posted on January 15, 2004 08:09:58 PM new
If I were in real need I would stuff newspaper in my clothing to stay warm and grub in the woods for roots and berries before I would ask some jackass preacher for help.
You know that somewhere along the line he is going to self righteously pray over your sure-to fry-in-hell worthless butt so you know how lucky a worthless piece of crap you are to be getting the help.
Perhaps they know this in government - make the source of help unpalatable and fewer will seek it.
posted on January 15, 2004 08:20:41 PM new
"Perhaps they know this in government - make the source of help unpalatable and fewer will seek it."
It's a tactic that most corporations have employed as well. When's the last time you tried to get through to the "Customer Service" department of the phone company, the gas company, or even Sears? Were you put off by the voice-mail options or did you patiently wade through them 'til you were told to "stay on the line and an operator will assist you"? Were you exasperated beyond words when that operator spoke English as though he/she were speaking in tongues? Did you hold it together enough to request a personal chat with the supervisor, and did you at last hang up, just glad to be alive, when he/she failed utterly to help you with your problem but had found the time to tell you how much he/she hated her job?
posted on January 15, 2004 10:07:38 PM new
Is this some type of personality test? I ignore all prompts and immediately hit 0 (or # depending on the company) once I get someone on the phone the first time I deal with whoever is there unless they inspire my age old desire for what I nicknamed "The Dr Phibes Button" (a button which would send a retracting rod shooting out of the reciever and into their brain as seen in the old movie). At that point I request a supervisor. If I have to call back again - I ask for a supervisor as soon as the drone answers.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on January 16, 2004 05:17:59 AM newI ask for a supervisor as soon as the drone answers
ROFLMAO.... bet most times you get the cubicle next to that "drone"
My brother works for one Call center and that is their procedure... pass it to who ever is not busy and let the "customer" think they are being helped...
posted on January 16, 2004 07:21:54 AM new
gravid, I have to disagree with your calling all preachers 'jackasses'. They're not. They are offering their time and service along with food, shelter, counsel, whatever - just like the non-religious services. I take more offense at the wealthier church's who are forever rebuilding their auditoriums for their own grandiosity than contributing anything to the communities in which they reside.
Your comment is not fair at all. And IMO if one is that down on luck, they probably should start thinking about some type of God because obviously on their own they're not doing too good.
posted on January 16, 2004 07:49:56 AM new"Perhaps they know this in government - make the source of help unpalatable and fewer will seek it."
Rather than a deliberate effort on the part of the government to discourage use, in many cases it's simply ignorance and incompetence. Either way, the services are so useless that many are left without any help. On this cold day in D.C. with wind chill in the -18 area, many homeless people spent the night sleeping on the street and during the day they may wander in and out of museums just to stay warm.
So, the homeless are sleeping on heating grates or in cardboard boxes in Washington D.C rather than the "shelters" provided by the government. They place the shelters in the most dangerous areas of the city where even the homeless are afraid to walk. The newest one is located next door to a liquor store on one side and a nightclub on the other and so far from downtown that the homeless need transportation to the soup kitchens.
Helen
sp.ed.
[ edited by Helenjw on Jan 16, 2004 07:56 AM ]
posted on January 16, 2004 08:11:22 AM new
Neroter,
Memorial services are held every year for people who have frozen to death on the streets of D.C. Trying to get in touch with God about the problem is not working.
I agree with Gravid.
BTW..He didn't say that "all" preachers are jackasses.
posted on January 16, 2004 10:24:23 AM new
Thats correct, Helen. As it is across the country.
But my point was that "God" is NOT the ONLY thing these services are offering.
There are alot of them, especially some of the catholic ones that are extremely non judgemental. They live in the real world, and they dont have to push God to do what THEY think is what God wants them to do; which is help destitute people.
I know of one such charity that offers shelter to men, most of whom have been alcoholics or drug users. They give them a place to stay, some meals, and a job if they want it at their thrift store, or some other place if they can find one for them. They dont condone smoking (cigerettes) but they are not beating down the men from some higher authority not to do it. They are well aware of what they are dealing with, too. If they want to pray about the matter on top of these services.....where is the damage in that?
posted on January 16, 2004 10:42:12 AM new
Several years ago, the uncle of a friend of mine made his first visit to America. Driving through San Francisco, he couldn't help but notice the many people holding cardboard signs ("HOMELESS" ) and the many others who slept in doorways and urinated in the gutter.
"Why are all these people on the street?" he asked.
"They're homeless," we explained. "They have nowhere to go."
"Why don't you help them, then?" he asked. "In Japan, we would never allow this... how can you ignore these people?"
"Why don't you help them?"
Frankly, I'd never considered it my business to become directly involved with my fellow citizens who were down on their luck. That's the guvmint's job, right? That's why I pay taxes, right? But what if I took in just one homeless woman and took care of her? What if all of us found the spectacle of people relegated to grovelling in the street as appalling as Mr. Matsumoto had, and what if we made it our business to do something about it personally?
Edited to eradicate an errant smilie
[ edited by plsmith on Jan 16, 2004 10:43 AM ]
posted on January 16, 2004 11:03:02 AM new
Vancouver, B.C. has an increasing problem with the street people who are homeless. There is also a problem with squatters who have set up tents in local parks. During the recent cold spell several community centers, missions, churches, etc opened their doors to them. Many donated clothing and toiletries to help them.
They have shown that some of the homeless have been offered shelter in hotels or homes but don't stay for long because they prefer the freedom of the street life and can't adjust to curfews or rules. One hotel that they set up for the homeless has been totally trashed. In Vancouver some of the squatters were offered jobs but admitted on TV that they didn't wish to work.
After awhile I think they just get disillusioned with life or become so addicted to drugs or alcohol that they can no longer function. Many of these are kids in their teens. Others have mental problems and have slipped through the cracks and no longer take their medication.
Anyone who offers their home to one of these people out of the goodness of their heart would have to be very careful.
posted on January 16, 2004 11:12:51 AM new
neroter,
"And IMO if one is that down on luck, they probably should start thinking about some type of God because obviously on their own they're not doing too good.
I see this problem as a failure of society to help those in need of food and shelter whatever the cause may be. Many are mentally ill.
I simply object to the perception on the part of some religious people that poverty and misfortune, as related to personal life choices and failure is related to morality and a need for supernatural help from a god. Although I see no problem with help from the church, I don't think that that such help should be given along with a proselytizing message.
I don't believe that there is a link between success or failure and belief in God.
posted on January 16, 2004 02:49:13 PM new
Okay, Helen, I am glad you posted your POV on the belief issue. I was starting to think you might be against it purely because it was a Bush initiative. And I was wondering if I should be getting disappointed in your liberal democratic'ness now.
Of course religion is only 2nd in fruitlessness in pursuit of debating, to say, politics of the left and right? lol
Kiara, I agree. I think alot of them are severely mentally ill and tormented souls that cannot abide by any quote unquote normal societal rules -- which any place that is running a 'home' or organization, must have in some form to avoid chaos.
When I worked in NY, I along with the rest of the herds of people getting off trains, looked past them, walked over them, and grew so familar with the urinal stench it literally began to not exist anymore.
I watched an in depth PBS show where they followed them for awhile and quite a few said they preferred the street life. I was blown away trying to grasp how anybody could WANT to live that life. I wonder if you reach that low -- sleeping under newspapers -- is there no going back? Or is that what they think? But to them, it's like nothing to live like that. Its just another day.
posted on January 16, 2004 03:06:32 PM new
Mayor Koch in NY used to have them picked up and taken to shelters in bad weather. Some group took him to court and had the program blocked.
posted on January 16, 2004 03:14:14 PM new
A Bush Initiative???
George Bush and Compassionate Conservatism.
WHEN HE FIRST ran for president, George W. Bush coined the term "compassionate conservative" to capture the spirit of his social welfare policy, the provision of government assistance coupled with increased requirements for those receiving support. It is a theme to which Bush has repeatedly returned, both in his term in the White House and in his reelection campaign. In fact, there is a section of the president's reelection Web site specifically devoted to this vision titled, simply, "Compassion."
Yet on issue after issue, from his landmark Leave No Child Behind Act – funded $6 billion below what the legislation called for – to his Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief to AmeriCorps, Bush has betrayed his rhetoric with a lack of dollars sufficient to fund these initiatives. And funding is the true measure of support in politics. To many, this sleight of hand reveals the truth behind Bush's so-called compassionate conservative policy.
While San Francisco supervisor Gavin Newsom, competing in the mayoral runoff against Board of Supervisors president Matt Gonzalez, has yet to give a name to his policy toward the poor, Newsom has clearly taken a page from Bush's compassionate conservative playbook, both in terms of campaign rhetoric and, more important, in terms of policy.
"More than 1,000 homeless San Franciscans died on our streets during the past decade," Newsom wrote in the ballot handbook in support of his 2002 Care Not Cash measure. "The Care Not Cash Initiative will save lives. [It] will make sure we can provide real care, such as drug and alcohol treatment, decent housing, medical care, mental health care, job training."
Yet Care Not Cash, which would have cut monetary assistance to the homeless to fund homeless services, never guaranteed, nor did it provide, funds for most of the services Newsom described. It only guaranteed housing (a homeless shelter would suffice), utilities, and food – and a report released this year by the city's independent budget analyst questioned whether there would be sufficient funds even for these programs, let alone for the full array of services Newsom promised.
Newsom's arguments in favor of his aggressive-panhandling ban, passed Nov. 4 by the voters, are almost identical to his words in favor of Care Not Cash. "In the last year alone, 169 people died on the streets of San Francisco, most from drug and alcohol abuse," he stated in the ballot handbook.
Proposition M will "divert people who aggressively panhandle because of addiction or [mental] illness away from the jail system and into the public health system."
In reality, however, the aggressive-panhandling ban doesn't provide any funding for mental health or substance abuse treatment programs – although it will expand the types of offenses that could land a beggar in jail. It is no wonder, then, as recently reported by Human Rights Watch, that there are three times as many men and women with mental illness in U.S. prisons as in mental health hospitals. Compassionate conservative politicians toughen laws but underfund programs.
"Money," Jesse Unruh, former speaker of the California State Assembly, once said famously, "is the mother's milk of politics." It is also, as all politicians know, the mother's milk of policy initiatives. Sincere initiatives – those designed for success – are well funded, while insincere ones are not.
When the stark funding realities of Bush's and Newsom's policies are no longer veiled by the campaign rhetoric of compassion, the public may be left to wonder where that compassion really is – or if it ever truly existed at all.
By Greg Asay
Analyst of Homeless Policy for United Way
posted on January 16, 2004 03:19:03 PM new
I think it depends on the charity. I know of one local group here that helps lots of people, including pregnant teenagers and the homeless or poor, but you won't get a cup of soup from them without having to hear a sermon , and you won't get out the door without accepting jesus as your lord and saviour and being "reborn"....we give a fair amount to Catholic Social Services, on the other hand, and I know from experience that an individual's religion is never questioned and there is NO proselytizing. I wouldn't give them a dime if they did. I think the churches have an obligation to give back to society, after all, they don't pay taxes or contribute monetarily otherwise. I also think they should do it from the goodness of their christian hearts, without expecting to get converts in the bargain....especially now that they're sanctioned by the government.
___________________________________
Mi abuelita me dijo "en boca cerrada no entran moscas".
posted on January 16, 2004 03:24:24 PM new
The compassion used to exist, Hellenoid, in the form of state hospitals. Ronald Raygun did much to disband them in California when he was our governor and went on to finish his mission (of eradicating state hospitals) while president.
I'm still waiting for anyone besides Kiara to express an opinion about taking on The Homeless personally, privately...
posted on January 16, 2004 03:39:22 PM new
As a librarian in a library that has high homeless use, I help them every single day, pointing them to resources and services in the area.
And there are people in the area who provide food daily to those homeless people who for some reason or other don't take advantage of the local services.
I will not, however, be taking any complete strangers into my home. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on January 16, 2004 03:49:53 PM new
My local library is full of homeless people. The study carrels have apparently been leased to snoozing, sprawled folks in perpetuity. Frankly, that bugs me. I'm the one paying local taxes to underwrite my library's existence and yet I find myself stepping around dishevilled folks who haven't read a book in years and most likely don't possess a library card.
Let me ask you something, Bunni: When did it become "policy" at your library to allow such vagrancy? Is it a policy, or merely some unwritten "rule" by which you all abide?
Think back... when's the first time you recall your library becoming a lobby for people who had nowhere else to go?
posted on January 16, 2004 04:21:23 PM new "Anyone who offers their home to one of these people out of the goodness of their heart would have to be very careful."
I agree with kiara. Besides being isolated from the homeless, most of us aren't equipped financially or otherwise to take care of the homeless. But if they were in my area, I surely would do whatever I could. I just paid enough taxes to take care of a homeless person for a few months but those tax funds will go to some self serving Bushco interest. His proposed marriage program, for example -- costing 1.5 billion would take care of quite a few homeless.
A couple of weeks ago, I helped a homeless guy out in the National Museum of Art. He was taking a break from the cold and sitting on a bench near an area where I was looking at some books. An employee of the museum came by and asked the old guy to leave. When I told her that he was a friend of mine she just left with no reply. What right does she have to ask people to leave a public museum.
I don't see any in the library. If they were there it wouldn't bother me. It does bother me to see people suffering on the street with their belongings in a sack. That bothers me.
posted on January 16, 2004 04:46:03 PM new
Neroter12
I'm sorry you found that offensive. I have not been back here all day so I am late replying.
I have such a harsh attitude for many preachers because I grew up in Akron Ohio and watched many of the Tent evangelists grow until they could afford a building and expand into the 'Bus Ministry'. Every Sunday you see the distinctivly colored buses of the various churches sweeping through the poorest parts of town where they cather up those who can not afford to keep a car and deliver them to the church.
The whole thing was so obviously commercial and they made such a show of wealth and the message was so shallow and lacking in any depth of spirituality that it deeply offended me.
Now at 56 years old I still feel that almost all the world's worst ills can be laid at the feet of religion. That includes the war between the Muslims and Western Christianity that the government loudly refused to acknowledge the religious basis of no matter how loudly the other side calls it Jehad.
I do acknowledge there are men of faith and good will. But I really doubt if many of them are willing to take Federal money if they think it will come with strings attached. The last thing any person of integrity would want is the government having a handle to control his religeous life. And once your funding depends on them they 'have you' as the states have learned to their horror.
posted on January 16, 2004 04:47:05 PM new
Yes, of course, one would have to be careful...
But what if we took the time to get to know a particular homeless person? What would happen if we inquired as opposed to tossing a few "guilt dollars" their way? What if That Old Lady, That Old Man, turned out to be an isolated widow or widower who simply couldn't make it on three hundred dollars' worth of Social Security every month? Lumped in amongst the deranged, the alcoholic, the drug-addicted homeless are many others who've simply outlived their "usefulness" on this planet. Probably they're the very ones who made your cashmere sweater affordable, Helen, and the same ones who processed those odious breaded veal cutlets I was forced to ingest as a child.
I'm on the verge of calling you a hypocrite because you rant away about what George Bush has not done for The Poor, yet you've done nothing, either, except lie to a National Museum of Art docent on behalf of a homeless squatter one cold afternoon...
posted on January 16, 2004 04:57:20 PM new
I have also pointed people to resources and services for help but would never take any of them into my home, unless it was a child and I had the time to devote to them which I have done in the past. Circumstances may make any one of us homeless and I do think of that.
Over the years, homeless people and transients have come into my shop and tried to "hang out" so I can understand why many places ask them to move on. Some have talked wildly, prayed out loud, shoplifted or scared other customers. Many have smelled terrible.
Others seemed okay and I did give them food or maybe chatted for a bit. Everyone has a story to tell and maybe they only needed a moment of kindness and then moved on. Most of these I considered transients and they were not sleeping on the streets in my city permanently.
As far as prayer, last October I missed a day of work with a migraine and my worker mentioned it when some customers asked where I was. They came in a few days later and said that they had gone home and prayed for me that day. They also gave me their address and invited me to visit (I haven't) and I felt very uncomfortable, perhaps because I find it unnerving that strangers would pray for me, especially over something as minor as a headache.
Don't think you understood my comment, Pat and I certainly don't understand yours. How are the homeless making our sweaters affordable? Can you elaborate on that?
posted on January 16, 2004 05:08:06 PM new
Clearly, we need another Levendis sidestep at this juncture...
Kiara, et al, if you can't comprehend the spirit behind the prayers of strangers, at least have the sense to be gratified that someone, somewhere, is bothering to think of you and wish you well.
posted on January 16, 2004 05:15:35 PM new
plsmith, some pray for you because they are being kind and giving.
Others do it and next thing they are pushing their religion and beliefs on you. I've had it happen, that's what makes me wary. It doesn't mean that I'm ungrateful or not thankful.
posted on January 16, 2004 05:21:42 PM new
Like this, Helen: Back in the 1970's, "Mabel" worked a double-shift at the clothing factory, where she made minimum wage, had no health insurance, and certainly no IRA. You strolled into Jacques Pinneagh's one day and purchased a sweater, on sale, for a ridiculously low sum. "Mabel" made that sweater, her employer was a "piecework" middleman in the garment industry and ultimately the thing wound up on J.C. Penney's "discount rack".
"Mabel" is now that homeless woman who dines on cat food above the steam grate on your street in D.C., having grown too old to sew as swiftly as a child, having outlived her husband, having "slipped through the cracks" with which Kiara is so familiar...
posted on January 16, 2004 05:42:46 PM new
The relevance of the sweater story still escapes me. I know of many ways that an individual can become homeless. Your example of Mabel is one way that someone can become homeless. Mabel is one of the homeless that I am concerned about. Where does hypocrisy enter the picture?
posted on January 16, 2004 05:53:48 PM new
Oh, bother...
Helen, if "Mabel" is one of the homeless you've deemed worth saving, go look for her.
What I meant by hypocrisy is that you and I can sit around and bash Bush, et al, for the limp measures they enact to eradicate homelessness, but the truth is you and I step around these people every day, and are in far better positions to rectify the problem than George Bush (et al) will ever be.
That we don't do so -- yet continue to fault politicians for not doing so either-- is, to me, hypocrisy.
posted on January 16, 2004 06:03:38 PM newIf equal affection cannot be, Let the more loving one be me.
From a poem by W.H. Auden
I think that you are wrong to say that I lied about the old man in the museum. At that moment, I had a lot of empathy for that man...as much as I would have for any friend. Although I didn't know him, for that brief time I cared about him and called him friend.
My mention of that event was just conversation related to the topic.
posted on January 16, 2004 06:23:45 PM new"Oh, bother..."
Don't reply to me, Pat if it's a bother.
It's probably unreasonable to believe that we will all go out on rescue missions to bring a homeless person into our homes when most of us can only afford to take care of our own families.
