Cohousing-L Mailing List: Grace's yadda yadda (fwd)

[Fred H Olson (fholson]

Gale Greenleaf <greenleaf [at] mail.utexas.edu>
is the author of the message below. 
It was posted by Fred the Cohousing-L list manager <fholson [at] cohousing.org> 
because the message included HTML ;      PLEASE do not post HTML, see
   http://csf.colorado.edu/cohousing/2001/msg01672.html
--------------------  FORWARDED MESSAGE FOLLOWS --------------------

A few comments from a fellow lurker
.
<You know all this fund raising in connection to the WTC attacks?  I think it
ridiculous.  Just plain stupid.  What is the money for?  I mean, really what
is it for, how much is needed?  And why aren't the well-established disaster
relief funds- and insurance policies- ready to pony up?  Why on earth has
there been more than 300 million dollars collected when the problems being
faced are problems money can't fix!?! >  and
<I think this is a patenetly stupid reason to
wave the flag and shake the bucket- but I just can't pass up an opportunity
to give.  Catholic Relief Services, and the Red Cross, and the United Way
could always use the money- they do great things and I'm delighted to
support them- even if they're asking for (what I feel is) a ridiculous
reason.>

Why is it "stupid" and "ridiculous" to give money for, say, the uninsured 
family of the carpenter or busboy or delivery person who just happened to be 
working in the WTC that day? How far do you think 300 million goes, divided by 
about 6000 families? (Hint: about $50,000. Not very far. It would get a family 
through maybe six months' living expenses in NY and enough therapy to maybe be 
able to think about the rest of their lives.) Money won't bring back spouses 
and parents, but it will pay the bills until the survivors can function again.

<because each one of us matters and should have our needs met on principle.>

I'm reminded of Lucinda Williams' Passionate Kisses song - charming until you 
listen to her incessant list of "needs." People in this country are so spoiled 
by advertising and affluence that they have forgotten the difference between 
needs and wants. I don't think anybody should have their wants met on principle.

<It takes far more resources to raise two chilren in Manhattan (or LA, or San
Francisco, or Chicago, or insert metro area/suburb of metro area here) than
it does to raise eight in Appalachia.  The Appalachian family should not
necessarily be taxed more for having more kids.  Like many things, there is
no simple formula for taxation.>

But Molly et al. were talking about PROPERTY taxes, which are not the same in 
Manhattan and Appalachia, which is presumably why your 8-kid family is living 
somewhere with more affordable taxes. And no-kid Molly can live on Vermont 
acreage. Specious argument. And real taxation formulae are hardly simple.



_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l