RE: Whimpering About Whimpering About Poverty
Purposely provocative...
Of course it is. Everything Fred writes is purposely provocative.
In those instances, 'whimpering about poverty' may be justified, especially when no one has taught you to be anything but 'shiftless.'
Baseless liberal victimology. Multitudes have overcome their shiftless environments to become productive members of society, most of them without the "help" of nanny states. Therein lies the heart of Fred's thesis.
At that point, the responsibility falls to us - the members of society that know better - to help them out.
As long as society is not confused with government. Society is usually a nebulous cloud on which liberal hopes and blame are hung. Responsibility for improving one's lot in life falls to the individual. The only thing the individual requires of society is that it does not impede him/her on the journey. If individual members of society choose to help along the way, so much the better.
And once ignorant people give birth, their children - who live without suitable role models - 'choose' to be ignorant too?
More baseless liberal victimology. Some children who live without "suitable" role models will overcome their environments and improve their lives, some will not. Once again, the foundation of Fred's thesis. A child who becomes an adult in our society does not have to remain shiftless because his/her parents were. Once awareness of the world in which we live dawns, ignorance becomes a choice.
On that note, Fred's point helps prove the importance of the public school system - a system to provide education for all - even if the system has inherent flaws.
The government-run schools are inherently incapable of providing education for all. The only task of which they are consistently capable is turning out future Marxists. Anyone who believes the government-run schools have improved their lives is short-changing themselves. If their lives improved, it was likely in spite of the government-run school system and they should take full credit for it.
If ignorant people who choose to have children aren't capable of teaching their own kids, someone has to step up to the plate.
This is a meaninglessly general statement. It assumes a need that may or may not exist and describes a situation for which there is no evidence. Scores of the offspring of the ignorant were able to achieve superior education levels before government-run schools ever existed. In fact, it can be convincingly argued that the relative levels of education, among the educated, has actually declined since the introduction of "public" schools. And the thousands of functional illiterates who are churned out of government schools every year certainly negates the accuracy of the statement.
And appreciating those who are able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps (which I too appreciate) shouldn't be confused with being helpful or compassionate.
Just as being helpful and compassionate shouldn't be confused with socialism.
Of course it is. Everything Fred writes is purposely provocative.
In those instances, 'whimpering about poverty' may be justified, especially when no one has taught you to be anything but 'shiftless.'
Baseless liberal victimology. Multitudes have overcome their shiftless environments to become productive members of society, most of them without the "help" of nanny states. Therein lies the heart of Fred's thesis.
At that point, the responsibility falls to us - the members of society that know better - to help them out.
As long as society is not confused with government. Society is usually a nebulous cloud on which liberal hopes and blame are hung. Responsibility for improving one's lot in life falls to the individual. The only thing the individual requires of society is that it does not impede him/her on the journey. If individual members of society choose to help along the way, so much the better.
And once ignorant people give birth, their children - who live without suitable role models - 'choose' to be ignorant too?
More baseless liberal victimology. Some children who live without "suitable" role models will overcome their environments and improve their lives, some will not. Once again, the foundation of Fred's thesis. A child who becomes an adult in our society does not have to remain shiftless because his/her parents were. Once awareness of the world in which we live dawns, ignorance becomes a choice.
On that note, Fred's point helps prove the importance of the public school system - a system to provide education for all - even if the system has inherent flaws.
The government-run schools are inherently incapable of providing education for all. The only task of which they are consistently capable is turning out future Marxists. Anyone who believes the government-run schools have improved their lives is short-changing themselves. If their lives improved, it was likely in spite of the government-run school system and they should take full credit for it.
If ignorant people who choose to have children aren't capable of teaching their own kids, someone has to step up to the plate.
This is a meaninglessly general statement. It assumes a need that may or may not exist and describes a situation for which there is no evidence. Scores of the offspring of the ignorant were able to achieve superior education levels before government-run schools ever existed. In fact, it can be convincingly argued that the relative levels of education, among the educated, has actually declined since the introduction of "public" schools. And the thousands of functional illiterates who are churned out of government schools every year certainly negates the accuracy of the statement.
And appreciating those who are able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps (which I too appreciate) shouldn't be confused with being helpful or compassionate.
Just as being helpful and compassionate shouldn't be confused with socialism.
posted by Anonymous | 4:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home