It used to be that kids without money were “poor”, then they became “disadvantaged” and then most recently “at-risk”. Well now a well intentioned state senator from California wants to call them “at hope” kids. “Democratic State Sen. Rosa Franklin says negative labels are hurting kids’ chances for success…”
Now I get the intent and I am all for raising the self esteem of all kids, especially those who aren’t born with the same advantages as others. However, I think this label does nothing more than to sugar coat the problems. Kids are NOT considered “at-risk” so they have a descriptor of themselves. They are “at-risk” as a wake up call for the rest of us to get involved to make sure they continue down the right path and get the tools they need to be successful. Changing the name IMO to “at hope” doesn’t change anything but make some people feel good about their word choices.
or help share the post by clicking below…
way to hit it on the head again!
I am going to have to go buy some more nails.
You’re lucky “it” was wearing a helmet…
Why do people always feel the need to sugar coat EVERYTHING? Do the problems go away then?
I think it makes them feel better about themselves.
Boy, ain’t that the truth. Like 99% of the politically correct crap, it makes em fell good so they can sleep better at night. Nothing done to really help correct anything, but, damn, they sure feel good about themselves. So the kids get caught in the middle of the whole thing and still go to bed hungry, sick or both.
and this is why the world is going down the crapper… too much PC shite. we need to call a spade a spade…not “a spoon that size challenged”
Instead of in need of a raise I am now “on the track to wealth”. Haha
lmao thats a good one bearman
I agree with you — they ARE sugar coating it. It just gives people even more of an excuse to ignore them ’cause they seem better off than when they were just called “poor” or “disadvantaged”.
I get the intent but it’s like calling a homeless person “house hopeful” No one will get it.
oh no…. you’ve said it in print…. now some well meaning person somewhere is gonna take that and run with it….. “house hopeful” indeed 🙁
I think there is an entire book waiting to be written. Bschooled get your publisher on the phone. Myra can find us pictures.
He won’t take my calls!
It would have been so awesome if that good senator had spent the time he did making that well intentioned proposal, putting on a fundraiser for POOR kids.
More dumb politians.
Not sure if she has or has not done any fundraising. I would like to think she was already involved in this area. But I am an optimist
By today’s standards when I was growin’ up almost everyone was poor. We called it pore back then but we didn’t call each other that because we didn’t know we were poor. I ain’t wantin’ to wax elequent or anything but the government will never be able to solve the problem. Individuals must take an interest. Mentor a poor kid. Secretly adopt a poor family and help them through tough times. The government just destroys incentive.
True. I started out last year getting involved in donating time. I fell off toward the end of the year. Need to get off my butt again
I’m with you all the way here, Bearman.
Bearman for world czar!
So a failing grade will soon become “a potential A+,” high-crime areas will now become “hopefully peaceful” areas, and repeat sexual offenders will become “future gentlemen.”
Bo’s quote is one of the best, simplest way I’ve seen it put: The government destroys incentive.
Now my avatar is attached.
On a related note, “at hope” sounds ridiculous. The phrase does not make sense, according to the rules of the English language. “At risk” means “You are at risk for this.” “You are at hope for this” is not English.
Finally. I was hoping someone would pick up on this. I was going to write it in my original post but I was going through it in my head over and over and it never made sense. “You are at hope” hahah
If we call em “at hope” kids, then they are “at risk” for being “hopeful”…. when we all know the system will screw their “hopeful” asses to the wall! o.O
We all love to blame the idiot politicians, but it’s us who vote their sorry asses in. Maybe if we passed a law that says any politician who proves to be a dumbass while in office will be nerfed at will?!? Can I say that out loud?!! o.O
“nerfed at will” I don’t know. It depends on your definition of NERF
The sad thing is that The United States would rather throw money all around the globe. Oh, you’re an American. Sorry, third world countries need help, plus It costs alot to chase people around who live in caves. Yes you remember that one guy Bin Laden, years later still being chased at the ultimate price. AMERICANS! Don’t forget the enormous price tag to do that! So yeah, poor, homeless, unadvantaged American? Move to a third world country if you need help from America. Pathetic! Simply pathetic!
I think Americans don’t want to help Americans but when there is a face put on tragedy, we want to believe that our government will help. Unfortunately the news doesn’t do a good enough job of putting a face on the tragedy here.
Political-correctness is having an adverse effect on society sometimes. You’re right. If we keep changing stuff up, it’s gonna lose its power. I’ll be known as prettily-challenged and follicle over-producing.
Are you trying to say you have a hairy back??
Just hairy palms is all.
Funny … I’ve always been a bit “on the dull side”! 🙂
Now spin that around. You are actually “sharp lacking”
That’s a very important idea – I’m happy that you’ve brought it up!
I’ll have my people look into it as soon as possible! 😉
On a complete digression, call by a real bear at;
http://www.bear.org/website/visit-us/lily-den-cam.html
(Thanks to Andy Holroyd for that)
Researchers answering the age old question as to whether or not a bear shits in the woods.
A rose by any other name….
The harm is not in the words, it’s in its reality. There’s no sugar-coating the problem.
Well as long as people feel good about themselves.
It makes no difference. It is like calling water liquid – they are basically the same.
Unless that liquid is beer.
see yet you people all reject a national healthcare program… idiots!
We are only thinking of all the poor people in the insurance industry who might lose their jobs.
Can’t wait to hear what they are going to call the Haitian earthquake victims? At hope?
Oh…look who finally showed up late to the party. You know if you didn’t feel the need to do 20 posts a day, you might make the rounds a few more times.
BLAHAHAHAAHA Apologies for my tardiness but I was at the beach for a few days just posting and swimming 🙂 I must say Bearman I am enjoying your more than once a fortnight posts.
When did you get one of those new fangled underwater computers???
Apple just released it , it’s called ilung
Glad to see that California is still in the forefront for cornering the market on S.T.U.P.I.D.I.T.Y.
Not familiar with that acronym…can you spell it out for me..haha
“The turning point for me was when they changed the wording fom “at risk” to “at hope”. I mean, it didn’t help me monetary-wise (or even support-wise for that matter), but the label just seemed to have a little more…well, optimism, if you will.”
-Little Billy, Former at-risk kid, now CEO of Shell
I think that is a new reader’s digest post.
I’d like to hear Pat Robertson’s take on what they should be called
Screw ups??
When you don’t like something… Just ‘relabel’ it and it makes it all better…..
Denial is quite a popular destination nowadays.
I never had enough money to go to Denial.
Bearman, you’re always on top of the latest joke fodder, I mean, news 🙂 A rose by any other name is still destitute.
Thankfully Google news sometimes writes it themselves.