Texsox

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 09:01 AM) How about if they refuse to listen simply because they view the messenger as a two face? That is the most common reason that people give now a days for leaving organized religion anymore. If we are talking about religion if one rejects religious life because a pastor was exposed for his human errors, it is wrong, and they are only hurting themselves. Reject that pastor, but if he has been preaching love one another, be faithful, help the less fortunate, shall we reject those concepts as well? Shall we argue that because some Doctors smoke and are overweight while telling us we should diet and excercise and quit smoking, should we all smoke, and over eat or should we diet and excercise?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 08:56 AM) Their are people walking out of the Catholic, and many other, churches for the exact same reasons of hypocracy... are they wrong? If they are walking out so they can abuse children they are wrong. If people are walking out on Al Gore's message so they can be a fuel hog, they are wrong too.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 08:36 AM) I hope you aren't saying we should just blindly accept whatever people tell us? No, I'm not. But at the same time shouldn't the investigation be the message not the messenger? Would you rather follow wrong information from a guy living in a 300 sq foot home heated with all renewable resources or factual information from someone living in an 8,000 square foot home? So, for the sake of discussion, whcih should we follow, your view of his message or his lifestyle? Which places us, you and me, on a better path?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 07:47 AM) The whole point is he is a hypocritical douche, and he's getting defended by the likes of you people. Carbon Credits is just a program to make him feel better about leading to HIS so called destruction of the earth - again, HIS definition, not mine. Do I care what he does in his own house? Nope, until he tells me what I'm doing in my house is destroying the earth and he does the same damn thing. Why does someone have to be at the extremes to have the moral authority to preach about a topic? Anyone short of Mother Theresa STFU about poverty, unless you have multiple PhDs STFU about education? With the environment, we will never have everyone living in a yurt and riding bicycles. I don't want to take away the big car and ski boat from some guy who worked hard all his life to achieve that dream. But let's work to make that boat a little more fuel efficient and quiet. Let's make that car a little more space and fuel efficient. If I can learn to live with my house cooled to 78 instead of 72, I've helped. Why should I be called a hypocrite by someone who leaves their temp at 82? And OK, for the sake of argument, Al's a hypocrite and terrible for the environment. Is his message inaccurate? Should we follow his example to ruin or his message to a better environment?

I basically agree with SS2k5 in theory, but the specifics you mention would not be environmentally better. Bulldozing his house and replacing creates waste that is not 100% recyclable. That would have a negative impact. I don't think anyone has to live at the extremes to take a position. You could live in a smaller house, I could live in a smaller house, so does that mean we shouldn't be commenting on Al? Finally, is his message damaging the environment? If his message helps our planet, why would you complain? If you were drowning and he arrived in a big fuel guzzling off shore racer, wasting all that fuel, would you tell him, you hypocrite, go away? What we need is everyone to do a little, not a few to do a lot. I'm not going to ask you with a growing family to go live in a yurt and drive a hybrid. I'm not going to ask someone who worked hard, build a nice life to give up his Cadillac and summer home with a ski boat. But we all can do just a little in our current lives, nothing lifestyle, top of the mountain, changing. Just a few little things and we all win. Perhaps we'll be better off if we start looking at the messages in our society and not just the messenger?

Big Al is now asking for DNA testing to see if they are related Who's your daddy?

I like David Spade. I love these family values. OK kids, we're going to watch Forrest Gump one more time then Rainman.

I agree with everything Balta mentions and add a couple things. You are talking about inner city high rise living, there are way more poor families living in the far rural areas. Appalachia still suffers from some of the worst poverty in our country, but they are cut off and rural and we don't think of them. Would we be taking these kids as well? Institutionalizing kids just consolidates the problem and hides it. I agree that the present system is poor. I think we need to find ways to strengthen the family unit, not break it up. The family unit has been a cornerstone of civilization for ever. It is proven to work and is the cheapest option. I think decentralizing and offering more mixed housing makes the most sense. We need to focus on this generation of kids and find some way to break this cycle. I wouldn't invest much effort in trying to fix the second generation public aid adults. We've already screwed their lives with the present system.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 07:50 AM) There is a big difference between pot and, say, cocaine. Cocaine creates a dangerous person to society, is highly addictive, and as a general rule tends to ruin people's lives. Pot does none of those things, except for maybe a very small percentage of the time. I'm OK with legalizing pot, but I wouldn't go so far as all drugs. I think that position gets wide spread support.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 05:43 PM) On the assumption that we increase funding for those places, abso-freakin-lutely. It's on the edge of child abuse to force a kid to grow up in an environment with 9 other siblings living of pennies a day. At some point the parents have to be held responsible for their own irresponsibility. Yes to the case workers. I'm in favor of opening up huge schools/dorms instead of the foster system we have. Might as well give these kids an education while waiting for them to find a home, if they ever do. And as far as giving them back to their parents, this sort of thing happens all the time when parents get into drugs or go to jail. Some governmental protection agency steps in, takes the kid away and then the parents later show the courts that they're responsible enough to have them back. This would be done in the same manner. I don't think the GOP would have problems with this. Why would they? It's in the best interest of the child to get out of that situation. Taking children from their families bacause their parents are poor is not a core family value. Family values is about strengthening the family unit, not about you've had too many chiildren, the state will take them now. "At some point the parents have to be held responsible for their own irresponsibility." And having the kids grow up in a "huge schools/dorms" accomplishes this by? And how much different would this be than a prison? Then we have all these kids getting settled with foster parents, perhaps attending school regularly, bonding with their new families, and along comes mom and dad wanting them back because they have better jobs. I see the kids being used to punish the adults in your scenario, and don't like that aspect. I agree we need to make some changes, but removing children from their parents and placing them in an already over burdened foster care situation would not be a step forward.

Hockey, with the home team getting last line changes, has rules advantages. Momentum can be a huge factor.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 08:39 AM) Assuming this situation is true I'd have no problem taking the children away from the parents. Why couldn't the state? You're telling me that a family of 12 living off welfare, living in such dire circumstances as you set out, is providing the minimal requirements of a home under the statutory guidelines? I'd also put the parents on a short ass leash to better their situation or they'd lose their federal help. Sorry man, I just don't buy the fact that people get in situations they can't get out of. Borrow money like the rest of us. Take out educational loans. Work a job or two and go to school part time. Or here's a better thought, after your 6th kid, close your f'n legs (which makes me wonder if they're so poor how exactly did they afford to have 10 kids? they're not exactly cheap, especially if you don't have insurance...)! Seriously though, there is PLENTY of aid available to help people in the short-term. I never said that I didn't want to help at all, but social services shouldn't be a lifelong crutch. Also this hypothetical family is extremely rare. Most low-income people are single, some with kids. Most have criminal records. Most have drug problems. So should we just give them a pass for the rest of their life because they have a tough time? I'd prefer to kick them out on the street unless they show that they're actively working towards bettering their lives (or even the lives of others through volunteering). Just to be certain, you favor taking kids from parents and placing them in foster care because their parents are now on Public Aid? Parents with their children are only for the rich folks, that isn't for poor people. Will you be hiring enough case workers to track all these kids, or just forget about them once they are placed? If the parents get off aid, can they have their children back? If it takes years? Are you also in favor of somehow artificially restricting the birth rates? Because the conservative, religious arm of the GOP, gets a little feisty about that. It may be tough to convince the GOP on a plan that rips apart families and gives incentives for abortions.

Sobering. And can we pause and remember that is owned not pwned.

Happy Birthday

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 06:34 AM) doesnt this thread start to fall under the... "you give a man a fish and he eats for a day. you teach a man how to fish and he sits in a boat and drinks beer all day" theory??? so the answers here aren't handouts they are job training, education, internships etc. Fixed

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Feb 21, 2007 -> 07:19 PM) If it hasnt been posted already, Andy Samberg, Justin Timberlake, D*ck in a box And if it has been posted, it deserves a second run Best SNL skit in years.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 06:25 AM) I think you missed my point. Less time sitting around doing nothing means less violence, and I don't think I need to have been in prison to know that sex there is probably a lot more control-motivated than desire-motivated. Work 'em on tough jobs for a long time every day, and you will see a reduction is some of those things. You are right, but that line isn't nearly as funny as you're doing it wrong

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 06:11 AM) If they were out working 60 hours a week, they would be less likely to be doing this or other stupid things because they have nothing better to do in prison. One could make a looooooooong list of problems in our prisons. Ahhh, I found there is a big diffeerence between sex and work. Maybe you're doing it wrong? QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 06:21 AM) Nobody said anything about illegal immigrants And I don't like them losing jobs to iillegals. We need to reform our immigration system to stop immigrants without jobs. I'd rather employee a legal immigrant than a prisoner.

It took decades to create this problem and I believe, if a solution is found, it will take generations to fix. In the meantime, a couple steps in the right direction. President Bush pushing for getting faith based groups into the mix. As noted in another thread, people who believe in a higher power, are generally more generous with their time, talents, and treasure. Eliciting private solutions, secular and non secular, will be key. We need to change the way we fund public schools in the US. The poorest areas, the ones who need a quality education the most, received the lowest funding. The schools with the highest income areas, received the most funding. Fair from a you get what you can afford pov, but not good from an overall societal pov. We need to reward those that do things right. If you have school age kids, reward them for attendance, High School diplomas, college work, etc.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 05:55 AM) There is always work no one else wants to do, or there isn't money to pay for. Cutting trails in a city park for example, or self-sustaining activities in the prison like others have said. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45b/156.html I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just pointing out someone will lose. Cutting trails? City employee plus a families enjoyment of the park when they come up on a group of prisoners and their guards. Some people are nervous about that. Farming and ranching could wind up costing more than buying from current suppliers. Land costs, seeds, fertilizers, equipment to pick and process, etc. Trying to secure hundreds of acres of land. The American farmer is already stressed financially. When I read the stories of honest, law abiding citizens, losing jobs to criminals, it just doesn't seem right to me.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 05:45 AM) Test. Noticing it is always at the top?

Google Prison labor and you'll see the hot bed of controversy. It's a tough decision, with sound reasons on both sides. I really dislike seeing companies with law abiding citizens, even farmers and carpenters, losing jobs so guys whose only qualification is they raped a college student can take that job. And it hasn't been buying from China, it's been building roads, demolition work at the prison, etc.

NSS, here is the balancing act. When the prisoners are put to work, they are now competing with workers that did not commit a crime. The government stops buying from Company A in Tallahassee and starts buying from Pontiac Prison. Here is one such example There are always unintended consequences.

But, Where's He Going To Play?

I love it when fans point to more fouls assessed towards their team, penalty yards, etc. and call it referee's being unfair. Couldn't be their team committed more infractions?