Discussion:
For Emma (off topic)
(too old to reply)
randy
2007-05-29 16:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Emma, you've just been here to the United States. I'm so
excited that two of my relatives from England are coming
here to the state of Washington in a few days! I just wanted
to share my excitement with you for whatever reason. Also,
I'd like to ask you if there's something you think they'd
want to do or take home with them? Perhaps there are things
you just don't have there in England that we have here in
the United States?

My wife hasn't lived in England for decades, so I'm not sure
she can even guage what would be important to her
half-sister and sister-in-law. We're planning to go for a
"whale watch," and ride on a "dinner train." Here in the
Puget Sound there are ferries that seem like they would be
enjoyable to anybody. We're also going up to Victoria,
Canada, which may or may not be of interest to English
people (since Victoria probably looks very much like England
to them!).

If you have any thoughts, in connection with your own
travels here, I'd appreciate hearing from you? Other than
that, I just wanted to express how happy I am that there is
this unity and respect between our two countries. I pray we
never lose that!
randy
Emma
2007-05-29 18:42:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by randy
Emma, you've just been here to the United States. I'm so
excited that two of my relatives from England are coming
here to the state of Washington in a few days! I just wanted
to share my excitement with you for whatever reason. Also,
I'd like to ask you if there's something you think they'd
want to do or take home with them? Perhaps there are things
you just don't have there in England that we have here in
the United States?
Hi Randy,

First of all, it's so sweet of you to be
concerned that they have a good time. I know
I've said it a lot, but Americans
are so friendly and hospitable.

I'm sure your relatives will *love* America.

We always bring back artwork, or framed
photographs of everywhere we go. We have
paintings and drawings of New York now,
which are lovely reminders of our holiday.

Just set them loose in a shopping mall, Randy,
and they will have a lovely time.
Everything will be half-price for them since
the exchange rate is now 2 dollars to the pound!
Post by randy
My wife hasn't lived in England for decades, so I'm not sure
she can even guage what would be important to her
half-sister and sister-in-law. We're planning to go for a
"whale watch," and ride on a "dinner train." Here in the
Puget Sound there are ferries that seem like they would be
enjoyable to anybody. We're also going up to Victoria,
Canada, which may or may not be of interest to English
people (since Victoria probably looks very much like England
to them!).
That all sounds wonderful! A whale watch? Wow! Brilliant!!
And I think a trip to Canada would be perfect.
Post by randy
If you have any thoughts, in connection with your own
travels here, I'd appreciate hearing from you?
Going to the theatre is always nice. I personally
like museums and countryside too, but it depends on
their interests. The things you have planned sound
great to me.
Post by randy
Other than
that, I just wanted to express how happy I am that there is
this unity and respect between our two countries. I pray we
never lose that!
Me too. We just need to get rid of our Labour
government, and then we might have a better
Britain.
I know Tony Blair is popular in the
US, but he's actually been a nightmare here.
Our taxes went through the roof. Nothing he
promised actually happened. More crime,
no border controls. Absolute nightmare.
Sorry, I'm ranting again! :-)...

And I wanted to tell you something sort of
funny...

You know I've been feeding the wild birds, well
I've actually stopped for a while, Randy.
And that's because, there was a rather unwelcome
visitor to the bird feeder... a rat! Aaaaaargh!

Now it wasn't that big, and I suppose there is
not a lot I can do about rats in the garden,
but my little girl is having a birthday party
out there soon! If her friends' parents are told
that a rat was dancing around our pond while
the children were eating their birthday tea, we will
never see them again!!

So then. What do I do? One wiseguy told me to stick
a party hat on its head and pretend it's the
family pet! Oh, ho-h! :-)
I think it lives in a hole around one of the ponds.
I don't want to kill it. I was going to buy one of
those sonic repellents, but I don't think they
work.
Hmmm... any ideas? How do I persuade ratty to keep
a low profile during the party??
--
***Emma***
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
randy
2007-05-30 15:33:48 UTC
Permalink
"Emma"
randy
Post by Emma
Hi Randy,
First of all, it's so sweet of you to be
concerned that they have a good time. I know
I've said it a lot, but Americans
are so friendly and hospitable.
I'm sure your relatives will *love* America.
I hope so.
Post by Emma
We always bring back artwork, or framed
photographs of everywhere we go. We have
paintings and drawings of New York now,
which are lovely reminders of our holiday.
Thankyou. We'll be getting out the digital camera. We have
photo-quality paper, the glossy kind, and that should make
good material for memories.
Post by Emma
Just set them loose in a shopping mall, Randy,
and they will have a lovely time.
Everything will be half-price for them since
the exchange rate is now 2 dollars to the pound!
Yes, I thought that. We had the opposite experience when we
visited England. :(
Post by Emma
That all sounds wonderful! A whale watch? Wow! Brilliant!!
And I think a trip to Canada would be perfect.
They seemed to be happy with the idea too. I've never done a
whale watch either, even though they're a regular thing
around here. I have seen whales, just walking across a local
bridge, though.
Post by Emma
Going to the theatre is always nice. I personally
like museums and countryside too, but it depends on
their interests. The things you have planned sound
great to me.
I like the theatre idea. I'm not the evening entertainment
type, but I can be flexible.
Post by Emma
Me too. We just need to get rid of our Labour
government, and then we might have a better
Britain.
I know Tony Blair is popular in the
US, but he's actually been a nightmare here.
Our taxes went through the roof. Nothing he
promised actually happened. More crime,
no border controls. Absolute nightmare.
Sorry, I'm ranting again! :-)...
I think America (and I) like Tony Blair because he has been
so gracious in his relations with the United States. And
I've seen him on TV addressing Parliament, and he seemed to
handle himself so well. However, I've always been more
conservative in my political beliefs. It's been my
understanding that like our Democratic Party, your Labor
Party believes in taxing the rich to feed the poor. The
bottom line is that politicians who make a living promoting
social aid and welfare end up stifling business and the
economy. That I don't like at all. But liberals in our
country are able to change and be flexible in their
relations with the rest of the world. Conservatives tend to
emphasize our own national interest, at the expense of
foreign relations. Actually, these divisions are not always
so clear. The lines between the parties tend to blur, given
the political climate.
Post by Emma
And I wanted to tell you something sort of
funny...
You know I've been feeding the wild birds, well
I've actually stopped for a while, Randy.
And that's because, there was a rather unwelcome
visitor to the bird feeder... a rat! Aaaaaargh!
Ah yes, my 80 year old mother has been experiencing that! ;)
Post by Emma
Now it wasn't that big, and I suppose there is
not a lot I can do about rats in the garden,
but my little girl is having a birthday party
out there soon! If her friends' parents are told
that a rat was dancing around our pond while
the children were eating their birthday tea, we will
never see them again!!
Cats can certainly kill them. But they can kill birds too. A
friend around here has two cats, and he ties bells around
their necks to give the birds a chance to fly off. My mother
actually poisons the rats. She rolls poison up in a food
ball, and actually waits at the window until the rat takes
the bait. She's afraid if she leaves the poison out there
unattended, a local cat will eat the poison and die. This
has been quite effective for her. But she always sees a new
rat eventually.
Post by Emma
So then. What do I do? One wiseguy told me to stick
a party hat on its head and pretend it's the
family pet! Oh, ho-h! :-)
I think it lives in a hole around one of the ponds.
I don't want to kill it. I was going to buy one of
those sonic repellents, but I don't think they
work.
Hmmm... any ideas? How do I persuade ratty to keep
a low profile during the party??
My thought would be to kill the rat. However, maybe it can
be trapped and released far, far away.

This summer I hope will be a time to rebuild my ponds and
bird feeders. While I've been doing my work on the addition,
I've let the property go to the weeds! I caught several deer
in my yard in the last week or so, chomping down on my
garden plants. It's fun watching nature at play, but
sometimes there's too much work managing it! Take care,
randy
Emma
2007-05-30 22:35:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by randy
"Emma"
Post by Emma
That all sounds wonderful! A whale watch? Wow! Brilliant!!
And I think a trip to Canada would be perfect.
They seemed to be happy with the idea too. I've never done a
whale watch either, even though they're a regular thing
around here. I have seen whales, just walking across a local
bridge, though.
Oh, you're so lucky! You live in a wonderful place!
Post by randy
I think America (and I) like Tony Blair because he has been
so gracious in his relations with the United States. And
I've seen him on TV addressing Parliament, and he seemed to
handle himself so well. However, I've always been more
conservative in my political beliefs. It's been my
understanding that like our Democratic Party, your Labor
Party believes in taxing the rich to feed the poor. The
bottom line is that politicians who make a living promoting
social aid and welfare end up stifling business and the
economy. That I don't like at all.
Well yes, traditionally, the Labour party is seen
as the party of taxes. I don't mind paying
taxes for the national health service, and the
welfare state but we've been paying
more and more taxes, but seeing little improvement.
We should be seeing value for money.

I think we disagree a bit about social aid, Randy,
because I do think helping the poor is the job of the
government. I don't think it should be left
to charities, as is often the case in America,
I think.

I don't think it stifles the economy to give
the poorest people in our societies a hand up.
If you were referring to over-generous state
hand-outs, then I would agree, but you seem
to like the status quo in America, and I
do think your system holds the poor down.

We've spoken about this before, but I'm always
staggered when I hear some of the stories
of poverty in the US.
For instance, whole
families living on the streets, including
children.

Homeless families here must be housed by
the local government. And houses which are
uninhabitable are eligible for grants.
Many of your states don't seem to even have that
provision either. So families live in houses
which are without basics like running water.
That sort of thing.

How would it stifle your economy to give them
access to running water out of state funds?
How would it stifle your economy to house
a homeless family out of state funds?
Surely the sooner they are off the streets, the sooner
they can start contributing again.

I still don't understand why there are no
great social campaigners in the US.
Why aren't the religious leaders lobbying
your government? Why aren't there mass
protests on behalf of the poor?

Americans are compassionate individuals,
but you are all quite accepting of a system
which is loaded against the very poor.
I'm still trying to get my head around that
contradiction.

I watch one of your shows called Extreme Makeover
(it must sound as if I watch a lot of TV --
Honestly, I don't! :-), and it makes me cry every
time. Those poor people live in such terrible
conditions. It just wouldn't happen here.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
And I wanted to tell you something sort of
funny...
You know I've been feeding the wild birds, well
I've actually stopped for a while, Randy.
And that's because, there was a rather unwelcome
visitor to the bird feeder... a rat! Aaaaaargh!
Ah yes, my 80 year old mother has been experiencing that! ;)
Post by Emma
Now it wasn't that big, and I suppose there is
not a lot I can do about rats in the garden,
but my little girl is having a birthday party
out there soon! If her friends' parents are told
that a rat was dancing around our pond while
the children were eating their birthday tea, we will
never see them again!!
Cats can certainly kill them. But they can kill birds too. A
friend around here has two cats, and he ties bells around
their necks to give the birds a chance to fly off. My mother
actually poisons the rats. She rolls poison up in a food
ball, and actually waits at the window until the rat takes
the bait. She's afraid if she leaves the poison out there
unattended, a local cat will eat the poison and die. This
has been quite effective for her. But she always sees a new
rat eventually.
Oh no, I couldn't kill them :-( I hear that they
die horribly from poison.

I looked in the gardening groups, and they suggested
catnip. Rats hate the smell of it. Of course, cats
love it, so I'll have every cat in the neighbourhood
in my garden, so it's a difficult choice!
Post by randy
Post by Emma
So then. What do I do? One wiseguy told me to stick
a party hat on its head and pretend it's the
family pet! Oh, ho-h! :-)
I think it lives in a hole around one of the ponds.
I don't want to kill it. I was going to buy one of
those sonic repellents, but I don't think they
work.
Hmmm... any ideas? How do I persuade ratty to keep
a low profile during the party??
My thought would be to kill the rat. However, maybe it can
be trapped and released far, far away.
Now that's an idea...
Post by randy
This summer I hope will be a time to rebuild my ponds and
bird feeders. While I've been doing my work on the addition,
I've let the property go to the weeds! I caught several deer
in my yard in the last week or so, chomping down on my
garden plants. It's fun watching nature at play, but
sometimes there's too much work managing it! Take care,
Oh, I love deer. They're so pretty.

We had a visit from 2 mallard ducks! That
was exciting, and quite amusing, because
they chose the smallest pond, and were swimming
round and round in circles :-)
They always arrived and left together, which
I thought was very sweet. We haven't seen them
for a while now though. Probably scared off
by the rat!
--
***Emma***
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
randy
2007-05-31 16:19:16 UTC
Permalink
"Emma"
randy
Post by Emma
... The bottom line is that politicians who make a living
promoting social aid and welfare end up stifling business
and the economy. That I don't like at all.
Well yes, traditionally, the Labour party is seen
as the party of taxes. I don't mind paying
taxes for the national health service, and the
welfare state but we've been paying
more and more taxes, but seeing little improvement.
We should be seeing value for money.
That's the whole point. Capitalism works when you get
something for your money. You invest money to make more
money. You invest in people to help the economy grow. You
make people happier because that makes them more productive.
(I'm speaking here only in economic terms, not to seem to be
interested in using people only to make money.)
Post by Emma
I think we disagree a bit about social aid, Randy,
because I do think helping the poor is the job of the
government. I don't think it should be left
to charities, as is often the case in America,
I think.
I don't know where you get the idea that American government
is not invested in helping the poor. It only makes sense to
get the poor up and about so that they contribute to, rather
than drain, our financial resources.
Post by Emma
I don't think it stifles the economy to give
the poorest people in our societies a hand up.
If you were referring to over-generous state
hand-outs, then I would agree, but you seem
to like the status quo in America, and I
do think your system holds the poor down.
That's just a political debate Republicans and Democrats are
traditionally engaged in. There's lots of exaggeration in
this respect, because the various political parties are
trying to make a point. But no, the poor are not ignored. We
have social security, we have welfare, and we have lots of
government handouts. Sometimes the biggest problem is that
the poor lack awareness of all that's available to them.
Post by Emma
We've spoken about this before, but I'm always
staggered when I hear some of the stories
of poverty in the US.
For instance, whole
families living on the streets, including
children.
And if I remember correctly, I informed you that this was
not the case. Sure, you're going to find one case out of a
million where you can set that story up for propaganda
purposes in the hope of getting your favorite political
person elected. But for the most part, the only homeless
people you see on the street are mentally disabled people
who are exercising their freedom to not be
institutionalized. If they set up cardboard box houses under
overpasses, or live on 1st street in Seattle, it's only
because they choose to not sleep in a bed in some Christian
mission, or refuse to talk to some social worker or
government counselor who could help them find a means to
live.
Post by Emma
Homeless families here must be housed by
the local government. And houses which are
uninhabitable are eligible for grants.
Many of your states don't seem to even have that
provision either. So families live in houses
which are without basics like running water.
That sort of thing.
I don't know where you get your information. Obviously, it's
propaganda that some political group hopes to benefit from,
or some media organization that makes money sensationalizing
bad news. Government grants are so abundantly available that
just about anybody can apply for them. Books are freely
available in libraries on how to apply for grants for
renovation projects, etc. You are so wrong here! There are
subsidies upon subsides, grants upon grants. Money freely
pours into projects that can be justified as ultimately
producing more value for the dollar. With a little incentive
and a little training just about anybody can earn money and
pay their own bills. The biggest problems are low wages and
a lack of education. We try to err on the side of individual
liberty and self-motivation. Anything less seems to
encourage laziness and lack of self-reliance. But the fact
is, people will always need help. There are a multitude of
learning disabilities, and people simply need help. And not
everybody is self-motivated. So somebody has to do the
social engineering. Somebody has to set up training programs
to enable people to get certain skilled labor jobs that will
be available today as well as tomorrow.
Post by Emma
How would it stifle your economy to give them
access to running water out of state funds?
How would it stifle your economy to house
a homeless family out of state funds?
Surely the sooner they are off the streets, the sooner
they can start contributing again.
We already know this. We're able to do graphs the same way
you do.
Post by Emma
I still don't understand why there are no
great social campaigners in the US.
Why aren't the religious leaders lobbying
your government? Why aren't there mass
protests on behalf of the poor?
Because there aren't massive numbers of poor people. The
number of unemployed people is down under 5 percent, which
is a very good number. It is true, however, that many jobs
don't pay well enough to enable people to manage their bills
well. There have been a number of defaults on bank loans
lately. So money is harder to get than before. Still, I
think about 65 percent of Americans own their own homes.
This is just under the 69 percent of home ownership in the
UK. Actually, many people choose not to own a home, not due
to poverty, but more because of the convenience of leaving
home maintenance to landlords.
Post by Emma
Americans are compassionate individuals,
but you are all quite accepting of a system
which is loaded against the very poor.
I'm still trying to get my head around that
contradiction.
Our political system allows for cyclical adjustments.
There's always going to be deficiencies in our political
system. But your failure to understand that we are a
"welfare state" astounds me. I of course don't expect you to
know and understand the details of a foreign society. But it
astounds me that political propaganda reaches out across the
world just to produce hostility against my cvountry. We see
this all over the world. The Moslem world hates us. The
Communist world hates us. The 3rd World countries hate us.
And yet we spend billions all over the world to help people
get their freedom, to enable them to produce their own
lifestyle and personal happiness. And what do we get for our
investment--nothing but hatred!
Post by Emma
I watch one of your shows called Extreme Makeover
(it must sound as if I watch a lot of TV --
Honestly, I don't! :-), and it makes me cry every
time. Those poor people live in such terrible
conditions. It just wouldn't happen here.
I haven't seen the show. I've seen similar shows where the
show features free help to individuals and families who've
had a hard time putting their home together. I thought that
was a nice sentiment. Some of the people getting helped
quite often have money to begin with, however.
Post by Emma
Oh no, I couldn't kill them :-( I hear that they
die horribly from poison.
Yes, they lay on their back kicking their legs up for hours.
I've seen it. But rats and mice were responsible for the
horrible deaths of literally millions in Europe during the
great plagues of the Middle Ages. I think in the 14th
century 1/3 of Europe died from the Black Death. Rats
carried fleas that bit people and spread this disease
everywhere. I suppose it's either them or us!
Post by Emma
I looked in the gardening groups, and they suggested
catnip. Rats hate the smell of it. Of course, cats
love it, so I'll have every cat in the neighbourhood
in my garden, so it's a difficult choice!
Yes, our cat loves catnip too. But I certainly don't want
cats fighting all over my front and back yards! One cat is
enough for me. One rat is one rat too many, as far as I'm
concerned!
Post by Emma
My thought would be to kill the rat. However, maybe it can
be trapped and released far, far away.
Now that's an idea...
That's how things are dealt with out here. Squirrels are
trapped and released far away. You can't underestimate the
ability of animals to relocate their old habitat--they have
to be taken *far* away!
Post by Emma
Oh, I love deer. They're so pretty.
They really are. I have two neighbors 1/2 mile down the road
who feed a virtual deer herd! I've seen them being fed
with boxes of apples. They're very very cute, but they end
up in my rose garden. They end up eating the branches of my
young fruit trees. Same with ducks. If you let them in,
they're going to take over...
Post by Emma
We had a visit from 2 mallard ducks! That
was exciting, and quite amusing, because
they chose the smallest pond, and were swimming
round and round in circles :-)
They always arrived and left together, which
I thought was very sweet. We haven't seen them
for a while now though. Probably scared off
by the rat!
If mallards weren't so abundantly available, I think they'd
be much more popular than they are. They're gorgeous little
creatures, and very friendly. But they muck up my pond and
grow to large numbers. It's fun if they have little chicks,
who swim in a line after their mother. :)
randy
Emma
2007-05-31 23:19:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by randy
"Emma"
Post by Emma
We've spoken about this before, but I'm always
staggered when I hear some of the stories
of poverty in the US.
For instance, whole
families living on the streets, including
children.
And if I remember correctly, I informed you that this was
not the case. Sure, you're going to find one case out of a
million where you can set that story up for propaganda
purposes in the hope of getting your favorite political
person elected. But for the most part, the only homeless
people you see on the street are mentally disabled people
who are exercising their freedom to not be
institutionalized. If they set up cardboard box houses under
overpasses, or live on 1st street in Seattle, it's only
because they choose to not sleep in a bed in some Christian
mission, or refuse to talk to some social worker or
government counselor who could help them find a means to
live.
We have similar problems here, and we have
some conmen who make a good living out of
begging. So yes, I do accept that not everyone
who is homeless needs to be homeless, and
not everyone is genuine.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
Homeless families here must be housed by
the local government. And houses which are
uninhabitable are eligible for grants.
Many of your states don't seem to even have that
provision either. So families live in houses
which are without basics like running water.
That sort of thing.
I don't know where you get your information. Obviously, it's
propaganda that some political group hopes to benefit from,
or some media organization that makes money sensationalizing
bad news.
But I get this information from the media,
and your own TV programmes!

I mentioned something about it here before, and
nobody denied that some families are reliant
on food parcels from local churches.

Nobody denied that some families are without
basics, like electricity and running water.

Padraic didn't even seem to think that these
are basics at all. Although maybe I
misunderstood him at the time. It did seem
very strange to me, because I do think
he's a caring person.
Post by randy
Government grants are so abundantly available that
just about anybody can apply for them. Books are freely
available in libraries on how to apply for grants for
renovation projects, etc. You are so wrong here! There are
subsidies upon subsides, grants upon grants.
So why do I see American shows highlighting
families whose houses are practically falling
down around their ears? One family was living
in the open, because their house had burned down.
Children were sleeping in a field!
Another family were living on the edge because
they had to decide between renovating their
home and paying for basic medicine for a sick member
of the family.

I get the impression that these are not
isolated cases either, but quite commonplace.

In any case, it would be scandalous here for
children to be sleeping in a field, or for
someone to be unable to afford basic medication.

And I know its true that babies die for lack
of health care in the US.

So that's why I'm confused. A very religious
country like the US should not have these
problems. It doesn't make sense.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
I still don't understand why there are no
great social campaigners in the US.
Why aren't the religious leaders lobbying
your government? Why aren't there mass
protests on behalf of the poor?
Because there aren't massive numbers of poor people. The
number of unemployed people is down under 5 percent, which
is a very good number. It is true, however, that many jobs
don't pay well enough to enable people to manage their bills
well. There have been a number of defaults on bank loans
lately. So money is harder to get than before. Still, I
think about 65 percent of Americans own their own homes.
This is just under the 69 percent of home ownership in the
UK. Actually, many people choose not to own a home, not due
to poverty, but more because of the convenience of leaving
home maintenance to landlords.
I'm not saying it's perfect here, but we do
have safety nets that don't seem to exist
in the US, or it seems to be very hit
and miss as to whether or not someone receives
help.
And yet I've heard Christians say that they
don't want a national health service in
the US because it reminds them of communism!
So they would rather babies died??

This isn't anti-Americanism either, Randy.
I know there are heaps of things that you do
better in the US. You have freedoms
which I realize we don't have to the same
extent. But I think the way you treat
your poor is much worse than anywhere else
in the West. Unless I'm very mistaken.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
Americans are compassionate individuals,
but you are all quite accepting of a system
which is loaded against the very poor.
I'm still trying to get my head around that
contradiction.
Our political system allows for cyclical adjustments.
There's always going to be deficiencies in our political
system. But your failure to understand that we are a
"welfare state" astounds me. I of course don't expect you to
know and understand the details of a foreign society. But it
astounds me that political propaganda reaches out across the
world just to produce hostility against my cvountry. We see
this all over the world. The Moslem world hates us. The
Communist world hates us. The 3rd World countries hate us.
And yet we spend billions all over the world to help people
get their freedom, to enable them to produce their own
lifestyle and personal happiness. And what do we get for our
investment--nothing but hatred!
I think you're reading too much into my
criticisms. I love America. You know that.
My whole family are very pro-America and
always have been.

When Americans criticize Britain for its
state church and class system and diminishing
freedoms, CCTV, etc etc, I don't immediately assume
you all hate us! I just think you are probably
right, and I am arranging to emigrate soon :-)
(only joking! It's actually very nice here!)

You even criticized the Queen for being
too superior and forgetting that she doesn't
own America, or something like that! Did I
get upset?? (....actually, yes, I did!! :-)
--
***Emma***
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
randy
2007-06-03 16:55:23 UTC
Permalink
"Emma"
randy
Post by Emma
We have similar problems here, and we have
some conmen who make a good living out of
begging. So yes, I do accept that not everyone
who is homeless needs to be homeless, and
not everyone is genuine.
Yes, some of these "homeless" are conmen. Years ago I
attended some basketball games, and there was this man who
appeared homeless and played trumpet in the parking lot
"begging money." I heard he made a fortune doing this.

