Posts by Thomas Fowler84

Andrew Reed11 said:offtopic: okay, well, I happen to have 3 or 4 thousand bucks lying around, so why don't you tell me more about this product! 😉

ontopic: Manufacturing and factories are dying out because of cheap goods flooding in from Asia. Why is that stuff so cheap? Because of ultra-cheap labor in the East working for pennies on the dollar. We can barely compete with that, and in a global recession, the world just wants things dirt cheap. Quality doesn't even matter at that point—it just needs to be inexpensive. You could theoretically stop it by passing laws similar to what the US did back in the old protectionist eras to block massive imports. But then our own people would struggle even more. The only real options are either for our workers to slash their hourly rates to become globally competitive, or for us to slap on forced tariffs to force those imports to compete on our home turf. There isn't a second way. Otherwise, we’re headed for ruin, and we'll only ever be able to manufacture niche goods for the elite—and those kinds of industries don't last long in today's climate..

It's unlikely our people will just cut their wages—they'd end up making even less than they do now—and since we aren't part of that "global slavery" model yet, we can't easily bring in cheap labor from overseas or pay them in dollars to work in our factories (since we aren't quite as ruthless as some Western powers). So, really, we're looking at two choices: watch our industry crumble, or go full isolationist like the old protectionist days to shut out the cheap competition from the East. I don't see any other way. Raw materials can't get cheaper than what's coming out of Asia without the quality dropping to zero, so the only variable left is labor costs. We like to think our labor is already at rock bottom, but clearly, we're still too expensive for the West, which is why they prefer exploiting the East. Modern economics is basically built on this system where wealthy Western nations exploit poorer Eastern nations to make their economies bloom. Unless we stoop to that level and start exploiting people to work for us, we won't bridge that gap, even with a good product. Otherwise, our economy is destined to be nothing more than an elitist bubble.

Which specific American factory collapsed due to cheap Eastern goods? Perhaps the textile industry felt the brunt, but the decline in other sectors—like shipbuilding—is primarily a result of domestic mismanagement rather than foreign competition.
Cheap imports might impact an industrial giant like Germany, but we lack a manufacturing base here because there was never a clear vision or a solid strategy to make America a competitive industrial power. It is always easier to blame someone halfway across the world.

Adam Collins4 said:It's not like that... an editor still has to follow their contract or standard business laws...

Do you get that, or am I talking to a wall? 😁

And exactly which law says he can't work as a journalist while campaigning?

This isn't about legality; it is about the code of ethics, such as this one:

Quinn:

3. Like any other citizen, a journalist maintains the right to their own political views and engagements. ... however ... 23. A journalist must steer clear of situations that could lead to a conflict of interest—whether direct or indirect, overt or subtle—to protect both their own reputation and the integrity of the profession. A journalist must decline gifts, services, or rewards. They should avoid paid travel, extra perks, secondary employment, political work, or any involvement with government or public institutions that might undermine their credibility or that of the journalism profession. They must avoid any scenario that creates even the appearance of bias. ... Any potential conflict of interest must be disclosed to the public; otherwise, they must refrain from reporting on or commenting on topics where such a conflict exists.

The real question is whether journalists and media outlets (like CBS) ought to follow this ethical code. I find nothing objectionable in these guidelines.

Yet, I still fail to see why there is such a debate, given that Latin hasn't even announced a candidacy yet (as far as I am aware), correct?

Regardless of my respect for the Latin alphabet, I believe it is unacceptable for a presidential candidate to serve as a media editor simultaneously. This doesn't just compromise his objectivity; it raises serious questions about how election laws prevent unfair airtime advantages. In my view, if he actually decides to run, it would be only right for him to suspend his editorial role for the duration of the campaign.

boldrider53 said:Thomas Fowler84, those words you used—saying you were afraid Leonica would end up like "that" Martina—well, Martina is a person with her own name, she isn't just some "her." I don't know if you have kids yourself, but I do, and God forbid any of them ever face an illness like this... I would move heaven and earth, clawing at everything in my way, just to help them, exactly like Leonin's parents are doing. And Danijela, please listen: there is absolutely nothing humiliating about asking for help. We all know that regular families like ours don't even have $100 tucked away for emergencies, let alone $200,000. In many cases, we have the media, newspapers, and TV stations to thank because they help spread the word—people actually want to help. Maybe if Martina had been featured in the news earlier, she might still be here with us among so many other children. Thomas Fowler84, God forbid your own child ever becomes a burden on the state; maybe then you'd truly understand what a child means and what parental love really is. I am praying for Leona, and I know she’s going to get better and be that same happy little girl she’s always been, no matter what she has to go through. If you can't wish these parents well, then please, just stop talking nonsense—it's pointless. Leona is going to pull through, she already is. Honestly, it would be much smarter of you to just chip in a few bucks.

Thomas Fowler84, those words are too heavy. You said you were afraid Leonica would end up like "that" Martina, but Martina is her own person with her own name; she isn't just "her."[/I]

Yes, I am afraid, and I don't see what the issue is. I mentioned Martini by name, so I fail to see the point of your comment—especially since I have since retracted my comparison, as it appears these two cases are actually quite distinct.

Quote:

As a parent, you have to do everything within your power to save your child's life. I don't know if you have children, but I do. Heaven forbid they ever face an illness like this; I would move mountains to help them, just as Leonina's parents are doing.

What else could I have possibly written? As a parent, I would do absolutely everything in my power to save my child's life. This is the third time I’ve said it, and if anyone hasn't understood me yet, I am more than willing to repeat it ten times over.
I have no idea why anyone would get the impression that I am judging this or finding it humiliating.

Quote:

Wishing Leon the best of luck. ... Keeping my fingers crossed for you all! If you can't wish these parents luck, please stop talking nonsense. Leona is going to pull through—she already is. It would be much wiser of you to simply make a donation to the GoFundMe.

And what have I done, other than wish someone well?
It seems some people here just enjoy bickering for the sake of it. I’m not judging anyone for asking for help, nor am I one of those people who turns a blind eye to kids in need—in fact, I set aside $200 from my own budget every month for this. If anything I wrote came across differently than intended, I apologize; we are all on the same side here, and we all want to see Leona recover. If there is something specific I said that you disagree with, please quote me so we can have a civil discussion about it.

northernraven49 said:A letter from Daniela to "a certain gentleman."

Regarding that gentleman—he might not have meant any harm, but given the reality we're living through right now, I can't just sit here and stay silent. My two-year-old has been going through a literal hell for months now, a level of suffering you couldn't even fathom in your wildest dreams just to fight for their own life. Because of that, I simply cannot tolerate hearing her spoken about as if she were nothing more than an expense or a drain on resources that could be "better utilized" elsewhere.

The clerk who handled our request at Medicare doesn't exactly possess a crystal ball or any sort of psychic intuition to determine who stands a chance and who doesn't. To be honest, she had never even heard of this diagnosis, let alone understood anything about it or the actual survival odds involved. In fact, it felt like nobody else in the entire country knew what we were dealing with.
I also highly doubt that "efficiency" or deciding who actually stands a chance is part of a doctor's job description. In my view, their sole responsibility should be to treat the patient in front of them, period. Regardless of the circumstances, they should be focused on healing every individual under their care.
Our request wasn't denied because of the money, even though, as you pointed out, Leona represents a significant cost to our healthcare system. It was rejected solely because one doctor decided she’d make the perfect test subject—essentially deciding that a child with her diagnosis hasn't even happened yet, or likely won't, so we might as well play around with her case. But those are secondary issues for now; we'll be settling that in court.
The situation with Leona Zajšek is a perfect parallel to the tragic case of Martina Piric—both are absolute embarrassments to the Republic of America. It’s even more infuriating when you consider how the institutions handled Martina’s case; they only decided to step up after the public outcry reached a breaking point. Honestly, I have nothing good to say about their decision to finally offer financial support only after it was already too late.

Fortunately, we find ourselves in a completely different situation here. In this system, they don't sit around calculating how much a patient costs; the only metric that matters is how to actually help them. They don't just give up on anyone—not until every single possible avenue has been exhausted. And trust me, that process definitely doesn't end just because a diagnosis has been handed down.

What would you even say to a child who has survived their third transplant?
What was the actual price tag on all of that? And what were his odds? Let's be real—the cost of his treatment was astronomical, and the statistical chance of someone surviving three separate rounds of everything he went through was practically zero. Yet, here he is. He survived. When that first transplant failed, none of the doctors even blinked. They weren't sitting there calculating the bill or second-guessing whether it would work. They just immediately pivoted to the next attempt, then the one after that. They kept going until it finally worked.
Could they have managed the funds more efficiently? Could they have bragged about how much they saved? Of course they could. But at the end of the day, we aren't here to audit a balance sheet; we’re counting the lives that were actually saved. Money matters, obviously—it's vital—but it isn't the primary metric for success here.
Personally, I don't think our story has truly touched you, much like any other. It feels to me like you all live in your own little bubble, preoccupied with your own struggles and convinced that things like this only happen to other people. Our situation has become quite public—which isn't something I’m particularly happy about, but that's just how it turned out—and the facts are all there for anyone to verify. That said, I have no intention of trying to convince you that what we're going through is real, nor am I here to ask for your money or your sympathy.
I honestly don't believe you ever actually step up to help anyone, whether through official channels or otherwise. It’s just not your priority. Besides, I’m not sure why you all seem so convinced that you can trust how donations are handled, especially after those scandals involving child abuse at Caritas. But look, it doesn't matter. It's your money and your right to feel however you want about it.
And then there’s that friend of yours who buys a pair of shoes for $200, only to end up Venmoing someone later. $1.75Honestly, I think she can sleep soundly at night. That’s her money, and she can spend it however she damn well pleases. At least she actually stepped up and did something. You guys? You haven't done a thing.
Beyond the fact that you personally insulted me by referring to my child as an "expense," there’s also the matter of all these wonderful people trying to help us being mocked by idiots who claim they’re just throwing money away because Leona is a lost cause. Well, if you ask me, those donors are the true heroes here. They can sleep soundly knowing they contributed something meaningful toward saving a human life. To everyone who donated even a single cent... $1.75 Even those who didn't donate a single cent reached out. They called just to check in, to see how things were going, and to send their best wishes. I think it’s because they were all deeply moved by the fate of one little kid who is going through unimaginable pain.
It doesn't matter what you think. It really doesn't. You’re all still stuck on the idea that "doctors correctly assessed this was a lost cause," and therefore that $200,000 would be better spent elsewhere. Probably on some politician's hemorrhoid surgery, if we're being honest.
I genuinely wonder how you would react if it were you or your own family. Would you decide that you’re just a "drain on resources" and tell people to go help someone with a better chance, or would you expect help?
Personally, no human life is ever a waste. We aren't some charity case; we have jobs, an apartment, and a car. But unfortunately, we don't have $200,000 lying around to fund her treatment. I’ve never been in debt to anyone in my life, nor have I ever been in a position where I had to beg for anything. Now, I find myself owing a massive number of people across the entire country, and let me tell you, it isn't fun. Honestly, it’s pretty humiliating.
But I made a promise to myself that I would do EVERYTHING for her. Because I wouldn't be any happier if I had a BMW parked outside my window instead of an old junker, or $200 shoes instead of $67, but I would be miserable for the rest of my life if I failed to help her. At the end of the day, the only things truly worth anything to me are my children, my family, and my friends.
That is the only thing that actually matters. Everything else is just stuff—things that might make life a little easier, sure, but they are ultimately insignificant. My car, my apartment, my TV, everything I own is a "waste" by that logic, but a human life is a GIFT, and every single one is worth fighting for.

I am unsure if this part of the text was directed at me, but I believe that right now, bickering is the last thing anyone needs, so I will briefly elaborate on my position. To be honest, I wasn't aware you were reading this; had I known, I might have phrased things with more sensitivity. It seems there has been a misunderstanding, as I stated in my previous post that, as a parent, I would do everything in my power to save my child's life. I am sorry if my words were perceived as a judgment of anyone other than the system itself. My anger is aimed squarely at an inefficient system, which is why I try to direct my own funds toward more effective channels.

My comment was specifically about the fact that our government system is so broken that a symptom of this failure is precisely what we see here: "everyone helping in their own way." In an ideal system, what you are doing wouldn't even be necessary. Each individual must decide whether to contribute to an inefficient system (though there is often little choice), a more efficient one, or provide "direct aid into someone's hands."

I also noticed that what I witnessed with my acquaintance isn't an isolated incident. I understand her motives for donating those few dollars; it is perfectly clear to me that from your perspective, every cent counts, even if someone gives just to ease their own conscience (we are human, and I believe we all do this indirectly to compensate for guilt). I am simply saying that those who truly wish to help people in need have opportunities to do so every day, rather than only when they read a personal tragedy in the news. Furthermore, the "ego trip" of some individuals often surfaces, where they want to be the ones deciding who is most deserving of help.

I think I overstepped by mentioning Martina, as I realized afterward that the circumstances were different.

In any case, I am keeping my fingers crossed for a recovery!!!
Good luck.

northernraven49 said:Don't worry, she is NOT going to end up that way. The doctors actually got the diagnosis right this time; it’s just that, unfortunately, they haven't managed to cure a single child with JMML here in the States.
An Austrian team saved one little American boy, and at this rate, the doctors in Germany will be the ones to save our Leona.
I asked Daniel how my little sunshine is doing and how my big sunshine is doing, and he told me:
the little sunshine looks slightly better in certain areas.
The head doctor said she’s going to monitor her closely now to see whether
this new therapy has started to work or if things are about to take another turn for the worse.
(It’s been a bit of a roller coaster—feeling a little better, then getting worse two days later). They have
some other medications being prepared in case things decline again, but
they are being much more aggressive with their approach and plan to wait a bit before jumping straight in
with them.
white blood cell count is 5k, platelets at 64.
Temperature is hitting 100.2.
She ate a little bit of baby food; otherwise, it's business as usual.
As for the big sunshine, she's enjoying life to the fullest.
To her, this whole thing feels like some grand adventure, and honestly, thank God she sees it that way.
School wrapped up on July 31st, and now there's a massive schedule of activities for
the kids staying in town. Even the ladies at the daycare center are constantly
taking them out on field trips. Just imagine, tomorrow they're heading to Europa-Park. It's something
like Disneyland, though the locals here love to brag that it's actually better than
Disneyland.

So, for anyone following along, here is the reality of where Leona stands:
She survived heavy-duty chemotherapy (which was a huge gamble given how tiny she is), she survived the transplant (which isn't exactly rocket science—you could probably pull off a similar procedure at a local vet clinic), and she is currently navigating the hardest part: the post-transplant period. She is fighting through the side effects quite successfully, thanks largely to the immense expertise of the medical team in Germany.
There was this prominent specialist back home who claimed he could perform transplants here (and he could, there's no reason why he couldn't), but when asked if he knew how to manage the complications that arise after a transplant, he admitted it wasn't his specialty and he didn't know. That was the honest truth, yet his opinion was used by Medicare as the deciding factor to insist the girl be treated here in the US instead...

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you!
This world can be a cruel place.
By the way, do you happen to know if German insurance covers this kind of treatment for its own policyholders?

hollowtrucker77 said:Is there some kind of regulation regarding personal liability by any chance??
Or maybe something concerning responsibility for a child or someone who can't care for themselves??
Following the logic you're using here, the Department of Transportation would be at fault for every traffic accident, just like you're claiming the dog owner is responsible for the bite on that little girl.
I'm sorry, but I am genuinely struggling to wrap my head around your thought process.
Unless this is just that classic American approach: if something goes wrong, we go hunting for a culprit, specifically someone with enough money to pay up.

I think we had a misunderstanding.
I am not claiming the dog owner is at fault, just as I am not claiming the Department of Transportation is at fault for an accident. My point is simply that experts exist to determine liability in both scenarios. There are certainly instances where HCA Healthcare bears responsibility, just as there are cases where owners are held liable for their pets. I am merely pointing out that jumping to conclusions is illogical when we lack the actual facts—which we do. We don't even know the motive for entering the yard, nor do we know if the owner complied with the Animal Welfare Act regarding pet containment.

I never stated the owner was guilty; I honestly have no idea why you interpreted it that way. 🤷

It is possible both sides share blame—irresponsible parents and negligent owners. In many such accidents, multiple parties are truly at fault. However, choosing to defend or attack someone without having the information only demonstrates a lack of objectivity.

Gregory Miller4 said:Reading through this news report, I can't quite wrap my head around why the grandmother would walk her little girl so close to a dog that was clearly acting aggressive.

It wasn't explicitly stated, but some people here have already jumped to conspiracy theories suggesting the parent or grandparent intentionally tried to harm the child. 😕
I don't believe a parent would knowingly put their child in such danger. It's more likely that the owner failed to communicate the risk properly, or perhaps there was sheer negligence involved. We shouldn't resort to conspiracies; we simply don't have enough facts yet to point fingers at anyone.

restlesstiger102 said:It really doesn't matter whether the dog has an aggressive temperament or not. The fundamental issue is that Klinka was trespassing in a yard where she had absolutely no business being. It’s absurd—it's like if someone broke into my house and my dog attacked them, regardless of whether he’s a "mean" dog or a sweet one, and then I somehow get sued or held liable just because my dog was defending his own territory. 🙄

It is pure nonsense. If you choose to wander onto someone else's private property, you have to accept the inherent risks involved. Most homeowners keep dogs in their yards specifically for the purpose of security and protection.

Precisely.
There is a causal link between these two events, but each party is responsible for their own specific actions.

For instance, if someone breaks into your home knowing it is a crime, you could still face charges for unlawful homicide if you kill them. They would be responsible for the burglary, while you would be held accountable for the manner in which you defended your property. If your defense isn't legally sound, you will face consequences. We simply lack the facts to judge this situation, and since there are too many variables, speculation is useless.

Pure nonsense. If you step onto someone else's property, you should expect danger. Most homeowners keep dogs in their yards specifically for protection.

What if they just stepped over to borrow some sugar? There might not have been a doorbell, or perhaps the "Beware of Dog" sign was obscured by branches. Let the investigators establish the facts. From what I can see, nobody actually knows why they entered the yard in the first place. Is the goal to preemptively label them as thieves?

hollowtrucker77 said:The dog was in the backyard and on a chain!!
The only thing the owner could be held responsible for is owning a house with a yard in the first place.
And seriously, how illiterate does a person have to be to realize what a picture of a dog on a sign actually means??

For crying out loud, are we ever going to stop trying to justify illegal actions by slapping them with these hellish, hyper-legalistic responsibilities??

hollowtrucker77, I don't see the issue here.
If the local ordinance states the dog owner is responsible for any damage the dog causes, there isn't much more to discuss. This is black-letter law; the man asked "who is responsible," and he was given his answer.

To reiterate, the sign alone isn't enough. In conjunction with that sign, there might be a functional doorbell required, which would make sense.

These dog ownership ordinances are usually set at the municipal level, but liability is defined by law in many instances as well. 🤷

Take the regulations for Washington, D.C., for example:
http://www.washington-psv.org/userdocsimages/Odluka.doc

If an owner flagrantly violates the rules or the law and endangers someone else's life, they can certainly face criminal charges—what's strange about that?
No one here is justifying illegal actions; quite the opposite, from what I can see, I am the only one actually discussing the law. Again, let a judge determine the facts. Unlike many of you, I refuse to draw conclusions without evidence. None of you geniuses have even figured out why they entered the yard in the first place, yet you've already incorrectly identified the responsible party. ☕

dustymarlin10 said:But honestly, why would anyone be trespassing on someone else's land in the first place?

Isn't private property supposed to be sacred?

Since when does some random stranger get to wander around my property whenever they feel like it without my permission?

That is for a judge to decide. I have no way of knowing what motivated them to enter; their reasons could be justified or they could be entirely illegitimate.
Perhaps the woman felt ill and entered without noticing the sign, perhaps there was no fence, maybe a sign fell down and they were just seeking a glass of water, or perhaps the owner invited them in... 🤷

Speculation is useless without the facts. The core issue here is liability. A pet owner is responsible for their dog, just as a parent is responsible for their child. If a child bites a dog, the parent is liable; however, since the dog bit the child, the responsibility lies with the dog's owner.🙂.

Jose White18 said:Look, the owner had him tied up. In HIS own backyard.
The only other option would have been to put the dog down.
Then he really would have done everything possible.

That point is secondary. The real issue is whether the yard was physically fenced off—whether he ensured a playing child wouldn't just wander in...
There are countless variables that can go wrong, and an owner of a dangerous dog must take every reasonable step to minimize risk. Consider a scenario where someone illiterate misses a sign because there is no fence, or perhaps a sign falls down, or a child chases a ball into the yard...
Under American law, the owner is held responsible for the damage their dog causes. This doesn't automatically mean they are guilty, but it effectively shifts the burden of proof onto them. If he can truly prove he had clear signage, a secure fence, a leash, and a healthy, registered dog... then I doubt he will face legal trouble. However, a simple sign alone won't absolve him of the responsibility mandated by law.

copperskipper68 said:I have a nice little "Beware of Dog" sign hanging right at my driveway entrance.
Look, buddy, you enter at your own risk.
The real question is, was there actually a sign posted this time?

A sign alone isn't a shield. You might encounter someone who can't read, someone visually impaired, or someone with cognitive disabilities. A mere placard doesn't absolve you of liability; a property owner remains responsible for what occurs on their land. It is much like posting a "Warning: Shooter on Premises" sign before firing on a trespasser—you cannot simply claim they assumed the risk by stepping onto your property.🤷

Henry Morris3 said:So, the dog was tied up right in its own backyard... It makes you wonder who actually carries the blame here. Is it the owner, or is it Grandma, since she was the one who brought the child over toward the animal?

If you ask me, I don't see how we can pin this on the owner... I mean, I honestly have no idea what else he could have done to stop an attack like that from happening...

One must distinguish between liability and guilt. Naturally, the owner is liable because a dog cannot be held accountable under human law.
It is much like a scenario involving thieves being injured by a guard dog or a booby trap; the owner remains responsible. An owner of a dangerous animal has a duty to isolate that animal from the public, and a court will decide if their precautions were sufficient.
The grandmother would also need to provide context—perhaps she was elderly or confused, or maybe they entered an unfenced yard where the owner allows trespassing. We need more facts before we can assign blame.

Nicholas Turner said:Her situation was—to put it bluntly—a total failure of the system; Medicare essentially decided right out of the gate that they wouldn't cover her treatment either here or abroad, basically telling her to just go home and die. Eventually, a GoFundMe kicked off, money was raised over a period of time, and she managed to get to Padua. But there, during the initial screening, they discovered a third tumor—quite advanced and inoperable—which our local doctors had completely missed! She was declining much faster than the therapy could even work; she actually became so weak that they had to send her home for a break because she couldn't handle the treatment anymore. About ten days later, she passed away. And then—get this—just a few days after her death, Medicare finally sent over a decision saying they *would* have paid for the treatment after all. 🤮

Her family (and I know this personally, 100%) donated a special, high-end hospital bed—it cost at least $2,000—which they kept at home for another sick little girl to use after Martina passed away.

Medicare is the real issue here; they have the funds, but they choose to play these bureaucratic games instead.

Perhaps you misunderstood my point.
I am not trying to defend Medicare. My skepticism lies with these media-driven fundraisers. It is troubling when people require a highly emotional narrative just to find the motivation to help others. It is like looking at a single drop of rain while ignoring the storm. In reality, there are tens of thousands of such cases every single day. Perhaps it is better for these people to remain in their bubble, shielded from the harsh realities of our world.

I am afraid there has been a misunderstanding.
When I mentioned contributing to the system, I wasn't referring to paying taxes to Medicare. I meant donating roughly $100 a month to organizations like Caritas or UNICEF—groups that maintain operating costs below 15% and employ experts to ensure donations are used with maximum efficiency.
Reacting to emotionally charged narratives can be counterproductive. Of course, this story moved me (which I stated explicitly; I am unsure why you concluded I was "cold," though I have seen similar cases in my own community, but there is no point in dwelling on that), but the idea that only children whose stories parents manage to pitch to the media "survive" is, in my view, often damaging. I cited Martina as an example, but there are countless others. They raised $200,000—funds that professionals could have deployed far more effectively. The issue is the lack of a structured system, which is why these situations occur. In a functional, centralized system, a single fundraising campaign like this would likely never even hit the news.
As for why people donate to these "private" accounts, you probably know the answer better than anyone. Believe me, both you and I are equally touched by this story; however, I have decided to leave the decision of "who lives and who dies" to those I believe are more competent than myself to make such calls.

And I am not being a pessimist at all; I have no idea why you reached that conclusion. 🤷
I am simply stating that I believe it is more effective to channel funds through a "system."
I respect every charitable contribution, even if it is "individual" or done only once a year. The priority is helping people in need according to one's own means. Therefore, I hold no resentment toward you or the parents. If I were in their shoes, I would likely do the exact same thing—what else is left for them to do?

On the other hand, I have a friend who will comfortably spend $200 on a pair of shoes, then open an email like this and make a small donation just to clear her conscience, only to tell everyone about how she helped this girl or that girl. Many people don't truly understand what it means to help those in need; many don't do it sincerely (which isn't strictly important), and many don't even know how to help.

The reality is that the wealthy live longer than the poor, and I do not believe that will ever change, whether you label me a pessimist or not. 🙂.

This reminds me of the tragic fate of Martina Piric—there are so many stories just like hers. In her case, people raised $200,000 through a GoFundMe. However, Medicare refused to cover the costs because they judged the chances of success to be too slim, arguing those funds could be better used to save children with higher survival rates.
It is a brutal dilemma. On one hand, as a parent, you have to do everything humanly possible to save your child. On the other hand, when people donate to individual causes, they are essentially stepping into the role of deciding who lives and who dies—a decision usually left to doctors.
Personally, I tend to trust the medical experts more; I prefer contributing to the healthcare system rather than sending money to private accounts where emotional appeals are used to save a loved one. Still, every time I read a story like this, I am reminded of how much injustice exists in our world.
Good luck to Leon, but I fear we might see history repeat itself if the doctors' assessments prove correct and the outcome ends up like Martina's. 😢

mistytinker26 said:1. Prices? It’s a mess. Everything from a few bucks a square foot up to $25. I get this vibe whenever an "outsider" comes sniffing around looking for land while prices are spiking irrationally... especially if they’re coming from a big city like NYC or Chicago using buzzwords like "investment," "diversification," or "ROI." People around here just roll their eyes and think, "Easy for you to say, city boy."
2. You can always try to strike a Second deal, but it’s an uphill battle. Sure, lease rates for certain areas are public knowledge, but honestly, it all depends on the specific situation at the time.
3. I’m skeptical about this whole idea of investing in a cooperative. I have a feeling our small towns aren't exactly thinking in purely economic terms yet.

Thanks for the response, mistytinker26.
It seems like a steep climb, especially for a novice like myself.
I know some people set up cooperatives over a decade ago and saw success, but I'm certain it's still a struggle.
Profit isn't my primary driver; it's more about the principle. I believe food and water are the only true currencies on this planet. 🙂

Tell me, is there anything like "Agriculture for Dummies"? Specifically, a breakdown of crops and cultivation methods—something substantial to serve as foundational reading. I want to understand the demands of different crops in terms of capital, physical labor, time, and technical skill.

Nicholas Turner said:I’d love to see our "brilliant managers" try to use that exact same logic for imported goods. Take Ferrero Rocher, for instance—you see them everywhere in our malls. They are easily 50% more expensive here than they are in Vienna! Who exactly is getting fleeced here?🤷

Around here, whenever someone spots an imported item with a slightly higher price tag, the reaction is instant: "Look at that quality! It’s pricey because it’s good. And it's made by a German company—grab two!"

Meanwhile, we take products with decades of tradition and prestige, and then we undercut ourselves until we're priced similarly to cheap gummy candies from Turkey or Bulgaria. We think we're "breaking into the market," but really, we're just dragging our own brand through the mud.

Do you honestly believe Turkish Delight is a powerhouse brand in the European market? Everyone knows about Ferrero Rocher; you have to build a brand before you can command a premium. Just yesterday, I saw a segment on German TV explaining how an identical factory produces identical goods—one is a no-name brand at Walmart, while the branded version in a traditional grocery store is 60% more expensive. In this game, quality and tradition are often secondary to branding.
It is better to export, even with thinner margins; every unit sold is a victory. The issue isn't international pricing; the issue is how much the local consumer is willing to spend at the checkout, whether on domestic or foreign goods. It is easy to blame management, but those managers are the ones generating massive profits.

Back again.

It's probably for the best that I walked away from that place.
Could an insider give me a ballpark figure for smaller plots of land out in the Midwest? Say, about 25 acres. I’ve been scrolling through listings, but the price fluctuations are wild, and as a novice, I can't tell what a fair market value actually looks like. Just a rough estimate would help.

Also, does it make sense to approach neighboring farmers to strike a deal where they manage my land for a few years in exchange for a share of the revenue? Or is that a move that requires too much blind trust? I'm looking for a way to get into Ag investment, but realistically, I won't have the bandwidth to manage it myself over the next five years.

Are there agricultural cooperatives where one can join as an investor? If anyone has suggestions, I’d truly appreciate them. I'm looking at starting with roughly $45,000—is that even a meaningful amount to begin with? This is strictly for diversification, so I don't plan on sinking more than that.