I think it's great that he's doing this, but I can't help but think how these kind of stories follow this weird American pattern of social problems being the hobby of the wealthy and/or an opportunity for cleverness. Why are we so fond of these narratives?
To many Americans it's not weird at all. America (according to them) was founded on principles of individualism which differentiated it from other countries of the time.
It's the same reason Socialist policies are resisted. For better or worse, their idea is that individuals followed by close communities should self-govern and be masters of their own destiny.
Put differently, you can call it 'weird' if you want but 'different' is more apt. America is not an underdeveloped Europe... America is America.
I think perhaps it is because many people in 'modern' societies are starting to rediscover their humanitarian side after a long time of being blinded by years of consumerism and trying to find enlightenment via a career or 'keeping up with the Joneses'?!?
What a lot of people don't realise is that things like this are actually quite commonplace in so called 'third world' areas like Asia and the sub-continent.
Where they were once viewed as sign of a society less well off and endeavours that won't really lead to a difference, I'd like to think that people are starting to realise that improvement of humanity, rather than the building of bank accounts and stock portfolios, may actually be the purpose of existence.
Addendum: Less well off people tend to do this all the time (see my other post in this thread), but because of their 'low' social status, they tend to be invisible to the casual observer who have their eyes conditioned to look upwards only.
Therefore, if someone considered well off, and a 'good role model' does it, it tends to get more notice.
When I was reading this, the first thing I thought was that it sounded like something from a developing country. I then wondered how long it was gonna be before we're all doing our laundry like this because of housing costs. But I like your more optimistic take.
I think your point is valid too. It seems that a lot more people today, given the current political climate in a lot of countries, plus the widening gap between the upper and lower classes of society, are beginning to realise that quite a sizeable percentage of the population is only one or two paychecks away from being homeless.
Perhaps there is an awakening along the lines of "There but for the grace of [insert deity here] go I..."
Because some people believe in that kind of remedy for these problems. I'm being a bit reductive, but there are basically two ways of solving social problems like homelessness: (a) everyone is forced to chip in (e.g. taxes) or (b) citizens make society better by their own volition (e.g. donations, volunteering).
I see the merit of (a), but I like the idea of (b) a lot more.
I think liking the idea of individuals fixing social problems of their own volition when more boring, collective systems are more efficient (as evidenced by Western European societies) is kind of the issue in itself. There's this narrative bias towards enjoying a monkey patch of a social ill (homemade mobile laundromat), when some boring solution might be more effective (e.g. housing first like in Utah). I'm not sure if it's our entertainment-driven culture or a more complex set of biases. But it's odd how often we'll veer around demonstrably workable solutions in favor of something more flashy. It's as if the pursuit of an ongoing spectacle is more important than achieving a good end.
It's a nice idea - but anyone who believes citizens should be making such donations is surely already making them - and yet our problems still exist. Doesn't that rather imply the average person isn't as charitable as would be needed?
Because it demonstrates that individual people have the power to affect change and all that remains between you and that is the willingness to take action.
Santa Monica, CA has a facility called SWASHLOCK.[1] It offers showers, laundry machines, and lockers for homeless people. But the usage level for the laundry machine is low.
Just came in here to post about the same guys. A good friend of mine was up for Young Australian of the Year last year against them. He didn't win it, but I am glad that these two guys won...
Similarly, we have a local Sikh taxi driver in our home town who spends his spare time cooking and feeding homeless people around our city. [0] It's people like these who should be held up as role models for our communities, not meaningless 'celebrities'.
Acts of charity like this have always struck me as creating an uncomfortable power dynamic. When sticking around to hear a religious presentation is the price of admission, it's not a pure form of generosity; it's transactional. Ron Powers even mentions the captive audience situation outright, near the end of the video.
"If you have something like their clothes, you've got them for an hour, two hours ... we might as well have a conversation."
I don't really see a need to glorify this in the local news. He's just a man who has found a way to buy time to proselytize. To me, the fact that he exists is a symptom that our existing social safety nets are insufficient to set folks up with clean clothes, let alone get them into housing.
Taxes to fund direct cash transfers and housing subsidies do not make for heartwarming stories. They are boring as hell, but they get the job done with no strings attached, and that's the best outcome we as a society could wish for.
I think what he does is admirable, regardless of proselytism. Homeless people now can at least choose:
- not to get the laundry done
- not to talk to this guy while doing the laundry (I doubt he would force them to leave)
- to do the laundry while talking to this guy
What was the choice before?
Besides that, I agree that there's a problem with the policies, but at least advertising the good example may get him funding or even start new services like that (maybe even non-religious).
