The Root Of The Problem

As I sit here this morning reading about the Chicago teacher strike and watching my daily dose of MSNBC, I realize that there is one component to the poverty problem that goes unmentioned, and one that is actually at the root of the problem, but an uncomfortable and politically incorrect fact, so it’s no surprise why it is glossed over. And that root of the problem is ……..   irresponsible parenting. MSNBC was showing a chart on the material items that the “poor” in America own, a chart of which we have all seen and one that shows that over half, in fact nearly 80% of what all “poor” households own and that is – microwave ovens, tv’s, cars, computers, cellphones, etc., so it is not a lack of material items that poor children are deprived of. What they are deprived of is a responsible parent, or preferably PARENTS, in the plural. We, as a society, have spent trillions of dollars on welfare programs over the last couple of decades, and current welfare spending is at record levels, including free breakfast and lunch programs at schools, increases in unemployment benefits, increases in job training programs, increases in WIC benefits to single mothers, and continued increases in pay and benefits to teachers, as evidenced by the tentative agreement in Chicago, so we now have teachers who should be well motivated and equipped to properly instruct our children. What we have, is a lack of responsible parents. Parents of whom will choose to stay married, only have children that they can afford, make sure that their children are up, fed and ready for school, make sure that their children are home safe at night, fed, and have their homework done, and make sure that their children understand the consequences of making bad decisions. You can not  smoke pot, drink alcohol, do drugs, have promiscuous unprotected sex, tattoo your entire body, pierce every orifice, and neglect your studies and expect to lead a very productive life. We can spend all the money in the world on poverty programs, and we can have all the government panels in the world addressing the problem, but unless and until we address this simple truth, nothing will change.

62 thoughts on “The Root Of The Problem

  1. Retired Spook September 16, 2012 / 10:26 am

    and watching my daily dose of MSNBC

    Why don’t you just spike your coffee with arsenic?

    Seriously, I recall discussing this same topic several years ago. I was struck by a comment that one of our resident Progressives made that “well, it’s not like children come with an instruction manual.” That may not be an exact quote, but it’s pretty close. Considering the number of parenting books available, you don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

    • Cluster September 16, 2012 / 10:35 am

      You know more and more I think of adding arsenic when watching MSNBC. They continue to devolve daily.

      Susan Rice, the UN ambassador, was just on Meet the Press and was simply lying through her teeth. Par for course for this regime anymore.

    • neocon1 September 16, 2012 / 7:16 pm

      t “well, it’s not like children come with an instruction manual.”

      YES they do…….the GRANDPARENTS

      • sue September 17, 2012 / 7:01 am

        In a lot of cases the grandparents are instructing them. A true story: I took a friend to the local welfare office in the waiting room were two women and a girl about 15. Grandma (about 45) and mom (around 30) were telling the pregnant girl how to answer the questions the case worker was going to ask. This was about 16 years ago.

    • Ricorun September 20, 2012 / 7:28 pm

      While I don’t consider myself a Progressive (certainly not a capital “P” type), I think you might be referring to me, because in difficult parenting/teaching/mentoring situations “children don’t come with an instruction manual” has always been one of my favorite cliches. Another is this: “catastrophic failures in complex systems almost always have multiple causes”. And I think both apply to this topic. Cluster suggests the root of the problem is irresponsible parenting. Spook suggests the solution is reading more parenting books. I don’t mean to imply that either attitude is erroneous per se, because there are irresponsible parents out there, and parenting books do help (at least some of them). But to suggest that all we need to do is solve those problems and everything would be fine is, frankly, so mind-numbingly simplistic as to make you wonder whether you should laugh or cry.

      Cluster’s implication is that more deprivation will lead to responsible parenting — take away their microwave ovens, tv’s, cars(?), computers, cellphones, free breakfast and lunch programs at schools, unemployment benefits, job training programs, etc. — and they’ll learn to walk the straight and narrow. Perhaps that is true of a small minority of those taking advantage of one or more of those benefits, but I doubt it would have a constructive effect on the many more who are already working the equivalent of two full-time jobs or more. If you’re a parent in that sort of situation it’s hard to find time to read a book on parenting, let alone put what they learned into practice. Rather, what those sorts of parents need is hope for a better life, at least for their kids. And that hope becomes dimmer to the extent that effective programs designed to help their kids are harder to get. Unfortunately, this post is basically about whether we as a society should provide the programs construed as necessary to foster that kind of hope or, alternatively, whether we should not provide any. And Cluster’s strong implication is that we shouldn’t provide any. And if I’m reading the implication right, I then have to ask… how the hell is that going to help?? I mean seriously, think about that in the whole context of the present trajectory of jobs in America how is that attitude going to help??.

      Rather, I think a better question is… how do we make programs so directed more effective? Amazona in particular likes to make the distinction (at least when it suits her) between the 21st Century definition of Republican (large R) and the definition that existed even immediately before. And in this particular instance I wholeheartedly agree — this doesn’t sound like Newt Gingrich, Ronald Reagan, or any other notable Republican pre-second-term GW Bush.

      I am so frustrated right now because I like Mitt Romney as a person. And I keep hoping he will show at least some of the qualities he exhibited when he was Gov of MA, which is to say his willingness and ability to work across the aisle. That’s very important to me, because I’m far more of an issues voter than a party voter (which is to say I’m far more pragmatic than ideological). And that’s what I liked about him, at least early on. But even after the convention he’s been working the party faithful to the point of absurdity — as his recent comments suggest. And that, I suspect, is bad news among the general electorate. The good news is that I live in CA, so my vote doesn’t count either way!

  2. Cluster September 16, 2012 / 10:45 am

    Susan Rice said this morning on Meet the Press that the attacks on the embassy’s in Egypt and Libya were spontaneous and a direct result of the Internet film. SHE LIED!!!!!!

    Today we learn, there was plenty of advance warning.

    How can we expect our children to have higher standars, and intelligence than the POTUS?

    We can, should, and need to do much better.

    • tiredoflibbs September 16, 2012 / 12:32 pm

      This administration is not going to even suggest that “they missed something” (which is EXTREMELY generous on my part). This pResident’s arrogance, weakness and appeasement towards the M.E. and the Muslim fascists (not all Muslims).

