 |
 |
Hi Dennis, you wrote.......(in part) Isn't this whole "fan's for the sweating poor" business an interesting insight into practical politics. It seems that the purchase and distribution of the fans is: - a quick and easy answer to a clearly defined need. - a high profile response to a high profile (though temperary) problem, - assistance to those unable to deal with a problem faced by the entire community (and therefore something that everyone can relate to) and because of the above: - a vote catcher. Allocating funds to the Udall act is none of the above. Another interesting aspect of this is that the manner in which the funds were allocated confirms what we have known all along, namely that, in government terms, $100,000,000 is mere pocket money. Which leaves us in the situation of the beggar on the street who has been refused a handout by a well dressed person who has just alighted from a limo. Knowing that the amount asked for is not the problem, the beggar is forced to conclude that the refusal is based on either: - some philisophical objection to the situation, - or some objection to himself as an individual. Either way there is a clear indication that the potential donor is indifferent to the realities of the beggars situation. It's adding insult to injury if the potential donor turns away whilst being asked for help, buys himself an icecream for the amount the beggar requested, and then simply walks away. Dennis. ************************************************** Dennis, I salute you! Your powerful writing style is a great gift! And of course, you hit the nail squarely on the head once more. All the best ......Murray [log in to unmask]