i'm all for not pre-judging people, but i would think that it would be a hard sell to explain how the connection between homeless and poor is not blatantly obvious
i'm all for not pre-judging people, but i would think that it would be a hard sell to explain how the connection between homeless and poor is not blatantly obvious
but i'm sure you'll try...
you would think so, but i think legally they consider it a "lifestyle choice" because it keeps the authorities from being able to forcibly removing them from the streets and, say, put them in a hospital.
no hijack, but A co-worker told me this story today.
On Wednesday he was sitting at a traffic light. A motorcycle crosses the intersection and t-Bones a car (who had pulled out in front of the bike). The rider flies off his bike and is lying in the middle of the intersection squirming in agony. There is no doubt that everyone saw this happen. However, when the light changes green, cars start to proceed through the intersection swerving just inches from the man lying on the ground. My friend gets out of his car and tries to stop the on-coming cars who in turn just get pissed and start beeping their horns at him. My people, what is wrong with you?
im saying dont judge the homeless as poor, not dont judge the punks because homelessness if a lifestyle choice.
Why do you feel you even need to say this? You must be bored.
because miss bassie was making it out like I was saying it would be alright to beat up gay people, which I was most certainly not.
i did?
you raised the issue of lifestyle choice in a story about kids killing a homeless man and i asked about why it mattered and then gave another example where it has been used to excuse heinous behaviour.
no hijack, but A co-worker told me this story today. On Wednesday he was sitting at a traffic light. A motorcycle crosses the intersection and t-Bones a car (who had pulled out in front of the bike). The rider flies off his bike and is lying in the middle of the intersection squirming in agony. There is no doubt that everyone saw this happen. However, when the light changes green, cars start to proceed through the intersection swerving just inches from the man lying on the ground. My friend gets out of his car and tries to stop the on-coming cars who in turn just get pissed and start beeping their horns at him. My people, what is wrong with you?
If the motorcyclist was a republican, it would serve him right for supporting a murderous, illegal administration. I dont feel sorry for him at all.
Im agaisnt the death penalty, but id make an exception for these motherfuckers. I cant even think of a strong enough punishment for them.
I support the Death Penalty so I definitely agree with you but why do folks who are against the death penalty constantly make statements like the one above as if one person's murder is better/worse than anothers???
im saying dont judge the homeless as poor, not dont judge the punks because homelessness if a lifestyle choice.
Why do you feel you even need to say this? You must be bored.
because miss bassie was making it out like I was saying it would be alright to beat up gay people, which I was most certainly not.
i did?
you raised the issue of lifestyle choice in a story about kids killing a homeless man and i asked about why it mattered and then gave another example where it has been used to excuse heinous behaviour.
you put it out there, i asked for elaboration.
my point wasnt in reference to the beating, but to the assumption that the homeless person was poor, or "sounded poor" - which i think is one of my lines.
i'm all for not pre-judging people, but i would think that it would be a hard sell to explain how the connection between homeless and poor is not blatantly obvious
but i'm sure you'll try...
you would think so, but i think legally they consider it a "lifestyle choice" because it keeps the authorities from being able to forcibly removing them from the streets and, say, put them in a hospital.
What are you talking about? No one will put these people in a "hospital". Who would pay for it? Many of the people on the streets in SF especially are leftovers from 80's when Reagan deinstitutionalized the hospitals. They have no where to go and must spend their lousy S.S. check on Single Room occupancy hotels and walk the streets during the day. Not to mention that they are "crazy" for lack of a better word.
i'm all for not pre-judging people, but i would think that it would be a hard sell to explain how the connection between homeless and poor is not blatantly obvious
but i'm sure you'll try...
you would think so, but i think legally they consider it a "lifestyle choice" because it keeps the authorities from being able to forcibly removing them from the streets and, say, put them in a hospital.
What are you talking about? No one will put these people in a "hospital". Who would pay for it? Many of the people on the streets in SF especially are leftovers from 80's when Reagan deinstitutionalized the hospitals. They have no where to go and must spend their lousy S.S. check on Single Room occupancy hotels and walk the streets during the day. Not to mention that they are "crazy" for lack of a better word.
