score09 wrote:
Glad we are in agreement. Now, let's incite not just the homeless, but the entire country. Nutjob that I am. Violence is mandatory when attempting to wrest the oppressors from their ill gotten wealth.

And yes, it IS "ill gotten." Not through any "hard work," or "discipline" nonsense. To borrow from a thirty plus year old Pink Floyd tune:

"I'm all right Jack keep your hands off my stack.
Money it's a hit
Don't give me that do goody good bullshit
I'm in the hi-fidelity first class traveling set
And I think I need a Lear jet."

Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
I agree that the top .1% write the rules, control everything, and our state of politics is deplorable.

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Why not prohibit road-rage, drunken rages, cab-fare rage, pedestrian rage, dog-poop rage, and all acts of intimidation and aggression?

I find it troubling that the proposed law targets a minority - the poor and homeless - when aggressive behavior is much more widespread.

Road rage is already illegal. Not sure what the rest would entail. This proposed law targets a group that ..., no, wait, it doesn't target a group at all. It targets an activity. If a specific group primarily engages in it then that group needs to cut it out. I've never been particularly sensitive to "disparate impact" type arguments. This isn't being done to "stick it to the poor" (most of which do not engage in this behavior). This is being done to eliminate a major QOL issue in major cities.

score09 wrote:
So, if you scroll down the thread, you will see some rather annoying and irksome posts courtesy of ?WhoElseCouldIBe.? Granted, this FREQUENT poster may not be familiar with the famous Louise Rosenblatt or her widely famous article entitled ?Writing and Reading: The Transactional Theory.? And, granted, most people aren?t, sadly.

But just as though drunkenness is no excuse for ignorance, there is no reason for any response to her (or ?his?) inquiries of me since my comments are directly aligned with Rosenblatt?s. Apparently, this user is flustered as to my commentary and seeks ?clarification.? She (or ?he?) queries of me: ?mind rephrasing? or some such nonsense, as if there is some ambiguity to the formulation of English words presented to her (or "him.")

Like an APARTHEID wall on the Israeli West Bank, in order to preserve the status quo at the expense of humanity. In this person?s mind, there is apparently a ?marketing 101? sensibility. A mind that is all too mindful of MONEY.

My guess is that a local High School kid laid this out just a few short hours after the news story broke on nj.com. What an unbelievable turnaround! No doubt way better than those who ascribe to the money institutions offering courses like ?marketing 101" and whose sole mission is to preserve the status quo, ie, Harvard Business School, Columbia Business School and all other "business" schools.

score09 wrote:
No, devilsadvocate, my claim (which I think is Marxian in nature) is that the ?local loser? wouldn?t be a loser were it not for a capitalistic (turned neo liberal capitalistic) economic system. This isn?t the prosperous America of post World War II. It is a new America rooted in an extreme brand of laissez-faire economics in which ?losers short on cash? have NO shot. Any assault on the ?local loser? is misplaced since neo liberal capitalist policies are more deserving of said assault and are responsible for the deepened societal malaise that began with Reagan and Thatcher. Maybe we wouldn?t be having this discussion if we took care of our people, many of whom are veterans like the guy who was baked to death a few weeks ago in a NYC jail cell after he was arrested for trying to keep warm in a stairwell. I mean, look at the stats! America has a higher rate of infant mortality, drug abuse, alcoholism, suicide, domestic abuse, teen pregnancy, mental illness and incarcerates more people than ALL other industrialized countries governed with a more balanced view. Now why might that be?

The ?local loser?? There?s a cat who panhandles on Newark and Coles almost everyday and night. The guy looks like he?s 70 years old (which means he?s probably only 60.) He is unassuming and not at all aggressive. Sometimes, I fish out some loose change for him and sometimes I don?t. But seriously, who is going to hire this guy? How is he supposed to get a foothold? What truly efficacious services are there for individuals like him? Why are so many homeless? You think that maybe capitalism has something to do with it?


Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Let me get this straight. Your claim is that because economic elites have more sway than the local loser always short on cash, this implies that all political speech by marginalized portions of society are good no matter how completely stupid they are? I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you there. Most really horrible national political movements start by whipping up marginalized fools into supporting really stupid ideas.

