n wrote:
>Interesting comments, Orlando.

Thanks.

>People should be educated about nutrition before they try a vegetarian
>diet, at least on children. I am concerned about the rapid growth and
>development of their bones and muscles.

Plenty of Indian children grow up without ever seeing, much less
consuming meat.

>Wednesday night, while staying at a hotel, I watched a show called Baby
>Borrowers (I think that is the name). Young couples who are
>20-something, borrow people's children to find out what it is like to be
>a parent. One mother had two boys who were vegetarians, and she told
>the borrowers, "Just cook whatever you want, they will not eat the meat,
>but they will eat the vegetables and the potatoes." These children
>needed to get some protein from beans, peas, whole grains, nuts, seeds,
>eggs and dairy products (unless they are vegan).

I bet those temporary parents didn't know all that.

>My youngest son would not eat meat, and I did not worry about him if he
>spent the night with a friend, but if he was gone for a few days, I
>would be concerned about his nutrition. He is 6' 2", so he grew up okay.

Congratulations on an excellent job!

Orlando

sf wrote:
>And armed guards to protect them. There's a reason why decent
>groceries and other retail businesses are not near public housing
>projects.

See my other post. When people need or want things they can't afford,
they often resort to theft. Grocery stores would have to be subsidized
so that their merchandise was consistently affordable or even free to
the poorest people in greatest need.

Orlando

sf wrote:
>Orlando has the right idea, except the state doesn't put up liquor
>stores and check cashing places. They are the only businesses that
>can survive in those areas. I know places where even they can't/won't
>do business.

Every new business must undergo federal inspections and adhere to
national guidelines. Each town or county could reserve vacant lots or
buildings in poor neighborhoods for the kinds of businesses those
communities need most. Just as we can exert our rights against Walmart,
poor people can exert their rights to prevent yet another liquor store
or check cashing place from opening up where a well stocked supermarket
or health clinic should be.

Orlando

Nexis wrote:

>
> That's because Dave is going by the highly edited version posted by some
> jackass on a seperate site. Because of his inability to tell the difference
> between that site and the NPR site, and between the actual article and the
> posters ignorant commentary, he's made himself look like a blithering fool.
>
> They live in a tiny place 40 miles outside of the city (Toledo), and with
> the way fuel has doubled in the last couple years, that would make a huge
> impact on transportation, a concent Dave is unable to grasp.
>
> The fact is, Dave took one look at these women and felt he knew all there
> was to know about them because they are obese. In his eyes, that means they
> simply MUST be lazy pigs who pop out kids and expect others to foot the
> bill. It doesn't matter that the article disproves those ideas...just that
> he believes them, so don't f*ck him up with the truth.
>
> kimberly
>
>

Remind me to never get on your bad side. :-)

dave but not that Dave...

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:54:46 -0700, "Nexis" > wrote:

>True...but many wouldn't feel they need to if they had other options.
>Obviously there are people who will be criminals no matter what...

Not necessarily. We don't have a caste system. Everyone has a chance
to succeed here.

>but there
>are plenty of others resorting to stealing because they don't see another
>choice.

Honestly, I think those days are over in the united states (let's just
keep this to legal citizens and not kitchen sink it). IMO: There is
no more crime due to lack of choices. In my city, we have too many
social outreach programs for that excuse to hold water anymore.
People turn to crime because of their poor choices rather than through
necessity. If they chose not to be educated, they put themselves on a
slippery slope. If they chose to join a gang, chances are high that
they'll also do drugs and commit crimes. The people I'm talking about
don't see a future, they live in the moment. Drugs and thugs have
been glamorized, so they feel no shame. It's cultural and
generational now.

Conversely, there are lots of honest people who are poor and
uneducated, who live in high crime, high poverty areas, but they also
see a future. In many cases, they are sacrificing their "now" to make
their children's future better.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

<sf> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:54:46 -0700, "Nexis" > wrote:
>
>>True...but many wouldn't feel they need to if they had other options.
>>Obviously there are people who will be criminals no matter what...
>
> Not necessarily. We don't have a caste system. Everyone has a chance
> to succeed here.

You misunderstood me. I am not saying that these people don't have the same
chance as anyone else. Just that some people have no desire to be anything
but criminals. It's just how it is..it has nothing to do with society, or a
caste system.

