Race in America - Riots Explode in Chicago

[old salt]

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

The best thing for kids is to have an intact nuclear family AND also the back-up of an extended family/village. The best thing is belt and suspenders.

The nuclear family only model is a pretty recent development. And the evidence overwhelmingly shows that it is extremely fragile and often unsustainable. Especially in today's economy where the family often has to rely upon two pay checks.

Commercial daycare has to replace a family caretaker (mom, grandmom, aunt, neighbor). And boy does the nuclear family only model collapse (economically and emotionally) if the mom/dad relationship goes south (whether the parents stay together or not).

The kids are so much better off if their economic and emotional well-being is not 100% dependent on (i) both mom and dad always staying continuously employed and (ii) always staying happily married. If the nuclear family hits a speed bump, it often crumbles. And that's when grandparents, aunts/uncles, cousins can pick up the slack for the great benefit of the kids.

Even though yucky Hillary said it, it is true. It does take a village.

Terrific article by David Brooks deep diving into this topic. Highly recommended.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ke/605536/

GG - great find!! Title will keep some from taking the time...


The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake
The family structure we’ve held up as the cultural ideal for the past half century has been a catastrophe for many. It’s time to figure out better ways to live together.

real truth...

"Finally, over the past two generations, families have grown more unequal. America now has two entirely different family regimes. Among the highly educated, family patterns are almost as stable as they were in the 1950s; among the less fortunate, family life is often utter chaos. There’s a reason for that divide: Affluent people have the resources to effectively buy extended family, in order to shore themselves up. Think of all the child-rearing labor affluent parents now buy that used to be done by extended kin: babysitting, professional child care, tutoring, coaching, therapy, expensive after-school programs. (For that matter, think of how the affluent can hire therapists and life coaches for themselves, as replacement for kin or close friends.) These expensive tools and services not only support children’s development and help prepare them to compete in the meritocracy; by reducing stress and time commitments for parents, they preserve the amity of marriage. Affluent conservatives often pat themselves on the back for having stable nuclear families. They preach that everybody else should build stable families too. But then they ignore one of the main reasons their own families are stable: They can afford to purchase the support that extended family used to provide—and that the people they preach at, further down the income scale, cannot."

So why can't extended families still work. Many people still stay close enough to parents, aunts, & uncles to benefit from their help in child rearing. Growing up I was always within walking distance of 1 set of grandparents & several great aunts & uncles.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I keep going back to Roger Stone's arrest as an example where people here like MD and a fan and others say 'it worked out great, no problem!' without once pausing to consider how that attitude of revenge/excess permeates our entire justice system, from the smallest petty crime to the shooting of Brooks in Atlanta.

This coming from the guy who makes fun of those who want to reform policing in their communities.

You want to let rich, white Roger Stone surrender to authorities in his sweet time. Meanwhile, poor Americans get no knock warrants served with armed police. You want one set of rules for how the rich are served warrants, and one set of rules for the poor. And you're telling me that you're "confused" as to why I'm not on board with this?

Let me know when you want to change the police policy to serving those warrants while completely unarmed, and sending in one guy to do that job. I'm sure your Republican party will sign on to that on the spot.

I can't answer every post here, so let this one suffice for you, MD, and forever.

I'm glad we are all onboard that for-profit prisons are inhumane, grotesque, and antithetical to America. That is good news., I take agreement when I can find it. And if Republicans have promoted them, shame on the Republican Party. I would tell you that for-profit prisons proliferated under Clinton, but that's ancient history the way our days roll buy now lol.

Getapo tactics, no-knock warrants, etc...should be reserved strictly for VIOLENT OFFENDERS. I am not sure why you guys keep saying the arrest of Stone is a no-biggie, nothing to see here deal. I fundamentally disagree. Look, I think the guy is putrid filth. But he was not accused of rape, murder,arson, or pedophilia. I have a huge problem when prosecutors abuse their privilege and recruit line agents to go heavy artillery in order to 'send a message', because the message the actually sent is 'the government can do what it wants'. That mentality filters all the way down to neighborhood beat police. If their cousins at the FBI can do that to a freaking tax fraudster, then what the heck do you think they are allowed to do to more-violent perps?! They can shoot them in the back, that's what. And you are condoning it all the way back to your hatred of a guy like Stone.

By the way, let's say that Stone heard a commotion outside his door at 6 am and loaded up thinking someone was trying to break into his house (which is very probable), then the feds shoot and kill him...was that worth the risk for a tax fraudster? Also, someone else posted this once here, do you really care if Stone beat it to Cuba to avoid arrest?! lol, I'd be happy if he did! We don't pay for his incarceration, we don't pay for his trial, and you still get to seize his assets. Sweet deal imo! You guys are too much about revenge and hatred. That impacts your inconsistent views of justice.

His head may have been turned into a canoe. Happens all the time.

[a fan]

And you are condoning it all the way back to your hatred of a guy like Stone.

Nope. I'm condoning one standard for all served warrants. Not my fault you don't want to hear it.

You want two standards. One for rich, and one for poor. And you STILL don't understand why I find that idea repugnant.

In any event, you're complaining to the wrong guy. Talk to your Republican Governors. I'm sure they'd be overjoyed at your idea of sending in unarmed policemen to serve warrants.

Good luck with that.

[MDlaxfan76]

Are posters here telling us that cops have both the Right and Training to be both Judge AND Executioner?

… some clearly like it that way, certainly when it comes to people of color

How many is some? The vagueness of your post does little to bolster your argument. And of those that want to be executioner, how many only want to kill people of color? How many unjustified killings of black people were there? Without adjudicating Rayshard Brooks death, George Floyd is certainly the most recent example. If this were an epidemic, why haven't we seen massive unrest on a continual basis? Of the 9 unarmed black people killed in 2019 in police interactions about half involved physical confrontations and attempts to take an officers weapon and become an armed person.

Sure, we need better hiring and training practices, but let's not ignore what creates too many interactions. Remember, most of these interactions occur in cities with Democrats in control of the Mayor's Office, District Attorney and Chief of Police. I don't believe they are racists. They are just focusing on the wrong things and many times painting others as villains to deflect from their own failures. People of all colors, including whites, are more likely to live in poverty and have police interactions when there is no father present in the house, more so in urban settings where there is a presence of police in closer proximity to the population.

And yet what group want's to eliminate the "nuclear family" from the black community? I will give you three guesses but the first two don't count. This is from a tab on a website titled "What we believe":

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

Where does the word "father" appear?

… this old saw. A conservative church lady fantasy narrative (not so sure calling it conservative is fair any longer - I know actual conservatives who understand this if BS). Like no black (or white) kid who runs afoul of the law has a father. And of course this is all the fault of democrats. Have you ever talked to a black man about raising his children (more specifically SONS)? The challenges -- that you as a white man don't face!

The fact that lack of fathers is a problem DOES NOT mean it is the problem. I have personally spoken with enough of a sample of black fathers about raising their sons to feel pretty confident they have a special problem. It is called systematic racism. They know it when they see it, and they see it daily. Sure it is better than it used to be, but it does exist. It is real. Because you don't see (of course you don't - you are white) doesn't mean it does not exist.

To change the subject only a little -- put me in the class of white men who doesn't trust the police. My interactions - by the book - with them show them to have significant problems in interacting with citizens, the people they are supposed to serve and protect. I have been noticing this since the 80s. It is not new, and it is getting worse IMO. I am not talking about the call it 5% bad COPs - it is the entire force. I don't think I am the only white man who has lost trust and respect for these folks over the last 20 - 40 years. It is the system, it is broken, it must and will be fixed. It is more than just retraining - it will require them to see their job differently. A fan, above, puts his finger on how to see it differently. He is absolutely correct in his assessment of the Brooks incident (he is not the first - this discussion has been had many times). They need to stop thinking with their balls and start thinking with their brains. Needless confrontation is stupid and expensive. It is the system.

PS - if you don't think this is wrapped up in the question of gun control - think again.

There is racism and there will always be racism because there will always be stupid people. Systemic? I don't buy it. The societal penalty for being a real racist is too stiff and only those stupid people can't see it. Racism is a problem of the heart, not the intellect. Groups like skinheads and the KKK are marginalized by society. The only organized racism is your "paternalism" for treating black adults like your children.

Paternalism is the job of fathers!!! So let's do nothing about a problem that could be addressed without much financial investment, just educating all people on how to increase their chances of success. Feminists would likely go nuts about the "Patriarchy", which has only proven to improve lives for many centuries. So let's let a bunch of entitled third wave feminists and uncaring liberals dictate the fate of people they don't know any more than I do.

You need to spend some time talking to some black fathers about their experiences and those of their children. It would be time well spent.

You mean the fathers unmentioned and actually shown hostility by your pals at BLM, which is about socialsim, not black lives? I would also never presume that you need to do anything. You might suggest I should, but telling me I need to do anything is an insult. Maybe you should to go talk to the white kid who had the stuffing beaten out of him on the boardwalk in Ocean City, but it won't be me telling you need to do anything Mr. Totalitarian.

I have done it, more than once, or twice. The suggestion was not meant as an insult. It was meant as good advice. Your position is the black fathers I have spoken with are all liars. You without the experience (like myself, without the experience) don't understand (in my case didn't). You need to walk a mile in their shoes so to speak to understand how pervasive it is. It does not keep one from succeeding, necessarily. It does however grind on you every day. It causes worry for your child that doesn't exist for white fathers. Not saying white fathers don't have legitimate concerns, just not the same set of concerns as the black father.

You ever walk into a store and immediately pick up a tail, how about your son?; how about walk by a standing car and heard the door locks latch?; flag down a cab, not busy, have the driver stare at you and drive on by - how about 3 or 4 cabs in a row, daily?; etc. The simple things in life just being made more difficult, more frustrating. You live in an upscale expensive neighborhood, nice neighbors, you ever worry when your teenage son goes out to play basketball with friends at the local basketball court, he may not be coming home? The experience of everyday life is different. There is not one of you - NOT ONE - who would experience these things regularly, daily and not be ticked off and frustrated at the fact that you are being treated differently - singled out.

I must have been tailed because I got caught a couple times shoplifting when I was around 13. I'm a slow learner. I have more than a handful of black clients, and their views are as diverse as ours, but almost all agree things are getting better between the races. We agree there is racism. We agree its intellectually lazy, just as calling someone a racist is. They have acknowledged that it was way different when they were young. BTW, I live in a townhouse community of about 60 homes. Probably 60% white. Broadneck HS district. There are probably a racist or two in the neighborhood, but I would be hard pressed to pick them out. We all say hi, stop and chat. I let my cats out around 10 this morning and sat on my stoop and watched my Asian (Korean??) neighbors talented 8 year old son stand in the common and practice his violin. Beautiful. Shouldn't we aspire for everyone to have that? Peace, safety and the opportunity to achieve anything without limitations.

Broadneck, like the rest of America, has a long way to go:

2019

https://www.diversityinc.com/maryland-s ... cist-rant/

https://www.capitalgazette.com/educatio ... story.html

nearby more recently: https://patch.com/maryland/annearundel/ ... l-bathroom

2018
https://www.arundelpatriot.org/2018/03/ ... g-threats/

Like I said, can't outlaw stupid. I'm sure things are peachy up in northern Baltimore County. Maybe not Loch Raven Village though. Because stupid, non-affluent people from different races rub up against each other only where there are different races of people. In the meantime, is there systemic racism when this happens to a Hispanic man?

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson ... s-n2570799

wow, you actually read that trash, get it to x??

On it's face, they make it sound like an over reaction, but there's no side presented by the company...it's entirely possible they knew this guy better than the writer of the right wing flamer. Of course, could indeed be an over reaction.

And I certainly wouldn't hold out Baltimore County as superior to Anne Arundel County. I wasn't putting down Broadneck area in specific, indeed I said 'like the rest of America'. It's just that this stuff is pervasive, yet guys like you and me aren't the ones who have to deal with it. So, of course we're unaware.

[MDlaxfan76]

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

The best thing for kids is to have an intact nuclear family AND also the back-up of an extended family/village. The best thing is belt and suspenders.

The nuclear family only model is a pretty recent development. And the evidence overwhelmingly shows that it is extremely fragile and often unsustainable. Especially in today's economy where the family often has to rely upon two pay checks.

Commercial daycare has to replace a family caretaker (mom, grandmom, aunt, neighbor). And boy does the nuclear family only model collapse (economically and emotionally) if the mom/dad relationship goes south (whether the parents stay together or not).

The kids are so much better off if their economic and emotional well-being is not 100% dependent on (i) both mom and dad always staying continuously employed and (ii) always staying happily married. If the nuclear family hits a speed bump, it often crumbles. And that's when grandparents, aunts/uncles, cousins can pick up the slack for the great benefit of the kids.

Even though yucky Hillary said it, it is true. It does take a village.

Terrific article by David Brooks deep diving into this topic. Highly recommended.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ke/605536/

GG - great find!! Title will keep some from taking the time...


The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake
The family structure we’ve held up as the cultural ideal for the past half century has been a catastrophe for many. It’s time to figure out better ways to live together.

real truth...

"Finally, over the past two generations, families have grown more unequal. America now has two entirely different family regimes. Among the highly educated, family patterns are almost as stable as they were in the 1950s; among the less fortunate, family life is often utter chaos. There’s a reason for that divide: Affluent people have the resources to effectively buy extended family, in order to shore themselves up. Think of all the child-rearing labor affluent parents now buy that used to be done by extended kin: babysitting, professional child care, tutoring, coaching, therapy, expensive after-school programs. (For that matter, think of how the affluent can hire therapists and life coaches for themselves, as replacement for kin or close friends.) These expensive tools and services not only support children’s development and help prepare them to compete in the meritocracy; by reducing stress and time commitments for parents, they preserve the amity of marriage. Affluent conservatives often pat themselves on the back for having stable nuclear families. They preach that everybody else should build stable families too. But then they ignore one of the main reasons their own families are stable: They can afford to purchase the support that extended family used to provide—and that the people they preach at, further down the income scale, cannot."

So why can't extended families still work. Many people still stay close enough to parents, aunts, & uncles to benefit from their help in child rearing. Growing up I was always within walking distance of 1 set of grandparents & several great aunts & uncles.

Extended families are very much part of BLM's recognition and in their absence the community as whole. It's a more expansive view of responsibility and 'family', just not limited to the man-wife formula.

[Typical Lax Dad]

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

The best thing for kids is to have an intact nuclear family AND also the back-up of an extended family/village. The best thing is belt and suspenders.

The nuclear family only model is a pretty recent development. And the evidence overwhelmingly shows that it is extremely fragile and often unsustainable. Especially in today's economy where the family often has to rely upon two pay checks.

Commercial daycare has to replace a family caretaker (mom, grandmom, aunt, neighbor). And boy does the nuclear family only model collapse (economically and emotionally) if the mom/dad relationship goes south (whether the parents stay together or not).

The kids are so much better off if their economic and emotional well-being is not 100% dependent on (i) both mom and dad always staying continuously employed and (ii) always staying happily married. If the nuclear family hits a speed bump, it often crumbles. And that's when grandparents, aunts/uncles, cousins can pick up the slack for the great benefit of the kids.

Even though yucky Hillary said it, it is true. It does take a village.

Terrific article by David Brooks deep diving into this topic. Highly recommended.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ke/605536/

GG - great find!! Title will keep some from taking the time...


The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake
The family structure we’ve held up as the cultural ideal for the past half century has been a catastrophe for many. It’s time to figure out better ways to live together.

real truth...

"Finally, over the past two generations, families have grown more unequal. America now has two entirely different family regimes. Among the highly educated, family patterns are almost as stable as they were in the 1950s; among the less fortunate, family life is often utter chaos. There’s a reason for that divide: Affluent people have the resources to effectively buy extended family, in order to shore themselves up. Think of all the child-rearing labor affluent parents now buy that used to be done by extended kin: babysitting, professional child care, tutoring, coaching, therapy, expensive after-school programs. (For that matter, think of how the affluent can hire therapists and life coaches for themselves, as replacement for kin or close friends.) These expensive tools and services not only support children’s development and help prepare them to compete in the meritocracy; by reducing stress and time commitments for parents, they preserve the amity of marriage. Affluent conservatives often pat themselves on the back for having stable nuclear families. They preach that everybody else should build stable families too. But then they ignore one of the main reasons their own families are stable: They can afford to purchase the support that extended family used to provide—and that the people they preach at, further down the income scale, cannot."

So why can't extended families still work. Many people still stay close enough to parents, aunts, & uncles to benefit from their help in child rearing. Growing up I was always within walking distance of 1 set of grandparents & several great aunts & uncles.

One of the things my kids missed out on was having extended family around. We had plenty of relatives in town. When the jobs left, people scattered. My cousin lived down the street she moved to the upper northwest. One son at Stanford and the other a computer engineer at Microsoft. No other family up there. The closest relative to her is a cousin in the Oakland area. Retired NFL agent. We all talk about what our kids missed. We spent summers with grandparents. Both sets lived in the same small town. It was fun.

[Typical Lax Dad]

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

The best thing for kids is to have an intact nuclear family AND also the back-up of an extended family/village. The best thing is belt and suspenders.

The nuclear family only model is a pretty recent development. And the evidence overwhelmingly shows that it is extremely fragile and often unsustainable. Especially in today's economy where the family often has to rely upon two pay checks.

Commercial daycare has to replace a family caretaker (mom, grandmom, aunt, neighbor). And boy does the nuclear family only model collapse (economically and emotionally) if the mom/dad relationship goes south (whether the parents stay together or not).

The kids are so much better off if their economic and emotional well-being is not 100% dependent on (i) both mom and dad always staying continuously employed and (ii) always staying happily married. If the nuclear family hits a speed bump, it often crumbles. And that's when grandparents, aunts/uncles, cousins can pick up the slack for the great benefit of the kids.

Even though yucky Hillary said it, it is true. It does take a village.

Terrific article by David Brooks deep diving into this topic. Highly recommended.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ke/605536/

GG - great find!! Title will keep some from taking the time...


The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake
The family structure we’ve held up as the cultural ideal for the past half century has been a catastrophe for many. It’s time to figure out better ways to live together.

real truth...

"Finally, over the past two generations, families have grown more unequal. America now has two entirely different family regimes. Among the highly educated, family patterns are almost as stable as they were in the 1950s; among the less fortunate, family life is often utter chaos. There’s a reason for that divide: Affluent people have the resources to effectively buy extended family, in order to shore themselves up. Think of all the child-rearing labor affluent parents now buy that used to be done by extended kin: babysitting, professional child care, tutoring, coaching, therapy, expensive after-school programs. (For that matter, think of how the affluent can hire therapists and life coaches for themselves, as replacement for kin or close friends.) These expensive tools and services not only support children’s development and help prepare them to compete in the meritocracy; by reducing stress and time commitments for parents, they preserve the amity of marriage. Affluent conservatives often pat themselves on the back for having stable nuclear families. They preach that everybody else should build stable families too. But then they ignore one of the main reasons their own families are stable: They can afford to purchase the support that extended family used to provide—and that the people they preach at, further down the income scale, cannot."

So why can't extended families still work. Many people still stay close enough to parents, aunts, & uncles to benefit from their help in child rearing. Growing up I was always within walking distance of 1 set of grandparents & several great aunts & uncles.

Extended families are very much part of BLM's recognition and in their absence the community as whole. It's a more expansive view of responsibility and 'family', just not limited to the man-wife formula.

Nah....it sounds better to say BLM is anti-father and Black people rely on the government to raise their kids.

[old salt]

Nah....it sounds better to say BLM is anti-father and Black people rely on the government to raise their kids.

Who's saying that ? Are you hearing voices again ? We're all citing examples of extended family members helping poor & working class nuclear families succeed without needing to pay to outsource parental responsibilities.

In their literature, BLM is discounting the value of the nuclear family. It's part of the ongoing campaign to normalize & remove any stigma from single parenthood when the single mother is not equipped financially or personally to provide their children what they need to succeed.

Single motherhood is hardly limited to black women.

[MDlaxfan76]

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

The best thing for kids is to have an intact nuclear family AND also the back-up of an extended family/village. The best thing is belt and suspenders.

The nuclear family only model is a pretty recent development. And the evidence overwhelmingly shows that it is extremely fragile and often unsustainable. Especially in today's economy where the family often has to rely upon two pay checks.

Commercial daycare has to replace a family caretaker (mom, grandmom, aunt, neighbor). And boy does the nuclear family only model collapse (economically and emotionally) if the mom/dad relationship goes south (whether the parents stay together or not).

The kids are so much better off if their economic and emotional well-being is not 100% dependent on (i) both mom and dad always staying continuously employed and (ii) always staying happily married. If the nuclear family hits a speed bump, it often crumbles. And that's when grandparents, aunts/uncles, cousins can pick up the slack for the great benefit of the kids.

Even though yucky Hillary said it, it is true. It does take a village.

Terrific article by David Brooks deep diving into this topic. Highly recommended.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ke/605536/

GG - great find!! Title will keep some from taking the time...


The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake
The family structure we’ve held up as the cultural ideal for the past half century has been a catastrophe for many. It’s time to figure out better ways to live together.

real truth...

"Finally, over the past two generations, families have grown more unequal. America now has two entirely different family regimes. Among the highly educated, family patterns are almost as stable as they were in the 1950s; among the less fortunate, family life is often utter chaos. There’s a reason for that divide: Affluent people have the resources to effectively buy extended family, in order to shore themselves up. Think of all the child-rearing labor affluent parents now buy that used to be done by extended kin: babysitting, professional child care, tutoring, coaching, therapy, expensive after-school programs. (For that matter, think of how the affluent can hire therapists and life coaches for themselves, as replacement for kin or close friends.) These expensive tools and services not only support children’s development and help prepare them to compete in the meritocracy; by reducing stress and time commitments for parents, they preserve the amity of marriage. Affluent conservatives often pat themselves on the back for having stable nuclear families. They preach that everybody else should build stable families too. But then they ignore one of the main reasons their own families are stable: They can afford to purchase the support that extended family used to provide—and that the people they preach at, further down the income scale, cannot."

So why can't extended families still work. Many people still stay close enough to parents, aunts, & uncles to benefit from their help in child rearing. Growing up I was always within walking distance of 1 set of grandparents & several great aunts & uncles.

One of the things my kids missed out on was having extended family around. We had plenty of relatives in town. When the jobs left, people scattered. My cousin lived down the street she moved to the upper northwest. One son at Stanford and the other a computer engineer at Microsoft. No other family up there. The closest relative to her is a cousin in the Oakland area. Retired NFL agent. We all talk about what our kids missed. We spent summers with grandparents. Both sets lived in the same small town. It was fun.

I swore I'd never come back to Baltimore, too parochial.

And we didn't for 10 years.

But then we found ourselves doing business here, commuting from Boston week on, week off, eventually moved 27 years ago, just 5 minutes from my folks, son went to same schools I did, next thing we're building a home on my parents old property, sister and her family move into old house, sharing 40 acres 20 minutes from downtown. My parents moved in with us 6 months of the year, wife's brother moved in as well...4 grandkids growing up with their grandparents, aunts and uncles...

Then the kids all go off to college and now far flung, our son all the way to Shanghai...pandemic brought most of us back together, though two of 20 somethings life in same town of SC.

Cycles.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Nah....it sounds better to say BLM is anti-father and Black people rely on the government to raise their kids.

Who's saying that ? Are you hearing voices again ? We're all citing examples of extended family members helping poor & working class nuclear families succeed without needing to pay to outsource parental responsibilities.

In their literature, BLM is discounting the value of the nuclear family. It's part of the ongoing campaign to remove any stigma from single parenthood when the single mother is not equipped financially or personally to give their children what they need to succeed.

Single motherhood is hardly limited to black women.

Not you.

[MDlaxfan76]

Nah....it sounds better to say BLM is anti-father and Black people rely on the government to raise their kids.

Who's saying that ? Are you hearing voices again ? We're all citing examples of extended family members helping poor & working class nuclear families succeed without needing to pay to outsource parental responsibilities.

In their literature, BLM is discounting the value of the nuclear family. It's part of the ongoing campaign to remove any stigma from single parenthood when the single mother is not equipped financially or personally to give their children what they need to succeed.

Single motherhood is hardly limited to black women.

And the stigma should indeed be removed, as it's been a means to oppress women for a long time.

BLM is recognizing reality and calling for extended family and community responsibility, rather than simply the old patriarchal model.

But, yeah, it's not about race, it's about justice.
Where BLM is putting it's own flavor on this, in some sense related to race and culture, is the notion that there's another heritage in their ancestry that is different from the "Western" model. True and indeed an interesting lens.

[old salt]

Nah....it sounds better to say BLM is anti-father and Black people rely on the government to raise their kids.

Who's saying that ? Are you hearing voices again ? We're all citing examples of extended family members helping poor & working class nuclear families succeed without needing to pay to outsource parental responsibilities.

In their literature, BLM is discounting the value of the nuclear family. It's part of the ongoing campaign to remove any stigma from single parenthood when the single mother is not equipped financially or personally to give their children what they need to succeed.

Single motherhood is hardly limited to black women.

And the stigma should indeed be removed, as it's been a means to oppress women for a long time.

BLM is recognizing reality and calling for extended family and community responsibility, rather than simply the old patriarchal model.

But, yeah, it's not about race, it's about justice.
Where BLM is putting it's own flavor on this, in some sense related to race and culture, is the notion that there's another heritage in their ancestry that is different from the "Western" model. True and indeed an interesting lens.

So you don't think young women should be discouraged from bringing a child into the world before they are married or have adequate means to provide for the child ? Is that old patriarchal model to which you refer ?

[Peter Brown]

And you are condoning it all the way back to your hatred of a guy like Stone.

Nope. I'm condoning one standard for all served warrants. Not my fault you don't want to hear it.

You want two standards. One for rich, and one for poor. And you STILL don't understand why I find that idea repugnant.

In any event, you're complaining to the wrong guy. Talk to your Republican Governors. I'm sure they'd be overjoyed at your idea of sending in unarmed policemen to serve warrants.

Good luck with that.

You keep saying 'rich versus poor'; it's about non-violent versus violent. They carry far different shades of danger for the police. One of America's greatest sins is treating non-violent as violent; it has led to our insane prison industrial complex.

Most Americans can make that distinction but seemingly you can not.

[Brooklyn]

some change at the Swamp:


Florida Gators banning ‘Gator Bait’ cheer because of ‘racist imagery’


https://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/ ... story.html


Florida Gators opponents on the verge of defeat will no longer be showered with taunts of being “Gator Bait!”

UF president Kent Fuchs announced Thursday the popular cheer would be banned at sporting events due to the “horrific racist imagery” associated with the phrase.

“While I know of no evidence of racism associated with our ‘Gator Bait’ cheer at UF sporting events, there is horrific historic racist imagery associated with the phrase,” Fuchs wrote in a letter to the university community. “Accordingly University Athletics and the Gator Band will discontinue the use of the cheer.”

Fuchs noted the death of George Floyd nearly three weeks ago was the impetus to address any instances of racism and inequity on the UF campus.

Long before it became a cheer at Florida football games, the term “gator bait” dates to the late 1800s when black babies and children were used as alligator bait and the phrase was used as a slur toward black people, according to Ferris State University’s Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia.





Gator bait toons - shorturl.at/lqDZ4

[a fan]

You keep saying 'rich versus poor'; it's about non-violent versus violent. They carry far different shades of danger for the police.

Uh huh. So let's see if I have your policy straight here....

If it's a non-violent felony warrant...you think the police should serve that warrant with just one, unarmed person? So let's say you're going to serve a warrant for an alleged drug dealer....no guns, and no show of force (meaning: more than one person) right?

Just one unarmed police clerk with the warrant in their hands? That's your new policy?

Works for me. Tell your Republican Governors. I'm sure they'll be delighted to hear about your plan here.


And you've looked at this, right? You know we have a second amendment, and a few million guns floating around in the US, right?

You're certain that serving non-violent warrants isn't a dangerous job for the police, right?

[jhu72]

And you are condoning it all the way back to your hatred of a guy like Stone.

Nope. I'm condoning one standard for all served warrants. Not my fault you don't want to hear it.

You want two standards. One for rich, and one for poor. And you STILL don't understand why I find that idea repugnant.

In any event, you're complaining to the wrong guy. Talk to your Republican Governors. I'm sure they'd be overjoyed at your idea of sending in unarmed policemen to serve warrants.

Good luck with that.

… you know as well as I do, it is a typical American right wing libertarian position. The "night watchmen state".

[a fan]

By the way, let's say that Stone heard a commotion outside his door at 6 am and loaded up thinking someone was trying to break into his house (which is very probable), then the feds shoot and kill him...was that worth the risk for a tax fraudster?

I'll take this scenario, and use your idea: let's say that Stone heard a commotion outside his door at 6 am and loaded up thinking someone was trying to break into his house (which is very probable), and a single unarmed Fed officer (as Pete Brown has suggested) is shot and killed by Stone.

Now what? Whoops, right?

[jhu72]

And you are condoning it all the way back to your hatred of a guy like Stone.

Nope. I'm condoning one standard for all served warrants. Not my fault you don't want to hear it.

You want two standards. One for rich, and one for poor. And you STILL don't understand why I find that idea repugnant.

In any event, you're complaining to the wrong guy. Talk to your Republican Governors. I'm sure they'd be overjoyed at your idea of sending in unarmed policemen to serve warrants.

Good luck with that.

You keep saying 'rich versus poor'; it's about non-violent versus violent. They carry far different shades of danger for the police. One of America's greatest sins is treating non-violent as violent; it has led to our insane prison industrial complex.

Most Americans can make that distinction but seemingly you can not.

… poor people have a lot of contracts they participate in the writing of?? The only part of the justice system they see in a right wing libertarian state is the night watchmen's billy club.

[old salt]

Mr Brooks' media makeover :

https://tbdailynews.com/media-portrays- ... LlHETUk2JU

[cradleandshoot]

And you are condoning it all the way back to your hatred of a guy like Stone.

Nope. I'm condoning one standard for all served warrants. Not my fault you don't want to hear it.

You want two standards. One for rich, and one for poor. And you STILL don't understand why I find that idea repugnant.

In any event, you're complaining to the wrong guy. Talk to your Republican Governors. I'm sure they'd be overjoyed at your idea of sending in unarmed policemen to serve warrants.

Good luck with that.

Hey a Fan, I hate to disappoint you but those 2 cops in Atlanta turned themselves in of their own volition. It did not take 30 armed to the teeth feds to raid their house at 6am. Were they given white glove treatment or was their no need to escalate? I hope the rat bahztads didn't destroy any evidence? I am surprised they didn't flee the country.