babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » something OCAP will enjoy

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: something OCAP will enjoy
bandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1435

posted 14 February 2002 03:20 PM      Profile for bandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
www.thestar.com

The man with such hits as the anti-squeegee bill under his belt, and feel's to much money is spent on natives instead of "real people" comes up with another zinger....
From the Toronto Star Online. I hope like hell Flaherty doesn't win the
leadership. Not that I'd trust any of the fatal five to do anything really
helpful, but this just makes my jaw drop...

Flaherty calls on police to sweep homeless away

Tory leadership candidate proposes special force to deal with issue
>From Canadian Press

Homelessness would become a crime if Jim Flaherty wins his bid to become
premier of Ontario.

Saying it's "not acceptable" to live on the streets, the architect of the
province's anti-panhandling law said the legislation would "virtually
eliminate homelessness."

"It will be illegal to live in public places, on the streets and in the
parks," Flaherty told a huddle of reporters as an icy wind whipped the
street corner in one of the wealthiest spots in the country.

"Living on the streets is not an option. Call it tough love."

Dressed in a bomber jacket sporting a Molson logo, the finance minister
said he would pass a law to empower special constables to "offer
alternatives" to the homeless.

Those options, he said, would include taking them to shelters,
mental-health centres, hospitals or to detox or crisis intervention
centres.

As "a last resort," said Flaherty, who described his idea as a sign of
"true compassion," the homeless would be jailed.

"That rarely would happen."

A few metres up the road, 45-year-old John Stanidis sat on a crate on the
sidewalk on busy University Avenue planning a future as a full-time
fitter-welder, his sign silently begging for spare change.

"Most of the guys are just trying to survive," said Stanidis.

The father of three, who is separated from his wife, said he's been
homeless for two or three years and "moving around" trying to find work.

Often it's a matter of lining up at an agency at 4 a.m., only to be told at
9:30 a.m. there's no work, he said.

While welfare gives him an emergency allowance of $195 a month, it's not
nearly enough to cover the first and last month's rent demanded by most
landlords.

Another block further, another man who said he's been homeless for four
years sat on a crate, an old woollen blanket wrapped tightly around his
legs.

"Are they going to give us a place to live?" said the man who gave his name
as John.

While it's good to provide blankets and help to street people, Flaherty
said, "we need to go a step further and really try to solve this problem."

Flaherty's proposal stunned his leadership rival, Elizabeth Witmer, who
called it heartless and misguided.

"It will force the homeless into hiding, and we'll find them in the
spring," said Witmer.

Flaherty, who made his name as attorney general with his so-called
"anti-squeegee" legislation, has also promised to limit welfare, slashed by
the Mike Harris government in 1995, to two years out of five.

Beric German of the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee denounced Flaherty's
proposals.

"He had every opportunity to build housing for people and to bring money in
for supports for people who needed supports. Instead, they were driven into
the streets," said German.

"The housing that they had was unaffordable. Welfare is not high enough to
afford most of the housing. There's a major housing crisis."

Flaherty did acknowledge that affordable housing is a problem and said the
government is working on that but said he wouldn't wait to implement his
anti-homelessness legislation.

"You define what is sleeping, you define what an overnight use is, and then
you make it illegal," he said.

"The purpose of this is to help people get the help they need."


By making them criminals? Brilliant Jim, just brilliant. Give the man a
Nobel Prize for compassion. Then flush it down the toilet.


From: sudbury | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
vickyinottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 350

posted 14 February 2002 03:46 PM      Profile for vickyinottawa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
sigh.......
From: lost in the supermarket | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 983

posted 14 February 2002 03:56 PM      Profile for dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Flaherty did acknowledge that affordable housing is a problem and said the
government is working on that but said he wouldn't wait to implement his
anti-homelessness legislation.

So lets not give people an alternative to living on the streets but just make them criminals for doing so?!?

This guy is one sick fucking asshole.


From: pleasant, unemotional conversation aids digestion | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
cosmiccommunist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1933

posted 14 February 2002 04:03 PM      Profile for cosmiccommunist   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If they make homelessness a criminal act, you are going to drive these people further into stigmatization and hiding. How sick a society have we become when we could even entertain the idea of making criminals of the most poor and vulnerable. This is truly frightening and scary. Might i suggest that we start voting with bullets? It seems to have come to that.
From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 983

posted 14 February 2002 04:05 PM      Profile for dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Might i suggest that we start voting with bullets?

Please don't.


From: pleasant, unemotional conversation aids digestion | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
agent007
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1189

posted 14 February 2002 04:20 PM      Profile for agent007     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bullets kill humans. That's bad. That's very bad.

Do the heartless -- like Flaherty -- qualify as humans?


From: Niagara Falls ON | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 14 February 2002 04:34 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 14 February 2002 04:35 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Might i suggest that we start voting with
bullets?

Only if it applies to all parties and politicians.
If a NDP or Green Party candidate gets elected, does that mean that a corporation who is affected by new governmental policy can just go shoot politicians till they get the one they want in?

Sounds very stupid to me.

It seems to me that the first step should be to correct what problems there are at homeless shelters so that homeless men and women would not feel that sleeping outside was a better alternative for them. Next step would be to open up a few of the closed schools around Ontario to house and train homeless single men and women in the trades.

For those who would rather refuse that and live on the streets I would say they're welcome to it just don't pester people for change.


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 14 February 2002 04:41 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
just don't pester people for change.

Couldn't that fall under "freedom of expression"? As long as they don't touch people or impede their ability to pass by as they panhandle, they ain't doin' nuthin' wrong, AFAIK.


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 983

posted 14 February 2002 04:53 PM      Profile for dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It seems to me that the first step should be to correct what problems there are at homeless shelters so that homeless men and women would not feel that sleeping outside was a better alternative for them. Next step would be to open up a few of the closed schools around Ontario to house and train homeless single men and women in the trades.

And at some point we should even try to get some affordable housing built. Shelters, after all, are only (poor?) temporary solutions.

But I'm sure affordable housing is high up on Jimmy's "to do" list. After all, think of the money-making opportunity they're missing out on.


From: pleasant, unemotional conversation aids digestion | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 14 February 2002 05:13 PM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sounds like the mind of Little Jimmy Flaherty at work.

He's really going for the cabin dwelling, food hoarding, sharp jutting brow bone, gun toting, cross bearing, fringe vote isn't he? Is that a big segment of the Tory party?

"Argue with anyone who tells you this is the best possible world, or that it can't be changed. It isn't and it can be."
- Mark Kingwell, The World We Want
(mea culpa for slight inaccuracies of quotation)


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 14 February 2002 05:29 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
He's really going for the cabin dwelling, food hoarding, sharp jutting brow bone, gun toting, cross bearing, fringe vote isn't he? Is that a big segment of the Tory party?

A recent (highly unscientific!) web-poll of the Ontatio PC Youth had Jimmy in the lead. But I don't put much stock in web-polls, so take it however you like.


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 14 February 2002 07:03 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, those who lack emotional empathy deserve a swift kick in the arse with some material empathy. Thus, I propose that we create a pettition demanding the confiscation of all of Jim Flaherty's personal possessions with the exceoption of the clothes he's wearing, and that he be forced to spend at least one month sleeping in either jail or a drug-infested homeless shelter. We'll see if his tune changes a bit...
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 983

posted 14 February 2002 07:15 PM      Profile for dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Meades... I like the way you think!
From: pleasant, unemotional conversation aids digestion | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 14 February 2002 07:26 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Warning: extreme sarcasm ahead.


How about this idea.

Make unemployment a crime, punishable by death. If you lose your job and can't live off savings, relatives or charity then you get sent to the showers.

Just imagine the savings to taxpayers!
No welfare, E.I. or any the free benefits those lazy dirty poor people get. Plus people will work so much harder at their jobs and not complain for better conditions or wages.

It would make society so much more efficient!


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 14 February 2002 07:26 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Thus, I propose that we create a
pettition

Awe that never works.

How about instead we tail him from his house and at an opportune moment car jack him and steal all his stuff including his clothes and toss him out of the car on Church St. Then stop a police car and tell them that there is some nut bar running around nekkid, soliciting people on the street?

