Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘homeless doll’

A lot of items have crossed my screen recently that piqued my interest. Here are some of the highlights:

  • Is ‘a doll always a doll’, really? Would you pay $95 for a ‘homeless’ doll? We asked your opinion on our VibeGlobe page. I had to take a few days to process this one, but I’ve settled in on an opinion similar to the one expressed by Shannon Moriarty on Change.org’s blog. I could hop on my soapbox and excoriate Mattel, like others have. But I think this is less about a company doing what companies are supposed to do (make $), and more about how we (me, you, and the person sitting next to you) are afraid to accept the possibility that a child’s toy might be a little too real for us adults…
  • If you’re a reader of the Unite to End Homeless blog, you’ll be familiar with my muted disdain for the editorial board of the Seattle Times. I don’t always disagree with them, and I’m not the only one who does whenever I do. But when I read this recent editorial about Councilmember Tim Burgess’ proposed panhandling ordinance, I couldn’t remember what city I lived in. So I pose this question to you all: have you ever felt intimidated enough by someone asking for change that you felt compelled to give it to them, short of them having a weapon of some kind (that ain’t panhandling, that’s robbery). If you have, tell me. I want to know! I want to write your story! Because in all my time here, in the thousands of times I’ve been asked for money by someone who obviously needed it more than me, I have NEVER had anyone say anything to me other than ‘thank you’, ‘God Bless you’, or ‘have a nice day’, regardless of whether or not I gave them anything more than a smile. So let me hear it! I want to know! To paraphrase the last sentence of the editorial: ‘The city has a duty to regulate–within the law, within reason–the manner in which it treats its most vulnerable citizens as they go about their daily lives.’
  • And speaking of Mr. Burgess (and the Times editorial page, for that matter), it appears he had some overnight guests earlier this week. In this particular instance, I actually find myself agreeing with the editorial writers for the most part. Money is definitely tight, in everyone’s budget, and pulling something like this isn’t going to make someone like Mayor Nickels or the City Council open up their empty pocketbooks. As the writers stated, it would be far more productive for us to focus on getting the housing levy passed in November and other long-term issues like working with a new city administration.
  • And finally, since I’ve made it clear how I feel on Proposition 1, a few words about a few other items coming up this fall: Initiative 1033 and Referendum 71. While supporters of I-1033 would like you to believe that capping tax revenue makes government more accountable, all it really does is make it harder for government to fill its role as sole provider for such frivolous things as education, law enforcement, and public transportation, not to mention indispensable social services such as public health clinics and senior centers that, while also supported by nonprofits and religious organizations, would suffer immensely without government support. Now, I know this might not be a popular stance to take, that many of us truly believe taxes are evil and government is wasteful, slothful, etc and we want our money back! I just read the website, and it sounds wonderful. But the fact is that this Initiative would make it more difficult for government services to be enacted during the very time that they are needed the most. We’ll make it harder to hire more teachers, place more unemployed or underemployed people into job training and skill development programs at community colleges, or have an adequate response method in the event of a public emergency (last time I checked, we had a few active volcanoes in the region). ALL of that, and more, is paid for with tax revenue.
  • As for Ref 71, you may not see a link between a domestic partnership law and homelessness. But consider this: nearly 40% of homeless people under 18 years of age identify themselves as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender (LGBT). And if you don’t think being homeless had anything to do with their sexual orientation for these kids, just stop reading this because it’s not worth my time. They’re kicked out, they run away, they end up on the street. They’re called queer, fag, freak…and they are smacked in the face by laws in their own country that prevent them from growing up, falling in love, and marrying the person that they want to spend the rest of their life with.

    You may not think Ref 71 is about equal rights for gays and lesbians, and that’s fine. But passing this referendum will, at the very least, provide the residents of Washington with an opportunity to look into the faces of some of these young people and say: You are not worthless. You are not weird. You and your loved ones will be treated like everyone else.

  • Read Full Post »