Except people keep bending over backwards to make it clear that they aren't saying that the people HERE believe the law to be just. Now, I am curious if a boycott and/or mass exodus of Hispanics is NOT the answer, what is? Let's grant, for the moment, that a boycott isn't the way to deal with this? What then? Obviously we know how this turns out at the ballot box--the backers, proponent and apologists for this law win. So if money continues to pour into Arizona then there is no economic consequence to be paid for this law. So politicians who backed the law pay no political price and the state, as a whole, pays no economic price. At that point what is there to discourage Arizona from passing an even more draconian law?

That pretty much leaves the mass exodus of Hispanics which I still hold would probably be the *most* effective form of protest. At first, one might witness the spectacle of Arizonans singing "na na na, na na na, hey hey hey, good-bye" and that would probably go through the wave. After that, well, it starts to have an economic effect. Suddenly there are a lot fewer people doing everything from washing dishes to teaching classes. As I said yesterday, when they leave their dollars go with them. Tax revenues decline. The tourism and hospitality sectors of the economy will be hit particularly hard as they lose cheap labor.

I get it that the Arizonans don't want any of these things to happen to their state. I fully understand that. However, it makes no sense to suggest that those either targeted by this law or horrified by it simply shrug our collective shoulders in order to avoid hurting someone's feelings.

Quote:

They registered their protest with their vote as you just said but are still being held accountable for every other Arizonians vote.

No, they are not. They are choosing to take a very justified critique of this law and the Arizonan politics that birthed it in a personal fashion. I'll try--again--to explain the distinction.

"In 1940, America was a fundamentally racist country."

Now, according to the logic being deployed here, I have just claimed that every single American living in the borders of this country in December 1940 was a racist. I have insulted--personally--every single American living at that time. Except I haven't. My parents were alive in 1940, both of them turned 18 that year. They were the *targets* of racism but they were not, themselves, racism. Does that mean that America wasn't a fundamentally racist country? No, the statement still stands because the *laws* of America mandated segregation in public accommodation, the military, etc. One can make the observation that America was a racist nation in 1940 and *still* not be saying something that any given person alive in 1940 was a racist. Likewise, one can say that Arizona has passed a law that is an invitation to racial profiling without saying that any given Arizonan is in favor of racial profiling.

Quote:

Just because they believe that a boycott is not the answer for their state does not make them bad people or complicit in what has happened by other peoples votes.

I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that the good people of the Birmingham Bus Company did not think that the Birmingham Bus Boycott was the answer for the problem of blacks sitting in the back of the bus. I'm going to also suggest that the good people of the Woolworth's company didn't think that a boycott of the Woolworth's lunch counter was the right way to deal with that manifestation of segregation. The targets of a boycott NEVER think that it's a good idea--that's kind of the whole point of a boycott is to motivate people to change the conditions that precipitate the boycott.

However, I'm all ears. If a boycott isn't the answer and a mass exodus of Hispanics isn't the answer, what is?

Quote:

Btw, I am a registered voter and I do vote in every election. You can't take a gun to other complacent voters heads and make them go to the polls. I agree that a lot of voters need a swift kick in the ass to get to the polls. There could have been a different outcome in Arizona if every registered voter did go to the polls but it is not our place to heap condemnation and group blame upon those that in fact did go vote and vote against the current administration there thereby registering their protest.

So at what point--if any--are people responsible for what happens in their locality? To use another (fairly) recent example; there used to be a country called Yugoslavia. When the Soviet empire dissolved, Yugoslavia broke up. What followed was, by even the most strict definition, a genocide of Bosnian Muslims and Croats by Serbs. I'll spare the gory details but suffice to say that in just one city, Sarajevo, which was under siege for over a year, atrocities took place daily. Serbs who were NOT involved, who wore no uniform, knew of the atrocities and did nothing to stop them. Using current American zeitgeist logic, the only people who should feel even the most trivial pang of guilt are those who pulled the trigger.

Cheers
Aj

my expert opinion:

i lived there, i still own a house there and i still think boycotting the beautiful state of arizona is a great idea. though, moving away is probably safest if you present 'brown' in any way.

No, Popcorn. There's a reason why I suggested that people read about the Great Migration here in America. Blacks left the Southern states in *droves*. Huge numbers of blacks left the South and moved West and North--this is why Oakland and Detroit have such huge black communities. They didn't before WW II but by 1970 they were gigantic black communities there. So we've already run this experiment and have some idea how this plays out in the real world.

Blacks didn't migrate to Europe as you suggest, we stayed in the United States and, in fact, it DID have an effect on the economy of the South. Was it the nail in the coffin? No. However, labor became a bit more expensive because blacks *were* the cheap labor and as some of that labor left, it had a deleterious effect on the economy of those Southern states. It is instructive to note that we could get there without ALL blacks having left the South (which I'm sure you would try to suggest my argument requires). A similar pressure would be at play with a mass exodus of Hispanics out of Arizona.

Again--because you, popcorn, have a tendency to read what you want to read and not what is written--the economic impact of an exodus does NOT require the people leaving the country and we've already run the real-world experiment. So unless you are going to try to argue that somehow, while blacks were able to find work and build lives in other states but Hispanics will not, your argument *completely* collapses under its own weight.

Cheers
Aj

-
 

"I get it that the Arizonans don't want any of these things to happen to their state. I fully understand that. However, it makes no sense to suggest that those either targeted by this law or horrified by it simply shrug our collective shoulders in order to avoid hurting someone's feelings."

So am I to assume that since you are so horrified by it and any other person who is horrified by it that does NOT live in Arizona are going to leave the comfy confines of their homes where this isn't an issue, move to Arizona and start a grass roots movement to get Brewer and her cronies tossed from office in the next election?

We can all raise our collective voices and scream at the injustice of it from whatever state we live in, does it do any good? NO, because the people in Arizona were elected by the majority and they will be in office until they are ousted on their rear ends by the said same collective majority!

And no, the comments here have not been "bend over backwards" to ensure that the posters from Arizona have not made to feel like they are being targeted by these posts.
Cody stated he didn't vote for Brewer, some took exception to some of his terminology, Cody even stated he was half Native-American with blue eyes. Another poster implied with their post that he was lying about it. Did I see you as a moderator take that person to task, did another moderator step in and say, whoa wait a minute, that was a little unjust and unfair? NO that was not done, what was done was more criticism was hurled his way because of wording that he used even after he stated time and again that he wasn't a supporter of this policy, so much so to the point that he just disengaged altogether. What if he was a supporter, the amount of criticism heaped upon him lost him from the discussion when something could have been said to persuade him to change his vote at the poll in the next election was lost. That is never a good thing.
He mentioned "the look" and was taken to task for using those words, forgive me but isn't racial profiling all about "a look". If they look to be Hispanic, black, purple, yellow, green whathave you what racial profiling is all about? It was completely unnecessary as far as I'm concerned.

People seem to forget that during these economic hard times that some people cannot afford television, radios, newspapers, or treks into a nearby larger city where one may learn of political activism and what is going on in their own back yard. Not all people are as educated as you, as I, as the person to your left or to your right, that does not give us the right to take an air of superiority over any one when there is a discussion going on. And yes, that is the road this discussion is taking, making some feel less than when there is no need for that when they have stated they did NOT vote for these idiots and they refuse to have their feet held to the fire with the majority who did.

Please, keep the topic to the current situation, I'm fully aware of past atrocities of people before my time and your time. It just muddles, confuses and blurs the lines of the current situation.

So if those that are so indignant and horrified about the situation perhaps as I said you should pack up the comfy confines of your current home, move to Arizona and start a grass roots effort to oust the current political regime, however you should be prepared to move to the other 22 states who are NOW also considering adopting legislation similiar to Arizona's to deal with the influx of illegal immigrants.

I don't know what the answer is and I'm pretty sure you don't either, no one does, otherwise the situation would have already been corrected. I do know that bankrupting a state is not the answer, it only creates a whole host of other issues.

I've had my say about when now, all I did was happen upon the thread and was kinda taken aback by some of the commentary directed towards other members of this site and misinterpretation of a post.

:byebye:

wtf, mexicans didn't bankrupt the state.

and that was pretty much me blowing my entire load--i don't really have a lot of energy/extra time to argue over blatant racism (which you know, as i write that statement--sounds pretty fucking privileged of me to 'opt out' and i am owning that, this conversation makes me tired.)

There are NO green, purple, or pink people targeted by this heinous law.

I as a traveler in Az had to lie (left my purse in SD) about my status in this country. I used my tricks and made myself look white.

I get offend with good right when white folk describe POC with terms such as "that look"


If you are deflecting for Cody by saying he can't afford the TV he clearly haz interwebs! He could of read ALL THE FACTS posted in this thread


How one can live in denial I can't understand, wait I
can. White skin gives one privileges I'll never get;)

True story

Right now in California there is a petition being circulated state wide to gather enough signatures to put a California version of SB1070 on the ballot in the next election cycle.

What do you think the outcome will be, Grey?

Here's the thing, the situation for large numbers of blacks who left Mississippi or Louisiana or Alabama, the situation was not much better. People don't pick up and leave for a better life if a best life can be had where they are. Would some people be left behind? Yes. Some of my cousins, aunties and uncles were left behind when my parents pulled up stakes and moved us to California. Now, as it turns out, my parents were in much better position to do so than some of my other relatives who also made the trek in that my parents, by 1968, had advanced degrees and were able to find professorships at universities in Sacramento. My uncles who moved did so because of they were in the military and pretty much just stayed put in the city they mustered out of. I'm not being flip when I talk about leaving. I recognize the hurdles to relocating. But Arizona is going down a path that rarely ends well. I've said it on this thread before and I'll say it now---you could not pay me to be either Hispanic or Muslim in the United States right now. If you promised me riches beyond the dreams of avarice I would take the money and buy me and mine the first ticket elsewhere.

Arizona has passed SB 1070 and is about to put into effect rules that will make teaching any kind of positive history of Mexican-Americans just this side of impossible. Oklahoma has passed a law (blocked by the courts, the last, best friend of minorities in this nation) that is a 'pre-emptive strike' against Sharia law being made legal in that state. Arizona is ALSO considering a law that would require any teachers in the statewide system to not have 'thick' accents. We've seen this movie before--each law, in itself, seems pretty innocuous particularly if one isn't on the receiving end of its effects.

Have to have your birth certificate or other proof of citizenship on you at all times (absent a national ID card)? Sure, why not? Nothing to fear if you're in the country legally, right? Can't teach any subject matter that would create racial animosity or feed a sense of racial grievance? Again, not a big deal right? I mean, who CARES how California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas came to be part of the U.S.? We're all Americans now, right? Can't teach if you have a 'heavy' accent? Well, math is a difficult enough subject without having to deal with the teacher's accent. Can't implement sharia law? What's the big deal? This is America, we already have laws! (the fact that the Constitution prevents ANY religious law being applied by the government is conveniently lost). Taken in isolation none of those seem too horrible. Taken in concert, however, they start to look more and more like the first of the Nuremberg laws. Each one--particularly the first set of them--don't hint at what was coming down the track toward Germany but with the benefit of hindsight it becomes clear that they were the beginning of the horror.

I think enough signatures will be collected to get it on the ballot. I don't think it will pass, but it will not be by a resounding landslide.

AJ does an excellent job in spelling it out succiently, IMO. Are we willing to give up some of our artificially low cost services and goods here in the USA?

Most of you know I am a Mexican American and I have lived in California since the age of two. This entire immigratrion thing is complex and much of it grounded in preconceived racist notions. On the other side of the coin is Mexico's long history of ignoring the basic needs of it's people. Of course this does not include their wealthy.

(Actually, the States is becoming more and more like this. Huge economic disparity between the working folks and the very rich.)

Back to California. Right now the State of California has an incoming Democratic Gov, Assembly and State Democrat majority, all state constitutional officers Democractic and two Democratic Federal Senators. I really do not hold out for much even with this. I think as the world moves forward we are creating a new paradigm. I just hope globally, nationally and locally, more will choose the high road as oppossed to greed and short sightedness.

The Republican Party is just *determined* to immolate itself in California aren't they? Don't they get it? I'm reminded--in the fractally strange way my mind works--of an old Frantics skit called Tai Kwan Leep. At one point the sensei, who has just given an obnoxious student Ed Gruberman a 'boot to the head', is challenged by another student and asks "have you learned nothing from the lesson of Ed Gruberman"?

In this instance, Ed Gruberman is the Republican party of California and the boot to the head is the results of the midterm elections.

Because the President and the Congress are Democratic the Republicans should have done well--it's what typically happens and despite all the breathless crowing about tidal waves and never before has any sitting President lost seats in a midterm, the fact is that what happened earlier this month was pretty much in line with what has generally happened--the party of the President loses seats. Except in California.

Governor? Went to a Dem. Senatorial race? Went to the Dem. Attorney General? Went to the Dem. House races? Largely won by Dems. Hell, the Democratic party picked up seats in the California Senate! Why? Because of the Hispanic vote. Hispanics turned out in droves and voted their self-interest. They did the math, realized where the GOP wanted to go, and voted for the Dem. Same thing happened in Nevada. Harry Reid should have lost and yes, Angle was a spectacularly bad candidate but he *still* should have lost. But she ran an anti-immigrant campaign and paid the price.

The GOP seems bound and determined to make themselves a rump party. It may not happen in 2012, it could certainly happen in 2016 and by 2020 if the GOP doesn't get it that racism doesn't pay they will learn it then.

Cheers
Aj

Canada is looking better and better all the time! Seriously!!

My brain is mush and I have a huge paper looming...love and hugs, all :)

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

It's BEYOND silly to refuse to look at the parallels, here.

It's a pretty hot topic, even without alll those things, convos happen. Public libraries were my education for YEARS. I did not own a computer till 2000, television 2002.

Public libraries, standing around listening to peers if one hears something THIS alarming I would think people would research it or shrug it off.

One is easier than the other. Unless of course it affects you or your people directly.

As a Texan I am very concerned about the spread of this crap which is one of many reasons it matters so much to me that Arizona feel the negative impact of this. If it is economically and politically rewarding, it will spread like wildfire through many more states.

NC, my experience of Canada, BC and Ontario really is not based on surveys but on time spent in Canada. When I spent time in Canada, for me as a POC I did not feel, experience the same level of racism. Racism is just not as intitutionalized as here in the States. I could throw out reasons as to why this may be true, but that could be something for you and others to research.

As my mother would forever remind me when I was growing up and into my adulthood, "Two wrongs do not make a right."

Actually, beyond all these you list above I am MOST concerned that there are people in the US Congress who are seriously talking about trying to repeal the 14th Amendment. That, quite honestly, would be my breaking point. If the 14 is repealed or seriously changed, I'm gone because the ONLY thing that puts my mind at ease as I watch my country head down the track toward barbarism are the 1st and 14th Amendments.

As far as the argument re: access to information. I don't buy it. There are public libraries with newspapers and Internet access. Radios are cheap--it doesn't have to be an expensive radio. Most larger cities have free newspapers. One can go to a neighbor and say "hey, when you're done with your daily paper can I have it so I can look for a job and keep up on the world?" There are countless Americans who couldn't name three Supreme Court Justices, either of their Senators, a single representative from their state, their governor or their mayor but I guarantee you that they could tell you absolutely minute detail every last doing of some Kardashian sister or Snooki or 'the Situation' or Lindsay Lohan or what Bristol Palin wore on Dancing with the Stars. There are people living in genuine, honest-to-goodness Third World countries who will find some way to stay informed while we Americans, awash in a sea of information, will go out of our way to be blissfully, blindingly ignorant.

Now, I learned a different ethic growing up. I was taught that as a black American it was incumbent upon me to be aware of the issues of the day. "Ignorance is a luxury for white people, we negroes can't afford it" is something my mother would say to us on a regular basis (and yes, she used the term negroes because that's the term she grew up with).

And you know, I have to say that this pretense we Americans are in love with that there is no substantive difference between someone who knows about a subject and someone who doesn't is nothing short of madness.

If someone believes that global climate change isn't happening, they're wrong. It's not that they have a different opinion, they're simply *wrong*. If someone believes that Iraq had WMD in March of 2003 or had an active nuclear weapons program, they're wrong. Again, not a difference of opinion, just plain out wrong. If someone believes that evolution didn't happen or that there is some controversy within biology such that working biologists think creationism should be taught in public schools, they're wrong. If someone believes that gays and lesbians are more likely to be child molesters, or are more likely to have kids with social pathologies, they are wrong. Not holding a different opinion but demonstrably wrong in an empirically verifiable fashion.

There really ARE people who really ARE ignorant--willfully, deliberately, ignorant. Not uninformed--my granddaughter is uninformed on a whole raft of subjects but she's three. I'm talking about people who are ignorant, who hold forth on subjects expressing their opinions as if they were facts and then get bent out of shape when it is pointed out to them that their facts are entirely wrong. That is ignorance and ignorance is not something we should encourage or suffer lightly or long. Some of these ignorant people vote. I'm not saying they shouldn't have the *right* to vote but it's a mistake to pretend that an informed voter and an uninformed voter are doing the same thing--they aren't.

Cheers
Aj

No one is saying Canada is a paradise on Earth. If I make the obvious statement that the United States of America is more politically and economically stable, less violent and has more social capital in the form of voluntary associations than, say, Somalia have I made some statement that the United States is somehow without any kind of political upheaval, has no economic problems, has no violence and no social pathology? No. I've made a comparison, nothing more and nothing less. Now, empirically, the United States IS more politically and economically stable than Somalia. Somalia is in the midst of a civil war that has been going on and off for the last two decades. The country is has no functioning economy to speak of. But that does not mean that the United States is some kind of Nirvana--simply that in comparison to Somalia the USA is a much better place to live.

If I make the statement that the United States, compared to the major European economies, has some serious problems have I now reduced the USA to the status of Somalia? Again, no! I'm simply making the empirical statement that, all things considered, a baby born in Denmark will live longer, on average, than a baby born in Oregon. The former will have free education and medical care and the latter likely will not. The former will have a strong safety net under her and the latter will not. Again, I can make this comparison without stating that Denmark is a nation without problems or that the USA is something out of the Dark Ages.

Cheers
Aj

This one paragraph gives an indication of the priorities and challenges of your local government. All of us are making our priorities known. Yes, California and the SF Bay Area are not for all of us. I can tell you in my community libraries are not closing.

Okay, I am going off topic here. Stepping off of the soap box.

Yes, I agree that most countries do racial profiling whether they knowingly do it, admit to it. As for surviving, I hear your frustration. Many of us urban dwellers also deal with survival. These scenarios just do not happen all of a sudden one day, over night.

Much of what is happening in our world today is based on a long history of choices. Individual choices and collective. No one can afford to stick their heads into the sand.

Article...Wikipedia. Poh-TAY-toe...Poh-TAH-toe.

Well I just read an article from 1996 that says that Black people in the US are nearly 5x more likely to get pulled over than White people! Canada wins! Wait...you mean you WEREN'T trying to have a competition? My bad.

Yes of COURSE Canada has corrupt police officers. Sweet jesus, anywhere that there are police (or other people in power) there will be corruption. It is, unfortunately, human nature.

As obsessed as I am with my Canada, I have no issues with admitting that we are not without our problems. Our current PM is a fuckstick conservative from Alberta who would make us into USA-junior if he thought he could get away with it, for starters. Our unemployment rate is 7.9%. We're like the 7th (last I checked) biggest polluter in the world.

But I'll tell you what problem we don't have: We do not have on the books laws designed specifically to harm people for not being white. I do believe that is what whoever it was who brought up Canada was driving at.

Firstly, let us take it as read that ANYONE posting here or in any other Internet venue either has access to a public library, an Internet café, or their own computer and Internet access at home (or are using a neighbors). So this argument about people not having access to information falls apart ENTIRELY for anyone posting on the Internet.

Secondly, in 2000 I moved to Oregon and was laid off a just before the end of the year. By mid-2001 I had gone through my severance pay. By early 2002 I was maxed on my credit cards. In 2000 I made about 70K. In 2001, I made about 10K. In 2002, I made the princely sum of 11K. Now, during that time, I kept the following utilities--gas, electricity, phone and Internet. I didn't have cable TV but I kept DSL access because A) I needed to have Internet access to get a job and B) to stay informed and connected to the world.

Thirdly, I'm not talking about people living on the streets. Unless Oregon is extraordinarily blessed with the second or third highest unemployment rate in the state, there are simply NOT enough people living on the streets to explain the phenomenal level of voter ignorance and apathy. Now, it may be that other parts of the country are doing far worse than Oregon is.

