Should shooting beggars be allowed?

[newbie]

I responded this way to this particular poster for a reason. If you read some of his posts you'll have an understanding of what we're dealing with here. And I wish I was paid for responding honestly.

[stignasty]

. . . first the Lefties emptied all the crazy people out of the nut wards, and then they made it impossible to do anything about their unpleasant presence in the streets.

Didn't that happen during the Reagan/Mulroney era?

[newbie]

. . . first the Lefties emptied all the crazy people out of the nut wards, and then they made it impossible to do anything about their unpleasant presence in the streets.

Didn't that happen during the Reagan/Mulroney era?

And it seems to me that here, in Alberta, it was a conservative gov't that released a large number of unprepared persons with disabilities out of Mitchener Centre only to walk the streets of Red Deer.

[Figleaf]

So, I count at least four posters who recall the ejection of the mentally ill as the result of rightwing government actions. I wonder if the OP will either muster some support for his assertion in this regard, or admit his 'error'?

[betsy]

Not that I don't have sympathy for people legitimately down on their luck, but first the Lefties emptied all the crazy people out of the nut wards, and then they made it impossible to do anything about their unpleasant presence in the streets. I know how irritating they are in my city, and clearly in other cities as well. They're dirty, often violent, and quite frankly, a waste of skin tissue. What should be done about them?

You won't find the answer from Toronto's Lefty mayor. The following is a laughable indictement of how the ideology of the Left ignores reality, ignores the problems real people have, and takes comfort in absurd psychobabble rather than dealing with problems.

Residents Rage against Panhandlers

The committee voted to scrap the financial impacts study -- which could have provided legal justification for a bylaw -- and replace it with a plan that would see business groups co-operate on a "holistic" approach to address panhandling problems in a way that, "maintains the rights and dignity of the urban poor."

Holistic. I've heard a Liberal Senator use that very word yesterday on MDuffy. They were arguing about the law on crime....and that some Liberal MPs supported the Conservatives. She started the psychobabble about her party using the practical "holistic" approach of prevention.

While it's all and good to come up with ways to prevent....what about those that are beyond prevention?

Those that are already nutty, violent and with nowhere else to go?

Maybe they're suggesting they're as good as dead.....so, I guess shooting them is an act of euthanasia. LOL.

[jbg]

The committee voted to scrap the financial impacts study -- which could have provided legal justification for a bylaw -- and replace it with a plan that would see business groups co-operate on a "holistic" approach to address panhandling problems in a way that, "maintains the rights and dignity of the urban poor."

Psychobabble indeed. If these people wanted help they could/should have gotten it. Their problems should not be our problems.

[jbg]

A lot of them are not capable of looking after themselves, but the do-gooders insist they have the "right" to do as they want, even if that's sleeping in an alley and eating out of a garbage can. Some should be institutionalized, others sent to some kind of institutional work camp where they could get treatment but also do some kind of simple, meaningful work.

How about employing them to assist the FN's living along the shore of Hudson Bay near Fort Severn, and make their budgets balance out (link).

[geoffrey]

What's wrong with work camps?

Idealistically, we'd have no welfare and these people would be forced to work by neccessity, that is, if they don't work, they die.

Unfortunately, that's not the current situation. So, if I'm paying Joe Blow however much I'm paying him, I certainly can demand he provide me with labour in exchange for my funds.

On the contrary, if he doesn't wish to work, he doesn't have to. But he shouldn't get a dime.

Working isn't an option.

Those that are actually mentally ill should receive the care they need to be fully functioning, as long as we have a public system that's the way it should be. The rest I have no sympathy for.

[jbg]

What's wrong with work camps?

Idealistically, we'd have no welfare and these people would be forced to work by neccessity, that is, if they don't work, they die.

Unfortunately, that's not the current situation. So, if I'm paying Joe Blow however much I'm paying him, I certainly can demand he provide me with labour in exchange for my funds.

On the contrary, if he doesn't wish to work, he doesn't have to. But he shouldn't get a dime.

Working isn't an option.

