The things you see when you don't have a camera

[nichomachus]

I was driving downtown today and as I zipped past a Starbucks, outside was a homeless guy with a shopping cart and a McCain/Palin sign attached to the side of the cart.

I almost drove into the car next to me because I was laughing so hard. I went around the block and got my cell phone out to get a photo, but when I got back to the spot, the guy was nowhere to be seen.

That sight alone made my day.

[NightWatcher]

1. ALWAYS CARRY A CAMERA

I have been an investigator in some form for about ten years now and I have learned to always carry a camera. I have seen things that no one would believe except that I was able to document it. I carry a camcorder, digital, and my phone of course nearly any time I leave the house.

I wish you had a pic of that, but the mental picture will have to suffice.

[rkc3]

2. I agree 100%.

The day I forget the camera is the day the spaceship crash lands on the highway next to me.

[nichomachus]

4. Oh my God, has that happened to you too?

:rofl:

[nichomachus]

3. I actually had the cellphone camera

but it was in my pocket and I was in moving traffic.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. You're Laughing At A Homeless Guy Why? You Think That's An Honorable Thing How?

What a disgrace.

[NorCalDem]

6. I think he/she was laughing at the Irony of the homeless

supporting McCain/Palin.

It's ironic because McCain/Palin will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help the homeless...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. I Find It Disgusting.

Never would I pass ANY homeless person and laugh my ass off. You think it's ok to laugh at the irony just because the homeless person supports McCain/Palin, and you people call yourselves Democrats? Pathetic.

[NorCalDem]

15. Hey, try not to throw stones here....

I am good friends with several homeless in my neighborhood (that's Berkeley, CA). In fact one of the older gentleman, this man Alison (sic?) and I sit and talk all the time and I never miss a chance to give him some food/cash/change/blanket and a broom (I think he's on his 3rd or 4th broom now, cause he sweeps the streets near "his corner" and in general keeps the place looking immaculate). When he turned 57 two months ago I gave him a card with $5.70 in it and a 6pack of Heineken (his favorite beer) so don't pretend like you know me as I am hardly someone who does not sympathize with the homeless.

That being said, if I walked past a homeless person with a McCain/Palin sticker on their cart damn straight i'd laugh my ass off. Mind you I am not laughing at the homeless person, I am laughing at their Sticker!!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. I'll Throw Whatever The Fuck I Want.

Passing by a homeless person should bring sympathy and sadness, not laughter because of some petty ass political sticker they happen to have.

Pathetic.

[arcadian]

31. Oooo... so angry.

You gonna be down at the soup kitchen tonight volunteering? If not then shut the fuck up.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. So Not Being In The Soup Kitchen Equates To Laughing At Homeless People?

There you go with your funny ass logic again arky warky!

:hi:

[arcadian]

43. You ever think that maybe the homeless guy had the sign for a joke?

That's how I read that.

[NorCalDem]

51. Well if you bothered to actually talk to homeless people

you might learn that the last thing they want is your sympathy and sadness. Humanization is probably what they crave more than anything, i.e. someone who looks them in the eye and talks to them like a human being.

And yes, being humanized means being laughed at some time. Grow up by the way.

[Two Americas]

70. empathy

He is expressing empathy.

Now here is some irony for us - lecturing people who are or have been homeless about what homeless people do or don't want.

Wish I had my camera. Laughing my ass off about that irony.

[Jed Dilligan]

80. I've been homeless and find OMC's response to be

discriminatory, condescending, and ultimately repulsive.

[Two Americas]

83. lol

I doubt you think that.

He gets under my skin, too, but I think he has a point on this one.

[Jed Dilligan]

85. No, I really do.

The pseudo-guilt of pseudo-liberals has been one of the greatest forces perpetuating homelessness in this country. He can take his pity and shove it up his crypto-conservative ass.

[Two Americas]

89. understood

"The pseudo-guilt of pseudo-liberals has been one of the greatest forces perpetuating homelessness in this country."

I agree. Bravo.

I just don't think it applies to OMC in this case.

As for crypto-conservative, I think we can bring him around one of these days lol.

[Occulus]

98. But then, for OMC, that's par for the course.

This is the second time in a day that I've had to read responses to that... thing, who is on my ignore list for very fucking good reason.

Namely, exchanges such as the one above.

I still can't get away from it, even with it on ignore.

[LanternWaste]

110. I don't think that sympathy for one

I don't think that sympathy for one thing is either precluded or denied by laughter at another thing.

[nichomachus]

48. Wow -- looks like Ignored is being a jerk --

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

97. Seriously......

Will OMC go nuts on Election Night and finally reveal himself?

Stay tuned.

[Occulus]

99. I've been wondering for some time now how it's managed to stay here for so long myself. n/t

[Xenotime]

16. I think you are missing the point.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. To The Contrary. I Think It Is You And Others Missing It.

The situation was being laughed at merely because of some petty ass irony about him having a mccain poster. But the truly decent amongst us would pass by the situation feeling sympathy and sorrow, and not let the pettiness of the sign overtake the harsh circumstance of his situation. We wouldn't laugh so hard that we almost crash our cars. To do so shows a huge character flaw in my opinion and I find it to be disgusting.

[Jed Dilligan]

61. So, you think the difference between us and the GOP is "petty."

I don't. For a homeless person or anyone making under $250K to support McCain is a failure of rational thought, something you have always ridiculed freely, vigorously, and mercilessly.

[Two Americas]

78. what?

You have to be kidding. The attitude people are expressing here is a far more potent force for reactionary politics then some poor person with a sign.

More irony - criticizing others for "failure of rational thought."

Should I get my camera and start laughing my ass off? Not at you, understand, oh no don't think that, but rather at "the irony" of your statements? Or might you find that demeaning and offensive?

[Jed Dilligan]

81. I'm not one to ridicule people's thought processes, generally; OMC is.

I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy of his bashing and ridiculing random strangers on the internet all day and then playing holier-than-thou when someone does the same thing. I also find his attitude toward the homeless to be a big part of the problem. To many people see them as a national "shame" or "tragedy" or "social problem" and not the whole people and equal citizens they are. I've been homeless, and honestly people with his attitude are much much worse than anyone engaged enough with me to laugh when they think I'm wrong. His attitude is very common and hasn't done anything to help the homeless, it just helps clear the consciences of people who know deep down they are part of what causes homelessness--just like EVERYONE ELSE in this society.

[Two Americas]

84. I know

His reputation precedes him.

But I think he has a point here.

I agree with you about how people look at the homeless. But I think OMC is speaking from personal experience on this one. That is OK. I also found the original post offensive in the extreme.

[Jed Dilligan]

86. I thought it was insensitive but not offensive.

Then again, I tend to be offended more by hypocrisy than the honest reactions people have.

[SammyWinstonJack]

22. Deliberately, I'll bet.

[Lord Helmet]

94. He was laughing at the irony, dude. Lighten up.

[tkmorris]

7. Yeah OMC, the OP was laughing at a homeless guy

Stretching things a bit far in order to find some faux outrage aren't you?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. Was He Not?

Did he not claim to be hysterically laughing at the homeless guy merely because he had a mccain/palin sign?

[Ikonoklast]

18. No. That is not what he said.

He was laughing at the irony the situation presented.

But now, we are all laughing at you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

24. So Ya Think It's Ok That Petty Fuckin Political Irony Outweighs Someone Fighting For Their Survival?

You think it's ok that instead of offering help, feeling sympathy, feeling sadness, or feeling a desire to pray that Obama wins so that this gentleman can hopefully get help; despite his sticker, the OP laughed his ass off instead?

See, cause I don't. In fact, I find the behavior to be disgusting and disgraceful.

[Ikonoklast]

26. Oh, the faux outrage.

Spare me.

Your tirades are wasted on me.

I think you are a phony bullshit artist.

With you, all is theater.


I don't believe you stand for anything.

I am not alone.

Phony.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

33. Not A Damn Thing Phony About It Bub. I Find The Laughter To Have Been Deplorable.

I think those of you condoning it just for sake of petty political crap is equally deplorable.

Definitely not a quality to be proud of.

[Ikonoklast]

35. Sure you do. Sure you do.

You try waaaaay too hard.



Don't bother trying to convince me. I have my mind made up as to what exactly you are.

Have a nice life.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

38. You Can Have Your Mind Made Up To Whatever False Crap You Want, But You're Still Wrong.

And don't think I don't notice how you don't have the strength of mind to refute my position but instead can only wage ridiculously empty and nonsensical personal attack.

:hi:

[Ikonoklast]

50. Whatever.

You over-use this particular line of attack.

It, like you, is tiresome.

Have a nice life, Skippy.

[uppityperson]

65. No, he was not. No, he did not claim that. You assume wrongly.

By the way, how're the kids and you doing these days?

[arcadian]

8. reaching again?

I guess I got you all roiled up. :rofl: :hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. The Ignorance, Bitterness, And Lack Of Character Of Some Here Is Astounding.

