1 out of 30 Children in the US is homeless

Perhaps if we weren’t burning a trillion bucks on pointless wars we’d be able to help remedy this national obscenity.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in anti-abortion but not prolife American culture, noting this dangerous and evil, because all that stuff about the sanctity of every child’s life being non-negotiable is, in fact, highly negotiable:

Like Patheos Catholic on Facebook!

Patheos Catholic LogoCLICK HERE TO "LIKE" PATHEOS CATHOLIC ON FACEBOOK

  • David Hurd

    89% of CAEI readers drive with properly inflated tyres.

  • ivan_the_mad

    The USCCB maintains a page devoted to the problem of homelessness here. That page states their current advocacy position to be:

    “The Catholic bishops believe decent, safe, and affordable housing is a human right. Catholic teaching supports the right to private property, but recognizes that communities and the government have an obligation to ensure the housing needs of all are met, especially poor and vulnerable people and their families. At a time of rising homelessness and when many workers’ wages are stagnant and living expenses are rising, it is important to ensure housing security.”

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    it’s not from lack of spending. The US collectively spend over a trillion dollars (Fed, state, city) per year on welfare.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-us-spent-37-trillion-welfare-over-last-5-years_764582.html

    I guess Mark wants to throw away even more money. How about we get a system that works.

    • HornOrSilk

      The issue is not just spending money to give to people, but also spending money to create the proper structures in society so that people do not end up being homeless. This includes government regulations which promote the dignity of the worker and the common good, which the market itself, when treated as an end, rejects.

      • cmfe

        Our failure as a society to respond to domestic violence and support victims continues to be the primary cause of homelessness for women and children. We have refused our job of protecting the widow and orphan. http://nnedv.org/downloads/Policy/NNEDV_DVHousing__factsheet.pdf

        • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

          Good point. And don’t forget the role of drugs.

        • Peggy

          I scanned the link. Are these mostly cohabitation situations? Or are these marriages in which there is abuse? If the couple are married, she has greater legal and financial resources and could just kick the guy out. She’d have some ownership of the house and can get some child support/alimony,…Why don’t women have the men arrested and kicked out in any case? Then the women can have the home.

          I can’t count the times I read stories of a small child killed by mom’s shack-up.

          • http://janalynmarie.blogspot.com/ Beadgirl

            “Why don’t women have the men arrested and kicked out in any case? Then the women can have the home.”

            Because sometimes the police don’t think domestic violence is a real problem. Or they decide to arrest both parents. Or the men come back after being released on bail, and are even angrier and more violent (the most dangerous time for a a victim of abuse is when he/she tries to leave the abuser). Or the men are the sole source of income, and the women have no other sources of support. Or the men have such a psychological hold on the women that they come to believe that they deserve the violence or no one will believe them or they will lose the house and/or the kids. Or the men get better lawyers and succeed in getting the house and/or the kids. Or the women can’t afford or don’t know how to get the legal help they will need with restraining orders, prosecution, lawsuits, divorce/separation, division of assets, and custody. Or the men, even if they are abusers, even if they are convicted, still have legal, custodial, and property rights.

            It is not at all easy to just kick an abuser out so you can have the home — legally, physically, or psychologically.

          • Marthe Lépine

            I don’t know what the laws in the various states in the US, or even in all Canadian provinces, but in Ontario, after 2 years of cohahbitation (and maybe this has been reduced to one year), a couple is considered as married and the woman has some more resources and/or rights. However I would not personally know how it works out.

          • cmfe

            Honestly, Peggy, divorcing an abuser is hell for women and children. Abusers are much more likely to sue for custody of the children and between 70% to 83% of the time depending on which studies you go by, the get it. Not to mention the number of women who get killed trying to leave. And those “shack-ups” who murder their kids? Fathers murder their children to punish women who leave. Read up.
            http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/dv.html

            http://www.ncdsv.org/publications_domhomicide.html

            • peggy

              My x relative divorced an abuser. That was 20 years ago. Not sure what laws are like today. One would think with no fault divorce, it should be easy. My y relative is having trouble completing divorce from crazy woman who walked out on him. (I don’t really want to id family on a blog. It’s their private business.)

      • Na

        Its revealing that you don’t see whether the poverty programs are actually effective as an issue.

        • chezami

          Funny story. The guy I quoted saying “A person is “homeless” in 2015—only if they prefer to get ripped roaring high everyday” insists the private charity is for “sappy sentimentalists” and that the homeless need to have their lazy drug addicted asses kicked into rehab programs. You know: the programs that need to be defunded so that private charity by sappy sentimentalist idiot can take up the slack. Message: why can the homeless simply die and help decrease the surplus population? For some reason, some of us prolifers don’t think that’s prolife.

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        I think we’re on board. I’m not advocating cutting what gets down to the poor, though I would like to cut the beuacracy and try to transition to charitable organizations if possible. I’m reacting to Shea’s claim that more money will help the situation.

    • jroberts548

      You’re making different arguments. U.S. government anti-poverty programs are horribly inefficient. That doesn’t mean they need to be cut; they need to be fixed. We have a bunch of programs that are enormously expensive to administer, create bizarre perverse incentives, and don’t help as many people as they should. That’s a real problem.

      In an ideal world, the people who want good governance and the people who care about homelessness and poverty would be the same people. Everyone would look at what we have now, scrap it completely, and adopt something like a reverse income tax or guaranteed minimum income, which wouldn’t cost more than our current welfare systems but would be much more effective. Oddly, one mostly hears about government waste, fraud, and inefficiency when talking about welfare programs, and not when talking about, for example, the F-35 boondoggle. (To be fair, I’m not saying you’re a hypocrite on this point, just that most pundits and politicians are.) The world would be a better place if everyone reacted the same way to military adventurism and other wasteful programs the same way you reacted to Shea’s suggestion to spend more on homelessness (e.g., “I guess we should just throw away even more money on ISIS”).

      • Na

        uhhmm…the people running the anti-poverty programs don’t want them fixed….they have permanent unemployment, top of the line retirement programs.

        • jroberts548

          That is true. That’s a collateral advantage to the reverse income tax. We already have the IRS infrastructure. It would cost very little to use that infrastructure to also administer a reverse income tax, and it would free up a lot of resources that are currently wasted on our present programs.

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        Fair enough. I wasn’t advocating cutting. I think we’re saying the same thing. I was reacting to Shea’s claim that more money will improve the situation.

        • ivan_the_mad

          I don’t see that claim anywhere in his post. He’s criticizing war spending and certain tax structures, and contrasting that with a failure to provide material relief to the homeless.

          • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

            Of course that’s what he’s claiming. He’s claiming that not enough is being spent on welfare. He’s claiming the war spending is not allowing more money to be spent on welfare. He’s linking war spending with internal poverty. Come on.

            • ivan_the_mad

              Those are your assumptions. There is no quotation from the post that supports them.

              Perhaps he is illustrating that as a society we value wealth and military power more than ensuring basic material needs are met.

              • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

                Are you saying that these are not Mark’s words: “Perhaps if we weren’t burning a trillion bucks on pointless wars we’d be able to help remedy this national obscenity.”
                That’s not even by implication. That’s a direct claim.

                • ivan_the_mad

                  Yes, that is a claim of Mark’s. But he doesn’t there say we should spend more money on welfare, which is your claim 😉

                  War spending is more than just abstract dollars on a spreadsheet. It is the very real time and energy of very real people. A reduction in war spending doesn’t necessarily produce an increase in social welfare budgets, but it does return time, money, and energy for individuals and both religious and social institutions to address social problems. This is obvious to me, but then I am a conservative.

                  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

                    LOL, one of us has a deficiency at reading comprehension. Mark was saying that war spending should be redirected toward housing the homeless.

  • Jared B.

    “So what you’re saying is, we should invade the Cayman Islands & Luxembourg…I like it!” – Neocon response

  • Andy

    We pretend to be the golden city on the hill – the city that all should aspire to be like and then we see these statistics – we are not the golden city on the hill – there is the golden city of the 1-2% with its gated community, while the rest of us try to get by. What a wonderful Christian nation we have become.

    • Dave G.

      True, but then compare it to much of the world then and now. I have friends from Africa who speak of praying for whoever will die in their churches by the end of the next week from disease and starvation. We have friends who help refugees from China who tell stories that would make your hair grow. As for Christian nation? Hardly. You say that and it’s a stampede of academics and pundits who assure it we are no such thing. In fact, many Christians insist we should never consider ourselves such. Not fair after all. Fine, you can’t have it both ways. We can’t say ‘no, never a “Christian” nation, and then turn around and use the term as a club to bludgeon the nation with. I agree with the points BTW, the rich get richer and the poor get more numerous. And after several generations, we’re rolling back many of the benefits that our nation was supposed to provide. But one thing that would help is keeping things in perspective. What the world looked like when this little experiment first started, and what is and isn’t good in the rest of the world at this very time.

      • Andy

        See above – reject the “marketing” of America – that was the thrust for my statement – I guess Iwasn’t clear.

        • Dave G.

          True. Again, through our years of struggle and scraping by, I remind my boys – with plenty of help from our old friends from other cultures – that we still live like kings and emperors to many in the world today. We forget just how bad it is. We had a priest from Nigeria last year who was an eye opener. He told us what it was like in that part of the world, what it was to live in a military dictatorship. And after having traveled, he said that his experiences were probably more common to more people in the world than our problems are. Compared to many in the world, we don’t have it nearly as bad. As a whole. I think we spend so much time focusing on the bad, we sometimes forget that. Perhaps because we don’t want to become that bad, and that’s a good idea. But if we imagine we’re already that bad, I wonder if we might end up in the old self-fulfilling prophecy group.

          • Andy

            I think we focus on the bad, or let me say I focus on the bad because of where I live – it is an incredibly bi-modal area — about 12% of the people live very well, about 60% of the folks are barely making it. It is a rural area with few social support services so I see in my work and through my wife’s work the devastation, by American standards that our current economic patterns have caused. It is my fear that if we do not address these economic patterns that we will move into a place where a more obvious dictatorship is present.
            I realize that our sense of what poverty is pales before the world, we have friends who have traveled and many of the students I work have gone on missionary trips to Africa and parts of Central America and Puerto RIco and Jamaica.

            • Dave G.

              I, too, worked with inner city missions and homeless shelters, and saw the brunt of what poverty could do. I think the concerns are justified. I also sometimes fear we focus so much on the bad, we might forget what worked. Not that nothing ever worked since there have always been poor. If that’s the case, nothing ever has or ever will work. But trying to find that balance, that help. And yet I also remember working with International Missions, and also hearing what people said about their lives and our lives. I remember some friends from Eastern Europe living in what we used to call the “Gospel Ghetto”. It was low income housing for seminary students. They just couldn’t get over how wonderful it was! They never had such a wonderful place to live. I remember hanging my head to hear them praise what we thought was such poor living.

    • AquinasMan

      As a member of the unwashed middle-middle class, I’m still living a level of comfort unheard of to previous generations. I don’t buy the “poor us” mentality of the middle class when there are so many impoverished. I really don’t have time to worry about the upper 2% when I already have much more than I need. Worst case scenario, I could lose my house and everything in it and still rent an apartment with central air conditioning, internet access, and a microwave. We need to be worried about how WE (in the middle class) are going to deal with OUR excess. That’s what gives me the shivers when I consider accountability before God … The 2% already have their reward. On the other hand, I might already have mine, too (if I’m not careful)

      • Andy

        I do worry about my excess – to that end my wife and I give much more than a tithe to various charities and the church as well as help our children go to college. Your worst case scenario does not meet the area where I live – there are few if any apartments and even fewer with central air and the like.
        My statement has much more to do with how we market the US – as the Golden City on the Hill where all can live well, that as America we exceptional – yet the reality is no we are not exceptional and no we are not the golden city not the hill. And I realize that by global standards what we see as poverty in the US pales before what the rest of the world sees as poverty.

        • AquinasMan

          True dat.

    • merkn

      Who is this “we” of which you speak? Sounds like you men “you”. This is not a Christian nation, and there is no Golden City. The “rest of us” is over 300 million American citizens who are free men and women who have the vote, so I am not to sue why we need shed any tears for them.

      • Andy

        One needs only to read the newspaper, to listen to many commentators and to listen to our political leaders to see that America is marketed as the Golden City on the Hill (R. Reagan’s phrase) and listen to many mouthpieces to hear how America was founded on Christian principles and still adheres to them.

        As far as “The “rest of us” is over 300 million American citizens who are free men and women who have the vote, so I am not to sue why we need shed any tears for them.” – I have no idea what you mean.

  • Na

    Pro-lifers please read this blog carefully. the bottom line is Mark (and the people in the hierarchy he is trying to carry favor with) just don’t like you. They don’t disagree with your ideas or perspectives…they just disagree with you. Could you ever imagine Mark writing a similar post on Homosexuals? You are an embarrassment. You are to blame for everything including corporate tax policy. This of course ignores the fact that most CEOs are ivy league elites who hate pro-lifers even more than Mark Shea does.

    btw…how could you call the US a pro-life culture with a straight face. Is this one of the new evangelization techniques you learned.

    • HornOrSilk

      Bottom line: you lied. Mark is pro-life.

      • Na

        As a Christian you might want to at least read my post before accusing me of a terrible sin. I never said Mark wasn’t pro-life. And besides, as Mark has emphasized many times “pro-life” is a word that should be used in quotations since so many define it to fit their convenience.

        • HornOrSilk

          You said he doesn’t like those who are pro-life. He is pro-life. you lied.

          • Na

            I don’t like you and I am Christian.

            • HornOrSilk

              You are confusing not liking a person, and not liking a category. You said he did not like a category which he is a part of.

              • Na

                pro-lifers are a group of people…if Mark can not like one person, he certainly can not like multiple people and while we can assume he likes himself..Churchill did say that a liberal is someone who is not willing to take their own side in an argument.

                • HornOrSilk

                  You said he doesn’t like the group which he is a part of, and you still show you lack honesty in the whole discussion. You make false accusations and then whine when I point out you lied. You lied, and you are just digging yourself deeper into the lie.

                  • Na

                    you are right. all pro-lifers are homogenous, agree on all things and constantly like each other.

                  • Na

                    Are my accusations any less reasonable than Mark’s?

            • Alma Peregrina

              “I don’t like you and I am Christian.”

              Please re read this statement. Again and again.

              Please find what’s wrong with it.

              Then reassess your assertion.

              Signed: A bad christian who likes you :-)

    • chezami

      No. The fact is I hate seeing children not have a home. So do lots of prolife people. But there are also lots of “prolife” people who think that, to quote one such person, “A person is “homeless” in 2015—only if they prefer to get ripped roaring high everyday.” Apparently on his planet homeless children do not exist, and no homeless person is schizophrenic or mentally ill or fleeing abuse. They are all vermin and parasites and are homeless because they want to be and therefore have it coming.

      • merkn

        Could you please identify the “anti bortion” but not pro life group that has called the homeless “vermine and parasites”? If there really is such a group or blog I certainly would prefer to have nothing to do with them. The “person” you are referring to appears to be referring to adults, not children. Perhaps it was rhetorical overstatement to make a point. I agree with you that overstatements like that are uncharitable and unhelpful. Not sure what any of this has to do with federal tax policy or wars. The problem predated 2000. Prps solving the intertwined homeless/drug abuse/mental illness domestic abuse issues are a little more complex than the seem.

      • Na

        I didn’t say it. The person I loved the most was homeless …he was even kicked out of a Catholic school.

        As far as schizophrenics and mentally ill…i completely agree it is crime that they are not given the care they need…but that wasn’t driven by corporate loop holes it was liberals in the 60s who believed each person has a fundamental right to their own perceptions and made it impossible to have someone involuntarily commiyted.

  • Thomas

    How about father’s staying home to raise these children? And if the govt. didnt spend the money on wars they would waste it on $600 hammers. Lots of children with well to do parents on heroin. Money doesn’t fix everything.

    • cmfe

      Fathers staying home is not a solution here. As per my comment farther down, the leading cause of homelessness for women and children is domestic abuse. These are not marriages that need to be saved. Very few abusers change. These are women and children that need support to get to safety. Money doesn’t fix everything, but it can cover bread and board.

      • Thomas

        Domestic abuse…men not acting like men. That’s my point. If the family isnt fixed NOTHING (spending money included) will fix whats wrong with society.

        • Thomas

          And money wont cover bread and board if corrupt politicians dole it out.

        • cmfe

          But we can triage in the meantime and alleviate much damage.

  • AquinasMan

    Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with what Mark posts, I enjoy these drive-by memes because it motivated me to research this issue for the sake of verifying or refuting my own perception on matters like this. The best cure for that initial irritation is to seek out the facts instead of generating a knee-jerk response.

    • Thomas

      Then there’s the knee jerk responses to “knee jerk responses.”

      • AquinasMan

        Jerk! 😉

        • Alma Peregrina

          Knee!

          Note: A “Knee!” jerk response
          Bah-dum-tsh!

    • Na

      so drive by memes are ok but drive by responses are not?

      Perhaps a better approach, that should be encouraged by the Church, would be for everyone to look critically at themselves especially those that are not inclined to do so because their suppositions and world views go unchallenged in politics or culture.

      Mark and the enlightened hierarchy approach is much different. Their approach is constantly to criticize the powerless minority that is constantly reproached and to “accompany” the powerful. Rather than speaking truth to power, they prefer to kick the imperfect struggling to be faithful. This is nothing new. Go read how good and decent people used to vilify the abolitionists.

      • AquinasMan

        Ironically, this helps me to look critically at myself. And if you read my post, you would understand that the search for truth has the power to strengthen my beliefs as well as challenge them. I’m not here to suck up to Mark or validate everything he posts. I don’t like the brick bat approach, but if all I did was “react”, I wouldn’t be bothered to verify if my opinion is correct, incorrect, or somewhere in between. And as far as I’m aware, we’re all imperfect and struggling to be faithful, otherwise, we’d spend all day on YouTube and internet gambling.

        Furthermore, there’s a rather large gap between “vilifying” pro-lifers and pointing out that maybe our heads have gotten a little thick and caused us to marry the unspeakable crime of abortion (per Francis) with an activism that laps the feet of politicians at the cost of others who are also suffering (poverty, oppression, etc.), when there must be room for BOTH. Instead we’ve become pro-lifers who demand one BUT NOT THE OTHER because that’s “liberal turf.”

        Both/and. It goes both ways. Catholic “liberals” who demand universal healthcare and then help usher in Obamacare are the other side of this coin. We can’t build a culture of life and ignore the dignity of the poor, anymore than we can build a culture of democratized health and prosperity on top of a heap of infant corpses. .

        • Na

          Glad it helps you…doesn’t do much for society though…in fact it merely reinforces the dominate liberal unquestioned stereotypes that religious people are unfeeling, selfish, hypocrites following small minded rules. Go re-read my post. I am all in favor of everyone taking a close hard look at themselves. But the key word is everyone. When it is never those in charge of the media, politics or public opinion, it is just propaganda.

          • AquinasMan

            How do you know Mark doesn’t struggle with his shortcomings? If we’re waiting for someone perfect to pick up the megaphone, we may as well shut down the Internet right now.

            And between you and me, society won’t be fixed until real hardship takes place, and even then, a moral renaissance may not come about. Francis called the Church a “field hospital”. I think he’s right about that. This is a rescue mission. This is triage. Help anyone you can find, whether they’re unborn or in some dark and dreadful corner of your community.

            I suggest reading “The Satirical Letters of St. Jerome”. He puts Mark Shea to shame in the department of acid-tongued tirades. The guy was arrogant enough to start a flame war with Saint Augustine, and ended up canonized anyway. Maybe in spite of his lousy manner, God worked through Jerome to do what He wanted. I’ll leave it up to God to determine if this blog is destroying the pro-life cause or just agitating us out of idolizing the only cause some of us are comfortable with pursuing.

            • Na

              I never commented on what Mark does or doesn’t struggle with. I did comment that his public blog only seeks to evangelize by insult one small group.

              In the 1850s some Americans argued that abolitionist were threatening the common good derived through union and should be more empathetic to the needs of the southern economy. While there may be some benefit associated with these two outcomes, southern sympathizers would take these arguments and vilify the abolitionist cause as extreme and unhinged. By your logic, this was all reasonable, prudent and pastoral because it included some element of truth.

              Once you combine this approach with persistent, ubiquitous media and political indoctrination, you have today’s situation.

              I think it would be more fruitful for you to meditate on whether there is any moral principal which requires people to dedicate their time and energy based on the seriousness and pervasiveness of the vice they seek to correct.

              • AquinasMan

                I think it would be more fruitful for you to meditate on whether there is any moral principal which requires people to dedicate their time and energy based on the seriousness and pervasiveness of the vice they seek to correct.

                Pride is the greatest vice. Therefore, if Mark posts something that I find personally insulting, well then … praise God.

                “Against you, you alone have I sinned …” (Ps 51:4)

                • Na

                  Does wonders for the unborn….

  • Jonk

    Huxley’s Brave New World solved that problem rather effectively, if I recall, by preventing any and all natural conception, the government growing everyone in vats, and controlling everyone’s life from conception to death. Real pro-life, that.

    Or we could recognize human problems, and look for human solutions. The problem is not with civic institutions. It’s with family and community institutions.

    • http://www.pavelspoetry.com/ Pavel Chichikov

      We won’t. On to the vats.

    • Alma Peregrina

      It is always either libertarianism or a stalinist dystopia with you, isn’t it?

      • Jonk

        Only when they do something Stalinist and dystopian like assume roles and responsibilities which are normally the duties of parents and families.

        I mean, it’s not like governments would go so far as to threaten to arrest parents for having the gall to let their children play unsupervised, or take custody of children for being homeschooled. And that’s with the government assuming responsibility for education. One can only imagine the inversion of authority in familial relationships if they assume responsibility for childrens’ living situations, too.

        • Alma Peregrina

          QED
          *sigh*

          • Jonk

            I guess when it comes to violating subsidiary roles, the end justifies the means, right?

      • Jonk
  • Robert A. Zimmerman

    Remember, corporate welfare is good but welfare for humans — always really bad.

  • Ye Olde Statistician

    Statistics of this sort should always be viewed skeptically, since there are great rewards to the propagators of them (in either direction). One must ask what is meant by “homeless.” Under the current definitions, it includes people staying with relatives; so for the first five years of my like I was one of those homeless children. We were living at my grandmother’s house while my father tried to pry his GI Bill money from the talons of the bureaucracy.

    That there are many categories of people counted as “homeless” does not mean there is no problem; but it can easily mean that there is no single problem. And that in turn means there is no single cause and no single solution.

    • ivan_the_mad

      As Russell Kirk writes, “Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be efficacious.”

    • http://www.pavelspoetry.com/ Pavel Chichikov

      DID YOU THINK?

      Ice rain, cold rain, winter rain

      Steady rain, white rain, clear rain

      Black rain, sleet rain

      It will freeze and will not thaw

      No salt will melt it, liquefy

      That slick hard surface

      This is not rain at all

      But the armor of the human heart

      Cold and impervious

      Or did you think that rain is only rain?

      Pavel

      January
      3, 2015

    • T

      Good thing those kids are lucky enough to have family and friends to stay with!

      • BHG

        Yes it is–because it is primarily a personal,not a governmental, responsibility to care for those in need.

  • Jassuz8

    Yes, yes…we welcome another year of ranting from Mr. Shea where you throw out nasty little pieces of propaganda against the “anti-abortion but not prolife American culture,” with whom you have a particular disdain. Let me ask you though…have you gotten even one homeless child off the streets with those insults? Have you raised even $1 for the homeless through those efforts? Have you pro-actively, and directly, worked to help the homeless? You waste a lot of breath, time and talent with angry accusations…but what does it amount to? Does it bear fruit? Pro-life efforts that are specifically against abortion have been largely successful in helping women and babies and they do a lot for the poor. They make a difference, and they should not change one thing that they are currently doing. You could do the same for every pro-life cause you are concerned about. You have both the talent, and the influence to make a real difference. Do you have the courage to really dedicate your efforts there? Very few people do (except on Thanksgiving and maybe Christmas). But, maybe, through all of this complaining you are accomplishing more than what it seems to me. The real tragedy is that, while you are hyper-focused on (supposedly) only the “hypocrites” in the bunch, you are missing out on your opportunity to celebrate and learn from the successes in the pro-life culture that is first and foremost focused on saving the innocent unborn. Demonstrate that you are pro-life in the manner you wish to see in others.

    • AquinasMan

      Everyone is susceptible to making an idol out of a good cause. There’s blame on all sides. If we campaign for politicians who will give lip service on ending Roe v. Wade on the on hand, while promoting the killing of innocent people with drone strikes on the other hand, we’re not really part of the solution, are we? If a bunch of nuns say it’s tolerable to have a universal requirement for health care insurance at the cost of heaping up more dead infants on the black altar of abortion, then they’re not part of the solution either. Ultimately, the question for you and I is what do we find so threatening about adding concern for the poor and marginalized to the “pro-life” definition? If you have a problem with that, then perhaps you have an idol to deal with. There’s a profound joy that comes with realizing we don’t have to be ONLY pro-life in the anti-abortion sense. We can be pro-life in every sense with God’s grace.

      • Andy

        Very well said!!

      • Jassuz8

        I have known pro-life people (and yes, I do mean those opposed to abortion) all of my life. Most of them were Catholic, and not one of them failed in their mutual concern for the poor. They consistently worked on fundraisers in the community, and for a variety of causes and concerns. Mark Shea throws a bunch of spin out there, and supposedly he is only concerned about the “anti-abortion” hypocrites, but he never specifically accuses anyone…never really details facts, with names and faces. His accusations are safely veiled and when called on it directly…well he knows that those of you who are GUILTY know who you are. So repent already and submit to the wisdom of the mighty Mark Shea. It’s propaganda and he appears to be deliberately trying to harm the success of the pro-life efforts which specifically oppose abortion. But, they are helping poor women and children…and yet he doesn’t focus any of his attention specifically on those pro-life (opposed to abortion) related efforts. And, just exactly how is Mark Shea helping women and the poor? Mark Shea should demonstrate that he is pro-life in the manner he wishes to see in others.

        • AquinasMan

          Just so you know, my salvation isn’t dependent on Mark Shea’s scoreboard of targeted groups. God isn’t going to meet me at judgment and say, “Well, I have you down for obstinate unrepentant spiritual pride — BUT — that Shea guy wasn’t fair and square about who he offended, so, whatevs.”

          Know what I mean? Don’t get hung up on internecine squabbles. He pisses you off? So what? Maybe I *am* a hypocrite and this is the way God is getting through to my thick skull. Maybe one of his intemperate posts will save your soul. Don’t get hung up on the scoreboard and pay attention to what a post like this is doing to you spiritually. Keep doing good and don’t forget that every single one of us is sloppy stupid when it comes to thinking we’ve got all the answers.

          meanwhile:

          “Ask not for whom the Shea rants. He rants for thee.”

          • Jassuz8

            Well, with all of that said…let’s join his efforts and help him with his own hypocrisy. And, at the same time, encourage him to get off his duff and do something proactively about all of those pro-life causes to which he says he is passionately (faithfully) dedicated. Let’s encourage him to demonstrate that he is pro-life in the manner he wishes to see in others. Show us…tell the story…and offer something that people can, should, and will follow. That would be truly pro-life.

            • chezami

              Why do you suppose I am not?

              Do be aware, I’m not saying prolifers have to do everything at once. if you are involved in prolife work I get that you might not have time to do stuff with homeless people and vice versa. It the prolife people who care time out of their busy schedule to make sure to diss homeless people and those who help them or who find time and energy to labor to justify unjust war, torture and the death penalty that I say are not prolife but merely anti-abortion.

              • Jassuz8

                Then why not simply target those “who care time out of their busy schedule to make sure to diss homeless people and those who help them or who find time and energy to labor to justify unjust war, torture and the death penalty” and forget about the “pro-life” label altogether? Why not focus on each issue? Every one of those issues can and should be addressed and you should definitely advocate for them. Yet, you seem far more concerned with “dissing” those arbitrary people you deem to be “prolife but merely anti-abortion.” The issue you seem to be the most concerned with is your judgment of those (conveniently arbitrary) people….and you also seem to have an obsession with the “pro-life” label (and yes, I mean pro-life as in opposed to abortion) that suggests you have an issue with their success somehow. Yet, they do a lot to help poor women and children – even the hypocrites help with that. You could actually do what you say you wish others would do. Is your goal to zero in on any and all hypocrites, or to actually do something proactively to help those causes?

                • Marthe Lépine

                  It sounds like you precisely choose to read those of Mark’s article that contain material you want to criticize. Otherwise you should know that he also, in other posts, criticizes those ” who care time out of their busy schedule to make sure to diss homeless
                  people and those who help them or who find time and energy to labor to
                  justify unjust war, torture and the death penalty”, and it is a fact that, unfortunately, there are people who claim to be pro-life but at the same time, do express condemning attitudes towards the homeless and are advocating for war, torture and the death penalty, a fact that Mark is perfectly entitled to comment on..

                  • Jassuz8

                    He can say whatever he wants – and by all means, he should (free speech). But, I’m free to comment as well (as long as I behave as though I’m in his living room). I think that he should respond directly to the comments/commenters which you describe. I have yet to see one here…so I can’t see or know to whom you specifically refer. Mark doesn’t address specific people…he only speaks in generalities He has made a whole new issue, all his own, regarding those (arbitrary) “people who claim to be pro-life but at the same time, do express condemning attitudes towards the homeless and are advocating for war, torture and the death penalty.” That IS his issue – not the homeless – just the hypocrites.

                • chezami

                  I did. That’s why I specified “anti-abortion-but-not-pro-life” and not simply “prolife”. Why do you insist on applying things to yourself if they do not apply?

                  • Jassuz8

                    I apply it to “pro-life.” You seem to believe that you are somehow different from the pro-choice crowd in your objections to the hypocrisy of those who are “merely anti-abortion”…but you chant the same rhetoric in your articles/posts. You are actively working against the success of the pro-life (opposed to abortion) organizations because you never identify who it is specifically you are accusing of being “anti-abortion but not pro-life.” You are broken record and you only have one message. Honestly, if you are really that concerned or offended by hypocrisy, then you would focus your articles on yourself – we’re all hypocrites. You could really do a lot of good if you focused and worked on the causes you are concerned with, and yet you choose instead to focus on maligning a general population of people who “self-identify as pro-life.” With this article above, you used the plight of homeless people so that you could – once again – malign “those” people you have an issue with. As though THAT is something newsworthy – it’s a waste of the talent that God has given to you. What are doing is unfair to the homeless…they could care less about people who are “anti-abortion-but-not-pro-life.” In that, you failed to feed them, house them or help them.

                    • chezami

                      I identify the conservatives, Republicans, white Evangelicals, and White Catholics whom polls show lead the charge in eager defense of torture as anti-abortion but not prolife. I identify zealous proponent of the Iraq War who still admit no error as anti-abortion but not prolife. I identify conservatives who want to cap benefits for poor families with “too many” children as anti-abortion but not prolife. I identify conservatives who absolutely refuse to consider one single solitary change to our gun regim as anti-abortion but not prolife. I identify conservatives who eager support and wish to expand infliction of the death penalty as anti-abortion but not prolife. It is absolutely idiotic for you to claim that I am working against the success of the prolife movement when I am saying I want the prolife movement to be fully prolife. It is the classic strategy of using the unborn as human shields in pursuit of the various anti-life commitments of the conservative who is anti-abortion but not prolife. There are consistent prolife people. May their tribe increase: http://www.lifemattersjournal.org/

                    • Jassuz8

                      It is classic of Mark Shea to use the homeless – rather than help them – to claim the hypocrisy of another. You are still speaking in generalities – the poll said thus…so and so in a previous comment far far away admit no error. You don’t need any of that to argue for the causes you are concerned about. You don’t need to have an opponent to be a proponent for your concerns. Look at how much time you just spent listing the reasons you take issue with “those” people. But you didn’t state even one argument for your cause. Nearly everything you do is to spew against your perceived (very nonspecific) opponents. Name those people. Name them, and stop referring to them as someone “in general” or from a poll. It can’t be that hard. The pro-life organizations (opposed to abortion) work on teaching, praying, advising, changing, and shutting down the clinics! It is only action which makes the difference. Make that difference and call yourself whatever you want. By attacking – in general – the pro-life label (or those who self-identify with it only as it relates to abortion) you are fighting the same people using the same rhetoric as the pro-choice crowd. You are helping their cause in the name of the Catholic faith.

                    • Peggy

                      I am trying to quantify all of those people he is judging and condemning.

                    • Dave G.

                      It’s worth noting that some might consider those who falsely accuse and call people Raca and Fool are also not consistently pro-life. Since I have it on good authority that physically killing is simply the end result of the spiritual problem that has to occur to get there in the first place.

                    • chezami

                      You realize, don’t you, that it is you who are demanding that I attack persons and not ideas? It’s not complicated. If a person opposes abortion and supports torture, they are not consistently prolife. The point is the idea, not “naming names” and attack personalities. Many “prolife” people do in fact do this. The poiint is to stop doing that, not to launch a witch hunt against persons.

              • Jassuz8

                And I should say that I personally have no problem with you or anyone else suggesting that there are other “pro-life” concerns in addition to abortion. But, the “pro-life” label was established specifically in response to the need to fight against the evil that is abortion, and it is the most loving response to the absurdity otherwise known as “pro-choice.” Pro-life IS anti-choice, anti-abortion, anti-the killing of innocent babies…and it has stood on it’s own since the beginning. The organizations who have always called themselves pro-life specifically because they are solely dedicated to preventing abortion should not change their label, nor their efforts. And I don’t care which ones are hypocrites and which ones are not. You don’t need the hypocrites to fight against abortion or any other cause. It is the sincere folks who truly make the difference in the end. And the pro-life organizations (opposed to abortion) do help poor women and children. But maybe you know better than me…maybe identifying hypocrites is a better use of time and energy.

      • Na

        Jass is right and you made his point. Why is that Mark thinks that pro-lifers and ONLY pro-lifers consider concern for the poor threatening. Why is it that only these two ideas that are conflict.

        Also you keep conflating a general moral principal with absolute unquestioned assent to a particular case. There could be a thousand reasons why “closing loop holes” either can’t, won’t, or shouldn’t be used to solve homelessness.

        St Paul said he was called to be all things to all. Today’s pastoral call is merely to be all things to some. In reality, since the some are never called to life, the more accurate description should be “somethings to some”.

        • AquinasMan

          “Jass is right and you made his point. Why is that Mark thinks that pro-lifers and ONLY pro-lifers consider concern for the poor threatening. Why is it that only these two ideas that are conflict.”

          So you’re just upset he’s not picking on everyone, only pro-lifers? Smells like pride.

          Today’s pastoral call is merely to be all things to some.

          Is that preventing *you* from being all things to all people? If it isn’t, where’s the beef?

          There could be a thousand reasons why “closing loop holes” either can’t, won’t, or shouldn’t be used to solve homelessness.

          Sure, I agree. Homelessness has been undefeated for about 6000 years or so. I don’t suspect we’ll ever find a comprehensive solution but it would be incredibly naive to ignore that, ironically, while we don’t advocate for the poor, the government will come up with their own solution of visiting upon them compulsive sterilization, free abortifacients, free abortions, and other things that are directly linked to the pro-life cause.

          • Na

            So you’re just upset he’s not picking on everyone, only pro-lifers? Smells like pride.

            ….Nope not pride….i have no problem calling myself into account….except when it is only I that am called into account perpetually…..again…your approach is merely being some things to some. It is antithetical to the Gospel and leaves the prideful living in darkness.

            • AquinasMan

              i have no problem calling myself into account

              Well that’s convenient.

              except when it is only I that am called into account perpetually

              Me, me, me.

              again…your approach is merely being some things to some.

              I understand. You just want a pat on the back.

              Job: Why me?

              God: Why *not* you?

              • Na

                No pat on the back…not about me….I don’t even attend mass…so i am not trying to score points with anyone…you are the follower of Aquinas…there is no principal that requires Christian witness in the public square to be determined by a pastoral assessment of the gravity of any offenses, misconceptions of the people and the consequences of action.

                • Marthe Lépine

                  So, you don’t even attend mass. So, why are you here commenting about Mark’s opinions? Claiming that he singles out one particular group while ignoring others. Actually, it might be right that one should be everything to everyone, but in practice, while writing a post, it is very difficult to say everything to everyone AT THE SAME TIME…Actually, you sound more and more like a troll, wasting everyone’s time.

          • chezami

            I don’t think that. There are lots of abortion-loving Rand worshippers who treat the poor with contempt too. But I don’t really expect people who worship selfishness to be moved by appeals to a consistent prolife ethic. I expect people who claim to be prolife to be moved by appeals to a consistent prolife ethic.

    • Marthe Lépine

      Do you mean to say that over a million abortions a year in your country is success? Try harder!

      • Jassuz8

        We’re making progrees…and continuing to work on it. Father Pavone’s number one technique is prayer – and he has touched so many women and children (and men!).

        “The Freedom of Choice Act failed – the bill never came up for a vote.

        Then, Big Abortion saw what it called a “tidal wave of new laws” – nearly 300 new state laws to outlaw or restrict abortion. Although Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights have done their worst to try to get these overturned by the courts, the end of the year came with a bang as the Supreme Court denied their request to put a stop to a Texas law that has already shuttered fourteen abortion mills.”

        For the whole year, over eighty abortion mills around the country closed their doors forever.

        The Centers for Disease Control just announced that abortions have dropped almost continuously since 1980, and we’ve seen a 16% drop in the abortion rate in just four years. By this time next year, we expect to see as much as a 20% drop in abortion, or two hundred thousand lives saved.”

        We’ve definitely made progress!
        http://www.lifenews.com/2014/01/31/pro-life-movement-has-been-successful-despite-the-obama-administration/

  • Elmwood

    probably the biggest challenge to homelessness is the lack of jobs paying a living wage. i know that if my job went away, i would be in deep doo-doo because my skill set is not very marketable depending on the price of crude oil.

    it’s not like one can easily find a job that will cover rent and food for a large family.

    • D.T. McCameron

      I once read something stating that if IPhone were made in the U.S., they would cost something over two thousand dollars, rather than…well, whatever they do now, being largely made with what’s little better than slave labor.

      So if we were to have actual living wages, the costs of commodities and such would likely go up with them. Perhaps to the point where they’d beyond the grasp of most. But I suppose we might chalk that purchasing power up to the immoral exploitation of the poor.

      And then I wonder if the Athenians, told that they would be deprived of their luxuries, would be willing to release their slaves.

  • niknac

    A sad state of affairs. Still I am surprised the number is that low. I guess there is a bright side to everything. Kind of.

  • Peggy

    Homelessness is a problem. It is not caused by public spending on wars, however much one may disagree with such expenditures. We need a more lively business environment and less regulation on firms–qua employers in particular. Obamacare is a great burden for employers, for example.

    • Marthe Lépine

      Do you mean – less regulation on minimum wage and workplace safety, for example? However, if a worker cannot afford housing with the wage she or he gets, that person will still be homeless…

      • Peggy

        Marthe, let us not assume the worst. Truly, I am not a min wage fan, but it would be hard to drop. I’d suggest taxation and most fiscal costs. Of course, workers should have a safe environment, but if some regs are unreasonable and not necessary, why not ditch them. I do not mean to do w/o thought. Have a debate, then decide. The Ocare rules are particularly terrible to employment and income for AMericans at all skill levels. There’s a good USA Today article about how the working/middle class are now shunning medical services b/c of cost changes from Ocare, while poor get it all paid and are enjoying more med services. Nice.

        Mark needs to understand why the unjust things he sees occur. Corporations keeping revenue overseas to avoid a high US tax is a message that the US tax rate is too high vis a vis other nations. So, DC should take note.

        I am skeptical of the high figures of homelessness and all that frankly. I think the real problems with the lower income groups are unwed births (unmarried sex and cohabitation), plus drugs/alcohol and..I’m going to add a new one I hear about in middle class homes too..Video Games. Small boys to middle aged men. This is a fixation. There’s a slothfulness going on here. The lower classes need to be evangelized for at least the positive effects of living a moral life, even if they dont’ care for their souls.

        • jroberts548

          True. And a plus side to homelessness is that it’s awfully hard to cohabit or play video games without a home! It’s not cohabitation when it’s under a bridge! And even if homeless people had a playstation, what are they going to do? Plug it into a cardboard box?

          • Peggy

            Ha1 Ha!

            So funny I forgot to laugh.

            • jroberts548

              Fair enough. Nothing I could say can compare to the sublime satire of “The lower classes need to be evangelized for at least the positive effects of living a moral life, even if they dont’ care for their souls.” I initially thought you were a little over the top – no one is really that insane and heartless – but on second reading, it’s a pretty spot on caricature of a deranged pseudo-conservative.

              ETA: The weird thing is you were making a basically sound point. The high costs of over-regulation do contribute to homelessness, and a more efficient regulatory state that restricted itself to only fixing real market failures would be great. You buried that point in a bizarre non-sequitur about video games and cohabitation, as well as a patently false claim that poor people somehow have better healthcare in America than middle class people and that Obamacare is the reason healthcare is so expensive for middle class people (the PPACA merely failed to fix the high cost of American healthcare, which was and remains absurdly expensive relative to healthcare in any other OECD country). It’s like a box of chocolates where all but one piece is full of coconut.

              • Peggy

                Mark is trying to connect unrelated dots in his post.

                I did make several points in a single combox post, tis true.

                First, I explained (1) why businesses are keeping money abroad and (2) why they are not hiring these days. People w/o jobs usually have a hard time paying mortgages or rent, you know. A record # of people are out of the job market today. I’m sure they’re not all stay home moms or of the leisure class.
                http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

                USA Today: Obamacare helps the poor who are getting a free ride, but hurting the middle class who are paying the bills:
                http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/01/middle-class-workers-struggle-to-pay-for-care-despite-insurance/19841235/

                I really don’t believe homelessness is that bad. I find it incredible. As some one posted below, relatives are banding together. Do we deplore that today when it was once a common thing, a good thing? It is good that people are finding ways to solve their own problems, frankly. We should help those in need, but we should also have the fortitude and character to make an effort address our own problems as much as we can.

                Also, some one posted below that much homelessness is women and their children fleeing abusers. If that is the case, we need to do more about drugs/alcohol and, yes, video games. Read “Falling Apart” by Charles Murray and learn how the lower incomes are not marrying, and men not working. He cited the new phenomenon of video games in addition to drugs and alcohol. My own anecdotal observation is that shack up boyfriends who are not the father of the children in their homes tend to be abusers or even killers of said children.

                • jroberts548

                  The link you provided doesn’t say that people with medicaid are getting better care now than people with private insurance, or that this is a change associated with the PPACA. Maybe you mistakenly linked to the wrong article.

                  The current labor participation rate is a problem. That was the chocolate nougat inexplicably surrounded by coconut.

                  I couldn’t find Falling Apart by Charles Murray. Did you mean Coming Apart: The State of White America? I’m not going to spend any money or time to read a book that tells me right off the bat it’s probably racist. Is there a brief essay version that I can read? Not only that, I don’t care about white homelessness or video game playing more than homelessness or video game playing generally.

                  I agree that the marriage rate among the poor is a problem. This isn’t because the poor are uniquely wicked or incapable of controlling their lust – it’s not like the poor have more premarital sex than the rich. There’s a reason that the poor get married less than the rich, and the biggest reason is economics – it’s perverse, but the government pays poor couples not to get married. Poverty puts stress on marriages, which, again, is perverse, as marriage is one of the best ways out of poverty. Because I’ve actually known a lot of poor people and a lot of rich people, I’m not enough of an insane moron to stupidly insist that the poor are somehow morally deficient to the rich, and that’s why they’re not getting married. The marriage rate for the poor is a largely economic problem, one that we could fix.

                  Drugs and alcohol are a problem for the poor. They’re a problem for everyone. The big difference is that if you’re rich and you get caught by a cop with drugs or an alcohol-related offense, you can get out of it. If you’re rich and you get addicted, someone’s going to pay for rehab. These are mostly structural, economic, fixable problems.

                  I have literally no idea what makes you think video games are a major social problem. Are there people who spend too much time playing video games? Yes. There are people who are overly obsessed with any pastime. Is there any evidence at all that it’s a significant social problem? Nope.

                  • Peggy

                    Yes, the article is about Obamacare. The media are claiming it’s not. WHy do you think premiums, copays, and deductibles are up? We’re paying for the poor people now.

                    Sorry, Coming Apart is about white people. Read Murray’s sites for details. It is chock full of stats and studies about marriage, unwed births, labor participation by men in particular, religiosity, etc. Lower income white no longer are religious, no longer marry, no longer are industrious. Not sure why. Maybe the welfare state contributed to such changes….

                    • Peggy

                      Further, many boys and young men are addicted to video games in a serious way. A social researcher Murray cites listed that among the things that the young men are doing instead of working, raising families…

                    • Peggy

                      One more PS related to Obamacare issues I mentioned. Working people’s benefits are reduced while costs have gone up, also b/c a better package of bennies faces higher taxes from the feds, the “Cadillac tax” under Ocare law. The unions were pretty unhappy about that bit. How nice, eh?

                    • Peggy

                      I am not alone in wondering of many men’s addiction to video games. They are very fantasy based and mostly war oriented.

                      https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A0LEVv1RW6tUzj0ASuIPxQt.;_ylc=X1MDMjExNDcwMDU1OQRfcgMyBGZyA3locy1tb3ppbGxhLTAwMQRncHJpZANKZVpVZG5BOFROaVNMM0dmbnhFcFNBBG5fcnNsdAMwBG5fc3VnZwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tBHBvcwMwBHBxc3RyAwRwcXN0cmwDBHFzdHJsAzI4BHF1ZXJ5A21lbiBhZGRpY3RlZCB0byB2aWRlbyBnYW1lcy4EdF9zdG1wAzE0MjA1MTYxODc-?p=men+addicted+to+video+games.&fr2=sb-top-search&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

                      Look. I’m not going to die on this hill, as it is not the central argument, but it is a factor. Women notice it.

                    • jroberts548

                      Unlike games of previous generations. Instead of war oriented video games, people should stick to domestic-oriented tin soldiers, domestic ships in bottles, etc.

                      You’re inventing a problem out of whole cloth.

                    • Peggy

                      If you don’t play them, or don’t know people who do, then you don’t get it. Ask some women you know if their husbands boys play Call of Duty or Halo, etc. Ask some male colleagues if they do. How long/often.

                    • jroberts548

                      I do play video games. Every guy I know plays video games. Based on anecdotal evidence, I think probably every lawyer and every soldier in the country plays video games in their spare time. Miraculously, lawsuits still get filed and China hasn’t invaded us.

                      I’ve known a ton of people who play video games. I’ve known exactly one who ever let it seriously interfere with school or other obligations, and he let virtually everything interfere with school.

                    • peggy

                      Marthe’s offered some examples. I don’t know of any one who lost a job, marriage or failed in school b/c of games. I have been amazed at the hours/money men and boys put into the games. I have seen some not come to dinner etc. Men in extended family and neighbors as well. The war games are very graphic, bloody and violent and full of vulgar language. Not like playing tin soldiers or bucket of plastic soldiers.

                      I don’t know that many stats are out on this yet, really.

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      There isn’t an activity out there that someone hasn’t gone overboard on and created a new pathology for the DSM. In religious terms, it all seems to boil down to variations of gluttony.

                      That being said, video games have been studied for some time and don’t seem to be an outsized problem.

                    • Joseph

                      Man/men/boys… wow. We get it. You’re one of *those* women. I’m a man who is fond of video game playing. I play games after spending time with the kids, then the wife after they go to bed… maybe an hour or two every other night. I could get real things done in that time, read a book, learn a language… but I like playing video games. To be honest, I’d rather play video games on Friday or Saturday night than go out to a pub and drop €60 – 70, eat a large taco fry, and suffer from a hangover the next day inhibiting my ability to enjoy time with my children.
                      .
                      Video games is not a gender issue. In case you haven’t noticed, women play them too. In fact there is a large market for women gamers. Aside from that, I’ve only seen one person, a former colleague of mine, who ruined his marriage because of his addiction to online video games. But, I have a feeling that if it wasn’t video games, it’d be something else.
                      .
                      Marriages fall apart because there is commitment problem. Drugs, alcohol, video games, gambling, etc. are only symptoms of that.

                    • Peggy

                      “Marriages fall apart because there is commitment problem. Drugs,
                      alcohol, video games, gambling, etc. are only symptoms of that.”

                      Of course these “addictions” are symptoms of living problems.

                    • Peggy

                      Gentlemen:

                      I am not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I just heard this report on a news update. Video gaming is now a sport/program at a KY college. I wonder if it’s intramural or if there are intercollegiate competitions. Which other schools will join? There may be a way forward for addicted gamers! What a hoot!

                      http://www.foxsports.com/other/story/good-news-for-gamers-video-scholarships-at-kentucky-college-010615

                    • AquinasMan

                      Hey, someone needs to pilot those drones. I wonder if the CIA canvasses these events for recruits.

                      Moreover, I understand they draw quite the spectator population at these competitions.

                    • Peggy

                      Good thinking! ;^D

                    • Joseph

                      In all seriousness… they do. LOL. It’s usually gamers that get picked during enlistment to control the drones/RC weaponry and surveillance devices.
                      .
                      But, then again, the government actually uses bloggers as a means to disseminate propaganda via alternative media (even Mark admitted to being contacted by the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq War).

                    • Joseph

                      Newsflash… Chess is also a competitive *sport* (in the sense that there are tournaments where people sit on their asses all day long and play the game until a winner is determined), so is darts, and now even cards is considered a *sport*. It’s only natural that competitive gaming results in gaming competitions for “sport”… derp. So what? It may not seem like it to you in your anti-man stance (surely, by your tone, if it weren’t *video games* you’d be complaining about some other activity that men like to do that bothers you because you’d rather have them scrubbing the mildew from the shower with a toothbrush instead) but it does require a certain level of skill to play video games. For example, no matter how hard I try, I cannot beat my little cousin at FIFA 15. Even when he plays with Stoke City and I play with Barcelona. Why? Because he’s clearly got a greater grasp of the controls, his eye-hand coordination is better, and he can make decisions faster than I can… sounds like competition, eh? The same skillset is required to race cars. It’s so hard to comprehend that you find it difficult to understand that something competitive might turn into an actual competition!
                      .
                      I’m sure glad my wife has never complained about my gaming, though I am obviously conservative with my game playing and never let it get in the way of family life. I’m also glad as hell that I’m not married to you, frankly. You sound like a slave-driving, man-hating, micro-managing nag.

                    • Peggy

                      Wow. You think I’m some idiot feminist, anti-man person? I like men and work in a male-dominated field. I am not into the constant complaining about men and their habits. I am discussing the merits, or lack thereof, of the many hours that, it appears mostly males, put into video gaming. A little defensive, are you?

                      I’d like to hire a housekeeper to scrub my showers, yes. I despise cleaning my bathrooms. But that’s beside the point. Are you volunteering? I will hire a man or woman. No preference to me.

                    • Joseph

                      No. Personally, from your comments, I think you are a wife with a passive aggressive nature that has a subconscious animus to what your husband and boys like to do. It irritates you so you seek out other women who have similar complaints and out comes the broad brush where games are annoying man things that must be abolished. Based on your comments, you strike me as one of those naggy women who thinks men and boys are lazy underachievers. You even mentioned that games get in the way of *cutting the grass*. That’s anecdotal, I’m guessing… and it’s a public complaint about your husband… which shows your passive aggressive nature.
                      .
                      The truth of the matter is this, a passive aggressive wife will never be content with the level of industriousness of their husband or male children… not unless they can control everything that they do and they do it according to every last whim. Your comments embody what I’ve seen myself before (not in my life though). By complaining that video games becoming a means of public competition (which is normal for any competitive skill), you actually show how your anger towards them clouds your reason.
                      .
                      I don’t think you’re a feminist. I think you’re a passive aggressive, naggy, married malcontent and I can tell you that if you continue down that path, it’s going to harm your marriage. You don’t need to *encourage* your husband’s gameplay, but you also don’t need to be a nasty hag about it. It’s also insulting when you use comments such as “women notice”, as if all women frown on video game playing with a dripping disdain. You should rephrase that to “women like me notice”. I’m happily married, I get my sh*t done, I’ve been successful in life, my kids love me, my wife loves me… thanks be to God for all of it.
                      .
                      I bet your husband works, correct? Is there something you aren’t happy about? Is he not ambitious enough? Do you not think he makes enough money? What is the real problem that is causing you to latch onto his video game habit that you hate so much. If it were the time before video games, you’d probably be complaining that he plays cards too much with his friends in the basement.

                    • Joseph

                      I also think you’re needy. You simply can’t stand the fact that your husband and boys engage in an activity that excludes you from the picture. You can help manage this situation *with* your husband if you approach it correctly and get over yourself in the process. First, you’re going to have to drop the feeling that you are somehow superior to them and that you need to control what they do. Next, you can quietly and *lovingly* sit down with your husband and explain your feelings without letting your seething disdain for the activity he enjoys so much and offer alternatives (why don’t you offer playing cards with him, watching movies, building jigsaw puzzles, etc.). Then reel in the kids. No gaming on the weekdays at all. Only Saturday mornings after they make their beds, get dressed and clean up… Sundays after Mass if you plan on doing some housework or something *with* the husband. Ask him if he minds limiting his gameplay to the time after the kids have gone to bed and you’ve had time to spend with him. If you complain about anything like you’re doing in this comment box, you can forget about it… you’ll never get a handle on the situation.
                      .
                      If you continue to wish that you married a more ambitious man who didn’t enjoy this immature activity, you’re only harming yourself. You have to love him and not try to *change* him. Overall, gaming is harmless. With love and respect you can turn things around, but if you’re a nag you’re not going to see any improvement.

                    • Peggy

                      Holy smoke. Thanks for the psycho analysis and marriage therapy. My husband dutifully cuts the lawn. He’s rather anal about it, in fact. I read books and enjoy it. I am rather an introvert myself, as is my husband. We generally do our own thing–within appropriate bounds of course! I do not require the gushy stuff I’ve heard some women complain about not getting from their husbands. I’ve heard some of these to be causes of divorce amazingly. I roll my eyes at needy women.

                      I’m not going to give you the run down of my home life, but you would be wrong to assume the many things you do, such as whether there are conditions on any children’s time of video gaming. There are. You haven’t asked about daughters. The noise of video games is annoying, I’ll grant.

                      We do lots of things as a family: movies (some we all go, some I go, some dad goes–different tastes), ice skating, baseball–MLB team and little league take up our spring and summer. The kids play with our dog, ping pong, action figures, dolls, or outside with other kids when whether permits. They love to swim. (It’s brutal today!)

                      This was not an issue I have been willing to take to the bank, but the blowback has been rather amusing.

                      My big resentment in life is cleaning bathrooms, however. You did hit the nail on the head there, I admit. I used to have a housekeeper and I miss it deeply.

                    • peggy

                      P.S. Gotta go, but my own experience video games:
                      –Wii= fun, brings family & friends together. Good competition; Mario games. I’m good at bowling in particular. Geared toward younger kids, but older kids still like.
                      -FIFA, MLB, NHL, NFL, WWE are fun. One kid has some pretty wild WWE battles. Neighbors kids fill our house to play these or Wii games. Some one has to lose, however, and siblings can fight about that.
                      –I have seen war games that are often very graphic and violent with objectionable language as well. Not good for kids; not sure why adults should play them either. But that’s my opinion.

                    • Joseph

                      Ah, OK. I was a bit rough. Forgive me. But the *evil* video game argument annoys me sometimes because they never prevented me from getting things done and staying active (at least out of high school) and I didn’t think your arguments were cogent. Anyway, for what it’s worth, I clean the bathrooms in my house at least 50% of the time. :) My wife prefers when I do it because I’m pretty thorough and she knows she won’t have to touch them for another few weeks afterwards so long as we get the kids to actually flush the toilets. I used to be a bar/restaurant manager so cleaning surfaces to perfection is sort of something I’m good at and my wife takes full advantage of me. I brought up the shower tile mildew example because it’s the job I hate the most (that and scrubbing toilets and the oven), so I imagine men who don’t voluntarily take that challenge probably hate it.

                    • Peggy

                      Ah, we have something in common, the dreaded bathroom cleaning. And getting the kids to flush. Sounds familiar. I sure use those bleach wipes in between to keep it manageable. We used the self-cleaning for the first time on the oven this fall. Wow! Amazing results. I used to clean ovens nightly in fast food. Right up my alley. i could never get it as well.

                      Really, the only games I personally don’t like are the war & killing games. I think the story-theme games tend to occupy gamers a long time too. They tend go on and on….I’m not as aware of those in much detail, though.

                      The sports games are a different matter. They are wholesome and fun; good activities w/family and friends; and they are finite events too.

                      Hey, I did the clingy thing in some dating experiences in my youth and was quite mortified by myself in my post-mortem self-analysis. I can’t be that kind of woman. I have to stand on my own two feet.

                    • Peggy

                      P.S. I keep forgetting to mention the ubiquitous fun creative, merchandising MINECRAFT. Kids from K-12 and above and below i am sure, love and play that game. The licensed items are pretty expensive, however. Amazon prices aren’t too bad.

                    • Marthe Lépine

                      Come on, this is getting out of hand. The subject of the post is homelessness, not discussing each other’s family life… Please get off Peggy’s virtual throat.

                    • Joseph

                      Fine. It just bugs me when the *evil* video games argument comes out (I think it was Peggy who somehow drifted off topic in the first place), especially when it’s attributed to a stupid man thing. I don’t disagree that gaming can get out of hand and become a dangerous addiction like anything else, but Peggy’s argumentation was flawed and personal and she painted in broad strokes… so, I thought I’d pipe in… probably unnecessarily.

                    • Marthe Lépine

                      Just from the people around me, I have also found that video games can become a serious problem. One friend’s son kept losing jobs because he was too often calling to claim he was sick, while the reason was that he had spent all night playing a game. Another woman’s husband disappeared into the basement to play video games the minute he got home from work and just emerged for food; they eventually broke up. These are only 2 examples, but since I don’t know a lot of people, it makes me assume that those women are not alone to have such problems.

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      You might want to leaven your Murray with a bit of Dr. Helen

                      http://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood/dp/1594037620

                    • Peggy

                      Yes. I’ve heard of that book. I read Murray not too long ago. He also claims that men are bagging out on marriage. That is, it is the men choosing NOT to marry.

                      Thank you for your gentlemanly conduct as well. We need more of that.

                    • jroberts548

                      I agree the welfare state contributed to such changes, e.g., by paying poor people not to get married.

                      You said the poor are now getting better healthcare than those with private insurance. The fact that premiums, co-pays, deductibles etc. continued to rice under the PPACA doesn’t mean the poor are getting better healthcare than people with private insurance. The PPACA is a terrible law. It’s a terrible law because it fails to fix any of the problems with American health care. Prior to passing the PPACA, we had the most expensive, least effective system in the world. After the PPACA, we still have the most expensive, least effective system in the world. It’s not a terrible law because it has a whole bunch of collateral effects that you pretend exist in USA Today articles.

                      I’m not digging through an apparent white supremacist’s website for statistics. If you have statistics to support your obvious lies, you should share them, rather than expecting me to dig through Murray’s website. I’m not saying anything on his website is necessarily false; I’m saying I’m not going to sort through all the chaff to try to figure out what you imagine supports your positions. Telling me it’s somewhere on some website does literally no good. It’s not meaningfully different than making an unsupported assertion. I could tell you there’s a website quoting a social researcher who says that video games have made the world a better place in every possible way – you would be a moron to accept that claim. Likewise, I’m not going to take “A social researcher Murray cites…” seriously.

                    • Peggy

                      The general gist of “coming Apart” is that people are separated by their cognitive abilities. The educated successful folks now wall themselves off from the lower classes they disdain. Educated classes meet in college and intermarry, closing door to entry to those who can’t get in. This is what he sees as barrier to social economic mobility. His conclusion is that they should “preach what they practice” about marriage, religious observation, etc.

                      Some stats from the book. His sources are from census time series and such. I can’t type each source he cites for each table here. IPUMs and GSS are cited often. These are about white Americans. This is not about blacks. Get over it. Time series from 1960 to 2010. Top 20% earners and bottom 30% earners.

                      1. Livign w/single, divorced, separated parent from ’60-‘2010: top 20% income group: increased starting ’70, leveled off and not above 2/5% or so. Lower 30% started at 2.5% in ’60, rose dramatically 45degree angle to 20%+ in 2010. (159)
                      2. % children living w/both bio parents when mom is 40. Top 20% group: dropped from 98% to about 85%. Bottom 30%: from 95% to 25%.
                      3. Males (30-49) not in labor force: HS or less: from 5% to 12%; Bottom 30%: 8% to 17%. BA+2% to 4%, similar for top 20%. (173)
                      4. Married female labor force participation increased at all income levels. (184)
                      5. Unmarried female labor force participation: educated & top 20%fairly steady, with bump up 80s-90s. 92%. uneducated, bottom 30%had similar bump, same curve, but much lower around 70% or so. (185)
                      6. No religion: top 20% from 9% in ’70 to 19% in 2010; bottom 30% from 3% in ’70 to 21% in 2010. About the same level now, with lower incomes going more nonreligious. (203)
                      7. De facto secular (profess a faith, but don’t practice as well as declare no religion): top 20%–28% to 40% over time. bottom 30%: 41% to 56% over time. simlar curve trend. (204)
                      8. Regular attendance by believers: top 20%: 64% to 55%; bottom 30%: 55% to 46%. Similar curves, both with a bit of a move up in participation in early 2000s perhaps after 9-11. But then drops even worse for both groups. (205)

                      The sexual revolution and abandonment of faith did not work well for the poor as it did for those with resources to resolve problems. The 60s “revolution” sucked for lower incomes. They didn’t self-correct as higher income folks did. And higher income folks leveled off in divorce and other behaviors that continue to worsen at lower incomes. Now we can debate why/how, what to do about it, but there it is. There is much more, but that’s enough.

                      This experience mirrors my experience with my large extended family, some educated some not. Lower incomes lots of divorce, illegitimacy and other train wrecks sadly.

                    • Peggy

                      Oh, the video game issue. Referenced on 216 by researcher examining working class white town. This is not the biggest thing of course, but personal experience also shows it’s big and takes a lot of boys’ and men’s time. It makes sense that it contributes to lack of industriousness in men today. I am shocked by the time and money males are putting into video games these days. This is a real behavior issue beyond the fast-pace of games that affects children’s attention in school. It keeps men from cutting the lawn, going to work even in some cases. My own boys have to be regulated. I have women friends complain about their husbands and sons in gaming as well.

                    • jroberts548

                      Your own boys probably just come from genetically inferior stock. (I don’t believe that, but you’re a big Murray fan, so I’m assuming you do).

                      Or maybe you’re blowing up a problem that has always existed (people prefer leisure to work) and you’re turning it into some sort of generational social crisis for no reason. I think it’s the latter; I have no reason to just assume everyone who plays video games has something constitutionally wrong with them. I’m sure your great grandmother was shocked at the amount of time your grandfather put into baseball or jacks or stick and hoop or penny dreadfuls.

                    • Peggy

                      Actually, they do. They’re Russian adoptees with fetal alcohol damage. Special ed kids. Nice job. (Apparently most adopted children come from lower stock, according to Steve Levitt of “Freakonomics”.)

                      I sub teach K-12. ALL BOYS play video games.

                    • jroberts548

                      “I don’t believe that, but you’re a big Murray fan, so I’m assuming you do.”

                      I’m sorry you think your kids are inferior.

                    • Peggy

                      I am sorry to say they’re often dumb as bricks.

                    • jroberts548

                      You can think someone is dumb without thinking they’re inferior to you.

                    • Peggy

                      I didn’t say they were inferior. You did and so does Levitt.

                      I worry very much for their future if they can’t understand some concepts and such.

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      You’ve gotten to the point where you’re insulting someone else’s children, sight unseen and attempting to cause intra-family strife. What did these kids do to you? What made these kids your valid target?

                    • jroberts548

                      Maybe you should read more than one sentence at a time.

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      Do you need me to diagram out how, specifically, your prick turned you into a prick?

                    • jroberts548

                      I literally could not have been more explicit that playing video games doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with anyone’s kids. I was mocking the desire to pin every social ill on genetics and the belief that video games are somehow a social ill.

                      Was it over the line? Sure, why not. On the other hand, if you’re citing Charles “Bell Curve” Murray, you probably shouldn’t get offended at the suggestion that you provided inferior stock.

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      This is a road that leads to doxxing and inappropriate mother jokes. Can we not go there?

                      In case you didn’t notice, I’m actually agreeing with you on the underlying videogame issue. While there are such things as compulsive personalities who can be damaged by excessive video game use, video games seem to be no more dangerous than any other shiny is to these susceptible people.

                      Genetic differences exist. To exaggerate them is bigotry and most commonly racism. It is a species of lying. To pretend they don’t exist is just another species of lying. Somebody needs to actually go in and document scientifically what is the truth and we are all best advised to stick to it, whatever it is. For whatever insane reason, Charles Murray has taken on this thankless task.

                      I was around for the anti-Murray hatefest that accompanied the Bell Curve. What I didn’t see there was any superior bits of peer reviewed social science pointing out specific flaws in his research that themselves were not debunked. I saw a lot of nasty accusations and attempts at shaming and shunning. That’s a reprehensible way to do science.

                      When I finally got around to reading the thing, I was astonished at how small the differences actually seem to be. They’re insignificant in the big picture with respect to public policy.

                    • Peggy

                      Thank you. It’s fine.

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      You’re being gracious and I’m pretty sure you can defend yourself. My concern was that we just don’t need more people enrolled in the Joe Biden school of social graces. In fact, even old Joe changed course when he figured out that he’d just asked a paraplegic to stand up and take a round of applause, a strategy for recovery from a faux pas that jroberts548 isn’t adopting.

                      Edit: jroberts548 rose up to the level of Joe Biden as of two hours ago in a comment below.

                    • Joseph

                      Don’t be silly. Premiums and copays are going up because it’s now that they’ve colluded with the government and got a government mandate to pay them… not because you’re *paying for poor people*. Poor people could receive free health care in the system prior to Obamacare just fine and they did all of the time. Under Obamacare… guess what… they have to pay too!!!

                    • Peggy

                      That’s Ocare, yes. Harvard profs, who are so pro-Ocare and such, are very angry now that Ocare has pushed up their own premiums and reduced their coverage. I wish we could vote to refuse our employer’s choice of insurance plans.

                      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/us/health-care-fixes-backed-by-harvards-experts-now-roil-its-faculty.html?_r=1

                  • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                    It is quite likely that your public library has a copy of Murray’s book. I borrowed Piketty’s recent title on the grounds that I didn’t want to put money in his pocket so I understand the impulse.

                    I do not think that Murray is racist. I think that Murray cares about describing the truth far more than he cares about his social reputation on the left. That doesn’t mean that he can’t be wrong.

                    The plain truth is that working class and poor whites have a different set of challenges that look a lot more like minority patterns in the underclass than the social patterns of upper middle class and higher white america. That’s not racist. It’s just honest data gathering. From your post, I suspect that it’s a message you wouldn’t even find surprising, much less objectionable. But somehow you’ve decided to prejudge the title. You shouldn’t.

                    • jroberts548

                      I’m already familiar with the problems facing the lower classes. I don’t need to read Murray to reaffirm that. I agree that the low marriage rate is a major problem.

                      Where I disagree with so-called conservatives is the belief that it’s unfixable or that it has something to do with innate laziness, etc. The government pays poor people not to get married, and then we sit around wondering why poor people aren’t getting married. This isn’t chiefly a cultural or moral or genetic problem. It’s an economic and political one.

                      Which is why saying homelessness isn’t a problem but the morality of the poor is is profoundly stupid. Both homelessness and the low marriage rate are largely fixable, economic and political problems.

                    • Peggy

                      No one, including Murray says its “unfixable” or “innate laziness.” Murray condemns the upper classes for writing off the lower classes. He says we need to preach values to them and help them. Public aid is a stop-gap. It doesn’t improve lives. It maintains them at the bottom. Lower income folks need guidance and help in getting lives in order.

                    • jroberts548

                      When your “solution” consists of having the Rush Limbaughs and Bill Clintons of the world scold the poor for their bad morals, you don’t have a solution.

                      This paternalistic bull shit is bull shit. It’s paternalistic bull shit that’s creating the problem in that the government is literally paying poor people not to get married. The problem with the poor isn’t their morals.

                      ETA: Sorry, that was needlessly snarky. What I’m saying is that we can’t just undo the sexual revolution of the 60s. Congress can’t pass a bill to undo it, no engineer can invent a de-revolutionizer, etc. A solution that consists chiefly of “let’s undo the cultural changes since the 60s” isn’t a solution; it’s a sermon. Concretely, there’s nothing you can do about it. The Church at Trent passed a lot of reforms; they didn’t purport to pass a resolution undoing the reformation. I don’t care about vague, abstract solutions to problems, especially when a major causal factor to those problems is concrete, specific, and easily fixable (i.e., the government literally pays poor people not to get married). Focusing on vague, abstract solutions when concrete, specific solutions exist does no good. It does a lot of harm. Instead of, e.g., pressuring republican congressman to stop paying people not to get married, we get a lot of culture war bull shit that does no one any good and will never do anyone any good.

                    • Peggy

                      I don’t disagree w/the anti-marriage incentives of public aid. I have no problem with limiting such aid or phasing it out altogether. But some people need some guidance on getting their lives in order. Yes, the hard conditions of no aid will be a great motivator, but some really don’t know what to do. Some will figure it out along the way. That is good.

                      So, we can condemn the morals of the “anti-abortion but not really pro-life crowd” but we can’t admit the mess some people are making of their lives, bringing children into such messes as well, to their peril? We should just ignore their problems? What do you want to do?

        • Marthe Lépine

          Partial reply: I agree with you up to a point about regulation. There are indeed regulations that prevent “start-up” businesses from competing with the large ones, and they are often promoted mostly for that reason. In that area, there should be some kind of proportionality. For example, there are many more risks of accidents in a large factory with long production lines, such as a car factory. On the other hand, a mechanic who has hired one or two employees to repair cars in a smallish garage will meet fewer risks and be in a position to better practice prevention. Costly regulations that would apply to the large factory would certainly make it impossible to succeed to the small operator. So, on this scale, it is true that too much regulation is an obstacle to creating businesses. On the other hand, deregulation brings its own problems, as was seen during the financial crisis of 2007-08.

          As far as medical costs and medical insurance, I cannot say anything because the system we have had here for some 50 years is totally different. It may be imperfect, but it does serve what may probably be a majority of Canadians.

          AS to other points in your comment, I disagree with some of them, butother people have already posted comments, I do not see anything to add for the moment that has not already been stated, here or elsewhere.

          • Peggy

            Good points Marthe. Happy New Year!

      • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

        I once read a story years ago about the efforts that the state of California required a business (I think they did construction) to make available free coffee. Eventually the costs in modifying facilities (code compliance insisted on a triple sink in the site trailer for instance) and hours spent just paying attention to such a minor issue became so great that they just gave up and no longer gave free coffee. It was something out of Kafka.

        There are levels of diminishing returns on regulation and workplace safety. We have long ago passed the stage where regulation seems an unalloyed good.

        • Peggy

          Yes, and you would not believe the costs, even to local govts as employers and public places, to accommodate under the ADA for example. Our county had to rip out and re-install drinking fountains so wheelchair bound could access them. This is also cost to local taxpayers. DoJ actually had a lawsuit. How is this productive to society for the feds to harrass local govts on little things?

          Here’s the settlement from the case beginning under Clinton (or Bush 41?) to 2010!

          http://www.ada.gov/stclare_pca/stclare_sa.htm

  • Zoltan Nagy

    Russ Limbo will get to due his Homeless Updates once again once the democrat are out of presidency. Until then, don’t expect to here much about homeless peoples.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97IBY8cQ5fs

    ZTN

  • virago

    Anti-abortion but not pro-life? Is that code for republican? Or just conservative Catholics?

  • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

    Apple is a company headquartered in the USA. It has subsidiaries all over the world. If you’re in the EU, your computer is likely assembled in Ireland. Apple sells the computer in Ireland, pays Irish taxes in accordance with Irish law, and pays Irish wages out of its Irish operations that supply the EU with its products. The protest is that Apple does not take its euros, convert them to dollars, ship them to the US, pay US taxes in addition to its Irish taxes, and then convert the money left over back to euros to pay for operations in the EU.

    GE, GM, AT&T, all the big businesses do the same thing and current law does not require extra international transfer of revenue into the jurisdiction that the company is headquartered in. Their profitable operations in foreign markets don’t have their foreign generated money take a side trip to the US just in order to gain the dubious benefit of being taxed by an additional jurisdiction without gaining any benefit in government services.

    Mark thinks this is unjust. I can’t imagine why. I view it as a form of theft and find it strange that a Catholic blog should be in favor of theft in any way.

    • Joseph

      Currently, Ireland has an incredibly high homeless rate for children. Much higher than the 1 in 30 meme above. Imagine how significantly higher it would be if Apple, IBM, HP, Google, big pharma, etc. left Ireland because it was no longer beneficial for them to be here? I understand the argument, but *clamping down* on these companies who are evading US taxes because of the US tax laws (they certainly are paying taxes here in Ireland) will cause problems elsewhere, no? There are hungry mouths to feed around the world.
      .
      Basically, Mark, you’re humming the tune of the EU overlords who have been carefully crafting this propaganda for years as they’ve tried to make Ireland crack under the pressure of public opinion on their corporate tax rates. They have the most competitive in the EU and the greedy EU doesn’t like that very much. They want the piece of the pie for themselves and, like the former British overlords, they don’t care about how many Irish will starve as long as they get it. Don’t fall for the tricks. The Irish workforce is always on edge every year wondering if their backstabbing government is going to finally capitulate on the corporate tax rates… knowing that once they do, they will be unemployed and won’t be able to find work in their country.
      .
      In addition, do you actually think for one minute that, if the US government somehow got their greasy hands on that money, they’d use it to house the homeless? Seriously? At least in Ireland, tax money isn’t used to bomb innocent people or start wars. Leave us alone, please. It’s a small country with a relatively small piece of the pie.

      • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

        A small correction, what these companies are doing is tax avoidance, which is a legal act. Tax evasion is an illegal act.

        Caesar cut a deal and wrote the tax code as it is. Now he is grousing that people actually read the fine print and not let themselves get taken advantage of.

        • Joseph

          Exactly. I’m telling Mark and the other brainwashed folks to lay off before they hurt Ireland just to give more money to a government that has no plans to use it to feed the hungry or give shelter to the homeless. Ireland is on more life support than the US is, and our corporate tax rate is our breather and IV. Envy has greater potential for destruction than one might think… but it’s not beyond Americans to only think about what’s going on within their borders.

    • Peggy

      OMIGOSH! Such sacrilege at this blog.

      You know, I’ve been thinking that Mark should learn the Jackson/Sharpton shakedown tactics to get money from corporate America for the poor, if he wants. Those men seem to know how to get it done.

    • Marthe Lépine

      Seems to me that the matter here is “tax havens”, not overseas investments. As far as I know, a tax haven is more like a country with little to no tax, but also little room for building large plants, such as some island nations, where corporations can open offices to which they can transfer, through any loophole, or financial shenanigans, legal or illegal, large portions of their profits, to make it seem, on the books, that such profits have been gained in those little low-tax islands where they have only a small office in a building almost filled to capacity bu such little branch offices, which are local businesses in name only. Very few workers, if any, would en up being laid off if such loopholes were closed. And the undeclared profits could then be taxed by the countries where those corporations do their actual business, Or at least that is the way it is often done in my own country.

      • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

        Seems to me that you are wrong on the facts but first a little definition work seems in order.

        A tax haven is a label generally applied by the jurisdiction’s detractors to denigrate a particular sovereign nation’s tax regime. The reason we adopted the modern sovereignty system was to put an end to such contentious and bloody wars as the european wars of religion and it would take a pretty big reason to overturn the system. A bit of financial shenanigans does not even come close to justifying it.

        Ireland is a frequent example of tax havens mentioned in the literature. There are plenty of jobs in Ireland dependent on its low tax status. Also the total cash held offshore by US corporations is about $2T. For the graphic to be true, all of it would have to be in ‘tax havens’ as the graphic is defining the term. That means that, indeed, the graphic writers, and by extension Mark, want all foreign earnings to make a round trip to the US in order for them to be taxed at the world’s highest rates for corporate profits in exchange for zero government services.

  • Jonk

    The state-worshipper sees this and says: “When somebody hurts, government has got to move.” Though it appears “LOLWARZ” and “Greedy corporations” are also appropriate responses.

    Perhaps the more appropriate response would be “I have got to move.”

    Some possible responses regarding public policy that don’t devolve into blind demagoguery would be looking at what institutions have failed to bring us to this point, and what possible controllable incentives created those failures. Mentions of a decline in marriage among the poor, affected by policies that pay single parents more in welfare are a good example mentioned below. I’m sure there are many more.

    • Joseph

      In the case of the US government, they’d be the last I’d trust with any tax revenue to do anything for the poor. If they managed to snatch that 1%, they’d only use it to buy more cruise missles or drones to kill children in another country. I don’t know why anyone would believe that they’d actually try to help their own citizens.