Re: Max Headroom expects a reacharound now. *sigh*

[mgraffam@idsi.net]

On Wed, 5 May 1999, Petro wrote:

> 	That is where you are wrong. The need for food and shelter are the
> symptoms, not the problem.

Absolutably. And profuse bleeding is the symptom of a damn gunshot wound,
but there are times when you just stanch the bleeding for pretty
fucking obvious reasons, right?

Philosophifizin' about the causes of the problem does exactly dick for
the people who need the help. Give 'em a sandwich, and a warm bed.. then
we can get down to getting them a job and an apartment. 

> >Of course, three of the groups above need other help too (drug/alcohol
> >abuse counseling, psychiatric help), but some basic programs could
> >help all of them in the short term, with different programs for long
> 
> 	No, those basic programs, if they were run the way governments
> currently do things would NOT help these people, only keep them dependent.

I said NOTHING about running programs as they currently are; only that
basic programs are needed -- don't think I support the status quo one
bit.

> >term help. Obviously, a drug addict needs to clean up before getting a
> >job, but they still need food in the interm; while others may not have
> 
> 	"Obviously"? Not to me. I've worked with a number of drug addicts
> (including alcoholics, the company I used to work for is full of them) who
> manage to hold down quite decent jobs. maybe the problem isn't the drug.

You're taking this way out of context. We were talking about a specific
class of drug addict: those that are homeless. In such as case, it
seems to me that either their dependency is either so severe that they
cannot hold a job and thus pay for rent, or, they can hold a job and they
spend all of their earnings on their drug of choice. 

This is the case I was addressing -- not drug addicts in general -- and
in this case, getting the person free of the dependency is vital.

If there is another case (which I can't think of.. outside of people who
just happen to WANT to be homeless.. <anarchists living in squats for
extended periods of time> but that is something entirely different) then
consider me to acknowledge that, and make the appropriate exceptions..

> >drug/alcohol problems (yet? I suspect that being homeless long enough
> >will make 'ya drink a bit more -- I probably would) and be ready for
> 
> 	So, what you are saying is that if you didn't have the money for
> shelter, you'd drink?
> 
> 	If you _really do_ think that way, you probably WILL wind up that way.

What I'm saying is, that if I experienced some hard times that made me
homeless, and that if I were homeless for an extended period of time
(ie, tried to get back on my feet, and couldn't) -- yeah, I suspect I'd
be drinking a bit more than usual. 

I'd say sorry that I'm not so puritanically inclined as it sounds like
you'd want people to be .. but I'm not sorry about it. 

Oh, and FWIW.. if someone cut off my legs, I suspect I'd want morphine
too.. call me an escapist if you like; s'ok by me, sometimes reality
sucks ass. 

> >> SF has been run by idiots for years now. They do however provide scads of
> >> entertainment for those of us who live in the rest of the Bay Area.
> >
> >Heheh.. I just prefer to stay in southern New York, with an occasional
> 
> 	Oh, yea, and NYNY is run SOOOOOO much better.

Depends on what you get used to, I guess.. I take comfort in knowing
that my neighbors would rather step on my face than say hello to me.

Some go to extra lengths to make it known that they don't want to know
how my day went.. this is good: I know that they don't give a shit
about my personal life, and so I don't have to worry about prying 
assholes. 

Not literally true, of course.. but I'm fucking joking here anyhow..
so lighten up.

Michael J. Graffam (mgraffam@idsi.net)
I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not
desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.
			Henry David Thoreau "Civil Disobedience"