progressive government "It Takes A Village,"

Post Reply New Topic

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080205/cm ... 6GRyce6sgF

see this is why democrats scare me so much. they want government involved way to much in a citizens personal life. for what reasons?

Hmm, I wonder why my friends from small towns and situations where they are pretty much raised by governmental systems such as public schooling and welfare programs are so miserable, then.

I have a different read on this. When I was little, everyone in the neighborhood knew everyone, and if a kid acted up, they might get lectured, and/or their parents would get a call. No one was confused and thought they were everyone's parents in the literal sense, but they did have a role to play in the community as adults. The neighborhood did raise a child - if you want to sit around and sing kumbayah, then you can use the village metaphor.

Today, almost nobody in the neighborhood knows anyone else. Kids are either kept in caves to watch TV and play video games, or they run amok. Adults really have no right to speak to a kid unless there is something major going wrong, and even then, they risk getting yelled at/punched out/sued by the parents of the juvenile delinquents.

It's working real good in inner cities

a few weeks ago on a freezing cold morning a guy saw a neighborhood kid walking to school as he was taking his kid too school so asked him if he wanted a ride, he ended up spread over the hood of his car after the kid ran to school and said somebody tried kidnapping him The cops released him after awhile.

Today children can do no wrong, the King Baby was born in the 80's and their psychopath soccer mom mothers where going to raise the most perfect child because they wanted to be perfect parents and have the most wonderful child to brag to their friends about, one kid shoot his whole family the other day, he was a boy scout in the finest community with great schools and attended church while working to become an Eagle Scout, must have figured prison would beat living with his psychopath parents I look at it like he already did 15 years with his parents and should be given time served and be awarded the house for 15 years of pain & suffering at the hands of psychopaths.

Children need a purpose, entrepreneurial, political, or otherwise. Public schools are a key plank for Marx's Communist Manifesto and has worked to design utopic children including every skill and selecting none of them. No passion, no liberty, all chaos.

I don't feel responsible for mindless or irresponsible breeding by others who may have no interest or ability in parenting.

I think that is a misreading what Senator Clinton is talking about. She appears to me to be advocating communitarianism, not authoritarianism:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism/

The way I read her is she is like most liberals who think they know better than everyone else and parents school turn over their children to professional educators after they no longer need a diaper changed and than just provide food & clothing & shelter for the children while the all knowing prossesional educators teach them all they should know about life, but will brainwash them into being good citizens to feed the machine and maybe if they are real good they will be allowed to become part of the machine instead of being exploited by the elitists in the machine.
They don't want anyone outside the machine exploiting them so are hell bent on tearing down anyone who manages to do such a thing.

Ugh, it's such paternalistic nanny-statism that has given the American left-wing such a bad name. They are to the Left what the fundamentalists nuts are to the Right, stupid culture-war nonsense. That isn't to say that Senator Clinton's assertion has no merit, it very much has merit, but such things should remain an informal, neighborhood thing if at all possible.

I totally agree

There is a very interesting book out there called Generations by the recently deceased historian, amateur comedian, and political insider William Strauss that claims that this thing is part of a cyclical pattern in child-rearing styles that alternative between overprotecting and underprotecting kids that is driven and helps to drive an 80-year long social cycle. According to the book the nanny-state type "it takes a village" thinking originated in the 1980s as a result of Baby Boomer parents not wanting their kids to suffer from the same underprotected childhood that Generation X experienced. According to the author the period from 1945 to 1963 was a period of decreasing protection of kids, the period from 1964 to 1981 was a period of underprotection, the period from 1982 to 2001 was a period of increasing protection, and the period since 9/11 has been a period of over-protection that will last into the early 2020s; earch time period marks a generation according to Strauss, the Baby Boomers, Generation X, the Millennial Generation, and what I have come to have called the Homeland Generation.

excellant point

I'm one of the 1964 to 1981 gang, born 1959 and graduated high school in 1977, I had no parents. I lived in a house with two adults who where legally my parents, but out of sight, out of mind was what it came down to. Me and my brother never let them see out report cards and they never asked how we where doing in school.

now they are called helicopter parents, yet want to pay the government to watch their children or more like want everyone but them to pay for the government to watch their children while they both work and demand tax breaks because they have children.
They don't want blue collar types hired by the government to raise their children for them, they want the taxpayers to fund the employment of high dollar harvard graduate type people to raise their children for them while they pursue the almight dollar themselves.

It doesn't even seem to be protection of the children, it's protection of their investment in their throphy child and if it doesn't look real promising they abandon it at about 13 years old and blame the school system for not making their average child a genius.

It's like buying a 1965 Mustang to fix up, if it starts to look real promising, people keep at it to make the perfect show car, if the project don't go too well they loose interest in it and forget about it. That is all these parents are about today, if their child project looks like it will turn out to be something to show off and brag about, they stay interested in the child, if not they forget about it and kick it around for being a disappointment.

A woman stood up at a school board meeting last week and told the school administrators she didn't have a child for it to be trained to compete in some world economy, she wanted her son to become a nice person and a happy person, so the trend is changing as the children of the baby boomers have children themselves and move away from the money driven mentality of their baby boomer parents who have based their standing in society on how much net worth they have, not on being good people. Morals is an abstraction to yuppies, anything they can get away with is fair game for the swindler yuppies, somebody called it gotcha capitolism.

I think we are going to enter a period of moderation in child raising where parents will accept their child for who she/he is and not push them to be high achievers money wise, more like try and raise a good person with morals which their boomer parents totally lacked.

As a "professional educator" myself (a college professor), I would suggest that your understanding of the mindsets of people in this category is incorrect. For instance, I am a far leftist (a Foucaultian and a Marxist), I have no desire to see people "become part of the machine." To the contrary, I encourage my students to become critical thinkers so they can question the assumptions of power elites. I also do not know any other educators who see their work as preparing people to simply fit in.



That is clearly not what Senator Clinton said.

*whispers* Foucault is the man! At least, he made some great points on power.
I'm reading the article you posted...

unless that means not thinking politically correct and non honoring a nanny state.