upworthy

Politics

Three government agencies are ensuring that veterans have a home to go to.

A new report from the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) is showing promising news. Due to hard work and investing in housing initiatives, the number of unhoused veterans has decreased by 7.5% since 2023 and 55.6% overall since 2010!

Veteran homelessness has been a growing concern for decades. Since 2009, the three agencies have been monitoring the situation using an annual Point-In-Time (PIT) count to gauge the issue. The PIT Count is a yearly count of the sheltered and unsheltered people who are unhoused within a single night in January. The data collected in 2024 showed that 32,882 veterans experienced homelessness, of which 13,851 were completely unsheltered. These results are lower from 2023’s data, in which 35,574 veterans were unhoused in total and 15,507 were without any shelter period.

An unhoused veteran sitting with a sign asking for changeThe number of unhoused veterans has lowered by 55.6% since 2010.Photo credit: Canva

The VA credits the Biden-Harris Administration’s investment in specific “Housing First” programs aimed toward unhoused veterans along with HUD and USICH initiatives to combat homelessness in general. Some of these initiatives include $800 million worth of grants given to unhoused and at-risk veterans and policy changes within HUD that allowed veterans easier, less expensive access to housing.

“This data shows that with the right investments in housing and health care, and with strong leadership and coordination across government, homelessness is solvable,” said USICH Director Jeff Olivet in a press release.

“Today, thanks to interagency efforts by the entire Biden-Harris Administration and our partners on the ground, we are proud to announce a significant decline in Veteran homelessness this year,” said HUD Deputy Secretary Adrianne Todman.

A veteran sitting down as a woman in a white coat talks to himThe VA, USICH, and HUD are helping more veterans gain access to housing.Photo credit: Canva

While this is certainly great news of progress, homelessness is still an issue in the United States. While there were only 32,882 unhoused veterans recorded in 2024, that is still a large number of human beings that require homes. And that’s just unhoused veterans, not the entire homeless population.

According to a report by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, there is still a lot of work to be done. From 2019-2023, the number of people who entered an emergency shelter for the first time increased more than 23 percent. A vast number of factors create unhoused people, from economic hardship to drug addiction to mental illness. There are also incidents and natural disasters that make a person unhoused overnight such as a wild fire or a hurricane.

So what is the solution? Well, to Thomas Byrne, a professor of social work at Boson University, the answer is simple. To quote a phrase he heard from a head of a homeless services agency, “The solution to the problem is in the name of the problem.” In other words, to help the homeless, we have to just provide them homes.

A hand holding house keys in front of a homeThe key to solving homelessness is literally house keys.Photo credit: Canva

It’s a simple solution that has complex political issues and red tape all around it. But it’s a solution. We only have to work on the “how” now. Fortunately, based on what’s being done for the veterans in this country, the “how” appears to be more and more doable as time, effort, and work is put into it.

Democracy

Big study finds conservatives are happier, but liberals enjoy this aspect of life more

The way we see the world has a significant effect on our psyche.

Some Trump supporters and a Harris voter.

Identifying as a liberal or conservative means a lot more than simply voting Democrat or Republican. These views stem from a difference in worldview and values and they significantly affect how satisfied we are with our lives.

Generally speaking, American conservatives believe the political system is fair and provides a stable foundation for people to pursue their dreams. They also value tradition, stability, conformity and safety. American liberals, on the other hand, are concerned about the political system's fairness and are more comfortable with ambiguity, nuance, diversity and new experiences.

This difference is evident in the places where liberals and conservatives choose to live. You’re much more likely to find liberals residing in metropolitan areas full of diversity and culture. In contrast, conservatives prefer rural areas that are culturally homogeneous and steeped in traditional values.



conservatives, liberals, studiesA farmer and his hay.via Canva/Photos

Who’s happier, conservatives or liberals?

Multiple studies, including a new one published in the Journal of Personality, have found that happiness and meaning are more associated with conservative views because they believe in the system and are satisfied by hard work.

The Journal of Personality is the American Psychological Association’s top-ranked peer-reviewed journal on personality and social psychology.

“Across six studies, we largely replicate earlier findings that happiness was associated with slightly more political conservatism,” the researchers wrote. “Happiness was also associated with system justification, or the tendency to see the current political, economic, and societal systems to be fair and defendable. Meanwhile, meaning in life was consistently associated with Protestant work ethic, or the view that hard work will lead to success in life.”

Why are conservatives happier than liberals?

Simply put, conservatives believe that America is a meritocracy where anybody who works hard can make it, giving them a sense of happiness. This also means that they feel less responsible for those who do not make it because they believe it is due to their own choices or a lack of work ethic.

However, liberals are more likely to think that the system isn’t a meritocracy because there isn’t an equal playing field for women, people of color, those with disabilities, immigrants, or people who are born into economically disadvantaged families. The feeling that you live in an unfair world, whether you are a member of a privileged group or not, can create a sense of constant unease.

So, it makes sense those who think the system is fair are happier than those who do not.

conservatives, liberals, studiesA couple protesting for free healthcare.via Elvert Barnes/Flickr

How are liberals different from conservatives?

On the other hand, the researchers found that liberals live a much more psychologically rich life than conservatives, mainly because they are more open to new experiences. Liberals are likelier to live abroad, experience different cultures and read fiction. The researchers note that liberals are much more open to broadening their perspectives than conservatives and see it as an opportunity for personal growth. Conservatives may see new experiences as threatening to their safety or traditional beliefs.

The study makes an interesting point: People who believe they live and work in a fair system are bound to be happier than those who feel it’s unjust. However, it also shows that those who value tradition and stability highly may miss out on much of the richness life offers.

“We are not claiming that a psychologically rich life is by any means better than a happy life or a meaningful life,” the researchers concluded. “Indeed, it is clear that a happy life and a meaningful life are desirable lives, associated with stable social relationships, prosocial behaviors, and health.”

Mount Rushmore National Memorial in South Dakota.

Sculptor Gutzon Borglum designed the Mount Rushmore National Memorial and oversaw the project's execution from 1927 to 1941. The sculptor also chose the four presidents who are carved into granite on the mountain’s face. He selected the four presidents to represent the nation's birth (George Washington), growth (Thomas Jefferson), development (Theodore Roosevelt) and preservation (Abraham Lincoln).

Since the faces on Mount Rushmore were first chiseled into granite there have been debates over which presidents also deserve to be on the monument. Two years ago, then-President Donald Trump floated the idea that he deserved to have his face carved in granite.

A Reddit user posed an interesting question to the online forum about the famous monument and it sparked a great conversation. “You get to add another American to Mt. Rushmore but it can’t be a president. Who do you choose?”


That’s a tough question to answer but a fun one to ponder. What criteria does one use to choose the greatest American that ever lived who wasn’t a president? More than 545 million people have lived in the country over the past 244 years. How do we choose one?

Do you select someone from the world of sports, science, the arts, literature, civil rights, religion, military or healthcare? What about someone who performed a heroic deed?

To rank the responses on the Reddit post, I looked at the number of upvotes each suggestion received and then ranked them. It’s not the most scientific way of doing things but it gives us a pretty good idea about who people think should make it to the monument.

Here are the top 20 most popular responses to the burning question: “Which non-president should be added to Mount Rushmore?”

1. 

"Dr. Jonas Salk. Saved us all from polio." — Barefoot_Alvin

2.

"There is already a non-president on Mt. Rushmore. John Cena." — zoqforpik

The Reddit user is clearly referencing the wrestler's catchphrase.

3.

"Dolly Parton." — Airos42

4.

"Mr. Rogers." — PitchforkJoe

5.

"Mark Twain. The quintessential American writer. We always put up statues of military and politicians across this country. It would be nice to see more of our creative side get honored. Put up Poe on the mountain. Attract goths to the site." — inksmudgedhands

6.


"Martin Luther King Jr." — bahamuto

7.

"How is Nicolas Cage not here yet?" — deus_vult

8.

"John Wilkes Booth but he's further back behind Lincoln." — Jakovosol0

9.

"Benjamin Franklin." — FinnbarMcBride

10.

"Sacagawea." — bivalve_connisseur

11.

"Homer Simpson." — EonClaw

12.

"Bob Ross." — j-oats

13.

"Weird Al." — OntarioLakeside

14.

"Frederick Douglass." — kade22

15.

"Betty White." — Diatrial

16.

The person who started the thread chimed in with their nominee.

"Neil Armstrong would be my number one." — taint_licking_clown

17.

"Harriet Tubman." — 44cksSake

18.

"Ronnie James Dio!" — kevinthegeek21

19.

"Maria Darlene Pearson or Hai-Mecha Eunka (lit. 'Running Moccasins') (July 12, 1932 – May 23, 2003) was an activist who successfully challenged the legal treatment of Native American human remains. A member of the Turtle Clan of the Yankton Sioux which is a federally recognized tribe of Yankton Dakota, she was one of the primary catalysts for the creation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Her actions led to her being called 'the Founding Mother of the modern Indian repatriation movement' and 'the Rosa Parks of NAGPRA." — CTeam19

20.

"Danny DeVito." — distantshadow

This article originally appeared on 4.13.22




via David Grinspoon / YouTube

In 1989, CNN founder Ted Turner asked iconic astrophysicist and science communicator Carl Sagan about his political leanings.

Surely, someone with such a deep understanding of the universe and a passion for humanism would have important insights into how we organize ourselves politically.

"Are you a socialist?" Turner asked Sagan. "I'm not sure what a socialist is," he replied.


While it seems unlikely Sagan was unfamiliar the concepts of socialist political theory, he was smart to sidestep the loaded term.

Socialism is such a broad concept that, in the modern era, it could be applied to numerous countries of varied economic development from Cuba to Canada. Conservatives tend to see it as a malignant political idea and point to Venezuela as a failed socialist state.

While many liberals point to Democratic Socialist countries in Europe such as Denmark and Germany where people have a standard of living that is comparable and, in some ways superior, to the United States.

Back in the '80s "socialist" was used by the U.S.S.R. to describe its totalitarian communist regime, so Sagan was smart to distance himself with any association with the bloc.

Ted Turner asks Carl Sagan if he is a socialist.www.youtube.com

So Sagan provided his own definition.

"But I believe the government has a responsibility to care for the people," he said.

"I'm talking about making people self-reliant, people able to take care of themselves," he continued. "There are countries which are perfectly able to do that. The United States is an extremely rich country, it's perfectly able to do that. It chooses not to. It chooses to have homeless people."

He also noted that in 1989 we were 19th in infant mortality. "We are 19th in the world in infant mortality. Eighteen other countries save the lives of babies better than we. How come?" Sagan asked, rhetorically.

Sadly, things have only gotten worse over the past 31 years. The U.S. is currently ranked 47 infant mortality.

"They just spend more money on them," said Sagan. "They care about their babies more than we care about ours. I think it's a disgrace."

Sagan also believed that the U.S.'s priorities are completely mixed up. We have a hard time helping our most vulnerable citizens, but we still have enough money to pay for high-priced weapons systems.

"Just look at what something like 'Star Wars,'" Sagan said, pointing to a costly '80s defense program. "We've already spent $20 million on it. And if these guys are permitted to go ahead, they will spend a trillion."

31 years later, things haven't improved, we're near an all-time high in military spending at a time when the world has never been more peaceful.


"Think of what that money could be used for: to educate, to help, to bring people up to a sense of self-confidence," Sagan added.

"To improve not just the happiness of people in America, but their economic standing, to improve the competitiveness of the US compared to other countries. We are using our money for the wrong stuff."


This article originally appeared on 10.5.20