1.31.2012

Contributor Vendor Killed Crossing Street After Exiting Bus


My heart is broken today at this tremendous loss.  
Below is the official statement from The Contributor:

Today, at The Contributor, we grieve the tragic loss of Andrew Owens, who, according to police, was struck and killed this morning while crossing the street after exiting a bus. Andrew was a vendor of The Contributor newspaper which is sold by homeless and formerly homeless newspaper vendors. His personable, artistic and earth-conscious spirit will be missed.
We ask for your thoughts and prayers for Andrew, those who loved him, the driver of the vehicle and all of the service professionals who attended to him today. And, we ask for your support for all that who experienced homelessness in Nashville.

Rest in peace, Andrew. You will be missed.

Contributor Salesman Dies After Being Hit By Car In Madison

Posted: Jan 31, 2012 6:31 AM CST Updated: Jan 31, 2012 2:41 PM CST
by Amanda Hara
NASHVILLE, Tenn. – A Contributor salesman died after being hit by a car in Madison on Tuesday morning.
It happened around 6:20 a.m. on North Gallatin Pike near Rivergate Mall. Police said 36-year-old Christian Owens had gotten off of a bus and was trying to cross the street to sell the paper when he was struck by a Mercury Villager minivan.
Police said Owens was taken to Vanderbilt Medical Center with critical injuries, but later died.
The driver of the minivan, 55-year-old Todd Duncan of Hendersonville, told police he did not see Owens in the roadway.
Police said there were no crosswalks on that part of the road, which makes it a  tricky area for pedestrians to navigate.
"You've got bus stops on one side of the road folks need to get to the other side of the road, there's no real way for them to get over there.  Even if they go up to the next intersection there's no cross walks no pedestrian walk signs," said Sgt. Bob Sheffield.
There was no evidence of alcohol or drug involvement in the crash, according to police.
The driver of that van, 55 year old Todd Duncan, told police he simply didn't see Owens.
Charges have not been filed in this case.
Owens worked as a vendor for at least six months.

27% Of Us "don't have enough money tucked away to cover basic expenses for three months in case of a layoff or other emergency"

My first thought when reading this was, "ya think?" Frankly, I'm surprised that number isn't higher, and I suspect that it is but have no way to prove it.

Something else that shouldn't get lost in the minutiae of this story is this disturbing news arising from a study out of the Consumer Federation of America, although if you're already poor, this will be old news to you:
A single man, 30, driving since age 16, owning a Ford Taurus, having a perfect driving record and commuting round trip 20 miles a day might pay $558 a year for insurance if he had a Master of Business Administration and lived in an affluent St. Louis suburb. If he were only a high school graduate, his rate rises by $71. If he were to become unemployed, his cost climbs another $84. If he moves to a poorer area, his rates rise by $347.
Yep, the poorer and lower educated you are, the more you pay for car insurance.  Doesn't take long to connect those dots: can't afford insurance, can't drive.  Can't drive, radius of work access decreases. Less opportunity = higher chance of poverty = even less opportunity. 

What about public transportation, you say? Ah, yes, good old bus and train travel!   If you think this is a viable option for most, you probably reside in a big city like Washington DC, or Boston, or New York, but in the "flyover" states between coasts, public transportation  is often lacking, and in some places, can be prohibitively expensive. 

In Nashville, TN, a 31-day unlimited access bus pass for an adult is $84, so most likely Ms. Pagan, in the story below, would be unable to afford it.  Chances are good too that due to recent route closings, the route she would need to access her employment wouldn't be covered by the bus service anyway.  This has been a real issue for many of the poorer folks in Nashville since service routes were cut. 

But I digress.  There are two main points I'd like to make concerning this insurance conundrum for the poor.  First, it's likely that these rates aren't based on driving records but rather established by "risk managers" who have crunched enough statistics (and we all know that statistics can be utilized to support any point of view you'd like them to, with the right skew) to determine that uneducated and poor drivers are dumber than educated and wealthy drivers, otherwise the poor dummies wouldn't be...poor dummies?!?  Duh! 

So, c'mon, connect the dots with me: if you're poor and "uneducated" (risk managers will spell that d u m b), you are not nearly as intelligent as the educated wealthy, so you are more likely to make stupid driving mistakes, which of course will result in more accidents, which will of course hurt the bottom line in the insurance company's stockholder report.  Raise the dummies' rates to offset the almost certain losses these morons will cause us, and viola, we're  back in the black again! 

Wouldn't you just like to put a foot where the sun don't shine on a risk manager's body?

The second point I'd like to make here is that earning profit off the back of the poor isn't a new plan or isolated to insurance companies.  Banks charge higher interest to poor folk because their credit is usually not quite as good.  Check-cashing "stores" are worse than loansharks  when the poor can't afford to keep a bank account open, or have been denied a bank account at all. 

Car companies in impoverished neighborhoods entice with a "buy here, pay here" or "we finance in-house" deal for folks who can't get traditional car loans, and the interest rates and techniques used by them for collections would make mafia enforcer Richard Kuklinski blush. "Rent to Own" ripoffs steal poor folks blind, stores often charge "check cashing fees" when the poor try to turn a paycheck or a disability check into something usable.

Even the grocery stores in impoverished neighborhoods take advantage of the poor; smaller selections of products, prices that aren't often aligned with stores in wealthier areas.  If you're wondering why this is, it's because people can drive to other stores in these more affluent areas, and the competition forces stores to keep prices low lest shoppers head over to the store 10 blocks away with lower prices.  If you've got a car, no big deal.  On foot, or using a bus, it's a huge deal.

Everywhere the poor turn, someone is siphoning off precious pennies that the more affluent wouldn't tolerate. 

The lesson here?  
The less you have, the more they take.

Number of asset-poor Americans rising

27 percent of households do not have enough money tucked away to cover three months of basic expenses


Luz Pagan and her son, Marvin Robinson Jr., 12, sit in their small studio apartment. The two have been living there for more than two months, hoping to find a bigger apartment in the near future. (Abel Uribe, Chicago Tribune / January 27, 2012)

Luz Pagan, 45, has been working as a part-time cashier at a discount store in downtown Chicago for nearly three years, her requests to become a full-time employee with benefits having gone nowhere.

The single mom and her 12-year-old son, Marvin, have been living in a $575-a-month studio apartment on the North Side since November. But with a work schedule averaging 15 to 20 hours a week, in a job paying about $8.75 an hour, Pagan is struggling to cover living expenses and has to scrape together money from friends and family. Her last paycheck netted $64.

