Like his role on 'Angel', it ended too soon:

http://glenn-quinn.com/

I agree with you. Plain and simple, vagrancy is vagrancy. There are
options: shelters, hospitals, etc. However, many of these places
require no drigs and no booze. Therefore, many of the homeless will
not go there. I am not a cold hearted bee-och, I want to see people
helped and homed. But the fact is that there are many folks on the
streets that are mentally ill, violent and a nuisance. Remember the
madman of 96th Street? Remember the nut who pushed & killed that girl
in front of a subway train? Remember that guy who hit a woman with a
brick, injuring her severely? Some folks just should not be out on
the streets. For the safety of the public.

>
> Also mentioned in the article is my biggest peeve: the fact that we
(New Yo=
> rkers) pay a LOT of taxes for services that are supposed to help
these bums,=
>  yet many of them refuse any help and instead panhandle MORE of my
money.

EXACTLY!!!

Posting this hilarious papermag movie review on behalf of member
sherryjbryan:

"Heaven"
It's beautiful, it's serious, but instead of going to see this
filmmaker's film (written by Krysztof Kieslowski) and starring
Giovanni Ribisi and Cate Blanchett, we at PAPERMAG highly recommend
renting Garry Marshall's 1999 dramatic comedy The Other Sister,
which stars Juliette Lewis and Giovanni Ribisi as a young retarded
couple in love. On their first date, it's Halloween. Lewis dresses
up like a swan and Ribisi is a dog. When he gets to her house to
pick her up, Ribisi barks unexpectedly as the mom (Diane Keaton)
extends her hand to shake his paw. Funny. As they leave, Keaton
relaxes as she realizes that it's a retarded man-child in a puppy
suit that fell for her daughter and not a big healthy pervert. "

Definitely worth checking out at www.papermag.com

Another moron espousing typically misguided Puritanical rubbish:

"A preacher led a group in shredding copies of Harry Potter books on
the eve of the release of the movie Harry Potter and the Chamber of
Secrets."

http://www.canoe.ca/JamBooks/nov15_shred-ap.html

Dead-on article about why leaving the homeless to rot in public is NOT the =
compassionate thing to do:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_12_3_02hm.html

"He [Mayor Bloomberg] must explain why compassion does not entail leaving p=
eople on the streets. He must explain that in a city mandated to provide she=
lter, there is neither a right nor a need for vagrants to occupy the streets=
  and trespass on private property. He must make clear that for police to all=
ow vagrants to refuse services and violate the law is not caring but destruc=
tive—to the individual and to the public."

Also mentioned in the article is my biggest peeve: the fact that we (New Yo=
rkers) pay a LOT of taxes for services that are supposed to help these bums,=
  yet many of them refuse any help and instead panhandle MORE of my money.

--- In culturetrigger@y..., "Craig" <urbanoutlaw@y...> wrote:
> A followup to Steve's MUNI posting; this is an editorial from SF
> Weekly (www.sfweekly.com): ...
> http://www.sfweekly.com/issues/2002-12-04/smith.html/1/index.html

Fascinating story. It's hard to tell which party is more responsible for this
disaster. Maybe it's the gullible "alt-fuels-at-any-cost" lefty coalition that
is so loud in San Francisco. But I have a feeling that corporate mega-giant PG&E
is calling all the shots here, that lackey's pathetic backpedaling which was
quoted in the story notwithstanding.

It's incredible that, while in the last five years since I moved to NYC from SF,
ridership in NYC has increased something like 30% but has actually dropped in
SF. What a shame. SF was already nearly unlivable from a transportation
viewpoint back then--I can't imagine how bad it is now. I remember the
45-minute-to-an-hour bus rides to travel a mile and a half to work all too well.
In New York I travel many miles between boroughs in the same amount of time.

I more than agree with this mini-rant.  Commercial radio in New York
City is so homogenized and devoid of originality that it makes radio-
listening next-to-impossible for someone like myself.  Except for a
few hours of Howard Stern during the week, my radio is rarely on.
And there are few to no options for a listener with diverse musical
tastes, or tastes that might not include much of the usually vapid
mainstream.  Yes, upstate New York has better radio, insomuch as
there are some highly worthy college stations worth listening to,
from Binghamton to Elmira to Ithaca to Rochester (WBER) to Geneva
(WEOS) and over to Buffalo (Buffalo State's WBNY).  Those choices
exist, at least, providing the listening are the opportunity to
offset the grating and incessantly repetetive dronings of commercial
radio (commercial the key word, of course).  I hope that a large
number of people are (or will) take advantage of these smaller radio
outlets that are far more adventurous with their programming.
Unlike typical FM radio, the bottom line with the college stations
isn't always the almighty dollar, but a sense of spirit and
integrity... and often great music and musical styles sadly
neglected and ignored by the mainstream.

-Craig.

--- In culturetrigger@y..., "sherryjbryan" <sherrybry@e...> wrote:
> Okay, I just have to rant. What is the deal with NYC radio
stations?
> One of the world's biggest, most diverse cities and we have the
most
> limited, crappy radio! Breaking it down : Nu Metal/Hard Rock (see
> Puddle of Mudd), pop, R&B, hip hop, latino, classical, country
(?!)
> and lite. No real rock, no indie, no college, no electronica, nada
> for the alternative listener. Driving upstate recently we passed
thru
> many towns with diverse, interesting content. Really, when
Binghamton
> is kicking our ass, we need to re-evaluate.

A followup to Steve's MUNI posting; this is an editorial from SF
Weekly (www.sfweekly.com):

"...public transit is inconvenient for most people in the Bay Area,
and there's a reason: The region's transit agencies, Muni included,
have been disjointed, highly politicized, boondoggle-friendly money-
squanderers for a long, long time. Thanks to their efforts, transit
ridership hasn't increased appreciably for 20 years, while traffic
congestion has increased 30 percent. The Bay Area has become an
environmental, social, and economic disaster, a sprawling Los
Angeles North of packed roads."

http://www.sfweekly.com/issues/2002-12-04/smith.html/1/index.html


--- In culturetrigger@y..., "stevequinlan101" <stevequinlan@h...>
wrote:
> As much as people complain about MUNI in SF it's still pretty
cheap a
> dollar for a ride and 2 tranfers or $35 for a monthly pass. I
> remember when I was in Chicago a few years ago it was a buck fifty
> for tthe bus and 50 cents for transfer. It was on a magnetic card
too
> not a strip of paper so you only hot an hour and a half to use it
> before it expired. Two bucks for the subway does seem unreasonable
to
> me.

Okay, I just have to rant. What is the deal with NYC radio stations?
One of the world's biggest, most diverse cities and we have the most
limited, crappy radio! Breaking it down : Nu Metal/Hard Rock (see
Puddle of Mudd), pop, R&B, hip hop, latino, classical, country (?!)
and lite. No real rock, no indie, no college, no electronica, nada
for the alternative listener. Driving upstate recently we passed thru
many towns with diverse, interesting content. Really, when Binghamton
is kicking our ass, we need to re-evaluate.

http://www.ny1.com/ny/NewsBeats/SubTopic/index.html?topicintid=2&subtopicintid=5\
&contentintid=26267

Local union leader makes some good points about improving
bus service (bus-only lanes, etc.), and a very good point
that the MTA ridership has gone way up (like 30% in the last
few years) so they should be rolling in dough even after
the new unlimited pass. Then, way down at the bottom of the
article, comes his true colors: they want a 24% raise over
three years. Assholes. Who do they think they are? I got a 2 (TWO!)
percent raise last year, and that was before the economy went
to hell. And they have the goddamn nerve to blackmail the
taxpayers (which you know is what it will come down to) for 8
percent for each of 3 years?? I hate unions - especially when I pay
their salary!!!

--- In culturetrigger@y..., "Craig" <urbanoutlaw@y...> wrote:
> Test post.  That's all.

one, two, three.

Test post.  That's all.

It's that mirthful time of the season to start keeping an eye on the
Buffalo, NY snowfall amounts:

"Steady snow throughout the area into Monday morning left some
pretty impressive totals by 7 a.m. Monday. At the National Weather
Service forecast office at Buffalo Niagara International Airport in
Cheektowaga, the official city total was 10 inches."

"By 7 p.m., the storm total had reached 16.1 inches at the airport,
19 inches in Elma and 15 inches in Hamburg."

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20021203/1017337.asp

Apparently I needed to click on this banner in order to "Find a
Miller Time Near Me."  It wasn't that important.  I can only drink
Miller (Genuine Draft only) when I'm either desperate, or if it's
the only beer left in the cooler or refrigerator, or if I'm already
hammered.

Some of the usual preposterous hilarity in the current Onion,
however.