We could even give his stuff away to a few homeless people and por a bottle or two of Canadian club all over the interior of his car and leave it parked on the rink at Nathan Phillips Square.


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 14 February 2002 07:29 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
egg-cellent
From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 14 February 2002 07:45 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wish it was hard to believe that he is the finance minister of one of the largest economies in North America. It's obvious that some people must take the man, who gives new meaning to the word buffoon, seriously.
I'd like to think this is a plot make Ernie look good but I highly doubt Jimbo has the mental wherewithall to think that far ahead.

From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 14 February 2002 08:40 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fortunately, I think he's on a one-way trip to the backbench, otherwise I'd be really scared by this guy.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
cosmiccommunist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1933

posted 14 February 2002 10:12 PM      Profile for cosmiccommunist   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OK so maybe we dont have to shoot him. But i DO like the idea of finding some way to make him homeless for a winter. How to accomplish THAT? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
Seriously, this guy is a MAJOR scumbag!!!!!!!

From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 February 2002 09:12 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Andy Social and Slick Willy, now serious contenders for the Jonathan Swift Satire of the Week Award.

I'll toss in a Charles Dickens: Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

(Now, if L'il Jimmy would just show up, we could start putting SW's plan in motion ...)


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 15 February 2002 10:44 AM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Fortunately, I think he's on a one-way trip to the backbench, otherwise I'd be really scared by this guy.

During one of the leadership debates, Ernie indicated as much. For such an old coot, Ernie's fan in the Tory youth are damned enthusiastic. "Ernie! Ernie!"


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 15 February 2002 11:04 AM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Now why are we doomed to this Quimby quagmire, you ask, oh reasonable listener? Because this town is under the stranglehold of a few tie-dyed treehuggers, who would rather play hackysack, than lock up the homeless.
- Birchibald T. Barlow, The Simpsons

This line has taken a strange new disturbing feeling for me.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 15 February 2002 11:13 AM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I can't get this link to work. This morning's headline at the Star is: Make street people illegal: Flaherty

How many feet can this loser fit in his mouth? I guess natives won't have to worry though, not being people and all.

quote:

"just don't pester people for change". Couldn't that fall under "freedom of expression"?

What's the difference between pestering people for change and advertising?

Andy, love your modest proposal. Why stop short? Let's eat the poor.

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: ronb ]

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: ronb ]


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Little Jimmy Flaherty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1722

posted 15 February 2002 01:15 PM      Profile for Little Jimmy Flaherty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
*Tries to skulk quietly out of the room. Kicks that little cloned kitten on the way*

Snarl...Skdadl stole my prisons and workhouse idea.


From: The Ayn Rand House of Discipline and Spanky Parlour | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
statica
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1420

posted 15 February 2002 01:31 PM      Profile for statica   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Affordable housing is a problem," he admits, and then suggests shelters. HELLO!!!! affordable HOUSING is about HOMES, real places to live, not shelters!
From: t-oront-o | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rabid Gerbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2066

posted 15 February 2002 02:09 PM      Profile for Rabid Gerbil        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There are over 2000 kind compassionate posters here at babble. Why not chip in a buck a month each and rent three batchlor apartments for three homeless people. Three of you could co-sign the leases and take responsibility for any damage. Others could write resumes and formulate job search strategies and even *gasp* get to know them and serve as a reference.

You have a wonderful tool for change here. In the meantime, while you plot your strategies to change society, why not do a little "hands on" work and change a few individual lives Of course this will mean that you will actually have to help these people take responsibility for their own lives rather than demand that the state care for them unconditionally inperetuity.

Oh, what am I saying. nevermind.


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
statica
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1420

posted 15 February 2002 02:45 PM      Profile for statica   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
ya. what the hell are yo saying!?!?!?!?!?


From: t-oront-o | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rabid Gerbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2066

posted 15 February 2002 02:53 PM      Profile for Rabid Gerbil        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm saying, never send a socialist to do a man's job.
From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 15 February 2002 02:57 PM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Would that be a man like you? Or a man like me?
From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 15 February 2002 03:06 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The man from Glad?

The man from U.N.C.L.E.?

The man of constant sorrow?

You da man!

(Seriously though, Flaherty's desire to criminalize homelessness/unemployment conjures up too many images of Soviet Europe. Didn't those guys make it illegal to be homeless/unemployed?)

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Victor Von MediaBoy ]


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rabid Gerbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2066

posted 15 February 2002 03:21 PM      Profile for Rabid Gerbil        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The man in the moon

The invisible man

The man who knew too much

The crooked man

(seriously though, have you ever actually has a practical thought in your life about how we can help homeless people become self sufficient. Or are your thoughts limited to how we can continue to feed and house them like some sort of domestic pets?)

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Rabid Gerbil ]


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 15 February 2002 05:13 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There are, what, 30 million people in Canada? How about each one of us chips in a buck to help build some affordable housing and decent support systems for the homeless that will help them get on their feet?

Oh no wait, that would be a government handout, that's immoral. We can't have that. Next thing you know Stalin's hideous corpse will roam the earth using his awful mind-control powers to seize power and enslave men of decent christian character everywhere forever.

Let's just go back to the jolly old 19th century and rely on church volunteers to patronize the destitute whilst conveniently ensuring the existance of a desperate underclass to keep wages in check. Then the bourgeousie can all go and shake the hand of an impoverished fella once in a while and consider itself morally justified in profiting from the misery of its fellow citizens.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
agent007
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1189

posted 15 February 2002 05:23 PM      Profile for agent007     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Let's just go back to the jolly old 19th century and rely on church volunteers to patronize the destitute whilst conveniently ensuring the existance of a desperate underclass to keep wages in check.

ronb, that's disgusting ... and an insult to a legion of caring individuals.

From: Niagara Falls ON | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 15 February 2002 05:38 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
An insult to a few caring individuals, perhaps. An accurate description of a legion of them, at least historically.

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 15 February 2002 06:03 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Last thing I'd wanna hear is some sermon by a hale and well-fed Holy Roller skimming the government for all he can get while I'm eating stale bread and thin soup.

Yes, dear, charitable organizations often get government subsidies. That means the government is effectively subsidizing a parallel and woefully inefficient social welfare network that runs alongside the normal social services system.

Walter Stewart figures the overhead in charitable orgs can run to 90%, whereas in most modern social-welfare systems the overhead is no more than 5%.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 15 February 2002 06:12 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, I'd want more than Walter Stewart's word on both those figures, which seem to me absurdly high and unrealistically low, respectively. Even single-payer medicare, which from one point of view is a form of social welfare, reportedly spends around 10% of its budget on administration, though I can't put my hands on a source for that figure right away.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 15 February 2002 06:24 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, I said "run to" 90%, which is his calculation of how much gets raked off the top of the donations + subsidy pile by the administration before they use the money for anything useful.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J6B221C6

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 15 February 2002 06:53 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
There are, what, 30 million people in Canada? How about each one of us chips in a buck to help build some affordable housing and decent support systems for the homeless that will help them get on their feet?

Are we going to spend that 30 million dollars actually helping them? Or just trying to figure out ways to help that won't offend people's sensibilities? Anybody have any ideas on what these decent support systems would be?

Looking at my T4 for last year, I think I've already contributed waaaaaaaaay more than a buck to solving this problem.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 15 February 2002 07:11 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are we going to spend that 30 million dollars actually helping them? Or just trying to figure out ways to help that won't offend people's sensibilities?

Please explain what this means.

quote:
Looking at my T4 for last year, I think I've already contributed waaaaaaaaay more than a buck to solving this problem.

The amount of your taxes that goes toward helping the poor is quite minimal, compared to the rest of what the government spends money on, such as healthcare and education.

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Andy Social ]


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
statica
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1420

posted 15 February 2002 09:01 PM      Profile for statica   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
ronb:
"Let's just go back to the jolly old 19th century and rely on church volunteers to patronize the destitute whilst conveniently ensuring the existance of a desperate underclass to keep wages in check. Then the bourgeousie can all go and shake the hand of an impoverished fella once in a while and consider itself morally justified in profiting from the misery of its fellow citizens."


ever read: "down and out in london and paris" by Orwell. a great portrayal of "charity" your post echoes that sentiments of his book.


