My projections were overly exuberant, as seems to usually be the case, and the third edition of On Homelessness In America will likely be finished sometime later in the year than the end of summer. Partially this is due to deciding to do an even more thorough re-write of the whole thing, and to add some new content after all. Another part of it is that I am once again well and truly Homeless and nearly broke. This is a temporary situation for a couple of months in the summer, but it greatly cuts down on my energy, writing time and ability to do research.
Donations certainly are not unwelcome at this point, but if you wish to donate via Lulu for a PDF copy of the book, I'd suggest waiting until version 3 is done, as I don't have a means of tracking who has paid through Lulu (and I feel it only fair to send a complimentary PDF to anyone who donates this close to a new release.) The book will still be freely available, in a much better formatted and more readable HTML layout than the present version, at Cloud Bird Trail when it is complete.
For now, here's a small preview of the extent of the re-written content for the upcoming version, on the roots of homelessness and poverty and how we can only truly begin dealing with it properly:
In the so-called "First World", we wholly depend on centralized industrial manufacturing processes to keep the infrastructure of society together. These industrial processes inevitably create toxic effluence which much be disposed of. As industrial manufacturing processes inevitably lead to toxic wastes, so too does industrialized society inevitably produce homelessness and extreme poverty as a by-product.
This is a complex subject and may seem outside the scope of this book, but it must be addressed in at least a basic way, because there is no "patchwork" solution that will "end homelessness" within the context of this society, yet that is what we constantly have pitched to us as the cure for homelessness by politicians, government agencies and charity groups. These "solutions" are simply designed to manage homelessness and poverty and direct the energies of the homeless and poor in as controlled a manner as possible, under the ruse of "ending" poverty once and for all. For the problems of homelessness and poverty to be "solved" - along with a myriad of other social problems! - the only true answer is in large scale social structural overhaul.
I will attempt to demonstrate how society as we know it inevitably causes homelessness and poverty, and why there is no "adjustment" to present society that will fix that process, in as concise and basic a manner as I can.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Throughout the whole of the history of organized human society, since the advent of agriculture split us off from nomadic isolated tribal systems and began the settled and centralized societies that we now think of as "normal", we have simply been shifting from one system of rule to another. By "rule", I mean top-down, hierarchical systems wherein a relatively small group of social elites determine and dictate terms to the rest of the society, usually to their own benefit.
We began with the rule of Warlords and Emperors, gradually shifted to the rule of Kings and Priests, and currently are situated in the midst of the rule of Merchants. This period had its initial roots in the Enlightenment, but became cinched as a global ruling trend with the French and American revolutions. This is not the rule of men who ship goods about the world and Kareem who owns the corner store, but international bankers and financiers who create and control the currency systems that both individual states and the "global economy" as we know it are wholly dependent on. Just a step beneath them are politicians - both the Feel-Good Obamas and the Evildoing Right Wingers - as well as the CEOs and upper management of international corporations, the heads of militaries, the heads of "spook" agencies, and all the various others who are usually blamed for being the evil masterminds behind everything.
Part of the effectiveness and duration of the rule of Merchants is the fact that relatively few people under their rule believe that they are actually being ruled. The rule of Merchants breaks from the traditions of direct force - which is still employed, but more as a last resort than a preferential choice - to an emphasis on misdirection, spectacle, control of educational systems, control of news media and communications outlets, and propaganda to control behavior on a grand scale. Most people in the world are made to believe they exist in systems of representational democracy which are ultimately ruled by "the people." When things in these systems go wrong, or the people feel they are oppressed, they rarely are capable of seeing a direct line between their suffering and the root cause of Merchant rule. Instead, they blame one of a myriad of ready-made alternative outlets maintained specifically for the purpose of shunting their negative energies. The rule of Merchants also breaks from the tradition of the most powerful members of society appointing themselves as Godheads - and thus very obvious targets for populist wrath - with a constantly rotating cast of well-kept underlings who play out the role of society's "bad guys" when called for.
Now, what does this all have to do with poverty and homelessness? These are required components of Merchant rule. Vast amounts of poor and "working class" are required, not only to directly supply the elite class with their myriad of luxuries and indulgences, but to also simply maintain the global infrastructure that allows them to conduct their business, control populations and the flow of both currency and ideas, and to simply move about the world freely in a manner that rulers and tyrants of the past could only dream of. Most of the jobs required to maintain this social structure are at the least dull, and at the most highly unpleasant and physically dangerous. To convince people on a wide scale to actually perform these tasks, the Merchants must first create the illusion of scarcity even when restaurants regularly throw out food and people leave luxury electronics goods on the curbside and in the landfills on a daily basis, and they do this by essentially locking up as much as possible of what is produced and then guarding it by force of arms. Various sophisticated social, political and religious systems are employed to keep people believing that this is a just and fair arrangement, and that they are to expect that the great bulk of the work they perform and what they create in their working life is to be skimmed off by a remote "owner" with whom they likely have little to no contact.
Artificial scarcity is the first component in making the industrial ruling system of the merchants work. Even though there is a superfluity of goods around them, people are led to believe they are constantly on the edge of ruin and must struggle, scrape and compete with everyone else around them to survive. A vast class of working poor must be maintained, and even the homeless and those typecast as "non-contributors" to the economy have their role to play in this great game. Thus, all talk of "ending poverty" or "ending homelessness" by anyone or any group plugged into and dependent on this social order is automatically disingenuous and hypocritical. The social order cannot exist without poverty, just as the massive amounts of police and security industry specialists would cease to have viable incomes if crime was truly eliminated.
(to be continued in edition 3!)
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Sunday, June 28, 2009
the only thing you have to lose is your hobophobia
Oh man, I would never normally link to a site like this one, but ... it just gets more and more hilarious as it goes on.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
thanks!
There was a small surge in downloads of On Homelessness In America from Lulu last month. I'm still not sure where the traffic came from, but thanks! It was enough to actually get Lulu to cut me a payment, which I thought would never happen
Friday, May 01, 2009
toward a healthy home
If we must have state-run, state-funded shelters - and at present we must, given there is little in the way of viable alternatives to freezing on the streets for many right now - their efficiency in stabilizing people's lives could be improved greatly by a simple division of the population using them.
As of this writing, at the shelters and all other related services, homeless and poor people are lumped together in a general way as the "dregs and dross of the Earth." Very tight living quarters are shared between addicts, freshly released ex-cons, schizophrenics and just "regular people" with financial hardships and an inadequate social support network.
The reason that so many of these "new homeless" flock to tent cities, such as the one Oprah famously stomped through and effectively destroyed recently in Sacramento, or live in their vehicles rather than seek out state aid for shelter and other basics, is that they do not want to live in the dehumanizing, demeaning, crazy sorts of conditions I've outlined here with some of my firsthand reports from shelters and "human services."
One simple but major step towards improving the quality of life of the homeless/poor person, and the success rate of returning the unfortunate to "normalcy", would be simply by dividing the shelters, and perhaps select other services, so that the following groups - who are presently all lumped together into the faceless mass known as "the homeless" - are largely segregated from each other and in an environment where their unique needs can be met:
1) Those with serious behavioral/mental disabilities, such as schizophrenics
2) Alcoholics and addicts who at present have no real desire to quit substance abuse
3) Alcoholics and addicts who are actively seeking to quit substance abuse
4) People whose problems are primarily financial, and those with non-substance or sex related compulsion issues (such as gambling addiction)
5) Sex offenders
6) Recently released prisoners
At present, all of these groups share intimate space at the shelters, soup kitchens and other services, and it is far too volatile of a mix.
There are numerous problems with the present "lump everyone together and treat them all like crap" arrangement.
**** (one full month later ....) ****
A few examples -
I've been in three different shelters now where low-functioning schizophrenics were mixed in with the "general population". Out of five incidences, all five ended badly. The first guy randomly decided to set his mat up on top of a table one night instead of on the floor, and when confronted, jumped on the table and tried to wrestle anyone who approached him (eventually had to be slammed to the ground by a big dood and held until help could arrive.) The second guy grabbed a staff member by the throat out of nowhere and slammed her against a locker. The third guy smeared feces all over the bathroom one night. The fourth guy took a shit in someone else's bed over some perceived slight that no one could figure out. The fifth guy mumbled creepy stuff to himself all night like "You know this is gonna hurt but you HAVE to do it", got caught masturbating into the urinals in the mens room a couple times, and finally wandered off leaving a laptop behind in his locker which he never came back for.
Schizophrenics are sometimes able to suppress their symptoms long enough to get into a shelter, a hotel, go to the bank and cash an SSI check, etc. Once they perceive that they are safe, however, let the Schiz Party begin! Generally they start out harmless in a shelter situation, sitting in one spot all day or walking around talking to themselves. Inevitably, however - at least in the five cases I've personally seen - they explode in some crazy/violent act. And they do so because they are forced into a situation that they are not suited to - and the people around them are forced to adjust to them or hit the road.
I don't mean to be unsympathetic, since there's little alternative for them to go to, and the state of California particularly seems to like cutting them a $1000 monthly SSI check and then letting them go and wander untreated as much as they please. But therein is exactly the problem. While they might end up just mumbling to themselves at night and annoying whoever gets stuck sleeping next to them, there's always a chance they'll do any or all of the things I've described here. Shelter staff is generally not trained to deal with this sort of thing, and shelter residents certainly shouldn't be subjected to it just because they are poor/homeless. People suffering from mental illness at this level need separate facilities where they can get needed treatment and have living conditions suited to their situation, but under our present "social safety net", they're tossed in the mix with everyone else - and if something tragic happens, hey, it's homeless people, who gives a damn.
To address the division between alcoholics and addicts who are "on" and "off" the wagon - I've had the pleasure of staying at a de facto wet shelter, the Next Door shelter in San Francisco which I've featured here previously, and I've watched how the shit attitudes of the "I'm a drunk and I don't give a damn about anything" types bring down people who are genuinely trying to turn their lives around, put undue strain on them, and eventually pressure them into either relapsing or just saying the hell with the whole system of shelter and recovery. The drunks and active druggers pick fights, they talk loud shit and instigate, they shit up the bathroom and showers in all sorts of delightful manners and piss everyone else off. They steal pills and anything else of value they can get their hands on. If you really want to make a difference in turning the lives of addicts and alcoholics around, putting them through this unnecessary gauntlet of stress and negativity certainly doesn't send the message that you do. It sends the message that you are disingenuous, and all you care about is warehousing them so the tourists and the yuppies don't complain about them being an eyesore in the streets. Let the "wet" drunks and druggers have their own spartan shelters where they can shit things up however they please. You aren't going to force them into any sort of mold, and there's no point in trying to by threatening to cut off their beds or their food. But if they see an example of proud people, who used to be addicts on the street, living in dignity and getting a fair shake from society, maybe it will give them the initiative to try to walk that same path themselves.
People who simply have financial hardships and no social safety net to catch them do NOT need to be subjected to the Dark Carnival Of The Soul found in our modern don't-give-a-shit-about-you-human-trash shelters and service systems, and I don't have any Hard Numbers to back this up, but I promise you they are coming out worse for the wear, picking up drug and drinking problems, and generally being converted into a more Hardcore form of the homeless because of it. If you reduce them to the level of some pissbum who ruthlessly fucks off his own life, how do you expect them to start viewing themselves?
The final point I'd like to quickly address is that of freshly released prisoners. I don't think anything is "wrong" with them that they have to be isolated from everyone else. To the contrary, the ex-cons I've spent time with in the shelter systems have by and large been the most respectful, hardest working, and most committed to getting their lives together out of anyone. And that's exactly why they don't need to be right back in the middle of the pissfest, of asshats using and abusing, sheltering up in the worst drug-filled neighborhoods because that's where the city sticks all the "undesirables". They're supposed to have paid their debt already. Homelessness, as it is in America at present, is like a second sentence, and one that potentially can be for life.
As of this writing, at the shelters and all other related services, homeless and poor people are lumped together in a general way as the "dregs and dross of the Earth." Very tight living quarters are shared between addicts, freshly released ex-cons, schizophrenics and just "regular people" with financial hardships and an inadequate social support network.
The reason that so many of these "new homeless" flock to tent cities, such as the one Oprah famously stomped through and effectively destroyed recently in Sacramento, or live in their vehicles rather than seek out state aid for shelter and other basics, is that they do not want to live in the dehumanizing, demeaning, crazy sorts of conditions I've outlined here with some of my firsthand reports from shelters and "human services."
One simple but major step towards improving the quality of life of the homeless/poor person, and the success rate of returning the unfortunate to "normalcy", would be simply by dividing the shelters, and perhaps select other services, so that the following groups - who are presently all lumped together into the faceless mass known as "the homeless" - are largely segregated from each other and in an environment where their unique needs can be met:
1) Those with serious behavioral/mental disabilities, such as schizophrenics
2) Alcoholics and addicts who at present have no real desire to quit substance abuse
3) Alcoholics and addicts who are actively seeking to quit substance abuse
4) People whose problems are primarily financial, and those with non-substance or sex related compulsion issues (such as gambling addiction)
5) Sex offenders
6) Recently released prisoners
At present, all of these groups share intimate space at the shelters, soup kitchens and other services, and it is far too volatile of a mix.
There are numerous problems with the present "lump everyone together and treat them all like crap" arrangement.
**** (one full month later ....) ****
A few examples -
I've been in three different shelters now where low-functioning schizophrenics were mixed in with the "general population". Out of five incidences, all five ended badly. The first guy randomly decided to set his mat up on top of a table one night instead of on the floor, and when confronted, jumped on the table and tried to wrestle anyone who approached him (eventually had to be slammed to the ground by a big dood and held until help could arrive.) The second guy grabbed a staff member by the throat out of nowhere and slammed her against a locker. The third guy smeared feces all over the bathroom one night. The fourth guy took a shit in someone else's bed over some perceived slight that no one could figure out. The fifth guy mumbled creepy stuff to himself all night like "You know this is gonna hurt but you HAVE to do it", got caught masturbating into the urinals in the mens room a couple times, and finally wandered off leaving a laptop behind in his locker which he never came back for.
Schizophrenics are sometimes able to suppress their symptoms long enough to get into a shelter, a hotel, go to the bank and cash an SSI check, etc. Once they perceive that they are safe, however, let the Schiz Party begin! Generally they start out harmless in a shelter situation, sitting in one spot all day or walking around talking to themselves. Inevitably, however - at least in the five cases I've personally seen - they explode in some crazy/violent act. And they do so because they are forced into a situation that they are not suited to - and the people around them are forced to adjust to them or hit the road.
I don't mean to be unsympathetic, since there's little alternative for them to go to, and the state of California particularly seems to like cutting them a $1000 monthly SSI check and then letting them go and wander untreated as much as they please. But therein is exactly the problem. While they might end up just mumbling to themselves at night and annoying whoever gets stuck sleeping next to them, there's always a chance they'll do any or all of the things I've described here. Shelter staff is generally not trained to deal with this sort of thing, and shelter residents certainly shouldn't be subjected to it just because they are poor/homeless. People suffering from mental illness at this level need separate facilities where they can get needed treatment and have living conditions suited to their situation, but under our present "social safety net", they're tossed in the mix with everyone else - and if something tragic happens, hey, it's homeless people, who gives a damn.
To address the division between alcoholics and addicts who are "on" and "off" the wagon - I've had the pleasure of staying at a de facto wet shelter, the Next Door shelter in San Francisco which I've featured here previously, and I've watched how the shit attitudes of the "I'm a drunk and I don't give a damn about anything" types bring down people who are genuinely trying to turn their lives around, put undue strain on them, and eventually pressure them into either relapsing or just saying the hell with the whole system of shelter and recovery. The drunks and active druggers pick fights, they talk loud shit and instigate, they shit up the bathroom and showers in all sorts of delightful manners and piss everyone else off. They steal pills and anything else of value they can get their hands on. If you really want to make a difference in turning the lives of addicts and alcoholics around, putting them through this unnecessary gauntlet of stress and negativity certainly doesn't send the message that you do. It sends the message that you are disingenuous, and all you care about is warehousing them so the tourists and the yuppies don't complain about them being an eyesore in the streets. Let the "wet" drunks and druggers have their own spartan shelters where they can shit things up however they please. You aren't going to force them into any sort of mold, and there's no point in trying to by threatening to cut off their beds or their food. But if they see an example of proud people, who used to be addicts on the street, living in dignity and getting a fair shake from society, maybe it will give them the initiative to try to walk that same path themselves.
People who simply have financial hardships and no social safety net to catch them do NOT need to be subjected to the Dark Carnival Of The Soul found in our modern don't-give-a-shit-about-you-human-trash shelters and service systems, and I don't have any Hard Numbers to back this up, but I promise you they are coming out worse for the wear, picking up drug and drinking problems, and generally being converted into a more Hardcore form of the homeless because of it. If you reduce them to the level of some pissbum who ruthlessly fucks off his own life, how do you expect them to start viewing themselves?
The final point I'd like to quickly address is that of freshly released prisoners. I don't think anything is "wrong" with them that they have to be isolated from everyone else. To the contrary, the ex-cons I've spent time with in the shelter systems have by and large been the most respectful, hardest working, and most committed to getting their lives together out of anyone. And that's exactly why they don't need to be right back in the middle of the pissfest, of asshats using and abusing, sheltering up in the worst drug-filled neighborhoods because that's where the city sticks all the "undesirables". They're supposed to have paid their debt already. Homelessness, as it is in America at present, is like a second sentence, and one that potentially can be for life.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
paul ave. sweepup
I found this recent Chron article to be interestingly demonstrative of the sort of suburbanite thinking that the paper caters to, particularly as regards homelessness.
The article is about a defunct Caltrain station at the edge of the Bayview neighborhood. Local resident Larry Winum, a realtor (natch), apparently enjoys strolling about his neighborhood and pointing out incidences of urban blight to the city, which I suppose would be fine in and of itself, except it seems he regards "the homeless" as being on the same level as the garbage and detritus that offends his aesthetic sense.
Not that there's anything particularly special or malevolent about this guy - SF is chock full of the gentrification-minded, he's just the one that happened to complain loudly enough to get his name in the papers. I'm not really interested in villifying him here so much as I am deconstructing both his perspective (representative of a much larger group perspective) and the way in which the Chronicle did its reporting.
You'll notice this is part of the Chron's "ChronicleWatch" series, an ostensible regular feature of "watchdog journalism" designed to showcase city problems and what is or is not "getting done" to fix them.
Interesting to me is the language in the article.
"Winum contacted both Chronicle Watch and Caltrain, saying that graffiti was still there, along with trash on the hillsides leading down to the old waiting area. Homeless people live in the environs, Winum complained."
In the wealthy, suburbanite view that the Chron represents, the "homeless" are completely dehumanized, an object reduced to not even getting feature billing in the paragraph over graffiti and trash.
"Winum's follow-up prompted Caltrain to dispatch another crew to the Paul Avenue Station - and to promise Winum that more will be done. The transit agency will install an 8-foot-tall welded-wire fence by the Paul Avenue bridge overlooking the station "to make it more difficult for people to access the area," Mark Simon, special assistant to Caltrain chief operating officer Chuck Harvey, said in an e-mail."
Not once does anyone raise the concern that human beings in the area are being forced to seek shelter from the elements and rest in defunct train stations. The situation is simply an "eyesore" that is to be swept up by the police. The solution to the problem is not engaging with the people seeking shelter there to find out what their situation is, but to "make it more difficult for people to access the area" by installing an "8-fot-tall welded-wire fence".
"We will continue to closely monitor the location for homeless activity."
Again, the "homeless" are reduced to nothing more than a garden pest. One that all involved no doubt wish social laws and mores would allow them to treat with traps and poison sprays.
"Now that the sign is gone, and the station below is free of TVs and the like, this part of southeastern San Francisco near Highway 101 is a bit more pleasing to residents like Winum."
And that's what really matters. Maintaining the Disney-esque illusion, the facade of peace and beauty that masks the revolting social mechanisms required to maintain the sort of opulence Mr. Winum and people like him enjoy. Cheers and beers all around. The "homeless" have been run out of town or jailed.
The problem is solved.
The article is about a defunct Caltrain station at the edge of the Bayview neighborhood. Local resident Larry Winum, a realtor (natch), apparently enjoys strolling about his neighborhood and pointing out incidences of urban blight to the city, which I suppose would be fine in and of itself, except it seems he regards "the homeless" as being on the same level as the garbage and detritus that offends his aesthetic sense.
Not that there's anything particularly special or malevolent about this guy - SF is chock full of the gentrification-minded, he's just the one that happened to complain loudly enough to get his name in the papers. I'm not really interested in villifying him here so much as I am deconstructing both his perspective (representative of a much larger group perspective) and the way in which the Chronicle did its reporting.
You'll notice this is part of the Chron's "ChronicleWatch" series, an ostensible regular feature of "watchdog journalism" designed to showcase city problems and what is or is not "getting done" to fix them.
Interesting to me is the language in the article.
"Winum contacted both Chronicle Watch and Caltrain, saying that graffiti was still there, along with trash on the hillsides leading down to the old waiting area. Homeless people live in the environs, Winum complained."
In the wealthy, suburbanite view that the Chron represents, the "homeless" are completely dehumanized, an object reduced to not even getting feature billing in the paragraph over graffiti and trash.
"Winum's follow-up prompted Caltrain to dispatch another crew to the Paul Avenue Station - and to promise Winum that more will be done. The transit agency will install an 8-foot-tall welded-wire fence by the Paul Avenue bridge overlooking the station "to make it more difficult for people to access the area," Mark Simon, special assistant to Caltrain chief operating officer Chuck Harvey, said in an e-mail."
Not once does anyone raise the concern that human beings in the area are being forced to seek shelter from the elements and rest in defunct train stations. The situation is simply an "eyesore" that is to be swept up by the police. The solution to the problem is not engaging with the people seeking shelter there to find out what their situation is, but to "make it more difficult for people to access the area" by installing an "8-fot-tall welded-wire fence".
"We will continue to closely monitor the location for homeless activity."
Again, the "homeless" are reduced to nothing more than a garden pest. One that all involved no doubt wish social laws and mores would allow them to treat with traps and poison sprays.
"Now that the sign is gone, and the station below is free of TVs and the like, this part of southeastern San Francisco near Highway 101 is a bit more pleasing to residents like Winum."
And that's what really matters. Maintaining the Disney-esque illusion, the facade of peace and beauty that masks the revolting social mechanisms required to maintain the sort of opulence Mr. Winum and people like him enjoy. Cheers and beers all around. The "homeless" have been run out of town or jailed.
The problem is solved.
Friday, April 24, 2009
homeless versus blight
This article focuses on how artists are buying up homes for as little as several hundred dollars in areas like Detroit and Cleveland and are attempting to form their own communities, and even rallying some government grant help in the project.
It strikes me that the hordes of presently homeless - very few of whom are the "worthless bum" stereotype popularized in the media, and most of whom have a staggering variety of socially useful skills and abilities - could, through government subsidy programs which could likely be funded with a fractional amount of what's going to waste on present failed programs, prisons and the like, be housed in these decaying neighborhoods and create their own revitalized communities, using the houses as a base to start their own businesses and services for both the immediate community and the nation at large.
It strikes me that the hordes of presently homeless - very few of whom are the "worthless bum" stereotype popularized in the media, and most of whom have a staggering variety of socially useful skills and abilities - could, through government subsidy programs which could likely be funded with a fractional amount of what's going to waste on present failed programs, prisons and the like, be housed in these decaying neighborhoods and create their own revitalized communities, using the houses as a base to start their own businesses and services for both the immediate community and the nation at large.
open source food mapping
Urban Edibles is a microcosmic example of one of the things I hope to accomplish with the (still percolating) Hobonet project. Specific to Portland Oregon present, it lists locations of edibles that can be foraged using Google street maps and similar tools.
I'll have to ask your forgiveness as I read this two weeks ago in a copy of the SF Guardian at the laundromat and don't remember all the specifics, but I recall that a law was recently passed that makes foraging in state/Fed parks illegal. I would not at all be shocked to find that that was a response to possibilities like the Urban Edibles site starting to become realized - if you can get your food from outside of the control system reliably without currency, that's a huge step towards becoming independently sufficient of the control system! And of course we absolutely cannot have that in America. Whatever the case may be, don't let it stop you, just be aware of what land you are on and be appropriately cautious.
I'll have to ask your forgiveness as I read this two weeks ago in a copy of the SF Guardian at the laundromat and don't remember all the specifics, but I recall that a law was recently passed that makes foraging in state/Fed parks illegal. I would not at all be shocked to find that that was a response to possibilities like the Urban Edibles site starting to become realized - if you can get your food from outside of the control system reliably without currency, that's a huge step towards becoming independently sufficient of the control system! And of course we absolutely cannot have that in America. Whatever the case may be, don't let it stop you, just be aware of what land you are on and be appropriately cautious.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
OHIA 3rd edition
I've started work on a third edition of On Homelessness In America, which will be done by the end of this summer.
Like the previous edition it will be freely available online, but it will now be in HTML format and broken up into chapters in the same manner that An Honest Bark is over on Cloud Bird Trail.
Unlike the previous edition, I'm not adding any substantial new material (or at least not planning to right now), but I will be doing quite a bit of re-writing of what's already there.
Like the previous edition it will be freely available online, but it will now be in HTML format and broken up into chapters in the same manner that An Honest Bark is over on Cloud Bird Trail.
Unlike the previous edition, I'm not adding any substantial new material (or at least not planning to right now), but I will be doing quite a bit of re-writing of what's already there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