Laughing at a homeless person for any reason is disgusting, pathetic, and not something true Democrats would do.

I couldn't imagine being such an immature or cold hearted prick enough to laugh while passing by such a scene. Shame on all of you condoning such sentiments.

[arcadian]

30. It's obvious that the OP wasn't laughing at the homeless person.

They were laughing at the juxtaposition of the homeless person with the McCain sign. Are you this obtuse in real life?

[Jed Dilligan]

32. So you're a big fan of the homeless now?

Funny how I never see you in homelessness threads or the Poverty group.

What are you doing to help the homeless, OMC?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. Since I Lived In A Car Through Two Horrible Winters, Yes, I'm A Big Homeless Advocate.

I donate however I can and have been a staunch supporter of America's Second Harvest. I also sponsor multiple children through children.org.

And for you to infer that I'm not a fan of the homeless because I don't go into obscure DU groups, is pathetic.

[Jed Dilligan]

37. Funny how with so much personal experience

you don't take any interest in discussing solutions here. But whatever. Your "moderate" "mainstream" politics are the generator and perpetuator of homelessness. It isn't surprising that you wouldn't want to share your views. Private charity? Is that your solution?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

40. I'm Not Moderate By Any Stretch.

In fact, every political test I take puts me pretty damn far left actually. I'm just not an extremist.

[Jed Dilligan]

41. Well, what do you think should be done about homelessness

other than telling people they are shit for laughing at a homeless person, even when that person is doing something pretty ironic?

[arcadian]

45. Had to make sure you put in that caveat didn't you?

Yeah, I'll bet you're a regular Emma Goldman. Bwahahaha... You are beyond phony... Bub.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

46. Actually, The Resentment Thrown Towards Me Is Often Most Rooted In How Real I Am.

Some of you just can't take hearing anything that doesn't fall into line with your narrow minded idealistic and irrational positions.

:hi:

[arcadian]

47. Here. Take this:

It's faster.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NorCalDem]

54. Please read my point on Humanization

Homeless people do NOT WANT your sympathy and your "sadness" for their plight. They want you to treat them like a human being, look them in the eye, and ask them how their day is going.

I talk to TON's of homeless people here in Berkeley (note, not the stupid high school kids who hang out on Telegraph with "spare change for Pot?" signs but the genuine homeless of the city) and trust me, they don't want your sympathy. They'll take your change (cause it'll buy them food/beer/crack, whatever...) but they don't want your sympathy.

Try talking to them next time instead of just dropping some change into their bucket with sadness in your eyes...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

57. Your Point Is Ridiculous.

You're making it as if I was suggesting that the OP should've gotten out of his car, walked up to the homeless person, and told them how sorry they feel for them. What hogwash.

You're twisting an argument falsely.

The fact is, my argument has nothing to do with how one should act when engaging with a homeless person, and all to do with what one should feel in their hearts.

OF COURSE they should be treated like humans and OF COURSE you should look them in the eye and engage with them as if they were any other person. But a decent person would absolutely walk away feeling some sorrow, and some desire to wish things weren't that way for the person, and want to hope that the future becomes brighter. So spare me your false righteousness.

[Jed Dilligan]

62. The feelings police? Is that what you are now?

A long way from the foul-mouthed rhetoric coach we all know. You've dug a deep one for yourself in this thread. Can you even see above the dirt now?

A homeless person flying a McCain sign is funny. Maybe it's a joke on the homeless person's part, or maybe they actually think their plight is a result of taxes, gays, affirmative action, whatever he sees McCain as being against. Either way, it's sad and kinda funny too. Have you ever heard of black humor? Most people need it to keep it together, especially in times of crisis.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

64. Like I Said,

Your position is disgusting and disgraceful.

And I stand firmly on high ground on this one. It is you that is down in the muck.

[Jed Dilligan]

66. You saying it doesn't make it so.

Your position is hypocritical and ultimately indefensible. You are calling for discrimination against homeless people and treating them as less than full human beings. I wouldn't go so far as to call your position disgusting and disgraceful--just arrogant and hypocritical, like most of what you post.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

72. Reality Makes It So.

And your blatantly warped twisting and turning of my position is as transparent and silly as any argument I've ever seen. No one with a rational mind would buy it for a second. If that's all you've got in defense than I feel for you.

[Jed Dilligan]

77. You're the one playing defense here.

There is no way you can justify your position without admitting you think the homeless deserve to be treated differently from "normal" people.

[Two Americas]

68. agreed

I am going to agree with you here OMC.

I am afraid that for too many Democrats, the people don't count for much in their world except as extras in their personal screenplay - props, cardboard cutouts. There is a streak of arrogance and condescension and contempt among Democrats, and the public picks up on that and rejects all of us for that reason.

Otherwise, there would be nothing humorous about the situation. I am not sure what the irony is supposed to be in the situation. I might put up a McCain sign on my cart too, just to say to Democrats - "thanks for abandoning us, thanks for rolling over for Reaganomics, and for laughing at us. At least the Republicans don't pretend to be our friends. Hope you have your digital camera with you. More than happy to be a source of amusement for you and your self-absorbed and arrogant friends. Have a glass of wine, and just laugh, laugh, laugh."

Fully 80% of the people are shut out of the political process, out of the national political discussion, they may as well be invisible, while two relatively small factions on the two "sides" battle it out over which group of arrogant neo-aristocrats will rule over the rest of us, the invisible ones.

Thanks for expressing this and taking the heat. I too am disgusted about this beyond measure.

I disagree with you all of the time here, but I respect you and I trust you. That is saying a lot.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

10. ...

[HughBeaumont]

11. Ignored is a BurroChasm?

:rofl: :rofl:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

20. Quick tip to you:

You can't alert on ignored posts. Jus' sayin'.

[SammyWinstonJack]

23. !!!

:spray:

[DS1]

74. ha ha nice

and figures

[Zuiderelle]

27. Um... he was in his CAR. It's not like he walked past pointing and laughing at him.

I would have laughed at the irony of a homeless person sporting a McCain/Palin sign too. I think your reaction was just a tad bit judgmental there.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. Doesn't Matter. It's The Mindset That Matters. I Find It Disgusting.

What you all are saying is that something as petty as a political gotcha or the irony trumps the harsh reality of the homeless person themselves. Those laughing are completely undermining the tragedy of the person and sadness, willingness to help, sympathy, and hope for a better tomorrow that should be associated with such an event. Instead, they ignore the harshness of the situation completely and are so self centered and OBSESSED with their politics that the only thing they gather from the situation is humor at the irony.

Well guess fucking what: There is NO humor in that situation nor its irony. The fact is, a truly decent person would've driven by with thoughts along the lines of "How sad. I wish there was something I could do to help. God bless him and I hope he'll survive. Thank god it looks like Obama's going to win so that hopefully some of these people can be better taken care of and not have to be in that situation at all". They wouldn't have driven by, completely overlooked all the previous, and instead only thought "OMG that's fuckin hilarious! Look at the homeless guy with the mccain banner! What a dumbass! Bwahahahaha!!!".

What disgusting bullshit.

[Zuiderelle]

44. You really are going WAY overboard. The OP was laughing at the IRONY not at the person.

And now I'm laughing at the irony of you complaining about someone laughing at the irony of a homeless person with a McCain/Palin sticker. Nowhere in the OP does he say that he thinks the guy is a dumbass.

Sometimes we don't laugh because of the humor of a situation, but because of the irony.

Apparently you don't get that. And that's ok.

[Two Americas]

69. that is the point

A human being is not replaceable by an example of irony. I can't imagine the mindset that would allow one to see that as ironic, anyway.

When you are homeless the childish obsession over partisanship seems petty and absurd, believe me. Why not laugh at the pettiness and absurdity of a person seeing that situation as ironic. I am sure there would be squeals of outrage. Poor and homeless people are the proper targets of this, but those dishing it out would object quite strenuously to it being directed at them.

I very much get that people see this as an example of irony, and think that is the most important thing about this episode. I get it. Ha ha ha. I reject it and find it disgusting.

[arcadian]

9. Yes, always carry a camera.

You never know when you will capture that historic moment.

[lpbk2713]

12. I struck up a conversation with a guy like that once.

(I may have posted something about it here)

He had several days of beard and looked like he had seen much better times. He was pushing a grocery cart with what may have been his wordly goods. He had a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker on the side of his cart, it was a few years back. He told me he put it there so that people would have no doubt about how he got in the situation he was in and that he was glad to tell anyone who would listen.

[SammyWinstonJack]

25. A conversation starter about how he ended up homeless? Excellent!

[Zuiderelle]

28. I LOVE that story!

:patriot:

[dysfunctional press]

29. in 1992, after the election, my friend took a pic of an empty repug campaign center-

with a "for rent" sign in the window, and used it for his christmas card, with the message "may all your holiday wishes come true"

[Jed Dilligan]

42. FWIW I disagree (as a former homeless person) with OMC.

Not laughing at a homeless person when that person does something funny is more wrong than laughing. Why treat them differently? They're people too. You can disagree with them, laugh at them, argue with them, even dislike them on an individual basis, the same way you do with ALL people. You are a better person for seeing them as people first and homeless second. Most people don't.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. You Know He Was Doing Something Funny How Now?