Therefore, I'm going to absolutely tell idiots that they're being idiots and should shut up for the good of humanity. And aggressive panhandlers are absolutely awful. They aren't hated because they're poor. They're hated because they harass other people in the hopes that they can parasitically leach their money. Plenty of poor people don't do this. In fact, most don't. But if those that do are fined and/or spend some time in jail then I will happily vote for whatever politician was smart enough to sign that into law.

dtjcview wrote:
Why not prohibit road-rage, drunken rages, cab-fare rage, pedestrian rage, dog-poop rage, and all acts of intimidation and aggression?

I find it troubling that the proposed law targets a minority - the poor and homeless - when aggressive behavior is much more widespread.

score09 wrote:
Like an APARTHEID wall on the Israeli West Bank, in order to preserve the status quo at the expense of humanity. In this person?s mind, there is apparently a ?marketing 101? sensibility. A mind that is all too mindful of MONEY.

My guess is that a local High School kid laid this out just a few short hours after the news story broke on nj.com. What an unbelievable turnaround! No doubt way better than those who ascribe to the money institutions offering courses like ?marketing 101" and whose sole mission is to preserve the status quo, ie, Harvard Business School, Columbia Business School and all other "business" schools.

score09 wrote:
No, devilsadvocate, my claim (which I think is Marxian in nature) is that the ?local loser? wouldn?t be a loser were it not for a capitalistic (turned neo liberal capitalistic) economic system. This isn?t the prosperous America of post World War II. It is a new America rooted in an extreme brand of laissez-faire economics in which ?losers short on cash? have NO shot. Any assault on the ?local loser? is misplaced since neo liberal capitalist policies are more deserving of said assault and are responsible for the deepened societal malaise that began with Reagan and Thatcher. Maybe we wouldn?t be having this discussion if we took care of our people, many of whom are veterans like the guy who was baked to death a few weeks ago in a NYC jail cell after he was arrested for trying to keep warm in a stairwell. I mean, look at the stats! America has a higher rate of infant mortality, drug abuse, alcoholism, suicide, domestic abuse, teen pregnancy, mental illness and incarcerates more people than ALL other industrialized countries governed with a more balanced view. Now why might that be?

The ?local loser?? There?s a cat who panhandles on Newark and Coles almost everyday and night. The guy looks like he?s 70 years old (which means he?s probably only 60.) He is unassuming and not at all aggressive. Sometimes, I fish out some loose change for him and sometimes I don?t. But seriously, who is going to hire this guy? How is he supposed to get a foothold? What truly efficacious services are there for individuals like him? Why are so many homeless? You think that maybe capitalism has something to do with it?


Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Let me get this straight. Your claim is that because economic elites have more sway than the local loser always short on cash, this implies that all political speech by marginalized portions of society are good no matter how completely stupid they are? I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you there. Most really horrible national political movements start by whipping up marginalized fools into supporting really stupid ideas.

Therefore, I'm going to absolutely tell idiots that they're being idiots and should shut up for the good of humanity. And aggressive panhandlers are absolutely awful. They aren't hated because they're poor. They're hated because they harass other people in the hopes that they can parasitically leach their money. Plenty of poor people don't do this. In fact, most don't. But if those that do are fined and/or spend some time in jail then I will happily vote for whatever politician was smart enough to sign that into law.

score09 wrote:
Glad we are in agreement. Now, let's incite not just the homeless, but the entire country. Nutjob that I am. Violence is mandatory when attempting to wrest the oppressors from their ill gotten wealth.

And yes, it IS "ill gotten." Not through any "hard work," or "discipline" nonsense. To borrow from a thirty plus year old Pink Floyd tune:

"I'm all right Jack keep your hands off my stack.
Money it's a hit
Don't give me that do goody good bullshit
I'm in the hi-fidelity first class traveling set
And I think I need a Lear jet."

Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
I agree that the top .1% write the rules, control everything, and our state of politics is deplorable.

JPhurst wrote:
In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.

-Anatole France

Monroe wrote:

Pink Floyd drummer has a Ferrari GTO that's probably worth 50 millions dollars, fyi.

score09 wrote:
Glad we are in agreement. Now, let's incite not just the homeless, but the entire country. Nutjob that I am. Violence is mandatory when attempting to wrest the oppressors from their ill gotten wealth.

And yes, it IS "ill gotten." Not through any "hard work," or "discipline" nonsense. To borrow from a thirty plus year old Pink Floyd tune:

"I'm all right Jack keep your hands off my stack.
Money it's a hit
Don't give me that do goody good bullshit
I'm in the hi-fidelity first class traveling set
And I think I need a Lear jet."

Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
I agree that the top .1% write the rules, control everything, and our state of politics is deplorable.

JCMan8 wrote:
I agree that the top .1% write the rules, control everything, and our state of politics is deplorable.

score09 wrote:
I?m all for the aggressive panhandlers. Hopefully, they become more aggressive and increasingly violent. After all, that really is the only way to start and WIN a revolution -- by way of violence. I?d say the aggressive panhandlers are merely a manifestation of an underlying current of restiveness towards the status quo. Hopefully, they serve to highlight the violence inflicted upon all of us, everyday by the economic elite. I think it?s time for a change. If we could just get a hold of the military...

CdeCoincy wrote:

Nonsense on stilts!

The people who hang out around Box are alcoholics and/or mentally ill. They cannot be forced into rehab or made to take meds. Pass laws that strike down those rights and maybe they will not need to panhandle. First they came for the alcoholics, but I wasn't an alcoholic (sic).....

BTW - who is the guy in the poster?

JCMan8 wrote:

Maybe you don't realize that the "cat" you pass will not be affected by this law. It says it only goes after aggressive panhandlers, not the ones who just sit there.

All you are doing is fighting for the rights of aggressive bums to harass ordinary people minding their own business. Now, I haven't noticed much of a problem with them at Exchange or Grove, but a law that only goes after the aggressive bums is fine by me.

score09 wrote:
No, devilsadvocate, my claim (which I think is Marxian in nature) is that the ?local loser? wouldn?t be a loser were it not for a capitalistic (turned neo liberal capitalistic) economic system. This isn?t the prosperous America of post World War II. It is a new America rooted in an extreme brand of laissez-faire economics in which ?losers short on cash? have NO shot. Any assault on the ?local loser? is misplaced since neo liberal capitalist policies are more deserving of said assault and are responsible for the deepened societal malaise that began with Reagan and Thatcher. Maybe we wouldn?t be having this discussion if we took care of our people, many of whom are veterans like the guy who was baked to death a few weeks ago in a NYC jail cell after he was arrested for trying to keep warm in a stairwell. I mean, look at the stats! America has a higher rate of infant mortality, drug abuse, alcoholism, suicide, domestic abuse, teen pregnancy, mental illness and incarcerates more people than ALL other industrialized countries governed with a more balanced view. Now why might that be?

The ?local loser?? There?s a cat who panhandles on Newark and Coles almost everyday and night. The guy looks like he?s 70 years old (which means he?s probably only 60.) He is unassuming and not at all aggressive. Sometimes, I fish out some loose change for him and sometimes I don?t. But seriously, who is going to hire this guy? How is he supposed to get a foothold? What truly efficacious services are there for individuals like him? Why are so many homeless? You think that maybe capitalism has something to do with it?


Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Let me get this straight. Your claim is that because economic elites have more sway than the local loser always short on cash, this implies that all political speech by marginalized portions of society are good no matter how completely stupid they are? I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you there. Most really horrible national political movements start by whipping up marginalized fools into supporting really stupid ideas.

Therefore, I'm going to absolutely tell idiots that they're being idiots and should shut up for the good of humanity. And aggressive panhandlers are absolutely awful. They aren't hated because they're poor. They're hated because they harass other people in the hopes that they can parasitically leach their money. Plenty of poor people don't do this. In fact, most don't. But if those that do are fined and/or spend some time in jail then I will happily vote for whatever politician was smart enough to sign that into law.

devilsadvocate wrote:
Let me get this straight. Your claim is that because economic elites have more sway than the local loser always short on cash, this implies that all political speech by marginalized portions of society are good no matter how completely stupid they are? I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you there. Most really horrible national political movements start by whipping up marginalized fools into supporting really stupid ideas.

Therefore, I'm going to absolutely tell idiots that they're being idiots and should shut up for the good of humanity. And aggressive panhandlers are absolutely awful. They aren't hated because they're poor. They're hated because they harass other people in the hopes that they can parasitically leach their money. Plenty of poor people don't do this. In fact, most don't. But if those that do are fined and/or spend some time in jail then I will happily vote for whatever politician was smart enough to sign that into law.

score09 wrote:
Right, ?some? panhandlers do have money, lol. I frequently see them making deposits at the bank before returning to their mortgage free properties. The spirit of the proposal is the same in terms of who it targets, regardless of any grey or flimsy distinction between a ?poor? person and a ?panhandler.? The two are interchangeable in the public?s linguistic reservoir.

The transactional nature of reading has to do with meaning making.

The public?s reservoir of knowledge is such that the flyer?s message is clearly inferred by the recipient. Might it have been better? Perhaps through the eyes of an advertising executive, an editor at Better Homes and Gardens or a Hollywood production company but to the general public, the 99%, it looks just fine. The suggestion that it should be devoid of meaningless inaccuracies misses the point which is that the flyer?s message is clear. Rally at City Hall, period.


Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:

It doesn't target the poor, it targets a certain type of panhandling. If people with money panhandle (and some panhandlers do have money), then they should be treated the same way.

As for the flyer, a typo doesn't make the intent of the effort "dumb", but anything public facing should be produced with care. The flyer looks like it was made without anyone reviewing/proofing it. The better the message the more people it will help.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:

It doesn't target the poor, it targets a certain type of panhandling. If people with money panhandle (and some panhandlers do have money), then they should be treated the same way.

As for the flyer, a typo doesn't make the intent of the effort "dumb", but anything public facing should be produced with care. The flyer looks like it was made without anyone reviewing/proofing it. The better the message the more people it will help.

score09 wrote:
Well, I looked at the flyer today and managed without the slightest degree of difficulty to comprehend fully that the rally is set for today, March 26th, 2014. Moreover, whoever created the flyer took the time to distribute its message by making the rounds and posting it for the community to see. You think we live in a democracy? That economic elites have no sway in political matters? Were this passed, it most certainly WOULD make it a crime to be poor since it aims to target the poor. This type of grassroots effort -- however misguided and ?idiotic? you THINK it is -- ought to be LAUDED. Not to be met with cynicism, derision and disdain.

So, to characterize the flyer as ?dumb? based on a typographical error that a fourth grader could easily deduce and by disparaging the time and effort vested to rise up and challenge the status quo is really quite smart. Not.

As to the ?dumb? ideas underlying the proposed ordinance, I?ll agree that it makes little sense to impose monetary fines upon the homeless. This much I?ll give you. But only from a humanitarian stance and not a pragmatic one.


Quote:

caj11 wrote:

Let's just say... dumb on both sides.

This proposed law is just dumb, because enforcement would be impossible and how in the hell would a $1250 fine ever be collected from an alleged violator?

Furthermore, this flyer is dumb too, because Jersey City doesn't make any appropriations for defense spending and/or the war in Iraq (or anywhere else). Nor can it be said that the city makes it a "crime to be poor".

I would love to see whatever circus this council meeting turns into. Two sets of idiots duking it out.

Oh, and according to this flyer, the protest was planned and happened a year ago, on a Tuesday (March 26, 2013???).

score09 wrote:
Well, I looked at the flyer today and managed without the slightest degree of difficulty to comprehend fully that the rally is set for today, March 26th, 2014. Moreover, whoever created the flyer took the time to distribute its message by making the rounds and posting it for the community to see. You think we live in a democracy? That economic elites have no sway in political matters? Were this passed, it most certainly WOULD make it a crime to be poor since it aims to target the poor. This type of grassroots effort -- however misguided and ?idiotic? you THINK it is -- ought to be LAUDED. Not to be met with cynicism, derision and disdain.

So, to characterize the flyer as ?dumb? based on a typographical error that a fourth grader could easily deduce and by disparaging the time and effort vested to rise up and challenge the status quo is really quite smart. Not.

As to the ?dumb? ideas underlying the proposed ordinance, I?ll agree that it makes little sense to impose monetary fines upon the homeless. This much I?ll give you. But only from a humanitarian stance and not a pragmatic one.


Quote:

caj11 wrote:

Let's just say... dumb on both sides.

This proposed law is just dumb, because enforcement would be impossible and how in the hell would a $1250 fine ever be collected from an alleged violator?

Furthermore, this flyer is dumb too, because Jersey City doesn't make any appropriations for defense spending and/or the war in Iraq (or anywhere else). Nor can it be said that the city makes it a "crime to be poor".

I would love to see whatever circus this council meeting turns into. Two sets of idiots duking it out.

Oh, and according to this flyer, the protest was planned and happened a year ago, on a Tuesday (March 26, 2013???).