City's Economy Revives So It Ousts Its Homeless


          They’re calling Columbia, South Carolina, “the new Southern hot spot.” It’s buzzing with new business. The coveted economic revival has arrived.

 So naturally it’s time to get rid of the homeless. They blemish the pretty cityscape.

            New York Times staffer Alan Blinder reported the eviction story and noted that homelessness in the county rose 43 percent in the last two years. He stated that some of the county’s roughly 1,500 unfortunates idle on Columbia’s streets and frighten some citizens.

Mr. Blinder quoted luggage store owner Richard Balser, who said:

            “People are afraid to get out of their cars when they see a homeless person. They haven’t been a problem. They just scare people.”   

            As the city’s conservative city fathers and business leaders see it, the best remedy for the situation is to shoo the derelicts out of town--and maybe set up a shelter some 15 miles away.

            The city council voted unanimously for the eviction. They apparently dismissed entirely the protest of Jaja Akair, one of the rootless ones. Mr. Akair told the council:

            “You’ve got to get to the root of the problem—why we’re homeless. You can’t just knock us to the side like we’re a piece of meat or a piece of paper.”

            Now, you might regard Columbia’s action as cruel disregard for vulnerable and needy fellow citizens. You might conclude Columbians failed to consider the moral implications of their decision.

            And you’d be right.

The Columbians have done this when lack of morality among our leaders at all government levels has become an issue among academic and religious leaders. They note the disregard for the “common good”—or “people’s good”—that’s so glaring especially in the Halls of the U.S. Congress and many state legislatures.

            In recent months articles on the common good have appeared widely. The 57-year old Evangelical Christian publication Christianity Today has run an article and similar articles appeared in Time Magazine’s on-line edition, in the Seattle Times, in Jim Wallis’ evangelical Sojourner Magazine, and even in the publication of the Organic Consumers Association.

            The “common good” concept has been around for thousands of years. Put most simply, the phrase refers to policies, actions, or items the citizens of a city, state, or nation, say, would recognize as desirable and beneficial for everyone.

Aristotle is more precise. A common good, he stated, is “a good proper to and attainable only by a community, yet individually shared by its individuals.”

The once ancient and widely accepted concept was seldom discussed prior to the GOP takeover in 2001. In 1999 Political Scientist Thomas W. Smith of Villanova University wrote in the American Political Science Review:

“Talk about the common good has been all but abandoned. In the twentieth Century only Catholic social and political theory still clings to the concept.”

Professor Smith noted that the common good was “a central problem in political theory” because it provided a way to distinguish between a politician’s personal interests and the interests of the community.

It also provides a way for a group of politicians like Columbia’s city council or GOP Tea Partiers to distinguish between their collective interests and the public’s interest.

 As if they cared.

True, people disagree on what is “good” or what is good for a community and shared by each individual.

The practical way to overcome that hitch is follow the urgings of philosophers John Mill and Jeremy Bentham. In essence they said it is right to do the maximum good for the most people.

It’s even easier to adopt a rule we all know: Do to others what you would want done to you—the “Golden Rule.”

If state governors followed that rule they wouldn’t bar their state’s poor from the health care mandated by Obamacare. Were national and state legislators to follow that rule they would raise the minimum wage, preserve food stamps, and absolutely resist shutting down the government.

But back to Columbia, SC.
You might ask what its citizens could do about their homeless brethren.

That’s simple. Help them.

                                                             ----Gus Gribbin

Note: Mr. Alan Blinder’s New York Times article appeared on Monday, August 26, 2013.

 

"Sustainability's" Great ! But What's Sustainable?


            A new word has sashayed into popular use. It’ soft slinky syllables are inviting— increasingly irresistible to advertisers, manufacturers, grocers, scientists, and especially environmentalists. They rush to embrace its six vowels and eight consonants.

            Let’s face it, the word is hip—which is an old fashioned slang for “in style,”  “voguish,”  “with it,” and, ah, “so cooool.” In other words, utterly seductive.

      
      The word is sustainablejust as its popularity seems to be.

            Now the ideas underlying the term “sustainability” are not only good they’re really important.      

            Trouble is it’s hard to figure out what the word means in its different usages.

            Sure, you can look up the meaning and it seems remarkably clear. The Miriam Webster Dictionary states:

            Sustainability: 1. Capable of being sustained. 2. a: of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged…b:  of or relating to a lifestyle involving the use of sustainable methods.”

            Dictonary.com explains sustainability as “1. The ability to be sustained, supported, upheld, or confirmed. 2. Environmental Science, the quality of not being harmful to the environment or depleting natural resources, and thereby supporting long-term ecological balance.”

            Both those explanations seem straightforward enough.

 But what do you make of the announcement over the food store loud speaker urging, “Shoppers, check out our sustainable products?”

Are potatoes sustainable? Beets? Eggs? Would you say tomatoes can be used without being depleted or permanently damaged? Not around our house.

The Center for a Sustainable Economy offers a lengthy online “Ecological Footprint Quiz.” The curious can answer the questions to get an idea of how big a chunk of earth’s resources the quiz-taker is using. It can be shocking. Even if you drive a fuel efficient hybrid, turn out the lights when not in use, and use the dishwasher only when it’s chock full, you can end up feeling like a parasite—especially if you’re notified, “If everyone on the planet lived [your] lifestyle, we would need 4.34 earths.”

The quiz asks about income level, size of home and grounds, type of car owned, and such. The questions become frustrating when they ask about sustainability though. How do you answer when asked if your home employs sustainable materials and if your house is built of sustainable materials?

Is concrete sustainable? How about brick, cedar siding, roofing shingles, flagstone, glass, steel, aluminum? Which are or aren’t “sustainable.”?

Certainly building a mud hut with thatched roof is likely to do little damage to the environment. But surely many environmentally conscious folks would opt not to exercise that option.

Some smart vendors are helping us to determine what’s sustainable and what might not be. At a tile store, for instance, some of the lovely ceramic, quartz, granite, marble and glass tiles have little green stickers on them to indicate they’re “sustainable.” But why? Why do they have, “the quality of not being harmful to the environment or depleting natural resources, and thereby supporting long-term ecological balance”?

Without knowing the answer, should we take it on faith that we’ll be more environmentally virtuous if we buy the stickered tiles? I guess so. It would be unheard of for any marketer to deceive us.

Another thing:

The various levels of government—national, state, county, city—have or are creating “Sustainability Offices” or departments. They have big ambitions.

Consider Baltimore’s Office of Sustainability. The way the office describes itself is similar to the way the other Sustainability Offices do. For instance, it has a “Baltimore Sustainability Plan,” and the Office “integrates sustainability into City government operations….”

Wow. That’s certainly commendable. But some wiseacres might think the explanation’s vague.

What we need truly need is a sustainable way to incorporate some specificity and caution in the way marketers and others use this newly ubiquitous buzz word. Otherwise we’re likely to see the word has the quality of being harmful and confusing in our attempts to understand environmental protection.

                                                                                          ----Gus Gribbin