Teach Them To Fish
Teach Them To Fish
February 25, 2006
On February 7, 2006, there was a remarkable event in history, almost as memorable as presidential funerals and other national events such as the first moon landing. The memorial service for Coretta Scott King led to the gathering of many people of national prominence, including four United States Presidents, all of whom gave speeches. The symbolic nature of the event was significant, but as former President Clinton pointed out, now that symbolism must be translated into tangible results.
At this memorial service, one individual pointed out the fact that under the Bush Administration, the budget for war has escalated dramatically, while the budget for the poor has dwindled. That statement caused both the current and former President Bushes to shake their heads, apparently because they disagreed with what this statement implied. That is understandable, given that both Bushes display a hawkish pattern, as if the “enemy” were like roaches that you have to kill either one at a time or with the blanket spraying of pesticide, discounting the collateral damage of doing so or its counterproductive nature. The roach analogy only goes so far, however, because in the case of humans, I see the “enemy” as violent activists that represent the radical expression of the general philosophy of a large group of people. These radicals effect unconscionable activity as a means of lashing out against the general philosophy of a different large number of people. The Bushes seem to forget that reconciling philosophical differences between vast sectors of reasonable people would no doubt go a long way towards stemming violence. Out of the hawkish, “kill the roaches” tendencies comes the commerce of the military-industrial complex. Some claim that this is the motivating force that drives the hawkishness, but I believe that this type of commerce is an end result that then turns around and reinforces continued hawkishness, like the positive reinforcement that comes when little boys play with toy tanks and have a good time doing it. And we must not forget that our society, too, represents the general philosophy of a large number of people, and our radicals are the hawks out there engaged in unconscionable activity against the “enemy”. As I enjoy saying: “Q: where are all the Weapons of Mass Destruction? A: In the War Room of the White House”.
In the case of the Bushes, all of this has certainly led to a decreased budget for the poor. But it more strikingly has led to a dramatic decrease in the budget for education. This latter fact exposes the crux of the matter---the very essence of the Coretta Scott King memorial service, whether anyone else realizes it or not.
The statement that the budget for war has gone up while the budget for the poor has gone down is indicting in itself, but I propose that its implied message, that you can do a great deal of good by giving the poor handouts, is misplaced. I think that he real problem with the budget is a substantial decrease in the amount slated to be spent on education beyond the marginal amount already being spent.
If we have a significant minority of people who are poor, I believe that there is not any amount of money that we can conjure up in any budget to stop those people from being poor unless that money is spent teaching them how to be poor no longer. Enabling the poor to acquire complex knowledge and skills so that they can be legitimately employed with a living wage is how our money must be spent instead. Part of the curriculum must include avoiding pregnancy, not being abusive to others, how to be a responsible person and why, establishing a stable relationship with another person, good nutrition, avoidance of substance dependency, a civics course, how to save and budget money, and how to accumulate and manage wealth.
I asked a friend to review this essay. She was quick to point out that I must not forget other mitigating ills that face this nation. For instance, she asks what good a quality education is, if you cannot get a quality job (referring to the wholesale exportation of jobs and replacement of people by machines, etc.). Truly, we have all sorts of economic and infrastructure challenges ahead (including doing the things necessary to enable young single parents to go back to school), but this essay mainly addresses the extreme importance of a highly-educated public. Taking calculus might seem irrelevant to a person’s future, until you factor in the side benefits of creating cerebral connections that increase one’s ability to come up with pragmatic solutions to other hurdles in completely different arenas than calculus. The more developed a human brain is, the less apt it is to accept illogical, simplistic explanations for complex issues and the more likely it is to avoid manipulation by others with hidden agendas. A more educated public is less likely to be herded as if sheep. Finally, more to the point about the subject of this essay versus other problems we face: if we started this instant, it would take probably 18 years or more before we harvested the benefits of quality education. Who knows what the job market will be then?
The other side of the coin is always the question as to whether the poor are willing to learn. Certainly some are, and it is only a question of what percentage of the total would enter the mainstream, given the opportunity. It is mandatory that the rest of us give the disadvantaged the opportunity to learn and work their way out of poverty. This is really the main thing we have to do, and the rewards can be exponential. In addition, if we afford the poor the chance for a high-quality education, we will have proof that those who are not genuinely totally disabled [an interesting subject for another essay] and remain poor do so through their own decision. Then we have the right to hold them accountable.
This is a different concept from merely providing welfare for poor people. I see welfare as a dead-end street. Education represents open-ended opportunity. Give a person a fish, and the person eats for a day. Teach that person to fish, and that person can fish for a lifetime---if willing to do so and not certifiably totally disabled. It is up to the rest of us to provide the best possible education for everyone capable of learning. Is that not what equal opportunity means?
