Dr. Forbush Thinks

The Radical Right continues to tells us how important a culture of life is for our society. But, this is a specious argument when we consider that George W Bush the spokesman for the culture of life put 152 death row inmates to death as the Governor of Texas.

Imagine a death row inmate waiting to be put to death for murder. It doesn’t matter who it is. It doesn’t matter if he is guilty or not. As DNA evidence has shown there have been innocent people put to death by the state. Even if the guy was guilty and his crime was heinous enough to warrant death don’t we believe as a society that some people change. In fact, our society assumes that one can sink to the lowest depths of society and still be able to pull themselves back up again.

What is the point of the death penalty? A person must be crazy to be able to kill another person. However, if you kill him what does it solve? If you are a Christian, then how can choosing when he dies help anyone? A Christian believes in forgiveness of everyone for any sin. Jesus tells us this. If we put him to death we are saying that our society can not forgive him. If we don't let him die when God would take him we are saying we know better than God when his chance to turn back to God should be over. How does taking his life earlier than when God calls him make any sense at all?

If you are not Christian, what made this guy go crazy? Should we learn all we can from him to prevent future tragedy from happening again? We should never condone his action, but we owe it to ourselves as a society to understand what causes a person to do this. If we kill him just before a researcher has a breakthrough in need of a subject we are doing a disservice to society by killing him.

But, if we are killing him in some revenge motive for the victim how can we say that we as a society is above what the killer did. How can we say that our society has any sanity? Like I said above, a person must be crazy to be able to kill another person. This insanity reaches out to society when we can tell someone that we are a culture of life and we can still condone killing someone no matter what evil they perpetrated on our society. Aren’t we above that?

This is just my two cents on the “Culture of Life” in society on the day Terri Shiavo died.

politics

When Capitalism Fails

The Radical Right believes that all problems can be solved by rigid adherence to capitalist principles. In general capitalism has proven to work very well, but there are several specific ways in which capitalism fails. These are the exceptions to the rule, but they are important exceptions, because they tend to be where most modern economic problems arise.

Capitalism is based on the idea that valued skills and products are rewarded because people who seek these skills and products are willing to pay more for higher quality skills and products. Market prices find their levels based on supply and demand. Difficult and desirable skills are rewarded with higher wages while common and easily mastered skills are rewarded with low wages. Rare and desirable products demand the highest price while common and easily obtained products demand the lowest price or may even be free.

Anyone who studies economics knows that not all markets behave in the same way. For example, if one company has a monopoly on a product or service they can charge a much higher price than if there is competition between two or more suppliers for the product or service. This is because the supplier has total control over the supply and the cost of another competitor to enter the market would be much higher than the possible return on the investment. On the other hand, if there is an unlimited supply of low cost labor companies who need the labor can pay extremely low wages, because a small wage is more desirable than no wage. And, a corollary to this is that fear of unemployment can be used to control the cost of labor because a low paying job is better than no job at all.

The objective of capitalism is to force competitors out of business, create a product that no one can do without, and produce it at the lowest possible price and sell it at the highest possible price. This is accomplished by investing money in order to build an infrastructure to create the product and the market.

There are quite a few questions that need to be asked in order to understand this simple statement. First of all, who can be a capitalist? A capitalist is a person that already has money that can be invested in such a way to create a product that has high demand and low cost to produce. If the capitalist has a small amount of money they can create a small business and build more capital until they acquire more and more capital. However, a weakness in the capitalist philosophy is that sons and daughters of wealth can enter the game without going through this step. And, since wealth can be passed from generation to generation a class of wealthy people is created and the members of this class are members because of the work done by their ancestors. This inherent inequality in class is not based on any benefit to society and actually weakens the social fabric of the society. Members of this wealthy class rarely loose their status or influence even though they do not deserve either the status or the influence.

Why do people desire products? Do consumers desire products that they actually need or do they desire products that they are told to desire?

Capitalism encourages companies to create desire for products that people may not really need, or may even be harmful. Tobacco is the classic example of a product that people don’t need but felt compelled to buy and use. Once people begin to use the product they became addicted and could not easily quit using the product. The benefit to society of tobacco use was solely negative. The cost of health care for people with lung disease was quite high and the cost to society of the early deaths and prolonged illness was staggering. But, tobacco companies followed the tenants of capitalism. Create a product people believe that they can not do without. Produce it as cheaply as possible and sell it for as much as you can. Tobacco, alcohol and even illegal drugs are examples of capitalism fulfilling its philosophical goals. It is quite clear from this example that people do not always desire what is best for society. This problem is repeated in the entertainment industry where people desire entertainment that does not benefit society by encouraging anti-social behaviour, such as violence and disregard for the law. It is repeated in the transportation industry where people desire cars that destroy the environment and feel put out to use more economical transportation like trains or busses.

Capitalism encourages companies to use the cheapest possible labor in order to produce products at the lowest possible price. With unemployment world wide at such high rates and the possibility to outsource production to these low wage countries companies can pay people below the living wage to hire laborers. Only improving ones skills will enable someone to move up from these low wage jobs to higher paying jobs. Of course the highest paying jobs require capital to invest in order to buy a seat on the board of directors, or to own a company. Capitalism requires capital to make the greatest return on investment.

Not all markets behave the same. One market that will never behave like any other market is the health care market. Health care has one aspect that is different from all other markets, failure of a person in health care will render all other markets meaningless. This is because, if you don’t have your health there is no point of having anything else.

Imagine a machine that can make a person 10 years younger. The person needs to spend an entire day in the machine, but every body function, illness and appearance will be returned to its state of ten years ago. There is only one of these machines available, because they are extremely complicated to build and the next one will come on line five years from now. How much is this treatment worth? Who will be able to afford the payment? In order to benefit society who should be the best candidate for the machine? Does capitalism work in this case?

Obviously the wealthiest people will be willing to pay high percentages of their net worth in order to obtain these ten years. However, many scientists and engineers may actually be more valuable to society. Many victims of aging diseases would have had their lives saved by this process, but those with the cash would get the treatment. This is how the current health care system in the US works. Those that have money can get treatments that they need. They get the highest quality doctors and facilities, while those who can afford the least health care are rushed into emergency rooms when their death become immanent.

The solution to these problems comes in the form of “Augmented Capitalism.” Augmented Capitalism is capitalism that addresses the special problems that arise because capitalism is not a perfect system. Augmented Capitalism taxes the wealthy at higher rates in order to provide for the people who find themselves in the bottom of the economy. It doesn’t completely take away the philosophy of capitalism. If you work hard and create skills that people desire you will still be rewarded for those efforts. If you desire health care you can still pay for it, but some of your money was taxed to help low income people who labor to make the goods you also desire. The benefit of these taxes is also used to build roads and schools that make life better for everyone. The roads are paved so that companies can ship their products are the country. People can also use these roads to travel around the country. The taxes are used to pay for risky research that individual companies may not be able to afford, or even see the possible products that could be developed. In this way, the society as a whole becomes the capitalist that invests in society so that society as a whole benefits from that investment.

William Randolph Hearst defined media in the first half of the twentieth century. Beginning with a single newspaper, The San Francisco Examiner given to him by his father he built a media empire of book, magazine, and newspaper publications, broadcasting, entertainment and syndication. If William Randolph Hearst had stuck with running his first newspaper in a traditional way he wouldn’t have become the media mogul that he became. This is because he invented a new type of news, the idea that news could entertain with a mixture of facts and exaggerations. Hearst’s goal was to sell newspapers and magazines, not necessarily to get the news right.

As we know today, controversy and sensationalism attract an audience and an audience brings money. Today’s local news reports have been chastised for being short on information and long on cute weather girls and cute animal stories. And to that mixture a few bloody accidents and local controversy at city hall and you have an award winning local news program.

Rupert Murdoch defined media in the second half of the twentieth century. Rupert Murdoch’s media style once again was short on facts and long on sensationalism. The idea was to get the story out as fast as possible, and not to worry much about the facts. In order to compensate for information reporters would be encouraged to add filler and get the story on the air.

Journalists and those who care about integrity, facts and truth look at these two media giants with disdain. However, those who believe that capitalism is the force that will make the market right and create the best society glorify these men. The majority of Americans don’t really understand the difference. Americans believe that they will be told what they should pay attention too, and they turn their heads every time that someone yells the figurative “hey look at this.”

Early in the development of the Internet people believed that there was finally a place where facts would rule over sensationalism. Newsgroups were developed as a place where people could ask questions and have them answered by experts. And, when experts made a mistake the people who knew the truth would be able to correct the information quickly in order to prevent errors in information from being propagated. But, anyone who has surfed the web recently knows that the web no longer is place where facts are the order of the day. However, worse than that, sensationalism is now the method many people use to get their names, and blogs and web pages out into the public forum. In fact, with over 8 million blogs and many million more web pages people are trying harder than ever to get recognition and publicity. Using profanity, innuendo, suggestive titles, and provocative photos trump the use of thoughtful reflection and facts. It seems to me that it is 1898 once again – times have changed but sensational yellow journalism is alive and thriving.


politics and journalism

One reason conservatives and moderates chose to support George W Bush in November was the illusion of the “No Child Left Behind” program passed in the first year of the Bush administration. This law turned out to be positive in name only.

Congress is considering next year’s budget and education is once again on the table. Conservatives have total control of both houses of congress and they can pretty much pass whatever law they deem necessary to improve the education of our children. The Far Right Republicans lead by George W Bush say that they don’t want to leave any children behind. However, the proposals for this budget say differently.

The House resolution would lead to $38 billion in cuts to education and training from 2006-2010, compared to current spending adjusted for inflation. The Senate version of the bill was protected with an amendment by Senator Kennedy to protect education funding. However, if both versions of the bill are passed a conference committee is likely to strip the bill of this amendment in order to reach consensus.

President Bush is breaking his promise to Americans. He called on the nation to reform our public schools, pledging to make sure that all children receive a quality education, the president has ignored his own pledge. Bush's budget is $12 billion short on funds he promised for the No Child Left Behind Act the program that he touted in the election. The president's proposals would also cut 25,000 children from Head Start, leave 1.7 million children without after-school programs, and kick 2.8 million adults out of programs that help them learn to read.

Why doesn’t the Government have money for education? The government doesn’t have any money for education because the far right radical Republicans have cut taxes to the wealthy. Far Right Republicans don’t really care about public education, because their kids are in private schools. And, the whole reason that the government sponsors education is to keep America a democracy. People need to understand the facts in order to make good decisions. But radical Republicans don’t care about the truth and less education benefits their cause. They can get the uneducated to support the agenda of the wealthy while the poor children don’t get the education they need to keep America a Democracy.

How should you raise a child in our modern world?

When you raise a child a sane person asks a lot of questions. The questions begin when they are born, and they multiply over the years. Everyone who raises a child deals with these questions, and everyone wants what is best for their child, but not all parents answer the questions in the same way.

When your child is young and you take them to the park to play one question that always comes up is: Should they play with the other kids in the park? It seems like a straightforward yes/no question, but it turns out that it is quite complicated and it sets the stage for social interactions for years to come. The answer is based on a case by case basis, just like real life. Your child will get along with some kids and they won’t get along with others. But, like real life, your kids will get along with a kid on one day, and two days later they will be fighting like cats and dogs.

Some parents deal with this problem by being protective. Some parents deal with this problem by instructing their children to “beat the shit out of anyone who gives you crap.” I actually had a father tell me that I shouldn’t worry about my kid bothering his kid, because he wouldn’t put up with it. “He’ll just beat the shit out of your kid and then they’ll be fine,” he said. Needless to say we didn’t keep in contact after that “play date.”

Everyone thinks they are doing the best for their children. And they base their ideas on books that they read and experiences they have had. People who thought that their parents did them a disservice want to make sure that they make it up to their children. Some people are upset that their parents never bought them anything when they were growing up. In response they buy their children everything they ask for. Some people feel that they were harmed by their parent’s conflicts, so they refuse to argue in front of their children. Since not every person has had the same experiences there is only a limited range that most people can draw on to make their choices. This is how cycles of family behavior manifest themselves. Some cycles play out in one generation, but other cycles play out in two of more generations. The cycle of domestic violence plays out similarly one generation after another. Children grow up with a distorted vision of “love” being linked to punishment. Children believe that their parent hit them because they love them and as parents they believe that hitting their children is a loving way to turn them into “good” people.

(Of course there are many more reasons why people become violent and this is only one example of a violence cycle.)

With this in mind I began thinking about how some parents choose to “protect” their children by keeping information away from their children. The whole idea seems crazy to me. So, be aware that I am biased on this topic right at the beginning. My large view of the world is that people make better decisions if they have more information. I believe this extends to children as well.

So, for example, I checked out an “R” rated movie from the library and I showed it to my 12 and 13-year-old children. Now, I believe that a “R” rated movie is rated for adults. The movie, however, actually taught an important lesson in a humorous way, so I thought it was quite appropriate for my kids to watch it. Instead of continuing in an abstract way I will tell you that the movie in question is Mel Brooks’ “Blazing Saddles.” This movie is rated “R” most likely for some of the language and innuendo. For those of you who don’t know this classic movie, it is a humorous story of racism in the old west. The governor of the state pardons a black man and makes him sheriff of a town that is being taken over by a railroad. In order for the railroad to take over the town the railroad owner persuades a gang of outlaws to threaten the town to scare the town’s people into moving.

My questions about protecting children from this movie are numerous. Why should we protect our children from language that is being used out of the earshot of adult’s ears everyday at school? Why is it important to pretend to our children that men and women don’t want to have sex? Isn’t keeping the truth away from our children actually harming them by making them naïve about the ways of the world? Shouldn’t the benefit of putting racism in a bad light outweigh the language and innuendo in the movie?
But, my question is more broad. Why do parents think that they are doing “good” for their children by keeping information away from them? Is it because parents don’t know what they want to teach to their children, so the error on the side of not saying to much? Or, are parents to lazy and they don’t want to spend the time required to go over the issues and properly discuss these things with their children? I suspect that it is more likely that parents don’t know the facts themselves. They know the conclusion that they want to believe, but they don’t feel like they can answer their children’s questions in a way that supports their position. They are afraid that their position will be challenged and they will end up saying, “because I said so.” Saying this will send the message to their children that they don’t really have any legitimate reasons for their beliefs and their children will not support their parents position.

Obviously the solution to this is for the parents to educate themselves, not ignore the issues. But learning is always more difficult than sticking to your unfounded conclusions. Even Conservative Christians who believe in mythology should be able to explain the mythology to their children. They should explain why Jesus would not support racism and why he would not support sex outside of marriage. It shouldn’t be hard to have that discussion after watching a movie like “Blazing Saddles.” But, it is more likely that those issues wouldn’t be what the children actually remember. It is more likely that the children will remember the cowboys sitting around the campfire eating beans and farting. Is this little bit of slapstick going to harm your child? Isn’t it highly probable that these children already engage in fart-talk every day at school?

I have faith in Americans. Sometimes it seems hard to understand, but in the long run when all the true information is in the open Americans will tend to make the right decision. The usual problem isn’t that Americans make the wrong decision, it is that they don’t have the right information. Or, in most cases they don’t have “ALL” the information.

We can look at the 2004 election and try to understand how people decided where to place their trust. The people who choose to put their faith in the Republican Party and vote for conservatives did so because they thought that they were making the right choice. They were told that Republicans don’t like to spend money or raise taxes and they voted that way. But, these people didn’t have all the facts. They could see that George W Bush was spending like a drunken sailor, but they thought that he must have some plan to pay for his spending without raising taxes. When the issues get too many levels away from the main point people are distracted and they can’t follow the argument. But those hidden levels will come to light if they are truly real problems. If they aren’t problems, then they don’t matter. Some people actually understood that Bush was going to spend and borrow the money. The price was for the defense of the Homeland, and why should we pay to defend our homeland? It makes more sense that those who will be protected should pay the price, so we should borrow the money and have our children pay twice the price to defend themselves.

But, there were other groups who believed that George W Bush was a moral president, and he would continue to be a moral president. These people are those who believe that killing Americans is a sin, but killing Arabs is a sacrifice that needs to be made in a moral framework. These are the people who believe American Life is sacred and should be protected before it becomes life until after death. Killing 10,000 Iraqi civilians is a small price to pay for the revenge of 3,000 Americans who where killed on 9/11. Even if Iraq wasn’t responsible, someone has to pay. These are Americans who know what is important and they choose a president who knows this importance.

Fortunately, as time goes by and America’s elected officials will do there and the American people will see what they do. If a politicians says one thing and does another, then it isn’t long before the people actually see what the politicians are doing. It may take a while for the people to understand what they are doing, but I have faith that Americans will actually understand what they are doing and take the appropriate action at the next election.

In the town I live in an honest District Attorney who was not a member of the “good ol’ boy” network was elected. Since many of the Good ol’ Boys haven’t been quite as honest as they should have been the network is worried about the new DA. The Good ol’ Boys began to harass the new DA in order to persuade him not to investigate “the way things are done.” The DA wasn’t persuaded and he opened more investigations. Someone in the “network” killed the DA’s dogs and made another threat toward his family. The new DA has gumption and resolve so he continued to investigate and file charges against some of the members of the “Good ol’ Boys” network. Some members of this gang filed frivolous lawsuits against the new DA and filed motions in the city council requiring the DA to defend himself with his own money. The people in my town are not following the case that closely and they are persuaded toward the opinion of the “Good ol’ Boys” very easily. And, now there are petitions in town to recall the DA. I don’t know how the case will turn out, but I have faith that as it heats up more information will become public knowledge and the people will make the right choice.

I also have faith that our national politics will right itself. The first evidence of that is surprisingly the Terri Schiavo case. The Republicans put all there eggs in that basket and it looks like it has done a great deal of harm A CBS poll is out showing that the Republican majority in Congress is in the minority on this issue. This case will certainly not bring down the Far Right Republican network. But, it may get a few people to reexamine how they feel about the extremist ideology that is being used to lead our country today. Maybe people in Kansas will continue to vote Republican in the elections, but maybe they will be more careful about how the candidates line up on the issues in the primaries. The dangers of extremist ideologies has cracked the surface in this case and when the far right pulls this again we will be watching.

Terri Schiavo

It is quite interesting that far right Republicans are jumping on this and making it a political issue based purely on emotional appeal to people who don't know the truth. They have created a false reality where they conclude that a mildly retarded woman is being put to death.

But, politicians can't know the medical truth because they are not doctors nor have they spent the time needed to study the case. Even Bill Frist puts his medical credibility at risk for diagnosing a patient via videotape. If he really wants to have a say, then he should go to Florida and read the brain scan data and view Terri in person. Medical Doctors are responsible for providing the facts, and the family is responsible for deciding whether she should be removed from life support. The problem in Florida is not with whether Terri is alive or not, it is with the law that says who is in charge, the Husband or the Parents.

President Bush has lied to us once more. He has told us that we should always error on the side of life, but he fails to tell us what he means by life. He believes that those on death row are already dead with this statement. He claims to be Christian, but he takes the opportunity for Christian salvation away from every inmate that is put to death. Then, he claims that a brain dead woman is alive. This is not consistent in any way.

Unfortunately Republicans do not have a uniform stance on the issue of life. They fight to keep brain-dead people on life support. They fight to stop stem cells from being used in life saving experiments. But they fight to put people to death on death row to the point of putting children and retarded people to death. If the Republicans actually believe in a culture of life as they claim they need to bring the death penalty into that culture. If they really had compassion for life they would realize that sometimes people just know when enough is enough and they should be allowed to go on to their heavenly reward.

politics

In honor of St. Patrick’s day I pulled out a book of Irish Children’s stories to read to my kids. We were looking for an authentic Irish tale for my daughter to tell to her class. The first one we read was interesting, and it said a bit about Irish culture. The short version of the story goes like this:


A guy is walking through the woods and hears a strange sound coming from a hedge. He peaks in and sees a leprechaun sipping a drink with a spoon. The guy asks him what he’s doing and the leprechaun tells him he is tasting some really fine beer. The leprechaun asks the guy what he thinks the beer is made from. Barley the guy guesses and the leprechaun corrects him by telling him that it’s made from heath. The guy doesn’t believe him and asks for a taste. The guy reaches for the beer and spills it so that he can’t have the taste. Then he surprises the leprechaun and catches him. Of course the guy needs to keep his eye on him or he’s sure to escape even if he has a good grip on him. The guy proceeds to ask the leprechaun how he made beer from heath, but the leprechaun attempts to escape by telling the guy that he should be more concerned with the cows that have just broken the fence and are trampling the crops. The guy is about to turn and look, but just before he does he realizes that it’s a leprechaun trick and he tells the leprechaun that he needs to tell him where his gold is, because he has been caught. The leprechaun leads him to a weed where the gold is buried beneath, but the guy doesn’t have a shovel. The guy ties a piece of cloth on the weed and asks the leprechaun not to remove the marker while he goes home to get a shovel. The leprechaun agrees and asks if he can go now and the guy sets him down and runs off to get the shovel. When he gets back he sees that the leprechaun has tied a piece of cloth to every weed in the field so the guy is out of luck because he couldn’t dig up every weed in the place.

The story is interesting because they spend so much time talking about beer, which actually has nothing to do with the story. Furthermore they talk about beer, which children are not likely to even be concerned with. The actual story has dialog in it, and the leprechaun has a very convoluted way of saying the simplest thing. It is interesting, and difficult to read out loud on the first pass. Finally, the story is interesting because the resolution is that the guy ends up not getting the leprechaun’s gold even though the guy was very smart about such things. The leprechaun was just one step ahead of the guy.

Bring It On Promotion

A great new blog was born yesterday. How do I know that it is great? I know because the group that has formed to write for it is intelligent, witty, and articulate. Obviously no one knows exactly what will be posted, but if you look at the individual blogs of the contributors, Pia, Cranky, Mulligan, Sally, and Anna. I am sure you will agree that this cooperation will surpass the sum of the individual bloggers.

