Keys are keys and doughnuts are doughnuts. I don’t know but I feel like the story ended slightly, abruptly. This story was very good at bringing to light the fact that there is a large community of mentally handicapped people, and it is sad to read about stories about them because they are good people, they just need to be taken care of. I do not really know what the committee was trying to get out of Lucien but I am glad that he got the funding from the government. (I am about to get on my soapbox) I know that the government helps out and what they do is good, but, and I emphasize BUT, it is not the job of the government to give aid to people that are mentally handicapped. It is the job of the church and the job of non-profit business. What you said in class about the government not being able to just pull out is very true and I fully agree with you. Ok enough said. When jack was talking about the sex policy that was in place, I completely understood why it was in place, but my question is was that truly what Norman had in mind with Sheila. From what I can tell he just wanted to hang out, but I really do not know what is in their minds. I know that mentally handicapped people’s minds work differently, but how different do they work? They have minds like children but do they have any sexual desires such that a no sex policy should be in place? I find it interesting that all the women were sterile or they were given birth control. I guess sex is even a caution that needs to be taken into consideration with mentally handicapped people too. I definitely still feel that people that help people like Norman, Arnold, Lucien and Barry are good people. I do not have any problem with Jack leaving in the end, I can understand how that has got to be a tough job and strenuous on ones mind.
It seems that you are connecting with this story, which make me glad.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that you agree with me here: "What you said in class about the government not being able to just pull out is very true." The very problem is, though, that that is exactly what the government does do--pull out without there being adequate other help in place--whenever people with the "it's not my job" mentality get into office, which happens when the people with the "it's not my job" mentality vote for them and support that kind of policy.
If you give the average taxpayer the choice of (a) lower taxes or (b) justice (i.e. the ability to live with dignity) for the poor and weak and disabled, which will most people choose? When brought face-to-face with the realities that the poor and weak and disabled live with, I have to think that most decent people would choose justice. But, the problem is that most people don't want to face reality. They just want to chose "lower taxes" or "less welfare" without having to be aware of what that means for someone like Lucien P. Smith or my colleagues' children.
In the end, as long as the weak, poor, and disabled are taken care of, I don't care who does it. But it is the job of the privileged to look out for the unprivileged. Right now, the government is in a better position to do this than philanthropists. If that changes, fine by me--so long as no one "gets off the hook" for their social responsibility to their neighbors.
How do you keep managing to get these long, impassioned comments out of me? :-)
lol if i knew i would tell you. It would be nice well it would be great if someone had the passion and calling to start a non profit simply to take over one or two of these facilities. I think it would be the best of both worlds. something could be worked out for the people there to do small stuff, kind of what AFI does with Publix. That could be a source of revenue and income.
ReplyDelete