Is there a Brink?

When I first moved to the States and opened my offices, I found that patriotism was almost an open armed celebration of freedom and happiness for all to enjoy. I loved the 4th of July parties and the flag waving. I feel that in the last ten years, this celebration of freedom has turned into a defensive 'in your face" statement of power. With a "bow to us graciously' edge. Not too freindly and inviting at all, it's become more of a love us or feel our wrath type of feeling that the American people exude.

Like you said, you don't know too many Germans and can only base your feelings on a single experience. i must say the same except, I know LOTS of Americans, I hire Americans and sell products to the American public. Although I have met many kind and open US citizens (many on this website)as well as in person, I find this an EXTREMELY small portion of the Americans I've met.

If tourists get this same feeling, then it explains why people feel the way they do, not to mention the botched war efforts that are constantly splattered on our TV screens while we don't really care or suport what you're doing.

No personal offence intended, just a viewpoint.

Let's just say I was kept in a box and not introduced to all the fun.
Ribena and Quash are all I remember for NON alcoholis drinks, OH YEAH!! I still have my "Hands of Humphrey" mug from the milkman. Remember Humphrey the milk drinking straw, it spurred MacDonalds "Keep you eyes on your fries" (same marketing company).
As for Burt's it was just down the street. I lived at 43 Landsowne House on Albert St. Ventnor.

I was nicknamed half pint because I got a half pint of Guinness every day for helping dad in the pub. I will be back to do some recording in Southampton in July but only for three weeks. Next year I will be moving back to live in St. Albans and suport two bands I've just got signed to Massacre in Germany. Maybe I'll catch you in Camden one night.

take care,
OM

The only thing that would bother me is,

1) No drugs or alcohol (OK that's a personal thing)

2) It sounds like "Camp Loser" this wouldn't be nice for people who ar ephysically or mentally disabled, however I'm sure you wouldn't include them in such a system.

3) Isn't that what SCHOOL is supposed to do anyway?? Maybe we should look there instead.

Other than that, it could be a fun weekend retreat if there were a lot of pathetic and needy women. (OK that makes ME sound bad)

nicely put Max.

My dad was from a strict upbringing in a family of tradesmen. I was taught very early to get a trade, I am a CNC machinist (only finished 3 of 4yr apprenticeship)and Licenced mechanic. without it, I'd be disowned (my parents separated but I wasn'tdisowned).
People in North America (especially Quebec and BC) seem to think the government OWES them welfare so they can enjoy the sun, play their drum and be beatnicks. A LOT of squeegee kids here. Students from Quebec used to come here every summer to work in the Okanagan's berry fields, with the crops dwindling and more BC residents opting for those summer jobs, Quebec students find themselves empty handed when they come here now and turn to welfare with a mad attitude because they weren't 'given' work. this is getting worse each summer and the laws are starting to tighten to make it harder for them to "vacation" here in the summer.

My father woud have shot me for wasting my time that way and not earning a living. I guess it justall comes down to upbringing, you're either lazy or you do your part to be a usefull resource to yuor environment.

Oz:

On the Adolph Hitler example, I was trying to pick someone who EVERYONE could agree on, i.e. the "worst-case" example.

I REALLY had a good chuckle when you mentioned PeeWee Herman. I'm not quite sure what anyone saw in that guy. But that's just me.

I think I'll skip "The War is Over let the Peace Begin". Not that I don't want to check it out, just that I'm worn out on this long winded discussion, where I contributed much of the wind!

Sorry you've had such bad experiences withso many Americans. Come to New Orleans. I think you'll find things a little different here than in the rest of the country.

I haven't seen many discussion threads this lively and yet this friendly. I mean, this is almost as lively a topic as "Car Phones"!:)

BTW, I think I know why you have the name OzMedia.

I enjoyed many a pint of Youngs - Then started doing the Youngs special - 1/2 pint and 1/2 pint barley wine ... I called it a English Spodeode (beer and wine in US) ... got totally pissed ...

You are correct - after all these years we are finally learning how to brew a good pint of beer... all these little brew houses that are springing up around the country - the major brewers are running scared because of the trash they put out - Bush - Core's - Miller - all junk - and thats from a Yank ...

As an after thought on your quest for th ecar phone. I was thinking about it last night and wondered if you'd tried Limo companies. They all seem to have a fixed in car phone.

As for how I got my nickname, I'd love to hear your guess!

You can email ozmedia@excite.com if you're tired of this thread, I know I am. :-)

I stated very deliberately in my posting that suicide is a practice to which many people are personally unable to relate. There is a much abused word in the English language known as "empathy:" "The power of understanding and imaginatively entering into another person's feelings."
I don't know how it became part of the language because I have never met anyone who was remotely able to practise it.
So don't get yourself tied up in a knot trying to understand that which you can't, nor judge the person whose behaviour/motive you can't understand.

As you have gone to the bother of commenting on what I would have taken to be an everyday term, I cam only assume that you live in some part of the galaxy where "backyard business" is not part of the local idiom.
In Australia it is the generic termfor any profit-orientated activity that is conducted from one's place of residence, as distinct from a shop, office or factory. It is usually based in a garage, shed, specially built annexe, or within the house itself.
If I were to breed domestic animals, or cultivate plants for sale, I would no doubt do this in my backyard.
If, on the other hand, you were attempting to make a joke, my reply would be "the water test." If a computer still functions after standing out in the rain for three days, then I would feel confident to issue a three-months warranty on the basis that the computer had proven its hardiness.

In your grand plan [which I happen to think is quite sensible when applied to genuine bludgers, or people of reasonable health who have allowed themselves to be trapped in the welfare cycle], you make no reference to people suffering genuine physical and especially mental disabilities, which makes it impossible for them to be self-sufficient regardless of will or motivation.

