Section 8's now moving into luxury gated community

09/15/2012 08:05:53 PM · #51

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And certainly the people receiving the assistance aren't at fault for taking what the government thinks they're entitled to, right?

Just a semi-related aside here - couldn't that same statement (which I agree with, btw) be made about banks, corporations who take advantage of subsidies and loopholes, as well as Mitt Romney's tax shelters (assuming their all legit).

Here's my opinion on that.

Pay your fair share assholes. You built your great business in this country, because of the economy that favored your success. Give back when you can, and cease paying your executives salaries that are simply insane, ESPECIALLY if you're in an industry that has either been bailed out, or helped otherwise by the US taxpayers. Pay the people more, reward effort where it is due, and pay the executives a wonderful, but fair salary and benefits. It's only fair to reward those who do the work as well, and to ensure that the business is healthy-- keep a big bank roll for the company, don't dole out huge bonuses. Etc.

Do be clear that I blame the corporations far more, because there is a difference between need and greed and laziness. They are all very different problems. And corporations are far more often guilty of greed than the people who are caught in the crossfire of this situation.

And here's mine (applies to individuals as well as corporations):
- Pay what the law requires of you.
- Use whatever benefits the government offers (even while you lobby the government to STOP providing those same benefits e.g. Warren Buffett). The only exception I make to this is in the case of BAILOUTS which are not offered to everyone equally - they are offered to those who have made bad decisions.
- Pay your employees whatever you want/need to to retain good employees and stay in business, as long as you comply with the law.

Message edited by author 2012-09-15 20:07:42.

09/15/2012 08:08:08 PM · #52

Originally posted by Sevlow:

Your just not worth it

Yikes... I just told you about this a few posts ago... It's You're, not Your.

:)

09/15/2012 08:08:42 PM · #53

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

- Use whatever benefits the government offers (even while you lobby the government to STOP providing those same benefits e.g. Warren Buffett). The only exception I make to this is in the case of BAILOUTS which are not offered to everyone equally - they are offered to those who have made bad decisions.

A very nice summation of my entire point here.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

09/15/2012 08:29:08 PM · #54

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

- Use whatever benefits the government offers (even while you lobby the government to STOP providing those same benefits e.g. Warren Buffett). The only exception I make to this is in the case of BAILOUTS which are not offered to everyone equally - they are offered to those who have made bad decisions.

A very nice summation of my entire point here.

I suppose I should qualify that, though - bailouts for the individuals (homeowners underwater, etc) - I agree that the government should not be providing those, but if I could take advantage of it I certainly would. I already regret not getting a free golf cart while those were being subsidized.

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

09/15/2012 08:51:21 PM · #55

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

... free golf cart ...

----> jealous canuck.

spiritualspatula

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

09/19/2012 03:21:24 AM · #56

Okay, so you blame the system and everything, I get that you're not trying to rail against this lady herself, exactly. The question is what ways you can offer incentives to dissuade this outcome without creating other gargantuan ripple problems. The devil's in the details, that's how we got to this point.

On paper, the idea of excluding somebody because they are of a different socioeconomic class is pretty ridiculous, and is actually the antithesis of the oft bandied "American Dream" and "by your own bootstraps" yarn. The word entitled has been thrown around a good deal, but never in regard to the poor poor homeowners who have had their "right" to select their neighbors stolen. Now, for most of this discussion you've been saying that we get to live with what happens, but when these people get a neighbor that may or may not be shitty, separate from their economic status, it's suddenly that they should be protected from such a horrible outcome.

09/19/2012 03:43:34 AM · #57

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

I think the answer is two-fold. The first part is a recognition that placing these families in $250,000 houses isn't appropriate under any circumstances.

The second, is that we have to have an exit strategy on stuff like this... Frankly, this isn't a 2 year, or 5 year commitment to take care of this family, it's a 20 year burden, and that's the bigger issue here.

We have to find a way to ensure that it's less comfortable to be "on the system" than it is to be working hard and trying to earn your way. Now I grant you, with this many kids, she has a serious issue, because it's pretty unlikely that she won't be earning a sufficient paycheck to support this entire group, but another question here is "Where's the Dad(s)?", clearly this woman didn't make these children solo, and there is likely a man, or men, out there who owe me, and every other tax payer, an answer as to why these children aren't being supported financially by their parents.

In the end it's a hell of a problem, but when the support is lavish enough to make me take pause and think "Wow, that's a nice house, and what a neighborhood!", then it's probably a situation that the person in question will not be highly motivated to work their way out of.

Once we design a system that ensures that working is rewarded by an improvement in circumstances, rather than this backwards reward system, then I think we'll see serious progress.

throws some old gasoline on the flames...

09/19/2012 03:46:03 AM · #58

09/19/2012 03:59:18 AM · #59

In terms of the "right to select neighbors" that's normally not even a right, but a simple function of reality.

Just like the big rocks fall out of the stream first, then smaller rocks, then sand, then clay, it's the same with sociology-economics and housing/neighborhoods. Like it or not, we like to be in neighborhoods of like-minded people of a similar social class, it's just reality. (If you don't like this idea, that's fine, but just think of human behavior patterns, this is a very deep-rooted behavior preference)..

Normally, I expect the guy next door to be able to afford living next door - remember that a larger residence requires more upkeep expenditure and effort, and that many of these gated communities actually exist on the premise that there are deed-restrictions, usually based on age, or some other similar criteria. A person who is simply moved into a residence like this will have a host of problems, starting with the fact that they are likely to feel as though they belong to a different culture than the one which is prevalent in their neighborhood..

Having grown up in a Barrio type neighborhood in NM, where I really was the only white boy in my age group, and having gone through the social "move up" process, I can tell you that even though I was actively working to change my social status, and learning to fit in, through small steps - it was still a challenging process, and there have been many times I felt lonely and as though I didn't belong within the social circle I was inhabiting - this poor family has to be feeling that 1000 fold. It might appear as though I'm somehow against this family, but I'm really not - I think this situation is overly complicated and fraught with potential pitfalls for every party involved... Hence my incredulity at the entire situation.

It's important to have neighbors that you feel are "like me", people who you can relate to, friends, that sort of thing... This situation doesn't seem to be like it's going to be a healthy environment, but I could be wrong.

With that being said, I don't think anything would be more wonderful than for this family to have a seamless and successful integration into their new community, and the reality is that everyone could benefit and prosper from the sharing of knowledge and experience, culture, and friendship.... I just feel that this scenario, despite it's obvious appeal, is pretty much 98% rainbows and unicorns fantasy - reality and my experience tell me that this won't be too much for for either "side" of this issue.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

09/19/2012 04:01:03 AM · #60

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

throws some old gasoline on the flames...

:)

Sounds about right, I want a house like that.

raish

Olympus C-2500L

09/19/2012 04:06:53 AM · #61

feels like she has a better position in life than I do, and I make good money, work hard, and have a degree..

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm a jerk, maybe I'm a bigot, or whatever else you may wish to label me, but I just find this to be completely out of line with the values that I consider to be "American".

I think you cannot compare your position in life. You have to imagine suddenly not having a degree, still working hard but not making any money and instead of being proudly responsible for your own wellbeing, having all the pride kicked out of you and nevertheless being steadfastly responsible for ten people instead of one. Oh, and you get to live in this big house.

Naturally I have presented this as some kind of counter-argument so that it's weighted in the lady's favour, but you wouldn't swap, would you?

So maybe you're wrong, not much more or less of a jerk than the rest of us and you are indeed coming over as something of a bigot. All this from someone who really doesn't give a monkey's what values you consider to be 'American'.

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

09/19/2012 04:13:45 AM · #62

Originally posted by raish:

:)

I like your style raish.

While I do agree that it's important to try to sympathize, I at one point in my life was headed down the very wrong path (and I do really mean the WRONG path), and I had to fight with everything I had to change my direction.... I can imagine where I'd be, or not be, today if I hadn't done that...

I suppose I take exception with this in particular because I do feel as though it's likely the mother in question has made some pretty poor decisions, and in the end isn't really paying much of a price for that... The reward cycle is broken.

As for trading?? I don't know, maybe I would - I'd love to have kids that I could spend all day with, teaching them cool things and sharing what I know about the world, etc.... I can't say I think much of your assertion that I wouldn't switch... I work 12+ hours a day most week days, and I am on the clock many weekends as well - the idea of not worrying about my job, about my company, about irrational clients and wonky jobs? It sounds better than you might think.

