DHFabian's Comments (69)

“The US has been engaged in war more often than not since WWll. The only chance we have of rebuilding the US, adopting those policies so successfully implemented in the more advanced nations, is to end our serial wars.”

“I think what the WSJ is pointing out is that, for the first time in our history, the leading progressive spokesmen of the day have simply dropped the class issue, at a time when our class divisions have reached an extraordinary degree. We still see the occasional roll-up-yo­ur-sleeves­-and-look-­like-a-fac­tory-worke­r approach; at such times, we are careful to specify that our concern, however tepid and incidental, is for the WORKING poor; we have utter indifference to the post-working-poor, those millions who slide from destitution to poverty and back into destitution. Historically, the poor have always been the foot soldiers, so to speak, of every social progressive movement. This time, the progressive spokesmen completely wrote off the poor, and remain oblivious to how the conditions of our poorest do, inevitably, trickle up.

So let's face reality. We are the generation that ended aid to our poor while bestowing billions of dollars to corporations, which used that money to move our jobs out of the country. Obviously, this is what we wanted, and since we wanted this -- no problem!”

“Sorry, but America functions on a strict scapegoat policy. We scapegoated welfare recipients, then got rid of welfare, so we needed a new scapegoat. We came down hot and heavy on cigaret smokers, but this is starting to fall apart, too; under 20% of us smoke, very few will develop a disease as a result, most of us have absolutely no exposure to tobacco smoke, and this lays bare the miserable fact that escalating rates of disease (not to mention the destruction of the entire planet's environment) is because of our cars... and we don't want to quit driving as much as we wish. Well, you can't scapegoat a majority, right? We need a different scapegoat. With conditions as bad as they are today, no one really wants to scapegoat those who drink. So, what are our choices? We choose over-weight people because they are instantly identifiable, sparing us the bother of thinking at all. If we're over-weight, we simply point a finger at someone who is fatter. All things considered, I think Americans really, really want someone -- anyone! -- toward whom they can feel superior.”

“Incidentally, the "fix it in increments" approach has long been successful at pacifying more involved Americans, but it's important to keep in mind that those repairs never happen.”

“The "fine art of compromise" is what brought our country to this miserable point. In the US, "compromise" doesn't mean "meeting in the middle," but rather, "taking another step to the right."”

“I think it's a lost cause, like trying to duct tape an old car together. The future depends on re-building a (non-punitive) social safety net. Welfare, with all its flaws, provided families with enough economic stability (thereby providing social stability) to remain intact through hard times, having food, shelter and medical care. Some 80% of AFDC recipients used aid for under 5 years; welfare enabled them to move forward. Without this, few who fall into poverty today are able to climb back out, and the number of permanently poor keeps growing.

I remember being surprised by the number of "welfare kids" who went on to college and become successful. Due to personal misfortunes years ago, I learned why first-hand. The stability that welfare made possible prior to "reform" was central to my daughter's success in school, and then in her career. Welfare enabled me to be a full-time parent, my daughter had stability because we didn't end up homeless, and I was able to ensure adequate nutrition during those crucial early years of development. Without non-punitive welfare, that outcome would have been very different. My daughter probably would have been taken from me, funneled through the foster care system, and I probably wouldn't be alive today.

What we have today doesn't address the central need, and is as pointless as adding another piece of duct tape in the hopes of keeping that old car going for another day.”

“Could the US PLEASE start moving forward to join the rest of the world in the 21st Century?”

“Isn't it odd, though, the way Sen. Kennedy's passion/work on behalf of the poor is simply left out of the public discussion and the media (both mainstream, and that which should know better). Fortunately, this was not ignored in his eulogies. Sen. Kennedy did, indeed, stand with "the least of these," voting against such appalling measures as Clinton's welfare "reform" policies -- even when standing up for the poor had become unfashionable. That is real integrity.”

“An issue we continue to ignore: One of the leading causes of poverty is the lack of access to health care. We know the powerful link between poverty and illness/disability. In spite of this, the many tributes to Sen. Kennedy today disregard his advocacy for our poor, and recognition of the need establish a legitimate, non-punitive welfare system, such as the more modern nations have.

Sen. Kennedy's work on behalf of America's poor is being censored out, and this is an ugly insult to the senator. I urge people to go to http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Ted_Kennedy.htm to see for themselves where Sen. Kennedy stood on this issue.

