| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Miami Parks hostile to kayakers
I know it's political, EVERYTHING is political. Whether in my
bicycles--that go unused--or my kayaks--that now will go unused--I feel at the bottom end of the food chain. Polluting SUVs and motorboats have it all; bikers and kayakers, get the scraps--if any. Whether we are intimidated or regulated, we face the beast. It's a jungle out there... Where's the law? Things get more difficult all the time... Beautiful day for kayaking. Perfect where I live, since I live here, in a wild place, mostly because I can walk to the bay, barely one block away. So I just walked my kayak there until I heard someone--the park guard--screaming. "No kayaks here!" "Why!?" I said. "Well, regulations," he barked back. "But is there any law?" I insisted. He informed me that the Parks Department doesn't want any legal suit from people hurting themselves on the rocks... According to that logic, the medical profession would be banned because you can bring suits against doctors... And then I asked him if he didn't do anything about a homeless couple near us, a common sight at the park. He challenged me, "do they bother you?" And I say they don't bother me in quickly passing through the park, but they sure scare the average family. In effect, most of our parks remain no man's land. Anyway I didn't take "no" for an answer, and I had him call the police. But, of course, lion helps lion, and I was almost swallowed. And they say they serve the community... I asked them why they don't take care of the homeless in the park, and they anwered back that that was a different issue. Thinking to myself, "shouldn't the issue be a clean, safe park?" And then I asked, "where's the law that prevents me from launching a kayak at this park?" They clued me in there's no law, only the law of the guard, and roared at me to get lost at once or else... And I say, I know that law, THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE... NOTE: I called the Parks Department later and they confirmed the prohibition. So a member of the community trying to have fun out there is restricted by the "law"; the homeless though got the law on their side. Where's the law? *** THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE Once upon a time, in the deep jungle, lived a Lion and a Monkey... One day the Monkey, tired of the Lion always taking the LION'S SHARE, and seeing that such injustice represented a danger to all the species of the jungle, demanded JUSTICE... The Lion, yawning and stretching, said, "You would have to have paws and sharp teeth..." Then the Monkey, who was very clever, devised a plan: He would go to the costume store, and look like a lion... When the Lion saw him, noticing that the new lion wasn't a match for him, and fearing COMPETITION, killed him on the spot --before the indifferent look of the little animals of the jungle... And that's how the Law of the Jungle was re-established one more time... NOTE: Other monkeys survived him... http://committed.to/justiceforpeace |
|
On 21 Nov 2004 07:40:13 -0800, (DonQuijote1954) wrote: I know it's political, EVERYTHING is political. Whether in my bicycles--that go unused--or my kayaks--that now will go unused--I feel at the bottom end of the food chain. Polluting SUVs and motorboats have it all; bikers and kayakers, get the scraps--if any. Whether we are intimidated or regulated, we face the beast. It's a jungle out there... Where's the law? Things get more difficult all the time... Beautiful day for kayaking. Perfect where I live, since I live here, in a wild place, mostly because I can walk to the bay, barely one block away. So I just walked my kayak there until I heard someone--the park guard--screaming. "No kayaks here!" "Why!?" I said. "Well, regulations," he barked back. "But is there any law?" I insisted. He informed me that the Parks Department doesn't want any legal suit from people hurting themselves on the rocks... According to that logic, the medical profession would be banned because you can bring suits against doctors... And then I asked him if he didn't do anything about a homeless couple near us, a common sight at the park. He challenged me, "do they bother you?" And I say they don't bother me in quickly passing through the park, but they sure scare the average family. In effect, most of our parks remain no man's land. Anyway I didn't take "no" for an answer, and I had him call the police. But, of course, lion helps lion, and I was almost swallowed. And they say they serve the community... I asked them why they don't take care of the homeless in the park, and they anwered back that that was a different issue. Thinking to myself, "shouldn't the issue be a clean, safe park?" And then I asked, "where's the law that prevents me from launching a kayak at this park?" They clued me in there's no law, only the law of the guard, and roared at me to get lost at once or else... And I say, I know that law, THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE... NOTE: I called the Parks Department later and they confirmed the prohibition. So a member of the community trying to have fun out there is restricted by the "law"; the homeless though got the law on their side. Where's the law? *** THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE Once upon a time, in the deep jungle, lived a Lion and a Monkey... One day the Monkey, tired of the Lion always taking the LION'S SHARE, and seeing that such injustice represented a danger to all the species of the jungle, demanded JUSTICE... The Lion, yawning and stretching, said, "You would have to have paws and sharp teeth..." Then the Monkey, who was very clever, devised a plan: He would go to the costume store, and look like a lion... When the Lion saw him, noticing that the new lion wasn't a match for him, and fearing COMPETITION, killed him on the spot --before the indifferent look of the little animals of the jungle... And that's how the Law of the Jungle was re-established one more time... NOTE: Other monkeys survived him... http://committed.to/justiceforpeace Dude, it's a stupid park with a stupid rule. Get some perspective and start lobbying. Call your state legislator he lives close. Try to sound unstoned and persuasive. Ron |
Ronsonic wrote in message . ..
Dude, it's a stupid park with a stupid rule. Get some perspective and start lobbying. Call your state legislator he lives close. Try to sound unstoned and persuasive. Ron Thanks all. Or else move. I got no patience to deal with the foxes... It's ironic that whether bicycling or kayaking you ALWAYS find yourself at the wrong end of the food chain for doing WHAT'S RIGHT. I grew political out of necessity and now only hope a revolution of some sort will come from the sky. Hallelujah!!! ;) "It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." -Charles Darwin EVOLVE OR ELSE! Once upon a time lived a race of dinosaurs whose violence and appetite alarmed everybody... One day a Little Ant, tired of feeling stepped upon, and worried about her cooperative enterprise, came up to the Americanus Raptor--the biggest dinosaur of them all--and asked: "Why you eat and eat everything in your path? Why don't you slim down? Why can't we little animals at least have our own way?" Then the dinosaur, blowing the Little Ant away, shouted: "Bigger is better, so get lost!" The Little Ant, then, gathered the whole cooperative and said: "Comrades, our world is being threatened by the dinosaurs, so..." And at that precise moment the Earth was hit by a big ball of fire, destroying all but the small animals... |
DonQuijote1954 wrote:
I know it's political, EVERYTHING is political. Whether in my bicycles--that go unused--or my kayaks--that now will go unused--I feel at the bottom end of the food chain. Polluting SUVs and motorboats have it all; bikers and kayakers, get the scraps--if any. Whether we are intimidated or regulated, we face the beast. It's a jungle out there... And what would you like done with the homeless? Have them scooped up and dispatched to some burnt out industrial district so they can't make the yuppies nervous when they go for strolls in the park? |
"Jacobe Hazzard" wrote in message
... DonQuijote1954 wrote: I know it's political, EVERYTHING is political. Whether in my bicycles--that go unused--or my kayaks--that now will go unused--I feel at the bottom end of the food chain. Polluting SUVs and motorboats have it all; bikers and kayakers, get the scraps--if any. Whether we are intimidated or regulated, we face the beast. It's a jungle out there... And what would you like done with the homeless? Have them scooped up and dispatched to some burnt out industrial district so they can't make the yuppies nervous when they go for strolls in the park? Two words: HOMELESS SHELTER |
|
Felsenmeer wrote:
And what would you like done with the homeless? Have them scooped up and dispatched to some burnt out industrial district so they can't make the yuppies nervous when they go for strolls in the park? Two words: HOMELESS SHELTER OK so we lock them away in 'shelters' from which they are not free to leave. That's f***ing brilliant. My point was the OPs apparent hypocrisy in being outraged about kayaking being banned as 'potentially dangerous' and in the same breath condemning the homeless as 'potentially threatening'. The fact is, a park is a much nicer place to be than a homeless shelter. Have you ever seen the inside of one? My reading of his arguments (which really needn't have involved the homeless at all, as they were irrelevant to his kayaking problem) was a sort of juvenille, "If I can't play here then why should they?" How can he demand respect for people who go without motor vehicles, for whatever personal reasons they have, if he's completely unable to respect people who go without homes for their own personal reasons? It's easy to see how the most common complaints one might have about the homeless (IE they're dirt poor, are probably crazy and are homeless because they can't manage a real lifestyle, they're an inconvenience and a hazard to the rest of us) could easily be applied to a cyclist by a motorist. And if we can say nothing else for homelessness, we can be sure it has less environmental impact than owning a home, even a home with no SUVs. |
And what would you like done with the homeless? Have them scooped up and dispatched to some burnt out industrial district so they can't make the yuppies nervous when they go for strolls in the park? Two words: HOMELESS SHELTER OK so we lock them away in 'shelters' from which they are not free to leave. That's f***ing brilliant. I have yet to see a homeless shelter in which the homeless are "locked away" and are "not free to leave." Do these exist in your country? They don't in mine. My point was the OPs apparent hypocrisy in being outraged about kayaking being banned as 'potentially dangerous' and in the same breath condemning the homeless as 'potentially threatening'. The fact is, a park is a much nicer place to be than a homeless shelter. Have you ever seen the inside of one? My reading of his arguments (which really needn't have involved the homeless at all, as they were irrelevant to his kayaking problem) was a sort of juvenille, "If I can't play here then why should they?" The public in general *does* feel uncomfortable with homeless people, warranted or not. A park may be a much nicer place than a shelter to a homeless person, but a park is *not* a nicer place for the public when it becomes a collecting point for the homeless. You obviously have some sort of thing for the homeless, and that's good. But I think if you're going to intellectually honest, you're going to have to realize that the public at large in general does not approve of having their parks turned into impromptu homeless shelters. So... you've missed