Rick Reuben wrote: Every mistake ever made by a homeless person is whitewashed over. If they drink, the system made them do it, if they do drugs, the system made them do it, if they drop out of school, the system made them do it, if they hang out in the park smoking bummed cigarettes and eating cheetos instead of going to the library and reading the want ads in the paper, the system made them do it.

I don't know a solitary soul who thinks like this. If I did, I'd introduce you so you could have your argument with him.

As it sits, I don't spend any energy worrying about who is "responsible" for any individual homeless guy's plight, if such a thing can even be assessed, or what went into the decisions he's made along the way. His situation, circumstances, life experiences and aftermath are what they are, and assigning blame accomplishes nothing but give right wingers something to do other than help.

Right wingers blather on about structural and behavioral changes and the like because they don't want to do any of the heavy lifting. They don't want to actually help anyone, they want some kind of elevating process (a private one, certainly, and profit driven) to be at work so people can "enter the market," where they can "compete" with each other and the invisible hand will ensure that they earn what they're "worth."

Meanwhile, people live outdoors, freeze, get sick, starve and die. The right wing response, rather than helping them, is to figure out some way to blame them for it.

Rick Reuben wrote:I got a liberal to admit that homelessness isn't permanent. What miracle will come next? Will I get a liberal to admit that the homeless are in partial control of their own actions? Is that too much to hope for?

Homelessness is not always permanent. Nobody has been arguing otherwise. There are plenty of people who are temporarily homeless and recover quickly because they have the resources to do so. As many of us have stated repeatedly, this is well known and Shepard's cock-like experiment sheds no light here. There is a separate, larger group of chronically homeless people -- those who most of us think of as "the homeless" -- to whom this cock-like experiment is a condescending insult.

Sure, the homeless are in control of their own actions, inasmuch as we all are. Nobody has argued otherwise. The fact that the homeless have free will, however, is not proof that they want to be homeless, or that they are undeserving of help.

Rick Reuben wrote:it would be impossible for *one* person to represent the experiences of *all* homeless. Do you not fucking accept that 'real homelessness' comes in many different varieties, and that Shepard's case represents ONE of them??

I will say it again: people with Shepard's variety of homelessness do exactly what he did all the time — sometimes a lot quicker. Which means he proved he can do something a lot of other people do all the time, working without any kind of net.

HOWEVER (if this is the font size that it takes to make you listen) the more crucial point is that people who DON'T accomplish what Shepard did don't accomplish it BECAUSE they are almost always impaired in some way: by addiction, mental or physical illness, the basic abuse of grinding lifelong poverty, whatever. And unless you're comfortable with watching people like that die in the streets, then I'd advise you not to draw too many positive conclusions from Shepard's example.

Rick Reuben wrote:

R.F.F. wrote:This is exactly my major problem with his experiment. He's trying to make the point that his situation is indicative of many homeless people.

That's what free speech is. He gets to say what he thinks about what he did. Then the ball is in your court. You get to interpret the significance of it, for yourself. See? Isn't free thought wonderful? But here's an important thing to remember:
If you want the right to make the points you want to make about his experiment, you must tolerate the points that he makes. 2 way street.

Unfortunately, many of the liberals can't stick to the facts of the case, and instead, are compelled to treat the facts like putty that they form into some bullcrap that fits into their hiveminds.

And that's my opinion.

What? No I don't. His argument sucks. His point sucks. I'm not stopping his free speach by saying his conclusions aren't grounded in facts, that his... nevermind. This whole thing has to be a joke.

People should try to help people in need. Sometimes you should give money to a person in need. I live quite comfortably. I can afford to give away some money when asked, so I do. Anyone want to have a rational sane conversation about homeless people or panhandlers? This is a topic I care a great deal about.

"Do you not fucking accept that 'real homelessness' comes in many different varieties, and that Shepard's case represents ONE of them??"

No, I don't. Please understand this: Shepard's case is not one of the different varieties. Do you understand what I'm saying? Shepard in no way whatsoever - IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER - represents a variety of homelessness or reflects a concept of how to break free of it. Let's head over to a few dilapidated blocks or a few coalition centers -- hell, let's even head over to a few public housing facilities (i.e. people with homes but very little money) and I'll prove it to you. We'll go ahead and count all of the Shepardesque people we find! Let's go find one!

And it's shit like this crap-ass experiment that truly does no service for real homeless people with real problems all over the world. In fact, it's fucking them even more by telling people that the "certain other people" (you know, the ones they practically step over every single day) don't need their help. They just need to "get a job".

Rick Reuben wrote:Why do you fight against offering an assessment of homelessness that places every factor under scrutiny?

This assessment is irrelevant to the topic at hand -- whether it is crap or not crap to give panhandlers money. Many of us have stated this explicitly: it doesn't matter.

It is also irrelevant as to whether or not homeless people deserve help. As already noted, this sort of analysis is only used to assign blame, which is then used as an excuse to withhold help.

Homeless people, however they got where they are, need help. Period.

I'm talking about the "young white male with the formal education & the dockers" homeless person, not the "Adam Shepard with $25 bucks in his pocket & no cellphone" homeless dude. You keep not hearing this.

Rick Reuben wrote:

steve wrote:As it sits, I don't spend any energy worrying about who is "responsible" for any individual homeless guy's plight, if such a thing can even be assessed, or what went into the decisions he's made along the way.

But it can be assessed. Can you assess a mix you hear? If the economy is poor in a region and jobs disappear, then that is a strike against the system. If social services funding is cut too far, that is a strike against the system. But if the homeless person gives in to crime or drug use, will you call those choices strikes against him?

It is possible to assess responsibility for homelessness the same way it is possible to assess the problems of the CTA or the Chicago Police department. You did not shirk from assessing the CPD. You placed partial blame on cop psychology, partial blame on failures of oversight, and so on. Why do you fight against offering an assessment of homelessness that places every factor under scrutiny? You do it for cops or for the quality of a mix you record.

Homelessness isn't a crime against other people. Unfortunately it is a crime, but the only person that suffers from it is the "perpetrator". Police brutality and general dickheadedness hurts other people.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Marsupialized wrote:It's firsthand info, he himself told the story to a table full of people at Ceres, one of which happened to be me.

So when he was making all those media appearances in conjunction with the film, he was lying his ass off?

I'm not trying to argue any point here, just saw that movie come up and letting you know what I know in regards to it.

That said, this seems to be the situation....he wrote a story about his somewhat interesting life, studio buys it and decides to make a feel good family film based on it. They change a bunch of stuff to make it more feel good family film like. It probably wasn't all true to begin with, but now it's vastly different. He's paid to go on meaningless TV fluff shows and promote this film they made. He goes on shows and says the film is fairly accurate.
Then later in an informal drinking situation he says the film is not very accurate at all.
When he was telling the story to us, I know he was being truthful. From my dealings with him and financial people like him, and from what I heard from my bosses and their dealings with him he's a no good rotten fuck all around. The type to brag to you about how much his watch cost, then show you he is actually wearing TWO retardedly expensive watches for some reason.
Those guys love to brag about fucking people over and how devious they are and how much money they tricked someone out of.
If you think a dude like that would be above taking a check to lie on some stupid morning talk show or on a web page you haven't been around those types enough.
Those dudes will lie to and cheat their mothers out of their last 20 bucks, then laugh and laugh about it afterward at Ceres.