Obstruction of Justice: What the Special Counsel investigated
Not all homeless are ugly
Sunday’s editorial (May 19) on the ugliness of homelessness was excellent and right on, but the paragraph about “rude, selfish, dishonest, obnoxious” belonged at the bottom, after descriptions of the rest of the homeless population.
As a 3+ year volunteer at SideWalk, I‘ve interviewed dozens of ordinary citizens living on $750 SSI or SSDI (disability) who had to leave their “home” because: a spouse died/left and their income dropped by half; a relative of the landlord needed their room; their old trailer finally became uninhabitable; their house sold; domestic abuse; incompatibility with family; they lost their job; romance ended and they had to leave, etc. The list is long, with many variations on the theme, but the result is the same. They are not deadbeats but are on the street with no way to afford housing in today’s market.
The disability many suffer from, be it physical or mental, prevents them from working at most jobs, but they did not and do not intend to be a drag on society. They are just stuck in a poverty spiral they cannot control.
These people are less visible and generally less “ugly” than those we see most often who offend our sensibilities, but they make up half or more of the homeless population, and these are the people who will end up in the tiny houses churches want to install in your neighborhood in Lacey and elsewhere.
They will be carefully vetted and decent neighbors in need of a bit of Christian charity.
Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary tells us that obstruction is an act of obstructing. Obstruct is defined: to hinder from passage, action or operation: impede.
Obstructionism is defined: deliberate interference with progress or business, especially of a legislative body.
I don’t claim to be a stable genius but it seems clear to me that President Trump’s action directing his cabinet members and aids to ignore congressional subpoenas is “text book,” deliberate obstructionism.
So it goes.