Jack and Jill Politics - Latest Comments in And Another One

Re: And Another One

Pat Newbold — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:24:35 -0000

Jesse demonstrated in Jenna regarding lynching. Black men were castrated also how may tell can an advocate of civil rights use that term so blatenly its just as bad as another black using the n work when refering to another black. Jesse may be you are suffering from dementia. And as for fathers responsibility i am one who constantly stay in family court trying to get assistance from my baby daddy and he will not work in order to not pay child support. what obama missed was acculades to the women that are fathers when he made that speech in addition to honoring those men that are because we do have them. but dont let the media define who we are by dividing and concuring us in an attempt to distance us from Obama that we stay home and dont vote. read between the lines the media is hard at work.VOTE VOTE VOTE DONT LET DOWN THE ONES THAT DIED FOR US TO HAVE THIS PRIVILIGE

Re: And Another One

TRW — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:18:20 -0000

I think that we just have a fundamental disagreement on how the government should work.

1) "You already pay the taxes. The question is in how those taxes are utilized. I think there is a definite meanness component in Conservative ideology. They believe in punishment and shame as motivation for good behaviour."

First of all, I think that it is a generalization to say that there is a component of "meanness" in conservative ideology. How is it "mean" to expect people to take care of themselves? And again, I go back to the fact that people are well aware that they have to pay taxes to provide for infrastructure, security, etc. but many people do NOT want their tax money to go to programs that are enabling bad behavior, which they see as a dependent relationship on government assistance. I was focusing my comments on Black people, but this goes for everyone. And I will speak for myself. I don't want the money that I make at my job to go to someone who doesn't know how or doesn't try to take care of themselves. I guess that makes me mean, but that's fine.

"Not even the extremely wealthy are completely self-sufficient. They require infrastructure and the civilization it fosters in order to survive."

Of course no one is absolutely self-sufficient. But people just want to take it back to the basics, and not throw in a lot of social programs that are doing more harm than good.

"It's in everyone's best interest to ensure that those people are fed and cared for. As a matter of fact, it's a bargain! If not, then that person will flounder, they may turn to crime, they may take someone's life, they may end up in jail."

That's just the point. It's in YOUR best interest to make sure that you are fed and cared for NOT the government. I refuse to subscribe to the belief that people can just be lax and irresponsible in their personal decision making, but its okay because its in everyone's best interest that they land on their feet so we should just pitch in and help them out. Um no. We need to go to the root of the problem. And the root of the problem is that people need to make better decisions for themselves and take more initiative to invest in their future. If you feel that your schools are inadequate, form a group/organization and petition the school board/hang out in the library as much as you can/or move. If you feel that you need more money to live comfortably, look for ways to get training or more education or get another job. And if you can't afford to have children right away, either invest in sound birth control methods or abstain. These are things that individuals can do that have nothing to do with the government, but can change people's quality of life significantly.

And when has poverty become an excuse for criminality? And how is that a bargaining chip? I should support these paternalistic social programs that I don't agree with, or these people may end up robbing/killing me later? Again, I think it shifts the argument to the wrong group of people. Instead of shaming others into thinking that it is their duty to take care of everyone in this way, we should be encouraging people to find ways to take care of themselves.

"Maybe Conservatives need to acquire some wisdom and understanding to go with their prejudice and greed." This is another generalization. Just because many conservatives believe in self-sufficiency doesn't make them prejudiced. And just because people want to make sure the money in their pocket doesn't go to certain social programs doesn't make them greedy.

But to sum up, I think we can agree to disagree.

Re: And Another One

Sombody_took_my_username — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:57:11 -0000

"..but I think the argument is, we have gone way over the top with
government programs and government involvement in our everyday lives.
And with increased government programs, people have to pay for it in
taxes. "

That argument hasn't been made with supportive facts and evidence. So, it is more of a 'prejudice' rather than an argument. It's like saying black people are lazy ...but never providing measurement of their laziness in comparison to any other race. You already pay the taxes. The question is in how those taxes are utilized. I think there is a definite meanness component in Conservative ideology. They believe in punishment and shame as motivation for good behaviour.
Not even the extremely wealthy are completely self-sufficient. They require infrastructure and the civilization it fosters in order to survive.

"..And the next person doesn't make wise decisions, or fails to properly
plan for a child, and then seeks government assistance in the form of
food stamps, welfare, etc. when they can't make ends meet Many people
feel that these types of programs are encouraging bad behaviour."

It's in everyone's best interest to ensure that those people are fed and cared for. As a matter of fact, it's a bargain! If not, then that person will flounder, they may turn to crime, they may take someone's life, they may end up in jail. At each step, taxes will be used to bring them to justice, and punish them. It is far cheaper to provide food and housing. The problem is, that even food and housing is used to shame and punish the recipients. It is not the government's job to use the necessities of life to punish and mitigate "behaviour". It is the government's job to make sure we maintain our civilization and keep ALL people moving forward.

"So when people look at their situation, and understand that they made
sacrifices to live comfortably, to simply say that it is selfish to
expect someone else to do the same is short sighted."

It's short-sighted to preoccupy ourselves with what someone else does. There are bigger fish to fry. I don't care what choices they've made, I care that they have the opportunity to change course and move forward...whatever that takes. Maybe Conservatives need to acquire some wisdom and understanding to go with their prejudice and greed.

Re: And Another One

TW — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:38:49 -0000

But I think that you are talking about the extreme of conservatism. Of course we need people's taxes to contribute to basic infrastructure and the security of this country, which everyone benefits from, but I think the argument is, we have gone way over the top with government programs and government involvement in our everyday lives. And with increased government programs, people have to pay for it in taxes. And I don't think its fair to simply attribute people's concern about increased taxes to meanness, selfishness, or small mindedness.

Say for example, I wait to have children until I am married and have two incomes, or I am single with a significant income to support that child. And the next person doesn't make wise decisions, or fails to properly plan for a child, and then seeks government assistance in the form of food stamps, welfare, etc. when they can't make ends meet Many people feel that these types of programs are encouraging bad behavior. That instead of restraint, responsibility, and sound financial planning, people are getting themselves into situations that they are ill equipped to handle and then turning to government assistance to fill in the gaps (this is a generalization, I realize there are exceptions). So when people look at their situation, and understand that they made sacrifices to live comfortably, to simply say that it is selfish to expect someone else to do the same is short sighted. Yes, we live in a collective society, but ultimately we have to take care of ourselves.

Re: And Another One

Pat Newbold — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:49:03 -0000

i think coming from a Rev who cheated on his wife and produced a child his assuption of Obama is hypacritical especially when he uses the term moral. i lost respect for Jesse Jackson sin he smeared Martin Luthers blood on himself and lied and said Martin Luther died in his arms. He is an opportunist of the worst kind as his own son said sit down and KEEP HOPE ALIVE.

Re: And Another One

Sombody_took_my_username — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:38:05 -0000

Pass the deficit onto children, but no will to have invested that money into those same children in the first place. Had that investment taken place, the children would be more than equipped to handle the much smaller debt incurred. Instead, they will pay for what we haven't equipped them to handle.

Your pay cheque pays for an unjust war. I don't hear a great outcry from Conservatives especially....the ones who are averse to taxes.

The model they propose has been tried before. It was called the Dark Ages. The advent of government, social programs, unions, law enforcement, health care system, fire department, public school, has brought us to our present civilization.

Now that we have reaped the benefit of that civilization, we look askance at the very institution that has made it possible: Government and taxation.

Now that we've made it safely out of infancy, have gone to the schools that others have helped build (surely your parents tax dollars alone were not sufficient to educate you) we look suspiciously at taxes.

It is meanness. Selfishness. Small-mindedness.

Re: And Another One

TRW — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:20:50 -0000

I'm not going to make generalizations about everybody's else's situation, but my Mom worked more than eight hours a day, and I turned out just fine. Would I have liked if she worked less? Of course. But she doesn't agree with taking handouts from anyone, especially since it means you might have to sacrifice some of your privacy and autonomy. And since she has always wanted children, she felt it was her job to do what needed to be done to sacrifice for them.
So despite her long hours, what made the difference was good parenting. It's that simple. She taught me certain values at a young age, and I respected her authority. She was also vigilant when she needed to be, and made sure that I had good influences in my life.
Now, if my father would have been present and active, things would have been different. She wouldn't have had to work as much to support my sister and I. But from here, I don't see where the government comes in.

And as far as program funding, it might take a will, but it also takes money. And plenty of people are not happy that their paychecks are constantly being sliced and diced to support government programs. I think a total overhaul is needed, and some of these programs should be cut. And is the war really a good analogy? We are in a huge deficit right now because of it, and we are going to pass it on to our children.

Re: And Another One

Sombody_took_my_username — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:35:06 -0000

Is it really good for the collective for a parent to work more than 8 hours per day? What happens when the collective feels the effect of a child who's been ignored by a parent? A needy child is an emergency.

You say "it" in reference to goverment as if it forms an entity of it's own, with it's own rights that need to be protected. I say "us" in reference to government. Government is a tool.

As for program funding...all it takes is will. You've waged a 5 year war in a sovereign country that was not a threat. The Iraq war has lasted longer than the 2nd world war. There was a will to invade Iraq.

