In America, it is increasingly illegal to be poor.
(Image from the CC-licensed Flickr stream of onurkiyak )
Snip from an op-ed by Barbara Ehrenreich (!) in the New York Times, which examines the moral and social impact of ordinances against the publicly poor. The op-ed is based on a new study from the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty which found that the number of ordinances against the "publicly poor" are rising. More American cities, according to the report, are enacting and enforcing laws against "the indigent."
How do you know when someone is indigent? As a Las Vegas statute puts it, "An indigent person is a person whom a reasonable ordinary person would believe to be entitled to apply for or receive" public assistance.Is It Now a Crime to Be Poor? (NYT via Ned Sublette)That could be me before the blow-drying and eyeliner, and it's definitely Al Szekely at any time of day. A grizzled 62-year-old, he inhabits a wheelchair and is often found on G Street in Washington -- the city that is ultimately responsible for the bullet he took in the spine in Fu Bai, Vietnam, in 1972. He had been enjoying the luxury of an indoor bed until last December, when the police swept through the shelter in the middle of the night looking for men with outstanding warrants.
It turned out that Mr. Szekely, who is an ordained minister and does not drink, do drugs or curse in front of ladies, did indeed have a warrant -- for not appearing in court to face a charge of "criminal trespassing" (for sleeping on a sidewalk in a Washington suburb). So he was dragged out of the shelter and put in jail. "Can you imagine?" asked Eric Sheptock, the homeless advocate (himself a shelter resident) who introduced me to Mr. Szekely. "They arrested a homeless man in a shelter for being homeless."
Read the report that was the inspiration for this op-ed, produced by the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty (NLCHP) and the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH): Homes Not Handcuffs -- List Of "Meanest Cities" Released, and here is a direct link to the document (PDF)
the latest
latest episodes
And becoming poor has become much much easier since Ronald Reagan saved America...
The obvious solution is vivoleum.
In Baltimore it's the worst. I go their every year for Otakon. We really only visit the touristy part of town where the convention center is. There used to be benches there, but they were mostly occupied by homeless people. Now they took the benches away. It's obvious why.
Ticketing truant kids instead of you know, actually taking them to school? Brilliant.
(Though it might be possible to avoid paying the ticket by just waiting it out - my brother once got a ticket for fare-evasion that vanished when he turned 18. But that was in better economic days, I bet they're likely to hunt you down and arrest you when you're 17.)
Fascists 1
Huddled Masses 0
God bless the police for apprehending and incarcerating these dangerous individuals.
I love how this post appears right above one detailing a company that designs "interior space solutions for children." Can you say "irony"? I knew you could.
The gap between the rich and poor increases everywhere... even on boing boing!
if poor people had any sense of socialist justice they would all commit suicide for the greater good of society.
however their selfish greed will be the downfall of us all!
Wow. I love the crazy and wonderful absurdity that BB gives me every day. The French "astronaut" on the golf course was almost the best part of my Sunday. However, I was not prepared for the juxtaposition of fantasy kids bedrooms and the arrest of the homeless. Thank you, in all sincerity, for helping me dig faster into my pocket to give to the indigent persons I see in my town.
Good contrast with the story and pictures directly below and before this one: Opulent bedrooms for the progeny of the indecently rich.
Screw the homeless and disenfranchised! My son needs a $2000 flatscreen TV and his room to resemble either an idyllic "Leave it to Beaver" era backyard or a ship!
What is slightly misleading about such articles is that the examples they give of the homeless being abused are the homeless you want to protect.
What these articles often ignore are the homeless that force these laws to be made. Just as examples of what I have seen: Sleeping under the computer desks at the public library, pooping in phone booths, leaning in your window and holding the steering wheel until you give them money, taking all the food at the food sharing events, taking all the sugar and drinking all the cream from the condiment bar at Starbucks, masturbating in Borders to the Playboys in public, etc.
Often times these are the homeless the cities want to get rid of. Unfortunately, all homeless are criminalized for the actions of a few. But those few's actions are so egregious to the public they are oftentimes willing to punish everyone.
hey Wordtipping unicversal single-payer with psych coverage would go some way to reduce numbers of the psychologically-disordered poor, eh?
So much cheaper to have paid thugs - sorry, I mean Peace Officers - and prisons to "sort them out", eh wot?
It's always been a crime to be poor. Sure there haven't been laws explicitly forbidding it. But the homeless have always been treated as a completely alien race, to be avoided and feared and at best, pitied. Criminals, though they haven't officially charged with any specific crime, they are presumed to have wound up in their predicament through their own fault. If this homeless man is such a saint, why is there no place for him in our vast world?
The only difference is that now, some homeless people are found to be in violation of honest, well-intentioned laws designed to protect our communities from people who are intoxicated or psychotic. Should he get a free pass for violating the law just because he has a mysterious reason for having to sleep on the street?
Always has been a crime to be homeless or poor.
Depends on the decade whether you get your head cracked or just get arrested.
Any society that insists on treating the symptoms and not the root cause is fucked to begin with... even the homeless people sleeping in libraries and shitting on the streets aren't the actual problem, unpleasant as they may seem to people... how about a little more compassion from everyone?
ounce of prevention, wordtipping? each example you gave of actions of the homeless you would like to be "rid of" are examples of desperation or mental illness. have you seen the inside of a soup kitchen, or the psych ward of a va hospital? they are on the streets because they have no place to go, and they places they are sent don't have the means to handle the shear capacity, much less complexity, of the "egregious." egregious, indeed, for they are outside of the flock, and we put them there.
> masturbating in Borders to the Playboys in public
I didn't think anyone was looking and I already SAID I was sorry!!!! Jeez.
Always against the rules to be 'obviously' poor and out of work but as we exit 8 years of 'greed as Christianity' it really has gottn worse with poverty tied to godlessness and lack of morality
Obama needs to lose his cool blue personae and tell us the truth, it is a travesty that this the greatest country on earth has people living on the streets
Simple really WWJD?
Everyone agrees it was better when they were institutionalized to be abused behind closed doors where we didn't have to see it. The demand for such ignorance is just resurfacing as barred jails rather than white padded rooms.
Perhaps this is a step towards providing health care for all Americans: they will either be in the army or in jail.
Just as examples of what I have seen: Sleeping under the computer desks at the public library, pooping in phone booths, leaning in your window and holding the steering wheel until you give them money, taking all the food at the food sharing events, taking all the sugar and drinking all the cream from the condiment bar at Starbucks,
Because they are warm dry places to sleep, there aren't enough public toilets, they need the money to buy food or don't have the money to buy food...
Why try to get rid of the problem by getting rid of the people - why not work and spend the cost and effort to solve the problem?
One troubling trend that's been popular among city governments recently has been making a law against sleeping outside.
The same basic template law originated in Florida cities and is being implemented all over the place, with variations in the language.
Basically, these laws allow the police to arrest anyone they find sleeping outside, regardless of whether they're on public or private property. So even if someone has permission to sleep, say, in the doorway of a church, the cops can still arrest them. Basically, you get arrested for having nowhere to sleep.
Of course, you can think of all sorts of ways the law could be applied to wealthier people, but it never is. It's simply another tool the cops can use to arrest people they already wanted to arrest anyway.
The reason people want the poor and homeless out of sight (and out of mind) is that every single last visible poor and homeless person is an indictment of our failure as a society: and who wishes to be reminded of failure? Far better and more pleasant to take in a John Hughes movie...and feel good about yourself again.
I am with wordtipping 100%. The way to stop tolerating bad behavior is to stop tolerating bad behavior. I am well past sick of the Ehrenreichs of the world excusing it because of the income levels of the individuals involved.
All of this "root cause" discussion takes away the clear individual responsibility that (some) of the homeless clearly lack - and distracts social services, et al. from helping out those who really need the help (e.g. families).
Ehrenreich also completely ignored the main benefit of quality of life crackdowns: picking up criminals with outstanding warrants for much more violent crime. Or does she excuse that too, because the perps are poor?
Need I point out the tragic and obscene contrast between this topic and the one directly preceding it? Frou-frou bedrooms for overprivileged children while adults go homeless. Shameful.
"Why try to get rid of the problem by getting rid of the people - why not work and spend the cost and effort to solve the problem?"
And what exactly is that solution?
Do we put the mentally ill in a proper care facility?
Do we give them money, help them get a job, a home?
Do we educate them?
At what point does our helping stop and their helping begin?
I am all for helping anyone that needs it. I'm also ONLY for helping people who truly want help or need help to help themselves. (It is different if they are clinically disturbed and can not help themselves.) I see people who milk any of our social programs as part of the problem, not part of the solution.
-Who helped you, who gave you those opportunities, the money?
I'm not saying there aren't people who don't deserve help, but there have been plenty of stories of pan handlers that live better off than I do.
What's the difference between a homeless person and a prisoner of war?
...
Under the Geneva Conventions, a prisoner of war is entitled to food, shelter, and medical care.
Heard of Elizabeth Smart?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Smart_kidnapping
I knew there was a question of time for this to happen. When somebody could live in the States not showing any trace, just like Smart's kidnappers, that is going to raise an alarm.
I'm against such discrimination, but homeless people are difficult to track. I think that when USA stop seeing terrorism treats everywhere things will get back to normal.
I don't understand, why is this bad? Because it sucks for the poor person? Why are we so much more concerned with the rights of poor persons than the rights of the tax-paying citizens?
I work, I pay my taxes, and I expect the city to keep the streets safe, clean and usable. I expect public libraries to be usable. I expect to be able to walk down the street without being harassed. Etc.
It is horrible to be poor; I don't think anyone would disagree. It's also horrible to only have a living wage, or to barely be able to support your family. Yet here you are saying that we should be protecting the experience of these poor people, without regard for protecting all the people who manage to actually live up to their responsibilities.
There were way fewer of these guys around before the Reagan revolution: and it's nevergotten better,not since 1982.
And desperate people do desperate things...in Florida, can the homeless just "check in" to the local jail for a place to sleep? It's cheaper than sending the cops out to find them, and then bring them in.
Oh well time to increase that military budget again, eh?
Oh thank God. I'm getting so tired of being poor. Once they outlaw it my life will get so much better.
Yet here you are saying that we should be protecting the experience of these poor people, without regard for protecting all the people who manage to actually live up to their responsibilities.
And if you get laid off and have to live on the street? How about if you lose your insurance and get sick and end up on the street? Do you believe that nothing bad can ever happen to you because you're a better person than the poor?
It appears that you're either a Calvinist, have Empathy Deficit Disorder or are simply incapable of complex thinking about the future. Shit happens to people. Your comment is a glossy version of "damn, lazy hobos get what they deserve."
@wordtipping #11:
examples of what I have seen: Sleeping under the computer desks at the public library, pooping in phone booths, leaning in your window and holding the steering wheel until you give them money, taking all the food at the food sharing events, taking all the sugar and drinking all the cream from the condiment bar at Starbucks, masturbating in Borders to the Playboys in public, etc.
Those things can all get you arrested or thrown out of an establishment anyway, and they are all things that non-homeless people sometimes do. There's no need to make up a bunch of new anti-poor rules on top of the ones we have for everybody else.
Just as examples of what I have seen:
Sleeping under the computer desks at the public library,
And if they were a college student, we might joke about excessive course load or partying too hard the night before.
pooping in phone booths,
Could be a case of anti-social behavior (minuscule in comparison to the corporate leaders that pollute our land, water, and air), or it could be a case of not having enough public facilities, or a case of mental or intestinal illness.
leaning in your window and holding the steering wheel until you give them money,
Could probably be prosecuted under existing laws: assault, maybe even grand theft auto. You could also try hitting the gas and seeing if they can hold on ;-)...and if you are driving a stretch Hummer, or a Bentley or something ridiculous like that, than hobos aught to take over your car and rob you...it's legit class war.
taking all the food at the food sharing events
Not sure what a food sharing event is. Food not bombs? A soup kitchen? In my experience, if these events are effectively organized, it shouldn't be possible for any single person to take all the food unless they do some kind of armed robbery.
taking all the sugar and drinking all the cream from the condiment bar at Starbucks
I've been hungry and broke enough to eat the free ketchup and suger packets at fast food joints. Starbucks leaching?!? That's livin large. "Demand work! If you are not given work, demand bread! If you are not given bread, take bread!" --Emma Goldman
masturbating in Borders to the Playboys in public
Diogenes of Sinope was known for masturbating in the marketplace. This is a crime as old as humanity. The sooner we realize that everyone beats off, and get over it, the better.
We're all just one pink slip or one tragic accident away from being homeless. Every time I refuse to give a homeless person money on the street I find myself hoping that when I'm the one begging for change, the person who walks by me has more compassion than I (and more than some of the people who have commented here, for that matter).
I suspect that all homeless fall into either the category of "lived right above the edge of poverty, and then something went wrong", or "are too mentally ill to function in general society."
A lot of people rail against the homeless as if they all fall into a third category, "just don't care, never tried to do better, and are generally assholes."
But as I look into this problem (and it's something I started researching months ago, and have been fairly serious about), I've decided that that third category is a negligible slice of the pie chart, if it even exists.
Homeless people aren't homeless because it's easy, or because panhandling is so profitable, etc. We should divide them into "not firing on all cylinders" and "just need a break", and provide either medical treatment or institutionalization, or subsidized housing and help from an employment agency.
I strongly suspect if we did that, the homeless problem would be so greatly reduced that we'd stop feeling tempted to treat it as a criminal or sociopathic issue. And the cost of dealing with "the homeless problem" might even go down, net.
And what exactly is that solution?
Do we put the mentally ill in a proper care facility?
Do we give them money, help them get a job, a home?
Do we educate them?
Those would do for a start.
I work, I pay my taxes, and I expect the city to keep the streets safe, clean and usable. I expect public libraries to be usable. I expect to be able to walk down the street without being harassed. Etc.
Exactly - I want my taxes to do what they are supposed to do and not be used to pay outrageous salaries to politicians and put the poor in jail.
This current economy is so cool, it will allow even more people to become acquainted with being poor.
Get a job losers. Why are you trying to live in a car. If you hadn't been so greedy, you wouldn't have lost your job and ended up defaulting on your mortgage at the same time your relatives did so no one can take you in. Can't afford the gas to move your car, sorry it has to be towed. Uncle Fred is a burden, his meds are unaffordable, kick him onto the street. You have seen the future, buy a tent with your last disposable income so you can take it with you. Brother can you spare a dime?
It seems to me the problem in this case stems mostly from blind enforcement.
Al wasn't arrested for being homeless, he was arrested for having a warrant out on him. He had a warrant out on him for not showing up to court in response to a ticket. He got the ticket for sleeping on the street. He was sleeping on the street because, yes, he was homeless.
A little flexibility and understanding at any point in the chain could easily have prevented this. Homelessness may have been the root cause, but that doesn't excuse the rest of the links. You can see this in the rest of the article. It's really more about the justice system than the homeless.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France
@mattharvest,
I don't think anyone's saying we should care "more" about those who are poor and/or homeless...the problem is that we aren't caring about them at all. Or, worse, cities are actively exploiting them to make a buck, now that bucks are harder to come by. To everyone who's commented on the mental illness/homeless correlation, you've hit the nail on the head. When are we going to realize that we are all only as elevated a society as the standard of living of our poorest members?
I was homeless once... In every city I went I racked up huge fines for being homeless. Standing on the sidewalk too long? That's a loitering fine. Putting your bags down on the sidewalk? That's a fine for chattel on the sidewalk. Sleeping in a park? That's a trespassing fine and a no-being-in-parks-after-dusk fine. Panhandling? That's a fine for conducting business without a permit (no joke!)
Luckily, most of these fines were municipal, so once I left the city they were null, but really I find it ironic that the penalty for being poor is thousands upon thousands of dollars in fines. When you make between one and ten dollars per day panhandling, imposing these fines is pretty much the exact same thing as incarceration.
Since then I've been able to piece my life back together and start anew, but I can never get a credit card, never get a student loan or a loan for a house or car because I racked up these thousands of dollars in fines years ago.
if you accept that someone who has nothing is lesser than you, who has something, then you must also accept that the rich man who has so much more than you is also better than you. Which means he may purchase you and do whatever he wills with you.
Think it through.
Can't be bothered to sign in, name is maia.
Poor law in Britain was specifically introduced against vagrants under Elizabeth 1 and probably earlier, my history's bad. Vagrants, defined as people who had no home in that town/village/parish, were at first deported from that place, well, marched to the borders, and later subjected to increasingly harsh punishments. As few had secure land titles and harsh winters in this period lead to increasingly poor harvests, necessary to pay rents, tithes etc, there were a lot of vagrants, which caused a moral panic. So law against the homeless is as old as you like..certainly predates America (as opposed to the undiscovered country)
If you liked this, you'll LOVE the Olympics. You can just sweep the homeless entirely off the streets and harass them til they leave, then forever alter the geography and culture of your city! Try it!
Several people in this thread make me ashamed to be a human being. Specifically wordtipping, aj, bcsizemo and mattharvest. Their attitude seems to be the typical rightwinger one of "I got mine, fuck you." There is also a large number of evangelicals who literally believe that if you are rich it means that god has favored you because you really are better than other people. That if you happen to be poor that must be because of a moral failing on your part. Nothing could be further from the truth of course.
In my state, 40 percent of the homeless work a full time job, 40hrs a week. Wanna end homelessness? Demand a living wage. In the 60's and 70's when the mentally ill were deinstitutionalized we were promised that there would be programs for them and they wouldn't just be thrown out in the street. But that's exactly what happened.
Just remember that republicans are traitors. They are Royalists and would love nothing more than to have a society here where we have only a very few ultra wealthy and everyone else is dirt poor.
Notice how overnight we were able to come up with 700 billion to cover the gambling debts of the ultra wealthy but ask for a pittance for those who through no fault of their own are homeless and you get nothing.
It's a big problem. For me, the French solution is looking better all the time.
Paging concern-troll Mattharvest to the red courtesy phone...
Paging concern-troll Mattharvest to the red courtesy phone...
CNIEBLA, I fail to see what terrorism has to do with this, nor why homeless people are any more capable of crossing state lines, giving a false identity, or kidnapping a child.
#34: "We're all just one pink slip or one tragic accident away from being homeless."
Sorry, but that's bullshit. It's the kind of simple minded bromide that is supposed to generate empathy but that instead leads to band-aid solutions and a continuing crisis.
You don't become a street-bound hard-core homeless person just because you lose your job. I know plenty of people who have lost their jobs, and some who have dealt with health care crises. The had insurance, savings, and friends and families to help them, and they didn't end up on the street howling at streetlights.
Mental illness, drug addiction, frayed or fractured family ties (or coming from a dysfunctional family to begin with) . . . that is what can lead to the kind of homelessness of the sort that is described here as "criminal."
Handouts don't help. What helps are thoughtful, multi-layered, long-view programs that address both immediate needs and offer a road out. Stuff like handing out cell phones, drop-in centers with counseling resources, and "housing first" programs for hard core addicts.
"mysterious reason for having to sleep on the street"
No reason needed. As Anatole France pointed out, we can all sleep on the street any time we want.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anatole_France
How about if you lose your insurance and get sick and end up on the street?
Hell, you could have insurance and still end up losing everything because it's in the shareholders' best interest.
Streetwise, the Chicago paper sold by homeless people, had an article about this a few weeks ago. Luckily we did not make the list of "Meanest Cities" as they correctly described it. It's still not a crime to be homeless in Chicago and there are a lot (but not enough) people trying to help.
If your city has a paper sold by homeless people buy it. Streetwise has great city guides and reviews of all sorts of businesses. The vendors are also generally really nice and seriously trying to work towards a better life.
My favorite Anatole France's quote: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Please pardon my cluelessness - why is there a parenthetical exclamation mark next to Ehrenreich's name?
It amazes me how many people think the best way to deal with the homeless is to push them out of view. They call it "cleaning up the streets", but really it's just hiding the problem so that rich people can sleep comfortable at night, ignorant of the fact that once-contributing members of society have been lost and forgotten.
And I wonder, those of you who say "you don't become homeless because you lose your job," have you ever been in that situation? My family was one small step away at one point, even while the social safety nets that us Canadians enjoy were barely holding us up. Just because it didn't happen to you, or somebody you know, doesn't mean it never happens. For every lazy, stoned bastard who spends all their money and loses everything, there are hard-working individuals who succumb to circumstances beyond their control and can't keep up with their debts. And once debt happens, rest assured it will take more than hard-work and good-will to make it out.
The easiest way to find yourself on the streets is to be permanently injured. If it happens when you aren't at work, you likely aren't covered for a penny (considering that a large portion of the population can't afford health or life insurance). Now you have a house, a car, and a family to provide for, but are never able to work again. How do you survive? Within only a few months you can have your house and car repossessed and be on the streets. Heck, if you fail to make payments on some things, you may find yourself in jail -- ensuring that you will never again be able to get a job to pay off those debts. Depending on the jail, they might even give you a bill when you walk out, which you'll never be able to pay because you now have a criminal record. Talk about a downward spiral.
Sure, you could have insurance, and a nest egg, and be debt-free, but that's a very small percentage of the population, and it's certainly not common for those 16-30. Even I, a professional with two university degrees, struggle to make the bills (being saddled with enough student loans to buy a small house with). I know that, should I ever lose my job, I won't be able to pay rent or any bills. My outstanding credit might get me by for a couple of months. After that? I'll lose everything the bank can take from me. Without even a permanent address, I can't even apply for employment insurance, leave alone try to find another professional job. And as for the usual, "then you'll just have to take a job at McDonalds," that won't even pay my loans leave alone the rest of what it takes to live a minimal, legal existence.
A lot of people seem to think that it takes an irresponsible, lazy, drug-addicted person to become homeless. Sometimes all it takes is a minor crisis. After that, our system of loans and laws will quickly make sure that a person has nothing left and no chance of starting again. You can turn a blind eye to the problem, but it still exists, and it's not the fault of the people -- it's the system they live in.
By the way, the trivial laws that homeless people can't help but break:
* Public urination/defecation
* Loitering
* Sleeping in public places
Don't believe me? Try to find a public building that will let you use the washroom without paying for something. If you're near a mall you might get lucky. Of course, if you're homeless and stuck walking everywhere, you'll never be able to walk to another public-friendly place without having to use the washroom again. I have enough trouble finding a place while driving around from call to call.
Loitering? Well, if you're homeless and walking, there isn't far for you to go. Doubly-so when you are tired and hungry.
Sleeping in public? Well, you have to sleep somewhere at some time. Good luck finding some kind soul who will let you stay the night at their place, or a shelter with room to spare. Without a place of your own, the only thing left is a park, back alley, or other secluded location. No matter what you choose, you're breaking the law.
Remember, nothing comes free in this world, and that includes basic needs like sanitation and shelter. As long as we enact laws that prohibit people from doing what nature requires of them, people with no other means will be forced to break them.
At least they get health care after they get arrested.
If I ever find out that I am riddled with cancer I'm sorry if I shoot you during my rampage to get to the prison hospital...
To all the folks demanding the homeless "take responsibility" for their actions, what does that mean? seriously...
take responsibility for having no legs?
take responsibility for being mentally retarded?
take responsibility for hearing voices and not remembering your own name?
take responsibility for being over 60 with no education and no one who loves you?
I person who has been consistently denied all control of their own life CANNOT take resposibility for anything.
well said, RevEng
What works:
These programs actually save money. Hard-core homeless people pose an incredible burden on local health care services. Cities pay for that one way or another. For a fraction of what a few emergency hospital admissions and detox stays cost, you can put a guy in a cheap room. A place to stay, wash up, and store belongings not only eliminates most of the public behavior that businesses object to, they drink and get high less for the very reason that they're no longer coping with the misery of sleeping in the open.
"Wanna end homelessness? Demand a living wage."
Pay a decent price, support local businesses
1. Round them all up.
2. Sort out the crazies, the lazies, and the genuinely hard-on-their-luck.
3. Crazies go to the mental hospital. Get diagnosed, go on meds. Get assistance to get housing, jobs, and how to take care of themselves. Go off your meds, round them back up, and they don't get out and have to work and live under supervision.
4. Lazies/scammers go to jail and are forced to work/learn a trade. Monitor them as they try to get a job after (no different from EI, show proof that you're trying to get a job). Not trying, back to jail, forced to work. Lather, rinse, repeat.
5. Hard-luck cases, by all means try to help them. Housing, employment assistance. Monitor them the same way to weed out the scammers who pretend.
Probably not a perfect system, but the best I could think of in 5 minutes.
I like that everyone who doesn't believe in full charity for homeless people are somehow evil in this thread. As if we're automatically wrong for not being 100% sympathetic with homeless people, regardless of their reason for being poor.
The same people who are complaining in this thread are often acting as if there is an obligation on the part of people who have luck/success to help people without luck/success. I'm sorry, but that's just not the way we are as a species, a society, a nation or a culture.
It's completely obvious that:
(a) some homeless people are there because they're insane/retarded and lacked any support structure,
(b) some homeless people are there because of a string of really bad luck, despite being good, hardworking people,
(c) some homeless people are there because they're assholes who never worked for anything
(d) other homeless people have wholly different stories.
Yet, here we've got people saying that if we don't want to offer blanket support to the homeless, we're monsters.
We've got people like Antinum who act as if we're automatically wrong for suggesting that, just perhaps, government owes something different to law-abiding taxpayers than it owes criminals and/or people who don't pay taxes.
I love the demand for "compassion" mixed so clearly with egotistical, self-righteousness.
How does giving homeless people a criminal record for being homeless make it easier for them to find homes?
And how is this homeless person trampling on the rights of any of the commenters here? 99% of the trolls bitching about them have probably suffered nothing more than being hassled for loose change. Well, screw you guys - in my opinion, outdoor preachers and people trying to sign me onto new credit cards are a bigger public nuisance. Send in the brown-, sorry, blueshirts to deal with them immediately!
It appears that you're either a Calvinist, have Empathy Deficit Disorder or are simply incapable of complex thinking about the future.
Or a trust fund, which may be the same thing as the third option.
BTW, responding directly to one of the more preposterous points:
"It appears that you're either a Calvinist, have Empathy Deficit Disorder or are simply incapable of complex thinking about the future."
(a) It's nice that, apparently, you think you get to define the appropriate level of empathy a person has before he becomes mentally ill. What other powers of definition do you hold?
(b) It's also rather nice that you can make such broad assumptions about my ability to engage in complex thinking about the future, just because I don't think society owes the poor something more than they owe non-poor. Fascinating. I envy your ability, though it appears to have the serious shortcoming of being nonsensical.
(c) Let's play your little game: it appears you are unable to discern the difference between oppression and "not helping", not to mention being unable to realize that sometimes empathy means realizing that we cannot help some people, and that it's far worse to pretend otherwise.
Get off your high horse.
Matt,
Where does this "us and them" shit come from? Your first statement in this thread defined homeless people in terms of how minimized you feel by our concern for them. WTF?
You expect anyone not to hear that as selfish begrudgery? Regardless of any salient point you may have made, people are probably reacting to the dickish way you went about saying it. You could have said everything you have so far, in a more reasonable tone, and gotten a completely different response. Instead you frame other's misfortune in terms of your own inconvenience, and paint the homeless as a generic blob of social decay.
Not to mention the completely unrealistic terms you describe things in. No one has been criticized for "not being 100% sympathetic with homeless people". People are mostly questioning a system that doesn't tackle the root of the issue, and suggesting cheaper alternatives. And who exactly has "so much more concerned with the rights of poor persons than the rights of the tax-paying citizens"?
Mostly I'm reading people who also pay taxes, saying that something better could be done than criminalizing misfortune/illness. Seems reasonable.
the deserving poor versus the unworthy poor ... again. Do you think this a new idea?
@23- Canuck: "The reason people want the poor and homeless out of sight (and out of mind) is that every single last visible poor and homeless person is an indictment of our failure as a society: and who wishes to be reminded of failure?"
That, I think, is utterly wrong. The people who want the homeless out of the way don't consider them a sign of "failure of society" because they don't consider the homeless to be, in any way, shape or form, part of society, any more than a bag of trash on the street is a part of society. And, like that misplaced trash bag, one doesn't start discussing why so much trash is generated, one simply calls the garbageman to have it hauled somewhere where it won't offend passersby with its odor. It's not a failure _of_ society, but a glitch which can be eliminated _by_ the machinery of society- i.e., those police that taxes keep paying for.
Might be a harsh way of phrasing it, but I'd bet money that's the accurate summation rather than yours.
I have fibromyalgia. I am too sick to work, and too sick to be homeless as I can't walk and shelters kick you out in the daytime.
I live on $442.00 a month. In a rented room. I am very close to being homeless and may be soon. I have no idea how I will cope.
Prior to getting sick? Well paid project manager on career track. I speak 3 languages fluently. Family and friends tend to disappear when you are on a downward spiral. So no help there--one sibling said my situation makes her feel "depressed" so she can no longer talk to me. And no, I never hit her up for money. And yes, she's rich.
Something is very wrong with the USA. My father served in WWII, my grandfather in WWI, my ancestors fought in wars going all the way back to fighting against the British...
Anyone can get sick at anytime. Have compassion and never take your life or lifestyle for granted.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread."
--Anatole France
Why be surprised? Everything government does, it does at the point of a gun. It's what they do. They never did care and never will. They have guns pointed at us.
Madness and Civilization by Foucault is a wonderful book concerning the history behind the illegality of homelessness & mental disorders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madness_and_Civilization
mattharvest
"The same people who are complaining in this thread are often acting as if there is an obligation on the part of people who have luck/success to help people without luck/success. I'm sorry, but that's just not the way we are as a species, a society, a nation or a culture."
Yes, you do have an obligation to your fellow man. That's called being a human being who is part of a community. What you advocate, everyone for themselves, is being just another animal. I get tired of hearing this libertarian crap that says we are all individuals only. It is NOT "just the way we are". Even the most elementary level course of sociology or anthropology would educate you otherwise. But let me guess, you're too smart for that aren't you?
"We've got people like Antinum who act as if we're automatically wrong for suggesting that, just perhaps, government owes something different to law-abiding taxpayers than it owes criminals and/or people who don't pay taxes."
You are welcome to move somewhere that better fits your ideals but here in the US we have this thing going called Democracy where everyone is equal before the law. It's nice to know that you hate democracy, it just galls you that all those criminal poor are treated the same as you doesn't it?
Just admit it, you don't really believe in democracy, you think some people are more deserving than others, that's aristocracy. The funny part is you actually believe you would be in the upper classes. I've got news for you...
Xeni, I am as puzzled as #54 Susan Oliver: what's exclamation pointy about Barbara Ehrenreich?
Whatever happened to all those people who call this a christian nation? Whatever happened to being my brothers' keeper?
They're the ones who think the homeless are just lazy trash or hopeless nutjobs.
They're the ones who believe universal health care is Stalinist socialism, which was really just a horrible murderous dictatorship they support, because their god will be the one doing the killing.
They're the ones who believe in destroying the public school system and using tax dollars to bankroll private schools, where they can prevent their children from being exposed to reality.
They're the ones that believe anyone who does not look like them or believe what they believe are only getting what they deserve for disobeying their imaginary friend.
@Foetusnail
Christ was unequivocal on the matter. "If you have two coats, give one to the poor. If you have extra food, give it away to those who are hungry."
I've always felt this was the core of Christianity. I reckon Christ would have hated the self-serving rationalisation of the neo-cons and fundamentalists, it's very reminiscent of the problems he had with the status quo in his own time.
@74- Question- have you considered that just as much as you feel there to be one human community, the "bullshit libertarians" might feel that there isn't? That whatever sense of "we're all people together" simply does not exist to some people, or exists so weakly that it doesn't motivate to effort?
And that, as a result of that, you and they produce different philosophical systems that are most comfortable to each of you? One considering a totally atomistic existence to be the ultimate horror against one's human nature, and the other that considers being an integral part of a great web of humanity to be a horror and affront against individuality?
Have you read this ? That story is making the headlines in France: "New York City sends homeless family to Granville, Normandy"
http://sedulia.blogs.com/sedulias_translations/2009/08/new-york-city-sends-homeless-family-to-granville-normandy.html
Foetusnail
dogemperor has written on "Joel's Army" and Dominionism.
See also: the Dark Christianity Wiki
Cicada
Re: "they produce different philosophical systems"
What you propose appears to me to be Relativism. I'm a Pragmatist (for the time being), they are not the same. I would assert along with Rorty that you must have "a difference that makes a difference". If noting makes any difference then there is nothing to say.
Thesis: a totally atomistic existence
Antithesis: an integral part of a great web
Perform the synthesis.
Interestingly, MattHarvest equates luck with success. For the other judgemental people in this thread, consider many factors:
The concept of a leech living large on welfare is ridiculous on its face, given the pursuit of better labour by any and all recipients (typical: 2000 applicants for 100 minimum-wage, hard labour jobs)
Rich people make money by charging poorer people for necessities like rent, food, gas, electricity. This includes the middle and professional classes.
I ask you all, presuming the homeless are in fact lazy or crazy, what will you do with them? Careful with your values here, incarceration is terribly expensive, and on your tax dollar no less! Maybe you can pay some of them to kill the rest, yes?
@#80- Too simplistic an analysis-- hardly anyone's completely group-oriented, or totally atomistic...but each person's synthesis of the two traits is going to be a bit different.
But, in any case, you asserted that one does have a responsibility to one's fellow men. How did you arrive at that conclusion? Is it merely an outgrowth of your desire to feel a part of a community of all humanity? If so, how would you convince someone who actively did not want to feel that?
Normally, I'm not a fan of Ehrenriech's books (at times, whiny or alarmist, assuming mixed with a heavy sense of entitlement). However, she makes very valid points here.
On NPR, a few months ago, they featured a family who was really down on their luck. The blue-collar father was unemployed for over a year, and the mother had low-paying job with the barest of benefits through her employer, a drugstore chain. This radio documentary initially intended to tell the story of one family dealing with the recession. However, in the space of 10 minutes, it was from bad to worse to abysmal. The day the mother was going into the hospital for major back surgery, the father was arrested on an outstanding warrant for not paying for moving violations. He wanted to pay his tickets but with no job and burnt-through savings, couldn't do it. Their child was in state-sponsored health care, but if picked up past 6pm, the parents would be reported to child services thus threatening custody according to the mother. The cops towed the car when they picked up the father, so how would she pick up the kid? It was bad enough the serious back surgery had a long recovery time of several months and would devastate them financially because of the minimal benefits she got through her job. If it wasn't for the radio documentary crew, she could've lost her kid. It was awful listening to this. I kept thinking, I hope this isn't the only family that horrible things like this are happening to. If so, what kind of country do we live in?
people reject the poor because they remind them that they could be poor too. Most aren't fools really, they are quite capable of imagining themselves unlucky and it scares them. How much easier to drive away the immediate source of the fear, those whose existence is testimony to one's own precariousness, than it is to accept reality.
How to break the fear and shame cycle? Perhaps by making a society where it is NOT an automatic death sentence to be unlucky? Why is the absence of money such a stigma? Whatever happened to social standing depending on things like character, skill, knowledge, ability and talent instead of bank account?
Perhaps a general economic downturn for all will give a chance to re-establish the social life of the village. If people are pressed into smaller lives by straightened circumstances, maybe they will rediscover the inherent value in each other.
Towns shouldn't get rid of all their homeless people. They should allow a few to wander around, not as skeletons at the feast, exactly. They would be living reminders to work harder and keep grinning through yet another ass-chewing by the boss for being five minutes late.
Also, you'll have someone to look down on after you receive your daily reminder that you'll never be rich, despite what the people you vote for are telling you.
"City of Quartz," Mike Davis's book about Los Angeles, describes how the city went one better on making poverty illegal. Its architecture made it impossible for the poor to exist at all there.
http://www.fidnet.com/~dap1955/dickens/dickens_london.html
@83 Takuan- Arguably, character, skill, knowledge, ability and talent are simply means to the end of getting a healthier bank account.
Perhaps the assumption is that if the homeless had some talent, skill, ability, etc, that was of value, someone would have paid them some money to perform it.
I also think your assumption that village life was some sort of utopia might be a bit off, too. To pick one example, Appalachia was fairly poor overall...but was utterly merciless to the impoverished-- a man could have great reknown if relatively wealthy, but would lose all power and standing if he lost that wealth. Perhaps even worse, consider the plight of the poor widow in ancient India-- expected to leap onto the pyre lest she be too much of a burden, because what use was a widow?
sound familiar?
http://www.dickensfair.com/history.htm
suttee was a little more complicated than that if memory serves. As to village life as "utopia", hardly. But it was a life. Even the town drunk had meaning as a cautionary example. Have a look at Asian village life perhaps?
Personally, I think that there is a balance that needs to be struck. You want being homeless to kind of suck. In fact, you want being so poor that you can’t meet your own needs to be uncomfortable. You want this because for the sake of people who actually need help you want everyone else off their ass and working if they can.
That said, you need to realize that right now, most of the poor people in the US have not decided to be poor as a grand lifestyle choice. Being poor in the US sufficiently sucks that very few people capable of avoiding it decide not to. I am sure there are real vagrants who don’t get a job because they don’t want to, but they are a very small minority.
What you have left are people who are poor for “other reasons” that I think any reasonable person would want to act compassionately to remedy their suffering. Acts of god (tree falls on you), man (broken in Nam, heroine), and plan old shitty ass genes (mental illness, cognitive impairments) sweep up a lot of the homeless, especially the ‘lone’ homeless ‘crazies’ that you see. For these people, you need to help those who can be helped and just be compassionate to those that you can’t. We are a rich society. There is no reason why someone born with a sever mental illness has to lead a complete shit life on the streets. We don’t need to buy him a 40’ flat screen, but a little medication, four walls, and a bed is not beyond our ability, nor is it a great finical burden. I’m not saying you let them take a dump on the side walk and chase your girlfriend babbling incoherently, but locking them up one night at a time for a decade is a waste of both tax payer resources and doesn’t improve their (or your) life any.
As for the final group, people who are just down on their luck, especially those with a family, education, contraception, and preventive health are well worth the cost. Even being a greedy uncaring bastard, a tax payer should happily shell out the tax money to keep such people off the street and work to reintegrate them into society. Yeah, there is a price you pay, but the price is trivial considering the cost you are going to pay when a mom and her 5 kids turns into a sick mom because she had no preventative health care, three kids end up in jail, and the other two get busy cranking out a dozen more children, all funded by your dollar. A little prevention is not only more humane, it is cheaper.
@87- And modern life, too, is a life.
And what on earth makes you think that you could take modern US citizens, add the stress of general poverty, and manage to somehow get a harmonious, Asian-style village out of it?
Riots and lynchings, sure. Harmony?
If you love your neighbor, neither your riches or poverty matter. If you hate him, your riches at least give you something to do other than kill him. Take those riches away and the mask of civility goes, too.
Well, i live in Belgium, and altough we also got roofless people, there are way less of it.
First of all, we got a solid social security system wich include unemployment fees (who start high, but drop down rather fast till what we call the minimum of 680€ a month) for those who loose a job. If you don't search an other one you can loose that also and get to the survival fee wich is about 600€ for a sole person, and 850€ for a family.
Second, the basic medical costs are standard covered by the state medical insurance we all pay taxes for. this include essential medical care on all levels and the garanty that you will be helped otherwise if you can't pay it. (they will charge you when you can later). School is also almost free till 18years and higher education is paid by the goverment for the biggest part.
This off course needs higher taxes than what you're used to in the US (25 till 50% depending on your income is the norm here). But the result is way less roofless (estimation for the whole belgium, and more important here, way less criminality and drug problems. Most ppl who are roofless here are junkies, alcoholics, psychiatric patients who are not yet picked up by the medical system and illigal immigrants. Most of them don't stay long on the streets.
For those roofless we got free meals, supermarkets who dump their just over date stuff to them, sleeping houses for the winter, ...
Some of them doesn't want to be helped, and mostly those are psychotic junks, but the rest get helped and mostly get's of the streets in a short or middelong term. A lot of them live in squats (squatting a long abbandoned trashed building is not illigal and they can only be thrown out when the owner sells it or renovate it.)
this system makes this land a nice land to live, for the rich AND the poor.
If the US would do the same, a lot of problems would be solved now, only rich would be a little less rich, wich 95% off the population won't mind i think...
@18:
"Obama needs to lose his cool blue personae and tell us the truth, it is a travesty that this the greatest country on earth has people living on the streets
Simple really WWJD?"
Jesus lived on the streets
Man, I read some of these comments and wonder what the hell is wrong with you people?
Disheartening. People like Matt make me lose faith in humanity (congrats!).
In Portland, OR, a few years back the city council passed the so-called "Sit-Lie Law", which allowed cops to arrest people for sitting on the sidewalk. Recently, a judge found it violated the Oregon constitution and the police chief wisely declared that her officers wouldn't try to enforce it. So the Central Precinct Captain Mark Kruger decided it was time to start strictly enforcing laws against littering. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2009/08/portland_police_seek_new_tacti.html
As a matter of fact, I have worked in a VA hospital. Specifically I worked in the pharmacy and had to deliver the medication to the psych ward and have seen my share of people doing the Thorazine shuffle. My comments were made in an effort to give perspective. The homeless argument is more complex than reported and too often only one side is presented.
As pointed out, most of the examples I gave could be prosecuted under current law without need of discriminatory law. The laws lack bite however when an indigent individual has no means to repay society outside of their time spent in incarceration. So, that is why you see laws arise that seek to punish the state of homelessness in an effort to prevent future law breaking by the homeless. I think that is a very dangerous precedent but I believe that is the basic rational of local administrators.
I genuinely believe there are people who need and deserve help. What is unfortunate about the homeless is that a small percentage of them do not want the help and are simply dangerous opportunists. The discriminatory laws against homeless arise because there is no way to distinguish between the two. The public majority would rather further marginalize an already marginalized group. What makes it possible is how little power the homeless wield to oppose such laws. They contribute neither political clout through voting or financial clout through taxes. Furthermore, the public at large has little experience with the homeless outside of the negative experiences and cannot generate much empathy.
A taxpayer is going to pay one way or another to answer the homeless issue. If discriminatory laws are passed you pay for the enforcement and incarceration of the homeless. I would rather pay for education and employment and society as a whole is better served with a positive approach.
Take those riches away and the mask of civility goes, too.
You're projecting. If your ability to be civil is related to your income level, you have my condolences. Please don't apply your lack of character to the rest of us.
Weird how people jumped all over WORDTIPPING's skull when he made an insightful comment.
Yo, for those (many) of you that have poor comprehension of written English: Wordtipping does not support laws against homelessness or poverty in his post. He merely points out what those making the laws are trying to prevent. He does not say the laws are a good idea, he does not say that the laws work, he does not say there are no better alternatives, and he does not pinch your baby kittens until they squeal. Find some other target for your couch-potato do-nothing Internet outrage... or maybe just push the keyboard away and go HELP the people you so deeply care about.
That is all.
Cicada,
"Too simplistic an analysis"
It's just a blog and I felt we were getting too off topic.
"How did you arrive at that conclusion? Is it merely an outgrowth of your desire to feel a part of a community of all humanity? If so, how would you convince someone who actively did not want to feel that?"
I arrive at my conclusion simply by observing that humans are not solitary creatures. We depend on each other for survival. We cannot, despite all the chest thumping of libertarians, survive on our own. It is physically impossible. We are also highly social. These are brute facts libertarians ignore.
How do I convince someone? I don't know that I have to. Antisocial people generally do not do very well except under unusual conditions like those of today. But I would start with the reality of our social contract and work from there.
The Inuit had a way of dealing with narcissistic personalities (today we call them libertarians). Living where they did at the top of the world their very survival depended on everyone pulling together for the common good. This has been the default human condition for most of our existence but it's particularly acute there. But chance being what it is every once in a while you get someone highly antisocial and narcissistic. The Inuit had an elegant solution, two go out, one comes back.
"Perhaps the assumption is that if the homeless had some talent, skill, ability, etc, that was of value, someone would have paid them some money to perform it.
Again, in my state 40% of the homeless work a full time job. Obviously they have all those things, what they lack is a union. It is only through collective bargaining that the individual worker can ever hope to be anything other than an abject slave.
In Mexico there are these fisherman who lived for centuries off the sea. With globalisation corporations came in took over their livelyhood and now these fishermen perform the same labor they always have except everything goes to the corp that owns them. They sail their boats, catch their fish but they don't own the fruits of their labor.
Guess what they get in return? Fish entrails. That is what they eat because it is all they are given. And that is what capitalism will do to each and everyone else whenever it can. It's just the logic of capitalism to go to the very extreme of reducing workers to conditions of abject slavery.
These poor people on the streets are just like those Mexican fishers. They are the ground up remains of the violence that is inherent in the system. You will be next. Not because there is some evil mind at work. It's just inherent in the logic of how the system works. The only way I know of fighting that is through collective action: unions and political parties and the like.
@mattharvest (#29)
Generally, the number of people who are more concerned with "the rights of poor persons" are vastly outnumbered by those who care more about the rights of "tax-paying citizens". That's why these laws get passed. Well, I expect to be able to nod off in a public library for fifteen minutes without being harassed by security. I expect society to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. I expect people who comment on our social problems to show a milligram of sympathy for people who aren't exactly like them.We don't always get what we want.
As someone else asked, how are you supposed to take responsibility for being physically or mentally disabled, for having nobody to support you, for having no education and no way to get one, or for having had all the hope for a better future beaten out of you by years of hard-won experience?
When will you decide that the person in question is "living up to their responsibilities," and is now worthy of the public's respect and assistance? When they're working 40 hours a week at the local Wendy's, being told how to restock the mustard packets by their seventeen year old "supervisor?"
I've known homeless people who were basically happy, decent, compassionate people. One of them wrote surprisingly moving poetry, and when he was sober he would do temp work for events.* But when it came to holding down a soul-sucking, full-time minimum wage job, he just couldn't deal with that much structure and mindlessness.
If things had gone a bit differently for him, he might have been an author, or started his own business. So I figure that if things had gone a bit different for me -- if I'd gotten a slightly different set of genes, or if my parents hadn't raised me so well, or if I'd had different friends in high school, or any number of other things -- I might be out on the streets.
I fail to understand how you can look at your situation, look at the situation of a homeless person, then decide that you are the one being mistreated. Really. I just don't get you. Your No Empathy Zone is a really creepy place to visit.
Re: Post #63. You're not actually helping your "we're not evil" case here.
* He often got stiffed on his paycheck because hey, what's he going to do to them? Sue?
#63, you said:
"The same people who are complaining in this thread are often acting as if there is an obligation on the part of people who have luck/success to help people without luck/success. I'm sorry, but that's just not the way we are as a species, a society, a nation or a culture."
What in the world are you talking about? The fortunate providing for the unfortunate has been the de facto standard for morality throughout the entirety of human history.
For example, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urukagina :
5. The... administrators no longer plunder the orchards of the poor. When a high quality ass is born to a shublugal, and his foreman says to him, "I want to buy it from you"; whether he lets him buy it from him and says to him "Pay me the price I want!," or whether he does not let him buy it from him, the foreman must not strike at him in anger.
6. When the house of an aristocrat adjoins the house of a shublugal, and the aristocrat says to him, "I want to buy it from you"; whether he lets him buy it from him, having said to him, "Pay me the price I want! My house is a large container—fill it with barley for me!," or whether he does not let him buy it from him, that aristocrat must not strike at him in anger.
7. He cleared and cancelled obligations for those indentured families, citizens of Lagash living as debtors because of grain taxes, barley payments, theft or murder.
8. Urukagina solemnly promised Ningirsu that he would never subjugate the waif and the widow to the powerful.
@98- The obvious flaw in your reasoning about the fishermen is that it fails to take into account the wealth of the fishing company owners, stockholders, the company's corporate employees, etc. Capitalism didn't exactly grind them under, now did it? Probably made them fairly wealthy.
And I imagine I get to eat tasty Mexican fish, which would otherwise go to a fisherman on a far-off shore. You're just counting the harm done to the fishermen- what about the benefits to others? Non-capitalist societies might be egalitarian, but they tend to be poor.
@98- Oh, and Noen-- you actually answered your own question about why we don't care about the homeless: The Inuit might need every single person to pull together for the wellbeing of the tribe. But in modern society we don't...
If you have half a dozen apple trees, you'll probably try your best to take care of every single one. If you have ten thousand, you probably just want to take care of the healthiest and chop down the ones that aren't producing as well as the others. And the US has three hundred million people.
define "poor".
@103- Less energy available, less industry, less science, lower excess production (leading to less spare capacity to adapt), relatively more difficult transport and communications, and basically fewer things to _do_.
Unless you are giving away all your money and working non-stop to help every person around you, you draw an arbitrary line. You may do a lot for the poor and needy, or you may consider your tax dollars to be your contribution. But your arbitrary line is just that...arbitrary. You're not better than anyone else. But if it's any consolation, you're also not worse. I'm sure there is some self-sacrificing person out there who would look at your measly contributions and sneer at your selfishness. His scorn would be misplaced, just as yours is.
Get off Boing Boing. Go sell your computer and all your stuff and give it to the poor. Until you do, you can just stop your preaching.
ah! "less waste".
Unless you are giving away all your money and working non-stop to help every person around you, you draw an arbitrary line.
Ethics is pretty much a set of arbitrary lines. Did you want to throw them all out?
@106- Maybe, maybe not. Amazing how fast a poor culture can turn a forest into...well, things that aren't forest any more (ashes, fields, etc). A richer group might could afford to just stare at it.
If it makes you feel any better, you could simply note that the modern homeless are in fact living an existance very close to that of our ancestors back in the hunting and gathering days. They forage, they make simple tools or adapt what they find, they risk being shuffled out of the way by hostile foreign tribes, they generally have to find rather than make shelter, etc.
Hell, they are the picture of the ideal ecological human. Sound fun?
I am a vet who had the Santa Monica police department take my Kid after they impounded my RV we were vacationing in, in LA. LA police took my RV and as I was walking to my friends apartment the Santa Monica Police department took my kid.
If I had had money for an attorney I could have gotten him back. But with the public attorney there wasnt a chance to even say anything in court because he said it would be best to just be quite for appearances sake.
WHen they ruled against my I flipped out in court calling the judge the C word and was escorted out of the court after I said I no longer recognised her authority. He was a blond haired blue eyed boy 6 month old. I never gave up custody but he was still adopted withing a month. I am now living happily in an apartment with employment. All we needed was a place where the cops wouldnt keep taking our RV so we could move up in the world. But now its to late they already have my first son and name sake.
I am happy with what I have now though.
California;
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/08/prisons-became-make-work-projects/
What is unfortunate about {Insert_Any_Group} is that a small percentage of them are simply dangerous opportunists. The discriminatory laws against {Insert_Any_Group} arise because there is no way to distinguish between the two.
Dangerous sociopaths often work blue collar jobs, so clearly we need stronger laws to keep an eye on those blue-collar workers, since SOME of them are dangerous.