Meanwhile, in the Windy City: "Chicago is abuzz with the story of Richard Dorsey a 36-year old "homeless" man evicted from a shelter he created on the underside of a drawbridge spanning the Chicago River near Lake Shore Drive." says Daily Dose
I certainly am all for the livelyhood of the precious hawks, not to mention the spectacle that has befallen these uppereastsiders... but let's get some perspective here... The man under the drawbridge deserves the activism of his fellow humans more than the hawks.
The activism for the hawks is a placebo of sorts... It satisfies our notions that in saving "nature", we are saving our species.
The guy under the bridge has plenty of homeless shelters in Chicago he can go to - literllaty hundreds of them. He is a sociopath that cannot even coexist with other people, that is why he is under a bridge.
The hawk is facing adversity of its own, yet has adapted to the unatural built environement. Certainly a human is as resilient as the hawk.
Homeless shelters and our tax dollars to help the less fortunate is about all the activism we should give.
Note: I'm not saying just focus on the guy in Chicago. I was talking about the plight of all the homeless.
ArchAngel: what you say seems sensible, however the proof is in the pudding. If you visit ( & I don't know where you live) NYC or SF or LA or Santa Cruz etc you can see clearly that either we're not doing well enough or someone is not spending our tax dollars right.
I live in the middle of one of the largest safehavens for homeless people - Chicago. Im not saying he's a sociopath because he lives under a bridge, I'm saying he's living under a bridge because he's a sociopath. There are plenty of places for him to go to get a warm bed and a hot meal - plenty.
If he wanted help or hasn't rejected hep multiple times, he could spend the rest of his life on our tab - they choose not to, and opt for the bridge.
As far as not spending our tax dollars right, that's true - any government program is an inefficient bureaucracy where the tax based financing never makes it to the intended recipient, but rather the lazy employee who has no concept of business economics or profit-based efficiency.
right ArchAngel - do away with the social safetynet. useless.
if you admit that he is a sociopath then you are also saying he has a disease and thus that he has a cure. if he has a cure there should be a resource. the fact is that the resource is not there and the cycle feeds on itself.
from newstanard: The number of families asking for housing assistance jumped by 7 percent this year, and the mayors report that almost a third of those requesting emergency shelter were turned away, compared to 23 percent overall.
The cities reported that people were remaining homeless for an average of 8 months, and that there was an average wait of 20 months for public housing. People had to wait an average of 35 months for Section 8 rent assistance. Additionally, over half of the cities said they had to stop accepting applications for at least one housing program because of lengthy waiting lists.
According to the report, 41 percent of the homeless population is comprised of single men, families with children represent 40 percent, single women make up 14 percent and 5 percent are unaccompanied youth.
While homelessness and hunger are often considered never-ending problems without permanent solutions, advocates and service providers disagree. The National Alliance to End Homelessness has put together an aggressive plan called "A Plan, Not a Dream: How to End Homelessness in 10 Years."
Tax the rich to feed the poor - leave the working stiff out of it, to enjoy his or her hard-earned life....that would be nice. My property taxes doubled this year coincidental with the Federal Government cutting-off it's financing of the Chicago Housing Authority. So, I am now directly sharing the burden with the rest of Chicago's property-owning tax payers in supporting the out-of control public Housing debacle even the federal government could no longer justify financing. I wish I was a hawk - I'd fly to manhattan and live for free.
The problem with moral comparisons (abortion/death penalty, evolution/creationism) is illustrated in this discussion. The hawks and the homeless have absoulutely nothing in common and by comparing them to make any argument objectifies the subjects into a device for rhetorical reasons.
Oh, and the hawks just can't go anywhere on the East Coast. Once a male finds a hunting territory and depends on a food source it will stay put. It is simply beyond it's mental capacity to think "maybe I should move to another location because they don't like me here".
