On the homeless

[nadinbrzezinski]

Well this article reminded me of one thing I do every so often

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8301981&mesg_id=8301981

You see the Homeless in our society are completely invisible. So in order to do something for them, and I happen to live near the wrong side of the tracks... literally I mean that... well every so often I buy a sandwich for some of these guys and gals, as well as lend an ear from time to time.

Now I will warn you NOT to do this at night... yes there is a small percentage of the homeless, used to be larger, that do have mental problems. And they could indeed be a danger to you. Suffice to say that sadly the number of homeless people in the country has gone up, so those who were thrown out of hospitals are now very much a minority.

So who else are our homeless?

Well Lucy is a 20 something who has been fighting an addiction to many drugs. She was beaten, abused et al by dad, and she fled at seventeen. She's been roaming the streets for the last three years or so.

There is George, a veteran of Gulf War One, who really could never adjust once he came home and left the army.

Of course there is Bill, an old Nam Era vet, who's been in and out of housing for since for ever, and has problems keeping a job. You see, he is reminded of the gooks every time he turns. He was the one who warned me (I knew this from TJ) to not do this in the dark... I have bought him coffee and food often...

And there are the many others I have bought food for... or Jack, he has Convulsions, and can't keep a job since he has them when off his meds. He is taken to the ER every so often, given an emergency supply of Lithium, which runs out in a moth... see the cycle? He is a frequent flier for your local EMS, and wishes not to be, but cannot get enough lithium to clean himself up and get a job. Nor could he afford it... but if we had a medical system... oh never mind.

As to this young man being ignored... I just introduced you to some folks that I am betting must of you would walk by, not even paying attention. It is the nature of our society, though walking by I am almost betting is hard wired.

[SocialistLez]

1. There's a guy I see quite often

and I'm pretty sure he's homeless.

I see him on my way to work.

He literally beats himself. You see him beating his hands against his head and his torso. It's very sad and scary to see.
He DEFINITELY has some mental health issues.

If I wasn't so afraid of him, I'd gladly drive him to the state mental hospital because he needs their services.

I work in a public library so we tend to get our fair share of homeless folks.
I volunteer at a homeless shelter and I wish more homeless shelters were like it.

www.ourhouseshelter.org

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Yuo may want to contact cops

if he needs the help they can transport. Problem is a hold can only be done for 72 hours.

And working in the library you already noticed the change in the population. Far more families these days.

[leftstreet]

3. I'm sure you mean well, but your stereotypes are not the norm

Homelessness in the US is directly attributable to an increase in poverty and a decrease in affordable rental housing.

People who lack fixed, adequate residences are all around you. They live in substandard housing, they live in the spare rooms of friends and family, etc.

The population you're describing is transient and revolving and has little to do with the enormous, shocking uptick in definable 'homelessness' in the past two decades.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. why I said that it is not what it used to be

families are not these guys and gals. Though the first one fits that increase.

Oh and one more thing... the population that lives on somebody's couch is not the one that I can or will have a direct contact with. But the young man who people passed by, they did because of the people I described.

[bobbolink]

7. Thank you! I am so tired of the ignorance. The only thing that will change the ignorance is for

all of these people saying this stuff to live in our shoes.

Then they will be embarrassed for their words.

In the meantime the hurt those words cause is of little or no concern.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. So you'd rather me not try to help

and feed these people? Just because they are now an exception of what is going on?

I am sure they will be happy about that.

The point I made stands... these are the people that those folks who passed by that sleeping homeless at the BART station see every day... that is why none called anybody. I mean it is just another homeless.

[leftstreet]

14. Of course we should all help each other

I know you weren't replying to me, but yes, of course, we should all help each other.

[Courtesy Flush]

60. That's been my experience

Lots of homeless people have a roof over their head. They often strain the resources and hospitality of the people who put them up, and are sometimes exploited or abused hy their "hosts."

If you only think of homeless people as living outdoors, you don't really know homelessness.

[a la izquierda]

4. K & R

[ipaint]

6. Tent Cities in America: A Pacific Coast Report

"As the United States continues to react to the worst economy since the Great Depression,
both leading and lagging indicators of this crisis continue to grow. Home foreclosures, unemployment, and the regional poverty rates continue to rise, as newly homelessness families see a double digit increase.

44% of people experiencing homeless in America are unsheltered (USHUD 2009). A growing number of unsheltered Americans are congregating in tent cities for safety, community and as locations of last resort.

“Tent Cities are American’s de facto waiting room for affordable and accessible housing. The idea of someone living in a tent in this country says little about the decisions made by those who dwell within and so much more about our nation’s inability to adequately respond to our fellow residents in need.” -Neil Donovan, National Coalition for the Homeless Executive Director."

http://nationalhomeless.org/publications/tent_cities_pr.html


Donovan told HuffPost that the coalition originally planned to do a national report, but there were so many encampments when they began their research on the West Coast that they decided to tell the story in pieces.

"We started by doing on-the-ground research where we actually went to tent cities. And when we got there, they said there's one down the road, and then another," he said. "We just started working our way down the coast and realized we just needed to get the report out. The next report is going to be Florida and up the East Coast."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/05/tent-cities-national-coal_n_487908.html


Dignity Village in Portland, OR

This is to introduce you to a Village called Dignity Village, Inc. We are a formally mobile Tent City founded by homeless people for those in the homeless community that were sick and tired of living on the streets ,under bushes and in doorways. Dignity Village has now grown out of the “tent city” mode and has become a true Village.

http://www.dignityvillage.org/index.php

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Absolutely...

Hoovervilles, or should we call them Bushvilles? ARE BACK... with a passion.

And we are doing all we can to keep them hidden. FDR founded Photographers to go record them...







We need an equivalent program to document this in the present day, even if we have not reached that level and I hope we never do. As long as we keep it out of the way... well you know, out of sight out of mind...

[bobbolink]

9. or, more accurately, HOOVERVILLES

Does it matter?

[bobbolink]

11. Would all of you PLEASE read the real information?

I have posted this so many times, yet so many DUers think they know everything about homelessness and refuse to read the reality of the situation.

WITHOUT HOUSING
http://www.wraphome.org/downloads/without_housing.pdf

If you would be willing to acquaint yourselves with the facts, and be able to speak from that point of view, maybe then some REAL CHANGE could actually happen.

Until then, we suffer from the ignorance.

Thank you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Would you please GET THE FUCKING POINT OF THE OP

which was to point out WHO or WHAT people think and fear when they walk by a "sleeping homeless" at the BART station who later dies at the hospital.

Oh never mind... trying to make points with some people IS FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE.

By the way... that is the TRUTH that most people live with... like it or not. And that is WHERE You need to start with.

[bobbolink]

13. Thank you for your compassionate....although crude....reply.

When you can't reply with understanding, you resort to cussing at people.

I'm sure that language is appreciated by the people you "help".

What I asked stands... please read the actual report.

Thank you.

[William Z. Foster]

38. THE FUCKING POINT OF THE OP

Was this the point you were trying to make?

Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.

So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bobbolink]

20. Thank you for typing me. That is precisely what we homeless people object to.

I notice you insulted me in response to a request to read the actual information.

That speaks volumes.

[proteus_lives]

22. You've already spoken volumes about yourself.

And that's the sad thing, you'll just keep shooting yourself in the foot.

[ipaint]

26. No she isn't.

Her link is the ONLY real info I have seen here on this board that addresses the structural cause of homelessness. Yet again and again when homelessness is addressed we get stories of how folks give to panhandlers and how there is a church that hands out blankets or someone bought a homeless person a sandwich, all well and good but hardly a solution. That's like putting a tourniquet on a massive wound to stop the bleeding and then claiming the cut is healed.

When adequate funds are earmarked for affordable housing we get a decrease in homeless people. When funds are slashed we get an increase in homeless people. It's not rocket science and has nothing to do with whether you gave the homeless guy on the street corner a buck or a shelter gave him a cot for the night.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. The story and point of the OP is to point out that when people

think of homeless that is who they think

You could and I could give you oodless of the structural reason. In fact, Larry is one of those who hints at the structural reasons.

That said, I wanted to show you who people THINK OFF when they saw that young man at the BART station

I am sorry if this is so damn fucking hard to comprehend

As to Bobo, yes he bytes on potential and real allies all the time.

As to why I do what I do... want me to show you REAL poverty? I worked with people who are REALLY DOWN... and I know why many of them are there. In the US has all to do with Section Eight Housing and how we go out of our way NOT to build it, or when we do, to have so many fucking hoops to make it impossible for the people I happen to know here locally... who have real names.

[tango-tee]

115. This I agree with.

We need affordable housing for those in poor and homeless, and we need it now. And a guaranteed minimum income so that people can live in dignity.

[William Z. Foster]

35. I think you are confused

The other poster is not lobbying for themselves personally and has revealed nothing about themselves.

You, on the other hand have revealed quite a bit about yourself.

Now you have a choice.

You can take offense and continue the pissing match, or you can reflect and consider if maybe, just maybe, there is something valuable and worthwhile to consider, something a little bigger than your personal opinions and feelings, in the observations others are making - for you own sake, for all of our sakes.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William Z. Foster]

33. I obect most strongly to this

You inadvertently proved the point that the person you attacked is trying to make.

You are demanding that people be or speak a certain way if they want to be helped. Otherwise, they are "shooting themselves in the foot." That is just another way to say "they have no one to blame but themselves."

Does it occur to you that what the other poster is talking about has nothing to do with them personally and individually, nothing to do with asking you for help for themselves - let alone your approval or acceptance?

Your response proves the validity and importance of what the other person posted.

[proteus_lives]

40. Attack?

Try observation.

I'm not demanding anything. I'm suggesting something that other poster sorely needs.

[bobbolink]

70. Excellent! So very well said. I feel heard by you, and I so much appreciate that.

I haven't seen your "name" here before, so a belated Welcome to DU :bounce: :toast: and I look forward to hearing more from you!

:yourock:

[William Z. Foster]

81. thank you

Thank you, and keep up the good work.

People are complaining because this makes them uncomfortable - you are holding up a mirror and they don't like what they see. They then get very angry and abusive, while claiming that you are the one who is being angry and abusive. But our job is to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

Some say that they have been very poor, or were homeless - so therefore they are authorities - yet they join in on the attacks against you. I think this comes from rejecting themselves or things about themselves when they were suffering, and building a new life based on that. They bootstrapped their way out of it, and now have no sympathy for others. Their homeless self was defective or deficient in some way - they internalized blaming themselves for their misfortune - and now the new improved striving and upwardly mobile self they have created is highly intolerant of those who do not "bootstrap" their way up. Unfortunately, many of these people are attracted to professions where they interact with or have power over poor and homeless people.

What you are doing is the most difficult thing to do and the most noble. Rather than suffering in silence, rather than blaming yourself and groveling, and rather than looking out for number one and moving on, you are offering up your situation and your observations about it for the benefit of millions of others.

Notice how most people here, on most issues, are intensely self-centered. "Here is how I am going to vote" is presented continually as though that were the end-all and be-all of politics. Food safety issues? "Here is where I shop and what I buy" or "I am putting in an organic garden." Energy issues? "I drive a Prius" or "I ride a bike." Environmental issues? "Here are the green things I am doing in my house, and here are the light bulbs I am buying." Poverty? "Here is where I am donating money or volunteering." Economic crisis? We have threads with investment advice in response to that. A growing police state? "I am moving overseas."

People use the social crisis, the political problems as an opportunity for self-expression, see it all strictly in terms of their own personal life, their personal choices. The concept of doing the opposite, of giving one's personal life story to a greater cause is so foreign to people that they do not even recognize it when they see it.

[bobbolink]

94. As that report points out, what people want to do with their uncomfortableness is "FIX" the "Other".

As you say, to really look at the structural causes would cause discomfort, so they categorize and look for all kinds of ways to "fix" the ones who are hurting as a result of the negligence of this society, of which they are a part.

Homelessness is an abomination that rests squarely on the shoulders of all of us in this society... and that includes you and I. We are ALL responsible for every single homeless person who is without a home in the richest country in the world. Throwing out the occasional sandwich, or buying a cup of coffee for someone without a roof does nothing to change the structure, and only serves to assuage the guilt.

"Fixing" the "other" protects us from having to face that responsibility.

People who hold up that mirror arouse anger. Malcolm X comes to mind.

[Number23]

106. +like A Million

I made the mistake ONE TIME of trying to align myself with that poster. It was the biggest mistake of my DU life and one that will never be repeated.

[tango-tee]

113. That's what I did, because I support her cause

which is fighting poverty and homelessness.

The reason I gave up after only a short while was because during one personal exchange I was told "how to think". I don't take well to that.

I tried to re-establish contact a little while ago - because I support her cause, never mind what was said - and was met with silence.

[William Z. Foster]

126. "her cause?"

There is the problem right there.

Also, why should anyone be obligated to persuade people or win a popularity contest, and even more importantly how could one;s support of a cause be dependent upon the manners (or whatever) of one person? None of that makes any sense. So if an outspoken opponent of torture were rude or hurt or feelings, we might support torture?

The cause is not "fighting poverty and homelessness" but rather fighting the attitudes and behavior of those who are doing fairly well. That is an important part of the root cause of the misery.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

120. Please DO go on. I WANT you to keep insulting people like you do. In fact, ramp it up. -nt

[Forkboy]

42. Your approach hurts, not helps.

I've sat back and watched over the last couple of years as you've attacked so many people who do care about this for not caring the way you like, and I'm sick of watching you hurt the very cause you're fighting for. Shitting on people will never get them to see your point, and the sad thing is you make some awesome points that need to be heard. But you do so with such bitterness and venom that anytime someone on DU shows an inkling of caring about the homeless you attack them because it's not the right approach.

I'm sure this post will piss you off, and I'm sorry I even have to type it. But I've been there, and could be there again at anytime, and you make the fight harder, not easier. I'm not saying you should kiss people's ass to get help, that would be bullshit and I'd never ask that of you. But I do ask that you step back and stop jumping down the throats of those who would otherwise be on your side. Alienating those who genuinely care about this but may phrase things wrong, or just don't know what's it's like, doesn't help you or any of the all too numerous homeless people we have in this country.

Like I said, I've been there. Unlike many I DO know what it's like. And your approach is helping none of us. Please, I ask you to step back and rethink your approach. Not your anger, not your righteousness, just those you unleash it on.

[leftstreet]

43. +1

[proteus_lives]

44. Well said.

:applause:

[cliffordu]

58. Excellent.

Good post.

[DevonRex]

65. Thank you. It had to be said and you were the right person to say it.

:hi:

[GoneOffShore]

68. Thank you Forkboy.

Yet again the voice of reason rising above hyperbole and vitriol.

I'm glad you're able to keep your cool.

[Fire1]

69. Slam dunk, Forkboy. Nail on the head. n/t

[William Z. Foster]

75. simply not true

Anyone for whom a smooth sales pitch would be needed on this issue is not someone that could be reached in any case. We are not selling time shares here.

People need a wake up call, not a sales pitch. The issue would be ignored if the other poster were not using the approach they are using.

I think the other poster's abrasive style has been extremely effective, and they have done us all an invaluable service by keeping this issue in our face, despite the fact that they have to endure endless abuse. Is it a little uncomfortable sometimes? yes. Looking in the mirror can be. Attacking the person holding the mirror up is not a helpful response. THAT is the approach and style that is destructive.

"I would care about homeless people, you know, support their cause, if only their salesperson were not so obnoxious" is simply absurd. You say "people who would otherwise be at your side" if only they weren't "jumping down the throats" and "alienating" people.

Those comments by you illustrate and support what the other member is saying. Anyone who would NOT be "on your side" or be "alienated" over what one member says, or their style, was never a friend. That is the point of what the other poster is saying - many "friends" are hypocrites and are not being honest.

People are uncomfortable with what the other poster has to say, that is all. The other poster is very good at ferreting out the hypocrisy and condescension and paternalism with which many people approach the subject. Your post is an example of that.

This same ploy was used against GLBTQ equality supporters around the 'net back a year ago - "I support you, but not the way you are going about it." That same tactic was also used against the Civil Rights organizers - "don't get me wrong I support your cause, it is just the way that some of you are going about it that I object to."

I think the poster you are complaining about is remarkably restrained, civil, and patient given the abuse and provocation from so-called "friends" of "the cause."

[ipaint]

76. +1 nt.

[uppityperson]

Wrong "People are uncomfortable with what the other poster has to say, that is all"

It is HOW it is said, it is the attacks, the "you can NEVER EVER KNOW AND DON'T CARE" attacks that are wrong. "I think the other poster's abrasive style has been extremely effective"? Insulting people who ask, or reply, or don't kiss ass, then putting them on ignore is "extremely effective"?

"Anyone who would NOT be "on your side" or be "alienated" over what one member says, or their style, was never a friend." Wrong. Anyone who insults, demeans, is abrasive to me when I ask how I can help, when I talk about my own homeless history, THEY are not my friend. Blaming the victim of attacks is wrong.

[William Z. Foster]

82. let's dig in on this

Willing to do that?

[OneGrassRoot]

112. I am.

In reading through this thread, and similar threads over the years, I always come away with the same impression: There are many different valid perspectives and perceptions, as well as personality types, involved in this discussion.

It's not easy to have genuine give-and-take communication in such groups, but so many of us really, really are looking for that. The original OP here was a personal observation about society, not a policy discussion, yet battles regarding both ensue so quickly. Especially since there is a history between many of the posters here at DU, the interactions are rarely relegated to one thread.

Everyone's voice should be heard, not necessarily as THE voice on the subject, but as one valuable contribution toward a true discussion and interaction.

I always value what Bobbo has to say and learn a lot.

I really appreciate what forkboy has shared here, and know I have a lot to learn from him as well.

They have both experienced homelessness yet enter discussions about it differently.

Not right or wrong, different.

But since we're truly talking about life and death, it's very easy to take the stance that a certain way -- based on one's personal experience, perception/perspective, and way of interacting with others -- is the ONLY effective way...out of desperation to change things and save lives.

Because of my life experiences and perceptions and personality type, I tend to view huge issues from a multifaceted approach -- not fragmented, but a coordinated, cooperative approach to issues that enable different people (different life situations, different personality types, etc.) to have an effective role. There are those who will march in the streets and strike; others who will patiently lobby and make calls, write letters, etc.; others who dive in at the community level to affect the issue at hand in whatever way they can.

Some can do all of these things. Not everyone.

Everyone's situation is different, and the truth is we don't really know one another's situation and life experience and how that has led to who we are and how we engage others.

Yet I have also learned that trying to understand more based on others' personal experiences, by asking questions, can be viewed as offensive, even though that is not my intent whatsoever. Many people who have the most to share are also often tired of sharing their story and easily feel judged (rightfully so, based on their experiences). They're tired. Many here on DU are tired, which doesn't help the process of trying to have a genuine discussion.

So this discussion, this "digging in," is easier said than done, so it would seem.

I'm in though.

I'm in as someone who wants to learn how to be most effective about this issue that absolutely should be a top priority in our country, perhaps needing to ask questions to understand certain things more, but not as a judgment.

I'm in as someone who will appreciate and respect others' sharings, and do my best to truly listen and hear, yet not assume their perspective and suggestions should be gospel for every single person.

Welcome to DU. :hi:


Edit to add that, what may seem very, very obvious to some, may not be so obvious to others. I am often hesitant to engage in these discussions because, when I ask, "What can I DO," it's often met with exasperation (or, at least, that's my impression). Many feel that they've said the same things over and over, telling others what they can DO, because they're super focused on that one DOing. I always feel we're missing something...that we should DO the traditional things (legislative efforts re: affordable housing, as just one of many examples), but simultaneously look at it from outside the box and see if there's something else we haven't yet tried to affect change.

So, for those who may be exasperated with people like me asking what they can do, I humbly request you consider that that doesn't mean we haven't already been doing things -- many of which have already been suggested -- but that we're trying to do more. And we need to understand more in order to do more based on our own skill sets, resources, personality type, etc. Well, people like me, at least.

Again, we're all different. ;)


http://www.wraphome.org/index.php/without-housing-campaign

[me b zola]

118. Pitch perfect

:thumbsup:

[William Z. Foster]

127. just seeing this now

Sorry for being slow to respond.

