WOW! Google gives all SF homeless voicemail

[Extend a Hand]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23377190

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. - Google has made an announcement that could help hundreds of homeless people in San Francisco get back on their feet.

Every single homeless person in the city will be given a life-long phone number and voicemail, NBC11's Lisa Bernard said.

“Providing phone and messaging capabilities and access to vital healthcare is an extraordinary step forward in the city’s commitment to a comprehensive approach to addressing the needs of this vulnerable community,” Newsom said.

“We're firm believers in the power of technology to improve the daily lives of individuals and communities as a whole, and we recognize that access to phone and voicemail services is one way that Google can help San Francisco's homeless stay connected with family, friends, social workers, health care providers, and potential employers," Walker said.


This is really great. It is empowering.

[Breeze54]

1. That is unbelievably generous and LIBERAL!!!

What a wonderful thing to do!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I'll :toast: to that!!

[Hannah Bell]

320. Not so generous.

Google's 2007 profit was 4.203 billion.

Let's say there are 10,000 homeless in SF.

Let's say the real (as opposed to market) cost of setting up a voice mailbox is $5/head, so $50,000 total.

That's .001% of Google's profit, the equivalent of a person who makes 50K per year giving 50 cents.

Plus, there's the tax write-off.

Maintaining the boxes adds to the cost, but it ain't much if they don't bill. They might even make money on the deal, considering the tax angle.

[Xenotime]

569. I agree but what about people elsewhere.

What are they to do?

[BlooInBloo]

634. i KNOW right? Like, Google didn't solve every problem for every person everywhere! BASTARDS!!!

DUers fucking slay me.

[LiberalMandrake]

676. Why Google is the target of state sponsored disinformation

MySpace = Wikipedia = Yahoo = censorship //// Blogspot = YouTube = Google = free speech

http://end-times-information.blogspot.com/2007/05/cia-disinformation-burying-information.html

[lonestarnot]

2. Way cool on the google. But aren't they spying?

[Breeze54]

3. What Top Secrets are homeless people harboring?

:shrug:

[lonestarnot]

6. Ugh what are any of us hiding?

:shrug: So why the fuck are they spying on us?

[Xithras]

8. You have evidence that Google is spying on people?

I didn't ask if they could be, but if they are.

[canetoad]

15. They use crawlers to pick up key words

in emails, so that advertisments can be 'directed' (their word, not mine).

[formercia]

18. Google scans messaging on DU

and feeds the appropriate advertising messages to your browser. (Free accounts)

[Xithras]

106. You have a different definition of spying than I do.

You're talking about matching keywords on an algorithm to return related documents. That's not spying, in my book. Spying requires actually keeping the data or having a human look at it. They aren't keeping anything but are simply popping up ads that might be related.

Perhaps the difference is semantics to you, but I think it's pretty huge. Spying indicates a nefarious or nosy purpose, or at least the suggestion that someone actually CARES about the contents of the message. In this case, nobody cares.

[canetoad]

228. I didn't use the word 'spy'

that was in the post I was responding to (I think!)and I agree that the common definition of spying would be stretched to include web spiders executing algorithms.

However, it would be naive to believe that no trace is, or ever will be, kept of the results of these searches - even if only to make money as a saleable marketing tool. In this early stage of the digital age we have discovered the power of the database. I'm not so sure it is, in general, a good thing for humanity.

[canetoad]

12. The magnitude of the secret is not important

People without permanent shelter are just as entitled to have secrets as mansion dwellers. Charity, and it remains to be seen whether this gesture is true charity or not, does not mean giving up the right to privacy that extends to others.

[Breeze54]

166. It was sarcasm!! This is to help them get jobs, call Dr's etc....

Paranoid much? Put down the bong!!!!

[canetoad]

220. A sincere apology

if i mis-read the intent of your words. However, there is a large chasm between pure, nutty, compulsive paranoia and having a BS meter well honed by years of examining shonky deals. Oh, and joints only for me, bongs are so ostentatious.
:)

[Freddie Stubbs]

333. Some of them know about the government's use of mind control devices

[DaveJ]

457. That actually occurred to me too....

I probably wouldn't have stated it though to prevent being labeled a tinfoiler.

But the truth is, if someone were to run such experiments, they would pick the homeless, because who believes what they say anyway?!?!?!

If a homeless guy says "Someone's running thought experiments on me" he would just be laughed at. They are totally vulnerable.

Plus, the homeless know a lot about what's going on on the streets, could probably expose a lot of other sorts of crime as well. Including the cause of their homelessness.

[soothsayer]

4. Yes. Probably a sinister experiment to track undesirables.

[Doremus]

10. iirc, they stood up and said NO

to gov't requests to feed searches to them. Not so other search engines.

I was disappointed with them when they bowed to China's demand to limit availability there, though.

[canetoad]

17. Yep. That was a very well received statement from Google

in the middle of privacy-panic, distrust of corporations and telcos. It wouldn't have improved their profit at all, would it?

[lonestarnot]

20. I love that baby!

[rAVES]

63. Thats total BS

They use software that scans your emails for keywords that serve up advertisements relevant to the keywords.

Google ads helps thousands of normal people earn real money from their websites.

[NeedleCast]

103. LOL

No good deed goes unpunished...especially on DU.

[soothsayer]

5. Why does this remind me of Videodrome?

[lonestarnot]

7. What is videodrome?

[laconicsax]

542. try this

http://www.google.com/search?name=f&hl=en&q=videodrome

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

9. I'm not sure that it's empowering, but it does give them some foundation.

The "lifelong" number seems a bit of overkill. Why do they have to commit?

[bobbolink]

23. No, I don't see the "empowering" either. Just an ad for the company, with no practical value.

What will come out of this is "helping" people pointing it out, then when the homeless person says "I don't have the money to keep making phone calls", they'll just be attacked as "You're not willing to help yourself."

:mad:

[BigDaddy44]

25. I agree

Clearly this is malicious, and google should pull the plug. They're just trying to gain favor with the high income homeless demographic. (how do i add a sarcasm tag?)

[bobbolink]

27. You can be sarcastic with me all you want. Maybe you should read what I actually WROTE??

When YOU become homeless, I'm SURE you will thoroughly enjoy snarks like yours.

[BigDaddy44]

36. I did read it

Google, a liberal company, is doing something nice, and you immediately pointed out how it really wasn't solving anything. So, in that spirit, I was suggesting they just pull the plug altogether.

And WHEN I become homeless (i'm not sure why you think that's imminent), at least I'll have a voice mailbox now.

[mondo joe]

37. You might want to consider that you are arguing with a poster who previously

demonized Habitat For Humanity.

[BigDaddy44]

39. Good point

Sometimes its wise to remember the adage about wrestling with a pig. The pig likes it, and you just get dirty.

[Oak2004]

198. So do I

It's a feel good program. It helps a few people who are not among those most in need of help. In fact by its own "rules" it excludes the people who most desperately need housing. It operates under the (covert) assumption that those in need of help need to have their character improved, rather than that society needs to stop creating poor people. In no way does it address the fundamental problems of the poverty system.

Habitat for Humanity makes those not in need feel good about themselves. It gives a few people who are not desperately in need a way to at least mimic life as middle class homeowners. It does precious little if anything to actually
ameliorate homelessness, but the image in the public mind that it does can work against genuine efforts to end homelessness.

[mondo joe]

199. HFH is true to its mission rather than the mission you want it to have.

Too bad you don't see the value in it.

[Oak2004]

215. Yes, it's a program for the lower middle class and working class,

happily accepting all the praise it can garner as an anti-poverty, anti-homelessness, program, which it most certainly is not.

[mondo joe]

218. It's very targetted at the working class. That's what they do, and do well. If they did otherwise

they wouldn't be who they are, or as successful.

You might as well blame the American Cancer Society for not fighting heart disease rather than cancer.

[Oak2004]

241. I would blame the ACS if they allowed, and even cultivated, the impression that they fought heart

disease.

I'd also blame the ACS if they chose to dedicate all of their time and effort to fighting basal cell carcinoma while promoting themselves with images of and suggestions that they fought deadly forms of cancer.

[mondo joe]

245. Then you must have seen different HFH than I have - I understand quite well what they do.

Its a good and needed service.

[LanternWaste]

345. But that's simply perception and inference on your part, yes?

"anti-poverty, anti-homelessness, program"
But that's simply perception and inference on your part, yes?

No one I personally know perceives it as anything more than a program created and intended to build housing on a limited basis for low-income families.

[mondo joe]

347. Precisely. Habitat does an amzing job at what it does, which is to build/improve

housing for low income families.

It's not as if low incomes families don't need the leg up, or don't benefit from it.

As I said earlier, the hostility to Habitat is like attacking a cancer non profit for not working on heart disease.

[bobbolink]

242. What you said about Habitat is so true... it's an ego stroke for the muddlclass

"but the image in the public mind that it does can work against genuine efforts to end homelessness."

That's PRECISELY how it works!

Yet, pointing out to people how little it actually does, and the bias against those of us truly in need give poor muddlleclass people a serious rash!

Thanks for a fine post!

:applause:

[Dorian Gray]

351. Why call the middle class

"Muddleclass?" Was that a typo or an insult? If the latter, why do you feel the need to insult the middle class?

[bobbolink]

373. Why do they find it necessary to insult me?????

[Dorian Gray]

423. The entire middle class

insults you? How does that work?

[Midlodemocrat]

249. Bullshit. You don't have any idea what you are talking about.

I have been working with them since they started and you are dead ass wrong.

[AngryOldDem]

340. I've come to the conclusion that nothing will satisfy this poster. Nothing..

I was called out for a suggestion to provide bottled water to the homeless during last summer's heat wave. I'm not sure why that was such a bad idea, but I know a lot of homeless people who sure welcomed it back in July.

The victimization attitude gets pretty old, as well as the constant slaps at people who are trying to make a difference in the lives of homeless men, women, and children.

[LanternWaste]

346. There's an old adage my grandfather used to tell me:

There's an old adage my grandfather used to tell me: "If you criticize generosity, you damned well better be sure that you're giving twice as much..."

Seems to me that if that is indeed true, our beloved poster who denigrates these particular programs must be contributing a massive amount of income, time and effort himself to this problem. Well, either that or he's acting like an assho... (no-- I don't say things like that).

[AngryOldDem]

378. And then, there's this:

From Stokely Charmichael, I think -- "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

As I said in a post downthread, I've conceded this battle a long time ago. I'm too busy doing what I can.

[bobbolink]

40. "Nice" doesn't solve problems.

Since you don't like my response to it, since I'm just a dumb homeless person who clearly doesn't know nearly as much as you do, why don't you bother to read the other posters who also think it makes little sense?

[BigDaddy44]

42. Exactly!!

It doesn't solve a problem. Therefore, they should abandon the effort. Isn't this where we left off last time?

[bobbolink]

48. It's an image win for Google. .... that's all it amounts to.

Clearly, you're satisfied with that, and just want to mock homeless people.

Empathy, much?

[BigDaddy44]

50. I notice how you're strangely silent

On the metrics Mondo Joe is posting on just how valuable these services really are.

[bobbolink]

85. Actually, I replied to you. There are some posts I don't "see" for obvious reasons.

Not that reason and logic would matter to you.

[Dorian Gray]

140. Since you can't see the statistical information...

This is the website that Mondo Joe posted with some statistical information about the Community Voice Mail project. It looks interesting.


http://www.cvm.org/results.cfm

[mondo joe]

43. Solving Problems:

From Community Voice Mail, which nationally provides voicemail to homeless and low income people:





http://www.cvm.org/results.cfm

[Lance_Boyle]

117. GOOG is a "liberal company?"

No. GOOG is a corporate entity beholden to its shareholders to maximize profit.

[mondo joe]

29. Heh. My only hesitation in praising this move is that there are already existing, and

very good, orgs that provide this service - Community Voice Mail being one.

I think the target population might have been better served by Google supporting CVM rather than setting up a parallel system.

[tishaLA]

52. That is correct. These services have been available

to homeless people for quite a while and, pace the opinions of some others, the services really are helpful for homeless people because it gives them a voice mailbox number at which whey can receive calls regarding job interviews etc. that allow them to start getting on their feet without using a shelter's, or a friends, number. Having this kind of privacy is one step in the process of reasserting one's humanity.

Another, BTW, is having a mailing address, which homeless people by definition do not have. Fortunately, many shelters and other homeless service agencies also provide these to the homeless.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

31. This can help some

Sometimes getting services or applying for a job requires a phone number...

[bobbolink]

44. Maybe you might want to read what I wrote about how useless it is???

A HOME would be of much more help, but I suppose that wouldn't make the company have such a wonderful "liberal" image.

:crazy:

[BigDaddy44]

46. Are you implying...

That Google should be providing homes for people instead?

[bobbolink]

47. I'm not implying anything... I'm CLEARLY SAYING that if you want people to get jobs,

then you need to make sure they have a home!

How simple is that to understand?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

49. And as that is impossible for google to do

they should do nothing right?

[bobbolink]

51. They could do something really USEFUL instead of a cynical image ploy.

Your sarcasm shows just how much you are truly concerned about homeless people.

[BigDaddy44]

54. Still waiting.....

For your response to the metrics Mondo Joe has posted. Clearly these services DO help homeless people.

[bobbolink]

73. Dear caring person: As most homeless people do, I have only the computers at the library to use.

I must access the internet in 15 minutes blocks.

So, while I'm very sorry to keep such a patient and kind person waiting, this is the best that I'm able to do.

With every disdainful post, you are showing yourself to be not only ignorant, but quite judgemental of those you consider beneath yourself.

I think that is speaking volumes to those who are lurking.

[BigDaddy44]

84. My apologies.

Now, as to the subject at hand. Do you dispute the figures Mondo Joe posted?

[mntleo2]

231. CVM Better Than Nothing But ...

...what Bobby is talking about IS the issue. In the past 15 years we have spent enough money on destroying a country, killing our own soldiers, enriching people who are already rich, giving away billions to the elite, that we could put every person in a McMansion, feed every American for a year with lobster or steak for free, educate every single adult with a Master's degree, or provide health care for every man, woman and child for decades.

My minister works for a non-profit agency always begging the legislature, business, and whomever to get seed money to build housing for the homeless. If Google took what little they spend on CVM compared to the several billion they pocket, and instead gave it to a housing non-profit agency as seed money, they could help build or buy housing, this could put s serious dent in those statistics for a city and spur other companies to do the same. Like New Orleans for instance where it would make a serious difference.

While it is nice to get a phone call, you might like to remember that thousands of homeless are already the working poor who do not need a phone, they need a HOME. They are paid so horribly they cannot even afford a place to lay their head to get the badly needed sleep so they can get up and work for that polyestered psycho boss who just LOVES to rub it in that their underling is a just piece of s**t, so they can use employees to get off on how much "better" they are.

Meanwhile people are freezing to death, being murdered in their sleep, dying in the alley, dying of heat stroke, children are living on the street, going without food, and going without decent health care IN FREAKING AMERICA ~ not in war torn Iraq, not Darfur, right here under your nose ...which must be up so far in the air, you did not notice what is happening right under it.

My 2 cents GRRRRRRR!
Cat In Seattle

[Midlodemocrat]

115. Then why are some of your posts castigating liberals from the middle of the night?

The library is open all night? Whoever heard of such a thing?

You do yourself, nor your cause any good by insulting the people on this site.

[JackBeck]

119. Not only from the middle of the night

But after the computer labs at both Ft. Collins's libraries have closed.

[bobbolink]

244. Are you threatening to stalk me?

Or, are you encouraging others to do so?

That seriously is what you are beginning to sound like.

Just like limpballs.

[JackBeck]

255. No.

[bobbolink]

257. It certainly sounds like it, and you're so off-base.

I've been stalked by a DUer before, and I can tell you, I won't put up with it.

I will NOT be victimized by a thrill-seeker making up ugly shit to hurt and damage a 62-yar-old homeless woman.

You went WAAAAY over the line, and you owe me an apology.

[JackBeck]

274. What am I making up?

[bobbolink]

285. You know what you're doing. Quit playing innocent.

You decided you wanted to destroy my reputation, and that is DESPICABLE.

It's what we deplore in the RW, yet you think it's so funny.

Just like punks who "roll" homeless men..it's so very entertaining.

[JackBeck]

292. You're way off.

I simply got tired of your liberal and progressive bashing, especially toward those who are active in the community and working for change. And simply decided to use the "search" option to try and figure out where you were coming from.

But what I have uncovered, which you have yet to address, are many posts with a time stamp that doesn't quite make sense, utilizing the information that you have freely provided.

I, as have others, have asked for clarification, only to be met with, as Fitzgerald put it, having sand thrown in our face.

[knitter4democracy]

393. I've answered you upthread, as has she.

She's made it clear that she's been stalked before by a DUer, so why should she trust you and tell you her entire list of whereabouts for the last two months or whatever? Would you do that just because some person online you don't know is badgering you, wanting to know where you're posting from?

She has friends, and sometimes she uses their help and gets a place to sleep for the night. Some of them have computers and online access. Let it go.

[Midlodemocrat]

399. IIRC, you were accused of stalking her as well.

I remember your apologizing over and over and over.

[knitter4democracy]

407. I misunderstood. If you'd read the entire exchange, you would've seen that.

I thought she was referring to an incident that happened between us, but she wasn't. She cleared that up, I understood, we moved on.

[Midlodemocrat]

411. I only remember you apologizing.

And, in all seriousness, I felt very badly for you because it appeared to me, not knowing the details, that you were trying to help and were being accused of something you weren't doing. You haven't ever struck me, from your posts, as someone who would stalk someone just to hurt them.

[knitter4democracy]

433. Nope. I just misunderstood.

Stalkers creep me out, too. *shudder* Creepy. It was one of those things--I made some phonecalls because I could and she needed them made, and then I decided to try a couple of places to see if she could get some temp shelter and ran into someone she knew by accident. She got scared, since she'd been stalked by a DUer before, I freaked out, but now things are fine. :)

I do need a hug today, though. :hug:

[JackBeck]

461. If she's been stalked before by someone on DU

then why would she continue to provide information on her location, both in posts and her profile?

Look, she has said that she only posts from the library, as I have pointed out before. And when I questioned this, all I got was a filibuster.

And now we see "new" posters presuming that some of us are assuming that her status isn't quite what she claims it to be. Not once has ANYONE on here claimed that she wasn't homeless. Some of us are trying to get some of the statements clarified in order to fully understand the story.

[demgurl]

469. Sometimes computers do not post the correct times.

It depends on how they are set. She is not asking for money or help and even if she had a home, she has been such a strong advocate for the weakest among us that I wonder why you would question her and therefore cast shadows on how strongly she fights for the homeless.

[JackBeck]

670. This has happened, even in this thread, in real time.

Beyond any random computer malfeasance.

I asked a simple question based on a specific, repeated declaration. And I wouldn't have even bothered if said poster didn't have a history of insulting other DUers. A non-answer to the one it was postulated has only increased my curiosity.

[Andrea]

674. A LONG history of insulting other DUers,

almost always unprovoked. Her claims are usually not supported by any evidence. She has slandered me repeatedly, and I'm far from the only one.

[demgurl]

660. Maybe we should all treat each other with a little more respect.

when I hear things like this (the sarcasm) I can't help but have a shiver run down my back. It honestly reminds me of the whole Andy fiasco. My computer has sent a wrong date and/or time stamp. Perhaps the computer had a glitch. The least we can do is have an ounce of human decency. It feels more like a shark tank where someone has spilled a bit of blood. A whiff of anything around here and people go into a frenzy!!!

[JackBeck]

665. I find the comparison to Andy kind of insulting.

Did Andy take most of his posting opportunities to write noxious things about other progressives or liberals?

All I asked was a question, which the poster never answered. Others have speculated over how the discrepancies occurred, even though they are contradicted in this thread.

And as for the time/date stamp issue, that becomes moot since posts in this thread support my initial inquiry.

[Two Americas]

144. unbelievable

Why can't the damned homeless people act the way we want them to?

Google cannot be criticized, but we are all over each other to find any little weakness, any little excuse to attack and rip the person to shreds.

Does it occur to you that people are - justifiably - afraid of you and reluctant to post details about their lives? Does it occur to you the tremendous courage it takes to reveal anything about yourself here?

The incredible self-sacrifice - for the good of others - required to make oneself a living, breathing witness to the horror that millions of people are experiencing, in the face of that being used to harm or threaten the person, is stunning and awe-inspiring for the moral courage and compassion for others that it indicates.

[Midlodemocrat]

146. What?

[mondo joe]

148. Which homeless people are you referring to?

[canetoad]

259. If you had thought twice before making that post

you would have realised that you appear to be an infant, stamping it's foot, little fist clenched, demanding your reply RIGHT NOW, on your terms, in your good time.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

58. Horse crap..

What have you done... Of course there is good pr in this for google but nobody was twisting their arms... Apparently from your view unless you completely fix the problem you're a part of it so how many homeless people are staying and using your address to get jobs?

[bobbolink]

70. I HAVE NO ADDRESS, if you'd bother to read what I wrote.

By definition, being homeless means you have NO ADDRESS for yourself, or anyone else.

NOW... would you like to come down off your highhorse, and try HEARING the experience of a homeless person before shouting HORSECRAP?

edited to add... since you delight in equating me with a pig, we obviously have nothing further to discuss.

THAT kind of shit I can get from Limpballs!

[casstheturtle]

298. There's at least one lurker listening.

Enough that I decided to sign up with an account for DU, after lurking a long time, to post this.

I wish I could say I can't believe how you're being treated, but I can believe it very well because I've seen it too much before. And while the following is directed at you, I know you know it already. I'm saying it for their benefit but I don't feel like talking to them right now, and I'm sure they could use being talked about in the third person at the moment since I'm sure they rarely get as much of that as you or I do.

People who don't want to listen to what you have to say are going to mostly do one of a couple things.

They're going to claim you're not homeless, because then they can avoid thinking of your opinion as a homeless person as worth taking into account. It shoves their discomfort tidily to the side, while attempting to erase your very existence.

They're going to claim that you've got a bad attitude, that you're too angry or too emotional or something else like that. That also tidily shoves their own discomfort to the side while putting the blame anywhere but on themselves for their total dismissal of your reality. Which includes the reality of oppression and degradation that you're living on a day to day basis.

And they might also claim you're a right-wing troll just because they can. When I can tell you're not one of those, and I'm sure not either. I'm just not a fan of the "Love me I'm a liberal" mindset.

And when they're through, they're not even going to remember you, they'll erase you from their minds and go on living their lives as if you never even existed, as if nothing you say had any worth beyond hurting some precious do-gooder's feelings.

If they listen to you at all, they see themselves as doing you a favor and earning a few points towards entry to heaven or something. Because people have to listen to them, and their views determine what happens to you far more than your views determine what happens to them. So it's no sweat to them not to listen to you, they can just easily go off to their world that doesn't have you in it, while you of course have no possibility of escaping the crap you get from people just like them all the time.

So they just fit so neatly into this interlocking web of power that shuts you out no matter what you do, unless you meekly go "Yes sir I see what you're saying and all that" and be sure to be five times as "polite", at which point they can pat you on the head and go on their way without listening either because at that point any threat you pose to their comfortable worldview is completely neutralized, which is the whole point of all of it. Meanwhile their comfortable worldview threatens your survival at every turn.

As you can gather, I've been the target of this sort of thing before. Not over homelessness. I'm not prepared to say over what because I'm not in the mood to have people trying to track me down either. But people who care more about "caring" about poverty (and being able to convince themselves or other people that they do so, and that they are doing good and right and all that) than ENDING poverty have a disturbing tendency to demonize, attack, and ignore poor people who actually have the guts and/or the desperation to stand up to them. Especially the ones that tell them why their efforts are at best half-measures and at worst actively harmful to the people htey're supposedly helping. You'd think if they wanted to help so bad they'd want to make sure that it WAS help.

And I want both you and them to know that you and the few others I've seen talking sense about this are not the only ones around here that find this sort of thing exactly as bad as it is.

[Dorian Gray]

354. Just for the sake of argument

isn't this:
And when they're through, they're not even going to remember you, they'll erase you from their minds and go on living their lives as if you never even existed, as if nothing you say had any worth beyond hurting some precious do-gooder's feelings.

the nature of posting online? Don't we all forget about one another whenever we turn the darn computer off?

Bobbo's situation is horrible. I am interested in her situation. But, she is extraordinarily negative toward almost every non-profit initiative that addresses something to do with homelessness. And in this situation, people telling her that they disagree with her is met with: "They think little of you." or "They are ignoring your experience."

Bobbo has important experiences that we can learn from. But her experiences are not those of every homeless person. What may not help her may actually do great good for others. And summarily dismissing those initiatives because they aren't useful to her while ignoring statistical evidence that these initiatives are met with positive feelings by others in the homeless communities is frustrating for posters who are trying to learn about this initiative.

I've been on the fence about the usefulness of this initiative, but Bobbo's responses which seem to insult our fellow posters, the middle class, and many hard working people who are trying to eradicate homelessness on this website is frustrating.

[Midlodemocrat]

400. .

:applause:

[bobbolink]

379. Thank you so much, casstheturtle! I so much appreciate you signing up to post!

I certainly know how difficult it is to speak up in the face of this kind of relentless attacks, and you have nailed it all perfectly. Your words of understanding mean so much to me, and I'm sorry that I didn't see your response until now.

You know, when my son was kidnapped, there were women who said to me, "What kind of mother are you to let such a thing happen?". Their unbelievable cruelty, while I was suffering so deeply, was their own fear, and their own callousness speaking.

These people attacking now are doing the very same thing those women did. Protecting themselves from the fear of ending up in the same situation.

BUT... they're increasing their fear, because by attacking me, they know they would also be attacked where they to end up in homeless like I am, relying on a library computer in 15 minute blocks to even be able to post at all!! By becoming the very same bully that they are so afraid of having bully them, they do nothing to ease their own fear... they make sure they STAY fearful.

The psychological process is indeed a wonder to behold. And, all in the name of "liberal".

edited because the 15 minutes were up, and the computer shut down...

[Hannah Bell]

480. exactly.

<<people who care more about "caring" about poverty than ENDING poverty>>

[Hannah Bell]

641. n/t

you looked.

[Dorian Gray]

143. Bobbo

Your negativity on even small moves by people to aid the homeless seems like an angry resentment, which is understandable, but not worth anything.

While trying to figure out if this measure can actually help people, it doesn't really serve any population to be so negative about it, particularly when it's met with some enthusiasm by those aided by this type of move in the past, and it's supported as a good move by social workers, those who are intimitely familiar with homelessness.

[Two Americas]

76. I will

Yes. I will do more than imply it, I will state it outright. Yes. Those building fabulous wealth, thanks to the public infrastructure known as the Internet that was built with public funds along with all of the other unearned advantages and benefits society gives them to help them build fabulous wealth, are absolutely responsible for the fact that in the country that has given them so many benefits and advantages that no one should go hungry, no one should suffer the humiliation and degradation of poverty and homelessness, that no one should be treated as a pariah and a leper in their own country.

Yes. A thousand times yes.

[canetoad]

260. Thank you. Good post

succinct, directed and well written.

[Dorian Gray]

142. Providing homes

to numerous homeless people would cost a lot more than a telephone. And though it would be a fantastic thing for GOOGLE to do, it would be virtually impossible to provide that assistance to so many homeless in our country. And though that would be a much better step, I don't see how that negates the usefulness of this move, either.

[northzax]

375. it's actually accessed from an 800- number

if that helps.

[piesRsquare]

419. A HOME doesn't help a person much...

...if the person is unable to COMMUNICATE and MAKE/KEEP CONTACT with necessary resources to SUSTAIN HIS or HER LIFE.

I'm in a position right now where I may become (technically) homeless, but you bet your ass I would find a way to pay the $50 per month it costs to keep my cell phone active.

In Jewish tradition, the highest level of charity--the greatest act of righteousness--is to help a person help himSELF. I knew Sergey's wife in high school...they are good people who embrace Jewish values and do act on them.

I think this is absolutely wonderful, and will be of enormous help. Rather than simply bestowing a "gift", it provides a much-needed tool for the homeless to empower themselves and their lives.

Good job, Google. :patriot:

[Dorian Gray]

139. It's not about them making phone calls, though...

but rather having an established number where they can be contacted.

I honestly don't understand the logistics of this, so I don't know whether it is a good idea or a silly one. I don't know how it can be harmful, though.

[Recursion]

253. Self-moderating

But still, I'm really amazed you would shit on this.

[northzax]

370. it's actually very practical

you can't get a job without a phone number. you can't stay in touch with your family and friends without a phone number. once you get a job, you can't get anywhere to live. it's harder to get benefits, etc. imagine trying to stay in touch with a social worker, say, without a phone number.

will this help the chronically homeless? probably not. will it help those who are borderline? (there is often a blurry line between homeless and non-homeless) yes, it can.

Is google doing it out of the goodness of their hearts? can't hurt.

[mondo joe]

377. Another use: healthcare.

In working with community clinics that serve homeless patients, being able to reach people with test results, answers to questions, appointment and referral information is always a problem.

I've known nurses who have spent days going from shelter to shelter looking for someone to tell them they need to come back in because of an abnormal test result.

[canetoad]

11. Sorry. I smell a rat

Unless of course the recipients of this free service are given free calls to check their voicemail and respond to messages.

Answering machines were a boon to telcos. Once upon a time you called someone, they were engaged or they didn't pick up. Now there are whole departments dedicated to maximising returns by 'growing' a single call into several call units.

If this is the case, it is sickening to see the disadvantaged ones among us being used for cheap, easy profit.

[Raskolnik]

170. How is anyone that chooses to use this service, or chooses not to use this service, harmed?

[Patsy Stone]

13. K&R! n/t

[lisainmilo]

14. My hometown!!!

I miss it..... Fantastic wonderful news from the "city by the bay" Got to love San Francisco!

[jberryhill]

16. The schizo's will LOVE it

Tell them that Google is secretly implanting a chip in them to keep track of their voice mail, and that every now and then they'll get calls from dead people.

That'll keep 'em busy.

[Kajsa]

203. Good grief!

Do you personally know anyone with schizophrenia?

I do!

It's nothing to ridicule.

:(

[jberryhill]

289. Actually I was pointing out...

That chasing down homeless people to tell them about the number you've assigned to them is not, in all instances, going to be a very good idea.

Do I personally know anyone with schizophrenia? If by "know" you permit me to include several of the quite disturbed people in the open-air psych ward that constitutes the downtown area in which I used to work, then yes.

A lot of schizophrenics are homeless. They do not need voice mail, they need proper medication. Giving them a telephone number to call and a "secret code" to retrieve "messages" is pretty f-ing unhelpful, if you ask me.

[Kajsa]

337. I hear you.

Sorry, I misunderstood your previous post.

Yes, they do need help- proper medication and a place to live.

Someone very near and dear to me is dealing with this.

[jberryhill]

429. You hear me?

You do realize I'm only typing this.

Do you often hear me?

[Kajsa]

460. LOL!

:rofl:

OK,Smartypants

I READ you, loud and clear.

:D :hi:

[Two Americas]

548. wait a minute...

Everyone knows that "I read you loud and clear" is radio jargon.

Are you listening to me through my radio?

[Kajsa]

581. You two stop messing with me!

:spank: :D

I know, I know-

I'm sooo much fun to tease.

:eyes:

[JerseygirlCT]

19. Excellent.

Can't likely find a job w/o a phone number... This is great. Not all that's needed, but great of Google to do it.

[bobbolink]

21. What does "voicemail" help... so you keep playing phone tag, with each call you make

costing 50 cents.

Do you realize how fast that adds up?

Fifty cents to access your messages.

Fifty cents each to return those calls, and speak once again to THEIR voicemail.

Lots of fifty cents, with what being accomplished????

HOMES.

We need HOMES.

What a concept!

[slampoet]

30. Obviously You haven't been homeless. Voice Mail helped me get off the streets.

I was living in my car in the middle of winter in Michigan for about a month in 1989



I asked a former neighbor if he would take my old roomates answering machine and set it up on his line for me.

Without that answering machine and the showers that he let me use i wouldn't have got an apartment of a job either.


As for checking voice mail, if you actually READ into this you will find that the homeless shelters that are helping people get these accounts are also letting people use their phone to access their voice mail.

This is a sucessful program that has been used for years and the only thing that has changed is that Google has been kind enough to do their little bit to help.


Shame on you for cursing other people for not doing more when you pretty obviously aren't typing this from a library and have your own place to plug in and belly ache about others not doing it right when you aren't doing anything.

My god the nerve. Have you ever even swung a hammer for a habitat for humanity? I have.

And on a purely practical level where does a homeless person plug in the cell phone to charge it? (you know the one who you say can't pay 50 cents a call?)

i swear the level of let them eat cake on this board sometimes.

[mondo joe]

33. Here's some documentation from Community Voice Mail also:

http://www.cvm.org/results.cfm

Plenty of information from clients who use Community Voice Mail.

[kineneb]

57. chill...bobbolink IS homeless

posts from the library and lives in her car.

Hush; check facts before posting/opening mouth. Be nice.

There is a vast difference between 1989 and 2008 (like 19 years, for starters); since then the "safety net" has been almost totally shredded. Those homeless now are likely to stay that way for sometime. Check the economic news and the rate of forclosures. And yes, they need housing first, then all the other stuff afterwards.

[Two Americas]

68. status

It is all about status. Bobolink cannot win on this thread, and that is very revealing. Google and its defenders have status. If a critic IS homeless, they have no status and can be dismissed. If a critic is NOT homeless, they have no credibility and can be dismissed.

What is being thrown at critics on this thread is status - "helpers" have status - or they would not be in a position to help. The "helped" have no status and need to shut up so we can get on with the business of "helping" them.

