Here's a sneak peak at my Collegian article that will run in the next few weeks:
Life is not fair. As much as we would like all aspects of the world to be fair in every sense, the reality is that the world is not fair, nor will it ever be. People in all walks of life have been blessed with various levels of skill, intelligence, talents, personalities and so on. We have a President and Congress now that feel everything in life needs to be distributed equally to create a government mandated, quasi-fairness. The reality is that no action of government can make everyone equal, because, by nature, none of us are the same. Everyone has strengths, and everyone has weaknesses, regardless of race, creed, color, gender, status, or any other “category” someone can be thrown under.
Splitting people into different categories and defining their issues for them does not work to better the country; it ignores the fact that everyone within these groups each has their own individual issues and strengths. Putting people into these groups (African-American, Latin-American, women, men, gay, straight, etc.) creates a culture of divisiveness, allowing an environment where one can claim they are victimized. Assumptions are made about a person’s beliefs and their issues based on the category they fit into, telling individuals they are victims based on their category’s particular injustices, rather than raising up these individuals as talented human beings, not just a target voting bloc.
Many of you will say I’m being insensitive to the plights of these certain groups of people. That I just don’t get it. Let me put it this way: we have all been screwed over in some way or another. We have all been discriminated against, to various extents. How many of you were cut from the basketball team because of small-town politics, because you didn’t have the right last name? How does it feel being left-handed in a right-hand dominated world? How did it feel when your friend got off with a warning but you were stuck with a $100 speeding ticket? Life’s not fair. Rather than feel sorry for ourselves and complain, capitalize on your individual strengths as a human being and be the best you can be, moving past the injustices of life.
We live in a more diverse world than is implied with all the labels we put on groups of people. Diversity should not be defined by the amount of people you hang around that are of different “classifications” than you. Diversity should be defined as interacting and relying upon people with different strengths than yourself, which in turn helps you cover for your weaknesses as well.
The best thing we can do is recognize each individual’s strengths and weaknesses and capitalize on those strengths, avoiding victimizing of particular groups of people. Categorizing people only divides us, rather than uniting us as Americans. We are each unique, which can be seen as unfair…but what are you going to do about it? Complain that you were given the genes you have and be an unhappy, despondent person…or will you take life by the horns and be the best person you can be with the talents you were endowed with? The choice is yours.
Once we move past classifying people and capitalize on our individual talents, that is the point where we will become a truly tolerant, colorblind, genderless society that sees people for who they are, not for what they aren’t.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Personal Responsibility
Here's my most recent article, published in the SDSU Collegian:
Personal responsibility. I’m not sure anybody knows what that means anymore. Placing blame on others when bad things happen seems to be the norm. We see it every day on TV: when something happens, everyone freaks out, looking for someone to blame, regardless if someone is at fault or not. Lawsuits are a multi-billion dollar industry in our country, and it gets worse every day. Each time a suit is settled, precedent is set that creates fodder for lawyers to make even more ridiculous arguments in the future, which prompts organizations, individuals, companies, etc. to conjure up liability forms. These liability forms essentially boil down to “hey, if you hurt yourself it’s your fault, not ours.”
The promise of a monetary settlement is very tempting for some people, when in reality no one can really be blamed but the person filing the suit. We’ve all heard the story of the woman who dropped hot coffee on her lap at McDonald’s. Whose fault is that? It’s common sense that coffee is hot, so be careful! It’s not McDonald’s fault, but because of the suit, now companies everywhere put disclaimers on everything, letting us know that the hot coffee is HOT.
Here are some other examples:
-A lady in Detroit sued her employer because her coworker’s perfume was too overpowering. A federal judge allowed this suit to go forward. Where’s the personal responsibility? Take the initiative and talk with the person whose perfume is bothering you. How is that the employer’s fault?
-When you throw your Wii remote into your new plasma TV, ask yourself: is this Nintendo’s fault, or should I just be more careful next time? Nintendo was sued by a few people who felt it was Nintendo’s fault and did not take personal responsibility for their actions.
-A kid sued his teacher for waking him up in class, citing “hearing problems” due to the noise that woke him up.
As crazy as some of these lawsuits are, the mere fact that some of them were allowed in court gives organizations pause, as the possibility of going to court for something stupid is still a court appearance and will cost money, so organizations have to take steps to protect themselves from these things. Some activities may not even take place, because they are deemed too much of a liability risk, eliminating the possibility of participating in fun things that we were once able to.
The worst cases are those that emerge from a situation where no one is at fault. For example, look at the U.S. Airways flight that went down in the Hudson River. The pilot performed magnificently: he successfully landed the plane in the water and everyone survived. All this was the fault of some geese that flew into both engines, something that was out of everyone’s control. Already there are some lawsuits against U.S. Airways, citing emotional damages and nervousness during flying after the accident. The plane going down was no fault of U.S. Airways. In fact, if they hadn’t trained their pilots so well and communicated with the harbor rescue perfectly, most likely everyone on that flight would have died in a crash or of hypothermia in the river.
Suing should be reserved for when someone has truly wronged you, not serve as compensation for something that is either someone’s own personal fault or the result of something out of everyone’s control. Accidents happen, that’s just a reality of life, and closure should not come about through use of a lawsuit against someone who is not truly at fault.