the point. People typically feel somewhat threatened by the homeless, yet they have free rein of the place. People do *not* typically feel threatened by sea kayakers, yet they're prohibited. This makes no sense. It's not an issue of "play." It's easy to see how the most common complaints one might have about the homeless (IE they're dirt poor, are probably crazy and are homeless because they can't manage a real lifestyle, they're an inconvenience and a hazard to the rest of us) could easily be applied to a cyclist by a motorist. Huh? That's silly hyperbole. Unless, of course, you truly believe that bicyclists are dirt poor, crazy, and can't manage a real lifestyle. And if we can say nothing else for homelessness, we can be sure it has less environmental impact than owning a home, even a home with no SUVs. What does this have to do with the whole thing? Within the context of this thread, where does the environmental impact of homelessness come into play? |
|
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:58:15 -0500, "Jacobe Hazzard"
wrote: DonQuijote1954 wrote: I know it's political, EVERYTHING is political. Whether in my bicycles--that go unused--or my kayaks--that now will go unused--I feel at the bottom end of the food chain. Polluting SUVs and motorboats have it all; bikers and kayakers, get the scraps--if any. Whether we are intimidated or regulated, we face the beast. It's a jungle out there... And what would you like done with the homeless? Have them scooped up and dispatched to some burnt out industrial district so they can't make the yuppies nervous when they go for strolls in the park? I too wondered what the OP thought he would accomplish bringing in the homeless to his arguement for the right to kayak. I also felt that it made him sound petty. One has "nothing" to do with the other and if he continues to include his rant on the homeless, it will just blur his arguement for kayaking. Life is Good! Jeff |
Felsenmeer wrote:
And what would you like done with the homeless? Have them scooped up and dispatched to some burnt out industrial district so they can't make the yuppies nervous when they go for strolls in the park? Two words: HOMELESS SHELTER OK so we lock them away in 'shelters' from which they are not free to leave. That's f***ing brilliant. I have yet to see a homeless shelter in which the homeless are "locked away" and are "not free to leave." Do these exist in your country? They don't in mine. You'll have to forgive me if I misunderstood your two words, I was filling in some blanks for myself. I assumed that you meant for the homeless in question to be removed to a homeless shelter, either forcibly or through strong encouragement. If it's the case that the homeless are not kept prisoner in their shelters (and it is, both in your country and mine), then how do the two words 'HOMELESS SHELTER' solve the problem of homeless that choose to inhabit a public piece of land? The public in general *does* feel uncomfortable with homeless people, warranted or not. The general driving public *does* feel uncomfortable sharing the road with cyclists. A park may be a much nicer place than a shelter to a homeless person, but a park is *not* a nicer place for the public when it becomes a collecting point for the homeless. The road may be the nicest place for a cyclist on the go, but it is *not* the nicest place for SUVs when it becomes a collecting point for slow moving poorly protected vehicles. You obviously have some sort of thing for the homeless, and that's good. But I think if you're going to intellectually honest, you're going to have to realize that the public at large in general does not approve of having their parks turned into impromptu homeless shelters. If the public is so concerned about some homeless people in a park, whom to the best of my knowledge have never been known to do anything illegal or threatening, then maybe there's a problem with the public? Maybe, and bear with me here, we should treat the homeless like others, innocent until proven guilty? So... you've missed the point. People typically feel somewhat threatened by the homeless, yet they have free rein of the place. People do *not* typically feel threatened by sea kayakers, yet they're prohibited. This makes no sense. It's not an issue of "play." You've missed *my* point. The OP was expressing his dissatisfaction with being marginalized by society. He feels that he is being oppressed by the LAW OF THE JUNGLE, by which the mightier creatures, those driving cars and motorboats, backed by money and the law, are keeping him from pursuing his innocent interests. He also has a holier-than-thou attitude towards those making use of polluting forms of transportation/recreation. In the same sentences he tries to marginalize the homeless in the exact same way, on the same flimsy pretexts, using the same laws of the land, and completely ignores the environmental impact of his owning a home (not insignificant). I was not arguing that the homeless are more fun to have around than kayakers, or safer, or anything like that. I was pointing out a glaring double standard in the OP. This kind of hypocrisy upsets me, like the person who will gladly steal from a big corporation (it's not like they need the money, piracy is a victimless crime) but refuses to give to the needy (why should they get handouts from MY pocket?). In the end, his arguments boil down to a very selfish demand for respect, and respect is not something he's willing to give in return. |
"Jacobe Hazzard" wrote in message ...
