DoubleD @[email protected]

Unfortunately, it seems that once welfare is made a public institution, if Rome is typical, it is only ever to be overturned by dictatorial power or by a situation in which the government is unable to provide the service in 476 AD, and there are insufficient records to conclude that it was perpetuated.

All this made me consider that famous phrase from Jesus, "The poor you will always have with you". It is an undeiable fact that poor people exist, and we don't need to talk about why they are poor; however, we have to live in a society with people who are poor. There are many things we can do to help the poor if we are so inclined individually such as the above mentioned food donations.

The practice itself is not longer practiced in the West, largely due to health regulations where businesses like bakeries are not allowed to give away bread that is stale (not moldy, just stale).

This specific practice of donating extra food after dinners was also seen throughout a great deal of the middle ages where it was seen as bad form for a wealthy individual to see that all the bread baked was eaten by their guests and family.

Prior to the dole itself being proposed, Roman Patricians were expected to be philanthropic with their wealth. This was not limited to donations for public works such as libraries, it was even a cultural practice at dinner parties to donate extra or leftover food to the poor around you.

Sulla as dictator abolished it, but it was brought back before 90 BC. Politicians quickly learned that they could win support with the populous of Rome and thus power with offices like Tribune thus giving them sway over the frequently seen street mobs of the late republic. It took dictators like Sulla and Julius Ceasar to remove or reduce the dole in one way or another.

Thread...

I was contemplating welfare and its disastrous effects in contrast with private charity.
Rome had issues with the public grain dole from its inception as a subsidized and price-fixed grain purchase and storage program in the republican era, which even though it was financed by tax increases, saw a precipitous increases in demand as all price-ceiling schemes do. Once it was implemented corruption set in and was frequently a topic of reform but not abolishment by politicians.

A quick story: I parked near the barber in a small town near me. The closest shop's owner who is an old grandma happened to step outside momentarily. I asked which meter was mine because they were arranged in a strangely. (Don't ask.) She then put a quarter into my meter and said, "this one".
I bought something from her store as a thank you; I now have homemade, dark chocolate confections to savor which is an unexpected treat. Were they more than $0.25? Yes. I value them more than $0.25.

This is not a fair comparison, obviously; it is a reminder.

Today, I reminded my waifu how to use baking soda to clean up stubborn stains on tile. She was very grateful for the lesson, and was happy that I spent time with her.

How many husbands can say the same about their wives?

Some comments about Indians working in the west from my experience in white-collar, highly-technical jobs:

In my experience, those who are competent make up about 25% of the workforce, and I wouldn't know their work from any others' work. They can speak perfect English.

The rest in my experience either must be managed very closely and have their hands held, or are incompetent workers; the hiring company over-sold their skills.

The first, new fruit tree of the season is in. With this and my new berry bushes the year begins again as the starlings and chickadees twitter outside my window.

Remember that no matter how much some political statement or rumor may seem like the end of the world, it isn't. Don't just go outside to touch grass: plant something; nurture it. Bring life into this world. Love this world, and it will bring you joy.

I continued to listen to the Wednesday show after making this comment, and TFM bought up this point, which is good.

I do not like it when people are disingenuous, and in my opinion, Halsey is too well-read to be ignorant of many of these details surrounding Syria and Iran.

Evidence for his arguments, like the BBC article about the UN inspector saying it was "worrying" about Iran developing nuclear weapons, is tenuous at best, and points such as the aforementioned surrender are ignored.

Something that Halsey continues to say on the Wednesday show which irritates me is that Assad was defeated and Russia didn't do anything even though they were allies. If he has not directly stated it, he has implied it, and he uses this as justification for his thought that Russia doesn't care about Iran.

Assad stepped down and the Syrian military did the same because his generals were for all intents and purposes bought off. Russia can't defend someone who surrenders of their own accord.