RochesterConservative.com

I didn’t hear Lonsberry’s comments…

but I will say that, one of the major things which have changed over the last couple generations is the stigma of teenage and out of wedlock births. It’s not just a black phenomenon, it is a urban poverty based phenomenon. I’ve stated a number of times before that my cousins, white (some half hispanic if you want to count that as a special race) as they may be, are just as guilty of failing their children as their black neighbors.

We need to look at why we’re seeing an increase in unmarried teenage births. 73% of all black kids are born out of wedlock and empirical evidence has shown that children who grow up in families without fathers are likely to produce kids in the same situation they came from. So, we need to ask what changed between some reference point in the past where it wasn’t as much of a problem and today.

There are two decisive points which had a remarkable change on the urban family structure and a whole lot of gradual changes. The two big, decisive points are… the introduction of the welfare state - a noble goal which, through poor implementation, has perpetuated and poverty rather than end it as it’s proponents hopes and the popular introduction of contraception in the forms of birth control pills (hey, it’s no longer the guy’s responsibility, she should have been on the pill or said she was) and abortion (well, we didn’t want a kid, but we wanted to screw around… we’ll just abortion our responsibility and if she doesn’t want to, well, the male can just walk away anyway because he didn’t want it and the kid will be cared for by welfare).

As time has gone on, we’ve totally destigmatized welfare. Instead of food stamps, people are given a little, unassuming ATM card so their neighbors won’t recognize it for what it is. We give hundreds of thousands of women, even those who are working and can afford to provide for themselves, WIC checks to buy food “for the child.” My sister makes more money than my dad, lives with my mom, has no bills of her own (well, she does, she maxed out he credit cards, then refused to pay them… so the collectors are after her), yet gets WIC. Why does she qualify? The only answer I can think of, the real answer, not the “for the children” political answer, is to make more people beneficiaries to reduce the stigma.

Along with that, we’ve seen an abduction of responsibility. I already mentioned the “father” who refuses to take care of his kids because the state will anyway… How about someone like my aunt who, as her youngest was turning 18, popped out another kid at 51 to ensure she’ll have gone he entire life, never having worked, all while collecting a check, living in a single family home, etc? And do you know what her sister’s daughters learned? That’s right… by 15, they were on the system too.

I think it can be argued that, creating special programs to enable teenage mothers further erodes the responsibility they have to their kids. I mean, more power to them if they want to finish their high school diploma, that is a noble thing, especially in the face of adversity. But, the problem is… we’re enabling them. We’re removing another reason to act responsibly and further perpetuating the problem rather than solving the problem. There are a lot of people deeply vested in the continuation of the problem, however, and so, they’ll jerk their knee immediately when some of the flaws of the system are pointed out. However, if we truly want to solve the problem, which most Americans would agree we want to do, we need to look at everything with no unquestionable sacred cows.

This isn’t a black versus white issue… this is an urban population issue. May I remind you, that the white population of Rochester is still larger than the black population. If anyone is insisting it is a black issue, it’s because they’re wearing race tinted glasses, selecting a single group to attack or defend based on skin color, that is, being racist, instead of seeing the larger picture.

We need to take a serious, long, hard look at the welfare system, the effects of abdication of parental responsibilities, what the role of the community should be, etc if we want to solve the problems facing society today. There simply can’t be any third rails… and for an unelected (by the people) public servant feels he needs to demand the firing/resignation of a private individual for criticizing something, well, we need to ask why we’re paying that public servant. Yeah, we all hate to have our jobs criticized, but I know, my personal first reaction isn’t to tell the critic off, it’s to say “hey, is that criticism valid and what can I learn from it?” By the same token, maybe these teenage mothers could use a little more criticism and a little less tolerance. The usual race activists could use a lot more of the same… and I’m sad to see Brizard has joined them. I had good hopes for him.

PL <phantomlord@rochesterconservative.com>