The art of deflection

Initially, I intended to add my response to the above Facebook posting but I decided against it due to the vitriolic nature os so many readers. 

This seems to be a classic case of deflection. I don't know who the "Joy" person is and have never seen "The View" but the woman should be subject to all the negative repercussions available from her employers, TV fans and advertisers in the same way as others in the public (and private) eye are (or should be). The "deflection" is noted because that's just what the post seems to imply. While the photo indicates an obvious and egregious act, it doesn't alleviate any responsibility of others. There's no "quid pro quo" here ar any other improper behavior. It's not as though someone can say one person's actions are okay if the other did it too. Indeed, the woman (Joy) should suffer the consequences of her actions but that doesn't dismiss or alleviate the offenses of others.

There are politicians, entertainers, business people and individuals in numerous other areas of life in this country who have been fired, ostracized or otherwise removed from various positions for their recent or past behavior when brought to light. A preponderance of accusations or evidence has been sufficient to cause a growing number of resignnations lately, regardless of individual, political positions.

Deflection. Ignore the herd of elephants in the room and focus on the speck of dust in the corner. Look the other way. Change the subject whenever the spotlight becomes too bright.

With the downfall of politicians from both parties due to simple, unproven accusations, it's astounding that some are given a free pass. It's astounding that repeated denials and counter-attacks of the accusers can be given any credence at all when faced with all those elephants in the room. And speaking of animals, are there really so many blinded, unthinking sheep in this country? Today, there is a special Senate vote taking place in Alabama and the sheep might elect a man who would have been forced out of office for the accusations mounted against him. This is just plain wrong.

The President has had far more dirt heaped on him than anyone else in the government and still denies and counter-attacks It's about deflection. As long as he keeps his flock looking en masse at the smudge on the wall, they don't care about all those elephants. In spite of all that mounting dirt during the election, they all drank the Kool-Aid, led on by the inciteful deflections of "Crooked Hillary", Benghazi and "Lock her up". "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" Even though it's on tape and has already been acknowledged, "I never said that! It's all fake news!" 

Ah, the pleasant bliss of the ovine world and the power of "the deflection".

Homeless in Seattle

It seems Seattle ranks third in the country in the total number of homeless people. LA county is number one with more than ten times as many homeless as Seattle. I don't remember what number two is.

In any case, Seattle spends more than $95,000,000 a year in its effort to combat homelessness. In spite of that enormous sum, there are still tents set up all over the city with individuals, couples and entire families living in parks, under bridges, in doorways and everywhere else where there's a space to stretch out after dark. It's horrifying not just for the individuals living on the streets but also for every citizen who travels anywhere in the city. There are near-naked people wandering around, filthy, discarded clothing in the bushes, used needles tossed all around and just about every aspect of the seamy side of life to witness any time of the day. It's disgusting...and unsafe for everyone.

There are an estimated 12,000 homeless people in Seattle. The city has numerous shelters, food kitchens, public drug facilities, etc. scattered all around the city. On any given night, an incredible number of beds available are not even used while the city maintains it needs to add to the number of beds on hand.

I wonder why the city claims to need more housing and beds when those already available are not being utilized. I wonder where that $95,000,000 is going each year? That's about $8,000 per homeless person being spent every single year!

Think about it. Seattle is spending $8,000 per person every year and the city claims it's not enough. Imagine a man and woman with a child living in a tent under a bridge receiving $24,000 a year from the city. Isn't that enough to live on? That's more than I make right now and I have a house and a car.

Where are all the millions going? How much is spent for office management, staffing and so on? Ninety-five million dollars a year! Why not just have a few people administering the funds and just hand over the eight thousand dollars to each homeless person once a year? As to all the drug users, panhandlers and infirms...get them all off the street. There's $8,000 available for every last one of them to handle medical issues, rehab...and incarceration for those repeat offenders of the laws.

Seattle shouldn't be off limits to everyday citizens and $95,000,000 a year, spent wisely, should be enough to maintain a clean, livable city for everyone.