Jackson Free Press

In an op/ed piece in the CL Mr. Mitchell asks "Who are the poor?"

Are they a woman screeching into a TV camera, demanding someone provide diapers and food for her infant when it's not clear whether she's ever lifted a finger on her child's behalf?
Are they the widow who stretches her $850 Social Security check every month to pay $500 for rent, $400 for medicine, $200 for utilities, $150 for insurance, $50 for gas and spends the rest on food?

I don't know, Mr. Mitchell, but are you separating the poor based upon ideas of which is MORE worthy in your eyes?

The part of this piece I have major problems with is the view that poor people are REALLY happy to be poor. Mr. Mitchell wants us to stop assuming they are so damn unhappy.

Please don't misunderstand. That doesn't mean no one should care about poor people or that all of them are happy. Just don't fall prey to the bogus assumption that the fatter a person's bank account, the wider that person's smile. It doesn't take more than a moment's reflection to know that's not true.

One advantage of poverty is that people with little money want to keep up with their extended families and networks of friends. For poor folks, sticking together is often a necessity.

Indeed, a family or circle of friends often becomes a network. When one or more members of the group gets a job or a check or has some good luck, everyone eats.

Oh, then there is a little innuendo thrown in...

Some people who are poor are, of course, angry. They feel cheated by life and want revenge. Already there are reports of those $2,000 FEMA debit cards being used to purchase DVD players, Dooney and Bourke purses and at a Houston strip club.

I would beg Mr. Mitchell to please explain to me how he knows that some poor feel "cheated out of life and want revenge"?

Oh, and before he leaves, he leaves us with a little "blaming of the poor".

It's true that some people wouldn't be as poor as they are if they made better choices — the minimum wage guy who buys $2,000 worth of custom wheels for his $1,000 car; the able-yet-unemployed woman who has the latest cell phone and satellite TV.

But despite ALL THIS, I still can't figure out what the hell the point of this piece is. I mean, he states that he wants people to understand that "poverty is complex" and won't get solved overnight.

I beg to differ. I think Mr. Mitchell wants us to believe that poverty is the poor's fault. That poverty is a result of bad choices and REVENGE.

Then, he offers us no real insight into why he even penned this piece. I can't figure it out.

But, maybe that's just me. I sorta like to have a line where I EXPLAIN that in the things that I write.

Like, I wrote this piece because Mr. Mitchell chapped my ass with his outdated assumptions about the poor and irresponsible use of newspaper space.

I will say the topic itself is a great one....poverty IS complex. But, I knew that before I read this and my ass was wonderfully unchapped.

Previous Comments

ID

103088

Comment

Usually when someone looks at an urgent issue and the punchline is "It's too complex," that's actually the first half of an implicit sentence. The other half is "...to deal with." I read Mitchell's column as saying that we should spend less on poverty relief, because "money alone" can't solve the problem. Oh, I'm sure it can't. I suppose we could look at cancer, HIV/AIDS, and so forth, say that medical treatment doesn't always deal with them, say these problems are "complex," shrug, and keep on walking. That's much more pleasant than actually facing up to the suffering of other human beings. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's how people end up voting Republican. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-07T17:27:07-06:00

ID

103089

Comment

I read Mitchell's column as saying that we should spend less on poverty relief, because "money alone" can't solve the problem. Oh, I'm sure it can't. Obviously, it can't. Who the hell said that it would!?! This is the kind of stuff I hate: People misquoting and lifting out of context what other people say about helping the needy, all because they don't want to help them themselves. Gag me with a copy of the National Review.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-10-07T17:33:01-06:00

ID

103090

Comment

Oh, and while I'm raving, can I tell you how sick I am of Mississippi columnists and "pundits" who can't think their way out of a paper bag?!? We just have some of the most insipid opinion pieces I've ever seen in papers in this stateóthe funny thing is, they don't even make conservative arguments very well. I could write them better, if I happened to agree with the positions. And this my friends is the rhetoric of Jim Crow, even if they don't want to admit it: Already there are reports of those $2,000 FEMA debit cards being used to purchase DVD players, Dooney and Bourke purses and at a Houston strip club. During the 60s (and through the present) those who didn't want to help the poor cherrypicked (or made up) examples like this in order to justify their own meanness. It is a akin to the greedy-evacuee e-mail Dr. Johnston passed along. Meantime, of course, in Greenwood in the '60s, the county cut off black people's commodities because they tried to register to vote. YES, THEY TRIED TO STARVE CHILDREN TO DEATH TO MAINTAIN POLITICAL POWER. And, no, that is no urban legend, fellow Mississippians. That is our history. Oh, but I use that example and I can hear the neo-doth-protesting-too-much strains in the air. Oh, I see, you poor-blamers get to come up with an example of Dooney and Burke purses as an excuse for not helping the poor, and you don't want me to talk about starving babies in response, eh? Screw you. It's time to talk about the real world, friends, and in the real world, the rich are hurting the poor. No more lies.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-10-07T17:41:12-06:00

ID

103091

Comment

Right--so many Clarion-Ledger op-eds look like rushed English 101 essay assignments. None of these seem to be addressed to anybody in particular; they make vague rumblings to dispute nonexistent points, and then conclude with what I guess is supposed to pass as a rhetorical flourish. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-07T18:40:48-06:00

ID

103092

Comment

And that freakishly irrelevant David Bowen article is probably the best example of this. It's gotta be great to be starting off at these papers: "Yes, and if you work REALLY hard, you might one day be as good as this guy." Makes me glad that, as a teenager, I generally ignored op-ed pages in favor of Camus, Orwell, etc.--people who let themselves have uncomfortable thoughts. Ever get the feeling that for some of these guys, the world is a 30-minute sitcom with a simplistic problem that always gets neatly resolved by the end? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-07T18:45:12-06:00

ID

103093

Comment

Yep, these columnsóand most of the state's journalismótreats Mississippians like we're idiots. The one-line paragraph after paragraph of cliches are just ... I can't even think of a word that captures it. Sid Salter at least writes a decent column occasionally. But that is more than I can say for of the mainstream pundits, even the ones I agree with more often. Of course, Bill Minor is a major exception. He's not a flowery writer, and writes his columns based on actual research. And he's not afraid of the neo-wingnuts.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-10-07T18:53:35-06:00

ID

103094

Comment

Speaking of treating us like idiots, it's good to see the quality of commentary that the Ledge attracts in their forums: Looter's Best Beer Good to see that the Ledge doesn't mind being used as a tool to promote disgusting racism. (Tell me if they now take this down, after a week. I made a PDF of it, and can link to it if need be.)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-10-07T19:07:20-06:00

ID

103095

Comment

Ladd ñ î It's time to talk about the real world, friends, and in the real world, the rich are hurting the poor. No more lies.î By rich, I assume you mean rich conservatives

Author

K RHODES

Date

2005-10-07T19:11:58-06:00

ID

103096

Comment

No, K, I mean everyone who has allowed the gap between the rich and poor to get so wide, and so bad. And that sure isn't just rich conservatives. It's not either-or. And I'm one of them -- not that I'm rich by most people's standards, but I'm pretty well off compared to people living in poverty. However, there are are rich conservatives really mucking this thing up and taking it to the extreme with their "culture of corruption." That doesn't mean there are no good rich conservatives out there, but these days it's hard to see them among all the crooks and cronies.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-10-07T19:19:53-06:00

ID

103097

Comment

I obsessively read editorials and opinion pieces in the Clarion Ledger to see what they have to offer. I have finally come to the conclusion that they are idiots. I'm sorry. I hate to say that. But, I read them with HOPE that someone will say something remotely intelligent and that elicits emotion. (We are drunk and trying to spell...forgive US. US being me and seven friends trying to spell elicit/illicit ) I saw the "Looters Best Beer" and wondered if they were going to leave that up. Here's my Narcissitic statement. I used to wonder about my writing ability until I read the Clarion Ledger.

Author

Lori G

Date

2005-10-07T19:20:51-06:00

ID

103098

Comment

Ladd, what as an individual, have you not done or should be doing? Seriously, I would really like to read your view as to what it is the rich should be doing to lessen the gap

Author

K RHODES

Date

2005-10-07T19:31:50-06:00

ID

103099

Comment

It's as if they singlehandedly are promoting the bigotry of low expectation. They expect Real Mississippians to be morons who can't read a paragraph with more then two sentences, or a word with more than five letters. I'm really not saying this to be mean and snarky; the truth is, we need BETTER mainstream media to encourage economic development in the state. If you're thinking of moving here and read the Ledge, you'd think you could never get involved in an interesting conversation. And, you know, smart people like smart conversations. DEMAND BETTER FROM THESE CORPORATE YUCKS. I'm sure their people could do a better job if they weren't mired in such corporate mediocrity.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-10-07T19:32:16-06:00

ID

103100

Comment

No, let me ask you first, K, so that I know what I'm dealing with here: Do you NOT believe that "the rich" have done anything of late to widen said gap? Do you not believe the gap has widened?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-10-07T19:33:41-06:00

ID

103101

Comment

Also, K, I've written recently about what I have not done. I have not done my part to shine a light on the needs of the poor -- and to call the people out who don't give a damn about the least among us in their quest to make the rich richer without regard to others. I am going to work very hard to make up for shying award from this very vital public discussion.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-10-07T19:36:19-06:00

ID

103102

Comment

Yes Iíll agree that the gap has widened, but as for the rich being responsible, that I canít agree to

Author

K RHODES

Date

2005-10-07T19:38:03-06:00

ID

103103

Comment

You don't have to agree, K. No one asked you to. The truth is, there is plenty of evidence that shows that you are misled. Sorry, but that's true. Pretending it's not won't make wishful thinking and apologize for corporate cronyism actually true. Sorry: There is no room for sugarcoating on this. We've all ignored this for too long. Feel free to try to convince us otherwise, but you're going to have to get past rhetoric at this point. People are wising up.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-10-07T19:40:45-06:00

ID

103104

Comment

BTW, I've already specified that my reference to "the rich" it not a "hate the rich" statement, so don't even down the road of trying to put words in my mouth and then bashing me for them. I'm not in the mood for games. Besides, some of my best friends are rich. ;-D

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-10-07T19:42:53-06:00

ID

103105

Comment

Yes, I agree there is no room for sugar coating, and therefore I ask, is poverty not more about choices than circumstance?

Author

K RHODES

Date

2005-10-07T19:49:18-06:00

ID

103106

Comment

is poverty not more about choices than circumstance? K, you ARE NOT saying that with a straight face, are you? Do you truly believe that poverty in the U.S. is "more about choices than circumstance"? (I feel a blame-the-poor rationalization coming right here on the JFP blog. Ladies and Gentlemen, start your engines.) K, could you explain to us in a rational, lucid, intelligent way how poverty is "more about choices than circumstance"? Really, bring it on ... but understand that this is not talk radio or Blogging for Morons. That is, just making such a statement is not going to bring you home on this one. Be ready to tango. (Actually, I'm not tangoing more tonight. I'm signing off. But I look forward to being convinced that poverty is "more about choices than circumstance." Really.)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-10-07T19:54:47-06:00

ID

103107

Comment

It sure would be nice if poverty were about choices. Then I wouldn't have to feel guilty about the number of folks who live in poverty. Yep. And if I knew there was a God who blesses the kind of life I try to live, and values it above the way other people live their lives. Yep. And if I knew that racism wasn't a real problem anymore, and that if I didn't buy into it overtly, I was in the clear. Yep. And if the secret to a good economy was paying less taxes, and everything will work out fine if that happens. Yep. Must be nice to think that way. Maybe if I drank as much as Dubya used to, I'd be able to kill enough brain cells to pull it off. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-07T20:00:28-06:00

ID

103108

Comment

No, of course poverty doesnít exist in this country solely because of choices. One simple argument is how then does any individual manage to slip the ìgapî? Choices by large does not cause poverty to exist, but it certainly is more beneficial to those living in poverty to make choices that will not further their daily strive.

Author

K RHODES

Date

2005-10-07T20:26:39-06:00

ID

103109

Comment

Well, sure. And the same is true of those who don't live in poverty. But I have trouble connecting this with your statement that poverty is more about choices than circumstances--particularly when circumstances inform, and provide the framework for, choices. There is a delightful sermon that a dear friend of mine gave, and I'm going to try to get permission to post up on my blog sometime within the near future. It speaks to this exact issue, and maybe a little more eloquently than I can. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-07T22:22:15-06:00

ID

103110

Comment

Well, K, I think that begs this question. What if your choices are limited by circumstances? By the very nature of poverty...choices become smaller. What if, instead of getting to go to a four year college, you only get to choose a work program...IF even that...because of circumstances? Or, what if you can't even get into a four year college because you graduated from a public school that was so crowded and strapped for cash you didnt' get the individual attention that you needed? This caused you to perform at a lower level on the standardized tests that get you IN to a college or some sort of higher education. This limits your job choices, and as such, your ability to earn a better income than someone else. Hence, poverty. I'm sorry, but your statement makes very little sense.

Author

Lori G

Date

2005-10-08T08:59:27-06:00

ID

103111

Comment

Realistically impoverished schools and communities in this country have remained the same now for decades, whatever has been done, it is not working. I will concede that circumstances play a greater role in initial poverty. But it is proven that some individuals overcome the same circumstances of which others remain victims. With that said I am not saying let poor people sink or swim. Now rather some people remain impoverished due to cruel irony or as I believe some overcome poverty due to wise decision making, it is possible for some to overcome poverty. As some of you view it, the poorís choices are set by their dire circumstances, so should we simply tell the poor not to even try because theyíre destined to fail.

Author

K RHODES

Date

2005-10-08T12:31:57-06:00

ID

103112

Comment

No, not at all. But we also don't say that we shouldn't let these oppressive circumstances stand just because a few people are able to successfully escape from them. By that logic, we wouldn't spend time trying to cure any disease that has a mortality rate lower than 100 percent, on the basis that occasional survival proves people "can" fight off the infection if they really try. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-08T13:27:06-06:00

ID

103113

Comment

Uhm, that should read "...we don't say that we should let..." Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-08T13:33:37-06:00

ID

103114

Comment

Realistically impoverished schools and communities in this country have remained the same now for decades, whatever has been done, it is not working. While it's not at all true that public schools don't work, it's certainly true that the approach we've taken for the past 25 years -- BELIEVING THEY DON'T WORK -- isn't working. On that, I agree. Here's my suggestion...let's move on. I would posit that part of the problem is that the wealthy -- middle, upper-middle class, whatever -- have all but GIVEN UP on the public schools. They've been *encouraged* to do so by decades of conservative thinktank promotion of the idea that the public schools are failing and that it's NOT OUR FAULT. That it's simply systematic. That the whole idea CAN'T work, for whatever reason is the most glib and appropriate at that moment -- most of which come back to the pseudo-libertarian argument that municipal institutions must be "run like a business" in order for them to succeed. (BILL BENNETT LOVES THIS LOGIC. Why? Well, for one, up until this week he was Chairman of a for-profit company that sells homeschooling curriculum materials. But it's mostly because he's gotten rich and has many friends because he's willing to go in front of cameras and microphones and lie about the state of education in this country. That makes his friends wealthy and his compatriots feel good about themselves.) But the problem is more fundamental than that. It's the ease with which social darwinism allows us to substitute this notion of "personal responsibility" -- whose proponents tend to be laughably unable to conjure in their own lives -- for any sort of societal responsibility. Senator Obama has probably said it the best I've seen in recent years: In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it--Social Darwinism--every man or woman for him or herself. It's a tempting idea, because it doesn't require much thought or ingenuity. It allows us to say that those whose health care or tuition may rise faster than they can afford--tough luck. It allows us to say to the Maytag workers who have lost their job--life isn't fair. It let's us say to the child who was born into poverty--pull yourself up by your bootstraps. And it is especially tempting because each of us believes we will always be the winner in life's lottery, that we're the one who will be the next Donald Trump, or at least we won't be the chump who Donald Trump says: "You're fired!" But there is a problem. It won't work. It ignores our history. It ignores the fact that it's been government research and investment that made the railways possible and the internet possible. It's been the creation of a massive middle class, through decent wages and benefits and public schools that allowed us all to prosper. Our economic dependence depended on individual initiative. It depended on a belief in the free market; but it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, the idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we're all in it together and everybody's got a shot at opportunity. That's what's produced our unrivaled political stability. So whose fault is poverty? OURS.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2005-10-08T15:09:58-06:00

ID

103115

Comment

There may be a post "crony-conservative" era in this country. I hope it's coming soon. And when that time comes, I hope more people begin to believe that the United States is the greatest country on the planet. When they truly start to internalize that notion, I hope they begin to realize that BECAUSE this is the greatest country on the planet, THEREFORE our country should DO BETTER to solve the ills of those who have less among us. I'd call that progressivism. In my opinion, this country's promise is as simple as perhaps our most common metaphor. Our citizens deserve a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. For democracy to work...for free enterprise to work...for freedom to work...you have to have a level playing field. So ask yourself this: Is the field LEVEL in today's America? If it isn't -- and if this is the greatest country in the history of humankind -- then shouldn't we demand, vote, work, scream and fight to LEVEL THAT FIELD?

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2005-10-08T15:10:22-06:00

ID

103116

Comment

What I really, truly don't understand is how such a great country, which claims to be based on Christian teachings at that, has allowed the most radical wingnuts to convince us that ANY attempt by the government to help the poor, or even the not-so-poor-but-still-in-need among us, is somehow anti-American and "communist" even. You see people making these arguments all the time, and they. make. no. sense. But ever since the Reagan era, which divided Americans so horribly between those who believe the government should help people and those who don't, we've been spoonfed half-baked arguments, and myths, about all the "welfare mothers" trying to bilk the system. I think the biggest shame of it all, though, is how Democrats went along with the lies, and allowed wingnuts to convince so many people that ANY attempt to help people means that the government supports them completely and that they don't have to work, get an education, etc. It's patently absurd, with no research to back it up. Speaking of reality, Todd is right that a very deliberate campaign was waged, started in the Reagan era (when else?), to convince people that public schools are failing, so that families would stop supporting them. The underfunded No Child Left Behind is the latest salvo -- an ugly attempt to test both (public school) kids and teachers to death or "fail" the schools. Meantime, don't get them the help they need to live up to the standards. In many ways, it's the biggest tragedy waged by these people, who are willing to seize directly on people's prejudices, that kicked in against the public schools, after integregation in order to dismantle public education. Our country is better than t his, and Americans must stand up to these disgusting attempts to turn us into a country that would do such a thing to its own people.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-10-08T16:02:03-06:00

ID

103117

Comment

How did I miss this last part of the argument? There was a documentary done not too long ago about the plight of a public school in the Delta (very impoverished) and its inability to meet the rigorous demands of the testing because a monetary reasons directly related TO THE TESTING. Now, this might have been before the No Child Left Behind Act which takes away MORE money from schools with poor test scores. It may be "Lalee's Kin". (It is, I checked. Fabulous documentary everyone should see, by the way) The principle speaks about how hiring teachers is difficult because they don't have the funds. If they don't have the teachers the classes are larger and children get less individual attention. This directly effects how well they do on the testing. The testing then determines what "level" school they are. The school can get put on probation if the scores aren't lifted. Part of the White House's New Reports concerning the No Child Left Behind Act states "Increase Accountability for Student Performance: States, districts and schools that improve achievement will be rewarded. Failure will be sanctioned. " This sounds great. But effectively begins to cut funds for schools that were struggling to begin with. A lot of these schools are in impoverished areas with students who already are working to overcome personal factors that interfer with their learning. Now, I need someone to tell me how that makes sense.

Author

Lori G

Date

2005-10-09T12:57:01-06:00