Question for Tim May
Secret Squirrel
food stamps or welfare payments are thieves. There are three parties
involved. The thieves are the extortion arm of the socialist State,
as well as those who support the extortion through their votes and
payments. Those who are compelled to pay the thieves under threat of
imprisonment or death are victims. Those who accept a portion of the
stolen money are moochers.
You have said that moochers are thieves. That is false. If the
extortionists ceased to exist, the moochers would either work, accept
handouts from those who are willing to voluntarily give them, starve,
or become short-lived, free-lance tax collectors. In any event, there
would be alot less theft. If the moochers ceased to exist, do you
believe that the bureaucrats and extortionists would find productive
jobs or latch onto some other cause with which to justify their
parasitic way of living to the ignorant?
The people who accept stolen loot -- welfare serfs, a large portion of
the prison-military-industrial complex, social security recipients,
university academics, and politically connected agricultural
businesses -- are not thieves. They are complicit in corruption, as
are you if you pay taxes which support the enforcement of evil or
unconstitutional laws.
When the local Mafia boss pays for little Johnny's operation, you rail
against Johnny the moocher, calling him a thief, more frequently than
you mention the Mafia extortionist holding a gun to your head. Why
waste so much anger on the justifications of theft -- the drug
victims, the gun victims, the smoking victims, the victims of foreign
imports, the at risk children, the banking fraud victims, the
post-rain puddle wetlands, and the handicapped. They are all merely
convenient mantras used by power-hungry bureaucrats and extortionists
to justify their predatory behavior. There is a limitless supply of
justifications for evil and unconstitutional laws, and each of these
justifications is orthogonal to the real problem.
-- David Montalembert
'Captain' Kirk DeHaan
<squi...@echelon.alias.net> puked up:
Sounds like a long winded claim that people are no longer responsible
for their actions.
'Captain' Kirk DeHaan
NRA Life Member
Ham - N6SXR
Some see the glass as half full,
some see it as half empty,
I see it as broken.
Remove "REMOVETHIS" from address before replying
compl...@dis.org
>On more than one occasion, you have asserted that those who accept
>food stamps or welfare payments are thieves.
<snip>
Bunch of drivel deleted...
And your point would be ???
Tim May
(SkullyWV) wrote:
> > Question for Tim May
> >From: compl...@dis.org
> Yea, what is the point?
> Tim May (as far as I can tell) is what we in WV call a "hard ass" and it's a
> damn shame he doesn't live here. We need some more.
> Skully
Thanks, Skully!
Believe me, when I see some of the crap we are facing here in California,
I've have a mind to sell my house and move to a bigger spread in West
Virginia!
('Ceptin' I just saw "October Sky" and I'm not sure I want to move to a
hollow up there in the woods...)
I grew up partly in California, partly in Virginia--the D.C. area, ugh.
--Tim May
--
Y2K: Hope for the best, prepare for the worst, enjoy it in any case
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.
Tim May
<bo...@pegasus.la.asu.edu> wrote:
> Tim May wrote:
> >
> > Believe me, when I see some of the crap we are facing here in California,
> > I've have a mind to sell my house and move to a bigger spread in West
> > Virginia!
> >
> > ('Ceptin' I just saw "October Sky" and I'm not sure I want to move to a
> > hollow up there in the woods...)
>
> You seem too intelligent to stay in California. I just assumed you had
> a terminal case of masochism.
It is not an easy decision to leave. No other area of the country is
drawing me...not Texas, not West Virginia, not Florida, not New Hampshire,
not Vermont, not New Mexico....maybe Nevada, a little.
A few nearby states have lower (or no) state income taxes, but they have
downsides as well. Nevada is probably the likeliest state for me to move
to (no income taxes, fewer bullshit laws).
But such a move is not likely to happen this year. Which means I'll worry
about this issue after Y2K unfolds, however it does.
I won't go into all the details of why a move is not likely this year.
For starters, the effort of making my house ready for sale, selling it,
closing on it, etc., is not something I want to contemplate at any time,
least of all this year. Also, my house is fairly rural, on a hill
overlooking the Monterey Bay. Which means: a nice view, a benign
Mediterrannean climate, and relative safety from rampaging mutant hordes
even if Y2K gets ugly.
Cheaper housing in other parts of the U.S. is not too big a draw for me. I
have enough money to buy large places even here. But a large place means
more work...I don't hanker to be a ranch foreman, and maids are hard to
find. (Another issue, related to welfare bums.)
If I move anywhere, it's likely to be to a warmer, nicer, more pleasant climate.
In 5 years Cuba may be an option.
Tim May
<bo...@pegasus.la.asu.edu> wrote:
> Sounds like you have a nice home in a pleasant countryside. The only
> problem is your government.
> You could always run for Congress as a California representative. They
> don't have any interest in obeying bullshit laws, only making them.
> Best of both worlds. All you have to give up is self respect.
>
This is why many of us stay in California...a pleasant region. And a
region with a lot of contradictons...
-- the birthplace of the John Birch Society _and_ the Black Panther Party
-- the most important Libertarian Party stronghold _and_ two communist
feminista senators
-- more gun shows than nearly any place in the country _and_ increasingly
restrictive bullshit anti-gun laws
-- more "survivalists" than in all of Canada
-- more high-tech than in any five other states
-- Proposition 13, which rolled back property taxes and cut off the
lifeblood of the welfare constituency
-- the Rodney King cops _and_ Rodney King
California is the future...as the battles go here, so they will go in the
Federal system. Any bullshit laws which California can get through will
become the law of these entire United States within 10 years. The War of
the Rebellion settled that.
SkullyWV
SkullyWV
>From: tc...@got.net (Tim May)
>Thanks, Skully!
>
>Believe me, when I see some of the crap we are facing >here in California,
>I've have a mind to sell my house and move to a bigger >spread in West
>Virginia!
We'd love to have ya. There are some nice places here for sale.
>('Ceptin' I just saw "October Sky" and I'm not sure I want >to move to a
>hollow up there in the woods...)
That's holler<G>
We rank 50th in violent crime and probably have more arms per person than any
other state. It's a great place to be.
Skully
Louis Boyd
>
> Believe me, when I see some of the crap we are facing here in California,
> I've have a mind to sell my house and move to a bigger spread in West
> Virginia!
>
> hollow up there in the woods...)
You seem too intelligent to stay in California. I just assumed you had
a terminal case of masochism.
Lou Boyd
FCSA-NRA-JPFO
Louis Boyd
>
> In article <37041B1E...@pegasus.la.asu.edu>, Louis Boyd
> <bo...@pegasus.la.asu.edu> wrote:
>
> > You seem too intelligent to stay in California. I just assumed you had
> > a terminal case of masochism.
>
> drawing me...not Texas, not West Virginia, not Florida, not New Hampshire,
> not Vermont, not New Mexico....maybe Nevada, a little.
>
> A few nearby states have lower (or no) state income taxes, but they have
> downsides as well. Nevada is probably the likeliest state for me to move
> to (no income taxes, fewer bullshit laws).
>
> But such a move is not likely to happen this year. Which means I'll worry
> about this issue after Y2K unfolds, however it does.
>
> I won't go into all the details of why a move is not likely this year.
> For starters, the effort of making my house ready for sale, selling it,
> closing on it, etc., is not something I want to contemplate at any time,
> least of all this year. Also, my house is fairly rural, on a hill
> overlooking the Monterey Bay. Which means: a nice view, a benign
> Mediterrannean climate, and relative safety from rampaging mutant hordes
> even if Y2K gets ugly.
>
> Cheaper housing in other parts of the U.S. is not too big a draw for me. I
> have enough money to buy large places even here. But a large place means
> more work...I don't hanker to be a ranch foreman, and maids are hard to
> find. (Another issue, related to welfare bums.)
>
> If I move anywhere, it's likely to be to a warmer, nicer, more pleasant climate.
>
> In 5 years Cuba may be an option.
Sounds like you have a nice home in a pleasant countryside. The only
problem is your government.
You could always run for Congress as a California representative. They
don't have any interest in obeying bullshit laws, only making them.
Best of both worlds. All you have to give up is self respect.
Lou Boyd
FCSA-NRA-JPFO
BEARHUG61
both (Tim May and Skully) your posts and generally agree with you. What I
would like to say is please don't put all welfare recipients in one class. The
person who posted under the thread "Welfare Gravy Train" made valid
observations.
Many men don't pay adequate child support to allow mothers to raise their
children. Quite bluntly if my choice was to take welfare and actually be the
one to raise my children, at least until school age, or work TWO jobs at Taco
Bell, have the kids corraled in a day care with strangers imparting who knows
what values and subjecting them to who knows what abuses, just so your taxes
would be lowered infinitesimally, guess what that choice would be?
People who complain about welfare mothers raising their children, are the some
of the same ones complaining about the problem with kids today is they weren't
raised right because Mom worked outside the home. It took two people to make
that baby ( and one of them DIDN'T even have to orgasm), and two people should
be financially responsible.
Gentlemen I know what I'm talking about. I made the choice to accept welfare,
in WV, for four years while I finished college. I could have worked in fast
food, but you know what? If I had I would probably still be on food stamps and
Medicaid. AFDC allowed me to finish college while my children were still young
enough not to know where the money came from. Therefore they don't see welfare
as a way of life.
Now, if I see a woman in line paying for groceries with food stamps, I try not
to get too upset that I am paying for those groceries. I don't know what
particular circumstances led to that. Maybe she does have a job. I'd rather
have her working one job and raising her children responsibly than working two
jobs and letting the kids raise themselves.
Skully, be less enthusiastic about broadcasting how wonderful WV is. I am so
homesick. I am afraid everyone will want to move there and all the space will
be taken up before I can get back!
Strider
nation in the world should be willing to give it's poor a hand up. The
problem as I see it is that welfare soon became a way of life for way too
many people. The "hand up" became a permanent "handout". Now it's mostly
just a bribe to keep the mass of shiftless minority groups from revolting.
There is nothing wrong with charity. There is too much wrong with our
welfare system to bother saving it.
I can understand people like Tim & Skully. You work your ass off to try to
get ahead & provide yourself & family with some financial security & the
Feds take a huge chunk of your money & give it to people who don't want to
better themselves, people who absolutely despise you.
The money I earn represents an investment of the limited time I have on
earth. It is part of my life I spent to get this money. I don't mine some
of it being spent on people who need a short term hand up so that they can
better themselves. Then this person can become usefull, self sufficient
people. This is of a benefit to us all. I hate my money to be spent
breeding generations of leeches, a situation that will forever grow worse.
Strider
SkullyWV wrote in message <19990401192021...@ng65.aol.com>...
>> Question for Tim May
Opinionated
>This is why many of us stay in California...a pleasant region. And a
>region with a lot of contradictons...
>California is the future...as the battles go here, so they will go in the
>Federal system. Any bullshit laws which California can get through will
>become the law of these entire United States within 10 years. The War of
>the Rebellion settled that.
>
>
>--Tim May
>
Tim...
Yes, I agree that Kalifornia is a trendsetter, based on popular policy
and sheer diversity, however Kalifornia is a losing game.
As an ex-patriated long-time Kalifornian, I have seen the quality of
life diminish there over the past 20 years. I, too have lived in
Monterey County, fished at Moss Landing and got a sunburn on Santa
Cruz Beach. I saw the Redwoods and lived among them long before
Earthfirst! declared war on my friends in Scotia, I saw the shocking
crimes perpetrated by Dan White, The Chowchilla kidnappers, Juan
Corona, Charlie & Company, Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, and the illustious
Damian Williams.
Kalifornia is a hotbed, not a melting pot. It has liberals dominating
the Assembly and the House. Gray Davis is the poster child of the West
Coast Dem influence and Fraulien Feinstein and Stormbonnfueher Boxer
are loved and esteemed. Between Polanca and Bustamante, you can kiss
your guns goodbye.
The writing is on the wall and it doesn't say "piss here".
The writing says. 'take your smarts, your talent, your wife and kids,
and relocate to another area." I looked all over the place for a
suitable area and a compatible populace as to what *I* am all about
and found it. It took me 5 years.
I would urge you to take the hard swallow and do the same. People like
you need to vacate a cesspool....not thrive in it.
This post is *not* meant to be a slam....no way.
Take care, my friend.
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual
discretion for the defense of the country,
the overthrow of tyranny, or private self-defense."
-John Adams
Gunner
want OUT!!!!! I fortunatly live in a conservitive county (KERN) where
the sherrif believes in issuing CCW, (had mine for 18 yrs so far) and
I see that Orange Co. is now issuing. (big deal on L.A. TV tonight
about it)
But with the Demoncrats in power, I fear that the slippery slope just
went verticle. After reading the new SB23, and finding all my CCW
weapons will be illegal, and my Marlin Model 60 is an assult rifle, I
have just about reached my Bullshit Coefficient.
Any body need a good CNC tech? Out of Kalifornia and in a shall issue
, gun friendly state ?
God help us everyone.
Gunner
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an
invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write
a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort
the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone,
solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program
a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
SkullyWV
>From: bear...@aol.com (BEARHUG61)
>please don't put all welfare recipients in one class.
>Now, if I see a woman in line paying for groceries with food stamps, I try
>not
>to get too upset that I am paying for those groceries
Unless you see her drive off in a new cadillac?
> I made the choice to accept welfare,
>in WV, for four years while I finished college. I could have worked in fast
>food, but you know what? If I had I would probably still be on food stamps
>and Medicaid.
Do you mean you would be now or would've been then?
I would have opted for the fast food job. But I'm not you and vice-versa.
>Skully, be less enthusiastic about broadcasting how wonderful WV is. I am >so
homesick. I am afraid everyone will want to move there and all the >space will
be taken up before I can get back!
That is probably very good advise, I'll try to tone it down a bit.<G>
Skully
Rick Bowen
>I agree with BOTH Tim and you. Ive lived in Kalifornia since 75, and
>want OUT!!!!! I fortunatly live in a conservitive county (KERN) where
>the sherrif believes in issuing CCW, (had mine for 18 yrs so far) and
>I see that Orange Co. is now issuing. (big deal on L.A. TV tonight
>about it)
>But with the Demoncrats in power, I fear that the slippery slope just
>went verticle. After reading the new SB23, and finding all my CCW
>weapons will be illegal, and my Marlin Model 60 is an assult rifle, I
>have just about reached my Bullshit Coefficient.
>Any body need a good CNC tech? Out of Kalifornia and in a shall issue
>, gun friendly state ?
>
>God help us everyone.
>
>Gunner
If you are considering a move,
please look to Texas!!!!!!!!!
No state income tax, shall issue, beef & pinto beans are
the state food. :-)
Moderate climes, depending. Third coast.
Oh, & I almost forgot, attitude. ;-)
Rick Bowen
NRA Member #APN0405N3
TSRA Life Member #073009
IN81
On 02 Apr 1999 03:57:52 GMT, bear...@aol.com (BEARHUG61) wrote:
>If I may intercept here fellas. First of all let me say that I enjoy reading
>both (Tim May and Skully) your posts and generally agree with you. What I
>would like to say is please don't put all welfare recipients in one class. The
>person who posted under the thread "Welfare Gravy Train" made valid
>observations.
>
>Many men don't pay adequate child support to allow mothers to raise their
>children. Quite bluntly if my choice was to take welfare and actually be the
>one to raise my children, at least until school age, or work TWO jobs at Taco
>Bell, have the kids corraled in a day care with strangers imparting who knows
>what values and subjecting them to who knows what abuses, just so your taxes
>would be lowered infinitesimally, guess what that choice would be?
>
>People who complain about welfare mothers raising their children, are the some
>of the same ones complaining about the problem with kids today is they weren't
>raised right because Mom worked outside the home. It took two people to make
>that baby ( and one of them DIDN'T even have to orgasm), and two people should
>be financially responsible.
>
>Gentlemen I know what I'm talking about. I made the choice to accept welfare,
>in WV, for four years while I finished college. I could have worked in fast
>food, but you know what? If I had I would probably still be on food stamps and
>Medicaid. AFDC allowed me to finish college while my children were still young
>enough not to know where the money came from. Therefore they don't see welfare
>as a way of life.
>
>Now, if I see a woman in line paying for groceries with food stamps, I try not
>to get too upset that I am paying for those groceries. I don't know what
>particular circumstances led to that. Maybe she does have a job. I'd rather
>have her working one job and raising her children responsibly than working two
>jobs and letting the kids raise themselves.
>
Tim May
<str...@usit.net> wrote:
> I think that there was a time when welfare was a good thing. The richest
> nation in the world should be willing to give it's poor a hand up. The
> problem as I see it is that welfare soon became a way of life for way too
> many people. The "hand up" became a permanent "handout". Now it's mostly
> just a bribe to keep the mass of shiftless minority groups from revolting.
A good history and analysis of the problems with the "Great Society" can
be found in Charles Murray's "Losing Ground." He points out that a
conscious decision was made in the early 60s to de-emphasize the "relief"
connotations of government aid, which were strongly negative, and to
instead emphasize the "entitlements" terminology. To be "on relief" in the
1940s and 50s was an unhappy situation, one which families sought
desperately to get out of.
To be "entitled" to a monthly "paycheck" from the government, a paycheck
which increased with each additional child, was a new thing.
And hence we have the current spectacle of a 16-year-old black girl with a
baby getting her own "crib." With her 30-year-old mother and 45-year-old
grandmother all on "da welfare." Four generations on welfare.
Visit any large American city with a large black population and one will
see this everywhere.
> I can understand people like Tim & Skully. You work your ass off to try to
> get ahead & provide yourself & family with some financial security & the
> Feds take a huge chunk of your money & give it to people who don't want to
> better themselves, people who absolutely despise you.
They take our money, they spend our money, and then they piss on us.
They eat better than most hardworking taxpayers.
And now they're moaning about how unfair the new laws are which say they
can't stay on welfare forever.
> The money I earn represents an investment of the limited time I have on
> earth. It is part of my life I spent to get this money. I don't mine some
> of it being spent on people who need a short term hand up so that they can
> better themselves. Then this person can become usefull, self sufficient
> people. This is of a benefit to us all. I hate my money to be spent
> breeding generations of leeches, a situation that will forever grow worse.
Generations of leeches is indeed the situation.
Time to take out the trash.
Io
> want OUT!!!!! I fortunatly live in a conservitive county (KERN) where
> the sherrif believes in issuing CCW, (had mine for 18 yrs so far) and
> I see that Orange Co. is now issuing. (big deal on L.A. TV tonight
> about it)
Is a California CCW valid in all of Cali? Can I move in state and keep
the permit?
Gunner
Yes, a California CCW is valid statewide, and is reciprical in several
states. However... if you permantantly move from the county of issue
to another county, you will have go to the new county admin and try to
get a ccw.....good luck. This is the reason that I havent moved from
Kern Co. down to the Los Angles area where I work during the week.
Well, not to mention I hate L.A. and it costs WAY to much to live
there and the traffic sucks and some of the people are wierd and etc
etc etc.......
If you move, you will more than likely have to give up your CCW as
there a not all that many counties that issue CCWs for anything less
than a 10,000 campaign contribution. YMMV
Gunner
Gunner
--------------------------
Secret Squirrel
>>>
>>> On more than one occasion, you have asserted that those
>>> who accept food stamps or welfare payments are thieves.
Dis Organization:
>> Bunch of drivel deleted...
>>
>> And your point would be ???
SkullyWV:
> Yea, what is the point?
> Tim May (as far as I can tell) is what we in WV call a "hard ass" and it's a
> damn shame he doesn't live here. We need some more.
It is my view that extortionist bureaucrats and politicians wanted
more power and, as a means to that end, found a convenient
justification for stealing money. They would "help the poor". These
bureaucrats and politicians set up a system in which the economically
rational choice for idle and low-skill individuals was to become
beggars at the feet of the bureaucrats and politicians. They never
had any intention of "helping the poor", a view which is supported by
their typical effect on those about whom they claim to care.
Tim has repeatedly asserted that the elimination of a large portion of
beggars would be a good thing, implying that this would somehow reduce
the amount of his money extorted. I can't see how starvation of a
large number of beggars would make it more difficult for bureaucrats
and politicians to use "helping the poor" as a justification for theft
-- as a means of evoking sympathy. I believe that mass starvation of
the poor would have the effect of making politicians and bureaucrats
who claim to "help the poor" unassailable, regardless of their actual
goals and effects. Even if the justification of "helping the poor"
could be eliminated, there are a thousand other justifications which
the bureaucrat and politicians would latch onto. The Majority is dumb
enough to support governmental preservation of "open space" which, in
practice, means that the government extorts money and uses it to buy
property which it then keeps idle. It makes as much sense to get
angry at "open space" and believe that the elimination of "open space"
would stop extortion by bureaucrats and politicians as it does to get
angry at, or hope for the elimination of, moochers.
Tim May is mad, and he ought to be. However, I think he is so angry
at the symptoms that he overlooks the cause. I was hoping that he
would give the *reasons* why his view differs from mine. In this way,
one of us might learn something. Instead, I find myself reiterating
my initial post for the benefit of Tim's adoring entourage.
-- David Montalembert
'Captain' Kirk DeHaan
up:
>On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 12:18:42 -0500, Io <no...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>>> I agree with BOTH Tim and you. Ive lived in Kalifornia since 75, and
>>> want OUT!!!!! I fortunatly live in a conservitive county (KERN) where
>>> the sherrif believes in issuing CCW, (had mine for 18 yrs so far) and
>>> I see that Orange Co. is now issuing. (big deal on L.A. TV tonight
>>> about it)
>>
>>Is a California CCW valid in all of Cali? Can I move in state and keep
>>the permit?
>
>Yes, a California CCW is valid statewide, and is reciprical in several
>states. However... if you permantantly move from the county of issue
>to another county, you will have go to the new county admin and try to
>get a ccw.....good luck. This is the reason that I havent moved from
>Kern Co. down to the Los Angles area where I work during the week.
>Well, not to mention I hate L.A. and it costs WAY to much to live
>there and the traffic sucks and some of the people are wierd and etc
>etc etc.......
>If you move, you will more than likely have to give up your CCW as
>there a not all that many counties that issue CCWs for anything less
>than a 10,000 campaign contribution. YMMV
>
>Gunner
>
I was a key witness in a murder trial in Santa Cruz Co. 6 years ago.
I lived in Santa Clara Co. They perps were in a Mexican gang and they
had their PI's tracking me down. I had some threats and was concerned
about my safety. I asked the DA of Santa Cruz Co. to help me get a
CCW in Santa Clara Co. They said no. I went and applied anyhow. At
least I went and got the forms. The chief of police told me not to
bother as they wouldn't issue one. One reason was the defense of life
is not a valid reason. Carrying large sums of money was though.
Carried anyhow. Fuck em.
Now I live in a "Shall issue" state. Never leave home without it.
BEARHUG61
Subject: Re: Question for Tim May
From: skul...@aol.com (SkullyWV)
Date: 2 Apr 1999 13:20:59 GMT
>Now, if I see a woman in line paying for groceries with food stamps, I try
>not to get too upset that I am paying for those groceries
>>Unless you see her drive off in a new cadillac?
Yes, I would get a little steamed I drove a Spectrum for 9 years until my
2 of my kids hit six feet and we couldn't fit anymore. But I was trying to
defend not only myself, but others who use the system as it was intended.
Those people would not be driving a new Cadillac. Anyone who appears to be
prosering under welfare is not depending only on welfare to survive.
> I made the choice to accept welfare, in WV, for four years while I finished
college. >I could have worked in fast food, but you know what? If I had I
would probably still >be on food stamps and Medicaid.
>>Do you mean you would be now or would've been then?
I would have opted for the fast food job. But I'm not you and vice-versa.
I meant at that time, and it would have taken a long time in that area, with
that economy, to become completely independent of the welfare system. I did
work in a restaurant while I was pregnant the first time. It's a hard job and
I'm glad I was younger. I'd hate to try and support us all now doing that.
Hungry people are mean.
>Skully, be less enthusiastic about broadcasting how wonderful WV is. I am >so
homesick. I am afraid everyone will want to move there and all the >space will
be taken up before I can get back!
That is probably very good advise, I'll try to tone it down a bit.<G>
Skully
SkullyWV
>It is my view that extortionist bureaucrats and politicians wanted
>more power and, as a means to that end, found a convenient
>justification for stealing money. They would "help the poor".
FACT, Right up there with "it's for the children".
>It makes as much sense to get angry at "open space" and believe that the
>elimination of "open space" would stop extortion by bureaucrats and
>politicians as it does to get angry at, or hope for the elimination of,
moochers.
With a few exceptions. "Open space" doesn't breed, doesn't pay with food stamps
then drive off in a new Lexus, doesn't scream for more, doesn't work at cash
only, no income tax jobs, heighten the crime rate, etc...
"Open space" is controlled, totally. "Moochers" are not.
Yes, you are absolutly correct, it is the guvermunt that is to blame for the
root cause.
What you should probably do, is to not take everything so literally. Tim's
attitude is a shared one, however, attitudes are generally presented in the
extreme. These days one has to to get a point across due to the numbness in the
world. Which is a shame but nonetheless a reality.
So with that out of the way, what do you propose in the area of solving this
problem. Tim's idea is to close the "moocher food valve" and weld it shut.
Mine is to have state agencies perform a door to door audit. Go th the homes of
all "hand out" receivers and take inventory. "Hmmm, new 30,000 dollar car, big
screen TV with satalite service, tons of beer in fridge, designer clothes in
closets, humungus stereo"......"Sorry mam/sir your mooch-grub is cut off for
life, PERIOD. I think that's the way it should go. And don't site the
Constitution, these people have given up their freedom. It's like I tell my
son, "I'm paying for you to live, so you'll live like I tell you to. And he's a
damn fine young man. So how do you think it should be done.
Skully
Clifford Statum
[[snip]]
....maybe Nevada, a little.
I lived in Lost Wages from 87-90. Was glad to get out.
Biggest problem in Nevada is finding water. The lack
of a State income tax is a definite plus. On the down side,
I had to register my handguns with the Gestapo. I went down
to the Polizei Station, filled out their little B.S. form, and
handed my handgun to some little wannabe Nazi behind
the counter. She took my handgun into the back room,
where they ran the serial number through their data base.
Once they were convinced that it wasn't stolen, they
returned it to me, along with a little blue card that I was
to have in my possession if I ever took my handgun out of
the house.
We were always told that 'the serial numbers were never
entered into a national database, that this was strictly a
local thing.' A nice fairy tale. One of my co-workers, Robert
Borg, had a handgun stolen from him. He was contacted
by an LEA from back East, where the handgun was
recovered. Now I wonder how they knew how to contact
him.........................................................................
...............
>downsides as well. Nevada is probably the likeliest state
>for me to move to (no income taxes, fewer bullshit laws).
>But such a move is not likely to happen this year. Which
>means I'll worry about this issue after Y2K unfolds, however
>it does.
Good luck in your search.
Clifford
[[snip to end]]
BEARHUG61
From: skul...@aol.com (SkullyWV)
Date: 3 Apr 1999 12:40:57 GMT
>>Re: Question for Tim May
>>From: Secret Squirrel <squi...@echelon.alias.net>
>>It is my view that extortionist bureaucrats and politicians wanted
>>more power and, as a means to that end, found a convenient
>>justification for stealing money. They would "help the poor".
>FACT, Right up there with "it's for the children".
Politicians are nothing but overeducated welfare recipients, with chauffers for
their paid-for-by-taxpayer Cadillacs. Sorry if I am repeating myself, but I
don't see the post where I said that earlier.
Stuff snipped
>What you should probably do, is to not take everything so literally. Tim's
>attitude is a shared one, however, attitudes are generally presented in the
>extreme. These days one has to to get a point across due to the numbness in
the
>world. Which is a shame but nonetheless a reality.
You're having to explain it speaks volumes.
>So with that out of the way, what do you propose in the area of solving this
>problem. Tim's idea is to close the "moocher food valve" and weld it shut.
>Mine is to have state agencies perform a door to door audit. Go th the homes
of
>all "hand out" receivers and take inventory. "Hmmm, new 30,000 dollar car, big
>screen TV with satalite service, tons of beer in fridge, designer clothes in
>closets, humungus stereo"......"Sorry mam/sir your mooch-grub is cut off for
>life, PERIOD. I think that's the way it should go. And don't site the
>Constitution, these people have given up their freedom. It's like I tell my
>son, "I'm paying for you to live, so you'll live like I tell you to. And he's
a
>damn fine young man. So how do you think it should be done.
>Skully
During the time I was an evil welfare mooch, I was the lucky recipient of one
of those audits. A caseworker came to my apartment, sat at my kitchen table
right next to the refrigerator and asked if I had a refrigerator. Yes, I had
the choice to not let her in, at the price of losing the benefits....which
principal I totally agree with although I'll never remember it with fondness.
You accept governmental handouts (or your employer's job, or your
clients'/customers' business), you accept the restrictions that go with it.
Secret Squirrel
>> more power and, as a means to that end, found a convenient
>> justification for stealing money. They would "help the poor".
SkullyWV:
> FACT, Right up there with "it's for the children".
>> It makes as much sense to get angry at "open space" and believe
>> that the elimination of "open space" would stop extortion by
>> bureaucrats and politicians as it does to get angry at, or hope for
>> the elimination of, moochers.
> With a few exceptions. "Open space" doesn't breed, doesn't pay with
> food stamps then drive off in a new Lexus, doesn't scream for more,
> doesn't work at cash only, no income tax jobs, heighten the crime
> rate, etc...
None of these things turn moochers into thieves or justify killing
them. However, you're right about the existence of a fundamental
difference between "open space" and moochers. "Open space" cannot
vote. Moochers become thieves when they vote for politicians who
advocate extortion. They are not shielded from the moral
responsibility for their robbery merely because they delegate it to
professional extortionists.
> What you should probably do, is to not take everything so literally.
It is my habit to say what I mean and assume that others, in the
absence of obvious sarcasm, say what they mean.
> Tim's attitude is a shared one, however, attitudes are generally
> presented in the extreme. These days one has to to get a point
> across due to the numbness in the world. Which is a shame but
> nonetheless a reality.
There's nothing wrong with "extreme" views. I started following May's
posts because many of them were extremely right. When he says that
thieves need killing, he's right (assuming there's no other safe way
to stop their thievery). However, when he says that moochers are
thieves, that's incorrect. When he says they need killing, that's
evil. It's also pointless. The politicians and bureaucrats would
punish the moochers themselves, if they thought that doing so would
increase their political power. The problem would be solved if
government extortionists were no longer above the law.
> So with that out of the way, what do you propose in the area of
> solving this problem. Tim's idea is to close the "moocher food
> valve" and weld it shut.
That's the right way to do it, as long as you're only talking about
extorted money. I have no desire to see people die, even idle
moochers. Voluntary donation of time and money to folks who need help
is often a good thing. This changes when politicians and bureaucrats
are involved. When they coerce "help" with the threat of imprisonment
or death, charity is corrupted -- it becomes robbery. This corruption
is made worse by the bureaucrat's incentive to maximize the amount of
money flowing through his hands, as most of it is spent on bureaucrat
salaries, bureaucrat offices, bureaucrat surveillance systems, and
bureaucrat guns. That's a perverse incentive when the supposed goal
is to get people back on their own feet.
> Mine is to have state agencies perform a door to door audit. Go th
> the homes of all "hand out" receivers and take inventory. "Hmmm, new
> 30,000 dollar car, big screen TV with satalite service, tons of beer
> in fridge, designer clothes in closets, humungus stereo"......"Sorry
> mam/sir your mooch-grub is cut off for life, PERIOD. I think that's
> the way it should go.
I don't like it. That solution will make the government more powerful
and establish precedents which may be used against you some day.
Consider the following scenario: The government makes it illegal to
privately sell medical care (this almost happened) thereby making all
medical care a government entitlement. Your proposal has established
that those who want access to entitlements must submit to certain
"reasonable" searches. Do you want to be treated for lung cancer?
Submit to a search of your home to prove that you don't have any
cigarettes. Do you want to be treated for hearing loss? Submit to a
search of your home and land to prove that you don't have any
firearms. Do you want your daughter to be able to see an
obstetrician, ever? Then she has to submit to government sex
education and examination starting at the age of five. You can
probably come up with more ways that the politicians and bureaucrats
will abuse the sort of power you are ready to grant them. If there is
a problem which was caused by allowing the government to seize too
much power, attempting to solve it by giving the government more power
will, instead, produce more problems.
> And don't site the Constitution, these people have given up their
> freedom.
Bureaucrats and politicians will use those sentiments against you. As
long as the Constitution becomes weaker and the politicians and
bureaucrats become stronger, they win and the people lose. The
Constitution isn't standing in the way of fixing the problem. Heeding
the Constitution's restrictions on government power is the solution to
the problem.
> It's like I tell my son, "I'm paying for you to live, so you'll live
> like I tell you to.
That's appropriate between a parent and child.
> And he's a damn fine young man.
That doesn't surprise me. However, the government and the citizen are
not, should not, and can not be like parent and child. Think of the
consequences in places where this has been tried.
> So how do you think it should be done.
Eliminate redistributive taxation. If people want a problem solved,
they should work, voluntarily, to solve it instead of forcing others
to solve it for them through the threat of prison or death.
Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen because the people who make,
judge, and enforce the laws are made more powerful by the existence of
redistributive taxation. Instead, at every step, they will claim that
the only way to fix the problems they created is to give them yet more
power. As their destructive influence is felt by a larger proportion
of the population, the government will lose its legitimacy in the eyes
of the people.
-- David Montalembert
"To recognize the inherent coercive nature of government and
government actions is necessarily to limit all pretensions of using
the State to uplift, purify, redeem, or otherwise transubstantiate
citizens."
James Bovard, "Freedom in Chains", p. 50.
SkullyWV
>From: Secret Squirrel <squi...@echelon.alias.net>
>None of these things turn moochers into thieves or justify killing
>them.
Anyone who takes guvermunt handouts when they are able to work for a living is
a thief. As for turning moochers into thieves, sometimes it does, sometimes it
dosen't therefore the welfare programs are flawed. And I know you already knew
that.
>> What you should probably do, is to not take everything so literally.
>It is my habit to say what I mean and assume that others, in the
>absence of obvious sarcasm, say what they mean.
That's alot easier to do in person, I'd imagine that if you were to have an "in
person" discussion with some of the folks here the extremism would be toned
down a bit.
[squirrel's view of door to door inspections of welfare receipients]
>I don't like it. That solution will make the government more powerful
>and establish precedents which may be used against you some day.
>Consider the following scenario: The government makes it illegal to
>privately sell medical care (this almost happened) thereby making all
>medical care a government entitlement. Your proposal has established
>that those who want access to entitlements must submit to certain
>"reasonable" searches. Do you want to be treated for lung cancer?
>Submit to a search of your home to prove that you don't have any
>cigarettes.
Ya got me there. My idea was so we could see where our money was going and to
stop abuse. But if/when the US becomes a socialist country the laws I would
have wanted in place would come back on me.
>> It's like I tell my son, "I'm paying for you to live, so you'll live
>> like I tell you to.
>That's appropriate between a parent and child.
It's also appropriate when you are paying for me to live.
>Eliminate redistributive taxation. If people want a problem solved,
>they should work, voluntarily, to solve it instead of forcing others
>to solve it for them through the threat of prison or death.
>Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen because the people who make,
>judge, and enforce the laws are made more powerful by the existence of
>redistributive taxation. Instead, at every step, they will claim that
>the only way to fix the problems they created is to give them yet more
>power. As their destructive influence is felt by a larger proportion
>of the population, the government will lose its legitimacy in the eyes
>of the people.
Agreed
So it sounds like we're back to square one. These things should happen but
probably won't. So are you suprised that the Tim May's of the world are
preaching "lock-n-load". His crosshairs may be on effect rather than cause as
you said but I think he'd pass up a welfare grandma who's taking care of her
crack-head daughter's child and go for the welfare receiving, Lexus driving
crack dealer.
Skully
Tim May
> Again, I must raise the question of military pensions.
>
Buy an annuity. The discounted present value of an annuity is trivial to
calculate.
> Is it a handout? Certainly, the vast majority of recipients are capable of
> working (most do, in fact). Do they qualify as "thieves"?
>
> The pension is a major selling point for an all volunteer force. Without it
> we might have to go back to conscription to fill the empty spaces.
Conscription is slavery, pure and simple. It was in Lincoln's day, it was
in 1917, it was in 1941, and so on.
Those who conscript should be killed and their draft offices dynamited.
Tim May
<inst...@neto.com> wrote:
> Most *retirees* drawing a military pension look far older than their years,
> and for good reason. Those that do continue in the work force after 20
> years bring far more to our society than they take.... just like they did on
> active duty.
This just isn't so. I grew up in a military family and I saw many
retirees. I also saw many at the company I worked for.
Most "lifers" retire after their "20" is in. For those who joined at 18,
they're as young as 38 when they retire. Sometimes a few years older if
they put more time in. For most officers, who entered between age 22 and
25, typically, they get out when they're in their mid-40s.
They look no older than anyone else of the same age.
Then they begin their second career. Some become industry workers, some
teachers, some pilots, etc. The name for them, when they retire for the
_second_ time is "double dipper."
Mysterion
SkullyWV wrote in message <19990406073748...@ng21.aol.com>...
>Anyone who takes guvermunt handouts when they are able to work for a living
is
>a thief. As for turning moochers into thieves, sometimes it does, sometimes
it
>dosen't therefore the welfare programs are flawed. And I know you already
knew
>that.
Again, I must raise the question of military pensions.
Is it a handout? Certainly, the vast majority of recipients are capable of
Instruct
Mysterion wrote in message <7eemr7$ca...@ns1.netrax.net>...
While I will probably never draw my military retirement, having 10 years
active and 5 National Guard, I do not believe that those drawing military
retirement as participating in a *guverment handout* program.
The hours put in drop your pay scale below minimum wage in many instances,
and the duties involved far exceed what most civilians would ever consider.
Most *retirees* drawing a military pension look far older than their years,
and for good reason. Those that do continue in the work force after 20
years bring far more to our society than they take.... just like they did on
active duty.
The older service members that receive service-related disability benefits
in their latter years paid the price during their youth. They paid the
price for not only themselves, but the countless others that remained safe
at home due to their service.
Whether he/she was a clerk or an infantryman is irrelevant. Those that
qualify for their *pension* merit not only our respect, but our thanks.
Scouts Out,
Vaughn
JRyder
|Mysterion wrote in message <7eemr7$ca...@ns1.netrax.net>...
|>Again, I must raise the question of military pensions.
As a libertarian, Im of course an advocate against any standing army, in favor
of the militia.
As to the current state of affairs...of course its a handout. Id consider it
workfare. If we simply must maintain an occupying force, Id prefer no benefits
whatsoever. Offer a simple wage, and nothing more. Make it clear right up
front, that failure to go and fight when told, is a criminal offense.
Of course, Id prefer all employers did away with benefits and offered a straight
wage. I just dont like entangling benefits that often favor one group or
another.
--
Are you free?
Do you own your body? Can you prostitute yourself, sell your organs, or
medicate yourself? Do you own your labor? Can you work for any wage
you want, whatever hours you want, and keep the fruits of your sweat?
Do you own your possessions? Can the terms of your property ownership
be changed at any time, or for any reason? Can your property be taxed
without limitation?
Can you travel freely? Must you carry identification papers for you and your
property, submit to search without warrant, cause, or recourse?
There is a spectrum upon which lie two endpoints. One point is slavery, and
at the other end: FREEDOM.
Gunner
>In article <lkCO2.87$or5....@newsfeed.slurp.net>, "Instruct"
><inst...@neto.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Most *retirees* drawing a military pension look far older than their years,
>> and for good reason. Those that do continue in the work force after 20
>> years bring far more to our society than they take.... just like they did on
>> active duty.
>
>This just isn't so. I grew up in a military family and I saw many
>retirees. I also saw many at the company I worked for.
>
>Most "lifers" retire after their "20" is in. For those who joined at 18,
>they're as young as 38 when they retire. Sometimes a few years older if
>they put more time in. For most officers, who entered between age 22 and
>25, typically, they get out when they're in their mid-40s.
>
>They look no older than anyone else of the same age.
>
>Then they begin their second career. Some become industry workers, some
>teachers, some pilots, etc. The name for them, when they retire for the
>_second_ time is "double dipper."
>
>
>--Tim May
The truth is... you are both right. However. A contract was entered
into by two parties. One party needed a warm body to fulfull certain
requirements, some of which could be hazardous. The other party
agreed to fullfill those requirments, and to put their safety at risk
while doing so. A number of rules are regulations that must be
followed, were agreed to by both parties, and a contract was signed.
Certain benefit payments were part of the contract to the contractee.
Food, medical care, burial if killed on the job, clothing allowance,
travel to exotic places, and a retirement stipend upon completion of
the contract period with a slideing scale as an inducement to extend
the contract period in increments for up to 30 or more years.
If the contractee performed his/her duties satisfactorily for the
agreed on periods of time, the contractor pays the agreed on
retirement for the agreed on time length of time (life). After mutualy
agreeable termination of the contract, the contractee is free to
continue to persue other contracts with other contractors..
Double dipping? Thats sorta like having more than one stock dividend
a month isnt it? Bitching about double dipping is like pissing about
someone having a diversified portfolio...
WWooton
>Certain benefit payments were part of the contract to the contractee. Food,
medical care,
Under the new Tri-care, anything that Tri-care decides not to cover has to be
picked up by the military member or private health insurance. Really nice for
the military members, isn't it?
>If the contractee performed his/her duties satisfactorily for the agreed on
periods of time, the contractor pays the agreed on retirement for the agreed on
time length of time (life).
However, the military can change the benifits to it retirees without consulting
the retiree. How many private organizations can do this? To date, all
lawsuits against the DOD has gone against the retiree. The screwing the
retiree gets is for the screwing they got while working for the military.
Walt
TheTow...@webtv.net
Gunner, thank you--well said :-)
Bob Gilbert
>In article <lkCO2.87$or5....@newsfeed.slurp.net>, "Instruct"
><inst...@neto.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Most *retirees* drawing a military pension look far older than their years,
>> and for good reason. Those that do continue in the work force after 20
>> years bring far more to our society than they take.... just like they did on
>> active duty.
>
>This just isn't so. I grew up in a military family and I saw many
>retirees. I also saw many at the company I worked for.
>
>Most "lifers" retire after their "20" is in. For those who joined at 18,
>they're as young as 38 when they retire. Sometimes a few years older if
>they put more time in. For most officers, who entered between age 22 and
>25, typically, they get out when they're in their mid-40s.
>
>They look no older than anyone else of the same age.
Didn't catch the start of this thread.
As one of those retirees, a few comments.
The majority of retirees do not look older than those civilians of the
same age.
There are some, as a group probably a higher percentage than their
civilian counterparts, who do look a bit 'rode hard and put away wet'.
Depends on specific specialty in the service, type assignments, etc.
I will only speak about the Navy. Know more than a little about the
other services but will stick to Navy.
In general. Due to the very basic requirements of the service, a
group of 40 yr old military types picked at random, as versus a group
of 40 yr old civilians, one will find a marked and very noticeable
difference in health and fitness. Talking random groups, viewed as a
whole. The military group will look ... oh, I wouldn't say older ...
more weathered? At the same time that miliary group will be generally
healtier and more fit. Think about it. Even if I walked into a Navy
disbursing (pay) office and looked over a group of what are
essentially pay clerks and accountants, those people MUST conform to a
minimum requirement of physical fitness and health.
Plain and simple. There is a maximum body fat limit. An annual
fitness test that includes a run, situps, pushups, etc. A great many
normal diseases common to the general civilian populace are grounds
for discharge from the service. This -minimum- is a general one,
applicable to every single soul in the Navy regardless of job. There
are higher minimums required of people in specific jobs.
Healthy bunch as a group. HAS to be. Asthma, heart disease,
diabetes, bad joints, etc, etc are grounds for discharge. Not an
absolute always ... but close. i.e. I had a friend who racked up his
knees badly 1 1/2 years before being retirement eligiable. He had to
fight, do a lot of leg and paperwork to find an open slot in a job
that would not stress his knees to finish that time. Even so, he had
to do ALL requirements of that job to be allowed to continue. We, the
Navy, would not allow exemption from that requirement. He had to be
able to do it, without special provision or consideration. Pain, Yup,
sorry ... your problem guy ... eat it, live with it.
That part was fairly common. i.e. after 23 years service, during
which if you discount time for healing holes, healing broken bones,
etc ... I had about 5 lost days due to illness. My medical record if
one removed and looked at the section for -illness- was very, very
thin.
Chuckle, look at the rest, detailing punctures, abrasions, burns,
broken bones, etc ... it was pretty thick.
Include the sections on special hazard exposure. Which for me was
quite a read. Laughing. Whole dang list of carcinogens, neurotoxins,
asbestos, radiation, and so forth. Becomes a really thick record.
***I do not mean to make light of the last, above. Nothing one can do
but laugh. In fact I have a certain amount of nerologic damage,
permanent. Patches here and there on body which are numb. Strange,
re-occurring -tingles- in extremeties. No disability, just strange,
and the fact is no one KNOWS what the long range implications are. Ah
well.
Fact is, just before my retirement, among my age and rank group, I and
several I knew were essentially hiding certain things.
i.e. A good friend had a knee that caused constant pain. Old bullet
wound. He, on the sly, made friends with a co-operative corpsman, and
was popping pills regularly and still living with the pain but not
allowing anyone but trusted friends to know. He could not make the
extent of it a matter of official record without risking
disqualification from -unlimited- assignment availability. Likewise I
had several times during physicals -failed to mention- that lifting my
right arm out to the side, above my head caused extreme pain. When it
came to such things during exams, I gritted teeth and did it allowing
nothing to show. Old shouder injury. Same reason, a -limited- duty
classification was a career killer. Worse would have been a -not fit
for duty- classification.
Such type things were far from uncommon. I knew quite a few who had
physical damage who either kept the matter completely secret, or at
least the full extent of it from being known.
One must be realistic. What they did while in the service is widely
varied. A Navy DP (Programmer) was an office worker. Quite a few
never saw a minute aboard a combat ship. Most were exposed to no more
physical hardship than any other programmer anywhere. With the
exception that they were required to maintain a minimal physical
fitness level.
Likewise, an SK (storekeeper ... stock guy, warehouseman, supply type)
might by luck, or carefully choosing assignments serve minimal time on
a combat unit. Then, when he was at such, manage to wrangle a -cushy-
job.
On the other hand one had storekeepers who besides their primary
specialty took on special assignments, or particular secondary
specialties which were must more arduous.
To give an example.
I was a snipe. Originally an EN (engineman ... internal combustion
engine repairman). Later crossed over to be a MM (machinest mate).
Did main engines on ships (steam turbines), generators, water
distillation, air conditioning, refrigeration, heating, hydraulics,
elevators, coveyors, pneumatics, cranes, forklifts, winches, etc etc
ad infinitum. The nature of life on Navy ships is such that
specialization is counter productive. A MM was expected to be able to
do what would be a few dozen different specialties in another service
or in civilian life.
One particular MM might do an entire career doing no other duties, and
might wangle assignments between shore duties at ship repair
facilities and assignment at sea to, say, supply ships.
In my case. While a general apprentice and as an engineman, I
volunteered for and served with patrol boats and went to Nam. Later I
always asked for sea duty aboard combatants. On such I volunteered
for, in addition to my duties as a mechanic/technician, firefighting
teams, damage control teams, boarding parties, ship security duties,
and so forth. I've been in fires, a boiler explosion, gone into
spaces holed by a collision at sea, performed rescue of injured
crewmembers, etc. Got to actually repell boarders on 2 occassions.
Depending on one's definition. Crazy 'anti-war protestors' once sent
a couple guys out who tried to attach bombs to the side of my ship
while we were inport. Gotta love those concussion grenades ! Once in
Japan had a bunch of anti-nuke types try to do their thing. Actually,
that was a riot control thing rather than a real repell boarders
thing. Performed rescue at sea, went aboard another damaged ship that
was holed and sinking and helped keep it afloat. Got sent over to
shore for rescue and recovery after 3 typhoons and an earthquake. And
so forth.
Picked up a secondary specialty as a law enforcement/security type and
on a couple shore assignments worked as an Armed Forces Policeman, a
temporary (6 month) assignment to a Shore Patrol unit, a temporary (9
month) assignment as a -chaser- while my ship was in overhaul. (As a
chaser I was running around after deserters, most we didn't care
about. Ones I was after were also wanted for assaults, robbery, drug
charges, etc Neat assignment actually, got to work plainclothed, and
got to know Seattle and San Francisco very well)
Anyway, this is not about me. But this is the way things worked. One
particular MM might never do anything except operate and repair ship's
engines and might do an entire career and never see a shot fired in
anger. Another might be like a very good friend of mine who was an MM
and a Navy SEAL.
Now, did that MM who -skated- by with cushy assignments at a ship
repair facility or aboard supply ships have an EASY life? Depends on
how one views such things. Try going to sea for 6 months to a year on
a Navy ship as an MM. Where a 12 hr day workday 7 days a week was
-nice- and easy. Live in a -rack- piled three high, where you can't
stretch you arms without whacking your neighbor in the nose, no
privacy at any time, and you can't see your family for months at a
time. You eat what you're fed, watch the movies (if you ever have the
time) picked by the ship and try to remember what a woman smelled
like.
That's the -good- times. Realistically, it's worse. A day was often
4 and 8 watch rotation. Engine room watch operating the ships
equipment. 4 hrs on watch, 8 hrs off. That rotation continued around
the clock, 7 days a week for as long as the ship was at sea. Those off
hours weren't yours. There was the normal ship's workday. If not on
watch you were making repairs, doing maintenance, cleaning things up,
etc. Then there were special events. Unrep, underway replenishment,
a ship moves alongside a supply ship and took on beans, bullets and
blackoil (fuel) to use the old term. Working parties to accomplish
this. A dangerous operation where a mistake could and did cost lives.
Often an all hands event. Often conducted at the oddest dang hours so
as not to interfere with the ship's mission. You could easily have
been up 18 hrs, just be crawling into your rack, have Unrep announced,
spend 4 to 8 hrs at that, then find out it was time to go back on
watch, or find that by the clock the ship's normal workday had
commenced so it was back down to the -hole- and fix that danged
generator. The fact you'd had no sleep was YOUR problem.
Or you could have just finished an emergency repair. Certain
equipment breaking meant the guys responsible for it were going to
work on it til it was -up- and available. I can specifically remember
a time when we went 5 days with nothing more than snatched one and two
hour naps, working at a major repair, in between doing all the other
things like watch standing, normal work, etc. Was just crawling in my
rack, probably not more than 8 to 10 hrs sleep in the past 5 days,
exhausted. Laid head on pillow and General Quarters sounded. Just a
drill. Then, as it was the only time the skipper could find so as not
to interfere with other things. 4 hrs of dragging around 1 1/2 inch
fire hoses, simulating putting out fires, administering first aid,
rescuing injured men, rigging jumper cables around so-called damaged
main power cables, etc. Started to crawl back into my rack. Just to
be tapped on the shoulder by a guy who announced 'You're on watch,
bud.' Oh,,,, fun. And this was in peacetime.
And to think. Some lady in Perth, Australia once asked me why all the
sailors were acting so ... so ... WILD. Drinking two fisted, chasing
ladies everywhere and partying like there was no tomorrow. Well, lets
see. First time on land in 109 days. Hadn't seen a beer, civilian
food or a female creature in all that time. Been staring at the ugly
faces of men, the same men, never more than a couple feet from you day
in and day out for all that time. COUNTLESS hours of lost sleep,
never a moment to yourself, never an opportunity to do what you
wanted. Sheesh ... I was just walking around at first inhaling
deeply. Thrilled to just smell another human who didn't smell like a
man. Lady found me just sitting there looking at the ladies.
Fascinated. Try not even seeing one for 109 days. I told her that
actually, the guys were amazingly well behaved. Not a single report
of rape or assault. Chuckle, tho there were more than a few yelps
from this or that lady that might have got her tush patted
unexpectedly. 5 days in Perth, average guy had 3 days off out of
that. After 109 days of NO time off. Shoot, they were used to no
sleep, sleep was the last thing they were going to do. At the end of
that five days, 3 of them to be -off-, we knew the schedule, it was to
be another 60 plus before we saw port again. Yup, they were acting a
bit crazy, and had reason to do so.
I kept a detailed record once. In a 3 yr period, assigned to this one
ship, I had 253 days in port. Only 207 of those days in port
someplace where I could see my family.
So do I think an MM with -skate- duty earned his retirement check, you
betcha.
I believe -any- person, regardless of job who did their time and their
duty, regardless of whether he or she saw combat, earned every last
nickel of that retirement check.
Want to see ME get upset. Look at some of the retirement amounts paid
to professional politicians, and how easily it can be earned, and in
how short a time.
Fact is, for military types, a 20 to 30 yr retirement plan only makes
sense. Normal ravages of duty and age makes it such that any longer
on active service creates a problem as to whether or not they'll be
physically able to fully perform the duties. It's not a country club,
it's not the Love Boat. That file clerk/typist (Yeoman) on a ship
might have that as his regular duties, but he is also expected to be
able to haul a reel or two of heavy fire hose around up and down
several levels, carry a litter with an injured crew member, or if
needed hump bombs to be loaded on an aircraft. There are no excuses
and 'It's not my job ...' is an unacceptable answer.
>Then they begin their second career. Some become industry workers, some
>teachers, some pilots, etc. The name for them, when they retire for the
>_second_ time is "double dipper."
Most take up a second career after retirement from active service.
For example. When I retired I was midlife. Had a family with teens
running around. Retirement checks, for average military types, are
not that high. After deductions and such mine covers the house
payment. And, no, I do NOT live in a million dollar house. New, but
average for this area.
Don't know if you have kids, but teens are not cheap. Plus the wife
and I are sort of addicted to eating. Find that it's nice to eat at
least once a day. Etc.
For 19 of the 23 yrs I was on active duty, I was married and my wife
put up with me being gone often and long. Tended the household,
raised kids, slept alone and cried at night, etc, etc. Got her ass
yanked up, oh ... 9 or 10 times, as I received orders and moved
whether she liked it or not, to places which she may or may not have
wanted to go. And, for the record, each move under orders cost us
money out of pocket. Every single time. Yes, we were reimbursed
SOME. But just ask any retired military type. It never covers all
your expenses. Ever. Rules are different for civil service or
politicians. Quite common for them to break even or even make a
little.
So, you bet, when I retired I had been promising her, my wife, a house
of her own. HER house. Her pick, her wish as to layout and location,
one she could do with as she wanted. And in my not-so-humble-opinion,
the fact that taxpayers are paying for it is nothing more than a
proper debt owed to her. My retirement check goes to that house. I
deliberately placed it in her name. I also owed her a debt. She
stuck by me all those years thru all the bullshit. She earned every
bit of it.
I will not even address pay while on active duty. A rather senseless
argument.
Fact is, it is low compared to what is expected and demanded. And as
compared to the equivalent rates in the -civilian- world.
I will not harp about that as when one considers the retirement, one
can look at it as deferred payment. Right now I work for a civilian
corporation, and my pay up front is reduced, as per my agreement, in
return for later consideration. That is, under my particular contract
some pay is not paid right now. Rather I have claim to certain stocks
if I retire from here or am laid off, quit, etc. Just the name of the
game and not an uncommon occurrance.
Same arrangement for careerists in the military. Yep, paid less NOW,
in return for that retirement check later. Each military person who
does not understand that principle, should brighten up and pay
attention. Shifts in NOW paydays and retirement options and pay rates
change over time and simply reflect changing conditions. i.e. If
there are plentiful volunteers to be careerists, then perhaps the
payday payrate might be allowed to slip, might be a little generous.
Or the retirement benefits reduced. If enough accept that and
continue in service fine. If they start dropping out of the system
then it may be necessary to increase one or the other.
So if taxpayers gripe, tough. Want someone to do that job, that's
what you gotta pay to get them to do it. If the military person
gripes ... well, might be time to consider another career. However, a
promise made is a promise made. If a guy retires, getting -X-
dollars, as was promised ... it's OWED to him. (or her)
Trust me. If I leave this corporation I WILL get the proper promised
deferred pay, to date, I don't care that the current stockholders have
changed their minds, or I will be taking them to court. Simple. Owed
is owed.
Of course, next week the corporation may decide to make a change in
the deferred payment plan, to be effective from that moment on. Their
option and right. At which time, if I don't like it, I'll hit the
streets. Find another job. They will still owe me in accordance with
previous agreement for time served, and I will demand they honor that.
But nothing is forever. They do not owe me a promise that they won't
change tomorrow. That's just real world. We part company.
Stockholders will have to find out if they can attract someone with my
skills at the new rate. If they do, they make more profit. If not,
they lose money. Will have to go back to old rate while paying
employee replacement costs.
FWIW, when th active military complain about pay. There is some
validity. The complaint can not be just dismissed without careful
thought.
Throughout my service time I was offered jobs by the civilian
employers. Nearly always at a considerable pay increase, not to
mention I would have had life easier, simple 40 hr workweek,
stability, not putting MY neck on the line for others, etc.
I will not speak to what I don't know. So I only adress tho jobs with
which I am familiar. Within my particular technical specialties it
was simple FACT that I knew those jobs as well as at least the
majority of my civilian counterparts. In my case, better than that.
Retired from the Navy, stepped into a civilian job I knew at a low
rate, within 2 years was being paid top rates. Fine enough, I
expected a trial period there. Only reasonable.
I found that quite common. Many of my former shipmates who were
mechanics, boilermen, welders, electricians, etc retired and within a
year or 3 were liscensed at top levels or put to work as supervisors
or managers. The old image of the -dumb- soldier, sailor or airman is
long past. Modern warfare dictates this.
In recruiting, at least at the time I retired, the average quality
recruit we brought in was healthier, stronger, brighter and better
educated in at least the basic 3R's than the average civilian. Was a
damn sight easier to get into a good college than into the service.
Sheesh, I was a recruiter on my last tour. No problem finding people
interested. Finding QUALIFIED recruits was the problem.
Many reading this might not be aware of some things I mentioned. Oh,
many have met the kid who made it in, then got kicked out (tho they
rarely admit the reasons, usually make up some bullshit story). Or
you've met the kid that did his 3 or 4, didn't like it and got out.
His or her right. Nothing wrong with that, no shame, no dishonor.
Have a perfect right to their opinions. Perhaps you met the guy who
joined the Navy under a -no options- contract. Essentially no
guarantee, general labor, type assignment. Might be because the
fellow was not very bright. i.e. when I recruited in Minnesota we
were allowed 4 Cat-4's a month (perhaps not too sharp). Fine,
everyone can use a floor sweeper. Or it might be the kid who just
wanted to join and see the world, chase girls and such, wasn't
interested in anything else. And that was fine, too. As long as he
did his duty, it was his business that he was not interested in an
advanced trainning job.
Chuckle, in the recruiting biz I used to have some fine hunting
tracking down some farm kid who was interested in just traveling for a
couple years, perhaps getting some strange p**ntang, etc before he
settled down to being a farmer for the rest of his life. Wasn't
afraid of hard work and long hours. Jeez .... PERFECT. Son, come
talk to me ! Have I got a proposition for you !
Loved -em. The surprising part was how many were actually mentally
qualified for advanced technical fields. But didn't care. Just
wanted some adventure before going home and growing corn. Whole bunch
of those farm kids were not stupid ! Jeez, talked myself blue once
with this kid who had advanced standing in science and math. As sarp
as ANYONE. I was trying like hell to get him to buy into a nuclear
power or advanced electronics program. NOPE. Nothing doing. He
wanted to talk about just exactly what were the ladies like in
Thailand, or San Diego or etc. Just wanted a basic -3 yr- contract,
go to sea, see the world, swabbing decks was fine with him. Didn't
care about the rest, because he already had his mind made up. After,
he was coming back to farm and marry the gal he went to high school
with. Chuckle, couldn't find just a lot of fault with his logic,
that's what he wanted. The idea that a guy with his sort of talent
necessarily wanted to be a rocket scientist is wrong. He wanted to
grow corn. That's it. Didn't want to grow corn because he couldn't
do something else, it was what he wanted to do.
>--Tim May
Just for the record, Tim. A 'double-dipper' originally referred to
those who did their time, received a government retirement check for
retiring from that. Then, as a civilian, went on to take another
government job and qualify for a second -government- check.
Those that drew a government retirement check, then earned a second
check from the civilian sector (non-government) were not normally
referred to as -double-dippers-.
The rules in the past 10 yrs I believe have changed to make the
2-paycheck deal, both from the taxpayer, either difficult or
impossible. I'm not sure of the exact rules as I have never chased a
second government job. Don't even know anyone who did.
Civil service is easier, but private sector pays better so that's the
only jobs I've sought since retiring.
Best to all,
Bob
When the need arises ... and it does ... you must
be able to shoot your own dog. Don't farm it out
... that doesn't make it nicer, it makes it worse.
Robert Heinlein
D. B. Cooper
On Wed, 07 Apr 1999 14:40:57 GMT, mgil...@pclink.com (Bob Gilbert)
wrote:
Dexter M. Duck
Tim May wrote:
> In article <4_XM2.670$CT2.3...@news1.usit.net>, "Strider"
> <str...@usit.net> wrote:
>
> > I think that there was a time when welfare was a good thing. The richest
> > nation in the world should be willing to give it's poor a hand up. The
> > problem as I see it is that welfare soon became a way of life for way too
> > many people. The "hand up" became a permanent "handout". Now it's mostly
> > just a bribe to keep the mass of shiftless minority groups from revolting.
>
> A good history and analysis of the problems with the "Great Society" can
> be found in Charles Murray's "Losing Ground." He points out that a
> conscious decision was made in the early 60s to de-emphasize the "relief"
> connotations of government aid, which were strongly negative, and to
> instead emphasize the "entitlements" terminology. To be "on relief" in the
> 1940s and 50s was an unhappy situation, one which families sought
> desperately to get out of.
>
> To be "entitled" to a monthly "paycheck" from the government, a paycheck
> which increased with each additional child, was a new thing.
>
> And hence we have the current spectacle of a 16-year-old black girl with a
> baby getting her own "crib." With her 30-year-old mother and 45-year-old
> grandmother all on "da welfare." Four generations on welfare.
>
> Visit any large American city with a large black population and one will
> see this everywhere.
>
Tim,
Another good book is "What Money Can't Buy" by Susan Mayer. Her study
invalidated the idea that money alone can enable a family to develop "American"
values.
I have read many of your posts and I usually appreciate your sense of humor and
style of writing (its a small club), but this line about "Visiting and large
American..." doesn't mention the large number of poor whites on welfare who
exhibit the same "Entitlement Mentality" found in inner city communities. During
my teaching career I have worked with both groups and I can't tell them apart. I
have had 17 year old white female students with children and even one black
female student who became a mother at 12. I have had white and black parents
completely deny any knowledge of their son's extensive criminal activities. I
agree with you and others that many of the poor in this country have developed an
"Entitlement Mentality", but I see them in all shapes, sizes, and colors.
BTW, They don't call it "da welfare" . They "get on aid" :-)
Section -8 is emptying the inner cities faster than you can imagine. These guys
and gals are being farmed out all over the country. I teach in Chicago and Mayor
Daley is sending all of our "high rise" students to the southern suburbs.
Just my .02
Dexter M. Duck
