Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    re:  -1
    
    >>    She can't work because she would need a baby-sitter.  It would cost her
    $100/week at least to get someone to watch Ryan.  She has no skills,
    
    
    $100 per week?!?  I find that hard to believe.  It's a "sensitive
    story" but I find parts of it filled with question marks.
    
    Dwight

    Why is $100 so hard to believe???  I have two children and pay that for
    ONE child.
    
    RE.0
    I commend you... Most people would tell her to return to that
    "crack"...and stop bugging them, or even call the police.  I am not
    sure that I would do the same, but I would like to think I would.
    
    Of course you could play the advocate (such as .1) and state, that the
    child in hand adds to the simpathy she will get.... that may well be,
    but she still needs help.  Again, I commend you on your sensativity.

    Sounds like a big time REALITY check to me....
    
    I give three cheers to you Kris....because as "they" say...
    
    THERE BY THE GRACE OF GOD GO I
    
    JayCee
    

    Kris:
    
    You are a sweetheart.  Most people wouldn't have believed her story
    (but I do, especially since 1) my younger sister's handicapped and
    lives off gov't checks and has to deal with medicaid and 2) I hear
    lots of people complain about the cost of child care -- most child
    care providers want paid vacations as well as megabucks to watch
    the kids).
    
    She was lucky to have found such a compassionate household such
    as yours.  Hopefully someday we will find a way in the US to take
    care of the homeless and elderly.  Until then, lots of them will
    just have to live hand to mouth existence.  It does not make me
    look forward to old age, as it becomes very clear to me (living
    down here in the nation's Capital) that I may face what these people
    are going through if I am not lucky or smart about investments.
    
    Tammi
    

>    I realized that, in as much as there are
>    poor people, and in as much as there are those who refuse to be
>    anything but poor,  I am, in my self centered attitude, as much a part
>    of their problem as is a system which cannot weave its safety net tight
>    enough to catch someone like her from falling through. 
 
    It is indeed unfortunate that we cannot "weave a safety net tight
    enough," and it's not all our fault. Much of the blame goes to
    mismanaged funds and fraud perpetrated upon the system by those
    seeking, and in many cases finding, a free ride. So much money goes to
    people that don't deserve or need it, that much less actually makes it
    to where it belongs.
    
    One of my biggest complaints with welfare (in the US) is that it offers
    disincentives to become self-sufficient, or even to help yourself. I
    know a woman, 25, who has a young baby. She is on welfare. She can't
    get a job, because, as an unskilled worker, her earning potential tops
    out at about $200/week. But then she'd have to get a babysitter which
    easily would run $100/week. So, basically, there's no way out for her.
    She will be on welfare for years, I'm sure. I won't argue that her
    problems were avoidable and were brought on by her own stupidity.
    To this day, she still expects some white knight to come save her...
    
    What I will never understand is why the state would rather pay
    $600/month than $300/month (round figures). If you get a job, even if
    it doesn't pay jack-shit, you lose all benefits. Well, that's nowhere.
    The state would rather PROVIDE than ASSIST. And that's the root of the
    problem.
    
    I'm glad you took this woman in and helped her. i hope she used your
    donations wisely.
    
     Now you aren't a selfish bastard anymore- the selfishness is gone. ;-)
    
    The Doctah

    re:4            *****Flame ON*****
    Babysitters getting a paid vacation???? That takes a lot of nerve!!!
    When my wife ran a daycare she requested it too!!! Why no?? You get 2-3
    weeks and 10 paid holidays a year, why shouldn't the daycare operator.
    Parents drop off sick kids, come early to drop them off, come late to
    pick up the little one. My wife has reared 12-15 kids, potty trained
    them, had our kids pick up lice, pox, measles, mumps. She's healed the
    wounds, answered the questions, taught every one of them to read and
    write, know colors and shapes. She provided the parents with the
    confidence and ease of mind (concience) to leave their kids in our
    house from 7:30 am 'til 5:30 pm. (11 hours a day = 55 hours a week=
    <$2.00/hour) How many of us would work for slave wages like that with
    no benefits. People really piss me off when they bitch about paying
    daycare. I had a kid kick a spindle out of a staircase that cost me
    $100 to replace. Another little darlin' brought a black permanent
    marker to the house (against the signed agreement) in her little purse
    and in 2 minutes colored a newly papered wall. We paid extra liability
    insurance coverage, higher homeowners insurance to lower the
    deductible, and served costly hot meals everyday in the winter. When
    most of these kids started with us they were infants or year olds. They
    left us after kindergarten. My wife was babysitter and mother. I played
    with them more than their fathers will in their entire lifetimes. I
    think that holidays and vacations are a small price to pay to have
    someone else relieve parents of the stress of raising their own
    children. We had two comments about babysitting/daycare. "If you think
    we're expensive, stay home and do it yourself! See if the revenue lost
    is as bad as the $100 a week paid out." and on a lighter note, "If you
    refuse to believe the tales the kids bring home from here, we won't
    believe the ones they bring from home!!"
    			*****FLAME OFF*****
    
    	It's sad that people like Janet are placed in slot they're in.
    There is hope for those who really want out. Many educational programs
    are offered for re-training and new training. Many areas offer tuition
    free schooling. Many provide child-care. There are many cases of people
    who just can't get off the treadmill because they're ignorant to the
    services offered. 
    	The worst part of this is the children. They get brought up in less
    than ideal circumstances and have one strike against them before they
    even get into the ballpark.
    
    	My mother says that generosity always comes back ten-fold. May
    yours.
    
    Ken

    re. .1
    
    I wasn't sure how much day care costs.  I though a $100/week was
    pretty steep, too.  I checked with a friend who has a little girl
    in day care.  They pay $160/week in a limitted enrollment facility
    which means that there are 4 children for every worker.  They said
    that $100/week is normal if not low.
    
    Other questions we had; neither of us had seen anything which looked
    like a housing project near Parkdale and Carling, which happens
    to be a nice, middle class neighbourhood.  Ian found the place on
    his way home from work last night.  He wouldn't let his dog live
    there, is his report.
    
    We thought of all kinds of scenarios.  She was a con artist.  The
    baby was part of the schtick.  She could come back and rob the place
    after scoping out the inside.  She could blackmail us by threatening
    to press charges for confinement, rape, child abuse...
    
    It won't happen.  Not this time.  This time the story was real,
    and as much as I would like to deny that Ryan may go hungry and
    that the entire story was a lie in order to get some money, I know
    that reality has crept into the womb of my mind.  I saw it in her
    eyes.
    
    Kris

re.5
    
.5> Now you aren't a selfish bastard anymore- the selfishness is gone. ;-)

    Doctah, this is the closest I've seen you come to giving a compliment.
    I'm flattered.
    
    Hey, I ain't illiterate.  My parents were married.
    
    Kris 

    
    
    I can certainly sympathize with the young women (and thank God I'm
    not in her position).  I sympathize more with the child.
    
    I often wonder, when hearing similar stories, why the mother chose
    to keep her child.  Is that really responsible, to the child and to
    society?  Adoption was (and is) an option.  If one is not capable
    of caring for one's child, is it responsible to keep the child?
    
    Sometimes we need to make tough decisions.
    
    Deb
    
    (and I applaud you,Kris, for your generousity and caring)
    
    

Ken,

Cool your jets.  Daycare is one of those businesses in a double bind.  Too
expensive, and people can't afford to pay it.  Too cheap, and people can't
afford to provide it.  The people who most need it can least afford to pay for
it.

Running a daycare *does* provide some fringe benifits too which other jobs don't
have.  How many other jobs can you work at at your home?  How many other jobs
can you do some of your household chores at the same time?  How many other jobs
can you be with your own kids at the same time?

I find several of your statements rather inflammatory and inaccurate.  What do
you know about whether the parents heal wounds, answer questions, teach, play
with etc, when their kids are not at daycare?  What do you mean  you play with
their kids more then their fathers ever will?  Do you have a full time job or
not?  Bullshit!

$2.00 an hour would be slave labor these days.  But how many people are watching
just one child for $2.00 an hour?  Most places have four to six.  $12 an hour is
nothing to sneeze at.  What about your own children at home?  Make sure to add
in the $2/hour that you're not paying for someone else to watch them too.

cool it.

RE: Janet

What would I do?  I'd invite her in.  Here is a bunch of tasks I'd love to do,
but I don't have the time to.  You are welcome to stay as long as you do what
you can.  Anything I could do to help her get ahead I would do.

What would I do if I were her?  I'd be in the public library, reading, learning,
trying to develop some skills.  I'd take my child with me too.  I'd try to learn
something about electronics maybe, or woodcarving.  Get a *few* tools, and see
what I could do with them.  Pick up some TV's that people are throwing out. See
if I can fix them.  Electrocute myself a couple of times :-).

In any case, I'd do *something*.  There's too many people who are so hidebound,
they say you *have* to have daycare, you *have* to go to school.  There's many
things that you can do if you stop thinking in traditional ruts.

I would *not* allow Janet to be used by any scumbag in government as an excuse
for them to put their hands in my pockets.  If I wanted to help her, I'd do it
myself, rob Peter to pay Paul.

Jim.

>    Doctah, this is the closest I've seen you come to giving a compliment.
    
    I guess you haven't looked very hard. I guess I was in a good mood this
    morning or something. :-)
    
    The Doctah

re 10

You bring up some good points as to how she can improve herself.  It may 
surprise you, but I have found some of the ideas you present would never occur
to many people.  I'm not saying they are lacking in desire, but lacking in
knowledge.  It has surprised me in the past when I talk to someone and they
are so unaware of what they could do to improve their self.

What Kris did is commendable.  Does anyone know of a program in that areas that
Janet could take advantage of?

Stan

    You're right, Jim.  There is much that one can do to improve their
    standing in the job market.  I don't think that Janet was below or
    above any of them.
    
    Had the base note been posted here by someone else I would have
    gone on a Randian diatribe about the virtue of hard work and the
    accountability that each of us owes to our own future.  However,
    it was the immediacy of the situation; the fact that this woman
    was tapped, had no where to turn and could have starved to death
    in a society where a person's worth is not supposed to be measured
    by their income or wealth, that made the situation shocking.
    
    I can only hope that she has the foresight to take preemptive action
    now.  But I can understand why she wouldn't.
    
    Kris 

    Re .0, re: "It's always been my notion that a person works and receives
    what is their fair share."  Well, I'm glad you've finally discovered
    that life isn't always that simple.
    
    Re Jim, why on earth do you think it would occur to this poor young
    woman to try to repair a discarded TV set?  Do you think everyone
    is just like you, with the same interests, etc?  *sigh*
    
    Re .9, Deb, I don't think anyone has the right to suggest that another
    person should give up their child.  It's too much to ask.  (unless
    she were abusing it)
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    I have every right to make a suggestion, Lorna.  She has the right
    not to act on my suggestion.  I realize that giving up a child is
    a heartwrenching decision, and certainly did not mean to imply that
    those who have made that choice did so easily.  
    
    Child abuse?  How is that defined?  Could it not be considered
    child endangerment to have her going door to door, with child in
    arms, to ask for money?  She was almost raped-was the child en-
    dangered?
    
    I don't have all the answers.  I'm simply posing a question.  As
    my original note stated, it's NOT an easy decision, but sometimes
    out of great love for the child, and a sense of responsibility, it
    IS the best choice.
    
    Deb
    

        I believe it's very easy to say that a person must do certain
    things to pull themsleves up. However, many of these people didn't
    come from a background where that is seen as possible. It probably
    hasn't even occured to her to go to the library and start reading.
    It hasn't occured to you that she may be one of the millions of
    functional illiterates in North America. Or that in some cities the
    homeless are being chased out of the libraries because they have
    discovered they could go there.

    I too wonder what it must be like at a soup kitchen for a young
    woman. Most of the people there are probably male and very
    frightening. Given what happens to women in relatively "safe"
    environments, can you image what life on the street must be like?

    There was an incident last winter in Los Angles where a mother, who
    could not afford day care and had to work, left her child (very
    young) at home alone all day. This was discovered and she was
    prosecuted for neglect. What should she have done? Gone on welfare?

    Handouts to the poor are not the answer but they are a part of the
    solution. We need more programs that are a hand up and that give a
    vision to those who have had no hope that there is another world out
    there for them to strive for.

    As for her looking old. I saw many of the poor when I worked in the
    ER and that was common. They age way beyond their years. Look into
    their eyes and see the failure of the American Dream. It is not so
    simple as "work hard and you will be rewarded". Many of the poor in
    our country are working. They have no insurance, no safety net, and
    any minor disaster can throw them over the edge. Our welfare laws
    need to be reworked. They must not be abandoned unless we want to
    give up all claims to being a "kinder, gentler America", or even to
    being civilized. liesl

    
    	RE: .18
    
    	I agree fully, there are just too many Decie yuppies here to
    	understand NOT all others have it made with the MEGA incomes
    	like most Decies do. Try telling someone like my son and his
    	girlfriend whose combined income per week is under $350 GROSS.
    	Try and tell them that the $100 per week per child is ONLY
    	fair. Try telling someone who takes home around $180 a week
    	and pays over $100 just for the rent that they have way too
    	much and $100 for child care is nothing! 
    
    	Not all folks are well to do Decies, a fact alot of us seem
    	to forget once we get here and start bringing in $30-60K a year.
    	Look around you folks, there are more out there that just make
    	$10K a year than those of us that make over.

>                      <<< Note 866.18 by SALEM::DACUNHA >>>


	 I think you need a SEVERE attitude adjustment.....


	 Just because you don't make $100K a year doesn't mean that
	 the person that does is an a$$hole.  Get your head outta the
	 clouds and open your eyes.....I think you'll find some of the
	 biggest contributors to charity among the wealthy people of
	 this nation......and you'll also find the some of the biggest
	 hearts there, too.

	 Where on earth did you get the idea that since someone makes
	 $100K a year, they should give it all away so that they too
	 are in poverty?  Since I make $30K+ a year, should I give
	 enough of that away so that I'll, in a sense, be living off
	 $10K a year?

	 For God's sake, I earned what I make, and yes, since I make a
	 decent salary, I can afford to give some of it to charity,
	 but, by God, just because i make that salary doesn't mean I
	 need nasty, hateful people like you telling me where to go.

	 It's people like you...with attitudes like yours that make me
	 not want to give ANYTHING.......

	 kath                 
     

"I'm not saying they are lacking in desire, but lacking in knowledge."

When I lack knowledge, I look for it.  Maybe that's a skill we should be
teaching *early* in school...

"However, it was the immediacy of the situation; the fact that this woman was
tapped"

I understand.  I've been in .0's position.  There is an earlier note where I
mention a time I was asked for money late night in Harvard Square.  I vividly
remember thinking that it was a con.  What decided it for me was that the woman
in this instance had a whistle on a baling twine string around her neck on top
of her coat.  I gave her all the money that I had.  I was very sad that at that
point that there was not more that I could do for her.

I understand that some people do get into these positions ('begging').  I don't
condemn them for that.  In fact, I don't condemn them for anything.  What I
condemn are those who say 'poor you, let's have the government take more money
from other people and throw at you and hope the government's aim, and your
dexerity is good enough for you catch some of it.'

"why on earth do you think it would occur to this poor young woman to try to
repair a discarded TV set?  Do you think everyone is just like you, with the
same interests, etc?  *sigh*"

You are missing my point entierly.  It doesn't matter what her interests are.
What matters is that she have *some* interests.  It doesn't matter if they are
television repair, ceramics, weaving, or underwater basketweaving.  All that
matters is that you have some interest, and work toward that interest.  If you
can't do it via "traditional" methods, find some untraditional method.  You
don't need $$$ to repair electronics.  You need $$$ to repair *some*
electronics.  The methodoligy applies to any interest.

"I don't think anyone has the right to suggest that another person should give
up their child.  It's too much to ask."

Why?  I find this sentiment very selfish.  A parent is responsible for the well
being of their children.  If they cannot carry out their responsibility, they
should find someone willing and able to.  It's hardly worse then expecting or
*demanding* that other people provide for you and your children.

RE: Alternatives to daycare

I feel that there are many jobs where it is possible to have young children
present so as to not have to provide seperate daycare for them.  However, this
is not traditionally acceptable.  This could be changed.

Jim.

    re .24
>                  Sure, some of the largest charitable contributers
>              are in the Fortune 500.  How many of these people donate
>              because they are concerned with instilling change in a system
>              which they helped to create and perpetuate?  How many
>              donate so they can write it off at tax time?
 
    I don't think there is a 100% tax bracket.
    
    Eugene

    As in every situation there are opposite ends of the spectrum and a
    middle ground.
    
    Poverty can result from many factors.  Social responsibility is a
    government, business and personal issue.  
    
    There is a hierachy of needs (good old Maslow).  It is not always easy
    for the poor to focus on interests that do not, to them, appear to
    relate to the acquiring of food and shelter.
    
    What Kris did was admirable, if we all invested the time and money that
    Kris did in a variety of ways it is conceivable that we could eliminate
    poverty.  But that is not going to happen and therefore business and
    government has to subsidize the private sector.  But it is always
    cyclical, the past eight years has had privately subsidized charities,
    religions and churches providing major support to our nations poor.  As 
    people become more and more stretched we will again look to the 
    government and business to do the work.
    
    And the basic reason is that there are not enough people willing to 
    extend themselves and there are some reasons for poverty that only
    government and business can correct.

RE: self

The earlier note on this subject which I mentioned earlier is actually note 213
in the HYDRA::HOLISTIC conference. "I'M Hungery!".  Please take the time to read
it.  It's well worth it.

Jim.

    .28  I am not comfortable with a society or people who use a philosophy
         that supposedly encourages individual responsibility and then
         drops the issue.
    
         The first question is ...
     
             Are the issues of poverty and homelessness being eliminated?

	 RE: .24    
    
>Well Kath, that really hurt.

	 It was meant to...that was the most hateful, prejudice,
	 ridiculous note I've read in NOTES in a long time....if this
	 was the 'Box, you'd be the new "pope"...

	 You portrayed people that are well off as being selfish and
	 uncaring.....you basically stated that if desire to be
	 well-off/rich, you are the scum of the earth...and I'm sorry,
	 but that is the most prejudice attitude that I've seen in a
	 long time.
	 
>                  First, you have no idea what my salary is!  

	 I don't care what your salary is.
	    
>                  The point I was trying to make is there are so many
>              people concentrating on earning a buck for themselves
>              that they are blinded to what is happening just down the
>              street.

	 Since when have you started reading people's minds and
	 become all-knowing about their intentions...whether good or
	 bad.

	 From your hateful note I perceive you as being of the mind
	 that since rich people have the money to jet off to Australia
	 for a month, or to Paris for dinner and such they are being
	 selfish with their money, and uncaring toward the poor.
	 When, in fact, you have no idea if they are or not!   Just
	 because they jet off to Paris for the night doesn't mean that
	 they don't spend 10 times that much on their favorite
	 charity.....

	 Nor does it mean that they have no feelings.

	 In fact, I think if you took the time to get to know some of
	 the rich people that are out there, you'll find that they are
	 very caring!

	 Have you ever stopped to think that not only by giving to
	 charities, but also just by simply BEING FRIVOLOUS that rich
	 people are helping the poor?  What about the bellboy at the
	 hotel that gets the 20% tip...what about the waiter that
	 serves the 10 bottle of Dom Perignon and gets the 20%
	 tip...Hum?

	 Even by being frivolous with their money, aren't they still
	 helping the poor?

	 I think that perhaps you might have some blinders on that are
	 lot letting you see the whole picture.....

	 kath

	 PS: Is .25 directed at me?  
                                      
                                                                 
                  

    


	 RE: .last
	 
>                            I had a reply to your last note but lost
>                      the network partner. (or so it said)

	 reopen the conference and type REPLY/LAST....or reopen ANY
	 conference....your reply is not lost when you get thrown off
	 the system.

	 I'm interested in your reply...  
    
                     
    
>                  My tone was brash as was intended to stir things up.

	 why?  I absolutely HATE people who's only intention is to
	 stir people up and make them made by rashly stereotyping and
	 bashing another group of people, simply for a reaction and/or
	 to provoke thought.

	 If you intend to "get other people's minds in gear" a simple
	 heartfelt response would make much more headway than a
	 caustic condemning note....

	 Caustic notes do nothing but discredit your own ideas in the
	 eyes of others.

	 kath                         

    re. .36
    If your intention was to stir things up then why remove your replies?
    It is difficult to follow a person's line of thought when all you 
    find are missing relpies and short exerpts in other replies.  
    I usually enjoy reading this notesfile for the insight I gather from 
    other people.  If I am reduced to making assumptions based on quotes
    which I can not verify.  Not only do _I_ lose the chance to gain 
    insight to another's point of view (wether or not I agree with them),
    but _that_ person's chance to defend themself loses almost all of it's
    validity.
    
    re.0
    I commend you for your response to the situation you found thrust upon
    you and thank you for entering the experience here.  I can only hope 
    that we as a society can learn to help each other because we _want_to_
    not because we _have_to_.  
    
    re. daycare
    Daycare is one of the chronically under paid skills in our society.
    Even though it is one of the most rewarding carrers (IMHO).  It is
    not one in which you can expect to get rich or even slightly above
    the poverty line.  A person does it for the love of children not for
    the love money.
    
    Just my .02 worth,
    Peggy
      
    experience here.    

>                   It just seems that everytime I participate in a
>            conference, some jughead comes along and starts to rank
>            on my opinion or spelling or ideas and manages to avoid
>            the topic. 

 Perhaps this ought to give you a reason to think about why this happens so 
often? Seriously (and not intending hurt feelings)- maybe you should ask 
yourself if the problem is really with the "jugheads."

The Doctah

>    Daycare is one of the chronically under paid skills in our society.
 
 The problem arises because good daycare requires a low child to caretaker
ratio. The problem with that is the caretaker now has a smaller group from which
to pull her/his pay, thus each parent must pay more. Unfortunately, daycare
costs often make it unprofitable for people to work. It really is a sad 
situation- you need daycare but it is very expensive. The daycare providers
usually aren't getting rich, either. Perhaps this should be addressed by
employers as a pretax benefit- employers subsidize daycare, and our salaries 
reflect this increase in benefits.

 re: back a few

 Somebody said something about eliminating poverty. It can't be eliminated.
It can only be reduced to the point where those who are willing to expend
some effort can expect to see positive results. That's what we should work
for.

The Doctah

    re .34,
    
    Does it cost money to have the bellboys to carry your stuff upstairs?
    
    Eugene

>              -< I am wondering what 20% tip means for bellboys. >-
>    Does it cost money to have the bellboys to carry your stuff upstairs?


	 hahaha....I meant a $20 tip... :-)

	 oh well!  No one's perfect!

	 I knew this guy that got a $100 for opening the door for a
	 celibrity once....and he didn't even work there....the woman
	 was just feeling kind and thought he might need it.

	 k

    
    	Kathy,  While I won't argue that some of the well off do indeed
    	put alot of their money toward helping the poor, there are also
    	alot of them that could care less. I remember in Boston hearing
    	some well off person (getting out of a limo) at the theater
    	district seeing a homeless person make the comment "Gee, you
    	think we could find someway to get these low-lifes off the
    	streets and send them somewhere else!"  Really shows alot
    	of compassion doesn't it??
    
    	G_B

    I don't think Kathy was saying anything even remotely like all rich
    people are caring. What I heard her saying was that not all rich people
    are insensitive scum. I may be mistaken, but I think there is some
    middle ground between those two beliefs.
    
    	Jon

	 .45

	 that's exactly what I said, thanks...

	 .44
    
>    	Kathy,  While I won't argue that some of the well off do indeed
>    	put alot of their money toward helping the poor, there are also
>    	alot of them that could care less. 


	 and on the converse, I see many very poor people that refuse
	 to even attempt to better themselves because they feel the
	 system put them there, so the system ought to pay.


	 No matter which group you look at, you can't categorize them
	 into one group or another...you can't flame either group for
	 being rude/unsensitive, nor can you worship either group for
	 being perfect.

	 My point is that we *ALL* have to work to make it a better
	 place.  Someone buy that woman a sewing machine and get her
	 classes on how to sew......in no time she'll be bringing in
	 money AND not having to worry about childcare, as it IS a job
	 she can do out of her home.  My sister at one time addressed
	 envelopes for companies and made good money at it.....there
	 are SOOO many options for the poor.....but they have to be
	 willing to help themselves as well....

	 both sides have to be willing to take that first step...

	 BTW....I probably would not have let the woman in, but I
	 would have gone to my refrig and gotten her a bag of food and
	 given her some money.  I sure as hell wouldn't have slammed
	 the door in her face, tho...........

	 I, however, do not contribute to United Way......why? Because
	 I DO contribute to other organizations where I feel my money
	 is better spend...where I feel more comfortable putting it...

	 We have to each take that step......whether it;s toward the
	 poor, or the sick, or the aged, or the young.  I tutor twice
	 a week, for free during my lunch hours at a local high
	 school...

	 Look inside yourself, everyone....are you making that first
	 step?

	 kath

I don't think there is a direct correlation between how much a
person has/makes and how caring they are. On the other hand, there
is no question that rich people donate more than poor people, simply
because they have more to donate from. Extremely poor people donate
zero, by definition. 

That said, there is no denying we live in a 'wolf eat wolf' world,
where the 'me' supersedes the 'us' (let alone, 'them'). It is no
wonder people who are well off tend to develop cynical attitudes,
since they have heard all the stories and have been ripped off all
they care to. Not necessarily by poor people, but often enough, so
that they have become hardened. 

When confronted with a situation like .0, I can't help but wonder
how true the sob story was and whether the baby wasn't rented for
the day, to serve as a prop. Thus, I am not sure I would have done
what .0 did, even though I admire him; even if he was 'taken', there
is no question his heart was in the right place. 

-- Ron 

RE: .last
    
    
>                            The payroll for The United Way increased
>                        about $700,000.00 from last year.

	 i order to run an efficient organization, you have to pay
	 people to devote themselves to it (as opposed to doing it in
	 their spare time).
	 
>                           The president of The United Way has an annual
>                       salary of over $180,000.00

	 As I stated in SOAPBOX, and will again state here, perhaps
	 the president has enough responsibility, enough work, enough
	 energy and initiative to be worth that much.  Also, this is
	 an invalid argument until you present figures on his payroll
	 deduction to United Way and other charitible organizations.
	 

	 You are really getting on my nerves.  Let's hear what YOU are
	 doing to support the poor....all you've done is bash the
	 rich....but I haven't heard anything about what you're doing.


	 Like I said before, nothing is going to happen until each of
	 us makes the first step.

	 "judge not lest you be judged" I think is the appropriate
	 line here?

	 kath

    A snippet of info from my days in non-profit fundraising/development...
    
    	The bulk of contributions come from people who have an income of
    	$15,000 or less.
    
    This info was from a foundation newsletter, but unfortunately, the
    original source has been lost.
    
    Judi
    

         As Mr. Dracuhna (sp?) seems to wish to continue deleting his
         notes immediately after entering them, I'll no longer be
         addressing his issues....

         I don't have the time to answer numerous mail messages asking
         me what his stance is, nor do I have the time to be made to
         look like a fool by another noter when I'm discussing a
         serious topic.


	 Back to Kris' orginal note.....Kris....you made me cry when I
	 read it, because even though I try to do all I can, I know it
	 will never be enough.

	 Money isn't the only answer, either......education, training,
	 medical aid, support, volunteer work...etc etc
	 etc....evrything is necessary to make this world a better
	 place for everyone.

	 but most  of all, cooperation....

	 kath
	 

I've been following this note with interest, but also frustration.
Clearly there are many points of view.  I wish we could limit criticism,
and instead sincerely explore different perspectives in an effort to
increase understanding.  Every point of view is simply that.  A point
of view valid from its own perspective.  If we can understand these
different perspectives, we'll begin to see the whole problem more clearly.

I admire .0's response.

I think it raises some important questions:

  Can we continue to largely ignore the poverty, homelessness, and injustice
  which breeds violence and seems to be sweeping our society?

  Can we continue to see the world as "a 'wolf eat wolf' world,
  where the 'me' supersedes the 'us' (let alone, 'them')"?

When I think of all the gifts I've received; the way my parents loved
me and helped me to get a good education, the enormous price that was
paid by previous generations so that we could simply buy food and
clothing at a store, the sacrifices that produced our democratic form
of government; I can't help but feel fortunate.  The history of humankind
is full of giving to others and building for the future (regardless of
motivation).

