While the Editor does not support capital punishment, he would be willing to make an exception for spammers and hackers. The First Street Journal, as well as the older site, Common Sense Political Thought, which remains up as an archive only, and even Bridging the Gap, were hit by a fairly serious hacking attack, which showed up as a known virus on Norton. It has been fixed.
From The Wall Street Journal:
Ignoring an Inequality Culprit: Single-Parent Families
Intellectuals fretting about income disparity are oddly silent regarding the decline of the two-parent family.
By Robert Maranto and Michael Crouch | April 20, 2014 5:38 p.m. ET
Suppose a scientific conference on cancer prevention never addressed smoking, on the grounds that in a free society you can’t change private behavior, and anyway, maybe the statistical relationships between smoking and cancer are really caused by some other third variable. Wouldn’t some suspect that the scientists who raised these claims were driven by something—ideology, tobacco money—other than science?
Yet in the current discussions about increased inequality, few researchers, fewer reporters, and no one in the executive branch of government directly addresses what seems to be the strongest statistical correlate of inequality in the United States: the rise of single-parent families during the past half century.
The two-parent family has declined rapidly in recent decades. In 1960, more than 76% of African-Americans and nearly 97% of whites were born to married couples. Today the percentage is 30% for blacks and 70% for whites. The out-of-wedlock birthrate for Hispanics surpassed 50% in 2006. This trend, coupled with high divorce rates, means that roughly 25% of American children now live in single-parent homes, twice the percentage in Europe (12%). Roughly a third of American children live apart from their fathers.
Does it matter? Yes, it does. From economist Susan Mayer’s 1997 book “What Money Can’t Buy” to Charles Murray’s “Coming Apart” in 2012, clear-eyed studies of the modern family affirm the conventional wisdom that two parents work better than one.1
More at the link.
We have mentioned previously that liberalism cannot stand questions about itself, that if putting together the small pieces, the individual problems, into a larger whole raises questions about the validity of liberal ideology, such connections cannot, must not, be made.
Maureen Dowd, the columnist for The New York Times, and a woman who has neither married nor had children, wrote a book entitled Are Men Necessary: When Sexes Collide.2 The problem is, for people like Miss Dowd, the title question is being asked by someone wealthy — she lives in a “stately Georgetown home” — with no children for whom she is responsible, a life status which is very foreign to most women; as much as I dislike the “1%” construction by the Occupy movement, it’s handy here, for Miss Dowd is clearly one of the 1%ers.
Vice President Dan Quayle rather famously got in trouble over the “Murphy Brown” question, because, well because you just can’t say that bearing children out of wedlock is wrong, even though Mr Quayle was noting the obvious, that for most women bearing children out of wedlock means a greatly increased personal and financial burden on them, and on their children. The linked article noted that Mr Quayle was right, but that was twenty years later; it was still a hammer to be used against the elder President Bush and him in the 1992 election.
Everything we know about human history has shown us that every culture and every society of which we are aware has developed heterosexual marriage as an institution, because it was required for bring up children. The wisdom of every society which has preceded our own was that children needed both a father and a mother, in the home, responsible for child rearing. Nevertheless, the oh-so-very-wise left elites decided that that was just so much (patriarchal?) hokum, just the remnants of bygone times, and not necessary for truly modern life!
The problem with that thinking was that it was developed by the elites, by people who had resources, by people who were not living paycheck-to-paycheck. The fictional character Murphy Brown could afford a child out-of-wedlock precisely because she was a fictional character; she was written as having a very successful professional job, written as being able to afford a plumber or an electrician if there was a problem. Murphy Brown still had to work, but she could easily afford child care. Vice President Quayle attacked an illusion built on a fictional character, saying, quite accurately, that the fictional character had real world connotations.
Well, your Editor can tell you that bringing up children is real work, and it’s work that requires more than one adult. The superwoman notion that mothers can work outside the home and be good mothers to their children as well ignores some pretty basic facts: it doesn’t matter how super the woman is, she doesn’t have the power to make the day last longer than 24 hours, and hours spent away from her children at work are hours in which someone else has to be responsible for taking care of them. Murphy Brown basically turned over child rearing to a babysitter, and the networks and the left said It Was Good, and millions upon millions of American women are turning over the rearing of their own children to minimum wage day care personnel, who are trying to care for 14 other kids at the same time.
