mercredi 19 janvier 2011

"You know who is homeless" - and why he is so, too?

Source of following quotes in this link*:

"'Certain truths are self-evident,' Goodman said. 'You know who's homeless.'"


Let us suppose he goes around bothering a young hippie style tourist whose father is a NY millonaire, shall we?


"Marshals recently began arresting the homeless in parks under a campaign to force people who are unable or unwilling to care for themselves to get mental help."


A boss or a shrink ... some of us hate both. I might not have hated bosses, if one had not been trying to make me see a shrink as it is I do. Not the bosses of everyone who is content with having a boss, but ... well I would not. Not be content with having a boss.

Forcing people to chose between a boss or a shrink is falsifying the free work force market in favour of bosses. It is also falsifying the free psychiatric market in favour of shrinks. And shrinks are falsifying the free work force market in favour of bosses (by making certain people more pliable) or parallel market in favour of institutions (where they are tortured, basically: sleep deprivation is one thing, in these places they can give one eight hours sleep or more, but medication making you need to sleep as much as a baby + deprivation of coffee).


"City officials call the measure an attempt to stop so-called 'mobile soup kitchens' from attracting the homeless to parks."


Sometimes eating at such, I do however sympathise with the sentiment of keeping soup kitchens out of certain places. It is that or manning them very well with volunteers who throw away whatever plastic plates and left overs and cups were left. As well as volunteers to stop quarrels.

Oh boy, have I seen Roumanians and Russians quarrelling with Arabs here in Paris! And Arabs quarrelling with French! And French quarrelling with Christian ethnicities strangers. And Poles hustling in one corner - God bless them - speaking Polish.

When Christ said "feed the poor" he did not add "preferrably in a soup kitchen".

When he fed two crowds, he had not crowded them so that he could feed them, they had crowded anyway to listen. St Nicholas of Myra and propably St Genevieve of Paris served in such things, Julius Caesar and Caesar Augustus having made them. One thousand years later St Genevieve had been herding sheep before making her vows and saving the city. And St Nicholas did not quite cooperate with the regulation. "Your Highness, do not serve this man, he has already been here today" - "Yes, serve him, maybe it is Christ in disguise" (I think the dishonest man returned what he had taken too much of).

Besides, the Annona was not a soup kitchen. You did not go there as a homeless man to have a hot meal but as a poor man with a house and a fire at home to get wheat. And then you ate at home. With your own crockery of pottery, which saved a lot of plastic plates.

This morning was fabulous, I got a 9€ lunch ticket but even so, I had too much to eat and too little coffee for my taste, anyway, I ate a real brunch of best quality. Served of course, in a bakery.**

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibl. G. Tillion, Paris
proche de Trocadéro
19/I/2011

* http://www.wesh.com/news/9550232/detail.html
** If my uncles had been bakers rather than lawyers ... this does not mean I would like a baker to adopt me as stepnephew, though!

1 commentaire:

Hans-Georg Lundahl a dit…

Richard Aleman's status:

These "do not feed the homeless" regulations are an affront to God.

DK:

although, I advise people it can be dangerous. It is better to develop a relationship with a nearby shelter or church that helps the homeless and direct them there.

My response to DK:

DK has just made a case for not taking him as friends.

"Dangerous"?

If a man has been offered sandwich after sandwich, coffee after coffee, cookie after cookie, cake after cake, sweets after sweets and has not enough to drench the sandwiches in a little beer or wine, while he is eating so much sugar that a moderate amount of alcohol would make him puke, I think he has a good reason to be dangerous to a man who offers him neither money nor beer, someone who does not offer him work but who yet will not regard him fully as a man because he does not work, someone who suspects him of alcoholism while exposing him to a real danger of coffeinism and sugarism (saccharism?) ... if that stuff is what the people in your nearby shelter or church tell you to do, maybe you should try to avoid that relationship or reverse the who speaks about whom situation a bit.