By Peter Santina
As a deputy public defender in San Francisco, I am not shocked at the revelation there is a white-power network within the Police Department.
“All n—–s must f—– hang,” one veteran SFPD officer texted former Sgt. Ian Furminger, who has been convicted and sentenced to prison for violating civil rights and stealing drug money.
“White power,” the cops repeatedly texted each other.
Four cops were recently found guilty of corruption-related charges in federal court. When Furminger’s text messages were partly released by the federal government last week, Furminger and four additional veteran officers were exposed as “virulent racist[s],” in the words of the federal prosecutor. Every officer involved had been on the job for more than 10 years. Now 10 more officers, including a police captain, are being investigated for racist messages.
Why am I not shocked? For nine years as a public defender, I have witnessed far less openly virulent — but far more damaging — institutionalized racism of the San Francisco criminal justice system. Every morning, young and old African Americans are paraded through courtrooms in San Francisco, dressed in orange jumpsuits not unlike Guantanamo inmates and often shackled in handcuffs or chains. After a very brief court appearance, usually less than two minutes, they are returned to their cells, where they are given terrible food and their families are charged exorbitant fees for their phone calls.
I’ve sat beside too many innocent black clients who frightfully whisper, “What was that deal again?” as they watch the jury panel of 80-120 people — almost always less than five and often zero black potential jurors — walk into the courtroom.
I’ve heard too many dehumanizing comments from judges, such as one who was fond of explaining her denial of release to people accused of nonviolent drug offenses with the phrase, “Too bad, so sad.”
I’ve sat in too many courtrooms where prosecutors asked about, and judges always agreed, a white police officer being legally qualified as an “expert” on “black gangs” or “Latin gangs.” I’ve seen the bewildered faces when I questioned how the “Latin gang expert” was a white man who did not speak Spanish, had never lived in the neighborhood, and conceded that much of his “expertise” was drawn from television shows about gangs.
I’ve experienced the casual friendliness of an undercover narcotics officer smiling genuinely at me and calling out, “Hello, counselor!” as his hands move around inside the crotch area of a black man’s pants.
If you get charged with a felony in San Francisco, nearly every single prosecution plea bargain will require (after you get released from jail or prison) that you give up your Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure (a “search condition”). Too many of my black clients say, “Well, they’re gonna search me anyway.”
It’s too easy to just blame bad cops. Furminger’s text messages are merely part of the fabric of institutional racism that permeates every aspect of the San Francisco criminal justice system. Sadly, a judge or prosecutor does not need to be a white power activist, a la Furminger’s crew, in order to support institutional racism. Many judges and prosecutors do not privately use racial slurs (I hope) and are friendly with lawyers of color. But the vast majority of judges and prosecutors are resigned to the bureaucratic daily reality: countless black people in orange jumpsuits, shackled and imprisoned, their freedoms thrown away with all the care of a toddler stepping on a roly-poly.
Racism in San Francisco has made headlines in the past few years. In 2013, off-duty black Officer Lorenzo Adamson was detained and questioned by three white police officers. They demanded to know if Adamson was on parole, ordered him out of his car, and choked and arrested him. Instead of charging the white officers, District Attorney George Gascon charged the 15-year police veteran with crimes against police. A judge found probable cause that Adamson was guilty. A jury found him not guilty.
Adamson’s lawsuit against The City is pending. This is not a new problem here. In 1994, San Francisco made the news when its incarceration rate for black men was twice the U.S. average and 10 times the rate of Apartheid-era South Africa. But in the 21 years since, San Francisco has grown stomach-churningly worse. The City’s jail in 1994 had 4.4 times the proportion of black inmates as in San Francisco as a whole. By 2012, the jail population was 9.5 times more black than The City. But when many non-black people hear about racial disparities, there are two common responses.
Some people tend to think poverty is the explanation. There is truth there; the American criminal justice system almost exclusively incarcerates poor people. However, at least in San Francisco, poverty does not explain the disparity. If the jail reflected the poverty rate, the jail would be 37 percent Asian, 28 percent white, 21 percent Latino and just 14 percent black. In fact, the jail is 57 percent black.
The other response is more common but less public: Black people commit more crime. In fact, black people are arrested for hard-drug possession more than three times more often than white people, but a significantly higher percentage of whites use hard drugs. The same statistics apply for marijuana crimes.
Most tellingly, when people hear that black people are disproportionately locked up, many become more supportive of harsh prison policies. In 2014, researchers at Stanford University documented that when Bay Area residents were shown mugshots of black inmates, they were more supportive of harsh three-strikes laws. In contrast, when shown mugshots of white inmates, residents wanted to reform three strikes to make it less punitive.
Fifty years after Giants’ star Willie Mays faced housing discrimination in San Francisco, the same attitudes pervade our society. Let’s not wait another 50 years for change. Hollywood made a movie about Selma, Ala., and the Justice Department wrote a report about Ferguson, Mo. It is time to address the apartheid-like conditions in the metropolis and stop giving passes to the “liberal” coastal cities like San Francisco.
Peter Santina is a deputy public defender in San Francisco. After graduating from Harvard University and UC Berkeley School of Law, Santina has defended poor people accused of crimes for nine years.
#42 was a Dodger.
On a more serious note, Mr. Santina, thank you for an excellent article. I would love to see a follow up article with some of your suggestions for improvement, and some suggestions from cops. My dad was a cop years ago. He was sometimes severely sleep deprived. Maybe I can sort of see both sides of some situations re: cops because I personally experienced horrible treatment from a few cops in Northern CA several years ago: zero professionalism. For many reasons, I moved away from Northern CA.
Does anyone else out there think that perhaps cops should not work shifts that cause them to become sleep deprived? I would not want a sleep deprived surgeon operating on me, I don’t want a truck driver next to me on the freeway who is sleep deprived. I don’t want teachers who are sleep deprived, and I would not want a sleep deprived cop patroling the streets of any city.
Re: your city, I’m old enough to remember the horrific White Night riots; spent a little time on the Castro in the late seventies and I love that neighborhood so much. I wish everyone in the bay would be treated with more dignity. It is one of the best cities in the world and it could become even better.
Thank you, Mr. Santina, for your public service.
the answer is not sleep privation, the answer is not to create a culture in the police department where it is acceptable to make off-colored remarks and have a sound command structure to avoid those kinds of problems.
DP If you were made chief of the SF Police Dept. tomorrow, what would be your first thing to do on your agenda?
How do we stop that culture? In any police dept. where it exists? You are right, it does exist.
really simple – layoff the officers involved. tell the remaining officers that it doesn’t matter if they are in uniform, off duty, hanging out with their family or texting with their friends, they are always police officers and represent the city. anyone who is found to have made off color comments or jokes will be immediately disciplined up to and including termination.
Ok DP. First time making an “off-color” (and what do you mean by that? Racial? Gays, Blondes, Engineers, Jews, Italians, Irish, Scot, French, Architects, etc.?) jokes whether “if they are in uniform, off duty, hanging out with their family or texting with their friends, they are always police officers and represent the city” you would have them ” immediately disciplined up to and including termination.”?
Are Nazi, Soviet, ISIS, “PC” folk jokes OK?
Am thinking you’d support having all Police Officers, FF’s, all public employees, in fact, have a 24/7/365 monitoring of their words, texts, e-mails (thoughts) to enforce your opinion. Please get real. Jerks should be disciplined IF it affects their job performance.
i’m in favor of progressive discipline. i’m not in favor of monitoring communications. however, where i think i disagree with you is that the culture itself affects their job performance and the view of the public that this was acceptable undermine’s the community’s trust in the police.
DP, should this 24 / 7 / 365 monitoring of all personal and work texts and email messages extend to prosecuting attorneys, public defenders, and judges?
Didn’t he say that he doesn’t support monitoring of communications?
DP… you’re dancing around what you said… ” that it doesn’t matter if they are in uniform, off duty, hanging out with their family or texting with their friends, they are always police officers and represent the city. anyone who is found to have made off color comments or jokes will be immediately disciplined up to and including termination.” You make no distinction between on or off the job behavior. In fact, you equate them, arguably.
Your words indicate that no matter who the ‘audience’, the words/jokes are so anathema, that “progressive discipline” up to termination are necessary,in your view. Yet you also say,
“i’m not in favor of monitoring communications. ” So, is it OK behavior if it not “caught”?
Am seeing BIG contradictions in your posts on this subject.
What a great, deep and factually-objective piece that looks at the issue from all sides… NOT.
Let me try again…
What a great shallow and emotionally-subjective piece that looks at the issue from one side… the side of someone that is professionally aligned against law enforcement and the judicial.
There are a couple of bothersome parts:
“Dehumanizing”? Wow. Can we talk about hypersensitivity?
You mean the required checking for weapons? This comment is indicative of something weird in the mind of the writer. Was he inferring that the cop was grouping the suspect? I really don’t get it other than to add it to the general sense that this was more an anti-cop propaganda piece from someone with an ax to grind than it was something to be respected as informative.
Sorry. I value new content to the Vanguard, and I recognize that people write what they believe in. But this isn’t good.
your comments are instructive to me, particularly with the dehumanizing elements of the court that you ignore or sluff off as “hyper-sensitivity” – it makes me wonder that you’re problem is that you’re not nearly sensitive enough. there are certainly times when a judge needs to deny the release of non-dangerous criminals, but that generally happens too often in my view.
Really DP? “Too bad, so sad” is “dehumanizing?” I think it would be potentially dehumanizing to have to deal with hundreds of criminals every week with the same excuses for why they deserve a break so they can go off and make the same mistakes.
As humans we should possess the higher-order capability to rationalize our emotions.
Rationalize this obvious emotional reaction that “too bad, so sad” was “dehumanizing”. If you do that it is easy to see the hypersensitivity.
Funny, I think what many of these criminals need is the type of discipline given by the US military. If all the hypersensitive activists types had their way, they would push their damn PC speech code rules on the military too and ruin that institution. In fact, that is already happening as we demand more “equal” treatment of women and gays in the military. Because it is enviable that we will hear more stories about women and gays getting their feelings hurt over something said, and then a demand for new rules to make sure everyone is “safe” from those hurtful words. I value inclusion, but activist hypersensitive people are the least inclusive people we can experience.
What I read in this article and from you and others is what I would call anger at the father. It seems that your frustration with law enforcement and the judicial is that it does not dispense unconditional love to the accused and convicted. I suspect you and the author are wired similarly in this respect. I would not have any problem with that wiring if there was at least an attempt to see things from the other side… to give some consideration to the tough ways of people wired differently… and the necessity and value to society that it provides.
Hypersensitive people generally don’t pursue a career in law enforcement. They don’t because they would be an emotional mess having to deal with the realities of the job. But why then don’t the hypersensitive accept this and appreciate the people that do the job… those that have the wiring to handle the stress and pressure? Why do they go off and measure everyone else as if their wiring is the only righteous wiring and that everyone else should be as hypersensitive as they are? That is the thing that drives most of my rants in opposition to the attacks against law enforcement and the military. They have a harsh job. It is the job of people wired with coping skills and an ability to perform without sinking into psychological and emotional turmoil over the way they must treat suspects and criminals. And then when they do that job they get persecuted by the PC police, the matriarchy, the hypersensitive.
There is a line representing the human condition. The cops work with the people below the line. I care about the people below the line as much as anyone else, but I recognize my superior position way above the line and have the emotional intelligence to prevent projecting my feelings onto the work dealing with those below the line.
absolutely i think “too bad, too sad” is degrading. it mocks the individual. if that were my client, i’d be incensed.
Frankly, whenever you write the words “higher order” or “above the line” or “below the line”, I feel like you, the writer, are placing yourself in the category that is “above” another human being. If you are higher up and above, maybe you view others as “below” you. Guess I’m being sensitive, but that’s how I interpret your words.
Don’t know how problems will be solved if some human beings think they are “above” others.
I meant below the line of behavior. Billionaire Bernie Madoff was below the line.
And in terms of social and economic achievement, I don’t see class stratification as being permanent. It is all about behavior and choice. Behave the right way and make the right choices and you will move up in socio-economic achievement.
I don’t look down on poor people nor do I look up to rich people. I don’t look down on uneducated people, nor do I look up to highly educated people. There are all superficial categories that miss the main point about content of character, behavior and choice.
Below the line are people prone to bad behavior and making bad choice. Those are the people that the cops have to deal with. And it is “too bad, so sad” when they behave badly and make bad choice.
Frankly
I have a few thoughts about your post.
“Hypersensitive people generally don’t pursue a career in law enforcement”
Your ongoing use of the word “hypersensitivity” seems to convey that you know what the “right” amount of sensitivity is for a human being to have. I am wondering how you made the determination of how much is that right amount beyond which one is “hyper” sensitive ?
“ those that have the wiring to handle the stress and pressure? “
Has it occurred to you that perhaps the four policeman that as you put it “were just blowing off steam” didn’t have the appropriate “wiring to handle the stress and pressure”. Maybe it is the police who don’t resort to these kind of hateful comments that are “correctly wired”.
“It is the job of people wired with coping skills and an ability to perform without sinking into psychological and emotional turmoil over the way they must treat suspects and criminals.”
I take exception to the idea that they “must treat suspects and criminals” in abusive or disrespectful ways. One has only to look at the numerous video tapings of police slamming detainees into cars, or buildings, or the street, to know that many officers are wiling to use excessive force. How do we know its excessive ? Because we can see many examples of officers performing the same kind of job without choosing to exert the same kind of force. I local example of this was when Lt. Pike chose to use the pepper spray while within a few yards away Officer Pytel could be seen gentle moving through the crowd of protesters getting people to step aside with a hand placed on the arm and a few words.
I have a great deal of respect for the police and military who are able to do their job and remain true to their mission of protection and defense. In my opinion, one criteria for working with those “below the line” would be that you do not adopt the barbarity that you may see around you. Once you have begun emulating those behaviors, you are no longer “above the line” no matter what your title may be.
Hello Frankly, I hate it when you make me see your side of things. Your post reminds me of the movie starring Clint Eastwood, Gran Torino, where he taught his next door neighbor’s kid that sometimes men of his generation make terribly bad ethnic jabs & jokes with their buddies. So on one hand, I get where you, Frankly, are going with this opinion. But I believe the distinction is that the cops are not buddies with the folks they are horribly insulting and demeaning. The people the cops are paid to serve, as civil servants and as our “protectors”, are left with zero dignity. Strangers in the general public should not be treated with the same familiarity as Clint Eastwood treated his buddies. Highly recommend the movie, albeit a violent one.
Of course it is one sided! The writer is a defense attorney, so those are his life experiences! I appreciated the time Mr. Santini took to write this article. It is necessary information.
Frankly, I am a woman and from time to time in the work force I have been told I am “sensitive.” Not “hypersensitive”. I never considered that a weakness. I like being sensitive to other’s feelings and even my own. Strongly believe that sensitivity is very similar to compassion and kindness.
“Kind words may be short, and easy to speak. But their echo’s are endless.” -Mother Teresa
*Santina* Sorry for the misspelling.
Nothing wrong with being sensitive… and science has proven that women tend to be more sensitive than men. The issue for some people is their failure to separate emotions from rational thought, and to regulate reactions accordingly. If it is acceptable to just stop at how we are made to feel as justifications for reaction, then we should all be throwing regular tantrums when we don’t get our way.
Sensitivity and hypersensitivity are not the same.
Hypersensitivity is a behavior disorder that is as problematic as is being insensitive. But just like sensitivity can be corrected through education, so can hypersensitivity be corrected. It becomes a HUGE problem when it is group-think.
Frankly
“Hypersensitivity is a behavior disorder”
Please cite your references that “hypersensitivity” exists as a behavior disorder.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ironshrink/201411/the-difference-between-highly-sensitive-and-hypersensitive
http://www.additudemag.com/adhd/article/8945.html
Here is a superset of potential symptoms that may or may not define a person as being afflicted with hypersensitivity. I think very few people that could be identified as being hypersensitive would have or display all of these symptoms, but would likely have or display some or even many with varying intensity.
[moderator] I have pulled comments. Please be respectful of guest authors and keep your comments specific to the points of the article. Thanks.
Is it OK to challenge, more or less politely, those who opine and show hypocrisy?
Guest author? Was this piece written specially for the Vanguard? I see it was published in the Examiner two days ago.
I didn’t write anything about the author, why was my post pulled?
is the casual reader going to draw that distinction? i know david has expressed concerns to me that the way you guys respond to authors makes his job of recruiting authors more difficult.
So if David imports a NY Times article we aren’t allowed to talk about the writer and maybe their views if they’re a left or right wing lunatic? Is this how the Vanguard is going? I get it with people who write a story specifically for the Vanguard, but this is going over the top.
The public defender’s office sent out the op-ed as a press release. My preference is that people can debate, discuss, the ideas without turning it in the direction of ridicule or belittling. I did not see the post in question, but I trust Don’s judgment. And you can ask Jeff Boone, I’ve never turned down one of his articles.
https://davisvanguard.org/about-us/comment-policy/
My email address is donshor@gmail.com, or you can address your concerns to David privately.
[moderator]: edited. Stop debating moderation practices. I will pull any further comments without notice.
I know The City. Mr. Santina ignores a litany of relevant and highly pertinent factors.
Look at any crime map, and you’ll find crime predominantly in the Tenderloin, Mission, Western Addition, and Hunter’s Point (HP). Minorities are over-represented in public housing, and projects are a vortex for crime. Every blue moon there will be a single murder in the Sunset or Richmond. When I did a quick google, an interesting point is that crime in HP isn’t as frequent as SoMa or The Mission, but when it happens, it is violent.
Can Mr. Santina please name a few white gangs for me? Along with the standard Crips, Bloods, Nortenos and Sorenos, there are also the Central Divis Playas (CDP), Knockout Posse, Eddy Rock, Page Street Mob, and Money Over (Female Dogs in Heat). Mr. Satina also doesn’t cover the antiquated tracking system which underestimates the crime committed by Latinos and Asians due to arcane system restrictions. A quick google also revealed that for the DEA’s “Most Wanted” for Northern California, the listed felons were almost exclusively Latino. (I’m guessing much of this is gang affiliated.)
http://www.dea.gov/fugitives/sf/sf_div_list.shtml
Mr. Satina fails to mention that at least two of the officers on trial with Furminger are minorities, and the first cop to resign over “insensitive” texts was a homosexual officer. The total officers under scrutiny are less than one percent of the police force.
Regarding the arrest rates for drugs, your guest fails to mention where and how drugs are sold. Someone selling $20 worth of pot in a garage in the Sunset won’t get busted; young men standing on street corners at 2 AM shouting to passing cars what they are selling, dressed in gang banger regalia, will even draw attention from Ray Charles.
I think this guest lacks the chops to really get to some core issues like the breakdown in families, the absence of fathers and discipline. There are issues to deal with. A more systemic logistical problem (police stonewalling) was how the Police Officer’s Association dragged its feet, along with SFPD, in implementing a new software tracking system. Has this finally been rectified? Or he could delve into how the police and fire department cover for each other when they drink on or after the job (a recent fire fighter may have escaped a hit and run conviction while driving a fire truck!). He could also try to dissect how white liberal parents in The City largely avoid the public schools due to poor performance and rampant violence.
Balance would also be shown by complimenting the system for helping to drop the city murder rate in half, an amazing achievement.
“Mr. Satina fails to mention that at least two of the officers on trial with Furminger are minorities, and the first cop to resign over “insensitive” texts was a homosexual officer. The total officers under scrutiny are less than one percent of the police force.”
you’ve made the point before – it was refuted. you never responded to the refutation. it doesn’t matter if the officers are minorities, the problem is the police officer’s attitudes toward those minorities.
second, obviously in satina’s view, the problem extends well beyond the four officers involved in this particular incident. given that he has direct courtroom experience, i tend to believe him. when i worked in yolo as a defense attorney, i saw a lot of the worst of police officers. there were fewer rules and regulations to protect discovery of conduct. i think until you have a police department that is willing to get into the trenches and root out these attitudes, things are pervasive.
“Balance would also be shown by complimenting the system for helping to drop the city murder rate in half, an amazing achievement.”
why is balance in this case necessary? he’s a defense attorney, his job is to make sure his clients get a fair trial.
If citizens started getting killed on Taravel Street, I promise you the police would be there. And if it was a persistent problem, they’d roust perps and alleged perps in the area to try to stem the problem. They go where there are problems, they go where the community asks them to go, and they go to where the crime is most violent.
The problem is the police and judges see these individuals often after the dye is set. Numerous runs ins as a juvenile; raised in the violent, lawless crime-ridden projects (they weren’t always such) where even police fear to go; lackluster or no advancement in school; no family structure; hardened and lost. If they barely speak understandable English, don’t follow common courtesies and decorum, have never worked a normal job and dropped out of school, and joined a gang, isn’t that sad?
I’ve been just on the periphery of some projects, and it is completely different world.
Sunnydale project article
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Life-at-the-bottom-S-F-s-Sunnydale-project-3228433.php
and that practice undermines the community’s trust in the police which makes it more not less difficult to patrol. you’ve just illustrated that the exact problem with current policies.
So the police should spend valuable time where there isn’t crime, where the citizens haven’t called them, meaning even less coverage for crime-ridden areas? Wonderful logic.
No one said that.
What precisely is “gang banger regalia” and I am not being a smart alec. I really can’t keep up on all this stuff and do not know. I assume it is more than a particular color or a certain article of clothing or tatt?
It is the opposite of dressing like Erkel (a clean-cut science nerd from a famous TV show). There is a controversy to some in saying this, because there are some young people who dress like this to be “cool”, but they put themselves at risk for being identified as a gang member, when they’re not. Being on street corner know for drug sales, at 2 AM, are the other give aways.
http://www.wikihow.com/Dress-Like-a-Gangsta
let’s talk about anything but the subject of this story.
D.P., It’s kinda on topic?
Re: sketchy neighborhoods at 2:00 a.m. If one works in a hotel/ restaurant/bar/fast food in S.F. and one walks through that neighborhood to get home, or one is waiting for a friend to pick them up on that corner because one has had too much to drink, or a creepy guy is following, etc., one could be on that corner at 2:00 a.m. and not even know it is a bad corner until one has lived there a few weeks, right? Nurses are also out at 2:00 a.m…..
… and possibly wearing gang colors, shouting out the names of drugs for sales, flagging down cars, smoking a blunt, and wearing large, loud jewelry … maybe.
I think cops are trained to recognize this versus a 7/11 or nurses uniform, and those waiting at a bus stop.
the police are probably able to distinguish gang colors from uniforms, but i’m always amazed when cross examining a gang expert how little actual science and rigor their training utilizes.
Some of it is intuitive knowledge, read “Blink”. The problem is that things constantly evolve. Its is not exact, which is why it’s important for kids / you g men not in gangs to not dress like they are, but it can get confusing.
sisterhood, some do, I’ve seen them in the Haight Asbury. Ironically, when I spent time somewhat recently in the Mission, on Mission, there were no cops in sight… then when the local parochial elementary school let out, all of a sudden there were all of these black and whites on the streets for about 45 minutes, like clockwork. It was bizarre. And a lot of the cops behind the wheels looked very out of shape, just sayin. (Not able to pass their physicals?)
The undercover plains clothes stuck out, at least the obvious ones, 49 jacket, badge around neck.
Do any cops still walk a beat in S.F. to get to know the community neighborhood folks?
I once volunteered for an urban school with young school children, and the vile names and observations some would make to tease their fellow students-of-color was almost shocking.
I asked the teacher, “Who taught them these things?” She replied, “They don’t get that here … they learn it in the projects, and at home…. The rougher the project, the worse the behavior.”
Please see above a very interesting, multi-layered article about the Sunnydale projects in San Francisco.
Still drivin’ their Crown Vics?
🙂
I was thinking…
Can an adult human be hit, punched, knocked around, injured, hurt, killed, damaged… or any other term one that can think of that denotes some level of actionable material harm… by only words if that person has abundant self confidence and no other cognitive of psychological deficiencies?
Nope… not in general.
Certainly I can see where people in positions of power have greater responsibility for their use of words because of the amplification of meaning and response from people in subordinate power. I learned that lesson long ago as a professional manager. But then I also learned how to set the stage where subordinates can speak directly to me in rational terms without fear of me reacting emotionally. Strong emotional responses from leaders generate uncertainty in subordinates.
Parents are leaders. Teachers are leaders. When they tend to swing with strong emotional responses, the kids shut down. The kids feel uncertain and become risk averse. They withhold information because they are not quite sure what the response will be.
But these are kids. Kids are a special situation. Kids need a much more word-safe environment. Ironically though kids are prone to testing the limits for word war.
Employees too are a special situation.
What about just adults in normal day-to-day human encounters and transactions?
My thinking is that words should generally not cause material damage to any well-functioning person. And if words do cause a strong emotional reaction, it is likely indicative of a problem with the person having the strong emotional reaction and not the sayer or writer of the words.
Look at it this way… we all want to be safe from harm. Who is materially harmed in the end from the disclosure of the text messages from the cops? It is the cops that are materially harmed.
That is the danger of allowing hypersensitivity to infest our sensibility… demand for speech that does not offend anyone leads to more harm.
It is Orwellian. Someone else decides what is acceptable for you to say and write and you are persecuted for getting out of line.
Like in everything in life it should be about striking a balance. But the scales have tipped way too far in favor of the hypersensitive. And most everyone reading this would have to agree if they though deeply about it. None of us are perfect in our choice of words…. especially in private. And we absolutely can feel that we are putting ourselves at risk for one day stepping in the dog doo of the dysfunctional hypersensitive speech code rules we either actively push or passively accept.
Bottom line for me… some people just need to grow a pair and stop being so hypersensitive to words. Sticks and stones, right? I think so.
“Bottom line for me… some people just need to grow a pair and stop being so hypersensitive to words.”
I don’t wanna “grow a pair”. They’d get in the way, me thinks. 🙂
Your logic seems to be implying we should all just get a tougher skin. Another old fashioned expression, I believe, was “thin the herd”.
Might be nice to try something different for a change.
It is just a euphemism. Some of the people I know with the biggest pair are members of your “sisterhood” team.
Tougher skin would be right, but not thin the herd. It is a party and I want everyone involved.
We started with sexual harassment, hostile work environment and hate speech… all things that have a justified basis. But we have morphed it into some twisted and unsustainable expectation that nobody can say anything even in private that upsets anyone from any one of a growing number of protected victim groups. And maybe that would not be so bad if we didn’t persecute people for what they say in private only because it upsets someone from one of those protected victim groups.
Trust me, I am on sensitivity pins and needles already. It is a hostile world out there for those that break speech code rules in the workplace.
Yes, if police officers private e-mails are open to scrutiny; then what about other employees on the public payroll?
What about administrators; and public health and safety inspectors, and firefighters/EMTs? Surely we don’t want to employ those who exhibit private bias into a position of public trust? What about lawyers and judges and those employed by the court system? The sheriffs office; and not just the law enforcement personnel but the clerks and the administrator who process all the accounts? How about the state auditors office?
And surely we can’t exempt the private sector from this; why should they get a pass when many of them wield such responsibility and power?
And what about stay-at-home parents, who after all are raising the next generation–how can we be sure they are teaching the little ones the correct things, without some way to monitor their speech?
And why aren’t there more protected classes? What about short people, tall people, fat people, ugly people; those with big noses or big butts? How about those that talk with a funny accent, a lisp, a very high or very low pitch? What about those with tattoos or piercings? Big floppy feet, short legs, or funky toes?
How will we know what designated hateful private twitters, e-mails, texts, and phone calls, unless they are thoroughly monitored? The NSA now has (or will soon have) capability to monitor and log all electronic communications by everyone (maybe they are already there); why not put this capability to more use–the logged communications could be rapidly screened to identify from a pre-selected set of designated hateful words and phrases, and each individual could be assigned a certain level on a ‘hate’ index, depending on their score in using these hateful words and phrases in their ‘private’ communications. Disagreeing with such a program could land you a very high score on the index…
tirbeUSA
“Yes, if police officers private e-mails are open to scrutiny; then what about other employees on the public payroll?”
The very real answer that I see to your question is that none of these other people are authorized to shoot you if you don’t do what they say when they say it. Authorization to kill makes a difference.
This is disappointing because it clearly is a desperate attempt to wiggle out of the corner that anti-cop reactionaries have painted themselves in for the S.F. cop issue.
Note that none of these other people routinely put themselves in the line of fire to keep all the law abiding people safe and secure… like Officer Michael Johnson why was shot and killed in an ambush as he responded to a report of a mentally disturbed person threatening suicide.
tribeUSA is absolutely right.
Bad teachers and corrupt politicians do more damage to humanity than do the few bad cops. We should be demanding the private communication of all teachers and all politicians if we are going to persecute cops over their private communications.
that’s a pretty subjective claim: “Bad teachers and corrupt politicians do more damage to humanity than do the few bad cops. ”
don’t agree. but at least with corrupt politicians we have elections and ways to deal with their “damage.” police, especially in california are difficult to deal with as they have a variety of protections written into the law. in fact, i would argue that they are at least as protected as teachers. the right goes after ineffective teachers, the left goes after corrupt cops. both are protected.
tribeUSA, I think you’re on to something. Surely the easy first step is a city search of the email and (if possible) text databases that they still have on hand. Just do a global search for what are considered offensive words, and take action from there. Private communications is a whole other bag of fish.
Tia’s claim is that officer’s have a unique ability to hold life and death in their hands, but we know the same thing applies to medial personnel and staff, so why do we give them a pass? Judges dispense justice, so does the whole judicial system. Lots of critical areas.
Given that so many government areas affect our lives, and given that some here think that Jim Crow is a current day issue, I’d say search all employee government records. Especially given equal treatment considerations.
re: ” Some people tend to think poverty is the explanation. There is truth there; the American criminal justice system almost exclusively incarcerates poor people. However, at least in San Francisco, poverty does not explain the disparity. If the jail reflected the poverty rate, the jail would be 37 percent Asian, 28 percent white, 21 percent Latino and just 14 percent black. In fact, the jail is 57 percent black.”
I must admit this surprises me. The other two big categories might be, in addition to poverty,
(1) whether or not the person was raised in a single-parent household;
(2) the percentage (by race) in the age group ~15 to ~30
My hunch is that these factors might explain most of the remaining disparity for blacks; but acknowledge I could be wrong. It seems to me that this discrepancy should be carefully investigated to ascertain whether this reflects a bias in law enforcement, or whether there are other factors that can explain the discrepancy.
tribeUSA, good start. There are probably numerous issues beyond race.
(3) Gang affiliation.
(4) Whether one lives in public housing.
(5) Whether one lives in an urban area.
(6) Whether one is a voluntary or involuntary immigrant.
(7) Family focus (or lack of) on education.
(8) Time spent watching TV.
(9) Positive (or not) male role models.
(10) An extended family network (or not).
(11) A family plan / goal / desire to get ahead.
you realize that you’re actually making an argument based on your own stereotypes and prejudices without any statistics to back it up, right? you’re assuming that blacks in poverty have fundamentally different characteristics and backgrounds than others. really, time spent watching tv? you think that varies meaningfully across groups to be an explanatory variable? do you think poor asians, hispanics and blacks differ greatly in gang affiliation? all i see is you throwing out a bunch of stuff with nothing to really back it up.
If you put down your pablum and arrogance, you might learn something.
Black and minority children watch 50 per cent more TV per day than whites (and almost 90% have sets in their bedrooms), [Northwestern] study finds
“Black and minority children spend significantly more of their day watching television, playing video games and using their phones than whites, a major study has found.
“Researchers claim that minority youth astonishingly spend more than half their day consuming media content, a rate that’s four and a half hours greater than their white counterparts….
“Black children under 6 were also found to be twice as likely to have a TV in their bedroom as whites, and more than twice as likely to go to sleep with the TV on.”
“Asian youths scored similarly to whites but were found to spend almost three hours a day using a computer recreationally – more than double the amount of time black and white children spent on their computers.
“The only activity studied where there appeared little disparity between ethnic groups was reading – with young people in all groups perhaps surprisingly found to read for pleasure for between 30 to 40 minutes a day.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2001098/Black-minority-children-watch-50-cent-TV-day-whites-90-sets-bedrooms–study-finds.html#ixzz3VQ4HYJ6X
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I won’t hold my breath waiting for your apology for again playing the race card in place of knowledge and curiosity.
except for one problem, you wrote “black and minority” children watch more tv. the problem is asians and hispanics are also minorities. so your comment doesn’t account for that. later, it states, “asian youths scored similarly to whites” except for one problem here, asians and white both have much lower poverty rates than blacks and hispanics. however, since we’re talking only about the poverty rates for these groups, that point is not meaningful. in other words, it may well be that asians watch less tv overall because fewer are impoverished, but if you are compared impoverished to impoverished, i’m willing to bet those differences DISAPPEAR. don’t hold your breath because you don’t understand this well enough to understand how the numbers work.
Proof 2: Yes, there is a huge variance on gang affiliation based on ethnicity. You really don’t know this?
http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/demographics
Average Race/Ethnicity of Gang Members
by Area Type, 2011
Larger Cities
Suburban Counties
Smaller Cities
Rural Counties
Black or African American
39.0%
32.7%
20.3%
56.8%
Hispanic or Latino
45.5
51.0
53.8
24.8
White
9.7
9.1
14.6
14.9
Other
5.8
7.2
11.3
3.4
DP, I understand I illuminated new knowledge here, but you were so busy trying to nitpik the study, you missed the forest for the trees. Yes, TV patterns and gang affiliations vary by ethnicity. Yes, my link clearly stated the study was from Northwestern University.
Northwestern University Study Says Black & “Minority” Children Watch 50 Percent More TV Than White Children
http://hinterlandgazette.com/2011/06/northwestern-university-study-says.html
The fact is that race isn’t a predominant issue, there are numerous issues at play.
i don’t think you do understand.
DP, this might be a good place to start.
http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v15n1/linder.html
I see you skipped the gang facts.
do you just randomly post things that you google or do you have any expertise in the things that you are discussing?
I’m curious as to if you really are an experienced professional in this field if you’re so uneducated as to who makes up our gang population.
it is precisely because of my professional experience with gang members and alleged gang members that i ignored your point. I notice you ignored my question.
DP
I had that same thought. I understand why you earlier stated that the subject was (paraphrasing here) veering off subject. But it may be good to explore why some folks start focusing on gang banger regalia (which I still am at loss as to what it consists of and I swear that I’m not being a smart alec. Honest.) This Jim Crow discussion is uncomfortable for me but it should be uncomfortable. We should never accept it and feel 100% comfort when discussing it. Imho we should all feel slightly nauseated at just the words Jim Crow. I’m glad you are allowing much of this discussion.
It is enlightening to read how people really feel. Maybe it is a starting point to something much bigger? Hope so.
tribeUSA
“whether or not the person was raised in a single-parent household;”
This comment is heard repeatedly, and I believe that it has some validity. However, frequently no comment is made about the quality of that parenting. Usually when addressing this issue what is being decried is the lack of a man in the house. If the man of the house is engaged in a supportive, productive manner and is serving as a positive role model for his children, I would agree. If as too often is the case, he is an alcoholic, involved with drugs, cold, uncaring, and / or abusive, then he becomes simply another burden on the woman. This is equally as true for the woman who displays the same irresponsible behaviors, however, statistically in our society it is much more likely to the be man who fails to step up and assume responsibility which is why I phrased it as I did. Throwing chains on a person during the day for enforced labor and then expecting them to go home at night and be kind and nurturing to their children as one poster had suggested is far too simplistic and frankly an unrealistic expectation.
Tia mis-characterizes our current norms. Yes, “Murphy Brown” might be able to financially raise a child on her own, but that isn’t the norm.
I’m not sure which men she is characterizing as alcoholics and abusive, but I believe the core issue is that we simply have a lot of children born out of wedlock where neither biological parent has put any thought into how they will raise the child financially, emotionally, and pragmatically. Some of this falls into the hook up / baby mama / baby daddy phenomena where the “relationship” can merely be a fling, a hook up, or a short term knockin the boots. Sometimes they’re boyfriend / girlfriend. When there are some cohorts and communities with over a ninety percent out-of-wedlock rate, we’re not talking a problem with booze or meth.
In fact, Frankly and others have repeatedly mentioned the choices people make, and we have evolved two new marital patterns in America.
1. We now have the super-educated marrying the super-educated. So a doctor marries a doctor, a lawyer marries a lawyer, etc.
2. The new “multi-partner fertility” (baby momma / daddy), i.e., a young man or woman (or both) having multiple children with multiple partners, without the countless benefits of marriage. This group is probably an unintended consequence of the sexual revolution and 1960s social policies.
I haven’t read any detailed studies of the second group, but I’ll bet a much lower percentage make their child support payments, let alone play a daily positive role in their child’s life.
unfortunately the right doesn’t want to see the impact of mass incarceration on single-parent homes. when you have a huge percentage of young black males in prison and then on felony status, i’m not sure how you get them to stay home with their families.
So are you implying the 70 percent of black children born out of wedlock are predominantly born to women who’s boyfriends are in jail?
Even if that is true, I guess these young women could learn not to have children with young men who sell drugs. But I understand this is a Catch 22 if unemployment for black men under Obama has gotten higher, traditional middle class blue collar jobs are now often given at lower rates to illegal immigrants or shipped to Mexico because of onerous regulations and taxes, and inner cities crumble. Add to that the glorification of drugs and gang life by social media and rap music, and many young girls and women can make poor choices. I’ve read studies even when young Black mothers tell their young black girls not to get pregnant and explain how difficult it is, they non-verbally see that they get attention in the community, school, and at church, and maybe access to certain social services, so there are clearly mixed messages sent. Some conservative academics think that the government actually helped to destroy the traditional black family.
On the flip side, educated black women sometimes outnumber black men by 2 or 3 to 1 in college, so that causes another series of concerns.
“So are you implying the 70 percent of black children born out of wedlock are predominantly born to women who’s boyfriends are in jail?”
not completely. but one in three black males will spend time in prison at some point in his life. that reduces the chance for getting gainful employment – ever. it reduces the chance of getting degrees. and of course two-thirds of those imprisoned will reoffend. so yes, i think its a very significant factor.
In consideration of this, maybe a percentage of the kids and their mothers are better off without dad around.
The root cause of the problem is that these women are getting pregnant in the first place. Fix that problem and a lot of other problems go away.
I’m glad we agree that access to inexpensive, effective birth control could solve many social problems.
I support that, but it is already largely inexpensive and available and it is not being used. Again, it comes down to choice and behavior. You have to ask the question why would any woman risk unprotected sex with a man that she wasn’t sure would stick around and help care for the resulting child? Poverty is a symptom, not the cause. There is something else going on.
Dr. Will, is effective birth control readily available and inexpensive?
Because sexual behavior isn’t always rational. Why would any man risk unprotected sex with a woman if he wasn’t sure she wouldn’t get pregnant? Do you think teenage sexual behavior is particularly well-considered by either sex partner?
Well in the demographic we are talking about, it is simply because he does not maintain responsibility and moves on to get the next girl pregnant.
So knowing this then why would the woman allow it?
Apparently it is much better well-considered by some teenagers because they are not getting pregnant out of wedlock and are not raising kids by themselves in numbers anything close.
Yes, it’s easy to see what the demographic is that we’re talking about.
Frankly: “Well in the demographic we are talking about, it is simply because he does not maintain responsibility and moves on to get the next girl pregnant.”
** You forgot a few basic items. First, sex is enjoyable, and second, we sometimes don’t even establish paternity or enforce child support payments.**
Frankly: “Apparently it is much better well-considered by some teenagers because they are not getting pregnant out of wedlock and are not raising kids by themselves in numbers anything close.”
**There are many ethnic groups – often high achieving – where it is still almost a taboo to have a child out of wedlock. They know it is a very poor choice, and it is not condoned and / or looked down upon.**
TBD
“Tia mis-characterizes our current norms. Yes, “Murphy Brown” might be able to financially raise a child on her own, but that isn’t the norm.
I’m not sure which men she is characterizing as alcoholics and abusive, but I believe the core issue is that we simply have a lot of children born out of wedlock where neither biological parent has put any thought into how they will raise the child financially, emotionally, and pragmatically. Some of this falls into the hook up / baby mama / baby daddy phenomena where the “relationship” can merely be a fling, a hook up, or a short term knockin the boots. Sometimes they’re boyfriend / girlfriend. When there are some cohorts and communities with over a ninety percent out-of-wedlock rate, we’re not talking a problem with booze or meth.”
I don’t think that you can find a single post of mine “mis-characterizing” a “Murphy Brown” pattern as a norm. I would actually say of everyone who posts here, I am probably closest to having seen in real time the impacts of various patterns of planned vs unplanned pregnancy on various economic groups throughout my career. My message has been absolutely consistent. The single best way to deal with the issue of neglected and abused children and the social problems they create is to not have those children in the first place. And I have been absolutely consistent, unlike many who post here who prefer finger pointing without offering solutions, in putting forth two real and practical ways to address this problem
1) Provide free highly effective and reversible contraception where ever it is possible to give it. This could be at the doctors office, free clinics, schools, church groups, the local drug store or strip mall clinic ( like many drug stores currently offer flu shots and minor consultations. And I have gone further and said that I would volunteer my time to such a protect. Have Nexplanon, will travel.
2. Incentivize both men and women to remain childless and stay in school. A living stipend ( come on, I know that some of you more mathematically inclined could calculate a reasonable amount) could be provided on a yearly basis for doing the desired behaviors rather than waiting for the inevitable pregnancy and then tsk , tsking when it happens.
The point is not to simply sanctimoniously lecture others on what they should be doing, which is really, really easy. It is structuring a society that supports making the best decisions, even for those whose parents never made a good decision in their lives and therefore, through no fault of their own, have no positive role models to emulate.
Your first suggestion is easier for me to accept than the second, which seems more involved. I think you have previously mentioned the implantable, reversible contraception which is likely far, far more reliable than other methods and less prone to spur-of-the-moment temptations. Number 2. There are currently numerous programs, grants, scholarships, etc., that benefit the lower class. I’ve been to college nights were they say if you’re poor, there are countless options… middle class? Much tougher. I think when kids are dropping out of school at 16, it really means they tune out at 13 or 14, so bribing them with college money may not do much.
3. I’d add education and training for prisoners, carrot and stick. If an inmate doesn’t gain training, they serve their full sentence, no early release. If they dropped out of high school, they need a GED. If they have a GED, they need additional training.
4. I would put all of these “non violent” prisoners the left has sympathy for to work. Clear brush, clear fire trails, clean freeways, paint housing projects. The Left will protest and the unions will squawk, revealing their true intentions. Less time for Playboy, lifting weights, tattoos, and crime school 101.
Tia, thank you for your contributions.
Earlier, you wrote something very thought provoking:
“Lt. Pike chose to use the pepper spray while within a few yards away Officer Pytel could be seen gentle moving through the crowd of protesters getting people to step aside with a hand placed on the arm and a few words.”
Thank you.
(in response to Frankly’s March 25, 5:01 p.m. comment–not sure why this didn’t post in the thread after I selected it).
Part of why the “largely inexpensive and available” contraception is not being used is due to slut shaming. Just from anecdotal evidence (reported in newspaper articles, various documentaries I’ve seen, etc.), there is still the stigma floating around in society that if a woman (and the vast majority of time it is only the woman this applies to) is doing the responsible thing by using contraceptives, she is “preparing for sex” and is therefore a slut.
However, if “it just happens,” there was no intent, so not sluttish behavior. But there could very well be a child that the parent/s are not capable of supporting.
This stigma needs to be removed, as does the antiquated notion that having sex is mainly for reproduction. More humans than not will engage in sexual activity for reasons completely unrelated to reproduction, and this should at this point in time occasion little comment–as long as all parties are able to consent, have given consent, there is no harm done to any parties, and contraception and disease-preventing devices are used.
Also, I would push back on your premise that contraception is “largely inexpensive and available.” The most effective forms of contraception for women are not readily available and require making a doctor’s visit–which may not be possible for some underage people. If you’re talking strictly condoms, while they are inexpensive and readily available, there is a not inconsiderable failure rate.
I’ll have to politely disagree with your analysis. We have seen a steady increase in out-of-wedlock births by many ethnic groups over the past several decades, so this “slut shaming” doesn’t explain a 50-year trend. The Sexual Revolution, the dramatic increase in Big Government (social programs), the decline of organized religion, the breakdown in the traditional family, the increased financial independence for women, and the reduction of social taboos are some major contributing factors.
Last time I read academic studies on this topic a few years ago there are still clear differences in out of wedlock birth rates according to ethnic groups. Many Asian-American and Jewish-American ethnic groups have rates at 10% or less, the African American rates were around 70%, and the European-American rate is somewhere in the middle (35%?).
Decades after the sexual revolution, some patterns have emerged. Our same-sex parent is the most powerful role model, and many young people grow up knowing that this type of behavior is either completely acceptable (or unacceptable), depending upon who your parents are. And white America has nothing to crow about.
I saw a “Vine” video clip posted by a high schooler which comments on the difference between how white guys and black guys buy condoms. 6 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTqdfj1LxQU
I’ve had Latino and black friends who think it is not masculine or pleasurable to use a condom, they’ve seemed very willing and non-nonchalant about taking risks. There is a machismo attitude with some of my Latino friends, which has positive and negative benefits. When I was growing up I knew white and Jewish parents who pounded the contraception topic, the implications, the cost, and one Mom even talked about “The Million dollar story” – what it would cost to raise a child for 22 years.
Isn’t Planned Parenthood pretty affordable?
“Out of wedlock” is irrelevant. Marriage rates overall have been declining for decades. More important: teen birth rates have been declining steadily across all demographic groups for decades now. Teen birth rates are higher among Hispanics and African-Americans, but are declining faster among those groups than among European-Americans.
Condoms are not effective enough to be considered reliable birth control. I assume you know that. What needs to be available in all states to all teenagers is effective long-term birth control, and emergency contraception over the counter.
When you actively inform teenagers about effective long-term birth control, and provide it to them at no or very low cost, you dramatically reduce the rate of teen pregnancy and the rate of abortion. http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/27138.aspx
The single thing we could do to greatly reduce teen pregnancy and help break the cycle of poverty is to actively provide birth control to teenage girls. That means including contraception in every health insurance plan and through Medicaid, and providing contraception information in sex education classes.
Out of wedlock births may be irrelevant to you, but it is the single biggest driver of poverty in America.
Single-parent Families in Poverty, Jacqueline Kirby, M.S., The Ohio State University
“Ninety percent of single-parent families are headed by females. Not surprisingly, single mothers with dependent children have the highest rate of poverty across all demographic groups (Olson & Banyard, 1993). Approximately 60 percent of U.S. children living in mother-only families are impoverished, compared with only 11 percent of two-parent families. The rate of poverty is even higher in African-American single-parent families, in which two out of every three children are poor.”
http://www3.uakron.edu/schulze/401/readings/singleparfam.htm
The births are, yes. Hence the need for birth control. The “wedlock” part is irrelevant. If the fathers were contributing to the cost of the child, it wouldn’t matter if they were married. If they have no financial resources, it wouldn’t matter if they were married. The marriage certificate is irrelevant. In some instances I would think having the father in the picture wouldn’t actually be desirable. What would be desirable would be for the young woman to not get pregnant in the first place. And any approach to that issue that exclusively focuses on abstinence will not work.
Anything that creates obstacles to teenage girls getting birth control contributes to poverty. That includes political parties, religious groups, private businesses that refuse to provide health insurance covering birth control, and states that refused to expand Medicaid.
Your six-second video, aside from being offensive, is also apparently incorrect.
Condom use among blacks vs. others:
http://bigthink.com/dollars-and-sex/a-racial-gap-in-condom-use
“Black Americans use condoms during vaginal intercourse significantly more than white Americans.”
https://www.blackaids.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=677:condom-use-higher-among-blacks-than-other-groups-but-not-enough-to-beat-hiv&catid=53:news-2010&Itemid=120
“This study shows that in fact, African-Americans are more likely than other ethnic groups to use condoms, as well as the most likely to be tested for HIV. And condom-use rates among Black teenagers were the highest of any demographic…”
That would all be good news if condoms were effective. I really wonder about your constant reference to them. Much of your information seems to be outdated, much of the time, and especially with respect to this issue.
What we really need to to is provide education about effective birth control.
TBD “We have seen a steady increase in out-of-wedlock births by many ethnic groups over the past several decades”
You are omitting a couple of fine points here.
1. We have also seen a steady down trend in the number of teen pregnancy rates.. I attribute this largely to two factors at least in our region. First is a greater acceptance of sex education not limited to abstinence only in the schools and a greater acceptance on the part of pediatricians, parents, and students of the long acting reversible contraceptives. Over the past couple of years I have seen the “tipping point” phenomena in my clinic and am placing at least twice and probably more of the Nexplanons and IUDs than I was just a couple of years ago.
2. You are equating “out of wedlock” pregnancy with “intended or desired pregnancy”. These two are not the same. I have seen a number of highly desired and planned for pregnancies “out of wedlock” and a much, much higher number of unintended and or undesired pregnancies to married couples. This is a very antiquated construct in our society whether or not we like the idea. “Isn’t Planned Parenthood pretty affordable?” Interesting that you bring up the subject of a group that is under constant attack by conservatives and the religious right with their facilities being regulated out of existence in many areas albeit not in our region. Why are we as a society deferring such a high cost item to a relatively small private group always working on the edge and always under attack ? Would it not be much more effective to adopt this model broadly and make it a public service available to all ? See my previous post.
Don
You definitely have this right and I thank you for taking the time to provide some factual information.
Out of wedlock is antiquated? And not a PC term. But while such terms are typically verboten, the stark facts remain: “Approximately 60 percent of U.S. children living in mother-only families are impoverished, compared with only 11 percent of two-parent families.” (See above citation.)
Yes, I know at least three women who had planned to get pregnant on their own with no partner. All three have college degrees, two advanced degrees. All three have struggled financially, emotionally, and logistically.
It is clearly politically correct to discuss racism, prejudice, and “unconscious racism” ad nasuem in places like Davis, while ignoring very poor choices and the disaster of the so-called “War on Poverty”.
Don, I agree with more education, more contraceptive choices, and a more proactive role with our revolving door prison population.
With TBD here. Also agree with easy and cheap access to any and all types of contraception. Copious education about the economic and personal costs for having and raising children. Scientific sex education.
Disagree completely that marriage should be considered as a requirement for having and raising children and that it is not an important component of breaking the cycles of poverty and crime. The politically correct narrative these days is that marriage equals religion, and religion is not needed and so marriage is not needed. From my perspective this is just a manifestation of that liberal egalitarian twitch that recoils at projections of moral superiority even as they flaunt their intellectual superiority like a crowing rooster. But ironically it isn’t a moral argument, it is an intellectual one. Children do much better coming from homes of traditional married parents. It is a fact.
Staying married is work and takes commitment. Conception is not only NOT work, it is generally better than and easier than eating ice cream. Conception without marriage does not establish the test of hard work and commitment just like eating ice cream does not establish a record of good eating habits.
But here is the main point…
One the most “lucky” things a kid can get in life is to be born into a married home.
There has been an interesting observation that teen birth rates drop where the ’16 and Pregnant’ and ‘Teen Mom’ television shows air.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/health/16-pregnant-teens-childbirth/
I assume that the word ‘not’ was missing from “Disagree completely that marriage should be considered as a requirement.”
Again: marriage itself does not reduce poverty.
My position has nothing to do with political correctness, ‘marriage equals religion’ (obviously I don’t agree with that), or any of your usual partisan trolling that you seem incapable of suppressing. Yes, children do better from married homes. Children do better when they have stable guardians. But the marriage certificate does not confer anything specific. Encouraging young pregnant teens to marry the boys they had sex with will not reduce poverty. Discouraging them from getting pregnant is the key.
Ok, when you put it that way, I agree.
With respect to raising children, married parents is the platinum standard.
The great thing about the Internet is that such starkly obvious, simple facts can on occasion be mentioned without the educational and media indoctrination.
Don, I guess technically speaking, marriage itself does not reduce poverty, just as education itself does not reduce poverty, and food itself does not reduce hunger.
These come off like the word games that Progressives and Multiculturalism use to dodge simple facts of life.
You wrote: “But the marriage certificate does not confer anything specific.”
I read a study once that mentioned the many positive contributions of marriage that aren’t even equaled by a long term live in partner.
You do allude to another truth which is I learned that in today’s world, getting married at 18 or 19 doesn’t work, waiting until they are at least 22 – 23 makes a big statistical difference as far as success.
” “Part of why the “largely inexpensive and available” contraception is not being used is due to slut shaming. Just from anecdotal evidence (reported in newspaper articles, various documentaries I’ve seen, etc.), there is still the stigma floating around in society that if a woman (and the vast majority of time it is only the woman this applies to) is doing the responsible thing by using contraceptives, she is “preparing for sex” and is therefore a slut.
However, if “it just happens,” there was no intent, so not sluttish behavior.” ”
Re: this stigma that has probably been around since the beginning of time, I agree 100%. Well written. Thank you for your contribution.
“With respect to raising children, married parents is the platinum standard.”
With respect to raising children, married parents who are committed to the joint raising of their children and to each other is the platinum standard. The critical part about commitment tends to get left out in the facile discussion of marriage.
As far as platinum, sure. But even a mediocre marriage, if that sounds right, is better than a single parent struggling with money, child care, and the drama of yahoos coming and going in today’s chaotic dating world.
Even radical Barack Obama has spoken several times about the critical importance of marriage … unless it was just his Sista Solja moment (see Bill Clinton). Not a facile conversation, but a critical conversation often brushed under the rug by liberals.
Is it facile to think we could have a substantially smaller prison population, safer streets and less gangs if boys became men, not a prolonged “Peter Pan” syndrome?
President Barack Obama Father’s Day Speech to Apostolic Church of God in Chicago
“…But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing — missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.”
“You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled — doubled — since we were children. We know the statistics [many don’t] — that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11094.html