What a "choice"
please - i lived in SF for four years and worked on the Haight. Most of them are the punk kids that beat up homeless people for fun as a matter of fact. And don't even get me started on the "lousy SS check" these guys get. They sued and won to force the state to give them cash money! Regardless, in NYC I'm pretty sure that they can't forceably institutionalize homeless people. Like the crazy lady uptown they couldnt do anything about for years, and the guy who smashed that girl in the head with a brick. I'll look into it over the weekend and get back to you with the actual laws.
and by the way, i moved to SF in 1988 and the homeless was not a big problem on the Haight, by the time I left it was appalling, you couldnt walk 20 steps without some punk kid spare changing you, so don't blame Reagan.
Im agaisnt the death penalty, but id make an exception for these motherfuckers. I cant even think of a strong enough punishment for them.
I support the Death Penalty so I definitely agree with you but why do folks who are against the death penalty constantly make statements like the one above as if one person's murder is better/worse than anothers???
well in reality i wouldnt support these guys getting executed. I f it came down to it, id still be anti-DP.
But this crime is some of the most cold hearted, sadistic shit ever. Crimes of passion are one thing, but some punk kids laughing as they beat homeless people to death is in a leaugue of its own.
You know what i would support? The surviving homeless people gettign twenty minutes to do whatever they want to these kids. Castrate them, piss on them, whatever.
i'm all for not pre-judging people, but i would think that it would be a hard sell to explain how the connection between homeless and poor is not blatantly obvious
but i'm sure you'll try...
you would think so, but i think legally they consider it a "lifestyle choice" because it keeps the authorities from being able to forcibly removing them from the streets and, say, put them in a hospital.
What are you talking about? No one will put these people in a "hospital". Who would pay for it? Many of the people on the streets in SF especially are leftovers from 80's when Reagan deinstitutionalized the hospitals. They have no where to go and must spend their lousy S.S. check on Single Room occupancy hotels and walk the streets during the day. Not to mention that they are "crazy" for lack of a better word.
What a "choice"
please - i lived in SF for four years and worked on the Haight. Most of them are the punk kids that beat up homeless people for fun as a matter of fact. And don't even get me started on the "lousy SS check" these guys get. They sued and won to force the state to give them cash money! Regardless, in NYC I'm pretty sure that they can't forceably institutionalize homeless people. Like the crazy lady uptown they couldnt do anything about for years, and the guy who smashed that girl in the head with a brick. I'll look into it over the weekend and get back to you with the actual laws.
and by the way, i moved to SF in 1988 and the homeless was not a big problem on the Haight, by the time I left it was appalling, you couldnt walk 20 steps without some punk kid spare changing you, so don't blame Reagan.
If you could hospitalize those people there would be no one to pay for it.
Most of those kids in the Haight may be punks, but the majority of them are all badly abused and have come from fucked up homes in which homeless is a better choice for them...
You are choosing to ignore the homeless folks on market street who have been deinsitutionalized. I'm not making that up.
i'm all for not pre-judging people, but i would think that it would be a hard sell to explain how the connection between homeless and poor is not blatantly obvious
but i'm sure you'll try...
you would think so, but i think legally they consider it a "lifestyle choice" because it keeps the authorities from being able to forcibly removing them from the streets and, say, put them in a hospital.
What are you talking about? No one will put these people in a "hospital". Who would pay for it? Many of the people on the streets in SF especially are leftovers from 80's when Reagan deinstitutionalized the hospitals. They have no where to go and must spend their lousy S.S. check on Single Room occupancy hotels and walk the streets during the day. Not to mention that they are "crazy" for lack of a better word.
What a "choice"
I think you will find that in most big cities there are programs and shelters set up to help the Homeless but many times the Homeless themselves shun this help and "choose" to live on the streets instead. In most cases it's because they don't want to live by the rules of these programs/shelters such as no alcohol/drug use or it's because they are mentally unable to make a rational decision.
i'm all for not pre-judging people, but i would think that it would be a hard sell to explain how the connection between homeless and poor is not blatantly obvious
but i'm sure you'll try...
you would think so, but i think legally they consider it a "lifestyle choice" because it keeps the authorities from being able to forcibly removing them from the streets and, say, put them in a hospital.
What are you talking about? No one will put these people in a "hospital". Who would pay for it? Many of the people on the streets in SF especially are leftovers from 80's when Reagan deinstitutionalized the hospitals. They have no where to go and must spend their lousy S.S. check on Single Room occupancy hotels and walk the streets during the day. Not to mention that they are "crazy" for lack of a better word.
