Wouldn't Want To Go To School Today

(Way Back Jack) wrote:
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:04:58 -0500, Rowley
wrote:

Family unit.

Ah yes, the family unit.

In today's society fraught with distraction and pop culture, it is
difficult for two parents to raise children. But when one of those
parents is absent, spreading his seed all over town to make more
babies for me to support, the burden on the remaining parent can be
unbearable.

What type of example does Pappy set? He should be supporting his
offspring, and not just financially, but also morally. He should be
home to ensure that they are studying their letters and ciphers
instead of running the streets.

Ozzie and Harriet notwithstanding, I doubt that most men did so in the
50s. And 50 years earlier, when they worked 10 or 12 hour shifts,
they certainly weren't home raising the kids. And in the 19th
century, they worked six day weeks of 12-hour days.

And it was considered normal for the kids to run the streets. When I
was growing up, I got out of school, went home and dropped off my
books and was expected to be out on the streets playing. My mom and
dad (and especially my dad) griped at me for NOT going out on the
streets with my peers, and instead choosing to stay home and read.

And that was before LBJ.

Yep, the destruction of the family unit began with Uncle Lyndon.

Clearly not. The destruction of the family unit began with the end of
the family farm and the family business as the basic units of American
economic society.

lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
Lojban language www.lojban.org

(Way Back Jack) wrote:
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:38:25 -0500, Rowley
wrote:
"Criminology:

Many forests have been destroyed for books that attempt to explain the
etiology of crime.

In fact, the answer is simple: moral bankruptcy.

Moral bankruptcy implies some type of debt to morality. But since
there is no universal morality, there can be no moral bankruptcy.

lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
Lojban language www.lojban.org

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:56:43 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:

(Way Back Jack) wrote:
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:38:25 -0500, Rowley
wrote:
"Criminology:

Many forests have been destroyed for books that attempt to explain the
etiology of crime.

In fact, the answer is simple: moral bankruptcy.

Moral bankruptcy implies some type of debt to morality. But since
there is no universal morality, there can be no moral bankruptcy.

Certain moral standards are instinctive.

At the risk of sounding corny and fundamental to you slick types, do
unto others .....

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:55:20 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:

(Way Back Jack) wrote:
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:04:58 -0500, Rowley
wrote:

Family unit.

Ah yes, the family unit.

In today's society fraught with distraction and pop culture, it is
difficult for two parents to raise children. But when one of those
parents is absent, spreading his seed all over town to make more
babies for me to support, the burden on the remaining parent can be
unbearable.

What type of example does Pappy set? He should be supporting his
offspring, and not just financially, but also morally. He should be
home to ensure that they are studying their letters and ciphers
instead of running the streets.

Ozzie and Harriet notwithstanding, I doubt that most men did so in the
50s. And 50 years earlier, when they worked 10 or 12 hour shifts,
they certainly weren't home raising the kids. And in the 19th
century, they worked six day weeks of 12-hour days.

What you doubt about the 50s and reality are poles apart.

And it was considered normal for the kids to run the streets. When I
was growing up, I got out of school, went home and dropped off my
books and was expected to be out on the streets playing. My mom and
dad (and especially my dad) griped at me for NOT going out on the
streets with my peers, and instead choosing to stay home and read.

Yup. We kicked ass after school; always playing some kind of game or
sport, until supper.

After supper, the school books came out. Dad saw to it.

When we completed our home assignments, we might have time before
retiring to watch "I Love Lucy."

And that was before LBJ.

Yep, the destruction of the family unit began with Uncle Lyndon.

Clearly not. The destruction of the family unit began with the end of
the family farm and the family business as the basic units of American
economic society.

Nope, the destruction during my lifetime commenced when LBJ gave us
his Great Society. The OOWs bear me out; not that I need them.

Way Back Jack wrote:

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:55:30 -0500, Rowley
wrote:



Eh...


Recall the summer I was 14, having to walk home from downtown
Baltimore because the money was gone, eaten up by the pinball
machines, and other such nonsense, even carfare money. To get to my
white lower middle class 'hood, it was necessary to walk thru the
poorest ghetto in town. No one bothered me; did it many times, even
at night.

Fast fwd. 10 years, in that same ghetto, I dodged firebombs and rocks
while serving in the Army Natl. Guard during the MLK riots. Still,
there were quite a few areas of the city that were still livable and
civilized. Even well into the 1970s when I went rural, there were
livable areas.

So that is still going on on a daily basis?

It wasn't until 1984 that my parents gave it up. They tolerated the
insults, youths grabbing their crotches when they passed, auto
vandalism, theft of porch furniture, and two attempted burglaries. But
when two elderly ladies on their block were raped, one in daylight on
her front steps, they joined in white flight. At age 63, they didn't
want to uproot from the old 'hood where they raised their two boys,
but felt that they had no choice.

You say "that my parents gave it up"... How many other old timers were
still living in that area at that time - what percentage of them had
already fled to somewhere else?....

White flight... people leave and sell their houses... neighborhoods
change because to that... whose the blame for that?

Thing is - even with the experiences you had, that doesn't mean that
things are bad all over. Is this the case where you are living now -
having to dodge fire bombs and rocks?

Martin

Way Back Jack wrote:

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:56:43 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:


(Way Back Jack) wrote:

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:38:25 -0500, Rowley
wrote:

"Criminology:

Many forests have been destroyed for books that attempt to explain the
etiology of crime.

In fact, the answer is simple: moral bankruptcy.

Moral bankruptcy implies some type of debt to morality. But since
there is no universal morality, there can be no moral bankruptcy.


