------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: Subject Date: Fri Jan 20 19:02:13 CST 1995 Message number: 1 Reply to message number: unavailable It's easy to find a group that will not protest when you make scapegoats out of them. One such group is the poor; but they are simply an example. This is a base to discuss and hopefully provide a voice for victims and groups that are blamed for things beyond their control, merely for the aggrandizement of others. One such group right now seems to be the working poor. Should the minimum wage be raised to bring incomes closer to the poverty line? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Mailer Daemon Subject: Re: The Budget Axe Date: Sun Jan 14 18:51:29 CST 1996 Message number: 2 Reply to message number: 1 MD> Budget Stalemate Takes More Hostages MD> MD> Washington- (AP) The partial shutdown of the federal government MD> dragged through its 19th day Wednesday with one clear effect: Even MD> more people felt the impact. MD> The rest of it is too long to quote, but to read it makes me wonder what kind of world we would be living in if people who claim that the federal government's only role is defense would have their way. The Preamble also guarantees "life, liberty. and the pursuit of happiness," and this is what most of these things are about. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MAILER DAEMON To: All Subject: Will Shovel for Food Date: Tue Jan 16 08:29:47 CST 1996 Message number: 3 Reply to message number: unavailable STORM WARNINGS: ARMY OF UNEMPLOYED SEEKS SHOVELING JOBS By Shelley Ettinger New York When the biggest snowstorm in nearly 50 years batters the Eastern Seaboard, naturally it's big news. And so the bourgeois media are full of human-interest tales--heartwarming stories of good neighbors and wrenching ones about hearts giving out in mid-shovel. But there are other stories. You can find them by viewing the storm from the vantage point of the class struggle between workers and bosses, which not even acts of nature can suspend. A SHOVEL AND A HOPE Take the Long Island Rail Road in New York. Early on Jan. 8, local radio and television stations broadcast a message on behalf of LIRR management. Hundreds of miles of track and train stations had to be cleared. So able-bodied young adults with snow shovels were invited to report to either the Mineola or Valley Stream station on Long Island. They would be hired for four- or eight-hour shifts. They would be paid $12 an hour. Trains weren't running. Streets were impassible. Even walking was very hard, in the face of gale-force winds and driving snow, with five-foot drifts in places. So those who turned up to do the cold, hard work of shoveling must be desperate for a job. Thousands did. According to broadcast reports later that evening, LIRR bosses had to turn away thousands more. The shoveling was done. And the shovelers were unemployed again. TO BE PAID OR NOT TO BE PAID? Up and down the East Coast, for millions of workers who do have jobs, the good news was that they got the day off because of the weather. For how many, though, is the bad news that they won't get paid? Most workers, even in New York, the most unionized state in the country, are not represented by unions. If there's no union contract forcing the bosses to pay workers for weather cancellations--without taking it from their vacation or sick days--there is no guarantee workers won't lose a day's pay. A day at home watching the lovely snow fall is no day at the beach if you spend it worrying about how to pay the bills. SKATING ON THIN ICE Workers World spoke to a nurse-midwife who works at a busy maternity ward in a big New York hospital. She, like many other health-care workers, reported to work even though she wasn't scheduled. The snowstorm posed a big problem. The midwife says the problem can be traced to health-care cutbacks. Most insurance coverage, including Medicaid, now requires hospitals to discharge new mothers and their babies 24 hours after birth unless there are medical complications. It's cheaper that way. Many health-care practitioners are unhappy about this, arguing that another day's rest for mothers and another day's medical supervision for newborns would be healthier. On Jan. 8, this turned into a practical problem. The city was snowbound. But the maternity hospitals were as busy as ever--going into labor is not an elective procedure. More mothers-to-be kept arriving. Because bed space in the maternity ward is limited, with 24-hour turnover the rule, there was no place to keep the mothers and babies and still have room for the next round of deliveries. But how could hospitals discharge the women with newborns when there was no way to get them home? As the storm abated, hospital staffs were coping with the problem. And new parents were worrying that insurance companies wouldn't pay for the extra day in the hospital. YOU GET WHAT YOU FIGHT FOR So even an act of nature fits into the class struggle. Now, as everyone digs out, the class of workers and the oppressed could make some righteous demands of the other side. Like the mayors and governors who leapt in front of television cameras to demonstrate their hands-on involvement in responding to the storm. Why don't they also issue executive orders requiring all employers to pay workers for the snow day? And the president. He could declare a state of emergency and order a free second day's post-partum care. While he's at it, he might as well open the CIA warehouse that, according to a Dec. 13 White House news release, has been "filled with bamboo snowshoes that had been gathering dust since 1947." Distribute the snowshoes to the people of the East Coast. It would be the first good to ever come from the murderous spy agency. [Editor's note: Although the writer didn't make it to the WW office on Jan. 8--she was snowbound at home in Queens-- she won't be docked.] - END - (Copyright Workers World Service: Permission to reprint granted if source is cited. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail: ww@wwpublish.com. For subscription info send message to: ww-info@wwpublish.com.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Mailer Daemon Subject: Re: Will Shovel for Food Date: Tue Jan 16 11:06:46 CST 1996 Message number: 4 Reply to message number: 3 MD> STORM WARNINGS: ARMY OF UNEMPLOYED SEEKS SHOVELING JOBS MD> MD> They would be hired for four- or eight-hour shifts. They MD> would be paid $12 an hour. MD> MD> Trains weren't running. Streets were impassible. Even MD> walking was very hard, in the face of gale-force winds and MD> driving snow, with five-foot drifts in places. MD> MD> So those who turned up to do the cold, hard work of MD> shoveling must be desperate for a job. MD> MD> Thousands did. MD> Nah, can't be. Everybody knows that those welfare types don't reall want to work. All they want to do is schmooze off the government and smoke pot. This must be a story from a leftist liberal rag. . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TBOB To: All Subject: eating children Date: Thu Mar 21 18:14:33 CST 1996 Message number: 5 Reply to message number: unavailable In a previous century, a writer, I think it was Johnathon Swift (Gulliver's Travels) wrote an essay entitled "A Modest Proposal" within which the problem of over population and poverty in Ireland was discussed. The simple teo-birds-with-one-stone solution was to use the Irish poor children as food. The solution was so well presented and no doubts o lcose to upper class secret sentiments that he was attacked as a monster... and such is the danger of writing excellent satire. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Tbob Subject: Re: eating children Date: Fri Mar 22 01:50:52 CST 1996 Message number: 6 Reply to message number: 5 T> The simple teo-birds-with-one-stone solution was to use the Irish T> poor children as food. T> The solution was so well presented I have read it. It is scary. All the time I was reading it, I was asking myself, "Can this guy be serious?" You're right -- it is beautifully written, but I wouldn't tell the republicans in congress about it. They might think it is a good idea. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TBOB To: Froggy Subject: Re: eating children Date: Fri Mar 22 18:47:25 CST 1996 Message number: 7 Reply to message number: 6 F> I have read it. It is scary. All the time I was reading it, I was F> asking myself, "Can this guy be serious?" You're right -- it is beautifully F> written, but I wouldn't tell the republicans in congress about it. They mig F> think it is a good idea. Exactly, which is why people were so angry at the author: It "hit 'em where they lived" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Tbob Subject: Re: eating children Date: Fri Mar 22 23:18:42 CST 1996 Message number: 8 Reply to message number: 7 T> Exactly, which is why people were so angry at the author: T> It "hit 'em where they lived" I guess I function differently than most people then. I just appreciate the talent of the author. Speaking of which -- have you read Mark Twain's *Letters From the Earth?"* :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TBOB To: Froggy Subject: Re: eating children Date: Sun Mar 24 02:38:04 CST 1996 Message number: 9 Reply to message number: 8 F> appreciate the talent of the author. Speaking of which -- have you read Mar F> Twain's *Letters From the Earth?"* :) Yes, it is one of those great pieces that are so good as to stifle lesser minds as writers but improve them as thinkers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Tbob Subject: Re: eating children Date: Sun Mar 24 04:31:31 CST 1996 Message number: 10 Reply to message number: 9 T> Yes, it is one of those great pieces that are so good as to stifle T> lesser minds as writers but improve them as thinkers. Interesting to see that. I wrote a term paper on it in college English. Most people either have never heard of it or just rebuff it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MAILER DAEMON To: All Subject: Disinformation Date: Wed May 01 09:55:36 CDT 1996 Message number: 11 Reply to message number: unavailable From: Edward Kent As one who teaches social philosophy, I am all too well aware that the right wing is engaged in a campaign of disinformation; one has an uphill struggle on all fronts to correct students misperceptions that have been picked up from the media sound bites on every subject from the projection that there will be no more money left to pay them social security to the vast sums that we are wasting on such improvident things as welfare and foreign aid. I routinely ask now for student estimates on the latter which usually range upwards to 20-30% of the gross national product each; less than 1% of the federal budget one suggests (3+% of state budgets for welfare in addition) brings looks of disbelief -- so I require the NY Times as reading. With this cumbersome introduction, Bob Herbert's column today in the Times (4/22 "Poison Numbers") exposes the tactic and its effects. The Cato Institute -- one of the many right wing foundations funded by interested parties put out a study last fall claiming that the average package of welfare benefits far exceeded what could be earned by hard work, so it was obvious that we needed to reduce same to induce the cheats to get to work. Herbert cites a new study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities that shows how distorted the purported Cato findings really were. Herbert further suggests that the distortions were "deliberate." Some details: Cato: typical welfare package for family - $17,500 ($25,000 some places) Center: real figures - less than $9000 [$3000 belonw the poverty line] How did Cato manage this slight of hand? l) counted FOOD STAMPS for welfare families, but not for working ones. 2) counted HOUSING SUBSIDIES for welfare families as if all received them when only 1 in 4 receives them; didn't count same for working families. 3) counted WIC BENEFITS (food vouchers for young children) on the assumption that all welfare children receive them (80% do not); most families who receive these are working families). 4) counted MEDICAID for welfare families but did not count either Medicaid or employer provided medical insurence for working families. Moving beyond Bob Herbert's column, we have an instance here of yet another assault on the poorest 10-20% of Americans -- working or temporarily on welfare, which is the common pattern these days of donwsizing and temporary and part-time employment. To cite a figure from a conference the other day, the lowest 10% have lost 20% of their income since 1978; the top 10% have gained 20% in the same time frame. The rich get richer and the poor are under fire by very well paid hired guns. Shame! (and thanks, Bob Herbert). Ed Kent ekent@brooklyn.cuny.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Mailer Daemon Subject: Re: Disinformation Date: Wed May 01 12:40:49 CDT 1996 Message number: 12 Reply to message number: 11 MD> l) counted FOOD STAMPS for welfare families, but not for working ones. MD> MD> 2) counted HOUSING SUBSIDIES for welfare families as if all received MD> them when only 1 in 4 receives them; didn't count same for working MD> families. MD> MD> 3) counted WIC BENEFITS (food vouchers for young children) on the MD> assumption that all welfare children receive them (80% do not); most MD> families who receive these are working families). MD> MD> 4) counted MEDICAID for welfare families but did not count either MD> Medicaid or employer provided medical insurence for working families. MD> This is the sort of crap that Limbaugh spouts that makes me so damn mad. There is just enough truth that people buy it, but the truth is so distorted as to make it a lie. I am glad to see that someone has dealt with this in an organized way. I just get so mad I can't talk. I can't help wondering what is wrong with people that they want to hutr the sick, the weak and children, instead of at least leaving them in peace. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MAILER DAEMON To: All Subject: Selling Children Date: Sat Jun 01 17:12:38 CDT 1996 Message number: 13 Reply to message number: unavailable From the: PRIVACY Forum Digest Saturday, 1 June 1996 ======================================================================= [1] Children's Privacy Bill Introduced ======================================================================= On May 22, 1996, Representative Bob Franks (R-NJ) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced the Children's Privacy Protection and Parental Empowerment Act (HR 3508, S. not yet available). The bill establishes fair information practices for personal information about kids and is intended to curb recent abuses by the direct marketing industry. At a Capitol Hill press conference, Representative Franks said "commercial list companies are using that information to develop an elaborate data base on virtually every child in America. They're gathering children's complete names, ages, addresses and phone numbers -- and often even their personal likes and dislikes." As with other privacy laws in the United States, the CPPPEA focuses on a particular industry sector, in this case list brokers who collect and sell personal information on children. The Children's Privacy Protection and Parental Empowerment Act would: -- Prohibit the sale or purchase of personal information about children without parental consent; -- Require list brokers and solicitors to disclose to parents, upon request, the source and content of personal information on file about their children; -- Require list brokers to disclose to parents, upon request, the names of persons or entities to whom they have distributed personal information on that parent's child; -- Prohibit prisoners and convicted sex criminals from processing the personal information of children; -- Prohibit any exchange of children's personal information that one has a reason to believe will be used to harm or abuse a child; -- Preserve all common law privileges, and statutory and Constitutional privacy rights; and -- Establish civil remedies and criminal penalties for violations of the Act. More information about the CPPPEA is available at: http://www.epic.org/privacy/kids/ ======================================================================= [2] Recent Problems in Direct Marketing Industry ======================================================================= The Children's Privacy bill grows out of reports on recent abuses in the marketing industry. In one case, a news reporter for KCBS-TV in Los Angeles ordered a list of the names, addresses and phone numbers of 5,000 Los Angeles children from the nation's largest distributor of lists, Metromail. It placed the order in the name of Richard Allen Davis, the man currently on trial for kidnapping 12-year-old Polly Klaas from her Sausalito home and murdering her. After providing a fake name, mailing address and a disconnected phone number, the list arrived the next day. The cost -- just $277, cash on delivery. In another case, the direct marketing firm Metromail faces a class action suit in Texas where the company used prison inmates to process personal data gathered from consumers. Beverly Dennis, a 47-year-old Ohio woman, received threatening and highly offensive telephone calls from a convicted sex offender. Dennis v. Metromail Corporation, Texas District Court, No. 96-04451, April 18, 1996). A report from the Center for Media Education also found that one data-gathering company adds 67,000 children's names each week. Other firms sell segmented lists on grade school children and pre-school children. Opinion polls also reveal strong public opposition to the unregulated sale of personal data: -- A 1991 Time/CNN poll found that 93% of American consumers believe "companies that sell information to others should be required by law to ask permission from individuals before making the information available;" -- In the same poll, 90% said that "companies that collect and sell personal information should be prohibited by law from selling information about household income," and 68% said that companies "should be prohibited by law from selling information about product purchases." It is not hard to guess what the poll numbers would say about the sale of data on children. In a related matter, Ram Avrahami's case is scheduled to be heard by a Virginia judge on June 6. For more information on the case, see: http://www.epic.org/privacy/junk_mail/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Mailer Daemon Subject: Re: Selling Children Date: Sat Jun 01 17:35:45 CDT 1996 Message number: 14 Reply to message number: 13 MD> -- A 1991 Time/CNN poll found that 93% of American consumers MD> believe "companies that sell information to others should be MD> required by law to ask permission from individuals before making MD> the information available;" I'd tend to concur. I don't care for the whoel notion of "selling information" about people, certainly not without their consent. atabase technoloy is getting more sophisticated each year, to the point where credit card purchases might end up costing you a job someday. What's wrong with asking someone before using their name and personal information for the intent of selling it to others? Seems pretty reasonable to me, though it might kill an entire industry ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFOX To: Mailer Daemon Subject: Re: Selling Children Date: Sat Jun 01 18:09:46 CDT 1996 Message number: 15 Reply to message number: 13 MD> Children's Privacy Bill Introduced Do they want to have a DATABASE of this ? MD> -- Prohibit prisoners and convicted sex criminals from processing MD> the personal information of children; I am sorry, but a DATABASE is uasally COMPUTERIZED, and if people want to get to it, they WILL MD> -- Establish civil remedies and criminal penalties for violations MD> of the Act. Most of the people I know (Adults -- over 20) dont give a flying FUCK about any laws anyways MD> Parental Empowerment Act (HR 3508, S. not yet available). The bill MD> establishes fair information practices for personal information about MD> kids and is intended to curb recent abuses by the direct marketing MD> industry. I dont know the whole of it, but I think it's pretty dang stupid. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Starfox Subject: Re: Selling Children Date: Sun Jun 02 01:47:43 CDT 1996 Message number: 16 Reply to message number: 15 MD> Children's Privacy Bill Introduced S> S> Do they want to have a DATABASE of this ? S> No, there are already several databases. The object of this bill is to control what is done with the info on it. There was a bill in the Minnesota Legislature this session that would have prohibited schools from also selling their student information databases, which some of them are doing. As was shown in the California test, a child perp could move into the neighborhood, request the files from the school system, and have the names, addresses, ages, genders, and telephone numbers of all the children in the district. He would also know something about the kid's grades, sports interests, and whether there was only one parent in the house or not. MD> -- Prohibit prisoners and convicted sex criminals from processing MD> the personal information of children; S> S> I am sorry, but a DATABASE is uasally COMPUTERIZED, and if people want to ge S> to it, they WILL S> Not if prisoners are not allowed access to computers, especially computers with modems, while in prison. Even if they have been released, their use of a modem at home could be monitored. S> Most of the people I know (Adults -- over 20) dont give a flying FUCK about S> any laws anyways S> Then you had best find a new group of friends. Most of the people I know *do* care about laws, and there are many of us who are into legitimately changing laws that we do not like. MD> Parental Empowerment Act (HR 3508, S. not yet available). The bill MD> establishes fair information practices for personal information about MD> kids and is intended to curb recent abuses by the direct marketing MD> industry. S> S> I dont know the whole of it, but I think it's pretty dang stupid. What is it that you think is stupid about it? What it is doing is giving parents the right to prosecute people who do gather information about their children. Not only is this a good idea, but as DR says, every person should be able to deny access to computerized information about them. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFOX To: Froggy Subject: Re: Selling Children Date: Sun Jun 02 06:09:29 CDT 1996 Message number: 17 Reply to message number: 16 F> What is it that you think is stupid about it? What it is doing is F> giving parents the right to prosecute people who do gather information about F> their children. Not only is this a good idea, but as DR says, every person F> should be able to deny access to computerized information about them. I didnt know the information already existed F> Not if prisoners are not allowed access to computers, especially F> computers with modems, while in prison. Even if they have been released, F> their use of a modem at home could be monitored. What about when they are realesed? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Starfox Subject: Re: Selling Children Date: Sun Jun 02 09:24:50 CDT 1996 Message number: 18 Reply to message number: 17 F> Not if prisoners are not allowed access to computers, especially F> computers with modems, while in prison. Even if they have been released, F> their use of a modem at home could be monitored. S> S> What about when they are realesed? Many of them have already used this as a means to carry out their dirt in privacy. There is a real problem figuring out how to do this without also invading the privacy of innocent people. So far we haven't come up with good solutions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: All Subject: confiscation Date: Sat Jul 06 07:11:58 CDT 1996 Message number: 19 Reply to message number: unavailable Did anybody read the article in the last city pages about the two homeless squatter punks (I can't remmember the names that we're used in the paper) that we're hauled in to the police station for loitering, had their thing confiscated, and then when they we're released they we're told that they couldn't have their things becuase they didn't have ID? Does anybody know if this is typical policy for police stations? It has some scarry implications, be tagged or go with out any posessions at all. (Among the things that we're held we're sleeping bags, clothes, and pictures that spanned a three year period.) *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: confiscation Date: Sat Dec 23 07:27:35 CST 1995 Message number: 20 Reply to message number: 19 BT> Did anybody read the article in the last city pages about the two BT> homeless squatter punks (I can't remmember the names that we're used in the BT> paper) that we're hauled in to the police station for loitering, had their BT> thing confiscated, and then when they we're released they we're told that t BT> couldn't have their things becuase they didn't have ID? BT> BT> Does anybody know if this is typical policy for police stations? It has so BT> scarry implications, be tagged or go with out any posessions at all. (Amon BT> the things that we're held we're sleeping bags, clothes, and pictures that BT> spanned a three year period.) BT> It doesn't surprise me. My experience with abusive cops goes back 30+ years to peace demonstration days, when they stretched a line, told people not to cross it, then moved the line and arrested everyone on the other side of this. Of course, cases of obvious physical abuse hit the news, like the case where the cops carried two drunk indians to detox in the TRUNK of the squad car. I think that the cops seizing the belongings because of lack of an ID may be a violation of their civil rights, and I dearly hope that they will talk to the state Human Rights Commission. It would be interesting to see a discovery action force them to release a picture of the guys turning in their belongings, which would distinctly prove their ownership without need for an ID. Was this one of our lovely police operations? I get the feeling that the Minneapolis cops are having a contest with the LA cops to see which group is the most racist, sexist, and abusive in general. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Froggy Subject: Re: confiscation Date: Sat Dec 23 08:38:49 CST 1995 Message number: 21 Reply to message number: 20 F> discovery action force them to release a picture of the guys turning in thei F> belongings, which would distinctly prove their ownership without need for an F> ID. That would be an exellent idea to keep track of these kinds of things in situations where this might be a problem. What's even more interesting is that the bags contained several pictures of the couple and their newborn baby together, who else would have those kind of posessions? F> Was this one of our lovely police operations? I get the feeling th F> the Minneapolis cops are having a contest with the LA cops to see which grou F> is the most racist, sexist, and abusive in general. Ah, you mean I'm not the only one that's noticed this? Yes, it's been pretty well agreed on by those that I have kept in contact with that move around alot, Minneapolis has the most brutal police force overall. I didn't know if people we're to interested in this, but since you are I'll go into it a bit. Whenever summer begins there's a large influx of the "summer punks", kids from surrounding areas (or at least less interesting areas) like the suburbs or places like Hicktown Iowa come to Minneapolis to spend the summer here. Meet new people, get drunk, go to shows, etc. So the cops respond by having HUGE crackdowns to push those "homeless freaks" that live here back underground and maybe get the newbies that aren't used to this kind of harassment out of the city. Here's a handfull examples: This is before the whole "crackdown" thing started, just general harassment. A cop comes over to one of my friends and tells her that her spiked dog collar is illegal and that he'll have to confiscate it. The funny part is is this was under the bridge where about 1/6 of the entire twin cities gutter punks sleep, so just about EVERYBODY'S wearing spikes, metal plates, razors, etc. but he decides to pick on just her since naturally young and female = weak and feeble minded in his eyes. Furthermore, knifes are only illegal if their over 2" long and conceled, right? Well, these spikes we're around her NECK, can't make a slashing wound, they weren't sharpened so it would be tough to puncture flesh, and only 1/2" long. This one is a constant scenario that happens to often to cite specific situations: A group of about four people are sitting on a park bench, talking, sewing their clothes, whatever, just your general polite people sitting on a bench. The police will ALWAYS tell them that they must leave. This typically happens when no one else is around so good citizens can't see police harassment whatsoever and will have a good impression of the cops. If asked why, you will usually get a response like: "The people around here don't want your kind." (Sounds like one of those movies on 50's racism, doesn't it?) And then you get escorted to A. The bus stop so you can leave town, or B. The police station so they can detain you for a day or two for "loitering". Once this even happened while a woman was sunbathing in the park, nude. Of course they didn't do anything about her. At one particular McDonalds in Minneapolis, if your outside of the restraunt on restraunt grounds (bench, table, under a tree, whatever) and have bought something from McDonalds or not, you will be asked to leave. When asked why, you will hear language to rival any sailor with various injections about "ruining buisness". There was a big roundup of kids there a few weeks ago, paddy wagon and all - I believe that was the incident that was mentioned in the CP. I haven't been there recently, but I've heard that one of the benches are still stained with blood when a cop hit a girl (punk) that was visiting for the day and then she, supposedly, resisted arrest. Two people from StreetWorks (a local volunteer organization that try's to get kids off the street and supply them with food, etc.) got arrested along with a group of punks for disturbing the peace and loitering. Was this incident provoked? Nope, just like all the others.. (What happened after this, I don't know) This is just off the top of my head and what has happened within the last month or two, it can get much, much worse. *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: Burying the Knife Date: Sun Jul 14 14:21:14 CDT 1996 Message number: 22 Reply to message number: unavailable ------------------------- Via Workers World News Service Reprinted from the July 11, 1996 issue of Workers World newspaper ------------------------- WIDER GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR By Hillel Cohen The rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer. This isn't news to millions of workers who have lost their jobs or find themselves working for lower pay. But there is something new. The federal government Census Bureau has come up with figures showing that the gap between rich and poor in the U.S. is larger than ever and getting bigger. When families in the U.S. are ranked by their share of the national income, the lowest 20 percent had 4.2 percent of the total income while the top 5 percent of families had just over 20 percent of the total income. The richest 5 percent got about the same share of the national income as half of all U.S. families put together. In dollars, the top 5 percent had an average family income of $183,000 while the lowest 20 percent had an average income of less than $8,000. What's more, according to their figures the rich got richer faster in the first two years of the Clinton administration than during all eight years under Reagan. During 1993-1994, the average income of the lowest fifth increased by $64, the next two fifths by about $20 each, the next by $700 and the highest fifth by almost $10,000. The real winners were the richest 5 percent, who in those two years increased their average annual income by more than $30,000. It had taken them eight years under Reagan to accomplish that. And these figures were calculated in an election year by the Clinton administration itself, which could be expected to present statistics that put the incumbent in the most popular light. Reagan had the reputation of reorganizing federal taxes and spending so as to transfer billions from the working class into the pockets of the ruling class. Now it appears that Clinton has won more cash for the super-rich than the ol' Gipper. It should also be noted that in these first two years of the Clinton administration the Democrats had a majority in both the House and the Senate, while Gingrich and company were in the minority. Some may argue that statistical methods can distort the true picture and that the gap in household incomes grew about the same during Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Or that the gap, which the Census Bureau says started growing in 1968 under the Democrat Johnson, just kept growing and growing. In other words, capitalism has done what capitalism does best--create massive wealth for the bosses at the expense of the workers--regardless of which capitalist party runs the government. - END - (Copyright Workers World Service: Permission to reprint granted if source is cited. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail: ww@wwpublish.com. For subscription info send message to: ww-info@wwpublish.com. Web: http://www.workers.org) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: BIG TEEBO Subject: Re: the men in Blue Date: Sun Jul 14 14:50:09 CDT 1996 Message number: 23 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Big Teebo to Froggy <=- F> Was this one of our lovely police operations? I get the feeling F> the Minneapolis cops are having a contest with the LA cops to see which gr F> is the most racist, sexist, and abusive in general. BT> Ah, you mean I'm not the only one that's noticed this? Yes, it's been BT> pretty well agreed on by those that I have kept in contact with that BT> move around alot, Minneapolis has the most brutal police force BT> overall. Definately. Minneapolis cops have a very bad reputatiom, even so bad that a lot of suburban departments won't hire anyone who's worked in Minneapolis. The whole department is just overrun with power-mad, gung-ho assholes. Basic word of advice, when you're over in Minneapolis watch your ass. Unless you're being recorded via hidden camera, pretend the bill of rights doesn't exist or you might end up eating the pavement. BT> This is just off the top of my head and what has happened within the BT> last month or two, it can get much, much worse. So how often are you downtown there, anyways? ... Clinton supporters know how the American Indians felt. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: the men in Blue Date: Mon Jul 15 04:08:13 CDT 1996 Message number: 24 Reply to message number: 23 DR> Basic word of advice, when you're over in Minneapolis watch your ass. DR> Unless you're being recorded via hidden camera, pretend the bill of rights DR> doesn't exist or you might end up eating the pavement. Sometimes I wonder how they would respond if a wholly "bad cop" would just "happen" to get shot and killed one day? They could get really mean for a few weeks like when Haaf got knocked and then go back to normal, they could get worse trying to institute a police state attitude, or they could start acting like real police officers instead of thugs - but what's the chance of that happening? DR> So how often are you downtown there, anyways? Not often, like many people on here have said about there youth, I'm generally kept under house arrest heralded as "being brought up in a responsible family". *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Burying the Knife Date: Mon Jul 15 13:47:08 CDT 1996 Message number: 25 Reply to message number: 22 DR> What's more, according to their figures the rich got DR> richer faster in the first two years of the Clinton DR> administration than during all eight years under Reagan. DR> During 1993-1994, the average income of the lowest fifth DR> increased by $64, the next two fifths by about $20 each, the DR> next by $700 and the highest fifth by almost $10,000. DR> Which political party did Clinton say he was working for? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: the men in Blue Date: Mon Jul 15 13:51:03 CDT 1996 Message number: 26 Reply to message number: 23 F> Was this one of our lovely police operations? I get the feeling F> the Minneapolis cops are having a contest with the LA cops to see which gr F> is the most racist, sexist, and abusive in general. DR> DR> Definately. Minneapolis cops have a very bad reputatiom, even so bad that DR> a lot of suburban departments won't hire anyone who's worked in Minneapolis DR> The whole department is just overrun with power-mad, gung-ho assholes. DR> Speaking of which - - - I heard on NPR this weekend that the department completed their investigation of Mike Sauro, agreed with Mayor Sayles-Belton, and fired him again. He says hi is innocent and is appealing again. :( ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: the men in Blue Date: Mon Jul 15 13:52:55 CDT 1996 Message number: 27 Reply to message number: 24 BT> Sometimes I wonder how they would respond if a wholly "bad cop" would just BT> "happen" to get shot and killed one day? They could get really mean for a I am seeing a name -- it is vague --- It is becoming more clear -- I see an S! It begins with an S! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: FROGGY Subject: Re: Burying the Knife Date: Wed Jul 17 01:40:03 CDT 1996 Message number: 28 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Froggy to Daedalus Rising <=- DR> What's more, according to their figures the rich got DR> richer faster in the first two years of the Clinton DR> administration than during all eight years under Reagan. DR> During 1993-1994, the average income of the lowest fifth DR> increased by $64, the next two fifths by about $20 each, the DR> next by $700 and the highest fifth by almost $10,000. Fr> Which political party did Clinton say he was working for? His own, of course. I'm beginning to agree with Ralph Nader on his assesment of the election, that Clinton will win because he's just more unprincipled and ruthless than Dole could ever hope to be. ... Be suspicious of all native-born Esperanto speakers. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: The ACLU on Welfare Date: Tue Jul 30 07:02:27 CDT 1996 Message number: 29 Reply to message number: unavailable ---------------------------------------------------------------- 07-29-96 ACLU Newsfeed -- ACLU News Direct to YOU ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACLU Background Briefing Unconstitutional Welfare Bill Preys on Our Nation's Children Measure Also Erodes Free Speech, Violates Separation of Church, State and Damages Privacy Rights FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Friday, July 26, 1996 WASHINGTON -- Scrambling to finalize its third version of a welfare "reform" bill, Congress has refused to discard portions that prey upon the innocence and vulnerability of children, immigrants, the poor and the elderly. The House passed HR 3734, the Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Act of 1996, on July 18th, while the Senate approved its own variation, S 1956, on July 23rd. Congress moved swiftly to appoint conferrees in order to give the President a final bill as early as the beginning of next week. The true victims of this year's partisan politics are without question the children of immigrants and poor people. The legislation also erodes free speech for not-for-profit organizations, violates the separation of church and state, and damages privacy rights by establishing a de facto national identification system. Provision after provision strips children of the care and financial support that they need. Most social services, including prenatal care and subsidized school lunches, would be denied to children whose parent already receive them. Children in public housing may find themselves on the street if one of their parents is convicted of a minor drug offense. The fierce impact of these bills on children is reason enough to reject them. But there are a host of other civil liberties violations that compound the crushing nature of this legislation. The legislation would: 1. ... deny legal immigrants much needed benefits. Both bills would bar most legal immigrants, including those already in the United States, from Supplemental Security Income, Food Stamps and Medicaid benefits. Such measures would cut off subsistence payments to people who are poor, elderly and disabled, and would deny poor legal immigrants access to coupons redeemable for food. In addition, the bills would bar immigrants, for their first five years in the U.S., from nearly all programs that receive federal funds and target low income people. Many non-citizens who are in the United States legally but are not permanent residents would be treated like undocumented immigrants not "qualified" to receive such basic services as prenatal care (even though their children born here would be American citizens) and subsidized school lunches. The bill would also require nonprofit organizations, schools and local governments that administer benefit programs to verify eligibility through a computerized national data base containing a file on every person in the country. 2. ... punish children for having poor parents. Child exclusion policies punish children for the circumstances of their birth, coercing the reproductive choices of their parents. The House legislation requires states to deny benefits to children born while their parents are receiving public assistance. The proposed "illegitimacy ratio" provides cash strapped states with bonuses when they show a reduction in out-of-wedlock births or abortions. This measure provides states with financial incentives to institute constitutionally suspect policies interfering with the reproductive choices of women across the board. 3. ... erode the separation between church and state. The bill would force state governments, under threat of lawsuits, to have religious institutions, including houses of worship, provide taxpayer-funded social services in a proselytizing environment. If a state rightfully believes that such funding of religion is unconstitutional and refuses to finance a certain religious organization, the group can then sue the state. Religious institutions would be able to discriminate against employees, whose salaries come from tax dollars, based on their religious beliefs or practices. The bill also fails to provide beneficiaries of government health or social service programs with any notice of their right to object to their assigned religious provider. This would violate the religious liberty rights of beneficiaries, especially when the religious beliefs of the beneficiary differ from those of the assigned provider. 4. ... threaten free expression of nonprofit organizations. The bill makes an effort to discourage, and in effect, silence nonprofit organizations that dispense federal welfare funds from engaging in political speech. It does that by requiring these organizations to publish a disclaimer on a wide range of both written and broadcast material that states they are "funded by taxpayer dollars." This rule does not apply to corporations receiving government contracts, but only to organizations that "promote public support or opposition to any policy of a Federal, State, or local government," therefore discriminating against political advocacy groups. If these groups fail to comply, they would be declared ineligible to receive Federal welfare funds for services or distribution to welfare recipients. 5. ... damage privacy rights. In an effort to facilitate collecting child support, the bill would require employers to report all new hires, together with confidential information about wages, to new federal and state registries. It would force states to use Social Security Numbers for drivers' licenses, marriage, professional and occupational licenses, and divorce and child support proceedings as tracking devices, in effect creating a national I.D. system. Further, the bill would require states to furnish information about the location of program participants to law enforcement agencies merely upon the claim that the participant has some "information that is necessary" for an officer to conduct official duties. The collection of DNA samples would be taken under certain circumstances with no protection against the misuse of that information, possibly subjecting that individual and family members to eventual discrimination in life insurance and health care. 6. ... exclude any drug offender from ever receiving assistance. A last minute amendment to the Senate bill would impose up to a life-time ban on all means-tested federal benefits to any individual convicted of any state or federal crime relating to the illegal possession, use, or distribution of drugs. As a result, anyone convicted of even a misdemeanor drug offense would be denied public assistance and other key supportive services such as housing, medical care, food stamps or substance abuse treatment services. Recovering substance abusers with prior convictions would be deemed ineligible to participate in any government sponsored rehabilitation program or any other public service based on need. Ironically, someone convicted of possessing marijuana would be banned from receiving any government benefits while a person convicted of murder, rape, or armed robbery would remain eligible to receive them. Conclusion: The proposed welfare legislation is unconstitutional, unfair and unnecessary. A consequence of Congress's welfare bill is that people needing public assistance may be forced to relinquish fundamental rights as a condition of receiving the subsistence provided -- regardless of the consequences for children. In an effort to curb the so-called "welfare lifestyle," Congress is not only infringes on the rights of specific groups, but of everyone: -- The equal protection of legal immigrants is violated by denying them essential government benefits that they help fund by paying taxes themselves. -- Child exclusion policies infringe upon the reproductive choices of parents and punish children for being born into poor families. -- Coercing states into contracting with religious institutions in order to provide social services disrupts First Amendment protection of religious liberty for everyone. -- Silencing nonprofit welfare providers that engage in political advocacy impedes the organizations' rights to free expression. -- Gathering various forms of personal identification to facilitate the collection of child support, effectively creating a Big Brother national I.D. system, invades the privacy rights of all Americans. -- One prior drug conviction would inhibit someone from ever again receiving public benefit based on need. The ACLU urges Congress not to pass welfare legislation that punishes poor people, limits free speech, violates religious liberty, and assaults America's right to privacy. Trampling on the constitutional rights of America's needy is no way to achieve reform. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DARING DIANE J. To: FROGGY Subject: Re: confiscation Date: Sun Aug 04 13:40:22 CDT 1996 Message number: 30 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Froggy to Big Teebo <=- BT> Fr> It doesn't surprise me. My experience with abusive cops goes I agree with Froggy. Abuse by cops exists. My involvement in anti-nuke (anti-NSP) demonstrations has taught me that police abuse is alive and well here and now. My Quaker buddy and I were mistreated by Minneapolis cops. Not by all of them, mind you. Some were nice to me and another Quaker buddy. But what some got away with was wrong. And we're all white people. I shudder to think what treatment we'd have gotten if we weren't white. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DARING DIANE J. To: FROGGY Subject: Re: confiscation Date: Tue Aug 20 18:23:12 CDT 1996 Message number: 31 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Froggy to Big Teebo <=- BT> Fr> It doesn't surprise me. My experience with abusive cops goes I agree with Froggy. Abuse by cops exists. My involvement in anti-nuke (anti-NSP) demonstrations has taught me that police abuse is alive and well here and now. My Quaker buddy and I were mistreated by Minneapolis cops. Not by all of them, mind you. Some were nice to me and another Quaker buddy. But what some got away with was wrong. And we're all white people. I shudder to think what treatment we'd have gotten if we weren't white. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: Nader on Welfare Reform 1/2 Date: Sat Aug 24 14:14:32 CDT 1996 Message number: 32 Reply to message number: unavailable [Full Text of Ralph Nader Letter to Clinton on the Welfare Bill] President William Clinton The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500 July 31, 1996 Dear President Clinton, I strongly urge you to reconsider your decision to sign the welfare legislation now before Congress. The elimination of the entitlement status of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Program, as well as deep cuts in the food stamp program and the denial of assistance to legal immigrants, will greatly increase hunger and poverty among children and other Americans. During your first Presidential campaign, you told American voters that you would be the first President who was an avowed advocate for children. It would be a betrayal of their trust to sign the most anti-children piece of legislation in American history, condemning more than a million children to a life of poverty. While most Americans believe that the welfare system should be reformed to focus on work, they want reform that will move participants into jobs, not into shelters, soup kitchens and doorways. Rev. Fred Kammer, President of Catholic Charities USA, has described the Senate and House welfare bills as "largely a sham designed to appease the ignorant and to pander to our worst prejudices in an election year." During your administration, welfare for corporate interests has continued to grow while both major parties posture over how best to take food out of the mouths of poor children. It is clear that there are significant problems with the present welfare system. It fails to provide families with an income adequate to enable them to provide their families with basic necessities such as food, housing, utilities and clothing. It often penalizes married couples and imposes barriers to those seeking work. However, imposing arbitrary time limits on welfare will not magically eliminate poverty or produce a full employment economy, especially if the Federal Reserve continues to raise interest rates whenever they fear unemployment has dropped so low that it is likely to cause inflation. Increasing the number of people desperately looking for work, without increasing the existing number of jobs, will further depress the wages for low-income workers. Rather than signing legislation that will punish poor women and children by cutting off their benefits when they fail to obtain employment, we need legislation to create decent paying jobs for all those able to work. We need to "Make Work Pay" by raising the minimum wage at least a $1 an hour above what Congress is presently considering; substantially increasing the Earned Income Disregard so that welfare participants can keep more of their earnings from work; and providing universal access to health and child care. The lack of access to child care still remains the biggest barrier for parents trying to leave welfare for employment. Public opinion polls show strong public support for increased investment in job creation, job training and education. As Professor David Ellwood (a prominent former member of your welfare reform team) recently pointed out in a July 22nd op-ed in the New York Times, "No bill that is likely to push more than a million additional children into poverty -- many in working families -- is real reform." Children would be even worse off if states cut their own spending for income assistance by up to 20% as allowed in the Senate bill (25% in the House bill); states could cut an additional 8% if certain standards are met. The Urban Institute released a report estimating that the welfare legislation would increase the number of poor children by 1.1 million and would also make poor an additional 1.5 million adults (assuming no reduction in state welfare spending). More than one-fifth of all families with children would see their incomes fall by about $1,300 per year. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that between 2.5 and 3.5 million children would lose all assistance once a five-year limit was fully phased in. States would have the option to impose earlier time limits; for instance, a two-year time limit would impact approximately 5.5 million children. Senator Moynihan earlier this year warned his colleagues to remember their vote on welfare reform when the sight of children sleeping on heating grates becomes common in our communities within the next decade; I hope you take the Senator's warning to heart. I urge your administration to publicly estimate the number of children who would be impacted by the legislation presently being considered. The bill would also allow states to impose a Family Cap, denying benefits to children born to parents receiving welfare. The average AFDC family size has steadily declined over the past twenty years and is about equal to the size of the average non-AFDC family. Comparative studies indicate that the national child bearing rate for women on welfare is considerably lower than that for the general population. In addition, the longer a women is on welfare, the less likely she is to give birth, (Mark Rank, "Living on the Edge: The Realities of Welfare in America, 1994." The State-contracted study by Rutgers University of the pilot program in New Jersey has not found any change in the birth rate after the Family Cap was imposed -- it only found children being forced deeper into poverty. There is no reason to allow this failed experiment in social engineering to be replicated nationwide. The bill ends the federal guarantee of cash assistance for children and families, replacing it with a flat block grant that would not respond to growing need when unemployment and poverty rises. The $2 billion contingency fund would only have covered little more than one-third of additional federal funding states needed during the last recession. One of the lessons of the Great Depression is that infusion of federal dollars to combat poverty is most needed during difficult economic times when state and local governments do not have the resources to respond. The depth of the proposed cuts in food stamps is scandalous. Food stamp cuts of about $28 billion over six years will reduce the average food stamp benefit from an already inadequate 80 cents per person per meal to 66 cents (taking inflation into account). The Children's Defense Fund (CDF) estimates that 14 million children will lose food because of these cuts. While proponents of the welfare bill claim it will convert the welfare system into a "work-based" (i.e., not a job-based) program, the bill fails to provide the resources necessary to achieve even this limited goal, while providing new incentives to cut off aid rather than help parents find work and presenting the risk of sharp curtailment of child care aid to working poor families outside the welfare system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: Nader on Welfare Reform 2/2 Date: Sat Aug 24 14:15:27 CDT 1996 Message number: 33 Reply to message number: unavailable Under current law, states can already require the vast majority of parents receiving AFDC to participate in a work program. However, only about 20% of AFDC adults were working or participating in JOBS (Job Opportunities and Basic Skills) activities each month, even though states could have imposed requirements on 70% to 80% of parents. The principal reason of the shortfall in "work activity" participation is that expanding participation costs money -- money Congress has not been willing to provide. JOBS funds have been limited, and most states have not even drawn down the full amount available to their state (in FY 94, only 77% of available JOBS funding was drawn down; only 17 states pulled down their full allocation). States have also frequently sought to limit participation because of the cost of child care. CBO estimates that the bill falls $13 billion short over six years of what would be needed to meet their expanded work participation requirements. The shortage of federal funds for work programs is compounded by provisions permitting states to withdraw large amounts of state funds from work and income support programs. The bill actually allows a state to be counted as having met the work requirements if the state does nothing more than reduce its caseload by cutting off assistance to needy families. CBO estimates that due to the costs and administrative problems related to increasing participation in work activities, most states will simply accept the financial penalties associated with non-compliance. States seeking to comply with the work requirements will face steadily increasing pressure to curtail child care aid to working poor families. The bill imposes caps on the level of federal funding for child care available to states each year. After FY 98, states would be forced to redirect funds currently expended for working poor families through the Transitional Child Care and At-Risk Child Care Programs in order to address the need for child care to meet the work requirements. According to the Center for Law and Social Policy, by FY 2001 states would fall short of the child care funding needed to meet the work requirements even if they redirected every dollar currently expended for TCC and At-Risk Child Care -- a reduction of about $1 billion a year in child care for working poor families outside the welfare system. Despite repeated and overwhelming support for job training and education in public opinion polls, the welfare bill actually makes it more difficult for states to provide access to such programs. Over half of all participants in the JOBS program in FY 94 were involved in some form of job training and education. The proposed legislation would only allow 5% of AFDC adults to count toward the work participation rate by participating in education or training programs in FY 97. (In years after FY 99, when the required hours of participation to count toward the rates begin to exceed 20 hours a week, states would be able to count some education and training activities towards the hours in excess of 20.) The cuts in assistance to legal immigrants are deeper than in the legislation you have already vetoed. The overwhelming majority of immigrants are legally banned from receiving assistance, going even further than the previous bills: the original House welfare bill last year exempted legal immigrants who are over 75 or severely disabled; the Senate version made exceptions for victims of domestic violence and people who would face severe hunger or homelessness. Particularly severe are the provisions that would allow states to deny Medicaid to large numbers of legal immigrants. Most poor elderly and disabled immigrants are likely to find purchase of individual health insurance prohibitively expensive -- imagine an 80-year old poor legal immigrant with a heart condition trying to purchase a policy. The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law estimates that 315,000 low-income children with severe disabilities would be denied SSI assistance over the next six years by eliminating the individualized functional assessment (IFA). The IFA allows disability examiners to decide if the impairment significantly interferes with the child's ability to do everyday things most children the same age can do. Critics claim the IFA allows children to fake disabilities -- such as emotional and behavioral problems -- to qualify for assistance. However, none of the various studies to date has found evidence of widespread abuse. Do not sacrifice the fate of poor children and adults to election year posturing. Do not destroy this country's safety net that was forged from the pain and despair of the Great Depression. The welfare legislation presently being considered in Congress will not move more poor people into jobs, it will only drive them deeper into poverty. It is one thing to require individuals to accept personal responsibility to do what they can to make a better life for themselves and their families. It is another thing to punish poor people for the mistakes of political and economic leaders who are more concerned with the maximization of profits for a few wealthy individuals than they are with providing adequate employment opportunities and a decent standard of living for all Americans. Sincerely, Ralph Nader Ralph Nader P. O. Box 19312 Washington, DC 20036 202-387-8030 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Nader on Welfare Reform 1/2 Date: Sun Aug 25 07:14:13 CDT 1996 Message number: 34 Reply to message number: 32 DR> During your first Presidential campaign, you told American voters that you DR> would be the first President who was an avowed advocate for children. It DR> would be a betrayal of their trust to sign the most anti-children piece of DR> legislation in American history, condemning more than a million children to DR> a life of poverty. DR> This is the last straw for me. I am not only angry, but ASHAMED that a president who claims to be a democrat has thrown away the poor, disabled, and children like he has, and has kissed up to the wealthy. I only wish that I had the money to do what Julian Bond did in 1068, elect "another" delegation to the National Convention, go there, and demand to be seated and vote against him. DR> While most Americans believe that the welfare system should be reformed to DR> focus on work, they want reform that will move participants into jobs, not DR> into shelters, soup kitchens and doorways. Rev. Fred Kammer, President of DR> Catholic Charities USA, has described the Senate and House welfare bills as DR> "largely a sham designed to appease the ignorant and to pander to our worst DR> prejudices in an election year." During your administration, welfare for This is what amazes me about it. The only people who really think an effort like this bill will work are people who think like Rush Limbaugh, and think that there really are supportive jobs out there and people only ask for welfare because they are too lazy to work. Most people of BOTH major parties know better, and are talking about creating more and better jobs, even though they do have different ideas about how to do it. Who the hell does Clinton plan to impress with this? OHhhhhh, I wish I could go to the convention! DR> While proponents of the welfare bill claim it will convert the welfare DR> system into a "work-based" (i.e., not a job-based) program, the bill fails DR> to provide the resources necessary to achieve even this limited goal, while DR> providing new incentives to cut off aid rather than help parents find work DR> and presenting the risk of sharp curtailment of child care aid to working DR> poor families outside the welfare system. This is ass-backwards. The way to reform welfare, and get people off the roles is to provide these things in the first place, not to just punish everyone who can't find a job that will pay child care for 2 disabled children. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Nader on Welfare Reform 2/2 Date: Sun Aug 25 07:20:42 CDT 1996 Message number: 35 Reply to message number: 33 DR> States seeking to comply with the work requirements will face steadily DR> increasing pressure to curtail child care aid to working poor families. DR> The bill imposes caps on the level of federal funding for child care DR> available to states each year. After FY 98, states would be forced to DR> redirect funds currently expended for working poor families through the DR> Transitional Child Care and At-Risk Child Care Programs in order to address This is further complicated by restrictions on how the money can be spent. Only certain, licensed child-care providers are allowed, even though that provider may be overfull, or not be willing to care foe sick children or second shift. I know of one case where the AFDC mother's sister was willing to care for the children, but she needed the money because she would have to give up another job to care for the children. They refused to pay her to care for the children, because she was "family," ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: FROGGY Subject: Re: Nader on Welfare Refo Date: Sun Aug 25 15:31:14 CDT 1996 Message number: 36 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Froggy : Fr> This is the last straw for me. I am not only angry, but Fr> ASHAMED that a president who claims to be a democrat has thrown away Fr> the poor, disabled, and children like he has, and has kissed up to the Fr> wealthy. Clinton isn't kissing up to the wealthy here, just the moderate and undecided voters. He's virtually assured his own re-election, but in the process has sold out fellow Democrats like Paul Wellstone and Pat Moinahan (sp?) - has sold out the traditions of the Democratic party, and many of the people who supported him in 1992. For many, this *is* the last straw. The battle won't be fought in Chicago, the real fight will be over the nominee in the year 2000. I wonder if Clinton would ever have signed this bill if he had been subject to some real competittion in the primaries ... Fr> This is ass-backwards. The way to reform welfare, and get Fr> people off the roles is to provide these things in the first place, not Fr> to just punish everyone who can't find a job that will pay child care Fr> for 2 disabled children. A lot of people just don't care. Some of the common things I've heard is, "We've already spent so much, and poverty is worse than ever", "Just because the government isn't there doesn't mean that people are going to starve. There will be help for people who need it", and "My tax dollars are going to support these lazy people on welfare". For the most part, facts are irrelevant. For many against welfare, it's an *emotional* issue. It doesn't matter if food stamps are cut for working families, if SSI benefits are cut from disabled children, or if mothers are forced off of the dole without any job skills. ... Privatize the profits. Socialize the costs. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: All Subject: Thought Seattle was "hip"? Date: Sun Nov 24 03:28:58 CST 1996 Message number: 37 Reply to message number: unavailable Seattle's War On Kids Let's dispense with all those cloying liberal cliches about needing to help the kids, save the kids, cherish our future, we really care only about the kids. The City of Seattle fears and despises youth. Not that Seattle is alone in this sentiment. Nationally, the trend has been epitomized by newly re-elected Bill and "It Takes A Village To Blame A Child" Hillary Clinton. In the recently, mercifully ended campaign Clinton enacted or called for youth curfews, expanded teen sentencing for adult crimes (including the death penalty), mandatory teen drug testing, several "parental rights" measures, sanctions against teen mothers, an end to "benefits" like food or health care for underage U.S. citizens whose parents are non-citizens, more lenient laws and lower wages for child labor, and, of course, a welfare "reform" that will throw two to three million additional children into poverty. Kids, of course, can't vote. In Colorado a ballot measure, thankfully defeated, would have amended the state constitution to grant parents the "right" to do anything they want with their kids, including virtually any physical or sexual abuse, without legal risk. In Washington, state school superintendent candidate Ron Taber, during his quest to dismantle public schools, actually advocated public caning of students. It's a measure of just how diseased our society has become that our own children--held in many cultures to be so sacred that this sort of treatment is literally inconceivable--have joined foreigners, queers, commies, and non-whites as all- purpose scapegoats. So we've done a lousy job with economic justice, racism, crime, education, social mobility, giving people hope for the future? Blame the kids. Even in today's context, and with Seattle's own sordid setting (low under-18 population, rotting and underfunded schools, an effective ban on all ages shows, no loitering, no postering, constant police harassment), this past week was unusually bad. On three separate fronts the city showed, to anyone (especially young people) watching, just what it thinks of the next generations. John Stanford, retired U.S. Army General, was brought in 14 months ago to run the Seattle schools. How do we know he was a general? How can we forget? It's his only apparent qualification, since he's never been an educator or worked with schools before, and a fawning local media reminds us with its every adoring mention. Stanford has surrounded himself with mostly ex-military aides and has promised to clean up Seattle schools and run 'em efficiently--like, say, a boot camp. Stanford's latest bright idea this week was to close school campuses in response to security concerns; that is, to not allow students off school grounds during the day, even when they're not supposed to be in class. In other words, to imprison them. The proposal was, mercifully, vetoed after district officials figured out (according to the local papers) that since none of the high schools are fenced, it would require numerous guards around the perimeter of each school to enforce the closure; and besides, cafeterias and other gathering areas in the schools don't have the capacity to hold everyone at once. So the idea is delayed 'til those problems are fixed. (Put a tent on the soccer field! Erect the razor wire!) But students got the adult message anyway: your needs are irrelevant, you can't be trusted, and we have the right to control you. Another minor problem, not mentioned by the press: high school seniors over age 18 cannot be imprisoned without due process. It's illegal, as districts in other states have discovered. (For minors, of course, the state can do whatever the hell it wants.) All was not lost, however. All those extra kids on campus will have a purpose, thanks to a 5-2 vote by the Seattle School Board this week. They can be consumers. The Board voted, as a revenue source, to allow corporate advertising in Seattle schools. Our kids may be untrustworthy, stupid, and violent, but someday they'll be shoppers and today they're a captive audience. Of course, only "strong, reputable" (i.e., really big) companies will be accepted. And given the district's many funding problems, the income is earmarked for an essential need: new middle school athletic programs. The contempt with which Seattle's "we care about our kids" School Board members (voting for: Linda Harris, Don Nielsen, Ellen Roe, Barbara Schaad-Lamphere, Alan Sugiyama) must hold students is breathtaking. 25% of students drop out of Seattle schools before graduation. Why? Largely, one must surmise, because they have concluded--rightly or wrongly-- that it's irrelevant, boring, useless. The adult response could be to offer more relevant or stimulating fare, to give more support to teachers and staff trying to do a good job, to put some money into the decaying buildings, to reduce class sizes, to treat teaching as teaching rather than service job training or babysitting. Instead, the response is to lock 'em up and urge 'em to buy things. Transnationals treat our adult population with such care and respect, it's only natural that we entrust them with our future as well. Just think! We could auction off the schools like we do sports facilities: Key Arena! Immunex-West Seattle High! Or turn the schools themselves into malls, with a food court, a pretty fountain in the hall and classrooms as franchised "learning boutiques." Use corporate lesson plans, fabulous merchandise prizes for good grades, even movie-style product placement in classes! Teachers, of course, won't actually see any of the money from their requirement to sip Diet Pepsi or put their Nike- clad feet on the desk, but it might save them from being fired and replaced by corporate web sites and instructional videocassettes assembled in a Mexicali sweatshop. Call the School District today for competitive ad rates and placement schedules for this incredibly attractive, impressionable young demographic. And if they don't pay attention, we'll cane 'em. Superintendent Stanford, commenting on objections to ads in schools, said it all: "We're not going to compromise our standards." That's what scares us, John. So what happens to youth who flee? Six weeks ago ETS! reported a University Chamber of Commerce scheme to crack down on street youth. The plan, by designating Ave. stores as a "Business Improvement Association," would get city money to set up a storefront police station, rent out city cops to the Chamber as essentially a private police force, and increase the already horrific levels of street harassment kids in the U- District face every day from the SPD. It now seems virtually certain to get City Council approval at a hearing on Thursday (see Calendar). The point, of course (!), is to drive kids off the Ave. It's an escalation in a war merchants have fought against the neighborhood's youth culture for at least thirty years; you'd think, by now, upscale merchants who invest in a university neighborhood and then find it's largely populated by poor folks under age 25 would figure it out, and go find a suburb to infest. Instead, amazingly, they'd rather move the kids out and the upscale consumers in. So where, exactly, are the Ave's youth supposed to go? The City of Seattle has an answer: jail. The State of Washington also has an answer: jail. Anyone who's ever spent time on the Ave. has witnessed cops harassing kids. It's a fact of daily life. They can and often are hauled in for no reason other than being there, held a few hours or days, then released without charges. The quote we printed three weeks ago from SPD Capt. Bryant, lamenting to U-District merchants that the cops could no longer simply beat the crap out of kids, reflects an attitude that seems to pervade the force: those children are scum. When police appear on the Ave. or Broadway, kids scatter, and reappear a few blocks away. Where else are they going to go? Home? School? Work? They can't; the state of Washington took care of that. With the two Becca Bills passed last year and this, anyone who's known as a reported runaway must be turned in to police by any adult in contact with them--including teachers, health care providers, employers, or their own parents. Since the "safe haven" facilities youth are then supposed to be detained in haven't been built, they're simply sent to jail instead. So they band together--understandable, when every adult may be the one who turns you in--and protect each other as best they can. Their crime is being under eighteen. Many fled even worse home situations; some have serious problems (addiction, no food, pregnancy) but have nowhere to turn between condescending, hopelessly bureaucratic government agencies and vindictive, antebellum laws. Adults aren't just failing them; adults are fucking them over. City elites, bureaucrats and bottom-feeders--who've profited quite a bit from the visibility and "hip" image boost Seattle has enjoyed in the '90s--are waging war on the youth subcultures responsible for it. The battle plan: even with parental consent, kids in Seattle can't dance, can't hang out, can't leave their decaying, militarized schools, can't escape abuse (home or police), are constantly patronized by too many adults who won't even listen, and are auctioned off by the city and the school district as a commodity. No wonder so many are pissed. It's a helluva way to treat our future. More to the point, it's a sickening way to treat any human being. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Big Teebo Subject: Thought Seattle was "hip" Date: Tue Nov 26 13:31:49 CST 1996 Message number: 38 Reply to message number: unavailable BT | ... expanded teen sentencing for adult crimes (including the death | penalty), ... Oh, *heavens* no! If a 15-year-old commits an adult crime, like blowing away the SA clerk during an armed robbery, they certainly shouldn't be made to pay the same penalty that an adult would pay for the same crime. Little Jimmy will doubtless reform himself after he gets over that adolescent angst, and society doesn't need any protection from *him*. After all, he's just a child. Yew betcha. BT | ... John Stanford, retired U.S. Army General, was brought in 14 | months ago to run the Seattle schools. ... BT | Stanford's latest bright idea this week was to close school | campuses in response to security concerns; that is, to not allow | students off school grounds during the day, even when they're not | supposed to be in class. In other words, to imprison them. Closed-campus school == prison? If that's so, then mandated school attendance is slavery, and should be abolished immediately. BT | ... But students got the adult message anyway: your needs are | irrelevant, you can't be trusted, and we have the right to control | you. Quite a bit of spin doctoring being done here. How 'bout this for an adult message: "Your desires (I assume that if a student *needs* to leave school, they could explain that need and get permission) are less important than our need to make sure that you get as much education as we can force upon you, some of you *can't* be trusted, and we not only are responsible for your safety, wellbeing, and behavior, but we *do* have the right to control you in a fashion to ensure them." Yup - being an older kid sucks. I remember well the sense of injustice I felt when I ran into pointless adult control tactics. I remember even better how it felt to be aware that I had no rights at all. I still sympathize, quite sincerely. OTOH, I got a call from S. just last week - who, coincidently, moved from the Twin Cities to Seattle just about 2 years ago. She tells me that her daughter, 12, had just been busted for posession of a bottle of lime vodka, and S. isn't really sure where she's going to come up with the money to pay the fine. This daughter has been drinking to blackout in the local park, and has quite an extensive medical history - she's caught several STDs running trains in that park. No AIDS yet, but it's really only a matter of time, unless someone can get the kid to wise up. Her school record is astounding - she's been there a total of 18 days this year. S's problem is that she's *responsible* for her daughter - not only responsible for any damage she causes, but responsible for delivering her to adulthood with as little damage as possible. She's having to fight her daughter every step of the way to live up to those responsibilities - and she's not exactly winning that fight. Are there any practical suggestions from the "those poor abused kids" faction for how S can exercise some control over her daughter without using these Draconian laws? Hell, S called me to see if I had any suggestions at all - anything that would work, regardless of how much her daughter's rights get trampled in the process. After all, adolescence lasts for less than a decade - and the way she's going, the daughter isn't likely to last any longer. BT | All was not lost, however. All those extra kids on campus | will have a purpose, thanks to a 5-2 vote by the | Seattle School Board this week. They can be consumers. The Board | voted, as a revenue source, to allow corporate advertising in | Seattle schools. Our kids may be untrustworthy, stupid, and | violent, but someday they'll be shoppers and today they're a | captive audience. | Of course, only "strong, reputable" (i.e., really big) companies | will be accepted. And given the district's many funding problems, | the income is earmarked for an essential need: new | middle school athletic programs. Here, I agree - this is bullshit. It's not likely to be as damaging as it may first appear, though - these same kids have seen *months* of consumer advertising already, if they're average TV watchers. BT | ... Instead, the response is to lock 'em up and urge 'em to buy | things. Oversimplification is such an easy style to shoot down. I'll resist the urge here - this is already getting overlong. I'll snip the rest of the article, too - from what little I've seen first-hand, and first-hand reports from people I know in Seattle, it's a lousy place to be a gen-x-er and see a badge. The reason Seattle got that "hip" rep is because of the lively music scene there - which, to all appearances, isn't suffering from the way its primary audience is treated on the streets. -==- (BTW, Big Teebo - it's been my experience that once you get over 100 lines in your post, you're diminishing the response you get - many folks will see the super-long post and say "it'll take me *forever* to respond to that". If you post an article, then immediately follow it up with a short statement of *your* POV, you'll get more people jumping in with their own viewpoints.) --- þ JABBER v1.2 þ I may not be perfect - but then again, I may. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: Thought Seattle was "hip" Date: Sat Dec 23 17:41:43 CST 1995 Message number: 39 Reply to message number: 38 MW> BT | ... expanded teen sentencing for adult crimes (including the death MW> | penalty), ... MW> MW> Oh, *heavens* no! If a 15-year-old commits an adult crime, like blowing MW> away the SA clerk during an armed robbery, they certainly shouldn't be MW> made to pay the same penalty that an adult would pay for the same crime. MW> Little Jimmy will doubtless reform himself after he gets over that MW> adolescent angst, and society doesn't need any protection from *him*. MW> After all, he's just a child. It depends on what the crime is, doesn't it? Should Johnny get a mandatory 10 year-sentance for passing along a tenth of an ounce of pot? Or should the 13 year-old who gets mad, takes daddy's gun and shoots his sister spend the rest of his life in jail - or be executed for it? MW> BT | Stanford's latest bright idea this week was to close school MW> | campuses in response to security concerns; that is, to not allow MW> | students off school grounds during the day, even when they're not MW> | supposed to be in class. In other words, to imprison them. MW> MW> Closed-campus school == prison? If that's so, then mandated MW> school attendance is slavery, and should be abolished immediately. Sounds like every school I've ever been to, leaving school grounds during the school day was cause for detention/suspension. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: Thought Seattle was "hip" Date: Sun Dec 24 03:35:18 CST 1995 Message number: 40 Reply to message number: 38 MW> really only a matter of time, unless someone can get the kid to wise up. MW> Her school record is astounding - she's been there a total of 18 days MW> this year. In my experience, once somebody has experienced freedom like this, and they know that they can get away with it, they'll keep doing it until _they_ don't want too. This girl has to be convinced that she can't do needles or else she's going to die (quite possibly by first hand experience), and she has to have a reason to go to school. It's possible that she might end up just fine not going to school, I've known several people that just dropped because they found better things in there life or it was too dangerous. MW> Here, I agree - this is bullshit. It's not likely to be as damaging as MW> it may first appear, though - these same kids have seen *months* of MW> consumer advertising already, if they're average TV watchers. Maybe they'll be decorated with some well earned graphitti in the schools as the students sit bored in class and just think about what could be done to the Choice of a New Generation. Maybe an entire movement will be started against advertising, because children will be pushed to far and will act as a catalyst against it. Maybe they wont care and go about their daily lives like before.. MW> (BTW, Big Teebo - it's been my experience that once you get over 100 MW> lines in your post, you're diminishing the response you get - many folks MW> will see the super-long post and say "it'll take me *forever* to respond Eye, you'll find concuring sentiments here. I think that's what I'll do in the future, I've seen people read the replies to this and go back and read the main article again.. Thanks... *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Thought Seattle was "Hip" Date: Wed Nov 27 11:38:22 CST 1996 Message number: 41 Reply to message number: unavailable BT : ... expanded teen sentencing for adult crimes (including the death : penalty), ... MW > Oh, *heavens* no! If a 15-year-old commits an adult crime, like > blowing away the SA clerk during an armed robbery, they certainly > shouldn't be made to pay the same penalty that an adult would pay > for the same crime. Little Jimmy will doubtless reform himself > after he gets over that adolescent angst, and society doesn't need > any protection from *him*. After all, he's just a child. DR | It depends on what the crime is, doesn't it? Should Johnny get a | mandatory 10 year-sentance for passing along a tenth of an ounce of | pot? Or should the 13 year-old who gets mad, takes daddy's gun and | shoots his sister spend the rest of his life in jail - or be | executed for it? IMO, there should be no punishment to anyone for selling pot, but that's a different debate. If the going rate, in the courts, for selling pot is 10 years, why should someone be exempt from that just because they're young? Looked at this way, the underage become a priveledged caste. As far as the 13-year old who shot his sister - I'd certainly feel safer if they weren't scheduled to reappear in the society that I live in for quite a while - and a case like that isn't likely to get the death penalty, even for an adult. If that cute widdle 13-year-old has offed several SA clerks in a string of robberies, I'd cheerfully pull the switch myself. -==- --- þ JABBER v1.2 þ If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving isn't for you ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Big Teebo Subject: Thought Seattle was "Hip" Date: Wed Nov 27 11:38:23 CST 1996 Message number: 42 Reply to message number: unavailable MW > really only a matter of time, unless someone can get the kid to > wise up. Her school record is astounding - she's been there a total > of 18 days this year. BT | In my experience, once somebody has experienced freedom like this, | and they know that they can get away with it, they'll keep doing it | until _they_ don't want too. This girl has to be convinced that | she can't do needles or else she's going to die (quite possibly by | first hand experience), and she has to have a reason to go to | school. It's possible that she might end up just fine not going to | school, I've known several people that just dropped because they | found better things in there life or it was too dangerous. The trick will be to give her reason to not want it, or to keep her from getting away with it. Either option is likely to get the Child Protection folks pretty excited. This isn't a case of her being self-educated and not needing school - she's barely literate. She's dropping because she doesn't have any reason to care about that. What's being tried now is a dire threat - her mother is considering sending her back to Mpls. for a visit to Dastardly Dan's Sadistic School for Wayward Waifs - and it's got the girl's attention, at least. If we have to follow up on this thread, I'll likely be risking jail time to educate the kid - my methods aren't gentle, but they're (hopefully) effective. Alternate suggestions would be appreciated - jail just ain't that much fun, and while I'm awfully fond of her mother, the kid just doesn't inspire me to that much self-sacrifice. But the reason I brought this up at all is to point out the other side of the story - the "downtrodden children" are often the end beneficiaries of measures like were discussed in that article. Life would be better if it were never needful - but if my aunt had wheels, she'd be a teacart. -==- --- þ JABBER v1.2 þ I'm heavily armed, easily bored, and off my medication. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Mailer Daemon Subject: Re: X-mas Greetings Date: Fri Nov 29 17:09:47 CST 1996 Message number: 43 Reply to message number: -5 Here's a bit of clock conspiracy for you.. MD> love, family and friendship, the holiday message of what MD> "really matters." But the real message of these shows is MD> that the intimacy, love, friendship and understanding will MD> come only if huge amounts of money are spent on gifts. My friends and I have an agreement that for birthdays / christmas, etc. the typical gift giving days, we wont give anything to each other unless it's spontaneous and under a dollar. No stress, just lots of giggles aimed at holiday shoppers. What do the rest of you do in these respects? MD> The Big Apple already has 789 city pantries, kitchens and MD> shelters. But the independent food bank that supplies the MD> food-distribution centers could not meet the 28-percent rise MD> in need since July, and people went away hungry. I'm having a real dillema with this kind of thing, like the whole "bell-ringer" situation that you'll see in front of major stores in suburbia where a charity is asking for seasonal donations.. Do these homeless people really go away hungery? They have to eat on days other than Christmas.. I don't see (I am speaking from a point of admitted ignorance here) how anyone can go hungery in america with dumpsters overflowing with perfectly good food? Especially during the holidays.. Doesn't America have something like 25% of it's grain in storage? What about that? And what about the food shipped to foreign countries - I hate to say it but if they weren't fed there wouldn't be so many mouths to feed. Isn't this a great way to keep to impoverished (sp?) complacent? The government has learned to tolerate a certain amount of dissent, but they know when it gets dangerous and they throw you in jail. If these homeless people weren't given things (wellfare, food stamps, charity) wouldn't they learn self sustainment by forming their own communities out of necessity, or perhaps even "riot against the man"? *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: Thought Seattle was "Hip" Date: Fri Nov 29 17:11:21 CST 1996 Message number: 44 Reply to message number: 41 MW> young? Looked at this way, the underage become a priveledged caste. ...and the perfect candidates for drug running, free guns kiddies.. MW> þ JABBER v1.2 þ If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving isn't for yo Cute. :) *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: X-mas Greetings Date: Fri Nov 29 19:06:51 CST 1996 Message number: 45 Reply to message number: 43 BT> I'm having a real dillema with this kind of thing, like the whole BT> "bell-ringer" situation that you'll see in front of major stores in suburbi BT> where a charity is asking for seasonal donations.. BT> BT> Do these homeless people really go away hungery? They have to eat on days BT> other than Christmas.. I don't see (I am speaking from a point of admitted I want to talk about this, but can't now. Will you remind me tomorrow? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: X-mas Greetings Date: Sun Dec 01 11:43:53 CST 1996 Message number: 46 Reply to message number: unavailable MD > The Big Apple already has 789 city pantries, kitchens and MD > shelters. But the independent food bank that supplies the MD > food-distribution centers could not meet the 28-percent rise MD > in need since July, and people went away hungry. BT | I'm having a real dillema with this kind of thing, like the whole | "bell-ringer" situation that you'll see in front of major stores in | suburbia where a charity is asking for seasonal donations.. | | Do these homeless people really go away hungery? Yes indeed - it does happen. BT | They have to eat on days other than Christmas.. I don't see (I am | speaking from a point of admitted ignorance here) how anyone can go | hungery in america with dumpsters overflowing with perfectly good | food? How hungry would *you* have to be before you'd dig into a dumpster for food? What are the chances that the food there has been contaminated by other waste? BT | Especially during the holidays.. Doesn't America have something | like 25% of it's grain in storage? What about that? And what | about the food shipped to foreign countries - I hate to say it but | if they weren't fed there wouldn't be so many mouths to feed. I'm getting the feeling that this is another straw man you're raising here. 25% of grain in storage is just that - grain in storage, not feeding anyone. It isn't that we don't have enough food here - it's that food distribution doesn't reach everyone. Of course, there's never been a time in history that didn't have the impoverished and hungry. BT | Isn't this a great way to keep to impoverished (sp?) complacent? | The government has learned to tolerate a certain amount of dissent, | but they know when it gets dangerous and they throw you in jail. | If these homeless people weren't given things (wellfare, food | stamps, charity) wouldn't they learn self sustainment by forming | their own communities out of necessity, or perhaps even "riot | against the man"? Yes, teebo - this is a major downside of the welfare system. By having the bare essentials given to people, whole multi-generation families have come into being that not only cannot support themselves, but don't particularly *want* to support themselves. They're not the norm, but they do exist, commonly enough for me to have known several socially. It's a tough line between "let's not let anyone starve" and "let's not destroy iniative by eliminating reasons for it" - and if there is a simple answer, I'd like to hear it. -==- --- þ JABBER v1.2 þ Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are no rich... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: X-mas Greetings Date: Sun Dec 01 16:40:28 CST 1996 Message number: 47 Reply to message number: 46 MW> Yes, teebo - this is a major downside of the welfare system. By having MW> the bare essentials given to people, whole multi-generation families MW> have come into being that not only cannot support themselves, but don't MW> particularly *want* to support themselves. They're not the norm, but MW> they do exist, commonly enough for me to have known several socially. MW> I think that people like you, me, and Teebo could be the answer to the whole thing. Teebo because he is intelligent and asking questions, and you and I because we have both experienced the Welfare system and know first-hand some of its strenths and weaknesses. I am glad to see your comment that lazy welfare bums are not the norm,as many people believe. You are also right that there are a few and we need to solve what to do about them. I have also known a few, but most of the "lost cases" I have known are victims of learned helplessness. If a person is told often enough that he doesn't qualify for a job; he will never amount to anything; he can't be trusted, he will usually just buy into it and quit trying. I have also seen amazing things happen when people like this are given opportunities for jobs, trust, etc. MW> It's a tough line between "let's not let anyone starve" and "let's not MW> destroy iniative by eliminating reasons for it" - and if there is a MW> simple answer, I'd like to hear it. There is one simple answer -- quit claiming that there is equal opportunity for all. There is not, because we do not all have equal education and gifts, and our society is notably inflexible about trying to provide opportunities that fit individuals. The more we can work on this, the better we will solve the problems. MW> | Do these homeless people really go away hungery? MW> MW> Yes indeed - it does happen. MW> Of course they do. If a person is homeless, he does not have a kitchen to cook in or even pots, pans, and a can opener. I get so sick and tired of hearing ignorant people claim that because so many poor Americans are obese, they are not hungry. Many of them are in various stages of vitamin deficiency and malnutrition because the main food they can afford and/or are given at the food shelf are low quality foods that are high in fat and preservatives. They rarely get fresh vegetables and fruits, or a lean piece of meat. There is no mystery why minorities have a much higher incidence of high blood cholesterol, heart attacks, and diabetes. These are directly associated with a poor diet, and a poor diet is the only kind of diet that most poor people get. It would go a long way to solving the other social problems of learning disability, mental illness, job loss, and enormous medical costs, if someone would realize that this is a real factor in keeping people non-productive and poor. And you are right in asking about eating from dumpsters. Would you feed your 4 year old from a dumpster? Where are there dumpsters that are not locked now? Most of them are kept locked to keep people from eatring from them. MW> BT | They have to eat on days other than Christmas.. I don't see (I am MW> | speaking from a point of admitted ignorance here) how anyone can go Not only that,but to really have a good sense of self-esteem, they need to be able to provide for themselves. A turkey on Christmas is nice, and really important to those who do not have one, but what is really needed are education and jobs for people so they can buy their own turkeys. In a similar vein, I would like to make a suggestion: have you seen the "angel trees" at K-Mart and other stores at Christmas? Whenever I can afford it, I look for the cards of teenagers there. Everyone wante to buy dolls and trucks for 4 year olds, but it is lonely and bitter to be 13 and get no Christmas presents. Think what a wonderful Christmas it would be if every teenager bought another teenager a Christmas gift. We need to turn around this hatreds and contempt we have for others, and I think this is a GREAT way to start. MW> I'm getting the feeling that this is another straw man you're raising MW> here. 25% of grain in storage is just that - grain in storage, not MW> feeding anyone. MW> In fact, much of it is forage for stock, and not good for humans at all. MW> It isn't that we don't have enough food here - it's that food MW> distribution doesn't reach everyone. Of course, there's never been a MW> time in history that didn't have the impoverished and hungry. MW> True, but what sets us aside is how truly blessed we are. Of all other people, we have the opportunity to abolish poverty and hunger. We just need to get the heart and organization to do it. MW> | If these homeless people weren't given things (wellfare, food MW> | stamps, charity) wouldn't they learn self sustainment by forming MW> | their own communities out of necessity, or perhaps even "riot MW> | against the man"? They *are* rioting against the man. That is an important factor behind drug use and gangs in poor neighborhoods. How do you learn self-sufficiency by forming a community when what you really need is money to pay rent, and the only buildings where you can live are not available for you to buy, but you must pay an exhorbitant rate to a slumlord. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Froggy Subject: Re: X-mas Greetings Date: Mon Dec 02 16:01:16 CST 1996 Message number: 48 Reply to message number: unavailable MW > Yes, teebo - this is a major downside of the welfare system. By > having the bare essentials given to people, whole multi-generation > families have come into being that not only cannot support > themselves, but don't particularly *want* to support themselves. > They're not the norm, but they do exist, commonly enough for me to > have known several socially. F | I think that people like you, me, and Teebo could be the answer to | the whole thing. Teebo because he is intelligent and asking | questions, and you and I because we have both experienced the | Welfare system and know first-hand some of its strenths and | weaknesses. Do keep in mind that I've seen quite a bit first-hand, and would love to see it abolished. Somehow, I doubt that this is the "answer to the whole thing" that you're looking for. F | I am glad to see your comment that lazy welfare bums are not the | norm, as many people believe. You are also right that there are a | few and we need to solve what to do about them. I don't see them as "lazy" so much as institutionalized - welfare is the traditional career choice for their family. That's what they've always known - that it's the government's job to take care of them and see that they're fed and housed. This is how Johnson's good intentions have actually done a great disservice to the people that he was trying to help. F | I have also known a few, but most of the "lost cases" I have known | are victims of learned helplessness. If a person is told often | enough that he doesn't qualify for a job; he will never amount to | anything; he can't be trusted, he will usually just buy into it and | quit trying. I have also seen amazing things happen when people | like this are given opportunities for jobs, trust, etc. I see this as an unavoidable side effect of a government-sponsored welfare system - in fact, a result of any type of socialism. But that's just me. MW > It's a tough line between "let's not let anyone starve" and "let's > not destroy iniative by eliminating reasons for it" - and if there > is a simple answer, I'd like to hear it. F | There is one simple answer -- quit claiming that there is equal | opportunity for all. That's a claim that I never took seriously - after all, there are just so many seats at Harvard, so not everybody can *have* a Harvard education. There is, however, opportunity available to everyone - which is all that there can ever be. F | There is not, because we do not all have equal education and gifts, | and our society is notably inflexible about trying to provide | opportunities that fit individuals. The more we can work on this, | the better we will solve the problems. I've never viewed society as the provider of opportunities. Nor am I terribly concerned about social solutions - I was discussing government solutions. Just to make it perfectly clear, I've never viewed government as a provider of opportunities, either. Nor is that one of the ideals that our country was founded upon. :BT : Do these homeless people really go away hungery? MW > Yes indeed - it does happen. F | Of course they do. If a person is homeless, he does not have a | kitchen to cook in or even pots, pans, and a can opener. I get so | sick and tired of hearing ignorant people claim that because so many | poor Americans are obese, they are not hungry. Many of them are in | various stages of vitamin deficiency and malnutrition because the | main food they can afford and/or are given at the food shelf are low | quality foods that are high in fat and preservatives. Nonsense. The primary diet of those on welfare is fast food and convenience foods - not only less nutritious and more fattening than real food, but more expensive than real food. The next time you see someone using food stamps/EBS at the grocery store, take a better look at what's in their basket. By contrast, the food shelves often give good, basic food. The downside of that is that it must be prepared, not just heated. (Yes, I have made use of food shelves. Yes, I contribute to them now. It's been my experience that very few people contribute convenience foods - the single most common contribution is a can of vegetables, which is nutritious and isn't fattening.) F | They rarely get fresh vegetables and fruits, or a lean piece of | meat. There is no mystery why minorities have a much higher | incidence of high blood cholesterol, heart attacks, and diabetes. | These are directly associated with a poor diet, and a poor diet is | the only kind of diet that most poor people get. It would go a long | way to solving the other social problems of learning disability, | mental illness, job loss, and enormous medical costs, if someone | would realize that this is a real factor in keeping people | non-productive and poor. [...] Our (state) government has sponsored several low-cost, high-nutrition cookbooks for the poor. Unfortunately, they require a lot more work than heating a frozen pizza, and don't get used much. No, the poor aren't inherently lazy. They've just been told, constantly, for the last several decades, that they *don't* need to contribute to their own well-being, that it's the government's job to solve their problems for them. It'd be awfully surprising if they didn't believe it after all that. This system destroys the initiave and self-interest of the people it's supposed to help. Now, I don't believe (as some do) that this was it's real intention - I just believe that the well-meaning people behind it have been horribly misguided. :BT : They have to eat on days other than Christmas.. I don't see (I am : : speaking from a point of admitted ignorance here) how anyone can go F | Not only that,but to really have a good sense of self-esteem, they | need to be able to provide for themselves. A turkey on Christmas is | nice, and really important to those who do not have one, but what is | really needed are education and jobs for people so they can buy | their own turkeys. Then quit giving them turkeys, so that they have a *reason* to get that education and that job. I don't mean that anyone should be allowed to starve in the transition from welfare-state to well-state, but that it should be made very clear that they won't be supported indefinately, and the system should be drastically changed to make it easy to get off, rather than penalizing those who do try to get off of welfare. *Then* you'll see the programs for job assistance and education (which have been there for some time now) get used for more than paperwork. (Froggy's excellent suggestion for voluntary charity snipped, for brevity - if you haven't read it, I suggest that you go do so.) MW > It isn't that we don't have enough food here - it's that food > distribution doesn't reach everyone. Of course, there's never been > a time in history that didn't have the impoverished and hungry. F | True, but what sets us aside is how truly blessed we are. Of all | other people, we have the opportunity to abolish poverty and hunger. | We just need to get the heart and organization to do it. I don't think so, Froggy. You're welcome to try, of course - but I don't believe it's possible. I believe that the best we can do is encourage self-reliance and self-initiave in this country - and we can't do that with another government handout program. : BT : If these homeless people weren't given things (wellfare, food : : stamps, charity) wouldn't they learn self sustainment by forming : : their own communities out of necessity, or perhaps even "riot : : against the man"? F | They *are* rioting against the man. That is an important factor | behind drug use and gangs in poor neighborhoods. How do you learn | self-sufficiency by forming a community when what you really need is | money to pay rent, and the only buildings where you can live are not | available for you to buy, but you must pay an exhorbitant rate to a | slumlord. I agree with Big teebo's statement, but not to the degree that he takes it - learning self-reliance would remove the need to form their own communities or riot. About that rioting, Froggy - hunh?? I was a kid in northside during the race riots in the late 60s here, and I've seen what rioting looks like. I live in a low-income neighborhood in South Minneapolis, now - and know what drug use/sales and gangs look like. They're not the same thing. -==- --- þ JABBER v1.2 þ Wealth belongs to those who create it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: BIG TEEBO Subject: Re: X-mas Greetings Date: Mon Dec 02 17:20:06 CST 1996 Message number: 49 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Big Teebo : BT> Here's a bit of clock conspiracy for you.. MD> love, family and friendship, the holiday message of what MD> "really matters." But the real message of these shows is MD> that the intimacy, love, friendship and understanding will MD> come only if huge amounts of money are spent on gifts. BT> My friends and I have an agreement that for birthdays / christmas, BT> etc. the typical gift giving days, we wont give anything to each other BT> unless it's spontaneous and under a dollar. No stress, just lots of BT> giggles aimed at holiday shoppers. What do the rest of you do in BT> these respects? I just buy shit. I try to buy things that are both wanted and unique or interesting, though. If I ever get to the point where I start buying people socks and underwear, shoot me. BT> Do these homeless people really go away hungery? They have to eat on BT> days other than Christmas.. I don't see (I am speaking from a point BT> of admitted ignorance here) how anyone can go hungery in america with BT> dumpsters overflowing with perfectly good food? I'd have to be pretty fucking hungry to go digging in a dumpster. Just because someone's homeless doesn't mean they don't have any pride or dignity left. BT> Isn't this a great way to keep to impoverished (sp?) complacent? The BT> government has learned to tolerate a certain amount of dissent, but BT> they know when it gets dangerous and they throw you in jail. If these BT> homeless people weren't given things (wellfare, food stamps, charity) BT> wouldn't they learn self sustainment by forming their own communities BT> out of necessity, or perhaps even "riot against the man"? Many of the homeless in this country fall into two categories: Vietnam veterans and/or mentally unstable people, and single mothers with children who end up on the street (seldom for more than a few months at a time). There are, of course, people who don't fit into either group. The point being, how do these people unite and form communities when they're always moving around from place to place, in and out of temporary housing, always looking for their next meal - particularly when a great many of them aren't wholly sane. ... The best defense against logic is stupidity. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: X-mas Greetings Date: Tue Dec 03 07:10:08 CST 1996 Message number: 50 Reply to message number: 49 DR> BT> Do these homeless people really go away hungery? They have to eat on DR> BT> days other than Christmas.. I don't see (I am speaking from a point DR> BT> of admitted ignorance here) how anyone can go hungery in america with DR> BT> dumpsters overflowing with perfectly good food? DR> DR> I'd have to be pretty fucking hungry to go digging in a dumpster. Just DR> because someone's homeless doesn't mean they don't have any pride or DR> dignity left. DR> But you know as well as I do that there are a lot of people who actually are that hungry. DR> Many of the homeless in this country fall into two categories: Vietnam DR> veterans and/or mentally unstable people, and single mothers with children DR> who end up on the street (seldom for more than a few months at a time). DR> There are, of course, people who don't fit into either group. DR> . . . and people who are disabled in other ways. A welfare caseworker told me recently that there are very few "loose cannons" left in her caseload. Most of them are gone from the budget and qualification cuts already, and the main ones left are these you mentioned, which society is not interested in helping. DR> The point being, how do these people unite and form communities when DR> they're always moving around from place to place, in and out of temporary DR> housing, always looking for their next meal - particularly when a great DR> many of them aren't wholly sane. They also are not allowed the things you need to have to form a community. Newspaper and magazine subscriptions are not considered legitimate expenses by welfare. Neither is a car or a telephone. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: All Subject: poor Date: Tue Dec 17 16:36:34 CST 1996 Message number: 51 Reply to message number: unavailable So what did we all decide about charities and the homeless? Who does it benefit and who does it harm ultimatly when one gives monetary denominations to charities like the salvation army? *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: All Subject: The War on Medicine Date: Sun Feb 02 10:15:35 CST 1997 Message number: 52 Reply to message number: unavailable War on Medicine and Public Health (DRCNet Activist Guide 10/96) The Activist Guide: Issue #9 War on Medicine and Public Health The War on Drugs and Prohibition are often defended on the basis of the danger of drugs and the damage they do to physical, mental, and social health. But the cruel reality is that our drug policy itself exacerbates the harms of drug abuse, creates new harms, and hinders the practice of medicine. This issue of The Activist Guide focuses on the abuse of health and medicine in the drug war. We report on a Virginia doctor who dared to prescribe adequate quantities of narcotics to relieve his patients' intractable pain; a ballot initiative in California that will provide medical users of marijuana a necessity defense in state court, and the war conducted by police against that initiative; the progress of and resistance to a crucially important AIDS prevention measure, needle exchange; the war against pregnant addicts and their children; and some vivid examples from here and across the world of prohibition making drugs more deadly than otherwise. All these issues are separate yet related. Pain patients spend their lives trying to convince doctors and police that they are not addicts or recreational drug users; yet it is the (futile) attempt to keep narcotics from addicts that has made those drugs unavailable to many patients. Needle exchange can be implemented without lifting prohibition, yet it is prohibition that has led to the unavailability of needles and increased the spread of HIV. Drug use during pregnancy is inadvisable at best; yet the hysteria of prohibition has led to a destructive criminal approach to the problem. And all of these problems take a disproportionate toll on communities of color. The opposition to drug policy reform has attempted to label incremental reforms like medical marijuana and harm reduction (e.g. needle exchange) as "smokescreens" for overall legalization. This is unfair to the many who suffer from AIDS or untreated medical conditions and who are working to address the serious problems that have touched their own lives. What drug warriors really mean is that if patients could legally benefit from certain medicines, or if AIDS prevention in the form of needle exchange were permitted, then Americans might learn to think about drug policy in new ways and decide that the war on drugs isn't such a good idea after all. Repression must be total or it begins to crumble; this is what the drug warriors fear. At the same time, it's important for anti-prohibitionists to understand and respect that these issues are independent and that advocates of these various reforms will not always be well served by closely associating their issue with the other issues or with broader reforms like ours. Nevertheless, it is our mission to teach the world that prohibition is not about promoting health and well-being at all. The examples in this issue represent a broad pattern of official, reckless interference with medical and public health safety and freedom. War on Pain Control | Needle Exchanges Advancing Under Fire | Making Sure Drugs Kill | California Narcs Oppose Ballot Measure With Force | Prop. 215 Campaign Optimistic | War on Motherhood | A Patient Speaks ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: Kill? or Convert? Date: Fri Feb 21 20:10:03 CST 1997 Message number: 53 Reply to message number: unavailable The Republican Agenda includes the following: 1. Balance Budget Amendment: it will require a balance budget to be maintained and could involve the courts in the budget process. 2. 2/3 Super Majority for : this would require a 2/3rds majority in Tax Increases Amendment congress for any tax increases. ADVANTAGE: Minority in Congress 3. Flat Tax : A flat tax rate for all individuals and businesses. 4. Ening the Welfare State: Ending of a federal guarantee for the poor. *-Many conservatives tout the idea of churches caring for the poor. Basically : "Somebodyelse is going to do it!". 5. Vouchers : Vouchers for school, vouchers for charity instead of foodstamps or welfare, & vouchers for drug treatment. 6. No more IRS : Some advocate ending this org. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let's pretend that the republicans end all public welfare and establish a mixed system of vouchers and public funding of private charity efforts most being faithbased. Therefore a safety net is established that is dominated by faith based organizations that main goal is conversion of the feebs. -Many rich whites & other middleclassers will most likely find this system peachy keen with these poor folks being converted and control by religion. The poor are safe? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ What about the working poor? Let's pretend that the Republicans have put their economic views into the U.S Constitution by passing the Balanced Budget Amendment & 2/3 super majority for tax increases amendment. Additional policies have been passed as well: Flat tax for all & the abolishment of the IRS. What effect could these policies have on the the working poor and the low income citizens in are country? Here's my scenario: The universal flat tax would end up increasing the overall amount of taxes paid by the average working poor person while cutting the tax burden of the wealthiest Americans. They would both pay the same rate, but different amounts. The working poor end up losing buying power with every % point in the flat tax with each pt pushing them further over the cliff & into this new faith based safety net where they can be converted to religious belief. The Balanced Budget Amendment can provide another tool for those who may wish to push the working poor over the edge. With economic policy being place into the Constitution the courts now have the power to enforce a balanced budget with taxes and spending cuts. Weak willed politicians could use the BBA in tandem with a 2/3rd vote for tax increases amendment and spending increases (military) to bust the budget allowing the courts to order tax increases or spending cuts. Even a small increase in the flat tax rate would/could push many of the working poor over the edge into the nest of vampires waiting to convert them. One week you can pay your rent, buy gas for your car, and buy food. The next week a % increase throws your budget into chaos. Another possibility is that spending cuts could be ordered that could end other social programs like SSI, Medicaid, and government pensions. Even more fresh blood for the faith based vampire net created and supported by politicians. Either way these political types can ignore or "pass the buck" to the courts and escape blame for tax increases or spending cuts. These policies of the Conservative Republicans seem to form a social mechanism that could be used to push individual citizens towards groups that have the express purpose of converting them to ideas that are conducive to the conservative POV. To convert them to the cause! I am sure that there are large holes and flaws and variables in my scenario, but overall when I look at the agenda of the sissy Right I see a pattern aimed at poor people in an attempt to hurt them and convert them. To make them a part of the Conservative Movement. The most crucial part being the unthinking "Yes" men. Those who will kill for their masters. For their masters who feed them, cloth them, and arm them. Deathsquads always seem to be made of elites commanding them and poor people filling the ranks. Nasty. ... Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on supper. ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Sandman Subject: Re: Kill? or Convert? Date: Sat Feb 22 01:07:53 CST 1997 Message number: 54 Reply to message number: 53 S> I am sure that there are large holes and flaws and variables in my S> scenario, but overall when I look at the agenda of the sissy Right I see S> a pattern aimed at poor people in an attempt to hurt them and convert S> them. To make them a part of the Conservative Movement. The most crucial S> part being the unthinking "Yes" men. Those who will kill for their S> masters. For their masters who feed them, cloth them, and arm them. S> Deathsquads always seem to be made of elites commanding them and poor S> people filling the ranks. S> S> Nasty. S> I think this is basically it, except that I do not believe that its intention is to convert the poor people. I think thet the a**holes who are pushing this really don't care about the spiritual or any other well-being of the poor. Basically, they are NAZIs. They believe that people are poor either by choice or inferiority, and that society is better off without them. I will post some of the new rules to the "Welfare Reform" food stamps program so you can see what I mean. I think that they are more interested in simply getting rid of the poor than in converting them. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: All Subject: Welfare "Reform" -- Food stamps Date: Sat Feb 22 01:40:11 CST 1997 Message number: 55 Reply to message number: unavailable I got my hands on some information that was recently sent out to food stamps recipients about the changes in the Food Stamps program due to "reform. Don't read on if you have a weak stomach. Starting November 22, 1996, an adult can only get food stamps for 3 out of 36 months. This applies to: * Adults getting food stamps only (do not get a cash grant like AFDC). * Adults getting General Assistance because they: * Are in a battered women's shelter * Are employable * Live more than 2 hours from suitable work * Are involved with court-ordered services which prevents them from working four hours a day * Adults getting Refuge Cash Assistance You are exempt from the three month limit if you are in one of the following groups: * Under 18 or more than 50 years of age * Medically certified as unfit for work * Responsible for a dependent child (you do not have to be the parent) * Pregnant * Responsible for the care of an ill, injured, or incapacitated unit member * Receive Unemployment Compensation and registered for work with the Department of Economic Security * In a drug addiction or alcohol treatment program * Receive AFDC and in compliance with Project STRIDE requirements * Enrolled at least half time in a recognized school, training program, or institution of higher learning. You also will not use up your 3 months if you: * Work at least 20 hours a week * Participate in a training program at least 20 hours each week * Participate in work experience. The number of hours you must take part will be figured by dividing your monthly food stamp benefit by the higher of the state or federal minimum wage If your case is closed because you have now used your 3 months of eligibility, you can only get food stamps again in 36 months if in a month you: * Now meet an exemption * Work 80 hours or more * Take part in a work and training program or do volunteer work for 80 hours or more If later, you lose this job or no longer take part in a work and training or work experience program, you may be able to get 3 more months of food stamps. However, the total number of months you can get food stamps during a 36 month period is 6 unless you meet one of the 9 exemptions; work at least 20 hours per week; or participate in a work and training experience program. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: SANDMAN Subject: Re: Kill? or Convert? Date: Mon Feb 24 16:10:45 CST 1997 Message number: 56 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Sandman : Sa> 1. Balance Budget Amendment: it will require a balance budget to be Sa> maintained and could involve the courts Sa> in the budget process. ... and invites another depression, next time we have a recession. Really, really, really stupid. Sa> 2. 2/3 Super Majority for : this would require a 2/3rds majority in Sa> Tax Increases Amendment congress for any tax increases. The worst thing about this 2/3 tax vote is that it also locks in all of those beautiful tax deductions. To add a deduction, you need a 1/2 vote. To take it away, you require a 2/3 vote. Guess what our tax code will look like in 10 years? Sa> 3. Flat Tax : A flat tax rate for all individuals and Sa> businesses. I don't suppose they include FICA social security contrubitions in that, do they? Sa> 6. No more IRS : Some advocate ending this org. Even with a flat tax, someone has to track down the miscreants. Would you rather have the accountants poring over your records, or the police? Sa> -Many rich whites & other middleclassers will most likely find this Sa> system peachy keen with these poor folks being converted and control Sa> by religion. Sa> The poor are safe? That's assuming, of course, that the 5% to 20% of the population our system keeps unemployed/underemployed don't just decide to strike back. I say, it's cheaper to educate them than to jail them, and cheaper to feed them then to police them. Sa> What effect could these policies have on the the working poor and the Sa> low income citizens in are country? Same as is happening now, a slow deterioration of wages and incomes. Historically, this has never stood for long. As undemocratic as our system seems today, it won't be different this time. I just hope that we get another FDR-style liberal (meaning, in this case, a believer in constitutional government), and not a Buchanan-style neofascist. Sa> pay the same rate, but different amounts. The working poor end up Sa> losing buying power with every % point in the flat tax with each pt Sa> pushing them further over the cliff & into this new faith based safety Sa> net where they can be converted to religious belief. Poor, hungry people are not easily converted by charlatans, and true men and women of god would not likely stand for being used that way. I don't see it working. ... It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: FROGGY Subject: Re: Welfare "Reform" -- F Date: Mon Feb 24 16:10:46 CST 1997 Message number: 57 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Froggy : Fr> Starting November 22, 1996, an adult can only get food stamps for 3 Fr> out of 36 months. This applies to: I guess I don't get this food stamp thing, when did it become politically unpopular to feed people? If people are abusing food stamps, then find some other way to do it. Give out food directly, like government cheese and veggies. Makes sense to me, but then again I'm just a silly liberal. ... Leonard Nimoy for President in 1996! The Only Logical Candidate! ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Welfare "Reform" -- F Date: Mon Feb 24 17:47:03 CST 1997 Message number: 58 Reply to message number: 57 DR> Fr> Starting November 22, 1996, an adult can only get food stamps for 3 DR> Fr> out of 36 months. This applies to: DR> DR> I guess I don't get this food stamp thing, when did it become politically DR> unpopular to feed people? DR> DR> If people are abusing food stamps, then find some other way to do it. DR> Give out food directly, like government cheese and veggies. DR> Can you say, R-e-a-g-a-n? The abuse, according to some people, is the fact that some people need food stamps at all. They should get off their butts and get a job, of course. They haven't explained why they are also cutting off the food stamps of people woh work for low enough wages that they now qualify for food stamps. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: FROGGY Subject: Re: Kill? or Convert? Date: Mon Feb 24 19:55:05 CST 1997 Message number: 59 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Froggy to Sandman <=- S> Nasty. S> Fr> I think this is basically it, except that I do not believe Fr> that its intention is to convert the poor people. I think thet the Fr> a**holes who are pushing this really don't care about the spiritual or Fr> any other well-being of the poor. Basically, they are NAZIs. They Fr> believe that people are poor either by choice or inferiority, and that Fr> society is better off without them. I will post some of the new rules Fr> to the "Welfare Reform" food stamps program so you can see what I Fr> mean. I think that they are more interested in simply getting rid of Fr> the poor than in converting them. I still see a desire for conversion. It may not be aimed at all of the poor masses but instead a select few that would be the most malleable for the cause. Odd that the same people who oppose Darwin's Theory of Evolution are willing to accept Social Drawinism as a tool to rid us of the poor. The cream will rise to the top. They will scrape the cream off and keep it for themselve. What's left over is waste to them that is disposable. ... Political Correctness: Ignorance on the march. ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Sandman Subject: Re: Kill? or Convert? Date: Mon Feb 24 20:42:02 CST 1997 Message number: 60 Reply to message number: 59 S> Odd that the same people who oppose Darwin's Theory of Evolution S> are willing to accept Social Drawinism as a tool to rid us of the S> poor. S> The cream will rise to the top. They will scrape the cream off and S> keep it for themselve. What's left over is waste to them that is S> disposable. S> I don't think it is odd at all. I was raised near a lot of people like this. To begin with, they oppose Theory of Evolution because they are ignorant of it. They angrily declare that man did NOT decend from monkeys, which if they knew anything, they would know that this is not what evolution says. Neither does the theory exclude the existence of God. Many people do not know that when Darwin set out on the HMS Beagle, one of his motivations was to prove the validity of the Genesis account of creation. Second, even ignorant people are pretty good at grabbing things for themselves and justifying it, whether the justification makes sense or not. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Froggy Subject: Re: Welfare "Reform" -- F Date: Tue Feb 25 15:33:10 CST 1997 Message number: 61 Reply to message number: 58 F> Can you say, R-e-a-g-a-n? Can you say, K-e-t-c-h-u-p? F> butts and get a job, of course. They haven't explained why they are also F> cutting off the food stamps of people woh work for low enough wages that the F> now qualify for food stamps. To save money, of course. So we can spend more money on defense, subsidizing all those good jobs at Lockheed and Martin Marietta. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Froggy Subject: Re: Kill? or Convert? Date: Tue Feb 25 15:35:30 CST 1997 Message number: 62 Reply to message number: 60 F> ignorant of it. They angrily declare that man did NOT decend from monkeys, F> which if they knew anything, they would know that this is not what evolution F> says I'm curious, why do you say that people who claim "we're descended from monkeys" are misinterpreting Darwin's theories? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Welfare "Reform" -- F Date: Tue Feb 25 19:59:47 CST 1997 Message number: 63 Reply to message number: 61 F> butts and get a job, of course. They haven't explained why they are also F> cutting off the food stamps of people woh work for low enough wages that the F> now qualify for food stamps. DR> DR> To save money, of course. So we can spend more money on defense, subsidizi DR> all those good jobs at Lockheed and Martin Marietta. *WE* know that, but *THEY* don't talk much about it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Kill? or Convert? Date: Tue Feb 25 20:05:32 CST 1997 Message number: 64 Reply to message number: 62 DR> I'm curious, why do you say that people who claim "we're descended from DR> monkeys" are misinterpreting Darwin's theories? Because I'v read *The Descent of Man*, *Origin of Species*, and other of his work. In many cases, it is not a question of interpretation, because they never read his writing at all, but simply trash it sight unseen. What he actually said is that species gradually change and take on new characteristics to help them better survive, and that groups with similar characteristics like monkeys, apes and man, may have had a common ancestor. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: FROGGY Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Thu Feb 27 15:26:44 CST 1997 Message number: 65 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Froggy : DR> I'm curious, why do you say that people who claim "we're descended from DR> monkeys" are misinterpreting Darwin's theories? Fr> Because I'v read *The Descent of Man*, *Origin of Species*, Fr> and other of his work. In many cases, it is not a question of Fr> interpretation, because they never read his writing at all, but simply Fr> trash it sight unseen. I agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure that I can agree fully ... it is possible to understand someone's theories without actually reading their work, at least well enough to critique their basic arguments. Thats especially true in the case of a theory like evolution, which is a very simple (if often misunderstood) idea. But yeah, a lot of people critique the theory without really trying to understand it, I think. That can be said about a lot of things, unfortunately ... Fr> What he actually said is that species gradually Fr> change and take on new characteristics to help them better survive, and Fr> that groups with similar characteristics like monkeys, apes and man, Fr> may have had a common ancestor. Yep, and I don't see how that's incompatible with the statement that "humans are descended from monkeys". Sure it's not wholly accurate, but neither is the sentiment of it completely off. Tracking out species back 20-50 million years ago, we probably did evolve from some sort of ape-like primate. ... Clinton supporters know how the American Indians felt. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Thu Feb 27 16:51:42 CST 1997 Message number: 66 Reply to message number: 65 DR> I agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure that I can agree fully ... DR> it is possible to understand someone's theories without actually reading DR> their work, at least well enough to critique their basic arguments. I disagree. If the material is filtered in this way, what the person understands in someone else's interpretation of the theory, not the original writer's. DR> But yeah, a lot of people critique the theory without really trying DR> to understand it, I think. That can be said about a lot of things, DR> unfortunately ... DR> Would that stand up to a real test of critical thinking? DR> Yep, and I don't see how that's incompatible with the statement that DR> "humans are descended from monkeys". Sure it's not wholly accurate, but "Not wholly accurate" is incompatible by definition. Especially in a case like this. DR> back 20-50 million years ago, we probably did evolve from some sort DR> of ape-like primate. DR> Here is an example: The earliest known probable ancestors of humans are the prehominids, of which the famous Lucy is one. Yes, they can be classified as Notochordata/Vertebrata/Mammalia/, etc., all the way down to Primate. But a lemur is also a primate, is not ape-like, and nobody accuses Darwin as theorizing that Man descended from lemurs. By the time you look at the taxonomy of the Australopithecines, they clearly do not fit into a description of the apes, either of the Old World apes or the New World monkeys. There are clear differences in anatomy, especially in the way the face and teeth have evolved that distinguish the Australopithecines as preHUMAN, with no ape or monkey characteristics. By comparison, the earliest known ape ancestors have no human or even intermediate characteristics. As far as I know, the "missing link" that relates the apes to humans has not been found, but when and if it is found, it will not be either human or ape, but something entirely different that both humans and apes have descended from. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: DAEDALUS RISING Subject: Re: Kill? or Convert? Date: Thu Feb 27 20:15:23 CST 1997 Message number: 67 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Daedalus Rising to Sandman <=- -=> Quoting Sandman : Sa> 6. No more IRS : Some advocate ending this org. DR> Even with a flat tax, someone has to track down the miscreants. Would DR> you rather have the accountants poring over your records, or the DR> police? With the belief in trickle down supply-side economics that the rebs have the question needs to be asked " Why even collect taxes from the rich?" afterall the rich trickle capital down to the working masses. Another tool in creating an unbalanced budget. DR> Poor, hungry people are not easily converted by charlatans, and true DR> men and women of god would not likely stand for being used that way. I DR> don't see it working. True, but it will not stop the right from attempting to convert the poor or use them as a tool. The money is to attractive and money is what the right really is about. ... "Then at a deadly pace It Came From Outer Space..." ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Fri Feb 28 14:06:15 CST 1997 Message number: 68 Reply to message number: 65 DR> neither is the sentiment of it completely off. Tracking out species DR> back 20-50 million years ago, we probably did evolve from some sort DR> of ape-like primate. I've heard the split line that humans and chimpanzees split from was more like 5 million years, that not withstanding I agree with what you're saying. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Fri Feb 28 14:29:25 CST 1997 Message number: 69 Reply to message number: 68 DR> neither is the sentiment of it completely off. Tracking out species DR> back 20-50 million years ago, we probably did evolve from some sort DR> of ape-like primate. S> S> I've heard the split line that humans and chimpanzees split from was more li S> 5 million years, that not withstanding I agree with what you're saying. If this were true, there would bw fossils 5 million years or so that are intermediates between chimpanzees and humans. I do not think that there are any, even back as far as 20 million years, with the advent of Australopithecius afarensis. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Sat Mar 01 06:24:26 CST 1997 Message number: 70 Reply to message number: 69 F> If this were true, there would bw fossils 5 million years or so tha F> are intermediates between chimpanzees and humans. I do not think that there F> are any, even back as far as 20 million years, with the advent of F> Australopithecius afarensis. Mmm. My fossil evidence knowlege isn't fresh, I was just remembering what I thought was accurate based on fossil record, but if it isn't well, I'll just stop remembering that as accurate. No big deal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Sat Mar 01 07:19:44 CST 1997 Message number: 71 Reply to message number: 70 F> are intermediates between chimpanzees and humans. I do not think that there F> are any, even back as far as 20 million years, with the advent of F> Australopithecius afarensis. S> S> Mmm. My fossil evidence knowlege isn't fresh, I was just remembering what I S> thought was accurate based on fossil record, but if it isn't well, I'll just S> stop remembering that as accurate. No big deal Of course, it also depends on which paleoanthropologist you are listening to too. The two leading researchers today are Richard Leakey and Karl Johannessen. I think that both of them would agree with my explanation that the "missing link" has not yet be found. But Johannessen places a lot of importance on size and structure of the teeth as an important character. Based on this, he has said that Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) is the closest that we have to a missing link and is directly in line in the evolution of humans. Leakey, based mostly on the cranial size, claims that A. afarensis is not a prehuman at all, but that the earliest known prehuman is A. robustus. I am not a paleoanthropologist, of course, but Johannessen's argument makes a lot of sense to me. He says that a species' teeth tell a lot about it as far as what it eats, how it lives, how long it lives, etc. A. afarensis has teeth more like humans than apes, and there is no ape with human-like teeth. Therefore, it is logical that afarensis was more closely related to humans than apes. Cranial size as a marker for humanness has been disproved, however. There are several species of baboons that have larger brains than humans, as well as whales and dolphins. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Sat Mar 01 16:13:42 CST 1997 Message number: 72 Reply to message number: 71 F> Of course, it also depends on which paleoanthropologist you are F> listening to too. The two leading researchers today are Richard Leakey and Of course... F> Karl Johannessen. I think that both of them would agree with my explanation F> that the "missing link" has not yet be found. But Johannessen places a lot F> importance on size and structure of the teeth as an important character. F> Based on this, he has said that Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) is the F> closest that we have to a missing link and is directly in line in the F> evolution of humans. Leakey, based mostly on the cranial size, claims That's right in line with what I remember (missing link not found yet that is), I'd probably agree with Johannsen about Lucy being closest to the missing link, but my opinion's is only based on the little I've read recently. F> prehuman is A. robustus. I am not a paleoanthropologist, of course, but F> Johannessen's argument makes a lot of sense to me. He says that a F> species' teeth tell a lot about it as far as what it eats, how it lives, F> how long it lives, etc. A. afarensis has teeth more like humans than apes, F> and there is no ape with human-like teeth. Therefore, it is logical that F> afarensis was more closely related to humans than apes. Cranial size as a Yes, logical, one of the easiest identifications of animal lifestyle is in the teeth which would be a good indicator of the proximity to humans. F> afarensis was more closely related to humans than apes. Cranial size as a F> marker for humanness has been disproved, however. There are several species F> of baboons that have larger brains than humans, as well as whales and F> dolphins. :) :) My only question was on times of the evolution, I remembered the species A. afarensis as being much closer to now, timewise, as I said withing 5 million years. But if that's wrong, like I said, no terribly big deal, just adjust my memory centers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Sat Mar 01 16:44:00 CST 1997 Message number: 73 Reply to message number: 72 S> link, but my opinion's is only based on the little I've read recently. S> Lately is the key. The main material I have seen was published by Johannessen in about 1993, but it could be changed tomorrow by someone else publishing something else. S> Yes, logical, one of the easiest identifications of animal lifestyle is in t S> teeth which would be a good indicator of the proximity to humans. S> Specifically, one indicator is the persistence of large canines in both sexes in apes. In some species, only the males have large canines, for sexual display. Current apes of both sexes use the canines for tearing and chewing of food, but also to gesture. They sort of "grin," showing the teeth, and other apes usually it as a platitude and do not fight. But humans do not fight using these teeth, or gesture using them. They whomp an enemy over the head with a big stick. Humans do not have enlarged, functional canines, and neither does A afarensis. S> My only question was on times of the evolution, I remembered the species A. S> afarensis as being much closer to now, timewise, as I said withing 5 millio S> years. But if that's wrong, like I said, no terribly big deal, just adjust S> my memory centers. You may be confused because it also caused a big flap and publishing conflicts between Leakey and Johannessen. Leakey bases his aging on carbon dating and contends that the two species lived at the same time and are not related. Johannessen says that the presence of so much charcoal from campfires contaminates the specimens and makes carbon dating inaccurate. He establishes the fossil's age by identifying the plants and animals present in the dig at the same time. For example, there is a great deal known about paleo pig specimens, and if a 25 million year old pig was cooked and eaten in a campfire, chances are that the thing that cooked it was also 25 million years old. He also uses a lab process that I do not understand that somehow measures the half-life of phosphorous in a fossil. Based on these, he condends that A. afarensis is about 5 million years older than robustus and is a predecessor of robustus. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: FROGGY Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Mon Mar 03 05:10:05 CST 1997 Message number: 74 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Froggy : DR> But yeah, a lot of people critique the theory without really trying DR> to understand it, I think. That can be said about a lot of things, DR> unfortunately ... DR> Fr> Would that stand up to a real test of critical thinking? Depends on what you mean by a "real test of critical thinking". I guess to me, the term seems somewhat exclusionary ... And yes, we do often have to rely on someone else's summary of another's arguments or ideas. That's what almost everything we read or see is, on the TV and in the newspapers. It's not as good as perusing the source document, but oftentimes it's the best we can do with the time we have. DR> Yep, and I don't see how that's incompatible with the statement that DR> "humans are descended from monkeys". Sure it's not wholly accurate, but Fr> "Not wholly accurate" is incompatible by definition. Fr> Especially in a case like this. I don't believe that it is. Though their intent is certainly not friendly, and it leaves out a lot of information, I see the spirit of the theories are being maintained. Fr> By the time you look at the taxonomy of the Fr> Australopithecines, they clearly do not fit into a description of the Fr> apes, either of the Old World apes or the New World monkeys. There are Fr> clear differences in anatomy, especially in the way the face and teeth Fr> have evolved that distinguish the Australopithecines as preHUMAN, with Fr> no ape or monkey characteristics. To put it briefly, the term most often bandied about is "monkey" ... and in the spirit it's used, it's not meant as a scientific term, but as a sentiment that humans evolved from some sort of hairly, beastial creature. That idea is what disturbs the anti-evolutionists, I believe, and not the specifics. ... It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Mon Mar 03 05:48:16 CST 1997 Message number: 75 Reply to message number: 74 DR> To put it briefly, the term most often bandied about is "monkey" ... DR> and in the spirit it's used, it's not meant as a scientific term, but DR> as a sentiment that humans evolved from some sort of hairly, beastial DR> creature. That idea is what disturbs the anti-evolutionists, I believe, DR> and not the specifics. DR> Exactly. But their information is incorrect and they are pretending that it isn't. I would have a lot more respect for them if they would express it as you have, or walk through the door that I opened, and and insist that since the missing link has not been found, there apparently is not one, so Darwin must have been wrong. It is the emotionalism combined with intellectual dishonesty that irritates me. DR> And yes, we do often have to rely on someone else's summary of another's DR> arguments or ideas. That's what almost everything we read or see is, DR> on the TV and in the newspapers. It's not as good as perusing the source DR> document, but oftentimes it's the best we can do with the time we have. DR> But, when I depend on the interpretation of a third person to argue with another person who is familiar with the material first-hand, I know that I am on shaky ground. If I were to declare that Hawking is wrong and knows nothing about astrophysics, I had better have a damned knowledgeable source, because I know that my personal knowledge of that area does not compare with Hawkings' . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Wed Mar 05 14:21:54 CST 1997 Message number: 76 Reply to message number: 73 F> You may be confused because it also caused a big flap and publishin F> conflicts between Leakey and Johannessen. Leakey bases his aging on carbon F> dating and contends that the two species lived at the same time and are not F> related. Johannessen says that the presence of so much charcoal from F> campfires contaminates the specimens and makes carbon dating inaccurate. He F> establishes the fossil's age by identifying the plants and animals present i F> the dig at the same time. For example, there is a great deal known about F> paleo pig specimens, and if a 25 million year old pig was cooked and eaten i F> a campfire, chances are that the thing that cooked it was also 25 million F> years old. He also uses a lab process that I do not understand that somehow F> measures the half-life of phosphorous in a fossil. Based on these, he F> condends that A. afarensis is about 5 million years older than robustus and F> a predecessor of robustus. I'm almost sure you're right about the carbon dating issue. I wasn't aware of the other identifying evidence from the site, which significantly changes time dating. Isn't phosphorus dating similar to carbon dating, I thought it was, but again I haven't read anything on the subject in years. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Wed Mar 05 23:27:09 CST 1997 Message number: 77 Reply to message number: 76 S> I'm almost sure you're right about the carbon dating issue. I wasn't aware o S> the other identifying evidence from the site, which significantly changes ti S> dating. Isn't phosphorus dating similar to carbon dating, I thought it S> was, but again I haven't read anything on the subject in years. It has been a while since I read about it too, which is why I don't remember all the details. I believe that there are some similarities betewwn phonphorus and carbon dating, in that in both cases you are looking for the ratios between different ionic forms of the element. The other test that I read about used spectrographic analysis to detect small amounts of an element in the sample. It may have been oxygen, because I know that there have been identifiable and predictable variances in the percentages of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Thu Mar 06 15:24:18 CST 1997 Message number: 78 Reply to message number: 77 F> It has been a while since I read about it too, which is why I don't F> remember all the details. I believe that there are some similarities beteww F> phonphorus and carbon dating, in that in both cases you are looking for the F> ratios between different ionic forms of the element. The other test that I F> read about used spectrographic analysis to detect small amounts of an elemen F> in the sample. It may have been oxygen, because I know that there have been F> identifiable and predictable variances in the percentages of oxygen in the F> earth's atmosphere. Ok, I can't remember hearing about spectrographic methods, but it sounds interesting, I'll investigate to feed my background. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Thu Mar 06 16:35:01 CST 1997 Message number: 79 Reply to message number: 78 F> ratios between different ionic forms of the element. The other test that I F> read about used spectrographic analysis to detect small amounts of an elemen F> in the sample. It may have been oxygen, because I know that there have been F> identifiable and predictable variances in the percentages of oxygen in the F> earth's atmosphere. S> S> Ok, I can't remember hearing about spectrographic methods, but it sounds S> interesting, I'll investigate to feed my background. Let me know what you find out about it. Johannessen used it in his Luct monograph, ummm, about 1987 or so, I think. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: DAEDALUS RISING Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Thu Mar 06 19:21:43 CST 1997 Message number: 80 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Daedalus Rising to Froggy <=- -=> Quoting Froggy : Fr> By the time you look at the taxonomy of the Fr> Australopithecines, they clearly do not fit into a description of the Fr> apes, either of the Old World apes or the New World monkeys. There are Fr> clear differences in anatomy, especially in the way the face and teeth Fr> have evolved that distinguish the Australopithecines as preHUMAN, with Fr> no ape or monkey characteristics. DR> To put it briefly, the term most often bandied about is "monkey" ... DR> and in the spirit it's used, it's not meant as a scientific term, but DR> as a sentiment that humans evolved from some sort of hairly, beastial DR> creature. That idea is what disturbs the anti-evolutionists, I DR> believe, and not the specifics. IMO the anti-evolutionism movement is based upon a fear of their cult losing influence over the masses. Evolution is based upon the belief of life randomly forming and evolving all by itself. Creationism is based upon a God which made a special creation in his image. This monkey-shit is an emotional attack aimed at the masses of people who don't understand evolution or creation. If we are given a choice of being nothing more than human or the choice of being some special craetion which would you choose? IMO we humans should not be given a choice. we need to deal with the fact that we are no different from all of the other lifeforms that have every existed. We are stardust. We are animal. We are human. ... Lottery: a tax on people who don't understand statistics. ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Sandman Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Fri Mar 07 02:10:15 CST 1997 Message number: 81 Reply to message number: 80 S> IMO the anti-evolutionism movement is based upon a fear of their S> cult losing influence over the masses. S> S> Evolution is based upon the belief of life randomly forming and S> evolving all by itself. S> No, it isn't. Darwin's object when he set out on the HMS Beagle was to prove the Genesis account was correct. He did. If you carefully read Genesis 1 through 21 and align it with basic knowledge of evolutionary processes, they are remarkably similar. The thing is that it is POSSIBLE to believe that life was created by random evolutionary changes and not accept God. It is equally possible to think that God was involved in those changes. S> This monkey-shit is an emotional attack aimed at the masses of S> people who don't understand evolution or creation. S> Yup. And it is one area where I don't hesitate to point out that the person's opinions are based on ignorance. I do enjoy having a discussion with someone who has actually read some of the same material I have and has intelligently rejected it, but I have little patience with enforced ignorance. S> If we are given a choice of being nothing more than human or the S> choice of being some special craetion which would you choose? S> I think that all of creation, including humans, monkeys, and the HIV virus is special and remarkable. Genesis 1 - 21 told me so. It also was very specific in saying that all of creation is special, and is the responsibility of humans to husband it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Sat Mar 08 05:27:32 CST 1997 Message number: 82 Reply to message number: 79 F> Let me know what you find out about it. Johannessen used it in his F> Luct monograph, ummm, about 1987 or so, I think. K, but be aware I'll be running on rather insufficient school library data. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Sat Mar 08 08:36:33 CST 1997 Message number: 83 Reply to message number: 82 F> Let me know what you find out about it. Johannessen used it in his F> Luct monograph, ummm, about 1987 or so, I think. S> S> K, but be aware I'll be running on rather insufficient school library data. There is a wonderful book by Johannessen in the Mesa Library system. I don't know where you are, but that includes, Minneapolis, Stillwater, Oak Park, Forest Lake, and several others. Can you go into the library catalog and look for it? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: All Subject: Bible Date: Sat Mar 08 12:48:40 CST 1997 Message number: 84 Reply to message number: unavailable "He who shuts his ears to the cry of the poor . . . He, too, will cry out and not be heard." Proverbs 21:13 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Mon Mar 10 13:50:46 CST 1997 Message number: 85 Reply to message number: 83 F> There is a wonderful book by Johannessen in the Mesa Library system F> I don't know where you are, but that includes, Minneapolis, Stillwater, Oak F> Park, Forest Lake, and several others. Can you go into the library catalog F> and look for it? Possibly, I don't get a chance to get out to the library much, but I am within that area. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Bible Date: Mon Mar 10 13:52:03 CST 1997 Message number: 86 Reply to message number: 84 F> F> "He who shuts his ears to the cry of the poor . . . F> He, too, will cry out and not be heard." How... True. Perhaps the religious right might want to look at that while they decide to cut off benefits to so many working families. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Mon Mar 10 18:04:38 CST 1997 Message number: 87 Reply to message number: 85 S> Possibly, I don't get a chance to get out to the library much, but I am with S> that area. While you are in there, ask them for the telephone number for the catalog BBS. I scan trough it, find what I like, order it sent to my closest branch, and go in and pick it up the next day. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: Bible Date: Mon Mar 10 18:06:35 CST 1997 Message number: 88 Reply to message number: 86 F> "He who shuts his ears to the cry of the poor . . . F> He, too, will cry out and not be heard." S> S> How... True. Perhaps the religious right might want to look at that while S> they decide to cut off benefits to so many working families. That is why I posted it. Of course, they will justify it by saying that they haven't shut their ears, but are ASSISTING the poor by cutting off the freebies and encouraging them to care for themselves. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: FROGGY Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Wed Mar 12 20:47:07 CST 1997 Message number: 89 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Froggy to Sandman <=- S> IMO the anti-evolutionism movement is based upon a fear of their S> cult losing influence over the masses. S> S> Evolution is based upon the belief of life randomly forming and S> evolving all by itself. S> Fr> No, it isn't. Darwin's object when he set out on the HMS Fr> Beagle was to prove the Genesis account was correct. He did. If you Fr> carefully read Genesis 1 through 21 and align it with basic knowledge Fr> of evolutionary processes, they are remarkably similar. The thing is Fr> that it is POSSIBLE to believe that life was created by random Fr> evolutionary changes and not accept God. It is equally possible to Fr> think that God was involved in those changes. But is it science? Is creationism a valid science? I say no, not until some physical evidence of the "creator" is found. Until then Creationism will not be accepted by the scientific community. The Pope made a declaration that the scientific theory of evolution was most likely what occurred. The RR in this country had a fit. It all seems a matter of faith. When evidence is bought forth that contradicts Genesis (or certain interpretations of Genesis) those with "weak faith" will get angry & attack the evidence and the providers of the evidence. They lash out in desparation and soon the "I'm not a Monkey" statement will be heard. Those with "strong faith" are not threatened by contradictary evidence. They will either adapt the new evidence to their faith or just shrug it off, because their faith is strong. ... Shi'ite happens! ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Sandman Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Thu Mar 13 01:29:58 CST 1997 Message number: 90 Reply to message number: 89 S> Fr> carefully read Genesis 1 through 21 and align it with basic knowledge S> Fr> of evolutionary processes, they are remarkably similar. The thing is S> Fr> that it is POSSIBLE to believe that life was created by random S> Fr> evolutionary changes and not accept God. It is equally possible to S> Fr> think that God was involved in those changes. S> S> But is it science? S> Darwin's Theory of Evolution is still a theory, within the definition and level of proof used by most scientists. I have heard criticism of it as though this means it is not true. What it means is that there is a body of evidence accepted by most scientists as reasonable, but not final proof. Many of them would also consider the existence of God provable in a similar way. S> Is creationism a valid science? S> No. There is nothing in it that depends on any level of scientific examination and interest in the truth. Instead, it is a litany of "disproofs," or efforts to show fallacies in other, evolution-based subjects. Their "proof" is mostly based on statements from the Bible, which certainly cannot be relied on as truth, and they also use some failed science, as though an experiment that failed automatically invalidated the whole scheme. S> The Pope made a declaration that the scientific theory of evolution S> was most likely what occurred. The RR in this country had a fit. S> I heard that and was impressed. And waiting for the next foot to drop. The religious right is certain to have a fit over any great religious utterance made by someone other than them. Especially if it was by the Pope. S> When evidence is bought forth that contradicts Genesis (or certain S> interpretations of Genesis) those with "weak faith" will get angry S> & attack the evidence and the providers of the evidence. They lash Have you read Genesis 1 -21? Basically, it is a sketch of the orderly creation of the world, beginning with the earth itself, and tracing through the plant and animal groups in pretty much the same way defined by evolutionary theory. It is sketchy and incomplete, but what is there is very accurate. IMO, evidence that disproves Genesis also disproves evolution, except in the areas where Genesis is incomplete. It says nothing about monkeys, but it does correctly identify classes of animals to be considered "wild," and those to be considered "stock." Monkeys are wild. I guess that this measn that I have strong faith, because I do not feel threatened at all. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Thu Mar 13 14:58:17 CST 1997 Message number: 91 Reply to message number: 87 F> While you are in there, ask them for the telephone number for the F> catalog BBS. I scan trough it, find what I like, order it sent to my closes F> branch, and go in and pick it up the next day. :) K, I will, it may take me a while, I don't get out much, nor have access to getting out much. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Bible Date: Thu Mar 13 14:59:38 CST 1997 Message number: 92 Reply to message number: 88 F> That is why I posted it. Of course, they will justify it by saying F> that they haven't shut their ears, but are ASSISTING the poor by cutting off F> the freebies and encouraging them to care for themselves. That was my guess. Of course, I've heard that argument before, but it still registers big 0 on my making sense scale. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Thu Mar 13 15:04:25 CST 1997 Message number: 93 Reply to message number: 90 F> definition and level of proof used by most scientists. I have heard critici F> of it as though this means it is not true. What it means is that there is a I've heard this so many times I'm beginning to get annoyed with it. Whenever I read something from the creationism side, it usually includes the if it's a theory then it's only theory, but because we claim the biblical story to be literally true, and we claim it to be a full literal explanation then it is obviously superior... which to me makes little sense. A scientist might reply that at least a theory has evidence to support it while a claim has only the backing of the claiming. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Thu Mar 13 16:25:14 CST 1997 Message number: 94 Reply to message number: 93 S> obviously superior... which to me makes little sense. A scientist might rep S> that at least a theory has evidence to support it while a claim has only the S> backing of the claiming. . . . and verification from a Bible that says in one place that Jesus' ancestry traced back to David through his mother, and in another place, that he was related to the House of David through Joseph, and in a third place, that Mary was a virgin, and that he had no earthly father. Right. Good proof. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Evolution Date: Fri Mar 14 14:17:16 CST 1997 Message number: 95 Reply to message number: 94 F> . . . and verification from a Bible that says in one place that F> Jesus' ancestry traced back to David through his mother, and in another plac F> that he was related to the House of David through Joseph, and in a third F> place, that Mary was a virgin, and that he had no earthly father. Right. F> Good proof. Only in the South, no telling how mixed up it gets down there. :) No offense intended to southerners, those I know are pretty nice.