A Kid Without A Chance
The L.A. Department of Children and Family Services endangers children to keep them out of foster care -- giving them back twice and maybe more to abusive and unfit parents.
"There are risks," says the subhead over the LA Times piece by Garrett Therolf. No kidding. Especially when the baby mama's motivation becomes clear, as by this statement by the then crack-using, tricking Darlene Compton. When they came to take her child away after she went back on drugs, her big question:
"What will happen to my check?"
The story opens on her Alcoholics Anonymous meeting:
As Darlene Compton spoke on a November evening, her toddler son wandered the linoleum floor of the Alcoholics Anonymous meeting hall in South Los Angeles. Fussing as the night session entered its third hour, he smiled fleetingly when the recovering addicts handed him candies and a Twinkie."I'm the alcoholic who doesn't like dealing with my son sometimes, but it's not his fault he's here. It's my fault."
Descending from the podium after a few minutes, she grabbed the boy's arm. "Shut. Your. Mouth," she told him, her long, manicured fingernail pressing his shoulder. They retreated to a bathroom whose walls barely muffled her yelling. He let out a wail.
It has often been uncomfortable for each, but 41-year-old Darlene Compton and 23-month-old Jontay are together again.
How heartwarming.
Here's more on the cash and prizes for reuniting a seriously unfit mother with her biological offspring:
When social workers reunited Darlene Compton and Jontay in May, they knew she had been off crack cocaine for just six months and had a history of failed alcohol and drug recoveries. She'd engaged in prostitution, hadn't had a regular job in 10 years and displayed a sometimes vicious temper, according to internal records and interviews.Since 1999, they had received 13 calls from people concerned about her parenting, records show. Over the years, all five of her children either had been removed from her care by social workers or taken in by relatives.
But with Jontay, Compton was swiftly given another chance -- with fewer obstacles and more services than in the past.
Upfront, the department is paying hundreds of dollars to address her many needs. It bought the bunk beds and a dresser for her son's bedroom. It pays a child-care provider who picks up Jontay each morning shortly after dawn and drops him off at 1:30 in the afternoon. It pays the teacher who picks up Compton for parenting and anger management classes and has bought the bus pass that takes her to job training classes.
Because her son moved back in, Compton also qualified for other benefits: a $1,404 federal housing voucher, a $367 food stamp benefit and a $328 welfare check.
"I'm blessed," Compton told her AA group that night.
I think I'm going to be violently ill.
For happier endings in the future -- ones that don't involve children brought into the world by women like Darlene Compton -- there's the nonprofit Project Prevention:
Project Prevention offers cash incentives to women that are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol to use long-term or permanent birth control.Our mission is to reduce the number of substance exposed births to zero.
Because every baby deserves a sober start!
Here's a letter of endorsement to Project Prevention from a woman who had crack babies:
And these wonderful protesters say, "Let the addicted woman/man keep reproducing at will!!!" I guess not too many of them have been around drug exposed children. What's funny is, that my children are first generation crack babies. Their behavior is unpredictable, violent and definitely anti-social. They are not at fault, they have been born that way. When they are not "going off" they are smart, loveable kids, but more often than not, they are off on a tangent. My children aren't the only ones, and to a certain extent they were lucky. I know of other addicts who babies were born horribly deformed, with AIDS or HIV positive, flat out and out hopelessly retarded, and physically disabled.I'm not saying that these babies don't have a right to exist. I love my babies as best I can, from a distance. When you think of the long-term costs escalating behind pregnant addicts.....? Look at the infant intensive care costs, the special education costs, the court costs, the shuffling of the poor baby through the system, the loss of brain-power potential, the lack of emotional stability of the drug exposed child. Some say that I'm being too harsh, but I have a right to speak on this subject, because me and mine are LIVING THE NIGHTMARE DAILY!!!
I wish someone would have tied my tubes back then or installed an IUD in me, by hook or by crook.
There are two types of stories in this area:
- Kids taken away from their parents, at least temporarily, for trivial reasons.
- Kids left with, or returned to, their parents, when the parents are manifestly unfit.
How should child protectives services work? How does one avoid falling in to either of these two extremes?
I have no answers, but I think it is essential to consider both extremes at the same time.
bradley13 at December 19, 2009 1:25 AM
I used to work for an attorney who represented child services for the county in which I resided for these cases. It was the hardest and most fulfilling job I have ever had and I didn't have to deal with these parents directly, but I did work with the social workers all the time. I once asked a social worker how they could do the job they were doing and not strangle the parents. He said it was very hard sometimes. The issue I also had was in a lot of cases they kids would go to the grandparents, who themselves produced and raised the parents, so what makes you think the grandparents will do a good job this time around. There is no easy answer, but sometimes the system does succeed (I've seen it) and place these kids with families that love and nurture them and ultimately adopt them, but that’s a rarity. These women should be forcefully sterilized or at least have an IUD that lasts for 5 years put into them. I also feel that if you are on welfare and have a baby when on welfare you either get a f***ing job or get your child taken away. My development (townhouses) has some HOC (assisted living for welfare recipients) units. There was one lady, single mom of course, 4 kids, on welfare and the pos had 4 cats and a dog, none of which were fixed, so at any one time she had up to 3 cats pregnant (one was male). If you can’t afford to feed your own children and rely on society to house and feed you and your 4 kids, how the f*** can you afford 4 cats and a dog. I have 2 dogs and 2 cats, all are fixed and I pay about $1,2000 a year for all of them for their health insurance alone. If you can’t afford to take care of an animal, then do NOT get one let alone 5. Sorry, off topic but that just pisses me off to no end. Oh and Amy, when my boys bark they get told to come inside too. Anyway, end of off topic rant. I just don’t understand people, I don’t have kids bc I’m not married and I don’t want to bring a child into a single parent situation and I can afford to have a child on my own with no problems, but these women that are drug addicted and have no means of support just keep having baby after baby and think nothing of letting the tax payers pay for them and their brood, much less care about the quality of life of their children. I applaud the efforts of project prevention.
Nina at December 19, 2009 5:22 AM
You know who I would deal with this? I think th government should legalize all drugs, and give them away for free.
Imagine if all the crack addict could go down to the drug clinic get as much drugs as they wanted and were then locked in a room unitl the came down or OD and died.
Just imagine how many problems that would solve.
Anyone on welfare should have to sign a contract which states they are willingly going in BC in exchange for welfare and should they have a child while on welfare it will be taken from them, they will be permanetly steralized and they will lose ALL benifits imediatly and NEVER be eligable to receive them again
lujlp at December 19, 2009 5:36 AM
Not to oversimplify, but I don't think it is a coincidence things like this skyrocket when we start pumping money into such situations. Not only is there a financial incentive, it falsely impresses upon people that it is either okay (they are sort of rewarded) or they are the victim (reason for the money).
Trust at December 19, 2009 6:35 AM
Project Prevention is a great idea.
The problem is that there are not enough foster families, and the sad reality is that little black boys, like Jontay, who have already had such a rough start, and were probably born drug-addicted, or not highly adoptable. No one wants them.
So, we can rail on against social services, but unless we have better placements - unless we are all willing to adopt or foster these problematic children - they are doing the best they can by trying to improve the mother/son situation.
Also, consider this: With the false accusations fears many of us have, how many of you would foster a child? I wouldn't. I'd love to, but I've seen the kind of scrutiny foster families are put through, and, as much of a child advocate as I am, I personally wouldn't want to deal with that.
Your home must be perfectly child-proof, and God forbid, you have a male in the house.
That's one reason we don't have more foster homes for these children.
lovelysoul at December 19, 2009 7:08 AM
All great points, and foster care certainly isn't without risks of its own for the children too. It seems to me that any time you motivate the system by offering money for a particular course of action, then getting the money becomes the primary factor in any judgment situation.
Bradley, I too wonder what the hell's going on when CPS is so eager to take children away from perfectly good parents, while at the same time being willing to leave children with horrible parents. I think part of it is that most of the horrible parents are borderlines or sociopaths, and they find it very easy to play the social workers.
Cousin Dave at December 19, 2009 8:58 AM
My SIL is a social worker. She worked for CPS here in austin until she-like all the good ones-burnt out. She works for a private christian foster placement agency now and is much happier. She placed a drug-addicted newborn with a family while she was at CPS, who kept her until she died from complications of her crappy neonate environment at age 3. The family was so happy to have had her in their life, they paid for a year's worth of diapers for my SIL's new baby, in memory of their little one that died. So there are good foster families out there. The foster-to-adopt ones tend to be better, because they WANT to keep a kid for life. The ones doing it for a paycheck aren't good.
Why can't some of that money be spent to sterilize these women? Maybe, instead of a bus pass?
momof4 at December 19, 2009 9:34 AM
It sounds cold, but sterilization is the best option to prevent such sad situations. Once the child is here, as your story demonstrates, momoffour, it takes really special foster families to deal with the tragic consequences. Sadly, there just aren't enough foster families like that.
Plenty of people want to adopt, but they usually want a child of their own race, without special needs. So, these children, many of whom are developmentally disabled, with severe psychological problems, just aren't desirable for adoption.
Social services can only do so much. Without better placement options, the only practical solution, in most cases, is to try to work with these families.
My sister is a foster mom. It took her and her husband months to become qualified, then their home was inspected several times, and found to be lacking appropriate safety features, such as special window locks, that most of us who have raised children never had. The whole process just to become foster parents, and outfit their home properly, was daunting and costly. Then, they are scrutinized and inspected at random.
Yet, you can't really blame the state, since if a child gets hurt in foster care, they are at criticized. But it really discourages foster families.
I've considered fostering, except I have a boyfriend and a son in and out of my house. And, in my experience, as a GAL, abused children still prefer to go home. They are rarely thrilled to be in foster care, even if their home life is horrible. No matter how nice your home, or how loving you are, they almost all long to be back with their birth parents. They love them, abusive or not.
So, maybe it's paranoid, but, to me, that lends an extra incentive for false allegations. If it were just me running the risk, I'd do it, but I don't feel comfortable exposing my family, especially the males, to that risk and scrutiny.
lovelysoul at December 19, 2009 10:02 AM
The thing about DCFS, or DFS or whatever the dept. is called where you live, is HOW and for WHAT reason are they called in? If a parent is a hardcase, seems like they keep the kid or get them back like Darlene. If the parent is desperate to get the kid back, and doesn't understand why the child would be taken away for playing with matches and starting the garage on fire... it's an easy target. These situations raise some specters about DCFS and all of them are bad. I'd love to see some numbers on the education level of the parent, socioeconomic status, and if that correlates to treatment, and how the reason for contact plays into that...
It may be as simple as you are obstructed if "you should know better" and given many chances if you "will learn from your mistakes". Instead of having an objective based on the reason for taking the kid in the first place... seems like there are 2 or more standards based on a certain sympathy for the parent. When it turns deadly DCFS tells the media that they will review their internal procedures. If they are doing stupid stuff at all levels, how does that effect a basic case?
It's very painful to say, but a little boy in such a situation may well grow up to sire his own new generation of kids just like him.
SwissArmyD at December 19, 2009 10:09 AM
"It sounds cold, but sterilization is the best option to prevent such sad situations."
No, it sounds naive. Because over the long run I would argue that governments are usually unable to handle scary powers without some populsation segment getting unfairly creamed. Sure, it starts off with cases most everyone agrees is perfectly reasonable. Come back in 50 years, and you find horrifying abuses have become the norm.
This is the case whether you are talking about a modest income tax (hey, only the top 1% of taxpayers, and only a little bit of their income...), social benefit programs (only disabled people of advanced age, who comprise less than 5% of the population...we can afford that!), perfectly reasonable infringements on free speech (nope, no campaign contributions above this amount...even though incumbents are insulated by the rule), or seemingly sensible restrictions on people's sexual activities (why, cannot let those young people have agency and resources...they might not want to sleep with us old goats!), the government wedge's thin edge is inserted just like you propse: in a small area unlikely to impact many people. A few decades later, well, that wedge is sunk deep and only going in deeper, and everyone is getting cracked in half by it.
Moreover, forced sterilization has a history both in this country and others. When you look it over, it suggests that government and families applied it too often in an appalling manner. I for one would rather not have a government so hefty it can chop up people's reproductive organs as a social betterment program. If it can do that, what can't it do?
Spartee at December 19, 2009 10:24 AM
Swiss, what I'm saying is that it oftens gets down to the ugly truth about fostering and adoption. Frankly, some kids are more desirable for fostering/adopting than others. Your average middle-class white kid is desired by foster families more than a developmentally disabled black child. Unless someone wants a child, they have no place to go.