Today we've become so powerful we can actually destroy our own life
support system.  We can burn the rain forests, over farm the land,
poison the water, pollute the air.  We've become interdependent.
Each of us dependent on vast numbers of others for our survival.

What will happen in an interdependent world if each person sees there own
self interest as superseding the interests of the whole, the 'us' or 'them'?
If auto makers resist higher fuel economy and emission controls because
they make cars more expensive and harder to sell; If Central American peasants
burn the rain forests to try to farm the land and eak out a living;
If fast food restuarants buy beef grazed on land that used to be rain
forest because its less expensive; If we fail to alleviate Third
World economic hardship because it's not profitable?

I think we've reached a point where our survival depends on meeting
other peoples basic needs.

I'd like to think I've received enough.  I'm mature.  I have what I need.
Now I can focus on giving to others, on redeeming society.

This is truely a turning point in human history.

- Peter

    Re:54 
    Peter you must be ultra-brave.
    Some noters made parallel comments, received intense flames and have
    been obliterated. You enter .54: What makes you think you will be spared 
    the same amount of flames for attempting the "we thing" again ?
    
    I believe the incident in 866.0 happened in Ontario, Canada and not
    in the US. Where is Canada on the world's economic scale ?

    
    In .1, I hinted at "disbelief" in the woman and her story.  I didn't
    want to come out and say it, but then Ron brought it out.... the woman 
    may have taken the base noter.  Maybe, maybe not.  The base noter did 
    what he felt was the "right thing" to do....  but was he helping or
    being taken?  Should we, are we, justified in being suspicious?
    
    Dwight
    

    .-1
    
    	I guess if one has the "me first" attitude" then they assume
    the right to be suspicious.  Regardless of the point that that woman
    might have been "conning" people, I think the larger question is
    why she was in that position in the first place.  By bracketing
    the "me first" attitude and observing the woman's affect in a less
    biased manner, Writer of .0 was able to see the woman's position
    a little more clearly.  Last year the figures for families living
    in shelters or just plain homeless was around 500,000, most headed by
    a single parent female and about 300,000 were children.  I give
    the writer of .0 credit for being able to take off his rose colored
    glasses concerning this matter and seeing the situation a little
    more empathatically.  I am sure someone is going to argue the above
    statistics but to heck with the statistics, I don't believe any
    single individual should have to be placed in that position.
    	I believe that persons in seemingly unfortuitous positions such
    as the homeless don't know what they need to know.  (they don't
    know that they don't know).  People who don't know that they don't
    know are truly lost.  Tie that in with a very inept social system
    and these people never learn that they don't know.  They don't
    learn what they need to know to help themselves. They continue to
    exist in the manner they do because that is the limit of their
    experience-that is all they know.  They are not learning problem solving
    tehniques, in a social system that is not able to teach them; a
    social system which makes them more dependent upon the social agencies 
    themselves.  A pathology develops.  We begin to believe that the
    homeless  are looking for an easy way out.  There are towns and and
    cities in which the governing officials refuse to believe
    that there are any homeless.  This information i received from someone
    who is homeless in my community of about 20000.  The mayor refused
    to believe that there are about 40 to 50 people from the age of 25
    to 40 living in new construction areas of the city. This information
    i got from someone who lived among those other homeless people.
    This is going well beyond the misbelief that the homeless don't
    **Want** to help themselves to believing that nobody would allow 
    themselves to be in that position.  Talk about going through life with 
    blinders on.
    	I know there is no simple solution, although some of would like
    to believe so, but we are really all in this together.  The "me
    first" hedonistic attitude is only going to make things worse for
    everyone in the long run.  investing, not just money, but the time
    and efforts of caring might pay off.  I would go as far as suggesting
    that less taxes and personal donations would be be extracted from
    us if each of us were to bracket some of our "me first" attitude
    and donate time and personal energy instead of or in addition to
    money. It has been said that economic conditions improve if the
    society involves itself with a war; Why can't the war be against
    internal conditions instead of external ones as have been the concern 
    of wars in the past?
    
    Just my opinion.
    
    Ernie                                                  

    In re being suspicious and 'conning' people.
    
    We've helped some really strange people in our lives, an ex con
    an elderly alcoholic to name two. Both of them had some 'con' in
    them, both had a great deal of need. Do I think that we got taken?
    Well the alcoholic very probably pawned my class ring, and the
    ex con still owes us about $60 that he'd promised to work off. (This
    out of a much larger amount that we've helped him with over the
    years.)
    
    Do I regret helping them? No. In the case of the younger man my
    family was instrumental in getting him to start turning his life
    around, get off drugs, and settled in to a job. I expect he'll pay
    us back with the work around our place that he promised sooner or
    later. He helped us a geat deal over the years.
    
    and in re the elderly alcoholic, I'm still glad that we gave him
    a place to sleep for two weeks one February, tho I'd never do it again.
    
    
    But sometimes you have to help people despite your suspicions, or
    no one would ever be helped at all.
    
    Bonnie

    
    
    	Last nights (17-Oct) channel 5 had an half hour segment at
    	7:30 pm (here in the Boston area) devoted to the boundaries
    	between the rich and poor. What the program did was to look
    	at 5 communities for each of the above groups around the Boston
    	area. The results showed that in 1980 the average family income
    	for the well-off was around $30,000 and around $9,500 for the
    	poor. In 1989 the average income for the rich had risen to an
    	average of $75,000 while the average for the poor had only risen
    	to $14,000. I think this is one of the biggest problem areas.
    	The rich are getting richer and keeping ahead of inflation,
    	while the poors' income didn't even keep-up with the inflation
    	rate, thus actual family income declined.
    
    	 While I agree it is to a large extent up to each and every
    	one of us to battle the problems in our society, IT IS EVEN
    	MORE IMPORTANT TO SEE THAT OUR GOVERMENTS POLICY DOESN'T
    	CONTINUE WIDENING THE GAP AS IT HAS OVER THE LAST 8 YEARS!
    	Policies have to be changed that favor only the rich at the
    	expense of the poor. Let's face it, the Regan adminstration
    	had very little compassion for common people and only looked
    	out for the upper class with it's policies. They made huge
    	cuts in education, health care, social services. This didn't
    	have an effect on the rich, the had the money to buy these
    	services. The poor on the other hand, had all they could do
    	to put food on the table let alone pay for basic services!
    
    	G_B

    .58  Well said Bonnie...and congratulations to you and to Kris and to
    Kathy and to any others that have extended their lives to include
    people that need their help.
    
    A statement made by APEHUB::RON in a previous note (I had tried to
    respond but had a system error) stated that the rich had to contribute
    more in light of the $$$ they had and that the extreme poor contributed
    nothing.
    
    That statement contributes to the mentality that $$$ will solve our 
    problems.  I have met many extremely poor that have done much to make
    their life better and the lifes of those around them better.  The
    Bromley-Heath project in Jamaica Plain has poor people in abundance
    doing just that.  Living in Boston I have an opportunity to see street
    people on a regular basis and to observe their interaction.  They are a
    very supportive group, extending help and sharing resources.
    
    This summer I was walking through Boston Common, I had a lunch with me
    as I was going to do some gardening on Beacon Hill.  A young man
    approached me and asked for some money to buy food for his pregnant
    friend.  I was not carrying a purse or money but I did have the lunch
    and I told him that he could have it all the chicken, the peach and the
    drink.  In order to save face he said that the peach was all that she
    needed.  She looked up at me with a smile and then said to him 'why
    can't I have the chicken'.  She got it all...
    
    Clearly he was trying to con me.  But why oh why do we expect the poor
    to be any different then we are in our everyday life?
    
    Does your Income Tax return reflect accurate expenses?  If not you
    conned the government.
    
    If you were selling a used car would you purposedly list a price higher
    then your drop dead price.
    
    The Bonnies, the Kris's and the Kathys of this world don't judge first
    and then base their doing on their judgement.  They do first!
    
    

 I think it is wrong to condemn those that don't want to be taken for a ride.
We seem to have a situation where people who are wary about being conned are
looked down upon. I don't think that's right.

 I personally didn't even think about the possibility that Kris was being given
a con job. I am too trusting. It may some day be my downfall.

 For all of those of you who have found it necessary to express your distaste
that someone could actually question the legitimacy of an apparent charity
case, how would you feel if Kris wrote a note tomorrow explaining that his
house had been ransacked, and after talking to the police, it was realized that
the woman was part of a band of thieves? This actually happens, though certainly
not with the prevalance of poverty. Even worse would be the news that
something happened to Kris when a group broke into his house... the 
possibilities abound, and I was quite bothered by whoever said that Kris "saw
the situation more clearly" because he didn't question the legitimacy of the 
woman. You _don't_ know that.

 I think what Kris did was wonderful. More people should try to help, though
I feel for it to be truly effective over the long term, we'll have to teach
people to be self-sufficient rather than resorting to stop-gap measures (which
do have their place).

 the Doctah

    I swore that I wouldn't get involved in this, but either the "teach
    people to be self-sufficient" or the lousy weather pushed me over the
    edge.  I'm not a political person so I'll try to keep this out of the
    SOAPBOX wilderness into which the replies keep wandering, but it may be
    impossible...
    
    
    Regarding bootstrap pulls:
    
    When I took a year off from college, I was unemployed for four months
    with only a few hundred dollars savings.  My family is lower
    middle-class and my father had a job, so I never starved to the extent
    of hospitalization or was quite kicked out of my apartment.  After the
    first month or so, I looked like hell (yes, worse than usual) and had
    developed a querulous edge which must have been off-putting to
    prospective employers.  After the first two months or so, prospective
    employers wanted to know why I had been out of work for so long.
    
    I got a job eventually through an alumnus of the college I had attended
    and because I was trained in a skill in which eccentric disarray
    (particularly in a white male) was not necessarily disapproved of. 
    Great - so my working hard in college paid off, right?  Well, if I did
    not have a talent for IQ tests and such (thus losing my scholarship) or
    if I had been born a few years later (thus losing my financial aid) or
    if my parents had been poorer, I doubt that I would gone to college at
    all.  
    
    At any rate, I know what short term poverty feels like, I've seen the
    long term results in others, and I rarely see a clear cut case of
    "getting what one deserves" in any economic class. 
    
    
    Regarding those con men hiding under the bed:
    
    In July, I visited some friends in New York.  It was during the
    Tompkins Square Park police actions.  They had friends among the
    squatters - I met a number of them.  A kid who had come from California
    with no prospects except their names was staying with them.  He was as
    much of a con man as one can be at 18 - pretty transparent, but it let
    him keep a little pride and made him more entertaining company. 
    Otherwise (and, for that matter, during my four years in NYC and my two
    years in Philly), I saw no homeless person who could possibly be
    described as a con artist - crazy people, violent people, liers,
    addicts, just plain losers, sure, but no one with the resources to con
    as a career. Even burglars need more energy than most homeless people
    would be able to summon up.
    
    
    Regarding those rich folks:
    
    I don't know any rich people now, and the ones I've met I haven't
    understood.  I'm willing to assume that they aren't any worse than
    normal people.  I know that comfortable people can be more selfish than
    unhappy people - it may sound paradoxical, but I've seen it many times,
    even in myself - but I'm willing to believe that the comfort of wealth
    can give a person more latitude to "be good".  That has no bearing on
    the fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
    
    Rich people are interested in defending property and preserving the
    peace - so why should the state be involved in law enforcement?  Rich
    people have a great deal of power when dealing with other countries -
    so why are the armed forces necessary?  (The Jefferson administration
    actually tried to implement this theory.)  Rich people give to charity
    - so why should there be any social services?  (And the Reagan
    administration tried to implement this one.)
    
    I visited Haiti during the Papa Doc era.  Like other Third World
    dictatorships, it was a pure application of the theory that the
    powerful would "do the right thing".  There were palaces for the
    wealthy and hideous slums not far away, full of starving people who
    would glad to tell you (loudly enough for the police to hear) how
    generous their rulers were.  It was the most shocking thing I'd seen
    until I toured Washington, D.C. for the first time. 
    
    And here I am in SOAPBOX territory, where I'd better stop.
    
    Ray

> I think it is wrong to condemn those that don't want to be taken for a ride.
>We seem to have a situation where people who are wary about being conned are
>looked down upon. I don't think that's right.

	 Doctah, I agree TOTALLY with you.....in the position that
	 Kris was in,  NO ONE should be condemned for being "wary."  I
	 think it is important to be wary.  I know I am wary when I
	 see what looks to be a poor person hitchhiking...I wouldn't
	 even consider picking them up.

	 I think, though, that it is important to help out where we
	 can, to not totally ignore the fact that poverty even exists.
	 I also think it's important to not place groups of people
	 into categories and to proceed to condemn them all......
	 

         There are always the bad apples in the bushel, but there are
	 also the good ones as well......and, most oft, the good
	 outweighs the bad.

	 kath

    RE:  .61 
    
    Well said Doctah!
    
    =============
    
    I don't like someone calling me uncharitable because I exercise logic
    and common sense before I give the shirt off my back to the first
    person that comes knocking on my door and ask for it.
    
    There are too many "con" games being played by poor, middle_class, and
    the wealthy.  I exercise the same caution with "anyone."
    
    Most of us can *blow steam* about what good works we've done for
    someone else, and I won't blow any horns of mine here.  I believe in
    helping others as well.
    
    What's the real answer???  It's this...
    
          "If you want a helping hand.... look at the end of your arm."
    
    Dwight

    I don't have the time to go through all the replies to this note but I
    think that the discussion is more in line with how do we deal with
    poverty.  Do we as individuals deal with it or are the poor responsible
    for their own well being.  I don't think that we are debating whether
    or not Kris's action is wise or appropriate.  His title of the note
    indicated that meeting the young woman and her child and talking to her
    was a turning point for him.  A turning point in understanding that it
    isn't quite so simple as he once thought.
    
    My discussion has been an effort to elaborate on two things, that the
    poor often do help themselves and that dollars are not all that is
    needed.
    
    And as Ray alluded to in his recent note, having been without ready
    cash for a period of time in his life he knows first hand what a
    poor diet and seemingly endless roadblocks does to morale and
    determination.
    
    It appears to me that those who look at poverty from a superior
    attitude have a lot of good fortune, good genes and a fairly decent IQ.
    Some people aren't as well blessed.
    
