Children of two parent homes have similar life outcomes across racial groups. So do children of single mothers. That, not racism, accounts for all but less than 5 percent of the difference in life outcomes between blacks and whites.
The innocent babies & toddlers all too often become delinquents in school. Uncle Sugar makes a lousy father for discipline, for role model, for caring.
We need more ideas like Robert's. Gov't paid lifestyle coaches and assistants to help guide the young who haven't really gotten such guidance from their parents - victims of poor parenting.
But we also need to blame the adults who were victims as kids. Teen girls without fathers all too often have promiscuous sex ... making them sluts. Which is a shame.
A shame for society, and a shame for them - and we need to return towards more shame to blame those who have shameful behavior. That's the job of culture, not gov't. "Don't blame the victim" - is used as an excuse for bad, shameful, slutty behavior.
Most Black kids are going to be raised by sluts, and there are even more slut-raised White kids.
Love is sex+commitment. Those having sex outside of marriage should be shamed more; they may have been victims when kids, but they've become moral agents as adults.
Giving cash to those who need it because of their lifestyle, but who don't change their lifestyle, will not help most of them end their lifestyle based poverty.
The government's carrot & stick incentives mostly reward morally hazardous promiscuity, since orgasms feel so good, and the poverty welfare is only a little less comfy than a low-wage low-skill work. Party & hook up once or twice during the weekend, maybe more thru the week.
Each local community should be defined by the boundaries of the gov't High School. Those high schools with the most kids whose parents are not married should be receiving more cash -- and some of the additional cash (never less cash! Freeze ok, but no cuts) should go to the responsible young adults who do NOT have kids; and some to those who are married and "don't need it" (as much). The ones making socially optimal, success oriented choices, should be getting 80% as much as the sluts who sleep around and get knocked up, usually carelessly.
In a no-welfare state, being responsible is it's own reward - and leads to a more comfy life, to those who work and get married before having kids; sometimes still even before having sex. We should try more gov't cash rewards to those who graduate high school; those who get married before having kids; those who don't get married but avoid getting pregnant (no reward for sex + abortion). Of course, being responsible almost always means being "less needy". Gov't cash incentives should help more folk be responsible.
If it's enough cash to move away, the gov't cash should
I need to correct part of my previous post.My comment on the Baltimore schools was not accurate. There were 23 schools where not a single student passed the state proficiency test in math. Total of nearly 2000 students. System wide in Baltimore city schools, 93% of all students between 3rd and 8th grade could not read, write or do math at level. I regret the error, but the point is the same especially on a system wide perspective.
Practical ideas , I would definitely support even if it meant higher taxes. The two parent advantage becomes even greater if it is passed down through generations. That means that a child not only has two parents to support them but has 4 grandparents too. I have seen how this can play out. My son's wife comes from a 2 parent family and they have purchased the home that my son, daughter in law and 3 grandchildren live in. It is not a gift, they act as a lender but they were able to buy the home within hours of seeing it because of the ability to pay cash. Also my son and daughter in law have built in emergency baby sitters at a quick call because there are 4 grandparents to call on. The same thing has happened to my daughter and son in law who just got married and unexpectedly had a baby 11 months later. The apartment they rented was just too small so again the in laws jumped in and purchased a home for them to rent. Also my daughter has to work on Sunday which is impossible to find a sitter for so I am taking over the Sunday sitting responsibility. She and her husband are not convinced yet that her going back to work is the best idea but she has that choice because a) a grandparent can step in to babysit and b) she has a husband that can support them. So this is a type of generational wealth and support that can only come from two parent households being passed down generation to generation. On both sides of the family this has been true for as long as anyone knows.
Oh Monty, in reality, the only place for you and a big black horse, will be with a broom and shovel, cleaning up after the parade.
As far as the 12 gage goes. You might want to limit whatever that beverage is in that paper sack before waving that thing around. No telling how many tent walls that will blow through, frightening your neighbors. Not to mention a ballistic traumatic amputation, ruining your Hush Puppies, and getting to know a podiatrist on a first name basis.
Maybe the tide is beginning to change. Long way to go. Practical ideas here. I would suggest however, there needs to be a much more aggressive approach to improving the education for these people most in need. Family culture needs to change on education. Certainly does not help when schools focus on indoctrination and gender issues vs the basics..or systems that prevent school choice as Ian and Sowell have clearly discussed. If there was ever a huge warning flag on the state of public education, look no further than Baltimore city schools. $1.6 billion budget and not a single, yes that’s single , student passed the state math proficiency test at high school level. How sad. Robbing the kids futures
Along with policy options for promoting family and school choice how about implementing a single sex school option especially for boys who lack positive male role models. They need to learn how to be a successful man and the steps to take to get there, surrounded by and lead by successful men.
1) What does it mean for something to be a privilege? I always thought a privilege was something that you were given and did not work for or earn. As a married person, I can attest that marriage is not that. It is a choice that has to be worked on/for every day to be successful. It takes sacrifice, give and take, communication, and a lot of work overall. So, what is a privilege? And, how far do we want to take this idea? Is having both legs a privilege? Both eyes? Do we have walking privilege? Sight privilege? And, if so - how is ANY of this dialogue/wordsmithing helpful to those who need help?
2) Why is this a black-centric thing? Is single parenthood somehow easier for the single white mother in Appalachia? A single white father? A single Hispanic mother in rural Texas? A single Asian mother? Father? Is it somehow less penalizing for their kids?
Until we stop incentivizing the dissolution of working class families in America by preferentially funding single motherhood and penalizing the presence of a second income in the home, we will continue to reap the bitter fruit of sixty years of this failed "War on Poverty." We can fashion a real "social safety net" if we will finally make an honest assessment of the disastrous ROI of the 25+ $$TRILLIONS$$ we have spent, and continue to spend on the same terrible policy choices that have devastated the very institution that served American blacks so well through the century of ACTUAL "systemic racism" that followed the abolition of chattel slavery. I am ever the optimist, but the longer we delay the more intractable becomes the toll to real people, and the greater moral purchase is afforded our ideological enemies who seek to jettison every cultural institution to be remade in their own frightful design.
Maybe black communities need something akin to a *somewhat* more progressive, and certainly less patriarchal Oath Keepers for black men. Because if 3/4 of black babies are born to unwed mothers, and I'm guessing not all of them are born to college-grad mothers who can even consider the option of a college grad husband/father, then there's a serious problem with black men that white people can't fix with progressive policies.
That said, marriage is falling everywhere and young white women aren't marrying much either. Men overall are falling behind, now graduating less than women from college, including, apparently black men (remember the days when they said women & blacks were too stupid for college?) Young white men are falling behind too. It's a 'black thing' on one level, and it's a 'male thing' on a higher level.
"Meanwhile, support for the war in the Ukraine and social services for undocumented immigrants devour massive chunks of the federal budget." As far as I know, our support of Ukraine (whether one approves of it or not) still amounts to only a small fraction of the federal budget, so I don't think it is a limiting factor on our ability to spend on education and other services for poor families.
Perhaps propaganda like that which encouraged women of all stripes to become single mothers, either by having a baby out of wedlock, or by kicking the father out for not living up to her expectations, could be disseminated, i.e. with the data that Cherry cites. I've been attempting to discuss this with left-leaning friends and it's amazing to me how resistant they are to what ought to come across as fact to any observer. Two parents are better than one and certainly better than one on welfare.
A friend of mine (white, upper middle class) had a baby with a guy she hooked up with. She gave him the 'it's mine and you don't have to be involved' line, to which he sagely responded, 'Oh no, I'm the father and I'm going to be involved.' So they tried cohabitation and even after a few discussions on why she left the guy, I can't get it straight what was so wrong with him. Regardless, he fought for his parental rights and so the kid has gone back and forth between her home and his father's home. Frankly, when I look back on how my own childhood would have gone had my parents divorced, I can't wrap my brain around being shuttled from one household to another. People were just starting to jump on the no-fault divorce bandwagon at the time (70s) and the only plus seemed to be that the kids whose parents were divorced were drinking, smoking, and having sex before anyone else. They also had the coolest clothes in as the competition between parents heated up.
Anyway, going back to my case study, my friend has cycled through about ten boyfriends in the interim. This son of hers has seen one man after another enter his life and leave again. One can't help wondering what a boy / child learns about relationships from this.
Hence we have the current young generation not bothering to get married or have kids.
Where has Mr. Cherry been since 1965? Everything in his article HAS BEEN ATTEMPTED, and to a considerable degree, over the past 5+ decades with virtually no positive impact on the larger society. This article adds absolutely nothing to the overall discussion.
Inner city black voters continue to support politicians --most recently Ms. Hochul in New York, for example-- that continue to allow this gargantuan mess to remain in place since it pleases key political constituencies....all together now: teachers unions and educrats come to mind.
It is time to face up to spirit of General Sternwood's aphorism from RChandler's classic (The Big Sleep): Anyone who continues to make stupid decisions in the face of life's harsh realities deserves all that he gets.
It becomes obvious that although enlightened academics and economists understand that the basis for a middle class life is high school graduation, a job and marriage before having children, the children don't know it. Somehow, despite resistance from politicians, teachers' unions, and progressives in general, local school boards composed of caring parents must force a curriculum which instills this knowledge into the students' consciousness. We need the children to have a "how to succeed in real life" course, like the "outdated" home economics , etc., courses. Skip the drag queens.
Mmmm hmmmm. The State does NOT like nuclear families. You break up the family through several means, how about economic hardship coupled with welfare promises? How about generational shift? How about feminism? How about making everyone stupid and irresponsible and self centered through a variety of media and new age messaging and then introduce "no fault divorce"?
And then who raises the kids? The State in State run schools with State run curriculums with blue haired transgender freaks filling the children's heads up with nonsense.
Feelings and emotions replace rationale and reason, costumes replace math, manufactured cultural issues replace economic and class issues, the child is led so astray as to reject family and immerse themselves in a pre-consrcibed community as replacement, drop in a gallon in a safe bucket, the perfect consumer.
Children of two parent homes have similar life outcomes across racial groups. So do children of single mothers. That, not racism, accounts for all but less than 5 percent of the difference in life outcomes between blacks and whites.
The innocent babies & toddlers all too often become delinquents in school. Uncle Sugar makes a lousy father for discipline, for role model, for caring.
We need more ideas like Robert's. Gov't paid lifestyle coaches and assistants to help guide the young who haven't really gotten such guidance from their parents - victims of poor parenting.
But we also need to blame the adults who were victims as kids. Teen girls without fathers all too often have promiscuous sex ... making them sluts. Which is a shame.
A shame for society, and a shame for them - and we need to return towards more shame to blame those who have shameful behavior. That's the job of culture, not gov't. "Don't blame the victim" - is used as an excuse for bad, shameful, slutty behavior.
Most Black kids are going to be raised by sluts, and there are even more slut-raised White kids.
Love is sex+commitment. Those having sex outside of marriage should be shamed more; they may have been victims when kids, but they've become moral agents as adults.
Giving cash to those who need it because of their lifestyle, but who don't change their lifestyle, will not help most of them end their lifestyle based poverty.
The government's carrot & stick incentives mostly reward morally hazardous promiscuity, since orgasms feel so good, and the poverty welfare is only a little less comfy than a low-wage low-skill work. Party & hook up once or twice during the weekend, maybe more thru the week.
Each local community should be defined by the boundaries of the gov't High School. Those high schools with the most kids whose parents are not married should be receiving more cash -- and some of the additional cash (never less cash! Freeze ok, but no cuts) should go to the responsible young adults who do NOT have kids; and some to those who are married and "don't need it" (as much). The ones making socially optimal, success oriented choices, should be getting 80% as much as the sluts who sleep around and get knocked up, usually carelessly.
In a no-welfare state, being responsible is it's own reward - and leads to a more comfy life, to those who work and get married before having kids; sometimes still even before having sex. We should try more gov't cash rewards to those who graduate high school; those who get married before having kids; those who don't get married but avoid getting pregnant (no reward for sex + abortion). Of course, being responsible almost always means being "less needy". Gov't cash incentives should help more folk be responsible.
If it's enough cash to move away, the gov't cash should
I need to correct part of my previous post.My comment on the Baltimore schools was not accurate. There were 23 schools where not a single student passed the state proficiency test in math. Total of nearly 2000 students. System wide in Baltimore city schools, 93% of all students between 3rd and 8th grade could not read, write or do math at level. I regret the error, but the point is the same especially on a system wide perspective.
Practical ideas , I would definitely support even if it meant higher taxes. The two parent advantage becomes even greater if it is passed down through generations. That means that a child not only has two parents to support them but has 4 grandparents too. I have seen how this can play out. My son's wife comes from a 2 parent family and they have purchased the home that my son, daughter in law and 3 grandchildren live in. It is not a gift, they act as a lender but they were able to buy the home within hours of seeing it because of the ability to pay cash. Also my son and daughter in law have built in emergency baby sitters at a quick call because there are 4 grandparents to call on. The same thing has happened to my daughter and son in law who just got married and unexpectedly had a baby 11 months later. The apartment they rented was just too small so again the in laws jumped in and purchased a home for them to rent. Also my daughter has to work on Sunday which is impossible to find a sitter for so I am taking over the Sunday sitting responsibility. She and her husband are not convinced yet that her going back to work is the best idea but she has that choice because a) a grandparent can step in to babysit and b) she has a husband that can support them. So this is a type of generational wealth and support that can only come from two parent households being passed down generation to generation. On both sides of the family this has been true for as long as anyone knows.
Oh Monty, in reality, the only place for you and a big black horse, will be with a broom and shovel, cleaning up after the parade.
As far as the 12 gage goes. You might want to limit whatever that beverage is in that paper sack before waving that thing around. No telling how many tent walls that will blow through, frightening your neighbors. Not to mention a ballistic traumatic amputation, ruining your Hush Puppies, and getting to know a podiatrist on a first name basis.
Maybe the tide is beginning to change. Long way to go. Practical ideas here. I would suggest however, there needs to be a much more aggressive approach to improving the education for these people most in need. Family culture needs to change on education. Certainly does not help when schools focus on indoctrination and gender issues vs the basics..or systems that prevent school choice as Ian and Sowell have clearly discussed. If there was ever a huge warning flag on the state of public education, look no further than Baltimore city schools. $1.6 billion budget and not a single, yes that’s single , student passed the state math proficiency test at high school level. How sad. Robbing the kids futures
Along with policy options for promoting family and school choice how about implementing a single sex school option especially for boys who lack positive male role models. They need to learn how to be a successful man and the steps to take to get there, surrounded by and lead by successful men.
I have two questions:
1) What does it mean for something to be a privilege? I always thought a privilege was something that you were given and did not work for or earn. As a married person, I can attest that marriage is not that. It is a choice that has to be worked on/for every day to be successful. It takes sacrifice, give and take, communication, and a lot of work overall. So, what is a privilege? And, how far do we want to take this idea? Is having both legs a privilege? Both eyes? Do we have walking privilege? Sight privilege? And, if so - how is ANY of this dialogue/wordsmithing helpful to those who need help?
2) Why is this a black-centric thing? Is single parenthood somehow easier for the single white mother in Appalachia? A single white father? A single Hispanic mother in rural Texas? A single Asian mother? Father? Is it somehow less penalizing for their kids?
Until we stop incentivizing the dissolution of working class families in America by preferentially funding single motherhood and penalizing the presence of a second income in the home, we will continue to reap the bitter fruit of sixty years of this failed "War on Poverty." We can fashion a real "social safety net" if we will finally make an honest assessment of the disastrous ROI of the 25+ $$TRILLIONS$$ we have spent, and continue to spend on the same terrible policy choices that have devastated the very institution that served American blacks so well through the century of ACTUAL "systemic racism" that followed the abolition of chattel slavery. I am ever the optimist, but the longer we delay the more intractable becomes the toll to real people, and the greater moral purchase is afforded our ideological enemies who seek to jettison every cultural institution to be remade in their own frightful design.
You know if Monty was a horse, he would be on the way to the glue factory.
Maybe black communities need something akin to a *somewhat* more progressive, and certainly less patriarchal Oath Keepers for black men. Because if 3/4 of black babies are born to unwed mothers, and I'm guessing not all of them are born to college-grad mothers who can even consider the option of a college grad husband/father, then there's a serious problem with black men that white people can't fix with progressive policies.
That said, marriage is falling everywhere and young white women aren't marrying much either. Men overall are falling behind, now graduating less than women from college, including, apparently black men (remember the days when they said women & blacks were too stupid for college?) Young white men are falling behind too. It's a 'black thing' on one level, and it's a 'male thing' on a higher level.
"Meanwhile, support for the war in the Ukraine and social services for undocumented immigrants devour massive chunks of the federal budget." As far as I know, our support of Ukraine (whether one approves of it or not) still amounts to only a small fraction of the federal budget, so I don't think it is a limiting factor on our ability to spend on education and other services for poor families.
Perhaps propaganda like that which encouraged women of all stripes to become single mothers, either by having a baby out of wedlock, or by kicking the father out for not living up to her expectations, could be disseminated, i.e. with the data that Cherry cites. I've been attempting to discuss this with left-leaning friends and it's amazing to me how resistant they are to what ought to come across as fact to any observer. Two parents are better than one and certainly better than one on welfare.
A friend of mine (white, upper middle class) had a baby with a guy she hooked up with. She gave him the 'it's mine and you don't have to be involved' line, to which he sagely responded, 'Oh no, I'm the father and I'm going to be involved.' So they tried cohabitation and even after a few discussions on why she left the guy, I can't get it straight what was so wrong with him. Regardless, he fought for his parental rights and so the kid has gone back and forth between her home and his father's home. Frankly, when I look back on how my own childhood would have gone had my parents divorced, I can't wrap my brain around being shuttled from one household to another. People were just starting to jump on the no-fault divorce bandwagon at the time (70s) and the only plus seemed to be that the kids whose parents were divorced were drinking, smoking, and having sex before anyone else. They also had the coolest clothes in as the competition between parents heated up.
Anyway, going back to my case study, my friend has cycled through about ten boyfriends in the interim. This son of hers has seen one man after another enter his life and leave again. One can't help wondering what a boy / child learns about relationships from this.
Hence we have the current young generation not bothering to get married or have kids.
Utter nonsense!!!
Where has Mr. Cherry been since 1965? Everything in his article HAS BEEN ATTEMPTED, and to a considerable degree, over the past 5+ decades with virtually no positive impact on the larger society. This article adds absolutely nothing to the overall discussion.
Inner city black voters continue to support politicians --most recently Ms. Hochul in New York, for example-- that continue to allow this gargantuan mess to remain in place since it pleases key political constituencies....all together now: teachers unions and educrats come to mind.
It is time to face up to spirit of General Sternwood's aphorism from RChandler's classic (The Big Sleep): Anyone who continues to make stupid decisions in the face of life's harsh realities deserves all that he gets.
It becomes obvious that although enlightened academics and economists understand that the basis for a middle class life is high school graduation, a job and marriage before having children, the children don't know it. Somehow, despite resistance from politicians, teachers' unions, and progressives in general, local school boards composed of caring parents must force a curriculum which instills this knowledge into the students' consciousness. We need the children to have a "how to succeed in real life" course, like the "outdated" home economics , etc., courses. Skip the drag queens.
Mmmm hmmmm. The State does NOT like nuclear families. You break up the family through several means, how about economic hardship coupled with welfare promises? How about generational shift? How about feminism? How about making everyone stupid and irresponsible and self centered through a variety of media and new age messaging and then introduce "no fault divorce"?
And then who raises the kids? The State in State run schools with State run curriculums with blue haired transgender freaks filling the children's heads up with nonsense.
Feelings and emotions replace rationale and reason, costumes replace math, manufactured cultural issues replace economic and class issues, the child is led so astray as to reject family and immerse themselves in a pre-consrcibed community as replacement, drop in a gallon in a safe bucket, the perfect consumer.