Ask Not What The Homeless Can Do For You, Ask What They Can Do For Themselves

Article first published as Ask Not What the Homeless Can Do for You, Ask What They Can Do for Themselves on Blogcritics.

In an earlier article I wrote briefly about homelessness, and stated that a primary cause was mental illness, followed by substance abuse.  I would like to clarify and elaborate on that, give some cites (and sites) for more information, and posit a possible solution.

I started my recent reading using the Wikipedia Article on homelessness in the US.  [Note on Wiki articles – Some of you don’t trust Wiki articles and you are right to be suspicious, but there is frequently good information to be found there.  I have been using it for basic research for many years and found that it is mostly reliable.  The best articles will be lengthy and detailed, have extensive references, and plenty of external links.  At the least, it is a good place to start for a basic understanding of a topic.]  I followed several of the internal and external links to find more information, and also checked many of the references to satisfy myself that the information presented was good.  I think that it is, but Caveat Emptor.

The actual numbers of homeless are hard to quantify, since there is no national effort to do so, only the collation of local and/or state reports.  Most large cities have a fair estimate of those using shelters, but the numbers for those not using government or charity shelters is at best a guess, and as for small towns and rural areas, it is worse than a guess.  Lest you think that Congress is not in this loop, here is the annual report to them for 2011.

This article about criminalizing homelessness and the source of the statement that the UN was concerned about safe drinking water in our homeless population.  I have wondered in the past why so much advertising money is spent on charities to provide food, water, and shelter for foreign children (“Please help. For only $0.23 per day you can…”), when we have adults AND children in our own country that have those same needs.  The cynic in me believes that most charities are scams to provide money to the organizers, but realistically, I know that SOME of them probably do some good.  As Thomas Fuller said, “Charity begins at home, but should not end there.”

The Prime cause for homelessness is said to be a lack of affordable housing, and I can’t argue against that.  But as I recall, in almost every large city, there are what we call “projects” that were supposed to be low-cost housing.  I also recall that these have become breeding grounds for drugs, gangs, violence, and crime.  It shows up in the news like in this story, or this one.   I don’t know why this doesn't work like we expect, but it may have more to do with racial or ethnic segregation and discrimination than we would like, as described in this paper.

We can trace the genesis of the mentally-ill homeless to the late 1960s and early 1970s when there was a movement towards deinstitutionalization.  The idea had lofty goals; to move mentally ill people from large, impersonal institutions into a more community-centric care system.  Unfortunately, and to our shame, this did not work as planned, and I hope that this was not done at the behest of a rich cabal solely to make more money.  This article  has both a good description of the problem and some references.  For those of you that want to understand the numbers better, here is a paper using 29 different studies.  This

PBS site has a good list of the statistics and some links to other good information.

There is some question as to whether homeless people are more likely to become mentally ill while living on the streets, or that mentally ill people are more likely to have no other place to live.  I don’t see that being homeless is causative; it seems more likely that homelessness makes their illness worse, if only because they lack access to medical treatment and counseling.  It would seem more likely that this is true of substance abuse than of mental illness.

Here is an article that discusses the problem in our friendly neighbors to the north, Canada.  I have run across several studies that were performed in Western Europe, so we know that the problem is not isolated to America, or even the North American continent.  I’m not going to cite those since I am most concerned in the immediate US problem (and this is getting kind of long).

There is also a high incidence of co-morbidity with mental illness and substance abuse, probably stemming from the prevalence of using drugs to self-medicate.  It is much more difficult to treat a mental illness when drug abuse is present.  Here is an article describing this dual diagnosis from the National Alliance on Mental Illness.  There have been some studies looking into all three of these co-linked problems: Housing, Mental illness, and Substance abuse.  This article talks about all three.

We don’t want to forget that a large portion of the homeless are veterans, to whom we owe a large debt.  They, being a subset of the overall population of the US, have similar ratios of substance abuse and are more likely to have a mental illness with the additional possibility of PTSD.

On my personal blog I wrote an article about how we might provide some jobs to the unemployed.  One of my solutions was to copy, as much as feasible, the CCC and WPA programs from the 1930s and 1940s – this was the same “New Deal” that is currently being disparagingly talked about in Washington.   These programs spent a large amount of government money, but also provided work for those that needed it and built up some national infrastructure.  It looks to me like we could stand to do both of those things again, now.

So, here is my basic plan – we build small, self-sufficient villages for these people, as near major population centers as reasonable.  The homeless will help construct and maintain these small towns, each contributing as their ability and health permits.  Overseeing these projects are the thousands of returning military service-people, many of which will need facilities such as are being built for themselves.  For those requiring it, medication can be supplied, or in the case of abuse their recovery and rehabilitation can be monitored.  In both of these cases this would be an absolute requirement for living and working in this place.  It may turn out that some of the severely mentally ill people can never significantly contribute to society, and if that is the case, they will have a pleasant location to live out their lives in safe surroundings.

As skills and abilities are acquired or enhanced, these newly enabled people can move back into the general population.  This would seem to satisfy the basic need of housing, the secondary need of work and building self-esteem, and a tertiary need of gaining education and skills to be able to re-enter the workforce.  The concentration of efforts should allow for maximum efficiency in distribution of funds to start and maintain these facilities.

I don’t have any estimates on what this program might cost, but whatever that is; doesn’t it seem like a good investment?  If this basic idea works, then it seems possible to expand it to the original goals of the CCC and WPA; having the newly skilled work force apply themselves to infrastructure projects.  Construction and maintenance of the levee system looks like a good place to start.

I’m sure that there are people out there that have a better understanding than I do of what needs to be done, so please speak up.  I would think that it is possible to get, even the ultra-conservatives behind this.  We sell it as “making the streets safer”, or “making the city more attractive”, or something similar.  Advertising agencies could be hired to make it sound compelling to the rich.

What do you think?

Where do Americans Live?

Article first published as Where do Americans Live? on Blogcritics.

Our country is big, almost 4 million square miles, and at that size, the third largest in the world.  This land is both mine and yours, from California (or Hawaii) to the New York islands, from the redwood forests to the Gulf Stream waters, the song says it all.  We have, according to another song, amber waves of grain, purple mountain majesties, and fruited plains.

It seems like enough space, and plentiful bounty, for our 300 million citizens and more.  Some of these citizens live in mansions while others live under bridges, but most live rather modestly, comfortably even.  By far, most of these people deserve to live here, having that right by birth and many of the rest are working on it through naturalization – then they too will have that right.

But the RIGHT to live within these United States does not automatically confer a PLACE to live.  Some estimates for 2011 state that there are 1.5 million homeless people; around 41% of them families with children.  The reasons range from lack of affordable housing, unemployment, or poverty to mental illness, substance abuse, or domestic violence.  But regardless of the reason, don’t these humans – fellow Americans – deserve a place to live?  Many of these people are, according the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, lacking in basic human rights such as safe drinking water.

Some recent studies have suggested that as much as 30% of the homeless suffer from mental illness, and although it is hard to estimate the exact number, it is suspected that a high percentage of these ailing people also abuse some substance; it is not clear if the substance abuse is causative in their homelessness.  At any one time, more than 100,000 of these homeless people are military veterans, on the streets for many of the same reasons as non-vets, but with the additional complication of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.  Don’t we owe these vets, who risked their lives so that you could sleep safe in your home, at the very least, a place to live?  In fact, don’t all of these people, be they sick or poor, deserve that same comfort that so many of us take for granted?

Although it is popular to vilify the rich for the problems of the poor, in the case of homelessness it is much closer to the truth, than not.  One of the primary reasons for homelessness is lack of homes.  As cities grow they frequently overrun the areas where low-income families live; razing their homes to replace them with upscale houses, condominiums, or McMansions.  This is not just an American phenomenon, but exists wherever there are large cities.  In America we call them slums and in Brazil they are known as Favelas.  Note in the two pictures the similarities.  Do we want for all of our cities to look like this?

Wouldn’t we like to be known as the generation in which homelessness was a thing of the past?

Is the most important right of citizenship voting?

Article first published as Is Voting the Most Important Right of Citizenship? on Blogcritics.

I had a class in the seventh or eighth grade – I think it was called Civics – that introduced the concept of citizenship.  I suspect that a lot of us can’t even remember the eighth grade, and I can’t remember any specifics from the class, but I recalled it recently while reading an article about immigration reform.

The concept seemed to have had more importance in the early days of our nation than it does now.  Then, it was more about there being an “us” to fight “them” over rights – most notably taxation without representation.  (It only occurred to me about a week ago that the “Boston Tea Party” had any connection to the modern one, duh.  If I had ever thought about it when I was young, I imagined it being like a Margarita party, but with tea.)

So, back to citizenship, we have certain duties (jury duty, Selective Service), rights (freedom to: reside and work, enter and leave the US, vote, stand for public office), and benefits (consular protection outside the US, access to social services, protection from deportation), but no requirement for civic participation.  Shouldn’t every citizen be more involved in the business of our country?  In the 2010 elections only 37.8% of the eligible voters showed up and voted.

Chart Data

Is there a more important way to show your involvement in American politics than by voting?  Now, there are some strong arguments saying that uninformed voters are worse for government than informed ones, but to me it means that more time should be spent educating potential voters.  I think I agree, in principle, that if you don’t understand the issues you shouldn’t just vote for the candidate that has the most air-time, or whose ads are glossiest (or who slings mud best), but how CAN we get more, informed involvement in politics?

There has been some disagreement over requiring voters to have and present valid picture identification when voting.  I have heard the democratic argument against it – discrimination towards students, the elderly, and minorities – but I don’t agree with that.  Who doesn’t have some sort of picture ID?  Even if you have a phobia about driving, don’t all states issue ID cards?  Don’t students have a school ID?  Is this somehow keeping 42% of the voters away from the polls?

A few years ago a friend and coworker originally from Slovenia (Hey, Matt, I hope you are voting) was taking his citizenship test, and we discussed the questions among ourselves.  Some of the questions seemed simple and obvious, but some made me stop and think.

• What did the Declaration of Independence do?
• What does the Constitution do?
• Under the Constitution, what powers do the states have?

Maybe we need a similar, but perhaps simplified, version of this test at the polling booths.  No ID required, but you have to score at least 80% on the test.

Hey, I might not get to vote next time.

Who can be the next president?

Article first published as Who Can be the Next President? on Blogcritics.

When I was in elementary school I remember being told (probably in jest) that I could grow up to become the president.  That makes me wonder what it takes to be the ultimate American leader – things like charisma and a desire to be raked over the coals by the media are obvious.  What qualities do the ex-presidents have in common – any in common with me?

Well, to begin with your best chance is if you are a white male between the ages of 52 and 58  – the youngest was Teddy Roosevelt at 42 and the oldest, Ronald Reagan at nearly 70.  As far as occupation goes you should probably study law (over 61% practiced law at some point in their careers).  The military comes in second followed by a variety such as politician and planter/farmer – an actor has a small chance as does an engineer.

If you could arrange to be born in Virginia (8) or Ohio (7) you would be doing well, but New York and Massachusetts residents have done well too (Louisiana, my home state, nada).  Surprisingly, being wealthy is not a prerequisite (although it didn’t hurt Kennedy) as most presidents come from middle to upper-middle class families.  Republicans slightly outweigh the democrats (although there were some weird parties before Buchanan), more than 93% were involved in politics prior to the presidential campaign, and military service seems to help with a little over 61% having served.

How do the current GOP candidates stack up against these metrics?  Are Bachmann and Cain automatically out of the running?  Of course not.  Is Romney out because of his non-mainstream religion?  No, seriously, Nixon was a Quaker!

So, based on the data I collected and a weighing system that I devised, my predictions for the nomination is Rick Santorum, with Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry in a tie for second.

Do any of these characteristics mean anything as pertains to performing the job – would you think that profession is important?  Some argument can be made that law is a good starting point; being able to understand past and present precedents.   But how much understanding of law is really necessary for the leader of the free world?

So, what profession should we have – how about giving historians a try?  Didn’t Santayana say that those who don’t remember history are doomed to repeat it?  We might try an economist in the seat, since our biggest troubles in the last century have revolved around how to recover from recessions and keeping the economy running.  I also see some merit in having a businessman in power, even though there are counter arguments.  Wouldn’t it be great if the president could fire a member of congress for not showing up for voting?

We have been voting for lawyers for225 years with extremely mixed results.  Remember Einstein’s definition of insanity, “Doing the same thing over, and over, and expecting different results.”

Oh, I came in fourth, tied with Romney.