What do you think the cows and goats and rusted cars do with the money?
I almost never give money. The few times I do, it's when I'm 'tricked' into interacting with the homeless person for more than a few moments, and then it gets very hard to say no.
On the other hand, when I smoked, I would invariably give cigarettes to the homeless when asked, which was several times a week. A few times I was asked for the food I was presently eating, and I always obliged then, too. If this commodities-yes/money-no distinction is more general, then some social psychologist might have a lot of fun explaining why.
FWIW, I'm an urbanite. It might be interesting to see if there's a reliable difference in attitudes between people who deal with this stuff many times a day, every day, and those who don't.
Do you give money to pan-handlers? ...
Never, I figure it's like feeding pigeons, you are contributing to a public nuisance.
... How often do you encounter homeless people? ...
Rarely. I use to encounter panhandlers where traffic backs up on the Major Deegan approach to the GWB and I was surprised at how many people gave them money. But I had no way of knowing whether they were actually homeless of course. And I don't go that way anymore.
I give semi-regularly, usually about 5 bucks. I know that most likely the money will be spent on booze or drugs, but I figure that in the other guy's shoes I'd value a few hours of oblivion pretty damn highly.
I give homeless people an espresso and a puppy.
I figure that in the other guy's shoes I'd value a few ounces of puppy meat pretty damn highly.
I wrote about it once, elsewhere, but basically I am asked constantly because of where I live, and I give sometimes and sometimes don't and then in either case I go into a neurotic tailspin about all the questions of motivation and whether it accomplishes anything &c &c &c.
Yes on food and smokes, eye contact and a nod. No on money. Most urban beggars are mentally ill and/or addicted.
(N.B. In Europe, the homeless are generally able-bodied and able-minded. Most of the grievously ill and handicapped ones are taken off the street and institutionalised. America used to do this too, until Reagan.)
One time a homeless person was in front of me in line at the liquor store and was three cents short and just wanted a few nips of ruble vodka so he could get hammered one last time with his favorite month before it went away and so I paid the three cents and then I realized he was sent by jesus to help me find the arbor day spirit.
||
Yay! I am on hold with some incredibly hellish medical records clearing house and the hold message just told me, "you will be prioritized in the queue for the next available agent," instead of "your call will be answered in the order it was received" which I've always thought doesn't makesense in a way that sounds stupid if I type it, so I just deleted it.
|>
"Your call will be answered in the order that it was answered. Goodbye!"
Sometimes I give money and sometimes I don't. I always smile/say hello/say goodbye/apologize whatever. The main impediment is my money almost never being easily accessible.
I rarely carry cash at all any longer.
I know, don't feed the trolls, but comparing homeless people to pigeons wins some kind of prize.
I will always smile and make eye contact, but that's generally about it (for one thing I almost never have cash on me).
I've recently moved to a new city where the panhandlers are much more aggressive than in my previous place.
My "I don't see you" reflex has increased notably in the last 2 months.
"In Europe, the homeless are generally able-bodied and able-minded. Most of the grievously ill and handicapped ones are taken off the street and institutionalised. "
Not true, depending on what you mean by "Europe". 64% of London's homeless have physical health problems and 70% have mental health problems.
19: It really all depends on how broadly you define mental and physical problems. One could of course argue that any homeless person is mentally ill simply because he's homeless. But to see what I was getting at, I would suggest you take a good look at London's homeless, and then go to a large American city, and see if you don't notice a qualitative difference.
I'm with Smearcase on the "neurotic tailspin" thing. Like I'll realize I gave a healthy-looking teenage white kid $2 for a bus on the same day I refused to give anything to a sickly looking old black guy and then I'll start accusing myself of subconscious racism and generally get bent out of shape.
Once when I was changing trains in, uh, Richmond (maybe? BART to Amtrak), I gave $5 to a guy who pointed out I was going in the wrong direction to catch my train and then started telling me a long sob story that I didn't want to hear. So, over the next half hour as I waited for my train, a parade of people approached me asking for money, clearly having been told that I was generous and/or foolish. I gave a couple dollars to the first two and then got open hostility from the subsequent ones when I refused.
11: No, I understand what you mean. Your call is only one item, so it wasn't meaningfully received in any order.
What they should say is: "We will answer your call once we finish with the people who called first."
I got very defensive about panhandlers while living in Park Slope. It is the prime neighborhood for charity muggers and pushy panhandlers, and between leaving my door in the morning and getting to the subway, I'd be asked for money 10 times. There was one guy who would stop you to tell you about how he gave the last food in the house to his daughter last night and he hasn't had a bite to eat in weeks--same goddamn story, day after day, year after year, and he must have recognized that he was talking to the same people every time. Another guy is famous for being the extremely pushy dude who stands outside the grocery store and yells, "You gonna help me out?" Sometimes he gets bold and stands next to the bank door, opening it for people and demanding a $20 for his services. Someone called the police because it's a *bit much*, yelling at people and demanding cash outside the bank. But when the police come, there's always some dramatic rich white person screaming, "He has a right to be here! How dare you, sir!"
But far worse are the hordes of college-aged kids who I'm sure would rather have real jobs, finger-gunning you from a block away and saying, "Hey, don't you have just one minute for gay rights?" "Do you care about the environment?" "I want to talk to you about what's happening to Our Children." I'd pass five sets of them to get to the subway. If I was doing errands, it meant getting asked for money all day long. Obviously, the neighborhood could support them, and certainly there were strollers I saw that parked next to every charity and panhandler for a chat.
Drove me fucking nuts. I don't mind giving a buck to someone who can't cover the change at a store or whatever, or someone who is obviously in immediate need of some kind, but I don't give to panhandlers. It just seems like a symbiotic system that makes rich people feel the pleasure of condescension.
There is a young woman with an infant who pan-handles in the subway station I go through. I give sometimes, its very hard to walk by that.
"you will be prioritized in the queue for the next available agent," instead of "your call will be answered in the order it was received"
The former makes me think you've fallen into Witt's black hole where the "prioritized" means "your time on hold will be inversely correlated with our eagerness to talk to you."
There are a few here. Not as many - or not as visible - as there were when I lived in Oxford. I don't give them money (although do think sometimes that perhaps carrying packets of dog food would be a good idea as Kid D always feels sorry for the dogs), but I buy the Big Issue most weeks (assuming I go into town and have some cash on me). Of course then there's the dilemma of which seller to buy it from .... do I pick a favourite or try to rotate between the 3 regulars (within 100 yards of each other)?
I did succumb once to a "chugger" - it was the day after I had done a Quizilla quiz that told me I was 100% evil, and he was the lucky recipient of my wish to prove to myself that I'm not. That was the Red Cross - the DD is still going. Had great pleasure in telling one a few months ago that I would never ever give any money to the NSPCC - he looked quite shocked.
A woman knocked on my door one night with a story about needing a taxi for her eplieptic daughter. I've seen her begging at the local railway station before, needing 50p to get somewhere, so I knew she was bullshitting. Still gave her a fiver though - my "jeez, you must be *so* desperate" reaction outweighed the normal "no". She tried the same thing at a friend's round the corner the next week and took great offence when said friend laughed at her story (having heard mine).
23: Not long ago I was meeting someone in front of the Barnes & Noble on Union Square and I realized I was going to get charity panhandled to death because they were set up right there. Through some stroke of luck, their scripted opening gambit was "excuse me, do you care about children?" so that solved that problem.
I don't know what "chugger", Quizilla, "the DD", or "the NSPCC" mean. This must be what it's like for British people all the time.
the hordes of college-aged kids who I'm sure would rather have real jobs, finger-gunning you from a block away and saying, "Hey, don't you have just one minute for gay rights?" "Do you care about the environment?"
Man, what a sucky job. I don't think many of those kids last long with it. I'm not sure most of them realize quite what it is before they do it, and the job ads definitely play to their idealism.
29: I eventually stopped trying to pretend I couldn't hear them, and started shouting back, "ALL of my minutes are for gay rights!"
I would suggest you take a good look at London's homeless, and then go to a large American city, and see if you don't notice a qualitative difference
I have done this and didn't notice this difference. I think London (or at least the bit where I live) does have more people begging who aren't actually homeless and are just trying it on.
I'm being sort of light-hearted here, because how on earth do you speak otherwise about how sadistic our society is?
I agree with you in general that we should do more, but it's worth noting that isn't an "our society" thing in the sense of America, merely in the sense that all humanity is part of one society or something. The rest of the world has homeless people too.
But 9 makes a point I hadn't thought of that extreme poverty actually is different between America and Europe. People with sob stories approaching you on the street, musicians passing the hat whenever they catch a captive audience, small-time cons, but not so many people just swearing at strangers or putting their hand out and mumbling. I found it probably more annoying (yes, that's a callous way to think of it, but anyways), but it probably does say something better about the local policies.
Personally, I give a buck or the change I have on me once in a while. I'd estimate once every other week. I have no idea what that works out to per begging person I see, but probably some low fraction. No rhyme or reason, but I'm more likely to do it if I have change on me, which means more likely to do it in the afternoon. I think my girlfriend gives to pan-handlers more often than me.
It really all depends on how broadly you define mental and physical problems. One could of course argue that any homeless person is mentally ill simply because he's homeless. But to see what I was getting at, I would suggest you take a good look at London's homeless, and then go to a large American city, and see if you don't notice a qualitative difference.
No, of course you couldn't argue that being homeless is itself a sign of mental illness: what on earth are you talking about?
The qualitative difference is, I suspect, that London's homeless tend to be quietly ill with depression etc, while American homeless are full-bore paranoid psychotics of the kind who, you are right, would be receiving treatment in the UK or elsewhere in Europe, but in the US are left on the streets until the next slot opens up in AM talk radio.
I give pocket change/up to a few dollars to older people who are begging, although there aren't that many in my neighborhood. I try to have a sunny "hello!" for the good cause/charity panhandlers and move swiftly on. The only petitions I'll consider signing have to do with membership in various athletic Halls of Fame.
I have done this and didn't notice this difference. I think London (or at least the bit where I live) does have more people begging who aren't actually homeless and are just trying it on.
Do you see this likely to change, with the new Tory policies getting rid of subsidized housing in the city center? (or whatever it is)
"Do you have five minutes for cancer research?"
"Well, sure, but I doubt we'll get much done."
The rest of the world has homeless people too.
Not living in the United States does not make you homeless, Cyrus. Their home is actually that weird place over there.
33: Hmm. YMMV, I guess. We're talking anecdotes here, but every time I visit America it's one of the little big differences I notice (along with the ubiquitous fat people): Homeless people missing limbs, or drooling and gibbering. I never saw that in England, and don't see it on the continent either.
"chugger" - horrible contraction of charity mugger.
Quizilla - you are too young. What we did before facebook quizzes.
DD - direct debit. Money that goes out of one's bank account every month to pay bills/donate to charity/etc.
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children are scare-mongering idiots, who I presume won't get any money and will all lose their jobs if they don't convince people that terrible cruelties are being done to ALL children CONSTANTLY. So rather than dealing with the children that actually are in trouble, they do stuff like recommend that children should be 14 before they can be left alone in a house, and sending out statistics about how 144000 babies under 1 are more at risk of abuse because one of their parents has "a common mental health problem".
There will be a test. Perhaps you should start watching Eastenders instead of Downton.
30: National Society for the Prevention of Child Care?
33: there are about 4,500 people sleeping rough in London every night. Actually counting the total number of homeless is harder because there is a lot of variation around the counting method. Do you go for "homeless right now, this day" or "homeless at some point in the last year"? What about people staying with friends, relatives, couch surfing, staying in shelters, squatting and so on?
41 - I saw a shocking (to the 23 year old me) amount of limbless and/or gibbering beggars in Portugal (mostly Lisbon). But that was a while ago.
There's a guy who regularly sells the Spare Change newspaper at my subway stop, and I reliably buy a copy from him, about once a week (I'm pretty sure I've bought the same issue twice a few times; that's OK). With most panhandlers I do try to make eye contact and reply "sorry, not today" or something instead of ignoring them completely. The youngsters-for-a-cause, however, get ignored and walked past (Although in the case of the Planned Parenthood ones, I started saying "I'm already a supporter!" since it's true and I do give PP money, and that works well to get them to stop bothering me; I've considered dishonestly telling that to the other T-shirted clipboard types).
every time I visit America it's one of the little big differences I notice (along with the ubiquitous fat people): Homeless people missing limbs, or drooling and gibbering.
That would be the LA meetup?
No, of course you couldn't argue that being homeless is itself a sign of mental illness: what on earth are you talking about?
It's not an argument I'd make myself, but it's not completely nuts, either. I'd outline why, but it's 16:30, and I've got to get something done before I leave work.
I bitterly regret introducing the Europe is so much more civilised than America element to this thread. It always ends in tears.
I used to give, but starting during my time in India, I pretty much stopped completely, for no good reason that I know of. My strategy is stone-face, and if they address me more directly, an emotionless "Sorry."
Ideally, I think, giving in these circumstances should have nothing to do with efficacy (that's what government and charity is for) but is about living the value of non-judgmental compassion. So I don't at all like that I've seemingly become incapable of it.
I think unless someone is calling out from a Lamborghini or something equally ridiculous, judgment of a panhandler's circumstances is not only likely wrong but also missing the point. Even if they're making enough cash at it to afford food and lots of mind-alteration, even if (rrg) they could be working, being homeless is categorically shitty.
Some "homeless" people who are mentally ill live in group homes and make themselves look worse to get money. They're still dreadfully poor on SSI, so I don't think that it materially affects the decision to give them money or not to.
And, yes, they're likely to spend it on cigarettes.
35
No, of course you couldn't argue that being homeless is itself a sign of mental illness: what on earth are you talking about?