Lastly, I wonder how many of these people living in rural areas could tell you about what happened on Dancing with the Stars, or Jersey Shore or some other piece of electronic, televisual confection. I'm not talking about people living on the streets. I'm talking about people who have access to television and/or radio and/or Internet and/or libraries and/or have children in public schools who couldn't name their governor, their senator, or any other elected official. I'm talking about people with access to ALL of those who couldn't name three Supreme Court Justices if their lives depended upon it. I'm talking about people who couldn't name three freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States but will jump up and lead a chant of USA! USA! USA! and tell you that the United States is number one in everything that a nation could want to be tops in at the drop of a hat. I'm talking about people who have jobs, houses, clothes on their backs, bread for their children, a television in every room but not a single damn book in their entire house. I'm talking about people who drive gigantic Chevy and Ford urban assault vehicles (SUVs) with DVD players and fantastic stereos, that get 6 miles per gallon and use that gigantic machine to drive three blocks to pick up a quart of half-and-half.

Did I say that there aren't people in the straits you describe in this country? No. I will say this, though, you're goalpost moving. You're choosing to focus on people who are homeless as if that were such a significant number that it explains the manifest ignorance and voter apathy. Although any reading of my part of this conversation should make it reasonably clear that I'm talking about people who HAVE the means but choose not to avail themselves of it.

Cheers
Aj

Um I've never slept with my doors and windows unlocked even with loaded fire arms in the house

Sigh, do I have to walk you through this? Really?

One more time:

Your argument is flawed because one can make a comparison between the social circumstances of any given number of nations--in this specific instance the United States and Canada--without making any *absolute* statement about those conditions. In other words, saying that racial profiling happens in the USA does NOT make any kind of statement about whether or not racial profiling happens in other countries. What's more, even if someone had said that racial profiling is MORE common in the United States than it is in Canada that does NOT change the statement to mean that racial profiling happens in the former but not the latter. It is merely to state that if, say, 1 in every thousand black Canadians is stopped for driving while black while 5 in every 1000 black Americans is stopped for the same thing that racial profiling is more common in the USA than it is in Canada.

Taking the words I quoted above to mean precisely what they appear to mean, you seem to believe that if I say X happens more in Oregon than it does in New York I am saying that X ONLY happens in New York. That is the argument I am making.

So, what do the relative fates of babies in Oregon and Denmark have to do with it? It's called an argument by analogy. What I was trying to get across and which you completely failed to grasp although I thought I'd made it clear was this:

One can make a comparison between any two nations without making ANY absolute statement about whether some phenomena occurs in some nation. So I can point out that a baby in Denmark will, on average, live longer than a baby born the same day in Oregon without being committed to the idea that because the baby born in Denmark will live longer it means that the baby in Oregon is already dead.

The logic you are deploying in the statement quoted above is that to say that the average lifespan of a Danish baby is longer than an American baby is to say that all babies in America are stillborn. I was pointing out, by way of analogy, that your logic is flawed. I'm absolutely mystified that you seemed to think that some point was being made about Danish babies.

I will freely admit that I am no Shakespeare but I think I'm a pretty decent writer and can make myself generally well understood so how you could miss the point I was making and think that somehow I was arguing something critical about Danish babies is beyond my comprehension.

Cheers
Aj

Corkey:

Thank you! I was thinking that was the case. I know that's the case in Oregon because we are vote-by-mail only so you have to have a place you can receive mail in order to vote.

Cheers
Aj

i have ban myself from porting in this thread.. my statements were not made clear enough for several and my abilty of speach does dont comepete.. please refain from using my name on this thread or assuming what i am or may /may not have or know. i do not know you nor you me.
thanks
cody

Um look Cody, why not call out DNC for using your name in his post? Hence my reply using your name.

As far as your "unclear" statements, this is what is odd to me, white folks can use the most colorful descriptors when it comes to POC and then brush it off as "we" misconstrued such adjectives.

So with that said, I did not assume, YOU chose to use "that look" I stand by it was not the best choice of adjectives to describe us, why? Cause it is fucking offensive, just as offensive as "wet back" "beaners" and my favorite everyone still uses no matter how many times we asked you don't

ILLEGAL.

I am not illegal, I did not come from another planet here I came from a land where MY ancestors ( I have direct bloodlines to Pancho Villa AND can prove it) roamed freely.

So please don't wag your finger at me for your name use, at least I did not use an offensive descriptor.

Thanks

Homeless people can most certainly vote! They use the address of the homeless shelter they are staying at or where they collect their checks if they are getting any!

Oh BTW the whole "more education" thing DNC

I never graduated highschool...

I couldn't I was in the streets.

I did however read ANYTHING I could get my hands on. I learned English in 3 months, and I used my library not only to get warm in but to


EDUCATE myself.

Weird huh?