From: t-oront-o | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
bandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1435

posted 15 February 2002 10:30 PM      Profile for bandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Healthcare and Education doesn't help the poor?
From: sudbury | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 16 February 2002 04:00 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Judes has written about the trial of the OCAP protestors here.
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 16 February 2002 10:30 AM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As provocative as Flaherty's statements are, I don't think we have to worry about him. His views, if they are a sincere reflection of his value system, appeal to a fringe minority and there's no way he'll ever lead this province.

It's the ones who aren't telling us much we need to be afraid of. The "Gordon Campbells", as it were. The ones who look so moderate and sensible with a "loose cannon" like Flaherty shooting his mouth off.

Hey Ernie, how much did it take to get Flaherty to play the media's whipping boy, the deflector, the court jester?


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 16 February 2002 11:51 AM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think 30 million would come close to releaving the problem of homelessness. And then ther eis that "nimby" part of the equation. Where would all this affordable housing be built? Some cities like Toronto, Vancouver etc. have lot prices that are through the roof so in order to make affordable housing viable it would have to be outside of major centres.

But to move people out of major centres makes a lot of people think about segregation based on finacial means. Are there any suggestions as to a work around for this problem?

As well for real change any area that would be used for affordable housing would have to be able to support the community with jobs. What inccentives could be put into place to promote job creation in the areas and what measures could be used to provide for long term sustainability?


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 16 February 2002 01:40 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Healthcare and Education doesn't help the poor?

Well sure it does; it helps everyone. I just meant that the percentage of the government's budget that goes to directly helping the poor and homeless is fairly small compared to the rest of the budget.

I remember talking to someone once and he complained that "half of his paycheque was going to welfare bums," when in reality welfare is only a little speck on the budget in Ontario.


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 16 February 2002 02:59 PM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Rebecca wrote:

quote:
"As provocative as Flaherty's statements are, I don't think we have to worry about him. His views, if they are a sincere reflection of his value system, appeal to a fringe minority and there's no way he'll ever lead this province."

As a very active Conservative I can assure you that Flaherty will not get elected. Eves will win it on the second ballot.

As Winston Churchill once said "A fanatic is one who won't change his mind and won't change the subject." Jim Flaherty is a fanatic because he is trying to shift the party in the direction of social Conservatism. Ontario Conservatives are not social Conservatives, we are fiscal Conservatives. Flaherty doesn't understand that social Conservatism should be left at the federal level. No government has ever been elected in Ontario with a social Conservative bent.

For those of you who would like nothing more than to see the Conservatives elected out in the next general election; you should be rooting for Flaherty or Clement to win the leadership. They are both unelectable social Conservatives. Futhermore, any moderate like Eves or Witmer will be elected in the next general election.

How can I be so sure that Eves will be Premier after the next general election? I am reminded of the words of Thich Nhat Hanh "In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us." The Conservatives will rally around high taxes, bloated debt and security post 9/11 and it will work.

We in Canada do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority of those who participate in its process. We will cross an ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in an election. The best defense [for a democracy, for the public good] is aggressiveness, the aggressiveness of the involved citizen. Conservatives are very aggressive and we are moreso post Bob Rae and David Peterson.

So what am I getting at? Count on another Conservative government with Ernie Eves as Premier.

John I. Fleming

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: John I. Fleming ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 16 February 2002 05:59 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No offence, John, but I don't think so...

quote:
Flaherty doesn't understand that social
Conservatism should be left at the federal level.

Well, most of what the Social Conservatives want to change is at the provincial level, though some of it is federal. Social Conservatives are fringe, and will never be successful be it provincially in Ontario, or federally.

quote:
Futhermore, any moderate
like Eves or Witmer will be elected in the next general election.

The tories fucked up too much- they're definitely gone. All the new leadership will do is determine by how much they lose. Eves or Whitmer could force the Liberals into a minority government, possibly propped up by the NDP, but Clement will give the Liberals a fair majority, while Flaherty will be absolutely horrible for the party- though I am hoping Flaherty will win, because no one in their right mind would vote conservative with him as leader- at least not with a clear conscience.

quote:
The
Conservatives will rally around high taxes, bloated debt and security post 9/11 and it
will work.