JG - the point is not to compare the homeless to the birds; the point is to question what it is we decide to protest about. The object is not these two subjects but the protesters themselves. It's about consciousness and ideas and not the objects upon which those ideas just so happen to land upon.
arriving late to this discussion, isn't the point here not that the homeless problem should be protested and the hawk ignored, but the fact that this specific person's plight is being ignored vs the hawks getting all the media coverage?
i don't think we can say: this is the more important problem, we should not protest any others. there are too many problems in the world. but,
i agree that a human being should take priority over a hawk, no matter how cute he is [the hawk], and let's recognize something triggers this protest- more than the cuteness of the animal, it's the easeness of the solution to a simple problem, vs having to tackle the immensity of the homeless problem which leaves most people too daunted to do anything.
i feel this is what makes us, as human beings, support the hawk and ignore the homeless man [i'm not saying i approve]. this world is so filled with conflict and unfairness that a simple problem becomes very attractive: because the hawk's problem will end, one way or another, and the homeless problem is much bigger, and is perceived as hopeless. this is the instinct we need to fight.
The crux: Everyone can talk about the hawk and feign concern and compassion without actually doing anything. This is so much more uncomfortable when you're talking about a person. Therefore it's taboo.
NEW YORK -- An advocate for two red-tailed hawks evicted last week from their nest at a luxury Manhattan building was arrested Tuesday and charged with harassing the CNN anchor Paula Zahn, who lives in the building, and her family, law enforcement sources said.
Lincoln Karim, 43, was arrested by plainclothes detectives as he prepared to lead a demonstration outside Zahn's Fifth Avenue apartment building.
About a year later, we all know what happened with Pale Male but does anybody know what happened to Richard Dorsey? The latest news I can find has him missing his court date in January of this year, after which a $10,000 bond forfeiture warrant was issued.
Oct 25, 05 1:33 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Red Tails Nest Removed from 5th Ave Building
Just one more reason to loath the Upper East Side
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/08/nyregion/08hawk.html?oref=login&incamp=article_popular_2
Local blog coverage:
Memefirst
Curbed
Curbed is calling for tips to find out who is responsible.
Paula Zahn might be involved in this, says Curbed!
wouldn't you figure it was the people on the 11th or 12th floors?
i mean people have been looking at that building with that mondo
camera/telescope thing in the park for years...
here's hoping one of those hawks attacks.
Meanwhile, in the Windy City: "Chicago is abuzz with the story of Richard Dorsey a 36-year old "homeless" man evicted from a shelter he created on the underside of a drawbridge spanning the Chicago River near Lake Shore Drive." says Daily Dose
I certainly am all for the livelyhood of the precious hawks, not to mention the spectacle that has befallen these uppereastsiders... but let's get some perspective here... The man under the drawbridge deserves the activism of his fellow humans more than the hawks.
The activism for the hawks is a placebo of sorts... It satisfies our notions that in saving "nature", we are saving our species.
...And thus excusing ourselves from having to take any REAL measures for our less fortunate neighbors. I <3 NY
Very true.
Plus, it would be a tough sell to convince people that Pale Male is an insane drug-addled criminal.
The guy under the bridge has plenty of homeless shelters in Chicago he can go to - literllaty hundreds of them. He is a sociopath that cannot even coexist with other people, that is why he is under a bridge.
The hawk is facing adversity of its own, yet has adapted to the unatural built environement. Certainly a human is as resilient as the hawk.
Homeless shelters and our tax dollars to help the less fortunate is about all the activism we should give.
I completely disagree with you.
And I don't believe he's a sociopath simply because he's living under a bridge. Do you know him personally, or is that just your prejudice speaking?
Note: I'm not saying just focus on the guy in Chicago. I was talking about the plight of all the homeless.
ArchAngel: what you say seems sensible, however the proof is in the pudding. If you visit ( & I don't know where you live) NYC or SF or LA or Santa Cruz etc you can see clearly that either we're not doing well enough or someone is not spending our tax dollars right.
I live in the middle of one of the largest safehavens for homeless people - Chicago. Im not saying he's a sociopath because he lives under a bridge, I'm saying he's living under a bridge because he's a sociopath. There are plenty of places for him to go to get a warm bed and a hot meal - plenty.
If he wanted help or hasn't rejected hep multiple times, he could spend the rest of his life on our tab - they choose not to, and opt for the bridge.
As far as not spending our tax dollars right, that's true - any government program is an inefficient bureaucracy where the tax based financing never makes it to the intended recipient, but rather the lazy employee who has no concept of business economics or profit-based efficiency.
right ArchAngel - do away with the social safetynet. useless.
if you admit that he is a sociopath then you are also saying he has a disease and thus that he has a cure. if he has a cure there should be a resource. the fact is that the resource is not there and the cycle feeds on itself.
here is a link to a great organization doing a lot for the non-feathered species known as humans.
http://www.madhousers.org/
from newstanard:
The number of families asking for housing assistance jumped by 7 percent this year, and the mayors report that almost a third of those requesting emergency shelter were turned away, compared to 23 percent overall.
The cities reported that people were remaining homeless for an average of 8 months, and that there was an average wait of 20 months for public housing. People had to wait an average of 35 months for Section 8 rent assistance. Additionally, over half of the cities said they had to stop accepting applications for at least one housing program because of lengthy waiting lists.
According to the report, 41 percent of the homeless population is comprised of single men, families with children represent 40 percent, single women make up 14 percent and 5 percent are unaccompanied youth.
While homelessness and hunger are often considered never-ending problems without permanent solutions, advocates and service providers disagree. The National Alliance to End Homelessness has put together an aggressive plan called "A Plan, Not a Dream: How to End Homelessness in 10 Years."
So if a man rejects a certain part of society, he is a sociopath?
Could it be that some of the homeless have mental problems and society is not structured to take care of them?
Those birds, on the other hand, have many, many other places all over the upper East Coast to nest.
Tax the rich to feed the poor - leave the working stiff out of it, to enjoy his or her hard-earned life....that would be nice. My property taxes doubled this year coincidental with the Federal Government cutting-off it's financing of the Chicago Housing Authority. So, I am now directly sharing the burden with the rest of Chicago's property-owning tax payers in supporting the out-of control public Housing debacle even the federal government could no longer justify financing. I wish I was a hawk - I'd fly to manhattan and live for free.
Line 'em up and shoot 'em.
Cost: the number of rounds and the dozer for the mass grave.
DONE.
The problem with moral comparisons (abortion/death penalty, evolution/creationism) is illustrated in this discussion. The hawks and the homeless have absoulutely nothing in common and by comparing them to make any argument objectifies the subjects into a device for rhetorical reasons.
Oh, and the hawks just can't go anywhere on the East Coast. Once a male finds a hunting territory and depends on a food source it will stay put. It is simply beyond it's mental capacity to think "maybe I should move to another location because they don't like me here".
JG - the point is not to compare the homeless to the birds; the point is to question what it is we decide to protest about. The object is not these two subjects but the protesters themselves. It's about consciousness and ideas and not the objects upon which those ideas just so happen to land upon.
arriving late to this discussion, isn't the point here not that the homeless problem should be protested and the hawk ignored, but the fact that this specific person's plight is being ignored vs the hawks getting all the media coverage?
i don't think we can say: this is the more important problem, we should not protest any others. there are too many problems in the world. but,
i agree that a human being should take priority over a hawk, no matter how cute he is [the hawk], and let's recognize something triggers this protest- more than the cuteness of the animal, it's the easeness of the solution to a simple problem, vs having to tackle the immensity of the homeless problem which leaves most people too daunted to do anything.
i feel this is what makes us, as human beings, support the hawk and ignore the homeless man [i'm not saying i approve]. this world is so filled with conflict and unfairness that a simple problem becomes very attractive: because the hawk's problem will end, one way or another, and the homeless problem is much bigger, and is perceived as hopeless. this is the instinct we need to fight.
The crux: Everyone can talk about the hawk and feign concern and compassion without actually doing anything. This is so much more uncomfortable when you're talking about a person. Therefore it's taboo.
NEW YORK -- An advocate for two red-tailed hawks evicted last week from their nest at a luxury Manhattan building was arrested Tuesday and charged with harassing the CNN anchor Paula Zahn, who lives in the building, and her family, law enforcement sources said.
Lincoln Karim, 43, was arrested by plainclothes detectives as he prepared to lead a demonstration outside Zahn's Fifth Avenue apartment building.
read HERE
Were the demonstrators homeless people?
About a year later, we all know what happened with Pale Male but does anybody know what happened to Richard Dorsey? The latest news I can find has him missing his court date in January of this year, after which a $10,000 bond forfeiture warrant was issued.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.