Eviction

I once saw a movie by Michael Moore called “Roger and Me.” This showed a number of evictions being executed by duly-authorized officers of the law in Flint, Michigan. It was heartbreaking to see families standing by helplessly as the sheriff's officers removed their belongings from their former houses. These goods were deposited on the sidewalk in front of the premises.

But I had some questions – which I still have. Why were these officers not guilty of littering? Why were the evicted (former) homeowners being denied the protection of the law their goods warranted? In effect, these people were being rendered as outlaws – that is, outside the protection of the law. That stuff on the sidewalk, it turns out, isn't society's problem. It can be rained on, or stolen if left unattended.

There are cold hearts out there who would sneer, “That will teach you the penalty for not paying your bills.” But...there's still the problem of legally-sanctioned littering. There was a time, in the USA, where you could be arrested for littering if political leaflets you were distributing were tossed on the street by people who'd accepted them from you. They littered, but you got fined. If these weren't political leaflets for some fringe cause – if instead they were handbills advertising a sale – the cops wouldn't bother you. Not that the law made exceptions for non-political material, but the cops simply looked the other way.

And there's still the problem of denying protection to the property of the evicted. Last time I checked, those evicted didn't lose their citizenship. They didn't lose their due-process-of-law rights under the US Constitution. Eviction is one thing – the property owner has the right to expect payment of rent or mortgage. But the sheriff's deputies don't have the right to just dump stuff on the sidewalk unless, say, one of their officers stays with those goods until they can be relocated to safety. And that officer should be responsible for sheltering those goods from stormy weather.

Or even better – those goods should be stored free of charge in some public facility. Why bother to charge the indigent a storage fee which will assuredly become prohibitive over time? Doing so merely provides a way for the authorities to, in effect, seize personal property without due process of law.

And what of the homeless themselves? Do they deserve the slow death sentence of living on the streets where a brutal Chicago winter will eventually claim them? If they deserve this sentence, then what was their crime? Some will ask, “Do you expect the government to take care of the poor?” What they're really getting at is, “That kind of care will make it necessary to raise taxes – and no politician will raise taxes for the sake of the homeless.” So what we have is, apparently, a case of expediency versus human decency.

Perhaps so, but I can't help but notice how the Golem of Chicago* (aka, Mayor Rahm Emanuel) manages to grant favors for the politically connected. But the larger problems of this, the most segregated city in the United States, can be indefinitely ignored. And that kind of “ignorance” seems to be acceptable to the citizens in Chicago who vote. Or to the citizens whom the vote counters claim to have voted for their guy. [Vote thievery is still alive and well in Chicago.]

I also notice how many thousands of abandoned buildings are in Chicago, which once had a population of 3.6M (in 1950) but now has (as of 2010) 2.7M. I also notice the large number of government buildings which are unoccupied at night – and which are toasty warm. If I were homeless, I wouldn't mind wearing a monitoring device or being under surveillance if that would allow me to sleep on the floor in the basement of such a building.

What I'm saying is, there are creative ways we can save these precious lives. And to do good things for our own karma as well. But that seems to be the problem with democracy – acquiring the political will to do something other than going to war with other countries over natural resources. It's just too easy for voters to leave the running of our affairs to others. And it's too easy to remain so self-absorbed in our own lives that we allow the other to become invisible to our eyes.

But karma has a funny way of asserting its justice. Chicago, for instance (my home town), is teetering on the brink of financial disaster – as is the entire state of Illinois, by the way. The Golem Mayor is trying to spin an opposite impression and the middle class is bravely whistling in the dark. But sooner or later, the chips will fall where they may. And many of these current homeowners – who weren't lucky enough to get out when the getting was good – will find themselves homeless.

And they won't know how to live on the street. And they'll be so surprised when the once friendly and reliable policemen they knew start saying (to them!), “Move along now – no loitering.” And they'll be equally surprised when they encounter the long-term homeless who give them tips about where to dumpster dive.

Why is it that people have to learn the hard way that it is indeed better to give than to receive? Why do we tolerate so much bad government, as long as it's (barely) good enough to serve our short-term interests? Why do we allow ourselves to be conned into thinking we have no power to change things? I suspect people think, deep down inside, that there just might be at least one way to challenge the power structure that so mercilessly propagandizes us into feeling so powerless. But it could well be that these people are too lazy to investigate their options – as long as the short-term outlook appears sufficiently rosy.

But make no mistake about this – we do have options. For those who care, they should exert more effort to inform their circle of friends as to what can be done. And I'm not referring to anything as quixotic as the call to “occupy” this, that, or the other thing. And I'm not talking about the “necessity” of armed revolution. For people to wait so long to take action (when they could have done so much earlier) that armed revolution is the only remaining option, then their revolution deserves to fail – and it will.

Here are some links from this blog that give ideas of what can be done – here and now (or at least in the foreseeable future):

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2013/10/independents-its-time-to-seize-primaries.html

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2010/09/zero-party-system-for-us-politics.html

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/05/general-strike-declared-by-steven.html

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/02/steven-searle-steals-new-hampshire.html

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, just another member of the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

former candidate for President of the United States of America (in 2008 & 2010)

Footnote:

Golem of Chicago* - For the record: I'm not just being rhetorical in calling Rahm Emanuel a golem. But if you're looking for guidance in terms of what the ancient rabbis had to say about this subject, don't bother. We've come a long way in the techniques needed to create a Golem that aren't even vaguely appreciated among those who are currently rabbis - not to mention the general population. 

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com