Hope is a euphemism

The Orwellian twisted language launched by Obama acolytes continue. The latest addition to the euphemistic syntax comes from Washington State Democratic State Senator Rosa Franklin who wants to eliminate child poverty. Admirable. But her method? Not so admirable. Donna Gordon Blankinship explains:

Decades ago, poor children became known as "disadvantaged" to soften the stigma of poverty. Then they were "at-risk." Now, a Washington lawmaker wants to replace those euphemisms with a new one, "at hope."

And how will this help? According to Franklin

negative labels are hurting kids' chances for success and she's not a bit concerned that people will be confused by her proposed rewrite of the 54 places in state law where words like "at risk" and "disadvantaged" are used.

Disadvantaged children are at risk of being labeled--and living--at hopeless lives if Franklin's terminology is adopted. Most children know self esteem words won't do the job; which is why children across the country, whatever background unanimously respond to taunts with that age old retort "sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me." Ok, some really nasty names do occasionally hurt but hard work and determination will get them real hope.

And that is something that can't be legislated.
The Orwellian twisted language launched by Obama acolytes continue. The latest addition to the euphemistic syntax comes from Washington State Democratic State Senator Rosa Franklin who wants to eliminate child poverty. Admirable. But her method? Not so admirable. Donna Gordon Blankinship explains:

Decades ago, poor children became known as "disadvantaged" to soften the stigma of poverty. Then they were "at-risk." Now, a Washington lawmaker wants to replace those euphemisms with a new one, "at hope."

And how will this help? According to Franklin

negative labels are hurting kids' chances for success and she's not a bit concerned that people will be confused by her proposed rewrite of the 54 places in state law where words like "at risk" and "disadvantaged" are used.

Disadvantaged children are at risk of being labeled--and living--at hopeless lives if Franklin's terminology is adopted. Most children know self esteem words won't do the job; which is why children across the country, whatever background unanimously respond to taunts with that age old retort "sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me." Ok, some really nasty names do occasionally hurt but hard work and determination will get them real hope.

And that is something that can't be legislated.