The online dictionary defines a stigma as “an association of disgrace or public disapproval,” and “If someone or something is stigmatized, they are unfairly regarded by many people as being bad or having something to be ashamed of.” So why should veterans feel more devalued than journalists or teachers or politicians or any others whose lives have been spent in public service?
Some of them surely end up as homeless, especially if we look far enough, such as the broadcaster Ted Williams. After all, unlike military, come-and-go local television newsreaders can be a transient, poorly paid lot, as are editorial staff on local newspapers, now caught up in hard times.
It’s too bad the Veterans Administration might even choose to open shelters on skid row, or do we need to further drain the swamps of hard-to-fire careerists, perhaps Obama-era holdovers, in that agency? Wasn’t the VA itself designed for national emergencies like world wars?
The best conservatives have always been sympathetic to people who have suffered misfortune through no fault of their own, but contemporary social programs of the Democratic Party almost seem to promote panhandling and homelessness. Is it because they wouldn’t have a power base without doing so? If they use taxpayer money to open a homeless shelter, the workers and managers will become liberal-voting party loyalists, won’t they? Hasn’t the purge of conservatives in colleges and universities had a similar effect?
Voices from the other side are almost missing in most public discussions these days. It wasn’t that long ago that most university professors were devil’s advocates to encourage thinking and fairness. Opposing viewpoints are hard to track down these days, encouraging political stalemate and polarization. Even so, we can still type-in a phrase like homeless by choice into search engines.
“Homeless people panhandling on the off ramps are homeless by choice,” says California Mayor Maryann Edwards, they “have rejected all forms of help and have chosen instead to play on the sympathy of generous residents.” Even more taboo in our politically correct media society, she has the courage to question charitable sympathies and motives: “People will know that by giving food, money, or temporary shelter to a homeless person, they are actually enabling the homeless person to continue to live in the creek and use heroin.” That is just the opposite from what face-value journalists would have you think.
Sometimes the homeless are candidly honest about themselves. One urban homeless person confides online that his goal has always been freedom: “To me, it’s liberating. I don’t pay rent, I don’t have to buy a house, I can sleep anywhere. Street sleeping solved a lot of my problems” Continuing, the article discloses that “As for his estranged family, he says all relationships are a source of pain or worry, and his ties with his parents and two younger brothers have been this way since he was a child. They have different values to him, he says”….“If I can avoid this pain, why should I go and seek it? I don’t envy people with partners or family, I’ve always been independent.”
Rather than be associated with the homeless and other victims or opportunists of society, our military veterans should be looked upon as patriotic and well-trained individuals, well-qualified to be trusted and suited for the best employment opportunities. Just visit any military base to see for yourself. Weak-minded individuals can turn up in any walk of life, so why pick on veterans? In short, any “homeless” veteran outside Walmart should be directed inside to fill out an application to become a greeter.
