Jump to content

Unsafe conditions at home


The Almighty Doer of Stuff
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm assuming you've already tried talking to your housemates about this without success?

 

It sounds like you've already looked up a number of relevant authorities to complain to, and you may be nearing the limits of what you can achieve on your own. Is there any kind of free legal aid service for people with low incomes or disabilities in your area? They might have a better idea of what your options are.

 

If all else fails, I guess "put the photos online, share them with everyone you're remotely connected to and hope it goes viral" is an option, if something of a nuclear one. It's definitely not gonna make you any friends, but if it's either that or continue to put up with your current living situation... well, it's your decision to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not entirelly sure of your situation but im assuming moving out on your own its not an option. You could search for other similar companies or another house in the same company(even if they are as mentioned, irresponsible there is a chance other houses have better conditions and roommates). But my main advice is, don't go to great lenghts and spend money on any form of legal action. In my experience the person with more money and contacts wins. It's not fair but thats how the world works. If you can get someone to do it for you pro bono however it's worth a shot. Last option is what lilith said; publish the pictures online and hope it gets viral. But i hope it doesn't come to that and you find a way to solve the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Publishing online is risky, because the company can file a lawsuit against you for defaming them even though you are being truthful. There are all the employees of the company and government agencies who are invested in the lies. The worst part about your problem is that enough people know and are deliberately ignoring it for money and to keep their positions.

 

You need legal help and they need to document your complaints and that they are being ignored. Otherwise it's your word against theirs.

 

Also try the fire department, because smoking in bed can lead to a mattress being set on fire. It happened at my college dorm and set both mattresses in a bunk bed on fire before the room's sprinkler went off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my experience, this is sort of par for the course for the kind of setup you're in. It sounds like the company pays for thorough, professional cleaning once a month, and otherwise asks (but does not enforce) that residents clean.

 

Would once a month be adequate for this situation in general, i.e., without taking into account the presence of atypically filthy residents? Probably. So the question becomes, when residents create unsanitary conditions and fail to clean, is the company itself responsible?

 

I think this turns on exactly what kind of contract you have with them. Is your contract with them an actual lease, or is it framed as a psychiatric or health service?

 

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I happen to be pretty familiar with the sanitation code, and landlord-tenant law, in your state. If you have an actual lease (i.e., it just says "lease" or "tenancy agreement" or something at the top), I would suggest you look at tenant assistance websites and follow the suggestions there. Landlord-tenant law offers generally reasonable protections and remedies for uninhabitable conditions in your state.

 

If your contract isn't just a lease, but is a psychiatric or health service agreement, then I think it's a lot trickier. I would read all the fine print in your agreement to see what it says. As others have said, document everything as methodically and completely as possible, then find out who the licensing authority is for the agency, and contact them directly. I agree that spreading complaints over the internet is unlikely to result in any positive outcome for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After doing some cursory googling about the organization, it is looking clearer that you may have trouble getting anything to happen. They've had a lot of worse problems than cleanliness that haven't been adequately dealt with and part of the cause appears to be fixed contracts they have with DMH. (Also, if there are stipulations about behavior and "treatment" in your agreement, it is probably not just a lease.)

 

Based on what I'm reading, if you're not feeling safe or sanitary there, I'd concentrate more on finding an alternate living situation. Again, not a lawyer and not legal advice, but I would not expect anything to change no matter what complaints were filed, if I were in your shoes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the "nuclear" option of posting on the web can bring on a lot of liability. An alternate approach to the "nuclear" option (and I would still consider it a last resort) is to contact the press (local paper or TV station). They have the ability to achieve more than most people typically can with a web posting while maintaining a degree of legal immunity that you as an individual do not have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lease-related advice seems reasonable, as is looking for other housing elsewhere.

 

I'm a foreigner so I guess it's to be expected that I don't understand either the situation or some people's reactions to it but regardless: someone ought to be responsible. Unless perhaps this "non-profit company" thing is some legal trickery designed to allow the state to divest itself of its responsibilities without transferring it to someone else. But even if that's the case, there must be at least one senior official who's signing off on this, perhaps at this "DMH" thing.

