Runner gets homeless on right track

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- At 5 a.m. on any given day, Anne Mahlum could be found running the dark streets of Philadelphia -- with homeless men cheering her on as she passed their shelter. But one morning last spring, she stopped in her tracks.

"Why am I running past these guys?" recalls Mahlum, 27. "I'm moving my life forward every day -- and these guys are standing in the same spot."

Instead of continuing to pass them by, the veteran marathoner sprang into action so they could join her.

She contacted the shelter, got donations of running gear, and in July 2007 the "Back On My Feet" running club hit the streets.

The first day, Mahlum led nine shelter residents in a mile-long run. Today, Back on My Feet has teams in three Philadelphia shelters, including 54 homeless members and more than 250 volunteers. The group has logged more than 5,000 miles.

snip....read more

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/04/02/heroes.mahlum/index.html


I just finished reading this story and thought others would appreciate it as I did. :)

Thanks for finding and posting this! :hi:

"Requirements for shelter residents to join are simple -- they must live in an affiliated facility and be clean and sober for 30 days. Members receive new shoes and running clothes, and teams run together three times a week between 5:30 and 6 a.m."

It's getting them off the streets !

Thanks for the uplifting story grey :hi:

My brother died 2 years ago (age 44) from alcoholism after living on the streets for 25 years. My family tried everything to get him off the streets but he just felt more needed by those who were on the streets. I've always felt that the homeless just need to feel successful at something and this is a great idea. My brother struggled in school and finally dropped out in 10th grade and as my son struggles at the same age I am doing everything I can to make sure he has success (including homeschooling him this year) so that he won't follow the same path (he is doing great and I discovered he is very smart!). But all I can see is all these other kids who need this same encouragement (plus help with school) and I try and help them too but there are too many. All I can say is bravo to these wonderful people who have helped these homeless people in so many ways!!!!

need to feel successful at something. and certainly, it's a "good" thing
this person did.

However, we live in a system explicitly designed to ensure that a large chunk of the population will be "unsuccessful" in terms of the system, & in some that "unsuccess" will be felt as early as childhood.

So until the root problem is addressed, commendable efforts like this pretty much switch the seating arrangements on the titanic. One moves up to 2nd or 1st class, another moves down to steerage.

to some degree.

"Do we need homes? Yes. We need jobs? Yes," she says. "But imagine if you didn't have anybody in your life who said, 'I'm really proud of you.' Back On My Feet does just that."

deep-rooted self-confidence/self-esteem/felt power comes from.

It comes from our real circumstances.

You have real skills to provide for yourself & your family.
You are respected & listened to in your community as an equal.
You are able to participate in the customary activities of your community just as others are.
You are able to assist others in their times of need, just as others are, & receive the gratitude of those you help - just as you are able to give your gratitude when others help you.

Charity is of value, but only as stop-gap. american homelessness was created in 1982 by the actions of the reagan administration. It won't be solved by charity, but by changing the structural factors in our economic organization that create homelessness. Specifically, the factors which, over the last 40 years, have channeled 90% of economic growth into the pockets of the top 5%.

This program serves 53 homeless people & has 250 volunteers. It is very nice, I'm sure everyone involved is well-intentioned. However, my feeling is it will have more long-term benefits for its founder than its clients.

and i'm not sure why a program serving 53 people rates national media attention.

Nothing personal; however, i find something pernicious about how much attention this kind of thing gets v.

you would have seen that they are trying to start a nation-wide movement.

Here is their website.

http://backonmyfeet.org/main/index.html

Thank you for responding, but couldn't you have posted something positive about what Ms Mahlum is trying to do instead of something negative. There is more than enough of that kind of attitude all over DU these days.

I also posted my opinion, which is: so long as the structure of our economy creates homelessness, charity just shifts around the people who fall to the bottom.

It seems pretty clear that charity won't dent the problem, so long as the system is designed to keep 20% at less than subsistence level.

I'll keep posting it too, everytime one of these feel-good things comes up. It doesn't mean the people doing them aren't well-intentioned. It just means they're bailing a sinking ship with a teaspoon.

However, there have been thousands of such efforts since Reagan created the problem of homelessness 30-plus years ago, & guess what?

The problem HAS ONLY GOTTEN WORSE. In good economic times & bad.

Because the STRUCTURE CREATES the homeless. The (bad, ignorant, criminal, mentally ill, whatever demonizing term we attach to human beings) homeless don't create the structure.

Calling someone "negative" for saying it as it is is really sad.

That is what this country keeps doing to it's visionaries, from Martin Luther King, on.

Hannah wasn't harsh or disrespectful to you.

We are trying to tell "progressives" something that it's really high time to be heard.

I hope you will think this over, and decide we have something of value to say.

Before I read this post, I thought "Charity is a stop-gap."

I entirely agree with your line of thinking. There are so many foundations and charities, yet poverty and homelessness deepen. I have always thought that charities exist to prop up the existing order.

However, I still commend the young woman for reaching out and organizing instead of just running by.

anything. On the other hand, it's brought her national recognition, which will no doubt help her in whatever career she chooses to go into.

Her organization, on the other hand, has thus far provided donated sportswear for 53 homeless people.

So far, she & the donors (tax break) are ahead, by my calculation of benefit.

If I were speaking to her, I would commend her.

But since I'm speaking to DU, I point out the problem with such efforts.

I'm not at all denigrating what you point out. That I didn't point it out first shows my degree of discouragement with American society.

All the same, they're running. I think the psychological benefits of sports and of team-building are outstanding for anyone. I too run with a team, and I've gotten rather attached to them. We pace each other, cheer each other on, and out on the course, we're not Republicans or Democrats, we're just runners. Any arrangement in which we lay aside our differences is to be encouraged.

I agree, it's good to lay aside differences.

But they can only truly be laid aside when they're small.

Homelessness is an abyss.

We agree on the large issue. It is dismaying beyond all belief that there is such misinformation and a total absence of political will to tackle this problem.

The running is no substitute for a home. However, the fact that CNN uses it to prop up the Horatio Alger ideology is separate from whatever benefits the participants--homeless and housed--may derive from running together. Running as a team creates strong personal bonds. I say, in our future socialist society, let a thousand running clubs bloom!

Don't you see that by getting them to stop drinking and encouraging them to run instead you can maybe get a change in their mind set. Maybe by running instead of drinking they might be inspired to change their own life. Plus having the support of people caring. Charity itself is not the end all...it should be the start. We can't just give up.

ALL homeless people are alcoholics.

:crazy:

obviously! My experience has been with my brother and all his friends for 25 years who were in the grouping known for "just being alcoholics" (someone actually did a study of the different homeless groups in Santa Barbara) where as a lot of the others were using "harder" drugs. Mental illness was a big part of all the groups. But what I am dealing with now are families trying to keep a shelter over their children's heads. One mom had a past of hard hard drug usage (and her kids show that). I thought (to myself) she shouldn't have her kids but when she got them taken away( because they were living in terrible conditions in one room in a hotel and I guess they caught her using more drugs)she cleaned up her act and came to the school every day to volunteer so she could get her kids back. Her face is deformed I guess from drug use and she is loud and scares most people away from her but people saw this love she had for her kids and they really loved her. She had to take classes on how to parent. Everyone started pitching in. They have had some sort of housing with assistance from the state and a friend of mine who does counseling volunteered to cover the whole family for free. This mom has now held a steady job for almost three years! When she got her first big promotion she was so excited. They're still barely hanging on but there is hope. We have someone at our high school, an ex heroin user, who runs (and started) something called the Angel Fund. Her job is actually to help people plan for college but she took on the job of getting kids to stay in school and started this fund. I think she calculates that there are over 100 kids who are classified homeless in our small town. She makes sure they have shelter and their basic needs taken care of and literally pulls them off the streets or out of their homes if they don't show up to school. I agree with many of you about band aides being put on the homeless and that we need big huge changes as a society but in the mean time there is something that you can help with on a smaller basis and that there is more than just soup lines to volunteer in.

And that's what I was trying to point out to you.

By painting ALL homeless people as drunks, and mentally ill, you are doing a lot of damage to the rest of us, and it causes an immense amount of pain.

I was just speaking with the local rabbi today about this, because there were comments made in the local paper that were quite ugly, and it stems from this very same erroneous depicting of homeless people as being of one "type" or another. He is quite upset with what is happening here, and is interested in doing some community awareness about this very thing.

You could be of most help to us homeless folk by helping to break these stereotypes. It would be most appreciated.

Which is the cause and which is the effect?

I have done work in missions for recovering alcoholics for 30 years. I am convinced that we have cause and effect confused here.

Substance abuse, bad attitudes, lack of motivation or inspiration or other things supposedly "wrong" with those who are suffering are not the cause of alienation, poverty, and homelessness. The lack of homes, the lack of decent jobs, and the alienating, cruel and indifferent culture that we call the world of the "winners" and the behavior that we call "success" are the cause of substance abuse, bad attitudes, or other things that are supposedly "wrong" with those who are suffering.

If these supposed personality flaws were "human nature" or if those who have been kicked to the curb were the cause of their own problems, then why is it that in societies that do not have our "personal responsibility" ethic there are far fewer "flawed" individuals? And does not charity that is based on the premise that the problems are caused by individuals making the "wrong choices" in fact promote and reinforce the ethic that is the root cause of the problems, and so do more harm than good?

Why should we assume that the problems are caused by something wrong with their "mind set" or some lack of "inspiration?" That is pretty demeaning, and it is the way we demean and demoralize people that is a prime cause of the problem.

Why are we so resistant to the idea that perhaps it is the "mind set" of the "successful" and "inspired" that is the cause of the problems?

"to save him" but in the end he didn't really want to be saved. He had an embedded sense of self from childhood that never changed. We need the programs at an early age to help those kids in school that slip through the cracks(there are so many who don't qualify for special ed. but who have some sort of learning style that is different than what the schools can currently address so they get classified as dumb or lazy). We need to help the families cover their basic needs like food and shelter so that they can raise these kids. We all need to snap out of our own comfort zone's and reach out to help these kids and families not just think "it's their problem to deal with". Wake up everyone!!!!

"helper".

What about having actual Wellness Centers that everyone participates in? With lots of needs being met all the way around?

sigh....

You have NO idea what I"m doing, so I would appreciate less snark.

When YOU have created a REAL solution, please inform us.

Thank you.

I'm sorry for your homelessness, I was there once myself.

peace always.

There are a lot of smart kids who get lost in a big classroom.

This is very destructive, and I would have hoped that we had achieved a level of sophistication about this that would prevent us from falling for it again and again. We are spreading very cruel and inhumane right wing ideas here - "getting them off the street" and "getting them on the right track." Yes, this feel good news story *could* be useful if it led to a deeper understanding and commitment, but when anyone tries to have such a discussion it is rejected because it is making us feel bad when we were just feeling so good. In other words, that is an admission that these dire social problems take second seat to our personal need to feel good about ourselves. I maintain that that is the most potent force for keeping these problems in place, and for perpetuating the suffering and deprivation.

Why do we fall hook, line, and sinker for that which makes *us* feel good - for spoon fed human interest stories palmed off to us for the exact purpose of putting a chipper face on horrible things and so leading us down the path of escapism and avoidance - and then resist looking at the real problems and real causes because those make us feel uncomfortable?

This not "part of the solution." It is not part of the problem, either, it is the entire problem. This is an invitation to wallow in the emotion-driven politics of personal choice and personal values, and to indulge ourselves in self-centered feelings and behavior while patting ourselves on the back about what good people we are.

We are trading away effective political action and discussion for the sake of personally feeling good, and real people are suffering as a direct result of that pervasive approach to politics that modern liberalism demands. We must reject that. We must overthrow that.

I think inspiring someone to get clean and sober and shelter is a step in the right direction. It was the "choice" of the homeless to participate. Who knows what that will inspire next?

I'd say that diverting well-intentioned energy into ineffective actions is not particularly "better than nothing".

Why is the choice footraces or "nothing"? Cellphones or "nothing"?

Thank you so much for straightening me out.

:crazy:

Examples:

Putting butter on a severe burn
Using "black salve" on a cancerous lesion
Treating a compound fracture with a "do it yourself" splint
"Tough love" suicide prevention counseling - handing a loaded gun to a suicidal friend and telling her to go for it


I'll admit that it is well known that regular exercise can help alleviate depression, improve health and self-esteem, and improve brain function. However, a program that uses jogging to address homelessness in our nation has much in common with a program that uses chanting to cure leprousy. The fact is, there IS a cure for homelessness, just as there is for leprousy, and it is a KNOWN quantity, not a mystery. It's not out of our reach as a nation, as a people, to cure this forever, for all people, if we will it.

It is better to do nothing than to reduce this serious national problem, which affects our returning veterans, many victims of domestic violence, families caught by the recession, the treatable mentally ill, and the abandoned elderly poor, as well as the stereotypical addicted or alcoholic "able bodied" adults, to a "character flaw of the individual" that can be cured by a daily running regimen.

And, may I add... to give tea to wounded soldiers, as in that one episode of M*A*S*H, which caused horrible intestinal problems.

"It is better to do nothing than to reduce this serious national problem, which affects our returning veterans, many victims of domestic violence, families caught by the recession, the treatable mentally ill, and the abandoned elderly poor, as well as the stereotypical addicted or alcoholic "able bodied" adults, to a "character flaw of the individual" that can be cured by a daily running regimen."

That is so well said that it deserves to be repeated.

In fact, I think I'll repeat it again:

"It is better to do nothing than to reduce this serious national problem, which affects our returning veterans, many victims of domestic violence, families caught by the recession, the treatable mentally ill, and the abandoned elderly poor, as well as the stereotypical addicted or alcoholic "able bodied" adults, to a "character flaw of the individual" that can be cured by a daily running regimen."

Thank you! :yourock:

People wanna feel good for doing some little bit that changes nothing, and you're poking them in the eye.

STOP IT RIGHT NOW!!!

:rofl:

Really, sometimes I think it's just not worth it to keep trying to talk sense here.

I really don't think it's possible for people to understand the difference between justice and charity anymore.

It's too big a stretch, because it means looking people in the eye as real people, instead of looking down on them as pets.

I would submit that the runner in question is wholly unaware of what you propose and was simply moved to do something. Most Americans do not have anywhere near the level of political sophistication which you propose and she is doubtlessly among them.

That said, I have no problem with her bringing the healthy and, dare I say it, democratizing (we're all runners out there) sport to the marginalized.

The dangers of holding up this story as a solution to social problems is what I am warning against.

The level of political sophistication I propose was once commonplace on the shop room floor 30 years ago, and I still find that most blue collar people understand this. It is not complicated, it is that we are confused and this thread illustrates our confusion.

Hannah Bell just posted a terrific explanation of this problem. The problem is not the marginalized, the proiblem is with us.

How Reagan Created "The Homeless," & Why Charity Can't Fix It

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3103173

But since I'm speaking to the presumably sophisticated crowd of activists at DU, I discuss the inefficacy of such efforts.

The "cure" is known, & possible, as another poster said.

Most are homeless due to poverty and inadequate health care, particularly mental health care. Charity is a bunch of arrogant, feel-good nonsense that turns the poor into subhuman children that need good liberal protection.

The answer is the struggle for social justice not big hearted charity.

Bobbolink and others posted some stats about that not long ago, and there is no higher percentage of substance abuse among homeless people than among the general population. In any case, as liberals, should we not see drug addiction, poverty, and mental illness as symptoms of larger social problems, and be advocating political solutions and be talking about organizing for mass political action? The problem with the personal responsibility idea - and people saying that we need to inspire, or clean up, or sober up, or give voice mail to, or start jogging clubs for poor people are promoting the personal responsibility idea - is that it requires us to believe that it is a complete coincidence that when the right wingers cut social programs suddenly millions of people became deficient in the area of personal responsibility.

It was when people despaired of political success, when the left was beaten down - often literally beaten down in the streets, and when people gave up, that we saw the rise of a new type of liberalism that has been growing ever since. "I can't do much about the real problems, but helping these few in front of me is better than nothing, isn't it?" Certainly we want to help the few in front of us. That actually was happening much, much more back then within the context of fighting for justice and political solutions. But that is not what is at issue. What is at issue is that helping the few in front of us has become a substitute for clear political thinking, and an escape and an avoidance of the larger political issues and from taking any risks or supporting any political action.

I am old enough to remember when people overtly said this - "I am doing little good things now. I have given up. I am going to look after myself, and do what I can in small ways to help. The fascists have won. There is no sense in trying anymore, and it is too dangerous and hopeless." Today, half of that goes unsaid and is just an unspoken assumption, but the strong connection remains. Helping in small ways is a substitute for effective political action, prevents it from even being discussed any more, and what is more, people claim that helping in small private ways IS the same as or as good as or even better than effective political action. That has become a serious barrier for us, and a main cause of keeping suffering and deprivation in place.

who hopefully will. So far two want to go into politics to help change the system and yes I can tell them it will be a waste of time but at least they can try. You are all right. We need to change the system but until we all speak up against the current one it is not going to happen. I'm helping to developer three kids that will help change the system by keeping my children aware and involved (in more than just sports!). In the meantime I am reaching out a hand to help however I can with my kids help. What are all of you doing just intellectually analyzing how bad of a system we have in your comfortable homes? That's a great help! At least take some baby steps before you throw in your hat and die!

Keep in mind though, that those you are skewering when you say "what all of you doing just intellectually analyzing how bad of a system we have in your comfortable homes?" are in fact veterans of decades of poverty work, as well as some people who are themselves homeless. Yet you said "all of you" and then proceeded to smear us and say that "all of us" are throwing in the hat, or not doing anything, or are giving up.

Many of us have raised children, as well. All of us are "reaching out a hand" - perhaps far more than you can imagine.

The truly powerful and genuine "baby steps" that all of us could take - right here and right now - would be to listen to some of the voices here and have the courage to examine and question our own attitudes and not merely dismiss and slander those who are saying things that make us a little uncomfortable.

Baby steps are fine - but can we not ask ourselves in what direction we are taking these steps and where we are headed?

I get emotionally confused. Charitable acts are supposed to make us feel good. But I've never felt good about it, and i detest the word "charity". Your words help me untangle some of those conflicting feelings.

The dynamic range of human living conditions is incomprehensible. I cannot wrap my head around it. Thom Hartmann recently spoke of an old man he met near Darfur who had been a slave for most of his adult life; he spoke about how red hair in the refugee children was a sign of malnutrition. At the other extreme are human beings living a life of outrageous excess, like the Paris Hiltons. Like the Donald Trumps. Most of us lie somewhere between those two extremes. And even in our own little local worlds, the extremes we see in human conditions are overwhelming and incomprehensible.

Last December, i organized a food drive at work. People paid me compliments for being so "kind." Many felt good about giving away stuff they didn't want in their pantries to people "in need". But so many missed the point. I didn't organize the food drive to feel good and to fish for compliments. Actually, it made me feel orders of magnitude worse because, as I was organizing and coordinating, there was a constant awareness of human suffering. That food drive was a band aid on a long deep gash. My real goal was to create a more fundamental awareness of the injustices and inequalities in our society, to motivate people to harness the power of democracy for social and economic fairness. Altho' we collected 14 boxes of food in 2 weeks, I still consider the event a failure. Out of the 400+ people at work, only one person showed a glint of awareness by offering to help during future food drives. No one said anything to me about the need for fundamental changes at a social and political level that's needed to eradicate poverty, and create a better quality of life for all people. If they felt it, I would have liked to have heard their thoughts because THAT would have made me feel good. It seemed like folks just went on with life as usual, unfazed by this stark truth about hunger in America, reluctant to step out of their comfort zones.

People don't want to acknowledge how vulnerable they are. They protect themselves by being in denial, creating a narrow field-of-view, one that allows them to cope with everyday life, even to be happy. Just outside that narrow field-of-view is the unthinkable: poverty, homelessness, illness. But there's a fundamental streak of compassion in most people, and they want to do something to help the "less fortunate" (perhaps to feel less guilty about their good fortune?).

But good intentions often go astray because those in a position to help, myself included, don't quite know how to do it. Often, we come up with ways to help that relate to our sense of accomplishment, not what's needed by the recipients of that help. That's how we end up with food drives, and running shoes for the homeless. On the surface, it seems like a good thing to do. At some level, perhaps it is a good thing simply because it's better than nothing. But when we analyze the driving force behind these acts of charity, you see that it's actually about power: those with the power to make the choice, on their own terms, to help those with less power. Those of us living comfortably choose how we render assistance; we choose to buy running shoes for the homeless. We choose to donate unwanted pantry items to a food bank. We have the power to choose what they get. So, what's it like to be on the receiving end? To receive things you may not need or want? To be forced to eat whatever's in the food bank grocery bag handed to you, or starve? What's it like to feel powerless, to not be afforded the respect and dignity you deserve as a human being? I cannot imagine it, it's overwhelming.

I don't have the right to tell people living in poverty how to live their lives. What I'd like to do is help empower them to make their own choices, tho' I have to confess that I don't know how to go about it the right way. We need to ask them what they need, not tell them what we think they need. It's not easy because we all have unique world views that form our opinions. I'm often at a loss over how to do something helpful without insulting or angering people who need the help. One thing I'm trying to do is listen, really listen, to clear-headed people like Two Americas, and figure out how I can work within my mental, intellectual, physical, and monetary constraints to contribute without going insane over the horrible injustices of the human condition.

It's profoundly unnatural to ignore people in need. To step over homeless people in the street.

The normal human impulse is to offer assistance. That's why, in disasters, people come together & so many people feel such a sense of comraderie; they're working together to help each other. That's normal, natural, human behavior.

The only way we can ignore the need & cruelty that surrounds us - since we can't fix it in isolation, by ourselves - is to shut off our feelings, dehumanize the homeless, or look away. Or to contribute to canned food drives, go feed the homeless at thanksgiving, & the like. There's not much more radical to tap into.

So that's half-way to insane, right there. Denial of reality.

Great post Hannah, and thanks for this thread.

While it seems on the surface that we have two diametrically opposed warring camps on this thread, we actually share the same problem - we have common cause here and are in the same boat. Living in fear and denial of poverty and suffering and deprivation is driving us crazy. The price we pay for material well-being is spiritual sickness and insanity, and we are all suffering from this.

"We can't fix it in isolation." That is what we are trying to do.

"That's why, in disasters, people come together & so many people feel such a sense of camaraderie; they're working together to help each other."

All it takes to break through this stalemate is to recognize that we are already in a disaster. "Success" in modern society has come to mean insulating and isolating ourselves from that reality, so we can ignore and deny it. It has also severely constricted what we can and cannot do woith outr livs, since we must pacify and not offend this god we call "success." We then try to help people, and don't realize that we are forcing them to join us in denying reality. Were we to join *them* in accepting reality, we, too, could all be working together with that sense of camaraderie.

I don't think that a story like this it meant to make people get their "feel good" of the day. It is meant to inspire someone else to go out and make a difference. After watching my brother for years on the streets slowly dying I was overwhelmed of the destitution I saw. That can sometimes lead to immobility. But finally I decided even if I can help one kid that is better than non. If everyone can reach out and help one kid just think how many less people there would be on the streets and in jail. We need all people left and right to realize that these people will cost you money at some point. Either you pan it out in the beginning to help families and kids or like my brother you pay millions of dollars for someone on the streets who gets thrown into jail over 450 times (each time needing to be treated for DT's)for drinking alcohol in public. During the last two years of his life he was in the ICU (10 days each time) 4 times and received 100's of units of blood not counting all the other times he was in the hospital in his life time. Who paid for this? All of us paying taxes. See where prevention and programs to help people earlier than later would be cheaper. We need a much better system.

But what you are describing is President Bush's "thousand points of light" program, and what others are describing is President Reagan's "bootstrap" program, and W's "faith-based initiative" program - privatized charity, presented as the ultimate solution to social problems.

I am very saddened to hear the story of your brother - so very sorry, Egerton.

I don't think any of us are saying that charity is bad. I have spent thousands and thousands of hours working in elder care over the decades in the most impoverished neighborhoods, as well as massive fund raising efforts for shelters, battered women outreach programs, orphans and abused children, leader dog programs and many other charities.

I would be very surprised if anyone here has put in anything close to the hours that I have in the most difficult charity work in the worst situations. Not that this matters - the point is not to say what a wonderful person I am - the point is that the opinions I am expressing are not offered instead of doing private charity work, they are the product of thousands of hours of charity work, and those are not merely the usual perfunctory things organized for volunteers, but rather the hundreds of hours of independent and hands on work that doesn't make stories in the media or have happy endings or gold stars awarded to the volunteers.

And clearly, articles such as this are people's feel good for the day, because they get very angry and call people "negative" and "nay sayers" and "downers" and "jerks" when they try to expand the scope of the conversation into a broader discussion and to move us away from the right wing political model for addressing charity.

Poverty is a political challenge - as people on the political left that is how we should always see social issues - and all we are trying to do here is to talk about this in a political context. Anyone who has been involved in charity work in any capacity beyond the most superficial volunteer work knows that it is a political battle, and also knows that much volunteer charity work is premised upon ignoring and avoiding political realities because the political work is the hard work and the dangerous work.

volunteering at a shelter and giving comfort, food etc.. We used to do that for my brother and his friends taking them clothes, food and giving them cards for showers and stuff but never money (I could tell he knew we were trying make ourselves feel better). But I see helping families get on their feet as being a different kind of charity that helps these people to possibly be productive members of society. It took me a long time to realize my brother didn't want to get off the streets and that he was happier not following "society's rules". He always had other excuses. All the free rehabs were religious based and he didn't want anything to do with that. I think all that you have done has not been a complete loss. Of course this doesn't solve all the problems but a warm meal and shelter for someone living on the streets during a cold spell is amazingly appreciated. We need much better policies and programs, higher paying jobs, medical care for all including preventative care and higher education for anyone who wants to go to college.... Thats why I'm voting for Obama.

Someone needs to clean up, break their addiction, and get on the right track. There is no doubt about that. It is we who need to clean up our thinking, it is we who need to break our addiction, and it is we who need to get on the right track, not the poor, downtrodden, homeless and persecuted.

The addiction that needs to be broken is the addiction many of us have to modern liberalism. It is destroying lives, and people look for their fix and defend their using with all of the tenacity of any substance abuser.

Just as the high from intoxicants comes to replace life and reality, so too the high of modern liberalism is an ersatz and counterfeit replacement for true political activism, for authentic engagement with the world around us. It channels our better impulses into self-centered activities that are insulated from reality, that deny the objective world, and contradicts our perceptions that led to those impulses. It creates a cloud, a fog, within which we can escape the pain of life as we withdraw into our own emotional world and shut the real world out.

The "something" that is supposedly "better than nothing" means doing something to alleviate our own pain - not to have an impact on the suffering of others - and the "nothing" means "do nothing to make myself more comfortable." This is exactly parallel to drug addiction, and it is probably no accident that those of us who have struggled with addiction and substance abuse in out own lives are the heaviest users of this substitute - the modern liberalism of personal values and personal choices.

We can see the pattern clearly - the giddy euphoria, the resistance to any intrusions of reality that could bum us out or harsh our buzz, and the desperate defensiveness when anyone tries to suggest we quit using.

This drug of modern liberalism is the consolation prize in politics. We have come to be comforted by it, it has seen us through many a lonely and terrifying night of fear and desperation. We have come to accept it as "something" - not quite the real thing, but better than "nothing" - as the best we can have, as the only thing we are worthy of having. Real community, real problem solving, real justice - those things are seen as out of reach. We have abandoned the fight for those things. It is too frightening, too dangerous, and we are too battered down so we crawl back to or fix again.

"Something" is somewhere between "nothing" and "everything" we are to imagine. "Nothing" is intolerable - we would have to actually sit quietly with our own pain and that of others and listen and learn. "Everything," we are to imagine, is the alternative to "nothing" or the sort of on-the-way-to-everything that we call "something." Therefore "something is defined as not being everything, and not being nothing. So any old "something" will do - when we are hard core addicts in the final stages. "Everything," we are told, is not possible, is not realistic, is not something that we can have. "Nothing" is not something we are willing to tolerate. So we look for "something" to do, and we judge whether or not it is the right something by whether or not it gets us high - makes us feel good and chases the pain away for a brief period of time.

This addiction permeates modern liberalism, and wrecks every cause and sabotages any and all hope for a vibrant and noble and powerful left wing political movement.

Here is but one example of this from another thread about another cause. This thread is about pets, but we can see the exact same pattern. One cannot help but noticing that pets actually warrant more compassion and concern than human beings do for too many liberals, however even the dogs and cats are not safe in the hands of modern liberalism.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3096648

I've seen that phrase used quite a bit in poverty threads, but don't really understand what it means and why it's been so harshly criticized. Can you define it, please?

I'm a liberal. I'm living in the here and now, so that makes me "modern", I guess. I strongly support pet rescue and wildlife conservation efforts because I love animals.


So what am I doing wrong?

I think I am the one who coined that term, actually.

Liberalism is dramatically different today than it was in the past. The main difference is the shift from thinking in terms of public policies and political action to solve social problems, to self-actualization and personal stance and personal values and choices. It has become a variant on libertarianism, with better causes, but still the same underlying individualism and privatization.

I try to be clear and direct and unambiguous, but I don't think my criticisms have been "harsh" - not harsh at all when compared to the extremely vitriolic attacks we see every day against those expressing traditional left wing views.

It is difficult to discuss without offending people, because a key feature of the personal choice politics of modern liberalism is that people have their personal identities wrapped up so tightly in their views that it is not easy to criticize the ideas without the other person hearing it as a personal criticism of them. I work hard to make that distinction, but as on that other thread, when people are feeling compassion for puppies it is like touching a hot stove to take a traditional left wing view on the subject and suggest that in saving seven dogs, we are contributing to the death sentences of 20,000. That is the problem and the reason for criticizing modern liberalism - the few are saved so we can feel good, but that is at the expense of refusing to address what it would take to help the many who are suffering. On that thread, no one was interested in talking about the 20,000, because they were too busy emoting over the seven. At some point, it becomes self-contradictory and destructive. It is not really about the poor puppies, as claimed. It is about the feelings of the savers. Thewy say that it is "better to do somethuing than noithing" when it is so clear that the somnething ios worse than nothing and is preventing anything effective form happening.

Old school liberals from 30-40 years ago would hear the story of the seven puppies, and immediately translate that into the bigger picture and would be very interested to discover that there were 20,000 and would start talking about mobilizing for mass political action to effect public political solutions. Modern liberals immediately seek privatized solutions, that they can play a relatively minor and very safe role in, to save the seven, and get angry and defensive or are not interested in the 20,000. Big difference. But how to talk about that - and it must be talked about - without people getting so angry that they stop listening?

Thanks for posting!

I think this is a great idea. JRE is a runner, and he probably would appreciate hearing a story like this. He also would say that gov't programs are designed to give a hand up, and provide seeds, but we are the ones responsible for our own communities.

Thanks for sharing.

Some are nay-saying the idea of political solutions to social problems while praising and defending individualized and privatized solutions. Others of us see things the other way around and are taking the more traditional Democratic political approach to this problem. I don't know that one group is positive and the other negative. It is a legitimate difference of opinion, and dismissing one side as "naysayers" is not fair or accurate IMHO.

But I disagree that a traditional Democratic party approach is the best way to deal with the ills of the situation. JRE always thought we needed to go beyond it.

I don't see this idea of being a total Republican one either, which is my point. It contains elements of accountability, as well as promotion of a more healthy lifestyle. I wouldn't mind if the community wanted to throw some bucks towards it or get a grant to expand it if the runner had time.

of responsibility?

Like at Christmas when there are food drives and winter coat drives and gift drives to help the homeless and poor.

It's all feel good, a quick fix, but what about the months between food drives, what about AFTER the food/coat/gift drive?

I'm with Hannah up thread who posted another great thread tonight about this very thing.

Until we fix the underlying problems of wages and affordable housing-jogging and cells phones will be just a band aid on the oozing gaping wound of homelessness.

...year round...with clothing, furniture and food drives.

Should I stop, because it sounds like I'm not helping at all.

http://www.samaritanhouseva.org/needhelp.html

be solving the whole homeless problem for the U.S. but I believe helping people get back on their feet so they can help themselves is a needed start.

:hi:

Read this because this says it better than I can:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3103173

Thanks!

I especially appreciate the dialog taking place here! :hi: