Coral Rhedd

Dear person who calls himself a pariah, Could you please answer my question in post #644 about feminazis. Are these some sort of European feminists?

Of course there are people who get benefits dishonestly. Some I actually sympathize with. The welfare mother who works a little off the books is only doing what a responsible person should do to care for her children. Family is supposed to come first. Who can feed a family of four on $128 a month? That's the max here in NM. Or at least it was three years ago, and I haven't heard of any great increase. Also, in this state, work training programs are required but the childcare assistance that is supposed to supplement these low training wages in not similarly funded. What are people supposed to do? Hang their kids on a nail? There is much about "the system" that simply is not workable. Please define what you both mean about "abusing the system." Then maybe we can discuss what works and what does not work. I can tell you this: Smarter people utilize the system better to finally get on their feet and achieve self-sufficiency. This behavior should not be trivialized because it ultimately means producing more, not fewer, taxpayers. Define your terms a little better guys and we may get a very good discussion going -- because I can assure you that I am no apologist for the system. I am a business woman and not a social worker. Overlapping services cost taxpayers millions and support a top heavy system. And to return to the subject of homelessness. Home buyer programs are cheaper and much more effective than rental assistance. Rental assistance simply subsidizes landlords and raises rents.

I find this thread interesting because this is a subject I know little about. But where are some links? Some references? Only Zorro is providing some. I would be interesting in hearing more than just personal opinion. Where can I go to learn more about this?

But oldtobor is visiting rather than living here. Without a home to lose and without assets that can be attached in a suit, he can probably get by pretty well with the catastrophic insurance and, if he leases or rents a car, uninsured motorists coverage. Hospitals cannot turn people away in an emergency. On the other hand, if oldtobor is thinking of settling in the U.S. for an extended time, health insurance may then make sense. It really depends upon the length of stay and what assets he intends to acquire. Does anyone know whether traveler's insurance might be a possibility? Also, I believe some people in business for themselves can join associations that help them tap into some sort of insurance cooperative. But I don't know much about this. (But I should. ) I am on a wing and a "prayer" most of the time.

Hmm. I suppose that depends upon how old. Most of the older women I know would just be glad to go to the grocery store alone. They get tired of their retired husbands tagging along after them.

I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested simply giving homeless people homes. Most assistance in the U.S. is in the form of rental assistance. There is some mortgage assistance for the disabled and the elderly, but they still have to qualify -- usually by having a steady income and good credit. They still have to make the payments after the government provides some help with the intial downpayment. No, you don't have to prove anything but I suspect your opinion would carry more weight if you did. If I tried to say that I didn't have to provide any evidence for my opinion, I suspect I would be reminded that this is a science forum. Well we all have some experience with the homeless, don't we? I think there are few people who have not encountered them. Tater, if you are referring to me, I have been homeless. I have also worked with people in a homeless shelter. In fact, two of the cases I cited were of people I worked with to help them find employment. My work in Vocational Rehab brings me into contact with many homeless people, most of whom are seeking employment. Thank you for showing Pangloss that I was not misreading. You have nothing but my respect for stating your opinion so forthrightly. This is good to know. To see all of a group of people in one particular way is sterotyping. I suspect that you and I could look at the same homeless person and see something very different. By training, I look at a person's potential. Seemed like it was. Oh BTW, I too love my work. I do not think of it as a drag. I am happy to be making a contribution in the lives to people with disabilites and it is really a thrill to see them improve their circumstances. Since my specialty is helping disabled people start their own businesses, it is real thrill to see their success this area. Owning one's own home may be part of the American dream, but owning one's own business is even better.

And my thought is that pedophiles are doing gays no favors by aligning themselves with the gay movement. I know many gay men and women I respect who are in committed relationships with other adults. They pay taxes and work productively in American culture and as far as I am concerned they should be afforded all the rights of any other adult -- including that of marriage. I do not desire that anyone stop posting, nor was I one of those who desired to see this thread closed. I think it has been interesting and educational for all involved in it. Also, as a writer, I am always fascinated to hear the opinions of those whose thinking is outside the mainstream. Ezekiel troubles me. Nope. Pedophile is a term often used interchangeably -- but sometimes carelessly -- by people who work as counselors, prosecutors, CASAs and others -- with sex offender. It is used very broadly. I am not too concerned about its etymology. Current usage suits me fine. People trying to change the connotations of the word are free to do so. But it is a political game. To my thinking the term encompasses many meanings. The media is a follower, not a leader. I am using the term as I have used it professionally and in volunteer work. I have no intention is cooperating with a word "makeover." I have said previously that those (now calling themselves pedophiles) who do not choose to have sexual contact with children and don't like the word pedophile should simply choose another word. What support can you provide for this statistic? I seems to me that it would be impossible to quantify. You are talking about a particular group of people are you not? I have a question for you. Why are you interested in any relationship or political alliance with those who would like to liberalize AofC laws, when you say you would never have sexual contact with a child? If you would never have sexual contact with a child then you are more like me than you are like them, for it is our actions that define us and not our thoughts. That is very interesting to hear. I think the people on this board have unusual curiosity about how things work -- including people's minds. Moreover, people reveal a great deal about themselves when they write. To be sure, those posting here in favor lowering the age of consent laws seem far more interested in being understood and accepted than they are in well-being of children.

But if he has any sexual activity with a child, one of the purposes of the relationship is sex. But your paragraph above was absolutely great. I have been telling people for years that the person most likely to molest their children is the guy who wants to spend more time with the kid than they do. You have described only one of the ways pedophiles seduce kids -- by making them feel special -- but it is one that is the point of all the other behaviors. Things like showing them special pictures, giving them gifts, and taking them to amusement parks. Parents need to know that the pedophile who may molest their children usually doesn't look like Michael Jackson, but has every motive in the world for looking pretty much like everybody else. Pedophiles in this thread have been emphasizing how "normal" they are. I hope parents reading this take heed. The person most likely to molest your child will seem very normal indeed. Maybe even rather smooth. That person will be almost the last person you would suspect. We certainly agree on that. Yes indeedy. There is probably at least one on this forum. The one who summoned you guys to come to the defense of pedophiles who are so brutally maligned by people who would rather not have them touching their children. In fact, a close reading of this thread will allow the reader to glean an interesting inkling. I suspect there are many decent gay folks who almost throw up when they think of pedophiles equating themselves with gays. Gays have sex with other adults who are capable of giving relatively informed consent to the relationship. Pedophiles have sex with children. And we don't need to quibble about what we mean by the word "sex" do we.? A former U.S. President got into a bit of trouble because he wanted play semantics about the meaning of the word sex. Consider if someone made this argument: "It should be okay for men to put their hands up women's skirts and fondle their vaginas whether whether women want them to or not. We can always say afterwards that the women really wanted it. And not allowing men to do this only frustrates them and turns passive men into men that may hurt women." Sound familiar? It is an age old justification for rape. Interesting that you should mention television. I don't watch television, but I do know children who have had contact with pedophiles because -- as a CASA (Court-Appointed Special Advocate for children) -- I have interviewed pedophiles and gotten to know well a few children who have been their victims. I have seen first hand the damage that a molesting (one who sexually touches a child) pedophile does. This abuse can go on and on for a long period of time. The damage is often greater than out and out one time penetration in the act of rape. Pedophiles would understandably like to reserve the word rape for some sort of brutal penetration, claiming that other sexual activities are harmless. Nothing could be further from the truth. What a peculiar call to arms. I especially like the part about "the lonely man down the street." How apt. There is probably a pedophile in most neighborhoods. Are you lonely man?

Dear all, It seems Pangloss thinks I have been particularly vicious to Tater. In answer to Pangloss more than to Tater (Tater you get to be the example in this case.) allow me to show you how rhetorical truth is established using a concept called close reading. Sorry folks, it's not science. It's a techinique of literary analysis. All of the following in quotes is from Tater in this thread: Sorry, but there is no other way to present a cliche rather than to simply quote it. Does anyone reading the above get the sense that Tater is saying that homeless people are rather passive? In a society that prefers proactive people and rewards them with success -- and Tater especially wants to discuss the U.S. -- Tater seems to be saying that these folks are not go getters. Or am a reading the subtext wrong? In any case, the author himself is available to confirm or deny. He is such a better postion than dead white males authors of yore. Here Tater gives us the unvarnished facts. (We will ignore for a moment that he refuses to substantiate them.) Let us focus on the language, in particular the words "self-inflicted." What do these words mean? What else can they mean but that it is the homeless person's own darn fault for being homeless. Later Tater does offer some exceptions, but in the above quote the language is absolutely unequivocal. Hmm. What can be the meaning of the above? Can it be that Tater thinks the homeless are lazy? Note again that there is no wiggle room in that statement. I particularly admire the above. Rather nice wording really. Thistle seed is a bit of an annoyance. Sticks in your socks. And the application of the word drift is truly a master stroke. Drift = drifter = bum. Get it? Finally, there is the word handouts. The subtext of this is that Tater would have you believe that the homeless never worked a day in their lives and never paid taxes either. Note the word "claim." The homeless by their very nature cannot be trusted. Rest assured that when the rest of us collapse in the street we are not feigning and should be rushed to the hospital forthwith. First paragraph, above quote: Words so-called are the equivalent to the word claim mentioned by me in referring to post # 69. Not only are the homeless dishonest but they are whiney and will not help themselves. Subtext: They are looking for a hand out again. Now Pangloss has made a big deal about me attacking Tater. I think, by looking at the above examples all gathered together, we can conclude that I was correct when I said Tater views the homeless with contempt. If the above quotes don't demonstrate contempt, I don't know what does. But Pangloss was completely wrong when he said my purpose was to attack Tater. My purpose was to gain further information from Tater. When I want to attack someone there will be absolutely no doubt of my purpose. I have nothing but respect for Tater, though I disagree with him. But I have absolutely no respect for someone who will not state his own opinion but instead tries to create a smoke screen by creating a side issue unrelated to the matters at hand. Make no mistake Pangloss; when I am attacked, I know how to defend.

Since, you keep saying I have attacked Tater, please quote the sentence(s) where I attacked him. Don't bother quoting perfectly reasonable questions. Questions are not an attack.

Thanks for the mini book essay husmusen. It sounds fascinating and I have made a note of it. I have thought of writing about my experience at the shelter that I was in. I would take particular relish in describing the guy who ran the place whose previous experience had been in the prison system. I will never forget when he called a meeting telling us we were eating too much. A typical meal was tater tots and hotdogs and canned corn. He wanted to rescue us from obesity by decreasing our rations. He did not like it when I pointed out that the SSRIs and the psychotropic drugs so many were on caused ravenous appetites. I suggested that if he was really concerned about our weight we needed higher quality protein than hotdogs and that green salads and low starch fresh veggies were better than bread and potatoes.

Christ slave, I am curious. Just what type of astrology to you believe in. I understand that there are several astrological traditions. Don't they differ and maybe even contradict each other?

I believe I asked Tater some reasonable questions. He seemed to be expressing the opinion that many people are voluntarily homeless. Since we generally ask that people back their assertions, it did not seem to me that I was being rude to find out where he got his information. I think acquiring information first hand is a perfectly legitimate way of getting it. Tater has told me he has lunched with many homeless people. I am eager to see him elaborate about the relationship he had with them that has convinced him that they were perfectly capable of work. I am in the unique situation of having often read their psych evals. Tater need not have such specific information to post his opinion but husmusen has posted several sources that Tater seems to dismiss without presenting either anecdote or links of his own. Why so defensive on his behalf Pangloss?

Red Alert, one of the characteristics of young skin is that it is thick and constantly shedding dead skin cells. Apha hydroxy acid speeds that process thus making the skin appear younger and, when it comes to the way our culture values youth, appearing younger has its advantages.

Oh really. It is odd that you are so dismissive of people. I thought your attitude was directed at the "shiftless' date='" but I now see you have little respect for people who author books. What constitutes real work in your opinion? May I ask what sort of work [b']you[/b] do?

I too know many. In fact I have worked with many homeless people trying to help them find employment. Certain things stand in their way: 1. Work history. This is often very spotty. Because they have various problems they tend to fall into the trap of sporadic or temporary employment. Sometimes problems began when they were quite young and they never established a work history in the first place. (Example: I have met no less than three young men with active AIDS, who had been kicked out of their homes when they became infected.) 2. Emotional problems. This tends to be much the same as mental illness, but for the sake of your greater understanding, I will be very specific. They often have Bipolar Disorder, Schizoaffective Disorder, and Schizophrenia. These are the major serious mental problems that affect many. Other problems are PTSD, Dependant Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder and many more. (Example: A Schizoaffective woman with ADHD and PTSD I worked with to try to help her find employment. She was unable to stop talking long enough to be interviewed. She thought everyone was conspiring against her, and -- when in desperation -- we explored self-employment options, she wanted funding to build Disneyland New Mexico.) 3. Substance abuse problems. Alcoholism is one substance abuse problem that occurs frequently -- in homeless males more often than females. (Example: An alcoholic artist with an MFA who had been painting window advertising before he suffered serious neurological damage that affected control of his legs. There were times he could not walk. He also could not stop drinking despite the fact that he would soon become paralysed if he persisted.) 4. A background of suffering from violence or abuse. (I have met so many war veterans, ex gang members, and physically and sexually abused and raped homeless people that I have given up thinking that the next homeless person I meet will not have it. I have come to expect this as a common problem in the homeless. I am glad you have met so many homeless people with nothing wrong with them. It is heartening to hear so. I am assuming that you knew them well enough and that you had acquired their trust so that they willingly confided in you that they had nothing wrong with them. It is a little surprising however; most people don't willingly confide in people who so obviously have contempt for them. I, too, have met recently a homeless man who claims that he is absolutely sane and there is nothing wrong with him. As soon as he saves the world, he expects his Father in Heaven to call him home. At such time we can all breathe a sigh of relief at the improvement in our circumstances.