      If the whole attitude of the pResident is not to anger or offend their religion, perhaps he should start here with ALL faiths.

    • Retired Spook September 16, 2012 / 5:55 pm

      Ambassador Rice must have made the rounds this morning. She said the same thing on Fox News Sunday — just flat out lied through her teeth — several times.

  3. Amazona September 16, 2012 / 10:50 am

    Irresponsible parenting has been the problem for decades now.

    Every time I hear the whining about all the “starving children” it makes my blood boil, because I know there is money for food available to and probably given to the parents of these children, who are using it for drugs, tattoos, piercings, cell phones, etc. The airwaves are full of concern about how children go hungry in the summer because there is no school in session, so they are not fed.

    Why the hell NOT? Mommy and Daddy are getting food stamps and fed money and probably state money, so why aren’t they feeding their kids?

    But we are not allowed to take children out of these homes, because that would violate “the rights of the parents”. To hell with the rights of the children.

    Thousands of black children have been denied adoption into white families because of the politically correct social engineering mentality of the Left that has decreed that black children must be reared in black homes. I have a good friend in Wyoming whose family fostered many damaged children but was not allowed to adopt them because they were Native Americans and the law would not allow them to be adopted into white homes—so they bounced back and forth between nurturing white foster homes and the alcoholism and drug abuse and psychological abuse of the rez.

    We are not allowed to interfere in the “reproductive rights” of irresponsible sperm donors or gestational creatures who procreate for any of many reasons, none of them to provide good homes for their offspring.

    Our priorities are so skewed and more and more it is clear that they have nothing at all to do with the inherent value of human life as seen in the lives and protection of children.

    First we announce that the lives of children HAVE no inherent value, but are completely dependent on the whim of the gestational creature who has conceived. That message seems to be heard, loud and clear, as those children who survive pregnancy and birth are still not deemed to be of any real importance to the procreators, who take no responsibility for even feeding them, much less providing them with secure homes, loving parents, guidance and protection—the basics that have been taken for granted for centuries no long apply to modern procreators, who figure if the State won’t feed their kids they will just go hungry, but gotta have that flash manicure and the new iPhone.

    Interesting that someone in the media has finally figured this out.

    • Cluster September 16, 2012 / 11:16 am

      Great comments as usual.

      I think it was Dennis Miller who said “liberals want cradle to grave entitlements, but it’s making it to the cradle that is the tricky part”

  4. Amazona September 16, 2012 / 11:17 am

    I recently got an email that included a photo of a newspaper clipping about the shooting death of a 25-year-old man coyly described as an ENTREPRENEUR.

    25 years old, with 9 children. He had 8 brothers and 5 sisters. The newspaper article did not go into how many children each of these 13 siblings had, but the names of the brothers indicate a variety of parents—the sisters might have married and changed their names, so it is harder to tell with them.

    He had not married but had a “companion”. Assuming her age to be roughly the same as his, it is doubtful that she is the mother of all 9 of his children, though he proudly gave each of them his last name. So there are 9 children out there, ranging in age from (at a guess) 10 down to infancy, with no father.

    The question is, how many of these children are being reared responsibly—-fed, clothed, housed and nurtured—by ANYONE? Larmondo was evidently a product of HIS chaotic background and learned his lessons about responsible procreation from his own life experience.

    If we go back to his parents, and the 14 children listed (including Larmondo) and add Larmondo’s own 9, not even speculating about the procreational inclinations of his siblings, we have 23 children with little or no parental presence and responsibility.

    Oh, I’m sure that casper or someone will scurry in to point out that we don’t KNOW this, that for all we know “Flair” was a real entrepreneur whose financial success allowed him the time to parent all nine of these children and provide for them, and offer them a role model for responsible living and parenting to carry on into their futures, and each of these nine children has a loving and nurturing home, blahblahblahblahblah.

    And it is theoretically possible that each of the baby-mamas is actually BEING a mother, living on government welfare but at least cooking for her babies, making sure they are clothed, preparing them for school, and teaching them not to go out and get knocked up by a hound dog of the kind of “entrepreneur” who gets gunned down on the street.

    Just as it is theoretically possible that somewhere a strain of swine is developing functional wings.

    But we know better. And we know that the procreational “rights” of people like “Flair” and Kawanner, and the other baby-mamas, and Flair’s mama and daddy before him, trumped all right of the innocent children dumped on society to become hungry, scared, angry, and eventually “entrepreneurs” in their own right.

    “Let’s get the players straight before we go on with this..


    His Companion: Kawanner Armstrong

    His Sons :
    Christian Allen
    Kwan Allen
    Larmondo Allen, Jr.

    His Daughters:
    Deidra Allen
    Larmenshell Allen
    Lamonshea Allen
    Larmomdriel Allen
    Larmerja Allen
    Korevell Allen

    His Father: Burnell Thompson
    His Mother: Esther Allen
    His Stepfather: Bruce Gordy

    His Brothers:
    Burnell Thompson
    Edgar Thompson
    Wil Willis
    Danta Edwards
    Reshe Edwards
    Mattnell Allen
    Burnell Allen
    Lester Allen

    His Sisters:
    Shannail Craig
    Lekiksha Thompson
    Gwendolyn Carter
    Jessica Willis
    Katina Gordy

    Delors Allen
    J.C. Allen
    Anna Laura Thompson
    Will Thompson

    • Cluster September 16, 2012 / 11:32 am

      I saw that email too, and can’t think of a better example of what liberal thinking, and liberals policies result in. Liberals refuse to acknowledge it, much like the Susan Rice refuses to acknowledge that misguided, weak, foreign policies on behalf of the far left Obama result in.

      How can we expect parents to acknowledge simple truths when the former pot smoker POTUS doesn’t?

      Spook said the other day that we are living in interesting times which reminds me of that ancient Chinese proverb that says “may you live in interesting times”, but honestly I could go for less interesting times and more applied common sense.

      • Retired Spook September 16, 2012 / 11:39 am

        I saw that email as well, in fact, I either got it from Amazona, sent it TO her, or received it from a mutual friend.

