I see your point. Perhaps I just wasn't thinking enough on the topic. Granted, if the idea was good enough, the poor could be heard, but it's so much easier for the rich and famous to be heard. But, yes, the poor CAN be heard. My apologies for not being open enough.
That motto is used by thousands of people world-round. But about people thinking you're a pessimist because you're a realist, some people are like that. But what they don't realize is that THEY'RE the pessimists. They don't think that reality is anything to pe posotive about. That's just some people (and if anybody else has any other opinions, please let us know) who can't find anything good in real life. That's a pessimist for you.
But optimists are another matter, and sometimes I find them annoying. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm no diehard pessimist like you say you are, but there are just some things in life that aren't posotive. (Any examples, anybody?) When hope seems lost, and you're not in the right frame of mind, optimists can be the worst people on Earth!!
Keeping sight of the reservation, Pete, maybe I should've mentioned that my earlier post wasn't intended as a blanket generalization; it certainly wasn't intended to be. There are, of course, all sorts of benefits and help available to the economically challenged. But--wouldn't you agree that access to those benefits is at least partially limited by the economic condition of the recipient? It is indeed the rare child that is raised in poverty, ignorance, and yes, even violence--that can break that chain without intervention. Yet, our local Head Start is in serious danger of closing due to our state's sea of red ink.
My version of utopia is a world where every child can grow free and safe, and achieve his or her fullest potential. But I also know life is like backgammon--you can have all the skill in the world, and there's still that roll of the dice.
Ironically, I've dealt with exactly these issues at work over the last couple of days. Even though we may have differing perspectives and views, and the routes are different, I think our destination is probably the same, and I respect your opinion. It's this sharing of ideas and opinions that I think of as "The Bradbury Philosophy."
And, we're home.
I like your reference to backgammon. True, no matter what you tried to do, it's all up to chance what happens in this world.
I meant to say more in my last post, but my teacher was getting upset (despite the fact this is an assignment for English) for being on this board.
About your version of Utopia...
Well, right now, that version isn't looking possible. Most children are losing opportunities to learn because people who are richer are beating them to the schools. The poor aren't getting fair chances at school. Now, yes, education is supposedly "Free," but when you get to high school and college, it ain't cheap at all!
What do you think about education? As a teacher, what is your perspective on getting education based on economic power? Do you have to have a lot of money in order to get into school? Or do you think it's just a bunch of unfair separation?
I don't know that I agree it is ALL up to chance, but a lot of it (life) is. People who deny that are doomed to frustration. The things we do and attitudes we take toward things definitely matters. But "life" is out there, and we only control portions of things that happen.
It's a bit like the John Lennon lyric:
"Life is what happens to you when you're busy making other plans".
But that doesn't mean you shouldn't plan, or that your intentions and actions are irrelevant to everything that goes on in your life.
Soccer: As far as education goes, I do not believe in the unfair separation theory. I do not believe that inner city kids can't get an education. It is all a case of whether or not students want to be educated and if parents give a darn about their kids education. Watch the movie "Lean on Me" starring Morgan Freeman. It is a perfect example of what can be done in an inner city if we stopped cowering to the underclass. I call them an underclass not because of any race, but because of a willingness to be that way. Schools need not be fancy with all kinds of technology in order for kids to learn. Money does very little for education.
If you are speaking of college tuition costs, I agree that they are ridiculous, but there are all sorts of grants and loans that can get a person through.
We also need to start failing kids more instead of just passing them through the system. Somewhere along the line, kids learned that their lack of achievement will be awarded by a pat on the butt and an escort to the next grade. Why should they do well? They get the same diploma anyway.
[This message has been edited by pabillsman1 (edited 10-22-2004).]
I don't think I sent my last post out with the right message.
I guess what I was trying to say was that the poor don't try to go to school because they think everybody is better than them. But about the college funds...in four years I'll be going to college, and I only have half of my money ready for college! (Well, it's a lot if you wanna go to a school like NC State, Florida State, or any other big-name college...)
My apologies for being so discriminate in my last post.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8|