Some are now stating that the OP thought the homeless person was intentionally trying to be funny and he was laughing at the joke. The OP didn't state such and some early on made it appear he was laughing simply because Obama would be far better for the homeless than mccain, so his stupidity in supporting mccain and the irony associated with it was worthy of laughter. That's the impression I got. If that was the case, all my posts stand and yours is moot. If the homeless person was INTENTIONALLY being funny and the OP was laughing at the intentional joke, that's a completely different story. But that's not the vibe I got from the OP.

[Jed Dilligan]

56. I'm not assuming that at all.

I think when a homeless person does something funny, they are open to be laughed at just like anyone else. What is the financial cutoff for laughing at someone who supports McCain against their own interests? $50K a year? 100? Are you saying the homeless guy doesn't have a mind of his own? Aren't you always criticizing people's thought processes and ridiculing them for it? Why do you discriminate between people who are homeless and people who aren't? Most homeless people I've known would rather be told when they're full of shit than have people patronizing and coddling them because they're homeless. Change that to most people, and it's still true. You know why? Because homeless people are people, not fodder for some sort of weepy Hallmark Sunday-afternoon epic. They hold opinions the same way anyone else does, and they are not exempt from criticism when they are wrong. Saying as much is just the flip side of the more prevalent situation, which is ignoring the voices of the homeless even when they do make sense.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

58. I Find Your Position To Be Disgusting.

To think it's ok to laugh at a homeless person because they're politics differ, is as anti-democratic a sentiment as one can have. I find it every single bit as disgusting as what would be found on freeperville. Shame on you.

Some of you are so damn absorbed with your obsession with politics that you've lost any sense of real humanity. You have grown so bitter, extreme and petty that you've become as irrational and callous as those found on the far end of the other side. Disgusting and pathetic.

[Jed Dilligan]

59. Then you're a hypocrite. I've seen you mocking people for their political views

every single time I've come on this board. How do you know that no one you make fun of is homeless? You do know they have internet access in public libraries, right? Do you poll people? "Um, before I call you a "motherfucking idiot" or something to that effect for thinking the way you do, I need to verify your status as a housed person."

[NorCalDem]

55. Well said

I've posted to OMC that what homeless want more than anything is to be humanized. They are people too, and the more pleasant thing one can do it to stop and talk to them. Ask them how their day is going. Just treat them like you would anyone else...

They don't want your sympathy or your tears...

[EFerrari]

52. Seeing a homeless person with a McCain sign made your day?

Maybe I'm just misreading this.

[Two Americas]

71. thanks

Glad I am not the only one.

[EFerrari]

73. Not at all. n/t

[ecstatic]

76. I'm a bit confused too. I doubt the guy is a McCain supporter

or a supporter of anyone for that matter. Some asshole probably taped it to his cart in exchange for a couple dollars. :(

[Jed Dilligan]

79. You'll meet them--homeless Republicans, I mean.

They tend to be libertarian types. A lot of homeless people (Democrats too) blame immigrants for their homelessness. Anyone can become homeless and most retain the political views they held before they became homeless. The one thing that generally changes is people's perception of the police. When you're homeless, you find out that there is a very, very dark side to the officer who was nice and helpful-seeming when you were a "respectable" member of society. But it's just as easy to chalk that up to the "liberal nanny state" than to change your views if you have always been Republican and find yourself another homeless victim of police harassment.

[Two Americas]

92. what else is there?

The police and economics. What else is there to politics?

[Jed Dilligan]

93. Must be something, since two people can have

exactly the same experiences with police and the economy and end up with totally different politics. Most DUers are successful people who have a positive view of the police, so why aren't they Republican?

[Two Americas]

95. turn that around

That is exactly backward in my view. You are trying to force reality to fit the partisan illusion.

[Jed Dilligan]

96. I'm confused.

Do you think most people here aren't successful or have positive views of the police? Or are you saying that being those things should make people be Democrats, not Republicans? I'm not sure which it is I have backwards.

[Two Americas]

100. I will explain

See if I can do this without starting a shitstorm.

First, "fear the police" or mistrust of the authorities is closely associated with material well-being. So they are almost the same thing. The more money, the less worry about the authorities. The authorities are there to protect wealth, that is to say the wealthy people, not the rest of the people - the other 70-80% or so. The authorities are not politically neutral, and by that I do not mean that they favor one side of the gentry over the other - liberals and conservatives - but rather that they come down on one side of the true political divide. They side with profits over people, with capital over labor, with the bosses and their overseers and house Negroes and not with the workers.

Second, all politics is about resources, always has been. Modern thinking, especially among the better off, is that politics is about "personal values" or "choices" or "belief systems." But always historically, the battle is over resources not over choices or other weak ideas that are a luxury that only the relatively better off can indulge and enjoy and see as important.

Right now, the right wing is fighting relentlessly to exploit and destroy all public resources or transfer them into the hands of the few. The interests of the wealthy powerful few are advanced at all times, and the interests of the other 90% are blocked or eliminated. They don't care about abortion or any of the rest of that culture war stuff. Those are just tricks to get a percentage of the working class to support them and to distract all of us from the ongoing theft.

Now, those people who are successful and do not fear the authorities in fact form a de facto political group, an interest group. They will promote and fight for the interests of that group - the interests of those who are successful and do not fear the authorities. That explains the confusion here, and within the party in general.

As I say, the Democratic party hangs out a sign - "we are on the side of the poor and downtrodden" - and then the beautiful people - the successful ones who do not fear the authorities - complain when people show up and track mud on the elegant imported carpet.

The party needs to take down that sign, or get rid of that damned fancy carpet.

So it is inevitable that as people who are successful and do not fear the authorities move into and commandeer a political party, that the party to that degree becomes representative of the interests of those who are successful and do not fear the authorities. We see that playing out in every battle within the party, and in almost every discussion here.

The divide in the country is between the haves and have-nots, it is not a divide that has anything to do with "belief systems" or "personal values." That is all a smokescreen so that people are distracted from issues of power and economics. When you take power and economics out of politics, it is no longer politics.

So why would a poor person support the Republicans or Ron Paul? Because they (at least somewhat accurately) perceive that the Democratic party does not really represent the interests of the poor and downtrodden. It represents the interests of those who have the most control over it, their ideas and prejudices and desires.

Increasingly, the party represents the best interests of those who are successful and do not fear the authorities. Now, people will say "yeah that may be true but we really caaaaare about the poor." They are sympathetic. They "like them."

To that I say, "I don't care whether or not someone likes me, so long as they do not have the power to harm me." Harm me because I am Black, because I am gay, because I am poor. So long as I cannot be harmed, abused, exploited or impoverished - on whatever pretext - who cares whether or not strangers like me? That is real politics, not feel good nonsense that passes for liberal politics today. That is the exact opposite tactical and strategic stance from that of the modern Democratic party. That cannot be a coincidence, as the successful ones who do not fear the authorites take over the party at all levels.

[Jed Dilligan]

101. I appreciate your explanation and agree with most of it.

However, my observation was more about politics as they are commonly understood than as they should be understood. Most people who vote, I think, see through the partisan noise but they make their decisions based on a couple of questions:

1. Do I want what's better for me or what's better for the country?

2. Which party, in my estimation, will deliver the answer to the first question?

You'll find a larger-than-average (compared to other Americans) number of homeless people questioning the fundamentals as you do, but the majority still think like ordinary, unenlightened Americans.

[Two Americas]

102. not so many

About 10% of the population controls the narrative of each side in the partisan battle. They have a disproportionate influence and visibility and we tend to overstate their numbers.

More people see this the way the poor and homeless do than the way the politically informed and the activists do. Living in a poor neighborhood in Detroit and traveling and speaking and performing in inner cities and poor rural areas all over the country it is easy to see that the people controlling the narrative, setting the agenda, and defining the terms for the partisan political fray are a very small group from a very limited and relatively upscale demographic. Most of the people are invisible and have no voice. They talk politics, but it is a different sort of politics - about power and economics, about the haves and the have-nots - and they have little interest in the partisan fray. They have little or no stake in that.

Hardly anyone asks those two questions, in my experience. Most people think that "what is better for the country" and "what is better for me" are one and the same. It is only the more upscale who see the two as divergent, since in their lives they are divergent. Most people think that both parties are very unlikely to deliver on much, except what they may deliver for the few. The Democrats deliver for a different few than the Republicans do.

For most people, the things I am questioning are not "the fundamentals" in some academic or theoretical sense, they are a matter of life and death.

Also, I do not think the people in the general public are "unenlightened." I think that is a prejudice and also a trap. It leads us to think that enlightening people is the path to political success. It is not. It is a wild goose chase.

[Jed Dilligan]

103. I never voted when I was poor

Poorer, I should say, since I only cleared about 25K last year. When my life was ALL about hunger, wanting a cigarette or a beer, and hating the police, I had utter contempt for anyone who gave two shits about politics. They had been taken in by a scam, I thought. It really wasn't acquiring education and wealth that pulled me out of it; it was more having a girlfriend and a little stability in my life and not wanting it all to be wiped out in a nuclear war. (Before, I would have been like, bring it on--at least the cops and the yuppies will die too.) But then I saw Bush on TV in 2000 and got shit-scared. And essentially, that is still the length and breadth of my political participation, though I certainly like Obama better than the other guys I've voted for.

My question for you now is, was I right back then, or am I right now?

[Two Americas]

105. both

You need both. Put your newfound political knowledge into the context of your past experiences. You will be pressured to do the opposite. Your own survival and success will seem connected to a total rejection of your former life and reality. Many do that, and so even though they were very poor and even homeless they have no compassion for those still in trouble.

By the way, many were in trouble in the 30's and in the films of and about the era we can see the two approaches. George Bailey and Tom Joad fought back and the Three Stooges and the Marx Brothers thumbed their noses at polite society. But then we had little Shirley Temple, hoping to hook up with the beautiful and wealthy people and be taken into polite society, where she always secretly thought she belonged - she was a cut above her fellow ruffians and poor people, she thought - and leave her former life behind. Reagan represented people who thought like that and promoted that approach.

We have the Reagans and the Shirley Temples among us, and far too few Joads and Baileys.

[Jed Dilligan]

106. Well, FWIW I chose a career in fighting poverty

rather than something more lucrative. My real question concerns whether I should vote and spending my energy staying aware of the political process as it has been mythologized and packaged for me by the parties, or if I should just forget all that and devote all my energies to less conventional approaches to change.

[Two Americas]

107. elections are an effect

People talk about elections as though they were a cause rather than an effect. The electoral choices we make, and more importantly the electoral choices we have, are an effect of the ongoing national political discussion. When the entire discussion is dominated by electoral politics and "the choices," the process is short-circuited, becomes unhealthy, and democracy is sabotaged.

I don't advocate against voting, but I do think we place far too much importance on the "personal choice" aspect of it. Following the political fray and commenting on it is valuable and important as well. But we need a context for that. We need authenticity and honesty. we need to be more directly involved. Over the years I have cultivated relationships with representatives and staffers, and talk directly to them. Many tell me the same thing - the activist community pushes them to the right, and insulates them from the people, ties their hands with the true blue loyalty and culture war and personal choice ideas. It is not so much that the representatives do a bad job of representing the people as it is that we who are involved do such a poor job of giving them anything substantive to represent, and do such a poor job of communicating between the people and the politicians. If we say "so long as you are not a Republican, I will support you no matter what" and "too bad if the people are too stupid and insufficiently enlightened" we have blocked the process, neutered it. It feeds on itself, or runs in circles like a hamster on a wheel.

The people want universal health care, as one example. Any politician running on that will get elected. Yet they will not run on that. It is our job to be the voice for the people, and pressure the politicians to do that. It is not our job to pressure the people to accept something less, something that the politician is comfortable with, something that does not offend the insurance industry and that keeps the bribes rolling in. Yet that is what we do. Why is this? Because unlike the general public, the activist community is divided on the issue. Why is that? Because they are better off, have health care, like the system, and so they have less sense of urgency, and because they identify with the profiteers as much or more than they do the suffering masses of people.

This is the challenge. So it does not need to be an either/or. Vote, stay aware of the political process, within a context of devoting all your energies to less conventional approaches to change.

[Jed Dilligan]

82. I get your point--OP was a little insensitive

At the same time, I find the other faction here to be much worse.

[Two Americas]

87. here is the thing

It isn't in a vacuum. Some of us are looking at it in the context of a generalized contempt among too many Democrats for those less fortunate or less gifted or less well-informed.

Also, some of us are reacting from personal experience, and the indifference and flippant casualness that too many people have about the horrors that they drive right by everyday, ensconced in their own little bubble of good fortune and ease and comfort. I am sure from what you have said about your own experiences that you have seen and felt that yourself - the estrangement and alienation from polite society, the feeling of being invisible. The OP saw the sign, and THEN and only then the person, and the person when added to the sign made the situation a joke. That is tantamount to making the person into the joke.

Then we have the hyper-partisanship, that is also reflected in the OP and in some of the other posts. That extreme us-versus-them partisanship is actually destructive to the cause, in my opinion, and turns us into a mirror image of the opposition. To extend zealous partisanship to a sign on a cart of a homeless person seems especially extreme, as well as callous and indifferent to the real suffering of real people - which is what our political activism should be about, not who has which sign or who is on which team.

Then we have the overinflated expectations of the Dems - when it comes to partisanship, that is; when it comes to pressuring them or making any demands on them, expectations are suddenly lowered dramatically. The Democrats have been weak and ineffective at fighting the right wing, at easing the suffering of the poor, at protecting workers, and the assumption that for poor and homeless people the outcome of the election makes much difference, or that they should be able to detect the difference or else suffer being seen as stupid, is a function of a very narrow viewpoint and a degree of self-absorption and arrogance as well as being demeaning and derogatory toward the poor.

[Jed Dilligan]

90. Understanding where you're coming from.

I'm really as unclear on what the OP was thinking as I am on why the man was flying the sign.

Here are the things I find absolutely clear:

-OMC's outrage comes from the same inauthentic place that all his other outrages come from.

-The public feeling sorry for homeless people (surveys show this has been the most widespread response for decades) obviously doesn't help them. It only feeds the poverty pimps who claim to be helping and take the money but at the end of the day make it worse for the homeless.

-I have never met a homeless person who believed no one should be allowed to laugh at them for their political opinions because their housing situation makes them immune to ridicule. Actually, a lot of homeless people are up for a good rough and tumble political debate. I've met some radical Green types out there who could hold their own on DU

-There was a homeless Ron Paul guy in my neighborhood during the primaries and I thought that was actually pretty funny. Not because I am a partisan (I'm as uncomfortable with the party as you) but just at the thought of what a kook the guy must be. I've interviewed a lot of homeless people about their views and opinions and sometimes they say some intentionally or unintentionally hilarious shit. Some of them are bought into the idea that their misfortune is caused by liberals, taxes, gays, immigrants, or whatever. You can laugh at it and still deplore their situation. They are people and when people interact as people, mirth can ensue. It's only human.

-Democrats probably won't make it better for the homeless, but Republicans certainly will make it worse!

[Two Americas]

91. thanks

I am certain that OMC was sincere, and I agree with what he said.

Other than that, I agree with everything in your post.

[readmoreoften]

88. I think the OP assumed the person was being witty.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

60. Obama's raising Joe the Homeless Guy's taxes!!!!

Hey Joe, Guess what? You're rich!

[IDemo]

63. I'd forgotten I still had anyone on 'Ignore' after the primaries

Looks like at least one individual hasn't changed much since then.

[Jed Dilligan]

67. Where'd he go?

He always skulks off when he realizes he's been pwned.

[Dukkha]

75. A clinic protestor with a sign "Chuse Jesus"

but I DID have a camera for this gem!

[Dems4me]

104. Out of curiosity, is it legal to take photos of people or private owned places Without their permiss

ion? Just wondering.

[Skittles]

108. I believe it is

it's fucking rude as hell, inconsiderate beyond the pale but it's not illegal. I always ask for permission if permission can be asked. :)

[Jed Dilligan]

109. I think it's when you publish images that you can get in trouble.

I remember a case of a creep in a college library taking photos of girls' feet--there was nothing he could be charged with, apparently, though he was asked to leave and not come back.

[Dems4me]

111. We have alot of coal and logging places here.

The equipment,trucks and landscapes would make great pictures. Photography is
just a hobby for me and when I have asked most have been rather rude as they don't really understand
my purpose, they think I have alterior motives, so that ends any shots. I once tried to
take a photo, from a public highway, of helicopter carrying logs to a logging yard and a man came
out of an office and started yelling and told me to drive on.
So now I mostly take photos of landscapes, forests, flowers and pets - it's safer. :)

[Jed Dilligan]

112. I meant legal trouble--not accounting for subjects' reactions.

I've been yelled at by drug dealers for taking a picture of a weird pigeon I saw on the street in Oakland, so I know how riled up people can get. However, one reason they're so mad is they don't have any legal protection. As long as you aren't trespassing on their property, you can take the picture.

[Dems4me]

113. Thank you. n/t

[KillCapitalism]

114. I see a lot of interesting things when I don't have my camera.

I never carry it much b/c it's a Nikon D300 which is not exaclty portable.

I need to purchase an inexpensive point & shoot that can fit in my pocket.