those who are making it, and the name and location of the bank or trust company holding the funds in trust. — The Old Frog’s Almanac – A Salute to That Old Frog Hisse’f, Ryugen Fisher (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400×4) SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Serving Central Vancouver Island with public access UseNet and Internet Mail – home to the Holocaust Almanac
Response:
The Wages of Apostasy: LIFE UNDER FIRE David Irving (Presented at the Eleventh IHR Conference, October 1992) Thank you, United States, for letting me come and speak. I mean that seriously because the fight is now getting quite creepy. For two years now, in country after country, I have been conducting this international Campaign for Real History. During this period, in country after country,
Interesting comment for a man who has been the subject of two libel suits, which he lost, because of historically inaccurate nonsense published under the banner of "Real History," and who has intentionally mislead his readers (Hitler’s War) by neglecting to offer the first two lines of the now-famous Himmler telephone log, presumably because they made it clear that his thesis was nonsense. — The Old Frog’s Almanac – A Salute to That Old Frog Hisse’f, Ryugen Fisher (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400×4) SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Serving Central Vancouver Island with public access UseNet and Internet Mail – home to the Holocaust Almanac
Response:
Before Gannon’s ideological fathers set out to build the mass extermination centers such as Birkenau, Treblinka, and Belzec, they used more old fashioned methods to exterminate the "undesirables" in Nazi occupied USSR. This was done by the "Einsatzgruppen" (special purpose forces), which closely followed the advancing German army, rounded up those marked for annihilation, and summarily executed them in numerous mass shootings. These "Einsatzgruppen" wrote detailed reports of their operations, and many were captured after the war. Here are some: Report from chief of Security Police and SD, June 17 1942 [Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, Supplement A, p. 661] The Jews in the Crimea… Already in 1939, out of 65,000 Jews in the Crimea, 44,000 (that is almost 70 percent) live in the cities of Simferopol, Sevastopol, Kertch, Jewpatoria, Yalta, and Feodosia alone… Of the Krimtschaks (approx. 6,000) who were generally counted to be Jews, about half lived for the greater part in Simferopol (2,500) and in Karasubarsar. Their annihilation together with that of the real Jews and the Gypsies in the Crimea took part place essentially until the beginning of December 1941. Ereignismeldung UdSSR, No. 101, October 2 1941 ['The Good Old Days', E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The Free Press, NY, 1988. p. 67] Einsatzgruppen C Standort Kiev In collaboration with the group staff and two Kommandos of Police Regiment South, on 29 and 30 September 1941, Sonderkommando 4a executed 33,771 Jews in Kiev. Daily situation report of the Einsatzgruppen (special task forces) in Russia, No. 124, October 25th, 1941 [The Final Solution: The Attempt to Exterminate the Jews of Europe, 1939-1945, G. Reitlinger, p. 133] A second action consisted in applying special treatment to 812 men and women, all persons without interest from the racial and intellectual point of view. Letter from Generalkommisar for white Russia, Kube, to Reichkommisar for the Ostland, Lohse, 31 July 1942 ['The Good Old Days', E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The Free Press, NY, 1988. p. 180] During the course of extensive discussions with SS-Brigadefuehrer Zenner and the very competent Leiter of the SD, SS-Obersturmbannfuherer Dr. Strauch, it was established that we have liquidated about 55,000 Jews in the past ten weeks… Naturally the SD and I would prefer to eliminate the Jews in the Generalbezirk of white Russia once and for all as soon as the Jews are no longer needed by the Wehrmacht for economic reasons. For the time being, the Wehrmacht’s requirements, as the principle employer of Jewish labor, are being taken into account. -Danny Keren.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Wages of Apostasy: LIFE UNDER FIRE David Irving Mr. Irving, the _Cape Times_ would like to have your response to the following allegations made by a Capetonian who attended your meeting at Goodwood [Centre] on March 8. The source said that the meeting was of a neo-Nazi nature. Complete with Nazi banners and Nazi salutes. We would appreciate it very much if you could fax back to us your response as soon as you are able. So I turned this over in my mind. "Remember," I told myself, "you’re dealing with a journalist–a journalist who will twist whatever you say. If I say that I have no comment, they will print the lies and say that Mr. Irving had no comment. If I deny it, they will print the lies and say that Irving denied it. They will print the lies whatever you do." So after some thought, I sent this brief letter to Claire Bisseker: Dear Clair, Thank you for your fax, and I appreciate your inquiry. Yes, you do have excellent sources. Neo-Nazi nature, Nazi banners, and Nazi salutes–the lot. As I marched in, an orchestra struck up the Slaves’ Chorus from Verdi’s opera, "Aida." Later, the orchestra played the first bars of Franz Liszt’s "Les Preludes," and it concluded with Liszt’s Opus 63 String Quartet. Meanwhile, searchlight batteries stationed around the Goodwood Civic Centre lit up, their crystal beams joining in a cathedral of ice ten thousand feet above the site; a thousand hands were once more flung aloft in the holy salute, and a thousand throats roared the Horst Wessel anthem. A video is available, directed by Leni Riefenstahl. I hope the above material suffices for what you have in mind. That’s the way to deal with journalists! I have developed my own techniques in dealing with them.
Note that he didn’t deny any of the allegations, merely satired them. This is what actually goes on at an Irving lecture: Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden Lines: 411 On Wednesday the eighteenth of September 1991, the Swedish National Television aired a documentary by Michael Schmidt called ‘Warheit Macht Frei’. I believe that certain parts of it are of interest to the net and may shed a little light upon the background of some subjects that have been discussed on several newsgroups lately. The text below will be attributed thus: The narrator’s lines are contained within parentheses "()". Descriptions on what happens on the screen are contained within less- and more than signs "<". Other attributions by name or function (e.g. "Interviewer"). My comments will be contained within brackets "[]". The text below is from the most interesting parts of the documentary. The parts that aren’t included are those that only talk about neo- nazism in Germany. Background: Michael Schmidt is a German journalist who managed to infiltrate and document the neo-nazi movement during the last two years. According to background articles in the press when it was sent he did this by simply asking Michael Ku"hnen if he could document the neo-nazi movement. Ku"hnen accepted and since Ku"hnen had accepted Schmidt, his associates did too. -bertil- (Munich, 21st of April 1990. The day after Hitler’s birthday. Lo"venbraukeller. Eight hundred persons have been gathered to hear what they want to hear. They are waiting for David Irving, who is going to say it: Nobody was gassed in Auschwitz in the third reich. History is revised, forged) Irving: "The gaschambers one can find as a tourist to Auschwitz were built by the poles after WWII. The buildings have been chemically analyzed and we have published the documents. This has stirred up so much dust that our enemies cannot breathe." <Michael Ku"hnen, leader of the German neo-nazis until his death in April 1991, and the rest of the audience applauds. (But among the audience are guests that throw a different light over this seemingly respectable gathering.) <Camera focuses on one person in the audience (A living legend, a hero among the neo-nazis of today, General Otto Ernst Remer. He was adviser to the former leader of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser, he sold German weapons to Syria, but above all, General Otto Ernst Remer was the man that tracked down the persons who on the 20th of July 1944 conspired to assassinate Hitler. As a reward he was appointed commander of Hitler’s personal guard.) <Old German black and white newsreel shows Remer parading in front of gathered troops, one arm held high in a nazi salute. Narrator of the Newsreel: "Major Remer, commander of the guard battalion "Berlin", distinguished himself during the squashing of a small, hostile to the nation, honourless clique and was immediately promoted to Colonel by the Fu"hrer." Remer talking to the troops: "Today we are thankfully political soldiers!" <Back to today and an interview with Remer Remer: "But then Hitler said: "I’m still alive, a small clique of officers is responsible, but now we have caught the leading saboteurs. We shall deal with this plague expediently, if necessary with brutal violence"". Schmidt: "You have said that you regarded Hitler as a democrat?" Remer: "Basically, he was a democrat. When I now look back I can say that I’ve never seen anyone of Hitler’s calibre. I see it before me still. It was an important man, the kind that is only born once in a hundred years. However history is warped, Hitler is a lasting factor in German history." <picture of the pamphlet "Journal of Historical Review", the listed contents on the front page are: "Carlo Mattogono: Auschwitz: A Case of Plagiarism, Carlo Mattogono: Two False Testimonies from Auschwitz, William Grimstad: Autopsying the Communist Corpse, James J. Martin: A "Good War" It Wasn’t. Reviews: Why I survived the A-bomb, Sacrifice at Pearl Harbour, Broken Alliance: The Turbulent Times between Blacks and Jews in America. Historical News and Comment: A Visit of Auschwitz, An interview with General Ernst Otto Remer, A "Diatribe" in honour of Dr. Alfred Schickel, Alois Brunner talks about his past." [Brunner is one of the most notorious Nazi war criminals still at large. He lives in Damascus and the Syrian government has refused to extradite him to Germany or France. In an telephone interview 1987, he told the Chicago Sun-Times that he regretted nothing of what he had done, that he would do it again, and that all Jews "deserved to die because they were the devil's agents and human garbage."] (The Institute of Historical Review in California has as its goal to whitewash Hitler and deny the hideous crimes of Nazism. Remer is one of their international contacts and Remer himself is very proud of his contacts around the world.) Remer: "I have had a lot of contacts and happen to know a lot of people. This has always been current to me, but I’m not stupid. I saw that one couldn’t even talk about it – but then suddenly, over night, all changed. Perspectives are now opening that are too large to see. But the world cannot continue being divided. Americans and Russians cannot split the cake. Nobody can accuse me of being a communist or anything like that. And for nationalsocialism… I never was a member of the party. I have always been independent and had my own thoughts." (And he spreads his thoughts to people he claims not to know…) <Home video of Remer talking to a gathering in front of a red banner with a white circle and the gothic letters "FAP" Remer on video: "In your hard political struggle, harder yet than ours, you must keep your mind on becoming a disciplined, responsible, and immovable circle of comrades! An Elite among the new German youth!" <Applauds and shouts of agreement (He doesn’t want to speak about todays neo-nazis, but this video shows clearly that he is one of them) <The gathered people Remer spoke to sing Deutchland Deutchland U"ber Alles The Swedish Television added a translation of what they sing: "Germany, Germany, everywhere! The Reich shall again be reborn!" Gathering ends with: "Long live today’s NationalSocialist movement in Germany. Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!" <The gathered people perform the nazi salute (Back to Munich. The main speaker, David Irving, is watching over the proceedings. The Institute for Historical Review is there to document and preserve for posterity those that absolve Nazi-Germany from all guilt, and claim that any warcrimes never happened, those that want to rewrite history, the so called "Revisionists". They claim that there never were any gaschambers and that the holocaust of the Jews never happened.) <Front page of the book "Highlights of the 9th International Revisionist Conference". There are pictures of David Irving, Fred Leuchter and several others on the front cover Institute for Historical Review representative: "We do video productions for the Institute when we have conferences" Speaker on conference: "We welcome Manfred Roeder, Michael Ku"hnen and their group of youths." (A convicted terrorist and a neo-nazi is welcomed, but this man wants to avoid all publicity.) <Man in background shown, several photos of him are also shown
… read more »
Response:
From _The Journal of Historical Review_, Vol. 13, Number 1 (Jan./Feb. 1993): The Wages of Apostasy: LIFE UNDER FIRE David Irving (Presented at the Eleventh IHR Conference, October 1992) Thank you, United States, for letting me come and speak. I mean that seriously because the fight is now getting quite creepy. For two years now, in country after country, I have been conducting this international Campaign for Real History. During this period, in country after country, I’ve come up against an international campaign AGAINST real history–an international campaign full of lies, an international campaign to suppress the truth. The truth of this campaign is quite clearly something that I had previously not wanted to believe: there is, in fact, an international force out there with an influence that transcends frontiers. Day after day, country after country, month after month, I come up against this international force. In my apartment in London, I’ve accordingly opened a file titled "Jewish Harassment." this should not be taken to mean, in the slightest, that I am anti-Jewish, because I’m not. The fact that many Jews are anti-Irving does not mean to say that I am anti-Jewish. There’s no paradox in that statement. Week after week, month after month, they are causing me immense harassment, embarrassment and distress. But journalists come to me, again and again, and ask me: "Mr. Irving, are you anti-Semitic?" And I reply, "Not yet." For two years now, I have been the target of this worldwide campaign–in Germany, France, Spain, South Africa, the United States, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, and England. Let me tell you a little about what has been happening in some of these countries. In Germany, I’m now technically a prohibited person. I can’t go there because the German authorities have ordained that David Irving shall no longer cross their frontier. A free democracy, and yet that’s the only way they can fight against me: by forbidding me to come in. That edict was issued in March 1990. But since then, I’ve been in and out of Germany 60 times. I’m not going to tell you how I’ve done it–but there are ways of doing it. In Austria, there’s an arrest warrant out against me, but no entry prohibition (whereas in Germany there’s the entry prohibition but no arrest warrant). So between the two of them you can find a way of getting in. As I said to the Germans the last time I spoke to a mass meeting of 7,000 people in Passau: there are enough people here in plain clothes taking notes for the Ministry of the Interior, and tonight they’ll be asked: how did he get in again? To this I can only say: "Go ask your colleagues in Austria how David Irving got in this time." Banned in South Africa Besides Germany and Austria, officially I am not permitted to get into Italy or South Africa. Last January and February, I spoke for two months in South Africa, this time visiting 15 towns and cities. Two weeks after I returned to England, a letter arrived from the South African government in Pretoria. It told me: "Mr. Irving, as an Englishman you normally do not require a visa to enter South African territories. For you we are going to make an exception." I reported this ban to the South African newspapers, which discovered in a matter of days that this unique embargo was being placed on me by the South African Jewish organizations. This was followed by an outcry by other South Africans who wanted to hear me on radio and television, and in person. It was another encroachment on freedom of speech. Of course, I am able to come and speak here in the United States because you have something very important, your First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech. It is very unlikely, I think, that the United States government would actually stoop to trying to prevent me from coming here to speak. It would be a very, very serious day indeed if that should happen. In Canada, I have a big speaking tour lined up that is due to start on October the 26th. Yesterday, here in this very hotel [in Irvine, California], I was handed an express letter from the Canadian government informing me that I would not be allowed to enter Canada. Once again, pressure has been exerted by these international groups to keep me from speaking. In this case it was the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, but the reason given me was this: "Mr. Irving, under the immigration act, a person is not permitted to enter if he has committed a criminal offense in another country, or if he is likely to commit a criminal offense in Canada. We may consider you likely to commit a criminal offense." After receiving this, I straight away instructed my attorney in Canada to point out that I’ve been to Canada some 30 times since 1965, and not once have I committed a criminal offense. So, PRIMA FACIE, I am unlikely to commit a criminal offense on the 31st occasion. [On October 26, Irving legally entered Canada. He was illegally arrested--after lecturing on freedom of speech--at Victoria, B.C., and deported on November 13 after a three week court battle. He is appealing.] Detention in Rome In June of this year, I went to Italy. I arrived in Rome, after a stop in Munich, from Moscow, where I had been working for two weeks in the former Soviet government’s secret state archives. As I got off the plane in Rome, six Carabinieri police cars were waiting for me at the airfield, and as I got into the airport bus, the police stormed the bus, rifles drawn, and called out my name, "Mr. Irving." Ladies and gentlemen, now that’s EMBARRASSING! Under the circumstances, I tried to make it look as if this was my VIP escort! They held me there in the police station at Rome’s airport for four hours until the plane turned round and flew back to Munich. And half way through, they let in the Italian student who had arrived to meet me there. (I had been invited by a university professor.) During the police interrogation, I "hadn’t understood" a word of Italian, and I made them speak English to me. But when the students came in, I spoke with them in Italian, explaining how sorry I was. Seeing this, the police colonel became very indignant and said: "SILENZIO, Don’t Speak." So I said, "Where does it say that I can’t speak?" He repeated: "Silenzio, Don’t-a speaka." And I repeated: "Excuse me, but nowhere do I see a sign that says Silenzio." At that, he seized a thick felt-tip pen, and in a blind, Italian temper he went to the magnificently painted wall inside this beautiful, brand new police station, saying "You can’t-a see-a? Here!," and wrote the letters S I L E N Z I O on the wall, and then shouted: "SILENZIO!" Last October [1991], I spoke in Argentina. On the morning of the first day, I took part in a two-hour television program. (I also speak Spanish.) I was on with a man named Maurizio Maro, but whose real name turned out to be Goldfarb. If only they had told me beforehand! But too late. Goldfarb asked me questions like: "But Adolf Hitler, he was crazy wasn’t he?" And I said: "No, he wasn’t." "But of course he was crazy," he retorted. I responded by saying: There’s no evidence for that at all. The evidence is that we–the British and Americans–captured seven of Hitler’s doctors. We interrogated all seven of them on that specific point: Hitler’s own physicians were asked if they considered him clinically sane or out of his mind. All of them came to the conclusion that, even until the very last moments of his life, he was totally sane. And not only that, I have personally found Hitler’s medical diaries–the diaries kept by his doctor, Theodor Morrell, which I found in the archives in Washington, DC. After transcribing them, I published them. These diaries also confirm, without a doubt at all, that Hitler was perfectly sane and physically normal. Now considerably agitated, Goldfarb responded: "But the man must be totally crazy because he killed forty million human beings." The first time he threw out this figure, I let it pass, but the second time round, I stopped him, saying: "Forty million? Excuse me, where does THIS figure come from then?" Goldfarb then said: "A person who kills even one man is a criminal." In this case, then, I said, President Bush is a major criminal because of the damage he did in the Gulf War this very February. At this point, the interview was dramatically cut short. And the very next day, all the other interviews that had been lined up by my publisher in Argentina were cancelled. Newspaper and television interviews, and a Belgrano University appearance–all were cancelled. It was an object lesson on the influence that certain people have. The day after that (October 18, 1991), a major daily newspaper, _La Nacion_, published a communique issued by Argentina’s Jewish governing agency, with a headline calling me an "International Agitator." Well, I’m sorry that the Jews get so easily agitated. But it’s not my fault. My job is to go there and lecture on the historical truth as I see it. The Right to be Wrong I admit that we may be wrong. Each of us in this room may be wrong on this or that matter. But I demand the Right to be Wrong! That is the essence of freedom of speech in any country. No one is going to define for us what the received version of history is or should be. But that is what they are trying to do now in Germany, and all around the world. Every other aspect of world history is open to debate and dispute– except one. Anyone who challenges this one aspect of history is automatically, IPSO FACTO, described as an anti-Semite. Jewish leaders are now saying that anyone who questions any aspect of the Holocaust is an anti-Semite. Of course, that’s not true. We are just lovers of the truth, and … read more »
Response:
Question:
| | Sign the Workplace Fairness Act to ban permanent | replacement of striking workers and preserve the | collective bargaining process. Bill Clinton is | committed to the rights of working men and women to | organize and bargain collectively, and supports the | repeal of Section 14b of the Taft-Hartley Act to | create a level playing field between labor and | management. | I am quite ignorant about this subject so could someone please explain the line of reasoning that lead to the above. I don’t understand why an employer should not be legaly allowed to replace a striking worker. Rob Sperry -/- -/-
Response:
In your posting on alt.politics.elections (and many other groups), you write: – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - "Bill Clinton is committed to the rights of working men and women to organize and bargain collectively, and supports the repeal of Section 14b of the Taft-Hartley Act to create a level playing field between labor and management. – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - I’m awfully surprised to hear this, seeing as how his platform doesn’t include it and the proposal by the Brown representatives on the DNC Platform committee to add a plank calling for the repeal of 14(b) was soundly voted down (all Clinton reps voting nay). I’ve heard Lane Kirkland speak on the matter, and I’ve heard several of Kirkland’s lackeys speak on the matter. They all rave about Clinton. Some of them even raved against Brown. What I’m not sure of is how these people can be in favor of a guy who supports GATT, NAFTA, and whose platform committee voted down planks that would have called for an increase in the minimum wage and the repeal of 14(b). Just thought you should know some of the facts… =Mark
Response:
– - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - "Bill Clinton is committed to the rights of working men and women to organize and bargain collectively, and supports the repeal of Section 14b of the Taft-Hartley Act to create a level playing field between labor and management. – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - CLINTON/GORE ON LABOR
[... much deleted ...] …. Bill Clinton is committed to the rights of working men and women to organize and bargain collectively, and supports the repeal of Section 14b of the Taft-Hartley Act to create a level playing field between labor and management.
Amazing. Its the 1950’s all over again. I can remember when the repeal of 14b was a *major* part of every Democratic platform, with prominent mention from the podium during every convention. It has been a long time since that issue has been mentioned nationally, and this is the first mention of I have heard of it in the campaign. Good thing, too, since it would hurt the campaign badly in the South. In Florida, for example, right-to-work is part of the state constitution, not just a law. A Federal Law in conflict with a State Constitution would raise all kinds of interesting issues for the Supreme Court. I also assume that Arkansas is a right-to-work state. This is just asking for trouble — I can see the Republicans running ads with concerned Arkansas citizens objecting ….. — J. A. Carr | "The New Frontier of which I Florida State University B-186 | – it is a set of challenges." Supercomputer Computations Research Institute | John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
Response:
* Sign into law the Family and Medical Leave Act, which George Bush vetoed in 1990, to allow workers to take a leave of absence from work when a child is born or when a family member is ill. - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – "Bill Clinton is committed to the rights of working men and women to organize and bargain collectively, and supports the repeal of Section 14b of the Taft-Hartley Act to create a level playing field between labor and management. - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – * Stop giving tax breaks to American companies that shut down their plants here and ship American jobs overseas. - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – [Via misc.activism.progressive from LabotNet's labor.newsline] - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – Topic 265 Clinton/Gore on Labor mstein Labor News & Notes 5:29 pm Aug 27, 1992 - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – SEND COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS INFORMATION TO THE (This information is posted for public education/information purposes. It does not necessarily represent the views of The College.) CLINTON/GORE ON LABOR If America is to regain its competitiveness, we must revitalize the American workplace to increase productivity and expand opportunity. A Clinton/Gore Administration will not accept four more years in which Americans work harder for less money and pay more for health care, housing and education. Using the power of the White House, Bill Clinton and Al Gore will improve education and job training, provide affordable and accessible health care for all Americans, increase worker safety, open foreign markets and create an environment in which workers at the front lines make decisions instead of simply following orders. Bill Clinton and Al Gore have received the endorsement of the national AFL-CIO and many other unions for their detailed proposals and impressive records on standing up for Americas workers. Sign the Workplace Fairness Act to ban permanent replacement of striking workers and preserve the collective bargaining process. Bill Clinton is committed to the rights of working men and women to organize and bargain collectively, and supports the repeal of Section 14b of the Taft-Hartley Act to create a level playing field between labor and management. * Guarantee every American affordable, quality health care: control costs, improve quality, and expand preventive and long-term care by taking on the medical insurance industry and the drug companies. * Help workers gain more power in their companies day-to-day operations, the organization of their work places, and the type of compensation they receive. * Improve the quality and efficiency of government by working closely with public employee unions and organizations like the State Local Government Labor Management Committee to advance a positive understanding of the role of government. * Increase the minimum wage to keep pace with inflation and enforce the prevailing wage protections provided by the Davis Bacon Act. * Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to guarantee a working wage so that no American who works full-time is forced to live in poverty. * Eliminate tax deductions for excessive executive pay. * Stop giving tax breaks to American companies that shut down their plants here and ship American jobs overseas. * Sign into law the Family and Medical Leave Act, which George Bush vetoed in 1990, to allow workers to take a leave of absence from work when a child is born or when a family member is ill. * Provide lifetime training by requiring every employer to spend 1.5 percent of payroll for continuing education and training for all workers, not just executives — or pay the equivalent into a National Training Fund. * Train non collegebound youth for high-wage, high quality jobs through a National Apprenticeship program that will pool the expertise of schools, local businesses and unions. * Make adult literacy programs available by supporting clear and comprehensive state plans to teach everyone with a job to read and give every worker the chance to earn a General Equivalency Diploma. * Support a Chemical Right-to-Know law to inform and protect workers and vigorously enforce worker safety regulations already on the books. Fully enforce Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidelines. * Create hundreds of thousands of American jobs by opening up foreign markets and insisting that our trading partners tear down their trade barriers. * Extend unemployment benefits to jobless workers in the event of a recession. The Record * Governor Clinton led Arkansas in creating manufacturing jobs at ten times the national rate. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Arkansas ranked second in the nation in job creation for the year ended May 1992. * Fought for high-quality, high-wage jobs. Arkansas ranked 6th in the nation in per capita income growth from 1990-1991. * Instituted state-provided workplace safety training that resulted in significant reductions in worker accident rates. * Supported several state minimum wage increases and changed the Arkansas minimum wage law to cover more workers. * Reduced overtime eligibility thresholds from 44 hours per week to 40. * Funded Arkansas Workplace Literacy programs and basic skills classes. * Signed into law a bill that mandated labor qualifications for the Director of the Arkansas Department of Labor. * Was the first Arkansas governor to recognize AFSCME as a bargaining unit at the Department of Labor. * Received the endorsement of the Arkansas AFL-CIO in every gubernatorial campaign he entered. * Senator Gore voted for the Workplace Fairness Act to ban permanent replacement of striking workers and preserve the collective bargaining process. * Voted for unemployment compensation to provide an additional 13 weeks of extended benefits to unemployed workers in all states. * Cosponsored the Family and Medical Leave Act. * Opposed Davis-Bacon amendments to create a sub-class of laborers working at lower wages. * Opposed campaign finance amendments requiring unions to report in burdensome detail all direct or indirect expenditures related to candidates for office or political causes.
Response:
Next page