Comments on So Cigarette Smoking Panhandlers Don't Deserve Some Help?

Go to Sundry Weekend Ramblings - Add a comment - Go to So Cigarette Smoking Panhandlers Don't Deserve Some Help?

Ummmm, excellent. I'm on my way.

Thanks friend!

posted by JanesOpinion on May 23, 2006 at 6:35 PM | link to this | reply

Janes

Add 1/3 cup ea epsoms salts, baking soda and table salt. If you have any natural oil of lavender put about three drops and soak 30 minutes then shower and you will sleep like a baby.

posted by Justi on May 23, 2006 at 6:17 PM | link to this | reply

Justi, that sounds like a fine idea. Thanks!

And perhaps a hot bath since I'm a bit achy tonight. 

posted by JanesOpinion on May 23, 2006 at 6:13 PM | link to this | reply

Jane's

Have a cup of tea  this is a total no-win situation.

posted by Justi on May 23, 2006 at 3:07 PM | link to this | reply

You said

"I think the greatest difficulty is that I interpret your style of writing as being attacking, which automatically puts me into defensive posture."

That says you go in to reading my stuff with an attitude that you are looking to be aggressive with anything I write to begin with.  You go into it looking to fight with me, before you even start reading what I have to say.

A great example is ny recent post 'BEING A PARENT OUT DOES ANYTHING GOD CAN OFFER ANY DAY OF THE WEEK', in which you ignore the very positive message I was expressing and try to make it look negative and challenge my parenting.

posted by kooka_lives on May 22, 2006 at 6:47 PM | link to this | reply

Yeah, well, Corbin I make an attempt every now and then.

Gotta pretend I'm at least a sort of decent person, you know.  Let's just keep it our little secret.

posted by JanesOpinion on May 22, 2006 at 6:36 PM | link to this | reply

What? Kooka, did I SAY I was looking for a fight?

No.  I said I look for positive things to say. . . and because I often don't find positive things to say, I am learning to bite my tongue and not leave a comment.

What part of "positive" do you not understand?  And where did you get "looking for a fight" from the word "positive"? 

I really, really, really don't understand you most of the time.

posted by JanesOpinion on May 22, 2006 at 6:35 PM | link to this | reply

Hey, Janes...

I see you're doing pro bono work now.....LOL

posted by Corbin_Dallas on May 22, 2006 at 3:37 PM | link to this | reply

So Janees

Are you saying you read my stuff looking for a fight then?

That does explain why you are unable to get much out of it.

So try to read my posts without those preconceived ideas.

posted by kooka_lives on May 22, 2006 at 3:32 PM | link to this | reply

Kooka, thanks for stopping by.

Ironically, I do try to find positives in your writings, believe it or not.  And if you look back through the comments you will see that I have left a number of more positive comments. 

I think the greatest difficulty is that I interpret your style of writing as being attacking, which automatically puts me into defensive posture.  Which is why I almost always read what you have to write, but comment much less than I used to.  I, too, become weary of arguing.

posted by JanesOpinion on May 21, 2006 at 5:59 PM | link to this | reply

Janes

'Who knows!  You won't until you get into her space. '

That was the point I was trying to make.  I never said otherwise.  I just stated the impression she gave my in the few moments I had to observe her.

As for the smoking thing, as I said it made it so I was less likely to feel for her.  I never said that the impression was right or wrong, just that due to my take on smoking I was left less than generous feel towards her.

I know you wish to attack anything and everything I say.  it gets old.  Go and find for me just one thing I say that you are willing to take in a positive light.  You seriously seem to take anything that I put down here as an attack on someone somewhere.  it is amazing that I am unable to right anything positive in your eyes.

posted by kooka_lives on May 21, 2006 at 5:44 PM | link to this | reply

Jason, I love your attitude.

Thanks for being real, and for your comments! I cannot begin to imagine what that must have been like, but I am thankful you are no longer homeless.

posted by JanesOpinion on May 2, 2006 at 11:02 AM | link to this | reply

Smoking is a fierce addiction.

The urge to smoke relentless. I was homeless for three or four months in Washington, D.C., but I didn't bum any money from anyone. However, when I ran out of cigarettes I would stand next to a cigarette ash can in the metro station and wait for people to walk by and pput their butts in there, and I would retrieve them. So, whether a person smokes makes no difference to me. If they need help, I will try to help them if I can.

posted by JasonScyte on May 2, 2006 at 7:07 AM | link to this | reply

OK, so you weren't trashing her (!!??), but judging -- yes.