I would never be "exasperated with people asking what they can do" nor would I assume they "haven't already been doing things."

That implies "what can I do so that I will be seen as a good person" though, doesn't it?

There is something I am reading right now that addresses this very point. I am going to have to transcribe it, so it may take a little while. The gist is this - it is not the people who are poor or homeless who need help - that becomes in and of itself a condescending and paternalistic position - it is the rest of us. The problem - the sickness - is not with poor people nor homeless people. The sickness is in all of us and is related to success, not to poverty. Poverty and homelessness are symptoms - warning sings for all of us. We are the ones in trouble, in danger, who need help, who need to be fixed. Switching that around and seeing the victims as the ones who need to be fixed and who have the problem is a way to avoid looking in the mirror, avoid having any attention placed on their attitudes and behavior.

Imagine if we had crazed drivers running over pedestrians. Would the problem then be "flattened pedestrians" and should we have a program to help all of them as their numbers accumulate, or is the problem the crazed drivers? Would we analyze the pedestrians to discover the cause of the problem? People here want to focus on the pedestrians - and those damned maimed pedestrians had better be polite of they want us to help them or care about them! - because they are or hope to be crazed drivers to one extent or another, and they admire crazed drivers. They get very angry and abusive - and then accuse those speaking for the pedestrians of being angry and abusive! - when anyone tries to talk about the crazed drivers rather than the maimed pedestrians.

[OneGrassRoot]

130. Assumptions all around....

You're so new (unless you are a new incarnation of an old DUer, which is distinctly possible, as you seem very, very familiar ;)), that I most certainly wasn't referring to you in my comments regarding my experience at this board.

I hear you...I hear you about the individuals who are homeless not needing "fixed" and there are some -- to make it easier on themselves -- who choose to view the situation as a need to "fix" the victim.

I have always recognized that the system needs fixed, not those who are affected by the system (and that number is growing by the second). So this teaching doesn't apply to me personally, nor do I clarify for a pat on the back or acknowledgment of any sort. It's a simply honest sharing in an attempt to perhaps understand one another better.

I do understand your desire to have us turn the mirror on ourselves, but what I'm saying is that many of us have done that. Granted, it's good to keep doing it periodically, especially when buttons are pushed.

But there are huge assumptions made all the way around which often stops genuine interaction before it gets going.

Your comment, "That implies "what can I do so that I will be seen as a good person" though, doesn't it?"...is very familiar. ;)

I've seen it and variations of the same mentioned in threads such as this as a trigger to get "so-called progressives" to quit being "do-gooders" in name only, simply so they/we can feel better about ourselves. And, when that applies, it absolutely is helpful to have it pointed out and I applaud that.

Granted, we never know who is reading and thus to whom it may apply -- and who may look in the mirror for the first time, honestly -- so perhaps you and others speak in generalities in a board such as this, and the person to whom you've responded mistakenly assumes the comment was directed at him/her.

Perhaps for very good reason many such as yourself don't believe that many here have genuinely good intentions to change the system and alleviate suffering, without it being an ego thing. A genuine intent for The Common Good, not seeking praise for being a "do-gooder."

It's these assumptions -- on all sides -- which lead to the lack of progress about the issue at hand.

There are assumptions and the potential for hurt feelings throughout this thread; it's not one-sided. The condescension is also not one-sided. Perhaps the vast majority of it isn't intended whatsoever.

It's based on different perspectives and perceptions and personality types.

Of course, everything I'm rambling about is purely my interpretation of these interactions. I don't know anything for anyone else. I'm sharing my thoughts, and trying to express my personal frustration about how the core issues at hand -- poverty and homelessness -- become a pissing match of sorts here, and I just don't understand why we can't move beyond it to work together to affect change.

It doesn't lead to much progress or insight as a society, nor necessarily about personal blocks we may have.

We get nowhere.


edit for clarity

[William Z. Foster]

88. so what?

It is true that people are stubbornly in denial, it is true that people don't get it, it is true that people are looking for a safe and easy way out, it is true that people are condescending and paternalistic, it is true that people view the less fortunate as though they were defective and needed fixing, it is true that people are shockingly lacking in compassion and empathy, are smug and arrogant, it is true that many people consider themselves "good" on this and on other issues, they need to feel like good people about it, and are completely intolerant of anything that could possibly threaten their self-image.

It is true that many Democrats and liberals talk a good game, but have very limited understanding, extremely conservative views about things underneath the liberal rhetoric, and get angry if anyone challenges their gentrified and self-righteous views.

If getting your nose bent out of shape or your feelings hurt over this takes precedence over the serious and worsening crisis, the ongoing human misery, then I would say that your approach to it is far more damaging than anything Bobbolink said.

People who have had their feelings hurt, because someone dared challenge their liberal credentials, are not the victims of anything here. Thinking that they could be is such a distortion of priorities, reflects such a profound failure to grasp the issues involved in this that it boggles the mind.

Your post actually supports Bobolink's contention rather than refuting it.

This board is just riddled and permeated by every sort of reactionary political stance - anti-Labor, sexism, racism, condescending hostility to blue collar people and poor people, apologists and promoters for every right wing economic idea from regressive taxation to privatization, and that is just for starters. yet it is the occasional person trying to speak in opposition to those things who then gets attacked and accused of all sorts of things.

I have no idea how that could be turned around with polite salesmanship - polite salesmanship is not a neutral tool, it is the method used for disguising all of the extreme right wing crap and cruel and arrogant and callous attitudes.

Compared to that, people getting their feelings hurt - "how dare you call me a racist??? Oh the humanity. Boo hoo, poor me, you have so viciously attacked me and hurt me by pointing out my racist statements" is a common one lately - seems like a very, very petty and insignificant issue.

[Hannah Bell]

114. polite salesmanship is not a neutral tool: so true.

[uppityperson]

117. You assume too much. You attack me, yet accuse me of attacking.

You have no clue who I am, what my life has been, etc. Yet for some reason you feel righteous in assuming and attacking me based on your assumptions, then tell me getting my "feelings hurt" is petty.

[William Z. Foster]

128. begging your pardon?

I did not attack you, at the very worst I disagreed with things you said.

[OneGrassRoot]

132. I truly am not stalking you...lolol

As I said above, you are very familiar and have a very masterful, eloquent approach to and about this subject which I greatly appreciate.

:)

I simply wanted to gently offer another perspective (with apologies for overusing that word).

You wrote: "People who have had their feelings hurt, because someone dared challenge their liberal credentials, are not the victims of anything here. Thinking that they could be is such a distortion of priorities, reflects such a profound failure to grasp the issues involved in this that it boggles the mind."

I would like to suggest that, in some instances (and who are we to know the truth when we haven't walked in another's shoes), perhaps people get their feelings hurt, not because "someone dared challenge their liberal credentials," but because they were simply grossly misunderstood.

Much as you are saying here about how others respond to bobbolink and grossly misunderstand her.

It goes both ways. Without at least starting off with a genuine respect for one another -- without the triggers and assumptions -- this feels like an exercise in futility. All these threads end up feeling like an exercise in futility to me, when there is so much to be done and understood and learned.

We're all broken and angry to some degree. We don't know one another's story unless we choose to share, and then it's a matter of trust as to whether or not we believe it (but I believe there's always something to be learned from it).

Every single person has value and deserves respect, IMHO. This is what I mean when I say that perhaps...just perhaps...there are assumptions on all sides being made, resulting in genuinely hurt feelings which prevent progress and genuine discussion.

Even if someone feels voiceless and vulnerable "out there" (and, really, don't most of us?) -- and that frustration and anger naturally becomes a natural way of interacting -- I wish we could, somehow, interact here with a level playing field of respect in order to confront the issues effectively.

[Dorian Gray]

116. I have to agree with this

I feel great empathy for what she has endured because of her homelessness, but when she refuses to listen to viewpoints outside of her own preconceived notions born out of her experiences and knowledge by berating other posters, it's frustrating.

I've been on the receiving end of her attacks when I've asked questions or made points, as have most other posters in these topics. I've never meant to be rude or confrontational with her, and it's frustrating to communicate. It makes me not partake in these threads all that much, to be honest.

[Forkboy]

83. No, it is true.

Anyone for whom a smooth sales pitch would be needed on this issue is not someone that could be reached in any case. We are not selling time shares here.

Human nature, and we can argue all night whether that nature is right or not, but it's there. When someone treats you badly, even over something they have a right to be upset about, human nature tends to turn that person away from listening and acting.

People need a wake up call, not a sales pitch.

They need both. As I said above, this poster has provided some awesome information on the topic, but also some really harsh and undeserved vitriol to many who care. That's not a wake up call.

The issue would be ignored if the other poster were not using the approach they are using.

That same approach also turns people away, and I believe it turns away more than it brings into the fold. Again, we can argue over whether it should or not, but it does.

I think the other poster's abrasive style has been extremely effective, and they have done us all an invaluable service by keeping this issue in our face, despite the fact that they have to endure endless abuse. Is it a little uncomfortable sometimes? yes. Looking in the mirror can be. Attacking the person holding the mirror up is not a helpful response. THAT is the approach and style that is destructive.

How has that style been effective? Shitting on people is not holding up a mirror to them, it's shitting on them. THAT is just as destructive an approach. I'm someone who enjoys holding up a mirror to others (much of my replies to some people here are just that, deliberately so), but I'm not kidding myself. These people aren't seeing the mirror and going, "Hey, that Forkboy guy is right after all! I see myself so much clearer now!". You can't essentially tell people they suck and then expect them to be sympathetic to your message. If you've ever gone door to door, maybe for a candidate or something, did you dump on the people who answered the door to get them to back your choice, or were you polite about it? Human nature may suck at times, but pretending it doesn't exist or have any effect is naive.

"I would care about homeless people, you know, support their cause, if only their salesperson were not so obnoxious" is simply absurd. You say "people who would otherwise be at your side" if only they weren't "jumping down the throats" and "alienating" people. Those comments by you illustrate and support what the other member is saying.

Once again, you're talking about what's right. I'm talking about human nature, which doesn't follow many rules. You attract more flies with honey than vinegar, and when people need help treating potential helpers like dirt isn't helping her or any other homeless person.

Anyone who would NOT be "on your side" or be "alienated" over what one member says, or their style, was never a friend.

Not everyone starts a friend to the cause. How do you get them to care enough to go that extra step and not just talk about it but do something to help, by making them feel like shit? Has anyone ever motivated you to do something for them by treating you like dirt? Now, how many times have you been motivated to work for something by someone who treats you nicely? Your point here isn't incorrect, it's just naive to expect humans to do what you want them to do by jumping down their throats, and yes, this poster has done that often here.

People are uncomfortable with what the other poster has to say, that is all. The other poster is very good at ferreting out the hypocrisy and condescension and paternalism with which many people approach the subject. Your post is an example of that.

Yes, the poster has ferreted out a former homeless person, myself. Would you like to tell me more about myself and how I approach the topic? Please, you mean well and are clearly a smart man, but spare me the righteous lecture.

I think the poster you are complaining about is remarkably restrained, civil, and patient given the abuse and provocation from so-called "friends" of "the cause."

Abuse is a two way street here on DU, and the poster in question gives more than she takes, often when it isn't justified in the slightest. You disagree, and that's fine. Welcome to DU.

[William Z. Foster]

86. a certain model

The corporate sales and marketing model has so permeated society that people can only think in those terms. You assume that we are all selling something, and that we need to all be doing our Dale Carnegie best at it, that this is the task and that this is what brings results.

I understand that you, and many others, may use these techniques when canvassing for political candidates. I question the effectiveness of that. In fact, I know it doesn't work. I have been an effective and highly successful canvasser for the party for over 40 years. I have never tried to "win friends and influence people" nor sell people anything. People just hate that, and it does not work. In fact, I think it is one of the main things that turn people off to Democrats.

Are we seriously to believe that the challenge is to recruit people to some cause - "save the homeless" or something - and that they would not join because of the way one person talked? That is a bizarre view of politics, I must say.

In any case, the poster you are complaining about criticized the things people are saying. Many people take that as a personal insult, but that is not the other person's fault. If someone did make a personal attack, isn't there a procedure for dealing with that?

I don't want people persuaded, don't want them taking any "extra steps," don't want their tepid and conditional "support," don't want to sell anyone on anything. People who are looking for that or who are saying we should be ding that could not possibly be friends or allies under any circumstances that I could see, unless they were willing to question that weak approach to politics.

We need to go into this in more depth. I really think that the sales and promotion model that people are using for their activism is destructive.

The approach your are recommending - demanding, really - wouldn't even be effective at recruiting people for the local sewing club. It might be an appropriate approach for getting people to an Amway meeting - that is what it reminds me of actually - but even there you wouldn't get one in a hundred recruited.

Bobbolink's approach, on the other hand, has opened a very tightly closed door a tiny crack and given us an opportunity to get into something serious and substantive here instead of the usual bland,m toothless and self-centered chatter about this subject.

[William Z. Foster]

89. OK

I have read back through the thread very carefully.

It is absolutely untrue that the poster several of you are attacking made any personal attacks, was insulting to anyone, spit in anyone's face, alienated anyone, abused anyone or did any of the other things that they have been accused of doing.

Yet people have gotten all bent out of shape, and written long diatribes about what is wrong with the poster, and claimed to be victims, terribly hurt and offended and maligned. That poster stands accused of "hurting the cause" and so forth.

[leftstreet]

90. There's a history here

You're new.

Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[William Z. Foster]

93. that may be

So in other words, because of what the poster did before, you are justified in attacking them now?

Let's say the person is abrasive. Is that really such a big problem? Good grief, aggressive obnoxious people are continually posting racist sentiments and promoting the right wing agenda here on every thread. They use insults and personal attacks constantly. Very few people object to any of that, and when they do they get attacked. Is there one standard for behavior for those who are seen as winners and who are defending those in power, and another standard for behavior for the rest of us?

Thanks for the welcome.

[leftstreet]

96. No, abrasiveness isn't a problem here

In fact, it's prolific! :-)

Which unfortunately (and predictably) often derails important conversations.

And there is no conversation more important for the 'liberal left' to be having right now than poverty, homelessness, class, etc.

But the liberal left isn't having that conversation. (In fact, you could argue that traditionally 'conservative' working class people are way ahead of the left here.)

[William Z. Foster]

100. agreed

The left isn't having that conversation, and traditionally 'conservative' working class people are way ahead of the left.

I cannot imagine anything that Bobbolink has said derailing important conversations - seems that the opposite has happened - nor can I imagine getting bent out of shape about it.

If Bobbolink aimed the artillery around at me (and really they did not aim anything at anyone in this thread, but rather made general criticism, all of which I think were accurate) I guess I would have two choices -

I could think "why how dare that person suggest that I could be wrong - or callous, or hypocritical, or gentrified? Me! A bonafide liberal who has done this that and the other thing to help people, who has worked to solve problems FOR YEARS, and who is pretty darned smart and has degrees in this stuff. And did I mention that I am quite the moral person - caring and generous and stuff? I'll have you know that I am not some nobody that can just be pushed around, why, I am a liberal of consequence and importance - consequence I tell you, and not someone to be trifled with. I have worked hard perfecting myself, am quite accomplished, and I don't need some loud mouth criticizing ME - someone how does not even KNOW me, who has not been graced by my magnificent and benevolent presence! Who is THAT person to so insult ME?? And besides, they are RUDE! Rude, rude, rude - and obnoxious! Yeah, that's it! How DARE they! I'll show them who they are dealing with!"

Yep. I could react that way. I have. But there is an alternative - which is a very good thing for ME.

This actually happened to me a couple of days ago. A co-worker, a junior co-worker said to me - to ME! a smart left winger, a grizzled veteran of the class wars, and so well-read and accomplished! - "ya know guy, you are taking management's position on this."

Instead of reacting - and I felt just the way I described in that paragraph above - I said to her "you think?" and then I shut up and listened to her for a long time, and then said "you know, you are right and I really appreciate you pointing that out. Thank you."

We are in an emergency. Things are seriously fucked up. Millions of lives are at stake. Millions are suffering. We have all internalized the poison that is causing this, we are all tempted and liable to "take management's position." Thank God for Bobbolink, and for my co-worker, or we would truly be lost and it would be hopeless.

"Rude" is the very last thing I think any of us should be worrying about. It is smug arrogance and complacency, self-righteousness and paternalism that kill, that are killing people, not rudeness.

[leftstreet]

107. It is what it is

(Being surprised that Hedge Fund Democrats won't address poverty is like being surprised rabid fundamentalists won't address gay rights.)

You're an optimist - and my hat's off to you!

[bobbolink]

91. Here is the history......

There have been a few others, VERY few, who have tried to bring the issue of poverty to DU in a meaningful way. The most familiar of those is Sapphire Blue, basically my mentor. She was well-liked because she was quite soft in her approach, and tried to appeal to peoples' better nature.

What happened with that?

She enjoyed popularity, but..... was constantly discouraged and even depressed that her work--and it was considerable--to bring poverty to light on DU amounted to very little, if any, change in awareness, and certainly not in Action. I received many PMs from her, being very down, very discouraged, and, while determined to keep going, was to the point of despair that more than a very few would actually hear her. They could applaud her, yes, but not HEAR.

I never wanted to be a leader, and it was quite a while after Sapphire Blue left (and has since died ... :cry: ) that I tried to pick up where she left off. I walked in her footsteps as much as I could... tried to gently bring the information to people, begged people to call and write, but got no more response than she did.

As my own situation worsened, as I spoke with more homeless people, and as I came to know more poor people on DU (many of whom don't speak of their poverty because they don't feel safe in doing so, or want to escape from the reality of it), I became more and more angry. I began to see that it wasn't the fault of the Reaganites... Reagan is long gone, and homelessness has worsened..... it is the APATHY of the "progressives" which is most responsible. When, midway through his '04 campaign, Kucinich sent emails asking us to vote on our most important priorities, and poverty was wiped off his map because it didn't rate in popularity, I saw clearly what is the truth.... poverty doesn't matter to "progressives", and no amount of pleading and "being nice" is going to get through that brick wall.

So, you see... the polite and soft way has been done and doesn't move people. Now, I am told that people aren't moved because of ME and my "abrasiveness".

Isn't it interesting that there is always something "out there" to hang our own neglect on?

I am going to edit this to add.... Sapphire's daughter came here after Sapphire's death, and tried to carry on with her mother's efforts, but left in disgust after seeing both the apathy and the nastiness. She PM'd me before she left, saying that it was hopeless to try to move people on DU. I was distraugt that she was leaving, but I certainly can't blame her.

So, all of you can keep pointing your fingers to me, and blaming me. That is fine, I am finally so down that I really don't care anymore.

But, just remember... you are CHOSING to put your energy into blaming me, rather than to seriously look to see what can be done to change poverty and homelessness in this country. That choice says so much.

[William Z. Foster]

97. thank you for that

The dynamic you are describing is common, both offline and online. It is the main source of the frustrations and failures by the left and the reason for the ascendancy of the right wing, so it is an important issue.

I do see a strange combination of apathy - complacency and smugness - that is very smooth, very self-assured and bland, and oh so liberal and progressive, but bubbling just under the surface is the nastiness, and that nastiness - belligerence and bullying and violence - rivals anything you will see from the crazed right wing or tea baggers.

That suggests that the significant political divide in the country is not really between liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, but rather is something else - between the haves and the have-nots, the supposed winners and the supposed losers. Since self-serving and anti-social behavior is admired and rewarded, while those dedicated to and primarily motivated by contribution to others, the greater good, and something other than grabbing for themselves - nurses, farmers and teachers for example - are punished, that means that we need to look at the social arrangements and conventions, the way we are defining winners and losers and whom that serves if we are going to get serious about analyzing the social problems we face. The winners, who dominate the political discourse from both sides of their petty and esoteric partisan feuding, are deeply resistant to that, because it would call into question their own personal roles and positions in society.

I think many intellectuals, successful and educated white collar people, are deeply conflicted about their role and position in society as well they should be. They are paid and rewarded strictly according to the service they render in defending and promoting the needs and desires of the upper class, as well as destroying the working class and keeping people in their place, and must know that on some level. That could be a source of their anger, as well, because they are already struggling to justify their lives, and then when someone talks about it all of the unresolved emotional issues about that come to the surface. It is easier to smash the mirror and beat up on the person holding the mirror than it is to look into the mirror.

[bobbolink]

99. You have painted the picture exactly right.

It is NOT between the righties and the lefties or the Dems and Repubs.... it is about burying those of us on the bottom of the ladder... AFTER, of course, USING us until we refuse to be used anymore.

I will NOT let the "left" use me, and claim to want to reduce the military budget because I and thousands like me need the money more. NO.... if they aren't fighting for us now, we can be sure they won't fight for us when those military dollars are reduced. It will just be something else that is more important.

"the reason for the ascendancy of the right wing, "

Interesting you said that, because this has stuck in my mind.

During the holidays, I was in an area where the TV in the laundry was on the Pat Robertson channel. I was biting my tongue so hard I still have the scars to prove it, but one thing really got my attention, and made me think.

When talking about poor people, and adicted people, etc., he described us/them as "wounded". I don't like what he stands for, but that view and that description is so exactly right. While the "progressives" want to "fix" us, and while DUers want to blame me for upsetting them, they never stop just one moment to look at the world from my eyes, and see how the system as it is has wounded me... has wounded so many of us.

They look to blame, rather than opening their hearts to our wounds.

THAT is one big reason why the RW has gained so much power... it may be an illusion, but they feel like they are being heard rather than FIXED.

And therein lies the whole difference.

[Scout]

119. "The issue would be ignored if the other poster were not using the approach they are using."

the issue won't be ignored, but that poster will be...

:eyes:

[Flying Dream Blues]

124. Apparently you are new around these parts. nt

[Flying Dream Blues]

123. +1000

Let's just leave it at that.

[ipaint]

15. Draconian cuts in public housing.

The Root Cause of Contemporary Homelessness While decades of homeless policy responses have focused upon individual – rather than systemic – factors to explain and address homelessness, the fact that millions of families, single adults, and youth with different biographical backgrounds came to simultaneously experience homelessness in 1983 – and that millions continue to suffer on our streets today – requires a reexamination of historical and social structural forces.

From 1976-1982, HUD built over 755,000 new public housing units, but since 1983, HUD built only 256,000 new public housing units.

From 1976-1985, a yearly average of almost 31,000 new Section 515 rural affordable housing units were built, but from 1986-1995, average yearly production was less than half that of the previous decade.

From 1996-2005, Section 515 built an average of only 1700 new units per year.

In recent years, over 200,000 private-sector rental units have been lost annually, and 1.2 million unsubsidized affordable housing units disappeared from 1993-2003.

HUD budget authority in 1978 was 65% more than its 2006 budget of $29 billion.

The de-funding of federal affordable housing programs, coupled with the loss of public housing units as well as private-sector affordable housing, should be central to any discussion of the causes of homelessness, yet they have been all but ignored in the debates about and policy responses to the current ongoing crisis. No matter what other factors may come into play in any individual’s experience of homelessness – without housing, that person will remain homeless.

http://www.wraphome.org/downloads/without_housing.pdf


This situation is no accident or unintended consequence. It's violence perpetrated by the powerful on those who can't defend themselves.
It won't be solved by a free lunch or handing over some pocket change or a new shelter here and there.

[bobbolink]

16. "It won't be solved by a free lunch or handing over some pocket change or a new shelter here and

there."

Thank You! It is so refreshing when people get the reality!

I see you have acquainted yourself with the report that really nails it...again, thank you!

Nothing at all will change until "liberals" and "progressives" begin campaigning loud and long for Low-Income Housing!

For God's sake, people, this is NOT the answer... you want your mother living like this the rest of her life?:

[REP]

24. No one would let their mother go homeless ... would they?

I can understand if a person was homeless themselves, or the mother was so mentally ill she ran off or something, but no, almost no one would let their mother live in a car unless there was something really wrong.

[ipaint]

27. You missed the point entirely. nt

[REP]

31. I just think someone would go broke trying to keep their mother housed, don't you?

[ipaint]

37. The point isn't whether someone would allow it.

Most wouldn't, the point is if it's not ok for your mom why do you accept it for other human beings. Are they somehow less deserving of housing then someone you care about?

The homeless are a direct result of cuts to housing programs starting with reagan. The cuts in housing programs caused homelessness to increase dramatically.

Reagan who created the homeless problem addressed it a few years down the road by doing EXACTLY what progressives here and elsewhere think will cure it. More shelters and soup kitchens.

Massive fail as a solution.
We need fully funded federal programs to get folks into affordable housing.

[REP]

39. You'd have to ask the person who keeps asking about others' mothers

I think she's a mother, so it might be personal for her.

[ipaint]

46. ? nt.

[Hannah Bell]

49. there is no such person.

[bobbolink]

71. You're exactly right. Its the classic "US and THEM"

Making it personal, and realizing it COULD BE your mother, your sister, your aunt, your daughter... etc., is the way to understand that we are ALL people, HUMANS, and to stop "typing" people and putting people in categorical boxes, and greet the divine in each other.

Only then will we truly solve the homelessness mess, because we will stop looking at people as problems, and look at each OTHER as worthy, valuable fellow HUMANS.

[bobbolink]

73. That's one of the points,, isn't it? Isn't that supposed to be a function of government?

Part of the commons?

Or have we so totally and willingly conceded all of that to the RW?

[Bluerthanblue]

135. your words reminded me of

these words of MLKjr's -

"......We are coming to demand that the government address itself to the problem of poverty. We read one day, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." But if a man doesn’t have a job or an income, he has neither life nor liberty nor the possibility for the pursuit of happiness. He merely exists.

We are coming to ask America to be true to the huge promissory note that it signed years ago. And we are coming to engage in dramatic nonviolent action, to call attention to the gulf between promise and fulfillment; to make the invisible visible...

One day we will have to stand before the God of history and we will talk in terms of things we’ve done. Yes, we will be able to say we built gargantuan bridges to span the seas, we built gigantic buildings to kiss the skies. Yes, we made our submarines to penetrate oceanic depths. We brought into being many other things with our scientific and technological power.

It seems that I can hear the God of history saying, "That was not enough! But I was hungry, and ye fed me not. I was naked, and ye clothed me not. I was devoid of a decent sanitary house to live in, and ye provided no shelter for me. And consequently, you cannot enter the kingdom of greatness. If ye do it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye do it unto me." That’s the question facing America today." (from MLKjr. address to the National Cathederal about "The Poor Peoples Campaign" March 1968 less than a week before he was murdered)
http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/kingpapers/article/remaining_awake_through_a_great_revolution/

We are still in need of that 'revolution'.

:grouphug:

[bobbolink]

136. Exactly right and thank you for resurrecting that quote!

I used to have a beautiful quotation from Martin in my sig line, along with a beautiful photo of him. But it was taken away. :(

Martin recognized at the end of his life that poverty was an even greater problem than racism.

We still haven't fully come to that realization, let alone begun to grapple with it. :(

[bobbolink]

137. From another giant o a man:

Civil rights leaders attempted to tie the movement to lobbying Democrat politicians. Malcolm X correctly attacked this: "Who ever heard of angry revolutionists swinging their bare feet together with their oppressor in lilypad park pools, with gospels and guitars and ’I Have a Dream’ speeches? And the black masses in America were - and still are - having a nightmare."

[grasswire]

29. they would

I've seen it.

[pitohui]

36. well that's sort of the point -- "unless there was something really wrong"

many of the hard core mentally ill homeless -- there is a point at which you can either cut this person loose or you will destroy the rest of your family and your own peace of mind

if the person is violent, if the person is using drugs -- i'm sorry they have a brain disease that makes them do these things BUT i'm not a doctor and, anyway, it's apparent that doctors can't cure the tendency toward violence --

you would not allow your mom to move in with you if she beat you or if she threatened your child...you would not let her move in with you if she insisted on using drugs in your home...if that makes a bad person, so be it

[Hannah Bell]

50. or if the mother is a financial burden, or annoying, or many other things.

same as people do with fathers, siblings, cousins & friends.

they cut them loose when they become a burden.

that's capitalism, baby. every man for himself.

[Hannah Bell]

48. yes, they would, & do.

[Codeine]

61. I would. nt

[Bluerthanblue]

133. there are far too many 'mothers' living in their cars, in tents and in

shelters.

There is something really wrong. It's been wrong for a long time-

Bobbolink's right.

imo.

[bobbolink]

138. I ask again... who wants this to be the future of your mother, your grandmother, your aunt:

[Hannah Bell]

47. + 1000.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. YES, AND THAT WAS NOT THE POINT OF THE OP

Read the link to the article I posted on the OP.

I wasn't speaking of the reasons for WHY we have homeless people. I was speaking as to WHO and WHAT people see when they see a person laying on the ground "sleeping."

Got it now, or do we need to spell it even better?

By the way, those folks I mentioned are real.

And one of them owes his status to St. Reagan, directly.

[ipaint]

77. Who are you yelling at?

I don't disagree with you. People need to both understand where their inability to recongnize an actual human being when seeing people without houses on the streets but in order to understand how their reaction to homelessnees has been ingrained in them it is imperative they understand the root cause.

Massive draconian cuts in affordable housing forcing millions out into the street. If you don't educate folks to how this happened then what you get is a group of sympathetic folks with no clue how to advocate for a solution.

The reason we have homelessness is why people ignore the homeless. You can't separate them.

[William Z. Foster]

92. very narrow definition

You are insisting on defining homeless people - yes "homeless people" not "the homeless" - and the problem and the appropriate response in a very narrow way.

I think that "seeing" the homeless people as the most destitute out on the street is comforting for many liberals. People in that situation are something they can "care" about and imagine "solutions" for. Then they can make it a litmus test of who does and who does not care - who is a superior sort of person, with the self-serving assumption that this is the foundation of all political and social issues, who does and who does not "care" and what "personal choices" they make - by what someone does in that situation. They can ignore all of the larger social issues of domination and competitiveness, they can strictly limit the scope of any social criticism.

The "problem" is not the people living on the street, or even the millions of others who do not have secure housing that you do not see on the street. The problem is not with them nor about them. The problem is with the winners, with what they are doing and thinking and how they are living. Nor is the solution with the "helpers" and those who "care." It is not about them. They are the problem, because they are in denial about the problem, as much or more so than any other group in society.

Caring about and helping "the homeless" is then kept within the confines of otherwise going about their lives and not questioning that. Looking at "them" as the "problem" distracts us from looking at ourselves, which is where the problem is. Helping and caring about "the homeless" is then more about reinforcing and justifying the lifestyle and attitudes of the winners in society, and it is the lifestyles and attitudes of the winners that is the root cause of the social problems.

That is what people do not want to look at, and that is why there is such a strenuous effort to carefully circumscribe the way we define this issue, what its social implications are, and what the "correct" responses should be. That is also why people get so angry when any of this is challenged. Questioning any of this requires a long hard look in the mirror, and no one likes doing that.

[Hannah Bell]

105. could you be a bit more condescending? really, we haven't got our ration yet.

the poster didn't attack you in any way, yet you respond like this?

jesus christ, mother theresa, & people accuse bobbi of "not helping solve the problem".

what the fuck do i care that you gave some homeless people sandwiches, do you want a pat on the back? i've done such things as well, i suspect there are a number here who have, so what? you could feed the hundreds like jesus did & it doesn't do a damn thing to help solve the problem.

understanding WHY the problem exists, that it was PURPOSEFULLY CREATED BY DELIBERATE POLICY CHOICE, & can be changed by DIFFERENT DELIBERATE POLICY CHOICES -- which most people, who prefer to focus on how wonderful they are for handing out sandwiches, DON'T.

And that it's noT a question of the individual characteristics of homeless people as individuals, or as a group, BUT OF THE KIND OF POLICY CHOICES OUR SOCIETY MAKES. That Elmo does or doesn't take his meds, that Sally was raped when she was 13, all the Oprah soap opera shit = bogus distraction from the things that actually matter. The cause of homelessness is not lack of meds or being raped.

Which is why I found the post you snarked at 100 times more interesting than your OP, & your snarky response to that post unhelpful.

[proteus_lives]

17. We have regulars in my neck of the woods.

There is the Can-Man, very quiet, non-violent, long-term homeless. He's nice and doesn't say much. He's popular because he doesn't go up to people or ask for anything. He just sits on a stoop smoking and listening to his headphones. People plink down change, smokes and food next to him. I usually offer cigarettes.

There's Noah, a shiczophenic. He used to be a college student and waiter but his disease ended all that. He stopped by often at the theater where I work, he was very nice, mumbled to himself and always bought a kids meal. (It was unwritten policy that we didn't charge him for refills.) We sadly had to kick him out a few times because customers complained about his odor. His family is local and there's a cycle. They get him on his meds and he cleans up for a few months but eventually you see him disheveled and homeless again.

There was another fella who hang-out there but last year he committed suicide in the parking structure. Very sad.

It's a college-town so the treatment runs the whole scale. There are spare-changers and junkies around but you learn to avoid them.

The good news is we have several very dedicated shelter and Christian missions. They do a lot of good.

[comrade snarky]

19. Thanks for that

It's a reminder I need every once in a while.

I used to buy a cup of coffee or some lunch for Barry every couple of days. When he was Barry, sometimes he was Jack and once in a while Chuckie. I'd watch his stuff while he used the bathroom in the coffee shop. A Pete's by the way. One time someone walked by and asked me if I was watching his things, when I said yes he gave me a $10 bill to give to Barry since he didn't have time to wait. A lot of the neighborhood watched out for him. He needed to be on meds but hated what they did to his mind.

Living in a city it's easy to stop seeing the obvious homeless as people. I try not to, but if I'm going to be honest I have to admit it's hard the 15th time you get spare changed in 4 blocks. I've been told one of the worst things about being homeless is people not even acknowledging your presence. Even if I can't give any change a simple "Sorry man but hey, good luck" goes a long way.

[ipaint]

21. Home owners get the cash and tax breaks.

Federal Priorities for Housing Assistance
The federal government is spending money on housing, but not on developing and
preserving affordable housing. Over the last 30 years, annual tax expenditures for homeowner subsidies have grown from less than $40 billion to over $120 billion per year. Every year since 1981, tax benefits for homeownership have been greater than HUD’s entire budget and have dwarfed direct expenditures for programs that benefit low-income renters.

Since 1996, HUD funding for new public housing has been $0,while over 100,000 public housing units have been lost to demolition, sale, or other removal in that same period.

Since 2001, HUD public housing operating expense funding has been slashed by $1 billion.

In 2004, 61% of all federal housing subsidies went to households earning over $54,788, while only 27% of those subsidies went to households earning under $34,398.

In 2005, federal homeowner subsidies totaled over $122 billion, while HUD affordable housing outlays were only $31 billion – a difference of more than $91 billion.

The current federal budget proposes to spend almost $2.6 billion on a single submarine – more than twice what it spent on all 2005 McKinney homeless assistance.

In their struggle for survival, when poor and homeless people do find a little help in the form of government assistance, the government often mandates that they repay the community for this “charity” by performing street sweeping or other free public works labor.
Such work requirements, however, are never placed on homeowners or corporations who receive government benefits far greater than poor people do.

http://www.wraphome.org/downloads/without_housing.pdf

Double standard or a pay off to keep the middle class and above quiet while they destroy affordable housing programs and gut funds to $0.

[bobbolink]

23. Thank you again. They get the subsidies and give back a cup of coffee.

We would like to have those subsidies.

I appreciate you learning the real facts, and posting them. :applause:

[pitohui]

30. sorry you won't end homelessness by attacking subsidies that save homes and neighborhoods

we were low income when we bought our home and we got help from a federal program, as did others in our neighborhood at that time, the early 90s, the time of the savings & loans crisis, a neighborhood that might have been abandoned was saved and is a safe, decent middle class (if lower middle class) neighborhood to this day

subsidies to help put people in homes are not a bad thing, they are a very good thing, they create/save neighborhoods because home-owners even with subsidies have a financial vested interest in saving/maintaining their neighborhood and home -- these subsidies that you object to make it possible for millions of americans to have a decent life in their own home

in a thread on homelessness, you attack subsidies to home owners?

you think having even MORE people in competition for a limited rental market helps low income people? how could it do anything but hurt them? every working class/lower middle class family in their own home is a working class/middle class family that DOESN'T need long-term assistance in miserable low income rental housing

pitting people who have homes against those who aspire to have homes is truly, remarkably stupid-ass, excuse my french -- just what is your objection to subsidies to help homeowners? there should not be ANYTHING at all to help working class/middle class people? creating neighborhoods full of homeowners creates a stable society where people are invested in working together to preserve a peaceful community

i'm sorry, i DON'T believe that only the lucky few who chose their parents wisely should be able to buy their own homes, if you get rid of the various programs, subsidies, and tax breaks, and make it impossible for anyone who doesn't come from wealth or win the six figure job lottery to own their own home...that's just stupid-ass, it's breath-taking that anyone could object to programs that put people in their own homes and keep them there

if you help a low income working class person buy his own home -- my husband and i were considered low income when we bought as a matter of fact -- then with a very modest investment, they're in the home, and pretty much for a few thousand bucks the gov't has never heard from us again except to take our money and taxes -- and we've paid out WAY more over the years than they spent-- multiply that by the homes and neighborhoods saved-- the gov't doesn't lose money with these subsidies, they ultimately make money

it's the same thing as treating the flu with a few day's chicken soup and bed rest instead of letting it progress to pneumonia and a several thousand dollar hospital bill...

if you are trying to say, well, we should spend more money on the hard-core homeless, i agree, we should, but take this money from some other piece of the budget -- for instance, there is lots of money being wasted on killing people in the middle east that benefits no one and hurts usa interests, take that money and spend it on programs for the homeless

but don't attack home owners who get a small hand-up -- we end up paying back far more than what we are given --

i sometimes wonder if certain people have a self-hating or self-defeating syndrome, they attack their natural allies, or they attack those who would otherwise help them or at least be indifferent to them and create enemies they didn't need to create

no mentally ill hard core homeless such as described in the OP would be helped by taking my home away from me, quite the contrary, the federal gov't owned my home as a result of foreclosure, they found out pretty fucking quick that they were losing money on holding an empty house...by putting me into the home, they made a little money and my local parish of course is also making money...these subsidies are usually a win/win in the end

i'm not saying every home owner is a success but despite all the noise about foreclosures, MOST of them are, MOST of us DON'T lose our homes once we've had that small step up

don't attack programs that help middle class people and then wonder why middle class people become gov't hating tea-bagger asshats, why should the middle class be invested in gov't if gov't doesn't care about giving them anything, besides get real, you take away our little bit of cash, it would NEVER go to your homeless guy on the street, it would get stolen by the rich, most of it already is

[comrade snarky]

32. I agree with a lot of what you say

I'll probably never own a home but I can't begrudge the home buyer credits. Especially the first time buyer credits and low income programs.

It's not a zero sum game. Putting more resources toward homeless transition programs does not have to mean taking money from programs that help people keep a home. That's a false frame, it's ugly and divisive.

[ipaint]

34. You really need to read the report before assuming they and I are referring

to help for low income folks to buy homes. Unfortunately the programs help some low income but the vast benefits go to the wealthy. That money needs to be re-allocated to more low incomes folks and especially into programs for real housing for the homeless.

From the same link-


"Government subsidization of homeownership is one of the many ways by which wealthy people in the United States reduce their tax burden. The mortgage interest deduction for homeowners is the second largest single break in the entire tax code and the wealthy receive the bulk of this benefit.

A recent bipartisan presidential advisory panel on taxation found that over 70% of tax filers received no benefit from mortgage interest deductions, and only 54% of taxpayers who pay interest on their mortgages received this tax benefit. More than 55% of the federal expenditures under this program went to 12% of taxpayers with incomes greater than $100,000 – often to finance luxury or second homes.

The presidential panel found that these mortgage interest breaks, which allow for deductions on mortgages up to one million dollars for first or second homes, exceed what is necessary to encourage increased homeownership in society or to help people buy a first home. These tax breaks elevate the cost of housing, and the biggest beneficiaries may actually be banks and real estate corporations that make their largest profits on highend housing.

Every year since 1981, tax benefits for homeownership have been greater than HUD’s entire budget and have dwarfed direct expenditures for programs that benefit low-income renters.