Well, if you don't have to be crazy to wind up living on the streets in the first place, you're likely to be crazy after you've been there for a while.
Less flippantly, no, of course you don't have to be crazy to wind up on the streets at some point. The economy is still pretty bad, government policy could be much better, sometimes people just have a run of bad luck. Or have mental problems that don't rise to the level of actual insanity. Mental health is full of gray areas: plenty of people out there functioning in daily life even though they have conditions on the official DSM-IV list, plenty of people with completely screwed up lives but no actual disorders that could account for their problems all by themselves...
And likewise but in reverse, living on the streets and depending on handouts wouldn't literally drive you crazy. It would just make you constantly stressed and anxious, short on sleep, give you chronic pain, and lead you to be resent human contact. Kind of like grad school, I guess.
54.last Agreed, although likely the chronic sleep loss and stress would likely drive one crazy.
In the war of local downtown merchants versus national big box stores out on the strip, I support the former. Panhandler intimidation is a big issue for a number of people -- our local paper plays this up, giving prominent play the murder trials where one drunk homeless person has killed another. Or where a couple of stupid rednecks killed a homeless guy. And really, for a lot of people, it doesn't take much to get them to head out to the box stores, and while there is plenty of myth, there's also enough reality that if someone doesn't feel safe, I'm not going to judge. Anyway, the downtown merchants have a campaign going to get people to donate to institutions/charities, rather than individuals. It's working well enough than panhandling seems to have gone down quite a bit, or moved out of sight.
(Where I go in the course of my regular routine, the panhandlers are generally white men. Very infrequently women, and even less often Native.)
I give dollars and/or change to people if I have it & it's easy to access. Which isn't super often, but probably a few times every couple of weeks.
It is probably easier to avoid feeling guilty when you can't understand any of the sob stories. So panhandlers in the vicinity of Gallaudet have largely learned to at least fingerspell things, which I find interesting, enterprising, and also irritating.
The police are also involved in the thing -- anyone who feels threatened can call, and have an officer on the scene in a minutes or two. And they're asking us to have a low bar for calling. The officers pretty much know all the panhandlers -- it's a small town -- and can tell who is off medication, who's too drunk to behave in a decent manner, who's actually dangerous, or if the caller is overly sensitive, and work the thing out. I doubt there are awfully many arrests that come up this way. Not sure if people are feeling safer: that's a longer term project.
I see them every other day;give a buck or two each time
because how on earth do you speak otherwise about how sadistic our society is?
59:How did that happen html failed my joke
because how on earth do you speak otherwise about how sadistic our society is?
With rage and malice aforethought
FWIW, the one ex-homeless guy that I know pretty well really hates panhandlers and gets furious at people who give money to them.
At least in LA, I believe, everyone can get shelter and food for free (admittedly, in horrible conditions, for the most part). And, the panhandling is basically achieved through intimidation -- the guy you see at the busiest corner likely had to beat up some other guys to get that spot.
And, what Carp said -- supporting panhandling really can have some serious negative consequences for people who want to live in/use urban areas.
But, with all that said, I still give money sometimes, mostly out of an immediate impulse to respond to help. And, I don't give enough or do enough for the charitable work that can actually help people while preventing panhandling.
At least in LA, I believe, everyone can get shelter and food for free (admittedly, in horrible conditions, for the most part).
How true is this, in most of the country? Anyone know?
I've heard lots of caveats like 'not if you've got a pet' and 'not if you're drunk or on drugs' and that the number of beds is trivial compared to demand. But I don't know how to actually assess this kind of thing.
I'm very skeptical on your assertion that the European homeless are able-bodied and -minded, ffeJ. Frankly, it sounds like a bit a cop-out ("our problems aren't like the US's"). I'm looking around for statistics, and while I haven't found any yet, I'm reading a summary document from the European Consensus Conference on Homelessness, and it says among other things:
The extent of poor physical health among people living rough is well documented. The dangers to health include exposure to the elements, restricted access to good nutrition and a greater risk of being a victim of violent crime. A consistent association between living rough and very poor physical health has been reported in Germany (Trabert, 1997), France (Brucker et al., 1997), the UK (Connelly and Crown, 1994), the Netherlands (Van Laere et al., 2009a) and more generally across Europe (Wright and Tompkins, 2005; FEANTSA, 2006). In the UK, Denmark and Germany, there is statistical evidence that people with experience of living rough die significantly earlier than the general population (Brimblecombe, 1998; Nordentoft and Wandall-Holm, 2003; Ishorst-Witte et al., 2001). Chaotic lifestyles and problems in accessing consistent medical care have led to concerns over the emergence of drug-resistant TB in some populations of people living rough (Diez et al., 1996; Badiaga, 2009).
A high rate of both severe mental illness and problematic substance misuse has been found among people living rough, with significant numbers of people exhibiting both forms of need. This includes evidence from, for example, Germany (Fichter and Quadflieg, 1999, 2003), Denmark (Stax, 2003), the Netherlands (Lempens et al., 2003; Van Laere et al., 2009b), Spain (Pascual et al., 2008), the UK (Gill et al., 1996), Ireland (Keane, 2006), France (Brousse, 2009) and Estonia (Pärna et al., 2007) as well as pan-European research (March et al., 2006).
They spend some time pushing back against the idea that mental or drug problems are necessarily the cause of homelessness, of course.
And, uhh, I have been there a few times, from working out of my car to sleeping on the beach. Maybe I had a place to go, but it was thousands of miles away and they'd kicked me out.
You would probably say I was romanticizing it or something, but ya know rice bowl hair shirt, stars and surf, kindness of strangers and not carrying any weight, might die tomorrow but good gallo tonight.
I had worse times, unhappier times, made miserable by people who want stuff.
Oh Tora-san, our lovable tramp!
rice bowl hair shirt
RFTS's homeless cousin?
I don't give hardly ever, mostly because I have a big clunky wallet that zips closed and I'm not comfortable fumbling in it when panhandled. And that I get bent out of shape about fairness -- I don't want to be giving to someone who impresses me as charming or unscary, when I might not give to someone more offputting. This doesn't bother me at all in the moment: I have no difficulty at all not seeing someone who I don't want to interact with. It does bother me in the abstract, but not enough to change my policy.
As a general rule, I don't give anything when approached (which is very frequently where I live), but will a buck to someone holding an entertaining sign or a (good) busker.
What I don't really understand is the commodities:yes/money:no stance. It would seem to imply that the giver thinks the homeless have a right to a bite/(non-alcoholic) drink/smoke but not to the power of choice that comes with cash. You alone are obviously not going to change that person's situation in any significant or permanent way, so if you're willing to transfer some of your wealth to them to give them some temporary relief, why would you care what form that relief takes?
There's a panhandling mystery that's bothered me for a couple of years now. There's an area on Broadway near Wall where you almost always see a panhandler. And while it's not always the same guy, it's usually the same type: young, healthy, untidy in a homeless-looking-way but basically clean, often with a dog, not always white but with higher odds of being white than I'd expect from an NYC panhandler, and almost always with a marker-on-cardboard sign in a characteristic style.
When I first noticed them, I guessed that it was people doing research for a college class or something: it looked like undergrads. But I've been seeing them continuously (and this is lots of different people on different occasions, just a similar type and usually in the same place or within a block or two) for two or three years now. I'm starting to wonder if there's a website somewhere for young hoboes with spots that are good for panhandling, and I'm seeing people making a stop on a tour of the country.
I sometimes give money, maybe once or twice a month. But I live in London and work in Oxford, so I get asked a lot. Like others I can ignore it without too much remorse most of the time.
I did once get into an angry altercation with a guy begging with menacies in Victoria, which in retrospect was dumb. The odds of the guy having a chib were high.
62: How true is this, in most of the country?
Not very, at least in Baltimore and, I believe, in DC. If I were Witt I'd link to a dozen reports on the matter, but the local public radio stations regularly report that homeless shelters are filled to capacity every night, the closing of ones in various neighborhoods have left the homeless population in those vicinities without options -- so they migrate (leaving those areas relatively homeless-free, which people who'd rather look away enjoy) -- and it is simply not always easy, if you're homeless, to get to where the free food is on time, given that you're on foot. In fact your entire day is spent figuring out how you're going to get to the free food in time, then get to the shelter on time.
There are also significant problems for the younger-aged homeless: a lot of the shelters don't allow people under 21, or 18, or 16 (I think the age cut-off differs in different places). I understand this is intended in part to keep the populations somewhat safely segregated: you don't want older, possibly mentally ill homeless men skeeving on the youthful flesh. The molestation danger is significant for the younger; the limited number of designed youth shelters means there are many fewer options for them.
In NC, I started giving .25-1.00 to the people who hung out at the stop lights going onto the freeway. I think I started while I was taking a meditation class. We were talking about emotional supports for practice and practicing generosity.
Living in a (relatively) big city now, I frequently see panhandlers and frequently have change in my pocket worth .20-2 euros. I see the same guy every morning at the same corner and I probably give to him every 2nd or 3rd morning. Partly it's a calculation of what I have in my pocket and how much I need change for the water or espresso machine at the office. I generally give .50-1 euro.
I wouldn't do this if I had to pull out my wallet. I keep my change separate in my front pocket. I pull out a few coins, and if one is .50 or a euro I drop it in.
I mostly hate buskers on the train--is there any worse place in the world for a mariachi concert?--but I love Guitaro 5000. For some reason, I never could be in a bad mood when that guy showed up. He's charming as hell. I always gave him a buck or two.
if someone doesn't feel safe, I'm not going to judge
And yet you won't stop bitching about unlawful detention.
71.2 is exactly my situation. The guy buys scratch-offs, I see him concentrating over them.
Funny coincidence, just last night I was remembering this old guy (ok 50) I was hanging out with in Davenport CA in the mid-70s. Lost two sons in Vietnam, marriage, job, was living in a truck with flat tires. Most amazing sight I have ever seen, once his nose fucking fountained blood, like arterial spurts inches straight out from his face. He was so happy when I brought the gallon of burgundy, but kicked me out when it was half-empty.
Then it started rainy season and I moved away.
68: Oogles. And yeah, they discuss the best spots for flying a sign, but I'm sure mostly they come across them in the same way as anyone, just walking around and seeing where a convenient bottleneck presents itself.
As I've said before, I don't buy into that whole "I won't support someone's addiction" theory. I've worked at a lot of jobs, and none of my bosses have ever said to me "Okay, here's your paycheck, but you really shouldn't spend it on liquor or drugs." Panhandling is the job that some people are forced to take, and they should be able to choose how to spend the proceeds.
I generally try to help people out. I've been broke and sorta quasi homeless once or twice, and luckily I've been able to figure stuff out before I got to the point of having to panhandle. But it's not so alien to me. I think I mentioned recently that my friends, the ones who lost their baby, have had to panhandle a bit to try to make rent. That didn't work out so great, but they might be forced to that extremity again any time. The last panhandlers I refused money to were a group of obviously non-homeless Native women who were walking down the street in fairly good spirits.
The main thing that pisses me off about panhandling (besides oogles) is the guys with the bullshit stories about having to get out to the suburbs to pick up their car, or how the shelters charge a fee to get in. Those lies just really irritate me.
I'm reading a book called "Crazy: A Father's Search Through America's Mental Health Madness", and a study done in Miami in 2003 found that the 507 permanent street dwellers in Miami were all mentally ill. Every single one of them. Some were also addicts, which is very common among schizophrenics and the severely bi-polar (self-medicating to shut the voices up) but their problems were caused by biologically-based illnesses and were not within their control. It's a phenomenally depressing book.
When I lived in San Francisco, I'd give people food--usually a sandwich and some fruit. It's not that I thought they had a right to a bite but not to a choice, but that I thought a little healthy fresh food would be good for them. Really, I see it as more like choosing to give money to charities that spend the dollars on helping the poor rather than on making movies about helping the poor. Since it's my money and I have choices about how it gets spent, I'd rather it get spent on nutrients and healthy calories than on drugs/alcohol/cigarettes. For the mentally ill recipient, choosing drugs that drown out the voices or cigarettes for the serotonin boost (or dopamine? I forget which) or alcohol for the sedative effect all might seem (and be) reasonable, but my privileged position as the one with the money gives me the right to make the decision. I run into homeless people much less often now, but when I do, I usually use up my spare change and dollar bills and then stop giving.
VW I'm ignoring people indoctrinated in Badgerism today. Without shame.
In my experience, Chicago has the most impressive panhandlers in terms of just how clearly outside society they present. San Francisco panhandlers are just hella depressing. Haven't been actively panhandled too much in NYC -- really liked the 3 breakdancing buskers I saw on the subway once.
When I was in Dallas, staying at the big hotel downtown, I was warned to take a cab to the liquor store that was like 3 blocks away. I just walked and there were two perfectly pleasant old homeless guys sitting under the freeway overpass. I think they said hi, and didn't even ask for any money. Conclusion: People who work in hotels in Dallas are all a bunch of nervous nellies.
why would you care what form that relief takes
Two reasons, each of which covers some fraction of beggars: 1. because one more fix/bottle of rotgut isn't relief. 2. As AWB said, symbiotic system that makes rich people feel the pleasure of condescension. I'd add that the charity hustles are the barely above-board version of an organized symbiosis where the beggars have either an employer or pay rent for a corner, which is the simplest explanation for what LB notices at some particular spot.
Beggars in poor neighborhoods are IMO different-- in a crummy area, I'll give cash to women and to the elderly.
This is a very good journalistic piece in Harper's on homelessness in Sacramento, which touches on a number of the points I mentioned in 70. It's lengthy, but an absorbing read; it's also paywalled, but I have a subscription and am happy to share access if anyone wants to email me.
78: Or perhaps they get complaints from homelessphobic guests when they don't advise people to cab it.
Or maybe you just got lucky and they weren't hungry because they ate the last person to walk to the liquor store.
I was hanging out with in Davenport CA in the mid-70s..... was living in a truck with flat tires.
Ha! I used to live in a truck parked outside of Davenport myself. But that was the mid-90s, and the tires only had slow leaks.
But yeah, it kind of started to suck when the rainy season came.
My thinking and practice on this subject has varied over time and hit many of the points discussed in the thread. I don't have a particularly coherent view or strategy at the moment.
In Little Rock they have boxes set up on the street for people to contribute money to organizations that help the homeless, with signs on them explaining why this is better than giving to panhandlers. It's an interesting approach, which I haven't seen anywhere else.
Part of what I'm buying with my annual charity budget is the self-granted right not to give anything to panhandlers or street petitioners.
Unless they actually do something for me. For example, giving directions gets you a dollar if I have one, and homeless people do seem to know the buses pretty well.
Sometimes I will give money to buskers if they're playing stuff I like. One of them actually recognizes me even when he's off-duty now, because I was conscientious about it. I felt I had to give him something, since I heard his music for my entire walk to work.
Oh the Starvation Army they play,
And they sing and shout and they pray,
Till they get all your coin on the drum,
Then they'll tell you when you're on the bum:
You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky,
Work and pray, live on hay,
There'll be pie in the sky when you die!
85: I give money to buskers because I know busking irritates a lot of yuppies.
I give money to yuppies because it annoys the buskers.
87: I am a yuppie and I like buskers. Sorry to disappoint.
(I seem to be using that phrase a lot. I considered abbreviating it, but that could lead to misunderstandings.)
88: I give yuppies to buskers because it annoys the money.
I give puppies to bunnies because it annoys the mustard.
An earless 17-day-old baby rabbit, born in a zoo in Germany, was deprived of a future of TV stardom today when a TV cameraman stepped heavily backwards while preparing to film it for the news and trod on its head.
It would take a heart of stone to read that story without laughing, as Oscar said.
In DC, I gave out 20s -- definitely not every day, or even every week. But I thought it worthwhile to try to make an actual difference, even just for the day. I don't give anything to panhandlers downtown here, but gave a guy a buck last week just outside the downtown core.
I put buskers in a completely different class.
I recently saw/heard a very good jazz duo outside the Dupont Circle Metro station in DC - sax and drums. Playing Monk and Parker. I gave them the several dollar coins that I was clutching after a confusing run-in with a Farecard machine.
63: I should have said 'relatively'. I didn't mean to argue that European homeless are happy and healthy. Only that those with grievous mental and physical disabilities are usually taken off the street.
I don't give any money to the homeless people in SLC. Gswift might disagree with me about these characterizations, but I work on Main Street near the Temple and there are a lot of homeless people around who should be institutionalized. If you give them money they become aggressive, they yell at you, they follow you and they particularly like to target women. If you don't give them money and don't make eye contact, they may ask you for money but will otherwise leave you alone.
The sad rabbit story ajay adverts to, as told in The Guardian, used the phrase "a rising star on Germany's celebrity animal scene"
96: It would be good to find oneself able to give money to organizations dedicated to sorting and directing these should-be-institutionalized persons to the appropriate places, or alternatively and perhaps better, to support politicians who support the relevant programs.
98: The politicians here are pretty useless and are too busy trying to criminalize miscarriages to care about the homeless. But I've been intending to volunteer or give money to one of the various homeless shelters in town. The Episcopalian Church has a soup kitchen that I should volunteer at. Several homeless shelters in the state have been shut down due to the recession.
A few minutes ago I walked past someone who was likely homeless and who very deliberately, but gently, lifted up her bag and swung it into my butt when I walked past.
67: I gave someone a sandwich when I'd gotten the second for a sale price. He asked for money, and I really didn't have any. It was, however, much simpler to give him the sandwich than it would have been to fumble for my wallet.
75: There's one guy I see in the subway who is always saying that he needs to get out to Detox. There are closer places, and most of them have shuttles or provide cab vouchers, so he irritates me.
celebrity animal scene
Jessica Rabbit is working as a "model" now
99: It would be good to replace those politicians with ones who care about social services.
||
So the cat was hanging around in the basement all morning, which is unusual. Turns out ANOTHER goddamn bird has fallen down the chimney and gotten stuck in the flue. So I turned the furnace on to asphyxiate it. Not sure if I should hang out and see if it falls all the way down into the furnace so that the cat can grab it (as she has before) or what. Feeling amotivational and ought to be at work, but am not.
||>
Someone called the police because it's a *bit much*, yelling at people and demanding cash outside the bank. But when the police come, there's always some dramatic rich white person screaming, "He has a right to be here! How dare you, sir!"
Ha, I think I've mentioned the guy in the Prius who was trying to lecture me about use of force while I was literally mid brawl with a dude who had been huffing. Good times.
Gswift might disagree with me about these characterizations, but I work on Main Street near the Temple and there are a lot of homeless people around who should be institutionalized...But I've been intending to volunteer or give money to one of the various homeless shelters in town.
Totally agree. When I worked that beat I would go up and down Main on foot whenever possible. If you want to give I recommend The Road Home.
106: Thanks! I will check that out.
Hey do you know if they're going to have more police out once City Creek opens? I'm curious to see how the dynamics change once the fancy mall opens. My colleague was telling me that years ago they tried having a mall in that area but people were too intimidated by the riffraff for it to be sustainable.
I've heard lots of caveats like 'not if you've got a pet' and 'not if you're drunk or on drugs'
Anyone can get food but the number of beds is short for sure. However, they do have an "overflow shelter" run during the winter where pretty much anyone can get out of the weather for the night. Only restrictions are no fighting, stealing, etc. You can be drunk as hell, you just can't drink inside. Only the violent and giant gaping assholes get banned from the overflow, real unfixable cases.
Hey do you know if they're going to have more police out once City Creek opens?
City Creek is largely private property much like Gateway over on 400 W. Has private security and I imagine will see attention from the downtown bicycle police units just like the library, Main Street areas, etc. Wouldn't surprise me if City Creek hired off duty guys as a regular gig as well. Gateway does this a lot.
too intimidated by the riffraff
God, your language bugs me, LizS. I'll be off.
110: I was repeating what my colleague said. Those aren't my words.
And as a general recommendation for all I would advise against giving cash. Generally they all know where to get fed. Cigs are a good idea and actually medically help alleviate the schizo. Giving someone a 20 is just lighting a pile of tax money on fire. That dude is going to get drunk and pass out somewhere and then some passing do gooder will call in a "man down" and two cops plus a fire truck and ambulance will go out and depending on the circumstances they end up going to jail, detox, or the ER.
111: I'd suggest that next time you put quotation marks around the phrase if you don't endorse it. They are like a "get out of jail free" card.
112: STARVE THE BEAST BY GIVING MONEY TO THE HOMELESS! NO ONE WILL DARE OPPOSE US!
