Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jack Clarke who wrote (14436)	12/25/1997 1:31:00 AM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Hi, Jack!! You sound a little like me. I like to read widely, from a variety of liberal and conservative sources, and then do my own thing. My liberal friends think I am very conservative, and my conservative friends think I am very liberal! The premise that people on welfare, who by definition cannot provide for themselves, have no business of having children, is an interesting one. We could almost totally cure all the social pathology in America is one generation if we prevented people from who cannot take care of them from having children, and resolutely removed all the children from their homes permanently who have been neglected or abused. Of course, the sticking point is that while the end may be well-justified, the means are fascist, and I think conservatives would have as many constitutional questions as liberals. George Will wrote an interesting column in the December 22, 1997 Newsweek. In it he is discussing a book by James Q. Wilson, and also making the point that America is better off materially but worse off spiritually than it used to be: "Wilson's worry, and much of the nation's, is that America is being poisoned by a subculture that is both cause and consequence of many children's being born to unwed girls, raised in neighborhoods where there are more male sexual predators than committed fathers, and who martriculate, as it were, into gang life for protection and self-advancement. It is a subculture 'armed to the teeth, excited by drugs, preoccupied with respect, and indifferent to the future. Its children crowd our schools and fill our streets, armed and dangerous.' It is dominated by 'young, marginally employed, sexually adventuresome, socially aggressive young men who reject the idea of hard work and social conformity that made their elders successful.'" Will goes on to discuss ways of keeping young, poor women from having children, including forcing teenage mothers on welfare to live in group homes supervised by much older, experienced mothers. He also advocates quicker adoptions and less foster care, so damaged children have a chance to bond with someone who will really care for them and love them. These ideas may be workable, and the description of a group of people growing up to prey on individuals and the society at large is chilling. But I hope that we also consider making elemetary schools better, including mandatory parent participation and adult parenting classes, and some screening for acute emotional/developmental problems. I also think Headstart works, and should be expanded. I think young women are smarter than they seem, though, and that when there is no longer any economic incentive provided by the government for having more children, they will mostly stop!!!!!!! It's really easy to say that women should not have children, or should have them taken away. I suspect it's a harder, more complicated decision in the actual trenches where these decisions are made. If we use economic incentives, at least we are maintaining freedom of choice. Anyway, you might enjoy the column. I have NO TIME to do any posting. I try to do it very early in the morning, or very late at night, when my family is asleep. Here I am on Christmas Eve, trying to catch up, rather pathetic really!!!! I'm not sure Santa will even come if I am sitting around, pounding the keyboard madly. Happy holidays, Jack!!!