Yeah, right; I forgot, more compassionate conservatism.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Two years ago I took in a friend who had fallen on hard times. We have known one another since high school, over 40 years. For the last several years she had been living with relatives who by her account were very mean to her and treated her as a sort of servant. She had lost a small disability pension, with its medical insurance, and had gone through all of her meager savings. Her disabilities are of the vague, undiagnosable type: Diffuse pain, muscle spasms, respiratory problems, palpitations, strange allergic reactions to foods/ medications/environmental irritants. She was accident prone, unable to concentrate and had out-of-control emotions a lot of the time. I attributed much of this to the stress of her living situation and could see no way to help her, other than getting her out of what seemed to be a very hostile environment.

So I made this offer: Move in with me and regroup. No one will harm you here. Get your mind and body back in some kind of balance. File your pension appeal. Another friend told me of an attorney who had handled her similar appeal. I shared my car with her, since hers had bitten the dust years before. I was determined not to pressure her, but to let her manage her own financial, physical and emotional recovery.

No one forced me to do this. I shared my home, provided food, shelter and transportation without expecting a cent, out of friendship. You have no idea what this offer has cost me. The monetary issue is quite secondary to the peace and tranquility I (who have lived alone for most of the last 40 years and loved it) have sacrificed. And it is true what they say: You don�t really know someone until you live with them.

For more than a year, nothing much changed and I grew very tired of her constant whining and self-pity. It seemed that the more I did for her, the more she needed me to do (but only those things she would accept - I could keep my advice to myself.) And I grew weary of hearing her complain that I am so fortunate, that I cannot possibly feel her pain, nor can I possibly understand that she can�t concentrate on her pension paperwork for more than a few minutes at a time, can�t bear to sit and type, can�t read the fine print without her vision blurring. My offers to help her with this - after all, I type medical and psych stuff for a living - were refused over and over. Her filing deadline came and went, and that opportunity was lost forever. She claimed the lawyer never told her there was such a deadline. I guess it was my fault for not finding her a better attorney. Now each month she gets a bill from him.

Every serious conversation went in circles and ended in tears and recriminations from her. Now I was the one being mean to her. Frankly, I could barely stand being in the same room, yet she followed me around asking why we never talked anymore. So after 15 months I was forced to go all *tough-love* on her. I gave her an ultimatum (the or-else unspecified) that within 60 days I must see some progress with her situation. She had to file for SSDI, Medicaid, food stamps, find some psychological help, go to a free medical and vision clinic, etc. I provided all the contact information she would need. I was willing to support her, but was not going to bankrupt my self assuming her medical and legal bills for the rest of her life.

And still, 50 days later I saw no indication that she had done anything. Not wanting to wait for the 60^th day and my bluff to be called, I finally had to be so mean that she was forced to turn to the county mental health system. This was the only way I could see to get her some help. Taking her back to her family was not an option and I was not going to send her to live under a bridge (a very real possibility.)

Since then she has had a social worker leading her through the application process for all those services, and she is now accepting advice from the social worker that had been unacceptable when it came from me.

So here�s the thing. I have a new perspective on her family members, who were probably doing their own version of tough love, but would never think of throwing her butt out. My friend maintains that if she were still living with them, she would have ended up at county mental health just the same. Nonsense! Without some imminent threat, she would still be crying on my shoulder daily about her nasty family and their lack of understanding.

By being too kind (a democrat) I was enabling my friend to put off indefinitely doing anything to help herself. I had to stop giving her fish and put a fishing pole within reach (become a republican). It was up to her to pick it up and start feeding herself. It is clear that she genuinely has problems but that she is also capable of doing what is required, when properly motivated. I had to get downright ugly about it, and her social worker now sets tasks and deadlines to keep her on track. She sees a counselor. She gets medications. She qualified for food stamps. She has been approved for SSDI and Medicaid. For most of her life she paid into these systems and now it is only fair she receive something back when she needs it. Maybe I will even get my friend back and enjoy her company again.

And this whole scenario is how a helping hand is supposed to go. Wherever possible charity should be voluntary, not compulsory. Nobody forced me help; I did it voluntarily, out of affection. But even friendship and compassion have their limits; love and goodwill can be strained to breaking. There is a place for government assistance, but turning to the government should be the last resort, not the first. And you have to try to help yourself first.

And now Obama, et al, want to REQUIRE me to do this for a bunch of strangers as well? No thanks, I already gave.

Evangelical christianity is the only religion to be tolerated and their followers are perfect.

Suppose we�re friends and I give you $100 or a gift worth that much, just because we�re pals. It is well within the rules for you to spend the money on anything you want. It is also well within the rules for you to exchange the gift for a different color or size, or even for something else that you like better. Still within the rules (though tacky) is to pawn the gift, take the $50 you get, and blow it on anything you want. It was a present.]

However, suppose you are my friend (or even a complete stranger) and you tell me you�re kids are hungry. Suppose I give you $100, and suppose doing that shorts my monthly budget for luxuries or even necessities, but I have decided your need is greater. This too is a gift.

But instead of spending the money on enough food to feed yourself and your family for a couple of weeks, you decide life is short (could be a big part of why you�re asking for money in the first place) and what you really need is a good time. You spend the money on dinner out, with wine, and a show, because you figure you can always put on your hungry face, trot out your starving kids, and hit up your ol� buddy A. Nonymous for another C-note? Not illegal, and you won�t go to jail for it, but certainly violating the spirit of the gift and not even remotely within the rules of common decency. Don�t ask me to help you anymore. I would be stupid to fall for it again. You are the one starving your kids, not me, and I am very sorry.

And what if I am not the only friend you have asked for help? Better hope we don�t all get together and compare notes. Because then we�re all kicking you off the gravy train.

This woman's soldier son was killed in Iraq right before the holidays, leaving behind a wife and child, but you glibly act like it's no big deal.

Of course, to those of your ilk, the only good soldier is a DEAD one, so it's perfectly understandable.

Carla... (((hugs)))... please ignore this ignorant, hateful subhumanoid creature. Don't read any more of its posts. It is clearly an evil force that only truly belongs on the CON board.

I think we should all ignore this poster and not feed its hatred. Just like Bush, It clearly has no compassion for those it sends to fight a war based on lies and deceit.

William Bennett Defends Comment on Abortion and Crime

'Book of Virtues' Author Says Hypothetical Remark Was Valid

By JAKE TAPPER

- After pondering on his radio program how aborting every black infant in America would affect crime rates, best-selling author and self-styled Values Czar Bill Bennett is vehemently denying he is a racist and defending his willingness to speak publicly about race and crime.

On the Wednesday edition of his radio show, Bill Bennett's Morning in America, syndicated by Salem Radio Network, a caller raised the theory that Social Security is in danger of becoming insolvent because legalized abortion has reduced the number of tax-paying citizens. Bennett said economic arguments should never be employed in discussions of moral issues.

If it were your sole purpose to reduce crime, Bennett said, You could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.

That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down, he added.

Outrage From Democrats

Bennett was secretary of education for President Ronald Reagan and is considered one of the Republican Party's big brains. But this week Democrats and some Republicans seemed to also question if Bennett's mouth is of size as well.

Democrats expressed outrage, ranging from demands for an apology to requests that the Federal Communications Commission suspend Bennett's show.

Republicans, Democrats and all Americans of good will should denounce this statement, should distance themselves from Mr. Bennett, said Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., D-Ill. And the private sector should not support Mr. Bennett's radio show or his comments on the air.

I'm not even going to comment on something that disgusting, said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. Really, I'm thinking of my black grandchild and I'm going to hold (off).

'Things That People Are Thinking'

In an interview with ABC News, Bennett said that anyone who knows him knows he isn't racist. He said he was merely extrapolating from the best-selling book Freakonomics, which posits the hypothesis that falling crimes rates are related to increased abortion rates decades ago. It would have worked for, you know, single-parent moms; it would have worked for male babies, black babies, Bennett said. So why immediately bring up race when discussing crime rates? There was a lot of discussion about race and crime in New Orleans, Bennett said. There was discussion � a lot of it wrong � but nevertheless, media jumping on stories about looting and shooting and gangs and roving gangs and so on.

There's no question this is on our minds, Bennett said. What I do on our show is talk about things that people are thinking � we don't hesitate to talk about things that are touchy.

Bennett said, I'm sorry if people are hurt, I really am. But we can't say this is an area of American life (and) public policy that we're not allowed to talk about � race and crime.

Robert George, an African-American, Republican editorial writer for the New York Post, agrees that Bennett's comments were not meant as racist. But he worries they feed into stereotypes of Republicans as insensitive. His overall point about not making broad sociological claims and so forth, that was a legitimate point, George said. But it seems to me someone with Bennett's intelligence � should know better the impact of his words and sort of thinking these things through before he speaks.

The blunt-spoken Bennett has ruffled feathers before, most recently in 2003 for revelations that despite his best-selling books about virtue and values, he is a high-rolling preferred customer at Las Vegas and Atlantic City casinos.

In light of accusations that the Bush administration should have been more sensitive to black victims of Hurricane Katrina, a Republican official told ABC News that Bennett's comments were probably as poorly timed as they were politically incorrect.

ABC News' Avery Miller, Karen Travers and Toni L. Wilson contributed to this report.

When did Lindsey Graham suddenly become liberal? I believe he was a former JAG and is totally against Bush's torture techniques and military tribunals.

And when GENERAL Colin Powell says something, I put much more credence in what he has to say than in a bumbling authoritarian idiot who never had the guts to set one foot on foreign soil to serve his country.

Bush talks about the professionals, yet he refuses to listen to any of them. And the faithful Bush disciples don't even care that the torture Bush wants will come back on OUR troops, the same troops they claim to support so much, leaving them susceptible to the very same treatment.

Have you noticed how many Republicans are starting to stand up and do the right thing? And have you noticed how angry Bush is becoming in press conferences and interviews? (I thought the was going to hit Matt Lauer the other day.)

Bush's temper is definitely about to explode, and he doesn't look like a very stable person. Elections are less than 2 months away, and if the Republicans lose control, Bush is finally going to have to be accountable to the country. He's getting angrier and I think he's beginning to panic.

The others that you mention -- they are correct, too (about being on to me). Don't want to hurt anyone's feelings by leaving them out.

You're right. I'm from Texas, where we cling to our guns and religion, shoot first, and ask ?s maybe.