Jim

When I was a youngin a remember the rule that any parent in the neighborhood was worth listening to. And they cared enough to pull you over once in a while to say cut the crap and fly right. Whoa boy if my old man heard something from a neighbor that one of us were acting up - that was trouble for us.

Hey - if it were easy it would be called snowboarding! Now you're going to be even slower to the bar to buy a round.

Which is an indication of how confrontations that would normally result in, maybe, a black eye, escalate to more serious harm when a gun is handy.

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year-old Texas rancher, whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to former Texas Governor George W. Bush and his elevation to the White House. The old Texan said, "Well, ya know, Bush is a 'post turtle'." Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was. The old rancher said, "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle." The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain, "You know he didn't get there by himself, he doesn't belong there, he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just want to help the dumb shit get down."

I think is has something to do with "government should keep off the backs of citezens - unless dealing with minor drugs, abortion, religion, or the moral issue de jour.

The issue before the 9th circut was narrowed down to the "right to life" by the plantiff because the previous Supreme Court decision regarding CA drug laws forced them into this; it was only hand they had to play given the earlier rulings. It is unfortunate we're so uptight about minor drug use for those who need it medically.

I'm sensing a lack of security in your position. Rather than address the issues raised you'll point to another linkly link. Here's the scoop again. Any argument on how capitalism might be modified is looked as a slippery slope for the Friedman adhereists. It's quite entertaining to see how they tie themselves in pretzels trying to explain how 0 taxes on corportions will set us free, how subsidies to agribusinness is less of an issue than raising the minimum wage once every 10 yrs, and the burden, or the burden that the corporte elite are carrying upon their shoulders. It's just crushing. Amazing how any business can get done under such unfavorable conditions in the US. It's, well it's analogous to a sweatshop environment, it is for GE for crying out loud. Gotta pack for work in AK - see ya.

Matt - don't go letting critical thinking enter the picture. Try diversion. It seems the usual tactic.

I took a couple of days off from searching gopher tortise holes (w/ that proctologist camera thing) and managed a some rope time at JT. While making the last clip on overhang bypass on Intersection Rock the rope somehow found its way under my right arch. I went to flick it away with my foot whild clipping and - opps, barndoor and off and an ungraceful pendulum. Some other climbers on the ground did clap for me however. I pulleyed back up and figured that at 50 I still did not want to be a chickenshit on a 5.7 so I didn't give up the lead and finished it. My partner came up and asked - everything alright hoss?

The item that is missing is some intellectual honesty. Throwing up the straw man example - Why do you hate capitalism? - any time the pursuit of unmitigated greed and the its social consequences merely displays the lack of confidence by its adherents to reply to critics. No one is saying to throw out the baby with the bathwater. But to cling to the holy grail that the pure pursuit of financial gain is going to address social ills is folly. Also note the lack of any criticism by the Friedmanites of the lack of free capitalism in this country. Huge corporate subsidies and tax breaks, favorable public policy for merely opening a business in a jurisdiction, huge non-bid contracting through political connections. Most complaints are not about capitalism but unbridled capitalism that verges into plurocracy. As long as the corporations and individuals with political power get a break that's called the free market. Try and come up with a solution that doesn't do away with capitalism, but merely trims around the edges and the fanatics begin to yell socialism, communism, blah, blah. It seems to be the usual scenario to duck the issues and sling mud. Good job.

OK one more reply. This is a bunch of crap. You have to be kidding. Capitalism has been a positive feedback loop for the corporations and the elite. The social welfare net in the US is in tatters while the corporate tax rate is at a historical low. Forces hostile to capitalism? You're kidding right?

Well at least folks are bring up some very good books and films on the subject this morning. The Road to Hell is a very sobering look at the subject. I have two friends on in Ethiopia (been there 8 yrs) the second in Bolivia (3 yrs). Both are doing work in health care/poverty issues and these folks are not wide-eyed, but they are optomists. Sometimes I wonder why. From working with these two groups, and help to raise funds, by biased assesment is that folks drop into one of three catagories. 1) those naive people who will donate to any cause and think they're doing something worthwhile, 2) those who will never donate to anything because it will be "wasted" and would rather spend it on another triple mocha something every day, and 3) those who care, but are skeptical and ask the right questions. Give that we have so much resources in this country I wish there were more of #3. Jay- check out "Acts of Faith" for a good read on religious intentions in sub-saharan Africia. Carry on - gotta pack up for field work in the high desert of CA for a week.

This was an excellent program and really puts the subject in persepective. But, no. On second though. It's better to do nothing.

Fair enough. An opinion rather than some link. We're proud. So you're conclusions are 1)charitable donations will be squandered. and 2) wealth (and supposedly related health issues) are a "process" problem not a lack of "wealth" problem Seems like the Gates Foundation has be rather successful managing funds. They are very effective. So the straw dog of just handing it over to corupt regimes is not valid. There are other models. I'm also sure that countries in Africa and Asia would be glad to know that they have no wealth problem, that they just have to tinker with the "process" 8D

Certainly there is abject poverty in Third World countries that is far and beyond what is going on in the US. No doubt. I think the general point is that for such a rich country we are failing in many social measurements. Health care access in emergency rooms? Well that has proven to be extremely expensive and does nothing for long-term well being. People go to the emergency room when they are desperate, not for maintaining their health. And we do regularly turn away people for medical and dental care. For being the richest of developed countries we spend a smaller percentage than most for helping the lower end of the economic spectrum. Should we be redistributing income to help raise them up? Certainly not, but IMO, we can be doing much better in securing the health and education of the non-elite portion of our population. Current request to Congress from the Bushies for the Iraq and Afgan adventures $100 Billion, on top of the already allocated $70 Billion. Just to the end of this fiscal year.

At least this is a logical conservative viewpoint. Thanks. I'm confused though - the chart you show refers to Income, while the paragraph before it refers to Disposalble Income(?). Right off the top though the poor in other countries have access to health care, child care, and other welfare programs not available in the US. This link http://www.unicef.org/pon96/indust4.htm shows the effect of child poverty after considering federal programs. You're argument of considering the relative income scale has merit, but it looks like the US still comes up short compared to most developed countries. But we do have the No Child Left Behind Law (sans funding).

So back to the original thread. What's the point PP. Why get you shorts twisted over some private institution?

Actually my original quote was wrong. Actually the US is doing worse than I said in poverty rates, but better than two countries in federal spending. Now that we've crossed the Ts and dotted the Is PP do you actually have anything of substance to contribute? Or are you going to link to some right wing blog social commentary, copy and paste, and then step away from any opinion?

OK let's clear it up for you. The US came in worse than Russia and Mexico in poverty rates. They did better than only Russia and Mexico in the percent of resources they devote to federal poverty programs. Time to troll the right wing blogs now for some obscure linky link.

You're cherry picking PP, just like your hero. Here, I'll help you out. If you read the sources, which I doubt you did. The US comes in last among the 31 countries in the study – now, this may be the hard part for you – this includes Russia and Mexico. Logically then, the US did worse than these counties. Now stop :snugtop:ing

True if those items were included the US would come out even worse. Now stop the personal attacks, you're going to make me cry. Sniff.

1) Ok, let’s see. I provided this quote from the article: Comparative cross-national poverty rankings suggest that United States poverty rates are at or near the top of the range when compared with poverty rates in other countries. ----with the related data to back it up. 2) http://www.unicef.org/pon96/indust4.htm a link to a source that summarizes the child poverty data and the US in last place. 3) the citation of the original data source: ……….according to the Luxembourg Income Study, a 23-year project that compares poverty and income data from 31 industrial nations. Time to webcrawl the right-winged blogs for another important social commentary comparable to what started this thread. No more

Jesus PP you probably can't concentrate with that panty thing going on. What can't you read: Over the past two decades, America has had the highest or near-highest poverty rates for children, individual adults, and families among 31 developing countries, according to the Luxembourg Income Study, a 23-year project that compares poverty and income data from 31 industrial nations. Ok, actually the US comes in dead last. http://www.unicef.org/pon96/indust4.htm Comparative cross-national poverty rankings suggest that United States poverty rates are at or near the top of the range when compared with poverty rates in other countries. The United States child and elderly poverty rates seem particularly troublesome. America’s elders also have poverty rates that are high, particularly on relative grounds. In most developed countries, the relative child poverty rate is 10 percent or less; in the United States, it is 21.9 percent. What seems most distinctive about the American poor, especially poor American single parents, is that they work more hours than do the resident parents of other nations while also receiving less in transfer benefits than in other countries. Aw. I take it all back. The facts are wrong. We're doing great!! Rah-Rah. I think I heard about a school that was eliminating competive dominos during recess. Ya better get on that one.

Sure buddy - here you go. I thought you lost interest. "Over the past two decades, America has had the highest or near-highest poverty rates for children, individual adults, and families among 31 developing countries, according to the Luxembourg Income Study, a 23-year project that compares poverty and income data from 31 industrial nations. "With the exception of Mexico and Russia, the U.S. devotes the smallest portion of its gross domestic product to federal anti-poverty programs, and those programs are among the least effective at reducing poverty, the study found. Again, only Russia and Mexico do worse jobs." Sorry for the thread drift, now back to the weighty subject of Legos.

I don't get it. Why is PP and the Heartland Institue (article PP cut and paste from) getting their panties in a bunch? Isn't this a private institution offering something that some parents want? Isn't this how the free market works? Oh the humanity!