You want to talk about change? Let’s reform our legal system so that it punishes legitimate wrongdoers, rather than creating a society of victimization and blame for monetary gain.
Personal responsibility. I’m not sure anybody knows what that means anymore. Placing blame on others when bad things happen seems to be the norm. We see it every day on TV: when something happens, everyone freaks out, looking for someone to blame, regardless if someone is at fault or not. Lawsuits are a multi-billion dollar industry in our country, and it gets worse every day. Each time a suit is settled, precedent is set that creates fodder for lawyers to make even more ridiculous arguments in the future, which prompts organizations, individuals, companies, etc. to conjure up liability forms. These liability forms essentially boil down to “hey, if you hurt yourself it’s your fault, not ours.”
The promise of a monetary settlement is very tempting for some people, when in reality no one can really be blamed but the person filing the suit. We’ve all heard the story of the woman who dropped hot coffee on her lap at McDonald’s. Whose fault is that? It’s common sense that coffee is hot, so be careful! It’s not McDonald’s fault, but because of the suit, now companies everywhere put disclaimers on everything, letting us know that the hot coffee is HOT.
Here are some other examples:
-A lady in Detroit sued her employer because her coworker’s perfume was too overpowering. A federal judge allowed this suit to go forward. Where’s the personal responsibility? Take the initiative and talk with the person whose perfume is bothering you. How is that the employer’s fault?
-When you throw your Wii remote into your new plasma TV, ask yourself: is this Nintendo’s fault, or should I just be more careful next time? Nintendo was sued by a few people who felt it was Nintendo’s fault and did not take personal responsibility for their actions.
-A kid sued his teacher for waking him up in class, citing “hearing problems” due to the noise that woke him up.
As crazy as some of these lawsuits are, the mere fact that some of them were allowed in court gives organizations pause, as the possibility of going to court for something stupid is still a court appearance and will cost money, so organizations have to take steps to protect themselves from these things. Some activities may not even take place, because they are deemed too much of a liability risk, eliminating the possibility of participating in fun things that we were once able to.
The worst cases are those that emerge from a situation where no one is at fault. For example, look at the U.S. Airways flight that went down in the Hudson River. The pilot performed magnificently: he successfully landed the plane in the water and everyone survived. All this was the fault of some geese that flew into both engines, something that was out of everyone’s control. Already there are some lawsuits against U.S. Airways, citing emotional damages and nervousness during flying after the accident. The plane going down was no fault of U.S. Airways. In fact, if they hadn’t trained their pilots so well and communicated with the harbor rescue perfectly, most likely everyone on that flight would have died in a crash or of hypothermia in the river.
Suing should be reserved for when someone has truly wronged you, not serve as compensation for something that is either someone’s own personal fault or the result of something out of everyone’s control. Accidents happen, that’s just a reality of life, and closure should not come about through use of a lawsuit against someone who is not truly at fault.
You want to talk about change? Let’s reform our legal system so that it punishes legitimate wrongdoers, rather than creating a society of victimization and blame for monetary gain.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Freedom
My SDSU Collegian article on freedom:
Freedom. Such a simple word, yet one that has had such a resounding impact on the world. Wars have been fought over that word, and many men and women have died in the name of freedom. A simple word, yet near impossible to define.
How would you define freedom? Does it mean doing whatever you please without anyone stopping you? Does it mean being free to choose your own destiny for yourself? Being able to decide the fate of your pregnancy? Or maybe protecting an unborn child’s chance for a free life of its own? Perhaps having the freedom to make something of yourself by starting a small business free from mounds of paperwork and government interference?
Whatever your definition of freedom, a small government—as opposed to our newly elected administration and Congress—is a government that will maximize your freedoms. Sure the power shift in our country offers extended abortion freedoms, gay marriage freedoms, possibly some legalized drug freedoms…but say those of you who champion those issues get your way, then what? Aside from freedom in social issues, there is very little promise of additional freedoms…only more regulations, stipulations, lack of choice in medical care, reduced gun rights/self protection rights, more loopholes for lawyers to take advantage of and create more of the asinine lawsuits we hear about all the time, more tax burden reducing personal economic freedom, etc.
Our new administration promises to better all our lives and improve the human condition for all of us. Sounds great, but there are few actions of government that can pull us out of all our individual problems…only you can do that, and you should be free to do so! Government exists to protect us from each other and to help those who cannot help themselves. An increase in the ability of government to do things for you (through increased taxes, regulations) equals a decrease in your ability to do things for yourself and choose your own path (less freedom for you).
With a small and open government, it’s easier to trust government to do the right thing with the power they have, while at the same time maximizing our freedoms in most other aspects of our lives. Big government fears the people, because the more you tell people what to do, the more disgruntled individuals there will be. Small government is more responsible to you and me, because maximizing our individual freedoms with a small government leaves us free to keep watch over the government and call them out when they do not carry out properly or ethically the few responsibilities that we have entrusted to them.
There’s a famous quote: “the government big enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have.” Keep that in mind, otherwise you may find yourself sacrificing your personal freedoms to a government that may or may not provide you with an acceptable equivalent.
Freedom. Such a simple word, yet one that has had such a resounding impact on the world. Wars have been fought over that word, and many men and women have died in the name of freedom. A simple word, yet near impossible to define.
How would you define freedom? Does it mean doing whatever you please without anyone stopping you? Does it mean being free to choose your own destiny for yourself? Being able to decide the fate of your pregnancy? Or maybe protecting an unborn child’s chance for a free life of its own? Perhaps having the freedom to make something of yourself by starting a small business free from mounds of paperwork and government interference?
Whatever your definition of freedom, a small government—as opposed to our newly elected administration and Congress—is a government that will maximize your freedoms. Sure the power shift in our country offers extended abortion freedoms, gay marriage freedoms, possibly some legalized drug freedoms…but say those of you who champion those issues get your way, then what? Aside from freedom in social issues, there is very little promise of additional freedoms…only more regulations, stipulations, lack of choice in medical care, reduced gun rights/self protection rights, more loopholes for lawyers to take advantage of and create more of the asinine lawsuits we hear about all the time, more tax burden reducing personal economic freedom, etc.
Our new administration promises to better all our lives and improve the human condition for all of us. Sounds great, but there are few actions of government that can pull us out of all our individual problems…only you can do that, and you should be free to do so! Government exists to protect us from each other and to help those who cannot help themselves. An increase in the ability of government to do things for you (through increased taxes, regulations) equals a decrease in your ability to do things for yourself and choose your own path (less freedom for you).
With a small and open government, it’s easier to trust government to do the right thing with the power they have, while at the same time maximizing our freedoms in most other aspects of our lives. Big government fears the people, because the more you tell people what to do, the more disgruntled individuals there will be. Small government is more responsible to you and me, because maximizing our individual freedoms with a small government leaves us free to keep watch over the government and call them out when they do not carry out properly or ethically the few responsibilities that we have entrusted to them.
There’s a famous quote: “the government big enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have.” Keep that in mind, otherwise you may find yourself sacrificing your personal freedoms to a government that may or may not provide you with an acceptable equivalent.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Seatbelts Anyone?
I can't believe how stupid big government spending can be sometimes. Here's an article in the Rapid City Journal, and I became progressively more irritated the more I read.
First off, seat belts save lives, and that's a proven fact. But here's my gripe:
According to the article, if South Dakota simply makes a seat belt violation a primary offense (currently it's a secondary offense, and you can't be pulled over for just that), the Federal government will give us a five million dollar check. In times of a budget deficit, that sounds pretty good, doesn't it?
Not so much. Should South Dakota accept that check, there are strings attached that require the money to be directed toward seat belt campaigns (everyone's probably heard those stupid "click it or ticket" campaigns in Minnesota) and safety-related things. The article states that seat belt compliance in South Dakota without any laws forcing us to do so is at 72%.
So bottom line, accepting that five million dollars of taxpayer money basically goes toward making commercials to remind us to do something that 72% of the state does already.
In addition, why is it the government's responsibility to protect us from ourselves? Why aren't we responsible for our own safety in our vehicles? We know it's smart to wear out seat belts and most of us do, so why not use five million dollars for more worthwhile causes or perhaps not even take it from us in the first place? Criminalizing not using a seat belt will do very little to increase the 72% compliance anyway, and I think it's ridiculous that this appropriation takes taxes from the entire country to pay for seat belt radio ads in South Dakota.
These kinds of stupid, redundant appropriations are why our spending is out of control and we have a trillion dollar budget deficit. You want to talk about change? Let's start paying attention to how dumb the government's spending practices are.
First off, seat belts save lives, and that's a proven fact. But here's my gripe:
According to the article, if South Dakota simply makes a seat belt violation a primary offense (currently it's a secondary offense, and you can't be pulled over for just that), the Federal government will give us a five million dollar check. In times of a budget deficit, that sounds pretty good, doesn't it?
Not so much. Should South Dakota accept that check, there are strings attached that require the money to be directed toward seat belt campaigns (everyone's probably heard those stupid "click it or ticket" campaigns in Minnesota) and safety-related things. The article states that seat belt compliance in South Dakota without any laws forcing us to do so is at 72%.
So bottom line, accepting that five million dollars of taxpayer money basically goes toward making commercials to remind us to do something that 72% of the state does already.
In addition, why is it the government's responsibility to protect us from ourselves? Why aren't we responsible for our own safety in our vehicles? We know it's smart to wear out seat belts and most of us do, so why not use five million dollars for more worthwhile causes or perhaps not even take it from us in the first place? Criminalizing not using a seat belt will do very little to increase the 72% compliance anyway, and I think it's ridiculous that this appropriation takes taxes from the entire country to pay for seat belt radio ads in South Dakota.
These kinds of stupid, redundant appropriations are why our spending is out of control and we have a trillion dollar budget deficit. You want to talk about change? Let's start paying attention to how dumb the government's spending practices are.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Single Parenthood
There's been a lot of talk this last week about Ann Coulter and her comments and viewpoints on single parenthood. Conservatives are often painted in a light of not caring about women's rights, the male is the head of the household, etc. I would like to refute that and offer up my view on what us conservatives feel about single parenthood. This is a paper that I wrote for my Composition II class:
Families play a critical role in human development. They help shape our beliefs, our morals, and our interests. Basically, families make us who we are as a person. Families come in all shapes and sizes, everything from the basic family of a mother, father, and children to large, extended families that include several generations. Modern households also consist of single parents and mixed families that involve remarriages, divorces, and stepchildren. Many relationships also exist in the form of cohabiting couples, and children may or may not be present. With all these different forms of families, which is best for children? Recent trends show that single parenthood is on the rise, often with the mother as the sole provider for the children. Much debate swirls about whether single parenthood is good or not for both children and society, but traditional (also known as nuclear) families seem to work the best. Nuclear families are essential for children’s healthy development and for a healthy nation.
Barbara Whitehead states that “divorce and out-of-wedlock birth are transforming the lives of American children” (520). She could not be more right. The breakdown of the nuclear family is a huge problem in many areas. One of the more serious and extensive areas is poverty. Clearly a link exists between poverty and single parenthood. Most often, mothers are responsible for the care of children in single-parent situations, whether by being awarded custody or because they actually had the child. Iris Young firmly believes that poverty is the culprit behind single-motherhood (551). Poverty may be the cause of single motherhood in some cases, but Young seriously underestimates the costs of being a single parent. A single-parent household does not have the earning capacity of a traditional, dual-parent household, which means that the single parent takes on twice the work and responsibilities. Not only does a single parent have to maintain a decent job to support his or herself, but this parent has to also care for the child. Childcare is a full time job in itself! Children need parental attention to develop properly, which is where traditional families are important. Traditional families have two wage-earners, a situation that offers two options. Either one parent works all the time and one stays with the kids, or both work some of the time. Either way, a two-parent home offers the same crucial element: more time spent with kids. Not only is more time spent with the children, but the family can maintain the same income as one full-time parent, with the added bonus of more parent-child interaction. Thus, the chances of poverty are less with two parents, and kids receive the benefits of having their parents around more.
Poverty due to a single-parent household can lead to many secondary problems as well. Poverty can lead to depression, and a depressed parent is probably not the most effective parent they can be. When a parent is depressed, often the children end up with the same problem. Children from broken homes have a higher rate of suicide, crime, and violence, which may be attributed to depression and lack of effective parental authority (Whitehead 522). Since a single parent in poverty will most likely be working all the time or looking for a job to make ends meet, the child is often left in the care of a babysitter or relative. Secondary caregivers may be just as loving as the parent, but they do not have the same special bond that exists between children and their parents. Children hold their parents in a higher regard. One hears kids all the time exclaiming things like “I don’t have to listen to you, you’re not my mom,” or “you’re not my real dad!” Phrases like these from kids themselves show us how important the biological parent-child bond is, and subsequently why having a poverty-stricken single parent working all the time is a problem.
The problem of single parenthood has become far worse in recent times. More people are filing for divorce than ever, and record percentages of children are growing up without two parents. Aside from divorce, young sexual activity has become more accepted and even encouraged, which has led to more teen pregnancies, another cause of single-parent families. Single-parent situations are even starting to be encouraged. Whitehead states that feminism has greatly contributed to the rise of single motherhood. A single mother working on her own to support a family epitomizes the feminist movement’s idea of women’s independence, and one prominent feminist, Gloria Steinem, even stated that “a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle”(530). Nobody is against women’s independence, but it is an issue that should be separated from children’s welfare. Nothing is wrong with Steinem’s quote that “a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle,” but she should keep this in mind: a child without a father is like a bicycle with a flat tire. The child can go places, but not as effectively or happily as if he or she had both parents.
Single parenthood will continue to be a problem if something is not done. The younger generations are growing up with certain attitudes about relationships that are very problematic. First, divorce is not seen as a problem, but as an easy way out if a problem comes up in a relationship. Younger generations see many divorces occur for frivolous reasons and grow up with this thought in mind. The problem will only compound itself as a whole new generation grows up seeing divorce as an easy solution to problems. Younger generations also see family as less important, regardless of their family structure. Children and youth devote more time to school, extracurricular activities, and friends than ever before. Very few spend considerable amounts of time with family anymore.
Other attitudes also help perpetuate acceptance of single parenthood. Shere Hite believes traditional families are too authoritarian and create a submissive environment that prevents children from thinking for themselves and promotes weakness and subservience of women (488-489). She may be right in the case of a severely male-dominated household where the male holds the attitudes she describes, but Hite makes it seem like every traditional family is like this. Parents need to have a certain amount of control and authority over their children, for at least two reasons. First, Hite proposes that bringing children up with the choice of whether to accept their parents’ power or not is a positive thing (488). Her proposal would result in nothing short of chaos. Let kids choose to listen to their parents? If drugs, sex, alcohol, vandalism, crime, and things like that are bad now, imagine what things would be like without any parental authority! The same attitude toward authority would carry into adulthood. Why would adults have any respect for laws and authority if they did not have to as children? Second, parental authority is important for a very, very important reason: experience. Parents have grown up just as their children are doing. Kids learn to listen to their parents, because parents already know what to do and what not to do, so parental authority helps kids develop without making the same mistakes their parents did.
