A better way to deal with the poor.

[Diogenes]

Could L.A.'s Jay Goldinger Hold the Key to Defeating Homelessness?

To date, Food-on-Foot boasts an 89% success rate; roughly the reverse percentage of success enjoyed by government-funded programs. Oh, and did I mention that from Day 1 Jay has refused any and all government funding?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/08/ ... test=faces

[ScottL]

...and the mentally ill homeless? This isn't a shot at do-gooders, and I whole-heartedly agree governmental programs are a farce in that they create massive overhead to a seemingly innocent idea, but a good amount of the homeless population are mentally ill to the point of inability to work.

[KitemanSA]

Not quite true. Inability to hold a full time job, maybe, but they are able to work.

[Diogenes]

...and the mentally ill homeless? This isn't a shot at do-gooders, and I whole-heartedly agree governmental programs are a farce in that they create massive overhead to a seemingly innocent idea, but a good amount of the homeless population are mentally ill to the point of inability to work.

It would have to depend on the level of severity. I am fond of saying "I don't know any sane people." My point is that I see behavior out of the "norm" in everyone, including myself. It is my opinion that humanity encompasses a wide range of "normal" and that conditions such as ADHD and Bi-Polar disorder are in fact variations on the normal theme. As has been said, there is a thin line between genius and insanity.

People with severe mental impediments should be looked after by the government (The states, not the feds) or perhaps their families, if their families have the means. Everyone else should be encouraged to work if they are able. It is even therapeutic in my opinion.

[ScottL]

Not quite true. Inability to hold a full time job, maybe, but they are able to work.

That borders on exploitation in my opinion.

People with severe mental impediments should be looked after by the government (The states, not the feds) or perhaps their families, if their families have the means. Everyone else should be encouraged to work if they are able. It is even therapeutic in my opinion.

Agreed that they should be looked after, but I'm hesitant given some states' (Texas) records when dealing with the mentally ill. We have to take into consideration that homeless are often viewed as criminals and as such I don't see some states as distinguishing between them.

[MSimon]

My point is that I see behavior out of the "norm" in everyone, including myself. It is my opinion that humanity encompasses a wide range of "normal" and that conditions such as ADHD and Bi-Polar disorder are in fact variations on the normal theme.

But if certain classes of drugs interest you rather than the drugs most of the population is interested in we will pogrom your a**.

Making war on 5% to 10% of the population because of matters of taste hardly seems civilized to me. But then again I'm not all that familiar with Christian Civilization.

[ScottL]

It is my opinion that humanity encompasses a wide range of "normal" and that conditions such as ADHD and Bi-Polar disorder are in fact variations on the normal theme. As has been said, there is a thin line between genius and insanity.

I can't say I'm an expert, but I have lived with a bi-polar person at one point in time and have known a few. The problem is the level of manic swings in said individuals can vary greatly. These swings go from absolute happiness to murderous paranoia. Under proper medication many can and will work, but there are extremes in every group that would possibly fall into the inability group.

[seedload]

Agreed that they should be looked after, but I'm hesitant given some states' (Texas) records when dealing with the mentally ill. We have to take into consideration that homeless are often viewed as criminals and as such I don't see some states as distinguishing between them.

Hesitant. What is there to be hesitant about. There is this thing called the Constitution that trumps your hesitancy, unless you intend to (1) amend the Constitution to actually make this a Federal responsibility or (2) exert Federal influence through bribery using illegally confiscated funds. The latter of which, unfortunately, is our countries way these days.

regards

[Diogenes]

Not quite true. Inability to hold a full time job, maybe, but they are able to work.

That borders on exploitation in my opinion.

People with severe mental impediments should be looked after by the government (The states, not the feds) or perhaps their families, if their families have the means. Everyone else should be encouraged to work if they are able. It is even therapeutic in my opinion.

Agreed that they should be looked after, but I'm hesitant given some states' (Texas) records when dealing with the mentally ill. We have to take into consideration that homeless are often viewed as criminals and as such I don't see some states as distinguishing between them.

Mental illness is not a Federal issue. I have a simple rule of thumb. The Federal government should confine itself to issues of Federal Importance (Defense, Treaties, Foreign trade, Interstate commerce, etc.) and leave non federal issues to the state(s).

If Texas is not handling this responsibility in a reasonable manner, it is the business of Texas voters to deal with it, not of the Federal government to violate their mandate. The best anyone should do is to bring this matter to the Attention of the voters.

[Diogenes]

My point is that I see behavior out of the "norm" in everyone, including myself. It is my opinion that humanity encompasses a wide range of "normal" and that conditions such as ADHD and Bi-Polar disorder are in fact variations on the normal theme.

But if certain classes of drugs interest you rather than the drugs most of the population is interested in we will pogrom your a**.

Making war on 5% to 10% of the population because of matters of taste hardly seems civilized to me. But then again I'm not all that familiar with Christian Civilization.

It is a fallacy of false choice you employee when you allege that the war on drugs is merely a matter of people's "taste". It is my opinion that drugs are like playing with fire in a dry grassland. Should it ever catch hold, it will burn everything, ala China in the early 1900s.

It is another fallacy (of false equivalence) when you allege that a war on drugs is equivalent to "Christian Civilization." Mao Tse Tung, no Christian he, eradicated China's massive drug problem by executing un-reformable addicts. I believe Singapore has very draconian laws regarding drugs as well.

Just yesterday I again had reason to ponder the role of marijuana in society. I have lately been talking to an artist that works in stained glass and gold smithing. She uses pot every day, yet manages to get to work and also work on her art. She tells me she has just finished a commissioned piece for which she will receive $7,000.00 .

I contrast her information with what I know of many other people who regularly use pot. Lazy, shiftless, unproductive, mooches. I said to myself, if only everybody who used pot didn't turn into a worthless mooching bum, perhaps there would be no need to prohibit it?

That there are some people capable of using drugs responsibly is self evident to me. That a too large percentage of the population cannot do this is also self evident to me. This is why I suggested the idea of a "drug license" to weed those who cannot handle responsibly from those who can. It is still the best idea regarding this subject of which I am aware.

[Diogenes]

It is my opinion that humanity encompasses a wide range of "normal" and that conditions such as ADHD and Bi-Polar disorder are in fact variations on the normal theme. As has been said, there is a thin line between genius and insanity.

I can't say I'm an expert, but I have lived with a bi-polar person at one point in time and have known a few. The problem is the level of manic swings in said individuals can vary greatly. These swings go from absolute happiness to murderous paranoia. Under proper medication many can and will work, but there are extremes in every group that would possibly fall into the inability group.

To quote Moe Howard, "I resemble that remark."

I know many people that have a sort of manic depressive existence, and i've known some on which the drugs didn't seem to work. One guy in particular reflects a pattern in his entire family. It appears to be genetic. The swings are deep and long, and relatively consistent. When he's happy, he's very verry happy, but when he's sad, he's very very sad. He keeps going in and out of Alcoholics anonymous on approximately a yearly cycle. I keep telling him that he needs to create a purpose for his life other than keeping bartenders employed. He has an entire pharmacopeia of medications (many narcotic) yet none of them seem to be able to regulate the swings. (He also smokes pot)

Work would be therapeutic for him.

[ScottL]

Not quite true. Inability to hold a full time job, maybe, but they are able to work.

That borders on exploitation in my opinion.

People with severe mental impediments should be looked after by the government (The states, not the feds) or perhaps their families, if their families have the means. Everyone else should be encouraged to work if they are able. It is even therapeutic in my opinion.

Agreed that they should be looked after, but I'm hesitant given some states' (Texas) records when dealing with the mentally ill. We have to take into consideration that homeless are often viewed as criminals and as such I don't see some states as distinguishing between them.

Mental illness is not a Federal issue. I have a simple rule of thumb. The Federal government should confine itself to issues of Federal Importance (Defense, Treaties, Foreign trade, Interstate commerce, etc.) and leave non federal issues to the state(s).

If Texas is not handling this responsibility in a reasonable manner, it is the business of Texas voters to deal with it, not of the Federal government to violate their mandate. The best anyone should do is to bring this matter to the Attention of the voters.

So what you're saying is a State can do no wrong as long as its voters dictate what is right or wrong? That sounds absurd. I remember a certain State executing Autistic individuals. Was that right or wrong?

Work would be therapeutic for him.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Extremes get to points of near non-functional. I would strongly request the guidance of psychologists on the matter as this is their field of expertise.

[Skipjack]

To date, Food-on-Foot boasts an 89% success rate; roughly the reverse percentage of success enjoyed by government-funded programs. Oh, and did I mention that from Day 1 Jay has refused any and all government funding

I actually really like the programme. It gives people something to be proud of and an actual reward for hard work. It makes perfect sense!
But, I do wonder how they measured the 89% success rate. What is a success and 89% of what?
Either way, I like it.

I would strongly request the guidance of psychologists on the matter as this is their field of expertise.

Psychiatrists... At least here we distinguish between the two. Psychiatry is a medical degree. Psychology is an outdated humane discipline.

[Diogenes]

So what you're saying is a State can do no wrong as long as its voters dictate what is right or wrong? That sounds absurd. I remember a certain State executing Autistic individuals. Was that right or wrong?

Whooaa there cowboy! I said no such thing. States can and often do wrong, but it is the responsibility of the public and/or the Justice system to correct this behavior. It should not be used as an excuse for the Federal Government to overtly tamper in a non-federal issue.

As for a State executing Autistic individuals, presumably for being Autistic? What state has done this?

Work would be therapeutic for him.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Extremes get to points of near non-functional. I would strongly request the guidance of psychologists on the matter as this is their field of expertise.

I think you mean Psychiatrists. (Medically licensed doctors.) There are some that can only be cared for by a Government because ordinary people simply cannot afford the resources.

[ScottL]

So what you're saying is a State can do no wrong as long as its voters dictate what is right or wrong? That sounds absurd. I remember a certain State executing Autistic individuals. Was that right or wrong?

Whooaa there cowboy! I said no such thing. States can and often do wrong, but it is the responsibility of the public and/or the Justice system to correct this behavior. It should not be used as an excuse for the Federal Government to overtly tamper in a non-federal issue.

As for a State executing Autistic individuals, presumably for being Autistic? What state has done this?

Work would be therapeutic for him.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Extremes get to points of near non-functional. I would strongly request the guidance of psychologists on the matter as this is their field of expertise.

I think you mean Psychiatrists. (Medically licensed doctors.) There are some that can only be cared for by a Government because ordinary people simply cannot afford the resources.

A certain mid-southern state had some issues with the electric chair and mental retardation or at least consideration of such. I do believe its possible to get a single view population within a state that may side with inhumane actions, mob mentality if you will.