Clap-Slap of the Day

Once in while I will hear a story that makes me proud . . . that is until I complete the story and I slap myself in the forehead.

Today I was scanning through a recent Economist magazine and a small story read: “The consumption of carbonated soft drinks in America fell to a 16-year low in 2011” Even though the average per person consumption still worked out to something ridiculous like 16oz a day, I felt a moment of confidence for human race heading in a positive direction.

And then I read that we replaced Coke with a large increase in water bottle consumption. In a country with a never ending supply of FREE filtered (and SAFE) drinking water available almost everywhere, we still manage to be stupid enough to pay for, and waste billions of “one-use” plastic bottles.

Fail. 

p.s. 16 million gallons of oil were used last year just to make plastic water bottles. That doesn't include transportation which would more than double that number. 

A Complex Issue

An e-mail I wrote after a recent Andy Oudman show.

I have a couple comments regarding your show this week on homelessness and panhandling. 

First of all, I appreciate the fact that you even brought it up. It seems that often we don't address it as a real issue, because we have become desensitized to it. However, the major thrust of the conversation turned into a problematic simple battle cry. "Don't give them money." If you want bonus points send them to an agency, and then wash your hands of guilt.

The problem with this is multi-faceted. Many agencies (which I am NOT against, and think do wonderful things in this city) are at, or over capacity. This story rings true across the country. Rehab programs have to be cut short because the agencies simply do not have the resources or capacity to handle the need. I can't tell you how many times I have heard stories of people who genuinely wanted to turn their life around but were unable to receive the support they needed to get "over the hump."

The second problem is that we feed our already inflated individually centered mindset with the following lies: "I have done what I could" or "It's not my problem, they need to straighten their life out before I can help them." Don't get me wrong I am ALL FOR individual liberty, and often shake my head at government solutions. However, I see this problem as a breakdown of community. That is, if we were truly involved in caring communities, somebody who has fallen through the cracks IS OUR PROBLEM. That means we should do what we can to fix this, and not A) ignore it, or B) let someone else deal with it.

So what could we possibly do to help these people? I believe that one of your guests, Bob Black, was the only one who seemed to get it. It is about relationship. He never once suggested a one for all stamp solution (i.e. give money or not), but emphasized getting to know each individual on a personal level. I can tell you that from Vancouver to London you could not find an identical story as to why a person has fallen to the lowest of low. Yes, there are similarities, but it is FAR more complex then we often make it out to be. Can you imagine a community where individuals took time out of their daily or weekly routines to actually form a relationship with someone at the bottom of our society? Transformation takes time, energy, and a whole lot of patience. You were right to say that: These people have to want to change, but in order to desire this change they need hope they can depend on, not a half hearted job offer when they are addicted to oxycotton, and have a broken family. 

Contrary to what some of your callers believe, most of these people are not lying to take your money, and if they are it is likely because they are too embarrassed to tell their real story in fear judgement. Furthermore, for every one panhandler there are twenty faces that you cannot see with similar stories, sometimes even worse off.

Also, what might come as a surprise to some of your listeners is that so many of the panhandlers were in the same position we are now, and in the blink of an eye they ended up crushed at the bottom of society. Sometimes it was a bad decision, sometimes it was bad luck, almost always they didn’t have a network of family or friends that you and I have when we make the same bad choices.  I can’t imagine how hard it would be to motivate myself everyday knowing that I don’t have family and friends that can pick me up, and instead have to deal with the stigma of society. Think of only a simplified example. There is literally zero difference between a drunken man living on the street, and a hopeless alcoholic who happens to live in a million dollar condo, except that one has social acceptance and money to rely on.

You started off your show by saying how touched you felt when you thought that this could be happening to a “real person in your neighbourhood.” Until we stop thinking about these people as a “nuisance,” and realize that they always have been, and always will be real people just with a different circumstance then us, we will continue to sit on our high horse claiming to show compassion, while secretly feeling proud of our own jobs or accomplishments. 

Criminalizing the Homeless

A story caught some local London headlines last summer. Police in the city had increased the number of fines to panhandlers (up to 200 and something), and the Mayor Joe Fontana would like to make panhandling illegal in the city.

My first gut response to this is out right anger. There is little else I hate more than marginalizing the poor.

However, when I have gut reactions like this I try to work them out more "rationally"  (humans are incredible irrational) in order to see if my frustration has any merit.

My first question is: Why is this even an issue in the first place? Are there not more important things that our city could be focusing on? In a London Free Press article a Sergeant stated that "it's a public safety issue, and it's a nuisance issue too" This is a little strange to me because by law panhandling is not illegal unless it is done aggressively. In such a case I can understand the charge in the name of safety. BUT, I have never witnessed such an act, nor have I heard of any occurring in London.  I am assuming that if someone was abused by a panhandler it would likely be talked about.  In other words, there seems to be minimal (if not zero) public safety concern to worry about.

This means the vast majority of these charges (200) and concerns are based on the "nuisance" factor. In other words, some people get uncomfortable seeing a person struggling with poverty in the open . . . unavoidable. I think there is nothing wrong with this feeling, in fact I think it is a good thing. I should hope we never get comfortable seeing another human being suffering.

However, we should never criminalize this as a "nuisance." Not only do many of these people deal with rejection from much of society, but also they can't afford the charges, and many are on disability struggling with unimaginable mental, and/or emotional burdens. These "panhandlers" are simply another human being trying to make ends meet. To make panhandling illegal has almost nothing to do with the favourite catch phrase "getting tough on crime." We should ask why these people are in a position that requires them to panhandle, and what we can do as a community to change this.