        I would live in much less interesting times if I’d just get off the Internet and stop watching TV. Rural northeast Indiana is not exactly a hotbed of extremism, and national news events. I still think there’s going to come a time in the not-too-distant future that I’m going to be really glad I live where I live.

      • Cluster September 16, 2012 / 11:45 am

        LOL. Somehow I don’t think ignoring reality would suit you very well, besides you have to forgo your exorbitant pay package.

        I live in a more volatile region so I do hope for a close examination of what liberal thinking brings.

      • Retired Spook September 16, 2012 / 12:18 pm

        LOL. Somehow I don’t think ignoring reality would suit you very well,

        Yeah, probably not.

        besides you have to forgo your exorbitant pay package.

        You’re right — the BIG BUCKS would be hard to leave behind, heh.

      • Amazona September 16, 2012 / 12:21 pm

        I don’t believe it is impossible to turn this around.

        For one thing, the Left either underplays or denies the overall psychological impact of declaring human life inherently of no value, of having value dependent on age and more importantly on whim.

        This is a message that permeates to the core of people brought up with it as an absolute fact.

        The instinct to protect our young is the most basic instinct of all creatures.. We are dive-bombed by tiny sparrows when we approach a nest of baby birds. I once picked up a tiny baby rabbit who started to scream for Mommy and found myself charged by a rabbit about half the size of my cat—and she is a small cat.

        For some reason there has been an organized, dedicated movement to remove human beings from this nearly universal category of creatures who value and protect their young, starting with the indoctrination of the bizarre idea that unborn children are of no value unless the gestational creatures who have conceived decide they are.

        We get the Big Eye of amazement when we link this devaluation of human life and the expendability of children to abuse of children who manage to survive pregnancy, AS IF there could not possibly be a connection. AS IF people are somehow magically supposed to process the drumbeat of claims that up to a point children are of no inherent value and then, shazaaaam, they are.

        Of course the magical age of value is never stated—it used to be at the beginning of the second trimester of pregnancy, expanded to exclude the second and then the third trimester, and now according to Dear Leader should exclude post-birth time periods of equally vague definition—for now, just the length of time it takes an abandoned baby to starve to death in a box on a shelf in a dirty linen closet, or thrown into the trash, but who knows?

        And then, at some indeterminate time, the parents are supposed to transit from seeing this child as a disposable inconvenience to an important human being deserving of time, energy, protection, nurturing and love. Too often these same parents are products of a society which has told them that they have no responsibility for THEMSELVES—but they are supposed to take on mature adult responsibility for helpless children?

        It took a while to get here, and will take a while to fix, but it can be done, though the Left is so deeply invested in the dehumanizing of people that they will fight it with everything at their disposal.

        First we need to have an official national policy that human life is important and valuable. We won’t be able to turn around the juggernaut that is abortion on demand in a short period of time, but we will never be able to divert it unless we find the moral courage to denounce it as an atrocity, a crime against humanity, and a violation of the most basic of human rights, the right to life.

        Then we need to expand this to the care of children, which means being able to limit the number of children born to proven irresponsible procreators. It’s a sensitive issue and a potentially slippery slope, but surely some kind of process can be found which penalizes irresponsible breeding. The two most important tools for this would be social disdain for it and the halt to rewarding it with money.

        We need to get over the Leftist-originated whine that it is just too mean to ‘pass judgment’ on illegitimate births and get back to reality. This means standing up and saying it is wrong, it is stupid, and we are not only going to stigmatize it, we aren’t going to pay for it any more.

        Third, if we are going to have sex ed in our schools, let’s make it relevant to real life—that is, tell these kids that mommy and daddy made a mistake but that this kind of mistake is a bad thing to do, and work on turning around the impression that it is cool to reproduce like alley cats. Hurt some feelings? Probably. Tough.

      • Amazona September 16, 2012 / 4:38 pm

        “He was killed in 2004” ….which of course means nothing, though we can speculate on how many more children he would have dumped on the system in the past 8 years.

        What is his date of death supposed to signify?

        You are aware, surely, of the unintended irony in his family’s description of him as an “entrepreneur”—but then, perhaps not.

        Just another irrelevant non-response from someone compelled to post even when he has nothing to say.

      • dbschmidt September 16, 2012 / 7:28 pm

        But don’t you realize that everything is a matter of perspective to Liberals. As I read this article some time ago–I thought how irresponsible this person (cannot apply the word “Man” to him) is and was; however, folks like Casper will see it only as a need to increase the Federal minimum wage standards.

        Hatchett has fathered 30 offspring with 11 different women and is unable to pay the court-appointed child-support sums with the salary he earns as a minimum-wage employee.

    • Bob1 September 17, 2012 / 12:10 am

      This is why we previously had laws regarding marriage that restricted it to a committed relationship between a man and a woman in which the man was basically seen as being the one who was legally responsible for the care of his dependents, including the woman. For a discussion regarding this matter as it is now extended to include marriages between gays, same sexed couples, see this post on my blog: Banning gay marriages

  5. tiredoflibbs September 16, 2012 / 12:38 pm

    When I hear the endlessly regurgitated mindless talking point, “the plight of the poor” that makes my blood boil.

    The “poor” in this country live better than most middle class in Europe. The “poor” in this country have many necessities that are considered luxuries. While they claim they don’t have money for food, heat, electricity, etc. (many of which are subsidized by you and me) they still own nice furniture, flat screen televisions, satellite or cable, DVD or Bluray players, cell phones with data plans, microwaves, personal music players, PCs, etc. etc. Meanwhile, they are still looking for more handouts to pay for necessities they “can’t afford”.

    Many people in other countries wish they could live like our “poor” people do. It is simple. Their priorities on life are not where they should be.

    • neocon1 September 16, 2012 / 7:13 pm


      The “poor” in this country live better than most middle class in Europe. The “poor” in this country have many necessities that are considered luxuries. While they claim they don’t have money for food, heat, electricity, etc. (many of which are subsidized by you and me) they still own nice furniture, flat screen televisions, satellite or cable, DVD or Bluray players, cell phones with data plans, microwaves, personal music players, PCs, etc. etc. Meanwhile, they are still looking for more handouts to pay for necessities they “can’t afford”.

      dont forget the almost mandatory cigarettes, soda and beer. I get to see a lot of it.

  6. tiredoflibbs September 16, 2012 / 1:00 pm

    Another thing, that irks me, is that these proggies continue to support a failed government education system in order to keep their union money flowing into their coffers. Washington D.C. had a school voucher program that was working and providing an education to children of that failed system. The school superintendent from the last administration was drummed out of a job for purely political reasons. Her efforts were starting to revive that failed system.

    The mayor drummed her out and put his toadie in place. The pResident ended any federal dollars that was going to support the voucher system – again by request of the special interest unions.

    What is worse is that the parents of the children VOTE for these two losers, the mayor and the pResident, and will do so again. Meanwhile, they will continue to complain or ignore the system that is in place.

    Priorities people, priorities.

    • Amazona September 16, 2012 / 2:10 pm

      Dear Leader is one who voted to end a small voucher program in D.C., which allowed several underprivileged children, mostly black, to attend high-quality private schools in the area.

      I saw a speech where the woman who had administered this program was weeping in despair and frustration, a black woman who could not believe a black president was cutting poor black children off from this one chance to escape their environment. She had been administering this program for years and had story after story of the lives it had changed.

      “Choice” is a very narrowly defined word on the Left.

      • Cluster September 16, 2012 / 2:14 pm

        The left doesn’t want poor children of any color to leave poverty. It strips them of their voting bloc.

      • Amazona September 16, 2012 / 3:14 pm

        This, and private schools are not unionized. Allowing poor children access to private school education undermines the plantation population necessary for Leftist domination, it decreases union power, and it increases the exposure to qualifications which can lead to active participation in a free market system–three very serious risks for the expansion of Leftism.

  7. Cluster September 16, 2012 / 1:46 pm

    “Dave” is a seminar poster who is on our spam list and who has approximately 15-45 posts removed every day, constantly pasting back old posts. When you see posts from him you will notice that he posts the same thing every minute or so in a flurry of several recycled comments. Responding to him in any way encourages him in the same way responding to spam in your email encourages the sender. Posters and moderators are asked, repeatedly, to not respond in any way. Repeat: NOT RESPOND IN ANY WAY. Moderators are repeatedly asked to refrain from editing out his comments and adding editorial comments of their own, and to merely move the posts to the trash bin if they have not been picked up on a spam review, This preserves the content for future reference if legal action is necessary and does not feed the troll. Any response at all merely leaves his footprints on the blog. Once again, posters and moderators are asked to simply ignore the posts from this identity, which uses many different IP addresses and is clearly not just an individual offering an opinion, and to leave them in place till the blog is scanned for spam. //Moderator Group

  8. Amazona September 16, 2012 / 4:54 pm

    From Newsmax this morning:

    Obama’s Mileage Standards Imposed ‘Without Regard to Cost’

    The Obama administration has rolled out its new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards — requirements that will eventually cost Americans as much as $11,000 more per car.

    The new standards, which are opposed by Mitt Romney, would boost automobile fuel standards from 29.7 miles per gallon now to 35.5 in 2016, then to 54.5 in 2025.

    “These fuel standards represent the single most important step we’ve ever taken to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” President Barack Obama said.

    “It’ll strengthen our nation’s energy security, it’s good for middle-class families, and it will help create an economy built to last.”

    CAFE requires automakers to calculate average fuel economy for all the cars in their fleets. That means large vans and SUVs that get poor mileage must be offset by high-mpg sedans, electric cars and hybrids.

    But a new report by the Republican House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform cited emails showing that the CAFE agreements were negotiated behind closed doors with a small group of automakers, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.

    Referring to the tens of billions of dollars in automaker bailout money spent by the Obama administration, the report stated that “the administration’s investment in GM and Chrysler gave it great leverage to force the companies to improve fuel economy without regard to cost.”

    Consumers, however, are likely to regard cost. According to the Center for Automotive Research, the price of a car will increase by $4,000 to $11,000 by 2025 compared to 2008 prices.

    As a result, fewer people will buy new cars and the automobile industry will suffer, while prices for used cars are likely to rise.

    “Fuel-saving technologies are anything but a bargain unless the price of gasoline is far higher than it is now,” says economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of “Regulating to Disaster: How Green Jobs Policies Are Damaging America’s Economy.” She also served in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush

    “In Europe, where gasoline prices range from $7.25 to $8 per gallon, people buy small, fuel-efficient cars. But this is because of fuel prices, not CAFE standards.”

    The standards will affect safety as well, because lighter cars are more dangerous in collisions. A survey of more than 1,000 engineers by Ward’s Automotive concluded that “stringent fuel economy requirements like those set for 2025 will be impossible to meet without sacrificing the safety of the vehicles.”

    Furchtgott-Roth points out that with the higher car prices, Americans will keep their old cars longer, and old cars generally produce more tailpipe emissions.

    “If energy security is the rationale for CAFE standards, America needs to increase production of domestic oil, gas, and coal, invest in more refinery capacity, and build nuclear power plants,” she adds.

    “These are major components of Romney’s energy plan, yet the Obama administration has been noticeably slow on all these.”

    A few points:

    “These fuel standards represent the single most important step we’ve ever taken to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,”

    That is, the most important step WE HAVE TAKEN, not by far the most important step we could take. Notice the claim that the best way to “reduce our dependence on foreign oil” is not to produce our own, with the attendant addition of jobs and taxable income, but just to use less.

    “It’ll strengthen our nation’s energy security, it’s good for middle-class families, and it will help create an economy built to last.”

    Well, if by “strengthen our nation’s energy security” you mean remaining just as dependent on foreign oil as we are now and keeping our fingers crossed that we do not find ourselves in the position of having to defend ourselves and needing more oil, or having our foreign oil supply cut off by any of several possible circumstances.

    If by “good for middle class families” you mean putting them in more danger every time they venture out on the highway in weaker vehicles, or having to pay 33% more for them than they pay now.

    If by “creating an economy built to last” you mean —-well, there is no way this can be spun to mean anything but fairy dust and lies.

    “…..lighter cars are more dangerous in collisions…. ”

    “….“stringent fuel economy requirements like those set for 2025 will be impossible to meet without sacrificing the safety of the vehicles.” Nice

    “…with the higher car prices, Americans will keep their old cars longer, and old cars generally produce more tailpipe emissions…”

    Doncha just hate those Unintended Consequences? You know, like automobile companies stuck with cars no one wants or can afford, and dirtier air, on top of continued dependence on foreign oil?

    • Amazona September 16, 2012 / 4:58 pm

      And I almost forgot this: CAFE agreements were negotiated behind closed doors with a small group of automakers, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.

      • tiredoflibbs September 16, 2012 / 5:53 pm

        What?!? The obAMATEUR administration (you know the one headed by the Constitutional professor….errrr…. lecturer) did not follow the law? You’re kidding? The most transparent administration did something behind closed doors???

        BTW, as a result, Ford will be making their F-150’s out of ALUMINUM. This will make the truck 700lbs lighter. So two questions, A) will it be as tough as before? B) what happens if a grand-fathered F-150 (700+ lbs heavier depending upon year) hits it??? How much more will the truck have to destroy itself to protect the passengers???

        Repair costs for these more fuel efficient vehicles (though the whims of politicians) are higher than before since the lighter car can no longer protect its passengers without destroying itself with “carefully engineered crumple zones”.

        Meanwhile, the price of gasoline had doubled since obAMATEUR took office. The GOM is still effectively closed, the pipeline is shut down. If it were not for drilling on private lands (something obAMATEUR has no control over) gasoline would be higher at the pump.

    • Retired Spook September 16, 2012 / 6:03 pm

      “…with the higher car prices, Americans will keep their old cars longer, and old cars generally produce more tailpipe emissions…”

      That’s not necessarily true. Since the Supreme Court has now ruled that the government can tax you for not buying something, the government could make it very expensive to keep an older car as well.

      • neocon1 September 16, 2012 / 7:10 pm

        the government could make it very expensive to keep an older car as well.

        They HAVE, $4.00 a gal gasoline.

      • neocon1 September 16, 2012 / 7:25 pm

        Veeeeeeeeeery Interestinggggg

        Black Panthers may deploy again at polling places
        Sunday, September 16, 2012
        Pat Dollard ^

        WASHINGTON – Malik Zulu Shabazz, national chairman of the New Black Panther Party, stated today in a radio interview that his controversial group may deploy at voting booths in the November presidential elections, claiming such a move is needed to ensure there is no “intimidation against our people.”

      • neocon1 September 16, 2012 / 7:34 pm


        Gallup Poll: Dukakis leads Bush by 17 points

  9. Mark Edward Noonan September 16, 2012 / 9:27 pm

    The ultimate problem is, of course, moral – and our society has relentlessly attacked morality for well more than a century now. The destroyed lives we see all around us are the result of this attack. Fundamentally, the attack worked out to be an imposition by the atheist/agnostic/pantheist (take your pick – they run the gamut and very rare is the rich man or woman who is orthodox) rich of their values upon the poor. The rich figure that they like it and so others would benefit from it – not thinking that the reason a rich person can get away with gross immorality is because he’s rich. For a poor person, if there isn’t a rigidly enforced morality and a social structure which puts all emphasis on sobriety, hard work and thrift then things rapidly become a disaster.

    You’ve all heard me yammer away about making, mining and growing things and how I reject capitalism with as much force as I do socialism and insist, instead, upon Distributism – all of this is because if we are to survive then we must rebuild a society of sobriety, hard work and thrift. A society built for families. A society which rewards early marriage, parentage, well behaved children – and turns in fury upon anyone who tries to wreck these things.

  10. TeacherInLA September 16, 2012 / 10:50 pm

    so…birth control? mandatory for public assistance recipients? Social engineering a la China limiting the amount of children people can have PLUS forced sterilization for prisoners? Thoughts?

    • Cluster September 17, 2012 / 7:59 am

      Forced sterilization for prisoners? Why? Are you under the impression that same sex relationships are capable of naturally procreating?

      Mandatory birth control for public assistance recipients? How about mandatory parenting classes if they have children, and how about sending a very clear and unambiguous message that continued irresponsible procreation will result in no public assistance and a life of struggle and poverty.

      I hope that you are not in any decision making position.

      • TeacherInLA September 17, 2012 / 11:11 am

        sterilization means you can never have children, even after you get out of prison.

        I’ve taught parent ed. classes from South LA to Pacoima and I can tell you first hand: you can talk to parents about responsible parenting(keeping track of where your kids are, making them do homework every night, coming to Parent teacher meetings) until you’re blue in the face. It simply doesn’t work with some parents. They’ll simply go home and continue to not parent. Whats worse is the children who have children. I honestly think it’s a cultural thing – most of the students in LA are latino(Mexican, Salvadorean, Guatemalan). The children see the parents recklessly procreate and do the same. You are right, it’s a question of education. I remember getting it drilled into my head from 7th grade to 10th grade: WEAR A CONDOM, DO NOT GET SOMEONE PREGNANT. Of course, I was part of the first generation to have to deal with AIDS so sex was deadly back then.

        Do you really think the threat of not offering public assistance would deter people from having kids? It wouldn’t. What you would see is rampant, severe poverty and child hunger a la Brazil, Mexico, etc. Crime would go through the roof because of the desperation.

      • Cluster September 17, 2012 / 12:14 pm

        Liberals believe in Darwinism but only in theory. Liberals need to believe in Darwinism in practice. We have to have the stomach to stand for moral clarity, and allow those who veer from responsibility to fail, and to fail hard. If they literally can’t feed their children, or themselves, they literally will not have the strength to procreate, much less survive. As it is, we continue to prop them up because we don’t have the stomach for the alternative, and they know it. That is also the case with third world countries. We can’t continue to prop them up. They need to either learn to support themselves, or fail.

        That is a very harsh reality, but we need to go there, and we can begin by educating them, and giving them a lot of advance warning.

      • Amazona September 17, 2012 / 1:01 pm

        Teach,of course it is not easy. We acknowledge that. But doing nothing not only perpetuates the problem, it leads to reinstatement of the old class system, in which there is an aristocracy of well-bred and educated who are in charge and a large low class of uneducated, unskilled and probably less intelligent. There is an inclination to see things as a static snapshot—this is how it is now so this is how it will be. But in fact, how it will be will be much worse than it is now.

        I think the first and hardest thing to do is to simply remove children from homes where they are not parented. Yes, I know this is draconian, a slippery slope if handled badly, a solution which will include making many mistakes, and very offensive to many people.

        Another, which will offend Catholics, is sterilization which is offered to people who do not want to parent children. Again, draconian, a slippery slope, and one which will inevitably lead to heartache for many. As you say, it is a permanent decision.

        And equating this with prison sentences is foolish—why sterilize a bank robber?

        But these approaches are temporary, as they would make themselves obsolete in one full generation. Get through 25 years of pushing reproduction back into a family context, pushing programs that will make the next generation of young men far more likely to grow up with fathers, reinstating the societal disapproval of reckless reproduction, and there will be far less need for such draconian measures.

        As far as societal pressures, you dismiss them. ????? We now have Hollywood types glamorizing unwed motherhood, we have rampant reproduction by irresponsible young men a status symbol, we have a society which refuses to look down on these behaviors in the name of “tolerance”, and you claim these do not contribute to the problem?

        As for forced sterilization, you bet. You get a young stud with a few illegitimate children he cannot or will not support and parent and yes, he should be sterilized. Period.

        It’s not just racial. I worked with a subcontractor, a white guy, who was very proud of his seven children. It turns out that he actually parented none of them, most were illegitimate, and his parents were disgusted when he called himself a “father”. In a society which had not become embarrassed by having standards, this would not have been likely to happen.

        But society DOES have pressure. Society CAN make it uncomfortable to breed irresponsibly, and society CAN establish standards of civilized behavior. Yes, some will challenge these standards, but at least they will rein in some, and provide a comparison of acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

      • Amazona September 17, 2012 / 1:07 pm

        ” What you would see is rampant, severe poverty and child hunger a la Brazil, Mexico, etc. Crime would go through the roof because of the desperation.”

        Well, I would start by making it a crime, a serious crime, to fail to feed, house and clothe a child. And I would increase legal penalties for physical child abuse and murder. If a child is not cared for physically, those who brought him into the world are legally responsible.

        It would be a long process.

        And as for the Latino girls having babies, why are they here in the first place? They are here because we let them flood in, and we give those babies citizenship, a problem for another thread. But as immigration is part of this issue, we need to get rid of the anchor baby law.

      • TeacherInLA September 17, 2012 / 1:19 pm

        Amazona, I agree. I’m pretty certain my generation of Americans(35-45) probably has one of the lowest birth rates of any. This is good and bad. Good because over-population is a real problem but bad because we haven’t reproduced enough to allow America to grow. I give credit to the numerous health classes for my generation’s responsible behavior. And also parents who emphasized education and were active parents. I can only comment on what I see. What I see in Los Angeles is rampant, irresponsible child rearing by Latinos, most of whom are immigrants(probably illegal). Again, very little formal education(save for a priest who tells them to “go forth and multiply” – which makes the case for the Catholic church to foot the foodstamp/welfare bill or at least start paying property tax).

        Cluster, go to a favela in Brazil, or an African village and then try to argue that Darwinism will somehow prevent people from breeding. It won’t. That argument is moot. If you’d like to try to prove your argument valid then give specific examples of when cutting off money and food from the poor has resulted in their having less babies.

      • Amazona September 17, 2012 / 1:44 pm

        “Do you really think the threat of not offering public assistance would deter people from having kids? It wouldn’t.”

        Then why the explosion of illegitimate births parallel to increased government payouts to unwed mothers?

      • Amazona September 17, 2012 / 1:51 pm

        Teach, I am very offended by the intrusion of the Church into matters like irresponsible breeding here and overbreeding due to ignorance in other parts of the world.

        There may be an attitude of “So what if they starve if they starve for the Lord” but I can imagine the difference in the lives of these people if birth control, including sterilization, were to be part of our outreach including that of missionaries.

        I don’t think it would take that long to break the cycle of overbreeding, infant death, various physical and mental impairments due to malnutrition, and the physical and cultural effects of these problems.

        One generation of controlled reproduction, to establish a foundation of manageable population size, to let people actually EXPERIENCE the reality of such instead of being controlled by centuries-old cultural and religious teachings, and I believe the issue would nearly resolve itself.

        These people in Brazil or Africa do not enjoy watching their children suffer and die.

        But we are talking, here and now, about the problem in the United States. I don’t think the poor in Brazil or Africa are influenced by Hollywood types bragging about their illegitimate children, or how we subsidize our illegitimacy here.

      • Cluster September 17, 2012 / 2:33 pm


        I am somewhat ok with Amazona’s and yours recommendations with the only reservation that I am not one to “force” anything on anyone. So forcing sterilization on someone is a little weird to me. I do like the angle of making it a crime of child to abuse of not being able to afford, clothe or feed your child, I think that would work.

        I disagree with you in that the very draconian and harsh approach of withdrawing all support would not remedy the problem. I think it would. In this case, and I am speaking of third world countries, they would either die off, or learn how to care for themselves.

      • Amazona September 17, 2012 / 2:41 pm

        Cluster, I would not hold a guy down to sterilize him, but I would give him a choice—–provide an ongoing paternal presence and child support, go to jail, or snip.

        And would do this after #1 is born. If he chooses to provide child support and be a daddy, and then sires # 2, it is a criminal offense and he goes off to jail, or to the doctor’s office.

        Mommies can have temporary but long-lasting birth control, so they can become infertile for a few years at a time. A single mother with one illegitimate child can still go to school of some sort and get job skills, and be able to take care of her child. I would make the birth control implant a condition of government aid, along with a two-year time limit and job training.

        By the time the baby is five years old and the mother has been working for three years, perhaps this whole idea of making a living by cranking out babies will seem less attractive.

      • Amazona September 17, 2012 / 2:54 pm

        I can’t support just letting children die to back up a “Survival of the Fittest” theory. I would much prefer a program which finds a way to counter the cultural perception of fertility as a good thing, in 3rd World nations, whether it be payment (three goats per vasectomy) or some other kind of compensation to offset the perceived loss of many children, and a 25-year-plan to reduce reproduction simultaneous with increasing education and productivity.

