interesting e-mail -- like the concept, but not sure of practability

[Plane]

<<At the least their recreationsl drugs should not be our responsiblity to buy.>>

Since it's inevitable that they're gonna spend some of their welfare money on dope, I think it's only practical that you ensure them a good supply of cheap legal dope so that they have more of your taxpayer money to spend on more wholesome and constructive purposes.  Hopefully with publicly funded drug-abuse programs and mental health initiatives, whatever is driving them to abuse drugs in the first place can be treated, cured or at least cut back.  Unless of course you have no problem with watching them blow your money on over-priced dope and have to come back to get more for food.

This brings us back to my suggestion that the Governent should have a legion of Zombies to carry out its tasks for the sake of their dope ration.

[Michael Tee]

<<This brings us back to my suggestion that the Governent should have a legion of Zombies to carry out its tasks for the sake of their dope ration.>>

That's OK with me, plane, as long as they work on YOUR property and not on mine.

[yellow_crane]

.  What the fuck did Jesus say? 

I feel reasonably certain that it wasn't "Fuck."  Jiminy Crickets, MT, if you're gonna quote the Lord-Gawd-A-mighty dontcha think you could avoid mixing the sacred with the profane?

Just a minor point here, in terms of rectifying your diction by correcting the error you insert.

When you say . . . "the Lord-Gawd-A-mighty (sic)" you infer that Jesus is such the case.   The word "Gawd" suggests God, which opens the problem.   Jesus was a man, who did not create the rivers and the trees, the lakes and the seas--that creator was God.

In most of the world's eye, the difference is clear.   There is Jesus, and there is God.

If I am to now interpret them interchangeable, I did not get the memo.  WHO would have sent such an unauthorized memo?

When you say ""the""-Lord-Gawd . . ." you suggest a universal, automatic acceptance.

What you should have said, then, for the sake of objectivity, was "my" or "a Christian's" --anything that could distinguish the singular speaker and his personal religious bias, but certainly not established metaphysical truth.





On the furthur matter of not using the word "fuck" in the same sentence with God, I find that repressive, regressive, controlling, and of course, politically incorrect. 

Politically incorrect since there is no law of either the legal establishment or the laws of grammar to justify the nannying.

"Politically incorrect" seems to refer to all those areas where we suddenly find blurred lines in our culture, ruptured lines.

The various things which can be referred to as such are occuring with increasing frequency.

I urge all to consider that "Politically Incorrect" might just refer to the areas wherein the Right Wing, who have admitted and even stressed this never-quite-spelled-out cultural revolution they so relentlessly wage, have made at least some small success in blurring the extant cultural lines.

Things we used to know only a few years ago we now find we have to reask before we speak; we are not sure, so we defer to the common, and looking up and down the street, will probably first find a Right Wing TV show, a Right Wing Radio show (95% current talk radio--Right Wing, most hard Right Wing), an elected politican bluing us like Big Brother about daily new lists of inappropriate behavior, or one of the new, physically flawless celebrities,, light and superficial, telling us OhWhatTheHell!!!! when it comes to eschewing health over a glitzy ball of pure processed sugar.

"politically incorrect" seems to refer soimehow to those areas they deem salient targets for altering culture, where they seek to make change, blur the lines, move the goal posts.

I urge all to refrain from automatic subscription, especially where there is heavy rain of 'hurt feelings' persuasion.


_________________________________________________________________________


"Non-cooperation with evil is a sacred duty."    --Mahatma Gandhi

[Stray Pooch]

Just a minor point here, in terms of rectifying your diction by correcting the error you insert.

When you say . . . "the Lord-Gawd-A-mighty (sic)" you infer that Jesus is such the case.   The word "Gawd" suggests God, which opens the problem.   Jesus was a man, who did not create the rivers and the trees, the lakes and the seas--that creator was God.

In most of the world's eye, the difference is clear.   There is Jesus, and there is God.

If I am to now interpret them interchangeable, I did not get the memo.  WHO would have sent such an unauthorized memo?

The memo to which you refer is called the New Testament.  Leaving aside the fact that my statement was made in an obviously humorous manner and as such really required no debate, your arguments against it are hardly valid.

In the first place, you opine that Jesus was only a man - not a god.  I disagree with that opinion, as do most Christians. While unlike most mainstream Christians I view Christ as a separate personage in the Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Ghost), I nonetheless view him as both man and God.  The vast majority of Christians view Christ as one aspect of the trinity God which is actually not that far from what I believe, though many would consign me to hell for the difference in perspective.   As to taking pains to establish that the view of Christ as God is only my own belief, it is completely unnecessary.  That point is implicit in any conversation about religion.  I have no more need to clarify that point than you have to state that Jesus is not God "in my opinion."  I do not believe that your stating that opinion without qualification implies a universal acceptance (which clearly does not exist) but rather an adamant stance on that POV.  As a matter of fact, within the context of western culture the terms Jesus and God can be used interchangeably - though some would not agree with the comparison.  But if I were truly discussing religious doctrines I would certainly NOT use a flippant term such as "Lord-Gawd-A-Mighty."  While I will sometimes tapdance along the line of appropriate religious humor (and some might well argue step across it) terms like that one would suggest to most people that the point is tongue-in-cheek.  Barring that, the smiley should be a clearer clue.

But let us assume for a moment that I was, in fact, dead serious as to my objection about the foul language juxtaposed with the mention of Deity.  As to being repressive, regressive, controlling, and (Oh My Lord-Gawd-A-Mighty) Poliltically Incorrect, I believe that I would be no more guilty of the first three offenses than you are by objecting to my calling Jesus God.  I would, in fact, call that observation on your part rather hypocritical.  As to the last, I revel in the opportunity to be called Politically Incorrect.  When one is honored with the PI label it usually means he is stating a truth that conflicts with a carefully manufactured world view.  It is beneficial to freedom and society at large to challenge a faction whose beliefs are so fragile they cannot withstand even the gentle breeze of linguistic clarity, much less weather the whirlwind of direct debate.  There are some aspects of the so-called Politically Correct that have merit.  (It is, for example, perfectly valid to object to racial slurs or fight against stereotyping.)   But as a general rule it is always more healthy to allow even socially objectional viewpoints a full airing than to (note this next word carefully) repress an opposing opinion.  One of my favorite Broadway quotes is from the musical "1776."  Stephen Hopkins of Rhode Island states "Well, sir.  I never seen, heard nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous ya can't even TALK about it!"  So if my objection to using an extreme profanity in the same sentence as the name of God is Politically Incorrect, let the Kangaroo Kourt convene.  I find that objection as humorous as I did the original quote.  I note that MT did not feel a need to respond to that point.  I think he got the humor.

[Stray Pooch]

True enough.  But only true in the sense that "If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle" is true.  You gotta deal with the world as it is, Pooch, not as you'd like it to be.

I agree with your point but not from your perspective.  The entire concept of liberal social programs is, as you imply, to attempt to force those who believe in allowing people to be reponsible for themselves to take responsibility for others.  The premise upon which this mindset is based is that people cannot take care of themselves, so someone has to do it for them.  In fact, in most of nature and most of human history, those who cannot take care of themselves are weeded out by natural selection and those who have needs that are not being met learn to meet them by themselves or die.  THAT is "the world as it is."  It is, of course, well within the means of a socially advanced species to give aid and comfort to those in need.  But the impulse to do so immediately contradicts the bleak concept of kismet suggested by appeals to "the world as it is."  So we come, paradoxically to an agreement in principle that the world should NOT be accepted as it is, but rather that improvements within our power ought to be implemented.  You believe that people in poor circumstances CAN'T change.  I believe they can. So you view as charitable consigning these people to an inescapable caste of unfortunates who we must, in our superior condition, deign to provide for.  That sense of noblesse oblige is charitable in a bread-and-butter sense, but is far from charitable - indeed is downright offensive - on the level of human interaction.  It is bigotry in denial.  I, OTOH, believe that the surest sign of respect for another person is allowing them to fail.  It is through failure that people learn to succeed.  Those who are consigned to the welfare roles are denied the opportunity to grow.  That is, I confess, less charitable in the immediate sense of the term, and far less popular with the poor.  But it is kinder in the long run, and shows a much higher opinion of the "low lifes."  Speaking of which . . .

Pooch, you oughtta spend more time among the low-lifes.  In the real world.  Hang out in a government welfare office for an hour once a week.  Take a number.   These guys are coming in to pick up a cheque.  THEIR cheque.  That the government OWES them.  They aren't thinking in Hobbesian terms of freedom and its surrender.   If you told them, they must live their lives as YOU dictate in order for them to continue to receive this miserable pittance, they'd probably choose to get what they need by other means that are even less socially productive than welfare.

You make several assumptions about my experience that are not valid.  I grew up in a family that spent much time on welfare, and in my early childhood even resorted to begging.  My father seldom kept a job for more than a few months and I found out later in life even forced my mother into prostitution at times.  There were times when my mother shoplifted food, and she nearly went to jail for it once.  But then she decided that she needed to get her act together ('cuz Dad wasn't going to) and started work as a waitress in a Beer Garden.  She moved up to cleaning hotel rooms, then became a front desk clerk, and ultimately got a job in the Maryland court system.  When she retired (and, sadly, that was literally on the day she died) she had risen to a clerk of court.  My Dad, who she dumped after we were grown, gradually learned that he had to work to eat and belatedly got working steadily. 

Even though I have been employed non-stop since 1974, I have had a few occasions where I have needed extra help, but I have only resorted to food stamps for a total of six months in my adult life, and I qualified for many years.  I never believed that the food stamps were something the government OWED me.  I felt terribly embarrassed to sink to the point of accepting government assistance.  I did it because my kids would have gone hungry otherwise, and the long hours of military shift duty made it hard to work a second job. 

You talk about the "real world."  I find it interesting how people tend to think the "real world" is the one which corresponds with their own world view.  The fact is, I grew up poor and learned that anything I got I would have to work for if I wanted to have any self-respect.  So I started working as a teen so I could buy halfway decent clothes to stop the teasing I got in school when I wore the same pants for days in a row or had shoes that were falling off of my feet.  I went to a community college because I could barely afford the bus fair to get there and a "real" school was well beyond my means.  I finally decided to join the Army and give up my dream of a music education career because I wanted a secure job to raise a family. We weren't knocking them dead for most of the time.  If my kids wanted something bad enough they got jobs and worked for it.  When there wasn't enough money they did without it, and they learned about "the real world."   I sometimes get nostalgic over what might have been, but I'm pretty content with how things turned out.  The military was a tough life, but I can look back with some pride on it.  My children are doing better than I did, and mostly because they have developed the work ethic that comes from understanding that you only get what you work for.

Contrast that with my sister-in-law.  She decided that welfare was the way, in fact she became an expert at how to cheat the system (which she did with glee).  She got angry at us when we wouldn't claim more children than we actually had on our tax forms to qualify for more food stamps and other government benefits.  We were stupid, she told us.  Then the IRS started requiring SSNs for children and she suddenly lost three kids.  She had to leave Maryland because the DSS wanted to know where those extra three kids had gone.  (Fortunately, they didn't pursue her out of state.  They had far too many cases to investigate of exactly the same thing, just like all of the other states did.)  In the end she was wanted in three different states for welfare fraud.  None of her five children finished High School (one lived only two weeks, so he at least had an excuse).  They were taken from her on several occasions and never knew where they might be from week to week.  All of her children joined the welfare train when they "grew up."  But then welfare reform happened.  Suddenly they all got jobs, and LO AND BEHOLD they even developed some self-respect.  One got a GED, a decent job and even eventually bought himself a house.  The oldest girl is in her thirties now and actually turned into a pretty decent mother once she realized that it was that or lose her kids.

That's what the "real world" is. 

Think of Alfred P.  Why do you like him?  What is so endearing about him?  And try to transfer those feelings into the real world.  To real people. 

But that is the point.  Doolittle is a FICTIONAL character.  What is endearing about him is that he ISN'T real.  The real Alfred - if he existed - wouldn't be a lovable ne'er-do-well.  He would be a lazy, philandering bum who was willing to prostitute his daughter and would be far more likely to rob Professor Higgins at knifepoint than to carry on a witty conversation with him.  Lerner and Lowe gave him clever lines, a couple of cute song-and-dance routines and a winning disposition.  In the "real world" Alfred wouldn't have any of those desirable properties. 

 WHY is the guy abusing drugs?  And from welfare's POV, what's the difference?  The guy's disabled by whatever problem leads to the drug abuse, someone else is disabled by the gambling bug, someone else by borderline mental illness, etc., etc.  Welfare is not their therapy.  Welfare is just their support mechanism, to support them with the necessities of life.  They all get that basic support.  Hopefully, the welfare offices can steer them to whatever curative agencies are available to treat the drug addiction and its cause, to treat the unskilled by upgrading his skills, to treat the gambler, the psychotic, etc.  But welfare is to keep them alive UNTIL.

That argument rings hollow, in light of your assertion that UNTIL will never come.  I agree that treatment for those in need IS necessary.  But UNTIL will, I think, never come UNLESS some accountability is applied to those in such situations.  Continuing to give welfare without accountability is a fool's game.  I remember when my sis-in-law decided to get a waitress job to make a little extra money.  The welfare office promptly reduced her benefits to offset the money she made.  She quit her job, because as she saw it she could make the same amount of money either way, so why work?  She was indignant that the idiots in the government couldn't see that they were FORCING her to take more welfare by "penalizing" her for working.  If it were up to me, a person wo deliberately quit a job to get more benefits wouldn't get any more than they were already getting.  If that happened, people would work for a living instead of relying on the government.  Once the check stopped coming in, even sis-in-law got a job.  But of course she is now in her fifties and can barely hold down a job because of health problems and a lack of work ethic.  What great act of charity did we do by allowing her to waste all of her potential in life by subsidizing her self-destruction?

Again back in the real world you can detect most of the other problems too.

Not if it is in their interest to hide them.  We can easily detect drug use.  If a man gambled away his rent last night, we have know way of testing for that.  Of course the expense of random drug testing for a large roll of welfare recipients may defeat the fiscal purpose of the testing.  But the cost may be offset by the added productivity and decrease in welfare rolls such testing might bring (one way or another).

They have no pride and they don't give a shit. 

But that can change.  Self-respect can be a learned skill.  Indeed, I think it HAS to be learned - as well as earned.

Charity is charity, it's based on need, not virtue.

But whether it is more charitable to teach responsibility through that "best teacher" of experience or to teach reliance on government largesse is an open question.  IMO the former is better, more charitable, and more respectful of the person involved.  I completely agree that virtue ought not be a consideration in granting charity.  But I believe TEACHING virtues through accountability is an essential part of charity.  In fact I think that simply throwing money at the "less fortunate" will cruelly perpetuate their misfortune.  That isn't charity at all.  It's abuse.

We disagree because we have a different set of experiences.  The "real world" is no more what you think it is than what I think it is.  It is a combination of experiences and viewpoints.  While I view your ideals as potentially counterproductive to truly charitiable behavior, I don't question your motives.  It might be well for you to consider that those of us who choose to view charity from the perspective I have described are no less charitable in spirit than you. 

[Xavier_Onassis]

I view Christ as a separate personage in the Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Ghost), I nonetheless view him as both man and God.  The vast majority of Christians view Christ as one aspect of the trinity God which is actually not that far from what I believe, though many would consign me to hell for the difference in perspective.   As to taking pains to establish that the view of Christ as God is only my own belief, it is completely unnecessary.  That point is implicit in any conversation about religion.  I have no more need to clarify that point than you have to state that Jesus is not God "in my opinion."

As I see it, Jesus is currently a member of the Holy Trinity. The theologians of the Holy Mother Church tell us that all three members of this Divine Group have always existed forever, but until somewhere around 6 BC (officially 1 AD) neither Jesus nor the Holy Ghost seem to have had much to do.

Then Jesus took a leave of absence and was born a cute little baby, which attracted another three astrologers known as the Magi, or We Three Kings of Orient Are to provide assurance that he was, in fact, holy. Their names according to tradition were Gaspar, Melchior and Balthazar but they didn't have any of the Holy Scribes write their names down. They came, it is said, from the East, but we now see them as a black guy, a white guy and a not entirely white guy, since they represent the three continents of Africa, Europe and Asia. They came on camels, which are rarely used for transport in Europe. Perhaps the European Magus rented his camel. They were really important dudes, these Magi, but back wherever they came from, the folks there kept really shoddy records, and we have no record of them doing anything of importance.

Jesus was a officially member of the Trinity for his entire stay on the planet, but his biographers, in addition to being really derelict with the dates, recorded very little of his doings until around the last year or so of his life. It was then that he gathered a posse and roamed around Palestine. Eventually he pissed off the Pharisees and they got the Romans to do him in. He came back for a short spell, then another short spell, and left, promising to return before the last of his posse had died, and the folks at the church around the corner are always reminding me that at any moment he will pop back in for a longer stay.

It looks to me like Jesus was a man, but for only a rather short term, and now he has returned to his divine status, and we can only call him an Ex-Man. As a member of a Divine  and omnipotent, omniscient Trinity, we can assume that he cam take human form, or any other form at any time. It's just that recently he hasn't felt the urge, apparently.

 The Holy Spirit is the real original stealth leader of the Trinity, since he never gives interviews and stays in undisclosed locations pretty much all the time. IT's not nice to refer to him as "The Spook".  Strangely, out of the three members of the Trinity, not one is a woman. This is considered strage, however, by very few people. It's like the planet being simultaneously considered as a creration for human beings, a distinctly land critter, yet the planet of covered mostly by water, and undrinkable water at that.

These are known as mysteries, and we would be better off not thinking of them.

It seems like everyone is waiting for stuff to happen and guys to return. The Christians are waiting for Jesus, in his role as the Messiah, to return. The Jews are waiting for a true Messiah, since Jesus didn't seem to have impressed all of them all that much, and the Shiites are waiting for a Thirteenth Imam.

Jesus has so far not taken a stand on urine tests. I am not in favor of them, and hope Jesus e3ventually reject them as well, but I am not holding my breath.

[Stray Pooch]

Jesus has so far not taken a stand on urine tests.

Untrue, oh ye of little faith.  The Lord does indeed mention urine tests in the following references:

1 Samuel 25:22 and 25:343
1 Kings 14:10  and 21:21
2 Kings 9:8 


This was, apparently, a really bad urine test to fail. . . 

[Xavier_Onassis]

Jesus has so far not taken a stand on urine tests.

Untrue, oh ye of little faith.  The Lord does indeed mention urine tests in the following references:

1 Samuel 25:22 and 25:343
1 Kings 14:10  and 21:21
2 Kings 9:8

Sorry, I slept through that part in Vacation Bible School...

  Is Jesus in agreement, that is the question.
I never agreed 100% with my father, after all.

[Stray Pooch]

Is Jesus in agreement, that is the question.
I never agreed 100% with my father, after all.
[/quote]

Yeah, but your Dad could only make life hell until your were 18!  :-D

[Xavier_Onassis]

the reference to he "who pisseth against the wall" refers to a man as opposed to a woman. Women are not constructed so as to pisseth against walls.

This is not actually any sort of urine test. A urination test, perhaps.

[Michael Tee]

Ah, Pooch, my apologies, for neglecting to welcome you back when I first responded to you in this thread.  It was indeed good to see you back on this board.  I can't imagine how I had come to neglect the obvious, but maybe it has something to do with the ravages of time.  Now let me tell you (surprise, surprise!) that I cannot agree with you.

<<In fact, in most of nature and most of human history, those who cannot take care of themselves are weeded out by natural selection and those who have needs that are not being met learn to meet them by themselves or die.  THAT is "the world as it is." >>

That is just ridiculous, Pooch.  The world hasn't been like that for thousands of years.  There's no evidence that it was even like that in pre-historic times.  Even robins won't abandon a chick that falls out of its nest.  According to your theory, if the dumb fuck can't stay in its own nest, it should be left to fate or mother nature to do what evolution dictates be done.  You are taking some construct based on a fantasy of pre-historic social life that even had it existed would have existed thousands of years ago, and trying to pass this off as "the world as it is."  Sorry.  No sale.

<<It is, of course, well within the means of a socially advanced species to give aid and comfort to those in need.  But the impulse to do so immediately contradicts the bleak concept of kismet suggested by appeals to "the world as it is." >>

Wrong again.  The "world as it is" is a world where almost nobody thinks that the damaged and the incompetent should be left to die on the streets AND it is also a world where for various reasons some people are so damaged and fucked up that they will never be contributing functional members of their society.  Kudos to you and anyone else who climbed out of the pit, but that does not negate the fact that there are millions of others who never can and never will.

<<You believe that people in poor circumstances CAN'T change.  I believe they can. >>

That is not true.  I believe that some can and some can't.

<<So you view as charitable consigning these people to an inescapable caste of unfortunates who we must, in our superior condition, deign to provide for.  That sense of noblesse oblige is charitable in a bread-and-butter sense, but is far from charitable - indeed is downright offensive - on the level of human interaction. >>

It's only offensive if you believe that one human being is worth more than another depending on their relative degrees of self-sufficiency. I think that if one guy is a helpless fuck-up and another guy is a conniving, cheating lying Republican millionaire, the helpless fuck-up is still a human being, deserving of love and understanding.  I'm still trying to make up my mind about the Republican.  On a more serious note, if one guy is a helpless fuck-up and the other isn't, they are both human beings and they are both, as such, and for no other reason, worthy and deserving of our love and understanding.  Difficult as it may be to keep that in mind at all times.

IMHO it is highly unrealistic for you to view all of the fuck-ups as ultimately capable of rehabilitation or even conversion to some "higher" state of humanity.  There is only one state of humanity and all of us have already made it there, with one or two truly egregious exceptions.  I think it's highly unrealistic in the present real world, because we lack the number of therapists required and our therapists lack the necessary skills and training.  But even in an ideal world with no practical limit on the number of therapists and where all of the therapists are Ph. D.s in their fields with a minimum of 20 years of practical experience, I believe that there would still remain a goodly number of untreatable, uncureable fuck-ups.  For want of a better word.

<<You make several assumptions about my experience that are not valid.>>

My apologies.  I really was speaking rhetorically, the meaning being that I had a lot of real-life experience with welfare recipients and the welfare system and I didn't believe (from your arguments) that you did.  I still think it is quite possible that your knowledge of the system may be limited to one particular system and  how it interacted with you and the members of your immediate family, whereas mine covers a much broader range of welfare recipients with various kinds of disabilities and entitlements (including various scam artists with no disabilities or entitlements)  and several different kinds of welfare systems and jurisdictions.  And the reason I say this is because I am just floored by your idea that all of these unfortunate people can be straightened out.  Not in this lifetime.  Not on this planet.

I got the feeling, reading of your experiences with the system (and BTW, thanks for sharing them!) that you were one of the lucky ones.  I am certainly not trying to claim that all of them, or even that a majority of them, are beyond redemption.  But some will climb or claw their way out of it and some will not.  I found that some of the people least sympathetic to the plight of welfare recipients are former welfare recipients who made good:  "I fought my way out, now why can't they?"  To state the question is to recognize the illogic of the position.  "I scored 100% on the math exam, now why can't he?"

<<Doolittle is a FICTIONAL character.  What is endearing about him is that he ISN'T real.  The real Alfred - if he existed - wouldn't be a lovable ne'er-do-well.  He would be a lazy, philandering bum  . . . >>

Avoiding the question because Doolittle's a fictional character is a cop-out.  There are fictional characters (Bill Sykes in Dickens' Oliver Twist) who despite being fictional, are totally UNENDEARING.  My question was, what was there about the fictional character of Doolittle that you liked?  I submit it was his freedom, expressed in various forms - - freedom from conventional bourgeois morality, freedom from fear of the law, freedom from fear of what others might think.  Freedom from materialism  From wage-slavery.  Etc.  Because he's a fictional character, Doolittle does not have to pay the price of his freedom.  But in real life that kind of freedom comes with a price tag.  Poverty, deprivation, criminality, etc.  And of course these are the people you find on the real-life welfare lines.  My only point was, you might be able better to appreciate the more endearing human side of these folks if you merely reminded yourself of what it was you admired (or at least responded to) in Doolittle's fictional character.

<<What great act of charity did we do by allowing her to waste all of her potential in life by subsidizing her self-destruction?>>

You raised a valid point, but there's a valid answer to it.  The welfare system's fundamental purpose is NOT to rehabilitate but to support.  There are other arms of the government which try to rehabilitate.  Ideally, welfare supports those who either temporarily or permanently cannot support themselves.  The welfare system is underfunded.  Always has been, always will be.  It does not have to funds to provide adequate support for everyone, so it cannot afford to squander its inadequate resources on activities not within its mandate.  (such as rehabilitation) - - In an ideal world, the welfare support system could be individualized.  Each recipient would be minutely scrutinized - - "This one needs support to tide her over till her next job, but this one is in serious danger of having her work ethic undermined if we provide support without attaching character-building conditions to it and supervising them."  You are asking for a level of personalization and therapy that the welfare system is not designed to deliver and is not capable of delivering.

True, your sister-in-law fell between the cracks.  She and thousands of others are the casualties of an imperfect welfare system that delivers help on a "shotgun" style delivery system.  The blunt answer is:  it's the best the welfare system can afford to do.  If you want personalized welfare programs tailored to the interests of every recipient, the costs of the system would skyrocket through the roof.  Whatever wastage you see now would be dwarfed by the sums spent on devising new protocols, attaching, monitoring, supervising and administering the tailor-made programs, punishing by cut-offs, establishing appeal mechanisms and tribunals to deal with the cut-offs, etc.

<<We can easily detect drug use.  If a man gambled away his rent last night, we have know way of testing for that.>>

This was in the context of my question, "Why cut off the man disabled from drug habit but not the man disabled by gambling habit?"
Again, you seem to ignore my contention that a lot of these guys are an open book.  If they won't admit they gambled away the rent, their wife or girlfriend will spill the beans, or their kids will.  The other problem is that even if you can detect the drug use, there is no way to correlate the drug use with the lack of funds - - the guy could smoke a joint or do some hash or opium and still be capable of managing his money.  And yet another problem is, even a drug-abusing, coke-fried-shit-for-brains junkie needs food in his belly and a roof over his head.


<<But that [their lack of pride and self-respect] can change.  Self-respect can be a learned skill.  Indeed, I think it HAS to be learned - as well as earned.>>

Awww, you missed my point completely.  I wasn't lamenting their lack of pride and self-respect.  The remark was made in the context of our discussion, why not cut the guy off for gambling? in response to your point that while drug use can easily be detected by a drug test, there is no comparably simple way to detect past gambling.  To which I replied that a lot of these guys will TELL you why they fucked up, simply because they have no pride or self-respect.  Whether or not that can be fixed is irrelevant to the point I was making - - at this point in time, while the guy is on welfare, he had no pride or self-respect and therefore many of them in fact WILL tell you why they fucked up.  Admittedly, some will cop to it easier than others, which is where interviewing skills can make up some of the difference. 

<<But whether it is more charitable to teach responsibility through that "best teacher" of experience or to teach reliance on government largesse is an open question.  IMO the former is better, more charitable, and more respectful of the person involved.  I completely agree that virtue ought not be a consideration in granting charity.  But I believe TEACHING virtues through accountability is an essential part of charity.  In fact I think that simply throwing money at the "less fortunate" will cruelly perpetuate their misfortune.  That isn't charity at all.  It's abuse.>>

Well, you made some good points.  But you have to consider the limitations of the system.  Also that not every method of teaching works equally well on all pupils.  It's cruel to foster an attitude of permanent entitlement in persons who might otherwise have earned self-respect and pride through being forced to go to work after being cut off benefits.  It's (IMHO) just as cruel, if not more cruel, to force people to work at jobs which they either can't find or can't perform without damaging their mental health or self-respect permanently, in order to qualify for a welfare benefit which, in essence, is supposed to be charity.  If the system could assess each potential recipient and make an accurate diagnosis of the problem and prescribe just the right combination of giving and firmness, that would be great, but you are talking about a welfare system that never was and never will be.  You're talking about a welfare system that has a much broader mandate than any system that I know of.

<<We disagree because we have a different set of experiences. >>

No, we disagree because you drew the wrong conclusions from what you observed.  To pick the simplest and most obvious example, from the fact that you could pull yourself out of welfare, you concluded that everyone else could as well.  Or at least that most others could.  That's just plain old-fashioned faulty reasoning.

<< The "real world" is no more what you think it is than what I think it is. >>

The real world is what it is.  One of us has a more accurate picture of it than the other.

<< It is a combination of experiences and viewpoints. >>

It may well be a combination of experiences, but some viewpoints pick up the reality a lot better than others.

 <<While I view your ideals as potentially counterproductive to truly charitiable behavior, I don't question your motives.  It might be well for you to consider that those of us who choose to view charity from the perspective I have described are no less charitable in spirit than you. >>

Well, thanks for not questioning my motives, but I don't see how anyone could question the motives of someone willing to pay MORE taxes to support a bunch of strangers, including strangers on dope.  I see where you're coming from, Pooch, and I don't question YOUR motives, but I think a lot of people who want drug tests for welfare recipients have a number of issues as follows:
1. dislike of welfare recipients and/or junkies
2. resentment at having to pay money to persons disabled, especially if disabled by a drug habit
3. stinginess, greed
4. racism

IMHO, it is those emotions that Republicans like Reagan appealed to with the "Welfare Queen" bogeyman and that is what motivates Republicans and conservative Democrats in their calls for drug testing.  Very few, IMHO, are considering the welfare of the welfare recipients.  Their needs for food and shelter are MUCH more immediate than the need for rehab, self-respect, etc. because if they die before rehab, there is no rehab.

[Plane]

How could you prevent the personal improvement of some one who had a problem ?

You might solve the problem for him , making his effort unessacery.

[Michael Tee]

<<How could you prevent the personal improvement of some one who had a problem ?

<<You might solve the problem for him , making his effort unessacery.>>

True enough.  Here's one for you:

How could you drive someone to suicide after he comes to you with a problem?

You might drive him to suicide by telling him he can fix his own fucking problem when he can't.

[Plane]

<<How could you prevent the personal improvement of some one who had a problem ?

<<You might solve the problem for him , making his effort unessacery.>>

True enough.  Here's one for you:

How could you drive someone to suicide after he comes to you with a problem?

You might drive him to suicide by telling him he can fix his own fucking problem when he can't.

Where are suicide rates high?

In wealthy areas or poor ones?

In countrys with welfare states or those without?

[Michael Tee]

<<Where are suicide rates high?

<<In wealthy areas or poor ones?

<<In countrys with welfare states or those without?>>

I don't know the answer to any of those questions, but I do know which profession has the highest suicide rate:  dentistry.  (may not be true any more but it was once)

Your attempt to correlate suicide rates with wealth and/or welfare statism is naive and moreover has been tried before.  During the Eisenhower years, the Swedish model of economic development (which I believe had both socialist and capitalist elements) was much praised, because Sweden had achieved one of the highest standards of living in the world.  The Eisenhower administration, eager to counter the impression that the Swedish way was the way to go, found a survey claiming that Sweden had one of the highest, if not the highest, rates of suicide in the world.  This was used to discredit socialism in general. 

Later, I believe, the survey was found to be either seriously flawed or a fake.