BBP Break-In, $1,000 Stolen From Fundraising Effort | citydesk
The staff at Boise Bicycle Project is still reeling following a weekend break-in in which all of the proceeds from the recent "Helladrome" fundraiser were stolen.
More than a $1,000 in cash and merchandise were taken, the majority of which were receipts from the Friday fundraiser, part of BBP's Pedal 4 the People campaign. BBP is trying to raise $115,000 to buy the 1027 Lusk Street building the [...]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read more about the incident in this Wednesday's BW.
Give it back. If ya know who did it, urge them to give it back. And if you're the person they give it back to get 'em to do some community service, so they can figure out there's more to life than this cycle so many are fallin' into of doin' stupid shit, goin' to jail, doin' more stupid shit, goin' to jail again, doin' somethin' really stupid, goin' to prison, doin' somethin' stupid in prison and ensuring they'll stay there until there's no point to life on the outside. I mean, what's the point of continuing to perpetuate *that* cycle? None, or at least there are no good ones.
And here's a thing: If you're gonna be a criminal at least be good at it and don't take shit from tiny, struggling charities.
Oh, and here's another thing: In a world in which the basic needs of all people were met, shelter, water, food, education, and health care, a criminal would never be able to justify his or her behavior through need. That wouldn't mean that a person who enjoyed an activity which runs counter to the public trust would stop engaging in that activity because they don't need to. It would just clear up the question of responsibility. If you steal in a world without need and you get caught, the consequences are yours to deal with. If you steal in a world without need and don't get caught, you're probably contributing to the advancement of technologies being applied to the problem of you that will serve many functions having nothing to do with you. :)
Crime will never be eradicated, nor should it be (there must be at least a basic social contract between cooperating parties, and there will always be those willing and able to break the tenets of those contracts), but it could be much more clearly defined and easily dealt with from a playing field on which the base is at a level of 'reasonably secure' rather than 'fighting for survival'. There will always be differences between those who have and those who have-not, but the difference as it stands is between having basic necessities and not having them (with those most susceptible to need being the working lower-middle class, since they're below the poverty line but above the cutoff for social service support). The difference could be between living in places where walking and biking everywhere are possible, using public zip-cars (or whatever they're called once they become ubiquitous; BSU calls them zip-cars), co-owning community autos, or having a private vehicle or fleet of vehicles. A vehicle is not a need, but the ability to get to and from a place of employment or volunteerism is a necessity, and we live in a world in which those places are impractically far apart, but if people aren't worried about food, water, and housing, and if they're healthy and well-educated, it's easy to provide and desirable to utilize transportation. I know there's a long way to go between here and there, and we may never get to a place like that, but it'd be nice if we could. Then no one can say, "But I had to!" and muddle the issue. It's just a matter of, "I did it, you got me, what are the consequences?" (Or, of course, "I did it, no one got me, cool!" :D But it would be a choice and the sole responsibility of the one choosing it either way. :))
Comments
Post a Comment