Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Boycott Golden Gate Restaurant Association for Hurting Homeless People
BOYCOTT!!!!!!!
POOR Magazine (PNN) is calling for a boycott of the following restaurants which support the anti-poor people legislation; Proposition N "Care Not Cash"
POOR Magazine (PNN) is calling for a boycott of the following restaurants which support the anti-poor people legislation; Proposition N "Care Not Cash"
BOYCOTT!!!!!!!
POOR Magazine (PNN) is calling for a boycott of the following restaurants which support the anti-poor people legislation; Proposition N "Care Not Cash"
PNN staff writers and editors, concept by Dee
Tuesday, August 13, 2002;
The following is a list of restaurants that are members of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association (GGRA). Please support POOR Magazine in boycotting the following restaurants because they are members of the GGRA, which support Gavin Newsome's Proposition N, which contrary to its claims of "care" will put more poor people on the streets by taking away their rent money, reducing drug treatment services, healthcare and pay folks pennies per hour for their work-fare (the work required by the City to recieve your monthly cash assistance)
POOR contacted GGRA several times to inquire about their reason for supporting Prop N, but they did not respond, so we are asking our subscribers and readers to join us in boycotting these restaurants in opposition to this very harmful legislation.
Absinthe Brasserie and Bar
398 Hayes Street
San Francisco
Alfred's Steakhouse
659 Merchant
San Francisco
Alioto's Restaurant
8 Fisherman's Wharf
San Francisco
All You Knead
1466 Haight Street
San Francisco
Allegro Restaurant
1701 Jones Street
San Francisco
Amante
570 Green Street
San Francisco
Amphora Wine Merchant
384A Hayes Street
San Francisco
Andale Taqueria
2150 Chestnut Street
San Francisco
Anjou
44 Campton Place
San Francisco
Ansonia Hotel
711 Post Street
San Francisco
Aqua
252 California Street
San Francisco
Ar Roi Thai Cuisine
643 Post St.
San Francisco
Arlequin To Go
384B Hayes Street
San Francisco
B44
44 Belden Place
San Francisco
Balboa CafÈ
3199 Fillmore Street (corner of Greenwich)
San Francisco
Baskin Robbins Lakeshore
1539 Sloat Boulevard
San Francisco
Bayside Sports Bar & Grill
1787 Union Street
San Francisco
Betelnut
2030 Union Street
San Francisco
Big Nate's Barbeque
1665 Folsom Street
San Francisco
Bistro 1650
1650 Balboa St.
San Francisco
Bix
56 Gold Street
San Francisco
Bizou
598 Fourth Street
San Francisco
Black Cat
501 Broadway
San Francisco
Blackthorn Tavern
834 Irving St.
San Francisco
Blondies Bar & No Grill
540 Valencia Street (between 16th & 17th)
San Francisco
Blowfish - Sushi To Die For
2170 Bryant Street
San Francisco
Boulevard
One Mission Street
San Francisco
Brazen Head Restaurant
3166 Buchanan St.
San Francisco
Bruno's
2389 Mission Street
San Francisco
Buena Vista CafÈ
2765 Hyde Street
San Francisco
Bus Stop
1901 Union St
San Francisco
Butter
354 11th Street
San Francisco
Butterfly
1710 Mission Street (at Duboce)
San Francisco
Buzz 9
139 - 8th Street
San Francisco
Caesar's Italian Restaurant
2299 Powell Street
San Francisco
CafÈ 44
761 Post Street
San Francisco
CafÈ Arguello
1499 Valencia Street
San Francisco
CafÈ Bastille
22 Belden Place
San Francisco
CafÈ Claude
7 Claude Lane
San Francisco
Cafe de la Presse
352 Grant Ave
San Francisco
Cafe Desiree
160 Spear Street
San Francisco
CafÈ deStijl
One Union St.
San Francisco
CafÈ Dolci
740 Market St.
San Francisco
CafÈ Focaccia
101 Spear Street
San Francisco
CafÈ Lil Bean
754 Post Street
San Francisco
CafÈ Mars
798 Brannan Street
San Francisco
Cafe Mozart
708 Bush St
San Francisco
CafÈ Niebaum-Coppola
916 Kearny St.
San Francisco
CafÈ Pescatore
2455 Mason Street Tuscan Inn
San Francisco
CafÈ Rosso
SFSU 1600 Holloway Drive
San Francisco
Cafe Venue
721 Market Street
San Francisco
Cafe Venue
70 Leidesdorff Street
San Francisco
Cafe Venue
218 Montgomery Street
San Francisco
Caffe Espresso
462 Powell Sreet Sir Francis Drake
San Francisco
Caffe Museo - in the SF MOMA
151 Third Street
San Francisco
Caffe Proust
1801 McAllister Street
San Francisco
Caffe Soma
1601 Howard Street
San Francisco
Calzone's Pizza Cucina
430 Columbus Avenue
San Francisco
Capp's Corner
1600 Powell Street
San Francisco
Carnelian Room
555 California Street, 52nd Floor
San Francisco
Casa Sanchez
2778 24th Street
San Francisco
Cassidy's
1145 Folsom Street
San Francisco
Castagnola's
286 Jefferson Street
San Francisco
Catering With Style
2800 Bryant St
San Francisco
Chancellor Hotel & CafÈ
433 Powell Street
San Francisco
San Francisco
Charles Nob Hill
1250 Jones Street
San Francisco
Chow
215 Church Street
San Francisco
Chowders
Space A3, Pier 39
San Francisco
Cioppino's on the Wharf
496 Jefferson Street
San Francisco
Citizen Cake
399 Grove Street
San Francisco
Cityscape Bar & Restaurant
333 O'Farrell Street Atop the Hilton San Francisco
San Francisco
Cliff House
1090 Point Lobos
San Francisco
Compass Rose
335 Powell St.
San Francisco
Conard 9th Street CafÈ
160 9th Street
San Francisco
Conard Montgomery Street CafÈ
710 Montgomery Street
San Francisco
Cozmo's Corner Grill
2001 Chestnut Street
San Francisco
Crab House at Pier 39
203C, Pier 39
San Francisco
Crustacean San Francisco
1475 Polk Street
San Francisco
Daily Grill
347 Geary Street
San Francisco
Delaney's
2241 Chestnut St.
San Francisco
Dewey's
335 Powell Street
San Francisco
Diamond Corner CafÈ
751 Diamond St
San Francisco
Divas
1081 Post Street
San Francisco
Don Ramon's Mexican Restaurant
225 11th Street
San Francisco
Durty Nelly's Irish Pub
2328 Irving Street
San Francisco
East Coast West Deli
1725 Polk Street
San Francisco
Eastside West
3154 Fillmore Street
San Francisco
Edward II Inn and Suites
3155 Scott Blvd
San Francisco
Enrico's
504 Broadway
San Francisco
Farallon
450 Post Street
San Francisco
Faz CafÈ at Bechtel
50 Beale Street, 2nd Floor
San Francisco
Faz Restaurant
161 Sutter Street
San Francisco
Fiddler's Green
1333 Columbus Ave
San Francisco
Fifth Floor
12 Fourth Street (at Market) Hotel Palomar
San Francisco
Fior d'Italia
601 Union Street
San Francisco
Fishermen's Grotto
No. 9 Fisherman's Wharf
San Francisco
Fleur de Lys
777 Sutter Street
San Francisco
Florio
1915 Fillmore Street
San Francisco
Fog City Diner
1300 Battery Street
San Francisco
Food Court, North Beach Deli, Crab Pot
SF International Airport P.O. Box 251600
San Francisco
Foreign Cinema
2534 Mission Street
San Francisco
Franciscan Restaurant
Pier 43 1/2 Fishermans Wharf
San Francisco
Ghirardelli Chocolate Manufactory
Ghirardelli Square Clock Tower 900 North Point Street
San Francisco
Gino & Carlo
548 Green Street
San Francisco
Globe
290 Pacific Ave
San Francisco
Goat Hill Pizza
300 Connecticut Street
San Francisco
Gold Spike Restaurant
527 Columbus Avenue
San Francisco
Gordon's House of Fine Eats
500 Florida Street
San Francisco
Grand CafÈ
501 Geary Street Hotel Monaco SF
San Francisco
Harrington's Bar & Grill
245 Front Street
San Francisco
Harry Denton's Starlight Room
450 Powell Street Sir Francis Drake
San Francisco
Hemlock Tavern
1131 Polk Street
San Francisco
Holy Cow Nightclub
1535 Folsom Street
San Francisco
House of Prime Rib
1906 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco
Houston's Restaurant
1800 Montgomery Street
San Francisco
Il Fornaio Cucina Italiana
1265 Battery Street
San Francisco
It's Tops Coffee Shop
1801 Market Street
San Francisco
Jacks Elixir
3200 16th Street
San Francisco
Jardiniere
300 Grove Street
San Francisco
Jelly's A Dance CafÈ
295 Terry Francois Blvd
San Francisco
Jester's
50 Third St
San Francisco
Jianna
1548 Stockton Street
San Francisco
Johnny Foley's Irish House
243 O'Farrell Street
San Francisco
Judi's Place
1414 Market Street
San Francisco
Julius Castle Restaurant
1541 Montgomery Street
San Francisco
Kate O'Brien's
579 Howard St
San Francisco
Kelly's Mission Rock
817 China Basin
San Francisco
Kelly's on Trinity
333 Bush St. #101
San Francisco
Kiku of Tokyo
333 O'Farrell Sreet
San Francisco
Kilowatt
3160 16th Street
San Francisco
Kokkari Estiatorio
200 Jackson Street
San Francisco
Kuleto's Italian Restaurant
221 Powell Street Villa Florence
San Francisco
La Folie
2316 Polk Street
San Francisco
La Mediterranee
2210 Fillmore Street
San Francisco
La Mediterranee
288 Noe St
San Francisco
Lapis Restaurant
Pier 33 The Embarcadero
San Francisco
Lavash Mediterranean Bistro
4 Embarcadero Center
San Francisco
Le Central Bistro
453 Bush Street
San Francisco
Le Colonial
20 Cosmo Place
San Francisco
Le Zinc
4063 - 24th Street
San Francisco
Lefty O'Doul's
333 Geary Street
San Francisco
Liverpool Lil's
2942 Lyon St
San Francisco
Locanda San Pietro
1801 Clement St
San Francisco
L'Olivier Restaurant
465 Davis Court
San Francisco
L'Ottavo Ristorante
692 Sutter Street
San Francisco
Louis Restaurant
902 Point Lobos
San Francisco
MacArthur Park
607 Front Street
San Francisco
Market Street Grill
1231 Market Street
San Francisco
Martin Macks Bar & Restaurant
1568 Haight Street
San Francisco
Masa's
648 Bush Street Hotel Vintage Court
San Francisco
MATRIXFILLMORE
3138 Fillmore Street
San Francisco
Maya
303 Second St
San Francisco
Mel Hollen's Bar & Fine Dining
673 Union Street
San Francisco
Mel's Drive In
1050 Van Ness
San Francisco
Mel's Drive In
3355 Geary Blvd.
San Francisco
Mel's Drive In
801 Mission Street
San Francisco
Mel's Drive In
2165 Lombard Street
San Francisco
Miz Brown's Feed Bag
3401 California Street
San Francisco
Modern Catering
500 Florida Street
San Francisco
MoMo's
760 Second Street
San Francisco
Moose's
1652 Stockton Street
San Francisco
Mozzarella DiBufala Pizzeria I
1529 Fillmore Street
San Francisco
Mozzarella DiBufala Pizzeria II
69 West Portal Ave
San Francisco
'N Touch Bar
1548 Polk Street
San Francisco
Napa Ranch CafÈ
201 Spear Street
San Francisco
Napa Ranch CafÈ
3415 California Street
San Francisco
Napa Ranch CafÈ
465 California Street
San Francisco
Napa Ranch CafÈ
280 Battery Street
San Francisco
New Pisa
550 Green Street
San Francisco
Nick's Lighthouse
2815 Taylor Street
San Francisco
Nob Hill Noshery
1400 Pacific Ave
San Francisco
Noe Valley Bakery & Bread
2277 Shafter Avenue
San Francisco
North Beach Pizza
1499 Grant Avenue
San Francisco
North Beach Restaurant
1512 Stockton Street
San Francisco
One Market Restaurant
1 Market Street
San Francisco
O'Reilly's Irish Pub & Restaurant
622 Green St.
San Francisco
Original Joe's
144 Taylor Street
San Francisco
Original U.S. Restaurant
515 Columbus Avenue
San Francisco
Palio d'Asti
640 Sacramento Street
San Francisco
Palio Paninoteca
500 Parnassus Avenue
San Francisco
Palio Paninoteca
505 Montgomery Street
San Francisco
Palomino
345 Spear Street
San Francisco
PAN-O-RAMA BAKING Company
500 Florida Street
San Francisco
Paragon Restaurant & Bar
701 Second Street
San Francisco
Park Chow
1240 Ninth Street
San Francisco
Parkside CafÈ
1600 17th Street
San Francisco
Pasta Pomodoro
3611 California Street
San Francisco
Pasta Pomodoro
2304 Market Street
San Francisco
Pasta Pomodoro
2027 Chestnut Street
San Francisco
Pasta Pomodoro
655 Union Street
San Francisco
Pasta Pomodoro
1875 Union Street
San Francisco
Pasta Pomodoro
4000 24th Street
San Francisco
Pasta Pomodoro
1865 Post Street
San Francisco
Pasta Pomodoro
816 Irving Street
San Francisco
Pasticci
8 Trinity Street
San Francisco
Pat's CafÈ
2701 Leavenworth St
San Francisco
Pauline's Pizza Pie
260 Valencia Street
San Francisco
Pazzia Caffe & Trattoria
337 Third Street
San Francisco
Perry's
1944 Union St
San Francisco
Perry's Downtown
185 Sutter Street
San Francisco
Pier 23 CafÈ
The Embarcadero
San Francisco
Pizzeria Uno
2 Embarcadero Center
San Francisco
Pizzeria Uno
2200 Lombard Street
San Francisco
PJ's Oyster Bed
737 Irving Street
San Francisco
Plouf
40 Belden Place
San Francisco
PlumpJack CafÈ
3127 Fillmore Street
San Francisco
Pompei's Grotto
340 Jefferson Street
San Francisco
Ponzu
401 Taylor Street Serrano Hotel
San Francisco
Postrio
545 Post Street Prescott Hotel
San Francisco
Prego Ristorante
2000 Union Street
San Francisco
Puccini & Pinetti
129 Ellis Street Monticello Inn
San Francisco
Puerto Alegre Restaurant
546 Valencia Street
San Francisco
Red Herring
155 Steuart St., At the Hotel Griffon
San Francisco
Redwood Park
600 Montgomery Street (near Clay) TransAmerica Pyramid
San Francisco
Restaurant Jeanne D'Arc
715 Bush Street
San Francisco
Rose Pistola
532 Columbus Avenue
San Francisco
Rose's CafÈ
2298 Union Street
San Francisco
Rubicon
558 Sacramento
San Francisco
Ruby Skye
420 Mason Street
San Francisco
Sam's Grill
374 Bush Street
San Francisco
San Francisco Brewing Co.
155 Columbus Ave.
San Francisco
Sanraku
704 Sutter Street
San Francisco
Sanraku
101 4th Street (at the Metreon)
San Francisco
Savoia Ristorante
2355 Chestnut Street
San Francisco
Scala's Bistro
432 Powell Street Sir Francis Drake
San Francisco
Scoma's Restaurant
Pier 47 One Al Scoma Way
San Francisco
Self-Help for the Elderly
407 Sansome Street
San Francisco
Shanghai Kelly's Saloon
2064 Polk St.
San Francisco
Silks at Mandarin Oriental Hotel
222 Sansome Sreet
San Francisco
Simple Pleasures Cafe
3434 Balboa Street
San Francisco
Sitio
1151 Folsom Street
San Francisco
South Park Cafe
108 South Park
San Francisco
Specialty's Cafe & Bakery
505 Sansome Street
San Francisco
Specialty's Cafe & Bakery
185 Berry Street
San Francisco
Specialty's Cafe & Bakery
101 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco
Specialty's Cafe & Bakery
1 Post Street
San Francisco
Specialty's Cafe & Bakery
150 Spear Street
San Francisco
Specialty's Cafe & Bakery
22 Battery Street
San Francisco
Specialty's Cafe & Bakery
312 Kearny Street
San Francisco
Specialty's Cafe & Bakery
369 Pine Street
San Francisco
Spoon
2209 Polk Street
San Francisco
St. Francis CafÈ
335 Powell Street
San Francisco
Stars Bar and Dining
555 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco
Station CafÈ
SFSU 1600 Holloway Drive
San Francisco
Subway Sandwiches & Salads
1500 Fillmore St.
San Francisco
Subway Sandwiches & Salads
1 Market Plaza
San Francisco
Subway Sandwiches & Salads
753 Polk Street
San Francisco
Sushi Chardonnay
1785 Union St
San Francisco
Sushi Groove
1916 Hyde Street
San Francisco
Sushi Groove South
1516 Folsom
San Francisco
Swan Oyster Depot
1517 Polk Street
San Francisco
Sweetie's
475 Francisco Street
San Francisco
Tadich Grill
240 California St
San Francisco
Tad's Steak House
120 Powell Street
San Francisco
Taqueria Zapata
4150 18th St
San Francisco
Tarantino's Restaurant
206 Jefferson
San Francisco
Taste Catering
3450 3rd Street, # 4D
San Francisco
Terra Brazilis
602 Hayes Street
San Francisco
Terrace Restaurant
San Francisco International Airport Terminal 3
San Francisco
Thanh Long
4101 Judah Street
San Francisco
The Argent Hotel
50 Third St
San Francisco
The Beach Chalet Brewery & Restaurant
1000 Great Highway
San Francisco
The Blue Light
1979 Union Street
San Francisco
The Cosmopolitan CafÈ
121 Spear Street
San Francisco
The Endup
401 6th Street
San Francisco
The Grove
2016 Fillmore Street
San Francisco
The Grove
2250 Chestnut Street
San Francisco
The Magic Flute Garden Ristorante
3673 Sacramento St
San Francisco
The Mucky Duck
1315 9th Ave
San Francisco
The Occidental Grill
453 Pine Street
San Francisco
The Ramp
855 China Basin
San Francisco
The Slanted Door
100 Brannan Street
San Francisco
The Stinking Rose
325 Columbus Avenue
San Francisco
The Waterfront
Pier 7 on the Embarcadero
San Francisco
Tia Margarita
300 - 19th Ave
San Francisco
Tommy's Joynt
1101 Geary Blvd
San Francisco
Tony Roma's
126 Ellis Street
San Francisco
Toraya
1734 Post Street
San Francisco
Tosca CafÈ
242 Columbus Avenue
San Francisco
Trattoria Contadina
1800 Mason Street
San Francisco
Treasure Island Job Corp
655 H Avenue, Bldg. #442
San Francisco
Upton's Catering
2435 Lombard Street
San Francisco
Village Pizzeria
1243 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco
Whizwit
1525 Folsom Street
San Francisco
XYZ Restaurant
181 3rd Street
San Francisco
Yank Sing Restaurant
49 Stevenson Street
San Francisco
Yank Sing Restaurant
101 Spear Street (at Rincon Center)
San Francisco
You See Sushi
94 Judah Street
San Francisco
Zao Noodle Bar
3583 - 16th Street
San Francisco
Zao Noodle Bar
2031 Chestnut Street
San Francisco
Zao Noodle Bar
2406 California Street
San Francisco
POOR Magazine (PNN) is calling for a boycott of the following restaurants which support the anti-poor people legislation; Proposition N "Care Not Cash"
PNN staff writers and editors, concept by Dee
Tuesday, August 13, 2002;
The following is a list of restaurants that are members of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association (GGRA). Please support POOR Magazine in boycotting the following restaurants because they are members of the GGRA, which support Gavin Newsome's Proposition N, which contrary to its claims of "care" will put more poor people on the streets by taking away their rent money, reducing drug treatment services, healthcare and pay folks pennies per hour for their work-fare (the work required by the City to recieve your monthly cash assistance)
POOR contacted GGRA several times to inquire about their reason for supporting Prop N, but they did not respond, so we are asking our subscribers and readers to join us in boycotting these restaurants in opposition to this very harmful legislation.
