Michael H Goldhaber wrote:
> Parenthetically, I don't believe we erase the "culture of poverty"
>by telling the poor they could spend their money or time more
Nobody said the whole plurry culture would be erased by
guiding them to spend more wisely. But some decent, concerned,
dedicated people do offer them advice on budgeting etc. Anyone who
feels (tho' not saying so) that those are mere liberal do-gooders
should come clean on that attitude.
It reminds me of the experiences recounted in Daughter of
Persia - the Khomeini gangsters severely punished such as that
author Sattareh Farmaian, claiming that her having founded the first
school in Iran for social workers had delayed the revolution by
soothing the poor, when it would have been politically better to
leave them less comfortable so that they'd have been more likely to
> They have to have easy opportunities, and maybe a lot of hand-holding.
No doubt; and some good folk such as Eric have helped them to
get better access to computers, the internet, etc.
The immediate point has been why the poor lack computers.
Eric said some of them could buy them, and keep them running, with
money at their disposal. The abstract ideologue Phil Gasper says -
with such a fog of words that he may well deny saying it - that
Eric's point is racist or suchlike. What preposterous PC posturing!
I dislike sarcasm, but Eric's was justified in this case.
While we're clarifying our thoughts on this, let's recall
that computers are known to harm young minds. Is it possible that
some of the poor who could afford $50 computers, and free ISPs,
refrain because they're aware of this fact?