We already know that:
- Children from homes without two parents are far more likely to commit crimes; and
- Children reared in single parent homes are far more likely to live in poverty,
but if you dare to say that single motherhood is bad for children, socially, educationally and economically, if you connect the very obvious dots, why you are a misogynist pig and advocate of the cisheteronormative patriarchy. It’s simple: if you connect the dots, if you look at the blatantly obvious evidence, you are attacking the liberal prescription for the way life can reasonably be lived.
For all of the thousands of years of known human civilization, we have lived, we all have lived with the societal and cultural assumption that normal people matured, and married other people of the opposite sex, and that sex was expected to be confined within the marital union. It wasn’t always equal: in most societies, men had more freedom to stray beyond the marital bond, while for women, such was more frequently a crime, and in some cases, even treason. But the importance of the family unit as the nurturer of children remained of primary importance.
To the left, it’s all so much garbage. But their prescriptions for how we should live have produced societal and cultural chaos; they have failed utterly. Oh, there are a few women who have been quite successful under the new rules, if anarchy can be called rules at all, women like the above-mentioned Miss Dowd.
But for every successful, elite, modern woman, there are hundreds more in our country who have all of the freedoms to have children out of wedlock and bed as many men as they wish, who are paying the price for that freedom in hopelessness and poverty. Of course, the left don’t see them as the victims of the culture the left created, but as somehow being the victims of the right, victims of the people who were correct all along. To have them apply simple common sense would be for them to challenge everything they believe, and they can’t have that!
- American Power: Intellectuals Attacking Inequality Silent on the Decline of the Two-Parent Family
- The Lonely Conservative: Chicago: Doctoring The Crime Rate To Mask Democrat Party Failures
“If Obama’s policies worked … Chicago would be the safest city and Detroit would be the richest.”
Is this the blog’s next tag line?
I’m sure Bundy doesn’t have much standing on his case of owing grazing fees. However, there is case law were land owned by one party is used by another party for their use, the other party gains rights to the land since the first party deemed to have abandoned it. And it may apply here since the Government’s last action was 10 years ago. But this whole case does not seem to be about that to me. To me it’s another Nail in the Coffin of a Tyrannical Government action disguised as the gummint wanting its money, but it’s, at least to me, about gummint control. In Bundy’s area there were 53 other cattle farmers. All have been bought using grazing money. Bundy is #54 and the last one standing.
Being the last one, and the gummint wanting clear ownership unencumbered by pesky cattle farmers, the BLM went to extremes to take possession. As it stands now, the Feds own around 90% of Nevada. So one wonders why they have to take repossession of this .000001% (made up to show its meaningless to the whole) of land.
Then there is the father and son Reids with their hand in the cookie jar. (I have read the Chinese solar deal may already be dead.) And remember the new head of BLM has ties to Hairy Reed.
So, as with everything with this Maladministration and Dirty Hairy and Son, what is really going on? As it stands with me, if a Progressive is involved, someone other than a Progressive is going to be screwed. Not a little, but a lot.
The current odds on the second raid with tanks and air assault is just after the 2014 elections. Waco and Ruby Ridge just wasn’t enough.
BTW, Utah’s Governor told BLM not to ship Bundy’s cows there for sale and slaughter.
This was the story on the Huffington Post:
Army General Upholds Chelsea Manning’s 35-Year Sentence
Posted: 04/14/2014 1:41 pm EDT Updated: 04/14/2014 2:59 pm EDT
WASHINGTON — An Army major general has denied Chelsea Manning’s request for clemency and upheld her 35-year sentence for leaking sensitive government documents to WikiLeaks, in a move that will kick off the appeals process in the high-profile case.
Maj. Gen. Jeffrey S. Buchanan’s decision was announced in a Monday press release from the U.S. Army Military District of Washington. As the commanding authority for Manning’s court martial, Buchanan had under military law the power to approve or reject the results of the trial judge, Col. Denise Lind.
Manning’s supporters had flooded Buchanan with over 3,000 letters of support, but his move was nonetheless widely expected.
“It’s no surprise that the convening authority denied this request. We anticipated it, and we’re prepared to go forward with the appeal,” said Nancy Hollander, Manning’s recently selected appeals lawyer. “We did not expect any relief from the general. But we do believe that we will go forward with the appeal, and that was always what we intended to do.”
Manning has been held in military prison at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas since shortly after she was sentenced in August 2013 for leaking the military reports and other documents. Formerly known as Bradley, she began legal proceedings last month to formally change her first name to Chelsea. She is seeking treatment for gender dysphoria from the Army, which currently bans service by transgender persons.
A bit more at the link.
But, note the silliness: the HuffPo — or PuffHo, as John Hitchcock refers to it — cited The Washington Post story which noted that Prisoner Manning has applied fore a legal change of name, and that story states that the hearing on his request is scheduled for April 23rd, which hasn’t arrived yet. Mr Manning’s legal name is Bradley Manning, and that is the only proper way to refer to him. I’d note here that the Post went along with the same silliness, referring to Mr Manning with feminine pronouns and the name he wishes to be called.
But Mr Manning has not had his name changed, legally, nor has he undergone any “gender reassignment” treatment; he remains a male.
Unfortunately, the problem isn’t just silliness: it’s a leftist attempt to nudge people into accepting Mr Manning’s illness as somehow normal. Our (supposed) newspaper of record, The New York Times used the Reuters story as its version, a version which used the wrong name and the incorrect pronouns exclusively, and made no reference at all to Mr Manning having been born male and wishing to become female:
Ms. Manning was an intelligence analyst in Baghdad in 2010 when she gave WikiLeaks 700,000 documents, videos, diplomatic cables and battlefield accounts. She pleaded guilty to 10 charges but was convicted on 20 counts, including espionage and theft.
Even if someone foolishly accepts Mr Manning’s claim that he is really female, as Reuters seems to have done, at the time Mr Manning pleaded guilty on some charges and was tried on others, he had made no (public) mention of his desire to emasculate himself. The Reuters, and hence The New York Times, report is simply false.
Other supposedly mainstream news sources going along with this included MSNBC (hardly a surprise), The Guardian, (again, not a surprise) ; UPI at least tried to get it correct, but also erred with a single use of the female pronoun.
Many of the mainstream press sources I searched used wire service copy rather than their own. The Philadelphia Inquirer published, on page A-7, with a five column-wide headline, part of the Associated Press version, cutting it short of the point at which the AP version mentioned Mr Manning’s declaration that he was female, which left the Inquirer’s story as one referring exclusively to “Chelsea” Manning and using the feminine pronouns. And even Fox News used the Associated Press version uncritically.
The left, when it was trying to make its case against President George Bush, used to call itself the “reality-based community,” and say that everyone is entitled to his opinion, but nobody is entitled to his own facts. Well, the facts are that:
- Mr Manning was born male, complete with male genitalia;
- Mr Manning has the XY chromosome structure which separates males from females in all of earth’s sexually differentiated species;
- Mr Manning spent his entire life as a male;
- All of Mr Manning’s experiences are as a male, and of other people responding to him as a male;
- Mr Manning still has male genitalia, and still has XY chromosomes; and
- Mr Manning has received none of “sexual reassignment” treatment hormones.
By all objective measures, Mr Manning is male. The only indication that he might be female is his expressed desire, and that makes him no more female than my desire to be Tsar of All the Russias has given me the throne. Even if someone believes that hormone treatments and “sexual reassignment” surgeries can transform a male into a female, those things have not happened in Mr Manning’s case.
Simply put, the professional media are lying to you.
From William Teach:
We Only Have Two Decades To Stop The Coming Climate Hell
April 14, 2014 – 7:30 am
Whew! I thought there was an actual danger (if you hit the paywall, try searching the article on Google or Yahoo or something. That’s the way I get in)
The world has a two decade window to build an efficient, low carbon society or risk being “locked-in” to a pathway towards dangerous levels of climate change, authors of the latest UN-backed climate change report have warned.
Working group three (WGIII) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will on Sunday release its latest report, calling for a fundamental shift in global investment from fossil fuels to renewable energy and other green technologies, as a means of tackling escalating climate change risks.
Which amuses me to no end, since all these folks working for the IPCC, along with most “climate change” groups, use vast amounts of fossil fuels to get to and from their constant “climate change” meetings, symposiums, speeches, conferences, and demonstrations.
More at the link.
Mr Teach noted that twenty years is more than we were previously given — 15 years by renowned scientist Desmond Tutu, four years by James Hanson five years ago, and until 2017 by yet another highly regarded scientist, Al Gore — but, surprisingly! none of their projections of what would happen in the future have been demonstrated to have occurred as time passed.
It makes perfect sense to conserve and to try to reduce pollution, and it’s a wise idea to try to develop new and renewable energy sources for the future. But the ideas of the climate changers are ideas for the increased impoverishment of people in the developed world, and increased government control over everybody.
I just spent the past few hours doing my income taxes. I had to pay $324 to Uncle Sam, which isn’t too bad: it means that I got it pretty close to right, wasn’t lending the government money, interest free, but I still hate taxes.
Now, I don’t object to paying taxes for things which apply to the community, for roads, for schools (though I do object to how poorly the money is spent), for police and national defense, but I certainly do object to paying taxes for welfare and for income redistribution.
It’s hardly a surprise that the economic policies of President Obama haven’t gotten the county out of the economic doldrums; he and his administration have proved themselves to be absolutely rotten capitalist investors:
Smith Electric Vehicles has suspended productionSmith Electric Vehicles, a centerpiece of the Kansas City area’s once high hopes for a wave of green industries, quietly suspended production at the end of 2013 because of a shortage of cash.
By Steve Everly | The Kansas City Star | April 4, 2014
The move was disclosed in a report for the last quarter of 2013 filed with the U.S. Department of Energy, which in 2010 awarded the company a $32 million grant. Smith Electric said it stopped delivery of its Generation 2 trucks and vans because of the “company’s tight cash flow situation.”
The company didn’t respond to requests for comment. The Energy Department in an email said it is working to ensure that a demonstration project that is supposed to have 510 Smith Electric vehicles placed in fleets across the country will be successfully concluded.
“DOE continues to work with Smith Electric on the path forward for the remaining vehicle production,” the federal agency said Thursday in the email.
Smith Electric, which would eventually have about 100 employees, arrived in Kansas City in 2009, setting up offices and a production facility near Kansas City International Airport. It marketed its electric vehicles to businesses that make deliveries and snagged some notable customers, including Coca-Cola, Staples and Frito-Lay.
Read more here.
Smith Electric was a green energy company grant recipient from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the stimulus program which was supposed to hold unemployment to a maximum of 8%. It looks like the economic judgements of the Administration concerning Smith Electric were just as solid as their economic judgements about he performance of the stimulus plan as a whole.
In other words, $32 million, $32 million that the Obama Administration borrowed and will still have to pay back, with interest, was just urinated away. The $32 million is now gone, shot away, blown, wasted, but the $32 million debt that the United States incurred, that still exists.
It is no surprise, at least not to your Editor, that so many of these “investments” under the stimulus program have turned out bad: these investments were being decided upon by people with little economic understanding, and even less business experience, and basing their decisions on how well the grant application proposals were framed, and with a political eye looking for a politically correct, green investment.
President Obama visited the Smith plant in 2010, and said, “You’re setting a model for what we need to be across this country.” Well, it seems that Smith has pretty much set the model for the economy under this President, so I guess he got his statement right.
Part of Smith Electric’s problems stem from increased competition from hybrid and natural gas powered vehicles. Those are the types of technologies which private companies, using private investments, have pushed.
A solid investment rule: if President Obama and his Administration have supported any particular company or business, run, run away from them. Do not invest in them, and if you already have stock in them, sell!
It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as posting photos of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Daryl Hanah in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude.