Weekly Topics

Weekly Discussions

You cannot be rich unless someone else is poor. Santa Claus visits only the wealthy.

Topic 7: Government disaster relief

I can well appreciate the need for financial help in case of disaster such as from hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. But there are extenuating circumstances, for example:

Should we help people who build homes in places that are known to be likely disaster areas? Private insurance companies do not issue such policies so why should the government.

I carry insurance to help refinance my home in case of fire, flood, etc. In case of such an event, I will get no help from the Government. Am I different from those indicated above who do get Government help?

Government help comes only to those involved in a mass event. Individuals outside such an event do not count. Somehow, I think that this is unjust. Why do only mass events get the help -- because of mass pressure, guilty consciences, and politics? Of the three, I would consider the latter the most likely.

Everyone should be treated the same. There should be Government help for everyone facing a crisis from a natural disaster or there should be no help to anyone. The latter simply states that each person is responsible for his or her own life. This is the way I think it should be.

There is of course the desire of most of us to help those in need. I have no quarrel with this and contribute to such help regularly. What I am concerned about is the inequality and inadequate distribution of such help. The government should help all or none (but there are extenuating circumstances here as well -- to be discussed later).

I do not have a solution for the above dilemma but I know that what is done now is not the right approach.

Note: The same problem exists with the 9x11 disaster. Why should the families of these people get thousands and even millions of dollars because their loved ones were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Lives lost from tornados, forest fires, other attacks from militants, etc. throughout the world usually don't warrant any compensation to their families. Even the families of soldiers killed in Iraq get almost nothing in compensation. Bad, bad, bad. It is not that I lack sympathy but that the distribution of such funds is uneven and badly skewered -- and not fair to most of us. I will broach this subject again sometime since it is a common and recurring problem.

I am not sure why women’s breasts are so interesting to men. They are quite common; roughly half the people on earth have them. Still, they are better than anything men have to offer.

Topic 6: Some random thoughts

The first surest way to lose our freedom is to limit freedom of the press.

The second surest way to lose our freedom is for the press to become complacent in its pursuit of knowledge.

The third surest way to lose our freedom is to have the government hide behind a curtain of secrecy.

The forth surest way to loose our freedom is to have a religion-based government.

The separation of church and state is a cornerstone of our constitution.

One of the primary functions of any government is to be sure that there are enough jobs for anyone who can work. Without the means to make a living, the populace will revolt.

Eventually, the earth will run out of raw materials. At the present rate of population growth, this will likely occur within the next 300 years.

Censorship is a form of book burning practiced by those who want to control the thoughts of a population.

School children should not be sheltered from the use of "inappropriate" words by censorship but should be taught to recognize those words in the context of their historical significance and then to adapt their use to modern protocol.

There are thousands of valid scientific studies that support evolution. There are no valid scientific studies that support any form of creationism. Thus, there is no other conclusion but that man, along with all living things on earth, evolved from lower organisms.

The genetic makeup of man is over 95% the same as that of the chimpanzee. Fact, not conjecture.

Religion was created by man to explain any physical phenomena that could not otherwise be explained. Thus, the plague was caused by GOD to punish his errant flock, earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, etc. all the domain of GOD.

Death is relative. When the earth reaches a population that it can no longer support, millions of people will have to die. This will be done either by natural disaster or by the will of some ruling power. This will likely occur within the next 100-200 years unless some event stabilizes population growth.

Murder is relative. For example, many people consider abortion of a few fetuses a crime but are quite willing to kill thousands of people (including children) by starvation, lack of medical help and lack of housing. And don't kid yourself, the latter is no less of a crime (i.e., murder) than is abortion since it could be prevented but we choose not to do so.

Keeping mentally dead people alive by artificial means is a crime since these people are of no use to society (or themselves) and the money used to keep them alive, if used to help the needy, could prolong the lives of more useful people. This is another demonstration that murder is relative; i.e, some forms of murder are Ok and some are not.

Preachers don't know any more about what GOD really wants than do I.

If man were built along an assembly line as is done for cars, 95% (or more) of them would be rejected because of defective parts, poor assembly, or an inadequate paint job.

To suggest that such a miserable creature as man could be created by a just and loving GOD is ridicules.

The dead never talk to mediums in their native tongue. I wonder why.

Future Topics

Medical insurance, taxes, environment, how much money is enough, birth control, abortion, religion, anything that comes to mind.

War is OK (at least sort of) so long as you win. The more innovative the idea, the more likely it will be rejected. Stay out of hospitals if at all possible. Too many people die in them.

[ home | topic contents ]