Dual parent families work best, in the proper context. Several situations of course call for divorce, because the negatives of keeping the current family outweigh the positives of a nuclear family. Spouse rape and abuse, child abuse, and a dominating spouse are some examples of negative situations in a family that may require a divorce. Aside from bad marital situations, two parents are critical to a healthy family. Even those families in poverty get along better and are happier than single parents in the same situation (Lerman). An ideal family should also exhibit egalitarian behavior. In other words, no one spouse is above the other. Both parents work together in a more democratic way to solve problems and nurture the family as a whole. Disputes should be carried out in a civil, non-violent way. Children’s input should be considered, too, and decisions made as a family to foster healthy relationships.
Traditional, egalitarian families are also good for our country, as they foster healthy debate and discussion within them because compromise is required. Hite argues that non-traditional families bring a diversity of viewpoints and opinions, which fosters a healthy democracy (492-493). She is right in the sense that different, conflicting viewpoints bring about compromise and the best solutions; she is wrong that non-traditional families promote compromise best. A traditional family unit promotes diverse viewpoints better than a variety of different family types in the country. A traditional family involves a man and a woman, two creatures different not only anatomically, but mentally as well. Men tend to be decisive, brash, methodical, logical, and goal-orientated. Women tend to be inquisitive, analytical, sensitive, caring, and detail-orientated. The traits of both men and women can be strengths and weaknesses, depending on the situation. When used in combination, the traits of men and women in a traditional relationship foster a better diversity of viewpoints and compromise than single-person households could ever hope to.
Several solutions could be used to reduce single parenthood. First, more premarital counseling should be required to make sure couples really are compatible with each other, that way couples hopefully realize they should not be together before they make kids and divorce. Second, divorces need to be harder to obtain. All too often, couples have a bad argument and just divorce instead of talking through their problems. Marital therapy sessions need to be required before couples can divorce, and the waiting period needs to be longer to give couples time to sort things out. Divorces should only take time as long as the children involved in the relationship are not harmed or traumatized by the parents’ dispute, in which case a prompt divorce is important. Third, since mothers (who usually receive custody) are often thrown into poverty because they have to care for a child and themselves, more alimony needs to be granted instead of measly child-support payments, which are often not even enforced. Fathers in divorces need to have a larger role in their child’s development, if only in the form of financial support of their child. Also, joint custody should be granted more often than it currently is. Divorces would be less traumatic for kids, and they still receive the benefits of both parents. Also, sex should not be taken so lightly. Young adults need to be taught that there are serious repercussions that can come from being sexually active. Kids are a much bigger responsibility than many realize, and sexually active people need to be aware of this, because accidents do happen.
Overall, two-parent traditional households offer better family situations. In recent times, non-traditional and single-parent families have been on the rise, but traditional families are important. They help promote healthy, caring growth of children since sufficient income to support a family is not as difficult with two parents, and parents are also free to spend time with their children. More time spent with children helps keep them happier and out of trouble. Each parent brings strengths and weaknesses to a relationship, and the resulting compromises are best for families. Hopefully, with the use of some solutions to reduce single-parent situations, more children can be brought up with both a mom and a dad and live happier and healthier lives.
Families play a critical role in human development. They help shape our beliefs, our morals, and our interests. Basically, families make us who we are as a person. Families come in all shapes and sizes, everything from the basic family of a mother, father, and children to large, extended families that include several generations. Modern households also consist of single parents and mixed families that involve remarriages, divorces, and stepchildren. Many relationships also exist in the form of cohabiting couples, and children may or may not be present. With all these different forms of families, which is best for children? Recent trends show that single parenthood is on the rise, often with the mother as the sole provider for the children. Much debate swirls about whether single parenthood is good or not for both children and society, but traditional (also known as nuclear) families seem to work the best. Nuclear families are essential for children’s healthy development and for a healthy nation.
Barbara Whitehead states that “divorce and out-of-wedlock birth are transforming the lives of American children” (520). She could not be more right. The breakdown of the nuclear family is a huge problem in many areas. One of the more serious and extensive areas is poverty. Clearly a link exists between poverty and single parenthood. Most often, mothers are responsible for the care of children in single-parent situations, whether by being awarded custody or because they actually had the child. Iris Young firmly believes that poverty is the culprit behind single-motherhood (551). Poverty may be the cause of single motherhood in some cases, but Young seriously underestimates the costs of being a single parent. A single-parent household does not have the earning capacity of a traditional, dual-parent household, which means that the single parent takes on twice the work and responsibilities. Not only does a single parent have to maintain a decent job to support his or herself, but this parent has to also care for the child. Childcare is a full time job in itself! Children need parental attention to develop properly, which is where traditional families are important. Traditional families have two wage-earners, a situation that offers two options. Either one parent works all the time and one stays with the kids, or both work some of the time. Either way, a two-parent home offers the same crucial element: more time spent with kids. Not only is more time spent with the children, but the family can maintain the same income as one full-time parent, with the added bonus of more parent-child interaction. Thus, the chances of poverty are less with two parents, and kids receive the benefits of having their parents around more.
Poverty due to a single-parent household can lead to many secondary problems as well. Poverty can lead to depression, and a depressed parent is probably not the most effective parent they can be. When a parent is depressed, often the children end up with the same problem. Children from broken homes have a higher rate of suicide, crime, and violence, which may be attributed to depression and lack of effective parental authority (Whitehead 522). Since a single parent in poverty will most likely be working all the time or looking for a job to make ends meet, the child is often left in the care of a babysitter or relative. Secondary caregivers may be just as loving as the parent, but they do not have the same special bond that exists between children and their parents. Children hold their parents in a higher regard. One hears kids all the time exclaiming things like “I don’t have to listen to you, you’re not my mom,” or “you’re not my real dad!” Phrases like these from kids themselves show us how important the biological parent-child bond is, and subsequently why having a poverty-stricken single parent working all the time is a problem.
The problem of single parenthood has become far worse in recent times. More people are filing for divorce than ever, and record percentages of children are growing up without two parents. Aside from divorce, young sexual activity has become more accepted and even encouraged, which has led to more teen pregnancies, another cause of single-parent families. Single-parent situations are even starting to be encouraged. Whitehead states that feminism has greatly contributed to the rise of single motherhood. A single mother working on her own to support a family epitomizes the feminist movement’s idea of women’s independence, and one prominent feminist, Gloria Steinem, even stated that “a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle”(530). Nobody is against women’s independence, but it is an issue that should be separated from children’s welfare. Nothing is wrong with Steinem’s quote that “a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle,” but she should keep this in mind: a child without a father is like a bicycle with a flat tire. The child can go places, but not as effectively or happily as if he or she had both parents.
Single parenthood will continue to be a problem if something is not done. The younger generations are growing up with certain attitudes about relationships that are very problematic. First, divorce is not seen as a problem, but as an easy way out if a problem comes up in a relationship. Younger generations see many divorces occur for frivolous reasons and grow up with this thought in mind. The problem will only compound itself as a whole new generation grows up seeing divorce as an easy solution to problems. Younger generations also see family as less important, regardless of their family structure. Children and youth devote more time to school, extracurricular activities, and friends than ever before. Very few spend considerable amounts of time with family anymore.
Other attitudes also help perpetuate acceptance of single parenthood. Shere Hite believes traditional families are too authoritarian and create a submissive environment that prevents children from thinking for themselves and promotes weakness and subservience of women (488-489). She may be right in the case of a severely male-dominated household where the male holds the attitudes she describes, but Hite makes it seem like every traditional family is like this. Parents need to have a certain amount of control and authority over their children, for at least two reasons. First, Hite proposes that bringing children up with the choice of whether to accept their parents’ power or not is a positive thing (488). Her proposal would result in nothing short of chaos. Let kids choose to listen to their parents? If drugs, sex, alcohol, vandalism, crime, and things like that are bad now, imagine what things would be like without any parental authority! The same attitude toward authority would carry into adulthood. Why would adults have any respect for laws and authority if they did not have to as children? Second, parental authority is important for a very, very important reason: experience. Parents have grown up just as their children are doing. Kids learn to listen to their parents, because parents already know what to do and what not to do, so parental authority helps kids develop without making the same mistakes their parents did.
Dual parent families work best, in the proper context. Several situations of course call for divorce, because the negatives of keeping the current family outweigh the positives of a nuclear family. Spouse rape and abuse, child abuse, and a dominating spouse are some examples of negative situations in a family that may require a divorce. Aside from bad marital situations, two parents are critical to a healthy family. Even those families in poverty get along better and are happier than single parents in the same situation (Lerman). An ideal family should also exhibit egalitarian behavior. In other words, no one spouse is above the other. Both parents work together in a more democratic way to solve problems and nurture the family as a whole. Disputes should be carried out in a civil, non-violent way. Children’s input should be considered, too, and decisions made as a family to foster healthy relationships.
Traditional, egalitarian families are also good for our country, as they foster healthy debate and discussion within them because compromise is required. Hite argues that non-traditional families bring a diversity of viewpoints and opinions, which fosters a healthy democracy (492-493). She is right in the sense that different, conflicting viewpoints bring about compromise and the best solutions; she is wrong that non-traditional families promote compromise best. A traditional family unit promotes diverse viewpoints better than a variety of different family types in the country. A traditional family involves a man and a woman, two creatures different not only anatomically, but mentally as well. Men tend to be decisive, brash, methodical, logical, and goal-orientated. Women tend to be inquisitive, analytical, sensitive, caring, and detail-orientated. The traits of both men and women can be strengths and weaknesses, depending on the situation. When used in combination, the traits of men and women in a traditional relationship foster a better diversity of viewpoints and compromise than single-person households could ever hope to.
Several solutions could be used to reduce single parenthood. First, more premarital counseling should be required to make sure couples really are compatible with each other, that way couples hopefully realize they should not be together before they make kids and divorce. Second, divorces need to be harder to obtain. All too often, couples have a bad argument and just divorce instead of talking through their problems. Marital therapy sessions need to be required before couples can divorce, and the waiting period needs to be longer to give couples time to sort things out. Divorces should only take time as long as the children involved in the relationship are not harmed or traumatized by the parents’ dispute, in which case a prompt divorce is important. Third, since mothers (who usually receive custody) are often thrown into poverty because they have to care for a child and themselves, more alimony needs to be granted instead of measly child-support payments, which are often not even enforced. Fathers in divorces need to have a larger role in their child’s development, if only in the form of financial support of their child. Also, joint custody should be granted more often than it currently is. Divorces would be less traumatic for kids, and they still receive the benefits of both parents. Also, sex should not be taken so lightly. Young adults need to be taught that there are serious repercussions that can come from being sexually active. Kids are a much bigger responsibility than many realize, and sexually active people need to be aware of this, because accidents do happen.
Overall, two-parent traditional households offer better family situations. In recent times, non-traditional and single-parent families have been on the rise, but traditional families are important. They help promote healthy, caring growth of children since sufficient income to support a family is not as difficult with two parents, and parents are also free to spend time with their children. More time spent with children helps keep them happier and out of trouble. Each parent brings strengths and weaknesses to a relationship, and the resulting compromises are best for families. Hopefully, with the use of some solutions to reduce single-parent situations, more children can be brought up with both a mom and a dad and live happier and healthier lives.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Al Franken: Liar, Cheater, Crook...And I Proved It
So Minnesota is about to elect a lying left-wing crook to the United States Sentate, and it only took me 45 seconds to prove it.
For those of you who don't know, Al Franken is a former writer for Saturday Night Live who also tried to make a living as a far-left liberal talk show host, and now he is on the verge of defeating Norm Coleman for one of Minnesota's Senate seats. He's a carpetbagger politician who moved to Minnesota just for this race and still maintains residency in New York. Anyway, back to my analysis.
I was on YouTube one day, most likely watching "Charlie Bit My Finger" over and over again, and on the suggested videos tab on the side, I saw a video entitled "Al Franken: Where Rush Limbaugh Gets His Facts From." I hear criticism of Franken all the time by conservative commentators, but I try to be a fair-minded guy and wanted to hear what Franken had to say. It's a short 1 minute clip.
Click here to watch it, then continue reading...
The whole premise of Al Franken's argument was that Rush Limbaugh is a fat liar who pulls facts out of his butt and has no credibility because he's a stupid conservative. He challenged Rush's claim that almost all people making the minimum wage are either high schoolers or young people in their first jobs that are most likely still dependent upon parents. In other words, Rush was saying that people are much better off than the minimum wage anyway and that America isn't as terrible as liberals would like you to believe.
Franken goes on to mock Rush by saying that he's much smarter because Franken gets his facts from a little place called the "Bureau of Labor Statistics".
So I said touche Mr. Franken, I'll go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (click here).
Then I scrolled over the "pay and benefits tab"...then moved over to"earnings by demographics"...scrolled down to "Earnings by Demographics" and clicked on the 2007 tab, which is the most recent year they had. It then pulled up this 91-page document. I then searched the document for "minimum wage", and low and behold, this was my second search result:
What's my point? If little old me, Brandon, can just randomly be on YouTube, watch a random clip of Al Franken, and off-handedly go and try to catch him lying and do so in 45 seconds, I think it's pretty safe to say he's a bigger liar than most people realize. And now he might (there will be lawsuits for months by the Coleman campaign) be an actual United States Senator, making decisions that affect you and me. Thanks Minnesota, mission accomplished.
On a side note, Al Franken does do a great Rush Limbaugh impression, I'll give him that.
For those of you who don't know, Al Franken is a former writer for Saturday Night Live who also tried to make a living as a far-left liberal talk show host, and now he is on the verge of defeating Norm Coleman for one of Minnesota's Senate seats. He's a carpetbagger politician who moved to Minnesota just for this race and still maintains residency in New York. Anyway, back to my analysis.
I was on YouTube one day, most likely watching "Charlie Bit My Finger" over and over again, and on the suggested videos tab on the side, I saw a video entitled "Al Franken: Where Rush Limbaugh Gets His Facts From." I hear criticism of Franken all the time by conservative commentators, but I try to be a fair-minded guy and wanted to hear what Franken had to say. It's a short 1 minute clip.
Click here to watch it, then continue reading...
The whole premise of Al Franken's argument was that Rush Limbaugh is a fat liar who pulls facts out of his butt and has no credibility because he's a stupid conservative. He challenged Rush's claim that almost all people making the minimum wage are either high schoolers or young people in their first jobs that are most likely still dependent upon parents. In other words, Rush was saying that people are much better off than the minimum wage anyway and that America isn't as terrible as liberals would like you to believe.
Franken goes on to mock Rush by saying that he's much smarter because Franken gets his facts from a little place called the "Bureau of Labor Statistics".
So I said touche Mr. Franken, I'll go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (click here).
Then I scrolled over the "pay and benefits tab"...then moved over to"earnings by demographics"...scrolled down to "Earnings by Demographics" and clicked on the 2007 tab, which is the most recent year they had. It then pulled up this 91-page document. I then searched the document for "minimum wage", and low and behold, this was my second search result:
"Hourly paid workers aged 16 to 19 were the most likelyIn other words, Rush Limbaugh was absolutely correct in his observation of who exactly the people most likely to be minimum wage earners are, while Mr. Franken just got run in with his own source. And mind you it literally took me 3 clicks and 45 seconds to disprove what Franken said.
to have earnings at or below the minimum wage. Seven
percent of teenage workers earned the prevailing Federal
minimum wage or less, compared with just 1.5 percent of
hourly paid workers aged 25 and older. Among those aged
20 to 24, about 4 percent had earnings at or below the
minimum wage. (See table 11.)" (Click here to view the document)
What's my point? If little old me, Brandon, can just randomly be on YouTube, watch a random clip of Al Franken, and off-handedly go and try to catch him lying and do so in 45 seconds, I think it's pretty safe to say he's a bigger liar than most people realize. And now he might (there will be lawsuits for months by the Coleman campaign) be an actual United States Senator, making decisions that affect you and me. Thanks Minnesota, mission accomplished.
On a side note, Al Franken does do a great Rush Limbaugh impression, I'll give him that.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Conservatism Helps The Poor And Society In General
I think there are some serious misconceptions out there about the Republican Party and conservatism. One of the worst misinterpretations of conservative tenants is the perception that we could care less about the poor. Conventional wisdom out there in liberal land tells you that Republicans love stomping on the poor with the proverbial boot of big businesses. Nothing could be further from the truth, but our methodology is not as obvious as getting a check in the mail.
First, Republicans are pro-business for a reason: successful businesses help everyone out, including the poor. We have an economic system where all the businesses are fighting to give you what you want, when you want it, and at the lowest possible cost so more people buy their stuff over the competitor's. Having the necessities of life at a minimal price helps the poor greatly. If you're poor, Wal-Mart is your best friend. Dollars saved here and there add up quickly.
Second, companies provide tons of jobs for everyone to help poverty and unemployment at a minimum. I know many of you work at Daktronics. Having that big company right here in tiny Brookings is a great source of jobs for the poor (a.k.a. college students) to help them make ends meet. Liberals would have you think Daktronics is rich and evil and that they need to be taxed as much as possible. The corporate tax rate in the United States is 39 percent. Just think how many more jobs Daktronics could afford and provide if they could make 39 percent more? Companies expand and reap greater profits through hiring additional people to get more things done. Also, look what companies have been able to do for us. Through their millions of investors and customers, they have been able to accomplish unimaginable things for the benefit of all.
Take Verizon Wireless, for example. Last year they spent over a billion dollars on network improvements alone (or 14 dollars for each of their 70.8 million customers), allowing people to communicate from almost anywhere in America. If you get caught in a blizzard and call 911, your phone will communicate with a satellite in outer space, which can then tell dispatchers where you are within one foot. All that at the lowest possible cost to all of us. Taxing companies more hinders the ability for them to provide services like that and provide work for Americans.
Probably the most important way that conservatives care for the poor is how we choose to help them out. We actually like handouts to the needy just like our liberal friends; the difference is that we believe it's our responsibility as individuals to help our neighbors out. Sure it's easy to just raise taxes on the rich to help the poor, where we give the government ten dollars for one dollar worth of benefit. Let me keep that ten dollars and I'll go over and drop it in the Children's Miracle Network box in The Union. We know our neighbors and friends way better than any government entity, so who is best suited to help them out - the government or us? When I'm having a tough time, I talk to my friends and family instead of calling congressmen. If you're hit with hard times, what's going to give you a better, more positive outlook on life: a big check in the mail or a big spaghetti fundraiser with all of your friends and family there to help you pay for your chemotherapy? We need to help each other out, not look to a bloated, inefficient government to do it for us.
First, Republicans are pro-business for a reason: successful businesses help everyone out, including the poor. We have an economic system where all the businesses are fighting to give you what you want, when you want it, and at the lowest possible cost so more people buy their stuff over the competitor's. Having the necessities of life at a minimal price helps the poor greatly. If you're poor, Wal-Mart is your best friend. Dollars saved here and there add up quickly.
Second, companies provide tons of jobs for everyone to help poverty and unemployment at a minimum. I know many of you work at Daktronics. Having that big company right here in tiny Brookings is a great source of jobs for the poor (a.k.a. college students) to help them make ends meet. Liberals would have you think Daktronics is rich and evil and that they need to be taxed as much as possible. The corporate tax rate in the United States is 39 percent. Just think how many more jobs Daktronics could afford and provide if they could make 39 percent more? Companies expand and reap greater profits through hiring additional people to get more things done. Also, look what companies have been able to do for us. Through their millions of investors and customers, they have been able to accomplish unimaginable things for the benefit of all.
Take Verizon Wireless, for example. Last year they spent over a billion dollars on network improvements alone (or 14 dollars for each of their 70.8 million customers), allowing people to communicate from almost anywhere in America. If you get caught in a blizzard and call 911, your phone will communicate with a satellite in outer space, which can then tell dispatchers where you are within one foot. All that at the lowest possible cost to all of us. Taxing companies more hinders the ability for them to provide services like that and provide work for Americans.
Probably the most important way that conservatives care for the poor is how we choose to help them out. We actually like handouts to the needy just like our liberal friends; the difference is that we believe it's our responsibility as individuals to help our neighbors out. Sure it's easy to just raise taxes on the rich to help the poor, where we give the government ten dollars for one dollar worth of benefit. Let me keep that ten dollars and I'll go over and drop it in the Children's Miracle Network box in The Union. We know our neighbors and friends way better than any government entity, so who is best suited to help them out - the government or us? When I'm having a tough time, I talk to my friends and family instead of calling congressmen. If you're hit with hard times, what's going to give you a better, more positive outlook on life: a big check in the mail or a big spaghetti fundraiser with all of your friends and family there to help you pay for your chemotherapy? We need to help each other out, not look to a bloated, inefficient government to do it for us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)