What a "choice"
please - i lived in SF for four years and worked on the Haight. Most of them are the punk kids that beat up homeless people for fun as a matter of fact. And don't even get me started on the "lousy SS check" these guys get. They sued and won to force the state to give them cash money! Regardless, in NYC I'm pretty sure that they can't forceably institutionalize homeless people. Like the crazy lady uptown they couldnt do anything about for years, and the guy who smashed that girl in the head with a brick. I'll look into it over the weekend and get back to you with the actual laws.
and by the way, i moved to SF in 1988 and the homeless was not a big problem on the Haight, by the time I left it was appalling, you couldnt walk 20 steps without some punk kid spare changing you, so don't blame Reagan.
If you could hospitalize those people there would be no one to pay for it.
Most of those kids in the Haight may be punks, but the majority of them are all badly abused and have come from fucked up homes in which homeless is a better choice for them...
You are choosing to ignore the homeless folks on market street who have been deinsitutionalized. I'm not making that up.
I lived on Hyde & Ellis so I know about the nut-jobs on Market Street ... and I worked the graveyard shift at Sparky's Diner on Church - thats where the real crazy shit happened.
i'm all for not pre-judging people, but i would think that it would be a hard sell to explain how the connection between homeless and poor is not blatantly obvious
but i'm sure you'll try...
you would think so, but i think legally they consider it a "lifestyle choice" because it keeps the authorities from being able to forcibly removing them from the streets and, say, put them in a hospital.
What are you talking about? No one will put these people in a "hospital". Who would pay for it? Many of the people on the streets in SF especially are leftovers from 80's when Reagan deinstitutionalized the hospitals. They have no where to go and must spend their lousy S.S. check on Single Room occupancy hotels and walk the streets during the day. Not to mention that they are "crazy" for lack of a better word.
What a "choice"
I think you will find that in most big cities there are programs and shelters set up to help the Homeless but many times the Homeless themselves shun this help and "choose" to live on the streets instead. In most cases it's because they don't want to live by the rules of these programs/shelters such as no alcohol/drug use or it's because they are mentally unable to make a rational decision.
actually i think most dont want to go to shelters because they are dangerous. One of the things Rudy did in New York, was clean the shelters out of the criminals that were preying on the homeless making them safe and I've actually heard that from a homeless guy. Although, i cant for the life of me remember why, "I" would be talking to a "homeless guy".
Most of those kids in the Haight may be punks, but the majority of them are all badly abused and have come from fucked up homes in which homeless is a better choice for them...[/b]
Seems to me that if there is someone to blame it's the lousy no good parents who abused these kids....why do people want to blame politicians instead of where the REAL blame lies with these so-called parents. We have to take a test to drive a car but any idiot can have a kid.
Most of those kids in the Haight may be punks, but the majority of them are all badly abused and have come from fucked up homes in which homeless is a better choice for them...[/b]
Seems to me that if there is someone to blame it's the lousy no good parents who abused these kids....why do people want to blame politicians instead of where the REAL blame lies with these so-called parents. We have to take a test to drive a car but any idiot can have a kid.
id also hazard that a lot are just garden variety fuck ups from perfectly good homes that think what they are doing is cool.
Most of those kids in the Haight may be punks, but the majority of them are all badly abused and have come from fucked up homes in which homeless is a better choice for them...[/b]
Seems to me that if there is someone to blame it's the lousy no good parents who abused these kids....why do people want to blame politicians instead of where the REAL blame lies with these so-called parents. We have to take a test to drive a car but any idiot can have a kid.
Ding Ding Ding!
Same thing goes for the parents of the punks who beat up the homeless!
Most of those kids in the Haight may be punks, but the majority of them are all badly abused and have come from fucked up homes in which homeless is a better choice for them...[/b]
Seems to me that if there is someone to blame it's the lousy no good parents who abused these kids....why do people want to blame politicians instead of where the REAL blame lies with these so-called parents. We have to take a test to drive a car but any idiot can have a kid.
Just my 2 cents, my sister was a street kid on Telegraph and Haight for some years, many of those kids were abused, but many others just jetted on their "square" families who booted them out after one too many times of robbing mom's pocketbook for meth money
Most of those kids in the Haight may be punks, but the majority of them are all badly abused and have come from fucked up homes in which homeless is a better choice for them...[/b]
Seems to me that if there is someone to blame it's the lousy no good parents who abused these kids....why do people want to blame politicians instead of where the REAL blame lies with these so-called parents. We have to take a test to drive a car but any idiot can have a kid.
Just my 2 cents, my sister was a street kid on Telegraph and Haight for some years, many of those kids were abused, but many others just jetted on their "square" families who booted them out after one too many times of robbing mom's pocketbook for meth money
ahh memories of working in Pasadena with the the street kids and theyre moms money buying htem the drugs they needed to continue in their fashionable punk lifestyle
apathetic version of being connected to the streets?
Most of those kids in the Haight may be punks, but the majority of them are all badly abused and have come from fucked up homes in which homeless is a better choice for them...[/b]
Seems to me that if there is someone to blame it's the lousy no good parents who abused these kids....why do people want to blame politicians instead of where the REAL blame lies with these so-called parents. We have to take a test to drive a car but any idiot can have a kid.
Just my 2 cents, my sister was a street kid on Telegraph and Haight for some years, many of those kids were abused, but many others just jetted on their "square" families who booted them out after one too many times of robbing mom's pocketbook for meth money
I forgot to mention the drug addicts. True. But many times, the drug addiction is a result of them acting out because of something fucked up going on...
I have no idea what it would be like to have a kid strung out on meth taking money from me, but I don't know if kicking them out is the correct answer since they end up on Haight Street...
I have no idea what it would be like to have a kid strung out on meth taking money from me, but I don't know if kicking them out is the correct answer since they end up on Haight Street...
It's really really REALLY fucked. My sister wasn't booted, she left on her own, but it's a fate I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.
She's totally straight now has a 4.1 GPA, government grants and blows up rocks with lasers for big money. Thank God.
Most of those kids in the Haight may be punks, but the majority of them are all badly abused and have come from fucked up homes in which homeless is a better choice for them...[/b]
Seems to me that if there is someone to blame it's the lousy no good parents who abused these kids....why do people want to blame politicians instead of where the REAL blame lies with these so-called parents. We have to take a test to drive a car but any idiot can have a kid.
Just my 2 cents, my sister was a street kid on Telegraph and Haight for some years, many of those kids were abused, but many others just jetted on their "square" families who booted them out after one too many times of robbing mom's pocketbook for meth money
I forgot to mention the drug addicts. True. But many times, the drug addiction is a result of them acting out because of something fucked up going on...
I have no idea what it would be like to have a kid strung out on meth taking money from me, but I don't know if kicking them out is the correct answer since they end up on Haight Street...
If you had a kid who was a drug addict and had taken advantage of your kindness and obligation to them time and again, at what point do you tell them, "no go ahead, stay here and keep robbing me blind and threatening the rest of the family"? I can't say that kicking these kids out the house is an "answer" but I know from experience in my own family that putting them on their own, out of the house that enables their(and their family's) further destruction, is the only resort left. People need to learn to fend for themselves without fucking over themselves and other people at some point.
Most of those kids in the Haight may be punks, but the majority of them are all badly abused and have come from fucked up homes in which homeless is a better choice for them...[/b]
Seems to me that if there is someone to blame it's the lousy no good parents who abused these kids....why do people want to blame politicians instead of where the REAL blame lies with these so-called parents. We have to take a test to drive a car but any idiot can have a kid.
Just my 2 cents, my sister was a street kid on Telegraph and Haight for some years, many of those kids were abused, but many others just jetted on their "square" families who booted them out after one too many times of robbing mom's pocketbook for meth money
I forgot to mention the drug addicts. True. But many times, the drug addiction is a result of them acting out because of something fucked up going on...
I have no idea what it would be like to have a kid strung out on meth taking money from me, but I don't know if kicking them out is the correct answer since they end up on Haight Street...
If you had a kid who was a drug addict and had taken advantage of your kindness and obligation to them time and again, at what point do you tell them, "no go ahead, stay here and keep robbing me blind and threatening the rest of the family"? I can't say that kicking these kids out the house is an "answer" but I know from experience in my own family that putting them on their own, out of the house that enables their(and their family's) further destruction, is the only resort left. People need to learn to fend for themselves without fucking over themselves and other people at some point.
Like I said, I have no idea what it must be like. I can only say what I think I would do... That doesn't mean I'd even do what I think I'd do. Shit is fucked up.
