Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    I expect people with "more" to help people with "less".  It's that old
    Robin Hood thang.  I don't expect them to give EVERYTHING, or even
    MOST.  I think it "feels like" they should give MORE if they
    "inherited" or stumbled upon their money/talent/gift, rather than
    earning it.  Like they were graced with a gift from (something divine?)
    and they should obviously share it with the world because it came
    through grace or serendipity rather than hard work (more of that old
    subconcious ethic "we get our ..... the old fashioned way...we EARN
    it")...
    
    I know the above is nebulous.  But it's my gut reaction
    
    -Jody
    

    I also feel people who are more fortunate should do what they can to
    help others not so fortunate - My others include the environment and
    animals as well as people.  My biggest worry when it looked like I
    would be getting a divorce (which we managed to avoid) was that I would
    be unable to help the organizations I felt strongly about.
    
    "By their deeds ye shall know them"
    
      -HA

    I was raised up from a sprout with the understanding that it is a moral
    imperative that those with more, whether earned or inherited, aid those
    in need.  Noblesse oblige, if you will.
    
    Having seen this article of faith applied with mixed enthusiasm, I
    cannot say that I 'expect' it of anyone.  Being the strident sort that
    I am, I tend to voice my 'wishes' in this regard in terms that sound
    suspiciously like demands or requirements.
    
    But ultimately, how each individual uses the talents and gifts [both
    material and otherwise] that s/he possesses is the choice of the
    individual.  I may not like, condone, or approve of that choice but my
    power to change it is also limited.
    
      Annie
    
    

    I too learned the term noblesse oblige early. And although I did not
    know anyone whom I'd consider wealthy enough to be obligated, all of
    the images I've ever seen of the upper class indicated that they
    compete with each other in being charitable at times, so its a peer
    thing... as long as its the "right" cause. I also sense that it may
    feel good to be a benefactor or patron, and to be lavished with praise
    by the recipient.
    
    But that didn't seem to be what Lorna was talking about, I thought she
    meant it more generally than just money.
    
    According to my ex, in the Quran, there is a passage "to whom much is
    given, much is expected". If you have a talent or a gift, you are
    expected to develop it for the good of all, including yourself. Charity
    is also, seemingly, a cornerstone of Christianity. Moreover, its been
    built into most societies that I've seen. We have many words for those
    who do not share. They are misers, stingy, Scrooges, niggardly. (I
    don't even want to know the etymology of that last one!) So, it has
    always seemed to me to be a part of the culture to share the wealth.

    I was at a quaker meeting last week and a man stood up and shared as
    the spirit moved him about how we are all given gifts and how it is a
    great thing to share our gifts, be they intellectual or spiritual or
    emotional or financial.  They were not given us to be hoarded or
    misered away or vouchsafed for someday.  I was very moved, and wrote
    some thoughts on that in my journal.
    
    -Jody

    I think that everyone has some sort of responsiblity to share and help
    with other people, whether it's on the level of political activism,
    monetary donations, or on a more personal level with individuals we
    deal with on a daily basis.  It also seems to me that people who are
    rich and famous usually had to have more talent, energy, brains,
    gumption, tenacity, whatever, than the average person or otherwise they
    never would have become rich and famous.  I think that if they have
    been blessed with extra gifts, (and sometimes I even wonder if the
    desire and ability to work extra isn't also a gift? to be born into a
    life circumstance where working hard seems desirable and is encouraged
    may be a matter of chance) then these gifts should be shared with the
    rest of the human race, especially those people who are really down and
    out...homeless, chronically ill, unwanted children, victims of various
    disasters, etc.  What would happen if someone who has the energy,
    talent and brains to become rich and famous as a business entrepreneur
    or movie star, had channeled all that energy into trying to help other
    people instead?  How might the world benefit?
    
    I agree that we should all ask ourselves how we can help and the world
    would be a better place if we all did what we could, but it's also a
    fact that some people seem to have more to offer than others.  I think
    it would be especially helpful if those with the most would also be
    interested in helping others.
    
    Lorna
    

    Most of us have some time that we could devote to the less fortunate,
    if we fail to to that can we justify criticizing the wealthy or the
    talented for the way they use their resources.
    
    J

    My only beef is with people who try and _legislate_ that feeling 
    into law. What I do to help is my business, what you do is yours.
    Ordering me to be charitable by force of government makes me, to
    say the least, damned *un*charitable. (Which is why, IMHO, socialism
    and communism are doomed to fail.)
    
    Dana

    I also think that there are many people who are doing all they can to
    stay afloat themselves.  Some people are perilously close to becoming
    the "less fortunate" themselves.  If these people manage to take care
    of their own, and never require public assistance then, perhaps, in
    their own way, they are doing something to help.
    
    Lorna
    

    I gues part of me doesn't subscribe to the notion that there's a LINE
    that stands between "those who need help" and "those who don't need
    help".  I think 99% of the people in this universe need things from
    other people, and when some of those needs don't get met they suffer
    (be they financial needs, emotional needs, physical needs, whatever).
    
    I think I focus more on helping "just plain folks" than trying to right
    the shipwreck of universal impoverishment (although I try to help there
    too).  I tend to help more of those people within reach.  
    
    Moderating this notesfile has given me the opportunity personally to
    touch thousands of lives, and help hundreds of people (yes, even
    pointers can help, or a hug, or having a cup of coffee and sharing...). 
    
    Is it okay if I don't specifically help people who need everything the
    most?  I get the feeling I'm more comfortable helping those people
    within reach, and those whose lives I will be able to change a bit even
    with the small amount I can do.  When I look at ALL the help that some
    people need (the poor, the destitute, the homeless) I get this hopeless
    feeling that I can't even make a dent in their need (although, as I
    said, I try as much as I'm comfortable).  
    
    There is a definite payoff for me in helping others.  I'm hooked on the
    feeling of knowing I've done the job well, and made their lives sparkle
    even a little in the process....
    
    -Jody
    

    
    I certainly don't expect anyone to do anything they don't want
    to do or aren't comfortable doing (above following the law and
    exhibiting normal politeness).
    
    That's one reason why I'd like to see a drastic change in our
    income tax laws and tax the very rich far more heavily than is
    currently being done, with the hope that this extra tax would go
    to helping the truly needy.
    
    In another vein of the same issue:  Let's say that I have decided
    (as it appears many people in this string have) that people who are
    fortunate, wealthy, lucky, talented, or whatever have an "obligation"
    to help those less fortunate or donate time, money, whatever.  What's
    to stop me then from deciding the particular charity that should
    receive that person's help, time, and money?
    
    For example, right now there are the "fashionable" causes vs.
    "not-as-fashionable" causes.  AIDS is real fashionable as opposed to
    cancer.  Animal rights seems to be far, *FAR* more popular than
    real-people suffering.  We're tired of hearing about the starving
    Ethiopians, but the Kurds and the Bangladeshis deserve our money.
    
    So if I've decided that rich person X has an obligation to help
    those less fortunate, but X gives her money to an "animal rights"
    group, what's to stop me from lamenting, "What a waste!  X *really*
    should have given her money to an environmental group."
    
    I don't want to get into all this "this cause deserves more than
    that cause", and I do not want to get into what people should and
    shouldn't do with their time and money.
    
    I find it repugnant that so many people (in this string, apparently!)
    want to dictate the lives of the rich.  That smacks of jealousy to me.
    
    I think it's great that stars like Liz Taylor and Madonna lend their
    talents and names to a cause like AIDS.  I think much more of them
    as people.  However, I don't think it's so "Terrible" that other
    stars don't do the same.
    

        re .11, Ellen, your second paragraph is in complete
        contradiction to everything else you said.
        
        Dan

    re.11
    
    feeling that someone has an obligation is _NOT_ the same as
    compelling them.
    
    because I feel that it is better to keep one child from starving than
    to allow two hundred to starve more slowly, this does not mean that I
    feel that giving to a Save the Children is wrong.  while I will always
    have opinions, how others dispose or dispense is not under my control
    nor should it be [I _may_ try to influence, though :^) ]
    
    I hate the very idea of taxes, yet I willingly pay them as they are
    certainly the lesser evil in my eyes.
    
      Annie

    
    Not really, Dan, but it was a non-sequitur (is it okay for me
    to use your word, D!?)
    

    Try this maxim on for size:  The rich don't normally get that way by
    being generous.
    
    Research has shown repeatedly that the poor are *proportionately*
    more generous than the rich.
    
    Richard

Richard - what's your point? If you look at absolute terms, the
rich give more than the poor. If accumulating wealth rather than
giving it away is the way to become rich, then we can get a net
increase in charity by encouraging poor people to become rich.

Do you follow? My point is that sacrifice, in and of itself, is
noble, but may not be the best way to help people.

	-- Charles

    
    I've been travelling a lot in the US. (14 different states to be
    exactly). Often I have tried to look for more than the "main streets".
    I've seen a lot of 'the unfortunates' and 'the poors'.
    
    I bet all of them would say all of you are rich.
    
    Funny then how we consider us selves average. (Hey, look at him/her,
    s/he is richer than me).
    
    The question is: what do _you_ do?
    
    And actually, that is the question in most cases, not only when it
    comes to help.
    
    Stop blaming Miss Mexico, Madonna, taxes, goverment or whatever.
    That's the easy way out. The non-productive way.
    
    
    PerS,
     

> Personally, I took this as a hint.  I looked at the amount I was giving at the
> time (0%), and decided maybe it was time to be more helpful.  

Funny you should mention this... when I did taxes this year I compared the
amount of charitable donations I'd been giving for the past few years...
they've been going downward.  This surprised me, so I started thinking about
it, and I came up with the following:

About a year or two after I got out of college, our hosehold income started
showing a comfortable margin over and above basic survival expenses.  At this
time we decided that it was time to keep the good karma flowing by giving to
charity.  Since we were making more than we needed, it only seemed natural
that we should give some of our excess to those who could put it to good use.
At that time we'd get maybe one or two solicitations a week in the mail, so
we picked the ones we believed in the most and sent in the checks.

Then the repeat solicitations started:  "Hmmm...don't they remember that
we've given to them already?  Well, they deserve it, here's a little more!"
Then the emergency solicitations ("We've got a crisis!  We need extra money
NOW!!!").  So we'd rush off some $$$ post-haste.

Then, slowly, the flood began.  It was obvious that by being generous, we'd
gotten on some mailing lists with a few extra stars after our names indicating
that we were generous donors.  So those charities that we gave to told two
friends, and they told two friends, and so on, and so on..... until now we
receive no fewer than half a dozen charity pleas a DAY in our mailbox.  All
of them in dire financial straits (or so they say).  All of them highly
deserving (or so they say).  And all of them asking if we could spare "just
a little" for their Oh-So-Worthy-Cause.

Can you see the cynicism building?  If we gave $10.00 to every tearful,
desperate charity pitch that came in our mailbox, WE'D be in need of 
charity in short order!

Last December, I started throwing our junk mail into a box instead of 
the trash, just to see how much we got.  It only took about eight weeks 
to fill it to the top.  I started thinking about the printing, processing,
and mailing costs for all that stuff.  I took my box and multiplied it in
my mind by the millions of others who must've gotten the same pitches.
I saw this literal mountain of paper in my mind and thought about how much
it must have cost to produce.  And then I wondered how hard up the charities
could possibly be if they could afford to buy that mountain...

And then I started thinking about the pitches themselves... seems as though
today's pitch from Charity X reads just the same as the one from five years
ago.  Which tells me that they're no closer to solving the problem that
they're trying to address than they were then.  And I get the funny feeling
that five years from NOW they'll STILL be no closer.

Now I know that all of the above is not STRICTLY true; I know that charities
actually tend to get a positive return on mail solicitations or else they
wouldn't do them.  I also know that my organizations actually ARE making
incremental progress towards their goals, but that it's difficult to
communicate this in appeal letters.

In the end, though, I FEEL tired, tapped-out, and almost used.  I feel
like I've been giving and giving but that I see neither results NOR
appreciation for my efforts.  Even the occasional thank-you letter that
some charities send out seems cold and hollow (especially when it's
accompanied by a return envelope in case I want to give a little more!).
It seems as though the only reward I'm getting for my efforts at being
charitable is the right to be hit up more and more often.  This isn't
exactly positive reinforcement...

Maybe I should do like Jody and become more PERSONALLY involved... at
least then I might see the results of my actions.  But at the same time
I'm not quite sure I have what it takes to do so effectively.  Part of
it comes from the fact that, like a typical male, I tend to adopt a
left-brained, problem-solving approach to situations.  I want to see a
project through to its completion.  When presented with a problem, I want
to "fix" it.  I feel like a failure if I don't (or can't).  Yet I recognize
that most social problems are resistant to permanent solutions... I get
the feeling that I'd only be frustrated.

Is there anyone else out there in my situation?  Or who has BEEN in my
situation and is now able to give help where it's needed WITHOUT trying
to "fix" the problems completely?  I'd appreciate some support or ideas
in this area....

--jim

    re -1
    
    Jim,
    
    What I did was basically stop giving to direct mail appeals, the United
    Way, etc, and focused my efforts.  For me, this means a few things:
    
    1. Joining the "Box Project", an organization which pairs you up with a
    less fortunate family in rural Mississippi.  Monthly (more or less) we
    send them food, household items, books, clothes...according to their
    needs, and what's available to us at the time.  For me, "helping" this
    way lets me be comfortable that what I'm giving addresses a need,
    rather than going for more fundraising.
    
    2. Supporting "local efforts" for causes I support--walkathons for
    cancer, for example.
    
    3. Putting my talents to work in my community--I'm presently serving a
    Treasurer for a group trying to build a local playground.
    
    I hope this helps.  I believe we all have an obligation to "give
    something back"--but I do get fed up with "multiplying solicitations"
    in the mail.
    
    Susan  

    I hear stories about a single person making 20, 30 MILLION DOLLARS or
    more a year, then hear a story about how a child is denied a public
    school education because his family lives in a car and therefore has
    no "permanent" address (required to attend school).  There is something
    wrong with this.  
    
    I know I wouldn't be comfortable with that much money EVERY YEAR. 
    There should be some way to make these rich people give some tiny
    part of that kind of outrageous income or at least their talent to
    helping those people who need help, like the homeless.  These
    homeless people would be able to start helping themselves with 
    slight initial assistance.  
    
    My favorite fantasy is to win BIG in one of the state lotteries and
    use some of that money to build very low cost homes/apartments for
    the homeless to give them shelter and a place to start rebuilding
    their lives.  My greatest fear is to become one of them.  It could
    happen to me or to anyone.  I earn an income.  I have a job.
    
    My income, unfortunately, is not enough to allow me to have a 
    place of my own.  I have to depend on others for a place to live,
    roommates.  It has been my moving into a place owned by someone
    else.  It's a very unsettling feeling to know that at any time I
    could be asked to leave for any reason.  
    
    Linda
    

    It is a common, but obtuse, paradigm among Americans that:
    
    1. The poor are not willing to work; that it's their own fault they're
       poor.
    
    2. The rich are lucky; that it took more than sheer initiative to become
       rich.
    
    Richard

    re .23, actually, I don't care what it took for someone to become rich. 
    Whether a person got their money through inheritance, luck, talent,
    exploiting workers, or hard work (and so what if someone got their
    money by hard work?  Big deal!  A lot of people who own businesses have
    exploited their workers with low pay just so they could get richer), I
    don't think it's ethical for one person to live in luxury (yachts,
    private planes, 3 or more homes, etc.) while other people in the same
    country sleep in cars and their children can't attend school, and while
    the majority of black children are still born into ghettos where their
    only chance for success is to become drug dealers.  In my opinion, just
    because someone is willing to be ruthless even, or lucky enough to
    become rich does not mean they have a right to horde this wealth and
    not help others.
    
    Incidentally, in an interview with Madonna in Rolling Stone this month
    she mentions that she feels guilty over having earned so much money. 
    She said that during her Blonde Ambition Tour she used to take her
    dancers shopping and buy them anything they wanted.  This isn't the
    answer to the problems in America, obviously, since I'm sure that her
    dancers were paid good salaries, but at least it showed me that she's
    aware that she has some obligation to share her wealth.
    
    Lorna
    

    Just what IS rich?
    According to gov't figures the mean income for a family of four in this
    country is $20,000.
    
    So, if you're a single fe/male making 25,000/year, YOU ARE RICH.
    
    only 5% of the population in this country make $100,000 or more per
    year.  So if your spouse and you together make a combined income of
    $100,000, YOU ARE RICH.
    
    So, technically, we are railing about ourselves when we complain about
    the rich being stingy, about it not being FAIR that "the rich" just
    keep making more and more, and don't give anything back.  As Pogo once
    said "We have met the enemy, and THEM is US."
    
    According to government statistics fro The Wall Street Journal, the top
    earning 2% of the population contribute about 75% of the personal
    income taxes collected by this country every year.  That's significant
    in my mind.
    
    Furthermore, no one ever guaranteed fairness in this world, no one is
    born with a guarantee that they will be treated fairly once born into
    this world.  I get real tired of the phrase "it isn't fair that (fill
    in the blank)". 
    
    Peopl love to use that tired old phrase to lay on the guilt, subtly but
    ever present.  As for the direct mail flood, mine goes directly from
    mailbox to trash can, with a few exceptions.  Some of these outfits,
    charitable organizations, are quite rich, quite well off.  Sometimes I
    think about the millions of charities out there trying to fix some
    never ending "problem" with a never diminished "need" for more money,
    and I have to believe that NO amount of money will solve the problems
    in this world.  But that's just it, this world will always have
    problems, and it's useless to feel guilty about saying "no" when you
    have to.
    
    The way I look at it is that I and my family are one less problem in
    this world needing fixed.  Because I take care of me and mine.
    
    I give what and when I can, but beyond that I refuse to feel guilty.
    

    >Just what IS rich?
    >According to gov't figures the mean income for a family of four in
    >this country is $20,000.
    
    >    So, if you're a single fe/male making 25,000/year, YOU ARE RICH.
    
    Uh...no.  That just means your above average.  Above average does not
    mean you are RICH.
    
    An average IQ is 100, but that doesn't make some with an IQ of 105 a
    genius.  If the "right" weight for someone is 125 pounds, and they
    weigh 135, they aren't obese.
    
    Both "genius" and "rich" and "obese" mean far above average.  Various
    organizations have defined "genius" as being between the top 10th and
    2nd percentiles.  "Obese" is often defined as being more than 25% over
    your "ideal" weight.
    
    So what's RICH?  Certainly it means at *least* two standard deviations
    away from average.  Since I have no idea what the standard deviation
    is, I can't say what that is, but I am sure it's more than 5 thousand.
    
    Also, while the *mean* income may be $20,000, I doubt that's average.
    
    D!

    
    I would bet that if incomes were plotted on a histogram, there would be
    a somewhat bimodal trend. There would be the average, at $20,000. And
    then there would be a second, smaller "hump" for the middle-class
    average, although I don't know where that is (my guess is between
    $70-100000 for either one person making $60000 + a part-time spouse, or
    two $40K incomes or one $100K income). And then it would really trail
    off. I know I used to think of $150K as rich. But I've met people
    with that kind of money. They're definitely well-off. Maybe even upper
    middle-class. But they aren't rich by any stretch of the imagination.
    To me, rich starts at a 5 year $400K contract that you invest wisely.
    More likely, its  a $5 million trust fund with 8% interest that lets
    you skim off $400,000 a year for life.  Rich is when you go to college
    for the education. Or to learn something about managing your money. But
    when you don't even have to think about working.  Except as a hobby.
    Free-lance photography. Politics. Board of trustee positions. Perpetual
    guest speaker. Professional philanthropist - giver-to-good-causes. Your
    biggest questions are whether to buy or sell, which tie to wear, which
    cause to give to, which island to buy property on, which party to go to
    on which continent. In other words, life's only challenge is to find
    challenge in it.

    Re: .24
    
    Lorna,
    
    	We're in agreement.  The most subversive thing you can do is
    to give money away.  The poor seem to understand this principle
    more often than the materially wealthy.
    
    Richard

    	A woman who was a member of my family was a housewife and did
    charity work for most of her life.  Her husband started a business that
    to this day employs around 100 people.  She is remembered for her good
    works.  He is remembered as a capitalist exploiter (except maybe by the
    100 people who take home a paycheck every week for an honest week's
    work).  She wouldn't have been able to perform her charitable work
    without his support.
    	Which one is the greater humanitarian?  Which one has contributed
    more to our society?  Which would you rather have:  an occaisional
    handout from a charitable organization, or a paycheck for a week of
    productive work?  What would happen to our society if all of the
    money-grubbing capitalists sold off their investments and gave the
    money to the poor?  What would happen if all of the money that our
    government gives to those it considers poor were invested in productive
    enterprises that could provide jobs to the poor.  (The last two are
    "reductio ad absurdam" which is considered to be a valid logical
    technique to evaluate an argument.)
    						John
    

    re .29, I think we realize some people disagree.  While it does come in
    handy to get a paycheck every week, it would be even better if
    employers (aptly called money grubbing capitalist by yourself) would
    pay all workers enough money to survive on in today's economy.  $4.25
    an hour as a minimum wage, in this economy, is a sick joke.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    In my opinion, the wife, by your description, was the best humanitarian
    she could be. The husband, also by your description, could have done
    more for his 100 employees than he did. So, my vote goes to the wife,
    who did all she could, vs. the husband, who did not.
    
    Your analogy falls short when you forget that some people simply cannot
    work. Quadraplegics and the severely mentally handicapped are two
    groups that come to mind. I also think about the fact that there's a
    difference between forming a company to nurture employees and forming a
    company that exploits them. I don't want to be exploited, but you seem
    to advocate it. I don't understand this at all.
    
    A person who uses his money to form businesses that employ people and
    nurture their growth and skills is a humanitarian. Most people easily
    say that about Ken Olsen. A person who uses his money to buy
    companies, strip away employees until the company isn't viable, and
    then sell for the capital assets is NOT a humanitarian in my book.
    
    The terms businessman and humanitarian don't have to be mutually
    exclusive... but they can be for many individuals. 
    
    I think you used the phrase "capitalist exploiter" to produce an
    effect. I took you on face value, but I'm not sure whether you really
    meant it. Was this man exploitative or not?

    
    How can you judge who is the "best" humanitarian without knowing the
    motivations behind these people?  What if the wife is doing charitable
    work and giving donations because she feels obligated to her church, or
    social group/organization or social status, or simple for ego 
    gratification?  What if she ignores her children when they need her, in 
    favor of going to charitable events? Is she still a wonderful 
    humanitarian?  
    
    What if the husband is an honest businessman, provides a safe,
    comfortable workplace for his employees, pays them a reasonable wage,
    is honest and understanding in his treatement of them?  
    
    Who is "better" than who?
    
    No one has any right to judge anyone's "degree" of humanity, without
    knowledge of the person's motivations for "giving" or not "giving",
    etc..  
    
    
    And, from personal experience on the "receiving" and "giving" end (I am
    not trying to insult anyone here, but this is a strong topic for me, so
    please exuse my wording if I get kind of "harsh"):
    
    As a starving runaway/street kid (ages 16 to 18 or so), I would have 
    benefited much more from one genuinely caring person than all the soup 
    kitchens in Atlanta.  I never went to one of those degrading places unless 
    I had gone more than a couple days or so without food, and couldn't 
    scrounge enough from the trash bins in back of the fancy restaurants.  I 
    can't judge all of people working in them, or all of the soup kitchens, 
    but the atmosphere in the ones I was unluckey enough to have to go to was 
    terrible - most of those people were there not from genuine caring, but 
    from being a "good little (fill in favorite religion or social group here)"
     - oh boy, how many points have I racked up on the heaven score sheet, 
    today?  See my sacrifice?  I work a whole day a week giving food to those 
    awful, smelly, street people! Oh, look at what a _good_ little American I 
    am!  That same person wouldn't look at me as they walked to their car 
    after doing their "duty".  
    
    I didn't want your money, I didn't want your trite little kindly words,
    I didn't want your little "oh just be grateful you can get food"
    attitudes.  I needed YOU. Just one little straight look from your eyes,
    just one acknowledgement that I was human, that I had worth as a human.
    That's what I needed, and wanted more than anything. 
    
    If you are too selfish to give yourself, then just donate money, you do
    more harm than good if you can't or won't give yourself.  
    
    I'm not talking a lot of time, even.  Next time you are walking down the 
    street and see a homeless person, look at him/her as a HUMAN.  They still 
    are, even though they don't have pretty clothes, and smell because they
    haven't had a bath.  If they try to bum money or cigarettes off of you,
    in a voice that is so hard to understand because they don't have any
    teeth left, and they are groggy because of drugs/alcohol, don't just
    walk by, or look at them like they are lower than a dog.  They are
    still HUMAN.  They could have been you.  They could be your
    son/husband/father/mother/daughter/sister/brother, etc...  Sure they
    may be there by their own choice, but what kind of choice comes from
    a person that is emotionally and mentally unhealthy?  I didn't enjoy
    eating out of garbage cans. I didn't enjoy sleeping in abandoned
    buidlings.  I wasn't cabable of giving myself anything better. Neither
    are they.  
    
    You don't have to give them any money or cigarettes, just treat them 
    like a person, and say I'm sorry I don't have any... or whatever.  On
    sentance, one acknowledgement.  That takes what?  Less than 30 seconds? 
    Can you give 30 seconds, or are you too busy for that?
    
    Or the next time your child is unhappy, do you ignore it, make light of
    it or do you talk to him or her?  Do you treat them like property, give 
    them no more genuine attention or caring than you do your pets?  Do you 
    treat them like a person with their own individual feelings/ideas, or 
    like a little puppet or personal toy, to try an mold as you WANT. 
    Will you let them be what they want to be when they grow up, or is it 
    what you want or nothing at all? Do you treat them like HUMANS?  
     
    I'm not going judging any of you, Madonna, or Ken Olsen -  we are ALL 
    HUMANS. 
    
    YOU do what is right for you.  If you don't want to give time, give money. 
    If you don't want to give anything, don't.  It makes you no less a good
    or bad person than anyone else.
    
    So quit arguing and worrying about who should give what, and who should do 
    what. You are the only person you should be judging, and you are the
    only person that should and can decide what you will or won't do.
    
    Now, before you try and "flame" me, go back and read my disclaimer. (-:
    
    C. (-:
    
    

    .32  Well Said!
    

    re .32, I think some people are afraid to look in the eyes of, or talk
    to street people, for fear of being robbed or stabbed.  Perhaps the
    chances of this happening are slim but still we hear so much about
    violence (particularly male against female) these days that I don't
    feel confident talking with and exchanging eye contact with strange
    men, especially strange men who are covered with grime, wild-eyed, and
    asking for a handout.  It's a complicated issue.  
    
    I can, however, relate to the desire to be treated and acknowledged as
    a human being.  I often have the same feelings working as a secretary
    at Digital.
    
    Lorna
     

    
    I'm not trying to advise anyone, but in my experience, the way people 
    make a street person or homeless person angry is to ignore them when
    they approach you, instead of acknowledging them.  Again, they are still 
    human.  Picture yourself, and if you are trying to ask someone something, 
    and they totally ignore you, what would your reaction be?  In fact,
    some street people/homeless people target your "typical suburban type"
    of person because they know the fear reaction they will get - it's
    gives them a bit of satisfaction knowing that okay, if you are going to
    treat them like an animal, at least they can scare you a bit.   
    
    C. (-:
    
      

    re .35, having people ignore me when I approach them and try to ask
    them a question happens all the time to me, as a secretary, at Digital. 
    Oftentimes I have to ask an important question of an engineering
    manager or an engineer and they will just ignore me as though I'm not
    even human and leave me standing in the doorway of an office, like a
    fool, or like I'm waiting for a bus in the Mill, while they continue to
    talk.  It's as though they're thinking, She's only a secretary...let
    her stand there...what can she have to say that's important...But, I
    might have just heard that *their* boss want to see them immediately,
    or that their wife just went into labor, or their kid just got hurt, or
    that something they asked me to set-up right away can't be arranged,
    etc., etc.  I just hope that since you have so much sympathy for street
    people that you also remember to treat working people with respect.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Yes, and how do you feel when these people ignore you?  That's how
    street people feel when you ignore them.  Are you treating them in the
    same manner which you are treated, and feel so badly about?
    
