Oprah tells all why she avoided America's poor

Oprah quoteth this:

"I became so frustrated with visiting inner-city schools that I just stopped going. The sense that you need to learn just isn't there. If you ask the kids what they want or need, they will say an iPod or some sneakers. In South Africa, they don't ask for money or toys. They ask for uniforms so they can go to school."

That's sad. Mega fuckin' sad, forgive me my use of language.

Maybe she could have tried harder top convince the children. Or the parents.

And when I was growing up, it was "cool" to have portable tape players. All I wanted to do was learn. The day I wanted to be liked, I brought in a tape player too. All I did was get laughed at. The "peers" didn't even bother to hide their whispers, they said it as loud as they could. x(

Nothing is ever one sided, but a couple days ago I had asked "Why is she not paying attention to America's poor?"


Never mind this gem: As it is, only 152 girls, aged 11 and 12, were selected for the inaugural class at the Academy, out of 3,500 national applicants. Requirements for acceptance include having a household income of no more than $787 per month and undertaking a personal interview with headmaster Winfrey. The 28-building campus includes state-of-the-art computer and science labs, a theater, a wellness center, a yoga center, a beauty salon and, last but not least, classrooms.

Holy ageism and sexism, Batman! (or Batwoman, whatever.) A poor boy aged 11 isn't going to get anywhere in Oprah's world, it seems. :popcorn:

In ways, she's a good person. But then she steps in it big time with this:

"Say what you will about the American education system—it does work," she told Newsweek. "If you are a child in the United States, you can get an education.



Last I heard, the US is not in the top of the list regarding quality of schools... Maybe one of us is reading the wrong lists... and since I don't spend most of my time looking beautiful in a fancy garment to talk on daytime television where the big money is... Indeed, I went to college and the 40- and 50-somethings around me were angry that the college was more interesting in making profits than educating the students. One of them in particular I found a mentor because she told me I had intelligence and wanted to learn; many of the others just wanted to leech.

I dunno what to say. Except it's one big-ass mess.


Edited: Subject line to reflect serious nature of topic.

What do you mean by that?

Please elaborate, it's only fair.

With the talk of offshoring, America's declining education quality, and related issues around here, I think the first response deserves to be something other than accusing me of being a rethug!!

I don't know what to make of Oprah, especially in a situation of which she is only one component of many. But the point is, there really IS a problem in America and what's wrong with being concerned about America's future?

Or, what am I missing?

Once again, please elaborate.

I kindly requested you reserve your bashing TO rethugs, today of all days, and leave Oprah alone. I do get tired of hearing people bash Oprah; she can't win whatever she does. She's not responsible for the education system in America, but some want to hang that on her. It's her money, she can choose how to spend it. And of course, it's your opinion, so you can post it anywhere you want. :hi:

money on one school. I bet you could get 20 good schools out of that capital in Africa to train 3000 students.

Nothing wrong with her helping people, that's not my biggest issue here.

But she did seem a bit *too* selective for one thing... and given all the evidence to the contrary, and past experience, she's a nutjob herself for claiming there is nothing wrong with America's educational system and it's only the kids who want ipods that are the problem. Now I agree, kids shouldn't have those toys while in class (duh), but she wants to say there is nothing wrong with America's educational system, which is nothing more than a glib throwaway comment that only the glib will gloss over. Just like how the Bill Gates supporters blindly coin him a deity every time he gives 0.0000000003% (give or take a 0) of his wealth to some charity. (to him, that's a million dollars. To any of us, it's a nickel. Nor would any of us go out of our way to tell the world how "generous" we were in giving. (out of many reasons why, the Bible itself states the best generosity is anonymous. But it's more fun to keep people guessing anyway. :evilgrin:)

and she asks what you want..

Well ...most kids WOULD ask for the iPod and "stuff".. Why??

Because we have ALL seen how Oprah gives stuff away to her audience and to strangers. A poor kid gets asked by one of the richest people on the planet..what does he want?

At that moment in time, he/she sees the best chance ever of getting something material that he could never afford. He/she is not thinking in esoteric longterm life skills..

C'mon Oprah... you do not carry a tray of delicious food around a soup kitchen and expect them to want to discuss Shakespeare.

Kids all over want what they are deprived of.. African schools are to blame really. To DEMAND something so silly as a "uniform"..and to exclude kids becasue they "can't afford the uniform" ..that's the bigger issue.

African countries (some of them) don;t WANT to educate all their people. That costs money.. The people at the top, who HAVE the money, don;t want to "waste" it on educating poor kids.. especially girls..

or I as thought of it; these kids want something that they know their parents can't afford to get them.

Here in the States, we can't avoid advertising. You have to have this, that, and all the next big things. We have a super materialistic culture and we've just come our of the biggest season of Buy Buy Buy material madness X number of shopping days till the artificial deadline that used to be about family and hope and generosity and caring.

How much exposure do the kids in Africa get to all the things they're "supposed" to want and "supposed" to have and never will? How much do they see of how the other half lives?

When you see what you can't have dangled in front of you every day, how will you react? (For me, it's retirement. I have family retiring and they're always talking about the fun they're having. Yes, they earned it, but I'll never get to retire thanks to the Republicans and the family members in question are all voting for the policies that guarantee I'll never get to enjoy what they're enjoying. So if I'm offered a week-long cruise, you better believe I'll grab it.)

to be endured.

People here have NO IDEA what 3rd world poverty is.. To the 3rd world, school is a HUGE dream. It's the only way out for these kids. there is no "marrying rich, or NFL or rap music career, or movie star route" for them to even dream about.

they may not even make it WITH education, but without it, the girls will end up "married" at 12 and grandma to 8 or 9 kids before she's 35..if she lives that long..

on children and she should now be obligated to transcend the damage that has been done to the educational system?

:hi:

And it's not that hard to fight it.

based on the quote that you provided. The quote says:

"Say what you will about the American education system—it does work," she told Newsweek. "If you are a child in the United States, you can get an education.

Isn't that true?

Do you mean that all kids in the US at least have the opportunity to attend school? Mostly true, though many migrant/seasonal workers' and undocumented immigrants' children rarely if ever step foot in the classroom. But if you mean that kids in the US are able to get a meaningful schooling in which they actually learn about the world around them, I'd have to disagree. Much of the US educational system has been hijacked by special interest groups known as testing companies, many schools function with outdated texts, a fairly large segment of US schools are unsafe due to their physical conditions, and the funds are far too often being mismanaged by administration.

Are kids in other parts of the world worse off? Of course. Just as people in other parts of the world who are forced to work for slavewages are worse off than those in the US trying to make it on minimum wage. Doesn't mean I want to ignore the plight of those in the US until the 3rd world catches up. I can multi-task.


Oprah does a great deal to help others, which is commendable. But she also has a great deal of influence on the electorate, intentionally or not. And when her core audience (suburban white middle class middle aged women) hear her say that inner city youth are beyond hope, how willing is that demographic going to be to vote in such a way as to increase funding for at risk schools or afterschool programs for at risk youth and the like?

And that is what is wrong here- not the fact that she opened a school in Africa. But the fact that she apparently bashed the kids here who could most use her influence in order to create or state a justification for her actions. Completely unnecessary, IMO.

"Say what you will..." obviously indicates that Oprah knows that there are problems with American education.

You, however, take "say what you will..." to a whole other level. YOU move beyond this simple acknowledgement of problems to an utter exaggeration. YOU state that Oprah is telling suburban while middle class people that "inner city youth are beyond hope". YOU then take THAT lie about hope and claim that Oprah is bashing kids.


If, I missed something, then show me where Oprah actually said there is no "hope" for American kids. Show me where Oprah is bashing kids.

If you can't show me, then tell me why you are acting in such a hateful and spreading lies to diminish public opinion of a woman woman who has made some of the greatest social and charitable contributions that America has known.

She examined the US education system and found that they are still using curriculum models developed back in the 50s. Which explains why the education received is so often irrelevant and why other countries are quickly gaining on and surpassing the level of education we offer in this country.

She also compared schools in a low-income neighborhood to schools in a high-income neighborhood - right there in Chicago - and the contrast was appalling. The lack of resources, teachers and overall attention paid to the low-income schools should be illegal.

The basic gist of the show was that you have to make a student feel worthwhile in order for them to want to learn - when they feel as if no one expects much of them, that lowers their self-esteem and confidence. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Children rise or fall to the level of expectations of them. By abandoning the students in the US, Oprah is saying that they aren't as worthy as students of other nations - she's feeding into the cycle of neglect.

I usually am very impressed by Oprah and am a fan - but I'm afraid I disagree wholeheartedly with her on this issue. The ironic thing is that I would have definitely been on the side of "it's her money, let her do what she wants with it" until I saw that show - her own show!

I just returned to the states from working in Africa for 2 months. From what I read about Oprah's school (200 thread count sheets, high-tech movie theater etc and all) it sounds like an over-capitalized , exclusive institution for 150 students. What is wrong with suggesting that the money could be used to build 20 less exclusive schools to educate more children???

What are YOU OPRAH CRITICS doing to educate children?

And for that matter, she pays TAXES to educate this country's kids. Why the fuck does anyone think she has any further responsibilities? And why aren't you bashing celebrities who aren't doing ANYthing?

My GOD, people. She does an incredible thing -- something NO ONE ELSE IS DOING -- and what does she get? Bashed and criticized without ANY merit whatsoever. It's unbelievable. You'd not be criticizing her had she done nothing.

And as for educating girls only, are any of you aware of the studies that show that if you want to change a whole country, incl. its economics, make sure women get an education? Educated women, the key to it all. Period.

All of you criticizing her look childish, envious, resentful, small and petty, ill-informed, and downright ignorant.

But I'll repeat it because it's the most outlandish thing of all: IT'S HER MONEY AND SHE ALONE GETS TO DECIDE HOW TO SPEND IT, ESP. HER CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE TUNE OF $40 MILLION JUST ON THIS SCHOOL. It's HER damn vision and she owes none of you -- not a single one -- an explanation or a single thought.

A generation from now, South Africa will be utterly transformed.

Sad commentary that even DU'ers are referring to revenue that formerly went to the US Treasury as someone's personal money.

Although I can't find figures on how much less Oprah paid in taxes since the tax cuts passed, I did find numbers on her income. 210M in 2004 and 225M in 2005 (not net worth, income). So, I think it's safe to say that she saved $40 million during the last 6 years. That could have done a lot of good here. As it stands, it's doing a lot of good there.

But Oprah remarking on the shallow values of today's youth is just precious. I mean, who promotes shallowness and materialism in this country more than Oprah? She helped break it, and keep it broken, but doesn't want to help fix it.

And on the issue of taxes, here's something from Dickens. "A Christmas Carol". How quickly one forgets these things.....



So, Oprah's paid her taxes. She no longer has any further responsibility to the society that made it all possible for her?

Like I said, sad.....

6 yrs ago, it was OUR money. Bush's tax cuts made it HER money.

First, what an utterly fucked up view of taxation. You sound like what I'd imagine a Freeper trying to sound like what HE thinks a DUer would sound like, and it comes off as quite a caricature. The problem is, I think you MEAN that.

It's not OUR money until it hits the Treasury or is specifically owed. Second, she was a multi-millionaire if not billionaire well before that and Bush's tax cuts or lack thereof don't make that big a difference in her overall wealth.

So, I think it's safe to say that she saved $40 million during the last 6 years. That could have done a lot of good here. As it stands, it's doing a lot of good there.

She had every right NOT to spend it "doing good" ANYwhere. But she did. And WHAT she chose to spend it on and WHERE she chose to spend it is entirely, 100% her business, and not yours.

But Oprah remarking on the shallow values of today's youth is just precious. I mean, who promotes shallowness and materialism in this country more than Oprah? She helped break it, and keep it broken, but doesn't want to help fix it.

SHE helped break it? Oh, please. That's just sick, frankly -- or you belie your misogynism and racism, because NO ONE gets criticized for something that isn't her responsibility unless it's fueled by same.

And KEEP it broken? Hardly. I watch Oprah most days. I KNOW about the content of her shows. Sometimes I don't particularly care for them, but even what I'd consider the shallower ones have value and merit. I think it's instructive to see how some artists and celebrities think and how they view their art and the pursuit of their art. Those shows do less to fuel materialism than they do to humanize various artists and celebs (esp. African American artists who have more of a chance to be on Oprah's show than any other network show -- I don't know about shows like Tavis Smiley.

BUT, those "shallow" shows (which really aren't that shallow) are probably less than half of the total, and the others are substantive and often ground-breaking. Every now and then she has a show where just a few of the people whose lives have been changed are features. I remember one woman who watched a show on heart attack symptoms for women (very different than men's) and realized she was in the process of having a heart attack herself, women who avoided rape and worse by remembering some of the advice on various Oprah shows, women who escaped abusive marriages, women who've lost a lot of weight or gotten fit, women who realized their children were being molested, etc., etc., etc.

She also gives a $1 million reward (her OWN money, not the Angel Network) to whoever identifies and helps catch the at large sexual offenders identified on her website and occasional shows on the subject (and she works with the FBI on this one). There's been at least 4 or 5 men caught so far.

I could go on and on. The more I watch her, the more I admire her. She is highly spiritual (for all your charges of materialism -- no need to eschew the material just so you LOOK more pious to your critics), and encourages that in many ways to her viewers. She is a powerful role model to millions and millions of women (and no doubt some men) in the U.S. and elsewhere for a myriad of reasons. No wonder you're resentful.

almost an out of place "white elephant". I just returned to the states from working in Africa for 2 months. From what I read about Oprah's school (200 thread count sheets, high-tech movie theater etc and all) it sounds like an over-capitalized , exclusive institution for 150 students. What is wrong with suggesting that the money could be used to build 20 less exclusive schools to educate more children???

she's planning on opening a co-ed school in the same region, as well.

I'm not an Oprah fan, but the absolute disgust with which the OP's post was riddled with disturbed me. This action shouldn't be criticized. She's helping those less fortunate. Criticize her for her Hermes debacle, for her contribution to consumerism with her "Favorite Things" show, or her many other attributes that are selfish or criticism worthy. Opening a school for poverty stricken girls in Africa? Not high on my list to bash.

Plus, this might work to be a wonderful model, as The Young Woman's Leadership School in East Harlem is. One of the best and most successful public schools in New York City, it's being used as a model to emulate. This might put the pressure on to improve the school system throughout South Africa.

mocking me for suggesting that the money could be better deployed. I just returned to the states from working in Africa for 2 months. From what I read about Oprah's school (200 thread count sheets, high-tech movie theater etc and all) it sounds like an over-capitalized , exclusive institution for 150 students. What is wrong with suggesting that the money could be used to build 20 less exclusive schools to educate more children???

She didn't give birth to any kids as far as I know. If American parents want better schools, they need to get involved themselves. There IS a pathetic attitude against education all across America today. But Oprah didn't cause that and it's not her responsibility to fix it.


Ageism and sexism?

PUH-LEEEZE.

Consider that in Africa, females have it very rough. Again, she can't help the whole world, so she chose some gals to help out. There are many programs that help males only (some of the Lost Boys of Sudan, for example. What about the lost GIRLS of Sudan? I never asked that question, but maybe you know who helped them out?)


And no, the US educational system isn't great but it is free and available to all, unlike the situation in much of Africa.

Lastly, if I had to choose which students to invest in for the long haul, I would make my choice in exactly the same manner as she has. Who cares? Who will appreciate my efforts? Who will do the most with what they are given?

there's no time left for them to raise the kids. (and that's presuming all parents give a damn about their children)

And, ok, I was being a little glib with "ageism and sexism"... but given 3000+ girls applied and how many she is ultimately helping, your own statement is a bit glib too.

And, to date, the US educational system is free, I agree. (Paid for by taxpayers, technically.) So why aren't more of America's poor learning, if Oprah is saying is correct?

The issue itself is large and not tied to one single facet... but Oprah pawning all American children off as preferring to want iPods is a bit "PUH-LEEZE" too.

And did yahoo news take her out of context?

last year I worked on a campus with students from all over the world. The African students were the most polite and they took their studies far more seriously than most of the American kids.

The difference as I see it is that most of the American kids take education for granted while the African kids view education as a privilege.

This is not to say that poor, inner-city children deserve no help, only that when it comes to values, for whatever reason, there are some societies where learning is highly esteemed and some where learning is ridiculed and neglected. AS you say, the problem is complicated, but it isn't Oprah's problem to solve.

Honestly, should everyone on DU start posting when they donate to various causes?

"You mean you donated to the Humane Society to help ANIMALS when there are children starving????!!!!!!!"

"You donated to starving children in Somalia when there are hungry kids right HERE??????!!!!"

"You only sent twenty dollars to Second Harvest? How many people is THAT going to feed? Two? WHY BOTHER? Why not buy a big bag of rice at Costco for that $20 that will feed forty people and pass it out to the poor yourself????!!!!!!"


Jeebus, people. It's her money. And her choice. And when I build a school myself someday, maybe I'll be in a position to judge her. Until then, I applaud any effort to help ANY deserving kid.

Many of the kids in his class are first generation Americans. He said that once they have been in this country a few years, they pretty much take on the attitude of the average American teenager that school is something to be endured. I should add these kids are from Bosnia.

NOT that every child gets a good education. It goes without saying IMO that children disinterested in learning aren't going to gain as much as those eager to learn.

And you're also ignoring something well known about inner city ghetto kids -- which is who she was discsussion -- and that is that there's enormous peer pressure AGAINST school and learning. It's "not cool" in many areas.

She hardly pawned off all American children -- but then, again: AMERICA'S EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IS NOT HER RESPONSIBILITY. She CHOSE to get involved in building a school in S. Africa, due to a personal promise to Nelson Mandela.

when she was fourteen and promiscuous, which would have made her just another irresponsible black teenaged mother in the eyes of America, if the kid wasn't born premature and died soon after.

Oprah is in a poor position to judge those inner-city kids after what she did when she was their age. She deserves credit for working hard and making it after that tragedy, and it's great she is giving girls who want it the opportunity to learn, but she should at least learn not to judge so blanketly.

Look, I live in freakin' Appalachia. Inner-city kids have nothing over these kids when it comes to a lack of motivation and family support for education.

This is NOT a black problem or a white problem; it's an AMERICAN problem. Why do we have this issue of American students not getting the most out of the resources offered to them? Economics, culture, home stability (or lack of stability), the media, blah, blah, blah. We have a War Against Certain Drugs When Possessed by Certain People that has imprisoned many parents for their non-violent, victimless crimes. We have a government that pushes materialism over academics. I could go on and on.

Perhaps you find her judgements harsh. I find them spot on, and I think it's that very lack of an educated populace that gets us presidents like the one we now have in charge.

So to which cause did YOU donate this year? I'd like to pick apart YOUR giving, if I may...I'm sure you could have handled YOUR charitable giving better.

to justify not investing in those kids. I say one could use her irresponsible behavior during her teenage years as cause not to support her during her rise to fame (and believe me, she did need a lot of support).

I just find that kind of double standard unconscionable.

US.

when she was their age. Yet apparently the kids aren't worthy to invest in.

You think the raped girls in Africa aren't troubled?

I was troubled.

What does that have to do with whether you want an education or not?

Not all troubled teens do badly in school or have disdain for education.

In Oprah's case, she "always knew" that she was going to be famous someday. She also recognized the value of education to get her there.

She also recognizes it for the disadvantaged who appreciate education in her native Africa. SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO DO THAT, and every SINGLe criticism of her here is completely out of line. Every single one.

But she immediately writes off the inner city kids as if they have no capacity for growth like she had.

Yes, I know the fact that she is rich and famous is admirable, but I'm tired of people using that as the basis to defend her.

You could also say sHe found her interest in education after she went to live with her father, which I consider far more causative than the pregnancy. You have to be careful with cause-and-effect. Not everything that happens "AFTER" something else was CAUSED by that.

But you also can't say that she wasn't interested in education prior to that and in fact she's said as muich at various times on her show, talking about grade school, and the interaction with her various teachers and how much she appreciated their interest in grade school.

What she found after she moved in with her father, was DISCIPLINE. And while that's very valuable -- even essential -- it's not the same thing as "interest in education."

they are one big stereotype to her. That's all.

Oprah is supposed to now provide it for people who aren't interested too.

But she wrote them off anyways, because of some bullshit reason that they liked material things, just like every other living human being on earth. If you support such bullshit, just come out with it and quit dancing around.

And disgusting.

She pays taxes to invest in those kids. She has a right to use HER money entirely as she sees fit. SHE's not out spending that $40 million on vaine pursuits -- why don't you leave her the fuck alone? How much have YOU given to charity, including children's public or private education last year (children not your own)?

Because I'm pretty much dirt poor, and all I own I owe. I do what I can like volunteer at after school programs, but I don't wield as much power and influence as Oprah does.

And for her to suggest that inner city kids are less deserving of attention than other kids because many of them are engaging in the same type of behavior Oprah herself did when she was their age is what is truly unconscionable.

Are you jealous of someone like Oprah, who has so much?

I don't watch Oprah much. A few times a year I catch her show. The ABC affiliate station off the mountain has terrible reception. So I really don't know what she says or does on a regular basis. I have my own life going on and it's interesting enough.

But she's an individual making her own choice about what to do.

She did not "suggest" anything but merely explained why she made the choice she made.

She is giving something back to her Mother Continent as well, the place of her ancestors. Africa has so much potential, so much to offer the world, and I'm glad someone notable is showing faith by investing in even a small way.

Some of the boys from Sudan that I know ate dirt to survive, no home, no family, just a bunch of boys walking and walking and walking and taking care of each other. Look outside the selfish American experience and imagine why someone might have the heart to help the beautiful people of Africa.

instead of superior AMERICAN kids and she isn't perfect :eyes:
Lets throw her in jail...

Now cut the hyperbole and listen to the facts. She has obviously impressed you by opening up a private school open only to a select group of girls. But when it comes to inner-city public school that do not have choice in enrollment, she says "fuck 'em, they act like me when I was their age." Now tell me how that is any good, except for the girls who manages to answer all the right questions?


Go ahead, I'm listening.

is a flat out lie about Oprah.

She's been ultra-open about her past: she was sexually abused for YEARS and yes, admits to being promiscuous as a teen (the two things go together -- promiscuity is a SYMPTOM of the effects of child sexual abuse), but she's never said anything about a child, and I don't believe she had one.

YOUR judgment about "after what she did," (esp. when I think it's a lie to start with) and your RACIST judgment "which would have made her just another irresponsible black teenaged mother" (saved only by the qualifier so cleverly thrown in "in the eyes of most Americans") -- are beyond the pale. Shame on you. I am quite sure Wellstone would have disassociated himself from your thoroughly judgmental, harsh and uncompassionate remarks.

and found this -- SHE herself is an illegitimate child:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:JTN65wQfZxoJ:www.penguinreaders.com/downloads/9780582419827.pdf+Oprah+had+an+illegitimate+child&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6


I've heard her talk about her story a good many times and she's never, ever, ever intimated anything close to having been pregnant, let alone giving birth.

She stated she would never talk about it again either. It was many years ago too, this particular show. I saw and heard her say it, as did millions. You didn't look very hard.
http://movies.msn.com/celebs/celeb.aspx?c=230966&stab=3 (2nd paragraph).

because I didn't believe it. I also may not have had the best search words.

BUT, you win. Thanks. I stand corrected (and shocked).

I'm sick and goddamn tired of Oprah, Cosby, Condi, Colin and others used as model black minority figures in order to shame poor blacks for not pulling themselves up by the bootstraps they don't have. They are used to comfort the comforted Americans that there is no racial barriers or institutional hurdles that gets in the way of equality when the facts after facts speak for themselves. Oprah was briefly a teenage mother, Cosby dropped out of school, and Condi and Colin are international disgraces.

The fact that urban minority schoolchildren actually have high enthusiasm for schoolwork falls on her deaf ears and all the ears of her followers. But no-no-no, we must focus on how these kids also like material possession, just like any other fucking school kid no matter their background. But middle-class kids are allowed to fixate on material possessions without condemnation because their wealth makes that pathology, well, less pathological.

But you are right, she's rich and famouse because she strived and shit. Fuck all the other people who used to be in her place. That's the lesson in American individualism.

where she thought it would best be used--in Africa where they have NO schools vs. in America where schools are abundant.

that's not the issue. The issue is her using that school to do a backhand against inner-city American school children, saying they are somehow less deserving than the girls she handpicked for her school. And the fact that she was one premature birth away from being a stereotype in the eyes of this country exposes the height of her hypocrisy.

tax-break?

We have many billionaires who anxiously await this extra advantage.

What a stunningly vicious little throwaway remark.

charity is deductible. No stigma attached to that, just sensible economics. The charity can operate anywhere.

Did anyone here give money to a charity for the Indonesian tsunami? If so, you'd take the accompanying tax break (assuming it pays to itemize, that varies by individual).

Give for earthquake victims in Kashmir? same thing.

It just has to be administered by a registered charity. Oprah's accountants and lawyers could set that up in a heartbeat.

just a possible explanation.

i wondered that myself, its not like she doesnt promote the culture of consumerism that makes those inner city kids want ipods and sneakers. hell look what her highest rated episode is every year, the one where she gives a bunch of products away to the lucky audience members.

VISION to do this; because she made a promise to Nelson Mandela; because she wants to uplift Africa by educating some of its women.

Because it's her right to do with her money as she sees fit, and doesn't owe you or anyone else any goddamned explanation.

n/t

Tell me, did you forget the HOMES she built for the Katrina survivors? Or the Angel network?

How nice of YOU to select HER priorities. When you do as much for people as she has, get back to me.

system even comes close to comparing to the other nations that she is working with. and i do think that the kids here have the opportunity for education. i do not see the system as the issue, nor the teachers in the inner school districts. i am willing to bet that the majority of the issue with children doing poorly in our schools are family/home/parent created.

i am not a fan of oprah. i walked away from her when she had arnie and her wife on and sexist arnie made a couple stupid female jokes and oprah giggled nervously, but not putting arnie in his place.

i understand why her school includes all it does because of the way oprah looks at life and what is needed for self confidence, something she feels strongly about and taking care of the whole of who a person is.

Am I supposed to pretend that children in Africa aren't really needier than children in the US?

Am I supposed to pretend that children in America are more importnat than children in Africa?

Am I supposed to pretend that Oprah doesn't donate millions to inner city American schools?

Am I supposed to pretend that this is nothing but a hit piece?

:shrug:
Regardless...you are correct.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

Thank you so much for that :)!

What's wrong with what she's doing? I think it's admirable. Is it wrong to want to help young people out, even if they are in another country?

I'm no big fan but give credit where its due: she does a hell of a lot of philanthropic giving that is NOT made public.

Now let's sove some problems HERE, eh?

Not even a teensy bit of luck involved. No luck in being born in the US instead of Nigeria. No luck in not being born with mental retardation. No luck in not starting out fat in today's culture, where fat means lower class, instead of the culture of 20 years ago, when we were more empathetic to personal trials and triumphs. No luck in any of it at all, not a bit. Anybody can get rich.

That's what she said on her program yesterday, which tells me all I need to know about Oprah. She's gotten worse over the years, sad to say.

that life style and are happy with underachieving. Or rather achieving in some screwed up lifestyle that involves violence, misogyny, drugs etc.

White kids may participate in that crap to a certain extent but at the end of the day, they go home and study for SAT's.

A lot of black kids WANT that fucked up, ignorant lifestyle and could give a shit about education and finding a constructive path in life.

Frankly, that is a big part of what Oprah is addressing in her comments.

But "liberals" can't seem to handle the truth.

It's not all about opportunity. It's also about having the self esteem and vision and determinatin to make something of yourself that involves a constructive and positive life style.

:eyes:

Since you can't even figure that out, and apparently neither can Oprah, there's not much more to talk about.

Nobody but nobody chooses a life of crime if they have a foundation of encouragement, opportunity and real belief that success is available to them too.

They're talking about her dismissing millions of inner city children who are in circumstances they didn't create. She is welcome to spend her money any way she likes, as long as she doesn't bash a bunch of poor little kids in the process.

To most people objecting, it's about her shitty comments and attitude. Try actually reading the thread instead of relying on your presumptions.

Nobody's talking about money, so continuing to post about money is foolish. Lots of people contribute lots of things; as a percentage of income, many do more than Oprah. And they do it without trashing groups they choose not to contribute to, that's the point.

You obviously see how it feels to be called on the carpet for your choices to spend your money.

As for "trashing groups" -- you need a reality check. You and your compadres' are like moving targets--you want to pin something on Oprah for whatever hateful reason and when you see that it makes no sense to contest where a person spends their own money then you shift your pitiful argument to imaginary issues like "abandoning" and "trashing".

Get a fucking life and if you feel so strongly about the poor abandoned kids who want Ipods then fucking dig into your pockets and give them some. Or shut the fuck up.

"you want to pin something on Oprah for whatever hateful reason"

Not true at all. This isn't about iPods, it's about kids exactly like Oprah who wouldn't be what she is without a public school system and adults who didn't call her lazy and worthless when she was in trouble, who didn't abandon her. If you don't want to talk about kids' needs, then you shut the fuck up.

Or continue the conversation in your head about Oprah hating, whichever turns your crank.

"...kids exactly like Oprah..."

You don't know that to be true. Stop making shit up. Just because Oprah was poor does not make her "exactly" like other poor kids. There's more to being poor than not having money. There are degrees of poor.



"Oprah wouldn't be what she is without a public school system"...

Neither would most people in America. :eyes:



"Adults who didn't call her lazy and worthless"...

What the fuck does that have to do with Oprah. Who did Oprah call lazy and worthless? Strawman.



"If you dont' want to talk about kids' needs then you shut the fuck up"...

If you can't do more than complain and try to spread hatred, you shut the fuck up.

The reason she went to live with her father is because she was getting in trouble and ended up in a detention home, juvenile hall. It was full, she got lucky. That's what happened. Go google it up.

She was just as screwed up as any of these particular kids that she says only want iPods and don't care about education. Yes, I interpreted that as lazy and worthless because the message is pretty clear. But to say that ALL the kids are that way to such an extent they aren't worth her time or money, ignores the fact that SHE was one of those kids and the school system didn't abandon her.

That's what happened. Now if you want to call that spreading hatred, that's up to you. :crazy:

your strawmen.

Oprah getting into trouble and going to live with her father has nothing to do with Ipod kids and education in America stu-stu.

Furthermore, you shouldn't presume that an episode on TV, a book or a few paragraphs here can even begin to summarize or address the nuances that go into separating one poor person from another.

But I digress--even further--thanks to your masterful skill at derailing your originally shallow argument and moving this discussion into ever more nebulous territory as a cover for your hatred of Oprah.

You are literally the stupidest person I have ever engaged in a discussion with on DU. Good bye.

Your arguments on this thread indicate you do not listen to your opponents, you hurl insults and invectives, and you think that attacking the messenger is a preferable method to engaging the points being made.

her utter contempt for African Americans.

WTF? explain this before my head explodes.


:grr:

:puke:

:puke: is right. hisssssssssss

Let’s break it down:


-- “Black Kids who get into bling/gangsta culture have higher self esteem.”

What utter bullshit. ANY human being that gets pulled into that has esteem issues. They are pulled into the lifestyle for a variety of reasons many of which are tied into a lack of self worth. This is the tragedy of the lifestyle – they glorify it because they are lost and feel they have nothing else to gauge their worthiness on.

-- “They actually value that life style and are happy with underachieving.”

Who the fuck is happy with a life where there are no accomplishments???? Seriously, do you really think anyone who has fallen into the trap of a gang life is really content deep down inside??

-- “White kids may participate in that crap to a certain extent but at the end of the day, they go home and study for SAT's.”

Well fuck this. This is the most racist line in your post. So, you are saying white kids play the role yet go home and are model citizens?? Bullshit. The fact you even had the nerve to say that shows a lot about your racist core. How dare you dismiss any white kids participation in any of the crap of which you speak because white kids study for the SATs. Reality alert for you – plenty of Black kids study and fucking pass the SATs – and they do this without involvement in any gang bullshit.


-- “A lot of black kids WANT that fucked up, ignorant lifestyle and could give a shit about education and finding a constructive path in life.”

Those who may ‘want’ this are the ones who are lost. They do not WANT this lifestyle – they are lost and have fallen into a situation where they ‘think’ they are worth something – there is a big difference. By the way – Black kids are NOT the only race who fall into gang situations – what about Hispanics, Asian, KKK etc… It’s all the same thing – but I guess in your eyes it’s only Bloods and Crips.

-- “But "liberals" can't seem to handle the truth.”

:rofl: You seem to be the one in complete denial about the truth and I suggest you examine your ‘liberal’ views just a bit before you post this ignorant and racist shit here again.

Black Children: Social, Educational, and Parental Environments (SAGE Focus Editions) (Paperback)
by Harriette Pipes McAdoo

"A theme of resiliency-that black children can and do thrive despite being surrounded by an array of risk factors-underscores positive aspects of black child development while not neglecting the potential for negative and detrimental development. The goal is to avoid presenting Black children in the light of either negative or positive stereotypes, but to highlight the complexities and diversities of the Black American experience."

This does not seem to imply Black kids WANT the gang lifestyle and don't study for the SATs.


Unfortunately I'm not up on my speed reading to read this and discuss so if there is a point you want to make - please make it.


I will not accept your claim that Black kids are happy with underachieving and have higher self esteem if they are in gangs - that makes zero sense.

btw: I am not saying Black kids can't go down the wrong path and haven't. I am saying to say they want this is bullshit. NO ONE of any color who has any self worth is content to go that route.

Yeah, her next post is the one with the stuff about black kids being too stupid to study for SATs. They're busy listening to Fifty Cent, apparently.

:puke:

they CHOOSE the lifestyle they are living.

It isn't all just economic situations and kids being victims.

You do nothing to help them by suggesting that kids have no self awareness or capacity to make a choice.

every kid chooses their path - I agree. Many factors affect that - I agree. However, you should have chosen a better way to convey all that and chose your words a bit more carefully.


Maybe you should go back and read the tone of your post that set me off.... I am not the only one that took it the way I did.

A Poverty of the Mind
By ORLANDO PATTERSON

Cambridge, Mass.

SEVERAL recent studies have garnered wide attention for reconfirming the tragic disconnection of millions of black youths from the American mainstream. But they also highlighted another crisis: the failure of social scientists to adequately explain the problem, and their inability to come up with any effective strategy to deal with it.

The main cause for this shortcoming is a deep-seated dogma that has prevailed in social science and policy circles since the mid-1960's: the rejection of any explanation that invokes a group's cultural attributes — its distinctive attitudes, values and predispositions, and the resulting behavior of its members — and the relentless preference for relying on structural factors like low incomes, joblessness, poor schools and bad housing.

Harry Holzer, an economist at Georgetown University and a co-author of one of the recent studies, typifies this attitude. Joblessness, he feels, is due to largely weak schooling, a lack of reading and math skills at a time when such skills are increasingly required even for blue-collar jobs, and the poverty of black neighborhoods. Unable to find jobs, he claims, black males turn to illegal activities, especially the drug trade and chronic drug use, and often end up in prison. He also criticizes the practice of withholding child-support payments from the wages of absentee fathers who do find jobs, telling The Times that to these men, such levies "amount to a tax on earnings."

His conclusions are shared by scholars like Ronald B. Mincy of Columbia, the author of a study called "Black Males Left Behind," and Gary Orfield of Harvard, who asserts that America is "pumping out boys with no honest alternative."

This is all standard explanatory fare. And, as usual, it fails to answer the important questions. Why are young black men doing so poorly in school that they lack basic literacy and math skills? These scholars must know that countless studies by educational experts, going all the way back to the landmark report by James Coleman of Johns Hopkins University in 1966, have found that poor schools, per se, do not explain why after 10 years of education a young man remains illiterate.

Nor have studies explained why, if someone cannot get a job, he turns to crime and drug abuse. One does not imply the other. Joblessness is rampant in Latin America and India, but the mass of the populations does not turn to crime.

And why do so many young unemployed black men have children — several of them — which they have no resources or intention to support? And why, finally, do they murder each other at nine times the rate of white youths?

What's most interesting about the recent spate of studies is that analysts seem at last to be recognizing what has long been obvious to anyone who takes culture seriously: socioeconomic factors are of limited explanatory power. Thus it's doubly depressing that the conclusions they draw and the prescriptions they recommend remain mired in traditional socioeconomic thinking.

What has happened, I think, is that the economic boom years of the 90's and one of the most successful policy initiatives in memory — welfare reform — have made it impossible to ignore the effects of culture. The Clinton administration achieved exactly what policy analysts had long said would pull black men out of their torpor: the economy grew at a rapid pace, providing millions of new jobs at all levels. Yet the jobless black youths simply did not turn up to take them. Instead, the opportunity was seized in large part by immigrants — including many blacks — mainly from Latin America and the Caribbean.

One oft-repeated excuse for the failure of black Americans to take these jobs — that they did not offer a living wage — turned out to be irrelevant. The sociologist Roger Waldinger of the University of California at Los Angeles, for example, has shown that in New York such jobs offered an opportunity to the chronically unemployed to join the market and to acquire basic work skills that they later transferred to better jobs, but that the takers were predominantly immigrants.

Why have academics been so allergic to cultural explanations? Until the recent rise of behavioral economics, most economists have simply not taken non-market forces seriously. But what about the sociologists and other social scientists who ought to have known better? Three gross misconceptions about culture explain the neglect.

First is the pervasive idea that cultural explanations inherently blame the victim; that they focus on internal behavioral factors and, as such, hold people responsible for their poverty, rather than putting the onus on their deprived environment. (It hasn't helped that many conservatives do actually put forth this view.)

But this argument is utterly bogus. To hold someone responsible for his behavior is not to exclude any recognition of the environmental factors that may have induced the problematic behavior in the first place. Many victims of child abuse end up behaving in self-destructive ways; to point out the link between their behavior and the destructive acts is in no way to deny the causal role of their earlier victimization and the need to address it.

Likewise, a cultural explanation of black male self-destructiveness addresses not simply the immediate connection between their attitudes and behavior and the undesired outcomes, but explores the origins and changing nature of these attitudes, perhaps over generations, in their brutalized past. It is impossible to understand the predatory sexuality and irresponsible fathering behavior of young black men without going back deep into their collective past.

Second, it is often assumed that cultural explanations are wholly deterministic, leaving no room for human agency. This, too, is nonsense. Modern students of culture have long shown that while it partly determines behavior, it also enables people to change behavior. People use their culture as a frame for understanding their world, and as a resource to do much of what they want. The same cultural patterns can frame different kinds of behavior, and by failing to explore culture at any depth, analysts miss a great opportunity to re-frame attitudes in a way that encourages desirable behavior and outcomes.

Third, it is often assumed that cultural patterns cannot change — the old "cake of custom" saw. This too is nonsense. Indeed, cultural patterns are often easier to change than the economic factors favored by policy analysts, and American history offers numerous examples.

My favorite is Jim Crow, that deeply entrenched set of cultural and institutional practices built up over four centuries of racist domination and exclusion of blacks by whites in the South. Nothing could have been more cultural than that. And yet America was able to dismantle the entire system within a single generation, so much so that today blacks are now making a historic migratory shift back to the South, which they find more congenial than the North. (At the same time, economic inequality, which the policy analysts love to discuss, has hardened in the South, like the rest of America.)

So what are some of the cultural factors that explain the sorry state of young black men? They aren't always obvious. Sociological investigation has found, in fact, that one popular explanation — that black children who do well are derided by fellow blacks for "acting white" — turns out to be largely false, except for those attending a minority of mixed-race schools.

An anecdote helps explain why: Several years ago, one of my students went back to her high school to find out why it was that almost all the black girls graduated and went to college whereas nearly all the black boys either failed to graduate or did not go on to college. Distressingly, she found that all the black boys knew the consequences of not graduating and going on to college ("We're not stupid!" they told her indignantly).

SO why were they flunking out? Their candid answer was that what sociologists call the "cool-pose culture" of young black men was simply too gratifying to give up. For these young men, it was almost like a drug, hanging out on the street after school, shopping and dressing sharply, sexual conquests, party drugs, hip-hop music and culture, the fact that almost all the superstar athletes and a great many of the nation's best entertainers were black.

Not only was living this subculture immensely fulfilling, the boys said, it also brought them a great deal of respect from white youths. This also explains the otherwise puzzling finding by social psychologists that young black men and women tend to have the highest levels of self-esteem of all ethnic groups, and that their self-image is independent of how badly they were doing in school.

I call this the Dionysian trap for young black men. The important thing to note about the subculture that ensnares them is that it is not disconnected from the mainstream culture. To the contrary, it has powerful support from some of America's largest corporations. Hip-hop, professional basketball and homeboy fashions are as American as cherry pie. Young white Americans are very much into these things, but selectively; they know when it is time to turn off Fifty Cent and get out the SAT prep book.

For young black men, however, that culture is all there is — or so they think. Sadly, their complete engagement in this part of the American cultural mainstream, which they created and which feeds their pride and self-respect, is a major factor in their disconnection from the socioeconomic mainstream.

Of course, such attitudes explain only a part of the problem. In academia, we need a new, multidisciplinary approach toward understanding what makes young black men behave so self-destructively. Collecting transcripts of their views and rationalizations is a useful first step, but won't help nearly as much as the recent rash of scholars with tape-recorders seem to think. Getting the facts straight is important, but for decades we have been overwhelmed with statistics on black youths, and running more statistical regressions is beginning to approach the point of diminishing returns to knowledge.

The tragedy unfolding in our inner cities is a time-slice of a deep historical process that runs far back through the cataracts and deluge of our racist past. Most black Americans have by now, miraculously, escaped its consequences. The disconnected fifth languishing in the ghettos is the remains. Too much is at stake for us to fail to understand the plight of these young men. For them, and for the rest of us.

Orlando Patterson, a professor of sociology at Harvard, is the author of "Rituals of Blood: Consequences of Slavery in Two American Centuries."

I agree with you.

My very own daughter is exhibit A.

I Grew up poor, in the ghetto. Had her early in life. She's my only child.

I joined the Army, got us out.

She couldn't wait to go back.

Now has 5 out-of-wedlock kids, and if you try to say anything to her, she blows up and acts like a fucking fool.

So, I understand all too well where Oprah is coming from.

Why throw money at fools? Why not put it to good use towards people who actually WANT to make something of themselves?

I preached education, bettering yourself, her entire life. Thing is, that's not what SHE wanted.

because your daughter didn't take advantage of opportunities the way you did?? And what would have happened to you if you hadn't been willing, and physically able, to take advantage of the opportunities the Army provided?? What other models of success did your daughter see besides the military route?

Options that outstrip by far the option available to girls in Africa.

which is exactly my point. But Oprah is tired of dealing with inner city kids, and says to hell with them. Abandonment. CatWoman sees no problem with that, based on the choices her daughter made. She fails to see all the people who were able to get out, including herself (and you), because they WEREN'T abandoned.

And options?? The military or a mountain of college debt, a college you may discover your inner city school didn't even prepare you to compete in? There aren't as many options anymore. And what do you do with the folks who aren't intelligent enough to compete academically, or physically able to compete in the military?

There's not a thing in the world wrong with building schools in Africa, but her attitude about poverty and the US economy just stinks.

And there ARE options.

It's not Ivy League or nothing.

I love people talking about a theory to others who know the reality. :eyes:

Attack me instead of what I have to say. How original.

Bye.

I'll tell you their options. Sign on the dotted line to join Uncle Sams army.

Otherwise the pickings are slim. If you want to deny the reality to all kids who are below a certain economic level, knock yourself out. Its there and its real. And THEY know it and live it.

Going to a community college is a better start than having 3 kids on welfare.

Getting a job managing a fucking McDonalds is a better start than hanging out getting stoned with your dropout pals every night.

You don't have SHIT to say to me about living below a certain economic level.

How is it that all I see working at any retail shop or fast food joint in any big city are black kids?? Explain that to me if all any of them are doing is hanging out with their dropout pals.

Weren't you going on about them not having any options?

Okay, sure, you bet. That's just the kind of job that's going to convince an 11 year old to spend 3 hours a night on homework. :eyes:

Working 30 hours a week and not earning enough to get you out of project housing is NOT an out.

Still, many kids are doing that, and hopefully they will find a way to put together education and opportunity so they can get out. Hopefully they won't get discouraged by one more influential adult turning their back and calling them all losers. It's the exact thing Howard Dean said we have to stop doing to rural redneck America, and yet the very idea that we should stop doing it to inner city kids is heresy.

What the fuck do you want? Kids to start out as VP at Microsoft?

Working 30 hours a week to support yourself while you finish school is part of the way out.

Believe me, the kids who want to get out don't give a shit about being called losers anyway.

You can't support yourself on that, not remotely. Financial aid? Your grants and loans will barely cover tuition, a 30 hour a week job will not cover living expenses and certainly not dorm & meal fees. And while some kids can work 30 hours and go to school, many can barely manage the school. Throw one illness or injury or some other emergency into that, and it's all over. You just do not know. It's not the 80's anymore.

People like Oprah Winfrey. She was in a juvenile detention home at 13, and I bet if Barry Gordy had asked her what she wanted, she'd have said a transistor radio. She got lucky. The detention home had no room so she was sent to live with her father. Who didn't abandon her. She also lucked into a radio job at age 17, how often does that happen these days?

No, this is bullshit. You do not abandon whole groups of people, especially children, because a few of them are shitheads.

Or are you just telling us how you think it should be?

And so did Catwoman who also posted about it.

Where did YOU grow up?

And what are you doing to help poor kids right now?

That's what.

There are plenty of inner city schools.

Uh huh. There were kids in my school who were working 40-50 hour work weeks to help support their families for various reasons, and mostly sleeping through class. You really think those kids ever had the option of college? Hell, most of them wouldn't have even been acceptable to the military at that time (peacetime, moderate to bad economy and thus military had no troubles recruiting back then).

It really doesn't sound like you've have much interaction with truly desperate people in the US, even though you say your town was poor. And neither do most on this site, fortunately. But that's also what makes it so difficult to understand just how truly, incredibly DESPERATE some are in the land of milk and honey.

I'm sorry, but it's true.

I know all exactly what was available through financial aid and other resources. I know that some kids used it, some didn't.

I'll call up Calvin ________ and tell him that he was just a lazy so and so who failed to use the resources there for him. Instead, he worked nights and weekends at the Port of Beaumont to help his family since his mom was sick and dad was absent. How dare he! Slept through much of the 2 classes he and I had together, probably never even asked about those pricey study courses to prepare for the SAT. Why, if he'd only *tried* by golly, he could've gone to Yale on the affirmative action program for poor black kids from the south who had barely passing grades and no connections. Why, I'm sure he had the same opportunities as our dear leader, and he could have achieved just as much if only he'd been willing to talk to Ms. Green about that financial aid package waiting, begging for his use.

:wtf:

Good gawd. Before you can pick yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to have boots.

You see, you're all about the straw men.

That's the only way to get an education or to even be self sufficient, right?

for kids like Calvin. If you don't understand that, then you can't understand kids like Calvin.



I truly don't understand why people on a progressive board can't or won't admit that there are kids in THIS country who completely fall through the cracks of our system. Does that mean that they are in a worse situation than the poor of the 3rd world? Of course not. Just as a minimum wage worker here isn't as bad off as a slaveworker in Bangladesh. Doesn't mean either is an enviable position, though.

And there are people whose lives are fucked.

There are also people who have abundant options and squander them.

And some who have few options, but squander them just the same.

are helping to create more opportunities for children in need of a decent education. And perhaps one day she'll also join Agassi in (quietly) pushing local leaders to improve the system for all kids, rather than the chosen, lucky few who are able to get into these special schools.

and her Angel Network (which funds programs across the country) don't help those kids.

I'd use the puke smiley here, but it's just not enough.

Oprah Winfrey is the goddess incarnate and I shall never criticize her ever again, even if she makes such a ridiculous statement as that in the OP. :eyes:


Yes, Oprah is very generous, as are Agassi, Buffet, Soros, Gates and quite a few other very wealthy individuals. But the schools that she and Agassi have in place can only help a relatively small number of children. That's certainly not their fault, and it's absolutely commendable that they spend a great deal of their own money on such charitable educational ventures. But if she is truly concerned about the education issue (and I personally think she is), then she needs to broaden her focus. I'm not asking her to spend more money or take any away from the school(s) in Africa. All she has to do is devote some air time to the educational system in general and highlight the problems of underfunding, aged schools, inadequate texts, test focused administrators, etc. that plague our schools. Would do more good than a million dollars out of her pocket.

And by jove, it wouldn't do a damn thing to bash the kids most at risk in this country. Something she apparently needs to be called on, given her statements quoted in the OP. Why anyone would give her a pass on those comments is beyond me.

Not only "in charge of," but PERSONALLY in charge of, as in MUST SPEND HER OWN MONEY on public education in the U.S.

Sheesh, people, LISTEN to yourselves. I think I've wandered into an alternative DU peopled by a bunch of idjits -- a bunch of resentful, whiney-ass idjits at that.

I feel that if you don't take advantage of opportunities, opportunities that are handed to you, that's a "crying shame".

The military is just "one" model of success. It's not much, but it's better than living on welfare with five illegitimate kids.

I don't know what would have happened to me if I didn't join. I was attending college at the time (thanks to the state).

I saw an out and grabbed it.

I never had a meal in school that wasn't on the Free Lunch Program.

My school and my home were so "inner city" we had the downtown zip code.

I didn't join the army but I got my ass out of there in my own way, and as you say, the military is just one model.

Good for you Catwoman. :-)

The military. And you don't know what would have happened if you hadn't joined. Maybe you would have ended up on welfare with five illegitimate kids, who knows. It's not easy to finish college and raise a child, it's even harder now. You had outs to grab. For whatever reason, your daughter never believed there was anything for her, or she wouldn't have had children to fulfill her need to value herself. And your solution is to validate what Oprah says, to hell with these kids who don't see school leading to success. Abandon them. Where you weren't.

And I knew a lot of people who DID have outs and didn't take them.

Oprah's not abandoning them - they're not her responsibility to begin with.

that I'm addressing. There's a lot of good that can be done in the world, that's not the issue. But kids like you and CatWoman don't deserve to have someone of Oprah's stature lumping you all in one 'loser' class, and blaming little kids for a culture they didn't create. That IS irresponsible and that's what people are angry about.

but I stand by my original post/sentiment.

You can't "make" people want to better themselves.

However, you can help and encourage those who do.

Yeah, I found a way out. Not just for me -- for BOTH of us.

I wanted my daughter to use my GI Bill to go college. I wanted her to work for a living. And she wanted nothing to do with those ideas.

I come from a family in which the norm is to have a bunch of illegitimate children. Tho my parents were married, me and five of my six sisters have several children out of wedlock. I saw the handwriting on the wall and stopped at one. I tried to show my daughter that there was a better way to live your life, and another side to life, period.

So, to put this in context with Oprah: she could have taken a cheaper way out, and flooded the ghetto with IPODS. That sure makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

I used to send money to my kid to help with the kids. I also sent gifts, care packages, etc.

Until I found out that she and her boyfriend were selling the stuff and using the money to buy drugs.

So take your sanctimonious shit and ram it.

It doesn't do anyone any good throwing good money after bad.

We're talking past each other and getting upset for no good reason.

Yes, there's a major lack of opportunity in the ghetto. Yes, there's some opportunity but it's not equal and ever present. Especially the military and especially recently.

And just because you don't know how to help your daughter, doesn't mean she can't be helped. People are very rarely helped out of bad situations by family. But I'm sure you won't listen to that sanctimonious shit either, seeing as how you've already got everything figured out.

lives. I'm SO glad you've got it all figured out so you can tell CatWoman how things spozed to be. Maybe you ought to get your ass down to Georgia and help that child o' hers -- show CatWoman how it's done.

JESUS H. CHRIST, you're just amazing. Beyond words.

My 25 year old step-son was screwed up on drugs. It took a long time and a combination of toughness and support, but he's been clean for 2 years, has a job, and is supporting his kids. So maybe you just don't know every damned thing you think you do.

one who made it happen and YOUR method(s) will work for every damn person on the planet. You'd better patent that and put it in a bottle -- the world is waiting for saving that you and only you can provide.

Brava, Madame Savior!! Brava!! Remember: the world is waiting. Now -- hurry, go fix CatWoman's daughter. Stat!!


More serioulsy: If you were so (over)involved in your stepson's recovery that YOU claim credit for it in its entirety (excluding him and his efforts, we all notice), you're probably a big part of the problem. I hope he stays sober, but when he doesn't, be sure and grab a mirror, and then the phone book so you can look up AlAnon, CODA, and whatever else you can find.

I don't think so. I specifically said family is rarely able to pull someone out of addiction, but that it doesn't mean people cannot be helped. Then YOU jumped all over me for making such an outlandish statement and suggested I head to Georgia if I knew so much. Then, when I explained I already had helped my step-son so I most certainly knew it could be done, you distorted that too.

OBVIOUSLY, any THINKING person would put the two together and KNOW that I didn't do it myself because I already said FAMILY is rarely able to do it.

I don't know what your problem is, but you're a really ugly person, uglier than I could ever dream of being.

"I've done it." YOU saved your stepson. YOU criticized another for not saving her child, for "giving up" on her child because YOU did it and now he's been sober for 2 years.

Speaks for itself AFAIC.

I said that just because her daughter rejected what she offered, it doesn't mean her daughter is hopeless and that all other options should be taken away because some kids make bad choices. I said that family is rarely able to help a person out of addiction. That's just the way it is. That's not a criticism, it's a fact.

Maybe if you weren't so busy playing Kreskin, you'd have been able to see what was right in front of your face. And take what I said, that I did experience an addicted child so I know what it's like, for exactly that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3043977&mesg_id=3045987

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3043977&mesg_id=3046323

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3043977&mesg_id=3046211

And CatWoman found it insulting enough to title one of her posts in response to yours: thanks for the analysis, Dr. Fraud

Guess we just misunderstood you, eh?

I didn't say anything to provoke that kind of response from CatWoman. That outburst came completely from within her.

the outburst was of your own accord, you're just too preachy and self absorbed to see it.

This thread is about kids who have given up and the adults who have given up on them. If YOU didn't want to discuss it, YOU didn't need to post and YOU most certainly didn't have to bring up your daughter. Don't blame me for discussing what YOU brought up.

And what's your excuse for MY taking it "wrong" (according to you)?

the more I'm convinced that you need to take your self-serving, preachy crap down the road.

You know, I'm 51 and I'll be the first to admit that there is still a hell of a fucking lot that I don't know. However, I "DO" know a great deal about some things.

You haven't walked in my shoes.

I'm not even giving you 1/10 of the entire situation. Who the fuck are you that I should?

I've shared more than I wanted to.

And I see no need to continue, being that you're so busy saving the world and all. I look forward to attending your next orphange opening, and drug rehab clinic.

I sure didn't ask you about your personal business. You used your daughter as an example of failure and why people like Oprah shouldn't care about inner city kids. Nobody asked you to do that.

And I have managed a chemical dependency treatment center, so I do know what I'm talking about and I did make sacrifices to do that.

You don't know anything about my shoes either.

You said EVERYTHING I came to say in this thread. :applause:
I was disgusted by her attitude yesterday as well. It sure said a lot about her, didn't it? No luck, indeed. :crazy:
However, I don't begrudge her wanting to build her school where she found the need to be greatest. I just don't have to like or even ignore her awful comments about students in the U.S. or her stupid remarks about luck.

I don't think anybody cares where Oprah spends her money, it's the attitude that stinks. I rarely watch Oprah, but I had seen an ad for that show when I watched a rerun of Obama. I was really hoping for something more enlightening, and was terribly disappointed. She complains about the abandonment of people, as in Katrina; but then turns right around and puts on these superficial women who are poster children for those who ignore the poor to begin with. Really made no sense.

she can spend it how and where she pleases, it's still a free country. At least Oprah is spending it on other things besides possessions for herself.

I can't believe some of the BS on this thread.

She's not being sexist building her first school for girls. Girls in S.A. are more likely to have been deprived of an education than are boys.

who will instill in their children, boys and girls alike, the joy and importance of learning.

So since you didn't like the kids, you turn your back on them? That's nothing short of disgusting. She should be ashamed of herself.

-- and no one else IS? She pays taxes like every one else. Votes too.

we shouldn't be counting on the Oprahs of the world to make education what it should be. We have one of those GOVERNMENT things to do that sort of stuff.

However, capitalist, bourgeoisie governments will never care about public education. They only care about making people smart enough to be efficient workers and dumb enough not to ask why they're going to be working their entire life. That's the reality of capitalism, so before anything else can be changed, the root cause must be changed.

Anyway, where did that question come from? I stated that the capitalist establishment will always ensure a weak public school system for the workers. I also stated that it is the responsibility of the people, through government, to provide sufficient education for all. Why would I have to volunteer at a school to validate my statements?

And although I don't volunteer to fundraise for public schools (which is something I doubt happens that much), I do volunteer for other things, although I should definitely do so more often.

because you think it's someone else's responsibility.

First of all, I'm not a billionaire, I'm a student trying to get through college. I don't have the means to significantly help or turn my back on anyone.

Secondly, the responsibility for the sad state of public education lies with the capitalist institutions which will always ignore public education. In my second post, I said what Oprah did was irrelevant because responsibility for education lies with the people through their government. In addition, I recognized the fact that our economic structure cannot address the academic needs of the people and the workers, and so I stated that the economic structure had to be changed in order for improvement in education to be made.

Why do you keep saying I'm putting responsibility in the hands of Oprah when I expressly did not?

"That's the real problem"

Also, see the other posts I made below. I hope that clears it up. Thanks.

you criticize Oprah?

I put all responsiblity for insufficient education in the hands of the (capitalist) government. That is my main criticism, not Oprah.

Also, you DO see a difference in ability to contribute money, do you? If you didn't, let me clue you in: Oprah's a billionaire, I'm a kid trying to get through college. There's a difference there, wouldn't you agree? Regardless, that's an unimportant point.

to schools? Nothing really, I've gone to public school for most of my life, and contributions tend to go to private schools.

To other organizations? I volunteer from time to time, namely at a ministry in a nearby city which helps distribute food and clothes to people who need it. I also did quite a bit raising money and volunteering for a social justice group which helped get fair trade products into our school and which participated in rallies against the genocide in Sudan. As I stated before, I should do more.

On edit, I'd like to add that individual charities don't have the significant impact that should be made. It is the bourgeoisie system which subjects people to poverty, not manic expression's lack of extensive volunteer work. It is precisely this system that must be changed before any progress can be made.

More to the point, I'm curious as to why you blatantly ignored the first, and more important part of my post.

Does .... not .... compute ...


If donating $40 million is a way of expressing hatred, then somebody shower me with hatred. PLEASE!!!!

She turned her back on a bunch of kids that she could've helped because she didn't like them. Instead of looking at WHY they wanted i-pods or what she could've done to help, she took her money to South Africa. She turned her back on them. Period.

And did you even read my other posts? Seriously, did you? I said that my previous point about Oprah was irrelevant since we shouldn't be counting on Oprah for anything. If you're going to reply again, try to comprehend that. Please.

make up your fucking mind. At first she hated kids. But when the stupidity of your argument reveals that she couldn't possibly hate kids, you rephrase your whining to the pitious "turned her back" argument.

Does she like kids or hate kids? Or is that no longer your argument?

One group of kids got NO MONEY. Why? Because Oprah decided she didn't like them because they wanted i-pods. She turned her back on them ("them" being the kids that didn't get money, since you seem unable to comprehend simple statements).

Can I trust you to associate the word "them" with the object of the last sentence? Can I? Or are you just that dumb?

I stated that she "turned her back" since the first post, don't try to change what I said.

Also, you said: "At first she hated kids." Where did I say that? Try to find that phrase in my first post, because I didn't, so you're wrong once again.

For your convenience, here's the post in question:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3043977&mesg_id=3044291

And ONCE AGAIN, you ignored the important part of my post. I will be very surprised if you DON'T ignore this paragraph once again.

Then you said she "turned her back on them".

What fantasy land are you making up all these fairy tales in? Oprah was not associated with these kids. You have to have established a relationship with somebody, to have built up some sort of reliance in order to "turn your back" on somebody. When did Oprah establish a relationship and build up expectations so she could turn her back on the Ipod kids?

You make no sense. You said she hates kids. Now you back off that lame argument to turning her back, and doesn't like...

find where I said "hate". Please, find where I said that Oprah hated the kids. I never said that.

I said she "turned her back on them" in my first post, I never changed my statement. In addition, you have YET to refute that very statement.

She refused to help those kids simply because she didn't approve of their present thought process. That's exactly what she should've wanted to change through her support. She failed to recognize the situation surrounding their desire for i-pods, and that is pathetic. Also, there was a relationship in that she visited the kids, and then stopped doing so.

"You said she hates kids."

No, I didn't. You're making sh*t up.

I'm still figuring out if you're just trying to be this way as some kind of joke or if you're just THAT blind.

And, as always, you ONCE AGAIN IGNORED THE LAST PART OF MY POST. You persist in blatantly ignoring my comments, which is rude and immature. Stop and address what I've been telling you this entire time.

Now, you're shifting to "she refused" from she "didn't like".

With you, one thing's for sure. It's always something-else. :eyes:

I NEVER ONCE edited that post.

Again, here it is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3043977&mesg_id=3044291

No edit.

Hopefully this is the product of a misunderstanding, for I can assure you that I never once stated that Oprah "hated kids".

because I never stated what you claim I stated.

By the way, I'm probably not going to respond to you on this thread anymore.

Oprah isn't the first black person to speak out against the attitudes of SOME young black kids.
Never mind that many young white kids have the same mentality--this isn't the issue at hand.
However, Oprah IS a private citizen. You cannot blame her for not wanting to invest in those who do not wish to invest in themselves.
She IS a role model for young girls--and especially young black girls so it would make total sense that she would reach out to that subset population.
I am grateful that she--as a private citizen...albeit a rich private citizen--is willing to invest her money into young women and is willing to enrich their lives in a way that nobody ever has.
I mean...if you think about it...clothing, housing, educating and feeding 152 girls is a huge undertaking and I am thankful that someone is doing it.

other countries the students have to pay to go to school and thats why she decided to open one up there.

why do people focus solely on Oprah? No matter what she does, people bitch and moan that it's not enough, or not for the right people, or whatever.

The world has exactly one black self-made female billionaire. She gives away more in a year than most of us will earn in our lives.

She did a wonderful, generous thing opening this school. why can't people just say "good work, Oprah"?

Katie Couric, that jerk from Home Depot and many, many others.

Oprah lives so extravagantly buying and laying out lavish home after home, the latest one being in Hawaii. She has helped the poor and the Katrina victims but it hasn't made much of a dent in her multi-millions. She set up the Angel Network but asked Americans of much leaner means to contribute much of it.

It seems that Oprah is seeking publicity for her "good works." She has her own show as a venue on which she has featured the Katrina and the African ventures. I have come to feel that Oprah is not all that and only watch her show now and then. She really turned me off when she showed just how much she envies her so-called best friend Gail. That becomes so apparent when she has Gail on her show and gets in her little jabs at her. Oprah just had to let the viewers know that while Oprah grew up very poor (her daddy was a barber so she couldn't have been that poor) Gail was never poor and even had servants in her home when she grew up. Give me a break.

Oprah should just quietly do her work in Africa without camera crews for the media.

and it's her damn company.

Despite your weird bitterness, I can assure you that virtually ANY non profit would be in heaven to have a big name celebrity associated with them because of the good it would do them and the people they serve.

The American poor kids don't want to learn and their parents don't care if the kids learn or not. My mother blamed the parents for the kids' attitude.

My mother's parents were working class immigrants and they valued education and instilled that value in my mother. My mother passed that ethic onto my brothers and me.

sadly, all classes and all ethnicities suffer from this problem. To add insult to injury, kids growing up in poverty don't have any role models, and so they look up to people they shouldn't be looking up to. It sure as sh*t isn't their fault, and it would be ludicrous to blame the parents (it is an accomplishment to get enough to pay rent under those circumstances, much less get their kids to do their homework).

On top of all of this, there is a loathesome lack of funding in public schools. Things like books are scarce in impoverished school districts. Kids will learn if they have the ability to do so, but sadly, that ability is almost nonexistent for many kids in poverty.

So really, these kids have no one to look up to, have many concerns and challenges in everyday life, no resources to learn from and little incentive to learn in the first place. WHAT DO PEOPLE EXPECT?

And lastly, when poor kids, most of them minorities, see well-to-do kids, most of them white with i-pods and cars, of course they're going to want to have them, too!

Lots of white folks are anti-intellectual as well(I won't mention a certain first family).

The jocks are exalted, the smart kids who are in other outside activities are shunned and bullied and beaten up. Nobody did anything about bullying in the schools until parents started suing and kids started bringing guns to school a la Columbine and shooting the jocks that tormented them. The school system still tries to ignore it.

I am what you would call a WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant). We became middle class because of the GI Bill. My parents got a 4% VA loan for a tract house in suburbia. Dad had a union job at a stinkin' refinery.

My mom went to college for four years, and my dad went to college for 2 years in the Depression, and was lucky to get that. Because of the G.I. bill, he went to law school at night and went from pipefitter at a stinkin' refinery to an attorney. Mom typed for him. My parents worked hard.

We had plenty of books at our house. We were the neighborhood library. Kids in my working class neighborhood would come to our house and use our books to write papers, because their parent didn't buy books, or could not afford them. We had Time-Life Books, Book of Knowledge, Brittanica Junior, and other assorted books.

I learned to read when I was 3. My mom read to me but I just picked it up. I cannot remember NOT knowing how to read. Mom said I was reading signs at three and books at four. The Houston school psychologists tested me and decided to put me in first grade in private school at age five. I have a letter from a school principal with a Ph.D. who stated that "it is obvious that this child has a brilliant mind". (And I feel like I've been going downhill ever since!!!)

When I was a kid, we read three daily newspapers every day. I would read to my mom out loud, the funnies. I read to her about "Huckle Hound".

I knew I was going to college. At least to get a four year degree. It was expected of me, and if I was smart enough to go to graduate school, that was even better. I got a vocational degree, a bachelor's degree and a doctorate. The only degree that got me any jobs was the 2 year junior college vocational degree. In today's economy, real degrees in heavy subjects are not impressing employers, not in my experience.

When i went off to college, my dad carried my big heavy IBM typewriter into my dorm room. My roommates gasped. They were shocked. A girl who TYPES HER OWN PAPERS! I bet she STUDIES instead of goofs off!!!! I did not get along with them. I went to class, I studied, took notes and made decent grades.

Kids need to be exposed to books and music and art and culture and science. I took my child to the opera when she was little. We saw "The Magic Flute" and "Hansel and Gretel" and "Babes in Toyland". And "Porgy and Bess" when she was a little older. (all done in English with Surtitles above the stage).

We went to the Museum of Fine Arts. My child was exposed to these and she is in college now. We talk about movies and books like "Freakonomics" and the Grameen Bank (guy who started it got the Nobel peace Prize this year for making microloans to poor women).

Unfortunately, out of my 12 years of college, only 2 of them were considered useful to employers. Their loss. No wonder we're turning into a third world country. Employers are into cheapthink and don't want to take advantage of those of us who thought education would get us a good job. :shrug:

I don't quite understand this. Oprah's claim is invalid. If those kids understood why they needed an education, then they might be able to get one. However, they don't even have the resources to understand WHY they need an education. Without that, how are they gonna get one?

It's not Oprah's fault that US schoolchildren don't understand the realities of why an education is necessary, or why their parents aren't getting the message through.

When someone's looking for an excuse to deliver an insult and will clutch at any weak straw they can find. Zzzzzz.

point and you chose to put words in my mouth to insult me. Ciao forever!

Every child in America has the right to go to school, and in fact goes to school BY LAW. That is NOT true in other countries, specifically South Africa, the site of her new school. There is a substantive difference.

She wasn't addressing QUliITY, but rather the FACT that American children go to school while much of the rest of the world don't have that right.

If they don't know that, how can they get an education?

For example, if you woke up with amnesia and lost your appetite and didn't know you needed to eat to survive and there was food all around you, you wouldn't survive unless you learned and believed you needed to eat to survive.

It's not registering with the kids. No matter how much education is around them.

"Say what you will about the American education system—it does work," she told Newsweek. "If you are a child in the United States, you can get an education."

No.

OK. That may be true. What does your statement have to do with Oprah?

She's a black woman who came from an underprivileged background. It's makes perfect sense that she's investing in poor black girls. Perhaps she sees a little of herself in these girls. As for the location of the school, these girls are poor because of Apartheid - I would think most people would find this compelling.