I have not written here in a period of time, mostly because I am trying to build my business and develop a broader client base. At this time of the year, clients affected by economic crisis tend to strike out at everybody in their way and spread their hurt all over, including those that are trying to fix things for them. One Christmas a few years ago, a gentleman phoned my office to tell me he had a gun and was prepared to use it on himself. His sister ended up spending the holidays with him, though his words haunted me for a long time. This is why I try to take a few weeks off at Christmas time to get out of everybody's way, not because I celebrate anything or care about the crass consumerism known as Christmas.
Anyhow with the advent of recent federal by-elections, we heard so much about the middle class. I don't know about you, but I am frankly fed up with hearing about the so-called "middle class" when many of the people I deal with would be very happy just to belong in the "middle class". The media has it all wrong about us. During the summer, we're all supposed to be going to cottages, taking road trips and participating in sports, such as swimming, hiking and fishing. As voters, we are theoretically supposed to be too busy with our "families" in the summer and, as such, out of touch with politics. In the fall, kids are supposed to go back to school and parents are supposed to be paying at least $600 - $900 on back to school supplies and clothing, while parents of older children drive their kids off to universities or colleges, the tuition for which is being paid by them. I knew a lot of these kids. They were just as self-entitled in the 1980s and 1990s as many of them are today, living off Daddy's trust funds and blowing all their money on beer and parties. There are more serious students though, but we don't hear about them in the media, because these people are usually the mature students that go back to school, rely on OSAP and barely get enough to eat, let alone enough money for beer.
In a few days, there will be a day that is called Black Friday, which follows Thanksgiving Day in the U.S., and this sort of crass consumerism has crossed our borders to make us Canadians think we have to do it too. Oh, how we all are now suppose to drive across the border and shop and make an official start to our Christmas shopping ... Yeah, right. WHAT Christmas shopping, many of you are asking ... I don't even have to be there with you, but I know many of my readers barely have two pennies to scrape together to do any kind of Christmas shopping, let alone have families to go to during the holidays. Reality on the ground is too different than what it appears to be on TV, in the media and on reality shows ... even politicians have it wrong. During the last federal election, I couldn't shut off the TV fast enough when the clowns running for the federal Conservatives were going on about how they want to offer 'income splitting' for the average family, which they say earn a household average of $93,000 a year.
These clowns go on to offer -- if elected -- and if they bring the deficit down -- a big expensive tax cut that will allow families where it is possible for one high earner to transfer up to $50,000 of his income (or hers, too -- but we all know they are imagining high earning men and stay at home women to be their trophy wives). The man who likely earns a six figure income can then "save" on taxes by artificially transferring up to $50,000 of his earnings to his stay at home wife (or much lower earning wife), so he will only be taxed on the remaining income. This whole thing was concocted by the false dichotomy of pitting dual earner families against single earner families ... pretending again, the old Conservative way, that women really all want to stay home to care for their children and not go to work until after the fly the coop. Na da. Ain't happening, especially since tying the knot with anybody doesn't come with guarantees these days. Most families are two earners, simply because one salary doesn't cut it anymore.
The average expenses of a family tell us much more about our so-called make belief earnings that the media would like us to believe we have or can strive for. I live in a region that is packed full of low wage, low skilled, no future type jobs ... all this, for those who have turned fifty, worked in the plants all their lives and now were told their employer is moving to India or China or Indiana or Detroit, take your pick. We are supposed to believe our families average $93,000 a year, because our politicians tell us so when they are on the election trail. I would really like to invite these politicians into MY life and show them what is real and what is fantasy. I live in a house that is falling apart and I have no money to fix it. I live in a neighbourhood that has been losing amenities right, left and centre - all whilst the municipal politicians see fit to continue to increase my taxes. If this is the case, what am I getting more of? Certainly not services ... we are losing our schools, so kids can no longer walk to school. We lost the only two financial institutions that were here when we first bought the house. There are no more family style restaurants or recreational facilities. The west end of town also has no community centres, no supermarkets, no community agencies, no swimming pools (e.g. the one that was there was shut down and rebuilt in the north end where three indoor pools are within walking distance of where they put the "new" one, and those of us that must take the bus can't get to at night or on weekends). This tells you who the municipality serves - people that live in the neighbourhoods where all the amenities are all have money and usually drive.
Over the past few years, the only businesses that can thrive in my present neighbourhood are hair salons, low end bars, pawn shops, tattoo shops, convenience stores, fundamentalist churches, as well as other "businesses" which might be less than legal. Over the past two years, I've seen more tags on buildings, representing the settlement of self-identified gangs. I hear more about stabbings and shootings, let alone the fact I had personally handled cases that arose from this neighbourhood resulting from families being firebombed, a Muslim man getting beaten within an inch of his life and a family whose son recently killed himself. With the loss of the high school, I can imagine a sharp increase in drop-outs, along with an increased cycle of poverty. This is why I need to find a way to get rid of my house and get out of here before its value plummets and I end up owing more on it than I get for it.
My dream would be to leave this region, but until that is even possible, I need to get at least out of this 'hood. I've noticed a rash of home sales over the last year or so in this part of the city, or shall I call it town (because we still don't get city level amenities). Others have sort of stuck it out here, but then they are retired and are not going anywhere. The rest of the housing is going to student housing or rentals, with high turnover like many on my own street. Over the years, people have come and gone from this block. At one time, if one lived in the 'hood, they'd at least see other people's kids grow up and fulfil their dreams and have kids of their own, and so on. Unfortunately, this is not the kind of 'hood for that sort of thing. Many times, I long for community and the need to be part of something. The unfortunate thing is even if there were some of us in the 'hood that wanted to get together to do something about it, we have no place to meet, not even a decent restaurant where we can all gather for a coffee. Isolation breeds alienation.
We heard so much about a certain 'crack smoking' mayor of Toronto, which has hit not only all the Toronto media, but international media as well, including talk shows, late night comedies, comics, etc. I feel if there is any of that 'crack' being smoked, an awful lot of it must be smoked by city planners that make decisions, such as where transit routes go, where to locate municipal services, where to build schools, etc., but then again, the federal government didn't help matters when it chose to scrap the long form census and turned it into a National Household Survey which nobody really had to fill out. Whole neighbourhoods, age groups, social classes and so forth, were left out, because these being the "prototypes" who will be less likely to voluntarily complete such a thing, city planners even if they aren't on crack still won't have a clue as to what communities like my neighbourhood needs or what it is like to live here.
While the media continues to talk about the typical "middle class" who all have loving families to turn to, more than one vehicle to drive, a rich array of community services to go to, the media also tends to portray the "other Ontario" in a stereotypical way. The food bank, which seems to be another money grabbing machine, hogs a lot of publicity at this time of the year pretending to be the saviour of all the fallen souls and broken spirits this chronic depression left behind. Certainly, they are not necessarily stereotyping the poor, but they're doing nothing else for them either, such as what I'd want if I were to even visit an agency like that, and that is, to be pulled out of poverty and be given some hope for a future in my life. If all I am to be given is expired food rich with preservatives and artificial ingredients for three days and told to come back again two months from now, while their 'researchers' take down way too much information about me, I would just want to run ... run far away. It's time we shut these charities down and started pushing for policies that work.
While I never had much of a family while growing up, I certainly do have and value a strong sense of independence. That should be upheld by our society. That doesn't mean, society should just tell people in their darkest nights to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", but no ... society should come together once more and find ways to get people out of desperate straits once and for all and to actually provide and promote the kind of equal opportunity that our current media pretends that our society still offers. That means we need to stop pretending that everything is fine for most of us, that most families are pulling down $80,000 to $90,000 in total household income, or that families can go back to the 1950s and rely in a single earner and get all their needs met. We need to stop living in the past, turn off the TV, put away that newspaper and start looking around you and talk to the people you see.
Instead of assuming certain people are certain ways because ... (fill in whatever self-blaming principle you think fits), we need to ask ourselves what we as a community can do to make things different enough so that the people we see who are in trouble can find themselves out of trouble and be able to stand on their own two feet, given resources that should be universally available and not just "targeted" to those "in need", or in other words, the "damaged goods", "the poor" or "less fortunate". We need to find ways so we rely less on charity and the goodwill of others, as fairweather as it might be, to fill our basic needs. We need to have what we all need in our own communities, our own neighbourhoods and our own homes what we need to maintain ourselves and live our lives out in dignity.
Until then, we must all fight and place the responsibility at the feet of our policy makers that want to make it hard for those who were not born with Daddy's trust account or one of the few remaining good jobs left on this planet, to get by and have a reasonable quality of life. An election is rumoured to be held in the spring of 2014, and the last thing I want to hear on the hustings is how a typical Ontario family lives, unless those making these statements have met and lived the lives of real people, such as the ones I am talking about.
Showing posts with label Christmas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christmas. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
BAH HUMBUG!
Another Christmas has come and gone.
We certainly don't believe any children are reading this website, are they now? They've already sprung from the beds four mornings ago and whipped their way to the Christmas tree to open their presents. Imagine when every child does that, what the amount of paper wasted might be?
On Christmas Eve night, we followed Santa Claus' path on Norad.Tracking.Santa and we waited and we waited and we waited ... we actually believed we heard some hoof prints on our roof, with a fat man dressed in a red suit looking for a chimney. And finding none, he took off and flew away ... "Now, Dasher! Now, Dancer! Now, Prancer, and Vixen! On, Comet! On, Cupid! On, Donder and Blitzen!", and of course, poor Rudolph.
I know it's true ... I read about it on the Internet!
