Story Archives 2001

by By LAURA MECKLER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) _ Conservatives who successfully argued that the
nation's welfare system must aggressively push poor people into
jobs are preparing to push something more personal: marriage.

They argue that the breakdown of the two-parent family is the
root cause of welfare dependence, and that millions of Americans
will remain trapped in poverty unless the nation fosters a culture
of marriage in poor communities.

``All the data we have says that kids do best when they grow up
in two-parent families,'' said Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif.,
chairman of the House Ways and Means welfare subcommittee, who
plans hearings on the issue. ``We'd like to see a return to the
family unit and to family values.''

Nationally, one in three babies is born to unmarried parents.
And among women with less than a high school education, 60 percent
were unmarried when they gave birth.

One of the 1996 welfare law's central purposes was to encourage
formation of two-parent families, but so far states have spent
little time, energy or money to this end. That is partly because it
raises sensitive questions about the role of government and partly
because there is little evidence about what works.

Now debate is beginning over what changes are needed to that
law, which must be renewed by next year, and conservatives are
laying the groundwork for a stronger focus on marriage. Liberals
have concerns, but are not rejecting their ideas out of hand.

Among them:

_requiring states to spend part of their welfare money on
pro-marriage activities.

_encouraging caseworkers to talk to pregnant women about
marrying the fathers of their unborn babies.

_judging state success based on reductions in out-of-wedlock
births.

_teaching about the value of marriage in high school.

_sponsoring experiments to see what programs might produce more
marriages.

The role of marriage in social policy has been a contentious,
painful debate since 1965, when a future senator, Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, prompted charges of racism with his report on the
breakdown of black family. Pointing to the rising number of black
babies born to unmarried parents, he suggested that the absence of
fathers and male role models _ along with the income they provide _
explained myriad social problems.

At the time, about one in four black babies was born to
unmarried parents. By 1999, it was 69 percent.

Still, 35 years later, there is little agreement on how to put
families together.

``Until we get more evidence, I'm not so sure we should be
spending huge sums of money here,'' said Wendell Primus, a welfare
authority at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, who left
a top welfare job in the Clinton administration to protest the
president's decision to sign the 1996 overhaul.

``There are clearly some marriages that aren't going to work,''
Primus added. ``Government can't force two people to love each
other when their relationship has broken apart.''

Sandra Robertson, an advocate for the poor in Georgia, suggests
that poor women are perfectly capable of deciding when marriage is
right for them.

``I'm especially surprised that the party that talks about
wanting government out of our lives, of wanting government to stay
away from social engineering, seems to have a desire to do that for
poor people,'' Robertson said.

Others worry that women may wind up pressured to stay in
unhealthy _ even abusive _ relationships.

Robert Rector, a leading conservative welfare expert, argues
that government should not coerce anyone into marriage but should
suggest and encourage it. With a push, he says, some couples are
bound to succeed.

``You could say, `Here's a mentoring group. You don't have to do
this. But it's a free group to try and improve a relationship that
can lead you to a lifetime of love and commitment,''' he said. ``I
think it's absolutely tragic that we don't do anything like that
now.''

Talking about marriage would be a giant departure for welfare
caseworkers, who used to simply calculate whether an applicant was
eligible for benefits, said Susan Golonka, welfare expert at the
National Governors Association. Caseworkers have already expanded
their duties to include job counseling, and adding marriage
counseling would be another big step.

``There would be a lot of people who would be uncomfortable,''
she said.

There is little pro-marriage activity in social policy today.
Some fatherhood programs work to help fathers find jobs _ partly so
they can pay child support _ and to participate in their children's
lives. But co-parenting, not marriage, is the focus.

Primus, Robertson and other liberals are not rejecting the
marriage push wholesale, suggesting Rector may be right when he
predicts a growing consensus for a stronger focus on marriage.

``I don't think progressives should be scared of this issue,''
Primus said. ``We also believe in marriage and two-parent
families.''

And Robertson, who directs the Georgia Citizens' Coalition on
Hunger, says: ``It's clear when a child is wanted, and when a child
has two parents ... that child has a better chance.''

by Kaponda

Since August of 1988, Denise McCollum had dutifully navigated the 18-mile commute along the peninsula from her home in the Western Addition of San Francisco, to her place of employment in San Carlos City in San Mateo County. Her travels were sidetracked, however, on a Holiday of profound remembrance for African Americans and of great historic significance to all Americans.

McCollum was asked by her supervisor, Nancy Bailey, to work on the federal Holiday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., at the Post Office in San Carlos, where she had functioned as a window/distribution clerk for more than a decade. During the waning hours of her shift on that January 15, 2000, McCollum carried out, in prescribed manner, her routine duty of checking for “leave slips.” She checked the box that she had designated and designed for employees of the San Carlos Post Office branch to deposit their paperwork for processing.

A pall of anxiety had overtaken the magnanimous spirit of McCollum as translucent moisture from her heated eyes revealed her reaction to the hangman’s noose that she encountered while looking into the leave box. After the single parent and grandmother had composed herself, she seized the veiled threat as evidence that a practice of ethnic intimidation, which had been vacated for more than 70 years, had been revived at her workplace on the Holiday of a distinguished civil rights leader.

Although the timing of the discovery of the nine-coil hangman’s noose by McCollum made it especially egregious, it was not an act conceived in a vacuum. The ominous signals of racial tension between colleagues and McCollum had been mounting over a period of time at the Post Office of mostly white employees in a city made up of over 22,000 whites and only 193 blacks. The memorandum posted in December, dated December 2, 1999, which stated, in part, “...material consisting of ethnic, racial, religious or sexual content are not suitable...,” was one visible signpost that the ugliest characteristics of humanity had been unleashed at the Post Office where McCollum was employed.

“I feel the Postmaster, Ezio Nurisio, my supervisor, Nancy Bailey, my co-workers, Eve Harmon and AnnMarie Bernal all played major roles that eventually led to my discovery of this symbol of hatred on that day at my job,” stated the gentlewoman as we discussed the chain of events that led to her current state of mind and the fears that have gripped the very soul of McCollum. “Ezio Nurisio, the postmaster, and Nancy Bailey have known each other since elementary school, and AnnMarie Bernal boasted to me about the dinner she and the postmaster shared at his house,” continued McCollum, as she had begun to recount a number of reason why she had clearly been made an outcast from the community at the Post Office.