>
>>but there
>>are plenty of others resorting to stealing because they don't see another
>>choice.
>
> Honestly, I think those days are over in the united states (let's just
> keep this to legal citizens and not kitchen sink it). IMO: There is
> no more crime due to lack of choices. In my city, we have too many
> social outreach programs for that excuse to hold water anymore.
> People turn to crime because of their poor choices rather than through
> necessity. If they chose not to be educated, they put themselves on a
> slippery slope. If they chose to join a gang, chances are high that
> they'll also do drugs and commit crimes. The people I'm talking about
> don't see a future, they live in the moment. Drugs and thugs have
> been glamorized, so they feel no shame. It's cultural and
> generational now.
>
> Conversely, there are lots of honest people who are poor and
> uneducated, who live in high crime, high poverty areas, but they also
> see a future. In many cases, they are sacrificing their "now" to make
> their children's future better.
>

All I'm saying is that there certainly *are* people who live in a quiet
desperation that turn to things like petty theft, not because they're bad
people or inherent criminals, but because they don't see another way. Yes
there are some who make it, but there are also some who don't, and
pretending they're not out there isn't going to help. People with years of
education are finding it almost impossible to find jobs. My brother tried
EVERY day but Sundays to get a job and it still took 10 months, because he
*was* educated.

No doubt that drugs and thugs have, as you said, been glamorized...but
everyone who steals a pound of ground beef is on drugs or a thug. Not
everyone who sneaks into an orchard and takes a basket of fruit is a thug or
on drugs. There are people who are stuck in the cycle, and do not know how
to get themselves out. If you think they don't exist, you would be mistaken.

kimberly

> --
> I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the
> number of carats in a diamond.
>
> Mae West

"dsi1" > wrote in message
...
> Nexis wrote:
>
>>
>> That's because Dave is going by the highly edited version posted by some
>> jackass on a seperate site. Because of his inability to tell the
>> difference between that site and the NPR site, and between the actual
>> article and the posters ignorant commentary, he's made himself look like
>> a blithering fool.
>>
>> They live in a tiny place 40 miles outside of the city (Toledo), and with
>> the way fuel has doubled in the last couple years, that would make a huge
>> impact on transportation, a concent Dave is unable to grasp.
>>
>> The fact is, Dave took one look at these women and felt he knew all there
>> was to know about them because they are obese. In his eyes, that means
>> they simply MUST be lazy pigs who pop out kids and expect others to foot
>> the bill. It doesn't matter that the article disproves those ideas...just
>> that he believes them, so don't f*ck him up with the truth.
>>
>> kimberly
>
> Remind me to never get on your bad side. :-)
>
> dave but not that Dave...

LOL! I'm really not a mean person...I just have precious little tolerance
for ignorance and cruelty. Dave went on in several posts, talking about
these women as if he knew their life story, ridiculing them, mocking them,
and trashing them for something they never even said. That's just stupid,
isn't it?

kimberly

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:49:41 GMT, Orlando Enrique Fiol
> wrote:

>sf wrote:
>>Orlando has the right idea, except the state doesn't put up liquor
>>stores and check cashing places. They are the only businesses that
>>can survive in those areas. I know places where even they can't/won't
>>do business.
>
>Every new business must undergo federal inspections and adhere to
>national guidelines. Each town or county could reserve vacant lots or
>buildings in poor neighborhoods for the kinds of businesses those
>communities need most.
>
Not only that, the entire community needs to be aware of what's
happening and participate in the process.

However, IME well stocked supermarkets come and go in high crime
areas. If they can't make a profit, they're gone. Grocery stores
operate on an unbelievably low profit margin.... it was something like
1% the last time I was heard someone knowledgeable talk about the
subject

>Just as we can exert our rights against Walmart,
>poor people can exert their rights to prevent yet another liquor store
>or check cashing place from opening up where a well stocked supermarket
>or health clinic should be.

People (in my city) who live in high crime, poverty areas have
discovered they have a voice. They *will* be heard if they come
together and make some noise. I know of once specific bar they closed
down because it generated too much crime in the immediate area. The
bar was only a block from the new(ish) streetcar line that connects
their area directly with downtown, so their area is becoming "hot
property" if it's within maybe 5 blocks of that transportation. Lemme
tell you, if the owners of the homes actually live in them... they are
no fools. They will do whatever it takes to increase the value of the
houses.

My city is at the stage where every area has a community health
clinic, but one of them still lacks a convenient major supermarket
although there has been talk about one for years. There's one market
on the periphery, in an area with new construction (which doesn't
count for me). Maybe next year, or the year after...


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

sf wrote:
>Not only that, the entire community needs to be aware of what's
>happening and participate in the process.

That takes some doing when people have been socialized not to
participate in any civic processes.

>However, IME well stocked supermarkets come and go in high crime
>areas. If they can't make a profit, they're gone. Grocery stores
>operate on an unbelievably low profit margin.... it was something like
>1% the last time I was heard someone knowledgeable talk about the
>subject

Which is why they need to be subsidized. We're subsidizing a now
pointless and bungled war in Iraq. It would cost much less to subsidize
some grocery stores to stay open in neighborhoods that need them most.

Orlando

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 03:08:16 GMT, Orlando Enrique Fiol
> wrote:

>sf wrote:
>>Not only that, the entire community needs to be aware of what's
>>happening and participate in the process.
>
>That takes some doing when people have been socialized not to
>participate in any civic processes.
>
>>However, IME well stocked supermarkets come and go in high crime
>>areas. If they can't make a profit, they're gone. Grocery stores
>>operate on an unbelievably low profit margin.... it was something like
>>1% the last time I was heard someone knowledgeable talk about the
>>subject
>
>Which is why they need to be subsidized.

I can't agree with that. We're basically subsiding big business and
agriculture as it is now with the tax breaks they get. Maybe a
Walmart type "incentive" would work for me, but I have such a sour
taste in my mouth about the way big business uses tax breaks.... I'd
probably vote against that.

>We're subsidizing a now
>pointless and bungled war in Iraq. It would cost much less to subsidize
>some grocery stores to stay open in neighborhoods that need them most.
>
Don't even get me started! We could construct or maintain schools and
hospitals, fill POTHOLES in the streets (they swallow trucks in NYC),
improve mass transportation, upgrade and maintain our national
infrastructure, and pay close attention to our public parks (national,
state, local) with that money.

:/




--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

"sf" wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 03:08:16 GMT, Orlando Enrique Fiol
> > wrote:
>
>>>However, IME well stocked supermarkets come and go in high crime
>>>areas. If they can't make a profit, they're gone. Grocery stores
>>>operate on an unbelievably low profit margin.... it was something like
>>>1% the last time I was heard someone knowledgeable talk about the
>>>subject
>>
>>Which is why they need to be subsidized.
>
> I can't agree with that. We're basically subsiding big business and
> agriculture as it is now with the tax breaks they get. Maybe a
> Walmart type "incentive" would work for me, but I have such a sour
> taste in my mouth about the way big business uses tax breaks.... I'd
> probably vote against that.
>
>>We're subsidizing a now
>>pointless and bungled war in Iraq. It would cost much less to subsidize
>>some grocery stores to stay open in neighborhoods that need them most.
>>
> Don't even get me started! We could construct or maintain schools and
> hospitals, fill POTHOLES in the streets (they swallow trucks in NYC),
> improve mass transportation, upgrade and maintain our national
> infrastructure, and pay close attention to our public parks (national,
> state, local) with that money.
>
> :/

The next administration is in huge trouble, or maybe we're in trouble. They
don't even touch on the problems of the masses because all they seem to
focus on is the war. I haven't heard anything from the candidates about the
economy. The Senate seems to be working on it, but its a smokescreen.

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:46:21 GMT, Orlando Enrique Fiol
> wrote:

>sf wrote:
>>And armed guards to protect them. There's a reason why decent
>>groceries and other retail businesses are not near public housing
>>projects.
>
>See my other post. When people need or want things they can't afford,
>they often resort to theft. Grocery stores would have to be subsidized
>so that their merchandise was consistently affordable or even free to
>the poorest people in greatest need.
>
People in America are not that poor. Drugs are at the root of the
problem, not poverty. Drug dealers don't barter, they deal in cold
cash. People steal to get money to buy drugs. If they receive
welfare, their priority is drugs not food. Even so, stealing food
isn't a necessity here in America. All they need to do is show up at
a soup kitchen and they are fed. There is NO valid excuse to steal
food in this day and age.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:56:38 -0400, "Cheryl"
> wrote:

>The Senate seems to be working on it,

They're working hard to get re-elected!

> but its a smokescreen.

Let's try not to think about where they're blowing that smoke, OK?




--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

My Lucas can buy meat, just ask him for his photographs of his prime cuts!

<sf> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:56:38 -0400, "Cheryl"
> > wrote:
>
>>The Senate seems to be working on it,
>
> They're working hard to get re-elected!
>
>> but its a smokescreen.
>
> Let's try not to think about where they're blowing that smoke, OK?
>
>
>
>
> --
> I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the
> number of carats in a diamond.
>
> Mae West

<sf> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:46:21 GMT, Orlando Enrique Fiol
> > wrote:
>
>>sf wrote:
>>>And armed guards to protect them. There's a reason why decent
>>>groceries and other retail businesses are not near public housing
>>>projects.
>>
>>See my other post. When people need or want things they can't afford,
>>they often resort to theft. Grocery stores would have to be subsidized
>>so that their merchandise was consistently affordable or even free to
>>the poorest people in greatest need.
>>
> People in America are not that poor. Drugs are at the root of the
> problem, not poverty. Drug dealers don't barter, they deal in cold
> cash. People steal to get money to buy drugs. If they receive
> welfare, their priority is drugs not food. Even so, stealing food
> isn't a necessity here in America. All they need to do is show up at
> a soup kitchen and they are fed.

Hmmm, perhaps there should be drug kitchens too.