I think it's kind of ironic that you mention how his charity isn't 100% altruistic, but then juxtapose it with "social safety nets" - by which, I assume, you mean tax-funded welfare, which is forced on people by government and has nothing altruistic about it on any level.
Actual altruism is very rare. The level at which it exists in the United States is nowhere near sufficient to solve this country's homelessness problem. By all means, write inspiring news stories about pure generosity when it appears, but this is not one of those times. This is a man who looks at our collective unwillingness to help our most needy and sees a religious opportunity.
Some voters support safety nets out of a sense of altruism. Others do it for selfish reasons; they simply don't enjoy living next to homeless people. Still more - like myself - see housing as a fundamental human right we are not properly addressing. The motive by which people join this cause doesn't matter to me, as long as the result fulfills our citizens' basic needs and asks nothing in return from them. If a majority of the country agrees with me that poverty is a serious problem, then we'll all chip in to solve it.
> Some voters support safety nets out of a sense of altruism.
It cannot be called altruism. People you're referring to aren't giving their resources out of free will - they support government taking other people's resources, under threat of violence (which the government has monopoly on) and redistributing it to others.
> housing as a fundamental human right
How can a product of someone else's labour can be a human right?
>How can a product of someone else's labour can be a human right?
Quite easily. Access to clean water isn't free, nor is safety or freedom (of religion, to own property, whatever). Enough people agree that these are a human right, so they are financed by the collective, regardless of how much the recipient contributed by paying taxes.
If you see it from his perspective it is as altruistic an action as is possible for a person to take.
He is providing a services to help people in some day to day way. While he is providing that kindness he is taking the time to save them from being tortured by fire monsters forever. Also a very altruistic action, if he is right about the fire monsters that action is really about the only altruistic action that is not trivial and temporary.
Perspective is important, if he was poking their eyes out to save them from fire monsters that's one thing but feeding people and making sure they are safe and happy seems pretty legit to me
well people are very generous with the money of other people.
i have had more than automatic monthly donation to charities yet I am always disappointed when I run into people who think it is the government's job. giving and helping others is everyone's job. we would not need the government to do it if we all gave up that lame excuse
> I don't really see a need to glorify this in the local news. He's just a man who can buy time to proselytize very cheaply. To me, the fact that he exists is a signal that our existing social safety nets are insufficient to set folks up with clean clothes, let alone get them into housing.
Ok that's true, but what's the economic return on proselytizing?
I'll take a free mug from a vendor at a software booth, why should laundry from a religious guy be any different?
Taxes to fund direct cash transfers and housing subsidies are being cut by a government run by zero sum pessimists. How is this guy involved in that?
Interesting question. I did a quick check. It looks to be incredibly profitable, at least for main stream religious organizations (which tend to also be tax free).
The two top links for googling "profit of church" are:
Eg: From CNN:
"
1. The Vatican Bank has $8 billion in assets
The Vatican Bank, which has about $8 billion in assets, has often been at the center of scandal and corruption since it was founded in 1942. Pope Benedict began the process of cleaning the bank up, and Francis has continued that work.
"
http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/24/news/pope-francis-visit-vati...
"
THE Sydney Catholic archdiocese controls funds worth more than $1.2 billion and has regularly made multi-million dollar tax-free profits.
The royal commission into child sex abuse heard the archdiocese banked surpluses of between $7.7 million and $44 million between 2004 and 2007, a period during which the Catholic church was aggressively defending a claim for $100,000 brought against it by former altar boy John Ellis.
"
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/church-stil...
It's not Mr. Powers' fault, but it is our responsibility as sensible voters to fix a situation in which he appears to be the best option for getting your clothes washed. We have come to a point where some folks do not have enough money to regularly go to a laundromat. That outcome was a direct result of the people we voted into office, and the priorities we expressed to them.
I believe it's important for us to distinguish between charitable actors that ask nothing and those that clearly expect something in return. I'm not willing to lionize the latter, nor do I think such an approach is particularly newsworthy.
From the video and article alone, it's hard to gauge the degree of coercion involved -- by 'them' he seems to mean the clothes. Wonder how he reacts to homeless who interrupt his sermon with "There's something I need to do now, back in an hour"?
In the SF Bay Area (Silicon Valley), there was already another a free mobile laundry (with shower) service. [0]
It's good that multiple nonprofits offer overlapping/similar services, especially in an affluent area which can easily afford to provide basic dignity to those in need.
Cool idea. It would be awesome to couple it with something proven to move the needle on underlying trauma during the hour wash / dry cycle vs. a ministry (like NARM Therapy or similar), but it's a great idea and well executed and I love folks doing what they can to help.
Would be pretty cool to add another van with showers operating next to it, so they can shower and get fresh clean clothes in one go, without having to go to a fixed place they might not trust.
I have a homeless friend who lives in a van. He's in the Bay. He cleans around where he lives, keeping the area tidy. I'm sure he'd love to know more about stuff like this.
While it's a great thing he's doing, it looks like his main purpose is to convert people to his religion. Well, if that's what it takes to motivate someone to help others, then so be it.
He literally says that his goal is not conversions and that he's doing it because he realized he wasn't putting his faith into action. Further, even if he was trying to convert people, what's so bad about that?
"Hi, let me help you and by the way here's what I believe and why I'm doing what I'm doing." -- no idea why that kind of train of thought can rationally be looked down upon. I've always failed to see why atheists view proselytizing as "bad" -- it's the same thing as lobbying for any other kind of position.
If someone drove around in a van and offered conversation to homeless people with a christian angle - that would be great. It's also great if someone offers laundry service. Talking to people is great. Talking about religion must be on their terms, otherwise it's preaching or being a missionary - which isn't.
What disturbs me is the idea of people have to feel even a little pressure to participate in his prayers or religious conversation just to get their clothes washed.
It's exactly what missionaries in Africa do: build schools and hospitals and inform about christianity.
If you are serious about charity then don't preach. Even if being charitable is part of acting out your own faith, separate the two.
I think this guy has a heart of gold and like so many others (like the missionaries in Africa) he doesn't see that there is a conflict in what hd is doing.
> If you are serious about charity then don't preach. Even if being charitable is part of acting out your own faith, separate the two.
I don't really follow. If they are being charitable because of their faith, why separate the two? It's an integral part of their identity and why they do what they do.
> I don't really follow. If they are being charitable because of their faith, why separate the two?
Let me rephrase it: if being a christian requires you to be a good samaritan - by all means be a good samaritan. Charity is a good thing. But if you want to come across as doing someone a favor altruistically - don't preach.
Let me offer a thought experiment. You're moving and need some help. Some dude on the street freely offers to help you and carries much of your stuff. What a nice guy. Once all is well and done and you're moved into your new place, he turns towards you and says "hey by the way, you seem like a nice guy and I'm a part of the local chess club, we're always looking for new members -- care to hear more?"
I just don't see how his invitation to join the chess club detracts from his good deed. Even if (for whatever reason) he helps people move solely to get a chance to ask them to join chess club, I still have a hard time finding fault.
It's a one-way conversation. "I'm set in my belief and I think you might be weak-willed enough for me to influence your belief." Proselytizers don't open themselves up to be converted to athiesm. I've met a few and they shut down logical arguments.
Even if this were true, so what? My argument has nothing to do with the merits of any belief or how set anyone is in said beliefs, there's no need to move the goalpost. I ask again: what is wrong with someone feeding a poor and destitute person and then handing them a Bible or a Quran or saying a prayer? Your only argument is that they might have an alterior motive.
But I would counter that argument in the same manner: so what? The good deed is still done and society has been objectively improved.
There's nothing wrong with charitable work on the part of religious groups, but the fact that they are able to get something out of the situation is a symptom of a larger problem. Food, clean clothes, and a place to sleep are fundamental human rights. When folks don't have access to these things, we have to ask ourselves where we went wrong - as voters and engaged citizens, that's on us.
In an ideal world, we would already have agreed as a society to deliver these basic services without a catch. As soon as we agree to fund non-denominational relief for people in need, they will stop feeling compelled to give up their spiritual dignity for a meal.
I didn't really answer you did I. I see it as a kind of insult. To get your clothes washed, you have to either be rude and feel like you might be turned away, or act humble and let someone unload their beliefs on you. Listening has a kind of psychological cost/effort. Offering someone who's desperate a free thing in exchange for their pride is a bit like bullying, but on a milder scale.
Not to diminish what the guy is doing, but why does it matter that he's an Apple Engineer? They /could/ mention it in the article, but why does it have to be in the title? In fact, that's pretty much a pattern these days. "Google Engineer did this". "Apple Engineer did that". You'll never read "$random_company engineer did that", but "Dude did that" or at best "Sofware engineer did that". What is it with the cult of big names? Really? That the guy works there has very little to do with what he did (which is awesome).
This is NBC Bay Area, a news source for regular folks. News provides information in terms their audience can recognize and understand, and most regular folks don't know what engineers really do. It matters quite a bit that he's an engineer at one of the world's most well respected brands, because its not just some regular engineer, but one that is good enough to work at a company people hold in high regard.
'Important person takes time off to work on things of true importance' is another way to think of it - that's a strong story to tell, so they lead with it.
Its fair game because the charitable work being reported on is imbued with self elevating religious reference. I simply separated the kind part from the irrational part.