Illiteracy Special on TV!
An issue near and dear to my own heart is airing tonight, Feb 25th, on ABC's "World News With Charles Gibson" called "Living in the Shadows: Illiteracy in America."
If they get their statistical information right, prepare to be shocked. 20% (1 in 5 people) of this nation is considered functionally illiterate, and in some areas it's as high as 1 in 3 people. The reasons for illiteracy are as varied as the people themselves, but they almost always include some kind of learning disorder or unstable family life, especially with abuse involved, and poverty. It's almost never because someone was just "lazy" or didn't "apply" themselves.
In my opinion, illiteracy (or below average schooling) is the root of many other social problems. Convicted felons who go through education programming while locked up are only 30% more likely to reoffend. Without any educational intervention, the recidivism rate is a staggering 70%--if you have no real marketable or educational skills and you add on top of that the social ostracization of having been in prison, who is going to give you a job? Children of adults who are illiterate are twice as likely to be illiterate themselves. It's almost like an inheritable disorder.
Of course, much of this comes down to issues of generational poverty, which I don't know if the special will even touch on. Kids who grow up in poor homes hear on average 500 different words in a day. A toddler growing up in a professional/upper middle class home hears 3200 (this comes from Ruby Payne's Framework for Understanding Poverty). The advantage is clear even from the outset. Children from generational poverty usually don't even get the kind of nutrition required for peak learning to happen. They are behind the curve to start with nutritionally and with their support structures, and yet there are still people who like to argue we all start from the same point. Sigh. But this is great p.r. for those of us with agencies in the fight against illiteracy. Maybe we'll get more community support after this special hits. We could use both the money and the volunteers. More importantly, maybe it will give more adults who need the help the courage to step up and ask for it.
Watch the special! I'll likely have an after-report, whether you're interested or not. :)
-- Virgil (making popcorn as you read)
posted by contemplator at Monday, February 25, 2008
15 Comments:
I hope to God that these people don't vote.
I'm sure they think the same thing about you. In fact, I know they do.
Just the people who don't read. Not the poor.
I have no problem with the poor voting. I do have a problem with ignorant people voting.
Right, because when you can't read, it must mean you're ignorant. Some people who *can* read remain ignorant. Literacy laws have been used to disenfranchise people in America in the past.
Hey, hold on a second. Didn't you say I was ignorant for not reading just a FEW certain books?
So how is it that someone who has read NO books not be ignorant?
Second, what makes you think that ignorant people would vote your way? I mean, just look at how things are in this country. Do you think that people who read Shakespeare and Chaucer voted these people in?
You not reading about history and culture and still trying to argue that you "know" blacks are mentally degraded by affirmative action or that there is "no way" that the majority of whites could be racist it is ignorant. Trying to argue a historical point without having read history is stupid. You were ignorant about that issue. Nobody said you were completely ignorant and devoid of all knowledge whatsoever.
This is not the same thing. And if you can't tell the difference, well, that goes without finishing.
You do not have to read books to make decisions about who should best represent you politically today. You can listen to their speeches on the radio or the television. You can discuss things with your friends and neighbors. The majority of the people we serve have jobs and are taxpayers. They're taxed--why shouldn't they vote? Just because you choose to stereotype them as "ignorant"?
People know when their children are getting gypped at school. People know when they don't make enough money or suffer other problems because of decisions that local politicians have made. If you want to talk about understanding the history of why certain issues came about, then yes, that's a different subject.
But to suggest that people who don't read as well as you have no conception of their own political surroundings is, well, stupid.
Lastly, I don't care if they "vote my way", whichever way you seem to think that would be. Where did I ever suggest otherwise? I just want them to be able to vote. I'm for enfranchisement, period. As a matter of fact, most of the people I serve who are functionally illiterate don't vote my way. What's your point about Shakespeare and Chaucer (have you read those, by the way?)
Why are you so angry lately?
It's her blog, isn't it? Doesn't she have a right to be angry on her own blog?
Come on, Watchdog of Liberty, respect the Contemplator's personal freedom!
First of all, I consistently did great in history throughout school. To boot, I have done a good amount of reading history independently. You start off with a false assertion, which leads to faulty arguments, etc.
Regarding politicians, watching TV, or going by hearsay is not even close to being good enough. Nowadays, people are sold over by good looks, the way a politician acts, etc. , as well as the usual bread and circus promises. Prior to television and radio, people would actually READ what that politician stood for. It has been proven that when a voter does this, they are more likely to vote for that person on the issues.
I am sick and tired of idiots voting. Does that mean I would legally stop them? No.
Am I going to go out of my way to help people who don't know anything to vote? Also, no; at least not until I present my side of view to them. That Economist article should do plenty to explain why.
"Come on, Watchdog of Liberty, respect the Contemplator's personal freedom!"
I respect everybody's freedom. But that does not mean I necessarily agree with everything that the person does, despite the fact that I feel that he/she should have the freedom to do so.
For example, I believe that people should have the freedom to smoke cigarettes. Does that mean that I will tell people that they SHOULD smoke cigarettes? No. Cigarettes are mostly bad for your health.
Why are you so angry lately?
Ad hominem.
I use a bolded word and you get your panties in a twist. Whatever. I didn't even use any exclamation marks in what I wrote.
I know the people I work with. They pay taxes, they deserve to vote. They have a difficult time reading, sometimes because of dyslexia, sometimes because their daddy beat the shit out of them and they missed a lot of school, but that shouldn't disenfranchise them. They're not stupid. They're not won over by "looks," but by issues. They know when they're getting screwed, and they tend to know why. They know when people are full of shit.
They don't have to read an article in the paper to figure out, for instance, that some people think that just because you can't read well, it must mean you're stupid about everything.
You never answered my question about Shakespeare and Chaucer.
First of all, I consistently did great in history throughout school. To boot, I have done a good amount of reading history independently. You start off with a false assertion, which leads to faulty arguments, etc.
Well if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black! Your faulty assertion is that people with reading problems are too stupid to vote. And you have the balls to think that because I noticed your lack of understanding of American history, specifically with regard to race, that your high school "A" should count for something. The research on this backs me up, honey, not you. Care to cite the "good amount of reading" you've done independently, provided it's not all websites and YouTubes, of course.
"'Why are you so angry lately?'
Ad hominem."
You seem quite fond of using ad-hominems. It is only fair that you get some back.
"I use a bolded word and you get your panties in a twist. Whatever. I didn't even use any exclamation marks in what I wrote."
Has nothing to do with the HTML styles you apply to your words. I use HTML styles for my words too. It has more to do with your choice of words, what you emphasize and the fact that you are quick to accuse me of various things, or more subtly, twist and construe what I say into something diabolical.
"
I know the people I work with. They pay taxes, they deserve to vote. They have a difficult time reading, sometimes because of dyslexia, sometimes because their daddy beat the shit out of them and they missed a lot of school, but that shouldn't disenfranchise them."
I never said that they should be disenfranchised. I only said that I hoped that they avoided voting, should they not be knowledgeable about the issues. I thought that I made it very clear that everyone should keep their voting rights.
"They don't have to read an article in the paper to figure out, for instance, that some people think that just because you can't read well, it must mean you're stupid about everything."
"Your faulty assertion is that people with reading problems are too stupid to vote."
Not every one of them is stupid. It is just that they have that tendency. There are some well informed people who can't read, but they are not the majority.
"You never answered my question about Shakespeare and Chaucer."
Because it is not really relevant. I only brought them up to make a point, a fun natured one at that.
"And you have the balls to think that because I noticed your lack of understanding of American history, specifically with regard to race, that your high school "A" should count for something."
Only because you made the claim that I was ignorant of history. For your information, I also did well with college history.
"The research on this backs me up, honey, not you."
What is it that I claimed which is not backed up by research? What is it that you claimed which is? Furthermore, where is this research you speak of?
"Care to cite the "good amount of reading" you've done independently, provided it's not all websites and YouTubes, of course."
In your 'White People Can be Stupid' thread, I listed a large variety of sources, independent from each other, including an actual book, as well as articles from well respected establishments and authors.
and the fact that you are quick to accuse me of various things, or more subtly, twist and construe what I say into something diabolical.
LOL. Regardless of what you may think about the quality of your own opinion, no one thinks you are the intellectual equivalent of the devil.
Furthermore, where is this research you speak of?
Sigh. It's been posted and referred to. You are preferring not to do it because it involves getting a book or an article and isn't just a lazy click away. You keep choosing to ignore it.
These conversations are becoming frankly quite tiring. It's as though you don't even want to consider anything outside of what rolls around in your head. That's incredibly boring. I would be willing to get into a full debate with you, but when you traffic in generalities and whine over research methods, there is clearly no point in doing so. You may have made an "A" in college history. So what? It doesn't stand for much if you can't be assed to look into a book or other well documented sources and see what really happened in your nation's history. I'm sure your prof in history didn't accept YouTube videos, either.
You just want to keep arguing for argument's sake because god forbid one of your narrow ideas of the world get ousted from the spot it has lodged itself in.
You can choose to rant away all you like on my blog, but until I see some opinion that actually sounds less like propaganda and more like studied effort, I'm not responding to them. In fact, I feel like I wasted a lot of time I'd rather have back, as you clearly have no intention of ever checking into a source outside of your own limited sphere of reference. That's not scholarly, intellectual, or mature. Jumping around from point to point without acknowledging previously made ones is also none of the above.
In short, feel free to rant your spleen, but don't expect a dialogue until you can figure out how to engage in the process.
How's this for a credible source?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_commentary/commentary_by_lawrence_kudlow/obama_s_big_government_vision
Post a Comment
<< Home