Message edited by author 2012-09-19 04:29:49.

spiritualspatula

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

09/19/2012 06:25:35 AM · #63

Originally posted by Cory:

Okay, I get where you're coming from then. In the earlier posts, it sounded to me (and obviously several other posters) that your ire was largely focused on an us and them mentality, a NIMBY argument about your neighborhood and whining about neighbors blah blah blah, particularly when you posted the sample tirade from aggravated nosey neighbor #29.

raish

Olympus C-2500L

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

09/19/2012 07:47:11 AM · #64

I work about a million hours a day and haven't had a day off in - hang on I'm now sitting in Crete agonising over where to go eat, swim, etc - you know what I mean. I've taken a trip down most of the 'wrong' highways and byways but presumably turned around or I wouldn't be around.

I honestly believe Phil Ochs //www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4BYOJ1tc-k

I suppose if I were to stretch so far as an opinion - it would be about how best any of us may be served by helping. Help is not the same as reward. Not helping has limits, for sure.

Anyway, good on yer for what you've achieved don't get all bitter on us for what it costs now :)

JamesDowning

Sony SLT-A33

Sony SAL-1855 DT 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

09/19/2012 10:55:54 AM · #65

Originally posted by Cory:

it's likely the mother in question has made some pretty poor decisions, and in the end isn't really paying much of a price for that... The reward cycle is broken.

I think this is the core of the section 8 debate. Sure there are certain circumstances where I can see the single mother deserving a home like that to be covered under section 8. However I think we are all far too familiar with the type of recidivism that has historically been associated with this type of welfare. You should be allowed to fail, but don't fail again, and again, and again.

I don't think the question here is if she should be limited in location to where she can live. I'm totally for unrestricted section 8 vouchers... however I think this situation is possibly another example of a government handout run amok. I think that's more of the question... is her given voucher too much? And whether it is or not, what sort of lesson is this teaching her daughters? The more kids you have, the nicer the house you get?

Look, the theory of this program is fine, I just question how well it works in practice to motivate the future generations towards upward mobility through hard work. I sincerely hope the system isn't broken and that all 9 of her children will in turn become productive members of society.

Message edited by author 2012-09-19 11:29:49.

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

09/19/2012 12:17:01 PM · #66

I don't want to talk about the appropriateness of someone on Section 8 living in a huge house in a nice neighborhood. I want to talk about neighborhoods and community.

I just moved into a planned community. Big house. Sticker shock. You know, similar to the one in the article, but in Silicon Valley where the idea of spending $250K on a 3500 sq' home is laughable. Hah. Hah.

Firstly, I don't give a crap about being a 'fit' in the community. I don't get this need to fit in... who CARES if we have different cultures? I mean... maybe it's different here in melting pot CA, but the people that moved next door at the same time we moved are Portuguese, and the husband can't even speak English. The idea that we want to surround ourselves with sameness for comfort seems completely bizarre to me, and reeks of provincial close-mindedness at best... xenophobia/bigotry at it's worst. Do I have a right to be surrounded only by people with the same income? Or that eat the same foods I do to make the pot-lucks more palatable? That speak a common language? Childless vs. with kids? Gay vs. straight? That idea is laughable to me. I bought my house because it was the house I needed for the price I wanted to pay. Nice neighbors I can identify with are a perk, not a necessity. They didn't even factor into the calculation... well they barely did... I was worried that by moving into a nice neighborhood I'd have to be around snobby jerks, but was willing to overlook that for the right floorplan/yard.

There are big houses in my neighborhood (woot), but they've also built small houses, townhouses, and affordable apartments. This planned community actually designed socioeconomic disparities into it's residents. Why would they do that if everyone's goal is a homogenous culture? Oh yeah, it's not.

Honestly, the thought that moving into a nice neighborhood would earn me a bunch of uptight, classist, busybody neighbors like the one in the pasted anecdote makes me ill. I hope mine don't turn out like that over the long haul. I've avoided HOAs in the past for this very reason. I would much rather live next to a poor person minding their own damn business than do-goooder snob throwing around rules and tut tutting at their 'pesky' neighbors. Nobody owes you jack, and if I could have found a place I wanted without a mandated artificial community based solely on shared location and financial buy-in, I would have taken it. Unfortunately, high ceilings come with strings around here.

