When I was a kid growing up in 1950's - 60's Houston, I could ride my bike all over town, go to the parks or build a fort down on the bayou, all without fear of being attacked! Today, I wouldn't live in Houston and I wouldn't let my children out of my sight! Children are our most precious resource and they are being exploited and abused in the most horrific ways! Our young people have the natural and civil right not to live in fear! What can we do to ensure future generations have the same loving and carefree childhood that I had?
- Sign in or Sign up to post comments
- send to friend
- report as spam
I grew up in the Bronx, NY, in the 1950's- 60's. What i am going to tell you in this post I'm sure many who read it will not believe it. When i was ten yrs. old i got a job in the local candy store putting the Sunday newspapers together. I got to work at 5:45 am, left around 10:am, i got paid five dollars. Most Sunday's i would go to Yankee Stadium with my best friend Richie, in those days you would see a {double- header- 2 games }for the price of 1.30 cent. The most unbelievable thing is how we got there, at ten years old we took the train all by ourselves at 11 am- returned home by train about 8pm. Our mothers had no fear of letting their 10 yr. kids travel on the subway alone. Today parents who allowed this would be accused of parental neglect. This was a time in the Bronx when your mom took you out in the summer time to cool off, no-ac in the apt. she would put a chair in the door space to keep it wide- open, let the apt. cool off, nothing was ever stolen. What changed, what happened to the quality of life in the Bronx. Some would say the neighborhood changed due to blacks, puerto- ricans moving in, but that had nothing to do with it, i know because i remained in the neighborhood until i was 42 years old, i eventually bought that candy store i worked in. What killed the neighborhood and most city's around America- and something that should be # one on the list to rid ourselves of is DRUGS!!!--- NOT BLACKS, PUERTO- RICANS,or any other reason than drugs. Until we get serious about ridding our city's of this cancer and putting in jail major drug dealers for life, we will continue to waste billions of dollars on an inept sometimes i think purposely so, can anyone name a major drug smuggler, dealer, who has been arrested ever. All we get is the street level addict thrown in jail, it makes no sense that these addicts never give up the higher- ups. Drugs are killing the inner-city how do we fight back, i mean we the people who are forced to live with this horror every day.
Growing up in the 50s, I am very much aware of them, as I was abused, and nothing was done about it-it was a secret shame no one talked about. So in one way, our society is better in that they work to end abuse of this nature.
But you are right about drugs. What I would like to see is the drug problem in this country treated like it is in Great Britain-as a disease. Some may disagree, but Britain has found that by going this route, crime has gone down. Take the profit motive out of drugs, and the criminals look elsewhere to find a way to make a quick buck.
Another factor in danger to our children is the loss of structured family life. Even though I grew up in a broken home, I knew I could always rely on my grandparents for guidance and for things to do after school while my mother was still at work. Now, with our economy so awful, parents must both work, sometimes more than one job, just to make ends meet. This means less time mentoring the kids and looking after their welfare. Our next President must address the pressing economic issues facing us so as to help save our families!
Along with the drugs came subjective morality. Many, including a number of judges, legislators, and prosecutors, refuse to condemn ANY behavior. A telling indication is changing the name of penitenturies to departments of correction. No matter what anyone does, it's not their fault. It is the fault of their environment, and we, the elitist among us can "correct" their behavior. If someone where caught molesting a child in the '50s or early '60s, they may not have lived to get to trial. Now, they may not even be charged. If they are charged, they may not get convicted, If they get convicted they will usually not get serious jail time.
Another result of subjective morality is the behavior of children. They have been told that their self-esteem is of utmost importance. Parents are not allowed to use corporeal punishment to correct uncivilized behavior. I would wager that if the two people writing previously were not subject to corporeal punishment, they new many who were. People have somehow come to the conclusion that children are little angels. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially regarding boys(I know, I was one). They are essentially wild animals, with little, or no regard or respect for others. Without some sort of correction, this results in uncivilized behavior which generates little love among their neighbors.
Finally, since most of us currently pay out nearly half our income in taxes, mother has to work. While many mothers have always worked outside the home, now, nearly all do, and the neighborhood is empty during the day. The children are warehoused while their parents work, if they are supervised at all. It is difficult to instill civilized behavior in a child in 2-3 hours of contact per day.
Along with the drugs came subjective morality.
What exactly does this mean? I understand that this formulation is a matter of faith for your world-view, sort of a Religious shorthand for 'everything that I haven't liked since the Beatles'. But have you ever actually thought about what you're saying?
Drugs in one form or another are the very hallmark of civilization: some anthropologists argue that nomadic humanity settled down to farm as a result of a desire to brew alcohol (takes time and certain cultivated products, you know)
Whether or not this is true, it is certainly true that all moral systems are subjective, based on a twisted formulation of 'I like this/don't like that', and supported by cultural conditioning in the most functional cases.
That said, we are not a forum on morality, but on politics and public policy. Therefore I suggest:
I like liberty.
I like deciding for myself.
I like being left alone.
I don't like anyone dictating my options.
I don't like your idea of what is moral or good.
I don't like the roles you have determined for me.
oh, yeah, and
I don't like anyone but me teaching my children what is right.
JR
Dear JR
Just wanted to tell you that your thoughts are the most in-line with
what I think u08 is trying to accomplish. I agree with everything you say.
Kind Regard and good luck to you and yours.
