Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, Joe, but it was Clinton who passed the [though might have been under a slightly different name, but the concept is the same] 'Welfare-to-Work' law, which placed a maximum number of years and times that a family can be on welfare, and incorporates training as a means of offering an alternative. Welfare had, indeed, become a generational issue ~ which went hand in hand, in fact, with the lack of educational/job opportunities, elsewhere, for certain people. It is for sure complex issue.
Hurricane victims remain hurricane victims, regardless of what government programs have been to date. Part of the grieving process [of total loss of everything in many of these cases] is anger. For some, not being allowed to cross a bridge was denial of a basic, human right [to save oneself]; watching people die around you, in the midst of unkept promises, whilst being denied the basic needs for sustaining life, is not an unnatural cause for anger; being locked inside the Superdome and not allowed to leave [to help oneself, to obtain one's own help]; etc. Anger takes time to subside. Coming out of shock and into a safe, secure, stable, nurturing place are part of what helps that happen. Still being displaced and in a state of total loss, amidst thousands of others, does not mitigate against anger. The anger that comes from a feeling of ultimate betrayal ~ not receiving the basic requirements for sustaining life, when one has no possible way to get them for oneself ~ does not just dissipate. When thousands were still stranded at the Superdome, with no food, no water, no promised rescue ~ and were yelling into the TV cameras, as victims begging for help [at least a sign of human hope and a will to live vs. just, hopelessly, laying down and dying], someone here's tolerance for that anger was even less. She said, "I'm just so sick of hearing those people scream."
The attitude now almost seems like, "It's over. We've gone back to our lives. Why haven't they gone on with theirs?" I get the sense that one would have to actually experience 'forced' displacement; not being allowed to bring beloved pets along, their pets probably lost to them forever; watching or knowing that others lose/lost their lives, perhaps their own relatives and friends; and still being stuck in humongous shelters, with nothing to return to [some occupations have been entirely wiped out] ~ to really understand the complexity of feelings that would come with that.
~ Lizzy
Yes, I'll be very happy to hear when someone hears from Squidgy.
Katrina
Some of the other corporations [alongside Halliburton] slated to do the 'lion's share' of the reconstruction from Katrina, having already-signed, no-bid contracts in the millions, have also done a lot in Iraq and include Bechtel and Blackwater USA [a security company that lost 4 security guards to kidnappings in Iraq, where they were killed and hung from a bridge]. At the same time, Bush suspended the legislation that would mandate that workers be paid the prevailing-wage, as well as that regarding Affirmative Action on the bidding process.
Last edited by lizzytysh on Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dear Lizzy,
Regarding the rest of your post, I had hoped that my examples helped explain my point, but perhaps not. I don't have time to explain further now.
Joe
Perhaps I am mis-identifying the program-as it was most distinctly a state program, not federal. This occured here in Wisconsin in the early to mid 1990's and our Republican governor took a lot of heat because it cost much more than the previous program. Donna Shalala was Clinton's Secretary of Health and Human Welfare and had previously been Chancellor at the University of Wisconsin. Despite their political differences (Donna's role as Chancellor was non-partisan) she was a good friend of Tommy Thompson, the Republican Governor. I am guessing that if it was, indeed, a Clinton program that it was modeled after the Wisconsin program. Thompson was, of course, Bush's Secretary for Health. This appointment was a direct result of this program.Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, Joe, but it was Clinton who passed the [though might have been under a slightly different name, but the concept is the same] 'Welfare-to-Work' law, which placed a maximum number of years and times that a family can be on welfare, and incorporates training as a means of offering an alternative.
Regarding the rest of your post, I had hoped that my examples helped explain my point, but perhaps not. I don't have time to explain further now.
Joe
Thank you Joe. You put it so much better than I was able to. I believe that peoplel are compassionate. And want those in need to have help. But it's a two-way street. There must be effort put forth too from the receipents. So they in turn are able to help us help others. (And I couldn't agree more about the fiscal mess.)
And Lizzytysh, I don't think we've gone back to our lives not caring about the people of New Orleans anymore. We are just exasperated with those who are sitting around expecting more and more, while doing absolutely nothing themselves.
And Lizzytysh, I don't think we've gone back to our lives not caring about the people of New Orleans anymore. We are just exasperated with those who are sitting around expecting more and more, while doing absolutely nothing themselves.
-
MoneyMinceMilly
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 9:47 pm
Thanks, Bobbie. Since I remember Kate Smith by name, but not with a personae attached, I may have assigned hers to the big voice of Ethel Merman. For some reason, "Kate Smith" brings to mind a large woman with dark hair. All the bangles, etc. I don't attach to her. Memories can mix things up, can't they?Ill check out the links. I'm glad you resolved it
. ~ Lizzy
Two Hurricane Katrina poems written by my friend, "--VA
As I have no "Option" key [indicated as such], perhaps, someone can assist me with what key the instructions given are referring to, so I can clean this posting up. When I wrote for permission to post her poem[s], this was my answer and the poems follow. In my request, I indicated that I don't have the copyright symbol on my keyboard, but that I could write the word out.
These are two poems written about Katrina and her victims. I'll put the copyright info in the proper place after them, and then will correct it if/when someone can help me on how to do it.
Now, if someone can tell me which key on this ergonomic keyboard [by Microsoft] serves as the "function key," I would sure appreciate it. I've tried each one, including all the "f" keys along the top of the keyboard, and none have produced a "copyright" symbol
, though some have made my computer screen go a bit crazy 
.
Thanks for any help on this.
~ Elizabeth
*** Thank you very much for your help on this, Joe. Thanks, too, for the link for other Microsoft assistance.
These are two poems written about Katrina and her victims. I'll put the copyright info in the proper place after them, and then will correct it if/when someone can help me on how to do it.
From: "VA"
Subject: Re:
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:08:22 -0400
hi Elizabeth!
It's so good to hear from you.
Yes, you may post the poem. thank you!
please just put my signature, "--VA" after the poem and then
just write beneath the by line "©2005, Victoria Angela, used by
permission,
all rights reserved"
to get a © symbol :
press down the "option" key and hold it down. now press the "g" key
while
the option key is still depressed. you will get a ©.
Thanks, again!
love & blessings,
VA
From: "VA"
Subject: Kali and New Orleans
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:58:39 -0400
o, the Mother is weeping.
Her heart, beyond broken,
shredding with pain and love,
opening beyond beyond beyond
opening-- torn and still opening more
for her children to come home
are there arms
enough?
is there lap enough?
Her thighs, soft and round
and endless... are they endless enough?
are they endless enough?
sometimes God makes us larger.
sometimes we make God larger.
this is both of those times.
this is both of those times.
--VA
©2005, Victoria Angela, used by
permission,
all rights reserved
The date and 'poem's intent' were written by "--VA," as well, after the poem, itself.From: "VA"
Subject: robes in the river
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:20:44 -0400
leave your robes in the river.
let the waters embrace you, kiss you
in all your most intimate places.
leave your robes in the river,
floating downstream in a tangle of color,
let your nakedness shine in the clear tears of God.
leave your robes in the river
to wash up on the shore
mud-caked and empty.
leave your robes in the river
until they rest on the riverbank
mud-caked and empty, and you
rest
your naked bones
in tangled colors
dried by the sun.
--VA
©2005, Victoria Angela, used by
permission,
all rights reserved
9-17-05
for Katrina's dead
Now, if someone can tell me which key on this ergonomic keyboard [by Microsoft] serves as the "function key," I would sure appreciate it. I've tried each one, including all the "f" keys along the top of the keyboard, and none have produced a "copyright" symbol
, though some have made my computer screen go a bit crazy .Thanks for any help on this.
~ Elizabeth
*** Thank you very much for your help on this, Joe. Thanks, too, for the link for other Microsoft assistance.
Last edited by lizzytysh on Sat Sep 24, 2005 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dear Lizzy,
I have a few more minutes now to elaborate. First let me help with an easy answer. To make the copywrite symbol © press down on alt and with the numeric keypad type in 0169. Here is a helpful link for keyboard mapping for windows: http://www.starr.net/is/type/altnum.htm
I just went back and re-read the posts from YDF, Nan, yours and my replies. I believe that my thinking perhaps started from some training I've taken in what I believe to be valid, effective psychological principles. One of the foundations for this type of thinking is the belief that one cannot always control what happens to oneself, but one can always control what one feels about what happens to oneself. I did not mean to imply that this was an easy process or a quick process and I certainly didn't mean to imply that I would say to someone in a dire circumstance, "Get over it and on with your life." Compassion, even on a message board website is never misplaced. And as I've said before, I believe the empathy that you have continually demonstrated for people affected by these tragedies is genuine and heartfelt. What is Shakespeare's line?-"The quality of mercy is not strained."
The bigger problem with the "victim mentality" as I termed it-lies in its propensity to grow into government programs. Again, I tried to give some examples and I picked those in particular because they reversed the traditional perception of "Democrat's compassion versus Republican traditional tightfistedness." Now as it turns out, the program here in Wisconsin that I was referring to is called "W-2" and our now, Democratic Governor, (who I believe to be a decent, effective leader), is currently taking some heat for a grant which went to a supporter-bear in mind that this was a Republican initiative designed to work just this way. The problem is that the supporter hasn't been able to generate many examples of successful outcomes. It is an enormous problem and the political process will always play a role. I guess that my further point is that as much as I think that Bush is not an effective leader-it doesn't mean that all of his programs-in particular some of his programs aimed at re-establishing normalcy in the states affected by the hurricane-are all bad.
I am not as brave as tom.d.stiller, so I don't want to comment on any of the many issues that have reared their heads in recent days except to say that I know that you and I can disagree because we have a trusting relationship. The relationship began here on the message board and should we never have had the opportunity to meet in person as we so fortunately did, I am still certain that we would have been able to withstand disagreements without rancor. I try to make all of my relationships on this board in the same manner as there are many interesting, diverse, opinionated people and we would all be the poorer for it should we not have their presence here.
Take care,
Joe
P. S. I hope Squidgy shows up soon. Even better if she would start to post here-there might really be some fireworks then.
I have a few more minutes now to elaborate. First let me help with an easy answer. To make the copywrite symbol © press down on alt and with the numeric keypad type in 0169. Here is a helpful link for keyboard mapping for windows: http://www.starr.net/is/type/altnum.htm
I just went back and re-read the posts from YDF, Nan, yours and my replies. I believe that my thinking perhaps started from some training I've taken in what I believe to be valid, effective psychological principles. One of the foundations for this type of thinking is the belief that one cannot always control what happens to oneself, but one can always control what one feels about what happens to oneself. I did not mean to imply that this was an easy process or a quick process and I certainly didn't mean to imply that I would say to someone in a dire circumstance, "Get over it and on with your life." Compassion, even on a message board website is never misplaced. And as I've said before, I believe the empathy that you have continually demonstrated for people affected by these tragedies is genuine and heartfelt. What is Shakespeare's line?-"The quality of mercy is not strained."
The bigger problem with the "victim mentality" as I termed it-lies in its propensity to grow into government programs. Again, I tried to give some examples and I picked those in particular because they reversed the traditional perception of "Democrat's compassion versus Republican traditional tightfistedness." Now as it turns out, the program here in Wisconsin that I was referring to is called "W-2" and our now, Democratic Governor, (who I believe to be a decent, effective leader), is currently taking some heat for a grant which went to a supporter-bear in mind that this was a Republican initiative designed to work just this way. The problem is that the supporter hasn't been able to generate many examples of successful outcomes. It is an enormous problem and the political process will always play a role. I guess that my further point is that as much as I think that Bush is not an effective leader-it doesn't mean that all of his programs-in particular some of his programs aimed at re-establishing normalcy in the states affected by the hurricane-are all bad.
I am not as brave as tom.d.stiller, so I don't want to comment on any of the many issues that have reared their heads in recent days except to say that I know that you and I can disagree because we have a trusting relationship. The relationship began here on the message board and should we never have had the opportunity to meet in person as we so fortunately did, I am still certain that we would have been able to withstand disagreements without rancor. I try to make all of my relationships on this board in the same manner as there are many interesting, diverse, opinionated people and we would all be the poorer for it should we not have their presence here.
Take care,
Joe
P. S. I hope Squidgy shows up soon. Even better if she would start to post here-there might really be some fireworks then.
Thanks for your help on the copyright symbol, Joe. After I go to the store, I'll straighten that out.
I'm not exactly certain what you're saying regarding not being as brave as Tom, but it sounds like you're saying you agree with what he's said, but won't venture into actually stating it here. If that's the case, please reserve judgement on what my position has been with regard to it, until I have time to spell out the earlier issues I'm referring to on his input. I am also not expected that your reading what I write will require you to respond. I'm just asking that you reserve judgement for now.
Even so, I have never been one who has felt alliances must be formed; with the intention of being with whomever, positioned against whomever else. I've, unfortunately, had several encounters of that nature in my life, as well as here, where people are not expected to be [allowed to be] 'independent' in their thinking. I've encountered situations of, "If you're going to talk to [be friends with] her, don't bother talking to [being friends with] me. Like one automatically constitutes betrayal of the other. What I care about is honesty and truthfulness, i.e. [this has also happened] where one denies being friends with another, for whatever reason. What I also care about is that if a person feels they're in a conflicted position with regard to being friends with me and another person, that they have the 'courage' and guts to not shy away from me in the other person's in-person or cyber-presence, for fear of the other person taking offense.
In my own 'secret life.' I have my own feelings/relationships to deal with, without someone expecting me to take on theirs, and I don't expect them to take on mine, either. Oftimes, a person may have either slighted [or been interpreted to have slighted], or simply be disliked by another person; and the 'slighted' person, or the one who is doing the disliking, expects the bystanding friend to co-opt the anger and other negative feelings along with them against the other party. It's fully possible that the supposed 'offending' party ~ or, for whatever reason, the disliked party ~ has done absolutely nothing to the third person, and, in fact, the third person, likes the 'offending/disliked' person. For me, the notion of buying intoco-opting 'offenses' lies somewhere between immature and idiotic. The exception would be in lover/marital/familial relationships, where a third party has truly offensed the lover/spouse/family member. Those are horses of a different colour.
As you know, people 'connect' for such a wide variety of reasons, and connections are good. Whoever likes or gets along with whomever else is fine with me. I don't like double-teaming and triple-teaming a person, though.
I also don't expect that my friends/associates here should necessarily be upset with/angry at a person I'm in conflict with, simply because of our [the latter's and my] conflict. If I'm "A" in conflict with "B", and am friends with "C," I have no problem with "C" continuing their friendship with both "A" [me] and "B". I say all that because I know you and Tom are friends, as Tom and I [at least once] were; however, time changes and moves on.
I'm saying all of this to you because, yes, I agree, that we are both reasonable people, and ~ regardless of what might arise ~ can continue to be reasonable with each other. I don't want you to feel that I have issues regarding how, where, with whom your alliances [for whatever reasons] are concerned. And, of course, I'm also very glad that we met ~ including your very lovely wife, Anne. Nan and I don't agree, either, yet have certainly remained civil with one another.
I can't go into answering the rest of what you've written right now, but I am still interested in what 'footage' regarding the Katrina victims spurred the discussion of people not doing for themselves. Is there such footage?
Thanks.
Yes ~ I agree. It would be great to see Squidgy come and post here. Perhaps, one day, she will .
~ Lizzy
I'm not exactly certain what you're saying regarding not being as brave as Tom, but it sounds like you're saying you agree with what he's said, but won't venture into actually stating it here. If that's the case, please reserve judgement on what my position has been with regard to it, until I have time to spell out the earlier issues I'm referring to on his input. I am also not expected that your reading what I write will require you to respond. I'm just asking that you reserve judgement for now.
Even so, I have never been one who has felt alliances must be formed; with the intention of being with whomever, positioned against whomever else. I've, unfortunately, had several encounters of that nature in my life, as well as here, where people are not expected to be [allowed to be] 'independent' in their thinking. I've encountered situations of, "If you're going to talk to [be friends with] her, don't bother talking to [being friends with] me. Like one automatically constitutes betrayal of the other. What I care about is honesty and truthfulness, i.e. [this has also happened] where one denies being friends with another, for whatever reason. What I also care about is that if a person feels they're in a conflicted position with regard to being friends with me and another person, that they have the 'courage' and guts to not shy away from me in the other person's in-person or cyber-presence, for fear of the other person taking offense.
