Alternatives to Candy on Halloween

[SMS]

Anyone have good ideas for alternatives to candy on Halloween? We get
probably 80-100 kids coming to our door. I'd like to keep it to 25-30¢
per kid.

[sf]

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:24:52 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

> Anyone have good ideas for alternatives to candy on Halloween? We get
> probably 80-100 kids coming to our door. I'd like to keep it to 25-30¢
> per kid.

How about passing out quarters? They're sugar free, fat free and come
in convenient packs of 40.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

[Steve Pope]

There is no alternative to candy. There is, however, alternative candy.
Berkeley Natural Foods has an okay selection of organic, fair-trade,
free-range candies in suitable sizes ahead of Halloween. I imagine
the same is true at other hippie grocery stores.


Stee

[Peter Lawrence]

On 10/22/11 3:24 PM, SMS wrote:
>
> Anyone have good ideas for alternatives to candy on Halloween? We get
> probably 80-100 kids coming to our door. I'd like to keep it to 25-30¢ per kid.

Planter's snack-sized bags of salted peanuts: A 48 bag package for $15.39
currently on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Planters-Salted-Peanuts-oz-bags/dp/B000PG8KGU/ (or
http://goo.gl/e6bFd )


The Business Costco in Hayward also sells these (but don't know what their
current price is).


- Peter

[Peter Lawrence]

Oh great. Worse than given the kids junk food, giving them more expensive
junk food.


- Peter

[Steve Pope]

But, no HFCS. (To be fair, a lot of mainstream candy also has real sugar
instead of HFCS, such as Mars Bars.)

I tend to give the kids shade-grown chocolate, organic licorice, and
such.

Steve

[Peter Lawrence]

On 10/22/11 4:39 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
> Peter Lawrence<humm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 10/22/11 3:50 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
>>> SMS<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Anyone have good ideas for alternatives to candy on Halloween? We get
>>>> probably 80-100 kids coming to our door. I'd like to keep it to 25-30¢
>>>> per kid.
>>>
>>> There is no alternative to candy. There is, however, alternative candy.
>>> Berkeley Natural Foods has an okay selection of organic, fair-trade,
>>> free-range candies in suitable sizes ahead of Halloween. I imagine
>>> the same is true at other hippie grocery stores.
>>
>> Oh great. Worse than given the kids junk food, giving them more expensive
>> junk food.
>
> But, no HFCS.

I really don't see any difference in using sugar vs. HFCS, healthwise.
They're both bad in large quantities (which includes large bags full of
Halloween candy).


- Peter

[jcdill]

Most parents won't let their kids consume anything unusual, out of fear
of the boogey-man. They will only let their kids consume ordinary
wrapped candies. Most kids will be bitterly disappointed if you don't
give out sweet treats.

So basically, there are no good alternatives to candy for Halloween.

Back in the day, my parents gave out cups of "witch's brew". We had a
big copper punch bowl that we filled with cider, and floated in chunks
of dry ice which made it bubble and give off a cloud of fog. My folks
would ladle up dixie cups of witch's brew to the kids after they signed
the ghost register. If the kid was a neighborhood trouble maker, my dad
would give the kid a cup of fog, saying to "drink it quick!" and of
course the kid would be surprised that there was nothing in the cup when
he tried to drink.

It would never work for public trick-or-treating today. Today you could
only do something like that at a private event where everyone "knows"
that the treats are safe.

jc

[(null)]

In article <4ea342ba$0$1706$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

Play-Doh for the smaller kids, glow sticks for those too old for Play-Doh
and those too old for glow sticks are too far gone for candy alternatives
if they are still trick-or-treating.

[spamtrap1888]

Some cheap crap from OrientalTrading.com

This will give you two years' supply, around 12 cents a kid:

http://www.orientaltrading.com/ui/browse/processRequest.do?demandPrefix=15&cm_sp=carousel-_-product3-_-product3&sku=5/715&mode=Browsing&requestURI=processProductsCatalog&sd=Mega%20Deluxe%20Toy%20Assortment

[isw]

In article <4ea342ba$0$1706$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

The parents may love you for it, but the kids will hate you.

Isaac

[Steve Fenwick]

In article <isw-6AA8B9.21330922102011@[216.168.3.50]>,

All of these suggestions will get you TP'd next year (if not later the
same evening by the bigger kids).

Local discount stores should have bags of candy in roughly 10 ounces per
bag, at about $2.50 to $3 per bag. These are name-brand candies like Kit
Kat and Snickers. I count 22 pieces per bag of Kit Kats, which seems to
be the high end of count per bag, and 15 tiny boxes of Junior Mints per
bag, which seems to be the low end. 2 pieces per will keep them and you
happy.

Steve

--
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, sidecar in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

[Peter Lawrence]

On 10/23/11 12:02 AM, Steve Fenwick wrote:
>
> All of these suggestions will get you TP'd next year (if not later the
> same evening by the bigger kids).

I doubt that handing out snack-sized bags of salted peanuts would get one's
house TP'd. Most kids I know enjoy munching on salted roasted peanuts. And
it's a snack that's a lot healthier than candy.


- Peter

[Steve Fenwick]

In article <j80fc2$7li$1...@dont-email.me>,

Peanuts might not get one TP'd, or it might, depending on the kids
involved. But once a year, I'd rather have happy kids for sure than
maybe cranky ones.

[Pico Rico]

"sf" <s...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:alh6a7h6dijueqaud...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:24:52 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Anyone have good ideas for alternatives to candy on Halloween? We get
>> probably 80-100 kids coming to our door. I'd like to keep it to 25-30¢
>> per kid.
>
> How about passing out quarters? They're sugar free, fat free and come
> in convenient packs of 40.

what if a kid chokes on it?

[Pico Rico]

"Steve Pope" <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote in message
news:j7vk6v$h62$1...@blue-new.rahul.net...

why don't you just skip the candy, but give them a lengthy brochure
advocating they only consume the politically correct type of foods?

[Pico Rico]

"(null)" <dl...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4ea361c7$0$1665$742e...@news.sonic.net...

yeah, until they try to eat that stuff.

[Julian Macassey]

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:24:52 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

With the price of razor blades these days, how do you
keep it below 25-30¢ per kid?


--
“People always ask me, ‘What is the best knife?’ I say, ‘A sharp one.’ ”
- Jacques Pépin

[jcdill]

On 23/10/11 12:02 AM, Steve Fenwick wrote:

> 2 pieces per will keep them and you happy.

When did it become the norm to give kids more than 1 piece of candy? No
wonder obesity is such a problem - even when kids will get TONS of candy
in total we still feel like the need more than 1 per home they visit?

jc

[Pico Rico]

"jcdill" <jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:j81cbu$f5e$1...@dont-email.me...

maybe when the pieces of candies shrunk.

[SMS]

On 10/23/2011 7:20 AM, Julian Macassey wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:24:52 -0700, SMS<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Anyone have good ideas for alternatives to candy on Halloween? We get
>> probably 80-100 kids coming to our door. I'd like to keep it to 25-30¢
>> per kid.
>
> With the price of razor blades these days, how do you
> keep it below 25-30¢ per kid?

Not funny, but for tool use I buy the 100 packs of single-edge blades at
Harbor Freight for about 4¢ each.

Other bad suggestions were: religious tracts, cigarettes, chopsticks,
and AOL CDs.

I will probably go back to what I did last year, the little bags of
Famous Amos cookies from Costco. They are around 32¢ each. Bags of chips
would work too, 26-27¢ each.

Of course I could politically incorrect and get these:
<http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001BU0JEK>.

[Aahz Maruch]

In article <4ea437a0$0$1716$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>Of course I could politically incorrect and get these:
><http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001BU0JEK>.

If that gets people to stop smoking, I'm all for it!
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
"The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste." --Steve Jobs

[Peter Lawrence]

Candy cigarettes? Yuck!

