Welfare needs to go

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
21
81
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Instead of insulting him maybe you should turn your derisions on those who abuse the system

Like who? The corporate weenies who fly to D.C. in their private jets to beg for bailout money while tanking their companies and putting their enployees out of work with shitty designs?

Holy off the topic trolling! The OP is talking about welfare, and you're going off on bailouts and executive gluttony. :confused:

My ex in-laws were all welfare and ssi abusers. All capable of working, but they found a way to get every free handout that was available. The parents had their kids pretend they were mentally retarded in order to get aid for them. Their trailer burnt down, and they got free money and workers to build a house, and just before they were done the dad kicked them all out. They never put siding on it so he doesn't have to pay taxes on the house since it isn't "finished". The one time the mom was working and making good money, the dad made her quit because it reduced their ssi income, even though her paycheck was far more than what they made on that.

The whole system is a scam. My church is busy giving out blankets, food, and water, while opening the doors during the week so they have some place warm to sleep, and those people are getting nothing from the government - while people like my ex in-laws are sucking it for all its worth.


I did hear a thought provoking statement a long time ago.... Even though they can work, are those the type of people you want to work? Might be easier just to give them money to live as-is than dropping the quality of the workforce. :p
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
21
81
Originally posted by: Tab
I don't understand the whole "movement" against those on welfare or welfare in general. Do they know anyone on welfare? I can assure you it isn't anyone sitting on their ass, doing drugs or whatever.

I do. Many. Yes. Your assurance is worth nothing, because my personal first hand experience says otherwise. :p
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: Tab
I don't understand the whole "movement" against those on welfare or welfare in general. Do they know anyone on welfare? I can assure you it isn't anyone sitting on their ass, doing drugs or whatever.

I do. Many. Yes. Your assurance is worth nothing, because my personal first hand experience says otherwise. :p

My wife worked in daycare, and it was amazing to see these people coming in driving an expensive car, yet not working and still dropping off the kids at the daycare -- paid for by our taxes of course. Not an isolated incident mind you, this was quite common.

One of the women proudly told everyone how her and her "baby daddy" would not get married so she could continue collecting welfare and get free daycare. That kind of stuff might not be a big percentage of the overall national budget, but it sure ticks me off that people like that are allowed to be human leeches while others who need help can't get it. :disgust:

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I don't advocate eliminating welfare programs, but you can't even hope for any reform at all. It's a Sacred Cow.
This...

Originally posted by: waggy
walfare is fine.

its the fact so many abuse it that screw it up for those that need it. it was meant for the stay at home mother with kids who had the father die and leave them with nothing. to pad people figured out if you got knocked up at 16 you got money, housing, foodstamps, etc. and more kids you have the more money went up.

we need a way to get people off welfare and survive without goverment help. but i am against stopping it all togher..just punish the people who cheat.
...and this.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Tab
I don't understand the whole "movement" against those on welfare or welfare in general. Do they know anyone on welfare? I can assure you it isn't anyone sitting on their ass, doing drugs or whatever.

no, you can't.

My wife's cousin is a fat lazy whore who just popped out a third kid for the sole purpose of remaining on welfare -- doing so extended and increased her benefits. She said as much directly to my wife, who then shared it with me.

It blew our fucking minds.

We need to reform the system to do more to prevent abuse. Period.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,764
6,770
126
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: Tab
I don't understand the whole "movement" against those on welfare or welfare in general. Do they know anyone on welfare? I can assure you it isn't anyone sitting on their ass, doing drugs or whatever.

no, you can't.

My wife's cousin is a fat lazy whore who just popped out a third kid for the sole purpose of remaining on welfare -- doing so extended and increased her benefits. She said as much directly to my wife, who then shared it with me.

It blew our fucking minds.

We need to reform the system to do more to prevent abuse. Period.

There was once a king who decided to end poverty by killing all the poor.

