Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectlet
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=25270&mesg_id=25274
25274, let
Posted by bshelly, Sun Apr-08-01 06:11 AM
>This is a two-part thread.
>Let's look at the first issue,
>the word "fortunate" itself.
>Dictionary.com defines fortunate as....
>for·tu·nate (fôrch-nt)
> adj.
> 1.Bringing something good
>and unforeseen; auspicious.
> 2.Having unexpected good
>fortune; lucky.
>Therefore, if you are describing low-income
>earners as "less fortunate" (a
>term devised by Democrats and
>leftists alike I may add),
>it implies they simply were
>not lucky in life, instead
>of partially being victim of
>the decisions that they made
>in their own lives.
>Does the contrary ring true as
>well? Does that mean
>the ones who actually achieved
>and succeeded only done so
>because they were "lucky" and
>didn't work their ass off
>and make the decisions they
>needed to in order to
>accomplish what they have in
>life? This actually has
>been a thought that has
>been going around sometime, as
>a year or two ago
>Senator Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota)
>referred to high achievers as
>"Those who have won life's
>lottery". Is that how
>people actually percieve every financially
>independent person, as someone who
>was just "fortunate" to be
>in the spot they are
>in today, like picking a
>lottery number?
>Of course there are people out
>there in this world that
>were born into the decrepit
>situations they are in, as
>well as there are people
>in this world that were
>born "with a silver spoon".
> But of course, rarely
>has it been stated nowadays
>of people that come from
>poor conditions and a harmful
>environment that have become the
>exception of the norm and
>made their way to the
>top and become high-achievers.
>Likewise, there have been people
>that were born in luxury
>that have taken a hard
>fall while being rich, and
>have either ended up in
>jail or have lost a
>fortune (some might be facing
>the latter on Wall Street
>now). In this society
>do we try to educate
>people that it is possible
>to transfer yourself from either
>situation, granted that you make
>decisions supportive of success or
>failure? Do we actually
>live by the term, "Life
>is 10% of what happens
>to me and 90% of
>how I react to it.",
>or do we sit around
>miserably or even naively thinking
>that we live in a
>virtual caste system, and our
>situations, especially black people, will
>never change no matter what
>we do?
>The second part of this thread
>seeks to question the standard
>of "poverty".
>What can actually be called poverty?
> What conditions and standards
>must be applied in order
>for someone to be called
>"poor", specifically in these United
>M2 and I have had this
>conversation before over at the
>old Boondocks site, but never
>with you guys. I
>think when we tend to
> think of people that
>are "rich", we tend to
>think of multi-millionaires, mostly white,
>with mansions and rolls royces,
>limosines, etc. However, the
>IRS and politicians knowingly call
>someone that is making around
>$350,000/yr rich. Why?
>Because they are classified as
>the top 1% of wage-earners,
>aka to leftists "the greedy,
>filthy rich".
>Same with the poor. When
>we think of the poor,
>we tend to think of
>people living in sub-normal shelter
>and conditions. We think
>of homeless people. We
>think of people that dont
>have any food, wear dirty
>clothes, parents with no jobs,
>and children that go hungry.
> I honestly think that
>when a majority of you
>think of the "poor and
>the less fortunate", you think
>of something simular to watching
>the infomercial "Save The Children".
>But is that actually realistic more
>often than not to the
>"poor" in the US?
>Sure, there are isolated spots
>in this country in which
>there are people that are
>indeed in need of help,
>such as Appalacia, but are
>all poor seen in the
>same standard? Can all
>welfare recipients be classified as
>poor, even though they have
>the luxuries that most people
>in America have: televisions,
>phones, VCR's, etc? There
>is a television in 99%
>of the homes in the
>United States; 98% of those
>televisions are color. However,
>the "poverty rate" in America
>is supposed to be 10%,
>and hasn't dropped in the
>last 40 years. There
>are people in other nations
>that have never seen a
>television; in fact they would
>amazed at the sight of
>chewing gum.
>Hence, is your idea of poverty
>in America for the most
>part (emphasis on most part)
>an illusion? Or are
>you actually taking the luxuries
>that they happen to possess
>in consideration?
>Just thought I'd make you guys
>think this weekend....;-)

bshelly: railing against the Industrial Revolution since 1999. Even Adam Smith recognizes:

"The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects too are, perhaps, always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occassion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become." That's my word.