Um, the inequality of the American healthcare system? The one experts say is in need of serious reform because the amount of inaccessibility is too high? That one.
I keep forgetting to go to my local writer's group. Monday is such a bad day for it... all I want to do after work is curl up on the sofa and call for Saturday. I don't even think I'm going to like it, but I want to try it and see.
So I go onto Vlogbrothers to see what kind of interesting thing they've got talking about and... Excuse me, I'm gonna go cry in a corner now.
Oh if you think that is sad, you would never stand reading my Human Trafficking book (sorry I seem to talk about it a lot, but it is pretty interesting and sad). In India, they will traffic in women from Bangladesh, that will work in brothels there, many that are between ages 10-14, and they will work there their entire life, which many times ends when they get a disease like AIDS and are subsequently released to the streets to die without any kind of treatment. That's just one example of how horrible some people get treated out there.
Poor kids. We should be doing a lot more to relocate refugees here in the U.S. and provide the children with education, healthcare, etc.
We should also be doing more to help the thousands and thousands of refugees already in the U.S. from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. It's awesome that people want to help Syrian refugees, but I find it sad that there is much less coverage for the refugees in our own backyard (which translates to much less outrage over how we're treating them).
So let me ask a serious question. Many of those refugees come here seeking help. How can you look at them any differently than an American citizen that seeks help when their life turns bad? I mean so many times people here in the U.S. are stigmatized when they seek any kind of government assistance. People look down on them and say they are just looking for a hand out and that they just need to cowboy up and get their life together. So why should we be trying so hard to help people that have come here looking for and expecting a hand out? As has been said many times, shouldn't our priorities lie with the people that are already here and have been citizens of the United States? I ask these things in all honesty because I have lived both sides of the fence. I had a great government job making pretty good money for a 21 year-old. I had a house, a new car, and could go out and have a good time whenever I wanted. Well, I've also spent 5 months living in a bed bug infested homeless shelter with no one to support me, at the bottom of the proverbial barrel. Well, thanks to some hard work, AND through some assistance from the government, I am back to finishing school, living in my own apartment, and have my own truck. It's not exactly the life I want to live, BUT it's a long way from the homeless shelter. So that's why I ask, why should we be helping people from other parts of the world that come here because they think we should help them, instead of sending them back to where they came and helping our own? And if not sending them back, why should they be in line to get help before those that were already here and citizens of the country?
Not sure if this is directed at me or rhetorical, but when did I ever say this? We would be treating these refugees a hell of a lot better if we were merely treating them the same as citizens. Also, it's not an either-or scenario, although some politicians may want you to believe this so they can brandish their scapegoat in front of their constituents. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it sounds like your argument is as follows: some people here get treated poorly; therefore why should we not treat others poorly? The answer to that question is obvious--because they deserve better treatment, just as people here deserve better treatment. The fact that some people don't get the treatment they deserve in no way changes the fact that others deserve treatment. It's ironic you talk about people being stigmatized for seeking government assistance when you just called refugees people "that have come here looking for and expecting a hand out." As I've said many times, it's not an either-or scenario. Economically, immigration is undoubtedly good for our economy. And our economy is strong enough that we could easily spread more to our own and have leftovers for many more around the globe. And we already waste so much foreign aid that we could redirect a lot of it and actually do a lot more good. Not an either-or scenario. Since this is the Not Happy Thread and not the Debate Room, please make a thread in the latter if you want to discuss this further.
There is only so much money that can be spent to help people, and given that the United States doesn't have enough money to take care of its own citizens, it most definitely becomes an "either-or-scenario." Funny how you dismiss me and say that I need to start a new thread when you were the one that started this by suggesting that we should be helping more fugess from other parts of the world and not just Syria.
It's not funny; it's logic. It literally could not be more obvious that my post was fulfilling the point of the thread by sharing something that made me not happy and was not debating Steerpike or anyone else. Your post, on the other hand, literally could not have been more obviously a debate. From the very beginning, your post starts by quoting my post and then presenting an argument for me to respond to: "So let me ask you a serious question. Many of those refugees come here seeking help. How can you look at them any differently than an American citizen that seeks help when their life turns bad?" It's baffling how wrong you are in this instance.
Ahh, we started to get along so well not so long ago, then things like the economy and immigration came up. Too bad really. It makes me Not so Happy.
You've got a good argument there. @Lewdog you could just PM him or something. Although I do think this thread reasonably needs to allow for a little debate in order for it to be an effective "discussion". I think you guys could probably both be less pointed. Making very strong statement about how wrong the opponent is or being sarcastic in a slightly mocking sense are both unnecessary in these circumstances. The argument barely started. Chill. I know from personal experience it's easy to get fired up in arguments, I do that a lot, but switching to hostility so quickly isn't productive.
Changing the subject completely, I can't... GET. THE. WORDS. OUT. FAST. ENOUGH! My brain boils with ideas, and my outline shines like a lighthouse guiding me home, but getting the words onto the page is tortuous. It's like having constipation when you haven't shat for week. If I could just burn the damn words onto my hard-drive with frikkin telekinesis, I'd have this poxy novel done in a day. As it is the marathon ain't even half done. This makes me Not Happy. /rant off As you were. Please continue.
I know what you mean. My problem is that the scenes flourish in my head like a movie screen, but the words... ...are... ...painfully... ...slow and sometimes doesn't capture what I really want to say. An action that would take a second in a movie might require three lines of text!!! And scenes keep coming and coming with no end demanding that they be written. Sometimes I just want to scream at my characters to just shut the **** up, sit down, and wait until I've gotten there! This is for not listening to me, my stupid characters. Now you will pay the ultimate price for your lack of obedience!!!
A client was just so rude to me in an email, for absolutely no reason. They're having IT problems, and apparently it's my fault? I hate that I can't write back in the same tone.