The exquisite irony here is that people - who are in fact themselves homeless - are being told that they don't know what it is like to be homeless, or they wouldn't be criticizing Google and its supporters. What they mean is that the person does not know the proper way to look at this from the viewpoint of a person who is NOT homeless but who "cares."

There is also a phenomenon of people who were once poor and homeless, and rather than learning from that or becoming more compassionate, have violently rejected their former selves and former lives, and have much invested in what they did to escape poverty. In their personal mythology they may have "gotten motivated" or got a cell phone, or "changed heir attitude" or whatever. They now project that onto other people who are in unfortunate circumstances and aggressively insist that their own personal story has universal application. This can become quite angry and hateful, since in their own fear and desperation hating themselves and their former circumstances seems to them to be an essential component in keeping their head above water. Now that they are out of poverty, they are willing to see that it was their own fault that they were in poverty, so they blame others who are in poverty rather than the social conditions or political and economic realities. That is politically reactionary, not to mention spiritually and morally bankrupt.

[BigDaddy44]

69. It has nothing to do with status

Homeless and formerly homeless people have both stated that similar programs are very helpful. If Bobolink doesn't find them helpful, thats unfortunate. But to immediately castigate anyone who refuses to call out this program as nothing more than a shameful attempt at self promotion is ridiculous. Many little solutions together often solve big problems. If you're going to shoot down every little solution as it comes along because its not perfect, then you can expect fewer and fewer people to even attempt little solutions.

[bobbolink]

77. NOBODY who is poor is expecting "Solutions" to come from those who don't understand.

What we ASK for is to listen to us first, and let the solutions grow organically from that.

This depending on "experts" as if we are all colossally stooooooooooooopid is colossal egotism.

[Oak2004]

191. It's probably not "unfortunate"

It's that

A) the rest of the infrastructure that it would take for it to be useful to her is not available to her where she lives. Without free phones, free voicemail is useless.

B) When you're living on the street, half-measures designed to "help" the "helped" to "help themselves" look like what they are -- useless crap that just makes a mockery of a person's real needs.

The answer to homelessness *is* homes. Anything less, posing as real help and allowing those better off to feel good about themselves, is downright maddening.

Given free use of a telephone, voicemail is better than nothing. Without access to a phone, voicemail is indeed as likely as not to be yet another excuse for "helpers" to blame those they help. The "helpers" of the homeless are, as often as not, clueless at best, condescending certainly, and actively hostile and on a power trip at worst.

I remember when 50 cents meant I had enough money to buy "dinner" -- usually a candy bar, as that's the most number of calories you can buy for less than a dollar-- and having anything at all to eat that day was a special event. Fortunately I didn't have voicemail else, yes, my "helpers" would have expected me to pass up the only food I might have had for several days in order to "return their phone calls".

You want voicemail to be genuinely useful? Add in access to a telephone and transportation to and from that phone. And then make it possible for people to actually use that voicemail to get a real live home. When and where those conditions are in place, at least in part, it's useful. Elsewhere, it's a mockery -- like offering a band aid to someone with a gaping chest wound.

Half measures aren't answers. Half-measures are often feel-good diversions, especially where money poured into diversions could instead be used for housing.

[mondo joe]

194. You never gave to a canned food drive? Never did anything to help the homeless or

others in poverty?

If you did, that was a half measure.

You would be well served to learn what these half measures really mean to people who can't afford your righteousness.

[Oak2004]

201. Right, I don't know anything about poverty

That's why I've lived in poverty almost all of my life, spent a few years homeless, and have an official diagnosis of clinical starvation in my past.

I don't know anything at all. Nope, nothing.

This message btw comes to you from a public housing high rise.

Incidentally, if you are hungry, food is not exactly a half measure. If you are hungry and are offered a place setting, on the other hand, it's an insult, it's like spitting in your face.

If you are homeless, and you are offered a home, that's no half measure. If you are homeless, and you are offered telephone service, how exactly is that different from offering the hungry a place setting?

[mondo joe]

204. "If you are homeless, and you are offered telephone service, how exactly is that

different from offering the hungry a place setting?"

Because voicemail service is actually beneficial, that's the difference.

Look at Community Voice Mail which was begun in Seattle at a very grassroots level and spread nationally because it works.

A place setting gives a hungry person nothing useful. Free voicemail gives a homeless person an essential utility - providing a means for contact for jobs, or housing, for healthcare and more.

There's a reason so many homeless people use this service - it helps.



http://www.cvm.org/results.cfm

[Oak2004]

213. No, it is not an essential utility if you do not have access to a free telephone n/t

[mondo joe]

217. A phone number is an essental utility whether you can access it or not.

The Community Voice Mail program succeeded in Seattle and spread from there precisely because it did work here.

I wouldn't assume it would work in EVERY area - but in the areas where it does work, it is a considerable benefit to people in need.

[bobbolink]

381. "If you are hungry and are offered a place setting, on the other hand, it's an insult, it's like

spitting in your face."

Perfect!! :applause:

Your eloquence in the face of bullying is beautiful!

I'm so sorry to learn that you have a diagnosis of clinical starvation. That is just unconscionable in a wealthy nation like this!

Yet, I just read in a book of poverty by "experts" that NOBODY goes hungry in the US.

Can you believe people can be that ignorant???

Thank you for your wonderful posts!

:hug:

[Cal Carpenter]

243. Looks like we've graduated from "Housing First" to "Voice Mail First"

And this is a step in the right direction?

I'm with you, Oak 2004. This isn't even a half-measure. It's just crumbs from a vastly powerful corporation.

[mondo joe]

248. People who are not yet in housing still need plenty of services - this is one.

If you really want to be 100% about HOUSING FIRST you'd better shut down the soup kitchens and health care for the homeless and other services.

The voicemail model was piloted - successfully - by non profits working with homeless and vulnerable populations. The only thing that's too bad about Google's effort is that they are duplicating Community Voice Mail's rather than partnering with the existing non profit.

[Cal Carpenter]

264. How did they measure their success?

I'm curious what outcomes they used to determine success and over what time frame.

I agree with your last sentiment - although there are valid criticisms of (some) non profits, it concerns me that a huge for-profit corporation - especially one like Google - is providing social services. It gives legitimacy to the idea that capitalism is the answer to our ills, when in reality it is the very cause of them.

[mondo joe]

268. I'd suggest looking directly to CVM's data, with regard to results and outcomes.

http://www.cvm.org/results.cfm

I don't really like that Google is setting up a parallel system, but so it goes. At least it's to serve a good purpose.

[Cal Carpenter]

275. I read the first 10 pages

of the .pdf of their report on 'client satisfaction'...I have to be honest, it didn't convince me of much - primarily because the only people they followed up with were people that were still easily reachable (mostly via the voice mail they had been provided with) but not those who had stopped using the program or dropped off the radar. Most likely the program didn't help them. Some of the programs which administer the service only provided a short term use - some as low as 1 month, many at 6 months. The results are mostly based on relatively short-term comparisons. What happened 6 months later? 2 years later? And only 25% of recipients were outright homeless or in a shelter - the rest were in a home or transitional housing. Certainly still in poverty and struggling with lack of stability and security but not on the streets.

And one huge thing this survey seems to be missing is a control group. If 30% of people surveyed found a job with the help of a voice mail, how many of them would have found a job without it? Without this comparison it is essentially meaningless.

Anyway, my point isn't to harp on the survey results or to imply there is absolutely no benefit to this voice mail program. The point in my opinion is that this is a drop in the bucket as far as ending poverty and homelessness, and given the negative consequences and implications of having not only corporate sponsorship, but corporate control of social services (isn't that one more step closer to fascism?), I would say calling this a success is a dangerous way to look at it.

[mondo joe]

280. To cut to the chase:

I think even the most ardent advocates of free voicemail programs would agree that it's a drop in the bucket. So would advocates of soup kitchens and shelters.

And those too have plenty of corporate sponsors in order to exist and serve more people.

[Cal Carpenter]

288. Soup kitchens and shelters provide basic necessities for survival

There are many valid criticisms of soup kitchens and shelters - no question. But they provide basic human needs (which should of course be considered basic human rights). They are a step above 'a drop in the bucket', I would say. They are certainly not a solution, though.

My biggest criticism of this program (and of a lot of nonprofits) is that by praising this corporate 'generosity' we are helping mask the root causes of poverty and homelessness. If we can't take our criticisms one step further and try to find new remedies we are just perpetuating it all.

People here don't seem to praise corporate generosity in our political process, right? We want people to choose our leaders, not corporate $$$. Why should other basic rights be any different? And why should we trust the intentions of the corporations for their 'support' in this endeavor when we're so suspicious of them in elections?

[mondo joe]

290. I don't want to conflate two different things: CVM and Google's program.

CVM is a non profit. Google isn't, though it's apparently using a similar model.

I would suggest that the CVM program is as much a drop in the bucket as a soup kitchen or shelter. None of them fix the root problem. But they all give people who are living in need another tool.

As to the human need of the voicemail system, I think being able to get a message from your doctor is a human need. Being able to have a lace for family to contact you is a human need. And in the age we live in, having a phone number is an essential utility.

That Google's program is done in partnership with shelters counts in its favor, IMO, though I'd still prefer they simply supported the existing model.

[bobbolink]

383. Excellently put!

We know what corporations do, and usually it's all about tooting their own horn.

Very seldom is it actually self-sacrificing for the good of the nation.

Seems like a liberal fact that should be well-known.

:shrug:

[bobbolink]

75. I'm not interested in "winning"... I'd just like to see people growing hearts.

It's not just ignorance.. it's WILLFUL ignorance, yet they are polishing their images as people of conscience.

Thanks for your eloquent words...
:applause:

.....not that the willfully ignorant are willing to listen.

[Dorian Gray]

147. He can be a critic all he likes

but other than saying "They should provide homes! This is for PR," and not responding to statistics that have been posted on this thread, he hasn't provided criticism that truly gets at the issue.

Being homeless sucks. Bobbo doesn't like this measure. But, is it really ineffective? I haven't seen him address in any way HOW this wouldn't work. Shelters allow people to make calls for free to the voicemail accounts, so it's not the 50 cents per call.

[Two Americas]

155. red herring

The statistics and metrics are a red herring. The debate is between those favoring privatized help model, and those favoring political solutions.

[mondo joe]

158. Bullshit. In your earlier posts you already trued to dismiss the usefullness of the service

because you didn't know, or didn't care, about the metrics.

While you're waiting for a political solution, real people are hurting.

[Two Americas]

186. I do care

I do care about the "metrics" and was already aware of them.

There is no evidence that says calling for a political solution causes a longer wait than privatized solutions, nor that advocating for a political solution precludes helping real people who are hurting. I would argue that the opposite is true. Again, you may disagree, but what you have been doing is arguing that there is no other possible legitimate way to look at this issue than yours.

Nor is there any evidence that those calling for political solutions are only doing that, or are sitting around waiting for anything, nor that they are not involved in direct help to people.

I do not see how a political solution obstructs or prevents any private solutions. I do, however, see how praising private solutions obstructs and prevents consideration of political solutions. The metrics do not support one of those two positions over the other. They are irrelevant to that debate.

[mondo joe]

188. You proved how little you know with your "Forbes magazine" analogy.

If you took the time to actually learn about the matter you'd know what a benefit this is.

[Dorian Gray]

159. I think that's the debate

you made this into.

The initial debate was whether this was at all helpful to the homeless. I didn't see anybody bringing in charitable vs. political help models until you did.

[Two Americas]

190. yes

It has become invisible to us. I think it is important to see this dynamic. Some may disagree. I don't expect to win everyone over. I do ask that the point I am bringing to the discussion be respectfully considered.

When someone posts "wow! Google did a wonderful thing!" the issue is not whether or not the (very small and arguably self-serving) thing they did is good or bad, helpful or not. The issue is - or should be for all who care and are interested in politics and consider themselves to be liberals or politically to the left - the political ramifications of profusely lauding and praising privatized charity solutions, particularly in a context of a life and death battle with an extreme right wing political movement that has "privatization" as a centerpiece of their propaganda.

I work, and have worked for 40 years, with many dedicated people in poor areas who accomplish much more than Google is here with no fanfare and with far fewer resources at their disposal. It is the rare person I meet who is actually on the front lines who would dismiss and ridicule what I am saying here, or deny that we need a political solution, or deny that charity often comes with strings, or deny the importance of attitudes people have about poverty. These are all legitimate areas for discussion, and the ferocious and negative response to any attempt at discussing those issues is disturbing at best.

[mondo joe]

192. It's the rare person on the front lines who would dismiss a service that will provide

a great benefit to the people they work with just because that service was tied to private dollars.

Most people on the front lines of homelessness and poverty can't afford your righteousness.

[Two Americas]

197. of course

Who suggested turning down charity?

[WhollyHeretic]

160. No it fucking isn't. It is about helping people.

We need political solutions but people are in need while you sit and dither about shit. I guess you're opposed to soup kitchens that are funded by inviduals and companies? We're supposed to let people starve to make a political point? Try living in the real world.

[Raskolnik]

165. BALONEY

The debate is between those favoring privatized help model, and those favoring political solutions.

That is utterly disingenuous, and I suspect you know it. The only one making this an either/or proposition is you.

I agree that the state should provide effective social services, but it is unreasonable (and counter-productive) to exclude private efforts.

To put it another way, it's wise for the state to have an effective food assistance program, but its ridiculously to think that the bank on the corner shouldn't be encouraged to have food drives for the local food bank.

[bobbolink]

385. Very accurate, and very succinct.

Too bad so many aren't willing to hear the depth and truth of the matter.

We have so much to learn about where this nation is heading.

Yet, it's so hard to actually listen.

Thanks for keeping up the struggle! Maybe one or two lurkers will hear it.

[AngryOldDem]

357. I beg to differ. I STRONGLY beg to differ.

Those who see anything that helps even in the **slightest** homeless men, women, and children can't win on any thread here, especially with Bobolink. It's a fight I conceded a long time ago.

People, it seems, are looking for a magic wand, an elixir, that will make the issue of homelessness totally go away, preferably by 6 p.m. this evening. That expectation alone is sad and unrealistic, for the causes of homelessness are so vast and varied that a "quick fix" is just not possible. I see those who fail to recognize the root causes of homelessness -- lack of living-wage jobs, addiction, mental illness, criminal activity -- as more of a detriment to any rational discussion of the issue than those who are trying in whatever way they can to help.

Many people are working to find decent housing for the homeless. They are rehabbing buildings (and no, Bobo, this does not necessarily include Habitat for Humanity). They are teaching people the life skills to fill out rental applications and job applications. They are trying to reach out to those with mental illness to find them a safe and stable environment outside of the streets and shelters. They are encouraging people to seek and stay with drug/alcohol treatments. They are on the phone every day with public housing authorities, checking the status of applications. They are on the backs of local government and civic leaders, pressing the need for more safe and affordable housing, especially for those who are most vulnerable. Most important, they are closely working with homeless adults themselves to give them the confidence and ability to become productive members of society.

All of this takes time and patience. Now, if you don't want or need this little bit of help, please just say so. The resources can be directed elsewhere. But you tell me if that will make the problem of homelessness one step closer to being solved. I think not; it will only perpetuate the attitudes that work in their own way to make sure homelessness never goes away. The short term for that is enabling.

I also have to differ with your rather cynical and insulting impression of the formerly homeless. I work at a shelter as a guest attendant. Currently, on staff, we have at least SEVEN formerly homeless men and women on our staff, out of a total employee roll of about 20. (Just this week, we hired a woman who, about two years ago, stayed at our shelter with her kids.) Trust me. Everyone knows from where they came, for they will always be on that slippery slope of being one drink or one hit of crack away from returning to it. They are on no "power trips." On the contrary: They give encouragement to our guests and help them in their recovery. They can also provide that sometimes-needed reality check (the symbolic "kick in the pants"), especially when they see guests falling back into destructive behaviors. Their willingness to mentor and care for people with whom they were once homeless is priceless and inspiring.

We also have many more former guests who come back to volunteer with us. They, too, are there because they want to give something back -- not to rub their improved circumstances in faces of their former dorm-mates.

I can't believe this fuss over a simple phone program. Is it the cure to homelessness? Of course not. But I don't recall anyone even remotely implying that it is. But it is one small way to make lives a bit easier. Some people do not want it known that they are in a shelter. Having a private voice mail eliminates having to provide the shelter's number for contact, as well as eliminates the hassle of checking for messages, as well as the worry over whether messages were taken in the first place. It provides a small, but needed, zone of privacy in an otherwise open and vulnerable existence. It gives some small measure of autonomy, dare I say, empowerment.

But again, if you don't want the program, tell Google to stop it. But then please don't turn around and bash Google for not being a "concerned community partner." Frankly, MORE businesses and corporations should step up and offer their resources to the community. To whom much was given, much is expected (however that saying goes).

I honestly don't know what the social-service sector or the community at large is expected to do in coming to the assistance of the homeless. It seems we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Every gesture, no matter how small, is met with derision and dismissal somewhere. Every idea is discounted because it does not "address the true reasons behind homelessness" -- i.e., that "quick fix" I alluded to earlier. If you think not enough is being done, I have a suggestion: Get up, close out of DU, shut down your computer and get involved yourself. But in the meantime, don't make the rest of us who ARE trying to do something feel like total, ineffective assholes because we can't immediately find everybody who wants it a home.

Attitudes such as those I constantly see here on DU aren't making the jobs we do any easier, nor are they really advocating for the homeless. It's just the opposite -- the more we perpetuate the "helpless victim of society" mindset the longer it will take to find a true end to homelessness; the more we discount any effort of help, the easier it will be for some of us who are working with this population to just say "the hell with it" and walk away altogether.

The only true losers here are the homeless themselves. Ironic, isn't it, because isn't that who we all say we're trying to help?

[Midlodemocrat]

405. Excellent post.

:applause:

[Dorian Gray]

430. Powerful post

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Hannah Bell]

483. It took Reagan less than two years to cut 60 billion

from housing programs. He created "the homeless" very quickly.
They can be uncreated quickly as well if the political will exists.

[AngryOldDem]

490. Exactly right.

And here is an excellent case in point.

My state, Ohio, is in bad financial straits and Ted Strickland is being forced to make budget cuts. One of the first things to go will be a mental health facility in Dayton that will officially close in July. Many of our guests have been inpatients there at various times; some get outpatient treatment there. Strickland's attitude is that help can be gotten at other facilities in Columbus, Cincinnati, and Toledo.

I will never consider Saint Ronnie to be a good -- let alone great -- president. He forced a lot of the mentally ill out onto the street under the guise of deinstitutionalization and is largely responsible for the homeless crisis we have today. Add the closure of facilities by states strapped for cash, and I really don't see this aspect of homelessness getting better any time soon.

[Andrea]

539. Very true

I live in Columbus. I've worked and lived in Downtown Columbus most of my adult life, including throughout the 80s. The meteoric rise in the number of homeless people, many with mental health challenges, under Reagan was horrifying. So many of those put out on the street were unable to take care of themselves in any circumstances, let alone out on the street with no resources. It was, and is, heartbreaking.

Ronald Reagan was a terrible president. I don't understand how anyone who was alive in the 80s could think otherwise.

[Andrea]

537. Very good post

It's good to hear your perspective.

I agree with what you said here:

"I honestly don't know what the social-service sector or the community at large is expected to do in coming to the assistance of the homeless. It seems we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Every gesture, no matter how small, is met with derision and dismissal somewhere. Every idea is discounted because it does not "address the true reasons behind homelessness" -- i.e., that "quick fix" I alluded to earlier."

It seems to me these hyper-critical and argumentative posts are more likely to dissuade people from taking action than they are to have any positive effect. That leads me to be confused about their motivation.

[bobbolink]

74. Thank you, kineneb. The hostility and judgementalism of supposed "liberals" is chilling

itself.

"And yes, they need housing first, then all the other stuff afterwards."

You'd think that would be self-explanatory, wouldn't you?

How far down these Raygun Dems have sunk.....

:cry:

[dajoki]

67. Everybody can have their own thoughts...

on voicemail, personally I don't know if it helps or not, so that is not my point. What I'm saying is why are you attacking bobbolink when you obviously know nothing about her?

You say you were homeless for a month and I am very happy that things worked out for you, but a little compassion would be nice. My family and I are currently going through the roughest time of our lives right now and without the support of bobbolink I honestly don't know where I would be.

Oh, and BTW, she DOES use the library computer, in case your interested. Too many people ASSUME they know everything about a poster through one post. Also I DO know what bobbolink is about and you are way off!!

[bobbolink]

79. YOU=homeless for one month. ME = homeless for two years.

Thanks for your sneering judgmentalism.

[Raskolnik]

145. If you don't want to use it, don't use it. How does this service harm anyone?

If you could explain to me how this service harms any of the beneficiaries, I would be interested.

(and no, not doing *enough* in your opinion is not the same thing as doing harm)

[knitter4democracy]

22. I can only see this helping if they give out free cell phones while they're at it.

Pay phones are hard to find these days and very expensive. Just try getting someone to let you borrow their phone when you're homeless. So, they have voicemail. So what? They need a phone to access it.

Here's a thought: housing. People are homeless because they need a home. Not shelter, not voicemail, a home. Let's take that money that Google's spending and working on getting housing for the homeless first.

[bobbolink]

24. Now you're talking SENSE! Shame on you! ^_^

It's actually very simple, if people just THINK about it, eh?

Think. It only hurts for a little while.

[mondo joe]

26. Actually, no. Many service providers will give access to phones, and having a phone

number is a big help. If you need to hear from your doctor, or about a job interview, or anything else, a phone number is a huge help.

A free cell phone doesn't do a lot of good if you have nowhere to recharge it.

The cost of providing voice mail is minuscule - it wouldn't house much of anyone.

For what it's worth, I work with one of the major service providers to the homeless (and recently homeless) in Seattle.

[slampoet]

35. Thank you for a real perspective, and your work. I'm sure Seattle has need for you,

but I wish it weren't so.


Bless you.

[knitter4democracy]

157. Charger's a good point. Mine's always dying--should've remembered.

I don't understand about the service provider thing. How does that work?

[mondo joe]

162. Sure. There are shelters, clinics and other organizations that serve homeless and

vulnerable people, and often provide phone access to clients, even if for limited times. So you may go into your clinic and use the free phone to check your messages, or use a phone at a shelter, and so on.

It's also worth remembering that homeless people aren't just living on the streets - some have jobs, some sometimes crash at others' homes. These people would also have some access to their voice mail numbers.

I'm not suggesting it's easy or perfect - but for many people it's better than nothing.

[knitter4democracy]

169. Better than nothing. I can see that.

I would worry about those for whom shelters aren't safe or don't have a support network, friends or family to crash with.

Better still, Google could work to get housing for the homeless, too. :)

[mondo joe]

172. Don't let Perfection be the enemy of the Good.

Did you ever contribute to a canned food drive? Did you have to give a week in your home along with it?

If we set the bar so high no one will do anything.

Google is doing something Google can do with an obligation it can carry justified by its good PR. It's good that they're doing it - though I'd prefer they simply partner with Community Voice Mai.

[knitter4democracy]

174. I've given food, and I've had a homeless person over for dinner.

She was going to stay for the night but decided to try her sister's house instead, so Hubby drove her there. I'm just saying, some people do try to give more, like you do.

I think Google didn't partner with CVM because then their name wouldn't be all over it. That tells me a lot about their motives. While what they offer is a good thing, I hope it's not the only thing they're doing to help the least of these.

[Raskolnik]

178. And using the logic of a couple people on this thread, you're part of the problem

because your efforts didn't fix the entire problem for everyone everywhere.

[Breeze54]

181. No one person can fix the entire problem. It's going to take GOV. and HUD

to fix the problem! The USA needs more affordable housing asap!!!

[Raskolnik]

185. No one is saying otherwise.

But I'm sure as hell not going to sit on my ass and criticize people or corporations that choose to chip in and help in their own ways.

[Breeze54]

189. "because your efforts didn't fix the entire problem for everyone everywhere."

You did.

[Raskolnik]

210. I believe there was a miscommunication, and I apologize if I was unclear.

I was pointing out that, according to some people on this thread, good-faith efforts are worthy of scorn if they don't fix the problem completely or in the fashion they approve of. I was attempting to demonstrate that that sort of thinking is silly.

[Breeze54]

222. No worries.

I do it all the time... :P

Not on purpose though.

We've all done that at times.

[knitter4democracy]

182. Fine with me.

I also think you're deliberately misinterpreting their posts. The problem is housing. That's what really needs to get fixed.

[mondo joe]

183. Respectfully, it more complicated than that.

And though housing needs to be fixed, its absence doesn't invalidate the many things being done to help homeless people other than housing.

The free voicemail model isn't any less valid a help than you providing a meal.

[knitter4democracy]

207. I would agree with that.

"The free voicemail model isn't any less valid a help than you providing a meal." I would agree with this.

[Two Americas]

234. that is untrue

That is an untrue statement, and I believe that you know it to be untrue.

No one here said, nor do I believe anyone here would say, that people contributing to charity are therefore part of the problem.

[Oak2004]

209. Not everywhere

All the "help" you're speaking of is not universally available. Service providers don't always allow the use of their phones. Many people have very limited access to shelters (in one rural area I lived in, many homeless people couldn't get to the local shelter because the "local" shelter was 20, 30, or even 50 miles away, and they had no transportation).

Free voicemail can be useful. But it's often not, and pretending it's a wonderful solution when it is at best somewhat helpful is what is irritating about it.

[mondo joe]

224. Free voicemail is very helpful in some settings, and less so in others.

But if you are homeless and living in an area where there is a dearth of service providers, or helpful ones, you've got an additional set of problems.

The areas with the greatest concentration of homeless people, like San Francisco, are also the areas where there is most likely to be better free phone access.

That it doesn't help in every area is no cause to downplay or diminish the help it is in areas with the greatest homeless concentration.

[AngryOldDem]

496. Actually, many homeless people with whom I work have cell phones.

You would be surprised.

[mondo joe]

514. I think most would be surprised about the reality of the homeless, and the varied

situations people live in. There is no one model of homelessness that applies to all.

[Two Americas]

28. this is obscene

This is so destructive in so many ways. It "empowers" people? What nonsense. People have power or they don't, and saying that technology "empowers" them is nothing more than a sleazy ad for the corporation spending a little (for them) money on this obscene and cynical PR effort.

This also lulls people into thinking "we are DOING something for the homeless aren't we wonderful" which makes it less likely that people will understand the problem or support meaningful political action.

"Every single homeless person in the city will be given a life-long phone number and voicemail." Think about that statement. It is absurd on its face. Why not give them all lifetime subscriptions to Forbes magazine?

Does it occur to anyone that the busy modern successful plugged-in wired-up life that do-gooders are always trying to compel the less fortunate to submit to, forcing people to "get on the program," is itself flawed and is the root cause of poverty and homelessness?

[slampoet]

34. Voicemail is the minimum in order to get a job. If you don't understand that,

Then you really don't get it.



I feel sad for that fact that you obviously can't put yourself in someone else's position.

[Two Americas]

53. the trap here

This may be a hit and run post, but I will respond anyway for the benefit of the other posters if nothing else.

The respondent has no way to know my situation, and makes the assumption that I "can't put myself in someone else's position" thereby playing to the crowd in a clever and devious way. How does the poster know that I am not in that "position?" Now, should I admit that I am in fact in that position, there is a price to pay for that, as anyone who has been in that "position" well knows. Our society is dominated by status, and people are treated differently depending upon status. To admit that one is homeless is to accept diminished status, and then to not be taken seriously after that. Embracing the offer of free voicemail is presumed to be on the path to elevated status. Not embracing the offer is to be presumed to be unworthy of help and justifiably blamed for my own misery. And of course homelessness is not seen as a "position" by anyone close to the issue - using that word reveals the fact that this is in fact about status, not "help."

To admit that one is not in that "position" is to then admit that the poster's challenge - that what I say should be dismissed because I can't "prove" that that it is false that I "can't put myself in someone else's position" - is legitimate.

In other words, the post is dishonest. We are being asked to judge the validity of what I said based on my "position." There are two possible positions, and whichever of the two I am in, the poster says that what I say should be dismissed.

[mondo joe]

55. I don't think you know what you're talking about, frankly.

For almost 20 years I've worked with non profits that provide critical services to homeless, and other disenfranchised, people.

A free voicemail line can be of enormous help for many homeless people. For others its not helpful, or not as helpful.

But that doesn't mean it's not an asset for those who do benefit from it.

[Two Americas]

86. no doubt

So have I. And I know that there is a battle within those organizations. You know there is a battle, as well, or you would not be so animated in arguing your position on this. You have run into my argument before, I suspect. I am expressing the point of view from one side of that battle. You may disagree, but your tactic here is to deny any possible validity to the contrary view and to dismiss and silence it.

[mondo joe]

92. To the contrary: I've provided an evidence based, reasoned response to falsehoods posted

here. I don't know which "battle" you're referencing and it's not one of mine.

[Two Americas]

109. the battle

The battle is right here. You are a participant. Are you saying you have never been in this argument before?

[mondo joe]

112. I'm saying I don't know which "battle" you refer to. The people I know are interested

in providing services and resources that work. Sometimes there are disputes about what WILL help, and that's when evidence is a very handy tool.

[Two Americas]

149. ok I will explain

The disagreement is between those advocating and defending privatized help models for solving social problems, and those of us who are saying that this drives out consideration of political solutions, and that social problems require political solutions. Those of us arguing the second view are asking that it be heard, acknowledged and considered, whether or not you agree with it.

[mondo joe]

153. Sounds like a battle between those trying to help people in need, and those who would

rather argue abstracts while people in need go without.

[slampoet]

200. Amen Brother ( or Sis)

[bobbolink]

88. You are so right! And all of us who are homeless have experienced this over and over and over

And some of the WORST to inflict this harm on us are "liberals".

It's all image.

[bobbolink]

41. Not to mention the not-so-subtle implication that we'll be homeless for LIFE,

and how wonderful that will be with voicemail!

WHEEE!!! I can hardly wait!

:eyes:

[Extend a Hand]

89. I guess I read it differently

I thought the fact that it was "for life" meant they wouldn't take it away and make people pay for their own if they managed to get an apartment. A lot of people who get an apartment can't afford a phone too.

[mondo joe]

100. Indeed. Even once people are in housing there can be a long transitional time

and a lot of expenses. Free voice mail for life (read as: as long as it's wanted) is a good thing.

[noamnety]

61. Giving people a way to communicate is not destructive.

I'm guessing you enjoy the privilege of having a way for people to contact you, no?
Why is that good for you, but bad for the homeless?

[Breeze54]

187. Did you eat your Wheaties today?

The highest homeless rates are in SF. One of the roots of the problem is affordable housing and it's availability. The other is low pay or no pay. If one can't afford rent then they also won't have a phone. To get a job or a place to live, voice mail will be a great help. Does it fix the whole problem? No but I wouldn't be expecting one company to fix the whole problem. Google is making an effort to help though and I applaud them for it. Could they do more? Sure. Maybe they could get involved in what is outlined in this article. http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=1a79d5b1-74c7-462e-9233-314cf5344d01">Homeless Shelters Focusing On Families Quite frankly, many companies do donate to food pantries etc. but you don't hear much about it. I'm sure if you do a search, you'll find evidence of that. The government needs to get involved and increase funding to help these people but that isn't going to happen realistically, until we get a democratic president that cares more about people's lives than starting wars in other countries.

[Hannah Bell]

308. Clinton cut Section 8.

http://sappho.wordpress.com/category/housing/

[Breeze54]

330. I know... I demonstrated about it

but somehow (and i can't find the info.) money was released in the mid '90's for sec. 8

I'm not sure how but a month or so after the demonstrations, there were a whole bunch of vouchers released.

[bobbolink]

443. Thank you for that. You'll probably get hell for speaking the truth about the vaunted "BIG DOG"

but it's time for people to realize he wasn't perfect, and indeed, HURT poor people!

Thanks for the link, and I will look that up!!

:applause:

[datasuspect]

32. i'd rather arm the homeless

than give them voicemail.

[ljm2002]

38. I have to say it is startling...

...to see all of the negative responses on this thread!

It is very useful for anyone to have a permanent phone number. For a homeless person it can be a godsend -- now they can actually leave a phone number where they can be called back, and they can get their messages from anywhere they can use a phone. A very different situation from what most of them have right now.

It's cheap for Google to do, something they can do without a lot of trouble. And yes, good public relations. On the other hand, it provides access for the poorest of the poor to the communication web that increasingly defines our modern civiliation.

I say, Kudos to Google for thinking of a very creative win-win thing to do. Whether it will have a long term effect on homelessness, who knows. Certainly it will take more than this to address the larger issue of homelessness. However, given that there are homeless people, giving them a communication lifeline can help to alleviate some of the more common problems associated with that situation, including the ability to maintain contact for purposes of interviews, government aid, medical problems and the like.

[bobbolink]

45. You can be startled all you want. As a homeless person myself, I think I have a clear idea

of what's useful and what's not.

Yes, it's a WIN for google.. look how many people are fooled into thinking what a great company it is to make this useless gesture.

So, now you can spend 50 cents to get your "messages", and 50 cents each to reply to your messages, and get THEIR voicemail, and leave a message, so you can spend another 50 cents to retrieve THAT message... on and on and on...

:crazy:

It's a win/win alright... win for google's image, and win for the phone company.

[tishaLA]

59. And as someone who was homeless until 2 months ago

I can say that it IS useful. Homeless shelters and social service agencies for the homeless allow people to check their voicemails and use the phone for employment purposes, etc. for free. That is part of their mission in helping people reintegrate; and they can do it without charging the homeless fifty cents for a phone call.