In principle, federal assistance for home ownership is a valid and valuable activity. But as property prices skyrocket and inequality grows, achieving the “American Dream” is becoming more and more difficult. The middle class is shrinking, and middle-income neighborhoods, where families earn 80 to 120 percent of the local median income, are rapidly disappearing.
Both poor neighborhoods with inadequate housing stock and rich neighborhoods with heavily subsidized mansions are becoming more prevalent, as residential communities are increasingly segregated according to extremes of income. Federal housing assistance programs designed to promote fairness, opportunity, and increased homeownership rates amongst low- and moderate-income people are needed to address the problems of housing inequality and segregation. But instead, they have favored corporations and wealthy households, even as the American Dream has become an American Nightmare for the poorest members of our society.

[bobbolink]

129. It would be so nice if people would actually READ the information:

The mortgage interest deduction for homeowners is the second largest single break in the entire tax code and the wealthy receive the bulk of this benefit.

The nonreaders are the ones pitting one group of poorer people against another, NOT the information, and NOT the one who posted the information.

[ultracase24]

25. Thanks for the article

Homelessness is often overlooked. I volunteer at a soup kitchen when I get time and I see homelessness up close. Its not pretty and the sad thing is you know when you leave there these people have no where to go to lay there head. No comfortable place to rest. Housing and food really should be the two things that are rights of people to have. There is no reason why people have to suffer or be homeless or hungry when we spend 2/3rds of a trillion dollars on defense in this country

[ipaint]

28. You are correct. Housing is a human right. nt

[NuttyFluffers]

45. important topic, in spite of said article not being exactly the best example...

we are only as strong as the weakest link. it is compassion and wholeness that makes the web of humanity strong.

we need to remember the humanity of the homeless; they are the mentally ill, the economically raped, the emotionally lost, etc. they are us, who have suffered destitution in the rough seas of our society. we need to bring our castaways to shore and help them rebuild. if we could calm our society's rough seas, that'd be even better... but how much can you hope?

[ipaint]

51. The war on the poor.

The most dramatic cut in domestic spending during the Reagan years was for low-income housing subsidies. Reagan appointed a housing task force dominated by politically connected developers, landlords and bankers. In 1982 the task force released a report that called for “free and deregulated” markets as an alternative to government assistance – advice Reagan followed. In his first year in office Reagan halved the budget for public housing and Section 8 to about $17.5 billion. And for the next few years he sought to eliminate federal housing assistance to the poor altogether.

In the 1980s the proportion of the eligible poor who received federal housing subsidies declined. In 1970 there were 300,000 more low-cost rental units (6.5 million) than low-income renter households (6.2 million). By 1985 the number of low-cost units had fallen to 5.6 million, and the number of low-income renter households had grown to 8.9 million, a disparity of 3.3 million units.

Another of Reagan’s enduring legacies is the steep increase in the number of homeless people, which by the late 1980s had swollen to 600,000 on any given night – and 1.2 million over the course of a year. Many were Vietnam veterans, children and laid-off workers.

In early 1984 on Good Morning America, Reagan defended himself against charges of callousness toward the poor in a classic blaming-the-victim statement saying that “people who are sleeping on the grates…the homeless…are homeless, you might say, by choice.”

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0610-01.htm

[OneGrassRoot]

52. Affordable housing initiatives?

I posted this last week, wondering if there are things we can do, in addition to legislative approaches/campaigns (which I realize are weak and ineffective thus far and we must, somehow, do better), to directly affect the most significant underlying cause of homelessness: lack of affordable housing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8270357&mesg_id=8270357

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. we also need to change hwo we (as in the collective we) think

of the homeless. In some nations it is a national disgrace. In the US the homeless "deserve it" since they are lazy bums... Horatio Alger rears his ugly head.

That is a critical step we need to take, where it becomes national shame, I fear, before we can take all the legislative actions that need taking, They range from affordable housing, to schools, to job training, to quite honestly those who need the institutional care will receive it.

[OneGrassRoot]

62. Absolutely....

I agree wholeheartedly. I'm just focused on what we can DO now -- to help alleviate some suffering and simultaneously prevent future suffering -- in conjunction with an ongoing campaign of truth and compassion.

A wise DUer recently educated me about the different between charity and justice -- that's a core issue here as well. It's a matter of justice, not charity. It's a matter of basic human dignity and respect.

There but for the grace of God....

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Critical point

what I do with these guys and gals is charity, but not social justice.

To those people I recognize their humanity, but lord knows I am not solving their day to day struggle, but helping by lending an ear and some food.

I am on a first name basis with my Congresscritter's staffers. Homeless policy is one of the many issues I bring to them regularly... and that is the social justice component of it.

[OneGrassRoot]

66. I know it's not enough....

it's never enough when anyone is suffering, but I do believe that acknowledging and being aware is at least a step in the right direction. Without that, we can't move forward at all.

So, every action of awareness and compassion is a positive thing, so long as we're not lulled into complacency or apathy or hopelessness from the overwhelming nature of what needs to be done.

[William Z. Foster]

87. free market

The lack of affordable housing is a symptom, not a cause. The cause is rampant speculation in real estate with housing thrown onto the "free market" for the benefit of the few - the clever and wily investors and financial industry people - at the expense of the many. The solution there is massive rent strikes and resistance to evictions.

Also, people are losing their homes because of a lack of income - and the solution there is also to organize, strike, and resist.

This is a big problem - jobs and housing - and the enemy is motivated and focused. We need to match that focus and motivation, and we need a soluti0n that matches the size and scope of the problem, and there is not way to tip toe around that. We must fight back.

[Prism]

53. There are a lot of homeless in the Bay Area

When I first moved here, it was a bit jarring. In the Midwest, you typically only encounter the homeless in urban areas. Here, near Berkeley, you see them all over a suburban setting. I think the strangest disconnect I ever saw was a homeless man, smelling strongly of urine and obviously in poor health, sleeping under a blanket right next to the local police station. Ubiquitous is hardly the word for the situation here.

I know the story of the BART incident sounds uncaring and cruel, but it's sadly typical of the area in my, admittedly, limited experience. In the Midwest, when I knew I'd be in an area with lots of homeless, I'd make sure I had singles in my pocket to hand out to those who were asking for change. Here, it isn't financially feasible for me to give money to each and every one.

I've always volunteered at shelters for homeless youth and will continue to do so. However, homeless sleeping or unconscious on the street are so numerous here, I could easily imagine people walking right past at the end of the day - I probably would have walked past someone if I thought they were simply asleep.

It isn't indifference, it's being overwhelmed. During any given day where I'm doing a lot of walking or commuting around the area, I might encounter two to three dozen homeless individuals. Half of them are usually asking for change or sleeping off to the side somewhere.

While the article seems like the epitome of human unkindness, I think it's probably very likely that young man wasn't the first or even sixth homeless individual many of those commuters came across that day.

When a problem becomes common, it becomes invisible.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Exactly and that is the point I was making

they have become invisible.

[Dappleganger]

54. A great quote I read earlier this year...

"Every one of these used to be a hopeful child with dreams."

[wildflower]

144. That is very powerful

Thank you for posting it.

[DevonRex]

67. K&R.

Good OP. Sorry you took undeserved criticism for it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. It happens and it is usually the same people

who do not realize that we need to start by understanding things at the most basic of levels... and then move to a policy discussion. They confuse "facts on the ground" and how most americans think of things, with high level policy discussions.

[DevonRex]

74. That's exactly right. I don't think most folks have heard

a good discussion at even the most basic level yet. I applaud you for your efforts to begin that conversation.

[ipaint]

78. Your dismissing the solution as if people are incapable

of understanding what a massive budget cut is. And then you are taking a post which points to a solution as a personal insult.

Who is this thread about?

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. Read the OP AGAIN, slowly

and try to figure this out.

I am not going to hold your hand on this.

By the way... I am sure you are not aware of my personal history, or why I actually get it that homelessness is far more complex than the people I was talking about in the OP.

Here is a hint for you. Charity (person to person work) is not policy... never has, never will be, and should not be confused.

[ipaint]

84. Funny a homeless person comes to this thread with a link

to the exact material needed to help folks understand homelessness and it's causes and solutions and you're offended because she wasn't what you consider polite. And this very same homeless person is accused of getting in the way of your "good work".

I post segments of the study so people can better understand what got us to this point and why...you attack me as not having a clue.

I could give a shit what you do in real life, in this thread you are ineffective.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. I was not offended by the information

in fact I always welcome info...

But this is always about her... and that is why many of us at times have issues.

As is, (now hand holding since you don't get it) this was about why a young man died at the BART since people thought he was just another homeless person. This was to MAKE A POINT that you missed by a mile, not shocking or surprised either.

You need the holding not me.

And I have worked with this population not in one country, but two.

Been close to levels of poverty that you can smell, and did my best to help people in direct ways, as well as a policy level. Not all threads can or will be about policy. Sorry if you don't get that.

You want to speak policy... by all means... we can do it in a thread dedicated to POLICY... and if you are going to do this correctly, housing credits, section eight and Reagan closing mental hospitals is JUST PART OF THE EQUATION. Believe it or not this also has to do with silly shit like trade policy, cheap labor and NAFTA (as well as globalization) I am game, alas the goal of THIS OP was not to go into policy... and the person you are referring to is not doing any favors to the homeless. Her style has alienated way too many posters here. I get her anger... and why she is that abrasive... and she is. But the reality is that many people have her on ignore for a reason. Message then is NOT received by those who need to get it. But it is the same song and dance every time, and quite frankly people just ignore her now.

[ipaint]

95. The premise of your op was summed up in the last sentence.

"I just introduced you to some folks that I am betting must of you would walk by, not even paying attention. It is the nature of our society, though walking by I am almost betting is hard wired."


It is hardwired. But that is because people have not been exposed to the truth. Just individual victim blaming, the easy road.

If you truly want to open folks minds facts work. Real history works. It took me exactly 20 minutes to read that report at the link I have posted several times. One read and folks can begin to understand why they are mistaken in both their views of the homeless and their ignorance at who was the catalyst for this disaster. It isn't each individual person with no home but policies put into place by a right wing government that destroyed the safety net for low income and poor folk.

You talk as if policy is separate but it ISN"T. It is ground zero for the disconnect you directly refer to in your op. It's also not rocket science best left to the experts.

As far as the direction of the thread, if you want a forum about your particular view with responses that you approve of, blog.

Hand holding, that's a hoot.

[bobbolink]

98. A nit. I absolutely don't believe that ignoring poor and hurting people is "hardwired".

That is like the other phrase that bothers me, for the same reason... "It is human nature."

I don't believe either of those for one reason.... my anthropology background says that for something to be "human nature", "hardwired", would mean for it to be universal.

There are plenty of societies that not only look out for and take care of their poorest, but do it as a matter of course, and would consider it very weird to NOT do so.

No, walking by and ignoring poor and hurting people is something we are TAUGHT.

And it is very Dickensian.

(read, GREED, SELFISHNESS)

[William Z. Foster]

102. absolutely

People ignore the thousands of examples of cooperation and compassion, do not see that as "human nature," even though without that human beings would not even have survived as a species, and then take isolated examples to "prove" that greed and selfishness are "human nature" so we must therefore submit to a cruel and unjust system. THAT is what causes people, teaches people, to "walk by and not see" others. We have many people right here - Democrats and liberals and progressives! - promoting this idea about "human nature" every day, and it is the promotion of that idea that causes the very problem they lament and that they then want to "care" about and "help" people with.

Yes, we are taught this. We are taught this every day when people tell us to accept "reality" and to "be realistic" and "get with the program." The bullying and badgering on this very thread is an argument for accepting "reality" and staying in line - don't be rude to your superiors!! - and THAT is what causes people to walk by and not see others more than anything else ever could.

Too many liberals start with the assumption that it is "human nature" that people are cold, callous, indifferent, greedy and cruel, and then set about establishing themselves as superior to that and then put on airs and lecture others about how they can improve themselves. This leads to utter moral depravity, in all of its forms - lesser of two evils, baby steps, being "realistic" and "practical," obsession with personal choices and personal beliefs, "regulated capitalism," self-expression in lieu of political organizing, partisan loyalty, and the whole rest of the political mess that the left now finds itself in.

[ipaint]

103. By hardwired I meant by our society.

Wrong choice of wording.

[Hannah Bell]

109. +10000. no, it's not hardwired. we learn to be hard, we're not born that way.

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. No, the hard wired part is now under careful

research by social scientists. This incident at the BART is but the last in a long sequence, not just in the US, where bystanders walk by major incidents.

Just like politics seem to increasingly be at least partially hard wired.

Like it or not humans are flock animals. Observe a flock, and if you are careful you will see some very similar behavior. This line of research is JUST REALLY GETTING GOING... and it has yet to account for things like why in smaller societies, or smaller cities this happens less often, or not at all.

That is important because that will also lead to silly shit like high level policy.

By the way, the ability to have empathy and care for others is not fully wide spread across the society.

Oh and I did notice that you did not face the real high policy issues that lead to this reality, and if I want to throw more into this, the evolution of American society.

I wonder why? Once again, Title Eight Housing (or lack off) is a symptom... not the cause of what is going on.

[Hannah Bell]

110. fuck the "social scientists". as if the ptb didn't have a vested interest in supporting

research that tells people "poverty/addiction/violence hard-wired in 'you people's' brain & genes".


gee, there must have been a major genetic mutation after reagan came to power in 1980, because where i lived i rarely saw a single person sleeping at night on the streets, & within a matter of years it became ubiquitous.

[ipaint]

121. +1. nt

[William Z. Foster]

131. amen

One would think we were talking about lab rats.

[William Z. Foster]

101. you are seriously misreading her

Nothing could be farther from the truth than to think that "this is always about her." The exact opposite is true.

What most people do here on thread after thread is take large social and political issues, and then reduce them down to their personal choices - I am voting such and such, I buy such and such, I believe such and such. They take the social and make it personal, make it all about them. And all of the upset and outrage people are expressing about being offended and insulted to have their liberal cred questioned is also all about them personally.

By way of contrast, Bobbolink has taken her personal tragedy and struggles and dedicated that to something larger, transformed it into something that has universal value, that can help millions. I think that this is going right over people's heads here.

The only thing required of us is to look in the mirror and have a little courage, instead of whining about being offended by the "rudeness" or something. That is not because Bobbolink is attacking anyone, but rather because looking in the mirror is what is needed, because the problem is not with "the homeless" rather it is inside all of us, and the more we might think that our fecal material is entirely free of any odor, the more likely it is that we are the problem.

[Hannah Bell]

108. it's about the kind hearts & deep understanding of liberals, of course.

it always is, isn't it?

[ipaint]

79. What Can I Do?

What Can I Do?

Educate yourself about homelessness and poverty, human rights, and the connection
between lack of affordable housing and homelessness. Share this report with friends, coworkers, family, and colleagues.
Download this document from the WRAP website, print it out, copy it, and pass it around. We are making this document available free-of-charge, with the hope that you will share it.

Hang up one of the posters accompanying this report. Put one in your office, your local coffee shop, book store, restaurant, bar, community center, religious center, or club house. Put one up anywhere that the public can learn from it. Have your friends do the same.

Write letters to the editor of your local paper and to locally elected officials. Demand that they engage in the struggle for greater respect of the human rights of all people by our federal government, by the positions they take on specific federal legislation and policies regarding affordable housing and homelessness. If you are a policy maker, a politician, or a candidate, make “Housing Is a Human Right” a plank of your own political platform and support the creation and subsidization of affordable housing.

Check to see which of your local homeless service programs are also speaking out about the systemic causes of homelessness, and energetically support those programs that have the courage to take that risk.


Support and volunteer with community organizations working to address the systemic causes of homelessness, or to end poverty and social injustice. In the final section of this report we provide a list of some national organizations with which you may want to become involved (there are many righteous organizations out there – these are just a few of them). If you can’t find a local organization through them, you can always contact WRAP for assistance in starting one in your community.

Inform your schools about the role of government policies in creating homelessness, about how the absence of affordable housing creates homelessness. Set up an educational workshop; tell your students about these policies. Bring this issue into assemblies, community meetings, classrooms, and academic conferences; and hold discussions about this report.

Demand documentation from government, media, policy experts, community groups, and anyone else who tries to persuade you that their “paradigm shift” is the one that will end homelessness.


WITHOUT HOUSING
http://www.wraphome.org/downloads/without_housing.pdf

[OneGrassRoot]

111. Kicking so people see this info. Thanks, ipaint. :) n/t

[ipaint]

122. Your welcome but credit goes to bobbolink who posted the

link for info in post #11.

[OneGrassRoot]

125. Yes, I know :)

I appreciate her efforts, and I appreciate you breaking out the specific "What I Can Do" excerpts so clearly.

:hi:


edit for typo

[bobbolink]

134. Additional To-Dos

First, repeat of the most important:

Educate yourself about homelessness and poverty, human rights, and the connection between lack of affordable housing and homelessness.

Organize a coordinated effort to educate and activate liberal "media" concerning the reality of homelessness. Homelessness is not spoken of on the national blogs nor on "progressive" radio (except for the occasional brief mention, which often includes erroneous statements.) Do not give up until the vast majority of "progressives" understand the low-income housing shortage as well as they understand the more popular progressive issues.

Recognize that the misinformation campaign against homeless people has been massive and relentless for over 30 years, and that combating it will take constant repetition of the truth.

Organize a study group through your local library.

Organize a DU effort to print the correct information in full- or half-page ads in the NYT. If DUers can raise money to send flowers to congresscritters, they can raise money for awareness ads.

Bring together the considerable skills of DU to create a PSA,, and raise the money necessary to get it onto the airwaves. Again, DU has done many massive fund-raising efforts, and can do this if it sees it as important.

Begin now to plan an awareness campaign to coicide with the National Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week. http://www.nationalhomeless.org/awareness/
Lastly, repeat of the most important:

Educate yourself about homelessness and poverty, human rights, and the connection
between lack of affordable housing and homelessness.

[OneGrassRoot]

139. ...

:yourock:

Awesome. Thank you so much, Bobbolink. :pals:

"Organize a DU effort to print the correct information in full- or half-page ads in the NYT. If DUers can raise money to send flowers to congresscritters, they can raise money for awareness ads."

What a GREAT idea.

Thanks again. :hug:

[bobbolink]

140. Oh, I'm full of 'em, alright. ^_^

Been percolating ideas right and left... not that any of them will be taken up. :(

Met with a local group (clergy) today, told them what I am doing with the awareness stuff, and they want to coordinate with me. We'll see where that goes. I don't take anything too seriously anymore, sadly.

Anyway, there are lots more ideas where those came from.... all it takes is some serious commitment from "progressives".

Edited to say. ...... I know of an activist group which used the full-page NYT ad thing, and said it got great results.

Oh, and... that author of the article that was so popular here on DU.... actually agreed to write one for us to use in such kind of promotion. Great opportunity, but nobody wants to actually work on it. They want to leave all of that up to me, and yet castigate me as a terrible person. "Progressive". :crazy:

[OneGrassRoot]

141. This DU/NYT ad idea.....

that's a new one for me...sounds/feels like a great idea, a coordinated effort working toward the November awareness date.

Maybe people will surprise you soon. :)

[maryf]

142. +10,000,000,000

But as a woman I know suggested, named Toni, we should be having rallies and sit ins at all the media centers including the NY times, and all tv stations, radio... Since they refuse to print, tell our stories??? Well maybe they'll print about the civil actions in their lobbies??? Cheaper than an ad??

[bobbolink]

143. We can't even get "progressives" to write a letter, make a call....

HOW are we going to get them to do any civil disobedience in the cause of poor folk????

Not to mention, poor folk mostly can't take those risks.... a group of us discussed today, we have NO protections whatsoever in jail. We are likely to be punished badly, even killed. Its not like homeless people haven't been killed!

No, there must be other avenues to education.

But, you can see how popular that is. :(

They are so determined to punish me that they will ignore it ALL. Now, THAT is what I call "progressive". :crazy: Do you suppose that if I were to hoist the white flag and just leave DU, they would suddenly become very active in the cause of ending homelessness?

[maryf]

145. You are right...

Engaging those who could do it is the crux; I was just thinking if we could find 10 people willing to sit in in the lobby of a newspaper, that might garner more attention than 100 letters or phone calls...Just trying to figure things out...