Ontarians have been fooled twice by the Tory BS about taxes and bloated debt- I don't think we'll fall for it the third time, as property taxes, as a result of downloading, have skyrocketed. As for 9/11, people are smart enough to realize that most of that is on the shoulders of the feds, and silly lip service from the tories won't erase walkerton, massive labour disputes, assaults on the gay community, destruction of provincial democracy, an education system built on wasted money used for meaningless standardized tests and ignoring students and teachers, and the tory stance that the best way to cure medicare is to destroy it. We're dumb enough to believe the Liberals will carry out their promises, but not dumb enough to believe it from the tories for a third time.

quote:
We have government by the
majority of those who participate in its process.

Actually, no we don't. The Tories didn't get over 50% of the vote in '99, OR '95. And the government hasn't won the popular vote in I don't know HOW long, federally...

quote:
Conservatives are very aggressive and we are moreso post Bob Rae and David
Peterson.

You're in for a surprise- the NDP is QUITE agressive this time around, as are the Liberals- this will be an interesting election, because no one is letting their guard down.

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: meades ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 16 February 2002 09:29 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I am reminded of the words of Thich Nhat Hanh "In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us."

Yeah, that's who always comes to mind when I'mthinking of the Ontario Tories - a Vietnamese zen master. Or is that Yoda? But seriously, even if the Tories hadn't been at the forefront of a long series of public relations blunders, people tend to vote more to the left during economic downturns, and that's where we're at now. Not that having Dalton Mcguinty would be any improvement. And Howie Hampton? He sucked as Attorney General and his behavior during the East York bi-election was disgraceful enough to make even die-hard NDPers run for cover. Nah, it'll be McGuinty.

Which puts me in mind of the immortal words of Peter Townsend: "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 17 February 2002 12:15 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
As Winston Churchill once said "A fanatic is one who won't change his mind and won't change the subject."

Hmmm...interesting observation John, especially coming from yourself.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rabid Gerbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2066

posted 17 February 2002 11:51 AM      Profile for Rabid Gerbil        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The bleeding hearts of the left are always ready to kill the homeless with their kindness by respecting their inalienable rights to freeze to death on our streets, to die of alcoholism and drug addiction, and to harass people for money.

All Flaherty proposed last week was to establish "special constables" who would be trained to deal with the homeless.

They would be given the power to actually do something when they encounter people living on the street who have become a danger to themselves or others - as opposed to merely shoving a sandwich in their face and ineffectively begging them to come inside. Instead, they'd now be taken to a shelter, hospital, crisis centre or, in extreme cases, jail.

Staying on the street would no longer be an option.

A similar program established in New York's transit system 12 years ago resulted in an 86% reduction in homeless deaths, reduced the homeless population from 5,000 to about 750 and resulted in another 45,000 people being moved off the streets into shelters, residences and other programs.

But here in Toronto we give 'em a blankie, a coffee and a pat on the head and ask nothing of them in return.


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 17 February 2002 12:37 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wonder if anyone has ever thought of asking the homeless what they might want?
From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rabid Gerbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2066

posted 17 February 2002 12:47 PM      Profile for Rabid Gerbil        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thety are all individuals who will want different things.

What if a certain number of them said that they just want a nice apartment, enough to eat and a bottle a day, without having to do anything in return.

If you were Premier, would you give them what they want?


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 17 February 2002 01:33 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, if I were the Premier I would try and find out what they want before I impose. I know I am a bloody left wing hippie. Imagine asking someone what they want. How bloody radical can one be.
From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
statica
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1420

posted 17 February 2002 02:51 PM      Profile for statica   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
rabid gerbil.

watch it with your assuptions (about the homeless). either back them up or shut up.

sincerely,
krystalline
krystal@rabble.ca


From: t-oront-o | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 17 February 2002 03:02 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Judging by past experience, statica, he'll do neither.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 17 February 2002 04:11 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It should be noted though that between the City of New York and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development there is both a social housing construction program and a rental subsidy program targeted to homeless people. That's not happening in Ontario.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rabid Gerbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2066

posted 17 February 2002 04:59 PM      Profile for Rabid Gerbil        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes, if I were the Premier I would try and find out what they want before I impose. I know I am a bloody left wing hippie. Imagine asking someone what they want. How bloody radical can one be.

Maybe what mentally ill and addicted people "want" isn't necessarily what they need.

Maybe, if we are going to spend my tax dollars on them the government should ask what I want.

I want every non addicted, mentally stable homeless person to be given lots of government support. I want to give them an apartment, have people help them write their resumes and oversee their job searches, I want them reeducated if necessary and off the public doll as soon as possible.

The mentally ill homeless need to be institutionalized and the addicted need to be forced into rehab.


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 17 February 2002 05:03 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I want them reeducated if necessary

In camps?


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 17 February 2002 05:13 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
RG, you once again fail to recognize a very good point, made by Doug.

Also, criminalizing the homeless doesn't get them jobs- it doesn't get the addicts clean- it doesn't put them in a safe environment- it doesn't give them any sort of independence what so ever- So who is it that's "keeping them in poverty?"


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 17 February 2002 05:16 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
off the public doll

'lance, have you been at it again? Is that where RG is getting his/her/its wild metaphors from?

If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times, 'lance: Get off that public doll! Now! D'y'hear me?

Actually, I'm surprised this thread is continuing. Elizabeth Witmer has already called Flaherty's proposal "disgusting," and all the other candidates are criticizing him pretty openly. The Queen's Park journalists took him apart last night on Focus Ontario -- they're all predicting a back-bench in his future. Whee.

His proposals have already been pronounced unconstitutional. Imagine what the Supremes could do with our Sick Rodent.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 17 February 2002 05:24 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
'lance, have you been at it again? Is that where RG is getting his/her/its wild metaphors from?

If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times, 'lance: Get off that public doll! Now! D'y'hear me?


O dear. Busted! Bad 'lance . And bad feds, for subsidizing such things. Perhaps we could adopt RG's plan for the homeless, and take up a collection so he can buy a real one.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rabid Gerbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2066

posted 17 February 2002 05:31 PM      Profile for Rabid Gerbil        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Also, criminalizing the homeless doesn't get them jobs- it doesn't get the addicts clean- it doesn't put them in a safe environment- it doesn't give them any sort of independence what so ever- So who is it that's "keeping them in poverty?"

Who's keeping them in poverty?

Why, Bill Gates, of course.

If he wasn't sopping up so much money with his evil capitalist empire, there would be lots laying around to help the homeless. Yep, that's it. Definately. It's Bill's fault.


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
statica
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1420

posted 17 February 2002 05:44 PM      Profile for statica   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
hey now, don't get defensive, RG, we're just asking you to back up the statements you've made about people who are homeless. this should be nothing to get worked up about if you can do it.

we're waiting....


From: t-oront-o | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rabid Gerbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2066

posted 17 February 2002 06:30 PM      Profile for Rabid Gerbil        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Alright, I'll hate myself in the morning, but I'll bite. What statements are you talking about?
From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 17 February 2002 06:34 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Jumping Jupiter Ms Gerbil. Who says that most of the homeless are 'mentally ill and or addicted'?
Who says that the best place for them is in an institution or rehab?

Have you ever worked with the mentally ill? And yes I have. Did you know that when one is mentally ill they lose their rights to say NO to recommended treatment by the doctor? Yet Ms Gerbil if I am diagnosed with cancer I can say NO to any treatment? In fact it is the only 'disease' that one cannot refuse treatment of some kind.

Life is not all that fun for some people and it becomes even less fun when you are not allowed to make any decisions.


From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rabid Gerbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2066

posted 17 February 2002 06:52 PM      Profile for Rabid Gerbil        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I thought being mentally ill meant that one's ability to make personal decisions would be compromised.

At what point do we take people and give them three squares a day and a warm bed. There is a man I've seen who wears a dozen layers of tatterred filthy clothes, shoes with the soles falling off and is obviously beyond reality with respect to his state of mind. He lives on the street.

Is this acceptable to you - to have filthy babbling streetpeople wandering around the city?

Now I am NOT saying that he is typical. But he exists, nonetheless.

What would you do with him - give him a sparkling new subsidized apartment?


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 17 February 2002 07:58 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Alright, I'll hate myself in the morning, but I'll bite. What statements are you talking
about?

These two:

quote:
It should be noted though that between the City of New York and the US Department of
Housing and Urban Development there is both a social housing construction program and
a rental subsidy program targeted to homeless people. That's not happening in Ontario.

quote:
Also, criminalizing the homeless doesn't get them jobs- it doesn't get the addicts clean-
it doesn't put them in a safe environment- it doesn't give them any sort of
independence what so ever- So who is it that's "keeping them in poverty?"


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 17 February 2002 08:07 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There are some clean people that babble on Babble.
Do we lock em, up? Sorry maybe some of them are dirty too.

Incidentally being mentally ill does not necessarily compromise one's decisions. You might not agree with their decisions, but then again I don't agree with you either.

Continue on your quest Ms Gerbil. I do see a change but you are inclined to backslide.


From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rabid Gerbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2066

posted 17 February 2002 08:44 PM      Profile for Rabid Gerbil        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You people make no sense. Don't you realize that this is a public forum? Anyone who happens to come here will certainly see how mindless your rebuttals are to people who question you.

Doesn't that bother you?

And by the way meades, I support: "a social housing construction program and a rental subsidy program targeted to homeless people."

You forgot to mention that New york also requires able bodied people to make an effort to become self sufficient.

Tell me meades: do you think people shuld do what they can to help themselves?


[ February 17, 2002: Message l edited by: Rabid Gerbil ]

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: Rabid Gerbil ]


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 17 February 2002 08:50 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Most of us are quite sensible, since you are referring to us collectively.
From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rabid Gerbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2066

posted 17 February 2002 09:03 PM      Profile for Rabid Gerbil        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sensible people have opinions as to how to solve the homeless crises.

Are you sensible?


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 17 February 2002 10:05 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's a bloody good question. Ya surprised the shit out of me kiddo. I will get back to you on it. I have opinions but I don't think my opinions will solve the plight of the homeless.

It undoubtedly has to be an effort by our society. I am not too sure whether we are quite ready to get into prevention rather than after the fact.

There you are. I answered the question. All that was mentioned, homelessness, mental illness, drug addiction not 'wanting' to work. Why? When we have the reasons then we will have the answers. Okay?


From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
statica
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1420

posted 18 February 2002 03:27 AM      Profile for statica   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"You people make no sense. Don't you realize that this is a public forum? Anyone who happens to come here will certainly see how mindless your rebuttals are to people who question you."

ALL WE ARE ASKING YOU TO DO, R.G., IS BACK UP YOUR STATEMENTS WITH FACTS. WHETHER WE LOCATE OUR POLITICAL ARGUEMENTS IN THE LEFT OR RIGHT, IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK?

YOU HAVE MADE A VERY CONTENSIOUS ARGUEMENT BASED ON THE WAY YOU PROTRAY THE HOMELESS, NOW WE ASK YOU, PLEASE QUALIFY YOUR STATEMENTS -- WE WOULD ASK THE VERY SAME THING OF FLARETY.


From: t-oront-o | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 18 February 2002 09:15 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It should be noted though that between the City of New York and the US Department of
Housing and Urban Development there is both a social housing construction program and
a rental subsidy program targeted to homeless people. That's not happening in Ontario.

It should also be noted that there is a phenonenon that once programs like workfare or limited welfare are introduced public support for the homeless rises. I think that people see the welfare roles decreasing and realize that those left are in true need of help. I think the public are more willing to support them. They said that it was a bizarre phenomenon that once republican governers such as in Wisconson got all their welfare reforms passed they actively lobbied for support for those who remained on the roles. THey stopped using any negative language and began to champion those causes for the first time.

It should also be noted that the average price of a public housing unit in Ontario was like $5,000 more than a for profit housing unit.

In Halifax, a few years back, I read that they decided to build a non profit housing apartment next to an environmentally contaminated site. Added millions to the cost of the bldg as they failed to get the owner to clean it up. Would a for profit manager have checked more to avoid this or fought harder to not shoulder the cost????

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca