the Untied Way strikes again

14Dec07

Excerpted from today’s column by Jon Carroll

Homelessness is much in the news recently. People are against it. Even the homeless are against it, although that does not seem to be the thrust of the news coverage. Rather, the question is, who’s really against it and who is just pretending to be against it while secretly coddling the homeless?

“Coddling the homeless” apparently means “letting the homeless remain homeless,” while “getting tough on the homeless” means “moving the homeless somewhere else – not to a home, exactly, but to a less visible location.” You could arrest the homeless, of course, but then you’d have to let them out again, and voila – more homeless.

…

I think what we have here is a category error. When we demonize the homeless – and if you write negative things about a group, be it the French or the lawyers or the fruit eaters or the flute players, then you are demonizing that group by not distinguishing the individual members one from another – we fail to align our perceptions with reality, always a bad idea for the brain.

Some of the homeless are criminals. Some of them are mentally ill. These two categories are not mutually exclusive. Some of them have chemical problems, either chemicals they ingest or inject or chemicals their brains produce naturally. Some of them are abused or the victims of circumstances. Some of them will be homeless for a few months; some will be homeless for the rest of their lives. Some will tell you sob stories; others will just sob.

With a relatively mild climate, lots of parks and public spaces, and a fairly liberal attitude towards most social issues, San Francisco has long been known as a haven for the homeless. I can remember as a child going into the city with my father, who had Saturday morning work to do in one of the large grey stone federal buildings at the civic center, and the strips of park that ran around city hall and its associated buildings were filled with tents and shopping carts. It seemed the homeless population had congregated there and formed its own city within a city. My father would mutter something about avoiding making eye-contact and how this was all Reagan’s fault, which I think was in reference to the turning out of several thousand mentally-ill patients from state institutions during his time as governor.

It was the not making eye-contact sentiment that nagged at me most though, even as a child. Despite their dirtiness, relative mental instability or drug problems, the homeless were clearly human beings, and human beings quite often thrive on contact with other human beings. Ignoring them seemed a heartless act, and while on the surface it may seem to some that condemnation might be the right remedy, I could see that further degradation and cruelty to people already at the losing end of their personal struggle was not accomplishing much.

Guiliani was recently campaigning in San Francisco, and he quite readily offered criticism of Mayor Newsom’s “Care Not Cash” approach to the homeless problem, saying that the homeless needed to be “discouraged”. Discouraged? From being homeless? I’m pretty certain that at the outset, living on the street is a pretty discouraging place to be. I also recognize that our society may not be the best fit for everyone, and some people prefer to opt out of the job-house-minivan-picket fence-dog-kids ideal that it seems most Americans have come to accept as the only “right” way to be. Heck, I’m one of the non-conformists, but I don’t want to live on the street – that doesn’t mean that there aren’t individuals to whom “free country” means “you don’t have to have a roof over your head if you don’t want to.” I can respect that. In San Francisco’s case, many of the homeless are so mentally-ill as to be unable to function in “normal” society, and in this slipping economy, many more are simply people who could not make ends meet and slipped through the cracks in an environment where the cost of living is simply not met by the minimum-wage and social-services.

On the other hand, because some people don’t want to or can’t work and maintain their own basic needs, doesn’t mean I can support them or should have to. Here in Monterey, where the climate is even more mild than San Francisco, we have a strong homeless presence. I meet them on my walks down the recreation path that hugs the coastline, or at the bus transit center that offers relative shelter and communal space. They ask me for money, and while I’ll gladly fork over a pocketful of change, there have been times when, with only $10 to my name and on my way to work, I have to give a very unsympathetic “no cash to give” response. I can tell by their body language, they hear “no” so often that they expect it, and while I would like to help, I also know that I could just as easily be in their shoes, especially if I spend all of my money on people who are unable to (or choose not to) give back to society in any way. I would rather my tax dollars go to helping the folks on my doorstep and in my neighborhood rather than bombing ancient civilizations into oblivion, but no one gave me a choice.

And then there’s the matter of giving cash to those individuals who are likely not to spend it on what I might deem useful…which is where Jon Carroll’s imaginary “Untied Way” organization offers some assuring perspective:

The Untied Way has decided that it is impossible for ordinary citizens to sort out the various flavors of mendicants. The Untied Way is devoted to the idea that charity is an act of kindness and that all kindness enriches us. If we do good works, if we act with generosity, the world is thereby improved, and human beings behave a little more humanely. You cannot know what direct effect your actions will have, but then, you never can.

Want to be an Untied Way volunteer? It’s easy. Go to your ATM and take out some quantity of $20 bills. The number is up to you, but please make it a little more than you feel comfortable with. Altruism should hurt a little. Take that pocket full of 20s to an area of town where you are likely to be asked for money. If your town does not have such an area, San Francisco will be happy to provide you with one.

The people who get your money will undoubtedly apply it to self-identified areas of need. They will do that without having to stand in line, fill out forms, explain themselves to sympathetic listeners, affirm their belief in a deity or promise to do something before next Tuesday.

It is possible that the recipients of your $20 will spend the money on inappropriate things. It is also possible that you will spend your salary on inappropriate things. It is possible that they will get drunk and cause a disturbance. It is possible that you will get drunk and drive a car. We are all flawed beings on this planet, and we none of us get out alive, no matter what our score on the Virtue-meter.

Filed under: :: notes on being human ::, citizen earth, political perspectives, reading/writing notes   |  Leave a Comment
Tags: charity, homeless, life, poverty, San Francisco, social aid, society, survival