aem wrote:
> 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.

In my state they throw lots of money at the education problem in
lower income areas. Money isn't the problem.

nancy

Dave Smith > wrote in news:488CE653.68B78E88
@sympatico.ca:

> 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.

Why do you say it's your tax money? You've given it away. You have no
more control over it than you do over particles engaged in Brownian
movement or the maunderings of the right-wing political weasel.

If we actually had some sort of control over taxes, they would not be (on
the whole) spent as rationally as they are on sewage and public
transportation and the such.

In fact, the bulk of your taxes are spent in totally legitimate ways which
society approves of, but some wish they didn't have to pay for. So sock
that away with the hula hoop and other ill-advised ideas from the Chicago
School of Personal Responsibility Economics, aka the Friedman view, or
Supply-Side "Chaysus! are they spending my money on THAT!?" weltanschauung.

Dave Smith > wrote in news:488CE79F.7AEB4A07
@sympatico.ca:

> 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.

That will only happen if you invest in it. My son's mother was on welfare
and because she got the support she needed she was able to get out of it,
get a job teaching school and is now about to retire. All the women I knew
in the 80's who were on some sort of social safety net have all graduated.
Why? Because they were supported in their time of need.

I think you have this problem backwards because you think you should have a
say. Here's a flash. It isn't about you.

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
. ..
> aem wrote:
>> 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.
>
> In my state they throw lots of money at the education problem in
> lower income areas. Money isn't the problem.
>
What is the problem?

cybercat wrote:
> "Nancy Young" > wrote

>> aem wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> In my state they throw lots of money at the education problem in
>> lower income areas. Money isn't the problem.
>>
> What is the problem?

You tell the kids we spend more per pupil on you than anywhere
in the state! and they still come to school unprepared from broken
homes with unmotivated parent(s) on welfare. Anyone who knows
how to fix that will have plenty of listeners.

nancy

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.
>

She's also taking huge risks for that $600 and her crack fix. Any one of
her customers could kill her or she could be turned into the police. She
could also contract a sexually transmitted disease. All in all, I don't
think her deal is too great; she just thinks it is, which is how
prostitution's ranks are filled. Girls look at their other income
producing options, figure that they might be having just as much sex for
free and thus might as well get paid for it.

Orlando

wrote:
>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.

I wonder where the racket in food stamps lies. How can fresh salads and
prepared chicken be off limits, while junk food is allowed? Could it be
that the junk food industry partially pays for food stamps in order to
create addictions to their products?

Orlando

On Jul 26, 6:42�pm, "cshenk" > wrote:
> "Sheldon" wrote
>
> > They're eating their share, your share, and my share... don't you see
> > the size of those obeasties! �They're certainly not starving (they can
> > be given all the healthful food anyone needs but they won't eat that,
> > instead they'll slug down fast food and beer, steal and smoke crack...
> > and no one is abandoning them except them.
>
> Actually nothing says these people drink, steal or are into drugs.
> Obviously though at that size they do overeat.
>
> You can find folks with a different metabolism that are fairly overweight,
> but not to that level.

And some people just enjoy food, so what if they're a bit zoftig,
they'e not 300 lbs and maintaining their weight on someone elses
dollars.

wrote:
>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.

There's a quantitative difference between hard working people falling on
hard times and disfunctional families without firm values or a
consistent way of life. Better times often come to disfunctional
families and get spent up feeding addictions, buying long denied
material goods and repaying some debts.

Orlando

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:49:13 GMT, Orlando Enrique Fiol
> wrote:

>I wonder where the racket in food stamps lies. How can fresh salads and
>prepared chicken be off limits, while junk food is allowed? Could it be
>that the junk food industry partially pays for food stamps in order to
>create addictions to their products?

The wheels of government turn slowly. They haven't caught up to the
times yet.


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

Mae West

Michel Boucher wrote:

> > 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.
>
> Why do you say it's your tax money? You've given it away.

No I did not give it away. It was taken from me.

> You have no
> more control over it than you do over particles engaged in Brownian
> movement or the maunderings of the right-wing political weasel.

The left wing political weasels take it too.

wrote:
>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.

Many drug addicts have lost hope in their lives even when they look like
they have it all. This problem often plagues the spoiled children of
wealthy families who have provided their children with every creature
comfort except genuine love and affection. For poor people, drugs often
dull hopelessness, but they also dull the hunger for love and affection.

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

Agreed. Can we blame less and love more? I know it sounds trite, as
though all the world's problems would be magically solved if we loved
each other more fervently. But, you'd be surprised how many ills boil
down to lack of love.

Orlando

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

Fiscal conservatives often like to remind us that throwing money at
certain problems won't solve them. Yet, they're fine with our current
war budget and money being thrown at religious education and faith-based
charities. What they really mean is that poor people have had money
thrown at them and it's proven not to work. In truth, many problems can
in fact be solved with money. Give people more money and they can afford
to live in better housing, eat better, etc. Of course, more money
doesn't address people's educational inadequacies or lack of values.
But, even when it comes to education, more money can mean smaller
classes taught by better teachers who are better paid and not
overworked.

Orlando

Dave Smith > wrote in news:488D0B37.F75C321
@sympatico.ca:

> Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Why do you say it's your tax money? You've given it away.
>
> No I did not give it away. It was taken from me.

So tell them you disagree and that you want it back. Then cut off your
sewage and don't drive on roads or use public transportation. Don't go see
doctors or hospitals or avail yourself of the right to bend your local MP's
ear because there won't be one...in fact there won't be much of anything.

When you consider all that taxes finance, your contribution is not a lot to
ask for.

>> You have no
>> more control over it than you do over particles engaged in Brownian
>> movement or the maunderings of the right-wing political weasel.
>
> The left wing political weasels take it too.

Sorry but left-wing political weasels are an endangered species. Right-
wing ones are a dime a dozen. Weaseling ain't what it used to be.

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I wonder where the racket in food stamps lies. How can fresh salads and
> prepared chicken be off limits, while junk food is allowed? Could it be
> that the junk food industry partially pays for food stamps in order to
> create addictions to their products?
>
> Orlando

The logic is that they are prepared foods and more expensive/less value.

I don't believe you can buy junk foods in my state with food stamps but
I may be wrong.

In my state they also use the a similar thought process regarding
taxable food items. If you buy food to prepare yourself it isn't
taxable. So if you buy a head of lettuce you don't pay tax. Have some
one cut it up for you and you do. Buy a loaf of bread and a pound of
cheese you don't pay tax but you do if buy a sandwich at the deli.

<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. There is NO valid excuse to steal
> food in this day and age.
>

That simply is not true. There are plenty of people in this country who live
below the poverty line. In case you don't know what that is, as of 2007 it
was $21,027. That's not for a single individual or even a couple. That is
for a family of 4, including two children. There are PLENTY of people on
welfare who actually need the help and are not drug addicts. Spend some time
with a social worker in your area and you will see this. Poor does not equal
drug addicted, and that is a dangerous assumption. As far as soup kitchens,
they are not as prevalent as you seem to believe. Tell me, how is a family
of 4 with small children and no transportation living rurally supposed to
get to a soup kitchen every day? And even if they managed to make it there
once a day, which is not in the least likely, but lets suppose...should they
only be able to feed their children once a day?
Besides the truly poor, there are many more living paycheck to paycheck, and
that means that something like an injury, being laid off, etc can put them
in the hole in a big hurry. A man worked since he was 15, but he has a heart
condition that doesn't allow him to work now. So far, he's been unable to
get any disability or social security. Yes, it should be retroactive when
they finally start paying him what they should, but in the meantime, the
place his wife worked was closed down because they couldn't afford to stay
open any more. Just like so many people. If not for her mother helping them
until his wife found work, what do you think they'd have been able to do
with two kids, and a car they couldn't afford to put gas in?

You're making way too many sweeping generalities and assumptions and they
are predicated, at best, on misinformation.

kimberly
--
http://eating-sandiego.blogspot.com/

"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.

There are many people who cannot fathom hope, much less live in it. People
abused the the ones who are supposed to care for them, then abused or
discarded by the system that is supposed to help them. People who are barely
surviving, much less living. Many of these people do turn to drugs and
alcohol to numb the pain, and it's not very hard to believe, or understand.

kimberly

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
. ..
> aem wrote:
>> 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.
>
> In my state they throw lots of money at the education problem in
> lower income areas. Money isn't the problem.
>
> nancy

The problem is they make a big show of all this money that is supposedly
going to education...yet the teachers are overworked and underpaid and they
don't have enough supplies, plenty of schools are in dire need of repairs,
etc, while superintendents and school boards are driving cadillacs and
taking vacations to the Carribean.

kimbely

"Nexis" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> You're making way too many sweeping generalities and assumptions and they
> are predicated, at best, on misinformation.
>
> kimberly

Let me make one more. This thread illustrates that there is a large
percentage of literate people in the US who would not care if all the poor,
ill-educated, mentally ill or failed people of their own country were to
fall off the face of the earth. If they are also fat, they would probably
vote for rockets to make it faster.
Heads up folks, if it isn't happening to you it could be your kid or
grandkid it can happen to. I have seen very well-educated and well-to-do
families have one or more kids who turned to crime, drugs or blew their
brains out.

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> I don' t think it is antipathy for the poor as much as it is for
> these two very large women who compared their situation to the
> famines in Ethiopia or Biafra.

There's nothing in the NPR text or audio that includes any reference to
African famines.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=92592545

--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.mac.com/barbschaller , blahblahblog is back and
is being updated quite regularly now.
"rec.food.cooking Preserved Fruit Administrator
'Always in a jam. Never in a stew.'" - Evergene

In article >,
Billy <Hereiam@hotmaildotcom> wrote:

> This has to be the saddest story NPR has ever published. It is a
> real tear jerker….but NPR NEVER published the picture of this
> mother/daughter duo.

It's on the NPR site:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=92592545
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.mac.com/barbschaller , blahblahblog is back and
is being updated quite regularly now.
"rec.food.cooking Preserved Fruit Administrator
'Always in a jam. Never in a stew.'" - Evergene

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> They have a lot of gall to suggest that their situation is like the
> famine in Biafra or Ethiopia

They didn't; where'd you get that they did?
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.mac.com/barbschaller , blahblahblog is back and
is being updated quite regularly now.
"rec.food.cooking Preserved Fruit Administrator
'Always in a jam. Never in a stew.'" - Evergene

George > wrote:
> Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > I wonder where the racket in food stamps lies. How can fresh salads
> > and prepared chicken be off limits, while junk food is allowed?
> > Could it be that the junk food industry partially pays for food
> > stamps in order to create addictions to their products?
> >
> > Orlando
>
> The logic is that they are prepared foods and more expensive/less
> value.
Rotisserie chicken from the grocery store doesn't cost that much more than
buying a chicken and roasting it yourself. What if you don't have a working
oven?

> I don't believe you can buy junk foods in my state with food stamps
> but I may be wrong.
>
As I said, it may vary by state. But in Tennessee, if I'd been so inclined,
I could have loaded my shopping cart with Lil' Debbie snack cakes, twinkies,
chips and dips and soda. Food stamps would have paid for it all. Someone
here once criticized me for saying these things shouldn't be allowed, saying
something like, "what, poor kids shouldn't be allowed to get treats?" Um,
not when it's the staple of their diet, no. But then, I wasn't raised
eating junk food and drinking soda all day long so maybe it's just me. YMMV


> In my state they also use the a similar thought process regarding
> taxable food items. If you buy food to prepare yourself it isn't
> taxable. So if you buy a head of lettuce you don't pay tax. Have some
> one cut it up for you and you do. Buy a loaf of bread and a pound of
> cheese you don't pay tax but you do if buy a sandwich at the deli.

I've never lived in a place where food wasn't taxed. I can understand both
sides of the coin and I sure don't have any solutions, simply personal
observations.

Jill

"Nexis" > wrote in :

> Many of these people do turn to drugs and
> alcohol to numb the pain, and it's not very hard to believe, or
> understand.