I preferred the chocolate ones:

www.amazon.com/Candy-Crate-Chocolate-Cigarettes-24ct/dp/B0007OPW1G/

:)


- Peter

[Marcella Peek]

In article <4ea342ba$0$1706$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

I usually go to Target and find big bags of individually wrapped, snack
sized bags of granola bars, goldfish crackers or chips. They often have
halloween wrappers on them. They're so processed that I don't know that
they're really any healthier than candy, but the kids seem to like the
variety. At my local store those things are in the halloween candy
section.

marcella

[Al Eisner]

Twenty or so years ago, I was able to get away with handing out small
apples (along with a candy, just to keep the kids happy). After all,
what could be more healthful? No way one could get away with that today.
--

Al Eisner
San Mateo Co., CA

[Julian Macassey]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:33:28 -0700, Al Eisner
<eis...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> Twenty or so years ago, I was able to get away with handing
> out small apples (along with a candy, just to keep the kids
> happy). After all, what could be more healthful? No way one
> could get away with that today.

Indeed they couldn't. The parents would detect the
cyanide immediately!

Just get over it people. Let's get back to having fun.

[isw]

In article
<alpine.LRH.2.00.1...@iris03.slac.stanford.edu>,

You're correct, sadly. But as I understand things, there has never been
even one, single, *verified* case of something malicious being put in
Halloween treats (that a kid actually took home).

Isaac

[jcdill]

On 24/10/11 8:57 PM, isw wrote:

> You're correct, sadly. But as I understand things, there has never been
> even one, single, *verified* case of something malicious being put in
> Halloween treats (that a kid actually took home).

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/mayhem/needles.asp

Pins, needles, and razor blades have been found in trick-or-treaters' loot.

True.



http://www.snopes.com/horrors/poison/halloween.asp

Police have documented cases of people randomly distributing poisoned
goodies to children on Halloween.

False.


jc

[sms88]

On 10/24/2011 8:57 PM, isw wrote:

> You're correct, sadly. But as I understand things, there has never been
> even one, single, *verified* case of something malicious being put in
> Halloween treats (that a kid actually took home).

<http://www.snopes.com/horrors/mayhem/needles.asp>

[Charlotte L. Blackmer]

In article <alpine.LRH.2.00.1...@iris03.slac.stanford.edu>,
Al Eisner <eis...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:

>-=-=-=-=-=-

>
>On Sat, 22 Oct 2011, jcdill wrote:
>
>> On 22/10/11 3:24 PM, SMS wrote:
>>> Anyone have good ideas for alternatives to candy on Halloween? We get

>>> probably 80-100 kids coming to our door. I'd like to keep it to 25-30?

>>> per kid.
>>
>> Most parents won't let their kids consume anything unusual, out of fear of
>> the boogey-man. They will only let their kids consume ordinary wrapped
>> candies. Most kids will be bitterly disappointed if you don't give out sweet
>> treats.
>>
>> So basically, there are no good alternatives to candy for Halloween.
>>
>> Back in the day, my parents gave out cups of "witch's brew". We had a big
>> copper punch bowl that we filled with cider, and floated in chunks of dry ice
>> which made it bubble and give off a cloud of fog. My folks would ladle up
>> dixie cups of witch's brew to the kids after they signed the ghost register.
>> If the kid was a neighborhood trouble maker, my dad would give the kid a cup
>> of fog, saying to "drink it quick!" and of course the kid would be surprised
>> that there was nothing in the cup when he tried to drink.
>>
>> It would never work for public trick-or-treating today. Today you could only
>> do something like that at a private event where everyone "knows" that the
>> treats are safe.
>
>Twenty or so years ago, I was able to get away with handing out small
>apples (along with a candy, just to keep the kids happy). After all,
>what could be more healthful? No way one could get away with that today.

Do you know if the children were allowed to eat the apples? Even in my
youth, that would have been nixed by my parents when I got home if we
didn't know the giver very well.

I know one year a neighbor handed out rice krispie treats, wrapped, with
an addressed label on the top (so you knew who it was from and where) and
my parents still made us throw them out.

Charlotte
--

[spamtrap1888]

On Oct 29, 1:49 pm, c...@rahul.net (Charlotte L. Blackmer) wrote:
> In article <alpine.LRH.2.00.1110241232310.28...@iris03.slac.stanford.edu>,

At the end of our block growing up was a funeral home. By state law,
there had to be someone there day and night, so the owner provided an
apartment for a retired undertaker and his wife. I never had the nerve
to trick or treat there, but those who were bold enough got homemade
caramel corn balls wrapped in cellophane. No way would I have eaten
those; I would have figured they were drumming up business.

[Ciccio]

On Oct 29, 1:49 pm, c...@rahul.net (Charlotte L. Blackmer) wrote:

> Do you know if the children were allowed to eat the apples? Even in my
> youth, that would have been nixed by my parents when I got home if we
> didn't know the giver very well.

> I know one year a neighbor handed out rice krispie treats, wrapped, with
> an addressed label on the top (so you knew who it was from and where) and
> my parents still made us throw them out.  

Absolutely. That's the way it was when I was a kid. Most certainly,
with our kids, we tossed anything that wasn't wrapped/packaged by a
commercial manufacturer. Even then, we inspected every treat. The
slightest tear or tampering and it was tossed. The healthiest treat
that met our packaging requirements were those small boxes of Sun-Maid
raisins.

Ciccio

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <2e741673-3dad-442e...@g27g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Oct 29, 1:49=A0pm, c...@rahul.net (Charlotte L. Blackmer) wrote:
>> I know one year a neighbor handed out rice krispie treats, wrapped, with
>> an addressed label on the top (so you knew who it was from and where) and
>> my parents still made us throw them out.

Wow, that sure sounds paranoid. I'd eat something like that, were I
otherwise inclined, without a second thought.

>Most certainly, with our kids, we tossed anything that wasn't
>wrapped/packaged by a commercial manufacturer.

I have far less trust for commercial manufacturers than for my
neighbors. I'd prefer to avoid commercially packaged food altogehter,
although it's impractical.

[sf]

On 29 Oct 2011 16:15:37 -0700, mcc...@medieval.org (Todd Michel

The problem is people send their kids trick r treating in
neighborhoods that are not their own, so they don't know anyone. Most
of those people pick upscale neighborhoods, so I don't know why
they're so scared/cautious - but that's the nature of the beast. They
always look a gift horse in the mouth and complain about freebies.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

[Ciccio]

On Oct 29, 4:15 pm, mcc...@medieval.org (Todd Michel McComb) wrote:

> Wow, that sure sounds paranoid.  I'd eat something like that, were I
> otherwise inclined, without a second thought.

We're not talking about what you or other parents might eat...but
kids. I hope we weren't the only parents who put our children's
safety at a higher level than we put upon ourselves. Also, we're not
talking about a kid returning from a routine visit from a friend's
house. We're talking about Halloween when unknown people are giving
kids treats. But hey, your kids, your rules. My kids, my rules.

> I have far less trust for commercial manufacturers than for my neighbors.

Hmmm. I bet if you were to check Megan's list for your neighborhood,
nary a commercial candy manufacturer would show up. It's perverts and
sickos who intentionally harm kids on Halloween by giving away
adulterated/poisoned treats.

>  I'd prefer to avoid commercially packaged food altogehter,
> although it's impractical.

We're talking Halloween treats, not veggies for dinner. But feel free
to hand out some carrots and celery to trick-or-treaters.

Ciccio

[Charlotte L. Blackmer]

In article <j8i1ep$178e$1...@pangkur.medieval.org>,

Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
>In article <2e741673-3dad-442e...@g27g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Oct 29, 1:49=A0pm, c...@rahul.net (Charlotte L. Blackmer) wrote:
>>> I know one year a neighbor handed out rice krispie treats, wrapped, with
>>> an addressed label on the top (so you knew who it was from and where) and
>>> my parents still made us throw them out.
>
>Wow, that sure sounds paranoid. I'd eat something like that, were I
>otherwise inclined, without a second thought.

They weren't particularly paranoid or super-high-control in general but
this was something they exercised control over. We were also fairly new
to the neighborhood.

>>Most certainly, with our kids, we tossed anything that wasn't
>>wrapped/packaged by a commercial manufacturer.

