Asymmetrical Information

Hard to tell where the article ends and the fisking begins; can you fix the blockquote?

An entirely valid argument -- but one that might be further tightened up by taking into account those legitimately categorized as homeless who are not street-dwelling drifters (e.g., employed evictees, temporary shelter-seekers, etc).

For the media to not be taken in, *it* would have to leave the Vietnam Era. It has instead chosen to remain in a state of catatonic suspension.

The reason for this type of reporting is the rigid quota system that journalism schools and the newspaper industry have been employing for over 30 years. The quota system promotes incompetents.

You may not be aware that the national organization of newspaper editors and publishers has imposed hard quotas on the staffing of newspapers. From undergraduate school forward, diversity is the driving creed of this industry.

Learning the fundamentals of journalism, like using sources and doing your homework, has simply been jettisoned from the curriculum. Pseudo-journalists are rewarded for producing puff pieces that advance the diversity agenda.

This is an industry that is busy destroying itself. I believe virtually nothing I read in the major media, except for the sports news.

The reason for this insanity is the quota system. The quota system systematically promotes incompetents who are trained to do nothing except to trumpet the diversity creed.

This essay should be required reading:

http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm

The reporter should not have been taken in. But the fact of journalism is that we have to rely on numbers other people give us; we can't go do our own independant research on every story.

Actually, good, ethical reporters/journalists would check their sources. In fact, that's where the "check your sources" phrase comes from.

I saw a thing somewhere where a journalist said "we get into this business to make a difference!" That's just a little too close to manufacturing the news for me.

Ron,

You touched on something that has always bothered me -- how so many journalists claim they went into journalism to "make the world a better place." This comment seems very noble and inspiring until you realize that *everybody* wants to make the world a better place -- the problem is that people have very different ideas about what consitutes "a better place."

So the hiring committee of any respectable, objective newspaper should always respond to this statement by saying: "we're not here to reshape the world to fit your personal preferences -- we're here to report the news. If you can't get on board with that, there's no job for you at this paper."

>Moreover, the idea that half of the people on the
>street are Vietnam vets is simply ludicrous. Real
>street people have tragically short lifespans.

Down here(Texas), about half of male homeless fall in the right age ranges. About half of those in the 40+ male demographic are veterans - this is probably the garbled source of the 'half' statistic, if this holds true nationally. Thus, about 1/4 of male homeless are veterans from roughly the Vietnam era. About 10% of our homeless have been unemployed 10 years or more, another 10% 5-10 years. (All of this data is slightly dated, being from a 1999 survey.)

Combat experience does not seem to 'cause' homelessness - only 1/3 of homeless vets have war-zone service. (www.nchv.org)

Survey for most of the stats.
http://www.thn.org/surveys/index.htm

There are two giveaways in these statistics that tell you that even if they are literally true (which I agree is unlikely) they are misleading. The first is the qualifier "on any given night," which means they are not referring to the chronic homeless but to the legions of transients, migrant workers, marginally employed, alcoholics and others in society's lower tiers who from time-to-time find themselves without shelter for a night. The second is "served in the Vietnam era," which is generally defined to include anyone who served in the US military between about 1964 and 1975. Being this was the hight of the cold war and an era of compulsory military service, that number includes a very large share of the male population, only a few of whom saw combat in Southeast Asia. No doubt some relatively small percentage of these millions are among the transients, marginally employed etc.

You are a fucking idiot and I never plan to read your blog again. Get a fucking life loser.

I presume that "john" is representing the under-40, never been sane enough to get into the Army, segment of "homeless Vietnam vets".

Ron/DRB,

Perhaps some of these people think (shock horror) that accurate reporting will make the world a better place? Wanting to "make a difference" isn't inconsistent with doing your goddamn best to report things accurately. It all depends on what sort of difference you want to make. You need to dig a bit deeper before dismissing any reporter with a social conscience.

Is the point here that the numbers are wrong and that you have some evidence for this or is the point that you do not believe the numbers based on your own informal polling of homeless people you know?

vache troll

the point is that the numbers are clearly impossible. the youngest person who could have served in the "vietnam era" would be 49 (not including people who made it in to service just before the era closed, i.e. those who are 48 this year).

soemoen who likely saw combat would be fairly older than that, with the majority being 59+. so for the implications to be true, you'd need to see a very weird sample.

still it seems highly, highly dubious that even vietnam era could be correct. 1/2 of homeless people are not 50+. our general population distribution isn't like that, and people in such severe straits as homelessness have vastly shorter lifespans, due to mental illness, addiction, violence, and the harsh reality of living outside without food, medical care, or shelter.

Well, perhaps the orgnanization was including people with drug problems as "veterans" of the drug war. I mean that could explain it no? ;-)

Perhaps some of these people think (shock horror) that accurate reporting will make the world a better place? Wanting to "make a difference" isn't inconsistent with doing your goddamn best to report things accurately. It all depends on what sort of difference you want to make. You need to dig a bit deeper before dismissing any reporter with a social conscience.

Neither of them did that, my dear Conchis. Use logical reasoning. You could possibly accuse ron of coming close to 'dismissing,' but it might be better to find out what he actually meant, first.

The youngest a person can be to have served during the Vietnam war is 48. The average age of those who served in 'Nam is about 57 to 60. I served in 'Nam in 1970 and am now 55. I don't know if these facts mean a lot, but they are worth mentioning.

I must say "thanks" for taking the time to help debunk this most recent attempt to misinform the public about Vietnam Vets situation. I have always been proud of my service, and tried never to let the tepid homecoming we received get to me. I even shrugged off all the misconceptions about us veterans. But now I am so sick of this I could scream. Astoundingly, some nitwit recently compared the Syria-Baghdad corridor to the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Why not compare my driveway to I-95 since they both are designed for cars?

The academics and media use Vietnam analogies for no other reason than to promote their America-loathing agenda. Some say maybe it's laziness or ignorance, well it's neither. These people are just evil.

You write "300,000 is about total number of homeless people, according to serious estimates."

Could you refrence these serious estimates, please?

Conchis -- could you please help me out by explaining what you mean by "social conscience"? Am I correct in assuming that "social conscience" has as much to do with real conscience as "social justice" has to do with real justice -- i.e. very little?

Dear hey,

That's Vache Folle, not Vache Troll. Just because someone has a question does not mean that he or she is trolling.

G. Hamid:

Right on my brother, I'm a Viet Nam vet, 67-68, 173d Abn Bde. It's a constant meme: Viet Nam vet f*cked up. Bad war, Nixon's war, it will never stop. Try to ask one of these homeless vets anything about the military and you'll find nothing cognizant about the what unit they served with. Ask your self one question: Has one homeless VN vet ever blamed their predictament on JFK?

AllenS,

You were with the "Thunderin' Herd", huh. You guys were our best customers! I was with 67th Evac Hospital in Qui Nhon from '70 to '71 and TDY to one of your HQ units in Sha Rang Valley for a month. Between Bong Son and An Khe Pass you kept us busy. Is that where you were?

You're right about phony vets, if they don't know their unit and where they served, they weren't there. I would forget my name before I'd forget my unit.

I asked myself the question you posed and, since almost all of my friends are in-country vets, this is my answer: Most Nam Vets don't blame anyone and accept the hand life has dealt us. We know that we were the lucky ones.

Anyway, Allen, welcome home. What a long, strange trip it's been.

George

For a serious look at the homeless situation, the dated but still very good Christopher Jencks book "the Homeless" is a good place to start.

I think some of the points made above are true - defining homelessness is actually sort of tricky. Do you count the people who are overcrowded beyond legal limits as homeless (bouncing around from couch to couch among family, for instance)? Jencks takes a good, hard look at the data without getting sentimental and without trying to overstate for political purposes (or understate).

IMHO, the Vietnam thing is probably bogus, or exagerrated beyond reason. Too many advocacy groups take the data and massage it in the worst possible way, and then add a few thousand because *of course* the official statistics undercount.

One reason for the discrepancy might be that many people accept the statistic that there are 600k to 1 million homeless in the country.

