From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 04:48:03 GMT

dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau) writes:

>slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:

>We seem to agree implicitly on a speculative point:  There's a strong,
>positive correlation between parents who would be delinquent, and those
>who are abusive.  (No flames, please; as you note, there may be others
>who have legitimate complaints about judgements and circumstances.)
>If this is so, then I'd argue that it may be a very worthwhile investment
>for the government to pick up the tab where the money can't be recovered
>from the parents.  The long term costs to society of having children grow
>up in an unhealthy environment are very high indeed.

I agree with the principal.  Let's look at the practice.  How many govt.
programs since Johnson have been set up to prevent the "unhealthy 
environment" of poverty?  Uh-huh.  How well does our foster care system
work to prevent the "unhealthy environment" of incompetent parents? Uh-huh.
Why is government money going to work now, when it hasn't worked for the
last thirty years?  

Paradise is wonderful, in theory, but no one can figure out how to build
it in practice.  The government has proved only that it is very good at
making things worse.  The answer is not government, it is community.

>[...]
>>That's what it comes down to.  If you want to make a change, you've 
>>got to be willing to put something on the line.  We are trying to use
>>government agencies to run interference for us.  They can't.  We cannot
>>legislate community.  We cannot legislate morality.  We cannot legislate
>>justice.  If you want to stop the violence, it is *YOUR* job to stop it.
>>Yours and mine.  Community can be re-built.  It's being done right now
>>by groups like the Guardian Angels (read P.J. O'Rourke's "Parliament of
>>Whores").  But we have to be willing to make a stand.  You are not just
>>making a stand for the neighbor kids - those kids live right next to
>>yours.  You are making a stand for your children as well.

>Yes, yes, and again, yes.  But how can the community *force* an abusive
>parent to stop?  How can they respond when the parent says, "Go away,
>it's none of your goddamn business!" ? Who will be the last resort?

You will be the last resort.  But not you alone.  
Abuse only works when it is hidden.  Gather friends and neighbors.
Take the man (or woman) out for a quiet discussion with five or six
neighbors.  Social pressure has to be brought to bear.  Do the same
with the spouse.  If you hear screaming next door, grab a couple
neighbors, walk over, knock on the door, and ask if they need help.
Don't leave.  Sit on the sidewalk and stare at the house.  Don't let
it remain hidden.  Don't ostracize the abusive parent(s), just make
them realize that everyone knows what's going on, everyone wants
it to stop, and everyone will keep offering help until it does.

This technique was used with great effect in our youth.  If it can work
against college administrators, ROTC buildings, and hazardous waste 
companies, how long do you think Mr. Jones is going to stand?  WE
were supposed to have learned something over the last two dozen years.
WE keep telling the next generation what great warriors we were in the
sixties and seventies.  WE are blowhards.  WE are gutless wonders.  
WE try to get the government we fought against to fight our simple
little battles for us.  NEWSFLASH:  The government can't do it.

>>>Why not give
>>>the affected and now nearly helpless family members -- the teenagers
>>>-- a better chance to help get out of dysfunctional families, rather
>>>than relying on the meddlesome government to start the process?

>>If this were a better chance, I'd say go for it.  It isn't.  It's a
>>non-workable idea freshly painted in dangerous rhetoric.  It creates
>>the impression that we don't have to worry about divorced kids,
>>because they are "competent" and can - somehow - take care of 
>>themselves, with no sweat on our part.  That's a lie.  If we don't
>>sweat, we won't like the payback.

>Alas, I have to say the same thing in response to your suggestion
>that community can solve the problem.  It can't.  Society's structure
>today is such that it is very, very difficult to rebuild the community
>bonds that we once had.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't try; it just
>means that we do need to have alternative solutions.  In the meantime,
>trying to make the community solve the problem is a non-workable idea
>freshly painted in dangerous rhetoric.

			      NO.
Would you accept your answer from a company dumping toxic waste in their
own, private landfill?   "I'm sorry, but society's structure is such 
today, that it is very, very difficult to dispose of this any other way.
We've been trying, but we're using this alternate solution until we
come up with something."  You'll fight for a green Amazon, you'll make
up little placards about fertilizers, but let the s**t hit the fan in
your own neighborhood, and you want to get a social worker, a lawyer,
anybody at all, just so you don't have to clean up your own back yard.

Baby Boomers are Busted Brats.  They'll fight for anything that doesn't
cost them a dime in their own sweat.  Building a community is just too
damn hard.  Let's try buying one from the government, in the form of
new agencies, and new laws.  Money don't buy this one, people.

>By the way, you keep suggesting that I've claimed kids can take care
>of themselves.  I've never, ever said that.  I *have* said that in
>many cases, they should be allowed to initiate court action.  The end
>result of that action would include a determination of what responsible
>party *would* take care of the kids.

You may not have said that, but Hillary did when she used the word "divorce".
And according to the law, a party cannot initiate court action unless they
are responsible under the law (that's the whole point of minors, guardians,
etc.).  You may not realize it, but if you want kids to be able to 
"initiate court action", you are claiming they are legally responsible 
entities capable of taking care of themselves, within the meaning of the law.

>>And I have a question for you.  Let's say a 12-year old tries the
>>divorce route.  The judge finds the 12-year old competent (congrats to
>>the parents for raising a mature kid).  But the judge *also* finds
>>the parents competent.  Should the divorce be allowed?  Is this a
>>"no-fault" divorce?  Or is it a "for-cause" divorce?  Used to be, 
>>couples could only get divorced for cause (e.g. infidelity).  Nowadays, 
>>that's not true.  Hillary didn't specify, as far as I know.

>>So, look your 12-year old in the eye across the courtroom.  Should
>>your child be allowed to divorce you?  Is that child as competent as
>>this judge has deemed (the judge has only known the kid a few hours)?
>>Whaddayasay?

>I'd say I wish somebody had the wisdom of Solomon (the allegorical one,
>if not the real one) to solve problems like this.  Clearly in a situation
>like this, no matter how "competent" the parents are, *something* went
>wrong.  Perhaps the judge and/or counselors, working with the parents
>and child, could work out a solution which would allow the child
>to return to the parents' home.  But if things were so bad that the child
>brought the parents to court (after approval by the counselors and/or
>arbitrators I suggested previously), then s/he probably should be given
>other options about where to live.

>Dan Breslau
>dan@codex.com
>Disc claimer:  "Hey!  That's my floppy!"

Well, you said you wanted a child to be able to initiate court action.
I don't see how a "counselor or abitrator" has any right to interfere
with the right to initiate court action, but your the one who wants to
make up these rules, so I guess you have it resolved in your own mind.

You think these divorces should be "no-fault" then.  NO clearly definable
cause is necessary in order to initiate and complete this kid's divorce
from her/his parents.  Think about the consequences to this idea, ladies
and gentlemen.  Think very hard.  Then try to convince me that no-fault 
divorce contributes to family stability and the maintenance of family 
values.

Steve Kellmeyer
Newsgroups: misc.kids