Re: And Another One

Mr, Commonsense — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:03:26 -0000

This stuff is like watching a freaking perverse minstrel show with Bill Oreilly as rhe interlocutor

Re: And Another One

TRW — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:13:55 -0000

Wait. Huh? I am totally confused by this statement: "When the religious institution collapses, the government must find ways to support single parents." I totally disagree. Instead of more government intervention in our lives we need less. Historically, when people needed help making ends meet, they got another job, or made sacrifices in other areas. And kept it moving. Government assistance should be the last resort, i.e. in case of emergencies only.

And to address your responses below, the government does represent its citizens, but we in should no way be looking for it to take care of our children. It's about proper planning. And where is the money going to come from to sustain these programs? I honestly think that within the next 10 years or so, a lot of these programs are going to be cut altogether, which should give plenty of people an incentive to take initiative.

Re: And Another One

Big Bill — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:00:09 -0000

Correct. Obama is not going to be Soul Brother No. 1. All the more reason for black folks to push him hard on his policies before he is elected.

Obama and McCain have both committed to total amnesty (with a token "back taxes" payment of maybe $3000 - chump change) of illegals and to letting them stay in America and keep working AND to bring their families here.

This is going to be a devastating blow to our already overburdened now-multilingual school systems, welfare systems, and medical systems.

Obama, as a member of the Democratic Party (which 40 years ago was the working class party) can probably be worked on better than McCain. And he should be.

As Booker T. Washington explained, America has a duty to black folks and ought to "cast down its bucket" right here in the black community rather than inviting aliens of questionable (or no) loyalty to this country. See:

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/88.

Which also has a recording of Mr. Washington giving that portion of his speech in Atlanta,1895.

Mexicans are not going to stop sneaking illegals into the USA and protecting them.

Re: And Another One

caligirl — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:46:47 -0000

you clearly misunderstood my comments. i am thoroughly aware (and grateful) that barack obama isn't running as the black people's president. and...you conveniently left out the part where i wrote that these issues have a DISPROPORTIONATELY negative impact on black (and brown) communities. that--in my view--is the key piece of this, and probably why barack feels comfortable in discussing it. frankly, it would be irresponsible of him NOT to. i'm very sensitive to black people being painted in a pathological light, as it's been done by so-called "social scientists" before in attempts to justify punitive public policy. however, i've listened to barack's speeches/rallies/etc. and i feel that he's treated the topic in a respectful, positive way.

issues of privacy notwithstanding (and i daresay any person abandoned by their father probably always owns a little "angst") , it's about time that parental responsibility gets a national stage. sweeping it under the rug has not worked well.

an aside: reading about your fundraiser made me HUNGRY!!!

Re: And Another One

Big Bill — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:42:52 -0000

Booker T Washington had a good deal to say about facing uncomfortable race truths, the need to deal with white folks honestly and forthrightly (after all, it's not like white folks can't see it, too) and how many white folks, even though they are racists, want the best for their communities, which does involve the uplift of the black race. Perhaps Obama is following Mr. Washington's footsteps and not Jesse's or Al's. See:

http://docsouth.unc.edu/fpn/washeducation/washi...

Re: And Another One

pjamma — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:30:24 -0000

1) He did speck to all of America

2) Here is the breakdown by race of the American problem:

The nation's out-of-wedlock birth rate is 38%. Among white children, 28% are now born to a single mother; among Hispanic children it is 50% and reaches a chilling, disorienting peak of 71% for black children. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, nearly a quarter of America's white children (22%) do not have any male in their homes; nearly a third (31%) of Hispanic children and over half of black children (56%) are fatherless.

So by shear numbers, yes it is an American problem. But if you are going to single out any race to make a point the one with alarming statistics may be the one that you reference in your speech.

Re: And Another One

PTCruiser — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:58:25 -0000

"we DO need to address the childrearing issue. these things are FACTS. his father's day speech (and other occasions where he's raised these issues) may be uncomfortable for some to hear, but we need to "get over" the discomfort and start the very hard work of healing."

Obama is not running for the presidency of Black America. The Black Electorate has no such position in its ranks. If elected president, he will not be Soul Brother No. 1. If he is still feeling any angst caused by his own father's behavior then he needs to address those issues in the privacy of a therapeutic relationship. If he wants to address absentee fathers as a public policy issue, then he should discuss it in the context of it being an American problem, not a Black American problem.

Re: And Another One

caligirl — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:13:50 -0000

i thought the obama campaign's response to this incident was principled and decent. it was in no way a "distancing" of barack from jesse jackson. he accepted his apology and moved on. i also don't think that overall obama has distanced himself from all things black...actually, to the contrary... the issues he plans to address and correct as president have disproportionately negative impacts on black communities (he mentions this)...so i don't get it. i appreciate the fact that we have the VERY REAL possibility of having a president who is not only AWARE of "our" issues, but who intends to address them! how is that distancing? our marriage rates HAVE plummeted...we DO need to address the childrearing issue. these things are FACTS. his father's day speech (and other occasions where he's raised these issues) may be uncomfortable for some to hear, but we need to "get over" the discomfort and start the very hard work of healing.

that's my humble opinion. this is my first time reading this blog.

Re: And Another One

TRW — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:42:23 -0000

Ok. That's fine. And now Jesse has apologized for his statements. My point is that these people should know better. People should think before they open their mouths.

Re: And Another One

Sombody_took_my_username — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:05:38 -0000

"I refuse to believe that Barack woke up in the morning, kissed Michelle ad the girls and said it's time to sacrifice the black man to appease whitey."

I'm sure he just clenched his jaw, went out there and took care of business. Barack is a grown man with children of his own...I don't believe it is personally cathartic for him to talk about his own missing father on the stump.

Re: And Another One

Sombody_took_my_username — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:45:04 -0000

Some Atheists even exchange gifts at Christmas. :)

"Just because the relationship doesn't last the child is still here and
should be cared for by both parents, emotionally and financially."

Says who? That's one of many social mores. But humans have a funny way of disobeying rules. Obama's vain speech changed nothing for those who disobey the social rules, and he knew it.

"The government should be a last extreme result"

I think of government as representative of the collective. It's not in
the collectives best interest to have children uncared for.

'I don't understand. It's not an economic message it's take care of your
children. Doesn't matter what race or religious affiliation (or lack
their of). You brought it into the world, take care of it until you or
it leaves the world"

If it's not an economic message, then what type of message is it? Is it a moral message; if so, based on what? Maybe it's based on an idea of what's right. But how do we determine what's right, based on what criteria? What if that parent decides that it's not right for them?

Re: And Another One

pjamma — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:20:24 -0000

I respectfully disagree. Mostly because he is not lecturing.

I do known his speech is not going to change everyone but it may bring about a different discussion. I would much rather hear the words he said come out of his mouth (as someone raised without his mother) then the poster boy for nuclear family, George Bush.

I refuse to believe that Barack woke up in the morning, kissed Michelle ad the girls and said it's time to sacrifice the black man to appease whitey. Maybe if he was making up a situation that didn't exist and he wasn't personally familiar with then sure I'd be skeptical. But he was speaking to a major issue that affected him and affects families across race and class.

Re: And Another One

PTCruiser — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:08:33 -0000

This is exactly what happens when folks like Rev. Jackson refuse to take a principled pubic position regarding a candidate for public office because they want access to that candidate if he or she is elected to office. If Jackson objected to Obama's Fathers Day peroration then he should have said so publicly instead of ducking and dodging. I have made my objections to that speech quite clear to my friends and acquaintances. I also attended an Obama fundraiser this evening; paid my money like everybody else and ate fried fish, collard greens and corn bread. I had a good time. I will never like Obama's Fathers Day speech and I don't intend to bite my tongue about it.

Suck it up, Rev. Jackson and be a man!

Re: And Another One

pjamma — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:07:39 -0000

Uhm what?

Marriage is a religious institution? Except that atheists get married.

When the marriage collapses the government must support the single parent? But what about the father/mother. Just because the relationship doesn't last the child is still here and should be cared for by both parents, emotionally and financially. The government should be a last extreme result.

I don't understand. It's not an economic message it's take care of your children. Doesn't matter what race or religious affiliation (or lack their of). You brought it into the world, take care of it until you or it leaves the world (and there are some cases when you just can't ,like illness or abuse, and that is what the government is there, or should be there, to help with).

There would be no need for tired cliches if some part of what he was saying is true.

Re: And Another One

taritac — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:54:53 -0000

Barack's speechifying on this issue isn't going to change a damn thing. I'm not trying to be nasty, but it is wishful thinking to believe that Barack's voice will suddenly show some wayward man the way.

I believe in Barack, and I think that he will be good for the country in many ways. However, all the lectures in the world are not going to fix poverty or drug addiction or crime, the main factors that challenge low-income families.

He knows this of course, and that's key, because to me, it says that he is only using his lectures to Black people to score political points with Whites.

Re: And Another One

GreenLadyHere — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:48:44 -0000

TRW: Andrew Young made the "Hater Watch" on blacks4barack. Also, Toni Morrison of "Bill as 1st Black Prez " fame, apologized for that very remark! She is endorsing Mr. Obama - also on blacks4barack.

Re: And Another One

pjamma — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:48:12 -0000

Huh???