So yeah, this whole situation drips of classist, xenophobic NIMBY. I didn't ask for my old house to lose 1/3 of it's value either, something that was caused by 'my neighbors'... the 75% majority of homes everywhere that were foreclosures and short sales (not rentals) when we were shopping for our new place. I didn't ask for more cars on the street as multiple families moved into single homes, or for the drunken brawls of marriages down on their luck and taking it out on each other within earshot. But nobody owes me jack, so what did I do?

I moved.

And for all I know, some awful new neighbor is bitching about having to live next to two married dudes because it's messing up their precious family friendly neighborhood culture. I have more empathy for the poor woman than the bitter neighbor, by far.

And Cory? If you're honestly willing to trade situations, you can quit your job today. Nothing's stopping you. I have an inkling that your claim is not quite genuine. I have a feeling it's this very dissonance that makes well-off people resent poor people, as if their lives are blissfully easy. I have poor friends without jobs. At 35, one doesn't have TEETH anymore. Such a dream.

09/19/2012 12:59:03 PM · #67

Originally posted by Mousie:

And Cory? If you're honestly willing to trade situations, you can quit your job today. Nothing's stopping you. I have an inkling that your claim is not quite genuine. I have a feeling it's this very dissonance that makes well-off people resent poor people, as if their lives are blissfully easy. I have poor friends without jobs. At 35, one doesn't have TEETH anymore. Such a dream.

In terms of your neighborhood being designed to be a mixed area, that's great, I have a house in an area like that, and it's great. But I bought it expecting that, and I am indeed happy about it. Actually, the fact that I can work on my cars outside, and can grow a garden, and can rent an RV behind my place to someone were actually driving factors in the purchase decision. I would be pissed if my neighborhood became subject to HOA rules or other restrictions, even if I do have to put up with half a barnyard in my neighbor's yard.

But, if I bought a house that was in a neighborhood that could reasonably be expected to not be a mixed socio-economic area, I wouldn't be very happy.

FWIW, I don't think you, as a gay man, really represent any real disturbance or threat, it's all a misconception based on religious persecution. I can easily show you facts that support the idea that lower income families are significantly more likely to be the source of criminal behavior and other real factors that will lower the quality of living for those in their immediate vicinity. Look, I've live in great neighborhoods, and I've lived in really rough neighborhoods, I can tell you that there are patterns which are very obvious to even the most casual observer... Sure stereotypes aren't accurate or fair, but they do exist for a reason, and are often not entirely without merit.

As far as assistance available to me, and this is another thing that pisses me off, if I quit my job today, I would get nothing. Zip, zilch, shit nothing. Sure, if I get laid off right, then I would get some unemployment for a while, but overall as an educated white male, I fell that I am only expected to provide help, never take it. Yes I'm bitter about that, and I damn well should be, not because I need help, or want it, but it's the feeling that if I ever needed it, I'd be the last one to ever get any help, no matter what my reasons.

As for your assurance that "If you're honestly willing to trade situations, you can quit your job today. Nothing's stopping you" -- you see, that's the issue, there are a TON of things stopping me. I can't have kids, if I did have kids, and they are on assistance, then I would be expected to pay the state a significant sum of my income, and should I not do that, then my state provided housing would be in the form of jail or prison.

Please tell me, why didn't your unemployed friend get medical assistance? Oh, let me guess, he's male and trying to make it on his own. That's the entire point I'm making: if he had just given up years ago and tried really hard to leach off the system, he'd be way better off today, and would probably have his teeth still.... That's what's fucked up - those who don't try to make it are rewarded, and those who try are often forgotten and pay a heavy price for not doing things the "easy" way.

Talking about teeth, let me tell you about my costs here... This year alone, I've spent $7000 on health insurance premiums, (more than just dentistry of course), and I've spent just over $3000 in co-pay and other uncovered costs for dental care. What did that cover? A cleaning, a filling, and the repair of a cracked tooth. That represents something like 15% of my income just going to insurance and the dentist, add in another 5% or so for other medical costs.

I don't know what of strange fantasy world do you inhabit, but things just don't work the way you seem to think they do.

Message edited by author 2012-09-19 13:15:10.

09/20/2012 09:59:42 PM · #68

Originally posted by Cory:

Sure stereotypes aren't accurate or fair, but they do exist for a reason, and are often not entirely without merit.

Just wanted to point out the fallacy of this argument. You can't say that stereotypes are inaccurate and unfair, and then ALSO say that they are merited.

That's like saying something isn't true, but there is some truth to it. Quite the paradox.

Message edited by author 2012-09-20 22:00:24.

09/20/2012 10:04:34 PM · #69

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by Cory:
Sure stereotypes aren't accurate or fair, but they do exist for a reason, and are often not entirely without merit.

Just wanted to point out the fallacy of this argument. You can't say that stereotypes are inaccurate and unfair, and then ALSO say that they are merited.

That's like saying something isn't true, but there is some truth to it. Quite the paradox.

I'm saying that they might only apply to 25% of a group, but that's still enough to be significant.

IE > Photographers usually get distracted from the moment, because they want a picture of it. --- Not true in every case, but certainly not without merit.

09/20/2012 10:18:50 PM · #70

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by Cory:
Sure stereotypes aren't accurate or fair, but they do exist for a reason, and are often not entirely without merit.

Just wanted to point out the fallacy of this argument. You can't say that stereotypes are inaccurate and unfair, and then ALSO say that they are merited.

That's like saying something isn't true, but there is some truth to it. Quite the paradox.

I'm saying that they might only apply to 25% of a group, but that's still enough to be significant.

IE > Photographers usually get distracted from the moment, because they want a picture of it. --- Not true in every case, but certainly not without merit.

If a statement is only accurate 25% of the time (and I think that is a very generous figure for most stereotypes), it would be wrongly applied 75% of the time. The stereotype shouldn't exist to begin with because it is so bad a predicting anything. If 25% of people 6'5" or taller played basketball, it doesn't mean that I should be considered a basketball player (though, I wouldn't mind the salary).

09/20/2012 10:25:09 PM · #71

While I haven't read all the comments in this thread, I am going to assume that we don't have any details of this mother other than the fact that she is a single mother of 9 kids.

What if this woman is a God fearing Christian woman who disagrees with birth control. Would we still make allusions to the "mistakes she made in life", and how should doesn't deserve what has been provided to her?

After reading the article, I found some of the quotes in the article to be incredibly pretentious, and elitist. These people tend to think that their neighbourhoods should be immune to economic realities facing many, and that only lower class neighbourhoods should have to deal with value lowering 'Section 8's'

"It tends to lower the standard," said Colbert Cohen. "It might sound unfair because people are struggling and all that, but at the same time, I don't think it is good for the neighborhood."

"I wonder what it would do to our property value, to the equity that we have in the house, and also the upkeep of that house as it relates to the whole neighborhood," said Anchell.

'We have bought these houses for a lots of money, quite a lot. We have already depreciated and to Section 8 next door, no," said Mary Samuels.

That term disgusts me too... she is no longer a woman, or a mother, or a person... she is a 'Section 8'. Let's ghetto-ize her.

ETA: changed good to God in second statement.

Message edited by author 2012-09-20 22:38:57.

09/20/2012 10:34:06 PM · #72

Originally posted by VitaminB:

While I haven't read all the comments in this thread, I am going to assume that we don't have any details of this mother other than the fact that she is a single mother of 9 kids.

What if this woman is a good fearing Christian woman who disagrees with birth control. Would we still make allusions to the "mistakes she made in life", and how should doesn't deserve what has been provided to her?

After reading the article, I found some of the quotes in the article to be incredibly pretentious, and elitist. These people tend to think that their neighbourhoods should be immune to economic realities facing many, and that only lower class neighbourhoods should have to deal with value lowering 'Section 8's'

"It tends to lower the standard," said Colbert Cohen. "It might sound unfair because people are struggling and all that, but at the same time, I don't think it is good for the neighborhood."

"I wonder what it would do to our property value, to the equity that we have in the house, and also the upkeep of that house as it relates to the whole neighborhood," said Anchell.

'We have bought these houses for a lots of money, quite a lot. We have already depreciated and to Section 8 next door, no," said Mary Samuels.

That term disgusts me too... she is no longer a woman, or a mother, or a person... she is a 'Section 8'. Let's ghetto-ize her.

I read that as though they are referring to the house as being a "Section 8" as in "Section 8 Housing".

Of course, your perception of that statement would be accurate for at least some of the other neighbors I'm sure..

Which, of course, was my whole point here - two stereotypes I think I believe:
1. Rich people are more likely to be dickheads.
2. Poor people are more likely to commit crime.

Combine those two, I think accurate, stereotypes, and you've got a recipe for a well-brewed shitstorm.

Whatever the reasons applied and the rationale, the fact remains that this is an endeavor fraught with pitfalls - and I feel sorry for both sides of the equation.

Message edited by author 2012-09-20 22:38:24.

09/20/2012 10:45:04 PM · #73

Originally posted by Cory:

Which, of course, was my whole point here - two stereotypes I think I believe:
1. Rich people are more likely to be dickheads.
2. Poor people are more likely to commit crime.

Combine those two, I think accurate, stereotypes, and you've got a recipe for a well-brewed shitstorm.

Earlier you accurately said that stereotypes are not accurate or fair. Neither are these. There are a lot of rich people that are not dickheads, and a lot of poor people that are no criminals. Saying that some rich people are more likely to be dickheads doesn't make them all dickheads, and saying that poor people are more likely to be criminals doesn't make them all criminals.

One thing that is true is that ignorant people are ignorant.

This isn't an attack on you Cory.. I respect your opinion, and your level-headedness, but I just really loathe stereotypes. I have been stereotyped myself, and it sucks when people that know nothing about me perpetuate a stereotype because they truly don't understand my situation and what I do, and that even when I explain what I do, they still hold onto an ignorant stereotype.

Message edited by author 2012-09-20 22:45:46.

09/21/2012 01:48:25 AM · #74

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by Cory:

Which, of course, was my whole point here - two stereotypes I think I believe:
1. Rich people are more likely to be dickheads.
2. Poor people are more likely to commit crime.

Combine those two, I think accurate, stereotypes, and you've got a recipe for a well-brewed shitstorm.

Earlier you accurately said that stereotypes are not accurate or fair. Neither are these. There are a lot of rich people that are not dickheads, and a lot of poor people that are no criminals. Saying that some rich people are more likely to be dickheads doesn't make them all dickheads, and saying that poor people are more likely to be criminals doesn't make them all criminals.

One thing that is true is that ignorant people are ignorant.

This isn't an attack on you Cory.. I respect your opinion, and your level-headedness, but I just really loathe stereotypes. I have been stereotyped myself, and it sucks when people that know nothing about me perpetuate a stereotype because they truly don't understand my situation and what I do, and that even when I explain what I do, they still hold onto an ignorant stereotype.

FWIW, my friends are pretty varied, wildly so in fact - I really don't judge people until I know them, and that has given me some pretty awesome (if strange) friends. Honestly I'm sorry you've gotten this, but don't think that a guy who's had hair over a foot long for something like 6 years of his life doesn't know what it's like to be stereotyped. Of course, again, at least some of the stereotypes were true in my case too, if not most of them. Then again, when I'm getting slammed up against my car, and being illegally searched by the Miami police because I was in a place where white people apparently aren't allowed, I too feel pretty uncomfortable with it. Of course, if I just took my own advice and stayed clear of the more hostile areas, I'm sure I'd get less of that sort of attention too.... *shrug*

I guess what I'm saying is that it happens to everyone, but this whole thing isn't really even about stereotyping, it's about the simple fact that human nature is what it is, and that this situation is going to cause problems, woe be to all who are involved.

Now, I've got to admit, you've just honestly gotten me curious as to what the heck you do, are you an assassin of some sort - or are you like a real-life Walter White? ;) Really though, no matter what you do, as long as you're doing something productive then I don't think anyone should have much to say on the subject, and honestly, as curious as I am, I don't think you need to say unless you'd like to.

ETA:

I do find stereotypes useful, I do employ them, and to good effect, but I realize they are often very inaccurate.

But, let me ask you this - you pull up to a gas station at night, and you're lost. There are three groups of people, the first is an older couple, who have out of state plates on a sedan, the second group is three people, two girls and a guy, about 40 years old, and have a local license plate and are driving a BMW, the third group is 6 guys and a girl, dressed in loose fitting urban clothing and they are driving a low-rider without license plates.
Now, who do you ask for directions and why? You clearly don't know any of these people, for all you know, the older couple are actually locals driving a borrowed car, maybe the second group actually just robbed the place, and perhaps the third group are performance artists... But when you have to make decisions without all of the information you need to have, that's when assumptions and stereotypes tend to come in real handy.

Message edited by author 2012-09-21 01:54:15.