Certain moral standards are instinctive.

At the risk of sounding corny and fundamental to you slick types,

do unto others .....

before they can do unto you?.....

Martin

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:38:25 -0500, Rowley
wrote:


You say "that my parents gave it up"... How many other old timers were
still living in that area at that time - what percentage of them had
already fled to somewhere else?....

About 3/4 of the old timers had been terrorized into white flight by
1984.

White flight... people leave and sell their houses... neighborhoods
change because to that... whose the blame for that?

Must be the fault of them evil white folks for leaving and not letting
themselves be terrorized. (snicker)

Thing is - even with the experiences you had, that doesn't mean that
things are bad all over. Is this the case where you are living now -
having to dodge fire bombs and rocks?

The county is reportedly 95% white, altho I suspect it's a little less
than that, maybe 90%. So what do *you* think?

Haven't really had to dodge anything the past 35 years. One time a
white tail deer got mad at his reflection and rammed his head into a
window. Another time a turkey made a pest of himself for about a
month; terrorized the cats; and roosted on the roof even in thunder
storms, leaving behind voluminous piles of **** that slid down into
roof gutters .... but we didn't have a cricket problem that August.
There's a persistent problem with woodchucks and their burrows
alongside the eastern property line where there's a row of black
cherry and mulberry trees.

All quite tolerable vis-a-vis life in the city.

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:39:48 -0500, Rowley
wrote:

Way Back Jack wrote:

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:56:43 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:


(Way Back Jack) wrote:

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:38:25 -0500, Rowley
wrote:

"Criminology:

Many forests have been destroyed for books that attempt to explain the
etiology of crime.

In fact, the answer is simple: moral bankruptcy.

Moral bankruptcy implies some type of debt to morality. But since
there is no universal morality, there can be no moral bankruptcy.


Certain moral standards are instinctive.

At the risk of sounding corny and fundamental to you slick types,

do unto others .....

before they can do unto you?.....

It's real simple: treat others as you'd like to be treated.

Wonder why you folks have such a hard time graspin' the concept..

Way Back Jack wrote:

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:38:25 -0500, Rowley
wrote:



You say "that my parents gave it up"... How many other old timers were
still living in that area at that time - what percentage of them had
already fled to somewhere else?....


About 3/4 of the old timers had been terrorized into white flight by
1984.

So 75% upped and left and abandoned their houses.... leaving the other
25% to survive on their own....

Reminds me of the old joke about two guys crossing a pasture and a bull
chases them - the one guy asks "You think we can out run it?" and the
other replies "I don't have to out run it, just out run you...."

Wondering why your parents waited - didn't property values start going
down as soon as the first couple old families moved and the other people
moved into their houses?....


White flight... people leave and sell their houses... neighborhoods
change because to that... whose the blame for that?


Must be the fault of them evil white folks for leaving and not letting
themselves be terrorized. (snicker)

You seem to want to blame someone - why not them?....

Why were there not any "good" people buying the houses that the got
sold? Weren't there good well paying jobs in the area to attract people
like that? Why were all these old people's grown kids not staying in the
area to raise their own families?


Thing is - even with the experiences you had, that doesn't mean that
things are bad all over. Is this the case where you are living now -
having to dodge fire bombs and rocks?


The county is reportedly 95% white, altho I suspect it's a little less
than that, maybe 90%. So what do *you* think?

If that's true - then it is either some part of that 95% who was
terrorizing the area, or that for some reason the other 5% were made to
become concentrated into that particular area.... What does any of the
other data say? What percentage of the county was above the property
line and how many were below? If just the five percent was below - then
how did they afford to buy the houses that your parents neighbors sold them?

Haven't really had to dodge anything the past 35 years. One time a
white tail deer got mad at his reflection and rammed his head into a
window. Another time a turkey made a pest of himself for about a
month; terrorized the cats; and roosted on the roof even in thunder
storms, leaving behind voluminous piles of **** that slid down into
roof gutters .... but we didn't have a cricket problem that August.
There's a persistent problem with woodchucks and their burrows
alongside the eastern property line where there's a row of black
cherry and mulberry trees.

All quite tolerable vis-a-vis life in the city.

Ah - so its only city schools that you wouldn't want to go to today - or
more specifically the school in the old neighborhood that your parents
abandoned...

Here in Austin the reverse is happening - people are buying old homes in
poor areas and turning them into McMansions - or at least they were till
the credit dried up... the poor neighbors don't like it as it drives up
their property taxes.....

ying and yang - what goes around comes around.....

Martin

Way Back Jack wrote:

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:39:48 -0500, Rowley
wrote:


Way Back Jack wrote:


On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:56:43 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:



(Way Back Jack) wrote:


On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:38:25 -0500, Rowley
wrote:


"Criminology:

Many forests have been destroyed for books that attempt to explain the
etiology of crime.

In fact, the answer is simple: moral bankruptcy.

Moral bankruptcy implies some type of debt to morality. But since
there is no universal morality, there can be no moral bankruptcy.


Certain moral standards are instinctive.

At the risk of sounding corny and fundamental to you slick types,

do unto others .....

before they can do unto you?.....


It's real simple: treat others as you'd like to be treated.

Wonder why you folks have such a hard time graspin' the concept..


Oh the concept is easily understood - but the application is what tends
to be wrong. Once asked one of my students a question along the lines of
that - he told me that when you have 20+ people giving you **** all day
long, when that one person comes along and makes some minor gesture of
the golden rule and then gets insulted because you don't kiss their feet
for it - you end up just getting mad at them and they at you....

Martin