re: #655 kirkspencer

On the other hand…

In the late 1960s and early 1970s there was a big tennis push in parts of the US. Sufficient that a boy, one of four, son of a middle class airline worker, could learn to play tennis. Sufficient that a display of talent meant the coach would allow him into small group and individual training for free. Now this boy (looking in mirror) was lazy and did not continue this golden opportunity. But a couple of my peers, one of whom was the sixth child in his family of seven, who’s parents made less than mine, went on to do well enough for college scholarships. I know one flirted with being a pro but wasn’t quite good enough to stay in that circuit.

As another example consider the Williams sisters, of dual income middle class background.

The point is that getting a break can make up for not being wealthy. Unless and until I see information about her family’s wealth I refuse to claim she was born with a silver spoon just because she got this sort of training. It happens - breaks happen.

I don’t know that’s her case - she may indeed be the spoiled child of privilege. What I know is your claim she could not have had these breaks without being rich is mistaken.

But in that case wouldn’t you think someone who had that opportunity provided by public (taxpayer-funded) recreation facilities would be less eager to shut down those facilities and opportunities for others.