The concept for the blog is a political response to the political noise on the Internet. Many political blogs tend to repeat and regurgitate the same old news without giving it much thought. “ Bring It On ” will be coming to you from the left, but with a thoughtful well informed point of view. Each contributor has a proven track record in being able to articulate the issues and describe the pitfalls of ignoring the facts.

So click “ here ” now!

politics

The Homeless Issue

The county I live in does not have one homeless shelter. The population of this county is about 70,000 people, 35,000 of them live in the county seat. With such a low population the cost of providing shelter for the homeless seemed to most county officials to be excessive. So, the policy in this county is to send the homeless to other counties that have homeless shelters.

Obviously the other counties don’t look to fondly on a county that would drive their homeless to their county homeless shelter. But, by definition the homeless don’t live in either county and so they should be able to get aid from either place. However, doesn’t it make moral sense for each county to provide services for the homeless in order to share the burden? In order to build a homeless shelter and operate it in our county the taxpayers would need to pay more taxes to cover the cost of the center. And, most taxpayers believe that they are already paying to many taxes. How can this issue be resolved?

Many people are reluctant to pay anything to a homeless person. The overwhelming stereotype of a homeless person is someone who is just too lazy to get a job. Why should society support a person who has obviously chosen to be homeless? Doesn’t the support of the homeless deter the homeless from getting back to being a productive part of society?

When I was about twenty years old I took a trip to California from Ohio. I illegally rented a car, because I hadn’t known before hand that California law prevented those under twenty-one from renting a car. But, I managed to find a guy who would rent a car to me under the table. It was my first trip across the country and my first long trip by myself. I drove around most of southern California visiting friends who were attending school at the various Universities. When I went to visit a friend at Cal Tech I parked the car and a homeless man approached me. He asked me for a few bucks. Being a student with a limited supply of cash for my trip I was reluctant to give any of my money away. But, if he was truly hungry as he claimed I should help him out. In a matter of seconds I concluded that I should offer him some food instead of cash. In this way I would be certain that he was actually hungry. Well, you guessed it, he turned his nose up at the food I offered him. So, from that point on I realized that the homeless would lie to you to get what they want.

Well, you can’t just assume that all homeless people will lie to get money from you, because some people really need help. I know this from personal experience. During my life there have been several times when we were forced to buy the minimal amount of food in order to make the rent. I could imagine a few instances of bad luck could have forced me out onto the street. And, once you are out on the street it is even more difficult to find a place to live.

Since that first encounter with a homeless person claiming to be in need I have met and talked with many homeless people. At one time I talked with a particular homeless person every week. He told me how and why he chose to be homeless. He was a Native American who believed that he should be able to live the Native American lifestyle. He believed that people were not meant to be tied down to a physical place, but they should be free to wander the land. Obviously this is a difficult lifestyle for a modern American. It turned out that his family owned land and they were at least middle class. This person however looked down on his family for turning their backs on the way that he believed man was meant to live. This person was not jobless, he was homeless. He went to work when he needed cash, and he wandered around when he didn’t. He was fairly well educated and read quite a bit of philosophy and religion. But he strongly believed that he shouldn’t tie himself down with the responsibility of living in a home.

Of course not every homeless person falls into this category either. But, the idea of a homeless shelter needs to be seen in the light of those who would use it and why they need to use it. There are homeless people who choose to be homeless. There are also people who find themselves homeless because of domestic violence. When a woman is beaten by her husband she may choose to continue to live with him because she fears being put out on the street. In this situation there should be a place for her to go in order to get out of the relationship. In this situation the need would only be long enough for the woman to find another place to live. It could be for the evening or for a few days. In many places these types of shelter are not the same as a homeless shelter, because they are specifically for the purpose of protecting women from their husbands.

While we think about all the permutations of the homeless problem we begin to realize how complicated the problem is. We want people to have the freedom to live how they choose to live, but we also want people to be productive members of society. We want people to have a safety net to fall into when they find themselves in hard times. We also don’t want people to take advantage of the system. As a society we have a moral obligation to protect the weakest in our society, but we also need to protect the system from abuse. With such a complicated problem I am amazed that the way our society is structured the people with the biggest hearts are attracted to the profession of social work, but with the low pay offered we don’t attract the smartest people into this profession. So, simple shortsighted solutions tend to plug the holes in the dike while the crumbling system continues to erode.