    People are people, humans are humans, whether they are street people or
    secretaries, whether they are company presidents or a cashier at a fast
    food restaurant?
    
    (The following is off the topic, but this isn't the first time in notes
    this has happened!)
    
    My manager is treated the same way I would Ken Olsen, if he would walk in 
    to my cubicle.  Are you letting other people control you, or are you in 
    control of yourself?  A person either allows themself to be treated that 
    way, or they don't.  It's up to each individual. 
    
    (This is not aimed at anyone individual, this is not an attack on
    anyone's way of being.)  
    
    I was a secretary in DEC for about 3.5 years, and a secretary and clerical 
    worker for quite a few years before that.  I know how others can treat 
    secretaries like "second class citizens".  That is their choice.  I
    chose to not allow it.  If someone then, or now ignores my question, I
    ask again, if they still would ignore, I'll ask them why.  I won't react 
    to their behavior in the way they want.  They are just another human. 
    This doesn't in any way excuse that type of behavior, but I can't
    change or alter their behavior. However, I can choose not to react in the
    manner in which they desire and want.  
    
    C. (-:
    
    

    re .37, yeah, you can choose how to *act* but it can still bother you
    inside, if you know what I mean.  
    
    Also, I don't think you can fairly compare ignoring secretaries on the
    job with a woman ignoring male, street people.  I think the majority of
    male, engineering managers and engineers, feel quite certain that I am
    never going to physically harm them in any way.  (They may be fools for
    feeling that way about me, but I'm sure they do. ha-ha)  On the other
    hand, there is a more realistic likelihood of a strange man, harming a
    woman, on the street, or in the subway.  Besides, when I'm being
    ignored I'm doing my *job* in a place of business.  When I ignore a
    street person, I'm walking on the street minding my own business on my
    free time.  I have a legitimate *need* to talk to my manager.  A street
    person has no legitimate need to talk to me.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    An now, to get totally off the original topice, but I don't care, it's
    Friday, and I'm having fun today!
    
    Well Lorna,  I guess we can agree to disagree (-: I don't feel there is
    any difference in how a person should be treated, regardless of their
    social status/employment status, etc..  My philosophy is still a human
    is a human.  
    
    And yes I know exactly what you mean (-:, I do get frustrated to no end 
    sometimes. Spent a couple hours on the phone last night venting my 
    frustrations at the human race to a very good friend regarding a meeting 
    I attended this week for some people trying to establish a "clearing house"
    type of organization for runaways and missing kids. There was a person 
    there who's attitude was to the effect of "I don't see why you're worrying 
    about these kids needing help, I don't see why the runaway.  If they have 
    problems, then why don't they just go to a policeman or minister? "  
    AAAAAGGGHH!  No matter what anyone tried to say, he refused to take it into
    consideration or even just listen."  What he believe is the RIGHT way,
    and no one else's feelings or opinions mattered.  Sigh...  And then
    there are all these wonderful people who refuse to see that they are
    wonderful.  People who allow other people and those people's
    perceptions of what is the "Right" and "Wrong" way to be to dictate their 
    lives instead of being themselves, and if they do, they feel guilty and
    "bad". Sigh... It's hard to see people you care about chasing their
    tails in circles like the proverbial dog does.  Double sigh...It's been a 
    long week. Enough rambling.  
    
    And a telepathic hug to you, Lorna, for those times you feel frustrated, 
    and may you find a yourself a solution for it. (and no, bashing your hand 
    through a wall is not a good one - how I felt this week, but didn't do.  
    I like my apartment walls intact. (-: ) Sometimes it's hard to remember
    that that frustration, anger we feel only hurts ourselves, and doesn't
    effect the people who we were reacting to!  But, well, we _are_ after
    all human.
    
    Happy weekend to you all!
    
    C. (-: