Venice Beach and it’s homeless situation has been in the news lately. It’s been getting a lot of negative attention.
Recently the city known as Venice Beach has decided to fix the problem by relocating the “unhoused” to more suitable facilities.
By the way, I love that term, unhoused. It sounds so much cleaner. I feel so much less guilty having heard it.
Obviously, there was too much attention on the homeless in Venice Beach.
That’s the key point.
It was that attention to homelessness, not the homelessness itself that bothered the wealthy in Venice Beach.
It’s been there for a while.
But in response to worldwide attention on this issue in Venice Beach, the leaders of Venice Beach have decided to clean up the beach.
Their solution is to move the “unhoused” somewhere else.
Boy, I sure hope these leaders of Venice Beach don’t take care of me when I’m in the ICU. When my heart monitor goes off, I want someone to address the root problem, not turn the monitor off because it’s making a loud noise that is annoying the staff.
What an inconvenience that would be, right?
Of course, what is needed is an assessment of why we have so many homeless in our society today.
Well, the cause of homelessness is multifactorial, but it would sure help if citizens could have meaningful jobs that paid a lot more money.
This is what we used to provide in the United States before outsourcing.
A well-paying job is the best welfare program there is.
Well-paying jobs keep families together, kids off the streets, and people from reaching out for drugs.
Well-paying jobs prevent depression, crime and drug addiction.
Well-paying jobs promote an educated electorate.
Of course, our leaders increasingly don’t want to help families stay healthy.
They don’t want to do that because they take their orders from Corporate America, and Corporate America makes a fortune off poverty here and abroad.
Maybe if Levi Strauss invested in well-paying jobs here in America instead of running sweatshops in Haiti (workers make five dollars per ten hour work day), we might have fewer “unhoused” in the United States.
Indeed we would.
Ah, but if we did that, we would have less dysfunctional people to feed into the corporate prison racket.
Furthermore, we would have less need for social services.
That won’t work.
If there was less need for social services, then the corporations who supply this other scam, the welfare plantation racket, would make less revenue.
Mr. Bumble: What! Less money?
OMG, that would violate fascist orthodoxy!
I need a song now to make me feel better about poverty.
Ready, on three …
Let’s all sing: Oliver, Oliver, never before has a boy asked for more …