Sorry for the blog lapse.  I've been away on business, and now I'm back.  Arguably the best article I read during my brief haitus is the one I'm featuring here by Michael Medved.  In light of the Jessie Davis tragedy (from my home state of Ohio, no less), Medved says the things that our politically too correct society and the media elites thereof are afraid to say, lest they be seen as "judgemental" or "insensitive."

Screw that, I say!  Medved is 100% right on the money.  The truth hurts, but sometimes pain is good.


The Jessie Davis case and dangers of out-of-wedlock parenthood
by Michael Medved
Wednesday, June 27, 2007

The sad case of pregnant, murdered Jessie Davis and her married lover (and alleged killer) Bobbie Cutts threatens to dominate cable news for months to come – especially now that Paris Hilton’s out of jail and the justice system has established the paternity of Anna Nicole’s baby.

Unlike these other media obsessions, however, this horrifying story conveys some significant messages and should help to refocus attention on the nation’s most significant and menacing social problem: the unchecked epidemic and unquestioning acceptance of out of wedlock birth.

Jessie Davis died within days of giving birth to her second illegitimate child, both of them fathered by Mr. Cutts. This busy police officer also found time to produce progeny with his wife, and with another extracurricular involvement (who eventually complained to authorities of his threats and harassment). The tragic details of the Davis disappearance included the testimony of her stricken two year old, Blake, found alone in their home in a dirty diaper, giving police only three enigmatic (and heartbreaking statements): “Mommy crying,” “Mommy broke table,” and “Mommy in rug,”

Numerous commentators worry over the future of this devastated little boy but fail to make the obvious observation about his pre-murder situation: that it’s a shame whenever any child is left alone with an unmarried mother in an obviously dysfunctional situation.

We’ve become so reluctant to issue “judgmental” comments that we refuse to discuss the way this case highlights the individual tragedies and gigantic social cost when one-third of all new babies in America are born to unmarried women.

Two other recent stories further demonstrate the vulnerability of children placed into these unhappy circumstances. In Pittsburgh, five kids below the age of seven died in a fire when their moms (both of them unwed mothers) locked them in an apartment while they went out together to a bar. In Lake Stevens, Washington, a nineteen-old-mother inadvertently killed her four-month-old son by taping a pacifier into his mouth so he’d keep quiet and she could catch up on her sleep. When she awoke (at 11 a.m. the next day) she found the baby’s lifeless body, but hesitated for more than half-hour to consult her boyfriend before calling 911. She also told police of her previous policy of binding the child in a “baby straightjacket” – using a blanket to tie his hands and arms to stop his irritating squirming.

These extreme cases hardly represent all single mothers, many of whom most certainly work hard and love their children and try to instill decent values. But any two-parent family that’s struggled with child-rearing can only imagine the vastly greater challenges faced by an unattached mother (or father) with no partner to share the tasks of earning money and caring for the young.

While some children of never-marred mothers do indeed provide inspiring, against-the-odds success stories the overall-statistics provide a grim reminder of the destructive impact of out-of-wedlock birth. Children from fatherless households represent some 70% of the prison population, and remain similarly over-represented among high school drop-outs, drug users, gang members, and the poor. The notorious black-white gap in educational and economic achievement stems in large part from the collapse of marriage in much of the African American community. Among blacks, close to 70% of all new babies are born to unwed mothers—about three times the rate of illegitimate birth that prevails among whites and Asians. No serious scholar or community advocate doubts that reducing the devastating rate of out-of-wedlock births among African-Americans would help move us toward the goal of a more level playing field among our various ethnic communities.

Unfortunately, we live in a society in which political correctness dictates that we must remain silent in the face of millions upon millions of children (of every racial group—more than 20% of white babies are born to unmarried mothers) raised by single mothers who are often poor, distracted, unprepared and stressed out. The fundamental principle in arguments about gay marriage deserves emphatic reaffirmation in this context: that children thrive best when nourished by a permanent combination (we call it matrimony) of one male and one female parent.

Rather than normalizing situations like that of Jessie Davis (who hoped to raise two children with no chance of marrying their father) as just another “family option” or “lifestyle choice,” we need to re-establish healthy norms – advancing the undeniable premise that most children will benefit from growing up in a stable, two parent, two gender household.

For pro-lifers, this recognition presents a painful dilemma: arguing that a baby deserves better than growing up as the child of a young, irresponsible, unmarried teenager will lead some people to push for abortion as a preferable alternative. The answer to such logic is two-fold:

First, it’s obvious that abortion has powerfully fueled, rather than reducing, the rate of out-of-wedlock birth. Before Roe V. Wade, less than 8% of American children arrive at unmarried households; today the rate is nearly 33%. By promoting the idea of sex-without-consequences, the easy availability of abortion led to more, not less, unmarried mothers.

