No sleeping. On public property.

By the way, I care the least about a slippery slope that might infringe on your prerogative to take a nap in the park. This is not about the ordinary man losing his middle class privileges to the creep of authoritarian rule-making. At some point we do agree that human beings have some inalienable rights. They used to be lofty ideals, protected by a bill of rights. Here we are discussing the right to an involuntary life function.

The right to defecate is what’s got these homeless camps in trouble, but it stands to reason that to shit is more than a right too, it’s a necessity. All of this is dreadful platitude unless it’s escaped our city administrators. Are they suggesting that because the city cannot provide for the services for its people, that the people must forgo their basic creature needs?

What inhuman folly. And on public ground. Where are they to go. Must man pay rent to exist?

That you can dictate the rights of another on private land is open to debate. By whose authority do you claim dominion to hoard land for yourself? How dare you refuse a fellow human being wherever he might need to rest his head. Granting the argument for private property, who are you to force your will upon others on common property? They can’t do what? Where? Do public lands belong only to property owners? You can legislate the right to take property for yourself, but you can’t hoard all of it.

You aren’t obligated to provide eat, drink and shelter to all, but you can’t deny men access to the basic resource of land. Would you have men born into cells until they agree to work for their sustenance? Colorado Springs would deny them heat and sleep too. Would you regulate breath?

On public land you have no right. The public can consent to regulation, for the safety and health of all etc, but that doesn’t encompass prohibition. You want health and safety, you provide the services. You have no authority to deny the service and then deny man’s basic needs. What an absolute crock.

Below is the text of the city’s proposed ordinance. It describes the creation of a new section, under category 9) Public Offenses, section 6) Offenses Affecting Property, subsection 109) Camping on Public Property Prohibited.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS:

9.6.109: CAMPING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY PROHIBITED:

A. It is unlawful for any person to camp on any public property, except as may be specifically authorized by the appropriate governmental authority.

B. For the purposes of this section “camp” or “camping” means to use the public area for living accommodation including, but not limited to, the activities and circumstances listed below. These activities and circumstances may be considered in determining whether reasonable grounds for belief have arisen that a person has “camped” or is “camping” in violation of this ordinance.

1. Sleeping or making preparation to sleep, including the lying down of bedding for the purpose of sleeping.

2. Occupying a shelter out-of-doors. “Shelter” shall mean any cover or protection from the elements other than clothing, such as a tent, shack, sleeping bag, or other structure or material.

3. The presence or use of a camp fire, camp stove or other heating source or cooking device.

5. Keeping or storing personal property.

Also presented on Monday were recommendation from the city management, which included this paragraph:

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: A violation of these updated ordinances may result in a fine and sentencing to the Criminal Justice Center (CJC). In the past, homeless individuals have been known to ignore summonses to appear in Municipal Court until it is advantageous for them to be placed in CJC (cold weather, need for food and/or shelter, etc.). The preferred method of dealing with these types of violations would be to gain the cooperation of the individuals involved without relying upon the criminal justice system, thus removing them from the circumstance by linking them with the appropriate service agency.

Making the specious argument basically that since homeless persons sometimes get themselves arrested on purpose, authorities are justified in accommodating them full time. How considerate of us.

The best you can say for the manufacturers is they cooperated, After the Fact, because of fears of civil lawsuits.
Whoa, now, Civil Suits? You mean, the Tort System actually sometimes DOES work?

But those interested more in protecting the “Liberty” of Corporate polluters, in the case of the Tainted Foods and Shoddy Products they make the people actually PAY for privilege of being maimed or poisoned by their products… say that Tort Law goes too far, and needs to be “reformed”, meaning, granting the Very Rich a free license to kill the poor.

Live better. Save Money. Give your Kids bad food and worse toys. WalMart.

Just as when the poisoned food products were discovered in 2008, Western consumers were not exposed to the baby formulas which hit Hong Kong, or the Oreos, M&Ms, or Snickers which reached Indonesia. The melamine infused large western conglomerates Kraft and Mars, but endangered only their “loyal customers” in the East. Which didn’t mean that US consumers couldn’t affect their buying habits to punish Danone, Kraft and Mars.

Melanie Shouse, a MoveOn Council leader in St. Louis, passed away from breast cancer while still fighting her insurance company for chemotherapy coverage.

While the Tea Party were forcing Congress to dick-the-dog on actual REAL non-privatized Health Care. They’ll rejoice that they “got rid of” another voice testifying to the truth that would counter their LIES.
And, in the spirit of the Bu’ush Regime celebrating the “accidental” death of Anti-War Senator Paul Wellstone, and could scarce contain their glee at the death of Senator Ted Kennedy.. now they get to grave dance for Representative Murtha, another one who stood up and told the TRUTH about Chicken(Hawk) George and the lies he told to start the massive Torture and Babykilling enterprise known as “Operation Iraqi Give Us Your Oilfields Or Die”

I’m sure some of the Tea Party and Republican and other fascist spokesfreaks will object to this, being the hypocrites they truly are. At least they’re consistent in being liars and cowards.

Focus on the Family’s brilliant move, orchestrated obviously by Madison Avenue talent and choreographed over the range of traditional advertising mediums –PR, editorials, activists– illustrates further what would-be social message advocates are up against when denied ad placement by the networks. Adbusters has sued the US networks for forbidding an anti-consumer spot. Could they have advanced an inoffensive and surrounded it with a meatier media debate? More and more it requires the collusion with the editorial bosses. Each successive Yes Men action has met with an ever tightening controlled response.

Media pundits are calling wins for the usual Budweiser and Dorito ads. Based on TiVo results. Bet you didn’t know those machines were returning the logs of your viewing habits in shorter than 30 second increments…

My take on it is that G7 and Credite Suisse and the IMF and World Bank would have been perfectly content keeping Haiti twisting in the wind forever or until the Haitian People collectively sold themselves back into odious hateful humiliating Slavery with the condition that they every morning en-masse they would have to issue a sincere apology for ever declaring themselves to be a free people.

Residents of the nearby town said it felt like an earthquake.
Authorities say at least two people died and no word yet on the number of injured.

Typical Republican “courage”.