Why are the poor, poor?

[brokeplex]

My apologies, broketrash.  I can't see quoted posts on my blackberry.

It is the post that infers Jess is illiterate that I find offensive - herrkaiser?

there is no implication that ANYONE is "illiterate". I think that it is clear that anyone who is able to post a legible post, is literate.
however, I have made a direct statement that if one does not know the meaning of a word or suspects that it is "made up", then they can simply turn the pages on the trusty "Webster's Unabridged" rather than complain about the word usage.

and it is a fact, I don't care whether the posts which linked my ideas for welfare reform with Nazi death camps are deleted or if they continue to stand.

On this thread I responded to that type of verbiage by blocking that person's posts from being read while I am logged into my profile. if others read those comments, I am not concerned. the "ignore" button is a great idea.

so now, have we had enough red herrings thrown down to avoid discussing the issues on this thread? should we continue to discuss the state of the underclass?

[serious crayons]

If we have certain shared social values that most people agree on, why don't we teach them as part of public education?  We certainly teach enough other crap.

It would seem to me that there would be very little disagreement in the idea that fathers are important to their children's lives and if you help create a child you have a certain responsibility to him/her.  But this isn't formally taught anywhere.  Why not? It would seem to me, the younger the better.

I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting, or what form it would take. Was this ever formally taught? If it was once and isn't now, I would guess the difference might be that schools are more sensitive about avoiding making kids whose fathers are absent, through no fault of the kids', feel stigmatized.

I do see more kids' reading material in which, for instance, the child protagonist has a single parent or other nontraditional family -- the most famous, of course, being Heather has Two Mommies. But again, I think this is mainly about making kids comfortable with their own situation -- and, in the case of Heather, normalizing that situation for their classmates as well.

so now, have we had enough red herrings thrown down to avoid discussing the issues on this thread? should we continue to discuss the state of the underclass?

Personally, I'm done (I hope) fighting a circular battle over this, hurling sarcasm, accusations and veiled insults back and forth that often at least dance near the line of personal attack. And yes, I've been as guilty of it as anyone. Somehow, despite all my concerted attempts at reason and occasionally snarky comments, I have failed to convert broketrash and HerrKaiser to liberalism, so I am going to retire from that kind of debate for now (and just hope that someday they see the light  ).

I'm still interested in discussing some of the issues here, especially the implications of class in America. But the posts implying that people on one side or the other are more or less intelligent or compassionate -- they must be, otherwise they'd surely see that they are wrong wrong wrong -- those don't seem to have been very effective. And yes, again, I've been guilty of these, myself.

[Clyde-B]

I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting, or what form it would take. Was this ever formally taught? If it was once and isn't now, I would guess the difference might be that schools are more sensitive about making kids whose fathers are absent, through no fault of the kids', feel stigmatized.

I do see more kids' reading material, for instance, in which the child protagonist has a single parent or other nontraditional family -- the most famous, of course, being Heather has Two Mommies. But again, I think this is mainly about making kids comfortable with their own situation -- and, in the case of Heather, normalizing that situation for their classmates as well.

I'm saying that if our society does stand for something, does indeed have values, that has to be transmitted to kids, and relying on someone else to do it is risky for them and us all.

There has to be a way of teaching that fathers are important in a child's life and have responsibilities, without stigmatizing a child who has no father.  It would seem to me that the child without a father would understand the truth of this even more readily than a child with a father.

We have a tendency to talk in blanket terms like "family values" without specifying exactly what those values are, because it's politically expedient to garner more votes by leaving it vague.  God forbid you should say something definite and define a value that costs you votes.  But if we do have values, somebody's got to do the grunt work to discover what they are and see they get communicated.

[Clyde-B]

kinda like those 'diversty' seminars they do in businesses that have a problem with racism or sexism??

A lot of companies do have EEOC policies that employees are required to reread and certify that they understand every year. 

But for it to really take root, we need to start before adulthood.  I'm sure those equality public service announcements of the late '40's and '50's had a lot to do with the young adults involved in the civil rights movement of the '60's.  Because they started teaching us at an age where we could see the truth of it and believe them.

[serious crayons]

I'm saying that if our society does stand for something, does indeed have values, that has to be transmitted to kids, and relying on someone else to do it is risky for them and us all.

There has to be a way of teaching that fathers are important in a child's life and have responsibilities, without stigmatizing a child who has no father.

Well, maybe. I'm just not picturing specifically how it would work. A lot of people think this kind of teaching is the responsibility of families, not schools. Of course, schools have taken over teaching in some areas -- sex education, drug education -- where families sometimes drop the ball. But how would schools teach a unit on the importance of having a father? Especially given that financially strapped schools these days aren't exactly in the mode of expanding their services? I'm not denying it could be done so much as wondering what you envision it looking like.

We have a tendency to talk in blanket terms like "family values" without specifying exactly what those values are, because it's politically expedient to garner more votes by leaving it vague.  God forbid you should say something definite and define a value that costs you votes.

Actually, I've written about this. "Family values" is a term that originated on the right, where it was vague code for "anti gay marriage," "anti abortion," and anti other social and lifestyle issues that low-income Democrats might have strong feelings about, in an attempt to lure them to the Republican party. It was pretty successful.

[Clyde-B]

Well, maybe. I'm just not picturing specifically how it would work. A lot of people think this kind of teaching is the responsibility of families, not schools. Of course, schools have taken over teaching in some areas -- sex education, drug education -- where families sometimes drop the ball. But how would schools teach a unit on the importance of having a father? Especially given that financially strapped schools these days aren't exactly in the mode of expanding their services? I'm not denying it could be done so much as wondering what you envision it looking like.

I don't know what it would look like either.  My point is that we no longer define any social values with enough specificity to be useful and we don't pass them on.

Actually, I've written about this. "Family values" is a term that originated on the right, where it was vague code for "anti gay marriage," "anti abortion," and anti other social and lifestyle issues that low-income Democrats might have strong feelings about, in an attempt to lure them to the Republican party. It was pretty successful.

Yes it was.  Every family has family values, whether you are Mr. Gotrocks, or a nomadic family of Travelers.  They may be very different sets of values, with little in common, but put them under a vague umbrella term and they all look alike.  This is the kind of political tactic the news media needs to educate people on.  We need to be sophisticated enough to spot it regardless of which side uses it.

[Clyde-B]

Jess,

Is your friend making more than the minimum payment on her credit card, and has she tried negotiating a lower interest rate with them?  There's info on the net how to do that if she hasn't and the credit card companies are coming under fire about their usurious interest rates so they will probably be amenable.

I'm not a big fan of Oprah, but here's a link to some advice that was given on her show about handling credit card companies.
http://www.oprah.com/money/debtdiet/steps/debtdiet_steps_03_b.jhtml

Gotta go now.

[Jeff Wrangler]

and it is a fact, I don't care whether the posts which linked my ideas for welfare reform with Nazi death camps are deleted or if they continue to stand.

On this thread I responded to that type of verbiage by blocking that person's posts from being read while I am logged into my profile. if others read those comments, I am not concerned. the "ignore" button is a great idea.

so now, have we had enough red herrings thrown down to avoid discussing the issues on this thread? should we continue to discuss the state of the underclass?

The person who wants to force poor people to use contraception is still upset that his plan is compared to Nazi atrocities. He refuses even to acknowledge that his ideas for welfare reform may affect others--children--beyond the individual welfare recipients, yet he still wants to discuss the state of the underclass. And he accuses others of preferring to have a "pity party"? He advises other people to get a dictionary but doesn't know that there is a difference between a concentration camp and a death camp (I wonder what he calls the places where the U.S. interned its Japanese citizens during World War II?).

I guess the meaning of whining must depend on who is using the word.

Oh, and by the way, I'm not for one minute even thinking of apologizing for or deleting my remark that if he wants to prevent the poor from reproducing by force that he just go ahead and round 'em up. The fact that he keeps coming back to it suggests to me that I made my point.

[serious crayons]

This is the kind of political tactic the news media needs to educate people on.

Well, I tried! I wrote a newspaper story about it in 1992, when the term emerged.

The story was well-received, but it wasn't as good as it would be if I wrote it now, because at that time I wasn't familiar with the "wedge issue" strategy. And the idea of deliberately taking a simple, seemingly nice term (family! values! what's to object to in either of those?) and giving it a subtext with a subtly more sinister meaning -- without openly acknowledging what you were doing, so that your listeners would understand what you really meant but you would retain complete deniability -- well, that was a pretty new scheme at the time.

New to me, anyway. Actually, it apparently goes back to Nixon and his Silent Majority. But I think the strategy really blossomed in the 1990s, beginning in the George Bush Sr. vs. Clinton election of 1992. I got curious just now, did a search and found an article on the topic that appeared in an academic journal called The Sociology of Religion and appears also to have been written during that election. The article's really long, but here's a sample excerpt:

What may be less obvious is that "family values" is largely a repackaging of the issue that gave rise to much-noted Reagan Democrats in 1980 and '84 and thus stands to be a big factor in this election. The fact is that so-called pocketbook issues are fairly straightforward, and voters can estimate whether, in paying taxes for example, they gain or lose more than they pay. With some exceptions (for example, the Pentagon) the Republican Party since the 1930s has been the low-tax, low-spend party, and the Democrats have taxed and spent. However, there being more Americans who benefit from government expenditures than who lose, Democrats on this issue alone have an edge, especially if we note that the low-income ranks are joined by some high-income persons who agree with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' statement that taxes buy civilization.

Because of this Democratic advantage, therefore, Republicans must find one or more "wedge" issues to pry away sufficient numbers of otherwise Democrat-inclined voters. Nixon used anti-communism to a "silent majority," a strategy that Reagan adopted and added to by courting the religious right. In 1988, Bush inherited many of these Reagan Democrats, but developed the "morality" theme less than he did law-and-order and the containment of enemies abroad. Now in 1992, the wedge issue -- in part chosen by Bush and in part thrust upon him in a Party Platform dictated by convention delegates with a traditional view of morality -- has sharpened greatly. It is the combined issues of abortion, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, and gender equality, and it is known as "family values." Will it work in this election?

In answer to the question, "will it work in this election?" of course we now know that it did not, as Bush lost. Clinton's "It's the economy, stupid" apparently succeeded in getting people's attention back on financial matters. But over the long haul, I think it did work -- it turned a lot of would-be Democrats into Republicans.

[serious crayons]

Another interesting early reference to "family values." This from a 1992 Time magazine interview with Bill Clinton:

Q. What do you hear when Dan Quayle talks about family values? Is that code for something?

A. Well, yes and no. I have a little different take on this than some people do in our party. I think family values are important. You can't raise children without them. On the other hand, the Republicans don't feed hungry children. They don't dignify work. My beef with Quayle is not his saying fathers should take responsibility for their children or that it's a good thing when a child's fortunate enough to have two parents to take care of him or her. My beef is that they use the issue of family values in two ways that are not legitimate. One is as a flat-out excuse for their not having done anything. And the second is it's a wedge issue. The implication is always: We the Republicans represent your family values and the other guys don't. You know, I was looking at my wife and child and Al Gore's family up there today and thinking that we were not without family values. I was sitting out there under that carport with my 87-year-old great-uncle the other day, who did so much to raise me when I was a kid, and thinking that we were not without family values. The clear implication is Clinton, Cuomo, all these guys, they are in a cultural elite and they don't really share your values, they don't live by them, they don't like them, they don't like you. You know that's their whole deal -- it's a bunch of bull.

I wish the interviewer would have explored this further, because it's interesting how even Clinton seems to just be starting to see through this fairly new strategy.

BTW, I believe this year's "family values"-type wedge-issue term is "elitist." Personally, I've been amused to see myself called elitist at least a couple of times on this site -- not for describing my taste for fine wines or fancy olive oil, but simply for stating basic liberal views.

And it's bizarre to see Barack Obama, a black man raised by a single mother who for a time was on food stamps, called "elitist" compared to two candidates from affluent backgrounds.