While I agree with your sentiment upthread that the homeless need homes more than they need voicemail, they DO need voicemail, too. The problem is that Google isn't Beyond Shelter or the federal government; we have to accept that corporations, insofar as they are neither of these things, do what is possible and, sometimes, what is good.

[Oak2004]

232. Again, not everyone everywhere has access to a free telephone

Things like that are on a community by community, individual by individual, basis.

Useful if you have access to a phone? Probably. If you don't? Useless.

[ljm2002]

71. Hmmm...

...sorry I did not read details. If as you say they are charging for the privilege of using them, then it's not exactly the charitable giveaway I thought it was. But still -- useful for those who may not have access to a permanent number.

[WhollyHeretic]

72. They are not charging for it

[bobbolink]

80. sigh... the PHONE CALLS COST MONEY!

We live under capitalism, remember?

Also, pay phones are few and far between. Often it takes paying for transportation to find one.

THEN.. all you get is a message, so you pay for another call to return that message, and leave a message with their voicemail, so you can get another voicemail in return... ad infinitum.

[WhollyHeretic]

82. Gee really? Wow I didn't know that!!! I was responding to the poster

who thought that they were charging for the voice mail. It's not a final solution for anything. It is helpful. Not having a phone number is a big barrier to finding a job.

[bobbolink]

83. Thank you for your caring response.

It may be "helpful" for a minority of homeless people.

Surely you can see the problems with it.

If you care to.

NOT HAVING A HOME IS A BIG BARRIER TO FINDING A JOB.

[WhollyHeretic]

91. According to what mondo joe posted it is helpful to a majority of people who use it

I haven't seen you respond to him.

So according to you doing something to help is useless unless it solves a problem 100%...

keep on ranting :eyes:

[Dorian Gray]

152. Homeless shelters

allow people to make these calls for free.

[mondo joe]

154. As do some other service providers. In addition, a number of homeless people

have jobs and therefore have phone access, and others have friends or acquaintances with whom they occasionally stay, who migh have phones they can use.

[Dorian Gray]

161. Thanks for all your information in this thread

mondo joe.

It's obvious that this measure won't help Bobbolink, and I feel for her. Greatly. But, that doesn't mean that it won't help many others take a step in a direction in which they can get a job and start on the road to home ownership or rentership.

Regardless, I don't get the vitriol in which this measure is met with here by some. At best it is helpful. At worst it is pointless. I don't understand how this can be perceived in any way as harmful or a bad thing.

[mondo joe]

163. My pleasure. I don't think voicemail is a cure, or even a help in all cases - but I do think there

are many cases where it really does help.

[bobbolink]

229. Sometimes they do, true. However, keep these things in mind:

1. Shelters in many places are VERY difficult to get it. Even though it's only emergency, there are often long lines of people trying to get in, and many get turned away. Shelters are only open at night. What job offers can you respond to at night, except just to leave another message? You need to be BY A PHONE when they call!

2. DAY shelters are more likely to actually have a phone you can use. DAy shelters are a lot more rare than the evening shelters, many cities don't have any. HOWEVER, those phones have long lines. Again, mostly what you will get is the opportunity to leave a message on voice mail.

I will say again, what is needed is true HOUSING. A place to live where you have your own phone, where you can be by the phone to receive a call from a prospective job (or hopefully two or three) or a doctors office, or your child's school. A HOME where you can take a shower for a job interview, or (hurrah!) for a job, even at 3am, if you are on an odd shift. A HOME where you can collect your head to prepare for a busy day.
What a concept!

HOUSINGFIRST! is compaigning to provide homes for even alkies and druggies, saying you can't get "clean" until you have a stable place to live, and yes, it's working.

It's NOT a fantasy.. we are a rich country -- we can make sure we have housing for everyone, if we really want to.

Really.

Not just a message phone, but a real HOME.

[Dorian Gray]

306. I truly hope that all homeless people find themselves

living in a warm and loving home. There's nothing more that I can ask for for our fellow human beings.

[AngryOldDem]

578. May I rebut your points from first-hand experience, please?

1) and 2) The shelter where I work is extremely easy to enter. All we ask is that people call between 2 and 3 in the afternoon. They may do this from just up the street from us, where the day shelter is. The day shelter allows use of their phone for this need; also, people also pass around their cell phones for others to use. We stay on the phones until we have spoken to EVERYONE at the day shelter. In addition, the day shelter staff sends us a fax with additional names of people who will be coming in that night.

It is rare that we turn people away. RARE. We do so mainly because of past behavioral or safety issues (we will not allow one person to threaten a room full of people, for instance). In the winter, no one is turned away. We have a registration list and people come in whose names are on that list. If people keep coming back night after night, we don't even take their names off the list, which means they don't have to call us everyday. The process really cannot be easier if a person needs overnight shelter. We take those that are discharged from the hospital wearing nothing but their gowns; intoxicated people who the cops pick up off the street; a family who someone noticed was sleeping in their car. You name it, I have probably seen it in my time at the shelter as a volunteer and an employee.

Our numbers? Consistently we have close to 200 men, 50 women, and anywhere from 14 to 20 families of various sizes staying with us any given night. (Some families, for their comfort, are sheltered at a nearby motel.)

We allow guests to use our number as a contact, and employers and potential employers have no problem reaching their workers. If it's day labor guests do, they know where the day labor offices are and go to them personally, and day labor also arranges transportation. (NOTE WELL: I think day labor is a scourge and does most of the homeless population NO GOOD. So don't ride me on that issue because I have been against it for YEARS. Thank you.)

Many of our guests do job searches during the day anyway, and most have cell phones, so out of maybe 200 people staying with us, perhaps less than a third actually use us as a conduit for work.

2) I don't deny that what is needed is more housing. But you seem to think that it can just happen overnight. It can't. Many people are working to obtain it for those who need it. In any given city there has to be adequate housing stock in relatively secure areas. With the decay that has infected most major cities, this is a huge impediment to quickly turning around buildings that are possible homes for those in need. Public housing projects, built in the idealistic 1960s, are woefully inadequate and have since become havens for drug and other illegal activity. The solution in most cities has been to raze those structures altogether and/or locate new public housing complexes out of the cities and into the suburbs. That creates its own set of issues (namely the NIMBY minsdet) and puts us back even more firmly on Square One.

But we hear you loud and clear: WE NEED MORE HOUSING.

I realize you are homeless. Are you working with any kind of agency that can help your housing search? Are you working with anyone? A lot of the housing-search process also depends on the motivation of the person seeking it. Merely demanding it won't get it for you.

We place a lot of our guests in housing, some public, some private. I hate to break this to you, but some cannot keep the places they get. Some have burned EVERY SINGLE BRIDGE there is in my city for housing, because they cannot keep a lease, or abide by the terms of residence that agencies set (like Red Cross) for their tenants, or through criminal activity. Who do you blame for that? What do you suggest we do when a person has a steady record of noncompliance, or rent violations, or criminal violations on that property (which is a strike against you no matter what your economic status is)? What do you suggest we do for a family we once sheltered, whom we repeatedly placed in housing, but could not keep it, even with a rent of $50 a month? Doesn't that indicate to you that more help is needed for some people than just a key to a place?

There are so many nuances to this issue that you are choosing to ignore in your HOUSINGFIRST demand. I'm just glad that as I read along this absolutely MASSIVE thread that some do get it, and understand what social- service agencies are up against as they work with the homeless. Maybe someday you will, too. Homelessness is too widespread and complex for simple logical progression from Point A (shelter) to Point B (housing) to Point C (jobs). But please, I beg of you Bobbolink, if you have ANY suggestions for us, please share. A lot of guest attendants, case managers, and social workers are in need of your guidance.

(Most of homeless I know, by the way, do NOT fit your apparent impressions of that population. They are fully capable, intelligent people who can take care of themselves very well. They are working within the system to better their lives, and they fully realize that and accept that it will take time. They don't have time to keep playing the victimization card, which, in the end is a huge waste of time and will NOT win any allies to the cause. Indeed, I find such a characterization outrageous and downright insulting. Such militancy is good for maybe 10 seconds of attention from us in real world; then we all get back to work doing what needs to be done to assist those whom you think you speak so eloquently for.)

[Oak2004]

237. Not all shelters, not everyone can access a shelter

It is incorrect to make this general statement. In fact it is not true in all instances, given that shelters are an ad hoc, community by community, response to homelessness, each with its own rules, and that not every homeless person has access to a shelter.

One example of a common policy at shelters that makes voicemail near-useless: opening the shelter for the night, and allowing access to it (and telephones) after normal business hours, and closing it for the day at about the beginning of business hours. That lets people *listen* to their voicemail for free, but makes it impossible for them to reply to their voicemail without paying for it.

Another common example: homeless people in rural areas are often many miles away from the "local" shelter.

[Robbien]

81. I was hoping you would chime in

because that is exactly what was going through my mind when reading the article.

Voicemail is not cheap. Even if given the system for free, access is not cheap for someone who counts their income in nickels, dimes and quarters.

The only good I can see coming from this is that perhaps some other company will follow suit and provide some good or service which will actually be of some help.

[Dorian Gray]

151. You are homeless

and you have experience and perspective that many of us don't have, but you can't possibly share your experience and perspective with every single homeless person out there. Studies from one organization that provides this service (as posted in this thread up above) have shown that those who have been provided this service have an overwhelming positive opinion of it. Which is to say that this service was beneficial to them and their lives.

Why does this have to be such a nefarious thing on google's part?

[Two Americas]

171. why so praiseworthy?

That is the issue. Why is Google's action so praiseworthy, and why are people so vehemently defending it?

The theme of the thread right from the OP is "Wow! What a great thing Google did!" May we not dissent from that view without being attacked?

Some of us are cautioning against heaping praise on Google and on this approach to social problems. Why is there such violent resistance to that? And does not the resistance suggest that the view that privatized solutions tend to replace consideration of political solutions has some merit and is worthy of at least some consideration?

[mondo joe]

176. It's praiseworthy because it employs a model proven to be helpful to homeless people.

That Google gets some good PR out of it doesn't make the thing less beneficial to people who need so much.

[Two Americas]

193. privatization?

I disagree.

[mondo joe]

195. It's not about privatization. It's about providing a needed service with private dollars while

working on political solutions.

[Two Americas]

216. I have heard that for 40 years

Yes, we are relying on charity while we work on political solutions.

I say that approach has failed miserably.

No one is arguing that charity should stop, or that charity is a bad thing. Not for 40 years did I ever hear anyone arguing that. However, the "while we are working on..." argument HAS prevented serious discussion of political solutions, and is presented as a replacement. Saying that the replacement is only temporary is merely a way to have your cake and eat it, too.

[mondo joe]

219. Private charity wll never go away, and never should.

Government is never going to meet all the needs of all the people.

It's not doing nearly what it ought to - but even if it did, there would still be a need for people who feel passionately about certain issues to dedicate time, energy ad money toward them.

[Two Americas]

247. right

But who called for eliminating private charity? No one.

[bobbolink]

444. How many people have died "while they were working on ...."

Forty years is enough of an experiment.

Human life should count for something.

Thank you for your wise words!

[Dorian Gray]

177. Dissent all you like....

IT's all debate, anyhow. I've not praised Google. My first post in this thread was a question about the logistics of such a move. My second was wanting to learn more information about it.

I just don't think that google is THE EVIL! Even if they are doing this for PR, if it helps someone find a job... HEY! That's great.

[Lorien]

56. I agree wholeheartedly

There are a lot of tinfoil hat wearing whiners/ flamewarriors on this board who see evil everywhere they look. I've employed many homeless people over the years, and one thing they've told me time and time again is that full employment is nearly impossible without a phone (and often without a permanent address too, but the phone is always the first and most pressing problem). This act by Google will make it possible for many, many homeless people to find regular work and to be reached by relatives in times of crisis. Good on them!

:thumbsup:

[bobbolink]

90. Yes, we homeless people are "whiners". Thank you for your liberal view.

[mondo joe]

94. Don;t confuse yourself with "homeless people". There are many homeless people, with

a variety of needs and situations. For many, free voice mail is an asset. For some it isn't.

But that YOU don't think it's helpful doesn't make it so.

[Midlodemocrat]

108. And many who think that Habitat for Humanity is a good organization

Oh, the horror of providing homes to families. God damn them!!!! They should be shut down.


:sarcasm:

[WhollyHeretic]

60. This is a great idea

It doesn't fix the root of the problem but it does help many who need it now.

[Two Americas]

62. enlightening thread

The astute and honest observer can gain great insight from reading this thread.

Notice that behind the smiling face of the "helper" there are hidden daggers that are revealed very quickly, and anyone questioning the "help" is mercilessly attacked. We actually have homeless people being lectured and told that the "helpers" understand the "position" of the homeless better than homeless people themselves! "We know what you need better than you do so STFU!" Obviously, the implication there is that if homeless people knew the Hell what they were doing, they wouldn't be homeless.

So "help" becomes an excuse for guilt-free bashing of the very people supposedly being helped. And look out, we will bash you down with "metrics" is you continue to refuse to comply with our "help."

Notice that while a context has been created here where the less fortunate can be bashed with impunity, no criticism of Google is tolerated. Google is the model of goodness, the voice to be trusted, the people to be admired, and "helping" people to get on the Google program MUST be seen as good and any one criticizing this MUST be attacked.

Here we see the coercive and inhumane approach to poverty that has become all too common in the modern liberal community fully displayed.

The white hat image of the do-gooder liberal is to be seen as much more valuable, much more important - to be defended at all costs and not to be questioned - then the suffering people whom the liberal is supposedly "helping." The "help" is not really help. It is designed to allow the helper to feel good about themselves, and in that cause coercing and abusing the recipient of the help can be justified by the helper. That is, as I said, obscene.

[mondo joe]

64. Which homeless people are you sourcing for your information?

Really.

I can provide measurable data from homeless people who benefit from similar services.

What's your source?

[Two Americas]

93. different perspectives

You are playing the expert card. Source to your heart's content and analyze data all you like. The very fact that you reach for those to "win" this debate illustrates my point.

[mondo joe]

96. Again, which homeless people are the source for your information?

Are there any?

Edit to add: The reason I care about the data is because I want to put my resources into something that will work. If the data, especially that sourced from homeless and other vulnerable people, says free voicemail is a HELP to them, I want to support it.

[Two Americas]

107. "homeless people"

I am not talking about homeless people, I am talking about liberal hypocrisy. My "sources" are live right here on this thread. I have not argued what may or may not be called "help," I am talking about the context within which this "help" is being offered.

The corporation involved, and its vigorous defenders, claim to be talking about homelessness. I am challenging that assumption. May I do so without being relentlessly attacked by you and others?

[mondo joe]

110. Funny, your post #62 seems to differ. But if thats your point, then go ahead

and rail against people who are actually providing valuable resources to people in need.

[Two Americas]

129. ok

So Google is not to be criticized?

[mondo joe]

132. Criticize as you like. But it would be more useful if informed of actual facts - like

a free voicemail service is in fact very useful to many homeless people, though a "subscription to Forbes" wouldn't be.

When you're better informed your criticism will be more worthwhile.

[Two Americas]

221. I didn't suggest otherwise

yes free voicemail could be useful to some people. Who said otherwise?

The Forbes crack was sarcasm, directed at liberal hypocrisy and not meant seriously. I am thinking that you knew that, though.

[mondo joe]

225. If you're going to claim your previous fallacious claims were simply sarcasm there's

no need to discuss them furher.

[Oak2004]

238. How was this data acquired?

A genuine, properly controlled survey, or was it a self-selected sample?

[mondo joe]

240. Sure - if you don't like the data just throw some doubt on it.

The fact is the CVM program worked well in Seattle and spread out as a result.

http://www.cvm.org/survey.cfm

If homeless and vulnerable people see no value in it why are they signing up for it?

[Oak2004]

246. My dear, I'm curretly served by an agency whose survey indicates that it has a 95% positive rating

Of course when the state decided to set up a few focus groups on disability services, they discovered that in fact there was near universal disapproval of the agency among its clients.

Funny stuff happens when agencies set up their own self-selected samples.

[mondo joe]

250. So you say.

But what's your criteria for the things you say online?

[Oak2004]

262. I'm not sure what you're asking here n/t

[Two Americas]

263. how about addresing the message?

Rather than taunting people and trying to get them to reveal personal information, and throwing doubt on their credibility and character without any evidence to base your smears on - which is nothing more than an ad hominem line of attack - how about you respond to the substantive posts on this thread? You ignore those, and then find a new place to make attacks and bait and antagonize people.

[mondo joe]

265. Near as I can tell, the message was "I don't like it so I will obliquely suggest their data is bad".

CVM provides ample documentation of their survey. If you don't like it that's your problem.

A lot of people sign up for it, and they partner with a lot of dedicated shelters and other service organizations.

Try to smear them as you like, they're doing good work.

[WhollyHeretic]

65. Give me a fucking break

There are several people who were homeless posting saying that this is a very helpful thing. There was also a study showing that most people who used similar programs found it very helpful.

[bobbolink]

95. The white hats have outted themselves.

But, since nobody, including racists, homophobes, sexists, etc., likes to squirm when they are confronted with their prejudices, the attacks will increase.

Obscene, indeedy.

[WhollyHeretic]

97. Attacks? Like you constantly attacking liberals? Why have you posted 8000+ times on DU

if you have so much disdain for liberals?

[bobbolink]

99. Why are you uncomfortable with people pointing out the truth of the class divide?

[Midlodemocrat]

111. I want to know what you are doing to better your situation besides deriding people on this board.

You seem to get great pleasure out of castigating the so-called 'liberals' you see here. What are you doing to help yourself or anyone else?

I'm not homeless. I probably never will be. I work with the homeless through my job and although through volunteering. My kids and I work during the summer to build homes for Habitat for Humanity and other projects for the needy in my area.

Just what do you do besides shit all over those of us who post here, but in your mind, aren't doing enough for YOU?

[JackBeck]

113. The insults lead me to do a bit of research.

I've found some interesting things.

[Midlodemocrat]

114. Do tell, Jack.

:hug:

[JackBeck]

116. How can someone

post from a computer lab at 3 am?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=230&topic_id=1663#1720

[Midlodemocrat]

118. Asked the same question up thread. Waiting for a response.

Not holding my breath, however.

:hi:

[JackBeck]

120. I added another nugget to chew on.

:hug:

[knitter4democracy]

167. Time difference?

I hardly ever pay attention to times since we're in so many different time zones.

[JackBeck]

196. I took into consideration the time zone differences.

And I'm not questioning, for the record, the status of this poster's living situation. I just find it curious that for someone, who upthread admits to only using library computers to post on DU , was able to post more than once, after said facilities had closed for the evening.

[knitter4democracy]

211. What would it take for you to believe her?

I'm just sayin'. I replied to your earlier post that I know for a fact that she's real and really is homeless. I've talked with people who know her in real life, and several DUers have met her in real life.

She, like many homeless, doesn't spend every night in the same spot and has friends who help her out. If she used one of their computers to post here, is that a crime?

It's like you have to find a way to tear her down. Would you be okay with people doing that if the situations were reversed? If you were trying to survive and using DU as a way to explain to people the real needs of real people in dire straights, would you want people checking your time stamps and demanding to know where you are at all times of the day and night?

[JackBeck]

235. "I have only the computers at the library to use"

She said it, not me. And there are many posts made after the library computers labs have closed.

And like I said in the post you responded to, I'm not questioning her status. But when someone comes to DU and spends most of their time denigrating progressives, liberals, or those who through hard work and determination claw their way into the "muddleclass", I take pause and start using the "search" button on that poster to look for a pattern. And boy did I find one.

When people like mondo joe, midlo, myself and others that I can't recall right now, work in the community and still are told we're not doing enough, or that what we do doesn't make a difference, it causes frustration for me since I see that many of the things that we do or support work for many people. Sometimes, it can take that one person to trash my efforts for me to think, "why do I even bother"?

[Midlodemocrat]

252. Of course not. But she spends all her time on DU

railing about the 'muddle class' and how no one helps her. Forget about the good works others do for the poor. If you're not helping her, it doesn't matter.

Anyone who demonizes Habitat for Humanity has serious issues.

And she doesn't explain. She castigates. It gets old. Very, very old. She always puts 'liberal' in quotes or 'progressives' in quotes because she doesn't like what she sees.

I asked before. What is she doing to help herself besides yelling at us?

[casstheturtle]

326. Why does she have to prove how she's 'helping herself' when you don't?

You can have and state your opinions on things, and nobody checks up on you to see if you're 'helping yourself' before anyone listens to you.

Do you have any clue the amount of degradation involved in making a person prove that just because they happen to be homeless they've got to be 'helping themselves' in some particular way before you can listen to them?

It works like this: Do-gooders come up with plans for their own reasons and convenience, and the objects of their plans are supposed to behave all neat and orderly and grateful, even if we're being smushed like ants. And to complain about this state of affairs? What bad manners! We all ought to be more positive all the time, cheery, otherwise the do-gooders might get their feelings hurt by the ingrates they're trying to shove 'help' on. Better not speak up unless we agree.

People are trying to tell you what it's like from the other side.

As a result people here are questioning whether they even exist. They're painting them as exceptions. And they're finding every possible way to dismiss them as too negative or too something to bother listening to.

Of course people always think the view from the top is the only real one, what would the rest of us know down here at the bottom, we're only individuals and not capable of seeing the bigger picture and all that, the one where we don't count because we're not on the right side of statistics that are taken in such a way as to render them near-meaningless.

And we don't ever do enough to help ourselves. Of course. Because poverty is an individual problem that poor people can solve by willpower, or something. I hear this stuff and I know exactly why she'd put liberal and progressive in quotes.

[Midlodemocrat]

327. I'm not denigrating everyone on this site for not helping me.

I'm not constantly posting how 'liberals' and 'so -called progressives' don't care about the poor. It's tiresome to those of us who spend a great deal of time and money and effort trying to affect change.

And, it might be in your best interest to get to know situations here on this site before spouting off. It makes you look silly.

[casstheturtle]

350. If people don't want to get called out on silencing tactics, they ought not to use them.

I know the standard song-and-dance that goes on when someone starts getting too "uppity" for their "betters" who are only trying to "help" them, and I know exactly what stuff gets used to try and smack people back down into our "place" in the world. I know the silencing tactics because they are universal and predictable. If people here don't want to get called out on it, they ought not to use them.

"What are you doing to help yourself?" is a really good one to deflect criticism back onto the person who's offering a viewpoint from "below" that nobody wants to see. (It might also be used by those who were able through some combination of work, privilege, and luck, to get out of a bad situation, and who desperately want to believe that they couldn't get back into that bad situation, so they can end up blaming other people for not managing to get out of their situations. I've seen that a lot too.) It's also a profoundly individualist-conservative rant to go on, even when spoken by people who call themselves liberals or progressives, even in fact when spoken by people who've dedicated such-and-such amount of time to "progressive causes", like, oh, "helping" the people they're crapping on when they say things like that to them.

Then there's the "don't bite the hand that feeds you" line, which says that recipients of help always have to be grateful and pleased by it, and can't instead be continually frustrated by people who say they're helping but for all they say they help, are doing harm.

There's "We know what things are like for you people, and you're a total exception to the rule."

There's "How selfish of you to have that opinion when all the rest of you people have a different one."

There's "Hey, you're an exception, so speak for yourself, even as I'm talking about broad policy decisions that directly affect you and yet I'm not getting told only to speak for myself."

You've of course just pulled out the "Hey you're a noob so you don't know anything" line, even though you have no idea what I have and haven't been reading. I notice that my 1000+ post friends who introduced me to the board years ago aren't getting told that. I've been reading the board since before the 2004 elections, but lurking clearly doesn't count for much here.

Then there's the "You're not really who you say you are" line, accompanied by the little back-and-forth discussion between two posters here where they sagely point out to each other "You never know who's on the Internet, you know", and little things like that. While tracking someone down to the exact computer lab they're posting from, and claiming that's some nice "little nugget" they're putting out there, while terrifying someone who's got good reason to fear being followed around. (If people don't know why, they've probably never lived on the streets, especially as a woman.)

Then there's of course "You're crazy so everyone else knows what's best for you more than you do." Even though that's patently offensive on so many levels, it's often there as subtext even when not stated outright. And believe me it's easy to pathologize the adaptations homeless people have to make to survive, and the strong emotions that come with the experience of oppression. It's just another way of trying to render people irrelevant and powerless.

Then there's focusing everything back on how hurt all the helpers' feelings are by all this. As if that's in any way equivalent to things that might threaten a person's survival. Calling it "negativity" is just one more way to say this.

DU has never struck me as some extra-special place where the dynamics of power and privilege take a vacation. The thing that infuriates a lot of people about it is that the people here want to think that because they work on these issues, they're exempt from the criticism of those affected by it. That sort of thing is rampant among liberals. And there are so many people who want to work on the left but find ourselves facing this system of beliefs that appears almost designed to shut us out at every turn. And the people who actually hold that system of beliefs can't see it. So they just see endless criticism "out of nowhere". When the source of the criticism and the reason for it is crystal-clear to me at least, and I'm sure to a lot of others who can see through all this stuff.

[mondo joe]

353. Then there's the preferred silencing tactic:using identity (real or claimed) to establish a special

status that can't be questioned or disagreed with.

You're doing a great job at that one.

[casstheturtle]

410. Yes, there's always that one.

But somehow it's okay to use it by claiming to work with homeless people, and to know so much about homeless people and poverty from working on these issues as to know that what people need is nurses and case management and force. I think the main reason people who say those things aren't getting questioned is because the level of condescension and paternalism sort of proves that is the angle they're coming from, so it's not necessary to run around happily tracking them down to the exact location they post from, demanding personal details of the lives of people for whom being stalked is a life-and-death thing and not some fun Internet "let's prove this person is for real no matter what the cost to her" game.

And just as I can tell that a lot of the do-gooders are exactly the do-gooders they portray themselves as, I can also tell bobbolink has experienced exactly what she says she has. She knows tiny little details you don't know without experiencing them. But in an age where cyberstalking is common, and has clearly already happened to her, she has no obligation to reveal those details online to prove her identity while rendering herself vulnerable to attack in a much more fundamental and life-and-death way than hurt feelings over a homeless person who happens to be angry at how people in her position are being handled.

The emotions of poor people become pathologized by people who work in the helping professions, and then we get to be brushed aside because we're too angry or too distraught or too something to be listened to. It's always something. How hard is it to read the words? This isn't helpful, people who've been truly homeless and on the streets with no safety net know why it's not helpful. Instead of going "Gee, yeah, that's true, how do we do this better?" I'm hearing a lot of people reacting with "Oh no my feelings are hurt." And then it becomes a question of what's more important, feelings or lives.

I'm sure a lot of people in the case management business love this whole permanent phone number idea anyway, it makes people far easier to track, and as bobbolink pointed out, far easier to sit there and say "Oh you didn't return my calls, so you must not really want help." Statistics based only on people who remained easy to track are meaningless, statistics based on how much better social workers like the situation are downright insulting to the people whose lives are under the control of social workers, the ones who don't get a voice because they couldn't be easily tracked and they're not social workers.

I happen to think that someone who's experienced the degradation of being homeless and being under the control of the social workers and case managers and nurses and psychiatric professionals and whoever else deems themselves more important and more understanding of the "real" issues for the person, probably has more of a clue than the people above them, about the damage done.

But it's so, so easy to dismiss that clue as just an emotional response, just anger, bitterness, mental illness, what have you, rather than the knowledge that comes from being there and not being able to overlook the gaping holes in the system that is being presented as wonderful (and the gaping holes in the statistics used to present it as wonderful for that matter -- like another poster here, I'm used to that, I've analyzed client satisfaction surveys for other programs and some of the holes in the survey process are so large you could drive a truck through them, like surveying people only in places where they're easily intimidated, surveying being carried out by the people providing the services in a way that creates fear of losing them or being put in worse if you denounce the wrongs in them, surveying being only of those easily communicated with or comprehended, etc).

As I've said, I've seen it just about everywhere. And if people really thought that there was no validity conferred on someone's opinions by being the sort of person these things actually directly affect, they would not be working so hard, to the point of potentially endangering another person's life (and even not realizing that doesn't make it any less what's happening), to prove that the person isn't who they say they are or that their opinions are rendered worthless by the emotions that accompany them and all the other things I described above. People would not be sitting around saying "This woman isn't really homeless because I just tracked down the computer lab she must be using and it's closed" if they didn't think that her homelessness had relevance to her knowledge and opinions.

[mondo joe]

416. That's sure a lot of typing. But here's a response:

I reference my work with the homeless, but I don't ask anyone to take my word because of it - I provide documentation and facts. You don't need to take my experience into consideration at all.

Secondly, I have never suggested anyone else has to shut up because my work gives me a special status that makes me untouchable. To the contrary: say whateveryou like and expect me to respond.

By the way, you smell of sock puppet.

[Andrea]

544. eewww

I hate that smell.

[casstheturtle]

549. You must really want to shut me up.

But, sorry to disappoint you, I'm my own person, and I'm not anyone else involved in this discussion. I doubt the site owner would want to be bothered with such things, but he could easily verify this through the combination of email addresses and IP addresses.

[mondo joe]

574. Not at all. I encourage you to continue - you exposing your own BS is its own reward.

:hi:

[Dorian Gray]

432. That's all well and good

but in what way does this google initiative harm the homeless population? And is it not possible that it may actually help some? And if you don't believe so, why not?

That's the crux of the issue here. I want to hear some reasons why this won't work in order to accept that position. I haven't heard any other than, "I don't like it because it doesn't go far enough.:

[knitter4democracy]

437. Not true. People here have explained why it has limitations and might not work.

It depends on people getting free calls to access their voicemail. So . . . how does it work in more rural areas where there are no shelters or food banks or churches with food programs or whatever? What if someone can't get into the shelter that night and so can't access it? Where do they go?

For some, this is a good idea. I'll give you that. But people here have been questioning how this will be implemented, questioning how it will be used, questioning access issues and all. Just because you don't want to read that doesn't mean it's not here.

[Dorian Gray]

441. First of all...

My first post on this topic was about those issues. I truly didn't understand how this would be implemented, and I was curious how it would be. I do think that's an issue that does need to be addressed.

Somebody in the thread HAS stated that the voice mails can be accessed through 800 numbers. Now, I don't know whether that is true, but it would be a good idea in order to further implement this plan.

And I know that this is in NO WAY a cure-all for homelessness. I do think that it can aid a certain segment of the population, and I don't think that it should be completely discounted because it won't address the more important issues. It's a small move; I know that. But I don't see any way in which it could be harmful, so I think that it's worth a shot.

And that in no way means that I think GOOGLE is the savior of humanity! :)

[bobbolink]

445. Thank you so much for seeing through the bullshit, and standing up for those of us

who get so mercilessly attacked.

Too bad you don't yet have PM available.

Thanks....

:hug:

[Andrea]

543. We know better than to try that

You said:

"How hard is it to read the words? This isn't helpful, people who've been truly homeless and on the streets with no safety net know why it's not helpful. Instead of going "Gee, yeah, that's true, how do we do this better?" I'm hearing a lot of people reacting with "Oh no my feelings are hurt." And then it becomes a question of what's more important, feelings or lives." (emphasis mine)

We know from experience with these posters that there will be hell to pay if we dare ask. Nobody is going to go down that road again. They have effectively trained us not to ask how to contribute at all, at least not in their presence.

[JackBeck]

636. Where did anyone claim she wasn't homeless?

'"This woman isn't really homeless because I just tracked down the computer lab she must be using and it's closed" if they didn't think that her homelessness had relevance to her knowledge and opinions.'

I have said, in fact, quite the opposite. I had a question that was never answered by the person it was posed. They claim that they only post from the library. So how can they post from the library not only before the computer lab is open, but after it has also closed?

And if someone doesn't want to open themselves up to scrutiny, then they should not go around insulting those who are actively working to improve the situation, while providing all the information that a rudimentary google (how ironic) search could yield.

[Gormy Cuss]

380. You are right about getting called out for silencing tactics.

That warning holds true for everyone, not just Midlo. Since calling out individual posters is against the rules, I can only say that there is ample evidence in the archives that some of the frequent posters on this thread make routine use of silencing tactics. I've been at the receiving end of it twice and e it won't work to silence me. In fact it's laughable to be told that I know nothing about poverty or low income people even after I have detailed more of my history than the accuser has his/her own. It does mean that I will no longer engage in direct conversation with those posters because I no longer believe that they are here to discuss anything, never mind to effect change in attitudes and raise awareness of the issues.

[bobbolink]

446. Yes, those tactics should be banned, because the damage to any real conversation

is total.

It's called BULLYING.

And, it also is stalking.

[Gormy Cuss]

458. I'm glad to hear that you agree.

Now please stop engaging in shutdown tactics, for you are one of the posters that I referenced. I want your voice on DU because I respect what you have to say and weigh your opinion more heavily than some others because of your experiences. I recognize the truth where our experiences overlap. I have never doubted that you are exactly who you say you are here. You on the other hand have accused me of being something other than the person I say I am and tossed out the shutdown line "I know more about poor people than you." You assumed that, as best I can tell, based solely on the fact that I didn't see the issue or solution in the exact same way as you.

[bobbolink]

604. I don't take orders from you or anyone, so don't tell me what to stop or start.

[knitter4democracy]

388. This could be its own post.

You have a lot of powerful stuff in there. Wow.

[bobbolink]

447. Exactly. About time to look at the whole level of discourse on DU.

That post pins it exactly, and is a great contribution to democracy!

[Dorian Gray]

356. But she doesn't tell us anything...

she just criticizes everyone here and complains about anything that is ever posted that might battle homelessness.

