US Politics, unnumbered

[Guest Raidne]

unrelated to the interview, I do not want this guy anywhere near the presidency. Anyone who divorces their wife while she's dying of cancer in a hospital has shown themselves to be an even lower form of slime than an everyday politician.

You know, I've never looked this one up before and assumed it was true, but guess not. Here's another article in addition to what FLOW posted from factcheck

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/12/the-gingrich-divorce-myth/:

She was in the hospital to remove a benign tumor, they were already in the process of separating, and they got into an argument at the hospital.

Asked if he had handled the matter in an insensitive manner, Gingrich told the Post: “All I can say is when you been talking about divorce for 11 years and you’ve gone to a marriage counselor, and the other person doesn’t want the divorce, I’m not sure there is any sensitive way to handle it.”

According to the former couple’s second daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, the divorce had been set in motion months before the hospital visit. Cushman broke her silence about the incident in a column in May of this year, around the time Gingrich announced that he was running for president. She wrote that her parents told her and her sister that they were divorcing well before her mother was hospitalized in the summer of 1980.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

He said both of those things.

And really, we can't talk about the cultural problems in inner-city schools without being racists? That's only okay if it's the fourth season of The Wire?

I think what Gingrich is trying to get at with all of these comments - and probably does, directly, when they're not clipped to sound bites - is that we all know that the problem with underperforming kids isn't that the schools are failing them so much as their parents are, and it's really hard to decide what to do about that.

That's the kind of thing that gets Gingrich in trouble. There is absolutely nothing wring with recognizing that a lot of kids have almost no chance because of their home environment. The "single mother on crack who doesn't take care of her kids" is not a myth, and recognizing that reality isn't racist because a great many of those crack moms are white anyway. It's an issue about which we perhaps should have more discussions.

But as you have pointed out, it is easy to take what amounts to public brainstorming ideas and pillory the guy. And he needs to learn that doing that is going to get you in trouble.

As for the hospital/dying of cancer/divorce thing, it is amazing to me that something like that just got accepted so readily. And while I don't generally have a high personal opinion on Gingrich, I have to say that his decision not to make a big deal out of this and correct the record out of deference to his ex-wife actually makes me think a bit better of him.

[Shryke]

He said both of those things.

And really, we can't talk about the cultural problems in inner-city schools without being racists? That's only okay if it's the fourth season of The Wire?

I think what Gingrich is trying to get at with all of these comments - and probably does, directly, when they're not clipped to sound bites - is that we all know that the problem with underperforming kids isn't that the schools are failing them so much as their parents are, and it's really hard to decide what to do about that. Orphanages is certainly poor phrasing, but I'm in favor of voluntary boarding schools, well away from the parents. Like, for Detroit kids, voluntary boarding schools in Traverse City. That kind of thing. And where do you get that money? Well, I guess we could stop paying bad parents to be bad parents?

Now, the reducing of "bad parents" to "young single mother" is traditional Republican assholery, fair enough.

Shit, it's not like I'm saying the guy's not a Republican, or that I'm going to vote for him or anything. But I think he's a serious Republican candidate that could probably do a totally acceptable job of running the country. I'm not even convinced that he'd appoint judges that would overturn Roe. I think we'd get more O'Connors, Souters, Kennedys, which is A-OK with me. To me, he just seems like a typical Republican from the days before a crucial component of the party was made up of moronic, anti-intellectual reactionaries who support Sarah Palin.

Right, we stop paying "bad parents to be bad parents" .... and then what? We forcibly remove the children? Or just let them suffer in an even poorer home?

And how does child labour solve societal problems? Turning school kids into janitors helps them .. how? I mean, it sure helps eliminate some jobs I guess.

Just because he's not Sarah Palin doesn't mean his ideas aren't dumb as shit.

[awesome possum]

is that we all know that the problem with underperforming kids isn't that the schools are failing them so much as their parents are, and it's really hard to decide what to do about that.

I both agree and disagree. Are parents who let their kids play video games all day any worse than the ones that let their kids watch TV all day 30 or 50 years ago? Many parents in poor areas have continued not giving a shit about schools as more than extended daycare for decades.

The main problem with the education system is that the biggest change in the classroom in the last 100 years has been that instead of chalk and blackboards teachers write with markers on whiteboards now. It's archaic and even more insulting now that a student can step into the hallway between classes, spend 30 seconds looking at their phone and discovering the history lesson they were just given is complete and utter bullshit.

Kids today are smarter thanks to the nonstop information provided - even if they don't seem like it - but the US educational system treats them all like idiots. Parents have nothing to do with that, unless it's a parent's job to get their kid excited about going and being treated like an idiot for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week... which will prepare them for a life in the general workforce but not much else.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I can see what you're saying about feeling like they got screwed in the bargain, but the Democrats on the deficit supercommittee proposed something very along the lines of the "$3 of cuts for $1 of revenue" and the Republicans rejected it wholesale.

The problem remains the same as it always does. Tax increases amount to a change in the code that is automatically effective in succeeding years unless repealed. Spending cuts, unless they are to entitlements, amount to mere promises to cut spending in future, as yet unsigned, budget years. As such, they are dependent upon future Congresses passing those cuts. There is zero trust on the GOP side to do that, and rightfully so, IMHO, because it hasn't happened that way in the past.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'll be disappointed if the media is unfair to him on this. The reality is unsavory to enough people, but it would be wrong to present it as if he divorced his dying wife on her deathbed out of the blue. A lot of times people make it sound like that's what happened.

Well, then be disappointed, because that's what the media narrative has been. Otherwise, so many people wouldn't think that's what actually happened.

[Guest Raidne]

Right, we stop paying "bad parents to be bad parents" .... and then what? We forcibly remove the children? Or just let them suffer in an even poorer home?

Actually, the proposal, part of the Personal Responsibility Act, was to cut welfare to single mothers and, instead, move them and their kids into group homes where they would be supervised, finish their education, take parenting classes, have a curfew, etc. Another section diverted some money to orphanages for mothers who wanted to get rid of their kids instead of participate in this program.

However, a good orphanage apparently costs $100/kid/day, which would cost more than welfare. And previously, orphanges were pretty horrific, and the children in them failed to develop properly (apparently it's called "institutionalism"). Teddy Roosevelt ended the practice and moved us toward our current policy of keeping children with their parents. From the start, it was cheaper than orphanages.

So, paying welfare to these mothers is cheaper and keeps children from growing up as passive, dependent drones (ironic that, from an idea posed by a Republican), so that's probably the better idea.

Still, it's not like it's some crazy abhorrent ridiculous proposal. It's worth talking about. I thought the article in the Baltimore Sun from 1994 was pretty interesting, really.

http://articles.balt...ch-illegitimacy

With regard to child labor, Gingrich proposed that kids be paid to help around the school, including amongst the janitorial staff. For a couple of hours a day or whatever, or less. Not that they quit school to scrub toilets. And what's wrong with scrubbing toilets? I had to do it at the cafe I worked at in college. Surely it won't kill anyone?

ETA: possum, we're talking kids with drug-addicted parents here, not kids whose parents let them play video games all day long.

[Verboten]

That's the kind of thing that gets Gingrich in trouble. There is absolutely nothing wring with recognizing that a lot of kids have almost no chance because of their home environment. The "single mother on crack who doesn't take care of her kids" is not a myth,

As someone who was raised by a single mother with a full time job and therefore had little time to spend with us, I really dislike this stereotype because people automatically assume that all single parent families are bad for kids or that if a kid has problems it's because the single mom is a really crappy parent who doesn't take care of her kids, just her boyfriends. I know that most people mean well when they talk about the effect of a 'broken' family on the kids within it but having that idea in the back of their minds makes them draw erroneus conclusions. For example I really doubt that people would have been horrified that I cooked my own supper when I was nine (full time job and I was a responsible kid) if I had both parents living with me. Or that, because I was doing badly in math it was directly related to my mother being a crap parent.

[Verboten]

That being said I personally don't think the guys idea is that bad, just poorly worded. I wouldn't have minded cleaning a few desks in school a few hours a day for some pocket money, but I don't like the potential exploitation that could come from modified child labour laws or his desire to fire the janitors.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

As someone who was raised by a single mother with a full time job and therefore had little time to spend with us, I really dislike this stereotype because people automatically assume that all single parent families are bad for kids or that if a kid has problems it's because the single mom is a really crappy parent who doesn't take care of her kids, just her boyfriends.

Well, hold it for a second there, Tex. I was raised by a single mom too after my parents divorced, and my life wasn't like that either. But nothing I said disparaged single moms at all. I was talking about the specific reality that there are some drug-addicted single mothers in shitty situations who don't do shit for their kids. I've seen it myself. We can't be afraid to talk about that specific reality just because someone might get offended. It is a real problem.

I know that most people mean well when they talk about the effect of a 'broken' family on the kids within it but having that idea in the back of their minds makes them draw erroneus conclusions. For example I really doubt that people would have been horrified that I cooked my own supper when I was nine (full time job and I was a responsible kid) if I had both parents living with me. Or that, because I was doing badly in math it was directly related to my mother being a crap parent.

Again, I hear where you're coming from but I didn't say anything about that far more common situation of the great single mother who works her ass off, and does the best job she can with her kids. That was our moms. I'm talking about that other situation out there that exists. I've got an adopted niece and nephew who were taken from the same crack and alcohol addicted mother, one of whom is below average functional, and the other who will never even be capable of living in a group home. And there are lots of similar situations out there with kids who aren't physically damaged but whose only parent is no different.

That is a huge problem because all those kids have almost no chance. Right now, such kids tend to get taken away and run through a succession of foster homes. I'm not at all sure orphanages, though they are more expensive, might not be a better idea because they at least provide some stability.

[Verboten]

Sorry if it seemed like I was directing my comments at you, I was just ranting a little bit. The problem for me is that I do tend to assume complaints about single mothers are prejudiced, even if they're not, because of my own experiences. And I am worried about if he made that comment due to an understanding of the problem or because of the stereotyped image of single moms ingrained in the average psyche.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Sorry if it seemed like I was directing my comments at you, I was just ranting a little bit. The problem for me is that I do tend to assume complaints about single mothers are prejudiced, even if they're not, because of my own experiences. And I am worried about if he made that comment due to an understanding of the problem or because of the stereotyped image of single moms ingrained in the average psyche.

No problem, I get where you're coming from. It's a problem having these kind of discussions in the public sphere precisely because it is so easy to misinterpret, and because there really are those stereotyping people out there.

[Jon Sprunk]

Sorry, but anyone who thinks that Gingrich's put-poor-kids-to-work statement was in any way intended be compassionate doesn't understand Gingrich. He was throwing red meat to the base with keywords (unionized, master, poor and "very poor," work habits). Some people still haven't realized that this entire campaign cycle is a glorified book tour for Newt.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Sorry, but anyone who thinks that Gingrich's put-poor-kids-to-work statement was in any way intended be compassionate doesn't understand Gingrich.

And you do? Is this based on you and him going around buddy-buddy for all those years?

It is not bigoted to note that there is a dysfunctional subculture that deprives some children of a real opportunity for success in life. There are kids out there who have never seen a parent go to work, and unless those kids have the chance to learn some life skills and values that can give the a chance, they are lost. Anyone with half a heart who has spent any time working with some of these kids knows there is something desperately wrong, and that we need some ideas to help them. Because what we're doing right now isn't working.

Now I don't know about Gingrich's specific idea, but I do know that this is a big enough problem for some kids that we can't keep sweeping the problem under the rug because it might make some people uncomfortable. If you want to assume that anyone who discusses this stuff has a secret evil agenda at their core, so be it. But that kind of attitude is not going to help those kids.

He was throwing red meat to the base with keywords (unionized, master, poor and "very poor," work habits). Some people still haven't realized that this entire campaign cycle is a glorified book tour for Newt.

I guess I'm one of those people who haven't figured that out yet. But just to clarify, you're saying that his comments were some sort of code to conservatives that he's "one of them" because he hates poor people and minorities too?

[Guest Raidne]

Gingrich? Compassionate?

One more thing on child labor laws - here's the current standard under the FLSA, quoted out of NPR:

The federal act allows youngsters of any age to "deliver newspapers; perform in radio, television, movie or theatrical productions; work in businesses owned by their parents with the exception of mining, manufacturing or hazardous job." They can also babysit , perform "minor chores" around a private home, and "gather evergreens and make evergreen wreaths."

Really? Evergreen wreaths? That's not stupid?

[Brienne the Beauty]

That is a huge problem because all those kids have almost no chance. Right now, such kids tend to get taken away and run through a succession of foster homes. I'm not at all sure orphanages, though they are more expensive, might not be a better idea because they at least provide some stability.

In reality, they tended to provide abuse.

Also, what is stable about a place where the caregivers come and go, where your peers come and go? Perhaps longer term foster parents might provide the needed stability?

You could probably run a pretty good orphanage if you were willing to fund it at insane levels. But I thought Republicans were into saving money, not spending it like water?

If you did make a great orphanage, people would just whinge about teenage tearaways living in luxury. You could also probably make foster caring into a real respected career if you funded it that well. I'm sure there are a lot of very capable people out there working in unsatisfying office jobs who'd give it all up to work as foster parents if the pay was great. But then the public would just whinge about how foster parents get paid insane amounts to do a job that most people do for free.

Orphanages have been tried and found wanting as a solution to poverty. You might as well suggest bringing back eugenics!

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Gingrich? Compassionate?

One more thing on child labor laws - here's the current standard under the FLSA, quoted out of NPR:

Really? Evergreen wreaths? That's not stupid?

You know, it is damn nice to be on your side for once.

[Shryke]

Gingrich? Compassionate?

One more thing on child labor laws - here's the current standard under the FLSA, quoted out of NPR:

Really? Evergreen wreaths? That's not stupid?

It's only dumb in that it's probably based on some obscure historical artifact. Which is pretty irrelevant to the whole child labour laws thing.

[Shryke]

Actually, the proposal, part of the Personal Responsibility Act, was to cut welfare to single mothers and, instead, move them and their kids into group homes where they would be supervised, finish their education, take parenting classes, have a curfew, etc. Another section diverted some money to orphanages for mothers who wanted to get rid of their kids instead of participate in this program.

However, a good orphanage apparently costs $100/kid/day, which would cost more than welfare. And previously, orphanges were pretty horrific, and the children in them failed to develop properly (apparently it's called "institutionalism"). Teddy Roosevelt ended the practice and moved us toward our current policy of keeping children with their parents. From the start, it was cheaper than orphanages.

So, paying welfare to these mothers is cheaper and keeps children from growing up as passive, dependent drones (ironic that, from an idea posed by a Republican), so that's probably the better idea.

Still, it's not like it's some crazy abhorrent ridiculous proposal. It's worth talking about. I thought the article in the Baltimore Sun from 1994 was pretty interesting, really.

http://articles.balt...ch-illegitimacy

How isn't it? You are either forcible taking moving these kids or just straight up defunding their support. I don't see how either is in any way a good solution.

With regard to child labor, Gingrich proposed that kids be paid to help around the school, including amongst the janitorial staff. For a couple of hours a day or whatever, or less. Not that they quit school to scrub toilets. And what's wrong with scrubbing toilets? I had to do it at the cafe I worked at in college. Surely it won't kill anyone?

What good is this accomplishing? We are teaching kids to do menial jobs? Life skills baby! Let's fire some full-time workers to do it to.

Is that really what highschool or elementary schools kids should be spending their time on?

[Jon Sprunk]

And you do? Is this based on you and him going around buddy-buddy for all those years?

Fair enough, but I've been watching him in politics for more than 20 years. I've seen all his tricks, even if they seem new and catchy to the republican base.

It is not bigoted to note that there is a dysfunctional subculture that deprives some children of a real opportunity for success in life. There are kids out there who have never seen a parent go to work, and unless those kids have the chance to learn some life skills and values that can give the a chance, they are lost. Anyone with half a heart who has spent any time working with some of these kids knows there is something desperately wrong, and that we need some ideas to help them. Because what we're doing right now isn't working.

Now I don't know about Gingrich's specific idea, but I do know that this is a big enough problem for some kids that we can't keep sweeping the problem under the rug because it might make some people uncomfortable. If you want to assume that anyone who discusses this stuff has a secret evil agenda at their core, so be it. But that kind of attitude is not going to help those kids.

I worked with juvenile delinquents (95% of whom came from low-income homes) for 15 years. I've got a glimmer of understanding of what might help them. Firing union janitors and putting these kids to work isn't going to work, on several levels. But the idea of poor kids scrubbing toilets for a few bucks day does appeal to a certain element of the GOP. Of course, later Newt amended that to include assisting the school librarian so it wouldn't sound so menial. Typical Gingrich tactic. Lob an asinine grenade to grab the headlines, and then walk it back with "well, I really meant this and that. See, it's not so bad as you thought." *sigh*

Again, those comments were not in any way intended to address the plight of at-risk kids. They were a very clear dog-whistle to the GOP base signalling that Newt thinks "just like them." Does he actually? Probably not. I'm not even sure Newt knows. Like Romney, he has taken both sides of so many issues that it's impossible to predict where he'll actually stand on anything, even from day to day. This will bite him in the ass if he ever becomes the nominee.

I guess I'm one of those people who haven't figured that out yet. But just to clarify, you're saying that his comments were some sort of code to conservatives that he's "one of them" because he hates poor people and minorities too?

With all due respect, FLoW, yes you have. And so has Rush Limbaugh, but now that Newt's in front of the polls the GOP is going to rally behind him anyway. That's not a republican thing. The dems do it, too.

And yes, Newt is saying whatever he thinks will propel him higher in the polls. But not to conservatives, per se, because many "true" conservatives are holding back their support. He's appealing to the mob mentality, the same ire that fueled the tea party. His statements don't need to make sense; they just need to be incendiary and aimed at Obama/liberals. And I'm sure his book sales reflect that strategy.