Parsimon, aggressive riffraff is actually pretty good description of a lot of these guys. Read the thread, it's hardly unique to here.
112: so no cash, no food...nothing but cigarettes?
I rarely give any money to the homeless. My one rule involves street musicians -- if I actually find myself enjoying their music, even for a moment, I have to give at least a dollar.
Oh, what am I saying...my other rule is that I have to buy a copy of Street News whenever I see a homeless person selling it. It seems like a really positive organization, and actually the newspaper itself always includes some amazing/bizarre personal testimonials.
Try and give them food if you want, but often you'll find that the food offer pisses them off and they push for the cash.
It's interesting, I've encountered virtually no annoying panhandlers since moving to Oakland - no sob stories, no persistence beyond the initial hit-up, IMX; there was worse in Berkeley. I'm sure it happens, though.
There's a guy who hangs around my bus stop most mornings asking everyone "Got fifty cents?" in an extremely creaky voice - I was actually at that stop while reading part of this thread this morning. But he seems to have learned my face and doesn't ask me anymore.
Oh yes, and a couple days ago a woman got a bit in my face; she didn't accept my initial "sorry" but did accept the second one with eye contact. She was odd, though; young, good-condition clothes, purse. (Judgey-judge.)
||
Santorum is promising to crack down on pornography online, on cable, and in hotel rooms. As the Tedra-Bitch pointed out, now that he's alienated all the women, he needs to alienate all the men to.
My question, though, is whether something like that could even work. Also, what's up with this "Although the Supreme Court says private possession is constitutionally protected, it has said that private receipt of [pornography] is not protected." I thought in the past consumers have been protected from obscenity prosecution if they merely streamed the videos, and didn't download them. I know that is what saved Pete Townsend's bacon over in the UK.
|>
All my abashment over this is partly why I made the earlier ATM about advocacy groups, incidentally; one of the local ones I ended up giving to was Building Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency. My primary source is their website and local news, but they seem to combine assistance with political advocacy in just the way I want.
It's kinda weird that Mpls. doesn't have a homeless paper. I don't know why that would be. It might be because the main radical group that was trying to organize homeless people was extremely Stalinist and alienated virtually everybody, but that was 15-20 years ago, and I doubt very many people besides me and a few other old radicals remembers them.
Of course, homelessness here is a little bit different than in some other places, what with the bitterly cold weather. The folx who stay pretty much outside every winter are a hard-bitten lot, but there's not many of them. The oogles are only here April-October, wisely. Stupidly, the cops and city forced the one 24-hour cafe that welcomed homeless people to shut down for 3 hours a night. Probably caused more than a few deaths over the years, but not a lot of people down at City Hall can be bothered.
Also, what's up with this "Although the Supreme Court says private possession is constitutionally protected, it has said that private receipt of [pornography] is not protected." I thought in the past consumers have been protected from obscenity prosecution if they merely streamed the videos, and didn't download them.
This is really about obscene material, not pornography. The Supreme Court has banned prosecutions based on possession alone of even obscene material, but not prosecutions based on the distribution (or receipt) of obscene material. I.e., you can't be prosecuted for simply looking at obscene material in your own home, but you can be prosecuted for ordering the same material from a website. Confusing? You bet.
Of course, what is or isn't obscene has been hard to nail down, but for many years "obscene" has not generally been stuff that comes close to mainstream pornography, although some prosecutors have tried. As a realistic matter, for both legal and practical reasons, a massive pornography crackdown by President Santorum is extremely unlikely.
79.1/112
I don't think it's fair to assume that a homeless person will automatically spend all or even most of the money they get on drugs/alcohol as opposed to, say, cheaper food items that will feed them for 2 or 3 meals at the cost of your partly consumed Burrito. And even if they do, it seems to me one more drink is as much relief from needing a drink right now as half a sandwich is relief from being hungry right now. Who am I to decide what kind of relief they need most?
Also, at least where I live, enough alcohol/drugs to pass out and need an ambulance is a lot more than you'd get from a day's worth of beggin even if everyone gave you money. Around these parts people who want money to get wasted/high and don't have it usually don't beg for it, they just mug you.
Then again, I'm just a cold-hearted bastard who refuses to give money to the homeless unless they entertain me.
120: I'm not really a fan of selective enforcement of the law, but the I'd be more than OK with it if obscenity laws were used to go after the ex-girlfriend revenge sites.
Also, at least where I live, enough alcohol/drugs to pass out and need an ambulance is a lot more than you'd get from a day's worth of beggin even if everyone gave you money.
You seem like you mean well but I'm pretty sure you're totally out of touch with the street level realities.
77: I'm sorry that your worthless hayseeds lost to our rugged farm boys.
125: Most liberals I think would be happy to see pornography regulated on the basis of how it is produced, rather than what it depicts, so that it all becomes a matter of workplace safety and consent and stuff. The main barrier to this are religious people and second-wave feminists who would change all regulation into judgments about whether the content is "obscene" or misogynist.
It seems to me that workplace safety type regulations would be a lot easier to enforce than judgments about content. We can argue about whether a BDSM video is misogynist, but it a straightforward matter of empirical fact whether the actors had an agreed on safe-word that the director would honor.
126: That may well be, but I should point out that here almost everyone who gives anything gives money. The fact that beggars are pretty regular at their spots leads me to believe that they're either not getting high or wasted with the money they get, at least not to the point where they need medical assistance (either that, or they're incredibly tough).
Although I should point out that most of the beggars here are not strictly homeless, just very, very poor. Perhaps there's a significant difference between what a person begging for money in the US vs. a person beggin' for money in a third world country will do with the money?
Most liberals I think would be happy to see pornography regulated on the basis of how it is produced, rather than what it depicts, so that it all becomes a matter of workplace safety and consent and stuff.
My understanding is that the mainstream porn world is very significantly regulated, mostly industry self-regulation, but safety and consent are taken ultra-seriously and aren't really a problem, because the companies know that people are looking to shut them down. The non-mainstream world, probably not so much. And "safety" and "consent" don't mean that you wouldn't walk onto a set and go "oh my fucking God this is fucked up."
That's not really based on any first hand knowledge. I do know that the porn companies put together two sets of contracts for every film -- one where the film is referred to by initials and with no reference whatsoever to the content, so that you can have a dispute over financing rights or whatever get into court without making the judge and jury uncomfortable. And then production agreements with the talent that are more explicit.
safety and consent are taken ultra-seriously and aren't really a problem
Which is why they didn't have a problem with the condom ordinance?
The companies argued that the condom ordinance would harm their production values, was basically an attempt to shut them down disguised as a safety regulation, and was unnecessary since they were hyper-vigilant about AIDS and STD testing, and had effectively prevented outbreaks for years.
AFAICT, all three of those things are probably true, but perhaps it was a good idea anyway.
Yeah, realistically in New Zealand I suspect most money given to the homeless is actually being given to a liquor store at best or the local dealer at worst.
I don't particularly see why there's a duty on me personally to provide people with drugs. (Or in fact anything really, I pay taxes after all, and that's what should be supporting people.)
Other countries will be different, and particularly if you don't have a functioning welfare system things could be dramatically different.
128 I am suspicious of claims that it is the second wave feminists that are an issue here, to be honest.
112: DC has crap social services, so I might feel different there about giving food.
We can argue about whether a BDSM video is misogynist, but it a straightforward matter of empirical fact whether the actors had an agreed on safe-word that the director would honor.
The conditional here is a clue that this might be trickier than it sounds, though I suspect what's more prevalent isn't a director straightforwardly continuing a shoot after a safeword was given, but rather strong pressures not to give one at all, lest one be seen as "uncooperative," "hard to work with," &c. But I really have no clue.
I'm sure they were good at preventing outbreaks, what with the frequent testing. But that doesn't help individuals who get infected.
"Production values" is bullshit, though.
at least not to the point where they need medical assistance
I think 112 is another example of the selection bias inherent in being a police officer.
I've been watching Freaks and Geeks with my kid. We watched the first season porn episode last night.
I've just gotten lost in the completely insane world of Thai Mor Lam videos. Food and a cigarette to the first one who can explain this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddsisgn1vYw
Now I need to finish something, though.
||
It could probably be at least a .5 FTE job to read all the important news emails I get from various umbrella organizations of which my organization is a member.
||>
I mean, let's be clear, the porn industry is horrible. I'm not even a little bit anti-pornography on the consumer end but it's hard to escape from the fact that it's demoralizing and dehumanizing on the production end. But a failure to meet minimal standards of "safety" and "consent" isn't really the problem; the (mainstream) productions, AFAICT, are strict with regard to "safety" and there are more than enough willing participants to preclude a need to rely on unwilling ones.
||
You can blame the Great Recession on Bush if you want, but the Recovery belongs to Obama.
David Cay Johnston Reuters
National income gained overall in 2010, but all of the gains were among the top 10 percent. Even within those 15.6 million households, the gains were extraordinarily concentrated among the super-rich, the top one percent of the top one percent.Just 15,600 super-rich households pocketed an astonishing 37 percent of the entire national gain.
It can get complicated the ways Obismal did exactly what he was elected and paid to do (Bernanke, lack of Wall Street prosecution, tax cuts) , but this horror belongs to him...and is radical evil. Generations will suffer for it, long after Afghanistan no longer matters.
|>
141: I was reading the September, 2011 issue of some finance magazine at the doctor's office, and there was a neat story about how corporations from Angola and Brazil are buying up a lot of Portuguese assets at fire-sale prices due on one hand to the Euro-crisis and on the other hand to the boom economies that the two former colonies are experiencing. So, you know, maybe Afghans will buy Unfogged at some point and we'll all have to learn Pashtu in order to comment.
What Johnston doesn't get very far into is the way that wealth translates into political power and becomes self-perpetuating and accelerating. The financial gains to the working class in the 30s became power in the union movement and other middle class concerns in the 40s 50s and 60s.
The opposite is going to happen now. Citizens United wouldn't matter very much if the rich didn't have the fucking money, say if the unions and consumer groups had the money instead. Government of, by, and for the oligarchy is going to get much much worse now.
Obama fucking understands this, understands what is going on. A few percentage point tax raise on the top 1% ain't gonna mean shit after the last ten years. They already have everything It's laughable.
Bernanke famously said, or implied, that he could use a new Depression to totally reverse the effects of the last one in the 30s.
I think 112 is another example of the selection bias inherent in being a police officer.
Nope. Seeing the same guy out there day after day isn't inconsistent with him going to the ER on a regular basis. "Man down" calls rolls two cops and medical as standard protocol. If the person is uninjured and can walk away nothing happens but the response. But if they can't stand or have opened up their head falling down or something they go to the ER instead of jail. Happens all the time. It's not a long hospital stay, just long enough to get a bit of care or sober up a bit and they're right back out on that spot the next day.
This is so timely! A federal court just overturned a Utah law prohibiting "panhandlers"* from soliciting while standing near a road. First Amendment issue, they said it's overly broad and the gov't doesn't have an interest in regulating everything covered by the law.
*Parsimon, ahem.
Granted, if you're in a third world country or somewhere without food access it might change the dynamic. But here and most bigger cities it's not too hard to get food.
I used to give more. I've become a hard-hearted urbanite.
I do give money semi-regularly to one guy I see a lot. I suppose this is my "philosophy".
But yeah, I'm a fine example of charity-fatigue. It isn't even disillusionment - I've always known that giving to panhandlers doesn't fix anything.
Although I do wonder if the fact that I've automated giving to a couple of charities plays in to it.
But here and most bigger cities it's not too hard to get food.
A lot of people dumpster dive.
Just 'cause they're homeless doesn't mean they don't appreciate variety and the thrill of discovery.
It means they're hungry. It's not too hard to get food when you have no income or domicile, you said so yourself, and you should know.
I don't really want to fight about this -- am trying to figure out how best to replace a septic tank, whether we need a permit, what kind of tank is best, what size, etc.
A lot of people's lives would be greatly improved if the bureaucracy and red tape that accompanies food stamps was reduced significantly. It's usually not that hard to get them if you're demonstrably homeless, but people who are in that gray area of being housing-insecure, food-insecure and employment-insecure, with bad credit or no credit and all of the stuff that goes along with those things can have a hell of a time just getting some food stamps, which ought to be the easiest federal program to access, it helps the goddamn farmers ferchrissakes!
Anecdotally, the food kitchen across the street from my lab sees an ambulance (always, as far as I can tell, somebody passed out) about once a week or so. I asssume it's often the same people. When not availing themselves of city services they generally keep to themselves.
A lot of people's lives would be greatly improved if the bureaucracy and red tape that accompanies food stamps was reduced significantly.
The complexity of benefits law, generally, is staggering and horrible.
I have heard from some people in the (approximate) biz that the focus on homeless people is pretty frustrating, because it leaves desperately poor people with the wherewithal to keep themselves housed fighting a bit of a losing battle for services. So, for instance, there will be a huge amount of effort devoted to building housing for the homeless, but far less devoted to building stable, long-term housing for the nearly-homeless-but-hanging-on-because-they-have-kids.
I'm not sure it's the reality, at least in L.A.. While there are expensive supportive permanent projects focused on getting homeless people off the street (you may have read about these in the Malcolm Gladwell power-law distribution article), most affordable housing money gets spent along a spectrum based on percentages of area median income. So you may have a subsidized project that is targeted at 120% of AMI, or 50%, or in 25%, though the latter are comparatively rare (and more expensive).
Also note that money spent on "housing the homeless" is, permanent supportive projects aside, mostly money spent on sheltering the homeless. It's certainly higher-visibility than affordable housing, but I don't know that it's a distribution that "favors" the homeless.
