Homeless, Starving But You Need a Cellphone
First Lady Michelle Obama went to a soup kitchen for homeless poor people not far from the White House yesterday. She hoped, she said, that she would inspire other Americans to help out the poor as well. Sadly, critical journalists noticed something strange about one of the homeless men being served by the first lady: he was taking pictures of her with his cellphone.
The LA Times’ Andrew Malcolm wonders: ‘If this unidentified meal recipient is too poor to buy his own food, how does he afford a cellphone? And if he is homeless, where do they send the cellphone bills?’
H/t The Moderate Voice
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Clearly the LA Times writer is too rich ever to have bought a prepaid cell phone at 7/11. Fairly widely used by the poor, since they don’t have credit cards and don’t have an address for bills. Not surprising that the author is too far removed from the poor to understand how common this is.
Clearly Continuum is too stupid to understand that if you can buy a cellphone you can also buy your own food. And that, if you can’t, you’ve got yourself to blame since food is a primary need, cellphones aren’t.
From Rudi’s links:
Often, one of the hardest things about “pulling yourself up by your boot straps” is the difficulty in getting a callback from an employer when you have no phone or permanent address.
Aside from the point about whether or not he ought to have a cellphone, continuum’s comment is ridiculous because those prepaid phones don’t come with cameras.
Prepaid cellphones absolutely come with cameras. In addition, every time I get a new cellphone, I donate my old one so that someone who needs it can use it to keep in touch with society, potential employers, etc. The inhumanity of some of you people blows me away. By the way, I also “donated” half of my savings to the Wall Street meltdown so that the crooks on Wall Street can keep making payments on their Hamptons vacation homes and I can literally see myself on that food line soon. There but for the grace of God go we all. How dare you people make fun of the poor.
This whole cellphone issue is a red herring. A nearly starving fishermen in Ethiopia can afford a cellphone and finds that it allows him to do things that he could never do before and be more successful. If I’m homeless (can’t afford rent) but can scrap up the cash to get a “throwaway phone” I’d go for it because having a contact number increases my likelihood of getting a callback and a JOB. And if in the meantime I can go to the shelter and get free food and a place to sleep (saving some dollars) of course I’ll do it.
So… there are much bigger issues to discuss and fight about, lets not fight over homeless folks with cellphones.
There was a project to provide the homeless with cellphones in my neighborhood last Christmas This serves a number of purposes, one of them being safety.
The charitabe nature of the conservatives among us just warms my heart, NOT.
Had the reporter of the story done what reporters should do, i.e., investigate the facts, he wouldn’s have ruined a very nice story with thi empty headed musings.
The LA Times story was not written by a reporter. It was done by their “blogger” group. A man named Andrew Malcolm who is a Republican operative, and has been known to call Anne Coulter even handed, intellectual and praised her most recent book. Even with his rightwing background, Malcolm had to strain to invent something negative to say about the First Lady helping out at a soup kitchen. Curiously, but then again maybe not, the LA Times is preventing comments on Malcom’s blog page.
My goodness. My younger brother works at a Wireless Toyz (a big vendor of pre-paid cell phones). They start at $7.99 and go up. Frequently these devices are stolen and peddled on the street for DIRT CHEAP (like $1 to $2). And they have cameras. Most of them are bought with NO SERVICE. But you can still take pictures with them.
I grew up in inner city Detroit, Michigan (USA). All kinds of wares are peddled for insanely low prices. This guy could have picked this phone up for 50 cents.
First Lady Michelle Obama did a good thing. Enough!
What a bizarre thread.
Do you realize that there are programs all around the country by cell-phone service providers, that provide the poor with these devices?
What the heck is the matter with you people? Michael — assuming the guy is even homeless (an assumption I find a bit risky) — no doubt you’d prefer that he eat the electronics contained therein or something?
Having only popped in quickly earlier (I’m at work today) I will say that I’m sympathetic to the argument that cell phone isn’t frivolous. My previous comment reflected on my own experience several years ago purchasing a prepaid phone for my daughter, and I’ll stand corrected if camera phones are now available in that manner. I wil also admit to being completely unaware of charities that give out phones and phone service in that manner.
I also don’t like to presume anything about people who present themselves for meal assistance, particularly if this was a private charity there should not be means testing. It would definitely be absurd, and would strip people of dignity, to criticize if they’re clothing seems too nice, or if they’re driving a decent vehicle, etc. One can’t always know the whole story behind each person’s needs.
However, just as the more liberal commenters feel that the reactions to this photo have provoked a heartless response from conservatives, I think it’s also telling that the liberal commenters see absolutely no room for pointing out that charitable assistance (or likewise, govt assistance) is susceptible to abuse, and that they seem to feel that anyone who points that out is being cruel. Unfortunately though like everything else, charitable funds are not limitless so when people do take advantage without having a sincere need, they are taking away a subsistence from another person who is truly in need. There should be room for calling people out to some degree, even if it wasn’t warranted in this case.
In other words, if we can’t ask questions at all, then there will be rampant abuse and that fraudulent use of charitable funds will hurt the people that need help the most.
Do we even know that the gentleman in question was poor, rather than, say, a volunteer at the soup kitchen?
“I think it’s also telling that the liberal commenters see absolutely no room for pointing out that charitable assistance (or likewise, govt assistance) is susceptible to abuse”
Mostly because there is zero evidence of “abuse” in this case. Show me that evidence and I’ll be happy to join in the outcry. Absent such evidence, it seems to me that the outrage I’m feeling towards idiots like the original blogger and the ones who have taken up this cause is quite justified.
Sure, ask questions all you want, but that’s not what’s being done here — not by Malcolm, not by Malkin or Lopez, and not by van der Galien.
A cell phone clearly is not a luxury. If you don’t believe it, just imagine how less productive you would be if you didn’t have a phone (cell phone or otherwise). Clearly having a way for employers to contact you is worth it, even if you are close to starving.
CStanley, I would see your point except that of all of the charity that could be abused, I would think a soup kitchen would be last place that would happen. Fortunately I’ve never had to eat at one (and I’m ashamed to admit I’ve never volunteered at one), but I imagine the food is not exactly gourmet. I don’t know why anyone who wasn’t poor would go there just for a free bowl of soup or whatever they are serving. So I think it’s a pretty safe policy to say that whoever wants to eat at a soup kitchen is welcome. You might have a point that some charitable causes are abused, but making a big deal about this guy with a cell phone is not helping to make the case. It is, in fact, hurting the case.
Don’t know about this. The pay-as-you-go argument makes sense – I would imagine if I were homeless it’d be nice to at least have some way for a prospective employer to contact me. On the other hand, I do know some people are just out for a free ride. Like one guy I met who held up a sign saying he was starving. I gave him a slice of cake I’d saved for myself. Happened to look back just in time to see him throwing it away, the jerk.
One things for sure, even the poorest among us here are rich compared to the norm in some other nations.
Oh – and as for the quality of soup kitchen food. I’ve worked in them several times myself and it seemed to me that the food looked like it could have easily been thrown out the day before.
I like my church’s welfare program. People essentially do what work they can (getting job training in many cases) in exchange to be able to pick up whatever they need at the storehouse.
MM- I agree that this case is probably not the best way to make the point, that’s why I came back and commented in more depth. Initially I found myself making a knee jerk reaction because of what I see as willful determination on the part of some liberals to pretend that everyone who takes advantage of social welfare programs is virtuous. But having thought through this particular case, I can acknowledge that those commenters have reason to react to the particular criticism in this case that way, even if the greater right to criticize fraud and abuse should still stand.
As for quality of food- I’m sure it varies considerably. I’ve mainly worked at the holiday meals (Thanksgiving) which have been quite good. I also did a stint in Gainesville FL at one which was literally a soup kitchen because soup can be made quite inexpensively while providing nutrition and good taste- and the aroma was so good it used to make me hungry!
Oops, that was in response to Mike, not MM.