Perhaps this is an oversight on your part, or perhaps you would recommend Adolf Hitler's plan to simply exterminate them.

In general, I agree with you.

As Julian asks, what about those who just cannot function at a level for self sufficiency?

What about deep recessions?

We need to recognize that a large number of individuals cannot function beyond what are nowminimum wage jobs.
Also, there are a large number of tasks that people do not want to do for themselves, but do not want to pay the true cost of having them done.

That is why I advocate changing the minimum wage to a living wage.

If you plan to eliminate "general" assistance, you need to provide a means for low skilled, but motivated, individuals to have the dignity of self support.

Chas

There were two monks walking through a beautiful garden, enjoying the flowers and the trees gently swaying in the breeze above them. As they walked along the edge of a glassy pond, they saw a school of fish swimming by, weaving in and out of eachs others paths, coming up to the surface and darting back down, "tagging" each other and swimming away as the "tagged" fish pursued the fish that had bumped it.

The one monk exclaimed gleefully: " Look at the fish, enjoying themselves on such a grandday!". The other monk challenged: "You are not a fish! How can you claim you know they are enjoying themselves, or that they believe this day is any better than any other!" to which the first monk replied: " You are not me. How do you know that I donot know the fish are not only enjoying themselves, but consider both this day and our conversation quite grand and something to be playfully celebrated indeed!"

:)

I actually have known people quite well that have expressed this both young in life and old.

My Great Grandmother emigrated with her husband from Austria. She was strongly Catholic, so an overt suicide was out of the question, however, when she was 97 she essentially began to pray that she would be allowed to pass on to be with her husband and friends. She died very shortly thereafter. I hadn't thought about it before, but it was like a 2cd emigration.

I had a friend whose Mother had committed suicide. A highly intelligent women, who was unsure whether there was an afterlife or not, but very much saw death as the only really obtainable frontier in a sense. She was not a morbid woman, nor was she unhappy. She succeeded first try, quite painlessly. This left an indelible impact on both her son and I as we entered college. It is hard to explain the impact except that I no longer, after much reflection, saw choosing death as a necessarily wrong decision.

Later, in Bioethics we talked a lot about living wills, the end of life, and how increasingly to some extent most deaths are becoming either chosen by onself or by a medical professional ultimately. I will stay in this life as long as it makes sense, however, I too am very curious what lies beyond and will embrace death not morbidly, but as a wonderful part of life when it is either emminent, or when choosing this makes sense.

Otherwise, whether I'm emigrating to another existance or to become food for carrots and frogs, it sounds like an exciting new beginning either way :)

From the various postings which I have read in this discussion, the use and abuse of the welfare system in Australia is pretty much on a par with the US. The abusers who particularly annoy me are those people who have full-time jobs and claim the dole as well: those who go onto welfare because of some temporary health condition, but neglect to inform Centrelink (Australia’s trendy new name for the department which manages all varieties of welfare) when they are recovered, and resume full-time work.
However I am guessing that effective policing of the system would probably cost more than what is lost by abuse.
But it is not just the bludgers who perpetuate the system. During a period in my life when I was engaged in part-time gardening, I was shocked to learn that most of the upper middle class people for whom I worked took it for granted that I was also collecting the dole (which I wasn’t). This I think would indicate an attitude that permeates the whole society: get whatever you can from the Government. I understand that the wealthiest people in the society know how to minimise tax, so that the major part of the tax burden actually falls on the shoulders of mostly middle class people.
The current Government is gradually tightening up the welfare system to make it much more difficult for people to deliberately choose welfare rather than go to work.

Some time ago I met a fellow from some northern European country – probably Sweden I think – who said that although the dole was equal to a wage, it was so bloody cold and boring being unemployed that people actually preferred to work.

The money that is handed out to welfare recipients is recycled back into the system. Whenever a welfare recipient (or anyone else for that matter) spends money, they help someone else (the merchant for example) make a living. This in turn helps themerchant’s business to grow, so that he may employ more people. All these people pay taxes which return to the general money pool.

I would really like some financial genius to calculate just what proportion of the welfare payment actually disappears altogether.

Now there is a glaring anomaly in our society which enables people employed in legitimate jobs to actually end up being a burden on the national economy. The most obvious example is the tobacco industry. The enormous cost tothe health system from people suffering serious tobacco-related illnesses might well, for all I know, exceed the amount of tax collected by the Government through its levy on the sale of tobacco products. The alcohol industry would probably be the second worst offender in this situation.

And then there are the people who attract enormous incomes without producing anything at all. Here I am referring especially to the entertainment industries; movie stars and sports stars. I am not of course saying that entertainment isn’t important to the human psyche, but it does not put food in people’s mouths, clothes on their shoulders, or rooves over their heads.

Yes Maxwell, I am quite aware that you did acknowledge that some persons were incapable of looking after themselves.

"I will say this. I fully support the notion of caring for those who truly cannot care for themselves. (I'll define them later)."

I just became impatient waiting for you to define them, so I thought I would just jog your memory a little. Sorry to see that you've lost your sense of humour, but then that's not my problem, is it?

...when I find myself dealing with intellectually dishonest people.

...with people who work backwards from a predetermined and desired conclusion, and stretch the facts however necessary to support it.

...with people who, when proven wrong,continue to be wrong and continue to support that wrong assertion.

...when people won't admit they're wrong.

...with people who extract a pound of lies from an ounce of truth.

...when people won't admit their political bias.

...when people overlook and don't consider the political bias in others - but only when it's convenient for them.

...with people who base opinions (and policy) on emotion rather than reason.

...when people overlook the obvious.

...with people, and thisis especially true with politicians, who don't base policy on a core set of principles, but rather opinion polls.

...with people who don't have - or won't admit - a core set of principles.

...with people who continually harp on what's wrong, while never admitting what's right.

...with the obsessive pessimist.

...with those who can't acknowledge to power of the mind and the power of one's will.

...with people who always demand that their country "do for them" instead of asking what they can "do for their country".

..with people who blame others for all their problems.

...when people won't accept self-responsibility and self-determination.

...when people, and this is especially true with politicians, convince others that they don't need to - or are incapable of - self-responsibility and self-determination.

...with disingenuous people.

...when people are mean-spirited and conniving.

...with those who have two faces.

...when a person continually refusesto answer a direct question.

...after the fourth double bogie of my golf round.

I could go on, but after yesterday, I have to go to the practice tee.

Both Jim & OZ have been having a somewhat lengthy discussion about censership and the pros and cons. Well what has been missed here is the thinking by the Federal Government that Children have rights. While I'm not against this belief there is also the right to make mistakes where the parents have the necessary authority to fix any mistakes that these children have made.

Unfortantly this is never taken into account so we have the sisutation where Government Legislation is introduced to control what parents can and can't do but at the same time making the parents responsible for their childrens actions while being unable to have any infulence upon these actions.

Perhaps this should be a different topic open for discussion here at TR and lets see what others think.

Don't get me wrong here I'm not having a go at the Americian Government but in effect all Western Governments because they are all following this silpery path and there needs to be something done to place the parents back in the seat of power where they can control their children and not be the impident people that they currently are.

The idea of a spell checker here at TR is one of the better ideas that I've seen so far.

>...we have the situation where Government Legislation is introduced to control what parents can and can't do but at the same time making the parents responsible for their childrens actions while being unable to have any influence upon these actions.

You're right on, Colin. There is definitely a problem with government interference in the parent-child relationship; but there is a much greater problem of parents simply neglecting their parental duties. Parents are convinced that they shouldn't correct their children in the sense that they are the authority figure over the child. They are continually told by the "experts" that they should treat children as "equals". The natural conclusion of this is that you should reason with your kids rather than making them do what they need to do.

So not only do you have the government sometimes preventing you from raising your kids the way you feel you should, but also, the "experts" have convinced you that you shouldn't raise them the way you feel you should -- you shouldn't be "authoritarian" with your kids.

I am horrified at the TV and movies which are allowed in the homes of some of my kids' friends. My daughter has seen some of these super scary "horror" movies at a particular friend's house, and they have caused her not to be able to sleep at night. Where was the friend's mother when my daughter was there at her house? Especially after I specifically discussed the matter of which TV programs the girls would be watching.

I agree with you on the spell checker issue. Some of these postings are so bad, you can hardly understand them -- and this from native English speakers!

On the so called "Child Experts" I hate them to such a point that it takes me over the brink. I once a very long time ago went to a parents night at the kids school where they had a so called "Expert" giving the main address and she responded to a ouple of my questions after the main speach that 1 If I changed my infant daughters dirty diaper {I think thats how it's spelt as we call them something different over here} I was sexually abusing my daughter & 2 If I didn't change the dirty diaper I was negelecting her.

Talk about a no win sisuation. Now I love my kids who are now in their mid 20's but I fail to see just how changing a dirty diaper has any sexual overtones. I did change these but honestly if I could avoid it I did and let mywife do it but I would never have let my daughter suffer. But what I did find interesting is that males are sexually abusing their female children when changing a dirty diaper but the mothers arn't doing anything wrong in changing their male childrens dirty diapers. Some what a double standard there.

Personally I don't think that all that many parents are not prepared to raise their children properly but are now too afraid to so they leave it to the Government {A COP Out to Me} as I've yet to see a Government have the same fealings about children as most parents.

I was once heavly involved in the child welfare side of things but I walked away when things began to become "PC" as everything was just getting out of hand and stupid. It's now over 25 years since I've had infants but personally I'd be loath to have any kids now with all the rules and regulations as to what you can do with your children. I once attended a case where a father was charged for beating his child when all that he did was to slap his daughters hand away from a hot plate that was on.The senior investigator thought that the little girl should burn her hand to learn a lesson. To me that was not the right way to go and I thought that a little slap was far more humane than 1 st degre burns where the bloke would probably have been chagred for negelect. Sorry but the whole thing was just stupid.

I hope that you could read this as I'm now totally dependant on the spell check because I've been using computers for far too long and lost the ability to remember how to spell and worse still organise my thoughts properly thats what the firs draft is for and then fix it all up latter.

From my observations most Government Policy comes from Knee Jerk Recations to some Stimuli and most Governments are after thequick fix rather than looking at the underlying problems. I'm not having a go at any particualr Government here just all andas an example I'll take the Australian Governments reaction to the Port Arthur shootings. They outlawed a lot of different firearms from the comunity that wernt doing any thing wrong. They then introduced a new tax to pay for this and went on to make money out of it.
But if they had of looked at the basic problem there should have been a far different outcome. Like how did a firearm handed in, in a different state to the police for destruction come to be sold in a different state? How did a person with a history of discharging firearms in the general vicinity of people come to still have a valid firearm licence? How did a person with a 10 round clip and no spare mag's manage to shot 25 people when they could have just run away? More to the point why ban semi-automatic fire arms when it would have been far cheeper just to licence the ammo and reloads which would have cost very little and been easy to impelment?

At present if I'm so inclined I can buy a machine pistol in some country Legally and import it in bits without the likely hood of it being intercepted and then go out and buy 100,000 rounds of ammo without raising any suspissions. To me this is a far more dangerious position to be in than having a couple of thousand firearms that are well controlled and licensed.

But that is just an example I'm sure that there are many others from all countries.

Queen Elizabeth rules far more than the UK. She is also the head of all the Commonwealth of Nations. Ever piece of legislation here in Australia has to have Royal Assent before it becomes Law.

Then there was Samual Clements famous statment that goes something like this "There are Lies, Bloody Lies and Statistics" I'm sure that someone will put up the right form of this statment but I think you get the idea. Sure statistically speaking 21 year olds have a better driving record than 17 year olds but then again they already have a few years actual experience under their belts. If some fool was to rase the minimum driving age then the statistics would change again and the 21 year olds would be the most unsafe drivers on the road in generalbut this would not make them any better drivers only teaching them to drive as apposed to follow the road rules will manage to do that and personally I don't think that there will be all that many Government Legilation forcing people to actually learn to CONTROL rather than DRIVE ever to come out.

However I'll give you the fact that England is very expensive last time I was over there I would have gone broke just in eating but luckly I had an expense account to live on so I didn't pay all that much but the price of things scared me and I was only there for 1 week I don't know how I would have got on if I had to stay there any longer.

I'm against any form of Government intervention in actually deciding what people can and can't do while on Welfare.

To me this is only passing the buck from those on welfare back to the Governemt. Taking away peoples responsibilities which is the current problem as most people think that they are owed a living and don't have to go out and make a living.

I know that there are genune cases out there that need welfare of some sought or other and I fully agree that these people should be supported but I strongly disagree with taking their right of dicession making away from them and allowing some Government worker deciding whats best for any indivual. This should never be allowed to happen.

As an example I'll tell you about a friendof mine who I meet while I was at Uni. Now he did an undergrad course in Electrical Engerining and went to work for one of the big companies where he earnt a decent wage/salery and was fully covered for any unforseen circumstances or so he thought.
He was on a training course in North Queensland where he was teaching all about the then new electronic engine managment systems {back in 1989} and at one of the dealers where he was teaching he suffered an accident. Well actually he was helping acouple of apprentinces out and he got under a Semi and the gearbox ended up on him. Now because he didn't work for the dealer he wasn't covered under Workers COmpensation, because he wasn't susposed to be under a Semi his employer didn't cover him for the accident and because he was at work his personal insurance didn't cover him. He's now in a wheel chair and incapable of moving anything but his arms.

Now he is someone who should never have ended up on Welfare as he had all the insurance possible and he always claimed that Welfare was a pox on the system and that all people should take responsibility for their own situation. Some time soon his case will be comming before the courts but when he gets a payout that will come no where near covering him for what he has lost he first has to pay for all medical expensises, refund any money he has already been paid and then have 50% of the total payout paid back to the Government {this is before any expenses are deducted} and this is without any of the other payments being taken into account. Then he has to pay tax on the payout and the Legal Expensises.

Personally I think he will end up with almost nothing out of what should be a several million dollar payout. Everyone has their hand out and it is the person who has suffered the injury who pays.

To me this is wrong. This guy doesn't have any problem with paying back what he's already got but why should he have to them pay such a high % on the total payout just in case he needs some form of Welfare in the future? This system is making people rely on welfare not the reverse and then he has to pay tax on the total payout which will be calucated as income for the year rather than over a lifetime that this money is susposed to last this guy. To me the whole system stinks and they are only creating a welfare state in the hope of recovering some money in the short term but paying out far more in the long term.

Any ideas on this one?

That something like this was shown in an episode of Star Treck Next generation I think where a couple of the crew suffered a transporter accident and where transported back through time to a time when the underprivilaged wher eintered in areas set aside for their development but needless to say these people never left these so called retraining areas they simply became prisions where the problem was brushed under the rug.

There are some case where an approch like this might work but it is far too simplistic for the general population. In the present times it might be attractive to many people but it is not a solution just another quick fix that will never do as intended.

Already trying this idea out over here it's called Work for the Dole but it hasn't proved the sucess that the Government hoped for as most organisations are only treating it as free labour where they don't even offer the basic needs. Then there are the insurance issuses of who pays in the event of a serious injury?

At present in Australia there are several cases going where people have been severly injured {in one case the person was paralised} and nobody knows who is responsible but eventually because it was an Act of Parliment I think that the Government will end up paying.

This is only to make some do gooders feel that warm fuzzy fealing inside and no real thought of the impilactions have been taken into account. Don't get me wrong I think that welfare should be reformed but it has to be reformed in such a way as not to dispose people anymore than they already are.

I know a lot of people in their late 40's and on that just can't get any work because of their age. While I don't think that it is right thats the way that it is and we just have to live with it until something better comes along.

Of looking at this and it is that he society has canged {not for the better} but there is now the belief that the world owes a person a living. This happned about the same time that Governments began to take on the responsibility for deciding what was best for us, and it is only going to get worse until the point is reached where the whole system falls over under its own weight. Then there will be Chos.

But until Governments are willing to make the hard decissions things will continue the way that they are going and I for one can't see any Government doing anything about the problem that they have created as it would lead to them being not reelected and there is nothing more usless than an unemployed polition.

About here is not so much Welfare but the Way that it is being administered. Again a Government Problem. But the real question here is why do these people want to live on Welfare instead of working. Could it be because they actually would be gettingless by working?

At one time I was advised to go on the dole rather than work as it was costing me too much to work and if I had of been on the dole I would have had more money, unfortantly it was true but by working eventually I ended up where I was earning far more than I originally could have forseen. But I can still see the other side of the coin why would someone willingly waste money on travelling to work and end up earning less than if they stayed home and did nothing?

There has to be an improvment in the basic wage long before there will be an improvment in the number of people on Welfare. But this costs money which the employers don't want to pay so I can't se a solution in the short term. Incidently recently there have been numerious cases over here in Australia where Senior Managment who have done a lousy job are paid millions of dollars to retire while at the same time they complain about a $2.00 a week increase in payments to their workers. There is something basicly wrong when this keeps happening.

On the "SYSTEM" rather than the actual sprit of the idea.

But unfortunatly you're right the problem isn't so much in the Welfare but in its administration and while I don't propose to have any actual experience with US Welfare I'd dare to say it's the same the world over. If you want to screw something up allow the Government to administer it.

It reminds me of a BBC series called Yes Minister where the Public Servant openly said that the Ministers where only there to deflect the flack from the Public Servants and we couldn't punish any Public Servant because that would just be the wrong thing to do. Why is it in Government Circles that they reward stupid mistakes with promotions and the real workers get held back?

The suggestion that the economy will benefit from money being passed out by the government to people who will spend that money is a huge fallacy. It sounds good, but it only considers a very small part of the total transaction.

The government cannot give a dollar to a person without first taking that same dollar from someone else. So at best, it only redirects where and how that dollar will be spent, and what part of the economy is the beneficiary. (But in reality, it’s not even a “push”. It’s far worse because the useless and non-productive administrative costs of redistributing that dollar gets lost.)

For example, the government took $100 (in the form of taxes) from John, the hard-working guy down at the automotive repair shop, the guy who struggles to make ends meet. As a result, John will not buy that new suit to wear to his son’s wedding, instead opting to wear the same old suit that he’s worn to every social function for the past 20 years. The tailor shop, from where John would have bought the suit, lost out on some much needed revenue, and as a result had to lay off Sally, a fledgling seamstress. (Of course, it’s not just John who will not buy a new suit this year, but Joe, and Jim, and Jerry, and Jason, and….on it goes.)

(continued...)

Instead, that $100 was given to George, the guy who “has a bad back”, and the guy that hasn’t worked and hasn’t contributed to society in over 10 years. Actually George only got $50 of the original $100. The remaining $50 went to finance the fat-cat retirement package for the legislators who devised such a grand scheme. So the $100.00 given to George was the result of $100 taken – I mean taxed – from both John and his wife Jill. (Who now has to wear that old worn out dress to the wedding.) But not to worry, George will indeed spend that $100. Since he likes to drink beer (Fosters), he’ll spend some of it at the local pub or the local liquor store, so yes, the bartender and brewery will indeed benefit. And he has been hooked by that mean old tobacco industry, so he has to buy cigarettes from them – and their economy will certainly benefit. He buys fast food and potato chips that goes good with his beer. And with the remaining 25%, he putsmoney into the economy of the local drug dealer, from whom he buys a bit of wacky tabaccy from time to time. He does get more food (and bad habit) money by standing on the corner holding up a “will work for food” sign. (Try taking one ofthem up on it – paying them to mow your lawn or something. I’d lay ten to one that he’ll decline.) And of course, the local food pantry will distribute free food to George.

(continued...)

You might say, therefore, to tax only the rich. (Whoever they are, depends on the relative perspective of one’s own financial position.) Not too long ago, in the late 70’s I believe, someone had this grand idea to tax (very heavily, 70% - 80%) luxury items, such as yachts, rooms at luxury resorts, and the like. The result was not increased revenue, but instead decreased revenue resulted. This happened because the yacht makers took their businesses offshore (thus laying off many domestic boat workers). And vacations abroad exploded, as this was a cheaper option (thus laying off many domestic hotel and restaurant workers). And/or people just didn’t spend their money on luxury items, they simply saved their after tax dollarsto spend another day.

So does forced redistribution of dollars result in an improved economy? I think not. Is this unfair to hard-working and productive members of society? Absolutely.

Of bandwidth when sitting in front of a group of blade servers that are downloading several hundren Gig of data colating it and then retransmitting it down south. After all someone has to be here just in case something goes wrong {funny think banks don't like it when they lose some data or it gets held up because of a breakdown or something} and there are only so many tech things that one can read while doing mostly nothing.

When there is available bandwidth I use it for browsing on a few sites after all it's better than reading the security manuals that I wrote.

But there is another thing here in Australia we have a different demographic to our US cousins. Here most computers are built by small manfactures like the business that I run while in the US most computers are built by the big guys like IBM, DELL and the like but here it appears that the customer wants something that is built for them rather than modifing their usage patterns to suit the big guys so here there are a lot of what US people would call "Back Yard" opperators. Because my business caters specially for business I don't need a shop so all my staff work from my home as a base as we are mostly out in the field doing something like installing units or performing routine work so I really don't need the expence of a shop after all I only have 10 techs working for me and then there is the so called Office Manager who thinks that she actually owns the business and that I'm only a nusiance put here to upsether.

Of the song from the old MASH TV Series. While the instemtal version is played quite a lot as elevator music I very rearly hear the words and I think that the Americian Censors had something to do with getting the words droped but then again I couldbe wrong about that.

But the song started of with "Suicide is painless and it brings on mayn changes and I can take or leave it if I try" The whole song is about suicide but I'll bet very few remember it.

One of the reasons that a lot of forien people dislike Americians is because of the so called entermainment put out by the TV studios. These portray Americans as shallow and insecure people and I'm refering to the junk soaps and the like here.

While I don't hold to this view and I know a couple of Americians unfortuantly many people only experience with Americians is these stupid programs and these produce the idea that the Americian People are not worth knowing.

I think it was Sex in the City that was used to justify some mad arab to attack the Americian Society as all infidells.

Really these things are doing your country a disservice and should be stoped because quite a lot of people believe this is how the adverage Americian acts. Which is far from the truth but it does make it diffictual when TV shows try to override the court systems and hold public opinion pols about things that are curent. An example was the guy who was building the DeLauriens he imported a couple of KG's of Herion to keep his company afloat and there was a report that this pratice was acceptiable as JR did things like this all the time in Dallas.

Sorry but this type of thing is what shows America in a bad light to the rest of the world particuarly in the third world where they have very little to no contact with real Americians.

is hard to play,
It's one your going to lose one day,
The losing card you'll finally play,
And that is why I'm here to say.

That suicide is painless,
Though it brings on many changes,
And I can take or leave it if I try.

From memory. Sawthe movie on the ceiling of the student commons the week I got my draft number in the lottery and was advised not to make plans for next semester - 1971.

Colin:

Apparently "political correctness" is more out of control in Australia than in the US. What you describe exists in the US, but isn't that widespread. What is widespread here is that parents don't think they are supposed to have authority"over" their children, and that parents are way too busy, either with entertainment or with their jobs.

As far as the TV shows, I believe that this is a really bad thing coming out of America and contaminating the rest of the world. Can I say that the devil is behind the scenes, taking the worst of America, and, using the influence of America, pumping it all over the world? Therefore, America, which should be having a good influence on the rest of the world, is really corrupting the rest of the world.

Bill Clinton had a part in this, too. The Clinton State Dept was coercing third world countries to make abortion legal ("we'll withhold foreign aid to your country if you don't legalize abortion"), even though many of these countriesare opposed to abortion.

The US Military hasn't helped. It seems that wherever we have bases overseas, the soldiers or sailors always get drunk, impregnate women, and spread disease. A Philipino lady told me that they hated our bases being in the Philipines for this reason.

BTW, you did spell "diapers" correctly! And I'm hitting "submit" without proofreading this post!

Sheesh, half pint, find your sense of humour. Perhaps you just had more on your mind at the time to follow all of your own conversations and apply them there... It was a 'funny' and a job. Friendly, even.

Go back and add a little inflection, awink wink, a nudge...

You had mentioned early on that you like to take wind out of sails by agreeing with argumentative opponents.

Just above, you then comment on putting the Moron in Oxy-Moron.... and you added the :-P, which I took for you indicating that you were in a jolyl little mood.

Ligten up, man. There's no reason to be paranoid.

Or is there?

Or maybe that was my little experiment, and everyone in my office is chuckling about how you need to re-evaluate just where your personal brink is.

I think we should rename this the Energizer Bunny
thread.
You mentioned
"Bill Clinton had a part in this, too. The Clinton State Dept was coercing third world countries to make abortion legal ("we'll withhold foreign aid to your country if youdon't legalize abortion"), even though many of these countries are opposed to abortion."
Was this not aimed at reducing the amount of HOME abortions, deaths and sucides due to pregnancy in third world countries? If it is illegal to have an abortion in a third world country, mothers die due to unwanted pregnancies being handled in unsanitary and unprofessional environments.
Maybe he should have supported promoting safe sex and sex education but once this fails, abortion is the only option forsome mothers who simply cannot afford to raise a child (unfortunate but unavoidable in these cases). Should this mother now be forced to abort her pregnancy in unsterile conditions by untrained 'medical personnel' and possibly face her own death?
I don't normally support US government decisions in ANYTHING, but in this case, there may have been several sides to look at.

"uh
Are you just looking for more people to agree with you now? C'mon, you did that on purpose...

No more trolling for responses, OM, OK?"

As a Brit, I grew up with Monty Pythons, Fawlty Towers and Benny Hill (the latter in Canada not England) as well as an older brother with a very dry and witty sense of humor. I often get misread because my sarcasm can be spoken with a straight face that leads one to belive I'm not joking. Yes, I understand humor, in fact I am often chastized for not taking anything seriously.
I simply do not see, what comment you are referring to, nor do I see what you intend as humor.
Just a two line post about something I have no memory of. If you want me to sift through ALL the posts here and decipher your intended humor, I just can't do it, sorry.

My point, if you're going to have a laugh or even a poke at something I've said, I welcome your comments, at least refer to it in your post.

OM

>You mentioned
"Bill Clinton had a part in this, too. The Clinton State Dept was coercing third world countries to make abortion legal ("we'll withhold foreign aid to your country if you don't legalize abortion"), even though many of these countries are opposed to abortion."
Was this not aimed at reducing the amount of HOME abortions, deaths and sucides due to pregnancy in third world countries? If it is illegal to have an abortion in a third world country, mothers die due to unwanted pregnancies being handled in unsanitary and unprofessional environments.

First of all, my point was that many of these countries are opposed to abortion for religious reasons (perhaps it is a Catholic country), yet Bill Clinton was trying to force abortion on them.

No pro-abortion advocate ever mentions the fact that everytime a woman has an abortion, a death occurs -- the baby. We really need to consider that when we are formulating our position on abortion.

>Maybe he should have supported promoting safe sex and sex education...

"Sex Education" teaches young people to have all the sex you want, of any variety, just take precautions. (They NEVER teach abstinence.) And
"Safe Sex" simply means that the man should wear a condom.However, condoms are not failsafe. They don't prevent AIDS, because the AIDS virus is smaller than the microscopic space between the fibers in a condom. They don't prevent Human Pampylona Virus. And it has been shown that young people often don'twear them anyway. Safe Sex convinces girls that it's ok to have sex outside of marriage -- traditionally, the girl was the one who kept the sex from occuring, but now that barrier has been largely eliminated.

I failed to mention that Jocelyn Elders, Bill Clinton's infamous Surgeon General, authorized the distribution in Arkansas schools of a KNOWN defective batch of condoms! Her reason? If we let the public know that these condoms are defective, they will lose confidence in the Safe Sex program!

I wonder how many young people got pregnant or got a sexually-transmitted disease because of Jocelyn Elders?

Oh, and Jocelyn was the one who told Pro-Life people to "get over your love affair with the fetus".

>You had mentioned early on that you like to take wind out of sails by agreeing with argumentative opponents.

dpetrak: It was I, not Oz, who said that that I like to take the wind out of the sails of my oponents by agreeing with them. I was responding to a similar comment made by Oz.

In the message immediately preceding the one you wrote, aka message 782500, Oz stated the following:

"I find if someone is REALLy getting pissed off at me, the funniest response is to completely agree with them or thank them."

I certainly hopewe can all move on now.

Well Jim, as fascinatnig as this discussion has become, and the many tangents it has explored, I gotta call it quits on this thread. I do have a few points that you brought up that I'd like to comment on, you may post a response but even after reading it and raising more questions, I won't reply so don't think I'm ignoring you, I just had enough on this one.

"Sex Education" teaches young people to have all the sex you want, of any variety, just take precautions. (They NEVER teach abstinence.) And
"Safe Sex" simply means that the man should wear a condom. However, condoms are not failsafe. They don't prevent AIDS, because the AIDS virus is smaller than the microscopic space between the fibers in a condom."
Sex education in MY school was about practicing ABSTINENCE as the ONLY method of really safe sex. Unfortunately, MOST teens will ignore this due to hormones. It doesn't matter how or where you are raised, what you believe or disbelieve, teens WILL have sex. We were also taught about FEMALE as well as male safety measures AND that even with a condom, you can still contract AIDS, therefore always use a spermicidal gelly WITH the condom to ensure safety, in this case the gelly doesn't prevent pregnancy but will fill in areas where the HIV virus can penetrate the condom.

I don't know if your children are in Christian Schools or just a public school but I would be concerned about ANY education they were providing if the sex education is as limited and ignorant as you say it is. Children no matter how they are raised will ultimately make up their own minds as to what is right or wrong and what to belive or disbelieve. The world is full of people saying, but my children were not bad, or they wouldn't have donethat, only to find out that their children developed minds of their own while being taught how to have the mind of their mentors.

Thanks for keeping it lively,

OM

Well done sir,
I just forked out another $600.00 on new clubs myself last weekend. Just like a caddy (or a new daddy((sorry it rhymed and I couldn't help it))I just have to clean my clubs after every stroke now.
Drive > clean > bag > walk.
Sure the people behind me get pissed but that's just because I have pretty clubs. :-)

dpetrack has always had nothing to say in my mind.

"UH...
uh
Are you just looking for more people to agree with you now? C'mon, you did that on purpose...

No more trolling for responses, OM, OK? "

"Side of the bed
Sheesh, half pint, find your sense of humour. Perhaps you just had more on your mind at the time to follow all of your own conversations and apply them there... It was a 'funny' and a job. Friendly, even.

Go back and add a little inflection, a wink wink, a nudge...

You had mentioned early on that you like to take wind out of sails by agreeing with argumentative opponents.

Just above, you then comment on putting the Moron in Oxy-Moron.... and you added the :-P, which I took for you indicating that you were in a jolyl little mood.

Ligten up, man. There's no reason to be paranoid.

Or is there? "

Or maybe that was my little experiment, and everyone in my office is chuckling about how you need to re-evaluate just where your personal brinkis.

This guy posts this kinda crap all the time. I think he has nothing to say that is relevant to a given conversation, in this case a side bar between two people, and simply wants his name in the post. As you can see, the UH.... had nothing of any substance in it, nor did it address why he thought I was "Trolling for responses"

His next post was regarding my not seeing his "sense of humor" in the Uh... post.
He then went on to mirror my post about an article I read on Marketing toAmericans- Conformmity of the masses by saying it was his little experiment.
I'd ignore it Jim, as far as I've seen, he is yet to provide any intelligence in his posts. I may be wrong, or even better, he may prove me wrong by showing some intelligence or at least wit in his future posts.

A variation on the theme...

The balls are hammered with a 9 iron...until the prisoner confesses!

I just want to thank everyone here that allowed themselves to be goaded into peeking inward and seeing where they stood.

Personally I avoid the brink if I can, like many people here I find a self-effacing remark and try to tap my way around it. The problem is this; so many times it is the other who wants to go on. As far as the TR is I think the anonymity here presses the issue a little bit. There are many people here that will not allow anyone to know them and do the chameleon act ratherregularly. But there are also those who stick to their guns, I applaud both sides to that if you can believe it. The Internet is the greatest experiment in social engineering to date. We are all part of it and it is the persona you wish people tosee that is keeping you near the brink.
I myself am a very sedate father of two who long ago gave up the fiery reins of the male id to teach my children to be good people. I do get angry, I do straddle the brink from time to time and I most certainly do stir the pot both at home and here. But I am not so outspoken in RL as I am at the TR, which is what defines my brink. Am I disingenuous? No my comments are true. Nor am I two faced because I will not stab anyone in the back. I merely usethis as my vent and keep the important stuff in perspective by bouncing around various forums. I parked here because I am an IT Pro and I love the fact that information can flow here. But I also came to stir this pot too =) Too long has it been the bane of the IT pro to be labeled the introvert because he or she is quiet, or, as I like to think, engrossed. I hope this has not caused too many problems, my off topic posts, but I will keep them coming because it is too often that I see my people getting worked up about nonsense.

You have proven me wrong, I'm sad to say. I used to think you were just..well, different. Now you appear to be rather shallow. That's a pity.

I said it was in jest - yet you're hanging on to some notion that I have to have said something that agrees with you or fights you or in some way conforms with your notion of what must be posted.