Johnny Paycheck: I'm glad to hear your sister is kicking ass. What do you think helped her get herself straight?
I don't really see people talking about the 'homeless' homeless mofos, who I think comprise a lot more of the homeless population in NYC than street punks. In general the argument I hear from the right is its their choice they're there, the shelter's are great, just because your flat broke, mentally ill and a alcoholic doesn't excuse you from pulling yourself up from your bootstraps. Its bullshit. We're way more concerned as a society to develope a weapon like a 'daisycutter' then to have some real programs that can help get people back on their feet. Look at the amount of money spent on things like Iraq compared to domestic poverty issues? If we took a tiny fraction of that money a lot of these people would be much better off, and I'm not talking a free load, but developing real solutions and actually addressing the problem. More than lip service.
Ted Kennedy isn't even in the same league compared to Reagen, Bush I and Bush II smirking chimp boogaloo. And I'll be fair and say Clinton signing Nafta didn't help either. Getting back to laughing boy tho, Bush claimed he has this '10 year plan' to end homelessness. Some thoughts from the interweb:
The 10 year plan to end homelessness does not require any end goals be met. It is based on a good study but funding is a drop in the bucket. The plan also ignores the primary root cause of poverty; lack of living wage jobs. Housing the cronically homeless (or dual diagnosis) a good place to start, yet claiming to be ending homelessness while slashing section 8 housing, attacking social securety and continuing to ship jobs overseas is hypocritical. The plan to end homelessness is little more than a smoke screen.
I'm not talking a free load, but developing real solutions and actually addressing the problem. More than lip service.
$??
Is anyone familar with the Michael Moore expose that showed how a program that got Welfare recipients jobs and transportation to these jobs was a BAD thing. It had something to do with Dick Clark's restaurant and Moore's contention that having these people work was more detrimental to them than having them collect government assistance?? Any link or info will be appreciated.
Comments
i'm all for not pre-judging people, but i would think that it would be a hard sell to explain how the connection between homeless and poor is not blatantly obvious
but i'm sure you'll try...
because miss bassie was making it out like I was saying it would be alright to beat up gay people, which I was most certainly not.
you would think so, but i think legally they consider it a "lifestyle choice" because it keeps the authorities from being able to forcibly removing them from the streets and, say, put them in a hospital.
Great, LA, SF, and Santa Monica are all in the top 20 worst places to be homeless list. NAGL.
On Wednesday he was sitting at a traffic light. A motorcycle crosses the intersection and t-Bones a car (who had pulled out in front of the bike). The rider flies off his bike and is lying in the middle of the intersection squirming in agony. There is no doubt that everyone saw this happen. However, when the light changes green, cars start to proceed through the intersection swerving just inches from the man lying on the ground. My friend gets out of his car and tries to stop the on-coming cars who in turn just get pissed and start beeping their horns at him. My people, what is wrong with you?
i did?
you raised the issue of lifestyle choice in a story about kids killing a homeless man and i asked about why it mattered and then gave another example where it has been used to excuse heinous behaviour.
you put it out there, i asked for elaboration.
If the motorcyclist was a republican, it would serve him right for supporting a murderous, illegal administration. I dont feel sorry for him at all.
I support the Death Penalty so I definitely agree with you but why do folks who are against the death penalty constantly make statements like the one above as if one person's murder is better/worse than anothers???
my point wasnt in reference to the beating, but to the assumption that the homeless person was poor, or "sounded poor" - which i think is one of my lines.
What are you talking about? No one will put these people in a "hospital". Who would pay for it? Many of the people on the streets in SF especially are leftovers from 80's when Reagan deinstitutionalized the hospitals. They have no where to go and must spend their lousy S.S. check on Single Room occupancy hotels and walk the streets during the day. Not to mention that they are "crazy" for lack of a better word.
What a "choice"
please - i lived in SF for four years and worked on the Haight. Most of them are the punk kids that beat up homeless people for fun as a matter of fact. And don't even get me started on the "lousy SS check" these guys get. They sued and won to force the state to give them cash money! Regardless, in NYC I'm pretty sure that they can't forceably institutionalize homeless people. Like the crazy lady uptown they couldnt do anything about for years, and the guy who smashed that girl in the head with a brick. I'll look into it over the weekend and get back to you with the actual laws.
and by the way, i moved to SF in 1988 and the homeless was not a big problem on the Haight, by the time I left it was appalling, you couldnt walk 20 steps without some punk kid spare changing you, so don't blame Reagan.
well in reality i wouldnt support these guys getting executed. I f it came down to it, id still be anti-DP.
But this crime is some of the most cold hearted, sadistic shit ever. Crimes of passion are one thing, but some punk kids laughing as they beat homeless people to death is in a leaugue of its own.
You know what i would support? The surviving homeless people gettign twenty minutes to do whatever they want to these kids. Castrate them, piss on them, whatever.
If you could hospitalize those people there would be no one to pay for it.
Most of those kids in the Haight may be punks, but the majority of them are all badly abused and have come from fucked up homes in which homeless is a better choice for them...
You are choosing to ignore the homeless folks on market street who have been deinsitutionalized. I'm not making that up.
I think you will find that in most big cities there are programs and shelters set up to help the Homeless but many times the Homeless themselves shun this help and "choose" to live on the streets instead. In most cases it's because they don't want to live by the rules of these programs/shelters such as no alcohol/drug use or it's because they are mentally unable to make a rational decision.
I lived on Hyde & Ellis so I know about the nut-jobs on Market Street ... and I worked the graveyard shift at Sparky's Diner on Church - thats where the real crazy shit happened.
actually i think most dont want to go to shelters because they are dangerous. One of the things Rudy did in New York, was clean the shelters out of the criminals that were preying on the homeless making them safe and I've actually heard that from a homeless guy. Although, i cant for the life of me remember why, "I" would be talking to a "homeless guy".
Seems to me that if there is someone to blame it's the lousy no good parents who abused these kids....why do people want to blame politicians instead of where the REAL blame lies with these so-called parents. We have to take a test to drive a car but any idiot can have a kid.
id also hazard that a lot are just garden variety fuck ups from perfectly good homes that think what they are doing is cool.
When driving a car becomes a fundamental biological function we can revisit your sophisticated assessment.
Ding Ding Ding!
Same thing goes for the parents of the punks who beat up the homeless!
Just my 2 cents, my sister was a street kid on Telegraph and Haight for some years, many of those kids were abused, but many others just jetted on their "square" families who booted them out after one too many times of robbing mom's pocketbook for meth money
ahh memories of working in Pasadena with the the street kids and theyre moms money buying htem the drugs they needed to continue in their fashionable punk lifestyle
apathetic version of being connected to the streets?
I forgot to mention the drug addicts. True. But many times, the drug addiction is a result of them acting out because of something fucked up going on...
I have no idea what it would be like to have a kid strung out on meth taking money from me, but I don't know if kicking them out is the correct answer since they end up on Haight Street...
It's really really REALLY fucked. My sister wasn't booted, she left on her own, but it's a fate I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.
She's totally straight now has a 4.1 GPA, government grants and blows up rocks with lasers for big money. Thank God.
If you had a kid who was a drug addict and had taken advantage of your kindness and obligation to them time and again, at what point do you tell them, "no go ahead, stay here and keep robbing me blind and threatening the rest of the family"? I can't say that kicking these kids out the house is an "answer" but I know from experience in my own family that putting them on their own, out of the house that enables their(and their family's) further destruction, is the only resort left. People need to learn to fend for themselves without fucking over themselves and other people at some point.
that is not always the case man.
go down to a homeless shelter and help out..get to talking to some of the people and you hear some fugged up storys.
Like I said, I have no idea what it must be like. I can only say what I think I would do... That doesn't mean I'd even do what I think I'd do. Shit is fucked up.
Johnny Paycheck: I'm glad to hear your sister is kicking ass. What do you think helped her get herself straight?
Ted Kennedy isn't even in the same league compared to Reagen, Bush I and Bush II smirking chimp boogaloo. And I'll be fair and say Clinton signing Nafta didn't help either. Getting back to laughing boy tho, Bush claimed he has this '10 year plan' to end homelessness. Some thoughts from the interweb:
$??
Is anyone familar with the Michael Moore expose that showed how a program that got Welfare recipients jobs and transportation to these jobs was a BAD thing. It had something to do with Dick Clark's restaurant and Moore's contention that having these people work was more detrimental to them than having them collect government assistance?? Any link or info will be appreciated.