California considers scrapping welfare

[jimpeel]

I agree. Somehow people like to make vast unfounded generalizations like "all poor people are too lazy to work" or "our poor aren't digging for food scraps" though and it's ridiculous.

This doesn't sound like our poor are eating from the dump.

SOURCE

As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consump*tion of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernour*ished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

 

[spike]

Jim edify yourself with the following:

First off Heritage Foundation is a right wing think tank and not really an unbiased source you can trust. Something without the spin would be better. I realize the article has attempted to footnote but the particular passage you quoted just says "taken from various gov­ernment reports".

But let's go ahead and act like it's 100% true for purposes of debate.

That brings me to my second point. There is a wide variety of definitions of "poor" and the passage you quoted is only using the Census Bureau definition. Many or most of those people are likely to be "working poor" (something which would contradict Gonz ).

Their income simply falls below the Census definition.

Which brings a third point. The Census has historically had much difficulty for obvious reasons counting the homeless. You can see this reflected in the passage you quoted where it says things like "Forty-three percent of all poor households" where it becomes obvious that they're only counting poor with homes of some sort here. In fact it looks like all your quote is only counting poor with homes.

After a little more research it doesn't appear that the census bureau even has attempted to count the homeless often. But by definition they're not going to have Microwaves and satellite dishes.

So the article doesn't support your statements that we don't have poor that are digging for food scraps or living on the street.

"There's no way of knowing because nobody has a fix on the total number" of homeless men and women, said Census spokesman Ray Bancroft. Current estimates of the number vary dramatically, from 250,000 to 3 million."

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1116888.html

 

[spike]

This doesn't sound like our poor are eating from the dump.

Again Jim, you're not taking into account the homeless at all who would be the ones more likely to be eating from the dump.

I've seen enough people pulling food scraps out of dumpsters myself to know that you are wrong.

 

[jimpeel]

Again Jim, you're not taking into account the homeless at all who would be the ones more likely to be eating from the dump.

I've seen enough people pulling food scraps out of dumpsters myself to know that you are wrong.

Why would they dig in dumpsters when all they have to do is stand by the door of McDonald's and ask people if they would buy them a burger? I have done this for people who have asked me for money as I enter a restaurant. I won't give them money but I will buy them food. Those are your homeless.

 

[jimpeel]

But let's go ahead and act like it's 100% true for purposes of debate.

Based on the figures available to the author.

That brings me to my second point. There is a wide variety of definitions of "poor" and the passage you quoted is only using the Census Bureau definition. Many or most of those people are likely to be "working poor" (something which would contradict Gonz ).

Their income simply falls below the Census definition.

There has to be a definition of some type or there is no standard at all. Your standard is the homeless, most of whom choose to be so. We used to call these people "Hobos" or "Bums". They are out there by choice.

There is no lack of romanticized accounts of "Riding the rails" as a Hobo or wandering aimlessly in search of self. Look at John Steinbeck who was homeless during the time he was walking America with his dog Charley and then documented the trek.

SOURCE

Review

John Steinbeck, sensing it was time to rediscover America, decided to set out on a three month odyssey with his French poodle Charley. A tornado in his first week nearly stopped him in his tracks. Steinbeck soon discovered the art of perfect scrounging: sending Charley off, he would follow to retrieve him only to find him buried in some delicious meal. Steinbeck would feign immediate petulance and retrieval, only to receive (of course) a huge welcome from Charley's latest friends. This evocative account of travelling in America is very enjoyable.

He was a Bum with a dog who use the dog as a tool to get fed by those who fed the dog.

Which brings a third point. The Census has historically had much difficulty for obvious reasons counting the homeless. You can see this reflected in the passage you quoted where it says things like "Forty-three percent of all poor households" where it becomes obvious that they're only counting poor with homes of some sort here. In fact it looks like all your quote is only counting poor with homes.

After a little more research it doesn't appear that the census bureau even has attempted to count the homeless often. But by definition they're not going to have Microwaves and satellite dishes.

So the article doesn't support your statements that we don't have poor that are digging for food scraps or living on the street.

"There's no way of knowing because nobody has a fix on the total number" of homeless men and women, said Census spokesman Ray Bancroft. Current estimates of the number vary dramatically, from 250,000 to 3 million."

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1116888.html

Again, you choose to dwell on the homeless as the poor. Those who choose to live that life are not homeless. They are there by choice. Their home is the street and that is what they like. They are the "free spirits" as they choose to think of themselves.

Kids who live on the streets and sell themselves to Johns and homosexuals are among your homeless. Most are runaways who have chosen to live that life. You can see them on Santa Monica Boulevard (Gay) or Sunset Boulevard (Hetero) in Hollywood, CA every day and night.

Your assumption is that all of the homeless do not choose that life. They are there by circumstance, not choice.

Not true.

 

[randomJACKASS]

Based on the figures available to the author.



There has to be a definition of some type or there is no standard at all. Your standard is the homeless, most of whom choose to be so. We used to call these people "Hobos" or "Bums". They are out there by choice.

There is no lack of romanticized accounts of "Riding the rails" as a Hobo or wandering aimlessly in search of self. Look at John Steinbeck who was homeless during the time he was walking America with his dog Charley and then documented the trek.



He was a Bum with a dog who use the dog as a tool to get fed by those who fed the dog.



Again, you choose to dwell on the homeless as the poor. Those who choose to live that life are not homeless. They are there by choice. Their home is the street and that is what they like. They are the "free spirits" as they choose to think of themselves.

Kids who live on the streets and sell themselves to Johns and homosexuals are among your homeless. Most are runaways who have chosen to live that life. You can see them on Santa Monica Boulevard (Gay) or Sunset Boulevard (Hetero) in Hollywood, CA every day and night.

Your assumption is that all of the homeless do not choose that life. They are there by circumstance, not choice.

Not true.

That's some of the dumbest things I've heard you say. A majority of those folks have untreated mental illnesses> I suppose you are going to tell us schizophrenia is a choice? Oh yeah and all those kid who run away, who suffered years of physical, sexual, and psychological abuse chose to have abusive parents and chose to leave and turn tricks when they should be home attending to the sexual needs of their father? Absolute bullshit!

 

[spike]

Why would they dig in dumpsters when all they have to do is stand by the door of McDonald's and ask people if they would buy them a burger? I have done this for people who have asked me for money as I enter a restaurant. I won't give them money but I will buy them food. Those are your homeless.

Most businesses don't want throngs of homeless lined up outside their doors begging for food. Most people also don't give homeless shit. That's why many of them go through the trash for food and sleep on the streets or under bridges or in bushes.

Those are your homeless.

 

[spike]

Based on the figures available to the author.

Which they have not made available to the reader.

There has to be a definition of some type or there is no standard at all. Your standard is the homeless, most of whom choose to be so.

My standard is not just the homeless. There are many definitions by various organizations.

We used to call these people "Hobos" or "Bums". They are out there by choice.

That is total bullshit. Who would want to be homeless by choice? That's ridiculous. Maybe there's a few but the vast majority can't afford a place to stay.

There is no lack of romanticized accounts of "Riding the rails" as a Hobo or wandering aimlessly in search of self. Look at John Steinbeck who was homeless during the time he was walking America with his dog Charley and then documented the trek.

Yeah, they're all Steinbecks doing it on purpose.

Again, you choose to dwell on the homeless as the poor. Those who choose to live that life are not homeless. They are there by choice. Their home is the street and that is what they like. They are the "free spirits" as they choose to think of themselves.

That is just a dumb baseless statement.

Kids who live on the streets and sell themselves to Johns and homosexuals are among your homeless. Most are runaways who have chosen to live that life.

Bullshit.

Your assumption is that all of the homeless do not choose that life. They are there by circumstance, not choice.

Not true.

Bullshit, there may be very few that are there by choice but I have met many of them and haven't met a single one who is there by choice. They would all prefer to have a place to stay and not sleep on the sidewalks.

This is ridiculous.

 

[Inkara1]

You can see them on Santa Monica Boulevard (Gay) or Sunset Boulevard (Hetero) in Hollywood, CA every day and night.

I do have to say that the fact you know the difference is slightly disturbing.

 

[spike]

Kinda bizarre that he brought homosexuals into this at all.

Also the idea that they're Steinbeck's, or "riding the rails", etc all kinda bizarre.

 

[jimpeel]

That's some of the dumbest things I've heard you say.

Ditto for you. The following fails to take into account a myriad of things.

A majority of those folks have untreated mental illnesses> I suppose you are going to tell us schizophrenia is a choice?

They used to take them into hospitals and shelters but the bleeding hearts -- of whom I assume you are one -- during Reagan's term as California governor, forced him to order the release of these people because they deserve to live "free". When he became president, he rescinded a Carter era order that funded involuntary commitment of the mentally ill and returned that responsibility to the states.

This is still bandied about by the Left that Reagan "created" the homeless.

Oh yeah and all those kid who run away, who suffered years of physical, sexual, and psychological abuse chose to have abusive parents and chose to leave and turn tricks when they should be home attending to the sexual needs of their father? Absolute bullshit!

Gee, it was all "Dad's fault" that they ran away. It couldn't have anything to do with their hanging around with the wrong kids at school and getting into drugs. It couldn't have anything to do with their running away from their loving parents who tried to stop their dangerous and promiscuous behavior. It couldn't have anything to do with their parents unwillingness to stand back and watch their child destroy themselves. It couldn't have anything to do with their wanting to "find themselves" because the rules at home -- like cleaning their room and taking out the trash -- were too strict and impinged on their outside activities, like screwing their boy/girlfriend.

Yeah. It's all Dad's fault. Every Dad is a horny old bastard just itching to screw their teenage daughter in every hole she's got after beating her bloody with a ball bat. Every Dad just can't keep his hands off of his daughter. That's why they run away and that's the ONLY reason they run away "physical, sexual, and psychological abuse".

Yep. You say that what I posited was "some of the dumbest things [you've] heard [me] say"? I guess you saw my "dumb" and raised it to all in.

 

[jimpeel]

I do have to say that the fact you know the difference is slightly disturbing.

Used to live there. There are three main drags through Hollywood -- Hollywood Blvd., Sunset Blvd., and Santa Monica Blvd. Those three have been "divvied up" by the various segments who live there.

The Homosexuals frequent Santa Monica Blvd. They stand on the street with their thumbs in their pockets and their fingers pointing to their crotch. The cruisers pick them up for sex and pay them for their services.

The prostitutes frequent Sunset Blvd. They stand on the streets in some of the skimpiest shit you have ever seen. I have seen micro miniskirts which don't cover their ass or crotch and all they have on under that are fishnet stockings -- and I don't mean pantyhose.

Hollywood Blvd. is the "fruits and nuts" street where the street performers, etc. hang out. There are all sorts of strange people dressed in garish ways to be seen everywhere. This is also the street where the Gay cruisers cruise for "fresh fish" because Santa Monica is a good place to catch a disease.

One of the fun things we used to do is to go to Hollywood Blvd. and Vine Street, which is a big tourist draw, and start looking up at the American Airlines building and pointing. Sometime we would say things like "There he is." or "Ya think he'll jump?"

Tghis would get the attention of the stooges and they would start looking up to see what we were looking at. We would then step back and watch the show. This would usually go on for a half hour or so before people started trickling off realizing they were being duped.

The street performers are fun, too.

 

[jimpeel]

Kinda bizarre that he brought homosexuals into this at all.

Read THIS and you might -- might -- just might understand. Until then, you just keep whacking away at how bizarre my stating well known facts is.

By the by, I also brought prostitutes into this but it is so much nastier to equate me with Gays than prostitutes. Just shows how you use stereotypes to slam your opposition.

Also the idea that they're Steinbeck's, or "riding the rails", etc all kinda bizarre.

Nice segue into taking what I say as "all" homeless are Steinbecks and rail riders.

When I was fifteen I used to hang out with the Winos on Temple Street on the West side of L.A. and they would buy me beer and wine if I gave them the money. They were always willing to sit around, talk, and share the booze. A bottle of mad dog Gallo Tawny Port or Sherry was $.25 for a 1/10 gallon bottle. Rainier Ale was $.45 a quart. Short cans of Country club Stout Malt Liquor were $.25.

You ever actually interact with these people you speak of? Ever buy them a meal? Ever sit and talk? Ever share a bottle of wine? Or do you just throw them a quarter to make them go away?

 

[jimpeel]

By the way, this is why I stopped drinking to excess. His name was Mike Brown. He was my best friend. We were drunk on four bottles of Rainier Ale that we had one of the Winos buy for us; but he was not "thrown" into the lake. I tried to save him but he grabbed onto me and dragged me down to the bottom where he let go and I never saw him again. There were three of us but the other guy was no help at all. They dragged his body up 45 minutes later.

One of life's lessons learned the hard way.

I still hung around with the Winos but I didn't drink with them any more.

Youth Thrown in Echo Park Lake Drowns

Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File) - Los Angeles, Calif.
Date: Oct 24, 1963
Start Page: 1
Pages: 1
Text Word Count: 160

Echo Park Drowning of Boy Ruled Accident

Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File) - Los Angeles, Calif.
Date: Oct 25, 1963
Start Page: 27
Pages: 1
Text Word Count: 213

Abstract (Document Summary)

Drowning of a 17-year-old boy in Echo Park Lake will be listed as an accident, police said Thursday.

 

[spike]

Gee, it was all "Dad's fault" that they ran away. It couldn't have anything to do with their hanging around with the wrong kids at school and getting into drugs. It couldn't have anything to do with their running away from their loving parents who tried to stop their dangerous and promiscuous behavior. It couldn't have anything to do with their parents unwillingness to stand back and watch their child destroy themselves. It couldn't have anything to do with their wanting to "find themselves" because the rules at home -- like cleaning their room and taking out the trash -- were too strict and impinged on their outside activities, like screwing their boy/girlfriend.

Sometimes parents are shit and sexually or otherwise abusive. Sure happens all the time.

Yeah. It's all Dad's fault. Every Dad is a horny old bastard just itching to screw their teenage daughter in every hole she's got after beating her bloody with a ball bat. Every Dad just can't keep his hands off of his daughter. That's why they run away and that's the ONLY reason they run away "physical, sexual, and psychological abuse".

He didn't make any claims about all dads. Some dads sure fit that description though.

Yep. You say that what I posited was "some of the dumbest things [you've] heard [me] say"? I guess you saw my "dumb" and raised it to all in.

He was pretty much spot on while you live some fantasy about all the homeless choosing to be homeless. Delusional might have been a better word.

 

[spike]

Used to live there. There are three main drags through Hollywood -- Hollywood Blvd., Sunset Blvd., and Santa Monica Blvd. Those three have been "divvied up" by the various segments who live there.

I do live here and you're full of crap. You just like to make vast generalizations that aren't accurate.

Read THIS and you might -- might -- just might understand. Until then, you just keep whacking away at how bizarre my stating well known facts is.

Your well known facts are crap. I actually spend a lot of time in the area and there's gays and straight homeless and not homeless on all those streets.

Nice segue into taking what I say as "all" homeless are Steinbecks and rail riders.

You said all the homeless choose to be that way because of a variety of bullshit romantic reasons. It's not even close to being a smidge realistic.

When I was fifteen I used to hang out with the Winos on Temple Street on the West side

It's not relevant what happened through the eyes of a fifteen year old many decades ago. We're talking about grown up present day reality.

You ever actually interact with these people you speak of? Ever buy them a meal? Ever sit and talk? Ever share a bottle of wine?

Hell yes, all the time. I think I already mentioned that. I've spent a lot of time talking to many homeless people. My girlfriend and I hung out one 4th of July getting drunk with an encampment staying in the brush by the railroad tracks. I take toys to the mother and little boy who live in abandoned car at a marina I go to sometimes. I've spent a lot of time talking to the old man who hangs out with his shopping cart outside a club I go to sometimes collecting beer cans for recycling money....and many many others.

I sure as hell know that none of them want to be homeless. They have no choice. It's complete bullshit and utterly insulting to these good people to make such inaccurate generalizations.

I have met homeless that have simply lost everything to their crack addiction or what not and there's street performers that a lot of tourists assume are homeless for some reason even though there's nothing to justify that conclusion.

The problem comes when someone foolishly finds some examples of something and tries to generalize the whole.

Check out this article and pay attention to the first sentence.

Homeless people are not a homogenous population. In the early 1980s, homeless people typically were pictured as single men on skid row. Such stereotypes of homelessness have changed in the past two decades. The homeless population now includes more women and families with young children. According to the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients (NSHAPC), homeless families account for 34 percent of homeless population. Most of the homeless families are single women with children.

There are many studies indicating the differences among subpopulations of homeless people. The NSHAPC study reveals that the reasons for becoming homeless for homeless families differ from those for homeless singles. The most frequently given reason for becoming homeless for homeless families and for homeless single women is “couldn’t pay rent;” while the top reason for homeless single men was “lost job or job ended.” Other important reasons indicated by homeless families are “landlord made client leave” and “problem with residence or area where residence is located.” These reasons are not among the top four reasons for homeless singles. On the other hand, two of the top four reasons for homeless singles (“was drinking” and “was doing drugs”) are not among the top four reasons for homeless families.

Homelessness studies found that homeless families were more likely than homeless individuals to be in a first homeless spell lasting less than six months. Homeless families are more likely to use shelters or transitional housing and less likely to have spent any time in places not meant for habitation than homeless individuals. Homeless families were also reported to have higher median income than homeless individuals. Homeless women with children received significantly more public assistance funds during their lifetime than did homeless single women.

Other studies also reveal that homeless singles are more likely to have alcohol and substance abuse problems than homeless families. Homeless families are also less likely to have mental illness than single adults. Approximately a quarter of homeless singles have experienced mental hospitalization. On the other hand, adult family members had rates of prior mental hospitalization of less than ten percent.

There is also a relationship between domestic violence and homelessness. The 2000 U.S. Conference of Mayors reported that domestic violence as one of the primary causes of homeless families. The NSHAPC study reveals that two of the top four reasons for becoming homeless for women are “I or my children were abused, beaten, and/or I was afraid of the violence in the household.” These reasons are not among the top four reasons for both homeless men with children and homeless single men.

Other than history of domestic violence, gender perspective on homelessness presents considerable differences between homeless men and homeless women in many respects. Dozens of studies on homeless women and homeless men show that the two homeless types differ in reasons of becoming homeless, perceived needs, the length of homelessness period, the occurrence of alcohol, drug and mental health problem, family and social relationship, health risk and physical symptom, legal involvement and work history.

The understanding of these differences is quite important to better address the complexity of homelessness problem. Each subpopulation of homeless people has distinctive characteristics that distinguish it from others. Homelessness policy should not lump different homeless subpopulations together. Homelessness policy should take into account the heterogeneity of the homeless population to effectively prevent and address different homeless subpopulations.

http://savannahurbanstudies.blogspot.com/2007/07/homelessness-in-savannah.html

 

[Cerise]

 

[jimpeel]

I do live here and you're full of crap. You just like to make vast generalizations that aren't accurate.

Then you don't get around much.

Your well known facts are crap. I actually spend a lot of time in the area and there's gays and straight homeless and not homeless on all those streets.

Where did I say, or even infer, that everyone on those streets are homeless?

You said all the homeless choose to be that way because of a variety of bullshit romantic reasons. It's not even close to being a smidge realistic.

No. YOU said "all", not me.

It's not relevant what happened through the eyes of a fifteen year old many decades ago. We're talking about grown up present day reality.

Not much has changed in the human condition since then.

Hell yes, all the time. I think I already mentioned that. I've spent a lot of time talking to many homeless people. My girlfriend and I hung out one 4th of July getting drunk with an encampment staying in the brush by the railroad tracks. I take toys to the mother and little boy who live in abandoned car at a marina I go to sometimes. I've spent a lot of time talking to the old man who hangs out with his shopping cart outside a club I go to sometimes collecting beer cans for recycling money....and many many others.

Jesus Christ! No, really. You're a regular Jesus Christ!

I sure as hell know that none of them want to be homeless. They have no choice. It's complete bullshit and utterly insulting to these good people to make such inaccurate generalizations.

Can we rack your "none" right up there with your inferences of my saying "all"?

I have met homeless that have simply lost everything to their crack addiction or what not and there's street performers that a lot of tourists assume are homeless for some reason even though there's nothing to justify that conclusion.

I never said that the street performers were homeless. That was your inference. "Simply lost everything to their crack addiction or what not"? Isn't that what I said?

The problem comes when someone foolishly finds some examples of something and tries to generalize the whole.

Or those who infer that others have said things they haven't said.

Check out this article and pay attention to the first sentence.

Yada, yada, yada.

Take me home, Cerise!

 

[spike]

Then you don't get around much.

I get around plenty which is why I know your generalizations are crap.

Where did I say, or even infer, that everyone on those streets are homeless?

I didn't say you did. I was saying that what you described is inaccurate.

No. YOU said "all", not me.

"Those who choose to live that life are not homeless. They are there by choice. Their home is the street and that is what they like. They are the "free spirits" as they choose to think of themselves."

Kinda sounds like all. When in fact it's not even a decent sized portion.

Not much has changed in the human condition since then.

Ah well, maybe not the human condition but it sure ain't anything like you described.

Can we rack your "none" right up there with your inferences of my saying "all"?

Nope, when I say none of the people I mentioned want to be homeless it's an actual fact.

I never said that the street performers were homeless. That was your inference.

No, I did not infer that, I said some tourists think they are homeless.

"Simply lost everything to their crack addiction or what not"? Isn't that what I said?

Where?

Or those who infer that others have said things they haven't said.

Yes, you do that often too. A few times just in this last post.

Yada, yada, yada.

Is that Peel for "I'm going to ignore the facts and stick with my unfounded generalizations"?

 

[jimpeel]

I do live here and you're full of crap. You just like to make vast generalizations that aren't accurate.

Everything I have said is provable and shows how you lie. Read the following and then tell me that I am making this shit up.

You live there? Are you paying attention to what is happening around you at all?

SOURCE

The basics about Sunset Boulevard are pretty well known, and the link here has them for you.

In reference to my neighborhood, the eight thousand block, nothing much is mentioned. But just east is the seven thousand block, and we get this:

Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood has also gained notoriety as a red-light district for its large amount of prostitution, drag queens and other unusual activity, especially at night. Though this type of activity went on for many years, especially around Western Avenue, in the 1970s the area between Gardner Street and La Brea Avenue became seedy and afflicted with street prostitution that continues to a lesser extent to the present day. It was at the corner of Sunset and Courtney Avenue that actor Hugh Grant pulled over and picked up prostitute Divine Brown in the early morning of June 27, 1995. He then drove a few blocks east and parked at the corner of Curson and Hawthorn Avenues. Police arrested him and the prostitute for lewd conduct in a public place and he was later fined $1,200.

SOURCE

Hugh Grant's place of infamy, it was on this corner of Sunset and Courtney Avenue at 1:30 a.m. on 27th June 1995 that Hugh Grant forever tarnished his golden-boy image. Driving around after dinner at Matsuhisa on La Ceinega Boulevard, Hugh pulled over his white BMW here and picked up prostitute Divine Brown. Grant and Brown then drove a few blocks east and stopped on Hawthorn Avenue, where two cops interrupted his business transaction. Grant was charged with a misdemeanor for lewd conduct in a public place, from which he received world wide publicity and even greater fame.

SOURCE

A New Breed of Homeless

By MACK REED, L.A. TIMES STAFF WRITER

Shaved to stubble but for a long, silken topknot, Chase's head shows ragged pink scars he has picked up living on Hollywood streets off and on for two of his 15 years. Crashed on a shelter couch, he pops a downer--prescription Benadryl he scored somewhere--and drags a blanket over his clunky black Doc Martens, rip-hemmed jeans and plaid flannel shirt, tucking it under his blissed-out grin.

"I've done every drug, everything I ever wanted to do," Chase says cheerfully, refusing to give his full name. "Anything and everything that'd get me high to make me forget my problems, I'll do it."

Chase is one of a new breed of homeless youth landing on the streets of Los Angeles in vastly increasing numbers; some forced out of their homes by violent parents, others drawn by threadbare fantasies of rock stardom or movie fame. Rootless, shortchanged by dwindling public aid and forced to fend for themselves longer than they ever have been, they have grown hardened.

Some are full of attitude: Their clothes, pierced body parts and stark haircuts bind them together in a rebellious fraternity that collectively sneers at conventional attitudes about morality and homelessness. Some are scarcely teen-agers, operating in a street society that is a vicious cycle of drugs, prostitution and petty crimes. It is a world that has become increasingly violent.

...

Carl's father booted him out five years ago over his punk lifestyle. Now 20, Carl is among the more levelheaded here. He wears an Army fatigue jacket inscribed with anti-racist slogans and his curly hair is furrowed into twin Mohawks. Carl says he lives in the "squat," eats shelter food and cadges coins from passersby to spend on drugs and beer.

"A lot of people think we're slime of the earth," Carl says. "They're afraid of us and they have it in their mind we're, like, violent creatures. We're all human too."

Carl says he would get a job, but he has a record: He admits serving four months for a felony strong-arm robbery and attacking "only people who really deserve it, people who are ass-----."

"Society doesn't owe me anything," Carl says, but he adds that "it would be nice" if more people would spare change for the punks. "It's just out of being nice," he says. "You should help people without expecting something in return."

...

Some of the youths on Los Angeles' streets deal drugs. Many more use them--more than 60%, by some estimates.

Crack cocaine and crystal methamphetamine--speed--are the most popular, social workers say. Marijuana, heroin and LSD are widely used.

"If there's something that will alter their consciousness, they'll take it," Peel said. "In the last eight years, I've only heard of three kids who have not used."

...

Detective Rick Papke of LAPD's Hollywood juvenile division summed it up: "The kids learn as soon as they get into Hollywood that the quickest way to make some money is walk up and down the street. The girls go out on Hollywood and the boys go out on Santa Monica Boulevard, and they make a pretty good living."

SOURCE: L.A. TIMES

Anti-Prostitution Proposal Targets Solicitors' Cars

By Richard Winton, Times Staff Writer
November 20, 2002

Police would be empowered to seize the cars of people who solicit prostitutes under an ordinance proposed by Los Angeles City Councilman Tom LaBonge.

Saying his 4th District constituents are fed up with crime on their doorsteps, LaBonge called for the new tool for police in their fight against street prostitution that plagues Sunset Boulevard and other areas.

...

LAPD Capt. Michael Downing of the Hollywood Division said there has been a rise in prostitution in his area. Citywide last year, 3,362 adults and 313 juveniles were arrested for prostitution.

SOURCE

Let me introduce you to some of the girls.

Hmmmm. They appear to be dresssed just about as I described.

SOURCE

Imagine that. A prostitution attorney located at 6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 915 Los Angeles, California 90028 (Actually, there is no such city as Hollywood. The area known as Hollywood is actually Los Angeles, 28, CA which became Los Angeles, CA 90028 with the inception of zip codes.)

Wow! Another one at 9000 Sunset Blvd., Suite# 805 Hollywood, CA 90069

SOURCE

Police Crack Down on Cruising

By HECTOR BECERRA, TIMES STAFF WRITER
May 04, 2002

Concerned that gun-waving and beer-hurling by gangs might soon degenerate into bloodshed along busy Sunset Boulevard, nearly 60 law enforcement officers fanned out Friday night in search of cruisers looking for trouble.

Officers from the California Highway Patrol and Los Angeles Police Department, some working undercover, joined the crackdown in Hollywood and West Hollywood along the glitzy but rough boulevard, where prostitution, drunkenness and traffic congestion have long been problems.

That enough or you need more?