Then you say that I post to see my name on the site [paraphrased]. You indicate that I've never had anything of value, contributed nothing to this site. Very shallow, mean-spirited, and a shame.

In my opinion, you've discreditted yourself of whatever benefit of the doubt you could have received from me.

As you have become more of a prolific poster lately, my joking post was supposed to have been an inclusive poke in the ribs. I was accepting of your presence, though I rarely agreed with what you had to say.

I realize that it takes absolutely nothing on anyone else's part to have you turn on them, attack them, and thereby attempt to lift yourself up above them.

Good grief. You made a self-depricative remark to joke, I played off of it, you misconstrued it as [I have no idea, really, what you must have been thinking], and then use it as an opportunity to try and belittle another forum member. It's a bad play, and I'm sorry for you.

Really, it's a pity. Try to be the man you claim to be and move on now, won't you?

[And if you're looking for intelligent posts I've made, you need not look too far, but you do needto look, no one is going to hold your hand for you.]

...having reached his "brink"

and

...being two-faced and disingenuous

and

...well, draw your own conclusions

----- A copy of an email I received -----

OK, Max, so you've bad-mouthed me in public at TR and I daresay you feel much better for having done so. So I will point out that I have maintained a facade of friendship to keep the
peace, because you go ballistic whenever someone disagrees with you.

Now I am not impressed by your hypocrisy by, on the one hand proudly declaring the superiority of the United States, including the Bill of
Rights, and on the other getting all worked up when someone expresses an opinion contrary to
your own.

So I guess you can tolerate the right of other people to express different ideas to your own, as long as they don't tell you their opinions.

So get real, cut the crap, and don't for a moment think that I respect you. I don't. I only respect the opinions of people whom I first respect, and
you are most definitely not on that list.

Don't bother replying, as I presume you will just come up with some more nonsense about you moral superiority.

So do we understand each other now? On my part, there was never a friendship or respect, just a ploy to keep you from blowing your fuse.

Your two-faced, disingenuous, phoney "friend," Julian.

----- end of email -----

Interesting.

"In my opinion, you've discreditted yourself of whatever benefit of the doubt you could have received from me."

My god, maybe I'll just throw in the towel and jump. Your last post actually SAID something, the posts where you were "jesting" that I should not TROLL for answers is where you didn't include an example or a quote from the post you were referring to. Probaly why I said to at least offer some information as to simply posting witless and shallow comments.

I am actually sitting here and feeling like I've lost a close friend, I mean you and I have ????? and then there was the time where we ???? not to mention all the times we've shared??????

Later

>Sex education in MY school was about practicing ABSTINENCE as the ONLY method of really safe sex.

Oz, if that were true in the US, then I would be glad for sex education. Unfortunately, from what I have heard about US Sex Ed, they usually leave out or de-emphasize abstinence.

>I don't know if your children are in Christian Schools or just a public school but I would be concerned about ANY education they were providing if the sex education is as limited and ignorant as you say it is.
This year was their first year in a non-Christian school. A new school opened on a Navy base in my city, for kids of military families. Since I am retired military, my kids were eligible. I haven't checked out the kind of sex ed taught there (I dropped the ball on this issue), but based on the other things taught at that school, I'm sure I would be in agreement with the sex ed program there.

I wonder how many levels down we can keep going on this thread! Would we have to fill up the TR server?

As well because all to often we IT people are seen as some one who hides behing a monitor and doesn't speak the English language well at least not the language that most of the others understand.

Personally I keep having to talk to customers in the most basic terms that don't accuratly describe who is needed or whatever but it's the only way to get the message across and then what is worse is when I take at least one other member of staff with me to a job and we desend into Tech Jargon which noone at the place understands, they simply give us a wide berth.

It is refreshing to be able to talk about things non-computer related although it is somewhat addictive and I'm finding that I'm spending more and more time off topic than on. Must mean that I'm trying to find some form of excape. But here at TR it is wonderful as we can put out what side of ourselves that we want to and almost always be understood even though some of us take things to heart and read things into postings thatwhere never intended so I guess that our basic instincts are still showing through.

But keep these comming Duck I for one enjoy them if only for a small break from the usuall workload.

Col

>I certainly hope we can all move on now.

Looks like your starting to go over the brink, eh mate?

Which brink is that? If it is some angered, raging, frothing at the mouth limit? Is it calling names, belittling, and flaming?

If so, then no, I'm far from a brink.

If you define brink to be tired of silly lambasting, then I supposed I am.
I don't find that to be the general definition of brink, however.

Thanks, Duck, for answering my "Prayer" (see posting "Very Intuitive") and starting a very challenging discussion which, as with all these non-technical discussions, produced a number of unanticipated side-threads.
The first long discussion I encountered almost immediately after joining TR was your "Why." You sure know how to tune into what people want to talk about.
I will await with anticipation your next discussion topic, to let techies air their views on issues not related to their work.
"Once more with feeling:" Thanks.

Sometime the brink rears its head in unusual ways. I must say Paul Harvey usually tells stories that are meant to enlighten, not belittle.
This too is one more example of the brink. Not a personal brink, this is more of a social brink. Did Max here just step over a line of confidentiality? Who here can govern that? If this was an accurate portrayal of the email Jules sent (un edited in any way) then it is not ours to say what he can do with it. IF it were edited to portray only what Maxwanted us to see then it was indeed libel.
Hmm this is an interesting example, where is the line drawn on something like revealing personal correspondence? Is Max wrong for posting it here? Is Jules justified in his indignation? OR is this just an example of the brink in a light none of us had thought to look at? What do you think? This is something I had not thought of until seeing this pop up.

-duck

http://tinyurl.com/2g0t

:)

I still don't know what you think my "mission" has been "since day one".

Could you explain it a little?