Absinthe Brasserie and Bar
398 Hayes Street
San Francisco
Alfred's Steakhouse
659 Merchant
San Francisco
Alioto's Restaurant
8 Fisherman's Wharf
San Francisco
All You Knead
1466 Haight Street
San Francisco
Allegro Restaurant
1701 Jones Street
San Francisco
Amante
570 Green Street
San Francisco
Amphora Wine Merchant
384A Hayes Street
San Francisco
Andale Taqueria
2150 Chestnut Street
San Francisco
Anjou
44 Campton Place
San Francisco
Ansonia Hotel
711 Post Street
San Francisco
Aqua
252 California Street
San Francisco
Ar Roi Thai Cuisine
643 Post St.
San Francisco
Arlequin To Go
384B Hayes Street
San Francisco
B44
44 Belden Place
San Francisco
Balboa CafÈ
3199 Fillmore Street (corner of Greenwich)
San Francisco
Baskin Robbins Lakeshore
1539 Sloat Boulevard
San Francisco
Bayside Sports Bar & Grill
1787 Union Street
San Francisco
Betelnut
2030 Union Street
San Francisco
Big Nate's Barbeque
1665 Folsom Street
San Francisco
Bistro 1650
1650 Balboa St.
San Francisco
Bix
56 Gold Street
San Francisco
Bizou
598 Fourth Street
San Francisco
Black Cat
501 Broadway
San Francisco
Blackthorn Tavern
834 Irving St.
San Francisco
Blondies Bar & No Grill
540 Valencia Street (between 16th & 17th)
San Francisco
Blowfish - Sushi To Die For
2170 Bryant Street
San Francisco
Boulevard
One Mission Street
San Francisco
Brazen Head Restaurant
3166 Buchanan St.
San Francisco
Bruno's
2389 Mission Street
San Francisco
Buena Vista CafÈ
2765 Hyde Street
San Francisco
Bus Stop
1901 Union St
San Francisco
Butter
354 11th Street
San Francisco
Butterfly
1710 Mission Street (at Duboce)
San Francisco
Buzz 9
139 - 8th Street
San Francisco
Caesar's Italian Restaurant
2299 Powell Street
San Francisco
CafÈ 44
761 Post Street
San Francisco
CafÈ Arguello
1499 Valencia Street
San Francisco
CafÈ Bastille
22 Belden Place
San Francisco
CafÈ Claude
7 Claude Lane
San Francisco
Cafe de la Presse
352 Grant Ave
San Francisco
Cafe Desiree
160 Spear Street
San Francisco
CafÈ deStijl
One Union St.
San Francisco
CafÈ Dolci
740 Market St.
San Francisco
CafÈ Focaccia
101 Spear Street
San Francisco
CafÈ Lil Bean
754 Post Street
San Francisco
CafÈ Mars
798 Brannan Street
San Francisco
Cafe Mozart
708 Bush St
San Francisco
CafÈ Niebaum-Coppola
916 Kearny St.
San Francisco
CafÈ Pescatore
2455 Mason Street Tuscan Inn
San Francisco
CafÈ Rosso
SFSU 1600 Holloway Drive
San Francisco
Cafe Venue
721 Market Street
San Francisco
Cafe Venue
70 Leidesdorff Street
San Francisco
Cafe Venue
218 Montgomery Street
San Francisco
Caffe Espresso
462 Powell Sreet Sir Francis Drake
San Francisco
Caffe Museo - in the SF MOMA
151 Third Street
San Francisco
Caffe Proust
1801 McAllister Street
San Francisco
Caffe Soma
1601 Howard Street
San Francisco
Calzone's Pizza Cucina
430 Columbus Avenue
San Francisco
Capp's Corner
1600 Powell Street
San Francisco
Carnelian Room
555 California Street, 52nd Floor
San Francisco
Casa Sanchez
2778 24th Street
San Francisco
Cassidy's
1145 Folsom Street
San Francisco
Castagnola's
286 Jefferson Street
San Francisco
Catering With Style
2800 Bryant St
San Francisco
Chancellor Hotel & CafÈ
433 Powell Street
San Francisco
San Francisco
Charles Nob Hill
1250 Jones Street
San Francisco
Chow
215 Church Street
San Francisco
Chowders
Space A3, Pier 39
San Francisco
Cioppino's on the Wharf
496 Jefferson Street
San Francisco
Citizen Cake
399 Grove Street
San Francisco
Cityscape Bar & Restaurant
333 O'Farrell Street Atop the Hilton San Francisco
San Francisco
Cliff House
1090 Point Lobos
San Francisco
Compass Rose
335 Powell St.
San Francisco
Conard 9th Street CafÈ
160 9th Street
San Francisco
Conard Montgomery Street CafÈ
710 Montgomery Street
San Francisco
Cozmo's Corner Grill
2001 Chestnut Street
San Francisco
Crab House at Pier 39
203C, Pier 39
San Francisco
Crustacean San Francisco
1475 Polk Street
San Francisco
Daily Grill
347 Geary Street
San Francisco
Delaney's
2241 Chestnut St.
San Francisco
Dewey's
335 Powell Street
San Francisco
Diamond Corner CafÈ
751 Diamond St
San Francisco
Divas
1081 Post Street
San Francisco
Don Ramon's Mexican Restaurant
225 11th Street
San Francisco
Durty Nelly's Irish Pub
2328 Irving Street
San Francisco
East Coast West Deli
1725 Polk Street
San Francisco
Eastside West
3154 Fillmore Street
San Francisco
Edward II Inn and Suites
3155 Scott Blvd
San Francisco
Enrico's
504 Broadway
San Francisco
Farallon
450 Post Street
San Francisco
Faz CafÈ at Bechtel
50 Beale Street, 2nd Floor
San Francisco
Faz Restaurant
161 Sutter Street
San Francisco
Fiddler's Green
1333 Columbus Ave
San Francisco
Fifth Floor
12 Fourth Street (at Market) Hotel Palomar
San Francisco
Fior d'Italia
601 Union Street
San Francisco
Fishermen's Grotto
No. 9 Fisherman's Wharf
San Francisco
Fleur de Lys
777 Sutter Street
San Francisco
Florio
1915 Fillmore Street
San Francisco
Fog City Diner
1300 Battery Street
San Francisco
Food Court, North Beach Deli, Crab Pot
SF International Airport P.O. Box 251600
San Francisco
Foreign Cinema
2534 Mission Street
San Francisco
Franciscan Restaurant
Pier 43 1/2 Fishermans Wharf
San Francisco
Ghirardelli Chocolate Manufactory
Ghirardelli Square Clock Tower 900 North Point Street
San Francisco
Gino & Carlo
548 Green Street
San Francisco
Globe
290 Pacific Ave
San Francisco
Goat Hill Pizza
300 Connecticut Street
San Francisco
Gold Spike Restaurant
527 Columbus Avenue
San Francisco
Gordon's House of Fine Eats
500 Florida Street
San Francisco
Grand CafÈ
501 Geary Street Hotel Monaco SF
San Francisco
Harrington's Bar & Grill
245 Front Street
San Francisco
Harry Denton's Starlight Room
450 Powell Street Sir Francis Drake
San Francisco
Hemlock Tavern
1131 Polk Street
San Francisco
Holy Cow Nightclub
1535 Folsom Street
San Francisco
House of Prime Rib
1906 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco
Houston's Restaurant
1800 Montgomery Street
San Francisco
Il Fornaio Cucina Italiana
1265 Battery Street
San Francisco
It's Tops Coffee Shop
1801 Market Street
San Francisco
Jacks Elixir
3200 16th Street
San Francisco
Jardiniere
300 Grove Street
San Francisco
Jelly's A Dance CafÈ
295 Terry Francois Blvd
San Francisco
Jester's
50 Third St
San Francisco
Jianna
1548 Stockton Street
San Francisco
Johnny Foley's Irish House
243 O'Farrell Street
San Francisco
Judi's Place
1414 Market Street
San Francisco
Julius Castle Restaurant
1541 Montgomery Street
San Francisco
Kate O'Brien's
579 Howard St
San Francisco
Kelly's Mission Rock
817 China Basin
San Francisco
Kelly's on Trinity
333 Bush St. #101
San Francisco
Kiku of Tokyo
333 O'Farrell Sreet
San Francisco
Kilowatt
3160 16th Street
San Francisco
Kokkari Estiatorio
200 Jackson Street
San Francisco
Kuleto's Italian Restaurant
221 Powell Street Villa Florence
San Francisco
La Folie
2316 Polk Street
San Francisco
La Mediterranee
2210 Fillmore Street
San Francisco
La Mediterranee
288 Noe St
San Francisco
Lapis Restaurant
Pier 33 The Embarcadero
San Francisco
Lavash Mediterranean Bistro
4 Embarcadero Center
San Francisco
Le Central Bistro
453 Bush Street
San Francisco
Le Colonial
20 Cosmo Place
San Francisco
Le Zinc
4063 - 24th Street
San Francisco
Lefty O'Doul's
333 Geary Street
San Francisco
Liverpool Lil's
2942 Lyon St
San Francisco
Locanda San Pietro
1801 Clement St
San Francisco
L'Olivier Restaurant
465 Davis Court
San Francisco
L'Ottavo Ristorante
692 Sutter Street
San Francisco
Louis Restaurant
902 Point Lobos
San Francisco
MacArthur Park
607 Front Street
San Francisco
Market Street Grill
1231 Market Street
San Francisco
Martin Macks Bar & Restaurant
1568 Haight Street
San Francisco
Masa's
648 Bush Street Hotel Vintage Court
San Francisco
MATRIXFILLMORE
3138 Fillmore Street
San Francisco
Maya
303 Second St
San Francisco
Mel Hollen's Bar & Fine Dining
673 Union Street
San Francisco
Mel's Drive In
1050 Van Ness
San Francisco
Mel's Drive In
3355 Geary Blvd.
San Francisco
Mel's Drive In
801 Mission Street
San Francisco
Mel's Drive In
2165 Lombard Street
San Francisco
Miz Brown's Feed Bag
3401 California Street
San Francisco
Modern Catering
500 Florida Street
San Francisco
MoMo's
760 Second Street
San Francisco
Moose's
1652 Stockton Street
San Francisco
Mozzarella DiBufala Pizzeria I
1529 Fillmore Street
San Francisco
Mozzarella DiBufala Pizzeria II
69 West Portal Ave
San Francisco
'N Touch Bar
1548 Polk Street
San Francisco
Napa Ranch CafÈ
201 Spear Street
San Francisco
Napa Ranch CafÈ
3415 California Street
San Francisco
Napa Ranch CafÈ
465 California Street
San Francisco
Napa Ranch CafÈ
280 Battery Street
San Francisco
New Pisa
550 Green Street
San Francisco
Nick's Lighthouse
2815 Taylor Street
San Francisco
Nob Hill Noshery
1400 Pacific Ave
San Francisco
Noe Valley Bakery & Bread
2277 Shafter Avenue
San Francisco
North Beach Pizza
1499 Grant Avenue
San Francisco
North Beach Restaurant
1512 Stockton Street
San Francisco
One Market Restaurant
1 Market Street
San Francisco
O'Reilly's Irish Pub & Restaurant
622 Green St.
San Francisco
Original Joe's
144 Taylor Street
San Francisco
Original U.S. Restaurant
515 Columbus Avenue
San Francisco
Palio d'Asti
640 Sacramento Street
San Francisco
Palio Paninoteca
500 Parnassus Avenue
San Francisco
Palio Paninoteca
505 Montgomery Street
San Francisco
Palomino
345 Spear Street
San Francisco
PAN-O-RAMA BAKING Company
500 Florida Street
San Francisco
Paragon Restaurant & Bar
701 Second Street
San Francisco
Park Chow
1240 Ninth Street
San Francisco
Parkside CafÈ
1600 17th Street
San Francisco
Pasta Pomodoro
3611 California Street
San Francisco
Pasta Pomodoro
2304 Market Street
San Francisco
Pasta Pomodoro
2027 Chestnut Street
San Francisco
Pasta Pomodoro
655 Union Street
San Francisco
Pasta Pomodoro
1875 Union Street
San Francisco
Pasta Pomodoro
4000 24th Street
San Francisco
Pasta Pomodoro
1865 Post Street
San Francisco
Pasta Pomodoro
816 Irving Street
San Francisco
Pasticci
8 Trinity Street
San Francisco
Pat's CafÈ
2701 Leavenworth St
San Francisco
Pauline's Pizza Pie
260 Valencia Street
San Francisco
Pazzia Caffe & Trattoria
337 Third Street
San Francisco
Perry's
1944 Union St
San Francisco
Perry's Downtown
185 Sutter Street
San Francisco
Pier 23 CafÈ
The Embarcadero
San Francisco
Pizzeria Uno
2 Embarcadero Center
San Francisco
Pizzeria Uno
2200 Lombard Street
San Francisco
PJ's Oyster Bed
737 Irving Street
San Francisco
Plouf
40 Belden Place
San Francisco
PlumpJack CafÈ
3127 Fillmore Street
San Francisco
Pompei's Grotto
340 Jefferson Street
San Francisco
Ponzu
401 Taylor Street Serrano Hotel
San Francisco
Postrio
545 Post Street Prescott Hotel
San Francisco
Prego Ristorante
2000 Union Street
San Francisco
Puccini & Pinetti
129 Ellis Street Monticello Inn
San Francisco
Puerto Alegre Restaurant
546 Valencia Street
San Francisco
Red Herring
155 Steuart St., At the Hotel Griffon
San Francisco
Redwood Park
600 Montgomery Street (near Clay) TransAmerica Pyramid
San Francisco
Restaurant Jeanne D'Arc
715 Bush Street
San Francisco
Rose Pistola
532 Columbus Avenue
San Francisco
Rose's CafÈ
2298 Union Street
San Francisco
Rubicon
558 Sacramento
San Francisco
Ruby Skye
420 Mason Street
San Francisco
Sam's Grill
374 Bush Street
San Francisco
San Francisco Brewing Co.
155 Columbus Ave.
San Francisco
Sanraku
704 Sutter Street
San Francisco
Sanraku
101 4th Street (at the Metreon)
San Francisco
Savoia Ristorante
2355 Chestnut Street
San Francisco
Scala's Bistro
432 Powell Street Sir Francis Drake
San Francisco
Scoma's Restaurant
Pier 47 One Al Scoma Way
San Francisco
Self-Help for the Elderly
407 Sansome Street
San Francisco
Shanghai Kelly's Saloon
2064 Polk St.
San Francisco
Silks at Mandarin Oriental Hotel
222 Sansome Sreet
San Francisco
Simple Pleasures Cafe
3434 Balboa Street
San Francisco
Sitio
1151 Folsom Street
San Francisco
South Park Cafe
108 South Park
San Francisco
Specialty's Cafe & Bakery
505 Sansome Street
San Francisco
Specialty's Cafe & Bakery
185 Berry Street
San Francisco
Specialty's Cafe & Bakery
101 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco
Specialty's Cafe & Bakery
1 Post Street
San Francisco
Specialty's Cafe & Bakery
150 Spear Street
San Francisco
Specialty's Cafe & Bakery
22 Battery Street
San Francisco
Specialty's Cafe & Bakery
312 Kearny Street
San Francisco
Specialty's Cafe & Bakery
369 Pine Street
San Francisco
Spoon
2209 Polk Street
San Francisco
St. Francis CafÈ
335 Powell Street
San Francisco
Stars Bar and Dining
555 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco
Station CafÈ
SFSU 1600 Holloway Drive
San Francisco
Subway Sandwiches & Salads
1500 Fillmore St.
San Francisco
Subway Sandwiches & Salads
1 Market Plaza
San Francisco
Subway Sandwiches & Salads
753 Polk Street
San Francisco
Sushi Chardonnay
1785 Union St
San Francisco
Sushi Groove
1916 Hyde Street
San Francisco
Sushi Groove South
1516 Folsom
San Francisco
Swan Oyster Depot
1517 Polk Street
San Francisco
Sweetie's
475 Francisco Street
San Francisco
Tadich Grill
240 California St
San Francisco
Tad's Steak House
120 Powell Street
San Francisco
Taqueria Zapata
4150 18th St
San Francisco
Tarantino's Restaurant
206 Jefferson
San Francisco
Taste Catering
3450 3rd Street, # 4D
San Francisco
Terra Brazilis
602 Hayes Street
San Francisco
Terrace Restaurant
San Francisco International Airport Terminal 3
San Francisco
Thanh Long
4101 Judah Street
San Francisco
The Argent Hotel
50 Third St
San Francisco
The Beach Chalet Brewery & Restaurant
1000 Great Highway
San Francisco
The Blue Light
1979 Union Street
San Francisco
The Cosmopolitan CafÈ
121 Spear Street
San Francisco
The Endup
401 6th Street
San Francisco
The Grove
2016 Fillmore Street
San Francisco
The Grove
2250 Chestnut Street
San Francisco
The Magic Flute Garden Ristorante
3673 Sacramento St
San Francisco
The Mucky Duck
1315 9th Ave
San Francisco
The Occidental Grill
453 Pine Street
San Francisco
The Ramp
855 China Basin
San Francisco
The Slanted Door
100 Brannan Street
San Francisco
The Stinking Rose
325 Columbus Avenue
San Francisco
The Waterfront
Pier 7 on the Embarcadero
San Francisco
Tia Margarita
300 - 19th Ave
San Francisco
Tommy's Joynt
1101 Geary Blvd
San Francisco
Tony Roma's
126 Ellis Street
San Francisco
Toraya
1734 Post Street
San Francisco
Tosca CafÈ
242 Columbus Avenue
San Francisco
Trattoria Contadina
1800 Mason Street
San Francisco
Treasure Island Job Corp
655 H Avenue, Bldg. #442
San Francisco
Upton's Catering
2435 Lombard Street
San Francisco
Village Pizzeria
1243 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco
Whizwit
1525 Folsom Street
San Francisco
XYZ Restaurant
181 3rd Street
San Francisco
Yank Sing Restaurant
49 Stevenson Street
San Francisco
Yank Sing Restaurant
101 Spear Street (at Rincon Center)
San Francisco
You See Sushi
94 Judah Street
San Francisco
Zao Noodle Bar
3583 - 16th Street
San Francisco
Zao Noodle Bar
2031 Chestnut Street
San Francisco
Zao Noodle Bar
2406 California Street
San Francisco
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Ross - of the public power campaign - brought up the Bay Guardian editorial at our last gathering about how the progressive groups really need to start to pool resources and have joint events because of lack of money from labor this year as well as general lack of money.
Is someone from your group begining to think about this? Maybe the 5 or so progressive prop campaigns coulld all rent one space together, maybe they could all support a handful of large events.
You guys are doing great with your work but we'll need a ton of numbers to inform the voters who can't read past one line. I come across a lot of pro-N voters who just haven't even thought about it, and when I talk to them, get into the details, they generally agree with the brutality of this measure.
No doubt the anti-public power people are also the care not cash and abcd people.
Anyway, I agree that we need to get our campaigns joining up and working together. I'm guessing it's those middle- to upper-class and elderly white male homeowners that we'll ultimately need to reach - probably on foot and with long discussions!
The public power website is http://www.powertothepeople.org and will have contact info.
Great work that you've done so far!
Is someone from your group begining to think about this? Maybe the 5 or so progressive prop campaigns coulld all rent one space together, maybe they could all support a handful of large events.
You guys are doing great with your work but we'll need a ton of numbers to inform the voters who can't read past one line. I come across a lot of pro-N voters who just haven't even thought about it, and when I talk to them, get into the details, they generally agree with the brutality of this measure.
No doubt the anti-public power people are also the care not cash and abcd people.
Anyway, I agree that we need to get our campaigns joining up and working together. I'm guessing it's those middle- to upper-class and elderly white male homeowners that we'll ultimately need to reach - probably on foot and with long discussions!
The public power website is http://www.powertothepeople.org and will have contact info.
Great work that you've done so far!
Its amazing that people can call a proposal that provides shelter
for the homeless 'anti-poor'. Why should San Francisco pay for
peoples drug and alcohol habits? Can anyone give a real reason
for opposing services vs. cash handouts?
for the homeless 'anti-poor'. Why should San Francisco pay for
peoples drug and alcohol habits? Can anyone give a real reason
for opposing services vs. cash handouts?
Your boycott will fail miserably because you have asked people to boycott so many establishments.
I support Newsom's Care Not Cash initiative and think it will pass quite easily.
You really should get better at organizing. Calling on folks to boycott so many restaurants shows how ineffective advocates for Homeless Inc have become. Homeless lobbyists will lost big in November.
I support Newsom's Care Not Cash initiative and think it will pass quite easily.
You really should get better at organizing. Calling on folks to boycott so many restaurants shows how ineffective advocates for Homeless Inc have become. Homeless lobbyists will lost big in November.
Boycotting SF eateries and watering holes might be simpler than you think. There are over 200 establishments on the list. Not even the most devoted foodie could frequent so many restaurants, thereby eliminating several restaurants. If one has a "regular" place to dine that's GGRA-affiliated, patronize another establishment that's not a member or arrange some alternative until Election Day.
To the pompous pieces of shit who support "care not cash" ... let's get something really clear. This is San Francisco. You don't pull a giuliani-style social cleansing policy out of your ass without expecting a fight. A fucking fierce fight. Will your business survive the war? Is it worth supporting these bullshit policies? I guess we'll find out. Let's get it going.
Prop N won't provide shelter for the homeless as hippy boy says. That's one of the problems. Instead, it will charge some welfare recipients for services that they're currently receiving for free, including shelter beds and meals from soup kitchens.
I agree with vic: it's been my experience that once people learn what Prop N is all about, they change their minds. The challenge is getting out the information and countering Supv Newsom's feel-good misleading rhetoric.
I agree with vic: it's been my experience that once people learn what Prop N is all about, they change their minds. The challenge is getting out the information and countering Supv Newsom's feel-good misleading rhetoric.
Why the hell are homeless people currently getting over $500 a month *and* free food *and* free beds?
That's about $800 a month for doing nothing except pissing on the street and scoring drugs!
That's about $800 a month for doing nothing except pissing on the street and scoring drugs!
I support Prop N. For the longest time we have been giving money to the homeless and every year the homeless problem gets worst and worst. And yes people have pointed to one or two examples of how cash subsides have help, but those seem to be the exception, not the rule.
It’s time for a change in the current system and I say let the people of SF voice their opinion and decide the direction in which they want to care for the homeless.
It’s time for a change in the current system and I say let the people of SF voice their opinion and decide the direction in which they want to care for the homeless.
What will you do with your $1.50 that you get today - assuming these 'services' that will be provided will provide food, clothes, and all the kazillion things we all need like toothpaste, shaving cream, tampons, etc.?
What is the single item that you will buy with that money?
Sure, can't buy your drugs, but then, you happen to be one of the homeless who doesn't have a hardcore addiction.
Or, you used to be addicted, but you're not anymore, only you haven't yet gotten a place to live or the money to get a place.
What will you buy with your $1.50? Coffee? Gum? Can't make a resume - not enough money for that. Can't buy a nice shirt for a job interview, only what gets handed out for free - can't imagine that will be nice. Can't get across the bridge - not enough money - to apply for that job over in the East Bay. Can't even make more than one MUNI trip for that. Can't call long distance to your family. Can't drink a single beer. Can't even get a soda if you also had to get somewhere on MUNI.
So explain to me how this solves things. And take a look at Prop O and explain how it is different - most people in SF can't do this at this point, but they can tell you they support cnc - a knee-jerk response to the ugliness of poverty and mental illness when they haven't even considered the reality of this prop.
What is the single item that you will buy with that money?
Sure, can't buy your drugs, but then, you happen to be one of the homeless who doesn't have a hardcore addiction.
Or, you used to be addicted, but you're not anymore, only you haven't yet gotten a place to live or the money to get a place.
What will you buy with your $1.50? Coffee? Gum? Can't make a resume - not enough money for that. Can't buy a nice shirt for a job interview, only what gets handed out for free - can't imagine that will be nice. Can't get across the bridge - not enough money - to apply for that job over in the East Bay. Can't even make more than one MUNI trip for that. Can't call long distance to your family. Can't drink a single beer. Can't even get a soda if you also had to get somewhere on MUNI.
So explain to me how this solves things. And take a look at Prop O and explain how it is different - most people in SF can't do this at this point, but they can tell you they support cnc - a knee-jerk response to the ugliness of poverty and mental illness when they haven't even considered the reality of this prop.
Prove it or shut up.
http://www.sfbg.com/36/38/news_careless.html
Getting careless
Research doesn't support Newsom's Care not Cash initiative
By Cassi Feldman
Signature-gatherers had no trouble getting sunburned revelers at the Haight
Street Fair to sign on to Sup. Gavin Newsom's proposed ballot initiative,
which was cheerfully described as "a new program to help the homeless."
Neither did the hordes of volunteers who hit the streets after the
initiative's June 15 kickoff party. But critics say they hope these easy
converts read the fine print before Election Day. Because beneath the catchy
"Care not Cash" slogan is a poorly researched policy shift.
Currently there are approximately 2,800 homeless single adults receiving a
monthly cash grant of up to $395 from the city. If Newsom's initiative
passes in November, they would lose the cash and instead receive in-kind
services such as housing and meals plus a monthly allowance of $59. The
point, according to the initiative, is to eliminate "the incentive for
homeless individuals who want cash rather than services to congregate here"
and "reduce deaths from drug overdoses."
But while these ideas have surface appeal, there's very little data to
support them. Neither the Department of Human Services nor the Mayor's
Office on Homelessness could provide us with any evidence that cash benefits
attract homeless people to San Francisco.
And though Newsom points to a 1999 New England Journal of Medicine study
that found an increase in deaths nationwide during the first week of the
month, right after federal benefits were mailed out, there's no been no
local study on the correlation. When Department of Public Health director
Mitchell Katz conducted a cursory review of a 48-month period Nov. 1,
1997, through Oct. 31, 2001 he found only a minor difference between the
number of deaths in the days just after checks go out (approximately 19.4)
and the rest of the month (18.8).
So why make the change? According to the initiative, one major reason is to
"bring San Francisco in line with almost every other California county."
Most Bay Area counties have recently switched from cash to in-kind services,
yet according to a May 9 report from the city's legislative analyst, it's
too early to tell how their clients have fared. At best, the counties
reported "some cost savings" and a drop in caseloads. And that may not be a
good thing. Alameda found that most homeless people chose to go without
General Assistance rather than be forced into shelter.
Overall, the report concludes, "policies that are developed on the basis of
anecdotal evidence, even though they are responsive to the hardening tide of
public opinion, may lead to inefficient and ineffective use of public
resources, or to punitive withdrawal of funds that are desperately needed."
That fits right in with what City Controller Ed Harrington reported in his
May 15 audit of San Francisco's homeless services. Harrington wrote that
shifting political whims were exacerbating the problem. He suggested all
"legislation, budget actions, and ballot initiatives related to
homelessness" be presented to the Local Homeless Coordinating Board, which
includes service providers and homeless people, for input.
Newsom must have missed that part. According to Darryl Smaw, coordinating
board liaison, the board has not been asked to comment on Care not Cash.
Newsom told us there was no point in asking the board since its executive
committee already "wrote a letter shooting [the initiative] down."
Newsom doesn't seem to mind the opposition. He said that cutting cash aid
would free up $10 million a year, which could fund 1,000 new residential
hotel rooms and 150 methadone treatment slots. But the initiative doesn't
explicitly promise the G.A. money will be used to help homeless people.
The lack of detail isn't what bothers many homeless folks about the
proposal. Those we spoke with say the initiative will simply make their
lives harder. They'll no longer be able to chip in on informal rental
agreements or save up money for a security deposit. If they get evicted from
a shelter or homeless program, they'll lose their benefits entirely.
"Politicians just get greedier and greedier," said William Garner, a
51-year-old homeless man who told us he only uses G.A. when he can't find
work. "They're taking from people who can't defend themselves." E-mail Cassi
Feldman at cassi [at] sfbg.com.
Getting careless
Research doesn't support Newsom's Care not Cash initiative
By Cassi Feldman
Signature-gatherers had no trouble getting sunburned revelers at the Haight
Street Fair to sign on to Sup. Gavin Newsom's proposed ballot initiative,
which was cheerfully described as "a new program to help the homeless."
Neither did the hordes of volunteers who hit the streets after the
initiative's June 15 kickoff party. But critics say they hope these easy
converts read the fine print before Election Day. Because beneath the catchy
"Care not Cash" slogan is a poorly researched policy shift.
Currently there are approximately 2,800 homeless single adults receiving a
monthly cash grant of up to $395 from the city. If Newsom's initiative
passes in November, they would lose the cash and instead receive in-kind
services such as housing and meals plus a monthly allowance of $59. The
point, according to the initiative, is to eliminate "the incentive for
homeless individuals who want cash rather than services to congregate here"
and "reduce deaths from drug overdoses."
But while these ideas have surface appeal, there's very little data to
support them. Neither the Department of Human Services nor the Mayor's
Office on Homelessness could provide us with any evidence that cash benefits
attract homeless people to San Francisco.
And though Newsom points to a 1999 New England Journal of Medicine study
that found an increase in deaths nationwide during the first week of the
month, right after federal benefits were mailed out, there's no been no
local study on the correlation. When Department of Public Health director
Mitchell Katz conducted a cursory review of a 48-month period Nov. 1,
1997, through Oct. 31, 2001 he found only a minor difference between the
number of deaths in the days just after checks go out (approximately 19.4)
and the rest of the month (18.8).
So why make the change? According to the initiative, one major reason is to
"bring San Francisco in line with almost every other California county."
Most Bay Area counties have recently switched from cash to in-kind services,
yet according to a May 9 report from the city's legislative analyst, it's
too early to tell how their clients have fared. At best, the counties
reported "some cost savings" and a drop in caseloads. And that may not be a
good thing. Alameda found that most homeless people chose to go without
General Assistance rather than be forced into shelter.
Overall, the report concludes, "policies that are developed on the basis of
anecdotal evidence, even though they are responsive to the hardening tide of
public opinion, may lead to inefficient and ineffective use of public
resources, or to punitive withdrawal of funds that are desperately needed."
That fits right in with what City Controller Ed Harrington reported in his
May 15 audit of San Francisco's homeless services. Harrington wrote that
shifting political whims were exacerbating the problem. He suggested all
"legislation, budget actions, and ballot initiatives related to
homelessness" be presented to the Local Homeless Coordinating Board, which
includes service providers and homeless people, for input.
Newsom must have missed that part. According to Darryl Smaw, coordinating
board liaison, the board has not been asked to comment on Care not Cash.
Newsom told us there was no point in asking the board since its executive
committee already "wrote a letter shooting [the initiative] down."
Newsom doesn't seem to mind the opposition. He said that cutting cash aid
would free up $10 million a year, which could fund 1,000 new residential
hotel rooms and 150 methadone treatment slots. But the initiative doesn't
explicitly promise the G.A. money will be used to help homeless people.
The lack of detail isn't what bothers many homeless folks about the
proposal. Those we spoke with say the initiative will simply make their
lives harder. They'll no longer be able to chip in on informal rental
agreements or save up money for a security deposit. If they get evicted from
a shelter or homeless program, they'll lose their benefits entirely.
"Politicians just get greedier and greedier," said William Garner, a
51-year-old homeless man who told us he only uses G.A. when he can't find
work. "They're taking from people who can't defend themselves." E-mail Cassi
Feldman at cassi [at] sfbg.com.
First, I question anything from the Bay Guardian as they approach any article from a certain political view and slant. It’s almost like quoting sources from newsmax.com regarding the homeless issue. Both have their political slants and write their articles to support that view.
Second, nowhere in this article does it suggest an alternative system to taking care of the homeless, nor does it recite any examples of how the current system is working and helping people out of homelessness.
As I mentioned before, I have only see a one or two examples of how the current system has helped someone and from personal observation and conversation with other people from City, the homeless problem has become worst not better over the past 12 years. It’s time to look at other alternatives to addressing the homeless issue and so far, this is has been the best alternative presented and put up for voting.
And I ask you, what is wrong with putting this on the November Ballet and letting the people make the decision? Isn’t that how democracy suppose to work? Why not let the people of SF decide on how to address the homeless issue or would you prefer the Board of Directors or the Mayor dictate that policy for you.
If you or the Bay Guardian have better ideas, why haven’t you put together your own ballot initiative to address the homeless issue and allow the people of SF to vote on it? If you are confident in your homeless policy, then write it up, gather the signatures, and put it up to a vote.
Second, nowhere in this article does it suggest an alternative system to taking care of the homeless, nor does it recite any examples of how the current system is working and helping people out of homelessness.
As I mentioned before, I have only see a one or two examples of how the current system has helped someone and from personal observation and conversation with other people from City, the homeless problem has become worst not better over the past 12 years. It’s time to look at other alternatives to addressing the homeless issue and so far, this is has been the best alternative presented and put up for voting.
And I ask you, what is wrong with putting this on the November Ballet and letting the people make the decision? Isn’t that how democracy suppose to work? Why not let the people of SF decide on how to address the homeless issue or would you prefer the Board of Directors or the Mayor dictate that policy for you.
If you or the Bay Guardian have better ideas, why haven’t you put together your own ballot initiative to address the homeless issue and allow the people of SF to vote on it? If you are confident in your homeless policy, then write it up, gather the signatures, and put it up to a vote.
First, I question anything from the Bay Guardian as they approach any article from a certain political view and slant. It’s almost like quoting sources from newsmax.com regarding the homeless issue. Both have their political slants and write their articles to support that view.
Second, nowhere in this article does it suggest an alternative system to taking care of the homeless, nor does it recite any examples of how the current system is working and helping people out of homelessness.
As I mentioned before, I have only see a one or two examples of how the current system has helped someone and from personal observation and conversation with other people from City, the homeless problem has become worst not better over the past 12 years. It’s time to look at other alternatives to addressing the homeless issue and so far, this is has been the best alternative presented and put up for voting.
And I ask you, what is wrong with putting this on the November Ballet and letting the people make the decision? Isn’t that how democracy suppose to work? Why not let the people of SF decide on how to address the homeless issue or would you prefer the Board of Directors or the Mayor dictate that policy for you.
If you or the Bay Guardian have better ideas, why haven’t you put together your own ballot initiative to address the homeless issue and allow the people of SF to vote on it? If you are confident in your homeless policy, then write it up, gather the signatures, and put it up to a vote.
Second, nowhere in this article does it suggest an alternative system to taking care of the homeless, nor does it recite any examples of how the current system is working and helping people out of homelessness.
As I mentioned before, I have only see a one or two examples of how the current system has helped someone and from personal observation and conversation with other people from City, the homeless problem has become worst not better over the past 12 years. It’s time to look at other alternatives to addressing the homeless issue and so far, this is has been the best alternative presented and put up for voting.
And I ask you, what is wrong with putting this on the November Ballet and letting the people make the decision? Isn’t that how democracy suppose to work? Why not let the people of SF decide on how to address the homeless issue or would you prefer the Board of Directors or the Mayor dictate that policy for you.
If you or the Bay Guardian have better ideas, why haven’t you put together your own ballot initiative to address the homeless issue and allow the people of SF to vote on it? If you are confident in your homeless policy, then write it up, gather the signatures, and put it up to a vote.
First off, I question anything from the Bay Guardian, as they approach any article from a certain political view and slant. It’s almost like me quoting sources from newsmax.com regarding the homeless issue. Both have their political slants and write articles to support that viewpoint.
Second, nowhere in this article does it suggest an alternative system to taking care of the homeless, nor does it recite any examples of how the current system is working and helping people out of homelessness.
As I mentioned before, I have only see a one or two examples of how the current system has helped someone and from personal observation and conversation with other people in the City, the homeless problem has become worst not better over the past 12 years. It’s time to look at other alternatives to addressing the homeless issue and so far, this is has been the best alternative presented and put up for voting to the general public.
And what is wrong with putting this on the November Ballet and letting the people make the decision? Isn’t that how democracy suppose to work? Why not let the people of SF decide on how to address the homeless issue or would you prefer the Board of Directors or the Mayor dictate that policy for you.
If you or the Bay Guardian have better ideas, why haven’t you put together your own ballot initiative to address the homeless issue and allow the people of SF to vote on it? If you are confident in policy, then write it up, gather the signatures, and put it up to a vote.
Second, nowhere in this article does it suggest an alternative system to taking care of the homeless, nor does it recite any examples of how the current system is working and helping people out of homelessness.
As I mentioned before, I have only see a one or two examples of how the current system has helped someone and from personal observation and conversation with other people in the City, the homeless problem has become worst not better over the past 12 years. It’s time to look at other alternatives to addressing the homeless issue and so far, this is has been the best alternative presented and put up for voting to the general public.
And what is wrong with putting this on the November Ballet and letting the people make the decision? Isn’t that how democracy suppose to work? Why not let the people of SF decide on how to address the homeless issue or would you prefer the Board of Directors or the Mayor dictate that policy for you.
If you or the Bay Guardian have better ideas, why haven’t you put together your own ballot initiative to address the homeless issue and allow the people of SF to vote on it? If you are confident in policy, then write it up, gather the signatures, and put it up to a vote.
First off, I question anything from the Bay Guardian, as they approach any article from a certain political view and slant. It’s almost like me quoting sources from newsmax.com regarding the homeless issue. Both have their political slants and write articles to support that viewpoint.
Second, nowhere in this article does it suggest an alternative system to taking care of the homeless, nor does it recite any examples of how the current system is working and helping people out of homelessness.
As I mentioned before, I have only see a one or two examples of how the current system has helped someone and from personal observation and conversation with other people in the City, the homeless problem has become worst not better over the past 12 years. It’s time to look at other alternatives to addressing the homeless issue and so far, this is has been the best alternative presented and put up for voting to the general public.
And what is wrong with putting this on the November Ballet and letting the people make the decision? Isn’t that how democracy suppose to work? Why not let the people of SF decide on how to address the homeless issue or would you prefer the Board of Directors or the Mayor dictate that policy for you.
If you or the Bay Guardian have better ideas, why haven’t you put together your own ballot initiative to address the homeless issue and allow the people of SF to vote on it? If you are confident in policy, then write it up, gather the signatures, and put it up to a vote.
Second, nowhere in this article does it suggest an alternative system to taking care of the homeless, nor does it recite any examples of how the current system is working and helping people out of homelessness.
As I mentioned before, I have only see a one or two examples of how the current system has helped someone and from personal observation and conversation with other people in the City, the homeless problem has become worst not better over the past 12 years. It’s time to look at other alternatives to addressing the homeless issue and so far, this is has been the best alternative presented and put up for voting to the general public.
And what is wrong with putting this on the November Ballet and letting the people make the decision? Isn’t that how democracy suppose to work? Why not let the people of SF decide on how to address the homeless issue or would you prefer the Board of Directors or the Mayor dictate that policy for you.
If you or the Bay Guardian have better ideas, why haven’t you put together your own ballot initiative to address the homeless issue and allow the people of SF to vote on it? If you are confident in policy, then write it up, gather the signatures, and put it up to a vote.
First, I question anything from the Bay Guardian as they approach any article from a certain political view and slant. It’s almost like quoting sources from newsmax.com regarding the homeless issue. Both have their political slants and write their articles to support that view.
Second, nowhere in this article does it suggest an alternative system to taking care of the homeless, nor does it recite any examples of how the current system is working and helping people out of homelessness.
As I mentioned before, I have only see a one or two examples of how the current system has helped someone and from personal observation and conversation with other people from City, the homeless problem has become worst not better over the past 12 years. It’s time to look at other alternatives to addressing the homeless issue and so far, this is has been the best alternative presented and put up for voting.
And I ask you, what is wrong with putting this on the November Ballet and letting the people make the decision? Isn’t that how democracy suppose to work? Why not let the people of SF decide on how to address the homeless issue or would you prefer the Board of Directors or the Mayor dictate that policy for you.
If you or the Bay Guardian have better ideas, why haven’t you put together your own ballot initiative to address the homeless issue and allow the people of SF to vote on it? If you are confident in your homeless policy, then write it up, gather the signatures, and put it up to a vote.
Second, nowhere in this article does it suggest an alternative system to taking care of the homeless, nor does it recite any examples of how the current system is working and helping people out of homelessness.
As I mentioned before, I have only see a one or two examples of how the current system has helped someone and from personal observation and conversation with other people from City, the homeless problem has become worst not better over the past 12 years. It’s time to look at other alternatives to addressing the homeless issue and so far, this is has been the best alternative presented and put up for voting.
And I ask you, what is wrong with putting this on the November Ballet and letting the people make the decision? Isn’t that how democracy suppose to work? Why not let the people of SF decide on how to address the homeless issue or would you prefer the Board of Directors or the Mayor dictate that policy for you.
If you or the Bay Guardian have better ideas, why haven’t you put together your own ballot initiative to address the homeless issue and allow the people of SF to vote on it? If you are confident in your homeless policy, then write it up, gather the signatures, and put it up to a vote.
First, I question anything from the Bay Guardian as they approach any article from a certain political view and slant. It’s almost like quoting sources from newsmax.com regarding the homeless issue. Both have their political slants and write their articles to support that view.
Second, nowhere in this article does it suggest an alternative system to taking care of the homeless, nor does it recite any examples of how the current system is working and helping people out of homelessness.
As I mentioned before, I have only see a one or two examples of how the current system has helped someone and from personal observation and conversation with other people from City, the homeless problem has become worst not better over the past 12 years. It’s time to look at other alternatives to addressing the homeless issue and so far, this is has been the best alternative presented and put up for voting.
And I ask you, what is wrong with putting this on the November Ballet and letting the people make the decision? Isn’t that how democracy suppose to work? Why not let the people of SF decide on how to address the homeless issue or would you prefer the Board of Directors or the Mayor dictate that policy for you.
If you or the Bay Guardian have better ideas, why haven’t you put together your own ballot initiative to address the homeless issue and allow the people of SF to vote on it? If you are confident in your homeless policy, then write it up, gather the signatures, and put it up to a vote.
Second, nowhere in this article does it suggest an alternative system to taking care of the homeless, nor does it recite any examples of how the current system is working and helping people out of homelessness.
As I mentioned before, I have only see a one or two examples of how the current system has helped someone and from personal observation and conversation with other people from City, the homeless problem has become worst not better over the past 12 years. It’s time to look at other alternatives to addressing the homeless issue and so far, this is has been the best alternative presented and put up for voting.
And I ask you, what is wrong with putting this on the November Ballet and letting the people make the decision? Isn’t that how democracy suppose to work? Why not let the people of SF decide on how to address the homeless issue or would you prefer the Board of Directors or the Mayor dictate that policy for you.
If you or the Bay Guardian have better ideas, why haven’t you put together your own ballot initiative to address the homeless issue and allow the people of SF to vote on it? If you are confident in your homeless policy, then write it up, gather the signatures, and put it up to a vote.
counterfeit care(prop n) does nothing of the sort. Where in the language does it say it provides shelter?
it's a scam, don't buy it.
it's a scam, don't buy it.
I can't believe you think that asking someone to survive on $1.50 a day is 'solving' the homeless problem.
"And I ask you, what is wrong with putting this on the November Ballet and letting the people make the decision? Isn’t that how democracy suppose to work?"
I haven't heard anyone saying it can't be on the ballot.
" Why not let the people of SF decide on how to address the homeless issue or would you prefer the Board of Directors or the Mayor dictate that policy for you."
Of course the people have to decide - but sadly they will often vote on confusing props that they really don't understand - and our media will direct them only in the direction it favors.
"If you or the Bay Guardian have better ideas, why haven’t you put together your own ballot initiative to address the homeless issue and allow the people of SF to vote on it? If you are confident in your homeless policy, then write it up, gather the signatures, and put it up to a vote. "
I agree.
The part where your logic doesn't work for me is when you suggest that because the homeless are a problem, and this prop is one 'solution,' that 'nough said - do it.
If a prop were introduced to lethally inject the homeless as a solution, it wouldn't make it the right solution.
These things take time and research.
And you haven't answered the question (unless I missed it earlier in the thread) about how you would spend your $1.50 each day. I'd really like to know. And that's assuming that these 'services' will provide fresh fruit, a balanced meal 3x a day, clothing suitable to get a job in, toothpaste, pen & paper, phone, etc.
"And I ask you, what is wrong with putting this on the November Ballet and letting the people make the decision? Isn’t that how democracy suppose to work?"
I haven't heard anyone saying it can't be on the ballot.
" Why not let the people of SF decide on how to address the homeless issue or would you prefer the Board of Directors or the Mayor dictate that policy for you."
Of course the people have to decide - but sadly they will often vote on confusing props that they really don't understand - and our media will direct them only in the direction it favors.
"If you or the Bay Guardian have better ideas, why haven’t you put together your own ballot initiative to address the homeless issue and allow the people of SF to vote on it? If you are confident in your homeless policy, then write it up, gather the signatures, and put it up to a vote. "
I agree.
The part where your logic doesn't work for me is when you suggest that because the homeless are a problem, and this prop is one 'solution,' that 'nough said - do it.
If a prop were introduced to lethally inject the homeless as a solution, it wouldn't make it the right solution.
These things take time and research.
And you haven't answered the question (unless I missed it earlier in the thread) about how you would spend your $1.50 each day. I'd really like to know. And that's assuming that these 'services' will provide fresh fruit, a balanced meal 3x a day, clothing suitable to get a job in, toothpaste, pen & paper, phone, etc.
"Of course the people have to decide - but sadly they will often vote on confusing props that they really don't understand - and our media will direct them only in the direction it favors."
If that's is really the case who's fault is that?
"If a prop were introduced to lethally inject the homeless as a solution, it wouldn't make it the right solution."
This is a far cry from that. Stick to the subject.
"how you would spend your $1.50 each day."
I'd go to:
Bound Together Books
1369 Haight Street
San Francisco, CA 94117
They have plenty of books for under $1.50. Don't they?
Better yet, I'd get with some others and buy a joint to smoke.
"And that's assuming that these 'services' will provide fresh fruit, a balanced meal 3x a day, clothing suitable to get a job in, toothpaste, pen & paper, phone, etc. "
The problem is just how many would take advantage were that the case? Prop N may tell us just that.
If that's is really the case who's fault is that?
"If a prop were introduced to lethally inject the homeless as a solution, it wouldn't make it the right solution."
This is a far cry from that. Stick to the subject.
"how you would spend your $1.50 each day."
I'd go to:
Bound Together Books
1369 Haight Street
San Francisco, CA 94117
They have plenty of books for under $1.50. Don't they?
Better yet, I'd get with some others and buy a joint to smoke.
"And that's assuming that these 'services' will provide fresh fruit, a balanced meal 3x a day, clothing suitable to get a job in, toothpaste, pen & paper, phone, etc. "
The problem is just how many would take advantage were that the case? Prop N may tell us just that.
"The problem is just how many would take advantage were that the case? Prop N may tell us just that."
That's like saying - 'The problem is, we just don't know how many will survive the first injection. Prop 'Inject-the-Homeless' will tell us that."
I think it's wrong to experiment on humans.
And Nessie is right again. We need to look at the root causes, not only one aspect. Even Angela Alioto, when running for mayor, identified five separate and distinct homelessness categories after researching the problem.
Please don't fall for this crap. If you take their money away completely, they'll - at best - go to the East Bay and overwhelm those services, and - at worst - end up dead one way or another even faster than they are now.
Okay, so you've bought a book. Now what? The day is over, you've been reading all afternoon (not in a cafe - can't afford to get a coffee, maybe in the library or on a bench) and you don't have money for MUNI so you'll need to walk back to the shelter - assuming these are the new and special kind where the mentally ill aren't trying to kill you or steal from you. When you get there you hear that your mother is sick in Illinois and it's an emergency - but you can't call her because you spent your money on a book, idiotically, rather than hoarding it in the event of just such an emergency. You'd like to go to that AA meeting over in the marina, but you'll have to walk there, and you're exhausted from walking from Haight Street, so you decide not to and instead to take that pimp up on his offer down the street . . . he wants some friends to break into a yuppie pad and lift some things . . .
That's like saying - 'The problem is, we just don't know how many will survive the first injection. Prop 'Inject-the-Homeless' will tell us that."
I think it's wrong to experiment on humans.
And Nessie is right again. We need to look at the root causes, not only one aspect. Even Angela Alioto, when running for mayor, identified five separate and distinct homelessness categories after researching the problem.
Please don't fall for this crap. If you take their money away completely, they'll - at best - go to the East Bay and overwhelm those services, and - at worst - end up dead one way or another even faster than they are now.
Okay, so you've bought a book. Now what? The day is over, you've been reading all afternoon (not in a cafe - can't afford to get a coffee, maybe in the library or on a bench) and you don't have money for MUNI so you'll need to walk back to the shelter - assuming these are the new and special kind where the mentally ill aren't trying to kill you or steal from you. When you get there you hear that your mother is sick in Illinois and it's an emergency - but you can't call her because you spent your money on a book, idiotically, rather than hoarding it in the event of just such an emergency. You'd like to go to that AA meeting over in the marina, but you'll have to walk there, and you're exhausted from walking from Haight Street, so you decide not to and instead to take that pimp up on his offer down the street . . . he wants some friends to break into a yuppie pad and lift some things . . .
Well if you want the knee jerk reaction to the $1.50 question, how about buying a newspaper and see if there are jobs that I can apply for within walking distance. Maybe save a couple of days so I can afford Muni and travel to places to apply for job no matter how “demeaning” it may be.
How about using 35 cent to place a phone call POWER, the Coalition on Homelessness, Food Not Bombs, or Homes Not Jails to see if they can help me find a job or get me on feet or arrange for an alternative housing situation. If these organizations care so much for the homeless, would they not help a homeless person to get on their feet again?
Once I get the job, maybe start saving up and go from there. If I can’t afford to live here, maybe save up for a greyhound and move to another area where the cost of living is cheaper. Don’t forget SF is one of the most expensive places to live, moving to Las Vegas comes to mind, I know there are lots of service jobs there waiting to be filled and the wages pay high enough to live there.
And as to Prop N, is it the best solution – no – but it’s a step in the right direction. So far, I have yet to see anyone other than Gavin Newsom come up with an alternative plan. Your whole “These things take time and research” is an easy out to say you don’t have a solution. The homelessness problem has been a growing issue for the past 5-6 years, how much longer do you need develop a plan?
How about using 35 cent to place a phone call POWER, the Coalition on Homelessness, Food Not Bombs, or Homes Not Jails to see if they can help me find a job or get me on feet or arrange for an alternative housing situation. If these organizations care so much for the homeless, would they not help a homeless person to get on their feet again?
Once I get the job, maybe start saving up and go from there. If I can’t afford to live here, maybe save up for a greyhound and move to another area where the cost of living is cheaper. Don’t forget SF is one of the most expensive places to live, moving to Las Vegas comes to mind, I know there are lots of service jobs there waiting to be filled and the wages pay high enough to live there.
And as to Prop N, is it the best solution – no – but it’s a step in the right direction. So far, I have yet to see anyone other than Gavin Newsom come up with an alternative plan. Your whole “These things take time and research” is an easy out to say you don’t have a solution. The homelessness problem has been a growing issue for the past 5-6 years, how much longer do you need develop a plan?
"And as to Prop N, is it the best solution – no – but it’s a step in the right direction. So far, I have yet to see anyone other than Gavin Newsom come up with an alternative plan."
Take a look at Prop O - it's a better plan and more carefully thought out in terms of who pays for it and where the money comes from - *and* - homeless don't get their meager sums taken away.
"Your whole “These things take time and research” is an easy out to say you don’t have a solution. The homelessness problem has been a growing issue for the past 5-6 years, how much longer do you need develop a plan?"
Well, they rushed to get the Presidio turned over into an unprecedented organization made up of a public-private board of advisors hand-picked by Clinton, and now we've got Lucasfilms where we all wanted a National Park to be. That's what happens when you rush things.
Lots of people worked like crazy to keep that thing from transitioning into a private entity - but in the end we lost it. Far worse than that - now there is a new precedent for privatizing public parks. Soon other national parks may begin to go by the wayside as the Presidio did, out of the hands of the people and into the hands of big business, because the Presidio will be used as the successful precedent.
All of this was based on the absurd premise that nobody had the money to run another national park - sure, when $1b a day goes to the military in Afganistan alone . . .
I agree with not waiting, but do this with intelligence. Set-up an appointed board to study the problem with a democratic appointment from numerous sides, charge them with finding a solution which is reasonable and not just to punish homeless for being poor. One day any one of us may be there, and we all need to take care of everyone, do our share. I'd gladly re-direct all my tax money to the homeless and none to weapons if it were possible.
But you said you'd save up your $1.50/day for several days to be able to do something larger with it. So picture it - better yet, try it! - don't buy a single thing for five days, no espresso or beer or soda, no smoothie, no lunch at any restaurant, no brunch, no phone calls, no travelling on MUNI (only walking), no tattered sci-fi novel, etc. You wouldn't be able to call for a job interview - don't know how you'd work that out anyway, setting up a job by using up around 20% of your full allotment each day for a newspaper, and it better be the 'right' newspaper, since you could only afford one - so the job thing would have to wait. They might ask for a resume, and you wouldn't have the money for printing one, even if you could get it all sorted out at the library or an internet cafe (could set you a week's worth of allotments!). Each phone call would be 50cents so you could make three a day if you were willing to use up your entire days allotment on phone calls - but then, you'd have already used up 35 on the newspaper . . . . And tell me - how many phone calls does it take to get a job?
That's where this whole logic falls apart - not only are these people in trouble, they need a HUGE amount of help to get on their feet to even *look* for a job. Where in Newsom's plan does he even *begin* to tackle the huge amount of services we will need to provide if we take ALL means of self-support away from these people? If we do that they become full wards of the state - do you know how much it costs to house a prisoner?
All Newsom's plan really achieves is the idea of taking homeless people's money away from them - and that appeals to a lot of people who have no idea what having $1.50/day and being mentally ill really means. There's no real or serious attempts to examine the realities of the task we take on when we do that - making these people wards of the state, charging the citizens with providing every means of support for them, same as a comepletely delusional schizophrenic who is non-functional, same as a person in prison, same as an elderly person with alzheimers and no one to care for them.
These people don't fit in that category and it's wrong to say we're going to really do that, when we all sort of know that in the end, we won't - and then lot's of homeless will die, will leave, or will end up in prison. Newsom hasn't done the important research that needs to go into this. Even Alioto did her homework.
Similarly, saying that just because a solution gets put out there that makes it okay is pretty rediculous - I pointed that out in the above post which I guess you didn't read. Some 'solutions' aren't solutions.
Take a look at Prop O - it's a better plan and more carefully thought out in terms of who pays for it and where the money comes from - *and* - homeless don't get their meager sums taken away.
"Your whole “These things take time and research” is an easy out to say you don’t have a solution. The homelessness problem has been a growing issue for the past 5-6 years, how much longer do you need develop a plan?"
Well, they rushed to get the Presidio turned over into an unprecedented organization made up of a public-private board of advisors hand-picked by Clinton, and now we've got Lucasfilms where we all wanted a National Park to be. That's what happens when you rush things.
Lots of people worked like crazy to keep that thing from transitioning into a private entity - but in the end we lost it. Far worse than that - now there is a new precedent for privatizing public parks. Soon other national parks may begin to go by the wayside as the Presidio did, out of the hands of the people and into the hands of big business, because the Presidio will be used as the successful precedent.
All of this was based on the absurd premise that nobody had the money to run another national park - sure, when $1b a day goes to the military in Afganistan alone . . .
I agree with not waiting, but do this with intelligence. Set-up an appointed board to study the problem with a democratic appointment from numerous sides, charge them with finding a solution which is reasonable and not just to punish homeless for being poor. One day any one of us may be there, and we all need to take care of everyone, do our share. I'd gladly re-direct all my tax money to the homeless and none to weapons if it were possible.
But you said you'd save up your $1.50/day for several days to be able to do something larger with it. So picture it - better yet, try it! - don't buy a single thing for five days, no espresso or beer or soda, no smoothie, no lunch at any restaurant, no brunch, no phone calls, no travelling on MUNI (only walking), no tattered sci-fi novel, etc. You wouldn't be able to call for a job interview - don't know how you'd work that out anyway, setting up a job by using up around 20% of your full allotment each day for a newspaper, and it better be the 'right' newspaper, since you could only afford one - so the job thing would have to wait. They might ask for a resume, and you wouldn't have the money for printing one, even if you could get it all sorted out at the library or an internet cafe (could set you a week's worth of allotments!). Each phone call would be 50cents so you could make three a day if you were willing to use up your entire days allotment on phone calls - but then, you'd have already used up 35 on the newspaper . . . . And tell me - how many phone calls does it take to get a job?
That's where this whole logic falls apart - not only are these people in trouble, they need a HUGE amount of help to get on their feet to even *look* for a job. Where in Newsom's plan does he even *begin* to tackle the huge amount of services we will need to provide if we take ALL means of self-support away from these people? If we do that they become full wards of the state - do you know how much it costs to house a prisoner?
All Newsom's plan really achieves is the idea of taking homeless people's money away from them - and that appeals to a lot of people who have no idea what having $1.50/day and being mentally ill really means. There's no real or serious attempts to examine the realities of the task we take on when we do that - making these people wards of the state, charging the citizens with providing every means of support for them, same as a comepletely delusional schizophrenic who is non-functional, same as a person in prison, same as an elderly person with alzheimers and no one to care for them.
These people don't fit in that category and it's wrong to say we're going to really do that, when we all sort of know that in the end, we won't - and then lot's of homeless will die, will leave, or will end up in prison. Newsom hasn't done the important research that needs to go into this. Even Alioto did her homework.
Similarly, saying that just because a solution gets put out there that makes it okay is pretty rediculous - I pointed that out in the above post which I guess you didn't read. Some 'solutions' aren't solutions.
Rogus: I don't think you are homeless. You sound like someone from the Newsom camp faking it. No one in their right mind who was homeless could possibly take $1.96 a day seriously. - Carol
Also, it looks as if someone from Newsom's camp stacked the deck by posting the same comment over and over again. Good going, guys. What a tactic! Can you Guiliani millionaire wannabees win by sheer repetition if you can't win on the (ahem, complete lack of ) merit of taking poor people's money away? - Carol
Hippy Boy, It's simple. Can you read? Bet you've never seen or talked to an unhoused person.
1. Lots of homeless people are substance-free and sane, just without homes.
2. Lots of housed people are addicted and crazy.
3. No Services are guaranteed in the Prop N proposal.
Now, I'm getting repetitious, too. Peace/out - Carol
1. Lots of homeless people are substance-free and sane, just without homes.
2. Lots of housed people are addicted and crazy.
3. No Services are guaranteed in the Prop N proposal.
Now, I'm getting repetitious, too. Peace/out - Carol
Maybe I can knock 2 birds with one stone and address both Carol and Bov. First to address Carol, I’ve never claimed to be homeless, Bov asked me what I would do with $1.50 a day and I addressed his question. I’ve been out of work for sometime when the dotcom bubble burst, but was never homeless. So I know what it’s like to live on “$1.50” a day, I did it because I had no money coming in and was living off of Savings. Was it easy to do, No, but I understood the reality of my situation and did what I had to do to get by. So that meant no Starbucks, going out for dinner, buying books or magazines, etc, it meant that my savings were used to covering the basics “food, shelter, utilities” until I found a new job. There’s a saying that I was taught when I was entering the work world “It’s a Full Time Job to find A Full Time Job” and that’s the attitude that I took.
To address Prop O Bov, yes I did take a look at it and there are some parts that are better than Prop N, but there is a major problem with Prom O, it doesn’t set a spending cap or truly gives someone an incentives to leave GA. You brought up the point on how much it cost to house prisoners, as I read Prop O I see that it will be more expensive the Prop N. Here is the problem I have (this is taken directly from SF Government Site):
“Proposition O would require the City to meet certain conditions before it could count housing, shelter and meal services provided to qualified homeless individuals as part of their cash benefit. The Controller would have to certify that the City had enough housing or shelter to provide these services instead of cash payments. In addition, the City could count no more than 180 days in a shelter as part of the cash benefit to a homeless individual. In general, after 180 days in a shelter, the City would have to offer housing. If housing were not available, the individual would receive cash for the value of housing services.”
A) What are those “certain conditions” that must be met?
B) We currently have a housing shortage in SF, so after the 180 are met and we have to offer cash because we cannot provide housing, what does that amount come to? A $1.50 seems to little for you, so let’s say $10/Day. That comes out to an additional $300 a month in GA, at $20/Day that’s $600/Month, at $30/Day that’s $900/month. No where did I read any caps or that this housing cash must be spent on housing. So as someone looking to circumvent the system, I would wait out 6 months and then get my extra cash benefit, because we know there is no way the city can provide housing for all of the homeless. Once I get my extra “paycheck” why should I moving on? And wouldn't this "extra paycheck" attract other homeless people into SF to get a little more?
That’s why it’s called General Assistance, not General Paycheck, not General Support, not General Lifestyle, But General Assistance. The system is to “Assist” someone, not to support them for life. And as I read Prop O, it provides no incentives for someone to truly get out of their living situation and Prop O will develop another class of citizens living off the taxpayers back. I have no problems giving someone a helping hand to get off their feet, but I'm not obligated to support them for life either.
Also I’ve also noticed that when I brought up the point that I would go to one of these outreach companies such as POWER, the Coalition on Homelessness, Food Not Bombs, or Homes Not Jails, you made no mention of them in your rebuttal? Instead you stuck to the “$1.50” argument. While I admit that I am not familiar with these organizations, but wouldn’t these organizatioins want to help a homeless person looking to get on their feet again, or is it that they are too wrapped up in lobbing that they forget their true objective?
To address Prop O Bov, yes I did take a look at it and there are some parts that are better than Prop N, but there is a major problem with Prom O, it doesn’t set a spending cap or truly gives someone an incentives to leave GA. You brought up the point on how much it cost to house prisoners, as I read Prop O I see that it will be more expensive the Prop N. Here is the problem I have (this is taken directly from SF Government Site):
“Proposition O would require the City to meet certain conditions before it could count housing, shelter and meal services provided to qualified homeless individuals as part of their cash benefit. The Controller would have to certify that the City had enough housing or shelter to provide these services instead of cash payments. In addition, the City could count no more than 180 days in a shelter as part of the cash benefit to a homeless individual. In general, after 180 days in a shelter, the City would have to offer housing. If housing were not available, the individual would receive cash for the value of housing services.”
A) What are those “certain conditions” that must be met?
B) We currently have a housing shortage in SF, so after the 180 are met and we have to offer cash because we cannot provide housing, what does that amount come to? A $1.50 seems to little for you, so let’s say $10/Day. That comes out to an additional $300 a month in GA, at $20/Day that’s $600/Month, at $30/Day that’s $900/month. No where did I read any caps or that this housing cash must be spent on housing. So as someone looking to circumvent the system, I would wait out 6 months and then get my extra cash benefit, because we know there is no way the city can provide housing for all of the homeless. Once I get my extra “paycheck” why should I moving on? And wouldn't this "extra paycheck" attract other homeless people into SF to get a little more?
That’s why it’s called General Assistance, not General Paycheck, not General Support, not General Lifestyle, But General Assistance. The system is to “Assist” someone, not to support them for life. And as I read Prop O, it provides no incentives for someone to truly get out of their living situation and Prop O will develop another class of citizens living off the taxpayers back. I have no problems giving someone a helping hand to get off their feet, but I'm not obligated to support them for life either.
Also I’ve also noticed that when I brought up the point that I would go to one of these outreach companies such as POWER, the Coalition on Homelessness, Food Not Bombs, or Homes Not Jails, you made no mention of them in your rebuttal? Instead you stuck to the “$1.50” argument. While I admit that I am not familiar with these organizations, but wouldn’t these organizatioins want to help a homeless person looking to get on their feet again, or is it that they are too wrapped up in lobbing that they forget their true objective?
"as I read Prop O I see that it will be more expensive the Prop N"
"The Controller would have to certify that the City had enough housing or shelter to provide these services instead of cash payments."
Yes, strange and diabolical as it may seem to some, it DOES cost money to house the homeless (Prop O), and it costs less to let them die or push them out of the city after their money is taken away and facilities have been guaranteed in the measure (Prop N).
It's ludicrous that prop N doesn't have any means to address the real costs and where the money will come from.
Prop N's real message is to take money from the homeless - beyond that, there really isn't a plan.
Remember, while you may have survived for a short time on $1.50/day, could you do it everyday, for years? It would be easier to just go live in Oaktown or in People's Park, wouldn't it? Lot's of people can't pull themselves up without a lot of help - you can congratulate yourself on doing it for you, but you can't expect the same of everyone else.
Sorry I can't address all your issues at once - I have a ton of stuff I'm working on.
"The Controller would have to certify that the City had enough housing or shelter to provide these services instead of cash payments."
Yes, strange and diabolical as it may seem to some, it DOES cost money to house the homeless (Prop O), and it costs less to let them die or push them out of the city after their money is taken away and facilities have been guaranteed in the measure (Prop N).
It's ludicrous that prop N doesn't have any means to address the real costs and where the money will come from.
Prop N's real message is to take money from the homeless - beyond that, there really isn't a plan.
Remember, while you may have survived for a short time on $1.50/day, could you do it everyday, for years? It would be easier to just go live in Oaktown or in People's Park, wouldn't it? Lot's of people can't pull themselves up without a lot of help - you can congratulate yourself on doing it for you, but you can't expect the same of everyone else.
Sorry I can't address all your issues at once - I have a ton of stuff I'm working on.
That’s ok, I understand how a busy schedule can be, I was planning addressing your rebuttal but it disappeared and when it reappeared well… you can see from above.
But again I point out, General Assistance is just that, Assistance and it was not meant or created to provide a lifestyle for someone to live on for years. As I mentioned before, if you are getting a “free paycheck” then what kind of incentive do you have to improve yourself? In the currently system we are “throwing money” at the issue in hopes that it will get better. Unfortunately over the years as GA has increased, so has the homeless in SF. I don’t see giving the homeless more money will solve the issue.
Maybe it’s time to look admit the current system is broken and that we need to start looking in different direction to solve the homeless problem such as giving more services/aid than money.
But again I point out, General Assistance is just that, Assistance and it was not meant or created to provide a lifestyle for someone to live on for years. As I mentioned before, if you are getting a “free paycheck” then what kind of incentive do you have to improve yourself? In the currently system we are “throwing money” at the issue in hopes that it will get better. Unfortunately over the years as GA has increased, so has the homeless in SF. I don’t see giving the homeless more money will solve the issue.
Maybe it’s time to look admit the current system is broken and that we need to start looking in different direction to solve the homeless problem such as giving more services/aid than money.
"Maybe it’s time to look admit the current system is broken and that we need to start looking in different direction to solve the homeless problem such as giving more services/aid than money."
I agree, but prop N doesn't account for the services, only the taking away of the money.
I agree, but prop N doesn't account for the services, only the taking away of the money.
>if you are getting a “free paycheck” then what kind of incentive do you have to improve yourself?
The idle rich get “free paychecks.” Is that why they don't "improve themselves"?
The idle rich get “free paychecks.” Is that why they don't "improve themselves"?
Why did you neglect to mention the rich who worked hard to get there? Whiners like you wouldn't be able to whine if you were truly honest, would you?
No one ever got rich by working. The rich are rich because they live off the labor of others. They are parasites. To them, we are nothing but livestock.
Why do you mind the idle poor but not the idle rich? They're both idle. The only difference is that the idle rich have more money. Money is the variable, idleness the constant. What is it about money that makes you grovel like a dog and lick the boots of those who have it, but spit on those who don't? Are you so morally bankrupt that you honestly believe that a piece of paper is worth more than a human being?
Why do you mind the idle poor but not the idle rich? They're both idle. The only difference is that the idle rich have more money. Money is the variable, idleness the constant. What is it about money that makes you grovel like a dog and lick the boots of those who have it, but spit on those who don't? Are you so morally bankrupt that you honestly believe that a piece of paper is worth more than a human being?
lick-up kick-down type
It gives too much money away and doesn’t provide incentives to leave GA. Prop O will create a class of people who becomes wards of the SF government.
And to the “blame the rich crowd”, it shows your true ignorance of the world and people. Not every “rich” person treats their employees like “livestock” or “sits there and collect a free paycheck”. Those statements are as absurd and ridiculous as me stating that all homeless people are lazy and do drugs. Both statements are far from what the truth and reality is.
And to the “blame the rich crowd”, it shows your true ignorance of the world and people. Not every “rich” person treats their employees like “livestock” or “sits there and collect a free paycheck”. Those statements are as absurd and ridiculous as me stating that all homeless people are lazy and do drugs. Both statements are far from what the truth and reality is.
Nice guilt trip, moron, but it won't work. Ever heard of survival of the fittest?
And as far as the shit in your shorts about rich riding other peoples backs, so what? First I make enough money to take care of me. How can I afford to pay you, to even hire you to begin with, unless I pass a certain level?
Youre just a whiner. A jealous member of the Grievance Industry.
And as far as the shit in your shorts about rich riding other peoples backs, so what? First I make enough money to take care of me. How can I afford to pay you, to even hire you to begin with, unless I pass a certain level?
Youre just a whiner. A jealous member of the Grievance Industry.
Nice guilt trip, moron, but it won't work. Ever heard of survival of the fittest?
And as far as the shit in your shorts about rich riding other peoples backs, so what? First I make enough money to take care of me. How can I afford to pay you, to even hire you to begin with, unless I pass a certain level?
Youre just a whiner. A jealous member of the Grievance Industry.
And as far as the shit in your shorts about rich riding other peoples backs, so what? First I make enough money to take care of me. How can I afford to pay you, to even hire you to begin with, unless I pass a certain level?
Youre just a whiner. A jealous member of the Grievance Industry.
What he wants is for someone to give him 50 percent stake in everything, without his having to lift a finger.
I bet the computer he used to post his whining was built in a commune, too.
I bet the computer he used to post his whining was built in a commune, too.
If you are so callous, self centered, selfish, and cold that you feel no compassion for your fellow human beings, you are not fit to live among us. Get the hell off our planet.
Corporate Welfare Information Center
"The $150 billion for corporate subsidies and tax benefits eclipses the annual budget deficit of $130 billion. It's more than the $145 billion paid out annually for the core programs of the social welfare state: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), student aid, housing, food and nutrition, and all direct public assistance (excluding Social Security and medical care)."
http://www.corporations.org/welfare/
"The $150 billion for corporate subsidies and tax benefits eclipses the annual budget deficit of $130 billion. It's more than the $145 billion paid out annually for the core programs of the social welfare state: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), student aid, housing, food and nutrition, and all direct public assistance (excluding Social Security and medical care)."
http://www.corporations.org/welfare/
"Ever heard of survival of the fittest? "
by Short shrift • Tuesday September 10, 2002 at 12:42 AM
If you are so callous, self centered, selfish, and cold that you feel no compassion for your fellow human beings, you are not fit to live among us. Get the hell off our planet.
Get the hell off YOUR planet? I love elitist idots like you. We evolved to this point. How about complaining to Mother Planet instead? People are starving by the thousands in Africa, but does she care? No, someone else will take its place. So why are you giving me hell? I'm only telling the truth you refuse to see.
by Short shrift • Tuesday September 10, 2002 at 12:42 AM
If you are so callous, self centered, selfish, and cold that you feel no compassion for your fellow human beings, you are not fit to live among us. Get the hell off our planet.
Get the hell off YOUR planet? I love elitist idots like you. We evolved to this point. How about complaining to Mother Planet instead? People are starving by the thousands in Africa, but does she care? No, someone else will take its place. So why are you giving me hell? I'm only telling the truth you refuse to see.
"President Clinton's signing of the bill to "dismantle the Welfare State" by cutting off what little help the U.S. federal government offered its poorest citizens will do nothing to ease the tax burden of middle class America nor to dismantle the real welfare state. The poor have become a scapegoat for the federal deficit, covering over the real reasons for this country's massive debt: corporate welfare, or subsidies to the rich. If you really want to help dismantle the welfare state, look at the evidence contained in the following sites and stop blaming the poor!"
http://www.csun.edu/CommunicationStudies/ben/news/welf.html
http://www.csun.edu/CommunicationStudies/ben/news/welf.html
The truth is that you are an evil man. Most people despise your kind. A smaller number feel sorry for you. I don't. I think you're disgusting. You are cold, empty and dark inside. A sense of the human community, the very thing that makes us human in the first place, you lack. You are a sad, sick, sorry excuse for a man. You will die alone, friendless and forgotten. That's how people like you end up. Good riddance. No sympathy.
most everyone hates trolls.
I'm not "blaming" the poor for anything, but I'm dammed if I"ll feel guilty just because the brainwashed of the Grievance Industry says I should.
Grievance Industry, do you mean like subsidies to the enormous airline industry, corporate welfare etc etc etc?
Grievance Industry, do you mean like subsidies to the enormous airline industry, corporate welfare etc etc etc?
oh wait, no. you mean some guys begging for spare change so they can eat after the government donated our tax dollars to a corporation so it can buy the machines that put him out of work, right.
oh wait, no. you mean some guys begging for spare change so they can eat after the government donated our tax dollars to a corporation so it can buy the machines that put him out of work, right.
Are you one of those Ludites? How is your career in tractor making nowdays?
changing the subject again eh? Isnt that what you always accuse "liberals" of doing? Seems like you can never offer any proof of these accusations, rather, it seems like these are the things YOU do.
Get help.
Get help.
http://www.progress.org/banneker/cw.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/981109/cover1.html
http://www.taxpolicy.com/cwsearch/
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa241es.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/Military_Fraud.html
http://www.free-market.net/features/spotlight/9702.html
http://www.eiu.edu/~kuoeng/research/cw/welcome.htm
http://www.citizen.org/congress/welfare/index.cfm
http://www.mdle.com/WrittenWord/rfinley/finley20.htm
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/3355285.htm
http://www.ccsi.com/~comcause/news/corwel.html
http://www.betterworld.com/BWZ/9608/forest.htm
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/corpwelfare/
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1215-07.htm
http://www.ctj.org/html/corpwelf.htm
http://www.fair.org/media-beat/981126.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/paul0506.html
http://www.free-market.net/directorybytopic/corporatewelfare/
http://www.prrac.org/topics/mar00/leroy.htm
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/981109/cover1.html
http://www.taxpolicy.com/cwsearch/
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa241es.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/Military_Fraud.html
http://www.free-market.net/features/spotlight/9702.html
http://www.eiu.edu/~kuoeng/research/cw/welcome.htm
http://www.citizen.org/congress/welfare/index.cfm
http://www.mdle.com/WrittenWord/rfinley/finley20.htm
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/3355285.htm
http://www.ccsi.com/~comcause/news/corwel.html
http://www.betterworld.com/BWZ/9608/forest.htm
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/corpwelfare/
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1215-07.htm
http://www.ctj.org/html/corpwelf.htm
http://www.fair.org/media-beat/981126.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/paul0506.html
http://www.free-market.net/directorybytopic/corporatewelfare/
http://www.prrac.org/topics/mar00/leroy.htm
Maybe you need to look up the meaning of Luddite, idiot.
I'm in network security. But I do have a certain envy of luddites.
you keep talking I'll just keep educating people how to deal with your kind.
This said, trolls and (even more) shills are very often de facto and/or de jure just lackeys of the commercial powers that be. What all trolls have in common is that they flood newsgroups with inappropriate material in an effort to suppress discussion they don't want taking place. If it were radio, you would call it "jamming" and everybody would agree it was censorship. But on Usenet or on messageboards, the effect is more subtle and the mechanism more complex (involving user interface limitations of newsreading software) so it hasn'e been widely recognized yet. Some of the most determined destroyers are professionals trollers connected to people that stand to lose if a specific Usenet newsgroup (or any given specific messageboard) proves to be a viable alternative to the(ir) controlled channels of mass communications.
Let's see how to (try to) destroy them...
Anti-Trolling weapons
Deathpinging ~ rebuking trolls
Deathpinging
"OK, I have enough, let's screw the troller: I'll give him 200-300 ping -f -s 65000" ;-)
A+heist
What A+heist is referring to is an attack know as 'ping flood': many large size pings sent continously against your target system in order to have a buffer overrun. This kind of attacks are commonly used, for instance, during IRC channels wars.
A well known fact is that Windows 98 (and many other toy and older systems) REBOOTS after a ping -f 65000. Often only a single ping -f 65000 is enough to reboot the system. The command must be issued from a Linux Box.
For slackware 3.6 Kernel 2.0.36, the correct line is: ping -f -s 65000 Target_IP_address
If you are playing on local networks, use ping -s -l instead
Usage: ping [-t] [-a] [-n count] [-l size] [-f] [-i TTL] [-v TOS]
[-r count] [-s count] [[-j host-list] | [-k host-list]]
[-w timeout] destination-list
Options:
-t Ping the specifed host until interrupted.
-a Resolve addresses to hostnames.
-n count Number of echo requests to send.
-l size Send buffer size.
-f Set Don't Fragment flag in packet.
-i TTL Time To Live.
-v TOS Type Of Service.
-r count Record route for count hops.
-s count Timestamp for count hops.
-j host-list Loose source route along host-list.
-k host-list Strict source route along host-list.
-w timeout Timeout in milliseconds to wait for each reply.
In this context I would like to recall the similarly famous "ping of death" method.
For exact information see: http://www.insecure.org/sploits/ping-o-death.html.
I'll quote: billions of machines can be crashed sending IP packets that exceed the maximum 'dos' length (65535 bytes). You can send from Linux, and, also, of course you can hack your own dos in order to let it send a packet bigger than that. There are also many nukers on the web that have options to change the packetsize.
Netware, Routers, and of course toy systems like Windows NT and 9* can be locked, but early versions of Linux and Solaris can be nuked as well.
The attacker needs to know nothing about the machine other than its IP address.
Most implementations of ping won't allow an invalid packet (i.e. more than 65535 bytes) to be sent. Among the exceptions are Windows '95 and NT :-)
This exploit is by no means restricted to ping. The problem can be exploited by anything that sends an IP datagram probably the most fundamental building block of the net. An IP datagram consists of an IP header and an IP payload The IP header is of variable size, between 20 and 60 bytes, in 4-byte increments. It provides routing support, payload identification, IP header and datagram size indication, fragmentation support, and options. The IP payload is of variable size, ranging from 8 bytes (a 68-byte IP datagram with a 60-byte IP header) to 65,515 bytes (a 65,535-byte IP datagram with a 20-byte header).
Note also that not only ICMP echo, but TCP, UDP and even new style IPX can be used to hit machines where it hurts.
This said, trolls and (even more) shills are very often de facto and/or de jure just lackeys of the commercial powers that be. What all trolls have in common is that they flood newsgroups with inappropriate material in an effort to suppress discussion they don't want taking place. If it were radio, you would call it "jamming" and everybody would agree it was censorship. But on Usenet or on messageboards, the effect is more subtle and the mechanism more complex (involving user interface limitations of newsreading software) so it hasn'e been widely recognized yet. Some of the most determined destroyers are professionals trollers connected to people that stand to lose if a specific Usenet newsgroup (or any given specific messageboard) proves to be a viable alternative to the(ir) controlled channels of mass communications.
Let's see how to (try to) destroy them...
Anti-Trolling weapons
Deathpinging ~ rebuking trolls
Deathpinging
"OK, I have enough, let's screw the troller: I'll give him 200-300 ping -f -s 65000" ;-)
A+heist
What A+heist is referring to is an attack know as 'ping flood': many large size pings sent continously against your target system in order to have a buffer overrun. This kind of attacks are commonly used, for instance, during IRC channels wars.
A well known fact is that Windows 98 (and many other toy and older systems) REBOOTS after a ping -f 65000. Often only a single ping -f 65000 is enough to reboot the system. The command must be issued from a Linux Box.
For slackware 3.6 Kernel 2.0.36, the correct line is: ping -f -s 65000 Target_IP_address
If you are playing on local networks, use ping -s -l instead
Usage: ping [-t] [-a] [-n count] [-l size] [-f] [-i TTL] [-v TOS]
[-r count] [-s count] [[-j host-list] | [-k host-list]]
[-w timeout] destination-list
Options:
-t Ping the specifed host until interrupted.
-a Resolve addresses to hostnames.
-n count Number of echo requests to send.
-l size Send buffer size.
-f Set Don't Fragment flag in packet.
-i TTL Time To Live.
-v TOS Type Of Service.
-r count Record route for count hops.
-s count Timestamp for count hops.
-j host-list Loose source route along host-list.
-k host-list Strict source route along host-list.
-w timeout Timeout in milliseconds to wait for each reply.
In this context I would like to recall the similarly famous "ping of death" method.
For exact information see: http://www.insecure.org/sploits/ping-o-death.html.
I'll quote: billions of machines can be crashed sending IP packets that exceed the maximum 'dos' length (65535 bytes). You can send from Linux, and, also, of course you can hack your own dos in order to let it send a packet bigger than that. There are also many nukers on the web that have options to change the packetsize.
Netware, Routers, and of course toy systems like Windows NT and 9* can be locked, but early versions of Linux and Solaris can be nuked as well.
The attacker needs to know nothing about the machine other than its IP address.
Most implementations of ping won't allow an invalid packet (i.e. more than 65535 bytes) to be sent. Among the exceptions are Windows '95 and NT :-)
This exploit is by no means restricted to ping. The problem can be exploited by anything that sends an IP datagram probably the most fundamental building block of the net. An IP datagram consists of an IP header and an IP payload The IP header is of variable size, between 20 and 60 bytes, in 4-byte increments. It provides routing support, payload identification, IP header and datagram size indication, fragmentation support, and options. The IP payload is of variable size, ranging from 8 bytes (a 68-byte IP datagram with a 60-byte IP header) to 65,515 bytes (a 65,535-byte IP datagram with a 20-byte header).
Note also that not only ICMP echo, but TCP, UDP and even new style IPX can be used to hit machines where it hurts.
Really? Anyone can build themselves up around here. You can claim to be Bill Gates, but your still an idiot.
gimme your ip addy and I'll demonstrate.
Anybody can be a hacker, even 4th graders. So, you want me to be impressed?
And as for nessie the srting of dots, you haven't stopped me or anyone else yet. And why would you want to, unless you fear alternative ideas that go against yours? Is this part of the "new and improved" indymedia editorial policy? Seems childish to me.
And as for nessie the srting of dots, you haven't stopped me or anyone else yet. And why would you want to, unless you fear alternative ideas that go against yours? Is this part of the "new and improved" indymedia editorial policy? Seems childish to me.
what "alternative ideas" airhead? You don't have any "ideas" you're just spouting jealousy of those who do all the time. I've never seen you post one original idea. Go play some more Nintendo little boy.
what "alternative ideas" airhead? You don't have any "ideas" you're just spouting jealousy of those who do all the time. I've never seen you post one original idea. Go play some more Nintendo little boy.
While you're at it, Smash called. His boots need a good licking.
While you're at it, Smash called. His boots need a good licking.
Nintendo? we don't have that here on the collective. Here for enteretainment we bash America and worship Islam and have sex with our kids and expect others to make us a living.
Smash said he would be inpressed if you really are in the 4th grade. He said it must have been 10 of the hardest years of your life to have made it that far.
I'm bored with you now. I'm going to play with a different toy, maybe go ride my bike or something.
enjoy having the last word, all by yourself. loser.
Now that's what I call dealing a killing blow to a troll. Your the black belt of troll killers, arent you. I learned my lesson. I'll stay clear of you from now on.
Now that's what I call dealing a killing blow to a troll. Your the black belt of troll killers, arent you. I learned my lesson. I'll stay clear of you from now on.
By the way, please ride into the traffic, not with it.
By the way, please ride into the traffic, not with it.
Now that's what I call dealing a killing blow to a troll. Your the black belt of troll killers, arent you. I learned my lesson. I'll stay clear of you from now on.
By the way, please ride into the traffic, not with it.
By the way, please ride into the traffic, not with it.
I go to bed and the string turns into name calling and dies. Interesting how it always come down to name calling on IndyMedia. Guess that 70’s song is right, the freaks do come out at night.
Well it was fun debating Bov and good luck on Prop O.
Well it was fun debating Bov and good luck on Prop O.
"No one ever got rich by working. The rich are rich because they live off the labor of others. They are parasites. To them, we are nothing but livestock. Why do you mind the idle poor but not the idle rich? They're both idle. The only difference is that the idle rich have more money. Money is the variable, idleness the constant."
This is the opinion of a jealous and pompous ass. Truth be known they've probably spent their whole life hating those who earn more than them or are successful at completing any number of tasks and blaming all their problems and the problems of the world on those they preceive as rich. An easy conclusion to reach for a small-minded people. It doesn't take much thought for them to contrive such a scenario and to find a small amount of others who likewise are looking for someone to blame for all their own shortcomings. Then they sit around feeling sorry for themselves, complaining about the system, writing a few speeches, organizing and attending a few protests, calling upon others to join them, foolishly presuming themselves to be more enlightened than the rest of us, and this somehow makes them believe they are making a difference or are somehow pertinent at all. A sad existance, but well deserving of someone with such a infantile view of life.
This is the opinion of a jealous and pompous ass. Truth be known they've probably spent their whole life hating those who earn more than them or are successful at completing any number of tasks and blaming all their problems and the problems of the world on those they preceive as rich. An easy conclusion to reach for a small-minded people. It doesn't take much thought for them to contrive such a scenario and to find a small amount of others who likewise are looking for someone to blame for all their own shortcomings. Then they sit around feeling sorry for themselves, complaining about the system, writing a few speeches, organizing and attending a few protests, calling upon others to join them, foolishly presuming themselves to be more enlightened than the rest of us, and this somehow makes them believe they are making a difference or are somehow pertinent at all. A sad existance, but well deserving of someone with such a infantile view of life.
keep talking dirty to us smash, its sooo sexy
You will be attending an SF-IMC meeting while you're here, right? We'd ever so love to meet you F2F. You'd be the center of attention.
Liberals are the ones who spent their young adulthoods perpetually stoned and, now that they're middle-aged, are pissed off and jealous that other people who worked hard got ahead and are now making some money. They're especially mad that a lot of those people are younger than them and don't subscribe to any of their ideals or beliefs.
So, they want to take that money and give it to other lazy sots like themselves or, worse, they want to keep people homeless so they can be gainfully employed providing "homeless services".
Unfortunately, the liberal government keeps growing and providing ever more "services". This means taxes keep increasing (to about 35% of household income now, vs. 5-10% in 1900 or even 15-20% in 1950). Eventually, the government will just take it all and the liberals will decide how we should use our own money. I'm practically at that point now (28% federal, 15% FICA, 7% state tax, sales tax, car tax, etc.--about half my income)
So, they want to take that money and give it to other lazy sots like themselves or, worse, they want to keep people homeless so they can be gainfully employed providing "homeless services".
Unfortunately, the liberal government keeps growing and providing ever more "services". This means taxes keep increasing (to about 35% of household income now, vs. 5-10% in 1900 or even 15-20% in 1950). Eventually, the government will just take it all and the liberals will decide how we should use our own money. I'm practically at that point now (28% federal, 15% FICA, 7% state tax, sales tax, car tax, etc.--about half my income)
These right wing fanatics are boring the hell out of me - go play somewhere else wierdos.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200209040276.html
Bulldung Awards for Summit Hypocrites
OPINION
September 3, 2002
Posted to the web September 4, 2002
Jim Peron
Johannesburg
The contrast couldn't be more extreme. Carrying his placard the man in front of me was clearly one of the poorest of the poor. His shoes were not only threadbare, they were tattered, merely rags barely being held together. He shuffled down the streets of affluent Sandton just outside the chic conference centre and the five star hotels where the UN's World Summit on Sustainable Development was being held.
Protesters at such events are expected. Every year affluent Europeans and American who are full-time 'radicals' fly off to demonstrate on behalf of the world's poor. But the poor themselves rarely participate in these elite demonstrations.
This time it was different. Far more different than first meets the eye. You had to read the signs these poor people were carrying to understand how much their message contrasted with that of affluent protesters from the Northern Hemisphere. If you stepped in front of the man with slivers of leather attached to his feet you'd see his sign said: "Trade Not Aid."
The marchers in this protest were mainly poor, virtually all black, and mostly women. They were street traders and farmers. Without fail everyone had a sticker saying :"Freedom to Trade."
Farmers from India marched side by side with Zulu women wearing T-shirts saying: "Biotechnology for Africa."
On the sideline the press and Summit delegates stood aghast. What do you say to poor people with signs reading: "Stop Eco-Imperialism" or "Save the Planet from Sustainable Development" or "Free Trade IS Fair Trade".
The Green Left wants to paint globalisation as rich versus the poor but the rich are supposed to be in favour of free trade and the poor opposed to it. But here the situation was precisely the opposite. The anti-globalisation protesters were those who could afford to fly in on international flights and stay at expensive hotels that local street traders could never afford to visit.
The farmers from India were demanding the right to grow genetically modified crops. Other speakers at the rally demanded the end of subsidies for agriculture in developed countries while English group Oxfam called for more subsidies for their first-world farmers.
One rally speaker was Barun Mitra of the Liberty Institute of New Delhi, India.
He announced that they wanted to give a well-deserved award to various Green and anti-globalisation groups that he said were perpetuating poverty in the Third World. He announced that he wanted to grant the "Bullshit Award for Perpetuating Poverty" to the high priestess of the environmental movement - Ms Vandana Shiva. Among the others nominated in this very close contest were Greenpeace, Third World Network, SAFeAge and other such groups. The mere mention of Greenpeace brought loud and derisive remarks from the marchers.
There was general agreement among the marchers that increased productivity, through trade and technology, not only helps in reducing poverty, but also helps in improving the quality of environmental resources. Clearly, increased consumption reflects economic and environmental well-being.
Surely this must have been the environmentalists' worst nightmare. Real poor people marching in the streets and demanding development while opposing the eco-agenda of the Green Left.
These were people who had real concerns. They need development. They need economic prosperity. As one of the street traders told me: "I've got children to feed. I don't want to be a criminal." Her words brought an immediate chorus of agreement from several other woman standing with her.
Meanwhile that day another Green group released another report demanding less free trade, less development, and less prosperity. They specifically said that it would be wrong to economically develop poor nations. Instead we should impoverish wealthy nations so everyone is equal. They called for 'wealth alleviation'.
One of the authors of that report is Green guru Anita Roddick who once gushed the sentiment, "how quickly you could fall in love with the economics of less." The economics of less wouldn't mean much to Roddick. She's a multimillionaire.
But the people in the streets of Sandton couldn't survive on the 'economics of less.' Less to feed their children means the children starve.
Unlike the well-funded anti-globalisation elite these people couldn't afford to fly around the world for conferences. They crammed into small mini-vans just to get to the Summit while UN delegates rode by in chauffeur-driven limousines with police escorts. The street traders couldn't afford a press attaché to contact the media on their behalf. Their media outreach was a loudspeaker attached to the roof of a dilapidated old truck that had to pushed through the streets.
These weren't the poverty pimps from the North: that band of elite Westerners who are paid to lobby full-time on behalf of what they think the poor need.
These people were the poor themselves and they were demanding something that baffles the Left. It is called freedom.
Author: Jim Peron is a freelance researcher and writer. This article may be republished without prior consent but with acknowledgement. The patrons, council and members of the Free Market Foundation do not necessarily agree with the views expressed in the article.
© 2002 Moneyweb. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).
Bulldung Awards for Summit Hypocrites
OPINION
September 3, 2002
Posted to the web September 4, 2002
Jim Peron
Johannesburg
The contrast couldn't be more extreme. Carrying his placard the man in front of me was clearly one of the poorest of the poor. His shoes were not only threadbare, they were tattered, merely rags barely being held together. He shuffled down the streets of affluent Sandton just outside the chic conference centre and the five star hotels where the UN's World Summit on Sustainable Development was being held.
Protesters at such events are expected. Every year affluent Europeans and American who are full-time 'radicals' fly off to demonstrate on behalf of the world's poor. But the poor themselves rarely participate in these elite demonstrations.
This time it was different. Far more different than first meets the eye. You had to read the signs these poor people were carrying to understand how much their message contrasted with that of affluent protesters from the Northern Hemisphere. If you stepped in front of the man with slivers of leather attached to his feet you'd see his sign said: "Trade Not Aid."
The marchers in this protest were mainly poor, virtually all black, and mostly women. They were street traders and farmers. Without fail everyone had a sticker saying :"Freedom to Trade."
Farmers from India marched side by side with Zulu women wearing T-shirts saying: "Biotechnology for Africa."
On the sideline the press and Summit delegates stood aghast. What do you say to poor people with signs reading: "Stop Eco-Imperialism" or "Save the Planet from Sustainable Development" or "Free Trade IS Fair Trade".
The Green Left wants to paint globalisation as rich versus the poor but the rich are supposed to be in favour of free trade and the poor opposed to it. But here the situation was precisely the opposite. The anti-globalisation protesters were those who could afford to fly in on international flights and stay at expensive hotels that local street traders could never afford to visit.
The farmers from India were demanding the right to grow genetically modified crops. Other speakers at the rally demanded the end of subsidies for agriculture in developed countries while English group Oxfam called for more subsidies for their first-world farmers.
One rally speaker was Barun Mitra of the Liberty Institute of New Delhi, India.
He announced that they wanted to give a well-deserved award to various Green and anti-globalisation groups that he said were perpetuating poverty in the Third World. He announced that he wanted to grant the "Bullshit Award for Perpetuating Poverty" to the high priestess of the environmental movement - Ms Vandana Shiva. Among the others nominated in this very close contest were Greenpeace, Third World Network, SAFeAge and other such groups. The mere mention of Greenpeace brought loud and derisive remarks from the marchers.
There was general agreement among the marchers that increased productivity, through trade and technology, not only helps in reducing poverty, but also helps in improving the quality of environmental resources. Clearly, increased consumption reflects economic and environmental well-being.
Surely this must have been the environmentalists' worst nightmare. Real poor people marching in the streets and demanding development while opposing the eco-agenda of the Green Left.
These were people who had real concerns. They need development. They need economic prosperity. As one of the street traders told me: "I've got children to feed. I don't want to be a criminal." Her words brought an immediate chorus of agreement from several other woman standing with her.
Meanwhile that day another Green group released another report demanding less free trade, less development, and less prosperity. They specifically said that it would be wrong to economically develop poor nations. Instead we should impoverish wealthy nations so everyone is equal. They called for 'wealth alleviation'.
One of the authors of that report is Green guru Anita Roddick who once gushed the sentiment, "how quickly you could fall in love with the economics of less." The economics of less wouldn't mean much to Roddick. She's a multimillionaire.
But the people in the streets of Sandton couldn't survive on the 'economics of less.' Less to feed their children means the children starve.
Unlike the well-funded anti-globalisation elite these people couldn't afford to fly around the world for conferences. They crammed into small mini-vans just to get to the Summit while UN delegates rode by in chauffeur-driven limousines with police escorts. The street traders couldn't afford a press attaché to contact the media on their behalf. Their media outreach was a loudspeaker attached to the roof of a dilapidated old truck that had to pushed through the streets.
These weren't the poverty pimps from the North: that band of elite Westerners who are paid to lobby full-time on behalf of what they think the poor need.
These people were the poor themselves and they were demanding something that baffles the Left. It is called freedom.
Author: Jim Peron is a freelance researcher and writer. This article may be republished without prior consent but with acknowledgement. The patrons, council and members of the Free Market Foundation do not necessarily agree with the views expressed in the article.
© 2002 Moneyweb. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).
How much were they paid to impersonate protesters?
So you're going to deny it all? Maybe you cant face the fact that you libbies are smoke blowers.
And did the lobster and steak and caviar eating not happen too?
Youre an asshole, a faker. You do nothing for this planet.
And did the lobster and steak and caviar eating not happen too?
Youre an asshole, a faker. You do nothing for this planet.
Are you going to answer my question?
Is that the 65 dollar question? it's sort of like the question of whether or not you still beat your wife.
Here's a question right back, and can you answer it? How do you know they were paid shills? The world is waiting, idiot.
Here's a question right back, and can you answer it? How do you know they were paid shills? The world is waiting, idiot.
Is that the 65 dollar question? it's sort of like the question of whether or not you still beat your wife.
Here's a question right back, and can you answer it? How do you know they were paid shills? The world is waiting, idiot.
Here's a question right back, and can you answer it? How do you know they were paid shills? The world is waiting, idiot.
The world is waiting for your answer. How do you "know" those people were paid?
And you ignored the stuff about caviar and lobster and steak. I guess that didn't happen either, right? No limosine riders through the streets past the poor?
And you ignored the stuff about caviar and lobster and steak. I guess that didn't happen either, right? No limosine riders through the streets past the poor?
The world is waiting for your answer. How do you "know" those people were paid?
And you ignored the stuff about caviar and lobster and steak. I guess that didn't happen either, right? No limosine riders through the streets past the poor?
And you ignored the stuff about caviar and lobster and steak. I guess that didn't happen either, right? No limosine riders through the streets past the poor?
the only astro rot around here is a bunch of trolls who refuse to go be with their own kind at the freep creep forums, like the guy who calls himself "me"
I don't know. But neither do you know that they were not.
So, all else being equal, when we see desparately poor people acting against their own best interests, and the best interests of their families, the better of the two possible guesses is that they were paid.
>And you ignored the stuff about caviar and lobster and steak.
Old news.
>I guess that didn't happen either, right?
Did I say that? Where?
So, all else being equal, when we see desparately poor people acting against their own best interests, and the best interests of their families, the better of the two possible guesses is that they were paid.
>And you ignored the stuff about caviar and lobster and steak.
Old news.
>I guess that didn't happen either, right?
Did I say that? Where?
How can you say they are speaking out against the best interest of their family? They're HUNGRY, you cosmic idiot! You liberals have full bellys when you protest. How can you speak for them?
Your elitist idiocy knows no bounds.
Your elitist idiocy knows no bounds.
TROLL ALERT
The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.
The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.
Come on, Robert. The world is waiting for your reflex action. Pull the lever. Make that same spam post again. Respond to me by not responding, eh?
>they are speaking out against the best interest of their family? They're HUNGRY,
They are speaking out against the *long term* best interests of their families. They are trading a meal today for hunger tomorrow.
They are speaking out against the *long term* best interests of their families. They are trading a meal today for hunger tomorrow.
Who are YOU to speak for someone who is hungry? Do you stop homeless people from digging in the garbage can because the pickings might be tainted? Do you say "dont eat that. Better to go hungry and die than risk poisoning!?" What choice is it of yours, you busybody idiot? Who do you think you are? Who gave you liberals permission to think your so much better than everyone else?
Like I said, they are going to die anyway, you fucking idiot.
Like I said, they are going to die anyway, you fucking idiot.
If I didn't know better, astroturd acts like some pious Christian, the very thing the liberals hate. Change the name and their all the same.
Sometimes I think you're a blowhard, but you are right about getting rid of the liberals. What i saw here about they knew what was best for someone starving and needy sent chills through me.
I wonder what blacks would think if they read the comments here from elitists whites saying poor African kids can die to uphold the idiocy of Greenpeace and the various other whacko groups?
I wonder what blacks would think if they read the comments here from elitists whites saying poor African kids can die to uphold the idiocy of Greenpeace and the various other whacko groups?
Boycott Greenpeace for Hurting starving people in Africa.
Yeah, has a nice ring to it.
Yeah, has a nice ring to it.
Boycott Greenpeace for Hurting starving people in Africa.
Yeah, has a nice ring to it.
Yeah, has a nice ring to it.
CIA Operative. Yah, okay, geekboy.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0902/jkelly090502.asp
Resurrecting the "Happy Darky"
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |
They've got rhythm. They've got watermelon. They've got quaint folk customs. So what need have they for jobs, for education, for civil rights? So went the "Happy Darky" myth, prevalent among well-off whites in the segregated South of half a century or so ago.
The "Happy Darky" myth is being resurrected in more pernicious form by environmentalists.
The introduction of electricity is "destroying" the cultures of the world's poor, said Gar Smith, who edits "The Edge," the online magazine of the San Francisco-based Earth Island Institute.
With the introduction of electricity, African villagers spend too much time watching television and listening to the radio, Smith said.
George Monbiot, a columnist for the trendy leftist British newspaper the Guardian, said poor people are happier people:
"In southern Ethiopia, the poorest half of the poorest nation on earth, the streets and fields crackle with laughter," Monbiot wrote. "In homes constructed from packing cases and palm leaves, people engage more freely, smile more often, express more affection than we do."
At a taping of a PBS special on the Earth Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, a female panelist decried "the pernicious introduction of the flush toilet."
The World Health Organization estimates that famine in southern Africa will take the lives 300,000 people in the next six months. But delegates and journalists in Johannesburg applauded the dictators of Zambia and Zimbabwe for refusing to let their starving people eat genetically modified American corn.
About 17,000 tons of corn donated by the U.S. Agency for International Development is sitting in storage in Zambia. Greenpeace and Friends of Earth have been lobbying the governments in Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique not to accept the corn.
Americans eat this corn every day. But environmentalists describe it as "toxic." The starving people it was sent to feed have a different opinion: "About all Josephine Namangolwa has in her hungry, weary body is anger, and in an instant it all comes surging out," wrote New York Times correspondent Henri Cauvin Aug. 31. "It has been days since she had a nourishing meal to feed her eight children."
"'We are dying here,' she shouts as aid workers arrive in her village of Chipapa to check on their warehouse and the nearly 500 tons of cornmeal inside...She and the rest of the 2.4 million facing starvation in Zambia will be eating any of this food, or any of the thousands of tons of additional food being shipped from the U.S.," Cauvin wrote.
"Please give us the food," pled an elderly blind man in the village of Shimbala, quoted in a Los Angeles Times dispatch Aug. 28. "We don't care if it's poisonous because we are dying anyway."
There were no empty bellies at the Earth Summit. Dennis Morgan, head chef of the five star Michelango Hotel in the posh Johannesburg suburb of Sandton told the London Sun he had ordered 5,000 oysters, a half ton of lobster and other shellfish, two tons of steak and chicken breasts, and buckets of caviar and foie gras, and gallons of champagne and cognac for the environmentalists to eat and drink.
Southern Africa is drought stricken. But each of the environmentalists was using, on average, 53 gallons of water a day. The 45,000 delegates also generated hundreds of tons of trash. Environmentalists think other people must sacrifice to protect the environment. But not, of course, the environmentalists themselves.
The "Happy Darkies" who environmentalists think can do without electricity, flush toilets and food are not happy with the fate Greenpeace and other environmental organizations would consign them to.
Seven organizations representing small farmers in Africa, India and the Philippines presented to Greenpeace and to two other environmental organizations at the Johannesburg summit a "trophy" consisting of a piece of wood upon which two heaps of dried cow dung had been mounted. They called it the "Bulls...t Trophy."
Barun Mitra, who presented the trophy, called the environmentalists parasites who "prey on the blood of the poor."
"They are not interested in famine or poverty," he said. "This lot is concerned only about their own interests."
----------------------
----------------------
From the New York Times
August 30, 2002
Between Famine and Politics, Zambians Starve
By HENRI E. CAUVIN
USAKA, Zambia, Aug. 29 — About all Josephine Namangolwa has left in her hungry, weary body is anger, and in an instant it all comes surging out.
It has been days since she had a nourishing meal to feed her eight children, victims, like millions of other Zambians, of the deepening food shortage that is sweeping southern Africa.
Yet before her eyes stand sacks and sacks of untouched — and for now untouchable — cornmeal, which has been the foundation of the Zambian diet for generations and is currently at the center of a scientific and diplomatic debate over genetically modified food.
It is an argument that means nothing and everything to Ms. Namangolwa.
"We are dying here," she shouts as aid workers arrive in her village of Chipapa to check on their warehouse and the nearly 500 metric tons of cornmeal stored inside, all of it from the United States and some of it almost certainly from genetically engineered crops. "We want to eat."
For now, however, she and the rest of the hungry in Zambia will not be eating any of the food from Chipapa, or any of the thousands of tons of additional food being shipped to the region from the United States.
President Levy Mwanawasa has banned the distribution of food produced with genetically modified organisms, or G.M.O.'s, laying down a hard line in a debate that has gripped the region for weeks.
The president, along with close advisers and sympathetic scientists, has expressed a number of concerns about G.M.O.'s. Health is one; trade relations with the European Union and the United States is another.
Genetically engineered corn is shipped in two forms, as unmilled kernels and as cornmeal. Zambian officials worry that the kernels might be used as seed, producing genetically modified corn that would cross-pollinate with nonmodified varieties. This would jeopardize Zambian exports to the European Union, which requires all genetically modified products to be so labeled.
A number of people following the debate say that it has at some level turned into an undeclared trade dispute between the European Union with its powerful environmental activists and the United States and its influential biotechnology industry.
With millions of lives in the balance, neither side wants it to look that way, and both have gone to great lengths to keep the trade issue out of the public debate. In a statement today, the European Union mission here all but encouraged Zambia to accept the modified corn, saying that milling would allay its concerns about exports from the country.
But even if the incoming corn were milled into cornmeal, eliminating the risk to the Zambian agriculture industry, the government remained concerned about the suitability of the food for human consumption.
"I have been told it is not safe," the minister of agriculture, Mundia Sikatana, said in an interview.
Asked if he believes such foods are poisonous, Mr. Sikatana said the studies he had read had led him to that conclusion. "What else would you call an allergy caused by a substance? That substance that the person reacts to is poisonous."
All of the talk of toxins and trade has confused many local people, while frustrating the United Nations World Food Program and angering Washington, which is supplying about three-quarters of the food for the W.F.P.'s operations in the region.
The W.F.P., which is feeding just over a million Zambians now, expects to be feeding about 2.5 million by the end of the year.
At the moment, the agency says it has only about 7,000 metric tons of food, or some two weeks worth, approved and available for distribution. About 14,000 tons already in the country, some already milled, some still whole grain, have been frozen by the president's edict. Far larger shipments on the way face the same fate unless Mr. Mwanawasa changes his mind.
In an indication of the matter's urgency, Andrew S. Natsios, the head of the United States Agency for International Development, met with Mr. Mwanawasa this week to urge him to accept the corn and to offer Zambia assistance in assuring that the food is indeed safe.
In an effort to ease Zambia's doubts about the safety of the foods, the agency has offered to fly Zambian scientists to the United States to meet with government and academic researchers. Mr. Natsios maintained that Mr. Mwanawasa was open to the offer and the possibility that it might yield a solution.
"I think he wants more information," Mr. Natsios said. "There's no commitment to change, but I don't think this story is at an end."
Mr. Sikatana said the government has made its decision and can meet the country's needs without American aid. Efforts to bring hundreds of thousands of tons of corn from elsewhere are underway, and Mr. Sikatana said no Zambian will starve.
With each passing day, however, the fates of millions of hungry people around Zambia grow more dire.
Loveness Malupande, who lives not far from Chipapa, in the village of Kabweza, with an extended family of about 24, said her family had sold off all but two of the 20 cattle they had, all to buy stopgap supplies of food, which have since run out. For now, the family is left to scavenge. "We go out in the bush and look for wild roots," she says.
One of her relatives, Cliff Malambo, 27, said he had heard about the food at the warehouse in Chipapa. "They have said that the food is not good for us, but we don't know," he said. "They don't explain."
Many Zambians question the government's statements and wonder why friends who received the American corn before the ban went into effect have not died. Others applaud the government's vigilance. Almost all of them are somewhat befuddled.
"People ask me if it's safe," Steven Grabiner, who runs the Riverside Development Agency, a church-affiliated charity, said. "I say, `Yes, I think it is. If you make me a bowl I'll eat it."'
Foods produced from crops engineered to be more resistant to worms, for example, are now widely consumed in the United States less than a decade after such products first entered the market. By many accounts, they have made American agriculture more productive, but they have also brought controversy.
A number of scientists and consumer advocates argue the effects of genetic engineering on both the environment and consumers have not been adequately examined. Yet, years of extensive testing have not turned up any findings that would suggest such foods are not safe for humans, Marc Cohen, an analyst at the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, said.
While genetically engineered food has almost certainly found its way into Zambia for several years, through international aid or through imports from South Africa, which produces genetically modified crops, the scale was always small and never attracted attention. But the volume of food being brought in for the relief operation is huge, aimed at feeding 13 million people across six countries, and red flags went up.
Mozambique and Zimbabwe at first joined Zambia in resisting the geneticaly modified corn, particularly out of concerns over cross-pollination. Ultimately, Mozambique and Zimbabwe decided to mill the corn before bringing it into the country, eliminating the potential threat to their agricultural sectors.
Zambia so far has balked at milling in part because of the cost, which at $25 a ton is not an inconsequential expense for one of the poorest countries in the world.
Critics of the government say that officials were late drafting a comprehensive policy on genetic engineering and were nowbuying time to try to form one.
"We should be confining our debate in this hour of emergency to corn," said John W. K. Clayton, president of the Zambia National Farmers' Union. "We don't have the luxury of time to launch into broadranging debate on this issue."
"This is the work of the politicians," Ms. Namangolwa said as she looked in on the stockpile of corn. "This meal is O.K. They are not helping us. They are killing us."
Resurrecting the "Happy Darky"
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |
They've got rhythm. They've got watermelon. They've got quaint folk customs. So what need have they for jobs, for education, for civil rights? So went the "Happy Darky" myth, prevalent among well-off whites in the segregated South of half a century or so ago.
The "Happy Darky" myth is being resurrected in more pernicious form by environmentalists.
The introduction of electricity is "destroying" the cultures of the world's poor, said Gar Smith, who edits "The Edge," the online magazine of the San Francisco-based Earth Island Institute.
With the introduction of electricity, African villagers spend too much time watching television and listening to the radio, Smith said.
George Monbiot, a columnist for the trendy leftist British newspaper the Guardian, said poor people are happier people:
"In southern Ethiopia, the poorest half of the poorest nation on earth, the streets and fields crackle with laughter," Monbiot wrote. "In homes constructed from packing cases and palm leaves, people engage more freely, smile more often, express more affection than we do."
At a taping of a PBS special on the Earth Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, a female panelist decried "the pernicious introduction of the flush toilet."
The World Health Organization estimates that famine in southern Africa will take the lives 300,000 people in the next six months. But delegates and journalists in Johannesburg applauded the dictators of Zambia and Zimbabwe for refusing to let their starving people eat genetically modified American corn.
About 17,000 tons of corn donated by the U.S. Agency for International Development is sitting in storage in Zambia. Greenpeace and Friends of Earth have been lobbying the governments in Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique not to accept the corn.
Americans eat this corn every day. But environmentalists describe it as "toxic." The starving people it was sent to feed have a different opinion: "About all Josephine Namangolwa has in her hungry, weary body is anger, and in an instant it all comes surging out," wrote New York Times correspondent Henri Cauvin Aug. 31. "It has been days since she had a nourishing meal to feed her eight children."
"'We are dying here,' she shouts as aid workers arrive in her village of Chipapa to check on their warehouse and the nearly 500 tons of cornmeal inside...She and the rest of the 2.4 million facing starvation in Zambia will be eating any of this food, or any of the thousands of tons of additional food being shipped from the U.S.," Cauvin wrote.
"Please give us the food," pled an elderly blind man in the village of Shimbala, quoted in a Los Angeles Times dispatch Aug. 28. "We don't care if it's poisonous because we are dying anyway."
There were no empty bellies at the Earth Summit. Dennis Morgan, head chef of the five star Michelango Hotel in the posh Johannesburg suburb of Sandton told the London Sun he had ordered 5,000 oysters, a half ton of lobster and other shellfish, two tons of steak and chicken breasts, and buckets of caviar and foie gras, and gallons of champagne and cognac for the environmentalists to eat and drink.
Southern Africa is drought stricken. But each of the environmentalists was using, on average, 53 gallons of water a day. The 45,000 delegates also generated hundreds of tons of trash. Environmentalists think other people must sacrifice to protect the environment. But not, of course, the environmentalists themselves.
The "Happy Darkies" who environmentalists think can do without electricity, flush toilets and food are not happy with the fate Greenpeace and other environmental organizations would consign them to.
Seven organizations representing small farmers in Africa, India and the Philippines presented to Greenpeace and to two other environmental organizations at the Johannesburg summit a "trophy" consisting of a piece of wood upon which two heaps of dried cow dung had been mounted. They called it the "Bulls...t Trophy."
Barun Mitra, who presented the trophy, called the environmentalists parasites who "prey on the blood of the poor."
"They are not interested in famine or poverty," he said. "This lot is concerned only about their own interests."
----------------------
----------------------
From the New York Times
August 30, 2002
Between Famine and Politics, Zambians Starve
By HENRI E. CAUVIN
USAKA, Zambia, Aug. 29 — About all Josephine Namangolwa has left in her hungry, weary body is anger, and in an instant it all comes surging out.
It has been days since she had a nourishing meal to feed her eight children, victims, like millions of other Zambians, of the deepening food shortage that is sweeping southern Africa.
Yet before her eyes stand sacks and sacks of untouched — and for now untouchable — cornmeal, which has been the foundation of the Zambian diet for generations and is currently at the center of a scientific and diplomatic debate over genetically modified food.
It is an argument that means nothing and everything to Ms. Namangolwa.
"We are dying here," she shouts as aid workers arrive in her village of Chipapa to check on their warehouse and the nearly 500 metric tons of cornmeal stored inside, all of it from the United States and some of it almost certainly from genetically engineered crops. "We want to eat."
For now, however, she and the rest of the hungry in Zambia will not be eating any of the food from Chipapa, or any of the thousands of tons of additional food being shipped to the region from the United States.
President Levy Mwanawasa has banned the distribution of food produced with genetically modified organisms, or G.M.O.'s, laying down a hard line in a debate that has gripped the region for weeks.
The president, along with close advisers and sympathetic scientists, has expressed a number of concerns about G.M.O.'s. Health is one; trade relations with the European Union and the United States is another.
Genetically engineered corn is shipped in two forms, as unmilled kernels and as cornmeal. Zambian officials worry that the kernels might be used as seed, producing genetically modified corn that would cross-pollinate with nonmodified varieties. This would jeopardize Zambian exports to the European Union, which requires all genetically modified products to be so labeled.
A number of people following the debate say that it has at some level turned into an undeclared trade dispute between the European Union with its powerful environmental activists and the United States and its influential biotechnology industry.
With millions of lives in the balance, neither side wants it to look that way, and both have gone to great lengths to keep the trade issue out of the public debate. In a statement today, the European Union mission here all but encouraged Zambia to accept the modified corn, saying that milling would allay its concerns about exports from the country.
But even if the incoming corn were milled into cornmeal, eliminating the risk to the Zambian agriculture industry, the government remained concerned about the suitability of the food for human consumption.
"I have been told it is not safe," the minister of agriculture, Mundia Sikatana, said in an interview.
Asked if he believes such foods are poisonous, Mr. Sikatana said the studies he had read had led him to that conclusion. "What else would you call an allergy caused by a substance? That substance that the person reacts to is poisonous."
All of the talk of toxins and trade has confused many local people, while frustrating the United Nations World Food Program and angering Washington, which is supplying about three-quarters of the food for the W.F.P.'s operations in the region.
The W.F.P., which is feeding just over a million Zambians now, expects to be feeding about 2.5 million by the end of the year.
At the moment, the agency says it has only about 7,000 metric tons of food, or some two weeks worth, approved and available for distribution. About 14,000 tons already in the country, some already milled, some still whole grain, have been frozen by the president's edict. Far larger shipments on the way face the same fate unless Mr. Mwanawasa changes his mind.
In an indication of the matter's urgency, Andrew S. Natsios, the head of the United States Agency for International Development, met with Mr. Mwanawasa this week to urge him to accept the corn and to offer Zambia assistance in assuring that the food is indeed safe.
In an effort to ease Zambia's doubts about the safety of the foods, the agency has offered to fly Zambian scientists to the United States to meet with government and academic researchers. Mr. Natsios maintained that Mr. Mwanawasa was open to the offer and the possibility that it might yield a solution.
"I think he wants more information," Mr. Natsios said. "There's no commitment to change, but I don't think this story is at an end."
Mr. Sikatana said the government has made its decision and can meet the country's needs without American aid. Efforts to bring hundreds of thousands of tons of corn from elsewhere are underway, and Mr. Sikatana said no Zambian will starve.
With each passing day, however, the fates of millions of hungry people around Zambia grow more dire.
Loveness Malupande, who lives not far from Chipapa, in the village of Kabweza, with an extended family of about 24, said her family had sold off all but two of the 20 cattle they had, all to buy stopgap supplies of food, which have since run out. For now, the family is left to scavenge. "We go out in the bush and look for wild roots," she says.
One of her relatives, Cliff Malambo, 27, said he had heard about the food at the warehouse in Chipapa. "They have said that the food is not good for us, but we don't know," he said. "They don't explain."
Many Zambians question the government's statements and wonder why friends who received the American corn before the ban went into effect have not died. Others applaud the government's vigilance. Almost all of them are somewhat befuddled.
"People ask me if it's safe," Steven Grabiner, who runs the Riverside Development Agency, a church-affiliated charity, said. "I say, `Yes, I think it is. If you make me a bowl I'll eat it."'
Foods produced from crops engineered to be more resistant to worms, for example, are now widely consumed in the United States less than a decade after such products first entered the market. By many accounts, they have made American agriculture more productive, but they have also brought controversy.
A number of scientists and consumer advocates argue the effects of genetic engineering on both the environment and consumers have not been adequately examined. Yet, years of extensive testing have not turned up any findings that would suggest such foods are not safe for humans, Marc Cohen, an analyst at the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, said.
While genetically engineered food has almost certainly found its way into Zambia for several years, through international aid or through imports from South Africa, which produces genetically modified crops, the scale was always small and never attracted attention. But the volume of food being brought in for the relief operation is huge, aimed at feeding 13 million people across six countries, and red flags went up.
Mozambique and Zimbabwe at first joined Zambia in resisting the geneticaly modified corn, particularly out of concerns over cross-pollination. Ultimately, Mozambique and Zimbabwe decided to mill the corn before bringing it into the country, eliminating the potential threat to their agricultural sectors.
Zambia so far has balked at milling in part because of the cost, which at $25 a ton is not an inconsequential expense for one of the poorest countries in the world.
Critics of the government say that officials were late drafting a comprehensive policy on genetic engineering and were nowbuying time to try to form one.
"We should be confining our debate in this hour of emergency to corn," said John W. K. Clayton, president of the Zambia National Farmers' Union. "We don't have the luxury of time to launch into broadranging debate on this issue."
"This is the work of the politicians," Ms. Namangolwa said as she looked in on the stockpile of corn. "This meal is O.K. They are not helping us. They are killing us."
grrrrrrrrr .... ruff! ruff ruff ruff! ...... grrrrrrr ........ leftists are uhm uh uhm right wing Nazis! yeah that's it! ..... grrrrrr .... arf arf! don't call me TrollNerd! arrrrr ..... rufff! ruff, ruff, ruff!!!!!
Starving people are to be dissmissed. Isn't that the new policy of liberalism? My photoshop skills aren't much, but I know what the true message is. I'm not posting adolesscent pictures to deflect the fact I'm a know nothing asshole who doesn't care if third world babies starve. But a liberal only talks. They never walk the walk, unless theres a rock group and dope around.
Go ahead, obese Greenpeace chimp. Stuff another handfull of caviar down your gullet. Then pull the lever.
Go ahead, obese Greenpeace chimp. Stuff another handfull of caviar down your gullet. Then pull the lever.
"my photoshop skills aren't much"
"I'm not posting adolesscent pictures"
Get your foot out of your mouth, TrollNerd
"I'm not posting adolesscent pictures"
Get your foot out of your mouth, TrollNerd
Why do you deny the serious nature of my posts? You sit there in front of a computer no hungry third worlder can afford. Yet with a full stomach you post pictures of barking dogs and call me and my kind a troll while at this very instant someone over there might be dying. In it's last breath you sit there and belch and make jokes, never telling the truth.
No, what you will do is toe the party line. The focus has shifted. Hungry people arent important anymore. Only following the crowd is. Youre a lemming. You don't have a thought in your head that is truly yours.
Pull the lever, Earth First chimp.
No, what you will do is toe the party line. The focus has shifted. Hungry people arent important anymore. Only following the crowd is. Youre a lemming. You don't have a thought in your head that is truly yours.
Pull the lever, Earth First chimp.
"Why do you deny the serious nature of my posts? "
OK, now that's pretty funny. Someone smarter than you told you to go post some false news article here and you think your posts are therefore "serious"?!? like your little adolescent photoshop jobs of Klansmen with Greenpeace logos you pasted on ?!? Come on.
OK, now that's pretty funny. Someone smarter than you told you to go post some false news article here and you think your posts are therefore "serious"?!? like your little adolescent photoshop jobs of Klansmen with Greenpeace logos you pasted on ?!? Come on.
I love it when idiot elitists have shit running down their leg. Which article is false? The one from YOUR leftist rag the New York Slimes? Or the LA Times article relayed through Black Voices.com?
Be specific. Give examples. What did you see that you're going to now claim you didn't?
Be specific. Give examples. What did you see that you're going to now claim you didn't?
What's false about elitists eating obscenely in a place where there is so many hungry? We're still waiting, asshole. What's false? Give examples. Don't make a global statement like a child and post doggie pictures again. I posted articles to make my case. Take the articles and pick it apart. just don't prove your stupidity by NOT addressing it.
Greenpeace guy: the left parted ways with Greenpeace long ago. If you want to start a thread about Greenpeace, go do so. This thread is about Prop N.
Getting back on subject.......
THE POLITICS OF POVERTY = THE POVERTY OF POLITICS
Once again, San Francisco voters are being forced to have the final say in how San Francisco administers its homeless program.
Thankfully, very few of you have ever been homeless, and know little of what it is like to live in, or to work in the City’s homeless programs. Regrettably, this lack of knowledge is often exploited by those whose ambition for political power exceeds their compassion for their community.
San Francisco’s Local Homeless Coordinating Board is an official governmental body created through legislation passed by the Board of Supervisors and signed by the Mayor. The Local Board (an initiative of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development — HUD) was created to "ensure the accountability and oversight of the proposed system of programs, policies and services" of local homeless programs.
In March 2000, a Freedom Of Information Act request from the Coalition on Homelessness forced Mayor Willie Brown and his political machine operatives in the Mayor’s Office on Homelessness and at the Departments of Human Services, Public Health, Public Works, etc., to present to the Local Homeless Coordinating Board and the community a plan they developed during a series of secret meetings City staff held on Treasure Island. The plan was to "redesign" our emergency shelter system so that homeless County Adult Assistance Program (CAAP) recipients would be required to turn over all but $60.00 of their monthly welfare check in exchange for a shelter bed (see STREET SHEET, April 2000).
Sound familiar?
The Local Homeless Coordinating Board, as it is supposed to do, researched this proposal, did an assessment of its impact with homeless service providers and homeless people, and cited its findings through the drafting of its five year plan, called the "Continuum of Care." The federal government requires a Continuum of Care plan from any community seeking federal funds for its homeless programs. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed our Continuum of Care plan 11-0.
The Mayor refused to sign it.
The Local Homeless Coordinating Board completely rejected the shelter "redesign" plan from the Mayor’s office.
The Mayor was pissed.
Supervisor Gavin Newsom voted in support of the Continuum of Care plan, but after some meetings with the Mayor and his staff, and some polling by his political consultants, decided that local frustration and anger regarding homelessness represented too ripe an opportunity for advancing his political career to turn down.
Prop. N, or "Care Not Cash" was born.
After a couple of quick, taxpayer-financed junkets with staff from DHS, DPH and the Mayor’s Homeless Coordinator to New York City, Chicago and points unknown, Newsom issued a press release with 22 proposals to "solve" the local homeless problem (see STREET SHEET Feb. 2002). The cornerstone of this was the recently rejected "redesign" proposal Newsom now touts to voters as his own plan — a plan that he authored.
The Mayor’s internal — and therefore much more honest — "redesign" proposal made no pretense about its intentions. It was designed to remove the presence of homeless people from downtown and save money by converting our shelter system into a "pay as you go" program.
It also projected big savings because it recognized that some of the people currently identified as homeless on the CAAP rolls either wouldn’t or couldn’t stay in a shelter, and would then be cut from benefits. Marginally housed people (as many poor people are), staying with family, friends, etc. but not on the lease, as well as many disabled people or those living in their vehicles, would be discontinued from cash aid.
This was all seen as a good thing by the Mayor for three primary reasons. First and foremost, it would appease downtown business interests. Second, it would reduce the City’s homeless program budget without impacting the $100,000 per year bureaucrats who "oversee" it. And last but not least, the City would reduce the CAAP budget (by forcing people off it) without impacting the $100,000 yearly salaries of the bureaucrats who oversee that.
This plan was rejected for three primary reasons as well. First and foremost was the obvious, drastic increase in homelessness and suffering it would cause. Second, it would be a very expensive, administrative nightmare to implement. Third, even if you could get this system to work (which is doubtful) you’ll have achieved absolutely nothing.
Proposition N is Willie Brown’s shelter redesign proposal — with a lot less detail in it and a lot more bells and whistles on top.
Brown’s staff wouldn’t even try to sell providers and homeless people that, magically, there will appear this plethora of treatment, hotel rooms and "services."
Newsom’s campaign staffers are convinced that with the voter’s lack of knowledge on these issues they can sell the general public on it.
We at the Coalition implore you to look beyond the hype of political campaigns and tourist industry billboards.
Ballot measures are not needed for the City to implement changes to our homeless program such as Proposition N. The City already has that authority. In fact, there exist several excellent, broadly-supported program changes in the Continuum of Care Plan, as well as the "Community Proposal" (see Feb. 2002 STREET SHEET) on homeless program accountability.
The Mayor’s office has done everything in its power to stymie these proposals, and Newsom voted AGAINST $50,000.00 funding for a transportation program for homeless families in last June’s budget hearings — about what he spent on one 30 second commercial trying to convince all of us how much he cares about homeless people.
If Prop. N had the support of those with the greatest knowledge of homeless issues it would have been included in San Francisco’s Continuum of Care plan. It would have been passed by the Board of Supervisors and signed into being by the Mayor.
Please help us put an end to this growing practice of demonizing homeless people to gain political points. Read the information in this STREET SHEET. Join with people who know this issue from all perspectives.
Reject Proposition N.
To learn more, or to get involved, please check out the
Committee Against Increased Homelessness: http://www.nomorehomelessness.org.
Getting back on subject.......
THE POLITICS OF POVERTY = THE POVERTY OF POLITICS
Once again, San Francisco voters are being forced to have the final say in how San Francisco administers its homeless program.
Thankfully, very few of you have ever been homeless, and know little of what it is like to live in, or to work in the City’s homeless programs. Regrettably, this lack of knowledge is often exploited by those whose ambition for political power exceeds their compassion for their community.
San Francisco’s Local Homeless Coordinating Board is an official governmental body created through legislation passed by the Board of Supervisors and signed by the Mayor. The Local Board (an initiative of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development — HUD) was created to "ensure the accountability and oversight of the proposed system of programs, policies and services" of local homeless programs.
In March 2000, a Freedom Of Information Act request from the Coalition on Homelessness forced Mayor Willie Brown and his political machine operatives in the Mayor’s Office on Homelessness and at the Departments of Human Services, Public Health, Public Works, etc., to present to the Local Homeless Coordinating Board and the community a plan they developed during a series of secret meetings City staff held on Treasure Island. The plan was to "redesign" our emergency shelter system so that homeless County Adult Assistance Program (CAAP) recipients would be required to turn over all but $60.00 of their monthly welfare check in exchange for a shelter bed (see STREET SHEET, April 2000).
Sound familiar?
The Local Homeless Coordinating Board, as it is supposed to do, researched this proposal, did an assessment of its impact with homeless service providers and homeless people, and cited its findings through the drafting of its five year plan, called the "Continuum of Care." The federal government requires a Continuum of Care plan from any community seeking federal funds for its homeless programs. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed our Continuum of Care plan 11-0.
The Mayor refused to sign it.
The Local Homeless Coordinating Board completely rejected the shelter "redesign" plan from the Mayor’s office.
The Mayor was pissed.
Supervisor Gavin Newsom voted in support of the Continuum of Care plan, but after some meetings with the Mayor and his staff, and some polling by his political consultants, decided that local frustration and anger regarding homelessness represented too ripe an opportunity for advancing his political career to turn down.
Prop. N, or "Care Not Cash" was born.
After a couple of quick, taxpayer-financed junkets with staff from DHS, DPH and the Mayor’s Homeless Coordinator to New York City, Chicago and points unknown, Newsom issued a press release with 22 proposals to "solve" the local homeless problem (see STREET SHEET Feb. 2002). The cornerstone of this was the recently rejected "redesign" proposal Newsom now touts to voters as his own plan — a plan that he authored.
The Mayor’s internal — and therefore much more honest — "redesign" proposal made no pretense about its intentions. It was designed to remove the presence of homeless people from downtown and save money by converting our shelter system into a "pay as you go" program.
It also projected big savings because it recognized that some of the people currently identified as homeless on the CAAP rolls either wouldn’t or couldn’t stay in a shelter, and would then be cut from benefits. Marginally housed people (as many poor people are), staying with family, friends, etc. but not on the lease, as well as many disabled people or those living in their vehicles, would be discontinued from cash aid.
This was all seen as a good thing by the Mayor for three primary reasons. First and foremost, it would appease downtown business interests. Second, it would reduce the City’s homeless program budget without impacting the $100,000 per year bureaucrats who "oversee" it. And last but not least, the City would reduce the CAAP budget (by forcing people off it) without impacting the $100,000 yearly salaries of the bureaucrats who oversee that.
This plan was rejected for three primary reasons as well. First and foremost was the obvious, drastic increase in homelessness and suffering it would cause. Second, it would be a very expensive, administrative nightmare to implement. Third, even if you could get this system to work (which is doubtful) you’ll have achieved absolutely nothing.
Proposition N is Willie Brown’s shelter redesign proposal — with a lot less detail in it and a lot more bells and whistles on top.
Brown’s staff wouldn’t even try to sell providers and homeless people that, magically, there will appear this plethora of treatment, hotel rooms and "services."
Newsom’s campaign staffers are convinced that with the voter’s lack of knowledge on these issues they can sell the general public on it.
We at the Coalition implore you to look beyond the hype of political campaigns and tourist industry billboards.
Ballot measures are not needed for the City to implement changes to our homeless program such as Proposition N. The City already has that authority. In fact, there exist several excellent, broadly-supported program changes in the Continuum of Care Plan, as well as the "Community Proposal" (see Feb. 2002 STREET SHEET) on homeless program accountability.
The Mayor’s office has done everything in its power to stymie these proposals, and Newsom voted AGAINST $50,000.00 funding for a transportation program for homeless families in last June’s budget hearings — about what he spent on one 30 second commercial trying to convince all of us how much he cares about homeless people.
If Prop. N had the support of those with the greatest knowledge of homeless issues it would have been included in San Francisco’s Continuum of Care plan. It would have been passed by the Board of Supervisors and signed into being by the Mayor.
Please help us put an end to this growing practice of demonizing homeless people to gain political points. Read the information in this STREET SHEET. Join with people who know this issue from all perspectives.
Reject Proposition N.
To learn more, or to get involved, please check out the
Committee Against Increased Homelessness: http://www.nomorehomelessness.org.
The subject is about homeless, and poor, and hungry, and the fakers blowing smoke, just to hear themselves bitch and moan. You liberals don't like how it's pointed out you're talking a lot of shit but not doing a fucking thing, same as its always been. We all can agree that you pompous assholes will blame the Right for not doing anything, eh? I'm just showing how you losers are nothing more than talkers yourself. Blowhard hypocrites is the foundastion of the left. And don't tell me that Greenpeace has become something Republican, except that its a business? Just why have you washed your hands of ecoNazi's?
As for poopbrain, who refuses to see anything, who said i posted fake stuff about the obscenity of gorging pigs which are liberals in a frenzy blocks from the poor they claim to care for, I found a few links from the Guardian, the news of record for limp wristed America haters everywhere. Let pooperbrain ignore that.
As for poopbrain, who refuses to see anything, who said i posted fake stuff about the obscenity of gorging pigs which are liberals in a frenzy blocks from the poor they claim to care for, I found a few links from the Guardian, the news of record for limp wristed America haters everywhere. Let pooperbrain ignore that.
The subject is about homeless, and poor, and hungry, and the fakers blowing smoke, just to hear themselves bitch and moan. You liberals don't like how it's pointed out you're talking a lot of shit but not doing a fucking thing, same as its always been. We all can agree that you pompous assholes will blame the Right for not doing anything, eh? I'm just showing how you losers are nothing more than talkers yourself. Blowhard hypocrites is the foundastion of the left. And don't tell me that Greenpeace has become something Republican, except that its a business? Just why have you washed your hands of ecoNazi's?
As for poopbrain, who refuses to see anything, who said i posted fake stuff about the obscenity of gorging pigs which are liberals in a frenzy blocks from the poor they claim to care for, I found a few links from the Guardian, the news of record for limp wristed America haters everywhere. Let pooperbrain ignore that.
http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,784195,00.html
http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,5500,788711,00.html
http://www.observer.co.uk/foodmonthly/story/0,9950,786475,00.html
http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,789600,00.html
http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,788079,00.html
As for poopbrain, who refuses to see anything, who said i posted fake stuff about the obscenity of gorging pigs which are liberals in a frenzy blocks from the poor they claim to care for, I found a few links from the Guardian, the news of record for limp wristed America haters everywhere. Let pooperbrain ignore that.
http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,784195,00.html
http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,5500,788711,00.html
http://www.observer.co.uk/foodmonthly/story/0,9950,786475,00.html
http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,789600,00.html
http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,788079,00.html
Do you need instructions on how to post your own topic?
This topic is about Prop N specifically, not Greenpeace and not Africa.
It is very rude to go off-topic in the thread. Show some manners.
This topic is about Prop N specifically, not Greenpeace and not Africa.
It is very rude to go off-topic in the thread. Show some manners.
If you are totally urged to respond - it took me awhile to learn this - then simply title your post "troll alert" and write "The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.
Maybe overall it's a question of whether you people should be taken seriously. If I was young and impressionable I'm not sure I would choose liberalism at this point. The liberals aren't known for being morally stable. If they can't stand up for the Africans, then why should we believe the libs will really care for the homeless in California? When will the wind blow and they'll be off to the next fad?
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$330.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network