quote:

---

It's one thing to give money to those on the street who need it but if the same man comes to your house three times in a month looking for money, where do you draw your charitable line? auntie will know.

---

As snopes says, offer to call someone to help them. Offer to call AAA, or a friend of theirs, or a family member.

Five'll get you ten that they turn all sullen and a bit angry at this and reiterate their need for money.

There are very few real predicaments in the world for which the one and only solution is $20. If someone won't accept some other form of help, or can present some reasonable and plausible reason why only cash will do, then they're scamming you.

I found someone on my back porch in our last home, rooting through the recycling box for bottles. He asked me for change when I opened the door. I asked him to leave. (Apropos - we had 4 break-ins in 8 months at that house).

A home is personal space, not public space. Under no circumstances is it acceptable to panhandle at a person's home. The safety and security issues are obvious, as well.

Telemarketing and charity calling border on the same intrusion, without the physical presence. I also refuse them - I don't like our personal sanctuary to be invaded.

quote:

---

Auntie's spot on. Turn off the tap and send this grifter packing.

---

I've had people at the door who legitimately had run out of gas. Indeed, I've been in the predicament twice, possibly three times myself, and done the same. I think our urbanocentric bais may be showing here.

quote:

---

Magoo, are you channeling Ann Landers?

---

Ten lashes with a wet noodle for that one.

quote:

---

There's a guy in downtown Toronto, I first saw him last year. He's a young guy, relatively well groomed, he comes up and looks hesitantly at you for a while before asking (in French) if you speak French. If you say yes, he goes into a routine where he says he's from Montreal and staying at the backpackers' house, he's lost his wallet and he needs money to buy a bus ticket to go home. Last year when I saw him it didn't quite feel true (the accent didn't seem native quality for one thing, but I wasn't 100%), but I thought, what if it IS true, so I gave him a 20. This year, he comes up with the exact same routine and so I flat out said no, although I spared him some cutting remarks that went

---

I met this asswipe last year. I offered him some small token, like $5, and he got all chappy about it, so I figured something was up. In my case the complete lie was that his father would mail me the money back if I gave him my address.

Little pause here. Folks, I trust nobody's gullible enough to not only fork over the $20 or $40 or whatever it is they're defrauding you of, but to also tell them where you live?

Two weeks later same guy, same story. This time I definitely said no. As I returned to a conversation with a friend on the street I noticed him chatting with someone across the street & kept my eye on him. Just as the person pulled out some money to hand him he caught my eye and ever so subtley waved to me to not say anything.

I know that that is a terrible attitude and I am not making a good contribution to healthy civil society when I get growly at the door (or on the phone, with telemarketers), but I just seem to be in cranky mode. It's not even that I feel vulnerable; I've just become a crank about being distracted.

On the street, I am in quite different mode. I expect to be distracted on the street. I've never met a baroque panhandler, just the garden variety who are happy with a tooney, or the super woman who sells the street paper at the corner of Spadina and Bloor -- there's a steady worker: we've been friends for six or seven years now.

I don't know. These are our own contradictions, of course. I hate seeing in myself the discreet charms of the bourgeoisie, but I must confess that I do. Here we are, thinking so carefully through our own ethical dilemmas, and there they are -- all those people out there who, for one reason or another, are living off scams. What is to be done?

[ 31 May 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]

Mutha d'yer think they'll drop the bomb?.

[ 31 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

I have to agree with Tom. Some stories are worth a few rand, pounds dollars etc. because they are so creative. I always had some money in my pocket just in case. And some of them might be true and are worth consideration the first time. But not the second.

Anyhoo... when I was in Nairobi, the same thing. About three different men approached, all with the same routine. "Jambo!" They would happily say. "That means hello in my language." The usual routine was something like "I was a miner in South Africa, I had to flee, now I need to go back home (or I have a visa to Canada, but I need to pay some fee)." Hang on a second -- I thought you said your language was Swahili (see above). The problem, especially as the 19 year old I was, was being assertive. Especially as these people followed me wherever I was going and wouldn't let go or take anything but a direct and firm "no" for an answer. Once I was pushed to that, they disappeared. I guess it was a learning experience.

In Madras, there was a well-known fellow who would come up to you and ask if you could read English. Then he would say he had a telegram, could you read it? The telegram said "Padma delivered baby. Heavy bleeding. Please send Rs. 200." When you read this, he would begin to cry. The problem was it wasn't actually a telegram, but a handwritten form you fill out when you are SENDING a telegram. Furthermore, the scam was posted in local tourist hotels. I simply burst out laughing and walked away and his tears dried up pretty quick too.

I've always wondered how tourists can't sense more obvious scams, like when the carpet seller says where are you from, and aha! My brother lives there and he has a carpet shop but he is over his import quota... if you could buy a carpet, I will ship it to you and then he will pay for it in cash, double what you paid me! What is your credit card number? Generally I have that uneasy feeling right from the start and that's when I know I'm out of there.

"No thanks", I replied.

Oh, but it's great hash and you've gotta try this hash and howzabout if I give you a little sample for $5?

"No thanks", I replied, "and besides, all I have is two bucks".

Okay, no problem, two bucks is fine. Here, walk with me and try to look casual and then shake my hand.

At this point, even though I knew this guy was grifting, I couldn't resist. I wanted the story I tell you now, and I was willing to drop a deuce to get it. I gave him the two dollars, walked along with him looking casual (I may have whistled, for extra 'casual' effect) and shook his hand.

When I brought my hand back, it had a wee lump of road tar in it. If memory serves, there was even still a pebble in the tar. And of course he was hightailing it after our big "drug drop".

The best part came the next day. I was walking up Church street to go get some groceries when I saw him pulling the same exact scam on someone else. He looked over and saw me and he and the someone else ducked down one of the many stairwells on Church. I assume he recognized me and didn't want to chance my "anger".I kick myself, to this day, for not having the fun with it that I could have had.

For one, I could have spoiled this pigeon for him, and saved some dude who might actually have wanted hash from blowing any coin whatsoever on road tar.

I could probably have shaken him down for whatever chump change he was carrying, on the grounds that he "ripped me off".

I was tired of walking downtown avoiding eye contact, or unnerved everytime i was hit up.

As the begging situation grew worse, I realized that by allowing the path of least resistance, I was allowing myself to be victimized.

Now, I just challenge everything proposed.

"Got any change?"
--For what?
"I haven't eaten in two days"
--why? You need directions to the Salvation Armys mens hostel? A soup kitchen? It's free why starve?
Why would you not go get a free meal after not eating for 2 days?
"I need a cup of coffee"
-- Y'know, I do too. I'll buy you one.

Ask them where they work, what happened to their welfare cheque, whens the last time they had a drink, a smoke, got high. Make Them Feel Uncomfortable.

If that won't work, ask them if they have change for a $10. If they do, ask them If you can borrow 2 bucks then. Or my favorite, Have you made The Lord Jesus Christ your personal Savior, and do you need help to find the way my brother?

The scammers then hesitate to hit you up twice, and the ones who truly need, or are in a jam will be the only ones asking.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Well, I usually find "sorry" works well enough if I'm not going to give them anything, but I do admit, the whole "Have you met my Saviour, Jesus Christ?" angle makes me laugh.

I heard a variation, wherein on a plane or bus or theatre, if someone asks if the seat next to you is taken, reply "Only by Jesus, but I'm sure He won't mind if you sit with us". Leaves you room for your bags and such.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
There's no reason to be afraid or victimized when someone asks you for money and you don't want to give it. Just say, "No," or "Sorry, no," and walk on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
And likely smart-ass putdowns like Farmaggedon was talking about probably wouldn't be helpful in a situation like that in any case.

---

Agreed. I mostly just start looking for a place to flee in such instances.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmageddon:
Pan handling is so sucesfull because the majority of folks shell out due to fear, or fear of confrontation, or just convienience.
( Here...just go away.)

I was tired of walking downtown avoiding eye contact, or unnerved everytime i was hit up.

As the begging situation grew worse, I realized that by allowing the path of least resistance, I was allowing myself to be victimized.

Now, I just challenge everything proposed.

"Got any change?"
--For what?
"I haven't eaten in two days"
--why? You need directions to the Salvation Armys mens hostel? A soup kitchen? It's free why starve?
Why would you not go get a free meal after not eating for 2 days?
"I need a cup of coffee"
-- Y'know, I do too. I'll buy you one.

Ask them where they work, what happened to their welfare cheque, whens the last time they had a drink, a smoke, got high. Make Them Feel Uncomfortable.

If that won't work, ask them if they have change for a $10. If they do, ask them If you can borrow 2 bucks then. Or my favorite, Have you made The Lord Jesus Christ your personal Savior, and do you need help to find the way my brother?

The scammers then hesitate to hit you up twice, and the ones who truly need, or are in a jam will be the only ones asking.

F

---

Reading this post reminded me of an old song...

quote:

---

Say, that reminds me of another amusing anecdote
This guy comes up to me on the street and says he hasn't had a bite in three days
Well, I knew what he meant
But just to be funny, I took a big bite out of his jugular vein
And he's yellin' and screamin' and bleeding all over
And I'm like "Hey, come on, don'tcha get it?"
But he just keeps rolling around on the sidewalk, bleeding, and screaming
(screaming sounds)
You know, just completely missing the irony of the whole situation
Man, some people just can't take a joke, you know?

---

[ 15 June 2005: Message edited by: Gir Draxon ]

I can see why some would find them offensive. But to just challenge the individual thats lying to your face? Do you truly think they ALL want the money for food and shelter? Most Agressive pan handlers are addicts, and addicts have a tendancy for erratic or violent behavior when desperate.

Quote: That has never happened to me, and while I don't doubt it happens on the very odd occasion, I think that's a very, very odd exception. And likely smart-ass putdowns like Farmaggedon was talking about probably wouldn't be helpful in a situation like that in any case.

While I'm glad it's never happened to you, I assure you it happens every hour.And when it does happen to you, that sick little feeling of pseudo fear isn't fun. Challenging pan handlers moves them on quickly to easier marks.

Smart ass remarks? If they can swallow their pride enough to beg me for coins, they can explain truthfully why they are asking. If it's a line of bullsh*t, and they are feeding an addiction, I'm not going to do them the disservice of enabling.
Better to buy the individual a cup of coffee or a hamburger then give them the opertunity to feed their vice.
If they have a days worth of money, ( Have change for a $10 ? ) Then they don't need mine, do they?

Poor-bashing is not allowed on babble. If that's going to be tricky for you, maybe you should post elsewhere?

I'm not poor bashing. I'm not stating that those in desperate need should not be allowed to beg.

Doug: That link suggestion for that t-shirt was crass, rude and uncalled for, as well as being very offensive. Did I ever refer to the homeless as fecal matter? Take your practive of labeling individuals after skimming posts elsewhere.

The topic of the thread was NOT about those in need, looking for change for shelter or a hot meal but THOSE who seem to panhandle for an income, or to repetitivly ask or hassle those for change making pan handling a job.
My comments were not directed to those that were begging out of nesesity to secure the basic needs to survive, but those who see it as an easy source of income, and abuse the charitable instincts of others.

This knee jerk reaction, to claim I'm poor bashing, I feel is unjustified. Perhaps I was unclear, or did not state my position eloquently.
If so, I appologise.

However, I do have a problem with enabeling addiction. If someone aproaches me for change, I would rather see it go to a hot meal, or a cup of coffee. I do not see why I should not offer to purchase the meal or the coffee instead of providing the means for the individual to carry on a destructive habit. Why is this so offensive?

I have had run-ins with aggressive or insulting panhandlers. I think they can be intimidating, especially to women. But creeps driving big cars who leer etc are even worse.

"Dude, I didn't even ask you for anything" he said in a somewhat irritated tone.

"Sorry", I replied. "I thought you were going to ask me for some change".

I made my purchase and left. He was still sitting outside the door, and when I walked past him he said "What, still got no change??", again in an irritated tone.

I briefly considered pointing out to him that on the way in he apparently didn't ask me for change, and on the way out he seemed to think he had, but I didn't bother. Maybe I should have, then given him my silver for listening through my pedantism. Win-win!

My personal non-favourite are the guys who'll "get the door" for you at an ATM or a store. Boy, there's a valuable service! Will ten bucks cover it? Sheesh! I will admit, however, that at some level it works. I momentarily feel like I owe them.

quote:

---

My personal non-favourite are the guys who'll "get the door" for you at an ATM or a store. Boy, there's a valuable service! Will ten bucks cover it? Sheesh! I will admit, however, that at some level it works. I momentarily feel like I owe them.

---

[ 24 June 2005: Message edited by: Nikita ]

When I used to live on College St., in Toronto, a homeless guy always hung out right in front of my apartment. Every time I came out the door, he was there. Of course I couldn't give him a toonie every day, but I sometimes did. But he seemed content that I always greeted him (he was, after all, my neighbour). But his warmest and sincerest thanks came once when I was walking home from the beer store with two six-packs of Corona. "Can I have a beer?" he asks, clearly expecting me to say no.

Well, I had 12 of them, and the bottles were right there sticking out -- what the heck, I thought. I gave him one. "Gee, thanks, man. THANK YOU so much. That is a heartfelt 'thank you.' It comes from the *bottom* of my heart. I really mean it," he said. No doubt!

I'm sorry, but most of this thread until now has looked just like I imagine a right-wing forum on the topic would be, just without all the overt "those lazy bums should all just get a job" crap.

I live in downtown Toronto by choice. I have an apartment, with a key. That's privilege.

I refuse to engage in a "I feel victimized/guilty when asked for spare change" discussion. Whatever "discomfort" I may or may not feel when I give or don't give to people asking for money has nothing to do with the social structures that have put people on the street. Emphasizing our "feelings" is not the issue.

Focussing on personal experiences of "scammers" is like focussing on "people who rip off welfare"; it adds very little to the larger discussion of who carries privilege and what those of us who do can do about it.

And before someone says "then what can we do?" here's a list:
*educate yourself. Read books, talk to people
*volunteer at a soup kitchen or food bank
*donate money to grassroots organizations in your community
*lobby for affordable housing

One caveat though. Personal safety is not a luxury, and is a strong concern, especially among women and other groups more likely to be exposed to violence ("people of colour", gay men, and ... the homeless). I have every right to defend myself including calling the police on someone who threatens my physical safety - and it has happened - whether he is an itinerant or a guy in a big new car. Nothing "right-wing" about that.

quote:

---

Focussing on personal experiences of "scammers" is like focussing on "people who rip off welfare"; it adds very little to the larger discussion of who carries privilege and what those of us who do can do about it.

---

In fact, now I feel like running out and giving spare change to the homeless and destitute. Makes you realize the poor bastards don't stand a chance with the professional cons and crooks we've got running this goddamn country. We should all be mad as hell, and yell out the windows that we're not going to take it any more!.

[ 27 June 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

I think panhandlers need 'change' of a different kind, and anyone who accosts you in public should understand that they are opening themselves up to any kind of reaction.

Two months ago, I saw her in the bins and brought her a few cases of empties. I told her that she could knock on my door on weekends only and I would just give her my empties. She thanked me but has never come by. I just leave my empties to the side of the bins for her and she routinely picks them up and they are recycled.

quote:

---

In the same spirit as Farmageddon

---

Well that's just it. It seemed, to me at least, that his responses were a bit mean spirited. Didn't come from a good place, y'know?

quote:

---

I'm more irritated when I read a gas bill or fill up the pumps.

---

• During Brian Mulroney's time as PM, some say over $100 million in CN assets were turned over to Route Canada for $23 million. Following the collapse of Route Canada some two years later, workers discovered their pension contributions and unemployment insurance premiums had been spent. Was that a perfect con or what ?.
• Canadian's provide extension of the Mineral Exploration Tax Credit for the mining industry and the renewal of subsidies to the private nuclear industry. They've received Canadian taxpayer handouts totaling $17.5 billion dollars.
• Canadian taxpayers' dollars still contribute to sub-standard and even life-threatening environmental conditions, says Elizabeth May, Executive Director of the Sierra Club of Canada. Air pollution indirectly kills as many as 16,000 Canadians each year, and results in hundreds of thousands of incidents of illness, according to the Government of Canada's own statistics.
• Our agriculture industry is losing more money than it makes. In 2004 it took $4.9 billion in crop insurance and taxpayer handouts for the industry to realize a paltry $1.6 billion in earnings - and that was a big improvement on the year before
• Well dressed con artists in suits from Bell Helicopter, General Motors, Nortel and many others come to Canadian taxpayers every year with caps in hand and receive billions of dollars in free money. And that's after we pay for the infrastructure that provides them with the means to exist here.

I think that contempt for the poor in Canada is entirely misplaced and is meant to draw attention away from the real con artists and their political accomplices on the right. We are all marks, and right wing politicians are the corporate shills in this ongoing con that has cost us many more billions of dollars than the poor could ever dream of. At least the poor have the integrity to ask us in person for whatever we can spare, and I haven't always been hit up for change. You can always offer a cup of hot coffee and a sandwich. You'll see true appreciation and gratitude on their faces for it. I find it's the thousand dollar suits who are robbing us blind.

[ 28 June 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartman:

My father purchased an extremely energy efficient wood stove. At 5 grand, it is something like 95% efficient but had to be brought in from Germany. He heats his home with it and even cooks on it. As such, he never uses any gas but keeps it connected in case of emergency. These corporate jerks, however, still make him pay a rather significant monthly charge for the possibility that he may use it. He is very angry when he reads his gas bill.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmageddon:
However, I do have a problem with enabeling addiction. If someone aproaches me for change, I would rather see it go to a hot meal, or a cup of coffee.

---

quote:

---

What emergency could possibly require gas? Firewood shortage? Matchstick failure? Wondering what the monthly non-usage charge is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartman:

He worries that if it gets extremely cold out that he may require gas particularly as he has a gas stove too. He also travels to Europe a few times a year and the furnace is convenient.

In terms of the monthly charge, I will ask him about this again. Don't quote me, but I seem to recall that it was about $20.00 or so? I know that may not be much, but the point is that he believes they should be rewarding those who consume less rather than punishing those who use so little.

---

I think $20 monthly is rather a high sum for having the privilege of preserving the option to buy something that he may need in the future.

quote:

---

I have often imagined when someone shakes their coin-filled hat/cap/cup at me (not even bothering to explain the context), what would happen if I said, "oh, for me? Thank you!" and help myself to some change.

---

They're damned either way with you lot. If they talk they're "making you feel sorry for them" or "harassing" you, and if they don't talk well thats bad too. Personally I find the quiet ones less intrusive, so I'm more favourably inclined.

quote:

---

They're damned either way with you lot.

---

Hehe. "Us lot". I love it.

Anyway, I don't actually see anyone complaining about the things you seem to think "us lot" are complaining about. "Us lot" are just sharing the odd story of how we deal with people asking us for money. I had always assumed that Kingston was a "big city" like Toronto or Hamilton is, but just in case you're a country bumpkin whose primary experience with a panhandle comes from literally handling a pan, let me clue you in on a little secret: some panhandlers are scammers.

I'll give you a moment to collect yourself. It's never easy having your entire cosmology shaken.

Okay now. So the fact that some panhandlers are in fact scam artists doesn't take away from the fact that many others aren't, but neither does the fact that many others aren't take away from the fact that some of us deal with being asked for money, in various and sundry ways, every day and it's interesting to talk about it.

[ 04 July 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Why do we lump the poor into the same dynamic and then throw a blanket of excuse over them all....and God forbid if we even inquire on how they ended up in dire need?

If you have mental health concerns and ask me for change, I will give.
If you are downtroden, need a second chance, a helping hand, or have been victimized or neglected, I will give.

If you are an aggresive panhandling addict, I will not. Not because of moral superiority, but because I am taking part in your destruction by doing so.

You complain about goverment corruption, how we are taken as marks by the suits. Of course we are. But the issue is seperate no? The poor are not all the same. Treat the addicts, don't feed the addictions. Feed the poor. Know the diffrence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
I had always assumed that Kingston was a "big city" like Toronto or Hamilton is, but just in case you're a country bumpkin whose primary experience with a panhandle comes from literally handling a pan, let me clue you in on a little secret: some panhandlers are scammers.

---

Alright, Captain Obvious, got any other tips you care to share?

Some panhandlers are scammers, yes. But not every discussion on panhandlers needs to revolve around how horrible they are for their little scams.

As for Kingston, its not a "big city like Toronto". There are a couple of panhandlers on Princess Street at times, but they are confined to that area and few in number: Kingston reminds me of Ottawa about 20 years ago. I'm not from Kingston, I moved here after living a few blocks north of the Market in Ottawa for over a decade. So, I know a thing or two about panhandlers; thanks anyway for your "secret tips".

And oops, looks like you let your snootiness out of the bag again; "country bumpkin"? Now all rural people are idiots or something? What a disingenious stereotype.

Like I say, its plenty obvious that about half the left is just the same old, same old snooty elite that's been around for ages, leftism replacing Christianity as their ticket to assumed moral and intellectual superiority.

quote:

---

Okay now. So the fact that some panhandlers are in fact scam artists doesn't take away from the fact that many others aren't, but neither does the fact that many others aren't take away from the fact that some of us deal with being asked for money, in various and sundry ways, every day and it's interesting to talk about it.

---

No doubt, but, it doesn't need to characterize every discussion on the issue does it? And, er, how is jingling a hatful of change "scamming"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmageddon:
Why are we bashing the poor?

Why do we lump the poor into the same dynamic and then throw a blanket of excuse over them all....and God forbid if we even inquire on how they ended up in dire need?

---

Anyone with an ounce of curiosity knows that falling into poverty in Canada is like falling off a log. Before Brian Goddamn Mulroney's FTA was signed, Canada created over 3 million full-time payroll jobs during the 13.25 years leading up to freer trade with the Yanks. And in the 13.25 years after FTA, about 1 380 000 full time jobs were created in Canada. And we had more people in Canada during this last time frame and all the while exporting more of our goddamn lumber and oil and gas and hydro-electric power southward than ever before. Industry Canada said our economic performance after FTA was about the worst of all industrialized nations.

quote:

---

If you have mental health concerns and ask me for change, I will give.
If you are downtroden, need a second chance, a helping hand, or have been victimized or neglected, I will give.

---

And who are you to know who has mental health issues or who is downtrodden ?. If I were the one doing the asking, and you proceeded to interrogate me about my personal situation before qualifying for your good Samaritan deed of the day, I'd prolly tellya to go screw yourself, empty belly aside.

quote:

---

If you are an aggresive panhandling addict, I will not. Not because of moral superiority, but because I am taking part in your destruction by doing so.

---

There is no cure for drug addiction, and those addicts you see with palsy-like tremors are probably on their last legs as it is. Your generous one or two bits isn' going to make a difference for him or her anyway, so spare them any Puritan lectures if you have a heart.

quote:

---

You complain about goverment corruption, how we are taken as marks by the suits. Of course we are. But the issue is seperate no? The poor are not all the same. Treat the addicts, don't feed the addictions. Feed the poor. Know the diffrence.

---

It's just that you seem like such a smart fellow, and I just wanted you to know that I think it. The poor are not a financial problem in Canada. Their situation is more moral and ethical because it would take a fraction of the money we dole out in taxpayer handouts to corporate welfare queens in order to give a helping hand in a country where everything comes at a premium. so why not focus off the "useless eaters" thread and make some relevant comments about who really does rip off and con Canadian's out of our tax dollars ?.

Corporate welfare queens come begging to taxpayers with out-stretched hands and demand a helluva lot more than the poor bastards who can't find decent jobs. It really is the same subject, imo, and you're the one who is attempting to derail this thread with personal attack for my daring to point out who the real parasites are in our society. You don't see them very often because they're that good at con'ing you out of your spare change. Corporate welfare bums and white collar criminals don't have the integrity to ask us for cash handouts in person though.

I work for a charitable organization that provides life skill rehab from those with mental health concerns who are at a level of wellness and have a desire to try community living.

As for the down trodden.....Like, WTH. You need a cat scan? Like I'm going to pull out a clipboard and do an interview on the street to see if you qualify? Theres no interogation process. Just a gut check and perhaps a retort to a bald face lie.

Quote: so why not focus off the "useless eaters" thread and make some relevant comments about who really does rip off and con Canadian's out of our tax dollars

Jesus. Start a thread to that topic then, instead of bending every thread to your pet peeve. There are other things to discuss besides the sky is friggin' blue. I agree with every point you have made, no arguments at all. But perhaps broaden your scope to include other issues, or sub issues.

Q: I'd prolly tellya to go screw yourself, empty belly aside

If you were scammin, yup. Because the truth is an ugly thing. If you were hungry, I doubt that very much.

The topic, ( Just FYI )
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's one thing to give money to those on the street who need it but if the same man comes to your house three times in a month looking for money, where do you draw your charitable line? auntie will know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

The topic, ( Just FYI )

---

Was not actually about 'panhandlers' ... it was about a mooching neighbour pestering someone in their home. Bit different.

The article actually started with,

quote:

---

I have always been one to give spare change to those on the streets who ask for it. I don't even care what they might spend the money on. Who am I to judge?

---

quote:

---

Why are we bashing the poor?

---

I dunno. Different? Not very. A thirty mile diffrence isn't neigbours and to ask for cash isn't the Simpsons / Flanders senario, but I guess not true panhandling.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BleedingHeart:

Bashing panhandlers and bashing the poor are two very different things.

---

Short translation - "Bashing beggars is good"

I rest my case as to the levels this thread has stooped to ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
But we seem to have gotten Edgewaters' forehead vein throbbing, so let's not talk about panhandlers anymore.

---

Looks to me like you're getting pretty defensive about your virulent hatred for the less fortunate. Pretty typical ... I think there's a natural urge among some of us to attribute our success entirely to ourselves because few want to admit the role that absence of catastrophically bad fortune may have played. So some lash out at those who have had bad fortune, in order to deny its existance. I'm all for whatever delusions make people feel better, but not at the expense of anyone else.

[ 06 July 2005: Message edited by: Edgewaters ]

quote:

---

Looks to me like you're getting pretty defensive about your virulent hatred for the less fortunate

---

Uh, if this thread or anything in it counts as "virulent hatred" in your mind then just out of curiousity, what word have you reserved for things that are truly "virulent hatred"? Or have you shot your wad in that respect?

Clearly it offends you, deeply, that someone might have thoughts or questions when a total stranger shoves a hat in their face and expects it filled. I'm afraid that no matter how much umbrage you take at this, that doesn't promote it to the level of "virulent hatred".

I think there is a natural urge among a lot of us to view the absence of personal responsibility and acountability as normal and thus excusable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edgewaters:
I think there's a natural urge among some of us to attribute our success entirely to ourselves because few want to admit the role that absence of catastrophically bad fortune may have played. So some lash out at those who have had bad fortune, in order to deny its existance. I'm all for whatever delusions make people feel better, but not at the expense of anyone else.

---

I attribute whatever modest success I had to a good head start that came via the birth lottery, followed by phenomenal good luck in getting opportunities, then working entirely too hard in a desperate attempt to stave off a change in that luck.

What incentive do they have to thrust themselves into an already saturated low wage workforce second in size only to a few other conservative-led nations ?. Will a McJob cover the median rent across Canadian cities, cover transportation costs, clothing and put food on the table ?.

Or do those types of panhandlers fall outside the narrowly focused group of beggars in this discussion ?. I know me and all my friends have had the misfortune of panhandlers ringing their doorbells off the wall on several occasions. It's epidemic, you know.

[ 06 July 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edgewaters:

If this thread and comments like the above are what "progressive politics" are coming to in this country, count me out.

---

Hey hey hey... I never said I was progressive. I don't hate the poor - I probably live consistently well under the poverty line myself. And I have come close to being homeless. I don't think panhandling is a solution, that's my personal opinion, which I'm entitled to.

But my main point was that it's a free world, and street panhandling is a little like street theatre - anything goes. If someone accosts me for money, I don't owe them anything. Even if I was a 'privileged' person, I don't owe them anything. I don't owe them money, I don't owe them sympathy. I don't know them. Just like if a Jehovah's Witness came up to me wanting my time and attention. I am free to respond in whatever way feels appropriate to me - obviously not with violence or condemnation, since that accomplishes nothing. But if someone's going to jingle a hat full of coins at me, why should I respond in the expected way? In that moment exists an entire world of creative possibility. It's a meeting. It's an interaction. They've opened the door to that meeting, so they have invited a reaction of some kind.

It's hard for me to respond to someone as an equal if he or she is begging money from me. Jarring that expected dynamic in a friendly way might be communicating a different kind of brotherhood or sisterhood. In that moment, I can treat them like an equal, perhaps. Which is much more rewarding, I believe, than giving them a toonie, or feeling sorry for them.

[ 06 July 2005: Message edited by: jas ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
[QB] Or have you shot your wad in that respect?

---

I see your getting a little excited.

quote:

---

Clearly it offends you, deeply, that someone might have thoughts or questions when a total stranger shoves a hat in their face and expects it filled.

---

The ones who sit speechlessly with a hat don't "shove the hat in your face" ... they sit there with it off to the side. What are you, a country bumpkin? Never actually seen a panhandler before or something?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
[QB]

Hey hey hey... I never said I was progressive. I don't hate the poor - I probably live consistently well under the poverty line myself. And I have come close to being homeless. I don't think panhandling is a solution, that's my personal opinion, which I'm entitled to.

---

Same here, pretty much. I've been in situations where some might panhandle, I just dealt with it in a different way, because I don't think it's right except as an utterly last resort. But, I could imagine situations where there was no other option. I've just never been in one.

quote:

---

If someone accosts me for money, I don't owe them anything. Even if I was a 'privileged' person, I don't owe them anything. I don't owe them money, I don't owe them sympathy.

---

Agreed. You don't owe them money, or sympathy. That doesn't mean though that you have any obligation to defend or rationalize why you don't give them money or sympathy. It's enough that you don't ... I think this is the thing people have a hard time getting around. Alot of that probably comes from the responses you get from the aggressive panhandlers when you don't pass them change, someone calls you a jerk and you're sort of forced, in your mind at least, to rationalize why you didn't give change. It isn't necessary, you don't owe them anything, and that's all there is to it. The thing is not all of them are aggressive or abusive about it, a good many just sit and jingle their hats or hold a sign ... so you don't pass change, its not something you really need to think about if they don't speak to you.

quote:

---

I don't know them. Just like if a Jehovah's Witness came up to me wanting my time and attention. I am free to respond in whatever way feels appropriate to me - obviously not with violence or condemnation, since that accomplishes nothing. But if someone's going to jingle a hat full of coins at me, why should I respond in the expected way? In that moment exists an entire world of creative possibility. It's a meeting. It's an interaction. They've opened the door to that meeting, so they have invited a reaction of some kind.

---

Nah. The Jehovah's Witness, like the aggressive panhandler, opens the door to an interaction and wants your time and attention. But the passive panhandler jingling his hat doesn't. It's plainly obvious that he's really not after your attention or your time. I don't think he should have to serve as some sort of psychological public pisspot about the great debate of determinism vs free will or anything. Everyone wants to give them a piece of their mind on the subject, and it's the passive and less-threatening ones who bear the brunt of the public outrage that mostly stems from the behaviour of the more aggressive ones (that nobody wants to get going). All you're really doing is encouraging panhandlers to be aggressive.

quote:

---

It's hard for me to respond to someone as an equal if he or she is begging money from me.

---

But alot of them aren't looking for any kind of response at all. Pass change or don't, there's no interaction really happening anymore than when you buy a ticket or pay a toll fee. There are a few that are, and in those cases I think you're free to respond in anyway you like, the ones that follow you around or curse after you pass by etc.

quote:

---

Jarring that expected dynamic in a friendly way might be communicating a different kind of brotherhood or sisterhood. In that moment, I can treat them like an equal, perhaps. Which is much more rewarding, I believe, than giving them a toonie, or feeling sorry for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmageddon:
I think there is a natural urge among a lot of us to view the absence of personal responsibility and acountability as normal and thus excusable.

---

The biggest causal factor behind homelessness revolves around serious mental illnesses. Are you suggesting that mental illnesses are caused by personal irresponsibility? Genetic predisposition and early childhood play the biggest roles. There is a certain degree of determinism in the problem, and that's just a fact borne out by massive amounts of research. It's often concurrent with drug abuse and alcoholism, because these too are factors associated with mental illness ... self-medicating behaviour. You're better off talking about responsibility issues in relation to cancer than you are talking about them in relation to the homeless problem.

But if it makes you feel better, feel free to indulge in hyperemotional Bronze Age ideas about human behaviour. Don't mind new fangled things like the scientific method.

[ 07 July 2005: Message edited by: Edgewaters ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Clearly it offends you, deeply, that someone might have thoughts or questions when a total stranger shoves a hat in their face and expects it filled. I'm afraid that no matter how much umbrage you take at this, that doesn't promote it to the level of "virulent hatred".

---

How many panhandlers have shoved a hat or cup or open hand in any of our faces ?. I think if we were to spring break in El Salvador, or venture away from the tourist resort near Santo Domingo, then we might be accosted and aggressively panhandled. Uncle Sam's free trading neighbors tend to promote abject poverty with those kinds of end results. The poor in Canada haven't quite reached that stage where they see a $five dollar bill only a few times a year during tourist season.

In my own experience in Canada's major cities, I have approached homeless adults and street kids, and who just seem to be standing in the shadows or simply trying to stay warm, and I've offered them what bit of change I had at the time. I've read about families living out of their cars in Toronto after a period when some 60 000 defaulted on mortgages in the GTA. Magoo must be channeling Scrooge because I've never once observed a disenfranchised Canadian shoving anything in anyone's face or demanding money. It's quite over the top, if you ask me. People like Magoo should be more worried about white collar crime, political corruption and corporate welfare queens costing this country and that one to the south hundreds of billions of dollars every year. Now that would be an interesting thread all by itself. Poor bashing is entirely unnecessary and unbecoming of someone with an education. Poor-bashing is a tool of right-wing "think" tanks, tools themselves of corporations and banking elite, and designed to make the cuts to welfare and unemployment insurance seem legitimate. And all the while this low level war on the poor takes place, corporate welfare handouts and low wage economies further insulate the rich and their wealth from free market forces.

[ 07 July 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

What offends me is you bitch about the ones who talk and then turn around and bitch about the ones who don't. Like I've already said a few times, and you've so far clearly been utterly incapable of accounting for it.

---

I rechecked this thread for any evidence that I might have "bitched" about panhandlers talking, and I'm not seeing it. Unless you think that commenting on what they say is the same as saying they shouldn't talk.

It's too bad my podunk upbringing in a small Outer Mongolian village didn't prepare me for these sophisiticated concepts of yours, Magoo.

[ 07 July 2005: Message edited by: Edgewaters ]

quote:

---

nor are they allowed to speak with Your Highness in an unacceptable manner.

---

Yes, asshat. Scamming me is unacceptable. You can feel free to keep calling me Your Highness if you'd like.

What is it you just don't get about this thread? A few people talking about the various scams they've been on the business end of, and suddenly you're all sulky that we're not being progressive enough for you.

And you just don't seem to get it, do you? Nobody's saying that a panhandler cannot speak. Nobody is saying that a panhandler must speak. But how's this for clarification:

If you're going to expect me to give you some free money, and you wish to speak to me, don't tell me a lie.

If you're going to expect me to give you some free money, and you don't wish to speak to me, don't thrust your ballcap at me like you're some kind of human tollbooth.

Anything else is fine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edgewaters:
But aggressive panhandlers do exist, and for the most part, are obviously suffering from a serious mental condition above and beyond any substance abuse problems they might have. I've had them follow me, scream at me, throw things at me, one even chased me a few blocks yelling about how I murdered his dog and was watching him through walls. Homelessness is partially an economics issue, but the panhandling problem goes even beyond that ... all the funding in the world wouldn't completely alleviate the problem until people start to understand that in terms of a certain portion of the homeless population it is a mental health issue more than anything else.

---

I agree somewhat with this, although I'd like to point out that all of us would show signs of a "serious mental condition" if we didn't have a reasonable place to live and enough money to feed ourselves properly. The very aggressive panhandling described here does not sound like mental illness to me, however, but substance abuse.

quote:

---

Originally posted by EFA:
When Riverview was downsized, many, many patients were released into the community with no support whatsoever. It's hardly surprising that after years of institutionalization they weren't prepared to cope.

---

There's that, and then there's the fact that on top of institutionalization many of them simply can't survive on their own without supports for various reasons. Something as simple as strange mannerisms or an odd appearance can prevent a person from getting a job or an apartment, not to mention there are a number of inhibitions associated with mental illness which also prevent people from interacting normally. And, once they're on the street, it's really really hard to bring them back from it.

Of course there is a growing new phenomena of people who don't have any mental illness at all and still end up homeless ... the "working homeless" explosion in Toronto in recent years for instance. That's purely economics.

quote:

---

For the most part, they're ignored until there is an incident and then the public reacts with it's usual tut-tutting and there's the usual talk about why aren't these people locked up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
[QB]

Yes, asshat.

---

The ugly loop here is is that if you have a serious mental condition you can't find enough money to feed yourself and find a decent place to live.
Untreated ( read: unmedicated )schizophrenia can include bizzare agressive and in some cases violent behavior wich is commonly mistaken as substance abuse or addiction behavior.

Quote: Edgewaters: The biggest causal factor behind homelessness revolves around serious mental illnesses. Are you suggesting that mental illnesses are caused by personal irresponsibility?

Don't be obtuse, and stop painting the poor with one brush. The poor is not nessisarily the poor is not nessisarily the poor. What pisses me off is when you lump the mentaly ill homeless with the aggresive crack head who accosts grandma at the ATM. I've posted repetedly that I have no problem, and always do, give what I can to those who are in need of food. And if you gave a moment of your precious time to engage in a 30 second conversation instead of defensively flinging money at the sniffer, perhaps your charitable contribution could go to an individual who needed a meal instead of a fix. Reguardless, you do nothing for society, or for the individual when you enable addictions.

What the mental health community needs desperatly is the recognition that not all those suffering from mental health concerns fit the new community living models. Institutions are publicly percieved as insane asylums, when in truth there are some that need that level of care. More semi-supervised housing centers need to be developed.
Multiple models are needed to insure that all with mental health concerns are housed in a safe enviroment relative to their level of wellness.The pittance given by the social safety nets for housing gets you a room is a shitty downtown rooming house surrounded by addicts who victimize you every cheque day. But thats ok. Because your nice mental health support worker with the 175 person case load will pop by to check on you once a month....maybe. One reason why some homeless prefer to try to survive on the street then in the system.

F

[ 07 July 2005: Message edited by: Farmageddon ]

quote:

---

Untreated (read: unmedicated )schizophrenia can include bizzare agressive and in some cases violent behavior wich is commonly mistaken as substance abuse or addiction behavior.

---

Whoa. The mentally ill are no more violent than any other sector and the "violent lunatic" is an ongoing myth that just has to be dispelled. The treatment for schizophrenia is worse than the disease. The side-effects of "antipsychotic" medication actually cause the mannerisms (awkward gait, repetitive movements, intense staring, etc.) that we think of as signifying mental illness. What you're seeing is the face of the treatment, not the illness.

quote:

---

What the mental health community needs desperatly is the recognition that not all those suffering from mental health concerns fit the new community living models.

---

No, quite the opposite. What they desperately need is to be treated with the rights and dignity that everybody else enjoys. Listen to what they have to say -- try to understand what their needs are.

quote:

---

Institutions are publicly percieved as insane asylums, when in truth there are some that need that level of care.

---

Psychiatric hospitals are prisons. If there are a small percentage of people who actually need to be there, it's most likely from years of being psychiatrized. The only people who should be in prisons are convicted criminals.

quote:

---

More semi-supervised housing centers need to be developed. Multiple models are needed to insure that all with mental health concerns are housed in a safe enviroment relative to their level of wellness.

---

What many psychiatric patients need is merely enough money to maintain a reasonable standard of living. They don't want to live in group homes -- they want apartments. They don't want to go to activity centres -- they want to get part or full-time jobs. They don't want their social activities to be primarily with those who are paid to care. They just want to be citizens.

quote:

---

The pittance given by the social safety nets for housing gets you a room is a shitty downtown rooming house surrounded by addicts who victimize you every cheque day. But thats ok. Because your nice mental health support worker with the 175 person case load will pop by to check on you once a month....maybe.

---

quote:

---

What pisses me off is when you lump the mentaly ill homeless with the aggresive crack head who accosts grandma at the ATM.

---

What? You certainly didn't seem to make any distinction ... and, it isn't that black and white. Your addict panhandler may well be mentally ill as well ... self-medication is a big causal factor behind substance abuse, not to mention, what you describe:

The pittance given by the social safety nets for housing gets you a room is a shitty downtown rooming house surrounded by addicts who victimize you every cheque day.

Which ends up meaning people with mental health issues have higher exposure to substances and the "hard drugs culture".

The actual amounts given under ODSP (this is for Ontario, I don't know about elsewhere) are sufficient as long as you're not living in Ottawa or Toronto, that's not the biggest problem (although in Ottawa and especially Toronto it's pretty bad) ... the biggest problem is that it's almost impossible to get ODSP, even with a diagnosed severe condition. The whole system is set up to make it impossible for low-functioning individuals to even contemplate the nightmare bureaucratic process that application entails (not to mention it can take up to 2 years). It's sort of a mental health triage system.

Edited to add: I'm referring to the provincial benefits program. The CPP bureaucrats, on the other hand, turned me down because I wasn't taking medication. Someone should launch a Charter case about this kind of discrimination. Out of almost 25 working years, I was "disabled" for less than 4 of them. But when my turn came to ask for help, there was none to be had. The only reason I didn't live on the streets was because I relied on the largesse of my family and friends. That's only an option for the very, very lucky few.

[ 07 July 2005: Message edited by: EFA ]

quote:

---

Then, ODSP claimed that this was "income" and decided to make deductions so they could "recover" it. It's all been really unbelievable.

---

My brothers were returning from the theatres after watching "war of the Worlds" (quite good I guess!) and walking by the hospital they met an unfortunate soul who looked pretty banged up. He claimes he'd been in a pretty horrific car accident and needed to take a bus back to XXXXXXXX (not just a city bus). Feeling for this guy who looks to be pretty mangled they gave him $20 which was a substancial amount for any passer by asking for some cash.

About a week later the brother was passing through the park next to the hospital and looky there! Same guy, not only that but he caught the conversation that he was playing to an unsuspecting couple walking by. Car accident, needed money to get the bus out of there.

In quite a huff he approached the fellow and said "let me guess, you need money to take the bus back home because you had an accident". Looking rather ashamed the guy turns and storms off.

Now, having one at your doorstep claiming they need X amount of dollars because XXX happend is pretty bad because it's your personal dwelling but quite frankly, I feel staging a scene in front of a hospital, where you claim to have been traumatized, vintimized and need some passer by's gracious help, I feel is pretty low.

If you're going to solicit money from people for your own personal agenda, do it honestly. It really disturbed me that he did this. If you honestly believed the scenario (with good reason to), you would most likely help the guy out. This however, is slimy.

[ 07 July 2005: Message edited by: Lukewarm ]

This is why I said some cases, not most cases, or even generaly. The violent lunatic tag comes from a violent reaction usually out of percieved danger and fear, not malicious intent or even psycotic break.

Q: The treatment for schizophrenia is worse than the disease. The side-effects of "antipsychotic" medication actually cause the mannerisms (awkward gait, repetitive movements, intense staring, etc.) that we think of as signifying mental illness. What you're seeing is the face of the treatment, not the illness.

I agree. Treatment or no treatment, your life is pretty much a social anxiety plagued living hell. One of the chief reasons schizophrenics stop taking their meds is for relief of the symptoms you accurately describe.

Q: No, quite the opposite. What they desperately need is to be treated with the rights and dignity that everybody else enjoys. Listen to what they have to say -- try to understand what their needs are.

Absolutly. The problem with the powers that be, is that they don't listen, and if they do, thay cant comprehend. They cram folks into assistance models that work for some but not others. No mental health concern is generic, and we are to rigid in the supports we offer.

Q: Psychiatric hospitals are prisons. If there are a small percentage of people who actually need to be there, it's most likely from years of being psychiatrized.

When I say institutional setting , think more of a residential care then psyc.ward. The small percentage of people that need to be in hospital permanently are already there. There is a level of wellness that benifits from fulltime care, supervision and structure.

Q: What many psychiatric patients need is merely enough money to maintain a reasonable standard of living. They don't want to live in group homes -- they want apartments. They don't want to go to activity centres -- they want to get part or full-time jobs. They don't want their social activities to be primarily with those who are paid to care. They just want to be citizens.

Yes. Agreed. But not all can live independently.
What should be in place is a multitude of models so that the client is provided for with preferance, ability and most of all dignity in mind. Some do prefer group homes. Some don't want
or can't work full time, or part time, or at all.
Community living programs are attractive because it sets the client in an enviroment that is secure, comfortable and provides a sence of ...well, community.
Providing a multitude of options couln't hurt.

Edge Q: Your addict panhandler may well be mentally ill as well ... self-medication is a big causal factor behind substance abuse.....
Which ends up meaning people with mental health issues have higher exposure to substances and the "hard drugs culture".

Good point. But I'm still not enabling an addiction weather the addict is mentaly ill or not. The point I was trying to focus on a million years ago on this thread was not to bash the poor, the mentaly ill, or those in need of charity, but to challenge the bullshit spewed by the con artists and scammers who I feel make up a major portion of the aggressive panhandling crowd.

quote:

---

He claimes he'd been in a pretty horrific car accident and needed to take a bus back to XXXXXXXX (not just a city bus).

---

Check the link at the very top of this thread ("broken down car story") for more on this scam.

1. He was all banged up
2. He was in front of a hospital

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lukewarm:
I know, but

1. He was all banged up
2. He was in front of a hospital

It was a bit hard to say "oh yer just fibbin ya big jerk!"

---

Ask if there's someone you could call on your cellphone, or offer to point them in the direction of Traveller's Aid or some similar.

quote:

---

When I say institutional setting , think more of a residential care then psyc.ward.

---

We don't really have that, unless you are meaning psychiatric group homes and these tend to be fairly grim.

quote:

---

The small percentage of people that need to be in hospital permanently are already there. There is a level of wellness that benifits from fulltime care, supervision and structure.

---

There is no mental illness that would require some to live permanently in a hospital, as opposed to, say, organic brain damage or dementia. Full-time care, supervision and structure may be lofty goals but too often they morph into systemic abuse of psychiatric patients.

quote:

---

Yes. Agreed. But not all can live independently.

---

The major problem with having a psychiatric label applied to you is that society teaches you about all the things you "can't" do. Most of these are just horseshit. I'm guessing 80% or more of psychiatrized people would do just fine on their own.

quote:

---

Providing a multitude of options couln't hurt.

---

quote:

---

Obviously he has put some effort into his script, his staging and costuming, including make-up.

---

We have a few here. They teach life skills and independent living and then transfer the clients to a supportive housing program. It's not club med, but it's hardly grim.

Q: There is no mental illness that would require some to live permanently in a hospital, as opposed to, say, organic brain damage or dementia.

Bullshit.

Q: Full-time care, supervision and structure may be lofty goals but too often they morph into systemic abuse of psychiatric patients.

In this decade?

Q: The major problem with having a psychiatric label applied to you is that society teaches you about all the things you "can't" do. Most of these are just horseshit.

Absolutly.

Q: I'm guessing 80% or more of psychiatrized people would do just fine on their own.

You guess wrong. On there own? Screw therapy today, I'm gonna flush my meds and go job hunting? You may want to retract that one.

quote:

---

Q: There is no mental illness that would require some to live permanently in a hospital, as opposed to, say, organic brain damage or dementia.

---

quote:

---

Bullshit.

---

Yeah, you're right. You've painted me right into a corner with that argument, all right. Look, mental illness isn't a permanent condition. Bipolars recover, schizophrenics recover, they all have periods of relative sanity.

quote:

---

Q: Full-time care, supervision and structure may be lofty goals but too often they morph into systemic abuse of psychiatric patients.

---

quote:

---

In this decade?

---

In every decade. BC's Ombudsman did a report on Riverview Hospital and found "systemic abuse" of psychiatric patients there. I can tell you from bitter, bitter experience the routine abuse that psychiatric patients suffer.

quote:

---

Q: I'm guessing 80% or more of psychiatrized people would do just fine on their own.

---

quote:

---

You guess wrong. On there own? Screw therapy today, I'm gonna flush my meds and go job hunting? You may want to retract that one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmageddon:
Full-time care, supervision and structure may be lofty goals but too often they morph into systemic abuse of psychiatric patients.

In this decade?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edgewaters:
Certainly. There's an institution for people with really severe developmental disabilities near where I live, last year they had to adopt a policy requiring all the patients to wear helmets because of the head injuries they've been getting from abusive orderlies.

---

I would have preferred to see these orderlies face criminal proceedings. What's the matter with these sadists?

quote:

---

Institutionalization invariably means some facilities will have high rates of abuse, this is true for the developmentally disabled, psychiatric patients, the elderly, just about any group.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EFA:
I would have preferred to see these orderlies face criminal proceedings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edgewaters:
There's an institution for people with really severe developmental disabilities near where I live, last year they had to adopt a policy requiring all the patients to wear helmets because of the head injuries they've been getting from abusive orderlies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmageddon:
What pisses me off is when you lump the mentaly ill homeless with the aggresive crack head who accosts grandma at the ATM. I've posted repetedly that I have no problem, and always do, give what I can to those who are in need of food. And if you gave a moment of your precious time to engage in a 30 second conversation instead of defensively flinging money at the sniffer, perhaps your charitable contribution could go to an individual who needed a meal instead of a fix. Reguardless, you do nothing for society, or for the individual when you enable addictions.

---

Some of the posters in this thread (including myself) were accused of poor-bashing. In re-reading it, I can only see one post that was legitimate poor-bashing.

The arguments that came up were a digression from the original intent of the thread. But it was an interesting discussion. Edgewater's argument still doesn't ring quite true for me:

quote:

---

Agreed. You don't owe them money, or sympathy. That doesn't mean that you have any obligation to defend or rationalize why you don't....

The Jehovah's Witness, like the aggressive panhandler, opens the door to an interaction and wants your time and attention. But the passive panhandler jingling his hat doesn't. It's plainly obvious that he's really not after your attention or your time. I don't think he should have to serve as some sort of psychological public pisspot about the great debate of determinism vs free will or anything. Everyone wants to give them a piece of their mind on the subject, and it's the passive and less-threatening ones who bear the brunt of the public outrage that mostly stems from the behaviour of the more aggressive ones (that nobody wants to get going)...

... alot of them aren't looking for any kind of response at all. Pass change or don't, there's no interaction really happening anymore than when you buy a ticket or pay a toll fee....

... alot of them are actually quite averse to human contact, period ... and it doesn't really do them any favours to force it on them.

---

But who's forcing who? If someone asks me for money, the only responses you're saying I'm allowed are:

give them money
say 'no'
say 'sorry, no' or
ignore them.

Their initiation of the interaction is not 'their fault', and any engagement of them on my part would be inappropriate because (I'm still trying to figure this out) their situation has been caused by larger socio-economic forces that I should understand (as if I don't in my own life?), and the last thing they need is 'confrontation' from me. (as if I'm itching to confront them).

Why am I not allowed to respond in any (legal, moral, ethical) way I feel like? In this instance you're giving more 'rights' to the panhandler than you're giving me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
If someone asks me for money, the only responses you're saying I'm allowed are:

give them money
say 'no'
say 'sorry, no' or
ignore them.

---

quote:

---

... alot of them aren't looking for any kind of response at all.

... alot of them are actually quite averse to human contact, period ... and it doesn't really do them any favours to force it on them.

---

[ 13 September 2005: Message edited by: jas ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
When I interact with a clerk in a store, it's usually a friendly one, especially if they're friendly. It makes these everyday transactions more human. I like it. To say that I should have no feelings about someone asking me for money on the street, or that at the very least I should keep my feelings to myself, is taking away my freedom of expression and movement, but not saying anything about theirs. Do you see what I'm saying?

---

Nope.

And I think we can blame politician's for the general air of mistrust among people in general. But unlike politician's and their corporate and banking friends who pay them to lie, cheat and accept taxpayer handouts without full approval of the voting public, I think most people who are reduced to begging are bearing their all to us. Corporate welfare bums and the rich never have to degrade themselves before millions of dollars are handed to them by all of us and some of us who may even feel that begging is immoral or unethical. But whether we think so or not, the needs of poor Canadian's are real.

[ 14 September 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Nope.

And I think we can blame politician's for the general air of mistrust among people in general. But unlike politician's and their corporate and banking friends who pay them to lie, cheat and accept taxpayer handouts without full approval of the voting public, I think most people who are reduced to begging are bearing their all to us. Corporate welfare bums and the rich never have to degrade themselves before millions of dollars are handed to them by all of us and some of us who may even feel that begging is immoral or unethical. But whether we think so or not, the needs of poor Canadian's are real.

---

quote:

---

audra only showed up to chastise farmageddon while others (say... magoo) have been just as guilty. oh wait.. i forgot... magoo is a "guilty pleasure"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Nice thinly veiled accusation there. Do you think you could muster up enough courage to accuse Audra out loud? Or are you too cowardly? Show us some spine, person.

---

Too bad that she's the one who decides on should and shouldn't, and not you. Don't take it too personally though; it's just that she's smarter, and her head is on top of her shoulders and not nestled snugly in her sigmoid colon.

If questioning the honesty of some panhandlers has suddenly become "poor bashing" then what word do you use for actual poor bashing? Poor murdering? Tie your knee to your other leg if you can't keep it from jerking.

[ 14 September 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Actually, I think you were saying that Audra lets me get away with a lot of bullshit that (I) shouldn't. That's what you really meant to say, right? If only you'd had the balls?

Too bad that she's the one who decides on should and shouldn't, and not you. Don't take it too personally though; it's just that she's smarter, and her head is on top of her shoulders and not nestled snugly in her sigmoid colon.

If questioning the honesty of some panhandlers has suddenly become "poor bashing" then what word do you use for actual poor bashing? Poor murdering? Tie your knee to your other leg if you can't keep it from jerking.

[ 14 September 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

---

Some

quote:

---

Originally posted by molly-tov:
poor-bashing takes form in many ways. the dominant discourse of this thread is poor-bashing, even though it may be under the guise of the bourgeoisie 'sharing their experiences with the poor.'
what is the general sentiment here and what is the point?
that the poor scam (the innocent privileged) people and, therefore, do not deserve money.
news for the rest of who?
right.

---

• the poor are lazy
• it's entirely their fault
• there is more than enough paid employment to go around
• the neardowells think of landlord rents in terms of how cheap they might have been for them during the cold war years
• that because they've found a cheap place to live, so can everyone
• everyone has the same life chances
• creeping upside-down socialism and anti-inflation policies implemented on behalf of the rich in this country and that one have no bearing on unemployment levels or the overall cost to our national debts
• that misguided conservative workfare programs have worked anywhere

And they'd be wrong.

[ 14 September 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
If questioning the honesty of some panhandlers has suddenly become "poor bashing" ...

---

Actually, this was not my intent in this thread. My intent was to call some of the posters here on their assumption that they can speak for, and decide the politics of a situation that they are not integrally involved in. That people asking for money on the street deserve a certain kind of treatment, and are to be protected from any other kind of response from those from whom they ask it. Perhaps this was not the thread to try to do that, but it came up, so that's why I got involved in it. I agree with Mr. Magoo though that the use of the term 'poor-bashing' here is really not well-considered.

[ 14 September 2005: Message edited by: jas ]

Maybe we could lower the insolence of the well-off by insisting that they ask taxpayers by telephone when they want handouts to further their own causes.

"Hi, my name is Brian Mulroney, a board member of Magna Corp along with Henry Kissinger, Mike Harris, Frank Mckenna? ... And I'd like a percentage of your paycheque so that me and my fellow conservative party hacks can buy up more of Canada for our other rich friends from abroad. I'd like to tell you about ... "

"click" followed by dialtone

[ 14 September 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
I think their disdain for the poor lies in some basic conservative assumptions such as:

• the poor are lazy
• it's entirely their fault

---

[ 14 September 2005: Message edited by: Suzette ]

Yes, Suzette, the buggers were just seizing opportunity when they lost track of a hundred million bucks over up? here. Iraq is another opportunity for poor people to share their sovereign wealth with those who've pulled themselves up by the boot straps.

Gotta go nail some trim up and grumble about poor people, unions and commies ruining my beloved country. How shall i complete the waaaaaaaalll

[ 14 September 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

I agree. How about a thread about corporate welfare handouts to rich people then?. And we'll promise not to bash so hard.

---

quote:

---

Nonsense. The poor don't "scam" anyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
I had no idea it was de Botton. Today, I renounce my French heritage along with Quesnay and Dee Bottom. Colisse tabernac, sacrement and all that.

---

Interesting book out there somewhere written by a former pro football player in the States. He was naturally gifted with athletic abilities from a young age. He and several athletes have come to the conclusion that they were brought up to believe physical ability is all that matters. They understand their blessings because of the wealth laid at their feet over the years, but they point to kids who were never praised or rewarded with college scholarships because they could run fast or jump the farthest. As I was listening to him, I realized just how warped our society really is. My grandfather was a professional hockey player, but it was his brother who had real talent for skating like the wind and scoring goals but was never rewarded for it in Canada. Uncle Alfred watched his brother from the sidelines and stayed home to look after the old bugger's family for him. The old man made it to the big league because of a mean streak he had both on and off the ice. Uncle Alfred is most remembered and more dear to my family and me because of his personal sacrifices and for looking after my older siblings when they needed him.

PS: Everyone here is just mad about a cold remedy named "Cold FX." It's endorsed by several Canadian hockey clubs and Olympians. Liquids and try and stay warm down there if you can.

[ 15 September 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]