        Substitute 200 fat, healthy children in a village for 800 starving ones with flies in their eyes and no hope for a future and it won’t take long for the lessons to be learned. 200 children maturing into healthy adults, in towns with wells and farm plots and marketing of native production like baskets and textiles, 200 healthy children going to school and coming back to the village to lead it away from grinding poverty, and the work will be pretty much done.

        It is hard on women to reproduce. Even a strong, healthy American woman with a background of good nutrition and health care, not beginning to bear children until she is at least 20, with good health care for her pregnancies and her babies, will find the wear and tear on her body after a few pregnancies to be significant. Few women want the burden of constant pregnancy but few have any options, particularly when faced with the prejudices of men who find fertility a personal badge of honor and masculinity and a culture that says children represent security in old age.

        Rather than just shrug off the pain of those who have to endure these things, I would much rather work on substituting another badge of male honor, such as wealth in the form of larger herds, or some other compensation for a little snip of the vas deferens, and nudge these populations into a healthier and more humane way of life.

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 17, 2012 / 8:42 pm


        You just called them all animals who have no control over themselves. For goodness sakes, they are human beings – and if we stop making it easy to have out of wedlock births and be lousy parents then they’ll stop having quite so many out of wedlock births and start to be better parents.

        Your fundamental flaw is to think of babies as a problem to be solved. Doesn’t matter if a couple has 1 kid or 20; what matters is how they behave in response to the 1 child or 20. Taking the case of the illegals – we deliberately imported these people and thrust them in to a sex-saturated society which puts no premium on family formation or stability. Then we doubled-down on our idiocy by providing them a vast, free reservoir of social services which took the sting out of poor choices.

        You have an additional flaw in your anti-Catholic bigotry – the Church doesn’t just say “go forth and multiply”. The Church instructs to not have sex, at all, until marriage and then to carefully use the (highly successful) natural family planning methods to ensure that children come in as the couple is ready to deal with them.

        Finally, anyone who in 2012 is thinking that there is such a thing as “over population” just hasn’t been paying attention – birth rates are in free fall around the world and our problem for 2050 and beyond will be how to deal with a shrinking global population.

    • Amazona September 17, 2012 / 9:39 am

      This is a typical Lefty non-response. Rather than address the real problem which even they cannot deny, they stoop to a primitive and silly level of recductio ab adsurdum and slop around some exaggerated and negative pseudo-solutions, so they can smirk in assumed victory at dismissing a comment made by someone on the Right.

      First, most of the problem is one of societal perceptions and acceptances. After all, fifty years ago, when we did not have birth control pills and the only contraception was condoms, diaphragms or abstinence, we did not have young men breeding like animals. leaving litters of young ones around for society to take care of.

      But then we had a strong societal prohibition on such a thing. It simply was not accepted, it would have received such scorn and contempt that no young woman would associate with a male who did this kind of thing.

      There are some gradual changes we can make, as a society, to alter the attitudes that lead to such behavior.

      First we need to address the issue of fatherless families. This cannot be done without hurting the feelings of unmarried women. Too bad. It also cannot be done without veering from politically correct paths.

      We already take care of these children. We feed them breakfast, lunch and supper, we give them someplace to go after school. We could ask people to come in to serve these meals and oversee these activities with the idea of establishing a familial feeling—mommies and daddies serving meals at table and asking about school,, gathering children around to tell stories etc—-and talking about how important it is to HAVE a family, make a family, be able to turn to a family. SOMEONE has to step in and introduce the very CONCEPT of family, of fathers teaching sons, and it has to be with the goal of wanting these children to grow up determined that their own children will not lack what they have missed.

      But you can’t miss what you don’t even know exists, and right now these litters of young human beings are growing up without the most basic of human constructs, a family, and are therefore not even aware of what they have been missing.

      We can tell young women that they should not procreate without marriage, and that we will not financially support them if they do. We have to be strong enough to remove any illegitimate child after the first one and place it in a home with a mother and a father. We can stop glamorizing unmarried motherhood.

      A nation without moral clarity cannot lead, and we have lost ours. We are too afraid to say “this is wrong” so we give tacit approval to behaviors every civilization in history has known to be wrong, from random breeding to abortion.

      We can start by saying THIS IS WRONG and by reinstating societal pressures against behaviors that are uncivilized.

      • neocon1 September 17, 2012 / 11:08 am

        A relationship with God and his word is the only answer, (allah babba is NOT God)

        Man is in a fallen state, take away the Ten Commandments and adherance to them and you get what you have today.
        Rampant crime, lawlessness, murder. theft ,Chaos, rudeness, atheistic marxism, and relativism.


        Notice I said a relation ship to God and adherence to the 10 commandments, NOT any specific denomination.

        I do not count islam in this formula as it is a geo political system combined with a cult of moohaMAD!

      • neocon1 September 17, 2012 / 11:10 am


        there are a lot of ugly chicks and dudes, for those not blessed with being what society brands as being “good looking”
        try a dating site……..

        NOT saying you fit that category……..just answering your question.

      • Amazona September 17, 2012 / 1:42 pm

        I see couples all the time, loving couples, who do not fit any outside standard of physical beauty.

        I suggest that it is too easy to blame superficial externals such as appearance on failure to bond with other people.

        I have seen you, Jeremiah, express your perceptions of what a marriage would be like, and I can see why very very few women would consider entering into a relationship with someone with such rigid and archaic ideas. I also see you tightly focused on physical attributes.

        Every strong and enduring relationship I ever had, and nearly all I know of, started as friendships. When a man can set aside his selfish needs and desires and see women as people first, and develop friendships with them, he is on his way to finding a deeper kind of relationship. But going into any relationship with a set idea of what it should be, what it will be, what you want it to be, is a recipe for failure.

        You might also find a mentor, in your family or your church, to help you work on how well you can read other people. I know that your approach to me has often been offensive and based on a very poor perception of any messages you might have thought I sent. I think this is probably the biggest problem in moving into a world of relationships with others.

        I suggest two parallel courses of action.

        One is to stop looking for a girlfriend or wife and simply get involved with your community. Do volunteer work, take classes, get outside yourself and into situations where you and the other people there are not there to meet some established need or desire but because of an outside interest—–working at animal shelters, Meals On Wheels, fixing up houses for the poor or elderly, etc. Get out of yourself and you will find common ground with others.

        Second, I suggest you find an online site where you can meet people to write to. I have been part of an online discussion group for a couple of years now and although it is the farthest possible thing from a dating site, being made up almost exclusively of married people talking about politics, birdwatching, travel, books, movies, etc., with absolutely no element of flirting or looking for a personal relationship, I have learned a very important lesson. That is, that you can really get to know people online, if you are honest and not hustling. When one of this group came through Colorado last winter we met for dinner, and it was like sitting down with an old friend, though it was the first time we actually met. Again, there was no hint of flirtation involved, but it did show me how people can get to know each other by communicating about the least personal things possible but about shared interests and exchange of ideas.

      • Jeremiah September 17, 2012 / 4:20 pm

        Thank you, Amazona. I appreciate all your advice.
        And I apologize if I offended you with my comments in the past.
        I humbly ask for you forgiveness…

      • Jeremiah September 17, 2012 / 4:26 pm

        Thanks, Neocon.
        Yes, you’d be right, I fit in the ugly dudes, crowd. Not quite the “handsome” one.

        I’ve been a member of many dating sites for a long time.
        However, it’s hard to communicate with people on these types of sites when you don’t have a credit card. And if I did, I’d be kind of afraid to put that kind of info out on the net, for fear that it would get into the wrong hands.

      • Cluster September 17, 2012 / 9:08 pm


        I will add one more thing. You come across as awfully judgmental and critical of other people many times. Don’t ever come across that way when you are with a woman because she is only going to perceive that you are, and will be judgmental and critical of her. She will perceive the manner in which you speak of, and treat other people, as the manner in which you will speak of and treat her.

      • Jeremiah September 19, 2012 / 1:47 am


        Point well taken.
        Yes, I think it’s easier for people to criticize and be judgmental, than it is to seek out the good qualities in people. Which, I am guilty, I won’t lie. So, I will try to do better in the future.

      • Cluster September 19, 2012 / 7:47 am

        Don’t be judgemental, treat her like a queen, be humble, and love her for who she is, not what you want her to be and you will find a soul mate.

        I wish you well my friend.

  11. Bob1 September 17, 2012 / 11:21 am

    Everyone who is born anywhere in this world has a “family”. It may not be “perfect”, and it may not be totally subject to one’s control or influence, but nevertheless everyone has some relatives in the world who are “family”. It may take years before a dependent child can really personally and willfully directly influence his or her family, but I think that everyone recognizes that children do influence their families in various ways. Loneliness is a “big” problem these days, but it is really a sad experience when it is felt within a family. A person doesn’t have to get married and start a “family” in order to begin to deal with such problems as “loneliness” that hamper many human relationships today. Genuine loving care for others should be at the heart of all relationships in families, and most of the issues that are addressed by this thread are caused by the failure of individuals to understand and to implement the principles for such loving relationships in their lives.

    • Jeremiah September 17, 2012 / 4:27 pm

      I agree, Bob.

  12. Amazona September 17, 2012 / 1:23 pm

    Just tossing this out without much thought, as I do have a lot of work to do today.

    But how about a pilot program of boarding schools for children removed from poorly parented homes, schools which offers a very rich educational and cultural experience, and which have their students divided into “families” of two or three girls and boys, each “family” mentored by a real family which invites these children into their homes for weekends and holidays.

    The Mormon Church has an established missionary program and could probably incorporate something like this. Many other families in different religions could be recruited through their churches. The inevitable objection to the religious aspect of this would have to be something the religion-haters would have to get over, but children could be taught in the schools that while their mentoring families have strong religious beliefs and they are asked to respect them, there is no pressure to adopt them.

    I grew up in a Catholic family, went to parochial schools, attended Mass six days a week, had catechism classes five days a week—-and it did not stick. I tried, but it did not resonate with me. But I cherish the experience, the discipline, the exposure to the religious experience, and feel it was a really valuable part of my growth and development. I know many who had similar experiences, who are not practicing Catholics now but who would not have traded those school years for anything because of the other lessons learned.

    Exposing children from backgrounds with no structure to a life of order and religious observance is not necessarily going to bring these children into the faiths represented, but it could only provide a framework of ethics and structure.

    The problem with institutions has been that they have not offered anything like a family to the children sent to them, resulting in graduates who are often emotionally stunted, alienated, and angry about what they feel they were denied. To some extent this is inevitable, but I suggest that if the stated goal is to establish, as closely as possible, a familial environment, some of this might be eliminated.

    It is later, when graduates of these programs go back to their old neighborhoods and see the contrast between their lives and those of the children left in chaotic homes with no structure, no family meals, no homework sessions, no holiday dinners, no bedtime stories, that the progress would be made.

    • neocon1 September 17, 2012 / 2:41 pm

      “Only our deep moral values and our strong social institutions can holdback the jungle and restrain the darker impulses of human nature.” President Ronald Reagan

      “We stand together as we did two centuries One people under God determined that our future shall be worthy of our past.” President Ronald Reagan, Jan. 21, 1985

      1964 – “The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing. … You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right, there is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream — the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order — or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. … It’s time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, ‘We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self government.’ This idea — that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power — is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.

      1977 – “Families must continue to be the foundation of our nation. Families — not government programs — are the best way to make sure our children are properly nurtured, our elderly are cared for, our cultural and spiritual heritages are perpetuated, our laws are observed and our values are preserved. … We fear the government may be powerful enough to destroy our families; we know that it is not powerful enough to replace them. …”Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of
      government by a self-anointed elite.

      “Without God, there is no virtue, because there’s no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we’re mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure.” President Ronald Reagan

    • casper September 17, 2012 / 7:33 pm

      “But how about a pilot program of boarding schools for children removed from poorly parented homes, schools which offers a very rich educational and cultural experience, and which have their students divided into “families” of two or three girls and boys, each “family” mentored by a real family which invites these children into their homes for weekends and holidays.”

      I agree with you that this is a need. There is a program like this that already exists and does a super job. I would love to see it expanded.

Comments are closed.