Skip to comments.
Here's a Label: "Stupid" (Stossel on WA State Dem who wants to change legal language on poor kids)
Fox Business ^
| January 13, 2009
| John Stossel
Posted on 01/13/2010 5:04:08 AM PST by Stoat
Labels change over time to ensure no delicate sensitivities are bruised. That's what happened with the word "poor," as in "poor children." Poor children became "disadvantaged." They didnt get any extra money for that, unfortunately. Now, they're "at-risk." That's not enough, say some members of the language police.
People like Washington State Democratic State Sen. Rosa Franklin, who says "We really put too many negatives on our kids... We need to come up with positive terms." Her solution? Call the kids "at hope."
Since Franklin is a politician, she wants to impose her whims on everyone else. Franklin wants the 54 places in Washington State law where words like "at risk" and "disadvantaged" are used to be rewritten.
At least one representative is putting up some resistance:
Republican Rep. Glenn Anderson disagrees, saying the potential cost of getting the bill from idea to printing an average of $3,500 is too much. And besides, he says, he is insulted more by the idea of the bill than what he called the political correctness it represents.
"It's not the label, it's the people who show up to help (children) that make the difference," he says. "What helps is a smart, well structured program."
Nice try, but apparently not good enough. Politically correct language with no substance scratches liberals where they itch:
The bill has gotten a warm welcome among fellow lawmakers, state officials and advocacy groups...
"At least we'll hear the voices of the young people," said Democratic Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe, who promised the bill would get a hearing.
Wally Endicott, the northwest director of the Phoenix-based Children of Hope, says he was excited to talk to Franklin about the bill.
But he is not thrilled with the idea of using "children at hope" to refer just to the disadvantaged. His group uses the concept to talk about all kids, not just those in poverty, because all children have obstacles to their success.
Renaming all kids children at hope rates a label of its own: "Stupid."
TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: childrenathope; johnstossel; liberals; rosafranklin; stossel; washington; washingtonstate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
It's so nice to know that every aspect of life that is under Government oversight in Washington State is working so very well that the elected Officials have the free time and surplus money to spend on something like this.
Oh, wait......
1
posted on
01/13/2010 5:04:12 AM PST
by
Stoat
To: sionnsar; Slings and Arrows
“Children at hope” Washington ping.
“sigh”
2
posted on
01/13/2010 5:05:20 AM PST
by
Stoat
(Sarah Palin 2012: A Strong America Through Unapologetic Conservatism)
To: Stoat
How about “hopeless children.”
3
posted on
01/13/2010 5:08:59 AM PST
by
goldi
(')
To: goldi
4
posted on
01/13/2010 5:10:08 AM PST
by
Stoat
(Sarah Palin 2012: A Strong America Through Unapologetic Conservatism)
To: Stoat
Children at hope
I wonder when the children who are TRUE victims of murder (abortion) will be called “children of hope”? Because their lives were TAKEN AWAY from them, does that make them any less important?
5
posted on
01/13/2010 5:11:00 AM PST
by
GWMcClintock
("When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?" Ps.11:3)
To: goldi
6
posted on
01/13/2010 5:11:34 AM PST
by
Muzzle_em
(Golden retrievers are really angels in disguise.)
To: GWMcClintock
Well, you know the answer to that one. To the child-murdering Left, if a woman wants to abort her baby...err, excuse me, “mass of unviable tissue matter” then such ‘tissues’ have no relevance unto themselves. It’s all about a Leftist woman’s ‘choice’, after all. (and convenience, and depravity, and immorality and.....)
7
posted on
01/13/2010 5:15:15 AM PST
by
Stoat
(Sarah Palin 2012: A Strong America Through Unapologetic Conservatism)
To: Stoat
My kids are “at risk”.
They are at risk of having any hope for a prosperous life and future thanks to the nitwits in D.C.
8
posted on
01/13/2010 5:19:52 AM PST
by
ozark hilljilly
(Google "Cloward-Piven")
To: Stoat
Now, if I were a true believing leftist,
would I actually believe that changing what these children are called would improve their situation?
9
posted on
01/13/2010 5:21:20 AM PST
by
MrB
(The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
To: All
10
posted on
01/13/2010 5:23:55 AM PST
by
Stoat
(Sarah Palin 2012: A Strong America Through Unapologetic Conservatism)
To: ozark hilljilly
“My kids are at risk.
They are at risk of having any hope for a prosperous life and future thanks to the nitwits in D.C.”
