> If she had a license/state ID and answered the expiration mailer she would have had one.
That assumes she had one to begin with. I know lots of Americans that don't even have a passport or driving license.
Anyway, you're a cold one to stick to your theme of victim blaming, take into account that not everybody is able to navigate the bureaucracy as well as you or I and that there are other factors (for instance: analfabetism) that can land people in very difficult situations which even an expert would have a hard time to reverse.
And in case it wasn't clear to you yet: And it shouldn't be that way, if you're a legal citizen of a country and you lose all your identification due to theft, fire or some other reason and/or you are homeless then your government should go out of its way to help correct the situation. Because it is the decent thing to do.
As to the process of reestablishing a new set of identity docs. It's clearly overly onerous and just like everything else in life, even more so when you're poor.
The decent thing to do for the government isn't just to make the edge case of the destitute easier. It's to make the general case easier. Getting an ID or renewing one should be so easy that there is no excuse.
Your 'personal responsibility' works well for you given your background and status in life. But it's an easy argument to make when the results are not your problem. It does handily allow you to ignore the fate of those that are not as fortunate as you are, after all, if they had taken their responsibilities seriously then they would have nothing to complain about, case closed.
Am I to interpret that as a threat, a la "If you said that to my face and I'd punch you in yours!"?
If so, I'd expect more from what I presume to be a grown man.
> At a guess you're young, well educated and compared to the lady in the article filthy rich.
In the interests of preserving pseudo anonymity I won't confirm or deny any of those guesses.
The addition of "filthy" in the third piece of that does show more than a hint of inherent bias though. There's nothing virtuous or vile in being poor or rich, and discounting someone's opinions based on your presumptions of their economic status can only end badly.
> Your 'personal responsibility' works well for you given your background and status in life. But it's an easy argument to make when the results are not your problem. It does handily allow you to ignore the fate of those that are not as fortunate as you are, after all, if they had taken their responsibilities seriously then they would have nothing to complain about, case closed.
Not once did I say the situation is not unfortunate nor did I say things should be this difficult. I merely pointed out that it could also have been avoided and she had ample opportunity to do so.
If resources are to be dedicated to helping out someone in this situation (which they should!), then they should also be dedicated to preventing it in the first place. A key part of that is acknowledging the personal responsibility component. Otherwise you're stuck repeatedly curing situations that could have otherwise been prevented.