--- In culturetrigger@y..., "stevequinlan101" <stevequinlan@h...>
wrote:
> I usually like checkin out the onion. Today I was pretty shocked
to
> see a big Miller banner at the top of the page. Ita almost as bad
as
> the Sex Pistols/Bowie absolut ads.

I usually like checkin out the onion. Today I was pretty shocked to
see a big Miller banner at the top of the page. Ita almost as bad as
the Sex Pistols/Bowie absolut ads.

(Pat basically hit on what I was thinking.)

Sure, a dollar is a reasonable cost for a MUNI ride.  Being familiar
with the MUNI system, I can also say it isn't worth any more than
that (I shudder at some memories of the dreaded 38 Geary).  So, if a
ride on a MUNI bus was to increase to $1.50, but there was no sign or
indication of improvement, increased service (leading to less
crowding), etc, wouldn't you be *slightly* outraged?  That's what we
are facing here in New York.  An exorbitant fare increase (that
really adds up over time), with no foreseeable benefit to the average
commuter.

-Craig.

--- In culturetrigger@y..., "stevequinlan101" <stevequinlan@h...>
wrote:
> As much as people complain about MUNI in SF it's still pretty cheap
a
> dollar for a ride and 2 tranfers or $35 for a monthly pass. I
> remember when I was in Chicago a few years ago it was a buck fifty
> for tthe bus and 50 cents for transfer. It was on a magnetic card
too
> not a strip of paper so you only hot an hour and a half to use it
> before it expired. Two bucks for the subway does seem unreasonable
to
> me.

The no-talent MTV/Coors shill and raging imbecile Andrew W.K. aside,
there are actually some recordings I'd like to check out on this
label:
---------

"...intentionally awful metal riffs and a bizarre singer who dressed
in this shitty Pterodactyl costume and sang in a grating falsetto."

http://www.sfbg.com/37/07/art_music_bulbbands.html

--- In culturetrigger@y..., "stevequinlan101" <stevequinlan@h...>
wrote:
> As much as people complain about MUNI in SF it's still pretty cheap
a
> dollar for a ride and 2 tranfers or $35 for a monthly pass.

Yeah, a dollar a ride is certainly cheap. That's gotta be the lowest
in the country; I remember Rochester charged more than a dollar over
ten years ago. Which makes me wonder how these agencies arrive at
their figures. Considering that usually around half of their funding
comes from the government, I have always wondered how they arrive at
a figure that they think is "fair" to the public. And if S.F. say,
went to $1.50 or $2 would the service improve at all...? Or would
they just say, "oh cool, now the government doesn't have to
contribute as much"...?

As much as people complain about MUNI in SF it's still pretty cheap a
dollar for a ride and 2 tranfers or $35 for a monthly pass. I
remember when I was in Chicago a few years ago it was a buck fifty
for tthe bus and 50 cents for transfer. It was on a magnetic card too
not a strip of paper so you only hot an hour and a half to use it
before it expired. Two bucks for the subway does seem unreasonable to
me.

--- In culturetrigger@y..., "Craig" <urbanoutlaw@y...> wrote:
> I must add that I'm happy I don't live on the 4/5/6 line,
considering
> the weekday rush hour commutes those poor sods suffer.  That ride
is
> barely worth a wooden nickel.

Yup, the 4/5/6 is a joke. So much so that I refuse to take the
afternoon uptown "express"--the N/W local being rather faster at
roughly 10 MPH rather than 5... To think that the Second Avenue
subway has been in the planning and occasional building stages for
something like sixty years really highlights the absolute
incompetence of New York's political "leadership"--and the sorry
state of transportation in this country. Someone should probably
propose a Second Avenue interstate highway--Washington would gladly
pay for that massive bulldozing opportunity--and then build the damn
subway instead.

I liked your mathematics.  Too bad the local media can't be that
precise, breaking it down as you did, to give a factual and accurate
picture of how it is affecting the millions of daily commuters.  If
you simplify as such for the harried masses, maybe the outcry would
be more visible.  It's even something worth protesting in an
organized demonstration, in my opinion.  "The Million Pissed Off
Subway and Bus Commuter March."

$2.00 for one fare on the subway, with the same subpar service,
overcrowding, and delays.  Sure, I deal with the crappy N/W line, but
I must add that I'm happy I don't live on the 4/5/6 line, considering
the weekday rush hour commutes those poor sods suffer.  That ride is
barely worth a wooden nickel.

$2.00.  "A load of crap" indeed.

--- In culturetrigger@y..., "rhywun2001" <rhywun2001@y...> wrote:
> Oh, and they're also claiming that due to various discounts
> introduced recently, the average subway fare is now $1.06!! I
> suspected this was a load of crap, so I fired up the calculator on
my
> PC. By my own calculations, a commuter who works Monday thru Friday
> and uses a monthly unlimited card (which costs $63) spends an
average
> $1.45 per ride. What a savings. The only way to realize any
> significant savings with an unlimited card is to travel on your days
> off, too. In order to bring the average fare down to $1.06, our
> friend needs to ride the train an additional 16 and a half times a
> month. In other words, he needs to ride both ways almost every
single
> day of the year (356.6 of them, to be precise). "$1.06" my ass.

From http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/africa/11/26/riots.obasanjo/index.html

"Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo says the media are responsible for the
controversy over the Miss World pageant that led to riots in which 220 died....
On arrival in London on Monday, the chairman of the Miss World competition
vigorously denied the beauty pageant had caused the riots. Julia Morley said the
contest had been used as a 'political football' and blamed the Nigerian
journalist, who wrote the Muhammad article, for inflaming the situation."

Thin-skinned militant savages go on a rampage and murder hundreds of non-Muslims
because they feel "insulted", and whose fault is it? Why, the media, of course!
That journalist couldn't keep her stupid mouth shut, and now it's her fault all
those Christians are dead.

Oh, and they're also claiming that due to various discounts
introduced recently, the average subway fare is now $1.06!! I
suspected this was a load of crap, so I fired up the calculator on my
PC. By my own calculations, a commuter who works Monday thru Friday
and uses a monthly unlimited card (which costs $63) spends an average
$1.45 per ride. What a savings. The only way to realize any
significant savings with an unlimited card is to travel on your days
off, too. In order to bring the average fare down to $1.06, our
friend needs to ride the train an additional 16 and a half times a
month. In other words, he needs to ride both ways almost every single
day of the year (356.6 of them, to be precise). "$1.06" my ass.

The MTA is planning not only to raise the subway fare to $2, but
is also "considering raising ticket prices on the commuter rails by
as much as 20 percent and tacking on a 'security surcharge' on bridge
and tunnel tolls – as much as 50 cents each way." (link:
http://www.ny1.com/ny/NewsBeats/SubTopic/index.html?topicintid=2&subtopicin=
tid=5&contentintid=26021).

So let's crunch the numbers. The fare for city residents goes up 33%
(50 cents divided by $1.50). The fare for suburban residents goes up
by "as much as" 20%. And, the toll for Bridge & Tunnel residents goes
up 14% ("as much as" 50 cents divided by the typical one-way toll of
$3.50).

Not that I'm accusing the MTA of playing favorites or anything - but
for once it would be nice to see all constituents "share the pain".

Short but excellent article about the state of the art of stand-up
comedy...

http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=4274

(David Cross - for those of you unfamiliar with the quirky,
hilarious, and *brilliant* HBO series 'Mr. Show,' seek out the
Seasons 1 & 2 DVD immediately, then worship at will.)

--- In culturetrigger@y..., "rhywun2001" <rhywun2001@y...> wrote:
> "Last year, there were more than a million reported crimes in
London; higher than the 430,460 crimes reported in New York in 1993,
before Rudolph Giuliani came to power. The present New York figure is
161,956. For the first time in years, I'm scared to walk alone in a
city, and I have become increasingly angry."
------
I will take a look at the article later, but that again bowls me
over. So many people, especially Americans (people I know, even)
would consider England, London in particular, such a "safe" place.
Maybe we gruff Americans attribute this apparent falsehood to the
Brit accent and stereotypical English demeanor...

Bad Religion have a song on 'No Substance' (called 'All Fantastic
Images') that deals with their impressions of England, both from afar
and then actually live and in-person (on tour), seeing for themselves
the grim reality.  A revelatory song.

> canada and britain both pretty much outlaw guns - yet one is still
much safer than the u.s. and the other now much more dangerous.
therefore i think it's a load of crap to link gun ownership with
crime rates like most simple-minded politicians and opinion writers
and "activists" do.
--------
I agree completely.  It is utterly absurd, a cop-out, an easy way to
wag the scolding finger at a party that is not responsible for a
particular problem.  Rather than address issues of poverty, welfare,
unemployment, lack of education (and our usually abysmal educational
system), exorbitant rents (and also slumlords), over-the-top drug
laws, overcrowded prisons, and the asinine and perpetual War on
Drugs, the "authorities" and propagandists want to make gun owners
(most of them responsible - like some of my relatives), one of the
main whipping boys for America's domestic difficulties.

I am no fam of the NRA, but I am a fan of reality and common sense.

-Craig.

and do read this article linked from the first one i linked...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/11/21/do2101.xml\
&sSheet=/opinion/2002/11/21/ixopinion.html
it's a fascinating look at the startling rise of crime rates in london:
"Last year, there were more than a million reported crimes in London; higher
than the 430,460 crimes reported in New York in 1993, before Rudolph Giuliani
came to power. The present New York figure is 161,956. For the first time in
years, I'm scared to walk alone in a city, and I have become increasingly
angry."
canada and britain both pretty much outlaw guns - yet one is still much safer
than the u.s. and the other now much more dangerous.  therefore i think it's a
load of crap to link gun ownership with crime rates like most simple-minded
politicians and opinion writers and "activists" do.

--- In culturetrigger@y..., "rhywun2001" <rhywun2001@y...> wrote:
> was talking to the other member of this group
---------
How sad... I know the group just started, but someone else please
join...

  lately about homicide
> rates in various american cities. don't remember the exact figures,
> but here's an interesting - and provocative - article that mentions
> the rates (in murders per 100,000 population) for three north
> american cities:
> http://nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire112502.asp
> the figures are:
> new york........17
> washington......70
> toronto..........1
--------
Okay, what can I do here but shake my head and smirk derisively?  The
Washington statistic astounds me.  I mean, who's dying, exactly?
Isn't anyone going after the corporate lobbyists and crooked
politicians?  Or, as I would assume, is that disturbing murder rate
generally occuring in the "ghetto" areas?  There must be a *huge* gap
between the lower class and the upper (political) class in DC that is
much more noticable than that "gap" in New York. But maybe it just
seems less obvious from the massive discrepancy in homicide rates.

Then there is Canada.  I know folks have mixed opinions on Michael
Moore, but one of the cdentral topics he covers in "Bowling for
Columbine" is why the per capita homicide rate in Canada is so
drastically lower than that of their neighbors to the south (um,
US).  Especially when gun control is no stricter here than in Canada.

What is it? Maybe Moore knows.  But probably not.

> and in my earlier "research" i seem to remember that san francisco's
> rate was slightly higher than new york; while buffalo and rochester
> each had a rate about double new york.
-------
Strange to methat San Francisco's rate would be higher, after living
there for three years and not once having a problem (though knowing
several people who did).  Maybe the consistently pleasant weather
keeps everyone out on the streets, and mingling leads to tension, and
tension leads to trouble... then again, the Mission, the Western
Addition, and the lovely Tenderloin were always decrepit hotbeds of
the criminal element.

> all of this reminds me of the many times i visited toronto while
> living in buffalo and rochester over the years - americans always
> come back from toronto and say how "pleasant" it is. i guess having
> twenty to thirty or more times less crime than americans are used to
> can be regarded as "pleasant".
-------
Hm, how could any meat and poatatoes eatin', John Wayne lovin',
baseball watchin', Budweiser drinkin', red-blooded American *ever*
say something like that?

-Craig

was talking to the other member of this group lately about homicide
rates in various american cities. don't remember the exact figures,
but here's an interesting - and provocative - article that mentions
the rates (in murders per 100,000 population) for three north
american cities:
http://nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire112502.asp
the figures are:
new york........17
washington......70
toronto..........1
and in my earlier "research" i seem to remember that san francisco's
rate was slightly higher than new york; while buffalo and rochester
each had a rate about double new york.
all of this reminds me of the many times i visited toronto while
living in buffalo and rochester over the years - americans always
come back from toronto and say how "pleasant" it is. i guess having
twenty to thirty or more times less crime than americans are used to
can be regarded as "pleasant".

As you can see by its description, Culture Trigger is a group
devoted to the discussion of almost any aspect of our culture,
society, and the arts.  Free speech is an 'inalienable right' that
will be wholeheartedly encourged (and enforced) here on Culture
Trigger.  However, mass-spammers and hatemongers will not be
tolerated.  Feel free to post your ideas, opinions, links, and any
other items of interest.

-Craig