Hawke wrote:


That (misery) is a statement you can not support, with any real
definition of misery. We already know you have a rather strange view
of poverty.

So what in real concrete terms is this "misery" you speak of.

If you aren't aware that plenty of Americans are living miserable lives
then you aren't going to get it because I tell you they do.

The question (oh comprehension deprived one) was can YOU DEFINE what
YOU mean by misery/miserable.

With your way with words, we need that otherwise we are talking apples
and kumquats. I don't really care HOW you want to define it, just
that you DO.

It's enough
to say that millions of Americans live lives on or below the poverty
level and their lives can be accurately called miserable.
You can "accurate" any thing you can't or wont define.

There are
millions of them and they are all over America.


I hate to keep bringing up society
Then don't, I don't think it is central to your argument.

I was addressing that specifically to Plimpton because he doesn't think
there is anything of value to be found in sociology. I do, and as do
most people do.


but if people are not willing to help
those who can't provide a good life for themselves then we are not
living in a civilized world.

I don't think any one said any thing about not helping those who cant,
just those who wont. I don't know that " a good life" should be the
goal however.


If the average American can't have a good life then this country is a
failure and being the richest and most successful nation is of little
use to most of its citizens. If we can't provide a good life for our
people then you can consider this country a failure.


Now who's hating on the country?

I poke fun at some government institutions and suddenly I hate
America, but you call it a failure and that's ok?
What a double standard
jk