Cynthia Barr wrote a piece about how the "good, smart, rich people" of Five Cities should get together and build some sort of safe house for the homeless people of their area ("Worth fighting for," July 12).
I was surprised this piece was published, as it was emotionally driven; made wild, baseless claims; and had little concern for logic. I wanted to believe there was a thread to follow because Cynthia's heart was in the right place, but then I got to my favorite part where Cynthia made her major appeal while describing exactly who the people in need of help are:
"... the horrendous, dirty, smelly, thieving, sex disease riddled, addicted, unemployed, ill, lazy, very unfortunate, unlucky, abused, poor homeless people." (I will refer to this from here on as "Cynthia's deplorables.")
Now, I'm not in sales, but this seems like a quick way to alienate both sides of the equation. Why should Cynthia's deplorables believe Cynthia cares about them when she's so busy insulting them? And why would her peers in her area care to help save these deplorables?
Well, my boyfriend and I took it to the streets. We tracked down some deplorables and told them how they were described by their greatest champion. They weren't exactly thrilled.
Yet we were not deterred! We told them that if they could just swallow their pride and allow her to carry on with her verbose description, that we were sure she'd open her backyard up to them so they could find shelter in a safe space while their new safe house is constructed. She'd surely provide some catering and allow them to use her restroom when needed. We told them as soon as we got an address, we'd put up a sign in the yard: "All deplorables welcome!"
It's a step in the right direction, and we have Cynthia to thank for it.