From: Patrick McCuller (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Nov 13 2000 - 23:07:52 MST
> > > Hmmm.... The national parks are pretty clean.... And there
> > are plenty of
> > > privately owned
> > > toxic sludge swamps within 10 miles of where I live in jersey
> > city.... But
> > > I guess technically speaking the point is ~arguable~ ;>
> > I don't follow. The US federal government is the biggest
> > polluter in the
> > world, even disregarding nuclear testing. Have you been to Utah recently?
> Not worth arguing on here... data on pollution by large corporations is easy
> to find if you're curious...
I... I got carried away, I wrote a LOT of passionate argument on this issue.
Ben, I think you're wrong, but I don't think we're going to agree no matter
what you or I say. What I will say is this, and I hope it is fair: if there is
anyone reading this who cares to talk about it, I will talk with you. In
> By your statistics, we have about 70 million kids in the country. Suppose
> 20% of them
> are poor, then that's 14 million. Suppose 1/4 of the poor kids in the
> country get fucked
> up via drugs or violence etc., that's 3.5 million. That's millions.
Allow me to quote you:
"Yet the "poverty mentality" drags down millions of new kids in our country
each year, into lives of violence and destructive drug use ..."
That's each year. You're now proposing 3.5 million poor people per year?
Which is it? 3.5 million total, or millions per year?
I'm just picking on your numbers, actually. This seems silly - it isn't
advancing a proposition one way or the other, right? Actually, it is. It
limits you. It limits what you say by enforcing basic consistancy. If it is
millions per year, it is a crisis of fantastic proportions. If it is millions
total, it is still a crisis, but of a different order.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:35 MDT