Voted NO on welfare overhaul.
Status: Bill Passed Y)87; N)12; NV)1
Reference: Contract w/ America (Welfare Refm); Bill H.R. 4 ; vote number 1995-443 on

Sep 19, 1995
Voted NO on allowing state welfare waivers.
Vote on a procedural motion to allow consideration of an amendment to express the
sense of Congress that the president should approve the waivers requested by states
that want to implement welfare reform.
Reference: Bill S.1956 ; vote number 1996-208 on Jul 19, 1996

* Voted NO on welfare block grants. (Aug 1996)
* Voted YES on eliminating block grants for food stamps. (Jul 1996)
* Voted NO on allowing state welfare waivers. (Jul 1996)
* Voted NO on welfare overhaul. (Sep 1995)

http://www.ontheissues.org/g/Background_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm”

“It surprises me still when I come across comments like this, which seem to indicate a level of resentment. Like they say, how can you know where you're going if you don't know where you've been? Most of the issues that were central then, from poverty to war, remain central today. So, it's a good idea to look back, to see what did or didn't work. Either that, or resign yourself to repeating the same mistakes generation after generation.

Maybe you mistake the attention given to that time for some sort of glorification of the era, a sort of massive generational ego trip. Nope. A lot of things went right, a lot of things went very wrong. But it was a massive learning experience.

It would do the country good if today's youth would stand up for what they believe, work toward, or fight for, the world they want.”

“Regarding the cultural/political realm simply known as "the '60's":
Too much of what today's youth know about that era is nothing more than mainstream media's spin, sensationalized and trivialized, turned into a simplistic, marketable consumer product. That's unfortunate. That's a loss.

What defined the era was the sense of hope and possibilities, an optimism that ended up drowned out by a culture that is fundamentally rigid, dictatorial and violent. Manson was one of several factors that killed the idealism of that time. Manson had nothing to do with hippies, counter-culture, etc., beyond exploiting it for his own ambitions; beyond that, he has ridiculed virtually everything about that era, often expressing his contempt for "hippies". But the media turned him into a marketable symbol of that era, successfully corrupting everything that the "movement" was actually about.”

“"Pay to play" costs for radio stations will need to be passed along to the public. Like Internet services, the price will begin modestly, then explode.

Radio play is, in fact, a free service that benefits the artist. If anyone should pay, it is the performers, not the listeners.

On what is most beneficial to performers' bottom line: Let me note my own experience with free access to music on the Internet. I, personally, was able to explore a wide range of performers, and ended up buying far more CDs than before. When I heard something that I really liked, I bought the CDs. CDs aren't cheap, and I don't want to risk buying something that I won't enjoy. Performers railed against free access to their music. Since I no longer have the opportunity to try out music that I hadn't heard before, I find that I buy only a fraction of the CDs I bought before. In fact, I bought only single CD this year, after hearing the performers on TV.

If radio goes "for pay", I won't even hear music that way, so it is likely that if I buy any CDs at all, it will be all older music. We already pay some of the highest prices in the world for Internet and cable TV, and not many people are likely to pay for radio services.

What we are seeing here is the suicide of American music by greed.”

“Actually, some of our most inadequate schools are in rural America -- a place that is largely ignored.
And a great deal of our poverty is in rural areas. Conditions dramatically worsened since the 1997 welfare "reform."

With each economic downturn, more people fall into poverty, and without a social safety net, fewer are able to work their way back out. Our "failed" welfare system once enabled families to get through rough times, then back to work. In fact, before welfare "reform", some 80% of participants on AFDC quit welfare in under five years. Welfare "reform" made it much more difficult to get out of poverty. Each economic downturn increases the number of permanently poor. Under the best of circumstances, we don't have a full-employment economy. So...what should we do about those who are left out?

Children who are hungry, and who experience frequent moves as their parents desperately seek work, can't concentrate and learn in school. At a time when higher education is absolutely essential, we are ensuring that fewer people can obtain it. We are building a feudal society.

Unfortunately, even our progressive community has been apathetic, not quite "getting" what the poor have to do with anything. Think of our economy as a house. We're busy remodeling the attic while the foundation is rapidly crumbling. If we don't shore up the poor, of course the country will fall.”

“As a number of writers point out, the issue of concern is that President Obama would sound ridiculous, given the human rights abuses that are the norm here in the US. Indeed, many Americans have only the vaguest idea of what constitutes "human rights" (the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a good place to start). From our prison/legal system to our celebrated welfare "reform", the US is well behind the more modern nations in this area. Both President Obama and President Putin know this, and raising the issue could prove embarrassing for President Obama and the US.”

“So...what'­s the story? Gov. Palin was simply a VP candidate in an unsuccessful campaign. End of story. As an individual aspirant for higher office, she has failed to communicate any reason to vote for her. All personality fluff aside, her speeches have consistently been mediocre and predictable, and she has shown no in-depth knowledge of the issues nor an ability to resolve problems. During times of crisis, the nation can't afford mediocrity.”

“Welfare "reform" was enacted to provide businesses with cheap labor; they complained that people bypassed low-wage jobs, turning to welfare until they could find decent jobs. By stripping out the safety net, people must accept whatever they can get.
TANF created a bottom-wage temp help workforce. While complex, the bottom line is that parents often can't quit TANF. Workfare is often used as cheap replacement labor. With each big layoff, more people end up on workfare, and the ball rolls on. If people can be taught that impoverished families are living in lazy luxury, they'll believe anything. Welfare "reform" has been an invaluable tool to determine how to manage public opinion.
The Climate Bill is a threat to Big Oil, so the war against smokers was relaunched. Under 20% smoke, most are over the age of 50, a fraction will develop a smoking-related disease, and restrictions are so stringent that most of us have no exposure to cigarette smoke. Contrast this to your exposure to the more dangerous traffic smoke. The American Cancer Society lists smoking as a "contributing factor", not the "Leading cause of preventabl­e...". Why is the focus only on smoking? And what does smoking have to do with the Climate Bill? Nothing, and that's my point. Real action on our climate crisis would negatively impact the profits of Big Oil, just as welfare negatively impacted Big Business. Misinformation campaigns work in this country.”

“missedith, I honestly didn't know that people were serious about black cats somehow being bad luck, though I knew this was a common belief in the Middle Ages.

I never realized that a cat's color would have anything to do with adoptability. My cat is quite elderly, so I've needed to think about the inevitable. When I do go to the local shelter for a kitten, I'll keep this in mind. I have no reluctance whatsoever to adopt a black (or any other color) cat.”

“I LOVE Friday the 13th! So many people are just superstitious enough to avoid causing others problems, or risking any sort of confrontation. All in all, people are a less rude, less demanding, less pushy, on Friday the 13th. In short, they act a little more civil.”

“Are Americans as ignorant as many of these posts would indicate? Are they really so incapable of interpreting political satire and symbolism?

The chimp symbolizes the bill, NOT Obama. It's rather shocking, in a Freudian sort of way, that people would see a drawing of a chimp, and conclude that it signified Obama. My understanding of the cartoon is that the bill, like the chimp, was handled by Republicans in a manner ("Shoot first, ask questions later") indicating that the only response that occurred to them was to kill it.”

“Lives aren't always so simple. Women, especially the poor in Third World countries, have no choice but to marry. Married women are expected to submit to their husbands. Survival makes this necessary. These woman usually don't have access to, or money for, a doctor and birth control.”

“When Americans don't care about -- or for that matter, when they aren't even aware of -- severe poverty right here in the US, why would they care about those anywhere else? Maybe after 30 years of being told that poverty is the result of bad behavior, bad choices, and sheer laziness, and/or is merely a lifestyle choice, they can't even comprehend what hunger and poverty is like. For 30 years, our own government has taught us that poverty is a personal choice that must be harshly discouraged.

Another likely reason for indifference is simple greed, which enables us to come up with all kinds of excuses for doing nothing. We let ourselves believe, for example, that no one is really poor in America, or at any rate, that one is poor only by choice. We can look at poverty anywhere else and say that it isn't our problem, or tell ourselves that if we tried to provide aid, it would just be stolen before it reached those in need. Regardless of the scenario, we are quick with reasons not to help.

And a final problem: Many (most?) Americans grew up with the (false) idea that the US is the only country that provides humanitarian foreign aid, and they say it's time for other countries to start pitching in.”

“Aren't these the same people who harp on and on about how irresponsible poor people are? Well, no matter. These ARE the same people who have stood so firmly for Personal Responsibility and Accountability, so surely they will have the dignity to accept, without whining, the consequences of destroying America's economy, crushing the working class and bringing the country to ruin.

Umm...ther­e WILL be consequences, won't there?”

“We have an entire generation that has been "Reaganized". To get an idea of how successful the "Republican Revolution" has been, and how conservative today's progressives are: Nixon was viewed as a solid conservative, but read what he said about American poverty and social policies. You'll see that he does, indeed, sound downright socialist compared to today's progressives.”

“I wish I could be more optimistic, but I've seen how much young people today have been "Reaganized", accustomed to sound-bite politics, seeing the world in terms chosen by mainstream media. One thing that has been lost is a consciousness of just how connected we all are, perhaps most strongly in economic matters. Consider one issue here: American poverty. Since the Reagan administration, media messages concerning the poor (in the US) grew increasingly negative. Then, for 8 years, we absorbed Clinton's sound-bite politics. By the time Clinton wiped out AFDC, we had a generation convinced that people struggling on sub-poverty aid were living lives of lazy luxury. Today, even otherwise-progress media no longer deems the poor worthy of mention. They'll mention "the working poor," but don't acknowledge those who no longer have jobs. Even with so many of our jobs gone, even with the real life issues that can cause poverty (illness, etc.), and with our economy collapsing, we consider poverty merely a "lifestyle choice".

Think: The life expectancy of America's poor has fallen below that of most Third World nations, while the infant mortality rate among our poor now exceeds that of most Third World nations.
This could be reversed by reversing our welfare "reform" policies, covering the costs by ending corporate welfare (tax "relief", special grants, etc.) We won't do this because we've been "programmed" to believe that aid for the poor is bad, aid for the rich is deserved.”

“Are you SURE it was the poor on welfare who were bringing America to bankruptcy???”