There are also lots of alcoholics who want money to spend on
their "booze." They may or may not actually be homeless.
Post by Emma
But I get this information from the media,
and your own TV programmes!
Emma, most of our network programming is run by those who
feel that liberal propaganda sells better than patriotism. A
"corrupt government" story sells much better than photos of
our troops putting their lives on the line for our country.
The Fox news network is one of the very few television
networks that try to balance this anti-government bias. But
they don't want to be seen as simply propping up the
government either.

Why do you think gossip magazines sell like newspapers? When
I went to England I was surprised at how gossipy some of the
newspapers were, with nude photos and all! Here we call them
gossip magazines, and they aren't at all confused with
actual news stories. We have here in the United States silly
stories about UFOs and steamy sex scandals in little
mazazines like the National Enquirer. None of this would be
confused with real news.
Post by Emma
I mentioned something about it here before, and
nobody denied that some families are reliant
on food parcels from local churches.
That's the way our system works. The Salvation Army supplies
needed food items for anybody who asks with a genuine need.
CBN, with Pat Robertson, mobilizes a fleet of trucks,
sending food supplies into places of great need. He's able
to acquire food that otherwise would be disposed of,
distributing it to those who couldn't pay for it anyway.

Between government welfare and Christian charities I don't
see how people can fail to get their basic needs met! So I
just don't understand all the concern. I am concerned, of
course, that people seem unable to find jobs that pay enough
to get their own needs met. Those are silghtly different
issues though. Incidently, joblessness is way down, and
minimum wage increases are on the way up.
Post by Emma
Nobody denied that some families are without
basics, like electricity and running water.
Honestly, Emma, I don't know *anybody* like this. The only
time this happens is when a storm knocks out the power. We
had a terrible hurricane down in New Orleans, and there has
been some major problems there. That was not, however, due
to government neglect, as is often charged. That was due to
a poorly planned development design with an inadequate levy
system.
Post by Emma
Padraic didn't even seem to think that these
are basics at all. Although maybe I
misunderstood him at the time. It did seem
very strange to me, because I do think
he's a caring person.
I think you misunderstood Padraic. I don't recall the
conversation, though. Out where I live some people generate
their own electricity and hand-dig shallow wells. If you
live in the city, you get city water and city electricity.
But power grids extend well out into the rural areas. If you
live way out in the woods, you can supplement your heating
needs by cutting up dead wood.
Post by Emma
So why do I see American shows highlighting
families whose houses are practically falling
down around their ears? One family was living
in the open, because their house had burned down.
Children were sleeping in a field!
Another family were living on the edge because
they had to decide between renovating their
home and paying for basic medicine for a sick member
of the family.
Government-sponsored health programs are a hot political
issue--that's why. Of course there's an emergency need when
a house burns down! When that happens, and a family goes
homeless, the news usually shows up on the front page of our
local newspapers. If relatives don't help, or if the Red
Cross doesn't help, then there are lots of compassionate
individuals and groups who step up to help families in need,
particularly when there are children involved. In fact, lots
of people get all emotional over lost pet stories, and want
to adopt any abused dog they see on television!
Post by Emma
So that's why I'm confused. A very religious
country like the US should not have these
problems. It doesn't make sense.
It's *propaganda*, Emma! I doubt there are any more cases of
these "unfortunates" than you find in any other country,
including your own country. Our free enterprise system is
bolstered by government services. In fact, more socialized
countries like your own tend to increase poverty, in my
opinion. A free market system needs to be truly free in
order to prosper. And prosperity will trickle down to the
labor class if the government applies the right kinds of
regulations to big business. Taxing businesses heavily has a
very negative effect on national prosperity, and laborers
will suffer in the long run, I believe.
Post by Emma
I'm not saying it's perfect here, but we do
have safety nets that don't seem to exist
in the US, or it seems to be very hit
and miss as to whether or not someone receives
help...
We have similar "safety nets." Years ago, when I first met
my wife, she seemed to always want to rely on the government
for everything. It discouraged her from taking risks. I
think I can safely say now that the free system we've
labored under has not harmed us at all, but has rather
encouraged us to "pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps."
Post by Emma
And yet I've heard Christians say that they
don't want a national health service in
the US because it reminds them of communism!
So they would rather babies died??
I suppose you're going to have to give me statistics to
prove your case. I just don't see this happening. My mother
worked in a government social program, and I've never heard
the kinds of things you're describing. On the contrary, I
heard the opposite from her, that people often put in
fraudulent claims or felt the government owed them for their
own misdeeds.
Post by Emma
This isn't anti-Americanism either, Randy.
I know there are heaps of things that you do
better in the US. You have freedoms
which I realize we don't have to the same
extent. But I think the way you treat
your poor is much worse than anywhere else
in the West. Unless I'm very mistaken.
You're very mistaken, I think.
Post by Emma
I think you're reading too much into my
criticisms. I love America. You know that.
My whole family are very pro-America and
always have been.
That's sweet. Thankyou!
Post by Emma
When Americans criticize Britain for its
state church and class system and diminishing
freedoms, CCTV, etc etc, I don't immediately assume
you all hate us! I just think you are probably
right, and I am arranging to emigrate soon :-)
(only joking! It's actually very nice here!)
Americans have always like Britain. Clearly you know this!
It wouldn't be inappropriate for us, though, to speak our
mind.
Post by Emma
You even criticized the Queen for being
too superior and forgetting that she doesn't
own America, or something like that! Did I
get upset?? (....actually, yes, I did!! :-)
In America we don't take to people thinking they're somehow
superior to others, whether it be a pleasant queen like your
own or some evil dictator. We like to think that only God is
a step above ordinary people! ;)
randy
Emma
2007-06-03 21:28:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by randy
"Emma"
Post by Emma
But I get this information from the media,
and your own TV programmes!
Emma, most of our network programming is run by those who
feel that liberal propaganda sells better than patriotism. A
"corrupt government" story sells much better than photos of
our troops putting their lives on the line for our country.
The Fox news network is one of the very few television
networks that try to balance this anti-government bias. But
they don't want to be seen as simply propping up the
government either.
Why do you think gossip magazines sell like newspapers? When
I went to England I was surprised at how gossipy some of the
newspapers were, with nude photos and all! Here we call them
gossip magazines, and they aren't at all confused with
actual news stories. We have here in the United States silly
stories about UFOs and steamy sex scandals in little
mazazines like the National Enquirer. None of this would be
confused with real news.
Well obviously I don't believe everything I hear or
read, but some things are reported in the more
serious press, and then they're confirmed by your
own TV programmes and even by posters here.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
I mentioned something about it here before, and
nobody denied that some families are reliant
on food parcels from local churches.
That's the way our system works. The Salvation Army supplies
needed food items for anybody who asks with a genuine need.
CBN, with Pat Robertson, mobilizes a fleet of trucks,
sending food supplies into places of great need. He's able
to acquire food that otherwise would be disposed of,
distributing it to those who couldn't pay for it anyway.
OK, and that's all very good, but I'm sure some
people must feel degraded and humiliated by having
to survive on charity. They shouldn't feel that way,
but I'm sure many do, and it's understandable.

Also, relying on charities
is not a very secure existence. What happens when
the help has run out? Or what happens to those who
don't like to take help from charities?

And Randy, on the one hand you are denying that my
information is correct, and on the other hand you
are confirming it, by telling me that charities do
have to bail out the poor.

Charities helped in this way in most Western countries
before the war, but America must be one of the few
countries in the West today, whose poor still rely
on this type of help.

So help for the poor is not assured in the US.
That was my point. It's not a good country in which
to be poor.
Do you agree?
Post by randy
Post by Emma
Nobody denied that some families are without
basics, like electricity and running water.
Honestly, Emma, I don't know *anybody* like this. The only
time this happens is when a storm knocks out the power. We
had a terrible hurricane down in New Orleans, and there has
been some major problems there. That was not, however, due
to government neglect, as is often charged. That was due to
a poorly planned development design with an inadequate levy
system.
Post by Emma
Padraic didn't even seem to think that these
are basics at all. Although maybe I
misunderstood him at the time. It did seem
very strange to me, because I do think
he's a caring person.
I think you misunderstood Padraic. I don't recall the
conversation, though. Out where I live some people generate
their own electricity and hand-dig shallow wells. If you
live in the city, you get city water and city electricity.
But power grids extend well out into the rural areas. If you
live way out in the woods, you can supplement your heating
needs by cutting up dead wood.
Well this is what Padraic told me:

QUOTE:
We hear about Ethiopia and
Somalia and Bangladesh all the time.
Few people know that within a few
hours drive from DC lies one of the poorest parts
of the US (Appalachia).
[.....] Appalachia was (and still is) heavily
into coal mining. Mining companies were never
particularly humanitarian in nature so mine workers
started out poor and uneducated and often ended up that way
too. As well as having black lung. The
mining industry has suffered a considerable decline
(we no longer use steam trains or coal fired steamships)
and the people in that region had no options open to them.

It's also a very isolated region, physically and culturally.
Lots of places have no running water (apart from streams)
or electricity.
Physically, they're in the mountains and there isn't a whole
lot of development. There are a lot of little cooms and
valleys that have only dirt roads and few social services.
END QUOTE
Post by randy
Post by Emma
So why do I see American shows highlighting
families whose houses are practically falling
down around their ears? One family was living
in the open, because their house had burned down.
Children were sleeping in a field!
Another family were living on the edge because
they had to decide between renovating their
home and paying for basic medicine for a sick member
of the family.
Government-sponsored health programs are a hot political
issue--that's why. Of course there's an emergency need when
a house burns down! When that happens, and a family goes
homeless, the news usually shows up on the front page of our
local newspapers. If relatives don't help, or if the Red
Cross doesn't help, then there are lots of compassionate
individuals and groups who step up to help families in need,
particularly when there are children involved.
But to me, that is terrible. Why should your citizens
have to suffer that sort of humiliation and
degradation just because they have suffered a
misfortune? Why are they forced to advertize their
suffering and rely on the generosity and compassion
of strangers?

If they have paid their taxes and contributed to
society in the past, then society should pay
to help them in times of crisis. There should be
no need to crawl to the press. Why force people
to beg?
I think that we are all responsible for our
fellow citizens.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
I'm not saying it's perfect here, but we do
have safety nets that don't seem to exist
in the US, or it seems to be very hit
and miss as to whether or not someone receives
help...
We have similar "safety nets." Years ago, when I first met
my wife, she seemed to always want to rely on the government
for everything. It discouraged her from taking risks. I
think I can safely say now that the free system we've
labored under has not harmed us at all, but has rather
encouraged us to "pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps."
I think we do have an underclass who really don't
want to work, and who do milk the benefit system for
all its worth, but I would rather risk that than
have the really needy living in destitution.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
And yet I've heard Christians say that they
don't want a national health service in
the US because it reminds them of communism!
So they would rather babies died??
I suppose you're going to have to give me statistics to
prove your case. I just don't see this happening. My mother
worked in a government social program, and I've never heard
the kinds of things you're describing. On the contrary, I
heard the opposite from her, that people often put in
fraudulent claims or felt the government owed them for their
own misdeeds.
I'm not sure what you mean.
What statistics do you want me to provide?
Post by randy
Post by Emma
I think you're reading too much into my
criticisms. I love America. You know that.
My whole family are very pro-America and
always have been.
That's sweet. Thankyou!
Post by Emma
When Americans criticize Britain for its
state church and class system and diminishing
freedoms, CCTV, etc etc, I don't immediately assume
you all hate us! I just think you are probably
right, and I am arranging to emigrate soon :-)
(only joking! It's actually very nice here!)
Americans have always like Britain. Clearly you know this!
It wouldn't be inappropriate for us, though, to speak our
mind.
Why is it anti-American to criticize America,
but it's okay to criticize Britain?
Post by randy
Post by Emma
You even criticized the Queen for being
too superior and forgetting that she doesn't
own America, or something like that! Did I
get upset?? (....actually, yes, I did!! :-)
In America we don't take to people thinking they're somehow
superior to others, whether it be a pleasant queen like your
own or some evil dictator. We like to think that only God is
a step above ordinary people! ;)
Well then, if I am anti-American for criticizing
America's lack of social care, then -- from
what you have just said -- you are anti-British!

Bloomin' anti-monarchist Americans! Bloomin'
hard-hearted, anti-British, anti-monarchist,
we-don't-bow-to-anyone republican Americans!

Of course the Queen is above ordinary people!
She's the Queen!!!!
--
***Emma***
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
Padraic Brown
2007-06-03 23:56:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Emma
Post by randy
"Emma"
Post by Emma
Padraic didn't even seem to think that these
are basics at all. Although maybe I
misunderstood him at the time. It did seem
very strange to me, because I do think
he's a caring person.
I think you misunderstood Padraic. I don't recall the
conversation, though. Out where I live some people generate
their own electricity and hand-dig shallow wells. If you
live in the city, you get city water and city electricity.
But power grids extend well out into the rural areas. If you
live way out in the woods, you can supplement your heating
needs by cutting up dead wood.
We hear about Ethiopia and
Somalia and Bangladesh all the time.
Few people know that within a few
hours drive from DC lies one of the poorest parts
of the US (Appalachia).
[.....] Appalachia was (and still is) heavily
into coal mining. Mining companies were never
particularly humanitarian in nature so mine workers
started out poor and uneducated and often ended up that way
too. As well as having black lung. The
mining industry has suffered a considerable decline
(we no longer use steam trains or coal fired steamships)
and the people in that region had no options open to them.
It's also a very isolated region, physically and culturally.
Lots of places have no running water (apart from streams)
or electricity.
Physically, they're in the mountains and there isn't a whole
lot of development. There are a lot of little cooms and
valleys that have only dirt roads and few social services.
END QUOTE
Right. So, how do you arrive at me thinking that things like running
water or electricity aren't basics? Or that it's not a bad thing that
we've got folkd in these situations?
Post by Emma
Post by randy
Post by Emma
And yet I've heard Christians say that they
don't want a national health service in
the US because it reminds them of communism!
So they would rather babies died??
I suppose you're going to have to give me statistics to
prove your case. I just don't see this happening. My mother
worked in a government social program, and I've never heard
the kinds of things you're describing. On the contrary, I
heard the opposite from her, that people often put in
fraudulent claims or felt the government owed them for their
own misdeeds.
I'm not sure what you mean.
What statistics do you want me to provide?
Show him that the US is as bad as you've been led to believe, in other
words.
Post by Emma
Of course the Queen is above ordinary people!
She's the Queen!!!!
Right you are! She's at the top of your public assistance programme!
;))))))

For what it's worth, I didn't understand Randy to be saying you're
anti-American for criticising America.

Padraic
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
randy
2007-06-04 06:56:05 UTC
Permalink
"Padraic Brown"
Emma
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by Emma
Of course the Queen is above ordinary people!
She's the Queen!!!!
Right you are! She's at the top of your public assistance
programme!
;))))))
;)
Post by Padraic Brown
For what it's worth, I didn't understand Randy to be
saying you're
anti-American for criticising America.
I wasn't. Thankyou!
randy
randy
2007-06-04 07:45:51 UTC
Permalink
"Emma"
randy
Post by Emma
Well obviously I don't believe everything I hear or
read, but some things are reported in the more
serious press, and then they're confirmed by your
own TV programmes and even by posters here.
"Confirmed by posters here?" ;)
I think you need to do a bit better than that!

"Confirmed by our own TV programs?" ;)
The whole point I was making was that the majority of TV
programs are inspired and directed by those with a liberal
agenda. They tend to be anti-Republican, anti-military, and
somwhat socialistic. Respectable businesses make money using
good business sense and Christian moral principles. But less
respectable businesses, including some of those in the media
industry, capitalize on a more liberal morality, taking
advantage of human addictions to sex, violence, and the
occult. I'm not surprised that many media companies support
liberal causes and oppose the Republican Party, which has
allied itself to some degree with conservative Christian
morality.
Post by Emma
...I'm sure some
people must feel degraded and humiliated by having
to survive on charity. They shouldn't feel that way,
but I'm sure many do, and it's understandable.
I think you're missing the point. Charity isn't meant to be
a life-long system of support. People are supposed to
support themselves. But we can all find ourselves in trouble
at times, and in need of a "handout." Nothing to be ashamed
of.
Post by Emma
Also, relying on charities
is not a very secure existence. What happens when
the help has run out? Or what happens to those who
don't like to take help from charities?
In emergencies, people might need neighbors to help rebuild
a burn-down barn. Once the barn is rebuilt, the owner
doesn't need the charity anymore!
Post by Emma
And Randy, on the one hand you are denying that my
information is correct, and on the other hand you
are confirming it, by telling me that charities do
have to bail out the poor.
Everybody needs bailing out at times! So what? People
default on loans all the time. They need forgiveness and a
fresh start. This often is the case that even those with
poor credit in time are given loans again. Bailouts like
this should *not* be available on a regular basis!
Post by Emma
Charities helped in this way in most Western countries
before the war, but America must be one of the few
countries in the West today, whose poor still rely
on this type of help.
They don't! We have welfare. We have Social Security. We
have other government programs that help the poor and needy.
Post by Emma
So help for the poor is not assured in the US.
That was my point. It's not a good country in which
to be poor.
Do you agree?
No I don't! The reason we don't provide government
assistance to assure that all will have a house and food is
because this is something people should work for, and not
just be given to them, indiscriminately. It would be unfair
to take my tax money and give it to a drunk just because you
feel he has equal rights to a house as I do. In our country,
there needs to be some accountability for how a person
chooses to live. If they are irresponsible and get drunk,
and show little concern about fire hazards, they're going to
have their house burn down, and others are not going to
rebuild it for them. If it is truly a matter of "bad luck,"
then people will be there to help rebuild. So a person has
to "reap what he sows." I don't want to earn a living just
to pay for worthless people to have what I have, so that I
have less than I deserve and they have more than they
deserve. That's socialism, and it's wrong!
Post by Emma
I think we do have an underclass who really don't
want to work, and who do milk the benefit system for
all its worth, but I would rather risk that than
have the really needy living in destitution.
As I said, we do have a "safety net" for the needy living in
destitution. Why do you ignore this point?
Post by Emma
I'm not sure what you mean.
What statistics do you want me to provide?
What is your statistical proof that the U.S. has more people
living in absolute poverty than the U.K.? And if the U.S.
has more people living in absolute poverty, what statistics
could possibly show if these people living in poverty got
there due to extensive jail time, drug abuse, or alcoholism?
I agree that all people deserve a basic living wage, even if
it's cleaning trash off of the highways. But granting all
people any kind of assets or wealth is wrong, unless it is a
genuine emergency that has happened to decent folks.
Post by Emma
Why is it anti-American to criticize America,
but it's okay to criticize Britain?
I don't think you're antiAmerican for criticizing America.
You might actually be right on this matter. I'm just
challenging your facts based on my own personal experience
living here in America. Neither do I think anybody who
criticizes Britain is antiBritish. What makes someone
antiAmerican or antiBritish is a consistent hatred that goes
along with the criticism. I don't think of you as hateful
towards America. I think your'e just concerned to ensure all
people are helped everywhere. Nothing wrong with this.
Post by Emma
Bloomin' anti-monarchist Americans! Bloomin'
hard-hearted, anti-British, anti-monarchist,
we-don't-bow-to-anyone republican Americans!
Of course the Queen is above ordinary people!
She's the Queen!!!!
Where's the smiley face? ;)
randy
Emma
2007-06-04 18:08:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by randy
"Emma"
randy
Post by Emma
Well obviously I don't believe everything I hear or
read, but some things are reported in the more
serious press, and then they're confirmed by your
own TV programmes and even by posters here.
"Confirmed by posters here?" ;)
I think you need to do a bit better than that!
"Confirmed by our own TV programs?" ;)
Well where should I get my information other
than via the media and from those who live
there?
Post by randy
The whole point I was making was that the majority of TV
programs are inspired and directed by those with a liberal
agenda. They tend to be anti-Republican, anti-military, and
somwhat socialistic.
Extreme Makeover is anti-Republican, anti-military
and somewhat socialist? What's wrong with
being somewhat socialist anyway? It's just
a different point of view.

Anyway, families in the US apply to this programme,
and their circumstances become part of the show.
Now I know it's supposed
to pull on the heartstrings (and it does an excellent
job of that), but I can't believe that they pretend
for instance, a family has autistic children and are about to
be made homeless, if that situation didn't exist
in the US.

Autistic children wouldn't be put out on the streets
here, so a show would never be able to pretend that
sort of scenario was about to happen. It wouldn't be
believed, and there would be questions in Parliament
if anyone suggested it was about to happen to a
British family. It would be a huge scandal.

But American shows are able to give case after case
of poverty stricken families suffering
terrible hardships, and I'm not aware that
it creates a stir in your government.

So although I am aware that I could be accused
of being gullible, for the reasons I mention
above, I do think there is some truth behind
it.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
...I'm sure some
people must feel degraded and humiliated by having
to survive on charity. They shouldn't feel that way,
but I'm sure many do, and it's understandable.
I think you're missing the point. Charity isn't meant to be
a life-long system of support. People are supposed to
support themselves. But we can all find ourselves in trouble
at times, and in need of a "handout." Nothing to be ashamed
of.
I agree, but if that help is not assured
by the state, then you are making people's
wellbeing subject to to the generosity
of others, and most people can't help
but see that as demeaning and a horribly
insecure type of existence.

On the other hand, if they have contributed
to the state in the past, then they can
take help from the state when they need it.
In this way, they feel that
they are only taking out what they paid in.
It's their own money which they are accessing.
So it restores a sense of self-worth.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
Also, relying on charities
is not a very secure existence. What happens when
the help has run out? Or what happens to those who
don't like to take help from charities?
In emergencies, people might need neighbors to help rebuild
a burn-down barn. Once the barn is rebuilt, the owner
doesn't need the charity anymore!
Well let's hope they get along with their
neighbours. And that those neighbours are
in a situation to be able to help.
It all sounds a bit dodgy to me.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
And Randy, on the one hand you are denying that my
information is correct, and on the other hand you
are confirming it, by telling me that charities do
have to bail out the poor.
Everybody needs bailing out at times! So what? People
default on loans all the time. They need forgiveness and a
fresh start. This often is the case that even those with
poor credit in time are given loans again. Bailouts like
this should *not* be available on a regular basis!
In which case, there will be people who will be left
without any help at all, because some do meet with
regular misfortune.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
Charities helped in this way in most Western countries
before the war, but America must be one of the few
countries in the West today, whose poor still rely
on this type of help.
They don't! We have welfare. We have Social Security. We
have other government programs that help the poor and needy.
But you don't have what I mean by welfare, because
you rely on charities to pick up the pieces in many
cases.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
So help for the poor is not assured in the US.
That was my point. It's not a good country in which
to be poor.
Do you agree?
No I don't! The reason we don't provide government
assistance to assure that all will have a house and food is
because this is something people should work for, and not
just be given to them, indiscriminately.
It would be unfair
to take my tax money and give it to a drunk just because you
feel he has equal rights to a house as I do. In our country,
there needs to be some accountability for how a person
chooses to live. If they are irresponsible and get drunk,
and show little concern about fire hazards, they're going to
have their house burn down, and others are not going to
rebuild it for them. If it is truly a matter of "bad luck,"
then people will be there to help rebuild. So a person has
to "reap what he sows." I don't want to earn a living just
to pay for worthless people to have what I have, so that I
have less than I deserve and they have more than they
deserve. That's socialism, and it's wrong!
Well I disagree. I don't want to throw the family
of a drunkard onto the streets. I want that family
to have a house and food on the table. There will
always be feckless individuals, but their children
should not suffer.
We are responsible for the drunkard, and the criminal,
and the pregnant teenager, and everyone else who
is a citizen.

I am not responsible for foreigners. So I do
feel resentful when a lot of foreigners arrive and
have immediate access to housing and benefits.
They are not our responsibility. But anyone who
is a British citizen is our responsibility.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
I think we do have an underclass who really don't
want to work, and who do milk the benefit system for
all its worth, but I would rather risk that than
have the really needy living in destitution.
As I said, we do have a "safety net" for the needy living in
destitution. Why do you ignore this point?
Because you told me that charities do that.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
I'm not sure what you mean.
What statistics do you want me to provide?
What is your statistical proof that the U.S. has more people
living in absolute poverty than the U.K.? And if the U.S.
has more people living in absolute poverty, what statistics
could possibly show if these people living in poverty got
there due to extensive jail time, drug abuse, or alcoholism?
I agree that all people deserve a basic living wage, even if
it's cleaning trash off of the highways. But granting all
people any kind of assets or wealth is wrong, unless it is a
genuine emergency that has happened to decent folks.
This is a left wing point of view:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1712965,00.html

I'm usually a bit right-wing, but on this issue,
I am not in agreement with the right wing press.

The Times had an alternative viewpoint. They basically
said that your government is right to withdraw
help for those at the bottom of the pile.
But they conveniently forget to mention the suffering
this has caused in many cases.
It was a hard-hearted viewpoint IMO, and I can't agree
with it.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
Why is it anti-American to criticize America,
but it's okay to criticize Britain?
I don't think you're antiAmerican for criticizing America.
You might actually be right on this matter. I'm just
challenging your facts based on my own personal experience
living here in America. Neither do I think anybody who
criticizes Britain is antiBritish. What makes someone
antiAmerican or antiBritish is a consistent hatred that goes
along with the criticism. I don't think of you as hateful
towards America. I think your'e just concerned to ensure all
people are helped everywhere. Nothing wrong with this.
OK. I misunderstood you then.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
Bloomin' anti-monarchist Americans! Bloomin'
hard-hearted, anti-British, anti-monarchist,
we-don't-bow-to-anyone republican Americans!
Of course the Queen is above ordinary people!
She's the Queen!!!!
Where's the smiley face? ;)
randy
Oh....here you go... :-)
--
***Emma***
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
randy
2007-06-06 17:28:34 UTC
Permalink
"Emma"
randy
Post by Emma
Post by randy
"Confirmed by our own TV programs?" ;)
Well where should I get my information other
than via the media and from those who live
there?
Well ME, of course! ;)

Really, you can get better information from material
available on the net or just by being aware of the political
angles. I'm not trying to eliminate any source of
information, including leftwing media sources. I just want
you to be aware that there are alterior motives involved.
Post by Emma
Post by randy
The whole point I was making was that the majority of TV
programs are inspired and directed by those with a liberal
agenda. They tend to be anti-Republican, anti-military,
and
somwhat socialistic.
Extreme Makeover is anti-Republican, anti-military
and somewhat socialist? What's wrong with
being somewhat socialist anyway? It's just
a different point of view.
I haven't seen Extreme Makeover. I'm just suspicious.

I'm not entirely Republican myself, and I do favor some
socialist programs. Nothing wrong with these things. But
these issues are often radicalized and then propagated as if
they are facts. Or they are embedded in what appears to be
neutral programming. Just check the latest movies coming out
of Hollywood. I'll bet you find every current leftwing issue
there, set in a relatively "innocent" storyline. You'll
probably find "global warming," immigration amnesty, as well
as pro-homosexuality. It's not wrong to use current issues
to underlie your movie plot. But it's naive to not be aware
of how you're being manipulated.

The idea of extreme poverty in the US can be manipulated by
either leftwing or rightwing political interests.
Conservatives want to believe that US workers are being
pushed aside by illegal immigrants who are "stealing" away
American jobs and American money. On the Left, there is the
concern that illegals need to be treated fairly and with
decency, so that they can vote Democrat in the next
election! ;) Taking a stand for minorities translates into
political support from all minorities who seek government
support and government help.
Post by Emma
Anyway, families in the US apply to this programme,
and their circumstances become part of the show.
Now I know it's supposed
to pull on the heartstrings (and it does an excellent
job of that), but I can't believe that they pretend
for instance, a family has autistic children and are about
to
be made homeless, if that situation didn't exist
in the US.
The demand for medical assistance from the government is a
no win situation, as far as I'm concerned. At what point do
you draw the line in your demand for medical treatment? I've
personally witnessed a program that helped severely retarded
people. They were put up in posh apartments alone with only
the help of nursing assistants, under the guise that they
were being helped back into society. In this way, instead of
being isolated and alienated, they are,
supposedly, restored to society and helped to become
productive working citizens. What a sham!

These people need love and attention. But they don't need to
be forced into a situation in which they cannot possibly
succeed. Yet these kinds of programs create jobs for people
who become loyal to the program and perhaps to the political
party that created that program. We shouldn't be pulled by
our heart strings to the point we lose all rationality!

And what about people with severe medical problems, a fatal
form of cancer, or kidney failure? Do you spend millions of
taxpayers' dollars just to extend the life of these people
just a few months or a few years? At what point is human
life worth extending?
Post by Emma
Autistic children wouldn't be put out on the streets
here, so a show would never be able to pretend that
sort of scenario was about to happen. It wouldn't be
believed, and there would be questions in Parliament
if anyone suggested it was about to happen to a
British family. It would be a huge scandal.
Retarded children deserve as much help as the family can
deliver. But nobody should expect all of society to fund the
"right" of this child to live out a normal life with all of
the comforts and enjoyments that all other citizens enjoy.
Unfortunate incidents and tragedies force us to accept
difficult circumstances, and we should do it nobly, without
expecting special help from everybody else.
Post by Emma
But American shows are able to give case after case
of poverty stricken families suffering
terrible hardships, and I'm not aware that
it creates a stir in your government.
If there is no stir in our government, that should be a clue
for you that the issues are not as large as the show makes
them. After all, our government is a republic, and our
Congress represents the interests of most all the people, if
not all the people! If there is little panic over the show,
it's probably because the show is sensationalized, and
represents only half-truths.
Post by Emma
So although I am aware that I could be accused
of being gullible, for the reasons I mention
above, I do think there is some truth behind
it.
That's the beauty about shows like these. Some truths are
involved, and need to be heard. We shouldn't ever dismiss
these kinds of concerns. There are always problems we have
to face, but as you said, we shouldn't be gullible either.
Post by Emma
Post by randy
...Charity isn't meant to be
a life-long system of support. People are supposed to
support themselves. But we can all find ourselves in
trouble
at times, and in need of a "handout." Nothing to be
ashamed
of.
I agree, but if that help is not assured
by the state, then you are making people's
wellbeing subject to to the generosity
of others, and most people can't help
but see that as demeaning and a horribly
insecure type of existence.
Emma, only God Himself can guarantee peace and security to
anybody! Not even the State can ensure that people can avoid
misfortunes that nobody can adequately address financially.
Our recent problem with New Orleands is an example.
Hurricanes are an act of God, and no amount of blaming the
government can overcome problems caused by these kinds of
realities. When people look to the State for all their
needs, they begin to blame the State when their needs aren't
met. They simply can't face the reality that things happen.

Some people feel justified in taking advantage of the
government with the notion that the government has let them
down. Some people live on government assistance, feeling
that the ultimate skill in life involves learning how to
"qualify" for government assistance. Have people like this
forgotten how to get educated and look for a job?
Post by Emma
On the other hand, if they have contributed
to the state in the past, then they can
take help from the state when they need it.
In this way, they feel that
they are only taking out what they paid in.
It's their own money which they are accessing.
So it restores a sense of self-worth.
We *have* this assistance, Emma! We have a welfare State,
and we have Social Security. We have Medicaid, and we have
all kinds of federal programs to help those who are poor and
have trouble raising their kids on their own. There are
child-care programs, school lunch programs; there's free
education for everybody. There's help with medical bills,
etc. etc.
Post by Emma
Post by randy
....We have welfare. We have Social Security. We
have other government programs that help the poor and
needy.
But you don't have what I mean by welfare, because
you rely on charities to pick up the pieces in many
cases.
Charities and government programs complement each other. One
doesn't negate the other. Charities help in special
circumstances, in tragic "acts of God." But government helps
to equalize the playing field between rich and poor. It is
the job of government, I feel, to keep any class from
dominating the other. Free business needs to be protected,
as well as the right of people to participate in their
government and benefit from their government. And people
need to be free from the overwhelming power of wealthy
interests.

I don't believe the government can play God. It can't
guarantee every need or desire in every individual will be
met. That would absolutely bankrupt the system. Just as bad,
this kind of system creates a system of dependency and
irresponsibility. People begin to claim their "rights" to
have everyone else pay for things they say they need. We
need to leave providence in the hands of God. Nobody can
guarantee the health and happiness of a society. That can
come only by responsible living.

Yes, somebody has to balance out the disparities between
rich and poor. Government social programs can do this. But
it would be a bad thing to bankrupt a system that is vital
to maintaining this kind of fairness in our society. Neither
would it be fair to make the rich finance the desires of
irresponsible, worthless people who simply want to live on
the dole.
Post by Emma
Well I disagree. I don't want to throw the family
of a drunkard onto the streets. I want that family
to have a house and food on the table. There will
always be feckless individuals, but their children
should not suffer.
We are responsible for the drunkard, and the criminal,
and the pregnant teenager, and everyone else who
is a citizen.
There will always be victims in the families of
irresponsible people. Bailing out every person's bad
judgment in choosing a spouse is a bad idea. Bailing out
every woman who decides to get pregnant out of wedlock is a
bad idea. Yes, somebody needs to pick up the pieces of
mismanagement in these kinds of families. Society has to
pick up the check, to some degree. But the money needs to be
clearly directed at remedies as well as aid. And the bad
behavior must never be encouraged.

I'm not speaking out of inexperience here. I know personally
of a lady who has gotten pregnant a number of times without
any means of caring for the children. She simply lets the
children be fostered out or adopted, while she continues in
her alcoholic, drug-dependant life. Her kids all have
disabilities. One of them I know has fetal-alcohol
syndrome--I know, it's my grandchild.

But this woman just goes on living on government assitance,
and either lands her boyfriends in jail or herself in
jail--all at government expense. It got so costly to keep
one of her boyfriends under benefits that the immigration
authorities simply expelled him from the country. I know--it
was my stepson.
Post by Emma
I am not responsible for foreigners. So I do
feel resentful when a lot of foreigners arrive and
have immediate access to housing and benefits.
They are not our responsibility. But anyone who
is a British citizen is our responsibility.
Then I'm glad you got my stepson back in Britain! Now you
have to pay for him. He ran up quite a bill while here in
the States. He had all of his medical care taken care of. He
got drunk, and got hit over the head with a frying pan. He
fell into a fire. He got shot with an AK47. All of his care
was at government expense. He ran up a list of petty
misdemeanors, including driving without a license, driving
drunk, fighting with police officers, with his girlfriends,
and with others. The court costs ran up quite a bill. But
again, our government picked up the tab. But now that he's
back in England you and your government are quite free to
pay for him, Emma. He hasn't worked hardly a day since he
got back to England!
;)
Post by Emma
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1712965,00.html
I'll check it out... Really, Emma, I'm on the same page with
you in terms of your concern for the victims of unfortunate
circumstance. But I think your system and our system is a
bit different. Your social programs provides a place to live
and barely enough to eat. Our programs are apparently more
difficult to track, and many people take advantage of it.
Many get fat off it, and nobody seems the wiser...
randy
Emma
2007-06-07 09:06:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by randy
Post by Emma
Extreme Makeover is anti-Republican, anti-military
and somewhat socialist? What's wrong with
being somewhat socialist anyway? It's just
a different point of view.
I haven't seen Extreme Makeover. I'm just suspicious.
Well please watch it oneday, and tell me
if it's accurate.
I have it on DVD, and I can't get much beyond
the first five minutes without crying! :-(
Post by randy
I'm not entirely Republican myself, and I do favor some
socialist programs. Nothing wrong with these things. But
these issues are often radicalized and then propagated as if
they are facts. Or they are embedded in what appears to be
neutral programming. Just check the latest movies coming out
of Hollywood. I'll bet you find every current leftwing issue
there, set in a relatively "innocent" storyline. You'll
probably find "global warming," immigration amnesty, as well
as pro-homosexuality. It's not wrong to use current issues
to underlie your movie plot. But it's naive to not be aware
of how you're being manipulated.
Yes, I know what you mean, because the BBC is a bit left
wing, and it generally films in working class
areas.
Post by randy
The demand for medical assistance from the government is a
no win situation, as far as I'm concerned. At what point do
you draw the line in your demand for medical treatment? I've
personally witnessed a program that helped severely retarded
people. They were put up in posh apartments alone with only
the help of nursing assistants, under the guise that they
were being helped back into society. In this way, instead of
being isolated and alienated, they are,
supposedly, restored to society and helped to become
productive working citizens. What a sham!
These people need love and attention. But they don't need to
be forced into a situation in which they cannot possibly
succeed. Yet these kinds of programs create jobs for people
who become loyal to the program and perhaps to the political
party that created that program. We shouldn't be pulled by
our heart strings to the point we lose all rationality!
And what about people with severe medical problems, a fatal
form of cancer, or kidney failure? Do you spend millions of
taxpayers' dollars just to extend the life of these people
just a few months or a few years? At what point is human
life worth extending?
There are lots of moral dilemmas, but I was
citing a particularly extreme case where autistic
children were at risk of being made homeless.

I don't see any moral dilemma there, because
they should not be made homeless. Full stop.
Vulnerable families should be automatically re-housed.
If you don't have that policy in America, then that
is wrong IMO.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
Autistic children wouldn't be put out on the streets
here, so a show would never be able to pretend that
sort of scenario was about to happen. It wouldn't be
believed, and there would be questions in Parliament
if anyone suggested it was about to happen to a
British family. It would be a huge scandal.
Retarded children deserve as much help as the family can
deliver. But nobody should expect all of society to fund the
"right" of this child to live out a normal life with all of
the comforts and enjoyments that all other citizens enjoy.
Yes, yes, yes!!!
That's exactly what we should do.

If the welfare state doesn't help the
most vulnerable, then who does it help?
Post by randy
Unfortunate incidents and tragedies force us to accept
difficult circumstances, and we should do it nobly, without
expecting special help from everybody else.
That's the sink or swim attitude that you
keep denying there is in America.

But in a welfare state, we protect our citizens from
misfortunes and tragedies.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
But American shows are able to give case after case
of poverty stricken families suffering
terrible hardships, and I'm not aware that
it creates a stir in your government.
If there is no stir in our government, that should be a clue
for you that the issues are not as large as the show makes
them.
Or maybe you are representative of most Americans, Randy,
and most people think that the individual is
responsible for his/herself, and nobody should be
bailed out by the State, even if they are truly
suffering.

So I'm back to believing that Americans in general
have quite a hard attitude towards those suffering
misfortune. It's un-Christian, which makes it even
harder to understand, given that Americans are
so religious.
Post by randy
There will always be victims in the families of
irresponsible people. Bailing out every person's bad
judgment in choosing a spouse is a bad idea. Bailing out
every woman who decides to get pregnant out of wedlock is a
bad idea. Yes, somebody needs to pick up the pieces of
mismanagement in these kinds of families. Society has to
pick up the check, to some degree. But the money needs to be
clearly directed at remedies as well as aid. And the bad
behavior must never be encouraged.
I do agree that bad behaviour must never be
encouraged, and the downside of our system is
that we have high rates of teenage pregnancy
because we reward this behaviour with a
nice home and an income for life for the mother.
So I'm not saying our system is perfect.
Far from it.
Post by randy
I'm not speaking out of inexperience here. I know personally
of a lady who has gotten pregnant a number of times without
any means of caring for the children. She simply lets the
children be fostered out or adopted, while she continues in
her alcoholic, drug-dependant life. Her kids all have
disabilities. One of them I know has fetal-alcohol
syndrome--I know, it's my grandchild.
But this woman just goes on living on government assitance,
and either lands her boyfriends in jail or herself in
jail--all at government expense. It got so costly to keep
one of her boyfriends under benefits that the immigration
authorities simply expelled him from the country. I know--it
was my stepson.
Yes, I remember you saying about your stepson.

I'm sorry to hear about your grandchild.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
I am not responsible for foreigners. So I do
feel resentful when a lot of foreigners arrive and
have immediate access to housing and benefits.
They are not our responsibility. But anyone who
is a British citizen is our responsibility.
Then I'm glad you got my stepson back in Britain! Now you
have to pay for him. He ran up quite a bill while here in
the States. He had all of his medical care taken care of. He
got drunk, and got hit over the head with a frying pan. He
fell into a fire. He got shot with an AK47. All of his care
was at government expense. He ran up a list of petty
misdemeanors, including driving without a license, driving
drunk, fighting with police officers, with his girlfriends,
and with others. The court costs ran up quite a bill. But
again, our government picked up the tab. But now that he's
back in England you and your government are quite free to
pay for him, Emma. He hasn't worked hardly a day since he
got back to England!
;)
Blimey. Well I hope he manages to turn his life around.
--
***Emma***
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
randy
2007-06-11 14:10:57 UTC
Permalink
"Emma"
randy
Post by Emma
Post by randy
I haven't seen Extreme Makeover. I'm just suspicious.
Well please watch it oneday, and tell me
if it's accurate.
I have it on DVD, and I can't get much beyond
the first five minutes without crying! :-(
I probably won't watch it anytime soon. I did see a few
minutes of it the other day. The portion I saw seemed to
want to elicit that emotion in you! I applaude your
compassion--but not your lack of concern that the show
thrives on producing emotions. Self-serving broadcasts may
produce compassion, but are not necessarily compassionate or
balanced.
Post by Emma
Yes, I know what you mean, because the BBC is a bit left
wing, and it generally films in working class
areas.
Then you clearly understand unbalanced, self-serving
broadcasts.
Post by Emma
There are lots of moral dilemmas, but I was
citing a particularly extreme case where autistic
children were at risk of being made homeless.
I don't see any moral dilemma there, because
they should not be made homeless. Full stop.
Vulnerable families should be automatically re-housed.
If you don't have that policy in America, then that
is wrong IMO.
We have welfare, Emma. Stating the truism that helpless
people should be housed is not something I could argue.
Everybody believes that helpless people should be housed!
Post by Emma
Post by randy
Retarded children deserve as much help as the family can
deliver. But nobody should expect all of society to fund
the
"right" of this child to live out a normal life with all
of
the comforts and enjoyments that all other citizens enjoy.
Yes, yes, yes!!!
That's exactly what we should do.
If the welfare state doesn't help the
most vulnerable, then who does it help?
Once again, stating the truism that the State should help
the helpless is not something I could argue. We have a
welfare system, and it does house the helpless, the
retarded, the autistic, the disabled, and the disadvantaged.
I don't know what percentage of our population benefits from
Welfare and Social Security, but we obviously can afford to
offer this compassionate service. And we should, not just
because there exists forms of oppression in our society, but
also, because we could all become victims of unfortunate
circumstance, and we should all show compassion.

But the point is, how much can we afford? Can we afford to
ensure that 100% of the population lives at the highest
standards of happiness, including all those who suffer
problems? Can we afford to restore happiness and prosperity
to even those who regularly make bad decisions? No, we can
not afford such an undertaking, and in fact, we should not
undertake such a program. God Himself has made Himself the
determiner as to who is blessed and who is cursed. We can
only show love to the degree we can afford it.
Post by Emma
Or maybe you are representative of most Americans, Randy,
and most people think that the individual is
responsible for his/herself, and nobody should be
bailed out by the State, even if they are truly
suffering.
No, Democrats in our country focus more on insurance
policies that cover all Americans, regardless of personal
responsibility. Many of the disadvantaged are assumed to be
the products of unbalances in our society. So economic
corrections between the rich and the poor become the right
of disadvantaged minorities and all those who suffer
injustices, young and old alike.

Republicans tend to focus on the limitations of our national
budget, and don't want to place too much power in the hands
of our central government. Republicans don't like the idea
of distributing wealth by penalizing people with good
business practises and rewarding those with bad business
practises.
Post by Emma
So I'm back to believing that Americans in general
have quite a hard attitude towards those suffering
misfortune. It's un-Christian, which makes it even
harder to understand, given that Americans are
so religious.
There are many Christians within both political parties, and
compassion is viewed through the differing perspectives of
each political party. For example, Republicans like to
emphasize the need to allow the wealthy the freedom to
manage their own financial affairs, as long as it is for the
good of the country. This creates jobs for the poor, and
this in turn allows the poor to prosper and learn good
business sense. And it gives all a motive to move upwards in
our society, knowing that government won't at some point
penalize them for becoming successful.

On the other hand, the Democrats focus on the largest bloc
of voters, including the discontented numbers of minorities,
poor, or abused peoples who feel that the wealthy are
gradually taking away their opportunities for prosperity.

This is an oversimplification of the issue, but it serves to
show you that Christian compassion can be expressed in very
different ways. The picture you portray is very similar to
the kind of arguments we have just before each political
election. Don't think we're uncompassionate, Emma. We're one
of the most generous countries of the world, and probably
the most prolific, in terms of Christian ministry.
Post by Emma
I do agree that bad behaviour must never be
encouraged, and the downside of our system is
that we have high rates of teenage pregnancy
because we reward this behaviour with a
nice home and an income for life for the mother.
So I'm not saying our system is perfect.
Far from it.
Then you at least understand my position. If we're going to
help someone (and we do), we must do it in a way that
rewards good behavior and self-improvement.
Post by Emma
Yes, I remember you saying about your stepson.
I'm sorry to hear about your grandchild.
I saw him yesterday. He's coping well.
Post by Emma
Blimey. Well I hope he manages to turn his life around.
It didn't happen in America. I doubt it will happen in the
UK. Take care,
randy
Emma
2007-06-12 12:21:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by randy
"Emma"
randy
Post by Emma
Post by randy
I haven't seen Extreme Makeover. I'm just suspicious.
Well please watch it oneday, and tell me
if it's accurate.
I have it on DVD, and I can't get much beyond
the first five minutes without crying! :-(
I probably won't watch it anytime soon. I did see a few
minutes of it the other day. The portion I saw seemed to
want to elicit that emotion in you!
I applaude your
compassion--but not your lack of concern that the show
thrives on producing emotions. Self-serving broadcasts may
produce compassion, but are not necessarily compassionate or
balanced.
I don't like TV shows which exploit needy people, but
this show actually does a tremendous amount of good.

OK, I know the companies involved make a tidy amount
from the advertising, but still the families are
very, very happy.

But, back to my main point. If there were no such
needs, then there would be no show. So my point remains
that America does neglect its poor.

Nobody here suffers to the extent that some of
those families suffer, so there could
be no such show (plus it takes 50 million years to
get planning permission, and there's no available
land anyway!)
Post by randy
Post by Emma
Yes, I know what you mean, because the BBC is a bit left
wing, and it generally films in working class
areas.
Then you clearly understand unbalanced, self-serving
broadcasts.
Yes, and if there were families suffering to the
extent that they are suffering in America, then
you can bet that the BBC would be filming them.
But they aren't.
So I am convinced that the situation for the poor
is much worse in America.
Post by randy
But the point is, how much can we afford? Can we afford to
ensure that 100% of the population lives at the highest
standards of happiness, including all those who suffer
problems? Can we afford to restore happiness and prosperity
to even those who regularly make bad decisions? No, we can
not afford such an undertaking, and in fact, we should not
undertake such a program. God Himself has made Himself the
determiner as to who is blessed and who is cursed. We can
only show love to the degree we can afford it.
It comes down to taxes then, I suppose.
We pay much more tax.

I was talking in another thread about
inheritance taxes, and apparently you pay hardly any
inheritance tax. We pay 40%
inheritance tax! Now that's *outrageously* high,
but I think yours is ridiculously low.
Post by randy
Don't think we're uncompassionate, Emma. We're one
of the most generous countries of the world, and probably
the most prolific, in terms of Christian ministry.
I think you are a very compassionate country.

I think Britain is probably *extremely* compassionate
and generous though :-)
Post by randy
Post by Emma
Yes, I remember you saying about your stepson.
I'm sorry to hear about your grandchild.
I saw him yesterday. He's coping well.
That's good news.
--
***Emma***
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
randy
2007-06-17 13:39:36 UTC
Permalink
"Emma"
randy
Post by Emma
But, back to my main point. If there were no such
needs, then there would be no show. So my point remains
that America does neglect its poor.
I suppose that depends on how you define "neglect." If the
poor are propped up by a social system that is not tied to
their own responsible behavior, is that really compassion?
It may appear to be compassionate to keep them connected to
all of the goods and services that others have available to
them. But is that really compassion?

I don't believe it's compassionate to penalize responsible
people to keep bad people happy. God Himself saw
fit to curse the bad and reward the good. I don't therefore
believe it is compassionate to reward bad people with things
that bad people do not deserve. Not only does it encourage
their bad behavior to continue, but it also deprives good
people of the means of doing more good than they have
already done.

It is not uncompassionate to let bad people suffer the
consequences of their own bad behavior. Everybody deserves a
2nd chance in a sense. But reprobate behavior should not be
rewarded. Good people in particular should not be penalized
to help bad people continue in their bad behavior.
Post by Emma
Nobody here suffers to the extent that some of
those families suffer, so there could
be no such show (plus it takes 50 million years to
get planning permission, and there's no available
land anyway!)
Television shows can portray bad people as if they are
victims of society rather than the recipients of conditions
they've brought upon themselves.
Post by Emma
Yes, and if there were families suffering to the
extent that they are suffering in America, then
you can bet that the BBC would be filming them.
But they aren't.
So I am convinced that the situation for the poor
is much worse in America.
If England doesn't have this, it may be because responsible
people are taxed to give benefits to poor people who do not
deserve those benefits. Ultimately, that's going to make
England incapable of competing with others who are not so
penalized. I think it's highly possible that average British
people are held down financially to keep them enslaved to a
labor system that largely benefits the wealthy. There is
less concern about the prosperity of British people than
keeping people working and allowing wealth that
disproportionately benefits the rich.
Post by Emma
It comes down to taxes then, I suppose.
We pay much more tax.
Exactly. I think that's wrong. I think we pay too much tax
also. We need to pay for basic services that we all benefit
from. I think we need to make compassionate programs
available to those who need a 2nd chance, who suffer from
disadvantages, who suffer from unfortunate circumstances.
But we shouldn't pay high taxes to prop up a system that
keeps all people working with equal benefits simply to
sustain an extensive civil service and a society that
benefits the very wealthy.
Post by Emma
I was talking in another thread about
inheritance taxes, and apparently you pay hardly any
inheritance tax. We pay 40%
inheritance tax! Now that's *outrageously* high,
but I think yours is ridiculously low.
I don't honestly know what it is in our country. But I do
know that I think it's wrong. We're taxed for virtually
everything you can be taxed for, from birth to death. It
isn't right to take a lifetime of achievement, and return
all that propserity to the government, as well as to the
children. There does need to be laws in play that do not
allow the buildup of disproportionate wealth to the rich,
excessive land holdings, government control, or business
monopolies that steal away equality in our society. But
inheritance taxes are not, I believe, the way to go.
Post by Emma
Post by randy
Don't think we're uncompassionate, Emma. We're one
of the most generous countries of the world, and probably
the most prolific, in terms of Christian ministry.
I think you are a very compassionate country.
I think Britain is probably *extremely* compassionate
and generous though :-)
That's nice. But I think it's equally important to *want* to
give to the poor. If laws coerce people to give to the poor,
upon threat of jail, is this really a compassionate system?
randy
Emma
2007-06-18 09:52:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by randy
"Emma"
randy
Post by Emma
But, back to my main point. If there were no such
needs, then there would be no show. So my point remains
that America does neglect its poor.
I suppose that depends on how you define "neglect." If the
poor are propped up by a social system that is not tied to
their own responsible behavior, is that really compassion?
It may appear to be compassionate to keep them connected to
all of the goods and services that others have available to
them. But is that really compassion?
I don't believe it's compassionate to penalize responsible
people to keep bad people happy.
I wasn't talking about bad people though, Randy.

I was talking, in this particular case, about an
American family with autistic children. I can't
remember the exact case now, but all the families
represent some degree of misfortune/bad luck/sickness/
bereavement etc.

None of them are "bad people".
They are just unfortunate people for whom there is
apparently no help.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
Nobody here suffers to the extent that some of
those families suffer, so there could
be no such show (plus it takes 50 million years to
get planning permission, and there's no available
land anyway!)
Television shows can portray bad people as if they are
victims of society rather than the recipients of conditions
they've brought upon themselves.
It's difficult to portray children as recipients of
conditions they've brought upon themselves though.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
Yes, and if there were families suffering to the
extent that they are suffering in America, then
you can bet that the BBC would be filming them.
But they aren't.
So I am convinced that the situation for the poor
is much worse in America.
If England doesn't have this, it may be because responsible
people are taxed to give benefits to poor people who do not
deserve those benefits.
But I said that we don't have families with
children sleeping on our streets.

So you think that's a sign that we give too
much help??
Post by randy
Ultimately, that's going to make
England incapable of competing with others who are not so
penalized. I think it's highly possible that average British
people are held down financially to keep them enslaved to a
labor system that largely benefits the wealthy. There is
less concern about the prosperity of British people than
keeping people working and allowing wealth that
disproportionately benefits the rich.
But I think the American system means that you
have a tiny minority of super-rich, and a huge
number of people living in poverty.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
It comes down to taxes then, I suppose.
We pay much more tax.
Exactly. I think that's wrong. I think we pay too much tax
also. We need to pay for basic services that we all benefit
from. I think we need to make compassionate programs
available to those who need a 2nd chance, who suffer from
disadvantages, who suffer from unfortunate circumstances.
But we shouldn't pay high taxes to prop up a system that
keeps all people working with equal benefits simply to
sustain an extensive civil service and a society that
benefits the very wealthy.
Your society already benefits the very wealthy
to a much greater extent than here though.
Your super-rich have to contribute very little
in the way of taxes. Apparently, some of them
feel so guilty about it, that they *ask* to pay!
Post by randy
Post by Emma
I was talking in another thread about
inheritance taxes, and apparently you pay hardly any
inheritance tax. We pay 40%
inheritance tax! Now that's *outrageously* high,
but I think yours is ridiculously low.
I don't honestly know what it is in our country. But I do
know that I think it's wrong. We're taxed for virtually
everything you can be taxed for, from birth to death. It
isn't right to take a lifetime of achievement, and return
all that propserity to the government, as well as to the
children. There does need to be laws in play that do not
allow the buildup of disproportionate wealth to the rich,
excessive land holdings, government control, or business
monopolies that steal away equality in our society. But
inheritance taxes are not, I believe, the way to go.
I don't mind some inheritance tax, but our Labour
government has gone to an extreme on this one!

I don't think Paris Hilton would miss one or
two of her palaces though.
She could feed a whole state for several decades!

Is she still in prison,or has the Sherriff let her
out again? Didn't she have a headache, or something
equally life threatening? :-)
What a bizarre case.
--
***Emma***
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
randy
2007-06-18 22:02:05 UTC
Permalink
"Emma"
randy
Post by Emma
Post by randy
I don't believe it's compassionate to penalize responsible
people to keep bad people happy.
I wasn't talking about bad people though, Randy.
I was talking, in this particular case, about an
American family with autistic children. I can't
remember the exact case now, but all the families
represent some degree of misfortune/bad luck/sickness/
bereavement etc.
None of them are "bad people".
They are just unfortunate people for whom there is
apparently no help.
I was talking about social programs that guarantee a certain
level of happiness to all. You can no more make an autistic
person as happy as you are than you can make an alcoholic
quit drinking by guaranteeing him a place to live. You can't
afford to outfit an autistic person with all the things that
make other people happy, but you can provide a certain
measure of compassion. Britain has this, and the U.S. has
this. My own grandchild (by marriage) has received thousands
and thousands of dollars due to his fetal alcohol syndrome.
Post by Emma
Post by randy
Television shows can portray bad people as if they are
victims of society rather than the recipients of
conditions
they've brought upon themselves.
It's difficult to portray children as recipients of
conditions they've brought upon themselves though.
Children will always be vulnerable and will always be the
victims of irresponsible caregivers. They deserve a certain
amount of compassion. But they can never be guaranteed the
same measure of happiness and prosperity as everybody else.
Post by Emma
Post by randy
If England doesn't have this, it may be because
responsible
people are taxed to give benefits to poor people who do
not
deserve those benefits.
But I said that we don't have families with
children sleeping on our streets.
So you think that's a sign that we give too
much help??
I never see children sleeping on the streets. There are
runaways, and they normally find a home to live in. I don't
know of any families with children who live on the streets.
I should think they have help available to them, even if the
children have to be removed from the parents.
Post by Emma
But I think the American system means that you
have a tiny minority of super-rich, and a huge
number of people living in poverty.
Where on earth do you get your numbers? For example, why
have you excluded our middle class?
Post by Emma
Your society already benefits the very wealthy
to a much greater extent than here though.
Your super-rich have to contribute very little
in the way of taxes. Apparently, some of them
feel so guilty about it, that they *ask* to pay!
The very wealthy are out of my league, but probably benefit
from the business activity they pursue. It is
counterproductive to penalize business productivity, which
prospers many workers and provides a tax base for all kinds
of government services that everybody benefits from.
Post by Emma
I don't mind some inheritance tax, but our Labour
government has gone to an extreme on this one!
Yes, it's absolutely wrong!
Post by Emma
I don't think Paris Hilton would miss one or
two of her palaces though.
She could feed a whole state for several decades!
She disgusts me. But that's her private choice, and it's
none of my business. The business of hotels does, however,
affect me. And this business consists of far more than just
one Paris Hilton! It consists of all of the people who use
hotels and all of the people employed in the hotel business.
Post by Emma
Is she still in prison,or has the Sherriff let her
out again? Didn't she have a headache, or something
equally life threatening? :-)
What a bizarre case.
I don't know why the American media considers this "news?"
It goes to show just how shallow our television can be, and
you should view it with a high level of skepticism. From the
sound of it, it sounds like you do! ;)
randy
Emma
2007-06-25 08:54:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by randy
"Emma"
randy
Post by Emma
Post by randy
I don't believe it's compassionate to penalize responsible
people to keep bad people happy.
I wasn't talking about bad people though, Randy.
I was talking, in this particular case, about an
American family with autistic children. I can't
remember the exact case now, but all the families
represent some degree of misfortune/bad luck/sickness/
bereavement etc.
None of them are "bad people".
They are just unfortunate people for whom there is
apparently no help.
I was talking about social programs that guarantee a certain
level of happiness to all. You can no more make an autistic
person as happy as you are than you can make an alcoholic
quit drinking by guaranteeing him a place to live.
Well I wouldn't write off anyone as a hopeless
case. I think it's very likely that we can
make autistic people happy. Why do you assume
that an autistic person can't be happy?

And it may be that someone
drinks because they are without hope. If you
take them off the streets, and help them find a
job, then they may well become productive members
of society again.
Post by randy
You can't
afford to outfit an autistic person with all the things that
make other people happy, but you can provide a certain
measure of compassion.
I'm not sure what you mean by that.

They should have all their needs met by
society IMO, because they are unable to
meet their own needs.
Post by randy
Britain has this, and the U.S. has
this. My own grandchild (by marriage) has received thousands
and thousands of dollars due to his fetal alcohol syndrome.
Well that's good.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
Post by randy
Television shows can portray bad people as if they are
victims of society rather than the recipients of
conditions
they've brought upon themselves.
It's difficult to portray children as recipients of
conditions they've brought upon themselves though.
Children will always be vulnerable and will always be the
victims of irresponsible caregivers. They deserve a certain
amount of compassion. But they can never be guaranteed the
same measure of happiness and prosperity as everybody else.
I still don't know how much help you would
be prepared to give, because I know you think
that charities should pick up the pieces.

I'm definitely a bit socialist about this issue,
because I do think we should care for vulnerable
children. I know it means that we sometimes
have to watch their feckless parents squandering
public money, but leaving the children to suffer
is not an alternative I would consider.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
But I said that we don't have families with
children sleeping on our streets.
So you think that's a sign that we give too
much help??
I never see children sleeping on the streets. There are
runaways, and they normally find a home to live in. I don't
know of any families with children who live on the streets.
I should think they have help available to them, even if the
children have to be removed from the parents.
Well you don't sound too sure about what's available.

Anyway, now to change the subject somewhat...
how did your relatives like America, Randy?
Did you go on the whale watch?
Did you go to Canada?
--
***Emma***
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
randy
2007-06-26 05:18:33 UTC
Permalink
"Emma"
randy
Post by Emma
Post by randy
I was talking about social programs that guarantee a
certain
level of happiness to all. You can no more make an
autistic
person as happy as you are than you can make an alcoholic
quit drinking by guaranteeing him a place to live.
Well I wouldn't write off anyone as a hopeless
case. I think it's very likely that we can
make autistic people happy. Why do you assume
that an autistic person can't be happy?
You completely misunderstand me. I believe autistic people
can be made happy. I'm talking about the limitations of
money. Pounds or dollars cannot put a new limb on an
amputee. It cannot put an autistic person on a private
island and make him thrilled with his or her surroundings.
We have programs that put severely retarded people up in
nice apartments that they don't even appreciate. They are
taken out of the conventional group home to make them appear
to be independent and integrated back into society. It's a
sham.
Post by Emma
And it may be that someone
drinks because they are without hope. If you
take them off the streets, and help them find a
job, then they may well become productive members
of society again.
I was an alcohol counselor at one time, Emma. Of course I
agree with you! And I applaud your concern.
Post by Emma
Post by randy
You can't
afford to outfit an autistic person with all the things
that
make other people happy, but you can provide a certain
measure of compassion.
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
They should have all their needs met by
society IMO, because they are unable to
meet their own needs.
Yes, but there's a limited amount of money you can put into
disabled people. I think we try too hard to use money to
replace the problem with artificial forms of happiness. But
this will just bankrupt the system. There are other ways to
make people happy.
Post by Emma
I still don't know how much help you would
be prepared to give, because I know you think
that charities should pick up the pieces.
Emma, I just don't think you understand that the U.S. has a
strong, healthy welfare system. We have social aid that
comes from our Social Security system. We also have a
Welfare department in our state government.
Post by Emma
I'm definitely a bit socialist about this issue,
because I do think we should care for vulnerable
children. I know it means that we sometimes
have to watch their feckless parents squandering
public money, but leaving the children to suffer
is not an alternative I would consider.
I'm slightly socialist in this respect as well. I'm
defending the fact that the U.S. is a socially-concerned,
enlightened country. Our liberal programs redistribute
wealth to the people and take care of the disadvantaged.
Whoever told you otherwise appears to be a trouble-maker, a
hater. (And yes, we have anti-government voices in our
country and in our media all the time.)
Post by Emma
Post by randy
I never see children sleeping on the streets. There are
runaways, and they normally find a home to live in. I
don't
know of any families with children who live on the
streets.
I should think they have help available to them, even if
the
children have to be removed from the parents.
Well you don't sound too sure about what's available.
Yes I am. If parents live out on the streets with their
children, they are irresponsible parents. That's why my
stepson's child was taken away from him. Actually, my
stepson didn't live out on the street. But he was completely
incapable of taking care of his child. He and his girlfriend
abused alcohol and drugs, and left their child at home with
immature babysitters.
Post by Emma
Anyway, now to change the subject somewhat...
how did your relatives like America, Randy?
Did you go on the whale watch?
Did you go to Canada?
I'm so-o-o glad you asked! Your advice was WONDERFUL! I told
my sisters-in-law that they need to march right off to the
mall. My wife's half-sister said she doesn't like to shop
very much. But after one week it seems she wanted to live at
the mall. She did her hair, her nails. The other one had a
tan sprayed on. They bought purses, coats, meals, drinks,
etc. etc. We all had a wonderful time! We did a number of
things. The only problem we had was with the whale watch,
because my wife didn't bring her Green Card. Without a visa
we couldn't get back into the country. We were going to
Victoria, which is in Canada. So three in our party went on
the whale watch. My wife and I are going this Friday. We're
excited. I'll send a pic.
randy
Emma
2007-06-26 09:19:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by randy
"Emma"
randy
Post by Emma
Post by randy
I was talking about social programs that guarantee a
certain
level of happiness to all. You can no more make an
autistic
person as happy as you are than you can make an alcoholic
quit drinking by guaranteeing him a place to live.
Well I wouldn't write off anyone as a hopeless
case. I think it's very likely that we can
make autistic people happy. Why do you assume
that an autistic person can't be happy?
You completely misunderstand me. I believe autistic people
can be made happy. I'm talking about the limitations of
money. Pounds or dollars cannot put a new limb on an
amputee. It cannot put an autistic person on a private
island and make him thrilled with his or her surroundings.
We have programs that put severely retarded people up in
nice apartments that they don't even appreciate. They are
taken out of the conventional group home to make them appear
to be independent and integrated back into society. It's a
sham.
I have some concerns about "homes" though, Randy.
Every so often, the media carries reports about
abuse of the disabled or the elderly. I wonder
if your system of using apartments is actually preventing
abuse. I don't know enough to be able to comment
though.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
I still don't know how much help you would
be prepared to give, because I know you think
that charities should pick up the pieces.
Emma, I just don't think you understand that the U.S. has a
strong, healthy welfare system. We have social aid that
comes from our Social Security system. We also have a
Welfare department in our state government.
OK, but as you know, that's not what we hear.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
I'm definitely a bit socialist about this issue,
because I do think we should care for vulnerable
children. I know it means that we sometimes
have to watch their feckless parents squandering
public money, but leaving the children to suffer
is not an alternative I would consider.
I'm slightly socialist in this respect as well. I'm
defending the fact that the U.S. is a socially-concerned,
enlightened country. Our liberal programs redistribute
wealth to the people and take care of the disadvantaged.
Whoever told you otherwise appears to be a trouble-maker, a
hater. (And yes, we have anti-government voices in our
country and in our media all the time.)
I don't think criticism is trouble-making or
hatred though. There has to be an opposition in
a democracy.
Post by randy
That's why my
stepson's child was taken away from him. Actually, my
stepson didn't live out on the street. But he was completely
incapable of taking care of his child. He and his girlfriend
abused alcohol and drugs, and left their child at home with
immature babysitters.
Gosh, that's so awful. You must have been
so worried.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
Anyway, now to change the subject somewhat...
how did your relatives like America, Randy?
Did you go on the whale watch?
Did you go to Canada?
I'm so-o-o glad you asked! Your advice was WONDERFUL! I told
my sisters-in-law that they need to march right off to the
mall. My wife's half-sister said she doesn't like to shop
very much. But after one week it seems she wanted to live at
the mall. She did her hair, her nails. The other one had a
tan sprayed on. They bought purses, coats, meals, drinks,
etc. etc. We all had a wonderful time!
I'm so glad you had a good time!
Post by randy
We did a number of
things. The only problem we had was with the whale watch,
because my wife didn't bring her Green Card. Without a visa
we couldn't get back into the country. We were going to
Victoria, which is in Canada.
I don't understand, Randy.
Your wife has a green card? I thought that
was like an entry ticket into the US, and then
afterwards you're given citizenship.

And why do you need a visa for Canada?

So the border with Canada is a proper border?
Unlike the border in the South of the US?
Post by randy
So three in our party went on
the whale watch. My wife and I are going this Friday. We're
excited. I'll send a pic.
Oh yes, you must tell me all about it!!
I'm so interested in whales. They're beautiful
creatures.

Did you hear about the whale that was killed by the
Japanese recently? :-( It was reckoned to be over
a hundred years old, and it still had a harpoon
wedged in its back dating back to Victorian
times. How tragic that's its been killed :-(
--
***Emma***
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
randy
2007-06-27 04:48:43 UTC
Permalink
"Emma"
randy
Post by Emma
...The only problem we had was with the whale watch,
because my wife didn't bring her Green Card. Without a
visa
we couldn't get back into the country. We were going to
Victoria, which is in Canada.
I don't understand, Randy.
Your wife has a green card? I thought that
was like an entry ticket into the US, and then
afterwards you're given citizenship.
A green card establishes her legal residency in the US. She
forgot to bring it to the Seattle Port of Entry. It isn't
enough to have a passport. To get back into the US from
Canada she needs not just her passport, but also her Green
Card. She is not a US citizen. I wish she would become one.
Post by Emma
And why do you need a visa for Canada?
I don't need the visa. My wife does. Without a visa, or
Green Card, my wife cannot get *back* into the US. She has
to establish her legal residency here, probably to avoid
things like terrorist infiltration.
Post by Emma
So the border with Canada is a proper border?
Unlike the border in the South of the US?
Both borders are proper. Mexicans simply break the law and
cross over to get jobs. Canadians aren't as desperate for
jobs in the US.
Post by Emma
So three in our party went on
the whale watch. My wife and I are going this Friday.
We're
excited. I'll send a pic.
Oh yes, you must tell me all about it!!
I'm so interested in whales. They're beautiful
creatures.
Did you hear about the whale that was killed by the
Japanese recently? :-( It was reckoned to be over
a hundred years old, and it still had a harpoon
wedged in its back dating back to Victorian
times. How tragic that's its been killed :-(
No, I hadn't heard that one. I also think it's sad to think
a whale should have to carry around a spear in its side for
so long! :(
randy

Padraic Brown
2007-06-03 23:56:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by randy
"Emma"
randy
Post by Emma
Nobody denied that some families are without
basics, like electricity and running water.
Honestly, Emma, I don't know *anybody* like this.
Apart from survivalist types, there are plenty of folks in the US who
don't have running water and electricity. A few live in urban areas,
but most live tucked away where the majority never see them or hear
about them. Look into Appalachia, for example.
Post by randy
The only
time this happens is when a storm knocks out the power. We
had a terrible hurricane down in New Orleans, and there has
been some major problems there. That was not, however, due
to government neglect, as is often charged.
True that. It's the way the system is _supposed_ to work. Of course,
the formaldehyde impregnated trailers don't help the stories any!
Post by randy
That was due to
a poorly planned development design with an inadequate levy
system.
It was due to continuing to build your city in a below-sea-level basin
right next to the bloody ocean. They could have better spent the money
on _moving_ the whole city to higher ground (the historically
important buildings and houses, anyway).
Post by randy
Post by Emma
Padraic didn't even seem to think that these
are basics at all. Although maybe I
misunderstood him at the time. It did seem
very strange to me, because I do think
he's a caring person.
I think you misunderstood Padraic. I don't recall the
conversation, though. Out where I live some people generate
their own electricity and hand-dig shallow wells. If you
live in the city, you get city water and city electricity.
But power grids extend well out into the rural areas. If you
live way out in the woods, you can supplement your heating
needs by cutting up dead wood.
I don't recall the specifics of the conversation either. I would say
that clean water and good sewage _are_ basics -- though how we get
them is determined by location and effort. If you're not near treated
water, then you have to ensure your clean water supply by treating
your well water for example.
Post by randy
Post by Emma
So that's why I'm confused. A very religious
country like the US should not have these
problems. It doesn't make sense.
It's *propaganda*, Emma! I doubt there are any more cases of
these "unfortunates" than you find in any other country,
including your own country. Our free enterprise system is
bolstered by government services. In fact, more socialized
countries like your own tend to increase poverty, in my
opinion.
We can turn the tele around on Emma this time -- I can't even begin to
count all the instances of British families living "on the dole" there
are on their programmes!

Padraic
Post by randy
randy
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
randy
2007-06-04 07:15:18 UTC
Permalink
"Padraic Brown"
"randy"
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by randy
"Emma"
Post by Emma
Nobody denied that some families are without
basics, like electricity and running water.
Honestly, Emma, I don't know *anybody* like this.
Apart from survivalist types, there are plenty of folks in
the US who
don't have running water and electricity. A few live in
urban areas,
but most live tucked away where the majority never see
them or hear
about them. Look into Appalachia, for example.
All I was telling Emma is that I don't know of *anybody* in
this condition. I certainly don't crisscross the country
looking for them, but no doubt some of them are out there.
Again, why is this an issue at all if it is out of the
ordinary? Some people can generate their own electricity,
and may be classified as "without power." They can simply
use a gas generator. And even if they don't have running
water, they might have a clean stream, with a purifying
system, and an outhouse. In the Middle Ages, monks thrived
spiritually in harsh conditions. Some people do like
survivalist living. Those who are too poor to afford power
and water are suspect, in my book. The United States does
have a welfare system, you know!
Post by Padraic Brown
True that. It's the way the system is _supposed_ to work.
Of course,
the formaldehyde impregnated trailers don't help the
stories any!
All "mobile homes" have formaldehyde fumes in them when
they're newly-manufactured. What's ridiculous is that they
remained on their wheels for a long, long period of time.
What a waste! Homes like these are actually harmed by just
sitting there in that condition.
Post by Padraic Brown
It was due to continuing to build your city in a
below-sea-level basin
right next to the bloody ocean. They could have better
spent the money
on _moving_ the whole city to higher ground (the
historically
important buildings and houses, anyway).
The levy apparently wasn't spiked down deep enough into
solid earth. The ground around the levee got so saturated
with water that entire sections of the levee gave way. (I'm
wondering if they might've lined the earth around the levees
with bentonite clay?)
Post by Padraic Brown
...I would say
that clean water and good sewage _are_ basics -- though
how we get
them is determined by location and effort. If you're not
near treated
water, then you have to ensure your clean water supply by
treating
your well water for example.
Did you know that clay soil can purify sewer water in a
matter of just a few feet? Wells should be drilled where
dirty water will not run off and pool anywhere near a well.
These are simple rules, and do not require a government
project. But the government is there to guarantee the people
do not get sick out of ignorance, and that's probably a good
thing (that government imposes some pretty stiff rules).

Yes, water is a basic. But in America you live where you
choose to live. If you want to live in the area of the
Colorado River, you might find getting water more and more
difficult as it begins to dry up with overuse. I know
Califronia would love to divert our water from the Columbia
River and irrigate their own crops and maybe even fill their
swimming pools. But they should find their own water, or
leave California.
Post by Padraic Brown
We can turn the tele around on Emma this time -- I can't
even begin to
count all the instances of British families living "on the
dole" there
are on their programmes!
I don't really watch the programs, but it might pose a bit
of a problem for her! ;)
randy
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...