I have no knowledge as to the accuracy of those numbers at all, I just know that I have heard "1 milion homeless" bandied about numberous times. If the number is even close to 1m then it is possible that there are indeed 300k homeless vets, who might then represent nearly half the homeless population.

Not saying I believe it (is it plausible that vets are even 1/3rd of the homeless population?), but that's how the number might work.

If the 1 million homeless number isn't just pulled from some activist's butt, then it must necessarily involve a definition of "homeless" which, while possibly legitimate, does not coincide with the popular image of homelessness. Otherwise every major city in the Northern US would be carting away frozen corpses by the truckload every night all winter long.

Any homeless person who lives to be as old as Vietnam veterans are today must necessarily not be the kind of homeless person who regularly sleeps on the street. They may be unemployed, poor, and without consistent housing (and that would certainly suck), but if they were literally living on the street then they would have been dead long ago.

The irony here is that those pushing these statistics have contradictory motives. The harder they portray the life of the homeless to be, the less plausible it becomes either that there are 1m total homeless or that 300k of them are Vietnam vets.

DRB,

I was using "social conscience" as coextensive with "want's to make a difference/make the world a better place".

Logical Reasoning Fairy,

If dismissal wasn't the intention, then that's grand. No beef. I'll still stand by the comment though.

(As long as we're being pedantic, I don't think there was anything illogical in what I said. I may have implied a particular contestible interpretation of other commenters' posts, but:

(a) the soundness of the comment stands quite apart from the soundness of the interpretation (the truth of "one should X before Y-ing" doesn't depend on anyone having Y-ed without X-ing - that might be context, but it's not a premise); and

(b) relying on contestible interpretations (though possibly unwise) isn't strictly speaking illogical.

Of course, if we're being really pedantic, you didn't actually claim I was being illogical; you merely implied it with an exhortation to "use logical reasoning". But I hope you'll understand that clarfiying that before posting this would have just drawn out an already rather tedious and pointless process... :))

George,

I went to VN with my battalion in 67. We went over on a boat and we landed in Qui Nhon. My batt operated around Tuy Hoa and An Khe. I was wounded in Dec. 67, but went to the med outfit in Tuy Hoa. Spent 3 months in Japan recovering, and when I returned my batt was at Bong Son. Glad we kept you "employed". One thing about the Herd, we always went to where the action was. This homeless vet thing was never heard of when Clinton was president.

"I was using 'social conscience' as coextensive with 'wants to make a difference/make the world a better place.'"

Please don't do that, Conchis. Your active compassion and decent concern for the well-being of others should be called by their fitting and proper names, not by some stupid slogan like "wants to make the world a better place," or meaningless postmodern slang like "social [fill in the blank."

A Vietnam Era veteran is anyone who served in uniform from about 1964 through 1975, whether or not they served in combat in Vietnam. The percentage of veterans who are homeless who are Vietnam Era veterans should be relatively high since Korean Conflict and WW2 veterans who might be homeless are mostly dead and since there are relatively more Vietnam Era veterans due to higher force levels than veterans who served exclusively after 1/1/76. At a minimum, we should expect 25% of homeless veterans to have served in the VE. This is not a reflection on Vietnam Era veterans, just a function of differing force levels and the length of the era.

It is true that false claims to veteran status may be made by panhandlers to garner support and donations. This is truer now that the Vietnam veteran has been rehabilitated in the culture.

I don't know how accurate the stats are. The journalist provided a source and the reader can decide the organizations credability. Imo you can never get an accurate number on number of homeless people in the US, its kinda hard to count those without an address. This thread sucks. The article is suppose to be about Iraq homeless vets, this thread ignores their circumstance in order to bash the media. Garbage.

so fabulous, or maybe not so fabulous,

"Nearly 300,000 veterans are homeless on any given night, and almost half served during the Vietnam era, according to the Homeless Veterans coalition, a consortium of community-based homeless-veteran service providers"

what part of "almost half served during the Vietnam era" don't you understand?

Allen S, my point is the stats don't really matter. The writer is concerned with the welfare of homeless vets from Iraq. The accuracy of the numbers as to homeless Vietnam vets isnt relevant unless you want to change the subject from the well being of the Iraqi vets to an attack on the media.

so fabulous,

you said: "This thread sucks. The article is suppose to be about Iraq homeless vets, this thread ignores their circumstance in order to bash the media. Garbage"

I believe that was your point. Clearly, homeless
Vietnam vets were part of the story. As George and I were discussing earlier, ask them what unit (battalion, regiment) they were with, and you'd be surprised to find out they don't know. I'm sure that there are homeless vets, but I'm sick and tired of the large numbers crap.

So fabulous,
I think the point is, if the reporter didn't bother to check out a statistic that is obviously questionable, then how much credence can one really lend to the rest of the article.

Thanks, vlad.

Conchis,

As I pointed out in my original post, *everyone* wants to "make the world a better place". The problem is that some people think making the world a better place involves providing welfare payments to poor people; other people thinks it means decreasing those payments so poor people have an incentive to work. Some people think it means stopping wars. Others think it means fighting wars to overthrow dictators. Some think it means redistributing income to get equality of outcome. Others think it means letting people enjoy the fruits of their labors.

Some people believe it means reporting the facts in a completely objective fashion -- but based on the current state of the media, not too many journalists think that's what it means.

So I reiterate my original point: an objective news organization would tell its reporters to stuff their social conscience, stuff the news analysis, stuff the opinion pieces, stuff the slanted writing, stuff the synopses -- and report only the facts.

Here is a great way to start:

Current Reporting: The President gave a speech today. [Insert dramatic quotes from the speech, cherry-picked for "news value" and potential to generate controversy. Insert analysis from biased think-tank or NGO member, but do not suggest they are biased. Insert comment from man-on-the-street, cherry-picked for their support or opposition to something in the speech at the reporter's discretion. Imply that this man-on-the-street represents most Americans. Insert reporter's feelings on the subject, labeled as "news analysis."] End story.

New, Objective Reporting: The President gave a speech today. [Insert full text of President's speech]. End story.

New, Objective Reporting: The President gave a speech today. [Insert full text of President's speech]. End story.

Even the most "objective" reporting has never been done that way, in part because few people would read it. Most people who were truly interested in the full event probably owned a TV and subscribed to the appropriate channels, or else listened in on a radio, or read it via Internet.

A reasonably objective reporter, however, would review the key points of the speech, "key" meaning "based on each point's position in the speech and/or length of time devoted to that point." Then -- depending on available space -- possibly include reactions from other relevant players, a smattering of lesser points, or news analysis based on the presidents' previous (or intended future) actions related to any of the key points.

IOW, "good" news reporting need not be a toast-dry regurgitation of data. But then, almost anything would be better than the current practice, which your caricature captured well.

I doubt everyones numbers on the stats on something like homelessness. 150,000 homeless Vietnam vets sounds like a high number, but on the other hand the total number of homeless has nearly always been stated as over a million since Reagen emptied the asyleums. I have no problem calling the stats in the article inflated. But the focus should be on why there are vets now coming back from Iraq that are homeless. There are thousands of multiple amputee vets coming back that would have died in Vietnam. Calling attention to the lives they return to is a far better way of supporting the troops then buying a magnetic ribbon.

The article is weird. First, 300,000 homeless vets on "any given night," half of whom are VE. Later, 500,000 homeless vets in "any given year." And in the middle, one-fourth of all homeless Americans are veterans.

Further, the "example" homeless vet thinks he has PTSD because he has nightmares (but apparently hasn't been so diagnosed), and says that he "developed depression" (his words), quit his job and started to live out of his truck. He also said that when he returned, early in the conflict, the military gave him what he considered to be a minimum of care for his wounded hand ("shrapnel nearly severed his left thumb" and he still has trouble moving it) and then told him they didn't have the resources to deal with him on the active-duty side - follow up on your own, soldier, with the VA:

Arellano said he felt pushed out of the military too quickly after getting back from Iraq without medical attention he needed for his hand -- and as he would later learn, his mind. ... "If you had a problem, they said, 'Let the (Department of Veterans Affairs) take care of it.'"

From there he says the VA told them they were full and would call him, but then he "developed depression," which is when he quit his job and started living in his truck. Whether he continued to follow up with the VA, or whether they tried to reach him, is not stated.

It sounds to me as if he has absorbed the correct jargon to explain his problems. I will not denigrate the suffering of those with clinical depression, which I know can be debilitating, but since this particular vet apparently hasn't been evaluated for mental illness based on his own statement, is he actually clinically depressed or was he just discouraged by his return to civilian life with a wound less than perfectly healed? If he contacted the VA today, being a combat vet and all, could he get the follow-up PT his thumb needs, and the other medical and social services that they exist to provide?

Who is to blame when the resources are there but not used?

Per the VA, there are approximately 8.3 million Vietnam era veterans out of a total of 25.6 million veterans. WW2 and Korean Conflict veterans number 8.4 million, and these folks are least likely to be homeless. That leaves VE vets at about half the remainder; therefore, it would not be surprising for half of homeless vets to have served in the VE. This does not mean that VE vets are prone to homelessness or other social problems, just that they are relatively numerous.

The numbers seem incredible only if you do not bother to do any research at all.

Anony-mouse,

Agreed, to a certain extent I was exaggerating for effect. But I think there are reasonably honest and objective ways of summarizing a speech without inserting the reporter's opinion about what's going on (usually done under the guise of providing "context").

The other option is to follow the British model, where papers take clear ideological stands and are upfront about the fact that they're not objective. It's not so much bias in reporting I object to, it's pretending to be objective while engaging in bias.

I'm not going to take the time to read all the comments, but I must say that anecdotally, the idea that half of all homeless are Vietnam vets is totally plausible.

One factor you mentioned is the age range of homeless people: I live in Texas (Austin, where I see lots of white homeless people and Houston, where I saw lots of presumably homeless black people, and a few whites) and lived for several years in San Francisco, where I saw many, many white homeless and significantly less black homeless. MOST of the people I see are men (95% would be my guesstimate), and about half are over 50. Obviously on the street you'll age faster, but I think my age guess is right.

The absolute numbers quoted are ridiculous -- I don't believe there are nearly as many homeless people in general. But relatively, I don't doubt that half of the homeless are vets of one description or another. And having seen "action" isn't a determining factor. In fact I rather doubt the relationship is causal at all, but correlative. Many people go into the military in the first place because they have nothing else to do, maybe little or no family, no resources. So when they come out, even if it is from pushing papers in Germany or Virginia, chances are not low that they might end up homeless at some point in their lives.

Ouch. I mentioned (totally subjective assessment of) racial make-up because I was going to make an entirely other point about age ranges, and didn't. Just wanted to clarify why I specifically pointed that out.

Homeless Iraq war veterans. Shameful. There's just no excuse.

I agree wholeheartedly with DRB's comment about the British press model. The editorial position of the media there is up front and honest, none of this "all the news that's fit to print" garbage. If you pick up the Guardian you know exactly where they're coming from (left), and likewise with the Telegraph (right). Both papers trust their readers to make up their own minds. I suppose my political persuasion is center-right, but I occasionally enjoy reading the Guardian. I may not agree with everything in it, but it doesn't make me angry the way the New York Times does with its hidden agendas. Fortunately the Blogosphere and other media alternatives seem to be pushing the US more in the direction of the British model. Some people hate it, but that's just because they resent having their monopoly taken away.

Julia touches on another point: that the age range of the on-the-street homeless differs from place to place. In particular, you see more older street people in milder climates -- so extrapolating nationwide from the situation in Manhattan isn't valid.

On the other hand, her belief that the proportion of homeless could be 50% veterans seems to be based on nothing beyond her own prejudices, which are on vivid display when she asserts that "Many people go into the military in the first place because they have nothing else to do, maybe little or no family, no resources." Evidence, please?

SOme of the BS stats come from confusion over what really constitutes a veteran. A strict definition includes everyone was in the military even one day. Ask anyone who served and they can tell you a couple stories about people who should never have been enlisted in the first place. Basic social misfits (mental or psych cases or criminals). Some get screened out in bootcamp. Some last a few months past bootcamp. These are the losers who would have been homeless whether they ever joined the military or not. Most real veterans develop enough self-sufficiency to ensure they wouldn't be homeless.

If the 1 million homeless number isn't just pulled from some activist's butt, then it must necessarily involve a definition of "homeless" which, while possibly legitimate, does not coincide with the popular image of homelessness. Otherwise every major city in the Northern US would be carting away frozen corpses by the truckload every night all winter long.

Absolutely. There are at least three definitions of "homeless":

1) Statistically, it properly refers to anyone who isn't providing his own housing.

2) Popularly, it refers to street people. Most "homeless" by definition 1 are not street people (they're in government-provided housing) and many street people aren't officially homeless.

3) It's also a euphemism for "poor", "deranged" or other things.

You can see where there's a rhetorical advantage to be had by running the three together...

In other news, shocking statistics sell more papers.

Its pretty funny that the stats dont look so inflated yet the focus remains on "shoddy" journalism rather than those vets returning from Iraq homeless. I guess it's karma for all the innocents we have killed in Iraq. Collateral damage sucks.

Its pretty repulsive that most here think homelessness is only caused by mental illness. Sure, some are sick, and some end up homeless because their doing drugs, gambling, and overeating while you're doing the 8 to 6 grind, but some end up homeless by no fault of their own.

So, so fabulous, has the Earth Welcome Comittee been by to see you yet?

By the way, you clearly don't understand the meaning of karma.

so fabulous, you're descending into troll-dom, but I'll bite. Iraqi veterans are supposed to be the real subject, but the article doesn't provide much real information to discuss. The reporter leads with questionable stats that introduce the usual "just like Vietnam all over again" vibe. He then attempts (poorly) to use that theme to justify his contention that Iraqi war vets are going to be mobbing the shelters. Instead we get:

1) Anecdotes about vets showing up in shelters and a dire "My God" from an advocacy group spokesperson who says she has heard similar anecdoes.

2) Two profiles of veterans currently staying a a shelter who may or may not be suffering from PTSD. Jamie covered this part already.

3) Vague statements from "experts" who aren't named, aside from other shelter operators or advocates, who again recall Vietnam. They also have every reason to exaggerate their numbers, and arguably have been caught doing so.

4) Actual current numbers from the VA and U.S.VETS, down at the bottom of the article, that do not seem to support the article's contention that there's a new wave of homeless vets here or on the way.

5) Examples of how current services offered by the VA are so much better than the Vietnam-era equivalents, and how that situation (however bad it actually was) is unlikely to be repeated.

I agree with you that a homeless veteran is a sad thing - I think we all agree about that. But I'm not particularly surprised to find that some veterans are currently homeless. At the same time, the VA is doing more for them now than has ever been done before. If some don't take advantage of those services then I'm not sure how to help. But exaggerating the problem and falsely portraying a large number of former soldiers as damaged goods and hopeless screw-ups -- like the media has done with Vietnam veterans for the past 30 years -- is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

I agree that the portion of the article presented has a Chicken Little "the sky is falling" tone. But attacking the media and minimizing the problems facing some of those vets returning from Iraq is beyond the pale imo. The entire nation should be sharing in the sacrafice of those now serving, but instead the right's attitude is "its not so bad if its not happening to that many returning vets". What makes this garbage even more rancid is that noone here has advanced the primary goal of this thread by proving the numbers are wrong. In fact, the stats presented here make the numbers presented pretty accurate.

You make a good point about how these numbers are impossible. The stories told by the media concerning the feelings of Vietnam vets on their feelings about serving in the military & how they feel about America are also misleading. I suspect that these numbers are the result of the soddy research of an advocacy organization.

So fabulous -

Regarding helping veterans returning from Iraq, which sounds good to me, what do you want us to do that isn't already being done? Please be specific.

Talk about yer fiddlin'
While Rome's a-burnin'!
Keep this up and it's some time in hell
That you'll be earnin'

Could be there are but a hundred thousand vets
Who survived a Viet Nam as homeless;
Maybe a mere ten thousand from Iraq as yet
To hit the streets; it's hopeless.

Re: the numbers, so important,
Figure this one out: how much do the dead cost
Cold storage, flags and shipping.
Are Vet benefits that much? Their wager even sportin'?

The entire nation should be sharing in the sacrafice of those now serving, but instead the right's attitude

Generalized slur is, as generalized slur does.

is "its not so bad if its not happening to that many returning vets".

First, that wasn't what we were talking about in this thread, based on the direction set by the host. As Mindles once said in another thread to a troll who was trying to derail the discussion with a peripheral issue, you dictate the discussion on your own blog.

Second, there are people homeless from all walks of life, some being veterans, some from elsewhere. If Iraq veterans show an abnormally high incidence of homelessness, then there is a specific cause, which is thus a problem in need of attention. Otherwise, there case is no more nor less sad then that of any other homeless person -- meaning, the Iraq veteran status is completely irrelevant, what matters is that they are homeless.

If that is a specific exercise of yours, then write a check (and maybe a day of volunteer work) over to your local soup kitchen. Start a blog dedicated to the issue and discuss it to your heart's content. But don't try to hijack a media-criticism thread with cheap slurs about "the right" or anything else, eh?

If I understand the current discharge procedures correctly, when a soldier returns from overseas combat at the end of his tour (using "his" in the old-fashioned English grammar sense, because the his/her thing is so awkward - please, female soldiers, do not believe that I exclude you), he is first required to take a fairly long leave - two weeks? - to get reacquainted with his family and friends. After that he goes back on half-duty, during which he is "debriefed," a process which includes, basically, taking classes in how to re-enter civilian life. (A disproportionate number of combat vets are involved in vehicle accidents, for instance, presumably because the combination of actual traffic rules that people obey plus the adrenalin associated with speed puts them at special risk to drive/ride less defensively than their always-Stateside co-travellers.) They undergo psychological evaluation and counseling, if necessary, and, even if they have a large amount of terminal leave coming to them, are not allowed just to move up their end-of-service date by that amount - they have to be "active duty" all the way through their terminal leave period so that the military can retain contact.

I would appreciate the comments of current and former military on these procedures. I may well have details wrong.

Shell shock - PTSD - has been around for as long as combat has been. The fact that it's recognized now, and that the military is doing its best to minimize it and to help people who experience it to recover to the extent that that's possible, is an altogether good thing, and yet something more that we owe to VE vets, I think. This strange perception that Iraq and Afghanistan vets who return Stateside hop off the plane, put on civvies, and are turned loose without a how-do-you-do - where does that come from?

Anonymouse, my entire problem with this thread is that its an attack on the troops. When you ignore the intent of the article, which is clearly an attempt to publicize the problems facing some of the troops, and attack the stats as inflated you are saying it's acceptable for some troops to be homeless within a year of returning home. Homelessness is indeed terrible for anyone, but if you believe the soldiers are fighting for our freedom, it's even worse then an innocent living in the streets. I don't think these considerations make me a bleeding heart, so in response to your sarcastic comments, yob tvoyu mat.

When you ignore the intent of the article, which is clearly an attempt to publicize the problems facing some of the troops, and attack the stats as inflated you are saying it's acceptable for some troops to be homeless within a year of returning home.

You still don't get it.

The article can have "intent" until the cows come home. But if it is bandying about questionable or false statistics, then people will recognize the error, and ironically, the article may then have the opposite effect of what you are hoping to achieve.

Doing the wrong thing for the right reason is only acceptable when doing the right thing has an even worse outcome.

The "1 million" homeless came from statements by Mitch Schneider, a homeless advocate, about 20 years ago (if I recall correctly). Soon thereafter the census came out, which estimated 250,000 to 500,00 (and in which locating the homeless was emphasized). Later it was admitted the "1 million" was made up to help obtain funding.

That leaves VE vets at about half the remainder; therefore, it would not be surprising for half of homeless vets to have served in the VE.

It would be *very* surprising. Homeless people don't live as long as regular people do. If half of all post-WW2 veterans are from the Vietnam era, we would expect substantially less than 50% of homeless vets to be from the Vietnam era.

Comments are Closed.