One of the more interesting things I ever read went something like this:

If you take blacks and hispanics out of the equation, the US would have a murder rate roughly equal to western Europe's.

If you took blacks, hispanics, and southern whites out of the equation, the US would have a murder rate roughly equal to Japan's.

(By "taking out of the equation" they meant subtracting both the number of the population and the number of murders committed by them.)

You mean ultraviolence isn't the goal?

remember that having a rabid lion around, is what requires govt. and police to take care of it...

Maybe I'm just old/cynical.

One (1) glass of wine with dinner tonight, which is all it takes to befog this blog.

Were the preceding two comments crazy-racist?

""Were the preceding two comments crazy-racist?""

Am I missing the famous Crid wit or is that a serious question?
DC's comment is an interesting factoid if accurate. I didn't take from it a 'I hate X because their murder numbers are too high'.

SAD's comment was definitely and seriously anti government. Anti anyone or anything else? Too non specific to draw that conclusion.

Single parent households lead to significantly higher rates of 'trouble' than in two parent homes. This issue is markedly higher among the African American sub group. Speaking out on this serious issue with an underlying motivation of lowering the single parent household (and by extension helping this sub group and other sub groups to better thrive) will often get you labeled "racist". It then quickly stifles the conversation. How ironic and perverse....

When I left Philly there was a financial crisis and they cut back the number of cops, among other things. You get what you pay for.

The problem, now, can be attributed less to race, but the ghetto effect. People tend to congregate with people who think and look like them. Look at the Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and the concentration of Scandinavians. The west coast states have a concentration of Asians.

Every major urban area has it's ghetto area(s) -- the area in which success, education, work, respect for your neighbors aren't appreciated or held up as examples.

The ghetto some times fade away and just become another part of a urban area. Some times the ghetto effect intensifies due to circumstances.

For example there are (sub)urban areas in the southern border states where they put up signs "We speak English here." Those areas have an influx of Hispanics that are both legal and illegal. If the predominant population has a respect for the rule of law and the local law enforcement is reasonable a lot of times they will fade in. But if there is targeted law enforcement while letting other areas slide just causes resentment in that area. But making it a no go zone for LE has the opposite effect. Those who can flee, leave. The lawless, addicted, needy then move in.

That is my view on it.

Short answer: "It's the culture, stupid." And yes, single motherhood has a lot to do with it. I just finished reading an article on City Journal about conditions in New Orleans just prior to Katrina, and how the dysfunctions seen during and after the storm were an inevitable result of those cultural conditions. The far Left has been in charge of New Orleans since the '70s; in that time they had managed to run off the city's oil and shipping industries (Houston now benefits from that), and the murder rate was over eight times as high as New York's. And in nearly all of the murders, both the perp and the victim were black. In the way, single motherhood in N.O. was inevitable because so many young black men were either murderers or murdered.

Ghetto culture is now infiltrating rural Southern whites, and many of the same symptoms are being observed: rampant use of drugs, high rates of violent crime, dependency, single motherhood and un-parented children. I know of areas of rural central Alabama that are nearly as dangerous as the worst neighborhoods of Chicago. And there's another parallel: many of these areas not all but many, are areas where the local government and culture is as hostile to commerce and industry as New Orleans is.

New Orleans, Chicago, Oakland, and rural central Alabama are all results of what happens when the entitlement classes gain control of an area. If there is ever to be a second civil war in America, these are the lines on which it will be drawn: the people who work and produce goods and services, vs. those people who demand that those things be given to them.

These statistics are incredibly inaccurate.

The FBI statistics put Hispanics and Whites in the same category, Blacks in a separate category. I haven't found a way yet to break apart the statistics for the three largest racial groups in the country.

More importantly, though -- 13% of the population responsible for 53% of the murders? Not quite.

Most murders are committed by men, so about half, say 6-7% of the population, of blacks are committing 53% of the murders.

And most murders are committed by relatively young men, so eliminate, say, a quarter of that number to remove the very young and very old.

This leaves roughly 4 to 5% of the population murdering 53% of the victims.

This sucks for the victims, for the idiots who fall into the violence-as-identity trap, and for the black men who aren't involved in this yet get profiled and suspected just because of the race, age, and gender.

Compton, heal thyself.

"Could the violence be connected to how 70 percent of black children are born to single mothers?"

On June 2 of this year, a gangsta angry at two other gangstas walked up to them in the food court of the Eaton Centre (the most prominent shopping centre in downtown Toronto), pulled out a gun, and started blasting away at them and everyone else in sight. Fortunately, no one other than the two scumbags in question was killed, though many others were shot, or trampled in the rush to escape.

At the time, I thought this was a classic case of fatherless black men acting out. But then I found out that all three of the thugs involved had been raised by their fathers. One of them was still living with his father and some of his younger brothers & sisters at the time of the shooting. This had done nothing to stop him from racking up a long list of convictions. In fact, having fathers in the house did nothing at all to keep any of these guys from a life of crime. Ghetto culture is so poisonous, and the glorification of gangstas so pervasive, that being big bad niggaz beats being husbands & fathers.

If there is ever to be a second civil war in America, these are the lines on which it will be drawn: the people who work and produce goods and services, vs. those people who demand that those things be given to them.

Posted by: Cousin Dave

I can just see it, the people producing guns and bullets having their enemies demand fairness.

Side B "Well, its not going to be a fair fight if you dont give us half the guns and bullets you've been making."

Side A "Tell you what, you go back to your side and tell them that I am working on a deal to help you folks out, I'll try and convince my side to give you every bullet we make, high speed delivery, does that sound fair?"

Southern whites have a higher than average murder rate? What about all our Southern hospitality and stuff? I know we have our share of low-class white meth users, but I never thought about the murder rate being abnormally high. We have had a couple of high profile, drug-related murders in my county over the last few years.

http://www.northfulton.com/Articles-i-2006-03-23-132637.112113_Massacre_in_Forsyth.html

There are some rough areas around my fairly affluent suburban hometown that I fear as much as any downtown Atlanta 'hood. A subset of the poor white community is so hate-filled it's terrifying. They hate other races, other religions, anybody with a dime to their name, and even themselves. I remember being taught when I was very young to avoid people from certain areas and certain families. A lot more crime occurs in those communities than ever gets reported.

> Am I missing the famous Crid wit or is that
> a serious question?

See "Rabid lion," above. I think the problem in the populations you describe is family disintegration. (And "removing them", even statistically, misses the point.) Do you agree?

> Speaking out on this serious issue with an
> underlying motivation of lowering the single
> parent household (and by extension helping this
> sub group and other sub groups to better thrive)
> will often get you labeled "racist".

Right, but Amy thinks they don't need fathers, or even mothers, so this is going to be a tough row to hoe.

"Based in solid research."

That's golden.

You didn't observe families while growing up; it never occurred to you to reflect on the most intimate experiences of the countless generations recorded in literature, of the people you knew, of the ones you observed by happenstance, of your loved ones, or even of yourself.

Nope, there you were, fully grown and 100% rational, and someone put a question to you, quite out of the blue: Do children need mothers?

You didn't know.

You had to look it up. So you went to a library, and you found a study, and it looked "solid." No, children don't need "mothers", they need other things, wordier things. Intimate support from a woman who loves them and almost certainly gave them life is superfluous.

The corruption of inquiry, most especially in social sciences, is for some reason not a concern to you. (In this matter.)

You found someone who says the thing you want to hear, and you will not be dissuaded.

'Know what we call that?

(Aw shit, just saw that name....)

> Here's an example of a kid with two moms:

I'm embarrassed for you. It's so cherry-picked; you need so badly for it to be true. "But I have link! On the computer internet!" We're talking about motherhood, and you have an anecdote.

And here's the story of little Suzy Heartbreak, who was thrown at birth from the window of a Greyhound bus breaking all her limbs, and grew up in the doghouse of an orphanage in the pouring rain and never had a hot meal or learned to read or heard a kind word, but now "she's doing fine" [or]"she turned out all right"...

As if that should be our standard.

No. No.

"Right, but Amy thinks they don't need fathers, or even mothers, so this is going to be a tough row to hoe."

What is the reason you make shit up like this?

And where is the alternative, the solution, you offer?

""See "Rabid lion," above. I think the problem in the populations you describe is family disintegration. (And "removing them", even statistically, misses the point.) Do you agree?""

Rabid lion, within SAD's post, could also refer to any sub-sub racial/ethnic/socioeconomic group that is causing crime. It's not that I don't see the A to B conclusion you drew, it's that there is A to C and A to D conclusions that could be drawn as well. Considering how ridiculously frequent the word racism is applied for political gain (not you I'm referring to), I always question the term "racism" when it is applied without a relatively clear case of it.
On your other point, I do agree. I generalized by saying single parent households but think "family disintegration" is a more apt phrase.

>>Right, but Amy thinks they don't need fathers, or even mothers, so this is going to be a tough row to hoe.
I simply don't know enough on the subject to draw a conclusion. I can only relay my own personal experiences and infer from there. I grew up in a rather poor-single mother household. I, and my 2 brothers, were the statistic. We were the disruptive kids in class, the kids the school had to spend an inordinate amount of time on trying to deal with, the kids in trouble with the law. As an adult, I have a son and he's grown up in a mother-father household (off to college in a week). I can say with certainty but only within my own experience, a boy will do better with a male authority figure around. What I lacked but my son had was the adult male who, if/when needed, got two inches from his face, him looking up/me looking down, eye to eye, telling him where the line is and the unspoken cost of not toeing it. IMHO, it is what I needed (and didn't have) and what the "troubled" young men need.
With that said, I can't imagine a 2 mother household is not going to be far more positive than the single parent household.

> you merely imagine, based on nothing but your
> emotions, that children of intact gay families
> turn out poorly.

No. I've never said such a thing, or you'd offer a cite... And you got nuthin'.

THIS IS THE MIND-READING YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER DAY, isn't it, Amy? The emotionalism is your own, and that emotion is pride. You'll swear people said things they've never said if it means you can pretend to know better.

Nope, what I say is that what's best for a child is a loving mother with a loving father. (And I've yet to meet a child who didn't deserve the best.)

But you can't find the courage to state your position. You won't say it in the response to this or in any discussion of the topic to follows, but your belief is RELIGIOUS: You think the love of a mother is unnecessary.

There's a reason this courage is not available to you... You fucking well know better.

Like a Christian with niggling doubt, trying to shake it out of her head on the drive home from confession... If only your "research" was a little more "solid"....

> I can't imagine a 2 mother household is not
> going to be far more positive than the...

"Far more positive" is not my standard for the love of children. I want what's best.

But don't feel bad... Almost everyone makes that mistake when they talk about this for the first time.

Betcha don't make it again.

Ah, THIS is the thread I was thinking of....

Amy, don't you just HATE it when people get presumptuous?

I am going to repeat my little spiel. I believe in workfare not welfare. Single moms might be too busy to keep making babies, they will have more structure in their lives, and may even learn some skills. Just getting up, getting dressed, and having some kind of accountability does wonders for people. Too many families on welfare have lost these basic living skills. People need a purpose and skills. Without those things, life becomes monotonous and boring. People start looking for other "thrills."

KimberBlue,

Here's a good article about southern murder rates. Yes, I know it's the New York Times, and yes I know it's from 1998, but it still provides a well-founded theory explaining southern murder rates.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/26/weekinreview/ideas-trends-southern-curse-why-america-s-murder-rate-is-so-high.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

And no, I'm not a southern-basher even though I live, and was raised in Washington state. I do know, however, that the scary, poor white neighborhoods like you describe really don't exist out here. Yes, we have, and always had, poor neighborhoods that are majority white. It's just that you didn't get the generation after generation wallowing in them. It was born poor, bust your ass to get out of there (first step usually joining the military), and move to nicer neighborhood.

Very well said Jen.

Crid, what's best for children is not what a whole lot of children will ultimately get. So unless you believe a mother-father household for everyone is an attainable goal, pragmatism dictates finding the best 'available' situations for them.....meaning if a responsible two mother home is willing, you would be against it simply because it isn't the "mom-dad" ideal?

> pragmatism dictates finding the best 'available'
> situations for them....

Y'know what's cute? Those single-quotes around "available" are cute. Because, like, you can't stand the stink of your own rhetoric. You too know better, so you don't want to put into a clean, meaningful sentence.

We often get what we demand of each other. If parents ask less of themselves –and of their partners– then that's what the kids receive. And adults, we see, are often not interested in doing what it takes to attract the best partner who will raise a child... Or in making the sacrifices required to keep that partner in focused on the challenge.

However, TW, it's pretty obvious that you're speaking on behalf of weak and indulgent parents rather than needful children. And that you're flatly aware of the rot in the word "available"... That the people who make the baby almost by definition have nothing better to do with their lives than to raise it lovingly. And that if we say they're not "available," then we're the malfeasance party.

So I don't say that.

"It's just that you didn't get the generation after generation wallowing in them. It was born poor, bust your ass to get out of there (first step usually joining the military), and move to nicer neighborhood."

That basically describes my father's family. My great-grandfather's generation was dirt poor; my grandfather's generation worked in the mills and they did a little better. My father's generation served in WWII or Korea and then they went to college, and they were the first generation that was able to move up and move out.

There have always been families in the South who lived out in the sticks and were hostile to outsiders. However, in the past, if you left them alone, they left you alone, and there was no problem. What's different now is that they've discovered welfare and meth. In terms of their morals and values, it's become very much like the ghetto.

PRAGMATICALLY, however, we can work it however you want. I mean, if that's the way you wanna go with this...

But you will be required to approach these children on each and all of their 6th, 12th and 18th birthdays and tell them, with eye contact, that they didn't deserve a loving mother with a loving father.

And if they don't turn your lights out, you can then describe the magnificent nuance of your "pragmatism."

These meetings, three per child, would be excellent touchstones for their willfully disrupted lives. Those who need these conferences with you (and with your eye contact) would discuss them amongst themselves after school choirs and stuff, while other kids are out in the lobby being praised by both parents.

Connor: "Hey, Dakota, aren't you about do for your next conference this month?

Dakota: Yeah, Connor. I'm not looking forward to it, either. How about you?

Connor: Oh, I had mine last week. The guy kinda pissed me off, so I nailed his car with my slingshot on the way out. His windshield is a memory....

Dakota: Great. I'm thinking I might bring some brass knuckles. If he's still alive for the 2018 meeting, I'll plug his skull with a gatt.

Crid, feel free to read wwwaaayyyy too much into quotations among other things.....ooops, sorry, you already did.
If you don't like pragmatic then how about realistic?
So while your view/desire might be optimum, it is unrealistic to believe that a sufficient amount of good mom-dad homes exist for all children. Fortunately someone will be there to have a great talk with little Joey and Janey: "Kids, There are two good parents available who can give a financially/emotionally secure and loving home. But! you must have a mom and a dad, period. So back to the foster home you go! Hopefully something will come up in the next year or two. For now, Buh bye."

That lacks pragmatism. It lacks the flexibility needed to find a wide ranging, practical solution for a problem that is wide ranging. However, if the number gets whittled down to the hundreds? Hey, I'm all in with your mom-dad house or nothing solution.

> If you don't like pragmatic then how
> about realistic?

Aw heck, let's just shuck all the way down to "conciliatory"... Then, if it turns out there's space nearby in "pandering," we can park it over there. Lotta votes (and other fulfillment) in it for you when you make things go well for selfish adults.... But not so many when those who can't defend their own interests are your first concern.

> It lacks the flexibility needed to find a wide
> ranging, practical solution for a problem that
> is wide ranging.

So you recommend pretending that problem doesn't exist. Your solution is wide-ranging, I'll grant you... It ain't, as the Nashville sweethearts like to sing, just a river in Egypt.

The practicalities aren't so impressive.

Clever Crid wit aside (is that pandering?), the heart of our disagreement is clear: You believe that a mom-dad home is the only solution for children in unfortunate situations. Anything less is not appropriate -- an unacceptable thing to do these children. On the other hand, I believe that a mom-mom home is a good option for these children in unfortunate situations. I believe that the huge numbers of these children require a best available option approach (what I contend is a pragmatic approach).

If you disagree with my approach, so be it. I definitely disagree with yours.

The remaining stuff you keep adding???? Maybe it's tonight's beverage of choice but you are confusing me with growing efficiency. From nefarious quotations to a trip to pander-ville, it's interesting when not head scratching.

> the heart of our disagreement is clear:

I've no faith that this is true, because…

> You believe that a mom-dad home is the
> only solution for children in unfortunate
> situations.

…I never said anything of the kind.

And yet you're not a stupid man. (Woman[?]) Right? But you were compelled to distort my position. Amy did some shenanigans as well: My exposition of her belief was described as "bullshit" but was not contested. There's a reason you guys do these things, and I think I know what it is.

> I believe that a mom-mom home is a
> good option for these children in
> unfortunate situations

Well, you're expansive thinker and all, but [1] if that's what you were thinking, you wouldn't have had to misrepresent my position so badly, [2] you'd have offered a specification and procedure for extracting "unfortunates" from their circumstances and [3] you'd still be arriving 9 years after my first comments on this topic in this forum, in which I acknowledged that gay couples may well have a role to play in adoption of troubled older kids... Though such duty is never described as their motivation for seeking the policy change.

Beyond that, the idea of drenching a truly troubled young man with a double-bucket of new estrogen strikes me as whack.

""And yet you're not a stupid man. (Woman[?]) Right? But you were compelled to distort my position. Amy did some shenanigans as well""

Crid, if I have your position wrong then 'my bad'. But believing it was a scheme to distort your position to make my own position right or virtuous??? Open a window man, you need some fresh air. My last post was an honest (and male) explanation of your view - even if not accurate (I did state that was my view of your argument in several posts).

You like to speak with a certain flare, great! It makes for entertainment and at 2:45am I prefer entertainment over a serious conversation....but geez, give a little that your flare might make your specific point/view not so easy to decipher.

""Beyond that, the idea of drenching a truly troubled young man with a double-bucket of new estrogen strikes me as whack.""

I spoke previously (I think my second post on this topic) of my own experience as an in trouble, single mom raised teenage/young man as well as my experience with my own teenage son. My own experiences showed how important it is for a young man to have a male authority figure. So I see the point regarding "double-bucket of new estrogen". But as I mentioned before, reality on the ground/the wide range of the problem dictates all good homes (even if 2 x estrogen) should (and probably as a matter of fairness) be part of the solution.

PRAGMATICALLY, however, we can work it however you want. I mean, if that's the way you wanna go with this...

But you will be required to approach these children on each and all of their 6th, 12th and 18th birthdays and tell them, with eye contact, that they didn't deserve a loving mother with a loving father.

Fair enough. By tell us crid, do you current approach children in orphanages and foster homes to tell them as their arent enough of the parents you approve of to go around they dont deserve the love of a parent you dont approve of?

Because if not youre a fucking hypocrite, hypocrid as it were

Good morning, Starshine!

> I have your position wrong then 'my bad'.

You do, and no problem. I'll correct your faults later, but it's too beautiful to spend the entire day indoors. Come back later.

And a good evening to you Dr Feelgood. And yes! Today was another beautiful day in Northern California. It's this kind of weather that makes living under the dysfunctional mopes of Sacramento a (sometimes) tolerable deal. Yet the day was tinged with a bitter sweet event as I helped my son move away from home and into his dorm. Fortunately that tough part is fixed with the anticipation of you correcting my faults!

You still didn't tell me where I said —

> that a mom-dad home is the only solution
> for children in unfortunate situations.

You and Amy are having the arguments you want to have rather than the ones that are on the table. Knives to a gunfight, you're playing tennis in the bowling alley.

See the first item Monday: Amy wants all the troubles in the world to be from simpleton preachers. I may well have more gays in my life, and hold them closer, than she has in hers. But by gum, if there's any disagreement, she'll make accusations about "emotional" discomfort with gay behavior. It's the fight she wants to have.

You want to argue with someone who's looking to break up troubled families. Or something. And another commenter is skipping past the logic entirely just to foam with congestive anger. These are habits, you see?

So, again, TW, what exactly caused you to characterize my position that way? (Other than that's what you wanted it to be?)

Statement by me: I can't imagine a 2 mother household is not going to be far more positive than the single parent household"

Response by Crid: ""Far more positive" is not my standard for the love of children. I want what's best."

Interpretation of your response: Better isn't good enough and you are against an alternative that isn't the best

Statement by me: Crid, what's best for children is not what a whole lot of children will ultimately get. So unless you believe a mother-father household for everyone is an attainable goal, pragmatism dictates finding the best 'available' situations for them

Responses by Crid: "We often get what we demand of each other. If parents ask less of themselves –and of their partners– then that's what the kids receive.
And
"But you will be required to approach these children on each and all of their 6th, 12th and 18th birthdays and tell them, with eye contact, that they didn't deserve a loving mother with a loving father. "

Interpretation: Better isn't good enough and you are against an alternative that isn't the best

Now here comes the very best part. Your words should be interpreted as the thoughts/feelings behind them. No way could they, ahem, be open to other reasonable interpretation given the choice of your wording, right?

> Your words should be interpreted as the
> thoughts/feelings behind them.

What, you wanna kiss on the forehead for a seventh-grader's bogus epistimology?

You're so eager to respond to the problem, however clumsily, that can't bear the thought of a solution. Yeah, it's a shame about all those vanquished drunk drivers... I mean, sure, there are a lot more innocent people who are still ALIVE today, but those drinkers will never know the thrill of a truly piquant apology. There's a cost to everything, right?

Or, perhaps more likely but no less detestably, your consideration has been washed away in the popular flood of attention to adult interests in these matters... And you didn't even feel the raindrops.

More later, gotta gota work.

Never stop interpretatin', TW!

tell us crid, do you current approach children in orphanages and foster homes to tell them as their arent enough of the parents you approve of to go around they dont deserve the love of a parent you dont approve of?

Never stop interpretatin', TW! -crid

Unless of course its crids statements, then he he'll get all pissy and whiney and telling you to stop putting words in his mouth

> they dont deserve the love of a parent

Their parents have already told them that; this is our topic. Did you go to college? Did you go to school?

So the ghosts of little Timmy parents who died in a car accident rose from the grave, went to social services found out where their son was and went to tell him they died because they didnt love him enough to withstand the force of 4+ tons of steel and plastic crushing their bodies?

Is that what you are saying crid?

Sure, why not.

Is this a joke? Is Paul or someone playing a years-long goof? Is this Greg doing research for a Leonard character?