A WOW Day

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

I recieved a copy of this email. I pass it on FWIW. I thought it would be a good to post something pleasant between the Bush-bashing posts, Catholic-bashing posts, conspiracy posts, blow job posts etc ad nauseum. Yeah, schmaltzy but inspirational and eye-opening too.

Never Too Late is a local non-profit that is modeled on the national "Make a Wish" Foundation. Maybe your town has something similar. If not, maybe it should. The difference is that NTL targets impecunious seniors and adult disableds whereas Make a Wish targets terminally ill kids.

Mark and Susan are 40-something friends of mine. Mark has MS as do I. He is retired on disability. He was a machinist. A local MS service group which I helped to start (it has nothing to do with the National MS Society) has been able to offer a once day/week day "enrichment" program for non-employed MS people. It's a nice change for the MS person and her/his caregiver (if there is one). It is held at a place called Joy's House which is a Day Center for Seniors. "Tina", the director of Joy's House, is a remarkable (and great looking) young woman. She was motivated to start Joy's House because of a situation that her father was in. I don't think she is a social-service person by profession.

Anyhow, the MS Day Center/Joy's House connected Mark up with NTL. Mark had always wanted a helicopter ride. Here is Mark and Susan's email of acknowledgement--

Ever have one of those WOW days? We just had one. After six years of struggling and watching these four walls someone made a wish come true that made a huge difference. We got to take an amazing tour of Indianapolis and surrounding areas this morning with a really super person who really enjoys what he does. Mark has always loved helicopters and through "Never too Late" and Bob Haverstick his wish to fly the skies came true. Before MS, Mark rode a Harley, Whitewater rafted, skied, and all the wonderful things that include movement. Movement, a very overlooked gift. At 36 suddenly Mark's ability to move was gone. He has worked hard and been blessed to regain some of his movement, but still depends on a lot of help. It gets very depressing sometimes no matter how we try and you begin to lose things to talk about or dream. Through MS Day Center/Joy's House, Mark has gained a bit of independence and made new friends. What a difference having a day a week to look forward to makes in our life. The old saying, "How can I miss ya if ya don't go away", holds true. That one day gives Mark and I different things to talk about and time away so we can come back together renewed. Well, today we flew from Eagle Creek airport into a new adventure! We hovered and glided over the reserviour to see "Duck Island" and gassed up at Clermont, flying over the race track and over green corn fields. Mark sat by the doorless side of the front with a bubble before him. For awhile he was moving through the air like flying on his Harley only higher. We saw the Dome and the recently imploded MSA. Then we landed and got to help the pilot put the chopper away. This was something we wish everyone could experience! It brought us back to life! Many people make good things happen for people and show we are NOT alone. I am so grateful because it is easy to lose hope and faith in people. When you get ill, you lose friends, and family sometimes. We were beginning to give up. It is encouraging to see people who do really care. We have been inspired to start something of our own. We have decided to make video tapes for shut ins or elderly to send to family. It's too early to see how this will unfold, but we are excited. Someone may say, "is a helicopter ride really important, or will it make that big a difference in someones life?" YOU BET! Because aside from the experience, it is a display of love. I am a Christian so I am taught we are to love one another. Just how we do that is the exciting part. We can all find a way to do it where ever we are! How ever you choose to love, bless you. If people seem uncaring and you are about to give up, please don't. Your helicopter ride may be just around the corner!!! You are not alone!



-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 27, 2001

Answers

Reformatting the email--

Ever have one of those WOW days? We just had one. After six years of struggling and watching these four walls someone made a wish come true that made a huge difference. We got to take an amazing tour of Indianapolis and surrounding areas this morning with a really super person who really enjoys what he does.

Mark has always loved helicopters and through "Never too Late" and Bob Haverstick his wish to fly the skies came true. Before MS, Mark rode a Harley, Whitewater rafted, skied, and all the wonderful things that include movement.

Movement, a very overlooked gift. At 36 suddenly Mark's ability to move was gone. He has worked hard and been blessed to regain some of his movement, but still depends on a lot of help. It gets very depressing sometimes no matter how we try and you begin to lose things to talk about or dream.

Through MS Day Center/Joy's House, Mark has gained a bit of independence and made new friends. What a difference having a day a week to look forward to makes in our life. The old saying, "How can I miss ya if ya don't go away", holds true.

That one day gives Mark and I different things to talk about and time away so we can come back together renewed. Well, today we flew from Eagle Creek airport into a new adventure! We hovered and glided over the reserviour to see "Duck Island" and gassed up at Clermont, flying over the race track and over green corn fields. Mark sat by the doorless side of the front with a bubble before him. For awhile he was moving through the air like flying on his Harley only higher.

We saw the Dome and the recently imploded MSA. Then we landed and got to help the pilot put the chopper away. This was something we wish everyone could experience! It brought us back to life! Many people make good things happen for people and show we are NOT alone. I am so grateful because it is easy to lose hope and faith in people. When you get ill, you lose friends, and family sometimes. We were beginning to give up. It is encouraging to see people who do really care. We have been inspired to start something of our own. We have decided to make video tapes for shut ins or elderly to send to family. It's too early to see how this will unfold, but we are excited.

Someone may say, "is a helicopter ride really important, or will it make that big a difference in someones life?" YOU BET! Because aside from the experience, it is a display of love. I am a Christian so I am taught we are to love one another. Just how we do that is the exciting part. We can all find a way to do it where ever we are! How ever you choose to love, bless you. If people seem uncaring and you are about to give up, please don't. Your helicopter ride may be just around the corner!!! You are not alone!

Susan

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 27, 2001.


But aren't these people the bottom feeders, the leatches on society, the people who don't contribute and suck on the tit of the government that the repugs are so vocal about? Should't they be put to death rather than let them bleed the upstanding, working citizens of their hard earned money in federal income tax?

If people want to give money to these unproductive burdens on society, they should have the right to decide to do it, not have money taken out of their paychecks without their permission. Isn't that the republican way of thinking?

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), July 27, 2001.


The funding for these programs comes from a variety of sources. It is always an issue of course. Tina has developed excellent networking skills and grant writing skills. I do not know if any of her grants are from local, state or Federal government sources. I can say for sure that this is not a government program. There is no politics here. Nor are there any formal church connections. We take our help where we can scrounge it.

I do know that many grants are from private foundations. For those who can afford it, we charge a client fee. For those who cannot, we try to give "scholarships". Many of the clients are broke. Many of the Seniors are minority persons.

There are some fulltime employees. Salaries and perks are well below Civil Service jobs. There are many volunteers, especially in the beginning when an old trashed house was being re-habilitated.

Do you want to volunteer Cherri?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 27, 2001.


Or you can always con tribute (see 4th quarter, 2000).

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 27, 2001.

Oooops, 1st quarter 2000.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 27, 2001.


well isn't that spashul.

-- (googoo@feel.good), July 27, 2001.

Lars, My youngest brother (45 years old now)sustained brain damage at birth. He has cerebral palsey. He has never walked, will never be able to work, although he has tried, has been stuck in a wheelchair all of his life. He has been the recipient of programs like this all of his life.

I was being facetious

The point I was making had nothing to do with people contributing to and making special things like this happen, I was talking about the daily, monthly, yearly cost of providing these people with an existance. Housing, care, medical costs. You know, the money that pays for these things more often than not comes out of taxes.

I have read over and over the complaints about the "burdens on society that bleed hard working real citizens" paychecks dry by taking their taxes.

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), July 28, 2001.


JESUS ,said=you will alway's have the poor among you'' the 1st century church's,we're big about helping the poor. are the poor=a test for those,that have MUCH more than they really- need??*1 life to give------1 life to live*

until this present WORLD-ORDER ,is done away with---there will alway's be the downtrodden. *think of life as a=======test.

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), July 28, 2001.


Cherri,

It's not the people with real disabilities about which we conservatives rail. It is the able-bodied welfare recipients who can, but choose not to, work.

There is a huge difference between someone with MS or cerebral palsy, and someone who chooses to have a baby a year by as many different fathers.

If someone is truly disabled, and his family can't step in to support him, then I have little problem with my tax dollars being used to help (although the more local the program, the better). On the other hand, if someone chooses to have twelve kids, why should I have to finance them?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 28, 2001.

J, perhaps you were asleep when the welfare reform bill was signed into law. Let me remind you that, as of 1997 or so, a lifetime cap of five years of receiving welfare aid was put in place.

As for why you should support that family, the main reason is that the kids can't support themselves. Take them away from the mother and you don't save any money, you just end up with twelve more kids in foster homes and no more foster homes to receive them. Welfare was never about supporting the parents.

You interested in forced sterilization for welfare moms, J? How about mandatory abortions, huh?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 28, 2001.



It is the able-bodied welfare recipients who can, but choose not to, work.

But what you seem to be unaware of is that having aditional children will not increase the amount of money a welfare recipiant receives, it has been that way for half a decade now. Also welfare recipiants have to go to work when their child is 3 months old. There are no more "welfare mothers popping out babies" for money increases any more. Clinton basically cancelled wlefare.

I agree it had gotten discusting, young girls thinking all they had to do is get pregnant and be set for life, but that scenerio doesn't exist any more. With the economy being so good and the government literally throwing the people with that kind of mentality off the welfare rolls, forcing them to go to work, Clinton literally removed the problems you are concerned about 6-7 years ago. I cannot understand why you think it is still going on.
It took generations to give people the welfare mentality. Reversing that mindset was done in a few short years

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), July 28, 2001.


Cherri,

I am well aware of welfare reform. It was the law that some ultra left liberals decreed would lead to the deaths of many of the poor children of welfare mothers, was it not?

As you agree was a disgusting situation, for many, many years the scenario of "have more babies = get bigger check" was exactly the case. It was that system about which we conservatives railed.

I take issue with a couple more of your statements. Specifically, I am not sure if the "welfare mentality mindset" has been permanently reversed, although we can certainly hope that it has. And also, Clinton didn't remove the problems all by himself. Instead, he co-opted what the Republican party had long held was the answer to the situation. An answer, I will grant, that many of the more center leaning Democrats also embraced; but an answer that the ultra leftists of that party had never allowed to see the light of day.

Two last points: 1) Although the law currently reads that there is a five year lifetime limit on benefits to able-bodied recipients, laws can be changed. There is no guarantee that some well-intentioned, and yet utterly moronic, liberals won't end up taking us back to the mess that we had before.

2) While a five year limit is certainly better than a lifetime of parasitism, why can't we conservatives continue to rail about those who are able-bodied, and yet think nothing of using up their five years of benefits which are provided for by my tax dollars?


Little Nipper,

I was not asleep at all. See my above comments to Cherri.

Your second paragraph is classic bleeding-heart liberalism. You seem to be saying that an ever growing welfare state is an acceptable price to pay in exchange for the benefit of providing for the children. Thankfully, enough of America has finally realized the folly in that line of reasoning.

If the rules of the welfare game reward a mother for not working, not marrying, and continuing to have babies, then she will do exactly that. Change the rules so that there is a disincentive to not working, not marrying, and continuing to have babies, and, SURPRISE!, she will be much less likely to do those things. Amazing, isn't it?

Your argument that to take the children away does not save any money is shortsighted. In the short run, it may be a wash, or it may even cost more, but in the long run, it will save millions, if not billions, of dollars. It will show every welfare mother everywhere that they can no longer pop babies out at their leisure and expect well-intentioned, and yet utterly moronic, liberals to provide them funding via wealth transfer from those of us who actually must work to provide for our children.

You (quite naively) said, "Welfare was never about supporting the parents". The intention may never have been to "support the parents", but the practice did just that. Or have you never heard of welfare moms selling their food stamps for crack cocaine? Or of fourth and fifth generation welfare recipients?

Your last quips are exactly the type of emotional drivel that I would expect out of someone who holds onto the belief that it is quite acceptable to transfer wealth from those of us who work so that we are able to put food into the mouths of our children, to those who choose not to work so that they would be able to put food into the mouths of their children.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 29, 2001.

That was quite a catharsis, J.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 29, 2001.

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

--George Bernard Shaw

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), July 29, 2001.


J,

If the rules of the welfare game reward a mother for not working, not marrying, and continuing to have babies, then she will do exactly that. Change the rules so that there is a disincentive to not working, not marrying, and continuing to have babies, and, SURPRISE!, she will be much less likely to do those things.

Your blanket statement does not tell the real story behind how and why a LOT of women ended up on and staying on welfare.

In 1972 no one could get a job with a living wage, much less a single mother, especially if she were a minority, which would provide enough money to pay for childcare and medical and food to feed her children.

What kids of jobs were these women "allowed" to get???? Cleaning someone's house while leaving her children at home by themselves? That is what the majority had to do if they were to work.

I was denied assignments in the USAF because I was female. If I had joined two months earlier than I did I would not even have been allowed to perform the job I did. Women were not allowed in "men's" jobs, and believe me the list of "women's" jobs was pretty damn pathetic. Minorities, especially black, and definitely FEMALE blacks had to literally go through hell to be allowed to get an education for a field which would provide them a decent living.

J, How old are you?

Seattle is a pretty progressive city, yet there were roadblocks to blacks and women here, it was far worse in other areas of the country.

And to start them off, schools were segregated in most areas of the country, the minority schools were generally the poorest funded and lowest in quality. So you have a black female, who is denied an adequate basic education, usually discouraged from pursuing a career in a sustainable field. Add to this the probability that her family could not afford to send her to college. The only options were to work in low paying jobs and get married. In 1970 women were still expected to get married and stay home and raise their children. Even if they had the education and skills to pursue a career, they wouldn't get hired very often because it was assumed they would end up married and pregnant and leave the workplace to raise their family. They were not considered a good risk. Women rarely worked outside the home unless they somehow lost their spouse. Being as well paying jobs for black men were just as scarce back then it was often necessary for the wife to work in order to provide enough income to support the family.

Black women commonly worked outside of the home decades before it was considered acceptable or even necessary for the majority of married white women.

If her husband died or left her, a black woman could either work two or three jobs to support her children or go on welfare.

I do not think you are aware of the fact that it wasn't until the 1960's-1970's that it started to become common for unmarried black women to have children without first having been married.

Here comes the civil rights movement, women's lib, yet you had a generation of poorly schooled young black women who were in an economy that was in a recession, who still had to fight to get a decent education and job that finally got mad and realized it was a lot easier to have children without being married (often would divorce so they could afford to live, fathers were not ALLOWED to be in the home) and let those who literally held them back to support them.

Fortunatly society saw the damage that was being done and started providing aid in the form of grants for college and schools were force (they had to be forced) to accept blacks and women. This was an incredible time in this country. To grow up knowing you would not be allowed to achieve beyond mediocrity and to suddenly have those (legal) brick walls removed caused an enormous flood of highly educated blacks to achieve the American Dream.

But there were still areas where the bigotry and actions of white discouraged blacks, you will find that it is those areas where the generational black welfare mother phenomenon occurred. In areas where there was less opposition to desegregation, the problem did not proliferate as much.

As in any situation dealing with people, some took the easy road and some took the hard one. In the 1980's the system of welfare made it next to impossible to get off of the rolls. The minute a woman went to work all of her benefits were removed. She was completly on her own. Childcare has never been cheap or plentiful, the majority of jobs a woman with a background of having been on welfare could get had no medical. Just one child getting sick could wipe out any progress that was made. If she were in public housing, the minute she went to work her rent automatically went up to 1/3 of her income before taxes.

A lot of women on welfare tried to go to college, and did. But to get a decent education takes time and is difficult with children. Not all who tried made it, but those with the drive did. Some were just so poorly educated in the first place by their public education that they were actually financially better off staying on welfare. And when a person struggles and tries to get ahead and work even with the roadblocks thrown in and bigotry that had gone from blatant to subtle, they often just got weary of having to fight. A person can be expected to only take so much before it just isn't worth going through the daily hell of getting up and going to a workplace were they are treated like crap. Who wants to keep putting themselves into those kind of situations on a daily basis?

And the children see this. They watched their mothers come home hurt and discouraged. As well as they themselves being treated with the same attitude in school and in public. The people who were vocal about their prejudices didn't just turn around one day and change their attitudes, they were forced to quit down their public, vocal resentment of "those people" invading their territories. No, a lot just got madder because they were forced to accept the changes and they managed to come up with plenty of ways to continue to let "those people" know they were not wanted. They just learned new ways to make their lives hell.

Societys change, it usually takes a generation or two to do it though. White children growing up in segregated schools and neighborhoods often grew up without the bigotry of the generation before them, unless it was rampant in their homes.

Right now there is a generation of young blacks who have never experienced the bigotry and hatred their parents and grandparent did who have developed a culture of bigotry and hatred of their own which is unjustified in the degree it is being expressed. But then a lot of that is a result of greed. Greed of those who have exploited it for financial gain. That generation are the children of those mothers (parents) who were unable to take advantage of the rich rewards of the civil rights and women's lib movement. Women who watched their peers succeed while finding themselves unequipped and discouraged (by roadblocks) to make the transition. Plus we have constant reminder to these children~through advertising media~ of all the things their mothers (parents) cannot afford to give them. Starts when they are little and they can't get the toy they see on TV. By the time they are young teens they are impatient and look for a quick fix to the situation. Quick money. Not patience and time and hard work to be able to keep up in the materialistic society they live in.

As is normal, the poorest who cannot afford to go out to dinner, to a movie, take a trip to disneyland, will use those things they can afford to excape the world they live in. Drugs and drinking. Add to the mixture our governments complicity in "allowing" and perhaps even helping provide these escapes (in order to discourage the possibility of a strong opposition to the way some things are) and you end up with young girls getting pregnant by their drug selling boyfriends, getting strung out on drugs and not getting educated.

Add to this what is ging on right now, a campaign of complaints that those measures that were necessary to end the segregation and discrimination that was rampant and normal 30 years ogo (which forced the first generation to go on welfare in the first place) and you are ending up with young blacks who are getting a constant stream of (the new form of) bigoted attitudes growing against them.

Your complaint of crack addicted welfare mothers popping out babies is part of the campaign to encourage this new bigotry. First of all, crack did not trickle down to poor blacks until the 1980's. It was not a generational thing at that time, although it is now with SOME second generation welfare recipients. But that is not the norm, it is not the truth about who has had to rely on welfare and those who were unable or unwilling to get off f it. When the rules changed, when medical coverage was continued after getting a job, when the childcare shortage and cost was subsidized, there was an incredible flood of women on welfare leaving the rolls. Even to take minimum wage jobs. Do you honestly believe human beings enjoy the humiliation of jumping through loops, the constant invasion of privacy, the belittling attitudes people have towards them when they use food stamps, the looks on the faces of their children when they have to tell them over and over that they can't afford the cheapest toy every other kid at school seems to have?

Do you honestly think it is easier to be a stay at home mom, taking care of kids and cleaning house all day then it is to go to a job that gives you a feeling of accomplishment and pride and money you know you EARNED and is really yours and not piddling handouts you constantly hear people bitching about paying out of their taxes?

The whole "welfare state" didn't get into place overnight. The "Welfare mentality" didn't grow out of a vacuum. There were a very complicated set of social circumstances that created them and it is going to continue to be a set "social circumstances" that will end up throwing the same "single (divorced, unmarried) black female" back onto a new set of welfare rolls if these misconceptions and attitudes people are "parroting" don't get nipped in the bud soon.

Do you ever look at where you learned these blanket statements and identify who is continuing to propagate them? Are you part of the solution or just continuing to help create the problem?

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), July 29, 2001.



If poverty is the question . . . The answer is not ending welare as we know it, but honestly facing the causes.

-Title of article by Senator Paul Wellstone, Minnesota

The most cost-effective use of an unskilled mother's time is usually caring for her children, not serving burgers while someone else cares for her children.

- Christopher Jenks in "The Hidden Paradox of Welfare Reform"

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), July 30, 2001.


If poverty is the question . . . The answer is not ending welare as we know it, but honestly facing the causes.

Yeah, some people don't make enough money. Now, how do you suppose we fix that? Pay $39.99 for a Whopper?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), July 30, 2001.


either that or pay 50 cents for one.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), July 30, 2001.

Lars, nice story.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 30, 2001.

Having a baby only signifies successful intromission, not the ability to parent well.

The problem with unskilled mothers spending their time caring for their children is that they often provide substandard care for their children. The children can't be taught skills if the mother doesn't possess those skills. Yes, there are intervention programs to teach parents how to parent effectively, but success depends on the parent having the willingness to learn and follow the program.

It isn't pc to say so, parents should not be automatically allowed to take their babies home from the hospital. The problem is that it would take even more government intrusion in the lives of every citizen to enforce the mandate that every baby go home with parents adequately trained in parenting. For several years the local hospitals have refused to release a baby to parents unless a carseat is brought to be inspected by a nurse. The babies leave strapped in, and one nurse got in our car to make sure the carseat was properly buckled. I don't know if this a law, or if someone just got proactive enough to push parents around. I didn't mind. Others might mind very much.

You can't be a foster parent or an adoptive parent without completing a certain number of hours of parenting classes.

Another child was deliberately left in a hot car recently. He survived because someone saw him and took responsibility for him. The family is whining that the state took custody unfairly. The cops waited by the car for over an hour before the parent came back to check on the kid. This family had been reported to child welfare a number times previously.

I don't think the kid should go back to live with anyone that stupid. There aren't enough foster homes and the kid is probably in an overcrowded shelter. If the kid can't go home, he'll be a hard-to-place older child and may never be adopted. There are no laws to prevent the kid's parents from making more babies. All they have to do to avoid having another baby taken from them is move to another state.

It was a good thing the child was rescued, but that may be only the beginning of a lifetime of being poorly parented by the state.

-- helen (i@love.unk), July 30, 2001.


Just a guess, Cherri, but I suspect that J watches Fox News.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 30, 2001.

Anita, that's just too funny!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 30, 2001.

Cherri, "Do you honestly think it is easier to be a stay at home mom, taking care of kids and cleaning house all day then it is to go to a job that gives you a feeling of accomplishment and pride and money you know you EARNED and is really yours and not piddling handouts you constantly hear people bitching about paying out of their taxes?" Yes

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 30, 2001.

I agree that some people should never be allowed to have children. At least they should teach parenting in high (middle) school. After being a foster parent/recieving home parent for 8 years, I have seen and delt with the results of people who don't know/don't care how to parent.

Last week I spent all evening in the ER of our local Children's Hospital with my 10 year old who wasn't wearing a helmet and flew off of her scooter.

That Emergency Room holds memories of a little girl, 2 1/2 years old that I brought in one night.

As a recieving home I have to be ready to take a child at 10 minutes notice. They call and ask if I can take one, The answer was always yes for me. I don't know the circumstances, but it was the middle of winter and two policemen brought me this little girl late at night. She was bundled in a winter coat with the hood tied.

They left, I took off her coat and as I talked to her I checked her head for lice. I would always take the child to the health department the next day to get a physical to make sure they were ok and document.

As soon as I removed her coat I noticed this little girl had bruses starting to form on her face. I checked her arms and legs and found more. One hand had slightly healed marks in her palm where it appeared she had had something like pins or needles poked into them......at least fifty times. Then the joints of her fingers were bruised, as if someone had taken a pair of plyers and squeezed them on every finger. No...it could not have been some accident where her fingers were smashed, as every other finger had had it done on a different joint. She had burn marks, from a cigarette (or simular item) all over her body, including on her pubic area. When I touched her in a place that obviously hurt, she emmitted a tiny owie, almost as if she were afraid to express her pain.
I took her right to the ER at Children's. I remember going outside and trying to controll my rage, walking in the rain and kicking the curb of the helipad.

Bad enough I had a lot of raw mwmories of that hospital, it is where my sone was for most of his life, and where he died when he was 5 monts old.

I even did an internship on biomedical equipment repair there one too.

I had this little girl for over a month, would have kept her ong term, but got a call one day that she was going to a grandmother. I din't think that was a good idea because it would leave her in a place where her parent(s) had access to her. But I had no say in the matter, even though I protested.

No, some people should not be allowed to have children...ever. But how do we determine who should or shouldn't? It is usually after a LOT of damage has been done to a child (usually psychological) that the parental rights are removed. Parenting is usally an on the job training experience. I really believe parenting skills should be a required subject in education.

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), July 30, 2001.


Whooptee-freekin-doo!

Fox News is slanted to the right. Well, that makes ONE news from the right vs what, four from the left?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), July 30, 2001.


(Don't look, Unk, it'll break yer Libertarian heart...)

No baby should be allowed to go home with a parent under the age of twenty-one. No exceptions. It doesn't matter that an eighteen year old teenager can vote. The same teenager can't buy alcohol legally. Why let her take a baby home?

No baby should be allowed to go home with a parent of any age unless a second parent is employed and able to provide a set minimum amount of financial support .

No more babies should be allowed to anyone who has fathered or given birth to a baby who was retained for either of the first two reasons. Yep, that's forced sterilization, with anesthetic available upon receipt of signed consent forms.

The problem with this plan is that it requires a totalitarian state, which wouldn't be fun for the rest of us.

-- helen (dont@look.unk), July 30, 2001.


Anita,

Thus far, you have blessed us with two smart-alecky comments. Do you have anything meaningful to post?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 30, 2001.

Do you have anything meaningful to post?

Do you mean like a rant about how I know this isn't really happening anymore, but it COULD happen with just a flick of a pen by some moronic liberal, yadda yadda, J?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 30, 2001.


Fox News is slanted to the right. Well, that makes ONE news from the right vs what, four from the left?

I don't know, firsthand, about ANY of the news stations on T.V., Unk. Heh. To ME, they're ALL slanted to the right. I DO KNOW, however, that Fox claims to be "fair and balanced." Uh-huh.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 30, 2001.


Anita,

For thirty years or so, we had lifetime welfare recipients thanks to well-intentioned liberals. Currently, the situation is different. My pointing out the fact that we could easily return to the mistakes of yesteryear via more misguided liberal intentions hardly qualifies as a rant; except to you, of course.

After reading your ridiculous, "To ME, they're ALL slanted to the right", I will have to conclude that no, you don't have anything meaningful to post.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 30, 2001.

It's probably an indication of perversity on my part, J, but I always feel better when we disagree. I still love you, though.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 30, 2001.

I guess I'm not done with you yet, J. I think that you need to understand something about me. I'm a "down to the bones" liberal, J. I don't understand how that happened, and I don't really CARE how it happened, but all the insults in the world can't change that, it seems.

I look at the world around me and I CARE. I read about what's happening in the world around me and I CARE. Sometimes I can do something about things and sometimes I can't. That [to me] is simply the way the world is. You can call this type of thinking ridiculous, and I can call YOUR type of thinking ridiculous, but what do either of us gain in so doing?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 30, 2001.


Anita,

Considering that you started by firing not one, but two, smart-alecky comments my way, just what was it that you were trying to gain?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 30, 2001.

J: I didn't see either of my posts as smart-alecky towards you, but [then again] I don't live in your skin.

The first simply acknowledged your rant. I didn't want to go beyond that acknowledgement in deference to retaining a civil relationship. Cherri did a much better job of stating what may have been in my mind at the time. The second [give me a minute here, since I've already forgotten what it was]. Forgive me, Lars. I need to go back and look.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 30, 2001.


The second, J, [and I must now ask LARS to forgive me] was in response to your notions of what liberals think and Cherri's question to you in that regard. I've seen three sources of folks spouting what liberals think. 1) Fox News 2) Rush Limbaugh 3) Free Republic. As a liberal, I find myself standing with mouth agape when I hear what I'm presumably thinking.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 30, 2001.

Duh. I've now asked Lars to forgive me TWICE. You KNOW I love you, Lars. Heh.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 30, 2001.

Cherri, I think if someone brought a baby to us covered with bruises and burns and PLIER CRUSHED FINGERS (??), we would be sorely tempted to take justice into our own hands. What happens to people who do these things??

-- helen (got@a.rope), July 30, 2001.

Anita,

I do not view the term catharsis in a positive light. Perhaps you do. If you do, could you explain exactly what definition of catharsis you were trying to convey in your first post?

Do not liberals, by definition, hold liberal views? Am I completely off base by assuming as much? Or do you hold liberal views, but for some inexplicable reason, prefer to be called a libertarian, or even a conservative?

As a liberal, don't you believe in the benefits of the ever-present nanny state? If not, how is it that you can say that you "CARE" about the poor, if you don't feel that there should be a myriad of governmental programs to make sure that they are fed, clothed, sheltered, and doctored? After all, if the government doesn't do it, you certainly know that George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, and J won't do it, right?

Finally, isn't it a bit ironic that you object to others espousing that which you are presumably thinking as a liberal, but yet you have no qualms about reversing the tables to espouse that I, as a conservative, am suspected of watching Fox News?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 30, 2001.

J: I don't see catharsis in ANY light. I see it as a kindof "dump". To the constipated, a dump is a good thing. I see it as a discharge of something that needed to go.

Hmmm..."Don't you believe in... nanny state...?" To a degree, I believe, but not to the extent that some think.

Heh. You got me in that last paragraph. I guess it's up to you to tell me where you get these notions about liberals if my guesses are incorrect. Isn't that the whole point of discourse, J? I learn about you; you learn about me. The world still revolves without this, but we may contribute to our understanding by just asking the right questions in the right way. If we stick to it, we both may develop better skills in the "right" way.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 30, 2001.


Anita,

In polite discourse, one rarely ingratiates herself to someone by saying that said someone is basically constipated, and that his post is crap. Nonetheless, if it is polite discourse that you seek, I will choose to view your insulting words as poorly chosen rather than blatantly rude.

That being said, may I ask if you realize that the financing of the nanny state through the taxation of the citizenry is restricting one man's financial liberty to benefit another's? If you do realize that this is the situation, may I ask why it is that you find it acceptable?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 31, 2001.

Anita, you can have my shovel... :)

-- helen (dig@yer.way.out), July 31, 2001.

Helen--

Thank you for teaching me two new words, "intromission" and "echolalia". I am already plotting how to use them IRL.

Anita--

I missed it, for what do you seek forgiveness? No matter, you are forgiven. Go and sin no more.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 31, 2001.


Hanity and Colmes is NOT conservative but both conservative and liberal. Tell me that's true of Sam and Kooky and the other networks. Is Geraldo really conservative? Anita, if you're not getting your news from FOX, you're only seeing a slanted view of the world. Thanks for the article of one person's opinion of FOX news. I now see that it is also yours; that speaks volumes of what you are thinking, more than any amount of words you may type.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 31, 2001.

Here's another man's opinion of liberal media.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 31, 2001.

This quote says it all for me:

But all of the latter are self-admitted venues of conservative opinion. The mainstream liberal media pretends to be objective and balanced. Hah!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 31, 2001.


That being said, may I ask if you realize that the financing of the nanny state through the taxation of the citizenry is restricting one man's financial liberty to benefit another's? If you do realize that this is the situation, may I ask why it is that you find it acceptable?

Taxation just IS, J. The monies spent on welfare recipients pales in comparison to the monies wasted on far stupider things, IMO. For instance, why did MY money go to send out notices to people stating that they would/would not receive a tax relief check? I've seen a wide spread of the expenses involved in that one, ranging from $21 mil to $80 mil. Why did we send $43 mil to Afghanistan to discourage them from growing poppies? Why are we spending all that money in Columbia spraying insecticides that are killing the crops people count on for food and making people sick? Why do we pay so much for toilet seats and hammers? Why are we offering Russia something like $15 bil to store chemicals that can be used to make nuclear weapons? Why are we spending $1 mil/test on a missile defense system that few think will ever work?

Welfare is a small piece of the pie, J, and I'd rather see an American kid eat than a rogue country who hates America use MY money to develop ways to kill me.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 31, 2001.


Anita,

"Taxation just IS" is a rather simplistic view of the situation, in my opinion. While I wholeheartedly agree with you that many government expenditures are foolish, most, if not all, of the items that you listed are (at least in theory) designed to benefit ALL Americans.

Welfare, on the other hand, is the explicit taking of wealth from certain Americans to give to certain other Americans. My question to you is why do you find this practice acceptable? And, would you feel the same way if the situation was to tax people with the letter "A" at the beginning of their name, and then give that wealth to people with the letter "J" at the beginning of their name? If not, then why not?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 01, 2001.

J, while I realize the situation couldn't be simplified to this extent in real life, what you're talking about is choosing between letting kids go cold, hungry, and growing up feral in the streets or giving them food, a place to live, and a chance at an education. Yes, you have to go through the parents do that. The alternative is making all of us prove up front that we are worthy to have kids. Do you want to have to fill out a government form for a permit to have a baby?

-- helen (alternatives@poor.choices), August 01, 2001.

J, Tell me what exactly it is (amounts and cost to taxpayers) that you understand a welfare mother receives.

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), August 01, 2001.

"I'd rather see an American kid eat than a rogue country who hates America use MY money to develop ways to kill me."

Who wouldn't? And to follow up on this, I'd rather feed an American kid than give the child's mother more money for her drug habit.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 01, 2001.


Who wouldn't? And to follow up on this, I'd rather feed an American kid than give the child's mother more money for her drug habit.

Maria, I agree with you 100%. I believe if a woman has a drug habit her children should be removed from her period. This applies to a parent being a drunk also. She should be forced to make a decision between drugs and her children. Give her 3-6 months to show she means it, getting clean, working towards working, taking parenting classes (much too late for those to work "I" believe). If she chooses drugs her parental rights should be perminatly removed. At the same time the father, absent or not should be be given the option of parenting the child. None of this letting the state raise the child while he holds on to parental rights. He should be given 3-6 months to set up and provide a home for the child with the intention of continueing to do so forever. If he does not meet these requirements his parental rights should be removed perminatly. If both parents do not meet their requirements the child should be free for perminate placement in a home, or adoption for the rest of their life.

I have seen children of drug addicted parents who have been placed in foster homes over and over again for their entire childhood. I've seen women on talk shows who demand their right to have their children back after spending years doing drugs. They whine about their "rights" as a parent. They already made the choice to do drugs rather than parent, they act as if society has to provide a home and parents to their children until they "want" to do the job themselves. Too often they get the kids back. This is after years of the child being emotionally scarred from being in homes over and over (although good and secure and often with a lot of love), just to be yanked out and sent back to the parents where they end up going through the hell of living with these people who don't and won't parent, taking drugs, often abusing the children physically always emotionally, just to be pulled from the home again and sent into foster care again. This cycle does not provide any child the emotionally stability and experience to function as a productive member of society. Much less how to parent themselves. By the time they are adults it is usually to late to undo the damage that has been done to them.

I believe that in this country a child should have a right to a secure and nurturing childhood.

I by no means am saying a financially poor parent is a bad parent. If this society did not have a working poor, the rich wouldn't be able to be rich. (I believe that is why some who are rich on the backs of the poor resent them so much,~deep seated guilt~or an attempt to justify not having that guilt). These rules should apply to every parent who does drugs or is a drunk~even if they have millions. Money does not equate good parenting.

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), August 01, 2001.


To all, sorry about the delay in response; I have been swamped.

helen,

I agree that real life is often very complex, but I disagree with your assertion. If that which you assert were true, then there would be no cold, hungry, feral in the streets children who are served by the welfare program. Obviously this is not the case.

You point out the very reason that welfare often fails in providing the necessities (not to mention how and why it fails in the long run). The reason is that it goes through the parents.

I don't believe that the only alternative is to make us all prove up front that we are capable of having children. That is akin to taking my gun away because someone might go nuts with one. I believe that parents must be deemed as fit until they have proven otherwise. Once that has been proven, then they should be punished. If this means removing the children from said parents' custody, then that should be the case.

Also, the role of family, friend, neighbor, church, and community has been diminished in many cases by the welfare program. I believe that overall, these needs can be met in a much more efficient way by these voluntarily supported charitable programs than they can be met by the involuntarily supported welfare system.

The main reason that I believe this is because these programs have a much greater degree of accountability than the welfare program has (although with welfare refiorm, that is changing). And, there is much less bureaucratic waste in these local charitable programs.

Ultimately, though, no government or charitable program can guarantee that there will not be cold, hungry, feral in the streets, children. Happiness cannot be guaranteed, nor is it the job of government to try and do so. It is government's job to ensure that the rules are even for its citizenry as they pursue happiness. It is the citizenry's job to help their fellow man, but it is strictly a volunteer position.


Cherri,

I do not actually know what the cost is; nor, frankly, do I care. The point is not about the actual cost in dollars and cents. The point is about some citizens being forced by the government to give part of their wealth to other citizens. I encourage all to help their fellow man, but to have the government force people to help their fellow man is simply wrong.

Further, your belief "that in this country a child should have a right to a secure and nurturing childhood" is fraught with the very real risk of trampling on the rights of parents. Who would get to decide what "secure" and "nurturing" mean? You, me, or Hillary Clinton (shudder)?

Finally, how exactly did I get rich "on the backs of the working poor"? Please elaborate.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 03, 2001.

Oops, I forgot. Anita? Anita?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 03, 2001.

J, reset button activated. I no longer remember what I may have been asserting.

As for waiting until a parent proves unfitness, the proof is often a badly damaged human being with little or no prospects for finding a stable and permanent home.

-- helen (what@day.is.this), August 03, 2001.


helen,

Yes, unfortunately "the proof is often a badly damaged human being". However painful this situation is, it is certainly far better than the state deciding at their whim who can and cannot have children. You don't want the police to have the power to arrest someone because they might be a bad parent, do you?

The defining concept of this country is freedom. One of the prices that must be paid for freedom is that people are free to make mistakes. This is especially difficult to bear when the victims of those mistakes are children. Nonetheless, the only alternative to waiting for a parent to prove unfit is a total police state, and as you said earlier, most people do not find that acceptable.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 04, 2001.

J: I thought your question about the A's giving to the J's was silly, so I didn't respond. If the welfare system was randomly driven, I'd be ticked off, but it really IS based on the needs of the children. It seems to tick you off MORE that an American family benefits from your tax dollars than folks outside the country. The thorn in MY side is obviously in a different area than the thorn in yours.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 04, 2001.

Anita,

I also have a problem with much of the foreign aid that is given, but again, much foreign aid is given (at least in theory) with America's overall interests at the heart of the matter. America as in all of her citizens.

What you seem to be saying is that if certain Americans are in need, then you have no problem with the taxing of other Americans to try and take care of that need. Is that right?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 05, 2001.

J: You've about summed up my feelings. My mom taught me that charity begins at home, and America is my current home. In theory, welfare IS designed to benefit ALL Americans. I understand that you don't see it that way, but *I* do. IMO, if we [as a society] allow children to go unfed, unhoused, uneducated, our entire societal structure is at risk.

Had you been born earlier, J, would you have rejected the concept of welfare's origin? American men were called to fight in WWII and the government established the system so that the women would be able to stay home and care for their children rather than spend their time working in factories producing war materials while their children were left unattended.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 05, 2001.


J, animal shelters do not allow minor age children to adopt pets.

We don't let adults under the age of 21 buy a beer.

We don't let children under the age of 16 to drive a car, and even then they have to pass a test of basic competency.

We incarcerate people who use illegal drugs, murder, rape, drive drunk, and steal.

Any member of these groups is allowed to produce a child, another potential citizen, without any restrictions up front.

I don't want to live under a totalitarian system, and neither do you. However, does it make a lot of sense to ignore what these people are doing? If you don't want a totalitarian system that requires you and me to prove our fitness to be parents up front, then the humane alternative is to provide some support for a child in a worse off home. The proportion of your tax dollars that goes to these support systems is relatively small.

-- helen the moron (bleeding_heart_now@better.than.bleeding.gunshot.wounds.later), August 05, 2001.


Anita,

Obviously I would not have objected to the premise of welfare's beginnings. But there is a far cry between a father absent the home while fighting for his country, and a father absent the home because he is simply a deadbeat. And there is a far cry from a mother who is raising her child(ren) on her own because her husband is off to war, and a mother who is raising her child(ren) on her own because she didn't have the foresight to realize that not having a husband in the family makes it very difficult to both care for the child(ren) and earn an income. Surely you understand these differences, and that makes me wonder if your last paragraph is merely a red herring.

Where I believe that you are wrong, Anita, is not in your desire to see that no child go hungry, cold, or ignorant, for who amongst us wants that? Where I believe that you are wrong is in your belief that these desires are so noble that trampling on the rights of others is of no consequence. When that type of belief rules the day, then "our entire societal structure is at risk", indeed.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 05, 2001.

J: Maybe you're more familiar with welfare recipients than I, but I remember one niece of mine obtaining welfare for a limited period because her husband was sent to a mental institution. She divorced him sometime later, but it was a trying time for her to have a baby with a husband in a mental institution.

I also remember a neighbor who accepted welfare for a limited period while she retrained for the job market. HER husband had been sent to prison.

I think both of these cases, of which I'm familiar, resulted in two women able to support their children on their own after maybe a 1.5 year period. I consider both money well spent.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 05, 2001.


helen,

You are not a moron. Especially not because some idiot says so. : )

I agree that the humane thing to do is to offer support to the less fortunate. Where I disagree is that it be required to do so.

The problems of the government sanctioned welfare state go way beyond the forcible redistribution of wealth. The system is fraught with bureaucratic waste, fraud, and little of the correct type of accountability. Beyond all of that, it is a system that until recently, was designed to reward antisocial behavior, while punishing behavior that strengthens family bonds which, ultimately, strengthen society.

For many years, we have heard from the enlightened liberals of this nation that to pare the welfare system was to surely cause poor children to starve and riots in the streets of our nation's inner cities. Now that welfare reform has happened, we have seen no additional starving children, and no rioting in the inner city streets. We instead see welfare recipients getting jobs or somehow making do like the rest of us always have.

There are certainly other ways to achieve desired results without the heavy handed intrusion of Big Brother government.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 05, 2001.

Anita,

But the same effect could have been achieved privately if your extended family had contributed in the case of your niece, and the neighborhood had contributed in the case of your neighbor, without bureaucratic waste, fraud, lack of accountability, and the relinquishment of your personal property rights. The bottom line is that we as individuals, families, neighborhoods, congregations, and communities can do most things far better than the federal government can.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 05, 2001.

Altruistically speaking, J, all you just said is true. However, my brother was in no position to help his daughter and the rest of the family never even learned of her circumstances until "after the fact". In the case of my neighbor, her parents [and, apparently HIS parents] just discarded them both.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 05, 2001.

J, I'm pretty sure I see what you're saying. The problem with totally withdrawing aid is that there really isn't a good family or neighborhood support system equal to the task. Admittedly welfare created a whole social class of fatherless children with the simple requirement that no father be present in the home in order to receive aid. Easy divorce laws concurrently allowed a generation or two of fathers at higher income levels to walk away from their families, and their children ended up on welfare too.

Actually, I don't see an answer to this problem that won't hurt someone. I just prefer that it not be the kids if possible.

-- helen sees too many kids in dire straits (no@answer.here), August 05, 2001.


Anita and helen,

It took years for the government to replace family and community support systems with the welfare system. It will take years to reverse the situation, and it will have to be done incrementally, but it can be done.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 05, 2001.

I think we've reached a point of agreement, J.

-- Anita (Anitta_S3@hotmail.com), August 05, 2001.

Two cheers for creeping Capitalism

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), August 05, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