Warning: someone will start chopping onions in your house if you watch this: http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9454322/why-stayed?src=mobile (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9454322/why-stayed?src=mobile)
One of the most inspirational stories I have ever heard.
It says a lot about a society that you have to be blind or crippled to get noticed in a school with a sixty percent dropout rate - or that losing your sight or legs probably increases your chances for success.
Unfortunately the video is not authorized for my location.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 08, 2013, 11:51:35 AM
Unfortunately the video is not authorized for my location.
The written story tells you everything. The video is just what was broadcast, which isn't as complete as the written story is (though it gives you some interesting examples of how these two coped).
Thanks.
She deserves a lot of credit for all the effort she put into getting those two kids a shot that most take for granted. But I have to wonder how many more kids could excel if they had guardian angels like her or at least some basic support. One gets the sense that the kids from that area have simply been written off. As the cop said, nobody ever gets out of there.
Touching story.
And yeah, I'm sure CC is right and that many more kids who are written off could excel if they had some support.
Quote from: Jacob on July 08, 2013, 01:34:51 PM
Touching story.
And yeah, I'm sure CC is right and that many more kids who are written off could excel if they had some support.
Agreed. It's almost to say that it says a lot about a society that you have to be blind or crippled to get noticed in a school with a sixty percent dropout rate - or that losing your sight or legs probably increases your chances for success.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 08, 2013, 12:19:19 PM
One gets the sense that the kids from that area have simply been written off. As the cop said, nobody ever gets out of there.
That's because they have been. Before they're even Born To Lose.
Well now I'm sitting at my desk, bawling like a baby. :weep:
Thank you for sharing that, grumbler.
That is a great story.
My problem with stories like that is this:
They don't really help solve the problem.
I don't mean that in a negative way - what she did was amazing, and I wish more people were like her - I wish *I* was more like her.
The problem with stories of individuals making profound differences is that it frustrates me because I know that individuals mostly only make individual differences. They cahnge one life, or two, or even ten. If they are in the right position, they might even change a hundred.
But how do you change the lives of those 60%? The tens of thousands? You can' scale up individual's making a difference enough to, well, make a difference at the macro scale. How do you change the culture, the society, OUR culture that allows this?
What I don't understand is why we don't seem to have any idea, still, how to fix these things. This has been a problem for, well, forever, and yet we don't seem to be any closer to a solution than we were 100 years ago, or even 500 years ago. We've thrown a lot of money at it, and that has helped some - it has made it so the exceptionally driven can have the chance to get out.
But that isn't the problem, not really. The problem is not "How do we let exceptional humans break free from a screwed up culture of poverty and desperation". Rather, the problem is how do we make it so that the typical, the average, the normal people are not doomed to that life. How do we make it so that the non-exceptional can have a shot at a non-exceptionally terrible life, even when they start in an exceptionally terrible world?
I don't think we can - we have to figure out a way to get rid of that world to begin with. And I don't know how to do that, and I am afraid nobody else does either.
Quote from: Berkut on July 10, 2013, 12:27:45 PM
I don't think we can - we have to figure out a way to get rid of that world to begin with. And I don't know how to do that, and I am afraid nobody else does either.
There are lots of people who have a lot to say about how to begin to solve the problems associated with poverty. But there has to be the political will to do something about it and, as I posted above, that seems to be completely missing as these kids have essentially been written off.
Why can't you focus on the good one person does for one other person? And hell, if it moves you enough, why not try to do a little bit of good yourself for someone else? And that might inspire one other person to help another. And so on and so on.
Just because you can't save the world one person at a time doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to make life better for one other person.
Life, to me, is about making the sacrifices that I can and helping those that I see every day, whether it solves the world's problems or not. I may not even be able to solve that one person's life-long issues, but for that one moment, that one day, I've made a difference to that one person.
It's the best I've got, and you can bet that I'm going to do it to the best of my ability.
Quote from: merithyn on July 10, 2013, 12:34:43 PM
Why can't you focus on the good one person does for one other person? And hell, if it moves you enough, why not try to do a little bit of good yourself for someone else? And that might inspire one other person to help another. And so on and so on.
Just because you can't save the world one person at a time doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to make life better for one other person.
Life, to me, is about making the sacrifices that I can and helping those that I see every day, whether it solves the world's problems or not. I may not even be able to solve that one person's life-long issues, but for that one moment, that one day, I've made a difference to that one person.
It's the best I've got, and you can bet that I'm going to do it to the best of my ability.
Meri, I have no problem with that - I agree that one should in fact do exactly that.
But people have been doing that for, well, most of human history to one degree or another, and yet we still have, in the wealthiest nation in the world, entire portions of our population that are mired in this fucked up reality.
Yes, if everyone did a little more, than maybe the problem would be solved. Actually, I don't really believe that, but that isn't the point, at least it isn't my point.
I am jsut saying that continuing to do the same thing hasn't made this problem go away at the systemic level. Yes, you can solve the problem at the individual level, but that is no real solution overall.
Quote from: merithyn on July 10, 2013, 12:34:43 PM
Why can't you focus on the good one person does for one other person?
If one only focuses on the two that were helped then you miss the big picture that there were so many that were not simply because they were not the kind of kids that would make middle class people feel as good about their success story.
This reporter stayed in that school for a long time. Surely these were not the only two how deserved a better shot at life. They need something more than a guardian angel who comes to the aid of just a couple of people.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2013, 12:32:40 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 10, 2013, 12:27:45 PM
I don't think we can - we have to figure out a way to get rid of that world to begin with. And I don't know how to do that, and I am afraid nobody else does either.
There are lots of people who have a lot to say about how to begin to solve the problems associated with poverty. But there has to be the political will to do something about it and, as I posted above, that seems to be completely missing as these kids have essentially been written off.
But it clearly is NOT completely missing. This is incredible amounts of political will to do something about poverty in America - we spend billions and billions on it. We have programs, and funds, and this and that. We make incredible efforts. We provide free education, we provide social services, we have myriads of programs designed to help the poor. And many of those programs work to the extent that they allow some of them to break out of these places, leave, and move themselves into the "typical" middle class American society.
But all those programs seem to fail at the more fundamental task of eradicating this screwed up societies to begin with, which is the only real solution (I think). You can go to college for essentially free in the US, if you are poor. And that is great, but it just means that some few percent (and very few at that) can make the exceptional efforts necessary to take advantage of that opportunity. That is great, of course, but it doesn't address the fundamental problem, and it doesn't really even reduce poverty overall.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2013, 12:38:47 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 10, 2013, 12:34:43 PM
Why can't you focus on the good one person does for one other person?
If one only focuses on the two that were helped then you miss the big picture that there were so many that were not simply because they were not the kind of kids that would make middle class people feel as good about their success story.
This reporter stayed in that school for a long time. Surely these were not the only two how deserved a better shot at life. They need something more than a guardian angel who comes to the aid of just a couple of people.
Exactly. The "guardian angel" model does not scale.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2013, 12:32:40 PMThere are lots of people who have a lot to say about how to begin to solve the problems associated with poverty. But there has to be the political will to do something about it and, as I posted above, that seems to be completely missing as these kids have essentially been written off.
Yeah. It doesn't seem like the problem for these kids, and for the area they're in, is that tons of money have been thrown at solving their problems but that the money has been misallocated. It seems rather, like you say, that they've been written off.
Quote from: Berkut on July 10, 2013, 12:38:26 PM
Meri, I have no problem with that - I agree that one should in fact do exactly that.
But people have been doing that for, well, most of human history to one degree or another, and yet we still have, in the wealthiest nation in the world, entire portions of our population that are mired in this fucked up reality.
Yes, if everyone did a little more, than maybe the problem would be solved. Actually, I don't really believe that, but that isn't the point, at least it isn't my point.
I am jsut saying that continuing to do the same thing hasn't made this problem go away at the systemic level. Yes, you can solve the problem at the individual level, but that is no real solution overall.
I understand that. I just can't do anything about those things. I can only fix that which I come in contact with. If I focus on everything that I can't do, it becomes overwhelming.
I think the biggest problem, systemically, is that governments don't see these as "fixable" situations, and instead try simply to mitigate them. Shuffle them off - or better yet, bull-doze the problem areas - arrest the louder problems, and talk about being tough of crime. The denizens of these neighborhoods don't vote, and those who do are so busy focusing on their First World Problems that they don't bother to pay attention to those living in Third World conditions down the street. They vote for themselves, not for others, and politicians react to that. Policy stems from that.
Personally, I think the best way to fix these situations is at the local levels. There is no global answer. It requires knowing the individual problems and concerns of each neighborhood, knowing the people involved, to fix them, and the local governments are the only ones in a position to do that. Of course, they're also the least funded. But, I believe that a combination of local government with local school support is what's necessary to help turn these situations around.
Quote from: Berkut on July 10, 2013, 12:43:45 PMBut it clearly is NOT completely missing. This is incredible amounts of political will to do something about poverty in America - we spend billions and billions on it. We have programs, and funds, and this and that. We make incredible efforts. We provide free education, we provide social services, we have myriads of programs designed to help the poor. And many of those programs work to the extent that they allow some of them to break out of these places, leave, and move themselves into the "typical" middle class American society.
But all those programs seem to fail at the more fundamental task of eradicating this screwed up societies to begin with, which is the only real solution (I think). You can go to college for essentially free in the US, if you are poor. And that is great, but it just means that some few percent (and very few at that) can make the exceptional efforts necessary to take advantage of that opportunity. That is great, of course, but it doesn't address the fundamental problem, and it doesn't really even reduce poverty overall.
I suppose you'd know better than I, being more exposed to it, but it is not my impression that helping the poor and reducing poverty is something that is very high priority funding wise or politically in the US.
Quote from: Jacob on July 10, 2013, 12:53:19 PM
I suppose you'd know better than I, being more exposed to it, but it is not my impression that helping the poor and reducing poverty is something that is very high priority funding wise or politically in the US.
Not since, oh, 1980ish.
Quote from: Jacob on July 10, 2013, 12:53:19 PM
I suppose you'd know better than I, being more exposed to it, but it is not my impression that helping the poor and reducing poverty is something that is very high priority funding wise or politically in the US.
I think that is incorrect. It is not that the money is not being spent. It is that the process of obtaining that money is so politicized that it is getting spent on things that make the politicians look good, which may or may not be the most effective programs.
Quote from: Maximus on July 10, 2013, 01:07:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 10, 2013, 12:53:19 PM
I suppose you'd know better than I, being more exposed to it, but it is not my impression that helping the poor and reducing poverty is something that is very high priority funding wise or politically in the US.
I think that is incorrect. It is not that the money is not being spent. It is that the process of obtaining that money is so politicized that it is getting spent on things that make the politicians look good, which may or may not be the most effective programs.
Agreed.
Again, those this most affects don't generally vote.
Quote from: Maximus on July 10, 2013, 01:07:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 10, 2013, 12:53:19 PM
I suppose you'd know better than I, being more exposed to it, but it is not my impression that helping the poor and reducing poverty is something that is very high priority funding wise or politically in the US.
I think that is incorrect. It is not that the money is not being spent. It is that the process of obtaining that money is so politicized that it is getting spent on things that make the politicians look good, which may or may not be the most effective programs.
That is what I was getting at. Berkut is undoubtly correct that there is a lot of political will to spend a great deal of money. But the question is what is that money being spent on. It seems to me that the US model is highly conflicted in its delivery of aid to the poor. Obamacare may be the best recent example. Health care reform was required. Americans pay the most money for very little return but reforming your system to resemble a single payor system favoured in rest of the West seems systematically impossible.
No arguments there. Not sure what the/a solution is though.
Quote from: Maximus on July 10, 2013, 01:07:23 PM
It is not that the money is not being spent. It is that the process of obtaining that money is so politicized that it is getting spent on things that make the politicians look good, which may or may not be the most effective programs.
Well, we're not going to have to worry about such nuisances like obtaining money for such programs for much longer, so it's not going to matter how it's spent anyway.
QuoteTthe U.S. Senate would require cuts to SNAP totaling $4.1 billion over the next 10 years, or as much as $130 per household, each month.
The House of Representatives will consider a bill later this month that is proposing an even more severe alternative, slashing SNAP by more than $20 billion over the same period.
Oh, snap.
Yeah, that's your heart breaking over it, alright.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 10, 2013, 02:53:21 PM
Yeah, that's your heart breaking over it, alright.
Who needs a heart? :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on July 10, 2013, 02:54:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 10, 2013, 02:53:21 PM
Yeah, that's your heart breaking over it, alright.
Who needs a heart? :unsure:
:yes: Espec. when it can be broken.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 10, 2013, 02:53:21 PM
Yeah, that's your heart breaking over it, alright.
Don't you dare imply that derspiess is short on empathy :angry:
Quote from: Jacob on July 10, 2013, 03:01:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 10, 2013, 02:53:21 PM
Yeah, that's your heart breaking over it, alright.
Don't you dare imply that derspiess is short on empathy :angry:
We're broke, man. Something's gotta give.
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 03:02:25 PM
We're broke, man. Something's gotta give.
So it's even more broke people? There's only so much you can squeeze out anymore. :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 03:02:25 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 10, 2013, 03:01:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 10, 2013, 02:53:21 PM
Yeah, that's your heart breaking over it, alright.
Don't you dare imply that derspiess is short on empathy :angry:
We're broke, man. Something's gotta give.
Well actually, they're broke. :contract:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 10, 2013, 03:04:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 03:02:25 PM
We're broke, man. Something's gotta give.
So it's even more broke people? There's only so much you can squeeze out anymore. :lol:
Well actually those broke people don't have the funds anyone (nor are they prime contributors to the funds), so it isn't really squeezed out of them.
Quote from: garbon on July 10, 2013, 03:05:26 PM
Well actually those broke people don't have the funds anyone (nor are they prime contributors to the funds), so it isn't really squeezed out of them.
I'm sure they'll be relieved to hear that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 10, 2013, 03:08:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 10, 2013, 03:05:26 PM
Well actually those broke people don't have the funds anyone (nor are they prime contributors to the funds), so it isn't really squeezed out of them.
I'm sure they'll be relieved to hear that.
Should that be a concern?
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 03:02:25 PMWe're broke, man. Something's gotta give.
And, as usual, it's the most vulnerable in society who have to give the most.
Quote from: Jacob on July 10, 2013, 03:13:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 03:02:25 PMWe're broke, man. Something's gotta give.
And, as usual, it's the most vulnerable in society who have to give the most.
What do you want me to give, then?
Quote from: garbon on July 10, 2013, 03:09:35 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 10, 2013, 03:08:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 10, 2013, 03:05:26 PM
Well actually those broke people don't have the funds anyone (nor are they prime contributors to the funds), so it isn't really squeezed out of them.
I'm sure they'll be relieved to hear that.
Should that be a concern?
:huh:
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 03:14:59 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 10, 2013, 03:13:48 PM
And, as usual, it's the most vulnerable in society who have to give the most.
What do you want me to give, then?
A damn, maybe?
Last I heard, they're free.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 10, 2013, 03:19:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 03:14:59 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 10, 2013, 03:13:48 PM
And, as usual, it's the most vulnerable in society who have to give the most.
What do you want me to give, then?
A damn, maybe?
Last I heard, they're free.
Sorry. Ask me tomorrow morning if I can give a shit and you may be in luck.
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 03:14:59 PMWhat do you want me to give, then?
A good start would be to give it some attention and treating it as a problem worth addressing to begin with. After that, giving support and attention to people who are working to solve the problems would be useful that.
If you'd then give support to moving helping the poor away from the bottom of the funding priority list, that would be solid too.
Quote from: Jacob on July 10, 2013, 03:23:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 03:14:59 PMWhat do you want me to give, then?
A good start would be to give it some attention and treating it as a problem worth addressing to begin with. After that, giving support and attention to people who are working to solve the problems would be useful that.
If you'd then give support to moving helping the poor away from the bottom of the funding priority list, that would be solid too.
Or how about I just donate to the poor through charitable donations? Like I do now.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2013, 03:19:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 10, 2013, 03:09:35 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 10, 2013, 03:08:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 10, 2013, 03:05:26 PM
Well actually those broke people don't have the funds anyone (nor are they prime contributors to the funds), so it isn't really squeezed out of them.
I'm sure they'll be relieved to hear that.
Should that be a concern?
:huh:
I don't really think a driving concern should be whether or not those receiving assistance feel they are getting enough. I doubt there is anyone from the poorest of individuals to the wealthiest individuals who would ever say "you're giving me too much money."
That said, yes I agree that it is rather silly to suggest that if the government is spending too much, then we should make spending cuts targeting the poorest members.
Quote from: garbon on July 10, 2013, 03:28:39 PM
That said, yes I agree that it is rather silly to suggest that if the government is spending too much, then we should make spending cuts targeting the poorest members.
Don't we have a childhood obesity problem?
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 03:26:03 PMOr how about I just donate to the poor through charitable donations? Like I do now.
As per grumbler's link in the OP, it doesn't seem to be doing the trick :(
Quote from: Jacob on July 10, 2013, 03:32:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 03:26:03 PMOr how about I just donate to the poor through charitable donations? Like I do now.
As per grumbler's link in the OP, it doesn't seem to be doing the trick :(
Doing what I can.
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 03:33:18 PM
Doing what I can.
And Operation Rescue sincerely appreciates it.
Spicy, give to the Human Fund.
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 03:26:03 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 10, 2013, 03:23:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 03:14:59 PMWhat do you want me to give, then?
A good start would be to give it some attention and treating it as a problem worth addressing to begin with. After that, giving support and attention to people who are working to solve the problems would be useful that.
If you'd then give support to moving helping the poor away from the bottom of the funding priority list, that would be solid too.
Or how about I just donate to the poor through charitable donations? Like I do now.
Because that does not address the underlying problem that Berkut put quite well. Your government spends a great deal of money on what might losely be terms social programs but with very little bang for the buck. Even someone like you should be concerned about that.
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 03:31:06 PMDon't we have a childhood obesity problem?
Providing access to inexpensive soda and junk food does not counter the problems of underfunded schools and social services.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 10, 2013, 03:34:11 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 03:33:18 PM
Doing what I can.
And Operation Rescue sincerely appreciates it.
:moon:
The pro-life groups I've supported have all been geared toward aiding women who keep their babies. I'm not too big on protests & whatnot.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2013, 03:36:11 PM
Your government spends a great deal of money on what might losely be terms social programs but with very little bang for the buck. Even someone like you should be concerned about that.
So you're saying we should or shouldn't de-fund those programs? :unsure:
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 03:40:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2013, 03:36:11 PM
Your government spends a great deal of money on what might losely be terms social programs but with very little bang for the buck. Even someone like you should be concerned about that.
So you're saying we should or shouldn't de-fund those programs? :unsure:
I am saying that the problem the US has isnt necessarily the amount its government spends but what it spends it money on. An incredibly inefficient medical system tops that list. But instead of fixing those inept policy decisions your politicians think that defunding the people that are the most vulnerable is the best way to go. And your solution to that is private charities?
Quote from: Jacob on July 10, 2013, 03:37:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 03:31:06 PMDon't we have a childhood obesity problem?
Providing access to inexpensive soda and junk food does not counter the problems of underfunded schools and social services.
:yes:
Quote from: Berkut on July 10, 2013, 12:43:45 PM
But it clearly is NOT completely missing. This is incredible amounts of political will to do something about poverty in America - we spend billions and billions on it.
Do we?
Because the answer depends on how one defines "it."
We have programs to feed children. We have those programs because wealthy and powerful agricultural interests support them. Those programs aren't designed to eliminate poverty, they are designed in the first instance to raise farm incomes and in the second instance to forestall one of the negative potential consequences of poverty - namely, starvation. The same basic thing can be said of programs to provide shelter of some kind. Or Medicaid.
We spend collectively as nation a lot of money of "education" but that is not quite the same thing as actually educating. And the motives for doing the former involve lots of reasons that really have little to do with poverty.