Here's a story of pain and sadness from my own capital city Indianapolis. Basically, someone, generally referred to as "elect officials" (I will get to this later), got the idea to install locked donation boxes downtown in an effort to discourage what they're calling "panhandling". In other words, they're trying to stop homeless people from mooching off too many people who are passing by and get them to go to all those special agencies instead. Personally, I'm not sure what to think, but apparently, the Indianapolis Star decided to pseudo-interview a homeless guy who was "adversely" affected by these donation boxes.

According to this guy, the boxes have hit him in his "already empty pockets", and then goes on to say that he used to make 50 dollars a DAY just by begging. 50... Dollars... A day. As one bright commenter already pointed out, that's 1500 a month, more or less, if you only count the work days, and an apartment is at tops 400 a month. These are NOT "empty pockets", and I think Indy Star picked the wrong homeless man to interview. I make 60 dollars a day when I work... Sounds like this "homeless" guy has it better than I do! Remember, folks, there's also a surplus of empty houses right now, so cost of living isn't exactly high at the moment, especially in Indiana. I have an incredibly hard time feeling sorry for this man, who, I might add, Indy Star randomly decided to coin as a "vietnam veteran" in an effort to lay down the guilt trip on everyone for not helping who they clearly think fought in the war. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you could be a considered a vietnam veteran if you were a supply officer on a base in that country, could you not? I'm not at all crashing on the armed forces, but we know NOTHING about this man. He could have been dishonorably discharged for all we know. (And that would certainly leave a huge negative image on his resume and naturally affect his ability to get a job...)

The whole article reeks of typical donation-driven places: "We aren't getting enough money from you people. Come on, it's good cause! Sure, you gave some, but give MORE!" Correct me if I'm wrong, but the very fact that it's a donation-driven organization means that giving is entirely optional. We might not be donating, not because we don't want to help the homeless, but because we don't want to help YOU help the homeless. Even the homeless guy they interviewed was obviously perturbed at the fact that people haven't given him so much since the boxes were installed. Indeed... If I were homeless, asking for MORE money would be the last thing on my mind. I think my conscience would be too concerned with thanking people for giving what they did. The same goes for that organization. Of course, I think the newspaper is responsible for the feel of the article, as well, and go to say that donations for Wednesday were "only" $290, which is a "fraction of what shelters need". But don't forget to read the line where they say a mission raises 5.6 million dollars from 40,000 donors already. Sure, every bit helps, but you make it sounds like you're running on fumes. 5.6 millions dollars expected from 40,000 donors is NOT running on fumes. In closing, Indy Star mentioned that this guy didn't trust the city officials to use the money like they said they would, but he changed his mind when he was promised to get his "federal benefits". The guy clearly wasn't using an agency, and was railing against the city for stealing the donation money, but changed his tune when he actually experienced what the city was offering? Right... I guess there's no problem now, after all that he said about not getting any money anymore? He went to the agency and everything's just fine now.

Now, to expand upon the "elect officials" remark, let's take a quick look at the very first comment left on the article, and I shall kill two birds with one stone. One by someone who goes by the nickname "teachyourchildren". What does this person think about the whole thing? I think it's quite obvious when they start out with this line:

These boxes are just another Republican bandage over a hole growing wider and wider.

With this, they both clearly show where their allegiances lie and the extent of their ignorance. It's a prime example of how everyone wants to blame conservatives, Republicans and President Bush for all the bad that is happening in the country. I'm not even going to bother answering his ranting of how Republicans do this and do that and how Republicans aren't doing their job for the poor. WOAH, woah, woah... I just have one small thing to say, as have others who want to get directly involved with this numbskull:

Indiana is Democrat controlled. The "elect officials" are Democrats. (Why the article didn't spell this out could be attributed to the fact that they're trying to show the donation boxes in a sour light and they don't want Democrats to get the bad rap, but we all know how unbiased and objective the mainstream media is and we all know how this simply can't be the case.) After the disaster of the last Republican majority term, people realized that Republicans weren't going to do what they felt had to be done, so they voted for Democrats, since they were the only other option. Indiana is predominantly Democrat at the moment, and, as a result, anything like this that gets done has to have a Democrat majority vote. Get it? The Democrats are doing this... Not the Republicans. All you have to do is look at the courthouse and how many names with Ds are sitting in office. It really doesn't take a lot of work to check before you make claims like this. It's just another perfect example of liberal hate and the fact that a lot of people simply aren't involved in politics enough to notice what really is going on. If you really feel this way about what's going on with the donation boxes, then please put blame where the blame is due. Republicans are stifled right now. Don't you remember the gloating when the Democrats "wrested" control from the corrupt Republicans? I certainly do...