Ducking problems

We all know about "Greyhound therapy," where a troublesome patient or homeless guy is given a ticket to some other town. Now he's somebody else's problem, and we can breathe easy.

Right. Sure.

I've heard explanations for the pederast priest coverup that range among "protecting reputation at all costs", "lavender mafia coverup", and "applying then-current psychiatric models." I can't guess what the real mix of reasons was, but the effect was the same: shift the problem someplace else.

Last week Middle Daughter was threatened by part of a crew that is due to be evicted in a couple of months--I gather that Section 8 beneficiaries are harder to evict (the father conducts strong-arm extortion, apparently has been teaching the wee ones how to steal jewelry, etc.).

So if the neighborhood can survive until the end of August, all is solved, right?

Who gets them next? Maybe us? Maybe you?

Instead of deciding what we will do with this violent team, we're shuffling them around.

You may say that nobody is irredeemable. Maybe the Greyhound will take the schizophrenic to a place where he will want to take his meds. Maybe the pederast priest will repent. Maybe this neighbor will find honest work.

I believe in miracles, and that anyone can be redeemed. Making that the foundation of policy is presumptuous.