DonQuijote1954 wrote: I know it's political, EVERYTHING is political. Whether in my bicycles--that go unused--or my kayaks--that now will go unused--I feel at the bottom end of the food chain. Polluting SUVs and motorboats have it all; bikers and kayakers, get the scraps--if any. Whether we are intimidated or regulated, we face the beast. It's a jungle out there... And what would you like done with the homeless? Have them scooped up and dispatched to some burnt out industrial district so they can't make the yuppies nervous when they go for strolls in the park? Listen the yuppies get nervous, I get nervous and everybody gets nervous. The problem is they are OUT OF PLACE in a park, and there shouldn't be homeless to begin with. While there's homeless out there I call it a JUNGLE. Guns N' Roses - Welcome To The Jungle Song Lyrics Welcome to the jungle We got fun 'n' games We got everything you want Honey we know the names We are the people that can find Whatever you may need If you got the money honey We got your disease Chorus: In the jungle Welcome to the jungle Watch it bring you to your shun n,n,n,n,,n,n,,n,n,n,,n,n,,n knees, knees I wanna watch you bleed Welcome to the jungle We take it day by day If you want it you're gonna bleed But it's the price you pay And you're a very sexy girl That's very hard to please You can taste the bright lights But you won't get them for free In the jungle Welcome to the jungle Feel my, my, my serpentine I, I wanna hear you scream Welcome to the jungle It gets worse here everyday Ya learn ta live like an animal In the jungle where we play If you got a hunger for what you see You'll take it eventually You can have anything you want But you better not take it from me Chorus And when you're high you never Ever want to come down, so down, so down, so down YEAH! You know where you are You're in the jungle baby You're gonna die In the jungle Welcome to the jungle Watch it bring you to your shu n,n,n,,n,n,,n,n,n,,n,n,,n,n,,n knees, knees In the jungle Welcome to the jungle Feel my, my, my serpentine In the jungle Welcome to the jungle Watch it bring you to your shun n,n,n,n,,n,n,,n,n,,n,n,,n.n, knees, knees In the jungle Welcome to the jungle Watch it bring you to your It's gonna bring you down! Ha! |
"Jacobe Hazzard" wrote in message ...
How can he demand respect for people who go without motor vehicles, for whatever personal reasons they have, if he's completely unable to respect people who go without homes for their own personal reasons? It's easy to see how the most common complaints one might have about the homeless (IE they're dirt poor, are probably crazy and are homeless because they can't manage a real lifestyle, they're an inconvenience and a hazard to the rest of us) could easily be applied to a cyclist by a motorist. And if we can say nothing else for homelessness, we can be sure it has less environmental impact than owning a home, even a home with no SUVs. To begin with MY CAR WAS SWALLOWED BY THE JUNGLE (ie. got stolen), and even though I already put money on another, it's Geo Tracker with no racks possible. A trailer down the line is a possibility though... But how dare you in your American mind compare being without car to being without a roof. Sure, it's pretty much the only option left to get around, but hey, that's the issue. People without an engine are treated like s*** and then people like you come up with excuses for the homeless. Yeah right... How about a permanent solution for the homeless like having them pay back to society in exchange for a decent salary--and a roof? Picking up litter seems a good start to me (it's dirty enough out there)... |
|
"Felsenmeer" wrote in message ...
And what would you like done with the homeless? Have them scooped up and dispatched to some burnt out industrial district so they can't make the yuppies nervous when they go for strolls in the park? Two words: HOMELESS SHELTER OK so we lock them away in 'shelters' from which they are not free to leave. That's f***ing brilliant. I have yet to see a homeless shelter in which the homeless are "locked away" and are "not free to leave." Do these exist in your country? They don't in mine. My point was the OPs apparent hypocrisy in being outraged about kayaking being banned as 'potentially dangerous' and in the same breath condemning the homeless as 'potentially threatening'. The fact is, a park is a much nicer place to be than a homeless shelter. Have you ever seen the inside of one? My reading of his arguments (which really needn't have involved the homeless at all, as they were irrelevant to his kayaking problem) was a sort of juvenille, "If I can't play here then why should they?" The public in general *does* feel uncomfortable with homeless people, warranted or not. A park may be a much nicer place than a shelter to a homeless person, but a park is *not* a nicer place for the public when it becomes a collecting point for the homeless. You obviously have some sort of thing for the homeless, and that's good. But I think if you're going to intellectually honest, you're going to have to realize that the public at large in general does not approve of having their parks turned into impromptu homeless shelters. So... you've missed the point. People typically feel somewhat threatened by the homeless, yet they have free rein of the place. People do *not* typically feel threatened by sea kayakers, yet they're prohibited. This makes no sense. It's not an issue of "play." It's easy to see how the most common complaints one might have about the homeless (IE they're dirt poor, are probably crazy and are homeless because they can't manage a real lifestyle, they're an inconvenience and a hazard to the rest of us) could easily be applied to a cyclist by a motorist. Huh? That's silly hyperbole. Unless, of course, you truly believe that bicyclists are dirt poor, crazy, and can't manage a real lifestyle. And if we can say nothing else for homelessness, we can be sure it has less environmental impact than owning a home, even a home with no SUVs. What does this have to do with the whole thing? Within the context of this thread, where does the environmental impact of homelessness come into play? Well, you said it all. What else can I say... But let me add a couple of points: 1-The people making these regulations--privileged public officers--don't ever go on a kayak. They go on motorboats which are much higher up in the social ladder. 2-They don't go to the park, since they are probably associated to some private club or are out there in their motorboat. If they did, they would take care of the homeless problem. Of course, these are not accepted in their clubs... ;) |
Ronsonic wrote in message . ..
The Little Ant, then, gathered the whole cooperative and said: "Comrades, our world is being threatened by the dinosaurs, so..." And at that precise moment the Earth was hit by a big ball of fire, destroying all but the small animals... A stroke of tremendous good fortune for such creatures that it would be foolish to count on. Rather than sit around hoping conditions change: A - change them yourself. B - change yourself to suit them. I recommend "A" but your mileage may vary. Either is more productive than waiting for a meteor to hit. Ron Multiple choice... __ God will run out of patience and hurl the asteroid (Armageddon). __ Become a dinosaur yourself. __ Stop feeding the stupid hungry dinosaur (lend God a hand). __ Gather all the ants and fight the beast (it may justify the dinosaur)... |
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:17:14 -0600, Jeff Starr
vaguely proposed a theory .......and in reply I say!: remove ns from my header address to reply via email So you have NEVER thought or said something similar? "Why is this being done to me because you are bothered by it and I can't understand why, when that over there (which bothers me and other people but not you)is being ignored?" There is probably a statute against living in that park, and certainly there would be health issues. There is no statute against paddling on a lake. I too wondered what the OP thought he would accomplish bringing in the homeless to his arguement for the right to kayak. I also felt that it made him sound petty. One has "nothing" to do with the other and if he continues to include his rant on the homeless, it will just blur his arguement for kayaking. |
Old Nick wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:17:14 -0600, Jeff Starr vaguely proposed a theory I too wondered what the OP thought he would accomplish bringing in the homeless to his arguement for the right to kayak. I also felt that it made him sound petty. One has "nothing" to do with the other and if he continues to include his rant on the homeless, it will just blur his arguement for kayaking. ......and in reply I say!: So you have NEVER thought or said something similar? "Why is this being done to me because you are bothered by it and I can't understand why, when that over there (which bothers me and other people but not you)is being ignored?" Regardless of whether one may think such things, it's not an effective argument for having the rules changed to allow your activity. And it's likely to distract from the main points you want to make as well as alienating some people who might otherwise be your supporters. Better to first find out what reasons, if any, there are for the prohibition. Then find ways those concerns can be addressed while also stressing that paddlesports are a healthy activity that could benefit families in the community and enhance the usefulness of the park to the city residents and visitors. There is probably a statute against living in that park, and certainly there would be health issues. There is no statute against paddling on a lake. If this is a typical city park there are probably rules against overnight stays and the OP found out there are also rules against paddling on the lake in that park. Other parks may allow either or both of these activities. But the issues are separate and should be dealt with separately. |
"DonQuijote1954" wrote in message
om... Give 'em another choice: light community work. On top of their existing jobs? -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply Home of the meditative cyclist: http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky |
Jeff Starr wrote in message . ..
On 23 Nov 2004 16:21:28 -0800, (DonQuijote1954) wrote: Listen the yuppies get nervous, I get nervous and everybody gets nervous. The problem is they are OUT OF PLACE in a park, and there shouldn't be homeless to begin with. While there's homeless out there I call it a JUNGLE. Guns N' Roses - Welcome To The Jungle Song Lyrics -snipped- Welcome to the jungle Feel my, my, my serpentine In the jungle Welcome to the jungle Watch it bring you to your shun n,n,n,n,,n,n,,n,n,,n,n,,n.n, knees, knees In the jungle Welcome to the jungle Watch it bring you to your It's gonna bring you down! Ha! I think your kayak has upside down, for way too long. You are showing signs of oxygen depravation. Life is Good! Jeff Sure, I was trying to GET AWAY from the jungle, but it's not simply possible. NOTE: I bought a heavy duty kayak cart and now I should be able to walk 3 times as much as before to please the hungry lion. The launching itself will be more dangerous too from a seawall, but hey, what does he care but his own appetite... |
"Claire Petersky" wrote in message ink.net...
"DonQuijote1954" wrote in message om... Give 'em another choice: light community work. On top of their existing jobs? Yep, I think the homeless have been philosophizing enough about life now to go back and join the real world. There's this place next to the Intercontinental Hotel. It's a wooden pier with the most awesome view over the bay. Perfect for romantic hideout... Well, guess who's there. Yeah, THEY are also there, day and night, and even have set up camp cardboards and all, NEXT to the lions in the hotel! I've denounced the situation multiple times (so I can romantize there) but nothing. Sure since the rich and famous give a dam about REAL FREEDOM to enjoy the simple things they give a damn. And that's how the jungle came to be a jungle... |
Jeff Starr wrote in message . ..
I think your kayak has upside down, for way too long. You are showing signs of oxygen depravation. Life is Good! Jeff Where's the "depravation" in Eskimo roll? Oxygen deprivation surely comes from inhaling your motorboat fumes... |
"Jacobe Hazzard" wrote in message ... If the public is so concerned about some homeless people in a park, whom to the best of my knowledge have never been known to do anything illegal or threatening, then maybe there's a problem with the public? Maybe, and bear with me here, we should treat the homeless like others, innocent until proven guilty? I don't know where you live, but where I live urinating and defecating in public, performing sex acts in public, drinking to the point of unconsciousness in public, injecting illegal drugs and leaving used needles laying around, leaving garbage laying around and agressive panhandling are all illegal. Cheto |
"Claire Petersky" wrote in message nk.net... "DonQuijote1954" wrote in message om... Give 'em another choice: light community work. On top of their existing jobs? Existing jobs? Too funny. Cheto |
In rec.bicycles.misc Cheto wrote:
"Jacobe Hazzard" wrote in message ... If the public is so concerned about some homeless people in a park, whom to the best of my knowledge have never been known to do anything illegal or threatening, then maybe there's a problem with the public? Maybe, and bear with me here, we should treat the homeless like others, innocent until proven guilty? I don't know where you live, but where I live urinating and defecating in public, performing sex acts in public, drinking to the point of unconsciousness in public, injecting illegal drugs and leaving used needles laying around, leaving garbage laying around and agressive panhandling are all illegal. and yet they fail to arrest frat boys en masse. did you have a point about the homeless? ahh, panhandling. yea, well, boys gotta make a livin'. -- david reuteler |
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:30:27 -0800, "Cheto"
wrote: "Jacobe Hazzard" wrote in message ... If the public is so concerned about some homeless people in a park, whom to the best of my knowledge have never been known to do anything illegal or threatening, then maybe there's a problem with the public? Maybe, and bear with me here, we should treat the homeless like others, innocent until proven guilty? I don't know where you live, but where I live urinating and defecating in public, performing sex acts in public, drinking to the point of unconsciousness in public, injecting illegal drugs and leaving used needles laying around, leaving garbage laying around and agressive panhandling are all illegal. Where do you live that *injecting* illegal drugs is illegal. I know many places where possession of certain substances is illegal, and I know many places where selling certain substances is illegal, but I know of none where *injecting* (or any other form of consumption) illegal drugs can result in charges. Can you tell me where this is true and possibly provide a pointer to the relevant statute? Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA Guns don't kill people, religions do |
"Galen Hekhuis" wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:30:27 -0800, "Cheto" wrote: Where do you live that *injecting* illegal drugs is illegal. I know many places where possession of certain substances is illegal, and I know many places where selling certain substances is illegal, but I know of none where *injecting* (or any other form of consumption) illegal drugs can result in charges. Can you tell me where this is true and possibly provide a pointer to the relevant statute? Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA Guns don't kill people, religions do It would be difficult to consume without first possessing. Even if someone else held the consumable as it was being consumed in a public park, both would probably be candidates for arrest. -- Sincerely, Joanne If it's right for you, then it's right, . . . . . for you!!! Play - http://www.jobird.com Pay for Play - http://www.jobird.com/refund.htm Looking for Love? - http://www.jobird.com/hearts.htm Garden Kinder CDs http://www.jobird.com/cd/gardenkinderhome.html |
"Galen Hekhuis" wrote in message ... Where do you live that *injecting* illegal drugs is illegal. I know many places where possession of certain substances is illegal, and I know many places where selling certain substances is illegal, but I know of none where *injecting* (or any other form of consumption) illegal drugs can result in charges. Can you tell me where this is true and possibly provide a pointer to the relevant statute? Are you being purposely idiotic? If so, you're doing an excellent job. Cheto |
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:50:27 -0800, "Cheto"
wrote: "Galen Hekhuis" wrote in message .. . Where do you live that *injecting* illegal drugs is illegal. I know many places where possession of certain substances is illegal, and I know many places where selling certain substances is illegal, but I know of none where *injecting* (or any other form of consumption) illegal drugs can result in charges. Can you tell me where this is true and possibly provide a pointer to the relevant statute? Are you being purposely idiotic? If so, you're doing an excellent job. No. I'm asking a question. It is a simple matter to say you merely wrote one thing (which is technically inaccurate) when you meant to make a point. Why do you not do that instead of calling me "idiotic"? Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA Guns don't kill people, religions do |
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:47:24 GMT, "Joanne" wrote:
It would be difficult to consume without first possessing. Even if someone else held the consumable as it was being consumed in a public park, both would probably be candidates for arrest. I realize that, but the original poster claimed that *injecting* was illegal. I know of no statute anywhere that makes that specific action a crime. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA Guns don't kill people, religions do |
Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:37:30 -0500,
, Galen Hekhuis wrote: I know many places where possession of certain substances is illegal, and I know many places where selling certain substances is illegal, but I know of none where *injecting* (or any other form of consumption) illegal drugs can result in charges. Drunk driving. There are several states with laws against a minor being in possession of alcohol by consumption. In South Dakota you can be busted for "internal possession". If a cop suspects you're stoned, he can get a warrant and you can be taken to hospital to have a urine sample forcibly removed. http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/...thdakota.shtml -- zk |
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:17:12 -0800, Zoot Katz
wrote: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:37:30 -0500, , Galen Hekhuis wrote: I know many places where possession of certain substances is illegal, and I know many places where selling certain substances is illegal, but I know of none where *injecting* (or any other form of consumption) illegal drugs can result in charges. Drunk driving. There are several states with laws against a minor being in possession of alcohol by consumption. Driving while under the influence or driving while intoxicated I don't think apply. Possession I think even *I* pointed out above. In South Dakota you can be busted for "internal possession". If a cop suspects you're stoned, he can get a warrant and you can be taken to hospital to have a urine sample forcibly removed. http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/...thdakota.shtml I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for supplying the reference. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA Guns don't kill people, religions do |
I'd really like to hear more about the details specific and germane to
the Miami park problem. Could you post a mapquest link to the spot in question, or an overhead image? Any luck spinning up a dialogue w/ the park board? etc. Ob paddling: i got about 120 miles paddling my yak on the Il. Fox River between Geneva and St. Charles and north. Well worth the small expense to buy a cheap yak. I launch from a park a block away and they don't mind at all. Ob cycling: might be time to start shoveling and plowing the river trail! ..max -- the part of was played by maxwell monningh 8-p |
"Galen Hekhuis" wrote in message ... Are you being purposely idiotic? If so, you're doing an excellent job. No. I'm asking a question. It is a simple matter to say you merely wrote one thing (which is technically inaccurate) when you meant to make a point. It's not inaccurate. I'll defer to Mr. Hunts' expertise on the subject. Why do you not do that instead of calling me "idiotic"? Because you're trolling. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that one cannot use unless one posesses. Cheto |
"The ice is melting but the problem is ignored"
"It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." -Charles Darwin If it were to be an animal it would be doomed. But wait, maybe it is, what, a warmongering lion, a hungry dinosaur? Keep the SUVs rolling and the war going so the beast is fed. What an unromantic way for humanity to end, huh? :( Group Passes on Addressing Global Warming By BART CAMERON, Associated Press Writer REYKJAVIK, Iceland - Although faced with fresh evidence of global warming, the United States and other members the Arctic Council on Wednesday failed to make any recommendations to combat a problem most scientists say is causing sea ice to melt and temperatures to rise. The council met to consider a new scientific report suggesting the Arctic is warming up much faster than the rest of the planet. Some delegates on the council, a respected international panel that advises governments on Arctic issues, seemed to blame their group's inaction on America's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites), which requires industrial nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The Bush administration prefers voluntary measures to save the environment. "We no sooner leave the science proper than we enter into politics," said Bryndis Kjartansdottir, speaking on behalf of the Icelandic ministry which chaired the one-day meeting. The study, compiled by 300 scientists and released earlier this month, said the Arctic is particularly vulnerable to warming from industrial greenhouse gases. One reason is that when snow and ice melt, the exposed, bare ground absorbs more heat. It projects that some animals could become extinct and people living in the region could be threatened by the thinning sea ice, melting glaciers and thawing permafrost. Sea ice in the Arctic has already decreased about 8 percent in 30 years, resulting in the loss of 386,100 square miles of sea ice, according to the report. Delegates said the findings will help inform governments about global warming, but declined to make any specific recommendations in a declaration adopted Wednesday. Paula Dobriansky, the U.S. under secretary of global affairs, told the council's closing news conference that she was happy with that decision. She said America's participation in the council is just one part of the Bush administration's $5.2 billion spent for environmental projects such as renewable energies. But anger from other delegates over the U.S. position on global warming seemed evident during the news conference, particularly the Bush Administration's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001. The U.N.-sponsored accord, which was negotiated in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, requires industrial nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases below 1990 levels. When Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja said, "It is the best possible declaration that could be adopted today," other delegates exploded in laughter. The council is comprised of eight nations --Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States-- and six indigenous peoples of the Arctic, including the Saami Peoples of Norway and Finland and the Inuit Circumpolar Conference. http://committed.to/justiceforpeace |
Good point.....what can be done?
Many things. For one, stop driving the SUV to the corner store.... But really THE PROBLEM IS POLITICAL. Dozens of good ideas are sitting out there, but the problem is ignored.... "Whither capitalism, now that the communist dragon is slain?" Well, history tells us that the dragon wasn't the only problem. The stupid dinosaur sticks to his old ways refusing anything new. 'Natural Capitalism' is a book that puts forth such ideas. But I'm afraid the dinosaur must be controlled and put on a diet--or else get rid of--before anything happens. The Economist (Nov. 13, 1999): "Much of what the authors argue for is sensible, and certainly desirable. But what makes this book worth reading is the fact that the authors have taken as first principles for their Utopia the harsh truths of Darwinian capitalism: individuals and companies act in their self interest, and markets guide that impulse through prices." http://www.natcap.org/sitepages/pid9.php |
"Cheto" wrote in message ...
"Jacobe Hazzard" wrote in message ... If the public is so concerned about some homeless people in a park, whom to the best of my knowledge have never been known to do anything illegal or threatening, then maybe there's a problem with the public? Maybe, and bear with me here, we should treat the homeless like others, innocent until proven guilty? I don't know where you live, but where I live urinating and defecating in public, performing sex acts in public, drinking to the point of unconsciousness in public, injecting illegal drugs and leaving used needles laying around, leaving garbage laying around and agressive panhandling are all illegal. Cheto When you are sitting with a backpack or worse lying back in a park full of homeless, guess who people take you for. If the idea of being a BUM is OK to you, then you may as well ask for coins... ;) |
Max wrote in message ...
I'd really like to hear more about the details specific and germane to the Miami park problem. Could you post a mapquest link to the spot in question, or an overhead image? Here's the map (I hope it works)... (I'd come down 18 st, but now I have to walk 3 times farther and launch at a more dangerous place) http://www.smartpages.com/cityguides...yType=&Radius= Any luck spinning up a dialogue w/ the park board? I did talk with them over the phone, and they were reluctant to consider any options. After that I send them a copy of these posts but they never reply. etc. Ob paddling: i got about 120 miles paddling my yak on the Il. Fox River between Geneva and St. Charles and north. Well worth the small expense to buy a cheap yak. I launch from a park a block away and they don't mind at all. Ob cycling: might be time to start shoveling and plowing the river trail! .max Have fun out there! Where I am there are islands out there that are a real getaway. They used to be DILAPIDATED but last time were clean. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:20 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com