From: dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Organization: none
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:24:32 GMT

[This will have to be my last post on the subject. I have to much to
do here, and even my "own time" is limited...]

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

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

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

>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?  

Actually, Head Start and certain other programs are extremely effective,
to my knowledge.  The trouble is (and here I think you'll agree) that the
government invests 95% of its efforts into correcting the symptoms, not 
the problems.

As for the foster care system: A large part of the trouble, it appears,
is that the way the government manages foster homes breeds instability.
A child is placed in one or more foster homes temporarily, moved from
one to another, and then moved (often unwillingly) back into the parent's
home when the parents promise to be good little boys and girls [sic] and
not abuse their children again.

If the children could initiate the court actions which today lead into
this cycle, perhaps the original court decision could include a more
permanent solution giving the child more stability.

[...]
>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.

Parents who abuse their children, openly enough that the neighbors
are aware of it, are probably pretty low on the ethical and moral
sensitivity scales.  College administrators and bureaucrats, believe
it or not, are probably much higher, and might even be willing to talk
to people camping on their doorsteps.  Even so, most demonstrations that I
am aware of only achieved a small fraction of their goals (if, indeed,
a coherent enough statement of goals could be produced), and that doesn't
even mention Kent State.

OK, I'm a gutless wonder.  I have an allergic reaction to bullets.  If
I have good reason to fear 'Mr. Jones' may have a gun, as my friends
experienced, I'm probably going to ask the paid professionals to intervene
(as they did) rather than try to do it myself.

That aside... what if there are no visible or audible signs that the
abuse occurs?  What if we're talking about a nice, secluded suburban
home, where the neighbors wouldn't be aware that anything is wrong?

[...]
>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.

This is a straw man argument, and it wouldn't break any camel's back.
When I wrote about society being dysfunctional, I didn't say that it
was an excuse for *the offender* to use.  I also believe that the company's
bureaucrats would be more likely to listen to community pressure than
an abusive parent would be.  And if they don't, you're damn right I'd
try to bring government to bear.

[...]
>>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.

I'm claiming no such thing.  I'm claiming that they are able to recognize
that they're in a situation which is dangerous to them, and that when that
happens, they should be able to use the courts as a last resort to get out
of such a situation.  That does not mean they are fully capable of taking
care of themselves in every way, nor does it mean they would have to
take care of themselves in every way when after a settlement is made.

Unless you have a source for Clinton's remarks that I don't have, you have
nothing to back up your assertion about her, either.  "Divorce" in modern
context doesn't mean the ex-spouses have nothing to do with each other
from then on; usually, one spouse must continue supporting the other
(and/or the children) to some extent.  So with "family divorce".  It
does not imply the children are adults who can take care of themselves.

>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.

Almost.  I certainly have ideas, and I'm (obviously) willing to debate them.
(Though not without end, as I had to mention above.)  I know that there
is no easy fix for these problems, but I also believe that an older child
deserves some sort of voice in determining his or her fate.

As it may be... if we're making a new right for children, we can shape
it to some extent as we wish.  If we want to say that they have a right
to initiate action -- but only through a counselor first -- then we
can make that part of the rules.  In fact, it answers nicely your point
above that minors can't initiate court action.  OK, the minor doesn't
legally initiate the court action -- the counselor does, after seeing
enough reason to think that the family can't be healed in any other way.

>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.

It doesn't.  It may contribute to the break-up of dysfunctional families,
much more than it does to the break-up of positive ones, and in my mind, that's
probably a good thing.  My "family values" do not go so far as to say that
we should always keep the family together at any cost.  There are times,
places, and people where the family simply has to be split up.  I'd rather
the family members themselves make that decision.  Today, they don't.

(Sigh.  The above words can probably be taken out of context easily enough
to paint me as anti-family, which seems to be as inflammatory a label
today as "Communist" was in the 1950's.  I'm definitely pro-family; I'm just not 
pro-abusive-family.  Even gutless wonders like me, though, have to take
a stand somewhere.)

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



Newsgroups: misc.kids,rec.arts.books