Second, the notion that abortion represents the chief alternative to raising an illegitimate child ignores the powerful and positive option of adoption. Rather than removing the stigma against unwed motherhood, and encouraging single moms to keep and raise their babies, society should do everything possible to urge single, pregnant girls to give their babies the ultimate gift of love by arranging their adoption into loving, functional, two parent homes.

No one would argue that government should seize control of babies to remove them forcibly from their unwed mothers (except in the most dangerous and irresponsible circumstances). But by the same token, the authorities should do nothing to validate single parent households or to make it easier for unmarried women to keep their babies. The best interest of the child dictates a potent push for adoption, not single parenthood.

Since millions of Americans will now examine every detail of the Jessie Davis murder case, they ought to take a little time to consider this aspect of her situation. For two-year-old Blake, it didn’t represent kindness or generosity for Ms. Davis to keep the child and to attempt to raise him in her painful position. The more tender, loving, unselfish and, ultimately, more motherly decision would have been to place the child in a two parent home with vastly better odds of achieving happiness and success.

Michael Medved is a film critic, best-selling author and nationally syndicated radio talk show host.

I wrote the following article for Father's Day one year ago.  The response I received from readers all over the country was nothing short of amazing.  So, for this year's Father's Day, I've decided to post it again (albeit in a somewhat shortened version as a New Visions Commentary).  The black community is disproportionatey affected by an epidemic of fatherlessness.  The time is long overdue for us as blacks to finally start dealing this, the dirtiest of our laundry.

Happy Father's Day.

Why Father's Day Saddens Me
 
 
By Dutch Martin
 
 
A New Visions Commentary paper published May 2007 by The National Center for Public Policy Research, 501 Capitol Court NE #200, Washington, D.C. 20002, 202/543-4110, Fax 202/543-5975, E-Mail Project21@nationalcenter.org, Web http://www.project21.org. Reprints permitted provided source is credited.
 
 
 
As the product of a single-parent home, I always have mixed feelings when Father's Day rolls around.
 
What could I understand about the importance of fathers when my own formative years were shaped by the absence of one?  Much has been written about the negative effects of fatherlessness on black children, and I definitely have some insights to share on how important fathers are and how misguided government policies undermined black families - including my own.   
   
Historically, the black family was strong and intact.  Even in the worst of times, when racism dominated our society, our community was still dedicated to keeping families together.  Not only did we survive in the face of adversity - we excelled.
   
What happened?   
 
Ironically, it was LBJ's "War on Poverty," which began shortly after the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1963 and marked the turning point for many black families.  It created a welfare state that engulfed black America and proved to be devastating to pre-existing black economic and social progress.
 
A government bureaucracy was created that basically subsidized irresponsibility and social dysfunction.  Unmarried black women were financially rewarded for having children out of wedlock and weak-willed black men were excused for being lazy, irresponsible losers - siring as many illegitimate kids with as many women as they pleased.  Why not?  The government would take care of their progeny.
 
Having survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, the black family began a rapid moral disintegration under a program that was sold as an emergency rescue but was transformed into a way of life.  No wonder so many blacks just sat on their hands and did nothing after the civil-rights movement.   
   
For three generations - until welfare reform was adopted in 1996 - young black girls were raised and culturally conditioned to be "baby mamas" instead of loving and nurturing wives and mothers and to prefer "baby daddies" over responsible, loving and supportive husbands and fathers.  The mere idea of marriage as a sacred institution for the proper rearing of children became a joke.   Too many black men saw no reason whatsoever to be committed husbands and fathers.  Why should they?  Welfare rendered their role in the family unnecessary.
 
In her book The Burden of Bad Ideas, Manhattan Institute scholar Heather MacDonald shows an example of this irrelevance when she recounts a woman receiving welfare benefits being asked what she would do without them, the woman replied, "I'd get me a husband."   
   
I grew up in a welfare family.  I was the youngest of six children with an absentee father.  My family life was dysfunctional to say the least, and not having my father in my life left a void in my soul that, at times, was emotionally crippling.
 
I had no one to teach me how to drive a car, tie a necktie, balance a checkbook and relate to women.  In short, there was no one to teach me how to be a man.  I had to learn many of life's lessons of manhood the hard way - on my own, for the most part.   
   
Reflecting on the spiritual and moral decay of being raised in a fatherless welfare family and of other families in our neighborhood, makes me both angry and sad.  Worst of all, today's black "leaders" don't have the guts to admit that the welfare state - which was a political meal ticket for many - has failed black America.
 
Don't let anyone kid you, folks.  Fatherlessness hurts like hell!  You never get over it; you just deal with it.  I've been dealing with it for 33 years.
 
 
#  #  #

From Yahoo! News:

The NAACP said it is cutting about 40 percent of its national staff and closing, at least temporarily, its seven regional offices to cover three years of budget shortfalls.

The civil rights group will reduce its staff from 119 to 70 through layoffs and attrition to avoid draining more of its shrinking reserves, interim president and chief executive officer Dennis Hayes said. The Baltimore headquarters will remain open and still offer services provided by the regional offices, he said.

"We are right-sizing our organization to meet present circumstances," Hayes told The Baltimore Sun for an article published Thursday.

"We had the unexpected departure of our CEO at a time when we were already without a chief development officer. So, understandably, we have to regenerate our revenue machine, our fundraising machine, to get us to where we should have been," Hayes said.

Bruce Gordon quit as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's president and CEO in March after 19 months on the job.

The NAACP has used about $10 million in reserve funds to cover shortfalls over the past three years, Hayes said. He declined to say how much is left in the fund.

Hayes gave several reasons for the budget shortfall.

"Gas is more expensive, the cost of living is higher, people are not giving as much as they used to," he said. "And membership, we always need more members. Our impression is we can improve and enhance the way we do things."

Don't blame it on the gas bill, my friend.  In my humble opinion, the main reason why the NAACP is a sinking ship boils down to one man: Julian Bond.  The Chairman of the Board is nothing more than a Bush-hating, anti-Republican, anti-conservative, far-left bomb-thrower.  Neither he nor the organization is doing anything to address to myriad of social and pathological problems plaguing the black community (and constantly trying to "blame whitey" just doesn't hack it), the biggest one being the breakdown of the two-parent black family.

As far as I'm concerned, it was only a matter of time before this bird was going to fly apart. 

A better and much more relevant organization to send donations and contributions to is BOND: Brotherhood Organization for a New Destiny.  The organization's motto says it all:

"Rebuilding the family by rebuilding the man."

From Foxnews.com:














Actor and now former star of the ABC hit medical drama "Grey's Anatomy," Isaiah Washington, despite groveling before the PC masses and atoning for making an anti-gay slur earlier this year toward co-star T.R. Knight, has been fired from the show.  ABC has reportedly refused to renew his contract for next season.

Contrast this to the MSM and Hollywood treatment bestowed upon a certain lesbian, loud-mouthed, politically inept comedienne.

Rosie O'Donnell trashes her country, our military, and the president, and actually makes EXCUSES for terrorists - without apology! - and NBC is offering her TWO - not one - TWO shows!  Isaiah Washington makes one anti-gay slur in private against a fellow actor, admits what he did was wrong, apologizes a trillion times, checks himself into anti-gay "rehab," and even does a public service announcement for a gay rights group - and ABC still gives him the boot!

 

I've added emphasis in various parts, mainly for comic relief.  If you can get through this without laughing your head off, you're better than me.

From Yahoo! News:

Paris Hilton is Released from Jail

Paris Hilton was released from jail early Thursday due to an unspecified medical condition after serving only three days of a 23-day sentence.

She was sent home with an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet and must remain there for 40 days, according to sheriffs spokesman Steve Whitmore.

Hilton checked into the Century Regional Detention Facility in Lynwood on Sunday night to begin serving time for violating probation.

The 26-year-old hotel heiress surrendered with little fanfare after a surprise appearance at the MTV Movie Awards, where she worked the red carpet in a strapless designer gown.

"I am trying to be strong right now," she told reporters at the time. "I'm ready to face my sentence. Even though this is a really hard time, I have my family, my friends and my fans [her "fans"????  What has she done in her life to generate a fan base?]  to support me, and that's really helpful."

Hilton was housed in the "special needs" unit of the 13-year-old jail, separate from most of its 2,200 inmates. The unit contains 12 two-person cells reserved for police officers, public officials, celebrities and other high-profile inmates. She didn't have a cellmate.

After her first night in jail, Hilton's lawyer, Richard A. Hutton, said she was doing well under the circumstances.

"She's using this time to reflect on her life, to see what she can do [this part really got me] to make the world better [I can't talk!  I'm laughing too hard!] and hopefully, in my opinion, to change the attitudes that exist about her among many people," Hutton said after visiting Hilton.

When she was sentenced May 4, Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer ruled that she would not be allowed any work release, furloughs or use of an alternative jail or electronic monitoring in lieu of jail.

Sheriff's officials had said she would serve about 23 days of her 45 day sentence behind bars because of state rules allowing shorter sentences for good behavior.

The star of "The Simple Life" reality TV show pleaded no contest to a reckless-driving charge in January and was sentenced to 36 months' probation. When she was later pulled over by the California Highway Patrol, Hilton was told that she was driving on a suspended license and signed a document acknowledging she was not to drive. She was then pulled over by sheriff's deputies on Feb. 27 and charged with violating probation.

You can consider this blog post an extension of the previous one.  In fact, here's an excerpt from the article on single mothers by choice, that discusses the point where single mothers ultimately decide to marry, and the challenges inherent in the resulting step-families.

And what if the [single] mother discovers that she really would like to be in a relationship? Does her subsequent marriage to a different man help the child? All too often, the answer is no. The presence of a stepfather actually exacerbates, rather than relieves, many of the problems of unmarried parenthood. Children in step-parent families show more developmental difficulties than those in intact nuclear families.  The adjustment of children in step-parent families is similar to that  of children in one-parent families.9 The step-father and children can easily become rivals for the mother’s attention. The introduction of a new parent disrupts established loyalties and creates conflicted loyalties, creating complications for discipline.10 The probability of a boy becoming incarcerated is greater for the sons in step-parent families, than even those in single-mother households...


I'll requote from the piece discussing women who choose anonymous sperm donors:

When a woman chooses to have a child using an anonymous sperm donor, she is making a plan that her child will never have a relationship with his or her father. But she has no right to deprive her child of the paternal relationship. Even with the best of intentions and efforts, fathers and children sometimes have no bond.  Sometimes the father dies. Sometimes, he deserts the family, or the mother ejects him from the household. Even in those sad cases, children and their fathers can sometimes create a connection. Using an anonymous sperm donor deliberately cuts off the paternal affiliation from the very beginning.

No sooner after I hit the "Publish" button on the previous blog did I find the following article, which drives the two above points home nicely, in the footnote. 

Do you think that articles like this one will cause radical feminists to have second thoughts about their anti-man, anti-two-parent-family stance?  I won't hold my breath.

Here's an excerpt:

When she was 32, my mother -- single, and worried that she might never marry and have a family -- allowed a doctor wearing rubber gloves to inject a syringe of sperm from an unknown man into her uterus so that she could have a baby. I am the result: a donor-conceived child.

And for a while, I was pretty angry about it.

I was angry at the idea that where donor conception is concerned, everyone focuses on the "parents" -- the adults who can make choices about their own lives. The recipient gets sympathy for wanting to have a child. The donor gets a guarantee of anonymity and absolution from any responsibility for the offspring of his "donation." As long as these adults are happy, then donor conception is a success, right?

Not so. The children born of these transactions are people, too. Those of us in the first documented generation of donor babies -- conceived in the late 1980s and early '90s, when sperm banks became more common and donor insemination began to flourish -- are coming of age, and we have something to say.

I'm here to tell you that emotionally, many of us are not keeping up. We didn't ask to be born into this situation, with its limitations and confusion. It's hypocritical of parents and medical professionals to assume that biological roots won't matter to the "products" of the cryobanks' service, when the longing for a biological relationship is what brings customers to the banks in the first place.

We offspring are recognizing the right that was stripped from us at birth -- the right to know who both our parents are.

And we're ready to reclaim it.

Click here to read the whole article.

Here is a quote from a very interesting article about women, that is, affluent, educated women, who choose to become single mothers, and an organization whose name and mission, Single Mothers by Choice, is self-explanatory:

In spite of all these uncertainties and difficulties, many well-educated women nonetheless choose single motherhood. A woman can become an unmarried mother by choice by two different routes. She can have a sexual encounter with someone she knows, choosing not to marry. Or, she can be artificially inseminated with the sperm of an anonymous sperm donor.

Agreeing to have a child together without any kind of commitment differs slightly from children born to cohabiting couples, in that these couples may not even live together. The mother may assure the father that she has no intention of asking for financial or emotional support. She may even refrain from putting his name on the birth certificate.

The trouble with this verbal agreement is that it is not enforceable.  She may decide a year or two later that being a single mother was more difficult than she expected. If the father declines to help, she may take him to court to force him to pay child support. On the other hand, the father might be the one to change his mind. He may find his child more interesting and attractive once he or she is out of diapers. If the mother refuses to honour visitation and other paternal rights, he may take her to court to have them enforced.

No matter which parent initiates this dispute, one thing is certain: The mother who intended to have a child “on her own,” ends up instead with a lifelong relationship with a man she didn’t like well enough to marry.

The anonymous sperm donor approach has the advantage of avoiding complications with the genetic father of the child. But what may seem like an advantage to the mother is a problem for the child.  Some children of anonymous sperm donors are beginning to come forward to tell their stories in op-ed articles and on the internet. They have very definite feelings about having no father: They don’t like it.

When a woman chooses to have a child using an anonymous sperm donor, she is making a plan that her child will never have a relationship with his or her father. But she has no right to deprive her child of the paternal relationship. Even with the best of intentions and efforts, fathers and children sometimes have no bond.  Sometimes the father dies. Sometimes, he deserts the family, or the mother ejects him from the household. Even in those sad cases, children and their fathers can sometimes create a connection. Using an anonymous sperm donor deliberately cuts off the paternal affiliation from the very beginning.

Click here to read the full article.