    You can be uncharitable in your attitude and I see this in abundance
    whenever this discussion takes place in the various notes conferences.
    

    
    >>>             <<< Note 866.65 by PENUTS::JLAMOTTE "J & J's Memere" >>>
                  -< Understanding takes time and experience >-
    
    Understanding is the result of reasoning and excersing logic.  It
    doesn't rely on time and experience alone, nor are they a prerequisite.
    
    Dwight

    Certain human conditions such as poverty and marriage defy reason and 
    logic.
    
    I find reason and logic extremely cold and without human emotion.  

"Understanding is the result of reasoning and excersing logic.  It doesn't rely
on time and experience alone, nor are they a prerequisite."

Reasoning and logic are no substitute for experience, either first hand, or
second hand.  Reasoning and logic will not help you if you have no knowledge of
the the hell you are talking about.

I know what it's like to be broke, but I've never considered myself to be
"poor", because even when I didn't have any money, I considered myself to be
rich in ways other then money.  I have capable hands, an intelligent mind, and a
good heart, which I thank God for.  They are more important to me then money. 

Perhaps being "poor" is not just a matter of being broke, but being poor in
spirit.  Taking money from me to throw at the problem will not help these people
feel any less "poor" if they still feel poor in spirit.  They will spend the
money on drugs or some other destructive pursuit of something which will take
their mind off their poorness of spirit.

I know what it's like to be homeless.  Even with that knownledge, I still
believe that it's a problem that cannot be solved by throwing money at it, in
fact I believe that throwing money at the problem *increases* the dependancy and
inability of the 'poor' to provide for themselves.  In my opinion what would
make the biggest difference is helping the poor to realize that they *can*
provide for themselves, they can be productive, they can be in charge of their
own lives, etc.

I used to have "The Rich Want Law, The Poor Justice" as a personal name for a
while.  The people who have much to lose want the Law to protect what they have.
The people who have nothing to lose, care very little about Laws and rights,
they only see their lives as an injustice, and want Justice to enable them to
live like human beings, to live productive lives.  Sadly, that enabling mostly
has to come from within one's self, and it can't be provided by money from
someone else.

Either attitude Rich/Law or Poor/Justice is an extreme which is unviable to me.
We can't righteously rob the rich to give to the poor, yet nor can we ignore
the plight of the poor.  We must do something to enable them to live productive
lives, but money is not the answer.

It is true, that the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer.
But is the Rich really the cause of this?  I don't think so.  I think the causes
are being 'poor in spirit', and the heavy 'overhead' society places on all our
lives.  Life is not simple these days, and there are so many ways people are
ripped off *every* day though red tape, taxes, rules, regulations, unions...
the list is endless.

Jim.

>    I find reason and logic extremely cold and without human emotion.  

 It is not especially healthy to rely exclusively on either logic and reason or
feelings and emotion. Forsaking either one for the other eliminates the
ability to reach a fullness of understanding on both levels. Using one and
not the other is like using a one sided see-saw.

 the Doctah

    
    I can't help wondering what would happen in this country if ALL the
    poor pulled themselves up and got trained. Would there be enough
    jobs that paid more than minimum wage to keep them there? Would they
    displace middle-class workers by creating a glut in the job market?

    I keep hearing that most of the new jobs being created are service
    jobs in traditionally low pay areas such as food service and
    housekeeping. Would they be any better off? Look at places like
    California where low pay jobs are available but no one who would
    take them can afford to live within communting distance to reach
    them.

    Perhaps the information age needs a new form of society to suit its
    needs. Just as the hunter/gatherers gave way to the agriculturists
    and the feudal system to monarchs we may be ready for a new world.
    liesl

>    I can't help wondering what would happen in this country if ALL the
>    poor pulled themselves up and got trained. Would there be enough
>    jobs that paid more than minimum wage to keep them there? Would they
>    displace middle-class workers by creating a glut in the job market?

 It wuold probably work out much better. We'd have no need for the massive 
welfare system- hence, lower taxes. There'd be an infusion of money into the 
economy, because all of the "poor" would suddenly have disposable income.
The "glut" in the job market would really just mean that people could diversify 
more and expand capacity more.

 the  Doctah

re .70    
    liesl,
    
>    I can't help wondering what would happen in this country if ALL the
>    poor pulled themselves up and got trained. Would there be enough
>    jobs that paid more than minimum wage to keep them there? Would they
>    displace middle-class workers by creating a glut in the job market?
 
    Yes, there will be more jobs available because when the poor get
    decent jobs with decent incomes, they will have more money to spend
    and create larger demand for goods and services.  This means the 
    business will expand and hire more people.  The result is a healthier 
    economy and a larger GNP.  Of course, this depends on wether everything
    is going right with the Federal Reserve and Federal budget.
    
    Eugene
       

"I can't help wondering what would happen in this country if ALL the poor pulled
themselves up and got trained."

I've always been a bit puzzled by this.  I've had college economics, so I'm not
completely ignorant, but college economics doesn't answer my questions.

My feeling is... is it possible for people to find work which it is worth while
for them to do?  It seems like there is always sooo much work to be done. 
Unless it is possible for a person to directly produce what it is that they need
to live, they must have a productive life which is of value to them, and also,
what they produce must be able to be of value to others so that they can trade
with others for what they want/need which they themselves cannot produce.

If you have a small farm with some animals, you certainly could make a stab at
being mostly self sufficient.  Otherwise it would be very difficult.  Sounds
like heaven to me...

What do you imagine for a 'new world'?

What I see, is needing to be a little less interdependant then we are.  Spending
more time producing quality things of substance.  Being more small community
oriented, being able to be more personally involved with the people on whom your
life depends.  I also see some people fitting better into a more enlightened
'feudal' type hierarchy then they do in today's society where they fall through
the cracks.

Just my wild guesses and wishes...

Jim.

> "I can't help wondering what would happen in this country if ALL the poor
> pulled themselves up and got trained."

I agree with the last few.  There are so many things that need to be done:
cleaning up our environment, fixing our crumbling infrastructure, educating
our children, providing quality health care; surely we can find productive
work for many more people, and in so doing we would all be richer.


What is required for understanding?  There are many levels of understanding:
 - to grasp the meaning of...
 - to be thoroughly familiar with the character and propensities of...
 - to show a sympathetic or tolerant attitude toward something...

To me, the most important thing is interest.  If we are interested,
we will ask the right questions to bring us closer to understanding.


re .68

>                                                     In my opinion what would
> make the biggest difference is helping the poor to realize that they *can*
> provide for themselves, they can be productive, they can be in charge of their
> own lives, etc.

I agree completely, but how do we do this?

I think we have to show them that we care, that their lives matter,
that they can make a difference, just like our parents (or others)
did for us.


re .63 et. al.

It's normal to feel wary.  We've been hurt and don't want to be hurt again.
It's good to be cautious.  But how do we respond to people who ask for our
help?  Are we ruled by feelings of fear, or do we follow the more human
impulse toward reason and compassion.  Each situation is different.
What is right in one may not be right in another.  This brings up the
question of "attitude".  Which way do we lean?  In the past, I've allowed
myself to be restrained by fear, and have later regretted it.  I think
I would prefer to err on the side of compassion.


>	 I also think it's important to not place groups of people
>	 into categories and to proceed to condemn them all......

I agree.	 

>         There are always the bad apples in the bushel, but there are
>	 also the good ones as well......and, most oft, the good
>	 outweighs the bad.

There's a tendency to want to see the world as black and white, good
and bad, and identify ourselves with the good.  It's so pervasive,
we don't even realize all the ways we do this.

I think it would help to move beyond defining catagories like "bad apples"
to fit people into.  Each of us has followed our own path to become who we
are.  We need to find ways to separate the people from the problem, to
accept people for who they are, and work to solve the problems.

- Peter

    Got home last night and found this stuck to the fridge:
    
         Learn the lessons we were told 
         To value compassion more than gold
         You can run and hide in dark corners 
         You can hope for better and expect the bad 
         And wish for kisses and long for comforts 
         Which you know you'll never have 

         When its raining, when its cold
         And strangers turn and look away
         Someone has the heart to be so bold
         To embrace the hungry and for them I pray
         
         Jeanette and Ryan

    I've corrected the spelling mistakes.  I could have sworn she said
    her name was Janet.  It was written in a careful hand on a piece
    of pink paper.
    
    Sometimes, when life lays it on, it lays it on thick.
    
    JLAMOTTE said it well back in .65; "A turning point in understanding
    that it isn't quite so simple as he once thought."  and "dollars
    are not all that is needed."
    
    To those who don't know me, I am the master cynic and a dyed-in-blue
    capitalist.  I had never, in any way, helped or sympathised with the
    poor.  I refused on the principle that there is no way I am going to
    help pay for someone else's mistake.  My father started with nothing
    and ended up sending his kids to private schools with their own
    Benz's.  Every one else could do the same.
    
    I gave to charities for the handicapped. I volunteered time to care for
    mentally handicapped children.  The poor could go drop off the Earth.
    And they could take their drug addicted, flea infected friends with
    them.
    
    No more.  No more.  San Francisco is not the only place in the world
    where the foundations have been shaken.
    
    Kris
    

    
    
    
              This is great!!
    
                          
    
                        I guess it goes to show that not all the poor
              and/or homeless are unappreciative bums.
    
                        
                        What troubles me is when people say things like:
                             
              (read with a nasal tone)
    
              "It's their choice if they want to live like that,  they
              could go out and get a job....I'm not going to support
              some lazy slob."
                                      
    
                        Maybe it's true....it IS their choice to make
              things better for themselves.  What I find difficult to
              overlook is the the "viscious circle"..
    
                        Most of these people are BORN INTO these
              environments/situations/lifstyles.  They are raised and
              become accustomed to their surroundings.  Many simply
              don't know what they are missing, or realize how relatively
              easy it could be to lift themselves out of the ghetto
              as others have.           
    
                        I feel the key to lessen the seriousness of
              the situation is to eliminate (or at least impact) the
              major problems.
    
                        #1.   Drugs
    
                              Too many people find it easy to bring
                         in a substantial income from selling and
                         distributing drugs.  Most sales are, of course,
                         done locally to friends and aquaintances.
                         This helps to maintain the addiction rate,
                         insures, the local area is saturated with people
                         who have marshmallow for brains and are prone to
                         fits of anger often resulting in violence and
                         death.  Fear and despair prevails.
    
    
                        #2    Education
    
                              As stated above.  Most people don't know
                         what they are missing.  Far too many don't
                         have marketable skills and therefore could
                         not land a job that would give them enough
                         income to break the barrier.  Many of the younger
                         folks simply don't care.  They don't even think
                         there is a problem.  Content to endure the
                         horrors they have grown cold to, they don't
                         realize that THEY are the exception, not the
                         rule.
    
    
              To overcome these two major problems is almost impossible,
          but too lesson the effects it has on society as a whole will
          take more than ignorance.  "Throwing money at the problem
          will not make it go away.  Careful budgeting of the MILLIONS
          has an impact. 
    
               The only way to make widespread and drastic change is
          to involve the persons that have the most influence on the
          current state of the union.  The voters, the TAXPAYERS the
          workers,  these are the people that, not only have the money
          but the POWER to instill change.  And the courage to actually
          implement new ideas.
    
    
               Well enough rambling for now....
    
    
               Incidently, I was the one deleting the replies.
    
    
               I figured that I was quoted so many times, (often in
            an attempt to discount my OPINIONS) I didn't think everyone
               wanted to read my thoughts TWICE.
    
    
                                    
    
                                              sheilds up Mr. Scott 
                               
                              

RE: choice

It may *not* be these people's choice to live like that...  *but* untill they
choose to try for a better life, nothing can change for them.

I often wonder why people put up with a life in the city like that.  You can get
40 acres of land in International Falls MN free.  If I had nothing and no
prospect for ever being anything in the city, that's where I'd be headed. I
guess the difference is that people don't know of this possibility, and don't
know that they could provide for themselves alone, don't know that they could
make something of themselves.

Yet...  I share their despair.  There are a *lot* of times where it seems to me
that hard work is unrewarded, that you can't 'get ahead', or, if you can, you
can only at great cost to yourself in a personal way, and you will not be happy
anyway, so why bother trying....

Jim.

    re .75,
    
    That poem is cerntainly not among the best I have read, but it shows
    potential especially from someone with so little formal education
    (I heard the arguments that poets don't really need college education,
    but....).  
    
    Folks, she is not just sitting around doing nothing.  She may not be 
    fix'n TV's or reading User's Guides to MBA, but she IS writing poetry.
    Not the most profitable enterprise of the day, but....  If it were
    me, I would probably have given up poetry and picked up  
    technical writing or somet'n (no offense to the technical writers
    of the world) under such circumstances as hers.  With such abject
    poverty and so little space in the world of her own, she sees beauty 
    around her.
          
    		*	*	*
    
    Kris,                                 
    
         You have done a noble deed, and may have enlarged a potential
    poet's small universe just enough to allow some light in.  My hat off 
    to you.  
    
         Next time you see her, ask her if she is interested in reading
    some poetry of the big shots.  I think I can spare a few of my poetry
    books and send it to Canada.  Not the things she needs the most
    right now, but I hate to see any potential wasted.
    
    Let me know.
    
    Eugene 
                                                  

    re: .77
    
/I often wonder why people put up with a life in the city like that.  You can get
/40 acres of land in International Falls MN free.  If I had nothing and no
/prospect for ever being anything in the city, that's where I'd be headed.
    
    well......i have heard that offer also, but not sure how true it is.  
    anybody from MN willing to verify it?  and besides that, if a person
    had little to no money, what good would 40 acres do?  the weather is
    so cold up there, a person without a good house with sufficient heating
    might as well dig their own graves before the ground froze.
    
    sorry for the negative note, but TANSTAAFL, or Free Land, as the case
    may be.
    
    getting back to the point of people building themselves up.......
    my father was a lumberjack for a year before going to college and
    becoming a teacher.  but he didn't have to worry about daycare or
    anything like that, so all the money he earned he was able to save.
    
    somebody already mentioned this, but i think it is worth repeating...
    i think the government should not force people into a black/white
    decision (don't work, recieve welfare vs. work and recieve none).
    
    if a person could start out working, and recieve just enough help
    to keep working, that would be much better for all involved than
    having the person sitting at home in order to get enough to stay
    alive.  
    
    of course if we start making these laws then the government has to
    police them, and gets more involved in peoples lives.
    
    gain economic safety, lose some individual freedoms.
    (not to mention some people would consider this one step away from
     communism....but i am young and foolish, and allowed to entertain
     such notions for a limited time)
    

>    well......i have heard that offer also, but not sure how true it is.  
>    anybody from MN willing to verify it? 

 Yes, it is true.

>d besides that, if a person
>    had little to no money, what good would 40 acres do? 

 That is indeed a problem.

 The Doctah

    
    Re: whichever...1 - 80
    
    The incident reported in the base note occured in the city of Ottawa,
    in the province of Ontario, in the nation of Canada on the continent of
    north America. 
    
    Is the noter in .79 (for example) speaking from the perspective of
    the governmental system of New Zealand, Australia, where ...?
    
    Is MN an abbreviation of the state of ...? the province of...?
    Can someone  ( assuming the woman in base note) just move from Ottawa
    to Alabama  ( for example) and find an instant solution to the problem
    of poverty ?  BTW: Is H-R an internationole community yet ?
    
    Fazari
    

RE: 40 acres

It's true...  I sent for the information.  It's *real* appealing.  That's more
land then any of us in the Boston area could ever own.

"a person without a good house with sufficient heating might as well dig their
own graves before the ground froze."

IF-MN is definitely a cold place.  But then I went to college in Houghton MI,
where the average snowfall is ~300 inches.  But both places are still quite nice
spring-summer-winter, beautiful and livable all year around.

Well, the pioneers started out with an ax, and 10 pounds of seed corn.  Why
can't that still be done, if needed?  But I think *anyone* can have a better
start today in IF-MN.

There are other possibilities.  The MA national guard (and the Army, I believe),
will pay for *all* your tuition to a state college if you sign up.


"gain economic safety, lose some individual freedoms."

I prefer not to sell my freedom for security, thank you.

Jim.

    re: .81
    
    �     Is MN an abbreviation of the state of ...? the province of...?
    � Can someone  ( assuming the woman in base note) just move from Ottawa
    � to Alabama  ( for example) and find an instant solution to the problem
    � of poverty ?  BTW: Is H-R an internationole community yet ?
    
    MN is the postal service abbreviation for the state of Minnesota.
    As to whether anyone can find an instant solution to poverty simply
    by moving from one place to another, I'd venture to say that if
    such a solution were possible, there'd be no poverty today.  And
    yes, I believe H_R is international.
    
    Steve

"As to whether anyone can find an instant solution to poverty simply by moving
from one place to another, I'd venture to say that if such a solution were
possible, there'd be no poverty today."

I disagree.  There are large numbers of people on fixed incomes, who are poor
where they live, but if they moved to an area with a less expensive cost of
living, would be doing much better financially.  Yet they choose not to.

Jim.

    keep in mind that the land deal also includes some restrictions
    (if memory serves) you do have to build a home, and live there (not
    sell) for a specified amount of time.  International Falls (better
    known from cartoons as Frostbite Falls) has had hard economic times
    and people have been leaving, this is an effort to bring people
    to the area.
    
    Mark (who was born and raised in Duluth MN)

    >>>I disagree.  There are large numbers of people on fixed incomes, who
    are poor where they live, but if they moved to an area with a less
    expensive cost of living, would be doing much better financially.  Yet
    they choose not to.
    
    Good point.  I agree.
    
    It's like we keep sending food to starving people in foreign lands that
    live in the desert.  If we really want to help them, we should send
    them U-Hauls and tell them to pack up and move to where the food is....
    as Sam G. says... "We have deserts in America, we just don't live in
    them.  You see this???  This is sannnddd.  You know what it's going to
    be 100 years from now??  It's going to be SAND *SSHOLE!!"
    
                         :^)   :^)  :^)  :^)  :^)
    
    
    I read once that no matter how many jobs were available, that we'd
    always have the same state of affairs pertaining to poverity because
    people by human nature are lazy.  Also that if we took all the wealth
    in America and spread it around so that we were all even in wealth,
    that in a short period of time, the HAVES would again HAVE, and the
    HAVE-NOTS would HAVE-NOT.  That 20% or less of the people in the
    country would again be wealthy, and the other 80% would have to share
    the remaining 20% that was left.
    
    Dwight                          

    re: .84
    
    � I disagree [that simply moving from one place to another will
    � provide an instant solution to poverty].  There are large numbers 
    � of people on fixed incomes, who are poor where they live, but if 
    � they moved to an area with a less expensive cost of living, would 
    � be doing much better financially.  Yet they choose not to.
    
    While *some* people may be somewhat better off if they made the
    move you suggest, I would still say that a simple geographical
    move will not solve poverty in the larger sense.  There are many
    places which have an extremely low cost of living yet have tremendous
    poverty nonetheless.  
    
    Steve

  >  There are many
  >  places which have an extremely low cost of living yet have tremendous
  >  poverty nonetheless.
    
     That is true for the simple reason that the cheapest places to live
     usually have very high unemployment.  I'm sure that someone could
     live quite inexpensively in the streets of some impoverished city,
     but that might partially involve giving up all hope.
    
                                         Greg  
    

    "There are large numbers of people on fixed incomes who are poor
    where they live, but if they moved to an area with les expensive
    cost of living would be doing much better financially.  Yet they
    choose not to."
    
    Even if this overly simplistic assumption was close to accurate,
    How does someone who can barely feed several kids, manage to scrape
    up enough money to move to another distant location? The pioneers
    of early American history, had the personal power to move away from
    what they felt as,perhaps, oppression. They had the power to move
    out into the wilderness and take command of and dispose of both
    wildlife and human inhabitants( but this is another argument). This
    was inherent in the attitudes of the early American.  Perhaps it
    is because those pioneers had no personal power while remaining
    in the villages, that they went out into the wilderness to try to
    acquire personal power.  These pioneers who ventured out into the
    unknown were generally men. It would have been preposterous for
    a woman with several children to attempt this.  Only later when
    the land became relatively safe, did the woman venture Westward;
    but only in the  "protection" of the men. It was the rare woman
    who felt they had the personal power to attempt this on their own.  
     	I ask this question from both a financial and psychological 
    viewpoint.  Most people (if not all) tend to cling to that which is 
    familar to them; places, ideas, beliefs- rather than venture off into 
    an unknown locations or ideas that they are not comfortable handling.  
    Just why should someone who is not flourishing where they are, but is
    comfortable in their present environment suddenly be expected to move to
    an environment where they are not comfortable and still may not
    flourish?  A person who can not make ends meet has no personal power.
    A woman with four kids and absent father venturing off into the Wilds
    of MN?  
    
    "Hey God!  Am I really asking for too much- for everyone to quit
    thinking in terms of 'black and white' and trying to compartmentalize 
    all existence to justify their own security?" 
                                                                      
    
    Ernie
    

"There are many places which have an extremely low cost of living yet have
tremendous poverty nonetheless."

I'm not sure that you understand what I'm getting at.  There are people who have
a fixed income *regardless* of where they live, retirees, disabled, welfare,
etc...  Why do people retire to the southwest?  Because their fixed incomes go
further down there.  Whether of not the area is impovereshed or not is
irrelevent, except that it makes their money go even further.

Jim.

"How does someone who can barely feed several kids, manage to scrape up enough
money to move to another distant location?"

It might make economic sense for the government to help people move to low cost
of living areas.

"The pioneers of early American history, had the personal power to move away
from what they felt as,perhaps, oppression."

Translation:  The pioneers were those who chose to do something about their
life.  The poor who stayed behind (then as now) choose not not do something
about their life.

Define "personal power", please...

Don't kid yourself...  The pioneers were people just like ourselves.  People
didn't move to the west because of oppression, they moved because they wanted to
make something of themselves.

"Just why should someone who is not flourishing where they are, but is
comfortable in their present environment suddenly be expected to move to an
environment where they are not comfortable and still may not flourish?"

If someone is *expecting* a hand out (or a hand up), they shouldn't be suprised
if it has a few strings attached.  They can always say 'no' to the assistance.

In any case, what makes you think that this doesn't happen all the time in life,
and what makes you think people wanting assistance should be immune to it? I
moved out to MA from MI to work for DEC.  Should I have had to?  Maybe DEC
should have come to me, eh?  Hurumph!

"A woman with four kids and absent father venturing off into the Wilds of MN?"

How old are the kids?  They'd be better off helping their family survive in MN
then pushing drugs in NY.  Aren't there other people in their situation?  If
people share and cooperate they would have a lot easier time of it.  Even if
they still required some assistance, it would likely be less...

...

Anyone have any information of comparing the situations of urban poverty to
rural poverty?

Jim.

     re .8
    
    That was Sam Kinison (just to pick a nit, since I finally see one
    I can rightfullly pick ;), and I am glad to see someone else remembers
    that line.  I saw it years ago, and altho it was somewhat rude,
    crude, and probably not THAT profund, it got me thinking---
    
    Truly, if you live in a desert, there's not gonna be that much food
    around.  I wonder if people who live in the desert where always
    starving, or just "of late"?  (a serious question)   If that's always
    been the case (I'd imagine that desert dwellers in primitive societies
    would always have had a rough time eeking it out), then the starvation,
    et al seems a side effect of nature.  Cruel, yea, but if that is
    the case, I wonder why it seemed to take so long for people who
    didn't live in deserts to figure out the people who did live there
    don't have any food.....?
    
    Musingly,
    
    kim

    re .92 (myself)
    
    To pick another nit, I meant the previous note in reply to .86 (Dave(?)
    Berry's note) not .8 as I see it came out as.
    
    And to muse a bit further, I agree that low cost of living simply
    tends to mean low paying jobs.  I.e., I may make oodles of money living
    here in the Silicon Valley, but that's not much oodles to me when
    you can easily find quarter to half-million dollar homes being sold
    that are *just* a family house.  My oodles ain't diddly when I'm
    faced with the prospect of  half my income going to RENT of
    an apartment that is considered quite *cheap*.  And there's no way
    in hell I can buy a house here unless I win the lottery.
                               
    (note: oodles, in my case, is used comparatively--I may make oodles
    compared to other in the same type of job located elsewhere.  Some
    people really DO make oodles, and mondo oodles more than I do ;)
    
    Thus, we (being me and other people who aren't rich either) look
    elsewhere.  Colorado Springs seems to be the apple of everyone's
    eyes right now--inexpensive housing, etc.  But I know/think in Colorado, the
    ecomony is depressed (it was in Denver when I was there last year)
    and unless you can transfer out with a good job/wages, the cost
    of living is probably reflected in the wages.  My mom moved to Oregon,
    paying 100 bucks more a month for a double wide mobile home on 20
    acres of land than I do for a lousy 1br apt that's at least 25 years
    old.  Sounds like a good deal--until you consider that "great" wages
    up there are 7 dollars an hr.  
    
    So moving might not always help--I think it depends on the situation.
    From what I see, cost of living kinda evens out with the wages,
    so what SEEMED to be a great deal balances out to the S.O.S in the
    end.
    
    kim
    
    

    In regards to why people live in marginal life supporting areas.
    They were usually driven there by some other group who took the land
    away from them. This is happening even now in Africa as the last of
    the hunter/gather type tribes are driven into the desert.

    As for our noble pioneers. They murdered and drove out the current
    occupants of the land to make their place. Also, it took money to
    buy a wagon and team of oxen to pull it. Many pioneers died on the
    journey west, especially those that were able to afford only minimal
    supplies for the trip.

    And now for the IF Mn idea. I've lived in relative poverty in the
    high plains of Colorado. With 40 acres of land and no money most
    people would freeze to death in the winter if they didn't starve to
    death first. Ever been in house without heat in 30� below zero
    weather? I have, it would have killed an infant. My garden was
    destroyed on the 8th of June that year from a late snow, if it had
    been my only food source I would have starved. Hunting is not a very
    reliable means for getting food, especially if you'd never done it
    before. liesl

    RE: living in bad places
    
         There is also the consideration of desert expansion to consider.
    The many of the areas now covered by desert were not that way a few
    years ago.  
    
                                        Greg

re .94

Thank you.

For thousands of years, moving has been the standard way of dealing
with hunger, poverty, oppression, or other factors that made life
excessively difficult in a particular area.  It's only recently
since we've divided up almost all the good land into nation states,
that this is no longer an option in most cases.

The notion that no matter what we do some people will be incredibly
rich while others suffer in severe poverty is a paradigm which has
outlived its usefulness.  We live on one planet with one life
support system.  The survival of all humanity, all life is totally
interdependent.  We will either live together, or we will die together.
Private salvation is no longer an option.

- Peter

"It's only recently since we've divided up almost all the good land into nation
states, that this is no longer an option in most cases."

There is still plenty of good land in north america which is not being utilized.

Then there's the question of whether we want the poor in South America to be
burning off the jungle for farmland.  It helps their problem, but it's an
economically unsound practice.

Jim.

    
    	Jim,
    
    	 How would YOU feel if for an example YOUR grandmother was on
    	fixed income (retirement) and because of this was required by
    	the goverment to pack up and move to a cheaper part of the country?
    	You make it sound so easy and also so very smug!! You just say
    	"These low lifes are on public assistance, so they should be
    	required to give up everything they know and move just to keep
    	that assistance as low as can be". Should we require someone
    	on public assistance to give up family and friends, their whole
    	way of life, just to save a few bucks? Maybe everytime DEC says
    	pack-em and move you'd be willing to do that, but please don't
    	assume that others don't have roots where they live. I know
    	in my case, if DEC were to close shop in MA and tell me to keep
    	my job I'd have to pack up and move across country, I'd tell
    	them to take a hike!!!
    
    	G_B
    

"How would YOU feel if for an example YOUR grandmother was on fixed income
(retirement) and because of this was required by the goverment to pack up and
move to a cheaper part of the country?"

"Required?"  Hardly what I am suggesting.  What I am suggesting is that the
government make the most of assistance monies by relocating people who *choose*
to use the program.

My grandmother currently lives with family, has for some time, and will untill
as long as necessary.  That's 'my' solution to the problem.

What, do you think these people have a "right" to assistance paid out of my tax
paying pocket without any strings attached, whatsoever?  That does not agree
with me *at all*.  No one but me has any right to the money I earn.

"Maybe everytime DEC says pack-em and move you'd be willing to do that,"

DEC may do whatever DEC wishes.  Why not allow me the liberty of doing the same?
Paying moving costs helps DEC keep talented people.  It makes sense, quite apart
from any freebie attitude.

Jim.

    "no one has a right to the money I earn"
    
    "people who *choose* to use the program"
    
    It surely sounds like you have a *me* attitude and a total lack of
    understanding of the complexities around poverty.
    
    I would expect that given you have this philosophy that your
    productivity here at Digital is more than 100% for you certainly would
    never want to take any money that you have not earned!
    
    There are very few people and possibly no people at all that wake up in
    the morning and say "I think I will be poor today, it is so much fun."
    
    The causes and effects of poverty are beyond our limited knowledge and
    I would like to suggest that there are very few people who have that
    expertise in this audience.
    
    There is another country for similar philosophies...and a region very 
    similar to the one suggested for the relocation of our poor...I think
    it is called Siberia.

    
    Ah, yes, Sibir...
    
    Someday that place will yield riches, if it isn't
    ecologically destroyed first. 
    
    There are some engineering problems to solve first,
    but someday there may be considerable voluntary
    settlement here.

Re: Note 868.90 By YODA::BARANSKI
>> ..They'd be better off helping their family survive in Mn ( Minnesota)
 than pushing drugs in NY (New York) >>

 Excuse me Sir, are you saying all the inhabitants in NY are drug pushers ? 
 Are you referring to out-groups in NY as: them: drug pushers ? Are you
 consciously insinuating about something ? Pandering to invoke ?xxx? for out-
 groups?  Why did you specifically choose " a woman in NY and her drug
 pushing family" ?  Is is not a *fact that the woman mentioned in base note
 is in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada ? 
 Please to avoid my misunderstanding whatever out-group you were sending cues
 about, can I ask you a question?  Since not all noters are from NY or MN
 it may be necessary for the particular out-group members [you have in mind]
 be identified so they could be, "pitied, blamed & isolated" perhaps ?
 What comes in my mind when I think of NY's out-groups are:
     Hispanics, Jews, Moroccan immigrants,Indian Asians, et al.. So which of
these out-groups were you referring to in note.90 ?

Re: Some notes that basically said: >> I'am thankful that I was able to use
 intelligence and help from my hard working parents to help me escape poverty.>
           
 "Others thinque that" it takes more than academic smarts -> (intelligence?) 
  and supportive parents to escape from poverty & degradation.

CASE STUDY (i) 
     When Yves Berube returned to his hometown of Montreal with a doctorate in
chemical engineering from M.I.T  he was eager to make his mark in business 
but he got no where. He tried a dozen corporations without success. 
With some companies, he couldn't even get an interview.
     The reason, he says: " My  -  Franco heritage/name" 
The year was in 1966 and Anglo-Canadians had a hold on top management and there
was obviously "no room for  Franco-Canadians." Dr. Yves Berube continues:
    "I was just not part of them" -> dominants."Wanna know what became of him ? 
    ( Ref. "Boston Globe" Oct. 26th 1986 ) 
 What happened to Yves Berube could be similar to someone named Armand Cohen 
 who received a Ph.D in Bio-Chemistry at Harvard and returns to his hometown in
 Estonia in the U.S.S.R. Some idiotic, devious,  atheistic, bastards from 
 Keiv refuse to grant him job because he's not part of the dominant Russians.
 No wonder we hear of the Armenians, Estonians asking for autonomy from the
 the cruel soviet rulers. That also could possibly explain why Rene' Levesque
 became a strong advocate for a Quebecois-Franco nation. 
 One of the poor who excels and earns a Ph.D from Harvard cannot get a job
 becuase he is a Rene' Levesque and not a Paul Johnson ?  Pensez-Y ! s.v.p 
  
CASE STUDY (ii)
     Professor Pernet of ETH where Albert Einstein was a student once called
him and asked why he (Albert) was not pursuing a study in philology... 
instead of physics. Professor Pernet said: "You can do what you like: I only
warn you in your own interest." Then came Einstein's graduation in August 1900
receiving an overall mark of 4.91 out of 6.00. Traditionally those who exceeded
4. mark are appointed assistant lecturers at the ETH. This is what Albert said:
"I became a pariah, discounted and not encouraged to continue further studies.
At the end of our studies ..I was suddenly abandoned ..standing at a loss on 
the threshold of life.." Albert's classmate with a lower score at the final exam
was given the assistant lecturer job. Y? Becuase Albert Einstein was not one of
us dominant aryan Germans  (Ref. R, Clarke: Einstein, life & Times)
.
Case Study:(iii)
         When Ann Hopkins came up for partnership at Price Waterhouse - in 1982
she looked like a shoo-in for promotion. Of the 88 candidates all the others
were male. She had the best record at generating new business securing multi-
million dollar contracts for the Big Eight accounting firm.  Yet Ann Hopkins'
nomination was put on hold after she was evaluated by several male partners as
in need of: *charm school*. Meaning, "you are excellent BUT..." She quit the 
firm and...( Ref. Time Magazine US edition May 15th 1989)
    Why was a brilliant Ann Hopkins denied a promotion ? Cuz she was not
    one of us male dominants. Then some idiotic buffoon will chastise women
    with low wages as "not having IT..not trying enough.".& all that b.s.!
     
Re: REGENT::WAGNER  - Considering the above three   case studies
an appropriate response to the title of note .89  is: NO : to both questions.
It is not as simplistic as: "nous blanc et les autres" Me thinque  !

Re: The one-size-fits-all notion that: >> the poor don't want to move or work.>>

[ Poverty has forced many women into the city (Dacca). Some like Shafia, work
 in the sweat shops of the clothing industry. 
 North America has been a major market for clothing made in Bagladesh. Over 
85% of the clothing made in Bangladesh are sold on the North-American market.
 Redwan - (for example) owns the factory where Shafia works. He prefers hiring
 women to do the work. He says: "Women are bred to take orders...If I hire 400
 men, they quickly start talking of higher wages and unions..."
 "Not the women...They will work for as little as $13. a month. They accept 
  harsh conditions and long hours without complaining.." ]
  (Ref. "News For You"  May 4th 1988)  The rabbits should always be blamed for
 whatever happens to the wolves and NEVER the other way around. It's simple.

 Re:868.97 Note By YODA::BARANSKI
 
 >> The ..poor in South America ...burning off the jungle for farmland..>>

 First of all,   :the jungle:  is a favorite semantic frequently used by
 "the maliciously inclined ethnocentric catoonists.." In botany the appropriate
  description could be, evergreen rain forest, tropical rain forest, or simply
  rain forest .. Otherwise the cues that could be read from this usage is:
  "Nous et les autres"
  Also while most  people will agree that the destruction of large areas of
  the green vegetation will increase the depletion of the ozone layer...It
  should not be forgotten that these "poor South Americans" are not killing
  fellow earthlings like it was done in north America so we the immigrants
  can take over the land.  ( ref. note .868. 94 )
 "The poor South Americans" are also not getting rid of their  unwanted 
  populations like it was done by some rich nations in Europe who solved their
  "troublesome peoples" problem by liquidating, 6-7 millions Poles, 6 1/2 
  million Jews, millions of Gypsies, 600,000  asocials et al..in high-tech
  crematorium. BTW: What happened to the forests of europa ? Were the trees
  used to keep the ovens hot  ?   Maybe the poor South-Americans are learning
  from the good examples of others far away. Fellow earthlings last or first ? 
  In reference to what was done to the Tasmanians, any clue from someone ?

  Re: Base note >> Turning Point >> Hummmmm though decision to make...!
  Ok, what about a need for no turning point ? Meaning, as long as the pain is
  not chewing on your butts be happy ! Even nobles and intellectuals like 
  Louis xvi and his wife had similar ideas. Like, "Apres NOUS le deluge !" 
    
    p/s Since I never majored in Economics, history, geography, sociology..
    I stand corrected on any statement here that is [factually] inaccurate. 
  
auf Wiedersehen..
Fazari.

This is a good one... 

>Note 866.103                     A Turning Point                      103 of 103
>BTOVT::BOATENG_K "Q'BIKAL X'PANSIONS"               120 lines  30-OCT-1989 23:17
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>CASE STUDY (ii)
>     Professor Pernet of ETH where Albert Einstein was a student once called
>him and asked why he (Albert) was not pursuing a study in philology... 

	Where did he go to school and what did he study again?

>  ....................................................................It
>  should not be forgotten that these "poor South Americans" are not killing
>  fellow earthlings like it was done in north America so we the immigrants
>  can take over the land.  ( ref. note .868. 94 )

	Since when were the indians in the forests not fellow earthlings?

Would you like to elaborate

	Stephen

"It surely sounds like you have a *me* attitude and a total lack of
understanding of the complexities around poverty."

Hardly.  That's what you get for generalizing single statements.  However, I
repeat, no one else has a "right" to money I earn, and there is no one else who
has a right to say how it should be spent, and who and how it will be used to
help others.

I don't claim to have total understanding of poverty, but I'm sure I don't have
a "total lack" of understanding.  As I've said before, I've been broke, but I've
never thought of myself as "poor".

"There is another country for similar philosophies...and a region very  similar
to the one suggested for the relocation of our poor...I think it is called
Siberia."

How can you say such thing, Joyce?  Russia's philosophy is the take virtually
everything from everyone, and *force* people to move.  This is this sort of
thing that I am advocating against.  Can't you tell the difference?

RE: .103  Yawn...

"Why did you specifically choose " a woman in NY and her drug pushing family"?"

Other people specified 'a single woman & children', not I.  I specified NY
because it's a big city in this country.  I probably should have chosen Boston,
seeing as I've never been to NY.  Drug pushing is what people are supposing that
these people will eventually end up doing in a 'ghetto' regardless of what they
do.

"it may be necessary for the particular out-group members [you have in mind] be
identified so they could be, "pitied, blamed & isolated" perhaps?"

I do not wish anyone to be PBI'ed.  Nor do I consider going to MN to be a fate
worse then poverty.  If I had the choice, I'd rather be there.  If nothing else,
it would seperate the 'poor' from the 'broke' (see previous notes).

"Hispanics, Jews, Moroccan immigrants,Indian Asians, et al.. So which of these
out-groups were you referring to in note.90?"

I am refering to none of these groups.  What exactly is it that makes you think
that I am, and motivated you to prop up this straw man?  I am refering to people
who are poor in finances and/or spirit, not any particular racial group.

Why do your case studies point to atocities outside the US, and actions that I
am sure none of us here would sanction?  You argue against an opponent that does
not exist.

"It should not be forgotten that these "poor South Americans" are not killing
fellow earthlings like it was done in north America so we the immigrants can
take over the land."

What difference does this make?  Because they are not guilty of one ''crime'',
does it mean that they are not guilty of another?

Your note adds little to the topic; it only rambles and confuses.

Jim.

    The poor do not claim a 'right' to your money.  Your money is the money
    you receive after taxes.  The money you pay in taxes becomes our money,
    either the federal, state or local governments where you reside.  The
    decisions on how this money is spent is done by the taxpayers or
    legislators collectively.
    
    

"Your money is the money you receive after taxes."

Read it and weep, folks...  You think you make 30K$?  Well... actually you only
make 20K$.  The government makes 10K$ off of your slave labor, actually.  If
it's really not our money, why have it show up on our paycheck at all?

Jim.

>"Your money is the money you receive after taxes."

 I hate that sentiment. "Your money is the amount _the government_ decides
to leave you." That really stinks. If the government decides to take 100% of
your income, too bad. It's not yours anymore.

 The government is entitled to the minimum necessary to ensure a safe and
secure union. Why do you think we left England?

 The Doctah

Re:Note 866.104 
>> ..Where did he ( Einstein ) go to school...? 
 He attended and graduated from: Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule .  
 >> what did he study ..? >> I believe it was basket-weaving (intermediate).Why
 do you suppose he was persecuted out of his native land and became a refugee?   
 That should explain the intelligence behind the advantages of being xenophobic.

Re: Note 866.105 By YODA::BARANSKI
>>..... .............................. seeing as I've never been to NY.
>>  Drug pushing is what people are supposing that these people will...
>> eventually end up doing in the `ghetto' regardless of what they do..

Ahem ! It sounds almost like a voila ! Since you've never been to NY and
you've never lived there on what data were you basing your notions on ?
Are you basing those notions on the research by a famous briiliant person
named Dr. Josef Goebbles ? BTW: Once again who are "THESE PEOPLE" ?
Are you saying that "regardless of what they do" including earning a Ph.D
from Columbia University in Geology  "they will eventually end up in the
ghetto pushing drugs" ?  Meaning that "it's inherent in them" similar to
Dr. J. Mengele's brilliant research in eugenics and what it meant to us
Poles in '39 ? If that is your brilliant logic then by all means carry on !

 >>  I am refering to people who are...
 >>  poor in finances and/or spirit, not any particular racial group.

  C'mon Jim, ARE YOU SURE ?  I always thought you were an upright, sincere,
  frank, guy who doesn't - b.s. the readers. Go ahead Jim and name the group,
  and don't be timid ! Remember this is supposed to be a friendly community. 
                 Re:.105
>>  You argue against an opponent that does not exist.
   Do you really think so ? If that is what you think, then smile happy for
   being all set ! The woman who knocked on Kris' door in Ottawa is not all set.
                re:105
>>What difference does this make,? does it mean that they are not...
 Far from that. The difference in "killing trees" is not on the same atrocious
 magnitude like:[Anglo- British settlers on the Island of Tasmania wiped out the
 local population, whom they hunted for sport and...dog food.] Say what ?
 (Ref. page 285, Ian Robertson, LC# 80-54232 ISBN:0-87901-134-3) 
 BTW: Dr. Ian Robertson is of HavHad U.  a white anglo-South-African.
 My "Turning Point" occured when I first read the above a few years ago.
       re:105
 >> it only ...confuses. Jim. ??   That explains !!         auf Wiedersehen..
 Fazari.

    re .108:

    	"The government is entitled to the minimum necessary to ensure a
    	safe and secure union. Why do you think we left England?"

    Ummm, because we didn't get proper representation in Parliament?
    
    	Jon

    It seems that I have made my point...the poor are not in fact taking
    money out of JimB.'s pocket...they are not taking 'his' money.
    
    The problem is in our government and technically we are the government.
    
    And there is little doubt that the system that develops as well as
    handles poverty is not working properly.
    
    

    Re: .108
    
    >Why do you think we left England?
    
    Because we didn't want to subordinate our interests to the welfare of
    the empire as a whole.

    The government in a sense earns your tax dollars by providing you with
    the services required for you to live in your community and state.  If 
    you feel you are a slave to the government your issue is with that body
    not the poor.
    
    I believe that there is a way that we can make poor people productive
    and happy and at the same time reduce our tax dollars.  I believe there
    are answers to a lot of the social problems in the world.  The problem
    is there are so many people out there getting RICH over our laziness
    and greed that it probably isn't going to happen.
    
    Do you really care, Jim, if the poor solve their problems or is your
    number one priority 'your money'?

    re: .113
    
    � Let's put it this way... this money is dependant on my work, right?  
    � I earned it, 'the government' didn't earn it.  Either it's my money 
    � and the government's taking it away from me, or I'm a part time slave 
    � for the government.
    � 
    � Which is it?  Or if neither, why?
    
    Neither, or, if you prefer, both.  Your "right" to live and work
    here is a function of the government.  Because this is a represen-
    tative government, those "rights" are matters of various forms of 
    consensus; we have "right" to life, liberty and so forth not because 
    the are, in emprical fact, "universal" or "God given".  Such asser-
    tions cannot be proven empirically.  The rights we enjoy are ours 
    because enough of us believe them to be "self-evident".  Our repre-
    sentative government with it's constitution and laws is the manifes-
    tation of those beliefs.
    
    With rights come obligations.  I have the right to pursue the life
    but only *within* the framework of this government.  I may go out
    and sell all manner of products and services to anyone who wants
    to buy them but only if I stay within certain legal constraints
    and only if I'm willing to give a portion of my income back to
    to state which allows me to work here in the first place.  For
    that money, I get certain benefits - a national defense, highways,
    people to put out fires, and, because enough of us think it's a 
    worthwhile benefit to living here, some protection for people
    living in poverty.  I also get the benefit of being able have a
    say in how much of my earnings my government takes and what it
    uses that money for.  
    
    So, as a matter of fact, Jim, "the poor" aren't taking money out
    of your pocket; "I" am.  That is, those who believe that economic
    assistance for the poor is a wise choice and have voted for such
    laws are the ones doing the "taking".  Another reason "the poor" 
    aren't doing the taking is because they, by and large, are a dis-
    enfranchised group; many simply aren't within the voting process.  
    
    You're not a slave for the government any part of the time for one 
    very simple reason: you choose to be here and anytime the choices
    of the representatives that you and I elect are so unpalatable that 
    living here feels slavish, you are free to leave.  
    
    
    � I don't consider what we currently have as proper representation.  
    � If there were such a system where we could control where our tax 
    � dollars were spent, the situation would be much better.
    
    And what would such a system (for a quarter of a billion people)
    look like?  While I don't agree with every way tax money is spent 
    in this country, I don't believe that's justification for my saying
    that the system of representation is wrong.  I don't, for example, 
    like the way that the lion's share of my tax dollar goes to defense.
    But there are literally millions of people who disagree with me and,
    for the moment, their votes hold sway.  Do I agree with every aspect 
    of public assistance?  No, but that doesn't mean that our represent-
    ative government is wrong.  I think it does mean that I have obliga-
    tion (and a right) to propose changes or to run for office on a 
    platform of my beliefs or to support those who are doing same.
    
    Steve
    
    P.S.  As to why we left England, I thought it had something to do
    with "escaping religious intolerance".  However, that, as it turned
    out, was a somewhat hypocritical stance as Roger Williams would
    soon learn.  As I read history, we revolted against England for
    largely economic reasons: our ancestors felt it was better for us
    to have a representative say in the levying and spending of our 
    taxes.  As far as I can tell, it was *never* their intent that my
    earnings should be entirely mine and nobody elses.

    re: .115 (Fazari)
    
    I suggest that your remarks are as inflammatory to Jim and perhaps
    others as his may feel to you.  For you to liken his ideas to those
    of Josef Goebels strikes me as being at least as guilty of "bullying"
    as any he's made.  Phrases like ". . .preparing the way for a mass 
    neurotic conformity. . ." strike me as simple name-calling and don't
    serve well to help continue an open, supportive exchange of ideas.
    
    � Any statement that translates into *indifference reminds me that 
    � if some individuals were present they will have cheered for the 
    � liquidation of the brethren. 
    
    I'm not certain what you're trying to say here, but it sounds as
    if you're saying that some people (here, in this discussion) would 
    have applauded the death camps.  Is that your intent?  Incidentally,
    I'd like to suggest that when you say "Any statement that translates
    into. . .", such translation is *not* universal; in fact, such
    translation is yours.  In effect, in making such "translations",
    aren't you putting words in someone else's mouth?
    
    To no one in particular:
    
    I'd like to make a plea for a reduction in name-calling.  Addi-
    tionally, I'd like to suggest that if a person's words strike you 
    as inflammatory, ask for some clarification.  For example:
    
    "<insert name>, when you say "<insert quote of material you find
    offensive>", it sounds to me like you're saying that <insert your
    translation>.  Do you really mean to imply that?"
    
    Steve

    
    
    
                      It's nice to see a couple of other dogs in the
               pit. 8')
    
    
                      Personally, I don't see the relevance of the 
               case studies.  These exceptional people clearly have
               a leg up on the average joe.  Furthermore,  could someone
               tell me what the hell an "OUT-GROUP" is?  I'm sure placing
               that label is purely a matter of perspective.  From where
               I stand The only real "OUT-GROUP" (in this discussion) are
               those people born into poverty.
                                                       
    
                     So what really is the base problem?  Doesn't it
               seem to be one of ignorance and indifference?  Doesn't it
               appear that so much time (money) is wasted on trivial
               quibbling and endless red tape where at each stage in
               in the administration of assistance is another GREEDY
               hand looking to take a slice of the pie.  All the while,
               the fat cat managers of these distribution networks can
               pat themselves on the back,  pick up the ol' $4,000.00
               check at the end of the week, go home, eat a nice meal,
               and sleep well, secure in the knowledge that at least
               something is being done.  Hypocritical??  Self-righteous?
    
                                      
                      Little Joey will be shot tonight.  Walking home
               from the park, a'boppin and whistling, checking out the
               birds in the trees.  But he'll be in the wrong place
               at the wrong time.  Caught in the crossfire of a hell
               he had NO hand in creating.
    
                      Officer Brown had to try and save the boy's life.
               He couldn't do any more.  The bullet hit Joey in the
               neck and he had spilled too much of his blood on the
               sidewalk that afternoon.  He died on the way to the
               hospital.  If only the precinct had put the extra shift
               on.
    
                      Well,  little Joey barely new what a DOLLAR bill
               looked like.  He only saw the money the older boys had
               so much of.  All the gold chains and new leather clothes.
               He was thinking of how nice new leather smelled when the
               .45 slug nearly decapitated him.
    
                      Oh yes,  Officer Brown did receive recognition
               for his efforts that afternoon, but as he picks up his
               paycheck for $575.00, he wonders if it is still worth
               the risk.  Someday he may be the one shot.  
                                                  
    
    
    
                      Who needs the money, anyway?
    
    
    
                               
    

I've set replies .113 and .115 hidden because they contain, I feel, 
language that is inappropriate for this conference.  Perhaps they will be
reposted later with some changes.

				Steve

Re:116 
>>..I thought it had something to do with "escaping religious intolerance"
 ..that as it turned out was a "somewhat hypocritical stance"....>>

    Steve, can the following help to clarify the above statement somewhat ?
The Pilgrims did not come over seeking religious freedom (strictly speaking). 
The core of the colonists was made of "Scrooby Separatists". This sect organized
in 1606 at England's Scrooby Manor to oppose residual ritual in post-Reformation
church services. But they did not sail to Plymouth and stake a claim. The "New
World" as far as Europe was concerned was already "owned" by entrepreneurs call-
-ed Merchant Adventurers, who speculated in colonies thru' trading companies.
These investors issued land grants to people like the Pilgrims and SPONSORED 
their emigration to America in return for goods shipped back to England. Roughly
SEVENTY British men organized to finance the "Mayflower" expedition.
   The Scrooby Separatists prior to crossing the Atlantic had been enjoying 
Dutch religious freedom but *despairing of loosing their British identity.
Another ship was slated to sail with the MF - a smaller "Speedwell" which sank
before it could clear the English coast.  Out of the 101 passengers who set sail
less than half were Scrooby Separatists, the others were SERVANTS, English 
separatists, and random tag-alongs. One maleservant William Button passed on,
and there was one shipboard birth, a boy named Oceanus Hopkins. When they 
sighted land on Nov. 10th 1620 it was Cape Cod, to their dismay since they were
aiming for Virginia(?) ( A conspiracy theory suggests that the ship's pilot
John Clark was bribed to take the MF far north so as to leave the Hudson for the
Dutch.) When the group finally landed at Plymouth, they DID NOT as legend holds,
fall on their knees and give thanks for the soil. They actually kind of
scuffled around and debated whether Plymouth was a good enough spot for settle-
-ment. By spring, half the MF passengers were dead (including Oceanus). Of the
surviving 54, twenty-one were under 16 years of age. No goods had been sent back
to the colony's investors yet. (From this: Legends & myths were created by 
tourist trappers, bad poets, ...)
               
 p/s Is there  a descendant of the "May Flower" reading this note who might
 want to add a point or two..?  

Fazari.

"The government in a sense earns your tax dollars by providing you with the
services required for you to live in your community and state."

Oh really...  Are you aware that only 10% of your tax dollars are being used for
anything that could remotely called government and goods and services?  Check
out the nice little pie graph on the back of your tax booklet at the end of the
year.

I'd like the other 90% back, please...

"If  you feel you are a slave to the government your issue is with that body not
the poor."

*BINGO*  Just as I was not particularly angry at my ex-wife for screwing me, but
rather angry at the government for encouraging and facilitating the screwing, I
am not particlularly anrgy "at the poor".  And that includes all the well
meaning voters out there who are all too willing to "third-party" away my
paycheck.

"Do you really care, Jim, if the poor solve their problems or is your number one
priority 'your money'?"

They are both important issues to me, Joyce.  Is this a rhetorical question, or
don't you know me?  I don't understand how you can ask such questions seriously.
We've been through this before, and I'd thought we'd reached an understanding or
where each of us stood.  Are you asking this question seriously, or as a ploy to
try to make your point at my personal expense?

"Your "right" to live and work here is a function of the government."

Oh?  Does that mean that before there was government, that people didn't work
and live?  Seriously, the right to work and live off of your work is a right
which everyone deserves by virtue of being an alive, thinking being; by virtue
of what they are.  The government does not grant that right.  They can at best
grant the *recognition* of that right.  Too often these days the recognition of
that right is missing.

"we have "right" to life, liberty and so forth not because  the are, in emprical
fact, "universal" or "God given [but because people voted for them]"

Hardly.  The founders of our country believed that we deserved these rights by
virtue of what we (free people) are, and they proclaimed the recognition of
those rights.  They didn't sit down and say 'Let's be nice guys and give people
"the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" at our sufferance
untill we feel like taking it back away from them'.

"The rights we enjoy are ours because enough of us believe them to be
"self-evident".  Our representative government with it's constitution and laws
is the manifestation of those beliefs."

Do you believe that if these rights are denied to us that we would no longer
deserve them?  If so, I think you have the cause and effect reversed. Rights
which blacks deserved were denied them by people and the government for a long
time.  

If they did not deserve rights quite apart from the recognition of those rights,
how and why did they fight for and manage to secure those rights? If rights are
not based on the objective reality of what in means to be a person, then what
are they based on?  Rights cannot be based on the recognition of the same rights
by the government or anyone else; a thing must exist before it can be
recognized.  The government can and should only recognize and enforce rights.

"With rights come obligations."

Of Course.  With the right to be left alone comes to obligation to leave others
alone.  But as with rights, only *recognition* and enforcement of obligations
can be done by the government.  If someone runs into my car, don't they have an
obligation to have it repaired whether they deny it or not?  Joe Blow walking up
to me on the street and saying 'I have this card from the government which
obligates you to give me all your money' places no obligation on me.  An
irrational obligation should be done away with, not conformed to.  If the
government required you to drive to Worcestor and to Boston to get your drives
license, you'd demand that that state of affairs be changed rather then meekly
conforming to it, wouldn't you?  There is no reason for it!

"I may go out and sell all manner of products and services to anyone who wants
to buy them but only if I stay within certain legal constraints and only if I'm
willing to give a portion of my income back to to state which allows me to work
here in the first place."

See above on unreasonable demands of obligations.

"For that money, I get certain benefits - a national defense, highways, people
to put out fires, and, because enough of us think it's a  worthwhile benefit to
living here, some protection for people living in poverty."

Firemen, highways, public water, etc are all goods and services which I receive
and which I gladly pay that 10% of my taxes which is used for that.  National
defense and welfare?  They are not of any benifit to me in accordance with the
amount which they cost me, and I believe that they are unreasonable obligations
to be imposed on anyone without their personal consent.  Saying that enough
people voted their 'consent' is not democracy, that's 'mob rule'.  For democracy
to have any meaning, an objective belief of what is allowed, and what is not
allowed is necessary.

Sure, I might *want* to have some sort of national defense, and unemployment
insurance plan.  But the amount of money being taken from my paycheck is
significant, and I deserve some say in how much is taken, and how it is spent. I
have *no* say whatso ever at this point in time.  That's 'Taxation without
representation'.

"I also get the benefit of being able have a say in how much of my earnings my
government takes and what it uses that money for."

No you don't.  Do *anything*... and it will make no difference.

To put it short, the government, voters, people etc, are supposed to confrom
their actions and laws to reality, not try to define reality as the way that
they pass laws.  That's as stupid as the state of Ohio passing a law seting PI
to 3.0.  They tried it too.
    
"you are free to leave"

Unfortunately, I am not.  If I were to leave, the government would hunt me down
like a dog as it were.  There is also no place that I can concievably go to
where things would be any different or better.  No alternatives exist.  That
does not make the present situation any more acceptable.

"And what would such a system (for a quarter of a billion people) look like?"

Add a half a page to your tax report saying 'these are things you can spend your
taxes on', fill in the amounts.  It's not all that complicated, or hard compared
to the benifits.

"But there are literally millions of people who disagree with me"

Fine, let *them* spend *thier* taxes on it, not mine.

Jim.

    Jim, I do know you and I find it hard to believe that you would make
    some of the statements you have around the poor and your money. 
    
    Our friendship has no bearing on the issue we are discussing.  I have
    always stated that we as taxpayers and voters are responsible for the
    judicial system and government spending.  And as Steve pointed out the
    poor rarely vote and certainly do not pay taxes.
    
    The poor are not claiming a right to your money.  The government is
    choosing to spend 'our' tax dollars in a certain way to deal with
    poverty.  Poverty is a result of many conditions many of which are a
    direct result of government decisions, the economy, and natural
    disasters. 
    
    There are very few people who choose to be poor.
    
    We are in agreement that the current system is not working and we are
    not resolving the problem.

>    We are in agreement that the current system is not working and we are
>    not resolving the problem.

 Yes, but I don't think concordance has been reached wrt what extent the problem
of poverty can be solved.

 The Doctah

"Jim, I do know you and I find it hard to believe that you would make some of
the statements you have around the poor and your money."

Well then, don't you think that perhaps there is something here that you don't
understand?  Wouldn't it be better to try to find out what that something is
rather then making accusations like 'you don't care about the poor, all you care
about is *your* money'?

"The poor are not claiming a right to your money."

Odd...  There's an awful lot of people running around shouting about the
poor's/people's right to this that and the other thing.  Sorry, but I can't help
wondering where the money to provide all these 'rights' is going to come from. I
have a sickening feeling that yet again, it's going to come from *my* pocket.

I believe that people have a right to be able work and live in a viable
environment.  But they don't have a right to have me pay for it.  I may want to
support such a project, but to me that's quite a bit different from being forced
to pay for it.
    
Of course the people who are doing most of the running around aren't poor. They
are do-gooders who are only too willing to rob one person to provide for someone
else.

Jim.

    re .125   There is a statement in this reply that is in quotes and it
    would appear that I made that statement.  I did not in fact make that
    statement, I asked a question in reply # .114.
    
    I think many things have happened in this note.  Certainly the most
    impressive is the fact that a man has learned something new about the
    human race and isn't ashamed to admit that his attitudes about poverty
    have been changed.  
    
    And maybe the man I leave my bottles and cans for each morning with the
    shy smile understands me better then someone that calls me friend.
    
    

Re:0  ( Last sentence)
 >> Life, when you look at it in the grand sense.....>>

 MONTREAL - ( The Associated Press - )
          While other lands desperately fight overpopulation, Quebec is
 trying to ignite a new baby boom to safeguard the continent's only French
 speaking society. Quebec now has the lowest birth rate in the the Americas,
 down to just 1.4  from a previously high of 4.5 on the average.
 Concerned that any further decline in its 6.6 million population will 
 eventually doom the continent's only French society, the government has
 announced a package of incentives **to encourage a new BABY BOOM.
     To begin with, the province will hand out $405.00 for a couple's first 
 child and $405.00 for a second child. For a third child and **each subsequent
 child, parents will get $2,430.00 in quarterly installments over two years.
 THE BONUSES APPLY TO BOTH MARRIED AND SINGLE PARENTS.

  Re: >> Day-Care : The government has embarked on a project of adding 60,000
  new day-care spaces for the next 5-7 years. *No more taxes on family
  allowances and also an interest-free loan of $5,670 to help families with two
  or more children buy their first home. The aim of all these incentives is to
  boost the birth rate to 1.8 in the next five years. 
 Among the first group of parents to reap benefits from last week's announcement
  are France Guerette and her husband who were handed $9,720.00 right after 
  giving birth to quadruplets - (in bonuses alone.)
  Since the mid-1960s Quebec has focused on improved living standards
  and competitiveness. The province boasted 5% real growth last year and 
  produced 40 percent of Canada's business administration students.  
            ( As reported on May 19th 1988 )
  Kris (of base note) is it possible that, all things being relative the
  woman who knocked on your door could fare better if she moved to the province
  of Quebec where she might obtain higher payments as a single parent ?
  Wouldn't that be more realistic and practical than moving to MN in5ft of ice? 
  Since you mentioned renting from a diplomat you might be living in OR near
  Ottawa, Ontario. Hull, Quebec is just across the Ottawa RIVER: -> the only
  natural boundary between Hull-Ottawa twin cities. Rent in Hull can't be as 
  high as in Ottawa, where all the Embassies and High Commissions are located. 

  Also in  Quebec those receiving supplementary income from the provincial
  govt. are entitled to free educational benefits as long as they remain in
  school. I know  someone who immigrated to Montreal from Ashdod and took
  advantage of the public assistance while in school. For four years at a
  CEGEP he pursued a diploma in Electro-tech. As long as he stayed in the
  course he received stipend for room, board and clothing until he learned
  the subject well to establish himself independently. So can't Jeannete take
  advantage of something like that ?  After all she is a Canadian. 
      I once knew a woman in Montreal who had two daughters, she was a single
  parent who lived in a nice three bedroom apartment, taking some classes at
  Marie-Victoria plus working two or three weekends at a restaurant (Lentzoes)
  from about 10pm to 6am and she was averaging about $300.00 in tips per night
  in addition to what the provincial govt. was paying her for the two daughters. She was 
  She was doing well enough  to the extent that she frequently sent money
  to her mother in Quebec City, there were times that she will pick the tab 
  when we went out. I was a full time Dec employee then. Technically she was
  on public assistance, but doing financially and emotionally well. Her older
  brother  a computer programmer (married with a kid) was sending "nothing"
  to their mother in Quebec City. He was also working in Montreal.  
     (BTW: Who's poverty problems are being discussed here ?)
    
  Fazari.

RE: French Canadian Baby $$$

"To begin with, the province will hand out $405.00 for a couple's first  child
and $405.00 for a second child. For a third child and **each subsequent child,
parents will get $2,430.00 in quarterly installments over two years. THE BONUSES
APPLY TO BOTH MARRIED AND SINGLE PARENTS."

Anyone still wonder why I have a low opinion of governments?  Is this what you'd
like your tax dollars spent on?  I wonder, does this apply to anyone in Quebec,
or just french Canadians.  Sounds like discrimination to me if it is...

RE: Understanding...

If One Seeks Understanding, One Should Ask Questions, Instead of Making
Accusations...

Jim.

    It wouldn't suprise me if the bonus only applied to French Canadians.
    Quebec has some stange ideas about protecting their heritage.
    
    Whether or not Jeanette would be better off in Quebec is a question I
    can't answer.  The cost of living is higher.  If you don't speak French
    it becomes difficult to get by.  I speak enough French to inform anyone
    who cares to know that my uncle is a green pencil. ("Mon oncle est une
    stylo vert.") and I feel isolated and ashamed of my inability to speak
    the native language when I go into Quebec for a dinner.
    
    57% of a typical Canadian's income goes to the Government in the
    form of taxes either directly, as in sales or income taxes, or
    indirectly, as in manufacturing or import taxes.  Much of that money
    goes to social benefit programs.
    
    On one hand, I agree with Jim; I'm forced to pay to support someone
    else's right to live in a viable environment and I don't like it.
    
    However:  I get by fine with the 43% left to me.  I have never been
    forced to go hungry.  I have never been forced to sleep in the cold
    and I (almost) always have clean clothes to wear.  Let alone the
    fact that I can afford to drive a car and have spent more on a pair of
    shoes than some people have to spend on food for two weeks.
    
    Our society is operates with a skewed mentality where the level
    our bank account means more to most individuals than the fact that
    there is a child starving within a few blocks of their home.  The
    possibility of losing $10,000 in the stock market is more troublesome
    than the possibilty that the person to whom we denied spare change
    may have actually needed it to buy some food.
    
    It has always been, and still is, easier for me to rationalize the
    problem of poverty and keep it at an arms length.  "Those people
    are lazy." "What problem is it of mine?" "It's their own fault,
    it's the government's fault, it's their parent's fault, it's society's
    fault.  But it surely is not my fault."
    
    I fight it, but humans can rationalize anything.
    
    In so much as the problems of poverty are of a magnitude beyond
    correcting by the efforts of any individual, I think that it is worthy
    of an change in attitude of our society.  Perhaps if we, as
    individuals, were to rethink the attitude we have towards the poor and
    not veiw them as losers or scum or lazy, but rather as those to whom
    circumstance has not been kind; and if we guage the level of a persons
    worth by their character and not their fair market value, then perhaps
    attitudes, which are at least as oppressive as bad living conditions,
    will be lifted.  My own bad attitude towards the poor is one less
    burden the poor will have to carry.
    
    It's not much and it's not a solution.  But it is a start.
    
    Kris 

>I speak enough French to inform anyone
>    who cares to know that my uncle is a green pencil. ("Mon oncle est une
>    stylo vert.")

 Absolument pas! C'est "Mon oncle est un crayon vert." Vous avez �crit "My
uncle is a green pen." (and the article une was also wrong). 

 Sorry- but that was too much fun to pass up, Kris. :-)

 Le Docteur

""Those people are lazy." "What problem is it of mine?" "It's their own fault,
it's the government's fault, it's their parent's fault, it's society's fault. 
But it surely is not my fault.""

One does not have to be at fault to want to help a fellow human being.  You
don't even need to spend time trying to find someone to pin the blame on, unless
that will genuinely help someone.

RE: 57% taxes...

See, more money, more taxes are *not* going to solve the problem!  Even at 57%
taxes you still have people knocking on doors in wealthy suburbs!  Do you want
to pay 57% of your mony in taxes to fight poverty?  Do you want to pay *more*?
How much more?  100% and be totally communistic?  History says that doesn't work
very well.

Sweden, I am told, has a similiar high tax status.  However, it is different in
one important criteria.  The same benifits are available to *everyone*.  Whether
you make 0$, 1K$, 1M$, you may have your housing subsidized, food, clothing,
disposable diapers for the babies, free school, etc, etc, etc...

It's still not something I'm sure I'm wild about, but it would be a lot easier
to sit still for.

Jim.

    
    
                         More money won't make much of a difference.
               There must be at least one billion dollars spent annually
               for welfare/aid/assistance type programs.
    
                         That is a LOT of money!!
    
                         It's how it is spent that must be addressed.
               I just don't see how anyone in these organizations could
               earn 75k or more and go home with a clear conscience.
     
                  It doesn't make any sense to me.  How hard can it
               be to verify if someone has income in addition to public
               assistance.  We've all seen the occasional welfare
               receipient with the new car or brand new stereo.  
    
                  Some say they saved.....HA!  I say they are lazy leaches.
    
                  The first step is to eliminate those who abuse the
               system.  The case workers need to earn their pay by
               monitoring their "clients" a little more closely.
    
                  I think that Ma. has (or had) a good program.  They
               offered vocational training with pay along with rock
               bottom prices for day care. (something like $10/week)
    
                  This I know first hand, but then again these were
               the programs offered in 1980.  I don't know what the
               current situation is.  It IS up to the individual to
               take advantage of these programs.  All to often it
               seems that some will sacrifice pride for free money.
                                                                    
    
                  I feel it is EVERYBODIES problem.  It will not go
               away unless those who qualify for help are offered it
               in a different way.  Free money sounds too good to be
               true.  Maybe persons could be offered assistance only
               if they attend some type of schooling.  Most entry level
               jobs require skills that could be learned in a few weeks.
               If the classes were, say, five months long, it could
               probably train most people skills that could boost them
               above that "cutoff" point, where paying for daycare 
               would actually allow them to INCREASE their income.
    
                     Of course, we've come full circle.  Back to the
               day care dilema.  I don't have an answer for this one.
    
                     Maybe if 20% of ALL welfare money was budgeted
               to daycare centers, specifically set up for low income
               people, the reduced cost could be another incentive to
               get out and find a job.
                           
    
                     I think the whole welfare system needs to be AUDITED
               and restructured.  I also know that I am not the only
               person who feels this way.  What is taking so long??
    
                     
    
                                        
                                mumble mumble mumble.....
    
                                                               Chris

        In his book "Culture Against Man" Jules Henry describes the way
    American's universal education system to "mold the pattern of
    national conformity". He observed the St Louis school system from an
    anthropologists point of view.

    "School is indeed a training for later life not because it teaches
    the 3R's but because it instills the essential cultural nightmare -
    fear of failure, envy of success.

    In line with this Marvin Harris in "Cultural Anthropology" adds

    "Today in the united states, acceptance of economic inequality
    depends on thought control more than on the exercise of naked
    repressive force. Children from economically deprived families are
    taught to believe that the main obstacle to achivement of wealth and
    power is their own intellectual merit, physical endurance, and will
    to compete. The poor are taught to blame themselves for being poor,
    and their resentment is directed primarily against themselves or
    against those woth whom they must compete and who stand on the same
    rung of the ladder of mobility....Most of the population is kept
    ignorant of the actual workings of the political-economic system and
    of the disproportionate power exercised by lobbies representing
    corporations and other special interest groups."

    ---- me speaking -----

    The poor are being beaten from all sides. I particularly hate the
    statement that "if only they would work..." Ha, even if they work
    they can't make enough to survive, the deck is stacked against them.
    And then the "system" teaches them that only they are responsible
    for their failure. Sounds like the perfect way to erode their
    self-confidence and keep them "in their place".

    Just as an aside, I think it's terrible for a country to encourage
    rampant population growth in a world of diminishing resources. We
    can't feed everyone we've got already. liesl

    
    
    
                    YES, We are at a turning point.  Not only as many
             individual societies spread out over the globe, but as
             an entire species.  There are so many problems that need
             to be addressed and fixed NOW, not ten or twelve years
             down the road.
    
                    What will this place be like in 200 years?
    
                    It probably doesn't matter to most, as they won't
             be here to experience it.
    
    
    
     
    
                    I think I'm going over the edge.....
    
    
                                                     Chris 

    re. .130
    
>     Absolument pas! C'est "Mon oncle est un crayon vert." Vous avez �crit "My
>     uncle is a green pen." (and the article une was also wrong). 
    
    So that's why I get strange looks when I try out my French.  Je
    suis un grande fromage.
    
    Le Docteur est un biscuit intelligent.
    
    Kris

 Bon. Vous �tes un grand fromage? Brie? :-)

 Have a good weekend, Kris

 The Doctah