OT:Thanksgiving
Pete Dashwood
celebrate Thanksgiving.
Greetings to all concerned. Hope you all have much to be thankful for and
you spend a happy time with families.
They also noted in passing that 800,000 American homeless won't be enjoying
the turkey.
That is a sad thought, but we have all become pretty inured to the lot of
those less fortunate. We feel sorry, do what we can where we can, but accept
that poverty is part of life and an "insoluble" problem.
The thing that astonished me was that 25% of these homeless are War
Veterans. (Korea, Viet Nam, and Afghanistan and the Gulf)
Surely there must be programs to prevent servicepeople from just being
thrown on the scrapheap? We wouildn't want to do that with ANYONE, but
especially not those who have rendered service to their country and done
their duty as it was called (leaving aside the rights and wrongs of US
foreign policy).
Anyone have any comments on this?
Can/is anything be/ing done?
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
Rick Smith
"Pete Dashwood" <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:5qnnnvF...@mid.individual.net...
< http://www.va.gov/ > is the starting point for finding benefits
available to U.S. veterans.
< http://www1.va.gov/opa/vadocs/fedben.pdf > is a booklet
titled, "Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents".
Furthermore, each state has a program to assist veterans. For
example, benefits provided by the State of Florida may be
found at < http://www.floridavets.org/ > with a summary of
benefits given in < http://www.floridavets.org/pdf/fvbg.pdf >.
The United States and the states operate homes for "eligible"
veterans and "eligible" is a specific limitation.
There are advocacy groups and private initiatives through
organizations, such as, the American Legion
< http://www.legion.org/ >, chartered by Congress, and the
Veterans of Foreign Wars < http://www.vfw.org/ >, a
not-for-profit organization.
The local franchise of "Golden Corral"
< http://www.goldencorral.com/ > offers a free steak to
veterans on or about Veteran's Day (Nov 11). This year it
was Nov 12.
To the best of my knowledge there are no initiatives, specific
to veterans, to provide a Thanksgiving meal.
HeyBub
Most systemic problems in America can be traced to an up-stream liberal
program that failed.
In the case at hand, the institutionalization of the mentally disturbed was
challenged on the grounds that many were not a hazard to themselves or to
society and, therefore, should not be placed in supervised facilities. The
insane asylums were emptied.
Paranoics, Manic-Depressives, and democrats were sent forth to work their
insults upon the masses.
The homeless are homeless because they choose to be homeless. That they
reached this choice - and through it drug addiction, malnutrition, health
failure - through impaired mental processes is an unfortunate consequence of
liberty.
Unfortunately, the influx of the insane in the 60's and 70's was not enough
to provide the liberals with sufficient, long-term, political popularity.
Their current strategy is to re-infranchise those convicted of a felony (in
many jurisdictions, a felony conviction is a life-long prohibition to
voting).
Republicans have to rely on the Roe Effect, but that takes generations.
If your 800,000 no-turkey number is correct, then outreach programs are
doing pretty well.
As to your last question, "Can/is anything be/ing done?" well, no.
Robert
wrote:
>They just ran a news item here mentioning that the US is preparing to
>celebrate Thanksgiving.
>
>Greetings to all concerned. Hope you all have much to be thankful for and
>you spend a happy time with families.
>
>They also noted in passing that 800,000 American homeless won't be enjoying
>the turkey.
>
>That is a sad thought, but we have all become pretty inured to the lot of
>those less fortunate. We feel sorry, do what we can where we can, but accept
>that poverty is part of life and an "insoluble" problem.
>
>The thing that astonished me was that 25% of these homeless are War
>Veterans. (Korea, Viet Nam, and Afghanistan and the Gulf)
Percentage of homeless who are veterans is close to the percentage of the general
population who are veterans. 21% of American males over 18 are veterans and 1% are active
duty military.
Average income of veteran males is higher than nonveteran males -- 35,088 versus 30,875.
Women are only 12% of the US military and less than 20% of homeless.
800K homeless is only 2/10 of 1 percent of the population.
African-Americans are disproportionately homeless. They constitute 50% of the homeless,
12% of the US population.
66 percent of the homeless have problems with alcohol, drug abuse, or mental illness. It
is unknown how many of the rest are former Cobol programmers.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_S2101&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_
http://www.policyalmanac.org/social_welfare/homeless.shtml
SkippyPB
You are so far off base that I can't believe I'm wasting my time even
typing this short reply. To those who don't live in the USA, none of
was posted here is anywhere near reality.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"Grammar has gots to be one of the most importantest things ever?"
-- Anonymous
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
tlmfru
HeyBub <hey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13kdm6j...@corp.supernews.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
> > They just ran a news item here mentioning that the US is preparing to
> > celebrate Thanksgiving.
> >
> > Greetings to all concerned. Hope you all have much to be thankful for
> > and you spend a happy time with families.
> >
> > They also noted in passing that 800,000 American homeless won't be
> > enjoying the turkey.
> >
Assuming you, Heybub, are a US citizen:
Americans at their best are wonderful, generous people who'll do anything to
help their friends, and to a certain extent even their enemies. But the
average American is ingorant, agressive, and parochial. At their worst,
they are capable of most intense bigotry. You, sir, are not an example of
the best of Americans.
> Most systemic problems in America can be traced to an up-stream liberal
> program that failed.
>
> In the case at hand, the institutionalization of the mentally disturbed
was
> challenged on the grounds that many were not a hazard to themselves or to
> society and, therefore, should not be placed in supervised facilities. The
> insane asylums were emptied.
>
> Paranoics, Manic-Depressives, and democrats were sent forth to work their
> insults upon the masses.
>
We take it, then, that Democrats are all paranoics and/or manic-depressives?
> The homeless are homeless because they choose to be homeless. That they
> reached this choice - and through it drug addiction, malnutrition, health
> failure - through impaired mental processes is an unfortunate consequence
of
> liberty.
>
I wonder if you have the guts and intellectual honesty to take up a homeless
lifestyle yourself? Or even to go out and talk to a few dozen of them? If
you take to the streets with only the clothing on your back and attempt to
survive you'll know whereof you speak, instead of making ridiculous
generalizations.
> Unfortunately, the influx of the insane in the 60's and 70's was not
enough
> to provide the liberals with sufficient, long-term, political popularity.
> Their current strategy is to re-infranchise those convicted of a felony
(in
> many jurisdictions, a felony conviction is a life-long prohibition to
> voting).
>
> Republicans have to rely on the Roe Effect, but that takes generations.
No Republican woman ever has had or ever will have an abortion?
>
> If your 800,000 no-turkey number is correct, then outreach programs are
> doing pretty well.
>
> As to your last question, "Can/is anything be/ing done?" well, no.
>
>
I am appalled that a supposedly well-educated man, citizen of a country and
society that looks upon itself as a beacon of hope to the world, can spew
forth such venom. "Send them, the tempest-tossed, to me ... I lift my lamp
beside the golden door". Still, that's one of the benefits of living in a
liberal society, that you're allowed to do so.
PL
HeyBub
> HeyBub <hey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:13kdm6j...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>> They just ran a news item here mentioning that the US is preparing
>>> to celebrate Thanksgiving.
>>>
>>> Greetings to all concerned. Hope you all have much to be thankful
>>> for and you spend a happy time with families.
>>>
>>> They also noted in passing that 800,000 American homeless won't be
>>> enjoying the turkey.
>>>
> <snip>
> Assuming you, Heybub, are a US citizen:
>
> Americans at their best are wonderful, generous people who'll do
> anything to help their friends, and to a certain extent even their
> enemies. But the average American is ingorant, agressive, and
> parochial. At their worst, they are capable of most intense bigotry.
> You, sir, are not an example of the best of Americans.
I see you're posting from Canada. Many believe Canada is America's attic,
you know, where we keep the crazy aunt. Let's see.
Thank you for the well-expressed, emotionally felt, but factually devoid
response. You make assumptions that are not supported by the facts. For
example:
"We take it, then, that Democrats are all paranoics and/or
manic-depressives?"
I said "paranoics, manic-depressives, AND Democrats..." It was a JOKE, son.
But, as with most jokes, some truth obtains. There have been several
instances reported of Democratic operatives rounding up the homeless, with
the promise of free cigarettes, in return for their vote.
And I'm sure Republican women have had abortions. But.
It is estimated that, in 1982, 70,000 abortions were performed in Florida.
In 2000, those 70,000 would have been eligible to vote. Oh, some would have
moved away, some died, some incarcerated, many would not have bothered, but,
of the residual, the vast majority would have followed the political
leanings of their parent(s). Let's say a 25,000 to 5,000
liberal/conservative split. As you may recall, George Bush won Florida, and
with it the presidency, by ~570 votes.
You are correct about America being a wonderful place, truely the land of
opportunity. If I took to the streets with nothing but the clothes on my
back, as you suggest, I have no doubt I could find a subsistence job in but
a few hours, a better job within a week, and, by the time a month had gone
by, be back to 75% of my current standard of living.
Where else but American can a poor black boy grow up to be a rich white man
and marry Elvis Presley's daughter?
As for interacting with the homeless, I've worked with and talked to
possibly thousands more than you - I spent 8 years as a deputy sheriff.
And as for "being allowed to do so" in a liberal society, well, no, we're
not allowed. A first grade boy who hugs a girl has to go to a sexual
harrassment re-education camp, Christmas trees are banned as being
"insensitive," and so on. Heck, a department supervisor was nearly tarred
and feathered for using the word "Niggardly." No, a "liberal" society has
driven the PC bus off the cliff.
Louis Krupp
<snip>
> "We take it, then, that Democrats are all paranoics and/or
> manic-depressives?"
>
> I said "paranoics, manic-depressives, AND Democrats..." It was a JOKE, son.
<snip>
> As for interacting with the homeless, I've worked with and talked to
> possibly thousands more than you - I spent 8 years as a deputy sheriff.
<snip>
In no particular order:
I suspect that a lot of homeless people don't have frequent contact with
law enforcement; you *may* have been dealing with a small and not
necessarily representative sample.
As to your comment about paranoiacs, manic-depressives, and Democrats, I
am a registered Democrat. I have worked with Democrats, lived with
Democrats, and, in more interesting times, slept with Democrats. There
have been occasions when I would say that in lumping Democrats with the
clinically insane, you do the insane a disservice.
Louis
LX-i
> They just ran a news item here mentioning that the US is preparing to
> celebrate Thanksgiving.
>
> Greetings to all concerned. Hope you all have much to be thankful for and
> you spend a happy time with families.
>
> They also noted in passing that 800,000 American homeless won't be enjoying
> the turkey.
That's because we have a Republican administration. By reading the
reports from our media, between 1993-2001, we didn't have any. :) (It
sounds cynical, but it's the truth. They didn't go away, they just
weren't reported.)
> That is a sad thought, but we have all become pretty inured to the lot of
> those less fortunate. We feel sorry, do what we can where we can, but accept
> that poverty is part of life and an "insoluble" problem.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. HeyBub
addressed (humorously, at times, but accurately) some of the reasons the
US homeless find themselves without a home.
> The thing that astonished me was that 25% of these homeless are War
> Veterans. (Korea, Viet Nam, and Afghanistan and the Gulf)
>
> Surely there must be programs to prevent servicepeople from just being
> thrown on the scrapheap? We wouildn't want to do that with ANYONE, but
> especially not those who have rendered service to their country and done
> their duty as it was called (leaving aside the rights and wrongs of US
> foreign policy).
I don't know of any organized "turkeys for vets" program. However, that
being said, there are lots of private charity programs to help those who
need it. The trick is, you can't just go out on the streets and force
them to come in and eat. For those who don't ask for the help, there's
not much that can be done.
> Anyone have any comments on this?
>
> Can/is anything be/ing done?
By far, the biggest charities in this country are private. Nearly every
city has a "rescue mission" run by a group of religious organizations,
that provide meals and shelter. My father used to go to the one in
Knoxville, TN every Thursday, and talk with the (mostly) men while they
were there. The Salvation Army is another (very large) group that can
provide these things. Also, there are food banks that solicit donations
(and may also be partly funded by individual charities, or part of a
charity group such as the United Way) - in fact, my sons and I helped
sort food at the local food bank this past Sunday.
Of course, state governments (partially funded by federal monies) do
have programs such as food stamps and subsidized housing. However, some
places have waiting lists for subsidized housing, and most states now
have limits on these programs, as they're intended to be a hand up, not
a hand-out.
True, not everyone has "a turkey" on Thanksgiving - but in most cases,
only stubborn pride or other personal choice would make someone go hungry.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
Pete Dashwood
"Rick Smith" <rick...@mfi.net> wrote in message
news:13kdf08...@corp.supernews.com...
Thanks Rick.
This is positive and, frankly, what I would expect/hope.
Sometimes the media just seize on the downside and don't mention the good
work that is being done.
Pete.
Pete Dashwood
"HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13kdm6j...@corp.supernews.com...
Yes, a similar program happened here in NZ and also in England. In our
population (just over 4 million) it doesn't matter too much, but in a larger
population it can be disastrous...
>
> Paranoics, Manic-Depressives, and democrats were sent forth to work their
> insults upon the masses.
:-) I wonder how many Democrats went on to learn COBOL...:-)
>
> The homeless are homeless because they choose to be homeless. That they
> reached this choice - and through it drug addiction, malnutrition, health
> failure - through impaired mental processes is an unfortunate consequence
> of liberty.
I'm sure this is true for some, I just hope it isn't the case for the
majority. In either case, there is still a responsibility of care for the
rest of us... Rick's post mentioned a number of agencies that are in place
to assist.
>
> Unfortunately, the influx of the insane in the 60's and 70's was not
> enough to provide the liberals with sufficient, long-term, political
> popularity. Their current strategy is to re-infranchise those convicted of
> a felony (in many jurisdictions, a felony conviction is a life-long
> prohibition to voting).
Hmmmm.... let me see if I have this right...
1. Someone commits an anti-social act. (felony)
2. The society then disenfranchises him/her because they are not considered
fit to be part of society?
Doesn't that simply alienate them further and make the chance of
rehabilitation that much less?
I could go with it for a specific period; maybe while they are in jail (then
it simply reinforces that doing time is like "time out" where you can
consider the error of your ways and you will have none of the rights or
privileges you enjoy when NOT in jail), but "lifetime"? That kind of says:
"We want no part of you and from now on you are the "enemy"... ". So,
people use their time in jail to get trained in further anti-social activity
and a separate underclass is created that has no chance of ever being
reabsorbed usefully into mainstream society.
Yes, I know there are some who make this choice early in their lives (for
whatever reasons) and can never be rehabilitated, but that doesn't mean we
should withdraw all hope, or that we should give up and stop trying.
I guess, in a smaller society, we value our citizens more. I know there are
bad Kiwis and I've met some... We have people who commit horrendous crimes,
just like everywhere else on Earth. But we also identify with each other.
When a Kiwi behaves badly, I feel it. (So do most of the people I know).
Just as we exult when other Kiwis excel. It's a bit like being sad when a
member of your family screws up; you don't approve and you wonder how they
came to that, but you don't exclude them for life with no hope of living
down what they did.
(Of course, for the very worst crimes (especially against children) there is
a case for saying: "you are SO far beyond the pale, we think the world
would be a better place without you. Goodbye." They won't have a referendum
here on capital punishment because they know it would be a landslide in
favour... As that would be a "retrograde step" for the Justice system, it is
better to just not address it...)
Crime and punishment are probably the most complex issues we ever have to
deal with, in any society.
My own view is that if there is the slightest chance of salvaging people, we
should do so. And if there isn't, then let's not prolong the agony or impose
a further burden on the taxpayer...
>
> Republicans have to rely on the Roe Effect, but that takes generations.
>
> If your 800,000 no-turkey number is correct, then outreach programs are
> doing pretty well.
It came from the TV news... I have no idea how accurate it is.
>
> As to your last question, "Can/is anything be/ing done?" well, no.
>
>
I think this is "tongue-in-cheek", right :-)
Rick's post indicates that some things are being done.
Pete Dashwood
"tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:Y%F1j.359$so3...@newsfe18.lga...
>
> HeyBub <hey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:13kdm6j...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>> > They just ran a news item here mentioning that the US is preparing to
>> > celebrate Thanksgiving.
>> >
>> > Greetings to all concerned. Hope you all have much to be thankful for
>> > and you spend a happy time with families.
>> >
>> > They also noted in passing that 800,000 American homeless won't be
>> > enjoying the turkey.
>> >
> <snip>
> Assuming you, Heybub, are a US citizen:
>
> Americans at their best are wonderful, generous people who'll do anything
> to
> help their friends, and to a certain extent even their enemies. But the
> average American is ingorant, agressive, and parochial. At their worst,
> they are capable of most intense bigotry. You, sir, are not an example of
> the best of Americans.
Well, Peter, at least he has a sense of humour... :-)
(There is hope for any society in which that is demonstrated...)
>
>> Most systemic problems in America can be traced to an up-stream liberal
>> program that failed.
>>
>> In the case at hand, the institutionalization of the mentally disturbed
> was
>> challenged on the grounds that many were not a hazard to themselves or to
>> society and, therefore, should not be placed in supervised facilities.
>> The
>> insane asylums were emptied.
>>
>> Paranoics, Manic-Depressives, and democrats were sent forth to work their
>> insults upon the masses.
>>
>
> We take it, then, that Democrats are all paranoics and/or
> manic-depressives?
I think it was a joke... (hope so :-)). Anyway, it made me smile...
Whatever else HeyBub may be, he has demonstrated through long time posts
here that he is not venomous. In fact, some of his posts are the most
entertaining I find here.
I think this is a case where you took it a bit too literally, Peter.
(A proud Texan with a background in Law Enforcement and a wicked sense of
humour is a very good combination. If you were going to be arrested, you
might hope it would be someone like HeyBub who was the arresting officer.
:-))
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
>
> PL
>
>
>
>
Pete Dashwood
"Louis Krupp" <lkr...@pssw.nospam.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:13kejte...@corp.supernews.com...
LOL!
(Doncha' just love politics.... ?)
Pete Dashwood
"Robert" <n...@e.mail> wrote in message
news:v6udk3l399oupmv3f...@4ax.com...
Or even current ones... :-)?
>
> http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_S2101&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_
> http://www.policyalmanac.org/social_welfare/homeless.shtml
>
Thanks for the interesting statistics, Robert.
I think the important thing here is knowing that help IS available if people
choose to avail themselves of it.
No society could ever be considered "Great" if it shows no responsibility to
its citizens, or is prepared to discard a certain sector of them.
Judson McClendon
>
> True, not everyone has "a turkey" on Thanksgiving - but in most cases, only stubborn pride or other personal choice would make
> someone go hungry.
A few presidential elections ago one of the candidates (Alan Keys, IIRC)
was challenged by a liberal and asked "What about all the starving people
in the U.S.?" Keys responded "Okay, how many people starved to death in
the U.S. so far this year? How about last year? How about the last decade?"
The liberal was speachless, and didn't have a response. Keys knew, unlike
the liberals in the U.S., that starvation in this country is virtually
unknown. In the extremely rare cases, it's always because of special
circumstances, like severe child abuse, getting stranded in the wilderness,
etc. It's never because there is no food available to those who are hungry
in this society. Every church I have ever attended has an ongoing program
to help the poor, and in this part of the country at least, there is almost
a church on every corner, sometimes several are visible from a single
location.
--
Judson McClendon ju...@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
Pete Dashwood
"LX-i" <lxi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:qYSdndidOJ_Sxtra...@comcast.com...
Thanks Daniel.
I think the posts in this thread have demonstrated that there is help
available. As you noted, sometimes people are too proud (or too screwed up
as a result of their experiences) to ask for help.
It isn't just about having Agencies in place; it is also about whether
people care or not.
It seems that at least the posters in CLC certainly DO care :-)
It doesn't do any of us any harm to stop a moment and reflect on the less
fortunate, as we enjoy the fruits of our labour.
As Christmas approaches here, I'm glad that all the kids I know will have a
good time, but I'm also conscious there are kids I don't know, who won't...
Fortunately, there are actions I can (and will) take to do something about
this, even if in a small way.
Is it conscience? Should we feel guilty because we are doing well?
I'd like to think we shouldn't, provided opportunity is more or less equal
for all.
And I don't think the spectre of "the Beggar at the Gate" should spoil our
enjoyment of happy times.
But we shouldn't scorn the Beggar, either.
LX-i
> "LX-i" <lxi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> True, not everyone has "a turkey" on Thanksgiving - but in most cases, only stubborn pride or other personal choice would make
>> someone go hungry.
>
> A few presidential elections ago one of the candidates (Alan Keys, IIRC)
> was challenged by a liberal and asked "What about all the starving people
> in the U.S.?" Keys responded "Okay, how many people starved to death in
> the U.S. so far this year? How about last year? How about the last decade?"
> The liberal was speachless, and didn't have a response. Keys knew, unlike
> the liberals in the U.S., that starvation in this country is virtually
> unknown. In the extremely rare cases, it's always because of special
> circumstances, like severe child abuse, getting stranded in the wilderness,
> etc. It's never because there is no food available to those who are hungry
> in this society. Every church I have ever attended has an ongoing program
> to help the poor, and in this part of the country at least, there is almost
> a church on every corner, sometimes several are visible from a single
> location.
The cover for this month's Limbaugh Letter (supported by the lead
article) summed it up rather succinctly, I think...
"Every American Is a Have"
(as opposed to a have-not)
LX-i
>
> It doesn't do any of us any harm to stop a moment and reflect on the less
> fortunate, as we enjoy the fruits of our labour.
>
> As Christmas approaches here, I'm glad that all the kids I know will have a
> good time, but I'm also conscious there are kids I don't know, who won't...
> Fortunately, there are actions I can (and will) take to do something about
> this, even if in a small way.
Everyone's small actions add up - it's when people think "Oh, *my*
insignificant contribution doesn't matter" and stop contributing that
there's a problem. :)
> Is it conscience? Should we feel guilty because we are doing well?
Heck no. :)
> I'd like to think we shouldn't, provided opportunity is more or less equal
> for all.
True. I've seen many people who've said "I can't" before they tried
actually find out that they could. It takes courage, sometimes, and it
certainly takes motivation. Sometimes it takes some swallowing of the
pride as well. Some people would rather go without than do menial work.
(This goes a long way to explaining our entire illegal immigrant
situation over here ("doing 'the jobs American's won't do'"), but that's
a different topic for a different newsgroup, for people who have more
time than I do.)
> And I don't think the spectre of "the Beggar at the Gate" should spoil our
> enjoyment of happy times.
>
> But we shouldn't scorn the Beggar, either.
True. Occasionally, I'll offer food to one who claims he's hungry. In
the past few years, *without exception* they've declined. It's not food
they're after, it's money; usually blown on alcohol. But then, we're
back to the whole "choices put them there" thing.
Robert
wrote:
>
>I think the important thing here is knowing that help IS available if people
>choose to avail themselves of it.
>
>No society could ever be considered "Great" if it shows no responsibility to
>its citizens, or is prepared to discard a certain sector of them.
Last week I talked to a young black man about the difference between American cities. He
said he judges people by how well they treat their homeless. It was obvious he was
speaking from personal experience. He said the people of Houston TX were the best. Every
Sunday they set up banquets in the parks. Having lived in Houston three months ago, and in
Texas most of my life, I commented that Houston is not a very Texan city, Houstonians act
and talk like they're from Louisiana. He asked what a Texan is like. I answered arrogant
and redneck, offered Dallas as an example.
We agreed that Houston has three 'downtown' districts of high rise buildings -- the old
downtown, the medical district and the Galleria district, where I lived. I said it was so
materialistic and yuppie oriented that you could navigate to the Galleria based on the
density of Starbucks. When you are across the street from it on Westheimer, there is a
Starbucks every half block.
My memory of Houston is that it's the best 'foodie' city in the US. Supermarkets in the
Galleria district are first rate, and there are many world-class restaurants. I couldn't
get over the large number of Middle Eastern cafeterias patronized by ordinary Americans.
My favorites were Vietnamese restaurants out by the west loop and coffee shops selling
beignets (French/New Orleans style donuts).
If you doubt your own judgement, there's an easy way to assess food quality. Go by the
number of beautiful women. They seem to have an instinctive affinity for good food. The
H.E.B. supermarket on Westheimer has the highest concentration of beautiful women shoppers
I've ever seen.
Judson McClendon
>
> True. Occasionally, I'll offer food to one who claims he's hungry. In the past few years, *without exception* they've declined.
> It's not food they're after, it's money; usually blown on alcohol. But then, we're back to the whole "choices put them there"
> thing.
My experience is similar. When approached by a street person who asks
for money, saying they're hungry, I have never had one person accept
a meal when offered. In fact, if your purpose was to get them to leave
you alone as quickly as possible, that would be a good strategy.
docd...@panix.com
HeyBub <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Pete Dashwood wrote:
>> They just ran a news item here mentioning that the US is preparing to
>> celebrate Thanksgiving.
>>
>> Greetings to all concerned. Hope you all have much to be thankful for
>> and you spend a happy time with families.
>>
>> They also noted in passing that 800,000 American homeless won't be
>> enjoying the turkey.
[snip]
>> Can/is anything be/ing done?
>
>Most systemic problems in America can be traced to an up-stream liberal
>program that failed.
>
>In the case at hand, the institutionalization of the mentally disturbed was
>challenged on the grounds that many were not a hazard to themselves or to
>society and, therefore, should not be placed in supervised facilities. The
>insane asylums were emptied.
The defunding of mental health institututions is a matter of public record
and easily researched.
To call the requirement that a person be shown to be a danger to
themselves or others in order to be involuntarily committed 'traceable to
a failed liberal program' is the result of some rather... curious
thinking, probably of a freedom-hating 'We Know What's Best For You' sort,
and most likely ignorant of certain Truths which are held Self-Evident.
DD
HeyBub
>
> Hmmmm.... let me see if I have this right...
>
> 1. Someone commits an anti-social act. (felony)
> 2. The society then disenfranchises him/her because they are not
> considered fit to be part of society?
>
> Doesn't that simply alienate them further and make the chance of
> rehabilitation that much less?
Sure. But there's the bigger view.
There are, classically, three reasons for punishment:
1. To protect society from further depradations by the miscreant,
2. To rehabilitate the offender, and
3. To serve as a deterrent to others similiarily inclined.
(note "retribution" is not on the "approved" list)
A condemmed man once plead to the Mayor of London as they stood together on
the gallows: "Whatcha hangin' me for, gov'nor? Hangin' me won't bring back
Louie?" To which the mayor responded: "Oh, we're not hanging you because you
killed Louie, we're hanging you so that others won't kill."
Anyway, it is felt that a life-long penalty operates to discourage others
from rascally behavior. The following sanctions are but a small example of
things a formerly convicted felon cannot do once released from confinement
(varies by jurisdiction):
1. Vote
2. Be an accountant, medical doctor, dentist, architect, nurse, licensed
engineer, commercial airline pilot, public school teacher or school bus
driver, notary pubic, lawyer, or hold elective office.
