Why is this getting no play??
 

riverman wrote

The real losers will be the people set to retire in 3-5 years. They
will have lost a ton of value in the current crash, then get hit with
a large CG tax when they withdraw the rest. Hopefully they don't have
all their eggs in one basket...

Thing is, even those folks, what? They want to retire and die at
age 67? If they expect, as they should, to live until age 80 or
more, they also are in it for the long term and SHOULD have some
part of their nest egg in the market. Even the Great Depression
only lasted 10 years. 65? Withdraw what you've got in cash or
Treasury bonds, Hold on tight with what you've got in equities.
At 75 your stock mutual funds will come alive again.... when
you'll need it.

- JR
aka J "long view" R

Why is this getting no play??
 

On Oct 11, 2:26*pm, JR wrote:
riverman wrote



The real losers will be the people set to retire in 3-5 years. They
will have lost a ton of value in the current crash, then get hit with
a large CG tax when they withdraw the rest. Hopefully they don't have
all their eggs in one basket...

Thing is, even those folks, what? *They want to retire and die at
age 67? *If they expect, as they should, to live until age 80 or
more, they also are in it for the long term and SHOULD have some
part of their nest egg in the market. *Even the Great Depression
only lasted 10 years. *65? *Withdraw what you've got in cash or
Treasury bonds, Hold on tight with what you've got in equities.
At 75 your stock mutual funds will come alive again.... when
you'll need it.

- JR
aka J "long view" R

I was thinking more about folks invested in a retirement plan where
they must withdraw their shares when they retire or leave the company.
As for the rest of us, I agree: my medium term investment portfolio
just became my retirement plan, with a 'do not open until 2015' sign
on it. In fact, I might increase my DCA....this collapse might turn
out to be a windfall.

But I tell you, you can taste the fear here in Hong Kong. I heard last
night that financial people (pretty much the entire ex-pat population)
are being laid off by the tens of thousands. More interesting...a
student whose dad works at AIG said he told them over a month ago
that they might be moving back to the US because things were grim at
work....

--riverman

Why is this getting no play??
 

On Oct 11, 9:45*am, riverman wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:26*pm, JR wrote:



riverman wrote

The real losers will be the people set to retire in 3-5 years. They
will have lost a ton of value in the current crash, then get hit with
a large CG tax when they withdraw the rest. Hopefully they don't have
all their eggs in one basket...

Thing is, even those folks, what? *They want to retire and die at
age 67? *If they expect, as they should, to live until age 80 or
more, they also are in it for the long term and SHOULD have some
part of their nest egg in the market. *Even the Great Depression
only lasted 10 years. *65? *Withdraw what you've got in cash or
Treasury bonds, Hold on tight with what you've got in equities.
At 75 your stock mutual funds will come alive again.... when
you'll need it.

- JR
aka J "long view" R

I was thinking more about folks invested in a retirement plan where
they must withdraw their shares when they retire or leave the company.
As for the rest of us, I agree: my medium term investment portfolio
just became my retirement plan, with a 'do not open until 2015' sign
on it. In fact, I might increase my DCA....this collapse might turn
out to be a windfall.

But I tell you, you can taste the fear here in Hong Kong. I heard last
night that financial people (pretty much the entire ex-pat population)
are being laid off by the tens of thousands. More interesting...a
student whose dad works at AIG said he told them over a month ago
that they might be moving back to the US because things were grim at
work....

--riverman

Those who basically have nothing, the "have nots", will exult that
the "haves´" are taken down a peg or two, as the majority of them
begrudge you your social security, and believe you are not entitled to
it. Eventually the collapse will bottom out, and a lot of people will
be left with egg on their faces. The truly rich and powerful will have
less on paper than they had before, some will have more. Otherwise it
will doubtless largely be "business as usual".

Far too many people will be born, the destruction of the planet will
continue, and very few people will even try to do anything about it,
being more concerned with their personal problems. These things are
not actually real unless and until they affect you personally, and
individuals are quite powerless to do anything about it anyway.

Just how it is. Nothing will really change until enough people have
the sense to see that it is necessary, or they are forced into it.
Some of us may well consider ourselves lucky that we will die before
the really bad things start to happen to us. When you are actually
starving, dying of some illness for lack of help or drugs, or unable
to support yourself or your family, the politics or actual mechanics
of the matter are not usually of much interest.

Why is this getting no play??
 

On Oct 11, 4:34*pm, wrote:
On Oct 11, 9:45*am, riverman wrote:





On Oct 11, 2:26*pm, JR wrote:

riverman wrote

The real losers will be the people set to retire in 3-5 years. They
will have lost a ton of value in the current crash, then get hit with
a large CG tax when they withdraw the rest. Hopefully they don't have
all their eggs in one basket...

Thing is, even those folks, what? *They want to retire and die at
age 67? *If they expect, as they should, to live until age 80 or
more, they also are in it for the long term and SHOULD have some
part of their nest egg in the market. *Even the Great Depression
only lasted 10 years. *65? *Withdraw what you've got in cash or
Treasury bonds, Hold on tight with what you've got in equities.
At 75 your stock mutual funds will come alive again.... when
you'll need it.

- JR
aka J "long view" R

I was thinking more about folks invested in a retirement plan where
they must withdraw their shares when they retire or leave the company.
As for the rest of us, I agree: my medium term investment portfolio
just became my retirement plan, with a 'do not open until 2015' sign
on it. In fact, I might increase my DCA....this collapse might turn
out to be a windfall.

But I tell you, you can taste the fear here in Hong Kong. I heard last
night that financial people (pretty much the entire ex-pat population)
are being laid off by the tens of thousands. More interesting...a
student whose dad works at AIG said he told them over a month ago
that they might be moving back to the US because things were grim at
work....

--riverman

Those who basically have nothing, the "have nots", will exult *that
the "haves´" are taken down a peg or two, as the majority of them
begrudge you your social security, and believe you are not entitled to
it. Eventually the collapse will bottom out, and a lot of people will
be left with egg on their faces. The truly rich and powerful will have
less on paper than they had before, some will have more. Otherwise it
will doubtless largely be "business as usual".

Far too many people will be born, the destruction of the planet will
continue, and very few people will even try to do anything about it,
being more concerned with their personal problems. These things are
not actually real unless and until they affect you personally, and
individuals are quite powerless to do anything about it anyway.

Just how it is. *Nothing will really change until enough people have
the sense to see that it is necessary, or they are forced into it.
Some of us may well consider ourselves lucky that we will die before
the really bad things start to happen to us. When you are actually
starving, dying of some illness for lack of help or drugs, or unable
to support yourself or your family, the politics or actual mechanics
of the matter are not usually of much interest.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Yow....well there goes MY sunny day.

--riverman

Why is this getting no play??
 

On Oct 11, 10:52*am, riverman wrote:


Yow....well there goes MY sunny day.

--riverman

Why should something like that ruin your day? A sunny day, maybe even
spent fishing, with friends perhaps, or alone, is a form of riches
that nobody can control or take away from you. Except by means of
imprisonment or similar, and then you would doubtless have more
pressing problems. Nor can anybody really mar your enjoyment of it
unless you allow them to. You also retain the memory of it.

That is reality, unlike depressing speculations on the worth of your
investments in seven years time, by which point incidentally you might
well have long since ceased to exist.

One must perforce take notice of many things, but one must also be
aware of the priorities involved. If you are healthy, and can eat, and
enjoy today for what it is, you have already won a great deal. It
seems that much of the sorrow in the world is caused by people trying
to enjoy tomorrow before it arrives, (often coupled with worry, envy,
and greed), and regretting what they did, or what occurred yesterday,
both quite futile exercises.
Have a nice day! :)

Why is this getting no play??
 

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:41:17 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

If you want to believe that your largesse is the sole reason
some people in Massachusetts don't starve to death you go
right ahead and believe it. Just don't expect that I will.

It is not MY largesse, Ken. It is a combination of many people. I
couldn't financially support that charity, no could I run it. It is a
giant team effort involving hundred of people.

