🚀 go-pugleaf

darrow@oneillaw.com (M O'Neill) writes:

> Hey fella, I agree with your comments as well.  Be careful with your
> attributions.  Don't you think it's possible for a free society to

Sorry, snipped too deep.

> meet its humanitarian obligations?  What country takes better care of
> its poor than the US?  China?  Iraq?  N. Korea (ha haha,starving its
> people in order to build nuclear weapons)?

I believe it is not only possible, but should be a priority of a
free society. If you want to think of it from the right:
the more people who share in the wealth the fewer there are who
want a revolution. If you want to think of from the left:
These are our fellow countrymen and humans and we are responsible
for them.

> 
> We hardly know what poverty is in this country.  I'm not a right

So true. Are there many other nations where an automobile is
considered a necessity?

> winger, I'm not a republican or anything close to it.  I have real
> problems with the accumulation of excess wealth, but those are moral

"They say that Richard Cory owned one half of this whole town..."

> problems.  I haven't seen any political system which can deal with
> those problems.

"and the papers read 'Richard Cory went home last night... and put a
bullet in his head.'"


> THey can only be dealt with by an educated public.
> You can't save people from themselves.  Educate them, and they might
> be able to make the right decisions though.


Perhaps. I've seen some fairly bizarre, career destroying behavior
by Ph.D.s, though.  People will always be people, lurching and staggering
forward like a sack of cats.

Louis