Los Angeles is hell for homeless, so much security cameras, so many wires, and busy traffic with rich greedy people and mexicans who take the lowest of jobs...leaving nothing. The real nirvana for homeless are places that are not densely populated and do not have high police control, LA is definitely not one of such places. Hawaii is nirvana for homeless for a reason, the state has 1/3 of its population as homeless. Washington D.C. is good for homeless only for one reason, the government subsidies and tokens given to those who can't or don't want to work.
You know the last 2 posts are sad, its not a crime to be homeless (or at least it shouldn't be) Oh and FR I hope you remember your disrespect of us who actually work for the public good when you need to go to hospital next time, or when your house is on fire or when your garbage needs collecting or your roads need building etc
I would really like to help them, but you just never know where that buck is going. There was a guy who camped out at the local Wallgreens--begging for money. I would go in the store and buy him a bag of chips and a coke. The one time I was actually asked for food was when we were in Canada. An old guy walked up and asked for something to eat. I took him into a local McDonalds and told him to order something. I don't see anything wrong with feeding the homeless, but giving them money might be feeding an addiction.
Why do you think it matters where the money is going? Does your boss refuse to pay you until he has proof where YOUR going to spend you money? This whole attitude is just an excuse for the higher classes to lord over the lower ones. I have actually seen one person state "no you are just going to spend it on beer" while carrying a 6 pack. Considering the state of the mental health system (a lot if not most of the long term homeless), considering the potential for abuse, considering the way they are treated by politicians, the police and health care system, and the general public, if I was in there shoes I would drink and shoot everything which moves too
Hey, I was a civil "servant" for most of my life. I understand that the government manages to do a few things well. Nonetheless they did it so inefficiently that it was pathetic. As I've reminded you before, a government can be seen as an organism, and one thing that we all know about organisms is that the larger ones are slow-moving, not very responsive to external stimuli, and devote most of their resources to managing their own internal metabolism. Australia has one-tenth the population of the United States, and therefore a much smaller government. Come back and continue this conversation when your country has 300 million people and a government so big that it can't accomplish anything.
It's the donor's money. He can give it to anyone he wants for any purpose he wants. He can give it to someone to buy beer, or he can refuse to give it to someone who will use it to buy beer. It's his money, his decision. No, because he is paying you in trade for your labor. If he refuses to pay you you could take him to court (and win) for violation of that contract. If you are contributing money there is no such contract. You can do whatever you like. That's his right. He could be carrying a gun and refuse to buy someone else a gun, too. (In fact that would often be a very wise decision.)
Much of the homelessness resulted from liberal social engineering. It was pitched as the patient bill of rights for those with mental problems. It was seen as inhuman, to detain those with mental health problems, in a warm shelter such as a hospital. The mentally ill were put out in the streets, like releasing zoo animals into the wild (born free) only to find that they are not able to cope with most ending up homeless. Then liberals blame the republicans, like Obama does, rather than accept responsibility for this short term feel good manipulation. I remember when that happened decades ago. I have to admit, I fell for the emotional heart string pitch. But those feelings of doing the humane thing, did not allow the mind to think longer term in terms of the homelessness that would result. The people released are not playing with a full deck, so one should have expected coping problems in an increasingly complex society.
My wife was a social worker back in those days so I understand both sides of the quandary. Which is worse: Being free, but being so poorly adapted to civilization that you'll live a miserable life, often cold, wet and sick... versus being warm, fed and healthy, but being cooped up in an institution like a monkey in a cage? It's a tough decision! During prosperous times people contribute generously to the homeless so their lives are not quite so miserable. During hard times they might starve or freeze to death. One point that has recently been discovered is that homelessness is self-perpetuating. Some cities have experimented with giving the homeless actual apartments with their own bathroom, kitchen and locking doors. This feels like a real home, unlike the cots and dormitories in "homeless shelters." After a few weeks they begin to identify with their home. They stop sleeping on the floor, they bathe regularly, and they keep the refrigerator stocked. Eventually they look and feel decent enough to apply for jobs, and they get them. Something like 90% of the people who have been provided with this type of residence "graduate" from the program in less than one year and start supporting themselves. The cost of this is about 95% less than the current way, because people who never matriculate back into society are expensive. They end up in prisons and public hospitals, which cost a fortune to run. People who get jobs pay taxes, rather than living off of them! This is an interesting observation on the change that has taken place in our instincts since the Paleolithic Era ended 12,000 years ago. In those days people were nomads, chasing their food across the landscape and sleeping in a different place every night. They didn't have an instinct for "home." But today, we feel uneasy to the point of insanity if we don't have a place we can call "home." Best definition: "Home is the place where, when you go there, they have to let you in!" Imagine if there were absolutely no place on earth that satisfied that definition for you?
Canada has done the same thing, at least in Ontario. A former leader of Ontario Bob Rae released the mass of schizophrenics upon the streets of Ontario to freeze and die. His "government" made it so the mentally ill could refuse treatment and walk out the door. It is hard not to notice these people. On a cold day I stopped to help a homeless girl use the phone. The telephone number she was trying to reach for help was "7". I ended up walking away. Now Bob Rae wants to lead the country. It would be a cold day in hell before I would not campaign against him.
Who, the president? No, I love Obama. Obozo is the name I gave to the dwarf that has been following me. He shows up like everywhere and I don't know why, he has no apparent corporeal existence- an he's always in a clown outfit - but like an alcoholic clown smoking a ratty cigar and his makeup is all runny. and he stares at me and just laughs and laughs and laughs
that liberal ronald reagan. I was alive then, but I was living the high life. the 80s were awesome to me.
I was hoping that those awkward bits in first post were just for comedy effect but the post above (#33) makes it look a lot more like schizoprenia unfortunately.
dont you think i know that. but i can keep it in Czech if i want to. země je plná krvavých zločinů, a město je plné násilí
Energie for the feline with mouthfeel, my good friend! My poor cat of 12 years was just eaten by a coyote. The indians of Canada had a domesticated coyote that could run 900 miles without rest. It has since gone extinct. I learnt this in a bar that was the farthest from civilization you ever knew in nw canada. i've done pipeline work, every dang ole thing since my music career went bust.