If it wasn't for all the food pantries around the state, many people
would go hungry. No one starves to death, but they do go hungry.
Almost all of our clients are on welfare, but that is not enough.
They are all getting aid from the state in some way or form.

Of course I could stand up front of them and say, "Ok, all you lazy
*******s. My liberal friends want you to go out and get a job, feed
yourself, no one cares about you. Now move it out!" Of course I
would say it with all the compassion that you would put into such
words.

You need to get out more often and look around and see if you too
could help in some small way. It does not require much effort or
money, just time. And, it would help if you would realize that
government is not the answer to all the problems this country faces.
There is much you can do instead of sitting comfortably in Champana
complaining about Republicans.

Dave

Why is this getting no play??
 

On Oct 11, 3:11*pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:41:17 -0500, Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
If you want to believe that your largesse is the sole reason
some people in Massachusetts don't starve to death you go
right ahead and believe it. Just don't expect that I will.

It is not MY largesse, Ken. *It is a combination of many people. *I
couldn't financially support that charity, no could I run it. *It is a
giant team effort involving hundred of people.

If it wasn't for all the food pantries around the state, many people
would go hungry. *No one starves to death, but they do go hungry.
Almost all of our clients are on welfare, but that is not enough.
They are all getting aid from the state in some way or form.

Of course I could stand up front of them and say, "Ok, all you lazy
*******s. *My liberal friends want you to go out and get a job, feed
yourself, no one cares about you. *Now move it out!" *Of course I
would say it with all the compassion that you would put into such
words.

You need to get out more often and look around and see if you too
could help in some small way. *It does not require much effort or
money, just time. *And, it would help if you would realize that
government is not the answer to all the problems this country faces.
There is much you can do instead of sitting comfortably in Champana
complaining about Republicans.

Dave

On the contrary dumbo, sensible and just government is the only
possible answer. That is what a government is supposed to do, ensure
the welfare of its citizens. That is the only sensible reason for its
existence.

The fact that many people are obliged to rely on charity is a sign
that the government has failed in its duty to its citizens.

Nobody wishes to be beholden in any way to nasty boastful
condescending ****bags like you LaCourse.

Why is this getting no play??
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
If you want to believe that your largesse is the sole reason
some people in Massachusetts don't starve to death you go
right ahead and believe it. Just don't expect that I will.

snip nonsense
... And, it would help if you would realize that
government is not the answer to all the problems this country faces.

I've already conceded that point and I agree. The government cannot,
for instance, neuter all the right wing nitwits so they don't breed
or even disenfranchise them, as convenient as that would be. But any
government worthy of the name can sure as hell make sure that *no*
person in this country *ever* has to go hungry. You can argue to the
contrary until you're blue in the face but you will be forever wrong.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Why is this getting no play??
 

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:31:18 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

But any
government worthy of the name can sure as hell make sure that *no*
person in this country *ever* has to go hungry. You can argue to the
contrary until you're blue in the face but you will be forever wrong.

Then why are there tens of thousands of food pantries around the
country? There are four in the small city of Lowell. My small town
has one. The small towns on either side of me have one. Without this
extra food (and used clothes and toys for kids) these people would
have a much harder time. You sure are a compassionate liberal. Not!

The clients include Mexicans, Blacks, whites, Viet Namese, Laosians,
Iraqis, Russians, Puorto Ricans, et al. It is a regular melting pot
of different ethnic groups. They have all fallen through the cracks
of government. Many of them are *third* generation welfare
recipients. The government *is* doing something, but it is not
enough.

Why is this getting no play??
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
But any
government worthy of the name can sure as hell make sure that *no*
person in this country *ever* has to go hungry. You can argue to the
contrary until you're blue in the face but you will be forever wrong.

Then why are there tens of thousands of food pantries around the
country? ...

Not enough government. Duh.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Why is this getting no play??
 

On Oct 11, 7:14*pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:

Then why are there tens of thousands of food pantries around the
country? *

Because you have an incompetent government which is more interested in
spending untold millions on illegal invasions and occupations of other
countries, and playing "world policeman", among other things, than it
is in looking after its own citizens.

The money which was wasted on this stupid election alone, regardless
of candidate or party would have fed, clothed, and housed many people
for a very long time.

Why is this getting no play??
 

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:44:09 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Dave LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
But any
government worthy of the name can sure as hell make sure that *no*
person in this country *ever* has to go hungry. You can argue to the
contrary until you're blue in the face but you will be forever wrong.

Then why are there tens of thousands of food pantries around the
country? ...

Not enough government. Duh.

The government has already taken care of them, Ken. The bureaucracy
of government doesn't always work like you would like it to. The the
U.S. government ran this food pantry, the cost would be ten times
greater. If the State of Mass with our wonderful new out of control
spending governor ran it, it would cost twenty times more.

Dave

Why is this getting no play??
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:44:09 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Dave LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
But any
government worthy of the name can sure as hell make sure that *no*
person in this country *ever* has to go hungry. You can argue to the
contrary until you're blue in the face but you will be forever wrong.
Then why are there tens of thousands of food pantries around the
country? ...
Not enough government. Duh.

The government has already taken care of them, Ken. ...

Then they shouldn't be hungry, or wanting for medical care or
living under a goddamn bridge for cryin' out loud. If you really
want to help the poor and indigent you ought to take the money
you spend on "charity" and donate it to the Democratic National
Committee. Unless your "charities" are the Red Cross or one of
the good international aid funds.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Why is this getting no play??
 

On Oct 11, 9:04*pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:

*The bureaucracy
of government doesn't always work like you would like it to. *The the
U.S. government ran this food pantry, the cost would be ten times
greater. *If the State of Mass with our wonderful new out of control
spending governor ran it, it would cost twenty times more.

Dave

Entirely possible that you are correct, and yet knowing that, you
still spout endless bull**** in favour of a government and bureaucracy
you know to be ineffective and corrupt.

These things do not work as they should because people like you
condone and assist them, and allow them to continue. Your own
disgraceful and irresponsible behaviour reflects such double standards
and disgraceful conditions.

Your charity work is not only an attempt to buy approval, but also a
sop to your conscience for something you know to be wrong. You feel
guilty LaCourse, and you are. You also feel ashamed of your good
fortune, while others go hungry, but not even that stops you from
trying to exploit it to your own perceived advantage, or engaging in
other misbehaviour.

Hopefully your charitable activities do actually help a few people
despite your dubious motives, which are probably also mixed with a
genuine desire to help. Not many people are completely inured to
suffering when they see it.

I actually do feel somewhat sorry for you. Reading your posts reminds
me of a bull being led to the slaughter, and shaking its massive dumb
head in fear and anguish of the unknown, knowing full well that
something is wrong, but not knowing what, and powerless to change
anything.

You deliberately set out to upset and damage me LaCourse, but I find
that pricking you is merely distasteful.

Why is this getting no play??
 

On Oct 11, 9:14*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Then they shouldn't be hungry, or wanting for medical care or
living under a goddamn bridge for cryin' out loud. If you really
want to help the poor and indigent you ought to take the money
you spend on "charity" and donate it to the Democratic National
Committee. Unless your "charities" are the Red Cross or one of
the good international aid funds.

--
Ken Fortenberry

You have never been poor have you? You don´t know what it means. All
you know is the gospel according to Ken Fortenberry. I thought you
must be a very evil person, but it seems you are also merely an
extremely ignorant, arrogant, bigoted, and completely self-centred
fool.

There is little one can do about that.

Why is this getting no play??
 

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:14:57 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Then they shouldn't be hungry, or wanting for medical care or
living under a goddamn bridge for cryin' out loud. If you really
want to help the poor and indigent you ought to take the money
you spend on "charity" and donate it to the Democratic National
Committee. Unless your "charities" are the Red Cross or one of
the good international aid funds.

Man, you gotta get out of the house, Ken. You don't know squat about
what is happening around you.

They get medical care, including Mark/wife. If I donated it to the
DNC it would go towards more liberal idiots in the Mass Statehouse,
more bureaucracy, more waste, more debt, more of everything we do not
need.

EOT. You can have the last word.

Dave

Why is this getting no play??
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
If it wasn't for all the food pantries around the state, many people
would go hungry. No one starves to death, but they do go hungry.
Almost all of our clients are on welfare, but that is not enough.
They are all getting aid from the state in some way or form.


this has veered WAY off the original topic, but this is a valuable
observation nonetheless. Food pantries and similar missions are suffering a
two-sided problem at the moment. Far more folks are showing up, and
donations have dropped in recent months, presumably due to economic
conditions. Liberal, conservative or whatever, anyone who can, should donate
what they can to these efforts. Many of your countrymen depend on these
places........now, I'll get off my soapbox.
Tom

Why is this getting no play??
 

On Oct 11, 10:13*pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:14:57 -0500, Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
Then they shouldn't be hungry, or wanting for medical care or
living under a goddamn bridge for cryin' out loud. If you really
want to help the poor and indigent you ought to take the money
you spend on "charity" and donate it to the Democratic National
Committee. Unless your "charities" are the Red Cross or one of
the good international aid funds.

Man, you gotta get out of the house, Ken. *You don't know squat about
what is happening around you.

They get medical care, including Mark/wife. *If I donated it to the
DNC it would go towards more liberal idiots in the Mass Statehouse,
more bureaucracy, more waste, more debt, more of everything we do not
need. *

EOT. *You can have the last word.

Dave

He doesn´t need to know squat about anything, he has the gospel
according to Fortenberry, and only he knows what is righteous and
good.

Seems you might actually be learning something LaCourse. Maybe there
is hope for you yet, stranger things have happened.

Why is this getting no play??
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Then they shouldn't be hungry, or wanting for medical care or
living under a goddamn bridge for cryin' out loud. If you really
want to help the poor and indigent you ought to take the money
you spend on "charity" and donate it to the Democratic National
Committee. Unless your "charities" are the Red Cross or one of
the good international aid funds.

Man, you gotta get out of the house, Ken. You don't know squat about
what is happening around you.

I just got back from a couple of weeks in northern Wisconsin
where the McCain signs outnumber the Obama signs 5 to 1 and
the redneck cheeseheads are just as dense as you. Food banks
are all fine and good but this will be a better country for
all of us, right wing rednecks included, when they are no
longer necessary.

You can't substitute voluntary charity stopgaps for governmental
responsibility. When times get tough and people need help the
most, that's precisely when the voluntary donations begin to dry
up.

Your whole privatize everything, small government, hands off,
Reaganista conservative movement is in its death throes. And not
a moment too soon.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Why is this getting no play??
 

On Oct 11, 10:38*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message

...

If it wasn't for all the food pantries around the state, many people
would go hungry. *No one starves to death, but they do go hungry.
Almost all of our clients are on welfare, but that is not enough.
They are all getting aid from the state in some way or form.

this has veered WAY off the original topic, but this is a valuable
observation nonetheless. Food pantries and similar missions are suffering a
two-sided problem at the moment. Far more folks are showing up, and
donations have dropped in recent months, presumably due to economic
conditions. Liberal, conservative or whatever, anyone who can, should donate
what they can to these efforts. Many of your countrymen depend on these
places........now, I'll get off my soapbox.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Tom

Doubtless true, at least to an extent, but as usual you simply fail to
see the obvious. Presumably a liar is more susceptible to liars? Or
mayhap simply assumes that others also lie? You should be asking
"Why?", and "How can this be changed?".

It would seem to many observers that you (collective), are not looking
for a president, but for a messiah. You will be disappointed, there
are no messiahs. Even if there were, crucifying them would not help
you.

The only people who can change things are YOU,( collective) with your
own behaviour, not what you expect or hope of others, and certainly
not by denigrating, defaming, or abusing them.