3. Be a master of a ship.
4. Own an establishment that sells alcoholic beverages.
5. Obtain a license to transport hazardous chemicals.
6. Own an pest-control company, beauty parlor, or nursery (either child or
plant).
7. Purchase or possess a firearm.
8. Become a securities dealer, stock broker, real-estate broker, or obtain a
financial bond.
9. Serve (in most cases) in the military.
10. Become a peace officer, prison guard, fire-fighter, forest ranger, court
baliff, or court stenographer.
11. Involved, in any way, in a gambling establishment.
These are SOME of the activities prohibited by law.
As a practical matter, private employment in banks, nuclear power plants,
commercial transportation, pharmacies, and thousands of other fields is
gainsayed simply because the private employer would open himself to
substantial real and legal risks.
> Crime and punishment are probably the most complex issues we ever
> have to deal with, in any society.
>
> My own view is that if there is the slightest chance of salvaging
> people, we should do so. And if there isn't, then let's not prolong
> the agony or impose a further burden on the taxpayer...
The current (unstated) view is by keeping them locked up during the
testosterone-abundant (and reproductive) years, the crime problem will
diminish.
With 2.25 million people incarcerated in the U.S., we have ample experience
with the problem.
http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm
>> Republicans have to rely on the Roe Effect, but that takes
>> generations. If your 800,000 no-turkey number is correct, then outreach
>> programs
>> are doing pretty well.
>
> It came from the TV news... I have no idea how accurate it is.
>
>> As to your last question, "Can/is anything be/ing done?" well, no.
>
> I think this is "tongue-in-cheek", right :-)
Well, lots has been/is being done. As for results, well, no. But the effort
does make the benefactor feel good, so I guess that's worth something.
All manner of government-sponsored programs have been tried. Over and over
again. Homes, counseling, physical check-ups, jobs, training, education, and
so on. Virtually every single effort for thirty years has reported miniscule
success. For example, the success rate at federal drug-treatment facilities
(success = drug-free for one year after release) has never exceeded six
percent.
>
> Rick's post indicates that some things are being done.
So was mine. With 9-12 million homeless, having only 800,000 without turkey
shows various outreach programs are successful. As long as success is
measured in turkey units...
Things CAN change. Hurricane Katrina forced large-scale relocations into
areas that did not have a generational tradition of handouts and failure. I
imagine any number of Black men from the ghettos of New Orleans now faced
with a job in Salt Lake City: "You mean all I has to do is stand behind the
counter and make Slurpees? And get PAID for it? Damn, man, that's cool!"
Very many of the former residents of New Orleans, some tenth-generation
welfare recipients, are now productive members of their new communities.
I had one Houston police officer tell me that all of the Katrina evacuees
he's arrested for walking down the sidewalk with a Malt Liquor in one hand,
a joint in the other, and a pistol in the belt, are astonished that they've
hit an arrestable offense! In N.O., they got a citation or a "Go forth and
sin no more" lecture.
HeyBub
>>
>> Most systemic problems in America can be traced to an up-stream
>> liberal program that failed.
>>
>> In the case at hand, the institutionalization of the mentally
>> disturbed was challenged on the grounds that many were not a hazard
>> to themselves or to society and, therefore, should not be placed in
>> supervised facilities. The insane asylums were emptied.
>
> The defunding of mental health institututions is a matter of public
> record and easily researched.
>
> To call the requirement that a person be shown to be a danger to
> themselves or others in order to be involuntarily committed
> 'traceable to a failed liberal program' is the result of some
> rather... curious thinking, probably of a freedom-hating 'We Know
> What's Best For You' sort, and most likely ignorant of certain Truths
> which are held Self-Evident.
No, I didn't make myself clear. Being committed to a mental institution
becase one is a danger to himself or the community is still valid.
What the ACLU wanted - and got - was the requirement that danger be the ONLY
condition for incarceration. Loosing the non-dangerous loons in the name of
liberty was the failed program to which I referred.
HeyBub
> "LX-i" <lxi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> True, not everyone has "a turkey" on Thanksgiving - but in most
>> cases, only stubborn pride or other personal choice would make
>> someone go hungry.
>
> A few presidential elections ago one of the candidates (Alan Keys,
> IIRC) was challenged by a liberal and asked "What about all the
> starving people in the U.S.?" Keys responded "Okay, how many people
> starved to death in the U.S. so far this year? How about last year?
> How about the last decade?" The liberal was speachless, and didn't
> have a response. Keys knew, unlike the liberals in the U.S., that
> starvation in this country is virtually unknown. In the extremely
> rare cases, it's always because of special circumstances, like severe
> child abuse, getting stranded in the wilderness, etc. It's never
> because there is no food available to those who are hungry in this
> society. Every church I have ever attended has an ongoing program to
> help the poor, and in this part of the country at least, there is
> almost a church on every corner, sometimes several are visible from a
> single location.
There has never been a famine in a democracy.
docd...@panix.com
HeyBub <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Most systemic problems in America can be traced to an up-stream
>>> liberal program that failed.
>>>
>>> In the case at hand, the institutionalization of the mentally
>>> disturbed was challenged on the grounds that many were not a hazard
>>> to themselves or to society and, therefore, should not be placed in
>>> supervised facilities. The insane asylums were emptied.
>>
>> The defunding of mental health institututions is a matter of public
>> record and easily researched.
>>
>> To call the requirement that a person be shown to be a danger to
>> themselves or others in order to be involuntarily committed
>> 'traceable to a failed liberal program' is the result of some
>> rather... curious thinking, probably of a freedom-hating 'We Know
>> What's Best For You' sort, and most likely ignorant of certain Truths
>> which are held Self-Evident.
>
>No, I didn't make myself clear. Being committed to a mental institution
>becase one is a danger to himself or the community is still valid.
How very gracious of you to allow for such a possibility.
>
>What the ACLU wanted - and got - was the requirement that danger be the ONLY
>condition for incarceration. Loosing the non-dangerous loons in the name of
>liberty was the failed program to which I referred.
Given that it is difficulty enough to determine how individuals ar to be
determined 'dangers to themselves or to others'... how much tricker is it
to deprive a citizen of Liberty for being a mere 'loon'? What you seem to
be advocating - in your 'jokes' ('Oh, you saw that hurtful, hate-filled
jab I made as an insult? It was a *joke*, you know... what's the matter,
Sensitive Folks are now complaining about 'jokes'?') is that it would be
of benefit for a society to be able to derprive citizens of their liberty
based on, say... oh, I dunno, disagreement with a certain political
system... you know, the way they used to do it in the USSR.
'Those sound like sentiments from Liberals... everyone knows that
disagreeing with My Party's Line is a surefire indication of criminal or
lunatic tendencies so let's lock 'em up, boys!'
DD
docd...@panix.com
HeyBub <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>
>> Hmmmm.... let me see if I have this right...
>>
>> 1. Someone commits an anti-social act. (felony)
>> 2. The society then disenfranchises him/her because they are not
>> considered fit to be part of society?
>>
>> Doesn't that simply alienate them further and make the chance of
>> rehabilitation that much less?
>
>Sure. But there's the bigger view.
>
>There are, classically, three reasons for punishment:
>
>1. To protect society from further depradations by the miscreant,
>2. To rehabilitate the offender, and
>3. To serve as a deterrent to others similiarily inclined.
>(note "retribution" is not on the "approved" list)
Most interesting... you might want to go through Kai Ericksson's book
'Wayward Puritans' for another view on how the waya society deals with
behaviors is done for at least one other reason than these... and it may
be, perhaps, the most widely-affecting of all.
>
>A condemmed man once plead to the Mayor of London as they stood together on
>the gallows: "Whatcha hangin' me for, gov'nor? Hangin' me won't bring back
>Louie?" To which the mayor responded: "Oh, we're not hanging you because you
>killed Louie, we're hanging you so that others won't kill."
... and ever since then folks haven't been killin'... and I am the King of
England.
DD
HeyBub
>>
>> No, I didn't make myself clear. Being committed to a mental
>> institution becase one is a danger to himself or the community is
>> still valid.
>
> How very gracious of you to allow for such a possibility.
I just report the facts, but I appreciate the sentiment.
>
>>
>> What the ACLU wanted - and got - was the requirement that danger be
>> the ONLY condition for incarceration. Loosing the non-dangerous
>> loons in the name of liberty was the failed program to which I
>> referred.
>
> Given that it is difficulty enough to determine how individuals ar to
> be determined 'dangers to themselves or to others'... how much
> tricker is it to deprive a citizen of Liberty for being a mere
> 'loon'?
Yeah, I agree. Loonishness is hard to define, but I know it when I see it.
> What you seem to be advocating - in your 'jokes' ('Oh, you
> saw that hurtful, hate-filled jab I made as an insult? It was a
> *joke*, you know... what's the matter, Sensitive Folks are now
> complaining about 'jokes'?')
Well, yeah. And other things that offend them. Just the other day a Kansas
city Boy Scout was suspended from school for ten days for using the word
"noose."
Yet when some sailor with a long grey beard runs up, grabs my collar with a
skinny hand, and screams "There was a ship!" to suggest that he be, um,
institutionalized is considered an outrage.
> is that it would be of benefit for a
> society to be able to derprive citizens of their liberty based on,
> say... oh, I dunno, disagreement with a certain political system...
> you know, the way they used to do it in the USSR.
It's not what they THINK that's the issue, it's what they DO. Used to be:
"The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor,
to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
It's probably still against the law to steal bread. In some jurisdictions.
docd...@panix.com
HeyBub <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>>>
>>> No, I didn't make myself clear. Being committed to a mental
>>> institution becase one is a danger to himself or the community is
>>> still valid.
>>
>> How very gracious of you to allow for such a possibility.
>
>I just report the facts, but I appreciate the sentiment.
What facts one deems worthy of reporting might, perhaps, say more about
one'sself than about anything else.
>>> What the ACLU wanted - and got - was the requirement that danger be
>>> the ONLY condition for incarceration. Loosing the non-dangerous
>>> loons in the name of liberty was the failed program to which I
>>> referred.
>>
>> Given that it is difficulty enough to determine how individuals ar to
>> be determined 'dangers to themselves or to others'... how much
>> tricker is it to deprive a citizen of Liberty for being a mere
>> 'loon'?
>
>Yeah, I agree. Loonishness is hard to define, but I know it when I see it.
What a coincidence... so do e'er-so-many other folks. For what reasons
might your self-confessed knowledge be more worthy of action than theirs?
>
>> What you seem to be advocating - in your 'jokes' ('Oh, you
>> saw that hurtful, hate-filled jab I made as an insult? It was a
>> *joke*, you know... what's the matter, Sensitive Folks are now
>> complaining about 'jokes'?')
>
>Well, yeah. And other things that offend them. Just the other day a Kansas
>city Boy Scout was suspended from school for ten days for using the word
>"noose."
>
>http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=4982891&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1
As my Sainted Paternal Grandfather - may he sleep with the angels! - used
to say, 'Mail Gets Delivered, Garbage Picked Up, Trains Run On Time...
these aren't headlines, at least not usually.'
Decades on back I was consulting in Manhattan and one of my co-consultants
(a emigre from the Ukraine) accosted me on my arrival, saying 'Did you see
that? Right there, in the headlines, on the front page, two Jewish boys
got beat up by a bunch of drunken Irish students on a college campus!'
I replied 'New York City, I believe, has been said to contain several
million Jews... two get beat up and it makes the headlines? Life must be
very, very good.'
>
>Yet when some sailor with a long grey beard runs up, grabs my collar with a
>skinny hand, and screams "There was a ship!" to suggest that he be, um,
>institutionalized is considered an outrage.
When such a thing happens to you I think you might be able to test that
assertion... until then, consider it relegated to the appropriate file.
>
>> is that it would be of benefit for a
>> society to be able to derprive citizens of their liberty based on,
>> say... oh, I dunno, disagreement with a certain political system...
>> you know, the way they used to do it in the USSR.
>
>It's not what they THINK that's the issue, it's what they DO.
'Disagreement' is a doing, last I looked... and lumping folks who
disagreed with the Politically Correct Line was, in the USSR, at times a
ticket to the asylum.
I will do my best, in all manner, to make sure that this is not in *my*
United States of America, thanks much. You don't like it, take it to
Cuba.
DD
tlmfru
>
>
> "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote in message
> news:Y%F1j.359$so3...@newsfe18.lga...
> >
> > HeyBub <hey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:13kdm6j...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> Pete Dashwood wrote:
> >>
> >> Paranoics, Manic-Depressives, and democrats were sent forth to work
their
> >> insults upon the masses.
> >>
> >
> > We take it, then, that Democrats are all paranoics and/or
> > manic-depressives?
>
>
> >> Republicans have to rely on the Roe Effect, but that takes generations.
> >
> > No Republican woman ever has had or ever will have an abortion?
> >
>
> here that he is not venomous. In fact, some of his posts are the most
> entertaining I find here.
>
> I think this is a case where you took it a bit too literally, Peter.
>
Concerning the above remarks, originally made by Heybub, and approved by P.
Dashwood:
I find it significant that Heybub thought it necessary to claim he was
joking. If he'd been making fun of HIMSELF I might have found it so, too,
but he wasn't. If his entire posting is meant to be funny, I can't find a
single line in it that comes across as anything but nasty.
There's a certain kind of personality that finds offensive things funny if
they are directed at someone else. Turn the remarks against them and their
best response is a wounded plea: I just meant it as a joke. Such persons
find bullying and actual abuse amusing if it's aimed at people or groups
that they don't like.
I'll remind everybody that a while ago I was roundly panned in this
newsgroup for suggesting that most humour consists of MAKING FUN of someone
else. Heybub's remarks, if intended that way, make a classic example.
Perhaps you gents could analyze the original posting and tell me and other
joking-challenged persons which sentences are meant to be funny and which
are meant to be factual.
I am indeed from Canada; we regard the US as a demented older uncle. We
shudder at the ignorance of its leadership. We console ourselves with the
thought that said leadership reflects its contituents.
PL
Charles Hottel
Somtimes I do feel guilty about doing so well. It was quite a shock to hear
just how many homeless vets there are. This was in the news here recently,
so maybe it is just now finding its way to New Zealand or you just came
across it. I don't know of specific programs for helping vets on
Thanksgiving but there are many places in this area where any poor person
can get a free Thanksgiving meal. The rest of the year besides Thanksgiving
and Christmas are probably harder.
Of course I am well aware that there are many homeless people. When I
worked downtown in Washington DC there were plenty of them begging, sleeping
on steam vents and elsewhere, and doing other things best left undescribed.
There are homless shelters but many will not go there even on the coldest
nights. They do go around giving them blankets and encouraging them to go
to shelters. Recently I saw some camping out in tents and lawn chairs in
the median strip of the Southwest Freeway. Many of them are alcoholic and
want money for booze. Some even have babies and small children with them
when soliciting money. They say they are hungry but they want money for
booze. One lady made sandwichs and offered them but they were refused.
This last summer on my many trips to and from he hospital on guy was honest
enough to say on his sign that he wanted a beer. (Ok this is a
generalization and is not true in all cases). Once I had a part time job
at the Drug Enforcement Agency at night in a fairly run down area with
prostitutes etc. I used to go out to a liquor store to get diet soda.
There was a very dirty and smelly guy in front of me who bought a lot of
liquor. He pulled out a large roll of cash to pay for it. This happened on
a regular basis. Apaprently begging can be quite lucrative.
So what's my point? I don't feel that I have the expertise to deal directly
with these people, although I have given some of them some small amounts of
cash a very few times. Later I always wonderd if I did more harm than good.
I do give to the Salvation Army via the Combined Federal Campaign as I think
they are much better prepared than I am to deal with these homeless persons.
Do I give enough? How much is enough? Some passages in the Bible indicate a
tithe of 10%. I doubt if I am giving that much although I don't actually
try to keep track. I tend to put myself and my family first as I have been
saving and investing earnestly for 15 to 20 years in order to supplement my
retirement, part of which will come from social security, which future
solvancy is in doubt. I do know that if asked to part with all my "great
wealth" like the story of the rich young ruler I would find it impossible to
do so. The flowers of the field are cared for but they are mighty cold in
winter. I guess I personally feel a lot of angst about all of this. I did
up my contributions for next year partly because of the homeless vets news
but it is hard to know how much is enough since even giving everthing will
not likely solve the problem. I think a lot of effort is being made but the
problem seems to be growing.
Charles Hottel
I thought it was the lawyers and the ACLU that got them set free.
Robert
wrote:
>Can/is anything be/ing done?
Retraining is available to Cobol programmers. Most of them stubbornly refuse to learn OO.
Apparently, they prefer to be unemployed.
Pete Dashwood
"tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:Bq52j.4725$ip1....@newsfe21.lga...
That reflects more on you than it does on him, Peter.
He only claimed he was joking AFTER you took his comments seriously.
His entire post was not a joke, but there were parts that were. Venomous it
wasn't.
Did you seriously think HeyBub thinks that all Democrats are insane?
It is the juxtaposition of these ideas which makes it amusing.
>
> There's a certain kind of personality that finds offensive things funny if
> they are directed at someone else.
Not me. And I don't think HeyBub does either. Sometimes people are easily
offended, and sometimes offence is taken where none was intended.
>Turn the remarks against them and their
> best response is a wounded plea: I just meant it as a joke. Such persons
> find bullying and actual abuse amusing if it's aimed at people or groups
> that they don't like.
>
> I'll remind everybody that a while ago I was roundly panned in this
> newsgroup for suggesting that most humour consists of MAKING FUN of
> someone
> else.
Ah, now I see the source of your sensitivity...:-)
I don't recall the "panning" you refer to but I'd agree that SOME humour can
consist of making fun of people and situations. In general, this is not the
best source of humour and most posters here would avoid it. (That's probably
why there was general disagreement with your point.) Most of us give and
take personal ribbing from friends and colleagues PROVIDED it is not "meant
to wound".
>Heybub's remarks, if intended that way, make a classic example.
>
The key point here is "if intended"...
> Perhaps you gents could analyze the original posting and tell me and other
> joking-challenged persons which sentences are meant to be funny and which
> are meant to be factual.
Well, I was tempted to do exactly that, but there isn't much point; for the
most part, a joke explained is a joke that's lost.
> I am indeed from Canada; we regard the US as a demented older uncle. We
> shudder at the ignorance of its leadership. We console ourselves with the
> thought that said leadership reflects its contituents.
And you don't think that's offensive?
Whether I agree with you or not :-), the difference here is that you are
lashing out as a reaction to perceived offence, and your statement is meant
to wound. See the difference?
I know very well from your previous posts here that you are not vitriolic by
nature, but now you have been stung and are posting stuff that you wouldn't
normally. You can save yourself some irritation and anger if you don't rise
to HeyBub's (or anyone else's...) bait quite so readily.
It was not meant to wound, Peter.
Pete Dashwood
"HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13khgre...@corp.supernews.com...
> docd...@panix.com wrote:
>>>
>
> Yet when some sailor with a long grey beard runs up, grabs my collar with
> a skinny hand, and screams "There was a ship!" to suggest that he be, um,
> institutionalized is considered an outrage.
>
ROFL!
Just wanted to let you know that S. T. Coleridge is rolling in his grave....
laughing...:-)
HeyBub
> I'll remind everybody that a while ago I was roundly panned in this
> newsgroup for suggesting that most humour consists of MAKING FUN of
> someone else. Heybub's remarks, if intended that way, make a classic
> example.
>
> Perhaps you gents could analyze the original posting and tell me and
> other joking-challenged persons which sentences are meant to be funny
> and which are meant to be factual.
It's called "gallows humor."
>
> I am indeed from Canada; we regard the US as a demented older uncle.
> We shudder at the ignorance of its leadership. We console ourselves
> with the thought that said leadership reflects its contituents.
While many Americans view Canada as "America's attic," the place we keep our
crazy aunts.
HeyBub
> "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:13khgre...@corp.supernews.com...
>> docd...@panix.com wrote:
>>>>
>>
>> Yet when some sailor with a long grey beard runs up, grabs my collar
>> with a skinny hand, and screams "There was a ship!" to suggest that
>> he be, um, institutionalized is considered an outrage.
>>
> ROFL!
>
> Just wanted to let you know that S. T. Coleridge is rolling in his
> grave.... laughing...:-)
Let's take him for a spin: walk down 42nd Street.
HeyBub
>
> Somtimes I do feel guilty about doing so well.
Don't be. The poor can't give to charity. In the 13th century, Maimonides
postulated the (I think) twelve degrees of charity. The highest on the list
was to loan someone funds so that he could start his own business. 'Course
the Rambam was Jewish...
> It was quite a shock
> to hear just how many homeless vets there are. This was in the news
> here recently, so maybe it is just now finding its way to New Zealand
> or you just came across it. I don't know of specific programs for
> helping vets on Thanksgiving but there are many places in this area
> where any poor person can get a free Thanksgiving meal. The rest of
> the year besides Thanksgiving and Christmas are probably harder.
>
> So what's my point? I don't feel that I have the expertise to deal
> directly with these people, although I have given some of them some
> small amounts of cash a very few times. Later I always wonderd if I
> did more harm than good. I do give to the Salvation Army via the
> Combined Federal Campaign as I think they are much better prepared
> than I am to deal with these homeless persons. Do I give enough? How
> much is enough? Some passages in the Bible indicate a tithe of 10%. I
> doubt if I am giving that much although I don't actually try to
> keep track. I tend to put myself and my family first as I have been
> saving and investing earnestly for 15 to 20 years in order to
> supplement my retirement, part of which will come from social
> security, which future solvancy is in doubt.
If you have a job, it is almost impossible NOT to contribute more than 10%
of your earnings to "charity." They call it "taxation."
docd...@panix.com
Have you been down that particular lane since it was 'sold into private
hands'? Things have changed a bit there and Coleridge might have a bit of
trouble finding derivatives of his favorite opiates now.
DD
Pete Dashwood
<docd...@panix.com> wrote in message news:fie681$j6f$1...@reader1.panix.com...
Would that be the Kublai Khan Korporation that bought it? :-)
It is many years since I was in New York (around about 1994, I think). I
remember being warned at the hotel not to go strolling down there at night,
so, of course, I did. I don't recall seeing anything untoward, and my stroll
was uneventful.
I wasn't game to try Central Park at night, but it was certainly pleasant in
the daytime :-)
HeyBub
>>
>> Let's take him for a spin: walk down 42nd Street.
>
> Have you been down that particular lane since it was 'sold into
> private hands'? Things have changed a bit there and Coleridge might
> have a bit of trouble finding derivatives of his favorite opiates now.
>
No, I haven't been to NY since Rudy cleaned it up. I prefer a challenge.
Perhaps I should have said:
"... walk any street that has the '42nd Street Regulars' "
I do remember having dinner with my son at the Howard Johnson's on Times
Square. The waiter asked if we wanted a booth next to a window so we could
enjoy the floor show.
docd...@panix.com
Pete Dashwood <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
><docd...@panix.com> wrote in message news:fie681$j6f$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>> In article <13kk130...@corp.supernews.com>,
>> HeyBub <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>>> "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:13khgre...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>> docd...@panix.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet when some sailor with a long grey beard runs up, grabs my collar
>>>>> with a skinny hand, and screams "There was a ship!" to suggest that
>>>>> he be, um, institutionalized is considered an outrage.
>>>>>
>>>> ROFL!
>>>>
>>>> Just wanted to let you know that S. T. Coleridge is rolling in his
>>>> grave.... laughing...:-)
>>>
>>>Let's take him for a spin: walk down 42nd Street.
>>
>> Have you been down that particular lane since it was 'sold into private
>> hands'? Things have changed a bit there and Coleridge might have a bit of
>> trouble finding derivatives of his favorite opiates now.
>>
>
>Would that be the Kublai Khan Korporation that bought it? :-)
I'd doubt it, Mr Dashwood... in the United States of America folks tend to
be a bit wary of naming organisations with words that can be reduced to
'KKK', see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_klux_klan .
>It is many years since I was in New York (around about 1994, I think). I
>remember being warned at the hotel not to go strolling down there at night,
>so, of course, I did. I don't recall seeing anything untoward, and my stroll
>was uneventful.
I've spent a fair amount of time in a variety of different decades in
that area and my experiences are likewise, Mr Dashwood... but my
experiences might not be those of everyone else.
DD
docd...@panix.com
HeyBub <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Let's take him for a spin: walk down 42nd Street.
>>
>> Have you been down that particular lane since it was 'sold into
>> private hands'? Things have changed a bit there and Coleridge might
>> have a bit of trouble finding derivatives of his favorite opiates now.
>>
>
>No, I haven't been to NY since Rudy cleaned it up.
Places change over time... perhaps one might revisit a decades-old
prejudice and apply to it the changes the intervening years have wrought.
>I prefer a challenge.
Like the streets of Chicago, where bootleggers mow down their opposition
with Tommy-guns? Oh, wait, that stereotype is outdated, as well.
DD
Howard Brazee
<dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>Surely there must be programs to prevent servicepeople from just being
>thrown on the scrapheap? We wouildn't want to do that with ANYONE, but
>especially not those who have rendered service to their country and done
>their duty as it was called (leaving aside the rights and wrongs of US
>foreign policy).
There's always a conflict here. We fight it when the truly needy
compete with us, offering to work for lower wages so that they can
survive.
Even when the alternative is chopping down the rainforest or over
fishing the oceans - which we will end up paying for - we don't want
our salaries cut.
(And that's not even considering how many millionaires we see who are
getting richer and more numerous).
So we like to limit our giving to those who don't threaten our
lifestyles more than an occasional gift.
I don't know what to do about this other than try to not be so upset
when I loose my job opportunities to foreign competition.
Howard Brazee
>
>Most systemic problems in America can be traced to an up-stream liberal
>program that failed.
The world is full of variety - so I ask you:
Which conservative alternatives have worked better?
Howard Brazee
>There are, classically, three reasons for punishment:
>
>1. To protect society from further depradations by the miscreant,
>2. To rehabilitate the offender, and
>3. To serve as a deterrent to others similiarily inclined.
>(note "retribution" is not on the "approved" list)
Maybe not - but it seems to be the most popular reason.
Howard Brazee
>Percentage of homeless who are veterans is close to the percentage of the general
>population who are veterans. 21% of American males over 18 are veterans and 1% are active
>duty military.
>
>Average income of veteran males is higher than nonveteran males -- 35,088 versus 30,875.
Doesn't the military require everybody to be high school graduates?
Excluding everybody in the general population who don't qualify for
the military makes these statistics misleading. (although possibly
not your point).
Howard Brazee
<ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> Keys responded "Okay, how many people starved to death in
>the U.S. so far this year? How about last year? How about the last decade?"
>The liberal was speachless, and didn't have a response. Keys knew, unlike
>the liberals in the U.S., that starvation in this country is virtually
>unknown. In the extremely rare cases, it's always because of special
>circumstances, like severe child abuse, getting stranded in the wilderness,
>etc. It's never because there is no food available to those who are hungry
>in this society. Every church I have ever attended has an ongoing program
>to help the poor, and in this part of the country at least, there is almost
>a church on every corner, sometimes several are visible from a single
>location.
Karen Carpenter...
Howard Brazee
>Retraining is available to Cobol programmers.
Retraining is available to people.
>Most of them stubbornly refuse to learn OO.
>Apparently, they prefer to be unemployed.
Cite?
Doug Miller
I would think mental illness qualifies as one of the "special circumstances"
referred to above; certainly, the cause of Karen Carpenter's death was *not*
unavailability of food.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Judson McClendon
Sad, but self inflicted.
--
Judson McClendon ju...@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
HeyBub
> Places change over time... perhaps one might revisit a decades-old
> prejudice and apply to it the changes the intervening years have
> wrought.
>
>> I prefer a challenge.
>
> Like the streets of Chicago, where bootleggers mow down their
> opposition with Tommy-guns? Oh, wait, that stereotype is outdated,
> as well.
The more things change, the more they stay the same:
"...the Chicago Police Department has seized 519 assault weapons and 400 in
2005 alone..."
http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=1&RecNum=4591
Robert
>On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:44:37 -0600, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>
>>Percentage of homeless who are veterans is close to the percentage of the general
>>population who are veterans. 21% of American males over 18 are veterans and 1% are active
>>duty military.
>>
>>Average income of veteran males is higher than nonveteran males -- 35,088 versus 30,875.
>
>Doesn't the military require everybody to be high school graduates?
Generally they do, although I believe the Marine Corps still accepts some low precentage
of non-graduates.
>Excluding everybody in the general population who don't qualify for
>the military makes these statistics misleading. (although possibly
>not your point).
I think the explanation is age. There aren't any 18 year old veterans. Also, the military
excludes physically and mentally disabled from entering. It creates some on the exit side.
Robert
It was a joke.
HeyBub
Gosh, let me think...
1. Welfare reform, one must have a job to get welfare, such as EIC.
2. Modification of the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) to
allow fathers to be in the home.
3. Concealed handgun licenses in 38 states reducing crime.
4. "Lock 'em up and throw away the key" to keep criminals off the street.
5. Tax cuts - this is an omnibus solution. To most conservatives sufficient
tax cuts can restore lost hair, grow bigger chickens, and cure cancer.
6. No Child Left Behind. This hasn't directly improved government schools,
but it has shined a light on incompetent institutions, teachers, and
administrators.
7. Free Trade agreements.
Now that you mention it, though, perhaps not much. Of course another choice
is to do nothing about a perceived 'problem,' inasmuch as tinkering with it
may make it worse. The 'perfect' is often the enemy of the merely 'good.'
HeyBub
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 23:01:30 -0600, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>
>> Retraining is available to Cobol programmers.
>
> Retraining is available to people.
>
Well, that's TWO groups. Any others?
docd...@panix.com
Leave it to a Texan to confuse an 'assault weapon' with a Tommy-gun and
cite government press-releases.
DD
Howard Brazee
>> Which conservative alternatives have worked better?
>
>Gosh, let me think...
>
>1. Welfare reform, one must have a job to get welfare, such as EIC.
Where have they helped? What was the result of this reform? If it
resulted in poor moving to adjacent states, then I don't see that
anybody was helped, other than taxpayers in one state.
If the Liberal programs contributed to "systemic problems", I suppose
it is necessary to quantify them to decide whether Conservative
programs did better.
All sorts of "reform" happen all the time in democratic countries -
with very little measurable results.
This isn't limited to welfare - but tax laws are constantly reformed
as the tax code gets bigger and bigger.
>2. Modification of the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) to
>allow fathers to be in the home.
Do you have figures showing that this caused a decline in "systemic
problems"? Was this a change that the Conservatives fought for and
the Liberals fought against? How many fathers moved home with this
(good) change?
>3. Concealed handgun licenses in 38 states reducing crime.
There are so many places that stats are used to prove the opposite
that I don't have the resources to determine who is correct here. But
if criminals go to the neighboring city to commit crime - we aren't
better off.
>4. "Lock 'em up and throw away the key" to keep criminals off the street.
So "systemic problems" doesn't include our tremendous tax burden.
There are effective alternatives that cost less.
>5. Tax cuts - this is an omnibus solution. To most conservatives sufficient
>tax cuts can restore lost hair, grow bigger chickens, and cure cancer.
The deficit budget is a huge tax. Fiscal conservativeness is all
fine and good for the party who doesn't get to spend the money.
>6. No Child Left Behind. This hasn't directly improved government schools,
>but it has shined a light on incompetent institutions, teachers, and
>administrators.
If it doesn't improve the education of the people, then it hasn't
helped what matters.
>7. Free Trade agreements.
You mean like the ones the Liberals passed and which lots of the
Conservative voters are fighting against?
>Now that you mention it, though, perhaps not much. Of course another choice
>is to do nothing about a perceived 'problem,' inasmuch as tinkering with it
>may make it worse. The 'perfect' is often the enemy of the merely 'good.'
Most of these issues would be better off if we forgot whether they are
"conservative" or "liberal". Labels don't matter. (And how does
Big Business fit in with the same voters as the Religious Right?).
Blaming the other party for "systemic problems" is not solving
anything - when they are still there when the party in power gets
kicked out.
Howard Brazee
>>>Most of them stubbornly refuse to learn OO.
>>>Apparently, they prefer to be unemployed.
>>
>>Cite?
>
>It was a joke.
I'm not very good at telling when you are joking. Some of the more
obtuse of us could use a smiley with some of your posts.
tlmfru
Pete Dashwood <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:5qu3apF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> >> I think this is a case where you took it a bit too literally, Peter.
> >>
> >
> > Concerning the above remarks, originally made by Heybub, and approved by
> > P.
> > Dashwood:
> >
> > I find it significant that Heybub thought it necessary to claim he was
> > joking. If he'd been making fun of HIMSELF I might have found it so,
too,
> > but he wasn't. If his entire posting is meant to be funny, I can't find
a
> > single line in it that comes across as anything but nasty.
>
> That reflects more on you than it does on him, Peter.
As Howard Brazee points out later today, some of us could use a smiley or a
<grin> to figure out the difference. When I see words like "liberal" and
"Roe", knowing them to be emotional triggers in the US, used in the fashion
he did, the humour escapes me. I might add that I have seen & heard similar
sentiments expressed that were meant to be taken literally: on FOX for one
souce: that smug Ms. Coulter in particular.
>
> He only claimed he was joking AFTER you took his comments seriously.
>
He could have said so to begin with ...
> His entire post was not a joke, but there were parts that were. Venomous
it
> wasn't.
>
> Did you seriously think HeyBub thinks that all Democrats are insane?
Wouldn't put it past him.
> > There's a certain kind of personality that finds offensive things funny
if
> > they are directed at someone else.
>
> Not me. And I don't think HeyBub does either. Sometimes people are easily
> offended, and sometimes offence is taken where none was intended.
And sometimes it's just as I say.
>
> >Turn the remarks against them and their
> > best response is a wounded plea: I just meant it as a joke. Such
persons
> > find bullying and actual abuse amusing if it's aimed at people or groups
> > that they don't like.
> >
> > I'll remind everybody that a while ago I was roundly panned in this
> > newsgroup for suggesting that most humour consists of MAKING FUN of
> > someone
> > else.
>
> Ah, now I see the source of your sensitivity...:-)
I feel vindicated, not stung. So far as I'm concerned, his post proved my
point. I like to say "told you so".
>Most of us give and
> take personal ribbing from friends and colleagues PROVIDED it is not
"meant
> to wound".
You are quite aware that even amongst colleagues and friends there is a very
fine line between ribbing and insults. If one has any concern for others'
feelings one will avoid potentially wounding jokes. And one will also be
aware of the exact limitations of "politically correct" thought.
>
> > Perhaps you gents could analyze the original posting and tell me and
other
> > joking-challenged persons which sentences are meant to be funny and
which
> > are meant to be factual.
>
> Well, I was tempted to do exactly that, but there isn't much point; for
the
> most part, a joke explained is a joke that's lost.
Didn't ask you to explain, just to identify.
>
>
> > I am indeed from Canada; we regard the US as a demented older uncle. We
> > shudder at the ignorance of its leadership. We console ourselves with
the
> > thought that said leadership reflects its contituents.
>
> And you don't think that's offensive?
No more so than his comment.
>
> Whether I agree with you or not :-), the difference here is that you are
> lashing out as a reaction to perceived offence, and your statement is
meant
> to wound. See the difference?
I do and you're wrong. As the post didn't affect me personally I was not
stung by it: I am appalled by the sense of humour that finds such statements
amusing.
>
> I know very well from your previous posts here that you are not vitriolic
by
> nature, but now you have been stung and are posting stuff that you
wouldn't
> normally. You can save yourself some irritation and anger if you don't
rise
> to HeyBub's (or anyone else's...) bait quite so readily.
>
A lot of your posts may come across to some people as patronizing ...
PL
HeyBub
>>>> Like the streets of Chicago, where bootleggers mow down their
>>> opposition with Tommy-guns? Oh, wait, that stereotype is outdated,
>>> as well.
>>
>> The more things change, the more they stay the same:
>>
>> "...the Chicago Police Department has seized 519 assault weapons and
>> 400 in 2005 alone..."
>>
>> http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=1&RecNum=4591
>
> Leave it to a Texan to confuse an 'assault weapon' with a Tommy-gun
> and cite government press-releases.
Heh! A "Tommy Gun" IS an assault weapon, although outdated. As for citing
government press-releases, would you prefer a newspaper's regurgitation of a
government press-release? If so, I can easily arrange that.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20070110/ai_n17110729
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20040907/ai_n12557723
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_opinion_letters/2006/03/assault_weapons.html
http://www.emergency.com/strtgang.htm
I can likewise find tons of statements from "think tanks" and lobbying
groups (from the Brady Bunch to the NRA)
There is a difference between the '30's reputation and today. During Al
Capone's reign, bootlegging was the issue; today it's drugs. Same tactics,
different goals.
As for Texans being confused, some are, I'm sure. I own both an AK47 and an
UZI - I'm not confused (although I readily admit the authorities in Chicago
are). But I'm willing to cut them some slack; Chicago is the second-most
restrictive city regarding guns* and is officially a "Nuclear Free Zone"
even though we know what happened under the bleachers at the University of
Chicago.
--------
* That may change next March when the Supreme Court hears arguments in
Heller vs D.C.
HeyBub
Inasmuch as I'm the (partial) object of this dialogue, I hope you won't mind
if I intersperce some observations:
>
> As Howard Brazee points out later today, some of us could use a
> smiley or a <grin> to figure out the difference. When I see words
> like "liberal" and "Roe", knowing them to be emotional triggers in
> the US, used in the fashion he did, the humour escapes me. I might
> add that I have seen & heard similar sentiments expressed that were
> meant to be taken literally: on FOX for one souce: that smug Ms.
> Coulter in particular.
I have never used an emoticon. "Smiley faces" and the like are for
inarticulate fuckers.
>> He only claimed he was joking AFTER you took his comments seriously.
>>
>
> He could have said so to begin with ...
A joke is only effective when the "punch line" is totally unexpected.
>
>> His entire post was not a joke, but there were parts that were.
>> Venomous it wasn't.
>>
>> Did you seriously think HeyBub thinks that all Democrats are insane?
>
> Wouldn't put it past him.
I don't think all Democrats are insane. Their political mental competence
runs the gamut.
>
> I feel vindicated, not stung. So far as I'm concerned, his post
> proved my point. I like to say "told you so".
>
>> Most of us give and
>> take personal ribbing from friends and colleagues PROVIDED it is not
>> "meant to wound".
>
> You are quite aware that even amongst colleagues and friends there is
> a very fine line between ribbing and insults. If one has any concern
> for others' feelings one will avoid potentially wounding jokes. And
> one will also be aware of the exact limitations of "politically
> correct" thought.
Ah, that is a good point. I, myself, am totally indifferent to whether
someone is insulted, offended, miffed, piqued, or emotionally wounded.
>
>>
>>> Perhaps you gents could analyze the original posting and tell me
>>> and other joking-challenged persons which sentences are meant to be
>>> funny and which are meant to be factual.
>>
>> Well, I was tempted to do exactly that, but there isn't much point;
>> for the most part, a joke explained is a joke that's lost.
>
> Didn't ask you to explain, just to identify.
I don't think it would have mattered to some.
>
>>
>>
>>> I am indeed from Canada; we regard the US as a demented older
>>> uncle. We shudder at the ignorance of its leadership. We console
>>> ourselves with the thought that said leadership reflects its
>>> contituents.
>>
>> And you don't think that's offensive?
>
> No more so than his comment.
Hmm. Our current president has a BA from Yale and an MBA from Harvard. Our
former president had a law degree (currently, however, he is disbarred). The
basic rule is that the truely bright become entrepreneurs, the pretty-smart
become politicians, and the average intelligent become industrial drones.
>
>>
>> Whether I agree with you or not :-), the difference here is that you
>> are lashing out as a reaction to perceived offence, and your
>> statement is meant to wound. See the difference?
>
> I do and you're wrong. As the post didn't affect me personally I was
> not stung by it: I am appalled by the sense of humour that finds such
> statements amusing.
Man up; quit being a victim.
Kill a terrorist or, failing that, a member of his family. You'll feel
better.
docd...@panix.com
HeyBub <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>>>>> Like the streets of Chicago, where bootleggers mow down their
>>>> opposition with Tommy-guns? Oh, wait, that stereotype is outdated,
>>>> as well.
>>>
>>> The more things change, the more they stay the same:
>>>
>>> "...the Chicago Police Department has seized 519 assault weapons and
>>> 400 in 2005 alone..."
>>>
>>>
>http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=1&RecNum=4591
>>
>> Leave it to a Texan to confuse an 'assault weapon' with a Tommy-gun
>> and cite government press-releases.
>
>Heh! A "Tommy Gun" IS an assault weapon, although outdated.
A Tommy-gun is a 'Chicago piano', there is no other... if you want to rely
on outdated stereotypes then go right ahead; some folks find that easier
than doing what is commonly called 'thinking for themselves'.
>As for citing
>government press-releases, would you prefer a newspaper's regurgitation of a
>government press-release?
See above about 'thinking for one'sself'... take your time, feel free to
use both sides of the posting. Responses containing hackneyed cliches
from an echo-chamber of any political stripe may be treated... as were the
preceding responses containing hackneyed cliches from an echo-chamber of
any political stripe.
DD
Pete Dashwood
"tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:xpH2j.3877$_%4.1...@newsfe15.lga...
>
> Pete Dashwood <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:5qu3apF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> >> I think this is a case where you took it a bit too literally, Peter.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Concerning the above remarks, originally made by Heybub, and approved
>> > by
>> > P.
>> > Dashwood:
>> >
>> > I find it significant that Heybub thought it necessary to claim he was
>> > joking. If he'd been making fun of HIMSELF I might have found it so,
> too,
>> > but he wasn't. If his entire posting is meant to be funny, I can't
>> > find
> a
>> > single line in it that comes across as anything but nasty.
>>
>> That reflects more on you than it does on him, Peter.
>
> As Howard Brazee points out later today, some of us could use a smiley or
> a
> <grin> to figure out the difference.
Yes, that is a very valid point. I know sometimes I forget to do that
because it seems so obvious to me that I'm not being serious. I have also
been accused of hiding vitriol behind a smiley (which I would never do...)
> When I see words like "liberal" and
> "Roe", knowing them to be emotional triggers in the US, used in the
> fashion
> he did, the humour escapes me. I might add that I have seen & heard
> similar
> sentiments expressed that were meant to be taken literally: on FOX for one
> souce: that smug Ms. Coulter in particular.
>
LOL! We get Fox here very late at night and I sometimes watch it...I have to
agree with you. In fact, I found most of the programming an insult to the
intelligence of anyone aged more than 11... :-) BBC World, on the other hand
has much better and balanced content.
>>
>> Did you seriously think HeyBub thinks that all Democrats are insane?
>
> Wouldn't put it past him.
:-)
>
>> > There's a certain kind of personality that finds offensive things funny
> if
>> > they are directed at someone else.
>>
>> Not me. And I don't think HeyBub does either. Sometimes people are easily
>> offended, and sometimes offence is taken where none was intended.
>
> And sometimes it's just as I say.
Yes, I can't rule it out... :-)
>
>>
>> >Turn the remarks against them and their
>> > best response is a wounded plea: I just meant it as a joke. Such
> persons
>> > find bullying and actual abuse amusing if it's aimed at people or
>> > groups
>> > that they don't like.
>> >
>> > I'll remind everybody that a while ago I was roundly panned in this
>> > newsgroup for suggesting that most humour consists of MAKING FUN of
>> > someone
>> > else.
>>
>> Ah, now I see the source of your sensitivity...:-)
>
> I feel vindicated, not stung. So far as I'm concerned, his post proved my
> point. I like to say "told you so".
Really? Nah, you're pulling my leg, right? :-)
>
>>Most of us give and
>> take personal ribbing from friends and colleagues PROVIDED it is not
> "meant
>> to wound".
>
> You are quite aware that even amongst colleagues and friends there is a
> very
> fine line between ribbing and insults. If one has any concern for others'
> feelings one will avoid potentially wounding jokes. And one will also be
> aware of the exact limitations of "politically correct" thought.
>
I can agree it is a fine line and if in doubt, best avoided.
>>
>>
>> > I am indeed from Canada; we regard the US as a demented older uncle.
>> > We
>> > shudder at the ignorance of its leadership. We console ourselves with
> the
>> > thought that said leadership reflects its contituents.
>>
>> And you don't think that's offensive?
>
> No more so than his comment.
I see. :-)
>
>>
>> Whether I agree with you or not :-), the difference here is that you are
>> lashing out as a reaction to perceived offence, and your statement is
> meant
>> to wound. See the difference?
>
> I do and you're wrong. As the post didn't affect me personally I was not
> stung by it: I am appalled by the sense of humour that finds such
> statements
> amusing.
>
>>
>> I know very well from your previous posts here that you are not vitriolic
> by
>> nature, but now you have been stung and are posting stuff that you
> wouldn't
>> normally. You can save yourself some irritation and anger if you don't
> rise
>> to HeyBub's (or anyone else's...) bait quite so readily.
>>
>
> A lot of your posts may come across to some people as patronizing ...
Probably. The only defence I can offer is the purity of my intentions. I
honestly don't see others as lesser, I see CLC as a small community where
the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Discord and vitriol simply
undermine all of us. There's nothing wrong with arguing, there's nothing
wrong with being intense or passionate about things, there are even times
when an atagonistic exchange can be fun, as long as it doesn't get serious
and personal.
I have learned this from posting here over many years. There have been times
when I have been extremely angry over responses from individuals. But you
grow... It serves no purpose to get unwrapped, and nowadays, I refuse to
allow CLC to upset me... (I still get irritated by it sometimes, but that is
probably good for me :-))
You did include me in your response and tarred me with the same brush you
tarred Jerry, so I claim the right to defend myself... :-)
I didn't post to patronize you (or anybody else).
Pete.
Pete Dashwood
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
"HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13kmjbb...@corp.supernews.com...
Pete Dashwood
"HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13kmjbb...@corp.supernews.com...
> docd...@panix.com wrote:
>
> As for Texans being confused, some are, I'm sure. I own both an AK47 and
> an UZI - I'm not confused (although I readily admit the authorities in
> Chicago are).
Guess those Texan quail are really tough, huh, Jerry?
Pete.
Robert
wrote:
>
>
>"HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:13kmjbb...@corp.supernews.com...
>> docd...@panix.com wrote:
>>
>> As for Texans being confused, some are, I'm sure. I own both an AK47 and
>> an UZI - I'm not confused (although I readily admit the authorities in
>> Chicago are).
>
>Guess those Texan quail are really tough, huh, Jerry?
Not as tough as North Carolina squirrels. When I was in the Marine Corps, two of our guys
on weekend liberty were caught by a game warden while squirrel hunting. They were spraying
treetops with full auto .45 cal fired from M3A1 submachine guns (which replaced Thomsons).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_submachine_gun
Full auto weapons like that are only good for defense i.e. hosing down the area to make
people take cover long enough to make your getaway. They can't hit a target more than 50
meters away except by good luck.
docd...@panix.com
Pete Dashwood <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>"HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:13kmjbb...@corp.supernews.com...
>> docd...@panix.com wrote:
>>
>> As for Texans being confused, some are, I'm sure. I own both an AK47 and
>> an UZI - I'm not confused (although I readily admit the authorities in
>> Chicago are).
>
>Guess those Texan quail are really tough, huh, Jerry?
Please have a care with your quoting, Mr Dashwood; what you've
posted, above, might readily cause someone to believe that I made the
assertions regarding my state-citizenship and firearms-ownership.
DD
donald tees
> tlmfru wrote:
>
> Inasmuch as I'm the (partial) object of this dialogue, I hope you won't mind
> if I intersperce some observations:
>
>> As Howard Brazee points out later today, some of us could use a
>> smiley or a <grin> to figure out the difference. When I see words
>> like "liberal" and "Roe", knowing them to be emotional triggers in
>> the US, used in the fashion he did, the humour escapes me. I might
>> add that I have seen & heard similar sentiments expressed that were
>> meant to be taken literally: on FOX for one souce: that smug Ms.
>> Coulter in particular.
>
> I have never used an emoticon. "Smiley faces" and the like are for
> inarticulate fuckers.
>
>>> He only claimed he was joking AFTER you took his comments seriously.
>>>
>> He could have said so to begin with ...
>
> A joke is only effective when the "punch line" is totally unexpected.
>
So is a sucker punch.
Donald
Howard Brazee
>I have never used an emoticon. "Smiley faces" and the like are for
>inarticulate fuckers.
Then expect to be misunderstood.
It doesn't matter how articulate you are - any conversation you have
will involve others. And we have various levels of ability to
recognize your wisdom.
I suppose you can feel smug that you are superior to the realities of
communication - it's our fault we're inferior. But if your post is
supposed to communicate - consider the audience.
HeyBub
>
> Full auto weapons like that are only good for defense i.e. hosing
> down the area to make people take cover long enough to make your
> getaway. They can't hit a target more than 50 meters away except by
> good luck.
I generally agree.
In the movie "Blood Diamond," there's one scene where DiCaprio is trying to
quickly maneuver in an area full of goblins.
All are armed with AK47s.
Every one of the squints is firing in the "spray and pray" mode, full
automatic. DiCaprio's character is firing in "single shot" mode. The
boom-boom guys manage to hit a lot of dirt, tin cans, and an occassional
shack. DiCaprio kills just about all of them.
Reality sometimes tends to negate the axiom: "He who puts the most metal in
the air, wins."
docd...@panix.com
HeyBub <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Robert wrote:
>>
>> Full auto weapons like that are only good for defense i.e. hosing
>> down the area to make people take cover long enough to make your
>> getaway. They can't hit a target more than 50 meters away except by
>> good luck.
>
>I generally agree.
>
>In the movie "Blood Diamond," there's one scene where DiCaprio is trying to
>quickly maneuver in an area full of goblins.
[snip]
>Reality sometimes tends to negate the axiom: "He who puts the most metal in
>the air, wins."
Ummmmmm... you *do* realise that you're making a statement about 'reality'
based on 'one scene' from a movie, right?
DD
Howard Brazee
>In the movie "Blood Diamond," there's one scene where DiCaprio is trying to
>quickly maneuver in an area full of goblins.
>
>All are armed with AK47s.
>
>Every one of the squints is firing in the "spray and pray" mode, full
>automatic. DiCaprio's character is firing in "single shot" mode. The
>boom-boom guys manage to hit a lot of dirt, tin cans, and an occassional
>shack. DiCaprio kills just about all of them.
>
>Reality sometimes tends to negate the axiom: "He who puts the most metal in
>the air, wins."
That is an interesting choice to illustrate "reality".
Alistair
> In article <13kk130bmimc...@corp.supernews.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> HeyBub <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>news:13khgre...@corp.supernews.com...
> >>> docdw...@panix.com wrote:
>
> >>> Yet when some sailor with a long grey beard runs up, grabs my collar
> >>> with a skinny hand, and screams "There was a ship!" to suggest that
> >>> he be, um, institutionalized is considered an outrage.
>
> >> ROFL!
>
> >> Just wanted to let you know that S. T. Coleridge is rolling in his
> >> grave.... laughing...:-)
>
> >Let's take him for a spin: walk down 42nd Street.
>
> Have you been down that particular lane since it was 'sold into private
> hands'? Things have changed a bit there and Coleridge might have a bit of
> trouble finding derivatives of his favorite opiates now.
>
> DD- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No problem there. Opiates, and the derivatives thereof, are easily
come by this side of the pond. The price dropped after the bumper
harvests recently experienced in Afghanistan.
Alistair
> In article <13kog9nq45dt...@corp.supernews.com>,
What are you saying - the movies aren't real?
Pete Dashwood
"Robert" <n...@e.mail> wrote in message
news:0iank3psbc27p4gpc...@4ax.com...
Hmmmm... next time I'm 51 meters away and get hit by such a weapon, I'll
reflect on how lucky I was...:-)
docd...@panix.com
Answering a question with a question, Mr Maclean, is no answer at all...
and if movies weren't real then everyone sitting in a cinema might be
suffering from a sort of mass hallucination.
DD
docd...@panix.com
[snip]
>> Have you been down that particular lane since it was 'sold into private
>> hands'? Things have changed a bit there and Coleridge might have a bit of
>> trouble finding derivatives of his favorite opiates now.
>
>No problem there. Opiates, and the derivatives thereof, are easily
>come by this side of the pond.
That side of the pond, Mr Maclean, is a long, wet walk from that avenue
they're takin' ya to, Fawty-Second Street.
DD
Pete Dashwood
<docd...@panix.com> wrote in message news:figr9f$9lq$1...@reader1.panix.com...
Sorry, careless snipping. Point taken.
HeyBub
>>
>> Every one of the squints is firing in the "spray and pray" mode, full
>> automatic. DiCaprio's character is firing in "single shot" mode. The
>> boom-boom guys manage to hit a lot of dirt, tin cans, and an
>> occassional shack. DiCaprio kills just about all of them.
>>
>> Reality sometimes tends to negate the axiom: "He who puts the most
>> metal in the air, wins."
>
> That is an interesting choice to illustrate "reality".
Sigh. Okay, here's another. In "Pulp Fiction," a dude runs out of an
apartment's toilet screaming obscenities and empties a six-shooter in the
general direction of Winnfield and Vega, standing not ten feet away. Every
shot misses. Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson) and Vega (John Travolta) take
careful aim and waste his ass.
There you are.
This episode becomes a religious experience for Winnfield, but that's
another story.
LX-i
>
> As Howard Brazee points out later today, some of us could use a smiley or a
> <grin> to figure out the difference. When I see words like "liberal" and
> "Roe", knowing them to be emotional triggers in the US, used in the fashion
> he did, the humour escapes me.
Do you know what the "Roe effect" is?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004780
> that smug Ms. Coulter in particular.
she's HAWT! :)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
docd...@panix.com
There one is, indeed. You know, I once saw a film in which the
protagonist was a strange visitor from another planet who came to Earth
with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men, who could change
the course of mighty rivers, bend steel with his bare hands...
... and I recalled thinking 'my, some of those behaviors sure do seem to
violate the Laws of Physics which appear to hold sway outside of the
confines of this cinema... maybe it is best that I don't draw too many
conclusions from this about how I believe folks should behave once the
credits finish rolling.'
DD
HeyBub
> tlmfru wrote:
>>
>> As Howard Brazee points out later today, some of us could use a
>> smiley or a <grin> to figure out the difference. When I see words
>> like "liberal" and "Roe", knowing them to be emotional triggers in
>> the US, used in the fashion he did, the humour escapes me.
>
> Do you know what the "Roe effect" is?
>
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004780
It's grown. We now have the "Vernelli Effect"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped1128parkernov28,1,1966429.column
>
>> that smug Ms. Coulter in particular.
>
> she's HAWT! :)
I want to have her babies! No, wait...
Howard Brazee
>Do you know what the "Roe effect" is?
>
>http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004780
Interesting.
I've read a different (not so associated with political trends)
interpretation of Roe vs Wade in the book
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
By Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner
It found the best correlation between law and crime drops - was Roe vs
Wade.
HeyBub
>
> I've read a different (not so associated with political trends)
> interpretation of Roe vs Wade in the book
> Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
> By Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner
>
> It found the best correlation between law and crime drops - was Roe vs
> Wade.
Hmm. Democrats drop due to Roe v Wade; crime drops due to Roe v Wade.
I see the makings of a scientific paper here...
tlmfru
decision on abortion; and that as Democrat women (so it's assumed) will have
more abortions than Republican women therefore the number of Democrats will
slowly decline.
LX-i <lxi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Qd2dnR0dGcO-btHa...@comcast.com...
> tlmfru wrote:
> >
> > As Howard Brazee points out later today, some of us could use a smiley
or a
> > <grin> to figure out the difference. When I see words like "liberal"
and
> > "Roe", knowing them to be emotional triggers in the US, used in the
fashion
> > he did, the humour escapes me.
>
> Do you know what the "Roe effect" is?
>
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004780
>
> > that smug Ms. Coulter in particular.
>
> she's HAWT! :)
Hawt??!! She's scrawny and shrill.
PL
Howard Brazee
>Without looking at the site, I presume it refers to the "Roe vs. Wade"
>decision on abortion; and that as Democrat women (so it's assumed) will have
>more abortions than Republican women therefore the number of Democrats will
>slowly decline.
But that really doesn't work when you check the demographics. But
there are people who have strong enough convictions about abortion
that their political preferences move towards the party that gives the
most lip service to their side of this issue.
docd...@panix.com
HeyBub <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Howard Brazee wrote:
>>
>> I've read a different (not so associated with political trends)
>> interpretation of Roe vs Wade in the book
>> Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
>> By Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner
>>
>> It found the best correlation between law and crime drops - was Roe vs
>> Wade.
>
>Hmm. Democrats drop due to Roe v Wade; crime drops due to Roe v Wade.
Another joke, of course... another bit of levity that just happens to
associate a political party with which you disagree with a segment of
society the members of which you seem to believe should be deprived of
their liberty against their will.
DD
HeyBub
> In article <13krke3...@corp.supernews.com>,
>>
>> Hmm. Democrats drop due to Roe v Wade; crime drops due to Roe v Wade.
>
> Another joke, of course... another bit of levity that just happens to
> associate a political party with which you disagree with a segment of
> society the members of which you seem to believe should be deprived of
> their liberty against their will.
You seem to assume facts not in evidence. I see the makings of a scientific
paper here...
HeyBub
Well, yes it does fit the demographics.
Abortion should be generally available:
Conservative Repub - 17%
Liberal Dem - 60%
http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=150
It was estimated that there were 75,000 abortions in Florida in 1982 (45,000
by liberal dems and 12750 by conservative repubs, if the above percentages
apply - a difference of 32,250).
Now had those 75,000 gone to term, they would have been eligible to vote in
2000. Of the calculated liberal plurality of 32,000, some would have died,
some moved away, some incarcerated, and so on. But some would have voted.
If the "some" that voted exceeded 600, Al Gore would have been president.
docd...@panix.com
HeyBub <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <13krke3...@corp.supernews.com>,
>>>
>>> Hmm. Democrats drop due to Roe v Wade; crime drops due to Roe v Wade.
>>
>> Another joke, of course... another bit of levity that just happens to
>> associate a political party with which you disagree with a segment of
>> society the members of which you seem to believe should be deprived of
>> their liberty against their will.
>
>You seem to assume facts not in evidence.
The facts in evidence are that in one recent posting you associated
Democrats (those who associate with a political party with which you
disagree) with the institutionalised insane (members of society whom you
seem to believe should be deprived of their liberty against their will)
and when this was pointed you labelled it 'a joke'... in what was quoted
above you associated Democrats (with whom you disagree) with criminals
(whom you seem to believe should be deprived of their liberty against
their will).
DD
Robert
Many Democratic voters in Chicago are neither insane nor criminal, they're dead.
Robert
>Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:49:03 -0600, "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Without looking at the site, I presume it refers to the "Roe vs.
>>> Wade" decision on abortion; and that as Democrat women (so it's
>>> assumed) will have more abortions than Republican women therefore
>>> the number of Democrats will slowly decline.
>>
>> But that really doesn't work when you check the demographics. But
>> there are people who have strong enough convictions about abortion
>> that their political preferences move towards the party that gives the
>> most lip service to their side of this issue.
>
>Well, yes it does fit the demographics.
>
>Abortion should be generally available:
>Conservative Repub - 17%
>Liberal Dem - 60%
>http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=150
>
>It was estimated that there were 75,000 abortions in Florida in 1982 (45,000
>by liberal dems and 12750 by conservative repubs, if the above percentages
>apply - a difference of 32,250).
There are three kinds of people in the world:
1. Those who can do arithmetic.
2. Those who can't.
>Now had those 75,000 gone to term, they would have been eligible to vote in
>2000. Of the calculated liberal plurality of 32,000, some would have died,
>some moved away, some incarcerated, and so on. But some would have voted.
>
>If the "some" that voted exceeded 600, Al Gore would have been president.
Most likely, half of the 75,000 would have become Republicans and half, Democrats. The
outcome would have been the same. But if say 1,000 more had become Democrats (because they
were black and hispanic), Jeb Bush would have simply disenfranchised 101,000 instead of
100,000.
--- quotation ---
Over the past two years, with Republicans in charge of both the governorship and the
secretary of state's office, now under Harris, the felon purge has accelerated. In May
2000, using a list provided by DBT, Harris's office ordered counties to purge 8,000
Florida voters who had committed felonies in Texas. In fact, none of the group were
charged with anything more than misdemeanors, a mistake caught but never fully reversed.
ChoicePoint DBT and Harris then sent out "corrected" lists, including the names of 437
voters who indeed had committed felonies in Texas. But this list too was in error, since a
Texas law enacted in 1997 permits felons to vote after doing their time. In this case
there was no attempt at all to correct the error.
The wrongful purge of the Texas convicts was no one-of-a-kind mishap. The secretary of
state's office acknowledges that it also ordered the removal of 714 names of Illinois
felons and 990 from Ohio--states that permit the vote even to those on probation or
parole. According to Florida's own laws, not a single person arriving in the state from
Ohio or Illinois should have been removed. Altogether DBT tagged for the scrub nearly
3,000 felons who came from at least eight states that automatically restore voting rights
and who therefore arrived in Florida with full citizenship.
A ChoicePoint DBT spokesman said, and the Florida Department of Elections confirms, that
Harris's office approved the selection of states from which to obtain records for the
felon scrub. As to why the department included states that restore voting rights, Janet
Modrow, Florida's liaison to ChoicePoint DBT, bounced the question to Harris's legal
staff. That office has not returned repeated calls.
.....
Beverly Hill, the elections supervisor of Alachua County, where Johnson attempted to
register, said that she used to allow ex-felons like Johnson to vote. Under Governor Bush,
that changed. "Recently, the [Governor's Office of Executive] Clemency people told us
something different," she said. "They told us that they essentially can't vote."
Both Alachua's refusal to allow Johnson to vote and the governor's directive underlying
that refusal are notable for their timing--coming after two court rulings that ordered the
secretary of state and governor to recognize the civil rights of felons arriving from
other states. In the first of these decisions, Schlenther v. Florida Department of State,
issued in June 1998, Florida's Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that Florida could not
require a man convicted in Connecticut twenty-five years earlier "to ask [Florida] to
restore his civil rights. They were never lost here." Connecticut, like most states,
automatically restores felons' civil rights at the end of their sentences, and therefore
"he arrived as any other citizen, with full rights of citizenship."
The Schlenther decision was much the talk at a summer 1998 meeting of county elections
officials in Orlando. So it was all the more surprising to Chuck Smith, systems
administrator with Hillsborough County, that Harris's elections division chiefs exhorted
local officials at the Orlando meeting to purge all out-of-state felons identified by DBT.
Hillsborough was so concerned about this order, which appeared to fly in the face of the
court edict, that the county's elections office demanded that the state put that position
in writing--a request duly granted.
The Nation has obtained the text of the response to Hillsborough. The letter, from the
Governor's Office of Executive Clemency, dated September 18, 2000, arrived only seven
weeks before the presidential election. It orders the county to tell ex-felons trying to
register that even if they entered Florida with civil rights restored by another state's
law, they will still be "required to make application for restoration of civil rights in
the state of Florida," that is, ask Governor Bush for clemency--exactly the requirement
banned by the courts. The state's directive was all the more surprising in light of a
second ruling, issued in December 1999 by another Florida court, in which a Florida
district court judge expressed his ill-disguised exasperation with the governor's
administration for ignoring the prior edict in Schlenther.
Voting rights attorneys who reviewed the cases for The Nation explained that the courts
relied on both Florida statute and the "full faith and credit" clause of the US
Constitution, which requires every state to accept the legal rulings of other states. "The
court has been pretty clear on what the governor can't do," says Bruce Gear, assistant
general counsel for the NAACP. And what Governor Bush can't do is demand that a citizen
arriving in Florida ask him for clemency to restore a right to vote that the citizen
already has.
Strangely enough, the governor's office does not disagree. While Harris, Bush and a
half-dozen of their political appointees have not returned our calls, Tawanna Hayes, who
processes the requests for clemency in the governor's office, states unequivocally that
"we do not have the right to suspend or restore rights where those rights have been
restored in another state." Hayes even keeps a copy of the two court decisions near her
desk and quotes from them at length. Then why have the governor and secretary of state
ordered these people purged from the rolls or barred from registering? Hayes directed us
to Greg Munson, Governor Bush's assistant general counsel and clemency aide. Munson has
not responded to our detailed request for an explanation.
A letter dated August 10, 2000, from Harris's office to Bush's office, obtained under
Florida's freedom-of-information act, indicates that the chief of the Florida State
Association of Supervisors of Elections also questioned Harris's office about the purge of
ex-cons whose rights had been restored automatically by other states. The supervisors'
group received the same response as Hillsborough: Strike them from the voter rolls, and if
they complain, make them ask Bush for clemency.
While almost all county supervisors buckled, Carol Griffen did not. Griffen, Washington
County's elections chief, concluded that running legal voters through Jeb Bush's clemency
maze would violate a 1993 federal law, the National Voter Registration Act, which was
designed to remove impediments to the exercise of civil rights. The law, known as "Motor
Voter," is credited with helping register 7 million new voters. Griffen quotes from the
Florida section of the new, NVRA-certified registration form, which says, "I affirm I am
not a convicted felon, or if I am, my rights relating to voting have been restored."
"That's the law," says the adamant Griffen, "and I have no right stopping anyone
registering who truthfully signs that statement. Once you check that box there's no
discussion." Griffen's county refused to implement the scrub, and the state appears
reluctant to challenge its action.
But when Pastor Johnson attempted to register in Alachua County, clerks refused and
instead handed him a fifteen-page clemency request form. The outraged minister found the
offer a demeaning Catch-22. "How can I ask the governor for a right I already have?" he
says, echoing, albeit unknowingly, the words of the Florida courts.
Had Johnson relented and chosen to seek clemency, he would have faced a procedure that is,
admits the clemency office's Hayes, "sometimes worse than breaking a leg." For New Yorkers
like Johnson, she says, "I'm telling you it's a bear." She says officials in New York,
which restores civil rights automatically, are perplexed by requests from Florida for
nonexistent papers declaring the individual's rights restored. Without the phantom
clemency orders, the applicant must hunt up old court records and begin a complex process
lasting from four months to two years, sometimes involving quasi-judicial hearings, the
outcome of which depends on Jeb Bush's disposition.
Little wonder that out of tens of thousands of out-of-state felons, only a hardy couple of
hundred attempted to run this bureaucratic obstacle course before the election. (Bush can
be compassionate: He granted clemency to Charles Colson for his crimes as a Watergate
conspirator, giving Florida resident Colson the right to vote in the presidential
election.)
docd...@panix.com
There might be need for fewer voters, live or dead, if more voting-machine
executives committed to delivering electoral votes.
DD
Pete Dashwood
"Robert" <n...@e.mail> wrote in message
news:846sk3lb90lqamjai...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:26:19 -0600, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Howard Brazee wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:49:03 -0600, "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Without looking at the site, I presume it refers to the "Roe vs.
>>>> Wade" decision on abortion; and that as Democrat women (so it's
>>>> assumed) will have more abortions than Republican women therefore
>>>> the number of Democrats will slowly decline.
>>>
>>> But that really doesn't work when you check the demographics. But
>>> there are people who have strong enough convictions about abortion
>>> that their political preferences move towards the party that gives the
>>> most lip service to their side of this issue.
>>
>>Well, yes it does fit the demographics.
>>
>>Abortion should be generally available:
>>Conservative Repub - 17%
>>Liberal Dem - 60%
>>http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=150
>>
>>It was estimated that there were 75,000 abortions in Florida in 1982
>>(45,000
>>by liberal dems and 12750 by conservative repubs, if the above
>>percentages
>>apply - a difference of 32,250).
>
> There are three kinds of people in the world:
>
> 1. Those who can do arithmetic.
> 2. Those who can't.
>
:-) I liked that... not seen it before...
>>Now had those 75,000 gone to term, they would have been eligible to vote
>>in
>>2000. Of the calculated liberal plurality of 32,000, some would have died,
>>some moved away, some incarcerated, and so on. But some would have voted.
>>
>>If the "some" that voted exceeded 600, Al Gore would have been president.
>
Incredible that nation of over 300,000,000 could hang on such a knife
edge...
I find this staggering. How can Democracy work when every State is allowed
to interpret who can and cannot vote?
How could anyone interpret this mess?
There should be one clear law for the Union: "Everyone not in jail has the
right to vote."
Anything less creates schisms and classes in the society.
By all means punish felons (you guys seem Hell-bent on doing so... for all
the good it does...), but once someone pays their debt to society, they
shouldn't be marked as a second-class citizen for the rest of their life.
I was watching one of those cop video documentaries on free-to-air TV here
tonight and I thought some of the police treatment was apalling. It was all
from the USA. I realise miscreants are likely to carry guns and police need
protection, but some of what went on was definitely excessive...
As someone who upholds the rule of Law and supports the Police (recognising
that in any society they have a very difficult line to walk) I couldn't
believe watching fugitives being shot for no good reason except that the cop
concerned simply wasn't up to dealing with the situation. "I thought he had
a gun..." Looking at a blurry video from 50 yards away I could see the
person concerned did NOT have a gun, yet an officer sworn to protect and
serve the public and only half that distance away, put three rounds in him.
(The guy survived but got ten years in jail... they obviously didn't knock a
few years off for nearly shooting him to death...)
BTW, this was not an anti-police video. The commentary commended all police
actions and excused the excesses.
A burglar had a police dog set on him. Fair enough. But the handler didn't
call the dog off once the guy had given up. Instead he let the dog seriously
maul the guy, ignored the victim's screams of surrender, then rewarded the
dog with "Good Boy...". I found it sickening and an abuse of power.
I am not a bleeding heart Liberal who would scream "police brutality" if
someone genuinely resisted arrest, but neither do I think that when someone
has surrendered they should be shot or savaged by a dog.
There are calls for the police here to be armed (currently, they are not)
and they are currently trialing tasers, amidst divided public opinion. After
watching this program, I've changed my mind on issuing tasers (I was in
favour, but I realise that if you give someone a toy, they can't wait to use
it...there have already been misuses of pepper spray by police here...)
I guess the bottom line on what I'm saying here is that if you view
criminals as a sub-human, sub-culture, treat them brutally, and remove any
hope of them ever being being able to lead a normal life, you shouldn't be
too surprised at what you get.
If you see them as fellow human beings, citizens of your country, who have
screwed up, accord them the same respect you would any other person, you
might get a different type of criminal. At the very least you could be proud
of your Police Force and your Society.
The only way to lower the crime rate is to change people's minds about
wanting to commit crime, and changing social conditions so that nobody NEEDS
to commit crime to survive. There will always be greed, there will always be
anti-social screw-ups (who were created by the same society they rebel
against), there will always be crimes of passion, and crimes caused by all
the human frailty that flesh is heir to, but we should recognise it for what
it is and seek to repair the damage done. Beating them into submission is
stupid and pointless; creating a criminal under-class simply sets Society up
for a war it can never win.
I hope I never see a war like that here.
HeyBub
Bush had no control over the process. The Secretary of State (an elected
office) is solely responsible for the conduct of elections. The governor is
not in the loop.
"Most likely?" Hardly. Study after study shows that a) children follow the
political leanings of their parents by an eight-to-one margin; b) Youth (the
18-year-olds in the above example) are typically more liberal than their
elders.
Secondly, the disenfranchisement to which you refer would have to take place
before the election. There have been few (if any) votes discarded AFTER an
election. (I can, however, think of several spectacular cases where votes
were ADDED after the polls closed - Consider Duvall County, Texas that
helped Lyndon Johnson carry his 1948 race by 87 votes, earning him the
moniker of "Landslide Lyndon" and the "found" ballots in Palm Beach county
in the 2000 election).
>
> --- quotation ---
>
> Over the past two years, with Republicans in charge of both the
> governorship and the secretary of state's office, now under Harris,
> the felon purge has accelerated. In May 2000, using a list provided
> by DBT, Harris's office ordered counties to purge 8,000 Florida
> voters who had committed felonies in Texas. In fact, none of the
> group were charged with anything more than misdemeanors, a mistake
> caught but never fully reversed. ChoicePoint DBT and Harris then sent
> out "corrected" lists, including the names of 437 voters who indeed
> had committed felonies in Texas. But this list too was in error,
> since a Texas law enacted in 1997 permits felons to vote after doing
> their time. In this case there was no attempt at all to correct the
> error.
Whether Texas allowed felons to vote has no bearing on whether Florida
should allow felons to vote. In fact, a felon could be pardoned in Texas but
still ineligible to vote in Florida. No state allows another state to define
its sufferage requirements.
>
> The wrongful purge of the Texas convicts was no one-of-a-kind mishap.
> The secretary of state's office acknowledges that it also ordered the
> removal of 714 names of Illinois felons and 990 from Ohio--states
> that permit the vote even to those on probation or parole. According
> to Florida's own laws, not a single person arriving in the state from
> Ohio or Illinois should have been removed. Altogether DBT tagged for
> the scrub nearly 3,000 felons who came from at least eight states
> that automatically restore voting rights and who therefore arrived in
> Florida with full citizenship.
Again, if these recent arrivals wanted to vote, they should repair to their
home state. No state is obliged to follow the voting requirements of
another. If, for example, someone commits an act that's a felony in Ohio,
but is only a misdemeanor in Florida, Florida may not let that person vote.
Conversely, if the offense in Ohio is only a minor offense, but a felony in
Florida, the conviction would not be a bar to voting in Florida.
Now this report you quote, from The Nation magazine (arguably the country's
most liberal publication next to the Daily Worker) is obviously taking issue
with the way things ARE, and that's okay. But the magazine attempts to
confuse the issue, blaming political chicanery what was really long-standing
law. In politics the rule is: do not attribute to malice that which can be
explained by incompetence.
In my view, this silliness could have been prevented by having competent
programmers in Florida, especially the Secretary of State's office.
All of this kerfluffle, however, has been mooted in that Florida recently
changed the law and the state now allows felons to vote.
This single change dramatically increased the Democratic voter base.
Howard Brazee
>> But that really doesn't work when you check the demographics. But
>> there are people who have strong enough convictions about abortion
>> that their political preferences move towards the party that gives the
>> most lip service to their side of this issue.
>
>Well, yes it does fit the demographics.
>
>Abortion should be generally available:
...
What you left out was the demographics of the poor minorities who have
big families and tend to vote Democrat. So maybe abortion decreases
their rate of increase - but it won't be sufficient to cause (quoting
from the message I replied to) "the number of Democrats will slowly
decline."
Howard Brazee
<dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>I find this staggering. How can Democracy work when every State is allowed
>to interpret who can and cannot vote?
I'm not convinced that having national standards that are less than
universal would make Democracy work better. States define which of
their crimes are felonies, for instance.
I sometimes wonder what would have happened if the Constitution had
instituted representation based upon voters rather than heads. States
would have been motivated to enfranchise more people earlier to gain
more power.
Judson McClendon
>
> I find this staggering. How can Democracy work when every State is allowed to interpret who can and cannot vote?
>
> How could anyone interpret this mess?
>
> There should be one clear law for the Union: "Everyone not in jail has the right to vote."
>
> Anything less creates schisms and classes in the society.
The historical reason for the varying rules between states has to do with how the election process is defined in the Constitution.
It was the intent of the Founding Fathers that states have a large degree of autonomy, and that the Federal government be relatively
weak. Most early Americans fled oppression in Europe, and did not like the idea of a powerful central government here.
(The primary reason for the U.S. Civil War was to reverse this, not to free slaves, as is commonly thought. Freeing slaves was the
tentative excuse, but not the reason. For example, shortly before the Civil War, the southern states submitted a bill to free the
slaves peacefully over a few years, but the northern states voted it down. If the intent had been just to abolish slavery, that
would have been the time to do it, and avoid war. Forcing the southern states to give up slavery overnight would have destroyed the
economy. Only an idiot would have thought that a good idea, because the slaves would have been starving along with everyone else in
the South. Yet that was what the southern states were presented with, or secession.)
The Constitution decreed that, in presidential elections, the states would send electoral delegates to Washington to evaluate and
vote for the candidate they believed would make the best president. The number of electoral votes a state has are actually the
number of electoral delegates, based on population. The primary reason for a national census every 10 years in the U.S. is to
determine this, and the number of representatives each state elects to the U.S. House of Representatives. This made sense in the
18th century, well before modern communications and computers. Because the states select and send the electoral delegates, they
decide how the delegates are to be selected, including who can vote for them. In modern times, political parties nominate delegates
who are sworn to vote for a particular candidate. In times past, the ballots only had the names of the delegate candidate, not the
person running for office. Eventually the candidate's names were added along with the delegates. IIRC, in Alabama, the delegate's
name may no longer appear.
Many people (including me) believe the Constitution would be better if amended so presidential elections are by straight popular
vote. Senate and House elections would probably still be determined by the states, similarly to now. The problem with a
Constitutional amendment is that, once you open the long and complex process, you open the door for every wacky amendment out there,
and the people would only get to vote the whole thing up or down. We could be stuck with a stupid amendment very few people want, or
wasting the whole process by voting it down to avoid that.
--
Judson McClendon ju...@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
docd...@panix.com
Judson McClendon <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Most early Americans fled oppression in Europe, and did not like
>the idea of a powerful central government here.
>
>(The primary reason for the U.S. Civil War was to reverse this, not to
>free slaves, as is commonly thought. Freeing slaves was the
>tentative excuse, but not the reason.
Mr McClendon, several people have disagreed with this assertion... one of
them was Alexander H. Stephens, who addressed this very matter in a speech
he gave on 21 March 1861 in Savannah, Georgia, USA.
From http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76
--begin quoted text:
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better,
allow me to allude to one other - though last, not least. The new
constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions
relating to our peculiar institution - African slavery as it exists
amongst us - the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.
This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.
[snip]
The prevailing ideas entertained by him (Thomas Jeferson - ed) and most of
the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old
constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of
the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and
politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the
general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the
order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.
[snip]
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its
foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that
the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination to
the superior race - is his natural and normal condition. This, our new
government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this
great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
--end quoted text
Slavery was 'the immediate cause of the late rupture and present
revolution' and the corner-stone of the Confederacy was 'the great truth
tha the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination
to the superior race - is his natural and normal condition'.
So asserted Mr Stephens... who was the Vice President of the Confederate
States of America. What would *he* know about the reasoning behind the
Civil War, anyhow?
DD
SkippyPB
wrote:
There is a federal standard for who can and cannot vote. It is called
the 15th amendment to the Constitution which guarantees that,
throughout the nation, no person shall be denied the right to vote on
account of race or color. It was effecuated by the Voting Right Act
of 1965 which has been extended every time it is up for renewal.
While the Voting Rights Act was primarily aimed at the southern states
who were finding ways of keeping African-American people from voting,
it does set standards and ends some discriminations (such as literacy)
for preventing people from voting.
Enforcement of the Act has also increased the opportunity of black and
Latino voters to elect representatives of their choice by providing a
vehicle for challenging discriminatory election methods such as
at-large elections, racially gerrymandered districting plans, or
runoff requirements that may dilute minority voting strength.
Virtually excluded from all public offices in the South in 1965, black
and Hispanic voters are now substantially represented in the state
legislatures and local governing bodies throughout the region.
As for felons not being able to vote, that is not true in all states.
Forty-eight states currently restrict the right of felons to vote.
Most states forbid current inmates to vote, others extend such bans to
parolees, and still others disenfranchise felons for life.
The policy of disenfranchising felons is as old as ancient Greece and
Rome; it made its way to these shores not long after the American
Revolution. By the time of the Civil War, 70 percent of the states
already had such laws.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"From there to here, from here to there,
funny things are everywhere.
If you never did, you should.
These things are fun and fun is good."
--- Dr. Seuss
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve