Progressive Ideology

[MDlaxfan76]

yes, higher unmarried parents.

Of course having only one parent makes it harder.
The difference is there's more social support, more emphasis on education.

[old salt]

yes, higher unmarried parents.

Of course having only one parent makes it harder.
The difference is there's more social support, more emphasis on education.

You miss my point.

afan posted : " ...plenty of 1st world countries with higher divorce rates than the US with better educational outcomes."

I responded with : How 'bout unmarried parent(s) ?

In other words -- do plenty of 1st world countries have higher rates of single parent homes than the US ?

Does citing divorce rates address the issue of unmarried parents are not considered when comparing the US with "other 1st world countries" ?
Is divorce rate (alone) a relevant indicator.

[a fan]

yes, higher unmarried parents.

Of course having only one parent makes it harder.
The difference is there's more social support, more emphasis on education.

You miss my point.

afan posted : " ...plenty of 1st world countries with higher divorce rates than the US with better educational outcomes."

I responded with : How 'bout unmarried parent(s) ?

In other words -- do plenty of 1st world countries have higher rates of single parent homes than the US ?

Yes. They do. Slightly higher in EU aggregate.

This is obviously not the problem.

[Farfromgeneva]

yes, higher unmarried parents.

Of course having only one parent makes it harder.
The difference is there's more social support, more emphasis on education.

You miss my point.

afan posted : " ...plenty of 1st world countries with higher divorce rates than the US with better educational outcomes."

I responded with : How 'bout unmarried parent(s) ?

In other words -- do plenty of 1st world countries have higher rates of single parent homes than the US ?

Yes. They do. Slightly higher in EU aggregate.

This is obviously not the problem.

Not the answer he was shooting for

[MDlaxfan76]

yes, higher unmarried parents.

Of course having only one parent makes it harder.
The difference is there's more social support, more emphasis on education.

You miss my point.

afan posted : " ...plenty of 1st world countries with higher divorce rates than the US with better educational outcomes."

I responded with : How 'bout unmarried parent(s) ?

In other words -- do plenty of 1st world countries have higher rates of single parent homes than the US ?

Yes. They do. Slightly higher in EU aggregate.

This is obviously not the problem.

Thanks. I thought I was clear that the answer was 'yes' to Salty's question.

Presumably the divorce rate and unmarried parents correlate and to some extent causally, though maybe not entirely...but the answer is yes, both divorce and single parents.

So, it's not the reason why the US lags such countries in education outcomes. Also health outcomes. The reasons for those two are from the same root, public commitment. Here in the US our commitments get caught up in an ideology of personal responsibility versus public, and we've institutionalized that 'meritocratic' ideology in ways that we take for granted now as 'fair', yet actually are anything but.

For this discussion, that's private education opt out and public option funded based on local real estate taxes. And those local taxes competing for other priorities that have health and safety consequences as well as education. Big gaps between haves and have nots based on prior family situation.

In the background is another ideology that we have much more of than in most other highly developed countries, the notion that religion should drive public policy, that being religious (and by that we mean Christian) provides an advantage to learning and social development, "meritocracy".

So, what passes as "conservative" these days is funding religious charter schools (!) or straight out vouchers for private/religious education. Not so in those other countries.

An alternative approach I could get behind, as a "growth and productivity 'conservative' ", would be that we want a fluid equal opportunity society with optimal human capital productivity. With such a view, it's a prudent investment to spend far more on education, elevating social status of teachers and of learning itself. More individualized educational paths that can accelerate along one's strengths and passions instead of teaching to the mean, or lowest, and instead tailoring the education to be as rewarding as possible, with as much learning as possible as quickly as possible. All, while ensuring grounding in critical life skills and educated citizenship participation. Encouraging creativity and individuality.

If that costs more to raise our human capital value, so be it. We'll all benefit from the investment.

Maybe that makes me more 'progressive' than 'conservative', but I think the argument can be framed in these sorts of 'conservative' investment terms as well.

We need not be 'equal', much less have equal outcomes, but we should have as close to an equal opportunity to be our optimal selves as we can get to.

[a fan]

An alternative approach I could get behind, as a "growth and productivity 'conservative' ", would be that we want a fluid equal opportunity society with optimal human capital productivity. With such a view, it's a prudent investment to spend far more on education, elevating social status of teachers and of learning itself. More individualized educational paths that can accelerate along one's strengths and passions instead of teaching to the mean, or lowest, and instead tailoring the education to be as rewarding as possible, with as much learning as possible as quickly as possible. All, while ensuring grounding in critical life skills and educated citizenship participation. Encouraging creativity and individuality.

If that costs more to raise our human capital value, so be it. We'll all benefit from the investment.

Maybe that makes me more 'progressive' than 'conservative', but I think the argument can be framed in these sorts of 'conservative' investment terms as well.

It's boilerplate conservatism to INVEST in the future. Every real conservative believes in that. If they didn't? We would NEVER have had public schools in the first place.

To me, your solution is the general solution: for once, FFS....for ONCE.....we stop blowing money on pointless wars and pointless tax cuts....and plow Americas jaw dropping GDP into an Apollo program for education. Offer wages that tells college graduate that we value teaching above nearly all else, and treat them like royalty.

Cap class sizes at 10, and really get after it. And offer vocational tracks for kids who have zero interest in sitting at a desk all day. Bring art and music back.

For at risk kids? Offer boarding schools that take them out of the environment that's wrecked them in the first place.

Thats' just for starters. Actually INVEST in America's future. Right now? We're leaving thousands and thousands of potential Elon Musk types behind, giving them no chance to figure out that they're brilliant at something.

What are we doing instead? We're flipping out over drag queens, and letting parents tell educators with 20+ years of experience what and how to teach. It makes me want to cry.

[SCLaxAttack]

An alternative approach I could get behind, as a "growth and productivity 'conservative' ", would be that we want a fluid equal opportunity society with optimal human capital productivity. With such a view, it's a prudent investment to spend far more on education, elevating social status of teachers and of learning itself. More individualized educational paths that can accelerate along one's strengths and passions instead of teaching to the mean, or lowest, and instead tailoring the education to be as rewarding as possible, with as much learning as possible as quickly as possible. All, while ensuring grounding in critical life skills and educated citizenship participation. Encouraging creativity and individuality.

If that costs more to raise our human capital value, so be it. We'll all benefit from the investment.

Maybe that makes me more 'progressive' than 'conservative', but I think the argument can be framed in these sorts of 'conservative' investment terms as well.

It's boilerplate conservatism to INVEST in the future. Every real conservative believes in that. If they didn't? We would NEVER have had public schools in the first place.

To me, your solution is the general solution: for once, FFS....for ONCE.....we stop blowing money on pointless wars and pointless tax cuts....and plow Americas jaw dropping GDP into an Apollo program for education. Offer wages that tells college graduate that we value teaching above nearly all else, and treat them like royalty.

Cap class sizes at 10, and really get after it. And offer vocational tracks for kids who have zero interest in sitting at a desk all day. Bring art and music back.

For at risk kids? Offer boarding schools that take them out of the environment that's wrecked them in the first place.

Thats' just for starters. Actually INVEST in America's future. Right now? We're leaving thousands and thousands of potential Elon Musk types behind, giving them no chance to figure out that they're brilliant at something.

What are we doing instead? We're flipping out over drag queens, and letting parents tell educators with 20+ years of experience what and how to teach. It makes me want to cry.

This is mind boggling to me. I have two children. One had no problems at all with school or education, the other was a challenge throughout high school. I still remember my first parents' meeting with the HS vice-principal, who asked us how we thought we could correct the situation. Our response - If we knew that we wouldn't be here. We have experience with only one child like this. The school has hundreds of kids each year and certainly a few just like this. You're the experts. What should we be doing?

[jhu72]

An alternative approach I could get behind, as a "growth and productivity 'conservative' ", would be that we want a fluid equal opportunity society with optimal human capital productivity. With such a view, it's a prudent investment to spend far more on education, elevating social status of teachers and of learning itself. More individualized educational paths that can accelerate along one's strengths and passions instead of teaching to the mean, or lowest, and instead tailoring the education to be as rewarding as possible, with as much learning as possible as quickly as possible. All, while ensuring grounding in critical life skills and educated citizenship participation. Encouraging creativity and individuality.

If that costs more to raise our human capital value, so be it. We'll all benefit from the investment.

Maybe that makes me more 'progressive' than 'conservative', but I think the argument can be framed in these sorts of 'conservative' investment terms as well.

It's boilerplate conservatism to INVEST in the future. Every real conservative believes in that. If they didn't? We would NEVER have had public schools in the first place.

To me, your solution is the general solution: for once, FFS....for ONCE.....we stop blowing money on pointless wars and pointless tax cuts....and plow Americas jaw dropping GDP into an Apollo program for education. Offer wages that tells college graduate that we value teaching above nearly all else, and treat them like royalty.

Cap class sizes at 10, and really get after it. And offer vocational tracks for kids who have zero interest in sitting at a desk all day. Bring art and music back.

For at risk kids? Offer boarding schools that take them out of the environment that's wrecked them in the first place.

Thats' just for starters. Actually INVEST in America's future. Right now? We're leaving thousands and thousands of potential Elon Musk types behind, giving them no chance to figure out that they're brilliant at something.

What are we doing instead? We're flipping out over drag queens, and letting parents tell educators with 20+ years of experience what and how to teach. It makes me want to cry.

This is mind boggling to me. I have two children. One had no problems at all with school or education, the other was a challenge throughout high school. I still remember my first parents' meeting with the HS vice-principal, who asked us how we thought we could correct the situation. Our response - If we knew that we wouldn't be here. We have experience with only one child like this. The school has hundreds of kids each year and certainly a few just like this. You're the experts. What should we be doing?

... just my two cents but it sounds like the school is the problem. We had a similar problem with our youngest, a girl. Her two older brothers did great. She did well until entering high school. Grades dropped, became super argumentative mostly with her mother. Every night there was a screaming match between the two. I avoided the screaming matches (which was probably the wrong thing to do). It turned out that she worked her way out of it with a little help from an external psychologist who specialized in teenage girls. The problem was being caused by a combination of a misguided math teacher and the school "mean girls". It was an all-girls school.

[SCLaxAttack]

An alternative approach I could get behind, as a "growth and productivity 'conservative' ", would be that we want a fluid equal opportunity society with optimal human capital productivity. With such a view, it's a prudent investment to spend far more on education, elevating social status of teachers and of learning itself. More individualized educational paths that can accelerate along one's strengths and passions instead of teaching to the mean, or lowest, and instead tailoring the education to be as rewarding as possible, with as much learning as possible as quickly as possible. All, while ensuring grounding in critical life skills and educated citizenship participation. Encouraging creativity and individuality.

If that costs more to raise our human capital value, so be it. We'll all benefit from the investment.

Maybe that makes me more 'progressive' than 'conservative', but I think the argument can be framed in these sorts of 'conservative' investment terms as well.

It's boilerplate conservatism to INVEST in the future. Every real conservative believes in that. If they didn't? We would NEVER have had public schools in the first place.

To me, your solution is the general solution: for once, FFS....for ONCE.....we stop blowing money on pointless wars and pointless tax cuts....and plow Americas jaw dropping GDP into an Apollo program for education. Offer wages that tells college graduate that we value teaching above nearly all else, and treat them like royalty.

Cap class sizes at 10, and really get after it. And offer vocational tracks for kids who have zero interest in sitting at a desk all day. Bring art and music back.

For at risk kids? Offer boarding schools that take them out of the environment that's wrecked them in the first place.

Thats' just for starters. Actually INVEST in America's future. Right now? We're leaving thousands and thousands of potential Elon Musk types behind, giving them no chance to figure out that they're brilliant at something.

What are we doing instead? We're flipping out over drag queens, and letting parents tell educators with 20+ years of experience what and how to teach. It makes me want to cry.

This is mind boggling to me. I have two children. One had no problems at all with school or education, the other was a challenge throughout high school. I still remember my first parents' meeting with the HS vice-principal, who asked us how we thought we could correct the situation. Our response - If we knew that we wouldn't be here. We have experience with only one child like this. The school has hundreds of kids each year and certainly a few just like this. You're the experts. What should we be doing?

... just my two cents but it sounds like the school is the problem. We had a similar problem with our youngest, a girl. Her two older brothers did great. She did well until entering high school. Grades dropped, became super argumentative mostly with her mother. Every night there was a screaming match between the two. I avoided the screaming matches (which was probably the wrong thing to do). It turned out that she worked her way out of it with a little help from an external psychologist who specialized in teenage girls. The problem was being caused by a combination of a misguided math teacher and the school "mean girls". It was an all-girls school.

I wasn't clear. I guess I should have continued the story. My point was I fully expected the school and its resources to assist, and they did. No way a parent with the experience of raising only two kids for fifteen years at the time has the experience base of school resources who might have worked with hundreds of kids for two or three decades. My son did get school counseling weekly for close to a year and it helped greatly.

[KI Dock Bar]

As career educator, peer group is what I tell parents to keep an eye on. My daughter graduated HS in 2018 and her peer group was not the best, it affected her educational experience. She did not continue her education beyond HS for a number of reasons, not just her peer group. My son graduated HS this year and his peer group was good, as far as I know...he is headed to college in the fall. Not to say college is the end all, but I believe it is a good way to find success moving forward. It is difficult to intervene when you think your child is not associating with students who you believe do not serve their best interest.

[old salt]

yes, higher unmarried parents.

Of course having only one parent makes it harder.
The difference is there's more social support, more emphasis on education.

You miss my point.

afan posted : " ...plenty of 1st world countries with higher divorce rates than the US with better educational outcomes."

I responded with : How 'bout unmarried parent(s) ?

In other words -- do plenty of 1st world countries have higher rates of single parent homes than the US ?

Yes. They do. Slightly higher in EU aggregate.

This is obviously not the problem.

Not the answer he was shooting for

I'd ask for data & sources, but it's not worth arguing about.
afan apparently thinks fatherless families don't make a difference.
If he feels he's irrelevant, so be it. I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

[a fan]

yes, higher unmarried parents.

Of course having only one parent makes it harder.
The difference is there's more social support, more emphasis on education.

You miss my point.

afan posted : " ...plenty of 1st world countries with higher divorce rates than the US with better educational outcomes."

I responded with : How 'bout unmarried parent(s) ?

In other words -- do plenty of 1st world countries have higher rates of single parent homes than the US ?

Yes. They do. Slightly higher in EU aggregate.

This is obviously not the problem.

Not the answer he was shooting for

I'd ask for data & sources, but it's not worth arguing about.
afan apparently thinks fatherless families don't make a difference.
If he feels he's irrelevant, so be it. I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

Happy to provide data a sources. But as you know, they're a click away for you if your'e interested. I'm telling you, that's not the problem. But if you want to start with that conclusion, and work backwards, you're welcome to do that.


Fatherless homes can make a difference, sure. Didn't say that it didn't. But so can two parents living together who argue all the time in front of their kids....I know a ton of kids who had that childhood, and were utterly lost in school as a result. Also know some who did just fine with those two arguing parents. Same goes for the kids with divorced parents. That's anecdotal, sure.

But the stats in 1st world nations are worse or better than the US in terms of single parents raising kids....yet they still kick our ***ses in education. So to me, obviously that's not THE problem.

You're a military man-----do you think that having some of those fathers (or mothers, for that matter) deployed for 6-12 month stretches, and away from their kid's formative years is inherently bad, and therefore having kids while having a military career is a no-no?

[old salt]

yes, higher unmarried parents.

Of course having only one parent makes it harder.
The difference is there's more social support, more emphasis on education.

You miss my point.

afan posted : " ...plenty of 1st world countries with higher divorce rates than the US with better educational outcomes."

I responded with : How 'bout unmarried parent(s) ?

In other words -- do plenty of 1st world countries have higher rates of single parent homes than the US ?

Yes. They do. Slightly higher in EU aggregate.

This is obviously not the problem.

Not the answer he was shooting for

I'd ask for data & sources, but it's not worth arguing about.
afan apparently thinks fatherless families don't make a difference.
If he feels he's irrelevant, so be it. I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

Happy to provide data a sources. But as you know, they're a click away for you if your'e interested. I'm telling you, that's not the problem. But if you want to start with that conclusion, and work backwards, you're welcome to do that.


Fatherless homes can make a difference, sure. Didn't say that it didn't. But so can two parents living together who argue all the time in front of their kids....I know a ton of kids who had that childhood, and were utterly lost in school as a result. Also know some who did just fine with those two arguing parents. Same goes for the kids with divorced parents. That's anecdotal, sure.

But the stats in 1st world nations are worse or better than the US in terms of single parents raising kids....yet they still kick our ***ses in education. So to me, obviously that's not THE problem.

You're a military man-----do you think that having some of those fathers (or mothers, for that matter) deployed for 6-12 month stretches, and away from their kid's formative years is inherently bad, and therefore having kids while having a military career is a no-no?

You seemed to discount, or minimize, the negative impact of single parent families.
Was I misreading you on that point ?

There are anecdotal examples of everything. Not all single parent families are "broken homes".
Many are a conscious decision to single parent a child. That's why I questioned the relevancy of divorce rate.

In every study I click on, it's a given that there's an achievement gap between single & 2 parent homes.
The US has the highest % of single parent families AND the largest achievement gap for students from single parent homes.
The higher % of single parent families is not the only cause for the US achievement gap, but it can't be discounted as irrelevant.

It's not woke PC to acknowledge that it's a factor. We need the votes of single women, especially single moms, grannies, aunties & women voters who grew up in those homes. Can't insult them. The nuc family is an archaic relic of white privilege. The village can do it.

[a fan]

You seemed to discount, or minimize, the negative impact of single parent families.
Was I misreading you on that point ?

Yes, misreading my personal feelings. For me personally? I'd rather lose an arm than divorce my wife now that we're raising a kid. I've said many times that I"m more conservative than many here, believe it or not. This is one of those places.

GENERALLY, I believe it's a negative to not have a two parent home. But that's a personal opinion, and has nothing to do with science-based macroeconomic outcomes.

In every study I click on, it's a given that there's an achievement gap between single & 2 parent homes.

Me, too....but those studies are American. Looking at other countries that have a higher rate of single parent homes yet have better educational outcomes, obviously something else is happening here in the US that isn't happening in EU countries. In other words, it's correlated, not causal. We're missing the cause. I don't know what the cause is.

It's not woke PC to acknowledge that it's a factor. We need the votes of single women, especially black single moms, grannies, aunties & women voters who grew up in those homes. Can't insult them. The nuc family is an archaic relic of white privilege. The village can do it.

The nuclear family is specifically a relic of privileged whites, my man...starting post WWII with the rise of the American middle class.

The rest of America's history, and for most minorities? You had multi-generational households..."the village", as you put it.

The Post War Nuclear family got rid of that. Do you want to blame that for our educational problems?

[a fan]

It's not woke PC to acknowledge that it's a factor. We need the votes of single women, especially single moms, grannies, aunties & women voters who grew up in those homes. Can't insult them. The nuc family is an archaic relic of white privilege. The village can do it.

More to the point of the conversation: what's your suggested fix?

[MDlaxfan76]

An alternative approach I could get behind, as a "growth and productivity 'conservative' ", would be that we want a fluid equal opportunity society with optimal human capital productivity. With such a view, it's a prudent investment to spend far more on education, elevating social status of teachers and of learning itself. More individualized educational paths that can accelerate along one's strengths and passions instead of teaching to the mean, or lowest, and instead tailoring the education to be as rewarding as possible, with as much learning as possible as quickly as possible. All, while ensuring grounding in critical life skills and educated citizenship participation. Encouraging creativity and individuality.

If that costs more to raise our human capital value, so be it. We'll all benefit from the investment.

Maybe that makes me more 'progressive' than 'conservative', but I think the argument can be framed in these sorts of 'conservative' investment terms as well.

It's boilerplate conservatism to INVEST in the future. Every real conservative believes in that. If they didn't? We would NEVER have had public schools in the first place.

To me, your solution is the general solution: for once, FFS....for ONCE.....we stop blowing money on pointless wars and pointless tax cuts....and plow Americas jaw dropping GDP into an Apollo program for education. Offer wages that tells college graduate that we value teaching above nearly all else, and treat them like royalty.

Cap class sizes at 10, and really get after it. And offer vocational tracks for kids who have zero interest in sitting at a desk all day. Bring art and music back.

For at risk kids? Offer boarding schools that take them out of the environment that's wrecked them in the first place.

Thats' just for starters. Actually INVEST in America's future. Right now? We're leaving thousands and thousands of potential Elon Musk types behind, giving them no chance to figure out that they're brilliant at something.

What are we doing instead? We're flipping out over drag queens, and letting parents tell educators with 20+ years of experience what and how to teach. It makes me want to cry.

You know that I think that protecting the world system from authoritarianism or lawlessness is important to enable prosperity, but I quite agree on the rest, though maybe a few nits on action steps.

I think we can do both, and in the long run, they're mutually beneficial.

[MDlaxfan76]

It's not woke PC to acknowledge that it's a factor. We need the votes of single women, especially single moms, grannies, aunties & women voters who grew up in those homes. Can't insult them. The nuc family is an archaic relic of white privilege. The village can do it.

More to the point of the conversation: what's your suggested fix?

Gilead?

[old salt]

In every study I click on, it's a given that there's an achievement gap between single & 2 parent homes.

Me, too....but those studies are American. Looking at other countries that have a higher rate of single parent homes yet have better educational outcomes, obviously something else is happening here in the US that isn't happening in EU countries. In other words, it's correlated, not causal. We're missing the cause. I don't know what the cause is.
I clicked on studies that included the EU as well. They also cite an achievement gap between single & 2 parent homes.
Not as large a gap as the US & a smaller % of single family homes. https://www.educationnext.org/internati ... nt-family/

It's not woke PC to acknowledge that it's a factor. We need the votes of single women, especially black single moms, grannies, aunties & women voters who grew up in those homes. Can't insult them. The nuc family is an archaic relic of white privilege. The village can do it.

The nuclear family is specifically a relic of privileged whites, my man...starting post WWII with the rise of the American middle class.

The rest of America's history, and for most minorities? You had multi-generational households..."the village", as you put it.
Family, including extended family, is not "the village". Hillary didn't limit her village to extended family.

The Post War Nuclear family got rid of that. Do you want to blame that for our educational problems?
It's a factor that should not be dismissed or minimized, imo.

[old salt]

It's not woke PC to acknowledge that it's a factor. We need the votes of single women, especially single moms, grannies, aunties & women voters who grew up in those homes. Can't insult them. The nuc family is an archaic relic of white privilege. The village can do it.

More to the point of the conversation: what's your suggested fix?

It's a difficult, complex issue. There is no easy fix. Attitudes need to change. I credit Obama for trying to address it rhetorically, early in his first term, but he got quiet because it was not politically expedient. Dismissing black sociologists like Thomas Sowell & Charles Woodson does not help.

[MDlaxfan76]

In every study I click on, it's a given that there's an achievement gap between single & 2 parent homes.

Me, too....but those studies are American. Looking at other countries that have a higher rate of single parent homes yet have better educational outcomes, obviously something else is happening here in the US that isn't happening in EU countries. In other words, it's correlated, not causal. We're missing the cause. I don't know what the cause is.
I clicked on studies that included the EU as well. They also cite an achievement gap between single & 2 parent homes.
Not as large a gap as the US & a smaller % of single family homes. https://www.educationnext.org/internati ... nt-family/

It's not woke PC to acknowledge that it's a factor. We need the votes of single women, especially black single moms, grannies, aunties & women voters who grew up in those homes. Can't insult them. The nuc family is an archaic relic of white privilege. The village can do it.

The nuclear family is specifically a relic of privileged whites, my man...starting post WWII with the rise of the American middle class.

The rest of America's history, and for most minorities? You had multi-generational households..."the village", as you put it.
Family, including extended family, is not "the village". Hillary didn't limit her village to extended family.

The Post War Nuclear family got rid of that. Do you want to blame that for our educational problems?
It's a factor that should not be dismissed or minimized, imo.

Of course it's a factor, but not the primary factor, and somehow the Europeans overcome that particular factor much better than we do.

Why? How?

1) Many more single parents live with other adults in the household in Europe than here. Cultural difference that favors the "village", whether extended family or multi-family, over autonomy. (I have some bias on this as we built a house that accommodated my parents plus my wife's brother, and my sister and her husband and 3 kids right next door...lots of adult attention and that was a big part of the point.)

2) Most of Europe has much more generous maternity and paternity and general leave policies, child care, etc versus US.

3) Much higher emphasis on public school education, higher respect and pay for teachers,...and ugh, not much time allotted for sports...

But of course it's harder for a single parent to raise a child, much less multiple children. Particularly in poverty. Europe makes it easier, not harder to do so, though it's obviously still a significant issue...but as you indicate, less achievement gap in those households than here.

4) But is it really people choosing to have children without a spouse or other adult to help, or does our astronomical incarceration rate have something to with why so many poor households have no fathers at home?

Makes you wonder...maybe we could do this differently?

Obama wasn't wrong, and it deserves discussion, though emphasis on race misses the point, which is how it gets twisted. But grifters like Sowell and Woodson are playing the grift.