bunks for drunks

In the past I dismissed the homeless.

That was until I moved to the downtown East side of Calgary. In the centre of the homeless area. Those folks became part of my daily existence.

The homeless normally claim they “like the freedom”. They cannot hold a job because they refuse to knuckle under authority.

They cannot live in a shelter because of the tyranny of rules imposed there.

Sounds believable.

Then I heard an NPR podcast: Homeless Alcoholics in Seattle Find a Home

Bill Hobson is a homeless advocate in Seattle who runs a government program that one critic calls “bunks for drunks.” It’s a facility that offers a home for alcoholics in exchange for nothing. They can even continue drinking while living there. Renee Montagne speaks with Hobson about the logic behind the program.

Of 79 chronic, oft-hospitalized alcoholics offered a chance at shelter — 75 accepted.

Seems the real reason for homelessness, normally not admitted by the homeless, is addiction. At least for alcoholics.

This is a brave, honest experiment in how to truly help the homeless. Congratulations Bill Hobson.

Not everyone agrees with me. Especially regarding the funding of the project:

New York Times – Homeless Alcoholics Receive a Permanent Place to Live, and Drink

helping the homeless

Is money the answer?

What would happen if you gave homeless man $100,000?

That’s the question posed by a Showtime documentary called Reversal of Fortune. Ted Rodrigue lives under a bridge in Pasadena and agrees to participate in a documentary about the homeless, though he doesn’t know he’s goint to get any money.

He finds it unexpectedly in a dumpster half way through the film.

Reversal of Fortune (2005 film) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I quite liked Ted Rodrigue before he got the money. He had adapted to decades of living on the street and had a “life” of sorts.

As you probably guessed, money was not the answer for Ted. You could say it ruined his life.

Germany Chancellor, video podcaster

250px-AMerkel.jpgAngela Merkel is the first world leader to video podcast. (If you don’t count Bin Ladin.)

Her first spot, in German only, was about the World Cup of Soccer.

Right now blogging is suddenly “cool”. Time for bandwagoneeers to hop on.

It’s a phase we saw during the adoption of email addresses 10-years-ago or so.

My theory is that everyone will have a blog one day. Everyone will be Master of All Media.

“How much longer will America lead?”

SafariScreenSnapz002.pngI’ve suggested 2025 as the date when everyone will agree that the USA is no longer the “world leader”. But perhaps it will be sooner.

Dvorak Uncensored » How much longer will America lead?! Public Unaware of Realities

The internet is the best hope for the future, but America seems bent on squandering their seemingly insurmountable lead in this field. If I were Google or Yahoo, I’d be looking to move offshore.

The main problem seems to be the legislative process in the USA. Lobbyists for corporations vie to get legislation enacted for the short-term interests of their shareholders. No one in the US government seems to be protecting free enterprise, free markets, and innovation.

The Bush Republicans are dead in the water, trying to deflect public attention from important issues like Health Care to hot button topics like same sex marriage. It’s embarrassing.

I admire what the USA has done to further democracy, freedom and entrepreneurship in the past. America has been the best country in the world since 1900.

But how much longer?

Tiananmen Square Massacre, June 4th, 1989

No one understands better the importance of symbolic imagery than totalitarian governments. One day this photo will be revered in China.

I am hopeful that democratization will start in earnest immediately after the 2008 Olympics. Current leadership should be finalizing exit plans.

Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hero.jpg

The Unknown Rebel – AP photographer Jeff Widener. A lone protester delayed the tanks for over half an hour.

want to patrol the Mexican border?

“Texas plans to enlist web users worldwide in its fight against illegal immigration by offering live surveillance footage of the Mexican border on the internet.

The cameras will be trained on sections of the 1,000-mile (1,600km) border known to be favoured by illegal immigrants. Web users who spot a suspicious crossing will be able to alert the authorities by telephoning a number free of charge.”

we make money not art: Web users to patrol US borders

bor-der.jpg

mainstream media left to play catch-up

Technorati Weblog: Stephen Colbert: Bloggers 1, Mainstream Media 0

“Stephen Colbert” and “Colbert” have been the top Technorati searches all week, which is a nice real-life example of how mainstream media and the blogosphere are SO different.

Colbert at the White House Correspondents Dinner

ColbertPresident Not Amused.

Despite a shaky start, Stephen Colbert’s spin-off late night Comedy Central TV show is now more essential viewing than The Daily Show with John Stewart.

Colbert pretends to be a rabid right wing pro-Bush TV talk show host. And he is hilarious.

George Bush has probably never seen Colbert’s show. But he knows the routine now after being nuked by Colbert at the annual dinner for political correspondents dinner.

Highlights on the Editor&Publisher website.

Google in China

Here is a lengthy NY Times article digging into the Google compromise in China:

Google’s China Problem (and China’s Google Problem)

comic logo

It is a complex story. I think Google is doing the right thing.

Yahoo was first into China. But Google was far more successful when they first entered the market.

Suddenly, Sept. 3, 2002, Google results disappeared in China. Shut down completely by the government. Many concluded that the action was instigated by Baidu, a Chinese competitor to Google.

A quarter of Baidu’s traffic comes from searching for unlicensed MP3’s — illegal in the USA.

After much consideration, Google opened Google.cn in January 2006. Try it yourself. Search for “Human Rights” and see what you get. The results are self-censored in compliance with Chinese law.

Google.com is still open in China. The same search results as we get here. But when you try to click on a “banned” link, you get an error page. All of wikipedia.com is unavailable, for example.

One Chinese dissident in the article ranks Google best. Then Microsoft. But calls Yahoo! a sell-out.

So, should Google have simply dropped out of the Chinese market? (That’s what Apple is going to do in France, unwilling to modify their service to comply with French law.)

What do you think? (Do you own stock in Google?)