Skip to comments.Here's a Label: "Stupid" (Stossel on WA State Dem who wants to change legal language on poor kids)
Posted on 01/13/2010 5:04:08 AM PST by Stoat
Labels change over time to ensure no delicate sensitivities are bruised. That's what happened with the word "poor," as in "poor children." Poor children became "disadvantaged." They didnt get any extra money for that, unfortunately. Now, they're "at-risk." That's not enough, say some members of the language police.
People like Washington State Democratic State Sen. Rosa Franklin, who says "We really put too many negatives on our kids... We need to come up with positive terms." Her solution? Call the kids "at hope."
Since Franklin is a politician, she wants to impose her whims on everyone else. Franklin wants the 54 places in Washington State law where words like "at risk" and "disadvantaged" are used to be rewritten.
At least one representative is putting up some resistance:
Republican Rep. Glenn Anderson disagrees, saying the potential cost of getting the bill from idea to printing an average of $3,500 is too much. And besides, he says, he is insulted more by the idea of the bill than what he called the political correctness it represents.
"It's not the label, it's the people who show up to help (children) that make the difference," he says. "What helps is a smart, well structured program."
Nice try, but apparently not good enough. Politically correct language with no substance scratches liberals where they itch:
The bill has gotten a warm welcome among fellow lawmakers, state officials and advocacy groups...
"At least we'll hear the voices of the young people," said Democratic Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe, who promised the bill would get a hearing.
Wally Endicott, the northwest director of the Phoenix-based Children of Hope, says he was excited to talk to Franklin about the bill.
But he is not thrilled with the idea of using "children at hope" to refer just to the disadvantaged. His group uses the concept to talk about all kids, not just those in poverty, because all children have obstacles to their success.
Renaming all kids children at hope rates a label of its own: "Stupid."
“Children at hope” Washington ping.
How about “hopeless children.”
Children at hope
I wonder when the children who are TRUE victims of murder (abortion) will be called “children of hope”? Because their lives were TAKEN AWAY from them, does that make them any less important?
Well, you know the answer to that one. To the child-murdering Left, if a woman wants to abort her baby...err, excuse me, “mass of unviable tissue matter” then such ‘tissues’ have no relevance unto themselves. It’s all about a Leftist woman’s ‘choice’, after all. (and convenience, and depravity, and immorality and.....)
My kids are “at risk”.
They are at risk of having any hope for a prosperous life and future thanks to the nitwits in D.C.
Now, if I were a true believing leftist,
would I actually believe that changing what these children are called would improve their situation?
Olympia Office: (360) 786-7656
Legislative Hotline: 1-800-562-6000
Sen. Rosa Franklin
PO Box 40429
Olympia, WA 98504-0429
Rick Manugian, Senate Democrats Communications Specialist
(360) 786-7569 or firstname.lastname@example.org
Annette Swillie, Legislative Assistant
(360) 786-7656 or Swillie.Annette@leg.wa.gov
“My kids are at risk.
They are at risk of having any hope for a prosperous life and future thanks to the nitwits in D.C.”
My 17 year old daughter says she doesn’t want to pay for this mess. How come she gets it that we are mortgaging the future of our kids and the idiots in the state and federal gov’t don’t? Rhetorial question....
I would wish to politely disagree on the grounds that because you are a FReeper and as such you are sane and considerably more intelligent than the mind-numbed sheep in this country, your kids will have a much greater chance of escaping much of the devastation that the Left intends to wreak upon this nation. :-)
And this is a new thing because in the past, children had no such obstacles.
Well, if you were a true believing Leftist you would believe in obvious untruths such as "America is inherently Evil", "Karl Marx really had it going on" and "Everyone else should pay my way", so my guess would be yes, at that point your mind would be so corrupted that you could believe most anything the Dems told you.
And this is a new thing because in the past, children had no such obstacles.
Nutburger Utopian Socialism reigns
Fixed it for you ;-)
It’s hard to imagine what the world would look like through the lens of lies that liberals look through every day.
I liken it to CS Lewis writing “The Screwtape Letters” - he said it was so psychologically exhausting that he had to eschew a sequel.
Oh, Pu-LEZE! Slapping a 'progressive' label on anyone doesn't change a thing, but to Democrats, eradicating negativity is the method they use to keep everyone exactly where they are.
Why work if your needs are met? Why try to better yourself if your surrounded by positive attitudes?
The simple fact is that adversity shapes character, but there's no need to put any effort out to change your condition if the world is already full of sunshine and rainbows.
I think that it was Rush who has said several times that being a liberal is the easiest thing in the world....nothing is your fault, you aren't responsible for anything, you never have to say you're sorry and as long as you say that you care and pay for things with other people's money in the name of 'caring', then you can view yourself as having the moral high ground.
