Homelessness is not a crime, but it is a shame: On both the indigent individuals and the collective culture that allows it

Anthony Miller begins each day with a look out his third-floor windows onto busy Commonwealth Avenue. To most people, his small room would be an underwhelming domicile and a symbol failure. But those 30 or so stairs up to his flat represent more than access to a humble home. They are one huge step from the streets below, where he once lived.

After two years of residency in a homeless shelter and countless months on park benches and tent cities, Miller has achieved a modest milestone. The non-descript, simple room in Allston is more than a bed and bureau. It is independence and dignity. And Miller, who stands well over six feet tall and whose heft creaks the stairs and hallways of the rooming house, is grateful for the minor personal advancement. Tobacco has damaged his teeth and his health, but the lifetime of bad luck and poor decisions has not damaged his spirit. The room is one phase of an incremental process to rejoin society. He hopes next to score a restaurant job—handling pans instead of panhandling.

“There is a sense of personal security knowing where I’m going to sleep at night,” he said.

Miller is one of more than an estimated 550,000 people who are homeless in America on any given night. This solvable crisis is America’s shame. It persists regardless of political party or national economic climate. The “tax reform” bill passed last year by Congress and signed by President Trump could have paid to house every homeless person in the country twice over. An initiative put forth by President Obama proposed spending $6 billion in 2017 (plus an additional $11 billion over 10 years) to provide services and housing assistance for half-a-million needy families. But even if such an idea had come to fruition, it only works if the funds are easy to access.

“Most people just need one break to get moving forward,” Miller said. “I have a case manager who helped me get this room but she also sticks with me and helps me get other services and to make a life plan. She has introduced me to a food-service training program that I will attend, hoping to get a job.”

The United States is the richest country in the history of the world. We have the money to solve any problem or fund any project. But without the will to do so, the problem of homelessness lingers and worsens under stigmatization and prioritization. “I don’t think anyone is doing enough. Anywhere,” said Tiziana Dearing. Dearing is, among many other things, a professor for macro practice at the Boston College School of Social Work.  She believes that rebuilding America’s middle class is the grand goal to closing the profound income gap.

But steps along the way toward that goal of income equality begin on a more fundamental level. “The emphasis should be on putting people in affordable housing,” she said. As a lecturer, advocate, board member of several non-profits, and researcher, she is as close to an expert on the subject of poverty as there is. Her blog at “HuffPost” often addresses local ordinances and municipal policies across America that directly and deliberately impede the assistance of the homeless. In November 2014 she wrote about the idiocy of a law in Florida that criminalized giving food to homeless people.

“We need to stop criminalizing homelessness,” she said.

Dearing said that the peddlers and paupers at the local parks and on highway off-ramps are only a small percentage of a much larger problem. “The problem,” she explained, “is that people who are not chronically homeless are hard to count.” By that she means that entire families who live in their car or an abandoned building or in a seedy motel room, are difficult to account for and thereby not included in estimates that affect budgets.

“Housing First” is a resurrected initiative in Boston. Very common during the 1970s and ‘80s, ‘Housing First’ (laid dormant over the past decades before its newfound efficacy and funding) is based on a Canadian study, the program asserts that money is best spent by providing housing ahead of all other services. Health costs and other ancillary, temporary fixes ideally would be assuaged if only the people had a warm and safe room. “’Housing First’ is the best way to solve the problem,” Dearing said.

 

*****

 

Troix Bettencourt’s office sits in an old building in the center of Lowell. He sits at the center of the homeless crisis in Lowell. As senior case manager for the Institute for Health and Recovery, he interacts daily with both communities: the homeless in Lowell, and the policymakers and check-writers in Boston. If Dearing is the yin to the issue, Bettencourt is the yang.

He is the calm hub around which several wheels spin. The needs of the homeless community turn in one direction while supportive services elude them in another. Bettencourt is also the face and voice of the issue whose main goal is to alter public perception. And public perception in Lowell and every elsewhere is understandably pejorative. Bettencourt, who was once homeless as a teenager, sees the problem and its solution on a much more primitive level. Speaking of the people who obstruct traffic and linger outside of markets with their cardboard biographies, he says the matter has gotten worse over the past decade, particularly over the past three years.

“The problem is not that there are no services to support and assist the chronically homeless. The problem is that many of those on the streets are not connected with the system. Many don’t even have an I.D.,” he said. “The people most in need are those who are not plugged into the services and the only shelter in the city is a dry facility.” Addicts are not allowed to stay there except for certain months and in a designated area. So, they are forced, at least in this city, to stay in cold, unsafe haunts and back-alley bivouacs. He sees the problem as rooted in addiction and mental illness, not so much employment or economics. His focus is primarily the 10 percent that represent the common image of homelessness, not the hidden majority that Dearing asserts can be helped.

Lowell actually passed an ordinance that made it illegal to panhandle near the downtown area. Bettencourt helped the ACLU file a suit against the city on behalf of three men whom they claim had their First Amendment Rights violated. The ACLU won and the city may be forced to pay a substantial punitive settlement.