Those that are actually mentally ill should receive the care they need to be fully functioning, as long as we have a public system that's the way it should be. The rest I have no sympathy for.

Perfect.

[Argus]

It's true that it was largely conservative governments that cut funding to institutions to house these people. Blaming it all on "lefties" is profoundly simplistic and downright incorrect. If anyone is to be blamed, it's the libertarian element that argues for all individuals' right to personal freedom. But I wouldn't blame them, because I agree with them.

In fact it was a combination of interests. Yes, the right saw this as a way to cut back on expensive institutional care. The Left, however, were the main drivers, because they saw themselves as protecting these individuals from the harshness of government mandated institutional care. Also, it went along with their belief that the "challenged" should be integrated rather than excluded. This is a continuing ideological belief, btw. We see it also in schools, where instead of going to special care schools we have severely retarded, behaviorally challenged and autistic children forced into regular classrooms, often accompanied by a keeper - or whatever they're called. It disrupts the education of all the other kids and is hideously expensive, but the Left sees it as "inclusive". And it is always the defenders of the poor and downtrodden who resist any efforts at controlling or institutionalizing these beggars and bums.

You see that in the "hug a bum" approach of Toronto's leftist council.

[normanchateau]

It's true that it was largely conservative governments that cut funding to institutions to house these people. Blaming it all on "lefties" is profoundly simplistic and downright incorrect.

I've seen no Canadian data on this issue but in the US, there has been a dramatic increase in the past 10 years in the number of mentally ill pan handlers on the street. This has been frequently linked to deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill and closure of hospitals in the late 90's, a situation which worsened during the 2002 and 2003 US recession. It happened statewide under both the Clinton and Bush administrations. I doubt that "leftie" Bush was motivated by leftist ideology. Here's more information:

"The trend toward deinstitutionalization took over in the late 1990s and early 2000s, drastically reducing the number of state hospital beds for persons with severe mental illnesses and greatly changing the mental health services system. Excluding government-owned facilities, in 1995 there were 433 psychiatric hospitals compared to 315 in 1999. The number of beds shrank from 43,497 in 1995 to 29,937 in 1999. As nursing homes took over a bigger role in the delivery of mental health services, controversy arose as to the appropriateness of care for the mentally ill living in and seeking treatment in nursing homes. The situation worsened for the mentally ill during the recession in 2002 and 2003, when many mental health programs were being targeted for cuts statewide. Private insurers were not filling the gap left by government programs, with one study noting that the amount of resources devoted to psychiatric care among private insurers had dropped 54 percent in the 10-year period ending in 1998. Due to these reasons, several state mental hospitals were closing and private hospitals were filing for bankruptcy protection in mid-2002."

Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/psychiatric-hospital

[scribblet]

In fact it was a combination of interests. Yes, the right saw this as a way to cut back on expensive institutional care. The Left, however, were the main drivers, because they saw themselves as protecting these individuals from the harshness of government mandated institutional care. Also, it went along with their belief that the "challenged" should be integrated rather than excluded. This is a continuing ideological belief, btw. We see it also in schools, where instead of going to special care schools we have severely retarded, behaviorally challenged and autistic children forced into regular classrooms, often accompanied by a keeper - or whatever they're called. It disrupts the education of all the other kids and is hideously expensive, but the Left sees it as "inclusive". And it is always the defenders of the poor and downtrodden who resist any efforts at controlling or institutionalizing these beggars and bums.

You see that in the "hug a bum" approach of Toronto's leftist council.

Agreed. Also, the belief that people should have a choice and not be forced to take medication "forced medication is chemical incarceration" is part of the problem. Many of these people don't want to be in a home or on medication, how do we handle that.

[jbg]

We see it also in schools, where instead of going to special care schools we have severely retarded, behaviorally challenged and autistic children forced into regular classrooms, often accompanied by a keeper - or whatever they're called. It disrupts the education of all the other kids and is hideously expensive, but the Left sees it as "inclusive".

This missive will surprise people who following my usual posts.

Autism is a "spectrum" disorder, ranging all the way from people who wind up like Bill Gates (Aspergers) or Thomas Jefferson (not enough known, but on spectrum) to the prototypical autistic children one sees on TV who have vocabularies of a few words and develop no relationships, even with parents or siblings, of any consequence. The ones on the "higher functioning" end of the spectrum, and society, benefit from their inclusion in a mainstream class.

The children on the "higher functioning" end of the spectrum can be taught to "work around" their deficiencies. While this ability is fickle at first, the pattern is that over time, they are functioning "normally" a greater percentage of the time, and even the "abnormal" periods decrease in severity. This has the beneficial effect of making it far more likely that they will be productive, functioning and quite possibly independent members of society. Instead of costing revenues, they'll add revenues as taxpayers.

What you call "keepers", at least for the "higher functioning" people range from being aides (to prevent bullying, etc.) to special education teachers. The latter are there to teach children to transition to a more self-sufficient mode.

My younger son is one of these children. In nursery school, he would frequently walk over other children as if they were not there, and refuse to participate in group activities. Now, his "bad" days involve unenthusiastic, apathetic participation, and on his "good" days he is almost indistinguishable from other children. For example, one of his "disabilities" was a refusal to participate in athletic activities. One day this past April, while I watched my older son in Little League, he spontaneously joined a soccer scrimmage involving one of his school friends, that friend's father and sibilings, and one other child. He controlled the ball skillfully. I wasn't sure I was watching my own son.

Would you have institutionalized him at age four?

[stignasty]

Let's check the score card:

Leftists: Bleeding hearts who want to include handicapped students in the classroom.

Conservatives: Realists who threw the mentally ill out of facilities and now want to shoot them for being an eyesore.

Damn Leftists!!

[ScottSA]

We see it also in schools, where instead of going to special care schools we have severely retarded, behaviorally challenged and autistic children forced into regular classrooms, often accompanied by a keeper - or whatever they're called. It disrupts the education of all the other kids and is hideously expensive, but the Left sees it as "inclusive".

This missive will surprise people who following my usual posts.

Autism is a "spectrum" disorder, ranging all the way from people who wind up like Bill Gates (Aspergers) or Thomas Jefferson (not enough known, but on spectrum) to the prototypical autistic children one sees on TV who have vocabularies of a few words and develop no relationships, even with parents or siblings, of any consequence. The ones on the "higher functioning" end of the spectrum, and society, benefit from their inclusion in a mainstream class.

The children on the "higher functioning" end of the spectrum can be taught to "work around" their deficiencies. While this ability is fickle at first, the pattern is that over time, they are functioning "normally" a greater percentage of the time, and even the "abnormal" periods decrease in severity. This has the beneficial effect of making it far more likely that they will be productive, functioning and quite possibly independent members of society. Instead of costing revenues, they'll add revenues as taxpayers.

What you call "keepers", at least for the "higher functioning" people range from being aides (to prevent bullying, etc.) to special education teachers. The latter are there to teach children to transition to a more self-sufficient mode.

My younger son is one of these children. In nursery school, he would frequently walk over other children as if they were not there, and refuse to participate in group activities. Now, his "bad" days involve unenthusiastic, apathetic participation, and on his "good" days he is almost indistinguishable from other children. For example, one of his "disabilities" was a refusal to participate in athletic activities. One day this past April, while I watched my older son in Little League, he spontaneously joined a soccer scrimmage involving one of his school friends, that friend's father and sibilings, and one other child. He controlled the ball skillfully. I wasn't sure I was watching my own son.

Would you have institutionalized him at age four?

From your perspective no. And I'm not sure what costs, if any, the education of your son had on the other kids growing up alongside your son in school. But if there were costs to the other kids (and I'm obviously not talking about financial costs), for having an autistic child in the classroom, then it's simply not fair to the other kids. It's just not. Leaving aside autism, it is just not fair to non-handicapped kids to have to learn at the lowest common denominator, and that's exactly what happens when the teacher's attention has to be focused on people who cannot learn, or who learn at an entirely different and much lower level.

[jazzer]

Leaving aside autism, it is just not fair to non-handicapped kids to have to learn at the lowest common denominator, and that's exactly what happens when the teacher's attention has to be focused on people who cannot learn, or who learn at an entirely different and much lower level.

That's what aids are for. Or in some cases, the teacher divides the classroom up according to learning levels. There he/she can spend the time where most aptly needed. It can be done, and it is where the teacher earns their money.

[ScottSA]

Leaving aside autism, it is just not fair to non-handicapped kids to have to learn at the lowest common denominator, and that's exactly what happens when the teacher's attention has to be focused on people who cannot learn, or who learn at an entirely different and much lower level.

That's what aids are for. Or in some cases, the teacher divides the classroom up according to learning levels. There he/she can spend the time where most aptly needed. It can be done, and it is where the teacher earns their money.

If the class is going to be divided according to learning levels, doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose? If a student requires an aide, doesn't that say something about the nature of this whole thing?

We simply cannot make everyone equal no matter how hard we try. Unfortunately, what we CAN do is drag down the majority to the level of the minority, and that's what appears to be happening in schools. I frankly don't care how hard a life the teacher has trying to ride herd over academic anarchy, but I do care about the result on the kids, and if a teacher is spending huge amounts of time on one or two kids, the rest HAVE to suffer in their education.

[jazzer]

Leaving aside autism, it is just not fair to non-handicapped kids to have to learn at the lowest common denominator, and that's exactly what happens when the teacher's attention has to be focused on people who cannot learn, or who learn at an entirely different and much lower level.

That's what aids are for. Or in some cases, the teacher divides the classroom up according to learning levels. There he/she can spend the time where most aptly needed. It can be done, and it is where the teacher earns their money.

If the class is going to be divided according to learning levels, doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose? If a student requires an aide, doesn't that say something about the nature of this whole thing?

We simply cannot make everyone equal no matter how hard we try. Unfortunately, what we CAN do is drag down the majority to the level of the minority, and that's what appears to be happening in schools. I frankly don't care how hard a life the teacher has trying to ride herd over academic anarchy, but I do care about the result on the kids, and if a teacher is spending huge amounts of time on one or two kids, the rest HAVE to suffer in their education.

Totally disagree. When I was student teaching, my teacher taught me the diagnostic prescriptive method, where classes are divided, in her case, into three distinct levels of learning. She was aptly able to manage all levels, but it required a little extra effort. No one suffered. She spent much of her time with those with learning disabilities and expected the smarter students to work independently. She was available at all times for any problems that came up. She taught ALL her classes this way and was very successful. She proved and measured her success with outake and intake assessments. Again, every student got their academic needs met in her classroom.

[ScottSA]

Leaving aside autism, it is just not fair to non-handicapped kids to have to learn at the lowest common denominator, and that's exactly what happens when the teacher's attention has to be focused on people who cannot learn, or who learn at an entirely different and much lower level.

That's what aids are for. Or in some cases, the teacher divides the classroom up according to learning levels. There he/she can spend the time where most aptly needed. It can be done, and it is where the teacher earns their money.

If the class is going to be divided according to learning levels, doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose? If a student requires an aide, doesn't that say something about the nature of this whole thing?

We simply cannot make everyone equal no matter how hard we try. Unfortunately, what we CAN do is drag down the majority to the level of the minority, and that's what appears to be happening in schools. I frankly don't care how hard a life the teacher has trying to ride herd over academic anarchy, but I do care about the result on the kids, and if a teacher is spending huge amounts of time on one or two kids, the rest HAVE to suffer in their education.

Totally disagree. When I was student teaching, my teacher taught me the diagnostic prescriptive method, where classes are divided, in her case, into three distinct levels of learning. She was aptly able to manage all levels, but it required a little extra effort. No one suffered. She spent much of her time with those with learning disabilities and expected the smarter students to work independently. She was available at all times for any problems that came up. She taught ALL her classes this way and was very successful. She proved and measured her success with outake and intake assessments. Again, every student got their academic needs met in her classroom.

This is anecdotal, subjective, and necessarly imbued with only one viewpoint. It's like someone born blind announcing that they have all their senses...as far as they know, they're right...they have all their senses, because they simply don't know what might have been had they begun with sight. You're saying you didn't suffer a consequence, but how do you know what might have been if the teacher hadn't been distracted by more needy students? In fact, it's counterintuitive and quite likely wrong to say that there were no negative consequences. All through the education system there is a hue and cry, based presumably upon numerous studies, for smaller class size and more individual attention for students. One can only surmise that this hue and cry originates from people who want to improve education and not the other way around.

[normanchateau]

Let's check the score card:

Leftists: Bleeding hearts who want to include handicapped students in the classroom.

Conservatives: Realists who threw the mentally ill out of facilities and now want to shoot them for being an eyesore.

Damn Leftists!!

I don't hear any Canadian politicians, right or left, demanding that we reinstitutionalize the mentally ill beggars that are on our streets. Getting beggars off the streets is a vote-getter but building new mental institutions is not.

[jazzer]

All through the education system there is a hue and cry, based presumably upon numerous studies, for smaller class size and more individual attention for students. One can only surmise that this hue and cry originates from people who want to improve education and not the other way around.

How do you improve students with 30+ in a classroom? Individual attention, whether through aids or a diagnostic-prescriptive approach will only enhance the academic experience, not the other way around. I taught that way, both in the classroom and in teaching music. Many others have proven the effectiveness of such a teaching method.

[ScottSA]

All through the education system there is a hue and cry, based presumably upon numerous studies, for smaller class size and more individual attention for students. One can only surmise that this hue and cry originates from people who want to improve education and not the other way around.

How do you improve students with 30+ in a classroom? Individual attention, whether through aids or a diagnostic-prescriptive approach will only enhance the academic experience, not the other way around. I taught that way, both in the classroom and in teaching music. Many others have proven the effectiveness of such a teaching method.

That's exactly my point. When the teacher is otherwise occupied, it's hard for them to devote individual attention to 'normal' students.

[jbg]

This missive will surprise people who following my usual posts.

Autism is a "spectrum" disorder, ranging all the way from people who wind up like Bill Gates (Aspergers) or Thomas Jefferson (not enough known, but on spectrum) to the prototypical autistic children one sees on TV who have vocabularies of a few words and develop no relationships, even with parents or siblings, of any consequence. The ones on the "higher functioning" end of the spectrum, and society, benefit from their inclusion in a mainstream class.

*****

Would you have institutionalized him at age four?

From your perspective no. And I'm not sure what costs, if any, the education of your son had on the other kids growing up alongside your son in school. But if there were costs to the other kids (and I'm obviously not talking about financial costs), for having an autistic child in the classroom, then it's simply not fair to the other kids. It's just not. Leaving aside autism, it is just not fair to non-handicapped kids to have to learn at the lowest common denominator, and that's exactly what happens when the teacher's attention has to be focused on people who cannot learn, or who learn at an entirely different and much lower level.

The financial costs, I estimate, are about a 60% premium to the costs of educating a "mainstream" child. I can't speak for all parents of autistic children, but in my son's case, the effect would not be as you fear. His intelligence level is probably normal to slightly above normal, for one thing. As his behavior has improved (influenced by having normal children as role models) he does not pull down the class. He was not mixed in until very shortly before he was ready for it (i.e. a rough month or so).

Again, I agree with you. There are many children who do not belong in a mainstream setting. They are sent to self-contained classrooms (often out of school district) run by Board of Cooperative Educational Services ("BOCES").

The way it works is that every child is evaluated every year, normally in late winter/early spring, to determine the appropriate placement. Thus, this is, for me, not an ideological issue. There are times I would have preferred a BOCES placement, but, on balance, for mildly impaired children, mainstreaming is better for both them and the "normal" children.

[ScottSA]

for mildly impaired children, mainstreaming is better for [] the "normal" children.

Why?

[jbg]

for mildly impaired children, mainstreaming is better for [] the "normal" children.

Why?

I can only speak for my son and his friends. Since he is normal much of the time, his contributions to the class and his playmates, both academically and recreationally, are almost the equivalent of those of other children.