On Jul 26, 3:45*pm, "Nexis" > wrote:
> "dsi1" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Nexis wrote:
>
> >> That's because Dave is going by the highly edited version posted by some
> >> jackass on a seperate site. Because of his inability to tell the
> >> difference between that site and the NPR site, and between the actual
> >> article and the posters ignorant commentary, he's made himself look like
> >> a blithering fool.
>
> >> They live in a tiny place 40 miles outside of the city (Toledo), and with
> >> the way fuel has doubled in the last couple years, that would make a huge
> >> impact on transportation, a concent Dave is unable to grasp.
>
> >> The fact is, Dave took one look at these women and felt he knew all there
> >> was to know about them because they are obese. In his eyes, that means
> >> they simply MUST be lazy pigs who pop out kids and expect others to foot
> >> the bill. It doesn't matter that the article disproves those ideas...just
> >> that he believes them, so don't f*ck him up with the truth.
>
> >> kimberly
>
> > Remind me to never get on your bad side. :-)
>
> > dave but not that Dave...
>
> LOL! I'm really not a mean person...I just have precious little tolerance
> for ignorance and cruelty. Dave went on in several posts, talking about
> these women as if he knew their life story, ridiculing them, mocking them,
> and trashing them for something they never even said. That's just stupid,
> isn't it?
>
> kimberly

You have a low tolerance for ignorance because you're an idealistic
type. We can both agree that piling assumptions atop of assumptions is
dumb but mostly I find the comments amusing. Guess I'm a fatalistic
cynic. Anyway, I'm gonna try real hard to stay on your good side if
you don't mind... :-)

Nexis wrote:
> <sf> wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:54:46 -0700, "Nexis" > wrote:
>>
>>> True...but many wouldn't feel they need to if they had other
>>> options. Obviously there are people who will be criminals no matter
>>> what...
>>
>> Not necessarily. We don't have a caste system. Everyone has a
>> chance to succeed here.
>
> You misunderstood me. I am not saying that these people don't have
> the same chance as anyone else. Just that some people have no desire
> to be anything but criminals. It's just how it is..it has nothing to
> do with society, or a caste system.
>

As I've mentioned before, we don't exactly live in Mayberry. A buddy of
ours, Ed, who works right around the corner from us, knows a girl who
"works" that corner because she's there every day waiting on her clientele.
Ed chats with her sometimes because he's usually working alone. He asked
her the other morning how business was that day (she had been out there for
about 3 hours). She told him she already made $600. (Oh, she's homeless,
by the way.) Our buddy was like, "WHOA! You made that much already?" (Our
friend refurbishes motors for $100 a day.)

The girl disappeared for a few hours and came back to work the corner again.
Ed joked to her, "What, did you run out of money already?"

She nodded.

Then Ed asked, "Did you spend it all on crack?"

She nodded.

When Ed told my husband and me the story, our mouths dropped. She's
homeless, a hooker, "earned" $600 in a few hours and lost it all on crack in
a matter of hours.

Yep, some folks just choose to be stupid criminals.

kili

On Jul 26, 4:12�pm, (Steve Pope) wrote:
> Sheldon > wrote:
> >Thinking vegetarian fare is less costly is a myth... anyone who thinks
> >fresh fruits and vegetables cost less than meat hasn't been to the
> >produce section recently. �It costs less to eat meat, so long as one
> >is not thinking rib roast, t-bone, spare ribs, lobster, and wild
> >salmon is the only meat. �The simple fact is that many common fresh
> >fruits and vegetables cost more by two and three times than the more
> >healthful (leaner) meat cuts. �Consider that the more nutritious fresh
> >fruits and vegetables are mostly water, therefore to consume enough to
> >feel sated will cost significantly more than consuming a more balanced
> >menu of say round steak stretched with starchy vegetables (like
> >legumes) and using smaller amounts of the more nutritious but much
> >pricier �fresh produce (like red bell pepper). �
>
> I think Sheldon's right; the cheapest possible factory meat in the
> U.S. is very cheap relative to its food value. �The problem is, you
> don't want to eat it, whether you are carnivore or vegetarian. �It's
> laden with hormones, antibiotics, purines and pesticides. �Give my
> share to the NPR interviewees please, but don't send it to the third
> world where it will create a bad international image for America.
>
> Steve

That's not true, there are no more additives in meat than in
vegetables, actually less in meat, especially relative to amounts
consumed... the average person consumes far more vegetable products
than animal products. And you only think there is such a thing as
organic food, that's the biggest food myth of all.

On Jul 27, 3:44�am, "pussywillow" > wrote:
> <sf> wrote in messagenews:u81o84t9puq8j14sct5shg3uho6rj2r9q4@4ax .com...
> > On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:46:21 GMT, Orlando Enrique Fiol
> > > wrote:
>
> >>sf wrote:
> >>>And armed guards to protect them. �There's a reason why decent
> >>>groceries and other retail businesses are not near public housing
> >>>projects.
>
> >>See my other post. When people need or want things they can't afford,
> >>they often resort to theft. Grocery stores would have to be subsidized
> >>so that their merchandise was consistently affordable or even free to
> >>the poorest people in greatest need.
>
> > People in America are not that poor. �Drugs are at the root of the
> > problem, not poverty. �Drug dealers don't barter, they deal in cold
> > cash. �People steal to get money to buy drugs. �If they receive
> > welfare, their priority is drugs not food. �Even so, stealing food
> > isn't a necessity here in America. �All they need to do is show up at
> > a soup kitchen and they are fed.
>
> Hmmm, perhaps there should be drug kitchens too.

Opium Den now Crack House!

Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote:
> wrote:
> > That was my only point, that people who are struggling with
> > their food budget should consider serving more vegetarian fare.
> > Somehow I think that made me a bad guy.
>
> It's not enough to tell people to eat vegetarian if they don't know
> how to prepare vegetables and have little access to fresh produce.
> Rather than put up so many liquor stores and check cashing places in
> public housing neighborhoods, states should give small supermarkets
> and farmers markets zoning preferences and discounts for opening up
> near public housing projects.
>
> Orlando

You can really tell impoverished areas by the check cashing and title loan
scam places, it's true. These people don't know enough to read the fine
print; the term Usury comes to mind.

Having said that, public monies should be allotted to educate poor people
about food and food prep. It's all too easy to hand folks food stamps (and
yes, I was a recipient for a brief period of time) without giving out basic
food prep and nutrition information. I was stunned at the things I could
(but didn't) purchase using food stamps. I was equally surprised to find
things like a rotisserie chicken prepared by the supermarket or fresh or
prepped items off the "salad bar" weren't covered even though they were
infinitely more healthful options. Maybe the rules vary by state but this
was my experience.

Jill

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:43:00 -0700, sf wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:54:46 -0700, "Nexis" > wrote:
>
>>True...but many wouldn't feel they need to if they had other options.
>>Obviously there are people who will be criminals no matter what...
>
>Not necessarily. We don't have a caste system. Everyone has a chance
>to succeed here.
>
>>but there
>>are plenty of others resorting to stealing because they don't see another
>>choice.
>
>Honestly, I think those days are over in the united states (let's just
>keep this to legal citizens and not kitchen sink it). IMO: There is
>no more crime due to lack of choices. In my city, we have too many
>social outreach programs for that excuse to hold water anymore.

and those programs are so well-funded they never have to turn anyone
away? where do you live?

your pal,
blake
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:45:22 -0700, sf wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:46:21 GMT, Orlando Enrique Fiol
> wrote:
>
>>sf wrote:
>>>And armed guards to protect them. There's a reason why decent
>>>groceries and other retail businesses are not near public housing
>>>projects.
>>
>>See my other post. When people need or want things they can't afford,
>>they often resort to theft. Grocery stores would have to be subsidized
>>so that their merchandise was consistently affordable or even free to
>>the poorest people in greatest need.
>>
>People in America are not that poor. Drugs are at the root of the
>problem, not poverty. Drug dealers don't barter, they deal in cold
>cash. People steal to get money to buy drugs. If they receive
>welfare, their priority is drugs not food. Even so, stealing food
>isn't a necessity here in America. All they need to do is show up at
>a soup kitchen and they are fed. There is NO valid excuse to steal
>food in this day and age.

again, your soup kitchens are so well-founded or -stocked they never
turn anyone away? everyone eats until they're full? where do you
live?

your pal,
blake
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:13:47 -0400, George >
wrote:

>Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> That was my only point, that people who are struggling with
>>> their food budget should consider serving more vegetarian fare.
>>> Somehow I think that made me a bad guy.
>>
>> It's not enough to tell people to eat vegetarian if they don't know how
>> to prepare vegetables and have little access to fresh produce. Rather
>> than put up so many liquor stores and check cashing places in public
>> housing neighborhoods, states should give small supermarkets and farmers
>> markets zoning preferences and discounts for opening up near public
>> housing projects.
>>
>> Orlando
>Can I suggest that we simply don't give welfare handouts to places like
>walmart as they do in my state (free land, free development/improvement
> cost, free highway interchanges, no taxes for nine years etc) and
>small markets would be able to compete.

actually, even without corporate welfare aiding wal-mart, mom-and-pops
would find it hard to compete. they don't have the ability to jawbone
(o.k., put the squeeze on) their suppliers that wal-mart does. the
'everyday low prices' have costs that are laid off onto third parties.

your pal,
blake


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:08:03 -0700, "Nexis" > wrote:

>
>"aem" > wrote in message
...
>On Jul 25, 6:22 pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
>> aem wrote:
>>
>>> > It's far from clear to me that they deserve any of the knocking. This
>>> > story was not originated by NPR or any real journalist.
>>>
>>> I beg your pardon, but the story is on the NPR web site and includes an
>>> audio of the interview with the woman on All Things Considered.
>
>>Of course it is, I didn't say otherwise. I said NPR didn't originate
>>the story, which they acknowledge. The more pertinent question is why
>>pick on people who obviously have such problems coping? It's a cheap
>>and somewhat cruel story. -aem
>
>Exactly what I thought. And the comments below the story were not funny in
>the least, just cruel and judgemental.
>
>kimberly
>

reading comments at almost *any* site can be a frightening experience.
there are some real ****ing yahoos out there who can't or won't think
even at the most elementary level, and i fear many of them vote.

your pal,
blake
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 07:44:38 GMT, "pussywillow"
> wrote:

>Hmmm, perhaps there should be drug kitchens too.

That's another thread in another ng. I didn't go there because the
subject of "legalizing" drugs will take this thread too far OT.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

sf wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:46:21 GMT, Orlando Enrique Fiol
> > wrote:
>
> People in America are not that poor. Drugs are at the root of the
> problem, not poverty. Drug dealers don't barter, they deal in cold
> cash. People steal to get money to buy drugs.

It is a matter of choices and drugs are a choice, or start off as a choice. While there may be
increased use if they were to be legalized and addiction treated as a disease instead of as a crime.
Criminalization has done little more than to drive up the price of drugs and the high prices make it a
prime market for criminal elements. When I was at university back in the early 70s I did a paper on
heroin addiction. It had been legal in the UK and it cost the government about 4o cents per day to
supply heroin to registered drug addicts. At the same time, it was costing junkies in NY something like
$300. They had to turn enough tricks or steal enough stuff to fence for $300. There were fewer illegal
sources in the UK because it just wasn't worth the risk if their customers could get it free from
government sources.
..


> If they receive
> welfare, their priority is drugs not food. Even so, stealing food
> isn't a necessity here in America. All they need to do is show up at
> a soup kitchen and they are fed. There is NO valid excuse to steal
> food in this day and age.

Shop lifters usually don't steal out of need. They do it for excitement. Most shoplifters who get
caught have the money to buy what they stole.

Dave Smith > wrote in
:

>>sf wrote:
>>
>> People in America are not that poor. Drugs are at the root of the
>> problem, not poverty.

With the cost of prescription drugs in the US, I'm surprised there isn't
more crime. Yes, yes, I know you were talking about street drugs, but I
think the problem is more fundamental. It would appewar that in the US
(as in some other capitalist benighted nations), those who have don't
give a shit about those who don't. Hence all the other issues that arise
from a culture of carelessness.

> dave wrote:
>
> It is a matter of choices and drugs are a choice, or start off as a
> choice. While there may be increased use if they were to be legalized
> and addiction treated as a disease instead of as a crime.
> Criminalization has done little more than to drive up the price of
> drugs and the high prices make it a prime market for criminal
> elements. When I was at university back in the early 70s I did a
> paper on heroin addiction. It had been legal in the UK and it cost the
> government about 4o cents per day to supply heroin to registered drug
> addicts. At the same time, it was costing junkies in NY something like
> $300. They had to turn enough tricks or steal enough stuff to fence
> for $300. There were fewer illegal sources in the UK because it just
> wasn't worth the risk if their customers could get it free from
> government sources. .

Dave Dave Dave Dave Dave...tsk tsk...using actual facts to argue
something that can only be described as an emotionally charged issue to
less than 7% of the world`s population? That is truly diabolical ;-)

>> All they need to do is show up at
>> a soup kitchen and they are fed.
>
> Shop lifters usually don't steal out of need. They do it for
> excitement. Most shoplifters who get caught have the money to buy what
> they stole.

You missed the point I think. What we have here is a revelation that the
"richest country in the world" (tm applied for) has soup kitchens. In
other words, the system fails some people. How can this be? Time for a
"Gautama steps outside the palace" moment, not that I think it will
happen soon.

Michel Boucher wrote:

>
> With the cost of prescription drugs in the US, I'm surprised there isn't
> more crime. Yes, yes, I know you were talking about street drugs, but I
> think the problem is more fundamental. It would appewar that in the US
> (as in some other capitalist benighted nations), those who have don't
> give a shit about those who don't. Hence all the other issues that arise
> from a culture of carelessness.

I was indeed referring to street drugs, and it is not as if the US is the
only place with a drug related crime problem. And it is not just a matter of
being poor and turning to drugs. A few days ago there was an interesting
piece on the CBC web site where they interviewed a young native woman on an
Alberta reserve. You may recall the case a few years ago where a young girl
was hit by a stray bullet that came in through the wall of their house. The
interview with her mother was interesting. The reported nailed her down about
the amount of money that she was given when she turned 18. It seems that the
band was sitting on oil..As a member of the band she was entitled to a share
of the royalties and when she turned 18 she received $234,000. Like almost
everyone else on the reserve, she blew it all. Now the oil revenues have
dried up and the only business on the reserve is drug dealing and several
gangs are fighting over the business.

Poverty is not a cause of criminality in everyone. My father grew up poor,
and so did my father in law. Both were born into hard working families who
instilled some positive values into their children, and subsequently the kids
grew out of poverty and did well for themselves. They did not waste the
little money they had on drugs and booze.




>
>
> > dave wrote:
> >
> > It is a matter of choices and drugs are a choice, or start off as a
> > choice. While there may be increased use if they were to be legalized
> > and addiction treated as a disease instead of as a crime.
> > Criminalization has done little more than to drive up the price of
> > drugs and the high prices make it a prime market for criminal
> > elements. When I was at university back in the early 70s I did a
> > paper on heroin addiction. It had been legal in the UK and it cost the
> > government about 4o cents per day to supply heroin to registered drug
> > addicts. At the same time, it was costing junkies in NY something like
> > $300. They had to turn enough tricks or steal enough stuff to fence
> > for $300. There were fewer illegal sources in the UK because it just
> > wasn't worth the risk if their customers could get it free from
> > government sources. .
>
> Dave Dave Dave Dave Dave...tsk tsk...using actual facts to argue
> something that can only be described as an emotionally charged issue to
> less than 7% of the world`s population? That is truly diabolical ;-)
>
> >> All they need to do is show up at
> >> a soup kitchen and they are fed.
> >
> > Shop lifters usually don't steal out of need. They do it for
> > excitement. Most shoplifters who get caught have the money to buy what
> > they stole.
>
> You missed the point I think. What we have here is a revelation that the
> "richest country in the world" (tm applied for) has soup kitchens. In
> other words, the system fails some people. How can this be? Time for a
> "Gautama steps outside the palace" moment, not that I think it will
> happen soon.

pussywillow wrote:

> <sf> wrote in message ...
>
>>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:46:21 GMT, Orlando Enrique Fiol
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>sf wrote:
>>>
>>>>And armed guards to protect them. There's a reason why decent
>>>>groceries and other retail businesses are not near public housing
>>>>projects.
>>>
>>>See my other post. When people need or want things they can't afford,
>>>they often resort to theft. Grocery stores would have to be subsidized
>>>so that their merchandise was consistently affordable or even free to
>>>the poorest people in greatest need.
>>>
>>
>>People in America are not that poor. Drugs are at the root of the
>>problem, not poverty. Drug dealers don't barter, they deal in cold
>>cash. People steal to get money to buy drugs. If they receive
>>welfare, their priority is drugs not food. Even so, stealing food
>>isn't a necessity here in America. All they need to do is show up at
>>a soup kitchen and they are fed.
>
>
> Hmmm, perhaps there should be drug kitchens too.
>
>
What do you think a methadone clinic is?

Dave Smith > wrote in news:488CB21E.B63412D2
@sympatico.ca:

> They did not waste the
> little money they had on drugs and booze.

Probably because they had hope for a better future. Sadly enough, there
are many people who do not and who, for reasons that elude the vast
majority, turn to drugs and alcohol as a means to dull the pain of utter
hopelessness. Do away with hopelessness and the drug/alcohol problem will
be resolved in most cases.

Blaming someone for not having hope is like blaming someone for having a
club foot or being a pinhead conservative.

"kilikini" > wrote :
>
> When Ed told my husband and me the story, our mouths dropped. She's
> homeless, a hooker, "earned" $600 in a few hours and lost it all on crack
> in a matter of hours.
>
> Yep, some folks just choose to be stupid criminals.
>

Addiction is kind of an impediment to clear thinking and good decisions.

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Smith > wrote in news:488CB21E.B63412D2
> @sympatico.ca:
>
>> They did not waste the
>> little money they had on drugs and booze.
>
> Probably because they had hope for a better future. Sadly enough, there
> are many people who do not and who, for reasons that elude the vast
> majority, turn to drugs and alcohol as a means to dull the pain of utter
> hopelessness. Do away with hopelessness and the drug/alcohol problem will
> be resolved in most cases.
>
> Blaming someone for not having hope is like blaming someone for having a
> club foot or being a pinhead conservative.

Beautifully stated, and all true. I usually stay out of these kinds of
discussions, but I am here watching people make ugly, petty, smug asses of
themselves, shaking my head. It's really clear that the life experiences of
some of these self-righteous, tight-assed jerkoffs is really limited.

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" wrote
> n wrote:

>>People should be educated about nutrition before they try a vegetarian
>>diet, at least on children. I am concerned about the rapid growth and
>>development of their bones and muscles.
>
> Plenty of Indian children grow up without ever seeing, much less
> consuming meat.

True, but they also live in a culture where they understand the nutritional
background needed to be healthy on a vegetarian diet. I'd think it
reasonable to say most USA folks do not know these things although one can
look it up.

Michel Boucher wrote:

> > They did not waste the
> > little money they had on drugs and booze.
>
> Probably because they had hope for a better future. Sadly enough, there
> are many people who do not and who, for reasons that elude the vast
> majority, turn to drugs and alcohol as a means to dull the pain of utter
> hopelessness. Do away with hopelessness and the drug/alcohol problem will
> be resolved in most cases.
>
> Blaming someone for not having hope is like blaming someone for having a
> club foot or being a pinhead conservative.

Curiously, throwing more money at the problem seems to be what many people
expect.

Dave Smith wrote:
> Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>>> They did not waste the
>>> little money they had on drugs and booze.
>>
>> Probably because they had hope for a better future. Sadly enough,
>> there are many people who do not and who, for reasons that elude the
>> vast majority, turn to drugs and alcohol as a means to dull the pain
>> of utter hopelessness. Do away with hopelessness and the
>> drug/alcohol problem will be resolved in most cases.
>>
>> Blaming someone for not having hope is like blaming someone for
>> having a club foot or being a pinhead conservative.
>
> Curiously, throwing more money at the problem seems to be what many
> people expect.

Despite all evidence that it doesn't work, people still keep trying.

nancy

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
.. .
> Hereiam@hotmaildotcom wrote:
>>Bullshit......fat people make decisions to be fat.....thin people make
>>decisions to be thin.
>
> Your assumption is that weight is solely governed by will. If that were
> the case, most fat people would will themselves into perpetual thinness.
> Honestly, the obese spend inordinate amounts of time and energy dieting,
> working out and worrying about every morsel they eat. In some cases, fat
> people lose more weight when they stop obsessing over food and fad
> diets. More importantly, why this intense hostility against the poor and
> overweight? Judging from your comments, these Ohio women don't deserve
> any help because they're poor, undereducated and fat. Would they deserve
> more sympathy if they were equally poor and undereducated but thin?
>
> Orlando

Oh, please. These women are milking the system. They can't afford meat? Eat
a salad-eat 500 salads. They won't starve.
All they want are freebies-on the system. Pretty obvious.

Dave Smith > wrote in
:

> Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>> Blaming someone for not having hope is like blaming someone for
>> having a club foot or being a pinhead conservative.
>
> Curiously, throwing more money at the problem seems to be what many
> people expect.

The solution might be even simpler, but let's not rule out that it may
require some funding somewhere. Look at the success of microlending in
places like Bangladesh where what we consider to be poverty here is
referred to as a lavish lifestyle (I'm kidding, but not really).

If instead of kvetching about cost, we addressed the fundamental issue, not
the symptom...but that would actually require taking your eyes off the
sacrosanct economy.

When societies such as ours are saddled with governments who hold as
virtuous idea that they must not risk any damage to the economy to benefit
society, you know you're in for a rough ride. Luckily, their cycle is
dying and sanity will prevail yet again.

On Jul 27, 1:21*pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:

> Dave Smith wrote:
> > Curiously, throwing more money at the problem seems to be what many
> > people expect.
>
> Despite all evidence that it doesn't work, people still keep trying.
>
Perhaps they should be throwing money more accurately. Per-capita
funding for public education, just to take the most obvious example,
has steadily declined since Reagan's days. Better education would go
a long way toward solving several of these interrelated problems. -
aem

Nancy Young wrote:

> >> drug/alcohol problem will be resolved in most cases.
> >>
> >> Blaming someone for not having hope is like blaming someone for
> >> having a club foot or being a pinhead conservative.
> >
> > Curiously, throwing more money at the problem seems to be what many
> > people expect.
>
> Despite all evidence that it doesn't work, people still keep trying.
>

It makes some people feel good if they can get the government to spent
(our) tax money on it. then there are those who actually try to do
something to help.

Michel Boucher wrote:

> The solution might be even simpler, but let's not rule out that it may
> require some funding somewhere. Look at the success of microlending in
> places like Bangladesh where what we consider to be poverty here is
> referred to as a lavish lifestyle (I'm kidding, but not really).
>

Maybe that would work in some places. Look at the example I posted of a young
native woman who was given $234,000 when she rached the age of 18. Gone.
Wasted. Look at the amount of money our federal government spends on "native
programs. " It is billions of dollars per year, but the native people on
reserves are still in a bad way.

> If instead of kvetching about cost, we addressed the fundamental issue, not
> the symptom...but that would actually require taking your eyes off the
> sacrosanct economy.

I am entitled to Kvetch about cost. I pay taxes. I would rather have the money
for my own use. If you want to donate your own money and throw it into that
bottomless pit of need, feel free.


> When societies such as ours are saddled with governments who hold as
> virtuous idea that they must not risk any damage to the economy to benefit
> society, you know you're in for a rough ride. Luckily, their cycle is
> dying and sanity will prevail yet again.

I will have more faith in the system when higher percentages of welfare
recipients get off the dole and their children don't end up on it.