If there really was a Santa Claus, do you think we would be able to logically explain a few things to our children? Perhaps, this website is a start ...
There are six billion people in the world, and the population is growing larger and larger each day. The number of young children is much higher in developing countries, where we see all those commercials with kids with fat bellies and flies in their hair and a voice-over telling us to give, give, give ... until it hurts. At least a third of the world's population are children.
That means Santa Claus has to consider at least two billion children to find gifts for and to deliver them personally to each and every child. He only has one night in which to do it. Being generous, give him 24 hours, as the earth turns it becomes dark at some point every twenty-four hours.
So we watched Santa right from the very beginning, except it was very difficult to see him, as the sack full of toys was so huge that it can fit several small planets inside, let alone toys ... and stored atop a sleigh driven by eight magical reindeer led by a baby one with a shiny nose.
Those reindeer must have been working out! Hup-two, hup-two, hup-two!!! It certainly isn't Santa himself, as he always looks as though he can lose a few pounds.
And the sleigh travels at such speed. Imagine how many houses must contain those two billion plus children. Let us be conservative and say there are two children per household, and therefore, one billion homes have to be visited within twenty-four hours to stop on the rooftop, slide down the chimney and dump all of those toys under the trees within ... and don't forget, many homes leave milk and cookies for Santa Claus as well.
At the rate he must travel to get all his work done, he will certainly need them; however, he must inhale awfully fast, because at a rate of 0.0000864 second per house he must travel. That doesn't leave much time to stop, take a breather, slip down a chimney, taking all the toys that belong to that house and dropping them off under the trees within ...
That is assuming all the houses have a tree to put the toys under, or have a chimney to climb down, or even have kids in them ... we can always dream, can we?
Let us assume this is even possible under the laws of physics. As a conservative estimate, even if Santa just gives one toy to each child, which we KNOW this is not true, because in TV commercials and the movies, there are usually many gifts under the tree for each child. Now that has to be true! Because we saw it on TV!!!
Anyways, let us assume the weight of each gift would be between 3 - 10 pounds on average. Given the conservative estimate of one gift per child, we are looking at an average weight of 6.5 pounds X 2 billion gifts, which adds up to 13 billion pounds. That is a lot of weight to bear, even for the most toughest structures built to withstand California earthquakes!
Can you imagine an object of that weight and size landing on your roof, even for a millionth of a second and not expecting anything to happen to your house?
What about those houses that don't have chimneys? What about children that live in apartment buildings? Does Santa somehow crawl through the duct work? How about those mud shacks that many children in the developing world live in? Of course, Santa has to go to those houses too, because he is not prejudiced, nor picky on nationality, religion, or silly things like that.
Don't forget that Santa also must remember the names of all those two billion children and where they live at all times, and precisely where they will be staying on Christmas Eve night. What about children that end up in homeless shelters, orphanages, juvenile detention centres, hospitals or other ill begotten locations? Yes, if you truly believe in Santa, he will stop by these places too ...
It must take Santa at least a year to remember all the names, addresses and specific preferences of each child. He would have to order parts, direct his elves to make the requisite toys to be delivered and supervise his staff to manufacture these toys, as well as issue quality control, e-test whenever required, etc. That is an amazing amount of work in itself!
Hold on, hold on ... who exactly PAYS for all the raw materials, the machinery, the elves, and the fuel whatever it is, that gets Santa from here, there and everywhere? It has to be the taxpayers, right? The same people who pay Superman, Batman, Spiderman, and all those other super-heroes that save our day, right? You can't imagine this is ALL volunteer work, do you?
Like, who would VOLUNTARILY dress up in a red suit, jump in a sleigh, and say, "Ho ho ho", and fly all over the world, while people like me point at them and laugh at their antics? I would wonder if Santa has a real job, like the rest of us do ... or does he do this full-time?
Santa does have his admirers though. Hundreds of thousands of imitators work the malls year after year after year, trying to fool the children into thinking they just might be the REAL Santa Claus. Santa stars in movies, even many cartoons. He is famous.
Yet he has the same complex that the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and the Groundhog have in common: That is a complex where they feel they are being ignored, that they do not really exist, apart from people's imaginations and the odd television commercial or two at this time of the year.
Perhaps, the American Psychiatric Association should be consulted for their next version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, as to what the name of this particular malady might be. Or what the name of the disorder might be for those that want to imitate or pretend to be Santa Claus, even if he does not actually exist.
The only way to prove he exists is to contact agencies like the Internal Revenue Agency, Canada Revenue Agency, or any other similar taxation department, including prying it out of those Swiss Bankers, to see if anybody by the name of Santa Claus has declared an income at all this year, last year, the year before that, etc., and if so, where that income came from.
I could only guess it is the same income that funds the Post Office, the military, the police and fire departments. You and me taxpayer. You can't imagine somebody wanting to PAY Santa Claus for doing these ridiculous feats year after year after year, do you? It has to be the taxpayers!
What about checking lists, to see who is naughty or nice? Do such lists exist? One might argue they do. We have "no fly" lists, CSIS has "files" on various Canadians, and the Bilderberg group meets periodically to discuss certain "citizens". It is just as easy to stretch this to believe there are such naughty and nice lists ... how do people get on either list? Is there a phone number to call to report somebody, or send best wishes for? Or are these "lists" created in the same way that God determines who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell? Meaning, there is no number to call, but he just "knows".
There has to be a number of people on the naughty list, because there are specialized coal dealers in the world. Where else would Santa find lumps of coal to hand out to all of these "naughty" people? One place that comes to mind is Cole's: The Coal People. They have a few branches here in the city, so there must be a LOT of naughty people running about.
One also wonders what makes a reindeer fly. If any of you seen the way our cats can get at night time, you would probably be close, and figure that the reindeer are simply eating what our cats are eating ... on steroids.
Do you still believe in Santa Claus? If you do, you probably had a bit too much jolly with your eggnog this year. Merry belated Christmas, folks and have a fantastic and comical New Year! This one is on the house, for sure ...
We certainly don't believe any children are reading this website, are they now? They've already sprung from the beds four mornings ago and whipped their way to the Christmas tree to open their presents. Imagine when every child does that, what the amount of paper wasted might be?
On Christmas Eve night, we followed Santa Claus' path on Norad.Tracking.Santa and we waited and we waited and we waited ... we actually believed we heard some hoof prints on our roof, with a fat man dressed in a red suit looking for a chimney. And finding none, he took off and flew away ... "Now, Dasher! Now, Dancer! Now, Prancer, and Vixen! On, Comet! On, Cupid! On, Donder and Blitzen!", and of course, poor Rudolph.
I know it's true ... I read about it on the Internet!
If there really was a Santa Claus, do you think we would be able to logically explain a few things to our children? Perhaps, this website is a start ...
There are six billion people in the world, and the population is growing larger and larger each day. The number of young children is much higher in developing countries, where we see all those commercials with kids with fat bellies and flies in their hair and a voice-over telling us to give, give, give ... until it hurts. At least a third of the world's population are children.
That means Santa Claus has to consider at least two billion children to find gifts for and to deliver them personally to each and every child. He only has one night in which to do it. Being generous, give him 24 hours, as the earth turns it becomes dark at some point every twenty-four hours.
So we watched Santa right from the very beginning, except it was very difficult to see him, as the sack full of toys was so huge that it can fit several small planets inside, let alone toys ... and stored atop a sleigh driven by eight magical reindeer led by a baby one with a shiny nose.
Those reindeer must have been working out! Hup-two, hup-two, hup-two!!! It certainly isn't Santa himself, as he always looks as though he can lose a few pounds.
And the sleigh travels at such speed. Imagine how many houses must contain those two billion plus children. Let us be conservative and say there are two children per household, and therefore, one billion homes have to be visited within twenty-four hours to stop on the rooftop, slide down the chimney and dump all of those toys under the trees within ... and don't forget, many homes leave milk and cookies for Santa Claus as well.
At the rate he must travel to get all his work done, he will certainly need them; however, he must inhale awfully fast, because at a rate of 0.0000864 second per house he must travel. That doesn't leave much time to stop, take a breather, slip down a chimney, taking all the toys that belong to that house and dropping them off under the trees within ...
That is assuming all the houses have a tree to put the toys under, or have a chimney to climb down, or even have kids in them ... we can always dream, can we?
Let us assume this is even possible under the laws of physics. As a conservative estimate, even if Santa just gives one toy to each child, which we KNOW this is not true, because in TV commercials and the movies, there are usually many gifts under the tree for each child. Now that has to be true! Because we saw it on TV!!!
Anyways, let us assume the weight of each gift would be between 3 - 10 pounds on average. Given the conservative estimate of one gift per child, we are looking at an average weight of 6.5 pounds X 2 billion gifts, which adds up to 13 billion pounds. That is a lot of weight to bear, even for the most toughest structures built to withstand California earthquakes!
Can you imagine an object of that weight and size landing on your roof, even for a millionth of a second and not expecting anything to happen to your house?
What about those houses that don't have chimneys? What about children that live in apartment buildings? Does Santa somehow crawl through the duct work? How about those mud shacks that many children in the developing world live in? Of course, Santa has to go to those houses too, because he is not prejudiced, nor picky on nationality, religion, or silly things like that.
Don't forget that Santa also must remember the names of all those two billion children and where they live at all times, and precisely where they will be staying on Christmas Eve night. What about children that end up in homeless shelters, orphanages, juvenile detention centres, hospitals or other ill begotten locations? Yes, if you truly believe in Santa, he will stop by these places too ...
It must take Santa at least a year to remember all the names, addresses and specific preferences of each child. He would have to order parts, direct his elves to make the requisite toys to be delivered and supervise his staff to manufacture these toys, as well as issue quality control, e-test whenever required, etc. That is an amazing amount of work in itself!
Hold on, hold on ... who exactly PAYS for all the raw materials, the machinery, the elves, and the fuel whatever it is, that gets Santa from here, there and everywhere? It has to be the taxpayers, right? The same people who pay Superman, Batman, Spiderman, and all those other super-heroes that save our day, right? You can't imagine this is ALL volunteer work, do you?
Like, who would VOLUNTARILY dress up in a red suit, jump in a sleigh, and say, "Ho ho ho", and fly all over the world, while people like me point at them and laugh at their antics? I would wonder if Santa has a real job, like the rest of us do ... or does he do this full-time?
Santa does have his admirers though. Hundreds of thousands of imitators work the malls year after year after year, trying to fool the children into thinking they just might be the REAL Santa Claus. Santa stars in movies, even many cartoons. He is famous.
Yet he has the same complex that the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and the Groundhog have in common: That is a complex where they feel they are being ignored, that they do not really exist, apart from people's imaginations and the odd television commercial or two at this time of the year.
Perhaps, the American Psychiatric Association should be consulted for their next version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, as to what the name of this particular malady might be. Or what the name of the disorder might be for those that want to imitate or pretend to be Santa Claus, even if he does not actually exist.
The only way to prove he exists is to contact agencies like the Internal Revenue Agency, Canada Revenue Agency, or any other similar taxation department, including prying it out of those Swiss Bankers, to see if anybody by the name of Santa Claus has declared an income at all this year, last year, the year before that, etc., and if so, where that income came from.
I could only guess it is the same income that funds the Post Office, the military, the police and fire departments. You and me taxpayer. You can't imagine somebody wanting to PAY Santa Claus for doing these ridiculous feats year after year after year, do you? It has to be the taxpayers!
What about checking lists, to see who is naughty or nice? Do such lists exist? One might argue they do. We have "no fly" lists, CSIS has "files" on various Canadians, and the Bilderberg group meets periodically to discuss certain "citizens". It is just as easy to stretch this to believe there are such naughty and nice lists ... how do people get on either list? Is there a phone number to call to report somebody, or send best wishes for? Or are these "lists" created in the same way that God determines who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell? Meaning, there is no number to call, but he just "knows".
There has to be a number of people on the naughty list, because there are specialized coal dealers in the world. Where else would Santa find lumps of coal to hand out to all of these "naughty" people? One place that comes to mind is Cole's: The Coal People. They have a few branches here in the city, so there must be a LOT of naughty people running about.
One also wonders what makes a reindeer fly. If any of you seen the way our cats can get at night time, you would probably be close, and figure that the reindeer are simply eating what our cats are eating ... on steroids.
Do you still believe in Santa Claus? If you do, you probably had a bit too much jolly with your eggnog this year. Merry belated Christmas, folks and have a fantastic and comical New Year! This one is on the house, for sure ...
Thursday, December 25, 2008
AND MAY YOUR CHRISTMAS BE A CHARMED ONE ...
Christmas was always one of my favourite times of the year. It is not so much the giving and receiving of presents, but the presence of others that saves me from myself. After all, Christmas is one of the few times of the year I can truly take time off, as others are more involved in other aspects of their lives and are less concerned with legal hassles, except for the few odd emergencies I worked through in previous years.
While I love Christmas and always look forward in anticipation with the lights, the music and the whole idea of starting off fresh in a new year, it is also a time of year when my cynicism reaches fever pitch. The Salvation Army commercials come on about this time of the year, flashing their statistics on your TV screen, asking you to give, give, give. Food banks are forever predicting a "crisis" of sorts if some white knight or white knights do not come to the rescue with hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the homeless shelters promise to feed the hungry a turkey dinner.
This is a "feel good" time of the year for people who are comfortable. Giving money to a food bank, or a financial donation to a shelter seems to be the thing to do to ease oneself of the guilt of never having to have been a recipient of such a service. For those among us that give very large donations, most do not mind the press coverage - especially a company, as it shows "good corporate citizenship" (even though the same company receiving the heaps of good press may actually be one that pays low wages and treats their workers badly -- but how do we know?). Despite the "good citizenship" deeds that tend to be performed at this time of the year, we hardly give a thought about how the people at the receiving end feel about being at the receiving end. Has anybody ever asked them?
The charitable sector has become ingrained into our political culture to the point whereby we do not really think of those that receive our help, as any more than people who are needy, dependent and in some way, damaged goods. While this is certainly not a conscious assumption, nor is it present in every case of giving ... as I do know personal friends who have formed more reciprocal relationships with the people they set out to help. Unfortunately, this is an exception, not the rule.
When I speak to people who have gone to food banks or other charitable services on a regular basis (as opposed to going only for that one year when times were tough), I learn most of these folks have a very low self-esteem. Some do not believe they are "deserving" of a better life, such as a life where they would have enough resources to reasonably make choices. While they are thankful for the help, they do not see themselves as empowered human beings that are viewed by others as individuals with capabilities, talents and resources of their own. A portion of this group try to steer themselves away from charitable services, thinking they would "rather starve" than accept this help from anyone.
When prospective donors hear about this subset of people who refuse help, they are viewed as "mentally ill" or simply possessing "pride". However, when donors to these services are asked about the people they are "helping", once again - this population is viewed as somewhat helpless, dispossessed and unwanted, although they do acknowledge that some people are getting help as a result of "falling on hard times through no fault of their own". The complicated pseudo-relationship and inherent schema that is developed between the donor and the recipient is rarely considered in how recipients come to view themselves, or their own futures - when in my view, it has EVERYTHING to do with this attitude.
This is not about the people that provide services in this field, the thousands of volunteers that toil daily to sort through donations, others that appeal to the media for more donations and other persons, usually paid personnel that provide direct service to the recipients. It is more about the schema produced and not challenged by these same thousand points of light and the media that backs them about the necessary dichotomy between the helpers and the recipients, roles that are not portrayed as interchanged or interdependent. This role is further entrenched by the screening processes used by such charities to ensure each recipient is "deserving" of help.
Similar to any targeted welfare scheme, prospective recipients are encouraged to disengage themselves as actors and potential participants in their futures, but to focus on everything that is wrong with their lives ... in fact, as with many welfare schemes, one has to prove they have depersonalized themselves and spoiled their identity to the point that the helper is satisfied they have done all they can to reduce themselves to nothing. At the same time, nothing is offered up to address the situation that brought the recipient through their doors in the first place. Many trained in the service delivery model identify with the "spoiled identity" or "damaged goods" version of their entrails, as opposed to questioning why there appears to be a greater number of people each year in similar given circumstances.
While even the social work model professes to work against systemic barriers in favour of progressive social change, this is not what happens when people check their identities at the door to get the so-called "help" they need. The helper is there to "correct" supposed personal deficits of the disadvantaged, as opposed to helping them break barriers to join the "advantaged" part of society. For many social workers and others in related helping professions, they cannot even imagine their clients qualifying to do their jobs, for example.
While most helpers do not necessarily "blame the victim", they do nevertheless, view the victim as somewhat defective. The homeless man is "mentally ill". The single parent with two children in tow is always in abusive relationships. The single man who lost his apartment needs to learn how to balance his budget. The chronically unemployed are there because they are illiterate, lack high school and likely, do not have any skills. When other statistics are presented that show that recipients as a group look more similar to the group of "helpers" than they are dissimilar, helpers resist this interpretation.
I have focused some of my time over the years to talk to people who do not visit food banks, go to homeless shelters or seek other types of counseling assistance - even though their life circumstances and their needs may be identical to those that do use such services. While my observations may be anecdotal in nature, the same themes have emerged over time through different voices. What I have learned from these folks is instrumental and should be not only acknowledged by those that deliver services, but incorporated in their overall philosophy and structure of how they approach anybody coming through their door.
1. People want to be viewed as capable and willing to do for
themselves. A hand out in any way, shape or form makes
the person feel they are viewed as dependent and incapable
of doing for themselves, that somebody with "capability"
must do these things for them.
2. People want a hand up, not a hand out. Traditional charities
are very bad at recognizing that people want out of the
"welfare trap" more than they may believe they need
immediate help. People refusing services know they will not
get a job, get out of poverty or get into decent (and
independent) housing through the charitable service. In
other words, their programs do not work.
3. Even if the service is successful in getting the recipient
"housing", for example, the roof over their head becomes
a social service and not just a necessary product for living
in the community. Homeless people are assumed to be
incapable of living on their own and keeping their housing.
People with mental health issues are assumed to have
issues, outside the fact they are poor and nobody will hire
them, which led to them becoming homeless. Everybody
is deemed to want and need "subsidized" housing, despite
the fact the rules for this program tend to cripple initiative
and force people to remain in poverty.
People that do not want these services may need help to
secure an apartment, but after that, they do not want to
be fodder and continue to be a "cause" for ongoing income
for the charity. (The fact of this matter is those that can
live independently are often falsely assumed to not need
ANY help at all).
4. People want help to reach their full potential, not to
cripple it. Most of those refusing help do not want to
work in low-wage, insecure and low-skilled employment.
They want assistance in developing their career potential,
even though doing this may require funds for retraining,
partial employer subsidies and innovative partnerships
in one's respective community. Charities get paid to
"place" people, not get them out of poverty.
5. People want to work with their helpers as partners in
making systemic change. They want their helpers to
challenge employers that appear to not want persons
with disabilities working for them, or only want them if
the person is happy at working for half-wages. They
want to work with the helpers at making changes so that
the services of charities become less and less necessary.
6. Many of those refusing help feel that their presence as
"clients" of these agencies only "proves" demand and
thus, continues to generate ongoing funding for these
charities, regardless if their personal situation improves.
7. With regards to being given food, clothing, housing, etc.
- people feel they are not allowed to make choices. Why
is nobody giving those in need the necessary RESOURCES
to make these choices on their own, as opposed to making
these choices for them?
The very presence of these charities and the encouragement through the media, community influences and other forces, encourages those that want to "do good" to continue to donate and to otherwise continue to "prove" the legitimacy of these charities, as well as to continue to ignore and disregard the need for true systemic changes that would negate the need for the same.
We go ahead and have our Christmas with our families, go to work the next day or day after, and give to some charitable donation because society expects us to pick up the slack from the government. We do not think about the fact that continuing to support the status quo is taking away choices from those that can otherwise handle them with the resources given directly to them, instead of through an expensive and controlling bureaucracy. We do not think that we may be contributing to the continuation of the problem, not necessarily because we want to, but by donating to the charities, there is still no way any donor can reasonably review the success of any such charity in actually changing things for the people they serve.
Except next year at this very same time, even more people will be knocking on the doors of these same charities, many more in even more desperate circumstances. By continuing this cycle, we have to ask ourselves why we are not asking the correct questions and demanding to know why the more people give, the greater number of people end up in need ...
Think about what you are going to do in 2009, whether what you do will actually make a difference (systemic change) or just continue the same old, same old. If you ask me what I want to do, it is the former -- hands down!
Your thoughts?
While I love Christmas and always look forward in anticipation with the lights, the music and the whole idea of starting off fresh in a new year, it is also a time of year when my cynicism reaches fever pitch. The Salvation Army commercials come on about this time of the year, flashing their statistics on your TV screen, asking you to give, give, give. Food banks are forever predicting a "crisis" of sorts if some white knight or white knights do not come to the rescue with hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the homeless shelters promise to feed the hungry a turkey dinner.
This is a "feel good" time of the year for people who are comfortable. Giving money to a food bank, or a financial donation to a shelter seems to be the thing to do to ease oneself of the guilt of never having to have been a recipient of such a service. For those among us that give very large donations, most do not mind the press coverage - especially a company, as it shows "good corporate citizenship" (even though the same company receiving the heaps of good press may actually be one that pays low wages and treats their workers badly -- but how do we know?). Despite the "good citizenship" deeds that tend to be performed at this time of the year, we hardly give a thought about how the people at the receiving end feel about being at the receiving end. Has anybody ever asked them?
The charitable sector has become ingrained into our political culture to the point whereby we do not really think of those that receive our help, as any more than people who are needy, dependent and in some way, damaged goods. While this is certainly not a conscious assumption, nor is it present in every case of giving ... as I do know personal friends who have formed more reciprocal relationships with the people they set out to help. Unfortunately, this is an exception, not the rule.
When I speak to people who have gone to food banks or other charitable services on a regular basis (as opposed to going only for that one year when times were tough), I learn most of these folks have a very low self-esteem. Some do not believe they are "deserving" of a better life, such as a life where they would have enough resources to reasonably make choices. While they are thankful for the help, they do not see themselves as empowered human beings that are viewed by others as individuals with capabilities, talents and resources of their own. A portion of this group try to steer themselves away from charitable services, thinking they would "rather starve" than accept this help from anyone.
When prospective donors hear about this subset of people who refuse help, they are viewed as "mentally ill" or simply possessing "pride". However, when donors to these services are asked about the people they are "helping", once again - this population is viewed as somewhat helpless, dispossessed and unwanted, although they do acknowledge that some people are getting help as a result of "falling on hard times through no fault of their own". The complicated pseudo-relationship and inherent schema that is developed between the donor and the recipient is rarely considered in how recipients come to view themselves, or their own futures - when in my view, it has EVERYTHING to do with this attitude.
This is not about the people that provide services in this field, the thousands of volunteers that toil daily to sort through donations, others that appeal to the media for more donations and other persons, usually paid personnel that provide direct service to the recipients. It is more about the schema produced and not challenged by these same thousand points of light and the media that backs them about the necessary dichotomy between the helpers and the recipients, roles that are not portrayed as interchanged or interdependent. This role is further entrenched by the screening processes used by such charities to ensure each recipient is "deserving" of help.
Similar to any targeted welfare scheme, prospective recipients are encouraged to disengage themselves as actors and potential participants in their futures, but to focus on everything that is wrong with their lives ... in fact, as with many welfare schemes, one has to prove they have depersonalized themselves and spoiled their identity to the point that the helper is satisfied they have done all they can to reduce themselves to nothing. At the same time, nothing is offered up to address the situation that brought the recipient through their doors in the first place. Many trained in the service delivery model identify with the "spoiled identity" or "damaged goods" version of their entrails, as opposed to questioning why there appears to be a greater number of people each year in similar given circumstances.
While even the social work model professes to work against systemic barriers in favour of progressive social change, this is not what happens when people check their identities at the door to get the so-called "help" they need. The helper is there to "correct" supposed personal deficits of the disadvantaged, as opposed to helping them break barriers to join the "advantaged" part of society. For many social workers and others in related helping professions, they cannot even imagine their clients qualifying to do their jobs, for example.
While most helpers do not necessarily "blame the victim", they do nevertheless, view the victim as somewhat defective. The homeless man is "mentally ill". The single parent with two children in tow is always in abusive relationships. The single man who lost his apartment needs to learn how to balance his budget. The chronically unemployed are there because they are illiterate, lack high school and likely, do not have any skills. When other statistics are presented that show that recipients as a group look more similar to the group of "helpers" than they are dissimilar, helpers resist this interpretation.
I have focused some of my time over the years to talk to people who do not visit food banks, go to homeless shelters or seek other types of counseling assistance - even though their life circumstances and their needs may be identical to those that do use such services. While my observations may be anecdotal in nature, the same themes have emerged over time through different voices. What I have learned from these folks is instrumental and should be not only acknowledged by those that deliver services, but incorporated in their overall philosophy and structure of how they approach anybody coming through their door.
1. People want to be viewed as capable and willing to do for
themselves. A hand out in any way, shape or form makes
the person feel they are viewed as dependent and incapable
of doing for themselves, that somebody with "capability"
must do these things for them.
2. People want a hand up, not a hand out. Traditional charities
are very bad at recognizing that people want out of the
"welfare trap" more than they may believe they need
immediate help. People refusing services know they will not
get a job, get out of poverty or get into decent (and
independent) housing through the charitable service. In
other words, their programs do not work.
3. Even if the service is successful in getting the recipient
"housing", for example, the roof over their head becomes
a social service and not just a necessary product for living
in the community. Homeless people are assumed to be
incapable of living on their own and keeping their housing.
People with mental health issues are assumed to have
issues, outside the fact they are poor and nobody will hire
them, which led to them becoming homeless. Everybody
is deemed to want and need "subsidized" housing, despite
the fact the rules for this program tend to cripple initiative
and force people to remain in poverty.
People that do not want these services may need help to
secure an apartment, but after that, they do not want to
be fodder and continue to be a "cause" for ongoing income
for the charity. (The fact of this matter is those that can
live independently are often falsely assumed to not need
ANY help at all).
4. People want help to reach their full potential, not to
cripple it. Most of those refusing help do not want to
work in low-wage, insecure and low-skilled employment.
They want assistance in developing their career potential,
even though doing this may require funds for retraining,
partial employer subsidies and innovative partnerships
in one's respective community. Charities get paid to
"place" people, not get them out of poverty.
5. People want to work with their helpers as partners in
making systemic change. They want their helpers to
challenge employers that appear to not want persons
with disabilities working for them, or only want them if
the person is happy at working for half-wages. They
want to work with the helpers at making changes so that
the services of charities become less and less necessary.
6. Many of those refusing help feel that their presence as
"clients" of these agencies only "proves" demand and
thus, continues to generate ongoing funding for these
charities, regardless if their personal situation improves.
7. With regards to being given food, clothing, housing, etc.
- people feel they are not allowed to make choices. Why
is nobody giving those in need the necessary RESOURCES
to make these choices on their own, as opposed to making
these choices for them?
The very presence of these charities and the encouragement through the media, community influences and other forces, encourages those that want to "do good" to continue to donate and to otherwise continue to "prove" the legitimacy of these charities, as well as to continue to ignore and disregard the need for true systemic changes that would negate the need for the same.
We go ahead and have our Christmas with our families, go to work the next day or day after, and give to some charitable donation because society expects us to pick up the slack from the government. We do not think about the fact that continuing to support the status quo is taking away choices from those that can otherwise handle them with the resources given directly to them, instead of through an expensive and controlling bureaucracy. We do not think that we may be contributing to the continuation of the problem, not necessarily because we want to, but by donating to the charities, there is still no way any donor can reasonably review the success of any such charity in actually changing things for the people they serve.
Except next year at this very same time, even more people will be knocking on the doors of these same charities, many more in even more desperate circumstances. By continuing this cycle, we have to ask ourselves why we are not asking the correct questions and demanding to know why the more people give, the greater number of people end up in need ...
Think about what you are going to do in 2009, whether what you do will actually make a difference (systemic change) or just continue the same old, same old. If you ask me what I want to do, it is the former -- hands down!
Your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
