Does anyone remember George Bush's very first act as President?
Doing the bidding of reactionary anti-abortion interests, he announced an intention to ban U.S. foreign aid monies to international anti-poverty and relief agencies that also engage in family planning/reproductive choice activities -- even if such involvement was funded entirely by the groups themselves.
That would have deprived key programs around the world that serve as frontline defenses against spreading impoverishment...of pivotal monetary resources.
The obvious result would have been many more people dying around the globe, including countless already-born children.
The negative pressures this would have generated would also have led to greater female desperation, actually making abortions more prevalent than would have been the case without a ban -- but lacking proper medical assistance and accompanying, safe professionalism -- as aid agencies would have had to strictly budget their limited funds.
This was a classic case of how rightwing ideological rigidity -- totally divorced from common people's objective needs -- would have made matters far worse for those excluded from consideration as only narrow fetus-fetishism was deemed important.
Bush's absurdity sparked an outraged backlash among feminist and other progressive groups, at home and abroad, and eventually the U.S. House of Representatives International Affairs Committee, by a bipartisan vote, acted to reject the ban.
Thanks to the fightback led by pro-choice forces and their principled allies, an untold number of lives were saved.
Paula, having worked for the largest charity organization on the planet, I can tell you that there is NO way that charities can fund even HALF of the necessary aid programs that our government, both national and local, do now.
That depends on what you call necessary.
But of course that is the point for conservatives, banning all such charities and then blaming the non-profit and religious do-gooders for the failue to feed all of our children, even the poorest of the poor, without question, as Jesus himself did with the loaves and fishes, eh?
Bullshit, fold.
It is the will of most people to make sure that everyone in the U.S. that is hungry, be fed. Within the mandate of the separation of Church and State, how do you propose to get this done?
Crap. A myth set forth for the purpose of increasing government.
Women who have had abortions cite the following reasons: 1 Â Â 21% can't afford a baby 21% are unready for responsibility
16% concerned about how having a baby could change their lives 12% have problems with relationship or want to avoid single parenthood 11% are not mature enough/are too young to have children  8% have all the children they want/have all grown-up children  3% possible fetal health problem  3% maternal health problem  1% pregnancy resulted from rape or incest  1% husband/partner wants them to have abortion  1% don't want others to know they had sex or are pregnant
Abortions occur at the following gestational times: 2   18% in the first 6 weeks - 239,000 annually 37% in the seventh or eighth week - 492,100 annually 33% in the ninth through twelfth week - 438,900 annually 11% in the thirteen to twentieth weeks - 146,300 annually  1% at twenty-one or more weeks - 13,300 annually
Current abortion rates
There are 1.33 million abortions in the U.S. each year. 3 Â Â 47% of women now seeking abortion have had at least one previous abortion. 4 Â Â The U.S. abortion rate is among the highest of developed countries. 5 Â Â The U.S. abortion rate per 100 pregnancies is 25.9. 6
Notes 1. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, "U.S. Women Who Obtain Abortions: Who and Why?" Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 4, (July/August 1988). 2. The Alan Guttmacher Institute (1997), www.agi-usa.org. 3. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, "Induced Abortion" Facts in Brief (1997). 4. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, "Induced Abortion" Facts in Brief (2000). 5. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, "Abortion in Context: United States and Worldwide" Issues in Brief, 1999 No. 1 (1999). 6. The Alan Guttmacher Institute (1999), http://www.agi-usa.org.
Our hard earned tax dollars should not go towards abortions, a medically unnecessary operation, just as they should not and do not go towards liposuction which is another medically unnecessary operation for an obese person.
fetishism-the pathological displacement of erotic interest and satisfaction to a fetish.
Since the abortion providers are the ones actually contacting the fetus, they must be the ones with the fetish.
'Bill - Fold' 6/25/02 5:17am
Paula, having worked for the largest charity organization on the planet, I can tell you that there is NO way that charities can fund even HALF of the necessary aid programs that our government, both national and local, do now.
Which charity is that Bill? What do it's top executives take home for an annual salary?
But of course that is the point for conservatives, banning all such charities and then blaming the non-profit and religious do-gooders for the failue to feed all of our children, even the poorest of the poor, without question, as Jesus himself did with the loaves and fishes, eh?
As our fine President recognized, religious and other by law non-profit organizations, who depend on volunteers and donations have been doing a very good job at helping the needy. I would challenge that religious based programs could outdo the no accountability welfare system that is p!ssing away our hard earned tax dollars.
It is the will of most people to make sure that everyone in the U.S. that is hungry, be fed.
Yes, we are very caring in that way. But furthermore, the majority of tax paying citizens would like to see the poor and hungry to become self sufficient. Having the freedom, dignity, and self respect that self sufficiency instills does more for a person than dependence. In addition being part of the solution is a much better place to be than being part of the problem.
Within the mandate of the separation of Church and State, how do you propose to get this done?
HOW?
Taking every factor into account, and realizing welfare has been a crippling force in our great nation, we need to assist the successful established programs of charity, religious based included, in helping others to help themselves. We also need to get employers involved in helping to make a poor man successful. The abundant savings from the failed welfare system can be used as tax credits for those organizations who are successful in turning a poor man who benefits more from not working, into a self sufficient man, who can give back to the community and who has pride in home ownership.
A win/win situation for everybody, except those of course who think big government can do a better job with your money.
The abundant savings from the failed welfare system can be used as tax credits for those organizations...
Oh there's an idea. Let's take money from those who already have practically nothing and give it to corporations instead. Then we can have a media campaign to tout the success of the token few that manage to turn their lives around while we conveniently forget the rest who have been pushed to the edge of desperation and beyond. Of course somehow they will be branded as having done it to themselves and thus they are deserving of their fate under the loving mantra of "personal responsibility".
Then we can have a media campaign to tout the success of the token few that manage to turn their lives around while we conveniently forget the rest who have been pushed to the edge of desperation and beyond.
Most people that have those kind of problems let themselves be pushed to the edge of desperation and beyond.
Most people that have those kind of problems let themselves be pushed to the edge of desperation and beyond.
Just as I said. You'd try to brand them as having done it to themselves. That's the convenient guilt-free image you'd like to present. The lazy bum who would just as soon sit around doing nothing all day collecting money from the government than go out and get a job. But do you think that's really what the majority of people on welfare are like? Many on welfare are actually single mothers. The ones who chose NOT to abort their children. Many of those are very young and never got the chance to go to college and get a high-paying job. And to have any job at all, they would need to pay for daycare, the costs of which would suck up most of their earnings from a low-paying job anyway, thus leaving them with even less than they would have to live on with welfare. But you don't care do you? As long as you've managed to enforce the punishment on her for having had sex, and made her bear the child, you couldn't care less what happens to that child afterwards as long as it doesn't affect your life. What a load of hypocrisy!
AUG. 22 marks the five-year anniversary of welfare reform – "ending welfare as we know it." The new policy has been touted as a success by politicians and the media. Welfare caseloads are at a historic low; thousands of former welfare recipients are in the workforce. But we can't forget the real face of welfare: women, mothers, workers, survivors, and most important, children. Women and their children represent the vast majority of people on welfare.
To really understand the impact of welfare reform, we can't simply count the numbers; we must look at the quality of life of people on welfare. Have we reduced poverty at the same rate as we have our caseloads? Are the food lines shorter at St. Anthony? Are our families better off after welfare reform? The answer is no.
Mothers on welfare often have to make tough decisions about whether to pay for housing, utilities, child care, or food. Since welfare "reform" was enacted, emergency food assistance programs have seen a 76 percent increase in requests. While welfare caseloads have been cut by an average of 50 percent, there has been only a 2 percent decrease in poverty. (Keep in mind that these numbers are from the economic "boom" years.) Women are being forced into low-wage service-sector jobs with few benefits and less job security. In general, women make 75¢ for every white man's dollar. African American women make only 65¢, and Latinas make only 55¢.
Women of color face greater discrimination. Studies show that women of color are being diverted from the welfare rolls and forced off welfare at much higher rates than white women. Research also shows that white recipients receive more encouragement, support, and direct assistance – child care, education, and training – than women of color. They are also leaving the rolls at a higher rate, because they've found employment.
Welfare in California mandates the "work first" model: recipients are supposed to get a job, any job. For many women, those are dead-end jobs. Welfare reform limits vocational training, and bachelor's degrees are not an option for women on welfare. These draconian restrictions contradict the supposed goals of the legislation. Higher education has proved to be the number-one determinant in income earning ability. Numerous studies shows that two-thirds of women who leave welfare as a result of education will not return to the rolls. More important, their children will not need assistance during their adult lives.
Women are the primary caregivers in our society. However, poor women's role as caregiver is undermined and dismissed by current welfare legislation. Mothers are being forced into the workforce even if they have to resort to unsafe and tenuous child care. Many are victims of domestic violence and are trying to overcome other barriers to prepare themselves not just to get a job but to get a job with a living wage – and to keep that job.
Welfare legislation must be reauthorized by Oct. 1, 2002. So Congress has a real opportunity to eliminate poverty and increase the standard of living for poor families. Congress must stop welfare time limits for women working in low-wage jobs, for women in an education or training program, and for women caring for their young children or overcoming domestic violence. Congress must boldly address racism and sexism, discrimination that is destroying the potential of an entire class. This capitalist society must invest in human capital, if we are to survive.
(Martina Gillis is the director of the Coalition for Ethical Welfare Reform and a former welfare recipient)
Do you know why many are single mothers? Because the pay is too good when you are a single mother collecting welfare compared to the cost of babysitting and working a real job for sub standard wages.
How about if we address the problem of why they have practically nothing.
Have you ever been to a welfare office? Take a look at the clothes and hair of some of the mothers? Their clothes and hair have more money invested in them than the children have food or clothes on their backs. And then there is the sale of food stamps for drugs, etc.
And I was referring more to charity organizations and churches and all the little companies who help out those in need rather than big corporations (but they do their share in the community as well).
Do you find the answers to your life ONLY in the U.S. Constitution, Dan?
We are talking about government, taxes and the laws of the land, not my personal life. With that in mind, I say that the constitution should come into play.
Do you only want the constitution to count when it supports your side?
It is the will of most people to make sure that everyone in the U.S. that is hungry, be fed.
Do you know why many are single mothers? Because the pay is too good when you are a single mother collecting welfare compared to the cost of babysitting and working a real job for sub standard wages.
So are you agreeing or are you arguing that single mothers actually should be spending all their money on babysitters and work for substandard wages? Or maybe that they should have sought out an abortion instead of allowing themselves to get into this position in the first place?
Have you ever been to a welfare office? Take a look at the clothes and hair of some of the mothers? Their clothes and hair have more money invested in them than the children have food or clothes on their backs. And then there is the sale of food stamps for drugs, etc.
Ah yes, the myth of the awful greedy single mother who is really secretly rich and just scamming the government for money. Why should we give them government money when they can run these scams on private charities even better?
But is it really impossible to think that maybe the clothes they wear were gifts given to them, or even that they possibly made them themselves? Is it not possible that many of the women on welfare come from the same neighborhoods and maybe even know each other, and spend time doing each other's hair? Are you actually saying that for someone to collect welfare, they must first be stripped of all human dignity and be forced to look the part of a poor miserable wretch? Do you have no faith in government procedures to determine the income of people applying for welfare? You're asserting that it should instead be based on their appearance?
As for selling food stamps for drugs, that's a regrettable situation, but one that will likely not last long. I hardly think it merits scrapping the entire social net just because a few people have found a way to abuse it. But any excuse will do, won't it?
FIVE MEDIA MYTHS OF WELFARE
1. Poor women have more children because of the "financial incentives" of welfare benefits.
Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women's choice to have children. (See, for example, Urban Institute Policy and Research Report, Fall/93.) States providing relatively higher benefits do not show higher birth rates among recipients. In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of "incentive": A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) benefits if she has another child.
Furthermore, the real value of AFDC benefits, which do not rise with inflation, has fallen 37 percent during the last two decades (The Nation, 12/12/94). Birth rates among poor women have not dropped correspondingly.
The average family receiving AFDC has 1.9 children -- about the same as the national average.
. We don't subsidize middle-class families.
Much of the welfare debate has centered around the idea of "family caps"--denying additional benefits to women who have children while receiving aid. This is often presented as simple justice: "A family that works does not get a raise for having a child. Why then should a family that doesn't work?" columnist Ellen Goodman wrote in the Boston Globe (4/16/92).
In fact, of course, families do receive a premium for additional children, in the form of a $2,450 tax deduction. There are also tax credits to partially cover child care expenses, up to a maximum of $2,400 per child. No pundit has suggested that middle-class families base their decision to have children on these "perks."
3. The public is fed up with spending money on the poor.
"The suspicion that poorer people are getting something for nothing is much harder to bear than the visible good fortune of the richer," wrote columnist Mary McGrory (Washington Post, 1/15/95). But contrary to such claims from media pundits, the general public is not so hard-hearted. In a December 1994 poll by the Center for the Study of Policy Attitudes (CSPA), 80 percent of respondents agreed that the government has "a responsibility to try to do away with poverty." (Fighting Poverty in America: A Study of American Attitudes, CSPA) Support for "welfare" is lower than support for "assistance to the poor," but when CSPA asked people about their support for AFDC, described as "the federal welfare program which provides financial support for unemployed poor single mothers with children," only 21 percent said funding should be cut, while 29 percent said it should be increased.
4. We've spent over $5 trillion on welfare since the '60s and it hasn't worked.
Conservatives and liberals alike use this claim as proof that federal poverty programs don't work, since after all that "lavish" spending, people are still poor. But spending on AFDC, the program normally referred to as welfare, totaled less than $500 billion from 1964 to 1994--less than 1.5 percent of federal outlays for that period, and about what the Pentagon spends in two years.
To get the $5 trillion figure, "welfare spending" must be defined to include all means-tested programs, including Medicaid, food stamps, student lunches, scholarship aid and many other programs. Medicaid, which is by far the largest component of the $5 trillion, goes mostly to the elderly and disabled; only about 16 percent of Medicaid spending goes to health care for AFDC recipients. ("What Do We Spend on 'Welfare'?," Center for Budget and Policy Priorities)
Furthermore, the poverty rate did fall between 1964 and 1973, from 19 percent to 11 percent, with the advent of "Great Society" programs. Since the 1970s, economic forces like declining real wages as well as reduced benefit levels have contributed to rising poverty rates.
5. Anyone who wants to get off welfare can just get a job.
Many welfare recipients do work to supplement meager benefits (Harper's, 4/94). But workforce discrimination and the lack of affordable child care make working outside the home difficult for single mothers. And the low-wage, no-benefit jobs available to most AFDC recipients simply do not pay enough to lift a family out of poverty.
Although it is almost never mentioned in conjunction with the welfare debate, the U.S. Federal Reserve has an official policy of raising interest rates whenever unemployment falls below a certain point--now about 6.2 percent (Extra!, 9-10/94). In other words, if all the unemployed women on welfare were to find jobs, currently employed people would have to be thrown out of work to keep the economy from "overheating."
Alright kids, buckle up. This one is going to be a rough ride.
But spending on AFDC, the program normally referred to as welfare, totaled less than $500 billion from 1964 to 1994--less than 1.5 percent of federal outlays for that period...
1 and a half percent. We spent 8 times more than that last year just on interest on the national debt. Where's the outrage about that? Now last year I believe I paid about $3,000 in federal income tax roughly. So how much of that went to welfare? $45. I made around $29,000 last year and $45 went to welfare. Is this breaking me? Hardly. On the contrary it seems like a rather small amount considering that it supplies a livlihood to the people that are in need of it most. If you're not willing to spend that little money to care for your fellow citizen, then indeed you are truly heartless.
But it's not really about the money, is it?
Now let's take a look at the notion of "pro-life". Dennis goes to a bit of an extreme to point out that "pro-lifers" aren't really completely consistent in believing life is all important. But let's not go so far as to say one must actually be a vegetarian and refrain from swatting mosquitos to claim to value human life. Still. I dare to ask the question, is it really the life that matters?
If one is really "pro-life", then shouldn't the life of the child after it's born be just as important as it's life before it's born? Yet the same people who want the government to ban abortion are also the same people arguing that the government is wasting their money trying to ensure the welfare of the child as it grows up. Why did the child suddenly become unimportant just because it was born?
The "pro-life" groups talk about a mother's responsibility to bear the child she has conceived. Yet how can one take such a claim seriously from a group that otherwise disavows any sense of responsibility towards their fellow human beings once they are born? "Personal Responsibility" is their mantra. Or in other words, "It's not my problem".
Jethro decries abortion as "buthering humans", yet feels no sympathy for a woman who ends up butchered in an attempt to get an unsafe abortion. Is she not human too?
The semantics of what it means to be human aside, what is the real underlying theme here? It's that the "pro-life" groups put a far greater effort into trying to prevent abortions than they do trying to prevent any of the other things that represent threats to life. Are there billboards all over urging people to fight heart disease? Do these same pro-life people picket corporations and post names and addresses of employees of tabacco companies? Do they even know half as many facts about what kills already born children as they know about abortion? The answer is no, they don't.
So why the out-of-balance emphasis on abortion? If you're really "pro-life" and you care about protecting all the innocent children, then ought you not to be concerned about much more than just abortion?
So it's not really about the sanctity of life then, is it?
If it's not about money, and it's not about life, then what is all this about?
It's about sex. It's about the same thing that underlies so much else in our society and all societies before us. It's about those who are sexually repressed trying to enforce their will upon everyone else. What really spurs people on to fight abortion is that it just chafes them to think that a woman had sex and got away with it. Not even that she got away with it, but that she's evading her "punishment". If a woman gets pregnant when she didn't want to be, then she must have had sex when she wasn't supposed to, and thus she should be made to pay the consequences.
Oh, but it's ok if she got pregnant due to rape or incest. Because then it wasn't really her fault that she had sex. And suddenly somehow that makes the life of the fetus less important.
And then once the woman does have the child, she should continue to be punished by being made to either give up the child to someone "better" than her, or be made to raise the child without any help from society. It was her fault she got pregnant, she chose to have sex, so she should be the one to pay, not me. Isn't that right? Who cares about the welfare of the child at that point? All that matters is that she be made to pay for the crime of having had sex for fun and serve as an example to warn others who are thinking of doing the same.
Any rational person that was genuinely against abortions would never argue to make it illegal. Making it illegal doesn't stop it, it just makes it harder on the women who feel they really need one. But you don't care about that. Whether she's forced to have the child or seek a dangerous abortion that does her harm is irrelevant. Either way she's been punished and the method was her choice, as Jethro and others have so kindly pointed out.
But if you really truly gave a damn about life, you'd care about both the mother and child. Your goal would be to eliminate abortions, not just make it illegal. Eliminating them is a much more complex process that involves sex education, contraceptives, and the like with the goal being to eliminate unwanted pregnancies in the first place. But the sexually repressed can't allow that. Women could still possibly be having sex for fun. Abstinence must be the only answer they say, and those who choose otherwise not only deserve their fate, but we plan on seeing to it that they don't duck out of it. Thus we don't need to waste time making sex safe. We need only make sure those who participate wantonly get their just desserts.
So I challenge any "pro-lifers" here to end their crusade to subjugate women and instead focus on the real issue. We don't need to send our society backwards by punishing those who want abortions. We need to move it forward by eliminating the need for abortion to begin with. Only then will abortion truly come to an end.
If one is really "pro-life", then shouldn't the life of the child after it's born be just as important as it's life before it's born? Yet the same people who want the government to ban abortion are also the same people arguing that the government is wasting their money trying to ensure the welfare of the child as it grows up.
Left wing lies and misinformation.
Jethro decries abortion as "buthering humans", yet feels no sympathy for a woman who ends up butchered in an attempt to get an unsafe abortion. Is she not human too?
That was her CHOICE! She could have avoided it.
The semantics of what it means to be human aside, what is the real underlying theme here? It's that the "pro-life" groups put a far greater effort into trying to prevent abortions than they do trying to prevent any of the other things that represent threats to life. Are there billboards all over urging people to fight heart disease? Do these same pro-life people picket corporations and post names and addresses of employees of tabacco companies? Do they even know half as many facts about what kills already born children as they know about abortion? The answer is no, they don't.
More lies and misinformation.
So I challenge any "pro-lifers" here to end their crusade to subjugate women and instead focus on the real issue. We don't need to send our society backwards by punishing those who want abortions. We need to move it forward by eliminating the need for abortion to begin with. Only then will abortion truly come to an end.
What you proabortion immoral nutcases need to do is stop your campaign of lies and misinformation.
Read earlier in the thread Jethro. I'm talking about the people on this board. The ones who are arguing against abortion are the same ones who are arguing against welfare. The evidence for my statement is plainly evident. There are no lies or misinformation there.
That was her CHOICE! She could have avoided it.
Again, you illustrate my point. You show no sympathy whatsoever for her as a human being. All you care about is that she suffer the consequences of her choice. So why should I believe that your stance against abortion has anything to do with a genuine concern for the human race?
More lies and misinformation.
Easy to throw that label out, but the evidence to the contrary is everywhere you look. The "pro-life" movement concerns itself with almost nothing aside from abortion.
What you proabortion immoral nutcases need to do is stop your campaign of lies and misinformation.
It's nice to see you put so much thought into presenting your counterpoints. And judging from the paragraph of mine you quoted, I guess that means you disagree with me that the more important thing is to find a solution to eliminate the root cause of abortions. So I guess I'm right that all you really care about is making it illegal.
It was the first warm day this Spring, with no customary, icy wind off Lake Superior. Robin songs and a blue-sky dawn persuaded me to leave for work early, taking a long, walking route, eventually passing through old environs I'd lived in for several years, back in the '80s.
It was initially a gratifying stroll, as I made my way through silent streets in the better part of town -- our local Pleasantville, still mostly asleep.
But, as I cleared the viaduct over the railroad tracks, turning left into the familiar surroundings of a low-income area that had been among our city's poorest neighborhoods even when my family lived there during the Reagan recession, I was taken aback by how sharply things had deteriorated...in a period of supposed, subsequent prosperity.
The Clinton Boom had obviously never touched this enclave of mixed-race but overwhelmingly poor white individuals and families, and the current recession (plainly not finished here!) had made matters soul-numbingly worse.
I passed my former, rented, wood-frame house, now in an astonishing state of disrepair. It, and the backyard's dilapidated, canted shed that barely qualified as a garage, were unsightly masses of chipped, peeling, rust-colored paint -- which had come from cans pilfered by "shipkeepers" who worked, during the winter months, to maintain the Great Lakes ore and grain boats that laid up in our harbor during the off season. The paint was the same stuff that covered the vessels' huge hulls. It was heavily lead-based, having been applied before liberal environmental laws dictated safety changes. My daughter was born and raised in that home, and I've often wondered if her hearing impairment could be attributable to prolonged lead exposure.
The home next door, once lovingly maintained by its prior owner who'd long since moved, was also in abject decay, jarring in its grim juxtaposition to memory's pretty picture.
And so it was block after block.
Broken windows, trash everywhere, including a baby stroller missing its rear wheels, abandoned in an overgrown "yard" near an apartment building with beat-up kids' bikes on its porch. I saw a supermarket shopping cart, used by someone with no other way to bring groceries home, standing where it had been hastily left.
Every other parked vehicle was a junker, faded and laden with rust, and often having body parts of mismatched color. For whatever reason, big Pontiacs seemed to predominate.
While conservatives incessantly point to such community degradation as evidence of a supposed irresponsibility and carelessness among low-income residents, it's obvious that wholesale decay stems chiefly from inadequate income. Repairs cost money, as does something as fundamental as properly disposing of refuse.
When I lived there, I was unemployed for a long while. In 1982, with the Republicans having given private business a green light to vamp on working folk via the precedent set by Reagan busting the PATCO strike, the country's toiling majority was in dire straits. The cruelly calculated wealth-shift that Reaganomics represented had severely impacted towns throughout the Upper Midwest, and elsewhere.
To keep myself active, and to try to give neighborhood kids some sense of constructive purpose, I organized a litter-cleaning campaign between one Memorial Day and Labor Day, rewarding the child who did the best job of keeping the immediate streets clean, with an insignificant monetary prize, five dollars as I recall. We also tried to give some structured activity at the local playground, with modest success.
Now, in addition to pervasive litter, that playground has acquired a reputation for gang-related violence.
For working-class youth, the best our labor market can provide is telemarketing employment that pays roughly $9.00 an hour. Retail jobs pay less. There's precious little else, unless one has connections to get on the boats or the railroad.
Possibilities for higher education leading to ultimate, better employment are often prohibitive from either a direct cost standpoint, or due to such Everest-like secondary obstacles as a lack of affordable day care. A recently released national study reveals that college-level education -- like so much else constituting pivotal upward mobility -- is falling increasingly out of poor people's reach.
Low wages, much idle time, and our dubious reputation as the area's primary watering hole(fostered by a main-street bevy of bars and clubs) have combined to trap a certain segment of each year's high school graduating class -- along with a steadily growing number of kids who don't graduate -- in an American Bad Dream, fraught with worsening hardship and dysfunction.
A similar circumstance prevails for Caucasian workingclass youth across the country, forgetting for purposes of this article the even worse situation endured by young Americans of color.
Walking through the battered streets of my former home turf, in the complete quiet of an otherwise beautiful morning, was eerie, unnerving, deeply troubling.
Our nation has the widest and most rapidly expanding income disparity in the developed world, hurtful in its present reality and ominous in long-term implication.
Will Pleasantville continue to sleep, oblivious to the disruptive awakening that will certainly one day occur on the "wrong" side of the tracks, if economic justice manifested in such things as living wage ordinances and union-scale jobs continue to be intolerably deferred?
The deceptive quiet, interspersed only by songbird chirping, can't possibly last much longer...
THX and jethro will do anything to keep from having to think for themselves. They must stick to their black and white world since anything gray would require them to actually think - rather than merely spout dogma, curse others, and call them inflammatory names. That they are shaming and dishonoring their mothers in the process bothers them not a bit.
I am not at all surprised that none of the pro-lifers has stepped up and acknowledged how the world they have helped to create has led to abortions being preferred by some women. Banning abortions while cutting back on support for existing persons is just what jethro and THX would prefer. Builds character. Yeah. Right. Being poor to the point of eating rats leads to a lot of character.
Now Paula saying, you did say this didn't you, that God existed before Christians - that could be the basis for an interesting metaphysical debate. Does any god exist before there are worshippers who believe in that existence? More to the point, does your belief give you the right to control my life? To make it easier for you, does my belief give me the right to control your life?
I will respect your belief so long as you respect mine. IF you truly respect life, as you say you do, then you will also refrain from calling those who belief differently from you bastards and murderers. I would bet that you are incapable of such restraint but it would be far too easy a win.
Kit, you're sure trying to pin a lot of stuff on me...........
THX and jethro will do anything to keep from having to think for themselves. They must stick to their black and white world since anything gray would require them to actually think - rather than merely spout dogma, curse others, and call them inflammatory names. That they are shaming and dishonoring their mothers in the process bothers them not a bit.
I do think for myself, I just don't agree with you.
Besides, you're ignorant regarding me so you aren't even qualified to make such a comment.
Also, where have I cursed anyone? Where have I called anyone inflammatory names?
How am I shaming and dishonoring my mother? My mother didn't have an abortion.
I am not at all surprised that none of the pro-lifers has stepped up and acknowledged how the world they have helped to create has led to abortions being preferred by some women. Banning abortions while cutting back on support for existing persons is just what jethro and THX would prefer. Builds character. Yeah. Right. Being poor to the point of eating rats leads to a lot of character.
How did I create an environment where abortion is preferred by some women?
Where did I ever say that we should cut back on support for anything?
btw: I know poor. I've lived the life, although I've never eaten a rat. Once again, you're ignorant regarding me.
The government HAS some responsibilities to it's people, it's citizens, and Charity is something that good-government sets an example with that the rest of us can then follow, IF it is a Good government. Does this mean that I support never-ending "Welfare"? NO. Common sense dictates that that form of support was a BIG mistake for many families and indeed, many peoples(Native Americans, who still continue to recieve payments, uninterrupted and which in fact have risen?), and so for the Dan's and Jethro's of these boards, who would try to make it look like I am implying that we should all open our wallets to the bums that make a living out of stealing money from the system, sorry...that would be wrong.
I can agree with your above paragraph if you are inferring that welfare continues to need reforms.
I think it should be ok for the government to give some assistance to programs geared toward helping those get off welfare whether they are religious based or not. And that is my point.
Thank God for the generosity of Catholics and their committment to helping Social Injustice in the world. And thank you Bill for your charity work and service to others.
So are you agreeing or are you arguing that single mothers actually should be spending all their money on babysitters and work for substandard wages? Or maybe that they should have sought out an abortion instead of allowing themselves to get into this position in the first place?
I am stating that there are more welfare advantages to staying single and being on welfare than their are to risking getting married to your live in boyfriend.
I think all businesses should have child care services for small children so that mothers or fathers can work and care for their child in the most effective and beneficial way for the child, mother, and employer. There are statistics which show the time off for sick leave is much less when mothers have their children close by. They can spend time interacting on lunch break, etc.
If America could work towards this goal, I think it would be good for our society as a whole.
But is it really impossible to think that maybe the clothes they wear were gifts given to them, or even that they possibly made them themselves? Is it not possible that many of the women on welfare come from the same neighborhoods and maybe even know each other, and spend time doing each other's hair? Are you actually saying that for someone to collect welfare, they must first be stripped of all human dignity and be forced to look the part of a poor miserable wretch? Do you have no faith in government procedures to determine the income of people applying for welfare? You're asserting that it should instead be based on their appearance?
Yes, the possibilities above do exist for many. But there are still too many getting over on the system and not using the money to tend to the childs needs.
The welfare system has been a failure for too many. It needs to be changed.
If you own a house and your husband leaves you with the children and household to support, home ownership goes against you when it comes to the welfare system so you cannot accept welfare and family donations to help make the mortgage payments and feed the children until you get back on your feet.
Lack of affordable child care in this country is a situation that needs changing to help mothers become successful in living wage jobs so they can one day own their own home and live the American dream.
Also, getting remarried should not go against you in the short time you are on welfare in the new and improved welfare system.
I dare to ask the question, is it really the life that matters?
Yes. Life from conception to natural death.
That is why I financially support causes that help children.
I also support banning smoking in all public places. People with asthma and allergies (and growing children with developing lungs) should have the right to smoke free air.
Ripping a child to shreads is not a solution to any problem.
Paula saying, you did say this didn't you, that God existed before Christians - that could be the basis for an interesting metaphysical debate. Does any god exist before there are worshippers who believe in that existence?
I agree, could be an interesting debate.
Yes God is the Alpha and the Omega who has always existed.
More to the point, does your belief give you the right to control my life? To make it easier for you, does my belief give me the right to control your life?
My belief gives me the ability to vote for laws which serve the greatest good of all.
This is what is going on in our community. How does it compare with yours?
"The thing that distresses me is that over the 30-plus years that I've watched this, the statistics for Alachua County have not changed. The individual poverty level has remained at 23 to 24 percent, although the population has probably tripled," Brown said.
Paula - it was the US government that gave you the right to vote not your religion. and Jethro, you have called me everything inflammatory under the sun - and now you are weaseling - if the shoe fits - what a load of absolute rubbish! And you continue with the 'lies and misinformation' tune which is nonsense as well. You are very very bad at reviewing your posts and thus are easily caught when you contradict yourself.
Now then, Bill Fold. If you have ever referred to any woman with a child out of wedlock as a whore, slut etc etc - you are contributing to a world that puts pressure on women to have abortions. It is the Scarlet Letter all over again - and, amazingly, you cannot see it.
And most of those who are pro-life are not only anti welfare, but are also anti sex ed and anti contraception - an interesting combination to say the least.
Kit, you have decided that you support the butchering and dismemebering of unborn children on a whim. If you are going to support such atrocities you should expect to be condemned
I support women choosing for themselves. I have stated this very clearly. I deplore abortions and regret that this final out should be necessary. But I know that the world is not some lovely fairytale place where bad things happen only to those who are evil. Since you, jethro, cannot plumb the depths of a human heart - why do you feel you are qualified to judge? Seems you have forgotten mercy. You also spout on about personal responsibility without recognizing that she is taking on the most devastating personal responsibility imaginable. Of, course this won't make a bit of difference to you since you live such a cut and dried, black and white, life where all you have to do is put your brain and heart in a box, close the lid and go down the checklist.
not referring to if you ever said it here. Have you EVER said it? Try seeing it from her point of view. With that kind of attitude around, well, I cannot blame her for chickening out. It is regretful but some are not as strong as one might wish.
Let us then consider WAR. Now, I find war repugnant but I also can admit that in this imperfect world, war may be necessary. Now, in war, we are not killing abstract things but People. I am a trained killer of other people. These other people, may or may not be volunteers, may or may not be actually attempting to take my life at the time; doesn't matter, I will kill them as ordered no matter hwere or when or why. After all of that, what do you think your disgust means to me? Death penalty, war, abortion - tis all the same - death.
Would I prefer a world without war, death penalties and abortions? Of course. But that world does not exist. And to permit the others while denying abortions is to be schizophrenic, irrational and maudlin. The Commandment was NOT a conditional statement. If you support war, and the death penalty you are just a guilty and damned as those who support abortion. Dead is dead. Killing is killing.
Any other points you want to make, jethro?
Fold, 'you dig women, you respect women' BUT you cannot respect them enough to permit THEM to make such a decision?
Would I prefer a world without war, death penalties and abortions? Of course. But that world does not exist. And to permit the others while denying abortions is to be schizophrenic, irrational and maudlin. The Commandment was NOT a conditional statement. If you support war, and the death penalty you are just a guilty and damned as those who support abortion. Dead is dead. Killing is killing.
You are apparently to stupid to see any differences. Or you just can't face your immorality so you intentionally obscure those differences.
Ok, so far I think everyone is in agreement. I don't think anyone here is really in favor of promoting abortion. The main question is specifically whether simply making it illegal is a viable solution. I don't believe so and neither do several others here. It may reduce the number of abortions some, bit it does so at a significant cost to the women of our society. It makes criminals out of women simply because they aren't ready to bear the enormous responsibility of parenthood. It's an extremely incompassionate way of dealing with people who are facing some of the most serious challenges of their lives. I for one don't want to encourage the creation of a society where we answer pleas for help with "Too bad, it's your own fault, deal with it or go to prison."
The situation reminds me a bit of nuclear weapons. Very few people like the fact that we have them around and anyone who really does like them we'd probably look at just as oddly as the person who thinks abortions are really cool. Yet, as much as we'd like to get rid of them, we just can't at this point in time. The way the world is right now, we need to have them to maintain our way of life. If we really wanted to get rid of them, it wouldn't be enough for the U.N. to simply pass a resolution forbidding them. We'd feel the need to keep them anyway. The only way we could get rid of them is to change the world and eliminate the underlying cause, which would be to end war altogether. Likewise with abortion, passing a law against it won't eliminate the need for it and they will still happen. If we really want to do away with abortion, we need to eliminate the underlying cause, unwanted pregnancies.
So I don't have a problem with someone being against abortion as I believe very few people are actually in favor of abortion as a concept. But whether or not it should be made illegal is another question altogther. I say if you really want to reduce abortions, the pro-life movement would be much better off spending it's resources on sex education, counseling, distributing birth control and the like, rather than trying to change the law into something that's really only meant to punish people, not fix the problem.
The main question is specifically whether simply making it illegal is a viable solution. It will reduce the number. How much I don't know.I don't believe so and neither do several others here. It may reduce the number of abortions some, bit it does so at a significant cost to the women of our society. No there is no "cost" to women.It makes criminals out of women simply because they aren't ready to bear the enormous responsibility of parenthood. No it would make them a criminal if they attempted or obtained an abortion. That is what I call choice.It's an extremely incompassionate way of dealing with people who are facing some of the most serious challenges of their lives. It is incompassionate to kill the unborn child.I for one don't want to encourage the creation of a society where we answer pleas for help with "Too bad, it's your own fault, deal with it or go to prison." They have options before pregnancy and after.
So I don't have a problem with someone being against abortion as I believe very few people are actually in favor of abortion as a concept. But whether or not it should be made illegal is another question altogther. I say if you really want to reduce abortions, the pro-life movement would be much better off spending it's resources on sex education, counseling, distributing birth control and the like, rather than trying to change the law into something that's really only meant to punish people, not fix the problem. There is more than enough spending on sex education, counseling, distributing birth control and the like. It has done little to no good.
(ATTENTION EDITORS: Please note that this God Squad column on the Pledge of Allegiance controversy is in TEXT FORM rather than Q&A.)
Since Sept. 11, we've been living with the specter of religious fanaticism. So it's grimly refreshing that two judges from the 9th Circuit on the Left Coast have now offered us a glimpse of secular fanaticism. Unless you've been living in a potato sack, you know the court ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance (because it includes the words "under God") violates the first Amendment provision against the establishment of a national religion. That is not true.
What is true is that the ruling violates both common sense and the foundations of our country's deepest political and religious identity. The outrage over this secular fanaticism has been nearly universal. Voting 99-0, the U.S. Senate approved a resolution calling for the ruling to be overturned. The House of Representatives adopted its own resolution (416-3) condemning this ridiculous and foolish misconstrual of what the First Amendment says and what this nation stands for.
Our contribution is not just to further pile on besieged judges Alfred Goodwin and Stephen Reinhardt but to explain why we think their ruling was wrong.
Most critics of the ruling point out that it elevates the rights and gripes of atheists above the rights of the vast majority of Americans who have no problem with the Pledge. This may be true but it's not the fundamental spiritual and political problem behind the ruling.
Many times, the minority is right and the majority is wrong. The majority of Americans supported slavery -- and they were wrong. The majority of Germans voted for Hitler -- and they were wrong. Until 1920, the majority of Americans believed women should not vote -- and they were wrong. The issue is not the rights of the majority; the issue is what is right. And what is right is that unless the phrase "under God" is included in the Pledge, the most important truth about America's self understanding is lost.
We Americans believe our rights come from God -- not from the state. Jefferson made that point in the Declaration of Independence when he affirmed that "all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Our rights come from God. The state only acts as the political instrument to affirm and protect those God-given rights. This is the genius of America's notion of rights.
If God is not the source and guarantor of our rights, then our rights would have to come from the state, and what the state gives, the state can take away. What God gives, no state can take away. In fact, the famous phrase in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self evident," was not the one Jefferson initially penned. His original words (changed by others) were, "We hold these truths to be sacred," which makes sense leading up to, "endowed by their Creator."
It is not at all self evident that we are endowed with rights by our Creator. That is a religious belief. It is, by the way, not merely a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim belief. It's the unified belief of all the Abrahamic faiths and, with some theological nuances, also the belief of Hindus and Sikhs, most Buddhists and nearly every native religion.
There must be some power higher than the state, or there's no way to critique the state. By believing that God is the source of our human dignity and human rights, our founders, and each of us who say the Pledge with attention, affirm something mysterious and wonderful, inspiring and powerful.
We affirm that the only reason for a state to exist is to preserve the rights given by God, and when any state violates these sacred rights, it must be changed and the people who've been denied what God has given must have their rights restored and they must be lifted up.
Without God, politics is idolatry. With God, politics is just a way to a truth that's both within us and also beyond us. It is a truth that not only ennobles us but judges us. The idolatry of the state is the reason those two judges were wrong. Without God -- not without the Christian God, the Jewish God, or the Muslim God -- but without God, America just doesn't make sense. The prophet Isaiah said all this with a power and eloquence that reaches our souls. Our prayer is that some day soon his words might reach all the way to San Francisco:
"All nations before Him are as nothing and they are counted to Him less than nothing and vanity. It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers. It is He that bringeth the princes to nothing; He maketh the judges of the earth as vanity. Hast thou not known? Hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is he weary?
"There is no searching of His understanding. He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might he increaseth strength. Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall: But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not be weary; and they shall walk and not faint." (Isaiah 40: 17, 22, 23, 28-31)
XXXXX
Concerned about a religious, ethical or moral issue? Need advice on workplace worries, spiritual battles, life and death, family and friends? Post QUESTIONS ONLY on the God Squad Web site, www.askthegodsquad.com; send them via e-mail to godsquad@telecaretv.org; or mail letters to The God Squad, Telecare, 1200 Glenn Curtiss Blvd., Uniondale, N.Y., 11553.
That's a nice little speech but it still seems to me that any law which would require an American who was an athiest, to pledge to a belief in God, would be clearly unconstitutional as the Constitution clearly grants freedom of religion.
Even if the majority of Americans are right in this case, that shouldn't entitle them to be able to force the rest of the country to comply with their desires. It wouldn't make any more sense than requiring a KKK member to make statements about the equality of all races. Sure, most of us may believe that the KKK is wrong, but if we don't grant them the freedom to think and speak as they wish, then how long before the loss of those rights come back to haunt us?
Bush Still Clueless on Welfare Reform: NOW Condemns Backward Family Values
July 2, 2002
"George W. Bush spent the early part of this week on a 'family values tour,' touting his backward- looking proposals to marry-off poor women and pour federal money into religious programs," said National Organization for Women (NOW) President Kim Gandy. "All this lip service to 'family values' is little more than a transparent attempt to mold domestic policy to suit the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. These impoverished proposals skew public policy to the detriment of poor women, poor families and poor children across the country."
"Bush told supporters in Cleveland that 'we've got to teach people the values of marriage and family,'" Gandy said. "The people of this country expect more from their government than a married-or-invisible vision of women's place in society."
"The purpose of welfare is to help the poorest people move out of poverty and into self- sufficiency. To make 'finding a man' the Administration-approved ticket out of poverty is not just an insulting throwback, it's terrible public policy," Gandy said. "The $1 billion marriage promotion scheme touted by the Administration, passed by the House and currently pending in the Senate's welfare reform bill is thinly disguised social engineering."
"The Administration's my-way-or-the-highway approach to helping poor moms and kids won't help those who need help the most. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the way to end the vicious cycle of poverty and punishment is to make sure that education, child care, health care, transportation and decent housing are available to all struggling families," Gandy said. "Instead, Bush's welfare proposals siphon off funds to pay for the Dick Cheney Dating Game while perversely mandating stiffer work requirements without the supports necessary to hold down a good job."
"It's time to get serious about welfare," Gandy said. "Poor women and their children need and deserve fair legislation that will yield results. Until we guarantee education and essential work supports not a single dime should be diverted from those critical needs."
Everyone concedes that abortion isn't a pretty thing, and all rational and caring souls would like to see its prevalence reduced, if not eliminated. But banning it, as conservatives insist, would dictatorially deny women who need that option...the free exercise of their private, reproductive rights. And since abortion wouldn't go away, we'd simply go back to the bad, old, bloody days before Roe v.Wade.
What would it really take, then, to lessen abortion's societal occurrence?
1.) Greatly expanded sex education combined with a much readier availablity of inexpensive yet effective contraceptives.
2.) A basic change in male, sexist thinking that women and girls exist for no other purpose than as outlets for guys' libidinous yearning.
3.) Conquering poverty, achieving full female liberation, winning pay equity within the framework of a universal living wage, and establishing comprehensive social supports that would remove the unequivocal impossibility of bringing children into this world, under so many women's desperate personal circumstances.
Does our system, with its domination by reactionary, patriarchial assumptions on the one hand, and Playboy/MTV-inspired hormonal excess on the other, have a realistic capacity for achieving any of the aformentioned requisites?
Nope.
So abortion will continue, due to our flawed order's obvious inability to do away with its underlying, causal factors.
Does anyone remember George Bush's very first act as President?
Doing the bidding of reactionary anti-abortion interests, he announced an intention to ban U.S. foreign aid monies to international anti-poverty and relief agencies that also engage in family planning/reproductive choice activities -- even if such involvement was funded entirely by the groups themselves.
That would have deprived key programs around the world that serve as frontline defenses against spreading impoverishment...of pivotal monetary resources.
The obvious result would have been many more people dying around the globe, including countless already-born children.
The negative pressures this would have generated would also have led to greater female desperation, actually making abortions more prevalent than would have been the case without a ban -- but lacking proper medical assistance and accompanying, safe professionalism -- as aid agencies would have had to strictly budget their limited funds.
This was a classic case of how rightwing ideological rigidity -- totally divorced from common people's objective needs -- would have made matters far worse for those excluded from consideration as only narrow fetus-fetishism was deemed important.
Bush's absurdity sparked an outraged backlash among feminist and other progressive groups, at home and abroad, and eventually the U.S. House of Representatives International Affairs Committee, by a bipartisan vote, acted to reject the ban.
Thanks to the fightback led by pro-choice forces and their principled allies, an untold number of lives were saved.
Dennis,
Please show me in the constitution where these people have a right to my money (being taken at gun point and threat of jail time if neccessary).
Paula, having worked for the largest charity organization on the planet, I can tell you that there is NO way that charities can fund even HALF of the necessary aid programs that our government, both national and local, do now.
That depends on what you call necessary.
But of course that is the point for conservatives, banning all such charities and then blaming the non-profit and religious do-gooders for the failue to feed all of our children, even the poorest of the poor, without question, as Jesus himself did with the loaves and fishes, eh?
Bullshit, fold.
It is the will of most people to make sure that everyone in the U.S. that is hungry, be fed. Within the mandate of the separation of Church and State, how do you propose to get this done?
Crap. A myth set forth for the purpose of increasing government.
The rule of law is a scary thing. At least if you are a Senate Democrat seeking to block judicial nominees such as Miguel Estrada, who has been waiting for more than a year for a hearing. Verboten are nominees who believe judges should not make policy. And who do not favor abortion. Earlier this year Senate Judiciary Committee member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) declared: "I don't want to see Roe vs. Wade overturned." Although she claimed that her position didn't represent a "litmus test," there's no better example of one.
check this one out
http://www.secondlookproject.org/
Statistics (check out Fetal Development also)
Women who have had abortions cite the following reasons: 1
  21% can't afford a baby
21% are unready for responsibility
16% concerned about how having a baby could change their lives
12% have problems with relationship or want to avoid single parenthood
11% are not mature enough/are too young to have children
 8% have all the children they want/have all grown-up children
 3% possible fetal health problem
 3% maternal health problem
 1% pregnancy resulted from rape or incest
 1% husband/partner wants them to have abortion
 1% don't want others to know they had sex or are pregnant
Abortions occur at the following gestational times: 2
  18% in the first 6 weeks - 239,000 annually
37% in the seventh or eighth week - 492,100 annually
33% in the ninth through twelfth week - 438,900 annually
11% in the thirteen to twentieth weeks - 146,300 annually
 1% at twenty-one or more weeks - 13,300 annually
Current abortion rates
There are 1.33 million abortions in the U.S. each year. 3
  47% of women now seeking abortion have had at least one previous abortion. 4
  The U.S. abortion rate is among the highest of developed countries. 5
  The U.S. abortion rate per 100 pregnancies is 25.9. 6
Notes
1. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, "U.S. Women Who Obtain Abortions: Who and Why?" Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 4, (July/August 1988).
2. The Alan Guttmacher Institute (1997), www.agi-usa.org.
3. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, "Induced Abortion" Facts in Brief (1997).
4. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, "Induced Abortion" Facts in Brief (2000).
5. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, "Abortion in Context: United States and Worldwide" Issues in Brief, 1999 No. 1 (1999).
6. The Alan Guttmacher Institute (1999), http://www.agi-usa.org.
Our hard earned tax dollars should not go towards abortions, a medically unnecessary operation, just as they should not and do not go towards liposuction which is another medically unnecessary operation for an obese person.
Dennis Rahkonen 6/24/02 3:50pm- fetish fetishism
fetishism-the pathological displacement of erotic interest and satisfaction to a fetish.
Since the abortion providers are the ones actually contacting the fetus, they must be the ones with the fetish.
'Bill - Fold' 6/25/02 5:17am
Which charity is that Bill? What do it's top executives take home for an annual salary?
As our fine President recognized, religious and other by law non-profit organizations, who depend on volunteers and donations have been doing a very good job at helping the needy. I would challenge that religious based programs could outdo the no accountability welfare system that is p!ssing away our hard earned tax dollars.
Yes, we are very caring in that way. But furthermore, the majority of tax paying citizens would like to see the poor and hungry to become self sufficient. Having the freedom, dignity, and self respect that self sufficiency instills does more for a person than dependence. In addition being part of the solution is a much better place to be than being part of the problem.
Taking every factor into account, and realizing welfare has been a crippling force in our great nation, we need to assist the successful established programs of charity, religious based included, in helping others to help themselves. We also need to get employers involved in helping to make a poor man successful. The abundant savings from the failed welfare system can be used as tax credits for those organizations who are successful in turning a poor man who benefits more from not working, into a self sufficient man, who can give back to the community and who has pride in home ownership.
A win/win situation for everybody, except those of course who think big government can do a better job with your money.
Dan Zachary 6/25/02 4:53am
Excellent point!
jethro bodine 6/25/02 7:20am
Thanks for your post. The article makes a good point.
The abundant savings from the failed welfare system can be used as tax credits for those organizations...
Oh there's an idea. Let's take money from those who already have practically nothing and give it to corporations instead. Then we can have a media campaign to tout the success of the token few that manage to turn their lives around while we conveniently forget the rest who have been pushed to the edge of desperation and beyond. Of course somehow they will be branded as having done it to themselves and thus they are deserving of their fate under the loving mantra of "personal responsibility".
Then we can have a media campaign to tout the success of the token few that manage to turn their lives around while we conveniently forget the rest who have been pushed to the edge of desperation and beyond.
Most people that have those kind of problems let themselves be pushed to the edge of desperation and beyond.
Most people that have those kind of problems let themselves be pushed to the edge of desperation and beyond.
Just as I said. You'd try to brand them as having done it to themselves. That's the convenient guilt-free image you'd like to present. The lazy bum who would just as soon sit around doing nothing all day collecting money from the government than go out and get a job. But do you think that's really what the majority of people on welfare are like? Many on welfare are actually single mothers. The ones who chose NOT to abort their children. Many of those are very young and never got the chance to go to college and get a high-paying job. And to have any job at all, they would need to pay for daycare, the costs of which would suck up most of their earnings from a low-paying job anyway, thus leaving them with even less than they would have to live on with welfare. But you don't care do you? As long as you've managed to enforce the punishment on her for having had sex, and made her bear the child, you couldn't care less what happens to that child afterwards as long as it doesn't affect your life. What a load of hypocrisy!
WELFARE REFORM'S FAILURE
By Martina Gillis (San Francisco Bay Guardian)
AUG. 22 marks the five-year anniversary of welfare reform – "ending welfare as we know it." The new policy has been touted as a success by politicians and the media. Welfare caseloads are at a historic low; thousands of former welfare recipients are in the workforce. But we can't forget the real face of welfare: women, mothers, workers, survivors, and most important, children. Women and their children represent the vast majority of people on welfare.
To really understand the impact of welfare reform, we can't simply count the numbers; we must look at the quality of life of people on welfare. Have we reduced poverty at the same rate as we have our caseloads? Are the food lines shorter at St. Anthony? Are our families better off after welfare reform? The answer is no.
Mothers on welfare often have to make tough decisions about whether to pay for housing, utilities, child care, or food. Since welfare "reform" was enacted, emergency food assistance programs have seen a 76 percent increase in requests. While welfare caseloads have been cut by an average of 50 percent, there has been only a 2 percent decrease in poverty. (Keep in mind that these numbers are from the economic "boom" years.) Women are being forced into low-wage service-sector jobs with few benefits and less job security. In general, women make 75¢ for every white man's dollar. African American women make only 65¢, and Latinas make only 55¢.
Women of color face greater discrimination. Studies show that women of color are being diverted from the welfare rolls and forced off welfare at much higher rates than white women. Research also shows that white recipients receive more encouragement, support, and direct assistance – child care, education, and training – than women of color. They are also leaving the rolls at a higher rate, because they've found employment.
Welfare in California mandates the "work first" model: recipients are supposed to get a job, any job. For many women, those are dead-end jobs. Welfare reform limits vocational training, and bachelor's degrees are not an option for women on welfare. These draconian restrictions contradict the supposed goals of the legislation. Higher education has proved to be the number-one determinant in income earning ability. Numerous studies shows that two-thirds of women who leave welfare as a result of education will not return to the rolls. More important, their children will not need assistance during their adult lives.
Women are the primary caregivers in our society. However, poor women's role as caregiver is undermined and dismissed by current welfare legislation. Mothers are being forced into the workforce even if they have to resort to unsafe and tenuous child care. Many are victims of domestic violence and are trying to overcome other barriers to prepare themselves not just to get a job but to get a job with a living wage – and to keep that job.
Welfare legislation must be reauthorized by Oct. 1, 2002. So Congress has a real opportunity to eliminate poverty and increase the standard of living for poor families. Congress must stop welfare time limits for women working in low-wage jobs, for women in an education or training program, and for women caring for their young children or overcoming domestic violence. Congress must boldly address racism and sexism, discrimination that is destroying the potential of an entire class. This capitalist society must invest in human capital, if we are to survive.
(Martina Gillis is the director of the Coalition for Ethical Welfare Reform and a former welfare recipient)
Allison Wonderland 6/25/02 12:15pm
Do you know why many are single mothers? Because the pay is too good when you are a single mother collecting welfare compared to the cost of babysitting and working a real job for sub standard wages.
How about if we address the problem of why they have practically nothing.
Have you ever been to a welfare office? Take a look at the clothes and hair of some of the mothers? Their clothes and hair have more money invested in them than the children have food or clothes on their backs. And then there is the sale of food stamps for drugs, etc.
And I was referring more to charity organizations and churches and all the little companies who help out those in need rather than big corporations (but they do their share in the community as well).
Do you find the answers to your life ONLY in the U.S. Constitution, Dan?
We are talking about government, taxes and the laws of the land, not my personal life. With that in mind, I say that the constitution should come into play.
Do you only want the constitution to count when it supports your side?
It is the will of most people to make sure that everyone in the U.S. that is hungry, be fed.
Do we really want mob rule here in the U.S.?
Do you know why many are single mothers? Because the pay is too good when you are a single mother collecting welfare compared to the cost of babysitting and working a real job for sub standard wages.
So are you agreeing or are you arguing that single mothers actually should be spending all their money on babysitters and work for substandard wages? Or maybe that they should have sought out an abortion instead of allowing themselves to get into this position in the first place?
Have you ever been to a welfare office? Take a look at the clothes and hair of some of the mothers? Their clothes and hair have more money invested in them than the children have food or clothes on their backs. And then there is the sale of food stamps for drugs, etc.
Ah yes, the myth of the awful greedy single mother who is really secretly rich and just scamming the government for money. Why should we give them government money when they can run these scams on private charities even better?
But is it really impossible to think that maybe the clothes they wear were gifts given to them, or even that they possibly made them themselves? Is it not possible that many of the women on welfare come from the same neighborhoods and maybe even know each other, and spend time doing each other's hair? Are you actually saying that for someone to collect welfare, they must first be stripped of all human dignity and be forced to look the part of a poor miserable wretch? Do you have no faith in government procedures to determine the income of people applying for welfare? You're asserting that it should instead be based on their appearance?
As for selling food stamps for drugs, that's a regrettable situation, but one that will likely not last long. I hardly think it merits scrapping the entire social net just because a few people have found a way to abuse it. But any excuse will do, won't it?
FIVE MEDIA MYTHS OF WELFARE
1. Poor women have more children because of the "financial incentives" of welfare benefits.
Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women's choice to have children. (See, for example, Urban Institute Policy and Research Report, Fall/93.) States providing relatively higher benefits do not show higher birth rates among recipients.
In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of "incentive": A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) benefits if she has another child.
Furthermore, the real value of AFDC benefits, which do not rise with inflation, has fallen 37 percent during the last two decades (The Nation, 12/12/94). Birth rates among poor women have not dropped correspondingly.
The average family receiving AFDC has 1.9 children -- about the same as the national average.
. We don't subsidize middle-class families.
Much of the welfare debate has centered around the idea of "family caps"--denying additional benefits to women who have children while receiving aid. This is often presented as simple justice: "A family that works does not get a raise for having a child. Why then should a family that doesn't work?" columnist Ellen Goodman wrote in the Boston Globe (4/16/92).
In fact, of course, families do receive a premium for additional children, in the form of a $2,450 tax deduction. There are also tax credits to partially cover child care expenses, up to a maximum of $2,400 per child. No pundit has suggested that middle-class families base their decision to have children on these "perks."
3. The public is fed up with spending money on the poor.
"The suspicion that poorer people are getting something for nothing is much harder to bear than the visible good fortune of the richer," wrote columnist Mary McGrory (Washington Post, 1/15/95). But contrary to such claims from media pundits, the general public is not so hard-hearted. In a December 1994 poll by the Center for the Study of Policy Attitudes (CSPA), 80 percent of respondents agreed that the government has "a responsibility to try to do away with poverty." (Fighting Poverty in America: A Study of American Attitudes, CSPA)
Support for "welfare" is lower than support for "assistance to the poor," but when CSPA asked people about their support for AFDC, described as "the federal welfare program which provides financial support for unemployed poor single mothers with children," only 21 percent said funding should be cut, while 29 percent said it should be increased.
4. We've spent over $5 trillion on welfare since the '60s and it hasn't worked.
Conservatives and liberals alike use this claim as proof that federal poverty programs don't work, since after all that "lavish" spending, people are still poor. But spending on AFDC, the program normally referred to as welfare, totaled less than $500 billion from 1964 to 1994--less than 1.5 percent of federal outlays for that period, and about what the Pentagon spends in two years.
To get the $5 trillion figure, "welfare spending" must be defined to include all means-tested programs, including Medicaid, food stamps, student lunches, scholarship aid and many other programs. Medicaid, which is by far the largest component of the $5 trillion, goes mostly to the elderly and disabled; only about 16 percent of Medicaid spending goes to health care for AFDC recipients. ("What Do We Spend on 'Welfare'?," Center for Budget and Policy Priorities)
Furthermore, the poverty rate did fall between 1964 and 1973, from 19 percent to 11 percent, with the advent of "Great Society" programs. Since the 1970s, economic forces like declining real wages as well as reduced benefit levels have contributed to rising poverty rates.
5. Anyone who wants to get off welfare can just get a job.
Many welfare recipients do work to supplement meager benefits (Harper's, 4/94). But workforce discrimination and the lack of affordable child care make working outside the home difficult for single mothers. And the low-wage, no-benefit jobs available to most AFDC recipients simply do not pay enough to lift a family out of poverty.
Although it is almost never mentioned in conjunction with the welfare debate, the U.S. Federal Reserve has an official policy of raising interest rates whenever unemployment falls below a certain point--now about 6.2 percent (Extra!, 9-10/94). In other words, if all the unemployed women on welfare were to find jobs, currently employed people would have to be thrown out of work to keep the economy from "overheating."
Alright kids, buckle up. This one is going to be a rough ride.
But spending on AFDC, the program normally referred to as welfare, totaled less than $500 billion from 1964 to 1994--less than 1.5 percent of federal outlays for that period...
1 and a half percent. We spent 8 times more than that last year just on interest on the national debt. Where's the outrage about that? Now last year I believe I paid about $3,000 in federal income tax roughly. So how much of that went to welfare? $45. I made around $29,000 last year and $45 went to welfare. Is this breaking me? Hardly. On the contrary it seems like a rather small amount considering that it supplies a livlihood to the people that are in need of it most. If you're not willing to spend that little money to care for your fellow citizen, then indeed you are truly heartless.
But it's not really about the money, is it?
Now let's take a look at the notion of "pro-life". Dennis goes to a bit of an extreme to point out that "pro-lifers" aren't really completely consistent in believing life is all important. But let's not go so far as to say one must actually be a vegetarian and refrain from swatting mosquitos to claim to value human life. Still. I dare to ask the question, is it really the life that matters?
If one is really "pro-life", then shouldn't the life of the child after it's born be just as important as it's life before it's born? Yet the same people who want the government to ban abortion are also the same people arguing that the government is wasting their money trying to ensure the welfare of the child as it grows up. Why did the child suddenly become unimportant just because it was born?
The "pro-life" groups talk about a mother's responsibility to bear the child she has conceived. Yet how can one take such a claim seriously from a group that otherwise disavows any sense of responsibility towards their fellow human beings once they are born? "Personal Responsibility" is their mantra. Or in other words, "It's not my problem".
Jethro decries abortion as "buthering humans", yet feels no sympathy for a woman who ends up butchered in an attempt to get an unsafe abortion. Is she not human too?
The semantics of what it means to be human aside, what is the real underlying theme here? It's that the "pro-life" groups put a far greater effort into trying to prevent abortions than they do trying to prevent any of the other things that represent threats to life. Are there billboards all over urging people to fight heart disease? Do these same pro-life people picket corporations and post names and addresses of employees of tabacco companies? Do they even know half as many facts about what kills already born children as they know about abortion? The answer is no, they don't.
So why the out-of-balance emphasis on abortion? If you're really "pro-life" and you care about protecting all the innocent children, then ought you not to be concerned about much more than just abortion?
So it's not really about the sanctity of life then, is it?
If it's not about money, and it's not about life, then what is all this about?
It's about sex. It's about the same thing that underlies so much else in our society and all societies before us. It's about those who are sexually repressed trying to enforce their will upon everyone else. What really spurs people on to fight abortion is that it just chafes them to think that a woman had sex and got away with it. Not even that she got away with it, but that she's evading her "punishment". If a woman gets pregnant when she didn't want to be, then she must have had sex when she wasn't supposed to, and thus she should be made to pay the consequences.
Oh, but it's ok if she got pregnant due to rape or incest. Because then it wasn't really her fault that she had sex. And suddenly somehow that makes the life of the fetus less important.
And then once the woman does have the child, she should continue to be punished by being made to either give up the child to someone "better" than her, or be made to raise the child without any help from society. It was her fault she got pregnant, she chose to have sex, so she should be the one to pay, not me. Isn't that right? Who cares about the welfare of the child at that point? All that matters is that she be made to pay for the crime of having had sex for fun and serve as an example to warn others who are thinking of doing the same.
Any rational person that was genuinely against abortions would never argue to make it illegal. Making it illegal doesn't stop it, it just makes it harder on the women who feel they really need one. But you don't care about that. Whether she's forced to have the child or seek a dangerous abortion that does her harm is irrelevant. Either way she's been punished and the method was her choice, as Jethro and others have so kindly pointed out.
But if you really truly gave a damn about life, you'd care about both the mother and child. Your goal would be to eliminate abortions, not just make it illegal. Eliminating them is a much more complex process that involves sex education, contraceptives, and the like with the goal being to eliminate unwanted pregnancies in the first place. But the sexually repressed can't allow that. Women could still possibly be having sex for fun. Abstinence must be the only answer they say, and those who choose otherwise not only deserve their fate, but we plan on seeing to it that they don't duck out of it. Thus we don't need to waste time making sex safe. We need only make sure those who participate wantonly get their just desserts.
So I challenge any "pro-lifers" here to end their crusade to subjugate women and instead focus on the real issue. We don't need to send our society backwards by punishing those who want abortions. We need to move it forward by eliminating the need for abortion to begin with. Only then will abortion truly come to an end.
Allison,
Post 1123 was the best of your many excellent posts on this thread.
Thanks for the illuminating insights.
If one is really "pro-life", then shouldn't the life of the child after it's born be just as important as it's life before it's born? Yet the same people who want the government to ban abortion are also the same people arguing that the government is wasting their money trying to ensure the welfare of the child as it grows up.
Left wing lies and misinformation.
Jethro decries abortion as "buthering humans", yet feels no sympathy for a woman who ends up butchered in an attempt to get an unsafe abortion. Is she not human too?
That was her CHOICE! She could have avoided it.
The semantics of what it means to be human aside, what is the real underlying theme here? It's that the "pro-life" groups put a far greater effort into trying to prevent abortions than they do trying to prevent any of the other things that represent threats to life. Are there billboards all over urging people to fight heart disease? Do these same pro-life people picket corporations and post names and addresses of employees of tabacco companies? Do they even know half as many facts about what kills already born children as they know about abortion? The answer is no, they don't.
More lies and misinformation.
So I challenge any "pro-lifers" here to end their crusade to subjugate women and instead focus on the real issue. We don't need to send our society backwards by punishing those who want abortions. We need to move it forward by eliminating the need for abortion to begin with. Only then will abortion truly come to an end.
What you proabortion immoral nutcases need to do is stop your campaign of lies and misinformation.
Left wing lies and misinformation.
Read earlier in the thread Jethro. I'm talking about the people on this board. The ones who are arguing against abortion are the same ones who are arguing against welfare. The evidence for my statement is plainly evident. There are no lies or misinformation there.
That was her CHOICE! She could have avoided it.
Again, you illustrate my point. You show no sympathy whatsoever for her as a human being. All you care about is that she suffer the consequences of her choice. So why should I believe that your stance against abortion has anything to do with a genuine concern for the human race?
More lies and misinformation.
Easy to throw that label out, but the evidence to the contrary is everywhere you look. The "pro-life" movement concerns itself with almost nothing aside from abortion.
What you proabortion immoral nutcases need to do is stop your campaign of lies and misinformation.
It's nice to see you put so much thought into presenting your counterpoints. And judging from the paragraph of mine you quoted, I guess that means you disagree with me that the more important thing is to find a solution to eliminate the root cause of abortions. So I guess I'm right that all you really care about is making it illegal.
Nothing but LIESand MISINFORMATION.
I don't have the time to debate the immoral among us.
MEAN STREETS IN THE HEARTLAND
It was the first warm day this Spring, with no customary, icy wind off Lake Superior. Robin songs and a blue-sky dawn persuaded me to leave for work early, taking a long, walking route, eventually passing through old environs I'd lived in for several years, back in the '80s.
It was initially a gratifying stroll, as I made my way through silent streets in the better part of town -- our local Pleasantville, still mostly asleep.
But, as I cleared the viaduct over the railroad tracks, turning left into the familiar surroundings of a low-income area that had been among our city's poorest neighborhoods even when my family lived there during the Reagan recession, I was taken aback by how sharply things had deteriorated...in a period of supposed, subsequent prosperity.
The Clinton Boom had obviously never touched this enclave of mixed-race but overwhelmingly poor white individuals and families, and the current recession (plainly not finished here!) had made matters soul-numbingly worse.
I passed my former, rented, wood-frame house, now in an astonishing state of disrepair. It, and the backyard's dilapidated, canted shed that barely qualified as a garage, were unsightly masses of chipped, peeling, rust-colored paint -- which had come from cans pilfered by "shipkeepers" who worked, during the winter months, to maintain the Great Lakes ore and grain boats that laid up in our harbor during the off season. The paint was the same stuff that covered the vessels' huge hulls. It was heavily lead-based, having been applied before liberal environmental laws dictated safety changes. My daughter was born and raised in that home, and I've often wondered if her hearing impairment could be attributable to prolonged lead exposure.
The home next door, once lovingly maintained by its prior owner who'd long since moved, was also in abject decay, jarring in its grim juxtaposition to memory's pretty picture.
And so it was block after block.
Broken windows, trash everywhere, including a baby stroller missing its rear wheels, abandoned in an overgrown "yard" near an apartment building with beat-up kids' bikes on its porch. I saw a supermarket shopping cart, used by someone with no other way to bring groceries home, standing where it had been hastily left.
Every other parked vehicle was a junker, faded and laden with rust, and often having body parts of mismatched color. For whatever reason, big Pontiacs seemed to predominate.
While conservatives incessantly point to such community degradation as evidence of a supposed irresponsibility and carelessness among low-income residents, it's obvious that wholesale decay stems chiefly from inadequate income. Repairs cost money, as does something as fundamental as properly disposing of refuse.
When I lived there, I was unemployed for a long while. In 1982, with the Republicans having given private business a green light to vamp on working folk via the precedent set by Reagan busting the PATCO strike, the country's toiling majority was in dire straits. The cruelly calculated wealth-shift that Reaganomics represented had severely impacted towns throughout the Upper Midwest, and elsewhere.
MEAN STREETS, conclusion...
To keep myself active, and to try to give neighborhood kids some sense of constructive purpose, I organized a litter-cleaning campaign between one Memorial Day and Labor Day, rewarding the child who did the best job of keeping the immediate streets clean, with an insignificant monetary prize, five dollars as I recall. We also tried to give some structured activity at the local playground, with modest success.
Now, in addition to pervasive litter, that playground has acquired a reputation for gang-related violence.
For working-class youth, the best our labor market can provide is telemarketing employment that pays roughly $9.00 an hour. Retail jobs pay less. There's precious little else, unless one has connections to get on the boats or the railroad.
Possibilities for higher education leading to ultimate, better employment are often prohibitive from either a direct cost standpoint, or due to such Everest-like secondary obstacles as a lack of affordable day care. A recently released national study reveals that college-level education -- like so much else constituting pivotal upward mobility -- is falling increasingly out of poor people's reach.
Low wages, much idle time, and our dubious reputation as the area's primary watering hole(fostered by a main-street bevy of bars and clubs) have combined to trap a certain segment of each year's high school graduating class -- along with a steadily growing number of kids who don't graduate -- in an American Bad Dream, fraught with worsening hardship and dysfunction.
A similar circumstance prevails for Caucasian workingclass youth across the country, forgetting for purposes of this article the even worse situation endured by young Americans of color.
Walking through the battered streets of my former home turf, in the complete quiet of an otherwise beautiful morning, was eerie, unnerving, deeply troubling.
Our nation has the widest and most rapidly expanding income disparity in the developed world, hurtful in its present reality and ominous in long-term implication.
Will Pleasantville continue to sleep, oblivious to the disruptive awakening that will certainly one day occur on the "wrong" side of the tracks, if economic justice manifested in such things as living wage ordinances and union-scale jobs continue to be intolerably deferred?
The deceptive quiet, interspersed only by songbird chirping, can't possibly last much longer...
Dennis, where did you come from?
Murder is wrong.
I don't care what excuses one tries to use, and I don't care how much one tries to deflect the issue away from the person who is responsible.
THX and jethro will do anything to keep from having to think for themselves. They must stick to their black and white world since anything gray would require them to actually think - rather than merely spout dogma, curse others, and call them inflammatory names.
That they are shaming and dishonoring their mothers in the process bothers them not a bit.
I am not at all surprised that none of the pro-lifers has stepped up and acknowledged how the world they have helped to create has led to abortions being preferred by some women. Banning abortions while cutting back on support for existing persons is just what jethro and THX would prefer. Builds character. Yeah. Right. Being poor to the point of eating rats leads to a lot of character.
Now Paula saying, you did say this didn't you, that God existed before Christians - that could be the basis for an interesting metaphysical debate. Does any god exist before there are worshippers who believe in that existence? More to the point, does your belief give you the right to control my life? To make it easier for you, does my belief give me the right to control your life?
I will respect your belief so long as you respect mine. IF you truly respect life, as you say you do, then you will also refrain from calling those who belief differently from you bastards and murderers.
I would bet that you are incapable of such restraint but it would be far too easy a win.
Kit, you're sure trying to pin a lot of stuff on me...........
THX and jethro will do anything to keep from having to think for themselves. They must stick to their black and white world since anything gray would require them to actually think - rather than merely spout dogma, curse others, and call them inflammatory names. That they are shaming and dishonoring their mothers in the process bothers them not a bit.
I do think for myself, I just don't agree with you.
Besides, you're ignorant regarding me so you aren't even qualified to make such a comment.
Also, where have I cursed anyone? Where have I called anyone inflammatory names?
How am I shaming and dishonoring my mother? My mother didn't have an abortion.
I am not at all surprised that none of the pro-lifers has stepped up and acknowledged how the world they have helped to create has led to abortions being preferred by some women. Banning abortions while cutting back on support for existing persons is just what jethro and THX would prefer. Builds character. Yeah. Right. Being poor to the point of eating rats leads to a lot of character.
How did I create an environment where abortion is preferred by some women?
Where did I ever say that we should cut back on support for anything?
btw: I know poor. I've lived the life, although I've never eaten a rat. Once again, you're ignorant regarding me.
You offer nothing but lies and misinformation, fold. The trouble is you don't know what you write are lies and misinformation
No one is advocating controlling your life, dimwit.
'Bill - Fold' 6/26/02 3:45am
I can agree with your above paragraph if you are inferring that welfare continues to need reforms.
I think it should be ok for the government to give some assistance to programs geared toward helping those get off welfare whether they are religious based or not. And that is my point.
Thank God for the generosity of Catholics and their committment to helping Social Injustice in the world. And thank you Bill for your charity work and service to others.
Allison Wonderland 6/26/02 12:06am
I am stating that there are more welfare advantages to staying single and being on welfare than their are to risking getting married to your live in boyfriend.
I think all businesses should have child care services for small children so that mothers or fathers can work and care for their child in the most effective and beneficial way for the child, mother, and employer. There are statistics which show the time off for sick leave is much less when mothers have their children close by. They can spend time interacting on lunch break, etc.
If America could work towards this goal, I think it would be good for our society as a whole.
Yes, the possibilities above do exist for many. But there are still too many getting over on the system and not using the money to tend to the childs needs.
The welfare system has been a failure for too many. It needs to be changed.
If you own a house and your husband leaves you with the children and household to support, home ownership goes against you when it comes to the welfare system so you cannot accept welfare and family donations to help make the mortgage payments and feed the children until you get back on your feet.
Lack of affordable child care in this country is a situation that needs changing to help mothers become successful in living wage jobs so they can one day own their own home and live the American dream.
Also, getting remarried should not go against you in the short time you are on welfare in the new and improved welfare system.
Welfare needs more reform.
Allison Wonderland 6/26/02 1:10am
Yes. Life from conception to natural death.
That is why I financially support causes that help children.
I also support banning smoking in all public places. People with asthma and allergies (and growing children with developing lungs) should have the right to smoke free air.
Ripping a child to shreads is not a solution to any problem.
Kit Zupan 6/26/02 11:08pm
I agree, could be an interesting debate.
Yes God is the Alpha and the Omega who has always existed.
My belief gives me the ability to vote for laws which serve the greatest good of all.
I'm going away for the week.
I wish you all a great and enjoyable Fourth of July.
Take care all!
This is what is going on in our community. How does it compare with yours?
"The thing that distresses me is that over the 30-plus years that I've watched this, the statistics for Alachua County have not changed. The individual poverty level has remained at 23 to 24 percent, although the population has probably tripled," Brown said.
http://www.gainesvillesun.com/articles/2002-07-01a.shtml
Monday, July 1, 2002
Leaders explore ways to reduce poverty
By DIANE CHUN
"I'd rather have the knowledge to help myself than have someone give me $100 and let me go," he said.
"You know the old adage about teaching a person how to fish?" Harris asked. "We've put a lot of new fishermen out there."
See ya soon!
Paula - it was the US government that gave you the right to vote not your religion. and Jethro, you have called me everything inflammatory under the sun - and now you are weaseling - if the shoe fits - what a load of absolute rubbish! And you continue with the 'lies and misinformation' tune which is nonsense as well. You are very very bad at reviewing your posts and thus are easily caught when you contradict yourself.
Now then, Bill Fold. If you have ever referred to any woman with a child out of wedlock as a whore, slut etc etc - you are contributing to a world that puts pressure on women to have abortions. It is the Scarlet Letter all over again - and, amazingly, you cannot see it.
And most of those who are pro-life are not only anti welfare, but are also anti sex ed and anti contraception - an interesting combination to say the least.
Kit Zupan 6/26/02 11:08pm
THX 1138 6/27/02 6:44am
No response, Kit?
Kit, you have decided that you support the butchering and dismemebering of unborn children on a whim. If you are going to support such atrocities you should expect to be condemned
I support women choosing for themselves. I have stated this very clearly. I deplore abortions and regret that this final out should be necessary. But I know that the world is not some lovely fairytale place where bad things happen only to those who are evil. Since you, jethro, cannot plumb the depths of a human heart - why do you feel you are qualified to judge? Seems you have forgotten mercy. You also spout on about personal responsibility without recognizing that she is taking on the most devastating personal responsibility imaginable.
Of, course this won't make a bit of difference to you since you live such a cut and dried, black and white, life where all you have to do is put your brain and heart in a box, close the lid and go down the checklist.
not referring to if you ever said it here. Have you EVER said it?
Try seeing it from her point of view. With that kind of attitude around, well, I cannot blame her for chickening out. It is regretful but some are not as strong as one might wish.
It is a distinction without any reality
We drove the car
To the top of the parking ramp
4th of July
I planted my dusty boots on the bumper
Sat out on the hood
And looked up at the sky
--Ani Difranco
Let us then consider WAR. Now, I find war repugnant but I also can admit that in this imperfect world, war may be necessary. Now, in war, we are not killing abstract things but People. I am a trained killer of other people. These other people, may or may not be volunteers, may or may not be actually attempting to take my life at the time; doesn't matter, I will kill them as ordered no matter hwere or when or why. After all of that, what do you think your disgust means to me? Death penalty, war, abortion - tis all the same - death.
