Food Inc.? Gotta link?
peace & Love On Jul 5, 12:10 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > "Ironically, as we move toward socialism, they will become > more dependent and poorer than ever. " dj > How so? Seems not to be the case. > And, our hunger is staggering...based on the current 3 food groups of > sweets, oil and salt. Check out the current malnutrition of those in > the states. Also, the fact that 1 in 3 born today will quickly acquire > diabetes. Food Inc. teaches a lot. > > On Jul 5, 2:34 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > You are correct Vam. Our poor, and by that I mean those in North > > America(I think a family of four making less then 24,000/yr) aren't > > really poor by international standards. I was talking about the poor > > I know. Ironically, as we move toward socialism, they will become > > more dependent and poorer then ever. The pot bellied, malnourished > > kids from other countries I've little empathy with because, as you > > say, I can't fathom their circumstances. I understand India has a > > serious problem with this. Despite all the complaining from Chomski > > types, we really don't have much of a problem like that here in the > > States. Hunger exists, of course, but not near as much here as in > > other places. We're a fat country in more ways then one. > > > dj > > > On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Vamadevananda<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > " I understand the hardships of poor people." > > > > You do, Don, if you say so. But our understanding of the poor, of > > > poverty as existential phenomena played out in the human mind, > > > definitely takes us back to the purest in Marx' thought : that, it > > > qualifies, shapes and determines, the human mind, in ways and manner > > > that one who is not ( poor ) will find very very difficult, if not > > > impossible, to understand and appreciate. > > > > Such understanding usually causes us to lose our propensity to judge > > > the ( poor ) others, for one, and to pronounce a lot empathetically on > > > Government welfare programmes targeted at the poor in our society, for > > > another. > > > > On Jul 5, 5:16 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> I tend to be flippant at times. I wasn't, of course, referring to any > > >> specific persons in my 'loser parents' remarks. I understand the > > >> hardships of poor people. Much of my family is from rural Alabama and > > >> are 'poor.' Nobody is starving over there. These are country people > > >> and they work hard. They grow their own food, they go to church and > > >> help the old, the sick and the helpless. Salt of the earth. When I > > >> visit, I eat like a king; I love southern cooking. Because of this > > >> self-dependence, the matriarch(my mother's sister) has never been on > > >> welfare. The same can't be said for some of her grandchildren but > > >> when they visit(a lot) they always have plenty of food. It's the > > >> basic responsibility of the parent. Feed and cloth the kids. If > > >> someone isn't taking care of this then they can't handle the > > >> responsibility and CPS(or the > > >> grandparents/sister/brother/friend/neighbor) must take charge. I > > >> suppose one can refer to this as 'destroying the family' but I think > > >> what's best for the kids is more important. > > > >> Sickness can ruin the bank account. I get it. I feel compassion for > > >> them. They did what they had to do. When the money is gone there are > > >> services available to help them. It takes work and research and > > >> networking but help can be found. It will be harder now due to the > > >> recession but it can be done. Tenacity has it's rewards and there's > > >> nothing like a sick kid to galvanize normally apathetic people into > > >> lending a hand. This is why there is so much fraud involved in the > > >> health care industry. This is also why it is so hard to get help; you > > >> must convince people you're not scamming them. The burden of proof > > >> lies with you and it's difficult sometimes. People will say they're > > >> sorry and say no. You can't accept 'no.' You keep chugging away > > >> until they give you what you need or steer you to someone who can. > > > >> The problem with socialized medicine is the overall quality will > > >> suffer. It will also be harder to get help from benefactors(wealthy > > >> people) because it's their tax money being confiscated to pay for it. > > >> They'll look at you and your problems and feel compassion but send you > > >> off to use your 'free' health care. > > > >> Everything is hunky-dory until somebody gets sick. It's sad how many > > >> people actually think it's someone else's responsibility to take care > > >> of them or their kids when this happens. Asking or begging for > > >> help(when it involves your kids, dignity goes out the window) is one > > >> thing. Demanding and expecting is another. It's contemptible. We > > >> must get away from this notion that the world owes you a living and > > >> get people to take responsibility for themselves and their families. > > >> More welfare or 'free lunches' are not the answer. > > > >> dj > > > >> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 10:43 AM, iam deheretic<[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > Don I know the logic is faulty, the problem is it is more true than I > > >> > would > > >> > like to amit,, to quote mey sister who is staunchly anti abortion.. > > >> > "I can > > >> > only support one issue at a time." > > >> > Personally I am for the womans right to chose and I will support her no > > >> > matter what her choice is. > > > >> > As for no good loser parents go, I do know parents that have sold > > >> > everything > > >> > they had to take care of family, and we are talking in excess of > > >> > $2,500,000.oo paying medical bills, ending up getting assistance to > > >> > keep the > > >> > family alive... talk about loser parents ,, they lost everything. > > >> > I think it is called greed. > > >> > Allan > > > >> > On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> >> There is faulty logic here. You are assuming that if one opposes > > >> >> abortion then one also opposes feeding starving children. These are > > >> >> not mutually exclusive ideals. Far from it in fact. What I see > > >> >> happening is some conservatives believe people should take > > >> >> responsibility for their children. Wither that is in the womb or at > > >> >> home making sure they get enough to eat. If the kids are coming to > > >> >> school starving then CPS takes them away from their no good piece of > > >> >> garbage useless parents. The kids get fed and get out from under > > >> >> their loser parents. Everybody wins. > > > >> >> It would be like me saying since you(example here, keep pantyhose on) > > >> >> favor abortion then you must want to murder all hungry children. See, > > >> >> makes no since whatsoever. > > > >> >> For the record, I think women should be in control of their own > > >> >> bodies. I also think they should do it without tax payer money. So > > >> >> I'm pro-choice, anti-enable. Lunch at my kids school is a buck 75. > > >> >> If their parents can't afford that on their welfare checks something > > >> >> is very, very hinky and CPS should be involved. > > > >> >> dj > > > >> >> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 2:16 AM, iam deheretic<[email protected]> > > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> > Those that are anti abortion and don't rant on about the starving > > >> >> > children. > > >> >> > that is very easy to explain. abortion they can rant about and it > > >> >> > cost > > >> >> > them > > >> >> > very little, maybe a small donation and a little time, now starving > > >> >> > children on the other hand takes a major commitment and to do it > > >> >> > would > > >> >> > require a major out lay of cash. as well as a major outlay of > > >> >> > time.. so > > >> >> > the > > >> >> > out lay of money and time are the major factors in the choice of > > >> >> > what to > > >> >> > support. > > >> >> > Allan > > > >> >> > On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 8:50 PM, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> > > >> >> > wrote: > > > >> >> >> Lee - an interesting thread; thanks for initiating it. > > >> >> >> Many have tried to understand why there is evil in this world, > > >> >> >> How can it be reconciled with an all powerful, all good God. In all > > >> >> >> cases known to me the reasoning looks at the question from afar, > > >> >> >> much > > >> >> >> as another god might look at it. The answer usually begins by > > >> >> >> setting > > >> >> >> up a continuum such as murder to injury to no harm, and labels one > > >> >> >> end > > >> >> >> of the continuum evil. It then struggles with reconciling the > > >> >> >> continuum, or at least an end of it, with an omniscient God. > > >> >> >> What I proposed as a definition of evil proceeds from within, > > >> >> >> from the effect the evil has on those involved with it. Thus, I > > >> >> >> proposed that an evil act is one that drives us together, one that > > >> >> >> makes us desperate for the comfort of other human beings. Doing > > >> >> >> this I > > >> >> >> believe presents a fair description of the effect of evil, while at > > >> >> >> the same time revealing the reason for evil - to make us desperate > > >> >> >> for > > >> >> >> the comfort of others. Of course I don't think that to be bad - I > > >> >> >> didn't label the evil and good definitions I proposed as either > > >> >> >> yeilding good or bad results. (But I do think that in the sense I > > >> >> >> propose evil has a good effect and the result of good as I define > > >> >> >> it > > >> >> >> is bad - which of course is contra to what most of the others in > > >> >> >> this > > >> >> >> thread seem to think.) > > >> >> >> Again, how's that for strange? Jim > > > >> >> >> On Jul 1, 2:41 am, "[email protected]" > > >> >> >> <[email protected]> > > >> >> >> wrote: > > >> >> >> > That's the point Jim. In all of the examples you listed it is > > >> >> >> > pretty > > >> >> >> > much understood by the majority that these acts are considered > > >> >> >> > not > > >> >> >> > good. Yes of course such acts do come under normal human > > >> >> >> > behavoiur > > >> >> >> > but only in so much as normal humans have commited such acs. > > >> >> >> > However > > >> >> >> > if > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
