How Best to Define the Homeless

The "Homeless" term is nothing more than ear candy for guilty White Liberals, borne out of political correctness gone amok. It is a phenomenon that has been given a life of its own, much like Frankenstein. It owes it birth to the bleeding heart Liberals who want to solve social problems with governmental intervention, rather than demanding individual accountability and responsibility.

Lest you think I have no heart, rest assured that I do. If the first paragraph offended you, than I have to think that you fall into the category mentioned. I am a caring and sensitive individual, but I was brought up differently than the current generation that thinks the government owes them something. Or everything. If you are younger than 35, then you have most likely been sufficiently brainwashed on a number of things, including this subject.

When I was a kid, these street people were called drifters or bums. Take your choice, because they were almost interchangeable. At least the drifters that went from town to town actually looked for work so they could eat, or maybe buy their booze. Sure, there were panhandlers back then, too. But they didn't know they were "homeless".

Neither did the alcoholics and druggies and mental patients, until recent times when they had the new title bestowed upon them by their concerned, fellow citizens. They woke up one morning in their cardboard residences, and their personas magically transformed them into "homeless" people. The title not only assuaged those philanthropic bleeding hearts, but conferred a new status upon them also: victim. Yes, they are victims of _____(insert your perpetrator).

How do I define Homeless? In my mind's eye, it refers to people who are involuntarily homeless, due to catastrophic circumstances beyond their control. A family living out of their car due to their house burning down, or the parents losing their jobs, or any number of other legitimate reasons defines homeless for me. I feel for those folks and have no problem helping them out, particularly if there are children involved.

Everyone else is a bum. They exist in a cottage industry of annoying the hell out of the rest of us who contribute to society, begging for money. The money then goes to their crack rock, or bottle of booze. Rarely does it go for food. Why should I be concerned about them if they aren't concerned about themselves? The worst part is they are provided homeless shelters but choose to live in subway tunnels, under bridges, etc. Where the hell are their relatives? Why don't they take them in and help them? I'll tell you why: because the bum doesn't want to give up his lifestyle and straighten out. More importantly, their relatives DON'T want them in their homes. So now it's our responsibility?

When I lived in D.C., they were all over the place. In one instance when my in-laws were visiting, we were at a Metro rail station. A homeless Black woman overheard me talking about the Smithsonian. She approached us and "offered" to take us there, for a small fee. That was the last thing I wanted, to be escorted by a filthy woman to a museum. I firmly said no, and led my group into the train station. My mother-in-law thought I was a little nasty to the woman. I then nudged her to look at the woman, while she unrolled a thick wad of bills. I guessed that she had over $300 in fives and tens in her roll. She saw me watching her, and then left. This incident is not an exception, but rather the rule in their world.

They have an underground economy, fueled by donations from the do-gooders, pay no taxes, and annoy the hell out of store owners and passersby. They also suck up tax money in metropolitan areas for their "support".

How best to help them? Don't give them a penny and encourage them to clean up and get self-sufficient. Otherwise, it's like feeding stray dogs -- they always come back for more and they multiply as a result.