On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 17:08:06 GMT, Mark wrote:

If I showed a few 'facts' about Brit
crossdressers, it could be made to look as if the whole country was a
bunch of gay flamers.

What "facts" though ? I know plenty of British crossdressers. The
only gay ones though are two of the women. Of the gay men I know, not
one is a crossdresser.

And the only monkey I know is lactose-intolerant and can't eat cheese
without getting a dose of the squitters. It probably would surrender
while incapacitated though.

A less slanted article would have also included
statistics showing our economic improvement, the reconstruction of
Iraq's
infrastructure and its brave new political system, etc.


As someone who was laid off from a large US corporate during Bush's
reign, I'm not seeing much "economic improvement".

Sincere sympathy, but you are a pretty small sample.

The dollar is
through the floor, the deficit is enormous and all your manufacturing
base are belong to China.

I've seen quite a bit of economic improvement, but perhaps I'm looking in
different places than you. You are correct that the deficit is enormous, as
it was during the Reagan administration. Then, however, we we were fighting
Communism. (Whether we needed to or not.) The Bush tax cut and the cost of
the war will saddle us with interest for years to come, since
borrow-and-spend is so popular and the public doesn't care just so long as
their taxes go down.
All my manufacturing base are not belong to China, but isn't that a great
way to integrate that country into the world economy and lead them toward
capitalism?


Iraq has almost no infrastructure. Now I'm hardly surprised by this -
we've just fought a war through the place. I hope they will have one
soon, and I have faith that many well-intentioned soldiers are doing
their damnedest to assist this.

Neither does Iraq have a "brave new political system". It has protests
on the streets against a US-led war to bring "democracy", where this
appears to be US-selected non-elected placemen.

If irony is beyond you, the rest of my post would have been unintelligible
also.

I am not a fan of
Bush nor am I defending him, but that article does not represent
American
opinion, merely British.


I wouldn't say that article represents anyone's opinion. It's a
collection of isolated facts that doesn't look anything like the
"opinion" of either a "My President, right or wrong" Blairite, or a
"Make noise, not war" Spartist.

The mere selection of which facts to present represents a point of view. Nor
are they isolated--they are carefully chosen to represent, as a group, a
very specific opinion--that United States policies are wrong.

Nor is the Indie a British tabloid. No tits, no royals, no soapstars.
If anyone can see a single erroneous figure in that list, then please
correct it so that we may all learn.

The issue is clearly NOT whether any single fact is wrong, but rather
whether they collectively misrepresent American public opinion, as the
original poster inquired. They do not, since our opinions are widely varied.

I don't know how you break the cycle permanently: all the tearjerker stories
seem to show individuals breaking out, leaving the rest of the family group
behind.

We have discovered that just supporting people physically and fiscally is not
enough, but how do you help make someone who has no idea life can even BE
meaningful live that meaningful life? Is it a one-on-one process? Does everyone
of us have to mentor someone in that category?

How about getting people to realize they do make a difference,
and their life is important. This is not to treat the matter
with simplicity, but a whole lot of the
"generational welfare culture" exists in large measure because
they do not realize that they are valued as individuals. They
have been down trodden for so long they believe they are
worthless, which is not the case.

--
Think thrice, measure twice and cut once.

Sanding is like paying taxes ... everyone has to do it, but it is
important to take steps to minimize it.

There is only one period and no underscores in the real email address.



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
...
As someone who was laid off from a large US corporate during Bush's
reign, I'm not seeing much "economic improvement".

Sincere sympathy, but you are a pretty small sample.

Yeah, but the other couple million simply haven't
posted here. Trust me, they're out there.

Dennis Vogel

"gabriel" wrote in message
rvers.com...

I heard on a radio show that bush did not bring up Mars for several
reasons
at the state of the union address, but one was that the total-total cost
is
estimated to be about $160B, not just the "get started" figure that has
been publicized more.

That's a staggering cost. I cannot give you an official source for this
figure, though, so take it with a grain of salt.

Like father, like son. His old man did *exactly* the same thing
ten or so years ago. Made a big splash with a plan to go to Mars
then never mentioned it again when the price tag became known.
Striking, isn't it.

Dennis Vogel

"David Hall" wrote in message
...

Yes, I understand that the Constitution ALLOWS the gov't to spend money on
certain activities. However, without getting into what is allowed vs. what
is
not allowed, I want to know what is MANDATORY. The prior poster said that
50%+
of federal spending was mandatory and only 19% discreationary.

I believe the thing that makes it mandatory is that Congress
has passed a law creating a program and funded it at a certain
level. Thus, the administration cannot simply chose not to
spend the money.

For example, they can decide to _ask_ for money to go to
Mars in the budget they submit to Congress but they cannot
decide to stop paying Social Security to folks who are getting
under laws passed by Congress. Make sense?

Dennis Vogel

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
s.com...

Some decisions we all make include how much to invest in school and
studying, what career path we choose, whether or not to marry/have family
and under what conditions, whether or not to save for
emergencies/retirement/etc. so that one can be independent, and many more.
As someone once said, "where ever you go, there you are".

And what, exactly, are we to do with those that make the
wrong decisions?

Dennis Vogel

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
s.com...

Only a few fall into that category, defense being one. I believe a
significant number of items would cause the founders to scream in
anguish if they realized what politicians were doing with OPM (other
peoples' money).

Well, what then would they make of the current crop
of politicians who are doing things with BORROWED
money? If they'd return "our money" to us as they like
to say that's be one thing. But, as it is, they're giving
us money that will come out of the pockets of your kids
and grandkids. The FF would sh*t a brick over that
I venture to say.

Dennis Vogel

I believe the thing that makes it mandatory is that Congress
has passed a law creating a program and funded it at a certain
level. Thus, the administration cannot simply chose not to
spend the money.

For example, they can decide to _ask_ for money to go to
Mars in the budget they submit to Congress but they cannot
decide to stop paying Social Security to folks who are getting
under laws passed by Congress. Make sense?

Dennis Vogel

Nope, not at all. When Congress passes (and the President signs) the budget and
related authorizing legislation, the executive branch is required to administer
to that budget (more or less, there is some wiggle room in all appropriations.)
Clearly what is meant by "mandatory" and "entitlements" is that the law
establishes the criteria that the "client" must meet to get the payment and as
long as he/she meets those requirements they are "entitled" to the payment and
can enforce their "rights" in court (using government paid lawyers to do so)
even if that requires spending more money than was appropriated in the budget.
However, what is convieniently overlooked when describing these amounts as
mandatory is that they are only mandatory until Congress changes the law - thus
they are not mandatory at all. If we want that 56% of the budget back, all we
have to do is vote in congress-critters (thanks somebody for that term) with
the balls to change the law (fat chance).

Dave Hall

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:14:09 +0000, Dave Mundt wrote:



Hum...decision making...Yea...while my FIRST reaction is that
I hear this being said with that faintly superior and smug tone
that folks use to indicate that THEY have never made a bad decision,
I am not going to go with that.
Instead...how about a concrete example. I have an
acquaintance who is a single mother with three kids, one of which
has just gone to college. She came out of college with no useful
degree, and, few life skills because her parents, in order to
"protect" her had kept her so isolated from reality while growing
up that she had not, for example, learned to cook. She married
a fairly pleasant-seeming fellow and got moved several thousand
miles from home. Alas, he turned out to be abusive, not a good
provider, so, finally, she divorced him and moved back to her
home town. She struggles along with help from family, and working
when she can, clerking, and, some gov. assistence.
True...there were some bad decisions there, but a big
chunk of them were not hers, nor did she have any control
over them. She has made a bunch of good, but hard decisions
in the past few years, and while they have left her in a
very difficult and scary financial position, she is managing
to raise three bright kids, who are still in school, and, will
likely end up with good moral values and more of a work
ethic than they would have if she had stayed married. In the
long run, a relatively small amount of aid now will produce four
productive citizens who will contribute to society instead of
being a drain on it.
Just to rant a bit further...until one has spent some
time trying to survive in America with an income well below
the poverty line, one should be careful with judgements. One
somewhat under-rated aspect of this struggle is the mental
strain and drag it puts on a person. That constant, nagging
problem of having to balance whether to pay taxes, buy groceries
or keep the lights and heat on in the house causes one to lay
awake at night, and drains energy needed to "get ahead".
There are abuses of the system, of course, and, there
are folks that, if they put as much time and energy into
pursuing a job as they did in working the system, they might
well be CEO in a decade. There are good workers who try to
short-cut these abuses though, but it is really hard these
days to get folks sanctioned. However, a big chunk of the
folks on public assistance are either temporary clients
who have been struck down by disaster beyond their control or
folks that are not going to be able to keep a job because
of mental or physical impairment. I suppose we could
save a few bucks by cutting off the latter catagory, and
letting them become someone else's problem. If we are
comfortable with an increase in stories of folks being
found dead from exposure, or starvation, then that should
not be a problem. We could also change public aid from
a grant to a loan, however, since many of the folks
that DO get jobs tend to remain in the "working poor"
catagory, the likelyhood of getting any money back
would be pretty small.
I could go on, but, this has VERY little to do with
woodworking, so, will cut off with the thought that
the way we treat the poorest and least able citizens
of our society pretty much defines what sort of
society we are. We can be warm and compassionate, or
we can be cold, merciless *******s. It is up to
us.

Another concrete example:

A family member who has had drug problems for forty years. He has been in
treatment many times. He has drained taxpayers money and family money for
forty years. His latest treatment involves wearing some sort of patch
which he trades to his "friends" for money to buy better stuff. We give
him new clothes because he usually looks worse than most street people and
he trades them for drugs. A sister had him set up with low cost housing
and was managing his government assistance money and all was going well
for almost a year. He was booted out because of all the high traffic of
short duration into and out of his apartment. I'd like to hear a solution.

-Doug

Doug Winterburn responds:

Another concrete example:

A family member who has had drug problems for forty years. He has been in
treatment many times. He has drained taxpayers money and family money for
forty years. His latest treatment involves wearing some sort of patch
which he trades to his "friends" for money to buy better stuff. We give
him new clothes because he usually looks worse than most street people and
he trades them for drugs. A sister had him set up with low cost housing
and was managing his government assistance money and all was going well
for almost a year. He was booted out because of all the high traffic of
short duration into and out of his apartment. I'd like to hear a solution.

I think we all would, Doug. But can we deny someone else some help because one
person takes advantage of what is provided?

I'd guess there's some sort of cut-off needed on people like this, but I'm not
savvy enough to know the place to put the limit.

I think your relative's patch is similar to what I used to hear about methadone
treatments for drug addicts: they finally started making them take the dose at
the place where it was handed out, because the dopers were trading the doses
for drugs that gave them more of, shall we say, a nodding acquaintance with the
world and the people in it.

Charlie Self
"Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

Greetings and Salutations.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:54:49 GMT, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

*snip*

Another concrete example:

A family member who has had drug problems for forty years. He has been in
treatment many times. He has drained taxpayers money and family money for
forty years. His latest treatment involves wearing some sort of patch
which he trades to his "friends" for money to buy better stuff. We give
him new clothes because he usually looks worse than most street people and
he trades them for drugs. A sister had him set up with low cost housing
and was managing his government assistance money and all was going well
for almost a year. He was booted out because of all the high traffic of
short duration into and out of his apartment. I'd like to hear a solution.

-Doug
Yep...that is a difficult and complicated sitation to deal
with too. I don't know that I have a "solution" for anyone else
(shucks, my own life is hard enough for me to muddle through). But
(and there always IS a big, old but) I know that rule number one is
that if anyone is going to change that desire for change has to come
from within, not from others. If that desire to clean up one's life
is not there, then there is NOTHING that anyone else can do to MAKE
that person clean up their life.
One big problem with addicts (especially those on harder
drugs) is that they WILL sell their baby sister into prostitution
for that next hit. Their entire life revolves around the buzz and
nothing else is important to them. It has been my experience that
any kind of enabling will simply perpetuate the problem, and, at
some point the folks around the addict have to say to them, in
very simple and clear terms that the addict will get no more
help or support until they take the steps necessary to get clean
and stay clean. Then, alas, comes the hard part, as everyone
has to stick with that, and after years of forking over support,
it is really hard NOT to take pity on the addict and "just help
them this one time". However, as y'all have found out (and
I have a GREAT deal of sympathy for you and your family as
regards the situation) the addict will turn every bit of help
given to them into drugs.
Don't make his problem into YOUR problem. He is an
adult, and, by now should, like the rest of us, understand
that there are consequences to our actions, and, sometimes
those consequences are fairly unpleasant.
There are root causes, I believe, for every self-destructive
thing that we do. Once we are willing to admit there is a
problem, and, honestly turn towards trying to SOLVE that problem
to move on to a better life, it is possible to dig down
and perhaps find what caused the problem in the first place.
Once we have dug up the problem, and brought it out in the
light, it loses some of its power over us, and we have
a better chance of controlling it, instead of it controlling
us. Once the fact there is a problem is faced, there are
many ways to get in contact with folks that can help one
through the painful path of recovery, ranging from high-
priced health care professionals, to absolutely free AA
or NA meetings.
Regards and best wishes.
Dave Mundt

Noel Hegan wrote:
: This was on the front page of my newspaper today as a "introduction"
: to the Bush state of the nation speech. From an American point of view
: how does it read? Is it a true representation of the Bush
: administration and the US economy?


It's a better representation that the typical US media, which are skewed
heavily toward conservatism, and the consequent uncritical coverage of
the Bush administration. (Thos of you who believe in the myth of the
american liberal media, jump in here now).

-- Andy Barss

In article ,
says...
Noel Hegan wrote:
: This was on the front page of my newspaper today as a "introduction"
: to the Bush state of the nation speech. From an American point of view
: how does it read? Is it a true representation of the Bush
: administration and the US economy?


It's a better representation that the typical US media, which are skewed
heavily toward conservatism, and the consequent uncritical coverage of
the Bush administration. (Thos of you who believe in the myth of the
american liberal media, jump in here now).


With you Andy, it wouldn't do any good. When the media starts writing
stories about Enron that include the words, "whose actions were
implemented during the Clinton administration" you will have a point.
However, the media continues, in every instance, whenever Haliburton is
mentioned in a news story, "the company was formerly headed by Vice
President Cheney despite the fact that Cheney gave up all ownership of
Haliburton when he started running for VP.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
s.com...
In article ,
says...
Noel Hegan wrote:
: This was on the front page of my newspaper today as a "introduction"
: to the Bush state of the nation speech. From an American point of view
: how does it read? Is it a true representation of the Bush
: administration and the US economy?


It's a better representation that the typical US media, which are skewed
heavily toward conservatism, and the consequent uncritical coverage of
the Bush administration. (Thos of you who believe in the myth of the
american liberal media, jump in here now).

However, the media continues, in every instance, whenever Haliburton is
mentioned in a news story, "the company was formerly headed by Vice
President Cheney despite the fact that Cheney gave up all ownership of
Haliburton when he started running for VP.

Did they not say "formerly"??? Do you really think that he has no
connection with this company anymore??? When Fox news channel has to tell
me that they have "fair and balanced" reporting, it is obvious that those
days are long gone. Just look at the ownership of so many of these stations
and it is obvious that they have become quite conservative in nature. BTW,
how many news stories appeared about Clinton and Whitewater and the Monica
affair compared to Bush and the BS intelligence reports that sent us to war
or even the Presidents shady military career.


--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving