Hawaiians may be interested.. Here in Calgary Canada a Homeless Connect Program was sponsored at a large shopping mall to do something worthwhile for the homeless, now estimated at 3600 men and women. Volunteers provided medical services, haircutting and grooming, free clothing, toiletry supplies, food baskets, as well as employment opportunities. The objective is to give these unfortunate persons an opportunity todo something constructive to better their role in life. It was amazing to see the transformation. Once the look of poverty was removed, these persons turned out to be handsome and beautiful people. The interest of the volunteers showed these persons a better way of living. And they were thankful.
> Hawaiians may be interested.. > Here in Calgary Canada a Homeless Connect Program was > sponsored at a large shopping mall to do something > worthwhile for the homeless, now estimated at 3600 > men and women. > Volunteers provided medical services, haircutting and > grooming, free clothing, toiletry supplies, food > baskets, as well as employment opportunities. > The objective is to give these unfortunate persons an > opportunity todo something constructive to better > their role in life. > It was amazing to see the transformation. Once the > look of poverty was removed, these persons turned out > to be handsome and beautiful people. > The interest of the volunteers showed these persons > a better way of living. > And they were thankful.
Let me suggest that there is a difference between "showing" them a better way of living, and acomplishing the goal, i.e. that they do something to live better, are two different things. I am not saying that is not a good thing to do, but if in the end, if they are still homeless, you did not solve the problem. In the end, what is important is that the number of homeless people decreases and that we are able to reduce the number of people who are homeless. To begin with, it seem to me the "solution" or partial "solution" requires that we understand fully why they are homeless in the first place. "If" a person is homeless because they have a substance abuse problem, making them feel better, does not solve the reason they are homeless. We have to figure out if we can successfully get them to not be dependent on that substance. "If" a person is homeless because they don't have a job, or they lost the job they did have, or they cannot get a job that pays them enough money to keep a roof over their head, the "solution" to the problem is different than someone who has a substance abuse problem. And if you do not address and solve how to get them a good paying job, you have not solved the basic reason they became homeless. And the chances are that even if you succeed to get them to afford to put a roof over their head, they could become homeless again, because you did not solve the basic reason they were and will become homeless. "If" a woman with children are homeless, you shuld ask yourself, why did she become homeless? If she had children, that means some man contributed to that child being born. If the wonan is homeless, is that man who fathered that child, or fathers who fathered those children, also homeless. And if the father of the children are not homeless, and the woman and child are homeless, why is that? I would think you also have to know what level of education these homeless adults have achieved. I am willing to bet you will find a direct correlation between the level of education they have achieved and the number of people who are homeless. And then the quesiton becomes, how do you convince them to get more of an education.
> "John W. Bienko" <as...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message > news:fvhrd1$5ks$1@theodyn.ncf.ca... >> Hawaiians may be interested.. >> Here in Calgary Canada a Homeless Connect Program was >> sponsored at a large shopping mall to do something >> worthwhile for the homeless, now estimated at 3600 >> men and women. >> Volunteers provided medical services, haircutting and >> grooming, free clothing, toiletry supplies, food >> baskets, as well as employment opportunities. >> The objective is to give these unfortunate persons an >> opportunity todo something constructive to better >> their role in life. >> It was amazing to see the transformation. Once the >> look of poverty was removed, these persons turned out >> to be handsome and beautiful people. >> The interest of the volunteers showed these persons >> a better way of living. >> And they were thankful.
> Let me suggest that there is a difference between "showing" them a better > way of living, and acomplishing the goal, i.e. that they do something to > live better, are two different things. I am not saying that is not a good > thing to do, but if in the end, if they are still homeless, you did not > solve the problem. In the end, what is important is that the number of > homeless people decreases and that we are able to reduce the number of > people who are homeless. To begin with, it seem to me the "solution" or > partial "solution" requires that we understand fully why they are homeless > in the first place. "If" a person is homeless because they have a > substance abuse problem, making them feel better, does not solve the > reason they are homeless. We have to figure out if we can successfully > get them to not be dependent on that substance. "If" a person is homeless > because they don't have a job, or they lost the job they did have, or they > cannot get a job that pays them enough money to keep a roof over their > head, the "solution" to the problem is different than someone who has a > substance abuse problem. And if you do not address and solve how to get > them a good paying job, you have not solved the basic reason they became > homeless. And the chances are that even if you succeed to get them to > afford to put a roof over their head, they could become homeless again, > because you did not solve the basic reason they were and will become > homeless. "If" a woman with children are homeless, you shuld ask > yourself, why did she become homeless? If she had children, that means > some man contributed to that child being born. If the wonan is homeless, > is that man who fathered that child, or fathers who fathered those > children, also homeless. And if the father of the children are not > homeless, and the woman and child are homeless, why is that? I would > think you also have to know what level of education these homeless adults > have achieved. I am willing to bet you will find a direct correlation > between the level of education they have achieved and the number of people > who are homeless. And then the quesiton becomes, how do you convince them > to get more of an education.
Jerry - you are plain just being too logical and reasonable. If what you say can be done, then I venture to say we wouldn't have the kind of homeless problems we do have. I for one like and laud John's Homeless Connect Program. In fact, I think that the good folks of Calgary should do even more for the homeless there so that once the homeless here in the good old USA get wind of the bountiful treatment of homeless there, they'll all by themselves though however and whatever means will hie themselves up to Calgary to partake of the goodies there. Goodness knows that even in San Francisco the homeless don't get as good treatment. And thus we'd have in large measure addressed the homeless situation here in the USA.
And we have a precedent for this kind of movement - remember back in the 70's when Canada greeted with open arms the Americans who dodged the draft? We lost a lot - not all, by any means - of draft dodgers from the USA that way. Same concept, different context...except that this one is more of a pull than a push.
>> "John W. Bienko" <as...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message >> news:fvhrd1$5ks$1@theodyn.ncf.ca... >>> Hawaiians may be interested.. >>> Here in Calgary Canada a Homeless Connect Program was >>> sponsored at a large shopping mall to do something >>> worthwhile for the homeless, now estimated at 3600 >>> men and women. >>> Volunteers provided medical services, haircutting and >>> grooming, free clothing, toiletry supplies, food >>> baskets, as well as employment opportunities. >>> The objective is to give these unfortunate persons an >>> opportunity todo something constructive to better >>> their role in life. >>> It was amazing to see the transformation. Once the >>> look of poverty was removed, these persons turned out >>> to be handsome and beautiful people. >>> The interest of the volunteers showed these persons >>> a better way of living. >>> And they were thankful.
>> Let me suggest that there is a difference between "showing" them a better >> way of living, and acomplishing the goal, i.e. that they do something to >> live better, are two different things. I am not saying that is not a >> good thing to do, but if in the end, if they are still homeless, you did >> not solve the problem. In the end, what is important is that the number >> of homeless people decreases and that we are able to reduce the number of >> people who are homeless. To begin with, it seem to me the "solution" or >> partial "solution" requires that we understand fully why they are >> homeless in the first place. "If" a person is homeless because they have >> a substance abuse problem, making them feel better, does not solve the >> reason they are homeless. We have to figure out if we can successfully >> get them to not be dependent on that substance. "If" a person is >> homeless because they don't have a job, or they lost the job they did >> have, or they cannot get a job that pays them enough money to keep a roof >> over their head, the "solution" to the problem is different than someone >> who has a substance abuse problem. And if you do not address and solve >> how to get them a good paying job, you have not solved the basic reason >> they became homeless. And the chances are that even if you succeed to >> get them to afford to put a roof over their head, they could become >> homeless again, because you did not solve the basic reason they were and >> will become homeless. "If" a woman with children are homeless, you shuld >> ask yourself, why did she become homeless? If she had children, that >> means some man contributed to that child being born. If the wonan is >> homeless, is that man who fathered that child, or fathers who fathered >> those children, also homeless. And if the father of the children are not >> homeless, and the woman and child are homeless, why is that? I would >> think you also have to know what level of education these homeless adults >> have achieved. I am willing to bet you will find a direct correlation >> between the level of education they have achieved and the number of >> people who are homeless. And then the quesiton becomes, how do you >> convince them to get more of an education. > Jerry - you are plain just being too logical and reasonable. If what you > say can be done, then I venture to say we wouldn't have the kind of > homeless problems we do have. I for one like and laud John's Homeless > Connect Program. In fact, I think that the good folks of Calgary should > do even more for the homeless there so that once the homeless here in the > good old USA get wind of the bountiful treatment of homeless there, > they'll all by themselves though however and whatever means will hie > themselves up to Calgary to partake of the goodies there. Goodness knows > that even in San Francisco the homeless don't get as good treatment. And > thus we'd have in large measure addressed the homeless situation here in > the USA.
Like many of our recurring problems, it can be done. It just takes the will to do what is necessary to do it.
Jerry and Lawrence.. thanks for your interest and insights re the problem. I always harken back to my good teachers.. the Jesuit Fathers and the Sisters of St. Joseph's Home for the Orphans. "there but for the grace of God, go I." The philosopher Pascal said it well. "It is the rule in human nature to speak wisely but act foolishly." This is the least we can do for our fellow human beings.
>"John W. Bienko" <as...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message >news:fvhrd1$5ks$1@theodyn.ncf.ca... >> Hawaiians may be interested.. >> Here in Calgary Canada a Homeless Connect Program was >> sponsored at a large shopping mall to do something >> worthwhile for the homeless, now estimated at 3600 >> men and women. >> Volunteers provided medical services, haircutting and >> grooming, free clothing, toiletry supplies, food >> baskets, as well as employment opportunities. >> The objective is to give these unfortunate persons an >> opportunity todo something constructive to better >> their role in life. >> It was amazing to see the transformation. Once the >> look of poverty was removed, these persons turned out >> to be handsome and beautiful people. >> The interest of the volunteers showed these persons >> a better way of living. >> And they were thankful.
>Let me suggest that there is a difference between "showing" them a better >way of living, and acomplishing the goal, i.e. that they do something to >live better, are two different things. I am not saying that is not a good >thing to do, but if in the end, if they are still homeless, you did not >solve the problem. In the end, what is important is that the number of >homeless people decreases and that we are able to reduce the number of >people who are homeless. To begin with, it seem to me the "solution" or >partial "solution" requires that we understand fully why they are homeless >in the first place. "If" a person is homeless because they have a substance >abuse problem, making them feel better, does not solve the reason they are >homeless. We have to figure out if we can successfully get them to not be >dependent on that substance. "If" a person is homeless because they don't >have a job, or they lost the job they did have, or they cannot get a job >that pays them enough money to keep a roof over their head, the "solution" >to the problem is different than someone who has a substance abuse problem. >And if you do not address and solve how to get them a good paying job, you >have not solved the basic reason they became homeless. And the chances are >that even if you succeed to get them to afford to put a roof over their >head, they could become homeless again, because you did not solve the basic >reason they were and will become homeless. "If" a woman with children are >homeless, you shuld ask yourself, why did she become homeless? If she had >children, that means some man contributed to that child being born. If the >wonan is homeless, is that man who fathered that child, or fathers who >fathered those children, also homeless. And if the father of the children >are not homeless, and the woman and child are homeless, why is that? I >would think you also have to know what level of education these homeless >adults have achieved. I am willing to bet you will find a direct >correlation between the level of education they have achieved and the number >of people who are homeless. And then the quesiton becomes, how do you >convince them to get more of an education.
Of course there are those who, if they were to receive $100,000.00 and a free house house, would choose to live on the streets in front of it. I don't believe that such a program as John suggests, is targeted at that subset of the homeless, but rather those who want to do something about it but never can get enough traction to actually get there. There will always be that subset of homeless who are there and stay there, for whatever reason. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
