h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Question 3
* What do you do when you see someone's child going to pot (that may be a typically English expression - it basically means getting screwed up) because both parents are out at work? Maybe both parents really do have to go to work to feed their families?
Everyone claims that the economy is so much better these days, if this is so, why then is it necessary for both parents to work their fingers to the bone just to pay the bills for a month? Another thing you'll notice is that in this campaign niether candidate is spouting off about "family values", the reason is simple. No one can afford to have them these days.
I don't care how good they tell us the economy is, it is not good enough for two people to raise children. At least not if we want them to have proper parental guidance. They look at the world around them and all they see are people scrambling for a dollar, fighting for a dollar, killing for a dollar.
Yet we want to blame their condition on the movies or video games.
When a teen looks at the future, and all he sees is a lifetime of busting his/her ass to make enough to squeak by on. They see the stress that their parents are constantly under, they hear the results of that stress in their parents voices when they speak to each other , and to the him/her. Is that the kind of future they are going to be eager to grow up to????
I DON'T THINK SO.
So for the child what are the alternatives?
He better hope he grows up to be famous for something I.E.:Sports legend, music star, actor/actress, software developer, etc.. if he she know they will never be any of these things, can you blame them for wanting out of what looks like hell to them? (Actually sometimes I even wonder why, but then I see my family)
No, conditions have to get better for the situations concerning children, and their parents.
Don't hope for Al Gore, Bill Clinton still wants to punish people for being married (he vetoed the bill which would have done away witht the extra taxes on married people, wasn't he one of those who campaigned on "family values", then he vetos the bill which would help married couples?????"
In short the government, no matter how it preaches "family values", is trying its best to destroy the family unit behind our backs.
As far as the child of such a situation going to "pot", this only happens when parents won't take what little time they have to tell the child that even for all the aggrivation, and stress, when they see the smile on their child's face, that makes it all worth it.

Next to follow.

The economy's fine, the distribution of wealth is in question. Our gross national product is enormous, but over 95% of it is going to the top 10% of the population. Clinton vetoed the marriage tax cut because the Republicans tacked on a whole bunch other unrelated stuff, so while I think the tax break was needed I can see why he vetoed it. I personally was wondering where my tax break was, I'm not married and a huge chunk of my paycheck disappears before I see it. How about those people on the upper brackets that don't pay any social security for anything over $76,000 in earnings? Or the 60% of corporations that dodged taxes last year with an unethical loophole?

I worked 50-55 hours per week last year as a 'Factory Trained Technician' in an auto dealer. Their business philosophy was dog-eat-dog; one friend of mine got fired because a new manager thought he was making too much money. Business got slow (they're losing customers through bad reputation) and I got laid off. I got a union job and now get paid the same for 40 hours a week, less stress, better benefits, and much better security. When James Carville said, "It's the economy, stupid!" he was only half right. America was made great not by the promise of a chance at getting rich, but by the support of its middle class.

[soapbox time!] Now the people who control the media are trying to tell us we only have a choice between two candidates who both support the policies of the very-wealthy? I would vote for Ralph Nader just to show my distaste, but they managed to keep him off the ballot in my state by virtue of a media blackout on his campaign.

Sorry if that's a little too opinionated, but I wanted to vent a little.

Quite right, bravo. Keep the soap-box out please.

I am in complete agreement with you. I too would vote for Mr. Nader, for many reasons, primarily his past concern for the consumer in this country. So I say

BANG ON, Flyboy.

Question 4
* What do you do when you see that a parent rejects its child?

Contact the proper authorities. A neglected child is an abused child no ifs, ands, or buts, and nothing further can or will be said here.

Question 5
* What do you do when you know that a parent is an alcoholic?

Again we come to the problem of definition. Unlike the current popular conclusion a person who drinks is not necessarily an alcoholic, if your profession is of a medical nature, then you are at least patially qualified to make that determination, otherwise, "judge not lest thou be judged."
The difference between a person who drinks, and an alcoholic is said to be this. "An alcoholic is a person who will endanger others, even though it is not his initial intent he will do so regardless, in his quest to continue his habit."
A child in this situation is, therefore, in danger and again the proper authorities should be contacted immediately. Be careful in this though, many families have been hurt by well intentioned do gooders who had no malicious intent, yet because they put their noses where thier noses did not belong they caused a world of hard feelings.

Be sure of your diagnoses before taking such action.

Next you wrote.
These type of people will not listen to you. They will not listen to the social services people. They will not listen to the education authorities. Deep down, they probably even love their children in their own ways and separating them from their kids won't be the answer.


You might be surprised to find that in most cases, that is more often than not, these people do all ready know that there is a problem and are coping with it in the best way that they know how. The thing here is not to go tossing accusation and invective, but to offer education.
Rather than saying to them. "Look, you drink too much you need to get some help before you hurt someone." Invite them to meet a friend of yours who is a recovering alcoholic/drug abuser/wife beater/etc... (If you don't know one, then you probably don't know your friends that well.) Let this person talk with them for a while, they know how to communicate with the kind of person that they used to be.
Also though it is very true that separation is not always the best answer when the situation is abusive either physically or verbally or likely to become so it is often the only answer available.
In non-abusive situations there are a multitude of family counciling services, and in this type you will find that 95% will be receptive to the idea. (statistics are an average gleaned from a multitude of sources IE AA, and other rehabilitation specialist organizations)

Next section please
If the State wants to intervene, it would be far more constructive to put any money into showing parents what they are doing wrong and helping them to do things better - without shaking fingers at them, of course.


When in my statement I refered to "The State" I was refering to the former Soviet Regime. I hope that you do not believe that it would be better to have a Socialist government take control of our families.
In your previous statement you indicated that you believe "separating them from their kids won't be the answer."
Yet throwing money at the problem does not solve the problem, often it makes it worse (consider "welfare"). No in this case rather than money, wouldn't it be better to throw people, caring people, at this type of situation.
As you aptly put "without shaking fingers at them, of course." (See my previous post.)

The only way to take the worries off anyone's shoulders is to completely do away with money. As long as there is money, people will worry about it. The poor, "Where do I get the next meal." The rich, "How can I keep my business together, I employ fifty men, men with families. If I lose they lose." ((At least we all hope they think that way, and before someone jumps at me on this (and I know Flyboy will) unions were created to keep companies from working employees to death with as little pay as they can get by with. National averages show that union employees make as much a 45% more than a non union worker in a similar job. I am no stranger to labor without compensation though these days I do fairly well, I still make nothing even close to my union counterpart, but I like my job and I don't feel that I'm not paid enough. I have seen the modern union at work in the coal fields and it looks very like a constant battle to do less actual work for more money, now I'm in that, take it where you can get it right, but from the outside looking in, it's a bit unfair to the rest of us)) So it gets harder for the employer to think this way.
It then goes in a circle, the employer has to pay more, so he charges more (again, God forbid he has to dig into his own pocket), so the cost of the product goes up. That makes the cost of living go up, and for the non-union employee who doesn't get a respective cost of living increase in salary it gets harder to get by each month.
If this seems a bit over board, ask those 50 odd thousand government employees who qualify for welfare, this figure includes those soldiers who aren't paid enough to defend our country.
Oh yes, the economy is in great shape if you are an investor, but fromt the standpoint of the guy under the poverty level things haven't changed. The biggest laugh of the century is the idea of "tax cuts for the poor" the poor don't need tax cuts, they don't pay any taxes at all, they collect money at the end of the year. Sure, okay there is a certain amount taken from their paychecks each payday, money they loan to the government for the year. All of them get all of that back and more at tax time. In fact they depend on that refund. Hey, I've been there far too long. It's like the bonus they don't get from their employer. So when you cut the amount that is pulled from their paychecks each week you're in effect taking money from them at the end of the year. It's like dipping into their savings account. I DON'T WANT A TAX CUT, I WANT MORE EARNED INCOME CREDIT, a bigger bonus at the end of the year, stick that in your pipe and smoke it G.W., Mr. Gory.
GIVE ME RALPH NADER, OR GIVE ME MORE EIC.

But since I'm not likely to get either, I'll just continue to muddle through, both life, and the next six pack.

Bet that last line got ole Trillian.

Please don't take me too seriously, I get the biggest kick out of doing things like this, and truely, I mean no harm in any of it.
(Wow, that's sort of like closing the barn door after the horses are out ain't it.} Because for the most part life is still a great thing, and it's things like H2G2 and the people who come here that make it constantly better.

Next! please.

In contradiction to some of my previous statements, I would now like to argue in favor of the American union. I do this due to the strong invective made by my wife shortly after reading my last post.

Union employees must stand against a multitude of problems simply associated with being involved with a union. The possibility of a strike, at which time they don't get paid at all. While the higher ups argue and fuss over the next contract. They must stand to a rigid code of quality in order to maintain their status as viable employees. Those same National Statistics which it has been pointed out to me that I quoted incorrectly (it should have read 35% instead of 45) also show that the quality of the work done is of a much higher standard of quality than that done in a non-union shop, and by a significant margin. So maybe the higher pay is justified? I will revert to one of my previous statements here, and remind myself "judge not lest thou be judged".

Okay, now.

Next! please.

Whew - I am honoured that you have put so much thought into answering my questions and pleased to have provoked such a meaty discussion. And quite honestly, I don't care what you do with your sixpacks!

The examples I gave still seem to me fairly unsolvable, although the remedies you give are plausible, but no way can we get to the bottom of all the problems, whether it is due to the economy or the lowering of moral values. I have read your arguments carefully and will read them again next time I am in this forum, because you have obviously got a lot to say.

For the minute I shall just have to chew on it!

Sorry, but you have lost me on the American politics. And I think Unions have a slightly different status there, too. There is certainly a big difference in the position of the unions when comparing, say, Britain and Germany.

I'll tell you right off that I'm pro-union, but there are plenty of corporations that aren't union, have high quality standards, and are profitable. When I graduated college with my associate's degree in automotive (Nissan specific) technology, Nissan paid for a class trip to the Smyrna, Tennessee plant. The workers there are non-union. They aren't paid quite as much as the workers at the local GM plant where I live, but they're a lot happier. The UAW has tried to unionize the Smyrna plant three times and each time failed miserably. The workers there are very happy with how Nissan treats them. They get good pay, good benefits, and have a say in how things are run. The plant has the highest efficiency of any automotive plant in North America. The absentee rate is 3% compared to the UAW average of 10%(?, it's been a while, so I'm not sure of this figure). The annual employee turnover is about 5% compared to a UAW average of 30%(?). Nissan does everything it can to keep from laying off its employees. Nissan's economic problems of late are more related to their upper management, thus their corporate headquarters are laying off a lot of people. As a comparison, the GM plant here where I live is always having labor problems. The union goes on strike about once every few years. GM hires and fires like crazy, depending on the whim of the CEO. It all seems to depend on the company's willingness to work WITH its employees. The technicians at the dealership where I used to work won't unionize, the team leaders make too much money (sometimes at the expense of other techs). Also the only large newspaper in the state spouts a lot of anti-union propoganda.

As far as raising children is concerned, I do think the state should have a better system of taking care of children whose parent's can't care for them. I don't think state-run orphanages should be out of the question, but I think they would have to have a lot of public scrutiny. I think that for the most part the 'family' an orphanage could provide would be better than no family or a family of bad influences.

My work is a closed shop, and we have two unions, because the first one was screwing things up. Not that the new union is any better. They fight with management to get things I totally don't care about, and give up things I do. All they're in the business of is giving themselves a job, and so they generate strife where there is none. My union is the only form of life more worthless than a congressman.

Sorry all, my wonderful daughter brought hom a stomach virus.
I think it has also affected my brain as well as my appetite.
When the fore mentioned brain desides to begin functioning again, I will be back to rant and rave some more. Probably against stomach viruses.
Americans for the most part are reactionists, and I have reacted, and will react some more, soon.

Any one who now believes People Are Stupid should go and read Wizards First Rule by Terry Goodkind. Of course the wizards first rule is that people are stupid. and they are.

and this one cant even get a short posting to make sense.

FABT

p.s.

this was in no way an advert and i did not spit or slag off any minority groupes in this posting. just everybody!!!!!!!!!!!