According to a scant but annoyingly vocal few within Society, homelessness is necessarily synonymous with crime, violence and a variety of social deviancy, as if everyone who lacks a domestic situation conforms to such stereotypes. Similar misconception implies that such deviancy is mostly exclusive to the unhoused Community, and therefore less applicable to those who inhabit domiciles.
Simple omission of facts and data requires less effort than falsifying facts and data. It is not difficult to portray the most notoriously villainous or disreputable of the unhoused Community as representative of the entire unhoused Community. However, doing so is about as logical as associating everyone who inhabits domiciles with the most notoriously villainous or disreputable of those who inhabit domiciles.
These are some examples of unhoused people of historical significance who do not represent any more of the unhoused Community than any other component of Society:
Jesus Christ and His Twelve Disciples
Saint John the Baptist
Siddhartha Gautama Buddha
These are some examples of housed people of historical significance who do not represent any more of the housed Community than any other component of Society:
Incidentally but interestingly, the majority of the most inhumanely socially deviant and evil people of history systematically perpetuated unfounded malicious stereotypes regarding their victims. Many continue to do so. It is how they justify their mistreatment of their victims, whether Jews, Christians, Shia Muslims or any other distinguishable group. If it becomes socially unacceptable to perpetuate malicious stereotypes about a particular group, another likely innocent group is pursued instead. For the inhumanely socially deviant and evil of Society, the abuse of their victims, whomever such victims might be, is much more important than truth or logic. It is one of several symptoms of their mental disorder.
Halloween is over! Goodness! It is such a weird indulgence of degenerate behavior! Children are actually encouraged and expected to dress in costume, perhaps ghastly or shabby by design, and tour their respective neighborhoods to engage in aggressive panhandling. Some of their parents, perhaps outfitted with comparably inappropriate attire, or worse, shamelessly attend debaucherous parties.
This is fun?! This is socially acceptable?! Well, it should afford significantly more respect for those who request donations on the Pacific Garden Mall because they lack other options. They waste neither resources nor effort on their possibly shabby attire. Nor do they come to our porches at night expecting handouts.
Anyway, it is now All Saints’ Day. It will be All Souls’ Day tomorrow. In many cultures, both days are All Soul’s Day, or something similar with a different name. Regardless of the name, All Saints’ Day is one of only six Holy Days of Obligation. Halloween is merely the day prior to All Saints’ Day. It is what Christmas Eve is to Christmas. However, although almost everyone in America knows what Halloween is, not so many know what All Saints’ Day is.
How many of us are aware of what Saint Patrick’s Day is? Why is Cinco de Mayo such a minor holiday where it actually has some relevance in Mexico, but is just another excuse for drunken partying here? Has partying become so important on the Fourth of July that we forget that it had formerly been Independence Day? Mardi Gras really should be a day for (responsible) indulgences, but has somehow become more important than subsequent Ash Wednesday and forty days of fasting and abstinence from such indulgence during Lent.
Society can be impressively creative with justification for unfounded indulgence. A few in society can be remarkably selective with such justification.
“Bars on windows are a sign that I am in the wrong neighborhood.” I heard that a few times when I was a kid, mostly from people of my parents’ generation. It was not intended as disparagement of any particular neighborhood. It meant that relocation was a better option than installation of bars on windows.
I do not remember that anyone who said that actually relocated. Situations just never got that bad. Bars appeared on windows of a few businesses in some neighborhoods, but were eventually removed as people realized that the neighborhoods were not so bad.
Besides, some believed that bars on windows just informed potential burglars that there was something worth stealing within. Others believed that there was not much within their homes that burglars would be interested in. I believed that if a burglar wanted something within my isolated home, that bars would not stop him or her from taking it.
Most of us choose to not live in fear. We happen to live in an excellent place, and intend to enjoy it. It is certainly not perfect, and burglaries sometimes happen. We just do not allow such unpleasantries to dictate our lifestyles.
Those who choose to live in fear have the option of relocating to someplace where they do not need to live in fear. If they fear crime, they can go someplace where there is no crime. If they fear drugs, they can go someplace where there are none. If they fear houseless people, and believe that houseless people migrate to this region, they can relocate to someplace that is unpopular with the migratory houseless people whom they fear. Surely, there must be a place like that for them to go to. It is more practical than expecting those they fear to relocate for them.
Seriously, that was her name. Karen. It was printed on her discarded baseball cap that was in the box of assorted trash that she tossed off the Graham Hill Road Bridge over Zayante Creek. There was some paperwork in the box too, which provided a bit more information. I was on the telephone and across the road at the gate of the industrial yard from where I work for part of the week when I saw her drop the box from the Bridge. I could neither yell to her while on the telephone, nor immediately end the call.
I did contact the sheriff though, as I walked across the road after ending the previous call. Prior to the discovery of identifying material, I doubted that anything could be done about the situation. Also, I did not want to trouble anyone with something that nothing could be done about. Nonetheless, I remembered that such crimes, even if minor, should be reported. The deputy who returned my call seemed pleased that I did.
Before I knew her name, I described Karen and what she was wearing. I also tried to describe a gentleman who was with her, but whom I had not seen much of. He walked ahead of her, as if embarrassed to be seen with her. I could not see a car that they drove there with; so they must have walked a considerable distance with the box of trash.
I also described how Karen and the gentleman she was with proceeded in the direction that they were going prior to dropping the box of trash, rather than back the way from which they came. I wondered if they had arrived from that direction previously, walked past, and then delivered the box as they returned. It was perplexing.
Of course, nothing could be done about this incident while it was necessary for deputies to prioritize more significant crimes. The box of trash was small enough to be collected and deposited into a dumpster within the industrial yard. Questions remain though.
Why did Karen drop her box of trash from the bridge?
Does Karen have a means with which to dispose of trash at home?
Did Karen leave the trash there so that homeless people would be blamed for it?
As I mentioned last week, other obligations presently prevent me from writing new posts, perhaps for several weeks. For now, this old article from May of 2019 will be recycled.
Fake environmentalism is a HUGE topic, so for now, will be limited
to fake environmentalism as justification for the eviction of
The yellow triangle in the picture above was the site of the
Hero’s Camp, which was more commonly known as Ross Camp, and located
behind Ross Dress For Less in Gateway Plaza in Santa Cruz. It is gone
now. This satellite image was taken by Google Maps prior to the
development of the Camp. I did not get pictures of the camp while
inhabited, but you have likely seen enough other camps in the news to
imagine what it looked like.
It really was as big as it looks, and really did exhibit all the
problems that you hear about in the news, although not to such an
exaggerated degree. Not everyone there used syringes to inject
illicit narcotics. Not everyone there was an alcoholic. Not everyone
was violent, from somewhere else, or a criminal. This is not about
such issues anyway. It is about how the two hundred or so unhoused
people who lived here affected the environment.
Was there trash? Of course there was. Was it more than what two
hundred people who live in homes generate? No. Houseless people do
not generate as much trash as the housed, simply because they lack
resources to purchase the commodities from which so much trash is
generated. The houseless certainly do not waste as much as the
housed. Their trash just happens to be more visible for outsiders who
do not know any better to see.
Furthermore, what is so typically described and perceived as trash
is actually the belongings of those who live in such camps. Without
closets, cabinets or furniture, our belongings would look about the
same, except much more voluminous. When we take just some of the
belongings that we don’t want or need and put them out in front of
our homes, it is a garage sale, and likely amounts to much more than
individual homeless people own.
The satellite image from Google Maps below shows the neighborhood
where my grandparents lived in Felton, less than seven miles north of
where the picture above was taken. Their old home is right in the
middle of the picture. There were not so many other homes there when
they arrived, just as World War II was ending. They lived a
relatively modest lifestyle, on a small suburban parcel. They were
not concerned about the environment.
Why should they have been? Even now, the people who live in homes
here can generate as much trash as they want to, and no one will
complain about it. They can fill their homes with their belongings,
and put them neatly away in closets, cabinets and drawers. There are
alcoholics in this neighborhood, as well as a few who are addicted to
illicit narcotics. Some are criminals. Some are violent. Few are
native. Again, this is off the main topic.
None of that is visible in this satellite image anyway. What it
shows instead is how the lifestyles of those who live in homes are
more detrimental to the environment than the lifestyles of those who
lack homes. This picture is the same scale as the picture above, so
you can see that only a few homes would fit into an area comparable
to that in which about two hundred unhoused people lived. Only a few
people live in each of these few homes.
What that means is that two hundred people like those who lived at
the Hero’s Camp live dispersed over a much larger area, on land from
which trees and vegetation needed to be removed. They all live in
homes that are made of wood derived from trees that grew in forests.
These homes are furnished with synthetic plaster, carpet, paint,
glass, vinyl, metals and all sorts of materials that needed to be
quarried, processed or manufactured.
It doesn’t end there. These homes consume energy for heating,
lighting and whatever else that gas and electricity are used for.
Cars driven by those who live in homes are also constructed from raw
materials, and then need fuel to function. Water is consumed as if it
were not a very limited resource. Much of it gets mixed with soaps
and detergents before going back into the environment. Chlorine
volatilizes from chlorinated swimming pools.
Then there are the landscapes and gardens, the parts of domestic lifestyles that we actually believe to be beneficial to the environment. They contain exotic (non-native) plants that compete with native species, and interfere with natural ecological processes. Irrigation of the landscapes stimulates growth of redwoods, and accelerates decay of oaks. Soil amendments, fertilizers and some of the pesticides change the chemistry of the soil and ground water.
Just compare these two pictures. As bad as the mess at Hero’s Camp
was, the two hundred people who lived there were less detrimental to
the environment and the local ecosystem than those who live in just a
few of the homes visible in the picture below. Those who claim to be
concerned about the environment should be more concerned about the
ecologically detrimental lifestyles of those who live in homes than
those who lack homes.
(Incidentally, the title was changed slightly from the original post [in another blog] to conform to the meme of ‘Hypocrisy’.)
How do those with whom we have no prior affiliation perceive us? It is impossible to know without some degree of acquaintance. Yet, new acquaintance, while providing rudimentary insight of how others perceive us, or how we perceive them, also changes such perception in the process. Is that good or bad? It could improve a bad first impression, or ruin a good first impression.
Good or bad, it is more accurate. To most of us, such accuracy is considered to be an asset. Accurate perceptions of others are useful for knowing who is trustworthy and who is not. Mistrust that is justified by accurate perception of character or experience is very different from a lack of trust of the unfamiliar. Conversely, justifiable trust of the familiar is earned with familiarity.
Sadly, some prefer to mistrust and fear the unfamiliar rather than attempt to determine if such mistrust and fear are even justified. For some, their potentially unfounded but very real fear is what prevents them from exploiting opportunities to become more acquainted and perhaps more comfortable with the sources of the same fear. Some merely lack opportunities to exploit.
What is worse is that there are a few who seem to crave mistrust and fear, regardless of their ability to engage sources of their mistrust and fear, and potentially dismiss unfounded threats. Although they do not likely live in constant fear, they claim to in order to justify their disdain for the sources of their alleged fear. They try to convince others that they should be fearful too.
The same accuracy of information that the logical sort employ to dispel unjustifiable mistrust and fear is an incumbrance to those who intently crave the same sort of mistrust and fear. They therefore and merely abstain from the use of accurate information.
Why do local politician get blamed for homelessness here? Did one of them evict someone from a formerly functional domestic situation, . . . or several someones? Did a local politician cause people to become unemployed and consequently unable to afford their respective mortgages or rent? Did just one politician somehow contribute to anyone else’s personal social dysfunction?
Well, like I said earlier, blame is easy.
Now that the rate of homelessness here continues to decline, will local politicians get the credit? Will anyone thank them for the locally declining unemployment rate? Should there be at least some scrap of acknowledgment of the effort devoted to improvement of local homeless shelters? Will we merely take all of it for granted, and find something else to blame local politician for?
Apparently, gratitude is not as easy as blame is.
Politicians have enough to be concerned about without being blamed for other people’s problems, and being expected to fix them. All they can really do is develop strategies and promote the development of opportunities for others to improve their situations. Implementation of such strategies must be a team effort that includes other governmental officials and the Community.
Yes, the Community. How many of us are willing to rent a vacant studio to someone who has been homeless, perhaps for less than market rates? How many of us would help an unemployed neighbor with overdue bills? Fortunately for our Community, most of us would silently do what we could when necessary. But of course, most of us do not blame politicians for homelessness.
The same minority who blames politicians for homelessness also does the least about it. Their irrational intolerance of homelessness is, individually, their personal problem, which should not be assumed as a problem of those who work for the entire Community.
Haters who stalk us are predictable. Their techniques are so similar. It is as if they all study the same standardized instruction manual for proper techniques of hatred, as well as hypocrisy.
For example, they all engage in
stalking of some sort, in order to find information they can use to
either irrelevantly shame their victims, or modify for the same
effect. If they find nothing of interest, they lie to create scandal
regarding fictitious nefarious behavior. Yet, anyone who questions
them about their own similar but real and observable behavior, they
accuse of stalking.
Some of us, years ago, were pursued by
haters who took photographs of us to post and ridicule online. When a
few of us photographed those photographing us, we were accused of
stalking. The difference with how such photographs were obtained is
that they were pursuing or stalking us, but we were not pursuing
them. We merely photographed what was in our surroundings.
Furthermore, while they falsely
accused us of all sorts of bad behavior that they somehow never got
pictures of, we merely posted their pictures with explanations that
they were taking our pictures. We did not lie about their activity
when sharing pictures of them online. Yet, they insisted that posting
pictures of them (as they took pictures of us) was some sort of
Stalking and harassment; so what about
bullying? Haters are experts. However, any victim who so much as
questions the need or relevance of their bullying is promptly accused
of bullying. It is such a reliable pattern. Haters accuse their
victims of their own behavior.
Many years ago, one of our friends
investigated this pattern of behavior beyond direct correlations of
discussion on social media, and into other publicly available
information. After noticing that a particularly vocal hater
repeatedly ranted about how the homeless exploit the resources of
social services, he found that she had been prosecuted for fraud of
A similar observation was made in
regard to a hater who regularly ranted about how homeless people who
can not afford to live here must move away. While her home was on the
market, one of our friends who had briefly considered purchasing it,
realized that it had been in pre-foreclosure for more than a year.
This pattern is so reliable that it prompts its own investigation.
While on Facebook, a neighbor noticed
one of the familiar haters accusing someone else of establishing a
‘GoFundMe’ account, in a rather demeaning manner, and for no
particular reason. Of course, he was compelled to search ‘GoFundMe’,
and too predictably found that the accusatory hater had established
at least two accounts, and her young daughter had established
There is certainly nothing wrong with
establishing a ‘GoFundMe’ account when necessary.
A few of us know that pre-foreclosure
is nothing that anyone actually chooses to be engaged in.
Even a fraudulent claim of Workers’
Compensation funds is nothing to be judged too harshly. Mistakes
happen. Workers’ Compensation claims adjusters do not always agree
However, the predictable pattern of
haters attempting to shame others for their own behavior is
How disappointing it is, that after so many historic atrocities performed by various hate groups throughout history, some of us continue to find such primitive barbarism to be appealing. We should be better than this. Yet, some of us continue to be prejudiced against those who are even slightly different from us. A few use this prejudice to justify discrimination and even violence.
Not too long ago, violence directed at
local homeless people, although rare, was not as rare as it should
have been. Until about 2014, people were still getting attacked and
beaten up as they tried to sleep. One was shot at in her camper.
Another was shot at with a flare gun, and a few weeks later, covered
with paper and ignited as he tried to sleep. Verbal assaults were
What is such behavior supposed to
accomplish? Why do minor social groups condone and even encourage
such behavior? Why do these very minor social groups believe that
they represent the rest of civilized society that wants no
association with such barbarism? There are so many questions.
Unfortunately, hate groups innately lack proficiency with providing
Back in about 2014, the car of a
homeless lady was vandalized repeatedly. After each occurrence,
pictures were promptly shared online among those affiliated with hate
groups who target the homeless. It is how they believe that they
benefit society, by vandalizing a car that a homeless lady needed to
make a good impression with when she went out to try to find
Not long prior to that, immediately after a hate group claimed to be concerned that homeless encampments were fire hazards, one such encampment was soaked with gasoline and ignited. Predictably, before and after pictures were posted online. The homeless involved were still homeless for about a month afterward, but relocated farther out into the more combustible forest.
Why do those who hate the homeless so
much want to make it more difficult for the homeless to improve their
situations, and perhaps eventually not be homeless? Is their
consuming hate that precious to them? Do they really thrive on such
dysfunction? Again, there are more simple but unanswered questions
that haters are not concerned with providing relevant answers to.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder – NPD – is a chronic behavioral pattern that involves exaggeration of self-importance, strong desire for admiration, and lack of empathy. Those afflicted with it obsess over the achievement of success and power, and are notoriously exploitative of others. This is of course a very brief description of a very complicated disorder. A bit more information can be found at Wikipedia.
This may not seem to be relevant
to many of us, but it does seem to explain some of the more typical
behavior that distinguishes haters and collective hate groups. The
symptoms associated with NPD are eerily consistent with their
standardized craziness that is so very irrational to us, but seems to
be quite appropriate to them. These are the main symptoms:
– grandiosity of
– indulgence in fantasy that is
consistent with delusions of grandeur.
– craving for constant
– sense of entitlement
– shameless exploitation of
– frequent demeaning, bullying
and intimidation of others.
Assigning a name to the disorder
certainly does not make the behavior that it causes any more
tolerable. In fact, it is saddening to consider it to be a disorder
that is doubtlessly more difficult for those afflicted with it than
their victims. Nonetheless, it is impossible to deny how accurately
this brief list of symptoms describes some of the behavior that we
encounter with haters and hate groups.
Furthermore, it is odd to notice
that haters often accuse us of exhibiting some of these same
behaviors. We are regularly accused of ‘entitlement’ and ‘bullying’,
but without any explanation of how we exhibit such behavior. Some
might describe this technique as ‘psychological projection’. We are
more likely to perceive it as more hypocritical bullying. Sadly, it
is easy to not recognize it as mental illness.