I have read most of the links and I don't believe you have made your point. However, I don't have the time to respond to each one but I do want to respond to some comments in the M. McArdle article.......I don't know who she is but by the snarky tone, I suspect she's a winger. There is so much that I find objectionable in her article but this particular paragraph really galls me:
"Next time someone panhandles you, take a careful look at him. Is he in his fifties or sixties? You'll notice he is not. That is because, tragically, homeless people who live on the street tend to die very young. Almost all of them have severe mental illnesses, drug/alchohol problems, or both. Even if they weren't living on the street, these things would kill them young, but sleeping outside tends to bring on pneumonia, and the homeless are very frequently victims of violence."
Are you people even human? Do you even care about anyone else except yourselves? Aside from the fact, the author is rather callous, she wants us to believe that the homeless problem is not serious; that the numbers are exaggerated; that living in shelters is not homelessness, but rather its well..uh....she doesn't fukking know.....but because you have a roof over your head, you are not homeless even if its not your home and the NY Times is making a big todo over nothing.
This is exactly what I was discussing in my origial post to you way back in November. Wingers will tweak and tweak and tweak the numbers to make their case until it no longer even resembles the truth. And I don't know why you linked her because she's not even a "librul" as she spells it. Apparently, she's libertarian. |