It is for some who only consider the expense.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:04:31 GMT, Orlando Enrique Fiol
> wrote:

wrote:
>>Curiously, throwing more money at the problem seems to be what many people
>>expect.
>
>Fiscal conservatives often like to remind us that throwing money at
>certain problems won't solve them. Yet, they're fine with our current
>war budget and money being thrown at religious education and faith-based
>charities. What they really mean is that poor people have had money
>thrown at them and it's proven not to work. In truth, many problems can
>in fact be solved with money. Give people more money and they can afford
>to live in better housing, eat better, etc. Of course, more money
>doesn't address people's educational inadequacies or lack of values.
>But, even when it comes to education, more money can mean smaller
>classes taught by better teachers who are better paid and not
>overworked.
>

You know the saying: If it can be fixed with money, then it's not
really a problem.


--
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 16:13:35 -0400, 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.

it certainly hasn't worked for the pin-headed conservative problem.
some of them have made tons of money under the bush administration and
they're still pinheads.

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

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:10:33 -0500, Michel Boucher
> wrote:

>Dave Smith > wrote in news:488CE653.68B78E88
:
>
>> 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.
>
>Why do you say it's your tax money? You've given it away. You have no
>more control over it than you do over particles engaged in Brownian
>movement or the maunderings of the right-wing political weasel.
>
>If we actually had some sort of control over taxes, they would not be (on
>the whole) spent as rationally as they are on sewage and public
>transportation and the such.
>
>In fact, the bulk of your taxes are spent in totally legitimate ways which
>society approves of, but some wish they didn't have to pay for. So sock
>that away with the hula hoop and other ill-advised ideas from the Chicago
>School of Personal Responsibility Economics, aka the Friedman view, or
>Supply-Side "Chaysus! are they spending my money on THAT!?" weltanschauung.

i like that people whine about tax breaks given to undeserving others
while the mortgage deduction costs the treasury ~$100 billion a year.

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

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:56:39 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Why do you say it's your tax money? You've given it away.
>
>No I did not give it away. It was taken from me.
>

by jack-booted thugs from the i.r.s.! damn those black helicopters!

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

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:02:53 +0200, "Giusi" >
wrote:

>
>
>"Nexis" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>> You're making way too many sweeping generalities and assumptions and they
>> are predicated, at best, on misinformation.
>>
>> kimberly
>
>Let me make one more. This thread illustrates that there is a large
>percentage of literate people in the US who would not care if all the poor,
>ill-educated, mentally ill or failed people of their own country were to
>fall off the face of the earth. If they are also fat, they would probably
>vote for rockets to make it faster.
>Heads up folks, if it isn't happening to you it could be your kid or
>grandkid it can happen to. I have seen very well-educated and well-to-do
>families have one or more kids who turned to crime, drugs or blew their
>brains out.
>

*schadenfreude* is so much more fun than compassion.

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

On Jul 28, 4:02�am, "Giusi" > wrote:
> "Nexis" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>
> > You're making way too many sweeping generalities and assumptions and they
> > are predicated, at best, on misinformation.
>
> > kimberly
>
> Let me make one more. �This thread illustrates that there is a large
> percentage of literate people in the US who would not care if all the poor,
> ill-educated, mentally ill or failed people of their own country were to
> fall off the face of the earth. �If they are also fat, they would probably
> vote for rockets to make it faster.
> Heads up folks, if it isn't happening to you it could be your kid or
> grandkid it can happen to. �I have seen very well-educated and well-to-do
> families have one or more kids who turned to crime, drugs or blew their
> brains out.

You're both over dramatizing the issue. There is plenty of food
available in the US. Anyone who goes hungry in the US it is entirely
their own fault... and if you can't get to the food there are many
agencies that will bring the food to your door, cook it for you, even
spoon feed those who are unable. And yes, there is no correlation
between poverty and mental illness, but just as there is food
available to anyone there is also intervention available for those
with emotional issues, on a sliding scale, so essentially free to
those without funds. In the US anyone who goes without it is by their
own doing. The problem is that many refuse what they consider
charity. The truth is that at one time or another we all have paid
for these services in one way of another. In my rural community all
the various churches, 4H clubs, scouting groups, Salvation Army, and
many other orgnizations including private businesses and individual
private citizens offer free food, transportation, and many other
services to the elderly, disabled, and anyone who asks or advocates
for those in need. In larger more urban communities there is so much
more available. Yet many refuse to avail themselves of these
resources... you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them
drink. Every day there are elderly shut-ins who starve to death in
their own beds simply because they refuse assistance. Every community
will have a senior citizen club, elks, lions, masons, rotary, vfw,
chamber of commerce, etal... all sponsor community assistance programs
for those in need. Anyone who claims help is unavailable is lying.

On Lung Guyland I was an Islip Town Hotline volunteer... everyone who
phoned in with a problem, any kind of problem, got real tangible help
right away, and no one had to identify themself. Didja know that your
local public library will assist you in obtaining employment, they
will even prepare your resume... libraries are the ultimate resouce
bank, they maintain a list of all community services, they have a very
high success rate.

Michel Boucher wrote:

> "Nexis" > wrote in :
>
> > Many of these people do turn to drugs and
> > alcohol to numb the pain, and it's not very hard to believe, or
> > understand.
>
> It is for some who only consider the expense.

Doing drugs has a lot more to do with being cool and fitting in than with
some need to forget. Just like alcohol, the number one favourite drug in
North Americium, some people get into the habit. Many others do not. If pot
were legal most people would probably rather smoke that than the more
addictive drugs.

Melba's Jammin' > wrote:
> In article >,
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
> > They have a lot of gall to suggest that their situation is like the
> > famine in Biafra or Ethiopia
>
> They didn't; where'd you get that they did?

IIRC someone who posted a comment on the page of the article suggested it.

Jill

In article >,
"jmcquown" > wrote:

> Melba's Jammin' > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Dave Smith > wrote:
> >
> > > They have a lot of gall to suggest that their situation is like the
> > > famine in Biafra or Ethiopia
> >
> > They didn't; where'd you get that they did?
>
> IIRC someone who posted a comment on the page of the article suggested it.
>
> Jill

Thanks. It appears to have been posted by the blogger himself.

--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.mac.com/barbschaller , blahblahblog is back and
is being updated quite regularly now.
"rec.food.cooking Preserved Fruit Administrator
'Always in a jam. Never in a stew.'" - Evergene

Dave Smith > wrote in news:488DE3EB.4A76415
@sympatico.ca:

> Doing drugs has a lot more to do with being cool and fitting in than with
> some need to forget.

I am reminded of a Doonesbury cartoon where Mark was interviewing Dr. Dan.
Dr. Dan's new schtick was "quality time" with children. He pointed out
that it had to be a good activity and that it needn't involve a lot of time
but that it had to meet the child's needs.

Mark asked: What is the child's need is more time?

To which Dr. Dan replied: We're not talking about problem children here.

Basically, Dave, I was not talking about people who do it to act cool when
I mentioned those who are in dire straits, and you know that. What you
presented was the case of a first nation girl who blew over 200,000$ in
drugs. I don't think that deep down she spent all that just to look cool,
but you're entitled to trivialize the issue any way you want. Just make
sure you clarify that you're trivializing it so we know you're failing to
address the fundamental point.

I suggest though that you inform yourself first before going any further.
There is much available on first nations and addiction your local friendly
google search engine can find for you. Hell, let me get you started:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fniah-spnia/s...nlaada-eng.php

http://www.nnapf.org/

That should keep you busy and off the streets for a while :-)

In article >, "Nexis" >
wrote:


> The problem is they make a big show of all this money that is supposedly
> going to education...yet the teachers are overworked and underpaid and they
> don't have enough supplies, plenty of schools are in dire need of repairs,
> etc, while superintendents and school boards are driving cadillacs and
> taking vacations to the Carribean.

Superintendents in small school districts sometimes make less money than
teachers in larger school districts. In California, pay for school
board members is limited to US$240 per month, but most get nothing.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"Michel Boucher" > wrote:
>
> I suggest though that you inform yourself first before going any further.
> There is much available on first nations and addiction your local friendly
> google search engine can find for you. Hell, let me get you started:
>
> http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fniah-spnia/s...nlaada-eng.php
>
> http://www.nnapf.org/
>

Anybody who has an alcoholic uncle or parent or sibling has seen what
addiction can do. Multiply the hold that booze can get on some people by ten
(at least) and you have what crack can do. Add to that the fact that crack
is illegal so these people wind up with criminal records, and the picture
begins to emerge. I think the studies that show that body chemistry (such as
a lack of serotonin/norepinephrine) contributes are right on. It's a
complicated problem that the smug and self-righteous boneheads are not able
or willing to understand. Their lack of compassion will come right back on
them, or at least I hope it will.

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
> "Nexis" > wrote in :
>
>> Many of these people do turn to drugs and
>> alcohol to numb the pain, and it's not very hard to believe, or
>> understand.
>
> It is for some who only consider the expense.

And for some with no compassion, little life experience, and nasty, petty,
cramped little souls and tiny hard black hearts.

"Giusi" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Nexis" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>> You're making way too many sweeping generalities and assumptions and they
>> are predicated, at best, on misinformation.
>>
>> kimberly
>
> Let me make one more. This thread illustrates that there is a large
> percentage of literate people in the US who would not care if all the
> poor, ill-educated, mentally ill or failed people of their own country
> were to fall off the face of the earth. If they are also fat, they would
> probably vote for rockets to make it faster.
> Heads up folks, if it isn't happening to you it could be your kid or
> grandkid it can happen to. I have seen very well-educated and well-to-do
> families have one or more kids who turned to crime, drugs or blew their
> brains out.

Thank you for this insightful comment. These are the same people who would
wonder why there are poor, desperate people who would walk up and blow their
smug fat asses off the planet without even asking any questions. They would
wail about the lack of humanity in that act, and yet never see their own.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>> "Nexis" > wrote in :
>>
>> > Many of these people do turn to drugs and
>> > alcohol to numb the pain, and it's not very hard to believe, or
>> > understand.
>>
>> It is for some who only consider the expense.
>
> Doing drugs has a lot more to do with being cool and fitting in than with
> some need to forget. Just like alcohol, the number one favourite drug in
> North Americium, some people get into the habit. Many others do not. If
> pot
> were legal most people would probably rather smoke that than the more
> addictive drugs.

Are you serious? You think some 35 year old crack addict cares a whit about
fitting in or being cool?
Do you think the drug addicted prostitute kili spoke of feels cool? Fits in?
Really?
First of all, I was talking about a specific group of people. People who
drink/use drugs/cut/withdraw etc in a futile attempt to mask/forget/deny
their pain. They don't give a rat's patoot about fitting in. Do you think
someone who was molested by their father their whole life (for example) EVER
feels like they fit in? Do you think they EVER feel cool? Yes, high school
and college age kids may do drugs to fit in and look cool to their
friends...that has nothing to do with what I was talking about, however.
They are generally recreational drug users, and generally not really
addicts. Addicts could give a sh*t about fitting in OR being cool.

kimberly

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
. ..
> Dave Smith > wrote in news:488DE3EB.4A76415
> @sympatico.ca:
>
>> Doing drugs has a lot more to do with being cool and fitting in than with
>> some need to forget.
>
> I am reminded of a Doonesbury cartoon where Mark was interviewing Dr. Dan.
> Dr. Dan's new schtick was "quality time" with children. He pointed out
> that it had to be a good activity and that it needn't involve a lot of
> time
> but that it had to meet the child's needs.
>
> Mark asked: What is the child's need is more time?
>
> To which Dr. Dan replied: We're not talking about problem children here.
>
> Basically, Dave, I was not talking about people who do it to act cool when
> I mentioned those who are in dire straits, and you know that. What you
> presented was the case of a first nation girl who blew over 200,000$ in
> drugs. I don't think that deep down she spent all that just to look cool,
> but you're entitled to trivialize the issue any way you want. Just make
> sure you clarify that you're trivializing it so we know you're failing to
> address the fundamental point.
>
> I suggest though that you inform yourself first before going any further.
> There is much available on first nations and addiction your local friendly
> google search engine can find for you. Hell, let me get you started:
>
> http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fniah-spnia/s...nlaada-eng.php
>
> http://www.nnapf.org/
>
> That should keep you busy and off the streets for a while :-)
>

Don't hold your breath, Michel...Dave has shown more than once in this
thread that if he can't go off half-cocked, he'd just as soon not join the
party. Look how many times he droned on and on about the two women in the
article having compared their own situation to Bafria or
Ethiopia...something they never even said. Self-educating is obviously not a
priority for Dave.

kimberly