Key senators would ban terms for kids like "at-risk", "in poverty" and "disadvantaged"

The News Tribune ^ | January 4, 2010 | Peter Callaghan

[matt1234]

You can read the bill here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6249.pdf

The bill mandates using the term "kids at hope" instead of such terms as "at-risk youth" because "Using a positive descriptor will help children to see themselves differently and help adults more accurately define a child's capacity."

Then the bill goes on to alternatively define "kids at hope" as:

• students who may have or who have problems of drug and alcohol abuse
• students at risk of dropping out of school
• juvenile
• students from low-income families
• at-risk students
• disadvantaged populations
• gang members, potential gang members, and at-risk youth

I hope the little darlings don't read the bill. They might feel bad.

Finally, the lovely Rosa Franklin, principal sponsor of the bill:

[TypeZoNegative]

In a perfect world, those Senators would be “at risk” when it’s an election year.

[MarineBrat]

I’m “at-hope” that a trains runs over these ig’nant pigs in our government.

[madamemayhem]

why not change it to “kids whose parents are more interested in their own pleasure than the kids well being”?

[MrB]

Hillarious - they believe that changing the label will affect the contents.

These are kids of a cultural underclass, a state perpetuated by attitudes and by government programs.

They will forever be there until we stop slapping a new label on the same can of crap.

[1776 Reborn]

“kids at-hope.”

What the heck is this suppose to mean? Are accident patients “at-hope” too? These libs never solve anything, they just keep coming up with more meaningless verbage to slim over their failures.

[Choose Ye This Day]

Joe McDermott ... I assume he’s related to Baghdad Jim?

[WOBBLY BOB]

“Hope” and change are all we need!

now “hope” can be the law!

[keepitreal]

LOL. “Kids at hope” are defined in the bill as juveniles. All children are juveniles by definition. Would love to be a lawyer arguing that my rich kid client deserves free school lunch because, by definition, he’s a “kid at hope”.

[jimmyo57]

THAT’S A MAN, BABY!!!!!

[1776 Reborn]

Well Obama did promise hope and change. Little did people know that would be a label he puts on them with a few cents in their pockets. lol

[Gator113]

This junk is incredibly stupid.

[WOBBLY BOB]

"new and improved!"

[rockinqsranch]

That Democrat Senator FEEEEEEEEEELS good about herself now. She expressed the goodness in her heart, and easily drew more FEEEEEEEEEEEEEL good Leftist Democrats into her FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL good about yourself moment.

If she, or any of them had a brain they’d look at what they just did and be quite embarrassed. Observation: Much like a drunk gets up after having been passed out, and sees evidence of having made a complete fool of him/herself prior to passing out.

Like the drunk though, the Leftist Democrat seems to rarely, if ever learn a damned thing by the experience.

[RexBeach]

Hey, they forgot “stuck on stupid”!

This is the biggest bunch of bull durham I’ve seen since eubonics. Remember that?

“I be...”
“You be...”
“It be...”
“We be...”
“You be...”
“They be...”

I’m down wid dat.

[matt1234]

Joe McDermott ... I assume he’s related to Baghdad Jim?

No, he's not. But Joe is openly gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that ;)

[Pollster1]

I didn't grow up "in poverty"; I grew us with "extra room for economic advancement".

[workerbee]

They will forever be there until we stop slapping a new label on the same can of crap.

And until we stop funding all the "at hope" behaviors that lead them to it.

[RobinOfKingston]

I suggest we stop using negative terms like “democrat senator” and use a more positive and descriptive term like “tweety-bird.”

[GrannyAnn]

I grew up “wealth seeking.”