Attn: all Billionaires...

[Seeker]

Obviously their intentions are good and no doubt some good will come from it.

It's their money, their intentions are good and some good will come from it - so why don't we just stop here then? Enough said!

[Mitch Cronin]

the world is [not] as black and white as you make it out to be. There are shades of gray

http://cronin.ca/shadesofgrey.mp3

(be patient after you pop the play button)

[Mitch Cronin]

I don't know. Perhaps we should asked the people who have been severely oppressed for centuries. The Jews. Of course if you looked at their history you would discover that your point is of course very false.

Yup, Jews were oppressed, most notably in the 30's and early 40's by folks who thought along the same lines as you apparently do about others' cultures. But they haven't been for the last 60 years or so. Care to have a look at cultures who are currently facing oppression?

My point is false, is it? How so Woxof?

[Guest alkaid]

Yup, Jews were oppressed, most notably in the 30's and early 40's by folks who thought along the same lines as you apparently do about others' cultures.

Hmmm...so now I am being compared to a Nazi. Any surprise. What was that you said about about ugly traits.

See Godwins Law...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches (100%)"

Time for you to be banned by the moderator I'd say after your long litany of personal insults(please analyze all responses here Mr.Mod). Looks like that Woxof guy was a similar victim.

Seeing as you don't appear to have any specific counterpoints that your average academic would consider to be well thought, to the posted article(aside from calling it trash and making personal insults again) or my similar statements perhaps it is just best to say thread closed.

Alkaid.....I guess that is just how some make their point.

[cp fa]

Mitch posted a good news story. You turned it into a discussion on racism. Not surprising - your version of "truth" is offensive to most people.

BTW, Mayor Bloomberg is Jewish. Fortunately, he doesn't share your cultural prejudices.

[Guest alkaid]

Mitch posted a good news story. You turned it into a discussion on racism. Not surprising - your version of "truth" is offensive to most people.

BTW, Mayor Bloomberg is Jewish. Fortunately, he doesn't share your cultural prejudices.

If the truth is offensive then so be it. No specific responses from you on the article. No surprise. It describes you perfectly.

Thread closed.

[cp fa]

Ummmm.... you don't get to close threads here.

I'm not discussing the article because I'm not interesting in debating your viewpoints. This discussion says a lot more about you than it does about me, and it's not flattering.

[Guest alkaid]

Ummmm.... you don't get to close threads here.

I'm not discussing the article because I'm not interesting in debating your viewpoints. This discussion says a lot more about you than it does about me, and it's not flattering.

I check the content of your arguments on this thread.

Thread closed.

[Mitch Cronin]

Hmmm...so now I am being compared to a Nazi. Any surprise. What was that you said about about ugly traits.

See Godwins Law...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches (100%)"

Time for you to be banned by the moderator I'd say after your long litany of personal insults(please analyze all responses here Mr.Mod). Looks like that Woxof guy was a similar victim.

Seeing as you don't appear to have any specific counterpoints that your average academic would consider to be well thought, to the posted article(aside from calling it trash and making personal insults again) or my similar statements perhaps it is just best to say thread closed.

Alkaid.....I guess that is just how some make their point.

Closed, is it? ....

Do you have a mirror anywhere nearby? You're accusing me of all sorts of things instead of addressing my points. Why not practice as you preach? Where's your argument? ....and I should remind you, you brought up the subject of Jewish oppression, not me.

You're not fooling anyone with your accusations. ...Nor are you taking my advice to "be careful". Have a look at yourself... try to see how you make yourself appear to others here.

[Guest alkaid]

Why not practice as you preach? Where's your argument?

My argument is of course what I said earlier. That it is covered extremely well in the newspaper article. I know you called it trash as a response, but once again feel free to provide specific detailed counterpoints on why you feel it is trash.

If you still can't and I know you can't, then I will say...

Thread closed.

[Mitch Cronin]

My argument is of course what I said earlier. That it is covered extremely well in the newspaper article. I know you called it trash as a response, but once again feel free to provide specific detailed counterpoints on why you feel it is trash.

If you still can't and I know you can't, then I will say...

Thread closed.

You can say "thread closed" all you like, but as Cp Fa said, you don't get to close threads here.

I have responded to your posted article and you've only chosen which single point you wanted to respond to... what about the rest?

- he forgets that his measure of "success" is not the same as everyone else's

- which of these cultures he's examining have a history of being subject to severe oppression? or perhaps still are? ...and how that's helped to shape their culture.

- Care to have a look at cultures who are currently facing oppression?

- My point is false, is it? How so Woxof?

Are you able to use your own thoughts and words to answer me, rather than someone else's?

[Guest alkaid]

- he forgets that his measure of "success" is not the same as everyone else's

Of the four dashed lines you made, only one is an actual response to the article as quoted above.

Please provide exact details of how you come to the conclusion that "his measure of "success" is not the same as everyone else's".

Expecting nothing of course.

[Mitch Cronin]

... I thought you'd be unable.... I guess when so little is expected of you, you don't disappoint.

[Guest alkaid]

I thought you'd be unable.... I guess when so little is expected of you, you don't disappoint.

As repeated by me several times. Mitch has no response to the body of my argument of which I have been very clear about in this thread through my own statements and that of another.

Only trivial questions or trying to say that I am not responding properly or the expected insults. So I won't close this thread until I re-paste the earlier article. Intelligent criticism of the opinions in it and of my supportive opinion are welcome.

Based on what I have seen so far, none expected.

By the way, I read through this Woxof fellows post's. Quite an intelligent and realistic fellow who appears to have been unfairly crucufied by the moderator on the board at the time. Apparently only after a 5th warning can one be banned permanently which obviously did not happen. Out of my deeply deserved respect for this unfairly persecuted fellow, I am going to use his wonderful closing style of signature signoff on a regular basis now.

Alkaid......Telling the truth

[Mitch Cronin]

I wonder what makes this poor fellow think he can close a thread?

[Guest alkaid]

I have decided to re-open this thread. Hopefully this article won't be callously tossed aside as trash with no evidence to back up the argument. The truth is being told.

‘Culture of Poverty’ Makes a Comeback

For more than 40 years, social scientists investigating the causes of poverty have tended to treat cultural explanations like Lord Voldemort: That Which Must Not Be Named. The reticence was a legacy of the ugly battles that erupted after Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then an assistant labor secretary in the Johnson administration, introduced the idea of a “culture of poverty” to the public in a startling 1965 report. Although Moynihan didn’t coin the phrase (that distinction belongs to the anthropologist Oscar Lewis), his description of the urban black family as caught in an inescapable “tangle of pathology” of unmarried mothers and welfare dependency was seen as attributing self-perpetuating moral deficiencies to black people, as if blaming them for their own misfortune.

Moynihan’s analysis never lost its appeal to conservative thinkers, whose arguments ultimately succeeded when President Bill Clinton signed a bill in 1996 “ending welfare as we know it.” But in the overwhelmingly liberal ranks of academic sociology and anthropology the word “culture” became a live grenade, and the idea that attitudes and behavior patterns kept people poor was shunned.

Now, after decades of silence, these scholars are speaking openly about you-know-what, conceding that culture and persistent poverty are enmeshed.

“We’ve finally reached the stage where people aren’t afraid of being politically incorrect,” said Douglas S. Massey, a sociologist at Princeton who has argued that Moynihan was unfairly maligned.

The old debate has shaped the new. Last month Princeton and the Brookings Institution released a collection of papers on unmarried parents, a subject, it noted, that became off-limits after the Moynihan report. At the recent annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, attendees discussed the resurgence of scholarship on culture. And in Washington last spring, social scientists participated in a Congressional briefing on culture and poverty linked to a special issue of The Annals, the journal of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

“Culture is back on the poverty research agenda,” the introduction declares, acknowledging that it should never have been removed.

The topic has generated interest on Capitol Hill because so much of the research intersects with policy debates. Views of the cultural roots of poverty “play important roles in shaping how lawmakers choose to address poverty issues,” Representative Lynn Woolsey, Democrat of California, noted at the briefing.

This surge of academic research also comes as the percentage of Americans living in poverty hit a 15-year high: one in seven, or 44 million.

With these studies come many new and varied definitions of culture, but they all differ from the ’60s-era model in these crucial respects: Today, social scientists are rejecting the notion of a monolithic and unchanging culture of poverty. And they attribute destructive attitudes and behavior not to inherent moral character but to sustained racism and isolation.

To Robert J. Sampson, a sociologist at Harvard, culture is best understood as “shared understandings.”

“I study inequality, and the dominant focus is on structures of poverty,” he said. But he added that the reason a neighborhood turns into a “poverty trap” is also related to a common perception of the way people in a community act and think. When people see graffiti and garbage, do they find it acceptable or see serious disorder? Do they respect the legal system or have a high level of “moral cynicism,” believing that “laws were made to be broken”?

As part of a large research project in Chicago, Professor Sampson walked through different neighborhoods this summer, dropping stamped, addressed envelopes to see how many people would pick up an apparently lost letter and mail it, a sign that looking out for others is part of the community’s culture.

In some neighborhoods, like Grand Boulevard, where the notorious Robert Taylor public housing projects once stood, almost no envelopes were mailed; in others researchers received more than half of the letters back. Income levels did not necessarily explain the difference, Professor Sampson said, but rather the community’s cultural norms, the levels of moral cynicism and disorder.

The shared perception of a neighborhood — is it on the rise or stagnant? — does a better job of predicting a community’s future than the actual level of poverty, he said.

William Julius Wilson, whose pioneering work boldly confronted ghetto life while focusing on economic explanations for persistent poverty, defines culture as the way “individuals in a community develop an understanding of how the world works and make decisions based on that understanding.”

For some young black men, Professor Wilson, a Harvard sociologist, said, the world works like this: “If you don’t develop a tough demeanor, you won’t survive. If you have access to weapons, you get them, and if you get into a fight, you have to use them.”

Seeking to recapture the topic from economists, sociologists have ventured into poor neighborhoods to delve deeper into the attitudes of residents. Their results have challenged some common assumptions, like the belief that poor mothers remain single because they don’t value marriage.

In Philadelphia, for example, low-income mothers told the sociologists Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas that they thought marriage was profoundly important, even sacred, but doubted that their partners were “marriage material.” Their results have prompted some lawmakers and poverty experts to conclude that programs that promote marriage without changing economic and social conditions are unlikely to work.

Mario Luis Small, a sociologist at the University of Chicago and an editor of The Annals’ special issue, tried to figure out why some New York City mothers with children in day care developed networks of support while others did not. As he explained in his 2009 book, “Unanticipated Gains,” the answer did not depend on income or ethnicity, but rather the rules of the day-care institution. Centers that held frequent field trips, organized parents’ associations and had pick-up and drop-off procedures created more opportunities for parents to connect.

Younger academics like Professor Small, 35, attributed the upswing in cultural explanations to a “new generation of scholars without the baggage of that debate.”

Scholars like Professor Wilson, 74, who have tilled the field much longer, mentioned the development of more sophisticated data and analytical tools. He said he felt compelled to look more closely at culture after the publication of Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein’s controversial 1994 book, “The Bell Curve,” which attributed African-Americans’ lower I.Q. scores to genetics.

The authors claimed to have taken family background into account, Professor Wilson said, but “they had not captured the cumulative effects of living in poor, racially segregated neighborhoods.”

He added, “I realized we needed a comprehensive measure of the environment, that we must consider structural and cultural forces.”

He mentioned a study by Professor Sampson, 54, that found that growing up in areas where violence limits socializing outside the family and where parents haven’t attended college stunts verbal ability, lowering I.Q. scores by as much as six points, the equivalent of missing more than a year in school.

Changes outside campuses have made conversation about the cultural roots of poverty easier than it was in the ’60s. Divorce, living together without marrying, and single motherhood are now commonplace. At the same time prominent African-Americans have begun to speak out on the subject. In 2004 the comedian Bill Cosby made headlines when he criticized poor blacks for “not parenting” and dropping out of school. President Obama, who was abandoned by his father, has repeatedly talked about “responsible fatherhood.”

Conservatives also deserve credit, said Kay S. Hymowitz, a fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, for their sustained focus on family values and marriage even when cultural explanations were disparaged.

Still, worries about blaming the victim persist. Policy makers and the public still tend to view poverty through one of two competing lenses, Michèle Lamont, another editor of the special issue of The Annals, said: “Are the poor poor because they are lazy, or are the poor poor because they are a victim of the markets?”

So even now some sociologists avoid words like “values” and “morals” or reject the idea that, as The Annals put it, “a group’s culture is more or less coherent.” Watered-down definitions of culture, Ms. Hymowitz complained, reduce some of the new work to “sociological pablum.”

“If anthropologists had come away from doing field work in New Guinea concluding ‘everyone’s different,’ but sometimes people help each other out,” she wrote in an e-mail, “there would be no field of anthropology — and no word culture for cultural sociologists to bend to their will.”

Fuzzy definitions or not, culture is back. This prompted mock surprise from Rep. Woolsey at last spring’s Congressional briefing: “What a concept. Values, norms, beliefs play very important roles in the way people meet the challenges of poverty.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/us/18poverty.html?pagewanted=2

[Moon The Loon]

Crucufied.

Spelling talents of a kid from Grade 4.

And hey, buddy: this hostility towards you and your former handle is not about you and Mitch (one of the highest credibility posters on ANY airline forum); it's about you and your attitude. That's all, your attitude. You are the ONLY poster here that has any respect for your posts. That is reflected in not only my negative votes of most of your posts, but those of many who rarely or even never post.

As stated to your former incarnation, you should be looking deep and hard into a mirror to determine why you are so unpopular. That is of course assuming you cast a reflection in said mirror.

[Guest alkaid]

Crucufied.

Spelling talents of a kid from Grade 4.

And hey, buddy: this hostility towards you and your former handle is not about you and Mitch (one of the highest credibility posters on ANY airline forum); it's about you and your attitude. That's all, your attitude. You are the ONLY poster here that has any respect for your posts. That is reflected in not only my negative votes of most of your posts, but those of many who rarely or even never post.

As stated to your former incarnation, you should be looking deep and hard into a mirror to determine why you are so unpopular. That is of course assuming you cast a reflection in said mirror.

Still patiently awaiting any intelligent counterpoints to the opinions of the two articles posted by myself which reflect my opinions. Still only insults for replies.

Seems to me the above poster got drunk one night in the past and called the crucified one an idiot (in direct violation of posting rules)and now he has the gall to tell others how to behave. How interesting.

See link

http://theairlineweb...4

Why is it that such posters as seen on this thread can only insult when presented with factual evidence they don't like. And of course I am told that I am grade 4 because I accidentally hit the letter U instead of the I key beside it when spelling a word. Then the last line is of course another insult. Grade 4 describes certain behaviour on this thread I'd say. And once again, nary a credible counterpoint to the main point of this thread that I have posted.

Alkaid....Standing alone like Him, the crucified One.

[Seeker]

Still patiently awaiting any intelligent counterpoints to the opinions of the two articles posted by myself which reflect my opinions. Still only insults for replies.

Well, I've replied but you don't seem to want to discuss it with me for some reason. I read the articles you linked to and re-posted and spent some time reading all about Moynihan on Wikipedia. There is obviously a large number of intelligent people who hold similar opinions on the effect of "culture". Here's the thing though - "So What?" Just because a bunch of intellectuals believe this does not necessarily prove it to be true. Even if it was true, that does not mean that no effort should be made to help these poor and disadvantaged people. Bloomberg and Soros are using their own money, did you miss that part? You are trying to convince us that these people are in these situations because of their doing but the whole point of the thread is to highlight someone who has done something to try to help. To be perfectly clear - it doesn't matter how they got there. What difference does it make to some little 4 year old kid why his family is poor? What's important is how can we help him break free. Culture can change given the right impetus and enough time.

Here's a suggestion for you - track down and watch The Pursuit of Happyness with Will Smith. Maybe you can get a different perspective.

[Guest alkaid]

Well, I've replied but you don't seem to want to discuss it with me for some reason. I read the articles you linked to and re-posted and spent some time reading all about Moynihan on Wikipedia. There is obviously a large number of intelligent people who hold similar opinions on the effect of "culture". Here's the thing though - "So What?" Just because a bunch of intellectuals believe this does not necessarily prove it to be true. Even if it was true, that does not mean that no effort should be made to help these poor and disadvantaged people. Bloomberg and Soros are using their own money, did you miss that part? You are trying to convince us that these people are in these situations because of their doing but the whole point of the thread is to highlight someone who has done something to try to help. To be perfectly clear - it doesn't matter how they got there. What difference does it make to some little 4 year old kid why his family is poor? What's important is how can we help him break free. Culture can change given the right impetus and enough time.

Thanks for a response without insults Seeker. It is quite refreshing from the norm.

Once again, I agree with you that Bloomberg has good intentions and is trying to help.

However, I would like a bit more of a detailed response than...

"There is obviously a large number of intelligent people who hold similar opinions on the effect of "culture". followed by ""So What?" Just because a bunch of intellectuals believe this does not necessarily prove it to be true."

As you have said..a large number of intelligent people who hold similar opinions on the effect of "culture". This is extremely important, and if true, a whole new way of helping disadvantaged groups get ahead, such as straight, factual talk, instead of just throwing endless money at the problem and blaming others that are not blameworthy is required.

I should think that it is extremely important for the kids to learn why their community is poor while another community did differently and rocketed ahead and their kids are no longer poor. Culture starts at an early age. Both the positive and negative aspects. Son...you are poor beacause your parents were irresponsible. Do diffently when you grow up. Get an education, build up your wealth, basketball won't give you a career. Gangs and gangsta rap won't get you ahead in the long run. You should be studying not hanging out and stealing. Be a responsible father and have kids only when you are ready to, etc.

I suspect Harper knows this well.

[J.O.]

You have some nerve trying to wrap Steven Harper in your cloak of intolerance. If he saw this, he would completely disavow everything you have been espousing on this thread.

[Mitch Cronin]

....so I guess nobody liked my "Shades of Grey" song.. made up on the spot, at a cottage, in the wee hours of the morning...?

[J.O.]

I did Mitch, but I didn't recognize the voice! ;-)

[Seeker]

....so I guess nobody liked my "Shades of Grey" song.. made up on the spot, at a cottage, in the wee hours of the morning...?

I liked it - just couldn't figure out who it was.

[cp fa]

I suspected it was you, and I thought it was great. I should have known it was an original piece, because I couldn't find it on a google search. Nicely done.