Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > January > 06 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USBest interest of child carries little weight
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
It’s a familiar story. A Marietta woman, headed to jail on theft charges, leaves her two daughters, one 3 and the other 6, in the care of her boyfriend. He showed up. And then vanished. When the adult female made bond three days later, the 3-year-old was unfed and unkempt; the 6-year-old was in a diabetic coma.
For three decades or more, the common reaction to the neglect of the two children is that it’s government’s fault. Some social worker should have been wise or prescient enough to anticipate their endangerment, and should have found a loving foster family until some other government agent could nurse, school or rehabilitate the woman into being a mother.
Enough. Stop.
A federal judge last October awarded $11.6 million to lawyers who sued the taxpayers of Georgia to revamp the foster care system — a sum legislators are forced to appropriate in this year’s budget. U.S. District Court Judge Marvin Shoob awarded the activists who brought the suit fees of up to $495 an hour. They had asked for $16 million. The commissioner of the state Department of Human Resources, B. J. Walker, said at the time: “Eleven million dollars could pay the salaries of every caseworker in Fulton County for a year, or it could pay for more than 1,800 children in foster care for a year. Children are the losers.”
That particular case was, for me, the culminating event in the liberal drift of recent decades by judges, tempted by special-interest groups, to arrogate unto themselves “solutions” to social problems — “solutions” at least within the narrow range defined by special-interest pleaders. That same temptation, incidentally, is now before a Fulton County Superior Court judge on education.
So what we get are a few bureaucrats fired or hired, a few lawyers made rich, a few do-gooders made righteous — and more dead babies. Why? Because the culture has changed — 25 percent of white babies, almost half the Hispanic and 70 percent of black — are born to unmarried women, creating a generation of children unlikely to grow up ever knowing commitment, or how “normal” husbands and wives treat each other, or how to form healthy relationships with the opposite sex.
What is really most shocking is the silence of most opinion leaders, politicians, entertainers and others who know how destructive this trend is to schools, to the criminal justice system, to child protection services, but more importantly to the children. A few do speak up. But when the numbers reach 50 percent and 70 percent, that becomes politically incorrect.
So we talk about the failure of ordinary social workers to be omniscient and insist they be fired when they aren’t — and yet on any given day, they are making decisions a mother and father should be making about more than 33,000 Georgia children. It’s insane social policy that allows adults to make babies and then effectively to toss them off tall buildings for government employees to catch.
We have pretended for an awful long time that protection of children is the primary concern of social policy. It really isn’t — and hasn’t been for decades.
The primary concern is to sexually emancipate adults from responsibility for children. Between a welfare system designed to devalue men by marrying women to government — except for the purposes of conception — and a fanatical 30-year abortion war to enshrine the absurd premise that, for some months at least, a woman is free to dispose of human life, no questions asked, the best interest of the child has been the least of policy concerns.
Nobody, neither man nor woman, completely owns the body that is used to create human life. This need not be an abortion debate, but from the moment of conception our interest, through government, is to protect the child from mental and physical neglect, abuse or other forms of mistreatment by adults, even in the womb.
Every child has a right to a mother and father. Every child has a right to know his mother and father, with paternity established at birth by law. Fathers would be held accountable for 18 years financial support. The obligation could be satisfied only by payment or death, with taxpayers devoting all resources necessary to collect in cash or labor.
We should stop using children as toys for adults and as ploys for expanding the government safety net that shields them from responsibility. If we expand government, it should be to give children back a mother and a father.
Permalink | Comments (141) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
Comments
By Jeff
January 6, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this
Mr. Wooten,
Great column. It all comes down to RESPONSIBILITY and being HELD responsible for your actions. When we let that slip, we saw our nation start to slip.
As usual, the first place we see the consequences of ANY social experiment, whether they be good or bad, is in our children. And as a teacher, I can GARAUNTEE you that many of them - particularly ones without a dad in the home - have VERY LITTLE - if any - sense of responsibility to themselves, much less anyone else.
By Jeff
January 6, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this
As a teacher, I can’t spell the word GARAUNTEE. I’m cutting and running from teaching after this year because no one recognizes my brilliance.
By catlady
January 6, 2007 01:12 PM | Link to this
I consider myself pretty liberal, but the only thing I would take issue (hahaha) with in your column is the “beginning at conception” part. Make it “beginning at viability” and I am right with you on your comments. We need to take the reward out and support the consequences of having children and other individual decisions. I have no doubt that all members of our society can do better than they are now, if given the right incentives (and I am not talking about money here.)
I’ve been teaching for more than three decades, and I see more and more unwanted, uncared for, and unloved kids each year. Not to mention the children whose families are only temporarily disfunctional. For so long we have tried to have it both ways—you are in charge of what happens to your child (we keep “families” together at all costs), but IF you ignore your responsibilities or mess up, we’ll step right in and save you.
I lose over a third of my income to taxes in various forms (which I have no say over). I do feel an obligation to ASSIST with the elderly and genuinely infirm (and am glad to do it, given the blessings I have been given and worked hard to deserve), but laziness, sorry-ness, and irresponsibility are not “infirmities” we should be supporting.
By ICEMAN
January 6, 2007 01:15 PM | Link to this
The fact of the matter is: If this woman wasn’t busy breaking the law and continuing the destrction of the people in her neighborhood, her children would have been with her instead of alone. On second thought, if she’s using that type of judgement in her vocational choices, the kids might be better off in state hands.
By Jeff
January 6, 2007 01:26 PM | Link to this
catlady:
With all due respect ma’am, the whole “beginning at viability” is part of the exact problem Mr. Wooten was speaking against. If you don’t want to deal with something that you KNOW can be a consequence to a certain action, there is a SIMPLE way to avoid it: don’t do the action that can produce the consequence you don’t want…..
By Common Sense
January 6, 2007 01:32 PM | Link to this
Humanity is not tied to conception or eggs or cells; it’s tied to consciousness. Without the conscious mind, the human (or soul for religious people) is not there. The bodies of brain dead individuals such as Terri Schiavo may be alive, but the human part of them is gone. Likewise with a fetus. Wooten, your call for increased accountability and responsibility in regard to children is laudable, but to connect the topic to your misguided views on abortion shows you lack the ability to isolate an issue and analyze it according to strictly relevant information.
By Common Sense
January 6, 2007 01:37 PM | Link to this
That’s right Jeff, push for abstinence. That’ll work. It’s worked wonders over the last few years. Great job your man GW has done to take sex education out of schools and instead spend millions to try to tell teens they shouldn’t have sex. That’s a big part of the reason why we’re in this mess. NOT SMART.
By Jeff
January 6, 2007 01:48 PM | Link to this
Common Sense:
Get some, will ya?
I’m for RESPONSIBILITY. If you want to have sex, feel free. But don’t MURDER an “unintended consequence”, aka A HUMAN BEING because you don’t want to deal with what you KNEW could be a consequence of your action.
By Redneck Convert
January 6, 2007 02:57 PM | Link to this
Well, the four-wheeler show went real good till Joe Bill had to get on one and try to make it up a muddy hillside. He turned over, and it’s a good thing he landed on his head. Else he coulda got hurt bad.
I don’t want none of my taxes going to support the kids of Those People. They have most of the illegal kids. They breed like rabbits and it don’t matter if they are married or not. I think I speak for most of the people of Georgia here.
And I don’t want no woman having an abortion. If us men get them pregnant, they ought to stay pregnant. And the men that gets them pregnant ought to be forced to support the kids. No matter where the fathers are. I ain’t paying for someone else to have sex. If the men ain’t got no job, we ought to force them to work and make money during the day. Doing road work or trash pickup. And we ought to take the money they make and lock them up at night so they can’t father more illegal kids for us taxpayers to have to support. At least till the kid turns 18.
Most of the conservatives on this blog is too polite to say what needs to be said. But I ain’t. So I said it. I know Sonny will deal with the problem pretty soon. He’s a redneck like the rest of us and he Thinks Right.
By Dennis
January 6, 2007 03:04 PM | Link to this
Let’s get real.
In or out of marriage, unprotected sex is something that isn’t going to stop. Unwanted or unaffordable children are too often a result - through no fault of their own.
But,they come into this world anyway, and if we expect them to grow up and be contributing citizens, then a means for that to happen needs to be in place (It isn’t).
Let’s get real somemore.
You can’t have state social services be effective if the case workers are overloaded (and they are). You can’t have effective public education if the teachers are overloaded (and they are).
In both professions, whenever funds are increased, it’s usually after a crisis and it’s always as a band aid “until we can find additional funds” (which never happens).
The ones who cry and complain the loudest(and write) about these areas when something goes wrong, are the same ones who complain about taxes being too high and that corporations and the already well to do need more tax breaks.
“…red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight…” (until it comes to money).
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By @@
January 6, 2007 03:19 PM | Link to this
Common Sense:
Are the two people who are sexually engaged “concious” or are they functioning without a conscience.
If they’re brain dead while “doing it” then their behavior is animalistic and nothing more.
Are humans simply out there procreating a species without concern for where that species is headed. Animals have been known to kill their own you know, and it is happening more frequently within our own species.
Are we prepared to expect nothing better from humans?
I’d sure like to think we could.
By newtoncogeo
January 6, 2007 03:28 PM | Link to this
Why does this behavior “shock” anyone? Consider the example provided by today’s “celebrities”:
Oprah Winfrey (for example): The idol of all American womanhood - born to unwed parents, gave birth to hew own illegitimate child at 13, still unwed with ‘live-in’ boyfriend, famous, wealthiest woman in America - why should the average young female think that hew own illegitimate child should hold her back from similar success?
Every month the tabloids report the latest birth to an unwed Hollywood “tartlet” and an “unnamed father”.
Locally the AJC reports monthly on the death of at least one poor child at the hands of the current “live-in boyfriend” - not the father. Yet This is the first AJC editorial I can remember that even hints at disapproval of the lifestyle which has become norm for most of America’s minorities.
When the the various “reverends” who travel around the country to jump in front of the cameras at the hint of any racial slight begin to point out that the best path out of poverty involves staying in school, staying un-pregnant before marriage and waiting until you can afford them before having children.
Of course Jesse sets a fine example with his own illegitimate child. And the former head of the NAACP - Kweisi Mfune with five illegitimate kids from four women. Fine examples all.
By Curious Observer
January 6, 2007 03:45 PM | Link to this
Wooten utters the conservative mantra. He wants it all—no state aid for illegimate children or other children unfortunate enough to be born out of wedlock, and above all punishment for the fathers of those children. Somebody has to pay, after all, and he wants all his money available for bike excursions in South America. So it’s Personal Responsibility, Personal Responsibility, Personal Responsibility, unless, of course, it’s government tax cuts to increase the number of dollars going into his wallet.
Then he has to get his plug in for abolishing all abortions. Can’t have those, you know. Goes against his religious beliefs, and those beliefs are much more important than anyone else’s opinions.
We can expect the routine support for Wooten’s position from the usual suspects, the selfish, intolerant dumba$$es who, being in very comfortable circumstances, want to lock themselves within their gated communities and pretend the poor and the ignorant don’t exist. So go ahead Markus, Realist, Dusty, TFTT, jbmlaw, and Van—show us how open-minded, tolerant, and knowledgeable you are.
By catlady
January 6, 2007 03:46 PM | Link to this
I don’t know anyone who would argue against reproductive/procreative responsibility. Folks (both parents) who have sex should be responsible for the whole package. Folks (both parents) who produce babies (by my definition viable, living humans) should be responsible for them. In reality, some of us women have let the menfolk off the hook for too long (the Mybabydaddy Syndrome) in the name of progress and women’s rights, and expected the state to smooth the waters for the sake of the child. Until such time as both adults are held accountable for the baby, and we women are unwilling to conceive of conceiving without being a part of a two adult household, we will continue to be held to this higher standard for child protection.
I am just saying, women should not be willing to be a part of life creation unless they are part of a viable family with a respectable mate (who would never expect them to raise a child alone anyway). Anyone who has been around children realize that even two adults to one child, the adults are outnumbered.
And I am saying our lawmakers at every level need to take a long, hard look at current policies that, at best, bandaid temporary fixes, and at worst, reward folks for being irresponsible with their decisions—things that we have thought of as sacred cows. Assist folks in learning responsible behavior by requiring responsible behavior, and making irresponsible behavior painful to the person deciding to behave that way. Quit acting like folks cannot do better. Unless we are willing to dedicate an unlimited amount of resources, we will continue to get what we see here, unless policy changes are made that will discontinue support for disfunctionality.
By the balls
January 6, 2007 04:08 PM | Link to this
I sure am glad I always give call girls and other chicks a phoney name. If those cops check out those high class hooker’s computers for my name, they’re only gonna find my alias “Dingus McGee”. No cop can touch me for being a john, I’m just too smart.
Lovin’ my life of crime here.
By getalife
January 6, 2007 04:15 PM | Link to this
President Bush’s new Iraq strategy calls for a rapid influx of forces that could add as many as 20,000 American combat troops to Baghdad, supplemented with a jobs program costing as much as $1 billion intended to employ Iraqis in projects including painting schools and cleaning streets, according to American officials who are piecing together the last parts of the initiative
Yes folks, it is Iraqi welfare program you folks whine about all the time.
By Jeff
January 6, 2007 04:26 PM | Link to this
catlady:
While I still disagree with your definition of “baby”, I can agree to disagree there. The rest of your post gets a big AMEN! (Particularly the last paragraph!)
By Dusty
January 6, 2007 04:35 PM | Link to this
Ah Jim Wooten,
how terribly unjust are some things in this life. The abuse and neglect of children is one of them.
It is a crime to steal money from banks, corporations, IRS and other people. But it is not a crime to steal the childhood of little ones.
How to prosecute those guilty of irresponibility while maintaining our constitutional freedoms is a Gordian knot. Can you make laws requiring responsibility for your offspring without losing the rights of free citizens? I don’t think so.
Extremist Muslims in some countries such as Nigeria have tried it and it is ugly. An unwed mother is sometimes condemned to death.
Until we have a “Solomon” who can bring justice for children, we will continue to read and hear terrible news about them.
By Gabby
January 6, 2007 05:01 PM | Link to this
Mr. Wooten:
What is the definition of a man these days? My father always said that a man supported his family emotionally and financially. He was someone who could be trusted; if his word was good then so was he; his last name was his greatest legacy and was of considerable worth and was not to be tarnished in any way.
My Father was a military man. He had four daughters. When each of us was born he bought himself a gold coin and carried them in his shirt pocket. Whenever he lectured his girls, he would hold those four coins flipping them with his thumb. Far left coin over the other three and deposited on the right. You were looking at the coins and listening to every word he said at the same time. When he was through with the lecture, he would put the coins back in his pocket and give us a wink. He would say that as long as we were close to his heart we would be safe from harm.
When my older sisters married he gave the coin to our husbands and told them that “the treasure was all his”.
How could I ever disappoint a man who valued me that way?
By Buy Danish (The original one and only)
January 6, 2007 05:14 PM | Link to this
Curious Observer,
I find it curious that just a few days ago you were heartbroken because Saddam Hussein was taunted before he was hanged, yet your 3:45 rant, er, post expresses not one iota of concern for anyone but the most irresponsible members of society.
Taunt Saddam? Horrible! Abortion on demand? Only a religious nut would object! Suggest that fathers be required to support their children? Why that’s “punishment” for those fathers!
The very fact that you seethe with envy over other’s lives - to the point of begrudging Jim Wooten’s bicycle trip in Brazil - makes it obvious just what sort of miserable, resentful person you are.
Jim Wooten has rightly suggested that the 11.6 million dollars these lawyers personally bagged is a total waste of money and will not improve the foster care system one bit.
Instead of channeling your anger at taxpayers who are not keen on supporting the absent parents of illegitimate children, why is your anger not directed at the lawyers who organized this self-enriching waste of taxpayer’s money, or at the judge who awarded this boondoggle payment?
By Jeff
January 6, 2007 05:16 PM | Link to this
Gabby:
I’m a young guy (24), and how I WISH more men of my generation had those values.
By Claude
January 6, 2007 05:24 PM | Link to this
I’m 42, but that’s old enough to witness a big change in how the poor are perceived by the middle class. No longer are they considered unlucky people or victims of discrimination. Now they’re people who make horrible, self-destructive decisions about education, crime, sex, and drugs. They are people that the rest of us are supposed to avoid.
By Markus
January 6, 2007 05:31 PM | Link to this
Hey Curious (non)Observer:
We can expect the routine support for Wooten’s position from the usual suspects, the selfish, intolerant dumba$$es who, being in very comfortable circumstances, want to lock themselves within their gated communities and pretend the poor and the ignorant don’t exist.
I believe I’ve addressed this previously several times, but here it goes again. What WE have, do, or want is none of your damned business. You liberals are the first to scream bloody murder when conservatives allegedly want to pry into private lives and tell others what to do.
Yet, you people* on the left find it purely justified and warranted to tell us how we should live our lives in relation to others. Not only do you tell us how we should act, you support legislation that forces us to act in a certain way via the government (increased taxation for example).
Charity contributions should be a private matter just as how much money someone has or someone makes. But no, you quasi-Stalinist liberals think our money is your money, or more specifically, the people’s money just like good little communists.
Yeah that’s what I thought. All you wallet thief fascists on the left are all for the rights of individuals right up until one individual has something more than another individual. Then you pull your neoMarxist tirade and say we are selfish and demand the government do something about equality. It’s pathetic beyond pathetic and completely 180 degrees away from what our Founding Fathers wanted for this nation, let alone the tyranny of the government they fought so hard against 230 years ago.
For the record, I’ll bet not ONE of you keyboard warrior socialist liberals has smashed a thumb helping to build a Habitat For Humanity home. It’s just a helluvalot easier to support a fascist idea to tell others what in the hell they should do. Pathetic beyond pathetic.
By TommyT
January 6, 2007 05:42 PM | Link to this
President Hayseed made being a Manpig fashionable:
Then came Bill Clinton, who gave the phrase “vagrant sexual appetites” a new depth of meaning. During the 1992 primaries, surviving Gennifer Flowers’ charge of a 12-year affair seemed to give Clinton the notion he was bulletproof. Monica Lewinsky proved otherwise. The resulting impeachment led to Clinton’s squandering the last two years of his presidency, but also to a maturing of public attitudes about sex. Overall, the voters seemed to feel that he was guilty mainly of observing the 11th Commandment: If you commit adultery, you shall lie about it.
The world was his meat market.
What a wonderful example of respect and responsibility he set for his generation.
You reap what you sow.
By the balls
January 6, 2007 05:44 PM | Link to this
You talk like a retard, Markus.
By Randy
January 6, 2007 05:51 PM | Link to this
Claude, Leftwing liberal policies have abandoned them. We don’t need to avoid them. We just need to direct them to lead responsible lives.
By Markus
January 6, 2007 05:52 PM | Link to this
I talk like a retard, eh no-balls? Well I suppose that ‘splains why you (and your more notorious aliases) just do name calling. Go ahead, assclown, call me a “nazi” and make your liberal neoMarxist day. Pathetic loser.
By RW (the original)
January 6, 2007 05:56 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish,
You complete me.
By Buy Danish (The original one and only)
January 6, 2007 05:57 PM | Link to this
RW,
You had me at hello.
By Markus
January 6, 2007 05:58 PM | Link to this
My name is Markus because my mom’s not too bright (that’s where I get it from) and didn’t know Marcus is spelled with a “c” and not a “k”.
By Markus
January 6, 2007 06:03 PM | Link to this
Oh yeah, one other thing. You libonazis on the left know you want to control this blog, but you can’t. You want to not only control other people’s lives with money issues, you want to control their speech as well. I’m so very sorry that you wallet thiefs on the left can’t do that, anymore than you can control those who choose to invest and send money overeas. Ain’t that b!tch?
By Markus
January 6, 2007 06:03 PM | Link to this
Oh yeah, one other thing. You libonazis on the left know you want to control this blog, but you can’t. You want to not only control other people’s lives with money issues, you want to control their speech as well. I’m so very sorry that you wallet thiefs on the left can’t do that, anymore than you can control those who choose to invest and send money overeas. Ain’t that a b!tch?
By By Buy Danish (The original one and only)
January 6, 2007 06:11 PM | Link to this
RW,
Alas, I cannot date you because you are not wealthy enough to afford me. My vodka and valium habit, in addition to my multiple SUV habit, (paired with the fact that I’m allergic to working, myself) means that I must have a man who actually works for a living. We are destined never to create little pompous aryan neocon nazi babies….
By Markus
January 6, 2007 06:14 PM | Link to this
You know you get under the skin of neoStalinist libopigs when they jack your ID. Pathetic, but humorous. When they can’t debate, they menstruate.
By Markus
January 6, 2007 06:16 PM | Link to this
One other thing buttpirate libokook: look up “Markus” in the movies Underworld and Underworld Evolution. It’s a real name in the real world. Sorryassed loserlib.
By Buy Danish
January 6, 2007 06:19 PM | Link to this
Stalker Boy OOTMVOD,
Don’t you know that “by by” is grammatically incorrect, wanker TA?
By Huge
January 6, 2007 06:25 PM | Link to this
I like men.
By RW-(the original)
January 6, 2007 06:41 PM | Link to this
Stalker boy OV err…No Common Sense,
I’m sorry that you have such a tragically empty life that you spend your time jacking people’s names on blogs, even when those people aren’t here. I’ll pray for a better life for you.
By LuckoDull
January 7, 2007 08:12 AM | Link to this
NEW ORLEANS (AP) - With at least eight slayings in the city in the first week of the new year, officials are considering a curfew to help stem the violence, the police superintendent said Saturday.
Daaamnnn, even Baghdad isn’t under curfew.
On an unrelated subject, look at the thoughts that hardcore libs like Cynthia Tucker dwell on:
Still, Americans, men and women alike, bring a lingering sexism to their decisions about seats of power, from the pulpit to the presidency.
The pulpit? How would Cynthia know what goes on in Church? Or is this just an opportunity for a drive by attack on religion?
As a sane American who enjoys being free and alive, I actually think that our presidential candidates should be qualified for the office, like having enough sense not to surrender Iraq to a bunch of terrorists.
The only things that Hillary Clinton would bring to the White House is her contingency of human freaks and the Molester in Chief, Bubba.
There’s nothing sexist about not wanting that to happen again.
And in the “if you can’t find any bad news to report in Iraq then dredge up some old and make it new” file:
AJC —- Capturing images of war on their digital cameras, as many troops in Iraq have done, Marines took dozens of gruesome photographs of the 24 civilians who were killed in Haditha, Iraq, in November 2005.
Plus it’s a US soldier atrocity too, yay! It’s an anti American Holiday!
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
By Cal
January 7, 2007 09:30 AM | Link to this
I’d vote for Condi in a new york minute and not because she was female or black. It’s the intelligence factor. It’s the tried and true commitment to her country. It’s her focus on whats important.
Did Tucker forget to mention Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney for a reason?
Anybody can be an idiot regardless. CyMac was just one of many from the dem column.
By Jim Wooten
January 7, 2007 09:32 AM | Link to this
Morning all, two or three comments about earlier posts: Catlady, starting at 1:12 offers thoughtful observations throughout the day and raises a question when a child in the womb acquires rights. We disagree, but I’m really perfectly willing to let that issue play out in the courts and in the legislative arena.
My real interest here is in arguing that a child enter life outside the womb without having been abused by drugs or an adult’s lifestyle that inflicts harm on the child.
Nobody literally owns his or her own body at anytime, except in the grave. The ownership interest of others depends entirely on the extent to which we use our bodies in ways consequential the them, and to the rest of us. We regulate what people put into their bodies because of the harmful consequence to others. We regulate protective head cover for motorcycle riding because of the medical cost inflicted on others, and the obligation the rest of us have to support the families of dead motorcyclists.
Creating a baby instantly joins three lives — and binds all three for the remainder of their lives, and binds the two adults for at least 18 years, giving each a say, unless legally terminated, in what happens to the child, starting for me from conception, for catlady from viability.
Gabby @ 5:01 beautifully relates a story of a loving, protective father. I’d encourage you all to go back and read it if you skimmed past it.
Dusty @ 4:35 offered a really memorable comment, the kind you keep turning over in your mind. Wrote Dusty:
“It is a crime to steal money from banks, corporations, IRS and other people. But it is not a crime to steal the childhood of little ones.”
By Diogenes
January 7, 2007 09:36 AM | Link to this
Jim,
As much as Diogenes would like to see our social mores such that every child has a loving and caring mother and a father, both of us know that it’s a fantasy. We agree on the premise that the “best interests of the child” comes first, but we disagree on how to get there. You point out that there are currently 33,000 Georgia children in the social welfare network, but you still oppose abortion. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, that number would at least double, and there would be even more horror stories of parents abusing children than there are now. I don’t see that you have given a solution to that problem.
As Diogenes stated earlier in the week, neither Social Darwinism nor the Social Welfare network has worked. Both systems are seriously flawed, and what is needed is a new interest in the problem and new ideas. Your suggestion that the father be financially obligated may be a fresh idea, but it is as flawed as the current system, especially if Roe v Wade is overturned and the floodgates opened. You contend that “our interest … through government, is to protect the child from mental and physical neglect, abuse, or other forms of mistreatment by adults… . .” How? Short of taking every unwanted child away from the mother at birth. You cannot make caring parents of those who have no interest in their children, even, if by some miracle, you relieve the state of part of the financial burden by garnishing all wages of the father. How can you insure that the father works to earn wages? How do you insure that the child is well cared for? To do these things as we would have them done, would you enlarge the social welfare system? In truth, you’re talking about changing the mores of a society, not just changing the social system.
Jim, you are sounding the clarion call, but you are a long way away from a solution. You’re correct when you state that “[w]hat is really most shocking is the silence of most opinion leaders, politicians, entertainers and others who know how destructive this trend is… .“ Diogenes, like you, would like to see each child have a true equal opportunity to become a responsible citizen. Our system is flawed. We are radically unprepared for a quantum leap in the number of children caught in the system; as you point out, we can’t handle the numbers now. We’re a long way away from being able to implement a system to tax the father for the child’s upkeep. It won’t improve until there are fresh ways of looking at the causes and new ways of solving the problem, until the opinion leaders break their silence.
By Cal
January 7, 2007 09:59 AM | Link to this
Diogenes, You’re quick to point out how Jim falls short on solutions, but you fail to come up with any of your own.
How about if the fathers are forced to work for the government. Picking up trash on the roadsides. If taxpayers are going to be paying for the children irresponsibly conceived, then we may as well get some work out of them and can humiliate them in the process.
The ACLU would probably interfere with that one. Forced labor and all…
I’ll just call it labor for labor’s sake. You?
By Jim Wooten
January 7, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this
Diogenes, the abortion debate is a distraction that has kept the nation from seriously addressing the core problem, which is that children are brought into the world with two strikes against them.
We change the culture the same way we got here — slowly, over time, with the primary aim of public policy in all instances to be delivering a healthy, well-balanced next generation of parents who are capable of commitment and of forming nurturing families for children — and for a functioning democracy.
The first step is to reverse the trend and you do that by holding adults accountable for the children they cause — and that may mean spending a dollar to collect 25-cents from a father. It’s not the money. It’s the connection, the assertion that walking away from a child’s life is not an option.
Orphanages are an option and probably the best one now, but there’s plenty of time to discuss/debate the merits of various approaches and of specifically when and how neglect and abuse are defined and how parental rights are terminated and when adults should be denied the privilege of creating lives that they then mangle.
Nobody smokes in restaurants or much of any place else. Once most everybody did. How did we get here? By tens of thousands of decisions and actions designed to reduce smoking.
How do we reverse this trend and bring parents back into children’s lives. By tens of thousands of decisions and actions.
By the balls
January 7, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this
Today, George Wills points out in his column that the Middle East Institute’s Wayne White thinks Baghdad is a “sunni-shia stalingrad”. I made that analogy, independently, a while ago when I commented about the surge, especially if the surge means, “secure sadr city”.
I’m not saying that by scooping George Wills I’m some sort of geo-political uber-journalist, nor am I suggesting that the rest of you, because you’ve never had one original insight, are wastes of flat-headed surfaces whose interlocking head-to-cheek, barrel-of-monkey gang-think resembles the pearls of wisdom one can glean by fingerstrip-mining your own a-holes. I’m definitely not saying that. I would never blog such a thing ever, so you can all safely put that idea out of the space between your ears. Fair ‘nuff?
If there were such a thing as dummy insurance, then would the platinum package be called ear to ear coverage? (like bumper to bumper)
Bloggers who use their minds like bumper cars: Trolley Trolls!!
By LuckoDull
January 7, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this
Fatherlessness has been increasing, notes Warren. In 1960, less than 8 million children were living in families where the father was absent. Today that number is 24 million.
Gosh, I wonder what’s changed since 1960? Let me think, um, could it be the onslaught of judicially forced liberal policies?
And you think it’s going to get better?
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
By Dennis
January 7, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this
Perhaps those who say “let the families be responsible for their children” would answer this question; If families are not being responsible for their children, does that give society an equal right to ignore the children as well?
How many of those same critics (and writers)go to church and sing, “Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight (until it comes to money)”?
I, too, would prefer to spend “MY money” on MY family, but we don’t live in a perfect society.
By Curious Observer
January 7, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this
I once worked with a woman named Markus. But she was thoughtful, tactful, and considerate—obviously unrelated to the Markus we know on this blog.
I don’t know that there is a solution to the problem of thoughtlessly conceived children who later are abused. We already lock up fathers, married and unmarried, who fail to follow court orders to provide financial support for their children, but that doesn’t seem to accomplish much except to make men even more determined to avoid marriage and its responsibilities. It has done nothing to diminish the number of children who are fatherless.
Forcing fathers to work at menial jobs won’t pass constitutional muster.
If there is a solution, it has to exist in an adequately funded state/county child welfare program. I see a lot of mud being slung at DFACS, but how much can a state worker accomplish when assigned 40, 50, 60, and even 80 single-parent families to monitor? Yet, the very premise of Wooten’s comments is that state involvement in child welfare cases should be reduced. Somehow, all those irresponsible fathers and mothers are to open their eyes and start yelling, “Personal Responsibility!”
The focus needs to be on the child, not on the adults who engage in irresponsible sex. We seem to be much too ready to punish someone for the social problems that bedevil us, but only grudgingly do we accept any responsibility for the children who are the victims of neglect and abandonment.
By getalife
January 7, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this
“Iraq’s massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.”
This is what they are dying for.
Look for Cheney to resign and be replaced soon.
My guess is Condi.
By Diogenes
January 7, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this
Mr Wooten:
Your 1013 response to me may be one of the best things you’ve ever written. I agree with you wholehearted. Your comment, “How do we reverse this trend and bring parents back into children’s lives. By tens of thousands of decisions and actions” is precisely how we do it, but, as you suggest in your column, we must also break the silence of the opinion leaders. Jim, count Diogenes an ally. The differences in opinion over Roe v Wade should not, as I’ve said before, interfere with our mutual understanding of the problem and the mutual desire to solve it.
By RW-(the original)
January 7, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this
Diogenes,
What about Roe v. Wade makes you think overturning it would make abortion either illegal or unavailable?
By Buy Danish
January 7, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this
LuckoDull,
Exactly. We have more options available to us to prevent pregnancies in the first place then we have ever had, yet the number of unwanted pregnancies keeps increasing.
The Left tries to blame it on a lack of sex education classes, but that is ridiculous, and the fact is that these classes didn’t even exist decades ago when we had millions of fewer unwanted pregnancies.
One of the biggest problems, in addition to rewarding pregnant single mothers with government checks, is that there is no longer a sense of shame for either the mother or the father (liberals say we cannot judge) and perversely, our most irresponsible citizens are embraced instead of rejected by society at large.
Dennis,
How many of those “parents” of abused children go to church at all? There is no hypocrisy in being a Christian and not believing in a welfare state. Among other benefits, Christianity is a civilizing influence, and it does not benefit civilization at large to reward bad behavior and shift the responsibility away from the individual to programs which only perpetuate irresponsible behavior.
Curious Observer,
Okay, just for a moment, let’s hypothetically accept your assertion that the focus should be on the child.
Now what? Jim Wooten has suggested orphanages. What do you suggest?
By Diogenes
January 7, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this
Mr. Wooten:
I have more questions: You have not mentioned “faith-based inititatives” in any of these discussions about children. What role, if any, do you think the religious community should play in helping overcome this problem? What role are they playing now, other than contributing to a few children’s homes around Atlanta?
By RW-(the original)
January 7, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this
Jim Wooten,
Your comment to Diogenes that abortion is just a distraction from the issue at hand misses the mark quite a bit, in my opinion.
We have abortion on demand with no consequence whatsoever to the father. This certainly encourages poor decision making as the male and possibly the female think that if anything happens they can just go have an abortion. When the pregnancy occurs and the mother chooses to have a baby she can’t support the father may feel he has no obligation because his wishes for an abortion were ignored putting all the responsibility on the mother.
Every scenario that plays out from there is fraught with pitfalls that lead to the 33,000 children in your article.
Making abortion a much more difficult process for the male would lead to better choices on the front end.
By Amelia
January 7, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this
I have argued for years that with the availability and advancement of better and better birth control, that Roe v Wade should be a non-issue. Personal responsibility is the key. If you are sexually active and don’t want a child, use birth control. If you don’t want to do that, don’t do the deed. And before all the “joint” responsibility crowd jumps out of the woodwork, I would never, ever, entrust that to any man. I am responsible for me, my body, and any children I have produced. A good family is preferable for all children, but this not being a perfect world I really see no problem with orhanages if they can provide a child a feeling of being loved, some sense of family, and the right kind of people run them. Just warehousing children? Never. Unfortunately this will always be an issue. There will always be people procreating that shouldn’t ever have kids, and you can’t legislate or force people to be responsible. There are ways to deal with those adults. The bottom line to me is that no child deserves to suffer. They didn’t ask to be here in the first place.
By Buy Danish
January 7, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this
Dio,
You want the churches to take responsibility after the fact, but don’t you disdain the role of religion in people’s lives in the first place?
You are promoting a secular society, but want faith based organizations to step in later?
Personally, I think faith-based solutions are almost always preferable to state solutions, I just find it interesting that you think religion is foolish unless it’s there to bail someone out.
By Amelia
January 7, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this
At the expense of sounding like Hillary, I will boldly state that this is an issue where everybody can and should play a role. I see no problem whatsoever with government partnering with any group that can provide a loving and nurturing environment for unwanted, abused, or neglected kids. And if those people happen to be a church or a religious organization or whoever, I support any help or finance that government can provide. Religion should be about these kinds of things. Kids have for too long been ideological and political footballs. For once take the politics out of it. Please!
By Jeff
January 7, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this
a thought:
Maybe if we could put an end to “Career” politicians AT EVERY LEVEL, do you think we could actually get politicians that would actually do what is best for our country rather than what is best for the lobbyists? (I know that Teddy Kennedy and several others in congress - even the House- have been in 20+ years, and I know that the current sole commissioner of Bartow County has had that position for 15+ years)
By Jim Wooten
January 7, 2007 01:00 PM | Link to this
Diogenes, absolutely faith-based organizations would play a primary role. The problem with the bureaucracy’s attempt to be the proper mother and father children don’t have is that it’s structured by program and goverment employees are paid to care. Without criticizing them, it’s an obligation government can’t fulfill. Social workers can’t be there when children need protection and we can’t keep passing the obligations of parents along to the schools.
So the need is for structure and for people who care, and for people who have the time to help a child work through life’s problems. That’s where faith-based and other groups come in.
By Amelia
January 7, 2007 01:08 PM | Link to this
AMEN JEFF!! You have truly been to the mountaintop and seen the promised land. The way it is now it is always commerce and cronies before country. This is one of the ways that the electorate can take back the country and make these shysteers work for us instead of the highest bidder.
By Buy Danish
January 7, 2007 01:11 PM | Link to this
Amelia,
How do you take the politics out of an issue where people expect state solutions and where you state that “everyone can and should play a role”?
If I’m being forced to play a role I don’t agree with, then politics comes in, like it or not.
By Jim Wooten
January 7, 2007 01:12 PM | Link to this
Amelia, there’s an important distinction to be made in the “everybody can play a role” view. Yes, for certain. But nothing government does should have as its premise the idea that the appropriate family for children is anything other than a mother and a father in the home. Every policy, every action, every law, should be to further that aim. There is no equally acceptable model.
There are, certainly, stop-gap measures that have to be taken to minimize further harm to children and, in that, all of us should play a role, if it is nothing more than speaking up or doing something to make life better for a child in need.
By Diogenes
January 7, 2007 01:16 PM | Link to this
Mr Wooten,
Thank you for your response. Am I understanding you correctly? You would engage both state and “faith based organization” support for each child? You may be onto that fresh new idea I’ve said we need. When you have time, please develop that concept a little farther so that we can see how the two systems would interact.
By Amelia
January 7, 2007 01:33 PM | Link to this
Jim, you are absolutely correct. And I wish that there was a magic formula for that. Me and my 4 brothers and sisters had that and so have my daughters. One of the defining moments in my life was when after having my first daughter my father said to me, “you do realize that she owes you nothing, but that you owe her everything”. But I do wish for a safety net for those little children that are in need. And I think as a society we are obligated. A societies children and their well being is indicative of the society itself.
By Buy Danish
January 7, 2007 01:35 PM | Link to this
You may be onto that fresh new idea I’ve said we need.
Dio,
Have you been living in a cave? This is not at a “new fresh idea”. Sheesh.
Instead of constantly asking questions, why don’t you try and answer one for a change:
How do you reconcile your belief in a secular society with your interest in faith-based solutions?
CUT
Here’s a perfect illustration of what happens when Liberal Bureacrats micromanage things -
When a 73-year-old Londoner collapsed at a betting shop on New Year’s Eve afternoon, his luck had run out – thanks to European Union rules that required two nearby ambulance crews to be kept on their 30-minute breaks.
Under rules mandated by the European Working Time Directive, adopted in December, ambulance crews working shifts between six and 10 hours long are allocated a rest break of 30 minutes and cannot be sent out on 999 calls – the UK equivalent to 911 emergencies in the U.S.
By Amelia
January 7, 2007 01:46 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish, I think I advocated a cooperative effort that includes many options. Should a child, under any circumstances be a political football kicked back and forth until their well being fits somebody’s ideology? Do they have to die because they don’t fit in someone’s ideological box? So I guess what you are saying is that if you don’t like the solution, the child doesn’t matter? And unfortunately Buy Danish, sometimes because of heartless, selfish people, the state is forced to step in. So if you don’t want that, practice your christian principles and figure out a way to help these kids without the state. That will work. I just think it will be very difficult for one to get this job done without the other.
By RW-(the original)
January 7, 2007 01:50 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish,
It might be a fairly fresh idea. A search for faith based initiatives only returns 2,130,000 results
By the balls
January 7, 2007 01:54 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish, why dont you volunteer for a big brother/big sister program for some needy child?
By Amelia
January 7, 2007 01:56 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish, I don’t know about diogenes, but I have no problem whatsoever with government financeing a faith based solution if it is the best solution. That is what I mean when I say everyone can play a role in this. You are trying to turn this topic into another bloodbath between liberals and conservative, republicans vs democrats. This is neither. This is about children. I am sure you will succeed in steering this topic down that same tired old road, just like happens everyday.
By Dusty
January 7, 2007 02:11 PM | Link to this
Jeff and Amelia,
You want to get rid of “career” politicians. Most politicians are elected by the voters. Are you suggesting that we do away with elections? That citizens are not capable of choosing their leaders?
I am not happy with everything that politicians do by any means, but many of them are working very hard for the people they represent. If they are legally and ethically correct, we have to assume disagreement is part of democracy. Otherwise it is up to our legal/justice systems or to the voters.
One current misdirection is to judge a politician by his political affiliation alone. This is done quite frequently now with each party saying the other is the worst at propaganda. Since all politicians are “career” as soon as they take office, I do not think it is a good idea to dump them all. Some are truly dedicated to this country.
By Amelia
January 7, 2007 02:19 PM | Link to this
I think you call it term limits Dusty. How did you get doing away with elections out of it?
By RW-(the original)
January 7, 2007 02:20 PM | Link to this
Amelia,
I don’t think pointing out that always looking to the government for solutions to problems that have largely been created by government in the first place is taking the discussion down a tired old road.
Until we discuss issues honestly and define just what the cause of the given problem is, we’ll never come up with realistic solutions.
In a case like this we have instances where a Catholic Church in California was told they couldn’t receive any government funding to help with the great work they were doing unless they passed out condoms. So if government is going to micromanage the type of help that can be given and under what circumstances, it’s a political discussion and there’s no way around that.
By Jeff
January 7, 2007 02:24 PM | Link to this
Dusty:
What I am advocating is strict term limits, and I propose that we put ALL politicians under the same limits we have for the President: 2 elected terms (with the ONE TIME possibility of serving the remainder portion of a term that is vacated).
By RW-(the original)
January 7, 2007 02:35 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
I think Jeff and Amelia are right on this one. Strict term limits would put an end to a multitude of problems. The ones dedicated to serving the country can always do so outside the trappings of elected office.
I would do it a little differently. I would keep two year terms for House members and allow them to serve up to three terms. Ideally I would repeal the 17th amendment so Senators weren’t elected by the people and could go back to serving the interest of their state the way the founders intended, but if we have to have them elected it would be one six year term.
I would have the President elected for one six year term also. That would still allow someone to serve 18 years at the Federal level of government.
By Amelia
January 7, 2007 02:38 PM | Link to this
Jim, thanks for this topic today. It was one that could have been meaningful. But I can see the ideological bruhaha taking shape. Dem vs repub. Lib vs con. What a crock. My lifes work is giving aid, comfort, and asssistance to victims of domestic abuse and human traficking. And I don’t work for the gov and am not a social worker. We are a private organization and I can tell you that government grants make up the bulk of our funding along with contibutions from the business community. Because of organizations such as ours and the networks that we develop, government involvement is alot smaller than it would be should we not exist. My work is why I know that issues such as these have to be a ccoperative efort of government and the private sector. I can tell you for a fact that if these issues ever depend on so called “compassionate conservatives” to carry the water, there will be many victims of domestic abuse dead at the hand of their abusers. That group is notoriously absent when it comes to putting their money where their mouths are. Their actions seldom reconcile with the beliefs and ideologies that they so loudly espouse. Anyway Jim, thanks for this topic. It was a good one.
By @@
January 7, 2007 02:40 PM | Link to this
Wow Jim, I’m reading a discussion about faith-based programs in the interest of children.
It just so happens that I am returning from church with a bulletin in my hands. Let me quote it verbatim. It’s from the United Methodists’ Outreach Programs:
Your offering on Human Relations Day, January 14th, strengthens United Methodist outreach to at-risk Youth by working with life skills such as improving school performance, finding a job, managing time and money, resolving conflict and setting goals and encouraging community social justice. Please give generously! Your gift makes a world of difference.
This on top of our mentoring program within the schools.
Habitat for Humanity Sign-up, building to take place the weekend following Easter.
Food and clothing donations to a local shelter for Grandmothers raising children.
This information is not to boast, but rather to inform. And those listed above only to mention a few. Anyone is welcome to contribute, but if they aren’t attending church it’s likely they aren’t aware.
By Dusty
January 7, 2007 02:40 PM | Link to this
Jeff and Amelia,
Neither one of you mentioned term limits in your original posts. I suggested the most obvious methods, as politicians are now being elected. The words “shyster” and “highest bidder” don’t suggest term limits for politicians.
By Buy Danish
January 7, 2007 02:47 PM | Link to this
Amelia,
I asked how you keep politics out of it. You didn’t answer the question but you’re now accusing me of instigating a “bloodbath” and of course the underlying message is that I am cruel and heartless while you are just interested in helping the children. So in that sense, you’re right - you do sound like Hillary and so many sanctimonious liberals.
The fact is that liberals and conservatives have different ideas as to how to solve problems and in my opinion (which is based on the historical record, not on some fantastic pipe dream) liberal solutions invariably make things worse - no matter how well intentioned.
While I applaud your willingness to employ faith-based solutions, I find your response to my question to you to be incredibly smug and over the top.
UPDATE! Now you’re accusing “compassionate conservatives” of ignoring spousal abuse which results in dead spouses.
Who is it exactly who is turning this into a “Liberal” versus “conservative” issue? I’m talking about solutions and all you can do is personally smear people who disagree with you.
What a freaking hypocrite, err, liberal.
By You decide
January 7, 2007 02:49 PM | Link to this
All in the same paragraph:
Jim, thanks for this topic today. It was one that could have been meaningful. But I can see the ideological bruhaha taking shape. Dem vs repub. Lib vs con. What a crock.
Sincerity?
I can tell you for a fact that if these issues ever depend on so called “compassionate conservatives” to carry the water, there will be many victims of domestic abuse dead at the hand of their abusers. That group is notoriously absent when it comes to putting their money where their mouths are.
I thought it wasn’t about libs and cons??
By Dusty
January 7, 2007 03:03 PM | Link to this
@@,
Thanks for giving us the information on the “giving” of your church.
I belong to another denomination that helps not only locally but worldwide with one of the best qualified relief agencies in the country. Also,their refugee service right here in Atlanta is used as a referral by government agencies as a place to send people who come to our country totally unprepared. Many come from war torn countries and refugee camps.
The list of projects and people helped by our church and many like it are too numerous to list. It is hardly correct to say “church” people who are both liberal and conservative do not give their share of money, effort and time to help those who need it the most.
By RW-(the original)
January 7, 2007 03:04 PM | Link to this
What it really boils down to is love versus pity
It’s just a political byproduct that love is represented by compassionate conservatism while pity is a liberal concept.
By RW-(the original)
January 7, 2007 03:13 PM | Link to this
In fact, from 1620 to 1933, all public welfare activity was at the state and local levels, primarily through churches, local charity groups, immigrant societies, and fraternal organizations like the Elks and Shriners. Those groups operated hospitals and schools for the disabled and the sick. For a few cents in weekly dues per household, they provided social insurance to support widows, orphans, and the disabled. Members in good standing with their fraternal and sisterly organizations would be cared for and supported by them in times of difficulty.
Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal deliberately pushed this great network of mutual-help organizations into oblivion by more than tripling taxes and forcing everyone to join Social Security. In contrast, present-day private organizations like the Salvation Army are far more effective and much less costly than any governmental programs, Federal or local.
Killing the private mutual-support network was part of the plan, announced in Roosevelt’s first inaugural address, to implement Mussolini’s brand of socialism: Fascist state corporatism.
By @@
January 7, 2007 03:20 PM | Link to this
Sure thing Dusty. I always hesitate to post information such as that because it sounds boastful.
Like I said, not my intent. After listening to so many here who are critical of the faithful, who refer to us a zealots, and who live in fear that we’re going to somehow overtake their freedoms, they need to be enlightened occasionally.
There seem to be those like Diogenes and Amelia who promote the coming together of government funding and faith-based programs, but conveniently forget that there are Democrat politicians who have called for investigations into Bush’s faith-based programs. They think it violates the “separation of church and state”.
They’re afraid we may be promoting morality.
Ooouuuu. The faithful are such bad and evil people. (Sarc)
We’re out to steal the children before some parents choose to dispose of them before or after birth.
By Bill
January 7, 2007 03:20 PM | Link to this
When some of you left church today, did one of those gvernment employees, wearing a government uniform, government gun, and government badge, that transported himself to your church in his government vehicle step out into the middle of the road, impeding the progress of those already on the road so that you could conveniently get out of the parking lot? Now that is the kind of government assistance that we should be doing without.
By RW-(the original)
January 7, 2007 03:24 PM | Link to this
OOPS! Left my own comments off the 3:13. Anyway that article really goes to both the welfare state issue and the term limit issue. The consolidation of power at the Federal level that Roosevelt started weakened private charity and enhanced the power of career politicians. Both were ultimately very bad things.
By @@
January 7, 2007 03:32 PM | Link to this
…and Dusty? To be perfectly honest with you and everyone else, during my liberal days, I offered a lot of lip service to society’s needs, but not until I became involved in church, did I even know how or where I could help.
Not to say that all liberals were as misdirected as I was. All I’m saying is that talk was cheap, it didn’t cost me a dime, but hearing my own voice in protest was oh so rewarding.
I felt really great about my causes, I just didn’t accomplish much when it came to solving the problems.
By Jeff
January 7, 2007 03:36 PM | Link to this
Some text from Tom Clancy’s Executive Orders, which very much sums up how I feel about the role of government, Congress, and the President.
Jack Ryan, Clancy’s primary protagonist, has just become President via a 9/11 style attack (a jet slams into the Capitol Building just as the President enters for the State of the Union address). He had only accepted the Vice-Presidency as a way of leaving government service forever. (Read Debt of Honor)
“I need your help to do my job. If you think I can do it alone, you’re wrong. If you think government can fix itself by itself, you’re wrong. If you think thr government, fixed or not, can take care of you in every way, you’re wrong. It’s not supposed to be like that. You men and women out there, you are the United States of America. I work for you. My job is to prserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and I will do that to the best of my ability, but each one of you is on the team as well.
We need our government to do for us the things we cannot do for ourselves, like providing for the common defense, enforcing the law, responding to disaster. That’s what the Constitution says. That document, the one I swore to protect and defend, is a set of rules written by a small group of fairly ordinary men. They weren’t even all layers, and yet they wrote the most important political document in human history. I want you to think about that. They were fairly ordinary people who did something extraordinary. There’s no magic to being in government.
I need a new Congress to work with me. The Senate will arrive first, because the governors will appoint replacements for the ninety-one men and women we lost last week. The House of Representatives, however, has always been the People’s House, and it’s your job to pick those, in a voting booth, exercising your rights.
Therefore, to you, and to the fifty governors, I have a request. Please, do not send me politicians. We do not have the time to do the things that must be done through that process. I need people who do real things in the real world. I need people who do not want to live in Wasington. I need people who will not try to work the system. I need people who will come here at great personal sacrifice to do an important job, and then return home to their normal lives.”
There’s actually about 3/4 page more, but HOPEFULLY you get the idea!!
By Bill
January 7, 2007 03:40 PM | Link to this
The only faith based initiative that I object to is GW invading Iraq because GOD told him to. Talk about the initiative to end all initiatives!
By @@
January 7, 2007 03:43 PM | Link to this
Bill:
No, we don’t have one of those government employees.
I guess you count funeral processions as a way of impeding your progress on the road to…..????????
By RetiredLTC
January 7, 2007 03:51 PM | Link to this
What makes anyone here think that Amelia is a democrat? Or a liberal? Her views on personal responsibility seem rather conservative to me. Her attitude that she and she alone is responsible for her actions is purely conservative. Do you label her because she can put aside ideology and politics to try to solve difficult issues? Because she refuses to let ideology stand in te way of progress? Actually the woman makes a hell of alot of sense. If you break it down to one factor what, do you think is the biggest source of conflict in this world today? What is the primary reason that the most compelling issues of our time will probably lead us to Armagaedon? The biggest barrier to peace? Competing ideologies! This world needs more people that can put personal ideology aside. They are the problem solvers. The ideological warriors are the problem makers.
By Buy Danish
January 7, 2007 03:53 PM | Link to this
You decide,
To paraphrase Andy - Frisk the miserable, whiny liberal first.
@@,
Thanks for the dose of reality. Not that it will do Amelia any good. She has concluded that we are stingy and heartlesss human beings who could not care less about our fellow man.
I also think that she is like Dio, who tolerates religion only because she relies on its generosity.
Your comment about liberals giving lip service to society’s needs reminds me of an anecdote in Mark Steyn’s America Alone where his largely apolitical wife can’t stand it anymore and finally asks someone who has been proudly sporting a “Save Tibet” bumper sticker for decades, “What exactly are you doing to save Tibet?”.
RW,
Great links - thanks. City Journal is one of my favorites. The pity versus compassion concept is spot on.
By getalife
January 7, 2007 04:01 PM | Link to this
It was not God that told w to invade Iraq, it was big oil:
Iraq’s massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days. The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972
cheney will resign soon.
By RW-(the original)
January 7, 2007 04:03 PM | Link to this
RetiredLTC,
If you think accusing conservatives of allowing abused spouses to die because they don’t care is something a conservative would say then you might have a point.
Buy Danish,
That City Journal story really does have it down perfectly.
By bECKY
January 7, 2007 04:11 PM | Link to this
Thank you for finally aiming one AJC news article at the proper target and for speaking at least somewhat favorably about “the beareaucrats” who work in this difficult area of public service. Social workers have been underappreciated and so wrongly accused for so long that most leave the profession in frustration and out of fear of litigation and professional ostracism. We should be grateful for anyone who chooses this line of work and is willing to tolerate the most difficult of working conditions. Thanks for speaking up for the victims of thousands of irresponsible parents, their precious children.
By Buy Danish
January 7, 2007 04:16 PM | Link to this
Retired LTC,
Regarding Amelia’s political affiliation, surely you jest. There are numerous clues, including the direct disparagement of me personally where she accuses me of inciting an ideological “bloodbath” for asking how you keep politics out of it (what a horrible question!) and against “compassionate conservatives” in general who she claims “ignore spousal abuse” which results in “death”.
Moreover, when you speak of “ideological warriors” who are responsible for the lack of peace on Earth, exactly who are you referring to?
Do tell. Seriously - I want to hear it all!
RW,
judging from today’s comments, as far as I can tell an ideologue is someone who dares to question a liberal.
By LuckoDull
January 7, 2007 04:17 PM | Link to this
By Bill January 7, 2007 03:20 PM | Link to this When some of you left church today, did one of those gvernment employees, wearing a government uniform, government gun, and government badge, that transported himself to your church in his government vehicle step out into the middle of the road, impeding the progress of those already on the road so that you could conveniently get out of the parking lot?
Bill: My guess is that the Church is probably paying the cop better then the government does.
Isn’t it kind of eerie how that response fits so well into today’s discussion?
By the balls
January 7, 2007 04:19 PM | Link to this
Patriots look tough in the playoffs this year. Like their chances.
RW, why dont you volunteer to be a big brother/big sister for an orphan. It’s not like you dont have the time.
You’ve graced us all with your presence for so long, maybe it’s time to spread yourself. (both hands)
bwa
By RetiredLTC
January 7, 2007 04:24 PM | Link to this
Seperate the chaf form the wheat RW. Her main point was that reliance on one or the other exclusively will never work. She gave government AND private business contributors their props. And it is true that many people talk a good game but when the time comes to write a check, well it just never gets written. And many of these people on both sides consider themselves “compassionate”, but not compassionate enough to pony up. So we should rely on them to solve problems with real dollars? Another of her points, and it goes along with what I said earlier. If every activity or issue depended on the ideologies of contributors to be satisfied, well that would be full time grid lock would it not? What happened to doing something because it was the right thing to do or to help somebody that really needed it without regard to some qualifying factor?
By Buy Danish
January 7, 2007 04:27 PM | Link to this
Would I be going out on a limb if I accused by the balls (who I’m guessing is PoFo) of being a “Liberal”?
LuckoDull,
Honestly, I don’t know wtf Bill’s point is.
By Bill
January 7, 2007 04:43 PM | Link to this
Because you are relying on government to provide the resources to get you out of the parking lot dunderhead. Since you don’t want government to interfere, practice what you preach, get in line, and hope that you can get out of the parking lot sometime this week. Of course when it benefits you you would see no problem accepting that “gubment” aid would you? Talk about someone being a hypocrite.
By @@
January 7, 2007 04:46 PM | Link to this
Dangit RW, would you please move over and let PoliFore pass you on the left.
It’s “balls to the wall” for PoliFore.
There’s only enough room for his two.
Well…that’s what he wants us to believe anyway.
By Buy Danish
January 7, 2007 04:47 PM | Link to this
Let’s review!
Who are the nation’s ‘cheapstates’? Try the blue ones.
By LuckoDull
January 7, 2007 04:48 PM | Link to this
Bill: The Churches pay for the traffic control, same as grocery stores pay for security.
Dullard.
How do you figure this is a “handout?”
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
By Dusty
January 7, 2007 04:52 PM | Link to this
Retired TLC,
So you want to give $$$ without any qualifying factors? I hope you have a LOT of money.
Have you ever heard of fraud? Do you know that many charitable organizations keep files on donations to prevent the greedy from taking from the needy?
Churches often receive requests for money from people who go from church to church with concocted stories of desperation. I know of many examples mentioned to me by church workers who tried to verify requests but all info given to them was false.
People who can contribute these days are generous but they want to know where the money is going. Some organizations spend more money on their organization than they spend on their “projects”.
Many people want to help those in REAL trouble. They help reputable organizations and people. But they have decided not to be naive about the process.
By LuckoDull
January 7, 2007 04:54 PM | Link to this
Boy, that Pelosi woman sure cracked the whip:
DEM VOW ALREADY BROKEN: HOUSE SETS 4-DAY WORK WEEK Sun Jan 07 2007 15:03:38 ET
Speaking of which, how are all you “cut and runners” liking the new long term commitments we’re making to Iraq?
Must really be burnin ya up, huh?
At least you get to see some kangaroo court “investigations,” staged show trials put on with you stooges in mind.
Like that will ever amount to anything.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
By @@
January 7, 2007 04:56 PM | Link to this
That’s funny. I distinctly remember most, if not all of the conservatives, disagreeing with Jim on his “rent-a-cop” column.
Why would conservatives disagree with Jim Wooten.
I think it had something to do with the police officer being able to supplement his income while offering additional protection for citizens and private business.
By Buy Danish
January 7, 2007 04:57 PM | Link to this
Bill,
I see that you’re just another presumptious a*******hat.
I have not been in any parking lots today, and I can’t recall the last time a police officer got me in or out of one (except as @@ points out, at a funeral), so who are YOU talking to and how am I a hypocrite?
By RetiredLTC
January 7, 2007 05:12 PM | Link to this
Dusty please! Of course people should know who they are giving money to. This West Point Grad didn’t jump off the turnip truck yesterday. A good cause is a good cause period. Once I decide to contribute, I don’t pull anyone aside and try to place “qualifiers” on my donation. In fact I am about to attend an Association of West Point Graduates Meeting tonight. And yes there will be some checks written to some good causes. The check writers are a rather diverse group too. Multi ethnic, Democrats, Republicans, moderates, conservatives, liberals. We have all agreed on these charities and our personal ideology is not a factor.
By @@
January 7, 2007 05:12 PM | Link to this
Dusty is right Retired LTC. As painful as it is to accept, if you’re irresponsible with your charitable donations, you often times find yourself unable to help those who are truly in need.
Same thing with the government.
By Bill
January 7, 2007 05:25 PM | Link to this
Because bimbo! The crowd you run with rails against government assistance. And I guarantee you that there is someone on this blog that has seen the cop getting the flock out of the lot. Same damn thing. Government assistance. Whether YOU were there or not is not relevant. Your pompous azz comes in here everyday talking a lot of smack about government or lack thereof. And yes, you are a hypocrite and a bimbo.
By Buy Danish
January 7, 2007 05:27 PM | Link to this
@@,
I think its a “separation of church” and state issue for poor doltish Bill.
The mere presence of a government uniform in the vicinity of a church is unconstitutional and offensive to passers-by like Bill.
Why else would he choose this ridiculous analogy?
Holier than thou Retired LTC,
You may not have jumped off the turnip truck, but you sure are blind to the undeniable use of partisan ideology in Amelia’s comments.
While she started off reasonably enough, she spun out of control when I asked her how you keep politics out of it, and then went on to state what a horrible person I was - along with everyone else on my side of the ideological aisle.
How can you not see that if you are as ideology-free as you pretend to be?
By Common Sense
January 7, 2007 05:32 PM | Link to this
Hey, all the fools are here today. It looks like you could really use some common sense here.
By @@
January 7, 2007 05:33 PM | Link to this
Hey Ret.LTC, those folks at your graduate meeting sound just like the folks at my church.
Multi-ethnic, Democrats, Republicans, moderates, conservatives & liberals.
Whodathunkit?
You perhaps?
By Bill
January 7, 2007 05:33 PM | Link to this
By Buy Danish
January 7, 2007 04:57 PM
have not been in any parking lots today, and I can’t recall the last time a police officer got me in or out of one
I guess your johns are at home with their wives today huh, Buy Danish. Have you been arrested so many times that you can’t remember the last one?
Sorry to dis you like this, but being the meanest, nastiest b*$ch on this blog, you bring it all on yourself.
By Common Sense
January 7, 2007 05:33 PM | Link to this
Rick,
Did you pray for some common sense like you said you were going to?
By Common Sense
January 7, 2007 05:35 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish,
Common sense says you are a horrible person.
By Common Sense
January 7, 2007 05:37 PM | Link to this
It is apparent from Bill’s 5:33 comment that he is in agreement with common sense.
By Common Sense
January 7, 2007 05:39 PM | Link to this
Bill,
Buy Danish is just in a bad mood because the only time she has worked in the past decade was as a concubine, and from what her husband tells us, she’s not very good at it.
By @@
January 7, 2007 05:40 PM | Link to this
Ooohhh, I see now Buy Danish. How could I be so dumb?
So what you’re saying is that Bill is O.K. with government assistance that serves his needs, but if it serves the church who serves the needs of many through charitable donations, it’s an emphatic NO.
Got it!
By @@
January 7, 2007 05:45 PM | Link to this
Oh my goodness Bill.
Are you and “common” one in the same?
By Buy Danish
January 7, 2007 05:48 PM | Link to this
Jacker Boy,
There’s no Rick here so you must be lost. Maybe that off-duty police officer you’re pre-occupied with will help you find your way back to your cage.
By Common Sense
January 7, 2007 05:51 PM | Link to this
Common sense says that anything that is false and spreads lies is wrong. The premise behind religion (and therefore church) is false, causes the spread of lies, and should be eradicated from all forms and functions of government, as Thomas Jefferson stated nearly two hundred years ago.
By Buy Danish
January 7, 2007 05:53 PM | Link to this
@@,
Bill and common are one and the same, and they are also Jacker Boy, formerly “Stalker Boy” OOT.
By RW-(the original)
January 7, 2007 05:53 PM | Link to this
RetiredLTC,
Placing conditions on how money is distributed is what the government always does and it’s why we would be much better off if Roosevelt hadn’t turned us into a cradle to grave nanny state.
The absurdity of thinking private charities need government to help them operate without conditions is so convoluted that only a liberal could possibly think of it.
Bill,
Doesn’t proper traffic flow decrease CO2 being released into the atmosphere?
Stalker boy,
Did you decide whether you should be called wanker or pecker?
By LuckoDull
January 7, 2007 05:54 PM | Link to this
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Some of the other leading Democrats in Congress aren’t ready to echo House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s suggestion that lawmakers might hold up funding for additional troops in Iraq. Pelosi’s second-in-command in the House Democratic leadership, Steny Hoyer, told Fox News he doesn’t ”want to anticipate” that possibility. (I sense some hostility between these two.) Joe Biden says Congress doesn’t have the power to second-guess Bush’s military strategy.
By @@
January 7, 2007 05:55 PM | Link to this
Bill:
I’ll simplify for you.
Are you common?
Your posts would indicate that you are.
By Common Sense
January 7, 2007 05:55 PM | Link to this
Common sense says Rick is RW. It seems as if you, Buy Danish, are the one who is psychologically unstable if you believe that common sense has somehow been interacting with police officers. It appears you are becoming both paranoid and delusional, seeing common sense where there is none.
By Common Sense
January 7, 2007 06:00 PM | Link to this
Common sense is in agreement with Bill on these statements:
“Your pompous azz comes in here everyday talking a lot of smack about government or lack thereof. And yes, you are a hypocrite and a bimbo.”
“Sorry to dis you like this, but being the meanest, nastiest b*$ch on this blog, you bring it all on yourself.”
But just because Bill is in agreement with common sense does not mean they are one in the same. It appears that BD is not the only one who is paranoid and delusional.
By Common Sense
January 7, 2007 06:01 PM | Link to this
Common sense is in agreement with Bill on these statements:
“Your pompous azz comes in here everyday talking a lot of smack about government or lack thereof. And yes, you are a hypocrite and a bimbo.”
“Sorry to dis you like this, but being the meanest, nastiest b*$ch on this blog, you bring it all on yourself.”
But just because Bill is in agreement with common sense does not mean they are one in the same. It appears that BD is not the only one who is paranoid and delusional.
By Buy Danish
January 7, 2007 06:01 PM | Link to this
@@,
See, I was right again! Before I even realized that Bill was Common Sense (ha!) and Jacker Boy, I knew that it was religion (“church parking lot”)that got his goat.
Now here he is using multiple identities and babbling like an ignorant parrot about Jefferson and the “separation of church and state”, all the while having the audacity to claim that he hate lies.
By @@
January 7, 2007 06:02 PM | Link to this
RW:
I’m gonna call OoT “Spanker”.
By Buy Danish
January 7, 2007 06:10 PM | Link to this
Spanker, Wanker, Pecker and Jacker Boy,
I suggested that you may WANT to use the help of a police officer to find your way home to your cage.
Now it appears that you need an officer to accompany you in an ambulance with a straight jacket to the nearest psych ward.
By RW-(the original)
January 7, 2007 06:18 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish,
If he does that we can start calling him finch’s roommate.
By Common Sense
January 7, 2007 06:18 PM | Link to this
Hmmm. Very interesting. It appears that the narrow-minded Repugnants believe there is only one individual with common sense, obviously ignoring the fact that there are many more individuals out there who, unlike them, embrace common sense. Does Granny believe that common sense is the only thing that says religious belief is a sign of ignorance and that it should be isolated from the functions of government? Surely she doesn’t believe that only one person has that perspective.
to Rick,
Why does you mind consistently gravitate towards either male body parts (peckers), masturbation (wanking), or gay locker room sex? Common sense tells us that it’s not a good idea for you to be conversing online with any more teenagers.
Granny & @@,
Common sense does not embrace aging, unemployed, overweight housewives, nor does common sense respect the opinions of such, especially when they are so consistently asinine.
By RW-(the original)
January 7, 2007 06:36 PM | Link to this
Stalker boy,
Wanking has evolved into a term for name jacking here. See there’s your evolution theory working for you. Pecker refers to your typing skills and it’s you that’s always telling us lurid tales of the ultimate fighter gym and your locker room duties.
By Common Sense
January 7, 2007 09:16 PM | Link to this
Rick,
That explanation is just your way of rationalizing your way out of admitting that you’re a disgusting, perverted old fart.
Rick, Buy Danish, @@, Dusty,
I find it interesting that I have been accused of being so many random people lately- Huge, Finch, Oot, Bill, otmdv, etc. Those people must really get under your skin, so I appreciate the comparisons. All of you are becoming quite irritated and paranoid. Everywhere you look you see common sense, even when it’s not there. I know that thinking you have common sense when you don’t is the forte of every one of you, but really, I’m not everywhere you look.
Getalife,
Thanks for the heads up on drunken w on American Dad tonight. It was hilarious.
By Craig
January 8, 2007 08:34 AM | Link to this
Whoever this “common sense” dude is or isn’t we know for sure it’s an absolute no life loser.
By Janet_G
January 8, 2007 08:50 AM | Link to this
“Every child has a right to a mother and father. Every child has a right to know his mother and father, with paternity established at birth by law. Fathers would be held accountable for 18 years financial support.”
Currently, mothers on welfare or receiving state support are required to name a father for each child. The state pursues that father with a vengeance with regard to payment of child support even to the point of removing their driver’s license and freedom.
However, even though that man is required to pay 18 years of child support, the state does not require that he be allowed visitation of that child, nor do they encourage it. In order to get visitation, the man must hire an attorney out of his own pocket and go to court, an expensive proposition for someone who is making minimum wage and having a good chunk of that money taken out of his paychecks to pay child support.
A father who gets visitation then has to deal with, many times, a mother who resists or interferes with his efforts to be a father by interfering with visitation or downright denying it. His recourse? Hire another attorney and go back to court yet again. If mom is a less than proper parent? Again, he must go back to court and fight an uphill battle if he wishes to gain custody.
The answer for all of this? All babies born out of wedlock should require that a father be listed on the birth certificate and that the named father undergo DNA testing to ensure that he is truly the father. The state should offer the same resources to fathers as they do to mothers by providing legal assistance to establish visitation and/or custody for low-income fathers who desire it. Mothers who deny visitation to fathers should be penalized through fines or loss of custody.
Currently the agency that enforces child support has great incentive to collect $$$ from non-custodial parents because that agency’s federal funding is directly tied to how much money they collect each year. They have no incentive to provide men with access to their children because there is no money in it for them. If their funding was tied to establishing visitation time between children and fathers rather than providing paychecks for single mothers, eventually, you would start to see the number of out-of-wedlock births decrease as children begin to grow up seeing the value of being raised with a father. The current generation of children of many single mothers will never have that experience.
By Justin
January 8, 2007 09:57 AM | Link to this
Jim Wooten, Wonderful column! Neighborhoods all over metro Atlanta are dealing with the offspring of people who have children without any means to support them and without responsibility for those children. They are robbing us and if we don’t move to action now, those children will be in our prison system.
Janet_G, Excellent post! You are absolutely correct! Too bad the government at the federal and state level don’t understand this.
Even Essence magazine, which I thought was a magazine for Black women with values, promoted the baby mama/baby daddy relationship with Puff Daddy and Kim Porter. He is basically a father who makes babies and doesn’t marry the mothers and she is basically a golddigger who makes money via womb.
The moral decay is obvious…Thank you for your post!
By Buy Danish
January 8, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this
Jacker Boy aka Common Stench,
No one said that you ARE finch - but both of you are mentally ill and like to issue threats. You both need time in re-hab - if whatever ails you is even curable.
Personally, I’d recommend throwing away the key as you are one sick stalker boy.
By Common Sense
January 8, 2007 05:10 PM | Link to this
craig,
You must be the meter maid… I mean traffic cop Buy Danish was referring to. Are you in a bad mood because people are not respecting your authoritigh? Are you going to threaten to give me a speeding ticket now? Did you need a high school diploma to get that job or is it only the real cops who are required to have one of those? I guess you’re really contributing to the community by eating donuts and combing your mustache. You should be proud. I am sure you have quite a life.