Shaivism vs. Vaishnavism

God cares for everyone, it is truly pathetic to see drug addicts and homeless- don't care about themselves.

 

I don't think the homeless or the drug addict are in the position they are in because they don't care for themselves.
Often it is the fault of society. It is often because other people don't care about them. It is easy for you to judge others as pathetic, but you don't know their histories, or the reasons why a particular person may have ended up in a given condition.
And don't forget, in the Bhagavatam it is said that devotees of god are as happy living under a tree as in a palace.

BTW - as well as being non-injectable, cannabis isn't addictive.

 

I pretty much agree with you on this, Jedi.

Where I live...USA, large southern metro area...professional beggars are a very visible class unto themselves...many a time I've waited at a stoplight while a young, healthy guy with all his limbs, a cigarette hanging from his mouth, stands there with some kind of sign saying why he needs a handout...yeah, a kick in the ass is all the compassion these people need.

But then, 1970's-80's liberal-backed legislation regarding the mentally ill has made it almost impossible for family members or the state to keep the really severly ill people institutionalized or on medication...as a result, many of them have ended up dumped the streets. I've seen quite a few homeless people like this as well...they're not hard to distinguish from the phonies...they're a pathetic mess, and a truly intractable social problem.

You also see the guys who aren't mentally ill to any serious degree but marginally employable at best, many of them middle-aged Vietnam veterans, missing a limb or two, often alcoholic...I don't fault them for begging; it's probably the best choice for those with 99-to-1 odds against them.

 

The mentally ill often end up on the streets over here too. Again, thanks to cuts in welfare spending by successive governments since the 80's. Providing decent care for the mentally isn't much of a vote winner.

We also get aggressive beggars on the strrets. They are mainly alcoholics who want money for drink. A commodity the powers that be are only too happy to see provided to them - since recent legislation, now 24/7. if they can afford it.

This is a far worse social problem than soft drug use IMO.

The truth is we live in dis-functional societies where a ceratin number of social casualties is an inevitability. It is then up to those who seek to maintain the status-quo to see to it that adequate provision is made to look after such people, many of whom have been brutalized by far too many 'kicks in the ass' since early childhood.
We in the UK have effectually created social ghettos, and this has given rise to a particular type of underclass, popularly known as 'chavs' who frankly are just reproducing themselves amidst ever deteriorating conditions of life. Often, the children are criminalized at an early age, and effectively deprived of any realistic opportumity to better themselves. They are locked into a vicious circle. The girls are often pregnant by age 15, and inevitably the social imprint is passed from generation to generation.

I don't know if there is an easy answer to this. Better social policy, better education, more opportunities, urban re-development etc are all long term ways it could begin to be addressed.
But for the forseesbale future, I think we will continue to see these people on the streets.

This is the situation in the UK -one of Europe's and indeed the world's most developed and wealthy nations. If we look at places like India....begging is an industry there on a massive scale.
Africa? don't even think about it....

 

Here in the USA the mentally-ill homeless problem is exacerbated on both sides of the political fence...cost-cutting conservatives and liberals who put the "rights" of the hopelessly mentally ill above the rights of their families and the public at large...and the mentally ill people are the only losers. I tend to blame "liberals" as a kneejerk reaction because I fall more to the conservative side of the middle line, but for this situation in America both ideologies are at fault.

The healthy, professional type of beggars I mentioned in my earlier post tend to be threatening if not downright aggressive...this isn't much of a problem for a fit 200 pound man(myself) but they can and do put the shakedown on women and the elderly.

Agreed.

I'll take the conservative stance here...if someone's healthy, they need to be working for a living, not begging and hassling people, no matter how shitty a chidhood they had.

During our 1998 visit to London we saw these very types of people, and they had a particularly British/Dickensian quality, different from the poor in America...it was quite shocking to me. There were a lot of alcoholic street people in the Covent Garden area, where we stayed. Poverty alongside affluence, just like in the US.

Here, there are still traditional, mainly black ghetto areas in all large cities, and federal anti-discrimination housing laws have allowed many formerly-well kept areas of apartment buildings to become large pockets of poverty that are mixed in with much more affluent housing areas.

Yes, the problems with our counterparts for "chavs" exist here on a very large scale.

All countries been looking for answers to these problems for many years, and they only seem to defy solution. On the positive side, the 1960's civil-rights upheavals the US did produce equal legal status for black people and infinitely greater upward-mobility opportunity for them...the results are very visible, even in the traditionally racist south.

 

is the vaisnavas kicking of homeless from where they came to be known as having lotus feet?

 

In the UK I think it was actually Mrs.Thatcher and her swing towards free markets etc that has helped create social mobility and opportunity, rather than liberals or indeed the left - but also in the years since her time, the underclass seems to have increased.
Previous socialist goverments spent enormous amounts on the 'welfare state' - which produced many good things like free health care, unemployment benefits, and pensions for all, but also became a huge economic burden.
Thatcher's answer was to 'pull the rotten tooth', and no doubt her policies had negative ramifications which echo to the present day in British society. But overall, she was correct - the old style socialism was not very cost effective, Instead of taxing people to the hilt to pay for it all, she cut spending, and put the money into peole's pockets, also freeing up financial markets and easing credit restrictions, so that as I say, the majority benefit, social mobility became attainable for many more people, and the major benefits like health care for free were retained.

Things have become more polarized in one way, and yet materially, most people are better off then 25 years ago.
On the other hand, society has become more vicious, more selfish, more callous. What was good in the old system - sense of community etc, has largely disappeared.

The trouble is too that that kids born into urban decay and hopeless crime ridden housing estates in inner cities are becoming more and more 'outsiders' - rejected by mainstream society, alienated, often labelled as criminals whilst still young teenagers, and with not much hope in reality of self improvement. Perhaps they could help themselves, but they need to be enabled to do so. It seems to me that no one is taking responsibility. It's no use to look to the parents , as they're often totally irresponsible and exercise only a negative influence. Schools can't cope with disruptive pupils, so they are excluded - on the street they inevitably get into mischief of some sort.

If they end up, as many do. swelling the burgeoning prison population, it costs about four to five times as much to keep them locked up as to give them welfare benefits on the outside. No real attempt is made at rehabilitation whilst they're inside. So it's straight back to their old ways when they get released.And it means a huge cost to the economy. It would be wiser in my view to spend money eradicating the causes of crime on this level - which actually, is usually of a petty if persistent nature.

Anyway, just to clarify Spook - My own political tendency these days is towards a kind of liberal 'caring capitalism' - by caring I mean caring both for the eradication of poverty, and looking after the environment.

In the case of the individual beggar, my view is the same as with aid to Africa (not emergency aid - clearly that's different) - no use just giving people money which they will often abuse, You have to give them the rescources in a conditional way aimed at enabling them to pull themselves out of it.

 

Your mention of the services that got saved after Mrs Thatcher brought to mind...a touch of applied socialism would be very appropriate in the USA in the form of a national, universal-participation healthcare system of some type. What we've got here now is a disaster...not in terms of quality, but in terms of affordability and accessibility. It's a huge example of free-market failure to deliver, and, at this point, what I consider a national emergency.

Unfortunately, American politics are now simply a war of ideology and what good intentions that politicians of the opposing sides might have toward cooperation on important issues like healthcare are getting smothered in these ideological wars. Mr. Bush's side has conveniently postponed action on this and spent up a good part of the available funds in favor of the "war" on terror and their little ongoing project in Iraq.

I spoke of our traditional urban ghettos...the conditions and social consequences are pretty much identical to what you describe in the UK, though the look may be different.

Of course, what we have here is the insane and ongoing "war on drugs" which keeps our prisons full and getting fuller...it's a politically motivated demonization thing, with the Christian right and similar types being the principal supporters.

When I say I'm conservative, it means my general outlook on life...I had a very serious illness in my early 20's and difficult financial circumstances during the years of recovery...I worked my way back from something that could have easily sent me in the direction of being a chronic social dependent...and maybe a consequence of this is an extremely low tolerance for the the able-bodied and minded who choose to freeload. But, as you can see, I also favor some "liberal" social ideas such as universal healthcare and strongly oppose some ongoing conservative policies.

 

We actually have problems with the National Health Service - it is a very expensive thing (evidently, it is the 3rd largest organization in the world).
However, despite the fact that bits of it have been semi privatized, it remains free at the point of use, and is one of the good things about life in Britain.


Over here politics is actually less polarized now than at any time in the last 50 odd years. Both main parties work on the basis of free markets, both wish to retain social benefits like healthcare. The only issues seem to revolve around personalities and minor differences.

I am not happy myself with the way in which our present govt. has gone along with Bush on the war on terror. I see no real reason for the invasion of Iraq, and myself I'd be happier if we adopted more the European line. But - we like to sit in the midddle between America and Europe, and probably a lot of people here feel more in common with Americans than our European partners - something which goes back to WWII in some respects. If there is major division in British politics it is really over the issue of Europe and how far we should go towards a fedral European super-state, which is something I would generally favour.

The problem for the next govt we get is how can they disengage in Iraq? It seems to me that whilst it was easy to go in, getting out isn't going to be easy. It would be irresposible now to pull out US and UK troops having thoroughly de-stabilized the place - but I fear that the longer we're there, the more it is going to stoke up Islamist terrorism.

 

I imagine that any kind of universal healthcare system in the US would be based on means, in the sense that cost to users would be graduated. Medical care will never be cheap but the good thing about such a system is that no one could be kicked off, or denied coverage because of preexisting conditions....these are big problems with our current private-company insurance system. Another idea that has been floated is to allow those aged 50 to 55 and over to buy into the already-established Medicare system, which is universal for those 65 and over, as an option to using the private companies. To me that's a very sensible concept, as its us older folks who face huge premiums, and getting abruptly kicked off private plans every few years or denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. In any case whatever evolves along these lines in the USA will involve both the public and private sectors...we'll never have a full system of what conservative polits disparagingly refer to as "socialized medicine" here.

Where we are in Iraq is certainly going to shape our congressional elections, upcoming early this Nov., and the direction of the USA for a long time to come. Mr. Bush has 2 yrs to go and the war could certainly award him "lameduck"...i.e. legislatively powerless...status for the remainder of his time in office, and pave the way for a Democrat administration in 2008.

What you say is right-on...Iraq seems to be a lose-lose predicament right now...it's heartbreaking.

 

I'm sure that a solution needs to be found. It is a paradox that people living in the most advanced nation on earth (in some ways) can't get access to healthcare.
Over here, it's funded by a special tax, separate from income tax: 'National Insurance'. The original idea was that NI contributions would pay for healthcare and also unemployment/sickness benefits as well as pensions.

The problem today in seeking to introduce such a system would be that the 'haves' don't want to pay more tax.

But our system although free and obviously a great benefit has its problems. Funding it is like a bottonless pit, and as new medical technologies come online, it gets ever more expensive. Thus we have a situation where often one has to wait several months for treatment, and certain drugs are deemed too expensive etc. That's led to some court cases recently, esp over anti-breast cancer drugs - which have actually resulted in the drugs being prescribed.

We Brits, esp of my generation and younger, tend to take it for granted that we'll get free treatment - because it's been that way all our lives.
I myself had a scan just a couple of weeks ago (nothing wrong - it was only a precautionary measure to ensure I don't have an anurism, as my father & aunt both died from that) - if I'd had to pay it would have cost me about £100, and maybe I'd not have gone. As it is, I now feel confident that at least I don't have that particular problem.

I would love to see a world where everyone had access to free health care. So many people suffer needlessly simply because they can't afford treatment.
As a believer in technological advancement, I feel it is essential that the benefits it brings should be universally available.

 

Bill...health insurance premiums through private companies have gotten so exorbitant, with no controls on increases, and their treatment of consumers so poor and unpredictable that I'm sure there are enough "haves" over here that would opt for a higher tax in place of these premiums, just to ensure a steady situation. My wife and I fall more towards the "have" category and we would certainly not object to improvements along this line...pay for Medicare instead of private insurance.


America is a funny place...many people want things to stay the way they are for ideological reasons and will put up with a load of crap for the status quo to continue....and yes, these folks are often "haves" but there are plenty of middle and working class as well who vote ideology.

 

I think they need to do what Guliani did in New York with his 'get them off streets policy'. It was very effective but then this new bloomberg is messing everything up.

thats basically true, they start demanding money as if it is their right to have it. I told one beggar once that i won't give him money, he just started asking other people right after i said that. then i went to a store and bought him a veg burger and he protested and took it anyway.

The biggest problem with welfare is this... people use their cards to get cash and go buy some beer, cigarettes and probably drugs.

Is it truly racist though? I hate to ask you this but a bunch of family friends of ours were living in texas, they hurried back to India after like a year and said they didn't like it... i can't imagine how racism can still be there, but probably because i am from new york and 2 out of 5 people are non white and 3 out of 5 people don't speak english in an American accent, so people don't really care.

 

I agree with you a bit Jedi about homeless people and welfare in the US....if you give them food they get annoyed...tis interesting.

As for welfare...I think we should still have it...it should just be regulated...because just as there is corruption and people who missuse it...there are also people who need it to get up on their feet again. It should be time limited...you only get it for a certain time (like...max 1 year or 2)...in order for you to get a job and stability and settled enough to not need welfare...you know?

 

The mayor here pushed through a similar policy and there were a lot less pandhandlers for awhile but they're appearing again.

I've heard local news stories of people giving beggars food and having it thrown back at them, and also people responding to the "will work for food" signs with offers of meals and money for chores and the beggars laughed and cursed at them.

Here in Texas they can't cash in foodstamps or use them in stores to buy that stuff, but they are known to be traded on the "blackmarket".

Ask me anything!

Are you saying that your family friends left because they encountered racist attitudes or saw a lot of this?

There's a very large Indian population here and they seem to be well settled in...indeed, most are professional and business people...but Texas isn't the international center that NYC is and the working-class white redneck population and "culture" is very much a part of the scene, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if Indians get the racist treatment occasionally.

One incident I do remember clearly...soon after the 9-11-01 events a couple of rednecks in a pickup pulled a pistol on an Indian woman in traditional dress who was walking in the area of the local Hare Krishna temple. No physical harm came to her but it was a disgraceful event.

 

Yea and it works both ways actually, I think ... just the other day there was a man in the library who wanted some kids to stay quiet, he first was polite and then said something like don't talk here or something, and all of a sudden these Indian kids get up and start pushing him around and finally say that he is racist when the librarian showed up... poor guy, i felt really bad for him, he left after that to avoid confrontation... i guess people can twist anything around to intimidate other people.

 

Wow...a little reverse discrimination. Maybe it's a stereotype, but I thought Indian/American kids were well-behaved.

 

heh... I hate the term redneck. It's up there with the N word.

 

I'd say it's impossible to know what hurts or helps someone, unless your stating you have the heart and mind of God.

Materially it may help the homeless and society at large to not have them begging but working.

But spiritually I havent a clue really.

I'd give them the opportunity to change their state of reality, but if they didn't I wouldn't judge this in either a postive or negative manner.

 

If you lived in Texas, you would come to appreciate the deeper significance.