The typical foster family is white and middle or upper class. Most of the time, they aren't emotionally equipped to deal with a special needs child, and they often have specific preferences with regards to race and gender, especially if they're pre-adoptive parents.
We need more black foster families in these impoverished areas, but, perhaps because they already have their hands full with their own kids and grandkids, they're just not lining up to foster. It's a sad situation.
Another alternative is returning to shelters or orphanage-type facilities. We have a children's shelter here, but it's only supposed to be for temporary placement. This isn't ideal for kids, but in areas where there are more children than foster families available, it may be the only way.
lovelysoul at December 19, 2009 10:30 AM
"Moreover, forced sterilization has a history both in this country and others."
I would never support forced sterilization, but voluntary or temporary (IUD) sterilization makes perfect sense. Every child we can prevent from being born into a disadvantaged environment saves so much pain and heartbreak. It's socially irresponsible not to offer these options. We pay muc more in the long-run for NOT doing it.
Drug addicts can't remember to take birth control pills or use other methods with reliability. Offering them an incentive to implant an IUD, when it's obvious that they are unfit to parent, is compassionate. They don't want a child and the child doesn't need to be born into such a horrific situation.
lovelysoul at December 19, 2009 10:40 AM
You get what you reward.
The late Senator Patrick Moynihan already uncovered the connection between "Aid to Families with Dependent Children" and soaring illegitimacy rates.
Nothing new here.
Sometimes the greater mercy is to let some people hit bottom, and make the failure of their choices demonstrable to all.
This is especially true with addiction - where there is a lot of self-delusion involved.
Ben-David at December 19, 2009 10:56 AM
Her oldest kid is watching the youngest. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the state pays for this, and will soon force the caregiver to join SEIU. Trish needs to resign.
Norplant works swell for people who can't/won't take pills and or get tubal ligation.
KateC at December 19, 2009 11:08 AM
Most hateful line:
> I love my babies as best I can,
> from a distance.
I often wonder how much a problem is with the contemporary habit in English of using the word "love" to describe so many different things... In this case, as if her "love" were about nourishing them and nurturing them and sheltering them, which it so obviously is not.
And then you see my point, and it applies just as well to the accidental pregnancy post from earlier today: These terms are all jumbled and indistinguishable because irresponsible people –including "loving" women– want them to be jumbled and indistinguishable. They want to feign pride in their bogus "love" at all costs: Language is just a tool, and some people need dull blades.
Women naturally want to knock out babies; the will to do it well is synthetic and inculcated.
In my whole life, I've met only one woman (age about 45) who admitted that she wasn't a very good parent. Her brother, my friend, was hosting the party in his home, and happened to be in the room at the same time, and said the same thing of his own family-making. They weren't smirking or trying to be manipulative. We didn't get into details, but it was short arithmetic to conclude that their own childhoods hadn't been perfect. But in that moment, they seemed very adult and thoughtful.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 19, 2009 1:23 PM
These mothers (and I use that word loosely) suck. You know who else sucks? The men who impregnated them. How about two paternity tests prove you've got a kid you're not willing to support and help raise and. . .we sterilize you. Not as easy as always blaming it on the women but. . .
MomofRae at December 19, 2009 1:47 PM
I have come to the reluctant conclusion there is a fraction of the population, say 10 percent, who really need to live in a structured environment, such as the Armed Services.
In other countries, these people are taken care of by extended families, or a social welfare net.
Of course, we need an Armed Services about 1/3rd the size what we have now, so that is not a total solution in the USA. But some sort of Universal Conscription, and then extended service for those who want it may be the answer. Not a total answer, but an answer.
You know we have fancy base housing now for US soldiers?
The new stuff going up is better than most families have.
We can do the same thing for CCC-type workers, or other useful programs. Conscriptees and enlistees would have to live on base, show up fro work etc, or go to the brig. Like soldiers, they get good housing, health care and a pension after 20 years.
Mr Big Sphincter in the Sky at December 19, 2009 2:00 PM
I took her comment as meaning that her kids are so "unpredictable, violent, and anti-social", due to the brain damage her drug use caused, that she can't really be near them much. She says it's not their fault, so she takes responsibility, but I thought what she was admitting is that they are basically ruined, from birth, and that's why she supports the voluntary sterilization program.
lovelysoul at December 19, 2009 2:06 PM
lovelysoul: She says it's not their fault, so she takes responsibility,...
