Good luck, but that doesn't appear to be how it works in here. You fool!

:boxers:

I think I graciously conceded the point, Maggie. Are you really gonna gloat and rub it in? :dedhorse:

Oh, I forgot, magnanimous is not in the conservative dictionary.

and "clear skies initiative" which allows increased polution in the air we breath, and "anti-abortion" which is really "anti-choice", and "right to life" which means "we conservatives will tell you when you can allow your brain dead wife to die". Yeah, spin. Go figure.

Both of you, grow up and stop arguing conservative vs. liberal. Argue conservative points versus liberal points, not conservative nature versus liberal nature.

Pretty please?

The position re-labelling on abortion rights happened on both sides almost immediately..."pro-choice" was invented to counter "pro-abortion" as an obvious antonym to "anti-abortion". "Pro-abortion" is a misnomer, because abortion rights advocates aren't simply in favor of abortions; they're opoosed to restrictions on them. Hence "pro-choice". "Pro-life" begs the question of whether a fetus is in fact human life.

Happens I'm pro-choice, and I also think the Chiavo case was well-decided; they were both examples of unwarrented government intrussion.

"Clear Skies Initiative" I'd not heard of but it obviously can't be a relabelling if it's a new program. Which it is...and being a program of pollution limits it seems fair to call it "Clear Skies' unless you'd prefer "Clear But-Not-As-Clear-As-The-Greens-Want Skies".

Anyway, now that the weekend's over, I have work to do...and quite enough time has been spent in this thread chasing collectivist ghosts. My position on the central proposition is that people have a right to set rules for their park...whether it's "curb your dog" or "no food kitchens--no matter how informally organized".

"What to do about homelessness" is another topic...but I'll remind you that that the cop waking up the bum sleeping under newspapers on the park bench with the words "move along" is an ancient icon of American Culture, and that Jesus (no, I'm not a Christian either) once said "The poor will be always with you".

Let us know how you make out convincing the CEOs of the world to pay for your "unofficial voluntary no-government-involved minimum wage program"...and how FNB reacts to your offer to pay for bussing their clients to someplace where they're (more) welcome.

Aren't you the one who is always nagging about the misuse of the expression "begging the question?" :)

You can't feed the homeless but you can pay the prostitues for sex.

Yes, and I used it correctly. Perhaps you still don't get it.

????

I think she means 'in the park'--as in you can't feed the homeless there, but you can meet and exchange business with the working guys and gals there.

Thanks. Wait a minute, I just had a thought.....ew, never mind.

Oh...I see. It's one of those "higher truth" things like F-911 and the Rathergate memos.
No, not really...struck me mostly as aimless blather about how terrible homelessness is...other than to note that the Estate Tax is already a bigger percentage than you proposed, so how "it's not enough" arises I don't know.

Apparently there already were a bunch of collectivists who tapped that vein, so you'll have to find another one. I suppose you could always opt to simply confiscate all inheritances over a certain amount, but you'll just force people to deed stuff over before dying if they really want thier heirs to get it rather than the government, so then you'll be looking for another gift tax, I suppose.

There are indeed a very few extremely rich people. But there's so many more poor people, just playing Robin Hood is one of those "band-aid solutions" people were mocking here earlier...and you can only do it so often.

Nope.
emphasis mine.

Moving the parameters of the discussion by misrepresenting Spexxvet's remarks by only makes it easier for you to criticize. It does nothing to lend credibility to your claims.

I haven't read any of your comments that I agree with that were sufficiently non-trivial to warrant remembering, but I still (try) to listen to and understand what you're saying. Because it's voices like yours that need to be shown their wrongness, in my opinion. I see your "toughlove, anti-enabling" point. To some degree, I agree with it. But it is wrong to have "do not feed the hungry" as one's bottom line.

The what ifs and could haves and but but buts form a double line that extends beyond the horizon. I'll get to those, maybe, some other day. But when faced with one hungry man, I'll feed him if I can. The law is, and I'm being generous, mean spirited and ill crafted at best.

