Difference between a prisoner of war and a homeless person....

[one_voice]

[hobbit709]

1. k&r

[firehorse]

2. Think of all the returning vets with PTSD who are on the fringe of homelessness

Unable to switch to civilian life.

[dtexdem]

3. A prisoner of war versus a prisoner of homelessness.

rec

[Abin Sur]

4. The whole point of the Geneva convention

is that by ensuring the humane treatment of POWs in both sides of a conflict, neither side endures the loss of its POWs in the long run.

There is no such conflict regarding the homeless, so the analogy fails on its face.

[qb]

5. That's not the point of the analogy. Nice try, though.

:eyes:

[Abin Sur]

6. In the Geneva convention

Each side in the conflict has leverage, having control over the respective POWs of each combatant. Who are the homeless in conflict with? Society at large? Even in one grants this point, the homeless have no leverage against society (short of, perhaps, an unsolicited squeegee of a hapless commuter's windshield).

Thus, the analogy fails.

[Uncle Joe]

10. The homeless do have leverage in society in direct proportion to their numbers.

There comes a tipping point when the number of homeless becomes so great as to foster protest, rebellion, revolution, the collapse of government or at the very least changes in Administrations and policy.

During the Great Depression entire homeless neighborhoods or towns were named after the President; whose failed policies were blamed for the calamity and he was promptly voted out of office, to which his political party lost the White House for the next twenty years.

In Europe the consequences were even more devastating to their governments contributing to overthrow and eventually WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooverville

A 'Hooverville' was the popular name for shanty towns built by homeless people during the Great Depression. They were named after the President of the United States at the time, Herbert Hoover, because he allegedly let the nation slide into depression. The term was coined by Charles Michelson, publicity chief of the Democratic National Committee.<1> The name Hooverville has also been used to describe any Tent city populated by the homeless in modern-day America.

Homelessness was present before the Great Depression, and hobos and tramps were common sights in the 1920s, but the economic downturn increased their numbers and concentrated them in urban settlements close to soup kitchens run by charities. These settlements were often formed on empty land and generally consisted of tents and small shacks. Authorities did not officially recognize these Hoovervilles and occasionally removed the occupants for trespassing on private lands, but they were frequently tolerated or ignored out of necessity. The New Deal enacted special relief programs aimed at the homeless under the Federal Transient Service (FTS), which operated from 1933-35.

Some of the men who were forced to live in these conditions possessed construction skills and were able to build their houses out of stone. Most people, however, resorted to building their residences out of wood from crates, cardboard, scraps of metal, or whatever materials were available to them. They usually had a small stove, bedding and a couple of simple cooking implements.

Most of these unemployed residents of the Hoovervilles used public charities or begged for food from those who had housing during this era. Democrats coined other terms, such as "Hoover blanket" (old newspaper used as blanketing) and "Hoover flag" (an empty pocket turned inside out). "Hoover leather" was cardboard used to line a shoe with the sole worn through. A "Hoover wagon" was an automobile with horses hitched to it because the owner could not afford fuel; in Canada, these were known as Bennett buggies, after the Prime Minister at the time.

After 1940 the economy recovered, unemployment fell, and shanty eradication programs destroyed all the Hoovervilles.<2>

The question becomes, must the world's societies continually experience those catastrophic events or can they evolve to provide basic living essentials to all their citizens even the individually weakest members and avoid such extremes?

[Abin Sur]

11. The chronically homeless were estimated at about 0.035% of the population in 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States#Statistics_and_demographics

I don't think the guys I see on the corner begging for handouts are going to be causing rebellion, revolution, the collapse of government anytime soon. :-)

[Uncle Joe]

12. That doesn't change my point re: tipping points and homeless leverage, furthermore

2007 was just before the worst effects of the 2008 foreclosure crisis, and make no mistake that crisis combined with the bank bailouts while increasing numbers of the American People are thrown out in the streets is contributing to the climate of fear and anger which has led to the current Occupier Protests.

[Abin Sur]

14. Even if the chronically homeless population doubled in the last few years

it would bring it to 0.07% of the population. Big deal.

As for Occupy, while other here will certainly disagree, I think the Occupy movement will accomplish nothing.

We'll see if we're talking about it in anything bug a nostalgic sense in a year or two.

[Uncle Joe]

16. Whatever the rate is, that doesn't change my central point re: tipping points and homeless leverage.

You can believe whatever you wish regarding the Occupier Protests, but those are the first serious grassroots efforts to protest that I can recall taking place across the world, much the less the nation since the 60s and 70s.

[Abin Sur]

17. But there must be some number at which any given population

has little or no effect on the body politic. While a group's influence can be made much greater out of all proportion to its numbers if its members have money and/or political power, in the case of the chronically homeless the opposite is the case! I would argue that their numbers would have to be inflated by a factor of 20...at least...before they wielded the slightest amount of actual political power.

but those are the first serious grassroots efforts to protest that I can recall taking place across the world, much the less the nation since the 60s and 70s.

Yes, they are. To which I would say, so what? It's a leaderless, amorphous "movement" without clear goals. It certainly doesn't have the numbers of the protest movements of decades past, nor is it likely to.

[Uncle Joe]

19. What do you believe the definition of "tipping point" to be?

You said the homeless have no leverage with government or society and therefor no need for he same protections as POWs, I said the homeless do have leverage but it's tied to the numbers, my previous post highlighted how that power waxed and waned from the Great Depression to 1940 when the economy improved and the numbers of homeless dropped.

The same holds true for POWs if an enemy doesn't hold many of our citizens as POWs their power is reduced, perhaps that's why the Cheney/Bush Maladministration were so eager to trash the Geneva Conventions and embrace the same water torture for which we prosecuted the Japanese during WWII.

If you believe the Occupiers have no clear goals, you either haven't been paying attention or you have been paying too much attention to corporate media propaganda.

They want our society to correct itself, income disparity is greater now than it has been since the late 1920s coincidentally just before the Great Depression, they want the incestuous corruptive, relationship lubricated by money between Wall Street and "We the People's" government to end or at the very least be greatly reduced.

They have put out statements; while not all inclusive do spell out many of their grievances, if you wish I will be happy to find them for you.

At this point, not having any established formal leaders is a strength as it gives the movement more protection and flexibility, having said that many national leaders have come out in support of the occupiers.

[Abin Sur]

20. In comparing the holding of POWs to the homeless

I pointed out that both sides in a given conflict had some degree of leverage against the other, assuming that they subscribed to the Convention in the first place.

In the case of the homeless, they have neither a Convention nor leverage...at least not given their present numbers. Were their numbers to increase enormously this would change, of course.

[Uncle Joe]

21. The homeless are American Citizens with all the rights every other American Citizen has

they are subscribed to the Constitution just by being born here and they have the right to speech, protest, vote, so De Facto they have leverage.

The only thing they don't have is money but if their numbers increase enough, they can make up for it.

The corporate supremacists know this as well, that's why groups ie: ACORN trying to educate, reengage, rem-power and lift up the homeless and low income Americans were targeted by the corporate media and the wealthy Congress.

[Abin Sur]

22. Indeed they are. Which makes the comparison to being a POW all the weaker, yes?

they are subscribed to the Constitution just by being born here and they have the right to speech, protest, vote, so De Facto they have leverage.

Only if they use it. How many drug-addled/drunk beggars do you see protesting and voting? They're more interested in finding their next bottle of Thunderbird than listening to a speech on income inequality.

The only thing they don't have is money but if their numbers increase enough, they can make up for it.

I believe I said something to that effect in my last post. The point of contention is what the number in question is. I would assert that it's very large.

[Uncle Joe]

23. To the contrary, aside from the fact that you have a distorted view of the homeless, the issue

is the capability of leverage, POWs and American Citizens; whether homeless or not have it and in the same token both parties can lose it.

In the case of the former by the actions of their capturers combined with U.S. foreign policy, while the same holds true for the homeless with the exception being focused on U.S. domestic policy.

"Only if they use it. How many drug-addled/drunk beggars do you see protesting and voting? They're more interested in finding their next bottle of Thunderbird than listening to a speech on income inequality."

You don't have to be "drug addled or drunk" to be homeless, you just have to be without money, likewise you don't have to be homeless to be "drug addled or drunk," you just have to have money.

Ironically a large percentage of the homeless are veterans, no doubt some of whom were POWs.

[Abin Sur]

24. We're speaking of the chronically homeless, not single moms with kids

most of whom are homeless for less than three weeks (as per the 2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress). In 99.99% of cases, the guy you see sleeping on a grate or holding up a "will work for food" sign isn't going to be organizing the next Occupy protest.

[arbusto_baboso]

15. You seem to have a vast misunderstanding of who the homeless actually are...

and what defines homelessness. Apparently, to you, someone living in their car instead of on a street corner isn't homeless.

Too bad you think that way. Because I work directly with the homeless, and most of them are not fitting into your stereotypes about them. Most now are single moms living in their cars with their kids. And their numbers are a helluva lot larger than those in the wiki article you link to.

[Abin Sur]

18. The article I referenced sources the 2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress

What source would you prefer?

In any case, I was speaking of the chronically homeless, not those experiencing homelessness at any point in a given year. In other words, bums/beggars.

It should be noted that (as per the report) 80% of those who experience homelessness do so for less than 3 weeks. About 1% of the population as a whole falls into this category.

[gratuitous]

7. Thank you for your concern

And explaining so nicely why government is more solicitous of the needs of our enemy than of our citizens.

[Abin Sur]

8. Happy to be of service!

Of course, the whole point of the Geneva Convention is that it *does* protect our citizens (American POWs), assuming that the other party subscribes to it.

[Uncle Joe]

9. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, one_voice.:thumbsup:

[backtoblue]

13. k&r