American Hezbollah Party endorses Bush: http://www.hezbollah.ws/

This is to announce that the Cabal of the Red Herring has Officially
Endorsed the American Hezbollah Party in the upcoming American

After which they had a grand pickleing..........

I
would urge all Cabals and independents to do the same, as Ficus has

yesterday's man, so to speak.

St. Dave, P.R.E., S.O.B.

"stoney" <stoney@localhost.localdomain> wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 05:03:57 +0000, Fredric L. Rice wrote:

NYC Cop Charged for Not Arresting Homeless
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-brf-defiant-officer,0,7922295..story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines
"I'm a good police officer," he said.

The man should be in the top slot on the force.

He thinks for himself. That makes him unqualified, alas.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 12:56:32 -0700, "stoney"
<stoney@localhost.localdomain> wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 05:03:57 +0000, Fredric L. Rice wrote:

NYC Cop Charged for Not Arresting Homeless

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-brf-defiant-officer,0,7922295..story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines

NEW YORK -- The police department put an officer on trial Wednesday for
refusing to arrest a homeless man who was sleeping in a parking garage.

Eduardo Delacruz, 39, could be kicked off the force if an administrative
judge finds him guilty of failing to obey a lawful order.

The incident occurred in November 2002 shortly after the department
adopted a zero-tolerance policy to violations by homeless people.

An attorney for Delacruz, Norman Siegel, accused officials of punishing
his client for following his conscience. Delacruz "saw the homeless as
people and showed them dignity and respect," Siegel said.

Police lawyer David Green argued that Delacruz's personal beliefs are
"completely irrelevant" and the case "begins and ends with the refusal
of an order."

The officer told reporters outside court that he hoped to keep his badge.

"I'm a good police officer," he said.

The man should be in the top slot on the force.

I was in Auburn, the burb I live in, near the train station yesterday,
and the person with me was marvelling at how they'd CLEANED UP the
area. It was true, nice little new, clean, restaurants and yuppie
shops.

So I ask (this person is in real estate and knows this stuff) "how,
exactly, do they 'clean up' a place like this?" The answer is that
they raise the rent through the roof. The old dirty places and people
are forced out and new kleen spiffy places move in. The new spiffy
places have to charge a lot for whatever they make money on to make
the high rents.

The IDEA being, that then new spiffy kleen peeple are supposed to be
attracted to the place, partly because the new spiffy shops offer
things they can't get elsewhere, and anyway now they don't have to rub
elbows with dirty peeple.

Of course the obvious thing, that in making this new kleen spiffy
place, they are building a ghetto somewhere else as the people who
were forced out have to go somewhere, had never crossed this other
person's mind. It neve seems to cross anybody's mind. They seem to
think that if you CHARGE more, and people PAY more, then VIOLA
ALAKAZAM, you've created more money and EVERYBODY WINS.

THEY HAVE TO GO SOMEWHERE. You can chase off the bad peeplez who were
there but short of concentration camps they aren't going to just
disappear. Likewise the homeless. Law enforcement on the homeless
seems to be to make them go SOMEWHERE ELSE with the vague assumption
that they will just VANISH. Social policy regarding the homeless
never seems to go further than law enforcement.

People want to believe that the slums are the slums because those BAD
PEEPLEZ who live there won't keep them up. That may be true, but as
long as we keep concentrating no-money populations into one
concentrated area, we will never know. You just can't do much with a
place if you have no money.