Here, most non-profits must hold governance meetings, some of which are open to the public. If that's not the case, you should still be able to contact whoever is in charge at the top of that "non-profit company", both informally and in writing so that you'll have a paper trail. Then if that doesn't help you should be able to go first to whichever organization is paying for this ("DMH"?) and finally to the relevant politician(s).

Going lawyerly or public seems premature until the people responsible (not "team leaders", "case managers" or other underlings) have been contacted in a constructive, non-hostile and reasonable manner.

Then again, I'm a foreigner so I have no idea how accountability works in your country...

 

Also, if nothing else is on offer, social services such as temporary housing and advice are in many places around the world offered by some large churches to whoever is being let down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt very much if anyone at DMH prefers sending people to privately run group homes. But they have basically no source of revenue other than their funding, because they provide services to people who (on average) have few financial resources. I'm not sure what the alternative would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The alternative would be a properly funded government with properly funded public institutions. -_-

 

The US is hemorrhaging money at the current rate. I can't see any kind of funding increase being sustainable. The only real question is how long until things collapse completely in full greek style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Senator Sanders plans to tax the heck out of the very wealthy if he's elected, which, if we can get that to happen, will help the hemorrhaging significantly. There's plenty of money in America but it's being hoarded and not spent on anything. Seriously, it's like the country is run by Ebenezer Scrooge, pre-ghosts. There's a class of American society who have so much money that they're just not using or even planning to use for themselves or anyone else, and they keep it just for the sake of keeping it. It's kind of bizarre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Senator Sanders plans to tax the very wealthy will not generate anything approaching the level of revenue that is required to pay for all of the social programs that he wants unless you consider "very wealthy" to be everyone with an income above the poverty line. Every country has their group of people who hoard money, America is no different in that regard. The "top 1%" does not have any wealth to pay for all of his programs even if you just simply took all of their money. Most of his ideas sound somewhere between great and an episode of the Oprah Winfrey show (free college for you and you and you) but will not work in the real world.

Simply increasing the number of people with college degrees will not help the economy when there are plenty of people will college degrees who are already "underemployed". The only way to generate the necessary revenue would be greatly increase the taxes on the middle class who are the ones who already pay the most for college. Any thing given for free becomes valued less which will create all sorts of un-intended consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not american. My nationalities are likelly as unnamerican as it gets so forgive me from commenting as follows. No. Syphooning money out of the rich doesnt cut it. But taxing according to income will. Unfortunatelly of unemployment is as bad as you make it seem, taxes alone won't cut it unless you solve that problem. How about all college courses having a mandatory entrepeneurship unit. And the government creating market rules and regulations to give small businesses a little edge for competition in a market where big companies bully and drown the rest. How about giving a significant although not severe tax to insurance companies and the fund collected be exclusivly alocated into giving health services to those who can't afford it. Of course with lobying now a days and dependance on sponsors for an election campaign that is very unlikelly to happen.

 

I'm sorry its like that all mighty doer of stuff. Not that its any consolation but most of the rest of the world isnt much better. I hope you get some kind of independance soon.

 

My point is, its easy to invent excuses for bad situations. But that doesn't make them better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US is hemorrhaging money at the current rate.

Good thing money doesn't cost the US government anything then.

 

The "top 1%" does not have any wealth to pay for all of his programs even if you just simply took all of their money. Most of his ideas sound somewhere between great and an episode of the Oprah Winfrey show (free college for you and you and you) but will not work in the real world.

If you're going to talk about "the real world", how about you show your work? How did you estimate how much the assets of the 1% are worth?

Seizing all the assets of the 1% would of course not be an advisable policy but stating obvious falsehoods doesn't help your case.

Meanwhile in rest of "the real world", some countries have had free or very cheap basic college for everybody for decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, the US FY2015 Federal Budget was $3.8 Trillion. In June of 2014 (three months prior to the start of FY15), the Fed estimated that households and non-profits combined had a total worth of $81.5 Trillion. Media reports are stating that the Top 1% owns 40% of the wealth (it is quite hard to find good back up for that figure) so approximately $33 Trillion. In less than 10 years of Federal spending we could completely exhaust the resources of the Top 1%. Obviously there are some gross simplifications there, as unless all of their money was taken at once, the Top 1% would continue to accumulate wealth and so it would take longer than 10 years to completely bankrupt them. On the other hand, even without an expansion of mandatory federal spending (most social programs fall under that category) the Federal Budget grows each year reducing the amount of time to destroy all of that wealth.

 

I do think that income inequality is a problem, my issue with Sanders and Trump (since as far as I am concerned there is very little practical difference between the two) is that they push very divisive simple sounding fixes that will not actually work. Free college for everyone is as bad a campaign promise as saying that Mexico is going to pay for a wall along their Northern (our Southern) border.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...so approximately $33 Trillion. In less than 10 years of Federal spending we could completely exhaust the resources of the Top 1%. Obviously there are some gross simplifications there, as unless all of their money was taken at once, the Top 1% would continue to accumulate wealth and so it would take longer than 10 years to completely bankrupt them.

I don't believe anyone said other currently existing sources of federal income would be off limits. In 2015, direct federal income was about $3 trillion. I'm sure there's some substantial overlap with the above $33 trillion, but if we use that same 40% figure (which I agree is pretty arbitrary) that only leaves around $1-2 trillion that the gov't would be taking out of the above $33 trillion, to cover its budget. That's a lot of money but it's a pretty small proportion, and as you mention, I'm sure that pot would continue to accumulate wealth, probably at a faster rate than the 3-6% per year withdrawal.

 

This is sort of a silly exercise but if it's going to get proposed and discussed we might as well discuss it logically.

 

I do think that income inequality is a problem, my issue with Sanders and Trump (since as far as I am concerned there is very little practical difference between the two) is that they push very divisive simple sounding fixes that will not actually work. Free college for everyone is as bad a campaign promise as saying that Mexico is going to pay for a wall along their Northern (our Southern) border.

I mean, there are certainly arguments to be made about what they have in common (e.g., having an anti-establishment angle), but "very little practical difference" between their positions... um. No. You can interpret the relevance or impact of their positions as you wish, but I don't think there are any adjectives that you can insert to make "very little... difference" work here ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, it's very easy to tax income; we have an income tax. It's not so easy to tax wealth. There are a few countries with wealth taxes, but the US isn't one, and the Constitution possibly forbids it. There's no way for the government to even access that 40% of all wealth.

 

—Alorael, who still thinks the government still almost has a license to print money through loans/bonds, and that's ignoring its actual license to literally print money. Both result in howls of outrage, but the avoidance of deficit spending in a slowly-uncrashing economy is something of a sticking point in political/fiscal/economic debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hypothetically, if you tax income enough, they'll eventually dip into their savings for buying things and such. Since the wealthy class tends to hoard money for no clear reason rather than spend though, you'd probably have to tax their income for quite a while before you get into their savings and stocks and such.

 

Anyway, Senator Sanders's plan isn't just "tax the hell out of the rich and everything will fall into place." He's been championing progressive economic and social programs for as long as he's been a politician. One big thing, and he is adamant that this is Priority #1, is Get Money And Bribery Out Of Politics. Nothing good can happen as long as our politicians are beholden to multinational conglomerates in order to get their campaign money. Senator Sanders only takes small donations from his supporters. He keeps using the number 27 whenever it's convenient for the rhetoric of his latest email, it's kind of a gimmick I guess, but he's been saying the average donation is $27 for months. I think he said it once and everyone thought it was cool and probably a huge number of supporters donate exactly $27 to play along. I can't think of any other reason why the average would still be $27.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some limits on what I can say politically in my current job, but I'm going to try to stay at a factual (rather than normative) level here. All of this is intended as a statement of what is rather than what should be and is not intended to endorse anything in particular.

The US is hemorrhaging money at the current rate. I can't see any kind of funding increase being sustainable. The only real question is how long until things collapse completely in full greek style.

It's worth being aware that the current (i.e., the last bar) federal budget deficit is relatively modest by the standards of the last several decades:

fredgraph.png?g=47Co

This is as a percentage of GDP, which is probably the best simple measure for the size of the deficit. Also, the increase in the deficit in the past few years was largely the result of the crash of 2008 (note that the deficit always increases during/after the gray parts of the graph, which are recessions or depressions).

 

Also, the problem Greece faces with its debt is almost entirely different, because Greece doesn't control its own currency (it uses the euro) and the United States does. The United States can always avoid default by printing more money; Greece can't. As a result, the United States has never faced the extremely high interest rates on its debt that Greece faced in 2011/12, and it rarely faces high interest rates on its debt at all because of its almost total lack of risk of default.

 

(And yes, in the right circumstances — which we are probably not currently in — printing more money can cause inflation, which is its own problem, but the point is just that the two cases are not very comparable. They have different dynamics.)

Senator Sanders plans to tax the heck out of the very wealthy if he's elected, which, if we can get that to happen

Just at a mathematical level, the dynamics of the current election would have to change dramatically and quickly for that to happen (compare demographic targets to forecasts). I wouldn't hold your breath.

Incidentally, it's very easy to tax income; we have an income tax. It's not so easy to tax wealth. There are a few countries with wealth taxes, but the US isn't one, and the Constitution possibly forbids it. There's no way for the government to even access that 40% of all wealth.

It depends on which government you're talking about. State governments historically developed property taxes to serve as wealth taxes, because the value of a person's property was a pretty good proxy for that person's wealth. (This is becoming less and less true for the very highest echelon of wealthy people in the United States, but for most people it's still basically true.) And the Constitution doesn't restrict state government taxation much at all.

 

Now, it's true that the Constitution has something about direct taxes in it that would affect the federal government's ability to impose a progressive property (or wealth) tax directly — frankly, I'm told the details are complicated and I've never looked them up — but I bet the federal government could encourage the states to impose wealth taxes via conditional spending (i.e., you get such and such money for this thing if you enact a law doing such and such). There are some limits on this, as the Supreme Court told us regarding the Medicaid expansion back in 2012, but it's a pretty common thing to do generally. So it probably would be possible for the federal government to "enact" progressive wealth taxes (by convincing the states do it through, basically, bribery).

 

Now, it may not be very efficient — calculating someone's wealth (i.e., net worth) is administratively complicated, and enforcement would be pretty hard — and the states would have at least some ability to decide not to go along, but it's at least somewhat possible. And a lot of what Sanders argues should happen requires a constitutional amendment anyway, so it's not any less possible than most of the rest of his positions.

Since the wealthy class tends to hoard money for no clear reason rather than spend though

When you're sufficiently rich that you can lock up a lot of money in investments and just have a little bit of your cash available for day-to-day spending, your invested money builds substantially over time (more if you can invest in the very long term). And as it builds, it can be spent on things in the future or passed on to children.

 

So the reason for doing it is clear, regardless of what you think of the ethics of doing it.

 

One big thing, and he is adamant that this is Priority #1, is Get Money And Bribery Out Of Politics.

Note that doing this on a large scale requires either 1) a constitutional amendment or 2) a Supreme Court ready to overturn precedent and significant federal (and probably also state) legislation. A president can't actually do any of those things alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few countries with wealth taxes, but the US isn't one, and the Constitution possibly forbids it.

FACTA effectively taxes assets (which is what the Constitution forbids and not a wealth tax as such) under the guise of taxing their use. It's not terribly difficult to work around that Constitution of yours with bipartisan support.

I bet the federal government could encourage the states to impose wealth taxes via conditional spending (i.e., you get such and such money for this thing if you enact a law doing such and such).

That wouldn't work as there would be a strong initiative for smaller states to become tax heavens. But see FACTA for an approach that works.

Now, it may not be very efficient — calculating someone's wealth (i.e., net worth) is administratively complicated, and enforcement would be pretty hard

There's an easy solution: tax assets at the maximum rate by default and let the owners report on their own wealth if they want their assets to be exempted or taxed at a lower rate. That would double as a tax on money laundering. Again, see FACTA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FACTA effectively taxes assets (which is what the Constitution forbids and not a wealth tax as such) under the guise of taxing their use. It's not terribly difficult to work around that Constitution of yours with bipartisan support.

Assuming you mean FATCA, not FACTA, my understanding of that law is that it just identifies assets better, but it's still in service of an income tax. Is that not correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, acronym dyslexia.

 

It is nominally in service of an income tax but it does tax (certain uses of) assets by default. As in, "voluntarily" meet the reporting requirements or get taxed heavily, regardless of the constitutional provisions regarding direct taxation. My point is that the very same approach could just as well be used to tax compliant assets at a much lower rate.

In any case the fact that the US government finds it useful to go after people's assets as a way to curtail income tax evasion gives the lie to the notion that:

it's very easy to tax income; we have an income tax. It's not so easy to tax wealth.

No other country carries out financial surveillance like the US does, even the ones which have wealth taxes. I think that many of those around the world who are routinely required to provide information to the US government even though they are not US persons and have no income coming from the USA would be surprised to learn that the US government is only supposed to tax income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is nominally in service of an income tax but it does tax (certain uses of) assets by default. As in, "voluntarily" meet the reporting requirements or get taxed heavily, regardless of the constitutional provisions regarding direct taxation.

I don't understand what you mean. I thought it just allowed the federal government to track down income-generating assets more easily, so that the government could tax the income from those assets. It's not a tax on those assets in the sense of a wealth tax; it's a way of tracking down income for an income tax.

 

So, for example, to use the same sort of mechanism for property, you would require everyone to report the income that they generate from their property. Except they already do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand what you mean. I thought it just allowed the federal government to track down income-generating assets more easily, so that the government could tax the income from those assets.

And the way it "just allows" (lovely!) the government to track down assets (whether they're income-generating or not by the way) is by taxing assets. Except people can get out of the tax by reporting information to the US government. It's unethical and strong-arming foreign governments into making this legal has been hugely unpopular but it works.

 

So, for example, to use the same sort of mechanism for property, you would require everyone to report the income that they generate from their property.

No, people are already taxed irrespective of income under FATCA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In many ways it reminds me of many other Federal programs such as Federal Highway funds which during the 1973 oil crisis became tied into enforcement of the speed limit. While the interstate commerce clause has been stretch to cover many things, it can only stretch so far and so the carrot and stick approach of if you want funding you must follow policy "x" or answer data call "y". FATCA appears to do essentially the same thing but to people instead of states. Provide us data to prove that you are paying your income taxes or we will really tax you.

 

You are of course right Lilith this should be spun off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, Vinfen suddenly pulled a new living situation out of thin air for me. I'm going to check the conditions of the place tomorrow just in case, but I'm told there's no major problems like drug dealers or structural problems and I expect I'll take this opportunity.

 

It's an individual apartment in Amesbury, within walking distance of downtown, also run by Vinfen like this place, with the same subsidy.

 

Still, someone is coming today to investigate my claim of human rights violations here. Even if I move out I want to make sure they don't just forget my complaints and make my three not-disgusting housemates continue to live in filth.

 

Awesome! This is great i really hope the other house is good and has boundary concious housemates. All the best will ya? And its admirable that you still would care about said horrible living conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vinnie, does WCVB still do worthwhile reporting, or is it garbage? I know that your situation might be resolved, but if this company is not enforcing the tenancy requirements in their gov't funded housing, it's mismanagement of the public trust, and that gets reporters all in a tizzy. I would call their news desk (phone # on website) and ask to speak to a reporter. Explain the situation, explain your concerns, and ask that they look into it. Invite them to your home. Show them records of phone calls and emails to the company. Let them work up a story, and find other houses that are managed in a similar manner. And then you'll really get to see heads roll...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really recommend against doing that. An investigation is just going to turn up that some residents at a psychiatric group home didn't or were unable to abide by normal standards of cleanliness (not unusual), and that getting management to react took forever and required dealing with multiple layers of petty bureaucracy (also not unusual). From the outside it won't be obvious whether to blame the company or the residents... but given the number of news stories about scandals in the same state's foster care system that involve more deleterious abuse, it probably won't resonate either with reporters or with the general public.

 

OTOH, doing that could very easily make the company decide they don't want your contract anymore, and it sounds like you are getting a much better setup.

 

I'm assuming they have the option to decline clients DMH refers to them. If they don't, well, that sort of undercuts the entire case/story, because it turns into "there isn't enough funding to adequately provide services to some of these clients, and this company is trying to provide services on inadequate funding"... which is old news; even more of a problem in most states not named Massachusetts; and unlikely to gain traction there even if it wasn't Baker doing the budget now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I sympathize with Vinnie's plight, and applaud his solution, there remains a problem for the rest of the residents, both causers and effectees. It's not a healthy environment, and the fact that it existed at all suggests that a corporate culture exists that encourages it. So, yeah, for the greater good it should be investigated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salmon, while you're right that ideally it should be changed, the reality is that an investigation is very unlikely to cause that change, for the same reasons I gave above. The problems ADoS reported are part of a series of much bigger systemic problems that ultimately hinge on the way we distribute our resources. Taking humane care of people who have both basic (food, clothing, shelter) and less common (e.g., personal or psychiatric) needs, but little to no ability to pay or to earn money, simply requires money from outside the system -- money that we, collectively, do not assign there (whether through government spending, private donations, or any other avenue).

 

While I am generally pro-investigation and certainly pro-information, in these kind of encrusted organizational systems, you have to be aware of the context, of what will happen after the investigation, of what it will look like to stakeholders (including the media and the public at large)... this just isn't the way to effect change. I say this as someone who, you may remember, worked in said industry for a decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Arizona Republic newspaper had an investigative report a few years ago on how the probate court system was being used to have people lose their rights with false diagnosis for mental health problems they didn't have so their money could be looted. It's still an ongoing problem because the system makes money keeping it that way. Even when there is no dispute that laws are being broken nothing really is done about punishing the guilty.

 

I moved just so I could sleep without worrying that I could get caught up in that mess. The lawyers don't want to fix the system because they can get paid as court appointed representatives for people losing their rights or sometimes get temporary appointments as probate judges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest its beyond me how people feel so comfortable ignoring bad situations. It happens really not that rarelly that people indeed should have nightmares about it.

Know when they shouldn't? When it doesn't happen anymore. As a scientist i can relax and not worry about being burned by the inquisition. But to other problems people face? No. Until an ill is erradicated why bother living in an ilusion. It will come and get you or someone close sooner or later.

 

But sadly i have to agree with slartibus. People are comfortable ignoring the ills of society. Investigators are unlikelly to make a difference and if they can be traced back to TADOS, it could mean problems for him too. Even media is likelly able not to make much of a difference. You see a documentary on human rights violations and the most likelly reaction is switch the channel.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've slept all night and I'm still crying over the situation. I want to change things, but I swear, when I listen to my loved ones being so calm, telling me I'm worrying too much, being unable to comprehend the horrors we could have been faced with no matter how I try to explain it, just the thought of forcing them to understand and making them cry, making them angry, the people I love, I just start crying. Nobody wants to see their loved ones frightened.

 

It's a situation of "There, but for the grace of God, go I," really. I know logically that emphasizing this is the only way to make change, but I don't really want to. It makes sense and it also doesn't at the same time.

 

I guess if fighting for civil rights and humane treatment was easy, we wouldn't still be struggling with it today...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone with little to no experience in what you're going through here's what i can say.

 

1. Fight for civil rights is hard and slow. But never think it's pointless, we still have a long way to go but looking back we've come a long way too. Don't give up just yet. Smile now even if forced and be a little optimistic :)

2-You say you're a poet. A good way of inspiring change is through art. That is exactly why in countries under authoritarian leadership censure tends to exist. You do your best to become influencial as an artist and do exactly that. Influence people. Because while a documentary on humam rights violations will be ignored by most. Poetry will still be read by a lot of people. And even while depicting something ugly poetry is still in itself beautifull. You could write books too. God knows Chuck Palahunik has success even in books such as "haunted".

3- Lastly and this will come off as cheap and unhelpfull. But at some points it was the only thing that allowed me to make sense of some unpleasant situations: "Heavy burdens are for strong shoulders to carry." Know that most of us wouldn't be able to cope with what you're going through in any way. But you can. And that means something. Don't sell yourself short.

 

I'm sorry i can't be of much help but i hope the little i said was usefull :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, few people are interested in poetry these days and it's not really an efficient way to reach people with an idea, unless it's in the form of a pop song. I did write and self-publish an ~300 page book of poetry, but I'm focusing on visual art these days. I do plan to put up "Info & Ramble" pages for all my designs eventually, and many of the rambles will discuss issues I care about. I don't know that anyone will actually read them though, because I can't even sell the products themselves despite my attempts. Not giving up though.

 

I like that little proverb, I guess, but right now my reaction is, "Well, I guess my shoulders aren't too strong then, because I want to give up." On the other hand, I think of my mountain climbing experience, I think of my father and my grandfather and how strong they were, and how much they loved me, and I just don't want to think of letting them down. There's poetry about them in my book, some of my favorites, especially the one about Grandpa. I can look at that and hopefully keep my resolve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, few people are interested in poetry these days and it's not really an efficient way to reach people with an idea, unless it's in the form of a pop song. I did write and self-publish an ~300 page book of poetry, but I'm focusing on visual art these days. I do plan to put up "Info & Ramble" pages for all my designs eventually, and many of the rambles will discuss issues I care about. I don't know that anyone will actually read them though, because I can't even sell the products themselves despite my attempts. Not giving up though.

 

I like that little proverb, I guess, but right now my reaction is, "Well, I guess my shoulders aren't too strong then, because I want to give up." On the other hand, I think of my mountain climbing experience, I think of my father and my grandfather and how strong they were, and how much they loved me, and I just don't want to think of letting them down. There's poetry about them in my book, some of my favorites, especially the one about Grandpa. I can look at that and hopefully keep my resolve.

 

Well if we're to take the cue on how to self publish from success story i'd say add some poem about an abusive relationship and call it 36 tones of brown. About a dettatched dominatrix thats also a millionaire :p

 

But from my personal experience a lot of people enjoy poetry still. Thats the kind of thinking ray bradburry had when writting fahrenheit 451 and lo, decades later books are still a thing. Just go around shamelessly forcing it on your friends. They'll eventually even be able to notice improvements and drops in quality. Of course thats a bit pushy. Try indie publishers. They usually have a specific genre or target audience and are friendly.

 

Visual arts work too. Most art does if you are good enough and can reach it to people.

 

Lastly i love self fulffilling things :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest its beyond me how people feel so comfortable ignoring bad situations. It happens really not that rarelly that people indeed should have nightmares about it.

 

It is a very effective coping mechanism for many people. Ignoring problems (medical, social, societal, etc) is how many people maintain a happy or at least content life.

 

In terms of unjustified involuntary commitments, Saint Elizabeths in DC is always the example that comes to my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...