Wednesday, June 24, 2020

Digest for rec.food.cooking@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 12 topics

Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx>: Jun 24 11:17AM -0400

On 6/24/2020 10:47 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
 
> Yes, it's to some extent the parents' fault. But the burden falls on
> the kids anyway.
 
> Cindy Hamilton
 
True in the cities with neighborhood schools. Smaller towns, everyone
goes to the same school.
 
Inner city is tough. Busing did not help, uneducated parents don't
help, many teacher don't want to work in some of those schools. Sadly,
education is not a priority in some households and peer pressure is.
Cindy Hamilton <angelicapaganelli@yahoo.com>: Jun 24 08:29AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 11:17:15 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
 
> Inner city is tough. Busing did not help, uneducated parents don't
> help, many teacher don't want to work in some of those schools. Sadly,
> education is not a priority in some households and peer pressure is.
 
I don't so much mind when black people use the "N" word toward each other.
However, the pejorative "acting white" to describe any attempt to improve
one's lot in life, just make my blood boil.
 
Cindy Hamilton
GM <gregorymorrowchicago07@gmail.com>: Jun 24 09:23AM -0700

Lucretia Borgia wrote:
 
 
> You could look at that an entirely different way - the USA has a large
> super wealthy bunch who thrive on others poverty and aim to keep those
> people down.
 
 
OTOH actually there is a huge and self - perpetuating "Poverty - Industrial Complex" that is invested in keeping people down, there are cushy jobs and LOTS of government and foundation funding to be had...that would all go away if people rose up out of poverty.
 
My career has been in poverty alleviation and so I know whereof I speak...
 
The original US "War on Poverty" was, by any reasonable metric, a TOTAL failure. Here are two links, Vox is liberal, FEE is libertarian/conservative, a few excerpts from the two worthy articles - take note in the first article the bit about "The role of culture in the perpetuation of poverty", that is a huge reason for the poverty's perpetuation - both in inner - city and rural areas. In fact for quick reference here it is:
 
"The role of culture in the perpetuation of poverty
 
Here, for example, is a depressing but crucial story that one rarely hears. In 1987, philanthropist George Weiss "adopted" 112 inner-city sixth-graders in Philadelphia. He guaranteed them a fully funded education through college as long as they didn't use drugs, have children out of wedlock, or commit crimes. He provided tutors, workshops, after-school programs, summer programs, and counselors. Yet 45 of the 112 of the children in the program never made it through high school; 19 of the boys were felons by the time they were adults, and more than half of the 45 girls had babies before they were 18 (they had 63 children among them). Obviously, for reasons hardly their fault, the only cultural norms these kids had known affected them profoundly, even with external conditions crafted to nudge them in another direction..."
 
The two article links:
 
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/29/14112084/war-on-poverty-brooklyn-great-society
 
Why the war on poverty failed — and what to do now
 
By John McWhorter Dec 29, 2016
 
"Last summer, Black Lives Matter presented an extensive platform of remedies for the crisis in black America. A time traveler from 1964, if given a printed-out copy of this platform, could have mistaken it as an archival document from the Johnson administration's "war on poverty" — that is, jobs programs, educational reform, mental health services, and the like. The BLM thinkers surely know that such a war had already existed, but consider it to have been a failure...
 
The usual explanations for the war on poverty's failure fall short
Why didn't the war on poverty work? This is the question that hovers over The Battle for New York's Bed-Stuy neighborhood. The failure is typically flagged by pundits in passing, as if its cause were self-evident. And indeed, Woodsworth describes problems few would find surprising in themselves: bureaucracy and overstaffing (largely on the part of government administrators), inexperience and infighting (largely among black staffers), plus a new "militant" rhetoric longer on theatrics than plans, with young black men disrupting meetings with claims that the black "bourgeoisie" was trying "to make it uptown on the backs of the brothers" and that women community leaders were "emasculating the community and denying us our models of black manhood." Funds also trickled in slowly at first, and Johnson quickly lost interest because of Vietnam.
 
But the standard narrative of the Great Society's failures sells short just how hard some people strived to make it work. In 1967, Robert Kennedy breathed new life into the efforts in, specifically, Bed-Stuy. So very much happened. A new Central Brooklyn Neighborhood College program, nicknamed the "college of the streets," was educating 500 people in classes held in various buildings in humanities, African history, computer science, and other subjects, while other programs helped people navigate the welfare bureaucracy, advocated for tenants, and formed sanitation drives and baseball leagues...
 
The role of culture in the perpetuation of poverty
 
Here, for example, is a depressing but crucial story that one rarely hears. In 1987, philanthropist George Weiss "adopted" 112 inner-city sixth-graders in Philadelphia. He guaranteed them a fully funded education through college as long as they didn't use drugs, have children out of wedlock, or commit crimes. He provided tutors, workshops, after-school programs, summer programs, and counselors. Yet 45 of the 112 of the children in the program never made it through high school; 19 of the boys were felons by the time they were adults, and more than half of the 45 girls had babies before they were 18 (they had 63 children among them). Obviously, for reasons hardly their fault, the only cultural norms these kids had known affected them profoundly, even with external conditions crafted to nudge them in another direction..."
 
-----------------------------------------
 
https://fee.org/articles/why-the-war-on-poverty-failed/
 
 
Why the War on Poverty Failed
 
Handouts Provide the Wrong Incentives
 
Friday, January 1, 1999
 
'Well, it's now official: the war on poverty was a costly, tragic mistake. Ordinary people have suspected that for decades, of course, but we had to wait for the New York Times to decide this news was fit to print—which it finally did on February 9, 1998. In a front-page story on poverty in rural Kentucky, Michael Janofsky detailed the failure of this effort in the one region that was supposed to be the centerpiece of reform. "Federal and state agencies have plowed billions of dollars into Appalachia," he wrote, yet the area "looks much as it did 30 years ago, when President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a war on poverty, taking special aim at the rural decay."1
 
Janofsky visited Owsley County, Kentucky, and found a poverty rate of over 46 percent, with over half the adults illiterate and half unemployed. "Feelings of hopelessness have become so deeply entrenched," he reported, "that many residents have long forsaken any expectation of bettering themselves." For years, the government has been trying to treat the despair with welfare programs: two-thirds of the inhabitants receive federal assistance, including food stamps, AFDC, and SSI disability payments. This, it now appears, is part of the area's problems.
 
"The war on poverty was the worst thing that ever happened to Appalachia," Janofsky quotes one resident as saying. "It gave people a way to get by without having to do any work." Local officials told him that "many parents urge their children to try to go to special education classes at school as a way to prove they are eligible for [SSI] disability benefits." (The senior class at the local high school picked as its motto, "I came, I slept, I graduated.")
 
Why did the war on poverty fail? What was wrong with the programs under which the nation spent over $5 trillion attempting to solve the problems of the poor, only to come up empty? It's an important question to ask in these days of welfare reform. The first step toward a sound policy ought to be to identify the errors of the past.
 
Perhaps the best way to answer the question is to take a close look at the book that inspired the war on poverty, Michael Harrington's The Other America, published in 1962. (Harrington died in 1989.) Possibly the most influential policy book in history, The Other America was cited again and again by the politicians, activists, and administrators who set up welfare programs in the 1960s. In it we find the fallacies that sent reformers down dark and tangled paths into today's social tragedies.
 
Curing Poverty Through Algebra
Though social workers and welfare administrators embraced Harrington's account, neither he nor they realized how distinctive, even bizarre, was the theory of poverty that it contained. Harrington's premise was that poverty is a purely economic problem: the needy simply lack the material resources to lead productive, happy lives. Supply these resources, the theory runs, and you will have solved the problem of poverty. "The means are at hand," declared Harrington, "to fulfill the age-old dream: poverty can now be abolished."2 This theme was repeated up and down the welfare establishment. Sargent Shriver, the administration's leading anti-poverty warrior, told Congress that the nation had "both the resources and the know-how to eliminate grinding poverty in the United States." President Lyndon Johnson echoed the claim. "For the first time in our history," he declared, "it is possible to conquer poverty."
 
To most people, these claims seemed incredibly naïve. While the state of neediness we call poverty does involve a lack of material resources, it also involves a mass of psychological and moral problems, including weak motivation, lack of trust in others, ignorance, irresponsibility, self-destructiveness, short-sightedness, alcoholism, drug addiction, promiscuity, and violence. To say that all these behavioral and psychological problems can be "abolished" seems a denial of the common-sense Biblical teaching that the poor will always be with us.
 
Abolishing poverty did not seem far-fetched to the activists, however. Indeed, one book from that era boldly challenged the Biblical wisdom with its title: The Poor Ye Need Not Have With You. This 1970 volume was written by Robert Levine, who had served in the Office of Economic Opportunity, the federal government's anti-poverty agency. His book was also supported by the Ford Foundation and the Urban Institute, two principal backers of the war on poverty. Levine adhered to the simple materialistic view of poverty. "Even a quick look can convince us that poverty as it is currently defined in the United States is a completely solvable problem," he wrote. "If we were to provide every last poor family and individual in the United States with enough income to bring them above the level of poverty, the required outlay would be less than $10 billion a year."3 In this perspective, curing poverty was simple algebra: add government's x dollars to the poor's y dollars and the result would be the end to poverty.
 
It was a perspective that led to intolerance. Since poverty was so simple to remedy—the activists reasoned—it was unethical not to act. "In a nation with a technology that could provide every citizen with a decent life," Harrington thundered, "it is an outrage and a scandal that there should be such social misery."4 For the activists, welfare programs did not involve complex relationships and intractable problems about which honest people could disagree. They were simple moral imperatives, and anyone who opposed them was seen as selfish and insensitive. (This dogmatic view has by no means disappeared from so-called liberal circles.)
 
The Ideology of Handouts
The simple economic theory of poverty led to a single underlying principle for welfare programs. Since the needy just lacked goods and services to become productive members of the community, it followed that all you had to do was give them these things. You didn't have to see that they stopped engaging in the behavior that plunged them into neediness. You didn't have to ask them to apply themselves, or to work, or to save, or to stop using drugs, or to stop having babies they couldn't support, or to make any other kind of effort to improve themselves. In other words, the welfare programs the war-on-poverty activists designed embodied something-for-nothing giving, or what we usually call "handouts."
 
The handout feature characterized not only the programs that gave away cash and material resources like food and housing; it was also incorporated in programs that provided training, education, and rehabilitation. Recipients did not have to make any significant sacrifice to be admitted to them, and they did not have to make any significant effort to stay in them. Swept up by the rhetoric of the day, program organizers simply assumed that all that recipients needed was "opportunity," especially the opportunity to learn a trade and to get a job.
 
Alas, this was mainly untrue. One of the first things the needy lack is motivation; that is, they lack the ability to sacrifice and to discipline themselves, to defer present gratification for future benefit. Most of the recipients in the anti-poverty training and education programs were poorly motivated, and their lack of commitment meant that they couldn't make good use of the opportunities put before them. Worse, they dragged down the morale of teachers and those recipients prepared to apply themselves. What were administrators to do? If they required a strong commitment to the task of self-improvement, this would mean turning away most of the applicants—and watching their welfare empires collapse. Not surprisingly, officials were inclined to relax standards and let education and training programs become giveaways..."
 
</>
GM <gregorymorrowchicago07@gmail.com>: Jun 24 09:37AM -0700

Taxed and Spent wrote:
 
 
> Remember when they said the homeless were all welcome in their stores?
 
> Perhaps the PAYING customers are changing their model for them.
 
 
I used to visit SB's, when all that kerfuffle started about welcoming homeless into their stores, I bailed, have not been to SB's since last fall and will never go again. For years now, homeless have been causing trouble in SB's, then they made a statement "welcoming" that lot, and all hell broke loose. Even the small stores I patronised starting having severe problems, especially with vagrants begging and trashing the washrooms, who needs it...!!!???
 
There's a lovely small bakery down the street, during "normal" times they've a few outdoor tables so one can sit and enjoy a treat and a drink in nice weather. Last summer a vagrant guy in a wheelchair starting showing up outside the entrance, he'd sit there - with his boombox BLASTING - begging for money. I called the cops on him, and problem solved, they got him for noise violations. Several of the other customers called me "mean...how DARE you call the cops on the poor old guy...yadda yadda yadda..." I don't think it's too much to ask that as a paying and good customer that I be able to sit at that table in peace...
 
There used to be vagrancy/panhandling laws, now those are extinct (thank you ACLU!), they should be re-instated...
 
--
Best
Greg
Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx>: Jun 24 01:22PM -0400

On 6/24/2020 11:29 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> However, the pejorative "acting white" to describe any attempt to improve
> one's lot in life, just make my blood boil.
 
> Cindy Hamilton
 
Back in the 70s I worked with Walt. A lot of the blacks called him an
Oreo because we often went to lunch together and he spent time in the
office. He was a family guy, had a nice house, everything most of us
would want in life. When he broke away from the stereotype he became
almost an outcast.
 
We had 3 shifts and one of the supervisors was black. He was often less
respected by minorities too. He started out on the bottom and worked
his way up. Good for him.
John Kuthe <johnkuthern@gmail.com>: Jun 24 10:18AM -0700

https://i.postimg.cc/zXWscM94/Painted-Rails.jpg
 
This newest Occupancy Permit inspection was rapacious! I didn't know they could cite "dusting" as a necessary thing to pass an Occupancy Permit inspection! :-(
 
John Kuthe...
Sheldon Martin <penmart01@aol.com>: Jun 24 12:15PM -0400

On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 15:09:04 +0100, "Ophelia" <ophelia@elsinore.me.uk>
wrote:
 
 
>Thanks very much for that:))
 
>Do you plant the dried beans etc that you buy? Or do they have to be bought
>specially for planting?
 
You'll get better results with seed beans, they've been treated to
repel insects... just don't use them for cooking, usually the packet
warns not to consume them.
 
Last year I planted oriental long beans (yard longs), they are very
prolific and actually grow to 3' long. I didn't plant them this year
as there were way too many, tired of eating them. Some plants grew
green beans, some dark red. Those long beans grow in clusters of
about 6-8 beans.
songbird <songbird@anthive.com>: Jun 24 01:09PM -0400

Ophelia wrote:
...
> Do you plant the dried beans etc that you buy? Or do they have to be bought
> specially for planting?
 
when i started growing beans a quick way to get
varieties to try out was buying a 16 bean soup mix.
some of them did not grow at all, but the others
did ok.
 
eventually though i wanted more varieties so i've
bought some from seed companies and also done a lot of
trades with people on-line and at a few seed swaps.
 
i also cross-breed and select from what i harvest
what looks interesting. it can take a few years to
evaluate a bean to see what it does. i have a
variety of soil types to work with so that is also
a part of the evaluation process.
 
one thing i did this year was interplant a large
number of beans to encourage them to cross breed.
i won't know if any actually did until the seeds
from this year are planted and grown (the seed coat
from a cross shows the maternal color and pattern so
you have to plant them to see what comes next). with
as many seeds as i hope to get i'll never be able to
plant all of them so some crosses can happen and
won't be detected. just have to keep at it and keep
trying. :) since i don't hand-pollinate or isolate
plants the bugs/bees do all the crossing for me.
 
 
songbird
Janet <nobody@home.org>: Jun 24 05:11PM +0100

In article <8138523a-9c1e-4aa9-a42f-4c8e9389f478o@googlegroups.com>,
angelicapaganelli@yahoo.com says...
> > round that?
 
> Run the water first with the stopper out until it's a comfortable temperature,
> then get in the tub, close the door, and fill the tub.
 
Logical as ever ;-) But then when you've finished, you have to sit
there until the tide goes out.
 
Janet UK
 
Janet
Sheldon Martin <penmart01@aol.com>: Jun 24 12:26PM -0400

On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 07:13:14 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
 
>Run the water first with the stopper out until it's a comfortable temperature,
>then get in the tub, close the door, and fill the tub.
 
>Cindy Hamilton
 
When I shower I do the same, I let the water run until it's a
comfortable temperature, then I get in, takes less than a minute. I
do laundry in hot water, I let the closest sink run for a minute
before turning on the washer.
Cindy Hamilton <angelicapaganelli@yahoo.com>: Jun 24 10:00AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 12:11:13 PM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> > then get in the tub, close the door, and fill the tub.
 
> Logical as ever ;-) But then when you've finished, you have to sit
> there until the tide goes out.
 
No argument from me. I don't like tub baths. I've been taking
showers since I was 12 or 13 years old.
 
Cindy Hamilton
Lucretia Borgia <lucretiaborgia@fl.it>: Jun 24 02:13PM -0300

>it's coming out of the tap either too hot or too cold? How do you get
>round that?
 
> Janet UK
 
I have a couple of friends who have walk in tubs - it's not the
getting in, it's the getting out they dislike, having to sit there
while it drains.
Cindy Hamilton <angelicapaganelli@yahoo.com>: Jun 24 08:20AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 10:55:12 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
 
> > I don't WANT a bunch! I like to make so little I pay ZERO taxes! And since I have a house that pays me I can afford to! :-)
 
> Can you tell me what the threshold is between tax-free and taxable
> income?
 
For unmarried individuals, $9700. For a married couple, $19,400.
 
That's the "taxable income", after various deductions have been made.
Notably, the "standard deduction" of $12,200 for an individual and
$24,400 for a married couple. There also are deductions for each
child.
 
So Kuthe could make $21,900 before he'd have to pay any federal
income tax on it.
 
He also is subject to state and possibly local taxes, which may have
different thresholds.
 
Cindy Hamilton
Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx>: Jun 24 11:25AM -0400

On 6/24/2020 10:55 AM, Janet wrote:
 
> Can you tell me what the threshold is between tax-free and taxable
> income?
 
> Janet UK
 
Quick answer is $12,200 but you have to file a return. After age 65 you
can earn $13,850. There are a few circumstances that would adjust it up
a bit.
Janet <nobody@home.org>: Jun 24 05:56PM +0100

"Gary" wrote in message news:5EF3556A.7A9F011A@att.net...
> Create a profile for a fake personality so they remember
> and don't screw up.
 
> Alex screwed up the profile because Alex is a fake.
 
What "profile" are you talking about?
 

> Bottom line though...Alex has posted here way too often
> and I read all. Over time, his real personality gives
> him away, just a little bit at a time.
 

You weren't outing his personality, Gary; you pretended to
know "who he is" , his real ID.
 
 
You've been caught faking it, yet again.
 
Janet UK
John Kuthe <johnkuthern@gmail.com>: Jun 24 10:03AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
> > him away, just a little bit at a time.
 
> You weren't outing his personality, Gary; you pretended to
> know "who he is" , his real ID.
...
 
And this is why I ALWAYS post with my real legal name, John Kuthe.
 
It's my name on my Soc Sec card, my driver's and nursing licenses, etc.
 
John Kuthe, Climate Anarchist and Wants My Leaf Back!
ChristKiller@deathtochristianity.pl: Jun 24 10:36AM -0500

On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 04:44:02 -0500, Sqwertz <sqwertzme@gmail.invalid>
wrote:
 
>"this chick". You're only entertaining the little people dancing
>around in your head.
 
>-sw
 
a super taster is not a good thing :(
 
--
 
____/~~~sine qua non~~~\____
Cindy Hamilton <angelicapaganelli@yahoo.com>: Jun 24 09:59AM -0700

> >around in your head.
 
> >-sw
 
> a super taster is not a good thing :(
 
Did you undergo testing to confirm you're a super taster?
 
Cindy Hamilton
Sheldon Martin <penmart01@aol.com>: Jun 24 12:38PM -0400

>throw them out. If the roof leaks, tenants will moan to the LL but he
>alone is responsible for the repair and the cost.
> Janet UK
 
Thing is it's not easy to evict someone especially if they are paying
their rent. I'd never choose to live with my tenants, they can make
life more miserable for you than you for them.
Sheldon Martin <penmart01@aol.com>: Jun 24 11:45AM -0400

On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 "Ophelia" wrote:
>times but we didn't really like it much. I tried a few recipes but have
>dumped them:(
 
> Please share yours ?
 
I never make less than a five pound meat loaf, not worth all the
trouble for less, sometimes 8, 9, 10 pounds, and that's the weight of
the meat, not the other ingredients; veggies, crumbs, eggs, etc.
Sometimes I'll use all beef but more often I'll add pork to the
mixture, usually shoulder pork chops that I'll save the meaty bones
for making pasta sauce. Naturally I grind everything myself...
mystery meat loaf is stupid dumb.
 
I never thought to cut meat loaf into cubes and cook them in sauce
like meatballs, unless well browned on all sides they'd dissolve and
it'd become a meat sauce. If I wanted meatballs that's what I'd make
to begin with. I slice the leftovers for sandwhiches, wrap and freeze
the slices. I would only defrost the slices in the fridge, not heat
them, I happen to like cold meat loaf sandwhiches with horsey sauce.
Janet <nobody@home.org>: Jun 24 04:40PM +0100

In article <0mIIG.25205$lI.13313@fx22.iad>, adavid.smith@sympatico.ca
says...
 
> On 2020-06-24 8:57 a.m., 19pree71@gmail.com wrote:
> > https://bit.ly/2Vdxxdn
 
> Nice try.
 
Worth looking, don't miss it.
 
Janet UK
ChristKiller@deathtochristianity.pl: Jun 24 10:34AM -0500

On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 20:16:06 -0700 (PDT), dsi1
 
>> ____/~~~sine qua non~~~\____
 
>The Supra is a most honorable car. My guess is that you wish you had that ride. Perhaps it is time to get a 2021.
 
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ByPWhpelwk
 
No I really had a 1987 toyota supra! Suffice it to say I was the most
popular guy at work.
 
--
 
____/~~~sine qua non~~~\____
Cindy Hamilton <angelicapaganelli@yahoo.com>: Jun 24 08:26AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 11:05:22 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> > a mailbox for each house.
 
> They don't have front doors? Is that another very special feature of
> Bothell design?
 
The Post Office, in trying to minimize its expenses, is mainly requiring
new construction to have mailboxes that can be accessed from the Post Office
truck (as in the neighborhood across the street from me, where boxes are at
the curb), or as a ganged box (such as Julie has).
 
Homeowners have little to no control over where their mailbox is located.
 
I have some sympathy for Julie's predicament, but none for her coming here
to whinge about it.
 
Cindy Hamilton
Janet <nobody@home.org>: Jun 24 04:33PM +0100

In article <nipIG.31053$HY4.18987@fx37.iad>, esp@snet.xxx says...
> https://facts.usps.com/8-mile-mule-train-delivery/
> Elsewhere, the Postal Service moves mail by planes, hovercraft, trains,
> trucks, cars, boats, ferries, helicopters, subways, bicycles and feet.
 
Our island mail comes by ferry, except when the ferry doesn't run
because of breakdown or bad weather. When that happens we don't get any
mail. Or newspapers).
 
Scotland also tried inter-island rocket-mail. It didn't catch on.
 
https://www.scotsman.com/whats-on/arts-and-entertainment/experiment-
deliver-letters-rocket-hebrides-840090
 
Janet UK
ChristKiller@deathtochristianity.pl: Jun 24 10:32AM -0500

On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 04:55:13 -0500, Sqwertz <sqwertzme@gmail.invalid>
wrote:
 
>that would .... <sigh> OK, you got me - wouldn't make sense in this
>context.
 
>-sw
 
LOL
 
--
 
____/~~~sine qua non~~~\____
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.food.cooking+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)