Generosity Causes Homelessness

Here's the story: A driver tries to give a disabled person a few bucks at an intersection, one dollar falls to the ground, and the driver is given a $344 ticket for littering.

What the ...? Well, you see, in Columbus, Ohio, it's illegal to give money to a panhandler.

Um, okay, but the ticket was for littering? Well, you see, the penalty for littering is higher than the penalty for giving to a panhandler, so they're prosecuting him for the "greater crime." All for giving a few bucks to a disabled panhandler.

This is your tax dollars at work. Not at work, trying to help a disabled adult whose only income is from panhandling. No, that would be foolhardy, and would only encourage people to be disabled and destitute. No, this is your tax dollars hard at work punishing those naive fools who help out their fellow man.

Anti-panhandling laws (and anti-"camping" laws, and loitering laws, and...) arise out of the notion that if you make life inhospitable to the homeless and destitute, that they will, at best, suddenly be able to get a job and move inside, or, at the least, move on to another locality.

In Columbus, however, they've taken the next step. It's no longer enough to punish the poor for being poor, they've taken it upon themselves to punish decent citizens who take pity upon their fellow man, and therefor encourage them to be disabled and broke.

In some ways, this does make sense: it's easier to collect a fine from the guy with a job than from the guy on the street. But this is also their public policy, they obviously believe that it's that driver's fault that the guy in the wheelchair is a beggar.

Clearly, the good people of Columbus have discovered and gone after the root cause of poverty: Generosity. If we would only stop caring about the less fortunate among us, life would be wonderful, and our streets would be clean and safe.

Thank you, Columbus, for leading the way to a sweeter smelling, less caring America!

The expanding definition of disability

Is being morbidly obese a disability?

In some cases, I might agree that it is, but when Stephen Grindle (405 lbs) sued his former employer for unlawful termination, the judge ruled that "morbid obesity ... does not have a physiological cause [and] is not a disability under ADA."

I think what's missing here is testimony from a doctor about what caused Mr. Grindle's obesity. It may have been simple, voluntary over-eating. But, in the case of morbid obesity, I think there may, in fact, be a physiological cause that is beyond the person's control. In such a case, I could see including obesity as a disability.

What about being too short?

Lack of height is certainly not voluntary, and it can certainly be inconvenient, but does it truly limit one's life choices and opportunities in the ways other, recognized disabilities do?

A growing group of advocates think shortness is, in fact, a disability. What do you think? Is this going too far?