HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Sarah Ibarruri » Journal
Page: 1

Sarah Ibarruri

Profile Information

Name: Sarah
Gender: Female
Hometown: North Florida
Home country: U.S.
Current location: North Florida
Member since: Sun Sep 11, 2005, 08:28 PM
Number of posts: 21,043

About Me

Hamas has always been a terrorist group. I prefer not to discuss this matter if you are someone who is in favor of terrorist groups. Thank you.

Journal Archives

The homeless are having to use libraries as day shelters

I started visiting the main library in my town not that long ago. One day I arrived before they opened, and much to my surprise I found throngs of people waiting there - all of them with huge bags, backpacks, and some with rolling carts filled with their belongings - all were homeless and waiting to enter. Once the doors were opened, there was a rush to get in - some went to the bathroom (to use it, and some to wash), some ran for the more comfortable available seats, and others signed up computer reservations (where many of them play computer games).

When I was a child, I spent a lot of time at the public library. A lot of other children my age spent time there, as did adults, students, and folks checking out books. I don't recall homeless people occupying many of the seats there. Now it seems homeless people are spending a good part of their day there for lack of other places to go or be.

In another city I lived in, there was an issue with homeless people, and in particular a woman who was homeless and had emotional/mental issues. I was told that she never showered and as a result, the smell made it nearly impossible for other patrons of the library. Patrons began staying away, and the library staff was forced to work under unpleasant circumstances, so the city had to get involved, the police department, and so did the ACLU. It was a mess.

I think the damage done by decades of right wing ideology has resulted more people than ever being homeless in our country, and to make matters worse, right wing policy over decades has destroyed programs for the needy. So now libraries have taken on a role as homeless shelters during the day. I looked up articles on this and found quite a few. Here is one:

Public Libraries - The New Homeless Shelters

SAN FRANCISCO—Not everyone who spends all day, every day in the main branch of the San Francisco Public Library is down and out. Only mostly everyone.

Kathleen Lee knows this because she spends hours a day walking the six floors of the vast, sky-lit building, looking for patrons who might need real help. They are everywhere: in the carrels, amid the stacks, on the computers. Some wear all they own on their backs and all they’ve lived through on their faces. Others hide in plain sight. Lee knows this, too, since she was homeless a few years ago. So she tries to let everyone know who she is and what she does. “I strike up a lot of conversations,” she said at the end of a recent three-hour shift.

What Lee does at the San Francisco main library is help homeless and indigent patrons fill fundamental needs–food, shelter, hygiene, medical attention, substance abuse and mental health services. She’s one of five peer counselors, all formerly homeless, who work with a full-time psychiatric social worker stationed at the library to serve its many impoverished patrons. This outreach team, one of the first in the country, is no longer a novelty. In these hard times, as social safety nets shrink, libraries have become more vital than ever as safe spaces for people with nowhere else to go. Since the San Francisco Public Library outreach program began, about four years ago, it has been inundated with requests for guidance from libraries all over the country grappling with their new role as de facto day shelters.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/07/public_libraries_the_new_homeless_shelters_partner/
Posted by Sarah Ibarruri | Tue Aug 6, 2013, 10:44 AM (19 replies)

..."(as a woman) as I struggle for others' acceptance - you see, I don't want children..."

...In the wake of the Supreme Court decision that struck down key portions the Defense of Marriage Act, I celebrated this historic milestone like many Americans as a step toward acceptance of all people. Even though I'm straight, I relate to my LGBT brothers and sisters as I also struggle for others' acceptance. By all accounts, I appear to be a completely average 27-year-old female. I was never the kind of person who thought I'd champion for individual rights or equality. Sure, I believe in it, but I'm not the stereotypical "Occupy" protestor or gay rights advocate.

On the outside, I look like many of my peers; I wear skinny jeans and Abercrombie. I play on my iPhone, Facebook and Twitter. I tend to blend seamlessly into the background of average female faces. However, I realize that my life as a typical twentysomething will not last long. As time goes on, I will start to become more and more isolated from my peer group as my secret comes out.

You see, I don't want children...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/living/parents-irpt-zorka-no-kids/index.html?hpt=hp_c4
Posted by Sarah Ibarruri | Thu Aug 1, 2013, 07:50 PM (14 replies)

Policitians live on minimum wage, but not really

All of this is because de Blasio, along with seven other elected officials in the Big Apple, is living on minimum wage for one week as part of the “Workers Rising” challenge organized by UnitedNY and New York Community for Change. Each one has $92 to spend for the entire week, and a chronicle of their struggles shared on Twitter under the hashtag #canyousurvive reveals all are having a difficult time adjusting.


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/26/19663755-canyousurvive-politicians-try-living-on-minimum-wage-but-then-what?lite

I think this is great. However, all politicians, particularly right wingers, should be made to live on $92 a week for a month, but living in the corresponding home that goes along with that - the street.
Posted by Sarah Ibarruri | Fri Jul 26, 2013, 01:21 PM (5 replies)

The NRA is pure deception

Gun owners, and particularly the NRA, LOVE to defend gun ownership by citing the 2nd Amendment's "right," and claiming that there are lots of guns in Switzerland and Israel, but few individual crimes. Every time I hear these fallacious arguments, it makes it more clear for me that the NRA serves only one purpose - to lie on behalf of gun manufacturers. Gun owners parrot these NRA falsehoods. The truth is very different.

Re Switzerland:

The Swiss military sends guns home with the members of the military WITHOUT ammo. Before the guns get taken home with the members of the military, the ammunition is taken from them and stored in military arsenals. In other words, the military-issued guns members of the military take home are ammo-less guns: unloaded. Also, stats in Switzerland reflect the fact that PRIVATELY owned guns have been associated with increasing crimes against women, whereas military-issue guns taken home ammo-less are not directly related with crimes against women. In fact, Switzerland has a HIGHER rate of crime per capita, than Canada, Germany, France, Ireland, Spain, Britain, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and other advanced countries. As a result of the increasing gun crimes against women, Switzerland has put in place a strict set of rules which affect PRIVATELY owned guns. There are now more background checks, plus it is illegal in Switzerland to carry guns in public. Because of these regulations, which more closely approximate the EU’s strict gun control laws than American laws, PRIVATE gun ownership has dropped in Switzerland. Of course, the NRA is smart and will mention none of this when they resort to the Switzerland pro-gun argument. The NRA’s gun-loving argument about Switzerland is pure inaccuracies. It bears zero resemblance to the serious gun problem in the U.S.

Re Israel:

As to Israel, which the NRA loves to bring up also… Israel has incredibly strict gun restrictions, far stricter than those of the U.S. with regard to PRIVATE gun ownership. The military is everywhere for the obvious reason that Israel is in a constant state of terrorism alert. For this purpose, members of the military are stationed in all cities and towns, and do carry guns. The military is under strict orders of the government. The guns they carry are not PRIVATELY owned guns. PRIVATE gun ownership in Israel is almost nil. When I lived there, I knew no one who owned a gun PRIVATELY. The only people in Israel who are permitted to own guns PRIVATELY, are security guards, people who transport money, hunters, and people who reside in the West Bank, which is routinely subject to terrorism and attacks, and all these are licensed and strictly controlled by the Public Security Ministry, which is very strict. Very different from the rampant gun free-for-all going on in the U.S. For this reason, a few days ago, Yigal Palmor, spokesperson for the Israeli Foreign Ministry basically told the NRA to keep Israel out of its defense for individual gun ownership arguments. Again, the NRA conveniently fails to mention any of this.

Re the 2nd Amendment:

The 2nd Amendment, LIKE THE 3RD AMENDMENT, were put in place for the purpose of accommodating the state-ordered and colony-ordered militias, for the country’s defense, not so that private citizens could arm themselves to the hilt as gun owners in the U.S. have done thanks to the NRA. Back in the 1700s the governments of the colonies and states did not spend monstrous amounts on a military the way the U.S. does now, so it was vital to have the 2nd and 3rd Amendments provide for state-ordered and colony-ordered militias. I’m all for enlisting all American gun owners in a form of organized militia and forcing them to be under the orders of the State, as was the case in the 1700s, when the 2nd Amendment was ratified so that state-ruled, and colony-ruled militia men could keep little guns home (and they were one-shot guns, not semi-automatic killing machines like now). Naturally, the NRA would not want gun owners organized into militias overseen by the State, as in the 1700s. They like it just fine the way they've manipulated it to be here - chaotic. murderous, and with guns selling better than vitamins.

All these NRA pro-gun arguments are specious, and meant only to continue the support of private gun ownership because this provides swimmingly good profits for gun manufacturers.

There are many more spurious NRA arguments, but I've got too much to do today to continue typing.
Posted by Sarah Ibarruri | Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:57 AM (7 replies)
Go to Page: 1