It's Conservatism that is the difficult path, as it requires personal responsibility, a dedication to 'actually' doing the right thing and a sense of Patriotism and an interest in the Constitution and human history. It takes effort and time to learn true History and to understand what works and what doesn't....far more effort than simply doing things because they feel good and sound good i.e. the liberal way.
Read Genesis 3:4-5, and you’ll see the basis of liberalism.
No consequences. You’ll be smart enough to be your own god, accountable to none, and you may decide right and wrong for yourself.
Indeed, and this is all part of the plan. If children can be reared in the liberal Gulag to be utterly unable to deal with reality because they have been so mollycoddled in their formative years, the Left will have spawned unending generations of Leftist voters because they will have no one else to turn to but a Government that promises cradle-to-grave hand-holding.
A self-perpetuating Soviet Hell.
They should just right to the heart of the matter and call them “Victims of evil right-wing Republicans.”
Of course you would, MrB. You have to BELIEVE! And ignore all the tangible empirical evidence right before your very eyes like you do with “global warming” and macroeconomic policies.
I accept your disagreement. : ) S’ok. I appreciate the optimism.
I would hope the best for them with what few smarts I and my D.H. have passed on to them, but there is no denying that their lives will be more difficult and more controlled and more costly than ours if these morons aren’t stopped.
I have one that will be able to vote in 2012 for the first time and they are p*ssed at what they are seeing. They will not be slaves to the govt. Yes, they may “escape” the devastation...but their road WILL be much, much tougher and frustrating than ours. And that angers me. True, hardship is good for character, but it’s like I’m seeing any hope for a half way good life for them just evaporating each day for their future void of a controlling overbearing nanny state and nosy busy bodies.
Oh, yeah and I am a ‘glass is half empty’ kinda person, now. Didn’t used to be.
The single biggest obstacle is being born to crappy parents. Democrats should simply legislate that all kids can choose their parents.
It is actually pretty easy to figure out what poor children need. They need what they are *not* getting at home, experiences that are *complementary* to what they know, not just more of the same.
And, in all fairness, this is what other children need as well, complimentary experiences that they are sent to school to learn. But those experiences differ considerably between poor children and those with greater family wealth. Pretending their needs are the same does both an injustice.
While all children need this list of things, poor children are less likely to get them at home, and *need* these things to achieve in life.
Discipline, a sense of order and rationality. This includes many things, from school uniforms, to “reality based curriculum”, objective evaluation, a strong sense of competitiveness, strict classroom discipline, frequent hygiene and safety instruction, drug and alcohol avoidance, trade craft instruction and apprenticeship, home economics, and finance.
Of course there is considerable overlap with children from middle class and wealthier families. But the poor children’s big emphasis is that they can become economically self-sufficient in their lives, as this will give them and their family the greatest number of other opportunities. Giving them the tools for economic success.
Children from wealthier families also need these things at first, in that they likely have some gaps in their instruction, but the majority of these students have already learned it, and better, at home, so for them it is a waste of their learning time.
Having a firmer foundation in discipline, a sense of order and rationality, they need to have these tested, not by disputing the basic value of these things, but by showing how reality can upset order and reason. Because they will likely face challenges in the undisciplined, disorderly, and irrational that they will have to overcome in the future.
Without such complementary learning, they are often hypnotized by theories and deceived by abstracts, which can be very, very bad.
For example, on paper, communism seems to be orderly. This is how it intellectually traps those who have not learned how it utterly fails in reality. And how such failure can be horrific.
And people like Al Gore are befuddled by abstracts, interpolating and extrapolating them far beyond reason. In his case, “CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The level of CO2 is increasing. Therefore we are all going to die!” Very bad reasoning, based on an oversimplified abstract applied to an extraordinarily complex and not well understood planetary system.
As part of their instruction, middle and upper class children need to be confronted by subjective and judgmental situations, paradoxes, irrationality, disorder, insufficiency, and the true unknown, which can be quite unsettling.
Likewise, some degree of this will happen as well in the instruction of the poor children, and they too will have to adapt and overcome any number of obstacles. But their priority will be “first, do the work and get paid, and then do the crossword puzzle.”
No consequences. Youll be smart enough to be your own god, accountable to none, and you may decide right and wrong for yourself.
|3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:|
|3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.|
Going to the above site and clicking on the Scripture links brings up a commentary that many may find interesting and I believe that it supports your contention.
The stigma should not be removed from being poor. That removes incentive to remove yourself from poverty.
Good commentaries, though the first one was based on annihilationism, which I don’t believe in.
Say WA? Evergreen State ping
Quick link: WA State Board
FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this ping list.
Ping sionnsar if you see a Washington state related thread.
You may commence with the Washington state bashing - it’s obvious that we deserve it for electing such imbeciles!
It is this idiot liberal’s fault that these kids are “stoopid” and I hold her responsible for all the “stoopidity” ever done in the name of the “stoopid.”
Government at Stupid.
Hope in one hand and crap in the other. What have you got?
John Stossel is always spot on.