Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > September > 04 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USOut-of-wedlock births have to be discussed
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Analyze this, the first sentence of an account of a Michael Bloomberg speech to the National Press Club last week, and then take the quiz on why notable public opinion leaders are reluctant to weigh in on the sensitive question of fathers, marriage and child poverty:
“New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a divorced, billionaire dad, said Tuesday that unwed fathers increase poverty and the government should take steps to get them back with their families.”
A divorced, billionaire dad. Meaning what? A gratuitous insertion in a wire service account, it’s clearly intended to convey a message. But what? That because Bloomberg is divorced, he lacks moral authority to urge that tax laws be amended to entice the absentee male back into children’s lives? That because Bloomberg is rich, he lacks legitimacy to speak of poverty?
The gratuitous reference to his wealth and marital status — both matters unrelated to the issue he addressed or content of his remarks — are noteworthy in that they are warnings to public figures to avoid topics where they risk being accused of hypocrisy. Topics like the epidemic of births to unmarried women and the disadvantage and poverty that results.
Bloomberg wasn’t approaching the hot-button issue at the heart of the problem he addressed. He was, instead, proposing financial incentives to buy men back into their children’s lives, including “a substantial expansion and reform” of the earned income tax credit.
“Why should we expect young mothers to work and not young fathers?” he asked, a reference to the 1996 welfare reform law that, with the EITC, “led millions of people into the labor market, where they attained the dignity of work and a chance to rise out of poverty.” With that, he said, the welfare caseload in New York City had dropped by a third over the past five years.
“Right now,” he continued, “fathers are missing from our strategy to drive down the poverty rate. The gains that we’ve made over the past 10 years have been fueled by mothers. … If we are going to achieve another round of substantial gains … we have to do more to connect fathers to jobs and to their families. We have to increase the rewards for work. …”
Among the changes he suggested is eliminating the EITC “marriage penalty” for families with and without children. “Marriage increase a family’s chances of rising out of poverty — why would government discourage it? It shouldn’t. … The EITC should be a catalyst for fathers to fulfill their obligations as responsible spouses, parents and citizens.”
No hot-button cultural rhetoric there. Dry. Nuts-and-bolts.
To the extent that influential voices are dissuaded from addressing vital issues, such as the consequences of the missing father, because they themselves aren’t poor or have failed marriages, everybody loses. Imagine the treatment had Bloomberg chosen to talk about the real dynamic driving poverty, the creation of babies without bothering to marry.
Bloomberg started his conversation with the usual pabulum about education as “one of the best ways to fight poverty.” It is of course true. No question. But when 69.3 percent of black children, 46.4 of Hispanic and 24.5 of white children are born to unmarried women, the die is cast long before the first schoolteacher enters their lives. And even then, it’s fantasy land to believe any public school system anywhere in America can backfill the hours of guidance and teaching the walkaway father might have provided.
When the War on Poverty was first launched in 1964, single women headed 30 percent of the poor families with children. Today it’s double that. The Brookings Institution, to which Bloomberg delivered the same speech, noted in 2002 that in 2000, 40 percent of the children in female-headed families were poor, compared to 8 percent of the children in married families. Only 20 percent of children in families with incomes of less than $15.000 a year live with both parents.
Marriage reduces poverty. Now, because we’re reached the tipping point where the crisis of out-of-wedlock births is so deeply rooted, few public figures who wish to cultivate a following dare mention it. So they walk around it and talk around it.
But sooner or later, leaders rich and poor, married and divorced, do have to start the conversation. And we have to encourage them.
• Jim Wooten is associate editor of the editorial page. His column appears Tuesdays, Fridays and Sundays.
Permalink | Comments (165) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
Comments
By Mid-South Philosopher
September 4, 2007 8:13 AM | Link to this
Good morning, Jim,
The issue of marriage and, more especially, the presence of fathers in the child raising environment cannot be too often stated and encouraged. That being true, there is another element that ought to be considered.
When parents, for whatever reason, are compelled to place themselves and their children on the dole in whatever capacity, they, in my judgment surrender their right to procreate any further while they are maintaining themselves and their spawn on the public’s dime. Mandatory birth control should be required for the females, and, for father’s that procreate while their offspring(s) are on relief, incarcerated should be the order of business for them until such time as their charges are off the dole.
Of course, this is NOT going to happen because we, as a society, are too stupid to take the cure.
By CJKatl
September 4, 2007 8:28 AM | Link to this
Why is it that older, white, middle aged, Christian, conservative men think that the answer to societies ills is getting fathers to marry baby-mamas? That’s like treating an infection by only attacking the fever.
The problem does not come from the fact that the parents are not married, it comes from the socio-economics that led to them becoming parents in the first place. We have large groups of young people that have never been taught about planning for your life, setting goals, and meeting them. They don’t know anything about delayed gratification. They’ve been taught that it’s all about what you can get now, be it expensive cars, big homes, or instant booty. It’s young women who think getting a child will be the answer to life’s problems.
Rather than expend energy trying to get these people into marriage - a marriage with nothing but bad potential - we should concentrate efforts on education, mentoring, and life coaching.
My neighborhood is a good example: there are women in the forties who became young mothers. They’re the ones walking to the bus from falling apart houses. Then there are those with brand new houses, driving BMWs and vacationing in Europe/South Pacific a couple times a year. We need to show the young people that they have a choice in which group to join, and how to gain entry into the second. And that would include delayed gratification, not having kids at a young age, and staying in school. Then we need to give them the support to do that.
Ultimately, we will turn a generation around. Forcing people into a marriage won’t do any of that.
By Mid-South Philosopher
September 4, 2007 8:37 AM | Link to this
CJKatl@8:28
It is this older, white, middle-aged,Christian-Sufi,libertarian male’s position that, while the father marrying the mother is desirable, it is MORE important that the *dude supports the offspring that he has so “manly” produced!
I don’t mind helping anyone in an emergency, and no child should ever go without, but I resent like Hades paying for fun I didn’t get to have!!!
By Cookie
September 4, 2007 8:38 AM | Link to this
What? Are you kidding me? Why are we discussing something that can’t be fixed? In order to stop what is going on, we need to look for these dead beat dads who don’t pay child support the same way we look for child molesters and murders. By us putting our foot on their necks and not letting up EVER, this problem will ultimately go away. Let’s not just suspend their license and garnish checks, let’s put them on Americas Most Wanted, milk cartons, bus stop benches, etc. Now doesn’t that make sense? Let’s hunt them down like the dogs they are!
By Gwen
September 4, 2007 8:44 AM | Link to this
Why is it when you have an article that would benefit our society as a whole, you only get a couple of responses?
I don’t think marriage is the answser, but tell young men not to get the nookie and they are not protected.
As Marvin and Tammy sings “It Takes Two.”
By Laura
September 4, 2007 8:49 AM | Link to this
Wooten kills me! I guess if you are rich and can pay your child support then divorce is okay. Must be to the Republicans since everyone of their major candidates except for Romney has had multiple marriages with children. And I guess it’s okay to be a single mom so long as you were at least once married for a time. Our cavalier attitude towards marriage and divorce are some of the main reasons we have so many children born out of wedlock. Too many people have suffered under divorce as children and when they grow up they would rather avoid the whole scene altogether. This is the example we, for generations now, have been providing for our children. And no, the w******* has no right to teach us about morality. You must have some moral center in order to lecture people on a subject and make laws about it. Being rich is no balm for being morally challenged.
By Van
September 4, 2007 8:49 AM | Link to this
We seem to forget that it takes two to tango. We have on one hand, a lack of responsibility of the male to support his offspring. On the other hand, we have a lack of moral, self respecting women.
I am sure there are other factors and situations, but from one persons view point, we have a generation of of folks that just do not give a damn, and a government that doesn’t either.
By dawg_gone_truth
September 4, 2007 8:55 AM | Link to this
If we had some fair Judges it would be better, if a dad works he pays out almost all his check to his babies momma’s and he aint got nothing for his self. He can’t even afford a car to drive to work or food to eat. He don’t even have bus fare. If the whites would he just and fair, they would pay blacks slave reparations and we could use that money for child support and then get a job.
By Laura
September 4, 2007 8:56 AM | Link to this
To Van: So it’s only the woman who has a morality problem in this scenario? The man is not expected to keep his zipper up? I have no respect for your double standards. But that’s the attitude, men are just wanton sex pigs and it all womenkinds fault if we give into him. He can’t help it but we can! Right! Tell me another one you backwardsass moron!
By Redneck Convert
September 4, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this
Well, us rednecks get all riled up when somebody else is having You Know What and making us pay for it. That’s why we lock people up that don’t pay child support here in GA. It don’t matter that they got no job or money to pay the support. We want them locked up for what they done in the first place. Then making us hardworking taxpayers pay for the doctoring and food and all that stuff. Having You Know What outside of marriage is just wrong. It goes against what we teach in church.
Anyhow, we need to put the fathers of these illegal babies to work on road gangs and such. Then take everything they make to pay for the child support. If you make them marry the woman they will just make more babies and we will just have more of Those People and welfare bums. And we ought to snip the men so they can’t make more babies.
That’s how you handle it. The minute a single woman says she’s in the Fambly Way and names the father, the police come and take that father straight to a doctor’s office for the snipping.
We got to put a stop to all this sinning, and snipping is the way to do it. A guy that knows he’s going to get snipped if he makes a baby with a unmarried woman will think twicet before he sins. And while we’re at it we can just snip the Other Thing too. If he don’t got that he can’t sin. My buddy Jim Earl says you use the Death Penalty to make sure a killer don’t kill again and you use the Dearth Penalty to make sure a guy don’t father no more illegal kids.
Anyway, that’s my opinion and it’s very true. This is GA, not some yankee state where they try to use colledge and job training and stuff to stop a woman from having illegal kids. We don’t want a answer, we want revenge.
By jack
September 4, 2007 9:07 AM | Link to this
As he is addressing the issue of wedlock and money, then his marital status and financial status are relevant. As you always say Mr. Wooten, you want to know where he is coming from and what possible agenda he is attempting to advance.
If anything, his job title is not relevant to the discussion. But if you exclude one set of descriptors then you should exclude the other.
By No Child Support
September 4, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this
I grew up with an absent father who refused to pay child support and found ways around it when he was court-ordered to do so (he would quit jobs so his pay wouldn’t be docked, move without notice, etc.) While the ability to track people has come a long way since then, I still think the the gov’t spends way more time making sure the mother can’t afford to support her child(ren) than they do tracking down the absent father who might actually be able to help her support THEIR children.
I had a child out of wedlock and while I am in agreement that any type of welfare should be given on a temporary basis, there is little incentive to get off welfare by bettering yourself and situation. I worked from the time my son was 4 weeks old and although I gave the father’s information repeatedly to DFCS, it wasn’t until he was nearly 5 years old before I was contacted the first time by Child Support Enforcement (asking me for updated contact information on the father nonetheless). I know there are new laws in place to help ensur the absent parent pays child support (suspension of professional licenses and such), however in all reality, there is little or no enforcement of child-support for people who cannot afford attorneys. I certainly didn’t have the money to hire an attorney- I was too busy trying to figure out how to pay for the necessities of life.
By the time my son was 3, I was working full-time and going to college part-time. I could barely afford anything and therefore took out student loans to pay for daycare, transportation & health insurance for my son (I was on an academic scholarship and never used my loans to pay for tuition). It was then, making $9/hour, the state decided I could suddenly afford health insurance! These people have obviously never tried to support a child making $9/hour. PeachCare now exists which I applaud but all the system does is punish those who try to do better. Not only did I have to find private insurance but then the next year, when DFCS determined I made too much money for a few of the months that my son was on Medicaid, they decided to dock my state tax refund. Do you think they docked the state tax refund of the bio-father? NOPE.
I absolutely think that the welfare system of this country needs rules to get people off their payrolls but the rules should be fair in that if it takes 2 people to make a baby, then it should take 2 people to pay for one. The system should find ways to encourage people to get off the state payrolls (income spent on health insurance should not count towards eligibility, provide childcare supplements, go after the absent parent, etc) rather than encourage the care giver to sit home and not try to better his/herself.
By Van
September 4, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this
Laura,
Selective reading again I see.
I showed two sides of the same coin. Some women have always call men dogs, some women act like cats - whats the big deal.
If either of the couple had an ounce of self respect and responsibility, the problem with out of wedlock children would be a foot note in the history books.
And yes, I do ascribe the woman with the morals yoke. She is the one that must live with the consequences. She will be forced to take responsibility of two lives.
By Mid-South Philosopher
September 4, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this
We are dealing with two different issues in this theme….morality and responsibility.
Morality is largely up to a personal interpretation. It is true that we have certain moral precepts that society has ingrained into law, but these change as the society changes, e.g., the perception of divorce in the latter half of the 20th century.
The anarchist in me says that so long as your morality doesn’t harm anyone else (especially me) more power to you.
Now, we can argue that the morality of illegitimacy harms the child, and we can point to those indivuals who never got over the stigma of bastd status. However, I suspect that many of us know an equal number of illegitimate children who grew up to be highly successful individuals.
The issue of responsibility is something else altogether. Don’t expect me to finance or subsidize your moral choices. Everybody who play ought to pay!
By DebbieDoRight
September 4, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this
Mandatory birth control should be required for the females, and, for father’s that procreate while their offspring(s) are on relief, incarcerated should be the order of business for them until such time as their charges are off the dole.
Why not have mandatory birth control for men, why just the women? It takes two sets of chromosones to make a child; there are men out there, married, divorced, single with multiple families — why not put them on birth control? Or at least impulse control.
By Kristie Carter
September 4, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this
I am of the opinion that if Bloomberg is financially responsible for his children, and is in public service, then he has every right to address the issues at hand. Yes, we need to include Moms AND Dads in the financial responsibility of raising children, but I’m not sure Marriage is the way to go. What really should be happening is that women stop spreading their legs without being pro-active in their birth control, and men need to start looking at a woman for something other than what IS between their legs. We need to start preaching abstinence and responsibility long before our kids get into high school. We need to bring back our family values, and stop electing people into office who can’t maintain their own marriages and control their own children (Mr. Guiliani comes to mind…) who then make stupid legislative decisions.
When are we going to realize that so many of our problems in our society today come from our choices to stray from decent moral substance? If you put lipstick on a pig, isn’t it still a pig?
By AmVet
September 4, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this
This issue like virtually every other social or other ailment in America is ALWAYS going to be framed in the context of money.
People like Wooten are going to give the Bloomberg’s and ultra-rich a pass because they can more effectively buy their way out of the difficulty that they have helped caused for their children.
He can afford to keep his ex in a life-style where she is attractive to another sperm donor.
And the “disenfranchised” will always contend that they are acting no differently, whether true or not, but simply have not the financial means to make everything OK. They too fail to see this as an issue of immorality or the lack thereof.
And I’m not simply talking about the promiscuity of teenagers and sadly even younger children.
I’m talking about bringing a child into this world without the wherewithal to care for them properly and to raise them to become more than vacuous, self absorbed brats or even misanthropes. And that sacrifice entails a helluva lot more just than money.
By DebbieDoRight
September 4, 2007 9:24 AM | Link to this
Rather than expend energy trying to get these people into marriage - a marriage with nothing but bad potential - we should concentrate efforts on education, mentoring, and life coaching.
I think positive reinforcements by the parents are a good place to start too. My parents always started a sentence with, “When you go to college”, not “if you go to college”. For instance: “When you go to college, then you can do what you want — for now you’re in my house…..”
By Debbie's Pimp
September 4, 2007 9:26 AM | Link to this
DebbieDoRight - you want mandatory birth control for both men and women? That’s pretty stupid. Only one needs it - not both. Go wasting our tax dollars some more, will ya!
By DebbieDoRight
September 4, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this
On the other hand, we have a lack of moral, self respecting women
Van: I guess any woman who gets with you has no morals or self-respect? Gee…. talk about TMI!!
By Van
September 4, 2007 9:29 AM | Link to this
Mid-South Philosopher,
I must disagree a little. It is our moral or ethical standards that govern our responsibilities.
If your ethical upbringing says you take care of your own, then this becomes a responsibility for you.
By deegee
September 4, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this
How does marriage keep two immature, adolescent high school dropouts with a child/children out of poverty? Who is going to hire them and how much can they earn?
By Rod
September 4, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this
Hey Kristie Carter - you said: “If you put lipstick on a pig, isn’t it still a pig?”
No, it’s the blogger on here known as time for the truth!
By Mid-South Philosopher
September 4, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this
To DebbieDoRight @ 9:18
I have to admit that at my age, it is no longer a concern for me nor a danger to anyone else (especially since I am monogomous). Consequently, I have not kept up with the advances in male birth control, but I would not be opposed to mandatory imposition of the same to fathers in that situation.
To No Child Support @9:09
You sound like the person who merits assistance. I note that in your process of working your way toward being fully independent, you did not reproduce again, thus adding to your financial burden. It sounds as though you are the type of person the system ought to be designed to help instead of hinder. Had you been of sorry character, it would have been easier for you to survive on the dole. As it was, your industriousness was punished.
We ought to do better.
By DebbieDoRight
September 4, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this
Wooten: Marriage reduces poverty
Marriage doesn’t reduce poverty, JOBS reduce poverty. Stop sending jobs overseas and see how quickly poverty can be reduced.
By Laura
September 4, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this
Well, Van, if you only expect the woman to have morality re: sexual behavior then I guess you are okay with what Larry Craig was trying to do in that airport bathroom. No woman involved and no potential for a baby. Just a man trying to act on his sexual desires with someone whom you also hold to no sexual morals. Great! Glad to know you approve.
By timetopissontheneoconscumandotherrepubicsublifeforms
September 4, 2007 9:41 AM | Link to this
OUT OF WED LOCK BIRTHS ARE NOT A PROBLEM FOR NEOCONS, GIVEN THEIR SEXUAL PREFFERENCES FOR BATHROOM STALLS IN THE MENS ROOM. As for the rest of us, there has long been a name for babies born out of wedlock, it is just not politically correct to use that name anymore. The solution is of course RU486. If the jesus freaks don’t like it, they can just kiss my shiny white assets.
By CJKatl
September 4, 2007 9:47 AM | Link to this
Kristie stated We need to bring back our family values, and stop electing people into office who can’t maintain their own marriages and control their own children (Mr. Guiliani comes to mind…) who then make stupid legislative decisions.
I’m sorry, but Guliani’s children? Why is it if a man and woman bring up a child to be able to express his/her own views, it’s deemed a failure? Why is it that we think if a parent has not instilled the lock-stock-and-barrel ideas into the children, the parent has somehow failed? I’d rather have children who can absorb facts, consider them, and come to their own solution that have children who believe they are serving their country by working on daddy’s campaign because daddy told them that.
Raising independent thinkers shows true success as a parent. And given any other faults that Guliani and Hanover may have, at least they somehow did that right!
By Curious Observer
September 4, 2007 9:48 AM | Link to this
Thanks a lot, Wooten. Now you’ve issued an invitation to our resident poster child for improved mental health services, TFTT. Shortly, I expect to see a diatribe about the immorality and irresponsibility of blacks and Mexicans, complete with such descriptive adjectives as “ebonics-spouting” and “scum-sucking.”
By DebbieDoRight
September 4, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this
I absolutely think that the welfare system of this country needs rules to get people off their payrolls but the rules should be fair in that if it takes 2 people to make a baby, then it should take 2 people to pay for one.
Reasonable. But trying to get some of these “It’s the woman’s fault, give her a scarlet letter” folks to think like that will take more than law, it’ll take an act of God.
By Stef
September 4, 2007 9:50 AM | Link to this
I agree that the Right has lost all their authority to keep muttering on about morality. They are only concerned with the morality of others. Meanwhile they are humping away in bathroom stalls and divorcing their wives in droves. They are a joke and I am shocked that they don’t know that we can see it. They don’t want any babies to be born out of wedlock yet they want to outlaw abortion and almost an reasonable access to birth control. They rant and rave about gays and pass laws to supress them meanwhile they stalk young male pages and can’t stay away from elicit bathroom sex. They have elevated ministers as the highest form of moral authority meanwhile these ministers are molesting children and cavorting with prostitutes (male and female). Whenever I hear them saying “don’t do this” and “don’t do that” I can assure myself that they are closing the closet door and doing whatever they are “against” until they pass out. When will we learn that the ones who crow the loudest about how moral they are are the ones with the most to hide. You dirty, naughty, nasty bad boys you. We’ve got your number!
By Cheryl
September 4, 2007 9:51 AM | Link to this
I’m here to complain about out of dreadlock births. Why should new borns have to put up with bad hair days? Dreadlocks have been a staple of style for decades, and we as a society should ascertain that all babies, of all colors, should never be born out of dredlock….what? it’s out of Wedlock? Well, still, hair is import….but that IS different……
Nevermind.
By Van
September 4, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this
Laura,
That issues shows a lack of morals, common sense and responsibility.
It is a sad day when folks seek the use of bathrooms for close encounters and not the well appointed no-tell motel.
It is especially sad when a group advocates the use of bathrooms for these meetings. I can not imagine sending my pre-teen son(many years ago) into a public bathroom by himself. 15 years ago, I did not even imagine this type of behavior went on.
By DebbieDoRight
September 4, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this
Since Wooten has such a hard time with “unwed” births; then he should support Reproductive Education for children in schools; Abortion Rights and the rights of Gay individuals to adopt children.
By @@
September 4, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this
Oh no Jim, you’ve opened up that can of worms…natural rights vs. legal rights. What were YOU thinking?
Bloomberg needs to understand that morality comes at no cost. That’s why Jesus never carried money, but offered something far more valuable in his teachings.
Your column today brings to my mind the is-ought question in philosophy and I like the way that Ayn Rand answered it.
“The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the relation between ‘is’ and ‘ought’. Rand also maintained that “an ultimate value is that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means, and it sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated.”
“An organism’s life is its standard of value…that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil.” She determined that an objective system of morality is both possible and necessary.
Now, back up to the first paragraph where liberalism finds its’ roots.
One theory of natural rights was developed from the theory of natural law during the Enlightenment in opposition to the divine right of kings, and provided a moral justification for liberalism.
Sound familiar?
Bush and “family-values” conservatives are tyrrants.
I’ve read it countless times here. The liberal perspective of Screw the family values crowd. Just show us (liberals/socialists) the money.
Hell, if I were a liberal conspiracy theorists, I would say that today’s immoralities have been promoted and supported by the leftists so that they could accuse conservatives of being heartless, and pursue their “collective society” goals.
Our children were a high price to pay for leftists to achieve their goal.
By fedup
September 4, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this
The fact that almost 70% of black children are born to unwed mothers comes as no surprise. The problem almost always lies with the black male in our society. The pattern of irresponsibility, and immaturity is horrible. Their selfish and self-centered attitude, which seems to be encouraged and reinforced in part, by rap music, seems to be one, of obtaining as many women as they can get. Never committing to one, sometimes having children by different women and never growing up. I used to wonder why we were so disliked by other races, now I think I understand. This pattern of behavior is reprehensible. Family is fundamental. It the black race can’t get family right, how can we ever be respected? Our priorities are so confused! Black men, grow up and be men!! Stop defining yourself by having as many women as you can get! Get and stay married! Stop having cavalier and casual sex! If she is good enough to have sex with..she should be good enough to marry! Stop hopping from bed post to bed post! Care more for your women then that,then and only then can you begin to love yourselves! Love your children enough to STAY and marry their mother! At the very least, make the effort! It is NOT all just about YOU!!Black women…stop having sex and children by no good black men whose morals and committment are in question!! Being a single parent is no joke! This decision creates generations of disadvantaged children who often have a difficult life ahead of them! Instead of admiring and getting involved with a “player” select a family man instead! Much credit in all races should be given to a family man. He is one to be admired, for he has put his wife, and children before himself. Black people, understand this and work on getting it RIGHT!!!
By Laura
September 4, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this
Van, your ignorance and moral uncertainty are both hilarious. What Craig did was wrong to you but only because he chose a public bathroom as his venue? If he had gone to a discreet motel it would have been fine? I just want to be clear because that seems to be what you are saying. Also, you are missing the point of the Craig episode. The point is to have quick, anonymous sex between connecting flights. No time to go to a motel and no desire to “get to know” someone well enough to. Duh! This is widely practiced by men across the country. I have a friend who works at Hartsfield Jackson and he says this is a huge problem there. My husband and I stopped at a gas station once in Cordele, GA and my husband said the bathroom was totally grafittied with stuff about “meet me here” for gay lovin. I have no problem with gay men or homosexuality. I am a live and let live kind of person. But I am smart enough to know that if you shame people about something and make laws against it and tell them that they are dirty and wrong, they still won’t stop doing it. They will just get married and put on the appearance of being “normal” and then they will get their ya-yas out on the sly with male prostitutes and anonymous folks in bathrooms. You can supress a sexual behavior only so much. If you make abortion illegal and start putting people in jail for having children out of wedlock then you will bring back the back alley butcher abortionist. People aren’t going to stop having sex but if you make them feel that they can’t or shouldn’t have sex then that’s where things get truly dangerous. When will people learn? The sexual revolution has happened. I am afraid you can’t stuff the genie back in the bottle.
By time to slice and dice all treasonous cut and run liberal scum
September 4, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this
@ snivelling MoRoN rod …
Your cowardly, utterly unprovoked hate - which predicktably all the verminous leftist yellowbellied hypocrites sullenly ignore - whilst as deranged as ever is hilariously just as factually flawed as always. I simply cannot be a “pig” bubbaqueerturd … because happily my mother NEVER met your deadbeat child molesting pappy!!
“Debbies pimp” …. LMFAO … now that’s a funny id!! Must be difficult though living off your share of 50 cent tricks? The best birth control for men, women and rabid possums anywhere is a nakkkid pikkkture of crackpipe debbieturd!! Any chance of you seriously b iiiitch slapping this black racist far left cut and run b iiiitch for the rest of us normal non pinko scum in America?? YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE!!
I see the brimming with liberal hate poster child for the immediate return of the electric chair FOR ALL LIBERALS has puked up again @ 9.41. Just yet another typical shrill unhinged far leftist queer raging incoherently about suddenly finding out its got AIDS.
This queeralicious nutter’s junkie mammy should have been much more careful at the homotraitor’s sperm bank. Drinking on the job wasn’t a great idea!!
huge spit on ALL liberals smirk
By tiff
September 4, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this
Having children out of wed-lock is not the problem. Giving the people who have kids out of wed-lock welfare is a problem. You can’t dictate what people do in their bedrooms, those are moral issues. But when the system pays for their actions that is the real injustice to everyone. I have said time and again, this system was set up to keep people on welfare, besides if they get married these things will be taking away from them. We have all seen from the likes of people such as Senator Craig, President Bush, Gonzales, Cheney etc. you can’t give people morals. They either have them or they don’t.
By @@
September 4, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this
Oh chit! I can’t believe that Senator Craig’s adventures in the toilet have entered this discussion on out-of-wedlock children.
I don’t believe that Craig was looking for marriage in the bathroom and there was absolutely no possibility that the encounter would produce children.
Too funny!
By Carolyn
September 4, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this
Wooten is correct to distract the blog from police stings. Fatherless children is one symptom of the moral decay that accompanies aging capitalist societies, but it should never be a litmus test for who’s worthy to advance the discussion. Good ideas can come from imperfect people.
The solution itself to fatherless children is the problem itself. When we discuss poverty and divorce we point fingers and we think we can out-soundbite each other. We actually think we’ve advanced the discussion by humiliating others.
There is a solution out there, but it’s complex and requires in-depth analysis of mined data across a spectrum of socio-cultural demographics. The solution will require local involvement of community leaders and schools and churches in a united program where individual egos give way to the needs of the impoverished, disenfranchised, and fatherless children.
Finding deadbeat dads is the first step. Cant find a dead beat dad? Give him a parking place! Next to the expectant mom’s. Instead of a stork, the sign would have a picture of a guy in a leisure suit going into a gambling casino. No deadbeat dad could resist a parking place so close to the store. You could have orphans with faded polaroids hanging around the sign going, “Pa? Is..that you..Pa?”
By Barbara
September 4, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this
Mid-South Philospher is correct, why should the taxpayers continue to support irresponsible adults that know where children come from? If someone is living off the government, then the government has a right to stop them from pro-creating. It also doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize when you can’t afford to have children. Our Federal government started this trend with the welfare program. It can be fixed, and it doesn’t take a lot of “educating” people about where babies come from.
By Cyndi
September 4, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this
I have not received one single dime of court ordered child support for well over 16 years. My ex put everything in his girlfriend’s/wife’s/flavor of the month’s name, worked part-time, or for cash under the table, etc. He even tried to fake his own suicide, but didn’t leave a body……..just to get out of paying for a child he helped bring into the world. He has since gone on and created 4 more children with 3 more women…….
One man, 5 kids, 4 single moms, and none of them receive any support from this guy.
I choose not to rely on the government and took matters into my own hands. I worked my butt off in order to buy us house. I worked my butt off to keep my house. I worked my butt off to pay for everything my child and I need. I still work my butt off to support us, in our second home. Now I’m trying to put money away for college, and let me tell you how hard that is.
I went to the court numerous times, gave them all the information they needed to track him down, and they did nothing, absolutely NOTHING. So I basically gave up, and realized I had to do it myself. I also realized I’m alot stronger than I thought I was. Big lesson learned……!!! I’m just glad we only had one kid together!!!
By Adam
September 4, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this
Whatever the subject of the day happens to be, we can always expect the Libs to rant in every other direction rather than debate the actual issue. Today is no exception. We have Debbie, Stef, Laura and others all in a huff about evil white men, gay bathroom sex, anything but the subject of parental responsibility.
Thomas Sowell has a great thought in his column today that fits our Liberal bloggers perfectly: - One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people’s motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans— anything except reason.
By jct
September 4, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this
Isn’t out of wedlock children multi-prong issue?
If you get pregnant before completing educational requirements to successful attain solid job prospects you more than likely will remain in a state of poverty. Even if the father is present. What has the father done to make the family less poor?
If a grown woman of 37 has a baby without the benefits of marriage but has successful completed educational pursuits and makes above the median income would that be a problem?
The family in #2 would not be thrown into poverty if the father was not in the picture. How would the situation improve in #1 if the parents are teenagers?
Fatherhood and poverty don’t always correlate in my mind. I believe that you can find statistics to back up any argument.
I believe the point should be that fathers are very important in the development of their childrens’ lives. Even though my parents were divorced I always saw my Dad and could call him whenever I wanted. He paid child support.
Waiting to have children until you are better able to financially support them should be the mantra. If you are still living with your parents, you should not be becoming a parent as well.
Lastly, women have to choose carefully who they partner with. If you create a child with a half stepping man, he will become a half stepping father.
That is the only thing that women has complete control over is who she chooses to have babies with. Make sure that you chose a man who will be a father to his children.
This way there should also be less welfare.
By Carolyn
September 4, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this
Where do babies come from….you know they’ve never actually filmed the moment of conception that two people must do to accomplish a baby….the camera always drifts away to the seashore, or a train going through a tunnel, etc.
I propose we select a cameraman to actually film the coitus un-interruptus that would theoretically be necessary to accomplish the moment of conception that would lead to an impoverished, abandoned orphan and entitlement sponge.
By ConvervativeDem
September 4, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this
I know women have been taught if you have unprotected sex you will get pregnant. Why are women so stupid they will have unprotected sex, have a baby, and want someone else to pay for their decision. You women who have been having a tough time…good! All of you should have a tought time. If you depend on the male and the government to support you or this child you brought into this world thru your stupidity then your level of stupidity has risen expotentially. Remember it is your body!! You screamed that for abortion rights. You got them so take care of your own decisions.
By @@
September 4, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this
My best advice to the future of women and their children:
When you go to the “produce” stand, don’t select the “root vegetables”. As the old saying goes…
You can’t get blood (money) out of a turnip.
By Nikita
September 4, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this
Man, am I tired of the “marriage cures poverty” meme. Marriage, in fact, tends to occur less in poverty — that doesn’t mean it has anything to do with causing or curing poverty.
Now, if we want to cure poverty, we need to concentrate on helping people delay childbearing until they are capable of supporting the children they bear. Statistically speaking there is a proven link between the age at which one has kids and how one does economically — so let’s back those statistics up with policies that encourage positive behavior.
By Carolyn
September 4, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this
You know something? Adams RIGHT! The Neocons are going to listen no matter how we rant and bellow and act out. Their going to make it illegal to have straight sex no matter what we do. Well, you all can listen to the Right advance their Aztec ideas about sacrificing babies to the porcelain god in anonymous sac(remental) ceremonies and everything, but I am not going to sit here and listen to them bad-mouth the missionary position that my uncle taught me. I say we have a love-in like in the 60’s !!!
Whose with me? Lets do it!
By JJ
September 4, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this
Lastly, women have to choose carefully who they partner with. If you create a child with a half stepping man, he will become a half stepping father.
Why is it always up to the woman? Why don’t men take more responsibility? If you don’t want kids, then be a man, and use a condom!!! Don’t expect the woman to provide the birth control. Take responsibility for YOURSELF!!!
Man up and be responsible!!!
By Fed Up
September 4, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this
I wish the welfare system was better managed. It seems all people want to do is leave there home country and come here without a job then be the 1st one on line at the welfare office. These people are adding to the growing nbrs of the out of wedlock families. I know a lot of women that are raising their kids alone and are living above the poverty line. Not all of us mothers are poor. Give us a damn break! Too many of us make babies with worthless no good men and the only ones that suffer are the kids. Women need to me a lot smarter in chosing who they bed down with and start usisng birth controll more. For god’s sake you can get it free at the health clinic if you wanted to, but you don’t because you are too lazy and as long as there is welfare, why not. If you’re making $7.00hr, why are you having 3,4, 5 kids. It’s irresponsible and reckless to put yourself out there and MEDICAID will pay to have your tubes tied. I see women with 5 kids all with different dads. What are we teaching our sons & daughters. I wish black women especially would have more pride in herself as woman to teach our children to be better adults. I feel sorry for the generations to come because they have nothing to look forward to in chosing a mate! s
By Van
September 4, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this
Over the years and across cultures, the out-of-wedlock stigma has changed.
Once called a b*******, that was too cruel, in the 60’s and 70’s, it became a “love child”. I guess things change.
If an un-married woman had a little bundle of joy, in the old days, she had choices. Placing the child for adoption, having the child or going to a state the allowed abortion.
In my high school days, if a young girl got pregnant, she disappeared for a period of time. She did not stay in school, she went to relatives or a home for unwed mothers.
There was a stigma attached to the mother and child, a sense of shame and dishonor. Today, who cares. In our permissive society, no one is responsible and no one is at fault.
Babies having babies is common and not the exception. I have seen day care centers in high schools and I just shake my head in wonderment.
Is there no self respect anymore? Is the swinging lifestyle of the 70’s reached its peak - yet? Sex outside of marriage was not spoken of in polite society, at one time, now, it is understood in most cases. Today we think it odd if a couple does not live together before marriage. If they marry at all.
While in todays society, women are much less inhibited than in my day, with that freedom to explore comes greater responsibility, same for the men. From this persons viewpoint, it appears, that responsibility is missing. Freedom without responsibility is chaos.
By SusieHomeMaker
September 4, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this
Converative Dem: You are shrilling; not speaking.
Adam: The women you listed have been talking about the subject; what they’re saying is “you always want to go after the woman, why not try going after the man; he’s responsible too”. You, unfortuantely, have preferred not to listen, or to hear only what you wish to hear.
By @@
September 4, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this
OMG, Political Foreskin a/k/a Carolyn is having a “sexual identity” crisis. Can’t decide whether he’s male or female.
Sorry Jim, these liberals are “hooters”. I’m laughing so hard tears are coming to my eyes.
Let’s do it!
Political Foreskin wants to bury his head in a crack. Any crack will do for PoliFore.
Boob man or butt man.
My apologies Jim. I’ll go back and read Mitt’s Rule #1.
By ron
September 4, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this
Cindi,you’re right,that’s how it’s done.It doesn’t matter if you’re single or married,you put your head down and you work.One day at a time,one dollar at a time.Whatever comes up, you deal with it.No whining,no running to welfare,just do it.In the end,look back to see if it’s was worth it.I hope for your sake it will be.
By DebbieDoRight
September 4, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this
Why is it always up to the woman? Why don’t men take more responsibility? If you don’t want kids, then be a man, and use a condom!!! Don’t expect the woman to provide the birth control
Or better yet — If a man doesn’t want any children, EVER, then he should go down to his local friendly doctor and get it snipped. That way he can insure he will never have a child. Why depend on some fickle, hormonal woman? Take the “appendage” into his own hands and just do the dang thing!!!
Just think if twisted’s dad would’ve just spent 30 minutes in the doctor’s office how much stupidness he could’ve saved the world from…
By Fred Warren
September 4, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this
Wooten wrote a well argued column about entitlements. We need to lower taxes, and eliminate wasteful spending.
But just when we thought the Right would crack down on pork, they “wood” their cracks down on porcelain.
Curses, fooled again by the porn-again evangelists.
By Truths Sister
September 4, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this
Has anyone seen my dear brother/sister lately? It’s time for his weekly hormone shots, (he’s changing into she/it, sheit); and if sheit doesn’t have it it turns into a mad raving lunatic. Ooops too late, I see sheit’s posted its mad filth allready. Sorry folks; sheit’s been a little “sheitty” lately.
By Lily Toad
September 4, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this
Marriage is not the answer. If the man doesn’t work then the woman ends up supporting him and the child(ren) and there is no lifting her out of poverty. If the man is not in the picture there is a reason — they didn’t want to get married. Many young girls want a baby to have something of their own. I don’t agree with this approach, but it’s one reason they have babies without a husband. What if the man is a drug abuser or violent or abuses children? Should the mother still marry him. I don’t think all men are guilty of the scenarios I’m pointing out, but let’s get real.
By jct
September 4, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this
@ JJ
I am not sure if you comprehended my meaning. During dating/selecting both parties should be looking at compatibility, tradition, values, whatever ‘it’ is that make people get together.
During this process, I see too many women covering up for flaws in their ‘men’ just to have a man. I have seen women from all different types of races, ethincities and socio-economic backgrounds do this.
I believe in birth control for men. In an ideal world, both parties would be equally responsible. However, I was not referring to men but the grown males who are running trying to look like men but not behaving like men.
Since women are the ones who get pregnant and raise the child, why not choose to partner with a man who will be a father to his child.
When I was a young lass I used to shrill the same statement. Wisdom has shown me that since in this circumstance there is not true equality then it is up to me (woman) to look out for my best interest.
That best interest is not having children with half stepping men who don’t support nor nuture their children.
By lets all larrrrrf at peeping tom!!!
September 4, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this
Nice to see that the execrable, should have been hung drawn and quartered peeping tom’s first cretinous thought is of its genetic and intellectual conservative betters.
The imbecilic brainless doltishness of peeing, should that be peeping tom’s pathetic, playing rabid leftist possum attempt to ‘vitiate’ the UNDENIABLE decades old effects of black w horishness and the utterly shameful 70% illegitimate/b astard rate amongst ebonics spoutin’ hippety hop knuckle draggers which spawns the horrendous black crime rate - now overwhelmingly responsible for a 49% murder rate of blacks (mostly “capped” by other blacks) is enormously amusing.
Its as if peeping tom knows the HARSH UNDENOIABLE TRUTH and like all rabid dishonestly lioberals seeks to minimise it and undermine its horrendous, ever present murderous sociopathic impact!!
FACTS DONT LIE PEEPING TOM!!
scum sucking scumbuckets like U need to STFU and stop lying/glosisng over the fact thta ist blacks - and blacks alone who are NOW responsible for their criminal, gimme gimme racial spoils behaviour!!! Aided and abetted of course by racist, cynical liberal vote buying supercilious bigoted uncaring vermin!!
By harold
September 4, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this
aint nobodys business but the momma and the baby momma unless grammaw has to tkae the kid and then it her bidness. it sure aint conservative old white mens bidness. everybody know you dont have no babys by gettin it on with the dude in teh next stall
By GeorgiaNoMore
September 4, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this
Folks…read Margery Eagan’s article in the Boston Herald called “No More Overlooking Negligent Procreation”. “Twenty-seven years ago, Candace Lightner founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to change attitudes about drunken driving from the stuff of comedy to the stuff of shame. Somebody should found Mothers About Raising Children Honorably (MARCH) to change our nonchalant attitudes about women bringing children into the world when they have no ability to raise them and no intention of learning how… But this is not just a black problem. Just months ago I covered a murder in mainly white South Boston. The family of the dead man repeatedly called him “a great family man” even though he had three children under 4 with two women. The obvious contradiction - you can’t be a great family man with two different families - apparently occurred to no one.” Let’s get back to basics. We need to start requiring a father’s name on birth certificates. That name should be used to recover child support money. As a taxpayer, I am sick of supporting baby-making factories of any color by offering them incentives to producing multiple offspring, like Section 8, WIC, and food stamps. Let us also stop glamorizing unwed celebrity births. Angelina Jolie is no saint in my book - 4 kids and a responsible daddy for now, but what happens when Brad Pitt flies the coop? Bridget Moynahan having Tom Brady’s baby…do we think he’ll even be a small part of that baby’s life? Again from Margery Eagan: “This is not an argument for shotgun weddings or abstinence or aborting every unplanned pregnancy. Birth controls fail. Accidents happen. And this is not meant to dump just on women, who don’t get pregnant alone. But men won’t fix this mess. This is an argument for changing the status quo: to stop acting like it’s just fine for women - black, white, poor, rich - to bear children with no expectation that fathers even show up and no wherewithal to keep those children safe.” Well said.
By Fred Warren
September 4, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this
Okay, let’s get real. You cant legislate sex. People are going to party no matter what. Any laws that creep into the bedroom are unenforceable jury nullification bait.
Besides, just when we thought the Right would crack down on pork, they “wood” their cracks down on porcelain.
By harold
September 4, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this
so anyway marriage reduces poverty, but not nearly as much as a male gay partnership. they got more money than anybody. and the coupled childless are pretty well to do as well. it seems that breeding induces poverty. those with children struggle to pay the bills. those without children retire 15 years early and travel teh world. most folk are never gonna amount to much, and neither are their children, so stop the cycle of wastefulness. dont have children! parents oooh and aaah when their babies stop p** the floor, but harold oohs and aaahs that nobody p** on harolds floor at all!
By GeorgiaNoMore
September 4, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this
Folks…read Margery Eagan’s article in the Boston Herald called “No More Overlooking Negligent Procreation”. “Twenty-seven years ago, Candace Lightner founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to change attitudes about drunken driving from the stuff of comedy to the stuff of shame. Somebody should found Mothers About Raising Children Honorably (MARCH) to change our nonchalant attitudes about women bringing children into the world when they have no ability to raise them and no intention of learning how… But this is not just a black problem. Just months ago I covered a murder in mainly white South Boston. The family of the dead man repeatedly called him “a great family man” even though he had three children under 4 with two women. The obvious contradiction - you can’t be a great family man with two different families - apparently occurred to no one.” Let’s get back to basics. We need to start requiring a father’s name on birth certificates. That name should be used to recover child support money. As a taxpayer, I am sick of supporting baby-making factories of any color by offering them incentives to producing multiple offspring, like Section 8, WIC, and food stamps. Let us also stop glamorizing unwed celebrity births. Angelina Jolie is no saint in my book - 4 kids and a responsible daddy for now, but what happens when Brad Pitt flies the coop? Bridget Moynahan having Tom Brady’s baby…do we think he’ll even be a small part of that baby’s life? Again from Margery Eagan: “This is not an argument for shotgun weddings or abstinence or aborting every unplanned pregnancy. Birth controls fail. Accidents happen. And this is not meant to dump just on women, who don’t get pregnant alone. But men won’t fix this mess. This is an argument for changing the status quo: to stop acting like it’s just fine for women - black, white, poor, rich - to bear children with no expectation that fathers even show up and no wherewithal to keep those children safe.” Well said.
By Fred Warren
September 4, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this
New Definition of Irony: Just when we thought the Right would crack down on pork, they “wood” their cracks down on porcelain.
By harodl
September 4, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this
that MADD ho is only railing against teh drinking. never not once has MADD suggested people use the subway to go to the bar and get plasterd. if they want to end drunk driving, they need to end driving. people have alwasy got drunk and always will, but driving everywhere is a fatal fad that shall pass hoepfully soon
By Curious Observer
September 4, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this
Thank you, TFTT. I feel vindicated, except for the absence of any mention of Mexicans in your rant. Perhaps you intend to address that subject in a separate rant—er, post.
By Fred Warren
September 4, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this
Just when we thought the porn-again evangelical right would crack down on pork, they “wood” their cracks down on porcelain.
By JK
September 4, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this
Mr. Wooten, can you produce any statistics on divorced (married when the children were born) non-custodial parents who refuse, for whatever reason, to pay their court-ordered child support regularly and in full? I was just wondering, because I hear so many divorced women AND men who have custody say they don’t get a dime or a lick of help, or if they do, it’s rare at best.
Do you have those numbers, or did you just feel like whipping people like Van into a “Sl—s are bad, ‘cause they never gave ME any” frenzy today?
By Fred Warren
September 4, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this
Just when we thought the porn-again right would crack down on their pork, they “wood” their cracks down on porcelain.
Is anyone as disappointed in that development inside the beltway as I am? What’s up with that? I mean, whose the spin wizard who came up with that idea?
Like take the war. What is war good for? Absolutely Mutton! That’s right, the pricof lamb and government goat cheese has decreased since the war started allowing us to feed the fatherless orphans for less.
Now doesn’t the left feel silly they squawked about the little ol’ police action in a country that nobody can even spell or find on a map?
By Staceye
September 4, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this
dawggonetruth If we had some fair Judges it would be better, if a dad works he pays out almost all his check to his babies momma’s and he aint got nothing for his self. That is his problem for making all those babies in the first place. No one put a gun to his head. If you don’t want to pay…then don’t play! Don’t go out in the rain without a raincoat and not expect to get wet! I do not feel sorry for that type of man.
Now I do agree that I takes two and I think a woman should think long and hard before having a baby, because she makes the final decision as to if there will be a baby. Can this guy be trusted as a good father and provider for his child? I also think if you do not see yourslef married to him..why have a child from him. Stop putting the cart before the horse. Get married first and get your finances in order. It is not fair to that child to suffer because dad’s a deadbeat and mom didn’t think her decision all the way through beyond, “I’m pregnant and the baby will be cute & little”! What’s next? That baby needs to have shelter, food and clothes. God forbid he/she gets sick…oh yeah rely on the taxpayers to pay for your kid! How responsible is that? I understand the urge to be a parent…but do it the correct way…even if you have to wait until you are 40 to have a baby. Stop letting yourselves be baby mamas and baby daddies and give that child a stable healthy enviroment where they are not wondering where their next meal is coming from or why they suddenly have no power when the rest of the block does! WAIT…EDUCATE…AND DO NOT RELY ON THE STATE AFTER YOU PROCREATE! now if you are a single woman making a great income and you want to be a mother but can not seem to find a suitable mate…morally it’s not on the up and up because a child needs a father…not a trifling one though. But at least you will not be relying on the taxpayers to pay for your kid…by all means! But those women who have a baby by a no good man and then expects the state to track him down to make him pay for his baby..well, was teh stae involved when you made that baby with that man? No! So why do you expect them to bend over backwards to help you? THINK BEFORE YOU MOVE PEOPLE!!!!
Redneck Convert you need 2 things…first and education because you can not spell to save your life. I’d rather have an out-of-wedlock baby than an illiterate one. And second, you need help. That comment is why Yankees think that southerners are ignorant. I am a Yankee, but I do not feel that way because I know it’s not where you are from, but how you are raised. And it’s obvious you were raised in the back woods of Ignorant-Ville, USA!
Fedup I cosign on your post. You are so right! These men are trife and these women are as well.
By tomb
September 4, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this
Its time we started referring to the babies born out of wedlock by their legal name, b*******. When you ask the young mother, “How is your little b******* doing?”, or “What’s the little b*******’s name”, others might take the hint.
By jbmlaw
September 4, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this
Good morning all, hope all had a pleasant holiday. If one wishes to shape the outcome of a debate, certainly one tactic to employ is “pre-emptive disqualification” of all arguments opposed to the desired result. There is little unique about the covert “divorced billionaire dad” commentary, in attempting to marginalize the contribution of another intelligent being. How many times have we heard the same