I saw this on infoshop earlier. It's completely outrageous - the City council wants to try to criminalize the homeless because they don't fit in with the city's posh image. It's not only offensive and cruel, it's also short-sighted. Until they can actually deal with the problems creating homelessness in their city (high rents, little to no rent assistance, a lack of public services, a lack of tenants' organizations, and an economy with an entire underclass working high-turnover jobs) they can only try to temporarily decrease the homeless' visibility.

"And just like that, it was over... The last flames flickered and died amidst the rubble of an empire[.] As the smoke rose into the blackened sky, we realized that the world we had known was gone forever." - Eric "Doc" Griffin on the fall

*rolls eyes* And what better way to decrease their visibility than helping them die off faster?

Say what?

That is just plain retarded, it being outlawed to feed people.

So my advice to you is just to be a sweet pickle and everything will turn out for you in life - everything.

The police have to to their job. I completely disagree with their opinions, I feel we should feed the homeless. It's just depends on where you stand, if it breaks the law the police has to act upon it.
Hopefully people will realize how stupid that is and do something about it.

Sadly, Orlando isn't the only city trying to cover up its homeless problem. Dallas has been trying to run all the homeless out of the city for several months now, and forcing them to be homeless in the suburbs. Naturally, the suburbs aren't thrilled about this. Dallas has also banned new soup kitchens and stopped supporting the ones that are in existence. The ones still operating have stated that they have seen increased health inspections and decreased donations due to "quiet pressure from the city."

Unfortunately, one of the true underlying causes of the problem is this: companies are making countries compete for jobs. Their criteria: who can let them get away with shamelessly exploiting their workers the most. Many jobs are going from more affulent countries like the USA, Japan, and Europe to third world countires because the corrupt leaders of those third world countries will let them do things. Things such as let the companies pollute with impunity, have unsafe working conditions, and fire anyone who complains about it.

I for one think we need to stop this. A job export tariff would be a nice start. Unfortunately, the genie of globalization is out of the bottle, and it's turning out to have a bad side to it.

Quamp's discount manga/anime fan fiction
The Texas Conventions a Collection of artwork I've collected over various conventions.

Iko: If they think it's fine to do something wrong (because somebody'd have to be pretty sick to say it's justifiable to let a man starve), then I blame them for the crime of choosing to uphold such a heinous law.

One of the things about this case is the amount of police surveillance going on. In the infoshop article, they point out how the police were spending hours watching the activists feed the homeless. Yopu'd think such "paragons of virtue" would have better things to do than sit on their collective @sses and spy on good samaritans feeding the less fortunate and all, but appearantly the city council's made it clear that this should be their top priority.

God bless Amerika

"And just like that, it was over... The last flames flickered and died amidst the rubble of an empire[.] As the smoke rose into the blackened sky, we realized that the world we had known was gone forever." - Eric "Doc" Griffin on the fall

Totally unrelated, but what Sinn just said reminded me of something my neighbor told my mother yesterday. The two were talking about the fact that my neighbor had just quit her job at the job placement firm. One reason was the fact that her boss had little respect for her and was always ripping her off in little ways. The major reason, she says, is because she became fed up with a certain "task" her job entailed: she had to choose applicants based on race. Company reps from various firms and companies and what-have-you have literally and bluntly told her "we need someone with at least 5 years of experience, a degree in blah-blah, and.. oh, yeah, make sure the person isn't too hispanic-looking" or "he nailed the interview? A black guy? How black? I see... tell him the position's been filled." I knew people had their personal prejudices and what-not, but I never really realized how systematic it was.

I guess it's more related than I thought. It isn't even about certain individuals learning to accept others around them anymore; it never was. It's about organizations, systems, taking collective stances to keep selective groups down.

One of the things that bothers me the most about my peers is their hypocritical view of personal responsibility. When I was little, I was taught that homeless people were just less fortunate and need the support of others. Not that they just want money or that they're leeches -- that they *need* and it's everyone's responsibility to help. It was such a simple concept. I was also taught that when I got in trouble or something bad happened to me, I was the only person responsible for my own problems. I suppose that sounds a little backwards, but it boils down to the idea of giving others the benefit of the doubt. It seems like everyone around me was taught the opposite: Homeless people are just lazy or incompetent or crazy, but when something bad happens to Joe Highschool, it's someone else's fault.

I know that's just human nature to think like that, but it's been the job of upbringing -- religion, parents, teachers -- to make people more compassionate and less willing to succumb to that selfish kind of mindset.

This doesn't directly address the article, but... I don't know, I'm just always so shocked when people tell me that they're afraid of homeless people or that they hate panhandlers. Is it that hard to part with a little change without getting anything but a sense of social responsibility in return these days?

Pull down the future with the one you love.
~Television.

I think it's backwards, actually. I think compassion and gentleness are what's part of our nature and that selfishness and greed are what is taught us, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly, by our parents, teachers, and even just our environment and surroundings. One's taught that love is good by receiving it, yet even the most neglected people crave it. I think that shows signs of natural tenderness in all of us even though a lot of people are calloused by their upbringings.

You know? We're pretty much need-driven. All the good and evil that we do is based on the feeling that we need to do it for some reason or another. Only through eliminating the reasons that could (even falsely) possibly justify doing harm to another could we eliminate the "need" certain people feel to do so. That will never happen, of course, but not being able to eliminate all of the reasons doesn't mean we shouldn't bother trying to eliminate as many as possible. We could start with the "need" to feel superior to others because of how much money we've got in the bank.

I think that compassion and gentleness are part of our nature, but so is greed and selfishness. In the time of cavemen I would wager (not that it can really be proved) that if one caveman had more meat than the other then the other one would want that meat, or if one found fire, the other one would want fire. Or even need it, before he knew it existed he wouldn't care, but once he knows it's there and how powerful it is he practically needs it.

I think what is taught to us is what we need, not that we actually need...
And what we are told we need is no longer necessities like food, drink, warmth and shelter. Most of us now take those things for granted and our needs are elevated to things like money and power.

There is actually a theory in business studies which talks about our needs, how we start with the basic needs and if we cannot fullfill them comfortably then we will have no real need or want to move into the higher levels. This is the Maslow Pyramid Theory.

http://www.lifeworktransitions.com/images/maslow.gif

But there was another theory, based on Maslow's theory, which said that there arn't just 5 levels on the pyramid, and that it is actually a never ending spire, once we fullfill one need we will move onto the next one, and the next and so on and so on for ever, always moving onto our next "need" no matter how trivial it is, just because we can.

Say what now? (Those F-ing, R-tarded peacock wastards!) I can't beleve it! (but I will any way) (off the subject, My hikups are driving me crazy! they hurt! T.T) *hic*
Those stupid idiots can't stop someone from feeding those who can't feed themselves! (off the subject again, my F-ing hickups are F-ing heart attacks!) *suffers a seisure for a nanosecond* Ok, er, where was I? Oh, yea. I think the law should be flipped around.
You know what I mean?

People in stone houses should not throw glass.