Taking kids away from the parents just opens up SO MANY other cans of worms. You can't guarantee that that would be a good thing for the kid.
Exactly. That's why I said I was very uncomfortable with that idea.
Really, the only true answer is one that we don't have. It's gonna take a lot of thoughtful, rational discussion to determine why these things happen. Are the parents not caring because they had kids and never wanted them? Why did that happen? What can we do (as a society) to help keep that from happening?
Is it simply that the parents are too tired from Working Too Much At The Mill? What can we do to help that not be a problem?
It's hard questions, and not easily compressible into a sound byte. So I'm not sure we'll ever really fix it.
There probably are general cultural shifts that could help to fix it, but they probably wouldn't be a panacea. Right now, as you stated earlier, we live in an era where physical accomplishment and sports are heavily emphasized. Granted, I appreciate a skilled athlete exercising his craft as much as anyone, but there definitely seems to be a notion that this sort of performance is all that matters, combined with a general anti-intellectualism in our culture at large. I can't help but be reminded about a documentary I saw back in the 90's about some sort of national college engineering competition in Japan. The finals of this competition got a prime time TV slot and it was hyped up almost as if it was a Super Bowl or something. That's the sort of thing we never see here in the States. Japan may have a lot of problems, but they seem to at least give intellectual achievement a healthy level of respect that's severely lacking in the US. Of course, they also have issues with cram schools and high teen suicide rates and whatnot, so I'm not advocating the Japanese way of doing things as being the best either -- I'm just using it as an example.
It also doesn't help that there definitely seems to be this point of view in many impoverished areas that the only way to "get out of the hood" is to succeed at playing football or basketball. There is no where near enough emphasis on "getting out" by way of becoming a doctor, or an engineer, or a scientist, or an accountant, etc. Granted, part of it may be due to the lion's share of full scholarships to colleges apparently being reserved for athletes so that if you're poor and can't play football or basketball, there is no way in hell you'll be able to pay your way through college either. The only colleges with large scholarship budgets that don't seem to put an emphasis on athletic scholarships tend to be the most elite of the elites (Ivy League and equivalent) and even if a student has the academic capability to attend such a school, there are only so many slots available at them for these students. Top-notch state schools (such as the "public Ivies") are dealing with the problems of shrinking budgets resulting in increased tuition and the fact that a lot of them are also "sports factory" schools that again, push way too much of the scholarship budget towards the athletics side and not enough towards the academics side. Smaller state schools do exist as well, but their budgets are even tinier than their big brothers. Also, many of these colleges, whether big or small, public or private, elite or not, exist relatively far away from poorer population centers, so that even if an academically gifted poor kid can get a full tuition scholarship (I'm assuming that room and board isn't typically covered by scholarships), he or she may not be able to afford room and board.
However, if Romney wins the silent civil liberties/anti-war crowd will wake up from their slumber. Obama has been killing citizens and expanding the drone program (and fighting several proxy wars in the Middle East).
Actually, it's arguable that Obama isn't killing citizens as these "citizens" may have in fact forfeited their citizenship by fighting alongside Al Qaeda and the Taliban. US law and precedent clearly states that voluntarily fighting for a foreign military force against the the United States counts as renouncing your citizenship.
Yes, tell me how Obama will veto the next vote for NDAA (sorry, didn't he sign a version which expanded indefinite detetion?), Patriot Act (he expanded this as well), close down Gitmo (maybe in the next four years?), end the proxy wars in the Middle East (yay drones), end the War on Drugs (oh wait, he's expanding this), and end the War on Terror (what even is a War on terror?). Please.
I think a lot of people here are looking through rose-tinted glasses when it comes to Obama.
I would much rather someone not vote (or vote 3rd party) than specifically vote for the one person because you hate the other one so much. People voting for Romney because they hate Obama sicken me.
Yes, tell me how Obama will veto the next vote for NDAA (sorry, didn't he sign a version which expanded indefinite detetion?), Patriot Act (he expanded this as well), close down Gitmo (maybe in the next four years?), end the proxy wars in the Middle East (yay drones), end the War on Drugs (oh wait, he's expanding this), and end the War on Terror (what even is a War on terror?). Please.
I think a lot of people here are looking through rose-tinted glasses when it comes to Obama.
Please?
We had this discussion a few days back where I basically said the same thing. Unfortunately, Romney endorses the same sort of foreign policy and you're not really acknowledging that, plus if we're talking about parties that need an overhaul the Republicans would probably be first on the list.
Those points made, I do agree that the Democrats need to get tougher and more ambitious as well. I just don't want to sacrifice whatever programs Romney can manage to axe on the hope that the D's do something good.
Actually, it's arguable that Obama isn't killing citizens as these "citizens" may have in fact forfeited their citizenship by fighting alongside Al Qaeda and the Taliban. US law and precedent clearly states that voluntarily fighting for a foreign military force against the the United States counts as renouncing your citizenship.
This is exactly the shit I'm talking about. You are rationalizing what is very clearly an expansion of presidential powers. And while Obama may be well behaved with this new power, only killing those who have may or may not foreited their citizenship, he's set the precedent for a future President to drone strike Occupy protesters because they "forfeited their citizenship when they decided to resist American police instructions. They are anarchists not Americans!" Eventually the line between Al Qaeda and Occupy movement will erode.
I would much rather someone not vote (or vote 3rd party) than specifically vote for the one person because you hate the other one so much. People voting for Romney because they hate Obama sicken me.
Oh I agree. I'm not voting for Romney (and probably not Obama either) because I have standards. But if we are playing the long term strategic game, we are losing the fight against the road to governmental tyranny.
We had this discussion a few days back where I basically said the same thing. Unfortunately, Romney endorses the same sort of foreign policy and you're not really acknowledging that, plus if we're talking about parties that need an overhaul the Republicans would probably be first on the list.
Exactly, but at least if Romney was in charge more of the civil liberty groups and liberals will speak out against it. Also, the last time the Republicans lost heavily they shifted even further to the right with the Tea Party movement. I'm not convinced that another defeat will cause them to shift in the other direction.
However, if Romney wins the silent civil liberties/anti-war crowd will wake up from their slumber. Obama has been killing citizens and expanding the drone program (and fighting several proxy wars in the Middle East).
Actually, it's arguable that Obama isn't killing citizens as these "citizens" may have in fact forfeited their citizenship by fighting alongside Al Qaeda and the Taliban. US law and precedent clearly states that voluntarily fighting for a foreign military force against the the United States counts as renouncing your citizenship.
You'll never hear either side say as much since that would necessitate recognizing people who fight for Al Qaeda and the Taliban as legitimate soldiers and not "unlawful combatants". That being said, implying that a Republican in the White House would mean that these American citizens would NOT be killed is laughable; they'd put that shit on a t-shirt.
Actually, it's arguable that Obama isn't killing citizens as these "citizens" may have in fact forfeited their citizenship by fighting alongside Al Qaeda and the Taliban. US law and precedent clearly states that voluntarily fighting for a foreign military force against the the United States counts as renouncing your citizenship.
This is exactly the shit I'm talking about. You are rationalizing what is very clearly an expansion of presidential powers. And while Obama may be well behaved with this new power, only killing those who have may or may not foreited their citizenship, he's set the precedent for a future President to drone strike Occupy protesters because they "forfeited their citizenship when they decided to resist American police instructions. They are anarchists not Americans!" Eventually the line between Al Qaeda and Occupy movement will erode.
This is a classic slippery slope logical fallacy on your part. The people Obama has targeted with his drone attacks are fighting for foreign armies on foreign soil. It's the high-tech equivalent of lobbing artillery at an American who went over to Germany and fought with the Nazis in WW2. The Occupy protesters are exercising their First Amendment rights on American soil and are not fighting alongside foreign armies. They haven't even taken up arms against any other Americans, soldiers or otherwise.
The government and the State Department has a pretty strict set of guidelines, laws, and legal precedents set by the Supreme Court over just what it takes to forfeit your citizenship. For example, if you happened to be overseas when war with the US breaks out and you end up getting forcibly drafted against your will by an army fighting the US, you don't automatically lose your citizenship. You actually have to go out of your way to purposely join an enemy army to forfeit your citizenship.
Edit: Concerning the "unlawful combatants" thing, I do think there should be some legal precedent or law as to whether or not fighting in foreign paramilitary organizations against the US counts as equivalent to fighting with a foreign army. Given the nature of the Taliban and al Qaeda, I'm willing to let the distinction slide in this case until there is a clear legal precedent established. Now if it was a domestic paramilitary organization, then things could get much more complicated, although one may argue the the case of the Confederacy in the Civil War may justify their targeting as well.
Another simple loss wouldn't do it, but demographics are continuing to shift to such where even my beloved Senator (Lindsay Graham) has said that they "aren't creating enough angry white guys.". They realize their position cannot be maintained, they're just trying to get entrenched right now.
I'm pretty hopeful that demographics are the real invisible hand at play here. With more Latino and Hispanic voters coming in, it's going to force both parties to change what they focus on. Hell, the fact that Texas is actually going blue because of demographics is a pretty interesting idea in and of itself.
I'm not sure how it'll erode to the point where Occupy becomes a foreign military force. That sounds like a mighty improbable slippery slope there.
It may only take one Molotov cocktail to change that definition. Hey, the ELF is a domestic terrorist group, we should just drone them and get it over with. After all it IS a War on Terror.
I'm not sure how it'll erode to the point where Occupy becomes a foreign military force. That sounds like a mighty improbable slippery slope there.
It may only take one Molotov cocktail to change that definition. Hey, the ELF is a domestic terrorist group, we should just drone them and get it over with. After all it IS a War on Terror.
You're also making the assumption that I don't basically agree with your premise. I do. The only reason I'm voting for Obama is because I want to contribute to the "blue"-ing of my local area, hopefully to influence some major party attention to this state. Voting for Green party (like I want to) would seriously just waste my vote. There is literally no chance of anyone caring.
And I have to be a bit pragmatic about my vote, rather than staunchly ideological.
I'm not sure how it'll erode to the point where Occupy becomes a foreign military force. That sounds like a mighty improbable slippery slope there.
It may only take one Molotov cocktail to change that definition. Hey, the ELF is a domestic terrorist group, we should just drone them and get it over with. After all it IS a War on Terror.
You know, you can take off your tin foil hat now.
Look, I'm with Andrew on this. Terror anywhere is terror everywhere. This is America.
I can't wait till we can start marrying our cats then.
I don't know about humans marrying cats, but marrying cats to each other would be super adorbs. I could go into the cat wedding business... little wedding dresses and tuxes for cats... *-*
I can't wait till we can start marrying our cats then.
I don't know about humans marrying cats, but marrying cats to each other would be super adorbs. I could go into the cat wedding business... little wedding dresses and tuxes for cats... *-*
But if cats are allowed to marry they will want to adopt kittens and raise them in their deviant felisexual lifestyle!
Shooting protesters is a time honored American tradition Andrew.
I'm just stating there is a WIDE gulf between killing a citizen in a foreign country actively working against the US with a Terrorist organization, and a group of people protesting Wallstreet.
It won't go this year. Look for it in 2016 or 2020.
Stranger things have happened. Given the lack of a voting-motivated conservative white base and increasing political activity in a disgruntled, systemically discriminated-against but demographically-dominant "minority," it's possible that we'll see it happen.
I can't wait till we can start marrying our cats then.
I don't know about humans marrying cats, but marrying cats to each other would be super adorbs. I could go into the cat wedding business... little wedding dresses and tuxes for cats... *-*
They would all look hella pissed off in their wedding photos, like Y U dress me up, stupid? Granted, the bunny rescue place does "bunny speed dating" to find bond-able mates for people's pet rabbits. It's like a little bunny OK Cupid, except usually people don't get into fist fights and bite each other if the chemistry is not working out.
I'm not sure how it'll erode to the point where Occupy becomes a foreign military force. That sounds like a mighty improbable slippery slope there.
It may only take one Molotov cocktail to change that definition. Hey, the ELF is a domestic terrorist group, we should just drone them and get it over with. After all it IS a War on Terror.
You know, you can take off your tin foil hat now.
Look, I'm with Andrew on this. Terror anywhere is terror everywhere. This is America.
And you know what? Every case of domestic terror in this country has been handled properly by the courts. The Oklahoma City bombings? Handled by the standard civil court. Even the ridiculous Jose Padilla case was eventually filtered to the civilian courts and he got a civilian sentence. There is currently a case going through the courts now involving some folks living in Massachusetts who plotted to use remote control model airplanes to commit terrorist attacks. This is also going through the civilian court system.
Somebody in a facebook thread just compared climate science to a 5 to 4 ruling by the Supreme Court. Oh my God, I haven't the strength to explain the 7 things wrong with that analogy in depth. Please just fucking shoot me.
I can't wait till we can start marrying our cats then.
I don't know about humans marrying cats, but marrying cats to each other would be super adorbs. I could go into the cat wedding business... little wedding dresses and tuxes for cats... *-*
But if cats are allowed to marry they will want to adopt kittens and raise them in their deviant felisexual lifestyle!
Kitty siblings already reproduce with each other and create inbred kittehs. I don't see how allowing them to marry is worse. Although, I forsee lots of kitteh divorces during mating season when guy kitteh cheats on his wife with the 5 neighborhood unspeighed(sp?) girl kittehs.
(moral of the story, speigh(sp?) and neuter your kittehs!(and doggehs))
Comments
It also doesn't help that there definitely seems to be this point of view in many impoverished areas that the only way to "get out of the hood" is to succeed at playing football or basketball. There is no where near enough emphasis on "getting out" by way of becoming a doctor, or an engineer, or a scientist, or an accountant, etc. Granted, part of it may be due to the lion's share of full scholarships to colleges apparently being reserved for athletes so that if you're poor and can't play football or basketball, there is no way in hell you'll be able to pay your way through college either. The only colleges with large scholarship budgets that don't seem to put an emphasis on athletic scholarships tend to be the most elite of the elites (Ivy League and equivalent) and even if a student has the academic capability to attend such a school, there are only so many slots available at them for these students. Top-notch state schools (such as the "public Ivies") are dealing with the problems of shrinking budgets resulting in increased tuition and the fact that a lot of them are also "sports factory" schools that again, push way too much of the scholarship budget towards the athletics side and not enough towards the academics side. Smaller state schools do exist as well, but their budgets are even tinier than their big brothers. Also, many of these colleges, whether big or small, public or private, elite or not, exist relatively far away from poorer population centers, so that even if an academically gifted poor kid can get a full tuition scholarship (I'm assuming that room and board isn't typically covered by scholarships), he or she may not be able to afford room and board.
I think a lot of people here are looking through rose-tinted glasses when it comes to Obama.
Please?
Those points made, I do agree that the Democrats need to get tougher and more ambitious as well. I just don't want to sacrifice whatever programs Romney can manage to axe on the hope that the D's do something good.
The government and the State Department has a pretty strict set of guidelines, laws, and legal precedents set by the Supreme Court over just what it takes to forfeit your citizenship. For example, if you happened to be overseas when war with the US breaks out and you end up getting forcibly drafted against your will by an army fighting the US, you don't automatically lose your citizenship. You actually have to go out of your way to purposely join an enemy army to forfeit your citizenship.
Edit: Concerning the "unlawful combatants" thing, I do think there should be some legal precedent or law as to whether or not fighting in foreign paramilitary organizations against the US counts as equivalent to fighting with a foreign army. Given the nature of the Taliban and al Qaeda, I'm willing to let the distinction slide in this case until there is a clear legal precedent established. Now if it was a domestic paramilitary organization, then things could get much more complicated, although one may argue the the case of the Confederacy in the Civil War may justify their targeting as well.
I'm pretty hopeful that demographics are the real invisible hand at play here. With more Latino and Hispanic voters coming in, it's going to force both parties to change what they focus on. Hell, the fact that Texas is actually going blue because of demographics is a pretty interesting idea in and of itself.
And I have to be a bit pragmatic about my vote, rather than staunchly ideological.
Shooting protesters is a time honored American tradition Andrew.
I'm just stating there is a WIDE gulf between killing a citizen in a foreign country actively working against the US with a Terrorist organization, and a group of people protesting Wallstreet.
Thanks Obama.
Granted, the bunny rescue place does "bunny speed dating" to find bond-able mates for people's pet rabbits. It's like a little bunny OK Cupid, except usually people don't get into fist fights and bite each other if the chemistry is not working out.
(moral of the story, speigh(sp?) and neuter your kittehs!(and doggehs))