That is what I meant basically. I just spent 10 days there (in Vegas) and I watched, countless times, as they (prostitutes, male and female) made their arrangements and cops near by just stood and watched. As if they were saying "we're here for their protection". WTF is all I had to say. I thought prositution was illegal. You can pay for STD's and sexual recreation, as the cops "lovingly" watch, but you can't feed the homeless as long as it's done in the park. Aren't their bigger things we should be worried about, instead of where people are getting their food?

No, because having to see those homeless 'bums' in our local parks every day is an annoying reminder that, with merely a small twist of fate, we could be one of them. Why in the world would we want to see such disruptive, ugly, smelly evidence of how fragile our own existance is? Particularly in what is supposed to be a peaceful, tranquil place where we should be able to continue our denial of the suffering of humanity?

/sarcasm off

Stormie

I ask them.

I interview homeless people on an almost daily basis. I do not see the happy, motivated, successful kinds of homeless people that are trying to improve their circumstances.

I'm not surprised. You don't seem the sort of person that hangs around homeless shelters.

Prostitution is actually illegal in the Las Vegas City Limits. That's a common misconception. A friend of mine's brother is a cop with LVPD. Until he got known he used to work hooker detail because he looked like an accountant and had a Philadelphia accent.

Cops looking the other way and legal are not the same thing.

The word hungry is completely misleading. That they are "hungry" implies that if they do not eat this food served in this park, they will not eat. This is totally false. They have food available to them, in shelters and soup kitchens and a variety of places. No one is denying them food. They are denying them a place to sit while they eat their food.

In this case, that's true. But if more people felt as Maggie does
and got their way, the situation would be very different.

And "this case" is the case under discussion.

But when your maneuver was to insist that if I supported people who wanted to exclude soup kitchens from their park that it became my responsibility to solve "the problem" as you cast it, and I explained that I didn't agree with that.

In my experience, *most* people believe it's not the function of the government to provide everybody's basic needs...although there certainly are constituencies that disagree: primarily the "needy", and also the social welfare apparatchiks that derrive a middleman income from administering the "wealth transfer". (The latter tend to be more politically effective.)

Of course, if you spend your time hanging out in Blue space (either online, in the media, or by living in an urban center where such stuff tends to concentrate) you begin to beleve everybody (or at least all the right-thinking people, the one who aren't "mean-spirited") think the way you do.

Then an election happens, and obviously there must have been massive fraud...after all, doesn't everybody think Blue?

In your capacity as intake at a mental institution?

Yes.

I have also, as the result of volunteer work, directly interacted with shelter residents, and I have contacts at two of the city programs I described above ... Horizon House, which I linked to, and one of the large scale Philadelphia shelters.

So your primary interaction is pretty self selecting.

How do you discern those who are just "playing the system" from those who are mentally ill? Could "playing the system" not be considered a result of mental illness? After all, you've got to be crazy to live on the streets with little or no possessions, no self-respect, uncertain about your next meal, or living from fix to fix, don't you? That's not what mentally healthy, mainstream folks do, is it? Could it be that they are, actually, mentally ill, and want you to think they're normal, just playing the system to get food and shelter?

The ultimate "insanity defense". Puh-leeze.

This is really what it comes down to.
This, and that it is a reminder that they are unwilling to do enought to stop the homeless problem.

I know you are addressing wolf here, and I appreciate that--however, I've worked with homeless as well. I worked with them from the standpoint of admission to hospital interviews and then while they were on the ward (mental health/substance abuse ward). 99% of the homeless I saw preferred to remain homeless because: they valued the freedom to live their life they way they wanted to. Rules and regs at homeless shelters or halfway houses (and even the rules of the hosp. ward) were too much for them. They wanted to do what they wanted, when they wanted. They didn't like the fact that meals and snacktimes and cigarette breaks were scheduled--if they wanted a snack at 2:30 in the morning (not a 'snack time' via hosp. rules) they WANTED IT! NOW! If they wanted a cigarette the moment they woke up--they expected to have it, regardless of ward rules. If they wanted 15X the amount of medicine they were prescribed they wanted it--NOW! And, so on. They would intimidate, threaten, and even one that I witnessed became violent and broke a tech's thumb over a cigarette. Homeless shelters do not have to put up with this sort of behavior and they simply kick them out, which, is fine with them, now they can smoke/drink/use to their hearts content. We've tent cities in Dayton (well hidden, in woods by the Miami river) and social worker outreach people go into them to try to assess the human need and see if anybody wants to get help--like mental health help, help with getting on their feet, subs. abuse help---routinely, these workers are run out of the tent city. The homeless KNOW who they are, so they are not threatened by these (ususally) female workers, they just don't want to have anything to do with mainstream society.

I have seen motivated homeless on Oprah. And, for the most part, homeless teens are motivated to improve their situations.

As for playing the system-no one, NO ONE is better at it than substance abusers and the mentally ill. Mentally ill does not equal stupid.

Sure it is. But since you're concerned about this ... how many homeless people did you have half-hour conversations with last week?

There always was and will be, homeless, vagrants, bums, drifters, con-men, destitutes, poor, nuts, rugged individualists and wackos.
It's really hard to sort out individuals and their unique circumstances when you're in the unenviable position of making policy/rules to cover the non-mainstream crowd.

We (notice: we, meaning the general consensus from which you may opt out), want a safety net to catch the people who are in need. But we don't want the net to become a comfy hammock.
We don't want to be played for a sucker by people using the safety net as an entitlement, just another resource to supplement their income, or a reason not to try help themselves.
We perceived so much abuse of the welfare system, at least anecdotally, we're skeptical of everyone claiming to need help.

Logically, the best place to make individual assessments is on the local level, one on one, if you will. So they tried that, and found giving that money and power to some people, created petty power brokers that abused the system and the people it was supposed to help.

Then the pendulum swung back to making hard and fast rules at the state or federal level. That doesn't work either....every case is different and any time there are strict rules, there's a back-alley lawyer figuring out how to play the rules for their benefit.... beat the system. Of course, these cheats are the ones that make the papers, rather than the ones that are truly helped.

Brianna and Wolf described a group/behavior pattern that will always be a problem. There's another problem group, that they'll never see (professionally), because it avoids any contact with any institutions if it can.

In a democracy, you can't help people unless they want to be helped.
The trick is to provide help to those that want and need it, without being conned..... or enabling failure.
No. I don't have a solution.... just trying to clarify the problem.

Food in the park or food at the shelter?
There will always be some individualists that will go hungry and some that will never go hungry, either way.

It appears Vegas is being petty with a specific rule to thwart one samaritan, but this woman is throwing a monkey wrench in their program. Whether their program is sound or has a hidden agenda is beside the point. It's their plan to handle their problem and she doesn't have the right to screw it up. If she wants to change it, there are avenues for change, but if she wants to buck the system she has to be willing to pay a price, as all protesters have done. :2cents:

As if failure to "do enough" were the issue rather than "doing the right thing".

It is incredibly difficult to structure institutional solutions that actually "help" without doing huge amounts of collateral damage through laregly unintended consequences. I'm awestruck by the simple wisdom of the UK "only one night" rule that Wolf mentioned earlier.

Government-managed "help" entirely too often simply creates new ecological niches in which people take up permanent residence. You can call it "help", but it's too seldom actually helpful.

That sounds pretty crazy to me.

Have you ever been with the crazy for hours on end? I have. State institutions, private hospitals...name it. If you doubt me, I whole heartedly encourage you to posse up to the very next organization to help the homeless that you can! Act now! Go into the woods! Go into the abandoned homes without running water, without food, with 75 dogs and cats and 12 children! Go on, young man! You haven't lived until you've experienced these smells, these sights! you try to help, you offer assistance and do you know what they say? "How much oxycontin can I get? 'Cause I need a lot of oxycontin..."

Crazy does NOT = Stupid.

If you don't know this, you don't know crazy.

Um... exactly how many mentally ill people have you worked with , BTW?

I agree with much of what you say. But there has to be a way to help those who want to be and can be helped. And for those who can't be or don't want to be helped, what do "we" do? Bri and Wolf say that they would rather be homeless, and I accept that at face value. Maggie says to let them be homeless, just don't be homeless around her, because when we try to help, it's seldom helpful, and it costs more than she's willing to pay.
What do you do when leaving the situation alone is unacceptable, but changes would be unacceptable.

Brianna, don't get excited, I was agreeing with you! The behavior you described sounds like the people are mentally ill. I know crazy people are not necessarily stupid - and the ones who play the system are certainly not stupid.

I am sorry for jumping. I am very upset. I've even posted a comment on the UK's Guardian (don't worry, it wouldn't embarrass you all) --I am very, very upset about everything. This is why I am not effective in the crazy/high community and wolf is. I take it much too much to heart. I also take dead babies to heart (we all do) but hate the way foreign media portray us---as if we could portray all mexican's as bean eating, siesta taking, tequila drinking assholes....that is the way American's are being described in foreign media----SUV driving, McDonald's eating, Religious Right, etc....

it is making me totally nuts.

I apologize and I need to stop reading this shit.

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink"

The only solution I can come up with, is provide the help needed to those that will accept it and don't meddle with people that won't, but are not a danger to society.

I'll admit that's not a warm and fuzzy be all, end all, but it's the best I can think of without trampling all over people's rights. :o

Chill, darlin'. There's nothing wrong with having an emotional response. Normal adults, unlike TW, do.
The problem, as usual, is the desire for approval....lack of disapproval won't do, either....it must be affirmation. You know where I'm going.

I'm really not Spock, honest. ;)

If I'd tried to say "Oh, well I've never met any homeless people who did X", that might be relevant.

Is that really so much different than implying that "I'm sure there must be homeless people who don't do X"? Accusing a sample of being biased implies that you believe there are cases out there that don't fit the sample.

I'm not necessarily looking for warm and fuzzy. Are we at the point where nobody can even offer a suggestion? Ok, as king of the world:D , I'll start.

If it is determined that someone wants to be a productive member of society, they are put into a system that provides food, clothing shelter, for a limited time, until they can survive on their own. At the same time, minimum wage is increased until it is enough to survive on.

If it is determined that someone can never be a productive member of society, due to mental or physical issues, they are put into a system that provides food, clothing shelter for the rest of their life. Not optional. The loss of some of their freedoms is in exchange for not being a productive member of society, and not being left to die on their own. Gotta keep those loonies off the grass!;)

If it is determined that someone doesn't want to be a productive member of society, is "playing the system", they will be severely punished, maybe even forced to be a productive member of society, in an incarcerated sort of way.

Let the discussion begin!:worried:

Sure is an awful lot of passive voice in that post...which is always a red flag where bureaucrats are involved. When you say "it is determined"...who is making this determination and by what criteria?

That should employ a substantial pile of the aformentioned apparatchiks.

I'm starting to flashback on the Velvet Monkey Wrench. Or Coventry

Or why don't you comment on the subject matter, rather than introducing a red herring, trying to sidetrack the discussion with comments about passive voice and details.

Sorry that you don't agree with me on what the "subject matter" is.

You've apparently postulated a government bureaucracy that going to make these life-and-death decisions for a pretty sizable population. Would you model it on the current social services infrastructure, well-known for its efficiency and cost-effectivness?

Even if so, the criteria they will use to sort the sheep from the goats is germane.

If those are dismissable as "details", then the discussion you invited is pointless.


At least The Velvet Monkey Wrench is entertaining. Ever read that? Or Coventry?

I wonder if this decision was made by a "smaller government" Republican local administration? If I know this area I'd bet on it.
I love how Republicans still like to say they are for "smaller, less intrusive, government" then break every right in the Bill of Rights, perform illegal phone taps, extend the Anti-Patriot Acts make laws about feeding hungry people, illegally/secretly track financial transactions, etc, etc, etc...
Yeah, smaller, less-intrusive, government, sure, tell me another one...

I think government that lets folks from out-of-town open a soup kitchen in your local park is nearly as intrusive as one that quarters soldiers in your home. Fortunately the latter is explictly forbidden by the Constitution.

I would vote for it, just for the pink floyd reference...

I don't see the parallel. Not in the least.
Again, there is not an "open soup kitchen IN the park".
You make it sound like a permanent structure in the park. Not so.

But the government isn't intruding by not doing anything... They may be failing to intrude when you want them to intrude a bit, depending on how one views the issue, but they arent intruding.

That's a bold -s--t--r--e--t--c--h- Magster. My hat is off to you.

Holy shit, I second that.

Everyone, to arms! We must halt the spread of food in a public area to the public by the public!

You keep waving around the word "public" like it was blanket permission do do whatever you want...simply calling something "a public park" doesn't mean any member of "the public" can do anything they they feel like there.

When "a public park" is, say, a municipal park, the municipality is responsible for it and sets the rules for its use. The same applies to state parks and Federal parks: each is adminstered and controlled by the branch of governement that brought it into being and owns (or leases) the land.

For example, the Farm Park I mentioned earlier is on land owned by a state agency but leased to the county it resides in, and occupies land in three different municipalities...but it's administered and controlled by the county, so the county sets the rules there. The municipal park down the road belongs to West Norriton Township, the municipality.

If the people of West Norriton decide, for example, that walking dogs without a leash is verboten in their park, they have the right to implement that rule though a township ordinance. They don't give up that right just because "it's a public park". Nor can anyone who wanders in off the street use the municipally-owned golf course for free (or for playing horsehoes, or feeding paupers) just because "it's public".

If the county or state decides to tell the municipality whose park it is that they must allow Ms. Anarchist-from-Reno to run her soup kitchen in their park, I'd call that "intrusive". The folks whose park it is have already expressed their desire though their municipal government.

That doesnt change the fact that the government isn't intruding when it doesn't do something. It's hard to intrude without actually doing something...

You are correct. If the people of West Norriton decide, however, that black people walking dogs commit more crime when they come to the park, the people cannot ask for a law or ordinance that bans black people from walking their dogs. The city of Las Vegas has not outright banned the homeless from the park, yet, but they restricted an activity specific to that class of people. That is not valid.

Correct again -- many towns and cities do this based upon restricting the facilities to the people that pay the taxes that upkeep it. (the use of the term "public" in this sense, however, is questionable) The Las Vegas park, to my knowledge, has not set any restrictions regarding this and has, as I keep saying, implemented a law based on social class. I keep suggesting that there are other ways around this that don't involve writing city laws that discriminate based on income level, but you just keep on advocating the law that does for some reason.

I missed this post... The government didn't say they had to let her, nor did they sat she couldn't. As far as I know, they stayed out of it. Therefore, they didnt intrude in the slightest.

I think it's pretty much accepted all round that mentally ill homeless people are less likely to be working their way out of it (though it does happen - my mom volunteers at a soup kitchen and knows a woman who managed to get a place to live, and a job after getting on medication). In that light, I think wolf's statement needs to be interpreted in light of her position in a mental hospital.

And, logically speaking, accusing a sample of being biased implies only that the sample is useless in drawing a conclusion; it says nothing about what the conclusion should be.

Unenforceable
 

It may be that...although the ACLU isn't of course the ultimate authority; they're just putting forward their theory.

If FNB insists on continuing to be a pain in the ass in trying to mainain access to what they want to make their political stage, sooner or later the municipality will find a formula that passes muster even in the Ninth Circuit.

What they may end up with is a law requiring permits to use the park, as some Jersey Shore and Delaware communities have for beach access, and many places have for parking in certain zones. Apparently they already tried a system requiring permits for gatherings more than 25, and FNB found a way to beat that. Perhaps use-permitting with differential access for residents and non-residents.

Watch this space. :-) The ACLU is convinced they will.

The trick may be coming up with a definition that encompases "mobile anarchist vegan soup kitchen" without interfering with ordinary picnics, which they have claimed to be.