Kind Regards,
Patricia
Without some moral foundation, we become animals. Right and wrong cannot be left up to one's imagination. Without the recognition of evil, it is loosed upon the world. I am not a religious person, but I do recognize the source of moral definition in religion. Without this definition civilization would be impossible. Without this definition, I could treat my neighbor any way I wish, including eating him for supper. In other words, YES, I have given it considerable thought.
I totally agree with you on the issue of drugs. I have read "The Natural Mind" and concur with most of it. I only mentioned drugs as a coincidental with subjective morality. If each of us decides what is right or wrong, wihtout constraint, or moral foundation, what but chaos can result.
I like liberty also
I like deciding for myself also, but my decisions must have some moral base.
I like being left alone also
I don't like anyone dictating my options either, but there must be moral limits to these options
Since you have no idea what my idea of what is moral or good is , you don't know whether you like it or not.
I have determined no role for you.
I don't like anyone but you teaching your children what is right, but I would ask what is the source of the right that you teach? Have you thought about it? Where did it come from?
most people with synapses know the difference between right and wrong. its very easy to determine if you're willing to think about it. and if that's too complicated for you, just ask, would i want this done to me? you cant go wrong with that one in small groups and individual situations. murderers, rapists, extortionists, thieves, most politicians, all of these people do know the difference between right and wrong, they just dont care. that is the ONLY difference between people that act morally and those who do not. they all know, because right and wrong is not subjective. its not subjective because we are all human and all have the same basic needs and instincts. if we were to discuss morality with a crocodile, we may find we would differ with the smiley reptile on a few points, but crocodiles dont play a large part in modern american society. it seems that you heard the cliche movie super-villain argument of "what is right and wrong" and decided it was profound-sounding enough to be able to stymie most people. if you actually reflected on current society, it would become incredibly obvious that morality is not subjective, just oft ignored.
I agree that unless you are a cabbage, you have the ability to choose between right and wrong by instinct if nothing else.If you choose the wrong path, you should pay the price by never seeing the outside of a prison cell for the rest of your natural life. There is no way that anyone can guarantee to 110% certainty that a criminal is rehabilitated, and until they can, don't let them out!
On a technical note, a distinction must be made regarding this topic. I believe morality IS subjective. And, unless you are well versed in moral philosophy, you probably will not understand any of the reasons I give for that conviction (so I will spare you the enumeration). However, this does not mean that we have to allow some (or all) behaviors. A justification for punishment of certain behaviors need not depend on objective morality. Myself, I am a contractarian. This means, essentially, that morality is ultimately subjective, but that we create it in order to establish a stable society. Therefore, I would not hesitate for a moment to put a person in jail for life that molested a child, justified by my contractarian position (which entails moral subjectivity).
The reason I think this is an important distinction is that we need to separate the philosophical position of moral subjectivity with the (perhaps) mistaken response of hesitating to punish or condemn certain behaviors. I am not saying it is an indefensible position for a moral subjectivist, but rather, not a necessary position. Please remember to condemn how people use the philosophy to justify their behavior of letting criminals go, don't condemn the philosophy itself--which is, certainly correct in my opinion.
It is a perversion of the moral subjectivist position to assume that it means people engaging in certain behavior cannot be severly punished. In fact, it is actually a contradictory position in my opinion: 1)Wrong is relative; 2)It is wrong to put people in jail for molesting children. What do you mean WRONG to put them in jail?! They cannot argue that it is wrong. So, if it keeps my children safe and society stable, and morality is relative, then it is absolutely fine to put child-molesters in jail for molesting children. Right?
There are two misplaced perceptions in your observation (and I have been in Houston since the 1960s). One, the interactions between adults and children has not changed either moral and immoral. Media has provided the mixed blessing of awareness that resulted in children speaking out when inappropriately approached (even to the point of error) but at the same time the media cultivated the paranoia in both parent and criminal that foster todays situtation. Resently the criminal is much more likely to murder a child victim and hide the body to protect themselves as much as possible. We are just now possibly turning the corner on that characteristic due to advances in evidence evaluation. But the vast majority of Houston neighborhoods can afford children the liberty you knew as a child and almost everone knows where not to go. Child safety risk remains where it has always been...in the social gethering points for children church, school, and clubs (like scouts, marial arts, dance, etc.). those are not going away, nor should they. It is the parents responsibility to inform thier children how to respond to the world around them. To do so well is a challege for parenting if thier children are not to be in perpetual fear, but most parents seem to succeed.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
About twelve years ago a bus pulled up to the ER at the hospital I worked at. The driver rushed out and said he had a little girl going into siezures and was vomitting blood. By the time we got to her, she was already dead. The next day, I assisted in her autopsy. Her intestines contained condoms full of pure cocaine, she had been what they call a "Mule". She had been a beautiful little girl of maybe about twelve or thirteen. She should have been in a middle school somewhere dreaming the dreams that little girls have, instead of laying on a slab in the morgue! To transport her illicit cargo, she apparently lubricated the condoms with petroleum jelly, which breaks down latex, and thus resulted in her overdose. Witnessing this, I swore to that little girl and all the other children out there that are used, abused, and murdered by the monsters amongst us, that if I ever had the ability to prevent this kind of thing from ever happening to another child, I would do whatever it takes!
I would hope that the candidates Unity08 chooses, and the delegates themselves, would be champions of this cause!