Rosie O'Donnell, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Alec Baldwin and
any other celebrity who feels the need to expound on political
issues while appearing on entertainment programs-please, kindly,
shut up!
Yes, I know the first amendment provides for the exercise of free
speech but for heaven's sake, there is such a thing as an abuse
of audience. The public tune in to variety shows like ``The
Tonight Show.'' ``David Letterman,'' and even ``Rosie O'Donnell''
to be entertained not to listen to hackneyed soapbox ranting by
uninformed neophyte politicos.
The latest miscue by the clueless celebrities is their
denunciation of Rudy Guiliani's homeless policy. Much
pontification took place recently on Ms. O'Donnell's morning
program. First Rosie pouts and shakes her head ruefully and asks
if Rudy thinks he is ruling the world by arresting the poor
homeless. Then her guest star Tim Robbins, his knee jerking
furiously, decried the mayor's homeless policy by asking an
applauding audience if it wouldn't be kinder to treat these
unfortunate, unlucky people more compassionately. A wan smile and
an earnest expression thanked the audience for their thunderous
response.
Where exactly do these stellar personalities live themselves?
Why, as far away as possible from these poor unfortunate souls
they care so much for. Perhaps it would help if we would define
exactly whom we are referring to when we speak of the
``homeless.''
Certainly, there are those who have arrived at this situation
through no fault of their own. Fires, layoffs, deaths, divorces
can all lead to unexpected crises in living arrangements but the
poor unfortunates who have been devastated by these circumstances
are not the ones in danger of being arrested.
This city budgets over $500 million to sustain the indigent
victims of circumstances. This is not chunk change but to hear
these ivory-tower residents talk, you'd think that Guiliani's
forces were rounding up Dickensian orphans huddled in doorways
begging for alms.
No, Rosie and Tim, what the police have to contend with are
brick-throwing, lice infested, alcoholics and crackheads who have
long worn out their welcome at the homes of friends and
relatives. These are the dredges of society that have rejected
any preference for a civilized existence. You definitely do not
want them camped out on your doorstep.
Should they be abandoned? Of course not, but when the city tries
to deal with this problem, civil rights activists bring suit
against it. Remember Billy Boggs? This homeless woman had the
NYCLU battling for her right to remain on the street, spitting,
defecating and verbally abusing passersby instead of being
involuntarily and humanely hospitalized.
What on earth do these celebrities think we should do about the
destitute who clearly need medical and psychiatric assistance? I
did not hear any details from Ms. O'Donnell on the actual policy
recommended by the mayor. These ``cruel, heartless'' arrests
target those able bodied homeless who refuse to work for their
shelter. This is called earning your keep. What is wrong with
that?
Maybe the problem with celebrities and politicians who believe in
promoting foolish social programs is that they have never been
poor. They have never missed a meal or had any doubts about where
their next meal was coming from. They have never lived in
substandard housing or in dangerous neighborhoods. They realize
that they are more fortunate than others and they genuinely feel
sorry for the have-nots. I can understand their pity.
Unfortunately, they also believe that the answer will be solved
by a government program that will sweep the problems out of their
sight. This does not and never has worked because a lack of money
or resources is not the major cause of chronic homelessness.
Substance abuse and a dysfunctional family unit is the primary
cause of the body wreckage we find living in cardboard boxes. If
you disagree with this assessment you have probably never been
impoverished.
I've viewed poverty at close range and witnessed the folly of
well-meaning empty gestures. Billions of dollars have been spent
in band-aid anti-poverty programs that should have gone towards
treating the root causes of dysfunction.
There is never a good reason for anyone to starve in this great
city of ours. There are food pantries in churches and soup
kitchens that provide sustenance for any who need it. Rosie,
earnest parent that she is, condemns the idea of children being
taken away from homeless parents but in certain cases, this
option may be imperative. Welfare benefits and resources that
should go for their children's support frequently ends up being
shot into parents' arms or snorted up their noses.
Ask any participant in a Ready, Willing & Able program and
they will agree that the mayor is on the right course. This
particular program takes the homeless and rehabilitates them by
setting rules and regulations and insisting that they work. What
the mayor has recommended shows more compassion and understanding
than all these star-studded protests put together. The great
novelist Taylor Caldwell once wrote that charity is not a virtue
if it takes away a man's willingness to work. Amen to that.
What has become apparent beyond the idiocy of the celeb protests
is that they have become downright dangerous. The murder rate in
New York City has declined considerably under this
administration. In large part this has been due to zero tolerance
enforcement of quality of life laws.
The tragic Diallo shootings in February provoked a flurry of
anti-Guiliani protests by limousine liberals like Susan Sarandon,
former mayors and political figures like Sharpton and Jesse
Jackson. Carrying signs about police brutality, these celebrities
used every bit of star power they could to influence police
procedure.
As a result of their efforts, certain police procedures were
revised and sensitivity training programs were initiated. Lo and
behold. Guess what? The murder rate has crept up ever since and
in my own precinct the 120th , the personal cost has been
considerable. Thus far, homicide victims total 17 for this year-
nearly twice that of 1998.
There are those who will claim that it's ludicrous to equate the
rising homicide rate with relaxed police policies but they don't
live in a barrio or a ghetto. The biggest beneficiaries of the
city's decrease in crime have been the residents of the inner
city who now have a better chance of surviving life there.
That is if the witless entertainment contingent would just shut
up.