San Francisco's homeless dying at record rate
internat...@total.net
of the Fourth International (ICFI): http://www.wsws.org
San Francisco's homeless dying at record rate
By Jerry White
19 December 1998
A record-high 157 homeless people died in San Francisco over
the last 12 months according to a report released by city
authorities December 15. The annual Homeless Death Review
showed a sharp increase in such deaths since 1997 when 104
homeless people were reported dead, and just above the 154
dead counted in 1996.
The average age of the deceased was 42 years old. According
to officials, drug overdoses accounted for 62 deaths, seven were
suicides and four of the homeless died of severe infections. One
hundred thirty-four of the homeless dead were male, twenty-two
female. One was listed as transgender.
The report, which is compiled from medical examiner records, is
merely a body count and does not hint at the causes for the rise in
deaths. Others, including homeless advocates, cited as possible
causes the cut-off of welfare benefits, endless rain attributed to El
Nino weather patterns, a crackdown on the homeless by Mayor
Willie Brown and a shortage of single hotel rooms for the poor.
There are an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 homeless people in the
city. Every night homeless shelters are filled to capacity and
hundreds of people sleep in parks and in the doorways of
businesses. There are only 1,400 shelter beds available through
the city or charities and authorities plan to add another 300 by the
beginning of December. Among the homeless there are an
estimated 500 "car dwellers," people who live in abandoned
cars, buses and trucks parked on the city's streets.
Last year, a few days after the San Francisco Chronicle
published an October 31 editorial urging Mayor Willie Brown "to
halt the invasion and occupation of Golden Gate Park by junkies,
drunks, hostile bums and petty criminals," the Democratic mayor
banned sleeping overnight in the park and deployed scores of
police to expel the homeless. Brown established a hotline for
residents and neighbors to complain about the homeless, and
hinted that he would carry out helicopter searches to root out
homeless camps, if the problem persisted.
In an effort to appear humanitarian Brown announced that he was
considering building a campground for the "vehicularly housed" in
a port area south of the downtown financial district. The mayor's
coordinator for the homeless, Terrence Hill, boasted that the city
was the first in the nation to even think of legitimizing living in
cars.
Two-thirds of the homeless dead were found in Tenderloin, Inner
Mission and South of Market, which are among the poorest parts
of the city. Randy Shaw, director of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic,
said the rising economic inequality in the Bay Area had
contributed to increased housing shortages.
"There has never been a scarcer supply of rooms in the history of
San Francisco," said Shaw, whose nonprofit group operates
programs to house the homeless. "We used to have over 1,200
units of single hotel rooms available for general assistance. Now
it's gone below 800. I have people willing to spend 80 percent of
their general assistance income on housing," he said. "That's
$310, leaving only $45 for food, and I can't get them a room."
The 1997 Homeless Death Review detailed the sad fate of those
ignored or turned into pariahs by official society. "Joe's skeletal
remains were found by gardeners at Golden Gate Park inside a
sleeping bag that was inside a pup tent," is one example cited in
the report. "Joe was 42 years old when he died."
Another victim highlighted in the report was "Sally," 27, who was
discharged from San Francisco General Hospital to a
single-room occupancy hotel. "She was found dead in the
breezeway, where she collapsed on her way to the hall
bathroom."
The city has assigned three healthcare workers to prevent
homeless deaths.
Readers: The WSWS invites your comments. Please send e-mail to :
edi...@wsws.org
internat...@total.net
BMH
<internat...@total.net> wrote in message
news:367B50BE...@total.net...
>Taken from the World Socialist Web Site of the International Committee
>of the Fourth International (ICFI): http://www.wsws.org
>
>San Francisco's homeless dying at record rate
>
>By Jerry White
>19 December 1998
>
>A record-high 157 homeless people died in San Francisco over
>the last 12 months according to a report released by city
>authorities December 15. The annual Homeless Death Review
>showed a sharp increase in such deaths since 1997 when 104
>homeless people were reported dead, and just above the 154
>dead counted in 1996.
>
>The average age of the deceased was 42 years old. According
>to officials, drug overdoses accounted for 62 deaths, seven were
>suicides and four of the homeless died of severe infections. One
>hundred thirty-four of the homeless dead were male, twenty-two
>female. One was listed as transgender.
Yeah, so?
Are we supposed to care about this, or something?
--
******************************************************
See "Why Los Angeles & California SUCK!!!"
http://www.qnet.com/~bmh
******************************************************
From the desktop of:
B. Herder
"Computer God to the Stars"
"Builder of Fine Furniture"
Henrietta K. Thomas
wrote:
>
>
><internat...@total.net> wrote in message
>news:367B50BE...@total.net...
>>Taken from the World Socialist Web Site of the International Committee
>>of the Fourth International (ICFI): http://www.wsws.org
>>
>>San Francisco's homeless dying at record rate
>>
>>By Jerry White
>>19 December 1998
>>
>>A record-high 157 homeless people died in San Francisco over
>>the last 12 months according to a report released by city
>>authorities December 15. The annual Homeless Death Review
>>showed a sharp increase in such deaths since 1997 when 104
>>homeless people were reported dead, and just above the 154
>>dead counted in 1996.
>>
>>The average age of the deceased was 42 years old. According
>>to officials, drug overdoses accounted for 62 deaths, seven were
>>suicides and four of the homeless died of severe infections. One
>>hundred thirty-four of the homeless dead were male, twenty-two
>>female. One was listed as transgender.
>
>Yeah, so?
>Are we supposed to care about this, or something?
Yes, and there will soon be a newsgroup called us.issues where
social problems like this can be discussed rather than in us.politics.
[soc.culture.usa removed from followups to comply with the us.*
hierarchy 5-group crosspost rule]
Henrietta K. Thomas
us.* hierarchy coordinator
usa...@wwa.com
---
Support the new, improved us.* hierarchy! Ask your news admin
to get the list of active groups from usa...@wwa.com.
Wayne
There are a lot of people who don't seem to consider exactly why many
become homeless in the first place.
They might be a bit more responsive towards the homeless if it was
themselves or a close relative that became homeless...
And the problem won't just go away by ignoring it.
Have a heart people...
> [soc.culture.usa removed from followups to comply with the us.*
> hierarchy 5-group crosspost rule]
>
> Henrietta K. Thomas
> us.* hierarchy coordinator
> usa...@wwa.com
> ---
> Support the new, improved us.* hierarchy! Ask your news admin
> to get the list of active groups from usa...@wwa.com.
--
Wayne AKA Blackie!
http://members.spree.com/blackie/calif.htm
REALITY
>
> <internat...@total.net> wrote in message
> news:367B50BE...@total.net...
> >Taken from the World Socialist Web Site of the International Committee
> >of the Fourth International (ICFI): http://www.wsws.org
> >
> >San Francisco's homeless dying at record rate
> >
> >By Jerry White
> >19 December 1998
> >
> >A record-high 157 homeless people died in San Francisco over
> >the last 12 months according to a report released by city
> >authorities December 15. The annual Homeless Death Review
> >showed a sharp increase in such deaths since 1997 when 104
> >homeless people were reported dead, and just above the 154
> >dead counted in 1996.
> >
> >The average age of the deceased was 42 years old. According
> >to officials, drug overdoses accounted for 62 deaths, seven were
> >suicides and four of the homeless died of severe infections. One
> >hundred thirty-four of the homeless dead were male, twenty-two
> >female. One was listed as transgender.
>
> Yeah, so?
> Are we supposed to care about this, or something?
>
I personally have lost most of my compassion for persons coming up to me
and asking for "bus fare back home" but I have never wished ill-will for
those individuals that are on the street (whether they are "homeless" or
"bums/hobos").
I'm presuming you have an extremely good safety-net as I can only
imagine you'd be bashing your head against a very hard object if you
were EVER to find yourself in a suddenly "homeless" situation.
For all of the tiring of the street people that we run into, "hating"
them does none of us any good.....
Michael Ejercito
> Taken from the World Socialist Web Site of the International Committee
> of the Fourth International (ICFI): http://www.wsws.org
World Socialist Web site? Is there any other source to back up their
claims?
Michael
CSU College Republicans
Stan Rothwell
seriously when he told them all to "turn on and drop out" in 1967. Sort
of hard to keep a job when your brain is fried, huh?
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
> There are a lot of people who don't seem to consider exactly why many
> become homeless in the first place.
Would perhaps one reason be the permissive acceptance of hard drug use (especially
halucinogenics) amongst the demographic group that comprises most hard-core homeless
(40-50 year old males who came to adolescence during the late 60's and early
70's)???
An interesting question that the aging ex-hippie liberals (who jump through hoops to
try to rationalize their OWN behavior during this time frame) refuse to address...
Stan Rothwell
Wayne
Stan Rothwell wrote:
>
> Wayne wrote:
>
> > There are a lot of people who don't seem to consider exactly why many
> > become homeless in the first place.
>
> Would perhaps one reason be the permissive acceptance of hard drug use (especially
> halucinogenics) amongst the demographic group that comprises most hard-core homeless
> (40-50 year old males who came to adolescence during the late 60's and early
> 70's)???
>
While this is true for some of them, it is not true for all of them.
I differentiate between those who are/were drug users and/or
alcoholics, and those who merely were unable to maintain steady enough
employment.
There were times in the 50's and 60's where I might have become
homeless if I had not had relatives who helped me with a place to stay
for a bit, or if I had needed to come up with two months rent to get an
apartment at the time.
It's not always easy...
> An interesting question that the aging ex-hippie liberals (who jump through hoops to
> try to rationalize their OWN behavior during this time frame) refuse to address...
>
> Stan Rothwell
No hoops here, and I've been around.
Wayne
Did you ever stop to think about many who can only find a temporary
job, which in turn means it's difficult, if not impossible to rent an
apartment.
You are only looking at it from one viewpoint.
I look at all the viewpoints I can.
Be not too hasty in your judgment, lest ye shall be hastily judged
thyself...
pokie
Stan Rothwell <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Wayne wrote:
>
> > There are a lot of people who don't seem to consider exactly why many
> > become homeless in the first place.
>
> Would perhaps one reason be the permissive acceptance of hard drug use
> (especially halucinogenics) amongst the demographic group that comprises most
> hard-core homeless (40-50 year old males who came to adolescence during the
> late 60's and early 70's)???
Then too, there's the fact that about 30% of all homeless men (at least here
in San Diego) are Vietnam veterans...I don't know if you have any family
members who served in Vietnam, Stan, but I do, and I remember very well what
it was like for my brother when he came back. He could have easily ended up
on the streets.
Pokie
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
mac
Wayne wrote:
> Stan Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > Too bad all those hippies from the "Summer Of Love" took Dr. Leary
> > seriously when he told them all to "turn on and drop out" in 1967. Sort
> > of hard to keep a job when your brain is fried, huh?
> >
> > Stan Rothwell
>
> Did you ever stop to think about many who can only find a temporary
> job, which in turn means it's difficult, if not impossible to rent an
> apartment.
> You are only looking at it from one viewpoint.
> I look at all the viewpoints I can.
> Be not too hasty in your judgment, lest ye shall be hastily judged
> thyself...
Did you ever dtop to think that these people should have developed several job
skills thus making themselves more marketable. Homeless people are homless by
choice in most cases. If you doubt that, just give them five bucks and see
what they do with it. Chances are they won't buy food with it.
Merlin Dorfman
: Too bad all those hippies from the "Summer Of Love" took Dr. Leary
: seriously when he told them all to "turn on and drop out" in 1967. Sort
: of hard to keep a job when your brain is fried, huh?
Every now and then, when I've listened to conservative arguments
for long enough, I begin to believe them when they say that liberal
policies really don't help anybody but bureaucrats, that people are
really better off if they don't have government support, etc.--in
other words, if you care about people and their success in this
world, conservative policies are superior. But then I see something
like the above and the truth hits: conservatives by and large believe
that if you are not "successful" on their terms, it is your own fault,
and they don't care at all!
W.N.(Bill) McCaw
Right on!
To all you doubters, grab a copy of the January Harpers and read the
folio article by Barbara Ehrenreich called "Nickel-and-Dimed". It will
give you a portrait of what it is like to try to live on the minimum
wage.
--
Cheers! W.N.(Bill) McCaw
"When is doubt, Act like a pro!!"
W.N.(Bill) McCaw
>
> Wayne wrote:
>
> > There are a lot of people who don't seem to consider exactly why many
> > become homeless in the first place.
>
> Would perhaps one reason be the permissive acceptance of hard drug use (especially
> halucinogenics) amongst the demographic group that comprises most hard-core homeless
> (40-50 year old males who came to adolescence during the late 60's and early
> 70's)???
>
> try to rationalize their OWN behavior during this time frame) refuse to address...
>
> Stan Rothwell
The 1997 report of the Coalition on Helplessness states that about 20%
of the homeless are employed. They just cannot make enough on minimum
wages to keep an apartment. A lot of women live with abusive men
friends just to keep a roof over their heads.
It is so easy to look down on those less fortunate than our situation,
and not realize that the society which has benefits us puts so many in
peril because we do not have a generous enough minimum wage. Did you
know that food serverice employers only have to pay their servers $2.38
per hour because tips are expected to raise that above the minimum?
They are supposed to make up any differences, but they can always fire
them if they complain.
Hard times are not always because of "fried brains".
Joseph Canale
> Stan Rothwell (roth...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : Too bad all those hippies from the "Summer Of Love" took Dr. Leary
> : seriously when he told them all to "turn on and drop out" in 1967. Sort
> : of hard to keep a job when your brain is fried, huh?
>
> Every now and then, when I've listened to conservative arguments
> for long enough, I begin to believe them when they say that liberal
> policies really don't help anybody but bureaucrats, that people are
> really better off if they don't have government support, etc.--in
> other words, if you care about people and their success in this
> world, conservative policies are superior. But then I see something
> like the above and the truth hits: conservatives by and large believe
> that if you are not "successful" on their terms, it is your own fault,
> and they don't care at all!
And that's actually one of his more tepid responses. You should see the
unmitigated hatred that comes flying off those fingers when he really gets
worked up.
Joe
Chris Chandler
Stan Rothwell wrote in message
<367EF182...@ix.netcom.com>...
>Wayne wrote:
>
>> There are a lot of people who don't seem to consider
exactly why many
>> become homeless in the first place.
>
>Would perhaps one reason be the permissive acceptance of
hard drug use (especially
>halucinogenics) amongst the demographic group that
comprises most hard-core homeless
>(40-50 year old males who came to adolescence during the
late 60's and early
>70's)???
>
>An interesting question that the aging ex-hippie liberals
(who jump through hoops to
>try to rationalize their OWN behavior during this time
frame) refuse to address...
Well lucky for all of us Generation X'ers you aging squares
and other right wing maniacs seem perfectly willing to bring
these issues to light! Your emphasis on the hallucinogen's,
clearly not a homeless drug of choice, gives you away.
But a serious question, what comes first? The drug and
alcohol abuse or the homelessness?
More complicated question than someone like you would
probably care to address. Since you're so busy complaining
about other people's rationalizations.
Chris Chandler
Stan Rothwell wrote in message
>Too bad all those hippies from the "Summer Of Love" took
Dr. Leary
>seriously when he told them all to "turn on and drop out"
in 1967. Sort
>of hard to keep a job when your brain is fried, huh?
>
Uh I dunno, seems like you are doing an ok job of it.
hc23hc
> : seriously when he told them all to "turn on and drop out" in 1967. Sort
> : of hard to keep a job when your brain is fried, huh?
>
> for long enough, I begin to believe them when they say that liberal
> policies really don't help anybody but bureaucrats, that people are
> really better off if they don't have government support, etc.--in
> other words, if you care about people and their success in this
> world, conservative policies are superior. But then I see something
> like the above and the truth hits: conservatives by and large believe
> that if you are not "successful" on their terms, it is your own fault,
> and they don't care at all!
The breed of mental underclass (mis)led by Stan and Jafo (assuming they're
actually two different people) is not "conservative". They conserve nothing,
least of all the meaning of the word.
According to Jafwell, it's the poor's fault that they're poor, it's the
Democrats fault that most politicians mudwrestle nude with the truth, it's the
Mexicans fault that they're Mexicans, it's your fault if you disagree with
them, b u t it's neither Stan's nor Jafo's fault that they are horrible,
nasty little posers with more strutting attitude than education.
It is a cruel hallucination to attribute San Francisco's homeless problem
in any large part to after-effects from the late Sixties' streetscene. It
is a gratuitous, below-the-belt assault on people with the least means to
fight back against adverse circumstances. It's tasteless, but oh so very
Rothwellian.
There are many army veterans among the homeless, many Native Americans,
many working people with children edged out of a home by troubles they could
not handle alone, many very sick people who should be in proper medical care,
many people suffering and dying for nothing except the McMorally insurmountable
principle at stake in not giving a damn what happens to the rest of the world.
Yes, it gets tiresome to be hustled for change by panhandlers. But who says
the only option is to ignore them, have them taken away and locked up and to
blame their situation on entirely spurious factors, as Rothwell does? What is
the benefit from belittling the homeless this way?
That's not conservative, it's cynical and smug.
The numbing effect of trickle-down theories espoused by the Jafwells is
but a hop and a skip away from : "People dying in San Francisco? - Please
stop crossposting this to alt.whogivesaRatsbuttocks, okay?"
Wondering what to get Stan for Christmas? How about a Taste of Skid Row?
He's really asking for it.
Phil Ronzone
>Well lucky for all of us Generation X'ers you aging squares
>and other right wing maniacs seem perfectly willing to bring
>these issues to light! Your emphasis on the hallucinogen's,
>clearly not a homeless drug of choice, gives you away.
>
>But a serious question, what comes first? The drug and
>alcohol abuse or the homelessness?
>
>More complicated question than someone like you would
>probably care to address. Since you're so busy complaining
>about other people's rationalizations.
Snicker. Which came first? Well, the ur-GenXers of course. Once
you have laziness, irresponsibility and the-world-owes-me-a-living
crap de facto accepted as "morality" ....
--
"You capitalist bastard! You killed socialism!"
These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Chris Chandler
Phil Ronzone wrote in message ...
>In article <75oqh2$30q$1...@carroll.library.ucla.edu> "Chris
Chandler" <cchan...@SPAMucla.edu> writes:
> >Well lucky for all of us Generation X'ers you aging
squares
> >and other right wing maniacs seem perfectly willing to
bring
> >these issues to light! Your emphasis on the
hallucinogen's,
> >clearly not a homeless drug of choice, gives you away.
> >
> >But a serious question, what comes first? The drug and
> >alcohol abuse or the homelessness?
> >
> >More complicated question than someone like you would
> >probably care to address. Since you're so busy
complaining
> >about other people's rationalizations.
>
>
>Snicker. Which came first? Well, the ur-GenXers of course.
Once
>you have laziness, irresponsibility and
the-world-owes-me-a-living
>crap de facto accepted as "morality" ....
Thanks for bearing out my suspicion that you were incapable
of addressing a complicated question.
Karen McFarlin
<roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Too bad all those hippies from the "Summer Of Love" took Dr. Leary
> seriously when he told them all to "turn on and drop out" in 1967. Sort
> of hard to keep a job when your brain is fried, huh?
>
> Stan Rothwell
Most of thew homeless are not ex-hippies from the "summer of love!" Most
of them are alcaholics, runaway kids, and the mentally retarded dumped on
the streets during the Reagan administration. A few of them are the
economic losers of rape and pillage daze of Reaganomics.
Most of the ex-hippies I know became self-employed entrepreneurs and
opened small businesses and are now quite prosperous. Ask the owner of
your local "health food" store what they were doing during the 60's. (I
was in the Army.)
Rob McFarlin
Stan Rothwell
> Stan Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > Wayne wrote:
> >
> > > There are a lot of people who don't seem to consider exactly why many
> > > become homeless in the first place.
> >
> > Would perhaps one reason be the permissive acceptance of hard drug use (especially
> > halucinogenics) amongst the demographic group that comprises most hard-core homeless
> > (40-50 year old males who came to adolescence during the late 60's and early
> > 70's)???
> >
> While this is true for some of them, it is not true for all of them.
> I differentiate between those who are/were drug users and/or
> alcoholics, and those who merely were unable to maintain steady enough
> employment.
Given the availability of servces such as soup kitchens and shelters (and the notorious
unwillingness of many of these hard-core transient types to live under any type of system
that requires any obligation or responsibility on their part), I have trouble believing
that any significant number of these individuals are in that situation merely because they
cannot maintain regular employment due to reasons other than mental illness or substance
abuse...
> There were times in the 50's and 60's where I might have become
> homeless if I had not had relatives who helped me with a place to stay
> for a bit, or if I had needed to come up with two months rent to get an
> apartment at the time.
> It's not always easy...
Most of us have had a few rough spots in our lives, and I am no exception. I have lived
out of my car on more than one occasion in my life, with the last time being a 2-month
period while I was attending Cal Berkeley (I was paying my way through school and simply
had no money left). The problem here is that most of these individuals have made their
condition a permanent lifestyle due to their own actions and behavior, and their
unwillingness to accept any responsibility or take any initiative...
> > An interesting question that the aging ex-hippie liberals (who jump through hoops to
> > try to rationalize their OWN behavior during this time frame) refuse to address...
> >
> > Stan Rothwell
>
> No hoops here, and I've been around.
And so have I, and have seen the fallout from the permissive drug culture of a generation
ago...
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
> Stan Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > Wayne wrote:
> >
> > > There are a lot of people who don't seem to consider exactly why many
> > > become homeless in the first place.
> >
> > Would perhaps one reason be the permissive acceptance of hard drug use (especially
> > halucinogenics) amongst the demographic group that comprises most hard-core homeless
> > (40-50 year old males who came to adolescence during the late 60's and early
> > 70's)???
> >
> > An interesting question that the aging ex-hippie liberals (who jump through hoops to
> > try to rationalize their OWN behavior during this time frame) refuse to address...
> >
> > Stan Rothwell
>
> The 1997 report of the Coalition on Helplessness states that about 20%
> of the homeless are employed. They just cannot make enough on minimum
> wages to keep an apartment. A lot of women live with abusive men
> friends just to keep a roof over their heads.
Just out of curiosity, who funds the Coalition on Homelessness???
> It is so easy to look down on those less fortunate than our situation,
> and not realize that the society which has benefits us puts so many in
> peril because we do not have a generous enough minimum wage.
BULLSHIT!!!!
If you knew anything about minimum wage statistics, you would know that only a small
FRACTION of the population works at the minimum wage, and that most of these individuals
are NOT primary wage earners. In addition, most individuals earning minimum wage are new
to the job market, and rise out of that bracket within a few months if they have any
semblance of having acquired any form of job skills.
> Did you
> know that food serverice employers only have to pay their servers $2.38
> per hour because tips are expected to raise that above the minimum?
> They are supposed to make up any differences, but they can always fire
> them if they complain.
Food service employees typically start at $6.00/hour in Arizona... Having delivered
pizzas on the side during my college career, I know that the base pay is typically minimum
wage, but I typically made about $80/night in tips for a 6 hour shift, somewhat over the
minimum wage... :o)
If the pay sucks, then it's time to learn some new skills and find a new job (which I did
quite a while back)...
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
> Stan Rothwell wrote in message
> <367EF182...@ix.netcom.com>...
> >Wayne wrote:
> >
> >> There are a lot of people who don't seem to consider
> exactly why many
> >> become homeless in the first place.
> >
> >Would perhaps one reason be the permissive acceptance of
> hard drug use (especially
> >halucinogenics) amongst the demographic group that
> comprises most hard-core homeless
> >(40-50 year old males who came to adolescence during the
> late 60's and early
> >70's)???
> >
> >An interesting question that the aging ex-hippie liberals
> (who jump through hoops to
> >try to rationalize their OWN behavior during this time
> frame) refuse to address...
>
> Well lucky for all of us Generation X'ers you aging squares
> and other right wing maniacs seem perfectly willing to bring
> these issues to light! Your emphasis on the hallucinogen's,
> clearly not a homeless drug of choice, gives you away.
>
> But a serious question, what comes first? The drug and
> alcohol abuse or the homelessness?
Clearly the abuse... there's no question about it...
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
> Stan Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > Too bad all those hippies from the "Summer Of Love" took Dr. Leary
> > seriously when he told them all to "turn on and drop out" in 1967. Sort
> > of hard to keep a job when your brain is fried, huh?
> >
> > Stan Rothwell
>
> Did you ever stop to think about many who can only find a temporary
> job, which in turn means it's difficult, if not impossible to rent an
> apartment.
> You are only looking at it from one viewpoint.
> I look at all the viewpoints I can.
> Be not too hasty in your judgment, lest ye shall be hastily judged
> thyself...
I've held plenty of temp jobs, and lived in my car on more than one
occasion... yet I'm hardly living on the streets.
But then again, I always had determination and goals, and never DID accepts
the tenets of the irresponsible hippie-doper-liberal lifestyle...
Just calling it as I've seen (and lived) it... :O)
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
> Stan Rothwell (roth...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : Too bad all those hippies from the "Summer Of Love" took Dr. Leary
> : seriously when he told them all to "turn on and drop out" in 1967. Sort
> : of hard to keep a job when your brain is fried, huh?
>
> Every now and then, when I've listened to conservative arguments
> for long enough, I begin to believe them when they say that liberal
> policies really don't help anybody but bureaucrats, that people are
> really better off if they don't have government support, etc.--in
> other words, if you care about people and their success in this
> world, conservative policies are superior.
Well, Mr. Dorfman, I'm not about to categorically state that ALL conservative
policies are superior, but I WOULD think that the track record exhibited by
the hippie drug-culture adherents indicates that there is SOMETHING to be said
about personal responsibility... :O)
> But then I see something
> like the above and the truth hits: conservatives by and large believe
> that if you are not "successful" on their terms, it is your own fault,
> and they don't care at all!
Have a little trouble dealing with the truth, huh??? :O)
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
> Merlin Dorfman wrote:
> >
> > Stan Rothwell (roth...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> > : Too bad all those hippies from the "Summer Of Love" took Dr. Leary
> > : seriously when he told them all to "turn on and drop out" in 1967. Sort
> > : of hard to keep a job when your brain is fried, huh?
> >
> > Every now and then, when I've listened to conservative arguments
> > for long enough, I begin to believe them when they say that liberal
> > policies really don't help anybody but bureaucrats, that people are
> > really better off if they don't have government support, etc.--in
> > other words, if you care about people and their success in this
> > world, conservative policies are superior. But then I see something
> > like the above and the truth hits: conservatives by and large believe
> > that if you are not "successful" on their terms, it is your own fault,
> > and they don't care at all!
>
> Right on!
>
> To all you doubters, grab a copy of the January Harpers and read the
> folio article by Barbara Ehrenreich called "Nickel-and-Dimed". It will
> give you a portrait of what it is like to try to live on the minimum
> wage.
Funny, but I "lived" on minimum wage for exactly 3 months before getting a
raise.... I doubled that sum within 5 years, and doubled it again 5 years later,
then doubled THAT 3 years later... and it looks like I'll double THAT in only
another 2 years... I certainly don't think that most people who were making
minimum wage 2 years ago are still making it, much less those who worked 15
years ago...
Sorta presents a good argument for learning some job skills, huh??? :O)
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
Stan
Stan Rothwell
> The breed of mental underclass (mis)led by Stan and Jafo (assuming they're
> actually two different people) is not "conservative". They conserve nothing,
> least of all the meaning of the word.
In other works, since some of us are so unwilling to passively accept the media
tripe handed out by the liberals (especially since it runs counter to our own
personal experiences), and the same liberals are unable to substantiate their
positions, it becomes necessary to label us as "mental underclass" (although I have
always wondered what individuals like Willie and hc23hc do for a living, since
their appeal to emotional feel-good platitudes indicates that they don't rely
primarily on their analytical skills when conducting discourse).
> According to Jafwell, it's the poor's fault that they're poor, it's the
> Democrats fault that most politicians mudwrestle nude with the truth, it's
> theMexicans fault that they're Mexicans,
> it's your fault if you disagree with
> them, b u t it's neither Stan's nor Jafo's fault that they are horrible,
> nasty little posers with more strutting attitude than education.
Just for laughs, let's see what constitutes "education" on the part of
Willwork4food and hc23hc... ;O)
> It is a cruel hallucination to attribute San Francisco's homeless problem
> in any large part to after-effects from the late Sixties' streetscene.
Sorry, buddy, but I was living in Daly City during the Summer of Love, and got a
chance to see the antics of some of these individuals first-hand when I made trips
with my father into the City... I still recall the Jerry Rubin/ Abbie Hoffman
lookalike "heads" crawling all over our car, and saw the mental debris stumbling
down the street in the Fillmore and out by the Park. The only difference is that
the bums were much younger then (but not much cleaner)...
> It
> is a gratuitous, below-the-belt assault on people with the least means to
> fight back against adverse circumstances. It's tasteless, but oh so very
> Rothwellian.
Nah, it's a real assessment of the reason a lot of those individuals are on the
street. They fried their brains one way or another, and simply chose to live the
hippie lifestyle of irresponsibility to the Nth degree...
> There are many army veterans among the homeless,
Funny, but I know plenty of vets (including myself), and the VAST MAJORITY are
reasonably successful.If you are referring specifically to Vietnam (not "Vietnam
Era") veterans, I know more than a few, including a former college roommate
(ex-USMC) who is doing very well for himself working in the same industry as I am
(I'll hire him when my consulting business picks up enough to justify bringing on
another person). As far as the "combat stress" issue is involved, there are
legitimate isues there, but the thing that is conveniently overlooked is that there
was a fair amount of substance abuse amongst some military members in Southeast
Asia at the time (conveniently overlooked by some) that I submit had it's
contribution as well... There is still a substance abuse problem in the military,
although the crackdowns in the mid 80's curbed it somewhat (although not
completely). We even had people in my own squadron (I was a crewmember on C-141's
in the Air Force) busted for smuggling dope (of various flavors) on our aircraft.
This wasn't confined to Asia or Central America either. Purchasing hashish and
amphetamines in Amsterdam and selling it on military bases in Germany made the
black-market Marlboro and gas ration coupon trade pale by comparison.
So how many of these vets are truly suffering from "delayed stress syndrome" due to
combat experiences, and how many wound up employable because they were drug abusers
(or got kicked out of the military)?
> many Native Americans,
In SF? Gimme a break!!! Now if you are talking about our wonderful reservation
system that treats grown adults like children and keeps them dependent on
government checks and alcohol, you may have a case. Go out to the Phoenix area
sometime and drive on the Salt River or Gila indian reservations, and see how some
of these people choose to live.You will see brand new Dodge Ram and GMC trucks
parked in front of houses that looked like the boys from MCAS Yuma and Luke AFB
used them for target practice before heading over to Desert Storm... It's not a
lack of money that causes the problems there...
> many working people with children edged out of a home by troubles they could
> not handle alone,
I don't see a lot of homeless children out there, but I will concede there is a
problem here. What possesses people to have children they can not support???
> many very sick people who should be in proper medical care,
And a lot of them REFUSE to get it even when it's free.... BTW, ask yourself how
many mentally ill people were out there who SHOULD have remained in an institution,
but had some "patients advocate" fight in court for their discharge?And this
boo-hoo story that nonexistent "budget cuts" forced the mentally ill out into the
street is a bunch of crap...
> many people suffering and dying for nothing except the McMorally insurmountable
> principle at stake in not giving a damn what happens to the rest of the world.
Oh, boo hoo hoo... Ask yourself how many are out there because THEY don't care
what happens to themselves...
> Yes, it gets tiresome to be hustled for change by panhandlers. But who says
> the only option is to ignore them, have them taken away and locked up and to
> blame their situation on entirely spurious factors, as Rothwell does?
I didn't say that's the only option... the other one is for people to stop using
them as pawns to advance their own political agendas and help the help themselves.
I fully support VOLUNTARY efforts like those carried out Fr. Joe Carroll of the St.
Vincent de Paul Center in San Diego, who truly do it out of genuine concern, as
opposed to the slimy leftists who push sick policies that reward irresponsibility
and keep these people dependent on government handouts.
> What is
> the benefit from belittling the homeless this way?
The point is to illustrate that perhaps the typical tired excuses offered by the
touchie-feelie liberals are NOT accurate!!!
> The numbing effect of trickle-down theories espoused by the Jafwells is
> but a hop and a skip away from : "People dying in San Francisco? - Please
> stop crossposting this to alt.whogivesaRatsbuttocks, okay?"
> Wondering what to get Stan for Christmas? How about a Taste of Skid Row?
>
> He's really asking for it.
The thing that YOU don't understand is that some of us have enough talent, skills,
and work ethic not to be dependent on the charity of others. And we don't get off
on supporting misguided liberal social and economic policies that keep people
dependent and helpless so we can use them as pawns to berate the more productive
members of society.
BTW, I give food and clean clothes to the deserving poor (not the druggie bums you
parade around as mascots) all the time. I often get clothing as gifts that I have
no interest in wearing, so some of this stuff is brand new. I know where to find
the minority of homeless who actually WORK (as a former "street" photojournalist, I
know my way around most cities fairly well), and make up sets with complete changes
of clothes. I also include canned food and practical items (utensils, etc.) and
include these as well. Unlike the hypocritical liberals, however, I don't run
around and beat my chest about how morally superior I am because "I CARE". I do it
merely because I have a lot of material things I don't need or use, and I know
others may have a use for something , not because I seek approval from a bunch of
bleeding hearts...
So kindly fuck yourself, since you have not a clue about what you talk about... and
have a good day. :O)
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
> In article <367EEEFA...@ix.netcom.com>, Stan Rothwell
> <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Too bad all those hippies from the "Summer Of Love" took Dr. Leary
> > seriously when he told them all to "turn on and drop out" in 1967. Sort
> > of hard to keep a job when your brain is fried, huh?
> >
> > Stan Rothwell
>
> Most of thew homeless are not ex-hippies from the "summer of love!" Most
> of them are alcaholics, runaway kids, and the mentally retarded dumped on
> the streets during the Reagan administration.
Bullshit.. Most of them are males in the 40-50 age group I mentioned
previously...
> A few of them are the
> economic losers of rape and pillage daze of Reaganomics.
Ah yes, blame it on Ronald Reagan, and not the choices made by individuals..
But why not just get to the point and say that "a few of them are losers"???
> Most of the ex-hippies I know became self-employed entrepreneurs and
> opened small businesses and are now quite prosperous.
In other words, they had the sense to reject the tenets of the hippie
mindset...
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
> Stan Rothwell wrote in message
> <367EEEFA...@ix.netcom.com>...
> >Too bad all those hippies from the "Summer Of Love" took
> Dr. Leary
> >seriously when he told them all to "turn on and drop out"
> in 1967. Sort
> >of hard to keep a job when your brain is fried, huh?
> >
> >Stan Rothwell
>
> Uh I dunno, seems like you are doing an ok job of it.
And what do YOU do for a living (assuming you work)???
Stan Rothwell
hc23hc
>
> hc23hc wrote:
>
> > The breed of mental underclass (mis)led by Stan and Jafo (assuming they're
> > actually two different people) is not "conservative". They conserve nothing,
> > least of all the meaning of the word.
>
> In other works, since some of us are so unwilling to passively accept the media
> tripe handed out by the liberals (especially since it runs counter to our own
> personal experiences), and the same liberals are unable to substantiate their
> positions, it becomes necessary to label us as "mental underclass"
You earned the title "mental underclass", fair and square. Whereas, you have
no right to call yourself conservative, since you despise rules and conventions
that do not suit you. The media is neither owned nor operated by liberals at
this point in history, so get a new gag-writer for your gaggle. Earlier today,
you had the bright idea of calling me a socialist, now it's back to "liberal".
When will you stop vacillating and get a grip on your cantankerous habit of
theatrical vexation ?
It proves nothing, except that you need "liberals" more than the rest of
the world needs you, to function.
> (although I have
> always wondered what individuals like Willie and hc23hc do for a living, since
> their appeal to emotional feel-good platitudes indicates that they don't rely
> primarily on their analytical skills when conducting discourse).
Sho' nuff, boss. Who's the one tub-thumping for the "feels all right to me"
version of America's domestic economic war zone ? Hint: that would be you.
Recently, you seem to have coined every shopworn cliche in the book, by
way of Rothwellian discourse. I can't speak for Will, not having the degree
of intimacy with him that you share with Jafo, but I can confide in you that
I have never had to rely on welfare to get by, and probably never shall. I
work in the private sector and have no interest vested in the welfare system,
other than observing it having functioned better in the past than it does today.
Your own lamentable boasts about making 24 dollars an hour bounce off this reader
like the pathetic postures they actually are, and I spend a lot less time wondering
about the gaps in your cultural education than you do demonstrating them all by
yourself.
> > According to Jafwell, it's the poor's fault that they're poor, it's the
> > Democrats fault that most politicians mudwrestle nude with the truth, it's
> > theMexicans fault that they're Mexicans,
>
> > it's your fault if you disagree with
> > them, b u t it's neither Stan's nor Jafo's fault that they are horrible,
> > nasty little posers with more strutting attitude than education.
>
> Just for laughs, let's see what constitutes "education" on the part of
> Willwork4food and hc23hc... ;O)
>
> > It is a cruel hallucination to attribute San Francisco's homeless problem
> > in any large part to after-effects from the late Sixties' streetscene.
>
> Sorry, buddy, but I was living in Daly City during the Summer of Love, and got a
> chance to see the antics of some of these individuals first-hand when I made trips
> with my father into the City... I still recall the Jerry Rubin/ Abbie Hoffman
> lookalike "heads" crawling all over our car, and saw the mental debris stumbling
> down the street in the Fillmore and out by the Park. The only difference is that
> the bums were much younger then (but not much cleaner)...
>
> > It
> > is a gratuitous, below-the-belt assault on people with the least means to
> > fight back against adverse circumstances. It's tasteless, but oh so very
> > Rothwellian.
>
> Nah, it's a real assessment of the reason a lot of those individuals are on the
> street. They fried their brains one way or another, and simply chose to live the
> hippie lifestyle of irresponsibility to the Nth degree...
Might it be fair to say that you don't actually like Hippies ?
> > There are many army veterans among the homeless,
>
> Funny, but I know plenty of vets (including myself), and the VAST MAJORITY are
So, we both know plenty of veteran soldiers. Great.
> reasonably successful.If you are referring specifically to Vietnam (not "Vietnam
> Era") veterans, I know more than a few, including a former college roommate
> (ex-USMC) who is doing very well for himself working in the same industry as I am
> (I'll hire him when my consulting business picks up enough to justify bringing on
> another person).
Poor bastard, he must be doing really well for himself; and what a friend
he has in you, to speak of him so condescendingly. Really.
It is irrelevant that not all ex-Marines have gone to the dogs. What was
said, stands: there are a lot of ex-servicemen among the legions of homeless
in both Southern and Northern California. You apparently don't know any
of them, but that doesn't exactly make their problems go away. Maybe it's
slightly better for them not to have to know you, though. Especially at
this already cold time of year.
<<long-ish black market drug rant edited down to size>>
> So how many of these vets are truly suffering from "delayed stress syndrome" due to
> combat experiences, and how many wound up employable because they were drug abusers
> (or got kicked out of the military)?
You actually expect a rhetorical answer to that rhetorical question, don't you?
Well, I don't have one, Stan. If it's a statistical breakdown of the homeless
population you want, just say so and I'll try and have one ready for you.
Fact is, many of the people living on the streets - correction, many of the
*men* living on the streets - are former servicemen. Is it going to change your
estimation of them whether your wild guesswork as to the origin of their problems
is correct or, more probably, not ? Not the way you're going, Stan. You're a
fat lot of help.
By the way, guys a lot less snotty than you were friendly-fired or fragged
in Viet Nam - how did you say you made it home alive ?
> > many Native Americans,
>
> In SF? Gimme a break!!! Now if you are talking about our wonderful reservation
> system that treats grown adults like children and keeps them dependent on
> government checks and alcohol, you may have a case.
I have a case. Your objections are feeble and largely immaterial.
<<disparaging STANalysis of Indian reservation conditions deleted>>
> > many working people with children edged out of a home by troubles they could
> > not handle alone,
>
> I don't see a lot of homeless children out there, but I will concede there is a
> problem here. What possesses people to have children they can not support???
[Stylistic point of order here - you're starting to use those same old Jafo©
cadences again, "Stan"]
Surely, it's not about sex ... If it makes you any less confused, Stan, try
and picture people who already had children *before* they had to, or chose to,
take to the streets. That's the more likely scenario than the absurdity you're
trying to peddle here, a la homeless people head over heels in love just having
to have more children. They can't all be as sterile as you, no matter how
arduous it gets out there, though, so every once in a while, they actually do
reproduce. Imagine that.
If only they knew you'd rather see them die in labor than lift a finger
to help them, perhaps they'd refrain from heterosexual coition. Then they
would be just like you.
> > many very sick people who should be in proper medical care,
>
> And a lot of them REFUSE to get it even when it's free.... BTW, ask yourself how
> many mentally ill people were out there who SHOULD have remained in an institution,
> but had some "patients advocate" fight in court for their discharge?And this
> boo-hoo story that nonexistent "budget cuts" forced the mentally ill out into the
> street is a bunch of crap...
Thank you for mentioning it. I didn't. But now that it's germane to our
conversation, what *is* being done to manage health conditions for the needy?
And when did the health management system of the richest country on the planet
start degenerating into the inhuman bureaucratic hell-hole it became during
the Reagan years ? Excuse me: *Why* do you think that had to happen ?
While you ruminate on that, allow me to share with you that I have spent
quite a long time in/around the medical community, and that I know of many
detestible instances of patients' advocates screwing things up that were
already pretty much on the verge of Koyaanisqaatsi-like breakdown. But
that is no way liberates you from the decision to be part of the solution
if you don't actively enjoy being part of the problem. As your neighbors
almost used to say, back in your Daly City days. With Dad, Jerry & Abbie.
> > many people suffering and dying for nothing except the McMorally insurmountable
> > principle at stake in not giving a damn what happens to the rest of the world.
>
> Oh, boo hoo hoo... Ask yourself how many are out there because THEY don't care
> what happens to themselves...
Now that you've shed so much light on things, the answer to your last question
must be : "Why, almost all of them, Stan!" Nyet.
> > Yes, it gets tiresome to be hustled for change by panhandlers. But who says
> > the only option is to ignore them, have them taken away and locked up and to
> > blame their situation on entirely spurious factors, as Rothwell does?
