Readers around the world read the New York Times’ front-page series about a homeless girl named Dasani, who was called “Invisible Child.”
They learned about the deplorable conditions in the shelter where she was living in a single room with her parents and seven siblings. They learned about the rats, roaches, and mold; about inspectors who wrote reports that led to no action; they learned about charges of sexual abuse by staff; and about a myriad other horrors in which Dasani and thousands of other children were living. They learned that New York City now has 22,000 children who are homeless, a historic high. The series was brilliantly written by Andrea Elliott, an investigative journalist. Eliott acknowledged that a large part of Dasani’s fate was caused by her dysfunctional parents, who were unemployed and fighting drug addiction. But she also blamed city policies, that had created the system in which the family was ensnared.
Mayor Bloomberg was asked to comment on the series, which stirred wide attention.
He said:
“This kid was dealt a bad hand. I don’t know quite why. That’s just the way God works. Sometimes some of us are lucky and some of us are not,” he told Politicker, calling her plight “a sad situation.”
Bloomberg argued that New York “has done more than any city to help the homeless,” citing the city’s policies of subsidized health care, job training, and shelter counseling. “But if you are poor and homeless you’d be better off in New York City than anyplace else,” he insisted.
The New York Times series explicitly tied Bloomberg’s homelessness policies to Dasani’s destitute situation. “The Bloomberg administration adopted sweeping new policies intended to push the homeless to become more self-reliant,” the Times’ Andrea Elliott wrote. “They would no longer get priority access to public housing and other programs, but would receive short-term help with rent.”
As a result, Dasani’s family and others like hers found themselves unable to escape the shelter system. Homelessness swelled by 60 percent during Bloomberg’s term, despite his vow to reduce the city’s homeless population by two-thirds in five years. The mayor told the New York Times last year that families were staying in shelters longer because he had improved them to be “a much more pleasurable experience than they ever had before” — a quote that stood in stark contrast with Elliott’s descriptions of Dasani’s decrepit shelter, which is still operating after inspectors cited it for violations 400 times.
Bloomberg went on to attack the media for not understanding how good Dasani and her family have it compared to poor people in developing countries. “I think one of the problems is a lot of journalists have never looked around the world,” he said, going on to tell the reporter that “your smirk shows you haven’t been outside the country and don’t know what poverty means elsewheres.”
In the Mayor’s words, it is God who decides who is lucky and who is not. That absolves public policymakers of changing the odds. After all, a Greater Power is Making the Big Decisions. Some people have $22 billion, some people live in rat-infested shelters. That’s life.
In the closing days of the Bloomberg administration, the Mayor is suing to block the City Council’s efforts to adopt a living-wage bill for people employed by developers and businesses to either $10 an hour with benefits or $11.50 an hour without benefits.
Let God handle it.
He/she/ or it was an bound to come up at some point, yes (God)?
It’s what divides us, and what unites us, and what compels us, and what eludes us.
I think Bloomberg should be reminded of the adage:
I sought myself and found nothing
I sought my god and he eluded me
I sought my neighbor and I found all three.
Then again, if he really believes NY has helped the homeless then he believes he has helped his neighbor. And just because “God” has been kind to Bloomberg all these years doesn’t mean “he” always will. Any words we say can always be turned back on us.
and isn’t the “how we do versus others” moral relativism?
(???)
Joanna, if I may suggest a reading if you haven’t read it. It’s Andre Compte-Sponville’s “A Small Treastise on the Great Virtues.”
I will check it out.
“Truly I tell you, whatever you did for the least of these, my brothers and sisters, you did for me.”
–Rabbi Yeshua of Nazareth
Yeah, he was pretty clear about that wasn’t he?
But you can kind of understand the need to lean on God now for what others see has Bloomberg’s shortcomings. Consider Isaiah:
“Surely God is my salvation; I will trust and not be afraid. The Lord, the Lord, is my strength and my song; he has become my salvation.”
Maybe it really is up to God (some god) at this point? I quote U2:
“it’s alright; it’s alright. he moves in mysterious ways.”
That’s a nice Sunday School lesson, isn’t it? God is doing this to you, little girl, not the arrogant usury of disaster capitalism, or the runaway greed of the finance sector that made Bloomberg rich.
When I was Dasani’s age, if I had heard this venal and corrupt old man talking about me like that, I would have thought of Exodus 20:7.
“You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.”
I would have thought, it’s a sin to say God is the one who makes things so hard and ugly for me, Mr. Mayor. I would have thought a billionaire who talked this way to America’s impoverished children was going to hell.
chemtchr, Imagine me clapping. Silent cheer!
And if you were in charge, he would, eh?
I suppose that’s why Sunday Schools seldom teach The Book of Job.
Ridiculous troll, they most certainly do teach Job in Sunday School.
Job is part of the good-old-man trope though, a very different territory from Bloomberg’s mean-old-man routine, which you’re milking here.
So, do YOU think all disasters can be accounted for or explained? God’s answer to Job is “Who are you to question ME?” Sometimes shit just happens.
“If the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” [Charles Darwin]
On the title page of Stephen Jay Gould, THE MISMEASURE OF MAN (revised and expanded edition of 1996).
But the “no excuses” crowd now puts the blame on God.
A repulsive evasion of responsibility.
😡
“But the “no excuses” crowd now puts the blame on God. ”
Hey, GAWD ordained it all from the start!
The no excuses crowd blames it on God.
That’s priceless!
KTA is priceless!!!
I hope someone sends this to the Pope. I am pretty sure he would not agree with Bloomberg on how to deal with things.
Ah, yes, “the invisible hand” of God. I have an old bible; maybe it is missing a chapter. I must get the Pearson updated edition.
Since he mentions God, he ought to know that both Jews and Christians (and many denominations within these two world religions) believe that even though God created the world, the work of creation is incomplete. Humans are thought to have free will so as to complete the work of creation. The following always inspires me to meaningful action.
“It is not incumbent upon you to complete the work, but neither are you at liberty to desist from it”.
Well said, Emmy! How very much I enjoy your posts! Thank you.
right back at ya!
Bloomberg must be thinking about Jesus saying “We will always have the poor” and decided there couldn’t be enough of a good thing, so he’d do what he could to complete the prophecy.
There’s some good ole fashioned Republican personal responsibility for you.
Personal responsibility on the part of the parents wouldn’t hoit, eh?
Oh yeah, nothing like the good old American way of blaming the victim. Other countries, such as in Europe, see addiction as a medical issue, not as a crime worthy of arrest and incarceration the way we do –except, of course, for upper income folks, celebrities addicted to prescription drugs et al. But our “war on drugs” has certainly served our penal system well, including all the profiteers of privatized prisons.
Are the Europeans more successful than we are in getting people off drugs? How do they do it? What would you do for Dasani’s parents?
Hu,
From a libertarian point of view, i.e., we should be free from others; but especially governmental coercions, should the government even give a shitake (hey, I’m trying to be kosher) about whether someone has an addiction or not if that addiction harms no others?
I can agree with that, although we would have to define “harm.” The best counter example is the British selling opium in China to finance their tea growing plantations in India. I’m not sure what the conditions were in the US that brought in regulation of cocaine and other drugs. Addiction changes a person’s ability to exercise self-restraint. Self restraint is the basis of a free society. So perhaps “society” has an interest, perhaps even a fundamental interest, in regulating drugs. Prohibition didn’t work. Licensing and regulation is a compromise. I’m enough of a libertarian to support the minimimum amount of regulation consistent with public safety. More than that drifts into tyranny and hypocrisy, e.g. the regulations against killing bald eagles, but licenses to wind farms to kill bald eagles.
Decriminalization and treat any addiction (and there are many with the worst being legal ones, just buried a 33 year nephew in law from a Xanax OD last Friday, so this hits close to home for me) as a medical and not a legal problem is the answer.
And the bald eagle example doesn’t hold water for me and I consider myself to be a staunch conservative environmental person (been working with one of the premier conservation groups, Ducks Unlimited for the last seven or so years and am from the state that has a world leading conservation commission-MO since 1935, almost the same time as DU started. And those that set up the MO Dept of Conv were wise enough at the time to keep it out of the hands of the politicians through the wording of the constitutional amendment that authorizes the dept.)
“Addiction changes a person’s ability to exercise self-restraint. Self restraint is the basis of a free society.”
Oh, Harlan, are we in trouble! I can’t say that I’ve noticed that self restraint is a particularly strong societal trait (as U.S.). I have a feeling that a consumer society does not encourage it, and I would guess that other countries might find us rather self indulgent. That being said, criminalizing addiction has not proved to be an effective deterrent. I favor a different approach as well, but the devil is in the details: “minimum amount of regulation consistent with public safety.” We do need to be looking at how other countries address drug addiction. How many is it we have incarcerated? 1% of our population? I wonder how many are in prison for drug related offenses.
Quite a few, I suspect. Legalizing most drugs MIGHT bring down crime by making them more affordable and thus addicts would presumably have to steal less to afford them. I haven’t studied the question, but addiction is the kind of illness that puts getting the fix ahead of all other wishes and can lead to serious degradation. You’ve seen TRAFFIC I suppose?
I didn’t as a matter of fact. Traffic came out at a time in my life where the world outside of mine took a back seat. Anyone who manages to break free of drugs has my admiration. It took cancer to get me to quit smoking.
Yep. Life of death.
That’s supposed to be “others'”
The Portuguese are much more successful than we are in the U.S. in getting people off drugs because they have decriminalized them and so
a. have decreased the financial incentives to be in the drug business
b. have brought drug use out into the light where it can be dealt with
The result of that decriminalization has been decreased drug abuse, decreased drug-related crime, enormous savings on law enforcement, and dramatically increased ability to identify and help addicts.
Drug abuse need to be treated as a mental health issue, not as a crime issue. Our phoney drug war is simply a jobs program for drug cartels and police and prisons.
The Organization of American States had decriminalization on its agenda at its last meeting, and there was a lot of support for decriminalization among the delegates because the evidence on this issue is overwhelming. So, the Obama Administration sent a representative to the meeting to tell them all that they better not dare do anything that sane.
Decriminalization sounds reasonable to me Robert. I wonder why God’s Son, Barack Hussein Obama, sent word not to take it up? Is he in the pay of the drug cartels and the private prison cartels? Did he walk on the water between here and Hawaii? Or Washington and Martha’s Vineyard.
More successful than our arrest and imprison policies for addicts, when so many people have reported how easy it is to obtain drugs in American prisons?
As an addict who has lived a clean and sober life for the past 29 years, I can tell you that when a country such as ours sees addiction as a crime and not a medical problem, there is no impetus for government policies that help people deal with addiction.
At most, insurance companies provide one month of inpatient treatment and then addicts/alcoholics are on their own. I had no insurance but I knew anyways that one month of treatment would probably not go very far towards helping me deal with a 15 year long addiction. So, I abandoned my apartment, giving up everything I owned, and I put myself in a 12 Step based half-way house, where I lived for 10 months and which I paid for by myself, as I was able to continue to work full time. That was effective for me. Had I been incarcerated where drugs were still obtainable, I have no doubt that I would have continued to use drugs.
Unfortunately, there are not enough programs like the program that helped me, which was sponsored and subsidized by a faith-based organization, for all of the addicts who need and could benefit from them, precisely because funds are going towards the “war on drugs” and prisons instead of providing people in need with treatment.
Government doesn’t run programs like that very well. If taxes weren’t so high, more people would be able to contribute to local, faith-based, or other programs voluntarily. The ACA will suck billions out of people’s pockets that would be better in them by a cruel distortion of the market for health insurance.
Barry O is simply another wind-up toy for the Oligarchs. He’s perfect for the job because he’s charismatic and is very talented at sounding like he gives a d—. When he leaves the presidency, he will take up residence in the new 36-million-dollar mansion in Hawaii bought for him by Penny Pritzger, whom the named, shortly thereafter, Commerce Secretary. On every issue, he has out Bushed Bush, and his signature program was called ROMNEYCARE before it was called OBAMACARE, was cooked up at the Heritage Foundation, and will be a goldmine for the insurance companies. You name it, if it’s neocon, he’s given you a LOT more of it–more surveillance, more raids on marijuana dispensaries, more deportations of illegal aliens, more drones, more secret tribunals, more findings undermining habeas corpus and psse comitatus,more bailouts of the banks, more protection of banksters from prosecution, NCLB on steroids (aka CCSS and RttT), and now a plant to give colleges and universities the VAM treatment.
He is, in short, a neocon extremist. Squint a bit and he looks a lot like Dick Cheney.
That’s doing a real disservice to Dick Cheney. The big difference is that Obama thinks government should and can do everything. Cheney the reverse. About the economy Obama is a socialist as they come, stealing from the poor to live high on the hog. No pigs feet for him. I wonder whether his daughters will ever catch on to him. Disaster.
that would be Pritzker. typo
Congrats, justcaresalot, on the victory in that mighty struggle against addiction; those of us who have not been there cannot truly understoand, but I have some idea. Impressive. You shmust be very, very proud. Few have had to show such strength.
Common on Hu (@ 4:31), I can’t believe you are defending the Dickster whose company made millions upon millions on the Iraq and Afghanistan illegal wars of aggression, all the while the services his company (Haliburton, if I have to spell it out) provided “services” that killed American soldiers due to the shoddy, or should I say shitty work. Dick Cheney is the equivalent of Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot or Mao and will go down as one of the worst bastards this world has ever known.
Duane,
About your views on Dick Cheney: you were too kind, too easy on the guy. I call for a criminal investigation and crimes against humanity punishable by capital means. Dick Cheney is an evil, mad, paranoid scientist.
Luckily, his heart is weakening over the years . . . . .
I’d go easy on the guy lest he invite you out hunting. Just sayin’…
Congratulation, justcaresalot, for beating the odds. We can all be inspired by your sacrifices. Your advocacy truly comes from the heart.
I can not wrap my brain around this mindset. It is an embarrassment that anyone living in this country has to live in these conditions, especially an innocent child. Yes, God help us.
god ain’t helpin no one. You gotta help yourself.
And who will help those that can not help themselves?
Help does exist, but you have to know the rules. If you are living in a shelter, you’ve obviously lost the game or, even worse, didn’t realize you were playing.
I despise Bloomberg (largely for issues not discussed on this blog), but the reason he has $22 billion is due to his hard work, first as a bond trader, then as the founder of his eponymous company. This is not to say that Dasani’s situation should be taken lightly. However to airily proclaim that “[s]ome people have $22 billion, some people live in rat-infested shelters” is to imply that Bloomberg just happens to have that money on the same way that Bloomberg himself implies that Dasani’s situation is merely the work of outside sources.
Better to criticize Bloomie’s words and actions than his mere possession of great (and hard-earned) wealth.
And yet, if he wants New York to be judge in comparison with other places and what they have done for the homeless, then one cannot also make the juxtaposition between what he has and what Dasani does not have. I get what you are saying, but that juxtaposition cannot be ignored, and then leads to the question of why? What structures enabled Bloomberg to navigate as he did that Dasani does not have to navigate?
Hard work? Bond trading? Hell, try working at an Amazon warehouse.
Bloomberg got lucky.
Bloomberg, like Loyd Blankfein, understand how God works because they do God’s work. It’s not like they work in coal mines.
He founded a company that has survived and thrived. There is much to criticize; his business acumen that made him wealthy is not one of them, and I believe it is a distraction.
And you, Dienne, got unlucky because you aren’t a billionaire?
Don’t discount the power of luck or the lack of luck. My father was to inherit millions but his uncle was fickle and deeded the fortune to Statin Island in his will just before his death. Then my father died and due to circumstances beyond our control we were suddenly one of the poor. It could have gone either way. A roll of the dice and poof – gone! We didn’t live in a shelter, but I have a definite empathy for those have nots.
There’s something to be said for making your own way, but I would rather have gone to college at Cornell or Columbia rather than up the street at UB.
I know, right.
And those years slaving away at Johns Hopkins and Harvard must have been hell. Just hell, I tell you.
How does anyone earn $22 billion through hard work? If hard work was all it takes, there would be a lot more billionaires. Summing up Dasani’s situation by saying some people are lucky and others aren’t, “That’s just the way God works,” is slightly callous. I would feel a lot more sympathetic toward Bloomberg if he just admitted that no one In NY should be living in those conditions and that perhaps the current policies needed to be revamped by the new administration. Is everyone so afraid of being sued that no one can take responsibility for their own fallibility? Isn’t Dasani lucky to be living in first world squalor rather than third world squalor?
“Isn’t Dasani lucky to be living in first world squalor rather than third world squalor?”
Ha! Ghana is a “third world country”. They have universal health care and no one is trying to dismantle their public education. If airfare weren’t so expensive, I’d send Dasani there – my husband’s family would be happy to have her. She wouldn’t have to stand guard while her mother takes a shower either. Imagine that.
Bloomber’s parents weren’t drug addicts and he is likely smarter than the members of Dasani’s family. And I did not say that hard work necessarily results in billions. In Bloomie’s case it did, but, of course, there are many who work hard who never see billions. I’m one of them.
“. . . he is likely smarter than the members of Dasani’s family.”
That’s about as stupid of a thought as any that Bloomberg mouths.
Either that or my sarcasmometer is broken/needs adjusting.
2old2teach–your last question is a keeper! A truly “quotable quote!”
(And–seriously–aside from Bloomberg, the Waltons, the Kochs & the other 1%ers would gleefully answer,”Yes!”)
Hard work is being poor in America.. being a poor but responsible parent who works three low paying jobs so that the kids are fed and have shoes that fit and can go to the doctor. Being poor in America is a lot harder that anything Bloomberg has ever done. I see very poor parents at school who WORK three jobs and barely have time to play with their kids, but mark my words if another family has a house fire and there is a food and clothing drive, THEY GIVE. What has Bloomberg done lately that doesn’t wind up as money in his pocket???? He “gave” nothing but misery to those who are poor in NYC. Even his education policies have taken joy out of the learning day of kids who go home to impoverished circumstances. Shame on him.
Fair or not, when the rich are perceived as having abused their power, people get angry. If the game is rigged so the ballot box becomes an impotent outlet for the frustration of the poor, they eventually resort to tipping over trains and lighting fires. Fair or not, way it is.
Once I asked a doorman in Manhattan about the tips he gets, especially from rich people. He laughed and told me, “The rich don’t give tips, that’s how they stay wealthy.”
I am sorry. I just do not accept that. Hard work is part of the human condition. We all must work hard. It is a given. But above and beyond the hard work that all of us on the planet must do to put a roof over our heads and take care of our young and feed & clothe ourselves, there are institutions (socio-cultural, religious, political, economic). We didn’t ask for them and they exist apart from us but they do structure what individuals do and how they do it.
For Bloomberg, the civil, intellectual and property rights laws of this country made it possible for him to be in a position to reap extraordinary riches. The US military protects his interests every day. Favorable tax laws didn’t reduce his earnings by 50%. And every year, laws taxing interest income differently than earned income compound the wealth. The New York Times did a fine enough job of explaining the factors that have influenced Dasani’s life so I’ll stop there. Hard work and talent are real. But people always have to apply that hard work and talent within a specific environment. Some environments encourage cumulative advantage and other environments encourage cumulative disadvantage, no matter how hard the people within them are working.
“Now Adam you must leave this place”
(Dem bones are gonna rise again)
“And earn your livin’ by the sweat of your face”
(Dem bones are gonna rise again)
I knowed it knowed it, indeed I knowed it brother
I knowed it – whee! – dem bones are gonna rise again
So Adam took a pick and then took a plow
(Dem bones are gonna rise again)
And that’s why we’re all workin’ now!
(Dem bones are gonna rise again)
Emmy,
I realize full well that Bloomie’s had much more going for him than does Dasani. I merely pointed out that I felt it was unnecessary and off point to cavalierly note his wealth as if he simply won the lottery. I know that he benefits from having better parentage and from what this country offers him. Again, while there is much to criticize, I believe that focusing on the mere fact that he is wealthy while Dasani is faaaar from it distracts from the main point.
I guess most on this blog would rather zero in on income inequality. So be it.
I know, SC Math Teacher. Sorry you are getting pushed around a bit.
+ 22 billion. Well put.
The reason that scmathteacher is being “pushed around” is because her arguments in favor of an avaricious bastard (yep, that’s an ad hominem attack, just as we should attack those bastards) are lacking in the logical and justice realms.
SC Math Teacher.. I think we all work hard.. most of us. Whether a carpenter or a Wall Street executive.. we all work hard. But people are criticizing Bloomberg because more and more tax policy and laws in this country favor the uber wealthy such that the odds are stacked against the middle and lower classes with greater and greater impact as the years go on. There is no difference anymore between democratic or republican leanings in that both support laws favoring big business and their ability to keep amassing wealth at the rest of societies’ expense. it is just a matter of which big business models they support. So, Bloomberg may work hard and you may think the fact that he is wealthy is side-tracking the larger issues. But many people find the fact that he has such wealth and uses this to create policy to ensure that his wealth keeps increasing as the crux of the problem. Too much wealth with our current political lack of checks and balances is such a huge issue. People like Dasani have no say in anything. Middle class have no say in anything. The only people who have a say seem to be the ones who can afford to put big money into PACS supporting candidates who will reward those who reward them when they are elected. When middle and lower classes are shut out of the democratic process, huge wealth as in Bloomberg wealth IS A HUGE PROBLEM. His words about God were incredibly arrogant as well as if his policies had nothing to do with families like Dasani’s who had to live in shelters (which by the way were not sanitary or safe).
He might as well have said…Let them eat cake…for all the empathy he showed.
Good one, Cee Mor. He definitely would not have said, “Do you want fries with that order?”
SC Math Teacher, if we had sensible tax laws, no one would have $22 billion.
Muchas gracias por decir eso.
There it is, the socialist “tell.” Take away earnings by force. How rich are YOU Diane? Maybe you exceed the limit permitted by the more fundamentalist redistributionists on this list.
And Harlan,
How rich are YOU, Mr. I-didn’t-plan -my-finances-because-I didn’t-understand-money-when-I-was-younger-but-now-I-take-Social-Security . . . . ?
I am curious about what the upper limit on wealth should be. Clearly Dr. Ravitch thinks that 22 billion is too high, but what should be the limit?
I think there is a good argument that Cornelis Vanderbilt was the wealthiest citizen of the United States. That wealth created first steamship lines, later railroads. Would we be better off if there had been no railroads? Great wealth was required to finance these investments.
I would not assume that the American way is the only way nor always the best way. How many other developed countries have grown with the aid of government funding, instead of relying on the gilded class who often exploit workers and have no regard for environmental concerns? Robber barons should not be considered models of best practices in industry, business OR education.
Somehow we need to accumulate enough resources to make the limping term investments that giant infrastructures require. Certainly using the power to tax can allow governments to play this role, but the problem is that governments are likely to make decisions based on the needs of the government, not the citizens. The former Soviet Union is littered with investments that were made for political reasons, not economic ones. Many suspect China to be doing the same right now.
Providing the Soviet Union and China as examples doesn’t cut it, TE. Communist countries are far from being the only alternatives to robber barons.
They are good examples of governments having the major roll in which investments are made.
If you would like an example on a smaller scale a little closer to home, why do you think that defense contractors subcontract work out all across the country instead of using subcontractors that are in close proximity to minimize transportation and environmental costs? Rather than minimizing the costs of production, they seek to maximize political support by spreading production across as many congressional districts as possible. What if all our industries had to operate to curry favor from as many politicians as possible?
Whoever said that privatizers were the answer? They know how to game the system. Governments need to institute and enforce regulations that curtail such practices in companies that are awarded government contracts.
Nobody was making $22 billion while Glass Steagall was in place. That is not money earned from hard work. That kind of money only comes from derivatives. As Gordon Gekko said in his speech after he got out of jail, ” the mother of all evil is speculation.” It is not a legitimate method of money making. It was illegal from 1933 – 1999. It needs to be illegal again so that we can get this country back on track. It is amazing how “too big to fail” banks would shrink to normal size once they were forced to wipe the derivatives off their books instead of putting taxpayers on the hook for their casino games.
Make it your New Year’s Eve resolution: Reinstate Glass Steagall.
“Certainly using the power to tax can allow governments to play this role, but the problem is that governments are likely to make decisions based on the needs of the government, not the citizens.”
Actually, the decisions are based on the needs of citizens, albeit a chosen few. The people are the state and the state is made up of the people. Unfortunately, our representative government favors only a small percentage of the people by creating and upholding laws that allow this small percentage to prosper on the backs of the majority. The masses have not wielded their voting power to change this. I believe this is due to the fact that, again, a small percentage of the population controls the message as well as the wealth. It is up to the struggling majority to change the message among its ranks and vote for balance in our society.
The media is the message. But who’s controlling the media?
Right. A “chosen few,” i.e. members of “the party” in USSR/RUSSIA. Here it’s an unholy alliance between the bureaucrats and the most of the Republicrat party. It’s the Tea Party that is the true party of the people who are trying to restore the government to non-corruption and constitutionalism. But you seldom hear that here, not because it isn’t so, but because teachers here are public sector employees, often unionized, whose fortunes are being threatened by a)reform and b)privatization. I predict that they will coopt reform, and thus privatization is the only direction to cut costs and politicization of education. Why cut costs? Because the federal government borrow .40 of every $1.00 it spends. Why does that matter? So much local education is partially subsidized by federal money. Why is local money short? The economic depression/downturn. What will fix that? ONLY smaller federal government borrowing and rule of law to get commercial activity going again. Why does that matter? Because capitalists won’t invest unless the legal situation and fiscal situation seems stable enough for them to be able to make a profit.
Oh, s***, you say. MY government job depends on filthy profit? Yep. Honest profit.
All profit is filthy, you say. Only if you’re a real communist and like to force people to give you their money. Capitalism is the ONLY ethical way to have prosperity and support of the public sector.
No s***, you say. I was never taught that in school.
Really, I say. What does that say about the mentality of those who teach in the schools?
Eh, Rendo?
Wait a minute, Harlan. Didn’t those capitalist saviors cause the economic downturn? And with decidedly shady practices? Now we are supposed to depend on the greedy shysters to create those jobs we lost because of their malfeasance? Didn’t I hear something about obscene bonuses recently not to mention the ongoing, world shaking CEO compensation? Gee, might there be a reason that the government is borrowing
.40 of every $1? I seem to remember that we the taxpayers bailed a bunch of those guys out. How much do they have to make before they return the favor? The rule of law has been rather bent in their favor for quite awhile. Now if you talk about growing local economies and businesses, we can talk. The multinationals have gotten too big to feel they have to play by anyone’s rules but their own. The balance is out of whack.
The junk mortgages were created by the government and then sold to the Wall Street firms. Granted the Wall Street firms did sell the junk mortgages all over the world, but they wouldn’t have existed without government pressure on the banks to make loans to people who would not have qualified for lending before hand.
I recently read that only 15% of Americans are not online now. That means we really do have the ability to reach most of the voters who are affected by the politicians who permit the tyranny of 1% rule in this country through social media.
Indeed, Ellen.
Cosmic Tinker, could social media overpower corporate mainstream media? Does the average social media user actually want the job and the responsibility of reporting the truth? I don’t know. I do know there is great power in the network of which Diane is a part. However, those who follow her are in the minority in this country. It’s very difficult to get out a message to those who won’t hear it because it’s not presented by a big network or sitting on a newsstand. “Mainstream media has all those beautiful people to look at during their news programs. Well, they MUST be telling the whole story–they’re attractive!”
People are sheep.
Harlan,
It’s fascinating how you and I intersect when it comes to our opprobrium for Obama, yet in this moment, after reading your last comment (directed at me?), all I can say is that I don’t have the patience to unravel your logic and absorb even a molecule of your drivel.
Sometimes, I liken your rhetoric and word smithing to old Hollywood sets: gorgeous, intriguing, attractive, well built, intentional, artistic, seemingly convincing, but yet ultimately, as you walk behind the set, a mere semblance of something that is suppoed to be real, a gossamer of sanity, a bulkhead of illusion, a facade good enough to interact in and unsubstantial enough to actually inhabit . . . .
Others here have the patience to deal with your . . . . um . . . . whatever it is that one can find words for to descrive your mindset.
I see no reason to spend time and energy teaching a rusty pinoeer wagon to behave like a well oiled Lamborghini.
I am downright envious of those who spar with you. Please tell me how I can harvest some of their energy . . . .
Dear LG,
Please watch yourself when it comes to comparing people to sheep.
I’m afraid I almost gave Bernie1815 an aneurysm by my employment of the term “sheeple”.
I would feel terrible guilty if anything ever happened to some of our Sun Kings who write in on this blog.
“But you seldom hear that here, not because it isn’t so, but because teachers here are public sector employees, often unionized, whose fortunes are being threatened by a)reform and b)privatization.”
I’m sorry, Harlan, but did you actually post the word “fortunes” with a straight face?
Thanks for the laugh. I sure needed it after the week I had!
“I’m afraid I almost gave Bernie1815 an aneurysm by my employment of the term ‘sheeple’.”
Oh dear…is he alright? Perhaps we need a doctor on staff, Robert.
Wool you see to it? And when the bill comes, make sure we don’t get fleeced. I mean things can go terribly baad for mutton at all.
Harlan,
You have no logical consistency. You muttering about government spending and that “forces” us to pay taxes, but you insist that Bloomberg’s profits do not come at the expense of US citizens– as if someone can make 22 million out of thin air. No, it does come at our expense. Bloomberg, Gates, Jobs– they all force us to pay more too. As another commenter pointed out Bloomberg benefits from Intellectual property laws, a court system to enforce those laws, all the infrastructure provided by tax dollars, and tax laws that favor the rich.
Nobody is insisting that Bloomberg distribute all his wealth to the poor. What we are saying is that nobody should have 22 billion in the first place and our system allows this to happen. I know this may be difficult to understand and does not coincide with your childlike (and perhaps Ayn Rand influenced?) idea of how capitalism works.
He left no legacy, but wealth for himself & his friends.
“NYC is not as bad as LA” ,so that’s OK?
We should have zero homeless,
The plan is to make America like other third world countries. And we are
well on our way thanks to Citizen’s United decision, NAFTA, CAFTA, SHAFTA,
and working on TPP secretly, removing Glass Steagall Act, and privatization
by contracts and corporate takeover.
Excerpt from Pedagogy of Hope (1992) wherein Freire describes a related discussion within a culture circle of peasants learning to read the word and their world:
After a few moments of good discussion with a group of peasants, silence fell on us and enveloped us all….
“Fine,” I had told them. “I know. You don’t. But why do I know and you don’t?”
Accepting his statement, I prepared the ground for my intervention. A vivacious sparkle in them all. Suddenly curiosity was kindled. The answer was not long in coming.
“You know because you’re a doctor, sir, and we’re not.”
“Right, I’m a doctor and you’re not. But why as I a doctor and you’re not?”
“Because you’ve gone to school, you’ve read things, studied things, and we haven’t.”
“And why have I been to school?”
“Because your dad could sent you to school. Ours couldn’t.”
“And why couldn’t your parents send you to school.”
“Because they were peasants like us.”
“And what is ‘being a peasant.’?”
“It’s not having an education…not owning anything…working from sun to sun…having no rights…having no hope.”
“And why doesn’t a peasant have any of this?”
“The will of God.”
“And who is God?”
“The Father of us all.”
“And who is a father here this evening?”
Almost all raised their hands, and said they were.
I looked around the group without saying anything. Then I picked out one of them and asked him, “How many children do you have?”
“Three.”
“Would you be willing to sacrifice two of them, and make them suffer so that the other one could go to school, and have a good life in Recife? Could you love your children that way?”
“No!”
“Well, if you,” I said, “a person of flesh and bones, could not commit an injustice like that – how could God commit it? Could God really be the cause of these things?”
“No!”
“Well, if you,” I said, “a person of flesh and bones, could not commit an injustice like that – how could God commit it? Could God really be the cause of these things?”
A different kind of silence. Completely different from the first. A silence in which something began to be shared. Then:
“No. God isn’t the cause of all this. It’s the boss!”
Perhaps for the first time, those peasants were making an effort to get beyond the relationship that I called, in Pedagogy of the Oppressed [1970], that of the “adherence” of the oppressed to the oppressor, in order to “step back” from the oppressor, and localize the oppressor “outside” themselves, as Fanon would say.
From that point of departure, we could have gotten to an understanding of the role of the “boss,” in the context of a certain socioeconomic, political system gotten to an understanding of the social relations of production, gotten to an understanding of class interests, and so on and son on… (47-49)
Zip code is not destiny remember. Bloomberg may not have been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but, let’s not pretend he had all the barriers we’ve thrown up today to social mobility. Social mobility has shrunk in leaps and bounds over the past few decades.
Dasani may be very bright, intelligent, and hardworking, but people like Bloomberg have pulled up the ladders of opportunity and replaced them with slides. The only place to go is down unless you are lucky enough to be part of the club that has the hegemony of society in its teeth and can set the rules that allow their wealth to grow.
Shall we pretend all of the crooks on Wall Street that made their millions worked really hard to get there? That their evasion of responsibility for the acts that cost others billions of hard working people was just God at work? That those who have wealth earned it while those who are in poverty are the victims of fate? That those elderly who worked hard for decades, having their pension contributions squandered on corporate hand outs and are now being forced into poverty are simply victims of fate and not greed?
Why is it that corporate financiers are paragons of virtue while those who have fallen on hard times are victims of their own vice and those who are not lazy, are simply unlucky?
This reeks of a need to absolve himself of the human costs of his policies and not an acknowledgment that his policies could have trade offs or failings of any sort.
Please try to explain this to SC Math Teacher.
No need to be condescending here Dienne.
M… Well said!
When the wealthy have enough of a monopoly on power, they eventually start to remember the great importance of religion. Not for themselves, of course — for the masses who might otherwise rise up off of their knees.
M,
Agree.
Funny how some smugly cast aspersions on anyone suffering. And those that seem to resent any implication that a billionaire should at least give lip service to caring about a poor child, well…wow. Just wow.
I guess they care more for the billionaire.
Sad, really.
The god of unfettered capitalism is an insect god.
Well obviously s/he of the capitalistic realm is not the FSM GOD!
And when Bloomberg perishes one day and approaches the pearly gates, the angels will look at their spreadsheets and statistics and inform him, “I’m sorry Mr. Bloomberg. We won’t be needing you. The position for God has been filled.”
TAGO!
Love it!
Unusual to hear Bloomberg claim that God or luck affects our lives.
Ask him how he became a billionaire, and I’m certain he’d say it was because of his insight and hard work (not that I question his work ethic), rather than having the great good fortune of starting his company at the very beginning of a deregulated, thirty year boom in the stock market.
“having the great good fortune of starting his company at the very beginning of a deregulated, thirty year boom in the stock market.”
And he started his business with the $10M severance package that he got when Saloman Brothers was bought out and he was laid off. How many Americans have lost their jobs and not gotten ONE CENT in severance?
No, no, no, CT.
He was just a brilliant hard worker!
A visionary!
A cage buster!
Now if only the rest of us had some of Bloomberg’s grit!
We could all be billionaires!
😉
Also the good fortune to attend elite schools where one makes connections that lead to the type of references, investments and jobs that he has enjoyed.
Reading Bloomberg’s quotes and of is actions made me feel physically ill.
What a pathetic wretch of a human.
This would make for a terrific update on Dickens’ A Christmas Carol.
Emmy–good fodder for the opening skit on this week’s Saturday Night Live–Bloomberg visited by the ghosts.
I’ve used that line myself – “No matter how poor you think you are, there is always someone worse off that would think you live like a King.” But even if my words are true, it doesn’t take away from the fact that being poor sucks. Living in a shelter sucks! Wearing cast off clothes and eating donated food sucks!
And there is always a matter of luck in life. “There but for the grace of God, go I”. Being in the right place at the right time can do wonders, but you need to be in the game to beat the odds. You can’t network for advantages in a shelter.
Let’s give Bloomberg credit for trying a policy to help the poor and homeless. Now let’s take that credit back for not recognizing that his plan was doing more harm than good. If it’s not working, then analyze the problem and make the appropriate changes. That’s the whole issue in a nutshell – arrogant politicians who refuse to admit their mistakes. Perhaps the new mayor will reboot and redo the policies of his predecessor.
Speaking of horrendous mistakes, if only John King would say to the parents, “You have legitimate concerns. We are going to assemble a team of experts in education and tweak the CCSS so it meets the needs of the children in NYS. And yes, there is a problem with the testing issue. Let’s have a moratorium on the assessments until the CC is established.” Or, better yet, “The CCSS isn’t working. The NYS standards were so much better than these. We are going to opt out.” If he said that, we would hail him as KING instead of calling for his resignation.
Maybe he IS admitting his mistakes. After all, doesn’t Bloomberg already think he is God?
god don’t make no mistakes!
This explains how he could appoint an equally out of touch person like Cathie Black.
Stare very carefully at each person’s visage, and you will see an eerie resemblance. . . . Cathy Black is Bloomberg in Ann Tayor Loft.
George Orwell said that the lottery was instituted because it gave people the idea that they are poor because of bad luck. I think of that when I see the purchases of these tickets. It helps keep the proles from rising up.
The virtuous well rewarded few. Favored by laws both natural and divine. They know who they are.
The undeserving severely deprived many. Born bad, raised worse. The ‘whine patrol’ according to the first mentioned.
And the difference between the elites of the cage busting achievement gap crushing twenty first century US of A and their counterparts in nineteenth century England are…
Robert D. Shepherd. Dienne. Duane Swacker. 2old2tch. Emmy. Joanna Best. Michael Fiorillo. Anybody!
Help me out here. I’m starting to feel like I’ve gone down down down a very bad rabbit hole and I can’t get out…
😏
You have gone down a very twisted rabbit hole. It’s called “liberal thinking.” Only way to get away from the Mad Hatter’s tea party is to sign up for THE Tea Party.
“Only way to get away from the Mad Hatter’s tea party is to sign up for THE Tea Party”
Man, now that’s one powerful and perplexing paradox, HU!!!
And, of course allow me to personally invite you to throw some imaginary darts and imbibe in your preferred beverages, whether adult or not, with the below mentioned folks. I’d like to extend that invitation to Bernie, Joe and TE also!! (perhaps all might have reinforced in our psyches that we’re all just a bunch of eletro-chemical apparati and workings and working towards a betterment of public education is the goal of all those who read and respond here).
And of course I would be remiss if I didn’t invite the host of “a site to discuss better education for all”-The hostess with the mostess-Diane.
KrazyTA,
You’re not so crazy. Yours is an insightful and true description in many regards.
Robert Rendo: but the Mad Hatter has just invited me to drink Upstairs Downstairs India Company Tea with that Michelle Rhee look-alike who keeps screaming “off with his head, off with his head!” And I so like to keep my head on my shoulders where it’s always been…
Howza ‘bout you join me and Ang and Linda and Socrates for a drink down at Pink Slip Bar and sort this all out? Duane Swacker will be there too but he will probably spend all his time trying to convince that Paul V CEO fella [known for something like “I sneak in, put the fix in, go on to other prey”] that quality learning and teaching always trumps quantitative mismeasurement.
Quixotic Quest indeed! *But I’ve come to think he’s not far wrong that “a dose of Wilson a day, keeps cognitive dissonance away.”*
And better by far than King George’s tea, some fine casks of Poe Amontillado wine have just come in. Courtesy of Edushyster.
Or so go the latest unconfirmed rumors.
Really!
Not rheeally.
😎
Thank you for the invite, but I don’t drink save for an occasional glass of Bordeaux biologique . . .
However, we should all get together for dinner and for dessert, throw darts at our favorite refomers.
I’m torn between the 2-d and 3-d versions . . . .
“I’m torn between the 2-d and 3-d versions . . . .”
Little balloon versions could be fun… Listening to them POP!
What fun. We could put their pictures on the dart board. The loser has to teach CC.
Well, i do drink.
” a dry martini you always shake to waltz time”
See you at the bar!
Looking forward to the dart game, too!
Now you definitely have me hooked with the throwing darts, Robert! Hell, I’ll pick up your slack on the imbibing part although I will have to consult with my brother about that particular vintage as he’s the wine guy. Me, gimme a Stag and I’m happy!
Krazy, you hold up very well under fire! 🙂 You are perfectly capable there. But thanks for the nod.
I haven’t yet heard anyone here saying Bloomberg’s wealth should be taken away from him and redistributed to the Dasanis of the world. But that’s what you really think, isn’t it?
I’m not in favor of the guillotine. We’re just due for a reset. Bloomberg can keep his money. What I object to his attempting to use his money to control policy discussions. Those who have been financially successful may or may not have some wisdom to share, but it does not entitle them to monopolize the discussion. They have a perspective to share but it needs to be tempered by other viewpoints. My father was a successful investment banker. My mother made sure that his secretary was well paid and got regular raises. Different skill sets. Equally important. They were quite a pair.
2old2tch – I wonder how many of the other bloggers come from homes with amazing parents like yours. It sounds like they complemented each other perfectly. We need more couples like that in positions of authority.
I was very lucky/blessed. They weren’t perfect, but we knew we were loved.
I’m in favor of the guillotine.
The problem is Bloomberg’s solid stainless steel head would break the blade . . . . .
Doomberg is not the only one. The new villainthropy is “I’ll donate my money to these causes and here are the strings I want attached or else”.
And it’s not just causes.
It’s urban planning, gentrification, think tanks, universities.
It’s learning to think a new way as a result of being bribed in a very new way.
It’s the world of the neo-liberal mindset . . . . .
You may not be in favor of the guillotine, but this is the way of the world: the longer those who have an extremely inordinate amount of power are able to fend off the rectification of the imbalances that keep them on top, and the greater the levels of excess to which they rise, the more brutal the eventual (inevitable) rectification will be. It isn’t fair, but it IS.
Our economy is broken. It can be fixed peacefully, or with great violence. Ultimately, it isn’t the poor who get to choose which.
Bloomberg’s wealth should be, in part, redistributed and given to Dasani to empower her with education and all of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
I said it . . . . .
Sounds like you are hoping this. Dickens did not want Scrooge’s money. It was a spiritual journey and Scrooge was redeemed.
Sounds like you are hoping this. Dickens did not want Scrooge’s money. It was a spiritual journey and Scrooge was redeemed.
The irony of A Christmas Carol, is that Scrooge could not have done all the good he eventually did for Tiny Tim and others UNLESS he had been wealthy. His late in life redemption depended on his early in life “greed.” Would you agree that that is the unintended ironic message of Dickens’ little tale? Only those who have a lot can give a lot. Is that a fair reading of the story?
“Only those who have a lot can give a lot?” I think Mother Theresa and the Dalai Lama might disagree with your adage.
You’re right. If we are waiting for the wealthy to ride in on their white horses, waving their magic wands, and crying “Bippety, Boppety, Boo!”, you are in for a big disappointment. Their horses are harnessed to the enemy and galloping in the wrong direction.
It’s up to us to make a difference. We don’t have the money of a Bloomberg, but we have good ideas, and we have a voice. Thanks Diane.
You’re right, Emmy. Somehow it seems that those who have the least in terms of material resources very often are the ones who give the most. I think I have posted this before but a minister once said that when it comes to giving monetary resources, the churches who have the least to give tend to give a higher percentage of what they do have than wealthy congregations. Now when it comes to time and effort given to service, I suspect we would find the same thing.
What a twisted, neoliberal version of “helping”, TE. Force people into slave-like conditions to eek out a bare minimum miserable existence, and then turn around and bestow “charity” on them. If Tiny Tim’s father had been fairly compensated from the beginning, he wouldn’t have been in need of Scrooge’s “help” at the end. Duh.
Sorry, I meant, Harlan, not TE (although their worldviews are disgustingly similar).
In what way are my positions disgusting?
I can’t speak for Harlin, but I advocate for policies that are likely to actually help reduce poverty around the world. You might be interested in reading a couple of books by Bill Easterly, a colleague of Dr. Ravitch at NYU. The oldest is The Elusive Quest for Growth:Economists’ Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics. More recently he wrote The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good and The Tyranny of Experts: Economists, Dictators, and the Forgotten Rights of the Poor. All might be available at your local bookstore and are certainly available from Amazon.
You know what I think? If Bloomberg is going to talk about God he should be able to figure out how to redistribute his wealth to the Dasanis of the world all by himself and he shouldn’t need any prompting.
This isn’t a game and it isn’t hard. Firstly, you can’t take it with you. Secondly, “love one another” (see: Jesus) and “love is all you need” (see: John Lennon) are pretty much all anyone needs to know. Anyone who fails to get this simple message chooses to endure the suffering of others. No one is perfect but greedy arrogance is like pornography – you know it when you see it.
Right. Remember what Jesus told the rich man who wanted to get into heaven. First he had to give away everything to the poor.
And the wretched living conditions in city homeless shelters, with rodents, roaches, mold, etc., is an act of God, not the responsibility of the mayor under whose administration those shelters have been run and neglected?
Always look for the profit motive behind such ridiculous proclamations from the super-rich, such as the fear of diminished wealth as a result of lawsuits.
Of course it isn’t an “act of God” when test scores are low — then it’s time to bring out the guillotine for the teachers!
Accountability for THEE — a swimming pool full of money for ME.
TAGO!
Being repulsed by this man’s disdainful demeanor is a hopeful sign – we still have the correct response. The former Mayor’s attitude to the tragedy of another, especially a blameless child, embodies the Elie Wiesel quote “The opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference”.
Yes, the former mayor was “lucky” for years, first he got a draft deferment and avoided Vietnam. Then he made money like Murdoch, another modern day robber baron. Recently, he spent 90 million in fun money to change the election laws so he could have an extra victory lap term. The super-rich stay super-rich by design, and they’ve blithely presided over the dismantling of the American dream for the rest of us.
The lawsuit idea, smart.
The biggest problem in the world is overpopulation. People with money like Bloomberg and Gates have an opportunity to solve that problem. What are they doing?
Exponential population growth deserves about a year of coverage in a common math standard. You can save Dasani, but if their are two times more of her in 20 years, and four times more of her in 40 years, etc, it is a losing battle.
The good news is that we are now appear to be at maximum children in the world. The total population will increase due to increased longevity, but it is difficult to argue against that. Soon population will stabilize.
Pray tell, TE, what economic formula is able to predict that the rate of child poverty that has been rising will soon stabilize –and due to what cause?
I was commenting on TC’s observation that the biggest problem in the world is overpopulation, not childhood poverty. World population will be stabilizing soon, at lower levels than predicted a couple of decades ago. The poster is very out of date in his/her worry about exponential population growth.
“World population will be stabilizing soon,”
Details?
Here are some projections by the UN (http://esa.un.org/wpp/Documentation/pdf/WPP2012_Press_Release.pdf) keep in mind that we have historically underestimated the decline in population growth, especially as women get more rights in a society.
That’s insignificant. The concern stated by TC was that “You can save Dasani, but if their are two times more of her in 20 years, and four times more of her in 40 years, etc, it is a losing battle.”
We already have nearly 25% child poverty in this country. Instead of defending your position on exponential population growth, you should have admitted that one cannot predict whether or not there will be many more children in poverty in 20 or 40 years.
Cosmic,
I thought that when the poster said that “the biggest problem in the world is overpopulation” the poster meant that overpopulation was the biggest problem in the world. I did not have your insight that the poster actually meant that overpopulation was insignificant. Perhaps we simply have different notions of what “the biggest” means.
The issue is how we would be able to deal with many more children in poverty, in 20 or 40 years, not how they arrive on the planet.
Cosmic,
It seems that your dispute is with poster TC, not with me. I was suggesting that TC’s concerns were exaggerated. You are suggesting that TC’s concerns are irrelevant.
I have no issues with TC. I have a problem with someone who looks only at population and not at the fundamental concerns raised about increasing child poverty.
Cosmic,
The position you have a problem with is poster CTs position. You and I seem te agree that population growth is not the biggest problem as CT argues.
TE,
How did you get the notion that world population would be stabling soon form that article?
From the article:
“Fertility higher than expected”
“Compared to the UN’s previous assessment of world population trends, the new projected total population is higher, particularly after 2075. Part of the reason is that current fertility levels have been adjusted upward in a number of countries as new information has become available.”
“Africa growing rapidly
More than half of global population growth between now and 2050 is expected to occur in Africa.”
Yes the report does discuss low growth countries.
But I find no support for the “world population stabilizing soon.”
When you start talking about population growth as being THE big problem, you really start down the rabbit hole of disinformation and propaganda. It is the big lie. And it is the lie that allows people like Bloomberg and Gates and Gore to believe that they offer the only solution: Totalitarianism (with a green facade of environmentalism) People are not the problem. The view that people are no better than animals is the problem. If you really believe that every person is created in the image of God and is here on this earth to reflect God’s love and participate in his creativity, then it is impossible to destroy even one life.
There would be a shift in priorities to support life and eradicate impediments to each person’s creative pursuits. There would be a goal of making sure that every child had the opportunity to develop their potential…..who knows who could be another Einstein or Bach or Beethoven? Who dares to inhibit such a mind? If Bloomberg really believed in God, and manifested God, we would know by his love. God is love. i do not want to stand in judgement of Bloomberg, but I am not feeling the love. Money is just a tool. He would let it flow if he were really doing God’s work.
It is not about forcing redistribution. It is about a shift in mindset. Man created in the image of God. Not man acting as crude and rude and vile and violent…..as most characters in movies lately and music videos. We went through a tremendous culture shock in the 60’s by design….it was sent here to destroy the United States from within. It has taken 45 years but then it was a 40 year plan. It has worked. We can turn it around, but not without a new completely politically incorrect embrace of God. The whole idea that there is no such thing as truth and everyone has their own truth that we need to treat as equally valid is baloney. The Common Core is all about truth by consensus. Values training. Culling the herd. Population reduction. It needs to be fought on that basis.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/japan-leads-the-world-in-population-collapse/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2012/05/30/whats-really-behind-europes-decline-its-the-birth-rates-stupid/
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/01/world_population_may_actually_start_declining_not_exploding.html
Dawn,
“If you really believe that every person is created in the image of God and is here on this earth to reflect God’s love and participate in his creativity, then it is impossible to destroy even one life.”
Well I don’t agree with your basic premise but that doesn’t mean that I don’t believe it is moral, ethical “to destroy even one life.” One doesn’t have to believe in a god to be moral, ethical and just.
Right. And that should tell us something about the rightness of these ideas. You can access them from multiple vantage points.
“People are not the problem. The view that people are no better than animals is the problem.”
Man, love that.
No, people are no better than animals. In what fashion can humans claim a moral superiority to these supposedly “lower” animals????
Because god said so in the oh so human bible???
Give me a fu. . . .in break. I get very tired of these religious explanations as to why humans are “superior” to those oh so base “animals”. Shows a total lack of knowledge of how the “natural” world works and the hubristic nature of man-who likes to think s/he knows what this supposed god thinks and wants. Pure bovine excrement.
Duane, Do you honestly think that you have nothing more to offer the world than to eat, excrete and procreate? I am not insulting animals which are lovely, intelligent, loyal and compassionate. I am simply saying that what distinguishes humans from animals is creativity. We create things. We pass ideas on from generation to generation. One scientist stands on the shoulders of the next. We do not have to constantly reinvent the wheel. God is the creator of all things. Mankind is created in the image of God. Man has the capacity to participate in creation. Animals do not. That is not hubris. It is common sense. I cannot help it if you do not accept that God is the creator of all things. But I will not allow you to insist that you and I are the equivalent of cows and sheep.
The reason that this is an important point is that the globalists want people to believe they are no better than animals. They want to be able to “depopulate” the earth with impunity. They want people to be willing to put up with this United Nations “Wildlands” crap where man will be relegated to living on 25% of the land mass of the U.S. and over 50% will be cordoned off for the animals, not human access. Agenda 21 is very real and very relevant. Just go to your local town council meeting and check out your county planning guide and you will see it for yourself…..projected targets for lowering CO2 levels, vehicle miles traveled limits, open space purchases, etc. The globalists are using people like you, to call for your own demise, by insisting that you are not any better than an animal. Don’t let them hoodwink you.
“…what distinguishes humans from animals is creativity. We create things. We pass ideas on from generation to generation.”
There are animals besides humans who do the same.
What really separates men from the rest of the animals (other than matters of degree) is the capacity for syntax, and the capacity to develop a “theory of mind” (in other words, to understand that others have their own experiences and points of view, and may be useful sources of information gathered as a result of those things).
Syntax is important in the development of complex language systems, and a theory of mind is important in the development of complex societal mechanisms for moving knowledge and ideas from one generation to the next.
That being said, we humans have a great fondness for setting ourselves above the rest of the animals, as well as a curious tendency to sometimes set other animals above ourselves. “Man is the only animal who…” is a popular statement, ending in such horrid things as “wages war”, “kills for pleasure”, “commits rape”, etc. The truth is that other animals do all of these things and more. Ants and apes wage war. Cats, otters, and many other animals will kill for the sheer joy of killing. Ducks commit gang rape with disturbing regularity. And so on.
In other words, other animals are not as mindless as humans seem to think they are. Neither are they as angelic.
Animals do not create things. A beaver can construct a dam and a bird can build a nest but these are not creative acts.
The only reason I continue to argue my point is because it is critical to fighting the globalists who have every intention of eliminating most of us. I want people to be aware of the eugenicist goals of the British monarchy and their rich friends like Bill Gates so that they will not unwittingly assist their own demise.
People are created in God’s image. We are not animals. We will not be crushed like bugs by the likes of Bill Gates.
Define “creative acts”. For what reason do you discount the creativity of beavers, of bowerbirds, of octopi, elephants, corvids, and apes?
A creative act would be one which brings something new and meaningful into existence. A beaver dam and a bower bird nest, although meaningful are not new therefore they are not creative acts. (They are productive acts however.) A twenty foot tall pile of dead rats would be new (at least I do not know of one) but it is not meaningful therefore it is not a creative act.
People can access imagination to bring new ideas into their minds and then they can produce them in physical form. There are, of course, creative acts which are not concrete as well.
Anyway, animals do not bring new and meaningful things into existence. That is unique to mankind and should be encouraged and celebrated by education and culture. We are crushing creativity with NCLB and CC with scripted lessons and standardized teaching to the test. We are celebrating satanic rituals and the desecration of the human mind and body with our culture of music videos, violent movies and banal TV shows. We view art as an entertainment, not something for everyone to participate in. We need to turn this around if we expect to survive.
Einstein studied violin from age 6.
Wasn’t it Jane Goodall who watched an ape use a stick to extract ants from an anthill for the first time and then pass it on to other apes? Krazy TA can probably tell me the quote from which my paraphrase comes: “The more I learn, the less I know I know.” That’s the way I am feeling about this discussion.
Did that ape create something new and meaningful? Have all apes continued to build on this new and meaningful creation?
The definition stands. Animals, although lovely, interesting, inventive, hard wired to survive, and very worthy of preserving are not capable of creativity.
Why are people on this blog so determined to be no better than an animal? I love my dog. I love my children more. I would sacrifice my dog for my children (if I absolutely had to with much sadness and horror) but I would not sacrifice my children for my dog. They are all beloved but they are different. They are not equal in my mind or in actuality.
Bill Gates wants you to believe that you are no better than an animal. He wants you to believe that people should be culled just like an exploding population of deer in a particular community. If you do not hold fast to your distinction of not being an animal, you will find yourself in a human culling operation much larger than Hitler ever imagined. Bill Gates is a eugenicist. They are making plans to eliminate large numbers of people. They write white papers on this stuff. He meets with the rest of them regularly: Ted Turner, Warren Buffet, George Soros, David Rockefeller, Michael Bloomberg. and those are just the Americans. The British have so many more. The Common Core and its data collection component is for the purpose of sorting, ranking and eventually eliminating people. You have to fight this. Do not go gentle into that good night.
Check out Page 405 of David Rockefeller’s Memoir.
Dawn, define “new” and “meaningful”.
I’m not saying that mole rats produce works of great art or anything, but I do think that an adamant refusal to see ANY evidence of creativity outside of our own species indicates something curious going on in the mind of the adamant “refuser”.
For many, it is a need to see humans as a “special creation” of God. For you it seems to be a fear of eugenicists. The problem is that what most call creativity does not appear to have sprung into existence whole cloth, but rather developed gradually over time in many species and became very refined and pronounced in our own. A matter of degree.
When you begin discounting every given example as “not creativity, because…” you eventually open yourself up to the criticism that your own standards do not allow for HUMANS to be creative.
Read about corvids and how they problem solve and play. It is fascinating. That is only one group of animals other than ourselves that seem capable of some degree of creativity.
God created human beings in his image. God is the creator. We are able to create because God imbued us with that power. He did not imbue animals with the same power. I know to state this on a public blog opens me up to ridicule and is totally politically incorrect. So be it.
Just for the record, I am not afraid of eugenicists. I just like to call them out. They are hiding in plain sight but people are not really hearing what they intend for us. They want you dead. Believe it. Fight it. Don’t waste your time on me. Go after Bill Gates.
Dawn,
Your take on life is very different than mine!
“Man has the capacity to participate in creation. Animals do not.”
Totally disagree with that concept, ask the bowerbird about creativity. Oh, you wouldn’t be able to understand it as it told you why it did what it did. But then again humans are “above” lowly animals. Have you ever “communed” with a wild animal?
“That is not hubris. It is common sense.”
If your above statement about animals not being able to partake in creation doesn’t prove the absurdity of your claim then this sentence really does say it all about your world view, with which I totally disagree. Common sense dictate that it is man who is the hubristic one.
“I cannot help it if you do not accept that God is the creator of all things.”
You are correct, I don’t accept the very man made concept which is this thing man called god. Wasn’t even out of Catholic grade school by the time I rejected the god thinking and talk.
“But I will not allow you to insist that you and I are the equivalent of cows and sheep.”
HAH! You may not allow me to insist that, even though I don’t remember ever equating cows and sheep with humans. And if I did I would insist that humans rank lower (don’t you love rankings, another stupid human invention) than cows or sheep-cows and sheep don’t systematically destroy members of their own species for personal gain, they come together to protect the herd/flock from predators and peacefully live their lives until a human determines that it shouldn’t live any more (and I have no problem with human’s doing so).
Now this whole Agenda 21 thing, I haven’t paid that much attention to it, but I do know that three modern engineered sky scrapers have never fallen on the same day into their footprints with such minimal damage to the structure and that the government report on it has been completely debunked by leading architects, engineers and scientists (for more info see: http://www.ae911truth.org/ )
By the way, one of the first girls I went out with was named Dawn, probably the most beautiful one of all. But it was fated to be a “summer (71) love”. So is life!!
Humans are most certainly animals, as we are multicellular and thus the other two options would be plants or fungi.
“Anyway, animals do not bring new and meaningful things into existence. That is unique to mankind and should be encouraged and celebrated by education and culture.”
I realize that genetic adaptation is nature’s way of preserving genetic material, but is it truly fair to say that animals are not creative in their problem-solving skills? My youngest cat is the most creative animal I have ever met. He’s driven to get what he’s after, he learns from his mistakes, and he adapts his behaviors until he finds something that works. If he had opposable thumbs and the wherewithal to organize the other cats into performing tasks, he’d be a force to reckon with.
Defining creativity is very difficult, but calling all creativity the machine by which only new physical or abstract “products” come into existence (i.e. innovation) is to narrow and over-simplify the definition.
Although your cat is probably a beloved part of your family and amusing and inventive in its endeavors, it has not created anything new or meaningful. When it does, let me know and I will have to rethink my point of view: only human animals possess the capacity to create.
“A beaver dam and a bower bird nest, although meaningful are not new therefore they are not creative acts.”
Now you must define “new”. As you state it, humans are not being creative when they build skyscrapers or statues, because those things have already been built before. Before you answer understand that bower bird nests vary greatly from one another depending on the local “culture”, and are unique in a sense similar to the way that every skyscraper is also unique.
Creativity can also be exhibited by behaviors that do not result in any physical product. For example, corvids of different communities have different local “calls” to denote different things. A crow from Japan brought to North America will have difficulty understanding the calls of the locals — I am not certain, but I believe I have read that they eventually adapt to the local “language”. If this is true, there is certainly something other than instinct at work.
Behaviors such as corvid stick games, “anting”, and sledding seem indicative of creativity to me. So do behaviors such as that of the famous Imo (the sweet potato washing monkey).
As I have said, what separates us from the rest of the animals is mostly a matter of degree, although we do appear to be the only animals who use syntax and have a solid “theory of mind”.
What a fascinating conversation.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what creation theory you believe or whether God is a real or symbolic being or if humans are superior to other animals or equal or neither.
What matters is that at the moment we are in charge and there are some human beings out there who have lost their way and are forcing us to go with them. Out instincts tell us we are doing harm. Now what? Time for that creativity!
Ellen T Klock: I like the way you put it.
However, for the moment I lean towards Mark Twain:
“It is just like man’s vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.”
😎
RE: this discussion of who “deserves” to be wealthy, who has worked hard, etc.
Did you know that bankers are about to give themselves a 91.44 billion dollar bonus?
There’s a petition that’s been floating around to kabosh this.
Well–I contend that these people–like Bloomberg–work HARD, and most certainly “deserve” all this money. (As opposed to Dasani and family, who do not work HARD enough.) Note: sarcasm may be the Devil’s weapon, but I’m more than 99% certain that Bloomberg, et.al., are wealthy & others poor because “that’s just the way G-d works.” My sarcasm meter is WAY up & my blood is boiling.
As Steven Nelson’s earlier post indicated, “Education isn’t broken, our country is.”
Amen to that, and sign the petition when you see it.
Do something that will really bankrupt the bastards……work for the reinstatement of the Glass Steagall Act. HR 129 in the House with 78 cosponsors so far
S.1282 in the Senate (Elizabeth Warren’s bill) with 12 cosponsors so far
We are at the point where it is becoming obvious this is the only fix. The bankers are squirming.
You are quite correct in that Dawn.
My oldest daughter is a project manager at a bank. She makes a decent wage but she also carries a lot of weight on her shoulders. It is her job to make sure the projects are well planned and done in a timely, accurate manner. (Think of the disaster of the Obama Care roll out – some Project Manager was not doing his job). She is a tireless worker who is much sought after in her field as well as being fought over by different departments in the bank.
When the bonuses are paid, she’ll have earned every penny. She won’t be getting millions, but a couple thousand would be nice. Not all bank personnel are over compensated.
Oh, and by the way, she doesn’t work her ass off because of a bonus – she’s a product of the family’s Puritan Ethic. Teachers aren’t the only ones who take their careers seriously.
And I’m wondering – what percentage of the US population works harder for a bonus than they would for a pat on the back for a job well done?
There is a very big difference between “bank personnel” and “bankers”. When people talk about “bankers” they’re talking about Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein, etc. Not mid level project managers.
Thanks for the distinction. I would hate for the people who actually do all the hard work to be painted with the same brush as those who reap all the rewards.
And the most egregious thing about your daughter’s situation is that her marginal tax rate is probably higher than those bankers! All her income in earned she can’t mess with the tax codes to her benefit one iota. If its earned income on your W-2 there are very few ways to reduce your tax liability.
Even with her mortgage deduction, two kids and a husband, they owe the IRS money each year. You earn with the one hand and you give the money back with the other. Maybe that bonus will cover some of the expenses.
OK, folks. Here’s your Christmas story for this evening. You won’t hear it much from the right-wing fundamentalist nutcases in Congress. But here it is, from their book.
18 Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
19 So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. 20 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’
21 And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.”
22 So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
23 But when he heard this, he became very sorrowful, for he was very rich.
24 And when Jesus saw that he became very sorrowful, He said, “How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!
25 For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
By “their book,” I meant, of course, that it’s the book that they claim to live by and to be inerrant
Spot on, Robert. One of my favorite bible passages. I always wondered what I would do in that ruler’s situation.
I like to imagine winning the lottery and how I would spend the money. At one point the Buffalo Sabers were for sale and the jackpot was quite large. I was convinced I was going to win and do my civic duty by becoming the new Sabers owner. Obviously, I was disappointed (I still am – they were going for a good price at that time). But usually, I imagined how I would distribute the funds and who I would help,once my family and friends were settled. Would I give everything away? No I’m too selfish – I’m not greedy, but I want to be comfortable.
However, If I had billions of dollars I would be ashamed. I’m embarrassed I have a decent pension. It seems wrong not to worry about money because it magically turns up in your checking account once a month. A few million dollars would be nice, more than that is a waste. How much money does one really need? Jesus said none – it won’t fit through that needle’s eye, with or without the camel.
Hockey nut are you, eh!
Let’s go Blues!!! (almost, well no not almost as bad as being a Cubs fan as they have 50 more years of suffering)
Duane, it’s hard to be a Saber’s fan this year, their wins are in the single digits. I guess I’ll have to root for the Rangers. The Bills are out of the running too, but I have no second choice in football. (Last home game on Sunday.)
Have a heart, folks.
Pity the poor misunderstood elites of all ages. Wealth and power and celebrity almost beyond measure, yet only a few on this blog will give them their proper due.
The rest of us? I guess we were and are just too taken up with, well, Bertolt Brecht had a go at this thorny question—
“Who built Thebes of the seven gates?
In the books you will find the name of kings.
Did the kings haul up the lumps of rock?
And Babylon, many times demolished.
Who raised it up so many times? In what houses
Of gold-glittering Lima did the builders live?
Where, the evening that the Wall of China was finished
Did the masons go? Great Rome
Is full of triumphal arches. Who erected them? Over whom
Did the Caesars triumph? Had Byzantium, much praised in song,
Only palaces for its inhabitants? Even in fabled Atlantis
The night the ocean engulfed it
The drowning still bawled for their slaves.”
Hey, even if he came long after those old dead Greek guys, maybe the German was on to something.
“Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers.” [Voltaire]
😎
Maybe Sophie Tucker would come in handy here:
“I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor. Rich is better.”
“Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers.” [Voltaire]
Haven’t seen that quote in a while. It makes me wonder what schools would look like if we ran them according to this principle rather than the opposite. Its a magical moment when, in a college class, someone asks a question for which even the professor has no answer and everyone sits in collective silence. It doesn’t happen often but, man, when it does…
So, true, Emmy. Small children who have not been indoctrinated into the education system’s methodology of pat answers, always come up with the best questions. My son, when he was six, contemplated the cosmos while failing to learn his ABCs. He asked his Sunday School teacher exactly when did God kick the devil out of heaven, before or after he created the earth? She took it to her professor of the church theology class she was taking and he said it was the best question anyone had ever asked. He actually researched the bible and came up with various scripture passages. (And if you are interested, the answer is “before”.)
“out of the mouths of babes”
I was a teacher of young children for a very long time and I have heard many really wonderful questions from kids, but I think the best one came from my little brother. When I was 18 and attending college, my then 4 year old brother asked me, “If God made the world, who made God?”
I had struggled with that a lot myself and I decided to tell him something that I had deduced from my studies: “Something either always was or came from nothing.”
That second option can be alarming and it’s rather recent discoveries in quantum mechanics that have demonstrated how it could really be possible, but the answer nevertheless satisfied my brother (as well as me.) He was subsequently identified as gifted.
Wonderful anecdote. I hope your brother has led a successful life.
‘Maybe Sophie Tucker would come in handy here:
“I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor. Rich is better.”’
Ain’t it the truth!
I have a middle-aged relative who is homeless with mental illness. She refuses help. By that I mean medically and from others. Close relatives stop by to see her and try to give her food, money, and clothing, but she doesn’t accept their gifts very well. It’s very difficult to see a loved one in such living conditions. Her mom died with the guilt it left her. In her last days, she would always worry when it rained that her daughter might be wet and cold. It breaks your heart and makes you feel guilty for things you take for granted (food, shelter, clothing, and a healthy mind). Poor is poor; homeless is homeless; mental illness is an issue no matter where you live.
No one has a right to pass judgment on others by assuming things they don’t know. There’s plenty more to this story and many more like mine. There’s one thing I know for sure is that God didn’t plan for this.
It amazes me of the lens through which public figures see the world–very coldly.
Jon – thank you for sharing your story. By pooling our experiences we are each developing a better understanding of the world. Too bad the public figures aren’t cued in to Diane’s blog, except to criticize. They might learn something.
And the homeless-mental illness issue is the direct result of closing all the staffed homes/half way houses created to assist those in need. The government officials figured they weren’t “their brother’s keeper” and so these needy souls ended out on the streets. Now, in addition to the newly destitute, we have an epidemic of homeless people. Sigh! My heart goes out to you as you do your best to help her survive.
That all started with Reagan. In his administration, they closed mental health facilities across the country and, in my area, those folks ended up on the streets in a neighborhood not far from me. It’s thirty years later and many are still there –at least those who’ve survived. They didn’t all make it.
A friend of mine’s oldest daughter, who had been her most accomplished child, was struck by mental illness in her late 20s and, after they closed her mental health facility and she was dumped on the streets, she would not accept help from her family. She wanted to stay out there. (You really must be crazy if you want to be homeless in a city with such brutally cold winters.) She died on the streets from exposure and never made it to age 40. So sad.
JustCaresAlot – yours is a sad tale and not the first one repeated on this blog. I think many of us, too many, have a similar story to tell. There are so many injustices out there that could be cleared up if our tax dollars went to helping the right people, instead of lining the pockets of already wealthy billionaires. I don’t mind paying my fair share of taxes, I just wish I had a better say in how they are spent.
One of my sayings is: Those who have, get more.
I think it is more complicated than the government deciding it was not “their brother’s keeper”. What to do when an individual is making decisions that you and I and perhaps almost everyone thinks are not in the individuals best interests is difficult to determine.
Well, there is that TE but as justcaresalot and Ellen mentioned, closing the state mental health facilities had a huge impact. This was a policy decision that governors loved because it saved them a lot of money. The belief was that the new psychotropic drugs could allow mentally ill people to live in the community. For some people this worked. For many others, the loss of the structured environment had a huge impact and they, for one reason or another, stopped taking the medications. It is a long and complex story. A while back I looked for some good books on the subject and I don’t think the definitive one has been written yet. But it is a policy story mostly, not one of random personal challenges and failings.
Indeed it is a policy story, and getting the concept of “least restrictive environment” right is difficult, and I think we have probably gotten in wrong, but I am not sure what getting it right would look like. Is it forcing people into buildings and keeping them there using physical bars or chemical constraints? Should we force individuals to take their medications? My foster son’s adoptive mother suffered from mental illness and stopped taking her medications. She had to be removed from the classroom by the police, lost her position and with it her (and his) right to be in the country. That is how my foster son came to live with us. Should she be required to take her medication? How would we enforce this requirement?
My daughter was a psych major in college and she was given lots of readings on this and other topics. Research is being done in the field and the medication issue is of concern. People with mental health issues who stop talking their medication have increased difficulty functioning in a society which feels uncomfortable with their quirks. Yet, the medication often makes them feel less of a person. Right now, our solution is to kick them aside and ignore the problem from afar. Out of sight is out of mind.
Such a sad dilemma!
Yes, Ellen, you are right. And the Haves tell the Have Nots, “You get what you get.”
Now, their prescription is for teachers to prepare the Have Nots to develop grit, so peons will learn to accept tyranny and just grin and bear it.
The elites and their political enablers are sorely misguided and have not learned much from history if they think they will be getting away with this dominance over the masses for very much longer. When you have the Occupy folks uniting with the Tea Party, that is a recipe for serious rebellion –and that’s what is beginning to occur now.
We will bring them down. But progressive thinkers must be prepared with humane leaders in the wings or crooked politicians will just be replaced by lunatic fringe FoxNews devotees. We must groom our children and our grandchildren to appreciate the struggles of under-represented groups today, which consist of all ages, genders and colors who have been disadvantaged and marginalized, so that the next generation can take the helm and support social justice, foster economic equity, and promote equal opportunity for all, since some of these concepts are far too big-hearted for so many in the Tea Party.
Try to catch Bill Moyers this weekend with Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness”
http://billmoyers.com/segment/michelle-alexander-locked-out-of-the-american-dream/
“During the past 30 years, the number of inmates in federal custody has grown by 800 percent, and half of them are serving sentences for drug offenses.”
I had thought that the closure of the mental institutions had had something to do with the brutality of the places. They were closed down, but never replaced with anything else. At least that’s the narrative I’ve heard — that their closure was a GOOD thing for the people who had been imprisoned there.
Here’s an excerpt from “American Psychosis: How the Federal Government Destroyed the Mental Illness Treatment System” at Salon:
“Ronald Reagan’s shameful legacy: Violence, the homeless, mental illness”
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/
There’s always at least two sides to a story and then there’s the truth. Our obsession with Reagan is shrouded in revisionist history. I never liked the man, several of his policies were hurtful to my family, and sometimes, horrors, I feel that Nixon was the better, least harmful of the two. Nixon may have been mad, but he was brilliant. Perhaps a mental health program could have saved him from himself.
I think there were some high profile news stories. Maybe 20/20 or 60 minutes? I don’t know. I wasn’t old enough to watch that kind of stuff then. But I remember reading something discussing such media coverage. Certainly there was truth to the claims of abuse – the question was how systemic was it? I am not sure that question was ever resolved before the hospitals were closed. So instead of improving regulations and staffing and introducing things like art therapy…basically investing more in the hospitals… state legislatures were sold on the idea that the new drugs could allow these people to be mainstreamed and the hospitals could be closed. This saved states a lot of money and also shifted costs to the feds.
I need to do a lit review on this topic for another reason so if I get a chance I’ll try to post a few citations later. It is a bit of an untold story, I think.
Emmy, I’d suggest reading this book:
http://www.amazon.com/American-Psychosis-Government-Destroyed-Treatment/dp/0199988714
Thanks for the recommendation, Emmy. It’s cheaper, of course, to have the mentally ill sleeping over sewer vents on the street during the winter to keep themselves warm.
I have become alert to how the 1% taunts us with their elitism, ever since the 99% were involved in the Occupy protests in 2011 and, at the Board of Trade in Chicago, they proudly put up signs in their windows saying, “WE ARE THE 1%” http://www.businessinsider.com/photo-heres-what-chicago-bankers-have-to-say-to-occupy-chicago-2011-10
I think that’s what Bloomberg was touting, too, although it was thinly veiled beneath his scapegoating of God. Bloomberg et al. think we are not as smart as they are, because so many of them attended Ivy League colleges, but it doesn’t take a degree from an elite college to figure out that social injustice and economic inequality are entirely man-made and that, more than anyone else, it’s politicians like him who are culpable for permitting that to occur.
Since term limits don’t apply to so many other politicians who pray to the almighty dollar, serve only themselves and corporations and ignore the majority of constituents, we have really got to make a concerted effort to band together and vote them out of office. We must also cultivate alternative leaders.
Great comment, Chi Town.
I don’t live in NY, but from everything I’ve heard of Bloomberg, he is a self-righteous little turd.
The fact that there are homeless, poor, hungry people in the world is a direct result of NOT following the Golden Rule–doing unto others as you wish to be done to you.
And Jesus had said that one cannot have two Masters. You choose between money or God. I think I know which choice Bloomberg made.
Bloomberg’s far from the only one who has trouble with that two master taboo. I’m not about to hit the road for Jesus barefoot and penniless, no disrespect intended.
I thought only priests and nuns were expected to take a vow of poverty (though that doesn’t seem to apply to bishops and above), and that it was okay for the rest of us to reap the fruits of our labor and live comfortably, as long as we remain humble, aren’t greedy and we share with those who are less fortunate. I think the life of the ascetic and the life of the working class are both a far cry from serving two masters.
Here’s my layman’s take on Christian belief’s about salvation. It’s not about taking a vow of poverty really. It’s about not letting your desire for “earthly rewards” get in the way of your relationship with God. That’s why Christians believe that you don’t get into Heaven on your own merits but by the grace of God. It’s a gift. Now Bloomberg is Jewish: someone else will have to take that discussion. (When is the next Jubilee?) I don’t seem to remember Heaven being a big Jewish concern. I think there is more concern about right living. It used to bother my Protestant psyche that my Catholic friends could go to confession every week and be absolved of all the nasty things they did during the week. I still have a hard time letting my transgressions go although I am no longer jealous of what I saw as the easy out my Catholic friends had. Enough of this totally inappropriate interlude.
more then 900,000 people have moved off welfare and into work in Bloombergs administration. NYC spends almost 1 Billion annually on homeless services, this is double the amount spent when Bloomberg took office. People, you need to educate yourselves better, making decisions on emotion and not fact is what the journalist who wrote this piece is aiming for…
Dasani’s family is irrefutably dysfunctional. I hope whoever has been doling out over $38,000 a year maintained some oversight. Clearly that shelter is not an example of the city’s successful fight against homelessness. It amazes me that the family is still “intact.” I would not like to be their social worker/case manager. There are certainly no easy answers (or happily ever afters?).
MS, an educated consumer of information recognizes that the NY Post is a tabloid that is published by the ultra conservative Rupert Murdoch. People would become no more educated from reading that than if they read the National Enquirer. It’s all spin for the purpose of providing crony Bloomberg with damage control. I would not believe one word from any such source, including “and” & “the”.
2old2teach, I am Jewish and, yes, what matters most is how we live our lives in the here and now.
Wow, I must have struck a chord. I personally am poor and homeless as I write this. I am nothing like what Bloomberg, et al, would like to characterize the poor as– I’m college educated, once lived an upper middle class lifestyle. Being poor has taught me so much–that I could have and should have done so much more when I was wealthy. If I had money again, I would choose driving a Ford over a Mercedes, and give that difference to the poor.
To me, that is choosing God over money.
Your mileage may vary.
Other Spaces–it’s the New York Times that published the piece:
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/invisible-child/#/?chapt=1
Dolphin, Look below. A lot of us have been having trouble getting our responses to go under the correct thread here. MS has been promoting a piece from the NY Post that supports Bloomberg. I don’t want to include the link here, because I don’t refer people to tabloids, but you can find it lower down on the page.
Thanks, Other Spaces, I saw that after I posted.
Seems too obvious to observe for the Bloombergs, et al, but Dasani does not live in a Third World country. The heart of the matter is what do we think is acceptable here and now in this country. Better than elsewhere makes it okay here? Might we not aim higher? Of course, I can hear the battle cry of “Life’s not fair.” Indeed. Must we institutionalize unfairness? And, for the love of God, these are our children.
Socrates:
Wherefore, O men of Athens,
I say to you:
Therefore, acquit me or not
But whichever you do
I shall never alter my ways
Never adjust my approach to this maze
Never reform til the end of my days
Even if I have to die many times.
Thomas Aquinas:
God is apprehended by imagination, intuition, reason,
touch, opinion, sense, and name – and so on.
While on quite the other hand, we find we can’t begin to
Understand him, so to some it seems a shame
To go on
But he is all things in all
And he is nothing in any
He is often found in one thing small
Conversely, he is often missed in many.
Martin Luther:
God almighty has made our rulers mad
God almighty has turned our people bad
For the German nobility, with typical agility,
Have so applied their skill at egregious laws
That the people are lead astray; they feel beholden to obey
I may be just the German way, but God, it gives one pause.
DaVinci: Gibbon:
The rise of man…
Was natural…
Man is so levitable!
Instead of admiring
Man’s filling of the void.
We should rather be surprised
That God had man so tyrannized
… Man will be strong
So long The decline of Rome…
Was natural…
And inevitable…
Instead of inquiring
Why Rome was destroyed…
We should rather be surprised
That Rome remained so strong
So long
Frederic Nietzsche:
What…
Is noble
Nowadays?
Jean Paul Sartre:
Atheistic existentialism
which I represent is
More coherent – I do believe it…
Buckminster Fuller:
Man is a complex of patterns, of processes…
Jean Paul Sartre:
There is no such thing as human nature,
not in all or few men,
Since there is no God to conceive it…
Buckminster Fuller:
Man is a complex of patterns, of processes…
I live on Earth at present, and I don’t know what I am.
I know that I am not a category
I am not a thing – a noun
I seem to be a verb, an evolutionary process-
An integral function of the universe.
All:
So high
In my
Lovely Ivory Tower of Babel
(babble, babble, babble, Babble, babble, babble, babble)
high above the
Rabble
(rabble, rabble, rabble, Babble, Rabble, babble, babble, rabble, babble)
Greatest mind of history
Solving life’s sweet mystery
So listen to me (so listen to me)
Know how life should be (know how life should be)
Oh, what does it matter if they don’t agree?
[All then sing their parts at the same time, ending with a chorus of:]
Ahhh-ahhh
Ahhh-ahhh
Ahhh-ahhh
Ahhh-ahhh
That’s quite a character line-up in your Greek play, there, Joanna!
Quite amusing!
Ahhh, one of my favorite musicals. Thanks for that, Joanna.
Shall crime bring crime forever,
Strength aiding still the strong?
Is it thy will, o Father,
That men shall toil for wrong?
“No”, say thy mountains;
“No”, say thy skies;
Man’s clouded sun shall brightly rise,
And songs be heard instead of sighs.
God save the people.
What is so wrong with what Bloomberg is saying? If God wants certain people to live in destitute poverty, who are we to fight Him?
After all, this story has a HAPPY ending: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZmu3MBF5jw
Thank you for the link, it was. Beautiful portrayal of my favorite read alouds, although I always cried as I was reading the end when she found her grandmother. We all need to be the grandmothers/fathers, but we need to provide help way before the end of the story.
another out of touch plutocrat…
is anyone surprised?
Harlan, you are all over the place.
As far as the Tea Party is concerned, their message, although once it might have been sincere, has been tainted by special interest groups who have been using the Tea Party members commitment to further their own agenda. It doesn’t help that their movement was considered racist by many, including being used as an anti-Obama machine. Their connection with Fox News also hurt their credibility. And as far as the constitution is concerned, you can’t pick and choose which sections to enforce. Sorry, the Tea Party has only been an obstructionist to the democratic process.
And don’t call me a communist just because we disagree. On the surface it looks like a good plan, but let’s face it, why bother trying if there is no reward. That’s why welfare doesn’t work – the people are complacent with their poverty. To them it’s a living. Perhaps if a minimum wage were a living wage they would be more motivated to get a job. The jury is still out on that one, although I think it might be more successful with their children who are sick of going without.
I believe you get what you pay for. I don’t want any handouts I haven’t earned. I want the money I have paid into the system through my taxes to provide me with the services I need (police, fire protection, schools, plowing, garbage removal, cultural enrichment, libraries, etc.) as well as giving a helping hand to others less fortunate. Somehow, this is not going as planned. (And I said a helping hand, not necessarily lifetime entitlements.)
There are no lifetime entitlements to public assistance and there haven’t been since the Clinton administration in the 90s, when welfare reform was instituted and the “Welfare to Work” program was put in place.
People can receive public aid for a maximum of 5 years in their lifetimes and they must have dependent children to qualify, which is why it’s called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). In order to be eligible for it, they are also required to be working or attending a school training program that will lead to employment.
That is why you don’t hear much about politicians going after welfare these days and they have targeted Social Security and food stamps instead –which is called the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP). That is what many of the working poor receive, such as restaurant servers and workers at McDonalds and Walmart, because they don’t earn enough money to be able to put food on their own tables.
I was actually thinking of people who use SSI and SNAP plus public housing – section and not necessarily welfare payments.
Most of those programs are also not as easy to qualify for today as they might have been in the past. SSI is primarily for people who are disabled, and adults must be able to document that they have been unable to work for at least one year due to their disability to be eligible for it.
In my city, there have been long waiting lists for public housing ever since they demolished most of the high rise projects.
I am disabled and must work from home. A couple years ago, when my place of employment suddenly went under and I didn’t qualify for Unemployment Compensation, because all employees at my work were hired as independent contractors, I was on the verge of homelessness, so I applied for those programs. I was told by the government that I did not qualify for SSI because I had worked within the previous year. I was also told about the waiting list for section 8 housing. I found out about a homelessness prevention program in my city so applied to that, but was told I didn’t qualify because it’s just for families with dependent children. I was only eligible for SNAP –which I did not take because, after visiting a Food Pantry once, shame and pride trumped hunger. Fortunately, I soon found another job.
SNAP funding has been cut though, so it’s going to be more difficult to qualify for it now.
At one point in time, my oldest daughter had a boyfriend whose parents kicked him out. He was under 18. I tried to get him help from social services, but he needed an address. When I gave him my address, he didn’t qualify because he was then living with me. What a runaround. He ended up staying with us for six months. In fact, over the years there have been a procession of “homeless” boys who have lived under my roof. Trying to get them help was not only difficult, but impossible.
I’m glad you were able to find work relatively quickly. Our experiences help a little in our understanding of the difficulties of poverty – and the humiliation that must be faced over and over again. It certainly motivated you to get back on your feet. It motivated me to help these poor boys until they were either allowed to move back home or found another place to crash.
Right, Ellen, with the eligibility requirements that are in place today, those who are least likely to qualify for government assistance are single people, because families with dependent children are the primary targets for those programs. So, when politicians promote cutting back on funding, they are essentially talking about denying aid to children.
One would think that all kids under 18 would qualify then, but there are so many hoops to jump through that a lot of kids fall through the cracks.
One of the issues is the notion that step-parents should be held financially responsible for their step-children. This seems to be the case for Dasani and her step-father, as some posters seem to assume that her step-father is fiscally culpable for her upbringing.
That is a very slippery slope. I disagree that step-parents should be held financially responsible for step-children because I’ve been through this myself.
My sister and I grew up in the home of our mom and step-father, who filed a lawsuit against my biological father for not paying to fully support us and they LOST in court to my biological dad. After he won, my biological dad then turned around and SUED ME, because I was approaching the age of majority and he didn’t want to pay for my college education. Rather than pay for another court case that he thought he’d probably lose, my step-father told me not to contest it and that he would pay for my college education. He ended up paying for only two years of college, and then he complained incessantly for years about how little money I earned with my two year degree. Ultimately, I took out student loans to pay for three more degree programs, for which I still owe big bucks, as I approach retirement next year.
This whole thing had a terrible impact on my relationships with both my biological dad and my step-father. None of us have spoken to each other for decades.
I don’t believe that step-parents should be required to assume the financial responsibilities of biological parents, and I don’t think people who believe they should are considering the long-term effects that could have on the children involved.
I don’t know where you’re talking about TE, but in my city, many engine companies have been combined and I just saw a firefighter in Detroit say they have half the number of engine companies there now than what they used to have and they’re fighting more fires now.
Since the late 70s we have benefited from a sharp drop in fires nationally, going from about 3.264 million to 1.375 million.
Detroit has its own unique problems.
In Dasani’s case, her step-father has more children living with another mother and his tax refund was garnished because he owed back child support for them. Whatever he might be paying to help support Dasani and any other step-kids should really be going to support his biological children.
If cities like mine and Detroit have already combined and cut their engine companies, what that often means in large urban areas is that firetrucks have farther to travel from their stations to reach fires in communities. I don’t think there should be any further cuts.
I think everyone knows that Detroit has to become smaller, but no one really knows how to do it.
I don’t know that. I don’t pretend to have a magic fix for Detroit, but I’m not so sure that “right-sizing” the city is the answer, when more jobs are needed and they also have to increase their tax base. Having a lot of available land might be necessary for that to occur. Huge swaths of land in blighted communities of my city laid dormant for decades before developers came in and gentrification began to take hold.
“I believe you get what you pay for. I don’t want any handouts I haven’t earned. I want the money I have paid into the system through my taxes to provide me with the services I need (police, fire protection, schools, plowing, garbage removal, cultural enrichment, libraries, etc.) as well as giving a helping hand to others less fortunate. Somehow, this is not going as planned. (And I said a helping hand, not necessarily lifetime entitlements.)”
Well stated.
Now don’t go expecting Harlan to think that what’s best for the community involves preventing public sector employees to be easily put out of their jobs because their supervisors do not like the way they part their hair. Apparently, we don’t deserve any protections.
Without due process, we’d all be unemployed save a few lucky people whose bosses don’t suffer from a Napoleon complex. Harlan would be leading the army to get rid of us under the guise of “how bad we are as teachers” because our union is somehow “ruining the schools.”
My advice: Don’t feed the animal. (Forgive me, Duane. I know how you feel about animals.)
I don’t want you unemployed, just not public sector employees. The longer I think about this, the more I become convinced that education must be totally privatized before it will be honest again, and as Diane has show quite convincingly, some of those private schools are pretty shabby. It won’t be fun, but it will be necessary because teachers are only half aware of the economics of the country.
The fundamental flaw in the vision of those inhabiting public education is that they think they have a right to a job there. Once all education is private, teachers will then realize that they were in an education services business all along and they will come to understand that all money for everything in the country comes from private economic activity and will then perhaps not be so contemptuous of “business.”
It’s unseemly for them to do that. They are shitting in their own food supply. Privatization will be a painful process, but as I have come to learn on this list serve, too few teachers understand reality economics. I suspect it’s a function of union mentality where the capitalist is the enemy, whereas in truth no worker would have a job at all without an employer.
So says one of the few non-union private school teachers lucky enough to have earned enough money in his career to be able to afford retirement.
What awaits the rest of you, and which you should be fighting tooth and nail against, is more likely to be like the millions of us who’ve worked in non-unionized private education for decades, made minimum wage or just above it, with no benefits, and who will never be able to afford to retire on the less than $1000 per month that we will be getting from Social Security.
Align yourselves with the police, firefighters and other public employees in your cities, because people like Harlan, who adore big business, are pushing for the privatization of all public services and will be going after them next.
I think the police clearly need to remain public, though I do think that we need to reduce the size of fire departments to reflect the reductions in fires.
“The fundamental flaw in the vision of those inhabiting public education is that they think they have a right to a job there. Once all education is private, teachers will then realize that they were in an education services business all along and they will come to understand that all money for everything in the country comes from private economic activity and will then perhaps not be so contemptuous of ‘business.’ ”
Gosh, no, Harlan. Education is not a business, nor should it become one.
Many here have argued back and forth as to whether or not teachers provide a service and thus consider themselves service personnel. To define teaching as a service is difficult since that definition would dictate that there are masters to serve. Perhaps a better definition of teachers would include the words practitioners, guides, facilitators of thought and learning, etc. The hundreds of decisions that inform teachers’ actions on any given day cannot be adequately quantified, yet there seem to be so many non-teacher “experts” out there who think that student learning is a product that has some quantifiable value to society, much like anything else produced for the marketplace. This comparative thinking places learning at the whims and mercies of those who pull the purse-strings, an action that seeks to destroy academic freedom and progressive thought. Student learning is far more than a product for the market-based sector–it is the key to advancing humanity and supporting society. Business entities seek only to support and sustain their own interests, while education seeks to support the greater good.
Is it a perfect system? Not by a long shot…but its value would fluctuate with the interests of those in power if it becomes privatized. At least as a public entity, the people still have a say, and no individuals can profit off the backs of our children. Further, if education is privatized, who provides the funding and do these people have a say in who gets what in the way if education?
I do not think you’ve thought this through.
LG, I just want to point out that “service” is used to describe work in a variety of fields in our country without negative connotations. For example, there is a field called Human Services, which people can major in and study in college, and the notion of “service” is not based on serving a master. Similarly, the term “serviceman” has also been used for someone “serving” in the military, as well as for people who repair broken goods.
If service meant serving a master in this country, I don’t think we would have had the movement from restaurant workers to change from calling them waiters/waitresses to calling them “servers.”
Maybe it’s different in places like England, where service has traditionally meant kowtowing to one’s social and economic “betters,” a la Upstairs/Downstairs. In the US though, I think our great shame is the master-slave model, rather than a master-server model.
“. . . although once it might have been sincere,. . . ”
No, it was an astroturf group originally funded by the Koch Brothers.
Astroturf or not originally, I’m part of it and I’m real grass.
Or at least you’ve been smoking some.
Hu,
Man, you leaving me an opening one could drive a Mack truck through-ha ha!!
“. . . I’m real grass.”
Can I have some of that to smoke too??!!
A merely rhetorical and unserious opening to drive your truck through.
Glad your part of the Vicks VapoRub Beck Brigade!!!
bwahahaha
We seem to agree on basic principles. The “helping hand,” however not only does not seem to be working, but it seriously out of hand. Your words on the Tea Party are seriously out of harmony with reality in my opinion. The new citizen is self-sustaining and that is all the Tea Party wants. No family, or nation, can borrow it’s way to prosperity. I’m glad to hear you are not socialist/communist in philosophy. So many on this list are.
Dasanis family has been given roughly $500,000.00 USD in government aid since 2000. The family inherited 49k in 2005. They have had multiple opportunities to get out of their economic position but chose to use the funds on drugs instead of their responsibilities. Sorry folks but at some point parents must take responsibility for their actions. Its not the governments fault nor is it its job to provide crackheads with generous living situations. Bloomberg has also more then doubled the spending on social services for the homeless. The poverty rate has remained flat in NYC over his term while its grown by 28% nationwide. This entire piece is a sham.
Thanks for telling us the “rest of the story”. It’s too bad children have to suffer for their parents selfishness, but Dasani is a symbol of other homeless families who suffer through no fault of their own.
MS, your lack of compassion is depressing.
I feel terrible for poor Dasani, I think she will actually be ok in life due to her strong will and spirit. I think she will find a way to get work, stay out of trouble and make something of herself. I think she will due that based on the impressive character she displays at the age of just 11. I have little compassion for junkies who have 8 kids and make no effort to improve their lot in life while living off of the public dime. Social safety nets are meant to be temporary while people get back on their feet, not free rent for life. I wish Dasani could find a foster home with wonderful nurturing parents who could help her, but I doubt that can happen. I dont believe that all the money in the city’s budget could fix the parents problems therefore I dont blame the mayor, the charter that moved in, the economy, the 1%ers… I blame the parents who are the ones responsible.
“I wish Dasani could find a foster home with wonderful nurturing parents who could help her, but I doubt that can happen.”
I doubt she would want to leave her brothers and sisters. She seems to bear a lot of responsibility for their care. I hope she gets enough support from outside sources to keep her spirit alive. I did not read the whole series, but from the first installment I gathered that she loved and cared for her family. I’ve been meaning to go online to my library”s copy of NYT.
MS,
Can you please provide the source of your information?
Thanks,
Duane
I agree completely, her plight is very very sad and touching, but it is not due to a lack of government spending on homeless services.
MS, do you think the city has any obligation to provide a sanitary rat-free shelter for the homeless? Or not?
The question is at what level. You seem to believe these parents should be given a free pass for being drug addicts and ruining their childrens lives. Should the city buy them a brownstone in Brooklyn Heights for their troubles?
What is the compromise point? When are you throwing good money after bad? Many cities have built safe, functional low-rise or high-rise apartment buildings for low-income families, only to find these apartment buildings nearly destroyed by tenants within 3-5 years. Cabrini Green (Chicago), Pruitt-Igoe (St. Louis), Queensbridge Houses (Queens), Robert Taylor Homes (Chicago), Jordan Downs (Watts), Magnolia Projects (New Orleans), Marcy Projects (Brooklyn), and dozens others were built as adequate low-income housing, but were subsequently nearly destroyed materially by irresponsible tenants. Same argument can be made for Section 8 housing, that is why so many responsible landlords refuse to rent to Section 8 tenants.
Does the city “have an obligation to provide a sanitary rat-free shelter for the homeless?” Yes. Are city/state/federal legislators in a difficult situation, when safe, functional housing for low-income residents costs significantly more than it should due to constant material damage caused by irresponsible, dysfunctional, addicted, non-self sufficient adults? Yes.
From the description of how Dasani’s parents squandered their monthly funds, no amount of government provided money would have been utilized efficiently. From the visual pictures of how Dasani’s parents kept their room at the shelter, no safe, functional shelter/low-rise/high-rise/Section 8 would have been safe from material damage by Chanel’s family.
Dasani’s family situation at the shelter is not ideal, but they did have a free roof over their head, free food, free healthcare, free clothes, and free spending money. Simply locating them in a cleaner, safer location may not solve much of anything.
“Many cities have built safe, functional low-rise or high-rise apartment buildings for low-income families, only to find these apartment buildings nearly destroyed by tenants within 3-5 years. Cabrini Green (Chicago)”
It doesn’t sound like you were ever in Cabrini-Green. I was, many times. I worked in a home-bound program for young children and families in their high-rise apartments in Cabrini-Green, in the 70s, and it was never “safe” and “functional” in those buildings. Virtually all of the apartments that I worked in had cinder block walls, which parents painted to try to make their apartments warm and inviting, and they kept their apartments neat and clean inside. However, the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) did a terrible job of maintaining the high-rise buildings. They were infested with vermin, elevators rarely worked, etc. And yes, due to gang activity, there were many safety concerns, including snipers, so parents did not let their kids out on the playgrounds. The police and firefighters (and probably the CHA workers) didn’t like going up in there due to such dangers, too –a couple policemen were killed by snipers there.
You might hear otherwise from those who advocate for erecting more high-density low-income housing today, but what cities like Chicago learned, and ultimately why they tore down those buildings, is that concentrating thousands of Have Nots together in segregated enclaves leads to increases in gang activity, drug use and serious crime. especially in high-rises which police cannot safely patrol.
I have also worked in areas on the south side and the west side of Chicago, where many low income people reside in homes, and those areas are safer and well-kept, like the Cabrini-Green townhouses –which were much better off and escaped the wrecking ball.
There is nothing comparable to the pride of home ownership. Therefore, I advocate for low-density, scattered site, low-rise housing, which promote mixed income, integrated neighborhoods, and I would like to see many “rent to own” opportunities available to low-income (and middle-income) people.
When the Chicago housing projects were first built they were model facilities, intended for the working poor and were well maintained by the city and cared for by the residents. The building grounds were landscaped and they were playgrounds for the children. However, over time the city “lost interest” in taking care of the facilities and allowed them to fall in to disrepair. The housing authority stopped vetting residents and ignored criminal activity that would not have been allowed when the projects were first built. It’s easy to blame the residents, but it was the city’s failure that led to their demise.
How much city funding has gone into the upkeep of deteriorating homeless shelters that also house rodents and roaches? And how much funding goes into rehab programs for addicts?
The city spends $980Billion a year on homeless services. That is a helluva lot of money. This doesnt include other services like foodstamps, healthcare and cash benefits the city provides. The problem is not money, its responsibility. It is really sad to see people blame everyone under the sun other then the people who are truly at fault for this terrible situation.
They do bear a lot of responsibility for their situation. Their children don’t. Nor should anyone have to live in a shelter like the one described. I don’t know the answers. Generational poverty and drug addiction do not make for a good outcome. You do need to expand your sources of information, however.
Why the fuss over Dasani’s parents? Sure, the family situations is dire, but it’s nothing that three excellent teachers in a row can’t fix, right?
What information that I have provided do you take issue with?
Always consider the source, folks. MS is quoting not only a Rupert Murdoch tabloid, but an author who works for the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. Take it all with a heavy heap of salt.
Everything the post op-ed cites comes from the NYTimes article… Are you saying the original article was wrong?
“The city spends $980Billion a year on homeless services.”
NYC spends $980 Billion a year on homeless services??? That’s one half again what the defense appropriation bill is for this year.
Please provide your source for that info.
Thanks,
Duane
Apologies, I meant millions not billions, obviously billions is an absurd rate given the entire spending of the city is around 70bn annually. Here is the cities budget for 2013, go to page 112:
Click to access mm5_12.pdf
This puts the number at $864 mil, lower than 980m yes, but still an extraordinary amount of money.
Guess the Bloomberg administration didn’t do enough to create jobs and reduce homelessness.
Jobs are aplenty in this town, its the desire to work by some that is the problem, as we see in this story. The immigration levels in NYC are at their highest since the early 1900s, I guess they are coming here to all live in shelters right?
MS: The NY Times and NY Post articles differ considerably and they also differ from other sources. For example, it’s Bloomberg’s office that made the claim that poverty has stayed flat, not the Post or Times. However, census statistics indicate poverty rates in NYC have risen in each of the past 3 years: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/census-shows-nyc-poverty-rate-201139696.html
Neither article says that Dasani’s family was “given $500K in government aid since 2000”. The Times article said is that it cost the city $400K to house Dasani’s family over the past decade. What I’m seeing is spin from both the Post. I’m also seeing what looks like your interpretations. Maybe that’s just your take on matters, but those of us who’ve had experience with drug addiction and poverty have different perspectives as well.
MS is quoting Bloomberg, too. How can anyone be so gullible?
justcares, 400k was just the cost of housing, they also receive other government aid like food stamps, survivior benefits and various healthcare subsidies. It is wrong to say that they were ‘given’ the money as it was mearly spent on them, however, this does not change the fact that the cost to the city has been rather high. My argument is that a lack of funding is not the biggest problem and think critically of those who point to Bloomberg to blame.
As for poverty in the city, you cite a 3 year period, Bloomberg has been in office for 12, and it is not his admin that claims the poverty rate has been flat over that time, its a fact. In 2002 when he took office the poverty rate was at 20.1, you can simply google that or find it in many reports such as this:
Click to access 2841291f3ea656d536_6ym6b91tf.pdf
The link you provided states the latest poverty rate for 2012 is 21.2. for statistical purposes that is all but flat, its a marginal difference. The nationwide poverty rate over that ssame period has grown by 28%.
So why does Bloomberg have such a preceived poor record on poverty when his city has outperformed the rest of the country in this metric?
I would guess that what is really fueling the anger across the country and on this blog is that while the rate of poverty is at best stagnant (NYC) and the middle class continues to lose ground, the highest income earners continue to expand their wealth. How come there is only enough for the wealthiest to get wealthier? How come the working poor are at best running place? By all indications, the middle class’s real income has not risen in decades.
Because God wants it that way, silly!
I’m with you 100% 2old, in particular, the tax code coddles the rich in the form of the ‘carried interest’ and capital gains rates. The richest are smart enough to know not to take a salary, that is for suckers, why pay 39% in federal taxes when they can get a flat 20% rate via capital/carried gains. I do understand the incentive for investing but the margin between capital and income taxes is absurd and should be tightened. Obama at least got the capital gains back up to 20%, I think it should be 25% at least.
I just see more and more spin from MS. It’s alarming and inexcusable that the “Poverty Rate Is Up in New York City, and Income Gap Is Wide, Census Data Show”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/nyregion/poverty-rate-in-city-rises-to-21-2.html
Each of those inches of increasing poverty every year represent many people, so stop discounting them and patting Bloomberg on the back for feigned successes. Those of us who go to bed hungry do not appreciate being used as fodder to appease the egos of politicians.
I guess MS failed to notice how workers in all those wonderful jobs have been protesting because they can’t make a living wage. It’s unbelievable how some people have been brainwashed to believe in the beneficence of billionaires, but then again, that is the propaganda the plutocrats have put out there.
And BTW, survivor benefits are what the step-father’s first wife paid into to Social Security, not government funds.
How about some government spending that prevents homelessness, rather than the government spending that just further enriches the wealthy? How about spending for some job creation.
You know, entire neighborhoods don’t just say one day “I don’t want to work any more.”
http://www.amazon.com/When-Work-Disappears-World-Urban/dp/0679724176
MS
Quick question: Do you work for Bloomberg?
No, I do not. I have never voted for Bloomberg either.
What’s the source of the info regarding Dasani’s family?
http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/bloomberg-the-homeless-what-the-times-left-out/
I’m curious why social services has allowed those obviously negligent parents to keep all seven children and has not placed them in foster homes.
Is the whole situation in NYC and other cities, that the services are available, but the information is not getting out there? How simple, show up in court and they won’t foreclose on your home. If your child has special needs during the preschool years, there are paid professional that will come to you and help them with speech, PT, or OT. If your child is autistic – there are special programs to help the family cope.
Yet, we can provide all the help we want, but if we can’t get the people to put out their hand and take it – they are doomed. These families seem to be like some of the mentally ill that have been mentioned, they are reluctant to accept any assistance, even from their own flesh and blood.
But it’s one thing for an adult to suffer, it’s another for their children to pay for a lifestyle that could be avoided. So, I don’t care how much money has been thrown at the parents. I’m concerned about those children. There has to be a better way.
That’s a Murdoch rag, not a credible source of information.
the post is a rag, but its only citing information that the NYT article provided.
No, it’s not, as pointed out by others above.
Children do not ask to be put on this earth. They don’t ask to be born into their circumstances. They should not be viewed as burdens to society. I have not read the Dasani articles, but have to ask – where is Child Welfare in this? Children should be protected from adult addicts, not incarcerated with them in shelters. Surely B’berg could spare a few gajillion and shore up the appropriate agencies.
Two bits says MS won’t answer my questions directly.
I’d be happy to, which question?
You proved me wrong!! You did answer my question about the XXXbillion. So thanks!, To where do I send the two bits?
Yes, the 980mm is what Bloombergs admin says, the 864mm is what the budget shows. Regardless, that is a lot of dough, that is roughly $16,500.00 spent on homeless services per homeless person in NYC. That number probably triples when you factor in the rest of the costs. Now I am not saying we should cut this at all, but I dont think lack of funding is the real problem
Much like schools, NYC spends over 20.5k per child for zoned schools yet gets some pretty bad results in so many areas. It isnt the money that is the problem, its the mamagement.
I think we are forgetting where this money is actually going. A family of four is not getting $66,000 in services. It’s the same problem people have with trying to determine how much money is “attached” to the schooling of each child. We can’t take a little bit from heating, and a tad from supplies, plus a smidgen from maintenance, and a mite from instruction even if those things are included in the costs of educating a student.
As for co-location, here in Chicagoland I can’t say I have heard about the wonderfulness of sharing space, and I would bet you would be hard pressed to find the charters taking over basements.
There is great news for Dasani though, a Success Academy is opening in her very building. The lotteries for SA are based on proximity to the school. She stands an unbelievable chance to get accepted to SA which will provide her with a much better education then the current school she is in. This is a wonderful example of having choice in education. Unfortunately we can not force the parents to apply their children to SA. We can only pray to God that they have enough good sense to fill out the forms for the lottery as it could save their child.
OK, MS, besides the fact that you cannot spell for beans, you will be hard pressed to convince us that you do not work for the Bloomberg camp.
of course they will, that is what obtuse people do. So far on this forum I’ve been a Bloomberg employee, a Success Academy employee, a Koch Brothers employee, a Hedge Fund employee and a Lhota employee. I wish I had all those jobs, I’d be rich!
MS is definitely a shill for privatization –s/he failed to notice that Dasani actually loves her school and is doing very well there. Poor kid, now she and everyone else at her school have to share resources with a corporate welfare recipient.
Success Academy is legally barred from earning a profit, if they did it would be a federal crime. SA is a 501(c) non-profit entity, it cant make money for investors. It is also underfunded compared to its co-located zoned school.
Many of us here have had too much experience with how “non-profit” is a gross misnomer for privatization scams to fall for that nonsense. Teach for America and charter chains, such as Success Academy, Harlem Children’s Zone, KIPP etc., rake in additional war chests from foundations. Their CEOs get six figure incomes that are higher than the salary of President of the United States, such as Eva Moskowitz and Geoffrey Canada, who both make around $500K per year.
And the last thing Dasani needs is to attend a “no-excuses” military style, boot camp charter school, where children of color are treated like they’re on a chain gang by mostly white drill sergeant teachers.
your racially tinged response about SA is utter horsepooey. Clearly you have never been to a SA and buy into the lame platitudes the anti choice movement feeds you. This takes away any credibility you have attempting to make a point on this subject.
It’s the pot calling the kettle black when MS defends the classist and racist practices so evident at “non-profit” no-excuses charter schools and issues ad hominem attacks against me for describing the FACT that Eva Moskowitz’s outrageous $500K annual salary is higher than President Obama’s, and the FACT that no-excuses charters are military-style schools for minority children.
How sad that parents have been hoodwinked into believing such circumstances are even tolerable, let alone something positive.
Why on earth don’t parents look online at the schools where rich parents send their children and compare those with no-excuses charter chains? (Hint: They are nothing like boot camps.)
Why don’t parents ever say to themselves, if these no-excuses charter schools are so wonderful, then why don’t the people who have made their fortunes off of them send their own children to such schools, including Richard Barth, CEO of the KIPP foundation and Wendy Kopp, founder of Teach for America?
In many cases, I think parents just don’t know any better. In this case, I think the parent probably does know and chooses to ignore.
My parents ignored it, too, when I told them about how much like the military my school was. That was the most horrendous school experience of my childhood and I would never wish that on anyone else’s child. I think those kinds of schools are particularly heinous for children who are already at a disadvantage, so I advocate for equity, for schools like the ones rich people send their kids to for every child, for schools which treat children like flowers to be grown instead of wild animals to be tamed. That’s social justice, the opposite of racism.
Success Academy of Eva Moskowitz fame?
Yes I have a child in a SA. We did our K in the local zoned last year and it was a disaster, we moved to the SA in our area this year for 1st grade and its been fantastic so far, knock on wood.
Ah, it’s the “poster-formally-known-as-M” back to advertise for Eva once more, and with a new handle, too!
How wonderful to see you posting again. Still feel like you have absolutely no responsibility for other people’s children in your community?
Hi LG, I see you still have not responded to the blatant falacies you posted in the other threat in which we discussed this topic. I get it, I know you will never admit basic facts like charter schools like SA are public schools, but for real, why bother responding at all if you have no intentions of taking part in an actual discussion of the topic? Your credibility is still shot, until you come to the table with the admission that Charter schools like SA are public schools.
“Hi LG, I see you still have not responded to the blatant falacies you posted in the other threat in which we discussed this topic.”
Actually I did respond, and how. I’m sorry you did not like my answers and continually ignored them. I cannot help you if you refuse to address the topic of the either person in the conversation.
You failed to address my questions about the role citizens play in supporting ALL the community’s children. Why do you keep ignoring the topic? Why do you feel that your child is the only one that matters? You have the nerve to call another poster a racist, yet your ideas are so “elitist,” you fail to see the harm of a school with a select group of students and yet have the audacity to call it a public school. Please educate yourself for the sake if your community.
It appears you refuse to look at the whole picture by continually accusing others of poo-pooing the concept of serving the whole community. Why isn’t Eva’s school serving the whole public? And before you start to complain that the public simply isn’t giving enough space to SA, why don’t you consider the fact that no school is going to be able to support Eva’s salary and properly pay all of its staff well enough to invest in the school’s longevity while serving the entire community. It is economically impossible.
So will you finally answer the question about why you are biased against other people’s children, or are you going to continue supporting the elitists you think are the “saviors?” You can continue to insult me all you want, but your smokescreen for addressing the greater civic problem of your concept of community will eventually clear.
No CEO/Superintendent of public education would be allowed to shut down schools for political purposes, let alone be permitted to encourage faculty, children and parents to participate in a political rally in order to show support for the mayoral candidate of their choice.
Charters like SA choose and reject being considered public schools solely at their convenience.
Regardless of any comment on this post, let’s just get right down to the point:
Michael Bloomberg is a horrible, selfish, narcissistic, self-absorbed, evil, malevolent, virulent, vile, repulsive, grotesque, infected, metastasized, bloated, putrid, wretched, loathsome villain ever to breathe in the 21st century.
This slithering lizard makes the Hobbit’s Gollum look warm, safe, and cuddly.
If they can send parchment-paper-obsessed Martha Stewart to jail, then why can’t they do the same to Bloomberg?
The other day, faux-journalist Barbara Walters declared Bloomberg to be New York City’s greatest mayor. Ms. sycophant poor-diction Walters has never stooped so low. She embraced him as he gave her red roses . . . . She may have well French kissed a komodo dragon with chicken pox . . . . Seeing these two media reptiles down each other’s throat was a new low for talkshow television.
Poor Ms. Walters. She would never soil herself by reporting on the hardships of everyday people and earning a living. Good riddance to this pernicious monster and this peroxided, botox OD’ed ersatz television personality. May they both fade into oblivion . . . .
You should read the Bloomberg Administrations response to the false charges in this series, you can find it here:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304858104579262601685432082
Its quite inciteful.
Ditto on not believing a word of what Bloomberg says including “and & the.”
A lot of people say the same about what they deem the ‘liberal rag’ NY Times…
Careful, MS. Your conservative bias is shining through. (Note to others: This is very unlikely to be a low-income minority parent, folks!)
It’s one thing when private media spins the truth. It’s something entirely different when politicians who demand “accountability” and “transparency” of every other public servant don’t demonstrate that themselves and instead promote spin in PR campaigns and on government websites.
Ive never voted for a republican in my life and oppose them on most every policy item. Perhaps I am just in a form with uber left wing zealots whos extreme bias make centerists like me look conservative.
Conservatives have not had to vote Republican ever since Clinton established the “New Democrats” and turned the party hard right, in order to garner the Southern vote. Their neo-liberal agenda and support of big business over regular people comes straight from Milton Friedman and the GOP.
People know very well that “centrist” means pro-business and anti-social, so the two parties are more alike than different –and very dysfunctional in the eyes of many.
Only 26% of Americans feel adequately represented by Democrats and Republicans, and 60% now believe the US needs a third party: http://www.gallup.com/poll/165392/perceived-need-third-party-reaches-new-high.aspx
Duane Swacker: that “$980billion a year on homeless services” bit caught my attention too.
That someone could blithely regurgitate a mind boggling absurdity followed by “other services” shows a blind acceptance of maliciously distorted information without the slightest regard for good sense or logic, not to mention trying to pass that nonsense onto others with no concern for engaging in a fair and honest discussion.
I remember growing up in Detroit and knowing a number of social workers. This was during the time of “welfare queens” and “welfare cadillacs” and such. Frauds, there were a few. However, the much bigger story—and hidden from the general public because employees were threatened with termination if they made it known—was that management leaned very hard on case workers to do everything humanly and legally possible (and as always with rheejects of every type, ‘off the record’) to make sure that those applying for, and receiving, welfare benefits and the like got, are you ready for this?—
AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE.
Social workers were often dealing with people of limited formal education, little or no knowledge of rules and regulations and their rights and obligations, fearful and living in perpetually uncertain circumstances, no effective legal representation or access to advocates, etc. So as one friend once explained a typical situation to me: a single mother with children qualifies for a [not a joke, understatement or overstatement] pittance in food stamps so her kids wouldn’t go hungry for X number of days a month. However, she doesn’t know she qualifies. Do you continue to work with her, counseling and encouraging and commiserating while she sinks deeper and deeper into depression and despair, or do you do your job as stated in the official guidelines [not, I remind you, according to your managers who are GAGA with their politically-minded bosses running the whole system] and let her know she doesn’t have to starve herself—or do something desperately immoral and/or self-destructive and/or illegal—just to make sure her children don’t go hungry?
I can only tell you what my social worker friends did. They felt it was immoral to deny such human beings what they were entitled to under the law so they found ways to talk to and with their clients, not exactly “telling” them outright but asking leading questions and directing the conversation in such a way that when a “permissible” request was made or question was asked, the social worker would simply respond with the appropriate (and morally grounded) answer.
How low can some people sink that they can glory in starving and humiliating “los de abajo”?
My friends did the right thing.
I don’t care if someone lays into me about this.
Sputter in rage. Wax indignant. Torture numbers and logic. Rant and rave.
Those chastising words, well, I take my lead on this one from one of those old dead Greek guys:
“Words empty as the wind are best left unsaid.” [Homer]
😎
Your friends did the right thing. No one should go to bed hungry. . . . . ever.
Bless your friends,Krazy TA. I went to the county trustee when I moved to a larger city, and the social worker there chastised me for moving there without a job.
I was hoping to get a job.
I received $25 in assistance, and they made me work for 12 hours for that assistance, which amounts to $2.00 an hour. This is Bill Clinton’s legacy of workfare. Work for slave wages, you mean.
I think I have read that Success Academies follow a more progressive model. I still have major problems. I do believe that the NYT article mentioned that a charter would be taking the space that was used to run the dance program Dasani loved.
We dont know if that bit from the NYT article is true. I can assure you there are tremedous lies and deceptive reports coming from schools that get co located. The SA that moved into our area took up the basement floor of a school buliding with two other schools in it. That basement had not been used in half a decade yet when SA began the process to move in, the other schools started putting events that would normally take place in the gym in some of the abandoned rooms so they could say that SA was stealing space. Its a ruse and a common ploy by the anti choice movement.
In general charters move into spaces that are unused, and by unused I mean dormant for years. I am sure there are situations where the existing school may lose out on some areas at certain times, but I also believe the overwhelming majority of the time those spaces are a luxury not a neccessity.
SA uses public space and should pay rent. Read Mercedes Schneider: http://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/12/01/success-academy-tax-documents-moskowitz-can-afford-the-rent/
It is illegal to discriminate against public schools. You do not get to charge a regressive tax on a particular school simply because you think they can afford it. PS 29, 58 & 321 in BK can afford it too, but you dont seem to concerned with them paying rent for the public space they use. Another double standard.
MS: Success Academy is not a chain of public schools. It is a private corporation with a private board operating under contract to government. Its schools are not public schools. No public school superintendent could close school for a political protest. They would be fired.
I think we have enough evidence of the way that double standard has been working in too many charters. Calling them public schools is a mockery of the concept. It is a shame that such a promising concept has been hijacked by those looking for a quick return on their investment.
There is no “anti-choice movement”. That’s pure propaganda. It is an anti-privatization movement and many people against privatization support choice within the public school system, including magnet programs and magnet schools.
Diane, You should just quote yourself and refer to case law, as you did so cogently here:
“Courts have repeatedly ruled that charter schools are not public schools. These rulings have been sought not by charter critics, but by the charters themselves, to enable them to avoid complying with state laws.” https://dianeravitch.net/2013/01/04/courts-and-nlrb-charters-are-not-public-schools/
2old2teach, SA schools are not progressive. They are no-excuses schools and use the military-style approach. They just have more teachers and lower student:teacher ratios than other charters.
The PS numbered schools don’t close down so that students, teachers and parents can attend rallies to support political candidates, because they really are public schools.
I am embarrassed, honestly, for the quality of the arguments and rationales put forward by those who defend the education status quo and the amassing of $tudent $ucce$$ at the expense of students, parents and our nation’s public schools.
Perhaps on RheeWorld all is fine and dandy with co-locations, but on Planet Reality—
Link: http://insidecolocation.tumblr.com
There’s even—gasp! clutch your pearls! sink onto your fainting couch!—some information about Success Academy.
I stop before I violate the quite sensible ‘Rules of the Road’ of the owner of this blog.
😎
Thanks, KrazyTA. The link was very helpful. Four schools in one building is insane.
And, while corporate “reformers” complain about the pay of teachers, they have no problem paying the typically much higher salaries of four principals in one school!
Thanks for sharing that link, KTA!
The DoE had to repair that hallway floor so that SA could have a line down the middle of it, because that’s one of the ways SA implements their military style boot camp. They require kids from Pre K on up to walk on the line, in single file, in silence, with their hands behind their backs –a common approach in no-excuses schools.
“They require kids from Pre K on up to walk on the line, in single file, in silence, with their hands behind their backs…”
Is anyone else struck by handcuff imagery?
A searing and ominous image. (The only exception I know of is when kids must carry their books.)
Since most are children of color, it reminds me of chain-gangs –but at least prisoners were permitted to sing…
Moskowitz has described her program as “progressive,” but teachers have described the school as requiring so much test prep that there’s not enough time to fully implement the curriculum. They also have a reward system that teachers have complained about and said is like bribery –and mandatory.
I know of no progressive programs that do massive test prep, use bribes and implement military style discipline. But Moskowitz is a politician, not a formally trained, experienced P-12 educator, so I don’t know if she’d recognize progressive education if she saw it.
I wonder if they have to march to a cadence. I thought the line was like traffic lanes! We could have used them at the high school where I taught. There were certain hallways you didn’t want to be in when the bell rang. I used to have to go from the basement on one end to the first floor on the other end in four minutes. Hah!
A great link. Truly fascinating, providing an insider’s view of how a “charter takeover” rolls out.
“Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy Got Preferential DOE Treatment, Emails Show”
http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20131210/new-york-city/eva-moskowitz-success-academy-gets-preferential-doe-treatment-emails-show
Another good reminder. Thanks, CT.
2old2tch, Cosmic Tinker, Veteran Educator, LG, Ellen T Klock: IMHO, what we are doing on this blog is what learning and education look like.
In a democracy, that is. A wide-ranging civil discussion. Sharing information. Making arguments. Exposing ourselves to the POVs of others. Carefully considering inconvenient facts. Allowing ourselves to actually listen to others with the possibility that we may have to change our minds.
My brain tells me why people come on a blog like this trying to sell eduproduct, but my heart—well, I keep reminding myself of the “Rules of the Road” on this blog. They’re not only the right thing to do, but they’re the best thing to do. We shouldn’t mimic the smug arrogance of the edubullies. They assume people are so brain dead, so heartless, that they will “buy into” anything peddled by the first fast talking edufraud that comes along.
Is it so hard to understand, even for the true believers in the wrecking ball of self-styled “education reform,” that the rest of us have access to our own experiences, to those of friends and co-workers and others, to books and tv, to the world wide web? That we don’t believe in their two-tiered world of “choice not voice” [thank you, Chiara Duggan!] no matter how many times they ‘prove’ it by assertion?
Yes, they really do believe in the ‘big beat down.’ But who are they really ‘beating down’? Themselves. One of those old dead Greek guys knew the type over two thousand years ago:
“A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true.” [Demosthenes]
Thank y’all for your comments.
Keep posting. I’ll keep reading.
😎
“Keep posting. I’ll keep reading.”
Since I can’t keep my mouth shut, there is little danger I will stop posting of my own free will. 🙂 You (and others) have to keep me honest, so I will be expecting to continue to read your POV.
“Keep posting. I’ll keep reading.”
Likewise. 🙂