San Francisco Considers Law To Target Homeless And Poor

The City of San Francisco is considering a "sit-lie" law which would make criminals out of anyone who sits or lies on the sidewalks. This is inhumane legislation targeting homeless and poverty stricken people who have nowhere else to go. Of course police groups are in favor of the proposed law, because it will give them another excuse to search people for drugs and/or go on "fishing expeditions" to see if they can find some other reason to arrest them.

This really upsets me. It is the same wherever you go--new laws designed to restrict the freedom of the individual and secure the power of a police state are being drawn up in small rooms with little natural light. Where is a homeless person supposed to go if they can’t even sleep on the sidewalk? Will this new law effect other citizens who maybe just need a rest or are experiencing a medical emergency? Will the police profile and target only people who "appear" to be homeless and poor, or people who just dress a certain way?

It is already miserable to be homeless—it shouldn't be illegal too. Contrary to popular belief, most homeless did not become so out of choice and not because they are lazy, stupid, or immoral. I invite you to my pages devoted to raising awareness on homelessness: http://sites.google.com/site/homelessactionnetwork/. There you will find more information and pictures I have taken of homeless people:  I am often surprised by their cheerfulness and sense of pride. I usually give them a dollar or two for the privilege of photographing them. 

Please, help me raise awareness about this assault on our civil liberties by sharing this post with as many people as you can. Together maybe we can prevent this clearly oppressive law.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS

"Support Our Troops." Used early in the invasion and occupation of Iraq as a counter to the growing anti-war movement, this patriotic slogan has since undergone a metamorphosis. As the scores of injured and mentally disturbed soldiers return from the battle fields to their home-towns and try to re-integrate into society, their friends and families are learning that no amount of support can ever heal the psychological wounds that soldiers suffer.

Although I have respect for people who put themselves in harm’s way to protect others, I believe heroism should be associated with a just cause. The illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq has caused such widespread destruction that any glory claimed from taking part in cleaning up the mess, should be carefully examined. Don't tell me they are fighting for my freedom, because in my opinion that is pure garbage! The war was sold to the American people with lies and propaganda. Even among the right-wing there are few who will now deny that the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have had much more to with energy resources and geopolitical strategic posturing than anything else.

There is no justification for the illegal, immoral invasion and occupation of a peaceful country.

World War III

How does one make a distinction between "occupation" and "invasion"? It should be obvious right? Most would immediately say that an occupation is temporary and an invasion permanent.  But, let us look more closely at these words.

My Encarta Dictionary tells me that the first definition of "occupation" is "1. the job by which somebody earns a living." That makes sense when I think about what the United States is doing in the Middle-East. But wait, we're talking about a military action, right? The traditional military use of  the word "occupation" according to Encarta, is "4. MILITARY the invasion and control of a country or area by enemy forces."  Hhmmn, there is nothing there about leaving the invaded country...

The order by which Encarta lists the definitions for any given word are supposed to be representative of the commonality of their usage, so I was not surprised when I looked up "invasion" to find that the first definition was perfectly military in its application, "1. a hostile entry by an armed force into a country's territory, especially with the intention of conquering it."  Again, there is nothing here about leaving the invaded country. I like this word better for a description of what our country has done in the Middle-East; there is no deception with this word.

Of course our troops in the Middle-East are planning to leave...just as soon as they are done building a few more permanent military bases. Just like in Viet Nam, our presence there will eventually change the culture into a more "American friendly" place to be. The US military never had a plan for "leaving" Iraq, because that is not what an "invasion" is all about.

Let us use words that convey the true meaning of our actions in the Middle-East when we talk about our "enterprises" there. And let us not pretend that we are conducting "police actions" or "occupations"--this is not a "war on terror." We are in the middle of nothing less than World War III! How many nations are involved in this global power struggle? I think they all are...

Please leave your comments below.  Especially if you disagree with me!