"Of course going back to the cigarette thing, is she can afford to get smokes, then I lose some sympathy for the person. If you want to beg money off of me, then you might try to make it look like you have your priorities a bit more in place. I automatically wondered if her husband was dying of lung cancer because they smoked and so she goes around still smoking and begging for money.

All in all I just had a very hard time feeling sorry for this woman. So much of what I saw in those few minutes made me feel as if she did not really need to be begging for money."

Perhaps she was trying to take folks down a merry road.  Who knows!  You won't until you get into her space.  Next time, perhaps a little compassion for someone who may be desperately attempting to quit smoking.  Or someone who has tried and failed numerous times.  Or perhaps uses cigarettes as a comfort mechanism to fill a hole in her heart.

I've never smoked a cig in my life, but I've talked with plenty who have, and the majority have such remorse that they ever started that terrible habit.  Most of the people with whom I work smoke.  It's a horrid vice and something they would give anything to quit.

posted by JanesOpinion on May 1, 2006 at 7:20 PM | link to this | reply

Janes

I was not trashing her.  Was talking about the impression she gave me.  I openly admit I know nothing at all about her or her true situation, all I can do is see her right there and the impression she gives me is what is going to matter

Why do you try so hard to not understand what I am trying to say in my posts and comments?

By knowing nothing about her and seeing her there (She was rather well dressed actually and seemed to be far from being homeless or starving, with nicely brushed hair and such) as I drive by all I have is the impression she gives off.  She came across to me as someone who really should have no need to be begging for money and is just doing it because she does not want to work.  Is this true?  I don’t know and I was admitting that in my post, but I only can think about the impression that she gave me in that moment.  The point is what impression do some of these beggars give?  Any time I see someone smoking I figure their priority is not to get money for food, but for smokes.  I do know people who have basically been on hard times and let themselves go hungry rather than give up their smokes for food.  I was not saying she was like that, but that was the impression she gave.

The point of the post was not saying it was a good thing, but that it does happen.  I was admitting that I can only go with my initial assumption of her due to my lack of knowledge about her.  And I am not saying that such is a good thing to do, but it is something I admit to doing and I would be willing to bet everyone does as some point.

If I see a beggar smoking there will be a general assumption in my mind (Which I really can not help) about them and it will make me less likely to give them money if I have any to give.

Sorry, but I do not have time to get out and sit and telk with evyerone who is begging for money. Especially since there seems to be more and more of them every time I turn around (And somehow according to conservatives and Bush, our economy is getting better.  I guess begging is now considered employment) and generally when I see them I have other things to do and no money to give them anyway.

posted by kooka_lives on May 1, 2006 at 4:08 PM | link to this | reply

Gome, well said. Thanks for commenting.

I still believe that it's at least a theoretical possibility, but one that I do not see happening any time soon, in part d/t the impracticalities you have mentioned.

posted by JanesOpinion on May 1, 2006 at 4:51 AM | link to this | reply

JanesOpinion - you covered the point I was trying to make very well

The last line however brought a chuckle. If the churches were to offer charity to atheists and agnostics they'd have to stop routinely depicting them as deficient of character would they not? But as for the other points you make. One of the central mandates of the church centuries ago, was providing charity resources. Simply care and shelter for it's needy constituents. All fine and good when there was one church, centrally governed, populations were small and with less diverse needs than today. The reality today is that religious organizations provide about 7% of the resources needed for social programs if compared to the federal expenditure of both Canada and the USA. This number grows slightly at the local level and when all charitable efforts are considered. There are two major reasons for this. Most religious institutions have mission endeavors in other countries which use much of what they can dedicate to charitable efforts. The other reason is areas of expertise, both lacking and sometimes coming into conflict with the beliefs of the institution. What the churches do provide to our societies in terms of charitable resources is vitally important, but to suggest that they can somehow make up the entire budget for social programs, is today unrealistic.

posted by gomedome on April 30, 2006 at 7:58 PM | link to this | reply

Thanks, TAPS, for commenting and for your input. Wise as always!

posted by JanesOpinion on April 30, 2006 at 7:28 PM | link to this | reply

JanesOpinion

Very good post and many interesting comments about it.   All my life I have been involved in some way or other with the poor and the needy and the homeless through the City Union Mission and denominational missions.   This, of course, can't help but make one more aware on an individual and personal basis.   One of the earliest things I learned (from my father) was to be non-judgmental regarding those in need.

posted by TAPS. on April 30, 2006 at 7:24 PM | link to this | reply

Kooka, I got the full gist of your post, and, well, let's say I completely

disagreed. 

I don't approve of smoking.  It's a waste of money and a really bad habit.  But instead of judging this woman I think it's important to understand her situation before totally trashing her.  Wouldn't you want the same treatment? The same justice?

You don't approve of someone jumping to conclusions about what you've written.  Aren't you doing the same with her? THAT'S what I was getting at.

posted by JanesOpinion on April 30, 2006 at 7:23 PM | link to this | reply

Janes

You , as always just did not get it, although a large part of that was because I wrote the post and you often refuse to even try to grasp the ideas in any posts I write.

I admitted in the post that part of my issue with her was that she was smoking and made no attempt to hide that.  I very much think that if you are going to beg for money, do not make it seem as though you are just going to buy smokes with it.  Do you think we should just give out money to support people’s smoking habits?  That was one of the points to the post I wrote.

The post itself did say I knew nothing about her, but from appearances and the way she presented herself, I felt no sympathy for her.  Once more, she would need to make someone like me believe she would not waste the money on cigarettes.  All her sign said was ‘My Husband is ill, need help’.  For al I know she wants help to buy more smokes, because her husband can buy her any right now.

In the post I did not talk about how nicely dressed she was or that there was really no signs at all of poverty and such.  She was young and looked very healthy.

I talked in my post about why people get into begging and how there are those (In know for a fact) who beg because they just do not want to get a real job.  Not all beggars are like that, but they are out there in great numbers.

The post was about how I knew nothing about this lady except for what she should me there and all I could do was form my opinions about how due to how she presented herself at that point.

So even if I had money to spare to give to beggars, I do not know if she would have been one I was wiling to give to because of how she presented herself.  I was just not able to feel sorry for her just became her sign claimed one thing that just did not make me feel as though she were justified in her begging.

posted by kooka_lives on April 30, 2006 at 7:13 PM | link to this | reply

Gomedome, it was definitely within the realm of the possible

for the New Testament church of 2000 years ago. . . . You mention some valid obstacles.  The work of caring for the poor and homeless would need to be done community by community and because it would not be government controlled, there would be extraordinary differences in how the care would be provided.  And because humans are what they are, i.e. variable and unique, every church's outreach program would be totally different than everyone else's.  Consequently, is this practical?  Probably not.  But it is still within the realm of the possible . . . sort of!

Tithing was designed by God to be sacrificial and from the heart.  It should not be looked on as a tax.  The Bible recommends 10% but even that number should be driven by one's conscience before God.  As well, if the mandate of the Church is to reach out to every member of the community, that means the outreach would need to include atheists or agnostics, no matter what they believe or don't believe. . . . Or did I misunderstand your comment?

posted by JanesOpinion on April 30, 2006 at 7:07 PM | link to this | reply

JanesOpinion -- I have to disagree with that assessment

It is not within the realm of possibility for "the church" or organized religion, to deal entirely with a free society's social program needs. Aside from the numbers not adding up, there is the aspect of those who are not within reach of any church. There is also the consideration of taxing an entire populace for the care and aid of it's underpriviledged and not just church members. Keep in mind that there is a growing percentage of the North American populace that are not members of any church. Should their lack of religion get them off of the hook for contributing to the cause? The reality is that religious organizations play an important role as it is in social programs, with their numbers declining, is it realistic to ask them to take on greater responsibilities?  

posted by gomedome on April 30, 2006 at 6:34 PM | link to this | reply

Gomedome (and Redwood) it is entirely within the realm of the possible --

that the Church could fully care for the needs of the poor, get them into housing, help them find work, etc.  If Christians did as God commanded and tithed at least 5% let alone 10%, the Church would have the resources needed to help the majority -- if not all -- of the poor and homeless.  As it is, Christians tithe, on average, a measly 1-2% (if I remember correctly). 

Thanks, both of you, for your comments!

posted by JanesOpinion on April 30, 2006 at 5:48 PM | link to this | reply

Actually, Gomedome, there are some who do choose to live

on the streets.  Many are Vietnam Vets who have suffered from the effect of that war, have been offered housing and benefits but have preferred the streets. But I bet you knew that already.  Anyway, I would agree with you that most of these people would not choose to live on the streets or in low income housing -- but for whatever reasons they do.  And consequently, how we react to them is a sign of our true character. 

And yes, but for the grace of God -- or, if you prefer -- the fates, or Providence or what have you -- go I.  I don't know about Canadians, but I do know that a huge percentage of Americans are merely one or two paychecks away from being kicked out of their homes and onto the streets.

posted by JanesOpinion on April 30, 2006 at 5:46 PM | link to this | reply

redwood - do you really believe that church sponsored social programs

are an adequate means of addressing the needs of a free society's poor? 

posted by gomedome on April 30, 2006 at 5:23 PM | link to this | reply

the poor will always be with you

I rmember reading a portion of "the Federalist Papers" where it said that Alexander Hamilton (the first Secretary of the treasury) was against the government doing anything to "the advantage of those whom a later generation would regard as the underpriviledge".  Poverty seems to be a generational thing.  And it does not go away from a family, even if someone hits the lotto.  They have no concept of investment, so they blow it on a "good time".
I think that Jesus wants His church to help those who can't help themselves, not the government. Reagan said, "government is not supposed to help people, people are supposed to help people".  Then he (I think it was 1986)  allowed for all charitable contributions to be tax deductible on the short form. You got the standard deduction AND your charitable deduction.  That only lasted one year though.  reagan had to fight with his congress for everything and he did not always win..
If Reaganomics were fully implented and continued, I think that the government would be out of the public assistance business.  The church would help those who can not help themselves. Everyone else would be "off their butt".
We would still have the poor, though.

posted by redwood on April 30, 2006 at 5:06 PM | link to this | reply

the poor will always be with you

I rmember reading a portion of "the Federalist Papers" where it said that Alexander Hamilton (the first Secretary of the treasury) was against the government doing anything to "the advantage of those whom a later generation would regard as the underpriviledge".  Poverty seems to be a generational thing.  And it does not go away from a family, even if someone hits the lotto.  They have no concept of investment, so they blow it on a "good time".
I think that Jesus wants His church to help those who can't help themselves, not the government. Reagan said, "government is not supposed to help people, people are supposed to help people".  Then he (I think it was 1986)  allowed for all charitable contributions to be tax deductible on the short form. You got the standard deduction AND your charitable deduction.  That only lasted one year though.  reagan had to fight with his congress for everything and he did not always win..
If Reaganomics were fully implented and continued, I think that the government would be out of the public assistance business.  The church would help those who can not help themselves. Everyone else would be "off their butt".
We would still have the poor, though.

posted by redwood on April 30, 2006 at 5:06 PM | link to this | reply

JanesOpinion - I hate to admit that there was a time in my life when I

held the "ivory tower" mentality, or whatever one wants to call it. The rough cases in society where simply there because they chose to be there, they made the poor decisions in life, they deserved what they got.  Then one day, a few years after graduating from college, I was walking down one of the main streets in my city when I saw this pathetic figure approaching me. There was something familiar about this dirty and dishevelled individual as he walked right up to me and extended his hand. Not in a begging manner but to shake mine in a greeting. I recognized him as a college classmate who had graduated a full 10 places in higher academic standing than I had. This guy was a very smart man but now found himself on the streets, begging and hitting up old aquaintences when he could. It seems he had suffered a debilitating stroke just after graduation and was rendered a person of less mental faculty due to this event. His MBA and high academic standing were useless to him now, those were the achievements of someone else.

Here's the point. There is no one living on the streets or in conditions of extreme poverty anywhere on this planet that chooses to be there. Certainly many persons in our society are in such circumstances as a direct result of their own weaknesses and shortcomings but how someone finds themselves on the streets cannot be a criteria in determining their eligibility for assistance to get off of the streets.  Now I gotta say it, cause I know it will make you chuckle coming from me.

"there but for the grace of God, go I"     

posted by gomedome on April 30, 2006 at 3:11 PM | link to this | reply