We don't need reform, we need the right kind of reform. We practice change that goes in circles. Don't take care of the poor and you have revolution, take care of them and they breed like rats.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Years ago, Ted Kennedy offered to get rid of welfare in exchange for a right to work. The govt would provide jobs for all that are unemployed. Of course, the right wing would not agree to this.

Sure welfare has costs, but not nearly that of the excessive pension costs that are killing us. Vallejo, CA has gone bankrupt because of the outrageous police and fire salaries and pension benefits. How about means testing for those receiving pensions?
Why should welfare be time limited and yet cops retiring after 20 years receive lifetime benefits?

Last time I checked welfare was about $300 per month for an individual, hardly a windfall.
And you have to fill out tons of paperwork, wait in lines, get fingerprinted , and generally have your dignity crushed in order to receive minimal benefits.

Welfare reform was the worst thing Bill Clinton ever agreed to.
OK, I'll say it, welfare needs to be INCREASED!
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Without welfare, how else would Democrats get their constituents to come out and vote for them every year?
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The welfare problem will never be addressed because the underlying issue of self hate will not be faced.

People who hate themselves are insane. They feel they deserve what others have worked for or they pat themselves on the back to extreme for what they accomplish and ridicule others for lack of effort in not having the same because it makes they feel even more superior.

Welfare is self hate as I said above. We create the system that produces winners and losers instead of a society of love because we are all deeply sick and will not see it.

The answer to welfare, like the answer to every other problem in the world, is to have self respect. Only you can acquire your own real self respect because only you can relive and reverse the traumatic events in your childhood that caused you to hate yourself, and only you can face your own denial. Nobody can ever make you see. The world is dying because you can't do that. You are killing the world, nobody else, because the only thing you can change is you. You will never change because you are afraid to face what happened, to know what you really feel, even though all you have to do is feel it.

So what do people do. Some blame victims, they become the put down artist who kills the psyche of others. Some become defenders of victims and pretend the victim is not responsible for his own recovery.

People who need, who are the most down, are dangerous, vicious, and hungry. They are takers who think only of themselves. They are the mirror image of the vicious who put them down. They are vacuum sucking on vacuums.

You can't help others until you have saved yourself. Only then will you be clear and know what to do.

But to help people you have to allow them to help themselves. Everything you do to make yourself better adds to the good of the soul. It makes you feel a bit better and more confident. It is self love. It doesn't cure self hate, but it weakens the feeling of certainty that one is worthless, how we actually feel.

So all social programs require that those receiving benefits work or contribute something to get them and not be aware they are being given therapy of this kind.

You can help people only when they don't see that as the intention. People need opportunities to shine at something, to help others, to be a part of something, to feel wanted, to have something to give.

We are all God. You are an infinite being of light that has been destroyed by hate as a child. Instead of finding your true selves you fatten your egos in a sick system.

Every person is God. Love others so the love of God shines out of you. You are the solution to everything. God is only when YOU are real.
What do you do professional; how do you make a living?

And, yes, I read your post.

You ask for information, I want to give you understanding. That implies that I know something you do not. Right away, in a competitive world, that sets up a contest, one that I don't want to win or be in.

As part of my special understanding, I see things not normally seen and that includes seeing things in your question you may not wish to believe.

I have suggested we are in a state of denial as to what we feel. That can mean you don't know what why you asked about my profession. What does it matter. I have said over and over that I am a nobody.

But suppose I want to help you and I'm a world renowned scholar in the field of psychology in an Ivy League, but you have a bias against college professors. As soon as you know I'm one a wall goes up, a bias makes what I say suspect. Or perhaps I'm a mailman and now you find escape in the fact I'm an ignorant gov employee with a socialist wage who can't possibly know anything.

I have seen that this is how people are. They judge you by superficials. Think what possible difference it could make how I make a living as it relates to what I know. Jesus was a carpenter and so are a lot of assholes. The Buddha was the son of a king.

Truth is justice itself. It can't be given to the unworthy or kept from any who are.

Every stick has two ends. I take the end that has the shit so you can have the end untainted by my personal information. I remain data-less so you have a mirror that reflects.

But I find it completely accurate to say that I am a nobody. So if the real motive of your question is to put me in a box, I'll take the one marked 'nobody'. The sun that shine on me and warms my skin is the same sun and the same warmth you feel. We are all the same and we are all God.

So basically you're just a sophomore philosophy student at some 3rd rate private liberal arts college on your parents dime?
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: JS80
Without welfare, how else would Democrats get their constituents to come out and vote for them every year?

Without farm welfare, how would Republicans get their constituents to vote for them?
And I'll bet that most welfare recipients-don't bother to vote.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,764
6,770
126
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: JS80
Without welfare, how else would Democrats get their constituents to come out and vote for them every year?

Without farm welfare, how would Republicans get their constituents to vote for them?
And I'll bet that most welfare recipients-don't bother to vote.

I think but am not positive, that most farm aid goes to corporate and very large farm operations. Also, it is a separate but very difficult problem that locally elected officials represent the people who vote for them. And I would not dismiss the possibility that cunning politicians in poor areas may in fact not like losing the need issue when it comes to getting votes.

Anybody who truly helps the poor will be hated by them. The poor are poor because they feel that is what they deserve and if you tell them they have been forgiven they will insure you are crucified.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: bctbct
pfft, corporate welfare is sucking us dry not the lazy people.

This.


Why worry about a very small fish and leave the big one to eat as they please. That and the welfare reform when Clinton was Prez limited how much "free" money they could get.

It's easier to blame poor people who can't defend themselves then to blame an asshole in a $1,000 suit asking for bail outs and federal aid for his "industry". Especially since the rich welfare recipient has a huge marketing/advertising team to keep their image positive in the public while they tank their company and export jobs overseas.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: JS80
Without welfare, how else would Democrats get their constituents to come out and vote for them every year?

Without farm welfare, how would Republicans get their constituents to vote for them?
And I'll bet that most welfare recipients-don't bother to vote.

I think but am not positive, that most farm aid goes to corporate and very large farm operations. Also, it is a separate but very difficult problem that locally elected officials represent the people who vote for them. And I would not dismiss the possibility that cunning politicians in poor areas may in fact not like losing the need issue when it comes to getting votes.

Anybody who truly helps the poor will be hated by them. The poor are poor because they feel that is what they deserve and if you tell them they have been forgiven they will insure you are crucified.

LoL, moonbeam, you mean something like this:

"IV

The wounded surgeon plies the steel
That questions the distempered part;
Beneath the bleeding hands we feel
The sharp compassion of the healer's art
Resolving the enigma of the fever chart.

Our only health is the disease
If we obey the dying nurse
Whose constant care is not to please
But to remind of our, and Adam's curse,
And that, to be restored, our sickness must grow worse.

The whole earth is our hospital
Endowed by the ruined millionaire,
Wherein, if we do well, we shall
Die of the absolute paternal care
That will not leave us, but prevents us everywhere.

The chill ascends from feet to knees,
The fever sings in mental wires.
If to be warmed, then I must freeze
And quake in frigid purgatorial fires
Of which the flame is roses, and the smoke is briars.

The dripping blood our only drink,
The bloody flesh our only food:
In spite of which we like to think
That we are sound, substantial flesh and blood?
Again, in spite of that, we call this Friday good."
-from East Coker, by T.S. Eliot.


-Robert




 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
40,903
10,228
136
Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
When is this shit going to end? All it does is allow the lazy to continue to sit on their asses and be non productive members of our society. Their sole purpose in life is to make sure they collect their god damn welfare check. They then instill it in their kids to do the same and so they continue to produce these generations of fuck ups.

edit: I'm talking about the perfectly healthy fuck ups that abuse the system. I have no problem with our government helping out the disabled.

Well, Bill Clinton heard you. So what's your problem?
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
40,903
10,228
136
Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Yeah, that's the ticket, lets cut off all these progarms, starting with:
Roads (just encourages fat asses to drive instead of walk.),
Bridges (too lazy to learn to swim?),
Clean drinking water (boil your own water you leech!)
Military, (get your own gun or learn another language lardasses)
Food quality inspection (cook your food well done you mooch!)
Drug inspection (don't get sick you weakling!)
Bank regulation (too lazy to steal from them first? What kind of capitalist are you?)
Wastewater treatment (your shit is your own problem, yuck!)
Law enforcement (what are you a coward?)
Mail (too lazy to carry a little ass envelope? too bad!)
Social security (old people are useless anyhow, they already made decent wage slaves so its time to die)
Schools (what do you need to read for? You into poetry or something you sissy boy?)

This is such a stupid line of thinking, mostly from folks who are supported by mommy and daddy anyhow. Or ironically from redder states that suck up more taxes then they produce. Sure there are a few people who game the system, but mostly welfare is too much of a hassle compared to just gettiing a job. So easy to blame the folks who cannot help themselves, you all are beneath contempt.
No lie. I got a letter saying I may qualify for unemployment, but I couldn't get through on the phone hard as I tried. I just gave up. Welfare, unemployment, they suck compared to a 1/2 decent job. BTDT, baby.

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,006
55,439
136
I like all the self made men circle jerking against social programs in these threads. Mostly I find that all these people never seem to realize all the benefits they've gotten in their lives, they just feel free to rail against programs that they haven't specifically used or benefited in a way that they've noticed. (until the time comes when they need them, at which point they become suddenly valuable)

Americans are too decent a people that desire social stability too much to allow large numbers of insolvent families wander around causing trouble. The old Republican specter of the welfare mother was never very true to begin with, and since Clinton is nowhere even remotely approaching reality, it just serves as a useful vehicle to whip certain people into a fine froth.

Welfare is never going anywhere, as it should be.
 

Mr. Lennon

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2004
3,492
1
81
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
When is this shit going to end? All it does is allow the lazy to continue to sit on their asses and be non productive members of our society. Their sole purpose in life is to make sure they collect their god damn welfare check. They then instill it in their kids to do the same and so they continue to produce these generations of fuck ups.

edit: I'm talking about the perfectly healthy fuck ups that abuse the system. I have no problem with our government helping out the disabled.

Well, Bill Clinton heard you. So what's your problem?

It was a step in the right direction, but there are still many loop holes that these lazy fucks exploit.

California and some other states still have not complied with the new federal laws Clinton enacted. This year alone, California payed $59 billion into welfare.

Something is not right when a state spends more money on welfare than it does on health care.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,764
6,770
126
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We don't need reform, we need the right kind of reform.

What is the right kind of reform, that you suggest?

First read again what I already said and think about it.

"The welfare problem will never be addressed because the underlying issue of self hate will not be faced.

People who hate themselves are insane. They feel they deserve what others have worked for or they pat themselves on the back to extreme for what they accomplish and ridicule others for lack of effort in not having the same because it makes they feel even more superior.

Welfare is self hate as I said above. We create the system that produces winners and losers instead of a society of love because we are all deeply sick and will not see it.

The answer to welfare, like the answer to every other problem in the world, is to have self respect. Only you can acquire your own real self respect because only you can relive and reverse the traumatic events in your childhood that caused you to hate yourself, and only you can face your own denial. Nobody can ever make you see. The world is dying because you can't do that. You are killing the world, nobody else, because the only thing you can change is you. You will never change because you are afraid to face what happened, to know what you really feel, even though all you have to do is feel it.

So what do people do. Some blame victims, they become the put down artist who kills the psyche of others. Some become defenders of victims and pretend the victim is not responsible for his own recovery.

People who need, who are the most down, are dangerous, vicious, and hungry. They are takers who think only of themselves. They are the mirror image of the vicious who put them down. They are vacuum sucking on vacuums.

You can't help others until you have saved yourself. Only then will you be clear and know what to do.

But to help people you have to allow them to help themselves. Everything you do to make yourself better adds to the good of the soul. It makes you feel a bit better and more confident. It is self love. It doesn't cure self hate, but it weakens the feeling of certainty that one is worthless, how we actually feel.

So all social programs require that those receiving benefits work or contribute something to get them and not be aware they are being given therapy of this kind.

You can help people only when they don't see that as the intention. People need opportunities to shine at something, to help others, to be a part of something, to feel wanted, to have something to give.

We are all God. You are an infinite being of light that has been destroyed by hate as a child. Instead of finding your true selves you fatten your egos in a sick system.

Every person is God. Love others so the love of God shines out of you. You are the solution to everything. God is only when YOU are real."

Now, given this information a number of things should be clear.

Welfare begins at home. You will know what to do for others if you can get past your own self hate. It's the physician heal thyself thing.

We all know it's better to teach fishing than giving away fish, but nobody will learn fishing who does not want to, which usually means there is a fear of failure so:

The goal if any plan should be to start wherever people are and build capacity. This means creating some space or environment, changing the system, so that people can have some opportunity to do for themselves, and to create something of worth. That can and should be done in a way that has nothing to do with helping them. People hate those who help them because they envy them. They compare who they are and who the helper is and use it to hate themselves more.

So you don't let people know that they are being given opportunities to do for themselves because it builds character. They will discover that later.

You must expect no reward nor demand any progress from people. Those who are defeated will recognize that right away and get even with you by failing.

People need each other. We need to learn to feel, and we need a place and others where we can get to how we hurt. The world is in deep need of healing.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,006
55,439
136
Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
When is this shit going to end? All it does is allow the lazy to continue to sit on their asses and be non productive members of our society. Their sole purpose in life is to make sure they collect their god damn welfare check. They then instill it in their kids to do the same and so they continue to produce these generations of fuck ups.

edit: I'm talking about the perfectly healthy fuck ups that abuse the system. I have no problem with our government helping out the disabled.

Well, Bill Clinton heard you. So what's your problem?

It was a step in the right direction, but there are still many loop holes that these lazy fucks exploit.

California and some other states still have not complied with the new federal laws Clinton enacted. This year alone, California payed $59 billion into welfare.

Something is not right when a state spends more money on welfare than it does on health care.

Gonna need some links for that one brotha. Sounds to me like someone is using a ridiculously broad definition of 'welfare'.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: JS80
Without welfare, how else would Democrats get their constituents to come out and vote for them every year?

By offering an alternative to the party that serves the agenda of the richest, the corporatocracy, that sells out to the special interests who harm America like the military-industrial complex, and panders to the fringe groups who want power but are otherwise unelectable like the radical right groups; by offering the better policies on the economy and foreign relations, more fiscal responsibility, more competence in government, actually representing the public interest, protecting the environment, etc.

Without welfare, how would the Repuplicans replace an issue they can exploit and misrepresent to get ignorant, selfish people to vote for them against welfare?
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: JS80
Without welfare, how else would Democrats get their constituents to come out and vote for them every year?

By offering an alternative to the party that serves the agenda of the richest, the corporatocracy, that sells out to the special interests who harm America like the military-industrial complex, and panders to the fringe groups who want power but are otherwise unelectable like the radical right groups; by offering the better policies on the economy and foreign relations, more fiscal responsibility, more competence in government, actually representing the public interest, protecting the environment, etc.

Without welfare, how would the Repuplicans replace an issue they can exploit and misrepresent to get ignorant, selfish people to vote for them against welfare?
I know plenty of Democrats who also despise the current welfare system. Get off your partisan sybian long enough to see that the system has some large holes that need patching.

People who completely give themselves over to one party, or another, are mindless lemmings or politicians. Which one are you?
 

BigDH01

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2005
1,631
88
91
I'm lifting myself from another thread.

The elimination of welfare is not a credible threat.

1) While it may seem nice to punish the parents, by necessity you also punish their children. As a society, we recognize that children should have basic needs met, such as food and education. We believe this knowing that children aren't responsible for the home they were born into.

2) As everyone knows this, no threat made by the government with regards to the elimination of welfare will be taken seriously. The government won't (can't) actually punish the mother after she's committed the sin by starving her child. And as fiscally conservative as many members in this thread have been, I doubt very few would sit down with a welfare mother and her family that they won't be receiving any more money or foodstamps.

3) It is likely unreasonable to expect that a mother suddenly removed from welfare will be able to find work that pays enough to care for her child(ren). This is especially true as welfare recipients are likely coalesced into certain areas and removing them all at once from aid will flood the local market with cheap labor. This point is especially true in the upcoming recession.

4) We recognize that welfare, while it might not be great, is likely cheaper than the alternative. Given assumption 1, the children will need care after birth regardless of who gives it. The state is faced with two options: 1) pay the mother to care for the child or 2) take possession of the child and pay for the care. Option 2 can be quite expensive for the state (my siblings work as Boy's Town of America so I have some idea what is paid to keep a child), likely moreso than simply pay the mother for the child's expense. Placing the children in group homes means paying full time staff as well as assuming all legal liabilities. From a pragmatic approach, welfare might be the cheaper option.

Now, one might say that option #2, the removal of welfare, discourages individuals from getting pregnant thereby resulting in fewer pregnancies. This would be true if the motivation for pregnancy was money. According to posts earlier in this thread, teenage pregnancy was driven by attention-seeking behavior or was unplanned. I am not an expert in this area and it is possible that money is a motivating factor. However, I think it would be foolish to think that money is always the dominating factor and thus welfare or child removal of some sort will have to be implemented. If welfare is chosen, then the mother's motives are rather inconsequential. If child removal is chosen, then as a society we must decide that mother's do not have an inherent right to keep their child and that it is property of the state.

Of course, the above explanation falls apart under key conditions. If society decides that it isn't important that every child have their basic needs met, then we can scrap the system all together as we no longer care about the child's welfare. You'd likely see far more situations like that in Nebraska where children are just left at hospitals. The state can then choose to care for the child or simply hope that a private entity assumes care for the child. In certain areas of the country, I'm not sure how plausible the latter really is, but again, this is an unknown.

We could also take a draconian view on reproductive rights. Perhaps reversible sterilization that can only be undone if the would be mother can prove her (and perhaps her family's) ability and willingness to care for the child. Perhaps any pregnancy should be terminated if the mother is unable to care for the child. This obviously requires a drastic departure from what we've done in the past.

Bottom line, as long as we believe in reproductive freedom and the right of every child to have their basic needs met, the state will spend money in caring for some children. Without resorting to extreme measures, the best thing to do is to take the more pragmatic approach. What is the cheapest way to care for these children? Is it best to make poor children wards of the state or is it best to give the mothers state aid to care for their own child? I'm sure an argument can be made either way, but I do not personally have the data to decide which is best. Of course, that being from a purely quantifiable point of view.

I basically feel the same way about health care. As long as doctors administer treatment to anyone in the emergency room regardless of their ability to pay, then society as a whole has already decided to pay for health care for the poor. The pragmatic approach at this point is to decide if we pay more currently for emergency care or if we would pay more for national preventative care. From a purely logical, non-moral, and non-partisan point of view, the cheaper of the two options should be chosen. That is, unless doctors start checking bank accounts at the emergency room door.

Keep in mind, I'm not claiming our system of welfare is the best possible system or that it is run efficiently. Simply trying to make a logical argument to demonstrate that given the assumptions above, some expense will be paid by taxpayers to rear other people's children. The only way to avoid it is to change how we feel about human rights.