This is basically a gut feeling from having worked on both issues at the same time. I never heard advocates for either complaining about the effects of the other, but I also never sat down and compared the two pots of money.
And 157 also makes sense! I should maybe stop coming to public policy conclusions based on my intuitive, uninformed sense of the correctness of blog comments.
It seems relatively clear that there shouldn't be a struggle in the first place over funds and resources for the homeless population versus those for the nearly-homeless-just-hanging-on population. That is, we shouldn't have to pick and choose who we help; we effectively pit one population against another when we're forced to do so. There's way too much discretionary money floating around in this society to make that excusable.
It's definitely more fun when the hobos are pitted against each other. There can be only one.
155 is totally the situation many members of Mara's family have found themselves in. One other related problem is that much or what's available is for families with a small number of children, so the aunt who has three kids was able to get into a fancy new apartment in a school that's been converted to low-income housing but the aunt who's raising eight kids including four of Mara's siblings has no subsidized options outside the old, problematic housing project where she currently lives. I've decided that for this year my charity priority is going to be Mara's family, creepy and paternalistic as that may sound. I mean, nobody eles is doing it.
I'm being sort of light-hearted here, because how on earth do you speak otherwise about how sadistic our society is?
"Sadistic" is the wrong word here. I (like many people) basically don't care about the homeless but get no pleasure from their problems (and in fact would prefer they were kept out of sight). Callous maybe but not sadistic.
'Sadistic' may be the wrong word, but 'callous' doesn't capture the cruelty of the negligence.
9
(N.B. In Europe, the homeless are generally able-bodied and able-minded. Most of the grievously ill and handicapped ones are taken off the street and institutionalised. America used to do this too, until Reagan.)
This was a general change in social mores which it is silly to attribute solely to Reagan (or conservatives in general). Liberals had a lot to do with it too, making involuntary commitment harder and making institutional care more expensive (and hence less affordable).
136
"Production values" is bullshit, though
They mean it sells better when condoms aren't used.
163: I (like many people) basically don't care about the homeless
Don't worry, no one here is accusing you of being soft.
This does, I think, touch on an interesting point, however. I guess I'd say that I'm not that moved by homelessness qua homelessness either. There are worse fates, and many people have moved through a period of homelessness without any serious harm done. The thing is, however, we rarely encounter homelessness that is not comorbid with a number of other conditions. E.g. being kicked out of your house at 16 for being gay, or coming home from a war with untreated, and often undiagnosed PTSD, or slogging through childhood a pariah because of a learning disability or a history of abuse. So, speaking as a quasi-liberal, in terms of temperament and upbringing at least, what I see as particularly disgusting is not merely the fact of someone not having a home, although that of course is not good, but the fact that homelessness disproportionately affects those who have already, on multiple levels, been harmed by political and economic conditions which they had no power to change or even protest.
Some question the myth of the Happy Homelesstitute, pointing out that many homelesstitutes are not there by choice, and while they may enjoy camping from time to time, it's not the same thing.
Actually, I just witnessed my first prostitution bust today, while waiting on a bus.
Older white guy in a silver Mercury sedan had picked up a young Native woman. They were both cited and released. Not really that exciting, frankly, although it was interesting to note that the cops doing the busting seemed to be actual vice squad guys, since even though they were driving a regular prowl car, they were wearing civilian pants and, respectively, a police t-shirt and a police polo shirt.
The most pathetic part was that when they rousted the woman out of the car, she put her stuff on the trunk, consisting of a big black purse and one of those little 10 oz. bottles of generic fruit drink (blue flavor) that you get at the connivance store.
Wow, it's interesting to see this thread on a day when the Metro (free daily ubiquitous newspaper) had a cover illustration in very questionable taste: A human figure covered by the classic red "No" circle and slash, and the slogan "Do Not Feed the Homeless People."
The occasion was Mayor Nutter's recent attempt to forbid outdoor food service to people who are homeless. Cynics say he is proposing this because high-profile meals are served on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway and in two months a big new museum will be opening there. I am frankly agnostic on this question.
If I were still in Philadelphia I would try to grab a copy and scan the cover for the Flickr pool, because it's quite something. But I'm in Pittsburgh (hi western PA friends! If I weren't slated for four meetings in a 24-hour visit I would dearly love a meetup. You're probably all watching basketball anyway).
10 oz. bottles of generic fruit drink (blue flavor) that you get at the connivance store.
I always get ripped off at those places.
since even though they were driving a regular prowl car
hee hee.
I have to say that I routinely give money to street musicians, including very bad ones, and sporadically give cash or food to people who are homeless. My general philosophy is that I'm giving the money simply to signal a momentary recognition of our shared humanity -- with absolutely no goal or belief about how the money is to be used or what the "right" outcome would be.
I have on several occasions called 911 when a person was clearly in great physical distress (in at least one case it looked a great deal like diabetic shock), and I do keep the homeless outreach hotline programmed into my cell phone.
I almost never give to panhandlers -- meaning people who are just sitting there with a sign, or aggressively coming after you.
In my dotage, I've also gotten a lot more comfortable gauging and then engaging with teenagers who are pretty clearly just doing the "Let's try this on and see if I can get some free money" thing.
Sometimes I've ended up having an interesting conversation with them about where they're in school, and so forth. Other times I just raise my eyebrows and say in my most no-BS voice, "Does your mother know you're out asking strangers for money?" after which they tend to look abashed. But I definitely wouldn't have been confident enough to do this in my 20s.
The local Occupy folks went through an interesting arc, from embracing and encouraging the homeless regulars who had long been hanging out in that same park, to growing (at least if you talked to them individually) steadily more annoyed with the distractions caused by substance abuse and people who were clearly not well, mental-health-wise.
I'm curious to see what comes of it, and now that the police have cleared the park, there's been some chatter between the activists and the city government about better support services for the homeless.
151: Wow, you sound really stressed out about that septic tank.
If it would be helpful I can make some inquiries and see if I know someone who knows something about them.
169
Older white guy in a silver Mercury sedan had picked up a young Native woman. They were both cited and released. ...
Seems like this would be difficult to prove unless the cops could overhear what was said.
steadily more annoyed with the distractions caused by substance abuse
Your shelter is probably like ours and has oppressive rules about not smoking crack in the common areas.
I'm curious to see what comes of it, and now that the police have cleared the park, there's been some chatter between the activists and the city government about better support services for the homeless.
The Occupy prats here chattered on in the same manner to the news cameras apparently oblivious to the fact that they were two blocks from the organization I linked in 106.
Yes, I like this from Witt:
I'm giving the money simply to signal a momentary recognition of our shared humanity
173 is also what I was trying to get across.
'Sadistic' may be the wrong word, but 'callous' doesn't capture the cruelty of the negligence.
I think "disgusting" is the right word.
it sells better when condoms aren't used
While I'm sure this is both true and the primary motivator, I've also read interviews with female porn actresses who say that they don't like working with condoms because the actual filming of a scene goes on for a long time and that painful chafing sets in more quickly with latex than without.