“The way to solve this problem,” Bettencourt insists, “is to provide mental health care for those in need, and to curb opioid addiction.” He cites a disturbing paradox of policies in Lowell. A church group was giving comfort bags to homeless people, including clean needles to shoot drugs. But the shelter would confiscate and dispose of those needles, thereby forcing addicts to share. This resulted in a steep spike in HIV cases in the city.

Many aspects of homelessness are against the law. “We need to stop making it a crime to be homeless. Because now, on top of all the other hardships, people get saddled with a criminal record.” And HIV-positives, addicts, felons and sex criminals are not only hard-core unemployable but are generally unacceptable in most social circles, especially with regards to habitation. No one wants those people living in their neighborhood. “They’ve got nowhere to go,” said Bettencourt.

 

*****

 

So what about Miller? He has been destitute for decades and is neither a felon nor an addict. He kicks around his Allston room, having traded the misery of homelessness for the misery of boredom. “There was lots of anger and arguing,” he said of the Pine Street Inn, a long-term shelter facility in Boston where he stayed for two years. Even private boredom beats anxiety-ridden uncertainty and hostility.

But the issue is a national matter, despite the thousands of local manifestations. Annie Leomporra is a grassroots analyst for the National Coalition for the Homeless who has been involved in the cause for 46 years. She pinpoints the early catalyst for the ever-increasing population of homeless folks in America. “The pre-Reagan era had plenty of funding for affordable housing and for mental health services,” she said. She was referring to the widespread and deep cuts that then-President Reagan made at the federal level in the 1980s to several social programs and safety nets. States and municipalities were forced to assume the fiduciary burden and fill the void with valuable operating revenue. So, things naturally got steadily worse.

“The best way to solve the problem is to eliminate the massive stigmatization that the homeless community endures. There is this perceived notion that people want to be homeless. That is not true. The solution is a series of small building blocks, starting with humanity. We need to get people to want to help. Then we start investing in people because that always brings a great return for the dollar.”

Humanity is one of the implements in Bettencourt’s toolkit. Aside from being his full-time day job, homelessness advocacy is also his off-duty activity. A few years ago he attended a barbecue at a wealthy friend’s house. He noticed that much food and other things were being wasted so he asked the attendees to next time bring some items for donation. He dispensed those items to needy people in his orbit. Since then, the effort has grown and many other people seek him out with handfuls of everyday products.

Chandra Perry is a businesswoman who travels often. Wherever she stays, she helps herself to the soaps and shampoos and other toiletries that hotels stock their bathrooms with.“They throw them away after every guest,” she said. “Even if they are unopened and unused. It seems like such a waste. So, I load them into my suitcase and give them to Troix.”

It is the small gestures that help the humanity develop and surface and spread. Sure, we need to stop making it a crime to be homeless. But even before that we need to make it less dishonorable. And it is a small paradox that those who hate the beggars, wouldn’t want to hide them from view. If they are a blight to your vista, house them.

Despite the obvious lack of consensus on how to solve the crisis, locally and nationally, there seems to be a litany of suggestions worthy of attempt. By tinkering with combinations of the remedies expressed in this piece, surely a universally acceptable cure can be found. It does indeed start with humanity, which will naturally induce a modicum of individual generosity. If many people need to be taxed into cooperation or legislated into compassion; then we must strong-arm them into sympathy.

My final project is down to two likely topics

I had originally planned on calling my final project, We Too. It was going to examine the detached males’ roles in the “Me Too” movement. I think that men who remain silent about their friends’ or brothers’ or bosses’ sexual misconduct are nearly as culpable as the perpetrators themselves. But I don’t think I could offer anything new in terms of information and my opinion would be agreeable to almost everyone else’s–I mean, who is in favor of powerful men exploiting subordinates and aspirants? No one.

Because I really have no personal, anecdotal attachment to the topic, I opted away from it ( We Too) in favor of another issue I am more passionately aligned with; that of homelessness. My angle will be how to cure or lessen the problem. I will include some historical data as well as some current statistical comparisons on a worldwide and local level. My lens will focus on a particular homeless person(s), a shelter worker or LSW, maybe a sociologist, city official, as well as addiction counselors.

 

Better equipment, not better soldiers, would have a super impact in combat

As Lt. Col. (Ret) Jerry Healy reflects back on the days when he commanded a small group of soldiers in the deserts of Iraq, he never pined for better warriors. What he needed then, he clearly remembers, was better equipment.

So, when I asked him about a not-so-secret government plan to create genetically engineered human combatants, he was skeptical. He questioned not only the ethics of such a program, but also the need for it. I too, upon learning of the Pentagon’s DARPA funding, had some curiosity and many questions. I delved immediately into this darker, program-within-a-program initiative to build super-soldiers using genetic technology.

We will rendezvous with Healy again later in this article but first I want to guide you through what I know of the program, or what I think I know. And most of what I know, I learned from a dubious source.

Paul A. Philips is a fringe journalist who has enjoyed too many Asimov novels and Alex Jones podcasts. He writes often and extensively about this clandestine project to create super-soldiers by manipulating DNA. Embracing his theories would torture my credulity. But, just because I don’t believe him doesn’t mean I don’t believe the idea is pure fiction. I just don’t believe that he has unearthed any evidence to prove his thesis. His contribution to this piece is mere happenstance and quite insignificant in that, while researching another writing project, I stumbled upon his ham-fisted attempt to “expose some nefarious activity.”

It turns out that the Chinese and Russian governments are decades ahead of the U.S. in terms of biological technology, as detailed in this  article from The Guardian. In it, the feasibility of such an undertaking is challenged. Essentially it explains how problematic and time consuming the ordeal would be, troubleshooting each generation of failures before embarking anew. But there are new advancements in warfare emerging every day, many of them smart enough to interact with the wearer. But those are not “genetically engineered soldiers” as Philips would have us believe.

I reached out to a medical professional for some ethical feedback. I chose a fresh-out-of-med-school rookie instead of an old curmudgeon. My thinking is that her ideals are still pure, not corrupted by experience or truncated for convenience. Dr. Steffany Annell explains the scientific ethics as they are taught to newbies. “The AMA sees genetic intervention to enhance someone’s health as permissible only under three conditions: 1.) it is beneficial to the fetus or infant. 2.) don’t switch traits; ie don’t change brown eyes for blue, etc. 3.) allowed only if there is equal access for everyone regardless of income.”

She goes on to say that genetic alterations are really only possible in utero, before the fetus is fully developed. So, genetically enhancing a full-grown human would take several lifetimes of trial and error. Isn’t it enough that there are vaccines and implants that could bolster someone’s performance on the battlefield. The “super-soldier” would have dog-like hearing, eagle-eye vision, cat-like speed, and ox-like strength…theoretically.   But at what cost do these creatures materialize–financially, ethically, sociologically, etc? To me, even if they are free, they are not worth it. We don’t need them.

On the battlefield is where we again find Lt. Col. Healy. “Super-soldiers would not have any impact on the outcome of our mission. There would be no advantage or disadvantage to having them in the field. And, what about after they leave the service? What could they do? They would almost certainly have to stay in government employment, either in the CIA or the Secret Service. Then there’s the possibility of roid-rage types of behaviors that might happen if we experiment with people’s DNA.”

There has always been that stubborn few who refuse to embrace new technologies: Ogg the Neanderthal who never thought fire was so hot of a discovery; Cyrus the Sumerian who scoffed at the wheel by calling it a fad while continuing to tote his belongings around for life, always arriving last and complaining of a sore back; maybe some guy actually took an ice-pick to his own eardrums after hearing a radio broadcast for the first time, claiming it to be useless noise. Some still haven’t embraced the internet or used a cellphone, calling them fleeting distractions. But I’m not one of those kooks. I know there is a profound and ongoing need for innovation and exploration. Transportation, communications, medicine, leisure, comfort, commerce and even warfare will evolve in perpetuity, especially if there’s profit in it.

Barstool prophet Dave is a tradesman and unsolicited opinion-giver on everything from the greatest president ever to the worst year for coffee beans, and every other unquantifiable abstraction in between. He is boisterous but wise so I will let him serve as the spokesman for the everyday Joe. He will henceforth be referred to as EveryDave, whose expertise is as questionable as anyone’s. His license to participate is his tax dollar, which validates his two cents. “It’s a waste of goddamn money. Besides, do soldiers even interact with the enemy anymore? It seems like it’s always bombs from one area to another. We have hundreds of side-effects with everyday medicines, imagine the unforeseeable effects from this experiment?”

Surely keener hearing and vision to detect perils before they manifest is important. They may be neutralized or circumvented using some combination of geek’s analytics and commander’s sagacity. But those apparatuses are detachable and inanimate, and quite effective so why super-soldiers? Not even a super-soldier would run headlong into a torrent of projectiles, their bones break and their skin shreds and blood bleeds just like mediocre soldiers. “There’s an app for that.”

I mean if we are going to create advanced humans, why must they be killers? How about super-servers who can take your order, pour your drinks and cook your meal before you even take your coat off? Or may super-surgeons who can remove a gall bladder in ten minutes and charge only a few dollars?

Healy, Annell, and EveryDave are all Christians who uttered some rendition of “don’t interfere with God’s work.” But what about a misguided heathen like me? Where do I get off asserting my agnostic morality onto the subject? I don’t. I am quite indifferent to the ethical position—for or against, although I believe the few people who have no moral misgivings about the practice are some mad scientists hidden away in the bowels of Area 51—but still find it unfavorable on other grounds, that of necessity.