Would I prefer a world without war, death penalties and abortions? Of course. But that world does not exist. And to permit the others while denying abortions is to be schizophrenic, irrational and maudlin. The Commandment was NOT a conditional statement. If you support war, and the death penalty you are just a guilty and damned as those who support abortion. Dead is dead. Killing is killing.
Any other points you want to make, jethro?
Fold, 'you dig women, you respect women' BUT you cannot respect them enough to permit THEM to make such a decision?
Would I prefer a world without war, death penalties and abortions? Of course. But that world does not exist. And to permit the others while denying abortions is to be schizophrenic, irrational and maudlin. The Commandment was NOT a conditional statement. If you support war, and the death penalty you are just a guilty and damned as those who support abortion. Dead is dead. Killing is killing.
You are apparently to stupid to see any differences. Or you just can't face your immorality so you intentionally obscure those differences.
So jethro, what is your solution to ending abortion?
Abortions will never end completly. The number can only be reduced. That reduction, however, can be significant.
Ok, so far I think everyone is in agreement. I don't think anyone here is really in favor of promoting abortion. The main question is specifically whether simply making it illegal is a viable solution. I don't believe so and neither do several others here. It may reduce the number of abortions some, bit it does so at a significant cost to the women of our society. It makes criminals out of women simply because they aren't ready to bear the enormous responsibility of parenthood. It's an extremely incompassionate way of dealing with people who are facing some of the most serious challenges of their lives. I for one don't want to encourage the creation of a society where we answer pleas for help with "Too bad, it's your own fault, deal with it or go to prison."
The situation reminds me a bit of nuclear weapons. Very few people like the fact that we have them around and anyone who really does like them we'd probably look at just as oddly as the person who thinks abortions are really cool. Yet, as much as we'd like to get rid of them, we just can't at this point in time. The way the world is right now, we need to have them to maintain our way of life. If we really wanted to get rid of them, it wouldn't be enough for the U.N. to simply pass a resolution forbidding them. We'd feel the need to keep them anyway. The only way we could get rid of them is to change the world and eliminate the underlying cause, which would be to end war altogether. Likewise with abortion, passing a law against it won't eliminate the need for it and they will still happen. If we really want to do away with abortion, we need to eliminate the underlying cause, unwanted pregnancies.
So I don't have a problem with someone being against abortion as I believe very few people are actually in favor of abortion as a concept. But whether or not it should be made illegal is another question altogther. I say if you really want to reduce abortions, the pro-life movement would be much better off spending it's resources on sex education, counseling, distributing birth control and the like, rather than trying to change the law into something that's really only meant to punish people, not fix the problem.
The main question is specifically whether simply making it illegal is a viable solution. It will reduce the number. How much I don't know.I don't believe so and neither do several others here. It may reduce the number of abortions some, bit it does so at a significant cost to the women of our society. No there is no "cost" to women.It makes criminals out of women simply because they aren't ready to bear the enormous responsibility of parenthood. No it would make them a criminal if they attempted or obtained an abortion. That is what I call choice.It's an extremely incompassionate way of dealing with people who are facing some of the most serious challenges of their lives. It is incompassionate to kill the unborn child.I for one don't want to encourage the creation of a society where we answer pleas for help with "Too bad, it's your own fault, deal with it or go to prison." They have options before pregnancy and after.
So I don't have a problem with someone being against abortion as I believe very few people are actually in favor of abortion as a concept. But whether or not it should be made illegal is another question altogther. I say if you really want to reduce abortions, the pro-life movement would be much better off spending it's resources on sex education, counseling, distributing birth control and the like, rather than trying to change the law into something that's really only meant to punish people, not fix the problem. There is more than enough spending on sex education, counseling, distributing birth control and the like. It has done little to no good.
By Rabbi Marc Gellman and Monsignor Thomas Hartman
Tribune Media Services
http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?catid=1709&custid=67
(ATTENTION EDITORS: Please note that this God Squad column on the Pledge of Allegiance controversy is in TEXT FORM rather than Q&A.)
Since Sept. 11, we've been living with the specter of religious fanaticism. So it's grimly refreshing that two judges from the 9th Circuit on the Left Coast have now offered us a glimpse of secular fanaticism. Unless you've been living in a potato sack, you know the court ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance (because it includes the words "under God") violates the first Amendment provision against the establishment of a national religion. That is not true.
What is true is that the ruling violates both common sense and the foundations of our country's deepest political and religious identity. The outrage over this secular fanaticism has been nearly universal. Voting 99-0, the U.S. Senate approved a resolution calling for the ruling to be overturned. The House of Representatives adopted its own resolution (416-3) condemning this ridiculous and foolish misconstrual of what the First Amendment says and what this nation stands for.
Our contribution is not just to further pile on besieged judges Alfred Goodwin and Stephen Reinhardt but to explain why we think their ruling was wrong.
Most critics of the ruling point out that it elevates the rights and gripes of atheists above the rights of the vast majority of Americans who have no problem with the Pledge. This may be true but it's not the fundamental spiritual and political problem behind the ruling.
Many times, the minority is right and the majority is wrong. The majority of Americans supported slavery -- and they were wrong. The majority of Germans voted for Hitler -- and they were wrong. Until 1920, the majority of Americans believed women should not vote -- and they were wrong. The issue is not the rights of the majority; the issue is what is right. And what is right is that unless the phrase "under God" is included in the Pledge, the most important truth about America's self understanding is lost.
We Americans believe our rights come from God -- not from the state. Jefferson made that point in the Declaration of Independence when he affirmed that "all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Our rights come from God. The state only acts as the political instrument to affirm and protect those God-given rights. This is the genius of America's notion of rights.
If God is not the source and guarantor of our rights, then our rights would have to come from the state, and what the state gives, the state can take away. What God gives, no state can take away. In fact, the famous phrase in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self evident," was not the one Jefferson initially penned. His original words (changed by others) were, "We hold these truths to be sacred," which makes sense leading up to, "endowed by their Creator."
It is not at all self evident that we are endowed with rights by our Creator. That is a religious belief. It is, by the way, not merely a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim belief. It's the unified belief of all the Abrahamic faiths and, with some theological nuances, also the belief of Hindus and Sikhs, most Buddhists and nearly every native religion.
There must be some power higher than the state, or there's no way to critique the state. By believing that God is the source of our human dignity and human rights, our founders, and each of us who say the Pledge with attention, affirm something mysterious and wonderful, inspiring and powerful.
We affirm that the only reason for a state to exist is to preserve the rights given by God, and when any state violates these sacred rights, it must be changed and the people who've been denied what God has given must have their rights restored and they must be lifted up.
Without God, politics is idolatry. With God, politics is just a way to a truth that's both within us and also beyond us. It is a truth that not only ennobles us but judges us. The idolatry of the state is the reason those two judges were wrong. Without God -- not without the Christian God, the Jewish God, or the Muslim God -- but without God, America just doesn't make sense. The prophet Isaiah said all this with a power and eloquence that reaches our souls. Our prayer is that some day soon his words might reach all the way to San Francisco:
"All nations before Him are as nothing and they are counted to Him less than nothing and vanity. It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers. It is He that bringeth the princes to nothing; He maketh the judges of the earth as vanity. Hast thou not known? Hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is he weary?
"There is no searching of His understanding. He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might he increaseth strength. Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall: But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not be weary; and they shall walk and not faint." (Isaiah 40: 17, 22, 23, 28-31)
XXXXX
Concerned about a religious, ethical or moral issue? Need advice on workplace worries, spiritual battles, life and death, family and friends? Post QUESTIONS ONLY on the God Squad Web site, www.askthegodsquad.com; send them via e-mail to godsquad@telecaretv.org; or mail letters to The God Squad, Telecare, 1200 Glenn Curtiss Blvd., Uniondale, N.Y., 11553.
That's a nice little speech but it still seems to me that any law which would require an American who was an athiest, to pledge to a belief in God, would be clearly unconstitutional as the Constitution clearly grants freedom of religion.
Even if the majority of Americans are right in this case, that shouldn't entitle them to be able to force the rest of the country to comply with their desires. It wouldn't make any more sense than requiring a KKK member to make statements about the equality of all races. Sure, most of us may believe that the KKK is wrong, but if we don't grant them the freedom to think and speak as they wish, then how long before the loss of those rights come back to haunt us?
Sometimes freedom has a high price.
Bush Still Clueless on Welfare Reform: NOW Condemns Backward Family Values
July 2, 2002
"George W. Bush spent the early part of this week on a 'family values tour,' touting his backward- looking proposals to marry-off poor women and pour federal money into religious programs," said National Organization for Women (NOW) President Kim Gandy. "All this lip service to 'family values' is little more than a transparent attempt to mold domestic policy to suit the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. These impoverished proposals skew public policy to the detriment of poor women, poor families and poor children across the country."
"Bush told supporters in Cleveland that 'we've got to teach people the values of marriage and family,'" Gandy said. "The people of this country expect more from their government than a married-or-invisible vision of women's place in society."
"The purpose of welfare is to help the poorest people move out of poverty and into self- sufficiency. To make 'finding a man' the Administration-approved ticket out of poverty is not just an insulting throwback, it's terrible public policy," Gandy said. "The $1 billion marriage promotion scheme touted by the Administration, passed by the House and currently pending in the Senate's welfare reform bill is thinly disguised social engineering."
"The Administration's my-way-or-the-highway approach to helping poor moms and kids won't help those who need help the most. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the way to end the vicious cycle of poverty and punishment is to make sure that education, child care, health care, transportation and decent housing are available to all struggling families," Gandy said. "Instead, Bush's welfare proposals siphon off funds to pay for the Dick Cheney Dating Game while perversely mandating stiffer work requirements without the supports necessary to hold down a good job."
"It's time to get serious about welfare," Gandy said. "Poor women and their children need and deserve fair legislation that will yield results. Until we guarantee education and essential work supports not a single dime should be diverted from those critical needs."
Everyone concedes that abortion isn't a pretty thing, and all rational and caring souls would like to see its prevalence reduced, if not eliminated. But banning it, as conservatives insist, would dictatorially deny women who need that option...the free exercise of their private, reproductive rights. And since abortion wouldn't go away, we'd simply go back to the bad, old, bloody days before Roe v.Wade.
What would it really take, then, to lessen abortion's societal occurrence?
1.) Greatly expanded sex education combined with a much readier availablity of inexpensive yet effective contraceptives.
2.) A basic change in male, sexist thinking that women and girls exist for no other purpose than as outlets for guys' libidinous yearning.
3.) Conquering poverty, achieving full female liberation, winning pay equity within the framework of a universal living wage, and establishing comprehensive social supports that would remove the unequivocal impossibility of bringing children into this world, under so many women's desperate personal circumstances.
Does our system, with its domination by reactionary, patriarchial assumptions on the one hand, and Playboy/MTV-inspired hormonal excess on the other, have a realistic capacity for achieving any of the aformentioned requisites?
Nope.
So abortion will continue, due to our flawed order's obvious inability to do away with its underlying, causal factors.