Nico's mom wanted to know.....>"Please let me know if the poster comes down within the next few days."
Well Nico's Mom, the soft-core porn is gone. It didn't even take a few day's. This sexy centerfold got removed faster than you could put the letter on your website.
Now the gritty part. I got cornered taking these photographs by the local thugs. Darn if my wide angle lens couldn't pick them up under the el tracks by the currency exchange.
When I was walking in the alley to go home, I was approached by a speeding car with two younger 20ish black males inside.
As they pulled up, my hands full of groceries and I was fumbling for my keys.
I was un-sure what they wanted? Maybe directions?
Then they told me why they pulled up. They saw me taking pictures and " I better not be putting their pictures on the internet".
Right there, these two guys were warning me they "knew who I was" and they weren't happy I was "taking pictures of them selling drugs'. I told them "I wasn't. They told me to "watch my back" and they sped off.
I didn't call 911 because I don't trust the police. I've been told first hand they don't like me. Plus, everything was real fuzzy when I knew-they knew, who I was.
I was the one taking photos and putting them on the internet. (I got a zero on the make and model of car with temp plates.)
I did call the Alderman's office and report the matter, even though I don't trust him much either. But I figured I would let him know-I knew it wasn't him and his gang trying to rub me out.
With all this excitement, I forgot to ask if the elevator was fixed yet?
28 comments:
Was it Craig's website? Was it Nico's mom's letter?
Perhaps it was both...?
We'll never for sure - anyway, it's not a competition.
What we do know is more and more people are starting to pay attention to the fact that we talk to each other. That's evidently a very dangerous thing...people with facist mentalities like "Peanut" usually believe this to be the case.
Tom, are you really asking Paradise that question or is that just a cheap rhetorical trick. Paradise never claimed to be a criminologist or sociologist, or alderman, or president of the United States. She is doing her thinking out loud here, which frankly is not something I see you taking the risk to do much on these blogs...perhaps you are too busy trying to influence policy elsewhere? If so, it would be nice if you shared that with us on the blogs - we might learn something, you never know.
Excuse the mini flame - I know you can take it...
By the way, my opinion is that this wasn't really about porn at all - although I respect the views of those who may disagree. In other words, it wasn't only an issue of sexual prudery on the part of the neighbors. The picture of the naked gun w/breasts was an "outdoor message" from the "business people" of Morse Ave. to us. That's why it was facing outward toward the street - the message was "we own this street, and by the way, f--- you" The breasts on display were only part of their message, and that's what we were sensing, I think.
After all, I don't think many of us would be so up in arms if a woman decided to, say, breastfeed her baby in the park...
That's why this incident matters.
Believe me, I understand that the amateurs, that is citizens and residents, of RP need to step up. But really, I think they already do step up - maybe not as many as I'd like to see, but not everyone feels comfortable in that role, and that's okay. However, I also believe that having the toolkit to think through some of these very difficult problems is important too - which is why I invoked "the experts". That's what teach-ins are about, and that's part of the brainstorming that Gary and I are now doing for our site. We aren't there yet, but give us time, it's on the drawing board. Everyone here is invited to send us your thoughts and suggestions.
Once the "amateurs" start getting comfortable with the skill set they will stop screaming and start acting. So let's all help give each other the tools. I sincerely hope that the powers that be are ready for this next step in the evolution of public discourse in RP.
Don't do a "Dan2" on me Craig. I was just fixing an HTML link...
Decriminalizing the use of substances is not the hyper-radical idea that you may think Paradise, at least not to me.
But, as always, the devil is in the details and here is one facet of this that I've never seen really developed in the literature on this subject.
America, as many of you are painfully aware, had no integrated, comprehensive,accessible structure for the delivery of health care. Whatever you may think of drug use and abuse from a moral standpoint, it will inevitably cause some public health issues. It already does of course, but I think there are pursuasive cases that suggest that decriminalization might normalize use even further, which would lead to even more public health problems, with their attendant costs, human and otherwise. Helping drug addicts quit permanently is a very expensive proposition, as some of you know. So if decriminalization happens without an adequate health care delivery system, you have a mess. One could use savings from enforcement of current drug policy to offset the increase in public health costs. But if you just do that, what have you actually gained as a nation, not to mention politically? IF such an integrated health care delivery system were ever implemented, and IF decriminalization of substances took place, politicians would be in the uncomfortable position of having to defend paying for a problem that many people will claim they created, or at least made worse. Right now, it's already a public health problem, but how you lay the blame at anyone's feet politically is much murkier...You see where I am going here?
Thank you Craig for posting this and getting the job done. I don't think I'm a prude because the image offended me (maybe some do- oh well) - I agree with NM that the message was one of disrespect to the community. And that shouldn't be tolerated any more than we already have to. Likewise, young women who walk down Morse Ave. shouldn't have to be oggled by older men who have bad teeth and no job. There are times when I've wanted to scold men for this. Oggling at a 16 year old for God's sake- sicko degenerates.
I'm with Carol, if they harm a hair on your head there will be hell to pay.
And the police better do their job if that ever happens too- or I say we protest at the police station. It disgusts me that professionals would let petty personal resentments get in the way of defending a citizen who is doing community service.
Paradise said "The same people who shriek in horror at a soft-porn poster are the very same people who think you are an 'elitist snob' if you suggest that there are certain categories of people, such as gangers and thugs, that no neighborhood can tolerate."
I hope you're not referring to me because I don't want to assimilate any thugs into our community. I feel sympathy for poor working people and even some for thugs and prostitutes- but I don't want criminals and unemployed thugs around either!
I think you're talking about a stereotype of liberals. I don't care if I'm called elistist for wanting them out. I think most of use want the thugs and criminals out. I just don't know where they can go. Ultimately they will probably end up in prison- we can hope anyway. But that is a sad state of affairs. I think it's possible to have sympathy for people but also not want to deal with their bad behavior.
RP neightbor wrote: I think you're talking about a stereotype of liberals. I don't care if I'm called elistist for wanting them out. [end quote]
Yeah, let's get rid of all the liberals.
1) The threats are chain yankers. Don't worry about them.
2) If you want to get the attention of the alderman, form a block club, join a block club. Squeaky wheels do get grease.
3) TW is right about drug dealers. Read Freakonomics..."why drug dealers live with their mothers."
4) Don't worry. Be happy
Craig, I hope you realize that you are most effective when you expose the gang activity in our neighborhood. Please keep up this effort. In my opinion, everything starts with the safety of the neighborhood. If we get rid of, or dramatically reduce the drug and gang activity business development and neighborhood improvements will follow in due couse.
I believe you really hurt your credibility when you go off on these rants about the Alderman, DevCorp, and developers. Don't get me wrong, the Alderman is ineffective. Anyone who spends their time worrying about foie gras (when it's not even available for sale in the ward) and ignores the crack dealer on the corner will be voted out in due course. I'm no fan of DevCorp either -- it looks like a boondoggle to me. Ineffective people tend to gravitate to these types of jobs. Please, please stick to your camera and help improve the neighborhood. Let DevCorp and the Alderman fall on their own swords. They don't need your help.
If you hadn't noticed, the pictures you post get results. Keep them coming, focus on the thugs that blight our neighborhood, the crack dealing that continues despite the cameras, and your credibility will improve. By the way, you may want to check out the prostitution arrests that have been happening at Clark and Morse.
Oh, and for the love of God, get yourself a 5th grade grammar review book. You have a bad case of the plural and possessive-itis.
Quote: It's been legal in Anmsterdam for years [end quote]
Actually, drug use is not legal in the Netherlands. It's decriminalized and use is not prosecuted (the cafes don't count; they are only serving pot and one can only buy and use it in the cafes). But such a scenario is not a happy state of affairs and has it's problems such as Amsterdam becoming a haven for users (so that even as Dutch drug use declines the # of drug addicts has risen); such as the fact that crime is particularly high in Amsterdam (drug addicts don't work and whether their use is "legal" or not they still need money for their drugs). One might say the problem is that the sale of drugs is not legalized/taxed. Whatever. The only way legalization of drugs works is if it's legal everywhere. As for taxing the hell out of it -- the problem with that is that then government becomes dependent on those revenues and doesn't exactly have an incentive to eradicate addiction. See cigarettes for an example. All that $ paid into funds to get people to stop smoking. Right.
Quote: It's been legal in Anmsterdam for years [end quote]
Actually, drug use is not legal in the Netherlands. It's decriminalized and use is not prosecuted (the cafes don't count; they are only serving pot and one can only buy and use it in the cafes). But such a scenario is not a happy state of affairs and has it's problems such as Amsterdam becoming a haven for users (so that even as Dutch drug use declines the # of drug addicts has risen); such as the fact that crime is particularly high in Amsterdam (drug addicts don't work and whether their use is "legal" or not they still need money for their drugs). One might say the problem is that the sale of drugs is not legalized/taxed. Whatever. The only way legalization of drugs works is if it's legal everywhere. As for taxing the hell out of it -- the problem with that is that then government becomes dependent on those revenues and doesn't exactly have an incentive to eradicate addiction. See cigarettes for an example. All that $ paid into funds to get people to stop smoking. Right.
I like stats, so I went looking for some to support Paradise's assertion that tobacco has fallen to pariah status. I found some in an interesting report put together by the American Lung Association in 2004. Their findings are in line with what Paradise has observed - while a significant percentage of Americans still smoke (22.5% of adults 18+ years) this is still a dramatic decline from the peak years of comsumption (1940's - 1950's for men, 1960's for women).
According to the report, smoking currently costs the economy over $150 billion in annual health care costs and lost productivity, including $81.9 billion in mortality-related productivity losses and $75.5 billion in excess medical expenditures. These are 2004 numbers.
I encourage you to read this report if you are interesting in this sort of thing. http://www.lungusa.org/atf/cf/%7B7A8D42C2-FCCA-4604-8ADE-7F5D5E762256
Here is another excerpt from the report, this one not so happy.
International Cigarette Smoking Prevalence
Over 15 billion cigarettes are smoked worldwide daily. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates,
there are 1.3 billion smokers in the world—about one-third of the global population aged 15 years and over. Over 300
million men in China – equal to the entire U.S. population- are smokers.
Data suggest that, globally, approximately 47.5% of men and 10% of women smoke. In developing countries, 58% of
men and 9% of women smoke, while in developed countries, 35% of men smoke, as do 22% of women. By the mid
2020s, the transfer of the tobacco epidemic from rich to poor countries will be well advanced, with only about 15% of
the world’s smokers living in rich countries. Health care facilities in poorer countries will be hopelessly inadequate tocope with this epidemic.Worldwide, it is estimated that tobacco causes about 8.8% of deaths (4.9 million). Close to 50% of children are exposed to passive smoking at home. The highest smoking rates among youths can be found in Central and Eastern Europe, sections of India and the West Pacific Islands.
I'm still looking around for some research to support your belief that decriminalization of substances that are currently illegal will lead to decreased use. I am not so hopeful about finding this as I was with the tobacco thing, frankly, but I will continue to look. As for your statement that alcohol consumption doubled during prohibition, I could find nothing to support that claim. While I was searching, I did find a very interesting history of prohibition. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/nc2a.htm I think you may find the section of this history called "prohibition in perspective" interesting - it contains various stats as well as a discussion on some of the difficulties researchers face when trying to do statistical analysis of prohibition. The history is contained in an interesting site called the Schaffer Library of Drug Policy, which is also worth a visit.
Quote from Rebecca: According to the report, smoking currently costs the economy over $150 billion in annual health care costs and lost productivity, including $81.9 billion in mortality-related productivity losses and $75.5 billion in excess medical expenditures. These are 2004 numbers. [end]
What none of these reports consider is the cost savings from people who smoke and die early thus not drawing from social security, medicare, etc. To everything there is a silver lining. ;-)
To the best of my knowledge there is no statistically significant study showing that legalization of anything leads to decreased usage. It just leads to legal usage and, in some cases, less deaths from overdoses (now to be known as cost savings) where the drugs (alcohol, cigarettes, included) are somewhat regulated. For instance, the banning of substances used to make meth in Nebraska, I think it was, led to a decrease in local meth labs which led to an increase in meth from Mexico -- meth which is more potent. Oh, and crime has gone up too.
I like your sinister sense of humor Pamela. Now I will have to go do that comparative analysis of the cost savings from SS et. al. due to premature smoking mortality before I can rest...
Damn you, woman!
I hope GWB&Co. never catch on that it would probably just be cheaper in the long run to kill us all...
Here's a thought -- people obey the laws and don't imbibe in those substances that are against the law? Either lobby to change the laws or don't do it.
Btw, it's interesting to hear my friends who are ex-meth and heroin addicts (I have a weird collection of friends) speak of their addiction as physical but their recovery (and any subsequent failures) in moral terms. At the end of the day you either find the strength of will to kick the habit or you don't. No substitute drug will kick the addiction, just make it a bit easier to get to will power.
Sorry if this post shows up twice - can't tell if it was accepted the first time..
You and Dr. Koop are right, Tom. Welcome to my world. This is an emerging trend in population health management that is really starting to pick up steam lately, if my inbox is any indication. As usual, there are many complexities involved in implementing Dr. Koop’s insight in any meaningful way. If you are interested in the wonky side of these things, please feel free to pay me a visit – I have a stack of white papers I could share. rogersparkreview@hotmail.com
Finding pharmaceutical solutions to addictive and compulsive behavior is sort of a holy grail in pharma research right now. Dr. Satel makes a good argument – response to psychotropic drugs is far too idiosyncratic to bet the house on, as a society. For this reason, multi-modal therapies for these problems will continue to need our support – treatment for depression post SSRI’s is a good case to support this argument. There is no silver bullet in sight, just a temporary silver lining for the next drug company that gets the next one of these products to market first.
One of the more interesting drugs in the pipeline is rimonabant, which is being studied as a therapy for obesity. (market name: Accomplia…cute…) Sanofi-Aventis is working on this one. Rimonabant is a selective CB1 endocannabinoid receptor agonist…yes, that cannabinoid. Supposedly the apple dropping on the head for this drug was the observation that pot smokers like to snack a lot when they are high…Apparently, there is some statistically significant evidence that it helps curb the urge to smoke as well…
Craig, I second Pamela's request - please consider turning that security thing off
Post a Comment