/derail I've always thought that was very intersting: someone taking full responsibility...
When it comes to causing life threatening/diminishing conditions in her babies before they're even born, she's responsible, whether she claims to take full responsibility or not.
The question really is, "You acknowledge that this is your fault. Good. Because it is. So, what are you going to do about it."
You use "taking full responsibility" like it means, "acknowledging fault." No, taking responsibility means that she is the one who has taken it upon herself to mitigate if not able to eliminate the negative consequences of the bum deal her kids were born with. In that respect, she is not taking full responsibility. Or even part of the responsibility. She goes to addicts' meetings and makes plays for sympathy by candidly admitting her complicity in the fucked-up lives she inflicted on her children.
I'd like to sit in on one of those meetings. I'd love to hear her say that she's taking full responsibility for those kids' situation. I'd say, "Really? You've found the kids a good home and are funding their upbringing? Good on you!...Oh, you just mean you're admitting that everything's your fault. Duh. We knew that. Glad to hear you're aren't denying it. Not that it does your kids any good."
Patrick at December 19, 2009 4:14 PM
> I have come to the reluctant
> conclusion...
I love that. He wants to be generous with other people, he swears he does, but their weaknesses compel him to turn away from his compassionate impulses....
> there is a fraction of the
> population, say 10 percent
10 percent, okay? That means one-in-ten, babe! This is science!
> who really need to live in a
> structured environment, such
> as the Armed Services.
Which is more pathetic: That he thinks the protection of his pink buns is the work of ne'er-do-wells, or the presumption that this responsibility is by nature assigned to less competent individuals?
> I'd say, "Really?
You have weird ideas about the meaning of text in quotation marks, as if it described the fantasyland of your bitterest resentment.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 19, 2009 4:43 PM
I have come to the reluctant conclusion there is a fraction of the population, say 10 percent, who really need to live in a structured environment, such as the Armed Services.
The observation that some people thrive in disciplined environments with a clear chain of command is uninteresting - it's a truism. That this is the case is not an indictment of those who succeed there. Different skill sets for different jobs - it's key to things working well.
Whatever at December 19, 2009 5:37 PM
When I was a young idealist out to save the world, I worked with children that had been born drug-addicted and were subsequently abused in numerous ways by their "parents." I quickly came to the conclusion that every one of those "parents" should be sterilized for ruining their children. I fully support Project Prevention and wish there was a way to make it mandatory.
Amy K. at December 19, 2009 7:27 PM
> Different skill sets for different jobs
> - it's key to things working well.
Having a dumb guy do your fighting for you - it's the key to keeping your pink ass safe.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 19, 2009 7:38 PM
Seriously, dude. Next time you're sitting around having a coffee with some military types, I want you to try out this thinking on them... That's it's good to have the army around to straighten out attitude cases from incompetent or incomplete family systems.
Let us know what they say.
Or do you not know any military types?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 19, 2009 7:40 PM
Crid writes: You have weird ideas about the meaning of text in quotation marks, as if it described the fantasyland of your bitterest resentment.
What strikes me as weird is your obsessive need to make guesses at my personal experience. My feelings toward you are pretty much the opposite. I'd rather not know anything about your upbringing or experience.
My perspective on "taking full responsibility" actually was born when Janet Reno "took full responsibility" for the Branch Davidian massacre. I kept waiting to find out how she was going to "take full responsibility." Resign over the issue and let someone competent step up? Perhaps direct funds to the survivors of the victims? Apparently, "taking full responsibility" means saying "it's my fault" but still getting off scot-free.
Patrick at December 19, 2009 8:47 PM
Or do you not know any military types?
I know a number. Family and friends.
Having a dumb guy do your fighting for you - it's the key to keeping your pink ass safe.
Yes, cause that's what I said! You're an idiot.
Whatever at December 19, 2009 9:01 PM
I would be in favor of:
1) Mandatory IUDs for all women over the age of 16 receiving welfare. If there was an temporary-but-enforceable equivalent for men I'd support that too, but at the very least fill their pockets with condoms.
2) Widespread availability of voluntary sterilization for women and men. Even better if they get paid for doing it-as people have pointed out in the past, anyone willing to sell their fertility doesn't deserve to have kids anyway.
3) Free and easily accessible birth control. Lets get physicians in inner city high schools, performing checkups and handing out birth control, monthly.
4) Better crackdown on unpaid child support. I'm not talking about well-meaning dads who get thrown in jail because their salary got cut and they can't make the payments-that's horrible. I'm talking about 19 year old drug-dealing baby daddies who walk away scotfree to go knock up more women. These people are a drain on the system in more ways than one and a slap in the face to every father who is actually supporting his children (and your taxes are supporting theirs too).
5) Elimination of welfare as we know it. The paradox of welfare is that if it worked, no one would be on it for more than a couple years. The fact that some families are on welfare for GENERATIONS is a clear indicator that something is wrong.
The foster care system...no idea.
Shannon at December 19, 2009 9:30 PM
I grew up in an area where most parents were unfit and I say without any hesitation most of them should have been been sterilised.
In the case of parents, maybe, certainly my dad shouldn't have been breeding as he was a violent alcoholic. Perhaps if my mother had known she could be sterilised for marrying and staying with such a man, she might have made better choices.
Which would mean, of course, I would never have been born. Which I would be fine with if it meant no other child born to unfit parents was ever born either. And yes, I get the essential paradox of that. I did turn out ok(ish - mostly) but I had to flee the country, marry someone who was the opposite of my dad, and move to the other side of the world to escape my parents and family to do so. Also, I was lucky, I was born with a reasonable IQ, was (and still am) addicted to books - they were an escape of course and showed me that there was a whole world out there that was nothing like the shit-hole I was living in. I was able to get a decent job, get myself the hell out of there.
As my father was the violent alcoholic, not my mother, I guess I was also lucky to miss out on the foetal alcohol effect and foetal alcohol syndrome that was rampant in the neighbourhood children I grew up with. In addition, though my father was violent, we were offered protection from his worst excesses, unlike many of the children I knew who were battered senseless regularly and whose brains and bodies had to have been damaged by the constant abuse. My mother also denied us the fun of drinking alcohol at an early age, unlike so many of the drunken mums in the neighbourhood, so we didn't grow up already brain damaged from ingesting alcohol as babies and toddlers.
Most of my childhood companions live close to where they grew up and are continuing the cycle gaily. So, yes, I know all the possible ramifications, I know the abuses of power governments employ and am usually somewhat libertarian in my views - insofar as when it comes to our own selves and our own bodies we have the right to make our own choices. But once others start being affected, in particular once children come into the picture it changes for me.
I have heard it said before that children are not a right but a privilege. I have to agree. I can only speak from my own knowledge of course. I say sterilise the unfit, abusive, drug addicts - even the 5 year injection would be a step in the right direction. If they can't get their lives together in five years then give them another shot and review it again in 5. Perhaps it would give them some sort of incentive to drag themselves out of the gutter and it would certainly prevent an awful lot of suffering. Which is then passed on down to the next generation and never, oh god never, seems to end.
Alison D at December 19, 2009 9:36 PM
> I know a number.
Try it out. Like the other thing. All these ideas you like to share with anonymous strangers on the blog... Say them out loud to people, with eye contact as you form the words. In here, they have the musty odor of secrets.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 19, 2009 9:42 PM
> Free and easily accessible birth control.
Easily accessible, I'm cool with. Why free?
And when you say free, who exactly will be paying?
I ask because there are a lot of people who have weird ideas about how things can be made "free".
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 19, 2009 9:44 PM
birth control is NEVER free...
even if you pay no money for it, it takes EFFORT to use it... effort that a lot of people aren't willing to do.
SwissArmyD at December 19, 2009 9:59 PM
Try it out. Like the other thing.
Has anybody told you that you might have Asperger's syndrome? It's an autism-spectrum disorder. Language comprehension problems are common in autism. You seem to have basic comprehension difficulties. Or you are a liar. These are the the only options. You either have no ability to interpret what people write, or you don't care what they write and will attribute whatever the fuck you want to them anyway. Neither says anything good about you.
I know people who have been successful in the military. Did some of them thrive in environments that would annoy me - YES! Have I thrived in conditions that might annoy them - YES! Talented people tend to end up where their skills are valued. And talented people succeed in the military as they do elsewhere. Those who work hard and get the job done, advance. Others fail.
Regarding your other question, I don't have anything to discuss with people I know who are veterans or are serving in the military because they are people I think highly of. I've told them so. Contrary to your fantasy world where any people to your left = hates the military, I respect and commend our solidiers for their courage and remarkable work in difficult circumstances.
Whatever at December 19, 2009 10:19 PM
Crid: Try it out. Like the other thing. All these ideas you like to share with anonymous strangers on the blog... Say them out loud to people, with eye contact as you form the words. In here, they have the musty odor of secrets.
You will never learn to make a legitimate argument. And why should you, since dishonesty serves you so well?
And for the record, when I was in the Army, I met and recognized a number of people who needed the structured environment and would have floundered in the civilian world. I also knew a number of people in the army who would readily admit this.
You'd be very surprised at the answer Whatever would get if he actually tried this.
Patrick at December 19, 2009 10:46 PM
Sure — Professional soldiers LOVE it when society uses their ranks for dumping ground. Sure....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 19, 2009 11:53 PM
why do you think that people who prefer structure are stupid?
whatever at December 20, 2009 1:46 AM
Because of the "reluctance" of your "conclusion".
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 20, 2009 2:29 AM
Crid: Sure — Professional soldiers LOVE it when society uses their ranks for dumping ground. Sure....
Most soldiers realize that there is no application process (if you qualify, you're in) and placed based on your aptitude. Since just about anyone can get in, it's bound to attract some undesirables. You don't like it, then lobby Congress.
Also, "professional soldier" is misleading (but you already know that) because the term is vague. There are many jobs under the blanket term "soldier." I was never a "soldier" by occupation. When I was in the military, I was an interrogator. Suggesting I was a professional soldier makes about as much sense calling you a "professional civilian."
I think I understand your modus operandi. You don't make valid arguments but resort to demagoguery and hope you'll get away with it. Not a sound strategy, but I have to admit your penchant for overstuffed flowery language occasionally works as a smoke screen.
Patrick at December 20, 2009 5:21 AM
Because of the "reluctance" of your "conclusion".
That was the reluctance of someone else's conclusion, not mine.
Whatever at December 20, 2009 10:04 AM
WHy do you guys do this?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 20, 2009 10:19 AM
> Most soldiers realize
&
> the term is vague.
You're dancing.
> I understand your modus operandi.
How come I'm so conniving? How come you're never just wrong?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 20, 2009 10:22 AM
WHy do you guys do this?
Do what?
Whatever at December 20, 2009 11:25 AM
Crid writes: How come I'm so conniving?
Ask your shrink. I don't know anything about your childhood experiences.
While you're discussing it with him/her, bring this example up.
Crid writes: Most soldiers realize
&
the term is vague.
You're dancing.
In context, I said that most soldiers realize that there's no application process to be accepted in the military. That would be because the draft was discontinued in 1973, therefore most soldiers joined voluntarily.
Context...context.
The vague comment was because you seem to think that soldiering is a job, like cocktail waitressing, prostitution or poledancing. Soldiering isn't one job. It's hundreds of jobs.
Patrick at December 20, 2009 8:57 PM
What Ben-David said:
"You get what you reward."
"Sometimes the greater mercy is to let some people hit bottom, and make the failure of their choices demonstrable to all."
Welfare of some form is necessary for a civilized society. However, one must be careful what one rewards. Some clear limits must be in place:
- No additional welfare for children born while you are on the dole. Period.
- No welfare without work. Streets need swept, graffiti needs removed, garbage needs picked up. Unpleasant tasks, 20 hours per week. The rest of the time must be spent going to school or looking for a job. Have kids? Your problem. Trade child-care with a neighbor, find family, whatever you have to do.
One cannot afford to reward having kids to get more welfare, one cannot afford to pay welfare for people to sit around doing nothing.
bradley13 at December 20, 2009 11:20 PM
Bradley13 writes: Welfare of some form is necessary for a civilized society. However, one must be careful what one rewards. Some clear limits must be in place:
- No additional welfare for children born while you are on the dole. Period.
- No welfare without work. Streets need swept, graffiti needs removed, garbage needs picked up. Unpleasant tasks, 20 hours per week. The rest of the time must be spent going to school or looking for a job. Have kids? Your problem. Trade child-care with a neighbor, find family, whatever you have to do.
I admit I like the idea. Do I think it will work? No way. Malingerers will find ways of getting around this. They'll fake every illness under the sun, get doctors' notes, etc. "I can't work. I have an illness, therefore the government must subsidize my idleness and pay me for more kids."
My sister says in Europe, regardless of your condition, you must do something, anything, to receive government assistance, regardless of your disability. Even if it's selling pencils on a street corner for a nickel apiece.
Patrick at December 21, 2009 3:50 AM
Sterilization brings echoes of Nazi eugenics, yes. But has anyone considered that many of these career "welfare queens" actually WANT very much to have a baby?
And maybe their (oh so temporary) partners do as well?
Sure, a lot of those guys just want to brag about the number of bitches they've knocked up... it's a virility thing. And the girls want to have babies because, well, they love their "man" and want to bind him to them using the best glue they know how.
And maybe some of them really have a naive desire to love a baby? They think it's a toy, sure, but the initial desire is not something wrong - it's natural. Or they see their girlfriends with infants and think that having a baby of their own will raise their social status?
I dunno.
I always thought higher education was the best form of birth control, but maybe that's naive too.
vi at December 21, 2009 7:08 AM
"And the girls want to have babies because, well, they love their "man" and want to bind him to them using the best glue they know how."
They also want to get money from the baby daddies too. I have an employee with 6 kids by 2 or 3 different women. The mothers get welfare, but he slips them cash when he can too. I'm not sure whether he's listed as the father for any of the kids. But it's kind of joke around here that we know he'll be getting laid each payday. The baby mammas make sure to track him down on Fri. The lucky mama gets him drunk and satisfied, then leaves him $20 in his wallet. The rest she takes for herself and the kiddies. He's always broke, as it should be.
lovelysoul at December 21, 2009 7:38 AM
So, vi, having babies - just because, to trap a man, as a fashion accesory(toy) and to raise social staus are "not wrong"
Were you hit in the head with a shovel lately?
lujlp at December 21, 2009 7:54 AM
"These mothers (and I use that word loosely) suck. You know who else sucks? The men who impregnated them. How about two paternity tests prove you've got a kid you're not willing to support and help raise and. . .we sterilize you. Not as easy as always blaming it on the women but. . ."
From an ethical standpoint, I agree with you, but... the math doesn't work out. In a system like this where there is a high degree of promiscuity, you have to sterilize just about the entire male population to make a dent in birth rates.
Cousin Dave at December 21, 2009 9:44 AM
No, it sounds naive. Because over the long run I would argue that governments are usually unable to handle scary powers without some population segment getting unfairly creamed.
I'll have to agree with Spartee on this one. This thing sounds like a good idea, until people start taking it beyond welfare recipients. Next thing you know, we'll be sterilizing people with IQs just north of 80 (not necessarily unfit to have kids, but we can't have these idiots breeding), or people who contain genes that might predispose the offspring to having some illness. In other words, eugenics. This thing could take a scary turn, that's for sure.
mpetrie98 at December 21, 2009 6:49 PM
What the hell is worng with eugenics?
Ist good enough for your dogs, your cats, cattle, sheep, goats, fowl, its good enough for the fruits and vegatables you eat.
Why is it bad for humans?
lujlp at December 22, 2009 6:52 PM
It's bad for cats and dogs and the food you eat and....
Some dog breeds can't even birth on their own anymore, they have to have c-sections, as a side effect of breeding for "desirable" traits. And the old saying that mutts are healthier than pure breeds is pretty darn true. Some cats can barely breathe, as a side effects of traits they were bred for. The nutritional content of many of our foods has gone down as a side effect of breeding for hardiness, etc. Turkeys can't even stand up anymore, after we messed with their natural physiology for more meat. So yeah, given our GREAT track record of messin' with mother nature, let's apply it to ourselves! Why the hell not, right?
momof4 at December 22, 2009 7:00 PM
When it comes to thing like huntingtons and cysti fibrois why not?
lujlp at December 23, 2009 1:46 AM
india did something similiar.. started with the best intentions, and then spiralled into a method of control for classes and political alliances due to the emerging democracy
May God have mercy on each of your soulless bodies.
dick at October 19, 2010 1:07 PM
Leave a comment