What would be your response to the presidential patronage to homeless?
I have a conflicting opinion. One the one hand, I believe when Michelle Obama does that charitable act of serving food to the homeless, it reinforces the belief "we can't do no more". And probably "the homeless should be happy that they got to eat". That also strengthens the arguments that, the homeless chose their state of penury. That, its either their fate or their own making. As a friend once said to me in not very different context, "you can take a donkey to the river, you can't make it drink". Except for the chronic alcoholics and drug addicts, I dont think anyone else would prefer that life over anything else. May be some anarchist too, but then they would like to venture out far away places or the wild and wont be tied down to the routineless destitution.
On the other hand, denial is not cure. There are homeless is your country and you have to acknowledge it. Only then you can take steps to provide a solution. And of course, you cannot let them starve till you find homes to put them back in. So probably it is a humane gesture, not just charitable. But it must be followed up by some policies, some endeavor to give them some place, some dignity.
It reminds me of George Carlin, the late comedian, who once said, if some of the golf courses were dismantled in USA, all homeless could be sheltered in. He was, of course, joking!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment