Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2008 > December > 08 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USYes, marriage matters to nurturing of children
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
There can be no dispute that a society fully committed to the well-being of children would not condone a cultural trend that causes 71 percent of African-American, 50 percent of Hispanic and 28 percent of white babies — those born out of wedlock — to enter life disadvantaged.
And yet we do. Such is the society that uses the suffering of abandoned and neglected children as a marketing tool to create and expand social programs, but does nothing to discourage adults from the no-commitments lifestyle choices that bring them misery. We make heroes of those who sue government to build a better foster care system and bestow high esteem on those who advocate “for children.” But almost nobody in a prominent position in public life utters a peep to condemn adults for the irresponsible behaviors that initiate their suffering.
Why? Because fixing government is easy. Fixing us isn’t.
We really aren’t a nation committed to children’s welfare. We’re a nation committed to non-judgmentalism in adult lifestyle choices, even when the evidence is conclusive that some of those choices are ravaging a generation of children.
Robin Fretwell Wilson, a professor specializing in Family Law and Health Law at Washington and Lee University School of Law in Lexington, Va., spoke at the recent Georgia Supreme Court summit on Children, Marriage and Family Law.
Her analysis of research studies should put to rest all questions about what’s best for children. In virtually every study, weighing every variable — family structure, age, income, race, education — the evidence is overwhelming that children do better in families where married adults are rearing their biological children.
One exception noted by Wilson goes to the time and the warmth adults invest in children. Adoptive parents “invest more [of themselves] in adoptive children, on average, than biological parents do in their children,” she found, though those findings are preliminary, based on the small number of empirical studies.
Wilson was adopted as a child and that “has impacted my thinking quite a lot,” she said later. “I am one of the luckiest people on the planet. I think it gives me a perspective into the debate about ‘living with two biological parents in a married family is the best arrangement.’ ” Adoption “shows that adults can be bound to children and protective of them,” she said.
“But what distinguishes adoptees from kids in boyfriend households that are fraught with peril for some kids is that both adults are committing to the child, permanently, for good, and with identical connections to the child. And they mean to be connected to the child, not just to one another.”
With that possible one facet exception, “Marriage tends to instill and bring along with it certain rational benefits for the adults, like permanence, commitment and even sexual fidelity, which redound to the benefit of children in the household,” she wrote in the study: “Evaluating Marriage: Does Marriage Matter to the Nurturing of Children.”
A primary problem with other adult relationships involving children is that they’re premised on impermanence. Cohabiting adults intentionally decline to commit. The evidence she cites is that only 10 percent of adults who live together and don’t subsequently marry are still together after five years, while 80 percent of first marriages survive at least that long.
For children of co-habitants, parting is often the beginning of a life of instability as biological parents move in and out of relationships.
Worse, of course, are adults who casually create life without any intention of marrying or living together, giving children “diaper daddies” who think their fatherhood obligations are met if they occasionally drop off a pack of disposable diapers and a drug-store toy with the mother.
Adults can fantasize that alternatives to marriage are satisfactory for children. That is the self-centeredness of the age.
The research is in.
If we really are a nation concerned about protecting children, we’ll change the national conversation. We can try to build the perfect safety net, yes, the foster homes, the loving adoptive parents, the school system that salvages the daddy-deprived. But more urgently, we need to change the culture that has devalued marriage.
Permalink | Comments (128) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
Services »
Comments
By Redneck Convert
December 9, 2008 8:06 AM | Link to this
Well, I might of knowed the Lord wouldn’t let Captain Freedom just fade away. All my prayers have been answered. I was mighty thankful to hear from him again yesterday but I worryed for a minute the Rapture done come and I got Left Behind. Then I realized he was such a godly Conservative he got took up straight to Heaven without any wait. And to top it off he made his trip in a Ford F-450 just like the one I drive. Anyhow, I think he’s wrong about Sister Dusty’s heart being shriveled up and shrunk like a raisin. She don’t mean nothing by some of the mean things she says, it’s just the cheap wine talking. I got to admit I was suprized to learn God needed a PC to handle his job but it all makes sense when you consider he has to look after 3 billion people and all the prayers and ride herd on all the preachers that can’t keep their hands off of the boys and girls. Even God don’t have the memory to handle all that without some help from a machine.
Now to Wooten’s topic of the day. The problem we have is too many people doing You Know What before they get marryed. It’s this Sex Education that causes it all. People just got to try out things they learn. If we can stop people from learning about it and make the teachers stop talking about it we won’t have all these b*rd kids. It can all be a big suprize on the wedding night. Course, there will always be a few people that learn about it by axident and we need to snip them to make sure we don’t get a bunch of welfare kids when they go and try it out and live in Sin. We can start to fix the problem by shutting down all these Planned Parenthood clinics. Then we can do some snipping in the places where Those People live. And then we can stop paying welfare to all the women that have b*rd kids and we can save alot on taxes at the same time. That’s the godly Conservative fix for the problem and it all makes sense. It all comes down to cutting taxes sooner or later. Even the capital gains tax that Raghead keeps harping about. Anyhow, if you are going to be immoral you need to do it in politics or business or something like that, not in the bedroom.
That’s my opinion and it’s very true. Anyhow, I’m all in a pickle about what to get the missus for a Christmas present. I got my eye on one of the new fangled mops that are so good they make women throw their old mop out of the house and hire bands and send flowers to get back in, but they sure cost alot. Maybe I’ll spot something else at WalMart when I go to buy a new pair of white socks before my monthly bath this weekend. Have a good day everybody.
By Ragnar Danneskjöld
December 9, 2008 8:07 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. When I signed up for Chief Justice Sears’s “summit” last month, all I was looking for was a reasonably interesting CLE; I got my money’s worth. Ms. Wilson is pretty dynamic, and she was the first lecturer, set the tone for the conference. Our genial host covers her arguments well, so I’ll fill in some of the fringe areas.
For all I know, Ms. Wilson is not a religious person, or at least she does not wear it on her shoulder. Stylistically she strikes me as a second generation “feminist” (if I may use that term without conveying any opprobrium), maybe as Sarah Palin, although far differently – maybe more like Camille Paglia, but with a different agenda. She has a fast mind, and deep – knows her material thoroughly. One senses that a lunchtime conversation would be enlightening, and ultimately exhausting. But she is, if nothing else, persuasive. Not that I required a lot of persuading – I went to the seminar believing permanent two-parent homes, with one of each sex, provide the optimal child-rearing environment. However I am also contrarian enough that I look for holes in even those arguments I favor – I found none in Mrs. Wilson’s demonstration. And the ALI people better watch out, she is taking names and kicking rear ends.
By Captain Freedom's Immortal Soul
December 9, 2008 8:08 AM | Link to this
Greetings from the other side, Wooteneers! Tis your old friend THE Captain reporting in His incorporeal form from the Right Side of the Pearly Gates.
THE Captain’s departure from your mortal coil was, typically, monumental. THE Captain’s F-450 was purring away in His closed garage, and the Damned Demon of Detroit Democrats siezed up, leaving THE Captain short of His great reward, but well past the point of permanent brain damage. THE Captain’s Merciful God swooped in to remove THE Captain to a better place (picture a sort of Rapture for One) where He is reporting to you mere mortals on God’s Own Internet connection. (The answer to the burning theological inquiry this raises is clear: PC and AOL. God is not real swift with newfangled technical thingamabobs, and really can’t stand that Steve Jobs fellow.)
Anyway, it turns out that the Big Guy has been watching over THE Captain all along, just like the Good Book promised, counting every grain of sand and saving hair that fell. All the good work performed by THE Captain in defense of Right Thinking True Belief has been rewarded with an aisle seat in Heaven and a very cushy position at the Lord’s Right Hand. Why, God has even forgiven THE Captain’s failure to stave off the victory of Obamandingo. (Apparently it has something to do with Revelations and a Mark of the Beast that can be found high on Obama’s left thigh. Our Lord has a New Lewinsky on the case to bring this to public light. I’ve seen the storyboards, and this Rapture thing is going to be HUGE. The Lord is getting ready to call Michael Bay, Ridley Scott and George Lucas home to work on pre- and post-production. And Heath Ledger is already working on a topper to his Joker role. Boffo!
And guess what else, Wooteneers!! God has agreed to allow THE Captain to post dispatches from the City of Gold every now and again. It seems that old Yahweh has a soft spot for THE Captain, and tells Him that He is the “son he wished he had”. It truly is sad to see a Supreme Being of such advanced years suffering the wastrelry of his only Begotten Child, but it seems the plan went awry because of that Mary chick and what with Jesse letting himself get nailed to a plank like that. Yeah, we call him Jesse now, because he thinks that Jesus just sounds soooo s**-y, and he has sort of fallen in with the White Supremacist crowd, even though he looks a bit miscegenated, if you ask THE Captain.
Anyway, Jesse is a typical rebellious teenager (it seems God-years are like dog years in reverse, which has an internal logic that ought to make guys like Dawkins really crazy) what with the secret meth labs and sneaking down to earth to party with Britney Lynn Palin and the Spears sisters and what not. So, old Yahweh (that’s what his pals call him) has taken a shine to old THE Captain.
It certainly does THE Captain’s heart good (well, it is more of a warm feeling in that place where a heart would be if THE Captain still had a corporeal vessel, the lack of which makes typing a challenge and explains why He {THE Captain} has taken so long to get in touch) to know that the Right Thinking posters have fond memories of THE Captain. Why just yesterday, God looked into Sister Dusty’s heart (which he really hates doing, what with it being so pinched and shriveled) and found that she is pining away after THE Captain. Oh yeah, and drinking a lot more than before, poor wretch.
But…Yah is a bit peeved at the lack of official respect afforded THE Captain by the AJC poobahs, especially that ingrate Wooten. Even God could see that THE Captain carried this pathetic little board on His broad shoulders all this time, and the lack of formal recognition and respect has God itching to smite someone but good. He wanted to take down this Ragnar guy just to make an example of him, especially over the Randtard’s placing other gods before Our Lord. Yah wants you to know that Ayn Rand was a skeevy skank who has been sent to scrub the floor of Satan’s home porn entertainment theatre, and lemme tell ya, devil spooge is some seriously sticky stuff, and there is plenty of it. THE Captain joined Yah over there one night for cards and it is very sick scene. But the Big Guy needs to blow steam every now and then and he feels that Old Scratch is the only one around who “really gets him”.
