I'm not sure what any of what Mrs. Clinton said has to do with the child abuse topic you've raised. Also, I don't see what the child abuse topic you've raised has to do with the extent of repulsive force the police officer used to subdue Laquan McDonald, which is the topic Mrs. Clinton addressed with her tweet.
That both child abuse and neglect, Mr. McDonald's death, and police officers' using excessive force are things that are ills that need to be reduced/eliminated is not in question, at least not for me.
Is it that you have latched onto her remark about "broader questions" and decided that one of them is the matter of child abuse and "babies having babies?" If so, okay, but if that's so, it's not entirely clear -- meaning we have to infer it as you didn't present it as the inspiration for or thesis of your post -- from your remarks. Certainly it is clear that the scope of what Mrs. Clinton wrote about, the aspect of the "broader questions" she sought to address, is how to effectively manage police forces.
You provided us with a somewhat lengthy post. In respect for your putting in that much effort, I would like to be sure of the full context of if.
[photo deleted]
Hillary Calls for Justice for Laquan McDonald’s Death: ‘We Cannot Go On Like This’
Hillary Clinton stated *
‘We Cannot Go On Like This
’*
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at Mrs. Hillary Clinton's WILFULL ignorance regarding America's expanding and shameful
*National Epidemic of Childhood Abuse and Neglect*, *Poverty*, that for more than two generations has deprived untold numbers of American kids from experiencing and enjoying a fairly happy American kid childhood with *
*Safe Streets** to travel and play on.
*
*Child Abuse and Neglect
** that is
primarily responsible for populating our prisons with depressed, angry, frustrated, undisciplined, unpredictable, sometimes suicidal teens and adults full of resentment for irresponsibly being introduced to a life of hardships and struggles.
You're going to need to provide some sort of evidence that this claim is true. I'm certain that "child abuse and neglect" are the primary causes of something, and the behavioral traits you mention may be symptomatic of it, but I'm not at all convinced (on just your say so above) that they are the primary reasons we have prisons populated with "depressed, angry, frustrated, undisciplined, unpredictable, sometimes suicidal teens and adults."
*
*Early Childhood Abuse and Neglect
** that often leads depressed, sometimes suicidal
(NY Times May 18, 2015 - Rise in Suicide by Black Children Surprises Researchers) children to develop into depressed, angry, frustrated, unpredictable, sometimes suicidal teens and adults lacking empathy and compassion for others, though needing to vent their pent up negative emotions, often causing emotional and physical harm to peaceful people...instead of venting their anger, resentment and pain on the immature single moms and/or dads who introduced them to a life of pain and struggle by irresponsibly building a family before acquiring the practical skills, *
*PATIENCE
** and means to successfully raise and nurture a developing young child who matures into a fairly happy responsible teen and adult with mostly fond memories of their childhood.
I read the content at the
NYT and the
study their article referenced. The study does not even remotely suggest that "early childhood abuse and neglect" have a damn thing to do with the rise in (or incidence of) black children's committing suicide. Instead, its authors write:
Our findings suggest questions about what factors might in-fluence increasing suicide rates among young black children.Black children may experience disproportionate exposure to violence and traumatic stress and aggressive school discipline. Black children are also more likely to experience an early onset of puberty, which increases the risk of suicide, most likely owing to the greater liability to depression and impulsive aggression. Black youth are also less likely to seek help for depression, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts. Nevertheless, it remains unclear if any of these factors are related to increasing suicide rates.
I'm not saying that it is implausible that the causal relationship you mention doesn't exist. I'm asking you to show us something other than anecdotal evidence that it does. That unprepared (economically and emotionally), immature parents cannot as likely provide as "fine" an upbringing as can more "ready" ones is no surprise. That such parents, however pitiful they are at parenting, often rear children who cause "emotional and physical harm to peaceful people" isn't an outcome I can imagine occurs as "often" as you suggest. I'm sure it happens occasionally, but then it happens occasionally among the kids of "prepared" parents too.
*Mrs. Clinton's ideology of dependency on government programs has created the problems and issues many African Americans are today dealing with.*
*Mrs. Clinton remains silent as untold numbers of immature teen and young adult moms create poverty* by irresponsibly building families with too many mouths to feed...families that in order to survive are dependent on their responsible neighbors for financial support.
Red:
Again, you'll need to do more than emptily place the blame on Mrs. Clinton. That her ideology is the cause of the things you cite is quite a lot to blame on her and her ideology.
Blue:
That is not true at all. Mrs.
Clinton's view on teen parents is not even new. If you were to have bothered investigating what Mrs. Clinton has done related to teen pregnancy/child rearing, you'd have discovered that she "helped launch the
National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, and...successfully achieved a one-third reduction by 2005."
You don't need to agree with Mrs. Clinton's views or be a fan of hers. I don't care what your views are about her. You do -- if you want your audience to take you seriously and accept you as credible -- need to fairly depict what she (or anyone else) has said and done.
I am NOT excusing or condoning police misconduct or police who use excessive force. The police take a sworn oath to be a cut-above the average citizenry.
Understood, and TY for making that clear.
However, I am writing about what I
personally observed are
some of the causes for police acting outside the scope of their employment or themselves venting their anger and frustrations at being charged with dealing with depressed teens and adults who as developing young children were irresponsibly raised and nurtured by "living wild" single mothers who deprived their children of growing up in households supervised by two loving, caring parents.
I want to make sure I follow you. Above you write that you are not absolving police for using excessive force and that police commit to being "a cut above." Then, in the very next paragraph, you exculpate them for their lack of restraint and for not living up to their oath.
I'm sorry, but there's just no two-way street on that. Each police officer either upholds their oath and exercises good judgment or they don't. It may be that most of the time they do, and that would be consistent with what is expected of most folks, but for cops, the expectation is that, at least while on duty, they always do. Yes, that's a very high bar to meet, but it's the standard to which they agreed to perform. When they don't meet the expectation set for them, the one they agreed to, they must be held accountable.
By saying that, do I mean that I don't understand why some cops may "snap" in a given instance? No. It means that if/when s/he "snaps," the officer needs to be reprimanded, perhaps incarcerated. It also means that something in their training was inadequate for helping them "not snap," and the government is the organization that has requirement to determine what was missing and provide it to the remaining and future officers to reduce the incidence of "snapping," and bring the force as a whole closer to the expectation of "never snapping" as they confront miscreants.
Frankly, I am severely disappointed that American people like Mrs. Hillary Clinton *REFUSE to recognize or acknowledge* that a small population or sub-culture of immature, irresponsible FEMALES have abdicated their responsibility to their children, their neighbors and communities.
And what responsibility does the sire have to children? Might it be that the kids would be better off if they had both parents, however poorly prepared they each be, actively involved in their lives? Why, in your mind, is the brunt of the irresponsibility and "abdicated onus," as it were, carried by the mothers?
The question all concerned, compassionate Americans should seriously be asking ourselves, our elected, civil, social, community and religious leaders is, what real, substantial changes in our society's attitude and laws need to occur to prevent abuse that often causes young kids to mature into depressed, frustrated, angry teens and adults as a result of experiencing the **emotional and/or physical trauma of an abusive childhood?**
I agree that we need a solution that can effect reductions in child abuse.
I think the problem you are getting at is caused by a number of things, and teens becoming parents is a symptom of them. In my mind, the 20th century's incidence of there being two "breadwinners" in the household is the primary cause of the problem.
I don't have any issue with both parents earning income. I think mothers and fathers have an equal capacity to provide good parenting. I have a real problem with no parent (or suitable surrogate, "suitable" being the operative word) being actively present for the majority of their children's waking hours when the kids are not in school. When I look back on my youth, I honestly cannot recall a single day when one of my parents, one of my friends' parents, a close relative or teacher was not supervising our activities. Sure we'd ride our bikes into the park and play unobserved for a while, but if we were gone for too long, we could count on at least one of our parents -- on a few occasions a pair or three did -- trekking into the woods and finding us.
I don't see that happening these days, and I don't see it can with so many kids' parents both coming home tired from work. And that's among kids raised in very economically stable environments. Add on to that the challenges associated with (near) poverty, and it's hard to image things being any better.
The question is how do we as a society overcome that phenomenon? In my mind, the answer is us as parents taking a clear stand and saying that it's more important to be present and active in our kids' lives and less important that we make a lot of money to provide "things" as surrogates for what our kids really need. People look at others and see the "things" they give their kids -- things they bestow merely because they can -- but what they don't see is that those things appear after the love and attention is made available to them. People compete to "love" their kids most by giving them more gizmos and gadgets rather than by giving them more attention and guidance. Sad.
