|
Post by Major Hathaway on Jun 23, 2005 13:07:16 GMT -5
my 2 cents worth on the new issue: That sums up my outlook on it exactly,these are national parks - set up to perpetuate the natural splendor - that includes the rocks, trees, paths, flower beds, AIR etc as well as the wildlife. all the above is negatively impacted by motorized vehicles - so they should be severely limited as to number allowed and usage areas; then if they still want to buzz about making noise and missing nearly everything (except the large lovely vistas) - then they should pay OUTRAGEOUS entrance fees. those fees can then go to keep up the parks.
there are so many other places near civilization with snowmobile trails that there is no need to take it elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by BegToDiffer on Jun 23, 2005 14:43:34 GMT -5
Re: Politicians in term for ever - I used to think that Term Limits were the way to go. We voted them in here, and the only thing that happened was that when a St. Senator filled his/her term, he/she then ran for St. Representative. The Attorney General ran her term allowed and then ran for Secretary of State, and so on and so on. Seems we can't get rid of them no matter how we try. We had a local mayor in office for 50 years, yes, I said 50 years. That's just wrong!
Re: Welfare - I believe it was orginally started as "Widows & Children's Assistance". What has developed at least here, is 3 generations of families on Welfare. I don't agree that most don't abuse it. I think most do abuse.
Another abuse I see all the time is the "Handicapped Parking" abuse. I know its not political, but this one really bugs me. I see nothing but big fat butts getting out of cars in Handicapped spaces. Rarely are there people who really need the spot using them. The only handicap I think some folks have is "having no brain".
|
|
|
Post by trisha on Jun 23, 2005 15:46:03 GMT -5
In all fairness, obesity can be quite debilitating, and is thus, at least in my opinion, a medical handicap. At the local mall in my home town, the layout is a 1 mile oval, which makes it perfect for walking. For this reason there are many visitors who need exercise, but can't take hills or extreme temperatures. If that's the way to get them in shape, I'm for having more handicap spaces and walking a bit further into the mall myself.
What kills me about overweight people, and forgive me if this is too terribly un-PC, but I HATE seeing people of the, shall we say large persuasion, at the grocery store using their food stamps for milk, bread, meat, and such, and then pulling out a wad of cash to buy a crap load of soda, chips, and cookies. It f*cking KILLS me! I want to wrap them over the head with their damn Oreo's and tell them if you can afford this shit, especially when you look like that, stop making me buy the rest of your food!
But, again, in fairness, it would make me just as mad to see a skinny person do the same thing, I've just never seen it happen. I wonder what the statistics are for weight with government assistance. Are the over weight more prone to end up on assistance? Or are people on assistance more prone to gaining weight? Or maybe there are just more overweight people on assistance in my area.
Slap me, Observer. I know you want to.
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Jun 23, 2005 16:21:42 GMT -5
Re. Handicapped Parking Spaces:
My mother had an artificial limb all of her life (leg, below the knee). She got by so well that many people didn't know she had the leg. She resisted the handicapped sticker until she got older and developed some problems in the knee that carried the artificial leg. It was hard to tell she had the artificial leg, and I know some people stared at her when she parked in the handicapped spaces. But she did need them.
A friend of mine has a son who walks with braces and crutches, and when she's picking him up from school, clinics, etc., she needs to park in the handicapped spaces for him. She has no disability, and so occasionally gets dirty looks.
And some disabilities result in mobility issues which result in obesity.
Every situation is different.
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by domenicaflor on Jun 23, 2005 16:49:55 GMT -5
Metella, thanks for this thread. I enjoy listening to everyone's opinions, even if I disagree with some of them. Pat- the fact that this board has such calm and respectful, yet intelligent discussions is why it has become one of my top 2 favorites. On the US Party System - I would gladly support an independent party. I think our country needs more options. On taxes: I have no trouble with paying taxes. I am not a tax resistor. However, I want to see results for my taxes and in Philadelphia, I see my taxes "at rest" more than "at work". From what I have seen of young people graduating from certain public schools, the educational results are nothing short of appalling. Something needs to be done soon or else the bulk of graduates are going to precisely be part of the welfare problem as well. I do think that the calculations for taxes need to be simplified. However, keeping them complicated favors the upper class and business people so maybe that's exactly what the politicos want.! On welfare: Welfare was meant, as others have said, to be a temporary solution. I know that unemployment benefits were crucial to some friends of mine who were laid off after the dot-com bust and 9-11. However, there needs to be a specific time limit on the benefits. There also needs to be educational components and some sort of transitional support for housing, transportation, child care, and insurance. And I see no problem with requiring drug testing as a caveat to benefits. Regarding Pat's comments, I have heard that Barbara Ehrenreich's book Bushwacked details exactly how difficult it is for a single person to survive on a minimum-wage salary alone in this country. Part of the whole welfare and job issue is one not generally realized by the public. 60 minutes just had a segment exploring imports and sweatshop labor last week. Everyone here in the US wants cheap prices for clothing, goods, and services. Yet, noone realizes that every time we purchase foreign products, we are supporting another economy more than our own. I understand that there needs to be some level of trade and globalization, but there is a limit. Part of the reason for unemployment is that people cannot find decent paying jobs which could be had if more industry remained here in the US instead of in other countries. I think the government needs to give more incentives to businesses to stay local. The same goes for outsourcing. I know various people who were downsized due to jobs going outside of the US. Part of this is economic, and part of this is also due to the education standards I mentioned above. If education does not improve, our children will have no way of competing with their cohorts in India, Pakistan, China, et. al. to whom jobs may be outsourced. I'm a moderate democrat, not a "bleeding heart liberal", and I would be willing to pay more for goods and services to remain produced in the US. On medical insurance: The situation with insurance and medical care in this country scares the stuffing out of me. I have no idea what will happen when I am old and gray and may need care. The Spanish members of my family cannot believe what they hear about the US health care system. I think there needs to be a top to bottom revision that takes into account a revision of doctors salaries, pharmaceutical companies and their profits, patient care, nurse and staff hours and retention, and also tort reform for malpractice suits. Everything has been allowed to spiral out of control, and the average citizen is paying for it two ways: first in increased premiums, then in decreased services. Social Security: People should be charged an equivalent percentage no matter what they earn - so the multi-millionaires should have to pay accordingly. Obesity, Nutrition, and Social Challenges therein: I think that obesity and nutrition are issues that go beyond the use of food stamps. I am overweight and I am responsible for what I eat whether it is a salad, a sandwich, or a dish of ice cream (my favorite treat). I am responsible for whether I get my exercise or not. I am responsible for taking care of my body in other ways: eg. I don't smoke, I take care of my teeth, I don't take drugs, I don't abuse alcohol. I don't actually have a problem if a person uses money to pay for junk food. That's their choice. The food stamps or WIC program are controlled to provide healthy food so at least some of the healthy food is being purchased. I have a much bigger problem when I see young mothers, frequently with multiple young children, who may or may not receive public assistance, buying junk food and handing it to their children on a daily basis. There is a much bigger general problem at hand: children are growing up with junk food all around. From greasy school breakfasts to fast-food style lunches to snack machines to the corner store, children are faced with soda, candy, chips and junk at every turn. Combine that with the prevalence of fast-food eateries everywhere and advertising on billboards, television, and radio. If a child is not raised to eat healthy meals that include various food groups, or is not controlled in his or her diet, then these days he or she will grow up to be a fast-food eater. If that child is on public assistance, or if his or her family works multiple jobs and does not cook many meals at home, that is a recipe for obesity. We are now seeing the second and third "MacGenerations" coming up. I know that in Philadelphia, various groups including my former employer, are trying to go into the schools and also to community agencies, particularly in the African-American and Latino communities, to educate about the need for good nutrition and to try to make those good choices available in the form of more nutritionally sound foods at school, local produce farmers' markets, free produce for lower-income individuals, etc. The junk food and sugar are contributing factors to educational problems as well - exacerbating hyperactivity, poor concentration, and possibly leading to the over-diagnosis and medication of ADHD and related issues. (I have a problem with what I see as the over-medication of children to cover up other problems related to education.) National Parks: Ban the snowmobiles and for that matter dirtbikes and motorcycles who disturb trails. D.
|
|
|
Post by Sirenna on Jun 23, 2005 17:15:11 GMT -5
I see bumper stickers all over the place here (Michigan) that say "Work harder! Millions on welfare depend on you!" That is so ignorant! How about this one: "Don't be a Bush supporter. Free the trees, man." I wish I had something more useful to add to this debate. Maybe later...
|
|
|
Post by NicoleMarie on Jun 23, 2005 20:02:01 GMT -5
And I see no problem with requiring drug testing as a caveat to benefits. Why? It seems rather ignoarant and sterotypical to me. People have this attitude about "those kind of people" and this seems to throw fuel into the fire. It goes with the attitude of "All welfare people are lazy, fat, drug addicts who would rather booze and get high than work". Why not drug test SSI, Disablity, and Social Security recipients too? See what mean? Welfare has a negative stigma attached to it as it is, and it is acceptable to the public which I think is wrong. (I'm not saying you think this way!! Ok, I admit it, I grew up poor and this issue can really irritate me. ) And RE obesity, I do disgree that it is caused mostly or soley because of cakes, cookies, sodas or McDonald's. I eat that kind of food, much to my husband's chargin. He is a health fanatic, and I am not. (Which makes for interesting dinners at my house!) I believe it's how much you eat and genetics and body type rather than the kind of food you eat. And I say NO to snowmobiles in parks. There are other places to go, like Hathaway said.
Final thought: a fair and equal tax system will never happen in this country, says my pessimissim.
|
|
|
Post by NicoleMarie on Jun 23, 2005 20:04:11 GMT -5
And Sirennah, my favorite anti-Bush sticker: Abort Bush in 2004! (No offense to the pro-lifers!) Another favorite: If the Earth didn't suck, we'd fall off! I'm adding that to my siggy! OT: I'm detective now!! I just noticed! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Metella on Jun 23, 2005 20:04:45 GMT -5
My friend had a most lovely figure .... became an unwed mother with no support from the father, went on assistance, lost the weight immediately - back to a lovely size 6 for average height. Then after being on assitance for a few years was up to a size 18, and now, years later is a size 22 and on anti-depessants. Of course, I know not all of this is from her enabled, coddled finances; but I do think a huge % is due to her having the ability to sit and eat and watch tv for years on end; when she was perfectly capable of supporting herself if she tried. I am not in shape I should be, and it is tiring at the end of the day, so I am not unsympathetic, and geez, fat people need a little ice cream once in a while too - but I have also seen grossly overweight people with 90% junk in their carts & that makes me also want to thump them on the head. I kinda like Bush, not as a president, but I haven't liked a president since Ron R and Carter. Just kind of a funny old guy that loves his wife & daughters. Hell, even the Romans insisted on strict term limits .... didn't pay their public servants .... and had an easier time boot one out that didn't handle the position correctly .... PLUS they often sued the guy for various things he may have done in office
|
|
|
Post by domenicaflor on Jun 23, 2005 23:01:03 GMT -5
And I see no problem with requiring drug testing as a caveat to benefits. Why? It seems rather ignoarant and sterotypical to me. People have this attitude about "those kind of people" and this seems to throw fuel into the fire. It goes with the attitude of "All welfare people are lazy, fat, drug addicts who would rather booze and get high than work". Why not drug test SSI, Disablity, and Social Security recipients too? See what mean? Welfare has a negative stigma attached to it as it is, and it is acceptable to the public which I think is wrong. (I'm not saying you think this way!! Ok, I admit it, I grew up poor and this issue can really irritate me. ) I feel this way not because I stereotype anyone on public assistance as a potential user of illegal drugs. There are plenty of people who have jobs who use drugs. My reasons are twofold: 1) Every job that I have applied for in the past 10 years has required me to pass a drug test. If people are required to pass drug tests as a caveat of employment, then I see no reason not to require the same of people seeking unemployment benefits. It's neither stereotyping nor discrimination. 2)Ideally the results of the drug test, if positive for illegal drugs, could help an individual on public assistance to be directed towards the appropriate treatment and counseling options. (Such treatment options do need to exist.) However, if the person was recalcitrant and could not stay clean from drugs even after repeated treatment and interventions, then I do not believe the state has any responsibility to keep supporting him or her. D.
|
|
|
Post by domenicaflor on Jun 23, 2005 23:11:41 GMT -5
As an aside to anyone interested, I very much recommend the documentary Super Size Me which details one man's experiment eating at MacDonalds three times a day for 30 days. Granted, that is an extreme test, as the viewer will see, but I think the documentary brings up some very important issues.
For me, it affected me so directly that I refuse to patronize fast food establishments anymore.
D.
|
|
|
Post by Cassie on Jun 24, 2005 4:21:26 GMT -5
The same guy did a documentary on what life would be like living on minimum wage. Him and his girlfriend found an apartment that they could afford for about $380.00 a month. A dingy little place, and I believe that the drug dealers, living downstairs, where arrested the week before. It was on the nasty side of town. Unfortunately, I feel asleep after that. What about the nasty sides of the cities? In Philly, there are areas of that city that look like Europe after World War II, Why can't developers go in and tear down some of those buildings and start to rebuild? The countryside is being destroyed by mini-mansions, with less then a 1/2 acre per property. We are loosing all of the farmlands too. Oh Trisha, thanks for the link on birth control for men.I had made that suggestion over 20 years ago to my doctor. She said it would never happen, since its a mans world
|
|
|
Post by BegToDiffer on Jun 24, 2005 16:04:22 GMT -5
I agree with Domenicaflor about the drug testing. I am currently looking for a new job, and everybody is doing it. What's fair for the hardworking folk should be fair for all.
And Cassie has an excellent point about developing the inner city. It seems like it won't be long before every bit of land outside the city will be some kind of shopping mall. How about using some space where there are already no trees to chop down?
Which leads me to another hot topic at home these days. Its the people who buy expensive property out in the country, only to complain about all the animals destroying their expensive property, eating their shrubs, even dropping poop. How dare those darn animals live out in the country!
|
|
|
Post by NicoleMarie on Jun 24, 2005 22:12:14 GMT -5
I disagree about the drug testing. I feel drug screening it is unreasonable search and seizure and in violation of civil rights. If you think an employee has a problem, deal with that employee instead of violating every worker, current and potential. I will turn down jobs that require drug testing. If they assume me to be a drug addict before I even turn in my resume, I don't need to work for them. I am willing to stand up for my convictions.
|
|
|
Post by NicoleMarie on Jun 24, 2005 22:14:52 GMT -5
RE: People buying property and complaing about the birds, add on to people buying property out in the middle of nowhere, USA, only to find themselves in the middle of wild animal territory and then say the animals are pests and should be killed.
|
|