So, unlike that dumbass Ogg who is shivering and blind in his cold, dark cave, I do believe there is a need for fire…until we burn everything down. But there is no need for souped-up soldiers. The billion-dollar weaponry and remote-controlled bombs are plenty enough devices for destruction. I am sure that genetically engineered warriors are an inevitable reality, despite the moral ambiguity, sociological mysteries and complete lack of utility.

Keep your hands out of my genes.

If you think the world sucks: Blame White Men, but not all of them

Generally speaking, white men are sons-of-bitches. I can say that not just because I am one, but because I know about world history and modern America. Using social media chatter and news-shows’ organized arguments as my foundation, I will present a rock-solid case that impugns the majority of this minority.

Chris Rock is a beloved African American comedian who perfectly summarized the entire race issue in one single quip: “There ain’t a single white guy in this room who would trade places with me; and I’m rich.” I believe that Rock is right. I don’t wish blackness or brownness upon myself–not because I’m a racist, but because I am scared about what the white man can do to me–but I hate even more the whiteness that has been genetically bestowed onto me.

Today in the news is a nationwide movement by high school students who are protesting gun violence. The date is significant because it marks one month since another mass shooting at a high school, this time in Parkland, Florida. What is noteworthy about the tragedy is that it was again a white man who did the killing, just as it was in 90 percent of the preceding bloodbaths over the past few decades.

When religious extremists explode things and shred bodies, white men on campaign trails and Facebook and Twitter ask, why the “good Muslims” don’t stop the bad ones from perpetrating acts of extremism.  Then, when some police officers were arrested on corruption charges, other white men asked, why don’t the good ones stop the bad ones? Again, accusations arise when an illegal immigrant commits a crime. Deport them all, the white man shouts. When another white man shoots up concert-goers or children or protesters, nobody asks me why I didn’t stop him.

I want to forfeit my white privilege. It does not serve my conscience well. But, my lament is exactly that of the black man, or the immigrant with the accent, or the white woman—this is our condition, obvious and irreversible. When I am not pulled over for speeding but the Hispanic teens I was racing against are, I am happy. I am ashamed that I happy. I am ashamed that my whiteness has made me impervious to consequences—but I am at the same time happy about it. This duplicity causes turmoil. I mean, I’d be a fool to go back the cops and demand to be treated equally. I am on the one hand angry with the cop for profiling the teens, while on the other I am happy that the cop profiled the teens instead of me.

But personal experience should never serve as proof of anything. It is merely perspective…not evidence. Dylann Roof opened fire on a group of black churchgoers. On the way to jail, the police took him to Burger King. He is white, as were the cops. I should be as confused as a Neanderthal with a Rubik’s Cube about why this dynamic is so. But I am not.

It is nothing new with these guys either. One hundred years ago a consortium of white men brought guns and gas and grenades to a disagreement that ultimately led to world conflict. Soon, nearly all the white men on the planet were engaged in some degree of organized violence. Thirty years after that, another round of global nastiness erupted because the white sons of the fighters from the first war were angrier than their fathers had been. Sure, the oriental world was deeply engaged in this fight as well. But every single country in the pale-faced occident (except Switzerland) participated. It is not a single anthropological subset of the white-hood that can be singled out as worse than others. Slavic, Germanic, Nordic, Celtic and Saxon alike are equally culpable in the wars of then and the ugliness of now.

Although much of the Caucasian community around the world seems to have evolved beyond savagery and xenophobia, many Americans remain trapped in antebellum ideologies; adherent to some contrived hierarchy based on something as superficial as genitalia and pigmentation. The evidence is abundant and obvious, yet many refuse to acknowledge it…especially the white men who’ve created this obscene paradigm. The culmination of this informal arrangement is the ascendance to the throne of a racist moron who once purchased a full-page ad in The New York Times to publicly insist that five black teenagers be convicted and executed for a crime that they didn’t commit and hadn’t yet been arrested for. He continued that demand for injustice even after the men were fully absolved of guilt.

That same orange mutant was sued for discrimination because he refused to rent or sell his properties to black residents, regardless of income. He most recently called Africa a collection of “shithole countries.” He refers pejoratively to Mexicans and Haitians as rapists and AIDS dispensers. His cabinet has only a single racial minority and very few women. His judicial appointees are 92 percent white, the highest by far over the past 50 years. He declined to condemn the words and actions of a group of armed white men who marched and chanted while terrorizing peaceful protesters.

Individually these things can be written off as justifiable or out-of-context. But, the aggregation of them paints a clear and disturbing picture. So, you must be wondering, how does this one single creature represent the entirety of white men? My answer is that he doesn’t, at least I hope not. But what is scary, and supportive of my premise, is that 50 million white men voted for him and honor him still. He is a malignant boil. And far too many of my white brethren seem to embrace the cancer that they have incubated and nourished. They are, in essence, infecting their own petri dish with a virus that they believe to be a cure.

Why can’t the good ones stop the bad ones? I tried. Many of us did. Are they all sons-of-bitches? Of course not, but one fact is undeniable: all of the political power, financial influence, religious authority and merchants of information throughout the western world, particularly America, are held by scrotum-bearing, white-skinned co-conspirators. And since civilization is choking on pollution and drowning on flooded streets, who else should be blamed but those at the helm? When we assert the privilege to molest our women, I am embarrassed. And when yet another white man slickens classroom floors with the blood of more children…those sons-of-bitches clamor for more privileges to do it again, emboldened by tantrumps and twitfits.

I am sorry. We are not all like them and I hope this document serves as historical proof that I objected.

Why ‘Impractical Jokers’ is practically the best show ever

The future of television comedy has its roots in the past. As “Impractical Jokers” launches its seventh season, fans are treated to a recipe of: one cup “Candid Camera” and one cup “Whose Line Is It Anyway?” Throw in a dash of slapstick and a sprinkle of electronic hijinks and the result is a grand feast of yuks that always satisfies.

I do confess that this show is my guilty pleasure. The seventh season’s launch episode, titled “Marathon Man,” did not disappoint.

Not much has changed about the show since its beginnings—except that hairlines are smaller and waistlines are bigger—so fans remain loyal to the familiar antics and predictable unpredictability. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The show’s formula has worked so well that IJ is now the flagship program on the TruTv network, which airs about 50 episodes per week spanning all six seasons.

The first episode I ever saw, S2-E6, was one of the funniest pieces of television I had ever seen. I have been hooked ever since. In that episode, the guys were tasked with having to read a list of ridiculous names without laughing. The bit went something like this:

Each joker, taking turns, sat behind a receptionist’s desk in a nondescript office building. A group of strangers who had been recruited under the guise of getting paid to partake in a focus group, sat near the desk waiting to be called. As the six, unsuspecting people sat there, the guys would read names from a list. The list had been written by the other three Jokers and contained crazy-sounding names that had to be read one at a time. The Joker in play had not seen the names until this very moment so was caught off-guard by each one as it popped up.

“Count Ravioli?” The Joker would ask the group. None would answer because, of course no one has that name.

“Cranjis McBasketball?” Still no answer but the waiting group was beginning to snicker, as was the Joker who was reading the names.

“Chug Chug Pickles?”

“Rachel Dehubbahubba?”

What makes “IJ” unique is its unscripted approach that creates genuine reactions from unsuspecting strangers. Since the guys themselves don’t know what will be asked of them over the next moments, the populace cannot either. As each Joker takes his turn at the challenges, he is directed by the others via a wireless earpiece. So the Joker must resist the urge to laugh while also completing the task. The production team adds to the overall package by perfectly capturing the reactions of the unwitting participants. The editing is limited to choosing only the best takes–not in adding after effects.

But I digress. The Season Seven debut was every bit as entertaining as the scores of “IJ” episodes before it. This one show should not be compared to other television comedies because it is far superior to all sit-coms, today or historically. Rather, it should only be measured against other episodes of “IJ.” And, on that level, it measures up. There are new twists on some older skits, but the antics and entertainment value remain consistent…and hilarious.

Most of this episode was filmed in the guys’ hometown, New York City. They are all from Staten Island and have been best friends for more than twenty years. In fact, each show opens with the descriptive tagline, “Warning: The following program contains scenes of graphic stupidity among four lifelong friends who compete to embarrass each other.”

S7 E1 features a bit that has the guys take turns being a nuisance to sightseers in the Empire State Building’s observation deck. Then, they work as baristas in a coffee shop and throw a cupful of water into the face of an actor, who is part of the gag. The other patrons are appalled by the act but it is when the Jokers offer their reasons for throwing the water, that things get interesting.

“Minty Cherubandtug?”

Imagine a show with four very skilled improv comics, like those on “Whose Line Is It Anyway?,” performing for random crowds of unsuspecting people in everyday situations, unscripted, with several hidden cameras. That is the show in a nutshell. But a nutshell cannot contain the nuttiness within this series of interactions.   There are three layers of comedy at play. First, the actual task is often funny in itself. Then, the Jokers’ improvisational maneuverings within the content of each bit brings forth another round of laughter. Finally, and foremost, is the response and reaction of the people they encounter.

“Simmy Kantstandyourbitz?”

“Enya Mouthole?”

“Beefy McWhatnow?”

 The Jokers—Sal Vulcano, Joe Gatto, James Murray and Brian Quinn—run the inevitable risk of being recognized during the filming of new bits. In fact, it has happened a few times. So, they now sometimes shoot in other locations including a cruise ship, Las Vegas, Texas, Florida even London. Being recognized, but not acknowledged, would weaken the spontaneity and genuineness of the reactions shown by the people in the orbit of the act.

For now, they continue to entertain the hell out of loyal fans and new viewers alike. I heartily recommend both the new season premier but also the entire catalog of shows.

“David Krapandshitz?”

When job hunting, be younger and get hired

 

 

I had to sue the federal government for unfair hiring practices. I didn’t procure a lawyer or any type of legal counsel because I didn’t want to pay for what I knew would be a small payoff. Besides, it was a matter of principle, not of profit. They discriminated against hiring me due to my age.

The position, media relations specialist, was posted on the federal government’s usajobs.gov website, a place I had visited hundreds of times. The opening was for FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, an organization I have worked at for nearly two years. The qualifications required no college degree or advanced schooling beyond high school. My resume boasts 15 years of experience in all media and extensive education that is directly agreeable with the criteria. My position at FEMA is as an assessor of damages, unrelated to media.

So, when I did not even advance to the second step of the hiring process—the pre-interview screening—I was rather surprised. I wrote an email to the listing’s point of contact. Her reply was terse and immediate, “You do not meet the minimum requirements of the job.”

What?

If I had been rejected due to being “over-qualified” an excuse often used to discriminate against older workers, as this NPR story notes–then I would have accepted that fate, with a small degree of pride. That is the most common of justifications for age discrimination—although still not legal. I had already been rejected or passed over for employment hundreds of times. Really! So, I always assumed there were a thousand people more qualified than me for those positions. But this particular job was an entry-level, fresh-out-of-high school gig that I was qualified for 35 years ago. So, I probed.

Broadly speaking, there are two different types of discrimination; de facto and de jure. De jure is the legal allowance for—or against—a certain act, whereas de facto simply means the “practice” of a certain act. It is the de facto discrimination that is most irksome because it is harder to prove, given the burden of “intent.” Just because the law says that a particular person cannot be denied a job, or a domicile or other widely available services based on skin color, religion, ethnicity, gender or age, that doesn’t mean people don’t exercise discrimination towards those folks based on those variables. It happens often.

For example, a business owner cannot post a sign that reads, “No Muslims” or “No Mexicans.” That is against the law and simple enough to prove and prosecute. But if that business owner uses less obvious means to deter Muslims or Mexicans from patronage, that de facto discrimination is very difficult to prove.

The same is true for employment discrimination based on any of those factors. The law says that you cannot discriminate based on this or that, but how does one prove that the position or the apartment was denied to him or her based on those markers? It requires the existence and evidence of a discernable pattern of de facto acts to prove that a de jure violation has occurred.

Unearthing such a pattern is the most difficult part about bringing a lawsuit against the bad actors. You see, age discrimination in hiring is forbidden at the federal level. Most of the regulations which define this tort are based on the 1967 Age Discrimination Act in Employment Act (ADEA) and its myriad supplements and subsequent amendments. Dennis Zink explains it in a 2017 article for the Herald Tribune.

“Under the ADEA, it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of his or her age with respect to any term, condition or privilege of employment, including hiring, firing, promotion, layoff, compensation, benefits, job assignments and training. Harassing an older worker because of age is also prohibited. It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual who opposes employment practices that discriminate based on age or who files an age discrimination charge, testifies or participates in any way in an investigation, proceeding or litigation under the ADEA.

Unearthing such a pattern is the most difficult part about bringing a lawsuit against the bad actors. You see, age discrimination in hiring is forbidden at the federal level. Most of the regulations which define this tort are based on the 1967 Age Discrimination Act in Employment Act (ADEA) and its myriad supplements and subsequent amendments. Dennis Zink explains it in a 2017 article for the Herald Tribune.

  “Under the ADEA, it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of his or her age with respect to any term, condition or privilege of employment, including hiring, firing, promotion, layoff, compensation, benefits, job assignments and training. Harassing an older worker because of age is also prohibited. It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual who opposes employment practices that discriminate based on age or who files an age discrimination charge, testifies or participates in any way in an investigation, proceeding or litigation under the ADEA.”

Ageism is the only “legal” type of discrimination in America. To be clear, older employees or candidates for employment, are protected under the ADEA just like everyone else is. But the law, as it applies to older workers, does not include small businesses. Small companies with fewer than 20 employees, can reject an applicant based on age. This de jure loophole is indeed sketchy, but the rampant de facto is far more problematic to job seekers over the age of 40.

I learned all this as I prepared my case against the government. But, when FEMA refused to interview me for a position that I was clearly qualified for, I did some research. It turns out that, at the federal level, age cannot be considered when weighing a candidate for a publicly posted position. Most states also base their own EEO doctrine on the federal template. But these laws, both state and federal, only protect the aggrieved when government money is involved in the labor contract.

Private industries and public corporations have a far more liberal set of ethics and understanding of the laws, which are rife with vagaries and loopholes. Company policies generally accept the anti-discrimination regulations in terms of in-house promotions, but tend to ignore them with new hires. These “secretive hiring policies” were finally unearthed in a series of class-action lawsuits against major U.S. companies, with PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Lockheed Martin and Staples being some of the more notable cases. But all of these companies were sued by employees or former employees. Proving discrimination was arduous and expensive, imagine how difficult it is to prove age discrimination against a powerful corporation from outside of that company.

In short, no major company, private or governmental, can discriminate based on any of the markers. But it does happen via the many vagaries and loopholes within the doctrine.

Well then, you are asking yourself, how do they justify their decision? Their rudeness is what inspired my legal action and dogged pursuit of answers. I continued to ask questions and file documents up the chain until I was at last contacted by a government lawyer. He was helpful and polite but unambiguously my rival, representing the defendant.

I won my case, settled actually. But the larger issue is that I would have no such case against a private corporation—because, to them, age discrimination is a mere guideline.

Ageism is the most difficult form of discrimination to prove. Against a government entity, a legal claim is even less likely to ever make it to court. In fact, less than one percent of all harassment cases—across all demographics and victim identities—ever make it to a court room and even fewer work out favorably for the plaintiff.

I have learned to question why I have been rejected from a certain job instead of merely accepting the fact that I “do not meet the minimum requirements.” Because if I did not meet those requirements, then I would not have applied for the job. Age should be an asset, not a drawback, for employers.

As George Bernard Shaw once quipped, “Youth is wasted on the young.”

Brady, Bill and Bob are Again at the Center of the Sports Universe

 

I have lived most of my life within the orbit of Boston so what I am going to tell you about Tom Brady may seem like blasphemy. So, if anyone asks where you read this; my name is Sylvester McGillicuddy, and I’m from Buffalo.

I love sports, my region has been blessed with incredible success in all arenas of professional team competition, ten wins in 14 appearances, I am old enough to remember past eras of feasts and famines with championships–the disappointments are as numerous as the triumphs–and therefore old enough to seem credible in this analysis.

I like Tom Brady. I like the sunshine. But I am pragmatic enough to know that undue credit is given to the sun for rising every day. We must actually thank the spinning earth and its astrophysical properties for allowing each day to arrive. The sun does not really even “rise” so much as it appears, taking credit for earth’s labor. We must also give a shout-out to the horizon itself for facilitating the process.

So, when we canonize only Tom Brady for his impressive rise, we ignore the contribution of circumstance. As he heads to his unprecedented eighth Super Bowl, Brady has indeed defied aging, as brilliant today as he was 14,600 sunrises ago.

But let us now acknowledge; the planet, Bob Kraft; gravity, Bill Belichick; and the horizon, a consistently non-competitive division. The AFC East, against whom the Patriots play six games a year, has been underwhelming the football prognosticators for two decades. Because of this enduring futility, The New England Patriots are almost assured a playoff spot every year, or every trip around the sun if you’re still following the metaphor. This allows for more opportunities to ascend to the Super Bowl. More bites at the apple naturally provides more mouthfuls.                                                                 Statistically, the Baltimore Ravens, New York Giants and San Francisco 49ers have a higher percentage of playoff victories than the Pats. But those teams all play in very competitive divisions, where playoff appearances are less likely and far less common, especially from a non-wildcard position. The Patriots have won nine straight division titles, thereby precluding the need for arduous, opening-round road games. From there, the Super Bowl is a mere two games away.

Brady’s .779 regular season winning percentage is the highest ever among starting quarterbacks. But, in his absence (once for a season-missing injury (2008) and another during a four-game suspension (2016)) Belichick’s Patriots are 14-6, a more than admirable .700 winning percentage. And Belichick already had two Super Bowl rings before arriving in New England, giving him, including this year, an incredible ten appearances in the big game.

Bob Kraft provides an atmosphere for the forces that be to keep spinning, and rising and shining. He can’t control gravity and he sure as heck can’t stop the sun from rising. And it is difficult to know which light will last longer, the quarterback’s or the corona’s.

Time for a full disclosure. As I researched the small details for this article, I gradually acquiesced to the statistical counterpoints to my premise; Brady is indeed a star unto himself. But the other elements still merit mentioning.

Sean of The Dead: Hannity continues to be the mouthpiece for the fact-indifferent

Opinions without facts are like candles without wicks, nice to look at but useless for lighting the way.

It is a rudimentary tenet of journalism that facts make an appearance somewhere within an article, even if it’s just a cameo role. Even “opinion” writing or editorials give facts a little face time. Violation of this basic principle often has no punitive implications, except for maybe loss of credibility.

While columns and op-ed pieces allow writers to include their own voice and express an opinion, to be successful the columns must be grounded in solid research. Research involves acquiring facts, quotations, citations or data from sources and personal observation. Research also allows a reader to include sensory data (touch, taste, smell, sound or sight) into a column. There are two basic methods of research:

• Field research: going to the scene, interviews, legwork; primary materials, observations, and knowledge.

• Library, academic, or internet research: using secondary materials, including graphs, charts, and scholarly articles.

What is even worse, is that opinions which are not grounded in provable data, are subject to change without much coaxing. And whether those opinions are spoken for broadcast or written for publication, a record likely exists.

So, when talk-show hosts–posing as journalists–like Sean Hannity spew off-the-cuff commentary based on the winds of today, time will expose them as fools. A recent montage, compiled by the producers at The Daily Show, reveals the politically-motivated hypocrisy of Hannity. The video clip essentially  shows Hannity arguing with himself about U.S. military action in Syria. While Barack Obama was president, Hannity, speaking without facts of any type, established a hard line against the Syrian regime…and against Obama for not embracing Sean’s brilliant strategy.

Now that Donald Trump is president, Hannity demands humane treatment of the Syrian people. Presumably he is aware of some soft-bombs or harsh-language attacks that hurt only feelings and don’t dismember children.

Hannity is now so enmeshed in the Trump presidency as an apologist and banner-bearer that he cannot possibly back off of his latest remarks. Or could he? If he has proven nothing else, it is that he is capricious. And, given his net worth and massive following, that is all he needs to prove.

Why limit your Twitter followings to people that you agree with?

I am not very active on Twitter but always intended to be. I am now incentivized by academic commitment. The first six strangers that I’ve decided to follow are an eclectic mix of nationally recognized celebrities.

Just because I read “Mein Kampf” doesn’t mean that I am a fan of Hitler. Likewise, just because I choose to follow Alex Jones doesn’t mean that I am insane. It is important to understand why I disagree with someone. So, by following this bloviating trouble-maker, I can fully grasp my disdain for him. @RealAlexJones 

Don Lemon is an interesting political pundit in that he is a self-proclaimed independent (although I’m not sure I completely agree with his opinion of himself). What is great about him is his ability to humiliate people simply by shutting up. He asks a question, then allows his guests to incriminate or bury themselves. He is like a passive hangman who merely provides the condemned with a length of rope. @donlemon

I follow Ann Coulter because…hey even crazy people need some attention. @AnnCoulter 

I am a huge sports fan. My familiarity with local sports writers and broadcasters keeps me locked in homerism. I need a national perspective so I chose to follow Denver Post Dispatch columnist Woody Paige. Despite his personal baggage, he is an entertaining contrarian with a self-effacing wit that I can identify with. @woodypaige

Ana Navarro’s ideology is agreeable to mine but that is not the reason I follow her. We are both former Republicans; I converted because of Dick Cheney, she because of Trump. She is often angrier than the situation merits and, because of this anger falls into the common practice of believing her opinions to be bona fide facts. So, I will follow her to fact check her slanted claims. I think she exploits her heritage and offers no unique or valid position on anything. @ananavarro

Brian Karem is the normalest person that I follow. He is clearly a liberal but is very credible, and thorough in his support of his opinions. I like his no nonsense, direct and fearless approach to journalism. His past is speckled with some controversy; but whose isn’t? @BrianKarem

Twitter, and life, would be boring if we only tuned in to birds of our feather. As a liberal, I must embrace ideological diversity.

 

Post office makes a profit Congress won’t let it keep

Before maligning the United States Postal Service’s operational practices and financial feasibility, unwrap the entire package of variables that affect it. On paper, the USPS shows massive losses every year. But those superficial numbers are misleading and don’t deliver the whole truth.

For whatever reasons, economists and those who commentate on economic matters, routinely disregard the underlying facts behind the “supposed losses.” Even “Forbes Magazine,” which is known for its accuracy and integrity, fails to present the entirety of the complex fiasco in its article from November 2017.

The raw numbers do in fact show significant losses, over many years. But the organization actually operates in the black and always has. A 2006 congressional mandate requires that the USPS fund its pension program for 75 years into the future. The mandate essentially states that money must be spent before factoring it into the ledger.

This directive to “pre-fund” future retirees is unique to the USPS. And, further exacerbating the financial losses…and consequently clouding the balance sheet and the opinions of those who write about it, is this simple fact. The directive hampers the USPS by, “depleting its operating funds to make these payments and instead allow an internal transfer of funds from its pension surpluses.” According to National Association of Letter Carriers President Fredric Rolando.

And as losses mount, the payments toward those future pensions also lag, creating an unrelenting cycle of financial dysfunction. All the while, the post office remains the only federal organization that uses absolutely no taxpayer dollars. So, the question remains. Why do media not report on all the dynamics involved in the quagmire? Fox Business and just about every other merchant of information continues to use a two-dimensional viewpoint to draw a three-dimensional picture.

It is difficult to discern what a news outlet has to gain, or lose, by incompletely reporting the facts and events. There is no political edge to be gained, nothing overt anyway. There is no stock value to affect or product pricing to manipulate. There is not a collective outbreak of journalistic laziness; or we should hope not. But postal insiders at all levels know to the letter how things really are.

The saddest part of the entire ordeal is that the matter is solvable, if the USPS could return to autonomy; without legislation messing with the business model. And, according to Postmaster General Megan Brennan, taxpayer money may need to be used at some point to right the ship. She announced that foreboding in an article from August 2017.

But it is not merely the legislators who shoulder the load for the confusion. Irresponsible media outlets offer an incomplete narrative. Consumers believe the reinforced stories then base their opinions on those canards. The politicians in turn use that manufactured ignorance to further impugn the USPS, thus creating a need for more government intervention. It is a grand conspiracy that no one is aware they are participating in.