At least that is my experience in the few threads that I've posted in with her.

[Midlodemocrat]

361. Exactly. And, I'm tired of it. I have spent a good portion of my life

working for social justice, in particular helping the needy and I don't need to see from this one, bitter person that all my efforts were wasted.

The single mom who got diapers from me in a snowstorm didn't feel that way. I'm tired of it. It's depresssing.

[Dorian Gray]

366. Well,

your efforts are a good thing. And I think that Bobbo can still give us great perspective on what being homeless is like. I just wish that there was a little more acknowledgement that her experiences don't necessarily speak for the experiences of everyone.

She would be a great advocate for people in like positions to her, though. She's passionate and truly does believe strongly in a solution.

[Midlodemocrat]

368. Everyone's efforts to end poverty is a good thing.

Habitat for Humanity is a good thing, this Google service is a good thing. ANY steps that can help someone overcome poverty and become self sufficient is a good thing.

And, complaining because they don't go far enough doesn't cut it. Every single organization I've known or been affiliated with has done all they can to serve the people covered by their mission statement. Saying it doesn't go far enough is just cruel to those who are working their asses off to make a difference.

[Dorian Gray]

427. I agree...

though I do think that we shouldn't allow internet posters to make us feel as though our life work or endeavors are pointless.

I do agree that each little bit should be met with support. If it doesn't work, then debate the hell out of it. If it's harmful to the homeless population, advocate against it! By all means! :)

I think we pretty much agree on this topic, Midlo! Don't let posters make you feel like your focus is pointless. It's not. ::Hugs::

[knitter4democracy]

392. To put the shoe on the other foot, how do we know that's true?

You often post here that you work for social justice, but you sometimes post in the middle of the day, which is odd if you're doing it from work. I'm not trying to be nasty--just show how hurtful it can be to be questioned.

From what you say, you've worked hard for people in desperate straits. Let's say that's true--then why not let her anger roll off your back and listen to what she's really saying, which is pretty much the same thing you're saying: the poor need to be respected as full human beings, politics for the middle class often hurt the poor, and housing should be our top priority.

[Midlodemocrat]

398. I post as often as I want to because I work from home. So, I make my own hours.

And, it completely and totally pisses me off to be dismissed as a 'so called liberal or so called progressive' by your friend. It's tiresome. And, obviously, I'm not the only one pissed off by it.

You know the old saying, you'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Everytime someone posts something that they perceive to be helpful, they get a sarcastic 'Thanks for your concern, or thanks for your compassion'. To which I want to say. How fucking dare you?

And, FWIW, most people posting here during the day are doing it from work. FYI.

[knitter4democracy]

404. I'm just sayin', you're not questioned constantly.

It's not part of your day, every day, in real life and on-line. Questioned about everything, from your choice for breakfast to how much time you're on-line to what you're wearing or how you're spending a dollar. Questioning her like that here when others aren't just seems like a personal attack.

Sure people here are posting from work. Do they get questioned and attacked about their time stamps? Even when they say they only post from work and then have a time stamp that says otherwise? Then why keep attacking her with it?

So, her anger has pissed you off. I can understand that. She and I have had our moments. I learned to look past the anger, though. I do it here with other posters, too. I'd rather give someone the benefit of the doubt than get pissed off at every little attack.

[Midlodemocrat]

409. I think the big difference here is most people on this site

don't regularly attack others for not doing enough to help them. There's the difference. If I were routinely posting things attacking 'so called liberals and progressives' for not doing enough for MY situation, anybody and everybody should call me on it.

It seems to me that anything any organization does short of giving her her own home and car isn't good enough. If those resources were available, there'd be no homeless.

And, pissing off your allies isn't the best way to get your message across. You know that and I know that.

Lately, I've been ignoring the diatribes, but this voicemail thing is a GOOD THING! It could help someone. If it helps just ONE person, isn't it worth it?

[knitter4democracy]

431. If you read her posts carefully, you'd see they're not about her.

You keep saying they are, but I've gone through and read them again. They're about what it's like for all homeless. She's not here with a hand out, begging for help. She rarely does that, actually. The only reason I offered my help last summer was because she posted a reply to one of my posts saying how awful things were getting. Read her stuff again--she's pointing out what it's like for homeless people in general. She's not begging here or demanding a house from a DUer or anything like that. What she wants from us is to open our eyes to see what it's like for the homeless and the destitute and open our hearts and stop being so paternalistic and judgemental.

As for the voicemail, the OP wasn't clear on how it would actually work. I'll admit--I was pretty darn confused how anyone could access the voicemail for free and how it would work out on the street. I still see it being a problem in more rural areas, but that's not where it's offered. Anyway, I think that's where Bobbie's anger came in. She saw yet another paternalistic answer that didn't really meet people where they are. Giving someone something that they end up having to pay for isn't cool, and the way the OP read, it sure sounded like that was the case. I've noticed that she's mostly backed off from that position today, so maybe she can see how it might work for a few.

As for pissing off allies, when you're in pain, you lash out, even at doctors trying to help. When you see well-meaning people treat you like an idiot or question your very existence, it's hard not to get angry and stay angry. I just let it go.

[bobbolink]

449. Actually, it IS offered here, and it's silly.

There are very few payphones, and I keep repeating, and I"m sure everyone here has this experience... you return a call and get THEIR voicemail. WHAT have you gained?????

Besides one more payphone call, when what you need to do is get something to eat???

Enough of those 50cents wasted on calls that go nowhere, and you have lost a meal.

Not to mention, the transportation to get to a pay phone that still exists!

Really, I have posted this over and over and over, and anyone who makes phone calls to companies or agencies knows this, so I can't see the point in repeating it over and over and over...

People are pissed at being confronted that their do-gooding isn't always for the good, yet THEY have no problem confronting US at all times.

It's time to revisit the whole charity mess! This is exactly what it engenders!

[Dorian Gray]

434. I don't know if this was in response to my

post or Midlo's post. I work from home, so though I work for a non-profit, I can surf the web during my "break time." :)

Other than that, I fully agree with your second paragraph. It's all true. Housing is a top priority. That doesn't mean that other programs or initiatives are useless, though. And I think that's what this whole argument boils down to.

[knitter4democracy]

389. Considering she's been stalked by a DUer before . . .

Would you tell everyone here everything? Awhile ago, someone here looked her up and tracked her down to yell at her in real life. It scared her, a woman alone on the streets.

Why should she constantly have to tell and re-tell her story, anyway? Why not listen to her real points (that housing's needed more than anything, that homeless people are people who need to be treated with respect, and that politics for the middle class often hurt the poor) instead attacking her for disagreeing with you?

[Dorian Gray]

426. She shouldn't have to tell and retell her story...

this is not about her story. If she wants to share that with us, great! I'm sure that many of us would learn about the horrors of living out in the streets. It's an awful life, and nobody would choose that life for themselves.

But, if she wants to discuss these issues, rather than saying: "I'm the only word on this because I'm homeless!," I'd much rather see some really interesting debate about how the issues will and won't work for the homeless. A summary dismissal of "I live it! I know it won't work!" doesn't command respect from fellow posters. Rather, "I don't think it could possibly work because...."

I have absolutely NO problem or issue with her advocacy of providing homes for the homeless. I work closely with two organizations who do just that. However, they both have really small focuses, as they are relatively small orgs. (One focuses on finding housing for the homeless mentally ill while the other focuses on housing for the working poor.) They're both great programs, though they are both very specific in who their "clients" are. But that does not mean that they are wrong in being so specific in their focus. They don't have the means to do more.

And people who stalk Bobbo are reprehensible. I don't think that she should be insulted with pejoratives at all. But, in this topic and some others, it reads to me as though she doesn't like to have her ideas or point of view challenged at all, and if it is challenged, it's dismissed as knowing NOTHING. That's not any way to advocate for her issue.

And in this topic alone, all I know is that she doesn't like it because google is not providing homes for the homeless. There is nothing that she's said that would show me WHY this is a bad idea. I can see why it wouldn't work for all the homeless, and that it may be useless for many. But I haven't read any real analysis on why this is dangerous, evil, bad, or just plain old harmful to the homeless. And her posts come across, to me, as though she believes all those things. And I honestly don't get why!

[Two Americas]

442. sublime and courageous self-sacrifice

A person offering up their own story, at great emotional risk to themselves and for no possible personal gain, is an act of courage and compassion that is just awe-inspiring. I cannot imagine a higher motive or more valuable thing for a person to do. I stand in awe and have great admiration and support of what she is doing. I am saddened that some here cannot perceive this - that itself is a sorry commentary on the moral state of our society - but that is no excuse to bash the person and her defenders.

The discussion here is not about whether or not voicemail helps people, yet it continues to be falsely characterized that way for the purpose of defending Google and promoting a particular approach to politics and social issues.

I certainly have explained WHY this may not be the best idea, and what the possible negative ramifications are, and I believe that Bobbolink has as well. You may disagree, but that is no call for claiming that those who disagree with you have not expressed their views adequately.

The assumption that the poster you are criticizing seeks "respect" from the posters here who are resistant to her message, or is trying to sell or convert anyone to a cause is absurd

[bobbolink]

450. Would you please point out the post where I said "I'm the only word on this"???

:crazy:

[Dorian Gray]

471. I've said

that was my perception of what you are saying, and I can be wrong on that. I do, however, seem to see posts from you saying that you've experienced homelessness and those of us who haven't don't know anything about this topic.

I fully respect your opinion on this matter, but I feel like you are trying to discount other people's opinions. Like I said, it is just my impression. I am not going to go back through 500 + posts to pull out examples. I've replied to some of your posts with statements that I thought were problematic, including refering to the entire middle class as "Muddle class." It is my opinion that some of the language you use is divisive and confrontational in this particular topic.

[bobbolink]

613. If you're "not willing" to pile through posts, then don't misquote me.

"those of us who haven't don't know anything about this topic."

What I have said REPEATEDLY is that all of you who want to tear me to shreds are WELCOME to walk in my shoes. Maybe THEN you would understand. So, you can twist that anyway you want, but don't then claim that I'm dissing you.

"It is my opinion that some of the language you use is divisive and confrontational in this particular topic."

My dear poster.... if you will notice the amount of vitriol that I receive, and consider what I'm living with, maybe, if you apply a tad bit of compassion you could understand where I'm coming from, and why I no longer "suffer fools gladly".

I've had many PMs decrying the brutal treatment of me in this thread, and if you can't see what is going on, then I suggest you do as I have repeated... "Walk in my shoes...."

[Dorian Gray]

619. I have repeatedly

stated that I sympathize with the situation that you are in, and I truly and emphatically hope that you will get the help you need in order to get out of the quaqmire that you've found yourself in. It's truly tragic and horrifying. I am stating that so that you know that I truly mean that.

I have in no way denigrated you in this topic. I've never made fun of you, told you to just pull yourself up by your bootstraps, nor will I do so. I understand that people find themselves in horrible positions after losing control of their lives. I am not in any way blaming you or other homeless people for their plight. I do not think it's a choice that people make, and a little hard work will get them out of it.

I do not know your history with some of the posters in this thread, and though I recognize names here, I don't know what kind of posting habits that they have. I do, however, find myself on the same side as those who are arguing with you (and who seem to do so often). I don't want to cause you any pain. I do not, however, think that this particular issue is a negative issue. I don't know how successful it will be in San Francisco, but there has been some positive press from Seattle, and google is doing something small, but what it intends to be helpful.

I honestly don't understand how one move by one company has become this huge thread and ongoing argument. Like it or don't like it. I know that this program won't seem to help you with the information that you have shared about yourself on this thread. For that I am sorry. I do sincerely hope that it will help some of the homeless people in San Francisco get jobs or the proper healthcare that they need. Does this measure go far enough? No. But, it is not a government program. It is a company who decided to give something small back to the community. I'd like to see the local San Fran government make a housing initiative and challenge local companies to partner with them. That would be a much grander scheme. With much more long lasting results. That doesn't mean that this initiative is totally useless, though.

That's my opinion on the subject, and we are at odds about it. I am sorry about that, and I am sorry that you feel attacked. I often feel attacked on DU when I post my viewpoints, and people disagree. That's the nature of public messageboards. People here are opinionated and state what they think.

[bobbolink]

638. And we know that we can always trust the press, right?

You honestly believe the corporate press would EVER question the corporate programs?

[Dorian Gray]

642. I don't understand

what this response has to do with my prior post.

[bobbolink]

651. I'm not surprised.

[bobbolink]

448. No, of course.. I've NEVER revealed myself at all...

:crazy:

[Dorian Gray]

472. Again...

I have no interest in personal details of your life. Rather, I'd like to know why you think this measure is pointless or absolutely worthless. Why it can't help people.

[bobbolink]

603. I have answered that question, in detail, at least four times.

You are only interested in tearing me down personally. At least be honest.

[Dorian Gray]

620. I have no interest in tearing you down

I vehemently disagree with you on THIS topic. I know your opinion is that this initiative doesn't go far enough. I disagree. I've never said anything negative about YOU as a person. Just your posts in THIS topic.

[Dorian Gray]

599. It's not necessary

to make crazy eyes at me, particularly when my response was more about you discussing this topic in detail than providing a detailed agenda of your life.

[knitter4democracy]

386. She's doing plenty.

She's had trouble with asking for help here in the past, so she doesn't anymore. She's very careful not to give too many details because of past issues with people here. It's a long story, as is everyone's.

Bobbie's in a similar situation to many, many Americans. She's on disability, just like my MIL, and so cannot work. Her health problems are big enough that she can't work, but you'd be surprised how many people tell her just to get a job. Her disability checks aren't enough to live on (the government assumes you live with someone, apparently). She's doing what she can to survive from day to day, but she's limited by health problems and not having enough to live on. She has no family support, either, which is not that unusual. My hubby once had a patient in the hospital for almost a year who never had a visitor--not one. The nurses pretty much adopted him, since he had no family and no one to come and visit or help take care of him.

I can understand some of her anger at Habitat. I think they're a great organization, I really do, but they privilege working people and families (understandably so). People without kids or people on disability rank much lower on the list. Hard not to get angry at that when you fall through the cracks. I don't know if that's what happened to her, frankly, but I could understand being angry at an organization that's praised to high heavens that turned you away.

I'll be honest--sometimes her angers wears on me, too. But having had health problems for years myself, I can understand where the anger comes from and let it roll off my back, making sure I listen to what's under it to see what I can learn. I had appendicitis for ten years, and right now I have a broken rib--hard not to get angry when you're in pain like that. I don't think that's what she's dealing with (I don't know her health issues), but I know pain, and I know how hard it is not to get angry with people who just don't get it. When you have chronic pain or other health problems, you have barely enough energy to get through the day. Any setback of any kind puts you further back than any "normal" person. It makes everything much, much harder.

[Midlodemocrat]

402. Actually, Habitat's mission is to get as many people into a home as possible.

And, single people don't fit that mission. Is it unfortunate? Yes, it is. But faced with putting a family of five into a home and off the street or a single person, which would you choose? They don't have unlimited funds either. Of course they turned her away. If she's on disability, she doesn't meet the requirement for 'sweat equity'. And, some people have said that they have tried to reach out and help, only to be rebuffed. And, that's tiresome as well.

And, I suffer from chronic pain myself as a result of having lupus. I guess I could rant on and on about how the 'so-called progressives or liberals' on this site don't do enough to take away my pain, but that is counterproductive, isn't it?

[knitter4democracy]

406. Then, why not use your pain to understand others?

That's what I do with mine. No other good use for it, really.

As for rebuffing help, I can understand that. No one likes to be pitied or treated like they need a daddy or mommy to help them, not even kids. I've tried to help her in the past, and she and I have had our moments, but I've learned to walk away when I need to and help when I can. It works for me.

[Midlodemocrat]

413. LOL. You're kidding, right?

I don't expect or even want to be applauded for all I've done. I just don't want to log into this site and see people like me, people who are trying to make a difference at the expense of money, family time, resources, etc. denigrated.

I take families into my home ever year as a part of the Caritas Mission my church supports. I have a very good idea what people are facing on the streets. I have a very good idea what families in particular are facing on the streets.

I can appreciate her situation better than you think, and along with JackBeck and mondo joe and some others, there are a lot of people who would be staunch and fierce advocates for her if she would stop shitting all over us.

And, if you're going to rebuff help, I honestly don't think you should complain. I wish I were in the situation to provide everyone in my area with a home, but I can't. That doesn't mean I should stop stocking the food pantry, or working at the shelter, or doing laundry, or helping people with job skills.

Any and everything that helps, matters.

[knitter4democracy]

436. Thank you for doing all of that.

I'm sure that what you do really matters in real life. You know what it's like for people in desperate straits, horrible times in their lives when they're so close to the swirling darkness and even death, and you help them. That is awesome.

I think you are misunderstanding Bobbie, though. She's not asking for help for herself--she's trying to get through to us here that we need to be agitating for better, permanent solutions to poverty, not just doing yet another shelter (those places are scary) or yet another handout. Yes, the handout and the shelter work for right now, but they aren't real solutions. That's all she wants--real solutions. So she's mad that few think real solutions are possible--that anger is understandable, don't you think?

See, I used to teach high school, before I had kids. My students would rant and rave, scream in my face, throw desks at me, whatever. Some days, that anger would really get to me, and I would cry all the way home. It wasn't until my second year when some of my seniors who'd graduated came back and told me how much I really had helped, how well they were doing that I finally got it: they'd been angry at feeling trapped. They were angry at a messed-up system that, even though I was just trying to help, I was a part of. I was a safe person to yell at, too. So they yelled. They screamed. They threw desks. Then, they graduated, grew up a little, and when they looked back, they could see how my pitiful attempts to teach had helped. It wasn't until they were out of the situation that they could see. While they were in it, all authority figures were the enemy. Don't trust anyone over 20, that sort of thing. When they were out, had grown up a bit, they looked at it all differently, the way you and I can see it as adults.

I'm not saying Bobbie's a teenager or a child by any means. I'm saying that, when someone's trapped in a sick system, a broken, messed-up system, they rage at everyone they see as part of the system. It's not until they're out that they can see who really helped and who didn't.

[Midlodemocrat]

473. I'll make you an offer.

Bobbi can come and live with us. We have room. She can have her own room, full bath, laundry, and eat with us for every meal. My FIL lived with us for the last two years of his life because my SIL essentially was trying to kill him. He had no money, either. He came here, had a wonderful two years with his grandkids and went on to the next life with good thoughts and a full stomach.

I won't ask anything of her in return.

[Andrea]

629. Won't work

You'd start denigrating her by insisting she not break the windows.

[Dorian Gray]

435. You are very compassionate

knitter. :)

[knitter4democracy]

438. No, I've just seen a lot and lived with pain.

Living with chronic pain changes a person. You see pain in others much more easily--it's almost like a secret club (with new members all the time, which just sucks).

:hug:

[Dorian Gray]

440. That doesn't take away

your kindness and compassion! I think that those with it earn it through life experience, and you've earned yours! :)

[Two Americas]

175. ad hominem

And the worst, most vile sort of ad hominem attack, as well.

We are not for a moment to consider the possibility that Google is a fraud, but a person expressing opinions that make us uncomfortable is to be maliciously attacked as a fraud?

Stunning.

[mondo joe]

179. To the contrary: When a poster makes his or her status an issue, and evidence suggests that status

might be fraudulent, it's relevant.

That's why evidence based data is more useful than claims from anonymous people about special knowledge based on status.

[Two Americas]

202. an issue?

Are you seriously asking us to believe that a person would fake homelessness to gain an advantage over you in an online debate? That reinforces the right wing hate talk about poverty being a racket or a con.

Whew!!

[mondo joe]

205. The internet is filled with people who fabricate identities, for any number of reasons.

I'm sure you know that.

[knitter4democracy]

212. Scanty evidence easily disproven.

You say you work with the homeless. Surely you can think of ways she could have access to computers at that time of night? You don't think she's entirely bereft and without friends or a support network, do you?

[mondo joe]

214. I can think of conceivable ways.

Though when a person says they use library computers but the timing doesn't reflect that, something seems askew.

I don't know if said person is homeless or not. I have no way to know. But that's one more reason to rely on empirical evidence rather than claims based on special personal status.

[knitter4democracy]

230. So, should she check in with you and explain where she is at all times?

Don't be ridiculous--she isn't going to explain where she is at all times of the day and night. She posts that she uses library computers because that's her usual place. When she gets the chance to crash at a friend's place and use their computer, she takes it, like anyone would.

I do know that she's homeless. I have independent verification of that. No, I'm not going to give you phone numbers and such, but I'm not the only one on DU who has talked with her in real life and with others who know her in real life. Heck, some here have met her in real life, too.

Please tell me you aren't so callous and hardened that you'll stick to one piece of evidence and ignore mountains of evidence the other way?

[mondo joe]

233. Why would she need to check in with me?

I don't know who she is or where she is. I don't need to.

Whether she's homeless or not, whether she's a SHE or not, is not relevant. I don't base my decisions on what peole online say they are. A. It's often not true; B. It often doesn't matter (as in, even if Bobbolink is homeless, her opinion on this is not more meaningful than the data based on the experience of many other homeless people).

[Raskolnik]

184. To be fair, when someone constantly uses their own personal experience as a bludgeon

to shut down any criticism, it isn't unreasonable for people to wonder whether that experience is real.

I have no idea if Bobbolink is telling/stretching/bending the truth or not. It's the interwebs, and people can say anything they want about themselves.

I think it was Jesus who said: "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog."

[Two Americas]

206. that is odd

Doesn't that strike you as odd that you think a person mentioning their own poverty is a "bludgeon" against you?

[Raskolnik]

208. That would be odd, if it were at all accurate.

But given that your post doesn't bear any relationship to the facts, it won't really trouble me unduly.

[Midlodemocrat]

254. People have faked their own deaths here, so no, it doesn't.

[knitter4democracy]

180. I did research last summer, too.

She asked me to help her out with some stuff, make phone calls and such, and I actually spoke with people who know her in real life. In calling around for something else, I even ran into someone else, purely coincidentally, who knows here and talked with me at length about it. Other DUers have met her, too.

[Andrea]

567. Actually, it's more than 8000+ even

At least one of her prior identities has been tombstoned.

[mondo joe]

98. Coming from the poster who attacks Habitat For Humanity that's quite a laugh.

[Raskolnik]

150. Could you explain to me how Google's action harms anyone?

Even if only some homeless people find it useful, I fail to see how it results in any sort of net loss to anyone else.

If you could explain, I would appreciate it.

[Two Americas]

261. possible harm

We can't know that Google's offer harms any of the prospective recipients, and it could well be of value to some. What will people be required to do, how do they qualify, what obligations will they be incurring - those would be some concerns. I think a healthy suspicion is in order, as well, when a corporation offers help like this. There is always a danger in charity of debilitating paternalism or hidden catches. Had Google said "we feel a serious responsibility to those left behind" that would be quite different than "we believe in the power of technology." Clearly, it is a lack of compassion that is the root cause of poverty, and the subsequent lack of political will, not a lack of technology. Dos this offer by Google engage people's compassion, and so strengthen the political will, or the opposite? I think this has all of the earmarks of a program that will have the opposite effect from what is needed.

But I think the greater potential for harm lies in the practical political effect, which is a bunch of self-congratulatory feel good thinking - "look, we as a society care about the homeless and here we are doing something about it", which serves the practical political function of lulling people and holding the root causes of poverty. This is not a popular argument here, although if we think about it at all it is not in the least far-fetched or unworthy of consideration. Sadly, people become very defensive and angry about this for some reason.

[mondo joe]

266. The evidence says otherwise. Free voicemail programs began in Seattle which, since then,

has only stepped up its efforts - at the philanthropic as well as governmental - efforts to provide housing for the homeless.

Again, it improves your criticism if you bother to get informed before you make it.

[Dorian Gray]

360. Google's charitable endeavors

From their foundation's website:

www.google.org


Grants and Investments
As of January 2008, Google.org has committed over $75 million in grants and investments to further our five initiatives. These include:

RE<C
eSolar Inc.: $10 million investment to support R&D on solar thermal power to produce utility-scale power cheaper than coal
Makani Power Inc.: $10 million investment to support R&D on high-altitude wind energy extraction technologies aimed at producing utility-scale power cheaper than coal
RechargeIT
Brookings Institution: $200,000 to support a conference in spring 2008 on federal policy to promote plug-in hybrids
CalCars: $200,000 multi-year grant to the California Cars Initiative to support their work educating the public about plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs)
Electric Power Research Institute: $200,000 to support EPRI's plug-in vehicle research and development program including participating in advanced infrastructure development, vehicle-to-grid technology demonstrations, and studies of the environmental and economic benefits of plug-ins
Plug-In America: $100,000 to raise public awareness of and to advocate for plug-in transportation options
Rocky Mountain Institute: $200,000 to partially fund an 'Innovation Workshop' to promote new strategies for greater production and market adoption of plug-in next-generation hybrid vehicles
Dr. Willett Kempton at University of Delaware: $150,000 for megawatt plug-in to grid research and implementation planning
Predict and Prevent
InSTEDD: $5,000,000 multi-year grant to establish this nonprofit organization focused on improving early detection, preparedness, and response capabilities for global health threats and humanitarian crises
Global Health and Security Initiative: $2,500,000 multi-year grant to strengthen national and sub-regional disease surveillance systems in the Mekong Basin area (Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, and China-Yunnan province)
Clark University for Clark Labs: $617,457 to Clark University, with equal funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, to support the development of a system to improve monitoring, analysis and prediction of the impacts of climate variability and change on ecosystems, food, and health in Africa and the Amazon
HealthMap: $450,000 multi-year grant to conduct in-depth research into the use of online data sources for disease surveillance
Inform and Empower
Pratham: $2,000,000 to create an independent institute that will conduct the Nationwide Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) and large scale assessments in the education sector
Institute for Finance Management & Research (IFMR): $1,015,000 multi-year grant to create district level development indices in India and to support mapping of information including research, government, non-government, and NGO database information
PRS Legislative Research: $880,000 multi-year grant to increase citizen engagement, track the performance of members of parliament, and procure photocopies of state laws throughout India
Center for Budget and Policy Studies (CBPS): $765,000 multi-year grant to create a Budget Information Service for local governments in India, with the goal of facilitating better district and municipal-level planning
Centre for Policy Research (CPR): $600,000 multi-year grant to increase the debate and discourse on issues of urban local governance and urban service delivery in light of the rapid expansion of cities in India
Center for Global Development (CGD):
$150,000 grant to help CGD grow and continue to expand their work on education and outcome based assessments
$220,000 grant to support the launch of the International Initiative on Impact Evaluation (3IE), which will bring new financial and technical resources to conduct and disseminate impact evaluations around the world
Fuel Growth of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
TechnoServe: $1.7 million for managing the business plan competitions and entrepreneurship programs in Ghana and Tanzania since 2006
TechnoServe: $3 million as a general support grant to expand TechnoServe's efforts to support enterprises, spur job creation, and strengthen poverty alleviation programs in the Africa region
Acumen Fund: $5.2 million to build and support innovative enterprises serving the poor through market-oriented approaches
Grameen Foundation: $200,000 to assess the potential for mobile applications to provide information for rural enterprises and households in East Africa
Special Projects & Learning Grants
Energy Foundation: $50,000 for climate change research
NRDC:
$100,000 to support the Environmental Entrepreneurs Climate Campaign to assist with the implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (California's AB 32)
$2,000,000 to create a Center on Energy Efficiency Standards to help the US and China achieve major reductions in the use of electricity and natural gas – and significantly cut associated global warming pollution and energy bills – through voluntary and mandatory efficiency standards for buildings, equipment and appliances
ONE Action Campaign: up to $3,000,000 to ensure global health and development issues, specifically the need to conquer malaria, are prominently represented in 2008 U.S. presidential election campaigns
PlanetRead: $345,000 to support Same Language Subtitling (SLS) programs in India
Seva Foundation: $2,000,000 to support programs to prevent blindness and restore eyesight in India, Nepal, Tibet, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Egypt, Tanzania and Guatemala
TEDGlobal / Sapling Foundation: $100,000 grant to support the TEDGlobal-sponsored Fellows' Program which seeks to provide African entrepreneurs with financial and other philanthropic support, as well as communication technologies to make markets and governments more efficient
UC Berkeley Regents: $451,000 to support research on water intervention in Kenya
UC San Francisco: a multi-year grant of $200,000 to support Dr. John Kane's malaria research
World Bank - Development Marketplace: $500,000 to support their international business plan competition that funds innovative, early-stage projects with high potential for development impact
Support for global disease eradication efforts:

The Carter Center: $1,450,000 in matching funds to support guinea worm eradication in Ghana
Rotary Foundation: $3,500,000 in matching funds to support polio eradication globally
Hurricane Katrina Gulf Coast Disaster Response and Recovery:

Accion USA
Trickle Up Program
City Year Louisiana
National Urban League
Greater New Orleans Foundation
Liberty Bank

[Midlodemocrat]

278. They don't. It's just DU picking on a corporate entity again.

God forbid one of them do a positive thing. It'd kill some people here to admit that.

[mondo joe]

283. Then down below there's the picking on people who work in non profits to serve the homeless.

It seems those "helpers" are taking up all the money that would otherwise house homeless people, "end of story".

:eyes:

[Andrea]

546. Yeah,

God forbid people get paid for their work.

And we all know that all those social workers are getting rich off their endeavors.:eyes: I read the want ads and I can't believe it. The positions require advanced degrees and years of experience and then pay $24,000 or less.

Everyone that I know that works in social services is making a sacrifice to do so.

[mondo joe]

573. I think teachers should be paid for their work. In fact, I think everyone should be

fairy compensated for their employment.

Only in this clusterfuck thread could that be considered a bad thing.

[knitter4democracy]

164. Good point. There is a whiff of paternalism here.

The "we know better" vibe.

Yes, homeless people need stable phone numbers and voicemail for work and such. That makes sense. Making sure that they can get free access to that number also makes sense.

Nothing makes more sense, though, than housing. Wouldn't it be better that the voicemail and phone number be attached to a home?

[mondo joe]

168. Of course it would be better to have a home. But since that's not about to happen,

we must use what is available.

There is no standard homeless person. Homeless people are in a variety of circumstances, with a variety of needs.

And there are many people trying to provide what they can - from clothing to health care to food to temporary housing. Voicemail service is just another one of those things.

[Hannah Bell]

296. That it's "not about to happen" is the frigging problem,

a minor minor detail to the toothpaste & voicemail brigade.

Here's what I liken it to. We're all in a lifeboat, cruising along OK, & the captain decides we'd make better time if we tossed 1/10 of the occupants overboard & made them swim. Instead of putting up a fuss, most of those not thrown overboard go along, but to assuage their consciences, they give the swimmers an occasional drink of water or an encouraging word. "If you swim hard enough, you'll soon be on dry land!"

Homelessness is a policy choice. Most of the money spent on homeless services goes to middle-class salaries and other subsidies to the "homed".

[mondo joe]

299. But the "not about to happen" is not a change ordinary people can effect, so they

are trying to do what they can do to help.

I don't think you know very much about homeless services - either for the homeless or for supportive services to help people stay in housing.

And yes, that means some of the money will fund salaries - case managers, social workers, nurses, doctors, behavioral health specialists all need to pay their own bills too.

The policy choices are not their choices - they're just doing what they can to help the people hurt most by those policy choices.

[Hannah Bell]

303. But

<<But the "not about to happen" is not a change ordinary people can effect, so they are trying to do what they can do to help.>>

They can't? I wonder how we ever got the vote, ended child labor, got unemployment insurance, ended segregation, etc.

Google is "ordinary people"? Telecom/media lobbies seem to have a BIG voice, a BIG power when it comes to their OWN interests.


<<I don't think you know very much about homeless services - either for the homeless or for supportive services to help people stay in housing.>>

Well, you'd be wrong then.

[mondo joe]

305. People who actually dedicate their lives to serving homeless and other vulnerable people

are the wrong ones to blame for not effecting massive social change.

They're the people who are MOST likely to be advocates for change, to vote for the right initiatives, and so on.

Blame the people who don't care if you need to blame someone. Hell, blame yourself.

[Hannah Bell]

309. Maybe if you quit patting yourself on the back

you could hear better.

[mondo joe]

311. Nice personal smear, but not a cogent response.

I'm not patting myself on the back at all.

I'm talking about a lot of people who made choices at personal cost to try to help others - physicians who could have earned twice as much in a hospital practice, caseworkers who could have been working at Microsoft.

Your animosity toward those people is a mystery, but not one I need to solve.

[bobbolink]

452. oh, that is beautifully put!

And, yes, we feel like we've been tossed overboard and sacrificed.

Exactly!

[ceile]

66. We have something similar in my town.

Community Voicemail has done wonders for our homeless and those in transition from jails or rehab programs.

[Uncle Joe]

78. I believe this can be useful and is a good idea.

Thanks for the thread, sad_one.

[sarcasmo]

87. I knew there was a reason I liked Google. Now if they could do it in every major city. Kick and Nom.

[Two Americas]

101. the issue

Some here are aggressively and vehemently defending a giant corporation, and then viciously attacking all who fail in even the slightest way to join in the praise and admiration for the corporation.

THAT is the problem, and can never be part of any solution. The knee-jerk response to give those with presumed status and power - the "winners" - every possible break and benefit of the doubt, while indulging in hateful attacks on our fellow citizens - presumed to be "losers" - in the cause of defending the wealthy and powerful is itself the root cause of poverty and homelessness.

Politically, calling these vigorous defenses of the wealthy and powerful "liberal" sabotages liberalism and serves to weaken and cripple us, and is the root cause of the extreme right wing nightmare we have been enduring.

[mondo joe]

102. Bullshit. The issue is simple: Does it help or not? Your social agenda is preventing you

from getting to the meat of the matter.

Is Google getting a PR boost? Certainly. Is what they are doing helpful anyway? Certainly.

For many homeless people access to free voicemail is an asset - there is no evidence based argument against that. Many non profits dedicated to serving homeless and high risk populations provide the service for one very good reason: it works.

I'd prefer they hooked up with an existing non profit service provider like Community Voice Mail rather than running a parallel service. But it does no one any good to let the PERFECT be the enemy of the GOOD.

[Two Americas]

104. of course

How can we discuss politics if we do not have a "social agenda?" Mine is out in the open, agree or disagree.

[mondo joe]

105. To you it's just politics. To me it's about helping people. I'm not interested in politics

obstructing a real benefit to real people in need.

[Two Americas]

122. yes!

Exactly. You nailed it.

I am saying that social problems require political solutions. You are taking exception to that.

Helping is good, but not when it is a replacement for political action, and too often that is exactly what it as become as liberalism continues to evolve away from politics.

"Help" by that definition of "help" too often does not help. Helping that requires us to be resistant or even opposed to the consideration of political solutions is politically reactionary and is actually preventing problems from being solved. It succeeds only at building a "help" industry, and that help industry requires the people being "helped" to behave and think in a certain way, for the comfort and convenience of the "helpers." It ignores politics, economics and power, and builds a two-tier society - the benevolent enlightened helpers, and the subservient, studied, metrics-ed, fixed and cured people being "helped."

[mondo joe]

124. No, you don't know - and I suspect don't care - what helps people.

You made that plain by comparing this to a lifetime subscription to Forbes. You don't much know what helps or what people want, because you're too interested in rejecting those things.

[Two Americas]

127. why keep attacking?

I don't understand your motivation on this thread. You know nothing about me or what I have or have not done. Right here right now we are on a political discussion board. My posts are what I am doing. I am making a point that you may disagree with, but that is no call for the relentless attacks.

I am pointing out the dangers in grabbing for this sort of solution. I have made that point well, and respectfully.

[mondo joe]

130. If you consider pointing out facts to be "attacking" you might reconsider your position.

My motivation is to share information in response to BS.

[BigDaddy44]

131. Not to be disrespectful, but....

I haven't read a thing about what you've been doing. All I've read is you bellyaching about someone who did SOMETHING for not doing even more. I suppose evil google should be buying land and building apartments for the homeless instead.

[Two Americas]

136. so it is Google versus me, then

I think Google is going to win in your mind no matter what I say. Are you seriously asking me to demonstrate my status relative to Google? Yet you are denying that there is a problem with that? Why the double standard? Google is to be presumed the good guy, yet I, as a nobody, must prove to you my right to speak and I am presumed to be the bad guy.

Unless I am doing more than Goggle, I have no right to criticize Google, and my points are to be dismissed. That is what I get from your most recent post here.

That is exactly what I am saying is the problem, and can never be part of the solution.

[Dorian Gray]

156. Nobody is attacking

anybody for not singing the praises of google. Rather, I see frustrated people who are sick of the negativity about something that is altruistic, yet the negativity never addresses the statistical information regarding the success of similar programs.

Having said that, criticize google all you want for all I care. They are a private corporation, and I have no affinity to them.

[riotman]

324. the issue

this is not about defense of a giant corporation. I've just read them actually being attacked for doing this one thing. Providing free voice mail boxes is a good thing. If it's not then guess what, it won't get used. But I believe it is at least something small that a homeless person can now have.

Be careful, Wanting to take away what little homeless people have, even by diminishing it verbally is one of the many tacticts used against those with less.

[NikolaC]

121. Oh How Good Of Them

Here I was, with my limited brain, thinking that all they needed was a job, shelter, food and a warm bed to sleep in at night. The phone number idea is soooo much better :sarcasm:!

[mondo joe]

123. Thoughtful use of evidence takes longer than pomposity. But it's worth it.

Free voicemail isn't everything homeless people need, by a long shot. But it's a good thing that helps many homeless people, and it's something Google can provide.

[NikolaC]

125. I Don't believe that voicemail is enough to help the situation

If that makes me pompous in your opinion then fine.

[BigDaddy44]

126. Based on data provided earlier in this thread, it is

It doesn't solve all the worlds ills, but its a very nice step.

Ahhh, DU....... where no good deed goes uncriticized

[mondo joe]

128. Fortunately, it doesn't have to rely on belief. There's evidence.

Go look for yourself: http://www.cvm.org/results.cfm

CVM started as a very grass roots effort in Seattle and has taken off across the country because it was proven to be a useful tool.

It helps homeless and vulnerable people in employment, in healthcare, in housing and in other ways.

Its not a solution to homelessness, but it is a help to may people who are homeless.

[WhollyHeretic]

135. Apparently doing something to help is worse than useless unless

it solves a problem 100%. At least according to some on this board.

Thanks for the work you've done in Seattle.

[Two Americas]

138. no, of course not

You are unfairly and inaccurately characterizing the other members on this thread. No one needed to take "offense" by anything that was posted, nor did anyone need to come rushing to the defense of Google. People chose to do that, and now refuse to discuss their motives for doing so, and then are attacking any and all critics of Google.

There is nothing wrong with helping people. There are, however, problems when helping becomes a substitute or a replacement for political solutions.

The private help model, so loved by the right wing from Reagan's bootstrap individualism, "personal responsibility," and privatization, to Bush I and his "thousand points of light, to Bush II and his "faith based initiatives" is what is being defended here by some.

We are being told that because Google is doing a good thing, we may not criticize Google nor introduce any political analysis. In other words, doing good places a person or an organization above reproach, and immune from any political criticism. Ergo, we are being asked to replace politics with something else - the private help do-good model. That changes it from help to something else altogether.

It does not help people ultimately if the price of the help is that we must dismiss and suppress discussion of political solutions.

[WhollyHeretic]

141. This thread is littered with your ridiculous straw-men

[Oak2004]

325. When you survey only those who can be reached through the voicemail system

excluding all who are not actively using the system, you have a biased sample and a foregone conclusion (i.e., your sample is selected from those who are most likely to be finding the system useful).

That's not a metric. That's marketing.

[mondo joe]

331. When you sample homeless people using the CVM system you establish that

homeless people ARE using the CVM system.

If your objective were to say the CVM is the solution to everyone's problem, you'd have a point. But that's not the objective.

[madmom]

239. So if you came upon a hungry person and all you could give them was a piece of

bread, but because this would not help the problem entirely, they'd still be hungry, you wouldn't give them the bread? Same logic IMO

[NikolaC]

251. No

I always give a homeless person whatever money I have on hand as I cannot pass one in good conscience and ignore them. I have donated clothing, furniture and whatever I could give. I also donate regularly to Habitat for Humanity and have volunteered in the past. I get very upset when it comes to this issue, I believe that there needs to be more done than just a phone number and it needs to come from the government as well as private industry. When I see a government or company that can do better by it's citizens who are worse off than they are, yet they come up with small things, I get upset. The government should do more to help, but they damn well won't. I am frustrated, period. But go on ahead and assume that you know me or where I am coming from on this issue. BTW, I am a female, not a straw man. Continue your flame fest.

[madmom]

334. So by you're token "every little bit helps" so what's wrong with the idea

of giving them voice mail, especially since it could help many get jobs and other help?

[Midlodemocrat]

414. If it helps just one person, it's worth it.

[Two Americas]

476. always?

What if helping one person harms a thousand others?

[Midlodemocrat]

482. Yeah, because google's voicemail offer is hurtful. Nice strawman.

:eyes:

[Two Americas]

502. hypothetical

It is not straw man, it is a hypothetical. I didn't say Google was harming anyone. But it certainly could be true that a privatized effort, well publicized, takes the pressure of off the politicians and tends to lull the public into complacency. So yes, it is very easy to imagine that for each one helped a thousand could be harmed. It happens all the time. It is called the "ownership society" and the premises and assumptions of that right wing program have infiltrated liberalism at all levels.

This is so pervasive and obvious, that I think everyone here would see it clearly if they gave it any thought. One common example is parents setting up fund-raisers to save music or athletic programs in schools. Once that starts, the political will to fight for saving school budgets is seriously compromised and weakened, since "the problem has been solved" - or at least the public thinks it has been solved.

[Midlodemocrat]

506. Well, parents who do that are in violation of the tenets of the PTA.

But does that mean they should be demonized for their efforts if their school districts can't afford to provide those things? Of course not. Your comments on this thread are that because there is a possibility that even one person won't benefit from this exercise that it should be shut down and that's ridiculous.

Anyone who works with the homeless and the needy knows that private help is necessary. It's been necessary for a very long time. And, demonizing the private sector and charities for helping because the government should be doing it is ridiculous. Private charity is never going to go away. It just isn't. Should it be piggybacked with a full and tremendous government program? Of course. But in the meantime, those of us who work with the homeless will take what we can. Demonizing and castigating programs designed to help the less fortunate is beyond stupid.

[Two Americas]

545. whoa

I did not "demonize (them) for their efforts if their school districts can't afford to provide those things." I said that it has negative effects politically. That has been what I have consistently, and effectively, argued throughout the thread. You ignore that, and out words in my mouth that make it easier for you to make your point. I have to assume that you would only do this if your point were in fact weak and unable to stand on its own when argued fairly and honestly.

This thread was started in praise of a privatized effort at solving a social problem. There are problems with that, and I have made a more than adequate case to demonstrate those problems. To continue to misrepresent that as being an attack on charitable people is absurd.

I am certain that you know the difference between what I am saying and what you continue to claim I said.

[Midlodemocrat]

593. Actually, you've made no case. mondo joe pointed out how

the CVM system has been effective and you've yet to address that.

You have a problem with Google doing this for reasons known only to you. Others have pointed out, through statistical evidence as well as first hand experience why it isn't a bad thing, yet you continue to insist that it is.

[mondo joe]

596. I believe the poster you are responding to is of the opinion that helping people in need

lets government off the hook, so it would be better to let people suffer than to provide relief.

It's a sad sort of scorched earth worldview.

[Midlodemocrat]

597. That seems to be the most prevalent belief on this thread.

All or nothing. All or nothing. Oh, and charity is a fraud and a scam.

It's actually pretty sad.

[mondo joe]

598. Yes - when "rescuing babies" is used as a descrition of derision you can see how

far gone some are.

I'm reminded of little impotent Robespierres, entirely willing to wage their Great Terrors to sacrifice the people they claim to help.

[RoadRage]

133. This is great.. but exactly how are the homeless going to know about this?

It's great for google.. but a couple of things:

Homeless people are going to be the last to find out about this.. they don't read the news & interent as often as people with homes.

How are they going to access this.. without a computer or phone?

Is there any training involved with this.. many homeless people are not technologically advanced, and tend to be older or have handicap or addiction problems that make technology difficult. I hope someone is willing to show them how this stuff works!

Just curious.. no slam.. trying to figure out the logistics!

[mondo joe]

134. In Seattle it happened through partnerships with direct service providers -

homeless shelters, community clinics, foodbanks and others, as well as outreach workers associated with those services.

[Breeze54]

173. I'm sure food pantries and soup kichens and shelters will tell them.

Yes, homeless people are not smart enough to check voice mail either!! :eyes:

Study: 744,000 homeless people in U.S.

Updated 3:41 p.m. ET, Wed., Jan. 10, 2007

First national canvass in a decade finds a quarter were chronically homeless

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16564208/

WASHINGTON -

There were 744,000 homeless people in the United States in 2005, according to the first national estimate in a decade.

A little more than half were living in shelters, and nearly a quarter were chronically homeless, according to the report Wednesday by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, an advocacy group.

A majority of the homeless were single adults, but about 41 percent were in families, the report said.

snip-->

Calif., N.Y. lead nation

California was the state with most homeless people in 2005, about 170,000, followed by New York, Florida, Texas and Georgia, according to the report.

Nevada had the highest share of its population homeless, about 0.68 percent. It was followed by
Rhode Island, Colorado, California and Hawaii.

“The driver in homelessness is the affordable housing crisis,” Roman said. “If we don’t do
something to address the crisis in affordable housing we are not going to solve homelessness.”

more.....

See? It's single parents and families that are homeless!
I'm sure they have owned a phone before! :eyes:

---------

Homeless Shelters Focusing On Families

http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=1a79d5b1-74c7-462e-9233-314cf5344d01

Survey finds single men aren't the only ones who need help in the region

By Claire Bessette Published on 2/25/2008

Just as the stereotype of a homeless person might be a single man, the mental picture of supportive housing might be an apartment building with tiny units, an office and a counseling staff.

But what about the families and children?

Preliminary results from the most recent Point in Time homeless count for New London County on Jan. 30 found 25 families with 54 children living in shelters in the region. Another 29 families with 55 children currently are living in temporary transitional housing, most of which mandate short stays. Shelters and short-term transitional housing count as homeless situations.

“Thank God, we did not find any families living in the streets,” said David Pascua, co-coordinator of the Point in Time count and housing coordinator for the Southeastern Mental Health Authority.

While much of the talk on ending homelessness has centered on housing for individuals living in the streets, several state and local agencies also are working to bring families under stable roofs with accompanying support services to try to keep them there.

The Women's Center of Southeastern Connecticut believes it has found the right formula.

more...

[Dorian Gray]

137. Wow....

that's kind of interesting, but I'm not sure about the logistics of it? Do they provide cell phones? Or how does this work?

[varelse]

223. Awesome news :)

WTG google!

Now, if the rest of us can just work on getting them all permanent residential addresses... that'd be great.

[Breeze54]

226. Permanent addresses should be the goal, for sure!

Welcome to DU, varelse! :hi:

But b* won't do a damn thing about it. :grr:

I can't wait until November when we win the election and then we can start to fund
affordable housing again and start moving these people and families into Apts and homes.

Gawd...our new president is going to have her or his hands full with Katrina and
homelessness and Iraq and Afghanistan and all the rest of the crap b* created. :banghead:

[npincus]

227. Google is GREAT to their employees: Fortune Mag #1 place to work

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2007/snapshots/1.

free gourmet healthy lunches to employees is one perk.

[Book Lover]

286. As long as you are under 40

Do a search for the terms "Google" and "age discrimination."

[jberryhill]

291. B. R. is a friend of mine

...and he is utterly brilliant, btw.

[Book Lover]

339. Um, who the hell is B.R.? (nm)

[jberryhill]

428. Do a google search for...

"Google" and "age discrimination"

Most of the results refer to one case.

I assumed since doing the search was your suggestion that you knew about the case.

[Robb]

236. Wow, quite a pissing match upstream.

"I'm more in touch with the common man than you are." :eyes:

[Extend a Hand]

256. I had no idea that this would be a controversial thread

:shrug:

While it might not help everyone, I'm old enough to remember "the old days" when nobody had voicemail or even answering machines. It was much harder to connect. If you wanted a job and didn't have a phone you had to keep going back to the company in person.

Google is a technology company, they're offering something they're good at free of charge. I'd hope that their contribution would free up more resources of those on the front lines to spend more on other needs.

[mondo joe]

258. You must have missed the threads attacking Habitat For Humanity or you'd know no

good deed goes unpunished. :-(

[Hannah Bell]

267. I grew up in Seattle, went overseas in 1979,

Came back in 1985 and there's suddenly all these homeless people. They weren't there when I left.

Come to find out, it's because Reagan cut housing subsidies to the bone and replaced them with about 1 billion in shelter funds. Housing subsidies have continued to be cut since, and shelter funds have always been less than 1.5 billion in constant dollars.

We have homeless people by choice. We have people in shelters by choice, and decently paid jobs for an army of middle-class "helpers" by choice.

You'll forgive some people if that bothers them, and they get ticked off when something like voicemail is touted as a step toward a solution.

The solutions are obvious; we don't choose to provide them, is the bitter truth.

[mondo joe]

269. I don't forgive willful ignorance.

If people want to be ticked based against people who are actually working on helping the homeless, based on ignorance, then no - I don't forgive them. I don't forgive willful ignorance.

And I don't forgive people demonizing those who have chosen to work in non profits for making a living, at much less than they could have earned otherwise.

[Hannah Bell]

277. Nothing personal.

But the fact is, the phenomenon of "homelessness" began when Reagan cut housing subsidies, & they've been cutting them ever since. It's not rocket science, it's not like we don't know what works. Particularly for older & disabled people, what we're doing is a crime, & in that light, frigging voicemail is a joke.

I see no reason to pat "helpers" on the back for their efforts. They get paid. There's about 3 million dollars from a variety of sources that goes into homelessness in this town, & most of it goes to salaries for helpers. Unfortunately, little of it goes to stable, safe, subsidized housing.

I volunteered at a shelter for several years. One quarter, at least, of those people worked, another quarter got some kind of state check, one quarter had drug problems, and another quarter would never be able to work under any circumstances & had fallen between various cracks in the system.

The common factor was - they didn't have enough reliable income to get & keep housing. Subsidize housing. End of story.

Sorry you take it personally.

[mondo joe]

282. Those "helpers" aren't the people who created homelessness. They're not the ones

perpetuating it.

I don't take your posts personally - I just know your position is not accurate.

I also know that while there is a significant need for far more subsidized housing, for many homeless people that alone isn't enough. The chronically homeless have a difficult time staying in housing no matter what the subsidy - hence he need for case managers, MH/SA workers and supportive nursing.

A number of non profits in Seattle work explicitly on keeping people in housing, or assisting the transition.

You might also look at one particularly troubling population: homeless teens. There are a number of resources available to homeless teens but that's not enough, because the kids typically don't trust (and hence aren't willing to use) such resources.

The "End of story" you imagine isn't the end.

[bobbolink]

271. Excuse me? I'm not homeless "by choice", nor is any homeless person I know.

that is Raygun RW talking points!

[Extend a Hand]

273. I think she meant

that we as a society caused homelessness by eliminating housing subsidies in favor of homeless shelters, not that people that are homeless choose to be homeless.

[bobbolink]

287. Maybe that's what she meant, but homeless people are very sensitive to that charge.

RAYGUNism still lives, including with liberals, and words like that sting.

[Extend a Hand]

307. I hope the Raygun rots in hell

for making that evil meme popular

[bobbolink]

358. That would be nice, but I would be satisfied (and probably happy), if just the people who consider

themselves "liberal" would evict those memes from their minds, hearts and words they speak to those of us who are hurt by them.

[Extend a Hand]

272. This wasn't being 'touted as a solution'

That's a strawman argument.

On this board, I doubt seriously that you'll find many people that are voting when given the opportunity to reduce housing subsidies and replace them with limited money for shelters. I for one would certainly like to see the our government stop funding wars of aggression and wars on drugs and wars on terror and replace these expenditures with increased social spending like affordable housing, healthcare, education, and green energy.

I sure hope things improve when we have a democrat in the whitehouse. I've been sorely disappointed with congress since 2006.

[bobbolink]

279. I hope you will read the posts by Two Americas about the "helpers" and the "helped"

You want to talk about "strawman arguments", then you make it between Dem and RW.

:eyes:

there are times when liberals need to look at their own complicity, and this is one of them.

[Extend a Hand]

297. As a matter of public policy

Dems as a group are more likely to increase social spending that RWers.

I would certainly agree that some aid programs even do more harm than good. This seems to even be more frequently the case with foreign aid. I don't know if there is some conspiracy to keep many third world countries in debt and perhaps part of our population as well but I sure wouldn't rule it out given the way things are going.

However, I don't think it's a reasonable to make the assumption that in this case that Google is acting with evil intent by offering a token gesture to take the place of a real solution.

I'd be more inclined to make that accusation to the democratic members of congress that voted for the bankruptcy bill or those have offered up solutions to the foreclosure crisis that will keep some people indebted for 30 or more years paying on a house that is not worth nearly as much as they owe.

We both, I think can agree that homelessness is a problem that needs a solution and that government policy makers should provide more funding for subsidized housing. Or is there something else?
I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish in this thread? Are you trying to convince DUers to take some specific action? to withdraw support from any effort that does not involve a complete solutions? Do you think that private companies should or shouldn't contribute as they feel they can?

[Two Americas]

315. "more likely?"

How long are we going to settle for that?

Homelessness is not a "problem that needs a solution." It is all of the problems that we say we care about combined, and concentrated and brought to bear on the most vulnerable of our brothers and sisters. Our failure to take a strong stand here, is our failure to take a strong stand anywhere.

Homelessness is every issue. Every homeless person is sacrificing for us.

It is unemployment, it is hunger. It is the breakdown of families and communities. It is the toxic environment, it is a cruel and brutal system based on greed and selfishness. It is suffering and hardship, it is fear and pain. It is the lack of access to health care. It is unequal justice and the abrogation of human rights. It is a chronic and accepted by-product of war. It is loneliness and isolation, it is the absence of love. This can all be seen with great clarity when we look at homelessness - if only we will look.

Homelessness is racism, it is misogyny. It is brutality against children and the elderly.

Homelessness is a monument to our selfishness and cowardice, our cruelty and indifference.

[Extend a Hand]

316. yes, "More Likely"

Are you suggesting that we not vote? vote for some third party?

How are you proprosing that we "not settle for that"?

[Hannah Bell]

284. From the article:

<<that could help hundreds of homeless people in San Francisco get back on their feet.>>

Sounds like its being touted as a solution to me, as if lack of a phone was the thing that keeps them homeless.

Look, you know, you have to brush your teeth to get a job, too, and plenty of people in this community donate toothbrushes & toothpaste ever year to our shelters, spending a lot of time & effort rounding them all up, & getting their pictures in the paper for doing it. Every year, the same thing, over & over, & every year, the number of toothbrushes needed grows.

It's nice they do it, it probably helps some people get "back on their feet," too. You feel more civilized when you're clean, you have more energy. But it does nothing about the real problems. People don't become homeless for lack of toothpaste, or for lack of phones.

Regular people don't vote on housing subsidies. That's done by our so-called leaders, & defunding the insecure has been deliberate policy since the 80s.

What we do is sit on our butts & cheer google for their free voicemail. "It's so nice someone's doing SOMETHING," we say, because we accept the idea that homelessness is a given.

But it's not. From 1950-1979 it wasn't. By deliberate policy choice.

[NikolaC]

294. Right

You said it better and clearer than I could have.

[Robb]

295. So because you cannot plant a forest

...you want to say "fuck planting a tree?"

Or just wax supercilious at people who get their picture in the paper, despite their never having cured cancer?

There's a starfish parable you should read.

[Hannah Bell]

301. We CAN plant a forest. We did in the past.

We CHOOSE not to.

You've got plenty of people cheering for your spindly little trees, you don't need me.

I went to several of the planning meetings for the so-called "ten-year plan to end homelessness." The director of the place I volunteered flat-out said when we drove over, "Now we're going to go & pretend we're gonna end homelessness in 10 years."

The meetings were run by hired "outside consultants." All the attendees got paid. They spent a couple of hours talking about stuff everyone knew, then the "consultants" went home & worked up a report which repeated stuff that everyone knew. The priority they came up with was to open a day center, where homeless people could come & hang out. This in a smallish town which already has 150 shelter beds. But the people can't "hang out" there during the day unless they're disabled or ill.

Of course, more money would be needed to pay the rent & staff for the day center.

More subsidized housing was last on the list, cause they know they're not gonna get it. The gov might pony up for another FTE & rent, but not for anything that might really solve the problem.

And most of the helpers are happy to lobby to expand their caring fiefdoms, but not to do anything that might actually do something to get to the root of the problem.

It's just the way things are, that's the mindset. "At least we're doing SOMETHING."

[Extend a Hand]

302. That is a really sad state of affairs

In a country as rich as the United States, a place to live should be a right not a privilege.
(I'm not sure when this was ever the case in this country though).

[mondo joe]

304. You still have a lot wrong.

The city and county are dedicating significant resources to the 10 Year Plan. That includes millions in subsidized housing, totaling hundreds of units.

What you seem to also misunderstand is that for the most chronically homeless, a subsidized apartment isn't enough. There are too many who can't manage to stay in such housing even when it's provided. Hence supportive housing is needed - and is funded.

And yes, the nurses and counselors and case managers who provide the support in supportive housing get paid too. As they should.

[Extend a Hand]

310. mondo joe you clearly know and care a great deal about homelessness

It's a shame when those that really care get tarred with the same brush as those that don't.

Having gone through the truly wretched foster care system in Florida, I can understand the animosity that some feel toward "the system" and "the helpers." Their were a few social workers that I met that really made a difference in my life. I hope you don't get burnt out. I bet you're one of the great ones. So here's a hug for you.

:hug:

[Hannah Bell]

312. No, YOU have it wrong.

It's a cynical con, & everyone knows it who doesn't have their head in the sand. Bush has cut housing subsidies; there's no NEW money going to be coming.

Reagan cut 74 billion to 19 billion, & replaced it with a billion in shelter funds. THAT's when we started to see "the homeless". & every administration since has kept the status quo, or cut more.

http://sappho.wordpress.com/category/housing/

http://wraphome.org/wh/index.php

[mondo joe]

313. Why are you blaming Seattle for Reagan and Bush's actions? They did what they did, and

there are cities and individuals seeking to do what they can in a situation they didn't make ad can't control.

The city of Seattle is pumping millions into housing for the homeless in Seattle, and supportive housing at that.

[Hannah Bell]

314. Where do you see me "blaming Seattle"?

I don't live in Seattle anymore, in case you're confused.

Maybe Seattle's doing wonderful things, I have no idea.

But the 10-year plan is a federal, Bush admin initiative. Made while they cut subsidies & demolish housing.

Everyone's supposed to "work smarter," "network," "share resources," blah-blah, all the frigging buzzwords.

It's a cynical con.

[Andrea]

550. hmm

It is confusing. According to your profile, you live in Seattle. Or at least did as of the time you wrote the profile, which was no earlier than Dec. 2nd, 2007 when you joined DU.

[Hannah Bell]

558. I put seattle because this is

a national board, & everyone across the country knows where seattle is. it's close enough.

[Extend a Hand]

300. I for one don't accept that homelessness has to be a given

in any event and certainly not because google offered free voicemail.

I don't know about where you live, but we just recently had an issue on our county ballot that provided funding for for meals on wheels, a group home for the mentally ill, and subsidized daycare.

It's somewhat disingenuous to suggest that because someone is willing to believe an offer of free voicemail from google is good that it will solve the issue of homelessness. No reasonable person thinks that.


Yes. I agree that it was a deliberate policy choice by our leaders to fund a war of aggression and prisons over housing and social programs. I think that is very very bad. I also think what google did was a useful thing.

[Hannah Bell]

317. Well, I ran some numbers.

Google's 2007 profit was 4.203 billion.

There are about 8000 homeless in Seattle; let's say there are 10,000 in SF.

Let's say the real (as opposed to market) cost of setting up a voice mailbox is $5/head, so $50,000 total.

That's .001% of Google's profit, the equivalent of a person who makes 50K per year giving less than 10 bucks. Less, even, because the person making 50K needs some of his money to live on.

and don't forget the tax write-off.

[Hannah Bell]

318. In fact,

they could even make money on the deal.

[Extend a Hand]

319. I would be surprised

if it cost $5 per head. They saw something they could do within the scope of their expertise and they did it.

I have no idea what else they give or don't give and you don't either. I'm certainly not suggesting that they get the nobel fucking prize. geezy.pete. they had a good idea and the implemented it. It's likely to help some people. I honestly can't see why you'd want to spin that as a bad thing.

[Hannah Bell]

321. It's a fine thing.

But it costs them very little, they get a nice tax break & lots of nice PR, and it won't do much - it won't do anything, in fact - to reduce homelessness in SF.

Triple my estimate to $150,000; it's still the equivalent of a $1.50 donation for a person making 50K. I know people at that income who give 10% of their income, & they don't make the evening news for it.

[Hannah Bell]

322. If Google tithed 10%,

it would be 420 million.

Which would easily fund every homeless program in SF, and then some.

[Midlodemocrat]

328. Oh, FFS. Let's demonize Google.

Christ this gets old. :eyes:

[Hannah Bell]

395. I missed the part where I was demonizing Google. n/t

[mondo joe]

332. If you set the bar so high that no one will help, no one will help.

Google doesn't HAVE to give anything. I'm glad they ARE giving.

[Andrea]

552. It makes me wonder

What are people trying to achieve by setting the bar so high?

[mondo joe]

595. I think it's obvious: There are some here who are willing to sacrifice homeless and other poor

people to feed some dream they have over social revolution.

As far as they are concerned, direct service providers are just a band aid allowing the system to continue. If the non profits would all just go away they'd be perfectly happy because then things would be REALLY bad.

And they think that's a good thing.

[Andrea]

615. I hate to think that of anyone

But it seems to me that you are exactly right about that.

[mondo joe]

616. Just look at post 502.

"This is so pervasive and obvious, that I think everyone here would see it clearly if they gave it any thought. One common example is parents setting up fund-raisers to save music or athletic programs in schools. Once that starts, the political will to fight for saving school budgets is seriously compromised and weakened, since "the problem has been solved" - or at least the public thinks it has been solved."

See? Those parents have compromised and weakened a political agenda by doing what they can to take care of their kids. According to some.

[Dorian Gray]

363. Google's charitable donations

as per their foundation's website:

www.google.org


Grants and Investments
As of January 2008, Google.org has committed over $75 million in grants and investments to further our five initiatives. These include:

RE<C
eSolar Inc.: $10 million investment to support R&D on solar thermal power to produce utility-scale power cheaper than coal
Makani Power Inc.: $10 million investment to support R&D on high-altitude wind energy extraction technologies aimed at producing utility-scale power cheaper than coal
RechargeIT
Brookings Institution: $200,000 to support a conference in spring 2008 on federal policy to promote plug-in hybrids
CalCars: $200,000 multi-year grant to the California Cars Initiative to support their work educating the public about plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs)
Electric Power Research Institute: $200,000 to support EPRI's plug-in vehicle research and development program including participating in advanced infrastructure development, vehicle-to-grid technology demonstrations, and studies of the environmental and economic benefits of plug-ins
Plug-In America: $100,000 to raise public awareness of and to advocate for plug-in transportation options
Rocky Mountain Institute: $200,000 to partially fund an 'Innovation Workshop' to promote new strategies for greater production and market adoption of plug-in next-generation hybrid vehicles
Dr. Willett Kempton at University of Delaware: $150,000 for megawatt plug-in to grid research and implementation planning
Predict and Prevent
InSTEDD: $5,000,000 multi-year grant to establish this nonprofit organization focused on improving early detection, preparedness, and response capabilities for global health threats and humanitarian crises
Global Health and Security Initiative: $2,500,000 multi-year grant to strengthen national and sub-regional disease surveillance systems in the Mekong Basin area (Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, and China-Yunnan province)
Clark University for Clark Labs: $617,457 to Clark University, with equal funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, to support the development of a system to improve monitoring, analysis and prediction of the impacts of climate variability and change on ecosystems, food, and health in Africa and the Amazon
HealthMap: $450,000 multi-year grant to conduct in-depth research into the use of online data sources for disease surveillance
Inform and Empower
Pratham: $2,000,000 to create an independent institute that will conduct the Nationwide Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) and large scale assessments in the education sector
Institute for Finance Management & Research (IFMR): $1,015,000 multi-year grant to create district level development indices in India and to support mapping of information including research, government, non-government, and NGO database information
PRS Legislative Research: $880,000 multi-year grant to increase citizen engagement, track the performance of members of parliament, and procure photocopies of state laws throughout India
Center for Budget and Policy Studies (CBPS): $765,000 multi-year grant to create a Budget Information Service for local governments in India, with the goal of facilitating better district and municipal-level planning
Centre for Policy Research (CPR): $600,000 multi-year grant to increase the debate and discourse on issues of urban local governance and urban service delivery in light of the rapid expansion of cities in India
Center for Global Development (CGD):
$150,000 grant to help CGD grow and continue to expand their work on education and outcome based assessments
$220,000 grant to support the launch of the International Initiative on Impact Evaluation (3IE), which will bring new financial and technical resources to conduct and disseminate impact evaluations around the world
Fuel Growth of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
TechnoServe: $1.7 million for managing the business plan competitions and entrepreneurship programs in Ghana and Tanzania since 2006
TechnoServe: $3 million as a general support grant to expand TechnoServe's efforts to support enterprises, spur job creation, and strengthen poverty alleviation programs in the Africa region
Acumen Fund: $5.2 million to build and support innovative enterprises serving the poor through market-oriented approaches
Grameen Foundation: $200,000 to assess the potential for mobile applications to provide information for rural enterprises and households in East Africa
Special Projects & Learning Grants
Energy Foundation: $50,000 for climate change research
NRDC:
$100,000 to support the Environmental Entrepreneurs Climate Campaign to assist with the implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (California's AB 32)
$2,000,000 to create a Center on Energy Efficiency Standards to help the US and China achieve major reductions in the use of electricity and natural gas – and significantly cut associated global warming pollution and energy bills – through voluntary and mandatory efficiency standards for buildings, equipment and appliances
ONE Action Campaign: up to $3,000,000 to ensure global health and development issues, specifically the need to conquer malaria, are prominently represented in 2008 U.S. presidential election campaigns
PlanetRead: $345,000 to support Same Language Subtitling (SLS) programs in India
Seva Foundation: $2,000,000 to support programs to prevent blindness and restore eyesight in India, Nepal, Tibet, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Egypt, Tanzania and Guatemala
TEDGlobal / Sapling Foundation: $100,000 grant to support the TEDGlobal-sponsored Fellows' Program which seeks to provide African entrepreneurs with financial and other philanthropic support, as well as communication technologies to make markets and governments more efficient
UC Berkeley Regents: $451,000 to support research on water intervention in Kenya
UC San Francisco: a multi-year grant of $200,000 to support Dr. John Kane's malaria research
World Bank - Development Marketplace: $500,000 to support their international business plan competition that funds innovative, early-stage projects with high potential for development impact
Support for global disease eradication efforts:

The Carter Center: $1,450,000 in matching funds to support guinea worm eradication in Ghana
Rotary Foundation: $3,500,000 in matching funds to support polio eradication globally
Hurricane Katrina Gulf Coast Disaster Response and Recovery:

Accion USA
Trickle Up Program
City Year Louisiana
National Urban League
Greater New Orleans Foundation
Liberty Bank

[Hannah Bell]

394. 1.8% of their profit total.

equivalent to a person making 50K giving $900.

tax write-off, PR, political connections, direction of public policy into avenues they prefer.

[Dorian Gray]

422. I was just putting it out there....

To show that this particular concern is not their only cause.

[Andrea]

551. Well, that's absurd

Google can't tithe 10%. They are a corporation and they are required by law to make their shareholders' interests paramount - in other words: profits. The legal fiction of corporations is the problem.

Meanwhile, some people who work for Google were able to figure out a way to help some other people within their legal constraints.

Guess what? They are going to be praised for it. They are accruing benefit to their company through good public relations. They are going to get patted on the back. Some other good people at other corporations are going to want some of that back-patting and are going to figure out ways their companies can do some good at very little cost.

More good things will come of it.

It won't solve everything, but some starfish will be saved.

[Hannah Bell]

561. My, when you put it like that....

it's crystal clear.

If corporations feel good about themselves, some starfish will be "saved".

Then we'll all feel good.

Except for those other starfish.

But at least "some" were saved.

Nevermind that it's totally possible to save "all".

But then corporations wouldn't feel so good.

[Andrea]

563. That's not what I said

I was talking about people within corporations. Corporations can't feel anything. It's the whole structure of corporations that is so limiting. But people within corporations can be reached and some of them find ways to do things within the corporate structure and they should be praised for that. And no, it's not in lieu of systemic change, it's in addition to.

[OneGrassRoot]

605. Good summary statement, Andrea...

"And no, it's not in lieu of systemic change, it's in addition to."

I am trying to catch up on the additions to this thread since yesterday afternoon, and something you and Mondo Joe said really hit home to the extremely different perspectives on this issue.

I know I'm probably slammed downthread, so I'd better keep reading and get to it. ;-)

[Extend a Hand]

323. OMG ! I just saw that up thread

:wow:

you know, threads like this make me feel hopeless.

Homelessness is likely to explode in the next year with the credit crisis.
Peak oil and the systematic devaluing of the dollar is pushing up energy and food prices and subsequently pushing families into poverty at a frightening pace.
Jobs are being shipped off-shore-- so that we're competing with countries that engage in the worst kinds of labor abuses.
Global warming is already displacing many many families in the third world.

And anyone that tries to help isn't doing enough or is doing it wrong.

WE.ARE.SO.SCREWED

[Hannah Bell]

396. If those factors will "push up" homelessness

Then giving out voicemail boxes to help people look for non-existent jobs isn't going to be much help, is it?

The point is, homelessness is a deliberate policy choice. Deliberate, not an "accident".

200 billion/year for the war.
8% of the budget on interest on the debt.
49 billion on prisons.
33 billion on HUD's TOTAL budget, with only a fraction of that for low-income housing.

[pinto]

270. Neat idea, kudos to Google.

:thumbsup:

[tammywammy]

276. That's a good idea

[elizfeelinggreat]

281. hooray

I haven't read through the nearly 300 responses but I agree with OP, this is really great. It is empowering.


Wow, now imagine if every company thought helping the homeless was a good thing!


( Oh, and thanks, Al Gore! ;) )

[Miss Chybil]

293. Very nice! nt

[blindpig]

329. a word about charity

"Charity" of every kind is a sham and a fraud. It unhooks the government from a direct responsibility for its "citizens" and turns it into a private affair based on altruistic motives. No responsibility for the state of the dispossed is attached. There is no responsibility at either end - not for the conditions of people nor for how they got there. The "private charities" of today, the NGOs and so on are particularly insidious. At least the "philanthropy" of John D. or J.P. Morgan or Carnegie was obvious blood money - a few cents returned for the millions expropriated and stolen through the blood, sweat, and tears of others. Today, the gulf of abstraction is so broad that the connection isn't even clear. Where does Google's money come from? Why, it falls from the sky. A simple innovation or speculation and the cash monsoons arrive like the rains in Bangladesh. Google is rich, not because others are poor but despite that unfortunate fact. The worst felony they can be charged with is a callous disregard for the "plight" of those less fortunate. How insensitive!

Meanwhile, the government is out of the business of "helping" people. That would be a big-government-infringement-on-freedom and besides, it's expensive.

This is some serious "fetishism"...

"The people have no houses, Marie"
"Well then, let them have e-mail."

(Lifted this post from a friend, elsewhere. It is certainly appropriate.)

[Midlodemocrat]

338. You couldn't be more wrong.

[blindpig]

341. Care to explain why? n/t

[Tech 9]

344. However, you could probably be more haughty

[Midlodemocrat]

359. And you probably

couldn't be more of a total jerk.

[Tech 9]

425. A word about charity

"Charity" of every kind is a sham and a fraud. It unhooks the government from a direct responsibility for its "citizens" and turns it into a private affair based on altruistic motives. No responsibility for the state of the dispossed is attached. There is no responsibility at either end - not for the conditions of people nor for how they got there. The "private charities" of today, the NGOs and so on are particularly insidious. At least the "philanthropy" of John D. or J.P. Morgan or Carnegie was obvious blood money - a few cents returned for the millions expropriated and stolen through the blood, sweat, and tears of others. Today, the gulf of abstraction is so broad that the connection isn't even clear. Where does Google's money come from? Why, it falls from the sky. A simple innovation or speculation and the cash monsoons arrive like the rains in Bangladesh. Google is rich, not because others are poor but despite that unfortunate fact. The worst felony they can be charged with is a callous disregard for the "plight" of those less fortunate. How insensitive!

Meanwhile, the government is out of the business of "helping" people. That would be a big-government-infringement-on-freedom and besides, it's expensive.

This is some serious "fetishism"...

"The people have no houses, Marie"
"Well then, let them have e-mail."

Take a mulligan

[Midlodemocrat]

463. I've forgotten more about philanthropy and charity than you know.

So don't presume to lecture me.

[Tech 9]

489. You might try a hypnotist

because it seems you've repressed those memories. Far be it from me to lecture you, I only offered a "take-back" on your original dumb ass comment. You should've accepted it.

Oh well, just file this embarrassing exchange (for you) under Things Best Forgotten right along side your bullshit philantrophic know-how.

[Midlodemocrat]

491. LOL.

It's pretty well known on DU about my as you call it, philanthropic know-how, but go ahead and spin your little fantasy about the inefficiency of all things charitable. It's quite amusing. And, I wouldn't accept a drink of water if I were dying of thirst from a dumbass troll like you.

[Andrea]

554. Oh good

I was hoping you would show up. :eyes:

[Andrea]

553. Great!

That will save me some money. I only regret that I've spent so many years participating in a fraud and a sham.

[Midlodemocrat]

594. LOL. You could have gone on a cruise with all that money, honey.

[Andrea]

625. Except I get seasick.

:puke:

Oh well. I'll just use the $ to buy new rims for my Lexus.

:)

[OneGrassRoot]

335. Calling bobbolink, TwoAmericas, Oak2004 and others who dislike Google's approach

Hi again! :hi:

I see what you all are saying, that these other measures (be it called charity, privatized approaches, etc.) are diverting attention from the need for radical political shifts with the intention of changing the system in order to eliminate poverty and all the offshoot horrors of poverty.

I believe that's your primary message here, for people to not get lost in these approaches (i.e., not see these approaches as the "goal") and not take their eye off the ball of what needs to be done at a systemic level in this country.

However, I'm going to ask the same thing I have asked in other similar threads yet get no response:

If you are criticizing approaches such as those discussed in this thread, can you give people concrete examples of ACTIONS you feel they can take or efforts they can join with to actively continue to work toward eliminating poverty? Being aware is the first step and thinking how actions may impact those less fortunate, even if on the surface it seems like a good thing, and I believe that's what you are trying to express. Perhaps you can be open to the possibility as you discuss things here that some, if not most, here are already at that point and are seeking ways to eliminate suffering and the causes of that suffering. Not everyone is an expert on this subject;many are truly here to learn.

The types of criticisms in this thread lead to frustration for many people - NOT because they are trying to ignore you or the uncomfortable subject matter or because they want to stick up their noses and remain "above it all" - but because you aren't educating us as to what you feel we CAN be doing which you believe would be more effective.

Criticism without guidance for those who are genuinely interested and paying attention seems to get us nowhere.

Perhaps one of you could start a thread about actions and approaches you feel are more effective in tackling this issue, in addition to explaining why you feel current approaches are failing or taking attention away from the systemic political approaches.

Please educate us as to specific actions we can take - in an organized fashion (not individual daily choices...that has been covered rather thoroughly) - to address this issue more effectively.

[Tech 9]

343. You vote for, campaign for, write about, support, gush over

political candidates who never speak of dismantling the defense industry or its unbounded budget -- a sum that could end the homeless "plight" in the United States 10x over.

Then you disarmingly (sic) ask what collective action you can take..

Rather, you should ask, are we (and by that I mean you) doing *anything* right..

(that's a negative, good buddy)

[OneGrassRoot]

362. Perfect example....

lol. Just trash and dash.

You know nothing about me other than the fact I was/am an Edwards supporter, yet you choose to assume and make shitty comments about me. You probably trash others for making assumptions about those living in poverty, yet you make blanket, ignorant statements.

Bottom line: you didn't give concrete suggestions as to what actions you want to see done other than voting for those whose platform addresses poverty.

Are you all tag-teaming (assuming there is an "all" rather than one or two with multiple identities here) - is anyone going to answer my question in a coherent, logical, reasonable fashion this time around without trashing me for even asking a question - wait, isn't that exactly what some of you are accusing others of doing? :shrug:

[mondo joe]

364. I feel affirmed in my earlier understading that this is a battle between those who want to

DO things to help real people in need, and those who want to fight an abstract without regard for actual people.

[OneGrassRoot]

372. If you can step back from these threads...

in which the same "discussions" occur repeatedly, you'll see a pattern. Perhaps a few people have had "aha" moments (I keep trying but haven't had it yet), but the vast majority of people who seem to have a genuine interest in the issue - as well as compassion - and want to learn more, simply get frustrated because they are criticized and attacked (although these posters are accused of doing just that when nothing of the sort has happened), with no guidance or insight as to how we SHOULD be addressing this subject.

We get a lot of the what-not-to-do responses, but nothing helpful. It's a pattern and it leads nowhere. I do believe that's the point.

Those of you who do understand and have gotten more knowledge and wisdom and information out of these threads need not reply to my dumbass post as you've done elsewhere. I applaud your wisdom and insight and acknowledge my ignorance, and have done so before; sadly, no one helps me move beyond this point. No constructive criticism, just criticism.

Now, let me see if there are any replies to which I simply can't resist responding; otherwise, I'll once again admit defeat and stay out of this thread as it is deja vu all over again.

[Andrea]

555. Yes, what becomes more and more clear

is the pattern.

There seems to be a concerted effort to prevent anything else from becoming clear. It's like one of those arguments we all had as teenagers where someone says, "You just don't understand" and the fact that you are trying to understand proves you don't understand and therefore there is no use trying to explain anything because you just don't understand.

I think I understand the whole effort now. I've had an "a ha" moment, though not the one I was hoping for. If the statements of some posters lead others to give up on solving problems, and they continue in that same vein relentlessly, it seems pretty clear that they are doing what they mean to do: stopping progress.

If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and walks like a duck, well...

[Hannah Bell]

421. Why are they "in need" in the first place, have you ever

asked yourself that?

Seems you just accept that 10% of the population is naturally non-functional, & requires armies of tenured specialists to hold their hands.

No. We CHOOSE to have unemployment, we CHOOSE to have homelessness, we CHOOSE to have more than 1/4 of jobs pay < $10/hour.

And because of those choices, we get insecure, angry, socially disconnected people, we get kids raised in insecure circumstances who replicate those attitudes in the next generation.

and then we say - "look how stupid you are, look how violent you are, look how crazy you are, look at all this HELP we've provided you....
(sigh) ....guess some people just "can't be helped," I guess they just prefer living in prison or the streets, as outcasts.)"

[mondo joe]

455. They are in need for a variety of reason. But righteousness won't heal a wound,

or feed a child, or gain employment.

If you think you know how to fix things, go ahead. But you can't and you won't, and you don't. You'd rather bitch about other people than do something yourself.

[Hannah Bell]

470. You & yours do?

I guess that's why the homeless population has grown every year since 1982. Heck of a job you're doing there.

More homeless, more people diagnosed with depression & on psych meds, more people in prison, more uncounted unemployed & underemployed...

and this is still "good times". Can't wait for the recession.

Yeah, good work you're doing. More of the same is exacly what's needed.

[mondo joe]

475. And the rate would be far worse without some efforts.

But if you think homeless and other vulnerable people would be better of without food, job assistance, healthcare and other services you go right ahead and advocate for that.

[Hannah Bell]

485. Straw-man much? n/t

[mondo joe]

486. No straw man involved.

You've expressed your disdain for direct service providers as referenced in my post, and then reference the increasing number of homelessness.

On with your little political masturbation act.

[Midlodemocrat]

495. Mondo, you are such a breath of fresh air.

Someone who truly advocates for the less fortunate without all the bullshit hyperbole that we often see. I salute you and I'm proud to know you.

:hug:

[mondo joe]

500. Thats very nice - thank you. I would just say some people gettheir own meodrama, their

own agendas, and their own ideas of what SHOULD help all get in the way of actually helping.

That's more about them than about people in trouble.

[Midlodemocrat]

501. It strikes me, and I've seen a lot of this here and IRL

that to some, if the situation isn't perfect, it's defective. And, that's wrong. Helping people in need is never wrong. Every little bit helps. Google's efforts, if they help just one person, are successful.

I can't see why people don't see that. The only thing I can surmise is that those responding negatively to Google's offer have never volunteered to help anyone, ever. Because believe me, if you are in charge of the food pantry, (like I was for many, many years at my Church) and some well meaning person brings in food that you know the majority of people wouldn't touch, you still thank them for their generosity and hope that someone who is utilizing the services will select what they brought.

[mondo joe]

503. I guess some people are just more interested in their idea of what should be rather

than the reality of what makes a difference. And when you're thinking about an abstract instead of a real person it my make it easier to be willing to let them suffer more, because they're just a concept.

In their own very watered down way they're the impotent kin of the French revolutionaries who launched the Great Terror, willing to sacrifice countless real people in pursuit of their political agenda.

:shrug:

I also know that you've done grant writing so I know you've had to logically think through the need, response, outcomes, etc, which gives you a leg up on people for whom these matters are just political or kneejerk emotionalism.

[Hannah Bell]

497. OOooooh.

Nasty.

The warm hearts of our helpers.

[mondo joe]

498. I don't know which "warm heart" you're referencing, or what it has to do with

pointing out your exercise in political masturbation.

Try to make a more coherent statement please.

[casstheturtle]

528. I'm SO glad to know...

...that some people who claim to help people like us, consider us attempting to talk about the realities of our lives, including the results of policies that affect us, as something that we're doing this for the fun of it.

I am sure that every single one of us who actually live in poverty could figure out more fun things to do with our time than put our unpopular opinions and inconvenient experiences out there, only to be forced to relive the ways we're spat on every day already, and in one case to be put in a position that could easily lead to injury or death.

To accuse someone of going through all that just for the 'melodrama' and 'masturbation' of it is somewhere near obscene, and to attempt to goad vulnerable people into disclosing enough of their lives to be tracked down is more than bordering on it.

bobbolink? Two Americas? Oak2004? How many things do you think we can think of that are more fun than this conversation? I bet together we could think of thousands.

The good thing about the Internet is that it's not a do-gooder's office somewhere, and the direct power plays and threats of a 'helper' over a 'helpee' are much harder to pull off. The bad thing is that human beings seem to be inventive enough to try to find more and more elaborate ways to engage in them anyway. Which is why you'll never see me revealing enough information to be tracked down no matter how much goading goes on.

[mondo joe]

529. You look good up there on your cross.

By the way, I don't give a shit about your online biography. It's not relevant and its not verifiable.

[casstheturtle]

530. And your mockery of everyone who disagrees with you is more telling than anything else n/t

[mondo joe]

531. I don't mock everyone who disagrees with me. Only the ones who invite mockery.

:-)

[casstheturtle]

533. This is exactly what homeless people see all the time, of course.

...the true colors of too many 'helpers'.

[mondo joe]

534. I'm concerned with delivering outcomes for real people, not indulging online personalities.

:hi:

[casstheturtle]

540. It's very obvious

that you don't see people you talk to online as real people. But there's a real person at the other end of every single computer that is being typed into. Some of whom are or have been homeless. Some may even be or have been your clients in real life for all anyone knows. Not all of us put our ethics aside when we pick up a computer keyboard, nor do all of us consider those online as merely our playthings, objects of mockery, "personalities" rather than people. But I can't believe that a person could become so adept at dehumanization and avoidance of responsibility online and not take part in it anywhere else.

[mondo joe]

541. Having spent better than a decade online in message boards and chat rooms, I know better

than to take for granted anything anyone says.

So whether you say you are homeless, eurpoean, a democrat, a man, a woman, or you have a 12 inch dick, I don't take such claims seriously and don't care. Your personal life is your personal life.

And when you suggest people base choices on your special status, you can rest assured I give even less of a shit.

Impress me with facts, not message board personalities. You'll get no indulgence on that from me.

[casstheturtle]

547. Yeah because being homeless is so "special" or something?

And, yes, having experience of something is relevant to forming opinions about it, so it can't simply be left out of people's descriptions of their beliefs. I mean, a person can fool themselves into thinking their personal experiences have nothing to do with their opinions, but it really does involve some degree of fooling oneself.

People who've been on the wrong end of poverty tend to have some pretty consistent stuff to say about condescension and paternalism. It'd be better to listen than to endlessly mock, belittle, dehumanize, and insist you know best while everyone else is just a "personality" rather than a person.

I really have trouble imagining how the experience of homelessness, especially of the variety where a person doesn't have money lying around for phone calls or access to places with phones, has no bearing on figuring out whether this measure is useful or a slap in the face, or some combination thereof. There have been people in this discussion so far removed from that level of poverty that they didn't even notice that people wouldn't have the 50 cents lying around, nor did they notice the problems with various kinds of phone tag, shelter phone hours, and all sorts of other things that you learn about from having been there, but that privilege shields other people from.

I don't think that gap in experience, power, and privilege is irrelevant. I do think it takes a fair degree of privilege to deny the relevance, though.

I don't think the gap in experience between a homeless person and a professional making a living off of homeless people is irrelevant either.

It's pretty elitist in fact to make an argument have to be only about facts and figures divorced from personal experience, as if personal experience is not a part of the facts, and as if figures are not made up of tons and tons of individual human beings with experiences and stories. And to demand that homeless and formerly homeless people shove their experiences aside lest they be accused of merely being 'personalities' again, rather than people.

My own take on ethics is that if you have to divorce your ethics from the real lived experiences of human beings on the receiving end of them, something's wrong. I start from real people and real situations, then work from there to figure out what the right thing to do is. I don't start from abstractions and belittle and mock anyone who talks about their real lives as real people, nor do I think it requires an exceptional amount of kindness not to deride and stomp on people I have power over.

[mondo joe]

570. The more you wail the less I care about your claims. People have made up illness and

even their own deaths online.

Impress me with facts, not unverifiable claims about your personal life.

I care about the verifiable opinions of people I KNOW to be homeless, poor, and vulnerable in other ways. Most direct service agencies I know of are governed by a Board of Directors comprised of a representative consumer majority. That's as it should be - those who use the services set the mission and broad strategy, and monitor staff's implementaion.

I pay no attention to unverifiable online claims.

[Hannah Bell]

564. S/he's psychic, obviously.

Knows that people talking about homelessness have no expertise, knows they're sock puppets, knows people who say they're homeless really aren't.

Now shush, you, the great oz has spoken, who are you to disagree?

IF you don't shut up, it might call you a bad name, or discuss you with its friends.

"It's just too bad that some people don't understand..."

"Yes, it is. I've seen this before..."

[mondo joe]

572. That's the problem with unverifiable claims of special status.

They are at best anecdotal, at worst fraudulent.

Better by far to use verifiable data, and let services be directed by those directly receiving them.

[casstheturtle]

577. Yeah and my own problem is

I don't know how to participate in discussions once they devolve to people essentially sticking their tongues out at people. Heated discussions, even somewhat insulting ones don't bother me, ones where people are pretending to be daffy duck and insisting that because a few people online fake their identities then you have to prove your own existence in order to participate (at least if you have a minority opinion) do.

I tend to assume at least a bare minimum of good faith, and I don't see it here. I've been online for 15 years myself. Some people fake identities online. Most don't bother. If it were so common, then online discussions would be totally pointless. The only reason I see it being cited on this topic is to be nasty to certain people instead of just disagreeing, and to attempt to make sure that certain people aren't being listened to (I would like to know exactly whose sock puppet I am supposed to be, by the way, because nobody has told me this information). And personal experiences do continue to matter, no matter how many possible ways you can denigrate them, and no matter how many pejorative synonyms for "says" a person can come up with. Maybe a difference between me and Mondo Joe, is that I have met a large portion of the people I have known from online. None have so far turned out to be anyone other than who they said they were. Whereas Mondo Joe is allowing himself to be influenced by the infrequent but well-publicized incidents of fraudulent identities occurring online. Perhaps Mondo Joe, who purports to put so much evidence on statistics and not personal experience, ought to bring back some hard statistics on the matter before insisting that because personal experiences can be faked online, then they are and ought to be ignored even when they directly pertain to the topic at hand.

One of the things that this person is missing when he says that personal experiences are meaningless, is that these personal experiences confer knowledge that isn't there otherwise. I still want to know why it's bad to point out, from experience of being homeless, the exact ways that the voicemail system can be both misused (it's been pointed out, read the thread more carefully if you can't find it), insulting (see above), and useless (see above) for some people. I would also like to know precisely how people who know these things from experience are supposed to magically come up with "data", and why reasoned critiques of the "data" presented have been so far ignored at best and ridiculed at worst. Denying the meaningfulness of personal experience is a really transparent attempt to leave homeless and formerly homeless people out of the discussion (at least, the online discussion, because apparently homeless people have Their Place and that Place is only in offline discussions, not online ones, because online they could be faking it, or something).

The disdain for everyone who reports an experience of poverty online, and the excuse that "some might be faking it", also remind me of the conservative arguments against our assorted welfare systems, which run that because a few people might be frauds then everyone ought to be treated like they're guilty until proven innocent. When the problem was never fraud. Being treated automatically like criminals is yet another common experience of poor people, that people who purport to want to do something about the problem ought not to duplicate. And no, I'm not asking for "kindness", just the bare minimum of ethical behavior, especially the benefit of the doubt.

[mondo joe]

579. You don't have to prove your identty. Your identity isn't relevant.

Whether you're homeless, or a stripper, or a millionaire, or a child, or gay, or the Virgin Mary.

The facts are relevant. Not individual identities.

This is a political discussion board.

[casstheturtle]

582. Stop condescending to people.

I'm well aware this is a political discussion board. I've been reading it for several years now, I'm not so ignorant that it's escaped my notice. I'm pretty sure everyone else here is aware this is a political discussion board as well.

The things that happen in people's lives are facts. Perhaps the ultimate facts when it comes to politics, which is the study of certain kinds of relations between people. What happens in individual people's lives as a result of a policy is one of the tests of the policy. The bad has to be taken as well as the good. And you can't just add up bad versus good experiences like numbers in a machine, you have to understand qualitative information as well as quantitative.

I am sure that the people giving their experiences on this thread are as aware as I am of what politics is, seeing that I note many are involved in political movements. Didn't you just bug Two Americas for being into politics instead of into helping people, though? Not that I happen to think that politics and helping people are or ought to be in opposition, nor do I think Two Americas isn't into helping people, but you did just chew someone out earlier for bringing up politics on a political board. You seemed to think it was uncaring or something. I guess now that you're trying to tell me that politics is somehow in opposition to individual experiences, you've done a 180 on that one.

But, seriously. Don't insult people's intelligence. Everyone here knows this is a political board, and whether we agree or not on the ultimate outcomes of our discussion, I am pretty sure personal experiences are relevant to politics, even if they do fall into a statistical minority. Which it hasn't even truly been shown they do, given the sources of the data you keep bringing up. I'd also of course like to know, if personal experiences are so irrelevant, why you continually bring yours up. Well, not really, because I don't consider your personal experiences irrelevant. But it's still strange to me.

See, to me, and to a lot of people here I'm sure, the way policy affects individual people is important. And the data-gathering methods you hold so dear, nearly always leave out people who are disenfranchised in one way or another. There are aspects of personal experience that can't be data-gathered on a form, too. Although I am pretty sure that if you went into the formal study of classism, you'd find a lot of the things that individuals are describing here. The thing is, relying on academic studies over the experiences of everyday people is itself a manifestation of classism: Most poor people aren't in the universities, after all. Some of us once were rich enough to afford that, some of us manage on scholarship or go to community colleges, but for the most part, our lives are taking place outside of academia. Demanding rigorous academic proofs of our lived day to day experiences is one more elitist way to silence people, but I'm sure you know that on some level. I don't want to come across as anti-intellectual here, I'm just saying that the ways academia trains people to use their intellects aren't the only good ways to do so.

Poor and working-class people have generally changed things by getting together and organizing against oppression everyone knew about because they lived it. Lived experiences have never to my knowledge been seriously considered irrelevant to fighting classism, by the ones doing the real fighting. Most real expertise is gained through life experience rather than through studying data in the abstract. And politics is about people, and our lives, and what happens to them, including how they are affected by political decisions. And I'm sure as you go through this board, you'll see people talking about how their lives are affected, without being asked to cite research data all the time. You don't have to agree with every single person's opinions formed through personal experience, to stop pretending that personal experience is just irrelevant.

[mondo joe]

583. If you don't like what I say, use the ignore button.

Or suck it up. Or keep complaining.

Your choice.

I'm not even reading your lengthy BS posts, but if you want to keep wasting time on them be my guest.

[casstheturtle]

586. If it was only me this was being done to, with no pattern to it, I would.

But it's not. And likewise, if you have such a problem with the "BS" around here (i.e. the personal experiences of poor and homeless people who don't agree with you, as well as discussion of exactly how certain tactics are classically silencing, classist, etc), you could do the same, but obviously you don't.

[mondo joe]

587. Then suck it up. Your choice.

I haven't told anyone to not say anything, so why would I ignore anyone? I don't care if you disagree, I don't care what you think, so I have no need to ignore you.

[Hannah Bell]

606. It must have the last word, in case you hadn't noticed.

It plays the martyr itself, in case you hadn't seen all the self-congratulatory posts about it devoting its life to the poor.

Its the one who initiated the personal remarks on this thread.

Its tactics: the other discussant is 1) ignorant 2) a loser.

People who use those tactics aren't worth bothering with or worrying about. They have a psychological problem.

[mondo joe]

612. More projection on your part.

I never said or suggested working in direct service with the poor is a cause for pity, or congratulations.

It's just my context.

You've got some real anger issues with direct service providers, possibly stemming from the rejection you described earlier for them failing to follow your brilliant leadership.

You've gone from trying to make points, to spewing bitterness, to insulting others, to pretend "rofl"s.

But you still haven't answered my questions. So I'll try again:

In your imaginary town where people are finding babies in the river, in addition to addressing the cause of the babies being thrown in the river what do you propose be done about the babies already in the river, if anything?

[Andrea]

617. Logical fallacy

The reason that the people you have met online and then in real life are who they say they are is because people who are not who they say they are will not allow you to meet them.

[mondo joe]

618. Oh stop. Next thing you'll be telling me is that nice Nigerian Prince I loaned my life

savings too is a scam artist!

[Andrea]

626. No, don't worry

Those guys are all real.

[casstheturtle]

624. That's true.

However, I've also never yet encountered a situation where I wanted to meet someone, and they mysteriously refused to meet me, either. Given the amount of people I've gone into RL contact with after meeting them first online, I still suspect that means something. If it does not mean something about people online in general, it seems to mean something about my methods of discerning real people.

I'm also, obviously, not talking about spammers. I'm talking about people I met through political discussion groups on assorted topics, often topics in which a person's identity mattered. I've seen a small number of people who turned up fake, but I still default to assuming someone's genuine.

Why do I do this? It's not because I'm so naive as to believe everyone online is honest. You can't last over fifteen years online, read the notorious stories, find a few fake online personas in your own communities, and still believe that's the case.

However, I look at the numbers, and I look at the possible harm done.

As far as numbers go, the fake people are occasional. The fake people who aren't doing spamming or drive-by trolling are even more occasional than that. So, most people seem to be real. Probably a few who seem to be, aren't, but that's a few.

Then there's the possible harm done.

Assuming by default that people are fake:

You can end up chasing a lot of real people off who are not fake, who may have serious reasons for wanting or needing to be involved in certain discussions, but who also have a serious need for privacy or anonymity.

You can also get people so obsessed with rooting out the fakes that they end up stalking and harassing people they consider to be fake. The results to this for the people regarded as fake can range from as little as hurt feelings to as much as putting their lives in danger by doing things like consolidating personal details about them and posting them in places that will bring them harm. If the people regarded as fake are doing serious work, whether to effect change or to make money, it can impede their work by needlessly destroying their reputations.

You can also end up with a culture of so much suspicion that real communication becomes impossible. People close down. People get scared off by the requirements of proving who they are. People who are trying to escape abusive situations (which can be part of some political work) can end up fearing that their abusers will find it easier to find them, when so much more information is required to be put out there. People who would otherwise have a lot to contribute, stop contributing. Dissenters will speak out less, even when their ideas are badly needed.

It can also create a situation where people don't have to take others' experiences into account, they can just say "You're not real," and leave it at that. This in turn creates a situation where experiences that are outside the norms of that community are less tolerated, and even experiences inside the norms can be considered suspicious rather than important.

A person would think that real fakers would get caught more easily in this kind of environment, but it's not always accurate. Quite often, what the online fakers will do, is become the most gung-ho about finding "fake" people, and will successfully disrupt entire forums and communities, and disrupt friendships and alliances as well, in their quest to "out" perfectly real people as fake.

Assuming by default that other people are real:

The only really bad effect this would have, is that people who were not real would not be under immediate suspicion. Whether or not that ended up harming people would depend on what the fake people were up to. I've known self-confessed fake people who don't actually disrupt forums in any way whatsoever. On the other hand, I've known fake people who do their damndest to disrupt forums and communities. Sort of like real people, really, only they hide behind an assumed online persona to do it. And assuming by default that other people are real, does not have to mean tolerating situations that ought not to be tolerated, and does not have to mean that people will never be noticed to be fake.

The good effects on the other hand, basically involve the absence of all the destructive effects of considering people either fake, or suspected fake, that I outlined above.

Because of this, I'd rather give people the benefit of the doubt. The effects of assuming that people are fake, are more damaging to a larger amount of people, than assuming that people are real. Much like, as I've pointed out, the welfare system. You always hear about scammers, but they're not as common as people who are getting it for real reasons, and the majority suffers because of being assumed constantly to be freeloading scammers. Aside from which, the amount of money you get for "freeloading" is so little that a person has to be pretty economically desperate to try it in the first place, as just about anyone who's actually had to live on what the system provides could tell you.

So, yeah, my example wasn't the greatest one, but on the other hand for whatever reason I really haven't encountered people being evasive when I've wanted to meet up with them. Of course, I never decide to do that until I've known someone awhile, and there's other factors there. But even if I'm just really lucky, I still think the people who are fake are in the minority, and while fakers can wreak havoc on communities, I think that paranoia and the stalking and near-stalking behavior that the obsessive hunt for fakers can cause, are far more damaging to communities overall and the people in them. And I certainly don't want to see a world online, including in the political world, where most people (or most n00bs, or most dissenters) are not listened to about their personal experiences because they might be fake.

[Hannah Bell]

628. what did i tell you? i knew...

it'd need to get the last word. brought its friend, too.

psychological problem.

oh, well. let it have its pitiful last word, poor thing. some people just can't accept the existence of other minds than their own.

[Andrea]

633. In general, that's true I think

It is better to assume that people are real until you find otherwise. That's what I try to do. In this context, though, some of us have had extensive experience with some of the others. In fact, extensive negative experience. I've been reluctant to come to the conclusion, but it's inescapable that these people are not what they claim to be and in fact have ulterior motives.

BTW, your comments about people cheating the welfare system are probably right on, at least as far as I know. The same thing goes for the worker's comp system.

[Hannah Bell]

562. How did she invite it?

[mondo joe]

580. By playing a martyr rather than discussing the facts. NT

[casstheturtle]

584. Pointing out that people are being silenced is not playing the martyr.

But it is discussing the facts. I have no use for martyrdom, but I do have an awful lot of use for pointing out the consequences of repetitively insisting that certain people around here are irrelevant, fraudulent, and ought to go away.

[mondo joe]

585. No one is silencing anyone. No on here has the power to silence anyone.

If you can't handle opposing views and information that's your problem.

[casstheturtle]

589. Daffy duck and mockery are "opposing views and information"?

I beg to differ. I don't see "opposing views and information" for the most part, what I see are ways of dismissing and attempting to silence the views of people who are directly affected by the policies under discussion.

You may claim there is no way to silence people. You are right if you mean that there is no way you could reach through your screen and forcibly take someone's computer away from them, although trying to hunt down exactly what lab they're posting from comes close for a homeless person. But intimidation (and tracking people down in real life is intimidation), manipulation, belittling, dehumanization, domination, and mockery can silence people just as effectively, or divert everyone else from listening to what they have to say. These things are not irrelevant, they are in fact extremely relevant in discussions involving privilege of various sorts, and disparities in that privilege.

Personally, I've got a pretty thick skin. I know, however, that this is largely circumstance. At times when I was hungrier, more desperate, more dominated, with a more unstable life, I had a lot thinner skin, that's what those things often do to people. It wouldn't have taken a lot to silence me at certain times in my life. I can't ignore that while I am sitting here in my locked apartment after a good breakfast and lunch, other people aren't getting even one meal a day let alone three, and have to watch their backs all the time for people looking to harm them. Some of those things, I've been there and experienced, some I haven't, but I know that they can make a person very easy to intimidate into silence indeed. And remembering those experiences, and the difficulty I would've had posting at that time under this barrage of, yes, silencing tactics, is why I'm posting now, pointing out what's really going on.

I am pretty sure, as well, that if any of us talking from our own experiences started resorting to Daffy Duck to make our points, you'd surely point out that this was not really a presentation of opposing views and information. Since you don't even think our lives contain important information, I can't imagine you thinking random mockery was information.

And I will continue to say, not for your benefit but for the benefit of others here, that people's life experiences are relevant to the discussion at hand, are relevant to politics in general, and that a lot of the dynamics we're seeing in this thread mirror the dynamics of assorted differences in class and other forms of privilege in a lot of other places. Maybe even some people on this thread who otherwise wouldn't, will start trying to see things through our eyes.

[mondo joe]

590. Again, no one here has the power to silence others. If you are troubled by another's

posts, ignore, suck it up, or respond. Your choice.

[Midlodemocrat]

499. What exactly do YOU do to eradicate poverty?

Mondo joe is a tireless worker for the needy. What do YOU do?

*taps foot, waiting for response*

[mondo joe]

504. Oh I'm not tireless.

I'm tired plenty. ;-)

But - and I say this with great appreciation - please don't make it about me.

But I would like to know what the Great Complainer does other than complain online, though it shouldn't be about her either.

It ought to be about doing things that work. :-)

[Hannah Bell]

505. Oooooh, you've caught me out.

Why, nothing at all, of course.

I simply run my mouth on the internet, criticizing the efforts of those tirelessly working for the "needy," with such good results.

[Midlodemocrat]

507. That's what I thought. Anyone who criticizes people who have dedicated

their lives to helping the less fortunate, whether it be intellectually, or financially or emotionally is an asshole. Pure and simple.

[Hannah Bell]

You seem to lack a functioning sarcasm meter.

I despise people who display their credentials or experience as a way to assert dominance or shut down opposition. I try not to do it.

Mondo initially took umbrage when I stated a matter of FACT: that in my town, most of the money spent on homelessness goes to salaries.

She/he took offense, & began to personalize, as you are also doing, though I've made no personal remarks to you.

[Midlodemocrat]

515. Yeah, but you still have no idea what you are talking about.

I'll chalk it up to youth or inexperience, but after reading your posts here, you have absolutely no idea how the private sector or charities work. So instead of demonizing them, how about educating yourself?

Oh, and I wasn't being sarcastic.

[Hannah Bell]

517. You think not, eh?

Well, so be it.

[Midlodemocrat]

518. Willing to bet money on it, sweetie.

Your comments on this thread are very, very telling. It's all or nothing with you and that's not the way the world works.

But, keep on tossin' those babies in the water, and we'll keep rescuing them for ya.

[Hannah Bell]

524. Yes, I have you pegged, too, "sweetie".

It's not me tossing the babies.

It's your "philanthropists," with their other arm.

[mondo joe]

525. There once was a city by the river...

one day, a baby washed up on shore. The townspeople adopted it & cared for it. Over the years, more & more babies started washing up. The people built orphanages, then schools for the babies, hospitals & old age homes. They selected the "baby of the year" to encourage people to adopt, they gave awards for the "best baby rescuer," and in the newspaper, they regularly told themselves what a great city they were, that they chose to help all the river babies. But the babies kept coming down the river, outstripping all the facilities that were built.

A visitor came to the town - um, Hannah Marx, let's say was her name. They proudly showed her all their baby facilities, the homes of people who'd adopted babies. She even participated in a rescue. She asked them, "For god's sake, has no one ever gone upriver to see who's throwing all these babies in the river?"

They explained that they knew who was throwing babies in the river, and that they were working to stop it, even as they were rescuing the babies in the river. Some of their number had gone to fight the problem at the cause, and some stay to rescue the babies in the river.

But the visitor didn't like that answer. "Who the fuck cares about the babies in the river when you could be rating about the cause of it like me?!?" she cried.

Then she stomped off to stew in her own juices, nether rescuing babies nor preventing them from being thrown in the river.

[Andrea]

556. Love it

Great writing. Very well done. Bravo!!

[Hannah Bell]

566. and they worked & worked, for 20 years, 30 years, but

still, more & more babies kept coming.

They knew who was throwing them in, because it was their big donors.

[mondo joe]

571. Again, ridiculous and false.

Most philanthropy in the US isn't done by "the big donors".

Spew some more ignorance - I'm enjoying the show.

[Hannah Bell]

600. So ironic. Thanks for the chuckles.

[mondo joe]

520. The poster, who appeared to be talking about Seattle at the time, has no clue about

the spending on homelessness.

And, where the chronically homeless who have MANY issues besides simply being homeless are concerned, transitioning and staying in housing requires FTEs for case management, counseling, home nursing and more.

The poster might do well to remember that lack of subsidized housing isn't the CAUSE of homelessness, as subsidized housing is itself a bandaid to cover the greater systemic problems. If you increased subsidized housing by 20 times what exists, but the other factors are unchecked and increase the need, it's just a bigger and bigger bandaid.

[Midlodemocrat]

522. Why let facts get in the way of a good self righteous rage?

[Hannah Bell]

526. The poster who seems to take every non-adoring comment

as a personal attack on his/her "caring," seems to be blind, deaf & dumb.

The poster seems not to have been an adult during the 80's, when the "homeless" suddenly appeared, the direct result of Reagan cutting 60 billion in housing subsidies.

Not 20 times: three to four times would be just fine, to take it back to pre-Reagan levels.

The poster writing grew up in Seattle, 3rd generation, & remembers very well a time when there were few homeless in the city, before the yuppies came.

[mondo joe]

527. LOL - I must say its been a delightful two days watching you spiral into

bitterness and ridiculousness.

[Hannah Bell]

535. it's also been amusing to see the not-so-kind face of some of our

"helping professionals".

As long as you bow & scrape, no problem.

But dare to disagree - boy howdy, watch out.

[mondo joe]

536. Good. I never claimed to be kind, nor do I aspire to kindness.

There are other virtues I find more appealing.

But bowing and scraping is never appealing, and never called for. :-)

[Andrea]

557. It's not that simple

Much of the problem was caused by Reagan eliminating most residential care for those with serious mental health problems, without replacing that with anything. 25 years later, it has become geometrically more complicated.

But don't worry: if you don't do anything, and succeed in discouraging everyone else from doing anything, we'll dismantle the entire defense department and solve the problem. Yeah, that'll happen.

[mondo joe]

516. Oh those dethpicable baby rescuers.

[mondo joe]

575. If you're choosing to hae unemployment, homelessness and so on I suggest you choose

otherwise.

I'm not choosing those things.

[blindpig]

369. Perhaps I'm mistaken

but didn't I refer you to a couple of links which provided at least an indication of the direction by which concrete solutions might be obtained? If not, I'd be happy to provide them.

[OneGrassRoot]

374. I don't recall that I ever received that...

but I would indeed appreciate it. Perhaps you did after I had left a previous thread; if so, my apologies.

I have gotten some information at other forums here but don't recall receiving any responses in threads in GD and GD/P, and I ask not only for my benefit but for others who are seeking this information as well.

Thanks :-)

[OneGrassRoot]

382. Hi, blindpig...

In case I miss any reply from you in this thread, would you be so kind as to PM me with that information? Also, perhaps you can start a new thread with recommendations you may have for people to look into and act upon?

Many thanks in advance. :hi:

[Tech 9]

424. There is no party that represents the people

there isn't even any mass organization to speak of. You're asking for a plan for what The People can do and a platform they can look to?

Fine, you produce The People and I'll tell you The Plan, Mr TimeForARevolution. And while you're at it, stop being a moderate Republican in disguise.

[JoseGaspar]

355. The problem...

...with your call for "specific" actions is that it misses the point, time. If you intend to go to Mars but the government wants no part of that, what practical steps or specific actions can you take to make sure someone gets there? There are none because the scale of the undertaking exceeds any kind of voluntary action. But the analogy falls apart, here, because going to Mars is controversial - it can be debated whether it is in the social interest. But economic rights rise alongside Civil Rights. Both stem back to exactly the same origins. The French Revolution which brought forth the "Rights of Man", also ammended or upended those rights (depending on your point of view) within a couple of years by adding the "Rights" of economic security.

A job, education, health care, housing and so on - those are "rights" and not the objects of philanthropic charity. One hundred years from now it will seem as obvious as the abolition of slavery.

[OneGrassRoot]

365. I certainly agree they are "rights" - human rights...

Therefore, if you see the systemic answer as not being able to be undertaken by voluntary action, is it not better to do SOMETHING going in the right direction (making sure the negatives don't outweight potential positives) than do nothing at all?

Again, a lot of people truly WANT to DO, not just pay lip service to rectifying injustices in this world. But no matter what people do, it's trashed as being hypocritical, more harmful, useless, etc., etc.

Surely those who criticize nearly every attempt people make to ease suffering and create a more equal society wouldn't have that as their ultimate goal: to turn people away from doing anything at all out of frustration? Surely not...

[blindpig]

384. No

The problem is that no one will address the "problem" as systemic, preferring lightweight pallitives which do little but put lipstick on the pig of our current system. The problem is that the "generosity" of the rich is a pittance compared to what they take from society, but that rather than call them on that people give'em a high five. The problem is that people refuse to ask why is there poverty in a society as rich as ours.

[OneGrassRoot]

397. See, I don't get that at all...

And that may be my biggest hurdle in a thread like this. I would be stunned if the majority of people here at DU DIDN'T see it as systemic...DIDN'T recognize that 1% of our population controls something like 95% of the wealth (and therefore power). I think those who hold an annual charity ball as their "do-good" activity of the year to make themselves feel and look good wouldn't be here, mucking it up with the working class. I think many, many here are indeed working class and see themselves as one step away from homeless and therefore not only want to alleviate the current crisis situation but prevent it from getting worse. And they're sincerely looking for ways to join with others to do just that.

To me, these criticisms and attacks (at times they are just that, with huge assumptions made) seem to come out of left field because, for the most part, they are speaking to the choir.

I know the whole liberal/progressive/democratic label debate really clouds the issues, and I understand use of certain words triggers a lot of tension and anxiety. But I really don't see most here as disagreeing about the need to have systemic changes. It's how to implement it that is being discussed, and how to maybe ease some daily suffering in the process.

[Two Americas]

484. privatization

Can we not - as Democrats - criticize privatization? When 100 privatized solution are offered to solve social problems, there mat=y then well be 100 criticisms. That is because it is privatization that is being criticized, not the specific solutions. Is not the mystery this: why do people - Democrats - keep presenting the same type of privatized solutions? Is that not the better question to ask rather than why some people are so "negative?"

No one - please stop saying this - no one is arguing against easing suffering. I happen to know for a fact that some of the most outspoken critics of privatization on this and other threads are also the most dedicated hands-on relief workers and anti-poverty activists, and generous in donating their time and effort to alleviate the suffering of others. It is a smear to say that those arguing against privatization must therefore be sitting on their ass and not helping people, and merely criticizing those who do help people.

Some of us are reluctant to be more forthcoming about the specific things we are involved in. That is because bragging about anti-poverty work seems obscene to some of us, and also for reasons of personal safety and security and privacy. There are some on this thread who are trying to "out" people here, and those efforts border on stalking. Those who wish to know who we are, where we work, and what we are doing to alleviate suffering will need to pout the effort in to build trust. Let's not live in a Pollyanna world here.

[Two Americas]

467. misrepresentation

Hi timeforarevolution. Glad to see you weigh in here.

Please, disagree with me if you choose, but get what I say right. Google is free to do charitable work and I am not opposed to charitable work. I do much charitable work myself.

I am opposed to privatization. I have explained that again and again, yet I continue to be accused of being against helping people, or against Google, or against people who help people and on and on.

It makes no sense to discuss specific actions when we have so much confusion about the context. Anything done to solve social problems in the public sphere is better than anything in the private sphere.

This is not about the damned voicemail, nor whether Google is or is not a nice company or any of the rest of the crap here. It is not about rejecting charity. People either are not reading carefully, or they are intentionally being argumentative.

To answer your question - "OK if you don't like what Google did, what are your concrete alternatives?" is to slip in the misrepresentation of the position people are taking here and hiding it in a question. And the attacks and smears that any hint of criticism of a private corporation picking up the slack for what should be managed by public agencies, and the gushing praise and defense of that private corporation are therefore "against helping poor people" - I mean come on, timeforarevolution, you must know that this is just disingenuous, unfair and malicious.

No specific solutions offered to people are ever given consideration anyway. The whole thing is a game of dominance and suppression and it is getting old. Why should any of us be called upon to "educate" people who are intentionally misrepresenting what we say and relentlessly attacking us? Why should the fault for the miscommunication be placed on us? You can't seriously believe that the people on this thread have any interest in being "educated" - can you imagine what the response to that suggestion would be?

I HAVE given you concrete suggestions. I have offered to spend hours with you talking about concrete suggestions. I have no idea what would be seen by you as a legitimate alternative that would meet your criteria. If Yahoo gave socks to homeless people? Can you imagine NO alternatives to privatizing the solving of social problems? And what does privatization have to do with specific concrete actions? If the concrete suggestion seems good to you, then it is OK if it is privatized?

[OneGrassRoot]

607. I absolutely meant every fucking word I have said.

About wanting to be educated, about multi-pronged approaches because we AREN'T in a perfect world, allowing things to happen one step at a time, one positive thing at a time while SIMULTANEOUSLY working on the systemic overhauls.

I think YOU PEOPLE (yeah....that's right, I'm calling out those of you INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO OBFUSCATE THE ISSUE HERE) are the ones with blinders on. For you to not be able to accept the simple truth that some people DON'T present themselves as experts and DON'T understand WTF you're saying and DO want to learn and aren't "liberal elite or even muddleclass hypocrites," labels thrown out by some.

All I've learned from YOU PEOPLE is talk, talk, talk and argue, argue, argue. Anyone NOT INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO CONFUSE THINGS can go back through these threads and see that it's YOU PEOPLE who are stirring the shit. And, as I've said, I'm all for stirring up shit - with a constructive end goal. I am NOT a party loyalist - any party (I know, I know, what am I doing here? I agree much more with democratic platforms and I come here to learn and get latest news).

I agree there is a need for BIG ACTIONS, but I differ in that I believe both approaches can be undertaken; though I understand, as I've said, the point of view that the need for systemic changes can get lost in the shuffle through these other efforts.

I engage in these threads and specifically with the core group (you, bobbo, tech 9, and a few others) in an attempt to get on a path where we can engage in discussion about mass collective action to eradicate poverty and horrors of inequality in this country. And to hopefully help the many others who get as confused as I have in other similar threads...asking the questions I know many others are thinking but don't want to get into a slamfest by simply asking a fucking question (with no ulterior motive). WTF is wrong with that? What on earth is wrong with that unless, of course, that's not the ultimate goal of stirring the pot?

I don't see where I've misrepresented anything you or anyone else have said whatsoever. We're all obviously reading the same shit and interpreting VASTLY different things.

Now, go ahead...I fully expect for this ) to be ignored completely; or 2) for someone (not you TA, necessarily) to come back and say I seem to be angry and, therefore, something bobbo or others have said must have gotten under my skin because the truth must be that I'm a hypocrit or I'm judging those in poverty, that I'm a Lexus-driving moron, etc.

This is the third time I've interacted in a similar thread, to the same end, and it's a waste of energy.

[Two Americas]

649. more than willing

I am on a really slow connection and this thread is murder to load, so I am not as quick to respond as I might otherwsie be. I am not ignoring you.

As I have said, I believe that you are sincere and I am more than willing to discuss specific and concrete actions. We are on a discussion board, so naturally enough what we are doing here is talking.

Since I don't think there is anything wrong with the specific action Google is taking, there is no sense answering demands for alternatives, so that discussion is off topic on this thread.

Also, while I have spent 40 years doing concrete and specific things, there are issues involved in revealing too much about oneself online, so the demand "what are YOU doing?" or worse yet, charges that I must not be doing anything real, or am opposed to people doing anything real, are difficult to answer.

Then it is also true, I believe, that everything real and tangible in politics springs from the ongoing discussion, so the talk, the arguments, and the discussion are powerful and important. Nothing can ever happen politically except as a product of the ongoing national political discussion. Politics is a battle of ideas. That is almost all that it is.

Why don't we find a place or a method to, as you say so well "get on a path where we can engage in discussion about mass collective action to eradicate poverty and horrors of inequality in this country?" I trust you, I believe you are sincere, and I share your passion for doing just that. It isn't, or can't happen here in this context. I don't know how to change that and there is no sense in banging our head against the wall.

[bean fidhleir]

336. I would have been homeless as a child, in the postwar '40s

But I was saved from that by the safety net. The net lasted 50 years before its bipartisan destruction under Reagan and Clinton.

People "on relief" (which is what everyone called it) didn't get much. We got, in the richest country in the world, about what the poor in the bombed-out parts of Europe had: 2 tiny walkup rooms in a slum tenement for 4 of us. The "mod. cons." consisted of a single bare bulb hanging from the ceiling in each room, one cold-water sink, and a 1-element hotplate. A pillowcase hung out the window was our icebox, which of course didn't work except in winter. We shared a community toilet (no tub or shower) down the hall with 6 other families on our floor, plus anyone on one of the other floors who really needed to go when theirs was busy. It was a "furnished apartment", so we also had an iron-frame cot-type bed with a 2-inch, kapok-stuffed mattress in each room, and 1 small table and 2 chairs. Our "closets" were cardboard boxes in a corner.

But I'm sure it beat the crap out of living in a doorway, or a no-privacy-at-all shelter warehouse!

As Hannah Bell said in 267, the current situation is a choice our rulers have made. They did it to make us all more docile and even stupid. And it works, as I hope everyone has noticed.

As long as we continue to ignore that it's a choice they freely and knowingly made to enrich themselves, not some inevitable result of impersonal natural forces, we ourselves will continue to be milked and slaughtered like cattle by those same rulers.

'"All for ourselves and nothing for other people" seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.'

[Tech 9]

342. Sometimes the Moloch gives back

That's what you're trying to say isn't it? After all, even a black hole spews out polar jets of highly energetic matter..

'GOOG' might as well be an Asiatic pharaoh to DUers..a giver of life..

[ShaneGR]

348. I'm REALLY surprised by the negative responses

I don't think a lot of people understand that one of the biggest obstacles the homeless face in getting off the streets is finding a job. It's kind of hard to find a job if no one can call you. It's really as simple as that. It also provides a link for people to communicate with the outside world.

Now, I understand that not all homeless are even capable of working. Many are struggling with emotional and mental problems. Giving those people a phone number isn't going to solve anything.

But, at least it's something. And if it helps even one person find a job, or communicate with a loved one. It's a success.

[Oak2004]

349. As a once-homeless person who was *working* through much of the two years I was homeless

and who knows that most "unskilled" jobs in most areas today aren't enough to pay the rent on almost anything, no, lack of a job is not a big obstacle.

The biggest obstacle is lack of subsidized housing. Period.

[Andrea]

560. And while you were homeless and working,

if you would have been given a free phone number and voice mail to use as you chose to, could you please explain how that would have been harmful to you?

[blindpig]

352. You set the bar pretty damn low

Why don't we just get these people housing? A fictional personage tosses a copper in a beggers cup and gets applause? Is this a Dickens novel?

[mondo joe]

367. "Why don't we just get these people housing?"

If you have a method to do that, then by all means let's do it.

Especially if you have a way to do it by tomorrow. Or next week. Or next year.

But until that happens, there are actual homeless people with real needs right now. Those needs include healthcare, food, shelters and - yes - some means to communicate or get messages.

Furthermore, even with an address most of those needs will continue. They don't disappear just because someone has an apartment.

[blindpig]

371. Sure

Gut the military budget and redirect the money to human needs. It could be reduced 90% and still nobody could fuck with us, but we wouldn't be able to gratuitously fuck with other people either, as is now the case.

Will that be in the Democratic Platform?

[mondo joe]

376. You're not giving me actionable items.

If it simply doable to get people into housing, or gut the military budget, why don' you just do it?

[blindpig]

390. Rather one might ask

Why are we supporting a system which pays lip service at best to these issues and then congratulate ourselves for being on the side of the angels? It is hypocrisy.

[mondo joe]

391. Again you are failing to provide actionable items. While I'm waiing for your system

overhaul what shall I do about the people suffering right now? Sit by and let them suffer as much as possible because doing anything to mitigate the suffering supports the system?

[Hannah Bell]

403. 1. Use your position to initiate

honest public discussion of the problem & its history.

2. Organize your clients, supporters & donors to lobby for subsidized housing, higher wages, etc.

3. Link to other agencies to form a national coalition with some political muscle.

4. Publicize all attempts to move "the problem" to areas where it's less visible, to destroy current public housing, or to cut back funding. Go into the budget & look at the numbers. 200 billion for Iraq? 200,000 units of new construction vacant thanks to the mortgage meltdown - that would house 1/4 of the homeless, & that's just NEW construction. Publicize the absolute CYNICISM of initiating 10-year plans to end homelessness while cutting funding.

5. Use your national coalition to hold public forums across the nation to publicize the issues & get ordinary people involved.

6. Link your effort to other working class issues like wages, offshoring, & the lack of real citizens input into public policy, or indeed, the lack of real information citizens can easily access.

7. Take a page from MLK & start a "poor peoples' campaign".

[mondo joe]

415. You assume far greater power and authority on my part than exists.

You also assume a few other things that don't match reality.

But I fully encourage your efforts to do that.

[blindpig]

417. Joe, it is in our power.

In numbers there is strength.

We'll make our own authority, it is derived from strength.

[mondo joe]

418. Then get to it. What are you waiting for?

Do you mind if whuile you're working on that some of us continue to meet daily needs of poor people?

I mean if someone comes in to my clinic with strep throat and no insurance can we still help them?

Or if the housing for the chronically homeless asks us if we can bring in supportive nursing or behavioral health counseling to help people transition, is that still okay?

Can the soup kitchens still bother serving clients?

[Hannah Bell]

420. There you have the reason it's "not possible".

Because the "helpers", the administrators of all these wonderful programs, who have the inside story & the connections to make it work, don't believe it is, or aren't willing to take risks, so long as their sinecure is in place.

They're too busy "serving the daily needs" of those whose ranks will just keep growing unless someone does something different.

The problem was created by the POLITICAL DECISIONS of those holding the reins of power, & it ain't gonna be changed with voicemail & toothpaste. It's only gonna change when folks stand up & say "enough".

and yes, I've been involved in something along those lines. It failed, because of lack of support from timeservers who were quite willing to bitch & moan in private, but not to put themselves on the line.

[mondo joe]

453. You're full of shit. Again.

"Because the "helpers", the administrators of all these wonderful programs, who have the inside story & the connections to make it work, don't believe it is, or aren't willing to take risks, so long as their sinecure is in place."

The "helpers" are people delivering on their mission to provide health care, food, etc. We don't habe the connections, or other resources, to deliver your glorious social change. If we did, we'd have done it already.

"They're too busy "serving the daily needs" of those whose ranks will just keep growing unless someone does something different."

What would you like us to do - close the shelters and food banks and clinics?

You can piss and moan about abstracts all you like - you're oblivious to the actual needs of real people.

[Hannah Bell]

456. I gave you a list of actionable items.

You said they weren't possible, you didn't have any power.

Then you told me I was full of shit.

[mondo joe]

459. I should have specified actionable in reality rather than your fantasy.

It is quite plain you want mission driven organizations to abandon their missions for yours. That is insulting as well as unrealistic.

There's a reason people are drawn to mission based work. And it isn't to be your tool.

If you can't get people to rally behind your mission, blame yourself, not everyone else.

[Hannah Bell]

464. There once was a city by a river...

one day, a baby washed up on shore. The townspeople adopted it & cared for it. Over the years, more & more babies started washing up. The people built orphanages, then schools for the babies, hospitals & old age homes. They selected the "baby of the year" to encourage people to adopt, they gave awards for the "best baby rescuer," and in the newspaper, they regularly told themselves what a great city they were, that they chose to help all the river babies. But the babies kept coming down the river, outstripping all the facilities that were built.

a visitor came to the town. They proudly showed him all their baby facilities, the homes of people who'd adopted babies. He even participated in a rescue. But when he asked them, "For god's sake, has no one ever gone upriver to see who's throwing all these babies in the river?" they looked at him with anger.

"WE are doing GOOD WORKS," they said.

Throughout this thread, you've demonstrated the same inability to hear quite reasonable criticisms of Google, yourself, & the "poverty establishment". You tell others they know nothing, even when they demonstrate they know as much as yourself, & repeatedly pat yourself on the back for "caring," "serving real needs," "devoting your life," etc.

You get paid, yet you act as though it were some kind of sacrifice you should get a medal for.

You do "good" in one sense, but in another, your work is as POINTLESS as that of the baby rescuers'. Like them, you can't be bothered to look upstream, or even ACKNOWLEDGE any of the points made.

Lucky you - there will always be work for people like you - the managers of the poor - in the economy of dispossession of the future.

[mondo joe]

466. It's nice you have a place to voice your frustration with your failures.

I've never said I or anyone deserves a medal for it. I wouldn't say that, because I don't think it.

That said, it's not pointless to feed a hungry person. Or provide healthcare to a person in need. Or to teach literacy. Or help get a job.

People in direct service are well aware of the systemic problems that contribute to these needs. But they are not willing to sacrifice the people in trouble now - something they CAN do, to do something they can't do do. Or, to carry your silly analogy out, even if someone is gong upriver to see who's throwing babies in it, someone still has to be there to get the babies already in the river.

If you think the system can be changed that simply, then go ahead and do it. I'll applaud you and support your efforts. But you're not going to.

You can't rally anyone to your cause, so you look around and decide what others OUGHT to be doing. How delightfully superior of you. But non profits are born of communities - they aren't tools to be used by you or anyone else - they care about the issues they care about, whether it's literacy or food or healthcare or housing. You can't just borrow those communities to follow you, because they then wouldn't be who they are. People who use their services use them because that's what they want and need - not because they're just waiting there to be used as pawns for your agenda.

"Hi, I came here to get my wound dressing changed." "Sorry - we don't do healthcare any more - we're going to take you to march on Washington instead."

Don't blame people who are dedicated to helping people in trouble for not abandoning those people to follow you. They're not the problem causing your failure - you are.

[Hannah Bell]

477. thanks for the laugh. n/t

[Midlodemocrat]

509. Wow. just wow.

get help, seriously.

[mondo joe]

510. LOL - can you imagine using "Baby Rescuer" as an insult?

:rofl:

Who would be dumb enough to rescue a baby in a river?

[Midlodemocrat]

511. It's almost as bad as

animal savior.


:rofl:

Mondo, you CANNOT make this stuff up.


:rofl:

[mondo joe]

512. It's the sort of obliviousness to real pain and need you'd expect from a Freeper,

for whom other people are just collateral.

Proving once again the political continuum isn't a straight line, but a circle where the ends meet.

[Hannah Bell]

519. Yes, the baby rescuers are the "caring" ones.

They'll tell you so themselves.

[mondo joe]

521. If your little river story were real, don't you think it would make sense to both

look to the cause AND keep rescuing the babies?

How many drowned babies exactly are an acceptable loss in exclusive pursuit of the cause?

[mondo joe]

462. Still wondering: What are you waiting for? If it's in our power why are you not doing something

about it?

[Hannah Bell]

468. How do you know he's not?

Here's MY questions.

You've repeated styled yourself the expert, & told others they just don't understand the situation. You say you've worked in this field for 20 years. You say the administrators, social workers, mental health specialists, & the rest of your lot are doing vitally important work.

You've also said repeated that it's not possible to get more housing for the homeless, so we must be content with what's possible.

1. If you're doing such important work, why does the homeless population just keep growing? Does that trend ever cause you to rethink your mission?

2. Why do you think it's not possible to get more subsidized housing? Who makes that determination?

3. Why do you, with your years of experience in this field, & (I imagine) your connections to others who work in the same field, or lawmakers, donors, supporters, etc., feel so powerless to push for housing, and so irritated with anyone who questions the value of what you're doing?

[mondo joe]

474. Simple: Because the system hasn't changed. If we have the power to just go and change it

why isn't it changed?

"You've repeated styled yourself the expert, & told others they just don't understand the situation. You say you've worked in this field for 20 years. You say the administrators, social workers, mental health specialists, & the rest of your lot are doing vitally important work."

Correction: I'm not "the expert". I know as much as I know and there are others who know far more than I do. So I have provided information that others didn't know, or chose to ignore, such as the utility of a free voicemail system.

"You've also said repeated that it's not possible to get more housing for the homeless, so we must be content with what's possible."

Correction: Not so. It is possible to get more housing - it happens, and in Seattle is is happening at a far greater pace than in previous decades. That's not what I said is impossible.

"1. If you're doing such important work, why does the homeless population just keep growing? Does that trend ever cause you to rethink your mission?"

Answer: Because the causes of homelessness are systemic. And yet I know there are many non profits that are mitigating those causes, and others that are very focused on getting the homeless into housing and providing the support needed to stay there. So no, I feel no need to rethink the mission because the people are there and need help.

"2. Why do you think it's not possible to get more subsidized housing? Who makes that determination?"

It is possible to get more subsidized housing. Your cockeyed plan is what's not possible.

"3. Why do you, with your years of experience in this field, & (I imagine) your connections to others who work in the same field, or lawmakers, donors, supporters, etc., feel so powerless to push for housing, and so irritated with anyone who questions the value of what you're doing?"

We do push for housing, and other things as well. Homeless people don't only need housing - they need the same range of services that most impoverished people need. Some people are more focused exclusively on housing, some on other parts of the spectrum.

I'm not irritated with questioning the value of these services. I enjoy the opportunity to publicly correct their fallacies. Thank you. :-)

[Hannah Bell]

478. so...

<<If we have the power to just go and change it why isn't it changed?>>

The very question I asked you. If your work is so necessary & helpful, why does homelessness keep growing? Now you say - because it's systemic. I feel we're going in circles.


<<It is possible to get more housing>>

Then why on the national level is there less than in 1979?


<<Your cockeyed plan is what's not possible.>>

Well, tell me how it's done, then. Actionable items, please.

[mondo joe]

479. ...

"<<If we have the power to just go and change it why isn't it changed?>>

The very question I asked you. If your work is so necessary & helpful, why does homelessness keep growing? Now you say - because it's systemic. I feel we're going in circles."

I never suggested the work of non profits was changing the system or eliminating homelessness. I've always said the causes are many, and systemic.

You have confused me with some fantasy projection of yours.


"<<It is possible to get more housing>>

Then why on the national level is there less than in 1979?"

Because there isn't national pressure to reverse it, and because the other causes of homelessness have been exacerbated.

In some areas people have taken action to try to mitigate that in their cities, but no city has the power to effect that sort of change nationally.


"<<Your cockeyed plan is what's not possible.>>

Well, tell me how it's done, then. Actionable items, please."

How it's done will vary from city to city, and that will vary at the national level. There are organizations focused on housing - I suggest you get involved with them if that's your passion. They'd know the actionable steps better than I would.

[Hannah Bell]

487. But - but - you're the one who said -

IT IS POSSIBLE to get housing, but not through MY goofy plan. Even though it's not part of YOUR job description.

I presumed that meant you knew how it's possible. That you could give me a list of actionable items, like you requested from others.

Seems you don't know anything after all. Carry on with your baby-rescuing.

[mondo joe]

488. Is it possible to increase housing? Yes.

There are cities doing it.

There are organizations working on it.

If you cared about it, you'd know that.

"Carry on with your baby-rescuing."

Will do - babies who need rescuing certainly should be rescued. Though you might not think so.

Edit to add - If you need more actionable items on increasing the amount of subsidized housing: support the campaigns of candidates for office sympathetic to your cause; join with others who share your passion and put your time and other resources into supporting strategic plans to effect change.

[Hannah Bell]

508. Rolling on the floor now. n/t.

[blindpig]

588. 'actionable'

You want 'actionable'? how about this:













Your bandaids are commendable where appropriate, but they don't do much for the gutshot of institutionalized, systemic destitution which the people are suffering. We might learn from our neighbors, from history.

[mondo joe]

591. So if you have actionable steps to reverse the problems, by all means proceed.

I encourage you.

[Andrea]

632. Ha! The Wobblies? And you are serious aren't you?

OMG that's hilarious. We're arguing with you?

Oh no. Good one. You actually fooled us into thinking we were having a serious discussion for awhile there.

The Wobblies:

From Wikipedia:

The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW or the Wobblies) is an international union currently headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. At its peak in 1923 the organization claimed some 100,000 members in good standing, and could marshal the support of perhaps 300,000 workers. Its membership declined dramatically after a 1924 split brought on by internal conflict and government repression. Today it is actively organizing and numbers about 2,000 members worldwide, of whom roughly half (approximately 900) are in good standing (That is, have paid their dues for the past two months).

Nine hundred members in good standing and half of them are here.

More from Wikipedia:

The Wobblies believed that all workers should organize as a class, a philosophy which is still reflected in the Preamble to the current IWW Constitution:

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life. Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth. ... Instead of the conservative motto, 'A fair day's wage for a fair day's work', we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, 'Abolition of the wage system.' It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism.

While they were a significant force in the early part of the 20th century and helped bring about significant gains for workers, their refusal to sign contracts to cement their gains, their infighting, and their dedication to communism and anarchy served to marginalize them.

I don't think communists and Democrats have much common ground. Now I see why this has been such an exercise in futility. I'm not sure why I missed the "blind pig" reference before.

[Two Americas]

439. "actionable items"

"Actionable items" is a dodge - a way to avoid this issue. "Actionable items" fills your needs, not necessarily the needs of others.

The demand for actionable items is for the purpose of keeping the discussion within certain bounds, and to give you control over the discussion. That need for controlling the conversation and the other people in the conversation is precisely the problem with much of liberal "help." People do not ant to be controlled or told what to think.

Suffering is not merely a matter of lacking material things. The worst component of being poor in America is the emotional and spiritual suffering that accompanies it. Yet on this thread, while you claim the moral high ground, and present yourself as being an "expert" on the subject, you are taking pleasure from beating people down, invalidating them, ridiculing them and tormenting them.

Almost all of the thousands and thousands of poor people I have interviewed and worked with over 40 years would gladly so with less in the way of material well being, if they could only be free of the arrogance, the dominance, the control, and the humiliation they receive from the "helpers" and the more fortunate.

You are pridefully and aggressively trying to dominate, control and humiliate people right here on this thread.

"Man does not live by bread alone..."

[mondo joe]

454. You just keep proving all you can do is complain about what others are doing to

help homeless and other poor people, but you have no solutions or contributions of your own to make.

Thanks.

[casstheturtle]

465. You're completely right about that.

You wrote "Almost all of the thousands and thousands of poor people I have interviewed and worked with over 40 years would gladly so with less in the way of material well being, if they could only be free of the arrogance, the dominance, the control, and the humiliation they receive from the "helpers" and the more fortunate."

This is very true, and for others to assume that we can't see things like that as they are, or even to dismiss what we are seeing when we so constantly and repetitively say this is a part of the problem, is to perpetuate the idea that we're just stupid and ignorant.

I know someone who became a social worker herself for a time, because she'd grown up dirt-poor and often at the mercy of condescending social workers who walked into her home and thought they knew everything about her and her family, and what their problems were, and how they could be solved. She wanted to be able to do something better. She encountered pressure to behave in the same condescending ways that she'd been taught to (she refused). In college, where she had to work at least twice as hard as anyone else and take remedial classes because she'd had to drop out of school due to poverty, she encountered sexual harassment (some of which was very classist in nature) and stalking from her adviser and classmates, who were richer and therefore considered more respectable than her. Finally they publicly accused her of being a fraud, and of being "insane", in ways that had classist roots as well. None of them had to face any consequences for their actions, but she still has to live with the consequences. All of this was what she got for trying to do a better job than the people who had condescended to her family her entire childhood.

One of the best social workers I ever had was a previous welfare recipient. She never condescended. She never treated you like you were less than other people. She never used the little tricks that every poor person dealing with the system knows or finds out, the ones that undermine your humanity and degrade you just because they can or something (the ones that are all over this thread). It's no coincidence that she never did those little power plays, never made those little remarks, and never made you feel less than human when you were talking about her. She knew exactly how deeply those things cut into a person. So she never used them.

Most people I know avoid these social services whenever possible. This isn't because they're "choosing to be homeless" and it isn't because they're "mentally ill" and need to be herded into treatment. It's because they know the cost to their soul of submitting to these things. I know people who'd rather die than deal with the humiliation and degradation of some of the systems set up to "deal with poverty" or "deal with homelessness" in various ways. They don't have a death wish, either. They're not "paranoid". Some of them have eventually or periodically chosen dealing with the system because they truly did not want to die, but the cost to them has been enormous. I don't know if these costs are invisible to most people who work in these fields, or if they just don't care. It's hard to tell the difference from my side of things.

The system does make you beg a lot, and if I have to do so I'd beg of anyone who works in it and is reading this to learn about and understand these costs and the justified desperation and outrage that comes from them, rather than being nasty to people who happen to express it. Don't go with the knee-jerk reaction that you're being insulted, or that you just don't know what to do. Certainly don't go with the impulse to kick back with the reflexes that say someone's just bitter or angry or has a bad personality or just wants attention and that's the end of it. Show some humility. It will get you everywhere in understanding this. Forget your ego for a minute and listen. Then seriously think about whether any of what you're doing to people contributes to this. Change what you're doing, or how you're doing it. Then talk to your coworkers from the perspective of someone who once did these things and now understands what they do to people. Resist the temptation to think you're on equal footing with those you "serve", because you're usually not and they know it because they, unlike you, have to be aware of it at every instant.

That's what I get out of bobbo saying she doesn't want to win an argument, she just wants people to show some humanity.

The face some of us show to the system has to be one of gratitude because we are afraid to show any other (unless we're so desperate we just don't care anymore, which happens too). I once showed up at a social worker's office and got accused of being mentally ill because I was scruffy-looking, scared for my life, and frustrated with the system for being self-congratulating rather than helping anyone. With some of what passes for help out there, and with retaliation being a serious threat, it's just not safe for us to show those emotions if we can help it. When we talk amongst ourselves about the system later, though, the grateful (read: desperate but frightened) face is not the face we show at all, even if we have to grit our teeth and show it elsewhere.

If we have Internet access that can sometimes be the only place we can tell you these things. Because the anonymity protects us from the drastic repercussions that can happen if we're figured out. Which is one reason that snooping into bobbolink's real-world life is more of a threat to her than doing it to the professionals on here would be. Power is a major part of how poverty works. Finding out and publicizing who she is could be life-threatening, because there is such a thing as retaliation in the world towards people who speak out about these things and the poorest people are the least able to fight back.

It amazes me how much people complain about her supposedly talking about injustice just for attention and to feed her own ego, when I see people on here feeding their own egos far more than she seems to be doing. Someone who isn't poor can talk about the sacrifices they or others make for "the poor" and be considered selfless, even saintlike. Someone who's actually poor talking about the injustices poverty? That gets charges of selfishness nearly every time. Do people not realize what a great advantage it is to be able to talk about poverty and always be deemed selfless for it instead of selfish? Because when poor people talk about the realities of poverty, you'd better believe we get told we're doing it for attention or any other purely selfish reason you can imagine. Unless we tell the classic conservative tale of the rugged individualist climbing out of poverty using only grit and determination, a story that I'd think would be questioned and analyzed more by progressives.

Two Americas is totally right about the degradation poor people experience. bobbolink and Oak2004 and I and lots of others experience that nearly everywhere we go, here being no exception. When we turn off the computer, it will still be there, everywhere we go. Hurt feelings by people who work on poverty, over the rage of poor people about this degradation and the paternalism that perpetuates it, are nothing compared to the weight of the humiliation, degradation, and condescension that we deal with every day, and shouldn't be treated as the same thing at all. And I daresay that if any of us were as selfish as people accuse bobbolink of being, we'd have given up trying to tell anyone what it's really like a long time ago, so as not to be constantly put back in "our place" like this. I stand with bobbolink and the others here in asking for the real selflessness and humility it seems to take some people in order to put their egos and defensiveness aside and realize that the power plays we describe are an integral part of what makes survival as a poor person, even as a more privileged poor person like me, so difficult. Just listen for awhile without judging us so fast. Your ideas of the real problems and the real solutions might start looking a lot different.

[Hannah Bell]

492. yes.

<<She encountered pressure to behave in the same condescending ways>>

yes, overt & covert.


<<This isn't because they're "choosing to be homeless" and it isn't because they're "mentally ill" and need to be herded into treatment. It's because they know the cost to their soul of submitting to these things.>>

yes.


<<asking for the real selflessness and humility it seems to take some people in order to put their egos and defensiveness aside and realize that the power plays we describe are an integral part of what makes survival as a poor person, even as a more privileged poor person like me, so difficult.>>

yes. to be treated as less than adult, less than competent, & expected to show gratitude, to hold one's temper & smile in the face of condescension & worse, yes.

Knowing that homelessness is deliberate government policy, & knowing that the enforcement of humiliation, through mechanisms like underfunding & understaffing of available services, long lines, long waiting lists, harried social workers, etc. - is also deliberate policy.

[Two Americas]

494. brilliant post

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for this compassionate, insightful and well written post. This needs to have its own thread and every DUer - every Democrat- needs to read this. I will quote a few passages and add some comments of my own, if I may.

One of the best social workers...

Over the years working in hundreds of elder care facilities, shelters, and poor parishes in the inner cities, and in remote impoverished rural villages, it has been my privilege to meet the finest human beings anywhere among the care-givers and workers - saints walking among us. Some are posting here. They won't trumpet their experience or flaunt their credentials or credibility, or pose as experts and try to dominate the discussion. They know that it is reaching people's hearts that makes the difference, not strutting around advocating fancy solutions and programs. It is the will to lift up the downtrodden and alleviate their suffering that is missing, it is not cleverness or the right social engineering plan, nor the right expertise or credentials.

Most people I know avoid these social services whenever possible. This isn't because they're "choosing to be homeless" and it isn't because they're "mentally ill" and need to be herded into treatment. It's because they know the cost to their soul of submitting to these things. I know people who'd rather die than deal with the humiliation and degradation of some of the systems set up to "deal with poverty" or "deal with homelessness" in various ways.

Heart-breaking, just heart-breaking, yet I know this to be undeniably true from decades of first hand observation.

With some of what passes for help out there, and with retaliation being a serious threat, it's just not safe for us to show those emotions if we can help it.

It is not fun and games. Those most in need are also the most vulnerable, and it is very dangerous telling the truth. Needy people are to often robbed of their humanity, through intimidation. That is why Bobbolink's testimony is so important, and why she is so courageous in coming forward, and I also think this is why her posts get such a violent and angry response. They hit a nerve.

If we have Internet access that can sometimes be the only place we can tell you these things. Because the anonymity protects us from the drastic repercussions that can happen if we're figured out. Which is one reason that snooping into bobbolink's real-world life is more of a threat to her than doing it to the professionals on here would be. Power is a major part of how poverty works. Finding out and publicizing who she is could be life-threatening, because there is such a thing as retaliation in the world toward people who speak out about these things and the poorest people are the least able to fight back.

The danger is real. The behavior of some has been predatory and threatening. The weak response or no response at all by so many observers has disturbed me.

"Power is a major part of how poverty works."

Poverty is the material manifestation of bullying and holding power over others. It is the extreme form of a predatory pattern that is rewarded and praised and emulated in modern society, and we are all victims of it to some degree- unless we become trustees and so become perpetrators. But to deny that power is a factor in social problems is dangerous, and real human beings suffer and die as a consequence of that denial.



...edited for a typo

[maryf]

608. noble testimony

Thank you for this wise, generous, and courageous post. My tiny contribution will be nothing beside it; I would like to recommend the video "Dark Days" to those with the wherewithal to see it(how about Netflix giving free memberships to the homeless, oh and Zenith free tv's, oh, oh , oh and that would mean some place to plug them in...); I saw Dark Days when I was even more naive than I am now and my memory is sketchy, but it spoke of the people who lived in the subways in NYC, they had their own little homes from scraps, tapped into electricity, even tv's from the trash, plumbing et al. It was a place to live they could call their own without needing to be beholden to anyone or grovel or compete. In the end they were moved out and their community destroyed by some wonderful do-gooders, oh but they were given subsidised housing if they followed the rules. They maybe should have been given knee pads as well?? (oh and the journalist should be chastised for faking homelessness in order to demonstrate their plight).

It is the right of every human being to be housed, fed, and to have the ability to contribute what they can to society; I thank those homeless here for contributing despite being denied their basic human rights.

I think it was Mondo Joe here who said Google doesn't have to do anything. Nobody has to do anything to help humanity, Joe, and to put a bandaid on a bullet wound is not going to help, in fact it keeps the cleansing blood from flowing, and showing which would mandate real action. Thats why we're all on our way to hell...

I apologize if I don't respond to this, its my first post at du, and I'm confused as to how to follow all this. casstheturtle's post was the most revealing and thus the most instructive to me, thanks again.

[AngryOldDem]

592. How would you deal with these scenarios?

A family consists of five people: husband, wife, a son, 15, a daughter 13, and another son who is 5. The only housing available at the moment is a two-bedroom apartment. Do you give that apartment to the family just to give them housing?

A family consists of six children of various ages and a single parent. How many rooms do you think that family needs in order to have some semblance of a comfortable life? If they rent a house, how much do you think they should pay for that? Will their income be enough?

A mother and son need a place. Trouble is, the mother has stayed in housing at other agencies that require periodic drug screens in order to maintain eligibility. She has failed her screen and has been told to leave the housing program. Prior to that, they lived in a subsidized apartment complex and also had relatives staying with them, who were not listed on the lease. Lease violation; eviction. Two bridges burned.

Mom and a toddler are told of a great place in a great part of town. What's more, the mom's employer will help with rent. Mom and baby move in. Employer terminates the job. Mom can't pay rent. What do you do? Mom and toddler find another place, which fits their needs perfectly -- until they move in and see the condition of it. Uninhabitable.

All of the above scenarios are real. I've seen them.

Housing depends on the following "planets" to align:
1) Availability.
2) Affordability.
3) Practicality (health and safety)

Sometimes housing comes relatively quickly. Others have to wait. Still more may have to work on their issues first and then re-enter the housing process. Over the past few months, I know of at least three families that have moved into permanent housing. A little victory, but damn, a victory nonetheless!

"Why don't we get these people housing?" That is easier said than done. But that does not mean that it ISN'T being done.

And please, DO NOT belittle the social services (or anyone or anything that helps in any way) by comparing them to characters in a Dickensian novel. Would you rather them do nothing?

[Andrea]

559. You are surprised because

you are part of the reality-based community and haven't had the misfortune of falling into one of these "Alice in Wonderland" threads before.

It is as simple as that, unless one is dedicated to discouraging any further such attempts at doing something to provide constructive assistance.

[Hannah Bell]

565. ROFL.

[AngryOldDem]

602. May I ask what's so amusing?

Because I don't see it. However, I DO see some here who have a preconceived notion of what reality is, or how they want it to be.

I don't see that as humorous. I see it as being a very big part of the problem that they're so vocal about wanting to solve.

What I do find funny, though, is that if NOBODY did anything AT ALL to help the poor, that would be a source of righteous indignation here too. I've seen it often enough. But you can't have it both ways, folks -- you can't, on the one hand, literally demand help and then turn around and discount and deride that help and those who provide it on the other. That is a sure-fire way to ensure that NOTHING gets done, and that is exactly what some on these threads are doing.

This topic has done a valuable service, though: It's pointed out how complex the problem of homelessness is. For that, sad_one, thank you for the OP.

[Andrea]

621. Right

They can't have it both ways, but insist on doing so. It IS a sure-fire way to see that nothing is done. I can't help but see that their goal is to prevent anything being done.

[OneGrassRoot]

637. Thank you for your contributions here, AngryOldDem. n/t

[OneGrassRoot]

387. FYI for those who are new or didn't know...

there is a poverty forum here at DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=230

I lurked here for years and only read at GD before taking the time to check out the many other forums and groups.

[OneGrassRoot]

401. What about a concerted effort to bring this issue to light...

in a huge, humiliating way at the Democratic Convention?

One of the biggest issues is making this a key part of the platform, right? And doing so at a local level is one approach, but people are dying in the meantime. Why not try to somehow, someway generate a campaign to show the world how many American citizens are barely existing...suffering nonstop? Katrina was a start in pulling back the drapes to reveal the truth. Maybe humiliating the politicians - and enlisting some big profile names who can get media attention - is one near-term way to tackle this? Marches on Washington get little play; but perhaps, if done right, attention can be gained about the severity of this issue and truths can be revealed, encouraging the Party to do the right thing and adopt a populist platform.


On edit: No, I don't have such connections to pull a huge task as this off, but I'm throwing it out there as an idea...something to make use of the upcoming Democratic Convention to put the spotlight on the issue. I know it's been tried before, including by Edwards, but I'm just attempting to generate productive thought about what can be done to trigger systemic changes.

[Hannah Bell]

408. That woul be great

but as you said, it would require having insiders of some sort to work.

[JoseGaspar]

412. Now that is more...

...like it. And it is a "specific action" as well. I think we need to think in precisely the terms you have just elucidated. I don't know how do it either but it sure beats nailing a couple of boards together and calling that "help".

[Two Americas]

481. yes

Mass action is required. That has been true in every struggle for social justice since the beginning of time.

Some of us are objecting to the offering and praising of solutions to problems, particularly privatized solutions, that tend strongly to mitigate against the organizing and mass action that will be required. No one here is against helping a person. But what if helping one harms a thousand in the process?

I will work 24 hours a day to do the things necessary to raise awareness and organize for mass action. I am not going anywhere. But people, almost everyone, are deeply resistant to thinking in this direction. When I talk about it, the crowd scatters and runs for safe cover, while finding all sorts of reasons for assassinating the character of the messenger. It is frightening to people to face the truth, it is "too radical," it is "impractical" or "idealistic" they say, or the red-bating starts, and then we always have those who enjoy mocking and ridiculing that, as we do on this thread, and is is much easier to go along with that and look for safe and comfortable ideas than it is to stare at the harsh truth.

We can't very well ever do that which we are afraid to even discuss.

[Uncle Joe]

451. This thread is dropping like a stone, it needs a kick. n/t

[Orwellian_Ghost]

493. What a great thread

Thanks to all of the participants.

On the face of it the bit about googleInc. helping the homeless might seem alluring and a few stats from the overhead projector about how it is a project that can help those "poor needy folk" could also buttress the argument about the wonders of such philanthropy but the reality is that when we take account of all the history AND the day to day this most recent "charitable" act will resolve precisely nothing.

What it will do however is serve to further the pretense and obscure the root causes.

Is that a good thing?

[Midlodemocrat]

513. After reading this thread, I have to say. THOSE FUCKING BASTARDS!!!!!!

What are they fucking thinking????? They are trying to help even a small percentage of the homeless population get settled and get jobs? THE FUCKERS!!!! HOW DARE THEY!!!!!



:sarcasm: for this who don't get it. :eyes:

[Dukkha]

523. They sure portray the elitist stereotype

that they always know what's best for poor people.

[Hannah Bell]

532. Not surprising

you portray the difference here in those terms. Too bad -

1. No one has said the Google initiative won't help "some" people.
2. No one has said that's not a "good" thing, so far as it goes.

What people have said, & what you & others choose not to hear, is that it doesn't go very far, it won't reduce homelessness, it costs Google very little, homelessness was created by a political choice made by our leaders & is maintained by continuing choice.

All the talk of small steps, being grateful for the resources people are willing to give, how difficult & infinitely complicated the problem is, how wonderful it is we have such caring people, working tirelessly for long years, working their fingers to the very bone -

just serves to mystify the situation & convince the public that homelessness is a fact of nature.

IT'S NOT. IT'S A DELIBERATE CHOICE.

If I kick someone to the gutter with one hand & attempt to bind their wounds with the other, am I a "good" person? OR am I a big fat hypocrite & worse?

[Two Americas]

538. misrepresentation

You are continuing to willfully and knowingly misrepresent what the other members have said on this thread.

[Andrea]

568. You clearly said

In response to the OP, "This is obscene." That's pretty stark.

[Tech 9]

576. How dense can you be?

If you lived in Apartheid South Africa -- the most stratified place on the planet at the time -- would you still think it was just a matter of empathy and "want-to" required to end homelessness and inequality?

Or maybe you still don't see the obscenity?

Put another way -- is the disparity and immiseration we're talking about due more to GOOGLE or the lack of "good people"? If its the latter, then all we need is more of your lovey dovey hippie-reject talk. What's your track record with that?

[Hannah Bell]

601. It's willful denseness. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

614. It's shit-stirring -

when you call people on their misrepresentation of other's positions.

It's not shit-stirring when you misrepresent.

[Andrea]

622. I'm absolutely apoplectic!

How awful for me to have been insulted by you!

Obviously I don't think it's JUST a matter of empathy and "want-to" required. No one thinks that. However, I'm never going to think those are bad things.

The problem here is that some are trying to solve problems in the real world, while others are trying to institute a purely imaginary system on the backs of those that are really suffering.

I have no respect for anyone that is using human suffering to advance their purely academic arguments.

[casstheturtle]

627. There's either a third group of people...

...or there are members of the first group on different sides of the debate.

Because I am seeing people who object to this program based on personal experiences of homelessness or poverty, that allow them to see where the program could range from useless to outright destructive. As someone who is seeing things from that angle, and especially knowing the fact that people in poverty tend to have less access to academia, it seems something beyond ironic to call us academics with no care for helping real people in the real world. When we are basing our opinions solely on a combination of our own experiences as real people in the real world, and the experiences of other people we know in the real world.

I don't know if that's who you're aiming that comment at, but I hope it isn't. It's an unfortunate fact that not all things purported to help homeless people or other poor people actually do, some of them harm us, many of us have legitimate concerns or outrage about them from experience. You don't have to agree with our viewpoints, to avoid calling them merely academic, divorced from reality somehow, and to avoid insisting that we don't care about helping people like ourselves or other people we know and care about.

In general, if you read a poor or homeless person as saying that things that are actually helpful to poor and homeless people ought to be avoided, then you're almost undoubtedly reading them wrong, and should just accept at that point that there's some part of what they're saying that you're misreading, even if you don't know what. The "what" of it is mostly that we disagree as to what might be helpful and what might not. Which is very different from "castigating people for helping" and all the other phrases like that I've seen used to describe what we're really trying to say.

The doubts we have are based on real experience of being "helped", regardless of whether we turn out to be right or wrong. At some point people have to face the fact that not all charitable efforts on behalf of a group of people, help that group of people, and that the people who do help us are not always saints, they often have their own agendas and egos and power trips wrapped up in it, even if they make material sacrifices along the way. And that if that isn't examined as well, we can go on being harmed even through programs that, in theory, really would otherwise help us.

The most academic-seeming part of this discussion, from where I sit, is the one where it's demanded that people put away their real-world experience and those of our friends and neighbors as irrelevant, and rely on one particular set of statistics that we've all managed to critique in one way or another to begin with. The rest has seemed rather non-academic in general to me, on all of the different sides.

[Andrea]

635. Just want to let you know

I have to leave now and don't have time to read this. I will return later and check it out.

[mondo joe]

640. We should definitely look to poor and homeless people to see if it's useful or helpful.

helpful. Let's look at the now somewhat established Community Voice Mail system:

Where reported, the population using CVM in 2006 was...

54% Unemployed
52% Homeless
12% Disabled
9% Victim of Domestic Violence
8% Veteran
5% In-housing, Phone Disconnected
5% At Risk of Homelessness
2% Limited English Skills
1% or less: Parolee, Foster Care, Other
$448.81 Average Monthly Income





Hey, what do those tens of thousands of people know when we can just ask a stranger or two online?

[Andrea]

643. The definition of academic I'm referring to

is this one:

From Merriam-Webster:

3 a: theoretical, speculative <an academic question> b: having no practical or useful significance

And I'm referring to the group of posters, which group I don't actually think you belong to Cass, who advocate (albeit somewhat covertly), leaving people in their suffering in order to bring about a massive communist uprising. That is why I referred to an imaginary system. Communism doesn't work on any large scale. Furthermore, if an uprising is what is called for, it's not necessary to leave people starving and homeless in order to foment that revolution.

You see, as I mentioned before, a lot of us have extensive experience with some of these posters.

[Two Americas]

650. yes

I find it obscene. Since corporations are fictional impersonal entities, I am not insulting anyone, and it is a mystery that anyone would take offense or say the things they have said.

It is obscene in the same way that "let them eat cake" is obscene. See what I mean?

I find it obscene that this is about Google - a legal fiction used to build fabulous wealth for a few - more than it is about the homeless - real human beings suffering as a result of rampant and unleashed corporatism.

I find it obscene that this pittance - and yes it is a good thing to help homeless people - is trumpeted as a solution, and that any and all critics have been mercilessly attacked.

I find it obscene that people are willing to have more allegiance to a corporation - which I strongly suspect was the motive of Google officers for doing this - then they do to their fellow citizens here who happen to be expressing a different opinion.

My initial intuitive view that this is an obscenity has been strongly reinforced by many of the responses on this thread.

Google was criticized, and the response to that from too many DUers has been to savagely attack their comrades here with character assassination, innuendo, speculation, and false representations. That is obscene.

[OneGrassRoot]

609. Is there a certain dictionary you guys are using?

Cause you're all lockstep in your shit-stirring approach.

Good luck with that! :smoke:

[EFerrari]

610. Since I can't really read this thread, I can only imagine the conversation.

Shame on anyone who is discouraging any measure that anyone takes to alleviate poverty.

[mondo joe]

611. Bravo.

Though we have often disagreed, and probably will again, I don't see how any sane person can disagree with you on this.

[Andrea]

623. Bravo!!

That's it in a nutshell.

[BigDaddy44]

630. SHAME ON YOU!!!!

How DARE you denigrate anyone who questions this!!!! (sorry, just summarizing the tone of 600+ posts)

[EFerrari]

631. Okay. I have broad shoulders.

But better, I have broader trust in our communities and of our desire and ability to work toward a common goal.

:)

[Two Americas]

654. no one has done so

Were people "discouraging" people from doing things to alleviate poverty, that would be shameful. I am not seeing anyone doing so.

The debate is between those advocating one approach to alleviating poverty, and those advocating another.

[LostinVA]

652. I can't read 75% of this thread

[BlooInBloo]

639. No good deed goes unpunished by DUers.

[Two Americas]

657. no one is being punished

Google is not a person, it is a corporation. None of us have any power to punish, or even influence Google, and there is no one personally in charge of Google to appeal to, and no mechanism within corporations to make them "liberal" or anything else.

Clearly, Google did this as a publicity stunt, not a serious charitable act since the hype is 1000 times bigger than the actual contribution. Presenting it as a solution to a serious social problem has a negative political effect, as many people here have patiently explained.

All sorts of corporations make charitable contributions on a much vaster scale, and we rarely hear about them. Those do not make a corporation "enlightened" since a corporation is merely a legal fiction - a license granted to investors by the government to operate a business without any personal responsibility or liability. By definition there is no one there to be "enlightened" or "liberal" or praiseworthy or charitable.

The attacks on people here are right out of the right wing playbook - we are negative, purists, communists, living in a fantasy land, etc., even though for the most part we are advocating nothing more or less than traditional Democratic party principles and ideals.

Were Google a private company, that would change things. Were people willing to have the slightest bit of discernment or healthy skepticism about giant and powerful corporations, this bitter feud would probably not have erupted.

But here is a thought - what if it had been Haliburton or Blackwater that had announced this exact same program?

I promise you that no one would be beating the crap out of us were we critical of Blackwater or Haliburton for doing the exact same thing, even though all of the angry people claim they are defending the action Google took. They are not. They are defending Google, and they are defending privatization, and they are defending the illusion that we can somehow solve social problems without the difficult and frightening work that is required for building political solidarity and confronting the right wing and their big money clients. They are also defending a certain personal identity - a positive self-image - and the associated comforting illusions.

[leftstreet]

644. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

[maryf]

645. A picture is worth 1000 words, heres some words for you...

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C. S. Lewis

[leftstreet]

646. I'd take robber barons over Limousine Liberals any day!

That's an awesome quote.

:thumbsup:

[maryf]

647. I'll vote for your poor woman over the top choices anyday!!

Your pictures deserved a payment
ps. quote from informationclearinghouse.info great site...

[maryf]

648. Out of context quote

I was told by a friend that CS Lewis most likely didn't intend it as I applied it, it was more of a libertarian slam, However I still like it as I originally read it!!

[MarkInLA]

653. The responses to this topic make me want to switch parties

I can't believe some of you are actually complaining about this. I'm reminded of the days I lived in San Francisco and actually met people who believed that anyone who makes more than minimum wage is a "capitalist pig".

[Two Americas]

655. why?

We are arguing against praising and promoting privatized solutions to social problems. The other party favors privatized solutions. Are you saying that you would rather switch to the Republican party where there is no dissent about privatization, then to stay in the Democratic party and endure people arguing against privatization?

[BigDaddy44]

656. And according to you....

Our party should resist all efforts at private help. C'mon, lets get it going again. Lets see if we can get this to 1000 posts.

[Two Americas]

658. no

I didn't say that we should "resist" any private efforts, let alone "all." I do not think we should "resist" all efforts at private help. People are free to participate in private charities. I do. How would we "resist" whatever Google wants to do? Who here has suggested stopping Google or interfering with them in any way?

The idea is quite simple, and it is a mystery to me why people are so worked up over this.

Here we go again: we do not, as Democrats, want to be promoting privatized solutions as a replacement for political action. That is what the OP did, as did several subsequent posters.

Had people said "yes, this is OK, but it certainly should not be presented as a solution" I don't think anyone would have objected. But instead, people took offense, got angry and hostile, defended a corporation at all costs, defended privatization, and mercilessly and maliciously attacked anyone who tried to argue a point of view that is consistent with the traditional ideals and principles of the Democratic party.

Why is there as much anger and hostility within the Democratic party to the party's traditional principles and ideals as there is from the Republican party?

Here is Franklin Roosevelt on this very subject:

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor—other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of Government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.

The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the Government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the Government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the Government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.

The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the Government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the Government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the Government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.

Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.

These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the Flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the Flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike.

The brave and clear platform adopted by this Convention, to which I heartily subscribe, sets forth that Government in a modern civilization has certain inescapable obligations to its citizens, among which are protection of the family and the home, the establishment of a democracy of opportunity, and aid to those overtaken by disaster.

But the resolute enemy within our gates is ever ready to beat down our words unless in greater courage we will fight for them.

[mondo joe]

659. You're so full of crap you can't even remember all your various objections.

The simple truth is you just hate anyone doing anything to help.

You and your pals would rather sacrifice real people who could benefit from some help in order to pursue your vile scorched earth fantasy.

[Two Americas]

661. interesting

This is an interesting tactic: keep repeating the same idea over and over again until it sticks, or wears your opponent down, or just drives every one off of the thread.

If it were true that there are people talking the way FDR Democrats once talked, who have a secret agenda of preventing any one from being helped, who had infiltrated the party and were trying to enact a devious secret plan to sacrifice people and pursue a nefarious scorched earth policy, that would be fascinating to hear about, wouldn't it?

But of course there is no such thing. This is merely a naked and brazen attempt at character assassination to discredit the opinions of one who disagrees with you - a shameless and jeering call for the audience to shut their ears to the opinions of your opponents. This is right out of Bill O'Reilly's playbook - keep repeating the smears over and over again.

Imagine - a person who just HATES anyone who does ANYTHING to help! What sort of monster might THAT be?

Imagine - a gang of people who would rather sacrifice real people to pursue a VILE policy! Be afraid, people, be very afraid! Close your eyes and cover your ears! The dastardly infiltrators are trying to invade your minds with heretical ideas!!

It is a very sad commentary on the health and strength of our community that these tactics work.

[BigDaddy44]

662. What kind of monster would that be?

The one who just HATES anyone who does ANYTHING to help?

Hmm....if i recall upthread, you specifically said that "this is obscene". Obscene mind you! Not troublesome, not incomplete, not unhelpful. Obscene!! You actually posed a charitable act as wantonly destructive. I look forward to your multi-paragraphed response.

[mondo joe]

663. "What sort of monster might THAT be?"

The sort of monster who refers to something that helps as "obscene".

The sort of monster who compares something proven to be useful to homeless people to a subscription to a Forbes magazine.

The sort of monster who derides shelters and food banks as "baby rescuers".

[Two Americas]

666. I see

So anyone whom you call a monster is therefore a monster, and the definition of monster is those whom you did in fact call monsters.

It is basically an exercise in name-calling and personal attacks, then.

[mondo joe]

668. You asked "a person who just HATES anyone who does ANYTHING

to help! What sort of monster might THAT be?"

So I answered you, and provided examples.

[Two Americas]

669. no complaints here

The discussion has been very valuable.

[Two Americas]

664. for life?

"Every single homeless person in the city will be given a life-long phone number and voicemail."

Think about that. Either the expectation is that homeless people will remain homeless for life to retain eligibility, or people will continue to get this charity even when they are no longer homeless, or the "for life" is not true, and the charity will be withdrawn at some point based on some criteria set and enforced by a corporate office. Will everyone who becomes homeless over the next few months or years also be eligible for this charity, or is this a one time offer for those consumers (who happen to be homeless) who move quickly on this once in a lifetime offer?

[SoCalDem]

667. How do they pay for phone service? Where do they access their phone number?

Libraries & other public places are not all that happy to have homeless people hang around there..

[mondo joe]

672. Service providers are, however.

[Matariki]

671. GRATITUDE

Does the word piss you off?

(open question, not directed at the OP)

[Andrea]

675. Your art

Kineta - I looked at your profile because I was intrigued by your user name. I saw the link to your homepage and checked out your art. That is some very powerful stuff. Wonderful work.

[SunDrop23]

673. Bravo! (n/t)