Analysing Homelessness In Australia

Analysing Homelessness In Australia Over the past few decades, mechanisms of social exclusion and social control have made it increasingly hard for Australias homeless. Many texts discuss the issue of defining homelessness and it is now widely accepted there are several different kinds. Here, I will be talking primarily about Primary homelessness, which is also known as sleeping rough, where people sleep in cars, parks or other public spaces (Which Way Home? 2008: 18). On average around 105,000 people are homeless in Australia each night and around 15% of these are rough sleeper (The Road Home 2008: 3). The majority of homeless people list financial difficulty, domestic violence, family breakdown or substance abuse as the main causes of their homeless status (Which Way Home? 2008: 20). Homelessness remains a particular problem among Australias Indigenous people, who are over represented in their use of homeless services in all states and territories (Which Way Home? 2008: 20). While homelessness itself is not illegal in Australia, many acts committed by the homeless are, such as public urination, public drunkenness and the possession of illegal drugs. Criminalization of the homeless occurs because these people lack the private space in which to engage in these behaviours. Governments assume that by removing the homeless from public spaces that they are reducing crime and creating safe streets for the law abiding public. However, as illustrated above, the crimes the homeless commit do not generally hurt others or damage property. They are breaking specific laws that have been created by the government which are enforced to exclude certain groups of society from specific public spaces, notably the spaces that the wealthy inhabit. Criminalizing the homeless for behavior that is unavoidable in their situation is not simply poor public policy; it also places unnecessary stress on the criminal justice system. Criminalizing the homeless also leaves the law enforcement officials to deal with related issues, such as issues such as mental illness and alcoholism (citation). Alcoholism is an issue that is common among the homeless population and it is a condition that often intensifies as a result of being homeless. Criminalizing the homeless for being drunk on the streets does not treat the problem, nor does it assist the police in cleaning up the streets. It is often found is that homeless alcoholics use rehabilitation centres as shelter services, but have little intention of treating their addiction (Wilhite 1992: 190). This indicates that the provision of suitable housing is a prerequisite to treating alcoholism. Once suitably housed, alcoholics have an increased chance of using alcohol rehabilitation services effectively. However, as suitable housing becomes increasingly scarce, the homeless are released from the justice system and back on to the street, where the cycle is then repeated. Homelessness has also increased significantly among the mentally ill in recent decades. This has been attributed to discontinuity in mental health services where individuals are transferred from an institutional to community living (Conover et al. 1997: 256). This burden of care has shifted from mental hospitals to the community; however, development of housing and community services has not kept up with the demand (Greenblatt 1992: 49). The outcome here is that many of Australias mentally ill have ended up are end up on the streets and are criminalized for behaviours that are symptoms of their illness. Once again, nobody benefits from the existing system. Our mentally ill are left untreated and our criminal justice system gets increasingly clogged with cases of minor offences that have harmed no one. Debate surrounding the causes of homelessness often relates to two factors: the first are socio-structural factors, which are concerned with changing labour markets, poverty, the housing system, and the nature of the welfare state (Greenhalgh et al. 2007: 643). The second are individualist and psychological factors that reflect individual agency, including alcohol dependence, substance abuse or social and behavioural problems (ibid). While it is now widely agreed by researchers that homelessness is a process where these factors combine and contribute to an individuals risk, this view does not appear to reflect the situation as portrayed by the media. In her Australian study, Carole Zufferey found that media representations of the homeless were strongly influenced by conservative agendas that emphasised individual responsibility (Zufferey 2008: 359). Media representations generally construct deserving and undeserving homeless and focus more on individualist causes than structural ones (Zufferey 2008: 359). As the media play a key role in shaping public understanding of social issues, these attitudes are often shared by the Australian public. A perception common in contemporary Australia is that homelessness is a lifestyle choice and that homeless people choose not to take advantage of services that are available to them. This sort of thinking was demonstrated recently when Opposition leader Tony Abbott was asked whether he would continue with the Rudd Governments goal of halving homelessness by 2020 (The Road Home 2008: viii). In his response Abbott quoted the bible, from the Gospel of Matthew The poor will always be with us in an effort to demonstrate that the government cannot assist those who choose to be homeless (citation). This blatantly illustrates his lack of understanding of the issue, one that is shared by many Australians. As Morse (1992: 13) puts it The choice to become homeless is not an affirmation of an ideal lifestyle, but a means to obtain a sense of self control and dignity when faced with a lack of meaningful, safe or viable living alternatives. Australians seem to have a range of ideological constructions surrounding the homeless, that they are lazy, dirty and untrustworthy, for example. These assist the processes and practices that exclude homeless people from social life and limit their ability to participate in society. When examining a widespread, public issue such as homelessness, it is important to look at the discourses that are at play, when policy is being implemented. Discourse refers to the rules, systems and procedures which help produce and form knowledge about the world (Hook 2001: 522). The rules of discourse govern the way that a topic can be meaningfully talked and thought about. It is therefore linked to the exercise of power, because it ensures the reproduction of the social system, through forms of selection, exclusion and domination (Young 1981: 49; Hook 2001: 522). In relation to homelessness there are many conflicting and overlapping discourses to be taken into account. Here, I will cover discourses relating to neo liberalism, personal responsibility, individualism and obligation in relation to homelessness policy. In policy responses, there is often a common sense assumption that all citizens aspire to be competitive, independent, self responsible, hardworking and morally autonomous individuals (Zufferey 2008: 362). In Australia, there is an unspoken assumption that these are the qualities needed for citizenship. This is evident in that the overall aim in many policies and services is for individuals to be governed into a state where they can self-regulate their behavior without the need for direct intervention by the state (Gilbert 2008: 109). In 2008, two policy papers were created by the Australian government in response to the current situation. The first was Which Way Home: A New Approach to Homelessness which aimed to examine a range of perspectives on homelessness in order to inform further policy (Which Way Home? 2008: 8). From this, a second paper was developed, entitled The Road Home: A National Approach to Reducing Homelessness which outlined the governments strategies for the future. Throughout both of these texts, there is the heavy promotion of moving people into the paid labour market, so they can be independent members of society. In Which Way Home, it states Stable long-term employment should be the ultimate goal for most . . . . With proper support, people can become more resilient and better able to manage their personal, financial and housing needs, and gain the confidence and skills they need to participate in mainstream economic and social life. (Which Way Home 2008: 14) While the aim of many of the proposed programs is to support clients by improving their independent living skills, they are still deeply embedded with assumptions about control, surveillance, containment, independence and self-determination (Greenhalgh 2007: 646). It is important to question who benefits from these programs and whose interests are being served. Is it the homeless who will benefit from these policies, or are they implemented for the bourgeoisie, who feel threatened by the presence of others who do not conform to the status quo? Policy responses such as those listed above may also be seen as an attempt to reduce expectations of what the state will provide by promoting the ideas of the personal responsibilities required for citizenship (Beresford et al. 1996: 179). Neo liberalist discourse appears to be pervasive throughout the proposed policies which are littered with management orientated methods and techniques (Anker 2008: 37). It can be seen that such methods are being implemented in the interest of efficiency and productivity, as opposed concern and assistance for people who have a range of problems and lack the tools that allow them to participate in social life. There is a sense that these individuals are seen as objects of policy as opposed to people who need care and resources. Policy makers also seem unaware that these people often do not lack the competence to participate in society; however their participation is undermined by dominant culture and ideologies that prevent them from doing so (Beresford et al. 1996: 193). Legitimation crisis A shortage of affordable housing has been identified as a major contributing factor to homelessness in Australia. Increased house prices and rentals have put financial pressure on both individuals and families and some find they are unable to afford their current living arrangements.Between 2002 and 2007, the number of families seeking assistance from homeless services in Australia increased by 30 per cent (Which Way Home 2008:12). This suggests that policy responses to housing in Australia are under developed and indicates that affordable housing for those in low income brackets is in extremely short supply. The government played a key role in creating this shortage by reducing its investment in public housing over recent years. It is estimated that between 1994 and 2004 government funding for the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement (CSHA) fell by 54 per cent in real terms (Judd et al. 2005: 246). This demonstrates where the governments priorities lie. Instead of investing in housing, which would assist the homeless and many low income earners, they continue to reduce their spending in this area. Certainly in the Howard years, this could be seen as a strategy to create a budget surplus, which could then be distributed via tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Homelessness is sometimes viewed as a complex problem attributed to the clients, not to the systems they have access to (Conover et al. 1997: 258). However, as demonstrated, policies and infrastructure which aim to reduce its prevalence are often under developed, impractical and show a lack of insight into the lives of those they are designed to help. Even if the infrastructure was developed, it wouldnt stop the government and the public acting on pre-existing discourses that say that homeless people are not entitled to participate in society Numerous and diverse factors contribute to homelessness in Australia. Homelessness has been maintained in the past due to ideological constructions that promote processes of exclusion (Morse 1992: 14) and by the absence of policy responses committed to reducing its prevalence. Future challenges lie in the further development of existing policies and integration of services and programs that together can provide comprehensive and innovative solutions to homelessness. Further understanding of the issue through research will also contribute to better policies and help to address practices that lead to social exclusion. 16 February, 2010 Bible bashing the homeless, Abbott style MICHAEL PERUSCO February 16, 2010 http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/bible-bashing-the-homeless-abbott-style-20100215-o2tj.html

EME Lesson Plan

By doing this, students will learn to read all authored texts with a critical mind, peeping in mind that opinions and viewpoints can alter the reality that each tee Ext can present. Students will analyze the authors messages from two fictional in order to intent Rupert the differing viewpoints that the authors having regarding the ideas of utopia and govern meet control. By doing this, students will learn to identify the authors intent in written works e even when it is implied or implicit.Learning Objectives: With the aid of the two textbooks and Nicolas notes, students will be able to c instruct a twisted Pentagram in a Google doc of the differing messages within each ext, showing at least six items of differences on each side and six items of similarity in the mi del. With the aid of the two textbooks, Nicolas notes, and the internet, students will I be able to write two extended responses explaining each book's authors viewpoint and how t his reflects in the story, with five corr ectly sited books references and two correctly sited intern et references per author to support their argument.Resources: The Giver, by Lois Lowry Fahrenheit 451 , by Ray Bradbury Computers for every student Google Powering Document Procedure: 1. I/teacher will introduce the activity and review any material that you/ students express misunderstandings or concern over. L/ teacher will also review how a Pentagram works and how to fill one out. (5 minutes) 2. YOW students will go to the computers and open the Google document that is lealer dad set up with blank Pentagram sheets.You/ Students will bring with you your books and your notes from Nicolas discussions. (2 minutes) 3. YOW students will fill in the Pentagrams will the similarities and differences beet en the author's message within the books. You/ students will have at least six items of difference on each side and six items of similarity in the middle. You/ students will be sure to write down where you found or read these diff erences for later use in the project. (30 minutes) 4.You/ students will research information on each author explaining the reasons bee mind his writings, the different books he wrote, and anything else that could affect ho w that particular author viewed the world. (20 minutes) 5. You/ students will print out your Pentagrams and internet research, and then ret run to your/their seats. (5 minutes) 6. I/teacher will introduce the next portion of the project where you/ students will use the Pentagrams, the books, your notes, and internet resources to write two ext ended responses. 3 minutes) 7. YOW students will write two extended responses following the instructions. Each o en will focus on one of the authors and will describe how the author's viewpoint fee acts the message in the stories. You/ students will have at least five correctly sited book references and two correctly sited internet references in each extended response SE. (35 minutes). 8. If any of you/students were unable to finish this project, you/ students will take it home and finish it as homework which will be due next class.

Carols Gambino

Carlo Gambino was born on August 24, 1902 in Palermo, Sicily. His family had been part of the Honored Society, for centuries. A brotherhood that used codes of honor and millions of Italian Liras to control thereown destiny and free them from repression. Only 5'7†³ and with a prominent hook nose that gave him caricature, Carlo was respected and tough, and not afraid to confront those who owed money to the Honored Society, carrying out orders with a charismatic ruthlessness that was soon noted. Gambino was â€Å"made† or inducted into the Society on his 19th birthday.At age 19 in November 1921, using his family connections from his mother's family, the Castellanos, who were already established in New York, Gambino left Palermo, Sicily for America. He was smuggled aboard a freighter among crates of wine, olive oil and anchovies that anchored at Norfolk, Virginia. Never becoming a citizen of the United States,Carlo was on the rise to the top of one of the most powerful Americ an Families. Carlo began as an enforcer for the local Society chieftain, Don Vito Cascio Ferro.Carlo would have been happy to remain in Sicily and succeed Don Vito, but the atmosphere of the rise of fascism under Vito Mussolini made it difficult for the Honored Society. Mussolini declared publicly â€Å"he would break the organization†. He worked during the era of prohibition for the Castellano family as a rum runner, a driver and sitting shotgun, eventually moving to another family working for Joe the Boss Masseria's bootlegging racket. Masseria's rival was Salvador Maranzano. Carlo joined forces with Lucky Luciano to better serve their enterprises.Luciano wanted to oust both Masseria and Maranzano. On April 15, 1931, Masseria was murdered while at a meeting with Luciano at a Coney Island restaurant. Luciano joined with Maranzano, as the new bosses. Maranzano was shot and stabbed to death in his New York offices on orders from Luciano. This left the door open for Luciano to become the top boss. Luciano divided up the New York turf that turned the Society into a business commission, with each family getting an equal vote. Gambino was assigned to Vincent Mangano, who controlled the Brooklyn wharf.At 29, Carlo was named a capo of his own crew. He brought in Paul Castellano as his aide. Gambino married his first cousin, Paul's sister, Catherine Castellano, in 1932, at age 30. They raised 3 sons and one daughter, living in a modest row house in Brooklyn. Although it was modest, it was elegant and expensive and it stood out among the other â€Å"modest† row houses. His only real evidence of vanity was his license plate on his Buick, CG1. In 1933, with Prohibition lifted, Gambino moved contraband liquor, selling alcohol without paying government taxes.He was arrested and charged with tax evasion, but he was able to beat the rap, released with a suspended sentence. Gambino invested his profits in a business that was low-key and taboo, running â€Å"Gay Bars† for homosexuals. In 1951, Gambinos boss Vincent Mangano mysteriously disappeared and Albert Anastasia, a vicious killer, took over the family, leading many to believe he had ordered Mangano's killing. He organized Murder Inc. , which some say never existed. Crime Inc. was supposed to be Anastasias hit squad to keep the families in order. He made Gambino his under boss in 1956.Anastasia was murdered on Oct. 25, 1957, while he was getting a shave at the Park Sheraton Hotel in midtown Manhattan. With a hot towel on his face, two gunmen rushed in and shot him to death. On that day, the Gambino dynasty began. In 1962, Gambinos eldest son Tommy married the daughter of rival boss Thomas Lucchese. Gambino was Shrewd about FBI surveillance, speaking little during meetings and devising a code to discuss business. Carlos illusive behavior drove the feds crazy. He was deliberately illusive and low profile, dressing down and refusing comments to reporters during brief encounters.In 1969, the Gambino Family had over 25 crews with more than 950 men. Carlo was close to Vegas star Frank Sinatra, who did not run from associating with the Gambino family. New York City police, kept a car parked in front of Gambinos home, That was marked â€Å"Organized Crime Control Bureau. † He was under constant surveillance. It was in 1969 that a Gambino crew member, John Gotti, was arrested for hijacking a truck. Carlo Gambino was charged the same year for masterminding an armed robbery truck hijacking. The case was delayed over and over again.In 1971, his wife Catherine died of cancer. Carlos was also in bad health. The loss of his wife was devastating to him. The Feds tried hard to deport Gambino to Sicily. Gambinos doctors proved he had heart trouble and would never be able to make that trip. When the feds were ready to finally deport Gambino, his family, aware of Carlos health, bought off two powerful but always unnamed US Senators, to allow him to remain in the United States. They were to be paid $25,000 a year each for life, if the deportation order could be stopped. It was.

Playing Violent Video Games Causes Gun Violence - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 1 Words: 395 Downloads: 3 Date added: 2019/03/20 Category Society Essay Level High school Tags: Gun Violence Essay Did you like this example? Trump is suggesting that violent video games and films are at least partly responsible for the rise and persistence of gun violence in the US. Its an argument that dates back to the Columbine High School shooting in 1999. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Playing Violent Video Games Causes Gun Violence" essay for you Create order The two Columbine High School gunmen were active Doom players. Since the game primarily focuses on shooting a gun † at demons, in outer space † commentators suggested that the gunmen had trained for the real-life shooting by playing Doom. The game featured a gun as the main point of interaction and perspective † the first-person shooter was a relatively new concept in video games back in 1999 † and thus arose suspicion. If these teenage gunmen were playing this game, and capable of committing such a horrific act, what did that mean for all the other kids playing these games? Doom (original, PC) The original Doom on PC looks rudimentary by 2018 standards. It was one of the first-ever first-person shooter games. id Software/Bethesda Softworks But theres a simple reason why that doesnt make much sense: The same video games played in the US are played worldwide; however, the level of gun violence is exponentially higher in the US than in other countries. Thats according to the Entertainment Software Association, the group that represents major video game industry stakeholders like Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Activision, EA, and others. Its not surprising that the trade group representing the video game industry feels this way † but its a hard point to argue. Though first-person shooter games like Call of Duty, Battlefield, and Halo are popular with American video game players, theyre also popular all over the world. The game industry is a global market, with platforms like the PlayStation 4 that serve territories with extremely restrictive gun laws and territories with relatively lax gun laws. Even though these games are played all over the world, the United States is a standout statistically in terms of gun violence. If violent games were causing violent behavior, it stands to reason that the connection would be more consistent around the world. Whether or not its good for children to be exposed to graphical violence in games, or theatrical violence in movies, isnt clear. It probably isnt. What is clear is that playing violent games and watching violent movies doesnt directly cause violent behavior. We have the evidence to prove it, and its staring us right in the face.