Sounds about right.

>I have far less trust for commercial manufacturers than for my
>neighbors.

Others' mileage varies on this.

>I'd prefer to avoid commercially packaged food altogehter,
>although it's impractical.

Yep, it sure is!

Charlotte


--

[Ciccio]

On Oct 29, 4:50 pm, sf <s...@geemail.com> wrote:

> The problem is people send their kids trick r treating in
> neighborhoods that are not their own, so they don't know anyone.  Most
> of those people pick upscale neighborhoods, so I don't know why
> they're so scared/cautious - but that's the nature of the beast.

They're probably scared/cautious because they're not so naive or
stupid as to believe that people who live in upscale neighborhoods
can't be perverts/sickos.

Ciccio

[Julian Macassey]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 16:03:26 -0700 (PDT), Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Absolutely. That's the way it was when I was a kid. Most certainly,
> with our kids, we tossed anything that wasn't wrapped/packaged by a
> commercial manufacturer. Even then, we inspected every treat. The
> slightest tear or tampering and it was tossed. The healthiest treat
> that met our packaging requirements were those small boxes of Sun-Maid
> raisins.

If you are paranoid about the fact that people are trying
to poison your crotchfruit, why send them out begging for candy?

Of all the things to be paranoid about.

[Julian Macassey]

On 29 Oct 2011 16:15:37 -0700, Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
>
> I have far less trust for commercial manufacturers than for my
> neighbors. I'd prefer to avoid commercially packaged food altogehter,
> although it's impractical.

I couldn't agree more. The children would be better off
with good food.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <c2a6ee35-7dce-43e5...@p20g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,

Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>We're not talking about what you or other parents might eat...but
>kids.

OK, likewise, I wouldn't worry about my kids eating such things
either.

>I bet if you were to check Megan's list for your neighborhood,
>nary a commercial candy manufacturer would show up.

Indeed. They have much better lobbyists.

>It's perverts and sickos who intentionally harm kids on Halloween
>by giving away adulterated/poisoned treats.

Uh huh. And people die in car crashes too. I know which one happens
more.

[Ciccio]

On Oct 29, 5:32 pm, Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 16:03:26 -0700 (PDT), Ciccio <frances...@comcast.net>

>         If you are paranoid about the fact that people are trying

Not paranoid...just careful. Next question....

> to poison your crotchfruit,

Is that how your parents thought of you...no surprise there.

> why send them out begging for candy?

Because it's fun for the kids, because it's tradition, because we
didn't want to be mistaken for Jehovah's witnesses, notwithstanding
the activity involves knocking on strangers' doors. Next question...

Ciccio

[Ciccio]

On Oct 29, 5:34 pm, Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:

>         I couldn't agree more. The children would be better off
> with good food.

Talk about paranoid. We're talking Halloween, a few days a year of
eating commercial candy. Not a constant diet of it. Damn health nuts
are always trying to push their shit onto people's fun. Sheesh!!!

Ciccio

[sf]

If they distrust those people sooooo much and will only take the same
wrapped candies they can get anywhere else, why bother leaving their
own neighborhood?

[sf]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 19:32:10 -0500, Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com>
wrote:

> If you are paranoid about the fact that people are trying
> to poison your crotchfruit, why send them out begging for candy?
>
> Of all the things to be paranoid about.

Heh.

[Ciccio]

On Oct 29, 7:14 pm, sf <s...@geemail.com> wrote:

> If they distrust those people sooooo much and will only take the same
> wrapped candies they can get anywhere else, why bother leaving their
> own neighborhood?

Because they believe that they can get better/more expensive treats in
the affluent areas. Godiva instead of Mars, etc. My cousin's mom was
one such, of several in the neighborhood, who believed that. When
pulled Halloween duty, she'd pack the kids up and head for the Marina,
Presidio Terrace, and even St. Francis Wood. From my experience
during a few of those ventures, I found it to be true for some of
those homes, but overall it was about the same as the working class
neighborhoods.

Ciccio

[Ciccio]

On Oct 29, 6:25 pm, mcc...@medieval.org (Todd Michel McComb) wrote:

> OK, likewise, I wouldn't worry about my kids eating such things
> either.

Like I said, your kids, your rules. My kids, my rules. Myself, I had
no problem feeling that my kids safety was worth taking a few minutes
to check out the treats.

> Indeed.  They have much better lobbyists.

Sorry, I just checked the pervert/sicko statutes and there's no
exception for candy manufacturers.

> Uh huh.  And people die in car crashes too.  I know which one > happens more.

Uh huh. So, you let your kids ride/drive in cars without seat belts?

Anyhow, how does that mean that there aren't perverts and sickos who
intentionally harm kids on Halloween??? If the parole section at CDC,
who are notoriously lax, have a heavy enforcement program restricting
the activities of convicted pervs/sickos on Halloween, that's a clue
that the odds are far greater for such harm on Halloween than other
days.

Ciccio

[Steve Pope]

Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:

> If the parole section at CDC, who are notoriously lax,
> have a heavy enforcement program restricting the activities
> of convicted pervs/sickos on Halloween, that's a clue that the
> odds are far greater for such harm on Halloween than other days.

I think this may be more of a "do something" mentality than any
actual assessment of risk.

S.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <8a5ac68a-a3a5-4a1b...@p20g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,

Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I had no problem feeling that my kids safety was worth taking a
>few minutes to check out the treats.

Interesting redirect. Love the implication.

I wrote:
>> Indeed. They have much better lobbyists.
>Sorry, I just checked the pervert/sicko statutes and there's no
>exception for candy manufacturers.

Nor anything aimed at them.

>So, you let your kids ride/drive in cars without seat belts?

I don't really have any say in the matter, although I would suggest
that they do not.

>Anyhow, how does that mean that there aren't perverts and sickos
>who intentionally harm kids on Halloween???

There's all sorts of things a person can be afraid of, even lots
of question marks.

[Julian Macassey]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:25:19 -0700 (PDT), Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Oct 29, 5:32 pm, Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 16:03:26 -0700 (PDT), Ciccio <frances...@comcast.net>
>
>>         If you are paranoid about the fact that people are trying
>
> Not paranoid...just careful. Next question....

Every paranoid thinks they are being careful.

>
>> to poison your crotchfruit,
>
> Is that how your parents thought of you...no surprise there.

I grew up without fear. I grew up wandering where I
wanted, I ate with people in attap huts. My parents wanted me to
have a normal life. Not be coddled by paranoids.

>
>> why send them out begging for candy?
>
> Because it's fun for the kids, because it's tradition, because we
> didn't want to be mistaken for Jehovah's witnesses, notwithstanding
> the activity involves knocking on strangers' doors. Next question...

Well, if you think the crotchfruit will be fed bad
things, keep them at home.

Have you considered that it is paranoids like you who
create, no doubt to the delight of Mars Inc., this whole wrapped
candy bidness.

[Julian Macassey]

What is paranoid about thinking commercial candy is crap?

You are paranoid thinking anything but junk candy will be
the death of your crotchfruit.

[Ciccio]

On Oct 29, 8:26 pm, Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:

>         What is paranoid about thinking commercial candy is crap?

It's really paranoid to think that a few days per year of eating
commercial candy is bad for kids.

>         You are paranoid thinking anything but junk candy will be
> the death of your crotchfruit.

So, you believe anything but junk candy is not harmful to children. No
wonder your parents called you crotchfruit. Heh. They should have
called you crotchcrap. As you are full of that.

Ciccio

[sf]

People are stupid. No doubt about it. What on earth do they expect?
If they got Godiva chocolate, it would be unwrapped and therefore
unacceptable.

[sf]

Assuage the public; make it look like you're doing something useful.

[Ciccio]

On Oct 29, 8:10 pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:

So, you believe that the risk vis a vis sicko pervs harming children
is the same on Halloween as any other day?

As far as "do something." It's CDC parole. Those who want to work are
overworked. Many of the others are lazy/burned out and will do the
least work possible. Moreover, in more recent years budget/resources
have declined. Yet, they've increased enforcement of the Halloween
perv/sicko program. If they didn't think there was an increased risk,
that wouldn't be the case.

That said, I have no problem feeling that my kids' safety was worth a
whole big extra 5-10 minutes of my time on Halloween to check their
treats. If there are other parents who believe their kids aren't worth
that, oh well...

Ciccio

[Ciccio]

On Oct 29, 9:01 pm, sf <s...@geemail.com> wrote:

> People are stupid.  No doubt about it.  What on earth do they expect?
> If they got Godiva chocolate, it would be unwrapped and therefore
> unacceptable.

Well, they do have the little bars and the kisses type. Then there are
parents who don't care about wrapping, etc.. That said, I do agree
with you that it is inane to go to affluent neighborhoods with the
motive to get better/more expensive treats.

Ciccio

[spamtrap1888]

In my experience, rich people can be quite frugal when it doesn't
matter to them. The Frank Lloyd Wright house owner who served us Blatz
beer, for example.

[sf]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 20:39:33 -0700 (PDT), Ciccio
<franc...@comcast.net> wrote:

> That said, I have no problem feeling that my kids' safety was worth a
> whole big extra 5-10 minutes of my time on Halloween to check their
> treats. If there are other parents who believe their kids aren't worth
> that, oh well...

<shrug> I spent my 5-10 minutes culling the candy I didn't want my
kids to keep from the rest and put the rejects into the candy bowl
because I ran out every year in spite of buying more and more. One
year a bus of 60 kids was dropped off at the end of my block in
addition to all of the other children whose parents drove them in from
other neighborhoods.

[Golden California Girls]

On 10/29/11 9:01 PM, sf wrote:
> People are stupid. No doubt about it. What on earth do they expect?
> If they got Godiva chocolate, it would be unwrapped and therefore
> unacceptable.

Yes, they listen to the urban legend of the boogie man out to kill the kiddies.

The boogie man is smart. Take a soft center candy and a hypodermic. Just
a drop or two right in the soft spot. Much better chance the kiddies will
eat it than homemade.

And you want to know how to hide the hole? Look at that candy wrapper.
See the flap on the back? Lift up and inject there. Lay it back down. Do
mommy and daddy use a magnifying glass there before the kids get it?



In my hood a few years ago the buses came with the 47%'s. First year
people thought it might have been abnormal. Second year it happened people
talked at the HOA and decisions got made. Now in this 53% hood 90% of the
homes are dark on Halloween, when it used to be less than 10%. The 47%
really need to beg in their own hood, heck if they did they might call the
cops on the drug dealing scum and get them locked up.

[Julian Macassey]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 20:39:33 -0700 (PDT), Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>

> As far as "do something." It's CDC parole. Those who want to work are
> overworked. Many of the others are lazy/burned out and will do the
> least work possible. Moreover, in more recent years budget/resources
> have declined. Yet, they've increased enforcement of the Halloween
> perv/sicko program. If they didn't think there was an increased risk,
> that wouldn't be the case.

If they didn't think the politicians and electorate
demanded the security theater they wouldn't do it.

>
> That said, I have no problem feeling that my kids' safety was worth a
> whole big extra 5-10 minutes of my time on Halloween to check their
> treats. If there are other parents who believe their kids aren't worth
> that, oh well...

Why don't you just keep them locked in the cellar,
they'll be safe there.

[Ciccio]

On Oct 30, 8:45 am, Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:

>         If they didn't think the politicians and electorate
> demanded the security theater they wouldn't do it.

YOU THINK!? That politicians and the electorate might actually demand
that their criminal justice system protect children from sickos/
perverts...

>         Why don't you just keep them locked in the cellar,
> they'll be safe there.

Jeez, you sure are paranoid to suggest such an extreme measure.
Myself, I prefer simple sensible precautions like taking a whole 5-10
minutes to give my children's treats the once-over. I'm going to take
a wild guess that you don't have any children. Or if you do, you
abandoned them...and/or they abandoned you.

Ciccio

[Julian Macassey]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 09:41:41 -0700 (PDT), Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 8:45 am, Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:
>
>>         If they didn't think the politicians and electorate
>> demanded the security theater they wouldn't do it.
>
> YOU THINK!? That politicians and the electorate might actually demand
> that their criminal justice system protect children from sickos/
> perverts...

Well, the current thing that gets the moms in a lather is
the safety of Tiffany and Hunter. Plays well to the proles.

Funny how we don't have the resources to go after bank
fraudsters and spemmers though.

>
>>         Why don't you just keep them locked in the cellar,
>> they'll be safe there.
>
> Jeez, you sure are paranoid to suggest such an extreme measure.
> Myself, I prefer simple sensible precautions like taking a whole 5-10
> minutes to give my children's treats the once-over. I'm going to take
> a wild guess that you don't have any children. Or if you do, you
> abandoned them...and/or they abandoned you.

You are the one being paranoid about people really caring
enough about your crotchfruit to want to harm them. I am
suggesting that if you want to keep them from harm, keep them
locked up.

Myself, I think children should be allowed to experience
the world, all of it.

[Ciccio]

On Oct 30, 9:57 am, Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:

>         Well, the current thing that gets the moms in a lather is
> the safety of Tiffany and Hunter. Plays well to the proles.

YOU THINK?! The proles want their criminal justice system to protect
children from sicko/pervets...My, how astute of you.

>         Funny how we don't have the resources to go after bank
> fraudsters and spemmers though.

Straw man...

>         You are the one being paranoid about people really caring
> enough about your crotchfruit to want to harm them.

Pay attention...I'm talking about pervs/sickos NOT caring enough about
children.

> I am suggesting that if you want to keep them from harm, keep them
> locked up.

That shows that you are paranoid, as such an extreme measure isn't
necessary.

>         Myself, I think children should be allowed to experience
> the world, all of it.

ALL of it??? So, you'd allow your children to be raped, tortured,
poisoned, or otherwise experience inhumanity, because those
experiences are part of the world...that's part of ALL of it.

Ciccio

[Julian Macassey]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 10:41:02 -0700 (PDT), Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 9:57 am, Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:
>
>>         Well, the current thing that gets the moms in a lather is
>> the safety of Tiffany and Hunter. Plays well to the proles.
>
> YOU THINK?! The proles want their criminal justice system to protect
> children from sicko/pervets...My, how astute of you.

The point is, you lay awake at night worrying about
"sicko/perverts", just how many are out there?

Next question, how many of your "sicko/perverts" that
you worry about are family members?

>
>>         Funny how we don't have the resources to go after bank
>> fraudsters and spemmers though.
>
> Straw man...

Just pointing out that making noise about a non event is
fun, easy and keeps the proles stirred up. Actually going after
real crime? Hard work, best avoided.

>
>>         You are the one being paranoid about people really caring
>> enough about your crotchfruit to want to harm them.
>
> Pay attention...I'm talking about pervs/sickos NOT caring enough about
> children.

Why would you pervs/sickos target your crotchfrui? And
if they do, surprise, they may be your family, not some guy who
lives at the other end of town.

>
>> I am suggesting that if you want to keep them from harm, keep them
>> locked up.
>
> That shows that you are paranoid, as such an extreme measure isn't
> necessary.

Niether is getting paranoid about candy.

>
>>         Myself, I think children should be allowed to experience
>> the world, all of it.
>
> ALL of it??? So, you'd allow your children to be raped, tortured,
> poisoned, or otherwise experience inhumanity, because those
> experiences are part of the world...that's part of ALL of it.

Tell me just how many children are raped, tortured
poisoned and treated with inhumanity by starngers?

Take your time.

[Ciccio]

On Oct 30, 11:15 am, Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 10:41:02 -0700 (PDT), Ciccio <frances...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 9:57 am, Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:

> Next question, how many of your "sicko/perverts" that
> you worry about are family members?

None in my family. Though if you're asking about child victims
generally, then the answer is too many. Just like the number who are
NOT family members...too many.

> Just pointing out that making noise about a non event is
> fun, easy and keeps the proles stirred up. Actually going after
> real crime? Hard work, best avoided.

Oh, I see, to you if the victims are children, it's not real
crime...it's a nonevent...

> Why would you pervs/sickos target your crotchfrui?

It most likely would have been random. Man, you are paranoid
projecting that I'm saying that my kids would have been "targeted." Do
you take all bad things that happen to you so personally like you were
"targeted"? That's a sure sign of paranoia. Also, there is no "why"
with pervs/sickos, except that they are pervs/sickos. Hello?

>if they do, surprise, they may be your family, not some guy who
>lives at the other end of town.

Maybe that would be the case with your family, but not mine. No wonder
you refer to children with such derisive terms and believe that crimes
against them aren't "real" crimes and are "nonevents."

> >> Myself, I think children should be allowed to experience
> >> the world, all of it.
>
> > ALL of it??? So, you'd allow your children to be raped, tortured,
> > poisoned, or otherwise experience inhumanity, because those
> > experiences are part of the world...that's part of ALL of it.
>
> Tell me just how many children are raped, tortured
> poisoned and treated with inhumanity by starngers?

Too many. But based upon your bizarre statement such is irrelevant,
because you assert children should "experience" ALL of it...Now,
you've amplified that "ALL" of it includes incest...It's a good thing
that you don't have any kids. Score one for God's use of natural
selection.

Ciccio

[Steve Pope]

Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Oct 30, 11:15 am, Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:

>> Tell me just how many children are raped, tortured
>> poisoned and treated with inhumanity by starngers?

>Too many.

Indeed. It is worth looking up the A21 organization, and consider
supporting them. The victim count is easily in the tens of millions
per year, many if not most of them under 18 years of age. And
it is ultimately driven by the wealth imbalances caused by our
capitalist/imperialist society (as all historical slave trades
have been).

Steve

[Ciccio]

On Oct 30, 11:59 am, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> Ciccio  <frances...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Indeed.  It is worth looking up the A21 organization, and consider
> supporting them.  The victim count is easily in the tens of millions
> per year, many if not most of them under 18 years of age.  And

> it is ultimately driven by the wealth imbalances caused by our
> capitalist/imperialist society (as all historical slave trades
> have been).

"Our capitalist/imperialist society"??? The U.S.A,/capitalist society
hasn't subjected commie/socialist Cuba to imperialism for over 50
years. Yet, the human trafficking/ child exploitation there is
horrible. Also,it's been quite a few years since there has been
American imperialism in Iran, where the problem is rampant. Indeed,
human trafficking is very prevalent in Islamic nations, which eschew
Western democratic principles. As do other nations where human
trafficking is very prevalent, e.g., Venezuela.

Thus, it is not naughty capitalism that drives human trafficking, but
the lack of Western Democratic principles. As, clearly, nations that
have those Western democratic principles firmly in place, have the
least human trafficking even though they are very capitalistic.
Though, unfortunately, it does exist, even in those nations, in
particular, Greece.

That said, I agree A21 is a worthy cause. They certainly give pause
for the thought that prostitution is a "victimless crime."

Ciccio

[Steve Pope]

Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Oct 30, 11:59�am, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:

>> Indeed. �It is worth looking up the A21 organization, and consider
>> supporting them. �The victim count is easily in the tens of millions
>> per year, many if not most of them under 18 years of age. �And
>
>> it is ultimately driven by the wealth imbalances caused by our
>> capitalist/imperialist society (as all historical slave trades
>> have been).

>"Our capitalist/imperialist society"??? The U.S.A,/capitalist society
>hasn't subjected commie/socialist Cuba to imperialism for over 50
>years.

Just as a clarification, by "our" I do not mean "The U.S.A.'s", I
mean "the world".

>Yet, the human trafficking/ child exploitation there is
>horrible. Also,it's been quite a few years since there has been
>American imperialism in Iran, where the problem is rampant. Indeed,
>human trafficking is very prevalent in Islamic nations, which eschew
>Western democratic principles. As do other nations where human
>trafficking is very prevalent, e.g., Venezuela.
>
>Thus, it is not naughty capitalism that drives human trafficking, but
>the lack of Western Democratic principles.

I believe it is largely the wealth imbalance driving it, which arises under
capitalism, but also arises under other economic systems (such as the
mercantalism system that characterised the historic British Empire, and
which still characterises much of the Islamic world). Still, as
western-style democracy and American-style capitalism have taken hold
in the developed countries, particularly Western Europe, the trafficking
problem has gotten worse. The typical buyer might now be a wealthy
German, and the typical victim an Albanian or eastern European child.
It is also believed that within the U.S., the fraction of prostitution
that involves trafficking/exploitation is at an all-time high. This is
mirroring the fact that wealth imbalance is also at an all-time high.

>That said, I agree A21 is a worthy cause.

Thank you.

>They certainly give pause
>for the thought that prostitution is a "victimless crime."

Steve

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <j8kbkj$kkb$1...@blue-new.rahul.net>,
Steve Pope <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
>I believe it is largely the wealth imbalance driving it, ....

Yes, this is very succinct, and I agree. In some places, democracy
or even capitalism serve to narrow wealth imbalance, whereas other
places (such as the current USA), they serve to accentuate it. If
one thinks of the examples given, the major forces working for or
against wealth imbalance are fairly easy to identify.

[Ciccio]

On Oct 30, 1:21 pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:

>I believe it is largely the wealth imbalance driving it, which arises under
>capitalism,

Sorry...no sale. If I had to be poor, I'd much rather be poor here or
in most any other Western democracies-capitalist nations, than in a
commie/socialist nation like Cuba, North Korea, or 'Nam, just to name
a few.

> Still, as western-style democracy and American-style capitalism have taken hold
> in the developed countries, particularly Western Europe, the trafficking
> problem has gotten worse.  

It seems that you're ignoring the commie/socialist nations e..g.,
China, North Korea, Cuba, Laos, and 'Nam. which have horrible records
as to human trafficking/child exploitation when compared to Western
democracies/capitalist nations. Indeed, so do sorta socialist nations
e.g., Bangladesh, Tanzania, and Syria. So, human trafficking/child
exploitation, once again, shows that people can be evil. Further, that
to deal with such human evils, it is shown, once again, that
capitalism is the better economic system and Western Democracy is the
better governmental system.

Ciccio

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <286cd15a-d354-4641...@j36g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,

Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>If I had to be poor, I'd much rather be poor here or in most any
>other Western democracies-capitalist nations, than in a commie/socialist
>nation like Cuba, North Korea, or 'Nam, just to name a few.

Way to answer a completely different question. Again.

>Further, that to deal with such human evils, it is shown, once
>again, that capitalism is the better economic system and Western
>Democracy is the better governmental system.

They say drowning is more pleasant than being burned alive, too.
So what?

[Steve Pope]

Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Oct 30, 1:21 pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:

>>I believe it is largely the wealth imbalance driving it, which arises under
>>capitalism,

>Sorry...no sale.

Of course not. Capitalist-imperialist posturing involves never admitting
that wealth imbalance leads directly and inevitably to exploitation.
Overly-capitalist economies depend upon creating a permanent,
and permanently exploited, underclass: be they Walmart workers,
third-world laborers, or trafficked children.

>If I had to be poor, I'd much rather be poor here or
>in most any other Western democracies-capitalist nations, than in a
>commie/socialist nation like Cuba, North Korea, or 'Nam, just to name
>a few.

What about a socialist nation like Sweden, or a semi-socialist country
like Italy?

Whether the country is economically developed is what counts in making
poverty possibly more bearable. The U.S. system counts, but so do
the systems in many other, far less rightist nations.

>It seems that you're ignoring the commie/socialist nations e..g.,
>China, North Korea, Cuba, Laos, and 'Nam. which have horrible records
>as to human trafficking/child exploitation when compared to Western
>democracies/capitalist nations. Indeed, so do sorta socialist nations
>e.g., Bangladesh, Tanzania, and Syria. So, human trafficking/child
>exploitation, once again, shows that people can be evil.

I'm not ignoring these places, but the scale of child
exploitation that once was mainly found in Africa and South/Southeast
Asia has now crept into western Europe and North America. It is
completely shameful, a stain upon those of us in the developed world,
and those who don't advocate reversing the parallel trend towards wealth
inequality are certiaanly enabling the problem.


Steve

[Ciccio]

On Oct 30, 4:27 pm, mcc...@medieval.org (Todd Michel McComb) wrote:
> In article <286cd15a-d354-4641-bbc1-7f76ee018...@j36g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,

>
> Ciccio  <frances...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >If I had to be poor, I'd much rather be poor here or in most any
> >other Western democracies-capitalist nations, than in a commie/socialist
> >nation like Cuba, North Korea, or 'Nam, just to name a few.
>
> Way to answer a completely different question.  Again.

That's right on point to Pope's raising the issue of "wealth
imbalance"...pay attention.

> They say drowning is more pleasant than being burned alive, too.
> So what?

I wasn't referring to dying, but to LIVING. If you're going to use an
analogy, don't use a false analogy. That said, all government is evil,
Western democracy-capitalism, however, is, by far, the lesser of the
evils.

Really, if you had to be poor, what nation, other than a Western
democracy-capitalist type, would you rather live in? Tell you what,
send it to Obama. Then maybe he can print up millions of leaflets with
that nation's name and how it's so great. Then he can order them air
dropped all over our Latin American neighbors, so they can go sneak
into that country instead of here.

Ciccio

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <144462f2-59ea-40c7...@t38g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,

Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>That's right on point to Pope's raising the issue of "wealth
>imbalance"...pay attention.

"Where you'd prefer to be poor" is completely changing the subject
from wealth imbalance. You might as well be answering the question
of whether you'd prefer to be getting richer or poorer -- at least
that'd be more on topic. In the USA, most people are getting poorer.
Are they, generally, more poor than poor people in the poorest
countries of the world? No.

(Does it feel good to you that that's the sort of comparison to be
making? It doesn't to me.)

>I wasn't referring to dying, but to LIVING. If you're going to use
>an analogy, don't use a false analogy.

I needed to throw another false dichotomy into the conversation so
that I didn't feel left out.

>That said, all government is evil, Western democracy-capitalism,
>however, is, by far, the lesser of the evils.

And cannot possibly be improved...?

As I said, in some times and places, capitalism (or elements of
capitalism, or however we might want to circumscribe the fuzziness
of this term -- which is, near as I can tell, being used as much
as an ideological rallying cry as a definition) has served to
decrease wealth imbalance, and other times it has served to increase
wealth imbalance. That depends on other factors, such as access
to economic opportunity. The USA has had periods with a great deal
of access to equal opportunity, but is now decreasing that access,
and quickly. By the same line of thought, I would never want to
make large-scale political or economic decisions based on whether
they meet some definition or ideology, but rather whether they serve
to help actual people at the time.

[Ciccio]

On Oct 30, 4:34 pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:

> Of course not.  Capitalist-imperialist posturing involves never admitting
> that wealth imbalance leads directly and inevitably to exploitation.  
> Overly-capitalist economies depend upon creating a permanent,
> and permanently exploited, underclass: be they Walmart workers,
> third-world laborers, or trafficked children.

I have no problem admitting that there is an lower class economically.
Also, I agree with you that class is permanent. That said, so long as
particular individuals aren't forced to remain in that class
permanently, like in commie/socialist nations, there's not a damn
thing wrong with that. Government's function is not to guarantee a
good life or even an equitable life. Its function is to allow an
equitable opportunity for a good life.

> What about a socialist nation like Sweden, or a semi-socialist country
> like Italy?

If that's what YOU call socialist nations, then sure. Though I still
prefer these United States over them. Especially now that Obama's
socialist agenda is stopped dead.

> Whether the country is economically developed is

> I'm not ignoring these places, but the scale of child
> exploitation that once was mainly found in Africa and South/Southeast
> Asia has now crept into western Europe and North America.  It is
> completely shameful, a stain upon those of us in the developed world,
> and those who don't advocate reversing the parallel trend towards wealth
> inequality are certiaanly enabling the problem.

I agree, that no nation should have such. Though, it occurs much less
in Democratic capitalist democracies.

Ciccio

[Peter Lawrence]

When we were kids, my brothers, friends, and I stuck around our own
neighborhood for Halloween versus more affluent areas. The house lots were
smaller so because of the higher housing density, one didn't need to walk as
much for the same amount of candy than if one trick or treated in a more
affluent area.

On the other hand...

One of my brothers discovered he got about 50X times for more sales going
door-to-door selling Ghirardelli chocolate bars in Atherton (as a fundraiser
for our town's Little League Baseball) than going door-to-door around our
less affluent hometown.

In our town, maybe one in ten homes someone would buy one chocolate bar. In
Atherton, many households would purchase whole boxes of Ghirardelli
chocolate bars. My brother consistently got the top sales fundraiser award
each year he was in Little League. :)


- Peter

[Peter Lawrence]

On 10/29/11 6:30 PM, Ciccio wrote:
> On Oct 29, 5:34 pm, Julian Macassey<jul...@tele.com> wrote:
>>
>> I couldn't agree more. The children would be better off
>> with good food.
>
> Talk about paranoid. We're talking Halloween, a few days a year of
> eating commercial candy. Not a constant diet of it. Damn health nuts
> are always trying to push their shit onto people's fun. Sheesh!!!

I would guess that the odds are a lot higher for a child being struck by
lightning than the odds of a child ingesting poisoned Halloween candy.
There's simply hasn't been too many reports of credible cases of children
being poisoned by homemade Halloween candy.

I would even venture to guess that the odds are a FAR HIGHER that a child
will be struck by a car while trick-or-treating than a child being poisoned
by any type of Halloween candy.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/poison/halloween.asp


- Peter

[jcdill]

On 29/10/11 4:03 PM, Ciccio wrote:
> The healthiest treat
> that met our packaging requirements were those small boxes of Sun-Maid
> raisins.

There's a commercial running on the radio right now where a
procrastinating mom goes to the store to find that they are out of all
the good candy and all they have left are (scary music) raisins! eeek!

jc

[jcdill]

On 29/10/11 7:46 PM, Ciccio wrote:
> On Oct 29, 7:14 pm, sf<s...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> If they distrust those people sooooo much and will only take the same
>> wrapped candies they can get anywhere else, why bother leaving their
>> own neighborhood?
>
> Because they believe that they can get better/more expensive treats in
> the affluent areas.

Some of them live in areas where families are so poor they can't afford
to give out treats. Some of them are even homeless - not much
trick-or-treating in the shelters...

jc

[jcdill]

On 29/10/11 6:25 PM, Todd Michel McComb wrote:

> I know which one happens more.

Did you know that more people die in car wrecks in the US than by murder
each year?

Did you know that more people die in car wrecks in the US than soldiers
are killed in action in Iraq/Afghanistan?

Did you know that there are apx 2 suicides per murder in the US each
year? By the odds you are ~2x more likely to take your own life than be
killed by someone else.

A lot of people don't know which "happens more"...

jc

[Steve Pope]

Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:

>I would even venture to guess that the odds are a FAR HIGHER that a child
>will be struck by a car while trick-or-treating than a child being poisoned
>by any type of Halloween candy.

Yes but there you can apprehend the vehicular-manslaugter perpetrator and
humiliate and incarcerate him. Whereas the candy-poisoner might easily
slip away. So you (generic "you", not me or you) worry more bout
the candy-poisoner.

Steve

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <j8lc3e$265$1...@blue-new.rahul.net>,

Steve Pope <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
>Yes but there you can apprehend the vehicular-manslaugter perpetrator
>and humiliate and incarcerate him. Whereas the candy-poisoner might
>easily slip away.

Someone in a car who can quickly drive away, versus someone in a
small subset of homes where children got candy? To the contrary,
I would expect the "candy poisoner" to be far easier to catch.
Provided they're in their own home at the time, it seems like a
virtual certainty.

>So you (generic "you", not me or you) worry more bout the
>candy-poisoner.

I don't know why this particular thing seems to resonate so much
with people, but I don't think you've nailed it.

However, I do think the results are consistent with big-money control
interests. People should love cars. People should fear their
neighbors. Check and check.

[Ciccio]

It's pretty long odds that people in low crime rate areas will be
burglarized, especially if they're home. Yet, most lock their doors
and windows. That's because the precaution takes the little effort of
locking-unlocking the door. Same thing with checking Halloween candy,
5-10 minutes per year is little effort for the precaution.

Also, what you're overlooking, is that due to the belief being
pervasive, it's well known many parents do check candy. That, in and
of itself, serves as a deterrent, which increases the odds of it
occurring.

Ciccio

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <e52db954-93be-4f11...@j36g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,

Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Same thing with checking Halloween candy, 5-10 minutes per year
>is little effort for the precaution.

Alright, you keep repeating this, so I'll say something more specific
about it. Spending 5-10 minutes per year checking candy seems
perfectly reasonable. But what are you checking *for*? That was
the original disagreement. If, as I recall, you are checking that
it's commercially packaged candy, rather than anything that people
made themselves, then we're on different wavelengths over that.
*NOT* about whether to spend "5-10 minutes" checking candy.

Frankly, as someone else mentioned, I am pretty sure someone could
tamper with a commercial package without you noticing, also. If
they really wanted to do such a thing.

[Julian Macassey]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 22:09:29 -0700, Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On 10/29/11 6:30 PM, Ciccio wrote:
>> On Oct 29, 5:34 pm, Julian Macassey<jul...@tele.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I couldn't agree more. The children would be better off
>>> with good food.
>>
>> Talk about paranoid. We're talking Halloween, a few days a year of
>> eating commercial candy. Not a constant diet of it. Damn health nuts
>> are always trying to push their shit onto people's fun. Sheesh!!!
>
> I would guess that the odds are a lot higher for a child being struck by
> lightning than the odds of a child ingesting poisoned Halloween candy.
> There's simply hasn't been too many reports of credible cases of children
> being poisoned by homemade Halloween candy.

Tsk, tsk. Don't you know there are more "sockos/pervs/
than cars!

[Ciccio]

On Oct 30, 10:45 pm, mcc...@medieval.org (Todd Michel McComb) wrote:
> In article <j8lc3e$26...@blue-new.rahul.net>,

> However, I do think the results are consistent with big-money control
> interests.  People should love cars.  People should fear their
> neighbors.  Check and check.

I don't think you've nailed it.

See, "neighbor" used to define a relationship. Nowadays, it is just a
term of proximity, especially in urban and suburban areas. As a
result, the ethic of being a "good neighbor" has greatly declined.
Indeed, it's common for people in those areas to live next to each
other for years and not even know the last names of one another. Such
is not conducive to establishing trust.

As for Halloween, the fact is that older kids cover lots of territory
on Halloween. I can assure you that when my kids were little and we
took them trick-or-treating to only to those who were really
"neighbors," I never gave the quality of the treats any thought.

As for enjoying my motor vehicles, you damn right I do...I really do.
I love the driving experience. Even after the many decades I've owned
motor vehicles, starting with the first mini-bike I put together with
some buddies when I was about 10, I still really enjoy it. Of course,
I'm not ecstatic every moment I'm driving one of my cars or riding my
Harley. But way over half the time, I'm thinking...Damn, this is nice.

Ciccio

[Ciccio]

On Oct 31, 12:19 am, mcc...@medieval.org (Todd Michel McComb) wrote:
> In article <e52db954-93be-4f11-8cba-e30b10e9a...@j36g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,

> Alright, you keep repeating this, so I'll say something more specific
> about it.  Spending 5-10 minutes per year checking candy seems
> perfectly reasonable.  But what are you checking *for*?  That was
> the original disagreement.  If, as I recall, you are checking that
> it's commercially packaged candy, rather than anything that people
> made themselves, then we're on different wavelengths over that.
> *NOT* about whether to spend "5-10 minutes" checking candy.

Not just made themselves, but looked tampered with, etc.

> Frankly, as someone else mentioned, I am pretty sure someone could
> tamper with a commercial package without you noticing, also.  If
> they really wanted to do such a thing.

Frankly, if somebody really wants to burglarize your house, a lock
isn't going to prevent it. Yet, locking your door is sensible. Again,
it's a balance between effort and probability. Giving the treats a
once-over is sensible within that balance. Tossing out all the treats
isn't sensible or having them x-rayed and lab tested isn't sensible
within that balance. If you think otherwise, that's you. Like I
said...my kids, my rules; your kids, your rules.

Ciccio

[Steve Pope]

Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Oct 30, 4:34 pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:

>> [ Capitalist-imperialist posturing ]

>I have no problem admitting that there is an lower class economically.

Okay

>Also, I agree with you that class is permanent.

Okay

>That said, so long as
>particular individuals aren't forced to remain in that class
>permanently, like in commie/socialist nations, there's not a damn
>thing wrong with that. Government's function is not to guarantee a
>good life or even an equitable life. Its function is to allow an
>equitable opportunity for a good life.

I'm going to dissect this a bit. Imagine two societies, equal
in most respects but one with a robust social safety net, the other
without. Which achieve a better result? (Of course this depends
on your yardstick, but speaking generally.)

The U.S. has a weak-to-nonexistent social safety net relative to
other countries of similar wealth. The effect of this is that
those who are doing well, who have some control over a piece of
capital, are going to behave more conservatively. They spend
a little less, they invest at lower risk levels rather than
engage in riskier, more stimulative investments. They make damn sure
that they and their families will always have a home and healthcare
and other necessities, for years and decades into the future, since there
is no backstop from the government. Thus, consumers in such a society
are in a sort of quasi-permanent buyer's strike.

Whereas you put a safety net in place, and then the risk money
comes out of the coffers, and the economy can reflate out of a recession
that much faster. It's a win-win. Taxes are a bit higher, but
the economy picks up more than enough to compensate.

This is why pure capitalism, with no influence from socialism, is
doomed to period deep contractions where everyone (consumers
and business) is hunkered down not spending.

Roubini wrote about this a few weeks ago: "Karl Marx was right":

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/233607/20111018/roubini-nouriel-roubini-dr-doom-marx-karl-marx-financial-crisis-banks-banking-sector-capitalism-debt.htm?cid=2

>> What about a socialist nation like Sweden, or a semi-socialist country
>> like Italy?

>If that's what YOU call socialist nations, then sure.

I advocate a level of social spending typical of UK or Italy.
Not Sweden though, they have gone overboard.

>Though I still
>prefer these United States over them. Especially now that Obama's
>socialist agenda is stopped dead.

Obama never had a socialist agenda. Or environmentalist, or antiwar,
or anything else progressive. It's so sad, considering how much better
a job Secretary Clinton would have done. Peace prize my ass.
But during the 2000 primary season, the hoo-doo Obama supporters
would hear nothing of it. They had their man and damn the consequences.

>> Whether the country is economically developed is
>> I'm not ignoring these places, but the scale of child
>> exploitation that once was mainly found in Africa and South/Southeast
>> Asia has now crept into western Europe and North America.  It is
>> completely shameful, a stain upon those of us in the developed world,
>> and those who don't advocate reversing the parallel trend towards wealth
>> inequality are certiaanly enabling the problem.
>
>I agree, that no nation should have such. Though, it occurs much less
>in Democratic capitalist democracies.

We're reduced to trying to fight the absolute worst of social justice
problems in a culture where social injustice is the accepted norm,
because systemic change is out of reach. Or is it? The last six weeks
may be saying the opposite.


Steve

[Steve Pope]

Steve Pope <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:

>But during the 2000 primary season, the hoo-doo Obama supporters

Oops! 2008 primary season, obviously.

S.

[Steve Pope]

jcdill <jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Some of them live in areas where families are so poor they can't afford
>to give out treats. Some of them are even homeless - not much
>trick-or-treating in the shelters...

I recall a few years ago a volunteer program to take shelter kids
out to the midrange neighborhoods to go tricker-treating. But I
have not heard of it this year. Probably too much demand, an impossible
problem.

S.

[Steve Pope]

jcdill <jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Did you know that more people die in car wrecks in the US than by murder
>each year?
>
>Did you know that more people die in car wrecks in the US than soldiers
>are killed in action in Iraq/Afghanistan?
>
>Did you know that there are apx 2 suicides per murder in the US each
>year? By the odds you are ~2x more likely to take your own life than be
>killed by someone else.

On which side of this statistic does "Officer Assisted Suicide" fall?


S.

[Golden California Girls]

Insurance ...

[tutall]

On Oct 30, 6:56 pm, mcc...@medieval.org (Todd Michel McComb) wrote:

> and quickly.  By the same line of thought, I would never want to
> make large-scale political or economic decisions based on whether
> they meet some definition or ideology, but rather whether they serve
> to help actual people at the time.

No no no, that's not how it's done. Don't you know that Politics is
the new religion, so just throw facts and common sense out the door,
you must use your intuition and some belief system. Bonus points if
you can get the media to support your belief system's talking points.

Lower revenue = higher revenue
Giving the wealthy more is what's best for the poor (essence of
trickle down theory)

[spamtrap1888]

On Oct 31, 4:28 am, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:

> Ciccio  <frances...@comcast.net> wrote:


>
> >Though I still
> >prefer these United States over them. Especially now that Obama's
> >socialist agenda is stopped dead.
>
> Obama never had a socialist agenda.  Or environmentalist, or antiwar,
> or anything else progressive.  It's so sad, considering how much better
> a job Secretary Clinton would have done.  Peace prize my ass.
> But during the 2000 primary season, the hoo-doo Obama supporters
> would hear nothing of it.  They had their man and damn the consequences.

I knew that Obama was only slightly to the left of Mitt Romney, which
made the right-wing hysteria in 2008 all the more puzzling. I figured
racism likely motivated the reaction, especially when conservatives
ascribed his election to white liberal guilt.

> We're reduced to trying to fight the absolute worst of social justice
> problems in a culture where social injustice is the accepted norm,
> because systemic change is out of reach.  Or is it?  The last six weeks
> may be saying the opposite.
>

Having grown up in a time and place where the churches were the
strongest proponents of social justice, what puzzles me most about the
right-wing is the number of self-professed Christians who oppose it.
Do their King James bibles omit the sermon on the mount? I already
know how they've explained away the "camel through the eye of the
needle" parable.

[spamtrap1888]

On Oct 31, 6:47 am, tutall <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 6:56 pm, mcc...@medieval.org (Todd Michel McComb) wrote:
>
> > and quickly.  By the same line of thought, I would never want to
> > make large-scale political or economic decisions based on whether
> > they meet some definition or ideology, but rather whether they serve
> > to help actual people at the time.
>
> No no no, that's not how it's done. Don't you know that Politics is
> the new religion, so just throw facts and common sense out the door,
> you must use your intuition and some belief system. Bonus points if
> you can get the media to support your belief system's talking points.

What hurt me was that George HW Bush rightly called it "voodoo
economics," but was made to drink the Reagan Kool-Aid.

Being imaginary, no right-winger can draw the Laffer curve, although
by its own terms there should be an optimum taxation point to extract
the most revenue.

>
> Lower revenue = higher revenue
> Giving the wealthy more is what's best for the poor (essence of
> trickle down theory)

Originally it was the horse and sparrow theory: the more oats you gave
the horses, the more were available in their feces for the sparrows to
pick out.

[evergene]

SMS wrote:

>Anyone have good ideas for alternatives to candy on Halloween? We get
>probably 80-100 kids coming to our door. I'd like to keep it to 25-30¢
>per kid.

B. Henderson, [of] China Warehouse, Rye Lane, Peckham, respectfully
informs the Friends of Africa that she has on Sale an Assortment of
Sugar Basins, handsomely labelled in Gold Letters: “East India Sugar
not made by Slaves”. A Family that uses 5lbs of Sugar per Week will,
by using East India, instead of West India, for 21 months, prevent the
Slavery, or Murder, of one Fellow Creature! Eight such Families, in
19½ years, will prevent the Slavery, or Murder, of 100!!

This advertisement is reproduced in Sugar-Plums and Sherbet: The
Prehistory of Sweets, by Laura Mason.

[Dan Abel]

In article <j8m1th$bfn$2...@blue-new.rahul.net>,

Are you talking about statistics or real life? Officers are only
allowed to use their guns in self defense. Thus, the statistics will
show very few murders.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <1acf73c1-8300-478e...@s35g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,

Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>See, "neighbor" used to define a relationship. Nowadays, it is just a
>term of proximity, especially in urban and suburban areas. As a
>result, the ethic of being a "good neighbor" has greatly declined.
>Indeed, it's common for people in those areas to live next to each
>other for years and not even know the last names of one another. Such
>is not conducive to establishing trust.

Thanks for elaborating on my simple statement.

This particular decline in quality of life is conducive to controlling
people.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <84b34625-4fe0-4791...@p20g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,

spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Being imaginary, no right-winger can draw the Laffer curve, although
>by its own terms there should be an optimum taxation point to extract
>the most revenue.

This isn't quite correct. One can draw the Laffer Curve. The issue
isn't that. It's that the inflexion point in the curve is,
experimentally, in a totally different place from where the Trickle
Downers claimed and/or wished. Originally, I believe it had some
intellectual honesty behind it, even if it was mistaken. It's when
the principle is disproven and the same rhetoric persists that the
intellectual honesty is gone (obviously).

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <j8m0o0$av2$1...@blue-new.rahul.net>,

Steve Pope <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
>Obama never had a socialist agenda.

He's a straight-ahead pro-big business right-wing candidate, without
the kookiness of Bush II. Pretty simple. The extreme anti rhetoric
surrounding his presidency is bizarre, but then we're in a period
in USA politics where obscuring the truth is an imperative.

>... where social injustice is the accepted norm ....

Constantly reinforced as being right & good.

[Ciccio]

On Oct 31, 4:28 am, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> Ciccio  <frances...@comcast.net> wrote:

> The U.S. has a weak-to-nonexistent social safety net relative to
> other countries of similar wealth.  

Which country? What is the difference in the socialist safety net?
Then I can look into how much more it's going to cost me and if I want
it.

> The effect of this is that
> those who are doing well, who have some control over a piece of
> capital, are going to behave more conservatively.  They spend
> a little less, they invest at lower risk levels rather than
> engage in riskier, more stimulative investments.  They make damn sure
> that they and their families will always have a home and healthcare
> and other necessities, for years and decades into the future, since there
> is no backstop from the government.  Thus, consumers in such a society
> are in a sort of quasi-permanent buyer's strike.

So, instead of me being responsible, by not spending but saving for my
own safety net, the government is going to take my money by force.
Then it will most inefficiently and uneconomically, provide me with a
safety net. Either way, I'm not spending the money. So, I'll take the
former over the latter, as it is more moral, more efficient, and more
cost-effective.

> Whereas you put a safety net in place, and then the risk money
> comes out of the coffers, and the economy can reflate out of a recession
> that much faster.  It's a win-win.

It's not win-win, because I've had even more of my money taken by
force, to underwrite people who chose not to sacrifice and acted
irresponsibly, by not saving for a rainy day.

> This is why pure capitalism, with no influence from socialism, is
> doomed to period deep contractions where everyone (consumers
> and business) is hunkered down not spending.

Every now and again adjustments occur. People need a learning moment
to act responsibly. Then the realize how to strike a balance between
spending and saving. Then there's again long term prosperity. With
socialism, the government seldom returns to the pre-crisis state.
Indeed, it's taking people's money by force increases.

>  "Karl Marx was right":

Thank God, most nations who once believed that, gave communism and/or
socialism the boot.

> Obama never had a socialist agenda.

NOT!

> We're reduced to trying to fight the absolute worst of social justice
> problems in a culture where social injustice is the accepted norm,

There is more social justice now, than in any other time of our
history, at least, as to civil rights. Of course, it can still improve
even more. Now, if this nation could ever get to the point of the
government not taking money by force from responsible people and
"redistributing" it to irresponsible people, then we'd really make
great progress toward social justice. And yes, that includes
corporations as well.

Ciccio