spare some change?

sorry, man
Total votes: 43 (41%)
not crap
Total votes: 62 (59%)
Total votes: 105

act: giving to panhandlers

411
Opening of Paul Krugman's "Poverty Is Poison" column today:

“Poverty in early childhood poisons the brain.” That was the opening of an article in Saturday’s Financial Times, summarizing research presented last week at the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

As the article explained, neuroscientists have found that “many children growing up in very poor families with low social status experience unhealthy levels of stress hormones, which impair their neural development.” The effect is to impair language development and memory — and hence the ability to escape poverty — for the rest of the child’s life.


And:

L. B. J. declared his “War on Poverty” 44 years ago. Contrary to cynical legend, there actually was a large reduction in poverty over the next few years, especially among children, who saw their poverty rate fall from 23 percent in 1963 to 14 percent in 1969.

But progress stalled thereafter: American politics shifted to the right, attention shifted from the suffering of the poor to the alleged abuses of welfare queens driving Cadillacs, and the fight against poverty was largely abandoned.

In 2006, 17.4 percent of children in America lived below the poverty line, substantially more than in 1969. And even this measure probably understates the true depth of many children’s misery.

Living in or near poverty has always been a form of exile, of being cut off from the larger society. But the distance between the poor and the rest of us is much greater than it was 40 years ago, because most American incomes have risen in real terms while the official poverty line has not. To be poor in America today, even more than in the past, is to be an outcast in your own country. And that, the neuroscientists tell us, is what poisons a child’s brain.

act: giving to panhandlers

412
Cranius wrote:I'd prefer to keep both your respective mothers out of this.


I'd prefer to keep your mother out of THIS *points to crotch* but once she gets a grip on my sin-pole, it's all over...

And I mean ALL over, big gobs of it everywhere...

act: giving to panhandlers

413
Rick Reuben wrote:
syntaxfree07 wrote:You understand that is how your logic works, right?
What would you know about logic? You can't even comprehend a television weather forecast.


I explained myself thoroughly on that. Way more than I had to.

Terrorist.

You really think you have that much influence, don't you? If you give money to a homeless person and he/she buys alcohol with it-- You bought the alcohol. No, you didn't. You aren't that important.

You were instrumental in knocking down the towers, however. You paid the government. The government spent the money that you gave them on knocking down the towers. YOU KNOCKED DOWN THE TOWERS.

act: giving to panhandlers

415
Rick Reuben wrote:
syntaxfree07 wrote:
Rick Reuben wrote:
syntaxfree07 wrote:You understand that is how your logic works, right?
What would you know about logic? You can't even comprehend a television weather forecast.


I explained myself thoroughly on that. Way more than I had to.

Until user Bugs Meany obliterated your lying erroneous bullshit. Then you tucked tail and ran from the thread. You owe me an apology. I owe myself an apology for wasting ten posts trying to educate an ignoramus like yourself on how to read a weather warning.


I suggest you go back to that thread.

I forget which one it was in. My last few posts were sufficient-- That you haven't quoted them may be evidence of that. You never rely on memory or personal accounts in your posts.

Personal irresponsibility on the part of some homeless people is part of the problem. It is specious to account for the mistakes of those people when coming up with solutions.

You're chest-beating and shit-throwing, now.

And you're a terrorist. Explain why you aren't.

act: giving to panhandlers

416
For the love of Christ, will you shut up, Rick?

I mean, whatever good points you have - and I do believe there are many; at least, when I've cared to look - gets drowned in a sea of Grade-A Shtick Dreck Rhetorical Bullshit that is tedious, annoying, and angering to sift through.

I think there are worthwhile things you have to say and that I and many people here could benefit from them. Subsuming them in this neverending well of bitter, arrogant, and frankly troubling dog piss you call a writing style turns so many people off that whatever you have to say is lost on many who could probably benefit from it.

Like me, for instance.

I know I don't know nearly as much as I should about political issues. (Yeah, I worked as a volunteer for the Democratic Party offices here, big deal. I don't feel like I know the ins and outs of anything.)

I could really learn a thing or two from you. I don't care to read your points when I have to get to them through lakes and lakes of disturbingly narcissistic vitriol that only prove you'll die in order to get the last word in. This thread is about giving to panhandlers, Rick, and you are on the 27th page screeching everyone down to show that you, you, and only YOU are right.

I mean, hell, maybe you are right, and most panhandlers are just lazy, ignorant fuckups leeching off American society and liberal guilt, and therefore undeserving of your charity or anyone else's. Does it need to involve 27 pages of unholy rant?

I didn't mean to type all of this, and I am sorry for most likely wasting your time. But I felt it needed to be said, and if that ruffles your feathers, Rick, well...shit, I'd be joining one big fucking club, man.
Life...life...I know it's got its ups and downs.

Groucho Marx wrote:Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it and then misapplying the wrong remedies.

act: giving to panhandlers

417
Rick Reuben wrote: What next, dumbass? Are you going to say that it is 'specious' to see if a homeless person has a winter coat when you are handing out winter coats?


Depends on how many you have and how many people need them. Maybe a homeless person has five dollars and I give him five more. Should I only give to those without money at all if I have enough to spread around over time?

But I wasn't going to say that. Stop telling me what I think.

Specious-
apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments.

Seems about right to me, dirtbag.

Counter-productive is a term you would use. You're the one wrapped up in productivity.

act: giving to panhandlers

418
Years ago, the NYTimes did a feature on famous NYC panhandlers. There was the guy who rolled up his pant leg and scraped his calf raw with a fork before getting on the train. If you lived in NYC in the late 80s, early 90s before Giuliani, you know the dude. The writer spent some time with them, finding out their stories. Few if any were actually homeless, but a large percentage were addicted to some substance, mostly alcohol. Some treated it as a job-the con men we all suspect them to be. The writer summed up his piece by saying that even knowing that there was a good chance the money would go to booze or that he was being conned, he'd still give money.

I think most panhandlers are not homeless. I remember hearing it posited that homeless people are actually terrified of interacting with "citizens" since either they have mental health problems or are ostracized and marginalized. I think if you truly want to see a homeless person, that will be the person who collects the aluminum cans out of the trash, or has a job at wal-mart or something.

A few years ago when I used to take I95 to work, sometimes I'd see the same guy at the entrance panhandling. If it was a particularly bad day weather wise, you could guarantee he'd be there. I gave him money a few times. The last time I did, I almost got killed by a tractor trailer who swerved into my lane. I immediately thought of nietzsche's maxim "one is punished most for one's good deeds."

After reading that times piece, I let the summation do the thinking for me, and I just always gave money. recently, and perhaps this is a philly thing, but I see kids in dreadlocks on market street and other non-mentally ill people pan handling. I started doing the "sorry, man" thing, which I hate because wtf? if this person feels the need to ask me for money so they can get high or whatever, although I don't support that, if it makes their life better, and assuages my guilt then so what?

Probably the best thing to do would be to drop a $200 check at the local food bank or something and stop giving to panhandlers.
m.koren wrote:Fuck, I knew it. You're a Blues Lawyer.

act: giving to panhandlers

420
SecondEdition wrote:For the love of Christ, will you shut up, Rick?

I mean, whatever good points you have - and I do believe there are many; at least, when I've cared to look - gets drowned in a sea of Grade-A Shtick Dreck Rhetorical Bullshit that is tedious, annoying, and angering to sift through.


What he said. Though I'm not so sure about the many good points.
"Everything should be kept. I regret everything I’ve ever thrown away." -- Richard Hell

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests