Kind of a HOOT!

[Tom Earp]

The Ant and the Grasshopper
OLD VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE ORIGINAL STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

MODERN VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, "It's Not Easy Being Green."

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome." Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

Tom Daschle & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Peter Jennings that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share."

Finally, the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act," retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government

Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.

The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug-related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Vote Republican!

[moe.ron]

cute

[Kevin]

Nice.

[Betarulz!]

I've heard several stories like this, namely one about 2 college students. Each time I have to demonstrate why such a story is not really very evident of the real situation in America and the goals of those of us who believe that things like social welfare.

The difference is this: I have no problem with people who don't work hard not getting rewarded similarly as those who do. However, my problem is the fact that there is a large discrepency in the types of opportunities those that do work hard are likely to receive. The goal is Equal opportunity, not equal rewards.

The fact is that there is a large discrepency between the type of opportunities I had compared to what someone from a rural school district or an inner city district got. I know this. Tom knows the type of socioeconomic area I am from and can attest to how relatively well off the area is.

My school was less than 10 years old when I graduated, had at least one brand new computer in every classroom, often more than that, had three computer labs each with over 40 computers. We had new textbooks (no older than three years old) and current maps and modern science labs. Teachers in my district were among some of the highest paid in the state, starting from $30000 for a 1st year teacher. Further there are plenty of kids that I graduated with that would be considered grasshoppers in that parable that are still going to college right now, simply because their situation allowed that.

Compare that to a student in an inner city or rural district where they can't afford new text books, computers, or even to have enough teachers for the number of students enrolled in their school, let alone attract any of the top new teachers coming out of college right now. Those good teachers that do go to those districts are likely to leave much sooner for better pay in those suburban districts if they can. For the kids that do work hard in these disadvantaged schools, it is much tougher to get out and go to college than it is for those suburbs kids who give minimal effort. These kids have far fewer opportunities than the ones I was given.

The simple truth is that education up to the secondary level is the one constant experience we all have, yet it creates an unequal society b/c so much is unequal creating unequal opportunities. It has been proven time and time again that the more education you have the more you earn, and so these kids that can't get to college even if they work harder than the suburban kids are stuck in a viscious cycle of poverty. Welfare is definitely nothing more than a bandaid on the problem of poverty, but until politicians are really ready to address the roots of poverty it will remain the same and the cycle will continue.

[Rudey]

I feel like kids that go to bad colleges are pretty much screwed in life. Do you feel the same way?

-Rudey
--Hardy har har

Originally posted by Betarulz!
I've heard several stories like this, namely one about 2 college students. Each time I have to demonstrate why such a story is not really very evident of the real situation in America and the goals of those of us who believe that things like social welfare.

The difference is this: I have no problem with people who don't work hard not getting rewarded similarly as those who do. However, my problem is the fact that there is a large discrepency in the types of opportunities those that do work hard are likely to receive. The goal is Equal opportunity, not equal rewards.

The fact is that there is a large discrepency between the type of opportunities I had compared to what someone from a rural school district or an inner city district got. I know this. Tom knows the type of socioeconomic area I am from and can attest to how relatively well off the area is.

My school was less than 10 years old when I graduated, had at least one brand new computer in every classroom, often more than that, had three computer labs each with over 40 computers. We had new textbooks (no older than three years old) and current maps and modern science labs. Teachers in my district were among some of the highest paid in the state, starting from $30000 for a 1st year teacher. Further there are plenty of kids that I graduated with that would be considered grasshoppers in that parable that are still going to college right now, simply because their situation allowed that.

Compare that to a student in an inner city or rural district where they can't afford new text books, computers, or even to have enough teachers for the number of students enrolled in their school, let alone attract any of the top new teachers coming out of college right now. Those good teachers that do go to those districts are likely to leave much sooner for better pay in those suburban districts if they can. For the kids that do work hard in these disadvantaged schools, it is much tougher to get out and go to college than it is for those suburbs kids who give minimal effort. These kids have far fewer opportunities than the ones I was given.

The simple truth is that education up to the secondary level is the one constant experience we all have, yet it creates an unequal society b/c so much is unequal creating unequal opportunities. It has been proven time and time again that the more education you have the more you earn, and so these kids that can't get to college even if they work harder than the suburban kids are stuck in a viscious cycle of poverty. Welfare is definitely nothing more than a bandaid on the problem of poverty, but until politicians are really ready to address the roots of poverty it will remain the same and the cycle will continue.