Poor people should only use telegraphs and drive Fred Flintston cars

I grew up in an affluent middle class area and happen to be caucasian. No question or debate about it, I was born priviledged due to these traits alone. Yeah, I can admit it! All it took was the ability to reason and some humility to get me there. I've received school reduced-price lunches throughout childhood due to occasional and temporary family financial strains, but I've never needed full-fledged welfare, be it WIC or food stamps or welfare checks. Other than as a teacher dealing with poor families, I've never worked within those social programs, nor I have studied them analytically. Beyond any 'ignorance' I have, I've taken enough economics, geography, history, political science, and sociology courses to know that there are many roads to poverty, that placing blame on one item to account for someone's poverty is irrational, as is generalizing pretty much anything about poor people. Too complex. Too multi-faceted. Too much history. And too many statistics! What is fascinating and disturbing to me is seeing friends who grew up with me, many of them 'wealthier' in childhood and adulthood than I, become so vocal as adults against poor people, specifically those who are on government welfare. The implication is always that the speaker's personal financial security was earned through hard work and intellect, and the poors' financial gaps must therefore be attributed to sloth or stupidity or unethical behavior. Even if welfare attackers don't give themselves credit, they argue that "I'm here because my ancestors' made great choices and worked hard", never mentioning luck or unfair advantage or unethical behavior in their own kins' backgrounds of course! You hear this story a lot in politician speeches during campaigns, the 'hard luck' story of the candidate's father or grandfather or great-grandmother, who came to America with ten cents and left a million dollar legacy. The point being made is that the candidate is a 'great American' because someone way back in their family started off poor, and THEN made the right choices and worked hard enough to leave that unethical or slothlike phase and move upwards. "Hey, if Grandpa John can do it, so can every single American, no matter the complexity of their situation! Only thing stopping you is you (implied: your perceived sloth, ethical dirtiness, and lack of character!)." And thus lays the stage for people to assume anyone still 'stuck' in a state of poverty has every door unlocked and opened. That since some Kennedy or Obama or Romney way back in time 'worked hard and made the right choices', every other person living in poverty can do the same. What's wild is that I have yet to meet a person who argues this stance passionately who DIDN'T come from a priviledged childhood. Politicians who argue this point vehemently are second or third generation wealth. My family members or friends that argue it have never been hungry a day in their lives. They have no idea what they are babbling about, but they.must.stick to the stance that doesn't allow for the possibility that given a different birth country, or parents, or birthday, or stream of luck, they could have been poor as well. "Because I am ethical and hard-working and smart, I will never be poor. It won't happen to me!" Such a childish incantation, but this seems to the bottom line of everyone I've come across who judges and ridicules poor people. How many times have we heard an anecdotal story or seen a comic about a poor person wearing a high brand shoe, or driving an expensive car, or using some sort of luxury item, WHILE collecting welfare? Everyone I know who insults poor people regularly has at least one story at the ready about people on welfare doing this, and by their estimate, 'cheating the system'. Meanwhile, statistics show this as a minor issue, if an issue at all. Less poor people are cheating the national welfare system than people cheating ANY other national system. The money wasted is minimal. It's not about money. If 'fraud' is truly at the base of these people's concerns, then why no mention of fraud in the Dept. of Defense, Agriculture, Transportation, Treasury, Education, or Homeland Security? Crickets. It's not about fraud. It's about something else, something within the person doing the complaining. People are still prejudiced about the races and ethnicities that form the majority of poor people, so that's part of it. But it's beyond that. I am not a psychologist, but my guess is that fear of being poor is somewhat lessened by the mythology that being poor is 'earned' as is being successful. "THOSE people ask for that due to their behavior. I'm a better human, so I deserve what I have." Sounds gross, but that's the message I hear. You also hear it in Judeo-Christian ideologies. "I get these good things because I'm good/chosen/blessed, and people who don't get these good things aren't good/chosen/blessed." And then economics is painted with the same brush. 'One day well before Daddy Warbucks found her, Little Orphan Annie was sent to market for more gruel for the orphanage. Armed with only food stamps, Annie got in line to make her purchase, completely unaware that the woman behind her was a large noticer of details and a loud sharer of scorn. Later in the day the woman complained to her garden club about the little redhead, who wore a golden locket at the same time she used food stamps. The woman rolled her eyes while recanting, "I wonder where the other half of this locket, no doubt pure gold, was! In her limousine?!" When Annie gets taken in by a man who made his money from government fraud, unethical federal favors, and bloodbaths in other countries, perhaps this lady complainer would be relieved. Finally, Annie had found some character!'

Mommy Lesson # 1: The Macaroni & Cheese Test

One of the fantasies I had before parenthood was that my husband and I would have lots of hearts-to-hearts with our kids. But now that I'm in the thick of parenthood, I realize that your schedule is overflowing and a young child's interests and attention span don't exactly line up for long or deep talks.

So, I decided that instead of waiting for an opening in the conversation, or waiting until I have time, I will turn to the blog. And the lesson I'd like my kids to learn today is loosely based off of the Occupy Wall Street situation, so it makes sense to pair it with today's earlier blog.

The Macaroni & Cheese Test

Kids, Mommy wants to share a discussion aid with you that will among other tools, keep you from looking like an ignorant schmuck in social circles be they in real life or on-line. You can use this when people are talking sports and entertainment, of course, but it's much more likely you will need it when you come across a discussion regarding something more controversial.

The test:

Before you speak or type, ask yourself whether you put as much time into researching the specific topic as you put into making boxed macaroni & cheese. If you have not, refrain from speaking, or admit that you are not equipped enough to reply. Don't get cocky and think you can weasel your way through it by repeating things you heard on last night's talk show or saw on a friend's blog. It doesn't matter how many large words you use or how passionately, sarcastically, or smugly you respond to something. People in the know will always know who in the group has failed the macaronic and cheese test.

Boxed Mac n' Cheese

The typical time it takes to prepare and cook a traditional 'boxed' macaroni and cheese ranges between 25 and 30 minutes. Of note, this is also the time it would take someone of average intelligence and average reading speed to read either three long newspaper or magazine articles, ten pages of an encyclopedia, or a dozen or so internet news articles depending on their length.


*

This rule is timely. Not only are we gearing up for an election cycle where the "form an opinion first, research later if at all" is almost a national pasttime. But we are about four months into the Occupy Wall Street movement. And after four months of information about the movement, its motives, its demographics, there are still millions of people shouting out confident opinions about the movement before they've even opened up the box to pour out the macaroni.

Try Occupying Your Principles

This week, thousands of Americans will stand in groups and sleep on public and private property all night long. This so they can be the first to view a popular teenage vampire-romance movie. Only 'Twilight' fans and people who live and work near movie theaters will know this is going on, and they won't give a passing care to it. Neither will the outer populace.

They won't be the only ones standing in the cold. They are joined by thousands of fellow Americans who will also stand in groups in public and private property, some attempting to sleep overnight. But there the similarities end.

There is a harsh divide between public perception of people who love teenage werewolves and stand up to show it, and people who love their country enough to get loud when things get bad. Opponents of OWS include high public officials, corporations, banks, Wall Street, mayors, more than half of our legislature, most of the wealthiest fractions of the country, the health insurance industry, all of the GOP frontrunners for the presidency, and millions of common citizens, some of whom proudly and loudly took part in the Tea Party protests four years ago.

This is the lesson we learn from this....

Millions of Americans think it's o.k. to meet in groups to applaud really shitty movies, but think it's atrocious for people they don't agree with to use their constitutional rights to public protests.

I think I got that about right.

Liberal Values Defined

There was a three year period during my teaching career where I spent every moment while commuting listening to Right-Wing talk radio. What I once called "Being willing to listen to both sides" I can now honestly call "Listening to one-sided hateful conservatives made me feel more righteous as a liberal!". O'Reilley and Rush Limbaugh were my two mainstays, but I also dabbled with a local Libertarian's show as well as a two-man conservative team who unlike their peers, added comedy to the mix. Of the pundits in question, the last two shows share no blame in what I'm about to rant against, as they never spent time berating those of other views, nor did either of those two shows delve into the 'Culture Wars' principal that O'Reilley birthed and Limbaugh romanced time and time again.

I haven't thought about those shows for a long time. But today a fellow Facebook poster referred to the 'liberal media' and then proceeded to make the term 'liberal' synonymous with the lack of decourem, the smutiness, the hyper-sexuality, and the uber-violence found in television and movies today. And this wasn't her using liberal in a 'different way'. She directly contrasted it with politically conservative views.

I immediately realized how powerful these right-wing pundits were in their "Culture War" theme. They have taken an entire generation of people who are political conservatives and convinced them that having an opposite political view mandates you have lower standards in basic decency. People see a director who shows smut or bad jokes or tube tops, and thanks to Bill O'Reilley, the director and anyone who watches the show in question, are presumed liberal in political party.

I have to say, accalaids must go out to O'Reilley and others who followed his lead. Because of them, any sort of sexual indesgretion or ethical falure or 'icky' situation in the movies can be easily blamed on Liberals. And that paves the way for all of life's ickiness to be similarly protected from being blamed on Conservatives or their ideology.

The only solution I can think of for this is that anytime an innocent right-wingers parallels sex/violence/rudeness in the media with "Liberal Values", they get called on their falsehood right away.

Celebrating Death

If anyone understands the momentousness of life, it is someone who has had a life stripped away from them too soon. I read an editorial this morning written by the sister of a man who was a victim of Bin Laden's September 11th attack. The man's widow told her today that she sees nothing to celebrate about September 11th, 2001, not then, not now. I can't imagine how this woman felt on September 11th but I empathize well with how she feels now.

I never thought that as someone who intentionally looks for "Pro Choice" and "Pro Death Penalty" candidates when choosing who to vote for, that I'd be so thrown off by yesterday's jubilation at the news of Osama Bin Laden's death. It seems to be the realm of the Pro-Life/Anti-Death Penalty Christian crowd to not wave flags or sing joyously at someone's extermination, not mine.

But people aren't so predictable when it comes time to act out their true character. It was the Roman Catholic Church that stepped up as the sole organization to condemn celebrations (rarely the non-hypocrite right?), not Amnesty International or the ACLU or even James Dobson's fervently Pro-life 'Christian' Coalition. Other groups and individuals that always claim to honor life didn't step up to the plate to actually.... honor life. Instead they triumphed outwardly.....in an assassination. Somehow it didn't click with them that there was an 'assassination' on September 11th, 2001 as well and just like yesterday, people worldwide celebrated in the streets. We've come full circle.

Does it matter who dies? That's the defense people gave for why they were waving flags, shouting curse words of joyous revenge, or sending rhymy celebratory posts to each other on Facebook. When what they construe to be a scummy person dies, not only is it o.k., but it's an excuse for a beer and a parade. I wonder where that gets tangly.

I remember the sick glob in the pit of my stomach watching people in 'enemy' countries celebrate Bin Laden's attack on us a decade ago. But I rationalized it to myself. Hey, these people are brainwashed. The women aren't allowed educations or jobs. They live in third world countries. They are taught from birth how horrible the west is. Heck, the west has done some crappy stuff to them so it's understandable. Even so, I found them low. I found them ignorant. I found them beastly and unevolved. I never imagined those same videos would ever be made in America.

Osama Bin Laden was killed last Sunday and that video was made in America. Well, wasn't that a simple way to take my naive self-righteous American egomania and shove it where the sun don't shine. We're no better. Any group of people that actively celebrate a death (that's actually multiple deaths).... are at the same level.

I wrote my feelings in a Facebook broadcast and people who I haven't talked to in weeks, people that never respond to my posts, came in to rebut to my feelings. They don't feel strongly about the other things I've written about (life, children, racism, politics, education, history)...but they are quite strong in their belief that being 'stoked' and 'joyful' about some guy getting shot in the eye is an appropriate human response. Human?

My five year old daughter saw a picture on a newspaper today and asked me about it. The picture showed a man holding up an American flag, surrounded by a joyously celebrating crowd. Lucky for me and unlucky for my children, they are still of the ages where us parents can steer a conversation any which way we want to! And the way I wanted to steer it was this.... A simple summary of 9/11 and Obama Bin Laden's orchestration of it and then this question: What makes a human being different from an animal? That's simple enough even for a preschooler. We're higher order beings for many reasons including these: We're empathetic, we use our brains to solve high level problems, and most importantly (here I'm steering): We have the ability to consciously go against our aninal instincts for our personal good or for the greater good. Animal instincts tell us to use violence to solve problems. Animal instincts tell us to scream and pound walls instead of using dialogue to solve a conflict. And animal instincts tell us to grab beers, shout profanities, and party loudly at Ground Zero because another human being was killed.

Charter Schools for All?

I am starting to read about this concept as it seems this area is becoming inundated with charter schools. There is certainly a lot to learn as each charter school is a fingerprint of uniqueness and each state runs theirs differently.

One charter brings us a science and technology magnet, the other charter arts, and an incoming third, from my reading, is providing an alternative program. I can't offer any praise or critique of any of these schools because they are much too new to gauge and I'm much too un-researched on them. Educational statistics dont' give you a good view of a school's worth for many years into the school! But what I can confront is concern over what these particular charter schools might do to this community and its educational wealth. My main concern is that the wealth will be quite limited to one particular group of students.


Due to the restrictions on which 'type' of family can attend these three particular schools; Academic regulations, parental -involvement expectations, time- requirements, financial expectations ~ we're possibly looking at very homogenous charter schools, certainly finance-wise, possibly ethnicity wise as well. Students with learning disabilities will not get past the initial filtering. Students with parents unable to volunteer hours every month will not get past the initial filtering. Students who enter school at sub-average intellect will not get past the initial filtering. Students whose parents cannot afford the uniforms, supplies, field trips, gas to and fro the school....will not get past the initial filtering. Those who end up enrolled and active are upper middle class, intelligent, developmentally on-level or above-level, and have at least one parent who stays home during the day regularly. The cream of the crop, the easiest to educate, the center of the Twinkie! Their scores will be high and the praise will be bestowed on the Charter school. And what will occur in the schools left behind?

The schools left behind are simply not something these Charter schools or their families need consider once enrolled. But the community needs to consider it. I live miles away from where this is happening, but I'm considering it. A segregated and unequal school system where 'wealth' is isolated to a select few, doesn't make for great county ratings. My property values are part and parcel to this.

Three charter schools that isolate their systems financially and academically may not make a huge dent. It's the equivalent of a mega-church opening up a private school. But what if there's more? What if we reach a point where all of our upper middle class and all of our high-scorers are isolated to charter schools? What will happen to the children who don't have stay at home mothers capable of spending 10 hours a week in either a classroom or a fundraising meeting? What will happen to children who have learning or physical disabilities that these charter schools have no resources to help? What will happen to students who cannot reach the academic threshold these schools demand for admittance and continuance? What will happen in 25 years to the students at the one? two? three? remaining non-Charter schools that don't have a large group of passionate teachers and administrators behind them?

We've seen children segregated from their peers along these same lines. We all know precisely which parts of the community this helps and which parts this hurts. Are we willing to do this to our community? It's easy to fall into the 'I gots mine' trap when it comes to our children. I.E. Doing whatever we feel needs to be done to get our kids the best, no matter what it does to the rest. But if our community does not consider the rest, and we continue to welcome in schools that don't consider the rest, what kind of community are we?

Hopefully in the near future those creating new charter schools in this community will keep in mind that other charter schools in this nation take great strides to fulfil the needs of the entire community; its diversity, its disabilities, its poor, rather than only helping a select few. But from what I've been seeing, that's not what is happening. I'll remain hopeful, but cynical.

Hindsight is 20/20

It has been 5 days since the outcry over Obama's school speech began. We have the transcript and beyond a question asking "How will you help Barack Obama help this nation?", it seems pretty mild to most pundits. When Rush Limbaugh says something a liberal created is o.k., I think we can all rest assured that it's o.k..

I think most expected the transcript to be put through a McCarthy-machine to find out any liberal or socialist innuendos or riddles. It probably was. Glenn Beck's interns probably sat all afternoon reading and re-reading, with Marx books by their side for reference, and had to enter his office forelorn that they could find zilch. Gack, what will he talk about tomorrow?

I think most also expected that if the speech ended up being innocent, there would be either distraction or back-peddling from the Republican party. Alas, here it is. And here is Glenn Beck's topic for tomorrow.

Dozens of bloggers are our compass, pointing towards the backpeddling. 'This whole thing didn't start because of his SPEECH, it started because of the curricular questions that CAME with the speech!" "I was never concerned about his SPEECH, it was the idea that it wasn't going to be released until close to the day-of". "I'm not concerned about SOCIALIST PROPAGANDA, just about him making the liberal party look good".

Hindsight is 20/20. Interesting how hindsight is so easily changed. I hope that no conservative out there would aim to mis-interpret their party's reaction to this