My 17 year old daughter says she doesn’t want to pay for this mess. How come she gets it that we are mortgaging the future of our kids and the idiots in the state and federal gov’t don’t? Rhetorial question....
To: ozark hilljilly
My kids are at risk.
They are at risk of having any hope for a prosperous life and future thanks to the nitwits in D.C.I would wish to politely disagree on the grounds that because you are a FReeper and as such you are sane and considerably more intelligent than the mind-numbed sheep in this country, your kids will have a much greater chance of escaping much of the devastation that the Left intends to wreak upon this nation. :-)
12
posted on
01/13/2010 5:28:26 AM PST
by
Stoat
(Sarah Palin 2012: A Strong America Through Unapologetic Conservatism)
To: Stoat
because all children have obstacles to their success. And this is a new thing because in the past, children had no such obstacles.
Insanity reigns!
13
posted on
01/13/2010 5:30:06 AM PST
by
Graybeard58
("Get lost, Mitt. You're the Eddie Haskell of the Republican party." (Finny))
To: MrB
Now, if I were a true believing leftist,
would I actually believe that changing what these children are called would improve their situation?Well, if you were a true believing Leftist you would believe in obvious untruths such as "America is inherently Evil", "Karl Marx really had it going on" and "Everyone else should pay my way", so my guess would be yes, at that point your mind would be so corrupted that you could believe most anything the Dems told you.
14
posted on
01/13/2010 5:34:16 AM PST
by
Stoat
(Sarah Palin 2012: A Strong America Through Unapologetic Conservatism)
To: Graybeard58
because all children have obstacles to their success. And this is a new thing because in the past, children had no such obstacles.
Insanity reigns!
Nutburger Utopian Socialism reigns
Fixed it for you ;-)
15
posted on
01/13/2010 5:38:49 AM PST
by
Stoat
(Sarah Palin 2012: A Strong America Through Unapologetic Conservatism)
To: Stoat
It’s hard to imagine what the world would look like through the lens of lies that liberals look through every day.
I liken it to CS Lewis writing “The Screwtape Letters” - he said it was so psychologically exhausting that he had to eschew a sequel.
16
posted on
01/13/2010 5:38:49 AM PST
by
MrB
(The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
To: Stoat
We need to come up with positive terms." Her solution? Call the kids "at hope." Oh, Pu-LEZE! Slapping a 'progressive' label on anyone doesn't change a thing, but to Democrats, eradicating negativity is the method they use to keep everyone exactly where they are.
Why work if your needs are met? Why try to better yourself if your surrounded by positive attitudes?
The simple fact is that adversity shapes character, but there's no need to put any effort out to change your condition if the world is already full of sunshine and rainbows.
17
posted on
01/13/2010 5:44:15 AM PST
by
MamaTexan
(All men were Created equal, but government has no mandate to KEEP everyone that way!)
To: MrB
Its hard to imagine what the world would look like through the lens of lies that liberals look through every day.I think that it was Rush who has said several times that being a liberal is the easiest thing in the world....nothing is your fault, you aren't responsible for anything, you never have to say you're sorry and as long as you say that you care and pay for things with other people's money in the name of 'caring', then you can view yourself as having the moral high ground.
It's Conservatism that is the difficult path, as it requires personal responsibility, a dedication to 'actually' doing the right thing and a sense of Patriotism and an interest in the Constitution and human history. It takes effort and time to learn true History and to understand what works and what doesn't....far more effort than simply doing things because they feel good and sound good i.e. the liberal way.
18
posted on
01/13/2010 5:52:21 AM PST
by
Stoat
(Sarah Palin 2012: A Strong America Through Unapologetic Conservatism)
To: Stoat
Read Genesis 3:4-5, and you’ll see the basis of liberalism.
No consequences. You’ll be smart enough to be your own god, accountable to none, and you may decide right and wrong for yourself.
19
posted on
01/13/2010 5:54:40 AM PST
by
MrB
(The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
To: MamaTexan
The simple fact is that adversity shapes character, but there's no need to put any effort out to change your condition if the world is already full of sunshine and rainbows.Indeed, and this is all part of the plan. If children can be reared in the liberal Gulag to be utterly unable to deal with reality because they have been so mollycoddled in their formative years, the Left will have spawned unending generations of Leftist voters because they will have no one else to turn to but a Government that promises cradle-to-grave hand-holding.
A self-perpetuating Soviet Hell.
20
posted on
01/13/2010 5:57:15 AM PST
by
Stoat
(Sarah Palin 2012: A Strong America Through Unapologetic Conservatism)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson