On Janesville shelter volunteers report more new faces among homeless guests
Posted on January 13 at 11:26 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
onelife2live, House of Mercy in Janesville is a family homeless shelter, but this one is only open to men, where they generally sleep all in one room set up weekly in different churches (just for overight hours, including an evening and morning meal).
On Pastor comes to emotional rescue for Janesville firefighters
Posted on January 4 at 10:35 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Please, please, all of you reading Smegma40's posts, do not take his words seriously. He has always used his words to shock/hurt/get a rise out of us (and fine, caring people such as ffempt) because of his own mother's hysterical reaction to what she saw laying before her the day he was born.
Who would want un uncaring individual to be the one to find them (or any victim) in a fire or other tragic situation? Not me; I would want a caring individual to find me whether I survived or not, not someone like Smegma who would likely kick me under the debris if I could not walk away under my own power, or if no one was watching. (For the record, I know normal emergency personel do not do that in any circumstance).
On Janesville fire victims receive flood of donations
Posted on December 23 at 2:17 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I think I know what nicksmom is getting at, that no matter the need and the feelings of wanting to give to cases that we see in the media (there are so many more "everyday situations" that the general public never hears about), we're not doing anyone any favors if we don't know the backstory.
But, nicksmon, I want to know more about your claim "Another charity asked for gifts for kids via a giving tree. Turns out the kids were made up."
If what you say without details is true, you owe it to everyone to give details, so that they don't fall for this implied scam. If what you mean is a giving tree might ask for gifts for a generic 10 year old because the charity has 25 ten year olds to provide gifts for and is trying to get gifts for them all, that is not exactly a scam. It might be a practical solution for that charity. Please elaborate.
Meantime, I am relieved for this family that the community is seeing to their immediate needs.
On ANGI considers move to former Gilman plant
Posted on December 20 at 6:50 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Sigma, that, of course, is totally false. But an honest mistake...the loud gassy smells are undoubtedly coming from another source that might be in your general vicinity.
On Madison to let homeless stay in vacant dealership
Posted on November 23 at 12:32 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Sigma, good question.
There are already shelters where the homeless can go only at night, so I imagine this one is for the hours when they "all get booted out" when the sun comes up. It might (hopefully) provide a good alternative to wandering around malls and other commercial establishments.
On Could you eat well enough on food stamps?
Posted on November 8 at 2:20 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
The question has too many variables, but no one in our society needs to go hungry.
shopierre...I wondered the same thing. And a new car?! I wonder who gave her financing, or did we taxpayers foot it? I smell exaggeration with a capital E!
janesvillean, you said "I think everyone misread Greg's post..."
Ya have to wonder....but lately a story like that is a sure thing for a good following...
When reading a story about teachers some will only remember the Mary Kay Letourneaus in the profession, on a story about businessmen who had lucrative careers some people will only think of of the Bernie Madolffs in the world, on a story about doctors, some would be reminded of the Josef Mengeles in the world....but others of us would envision Albert Einstein, Ken Hendricks, or Jonas Salk. (You get the picture.)
When reading a story on "the poor", some will only see the leeches in society, those who take what they can get with no conscience or concern, no morals or dignity, and no thought to ever bettering themselves. And of course, according to some, they all smoke and don't take care of their many, many children.
We, on the other hand, we will continue to think what we think and do what we do, though we know some of the aforementioned might slip through, because we understand that most of these poor consist of people like the mother who was lost her husband way too young and whose children have way too little to get by on, and the widowed grandmother raising her 2 grandsons, and the elderly couple who worked all their lives, took care of their own aging parents, but made little, and live on a small fixed income. Most have less dramatic stories but just can't make ends meet no matter how hard they work...but they do try. They don't WANT to have to beg, sometimes from the likes of these begrudging people.
So, when we read a story about Christmas, we'll think Jesus and/or Santa Clause and they can think Scrooge; when we read a story about winter, we can think snowman and they can think snow shoveling.... We know as well as they do that nothing is perfect, but there is more to a rose than just thorns. We, at least, acknowledge the whole rose even though we know there can be thorns involved.
frogger... sounds like you missed me. I see you keep bringing up that you pull a shift or 2 at the angel tree. Why? For the kudos? Other than that, I've never seen you say anything but negative about those who get outside help. You say it's because of the abusers. But that's all you ever mention.
And..as far as Friends of Noah....often a person's pet predates his financial problems...and no-you can't get pet food, nor a pet, with food stamps.
On It costs THAT much for cigarettes?
Posted on November 2 at 11:22 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
I tend to agree with Steve and the tobacco question. What's the point of those things? But then, couldn't we say the same about other things....like beer and other alcohol? What is the point? Really. And coffee. None has any food value. (Alcohol does, you say? And that's why you drink it?) And I know there are people out there who easily spend as much on alcohol as they do on cigarettes.
I've always been a little surprised that we are still legally "allowed" to buy, sell and use these products that are so bad for us, and possibly those around us, not to mention to expose ourselves to their addictive properties. And also I have always been surprised that we are not equally allowed to buy, sell or use marijuana (for example). What's the difference? (I do not condone government intervention in every aspect of our lives; it's just a thought.)
Now to the "poor people" equation. Unfortunately, poor Pauline was just as suseptible as rich Roger to become addicted to these legal drugs (both nicotine and alcohol, not to mention caffeine), but they are supposed to muster up greater strength to rid themselves of these addictions than rich Roger? I certainly agree that no one should have any of these unhealthy and undesirable habits, but who has the perfect solution? Never start in the first place? Sounds like square one to me. Moderation? That's a good answer until some individuals find out they are "addictive" personalities. I don't think most people have an actual plan to become addicted to anything. Once they are, though, it is the poor who are morally and socially bound to overcome it? In an ideal world....but then, in ideal world, we would never get past that square one.
I won't even go into what happens to the economy if we eliminate even the major 2 of these bad habits (smoking and drinking). Or to my personal addiction-chocolate. I am only semi-serious about that, but some studies say chocolate can be addictive and can even be related to alcohol addiction.
By the way Li713, when you saw Pauline at the gas station, she had just stood in line for 2 loaves of bread at Echo? (Why was she discussing her trip to ECHO?). That's all she got? Often I've seen people complain on here that they see people come away with tons of food, which apparently has an unsatisfactory affect on the observers own life.
On Coats for Kids serve Janesville area families in need
Posted on November 1 at 12:01 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Of course there are abusers, frogger, and they make me angry, too. We DO agree about that. I would just like to see a positive story like this one remain positive, and not taint it with mention of those that we both know exist. If people get the idea that these charitable events are attended by mostly unworthy people (and that is not the case), people might stop giving.
I have seen grown men with families to feed cry with shame at having to accept charity after working hard for a lifetime, then falling on hard times. I have seen "poor" people dig into their pockets and give half of what they had to someone who has nothing. I have seen better off people giving half eaten boxes of cereal and expired items from their cupboards, then asking for a charitable receipt for tax purposes. (This last one is the EXCEPTION) but it goes to show you that neither wealth nor desperation are accurate gauges of character. Actually, people of all means seem to (in my experience) have fairly even numbers of "what can I give" and "what can I get" mindsets.
This is why, whenever these kinds of stories are printed and one or more people jump at the chance to mention the unworthy who might benefit, it brings out the worst in me. (I hope I've never done it myself.)
If it helps...I did totally agree with your view of trick or treaters, and that age shouldn't matter as much as their politeness.
On A very positive local purchase
Posted on October 29 at 9:56 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
frogger-I think you meant Shumway. Good store, good people. It's been awhile so I can't say how they are price-wise. You could go there and to other places to comparison shop. Unless it's an online, mail order or catalog order, that's what we usually have to do to get details. Have also been to Wahl, but some time back. Not bad, but you generally get what you pay for in the long run.
But if you equate my commenting on your comments with the S term (do you mean I am stalking you??) them I am going to counter that with the BS term (are you BSing me??).
We apparently read the same articles and blogs because we each find them interesting, but we also have totally different points of view. I respect sales people enough to know that I cannot keep them on the phone to get nitty gritty details on their stuff just because I don't want to do my own legwork. Asking if they actually have the product or other brief inquiries is generally acceptable, and I can't imagine they won't reply to your "brief inquiries", but, unless they only have an exclusive product, I need to actually do the comparison work myself. (Thus my "personal shopper" comment). To make or break a sale because of not getting enough info on the phone could hurt you as much as them, and could be considered very self-centered.
If you think I am stalking you because I made another comment under a different story on the same day, where I possibly alluded to comments you (and others) might have made...purely chance. I've made an average of one comment every other day since I started here, and you have made about 5 a day. (Yes, I did the math.) I mean under your frogger name. Don't recall about comments under the previous name that has since disappeared. I'd say it would be against the odds that I would have NEVER have commented on one of your comments (since we read the same stories). How many of yours have I commented on in the last couple years? 5? 10? 1 every several months maybe, but--HOLY HANNAH!! 2 in one day? And you call that stalking? You've never commented more than once on the same person's "stuff"? No one else has ever made more than one comment on your "stuff"? Maybe I just don't like the way you talk about your fellow man. Common people. Sales people. Especially "poor" people. Especially poor people with children. Especially if you assume those poor people smoke. You talk about them at least as often as I comment on your comments. Coincidence? Probably not.
Page 1 of 72 | Next
On In Rhode Island, a student’s lesson in religious freedom
Posted on January 27 at 1:33 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
How sad. This was apparently a gift from a graduating class from 50 years ago when such gifts were not only acceptable, but certainly not considered indecent. I respect this young lady's desire NOT to enjoy such a banner, but, just like she can ignore the men's room sign because it doesn't pertain to her, she can ignore this banner.
She cannot (or at least should not) demand the men's room sign be removed because it is not something she needs, wants, nor plans to partake of its offerings.
Because it was a gift (when such gifts were acceptable), and not a promotion from a religious group, why not show how grown up you are and let it be? Unless, I suppose, she can show it has done irreparable damage in the last 50 years. NOT agreeing with it seems to have done nothing for this girl's tolerance.