今天早上錯過了二寶的校車，於是開車送他到學校，覺得天氣特別冷，車子發動的聲音和平常不一樣，好似有點困難，在車上聽到廣播，說有些地方水管破裂等等。回到家，右座上有河東獅吃剩下的橘子皮，我想順便拿出去丟，發現橘子皮整個是結凍的，硬得像磚頭一樣。

進了屋子叫醒大寶，等他出門後，我替河東獅搬東西上車順便暖車，聽到NPR(National Public Radio)在報導溫度是華氏零下二十度時，"bitterly cold"，這是播報員的用詞，他報完以後，加了一句話說：”I recommend you call in sick." 建議聽眾請病假。我在想，那他自己怎麼沒有請病假呢？

華氏零下二十度，換算成攝氏（華氏度數減三十二後再乘以九分之五），是零下二十八度八。難怪，昨天晚上，好像整個晚上暖氣一直在燒，轟隆隆的，沒停過幾次。

我忽然想起高中國文課本清代學者　汪中　所寫的一篇文章，講到作者小時候家貧，母親帶著向人乞食，一天吃不到一餐飯，居處破敝，一面牆還是用草蓆代替。其中說到，即使在寒冬裡，也只有草堆可睡的苦境：「每冬夜號寒，母子相擁，不自意全濟，比見晨光，則欣然有生望焉。」（見附錄一）

如果汪中凍死了，歷史上就少了一個偉大的學者，昨天晚上那麼冷，不知道有沒有人凍死？其中有幾個來不及長大的汪中？

芝加哥市有二百九十多萬人，和台北市的人口差不多。依據芝城無家聯盟的調查(見附錄二節錄），從二千零五年七月到二千零六年六月，在芝城共有七萬三千六百五十六人無家可歸。而平時每晚有二萬一千七十八人無家可歸（包括九千八百七十一個小孩）， 其中只有四千六百五十四人被安置到安置所（shelter)，一萬六千四百二十四人沒有安置所(no access to a shelter)。

這一萬六千多沒有被政府安置的人，其中有將近一半的小孩，他們昨天晚上到底在那裡度過？是怎麼度過的？他們度過了嗎？

==========================================

附錄一

先母鄒孺人靈表　　汪中

　　。。。。。

　　日常使姐守舍，攜中及妹，傫然丐於親故，率日不得一食；歸則藉藁於地。每冬夜號寒，母子相擁，不自意全濟，比見晨光，則欣然有生望焉。迨中入學宮，游藝四方，稍致甘旨之養。母百病交攻，緜歷歲月，竟致不起。嗚呼痛哉！

語譯：

　　先母名維貞，祖先是無錫縣人，明末遷居江都縣；同宗共七支，其中六支都絕了後代，因此家譜亡失，世系不明。外祖父名鼐，是個不曾作官的儒生，外祖母姓張。外祖父當年在家中設私塾教學生，先母空暇時就在屏風後聽課，因此私塾中所教的書都能背誦。外祖母早死，外祖父衰老虛弱，母親盡心奉養，撫育兩個弟弟有恩，家事料理得很有條理。等到嫁給汪家，汪家本就貧窮，先父原是入贅的。伯父要賣掉住宅，祖宗神主沒地方安置，先母說：「哪有做媳婦而不奉祀公婆的？」就請求外祖父撥另外的房間供奉。後來伯父、叔父幾人，都來一起生活，先父體弱多病，無力謀生，先母生了兩男兩女，家中沒有男僕婢女，喝的吃的穿的，都由先母一人供應，一個月裡有大半日子不能安睡。先君子過世，伯叔父們更貧困，日子久了就離開各自謀生去了。先母教幾個女學生，同時幫人做鞋子維持生計，還希望保得住孩子們。碰上大饑荒，窮到一無所有無憑藉可活命。

　　遷移到北城，住的只有三席地方，左面沒牆壁，用草席來遮蔽。白天叫姊姊看著家，先母帶領我和妹妹，頹喪地到親戚家乞討，常整天吃不到一頓飯。回來就在地上鋪著稻稈睡覺。冬天夜裡冷得哀號，母子相擁，想不到能安全度過，等到看見早晨陽光，才高興地發現自己還有活下來的指望。到我中了秀才，到各處遊學講藝，稍能準備些鮮美食物奉養母親，而母親已得了各種疾病，纏綿幾年，終於去世。唉，眞是悲痛啊！

　　先母天性忠誠、質樸、慈愛、祥和，一生沒有誑言妄語，對待晚輩有恩惠，多方照顧體念。當我小時，同族親戚沒有憐恤的。母親九死一生，流離轉徙，撫養孤兒，以至於成家立業。先母體質本來強健，一向不看病吃藥，總計先母活了七十六歲，少時苦於操作勞累，中年飽受饑荒貧乏之苦，老年苦於疾病纏綿折磨。加上天倫的乖離，人事的不順利，她的一生，很少有過一天的歡樂。說到她受的挫折和傷害，就是金石也可以被銷毀，更何況血肉之軀呢？所以母親雖是中等之壽去世，絕不能說她天賦的壽數就只有這些。唉！母親生養我的恩情，初喪母親的哀痛，本是人人一樣的；家庭得以重新興起，可是母親卻被累積的勞苦折磨死了。不相識的路人都會傷感，何況兒女呢？先母在乾隆五十二年七月辛丑初一日逝世，合葬在先父墓裡，她的哀子汪中泣血立此石碑，寫此墓表，說：　

　　唉！這是汪氏節母的墳墓，她經歷千辛萬苦撫育後嗣，希望後人保護這墳墓與樹木。

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

附錄二：

Chicago Coalition for the Homeless　／In collaboration with the Survey Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois at Chicago　（ December 21, 2006）

KEY FINDINGS:

 Chicago’s Estimated Homeless Population in the Course of a Year

 ·         73,656 people were homeless in Chicago between 7/1/05 and 6/30/06.

 ·         Of those, 26,413 were children, 12,007 were adults in families, 32,105 were single adults, and 7,243 were unaccompanied homeless youth [There is some overlap with between the unaccompanied homeless youth and the other numbers because the definition of homeless youth includes minors (counted under children), youth ages 18-21 (counted single adults) and pregnant and parenting youth (counted as adults in families)]

 ·         Of those, 19,477 were served in shelters and 54,179, were living on the streets, doubled-up, in cars, in abandoned buildings, or in some other location that was not a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence. 

 ·         Of the members of families, 9,048 were served in shelters and 29,372 were living doubled-up. 

 ·         Of the single adults, 9150 were served in shelters and 22,955 were not served by shelters (Note: It is not known whether those single adults were doubled- up or on the street or in some other situation because a different methodology was used to estimate single adults not served in shelters.)

 ·         Of the homeless youth, 1,279 were served in shelters and 5,964 were not served in shelters.

 Chicago’s Estimated Homeless Population on an Average Night

 ·         21,078 people were homeless on a typical night in Chicago 

 ·         Of those, 4,654 were served in shelters and 16,424 did not access shelters.

·         Of those, 9,871 were children, 3,824 were adults in families, 6,803 were single adults, and 1,348 were unaccompanied homeless youth.  [There is some overlap with the homeless youth and the other numbers as described above] 

·         Of the members of families, 2,595 were served in shelters and 11,100 were doubled up. 

·         Of the single adults, 1,939 were served in shelters and 4,864 were not served in shelters. 

·         Of the homeless youth 464 were receiving services (this includes shelter, but also non-residential services) and 784 were not receiving services. 

  ＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