I asked McCollum what reason she had to believe that a federal postmaster of the United States Post Office would be associated with an out-and-out atrocity like manufacturing a symbol used traditionally by hate groups as a means of ethnic intimidation?

“I think that this is the case because on January 18, 2000, I called the postmaster at his home to personally make him aware of my state of mind and what had happened. Later during the evening, I took the hangman’s noose to the San Carlos Police Department and made a formal complaint. I learned upon the completion of the investigation by the San Carlos police that it was the postmaster himself who created the noose,” stated McCollum.

I then asked McCollum, who was raised a Baptist in Kanas City, Kansas, who did the investigation by the San Carlos Police Department lay the blame on?

“According to the investigation” stated McCollum, “The official results of the investigation was that ‘the noose was meant as a joke between the postmaster, Ezio Nurisio, and Nancy Bailey,’” concluded McCollum.

The Post Office environment in which McCollum had worked had become festered with unvarnished hostilities, and the subsequent stress placed upon McCollum became unbearable, according to the peaceable McCollum, who described herself as a friendly person who used all her energy to maintain a “harmonious relationship” with each one of her co-workers. McCollum stated to the postmaster during their conversation that she had begun to fear for her life and asked for leave of duty. McCollum has not been back to work at the Post Office in San Carlos City for over one year.

Two days after McCollum talked with her postmaster and had learned that her postmaster fashioned the noose, Nuriso, the postmaster, wrote her a letter dated January 20, 2000, addressing her concerns of fear, although he did not admit in that letter that he was responsible for the outbreak of turmoil that had shattered relations at San Carlos Post Office. Also, on January 20, 2000, the same day of the letter by the postmaster, McCollum’s supervisor, Nancy Bailey, apologized to her for any misunderstanding that McCollum may have reached.

According to that same letter by Ezio Nurisio, dated January 20, 2000, addressed to Denise McCollum, Nurisio states that “...I conducted an investigation concerning your allegations that a hangman’s noose was purposely left on Supervisor Nancy Bailey’s desk as a direct attack to your person or ethnicity. The results of my investigation concluded that no such attack was intended or implied and that your safety at this office was never jeopardized or challenged....”

I attempted to contact the former postmaster and supervisor of Denise McCollum and to inquire how an objective and fair investigation could have been conducted by the very same person by whom the noose had been fashioned?

As I leaned next to the last of five windows for over 10 minutes waiting for Nancy Bailey to come out, I watched the three postal clerks as they provided service to customers with huge packages.

“Ezio Nurisio has been detailed to South San Francisco. He no longer works at this station any longer,” a woman in a black dress stated with a firm tone. As I asked Bailey which post office in South San Francisco he had been detailed, she stated that “The Postmaster is always at the main Post Office,” in a tone that seemed very hard on the ears. “Furthermore,” Bailey continued, “If you want any further information about the incident that occurred on January 15, 2000, you will have to talk with the Public Relations representative of the United States Post Office,” concluded Bailey.

The kind of hatred that existed at the workplace of McCollum is draped in centuries of bigotry and prejudice. It is not unique to any continent, country, race or ethnicity. I asked Reverend Shad Riddick of the Metropolitan Baptist Church, in whom Denise McCollum had confided when she had first experienced her ordeal, about his thoughts concerning the case of McCollum?

“I have noticed changes. One of the things I’ve noticed is that she has been sleeping more and more. Usually, when I call, if she was not in, then she would return my call right away. However, after the incident, she no longer returns my calls and daughter informs me that she always sleep. I am not a psychologist, but my opinion is that she is very, very depressed and afraid of something,” stated Rev. Riddick.

I asked Horace Hinshaw, the spokesperson for the Postal Service, if Ezio Nurisio had known that the hangman’s noose was a symbol used traditionally by hate groups, and did Ezio Nurisio believe that the fears expressed by Denise McCollum, after she discovered the noose, were real? Hinshaw responded that an administrative appeal by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is pending, and he, therefore, was not at liberty to discuss the matter of Denise McCollum.

Existing federal law protects people like Denise McCollum from workplace harassment and violent acts based on race, color, national origin or religion. Federal Civil Rights statute 18 U.S.C.A. section 245 has been instituted in the United States Congress to safeguard people like McCollum from vicious attacks by inconsiderate persons. The Department of Justice considers noose incidents to be federal crimes of intimidation, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation annually reports and collects statistics it gathers annually on the number of bias-related criminal incidents from law enforcement agencies. In 1996, based on reports from law enforcement agencies covering 84% of the nation’s population, the FBI reported 8,759 incidents based on the Hate Crime Statistics Act.

by Dee Gray and Richard Ransom

This interview first appeared in POOR Magazine, Volume 3. Titled "WORK," the purpose of this issue is to challenge our society’s narrow definitions of so-called "legitimate" labor. POOR maintains that "work" must be defined by the workers themselves, and is dedicated to presenting the voices of workers who too often labor unrecognized and unheard.

We’re examining the notion of panhandling or sparechanging as work, because at POOR magazine we consider it a form of Micro-Business, or work. The following is a transcript from the ongoing writer-facilitation dialogue between Dee Gray, co-editor of POOR and Richard X at his work site, located near Stockton and O’Farrell Streets in downtown San Francisco.

Dee: Let’s just start with…how many days per week do you work?

RX: Seven.

Dee: And what would you say are your hours of business each day?

RX: Well, I normally start anywhere from six to eight in the morning and go all the way through to nine or ten o’clock at night, with a couple of breaks in between that last maybe an hour each.

Dee: And those would be like a dinner break?

RX: Yeah.

Dee: Do you have to take any buses to work?

RX: No.

Dee: What happens at your work when it rains, or in very cold weather?

RX: It’s just another day…I’m still out here…rain or shine.

Dee: Do you live inside or outside? Do you live in a hotel sometimes or…?

RX: Basically inside…a shelter type situation.

Dee: Do you have to navigate between the shelter systems or are you stabilized for now?

RX: Stabilized as you can be within the shelter environment.

Dee: What hours do you approximately sleep?

RX: It depends, I usually get to sleep about twelve-thirty or one. I’m up at 5:30 am to start work again.

Dee: How does this job affect your health?

RX: It effects my health very seriously in that I have what’s called venous stasis ulcers, which are skin ulcers caused by poor circulation in the lower extremities, the legs. Ulcers are sores, if you didn’t know. And the fact that I’m on my feet for so many hours a day aggravates them.

Dee: Are the ulcers impacted or made worse by the work?

RX: Yeah, yeah.

Dee: I understand you also have emphysema?

RX: Yes.

Dee: And of course, the cold exacerbates that.

RX: Yes.

Dee: Okay, so when you health gets really bad, where do you go for health care?

RX: General Hospital, basically.

Dee: How long do you usually wait?

RX: Anywhere from 2 to 4 hours.

Dee: Are you well treated, would you say?

RX: Where, at the hospital?

Dee: Yeah.

RX: That’s relative to who’s treating me.

Dee: I heard that (laughter)…I know what you mean. And how about dental care?

RX: At the hospital, if I can.

Dee: What happens if you do get really sick? Do you ever take the day off?

RX: It depends on how really sick I am.

Dee: Have there been times that you’ve…been out here with active emphysema and feeling really bad?

RX: Well, there have been times I’ve been out here and not wanted to be out here, but my needs necessitate that I be out here. In other words, my health takes a back seat.

Dee: Let’s talk about harassment on the job. Can you tell us a little about that?

RX: Okay. There is a group or should I say, a team of people called the Ambassadors, whose job was primarily designed to help tourists out, by way of giving direction, just helpful hints about where to go, where not to go, who to talk to, who not to talk to.

But in fact, to my understanding, they are contracted by different stores, different companies, to keep undesirables- I guess I would be listed as an undesirable- panhandlers and drunks and so forth, off of their property, which brings about some interesting situations. For some reason, I have become the number one priority with this group of Ambassadors. And I can say honestly that I have brought some of this on in that this one particular company, the Ellis-O’Farrell garage, which is one of their contractees, I have been on their building site any number of times, because the flow of traffic into the garage is where I get my money. People are more apt to give money if they don’t have to change the direction that they’re walking.

Dee: So, that’s your work site?

RX: One of my work sites, one of my best work sites…I have a good rapport with the police officers in the area. They can attest to the fact that I have never been aggressive, never been accused of being aggressive.

Dee: I would agree.

RX: Okay, I came to the conclusion that because these people were hell bent on, to my way of thinking, destroying my livelihood, I said I’m going to get off their property, get on the curb side, city property, and continue my work.

Dee: Right.

RX: As you can see behind you, there’s a No Trespassing sign. That was put up primarily for me. So that they would have me or have the tools to hopefully get me arrested and out of the way. This is the way I look at it, and I believe that’s the way it is.

Dee: Have they called the police?

RX: Oh, yeah.

Dee: Many times?

RX: The police have been called 3 or 4 times. A couple of times were valid, a couple of times they outright lied and said I was standing on their property when I wasn’t, which brings me to another point. Because I am legal on the curbside, they have taken it upon themselves to lie to the police and say that I am on their property when I’m not. If some of the Ambassadors would tell the truth, they would attest to that fact, because the watch me. I’ve overheard them asking on their walkie-talkies, "Where is Mr. X?"

Dee: Here comes one right now…(a red jacketed Ambassador passes us, talking into his walkie-talkie about us and Mr. X)

RX: When the police have come, because my rapport is somewhat good with them, basically what they told me was, Mr. X, for the day or a couple if days, just kind of move on. Which I didn’t want to do and in one instance I challenged them, because I am legal on the curb. You know.

Dee: Right, panhandling is not illegal in San Francisco…

RX: As long as you’re not being aggressive and chasing people down the street and jumping on their back and all that.

Dee: Which you are definitely not.

RX: They want to get a court order to have me kept away 100 feet from any of their buildings…you know, kind of like a stay away order. I was told by one of the Ambassadors that I had to be 100 feet form the building. Now, this came from the Ambassadors, who in no way represent the law. I have not been told by any law enforcement officers. I have not received anything in print attesting to this fact, so as you can see, I’m not 100 feet from the building, nor do I plan to be, until I’m either told by a police officer, or in writing from a judge…you know.

Dee: Of course that kind of stay away order would be illegal as you are standing on city property, not on their property. Here comes another Ambassador talking into her walkie-talkie.

RX: Oh, yeah, she’s letting them know that I’m talking to somebody with a microphone. It all started when Karin Flood, the director of the Ambassadors, instructed her workers to take pictures of all the panhandlers and to label them as to what they either know or think that they do with their money. That is to say, if a person is a drunk, under his picture he’s labeled Joe Blow, Drunk or Joe Blow, Drug User. The lady had the unmitigated gall to come up to me one day and ask me what I did with my money. I in turn asked her what she did with her money. She didn’t take too kindly to this, obviously. But this is the extent that these people go to. Now, granted they do work with the police, because they’ve been told by the police to inform them of any crimes they see or so forth, but in my case I think- and this doesn’t involve the police, this is just with the Ambassadors themselves- they have somehow tagged me as the guy to watch at all times. And I cannot figure out why this is, because I’m really not doing anything wrong other than violating the building code by being up against the building, but I don’t do that anymore.

Dee: So now it’s becoming harassment…

RX: Well, I have to say in all fairness, in the last couple of days, it seems to have subsided somewhat.

Dee: Okay.

RX: But I do not think it’s over.

Dee: I want to ask you…do you think panhandling is a job, self-employment?

RX: I most definitely do. It’s probably one of the hardest jobs you can do.

Dee: What are your job duties? In other words, either you have to ask people to give you money or they just give it to you…or?

RX: There are different approaches…each panhandler has his own method, but there are a couple of things that have to be, that have to run true if you’re going to be successful and not violate any laws. Number one, you have to be courteous. Number two, you have to be polite. Your appearance can add or not add to what you get. I’m not too sure about that, but I know one thing, you have to be courteous, because nobody’s obliged to give you a dime. And myself, I try to have a kind word for everybody that passes. I speak…because I’m under the impression that I might not get a dime today, but if I’m courteous to this person, somewhere down the line I’m going to get something.

Dee: It’s a sales technique…but what’s going on with panhandling? Would you say it’s guilt? What are the dynamics?

RX: I think it’s any number of things. I think with some people it’s guilt. I think with others it’s a genuine concern. I think with some people it’s a "here, look at me" thing: I’m giving to this down and out person.

Dee: So, we’re thinking in long range terms, in terms of getting street vendors and panhandlers actual benefits, like health benefits, stuff like that- do you think you should get benefits, for all your hard work, like the regular City worker’s comp benefits, the whole thing?

RX: Sure.

Dee: And of course, retirement benefits, because, you know, the strength that you have to do this job I can’t imagine you having forever. Now then, can you open a checking account or do you have one already?

RX: No, I don’t.

Dee: Did you have trouble getting one, or don’t you care for one?

RX: I wouldn’t because it might raise some questions that I’d have to answer that I wouldn’t necessarily want to answer, namely form that agency that we all know and love that comes around every April.

Dee: With your permission, let’s cover a little bit of your history. Did you go to college? What kinds of jobs have you held in the past?

RX: Before my health got bad, I was a presser and tailor, dry cleaner, presser, tailor. I worked with clothes, in other words…I was employed by Brooks Brothers for about eight years. I’ve worked at any number of cleaners around the Bay Area. I have a year of college.

Dee: Were you a Union member?

RX: Yeah.

Dee: …and then your health got bad?

RX: Yeah, my health got bad, I got laid off, my wife came down with cancer. I kind of went off the deep end, which kind of led me to where I am now.

Dee: So, it’s an emotional and a physical kind of breakdown?

RX: Right, right.

Dee: So maybe self-employment or being an entrepreneur, if we look at it this way, is a way that you, Richard, can access employment. It’s your own hours, your own thing, but you work really hard; I can attest to that fact.

Two days after this dialogue, Richard was arrested in Union Square and told by a San Francisco police officer that, based on a letter received form the Ambassadors, "he should not come within 100 yards of Union Square" (a downtown SF shopping district). This police officer had no stay away order or Temporary Restraining Order. But a very intimidated Mr. X has now moved his work site to a low visibility area of Market Street where he hardly makes enough money for his lunch every day. POOR Magazine’s advocacy project is desperately attempting to attain pro-bono legal representation for Mr. X.

Richard X is a co-author of this on-going dialogue through POOR Magazine’s writer-facilitation project, a program designed to bring the POOR Magazine pre-publishing workshops, which include economic and legal advocacy, to outdoor locations for writers and artists who are unable to participate in structured or conventional indoor workshops, in an attempt to bring the "voices" and expertise of severely underserved populations into the media, while also providing much needed services.

Due to Business Improvement Districts’ (B.I.D.’s) corporate interests, urban gentrification and encroachment, several cities and states are currently attempting, or have already succeeded in, ejecting panhandlers and street newspaper vendors, even though this is an abuse of their First Amendment rights, and a further example of unfair harassment of the poor and powerless members of our society. In New York, Guiliani started with panhandlers and street newspaper vendors, forcing them out of terminals and subways, and has now moved on to all other outdoor business people, such as artists and vendors. In the Castro area of San Francisco, neighborhood businesses have launched a campaign, "Don’t give change, create change," advising people not to give change to panhandlers. In Atlanta and other parts of the U.S. they have made panhandling illegal altogether, furthering the criminalization and incarceration of the poor.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

To resist these abuses you must join forces with other organizations dealing with these issues; In San Francisco, please call Coalition on Homelessness at (415) 346-9693. In New York, call Street News at (718) 268-5165.

Fight Business Improvement District campaigns when they are launched, like the upcoming BID in San Francisco by the City Center Partnership, i.e., the corporation consortium that created the private security firm discussed in this article, the "Ambassadors."

Our advice for a citizen encountering a panhandler is, rather than be intimidated by the panhandler, you can choose to support him or her, just like anyone attempting to sell you a product. As well, you don’t need to be concerned with what he or she does with his or her "income," i.e., the support you give or whether their story is "real," anymore than you would be concerned what any other "worker" does with his or her income

by Joseph Bolden

Their very lives show us that impossible is a word routinely changing its definition.

Like Mr. Dennis Tito who refused to give up on his desire to go to outer space. But why does our country have such a warped way of viewing his venture. Our government sees it as a threat rather than as another opportunity to further open space to every citizen rich or poor... What has happened? Mr. Tito is a former NASA [National Aeronautics and Space Administration] engineer. He knew the risks and trained for his trip. Placing 20 million dollars in Russian and American hands was no problem for him, but personal risk to himself certainly was. This makes him as heroic as any of the Mercury 7 and Gemini Astronauts. "I'm already adapted." He will never be quite the same man that left Earth. Indeed he's a new man.

America, The Micropower, did not see fit to cheer Mr. Tito’s safe return to Earth from the International Space Station. Our government did its best to halt one man’s dream: To venture into space, visit a space station, experience weightlessness, and to see the blue sphere of Earth floating in vast nothingness. Shame on my country. May 7, 2001 in Kazakhstan, at 9:41 a.m. Moscow time, will not be a footnote in history but a small flame that will cresciendo into luminescence.

No more "Right Stuff" only deal. All of us should have the chance and knowledge to be astronauts, too. Come on, form groups for space businesses, have more space camps for children and adults who want to really go! Yes, I want to go. I’ll risk accidental death to be in space. I’ll be closer to the Eternal that way.

Is it possible that our government wants to expand space for everyone but cannot figure how to let go of their power? Let us help them share space with all people, not only a select few. I bet if my Internet column were translated and transmitted across the globe, every nationality could understand the longing for space travel. I also bet others at home or at their jobs or perhaps just doodling are thinking and writing about this as their governments say little or nothing about this event.

Look what is happening to California because one elected President was not trusted; we may have made a wrong step energy-wise but to be persecuted further by outside sellers of electricity; well it makes many of us in Cali want to go independent of the national grid and energy sellers.

A slogan comes to mind
"Alternative Energies Now."
"Cali's Get Off the Grid."

I say fight the power by outliving it as it dies trying to avoid change. I know, Joe is a few proteins short of being a full fledged egghead.Folks, think what Dennis Tito has done, and how our government reacted. Tell me do you sense their P A N I C of losing space to us regular folk?

Please send donations to Poor Magazine
C/0 Ask Joe at 255 9th St. Street,
San Francisco, CA. 94103 USA

For Joe only my snail mail:
PO Box 1230 #645
Market St.
San Francisco, CA 94102
Email: askjoe@poormagazine.org

by Joseph Bolden

Is my writing unique? That’s up to viewers out there. Being eclectic and spouting off on various subjects can be frustrating and confusing. Some you may not have not seen my work due to a combination of human and mechanical errors or rolling blackouts. Any donation to Poor or myself, even just a tiny bit is a bench mark to see if readers actually read my work. I hope my words get people to think before blindly reacting. We all know the danger of "blind reaction" from work, road, and school shootings.

There is also the more chilling danger of killings done not out of blind reaction but done by those with well thought out plans that result in mass murders. The 1995 Oklahoma Federal Building bombing is an extreme example of this.

The Supreme Court ruling against the use of medical marijuana, even in legitimate and dire cases where people are trying to relieve the pain of Glaucoma or where people are dying from AIDS, is very troubling. It shows a merciless disregard for human suffering.

It’s a perfect means of criminalization. People self-medicating with medical marijuana end up in jail. This is another example of our laws and leaders mentally "tripping" back in time instead of moving forward. Can we spell CHANGE THE FEDERAL LAW? Am I the only one seeing this robotic, knee jerk weirdness?

That’s it for me. I’ll be at a family function for a couple of days in late May, so stay connected (only when needed).

Here’s the pitch again folks–please send any comments and donations you can to Poor Magazine
C/0 Ask Joe
255 9th Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
USA

For Joe only my snail mail:
PO Box 1230 #645
Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Email: askjoe@poormagazine.org

by Joseph Bolden

April 16, 2001 was supposed to be Mr. Timothy McVeigh’s last day on Earth. "Oops, uh-oh, dang it!" The Federal Government didn’t give all the evidence to his defense attorneys. It turns out Mr. McVeigh may not have been properly defended, even though he confessed to the April 19,1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Attorney General John Ashcroft, because of the possible breach the of law, changed Mr. McVeigh’s execution date to May 16, 2001.

The feds say, "Oops," Attorney General Ashcroft goes, "Uh-oh," and the poor surviving citizens off this tragedy, who are in mental and physical anguish, say, "Dang friggin’ feds screwed up again!" They’re saying, "We want this guy’s ass gassed, burning in Hades forever." To many Oklahomans, execution by lethal gas chamber is too quick and merciful a death for McVeigh.

And McVeigh’s reaction? "See I told you they’re incompetent." This public bloodlust is unsettling even if it serves Oklahoma’s victims. We have had public executions before–they were called "hangings" and many of its victims were more innocent than guilty. Are we headed back to this?

Here’s a better idea. We could use our vaunted technology and disconnect McVeigh ‘s brain from his body, keeping both intact by using virtual simulation. With his body still connected virtually to his brain, his body could be made to feel the pain of different kinds of burning by using virtual reality technology. His body could burn from virtual fires and could be continuously regenerated as it endures Hell-on-Earth burning sensations. Or we could stimulate only the pain centers in his brain and he would go insane from the constant torture and die.

There is a bright side to this and that is that Muslims in the Middle East might end their Jihad {Holy War} after witnessing the Waco and Oklahoma city slaughters in America. They may rethink their ambitions with the thought, "These murderers are already cursed, joining with them we might condemn them further and we might also be cursed." That’s my twisted bright side.

Please donate what can to:
Poor Magazine
C/0 Ask Joe
255 9th St. Street,
San Francisco, CA 94103
USA

For Joe only my snail mail:
PO Box 1230 #645
Market St.
San Francisco, CA 94102
Email: askjoe@poormagazine.org

by Anna Morrow

I'm walking north on Van Ness headed for the War Memorial building. It's early on a weekday morning; the day is crisp and bright and I'm feeling lucky. I have been granted a full scholarship to attend the 3rd annual Bridging the Gap conference in San Francisco. People from all over the world will be gathering to share information and discuss issues relevant to drug addiction and treatment, from a Harm Reduction perspective. I'm new to the world of Harm Reduction, and as a refugee from the drug wars, am intuitively drawn to learn more about this (not so new) drug treatment model.

I enter the heavy glass and brass doors and am immediately swallowed into the giant marble lobby. My eyes adjust to the dim light and my body stiffens with the drop in temperature. I look around and see many who appear to be, like me, from the front line of the war on drugs, gathering schedules and packets. I press my name tag against my shirt as I follow a thin stream of people walking upstairs. I find a plush seat in the balcony and relax into the expansive hollow of this old theatre. I close my eyes to feel the undercurrent of anticipation swimming up from the seats below. This is hardly a sold-out event, and I have the distinct feeling that I am participating in something cutting-edge; like those of us gathered here today will be seen by those living 50 years from now as “ahead of our time.” I see people of varied races, incomes, and education, and again feel lucky to be among them.

The day begins with an introductory speech from our infamous mayor. I let his words float around my ears without actually grasping at the full message. I don't want to get caught up in my own cynicism before the day has even begun. I applaud when he's finished letting the excitment of the day squash the lingering memory of Wille saying " We are about making life wonderful for everyone!" I clap harder, and remind myself that this is the mayor of the first city in the nation to adopt Harm Reduction as it's official policy.

The first speaker is an older gentleman from Australia named Tony Triningham. With a fuzzy white beard and a round, protruding belly, he looks warm and cuddly, like a big koala bear. We are told that his life work has changed since hgis son Damien died of heroin overdose in 1997. Since then he has been on a mission to eradicate the prejudice and stigma associated with drugs and drug users. It is clear that this man loved his son and still does. He speaks from his heart, and his story resonates and reflects a similar truth for many of us here, I'm sure. Our friends and loved ones are dying, and it hurts. This war on drugs is not working. Our family members are locked up or buried, and our society’s morals around drugs and drug users does not represent the individual realities we are all living.

He has tears in his throat as he prepares to show us slides of his son. As the lights go down we are taken into a world of memories: Damien, tiny and new swaddled tightly in a blanket, at 4 riding his bike and displaying an exaggerated toothless smile, at 7 in his Halloween costume, clutching his bag of candy, at 10 playing soccer, captured in full stride running across the field, at 12 posing with a trophy lifted high above his head, at 18 in his graduation cap and gown, and then at 24, his decomposing body sprawled across the dirty back stairs of a building, dead, with a syringe laying next to him. It is an avoidable collision with truth: we do not wage a war on drugs. We wage a war on people, on our brothers and sisters, wives, husbands and lovers. And on our children.

The lights go back up and I can not disguise my own tears. People around me are sniffling and woman are searching for tissues. he has made his point. The room seems to fill with a silent yet palpable aura of empathy. I can feel it hovering around me and renew my commitment to help end the suffering any way I can. It is past time to end the war on drugs. I am hoping that Harm Reduction will be seen as the anti-war movement of the 21st century.

We are all affected by the devastation of this war. When one addict dies, everyone who ever knew or loved them is affected; lives forever altered by loss and sorrow that can not be undone. People may hate drugs, but we love people who are addicted to these drugs. The horrendous fate of this disease is,
emotional, spiritual and in too many cases, physical death. It is from the bleak, narrow-minded insistence that abstinence be the only acceptable road to recovery, that people are forced to follow the course of thier disease alone. The stigma associated with drug use and the disease of addiction causes homicide.

There is a different value placed on the death of drug addicts. Addicts are forced to pursue their addiction in such secrecy and isolation that they are dead before they can receive any help. Harm Reduction recognizes that a person must first be kept alive if there is any hope for recovery. Where there is life there is hope. Harm Reduction sees the reduction of drug-related fatalities as a primary goal, not neccesarily abstinence.

After the presentations in the auditorium, the conference participants are given a selection of more intimate workshops to choose from. I consider attending Fundamental Principles of Harm Reduction, but instead choose Facilitating Group Process in Harm Reduction.

The small room is a welcome contrast to the enormous auditorium we had been in all morning. I take a seat towards the front and study the faces of the people filing in. How many here are recovering addicts like me? More than half, I suspect. Almost everyone else is probably a drug counselor or therapist or nurse.

A tall, slender woman with salty-dark, shoulder-length hair steps to the front of the room. On a flip chart she draws a straight line in blue marker, then divides the line in half. "This is the way abstinence based treatment programs view addiction," she explains. “Addicted/ Not Addicted. Which, in terms of illegal drugs, equates to Use/Not Use. This model leaves very little room or opportunity for improvement, progress and success in treatment, and sees abstinence as it's main goal.”

“Harm Reduction, on the other hand, sees drug use as existing along a continuum, with many points along a spiral.” She pauses to flip to a new sheet and draws a spiral. On the very outer point she writes, “No Use.” On the very center point she writes, “Chaos.” Unlike the black-and-white approach of the abstinence model , Harm Reduction believes that drug uses ranges from “no use” to “chaos,” with 5 points in between: Experimental, Occasional, Recreational- (where there will be some pattern and purpose to the use)- Heavy, and then Abuse. For Harm Reduction, abstinence is seen as one of many options beneath the umbrella of treatment options.

Having illustrated these basic differentiations between the two schools of thought, she is ready to address the therapeutic components of Harm Reduction. The group therapy setting is intended to provide non-judgmental support without demands or pre-conceived expectations. Addicts are treated with dignity and respect and are viewed as experts in their own addiction and treatment. The facilitator is seeking to help the individual determine a goal, help them identify behaviors that may be hindering progress towards that goal, then managing or eliminating that behavior. In all instances therapy is facilitated- not enforced- and individuals are not coerced into meeting outside expectations.

I can't help but think that if Harm Reduction had been available to me I could have saved myself years of self-destruction. As it was, there was no place to take myself in the early phases of relapse that could have provided a safety net to my inevitable fall from grace. My therapist at the time (whom I had been seeing for some 4 years out of 8 years of clean time) was unable to engage in covert treatment with me while I was using. We had a close relationship and so I, in my typical caretaking manner, was unwilling to jeopardize her ethically or legally by insisting that she see me anyway. So I left.

It was clear to me that I was being "bad" by using and the only way for me to reclaim my previous status as a “good client" was to stop using. I chose to be bad; I was sucked willingly and somewhat gratefully into the familiar relief of drug addiction. Even though I had worked so hard to rebuild my life, one day at a time for so many years, the minute the drugs hit my system I was more than happy to leave it all behind. Once sincerely devoted to my recovery, my loyalty had instantaneously shifted back to drugs. I knew where that road would inevitably lead me: nowhere at best, or, more likely, to self-inflicted, self-destruction. But I didn't want to stop. As long as I could get high, I didn't care.

When I was forced to forsake the valuable and supportive relationship with my therapist, I entered the mouth of the dragon alone. There simply was no other option for me then. I imagine for a moment how it might have been to come to a supportive, non-judgmental group while my life was unraveling. How would it have been to have someone near by as the slow erosion of my life took place? Could some of the pain been avoided if I had been eligible for treatment and services regardless of my active drug use? Instead, I slipped further and further down into the marginalized world of drug addiction. I was engaging in criminal activity – I was a criminal- and the negative consequences of identifying as an addict far outweighed the benefits of seeking treatment. As long as I was using, I had to make sure know one from the outside found out.

Isolation is a toxic by-product of the war on drugs. How obvious it seems to me that to remove the stigma associated with drug use is to free those struggling with addiction to seek treatment and support. for many years I lived a double life. I spent much of my energy attemting to conceal my drug use from the people around me. I had managed to lie so effectively to others that I failed to realize the lies I was telling myself. This created a deep denial that made treatment for early recovery very difficult.

Looking around the room, I wonder how many others had been forced to get clean in the white-knuckle, cold-turkey, grip-of-death way that I did. How many others not here died before that time came? And why should it be so hard to get help? The cruelty of forcing people with a disease to go through so much suffering enrages me. In our society’s unwillingness to confront the basic facts of this disease, such as relapse as a normal and expected component of recovery, we are shunning our fellow human being into a corner with fatal consequences.

The day ends with a panel discussion about the recently passed Proposition 36, which is intended to divert non-violent drug offenders from incarceration into drug treatment. The voters in California passed this legislation by a landslide, perhaps pointing to the collective renouncing of the hypocrisy and ignorance of the war on drugs.How can marijuane, for which there has been no reported case of human death from overdose be on the arbitrary list of illegal drugs, when alchol, which has an annual death toll in the US alone of tens of thousands, be excluded?

The annual arrest of nearly a million and a half people suspected for drug offenses, most of those for simple possession of small quantities, is frightening evidence of far we have traveled down the wrong road. In California alone, 23 prisons have been built in the last 15 years at a cost of 4.2 billion, with still more under construction. Reports show that for every dollar spent on quality treatment, up to 7 dollars are saved in the broader society in law enforcement and health care costs. If this new law is implemented with minimal corruption of its intentions, 1.5 billion dollars in prison costs alone could be saved over the next 5 years.

I leave the conference hopeful that we are on the cusp of a pardigm shift. California voters spoke up to say we are no longer willing to see our friends, families and loved ones locked up without first offering them a chance to get their lives together, outside of prison walls. Harm Reduction offers a realistic, effective and compassionate way to begin healing the destruction caused by the war on drugs.

by PNN staff

The following is about a story that was investigated by the Poverty Journalism class at POOR. The reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle who broke the story manipulated the story to make it seem as though a murder was committed. In a later, tiny back-page story, we saw that the first Chronicle report was incorrect.

1st article; MOM KILLED HER OWN BABY

2nd article;Charges dropped against mother of baby

Process of investigation; The story was analyzed by the class, questions were raised to be answered as we gathered more information. Two letters were sent to Ping Du’s attorney to request more information. Other calls to the jail for more information were made also. Asian activist agencies were contacted to see if they could help Ping Du.

One of the student journalists has written his interpretation of the Ping Du story. We for now have not heard the last of Ping Du.

Ping Du, Who Needs to Have Her Story Told

By Vlad Pogorelov

An Asian woman dressed in an orange jumpsuit sits on a small narrow bed in her rat-infested cell. She stares at a leaky ceiling from which rusty water drips onto the cement floor, drop after drop. The cell is 6x4 feet, has no windows and through a door composed of thick metal bars she can see a segment of gray wall and piece of dirty tile floor. There is a small toilet in the corner and a sink on the opposite side. A large, German cockroach appears from underneath the sink and makes his way to a water faucet. The insect drinks plenty of water and then slowly returns back from where he came. The woman sees him but doesn’t show any interest in him. She just stares at the gray cement wall above the sink hardly seeing anything. Her face is motionless as a Chinese mask. But if you look more closely at her eyes you see a deep despair and enormous emotional pain.

An hour passes. And then another hour. A warden opens a window in a cell door and shoves in an aluminum bowl with some mushy green liquid —split pea soup, perhaps, and a slice of “Wonder” bread. But the prisoner doesn’t touch her lunch. She just sits, motionless, and stares into the space in front of her without even blinking. Another hour passes. Suddenly, the woman jumps up and starts hitting her head against a wall. She does it in a methodical fashion with a split second period in between which is almost synchronized with water dripping from the ceiling. She continues to hurt herself until her face is completely covered with blood and all she can see is a red glare. Finally, she collapses on the floor and cries. A warden enters her room and handcuffs her.

Later, the prisoner is transported into the mental ward of a jail in a neighboring county. She is stripped of her clothes, put into a straight jacket and given a shot of a medication which immediately takes her out of this grim reality and into an infinite blackness. A note on the heavy, thick, glass door, reads “Suicide Watch.” A prison guard is posted to observe the prisoner through the glass door at all times.

But this woman, whose name is Ping Du, is not aware of the guard or her whereabouts. She is dreaming and in her dream she sees herself playing with her little 6-month-old daughter in the back yard of her house up in Daly City. Her husband, together with her 10-year-old son, is nearby preparing a barbecue. It is a Sunday morning and the sun is shining brightly from the blue California sky above. The air is clean and saturated with happiness and joy. Ping Du’s husband calls her name. She leaves her baby on a blanket in the middle of the lawn and walks to her husband. As she approaches him she sees a big shadow sliding through a yard. When she turns back she sees that her baby girl is seized by a giant eagle that carries her away in its claws. Both parents run toward her, but it’s too late. Their baby is gone. Gone forever.

Unable to cope with her nightmare, Ping Du wakes up only to find herself restricted by a straightjacket and a realization that her nightmare is not over, but has only really begun. She tries to move her dry lips to ask for water. When she is finally able to say, “Water! I am thirsty. Water, please!” the guard doesn’t understand her—Ping Du has spoken in her native Cantonese. And so she stays thirsty, deeply affected by the despair of her situation in which, within a matter of a few hours, she lost her 9-month-old child, was accused of murder and incarcerated.

I first heard about Ping Du when the San Francisco Chronicle, on it’s front page, reported the sensational news Mom Killed Her Own Baby. From that article I’ve learned that this 36 year-old mother of two, an immigrant from China, was accused of murdering her 6-month-old baby girl while giving her a bath. Police, who investigated the drowning of Jiawen Young, became suspicious because paramedics were not immediately. Almost immediately Ping Du, who does not speak English, was arrested and put into San Mateo county jail, where, stricken by grief, the immigrant mother had a nervous breakdown. Following deterioration in her mental condition she was transferred into the psychiatric facility at Santa Clara County Jail. When I called the jail in order to schedule an interview with her, I was told that she was inaccessible at the time. “By the way,” an information officer added, “she would require a Mandarin translator, which we could not provide to you.” Apparently her jailers did not even know what her real language was. I was advised to call back the next week. It was clear to me that Ping Du was caught up in an inhumane legal system, uncaring about her tragedy. When I called Santa Clara County Jail the next week I was told that she was no longer there. “She was released to another county,” an officer informed me. “Do you mean that she was released? Perhaps on bail?” I asked. “Oh, no sir. I just told you that she was not released, but released to another county into another jail.”

As I investigated her story more, I learned that when Daly City Sgt. Donald Griggs questioned Ping Du, she did not have an appropriate translator and, considering that her 6-month old baby just drowned in a bathtub as result of accident, she naturally blamed herself for the tragedy. Without proper facts to back up his story, the Chronicle’s reporter Jonathan Curiel immediately fired up an article which was written in the best traditions of yellow journalism, in which he essentially accused the grief-stricken mother of nothing less than a premeditated murder. The Chronicle, following the “if it bleeds, it leads” logic of the mainstream press, published his report on its front page, titled Mom Killed her Own Baby.

The reader can see the word “alleged” is not in the title- and when reading the second, smaller back page article, it is easy to see how this report was manipulated by the reporter. As well, Ping Du’s reputation and that of her family was permanently stained if not destroyed, and her older son was taken into a protective custody.

A few weeks passed and I got the news that Ping Du finally had her day in court, where she was represented by public defender Kevin Nowack. The falsity of the premature conclusions and accusations came to light, and Ping Du’s charge was reduced to involuntary manslaughter. Her bail was set at $50,000. Unfortunately, because her husband Zheng Yang was the only provider for their family, there was no money for her bail. As a result of poverty she remains a prisoner.

by Alison VanDeursen

I always thought it was a strange question. Tucked between queries about my interest in "work-study" and of my tax return and income (or lack thereof), Question 35 asks bluntly, "Have you ever been convicted of any drug offense?" I haven't, and though I've found it puzzling, I'm usually in a rush to meet some deadline. So I just check "No" and move on through the Federal Student Aid forms without considering the racist and classist implications of this question.

I went "back to school" four years ago, a change in my life made possible by Federal Student Aid. The grants and low-interest loans have funded my San Francisco State University tuition, as well as my books and some living expenses. I've been able to get by financially working only part-time, allowing me to concentrate on my education full-time each semester. I will be graduating this month- if I get about 15 papers done this week- with skills and experience that I will be valuable to my self and to my community. Sure, I've smoked marijuana from time to time, though I've never been arrested for it. And so what if I had?

If I had, I've recently learned, I would have been denied my financial aid, and would have been forced to drop out of school. I first read about this in the New York Times this month. Dina Jean Schemo reported that Russell Selker, a student of Ohio State University, was denied financial aid because he had been found guilty of smoking marijuana. He paid his fine, had his driver's license revoked, and was assigned probation and community service. Thinking his debt was paid, Selker was surprised when he received another sort of sentence- a block on his financial aid for college for a year. This punishment was handed down not by a judge, but by a 1998 amendment to the Higher Education Act.

Every six years Congress revises the Higher Education Act of 1965, which was enacted to provided access to education by way of Perkins Loans, Pell-Grants, and other federal student aid. The 1998 revision, signed by President Clinton, contains many provisions lauded by Congress members for making college more accessible to everyone. Yet the HEA drug provision, spearheaded by Mark Souder, R-Ind, punishes those already at-risk of marginalization: low-income people and minorities. These are people who most depend on financial aid to make education possible. These are also the people most often targeted and profiled in the "War on Drugs."

My friend Nicholas, while in college, was cited by a cop for possessing marijuana. Lucky for him, this cop let him go without an arrest. The fact that Nicholas is white and attended an Ivy League university in the northeast probably helped sway the officer- the United States Department of Justice reports that African Americans represent 55 percent of drug convictions, though they make up only 13 percent of drug users! Even if Nicholas had been arrested, he would have received a sort of special treatment. His family did not rely on financial aid to send him to college, and so, unlike a low-income student, he would not have lost his right to an education.

When the question first appeared on Financial Aid Applications, many chose not to answer, and received aid anyway. But Rep. Souder made sure in 1999 that all loopholes were closed, and the question now is followed by a stern warning, "Do not leave this question blank." If left blank, the applicant will not receive aid. If the applicant has had a drug conviction, he or she will lose aid for a period of one year to indefinitely.

The only way around the penalty is to participate in a federally-approved drug rehabilitation program that includes at least two random urine tests. This is again discriminatory- such drug programs can be difficult to access or prohibitively expensive. As well, people convicted of drug offenses are not necessarily addicts in need of rehabilitation. They may, like myself, be occasional or recreational users. I certainly don't see how the Department of Education is qualified to determine whom is in need of drug treatment programs, especially as it is only the poor and working class whom they scrutinize.

I'm sure this law was an easy sell- "We're not going to give hand-outs to druggies!" But students who must answer "Yes" to Question 35 are ineligible for ALL federal funding- this includes "work-study," where a student works on campus to earn money for school, and loans, which must be paid back with interest.

I feel fortunate that I have not been personally penalized by this law and so forced to take a leave from school. As a student who took ten years off from college, I can tell you that momentum is important. The Department of Education reports that over 8,600 students have lost federal aid this school year die to this amendment. It goes without saying that these students are middle and lower income, or else they would not be eligible for assistance in the first place! Wealthy people ARE NOT affected by this legislation, no matter how many drug convictions they may have! And only drug offenses constitute denial of federal aid- no questions are asked about rape, murder, or arson.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, is at least as outraged by this law as I am! He is reintroducing legislation this year to repeal the HEA drug provision- legislation that failed to pass last year, but with increased awareness, there is hope Question 35 will disappear from the Financial Aid applications before others lose their right to an education. Check out website www.raiseyourvoice.com to send letters to congress and find out more about this issue.

by Sacramento POOR Poets

To The Policeman

Who Went To Church On Sunday.

I was hungry

and you took away my ID

I couldn’t go to a food locker

I was cold

and you took away my warm clothes and

blankets

I was weary

and you wouldn’t let me rest

I was broken hearted

and instead of giving me comfort you

Showed your contempt

I was lonely

and you wouldn’t give me a kind word

I was frightened

and you terrorized and threatened me

I had had love and compassion

And you showed me hate

I showed you respect

And you treated me as WORTHLESS

I was homeless and you didn’t care

Is this really the way you

want to live your life?

Sunshine/AKA Billeen Pruett

P.S. Not all officers are like this--but for the

Ones who are ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

************************

************************

Shelter

By Leonore Mathews

Who would know or care

That I needed shelter

as the wind and rain

played games

on the roof of my old

"Chevy"

Winter brought rain drops

from a leaky roof

dripping slowly on the front

seat

Nesting in a sleeping bag

usually warm and comfy

Who would know or care

that me of all creatures

needed shelter.

Early Dawn

by Leonore Mathews

Bring back the dawn soon

but not too late

so dancing black shadows

will fade

as glossy sunbeams kiss

our faces

and we can once more

join the human race

forgetting we are homeless.