This makes me physically ill. How dare the city councilmembers sleep well at night with this happening every winter?

When I asked a candidate that got elected this November what he thought of the anti-homeless ordinances, he said it was "mostly politics" and he didn't want to get involved. This is not politics, this is a man's life - and the lives of those like him.

You politicians should not call yourselves liberal if you don't have the basic human decency to do everything in your power to prevent this.

His death is on your hands. You need to wake up and do something about this NOW.

Thank you for remembering this man, our fellow citizen, who died because of bogus laws that honor property values more than human welfare.

The homeless ban in Santa Cruz is a farce. If it seems there are less homeless in Santa Cruz, it is only because they've moved on to unincorporated areas of the county, have been abducted... or have FROZEN TO DEATH. (One bright spot that I see is Tony Madrigal who campaigned for lifting the ban and was elected over other incumbents in favor of the ban.)

Collectively, I think Santa Cruz as a community has a lot of soul searching to do. I find it very interesting that the city spends thousands of dollars on advertising luring people to come here. When those with money come, they are celebrated; when those without it are here, they are despised.

The words of Jesus fit nicely: " depart from me, you who are cursed... For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stanger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look out for me."

I see that Santa Cruz continues to live up to its reputation as one of THE MEANEST cities in the United States, in regard to its treatment of homeless human beings and its continued violations of their human rights and their civil liberties.

Anyone willing can see the tragedy of the homeless, however killing the messenger does not solve anything. The city council/police work under the mandate of the people, and trying to shove a minority opinion down the throats of the authority/citizens of Santa Cruz will never work, no matter what your rationale is. All the self-righteous "words of Jesus", "MEANEST CITY", "how dare the city council members" crap only scapegoats the complex problem at hand. I guess it makes some weak people feel suddenly strong to bully those who aren't any more responsible for this problem, than themselves. Unless you are personally taking homeless in, or raising funds to find shelter/help them, then what the fuck are you doing except mouthing-off, or whining, to find resolve?!

The only one killed I see here is Robert Wagner. As for your "scapegoat", that implies someone is being punished who is not guilty. The City Council only needs to muster up four votes to end the Sleeping Ban and Blanket Ban. So until they do, and as long as homeless people are suffering out of doors and hiding from the cops for the act of Sleeping, they are totally culpable. And taking 5 years to build a shelter for 27 families does not relieve them of the guilt. Am I "mouthing off" or "whining"? Heck no! I am speaking out against this cruel law and demanding the council change its evil ways. As for raising funds to shelter the homeless, more of my tax dollars are going to jail them than to house them. Yours too!

Becky, Obviously you don't understand implied comparison (metaphors), and are not willing, or maybe even capable of reading what I had to say. It's not esoteric. Do you desire resolution of this problem, or just enjoy the drama? It's not hard to wonder about some folks so (in facade) dedicated to this issue. Your response is a weak cop-out. You only exemplified everything I said in "Killing The Messenger".

My/our tax dollars aren't working the way I/we want, translates into I'm not doing anything but intellectualize on this issue. Activism means doing things with "energy", (God forbid), "work". The Muhlys drive medical supplies, etc. to Nicaragua, and their coalition builds shelter (with their own hands), etc., to help there. The common yuppie belief is to put a bumper sticker on their SUV and feel "I've done my part." I particularly like the ones that refer to all of us in the USA as on God's team, as they burn you for a space in line, when it's your turn. Childish repeating of wants at meetings/on the net/in the paper only works when their is a weak father there to manipulate. How has that changed anything so far?! It takes relentless "work" to make any difference in this world.

Larry: Exposing and denouncing civil rights violations by the local government is not "intellectualizing". Criminalizing poor people for the act of sleeping, preventing them from protecting themselves from the elements, and banning self-run encampments contribute to premature deaths (as with Robert Wagner).

Good for Burt Muhly to drive supplies to Nicaragua (so did I in the 80's with Bikes Not Bombs). But meanwhile back in Santa Cruz, Muhly as Mayor in 1978 colluded with the SCPD in institutionalizing the worst Sleeping Ban in the state (MC 6.36.010a).

It's the old "Act Globally, Oppress Locally" syndrome that "progressive" Democratic Party politicians have endlessly repeated here.

Protest, education, organizing, and political pressuring are not the equivalent of putting a yuppie bumper sticker on your SUV.