"I'm underemployed," said Pagan, who previously lived in a shelter for two months. She has an associate's degree and would love an office job. Marvin's dad helps with expenses, but she said she and her son — a mostly A and B student who wants to be a doctor — are living paycheck to paycheck, with no savings.

Pagan's plight is becoming more commonplace.

Nationwide, 27 percent of households are "asset poor," meaning they don't have enough money tucked away to cover basic expenses for three months in case of a layoff or other emergency that saps income, according to a study to be released Tuesday by the Washington-based Corporation for Enterprise Development. The nonprofit's mission is helping poor families and communities.

Since the nonprofit's 2009-10 survey, the number of asset-poor families has jumped to a little more than 1 in 4 from 1 in 5. Strip out a home, a business or a car — none of which can easily be converted to cash — and the measure of households who are "liquid asset poor" jumps to 43 percent.

In Illinois, 26.4 percent of households are asset poor and 39.8 percent are liquid asset poor.

If that weren't enough bad news for the working poor and for households barely getting by, the Consumer Federation of America on Monday released a report suggesting that the poorer the person is, the more she or he will pay for things like car insurance. Specifically, the report said, many low- and moderate-income drivers pay higher prices for automotive coverage even if they have spotless driving records and drive few miles.

Among the report's statistics: A single man, 30, driving since age 16, owning a Ford Taurus, having a perfect driving record and commuting round trip 20 miles a day might pay $558 a year for insurance if he had a Master of Business Administration and lived in an affluent St. Louis suburb. If he were only a high school graduate, his rate rises by $71. If he were to become unemployed, his cost climbs another $84. If he moves to a poorer area, his rates rise by $347.

"None are directly related to driving," but rather suggest a correlation with income, a Consumer Federation official said during a Monday conference call to discuss the results.

Pagan, who doesn't own a car, said she has begun working with Chicago-based Heartland Alliance — a nonprofit seeking to reduce poverty — to look for housing and secure full-time employment.

She doesn't have a credit card but has a debit card through a TCF Bank checking account that she has had for about six months. She previously banked with a megabank but switched when it curtailed its free checking options. Pagan, who has been on food stamps and who earned about $7,000 last year, said it has been about five years since she had to use payday lenders.

She said she'd like to see the state of Illinois offer additional ways to help needy residents, instead of giving more tax breaks to corporations.

Lucy Mullany, Heartland Alliance senior policy associate and coordinator of its Illinois Asset Building Group, said the study's findings mirror what she's seeing in Illinois — "continued erosion of individual wealth, especially among communities of color."

On her legislative wish list: Increasing what she says is a $2,000 limit on assets for participants in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. TANF provides temporary financial assistance, including for food, shelter and utilities, for pregnant women and for families with dependent children. Pagan doesn't receive TANF funds.

The Corporation for Enterprise Development report found sizable differences between states, with asset poverty rates ranging from a high of more than 45 percent in Nevada to a low of 15.7 percent in Vermont. Liquid asset poverty rates range from 64.5 percent in Alabama to 22.8 percent in Hawaii.

Vermont had the overall No. 1 rank for residents' financial security. Illinois was at No. 32 overall, yet was ranked 17th for the policies it has in place, raising questions about the programs' effectiveness.

The study, however, said states' gaps between policies and outcome could be the result of factors such as high housing costs.

Asset poverty is a problem that requires local, state and federal policy responses, said Tom Feltner, vice president of the Woodstock Institute, a Chicago-based nonprofit research group focused on fair lending issues.

Many Illinoisans with low levels of assets have a large percentage of their assets tied up in their home, he said.

"We need to keep homeowners in their homes, return vacant properties to productive use and ensure the availability of sustainable, prime mortgage credit going forward," he said. "To do so, we need local, state and federal policy responses that restore confidence in the housing market, improve opportunities to save and get people back to work."

In the Chicago area, poorer communities often are hit first by a weakening economy — and hit hard.

Says Feltner: "High-cost lending and low credit scores lock people in low-wealth communities out of a future economic recovery."

As a general rule, saving enough money for three to six months of living expenses is recommended, said David Hinman, senior vice president of retail banking for Fifth Third Bank.

byerak@tribune.com

1.29.2012

"Those still using hard drugs into their 50s are five times more likely to die earlier than those who do not"

Courtesy http://dyingforpills.com/
A few years ago, I received information that my older brother Benny had died on his 64th birthday from an overdose related to injecting cocaine.  I hadn't seen Benny since 1996, when he came from Michigan to California right before my mom died of brain cancer to say goodbye to her.

He was still a hard-partying man at that time, but then again, so was I, and together we pushed the envelope on more occasions than I care to remember, both in the actual using of various substances and in some of the more...dangerous endeavors we found ourselves involved in.  Ben was old scooter trash, having grown up in a "biker" environment and at the tender age of 18, had been shipped off to Viet Nam after he'd burned down a gas station in a gang fight with a rival bike club.  The DA offered him a Nam tour or a Jackson State Prison tour. He probably should have taken the prison tour instead, given what Viet Nam did to him psychologically. 

Besides, Ben eventually got his Jackson Prison tour as well, when he went in front of a judge for either his 7th or 8th DUI and was given a couple of years at one of the worst walled pens in the country as a result.  

Given his flash temper, his proclivity for serious Jack Daniel's drinking and his fearless experimentation with anything he could stick into a syringe, I wasn't surprised to hear that he'd killed himself celebrating.  Frankly I was more surprised he'd been able to avoid Mr. Reaper until he was 64.   

I remember thinking then about what it would be like to try and "party" like I used to as I tried to push from my own mind the image of Ben's dead corpse - and the gruesome images of his almost certain convulsions, foaming mouth and blue death skin the paramedics got to see as they arrived to pick up his dumb ass and haul him away in the meat wagon.

With the words of Ben's death still echoing in my ears, I began recalling the countless dead bodies I've seen, both as a paramedic and as someone who has witnessed more than a couple of folks who've "fallen out" from too much heroin,  crank, and/or other durg and alcohol combinations.  My thoughts ricocheted back and forth between those images and the recollections of my own near-death inducing behavior; from week-long intravenous cocaine binges, to massive hits of crack smoke, held in the lungs until I was able to push a U100 full of  black tar heroin into a vein, achieving a sort of pseudo speedball...a "crack-ball," for lack of a better term.

As the ringing in my ears and vibrating rush of the cocaine gave way to the heavy press of the heroin crawling up my spine and washing over the top of my head, shoving me down into a glazed, euphoric stupor, I must have asked myself not just dozens, but hundreds of times, "is this the one?  The one that's finally going to kill me?"   

No.

Unlike Ben, I got lucky.

Also unlike Ben, I realized my own creep into the danger zone of age,  and put the last hard drug into my body long before I ever hit 50. Unlike thousands of others too, I was extremely lucky in that I did not pick up one (or more) of the killer diseases that lurk in the bottoms of dope-spoons, or the mouthpieces of various crack and speed pipes, either. 

I don't know how I managed to dodge those bullets, although even my worst days chasing bags I carried a film container full of bleach everywhere I went, and was beyond meticulous with my "kits," never ever shooting dope after someone without first bleaching out my needles, using clean cotton from my own cigarettes and wiping the spoon with bleach as well.

I can tell you one thing that has probably saved my life though.

Even with all the damage to my brain I've done over the decades behind the coke, the acid, the weed, the heroin, and the wide variety of other substances I snorted, smoked and injected, I was still smart enough to realize as I got older that I'd gotten the message about drugs and drug use in general, and finally hung up the phone before it was too late.

RIP Ben.

For the rest of you my age who're still slamming, tweaking and staying gowed, take heed, you aren't 25 anymore.  

'Dabbling' in Hard Drugs in Middle Age Linked to Increased Risk of Death

ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2012) — Young adults often experiment with hard drugs, such as cocaine, amphetamines and opiates, and all but about 10 percent stop as they assume adult roles and responsibilities. Those still using hard drugs into their 50s are five times more likely to die earlier than those who do not, according to a new study by University of Alabama at Birmingham researchers published online Jan. 27, 2012, in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.
According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 9.4 percent of Americans ages 50-59 and 7 percent of adults ages 35-49 reported use of a drug other than marijuana sometime in the past year. The study’s lead author, Stefan Kertesz, M.D., associate professor in the UAB Division of Preventive Medicine. and colleagues attempted to discover if lifelong hard-drug use shortens lifespan to better enable primary-care doctors to advise patients who use drugs recreationally.
“While government guidelines have not endorsed screening for drugs in primary care, many doctors are challenged when they discover patients continue to dabble with them,” Kertesz says. “In primary-care practice, we often hear from stable patients who report using some cocaine, irregularly, perhaps on weekends. It’s an underappreciated but very common situation. The typical question physicians have to ask is ‘If this patient doesn’t have addiction, what advice can I give other than noting that it’s unwise to break the law?’ After all, we are supposed to be doctors, not law enforcement.”
Kertesz and a research team from other universities looked at data from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study for their analysis. CARDIA, funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, is a long-term research project involving more than 5,000 black and white men and women from Birmingham, Chicago, Minneapolis and Oakland, designed to examine the development and determinants of cardiovascular disease and its risk factors. Participants ages 18-30 were recruited and followed from 1985 to 2006.
The research team looked specifically at the reported use of “hard drugs” by 4,301 of the CARDIA participants. They compared people who stopped drug use early to those who continued and calculated the likelihood of premature death among these groups.
“Fourteen percent of the people in the study reported recent hard-drug use at least once, and of these, half continued using well into middle age,” Kertesz says. “But, most of the drug users in our study were not addicts. They were dabblers who used just a few days a month.”
Kertesz and his colleagues found that older hard-drug users were more likely to report being raised in economically challenged circumstances in a family that was unsupportive, abusive or neglectful. The team also found that those who were heavy drug users into young adulthood and continued at lower levels into middle age were roughly five times more likely to die than persons who didn’t use drugs.
“We can’t assume that drugs caused death, as in an overdose,” he says. “Rather what we found is that middle-age adults who continue to dabble in hard drugs represent a group that is at risk of bad outcomes — which could include death from trauma, heart disease or other causes that are not a direct result of their drug use — at a higher rate than people who stopped using drugs.”
Kertesz added that the team’s findings are a reminder that people who continue to use drugs are potentially quite vulnerable. They often have grown up under economic and psychosocial stress from childhood onward. They continue to smoke and drink and they remain at elevated risk of premature death.
“Based on the data we hope to offer better advice to primary-care doctors struggling with the rising tide of drug-taking by adults who have not left behind many of the bad habits they learned in young adulthood,” he says.
Study co-authors include Yulia Khodneva, M.D., Monika Safford, M.D., and Joseph Schumacher, Ph.D., UAB Division of Preventive Medicine; Jalie Tucker, Ph.D., UAB School of Public Health; Joshua Richman, M.D., Ph.D., UAB Department of Surgery; Bobby Jones, Ph. D., Department of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University; and Mark J. Pletcher, M.D., departments of Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Recommend this story on Facebook, Twitter,
and Google +1:

Other bookmarking and sharing tools:
| More

Story Source:
The above story is reprinted from materials provided by University of Alabama at Birmingham, via Newswise.
Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

Journal Reference:
  1. Stefan G. Kertesz, Yulia Khodneva, Joshua Richman, Jalie A. Tucker, Monika M. Safford, Bobby Jones, Joseph Schumacher, Mark J. Pletcher. Trajectories of Drug Use and Mortality Outcomes Among Adults Followed Over 18 Years. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2012; DOI: 10.1007/s11606-011-1975-3
University of Alabama at Birmingham (2012, January 27). 'Dabbling' in hard drugs in middle age linked to increased risk of death. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 29, 2012, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2012/01/120127174737.htm

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

1.27.2012

Reminding Myself Of My "Consumer" Status

Those of you who know me know it's no secret that I'm in a methadone maintenance program.
Currently at a 30mg daily dose


I started "Medication-Assisted Treatment" (MAT) for substance use conditions" in 2000 and have been a fierce advocate for the use of  MAT for those of us who suffer from opiate addiction ever since.

In talks and presentations around the country, I have been sharing the fact that Methadone maintenance not only saved my life, it allowed me to take my recovery to a point that I could establish stability and predictability in my life. The associated counseling and clinic "case management" services, helped me as well, and I learned about the nature of addiction in general, along with healthy ways of managing the issues life brings you on a daily, sometimes hourly basis.  I cannot tell you how important this has all been for me, and I think if you simply compare where I was at in my life when I first entered treatment to where I am at today, some 12 years later, you would agree that the benefits of the program were not lost on me.

When I first came into the program, I won't candy-coat it, I was skeptical of the potential for recovery through the use of another drug, especially one that was so closely related to the heroin I'd been using on the streets for decades.  I'd been 12-stepping it via court order, and while there is research that points to the fact that coerced treatment is as effective as voluntary treatment, I didn't find the NA program either effective or palatable. This was primarily because I'd been forced into the program in a small California town and just about everyone in those meetings were lying about their length of sobriety.  I knew that because I was out partying with them when we weren't sitting in the meeting rooms.  It took me a while to "work my own program" instead of worrying about others, but those initial experiences soured me for a long time on the whole 12-step scene.

I also couldn't get into the "higher power" thing, what with my utter hatred and loathing of authority back then, not to mention the feelings of spiritual abandonment. It wasn't easy to "give up control" to anyone, let alone something I felt had let me down over the course of most of my life. Perhaps the biggest thing I took away from that program was that the only way to achieve "sobriety" was to abstain from all drugs.

This approach is all well and good for those who could choose to do so.  But true addiction is a disease, not a choice, so while I could appreciate the 12 steps, I did not and was not able to maintain sobriety through "fellowship" and/or "working the program" with other 12-steppers.

Something I think is important to note here before I go further is that as I began to progress through MAT and into recovery as I understand and believe it to be, many of the steps themselves I ended up working over the last 12 years as a part of the recovery process in general.  I didn't realize this until recently when, in researching something around the 12-step program, I re-read them and was struck by how many of the steps I'd actually worked since entering MAT. 

But back at the beginning of the journey into sobriety, I could recognize that I was having a helluva time trying to navigate the world while strung out on heroin and having that nasty little monkey on my back pull my strings like a damned puppet master.  I'd used street methadone during the course of my "runs" out on the street, and liked very much its ability to keep me "well" for an extended period ("well" here refers to the absence of withdrawal symptoms.  It does NOT reference a "high," which in my circles, was known as being "gowed." This is a critical distinction because once we realized we were physically addicted to the crap, we realized that getting a buzz off the dope was really a luxury, since most Junkies, self included, often will "chip" at their dope, trying to stretch out the stash for as long as possible, unless of course, one has endless piles of money.  Since the people I ran with were definitely not rock stars, movie stars or spoiled rotten rich children, chipping quickly became the norm and actually getting high off the drug occurred only when we were lucky enough to afford a bigger dose.  Dealing and stealing provided that for most of the junkies I knew.  In my own case, I traded cannabis I'd grown for the dope).

At the end of the day, that's what the heroin lifestyle is all about, once the thrill of coming face to face with the "Dragon" and stepping over the edge and into the saddle of the "baddest" drug on the planet. Like most practicing addicts who don't realize they're addicts yet, my desire to do the "best" the world's pharmacy had to offer led me straight into the clutches of the worst the world's pharmacy had to offer as well.

And anyone who has used drugs beyond cannabis for recreation can tell you that when the "partyers" were hanging out and the subject of heroin came up, there was a tacit understanding that "there wasn't anything stronger, scarier, badder" and more symbolic of the "hard drug" world than to be a user of heroin.

I have to say too - and my fellow policy makers take note, here - those early days of my experimentation with more powerful drugs arose directly as a result of the scare tactics and misinformation I'd been fed by TV and the propaganda campaigns.

I clearly remember some of the more atrocious ones in the late 60s and early 70s that tried to paint drugs as more dangerous than they actually were (in retrospect, I can say today that those commercials didn't come close to describing the misery of a long-term addiction, but they also were moronic in the sense that they attacked the drug itself, rather than the long-term impact, which I think would have been far more productive in the long run).  Once I realized "they" had lied to me about the evil weed, I lost my inhibition.


In fact, when I heard of a new danger about a drug, I immediately sought it out because I figured if they were telling me how bad it was, it had to be very very good, indeed.   Of course, after almost 40 years of heavy abuse and the trail of destruction left in its wake, I know differently, but the dangers of the use weren't realistically portrayed and until they are, there will be many more exactly like me who will throw away large portions of their lives figuring it out. 

I make my living by raising awareness around this very issue, so in a bizarre twist of fate, the misery and agony of drug abuse paid off for me.  Lest anyone at all think this is the way to "success" let me be crystal clear here, I'd rather be run over by a dump truck, twice, than to have to go through even half of that experience again, so don't fool yourself.

What often get's lost in the whole discussion around the issue of drug use is that people didn't start using with some expectation of collapsing into addiction and horror.  They began using for a number of reasons, but the primary one is that "partying" is/was fun.  Getting "high" was exciting, and for many of us it was also sometimes mind expanding, enjoyable, empowering to those who were shy, nervous, and/or ordinarily quiet types, and countless other reasons as well.

We use at the beginning to alter ourselves, escape boredom, get some kicks, have some fun, experiment with our consciousness. And we are definitely not alone in this endeavor.  Drug use has been around for centuries, folks.  It's not a new phenomenon.

With all that said, today I think the majority of folks, at least here in the US, are using drugs to cope as well as to entertain.  It's a vicious circle, as well as a "chicken or the egg" argument to be sure, but regardless, once one has moved from the on-ramp and into the carpool lanes of drug use, the exits seem to be few and far between.

Not sure that the typical methadone clinic even realizes this about their users, since most clinics, like just about every other agency in behavioral health, is understaffed, with ridiculous patient/counselor caseloads.

And speaking of the clinic itself, let me connect this rambling post to the central point I wanted to make about reminding myself of my consumer status; it is when I must go to the clinic and deal with the stigma, the hidden skepticism when explaining why I miss diversion control because I've been traveling for work (diversion control is for those of us who have take home medication. Twice a week, the patient must contact the clinic at a special phone number.  If the patient number is listed in a recording, that patient must bring in "all full and empty bottles. They must drink that morning's dose in front of the nurse." It's a way that clinics work to combat the diverting of the drug to others, whether it's friends, family or selling it to others), the standing in the dosing line, pissing in a cup for drug testing, etc. etc. etc., that I remember oh so clearly the treatment many of us receive at the hands of the behavioral health "professionals."

Enduring this experience regularly is humbling, enlightening, and motivating, let me tell you.

It reminds me continually of where I came from, how we're treated as we enter recovery, and how we're viewed, even after sometimes decades in piss-test verified sobriety.   Perceptions die hard, and many in behavioral health continue to stigmatize those suffering from the disease of addiction, regardless of the length of sobriety and/or success in their lives that they have achieved. 

Until those perceptions are reconfigured,  I will remain motivated to change the paradigm around Medication Assisted Therapy because I know what MAT did for me, and I know I can't be the only one who's benefited in such significant ways from access to methadone and the counseling, groups and information about addiction and recovery available at the clinic. 

But here's the deal with all of that; ya gotta be ready and willing to change your life in order to take advantage of the expertise and the tools available to you at these clinics, and for that matter, in any drug treatment environment, whether it's an in-patient facility or a 12-step program.

Unfortunately, folks use methadone clinics for a whole host of reasons, actual recovery being only one of them.  How then to determine who should be eligible for the treatment protocol?  I suppose if I knew that, my colleagues at SAMHSA would hire me to make it so. 

But what I do know is that a medication assisted therapy program works for those who want it to, just like any 12-step, outpatient and/or inpatient rehab, faith-based recovery programs, and a host of other things developed to help a user stop using.  Keep in mind here that this is a 'recovery tool" -  one tool in a "recovery support" toolkit - and it should not be construed as the mechanism for recovery.  While this seems axiomatic, it is often lost on everyone, including the person in recovery.

What I mean by this is that recovery is - and really must be - considered and achieved in a holistic sense, by understanding and adhering to the "Guiding Principles" of recovery.  Most of us did not travel into addiction as the goal of our substance use.  We ended up there as a result of the substance use.

This is another important distinction here, and it can be more clearly understood simply by asking the question "why is it that two different people can experiment with an addictive drug and one can wind up an addict, while the other gets the message and hangs up the phone, never to call again?"

Every time I enter the clinic to receive my methadone, I am confronted with my addiction, with the conditions of treatment, with the multiple personalities that arrive looking for help, and with the magnitude of the problem of addiction in America.

It keeps me grounded in the work I do, close to my roots, and true to my calling.

I am a person in recovery, as well as a consumer of services.  Those services were fundamental in my recovery journey and every time I visit the clinic, I remember.

1.25.2012

Carey Fuller Sounds Off: "If you can't guarantee me immediate permanent housing, why would I call you?"

My friend Mark Horvath (@hardlynormal, Invisible People TV)
 turned me on to Carey some time ago and I quickly became a fan of her, both for her straightforward writing and her tenacity in dealing with homelessness as a mother with children in tow.

The other thing I appreciate about Carey Fuller (@careyfuller, http://www.facebook.com/people/Carey-Fuller/1632070933) is that she tells it as she sees it and that can often get tamped down in the discussions at the "professional" level because we're afraid to speak out too strongly, lest we end up offending a colleague, stepping on the toes of a funder, and/or coming across to others as "ignorant" or "angry" or "polarizing" or "divisive." None of these things keep you employed for very long, and one soon finds their advocacy voice and their 'straight-shooter" discourses tempered by the knowledge that to continue working in the field, one needs to learn to either "gentleize" their language or face the consequences.

We don't much admit to this, I'm afraid, but I believe it's true; the higher one goes in the world of helping others, the less they remain connected to those who need the help.  When you no longer see the pain and misery etched into the faces, or hear the wavering voices as someone tells you how they braved a bitterly cold night over a heat grate while being hassled by cops and community members, or attend yet another funeral of someone you knew who was living on the street, I think you begin to lose a bit of the "edge" that brought you to this field in the first place.

As a result, folks like me are always looking for the voices with the passion, the rawness and the lack of fear that there is anything left to lose.  This freedom of answering to no one but the self brings with it tremendous power in truth-telling without candy-coating, without fear of offending, without worrying what the consequences of speaking out may bring.

So I read Carey's writings with a secret envy, not to mention a lot of cheering.  Her piece below on shelters and why some don't or won't use them illustrates both her depth of knowledge on the subject and her passion in telling the rest of us why we should care.

If you're smart, you'll find Carey on Twitter and "like" her Facebook page.  You won't be sorry....


Carey Fuller

GET UPDATES FROM Carey Fuller

Homeless Shelter Systems and What They Don't Tell You

Posted: 10/27/11 04:42 PM ET
One of the most common preconceptions people have when someone says they're homeless or about to become homeless is that anyone can just show up at a shelter and be housed. Nothing could be further from the truth.
From my experience, service providers will gladly tell you all about their programs and what they have to offer and how many people they've helped but there's a side to them they all too often do not mention. For one thing, how many of them will openly admit that they feed a revolving door system?
In order to get funding, many shelters must fill quotas and in order to fill those quotas, shelters may have too many people in them or strict stay times to keep the flow of people coming and going in order to have the numbers required by funding programs. Overcrowding leads to safety issues you may not be aware of but the homeless people who have gone to shelters certainly do! If you want to know what goes on at some shelters, click on this link to get an idea.
One of the reasons I personally didn't just show up at a shelter is because I knew I couldn't do that. There is a "process" that you have to go through and even if you go through that "process," there is no guarantee of immediate permanent housing due to the indefinitely long waiting lists.
Many places expect you to keep calling them every day to let them "know" you still need help and they won't call back unless there's an opening and no one can tell you when that will be. Say you get through "processing" and by a stroke of luck, there's an opening. Guess what? You get to stay for maybe 90 days. Where do you go after that if you can't be moved into housing?
So my line of reasoning is "If you can't guarantee me immediate permanent housing, why would I call you?" For one thing, I'm wasting cell phone minutes to call when I should be saving them in case a possible employer calls.
Another issue I have with some shelter providers is if they are faith-based shelters that require conversion from its patrons. I'm going to call out the Union Gospel Mission on this one because when I first called them I was told that attending services was mandatory! What if you're a Muslim, a Buddhist or Jewish?
Even if they tell you that you don't have to be a Christian to get help, the expectation is very much one of conversion as I was told "I would still have to hear about Jesus". That's fine but how can you say you're helping ALL of the community when you obviously have an agenda? The idea that you won't help because someone does not choose to believe as you do is both ignorant and disrespectful to other cultures. If you don't believe me, talk to us natives about conversion....
And what's up with those homeless guys standing around downtown Seattle with signs screaming about God and for sinners to repent?
Every one of the ones I talked to said they came from the Union Gospel Mission's shelter system. The only thing this kind of behavior tells me is that you're a creepy organization!
Also, some shelters discriminate against LGBT youth and adults. I find that to be rather sad due the fact that from everything I've read about Christ, he didn't discriminate against anyone much to the dissatisfaction of the clergy during his time. From what I've read, Jesus served the very people everyone else looked down on as an example of compassion. Seems to me some folks pick and choose from their belief systems to justify their attitude towards other people.
A big reason I find myself on the outside of some programs is because I don't fit their eligibility requirements. For one thing, I've never had a problem with addictions or the law. I'm also not a domestic abuse victim so I can't go to those shelters or programs. What if I were a single dad with kids? If you think it's bad for a single mother trying to get help from programs, you ought to talk to these dads about how little help they get! Not many family shelters exist and if they do, it's women with children only. Dad gets sent to a men's shelter if he can get into one.
I have a question to service providers to answer honestly if they can: How can you offer help to get into housing when you already know that Section 8 has been closed to application for years and state funding has been slashed? In the case of Seattle, what shelter are you going to send folks to considering the fact that many are closing due to lack of financial support? How safe and clean are your shelters? How much of your budget is spent on "administrative costs" versus providing more housing?
How many of you know that there are no standards on health and safety in shelters? If you and your family were to suddenly become homeless, would you go to a shelter that was dirty or dangerous to be in? How many of you have seen the news bits about some shelters having problems with bed bugs? If you as a service provider wouldn't stay at the shelter you run, why on earth would you expect others to do so?
Now it's not my style to just bring up issues without thinking of ways to make better solutions to an obvious problem. I've been pondering about whether or not shelters should figure out a way to get corporate sponsorship to help with funding issues because I've noticed that many programs to help the homeless tank when government funding does. I've also noticed that programs and shelters not dependent solely on government aid stay in operation when others are closing. Many companies that are able to, often look for ways to give back to the community and I can't think of a better way for them to do that than to provide support to responsible local shelters or food banks.
Standardized health and safety policies in shelters are badly needed. You cannot just cram a bunch of different needs into a room and think there won't be problems. A prime example of this is putting families in the same shelter as severely mentally disabled homeless adults who might be prone to violence or individuals who could be undocumented predators. Also, how do you separate individuals with contagious diseases from everyone else?
Here's another suggestion: how about treating patrons with dignity? I spoke to a man who showed up at Nickelsville one night looking for a safe place to sleep for the night. The man told me that a shelter ran in the bottom of a church had just kicked everyone out because someone did not hold up their end of an agreement to help with housekeeping therefore EVERYONE was punished for what one person failed to do. I understand the need for rules but seriously, how does punishing people not responsible for the actions of another, help? Homeless people are people and do not appreciate other people looking down on them anymore than you do.
I could sit around talking about homelessness all I want to but the only way anything is going to actually change is if individuals get involved in their local communities. Writing blogs can help bring awareness but awareness doesn't mean a thing if there's no active involvement behind it to make real changes to end and prevent homelessness. The biggest loss in the homeless population today is hope. How can hope exist if nothing changes? The government isn't going to make new opportunities for change, WE DO!
So here's my challenge to all of the non homeless people out there. Pretend you're a homeless person or about to become homeless. Look up services for homeless people in your area and call them. See, this way you'll own the experience of what it feels like when you call "resources" looking for help. If you're a services provider, the same challenge applies only call your own facility or org so you can see what a homeless person hears when they call. You may be in for an eye opener.....
At the bottom of this blog is a list of links with helpful information on it regarding shelters and how they operate. Get educated.... get involved!
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dhs/html/home/mccainenglish.shtml
http://www.wlwt.com/r/26213912/detail.html
http://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/pages/the-revolving-door-spins-faster
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/17/893974/-Homeless-LGBT-Youth,-Lost-in-the-Crowd
Follow Carey Fuller on Twitter: www.twitter.com/careyfuller

1.21.2012

Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis: “The homeless people I see are not alcoholic, drunk men lying on a grate...They’re kids who live with grandma one weekend, the other grandma the next, auntie the next week, moving from school to school to school."

My friend and colleague Mark Horvath (@hardlynormal / http://invisiblepeople.tv/blog/) recently tweeted this story posted in the Fiscal Times, and it is just one more take on the coming "homeless surge" many of us believe is inevitable, and some of us believe has long been underway. 

High Rents, Low Wages and the Coming Homeless Surge 

 By MICHELLE HIRSCH, ALIX PIANIN, The Fiscal Times January 20, 2012

Photo: Lucy Nicholson / Reuters

Get ready for the next big financial bubble—the growth of America’s homeless population.

The biggest boon for the homeless was President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, that appropriated $1.5 billion to the Homeless Prevention and Rapid-Re-Housing Program that temporarily aided homeless and near-homeless households.  According to a report issued Wednesday by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the program has helped more than one million impoverished individuals find housing, but it is set to end this fall.
  “The resources provided by [the program] have run out in many communities … and the debt and deficit at the federal level have already begun to shrink assistance available to the most vulnerable,” Nan Roman, president and CEO of NAEH, said at a news conference.  “The failure to sustain this early recipe for success threatens to undermine progress now and in the future.” A separate report from the same organization released in September noted that the ranks of the nation’s homeless could swell by five percent over the next three years if no similar programs replace the program.

The View from the StreetVeda Simpson, a former methadone addict, was homeless for ten years, living in shelters, crack houses and what she dubbed “abandominiums” in public housing complexes. Then last year, thanks to a federal housing voucher, she moved into an apartment in Washington, D.C.’s North Capitol area.

“I used to go in the kitchen and fit my body up under the sink in the cabinet—you have to adjust your body to get up under there—and I used to have to sleep in there so security wouldn’t find me,” Simpson told the Fiscal Times. “I slept in there for about six months, and it was rough.”

Simpson, a vendor for StreetSense, a daily newspaper about the homeless, is one of thousands of people who managed to get off the streets and into housing in recent years, despite one of the worst recessions in modern history, according to experts and homeless advocates.  Now she lives in subsidized housing with her eight cats, and says she is two months away from earning certification as a veterinary technician through an online program. “It’s really hard being homeless,” she said. “I don’t see nobody who wants to continue like that. They’re trying to better themselves.”

There are glimmers of good news about the homeless.  The NAEH report found a slight decrease in the overall number of people living on the street between 2009 and 2011 -- the ranks of the nation’s homeless fell by one percent, or about 7,000 people. 

Across the country, 636,017 people were identified as homeless in 2011 compared to 643,067 in 2009, according to the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, Commerce and Health and Human Services.

With the troubling spectacle of homeless people and panhandlers loitering on street corners of downtown areas in many cities, it’s hard to imagine that the problem of homelessness is actually waning.  The NAEH study cautions that the plight of the homeless is likely to grow more acute because of low-paying jobs, high housing costs and the loss of emergency federal assistance.

Double-Up TroubleOne of the report’s chief findings is that the number of people “doubling up”—living with friends, family, or nonrelatives—rose by more than 50 percent between 2005 and 2010, and 13 percent between 2009 and 2010.  Those arrangements are the most common gateway to homelessness, and the increases mean more people are getting to that “last stage” before they are forced onto the streets, Roman said.   “Doubled-up people have an elevated risk of homelessness….Thirty percent of all homeless shelter residents and 44 percent of adults in families who use homeless shelters were doubled-up prior to entering the shelter system,” the report said.
 
Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., told reporters that children are bearing the worst of the  emotional brunt of “doubling up,” and many of them show that by acting up in school.
  “The homeless people I see are not alcoholic, drunk men lying on a grate—the stereotype of a homeless person,” said Moore, a member of both the House Budget and Financial Services Committees.  “They’re kids who live with grandma one weekend, the other grandma the next, auntie the next week, moving from school to school to school.” 

The report also highlights the fast rising number of poor households that are devoting more than half their income to rent. Those families and groups are highly vulnerable to losing their housing in the coming years, the report stated.  Between 2007 and 2010, there was a 22 percent increase in the number of these so-called “severely housing cost burdened” households.
  
Shamekia Murray knows this situation all too well. She couldn’t keep up with her rent payments after she was forced to accept a $15,000-a-year pay cut at her Washington, D.C. community health clinic job.  She and her then-five-year-old son were evicted from their apartment and her car was repossessed.

Murray and her son slept on friends’ and family members’ sofas for eight months, while she continued to hold down her job as a dental assistant.  “I wasn’t used to having to ask someone, ‘Can I borrow $20 to pay for the Metro subway?’  I was used to turning the key in my own home, having family gatherings, and having my son sleep in his own bed.  “All that got taken away from me in less than a year,” she added. “It got to the point where I just broke inside.”
  
Murray, now 33, sought transitional housing for eight months to get on her feet before going out on her own.  She recently received a job promotion, and now rents a two-bedroom apartment. “It’s a matter of knowing what it is that you want, and knowing that you’re not ever going to go back,” she said. 

1.20.2012

Advocates Unhappy With Nashville Homelessness Commission Performance

I attended my first Nashville Metropolitan Homelessness Commission meeting in my official capacity as Commissioner on 1/6/2012 and the perfunctory progression of the Commission meeting brought little in the way of new news about the status of homelessness or the work towards ending it in our community.  This isn't the Commission's fault, since three new members were appointed and it took a chunk of time to cover that, as well as to discuss the "highlights" of 2011.

I also wasn't surprised to hear public comments from many of the people I have worked with on the streets here that expressed frustration and despair with the lack of progress of the Commission.  A couple of gentlemen even requested the disbanding of the Commission, while others focused their ire on Key Alliance Director Clifton Harris.

I understand well their frustrations, their anger, and their despair.  I have felt those same emotions plenty of times when working as an outreach worker here in the city of Nashville, and can remember clearly the rage and utter hopelessness I often felt when I was homeless and struggling on my own.

Back when I was experiencing homelessness however, the idea of a commission to address the problems I faced wasn't even a twinkle in the eye of a local official yet, and having a place to go and vent my frustrations while raising awareness of the problems I was facing would have been an incredible opportunity.  For these two reasons alone I support having the Commission remain together.

Demanding the resignation of Clifton Harris would almost certainly have deleterious impact on the progress of the commission, minor as that progress might seem to some at this point.  Disbanding the Commission now would further silo agencies while completely removing any level of accountability of the performance of agencies around the city.  None of these things would work in the best interest of ending homelessness in our city and frankly would most likely cause further delays, as well as chaos, in trying to arrive at comprehensive and integrated approaches to ending homelessness in and around Nashville.
  
Furthermore, that we may very well be at a point in time in Nashville when some of the opposing forces that had been polarized into defensive positions by previous actions and events within the community - on all sides - may be ready to come together around the common goal of ending homelessness provides perhaps the most important reason the Commission should remain viable and active.

Mind you, I agree with advocates and disgruntled voices that the Commission has struggled. It has gone off-course on tangents. It has perhaps taken on issues that, while related to homelessness, were not necessarily germane to its mission.   But hindsight is 20-20 and the forest is thick with trees.  It's hard to know whether you're on course with so many unknowns.  Understanding the myriad causes of homelessness, and the interconnected nature of forces that conspire to keep people on the streets, takes time to discover within each community.  Granted, this doesn't excuse a lack of progress by the Commission, but it does help to explain why momentum has been challenging to induce. 

Frankly, even when one does begin to get a handle on these "forces," correcting them can be far harder than one may think.

Recently, a friend of mine who I worked with to get off the street several years ago told me about his experience with a local church as they set about attempting to create a 90-day shelter for those experiencing homelessness.  He told me he was amazed that there were so many rules and codes and issues around trying to provide housing fit for "human habitation."

I feel - and know oh so well - your pain, my friend.

For him it was clearly one of those "if I'da known back then what I know now, I'da done my bitchin differently..." moments for him.   I bring this up because I think the same holds true for anyone who is unfamiliar with LWI, or Living While Impoverished. 

It's important to remember here that we're not talking about building a bridge across a river or a deciding on whether a new mall can be placed near a residential neighborhood.

The causes of homelessness can be extraordinarily complex.  When that is coupled with an uncoordinated patchwork of policies by separate entities designed to address individual issues related to housing, employment, substance misuse and/or mental health conditions, I believe it sets up its own conditions that can, under certain circumstances, lead to more people actually being harmed by efforts to "fix" the problems than those who are helped. 

The Feds, often maligned as well for uncoordinated, patchwork policies and missteps, understood this problem a long time ago and back in 87 created the Interagency Council on Homelessness to try and build some bridges and collaboration across siloed agencies.

Talk about a tough damned job.

From egos to politics to issues around funding, working at that level has more landmines than the Korean border.

To its credit, the Council has grown increasingly important as a mechanism to establish cooperative engagement across the Federal spectrum.  If you think that ain't a job from hell, you most likely don't have much of a clue about how these entities operate, or how much actual "politics" (meant in the most derisive, cynical, contemptible example of the word possible) plays a role in whether a particular agency will help, harm or fail miserably.

And no disrespect intended to those who don't know how politics impacts these agencies; hell, if what each agency is responsible for doesn't directly affect you, I can't blame you for not only not knowing, but also not caring and lumping them in with the rest of the governmental "mysteries" that operate whether we know anything about them or not.

My point here is that as we have delved into the causes of homelessness, we've uncovered tentacles into damned near every aspect of society, government and culture. No one person, or single agency, can possibly hope to know, understand and be able to guide the rest of us toward a solution that applies to all. 

So when one drills down to the local level and finds a body of people coming together to find solutions, it shouldn't come as a surprise that we find ignorance, agendas, and differing perspectives about how to approach the problems associated with causing homelessness.

And remember here that we've not even begun to consider yet the overarching responsibility, which is to ensure housing for people experiencing homelessness.  What one quickly discovers as one begins to grapple with this responsibility is that the interconnectedness of everything else begins quickly tearing apart the finest-laid plans. Finding housing for some of the most challenging of our chronically homeless residents is probably one of the most demanding tasks we ask of local leaders and concerned citizens in our community. 

So while the Commission has struggled, disbanding it now, or tarring, feathering and running out of town the guy who has worked daily to bring folks from every perspective to the table, seems like the worst possible thing to do, especially given this recent news.

Rather, what I would propose to all Commission members is that we set a single priority for 2012:
                                 
                                          HOUSING.

Finding it, figuring out how to pay for it, getting people experiencing homelessness into it, and then keeping those people housed for....ever, if that's what it takes.  

All other issues that the Commission is currently grappling with need to be either tabled or delegated out to other groups, agencies and/or entities in the community.  Then, every single one of us involved with the Commission and/or interested in ending homelessness in the city needs to hunker down, explore our connections within the community, bring the key stakeholders to the table and hash out what it takes to make affordable housing, lots of it, available to our citizens. Secondarily but perhaps even more important in the long run, we must figure out a way to sustain it. 

There are some good models up and running that are available to us for examples. There are also some great minds that have resolved tougher issues in their communities than we are now facing.  We have access to those models and those people and we need to bring them into the discussion as needed, both to provide some new perspectives and in the event we are unable to resolve issues or arrive at solutions.

There should no longer be a reason - or an excuse - that we stand at any impasse on this issue.  Regardless of what is motivating people to the table, we all know what is absolutely needed, and needed now: an end to homelessness for the good people of Nashville

It's time for everyone to set aside differences, grudges, anger, disillusionment and join minds and hands to carry out the vision of the Commission:
Within 10 years, Nashville will be a community without chronic homelessness by assuring access to safe, affordable and permanent housing with a comprehensive array of supportive services.
Given the little time we have left to realize this vision, we'd better get very busy, indeed.

Everything you ever wanted to know about the Nashville Metropolitan Homelessness Commission

Activists Unhappy with Progress of Homelessness Commission
Monday, January 09th, 2012, by Blake Farmer
The Metro Homelessness Commission reports providing 34 people with housing and case management in 2011. (image courtesy The Key Alliance)
The Metro Homelessness Commission reports providing 34 people with housing and case management in 2011. (image courtesy The Key Alliance)
Homeless activists in Nashville are calling for the Metro Homelessness Commission to be disbanded or at least overhauled. The panel was set up in 2005 and originally tasked with ending chronic homelessness in Nashville by 2015.

Anyone can speak at the end of commission meetings, which now occur just six times a year because of poor attendance by the panel’s own commissioners. It’s not unusual for homeless people to sound off on downtown police or conditions at a shelter. But on Friday, several expressed hopelessness.
“We’re so off course and off plan that it’s almost shameful.”
Steve Reiter is formerly homeless and says the commission should be dissolved. In seven years, the panel has been responsible for housing 92 people, according to its own figures. The goal morphed from ending chronic homelessness to reducing overall homelessness.
Chairman Eric Cole has been part of the commission since its establishment by Mayor Bill Purcell.
“I feel like everybody else, that there’s a lot more progress that needs to be made. But I also think we’ve had some significant accomplishments.”
Finding housing and services for 15 veterans and organizing a new 5K benefit run were on the commission’s list of successes for 2011.

When the original timeline expires in 2015, Cole says it would make sense to review the need for a commission, which has an annual budget of $1.3 million. Even then, Cole says he’d be “shocked and very disappointed” if the panel went away.

Here’s a look back at the original “Strategic Plan to End Homelessness in Nashville.”

1.19.2012

"Arrests of 2 alleged gang members in connection with the murders of five people in a shooting rampage at a homeless camp in 2008"

The wheels of justice turn slowly, but turn they do. 

I'm not a proponent of the death penalty because frankly it's not a deterrent but rather a punitive "feel-good" measure we as a society mete out to those guilty of heinous crimes.  With that said however, I think if you are going to have a death penalty, it should be reserved for cases like this, child murderers, and the twisted rapists who prey on the most vulnerable.

Okay, enough of the vengeance-promotion; the truth is that even though these crimes rise to the level of having "special circumstances" that "enhance" the punishment for the crime, I don't think California specifically designates crimes against those experiencing homelessness as a "hate crime."

I do know that since 2004, police in California has a law "mandating police officer training on hate crimes against homeless persons, particularly those with disabilities," but whether the prosecuting attorney actually has a law with which to charge someone accused of a hate crime is unknown to me.

That's too bad, too, since there'd be no question whatsoever if there was some kind of national hate crime law that included persons experiencing homelessness.....

Two Gang Members Arrested in 2008 Homeless Camp Massacre

VIDEO: Watch Glen Walker's Report

5 Dead in Shooting Massacre at Homeless Camp in 2008
5 Dead in Shooting Massacre at Homeless Camp in 2008 (KTLA News)
LONG BEACH, Calif. -- Police have announced the arrests of 2 alleged gang members in connection with the murders of five people in a shooting rampage at a homeless camp in 2008.

David Cruz Ponce, 31, and Max Eliseo Rafael, 25, were each charged with five special circumstance murders in the case, said Deputy District Attorney Eric Harmon.

The criminal complaint lists the special circumstance allegations as murder in the commission of kidnapping and murder of witnesses to a crime.

The bodies of three men and two women were discovered on November 2 in the space between commercial buildings and Interstate 405 near the Santa Fe Avenue off-ramp.

Ponce and Rafael, purportedly of the Nuthood Watts gang, are accused of killing Vanessa Malaepule, 34; her boyfriend Lorenzo Perez Villacana, 44, who lived at the camp; Katherine Verdun, 24; Hamid "Sammy" Shraifat, 41; and Frederick Neumeier, 53.

Don Morgan, a friend of the victims, told KTLA in 2008 that he knew them all by their first names or nicknames -- LV, Vanessa, Cat, Sammy and Fred.

He said they liked to come to the site to party.

Relatives of Malaepule said she was the mother of six children and was not homeless, but liked to hang out at the spot for unknown reasons.

She lived with her mother and children -- ages 8, 10, 13, 14, 15 and 16 -- at a home about two miles away, they said.

"She was a good person," said Malaepule's sister, Veronica Puaauli, 27. "Very funny. Everybody loved her."

Her uncle Ilager McMoore said police told him his niece was found beneath the body of her boyfriend, as though he had tried to shield her from the gunfire.

At the time, McMoore said he suspected the boyfriend may have been involved in a gang dispute.

Ponce is additionally charged with the kidnapping and murder of Tony Bledsoe of Lancaster on March 23, 2009.

In that case, Ponce is charged with one count each of murder and kidnapping to commit another crime with a special circumstance allegation that Bledsoe was killed while the defendant was engaged in the crime of kidnapping.

Ponce has three felony convictions from 2003 for second-degree robbery, first-degree residential burglary and possession of a controlled substance.

Ponce and Rafael also have been linked to a 2010 murder plot involving a rival gang member.

Smiling does a body good

Democracy Now Livestream