>
> I didn't say that's the only option... the other one is for people to stop using
> them as pawns to advance their own political agendas and help the help themselves.
//
>
> > What is
> > the benefit from belittling the homeless this way?
>
> The point is to illustrate that perhaps the typical tired excuses offered by the
> touchie-feelie liberals are NOT accurate!!!
At last, Stan, you have found a use for homeless people, other than grinding
them up and using them as pet food. They make dandy ammunition in your campaign
to stamp out "liberalism". Wonderful. That's almost like giving them real jobs.
You're a great labor consultant and will soon be making 27 dollars an hour!
> > The numbing effect of trickle-down theories espoused by the Jafwells is
> > but a hop and a skip away from : "People dying in San Francisco? - Please
> > stop crossposting this to alt.whogivesaRatsbuttocks, okay?"
>
> > Wondering what to get Stan for Christmas? How about a Taste of Skid Row?
> >
> > He's really asking for it.
>
> The thing that YOU don't understand is that some of us have enough talent, skills,
> and work ethic not to be dependent on the charity of others. And we don't get off
You obviously don't get off, and you've diligently overlooked the obvious:
that, which is not understood here, is your utter smugness. What with all your
talent, skills and ethics practically brimming over, and all that ... how
about a class in character development ? Perhaps your HMO offers one on
weekends, when you're not so busy "consulting".
> on supporting misguided liberal social and economic policies that keep people
> dependent and helpless so we can use them as pawns to berate the more productive
> members of society.
>
> BTW, I give food and clean clothes to the deserving poor (not the druggie bums you
OK Stan. You have developed some kind of antenna that tunes in the deserving
and tunes out all the others. Your Nobel Prozac is in the mail. In case you
didn't get the point - I don't believe you. If you really did have such a
talent, you'd jot down the particulars and forward them to DSS ro DHW. They'd
be able to retire thousands of redundant workers and save ever so much money on
payroll as well as virtually eliminating all those millionaire welfare bums.
Then you could take care of them all with your little donations *and* then brag
about it to everyone here in alt.california (see below).
Voila. It's the Circle of Life !
<<Stan boastful fibs deleted>>
> Unlike the hypocritical liberals, however, I don't run
> around and beat my chest about how morally superior I am because "I CARE". I do it
> merely because I have a lot of material things I don't need or use, and I know
> others may have a use for something , not because I seek approval from a bunch of
> bleeding hearts...
>
> So kindly fuck yourself, since you have not a clue about what you talk about... and
> have a good day. :O)
That's sounding a lot more like you and Jafo impeaching the homeless, Stan.
Happy Ramadan, you immodest little twerp. If it makes you feel any better,
I really don't "CARE" too much, after all ... about you.
Jafo
Stan Rothwell wrote:
>hc23hc wrote:
>
>> The breed of mental underclass (mis)led by Stan and Jafo (assuming
>> they're actually two different people) is not "conservative". They
>> conserve nothing, least of all the meaning of the word.
I've lost count of the number of people that clueless souls like Slick
have claimed were merely alter-egos. There was Ben, and Tony, and now
Stan... LOL!
Sorry, Slick - I only post here as Jafo.
--
~ Jafo http://bounce.to/jafo
The Official Chop
Accept No Substitutes
** All Rights Reserved **
© 1998, by JafoNet, Ltd. ;^)
hc23hc
>
<<irrelevant diversion deleted>>
> I've lost count of the number of people that clueless souls like Slick
> have claimed were merely alter-egos. There was Ben, and Tony, and now
> Stan... LOL!
>
> Sorry, Slick - I only post here as Jafo.
>
> --
> ~ Jafo
In that case, you should be *really* sorry.
Actually, Stan the Spam Man reads just like you. The resemblance
between you two would be most remarkable, if you both weren't so
terribly dull.
Elric of Imrryr
says...
> Stan Rothwell (roth...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : Too bad all those hippies from the "Summer Of Love" took Dr. Leary
> : seriously when he told them all to "turn on and drop out" in 1967. Sort
> : of hard to keep a job when your brain is fried, huh?
>
> for long enough, I begin to believe them when they say that liberal
> policies really don't help anybody but bureaucrats, that people are
> really better off if they don't have government support, etc.--in
> other words, if you care about people and their success in this
> world, conservative policies are superior. But then I see something
> like the above and the truth hits: conservatives by and large believe
> that if you are not "successful" on their terms, it is your own fault,
> and they don't care at all!
>
Not to mention there the drop-outs where a very small fraction of
the population of the sixties. The left (far and radical) was for
the most part hostile to the leary type sex and drugs movement.
Drugs where counter revolutionatry. Liberals are as much fans of
hard work as conservatives because it ias thru work that taxes are
produced to create jobs for liberals. In fact most of the liberal
leaders who came out of the 60's and into politics are just an
authoritarian and anti-drug as their conversative foes.
Also LSD is no barrier to good job. Me and many of my peers have or
still use marijuana, LSD, etc. are work good productive jobs. I work
as a financial manager, I have other heads where are doctors,
geologists, columnists, translators, teachers, claims adjusters,
etc.
Recreational drugs are just part of my high standard of living. Many
conversativesa drink and smoke, so they are recreational drug users
also.
Merlin Dorfman
: Not to mention there the drop-outs where a very small fraction of
: the population of the sixties. The left (far and radical) was for
: the most part hostile to the leary type sex and drugs movement.
: Drugs where counter revolutionatry. Liberals are as much fans of
: hard work as conservatives because it ias thru work that taxes are
: produced to create jobs for liberals. In fact most of the liberal
: leaders who came out of the 60's and into politics are just an
: authoritarian and anti-drug as their conversative foes.
: Also LSD is no barrier to good job.
It does seem to interfere with spelling and grammar, however.
Merlin Dorfman
: > But then I see something
: > like the above and the truth hits: conservatives by and large believe
: > that if you are not "successful" on their terms, it is your own fault,
: > and they don't care at all!
: Have a little trouble dealing with the truth, huh??? :O)
At least Stan is honest about it and does not claim that he's
really only doing what's best for the people at the bottom of the
heap.
Chris Chandler
Stan Rothwell wrote in message
>Chris Chandler wrote:
>
>> But a serious question, what comes first? The drug and
>> alcohol abuse or the homelessness?
>
>Clearly the abuse... there's no question about it...
I accept your stating your opinion. But I do not find it
convincing.
I've worked at a couple of shelters (as a volunteer) here in
Los Angeles and I'd guess about one-half to two thirds of
the homeless clients I've encountered have a history of
alcohol and/or drug abuse, but many of them have said that
their problems with drugs (in particular) really only began
once they were on the street. Many of the clients have no
problem with drug/alcohol abuse, but have problems holding a
steady job due to a mental or physical disability or even a
severe but temorary illness.
My personal guess is that alcohol/drug abuse could be said
to be the main cause of homeless in about 20-25% of the
people I've talked to.
My impression of you is that you are arguing an ideological,
rather than evidence based point. Prove me wrong.
Elric of Imrryr
undiagnosis for 2 months is hell on the eyes.
--
Jafo
Slick <hc23hc> wrote:
>Jafo wrote:
>> Sorry, Slick - I only post here as Jafo.
>In that case, you should be *really* sorry.
>
>Actually, Stan the Spam Man reads just like you. The resemblance
>between you two would be most remarkable, if you both weren't so
>terribly dull.
Sometimes the thought process isn't terribly exciting. You should
nontheless try it sometime.
Wayne
homeless.
He has posted one item that shows he's really soft
hearted inside.
Wayne...
http://members.spree.com/blackie/calif.htm
Wayne
hc23hc wrote:
>
> Jafo wrote:
> >
> <<irrelevant diversion deleted>>
>
> > I've lost count of the number of people that clueless souls like Slick
> > have claimed were merely alter-egos. There was Ben, and Tony, and now
> > Stan... LOL!
> >
> > Sorry, Slick - I only post here as Jafo.
> >
> > --
> > ~ Jafo
>
> In that case, you should be *really* sorry.
>
> Actually, Stan the Spam Man reads just like you. The resemblance
> between you two would be most remarkable, if you both weren't so
> terribly dull.
Slick,
Maybe they are conjoined twins... <G> ...
--
Wayne AKA Blackie!
http://members.spree.com/blackie/calif.htm
Elric of Imrryr
> Elric of Imrryr (Elric.o...@usa.net) wrote:
> : > Elric of Imrryr (Elric.o...@usa.net) wrote:
> : That is not the LSD, that is my blood sugar. Type II diabetes
> : undiagnosis for 2 months is hell on the eyes.
>
> Sorry to hear that.
> Is there an interaction problem between LSD and the diabetes
> medication (presumably insulin)? Does LSD have different or
> stronger effects on diabetics?
>
Beats me, the war on drugs has been very effective at keeping LSD off
the market, since LSD carries the highest penalties of any illegal
drug (greater then crack or heroin) I have not seen any in years.
Which of course is another reason why it probably does not play a
role in homelessness. Street dealers can make more money dealing
crack and smack and not face life in jail.
I take prandin, but based on my personal experience there should not
be any direct interaction. But most recreational drugs will affect
ones eating patterns. LSD tends to suppress the appetite, and causes
one to burn more energy so one could end up in a hypoglycemic state,
where ones blood sugar is to low.
Nor should it have a stronger effect, since LSD affects the
neurotransmitters in the brain, and diabetes is a glandular problem.
Although a low blood sugar state could weaken a trip since one would
become tire and sleepy as the body runs out of fuel.
Good 'ol alcohol on the other hand converts to blood suagr, which can
be a problem.
Merlin Dorfman
: In article <dorfmanF...@netcom.com>, dor...@netcom.com
: says...
: > Elric of Imrryr (Elric.o...@usa.net) wrote:
: >
: > : the most part hostile to the leary type sex and drugs movement.
: > : Drugs where counter revolutionatry. Liberals are as much fans of
: > : hard work as conservatives because it ias thru work that taxes are
: > : produced to create jobs for liberals. In fact most of the liberal
: > : leaders who came out of the 60's and into politics are just an
: > : authoritarian and anti-drug as their conversative foes.
: >
: > : Also LSD is no barrier to good job.
: >
: > It does seem to interfere with spelling and grammar, however.
: >
Merlin Dorfman
: Nor should it have a stronger effect, since LSD affects the
: neurotransmitters in the brain, and diabetes is a glandular problem.
: Although a low blood sugar state could weaken a trip since one would
: become tire and sleepy as the body runs out of fuel.
All drugs have side effects, which may not be limited to the
biological system that they primarily interact with.
Stan Rothwell
> Stan Rothwell wrote in message
> <368061DC...@ix.netcom.com>...
> >Chris Chandler wrote:
> >
> >> But a serious question, what comes first? The drug and
> >> alcohol abuse or the homelessness?
> >
> >Clearly the abuse... there's no question about it...
>
> I accept your stating your opinion. But I do not find it
> convincing.
>
> I've worked at a couple of shelters (as a volunteer) here in
> Los Angeles and I'd guess about one-half to two thirds of
> the homeless clients I've encountered have a history of
> alcohol and/or drug abuse,
As I've said, clearly the majority... ;o)
> but many of them have said that
> their problems with drugs (in particular) really only began
> once they were on the street.
Are you sure about that? Most individuals who used hard drugs didn't
consider it a "problem" as long as they had food in their bellies and a
roof over their heads... The better assessment should be to find out
then their drug use actually started. BTW, how often do you you hear a
druggie admit that their drug use messed up their lives? About as often
as you hear prison imnates that they went to jail on account of their
criminal behavior...
> Many of the clients have no
> problem with drug/alcohol abuse, but have problems holding a
> steady job due to a mental or physical disability or even a
> severe but temorary illness.
Malingering? I'm willing to bet... I have known quite a few recipient's
of the taxpayer's largesse who could take a minor cold or flu and make
it into a perpetual exucse as to why they couldn't keep a job...
> My personal guess is that alcohol/drug abuse could be said
> to be the main cause of homeless in about 20-25% of the
> people I've talked to.
>
> My impression of you is that you are arguing an ideological,
> rather than evidence based point. Prove me wrong.
All I have to do is go down to where the local bums hang out and offer
them work to prove you wrong... :o)
When I lived in Oakland, I would typically encounter individuals with
"will work for food" signs asking me for help.
I told at least 20 people in the span of a year that I would pay them
$20 AND feed them if they would perform 2 hours of work cleaning up in
front of my apartment (which in most cases was only a few blocks away),
sweeping the sidewalk and gutter, and picking the trash out of the
bushes. All these people were able-bodied and English speaking, yet NOT
ONE was willing to take me up on the offer. However, they came up with
some great stories WHY they couldn't take me up on their offer (perhaps
they should have gone into fiction writing).
At the same time, illegals from Mexico and Guatemala who didn't even
speak the local language were finding enough work to be able to afford
nice cowboy boots, wool-lined jackets, and boom boxes to play their Los
Tigres del Norte and Los Bukis CDs. Sorta told you who was REALLY
interested in working... ;O)
Stan Rothwell
Elric of Imrryr
says...
>
> When I lived in Oakland, I would typically encounter individuals with
> "will work for food" signs asking me for help.
> I told at least 20 people in the span of a year that I would pay them
> $20 AND feed them if they would perform 2 hours of work cleaning up in
> front of my apartment (which in most cases was only a few blocks away),
> sweeping the sidewalk and gutter, and picking the trash out of the
> bushes. All these people were able-bodied and English speaking, yet NOT
> ONE was willing to take me up on the offer. However, they came up with
> some great stories WHY they couldn't take me up on their offer (perhaps
> they should have gone into fiction writing).
Probably because from what I've read a good pan-handler can make more
then $10.00 an hour. I'm watched them around around the local mini-
mall and guilt and intimidation go a long way, especially when corner
young women against their cars.
One thing that I discovered checking up on some of these "homeless"
was that most, especially the most aggressive collectors, where not
homeless.
Did you know that your offer to feed a homeless person is probably
illegal and considered by liberals a violation of their rights.
According to liberals private feeding on the homeless violates their
rights since your kitchen has not been inspected and approved by
unuionized worker in the public health department, and you might feed
them something that was cooked under unsanitary conditions.
Let's not even get starting on how many laws you would have broken if
you had actually put someone to work. Does he have his indentity
papers, contractors license, union card,
Stan Rothwell
> Stan Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > hc23hc wrote:
> >
> > > The breed of mental underclass (mis)led by Stan and Jafo (assuming they're
> > > actually two different people) is not "conservative". They conserve nothing,
> > > least of all the meaning of the word.
> >
> > In other works, since some of us are so unwilling to passively accept the media
> > tripe handed out by the liberals (especially since it runs counter to our own
> > personal experiences), and the same liberals are unable to substantiate their
> > positions, it becomes necessary to label us as "mental underclass"
>
> You earned the title "mental underclass", fair and square. Whereas, you have
> no right to call yourself conservative, since you despise rules and conventions
> that do not suit you.
Actually, I don't really consider myself an orthodox "conservative", more of an advocate
of personal responsibility and free-market economics...
> The media is neither owned nor operated by liberals at
> this point in history, so get a new gag-writer for your gaggle. Earlier today,
> you had the bright idea of calling me a socialist, now it's back to "liberal".
Same difference, just a different epithet... ;O)
> When will you stop vacillating and get a grip on your cantankerous habit of
> theatrical vexation ?
When will YOU actually deal with an issue instead of patting yourself on the back for
being SOOOO morally superior?
> > (although I have
> > always wondered what individuals like Willie and hc23hc do for a living, since
> > their appeal to emotional feel-good platitudes indicates that they don't rely
> > primarily on their analytical skills when conducting discourse).
>
> Sho' nuff, boss. Who's the one tub-thumping for the "feels all right to me"
> version of America's domestic economic war zone ? Hint: that would be you.
And who wasn't about to tell us what he did to pay his way in the world (if he DID
work)??? ;o)
> Recently, you seem to have coined every shopworn cliche in the book, by
> way of Rothwellian discourse. I can't speak for Will, not having the degree
> of intimacy with him that you share with Jafo, but I can confide in you that
> I have never had to rely on welfare to get by, and probably never shall. I
> work in the private sector and have no interest vested in the welfare system,
> other than observing it having functioned better in the past than it does today.
> Your own lamentable boasts about making 24 dollars an hour bounce off this reader
Did I make a mistake? I make a bit more that that, but oh well
> like the pathetic postures they actually are, and I spend a lot less time wondering
> about the gaps in your cultural education than you do demonstrating them all by
> yourself.
My unwillingness to blindly accept the liberal "orthodoxy" suggests I have gaps in my
"cultural education"...Perhaps the term you were fishing for was "indoctrination"??? :O)
> > > According to Jafwell, it's the poor's fault that they're poor,
Correction... in the United States, the reason most "poor" are poor (provided they have
spent ANY time in the workforce) is most likely due to a lack of education or skills, or
perhaps an insufficient work ethic, or perhaps making poor decisions such as having
children out of wedlock... Now since those choices are based on personal decisions... :O)
BTW, I find it charming that your inability to refute the facts presented w/r/t the
minimum wage issue made it necessary to launch into your latest tirade... :O)
> > > Democrats fault that most politicians mudwrestle nude with the truth,
Known fact that most of them LIED about the "welfare reform" proposals made when the GOP
kicked their butts in November 1994...
> it's theMexicans fault that they're Mexicans,
Sorta nonsensical statement... where do you find any particular anti-Mexican positions
w/r/t my postings...Your ignorance is sorta showing...
> > > it's your fault if you disagree with
> > > them, b u t it's neither Stan's nor Jafo's fault that they are horrible,
> > > nasty little posers with more strutting attitude than education.
No, it's more like hc23hc can't make a case, which is typical amongst flaming emotional
liberals... :O)
> > Just for laughs, let's see what constitutes "education" on the part of
> > Willwork4food and hc23hc... ;O)
And NEITHER one did respond.... would I owe Ronzone royalties if I used the word
"snicker"?
> > > It is a cruel hallucination to attribute San Francisco's homeless problem
> > > in any large part to after-effects from the late Sixties' streetscene.
> >
> > Sorry, buddy, but I was living in Daly City during the Summer of Love, and got a
> > chance to see the antics of some of these individuals first-hand when I made trips
> > with my father into the City... I still recall the Jerry Rubin/ Abbie Hoffman
> > lookalike "heads" crawling all over our car, and saw the mental debris stumbling
> > down the street in the Fillmore and out by the Park. The only difference is that
> > the bums were much younger then (but not much cleaner)...
> >
> > > It
> > > is a gratuitous, below-the-belt assault on people with the least means to
> > > fight back against adverse circumstances. It's tasteless, but oh so very
> > > Rothwellian.
> > Nah, it's a real assessment of the reason a lot of those individuals are on the
> > street. They fried their brains one way or another, and simply chose to live the
> > hippie lifestyle of irresponsibility to the Nth degree...
>
> Might it be fair to say that you don't actually like Hippies ?
Just making an observation that perhaps their lifestyle did not prepare them for
reality... sad but true.
> > > There are many army veterans among the homeless,
> >
> > Funny, but I know plenty of vets (including myself), and the VAST MAJORITY are
>
> So, we both know plenty of veteran soldiers. Great.
And the majority of them are NOT bums or losers, but productive, responsible
individuals.And personally some of us resented being painted with a broad brush...
> > reasonably successful.If you are referring specifically to Vietnam (not "Vietnam
> > Era") veterans, I know more than a few, including a former college roommate
> > (ex-USMC) who is doing very well for himself working in the same industry as I am
> > (I'll hire him when my consulting business picks up enough to justify bringing on
> > another person).
>
> Poor bastard, he must be doing really well for himself; and what a friend
> he has in you, to speak of him so condescendingly. Really.
How did I speak of him condescendingly? In your own silly imagination?
> It is irrelevant that not all ex-Marines have gone to the dogs.
It's relevant that MOST ex-Marines are much better equipped for survival than the addled
products of liberalism that accept every hippy-dippy social philosophy shoveled out by
the self-proclaimed intelligentsia...
> What was
> said, stands: there are a lot of ex-servicemen among the legions of homeless
> in both Southern and Northern California. You apparently don't know any
> of them, but that doesn't exactly make their problems go away. Maybe it's
> slightly better for them not to have to know you, though. Especially at
> this already cold time of year.
COLD? Give me a break!!! Sure, it's nippy, but above freezing. BTW, I have slept on the
'street' in SF and in Berkeley as well. With a field jacket and some clean newspapers,
you can insulate yourself pretty well, provided it doesn't rain (that's the way I used to
do it). Now, if you have lowered your resistance due to incessant drug and alcohol
consumption, ya might have a problem.
Maybe when you have to crawl into the space between a tree and a snowdrift, or excavate a
snowbank to get out of the wind and spend the night, you'll know what REALLY cold is...
:O(
> <<long-ish black market drug rant edited down to size>>
Points suggesting connections between drug use and veteran's problems snipped as
politically incorrect...
> > So how many of these vets are truly suffering from "delayed stress syndrome" due to
> > combat experiences, and how many wound up employable because they were drug abusers
> > (or got kicked out of the military)?
>
> You actually expect a rhetorical answer to that rhetorical question, don't you?
A perfectly legitimate question ignored because it raises questions about issues you
would prefer not to go into...The fact is that drug use HAS been a serious problem in the
military for the last 30 years, just as it has been in the rest of society. Why would
you not expect the fallout to be similar??? :O|
> Well, I don't have one, Stan. If it's a statistical breakdown of the homeless
> population you want, just say so and I'll try and have one ready for you.
Let's see who gathers the data, specifically how questions are "asked"...
> Fact is, many of the people living on the streets - correction, many of the
> *men* living on the streets - are former servicemen. Is it going to change your
> estimation of them whether your wild guesswork as to the origin of their problems
> is correct or, more probably, not ? Not the way you're going, Stan. You're a
> fat lot of help.
> By the way, guys a lot less snotty than you were friendly-fired or fragged
> in Viet Nam - how did you say you made it home alive ?
If you bothered to read my posts, I did NOT serve during the 1965-1975 time frame, so my
only views of Viet Nam while in the military have been from the air (no need for details
here).
But, I could ask a counter-question... If some of these individuals were able to survive
in conflict back in Southeast Asia, why are they unable to make it in San Francisco?
After all, the political climate is similar... ;O)
> > > many Native Americans,
> >
> > In SF? Gimme a break!!! Now if you are talking about our wonderful reservation
> > system that treats grown adults like children and keeps them dependent on
> > government checks and alcohol, you may have a case.
>
> I have a case. Your objections are feeble and largely immaterial.
Spent any time on an indian reservation? We have several out in AZ. The Ak-Chin
Reservation is only a few miles from where I stay in Phoenix, and about 25 miles of
Highway 347 cuts through it between I-10 to I-8. Alcoholism is indeed a major problem,
and even between federal assistance and several indian gaming casinos bringing in cash,
there is still squalor. I've seen drunks coming across the dirt median during the middle
of the day, and fatals are a regular occurence.
> <<disparaging STANalysis of Indian reservation conditions deleted>>
If you want to deny these problems in order to protect your pre-conceived liberal
notions, be my guest. I can't stop you from ignoring facts that don't suit your
vision...
> > > many working people with children edged out of a home by troubles they could
> > > not handle alone,
> >
> > I don't see a lot of homeless children out there, but I will concede there is a
> > problem here. What possesses people to have children they can not support???
>
> [Stylistic point of order here - you're starting to use those same old Jafo©
> cadences again, "Stan"]
Point conveniently ignored here... why do we not hold parents responsible for their
irresponsibility w/r/t their children?
> Surely, it's not about sex ... If it makes you any less confused, Stan, try
> and picture people who already had children *before* they had to, or chose to,
> take to the streets. That's the more likely scenario than the absurdity you're
> trying to peddle here, a la homeless people head over heels in love just having
> to have more children.
No, but illegitimate birth is a problem affecting 25% of whites and 65% of
African-Americans.People who do NOt have the resources to support children (family as
well as monetary) still have them anyway, and the liberals blame the rest of society for
it...
> They can't all be as sterile as you, no matter how
> arduous it gets out there, though, so every once in a while, they actually do
> reproduce. Imagine that.
Again, lack of judgement, maturity, and self-control... Sounds like a personal
responsibility issue to me...
> If only they knew you'd rather see them die in labor than lift a finger
> to help them, perhaps they'd refrain from heterosexual coition.
Being unable to intelligently refute or counter the arguments you presented previously,
it is now necessary for you to assume that I would "rather see them die in labor"... No,
hc3hc, what I'd like to see them due is develop some sense of individual responsiblity,
which will only be accomplished when the mindless liberals stop making excuses for
self-destructive behavior and accept that BAD DECISIONS HAVE BAD CONSEQUENCES... :O(
> > > many very sick people who should be in proper medical care,
> >
> > And a lot of them REFUSE to get it even when it's free.... BTW, ask yourself how
> > many mentally ill people were out there who SHOULD have remained in an institution,
> > but had some "patients advocate" fight in court for their discharge?And this
> > boo-hoo story that nonexistent "budget cuts" forced the mentally ill out into the
> > street is a bunch of crap...
>
> Thank you for mentioning it. I didn't. But now that it's germane to our
> conversation, what *is* being done to manage health conditions for the needy?
> And when did the health management system of the richest country on the planet
> start degenerating into the inhuman bureaucratic hell-hole it became during
> the Reagan years ? Excuse me: *Why* do you think that had to happen ?
Start with the inflationary cost of medical care thanks to government intervention in the
early 1960's.The availability of government funds has provided a deliberate DISINCENTIVE
to control costs.
The same thing has happened with college tuition as well...
> While you ruminate on that, allow me to share with you that I have spent
> quite a long time in/around the medical community, and that I know of many
> detestible instances of patients' advocates screwing things up that were
> already pretty much on the verge of Koyaanisqaatsi-like breakdown. But
> that is no way liberates you from the decision to be part of the solution
> if you don't actively enjoy being part of the problem. As your neighbors
> almost used to say, back in your Daly City days. With Dad, Jerry & Abbie.
?????
> > > many people suffering and dying for nothing except the McMorally insurmountable
> > > principle at stake in not giving a damn what happens to the rest of the world.
> >
> > Oh, boo hoo hoo... Ask yourself how many are out there because THEY don't care
> > what happens to themselves...
>
> Now that you've shed so much light on things, the answer to your last question
> must be : "Why, almost all of them, Stan!" Nyet.
Again, a mere assessment of their personal hygeine and grooming habits should provide a
key for how much they CARE about themselves...
> > > Yes, it gets tiresome to be hustled for change by panhandlers. But who says
> > > the only option is to ignore them, have them taken away and locked up and to
> > > blame their situation on entirely spurious factors, as Rothwell does?
> >
> > I didn't say that's the only option... the other one is for people to stop using
> > them as pawns to advance their own political agendas and help the help themselves.
> //
A point you couldn't refute...
> > > What is
> > > the benefit from belittling the homeless this way?
> >
> > The point is to illustrate that perhaps the typical tired excuses offered by the
> > touchie-feelie liberals are NOT accurate!!!
>
> At last, Stan, you have found a use for homeless people, other than grinding
> them up and using them as pet food.
Note that liberal ascribe the worst of intentions to those who disagree with them
whenever they are unable to argue with the facts...
> They make dandy ammunition in your campaign
> to stamp out "liberalism". Wonderful. That's almost like giving them real jobs.
> You're a great labor consultant and will soon be making 27 dollars an hour!
I'm not a labor consultant, nor do I have any need to work with unskilled individuals in
my field...
> > > The numbing effect of trickle-down theories espoused by the Jafwells is
> > > but a hop and a skip away from : "People dying in San Francisco? - Please
> > > stop crossposting this to alt.whogivesaRatsbuttocks, okay?"
> >
> > > Wondering what to get Stan for Christmas? How about a Taste of Skid Row?
> > >
> > > He's really asking for it.
> >
> > The thing that YOU don't understand is that some of us have enough talent, skills,
> > and work ethic not to be dependent on the charity of others. And we don't get off
>
> You obviously don't get off, and you've diligently overlooked the obvious:
> that, which is not understood here, is your utter smugness. What with all your
> talent, skills and ethics practically brimming over, and all that ... how
> about a class in character development ?
Is that the one you advocate, where everyone sits in a circle, holds hands, and goes
'OOOOOOOOMMMMMM"? :O)
> Perhaps your HMO offers one on
> weekends, when you're not so busy "consulting".
>
> > on supporting misguided liberal social and economic policies that keep people
> > dependent and helpless so we can use them as pawns to berate the more productive
> > members of society.
> >
> > BTW, I give food and clean clothes to the deserving poor (not the druggie bums you
>
> OK Stan. You have developed some kind of antenna that tunes in the deserving
> and tunes out all the others. Your Nobel Prozac is in the mail.
No, hc23hc... If you have actually spent any time around street people, it's not too
difficult to distinguish between those who are trying to do SOMETHING to do a bit of work
and preserve their dignity, and those who are merely waiting for the soup kitchen to open
up for business. BTW, the presence of crack pipes tends to be a good indicator that the
owner belongs to the latter group... :O)
> In case you
> didn't get the point - I don't believe you.
And I really don't care, as you have not given anyone here any reason to believe you are
credible whatsoever...
> If you really did have such a
> talent, you'd jot down the particulars and forward them to DSS ro DHW. They'd
> be able to retire thousands of redundant workers and save ever so much money on
> payroll as well as virtually eliminating all those millionaire welfare bums.
Some social workers are conscienscious, but an equal amount are frustrated neurotics who
couldn't hack it anywhere else, and are looking for someone helpless to control. There
are also some bureacratic parasites who find it in their nest interest to perpetuate
problems rather than to solve them...
> Then you could take care of them all with your little donations *and* then brag
> about it to everyone here in alt.california (see below).
>
> Voila. It's the Circle of Life !
Nah, merely your self-induced circle of confusion..
> <<Stan boastful fibs deleted>>
> > Unlike the hypocritical liberals, however, I don't run
> > around and beat my chest about how morally superior I am because "I CARE". I do it
> > merely because I have a lot of material things I don't need or use, and I know
> > others may have a use for something , not because I seek approval from a bunch of
> > bleeding hearts...
> >
> > So kindly fuck yourself, since you have not a clue about what you talk about... and
> > have a good day. :O)
>
> That's sounding a lot more like you and Jafo impeaching the homeless, Stan.
No, my venom is directed at the liberal scum like you who fail the accept the fact that
your social and economic policies have fucked up the lives on those who you claim to be
helping...
> Happy Ramadan, you immodest little twerp. If it makes you feel any better,
> I really don't "CARE" too much, after all ... about you.
Personally, I'm GLAD a spiteful little liberal socialist like you doesn't "care" about
me... If you DID, you would be doing your best to mess up my life like you have done
with the homeless, ghetto schoolchildren, AIDS patients, and all the other ill-starred
recipients of your self-annointed crusades.
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
> Jafo wrote:
>
> > Sorry, Slick - I only post here as Jafo.
> In that case, you should be *really* sorry.
>
> Actually, Stan the Spam Man reads just like you. The resemblance
> between you two would be most remarkable, if you both weren't so
> terribly dull.
If I'm so dull, why do you waste so much time berating me???Perhaps because
I have more impact than you do... :O)
Stan
Stan Rothwell
Merlin, I submit that perhaps being a little truthful IS the way to help
people..
Fawning over individuals who have made poor choices does NOT help them, but
merely allows them to assume an air of victimization. The fact of the matter
is that most of the self-proclaimed advocates of the homeless, AIDS patients,
and other such groups are more interested in turning them into victimized
"mascots" to advance their OWN agendas as opposed to genuinely offering them
help.
Why do we have people running around offering addicts clean needles, instead
of helping them overcome addiction and avoid the twin ills of AIDS affliction
AND hard drug addiction? Because they are more interested in making their
statement of so-called 'compassion' w/r/t AIDS, than encouraging people to
give up self-destructive behavior!!!
All of us make mistakes and bad decisons from time to time, but those of us
who have had to suffer the consequences of them (w/o running to the government
for help) quickly learn that we must act responsibly in our private lives, and
realize that with actions come consequences. The liberal philosphy is more
concerned with "feeling good" about symbolic actions and stances, than it is
with advocating courses of action that would in the long run be more
beneficial to the recipients...
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
> In article <dorfmanF...@netcom.com>, dor...@netcom.com
> says...
> > Stan Rothwell (roth...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> > : Too bad all those hippies from the "Summer Of Love" took Dr. Leary
> > : seriously when he told them all to "turn on and drop out" in 1967. Sort
> > : of hard to keep a job when your brain is fried, huh?
> >
> > Every now and then, when I've listened to conservative arguments
> > for long enough, I begin to believe them when they say that liberal
> > policies really don't help anybody but bureaucrats, that people are
> > really better off if they don't have government support, etc.--in
> > other words, if you care about people and their success in this
> > world, conservative policies are superior. But then I see something
> > like the above and the truth hits: conservatives by and large believe
> > that if you are not "successful" on their terms, it is your own fault,
> > and they don't care at all!
> >
>
> Not to mention there the drop-outs where a very small fraction of
> the population of the sixties. The left (far and radical) was for
> the most part hostile to the leary type sex and drugs movement.
> Drugs where counter revolutionatry.
You may be technically right w/r/t the self-professed "leaders" of a particular
cause, but the actions of the "followers" were due to the impression received
that recreational use and experimentation were acceptable behavior with no real
consequences...
> Liberals are as much fans of
> hard work as conservatives because it ias thru work that taxes are
> produced to create jobs for liberals.
There, however, it a them of divorcing actions from responsibility that forms
the central core of the "hippie" ethos...
> In fact most of the liberal
> leaders who came out of the 60's and into politics are just an
> authoritarian and anti-drug as their conversative foes.
I accept your legitimacy w/r/t the authoritarian point of view, but a little
more elaboration on the latter may be in order...
> Also LSD is no barrier to good job. Me and many of my peers have or
> still use marijuana, LSD, etc. are work good productive jobs. I work
> as a financial manager, I have other heads where are doctors,
> geologists, columnists, translators, teachers, claims adjusters,
> etc.
I would NOT want an individual with a prior history of LSD use as a doctor,
police officer, or airline pilot, as the risks to public safety are not
acceptable. Since many teachers are in la-la land as it is, it probably doesn't
make much of a difference... :O(
Stan Rothwell
Wayne
than the other... <G> ...
--
Stan Rothwell
> In article <36840EC4...@ix.netcom.com>, roth...@ix.netcom.com
> says...
> >
> > When I lived in Oakland, I would typically encounter individuals with
> > "will work for food" signs asking me for help.
> > I told at least 20 people in the span of a year that I would pay them
> > $20 AND feed them if they would perform 2 hours of work cleaning up in
> > front of my apartment (which in most cases was only a few blocks away),
> > sweeping the sidewalk and gutter, and picking the trash out of the
> > bushes. All these people were able-bodied and English speaking, yet NOT
> > ONE was willing to take me up on the offer. However, they came up with
> > some great stories WHY they couldn't take me up on their offer (perhaps
> > they should have gone into fiction writing).
>
> Probably because from what I've read a good pan-handler can make more
> then $10.00 an hour. I'm watched them around around the local mini-
> mall and guilt and intimidation go a long way, especially when corner
> young women against their cars.
>
> One thing that I discovered checking up on some of these "homeless"
> was that most, especially the most aggressive collectors, where not
> homeless.
True... one such character in Berkeley "commuted" from the Richmond area, and
allegedly took in $100-$120 on an average day. I remember a couple of fake
"blind" individuals taking in about $30 in a 10 minute period. It was
unbelievable... all these dippy Berkeley liberals on College Avenue were
literally running over to these people to hand them fivers and make an
impromptu speech about how it must have been so terrible to be handicapped in
an era of Reagan/Bush, and to tell them how much THEY cared. Fools and their
money are soon parted, I guess, but it's too bad that the rest of us have to
be coerced into the game as well...
> Did you know that your offer to feed a homeless person is probably
> illegal and considered by liberals a violation of their rights.
> According to liberals private feeding on the homeless violates their
> rights since your kitchen has not been inspected and approved by
> unuionized worker in the public health department, and you might feed
> them something that was cooked under unsanitary conditions.
Or they merely throw the food you bring them back at you because apparently
THEIR dietary standards make your most ultra-orthodox rabbi look like a junk
food junkie in comparison...
> Let's not even get starting on how many laws you would have broken if
> you had actually put someone to work. Does he have his indentity
> papers, contractors license, union card,
At least somebody sees the game for what is it...
Stan Rothwell
Karen McFarlin
<roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Wayne wrote:
>
> > There are a lot of people who don't seem to consider exactly why many
> > become homeless in the first place.
>
> Would perhaps one reason be the permissive acceptance of hard drug use
(especially
> halucinogenics) amongst the demographic group that comprises most
hard-core homeless
> (40-50 year old males who came to adolescence during the late 60's and early
> 70's)???
You're so full of shit Stan, you know that? Do you really think that most
of the homeless are people who never came back from acid trips in the
60's?
Quess you had to be there! After six months in the bush in Nam I'd have
dropped twenty hits of orange sunshine if it would have made the fucking
war go away. But then all the super-patriots like Rush Limbaugh, Newt
Gingrich, and Dan Quayle were cheer-leading from the rear after their
Daddy's got them out of the shit. It was just us poor kids over there,
poor kids sent to kill peasants so Hughs Air Corporation could sell more
helicopters. No doubt there are some guys on the streets right now that
can't get nightmares about the Ia Drang out their battered skulls.
Do you know about the Ia Drang Stan? Or the Parrot's Beak? Or the Iron
Triangle? Or any of the other thousand and one little shit-holes over
there? Frankly, when I got home I wanted to kiss all those anti-war
hippies because they were the only ones doing anything about ending that
fucking mess over there. There were only two honorable places to be during
the Vietnam War - in Vietnam, or out protesting the war and getting your
skull busted by the cops.
Meanwhile, back in the world, our politicians were sitting on their fat
hams, stupid platitudes about "peace with honor" dribbling from their
well-fed lips.
> An interesting question that the aging ex-hippie liberals (who jump
through hoops to
> try to rationalize their OWN behavior during this time frame) refuse to
address...
>
> Stan Rothwell
I don't know Stan, I haven't met many gung ho "conservative" ex-grunts.
Most of the posturing Rambo-wannabees I run into were clerk typists in Da
Nang or never went in the first place. The war helped make me a liberal.
It did that to most of the guys I know who went over there.
Rob McFarlin
Karen McFarlin
<roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> And so have I, and have seen the fallout from the permissive drug
culture of a generation
> ago...
>
> Stan Rothwell
Well you see Stan, had you smoked some dynamite shit and sat on top of
your sandbag bunker watching the rockets red glare and the tracers like
crazy fireflies zinging all over the place, you might have a more
transcendent perspective on the whole show.
I mean, you don't want to end up a little man with a twisted uncharitable
soul do you?
But it really wasn't about permissiveness with me. I was all done asking
anyone permission for anything. Are you really going to sit down and
lecture about moral virtue to a stoned 19 year old killer with an
automatic weapon in his his hands?
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
Rob McFarlin
Merlin Dorfman
: Merlin Dorfman wrote:
: > Stan Rothwell (roth...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >
: > : > But then I see something
: > : > like the above and the truth hits: conservatives by and large believe
: > : > that if you are not "successful" on their terms, it is your own fault,
: > : > and they don't care at all!
: >
: > : Have a little trouble dealing with the truth, huh??? :O)
: >
: > At least Stan is honest about it and does not claim that he's
: > really only doing what's best for the people at the bottom of the
: > heap.
: Merlin, I submit that perhaps being a little truthful IS the way to help
: people..
Some people can be helped with a little assistance, while the
clucking of tongues will not help at all. Some people, you are correct,
are beyond help and/or would only bestir themselves if faced with
starvation. The problems with using starvation as an incentive to
self-improvement are that it leaves them open to exploitation at least
as serious as the exploitation that you claim social workers and
bureaucrats are doing today.
: Fawning over individuals who have made poor choices does NOT help them, but
: merely allows them to assume an air of victimization. The fact of the matter
: is that most of the self-proclaimed advocates of the homeless, AIDS patients,
: and other such groups are more interested in turning them into victimized
: "mascots" to advance their OWN agendas as opposed to genuinely offering them
: help.
I will agree with some, not "most." I will also agree that not
all those who sincerely want to help really know how to do it. After
all, with what we pay social workers, parole officers, etc., how can
we expect that intelligent people will go into those professions? :-)
: Why do we have people running around offering addicts clean needles, instead
: of helping them overcome addiction and avoid the twin ills of AIDS affliction
: AND hard drug addiction? Because they are more interested in making their
: statement of so-called 'compassion' w/r/t AIDS, than encouraging people to
: give up self-destructive behavior!!!
I'd love to see enough money to offer treatment programs to all
addicts. That's not the situation today. Clean needles don't solve
the problem but at least help to avoid some aspects of the problem. And
there's really not even enough money for clean needles for all who need
them.
: All of us make mistakes and bad decisons from time to time, but those of us
: who have had to suffer the consequences of them (w/o running to the government
: for help) quickly learn that we must act responsibly in our private lives, and
: realize that with actions come consequences. The liberal philosphy is more
: concerned with "feeling good" about symbolic actions and stances, than it is
: with advocating courses of action that would in the long run be more
: beneficial to the recipients...
Your opinion.
In the distant past we used your solutions. People who couldn't
make it on their own and didn't have relatives to help either starved
or were institutionalized. That didn't work so well either, which is
why we are now trying what seem to me to be more humane solutions.
That also doesn't work 100% but it seems to me that it works better.
Matthew Devney
>
>
> If you knew anything about minimum wage statistics, you would know that only a small
> FRACTION of the population works at the minimum wage, and that most of these individuals
> are NOT primary wage earners. In addition, most individuals earning minimum wage are new
> to the job market, and rise out of that bracket within a few months if they have any
> semblance of having acquired any form of job skills.
>
This may be true, but historically, every time the minimum wage is
increased, all economic indicators go up, and homelessness goes down.
Yeah, I know, you don't believe it -- but check out what happened when
Florida did it about 8 years ago, or witness the current boom since
Congress raised it effective a year ago.
Okay, so I don't know anything about minimum wage statistics, and your
logic works out flawlessly. But reality has proven you wrong.
--
Matthew Devney
Internet killed the video star...
hc23hc
>
> Elric of Imrryr wrote:
>
> > One thing that I discovered checking up on some of these "homeless"
> > was that most, especially the most aggressive collectors, where not
> > homeless.
OK, so now you guys are talking about "homeless bums" who are not even
homeless. This wasn't exactly the most life-enhancing topic to begin with,
but Stan has nothing better to do on Christmas Day, so he'll probably take the
bait rather than actually spend any time socializing with real people who may
not be entirely congruent with his misogynist mindset.
Yes indeed, here he comes now ...
> True... one such character in Berkeley "commuted" from the Richmond area, and
> allegedly took in $100-$120 on an average day. I remember a couple of fake
> "blind" individuals taking in about $30 in a 10 minute period. It was
> unbelievable... all these dippy Berkeley liberals on College Avenue were
> literally running over to these people
/merciful deletia/
> > Did you know that your offer to feed a homeless person is probably
> > illegal and considered by liberals a violation of their rights.
/puh-leaze!/
> At least somebody sees the game for what is it...
>
> Stan Rothwell
Is it a 'bored' game ?
- Hey, what did you do for Christmas, Stan ?
< Oh, I had a really cool time learning stuff on the internet. I started a
new thread called, "Brain-dead liberals refuse to admit that many homeless
are bums..." A really interesting dude called Elric InRear (sp) and me got
this really meaningful conversation about it going and we discovered that we
both have a lot of really great ideas. I might have him over for Hannukah
next year if my consultant business picks up. We can work out more ideas to
eliminate liberism and thus solve the homeless problem. Yep, I should do this
more often. It's much cheaper than going out and actually dealing with folks
who may not be as asocial, smug and self-centered as I am.
hc23hc
>
> hc23hc wrote:
>
> > Jafo wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry, Slick - I only post here as Jafo.
> > In that case, you should be *really* sorry.
> >
> > Actually, Stan the Spam Man reads just like you. The resemblance
> > between you two would be most remarkable, if you both weren't so
> > terribly dull.
>
> If I'm so dull, why do you waste so much time berating me???Perhaps because
> I have more impact than you do... :O)
>
> Stan
The comparison was adressed to someone else. Not as flattery, either.
But then, Stan's monumental self-importance kicked in and now he would
like some feedback concerning his "impact" on the world...
Well Stan, first select a really high building, or a short deep-sea pier.
Then go for a long walk.
I don't want to waste time berating you at lengths you do not deserve.
Elric of Imrryr
says...
> Why do we have people running around offering addicts clean needles, instead
> of helping them overcome addiction and avoid the twin ills of AIDS affliction
> AND hard drug addiction? Because they are more interested in making their
> statement of so-called 'compassion' w/r/t AIDS, than encouraging people to
> give up self-destructive behavior!!!
>
> who have had to suffer the consequences of them (w/o running to the government
> for help) quickly learn that we must act responsibly in our private lives, and
> realize that with actions come consequences. The liberal philosphy is more
> concerned with "feeling good" about symbolic actions and stances, than it is
> with advocating courses of action that would in the long run be more
> beneficial to the recipients...
>
So if people want to spend their own money giving out free food or
free needles, why not? As long my tax dollars are not being spent,
I'm all for letting people try different forms of assistance for
these people. For example most of the needle exchange programs do at
least provide a way to gage the size of the IV drug using population,
and by putting them in daily contact with trained or semi-trained
health workers allows this popular to observed for public health
dangers. Secondly it allows a centralized place where anti-addiction
programs and/or religious groups can reach these people on a neutral
ground.
There is a group in orange county that goes around recruiting people
on welfare and with drug addictions to get sterilized, and pays them
cash and pays for the procedure. Great idea, yet conservatives oppose
this because they claim that all form of birth control accept just
"just say no" are immoral.
The problem is not just liberal using victimization to promote their
agenda, but conservatisms doing the same to promote their agenda.
Welfare or the War on Drugs is all about PORK BARREL spending to
create public sector jobs that produce no real value in the GNP, and
seek to redistribute wealth from the private sector to the non
productive public sector workers.
Elric of Imrryr
says...
> Elric of Imrryr wrote:
> > Liberals are as much fans of
> > hard work as conservatives because it ias thru work that taxes are
> > produced to create jobs for liberals.
>
> There, however, it a them of divorcing actions from responsibility that forms
> the central core of the "hippie" ethos...
Hippies are a dated boogey-man, who never had much currency with the
liberal establishment. Look how the democrats beat the shit out of
them in Chicago '68. It is similar about money, and in order to get
campaign contributions liberals have to support certain programs.
Conversative farmers (hard workers all) WANT food stamps because it
creates a market for their products whos prices are artifically
inflated by gov't price controls. Without such price controls, the
price of basic food stuffes who plumate. This like cheese, milk,
chicken would cost much less (calfornia for example has the most
expensive milk in the nation because of price cpontrols and gov't
spending for those stupid "Its the Cheese" and "Got Milk" ads).
Organized religion (which is inherantly conservative) opposed most
welfare reform, since unrestricted public support for reproduction
benefits certain religious groups. Plus every child equals a
federally manidated increase in funding for schools, can you say
Teacher's Union and Campaign contributions?
In many areas the public has little say in local elections, often
have a choice of candidates picked by the unions, especially in areas
like school boards and law enforcement.
You have to follow the money, and it is BIG MONEY that supports the
programs you bitch about.
> > In fact most of the liberal
> > leaders who came out of the 60's and into politics are just an
> > authoritarian and anti-drug as their conversative foes.
>
> I accept your legitimacy w/r/t the authoritarian point of view, but a little
> more elaboration on the latter may be in order...
Medical marijuana. The democrats have fallen all over themselves to
opposed and obstruct it inspite of it beening passed by a majority.
Also if you look in the history of the banning of LSD, you will find
one of the key players was Teddy Kennedy. More recently the laws that
might it very likely that people in possesion of more then 2-3 hits
of LSD will serve LIFE in prison was ultra-liberal senator Biden.
>
> > Also LSD is no barrier to good job. Me and many of my peers have or
> > still use marijuana, LSD, etc. are work good productive jobs. I work
> > as a financial manager, I have other heads where are doctors,
> > geologists, columnists, translators, teachers, claims adjusters,
> > etc.
>
> I would NOT want an individual with a prior history of LSD use as a doctor,
> police officer, or airline pilot, as the risks to public safety are not
> acceptable. Since many teachers are in la-la land as it is, it probably doesn't
> make much of a difference... :O(
And we have drug testing of people in critical field to make sure,
except that alcohol abuse is not tested for (Exxon Valdez anyone?)
Plus people can destroy themselves just fine without drugs.. Gambling
is the current trendy social ill leading the destruction of our moral
fiber these days.... Hmmmm the liberals its seems don't want the
Indians (true victims there) running casinos.
Enforcing morality is big business, and the business of america is
business.
>
> Stan Rothwell
>
>
Stan Rothwell
> In article <36805F83...@ix.netcom.com>, Stan Rothwell
> <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > And so have I, and have seen the fallout from the permissive drug
> culture of a generation
> > ago...
> >
> > Stan Rothwell
>
> Well you see Stan, had you smoked some dynamite shit and sat on top of
> your sandbag bunker watching the rockets red glare and the tracers like
> crazy fireflies zinging all over the place, you might have a more
> transcendent perspective on the whole show.
I guess a little bombastic (albeit mindless) ranting maked liberals FEEL
better, although it does nothing to advance their argument...
> I mean, you don't want to end up a little man with a twisted uncharitable
> soul do you?
Translation: anyone who doesn't blandly regurgitate the liberal party line...
> But it really wasn't about permissiveness with me. I was all done asking
> anyone permission for anything. Are you really going to sit down and
> lecture about moral virtue to a stoned 19 year old killer with an
> automatic weapon in his his hands?
Well, I will concede that it is probably as unproductive as talking to you
about it... but it IS nice to see how you have avoided my argument
altogether...
Does Karen know you're posting this silliness on her computer? Better log off
before she gives you a spanking.
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
> Stan Rothwell wrote:
> >
> >
> > If you knew anything about minimum wage statistics, you would know that only a small
> > FRACTION of the population works at the minimum wage, and that most of these individuals
> > are NOT primary wage earners. In addition, most individuals earning minimum wage are new
> > to the job market, and rise out of that bracket within a few months if they have any
> > semblance of having acquired any form of job skills.
> >
> This may be true, but historically, every time the minimum wage is
> increased, all economic indicators go up, and homelessness goes down.
> Yeah, I know, you don't believe it -- but check out what happened when
> Florida did it about 8 years ago, or witness the current boom since
> Congress raised it effective a year ago.
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that in the late 1980's, the economy was GROWING
thanx to evil Ronnie Reagan's "tax cuts", and that you couldn't HIRE someone there at 5 bucks
an hour back then... :O)
> Okay, so I don't know anything about minimum wage statistics, and your
> logic works out flawlessly. But reality has proven you wrong.
Seems your lack of research has proven YOU wrong, Liberal Boy... :O)
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
> Stan Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > Elric of Imrryr wrote:
> >
> > > One thing that I discovered checking up on some of these "homeless"
> > > was that most, especially the most aggressive collectors, where not
> > > homeless.
>
> OK, so now you guys are talking about "homeless bums" who are not even
> homeless. This wasn't exactly the most life-enhancing topic to begin with,
> but Stan has nothing better to do on Christmas Day, so he'll probably take the
> bait rather than actually spend any time socializing with real people who may
> not be entirely congruent with his misogynist mindset.
You'll notice that he's quick to spout his tired Lefty rhetoric, but can't refute
Elric's position... :O)
> Yes indeed, here he comes now ...
hc23hc always gets bummed when facts get in the way of his oratory...
> > True... one such character in Berkeley "commuted" from the Richmond area, and
> > allegedly took in $100-$120 on an average day. I remember a couple of fake
> > "blind" individuals taking in about $30 in a 10 minute period. It was
> > unbelievable... all these dippy Berkeley liberals on College Avenue were
> > literally running over to these people
> /merciful deletia/
hc23hc apparently was embarrassed by the fact that a bunch of self-annointed
"educated, compassionate, aware" Berkeley Liberals were so easily snookered by a
couple of mediocre performers, that even P.T. Barnum turned over in his grave,
muttering that he had been a bit too generous w/r/t the intelligence of certain
segments of the populace...
> > > Did you know that your offer to feed a homeless person is probably
> > > illegal and considered by liberals a violation of their rights.
> /puh-leaze!/
> > At least somebody sees the game for what is it...
> >
> > Stan Rothwell
>
> Is it a 'bored' game ?
>
> - Hey, what did you do for Christmas, Stan ?
Re-read "Huck Finn" by Samuel Clemens. You ought to read it some time; it's an
American classic.The part about the drunken bum who renounces his ways every few
days to milk the generosity (and gullibility) of the townsfolk is a scream. Of
course, that was back in the days when most Americans were crude and
unsophisticated by modern Lefty Liberal standards, and unable to see bullshit for
anything else than it really was... ;o)
> < Oh, I had a really cool time learning stuff on the internet. I started a
> new thread called, "Brain-dead liberals refuse to admit that many homeless
> are bums..." A really interesting dude called Elric InRear (sp) and me got
> this really meaningful conversation about it going and we discovered that we
> both have a lot of really great ideas. I might have him over for Hannukah
> next year if my consultant business picks up. We can work out more ideas to
> eliminate liberism and thus solve the homeless problem. Yep, I should do this
> more often. It's much cheaper than going out and actually dealing with folks
> who may not be as asocial, smug and self-centered as I am.
Hey, hc23hc, you might actually be fun to argue with if you could actually stick to
issues without making things up as you go along...
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
> In article <367EF182...@ix.netcom.com>, Stan Rothwell
> <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Wayne wrote:
> >
> > > There are a lot of people who don't seem to consider exactly why many
> > > become homeless in the first place.
> >
> > Would perhaps one reason be the permissive acceptance of hard drug use
> (especially
> > halucinogenics) amongst the demographic group that comprises most
> hard-core homeless
> > (40-50 year old males who came to adolescence during the late 60's and early
> > 70's)???
>
> You're so full of shit Stan, you know that? Do you really think that most
> of the homeless are people who never came back from acid trips in the
> 60's?
In a sense, yes. Go talk to them, and listen to their speech patterns, and
observe their mannerisms and dress.And mention "Republicans" to some of these
people, and they are morek likely to bitch about Nixon and the CIA than rail about
Rush or Gingrich...
> Quess you had to be there! After six months in the bush in Nam I'd have
> dropped twenty hits of orange sunshine if it would have made the fucking
> war go away.
Shows how in touch you were, but OK...
> But then all the super-patriots like Rush Limbaugh, Newt
> Gingrich, and Dan Quayle were cheer-leading from the rear after their
> Daddy's got them out of the shit.
Where did Limbaugh, Quayle and Gingrich cone into this discussion? Is it
necessary to change the topic because you can't refute the facts? Typically
Liberals do this when they don't like the way the discussion is going. Next
you'll be telling me that I was a Vietnam hawk, and trying to get me involved in a
debate about the war...
> It was just us poor kids over there,
> poor kids sent to kill peasants so Hughs Air Corporation could sell more
> helicopters. No doubt there are some guys on the streets right now that
> can't get nightmares about the Ia Drang out their battered skulls.
And a lot of individuals who did suffer from various manifestations of delayed
stress syndrome learned to deal with it and are very productive, responsible
individuals...
> Do you know about the Ia Drang Stan? Or the Parrot's Beak? Or the Iron
> Triangle? Or any of the other thousand and one little shit-holes over
> there? Frankly, when I got home I wanted to kiss all those anti-war
> hippies because they were the only ones doing anything about ending that
> fucking mess over there. There were only two honorable places to be during
> the Vietnam War - in Vietnam, or out protesting the war and getting your
> skull busted by the cops.
Hey, how did I tell this was coming??? Liberal figures it's time to change the
discussion to avoid the original point at hand... typical tactic for someone who
would rather engage in an emotional tirade than deal with the issue at hand...So
does this necessarily advance the position that drug use is NOT a contributor to
the homeless problem?I'm sorry to interrupt your diatribe, but again you're not
dealing with the original point..
> Meanwhile, back in the world, our politicians were sitting on their fat
> hams, stupid platitudes about "peace with honor" dribbling from theirwell-fed
> lips.
So getting back to the real issue at hand, are you telling me that a lot of these
individuals and the streets are NOT former drug users, or are you telling me that
they were, but since they MIGHT have served in the military during the time period
from 1965-1975, they are certifiable victims, and we should just ignore any
self-destructive behavior on their part for fear of appearing too insensitive???
> > An interesting question that the aging ex-hippie liberals (who jump
> through hoops to
> > try to rationalize their OWN behavior during this time frame) refuse to
> address...
> >
> I don't know Stan, I haven't met many gung ho "conservative" ex-grunts.
> Most of the posturing Rambo-wannabees I run into were clerk typists in Da
> Nang or never went in the first place. The war helped make me a liberal.
> It did that to most of the guys I know who went over there.
I don't quite understand if how opposition to how the war was conducted makes one
a "liberal", unless you accept the presumption that the war was driven solely by
mean, nasty, baby-killing conservatives, and that the liberal were one unified
faction doing their best to bring peace and love to the world. I seem to remember
that a strong proponent of liberal social and economic policies named Lyndon
Baines Johnson thought he was so much more intelligent and adept at running a war
than the military professionals, and we seem to have the same deal today with
another one named William Jefferson Clinton.
Obviously I did not participate in any combat in Southeast Asia, as I was only 14
when the conflict ended, and did not join the miltary until 1982. I know a lot of
older servicemen who had very strong and vocal disagreements with the way the war
was handled, but that didn't make them Liberals! Certainly not Lt. Col. Secord,
our wing DO who was held as a "house guest" of the NVA for 7 years after his F-105
was hit by a "flying telephone pole". He had no love of the protesters, not of
the druggie servicemen who stood to risk the lives of their fellow servicemen.
Now I didn't mean to get into a dissertation about the Viet Nam War, Mr. McFarlin,
as the original subject had to do with why many individuals are homeless. Now if
you wish to debate the war, that's a separate issue altogether, but use a shred of
intellectual honesty (which I know is hard for a liberal to do) and stop trying to
twist the argument into one of having no regard for Vietnam veterans, OK???
Stan Rothwell
Elric of Imrryr
says...
>
> Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that in the late 1980's, the economy was GROWING
> thanx to evil Ronnie Reagan's "tax cuts", and that you couldn't HIRE someone there at 5 bucks
> an hour back then... :O)
>
> > Okay, so I don't know anything about minimum wage statistics, and your
> > logic works out flawlessly. But reality has proven you wrong.
>
> Seems your lack of research has proven YOU wrong, Liberal Boy... :O)
>
> Stan Rothwell
And you are only quoting half the facts. Tax cuts where only half the
story, the other half was a massive increasing in gov't spending to
simulate the economy by spendig money on goods and services that
there was no real demend for. An economic boom that busted during the
Bush recession.
Sure it was great when kids out of high school in Palmdale could lead
35K a year assembly line work building B-2, but it did not take long
to over supply the defense market, and then POP! Guess what, Palmdale
and Lancaster are now popular locations for people in welfare and
have a very big problem with drug abuse (mainly methamphetamine).
Reaganomics was plain old liberal Keysian borrow and spend
liberalism. Reagan simply back loaded an economic boom on future tax
payers.
Stan Rothwell
> In article <368421EB...@ix.netcom.com>, roth...@ix.netcom.com
> says...
> > Why do we have people running around offering addicts clean needles, instead
> > of helping them overcome addiction and avoid the twin ills of AIDS affliction
> > AND hard drug addiction? Because they are more interested in making their
> > statement of so-called 'compassion' w/r/t AIDS, than encouraging people to
> > give up self-destructive behavior!!!
> >
> > All of us make mistakes and bad decisons from time to time, but those of us
> > who have had to suffer the consequences of them (w/o running to the government
> > for help) quickly learn that we must act responsibly in our private lives, and
> > realize that with actions come consequences. The liberal philosphy is more
> > concerned with "feeling good" about symbolic actions and stances, than it is
> > with advocating courses of action that would in the long run be more
> > beneficial to the recipients...
> >
> > Stan Rothwell
>
> So if people want to spend their own money giving out free food or
> free needles, why not?
I'm not opposed to giving out free food, but I strongly disagree with the free
needles. While I don't think it should be necessarily be illegal, I see no reason
to condone a destructive act such as IV drug use. Perhaps it's more convenient to
make these people "victims" than suggest that they need to take responsibility for
their actions...
> As long my tax dollars are not being spent,
> I'm all for letting people try different forms of assistance for
> these people. For example most of the needle exchange programs do at
> least provide a way to gage the size of the IV drug using population,
> and by putting them in daily contact with trained or semi-trained
> health workers allows this popular to observed for public health
> dangers. Secondly it allows a centralized place where anti-addiction
> programs and/or religious groups can reach these people on a neutral
> ground.
>
> There is a group in orange county that goes around recruiting people
> on welfare and with drug addictions to get sterilized, and pays them
> cash and pays for the procedure. Great idea, yet conservatives oppose
> this because they claim that all form of birth control accept just
> "just say no" are immoral.
Im not opposed to voluntary sterilization provided the money is raised by private
individuals. Where have you seen me post any opposition to birth control? Making
assumptions about my positions on issues???
> The problem is not just liberal using victimization to promote their
> agenda, but conservatisms doing the same to promote their agenda.
> Welfare or the War on Drugs is all about PORK BARREL spending to
> create public sector jobs
Surprise!!! I disagree strongly with many aspects of our current drug policy
(although I also submit that recreational drug use is unhealthy)... In addition, I
know a lot of people that most of the Lefty Liberals who post in this NG would
consider "Far Right" who actually support decriminalization of most (if not all)
drugs. I ALSO know some VERY "Liberal" people who not only support criminal
penalties for hard drug use, but wish to outlaw cigarettes and alcohol as well!!So
it's sort of lame to suggest that "conservatives" categorically support criminal
penalties for drug use.
Personally, I think most druggies are losers. However, I don't advocate making the
drug use itself a criminal act. What I do advocate is holding these people
RESPONSIBLE for their actions. If they get stoned or wasted in the privacy of their
own home, I personally don't care. If they get on the road and kill someone, send
them to jail for life... If they can't find a job because their brains are fried,
and you want to help them with your OWN money and time, go ahead, but their
irresponsibility does NOT give them some right to collect a government benefit.
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
> In article <368558BA...@ix.netcom.com>, roth...@ix.netcom.com
> says...
> >
> > Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that in the late 1980's, the economy was GROWING
> > thanx to evil Ronnie Reagan's "tax cuts", and that you couldn't HIRE someone there at 5 bucks
> > an hour back then... :O)
> >
> > > Okay, so I don't know anything about minimum wage statistics, and your
> > > logic works out flawlessly. But reality has proven you wrong.
> >
> > Seems your lack of research has proven YOU wrong, Liberal Boy... :O)
> >
> > Stan Rothwell
>
> And you are only quoting half the facts. Tax cuts where only half the
> story, the other half was a massive increasing in gov't spending to
> simulate the economy by spendig money on goods and services that
> there was no real demend for. An economic boom that busted during the
> Bush recession.
Liberal congressional Democrats were responsible for the increased spending... :O)
> Sure it was great when kids out of high school in Palmdale could lead
> 35K a year assembly line work building B-2, but it did not take long
> to over supply the defense market, and then POP! Guess what, Palmdale
> and Lancaster are now popular locations for people in welfare and
> have a very big problem with drug abuse (mainly methamphetamine).
>
> Reaganomics was plain old liberal Keysian borrow and spend
> liberalism. Reagan simply back loaded an economic boom on future tax
> payers.
Again, the Dems spent more than Reagan called for, but as a liberal I guess it's important to make
sure that your policies are never blamed for anything...
Stan
Stan Rothwell
> In article <368423BD...@ix.netcom.com>, roth...@ix.netcom.com
> says...
> > Elric of Imrryr wrote:
> > > Liberals are as much fans of
> > > hard work as conservatives because it ias thru work that taxes are
> > > produced to create jobs for liberals.
> >
> > There, however, it a them of divorcing actions from responsibility that forms
> > the central core of the "hippie" ethos...
>
> Hippies are a dated boogey-man, who never had much currency with the
> liberal establishment.
The concept of irresponsibility strikes a resonant chord with the left, and therefore
the illustration is valid...
> Look how the democrats beat the shit out of
> them in Chicago '68.
Nice to see the Dems for what they were...
> It is similar about money, and in order to get
> campaign contributions liberals have to support certain programs.
> Conversative farmers (hard workers all) WANT food stamps because it
> creates a market for their products whos prices are artifically
> inflated by gov't price controls.
And I'm opposed to those same price controls and subsidies, so you'll find no support
for our agricultural policies here...
> Without such price controls, the
> price of basic food stuffes who plumate. This like cheese, milk,
> chicken would cost much less (calfornia for example has the most
> expensive milk in the nation because of price cpontrols and gov't
> spending for those stupid "Its the Cheese" and "Got Milk" ads).
That's right! Let the market do it's thing, and food gets cheaper. Like I said
previously, I oppose price supports and subsidies, whether they are for production OR
consumption. One reason I did NOT support Dole in 1996.
> Organized religion (which is inherantly conservative) opposed most
> welfare reform, since unrestricted public support for reproduction
> benefits certain religious groups.
Some groups did, most did not. However, I personally oppose government incentives for
individuals to reproduce irresponsibly.
> Plus every child equals a
> federally manidated increase in funding for schools, can you say
> Teacher's Union and Campaign contributions?
I have no love for the NEA or any of its supporters, and based on past encounters, I'm
sure the feeling is mutual with them...
> In many areas the public has little say in local elections, often
> have a choice of candidates picked by the unions, especially in areas
> like school boards and law enforcement.
>
> You have to follow the money, and it is BIG MONEY that supports the
> programs you bitch about.
I don't doubt it... However, many of the liberals who claim to be against 'special
interests' and 'big money' are the first to shut their mouths and take it when it
comes along. Most of the media in California rolls over and plays dead when questions
are raised concerning restrictive legislation or subsidies that give certain groups
special favors. One of the most ironic aspects in California media coverage is that
some of the most vociferous criticism and journalistic exposure to some of these
practices has come from some of the same alleged "Right-Wing" talk show hosts that the
rest of the media dismisses as shills for corporate conservatism. Lee Rogers on KSFO
in the Bay Area and Roger Hedgecock on KOGO in San Diego are about as conservative as
you get, but they have led listener protests and demonstrations against oil-company
price gouging by eliminating competition, housing developers buying off city councils,
and other institutions (both public and private sector) that the feel-good liberals
over at your local NPR or PBS outlet wouldn't raise a peep about...
> > > In fact most of the liberal
> > > leaders who came out of the 60's and into politics are just an
> > > authoritarian and anti-drug as their conversative foes.
> >
> > I accept your legitimacy w/r/t the authoritarian point of view, but a little
> > more elaboration on the latter may be in order...
>
> Medical marijuana. The democrats have fallen all over themselves to
> opposed and obstruct it inspite of it beening passed by a majority.
Fair enough... an example did not come to mind at the time...
> Also if you look in the history of the banning of LSD, you will find
> one of the key players was Teddy Kennedy. More recently the laws that
> might it very likely that people in possesion of more then 2-3 hits
> of LSD will serve LIFE in prison was ultra-liberal senator Biden.
>
>
> >
> > > Also LSD is no barrier to good job. Me and many of my peers have or
> > > still use marijuana, LSD, etc. are work good productive jobs. I work
> > > as a financial manager, I have other heads where are doctors,
> > > geologists, columnists, translators, teachers, claims adjusters,
> > > etc.
> >
> > I would NOT want an individual with a prior history of LSD use as a doctor,
> > police officer, or airline pilot, as the risks to public safety are not
> > acceptable. Since many teachers are in la-la land as it is, it probably doesn't
> > make much of a difference... :O(
>
> And we have drug testing of people in critical field to make sure,
> except that alcohol abuse is not tested for (Exxon Valdez anyone?)
I make no excuse for that...
> Plus people can destroy themselves just fine without drugs.. Gambling
> is the current trendy social ill leading the destruction of our moral
> fiber these days.... Hmmmm the liberals its seems don't want the
> Indians (true victims there) running casinos.
The casino issue is a bit more involved that... one problem is that the individuals
tribes are somewhat fickle about the concept of 'sovereignity', and use it selectively
when it is to their immediate advantage to do so...
> Enforcing morality is big business, and the business of america is
> business.
I'm not discounting that, but at the same time I'm not going to dismiss the use of
hallucinogenics as innocuous or harmless...
Stan Rothwell
Elric of Imrryr
But as long as a large majority benefits under the current system
there is no motivation for any real change in the system. Both
parties are basically conservative in the fact that they both oppose
any change in the status-quo, and attempts by the voters to directly
change the operation of government in blocked and delayed by the
government which can sepnd unlimited tax dollars on lawsuits and
restraining orders, and if that fails the government can just ignore
the will of people.
The "Reagan Revolution" only happened because the economy was in the
toilet. As Clinton has shown, the public will tolerate a pea-brained
liberal president as long as inflation and unemployment are low.
If that pea brain moron Bush has not sent Saddam Hussein mixed
signals on his planned invasion of Iraqi, we might not have had such
a bad recession, and Clinton would not have rode a swell of economic
discontent into the white house.
The net effect is that until the economy goes down the tubes and
unemplyment starts to rise no one will listen to you, since their
standard of living comfortable. Change only will occur as the general
standard of living drops. The problem is that it is hard to predict
the direction. We could move to wards a more socialist or even
national socialist economy or towards a more free market economy.
Personally I feel that regardless of what we think or even what the
voters might want, one world socialism will soon be here. We already
have the international tracking of all money, requirements that every
child globally be assigned a tax ID number, and control over the
markets by non-elected bodies like WTO who can dictate economy policy
without approval of the electorate.
But then again, I'm a political pessimist, have been since Tienman
Square.
Elric of Imrryr
says...
> Karen McFarlin wrote:
>
> > In article <367EF182...@ix.netcom.com>, Stan Rothwell
> > <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Wayne wrote:
> > >
> > > > There are a lot of people who don't seem to consider exactly why many
> > > > become homeless in the first place.
> > >
> > > Would perhaps one reason be the permissive acceptance of hard drug use
> > (especially
> > > halucinogenics) amongst the demographic group that comprises most
> > hard-core homeless
> > > (40-50 year old males who came to adolescence during the late 60's and early
> > > 70's)???
> >
> > You're so full of shit Stan, you know that? Do you really think that most
> > of the homeless are people who never came back from acid trips in the
> > 60's?
>
> In a sense, yes. Go talk to them, and listen to their speech patterns, and
> observe their mannerisms and dress.And mention "Republicans" to some of these
> people, and they are morek likely to bitch about Nixon and the CIA than rail about
> Rush or Gingrich...
Don't forget you too that according to some studies 14% of the
population is at risk for schizophrenia, which if untreated or
unmedicated appear alot like drug induced crazyness (LSD was
originally used as an attempt to simulate schizophrenia).
Schizophrenic breaks often occur right around the same time young
adult leave home (late teens/20's). So pass out the prozac and maybe
some of these people will come back to reality.
But thru no fault of their own one out of 20 is likely to just be
unable to function in the modern industrial/technological state. The
problem is sorting out these from those who just malinger, and it is
not easy... I sat out the Bush recession by getting myself declared
to depressed to work (decided to get back a chunk of that money that
was being taken out of checks for the last 10 years). After 12 months
I was so bored I was glad when the economy picked up and I found a
good job in the brokerage industry. But the system is grossly easy to
fool, and that is where Stan has a valid point.
Elric of Imrryr
> Elric of Imrryr wrote:
> > liberalism. Reagan simply back loaded an economic boom on future tax
> > payers.
>
> Again, the Dems spent more than Reagan called for, but as a liberal I guess it's important to make
> sure that your policies are never blamed for anything...
>
> Stan
And Reagan could have veto'd the spending bills, and plnety of
conservatives had their heads in the pig slop pail. Pork is bi-
partisan. If the liberals take the blame, then they have to share the
credit, after all it was the liberal Congress that approved the tax
cuts. It is congress not the executive branch that sets taxes.
So actually Reagan had nothing to do with it, since he just rubber
stamped acts of the liberal congress.
Wayne
Bill wrote:
>
> In article <36846582...@usa.net>,
> Wayne <blackie...@usa.net> wrote while drinking:
>
> > Slick and Jafo have a contest going to see who can berate whom more
> >than the other... <G> ...
>
> No, its abattle of the wits. And Slick appears to be unarmed.
>
From some of slicks posts, I'd say she was heavily armed.
YMMV
Jafo
Slick <hc23hc> wrote, in reply to Stan Rothwell:
>I don't want to waste time berating you at lengths you do not deserve.
Uh huh.
--
~ Jafo http://bounce.to/jafo
"Now go away, or I shall taunt you some more!"
- the Frenchman, in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"
Merlin Dorfman
: special favors. One of the most ironic aspects in California media coverage is that
: some of the most vociferous criticism and journalistic exposure to some of these
: practices has come from some of the same alleged "Right-Wing" talk show hosts that the
: rest of the media dismisses as shills for corporate conservatism. Lee Rogers on KSFO
: in the Bay Area and Roger Hedgecock on KOGO in San Diego are about as conservative as
: you get, but they have led listener protests and demonstrations against oil-company
: price gouging by eliminating competition, housing developers buying off city councils,
: and other institutions (both public and private sector) that the feel-good liberals
: over at your local NPR or PBS outlet wouldn't raise a peep about...
Don't listen to NPR or PBS much, do you? At least on the local
shows like Weekend Edition and Fresh Air I hear a lot about the influence
of money and power on local government, leading to abuses such as you
describe. Even King Willie (Willie Brown, SF mayor) is coming in for
his share of criticism.
I will concede, however, that the huge* amounts of money coming in
to PBS and NPR from the likes of Mobil Oil and Archer-Daniels-Midland
has led to excessive timidity on the part of the broadcasters towards
exposing corporate abuses. Money talks, even in the "nonprofit"
world.
(* Huge by NPR/PBS standards; pocket change to the corporations
involved.)
: > Enforcing morality is big business, and the business of america is
: > business.
: I'm not discounting that, but at the same time I'm not going to dismiss the use of
: hallucinogenics as innocuous or harmless...
But should it be illegal?
(By the way, Stan, can you do something about your Word Wrap?)
Stan Rothwell
> And Reagan could have veto'd the spending bills, and plnety of
> conservatives had their heads in the pig slop pail. Pork is bi-
> partisan. If the liberals take the blame, then they have to share the
> credit, after all it was the liberal Congress that approved the tax
> cuts. It is congress not the executive branch that sets taxes.
Reagan compromised in order to avoid losing his increases in defense spending. Should he have been more
insistent in reining in spending on social programs? In retrospect, yes. However, Reagan did push the
tax reform package, which resulted in an INCREASE in revenues from $600 billion in 1982 to $900 billion
in 1990, so he did something right...
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
> In article <368562C2...@ix.netcom.com>, roth...@ix.netcom.com
> says...
> > Karen McFarlin wrote:
> >
> > > In article <367EF182...@ix.netcom.com>, Stan Rothwell
> > > <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wayne wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > There are a lot of people who don't seem to consider exactly why many
> > > > > become homeless in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > Would perhaps one reason be the permissive acceptance of hard drug use
> > > (especially
> > > > halucinogenics) amongst the demographic group that comprises most
> > > hard-core homeless
> > > > (40-50 year old males who came to adolescence during the late 60's and early
> > > > 70's)???
> > >
> > > You're so full of shit Stan, you know that? Do you really think that most
> > > of the homeless are people who never came back from acid trips in the
> > > 60's?
> >
> > In a sense, yes. Go talk to them, and listen to their speech patterns, and
> > observe their mannerisms and dress.And mention "Republicans" to some of these
> > people, and they are morek likely to bitch about Nixon and the CIA than rail about
> > Rush or Gingrich...
>
> Don't forget you too that according to some studies 14% of the
> population is at risk for schizophrenia, which if untreated or
> unmedicated appear alot like drug induced crazyness (LSD was
> originally used as an attempt to simulate schizophrenia).
> Schizophrenic breaks often occur right around the same time young
> adult leave home (late teens/20's). So pass out the prozac and maybe
> some of these people will come back to reality.
>
> But thru no fault of their own one out of 20 is likely to just be
> unable to function in the modern industrial/technological state. The
> problem is sorting out these from those who just malinger, and it is
> not easy... I sat out the Bush recession by getting myself declared
> to depressed to work (decided to get back a chunk of that money that
> was being taken out of checks for the last 10 years). After 12 months
> I was so bored I was glad when the economy picked up and I found a
> good job in the brokerage industry. But the system is grossly easy to
> fool, and that is where Stan has a valid point.
That's the point I have been trying to make, and I'm glad someone finally sees it....
I don't doubt that there are people in a bad spot that could warrant some help from us
as individuals (as opposed to government intervention). However, I argue just as
vociferously that their ranks have been swollen by plenty of field-jacket wearing
poseurs who are trying to cash in on the public's sympathy (and gullibility). Often
public policy on these issues gets determined by feel-good emotionalism as opposed to
common sense, as those who urge a more skeptical examination are routinely condemned as
being insensitive and uncaring for pointing this out...
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
> Stan Rothwell (roth...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : special favors. One of the most ironic aspects in California media coverage is that
> : some of the most vociferous criticism and journalistic exposure to some of these
> : practices has come from some of the same alleged "Right-Wing" talk show hosts that the
> : rest of the media dismisses as shills for corporate conservatism. Lee Rogers on KSFO
> : in the Bay Area and Roger Hedgecock on KOGO in San Diego are about as conservative as
> : you get, but they have led listener protests and demonstrations against oil-company
> : price gouging by eliminating competition, housing developers buying off city councils,
> : and other institutions (both public and private sector) that the feel-good liberals
> : over at your local NPR or PBS outlet wouldn't raise a peep about...
>
> Don't listen to NPR or PBS much, do you? At least on the local
> shows like Weekend Edition and Fresh Air I hear a lot about the influence
> of money and power on local government, leading to abuses such as you
> describe. Even King Willie (Willie Brown, SF mayor) is coming in for
> his share of criticism.
I've heard some of the PBS stuff on a San Diego affiliate, but even that stuff is somewhat
tame compared to guys like Rogers and Hedgecock who are much more to the point and blunt
about it. I personally am turned off by much of the NPR commentary because I don't think
they are aggressive and critical enough, and the voices often come across as someone who
sounds like they are lecturing a room full of small children. There is a different
political perspective as well.The conservative commentators I listen to are very much
supporters of the concept of free-market philosophies, and point out that receiving
government favors or subsidies is soaking the taxpayer just like a welfare recipient
collecting a check for doing nothing, or a government bureaucrat making up work to justify
his/her existence. A lot of individuals on the left routinely scream about 'corporate
welfare', but many on the right are much more vociferous about it than the mainstream
liberals are. However, it seems to be in the interest of the liberal media to represent
most conservative talk show hosts as a bunch of militaristic insensitive racists, so many
remain ignorant about what many of these individuals truly advocate...
Recommended listening in the Bay Area: Lee Rogers and Melanie Morgan (KSFO 560 AM) 6:30 AM
-9:30 AM weekdays.
Recommended listening in San Diego: Roger Hedgecock (KOGO 600 AM) 12:20 PM-3:00 PM weekdays.
These individuals focus primarily on local (and state) political issues, and are worth a
listen.
Stan Rothwell
(PS. I've been playing around with the preferences while setting up mailboxes. I'll see if I
didn't click something on or off inadvertently in the process. - SAR)
Merlin Dorfman
: > good job in the brokerage industry. But the system is grossly easy to
: > fool, and that is where Stan has a valid point.
: That's the point I have been trying to make, and I'm glad someone finally sees it....
: I don't doubt that there are people in a bad spot that could warrant some help from us
: as individuals (as opposed to government intervention). However, I argue just as
: vociferously that their ranks have been swollen by plenty of field-jacket wearing
: poseurs who are trying to cash in on the public's sympathy (and gullibility). Often
: public policy on these issues gets determined by feel-good emotionalism as opposed to
: common sense, as those who urge a more skeptical examination are routinely condemned as
: being insensitive and uncaring for pointing this out...
There is a cost to determine fraud, and the point of diminishing
returns is when you have so many inspectors, auditors, and reviewers
that the cost of adding one more exceeds the savings that person would
generate. (We are way past that point in defense spending, by the way.)
For simple life-support (food etc.), I think it is often cheaper to just
pass it out than to spend a lot of time and money to determine
eligibility. What we have to ensure is that the resulting standard of
living is not attractive enough that people would take it if they had
a choice (e.g., working). Most people have enough pride that they
would rather work than be on welfare, but we need to avoid having
government policy create more people who would rather avoid working
if they possibly can.
Elric of Imrryr
says...
Reagan did push the
> tax reform package, which resulted in an INCREASE in revenues from $600 billion in 1982 to $900 billion
> in 1990, so he did something right...
>
> Stan Rothwell
Now that is the perfect campaign slogan for re-electing a pol....
Vote for Boffo, he did something right!
Stan Rothwell
> Stan Rothwell (roth...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : > good job in the brokerage industry. But the system is grossly easy to
> : > fool, and that is where Stan has a valid point.
>
> : That's the point I have been trying to make, and I'm glad someone finally sees it....
>
> : I don't doubt that there are people in a bad spot that could warrant some help from us
> : as individuals (as opposed to government intervention). However, I argue just as
> : vociferously that their ranks have been swollen by plenty of field-jacket wearing
> : poseurs who are trying to cash in on the public's sympathy (and gullibility). Often
> : public policy on these issues gets determined by feel-good emotionalism as opposed to
> : common sense, as those who urge a more skeptical examination are routinely condemned as
> : being insensitive and uncaring for pointing this out...
>
> There is a cost to determine fraud, and the point of diminishing
> returns is when you have so many inspectors, auditors, and reviewers
> that the cost of adding one more exceeds the savings that person would
> generate.
Perhaps another choice would be to leave "charity" up to individuals who canmake a judgement
call, as opposed to leaving it up to bureaucrats who don't
personally suffer for making bad decisions. BTW, the LDS (Mormons) are
pretty proactive when it comes to helping people in their own communities,
and aggressively encourage their congregation members to become involved
and get to know the recipients of their charity personally. From what I understand,
this approach has been reasonably successful. They will not let their charges
starve or sleep out in the streets, but at the same time they will insist that they
constructively contribute to their own rehabilitation. While I have my personal
disagreements with LDS theology, they have a better track record with their poor
than our welfare bureaucracy does.
> (We are way past that point in defense spending, by the way.)
I don't contest that point...
> For simple life-support (food etc.), I think it is often cheaper to just
> pass it out than to spend a lot of time and money to determine
> eligibility.
IMHO the decison for "eligibility" needs to be made NOT by a bureaucratusing complex
criteria, but individuals in that person's community who
know what's going on and have some insight... In cases like this the local
street missionaries probably have a better idea as to who is looking for work
and who is hitting the crack pipes. At some point judgement has to be made,
and some individual has to have the authority to say "We're not letting you in
the tent and feeding you tonight because you're stoned off your ass and you're
disrupting our efforts to help others". Receipt of charity is NOT a right, and it
needs to be made clear that if you're not going to abide by the rules, you can't
play the game.
> What we have to ensure is that the resulting standard of
> living is not attractive enough that people would take it if they had
> a choice (e.g., working). Most people have enough pride that they
> would rather work than be on welfare, but we need to avoid having
> government policy create more people who would rather avoid working
> if they possibly can.
No argument there...
Stan Rothwell
Karen McFarlin
<roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Karen McFarlin wrote:
> > You're so full of shit Stan, you know that? Do you really think that most
> > of the homeless are people who never came back from acid trips in the
> > 60's?
>
> In a sense, yes. Go talk to them, and listen to their speech patterns, and
> observe their mannerisms and dress.And mention "Republicans" to some of these
> people, and they are morek likely to bitch about Nixon and the CIA than
rail about
> Rush or Gingrich...
So you think the majority of the homeless are ex-hippies from the 60's? I
mean, that's what you've said, as if to imply that homelessness was caused
by liberal, anti-war hippies from the 60's. Which makes them, by your
twisted (il)logic, both the perpetrators and the victims at the same time!
> > Quess you had to be there! After six months in the bush in Nam I'd have
> > dropped twenty hits of orange sunshine if it would have made the fucking
> > war go away.
>
> Shows how in touch you were, but OK...
Oh I was "in touch," I assure you. It was the people at home, the
generals, and the politicians, who were out-of-touch.
> And a lot of individuals who did suffer from various manifestations of delayed
> stress syndrome learned to deal with it and are very productive, responsible
> individuals...
I did. But many didn't. I had six really close friends over there. We were
like brothers. Two are dead, one got mangled, and two of them have been
messed up (one on booze and the other on drugs) ever since. They came over
normal 18 and 19 year olds.
> Hey, how did I tell this was coming??? Liberal figures it's time to
change the
> discussion to avoid the original point at hand...
Your point is crap! It's based on the same kind of half-truth rhetoric
that Rush Limbaugh engages in. Yes, many, if not most, of the people on
the streets are messed up on drugs/booze. But most of them are NOT ex-60's
hippy-liberals! That's bullshit! And most of them didn't end up on the
street because they dropped acid with their nerdy dorm-buddies at Berkeley
back in 67!
I personally know a whole bunch of these ex-hippies from the 60's and most
of them are prosperous ordinary people with kids, mortgages, and volvos!
Not a few of them are small business owners. Almost none-of-them use drugs
today. Shit man, they won't even eat meat!
> does this necessarily advance the position that drug use is NOT a
contributor to
> the homeless problem?I'm sorry to interrupt your diatribe,
No one is disputing the first statement you made. What's in dispute is the
little rider you stuck on the initial assertion like one of Gingrich's
pork-barrel military spending amendments.
Drug and alcahol contribute very greatly to homelessness. So does a lack
of hope, unemployment, the price of housing, mental illness, being thrown
out by one's parents! In other words, you've engaged in the same,
simple-minded, single-cause explanation of a complex phenomena that is
typical of your political crowd.
You want to find a way to justify your hate of the homeless.
> > Meanwhile, back in the world, our politicians were sitting on their fat
> > hams, stupid platitudes about "peace with honor" dribbling from
theirwell-fed
> > lips.
>
> So getting back to the real issue at hand, are you telling me that a lot
of these
> individuals and the streets are NOT former drug users, or are you
telling me that
> they were, but since they MIGHT have served in the military during the
time period
> from 1965-1975, they are certifiable victims, and we should just ignore any
> self-destructive behavior on their part for fear of appearing too
insensitive???
I'm saying that no single-cause model will suffice to explain the
phenomena of homelessness. Some of the people that are on the streets got
there BECAUSE they were drug addicts before they got to the streets.
Others became drug addicts AFTER they hit the streets. Others have
suffered some great personal tragedy, others are simply the losers in the
economic free-for-all and ran out of money and resources. No small number
of the homeless are run-away kids escaping abusive parents. And some are
just the children of impoverished parents.
There is no single-cause! There is no simple answer!
> I don't quite understand if how opposition to how the war was conducted
makes one
> a "liberal", unless you accept the presumption that the war was driven
solely by
> mean, nasty, baby-killing conservatives, and that the liberal were one unified
> faction doing their best to bring peace and love to the world. I seem to
remember
> that a strong proponent of liberal social and economic policies named Lyndon
> Baines Johnson thought he was so much more intelligent and adept at
running a war
> than the military professionals, and we seem to have the same deal today with
> another one named William Jefferson Clinton.
Our Vietnam policy was driven by the notion that we were responsible for
"containing communism." The "military professionals" didn't really have a
plan for winning the war. Quite often, "military professionals" seldom
even went to the field! There's a 24 year old second lieutenant, a couple
of "shake-and-bake" instant NCO's, and fourty 18/19 year old PFC's. Our
battalion commander used to fly over us in his huey barking orders over
the radio. He had no fucking idea what was happening either!
> Obviously I did not participate in any combat in Southeast Asia, as I
was only 14
> when the conflict ended, and did not join the miltary until 1982. I
know a lot of
> older servicemen who had very strong and vocal disagreements with the
way the war
> was handled, but that didn't make them Liberals! Certainly not Lt. Col.
Secord,
> our wing DO who was held as a "house guest" of the NVA for 7 years after
his F-105
> was hit by a "flying telephone pole". He had no love of the protesters,
not of
> the druggie servicemen who stood to risk the lives of their fellow servicemen.
People don't usually get stoned on night ambush patrol Stan! They would
pop a couple of pills to stay awake, but nobody I knew lit up a joint in
the bush! And if this LtC. of yours was a pilot, then we're talking apples
and oranges.
I've got lots of respect for the guys flying around up there in the
overhead. Especially the helo jocks! They were brave guys. But they lived
in hooches in the rear and ate hot food and slept on clean sheets.
Baby-san washed and pressed their uniforms.
Grunts just go from one stinking mud-hole to another. They don't get to
fly over the stench of war. They have to rub their faces in the shit every
day. Change the angle of your perspective and you change everything.
Ever wonder why there were no grunts released when the prisoners came home
from the war Stan? Pilots are important people. Grunts are expendable.
Charlie didn't take grunts prisoner, he shot them in the head.
Nothing becomes so apparent after your arrival in Vietnam than the
"military professionals" are in a different game altogether. And the lives
of grunts just don't matter very much in the big plan.
I say this without a trace of self-pity. The whole thing was a fucking
revelation. It didn't destroy me. It deepened my sense of compassion and
the beauty of life. If it hadn't been for the war, I might have ended up
just another ignorant redneck! Years later I was talking to one of these
ex-hippie anti-war types at a dinner party. He looked me in the face and
said, without a trace of hostility toward me, "I hated that fucking war."
All I said was "Me too pal, me too."
> you wish to debate the war, that's a separate issue altogether, but use
a shred of
> intellectual honesty (which I know is hard for a liberal to do) and stop
trying to
> twist the argument into one of having no regard for Vietnam veterans, OK???
>
> Stan Rothwell
You want to talk "honestly" Stan? Then climb off your pretentious soap box
and admit that you don't know all the fucking answers about homelessness,
or about anything else for that matter. And try showing some compassion
for your fellow human being. Homeless people are human beings. Often
annoying ones, true, but humans none the less. People don't just decide
one day - "hey I think I'll become a homeless, mentally-ill, drug addicted
loser!" Especially in a society that increasingly lacks the most basic
emotions of pity and understanding.
Where did all these people come from? Why are they there in the first
place. To just say they're lazy ex-hippies is not only dead wrong, it
makes you sound like a pea-wit to even say it!
Rob McFarlin
Stan Rothwell
You were sounding cogent for a while, but became unglued when I suggested that Reagan was RIGHT w/r/t the tax
cuts.Of course, I neglected to acknowledge the REAL reason that Lefty Liberals like to raise taxes... It has
nothing to do with raising revenues, but everything to do with punishing the successful. So sorry to
overlook that point... :O)
Stan Rothwell
joshua geller
Karen McFarlin <ka...@snowcrest.net> (actually Rob) wrote:
>Drug and alcahol contribute very greatly to homelessness. So does a lack
>of hope, unemployment, the price of housing, mental illness, being thrown
>out by one's parents! In other words, you've engaged in the same,
>simple-minded, single-cause explanation of a complex phenomena that is
>typical of your political crowd.
Really, it's a function of the how good the economy is doing.
Right now there is plenty of work, at least around where I am. There
are very few bums. There are lots and lots of illegal immigrants doing
casual labor.
Personally I think that illegal immigrants who do casual labor are
cool.
I like bums too: I was on the bum for a while. It's an interesting way
of life. I recommend that everyone do it at a certain point in their
life. It gives perspective that you really can't get any other way.
You're really free when you are on the bum. You don't have any
attachments to anything. You can live inside the city, you can live
outside the city. What you are doing is living like animals live, or
pretty close.
You can die doing this. That's the flip side. But you're going to die
some way anyhow.
I always give beggars money, personally.
My best,
josh
Stan Rothwell
> In article <368562C2...@ix.netcom.com>, Stan Rothwell
> <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Karen McFarlin wrote:
>
> > > You're so full of shit Stan, you know that? Do you really think that most
> > > of the homeless are people who never came back from acid trips in the
> > > 60's?
> >
> > In a sense, yes. Go talk to them, and listen to their speech patterns, and
> > observe their mannerisms and dress.And mention "Republicans" to some of these
> > people, and they are morek likely to bitch about Nixon and the CIA than
> rail about
> > Rush or Gingrich...
>
> So you think the majority of the homeless are ex-hippies from the 60's?
Like I said, observe and talk to them for a while, and you get a clear idea of their
cultural perspective.I
> mean, that's what you've said, as if to imply that homelessness was caused
> by liberal, anti-war hippies from the 60's.
Twisting things a bit, eh? Note that I didn't say anything about the anti-war
movement being responsible for homeless, but since I sense that I struck a nerve
from which you are unable to respond in a cogent manner, it became necessary to spin
the argument accordingly, since you can't argue it on it's merits w/o making things
up... :O(
> Which makes them, by your
> twisted (il)logic, both the perpetrators and the victims at the same time!
Nice try, but please stick to the original argument, which was whether the damage
caused by excessive drug use was a significant factor in the rise of the urban
homeless within the last few decades...
> > > Quess you had to be there! After six months in the bush in Nam I'd have
> > > dropped twenty hits of orange sunshine if it would have made the fucking
> > > war go away.
> >
> > Shows how in touch you were, but OK...
>
> Oh I was "in touch," I assure you. It was the people at home, the
> generals, and the politicians, who were out-of-touch.
And I suppose that would have made it go away, and would have enhanced the safety
and well-being of your fellow soldiers... or were you fighting the war as a solo
effort (do we have a left-wing Rambo in our presence)???
> > And a lot of individuals who did suffer from various manifestations of delayed
> > stress syndrome learned to deal with it and are very productive, responsible
> > individuals...
>
> I did. But many didn't. I had six really close friends over there. We were
> like brothers. Two are dead, one got mangled, and two of them have been
> messed up (one on booze and the other on drugs) ever since. They came over
> normal 18 and 19 year olds.
>
> > Hey, how did I tell this was coming??? Liberal figures it's time to
> change the
> > discussion to avoid the original point at hand...
>
> Your point is crap! It's based on the same kind of half-truth rhetoric
> that Rush Limbaugh engages in.
Let's bring in Rush and start foaming if we can't conduct our argument in an
intelligent manner... :O)
> Yes, many, if not most, of the people on
> the streets are messed up on drugs/booze. But most of them are NOT ex-60's
> hippy-liberals! That's bullshit!
While I may have been generous in the appelation of 'hippie' when 'head' would have
been sufficient, I still submit that substance abuse played a key role in the
degeneration of most of these individuals...
> And most of them didn't end up on the
> street because they dropped acid with their nerdy dorm-buddies at Berkeley
> back in 67!
>
> I personally know a whole bunch of these ex-hippies from the 60's and most
> of them are prosperous ordinary people with kids, mortgages, and volvos!
> Not a few of them are small business owners. Almost none-of-them use drugs
> today. Shit man, they won't even eat meat!
Emphasise the 'ex-hippie' and note that they probably came to the realization that
it was not much of a lifestyle... :O)
> > does this necessarily advance the position that drug use is NOT a
> contributor to
> > the homeless problem?I'm sorry to interrupt your diatribe,
>
> No one is disputing the first statement you made. What's in dispute is the
> little rider you stuck on the initial assertion like one of Gingrich's
> pork-barrel military spending amendments.
So you admit I was right, but perhaps my failure to absolve the fallout of the
liberal hippie theme of irresponsibility hit a nerve... Now I know why you're all
twisted up... :O)
> Drug and alcahol contribute very greatly to homelessness. So does a lack
> of hope,
Perhaps encouraged by a liberal mindset that tells our young that they are
'victims', and have no chance w/o the government providing food, shelter, health
care, and wiping their ass for them??? :O)
> unemployment,
Yeah, I could see where being unemployed could lead to homelessness... Probably be a
good idea to get a job at that point. Shouldn't be TOO hard provided you can read
or write, and don't have a criminal record or drug problems...
What never ceases to amaze me is that people in this country ILLEGALLY who can't
even speak the language in many cases are able to find jobs and even ship extra
money home to support their families, yet people born and raised in this country
can't seem to keep a job... :O|
> the price of housing,
Might be tough to get a 4-bedroom condo on Burger Kingwages, but you can always
lower your sights and find roommates
(which I have done at numerous times in my life).
> mental illness, being thrown out by one's parents!
Been thrown out by my father on numerous occasions, andvividly recall sleeping in a
few parks and on more than one
neighbor's front lawn... BTW, he's a dyed-in-the-wool
yellow-dog Democrat, so that ought to make you happy... :O)
> In other words, you've engaged in the same,
> simple-minded, single-cause explanation of a complex phenomena that is
> typical of your political crowd.
No, merely pointed out that there are quite a few "homeless"who have had some
complicity in their situation, and that
addressing the problem won't be accomplished w/o holding
people personally responsible for their actions...
If you're one of those gullible liberal suckers who believes that
every clown out there holding up a "Will Work For Food" sign
is merely a victim of a cruel, heartless society, feel free to give
up your money to help them out. Personally, I resent having
your type turning all of these people into mascots to further your
silly agenda (I know, you just CARE more than the rest of us...
boo, hoo, hoo)...
> You want to find a way to justify your hate of the homeless.
Perhaps it's not HATE, but emotional simpletons like you probably
can't fathom the concept that the feel-good liberal solutions don't
work, and the rest of us are tired of forking over money that for
practical purposes might as well be flushed down the toilet...
> > > Meanwhile, back in the world, our politicians were sitting on their fat
> > > hams, stupid platitudes about "peace with honor" dribbling from
> theirwell-fed
> > > lips.
> >
> > So getting back to the real issue at hand, are you telling me that a lot
> of these
> > individuals and the streets are NOT former drug users, or are you
> telling me that
> > they were, but since they MIGHT have served in the military during the
> time period
> > from 1965-1975, they are certifiable victims, and we should just ignore any
> > self-destructive behavior on their part for fear of appearing too
> insensitive???
>
> I'm saying that no single-cause model will suffice to explain the
> phenomena of homelessness. Some of the people that are on the streets got
> there BECAUSE they were drug addicts before they got to the streets.
> Others became drug addicts AFTER they hit the streets. Others have
> suffered some great personal tragedy, others are simply the losers in the
> economic free-for-all and ran out of money and resources. No small number
> of the homeless are run-away kids escaping abusive parents. And some are
> just the children of impoverished parents.
And a good deal of these "homeless children" like the ones seen in many collegetowns
suddenly become very UN-homeless when the sun sets, the street gets
cold, the gullible old ladies handing out 5 dollar bills go home, and the real
derelicts
come out to prowl... While there is a teen runaway problem, there is also a gross
exaggeration of the problem. I'm sick of seeing pudgy teenagers with pale
complexions and soft skin handing people a line about being kicked out of their
house and living on the street....There is no single-cause! There is no simple
answer!
> > I don't quite understand if how opposition to how the war was conducted
> makes one
> > a "liberal", unless you accept the presumption that the war was driven
> solely by
> > mean, nasty, baby-killing conservatives, and that the liberal were one unified
> > faction doing their best to bring peace and love to the world. I seem to
> remember
> > that a strong proponent of liberal social and economic policies named Lyndon
> > Baines Johnson thought he was so much more intelligent and adept at
> running a war
> > than the military professionals, and we seem to have the same deal today with
> > another one named William Jefferson Clinton.
>
> Our Vietnam policy was driven by the notion that we were responsible for
> "containing communism." The "military professionals" didn't really have a
> plan for winning the war. Quite often, "military professionals" seldom
> even went to the field! There's a 24 year old second lieutenant, a couple
> of "shake-and-bake" instant NCO's, and fourty 18/19 year old PFC's. Our
> battalion commander used to fly over us in his huey barking orders over
> the radio. He had no fucking idea what was happening either!
And who conducted the war from the Whit House, selecting tactical targets and
calling airstrikes?
Compassion is one being... Being bullshitted is another, and so is USING thehomeless
to advance one's own leftist agenda... OK???
Most of the individuals blathering about the homeless are NOT interested in
making positive changes, merely exhibiting how much more CARING and
COMPASSIONATE they are compared to everyone else. It's bullshit, and
I'm not impressed...
As I've said previously in several posts to this NG, there are many groups that
do positive thing to help homeless people get back on track, like the Vincent
De Paul Society in San Diego. Unfortunately, the individuals in this society
are more interested in dealing with the real problems instead of making them
up to advance their own personal political agendas... BTW, did you know that
the two biggest fundraisers for SVdP are Joan Kroc (McDonalds inheritance)
and Roger Hedgecock (evil nasty conservative right-wing Republican ex-mayor
talk show host)?
Did you ALSO know that some of the biggest contributors to charity, as
well as people who ACTIVELY get involved in helping homeless people
in their community, are members of the LDS Church (Mormons), whose
affluent members are expected to 'tithe' (give 10% of) their income to the
church, and the MAJORITY of that money is used for charitable programs.
BTW, that money typically goes to help PEOPLE, and not to pay salaries
of directors, nor for fruit-loop causes like baby seals or the rainforest, or
whatever else the Hollywood liberals find trendy on a given day...
But then again, that doesn't exactly fit your neat liberal conception about
the evil mean-spirited nasty conservatives, so I suspect it would be easier
to ignore that bit of information... :O(
> Homeless people are human beings. Often
> annoying ones, true, but humans none the less. People don't just decide
> one day - "hey I think I'll become a homeless, mentally-ill, drug addicted
> loser!" Especially in a society that increasingly lacks the most basic
> emotions of pity and understanding.
Have you ever thought that many normally sympathetic individuals are
becominghardened due to the WASTE, INEFFICIENCY, and CORRUPTION seen in
the government run welfare programs that take their money???
> Where did all these people come from? Why are they there in the first
> place. To just say they're lazy ex-hippies is not only dead wrong, it
> makes you sound like a pea-wit to even say it!
Re-read the above, and see if you eventually get a clue...
Stan Rothwell
hc23hc
>
> As viewed from alt.california on Sat, 26 Dec 1998 12:24:12 -0800,
> Slick <hc23hc> wrote, in reply to Stan Rothwell:
>
> >I don't want to waste time berating you at lengths you do not deserve.
>
> Uh huh.
>
> --
> ~ Jafo
Here's more of a long-winded Christmas dedication for you, Jafo.
You deserve it:
VCT sus-Pends Christmas 1998 together !
A lot of people think the guys at VCT - BajaRat, Ded, Jafo, Glenn Spencer,
GLC, Angelmoo, Bill and a bunch of other, even lesser lights - are hideous,
pathetically squirming losers and rectophile sadists whose idea of a good
time is to look for people who may be down on their luck and either convert
them to VCT gang membership or, should conversion fail, gang up on them and try
to kick the living crap out of them instead. Well, up to a point, that is a fairly
accurate assessment. Nevertheless, the Christmas Spirit has its own place
of honor in the VCT calendar, right there at the end of the December page. At this
special time, those lonely guys feel the need to get a little festive, almost like
real people.
The following is a brief description of how Les Miserables celebrated Christmas 1998
as a well-earned break from industriously racking their imagination and almost daily
bring you ripping yarns such as MexiPest Updates, threats against the life of POTUS,
liberals and immigrants; taking as many liberties with the truth as they possibly can,
all the while running an ailing male juvenile porn conglomerate out of the toilet cubicle
in the penthouse suite at the Wilmington Chateau Latrine Motel, which they call "home".
It was the night after a not-so-merry Christmas in Room #209. Glenn Spencer had
expected more guests to show up, but not too many did. Actually, none did, unless
you include the regular toxic crowd of Jafo, Ded, BajaRat and Angelmoo, all of whom
lived there anyway. Oh, and Bill, their little Bellfower Tarpitz wino-dino puppy.
There was nothing worth watching on TV, basically like any other day of the year, but
it would've been nice if their cable hadn't been cut off and they could watch C-Span or
something ... especially since Angelmoo had fallen asleep at his Compaq and left their
Christmas dinner of Roasted Spam with Velveeta Stuffing to burn in the microwave.
They'd had to order in some El Pollo Loco instead, which led to the usual bickering between
Bill and Ded over who got to chew the bones. Ded had then dozed off, perched on BajaRat's
middle sea-leg, great gobs of guacamole staining his new T-shirt (a gift from Tracey
Levin) almost obscuring the motto "I'm with Stupid" silkscreened across its front.
The beans had their predictably gaseous effect on BajaRat and Jafo, and the
room quickly warmed up as they sat around the new screen-saver Jafo had given
Glenn, the one that looked almost like a low-resolution TV picture of chestnuts
roasting on an open fire.
Speaking of gifts - Glenn received some new lingerie from his mother, and went off
into the bathroom to try it on. Bill gave BajaRat one of those Quote-O-Matic CD-Roms
which he knew the old liar would never use. Angelmoo got Herpes from hmurdock.
Jafo got nothing at all. Ded got nothing else except a trashing from Greg Taylor. They
both foughtback(2) bitter tears, along with GLC, who had been hoping for a foreskin, but
also got ... nothing. Glenn had written all of them IOU's as he did every year, basically
worthless unless by some freak of chance he ever became Governor, in which case
they would all share about twenty-five dollars and eighty-three cents in undeclared
campaign fund underruns.
BajaRat decided to cheer up his friends with a special magic trick that his
mother, Mrs. Rat, had emailed him during one of his trips to Phuket. He took one of
the motel's polyester bedsheets and strung it up across the room, then made Jafo,
GLC, Angelmoo and Ded line up on one side, while he went behind the other.
"Now you all have to reach through this hole -" at which point he tore a big
gash in the middle of the sheet, "- and guess what gift I was thinking of getting
for each of you ! No peeking."
Jafo went first. He wriggled his forearm through the hole on the sheet and his
fingers encountered a small, hairy, twitchy kind of thing with two round, hard
lumps attached to it that might have been eyeballs. As he grabbed at it, a small
sighing sound was heard from the other side of the sheet. He knew it!
"Aww, BajaRat! It's a Furby! That's really, really kind of you!" oozed Jafo, always
quick to suck up to his perceived benefactors. Jafo blushed with glee, and added,
"When can I have it? Oh, do say I can play with it right away, Baja!"
From behind the sheet, BajaRat belched and demurred. "Next!"
Next came Ded. He needed to stand on a chair to reach the waist-high aperture
in the sheet, through which he stuck one of his stumpy arms. He felt something
like a short, quivering, tubular animal with drool coming out of its nose. At
once, his sadness went away and he brightly quipped, "BajaRat ! It's a puppy !
You shouldn't have ! Hey, guys, now I have something to kick around just like
all of the rest of you! I won it. I want it. Yeah, Merry G-dDamn Xmas !"
BajaRat's rejoinder from behind the drapery was, "Uh, don't count on it, little
guy. Heh, heh."
Then it was Angelmoo's turn. He wiped the snot off his beard stubble on the
back of his hand, then reached through the hole and groped around for a while.
His face lit up as he slowly identified the shape and texture of a misshapen
humanoid en miniature, smelling and feeling like a tiny furry being that had
just soiled itself. "Awwww, BajaRat!" boomed the giant retard Angelmoo, "I
can't believe you helped me adopt a little baby handicapped child so I don't have
to lie about having children on usenet any more. Awwww, that's soooo sweet of
you!"
BajaRat's sighs of resignation from behind the curtain were, to say the least,
non-committal and irregular in nature.
Finally, GLC stepped forward, twitching nervously. "You guys are playing some
kinda trick here, right? If you're doing this to set me up, so help me I'll sue
you! I know some real lawyers. If there's any monkey business, you'll all be
in deep Christmas Shit. I've had two thousand years of persecution to deal
with and I ran outta Tylenol, so don't gimme no -"
"Allright, already! You wanna fucking play or not?!" yelled BajaRat, impatiently.
GLC obediently stuck his hand through the torn sheet and felt around. Something
damp and sticky and un-kosher slithered against his outstretched forearm. He shrieked
something that might have been "Baruch!" and fell backwards, ripping the sheet wide
open and exposing BajaRat, who was standing calmly munching on a large pork burrito
with one, while masturbating his extremely tiny genitalia with his other hand.
"I thought you wanted to give me a menorah or a Scud missile, but you give
me this ... this ... blasphemy! I'm never coming to one of your parties again,
you - you - you -" GLC's eyes rolled back and he dropped to the floor in what
may have been an epileptic fit or some kind of Jewish Llambada, while BajaRat
erupted in peals of derisive laughter.
"I got yer 'Men Aura' - RIght Here!!" he cackled, indicating his groin area with the
same hand that held the pork burrito. "Want another mouthful? Heh, heh, heh."
Angelmoo, Jafo and Ded stared speechless at the unveiling of what, in polite
circles, might have been construed as a very cruel trick. But these were not
polite circles. It was a VCT Christmas, in case anyone forgot. And with BajaRat
around, how could anyone forget ?
Ded actually shed a few tears of grief at the loss of the puppy he would never
know, or rather, at the loss of a dumber animal than himself which he could have
kicked up and down the block instead of insulting strangers on usenet all day.
Jafo was so upset at not actually receiving the Furby he'd so much looked forward
to that he began talking to himself. "Self," he said sternly, "Self, I was wondering
if you don't mind clueing me in, and as many other alt.californians have asked me
before, what exactly am I doing here, other than legitimizing racism and recto-
philia? Huh, tell me, goddammit?! Well - I'm waiting!!" His already tenor voice
was rising to an even more effeminately shrill shriek, and the others had to sedate
him temporarily by holding one of the motel's 100% synthetic pillows over his
face until the rhythm of his breathing reverted to normal.
Then BajaRat and Jafo almost got in an argument about Ded's recent use of the
word "Chink" on alt.california to describe Chinese Americans. Ded and BajaRat
yelled at Jafo not to go all PC on them, and after some sulking and pouting, they had
agreed to drop the matter, rather than make any concessions to the taboo phrase
"Chinese Americans". A couple of fortified wines later, they were all the best
of friends again, sneering derisively about liberals and the Democratic Party, the
common enemy that enabled this meaningful, supportive male bonding to occur in
the first place.
Jafo entertained everyone else with his discovery that "American Patrol" is
actually an anagram for:
A rare complaint
Ram in Cleopatra
Reclamation cap
A porcelain mart
Campanile or Rat ?
Oh, how they all laughed, giggled, sniggered and groped at one anothers' crotches
between mightily slapping high fives all over the room. Never mind that the joke
was on them. At least they weren't out training other skinheads to do their dirty
work. Not today, anyway, on this Equinocturnal emission of Jesus, the three Zoroastrians,
no Ramadan Inn, Heil Hannukah and all the other whimsy toasts they drank to one
another
Then, the phone rang. A first, none of them wanted to answer it, GLC having
warned them all of the habit of his fellow bill-collectors to track down bad
debtors at holiday times and ... well, to put it politely, they all had some bad,
bad debts they were running away from, including GLC himself, whose student
loans were unlikely to be honored in this lifetime at his present rate of income.
Bill, however, having had more of Mrs. Spencer's Smegma Schnapps than any of
the others except Jafo, cantered over to the phone and picked it up before anyone
could stop him. It was the front desk.
"Yesh?" slurred Bill drunkenly. "Who?" His face paled. "Satan ? Uhh, lemme she ..."
And Bill's gaze slowly panned around the room, from one VCT member, including
BajaRat's minuscule tumescence, to another. "Anybody here invite SATAN?"
Not getting any response, Bill allowed one of his less tame hairs to get caught under
his flea-collar, which he wore slung around his derriere, and decided to cause still more
trouble at VCT Casa Stupida aka "Le Chateau Latrine", their motel.
They spent the next few moments eyeing one another like mating armadillos waking
up and realizing they have just fornicated themselves into the middle of the interstate.
Then, ascending the walkway outside, they heard the heavy boots of Satan insistently
thumping their way up to the second floor.
"Oh well," opined Angelmoo,"at least we'll soon know who's been naughty or nice.
Tee hee."
The clapboard door swung open on its creaky hinges. The person StanDing there was
dressed just like Jafo. Ex*actly* like Jafo. He was wearing the same Redwing boots,
the K-Mart shirt, the Sears T-shirt and WalMart socks, the very same open-crotch
panties from Victor's Secret, and the same stupid smirk on his pimply face. Jafo's
eyes lit up. "You must be Mr. Rothwell!" he beamed, and rushed across the room to
lovingly fling his flabby arms around the visitor.
It wasn't going to be such a bad Christmas after all. Or so they thought, as Jafo and
Stan embraced like Reaganite 1984-vintage Olympiad athletes, or twins separated
at birth, or just, well, just like two shits passing in the night.
<<liable to be continued>>
Merlin Dorfman
: Perhaps another choice would be to leave "charity" up to individuals who canmake a judgement
: call, as opposed to leaving it up to bureaucrats who don't
: personally suffer for making bad decisions. BTW, the LDS (Mormons) are
: pretty proactive when it comes to helping people in their own communities,
: and aggressively encourage their congregation members to become involved
: and get to know the recipients of their charity personally.
I assume you are familiar with the three degrees of charity, of
which the lowest is when the benefactor and the recipient each know
who the other is?
Leonard Pulver
>
> If you're one of those gullible liberal suckers who believes that
> every clown out there holding up a "Will Work For Food" sign
> is merely a victim of a cruel, heartless society, feel free to give
> up your money to help them out. Personally, I resent having
> your type turning all of these people into mascots to further your
> silly agenda (I know, you just CARE more than the rest of us...
> boo, hoo, hoo)...
The gullible sucker from your post is named Rothwell.
You have listened to too many of Bob Dole's speeches (and
others from the GOP Right and others further right and
therefore wrong). You believe them because they repeat the
same buzz words over and over and you do not have sufficient
discernment to realize that you are being conned.
The American electorate did not believe Dole
nor Rush and neither should you
Chad Choi Lin
Wait a minute -- come again?? Ronald Reagan did *not* increase federal
revenue: he increased federal deficit, to unheard of massive levels.
That was the reason then Vice President George Bush criticized
Reaganomics as "voodoo economics" (and would later be denounced for
pulling the same stunt -- "deja voodoo" -- when he was elected to the
White House): it claimed to create a perfect economy by slashing taxes
to the rich (a la the "Trickle-Down Theory") while boosting budgetary
spending (in particular the funding for military programs such as the
infamous Star Wars project, which Carl Sagan himself declared "a
fantasy"). However, this is something that Reagan and his ilk avoided
admitting....
> At his [Reagan's] last formal press conference the first question
> asked was how he could square the huge budget deficits with his
> pledge to balance the budget. Typically he blamed not the tax cuts
> that slashed public revenues by a third at the same time that he
> doubled defense spending but the Congress and the Democrats who
> controlled it, ignoring the facts that as president he never
> *once* submitted a budget to Congress that was in balance and that
> for six of his eight presidential years Congress had actually
> *cut*, not increased, Reagan's own budget.
>
> It was Congress that moved to redress the fiscal shortfall caused
> by the combination of huge tax cuts and defense increases by
> passing legislation raising new taxes, and it was Reagan who
> signed those tax increases year after year after year [sic] from
> 1982 through 1988. Of eighteen tax bills he signed as president,
> thirteen of them called for *increases*, facts that Reagan always
> conveniently ignored in his public statements while blaming "big
> spenders" for creating the deficit.
-- from pages 444 to 445 of "Sleepwalking Through History: America in
The Reagan Years" by Haynes Johnson (1991 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.)
Next time you try to do a little historical revisionism, try it on
someone who has a smaller collection of books. Just don't get me started
on Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign -- I'm still in shock over reading
about the Contra-Drug connection, which the Orange County Weekly
published in a previous issue's cover story, "The Crack-Up." You can see
the startling details for yourself at the following URL:
http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/contents110698.shtml
All I can tell you is, "Read it and weep."
Peace, Love, and Just Say No! (Yeah, RIGHT)
Chad Choi Lin
Orange County, California
e-mail cha...@nyetcom.com
***********************************************
WARNING: the above address is not valid! Sorry
if it annoys you, but I hate spam, and spambots
are always harvesting the Usenet for posters'
e-mail addresses.
***********************************************
Merlin Dorfman
: Most of us have had a few rough spots in our lives, and I am no exception. I have lived
: out of my car on more than one occasion in my life, with the last time being a 2-month
: period while I was attending Cal Berkeley (I was paying my way through school and simply
: had no money left). The problem here is that most of these individuals have made their
: condition a permanent lifestyle due to their own actions and behavior, and their
: unwillingness to accept any responsibility or take any initiative...
But, Stan, you are in the top 0.1% of the country in intelligence,
ambition, determination, etc., etc., so NOTHING will keep you down. We
know that. But for those who are not so terrific--say the bottom 10 or
20%-- what should we do? Should we say "tough shit," or hope that
private charity will keep them from starving? Or should we recognize
that some, perhaps many, with some assistance--which you obviously
don't need due to your superiority--could actually become productive
citizens? Not all; there is some percentage that completely lacks the
drive or brains to ever do anything. But many could make it with some
help. I think the evidence is that more are capable of making it with
some help than private charity could ever help. So there we are: we
do it with tax money or they'll never get off the street. Strictly as
a financial trade-off, it's worth a lot to put somebody into a
position where they actually pay taxes rather than being a drag on the
system.
Eisen Chao
: Too bad all those hippies from the "Summer Of Love" took Dr. Leary
: seriously when he told them all to "turn on and drop out" in 1967. Sort
: of hard to keep a job when your brain is fried, huh?
No, I think that some of them actually ended up running this country ...
:
: Stan Rothwell
:
Merlin Dorfman
No, just running universities. Unless you were thinking of David
Stockman, and he hasn't run the country for about 15 years.
Stan Rothwell
> Wait a minute -- come again?? Ronald Reagan did *not* increase federal
> revenue:
Yes, he DID... from $600 billion in 1982 to over $900 billion in 1990. :O)
Check the statistics from the OMB if you don't believe it, but it's a FACT.
Of course, if your only information source is the Liberal Media, you probably
would not know that... ;O)
> he increased federal deficit, to unheard of massive levels.
The Democratic-run congress at the time still insisted on spending more than
they took in in receipts (BTW, that's how deficits increase). Typically their
budgets were from 5-10% more than Reagan had requested. BTW, social
spending increased as well as military spending.
> That was the reason then Vice President George Bush criticized
> Reaganomics as "voodoo economics" (and would later be denounced for
> pulling the same stunt -- "deja voodoo" -- when he was elected to the
> White House): it claimed to create a perfect economy by slashing taxes
> to the rich (a la the "Trickle-Down Theory") while boosting budgetary
> spending (in particular the funding for military programs such as the
> infamous Star Wars project, which Carl Sagan himself declared "a
> fantasy"). However, this is something that Reagan and his ilk avoided
> admitting....
>
> > At his [Reagan's] last formal press conference the first question
> > asked was how he could square the huge budget deficits with his
> > pledge to balance the budget. Typically he blamed not the tax cuts
> > that slashed public revenues by a third at the same time that he
> > doubled defense spending but the Congress and the Democrats who
> > controlled it, ignoring the facts that as president he never
> > *once* submitted a budget to Congress that was in balance and that
> > for six of his eight presidential years Congress had actually
> > *cut*, not increased, Reagan's own budget.
> >
> > It was Congress that moved to redress the fiscal shortfall caused
> > by the combination of huge tax cuts
There were NO shortfalls of revenue... another liberal myth that can be
dispelled merely by looking at the actual tax revenues from either
CBO or OMB figures...
> and defense increases by
> > passing legislation raising new taxes,
The fact was that even by cutting the highest personal rate from 70 percent
to 28 percent, tax revenues STILL increased.In addition, the share paid
by the top 5% of personal income increased from 21% to 26%. The
liberals weren't upset with the tax cuts because revenue was cut (it wasn't -
even after factoring in inflation). The fact of the matter was that the liberals
had always argued that government spending would do a better job of
stimulating the economy that channeling to the private sector... Why has the
economy been pretty decent (overall) for the last 15 years? Nothing that
your buddy Slick Willie did... Money was invested in the private sector,
the REAL place where jobs are created...
> and it was Reagan who
> > signed those tax increases year after year after year [sic] from
> > 1982 through 1988. Of eighteen tax bills he signed as president,
> > thirteen of them called for *increases*, facts that Reagan always
> > conveniently ignored in his public statements while blaming "big
> > spenders" for creating the deficit.
>
> -- from pages 444 to 445 of "Sleepwalking Through History: America in
> The Reagan Years" by Haynes Johnson (1991 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.)
Bet the book conveniently leaves out the point that revenues still increased, right??? :O)
> Next time you try to do a little historical revisionism, try it on
> someone who has a smaller collection of books. Just don't get me started
> on Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign --
Why? You want to divert into another issue to avoid the fact that you're
wrongabout the alleged "tax cuts"?
Fact is, the defecit was caused by increased spending - on social services as
well as military spending. Should Reagan have been more persistent in
demanding smaller budgets? Yes. However, he was willing to compromise
in order to preserve his military spending, and I don't defend him for that.
However, the CENTRAL point that the liberals make - that "tax cuts"
caused the deficit - simply is NOT true, as tax revenues were considerably
higher when Reagan left office. What is especially revealing about all of this is
how the liberals were not really interested in adjusting the tax rate to achieve
maximum revenue, but merely wanted to use it as a tool to "punish" the
successful...
Shows you where the REAL intentions of the Liberals lie...
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
> >
> > If you're one of those gullible liberal suckers who believes that
> > every clown out there holding up a "Will Work For Food" sign
> > is merely a victim of a cruel, heartless society, feel free to give
> > up your money to help them out. Personally, I resent having
> > your type turning all of these people into mascots to further your
> > silly agenda (I know, you just CARE more than the rest of us...
> > boo, hoo, hoo)...
>
> The gullible sucker from your post is named Rothwell.
> You have listened to too many of Bob Dole's speeches
Actually, I've only listened to ONE Bob Dole speech, as was basically
bored...
> (and others from the GOP Right and others further right and
> therefore wrong). You believe them because they repeat the
> same buzz words over and over and you do not have sufficient
> discernment to realize that you are being conned.
No, I've spent enough times in various urban areas and seen enough to
knowthat the ranks of the "homeless" are grossly exaggerated by poseurs
and others
who choose merely not to work. Like I have said before, go offer the
WW4F
sign-holders work and see how many take you up on the offer... :O)
> The American electorate did not believe Dole
> nor Rush and neither should you
Another flustered liberal rants and raves when he can't refute the
truth... :O)
Stan Rothwell
Eisen Chao
Forgetting about a certain obscure Rhodes scholar
that neglected to inhale ?
Must have been tripping pretty hard to forget to do this simple
function.
Stan Rothwell
> Here's more of a long-winded Christmas dedication for you, Jafo.
> You deserve it:
(boring manifesto ever so mercifully snipped)
Funny that hc23hc puts me in the same camp with Baja Rat and Ian the
White Guy... funny how he (she?) doesn't realize that I'm no fan of either of
the above, as many readers will know that I've ripped both of the above
on numerous occasions. They will also know that Baja Rat is so thoroughly
trashed when I slap around him that he won't even respond to my posts... :O)
Of course, hc23hc probably doesn't read most posts not in concordance with
his (her?) views, as the knee-jerking liberal muscle spasms probably set in
prematurely, and all semblance of cogent reflection and response is lost.
However, the length of the afforementioned snipped post indicates that
SOMEBODY has way too much time on their hands, and I suppose this
situation will mercifully end once this individual is forced to join the
workplace and pay taxes like the rest of us... :O|
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
> Stan Rothwell (roth...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : Most of us have had a few rough spots in our lives, and I am no exception. I have lived
> : out of my car on more than one occasion in my life, with the last time being a 2-month
> : period while I was attending Cal Berkeley (I was paying my way through school and simply
> : had no money left). The problem here is that most of these individuals have made their
> : condition a permanent lifestyle due to their own actions and behavior, and their
> : unwillingness to accept any responsibility or take any initiative...
>
> But, Stan, you are in the top 0.1% of the country in intelligence,
> ambition, determination, etc., etc., so NOTHING will keep you down.
Well you do give me more credit that MOST of my detractors... :O|
> We
> know that. But for those who are not so terrific--say the bottom 10 or
> 20%-- what should we do? Should we say "tough shit," or hope that
> private charity will keep them from starving?
We help them as INDIVIDUALS, but we set certain guidelines for your help.The WORST thing we
can do is fawn over them and make them into "victims".
> Or should we recognize
> that some, perhaps many, with some assistance--which you obviously
> don't need due to your superiority--could actually become productive
> citizens?
With some assistance TIED to their willingness to make an effort to help themselves.We need to
make it clear that welfare is NOT a right, and that some obligation on
the part of recipients is necessary.
> Not all; there is some percentage that completely lacks the
> drive or brains to ever do anything. But many could make it with some
> help. I think the evidence is that more are capable of making it with
> some help than private charity could ever help.
I personally know a lot of individuals who you may consider to be "far right"who are NOT
opposed to helping people on an individual basis, but are
vehemently opposed to the coercive role of government in charity. Most
individuals don't have a problem with paying for the services they use (roads,
police, courts, etc.), but they resent being forced to pay for a welfare system
that spends more money and seems to have no measurable success. They also
resent supporting bureaucracies that consume more and more of the resources
that are appropriated for this stuff, as well as the ineptitude and at times
corruption evident in the system. They want accountability, and they don't see
it in the system...
The fact of the matter is that government typically spends only 25% of the money
appropriated for social services for actual benefits for the people they actually
claim to help. Private non-profit charities spend considerably more on actual
benefits, and are much more responsive to the desires of their benefactors.
Remember a few years back then there were serious allegations about
mismanagement and graft in the United Way organization? Remember
how fast they canned a bunch of executives and cleaned house when their
major benefactors started boycotting them?
When was the last time you saw this happen in Health and Human Services?
> So there we are: we
> do it with tax money or they'll never get off the street. Strictly as
> a financial trade-off, it's worth a lot to put somebody into a
> position where they actually pay taxes rather than being a drag on the
> system.
Sorry, but I don't think a system that coerces individuals to give moneyto spend on social
experimantation that has produced dubious results is
morally justifiable.
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
> Stan Rothwell (roth...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : Too bad all those hippies from the "Summer Of Love" took Dr. Leary
> : seriously when he told them all to "turn on and drop out" in 1967. Sort
> : of hard to keep a job when your brain is fried, huh?
>
> No, I think that some of them actually ended up running this country ...
Unfortunately, you may be right w/r/t a few in DC... :O(
Stan Rothwell