Absolutely, when it causes people to take things out of context as you just did. Anybody with half a brain (oh wait, is that offfensive too? My bad...) would realize that I was not talking about "true" deaf people. It's called "a saying"...I was referring to the morons (oops, another something offensive) out there who waste other customers time going through the self checkout, when common sense should intervene and say 'ya know, I really should go to a cashier for this'.

I apologize for using the term "deaf" in conjuction with moron's. I didnt mean it that way. Unfortunately, you took it that way, even though if you had read the context of what my post was actually saying, you shouldn't have. But surely you've seen people at stores who play up the oblivious part and it makes you wonder if they are deaf, when 9 times out of 10, it's not actually a person who has the disability.

I'm pretty sure she was referring to people who can't figure out the self serve machines and stand there staring at it when it tells you to put the item in the bag. Not physically deaf and dumb, but people who can't follow directions.

Metaphor

Thank you. Exactly my point.

Yes. That's exacttly what I meant. Jesus, I'm not so shallow to make fun of someone who suffers from a true disability. Stupidity, though, is NOT a disability. Haha.

I think the reality is probably somewhere between your idea and my idea -- I don't think being born into poverty precludes anyone from getting an education, but I know that being born into poverty creates hardship the likes of which I've never experienced in my relatively privileged life, and there is no way I can understand the struggles faced by people born into poverty/drug addiction/whatever other crappy circumstances people face.

I have a hard time with your statement that it's a "choice" to do poorly in school. I'm willing to agree with that to a certain extent, but not in terms of people who do poorly in school from early childhood -- a child under the age of say, 15 or 16, is not old enough to be independently responsible for his or her behavior to that extent.

Long story short, I don't think you or I are qualified to speak to how hard or easy it is for someone born into poverty to get an education and achieve some measure of financial success in life.

I'm sorry, but I have to call out this statement. I have a friend who busted his ass 3-5 hours a night to make C's. He had a brain tumor that affected his short-term memory as a child, but is mainly of normal intelligence. It's not fair to say that it's a choice to do poorly. I know that just because I didn't study much and got good grades, doesn't mean others got that lucky.

As the father of two children under 10, one of whom has ADHD and Asperger's, I would disagree. Many children may have challenges that make it hard for them to "choose" to do well in school, but it has actually been pretty clear to us and to our son's teachers when he is struggling because of his own challenges and when he is choosing not to do well. He may not understand the long-term consequences of such choices, which is why we explain those long-term consequences while imposing short term consequences. It's still his choice to be independently responsible or not.

How about I qualify that and say that absent mental or physical impairment, failure is a choice?

Better? :)

As for crappy schools, 15-16 Y.O.'s not being responsible for their own actions, I'm sorry, but my personal experience tells otherwise. My wife teaches at a charter school here in OKC which exists solely to help inner-city kids get into college. It's and AVID school if you know what that is. They remediate the kids, then expect them to perform on an AP level. They assist in getting financial aid, etc. They recruit from the worst schools in the city and consistently beat the "prestigious" magnet schools and ALL of the suburban schools on their NCLB test scores.

These are kids from broken, poor homes. Most of them are minorities, many of their parents are addicts. They're good kids who want to do better for themselves. In some cases, they come from great homes. In other cases, not so much -- they just have a lot of personal drive and ambition.

When you say that it's not someone's fault for their own actions, you are simply giving an excuse. For someone with a good brain and a good body, there is no good excuse for failure. None.

I'm not assuming. I worked under this sort of "on call" system, and it blows. Although I was part time, so I really can't complain. I can't imagine using it for employees who are supposed to be fulltime.

Heather said she was allowed to CHOOSE HER OWN SCHEDULE AND HOURS. I didn't see that mentioned in any of the articles about Walmart.

I think that's valkyrie's point though. Many children (especially those born into poverty) have parents who either don't care enough or themselves don't understand the affect doing poorly in school has on their life to impose short-term consequences and explain the long-term. Darn you responsible parents for actually caring enough about your children to MAKE them make something of themselves. Unfortunately, not everyone has that luxury.

When I did "on call" I didn't have more than 2 hours notice as to whether I was definitely working. I was scheduled tentatively a week ahead, yes, but when it came down to actually working, I didn't know more than 2 hours before. When I see them using the term "on call" that's what I take it to mean.

I would hope they would have a one week notice, but considering this is Walmart, I really doubt they would be that thoughtful. (Reminds me of Lily Tomlin - "we don't care! We don't have to! We're the phone company!")

Even though your kid has obstacles (ADHD and Asperger's) he clearly has good teachers and parents. What about the kid who has ADHD and Asperger's and attends (rarely, nobody cares if he goes) an overcrowded class in a crappy school where teachers don't even notice he's struggling and his mom is a crackhead who has never explained anything to him and rarely provides enough food for him to eat? To argue that this kid is responsible for his decision to do poorly in school implies that he should have some type of built-in adult ability to figure out for himself the consequences of his behavior without an adult to help him learn these things. I think that is unreasonable.

Sure you're assuming -- you're assuming that Wal-Mart will use a system like the one you worked under, instead of the one she worked under, even though she mentioned that she worked for "the worlds largest electronic retailer" and the article specifically mentioned Radio Shack. (Yes, I'm assuming as well.)

No, you didn't see anything mentioned in the article about choosing a schedule or hours, meaning the article didn't say anything about it one way or the other. That might mean that no such choice will be available, but without more to go on, that's just an assumption.

Frankly, I think you're assuming that just because it's Wal-Mart, it must be bad for the employees.

When it's been proven over and over again that they don't give a shit about anything but profit, why on earth should I think otherwise?

I see that, but what I was really challenging was Valkyrie's statement that "a child under the age of say, 15 or 16, is not old enough to be independently responsible for his or her behavior to that extent." I think they are old enough. Without support they may not be motivated to be independently responsible or see the value in being responsible, but that's a different challenge from saying that they are not old enough to be independently responsible.

Son wailed one night, "why do I have to have parents who care about things like school and grades?!" :D

Look back at my post and at my response to AlphaFrog -- what I was challenging was the contention that a child younger than 15 or 16 isn't old enough to be independently responsible. From plenty of experience with my own kids and others, I stand by that challenge. Sure, in early years it takes someone to teach most kids the value and expectation of that kind of personal responsibility, but that doesn't mean the kid isn't capable of holding himself responsible. I've seen too many young children -- kids of parents who don't care, even -- hold themselves responsible to buy into the idea that "a child under the age of say, 15 or 16, is not old enough to be independently responsible for his or her behavior to that extent."

Just because no one has taught a kid to read doesn't mean the kid isn't capable of reading.