Anyway, God tried to read Atlas Shrugged once and flung it against the wall after about 120 pages, declaring it “the worst cr@p since I took out that moron Milton.” God does not suffer his literary fools gladly.
Anyway, THE Captain needs to sign off now, as Yah needs to check his Facebook and MySpace pages (he says it’s quicker and more effective than prayer and divine revelations to communicate with his flock), so He (THE Captain) will get straight to the point. Wooten is to arrange to have THE Captain’s posts — all of them — collected and published in chronological order, in hard back edition first, to be followed by a trade paper and then pocket edition release. THE Captain suggested that Wooten’s replies to THE Captain also be included. Upon review, God discovered that Wooten’s jealous heart had kept his response rate very low, which God suggest is in the book’s (and the readers’) favor, so he agreed. Wooten is to make this happen with all speed, lest God proceed with an especially nasty smiting that he has had in the pocket for Wooten since that little incident in 1954 (you know the one, Jim). But you better get cracking. THE Captain’s influence with Our Creator is limited, after all, and he might just tee off on you any time. Word to the wise, Wooten…stay clear of Cynthia Tucker McKinney. She is one of Yah’s most powerful and trusted Earthbound agents. Nuff said.
Well, THE Captain really has to go now because the Big Guy is impatiently tapping his feet, and that can cause floods and earthquakes in those countries where he placed all the not-white people. But be of Good Cheer, True Believers. THE Captain is back. Sort of.
PS - One last bit of “insider” baseball. Yah thinks Sarah Plain is “totally hot” and he would “totally do her in a second if she was still a virgin”. It seems Yah is really strict about that point.
By Ragnar Danneskjöld
December 9, 2008 8:16 AM | Link to this
Wish to underscore Jim’s thesis here: “We really aren’t a nation committed to children’s welfare. We’re a nation committed to non-judgmentalism in adult lifestyle choices, even when the evidence is conclusive that some of those choices are ravaging a generation of children.” That nails it.
By Bo Chambliss LOBBYIST
December 9, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this
The Democrats lost any hope of getting to 60 in the Senate last week when Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss won his reelection runoff in Georgia. Even if Al Franken manages to overtake Republican Sen. Norm Coleman in the ongoing Minnesota recount, the Democrats can’t do better than 59.
But that doesn’t mean they’ll forever be victim to Republican filibusters.
While the Democrats and the two independents who caucus with them can’t get 60 votes on cloture by themselves, they’ll likely be able to do so on some votes by peeling off sympathetic Republicans.
The two moderate Maine senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, are prime targets on virtually every major issue the Obama administration and Senate Democrats plan to pursue in the new year. Collins is comfortable, having just won reelection. Snowe is up for her third term in 2010.
Ohio’s George Voinovich and Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter, Republicans in states that went blue in 2008, are also up for reelection in 2010 and could be ripe for persuasion on certain issues.
On the other hand, the Democrats could see defections from Southern senators in red states: Blanche L. Lincoln and Mark Pryor in Arkansas, Mary L. Landrieu in Louisiana and Mark Warner in Virginia.
The path to 60 is all about the math. On a few key issues, here’s how it breaks down.
For Big Labor, no issue is more important than card check.
If the Employee Free Choice Act becomes law, the process to unionize a workplace would be made easier for union organizers if they could persuade a majority of employees to sign cards saying that they support the effort. As it stands, workers now must first win the right to hold an election and then go on to win that election. In the meantime, labor advocates charge, management undertakes a campaign to intimidate workers into voting no.
Business interests and the Senate Republican Conference are vehemently opposed, saying that secret ballot elections allow workers to express their true feelings without union organizer intimidation. In tough economic times, increased unionization, business argues, would lead to greater unemployment and slower job growth.
Specter faces a likely primary challenge in 2010 from the right and then a general election opponent — possibly MSNBC host Chris Matthews — to his left. He’s been a supporter of card check in the past, and labor hopes he’ll be the 59th vote — or the 60th if Franken wins. Without Franken, Democrats might gun for George Voinovich of Ohio, a state with a deep manufacturing base that’s been trending blue.
Meanwhile, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart, deeply anti-union, will be working hard on its home-state senators, Lincoln and Pryor. Warner, Virginia’s incoming Democrat senator, isn’t a close labor ally and is a former business owner — a vote Democrats will watch closely.
The Lieberman-Warner climate change bill has effectively lost both of its sponsors. Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), who gave the bill a bright bipartisan sheen, retired. Meanwhile, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut who still caucuses with Democrats, was stripped of his global warming subcommittee chairmanship.
A previous iteration of the bill, however, offers a glimpse of the way forward. Recall the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act of 2003. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will return to the Senate looking for a place to make his mark, and climate change could be his spot.
Democrats loaded the bill with goodies for the coal industry last term, ensuring the support of coal-state Democrats. After McCain, look for Specter, Collins and Snowe as the best GOP bets to get to 60.
GOP senators got a preview of the health care debate this summer when the party blocked an attempt by Democrats to extend Medicare benefits that were set to expire.
Republicans went home to blistering ads taped by doctors and seniors threatening to bolt for Democrats. When they returned to Washington, nine senators switched their votes. Republican Sens. Specter, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Bob Corker of Tennessee, and John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas were among them. Collins, Snowe and Voinovich were yeas both times.
The herd of vote-switchers was driven by a dramatic reappearance of a lion in the chamber. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) returned to cast a crucial vote. Kennedy plans to lead the health care pride again this session; an office just off the Senate floor is being renovated so the ailing senator will have easy access to the floor.
By Shawny
December 9, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this
Your most accurate statement is, “We really aren’t a nation committed to children’s welfare. We’re a nation committed to non-judgmentalism in adult lifestyle choices…”
Liberals are more concerned with giving adults what they want vs. giving children what they need. Children need support, influence, care, guidance, etc. from both a mom and a dad. Any less, and they are shorted. Not that a same sex couple couldn’t give them love, guidance, and the attention they deserve, but it simply isn’t the same without role models from each gender. Forget the argument of what is natural and what is not.
It isn’t about the adults’ rights, but it is about the children’s needs.
By HIDT
December 9, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this
And men need to again teach their sons that physical and verbal abuse is disgraceful and among the worst things men can do.
By Southern Democrat
December 9, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this
Not government’s role.
By ron
December 9, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this
I have always taken that which is preached by Robin Fretwell Wilson and our genial host as a given;that in fact children are much better off in a home with two married adults.We have long needed to get past this arguement and get to where we decide how to mend this problem.
Deciding to get married ,stay married,and raise children who will be an asset to society requires a total commitment that a great number of people find daunting,to say the least.In a home such as I had,where there was a steady income,it was relitively easy as compared to a home where the income kept the cupboards bare,the rent in arrears and no place to take a sick child for care.
We as a nation,need to focus our attention on the couples that are married,making sure they are going to survive.We need to ease the burdens of married couples to the point where it is pointless not to be married.We need to discriminate heavily againt people who are not married and actively engaged in the raising of their offspring.
People need three basics to survive;A job that pays a living wage,a place to live and decent healthcare system that they can afford.I had that when I raised my children and we all survived.Had I not had these basics I hesitate to think what might have happened.
By Churchill's MOM
December 9, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this
The rest of the world cannot understand how after bitter election campaigns, American politicians can return to reality. For Instance Sarah Palin has invited to her great state of Alaska the men who defeated her, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. She has provided a moose hunting trip for their enjoyment and has hired two other prominent men to assist them. Dick Cheney will instruct them in safe gun handling and Ted Kennedy will drive them back to their cabins in the evening..
What a gal; that Sarah is such a sport and thinks of everything!
By Blognostibator
December 9, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this
Is non-judgementalism the new conservatism?
Ragnar, you put us to sleep in your second paragraph. Quit postulating. There are plenty of pustules on this blog already. You’re better than that. (opporobrium contrarian, and never start a sentence with a preposition)
Ever.
Jims piece is worse. Worse, it’s worse than Ragnar’s. A Worsted Yarn Spun. It looks like worst finally did come to worst.
Now look, I’ve seen the best. I’ve seen the worst. I’ve been worsted by the best. I’ve been bested by the worst.
I’ve never seen a more trite explanation of the social ills confronting our country today. Everyone knows it’s about sex-ed in the schools.
But the uber-christian conservatives would rather spread an unjustified war than teach children what the hell a tinky is for.
I’ve seen monkeys in a zoo with more rational approaches to sex education, (and better writing skills).
Perhaps the term “biological parents” best illustrates how seriously we take sex-education. Every kid in the country knows that term. Yet they dont understand what it means any more than I understood what a “virgin mary” was in catholic elementary school.
Thanx to the conserative media’s scandalously detailed and perniciously persistent popularization of Clinton’s adultery, every kid in the country knows what a Lewinski is. They dont consider it sex. On school buses everyday all across the country, elementary and middle school children make oral sex references in their daily trash talk so vital to learning where they fit in the hierarchy of cool. You can thank Wooten’s ilk for that.
A school course called Sex Education that could be available to all middle school children is essential to preventing biological children from becoming biological parents.
Biological Parents indeed. I remember when my daughter used that term to diffrentiate her friend’s parents. “You see, Daddy, he’s not Sasha’s biological father, he’s her step father.”
“Biological father?” I couldn’t wait for this explanation….
“Yeah, you know, the father who was her real daddy when she was born, you know, biological….”
“But you’re only four. What are you talking about?”
“Can I go over to Cliff’s house now?”
Sigh. “Yes.”
“Will you take me to Toys R US first?”
“What for? You’re not getting another barbie doll, forget it.”
“I dont want another barbie doll, I just want to look at stuff”.
“Okay, but no barbie doll”.
On the way home from ToysRUs: “You may not open the packaging on that new barbie doll”.
“I’m not”. (rip, tear).
“Jennifer Rachael, do not open that barbie doll till we get home….”
“I’m not”. We pull into the drive way, the barbie doll in on the floor of the car’s backseat, disrobed, her cool accesories strewn everywhere. My daughter leaves the car, and the barbie, like a dozen times before.
“What about your barbie doll?”
“I’m sick of it”.
“but we just got home…Jennifer!!!” Jennifer Rachael runs towards Cliff’s house at full speed.
Parenting 101: everything becomes a bribe.
By Blognostibator
December 9, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
If Jim Wooten writes one more piece suggesting African Americans are the leading cause of our social ills…….
I’ll bet he’s opened 15 pieces this year alone with that out data showing African Americans in the lead for broken homes, ruined marriages, and frustrated moms.
Empower the women. Educate them. Let them know the real odds of getting pregnant during sex. Teach them the most effective methods of birth control. Introduce this subject early in elementary school and continue to pound home the message in middle and high school, as persistently as we teach them about the bible in science classes and history classes. (and math).
If not, we’re finished.
By Davo
December 9, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this
“There can be no dispute that a society fully committed to the well-being of children would not condone a cultural trend that causes 71 percent of African-American, 50 percent of Hispanic and 28 percent of white babies — those born out of wedlock — to enter life disadvantaged.”
….Creationism?
By Churchhill hisowndangself
December 9, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this
What mama forgot to tell you is that the creek Kennedy is going to drive them over is pretty shallow, but overrun with hungry grizzlies.
By Poodles-R-Dogs-Too
December 9, 2008 9:37 AM | Link to this
The solution to the BAST$RD BIRTH problem is the coat hanger, or its modern equivalent, RU-486. Woodenhead wants to stick men with the cost of raising unwanted little BAST$RDS just so he and his fat cat pals can pay slighly lowerer capital gains taxes. The logic goes like this: if a man has children to support, he will have to obtain regular employment at whatever wages the fatcats offer, and stay in that job till he drops dead. All for five minutes of pleasure between the thighs of some fat girl seeking the glitzy lifestyle. Do ya remember those penny candy machines, where you stick a penny in and get a piece of hard candy back? Well, we should require any and all retail stores and gas station to have such machines, but instead of candy, ya git a RU-486 pill. As a side note, even as a five year old, I figured out how to rob those machines. The old lady had taken all four of her children to a mom and pop store, and while she distracted the owners, I put a piece of paper in one such machine instead of a penny. The machine gave candy as fast as I could turn the handle….yum yum….No, I didn’t share with the other three….
By Poodles-R-Dogs-Too
December 9, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
Churchhill was a little fat toad of a coward…the other boys beat the crap out of him at school and used him as their butt boy….he never actually engaged in combat himself, just spoke bravely about other people doing the dying at his command….he was kicked out of office as soon as the Russians defeated the Germans….
By Poodles-R-Dogs-Too
December 9, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this
Note to Teddy the swimmer: Mary Jo is waiting for you at the gates of he@ll….Something about murder most foul….
By tcoach
December 9, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this
Technically it is against ethical code for an educator to give an opinion one way or another on the bible in science class.
They are permitted and in some districts required to teach creationism, yet it is not christian creationism. Only the alternative to evolution.
So I doubt that the bible is used as much in school as you make it out to be @ 9:32
By Poodles-R-Dogs-Too
December 9, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this
Ya know those bibles in hotel rooms? ah always open them, urinate between the pages, and put it back where ah found it….
By Poodles-R-Dogs-Too
December 9, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this
As soon as I check into mah room at the hotel, I turn on the hot water in the shower, and leave it running till I check out, thus solving the dry air problem, and running up the energy costs of the hotel. he he ha ha….
By Poodles-R-Dogs-Too
December 9, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this
BREAKING: Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff John Harris were arrested today by FBI agents on federal corruption charges.
WE GOT SOME CROOKED GOVERNORS HERE IN GEORGIA THAT NEED ARRESTING…..CURRENT AND EX…RIGHT ROY, YOU STINKING CROOK, IMHO?
By Voltaire
December 9, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this
We have redefined morality and lost all sense of shame. It is now regarded as acceptable to have children out of wedlock and for the unrelated sexes to live together without benefit of matrimony. We see, for example, obituaries that mention survivors as “her life-long partner” or “his devoted, long-time friend, Norma,” and we accept that as a norm. Even otherwise staid people accept that as morally acceptable.
Can we really, then, place blame on the parents of children born outside marriage? We have enabled it. It is a little late to be concerned about the consequences of our cultural norms, isn’t it?
By Poodles-R-Dogs-Too
December 9, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this
Indeed Voltaire, there is always soylent Green….the veal version….
By ron
December 9, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this
Dear Blognostibator @9:32——-Hammer the message home to all young people,daily if necessary and have birth control readily available.To anyone harping that that only teaches promiscuity I say not to worry,promiscuity is not a teachable trait,it is an acquired taste.
By Marvin Hamlisch
December 9, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this
Do you ever wonder what sparks pofo’s mania? I do.
By Ragnar Danneskjöld
December 9, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
Dear Southern @ 9:19, while you are correct so far as you go – “not government’s role” - perhaps you do not go far enough. As with almost every other social problem, government actions are causative of the social deterioration. Government arrogates to itself the role of “marriage grantor” and thus places itself into the exclusive position of “child protector.” (I acknowledge the implicit argument, that marriage is irrelevant without progeny.) While this was a function that belonged to the Church during other eras, we are a secular world, and must deal with the world in which we live.
Do you conceive nothing government does that weakens the institution of marriage? Another speaker at Justice Sears’s conference argued that three legislative trends weaken the institution – (a) ease of entry into the relationship (this culture’s new absence of pre-marital legal standards or legal requirements); (b) ease of termination of the relationship (mostly no-fault divorce); and (c) loosening definition of the relationship (mostly pointing at homosexual marriage there.) By any objective standard, those trends, broadly with government blessing (whether legislative or activist-judicial) have an adverse effect on the stability of the institution. Our friend Voltaire @ 10:07 seemingly embraces this point.
The most striking portion of Ms. Wilson’s presentation arose in her “child abuse statistics.” The correlation of child abuse to unmarried cohabitation was striking, and thereafter multiplied when the cohabitation featured presence of a non-parental male.
By BS Aplenty
December 9, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this
ONE of the biggest differences I see between those in the conservative camp and those in the liberal one, maybe the quintessential difference, is revealed through Mr. Wooten’s essay: liberals believe in a form of unsustainable personal freedom underwritten by society while conservatives believe in a personal freedom limited only by ones’ personal responsibility to society. Marriage is but one of the areas where this difference manifests itself - it is a place where freedom meets personal responsibility.
Clearly, conservatives will embrace the structure of marriage as an extension of their personal responsiblity. The irresponsible legion in the liberal camp, however, would naturally dismiss it as intrusive to their freedom to whatever. Calling conservatives “religious zealots attempting to impose their beliefs” is simply a smoke screen to divert the personal responsibility inherent in marriage. No need for your neighbor to pay for your personal freedom when you assume responsiblity for them yourself.
This is the telling difference between conservatives, many, though not all, of whom are religious, or at a minimum, moral, and amoral liberals who demand their neighbor underwrite any lifestyle they desire.
the poor performance of many groups would be lifted with the added assistance of two committed spouses.
Chalk it up to the
By Poodles-R-Dogs-Too
December 9, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this
We eat baby cows, don’t we?
By Simple Answers
December 9, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this
Q: Do the serial marriages/adulteries of stalwart GOPers like Gingrich, Giuliani, Reagan, McCain, and Thompson — coupled with their trash heap dismissals of ex-wives as worthless damaged goods — indicate a heightened sense of morality and commitment to family values? Do the antics of diaper wearing, public restroom toe-tapping GOP legislators demonstrate the inherent moral superiority of White Christian Conservative Men?
A: If you are BS Aplenty, yes, yes, they do!! “Clearly, conservatives will embrace the structure of marriage as an extension of their personal responsiblity.” (nice spelling, there BS)
This has been another episode of Simple Answers.
By Vini vidi vici
December 9, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this
And, we have a nice roast suckling pig.
By tcoach
December 9, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this
We aslo eat adult cows are you saying we should begin slaughtering adults as well?
By Blognostibator
December 9, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
Wooten feels strongly as a christian about contrasting the very black president of ours and his family commitment with other black’s less committed lifestyles so that he may begin to undermine the new administration. Wooten and his 71% of broken homes are black homes! The truth here is that millions more white children are from broken homes than all the poor little black babies combined broken and unbroken homes.
But more about Wooten: aren’t we all glad that he’s a christian, because then he will have no grounds for appeal on judgement day. You know many sinners gain heaven on appeal: they didn’t know, nobody told them, they found out too late, and you cant teach old dogs new tricks, The jews really did cause world war one and the armistice and the ruinous inflation in germany during the twenties. the ethiopians needed killin. The european’s battle tactics in 1200AD were so inferior that pillaging was inevitable anyway, why blame me?. one woman can have only one BFF….
But not Wooten. No, wooten is a town crier for conservative christian family values, and thus held to strict theological dogma. There can exists no avenue for appeal on judgement day. If it quacks like an evangelist preacher…..
The greatest prayer Christ ever offered was, “Father, forgive them…”
It’s really the ultimate prayer said for all 100 billion souls ever born, (estimated by the same data base from which Wooten drew his 71% of orphans-R-black nonsense). I would bet that Wooten’s home library includes that anthropologist’s research book about the sceintific basis of racism. He was the author who mined all that skull circumference data about cranial capacity to prove that blacks are inferior a few decades ago.
I’ll go ‘head and write Wooten’s editorial for tomorrow: “Did I mention that 71 percent of all fatherless children are black? Worse, their median cranial circumference is less than whites by two standard deviations. We have a black president, but clearly he’s the exception that proves the rule. All of our social ills can be traced to 71 percent of all black children born so. clearly. “
By Poodles-R-Dogs-Too
December 9, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this
Roast FatCat is a favorite of mine…main course is roast leg of a adult fat cat, desert is whole baby veal…..circumsized veal, of course….
By BS Aplenty
December 9, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this
Simpleton
Perfection is the greatest enemy of good enough.
This, then, is the answer to your simple-minded assertion that because people divorce marriage has no value. My argument, that you clearly missed, is that marriage is a structure embraced by conservatives because it promotes personally responsibility - amoung other things. It may not be the only structure to promote personal responsibility but, according to the data, it provides a much better outcome for children - not a perfect one.
If the black, hispanic and, to a lesser extent, white communities do not require my support for their personal cohabitation choices, then I’m far less likely to disagree with their behavior - or yours. Unfortunately, as Mr. Wooten points out, many of the ills in thes communities can be attributed to their failure to marry expecially in the black community.
Just ax a black woman.
By tcoach
December 9, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this
Don’t you worry about the old saying you are what you eat, this could have disasterous effects on your psychy.
By Poodles-R-Dogs-Too
December 9, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this
We otta bring back women as chattel….children too….outlaw marriage, but make ownership paraMount…as in the first to mount the B@@ch owns it fer life…
By Gator Joe
December 9, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this
Wooten: I agree, we are not a nation that is committed to the well-being of children, though I disagree with your point that we are a nation non-judgemental of lifestyles. You are living proof. So, according to you, if all children were born in wedlock, then they would all grow up healthy and well adjusted. This is typical of simple-minded, conservative thinking. Divorce, disfunctional families, households where both parents must work for the family to survive, a broken, underfunded public education system (see: GA), are just as important as your traditional marraige arguments. If children are raised by adults who love them (and demonstrate it), care for them and provide for their well-being they usually grow up just fine.
PS I guess you are opposed to responsible, loving, caring, gay couples raising children?
By Peter
December 9, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this
Jim as per usual you have almost nothing important to say……and it is piled with crap.
In today’s topic you miss a really BIG ISSUE with Marriage…….. so you never really get to a reasonable point.
Over 50% of marriage’s END IN DIVORCE !
That would include white folks Jim.
So how anyone even discuss this topic without mentioning these facts…plus the fact…….. more White rich folks the Corporate types, are divorcing their older wife for the fresh new thing.
Another of your statements that is total crap……..”Because fixing government is easy. Fixing us isn’t”.
When have you, or anyone for that matter said…….. Fixing Government is EASY ??????
Are we fixing Rich folks who have enough money to get divorced ?
The bottom line is REPUBLICAN’S have been VERY hurtful to children, especially POOR Children.
They have increased Military spending, spent like drunken sailor saving Corporate America….. but CUT education spending, after school programs, and have Cut out The Boys and Girls Clubs of America !
Tell the Truth JIM……it is not about the Minorities……. it is about how Republican’s have Treated ALL Children.
Education about birth control is another issue you don’t bring up….probably because Republican’s don’t believe in EDUCATION !
As if “teaching Abstinence” really works?
ESPECIALLY in today’s Sex driven Advertisement world….. the psychology of George Bush……
Remember get your Rebate check and spend it !
By they way Fixing government was easy this last election…….Look at the RESULTS !
By Guaaag
December 9, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this
Yeah, remember how in Quest for Fire when the women were drinking at the stream, the men would sneak up behind and “claim,” them. Maybe your idea could work like that.
By Dusty
December 9, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this
For goodness sake, Captain Freedom is back which has the same pleasure as the return of gout, leprosy, tenia pedis and tapeworm. Just no end of the fun.
But, let us skip the trivia (Cap’n & RedNeck) and start with the vital vimness here. Jim Wooten has once again given the call for sound marriage as the bedrock of raising healthy and happy children. Why this would be shocking or insulting to anyone is a mystery to me. It is such an ordinary human experience where wholesome love and dual directions of concern bring obvious results.
Of course there are examples where other forms of childcare are successful but Jim gives us statistics. Statistics are not always accurate but even if the numbers might vary, they present an obvious truth. Children fare better in a home of married parents. Marriage adds an element of family cohesiveness that is more effective than promises of the moment. Children understand what “Daddy” means much better than “live-in, partner, boyfriend, roomie, etc.” Daddy means he is theirs and they can count on him.
Well, let me get back to the comics before I get busy i.e. Cap’n & RedNeck. Their length is impressive (too long) and their knowledge of things religious is inescapable (voodoo). That is, you can try to escape the insignificance of their attitudes but pity arises at their impromptu postings of pusillanimous pretensions. It is enough to drive a person to “drink”(which means Manichevitz at my house).
Unfortunately I am out of that wonderful wine and it’s accompanying fruitcake.
If Captain insists on his septic resurgences then I may have to purchase something to imbibe. As ‘tis said, A loaf of bread, a jug of wine and thy “posts” besides me may lead to hard drinking.
Welcome back, Cap’n, and may your visit be like Santa’s..one drop-in a year.
By Blognostibator
December 9, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this
Wooten doesn’t really come to a conclusion. The logic leaves one to conclude that social moray heels are necessary to dictate behavior tyrannically, and that morality is not intrinsic to popular culture. Wooten would have us believe that socio-political evolution should be hamstrung by lame-duck bible belt legislation (tied to pork). How many times will Wooten use the same circular logic that would convince anyone that antebellum slaves were responsible for their own predicament?
If our social ills are so easily delineated with their cause and effect so easily determined then Wooten is surely an anthropological Einstein, and dont just stand there, give that man a prize.
By tcoach
December 9, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this
Peter, You missed this important statistic though -A primary problem with other adult relationships involving children is that they’re premised on impermanence. Cohabiting adults intentionally decline to commit. The evidence she cites is that only 10 percent of adults who live together and don’t subsequently marry are still together after five years, while 80 percent of first marriages survive at least that long.
That is way higher than 50%. Also the first 5 years are th most important.
I will take 50% over 10% any day of teh week.
By Blognostibator
December 9, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this
Quest for Fire? Do you think any of those cavegirls drinking at the stream so obliviously have any older sisters for me?
By Blognostibator
December 9, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this
Premised on impermanence.
I am the Blognosticator. I let my mind travel to the future where I see things you in the present can only dream of in the past.
I Blog. I prognosticate. I watch porn. I am the Blognostibator.
Today’s prediction: Trolls.
Well, that’s my show for today, remember that I know all. I see all. I am the blognostibator.
By Tucks pads
December 9, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this
tenia pedis? Does that have anything to do with genitalia?
By One Voice
December 9, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this
As a teacher and doc student in Educational Psychology, my response is ‘duh’. The research didn’t just come in. It’s been in for a while now. Two (real) parent households, even if those two parents are adoptive gay parents, are far better than single parent households in terms of childrens’ development. We’ve known this for a long time. The question is, in a free society, how do you force parents to do the right thing? Wooten is writing about things that are already widely known. The hard part is ensuring there are more dual parent households, and we don’t know how to do that.
By Dusty
December 9, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this
Tucks pads @ 12:19
When you get a PEDICURE I hope you get it in the right place. If not, move to the foot of the class. You may have pediculosis instead of tenia pedis.
By Brad
December 9, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this
There is no telling what goes on in politics - Chicago style. The media never investigates anything Democrats do - especially those from Chicago. Usually it’s some liberal DNC news ferret that beats the FBI to the punch when a Republican is involved. I wonder why that is?
CHICAGO – Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested on Tuesday on charges that he brazenly conspired to sell or trade the U.S. Senate seat left vacant by President-elect Barack Obama to the highest bidder.
Blagojevich also was charged with illegally threatening to withhold state assistance to Tribune Co., the owner of the Chicago Tribune, in the sale of Wrigley Field, according to a federal criminal complaint. In return for state assistance, Blagojevich allegedly wanted members of the paper’s editorial board who had been critical of him fired.
A 76-page FBI affidavit said the 51-year-old Democratic governor was intercepted on court-authorized wiretaps over the last month conspiring to sell or trade the vacant Senate seat for personal benefits for himself and his wife, Patti.
Let’s go ahead and get the lib moonbat comments out of the way now:
Oooo! Wiretaps! McBushie and the nazi neocons are behind this!!!
By Peter
December 9, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this
Hey tcoach…….I fell the issue is way more than that, and I don’t feel I am missing the point….what happens to children after 5 years of Marriage……most kids are less than 4 years old at that point…….then what for them ?
The issue starts with the LACK of SEX education, that seems not just to be about sex…….
Just like kids who are not taught Fiscal responsibility, say how to keep a checking account, or how to manage bills…..thus we have all this spending, credit card debt, and House Foreclosures !
We currently have a Republican administration who pushes personal spending as a way to keep the economy going, no matter if the spending is justified or not.
Remember get your Government rebate check and spend it…..the mantra of George Bush !
He didn’t say to save it for emergencies did he ?
We have the issue of SEX…but not just disease part, but the education of what happens to folks that become sexually active at a young age, and the responsibilities they take on when they become pregnant.
How it changes their entire life, from their personal, and of course form the children’s point of view.
Republican’s don’t want that education taught…….They say avoid sex Period…… a total Right wing Christian JOKE !
In today’s Sex driven Advertisement world, and in today’s movie, and TV program world where Sex sells……. Abstinence will NEVER work.
Education is really the only way to combat this problem.
You can talk about wanting to help children, but with the Policy’s of today’s Republican Party, all that talk is just Rhetoric.
Now tell me how cutting the funding of the Boys and Girls Club of America shows that Republican’s actually do care ?
Perhaps folks have become very cynical to the Institution of Marriage……..plus who says it is right or wrong for folks to get married ?
Freedom of choice is what we have in America……But on the same token, I am a BIG Proponent of having the Parents, especially the Fathers to take responsibility for the children they helped create.
All said I think Education is the way most issues are solved, and this is not something the Republicans recognize !
These are the points Jim fails to make……..and as USUAL, Republican’s really don’t have any REAL ANSWERS !
By Jim Jr
December 9, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this
Thanks – W – The President
Mission accomplished – Bush Recession. Soon to be Bush Depression.
You did a “Heck of a Job”
By Redneck Convert
December 9, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this
Well, I swear if I didn’t know better I would think Sister Dusty don’t like me.
Anyway, I’m taking a break from my lunch break to let everyone know that the godly Sen. Craig lost his appeal to withdraw his guilty plea. Let it be a lesson for everybody. If you are going to use a public bathroom keep your feet inside of the stall and don’t do no toe-tapping. And above all don’t reach outside of the stall to pick up anything.
I hope the rest of your day is better than poor Sen. Craig’s.
By c james
December 9, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this
Jim Wooten’s opinion doesn’t usually swing in my direction, but kudos to him for having the cahones to say what should be the topic of conversation in every household. Too long have we as a society talked the talk, but didn’t walk the walk.
There is certainly nothing wrong with being a single parent, if that’s what you have chosen, however, there’s something to be said for a little foresight into the overall consequences to bringing a child into the world without the proper resources to take care of him or her.
Also, as the uncle of 5 adopted nieces and nephews, I can attest to Professor Wilson’s noting that adoptive parents “invest more [of themselves] in adoptive children, on average, than biological parents do”. I see it in the (dare I say) excessive amount of time their parents (my siblings), spend with my nieces and nephews.
An adopted child is always a wanted child.
By Dee Dee
December 9, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this
I am not a fan of Jim Wooten and probably will not be anytime soon, but I have to agree with him on this article. We have become a society that devalues marriage and thinks it okay to have babies growing up without fathers. It is a sad commentary on our part as a people and it is something that can no longer be swept under the rug. We have raised a society of children without 2 parent loving families who don’t even know that the father belongs in the home. In the words of Marvin Gaye, “Save the babies”.
By Simple Answers
December 9, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this
Dee Dee,
Q: Would that be the same Marvin Gaye who was shot to death by his preacherman Daddy, who was still married to Marvin’s Mommy when he plugged Marvin full of holes?
A: Yes.
Ah, Simple Answers.
By Blognostibator
December 9, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this
Now, notice how Jim doesn’t make any conclusions. Ask not what his editorial did for black children, but what black children have done for his editorials.
What do I mean? Look at Wooten’s first sentence: “A family-friendly society wouldn’t condone family-challenged newborns.” But that’s not how he phrased it. He scrambled that sleepy observation with data points about black children, and diabolically hyperbolic (you paying attention, Mark Bradley?) syntactical choices.
The rest of his piece is formula prove-the-vague-premise crap.
Wooten, haven’t you persecuted skin color enough? Have you no sense of decency at long last? If your intention was to highlight the plight of some children then no misleading percentages would have been necessary.
Wooten is not so much tail gunner joe, as he is failed blogger schmoe.
By DB, Gwinnettian
December 9, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this
Instead of publishing the umpteenth post about how Those People need to stabilize their families, how about spending some time getting to know actual people who have attempted to adopt through the local county offices responsible for such things?
Just anecdotally, based on what I’ve head, it’s pretty awful here in GA—lots of buck-passing, red tape, and frustrated would-be parents.
(We had adopted a child while living in another state and everything went more or less like clockwork. Maybe we were just lucky.)
By tcoach
December 9, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this
Peter if there is seriously anyone out there who is unaware of how babies are made it is their own fault. There is sex ed in schools and no abstinence is not all that is taught. Most counties now have health clinics that provide condoms and even give birth control as long as the patient gets tested for stds each month, for free. That is offered in many counties across our state I know.
The importance of the 80% was that the developmental and as scientist agree the stage of most learning and development takes place during the 1st four years.
I think Mr. Wooten’s main point was that people need to quit having children out of wed-lock.
There are way to many ways of contraception available. So if you get pregnant or get someone pregnant the only person to blame is yourself and your partner.
Don’t blame it on the education system, it is taught they just do not listen.
Quit making excuses for the irresponsible and allow them to take responsibility for their own actions, both fathers and mothers. Not just mother, not just father and definitely not grandparents. Raise your own children, or do not complain about how others do.
By deegee
December 9, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this
You can say what you want about the effect of marriage on a child’s development, but drug and alcohol abuse is at the root of the problem. Ask any DFACS worker whether unmarried parents or addiction is the greater threat to a child’s welfare. The reason you can’t find more public officials speaking out against addiction is that too many of them are addicts themselves. Cocaine, alcohol and prescription medicine are abused widely on Wall Street, Hollywood, Washington DC, state and local government and in all levels of corporate America.
If you want a better life for our children, concentrate on ridding their parent’s lives of drugs and alcohol first. If you can do that then you won’t have to legislate marriage and morality.
By Peter
December 9, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this
Well tcoach you are the typical Republican with an excuse…….but your excuse makes zero sense in today’s world.
“I think Mr. Wooten’s main point was that people need to quit having children out of wed-lock.”
Well I agree with that point……..BUT teaching the psychology of what happens is what is needed.
I agree with you about the Irresponsible……hang the dead beats, send them to jail, but hey allot of folks don’t have a JOB…….but that is just Another Republican Issue !
Yes at 4 years old we all get taught how to balance our check book, to make wise financial, and moral decisions !
Yes at 4 years old we realize all the SEX on TV and in advertisement is just not real !
By Poodles-R-Dogs-Too
December 9, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this
well, fer once ah agree with tcoach…there are many videos on the internet on how babies are made using the recreational area between the thighs…ah could name a few sites, but ah fear mr censor would delete mah post and kick my ever so useful a* off this holy blog site. one such site can be found by putting the word fantasticc into a web address, if that ain’t givin too much away Mr. Censor…Ah have sure learned a lot from that website, much to mah wife’s added pleasure….though she is not pleased with the increased frequency of mah requests to try out new things…
By Southern Democrat
December 9, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this
Ragnar/Jbm,
Trying to prepare for a pre-trial conference, but wanted to say:
Surely you would agree that, to the government, marriage is merely a contract?
The opinions of Chief Justice Sears and Mr. Wooten are ones of morality, they should be freely given (and listened to) in churches, seminars, and homes across the country (and I certainly agree).
Your beloved Leviathan, however, has no business in meddling into the contractual relationships of 2 consenting persons of the age of majority absent signs of duress, enslavement, etc., etc.
Respectfully, unless you are playing Devil’s Advocate, your position today is inherently inconsistent with your desire to remove Leviathan from education.
Have a wonderful afternoon and I will spar with you anon.
By Single Mom
December 9, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this
Jim Wooten misses me when I’m not around. That’s why he posts on this subject so frequently. Bait to ease the marital boredom. It’s not that he CARES about our little ba—-rd children, it’s just that he thinks I’m beautiful when I’m angry. Blush… Yes, yes, I am.
Mr. Wooten, I hate to inform you of this A-G-A-I-N, but it’s not MY job to give you a good spanking (no matter how much you offer this time). It’s your wife’s job. Please stop this ruse, it’s older and more tired than your… well, I’ve said enough, and so have you.
By Blognostibator
December 9, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this
Alright, Tcoach, you brought it up, so I’ll bite: How are babies made?
You have the floor sir. I’ll assume you’re in your crib hangin’ wid da homies, so blood up, word down.
Just remember that I’m the blognostibator, and have exploited every page of the kama sutra like fifty times over, man, so dont be afraid you’ll shock me with graphic language.
Now, sir. just how are all deez babies made?
By PinkoNeoConLibertarian
December 9, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this
That’s easy Blogno…
First The Mommy eats lots of pickles and ice cream and gets really fat. Then The Daddy has to take her to the hospital to get her stomach pumped. On the way the nice Policeman gives The Daddy a ticket. At the hospital The Daddy gives The Dr. the ticket and gets The Baby for The Mommy.
By Dusty
December 9, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this
blognastibator,2:29
Would you cut out all the kindergarten stuff about how all deeze babies are made? This is not a blog for graphic language so take your salacious sex ed salivating elsewhere. Let me suggest the garbage dump.
It amazes me how some guys think having a dirty mouth is sexy when just the opposite is true. Nothing sezy or attractive about a dedicated dirtball.
By Glenn
December 9, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this
I dearly appreciate Mr. Wooten’s column right up to the point at which he declares, late in the game, that “The research is in.”
What? Like the parents have their own multibillion-dollar apology machine? Like the labor union ever would pay to bring blame upon itself?
Long before the United States ever achieved universal, compulsory, mass schooling — still the standard of children’s rights under the United Nations Charter on Human Rights — the People of the United States, in the Year 1800, were far more literate than they are today. So who, what, really is to blame for this immense stupefication?
By Dusty
December 9, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this
Pinko@2:48
Your reply to Blogo was better than mine. But I’m surprised. I thought the stork brought the “babees”.
By Dusty
December 9, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this
Dear Glenn, 2:56
Did you interview those Americans in 1800 to prove they were literate? Well, who did?
How many Americans at that time were born in this country?
By PinkoNeoConLibertarian
December 9, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this
Dusty @ 2:57.
They used to. But then PETA said that it was too much of a strain on the storks, and amounted to torture because Storks Have Feelings Too!
Thus, for want of a strong lobbying force they had to give up the job.
By Glenn
December 9, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
No, I did not do. President Jefferson’s guy, Pierre Samuel DuPont de Nemours did do, across this country, over the course of a year. The latter’s was this country’s first literacy survey. Mr. DuPont’s presidential finding: That “fewer than four in a thousand Americans” could not read the Holy Bible at the dinner table. That would be the King James translation. The King James.
How’s that for a standard of the People’s literacy? And how does that stack up to the literacy of today’s Georgians, Dusty?
By Blognostibator
December 9, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this
The stork is endangered. In fact it’s extinct. Why? Because of all those expectant mother parking places. People used them as bullseyes for target practice, and well, they got so used to shooting up those obnoxious, (and illegal) signs that once they got in the wild, they couldn’t resist shooting the real thing.
Nothing gets me angrier than expectant mother’s only parking places. Since when is pregnancy considered a medical condition? (I’m no doctor, but I play with myself when there’s porn on TV). And what about me? How about a parking place for dead beat dads? Instead of a stork, you could show a picture of a guy in a leisure suit walking into a gambling casino. Orphans with faded polaroids could be hanging around the sign going, “Paw? Is..that you, Paw?”
Moms: Cant find dead beat dads? Give them a parking place.
and what about still-horny dads? Why not a parking place for them? I mean, I’m no sex therapist, but I play with myself when there’s porn on TV.
I blog. I prognosticate. I watch porn.
I am the Blognostibator.
By AtlantaMom
December 9, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this
Oooh…guess what?! I am a black woman that co-habitated with my now husband for 3 years. We have great kids and have been married 8 years. Guess that doesn’t mix well with the numbers. Oh yeah, my mommy and daddy have been married 40 years and my hubby’s 38 years. All of my aunts and uncles have been married to the same person, so how do we get to 71% being born out of wedlock? I don’t believe that number one bit. All of my friends are married with kids and none of them are divorced. I am sick of reading this statistic.
Look at Hollywood and you’ll see that marriage is no longer valued in our society. When’s the last time a married couple had a baby? Oh, wait that black couple Will and Jada have been doing well for a long time! Ha! Shame on them for making us black folks looks normal.
I do agree that kids need to grow up with both parents. I don’t think the biological thing really matters though. Adopted kids do just fine. I know many. It’s not okay to choose to be a single parent regardless of how much money you have. It’s quite selfish. The only time I think it should ever be done is when adopting an older child that would otherwise grow up in foster homes. Other than that, find a spouse. Just my 2 cents!
By Couvade
December 9, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this
I’m black and feel sad that we hurt ourselves by depriving our children of fathers. Racism, economic difficulties, etc. do not change that essential truth.
By Dusty
December 9, 2008 3:31 PM | Link to this
Dear Glenn 3:13
I think if Pierre Samuel DuPont on horseback would do his survey today Georgia would look much better. That is.. if citizens were asked if they could read the internet or a voting machine or advertisements.
Now, if DuPont asked them if they could read the Bible, Georgia might not fare too well, judging from the number who attend church.
By the way, do you think citizens might have “stretched” the truth a bit to Pierre? I think he changed his “research” soon afterwards to making better house paint.
By SaveOurRepublic
December 9, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this
Although I often disagree with Neocon Wooten, I do agree with his take on this issue. In my estimation, the Globalist Elite have long sought the disintegration of the traditional family (& values). In order to dismantle the foundation of our Constitutional Republic, they must break down the family through a steady onslaught of propaganda (via “Hollyweird” & Madison Avenue).
Just have a look at TV commericals and modern sitcoms…constantly portraying the man/husband as a bumbling, incompetent idiot. This is all about destablizing traditional family roles and definition. It coincides with the humanism & moral relativism pushed through the Elite’s multiple indoctrination mechanisms.
*P.S.- I strongly recommend Dr.David Kupelian’s outstanding book “The Marketing of Evil” for much more insight.
By Dusty
December 9, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this
Blognostabator@3:22
Would you behave, PoFo?? I told you to keep it clean. Quit watching porno.
You’re an Obama man and he said Change!! So try it. You are getting down right creepy.
To set the record straight, the storks refused to deliver any more after they saw you. Who could blame them?
By Disgusted
December 9, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this
Just have a look at TV commericals and modern sitcoms…constantly portraying the man/husband as a bumbling, incompetent idiot. This is all about destablizing traditional family roles and definition.
Wrong—this is all about pleasing female viewers, who are the main audience for commercials and sitcoms. Males are easy targets, for they don’t complain about being stereotyped. Stereotype a female, however, and all h**l breaks loose.
By Cindy
December 9, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this
It takes a village to raise a child. The more loving, concerned adults involved in raising a child the better chances that child has of success. That said, what’s the point of the article? To insult somebody? Who? People who don’t have the luxury of an extended family or even a second parent? Typical conservativism; criticize the less fortunate, but do nothing to help.
By CJ
December 9, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this
I say that we should immediately vote on a constitutional amendment that PROHIBITS DIVORCE!!!
Since most of you straights want to deny gays the right to marry due to the children and religion, then by God, you should be stuck with each other no matter what - - for the children.
Enjoy!
By Jake
December 9, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this
Take those illegitimate birth rates times the overall birth rates and it’s clear the greatest social ill of our time is that the shallow end of the gene pool is reproducing much faster than the rest of us. Mandatory sterilization as a condition for receiving welfare would be a step in the right direction.
By SaveOurRepublic
December 9, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this
Disgusted @ 3:49 PM - You have it partially correct (regarding the double-standard of stereotyping). However, it’s far beyond just for “entertainment” purposes (as some Network Exec might claim). It’s a multi-fold goal for the Elite (who do indeed set the agenda)…1) downgrade the role, influence & standing of men (for quasi socialist gains) & 2) destabilize the traditional family & values to more quickly implement the long planned socialist dystopia. Don’t believe that?….it’s even being trumpeted in “mainstream” news (because they can’t “hide” it any more…thx to the internet…hence planned “Fairness Doctrine”-like regulations on the net).
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html
By SharonH
December 9, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this
Is it time for this standby once again? I can set my clock by you Mr. Wooten. Every 3 months or so you pull out the ole marriage is the savior of our society bit along with the obligatory statistics. Well guess what sir, I’ve been married for 18 years and your confidence in the value of marriage is waaaaay overrated. This is the greatest hubris on your part and clearly a reflection of your grand ego; that without a man, we women and children fall apart. Baloney!
By Poodles-R-Dogs-Too
December 9, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this
expectant mother parking places are not legally recognize handicap parking space yet, so no one can write you a legally enforceable parking ticket for parking in one….I know, I use them as my personal reserved up close parking space all the time, and I am a well preserved middle aged male. Only once did some woman object, and she shut up when I said “Let the fat girls walk a little futher, just gitting knocked up does not make them special.” Oh, the horror, the horror….
By Poodles-R-Dogs-Too
December 9, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this
It took a village Idiot to vote for Hilarity the Clown….
By Couvade
December 9, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this
Jake, I salute you for winning “Troll Comment of the Day.”
By Jake
December 9, 2008 4:19 PM | Link to this
Cindy - “luxury of a second parent” So that’s a luxury now, heh? I guess we could all help. There seems to be a fairly common theory that LBJ’s Great Society and the institution of welfare destroyed the nuclear family, especially for blacks, so perhaps we could all demand our legislators do away with welfare so the less fortunate would have to start marrying again to provide for their children!
By rhoda bascom
December 9, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this
Cindy, that’s nice liberal propaganda if you run for president and you’re looking for the idiot vote, but you can’t own it. The only “villages” I know of are in third-world countries and I don’t want to live there - don’t care how often they sweep out my mud hut.
Which one of your villagers wants to change my kids diaper at 1:00 AM, or clean up her vomit at 2:30 AM or stay at home on Friday when going out would be so much more fun. Who’s going to talk to them about God, sexual responsibility, marriage - you and your villagers? Which one of your villagers is going to pay for her dental care, car repairs, insurance - you? I doubt it. Your comments are grounded in an immature fantasy that doesn’t exist.
Take a visit to a real village and see if you want to live there.
By Dusty
December 9, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this
Cindy, 3:49
What is your problem? The only “unfortunates” named by Jim Wooten are children. That is whom he is trying to protect. He thinks it helps for the parents to be married as that usually brings a permanent caring home for children.
If there was any blame placed, it was done by statistics which Wooten did not make. He is working for a solution, one that will help children.
You are trying to place political blame when politics has little to do with marriage or otherwise. Why do you blame politics for failures by adults in concerns that affect their children?
By rhoda bascom
December 9, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this
Jake, thanks for those comments. I’m not sure which end of the gene pool needs to breed but hopefully it will be the responsible end !!
By Poodles-R-Dogs-Too
December 9, 2008 4:39 PM | Link to this
We Do Not Come in Peace……
By Matilda
December 9, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this
Rhoda, how selective of you to think only in the selfish future tense. Throughout the history of mankind, it was the “villages” whose residents participated in the well-being of the others that survived and thrived. “Family values” used to include multi-generational families and unmarried (gay?) aunts and unles who lived in the same home or in close proximity, all of whom contribued to the acquisition and preparation of food, and the care and welfare of the children. Neighbors helped out when hard times struck, knowing the others would be there for them too. They worshipped and celebrated together, feasted and starved together, and rejoiced in new life together, and mourned death together. Survival didn’t USED to have ugly conotations.
When did ‘LOVE THY NEIGHBOR’ become a tenet to spit upon? Did that occur when kitchen floors went linoleum? Do tell!
By Jake
December 9, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this
Couvade - I’m not trolling, I’m serious. Hey, it’s a ‘free’ society. I’m fine with that, have all the kids you want. But when you have to become a ward of the state and accept welfare to support your children, you’re no longer independently viable and you have to give up some of your freedom. Namely the right to have even more children other people will have to support. It’s no different than expecting the auto companies to make concessions in order to receive corporate welfare. It’s all about mandating responsible behavior from the irresponsible rather than encouraging even more irresponsible behavior. Now if you enjoy supporting other people’s children I have a duaghter entering college next Fall!!!
By rhoda bascom
December 9, 2008 4:53 PM | Link to this
Matilda, my questions still stand.
Your liberal agenda has little to do with the human village and oh-so-much-more to do with your fantasy liberal village. The one where you and your liberal villagers get to tell me how to raise MY children while I get the privilege of paying for it all.
That’s the only village you’re committed to.
By Glenn
December 9, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
You ask whether DuPont might have been fooled in his survey of American literacy. It’s true that he had to invent some survey methods, but he was, for all that, quite methodical. He prefaced his report to President Jefferson with a description of his methodology and of the trouble he took to cover the field. To me it the report seems pretty exhaustive. DuPont was, after all, a scientist, as was Jefferson.
That thing that Clark and Lewis were up to, at about the same time, was pretty cool too.
By Matlida
December 9, 2008 5:05 PM | Link to this
Rhoda, um, you’re WRONG! I’m not interested in telling you how to raise your children. Where would you get that idea? Do you just make stuff up all day? I would, however, be there if your child came to me hungry, scared, fleeing violence, etc., while you were busy working to put food on the table, or laid up in the hospital, or couldn’t be there for some reason.
As to what village I’m committed to, I’m an American, and I want American children to be safe, healthy, and educated. But I have no crystal ball, and therEfore have NO idea what the heck YOU care about, and won’t presume to state it here as if I did. Thanks for your charming perspective, though.
By Glenn
December 9, 2008 5:22 PM | Link to this
“We Do Not Come in Peace…”
Poodles,
Yours is my favorite post in a very long time. And as I recall, AmVet recalls the advent of the one-hit wonders, Klaatu…
By @@
December 9, 2008 5:26 PM | Link to this
Well Jim, there’s always the possibility that when the environmentalists began asking Americans to recycle, there were those that immediately thought of families. Problem is children are not “trash” regardless of what some may believe.
By Glenn
December 9, 2008 5:33 PM | Link to this
…and as an inveterate trash collector, I’m with @@…
(I mean, not with her, in reality, but with her in spirit…)
By rhoda bascom
December 9, 2008 5:34 PM | Link to this
Matilda, those notions of we’re all in this together are nice to ponder - theoretically. Just like welfare is nice to ponder - theoretically. But, the reality is that the more “village” you provide, the less responsible people will become. The political maxim is: you get more of what you subsidize.
The reality of advanced nations is the emphasis on personal responsibility. It’s why we’ve progressed economically. The “village” didn’t work for the Soviets, didn’t work for the Chinese nor on the Israeli kibbutz. Three failed experiments are enough to convince me - generally.
I don’t completely discount the notion of assistance to those in need but only temporarily and only to those who otherwise cannot support themselves. There’s a reason we respect the independent nature of people, those who’ve pulled themselves up “by the bootstraps” and a reason we secretly think less of people who need help. That kind of disdain, however misplace you may think it is, is precisely what makes people work harder, marry and otherwise become responsible.
Disdain. Word.
By Matilda
December 9, 2008 5:44 PM | Link to this
Rhoda, I don’t know where you got the idea that in order to help someone you have to do everything for them and demand nothing on their part. I suspect it’s from listening to too much AM radio, but I could be wrong. It may be true that a social safety net gone too far fosters inertia in its recipients. But that doesn’t mean that solving problems is a BAD thing. It means that finding a better way to solve problems is in order. Refusing to give a sh— does not fit that imperative. Letting children starve, or their illnesses go untreated, or their schools fail in order to punish their parents who perhaps are not raising their children the way YOU want them to, is not a solution in my opinion.
Baby. Bathwater. Word.
By Jake
December 9, 2008 5:44 PM | Link to this
Matilda - Rumor has it that at the first European village in this country, John Smith said, “those that don’t work, don’t eat”. As long as we all recognize there’s a big difference between those that can’t and those that prefer you provide for them, we’re not that far apart. Personally, I’m glad the people of the 9th ward that got on their roofs and just painted ‘help me’ signs, after they had an opportunity to evacuate, didn’t found this country. California wouldn’t have been discovered yet as they’d still be waiting for the buses to take them!
By Glenn
December 9, 2008 5:49 PM | Link to this
Um…
By Roger
December 9, 2008 5:49 PM | Link to this
Boy, I’ll bet those Ninth Warders evacuated (in their pants) when the Big Wind came through.
By Glenn
December 9, 2008 5:54 PM | Link to this
The “first European village” in, say, California predated the Ninth Ward.
By @@
December 9, 2008 6:10 PM | Link to this
Chicago’s Daily Herald - According to the court papers, Blagojevich sought to rescind $8 million in state funds awarded to the hospital because hospital CEO Patrick Magoon did not contribute $50,000 to the governor’s campaign war chest. Court papers say Blagojevich discussed taking the money back with an unnamed “deputy governor” Oct. 8.
“Children’s Memorial is very disappointed that the $8 million in Illinois funding that the pediatric providers of Illinois believed would enable them to care for Illinois’ neediest children has been tied to an alleged pay-to-play scheme,” read the statement from the hospital. “If such allegations are true, Children’s Memorial, pediatric physicians and the children of Illinois have been victimized.”
Blagojevich! Wasn’t PrezE OBlahMa a recipient of his generosity?
By Matilda
December 9, 2008 6:17 PM | Link to this
Jake, I actually agree with you on birth control mandates for those seeking public funds to support them. How about vasectomies for those fathers proven to have abandoned their offspring? This would help empower people to take care of the chidren they have. I also agree that those who can work, should work. That’s why education and opportunities are important. Too bad there are places in America with too little of both to go around.
You see, in a highly-competitive utopia, only those who WIN eat… but not everyone can win a race, a scholarship, or a big gub’mint contract like Hallicheney. I think there should be value in even the lesser jobs that benefit the community. Someone has to make the sandwiches and sweep up the confetti! Don’t they deserve to survive too?
Your comments about the ninth ward indicate that you truly have no concept of the poverty, ignorance, and lack of recources that exist in many pockets of our nation. It is those things of which I am ashamed, and those things I think we should work together to change. Let them drown? I just don’t think that’s right on any level. If you laughed at them while they drowned, well, there’s nothing left to say.
By Matilda
December 9, 2008 6:17 PM | Link to this
Jake, I actually agree with you on birth control mandates for those seeking public funds to support them. How about vasectomies for those fathers proven to have abandoned their offspring? This would help empower people to take care of the chidren they have. I also agree that those who can work, should work. That’s why education and opportunities are important. Too bad there are places in America with too little of both to go around.
You see, in a highly-competitive utopia, only those who WIN eat… but not everyone can win a race, a scholarship, or a big gub’mint contract like Hallicheney. I think there should be value in even the lesser jobs that benefit the community. Someone has to make the sandwiches and sweep up the confetti! Don’t they deserve to survive too?
Your comments about the ninth ward indicate that you truly have no concept of the poverty, ignorance, and lack of recources that exist in many pockets of our nation. It is those things of which I am ashamed, and those things I think we should work together to change. Let them drown? I just don’t think that’s right on any level. If you laughed at them while they drowned, well, there’s nothing left to say.
By Simple Answers
December 10, 2008 8:07 AM | Link to this
Q: Is Wooten’s column late today because he is struggling heroically to make a case that Blago’s arrest proves that Obama is the most corrupt politician since Julius Caesar?
A: Yes.
There, wasn’t that simple?
By God lova
December 10, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this
I agree with your statements and I truly admire your passion about the topic. I would have to say that marriage is no longer a priority in our country, neither is family. Of course we can blame the adults but I think what we have here is a cycle of parents who were raised in single parent homes and then raise children in single parent homes.
I think the media plays a big part in the decline of morality and the lack of values in our nation. I mean, when did homosexuality become the norm and when did it become okay to show sex scenes on local TV? Oprah proclaims to her millions of loyal viwers that she does not see the relevancy of marriage, surely she is viewed as the God of our society and her opinion truly does matter (Obama won).
You and I share the same passion but I guess the question that we should be asking now is what can we do to change the situation. As for me, I plan to make one dent by staying loyal and faithful to my marriage and honoring those sacred vows that I made, “til death do us part.”
By Nikita
December 10, 2008 8:58 AM | Link to this
Hey, there. Statistically-speaking, married for about 10 years, and raised by married parents now approaching their 40th anniversary. I also am someone who is appointed to speak for children who are in the foster care system, so I see and deal with many children who are disadvantaged, as well as their parents.
However, I take exception to the claim that this is all about liberals and their permissiveness. It’s about many, many things, but it is also about the conservative viewpoint, which prizes non-intervention until a child is abused or neglected and tends to make childbearing very attractive by pandering to family-related forms of spending. We as a society do not exercise a lot of control over people in general, and control over people’s bodies is one of the least socially permissible forms of control.
Also, the concentration on marriage is erroneous. Yes, children in marriages fare better. But they don’t fare better because their parents are married. Their parents are married because they have received the logistical and moral training to make them likely to seek marriage.
So, what would change this? Assuming that no one wants to abandon abused or neglected children to their parents’ sole discretion, it is desperately important that our educational system and our churches and other social authorities underscore the importance of waiting to bear children, and taking responsibility for them by building the structures (such as marriage) necessary to that task. Outcomes for children in all family types are much better if the mother is an adult, and the economic outlook of the parents is much better if they can postpone childbearing until their late 20s, obtain some post-secondary education, and get established in their careers. At that point both parents are more economically self-sufficient, more mature, and more stable. Obviously this would require better sex education, as well, since telling people what to do isn’t effective if you don’t explain how to do it.
By Courtney
December 10, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this
So do I think Marriage matters to the nuturing of a child. Yes I do. However staying in an abusive Marriage can tear a child apart. I recently took guardian ship of a child who is in need of a Father figure. His Mom want seem to leave his drunk, abusive Father. They have 3 out of control children that have never been disciplined properly and hate him and treat the Mom like Crap just as the Father does. I think she would of done them justice by getting out of the Marriage years ago. Now he is in our home and on a Schedule and living with his Baseball Coach. He is a very talented Athlete but his recent legal issues has gotten him kicked of the Football team at school. I have been married 14 years and though sometimes I would be easy to just divorce when having a bad day. I made a commitment when I decided to marry and that didn’t say that every day would be a Great Day but most relationships are what you make of them and raising kids as a team and with normal routines and a Strong Father figure for Boys especially can make a world of difference in a kids life. Lets remember the old saying of “100 years from now it will not matter what kind of Car I drove, or how big my House was or what I had in my Bank Account but what will matter is that I made a difference in the Life of a Child.” We Can’t fix the Parents they didn’t have the proper Morals taught to them at a young age so that means they don’t pass it down. We need to start trying to fix the kids of today because they are our future and everyone probably knows a child that could use help or a Mentor and I challenge each of you to spend some time helping others and trying to make a difference in a positive way in the life of a child.
By jongregory
December 10, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this
Children. Help them by encouraging Southern Baptists to reduce their record divorce rate(highest among xtian sects) and encourage Penteco$tals to marry before having children.
By jongregory
December 10, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this
Children. Help them by encouraging Southern Baptists to reduce their record divorce rate(highest among xtian sects) and encourage Penteco$tals to marry before having children.
By Ragnar Danneskjöld
December 10, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this
My favorite leftist, Camille Paglia, writes today on yesterday’s topic, but with a perspective I fully support:
“I may be an atheist, but I respect religion and certainly find it far more philosophically expansive and culturally sustaining than the me-me-me sense of foot-stamping entitlement projected by too many gay activists in the unlamented past. My position has always been (as in “No Law in the Arena” in my 1994 book, “Vamps & Tramps”) that government should get out of the marriage business. Marriage is a religious concept that should be defined and administered only by churches. The government, a secular entity, must institute and guarantee civil unions, open to both straight and gay couples and conferring full legal rights and benefits. Liberal heterosexuals who profess support for gay rights should be urged to publicly shun marriage and join gays in the civil union movement.” I may be an atheist, but I respect religion and certainly find it far more philosophically expansive and culturally sustaining than the me-me-me sense of foot-stamping entitlement projected by too many gay activists in the unlamented past. My position has always been (as in “No Law in the Arena” in my 1994 book, “Vamps & Tramps”) that government should get out of the marriage business. Marriage is a religious concept that should be defined and administered only by churches. The government, a secular entity, must institute and guarantee civil unions, open to both straight and gay couples and conferring full legal rights and benefits. Liberal heterosexuals who profess support for gay rights should be urged to publicly shun marriage and join gays in the civil union movement.”
By GaLiberal
December 10, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this
Moron Jim said: There can be no dispute that a society fully committed to the well-being of children would not condone a cultural trend that causes 71 percent of African-American, 50 percent of Hispanic and 28 percent of white babies — those born out of wedlock — to enter life disadvantaged.
And yet we do. Such is the society that uses the suffering of abandoned and neglected children as a marketing tool to create and expand social programs, but does nothing to discourage adults from the no-commitments lifestyle choices that bring them misery. We make heroes of those who sue government to build a better foster care system and bestow high esteem on those who advocate “for children.” But almost nobody in a prominent position in public life utters a peep to condemn adults for the irresponsible behaviors that initiate their suffering.
What Moron Jim doesn’t tell you is that he could give a ratsass about these kids. He and his Rethuglicon bigoted, anti-tax, anti-government, makemerichandfuckyou bootlickers only care about less government programs, lower taxes, and putting people in prison for “immoral” behavior.
Another thing MJ doesn’t tell you is that many single mothers are somehow manage to raise children that become doctors, lawyers, and engineers. All this without a father around. Yet, there are familes with both parents and the kids don’t turn out too well. So this dispells the Rethuglicon myth that two-parent homes are better than one-parent homes. MJ simply twists the data to support his narrow moralistic view yet the facts are clear. It’s just that MJ and his ilk don’t like that answer so they make up one they do like. And they speciously claim it’s about the children. Yea, right.
When you vote Rethuglicon, you vote against your own best interests. And Moron Jim’s screed about single parents is living proof.
By Dr. Vajajay
December 10, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this
Great piece, Courtney. Wooten would point to the wreckage, and claim to reconstitute the accident by analyzing the octane percentage of the gasoline in the car.
The problem is not in our failed marriages. The problem is in ourselves. Me. You. He. She. it.
Wooten should fix the individual, like the Wiz can, and then his ridiculous sociological fairy tale about black orphans will have a happily ever after ending.
Wooten sez: “Now you claim your father left you when you were six. And you also said you’re mother is a crack ho. Well, I’ve known nuns with less virtue than your mother. But there’s one thing THEY had that you dont have: a habit. Simply find a hobby, keep busy, and everything will work out.”
Remember, Wooten, a journalist is not judged by how many people he hacks copy from, but by how many people hacks his copy. ”
Part of the sickness infecting our journalists across this country is the “wrap up the story in a half hour sitcom and solve the protagonist’s problems” mindset. Wooten thinks he can tie everything up in a neat bow. He continues to use other people’s narrative style which has been consistently innappropriate for the writing task at hand. He’s lost his own voice. He’s lost.
Subject matter dictates tone, (or voice), and Tone dictates Syntax.(structure).
What part of that dont you get, Wooten?
I’ve never been so disappointed in a man and his career than I have been disappointed by you and your writing style in the last two years. Where is the southern chat? the mundane made profound? You’ve lost it all trying to copy and be what you’re clearly not.
and I think it’s a damn shame.
By Regina
December 10, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
I haven’t responded in some time but I had to chime in on this issue. So many people are attacking Jim and not addressing the real problem. So many children are growing up without the essential role models needed to ensure they become self-sufficient and contributing members of society.
There are single parents, male and female, who have raised wonderful children. The key is being a devoted and loving parent. However I agree with Jim, the ideal situation is for a child to have two parents in the home. If that can’t be achieved, there must be a strong role model present in the child’s life for the parent that is absent, i.e., grandfather, grandmother, aunt, uncle, cousin, godparent, church member, etc.
By Regina
December 10, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this
I haven’t responded in some time but I had to chime in on this issue. So many people are attacking Jim and not addressing the real problem. So many children are growing up without the essential role models needed to ensure they become self-sufficient and contributing members of society.
There are single parents, male and female, who have raised wonderful children. The key is being a devoted and loving parent. However I agree with Jim, the ideal situation is for a child to have two parents in the home. If that can’t be achieved, there must be a strong role model present in the child’s life for the parent that is absent, i.e., grandfather, grandmother, aunt, uncle, cousin, godparent, church member, etc.
By Regina
December 10, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
I haven’t responded in some time but I had to chime in on this issue. So many people are attacking Jim and not addressing the real problem. So many children are growing up without the essential role models needed to ensure they become self-sufficient and contributing members of society.
There are single parents, male and female, who have raised wonderful children. The key is being a devoted and loving parent. However I agree with Jim, the ideal situation is for a child to have two parents in the home. If that can’t be achieved, there must be a strong role model present in the child’s life for the parent that is absent, i.e., grandfather, grandmother, aunt, uncle, cousin, godparent, church member, etc.
By GaLiberal
December 10, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
Regina: I know the AJC has crappy servers that time out, but once is enough. I don’t need to read the same thing three and four times.
Your claim that a two-parent household is “the ideal situation” is complete bunk. If all that’s needed is a strong role model, then you clearly don’t need two parents. This is confirmed time after time, but all these racist anti-tax Rethuglicons focus on kids that commit crimes. This is driven more by being born poor than into a single parent home. To fix the problem with crime, you must address the roots of poverty which the Rethuglicons are unwilling to do. They view it as a personal responsibility issue. The old Ronnie Reagan ‘put yourself up by your bootstraps’ insane logic. That’s Moron Jim’s true agenda here. He could care less about a bunch of dirty, snotnosed poor kids that will just wind up in prison.
By Where did the Money go?
December 10, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this
American International Group, once the world’s largest insurer, owes around $10 billion to Wall Street’s biggest firms for trades that have gone sour, the Wall Street Journal reported in its online edition on Tuesday.
By Couvade
December 10, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this
GaLiberal, Why can’t poverty be problematic AND single parenthood injurious to children? The two are not mutually exclusive. There is nothing racist about wanting both of your parents to care for you. I can only imagine the crushing pain of children who never get the chance to know their fathers. Must we be monsters for conceding that the best interests of children and the best interests of women sometimes are not perfectly aligned?
By Regina
December 10, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this
GALiberal, You state many Republicans are reluctant to address the roots of poverty, but many Liberals are very condescending to minority women. They have the attitude, “You just sit right there and let me take care of you. I know what is best for you.” That is so insulting!
By Nikita
December 10, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this
Regina, is that not partially what this is about, telling people what’s best for them? Jim Wooten thinks it’s desperately important to tell people it’s best for them to bear children in matrimony.
Couvade — the problem, as I mentioned, is that people such as Jim Wooten think that marriage causes children to have better outcomes. However, IMO, other factors are more likely to yield both children with better outcomes and marriage. The most important of these is education and moral guidance.
By GAPeach
December 11, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this
Amen Wooten!!! Amen!!! You’ve got this one right!!!
By GAPeach
December 11, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this
Amen Wooten!!! Amen!!! You’ve got this one right!!!
What Ga. Liberal don realize is them there single mothers who raise kids to be doctors and lawyers . . didn’t do it all by themselves (as Jim said) the government does it all for them… pays for their lunches at school, after school care; provides inter-city programs for kids, pays for their college while the deadbeat fathers run around having more and more kids for the government to raise! You ain’t as smart as you think you are!
By GAPeach
December 11, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this
Amen Wooten!!! Amen!!! You’ve got this one right!!!
What Ga. Liberal doesn’t realize is them there single mothers who raise kids to be doctors and lawyers . . didn’t do it all by themselves. As Jim said, the government does it all for them… pays for their lunches at school, after school care; provides inter-city programs for kids, pays for their college while the deadbeat fathers run around having more and more kids for the government to raise! You ain’t as smart as you think you are!
By Andy S
December 17, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this
Mr. Wooten,
It’s nice to think about change. Do you suggest a solution? I do. Government can strengthen marriage simply by reducing its stamp on it. About 70% of divorces are initiated by women. Why? Ask anybody you meet (except professional feminists) about divorce. What happens to a man? Suddenly he loses his kids, his home, and his income is taken to pay for them, while he needs to find a new place to live. What happens to the woman? She’ll lose some income, but not so much. There are a host of lawyers who (correctly) tell her that the government will allow her children to keep the style of life to which they have become accustomed, including a well-kept mom. Their divorcd dad will pay for it, and for the costs of the lawyer to make it real. The family law statues give every wife the impression that they can divorce a man without divorcing whatever portion of his income that they require. When that situation changes, there will be less demand for divorce, more children with stable homes, and less men beaten down to deadbeat status. And it will all happen through less government involvement, not with more.
It’s a good article, though.