© 2006, srman07
February 25, 2006
On February 7, 2006, there was a remarkable event in history, almost as memorable as presidential funerals and other national events such as the first moon landing. The memorial service for Coretta Scott King led to the gathering of many people of national prominence, including four United States Presidents, all of whom gave speeches. The symbolic nature of the event was significant, but as former President Clinton pointed out, now that symbolism must be translated into tangible results.
At this memorial service, one individual pointed out the fact that under the Bush Administration, the budget for war has escalated dramatically, while the budget for the poor has dwindled. That statement caused both the current and former President Bushes to shake their heads, apparently because they disagreed with what this statement implied. That is understandable, given that both Bushes display a hawkish pattern, as if the “enemy” were like roaches that you have to kill either one at a time or with the blanket spraying of pesticide, discounting the collateral damage of doing so or its counterproductive nature. The roach analogy only goes so far, however, because in the case of humans, I see the “enemy” as violent activists that represent the radical expression of the general philosophy of a large group of people. These radicals effect unconscionable activity as a means of lashing out against the general philosophy of a different large number of people. The Bushes seem to forget that reconciling philosophical differences between vast sectors of reasonable people would no doubt go a long way towards stemming violence. Out of the hawkish, “kill the roaches” tendencies comes the commerce of the military-industrial complex. Some claim that this is the motivating force that drives the hawkishness, but I believe that this type of commerce is an end result that then turns around and reinforces continued hawkishness, like the positive reinforcement that comes when little boys play with toy tanks and have a good time doing it. And we must not forget that our society, too, represents the general philosophy of a large number of people, and our radicals are the hawks out there engaged in unconscionable activity against the “enemy”. As I enjoy saying: “Q: where are all the Weapons of Mass Destruction? A: In the War Room of the White House”.
In the case of the Bushes, all of this has certainly led to a decreased budget for the poor. But it more strikingly has led to a dramatic decrease in the budget for education. This latter fact exposes the crux of the matter---the very essence of the Coretta Scott King memorial service, whether anyone else realizes it or not.
The statement that the budget for war has gone up while the budget for the poor has gone down is indicting in itself, but I propose that its implied message, that you can do a great deal of good by giving the poor handouts, is misplaced. I think that he real problem with the budget is a substantial decrease in the amount slated to be spent on education beyond the marginal amount already being spent.
If we have a significant minority of people who are poor, I believe that there is not any amount of money that we can conjure up in any budget to stop those people from being poor unless that money is spent teaching them how to be poor no longer. Enabling the poor to acquire complex knowledge and skills so that they can be legitimately employed with a living wage is how our money must be spent instead. Part of the curriculum must include avoiding pregnancy, not being abusive to others, how to be a responsible person and why, establishing a stable relationship with another person, good nutrition, avoidance of substance dependency, a civics course, how to save and budget money, and how to accumulate and manage wealth.
I asked a friend to review this essay. She was quick to point out that I must not forget other mitigating ills that face this nation. For instance, she asks what good a quality education is, if you cannot get a quality job (referring to the wholesale exportation of jobs and replacement of people by machines, etc.). Truly, we have all sorts of economic and infrastructure challenges ahead (including doing the things necessary to enable young single parents to go back to school), but this essay mainly addresses the extreme importance of a highly-educated public. Taking calculus might seem irrelevant to a person’s future, until you factor in the side benefits of creating cerebral connections that increase one’s ability to come up with pragmatic solutions to other hurdles in completely different arenas than calculus. The more developed a human brain is, the less apt it is to accept illogical, simplistic explanations for complex issues and the more likely it is to avoid manipulation by others with hidden agendas. A more educated public is less likely to be herded as if sheep. Finally, more to the point about the subject of this essay versus other problems we face: if we started this instant, it would take probably 18 years or more before we harvested the benefits of quality education. Who knows what the job market will be then?
The other side of the coin is always the question as to whether the poor are willing to learn. Certainly some are, and it is only a question of what percentage of the total would enter the mainstream, given the opportunity. It is mandatory that the rest of us give the disadvantaged the opportunity to learn and work their way out of poverty. This is really the main thing we have to do, and the rewards can be exponential. In addition, if we afford the poor the chance for a high-quality education, we will have proof that those who are not genuinely totally disabled [an interesting subject for another essay] and remain poor do so through their own decision. Then we have the right to hold them accountable.
This is a different concept from merely providing welfare for poor people. I see welfare as a dead-end street. Education represents open-ended opportunity. Give a person a fish, and the person eats for a day. Teach that person to fish, and that person can fish for a lifetime---if willing to do so and not certifiably totally disabled. It is up to the rest of us to provide the best possible education for everyone capable of learning. Is that not what equal opportunity means?
© 2006, srman07
posted by srman07 at 6:26 AM
