They Worship the Invisible Hand
In today's Best of the Web Today, the Wall Street Journal can't accept that being a homeless child in America is really all that bad... because, writes a conservative purist idiot, so many of these homeless kids aren't homeless:
"Believe it or not, it turns out that the majority of "homeless" children live in homes. Seriously! The AP [report] includes a graphic that breaks down the "living conditions of homeless children." Fifty-six percent of them are "doubled-up," defined as "sharing housing with other persons due to economic hardship." By this definition, the Meathead on "All in the Family" was "homeless."
And with the same smug ignorance -- which originates ultimately in never having been homeless nor bothering to know anything about poverty -- with the same cynical logic, one could argue that if there is a roof-like device over your head, you are therefore not homeless. Quick! Let's all sit in a mall. Or stand under a bridge.
In the dreamworld of my mind, I imagine myself leading thousands and thousands of homeless people of all ages, down Broadway to the Wall Street Journal building. They occupy the building, so many of them that the NYPD turns up its collective palms, shrugs and says, "fuhgeddaboudit!
I find that sort of cynical mindset an especially upsetting one. It allows one to make a pretense of good journalism: "look at me! I'm digging into this story and showing up a false assumption if not actual deceit." But it's also mean-spirited. Just because some homeless people have some sort of roof over their heads does not mean that they have a home, or that the data presented is trying to deceive.
What kind of person wants to kick the homeless when they're already down? The type that says: "see? It's fine to not care. Not giving a crap about your fellow man is A-OK."
"Believe it or not, it turns out that the majority of "homeless" children live in homes. Seriously! The AP [report] includes a graphic that breaks down the "living conditions of homeless children." Fifty-six percent of them are "doubled-up," defined as "sharing housing with other persons due to economic hardship." By this definition, the Meathead on "All in the Family" was "homeless."
And with the same smug ignorance -- which originates ultimately in never having been homeless nor bothering to know anything about poverty -- with the same cynical logic, one could argue that if there is a roof-like device over your head, you are therefore not homeless. Quick! Let's all sit in a mall. Or stand under a bridge.
In the dreamworld of my mind, I imagine myself leading thousands and thousands of homeless people of all ages, down Broadway to the Wall Street Journal building. They occupy the building, so many of them that the NYPD turns up its collective palms, shrugs and says, "fuhgeddaboudit!
I find that sort of cynical mindset an especially upsetting one. It allows one to make a pretense of good journalism: "look at me! I'm digging into this story and showing up a false assumption if not actual deceit." But it's also mean-spirited. Just because some homeless people have some sort of roof over their heads does not mean that they have a home, or that the data presented is trying to deceive.
What kind of person wants to kick the homeless when they're already down? The type that says: "see? It's fine to not care. Not giving a crap about your fellow man is A-OK."
posted by Stephen at March 10, 2009
<< Home