In my own 'secret life.' I have my own feelings/relationships to deal with, without someone expecting me to take on theirs, and I don't expect them to take on mine, either. Oftimes, a person may have either slighted [or been interpreted to have slighted], or simply be disliked by another person; and the 'slighted' person, or the one who is doing the disliking, expects the bystanding friend to co-opt the anger and other negative feelings along with them against the other party. It's fully possible that the supposed 'offending' party ~ or, for whatever reason, the disliked party ~ has done absolutely nothing to the third person, and, in fact, the third person, likes the 'offending/disliked' person. For me, the notion of buying intoco-opting 'offenses' lies somewhere between immature and idiotic. The exception would be in lover/marital/familial relationships, where a third party has truly offensed the lover/spouse/family member. Those are horses of a different colour.
As you know, people 'connect' for such a wide variety of reasons, and connections are good. Whoever likes or gets along with whomever else is fine with me. I don't like double-teaming and triple-teaming a person, though.
I also don't expect that my friends/associates here should necessarily be upset with/angry at a person I'm in conflict with, simply because of our [the latter's and my] conflict. If I'm "A" in conflict with "B", and am friends with "C," I have no problem with "C" continuing their friendship with both "A" [me] and "B". I say all that because I know you and Tom are friends, as Tom and I [at least once] were; however, time changes and moves on.
I'm saying all of this to you because, yes, I agree, that we are both reasonable people, and ~ regardless of what might arise ~ can continue to be reasonable with each other. I don't want you to feel that I have issues regarding how, where, with whom your alliances [for whatever reasons] are concerned. And, of course, I'm also very glad that we met ~ including your very lovely wife, Anne. Nan and I don't agree, either, yet have certainly remained civil with one another.
I can't go into answering the rest of what you've written right now, but I am still interested in what 'footage' regarding the Katrina victims spurred the discussion of people not doing for themselves. Is there such footage?
Thanks.
Yes ~ I agree. It would be great to see Squidgy come and post here. Perhaps, one day, she will
.~ Lizzy
Yes, she [America] really is, Paula. As a commentator said just a bit ago, about those who choose to ride this storms out, with attitudes of defiance or recklessness [when the predictions are so grave] ~ "You just don't fool with Mother Nature."
Yes, I thought of me, too, when Rita clipped the Keys. That evacuation decision, as I've already said, isn't as easy as one might think.....one thing is that it's all a matter of timing and prediction. Still ~ I'd have been gone for it......but then there's the traffic, and all that, that entails. There's only one road in and one road out of the Keys, and the population has increased significantly there, not to mention tourists.
Anyway, gotta go. Thank you for the additional lesson on that copyright symbol. I'll try your idea, too......I just feel so empowered now, being able to do it, with Joe's directions .
See ya later.
~ Lizzy
Yes, I thought of me, too, when Rita clipped the Keys. That evacuation decision, as I've already said, isn't as easy as one might think.....one thing is that it's all a matter of timing and prediction. Still ~ I'd have been gone for it......but then there's the traffic, and all that, that entails. There's only one road in and one road out of the Keys, and the population has increased significantly there, not to mention tourists.
Anyway, gotta go. Thank you for the additional lesson on that copyright symbol. I'll try your idea, too......I just feel so empowered
now, being able to do it, with Joe's directions .See ya later.
~ Lizzy
Dear Lizzy,
I hope that you don't think that I was joining in on some sort of "bashing" session. That was not my intention at all. I won't elaborate on my comment regarding Tom as it was a simple aside not meant to draw attention to itself. My point to you and all involved in the discourse of this disembodied place-work on the relationships-there is plenty of room for disagreement, humor, opinion and fancy within the lettered walls of this pandemonium. Let's not prove Hobbs point-life need not be nasty, brutish and short-at least not here. (Lizzy, that comment was not directed at you).
Joe
I hope that you don't think that I was joining in on some sort of "bashing" session. That was not my intention at all. I won't elaborate on my comment regarding Tom as it was a simple aside not meant to draw attention to itself. My point to you and all involved in the discourse of this disembodied place-work on the relationships-there is plenty of room for disagreement, humor, opinion and fancy within the lettered walls of this pandemonium. Let's not prove Hobbs point-life need not be nasty, brutish and short-at least not here. (Lizzy, that comment was not directed at you).
Joe