So that is what I gathered from this opinion piece by Ben Shapiro.. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshap...s20050309.shtml

I felt compelled to write him and ask where he found his facts. Wonder if I will get a response?

You'll sooner get a response from the Republican apologists on this board than from Shapiro himself.

As much as I was apalled at the Harvard group's protest - I mean, a straight woman spoke from a straight perspective, what's surprising about that? - Shapiro is an ass. What he, and so many "conservatives" don't get is the goal of the gay rights movement is not to "define deviance down," but to stop the automatic assumption about what is deviant. Left-handedness, in the Shapiro model, is "deviance" because it is not normal.

What a moron...he's probably one of those wingnuts that believes giving teens proper sexual information in high school through sex ed makes them become more sexually promiscuous...

One thing I don't understand: how does the erasing of the "stigma" of single motherhood translate into a rise in single mothers and juvenile crime? If there are more single mothers now, it probably has something to do with women no longer feel like they have to be married to a man to effectively raise a child. Good grief...when are these people ever going to understand that a child in a father/mother home isn't always destined for greatness. Many kids raised by a Dad and a Mom grow up to be less than model citizens...

Oh, and by the way, these Harvard people need to give it a rest and find something better to protest. Every comment doesn't have to include "and those gay people too". Pick your battles...this one is stupid.

[ March 09, 2005, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: dfwAggie99 ]

Boy, he's dumb AND ahistorical. Various kinds of societally approved same-sexual cultural systems have existed throughout history, with little or no danger to the "family" or "society." A far greater danger lies in economic, religious and ideological systems and structures which endanger family structures of all kinds. In the United States, single motherhood--which has existed since the founding of the colonies, in part because of death and poverty, did not always lead to "crime"--POVERTY primarily leads to crime. We had a textbook example of this in the mid-to-late 1990s, under a Democratic president. The crime rate dropped to its lowest levels in three decades as the employment rate steadily rose, and job opportunities rose not only for the rich and middle class, but also for the poor. Higher employment and wages disencentivizes criminal behavior. But remember, the GOP no longer belongs to the "fact-based" community....

Sorry to disappoint, but you won't get any apologies from me. Instead, I will offer regrets that Shapiro went too far in his argument, much as the "radical homosexuals" he rails against sometimes do when trumpeting gay rights to the exclusion of others.

The question of single motherhood and its effects is a separate one. DPMoynihan's study of the breakdown of the black family several decades ago was illuminating in many ways, but it didn't explain everything. However, to say that poverty necessarily leads to crime is absurd because that theory denies the value of good character. Poverty doesn't automatically lead to crime any more than it leads to model citizenship. The character of the individual responds to the challenges of poverty in the manner which it is formed. Good character will overcome poverty without resort to crime; bad character will not, and will seek to excuse its crimes by playing the poverty, or some other out-of-suit, card.

Uh, outside your utter abstractions, can you give examples? There is a strong correlation between poverty and crime, particularly when there is also an assymmetrical balance in terms of wealth distribution. (The societies with the lowest rates of violent crimes also have the lowest disparities in wealth distribution.) This is true in numerous societies across the globe, and has been the case even when "virtue" was either imposed by the Church and law, or part of general societal values. Look at any records of the Dark Ages in Europe; or look at many societies today, where there is a gross imbalance in wealth distribution, with high poverty rates, and you'll see how high crime rates are. That is, until the poor say enough is enough and overthrow their oppressors, as is the case in Bolivia right now, or Venezuela several years ago. But don't take my word for it. Several of the greatest economists, Nobel Laureates James Tobin and Amartya Sen, have written about the question of poverty and its effects on individual societies, as well as in global terms, so consult their work.

One of the biggest problems with social science is the problem of determining the causes and effects. Did the breakdown of the black family lead to crime, or did the massive incarceration of black men lead to the breakdown of the family? Are the social barriers in our society left over from slavery causing poverty, or is poverty exacerbating those barriers. That's just one small set of questions among the myriad of difficult, or even impossible, to answer questions surrounding our society and why it is the way it is.

However, one thing you can count on in the social sciences is political ideologists of whatever stripe over simplifying the issues and coming to conclusions without rigorous thought.

Careful, JQ, you might get taken to task on "glittering generalities" too! wink

But you're right on in recognizing the counterproductive role of thoughtless idealogues, particularly those of the Marxist persuasion whose theories have utterly failed in practice and will continue to do so, however justified or adorned. "Which came first" is a legitimate question, but good character cuts to the core regardless of which wealth (re)distribution system rules; even (especially?) totalitarian regimes jail rapists, muggers and thieves. There certainly would have been a less-than-massive incarceration of black men if fewer had turned to crime, whether of any alleged "necessity," or in emulating bankrupt subcultural values. Whatever the society, whatever the race, bad men will do evil; good men will do good. It only makes sense to discourage the former and reward the latter. To my mind, capitalism does that in spades.

Funny, when JQ mentioned idealogues over simplifying the issues and coming to conclusions without rigorous thought, I thought he meant your horseshit about character.

Cause when you stack the two hundred years of "character" that gave us slavery, segregation and disfranchisement laws, and you think of all the good men who couldn't get jobs no matter how hard they tried because of an entire race of white men conspired against them, it makes you wonder who really had the bankrupt subcultural values.

Ok, I'm about to get thrown under the bus; it won't be the first time so, what the hell.

Like I've said many times before, I'm right in the middle on almost everything. The far left makes me want to puke and the far right is my puke.

When it comes to single motherhood, I just don't think this is an ideal situation. It's hard enough for a two parents (notice I didn't say man and woman) to feed, clothe, and a raise a child that I don't see how a single mother can do it willingly. There are many instances where people get pregnant and choose not to marry the father. In many cases, this is the better choice. However, I do think that a two person household is more stable, more affluent, more secure and better equipped to fill the needs of a child.

JQ, I wouldn't touch the subject your broached with a ten foot pole. No matter what you say or how you say it, it's never going to sound right.

What a lovely, ahistorical gin-haze view of U.S. history you have.

Let's not pretend the issue was merely overcoming poverty through one's good character.

White males PASSED LAWS to make sure blacks couldn't get jobs. Talk about the evil that men do. What good character is going to overcome laws that make it impossible for you to earn a wage? And let's not pretend that all ended in 1964.

And how quaint to talk of the alleged "necessity" of turning to crime. Surely you have a passing familiarity with employment and labor law. When you can't, by law, be a policeman, or a fireman, or a teacher, or anything that earns you a decent wage, is it possible to fall back on character to pay your bills?

It's too bad those whites didn't (and still don't, apparently) have enough faith in capitalism. They really had to stack the deck in their favor to make sure they stayed ahead, and make sure blacks didn't. A character defect--can't play fair?

But now we can pretend like those laws weren't passed, and that the only thing holding blacks back was their character.

To my mind, capitalism does the opposite. However, what we practice here in America isn't actually capitalism, so our opinions of it are irrelevant to the discussion of social ills in this country. In a true capitalist society, one is not jailed for the trafficing of anything, much less substances demonstrably less destructive than their legal counterparts. Certainly the incaceration of hundreds of thousands of minor drug offenders has not strengthened the impoverished families of our nation.

I too typed a letter to this moron who has put himself upon a pedestal. My first line was that homosexuality is normal, it's just not as common. He's just an arogant little prick.

TF, yes slavery was of course inherently wrong and the society that nurtured it was morally flawed. But that WAS then and this IS now, 41 years after 1964, two score and generations, to be exact. You can't use that excuse - or that of the pre-1964 disabilities heaped upon blacks and others - forever!

And you can't use "blacks have bad character" forever either you scumbag.

How'd this get to be a discussion about race relations in the US? Oh, right. gmgsinfo dredged up this alleged "pathological" black family--mind you, Moynihan's report has been thorougly debunked as being full of paternalitic, racist assumptions about black men and women.

Hello! Let's get back on track, folks and not let the subject be, once again, side tracked with red herrings.

[ March 09, 2005, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: kalabro ]

TF, don't even waste your breath on him. His comments are so fact-challenged it's not worth it. He seems to forget that unfair labor practices continue EVEN TODAY. Racism didn't end in "1964."

When testers put forward blacks and whites of equal credentials in interviews for jobs with non-minority firms and businesses, the whites are always hired in higher numbers. Studies repeatedly show this. The same is true in terms of housing. A recent study of housing in "liberal" Chicago showed that when blacks and whites with equivalent credit stores attempted to secure loans, the whites were approved more frequently.

Gmg just wants to wave reality away. That's why I mentioned distinguished economists like Tobin and Sen, neither of whom are "Marxists." I'll never forget reading the studies back in the 1990s showing that despite ALL the braying about "affirmative action" by the right-wing, the MAJORITY of beneficiaries were WHITE WOMEN, not blacks, not latinos, not native americans....AND...on top of this, that in fact most whites seeking jobs and educational opportunities STILL had an advantage over nonwhites.

I know of a professor who several years ago complained to his white colleagues, with a nonwhite colleague standing nearby, that Ivy League jobs were "going to everyone" but "white men." (Racism of this sort is not uncommon in academe, including in supposedly "liberal" universities.) Well, well, Yale students just published a study showing that this is just nonsense, pure bullsh*t. In fact, of the over 430 tenure-track faculty members hired at all eight Ivy League institutions last year, only 15 were black and a little over a 100 were women. Phantom negroes, I guess. I was hardly surprised.

The reality of the world is lost on ideologues, especially those of the right. Those of the left basically don't exist in this country anymore, so we're really talking about straw people. Hell, even Eric Alterman is tongue-kissinng warmongering liar Paul Wolfowitz--you call that liberal?

In the current reality it's not possible to have discussions about economics without discussing race or discussions abotu race without discussing economics. The article was about, in part, socio-economic factors leading to the dissolution of the family. And since those make more sense than saying that people having sex with members of the same gender led to the dissolution of the family, that's what we're talking about.

From what I understand, the key determinant is not necessarily the number of adults in a household, but the age and relative wealth of the parents. In fact, IIRC, one pundit put it succinctly - you want stable, successful families? Then wait until you are past 18 and have and education before starting a family. When you remove uneducated and teenage parents from the equation, the differences between single parenthood and coupled parenthood are greatly reduced. Note, I do not have statistics to back this up, just my understanding of reality.

As for poverty and crime, which is a race-blind issue (it just so happens that, because of the historical issues already mentioned, minorities are much more likely to be poor in this country) I have often thought the prevailing issue was one of hope (Caution:, bleeding heart liberal crap about to be spewed).

Those people who were raised in poverty, but given the hope of a better future - whether through education, athletic ability, mentoring, etc. - are far less likely to be involved in crime and other negative social issues than those who do not have that hope. And "hope" is not simply an emotional thing - it also means ensuring that there is sufficient food, clothing, shelter and parental (or other adult) love and support. It is neglect and abuse that creates children and adults who do not care about their society or their own futures, and as a result turn to violence and crime.

That DOES NOT in any way, shape or form remove the responsibility from those who commit crime (Lord knows I'd like to hold my assailants responsible for their physical assault on me), but at a macro level, does provide an understanding of the incubators of crime and violence.

And to be sure, no matter what our skin color, religion, ethnic identity or any other characteristic, we all have (or at least had as children) the potential to become violent criminals. The problems we see in our inner cities today are the EXACT problems that have existed in all poor and hopeless populations, including the poor Irish of my own ancestors who came starving to these shores. Those who did not take advantage of the potential of this country (which meant fighting the INNA "Irish Need Not Apply" policies in place) ended up with the exact same kind of "thug" lives that exist in the modern times, albeit without the modern firepower.

Ah, but I never said that; that's your misstatement of yet another post from someone with whom you disagree.

You seem to reject the concept of "character" outright. Surely you know you must be found to be of good character in order to be admitted to the bar. Will you be found wanting when that time comes? And no name-calling in court, mind you.

FT, you are correct about white women being the greatest beneficiaries of AA, which is yet one more reason to do away with it or any system that subjects competence to anything else. And unfair labor practices do continue today; witness the unions' continuing contempt for the Beck decision, which mandated that union members have a say in where their dues go in terms of political endorsements. Your hero Michael Moore had a nice scene in one of his films showing just how union meetings are run, but somehow that film isn't run as much as his others.

As far as "phantom [N]egroes" go (your term), how many of the applicants from which the 430 were hired were black? You're playing fast and loose with figures; are they too only "phantoms?"

You won't get a response. That reminds me of Pat Robertson blaming gays and lesbians for the tsunami.

Not to "dumb down" your nice little conversation but... my best friend from college just had a kid. His father gave him some really nice advice to being a new father. He told him as a father his job was not to make the kid like you, there is plenty of time down the road for that when they are grown up. His job was to be the parent.

Being a parent = responsibility. Something people have forgot, it is the parents job to instill values in children (even if you libs don't agree with them). It is the parents job to teach right from wrong.

This job is not from the school, a teacher, or the TV set.

The other day, i stopped for gas at 11 at night, and there was 2-3 10-12 year old kids down at the gas station. If i did this as a kid, i'd just stay out all night because i'd be dead when i arrived home that night.

Does not matter if you are a single parent, 2 parents, 2 moms, 2 dads or a grandmother... the key is responsibility of the parents.

This applies to anyone white, black, hispanic, asian, indian, arab or what not.

When these kids grow up, they will also have some responsibility, know right from wrong, and have a value set to make their own decision in life.

The poorest person could be the best parent

The richest person could be the worst parent.

In the end, there are alot of lazy people out there. They blame their parenting failures on the TV, being poor, being a minority, or like the nob who wrote this piece.. the gay agenda.

(this is an unlikely convergence of random events)

I totally agree with PhillyFan. I am sick and damn tired of people pointing to some arbitrary marker as the reason they're f**ked up parents/general dregs of society. I also get tired of the ridamndiculous assumption that every black man is "endangered," ignorant, and in need of the Benevolent White Liberal to lift us up from social degradation. Of course, based on that assumption, when someone like Colin Powell appears, the common consensus is "he's so well spoken"--we all know what that's code for: "We didn't expect this Negro to speak the King's English!"

Further, this ridiculous assumption that virtually every black family is fundamentally f**ked up compared to white families reinforces racial stereotypes. If all people have to go on is the Moynihan Report (which was itself biased beyond belief and based more on racial stereotype than actual data--further, it's friggin' outdated), then that is a sad indicator of people's awareness of black life in America.

[quote]gmginsfo:
[QUOTE]FT, you are correct about white women being the greatest beneficiaries of AA, which is yet one more reason to do away with it or any system that subjects competence to anything else. [/quote]Ok, that just confused me. Why are white women particularly well served by Alcoholics Anonymous?

JQ, you're too easily confused; you're starting to worry me! It's all about context, and in this context AA = Affirmative Action.

[quote] quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by gmginsfo:
[QUOTE]FT, you are correct about white women being the greatest beneficiaries of AA, which is yet one more reason to do away with it or any system that subjects competence to anything else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, that just confused me. Why are white women particularly well served by Alcoholics Anonymous? [/quote]I believe they mean Affirmative Action, not the other AA, and as I understand it, that is true for employment data. I would love to know, though, who the biggest beneficiaries of AA (not the addiction one) are at the college level, when you factor in ALL its forms - e.g., including benefits for athletes, legacies, geographic and religious diversiy. My guess is that white people, and white males, would be the biggest winners there (I know this white male was, as part of the reason I got into my college was being a Catholic, being from an underrepresented region of the state and being the first applicant from my high school).

[quote] I totally agree with PhillyFan. I am sick and damn tired of people pointing to some arbitrary marker as the reason they're f**ked up parents/general dregs of society. I also get tired of the ridamndiculous assumption that every black man is \"endangered,\" ignorant, and in need of the Benevolent White Liberal to lift us up from social degradation. [/quote][SARCASM] Now, now Mr. Negro, you know how that hot temper of yours gets you in trouble with the company owner. You just simmer down and maybe you can be the token black face in our company's annual report[END SARCASM]

But seriously, I hope people realize my most recent post would also agree with Phillyfan - certainly older and more educated parents (even high school grads vs. drop-outs) are themselves more likely to be responsible and produce responsible children of good character. I certainly see that in my own, predominantly African-American neighborhood, where the diversity of family types and family values are evident, even if the diversity of skin color happens not to be.

On the flip side, I went to college with a whole lot of rich kids, and was appalled at how many of them, having received all the "things," but not all the attention from their parents they should have (including quite a few who were basically raised by servants), were social f*ck-ups. IMO, they were as likely as any kid from the ghetto to be involved in petty crime, at least, but FAR more likely to have access to very expensive lawyers who could make those problems go away.

Lord, I hate smileys, but I see my humor is simply too dry for prime time. Maybe if we had British posters here, someone would have gotten the sarcasm.

That it is, JQ, but don't go wet on us, OK? wink

I too used to hate smileys until I started posting here, where I now do so with abandon. Sometimes they do come in handy for relieving tension, though. Uh-oh, there I go "tossing" again. eek!

And yes, I like my Beefeaters straight on the rocks. :cool:

What's the use of a straight Beefeater? And wouldn't the rocks be uncomfortable? I much prefer mine queer and on a mattress.



Just so there's no misunderstanding.

[ March 10, 2005, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: jqueer ]

Since we're on character and gmg's strong feelings about it, let's not forget that no woman of any color and no nonwhite man could have been elected president of the United States with:

1) a history of extensive cocaine and pot use, to which he has admitted;
2) AND a history of alcoholism, to which he has admitted;
3) AND a DUI;
4) AND repeated SEC citations for insider trading;
5) AND at least two failed businesses;
6) AND failure to complete mandatory military service, including a documented period going AWOL.

Criminal prosecution of 1, 3, and 4 results in felonies, doesn't it? How many other people are moldering in jail for violations of 1 or 4? Isn't 6 usually the grounds for prosecution in a military court, or at least a serious fine? Personally, I think 5 is something many people face, but we're talking here about someone with a trustfund, with every advantage in the world, with a Harvard MBA, with links to some of the wealthiest people in the world (like the bin Laden family, etc.)

And, his running mate has two DUIs and failed out of college.

I was no fan of Ronald Raygun's, but I will say that he succeeded in life without MOST of the advantages of this character-less person, who cloaks himself in religion and demonizes an entire group of people, based on their sexual orientation, for political gain.

Obviously, in the cases of some (many), race, wealth and connections trump everything else; or rather, some people are given more chances (far more chances) than others. Perhaps we'll know we've advanced as a society when a latino or asian or black or arab or mixed woman, with the same screwups or a few less than W can be placed in the White House without the media and right-wing groups shrieking about the lack of "character."

[ March 10, 2005, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

I don't know if gays and lesbians in general are myopic but I sure am. In fact, blind as a bat. Wore milk-bottle glasses until finally custom contacts were made that I can use. Sort of. With contacts I see clearly about 6 feet and still need driving glasses.
But what that has to do with my being a lesbian is beyond me. Is there a correlation between poor vision and being gay?
As to crime. The simple fact is that "crime" is defined by those in power. If you kill someone you are a criminal. Supposedly. But how many coal operators, for example, have gone to prison, let alone been executed, for deaths of coal miners even when they were blatantly violating safety laws for years and years? I read today that an FBI sting busted a bunch of Gambino "family" members who were engaged in, among other things, loan sharking. Can't cry for them. But look at the bankruptcy bill just passed, written by the credit card companies. One of the many defeated amendments would have instituted penalties for predatory lending. That's legal. How does it differ from loan sharking, except that the mafia has not had enough power to make what they do legal?
I could give examples galore but won't since I have to be off the computer in 5 minutes.
There have been single parents, especially mothers, forever. In fact, single motherhood was the norm through most of human history. Even after the dominance of the father-family, widows and others raised children without fathers. What ticks off the so-called "values" people is that women are no longer so economically dependent on men. Women don't HAVE to get married in order to support their children. Or themselves. One of the main reasons for the stigma attached to single motherhood was that it was needed to discourage women from having children that it was impossible for them to support. That's what they want to return to.

I remember an under reported study several years ago that linked falling crime rates, in part, to legalized abortion. Basically it contended that abortion was legalized in '73 and approximately 20 years later at which time all those aborted fetuses would have been attaining the age at which they become most prone to commit crime, the crime rate started falling.

I suppose no one wanted to get on the soapbox and argue that abortion was good because it reduced crime.

[ March 11, 2005, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Torgauer ]

I remember that study.
I don't say "abortion is good because it reduced crime". I DO say legal abortion is good because it improves the lives of women and because wanted children have better lives.
Dr. Henry Morgantaler, a Nazi death camp survivor, is a leading abortion advocate in Canada. Before Canada legalized abortion he was arrested and prosecuted numerous times for openly performing abortions at his clinic in Montreal. He has cited research that mass murderers, both "common criminals" and notorious "leaders" such as Hitler show a common history of child abuse. He wrote in "The Moral Case for Abortion" that wanted and loved children do not rape, murder, torture ... and they don't build concentration camps.

Actually I think he and Falwell blamed the Swedish government, which is why all those Swedes died in the tsunami. They legalized gay marriage so it was God's punishment or some shit.

I watched 700 Club one night for shits and giggles, and they were telling us how gay marriage led to less Swedes actually marrying and just having kids without getting married. And that less marriages meant that society would be destroyed, or something to that effect. They equated it to Rome when they started indulging in homosexuality.

Talk about myopic!

Interesting to note that Mr. Shapiro belongs to a very conservative faction of Judaism.

Orthodoxy in any religion generally leads to freezing thought in a single place and time.

People evolve and change. That is what life is about. The only constant thing is change itself.

Perhaps coping with that means trying constantly to change in a positive direction. Being better.

A more detailed look at Ben Shapiro and his book \"Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth\"

This may illustrate the problem jqueer noted with the social sciences. They can note a trend and try to postulate the cause of that trend. Unlike the physical sciences, though, they cannot isolate the different variables to see how changing one variable at a time would have affected the outcome. Not to knock the study, but my first thought upon reading this was of the logical fallacy, post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Harry Browne, for whom I proudly voted in 1996, said:

In the words of Deep Throat, "follow the money." No, the Watergate Deep Throat.

Finally it was Fred Phelps who has been whining that the Swedes have only themselves to blame for the tsunami. Am I the only person hoping that a tornado destroys the Phelps compound, and only the Phelps compound?