Check out what the "Yes Men"--a satirical group--did to expose Dow Chemical on the Bhopal massacre/disaster recently (see Democracy Now 9-6).

Sure HUFF is local and small-time, but no one else is publicly raising these issues.

The City Council and police are not "messengers", but active participants--who many of us believe are selling out their progressive constituents by continuing to deny local human rights while babbling about them elsewhere.

For those who'd like to challenge Mayor Rotkin, check out the hypocritical Human Rights Day meeting of Rotkin with other notables noon December 10th in front of the County Building/Courts on Friday.

Again, a tip of the hat to Larry, for his candor in using a real name and speaking up in a forum where many disagree with him.

The only issue I became a full-time activist on was when they were trying to shove a nuclear power plant down our throats at Davenport. You need lots of allies in high places. I found/met with Jerry Brown, not knowing him personally, or where he lived. (You have got to be relentless) The Committee For Nuclear Responsibility Inc. continually fed me information to educate the general public, and kick-ass in local media. Nobel Laureates George Wald, Harold Urey, and Linus Pauling were a tremendous help, along with Ramsey Clark, and Professor John Gofman. Don't be intimidated by high profile folks. They are usually more than willing to help. I was surprised when the general public was so open to new information, staying myself personally/emotionally out of it. All I did was facilitate information, according to true experts. Unfortunately you need money for any effort of change to succeed. An affiliation with Habitat For Humanity, including Jimmy Carter wouldn't hurt. Pounding some nails impresses people, and a rally including them could be a stepping stone. Benefits can be a bonding element, as well as bringing in much needed coin. Treat the enemy as your friend, like a mis-guided cousin. Alienating is counter-productive. Stay positve, and celebrate the small victories.

Again a thank you to Larry for the history and the advice.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to look into Habitat for Humanity (Jimmy Carter visits, of course, are welcome--he's the only ex-president that seemed to do anything but fatten on honorariums).

Benefits, rallies, never forgetting that the issue not the individuals is key: all very important. Rotkin the man is not the enemy. Unfortunately Rotkin the politician and bad mayor is.

HUFF is traditionally into confronting local injustice and discrimination--which may be too "polarizing" for nationally known folks concerned with maintaining "good relations".

Bonding, positive attitude, celebrating small victories? Sure.

But realistically speaking--our main work puts us at odds with many social service providers, politicians, and bureaucrats. Calling them out is really a part of exposing the issues.

We actually lined up a number of famous folks against the Sleeping Ban ranging from Pam Africa to Howard Zinn to Brian Wilson. Not to mention all the local progressive organizations from WILPF to Cal-Pirg, from the Green Party to the Peace and Freedom Party, etc.

It's City Council members who have cut and run repeatedly.

Love to have Ramsey Clark in town for a rally. You schedule him as speaker; I'll supply the refreshments.

Ramsey Clark was on the board of directors for The Committee For Nuclear Responsibility. Without guys like Ramsey, we could be living in a radioactive hell here.(I never met him in person)..... He is now trying to have Bush impeached/stop the war machine. (Big Balls!) The right-wing is going out of their way to trash him.... He can be reached at: International Action Center, 39 West 14 Street, Room 206, New York, NY 10011 ---e-mail: iacenter (at) iacenter.org Give it a shot if you're serious. ...My time is spent #1 taking care of my wonderful Mom #2 associate producer of a documentary on the history of surfing in Santa Cruz.

I see the question of strategy to be multipronged. Mainstream groups can spend years quietly pleading for shelters and whatnot while being totally ignored or being given empty lip service. They have the general good will of the high society types but keep it only because of their quiet and humble approach. When the time comes, they can get the infrastructure to manage programs. Groups using loud direct action have the potential to bring issues back onto the radar screen of politicians, but lack the ability to convince capitalists to kick down our money to provide services. By having each prong do what it does best, the politicians are ticked off at the direct action groups which are seen as unreasonable and asking for too much. Being forced to act however, politicians then turn to the mainstream groups that hang around the Chamber and Rotary looking for table scraps. "Win win" deals are struck, the issues are somewhat addressed, all the while the direct action groups are talked down to and marginalized as too radical. The reality is that the matter would never had surfaced for action without the unreasonable activists pushing the issues. No, the shelter plaques will never read "thanks to all the unknown radicals that made politicians pay attention to this matter" instead some local industrialist or dot commer will be imortalized as someone who lifted our bodies and spirits with his/her charity and generousity. Never mind that it was the wage system they enforced that put people in the poor house in the first place.

Yeah, oversimplified but this isn't a dissertation, ok?

After the demo tomorrow at the courthouse, I will e-mail Ramsey Clark in search of support. Thanks for the tip, Larry. Let me know if any homeless surfers are getting sleeping tickets.

David Brown, of course, is presenting the basics. Radicals get the shit and none of the credit, but supply the information and spark the people power that ultimately gives the liberals the jobs. And ultimately those who are ignored, mocked, and abused--who are articulating the basics--are accepted. Or rather what they propose is accepted; often their names are lost.

But then most of us are not in it for the name-recognition anyway.

Meantime check out the Friday demo [see "HUFF counter-press conference on Human Rights Day"] at 11:30 AM at the courthouse.

"But then most of us are not in it for the name-recognition anyway."

Whoa. That was an interesting comment coming from someone who seems to ONLY be in it for the recognition.

I have a different opinion on the phenomenon of the local activists (in every locality) being dismissed as media hungry egomaniacs. Having not completed my journey down the sliding scale toward enlightenment, I welcome your critique of this perspective.

It is easy to dismiss local activists as simple media gluttons and loud mouths but I believe to do so is to not fully acknowledge the dynamics of the situation.

1. To dismiss activists is to reinforce the attempts of elites to sidestep attention away from the issues and toward the activists. This is often successful. I forget who said this one: "Why is it that when I feed the poor and I am called a saint but when I ask why the poor are hungry I am called a communist?"

2. Doing direct action in public is a form of personal and professional sacrifice. The novelty of media attention often fades quickly as the activist realizes that they are locked out of the actual decision making processes in which they could possibly share a great deal of insight. Once a person is successfully smeared as a loud mouth it is difficult to shake the image and so those who engage in direct action are often relegated to working from outside the panels and councils. Every time an activist gets dismissed for speaking truth to power we must acknowledge the hit they take on their own reputation, career, and credibility among those who have the consolidated power to distribute.

3. The direct action work needs to be done and all the direct action activist can do is hope that by putting themselves out on a limb they are creating an opportunity for someone who agrees with the principles but has kept quiet enough to retain credibility with elites and recieve a share of power to distribute. The opportunity, however, would not exist without direct action activists.

So...I guess that leaves us with a question. Do we really think that long time activists do not realize this? Do direct action activists not know that they could have chosen a more lucrative path in pursuing the people's issues? Of course they know this. If showering themselves with attention was what motivated them then they would just climb the ranks of Rotary and get a plaque and award every six months, not to mention immortality in the historical societies. The truth is that direct action activists are rewarded by seeing their issues on the front page, not their own name in lights. If we want to see the name of the same dedicated activists in the media less often we simply need to help them engage in the act of creating news. By offering ourselves up as the uppity person more often we also dimish the ability of elites to attack the messenger.

Solidarity my friends.

Thanks David, for so eloquently summing up the woes and the triumphs of an activist. Over the years I have watched a lot of Norse-bashing. It goes like this: Robert Norse is a trust-fund baby. Why doesn't he get a "real job?" Robert Norse only cares about getting his name in the papers. Robert Norse, the so-called "homeless advocate" isn't even homeless himself! Robert Norse does not represent homeless people. Even homeless people don't like him. His lies and distortions are too numerous to even begin to refute! Robert Norse will never be happy, no matter what the council and social service providers do. Robert Norse is too loud (He WAS convicted of committing excessive noise when attempting to play a video on police brutality by the SCPD in front of the Pacific Trading Co.) While I agree with Robert Norse on the issues, he is too abrasive in his manners to get anything done.

One city staffer complained about the bathrobe he wears to public demonstrations. "What's under that robe?" she asked.

Does Larry know that Robert Norse went to jail for a 60 day sentence for the "crime" of feeding homeless people in San Francisco? And that following the media blitz for that, the City of San Francisco stopped arresting people for feeding the poor?

Robert has twice been convicted for crossing the street. What does that tell you?

I think the quality Robert possesses that bugs the powers that be the most is that he is relentless.