You have to want to help others, not just yourself, in the certain
knowledge that helping others also helps you. Although of course you
must try and ensure your own security before you can help others.
Wanting to help is useless if you can not do it, you must not only
have the will but also the means.

The effort some of you have expended here, in less than worthy
endeavours, might well have resulted in some amelioration of various
problems, had you only directed it in the correct manner.

Soapboxes are notoriously rickety constructions, unless they happen to
be full of soap, which you can then distribute to the "great
unwashed", which you might be surprised to discover are merely your
fellow men, who do not share your good fortune.

Why is this getting no play??
 

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:38:17 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

this has veered WAY off the original topic, but this is a valuable
observation nonetheless. Food pantries and similar missions are suffering a
two-sided problem at the moment. Far more folks are showing up, and
donations have dropped in recent months, presumably due to economic
conditions. Liberal, conservative or whatever, anyone who can, should donate
what they can to these efforts. Many of your countrymen depend on these
places........now, I'll get off my soapbox.

Actually, Tom, we have seen little growth in the number of clients.
It's pretty steady - about 125 - 150 people a day, three days a week.
This is going back about 2 1/2 years. The number of donations has not
slackened either. We get left-over bread, deserts, "fresh" veggies
and fruits from the local super markets. Very little from FDA, and we
buy the rest of the stuff. Cereal costs $0.17/pound. We get lots of
damaged goods - dented cans, boxes open, etc. We are in the process
of buying frozen turkeys for Thanksgiving and Christmas. They will
cost about $0.87/pound. We will buy about 500 of them.
Unfortunately, only families of three or more will get them.

Dave

Why is this getting no play??
 

wrote in message
...
Doubtless true, at least to an extent, but as usual you simply fail to
see the obvious. Presumably a liar is more susceptible to liars? Or
mayhap simply assumes that others also lie? You should be asking
"Why?", and "How can this be changed?".

why would you assume I do not ask those questions? Meanwhile, people need
the help NOW, and it is possible both to campaign for enlightened change(as
I do) and
help out via available charity(as I do), simultaneously.
Tom

Why is this getting no play??
 

On Oct 11, 11:04*pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:

Unfortunately, only families of three or more will get them.

Dave

A real shame, true happiness is a frozen turkey.

Ah well, at least you are thinking about it, and not just spewing
political ****e.

Why is this getting no play??
 

On Oct 11, 11:07*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
wrote in message

...
Doubtless true, at least to an extent, but as usual you simply fail to
see the obvious. Presumably a liar is more susceptible to liars? Or
mayhap simply assumes that others also lie? *You should be asking
"Why?", and "How can this be changed?".

why would you assume I do not ask those questions? Meanwhile, people need
the help NOW, and it is possible both to campaign for enlightened change(as
I do) and
help out via available charity(as I do), simultaneously.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Tom

I did not assume anything. All I know about you is that you lied about
me, and some other stuff that you have posted here. On that basis I am
not able to assume anything at all.

Some people do need immediate help, but in the long term only sensible
policies and administration will help them, not a tin of ham, a frozen
turkey, ( If there are three of them), or a packet of ****bags.

If you want to help people you have to change your attitude.

Why is this getting no play??
 

On Oct 11, 2:04*pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:

Just a comment/question.
In Washington we have a Statewide food umbrella org called Northwest
Harvest which collects and distributes "18 million pounds of food each
year to nearly 300 food banks and meal programs in 36 counties across
Washington."

www.northwestharvest.org

Isn't there a similar organization is Mass.? We have a pretty large Ag
sector but I would have thought there would be something similar in
other states.

Dave

Why is this getting no play??
 

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:01:45 -0700 (PDT), DaveS
wrote:

Isn't there a similar organization is Mass.? We have a pretty large Ag
sector but I would have thought there would be something similar in
other states.

Yes, we get about 600 - 800 pounds of food from them each Wednesday.
Not much but it certainly helps. We have to go into Boston. Lots of
salvaged stuff, but it is food and there is nothing wrong with it.
Our biggest problem is getting meat and fresh milk. We use a lot of
Parmalot milk.

Dave