|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
US foster care and deplorable immigration (and foreign) policy demonstrate even if there's a "legitimate" reason to take a child from their parents they aren't necessarily going somewhere better.
Claims: Migrant children molested in US-funded foster care
After local Guatemalan officials burned down an environmental activist’s home, he decided to leave his village behind and flee to the United States, hoping he’d be granted asylum and his little boy, whose heart was failing, would receive lifesaving medical care.
But after crossing the border into Arizona in May of last year, Border Patrol agents tore the man’s 7-year-old son from his arms and sent the father nearly 2,000 miles (3,220 kilometers) away to a detention center in Georgia. The boy, now 8, went into a U.S.-funded foster home for migrant children in New York.
The foster care programs are aimed at providing migrant children with care while authorities work to connect them with parents, relatives or other sponsors. But instead the boy told a counselor he was repeatedly sexually molested by other boys in the foster home.
www.apnews.com
|
United States44450 Posts
On August 20 2019 09:25 GreenHorizons wrote:US foster care and deplorable immigration (and foreign) policy demonstrate even if there's a "legitimate" reason to take a child from their parents they aren't necessarily going somewhere better. Show nested quote +Claims: Migrant children molested in US-funded foster care
After local Guatemalan officials burned down an environmental activist’s home, he decided to leave his village behind and flee to the United States, hoping he’d be granted asylum and his little boy, whose heart was failing, would receive lifesaving medical care.
But after crossing the border into Arizona in May of last year, Border Patrol agents tore the man’s 7-year-old son from his arms and sent the father nearly 2,000 miles (3,220 kilometers) away to a detention center in Georgia. The boy, now 8, went into a U.S.-funded foster home for migrant children in New York.
The foster care programs are aimed at providing migrant children with care while authorities work to connect them with parents, relatives or other sponsors. But instead the boy told a counselor he was repeatedly sexually molested by other boys in the foster home. www.apnews.com
This is an element of the broader money issue. A skilled foster carer has better things to do with their time than foster care, just like the kind of cops we want can get way better jobs than cops. We’re left with three groups, the people who can’t get anything better and aren’t qualified for what they have, the believers who essentially volunteer, and those who have a non monetary incentive to perform the role. If they’re not willing to properly pay people to do the work then the only people they’ll get are the ones who aren’t in it for the money. Best case scenario you get independently wealthy bleeding hearts like my parents. Worst case you get child molesters.
|
On August 20 2019 07:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2019 07:07 schaf wrote:
I think he means someone feeding the child would not infringe upon the parents rights. So he thinks the parent should not lose the right to have the child by not feeding it but that the state should just ffed the child as to not impact the parent? I guess there is a little bit of logic there, except I can't imagine a situation where a parent does not feed a child and is not also emotional abusing them and so on. dude ... in that situation the 13yr old was not taken away because <reasons>.
my point was that even when the child is not removed(due to agencies/system impotence), there are are still things to do for her, to help her.
you don't leave/abandon the child because the avenues to take her are not initially there.
|
On August 20 2019 09:03 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2019 04:11 Simberto wrote:
No one knows within 1 minute with 100% certainty whether someone has been abused or not. If that were the case, this whole problem wouldn't exist. Anyone who tells you something like that has either no idea what they are talking about or is lying.
And anyone who, after talking with someone for 1 minute, claims to know anything about them with 100% certainty is also lying. That is not even enough investigation to give you a 100% on the color of someones hair. My brother's a seasoned care worker - been in the industry for 13 years now - at various levels. He met my ex girlfriend once and asked me privately if she'd been abused by a parent, and told me she had when I initially laughed it off. She had, in fact, and I just didn't feel comfortable admitting it. So either my brother's psychic or he knows his business.
I am totally fine with an 80% certainty there. Or whatever. But as you said, he asked you if that happened, he didn't go to you and tell you "Btw, i am 100% certain your girlfriend was abused by a parent."
My main point is that 100% are hard or don't exist when talking about information gained by talking to humans. You can get 80%, 90%, maybe even more. But that also means that you are wrong a few percent of the time.
|
On August 20 2019 09:03 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2019 04:11 Simberto wrote:
No one knows within 1 minute with 100% certainty whether someone has been abused or not. If that were the case, this whole problem wouldn't exist. Anyone who tells you something like that has either no idea what they are talking about or is lying.
And anyone who, after talking with someone for 1 minute, claims to know anything about them with 100% certainty is also lying. That is not even enough investigation to give you a 100% on the color of someones hair. My brother's a seasoned care worker - been in the industry for 13 years now - at various levels. He met my ex girlfriend once and asked me privately if she'd been abused by a parent, and told me she had when I initially laughed it off. She had, in fact, and I just didn't feel comfortable admitting it. So either my brother's psychic or he knows his business.
So... you'r arguing there is an easy, quick 100% test, and it's in your brother's head? Seems like this problem is solved then. All we need is iamthedave's brother (and similarly trained/talented individuals) patrolling the streets and identifying the abused children. Then these oracles notify the authorities, and the problem is solved!
Or... maybe... your brother wasn't 100% sure, but only 80% or even 50%. He saw certain signs that he recognized as things abused children do. However, there are abused children who *don't* do those things and there are non-abused children who *do* do them. And so, instead of notifying the police, he pulled you aside in private and said "hey, I think your girlfriend might have been abused as a child. You should try talking to her about it". So you did, and he was right. That doesn't make him infallible, though.
|
On August 17 2019 22:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:
When people talk about spanking their children being wrong, they're not talking about a single emotional reaction where you slap your 2-3 year old who tried to run into traffic, or even 5 seconds after it ran into traffic and a car luckily swerved away from it. Like, it is not an ideal response. But it's an understandable one, and a singular incident like this is not going to hinder your child's development.
But if a parent is spanking their child more than once per year, they're doing something wrong. There's no pedagogical justification for this. It's bad parenting, period. Not that you're inevitably going to develop into a broken human being from being spanked twice per year, but we still know that this yields negative results. We know that children who are spanked are less receptive towards other behavioral correcting approaches. And we know that when you teach a child something, you don't just teach what you are trying to teach, you're also teaching your behavior.
That is, if a child steals candy from a store and you spank the child for doing that, you do teach the child not to steal candy from the store. This is the intended lesson, and that is fine. You're also teaching the child that it's okay to hit people who engage in behavior that you disapprove of. This is the unintended lesson, and it is not fine. And it's why the argument from people who say 'I was spanked, and I turned out fine, so spanking children is fine' resonates so poorly with me: My perspective is that people who say this didn't turn out fine, as evident by them advocating hitting children. That this is appropriate is a part of the lesson learned that we need to stop more children from learning.
I don't think it's as simplistic as you make it seem. My parents spanked me. Maybe once a year, maybe even less. They made it very very clear there was a difference between spanking and hitting people. They also made it clear what was an offense that would result in being spanked, and me doing that did result in me getting spanked. They didnt enjoy it, and they didn't hit hard: in retrospect the only thing I clearly remember is that it was "being punished" and that the crime was very very obviously linked with the punishment. I don't know if it helped to stop me fighting with my brother, but it definitely meant that we hid our fights from our parents which necessarily resulted in them being less violent than they otherwise might have been, because spanking was the "ultimate punishment" and even if we were angry at one another we still agreed that fighting openly was not worth getting spanked over.
That said, do I think spanking is necessary? No. In hindsight I reckon my parents could have come up with some other "ultimate punishment" that is not as ambiguously near physical abuse and would still serve the purpose (although of course, 35 years ago spanking was not seen in nearly as bad a light as it is today). When my brother and I got older, that did happen. The ulitmate punishment went from spanking to being grounded, losing the right to use the computer, losing TV rights, or whatever else would best teach us that what we had done was *very bad*. But when I talk to people my age, we all see our parents had some form of "ultimate punishment" when we were small, whether that was standing in the corner looking away from the room, sitting on our knees opposite our sibling until we kissed nad made up, or being spanked. As long as the latter is done without actual intent to do physical harm and with the clear signal that it is a punishment and not an arbitrary form of physical violence, I don't see how it is any better or worse than other forms of "ultimate punishment". As for raising children without any form of punishment at all? Insofar as I know, that results in spoilt brats 100% of the time.
|
Norway28929 Posts
I'm not saying that your parents were bad parents, I think many parents who use spanking in a controlled manner the way you describe it are still very good, caring and loving parents, but I still that I think the particular act of spanking is bad parenting. Other methods can be used, you acknowledge as much yourself.
Also I had a childhood virtually free of punishment. Like I can remember once where me and my brother started fighting over who was gonna use the computer, and then neither of us got to use it. (I think for the rest of the day.) That's probably the most severe punishment I can remember experiencing and I don't think I turned out to be a spoiled brat at all, and I don't think I was one when I was a kid either. I'm not saying that's viable with all children, nor for all parents - it requires a degree of patience most people don't have, or even have the luxury of having.
|
On August 20 2019 12:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2019 09:25 GreenHorizons wrote:US foster care and deplorable immigration (and foreign) policy demonstrate even if there's a "legitimate" reason to take a child from their parents they aren't necessarily going somewhere better. Claims: Migrant children molested in US-funded foster care
After local Guatemalan officials burned down an environmental activist’s home, he decided to leave his village behind and flee to the United States, hoping he’d be granted asylum and his little boy, whose heart was failing, would receive lifesaving medical care.
But after crossing the border into Arizona in May of last year, Border Patrol agents tore the man’s 7-year-old son from his arms and sent the father nearly 2,000 miles (3,220 kilometers) away to a detention center in Georgia. The boy, now 8, went into a U.S.-funded foster home for migrant children in New York.
The foster care programs are aimed at providing migrant children with care while authorities work to connect them with parents, relatives or other sponsors. But instead the boy told a counselor he was repeatedly sexually molested by other boys in the foster home. www.apnews.com This is an element of the broader money issue. A skilled foster carer has better things to do with their time than foster care,
Not in France, the cursus is not hard but so many people wants to do it that it leads to a very selective entry exam. Then they lack support, money and are overwhelmed by work and are burned out after 5/10 years. So money is a big issue but not the lack of skilled workers willing to do a social job.
|
|
|
On August 21 2019 00:23 JimmiC wrote:We just had a climate poll make big news up here as what people want far surpasses what Canadian policy is. It will be interesting to see if our Green party becomes more relevant or if the bigger parties start to shift their policies. Do you guy's have any polls with questions like this? If so it would be interesting to see how they compare to us. https://www.policynote.ca/climate-poll-2019/
Lots of em, they all say there's a partisan and age divide, we need to do more, and like polls on background checks, they are largely meaningless other than as an example of our subservience to our oligarchy.
Just as how practically every other country realizes the importance of paid maternity leave but the wealthiest country on the planet can't seem to find the funds.
|
|
|
On August 21 2019 05:27 JimmiC wrote:
There are some positive numbers in there but also a lot of scary ones. Hopefully the millennial as they continue to grow and make up a bigger and bigger portion of the population will get to the polls and make a difference. Only 18% of republicans worrying about climate change was particularly worrying.
It'll be too little too late at this pace unfortunately. Especially with Biden being who they're supposed to vote for in 2020 and likely a hand-picked replacement (or god help us, Biden again) in 2024
|
|
|
Trump had some scary quotes
'All Jews who vote for democrats show great disloyalty'
+ Show Spoiler +
He's basically saying all Jews should have the same opinion just because they're Jewish and once again equates the state of Israel to every Jew.
He also frames Russia's annexation of Crimea as 'Obama being outsmarted' and pretty much blames Obama for them not being at G-8 and not Russia's own actions
+ Show Spoiler +
He's also seems to be serious about the buying Greenland, as he just snubbed a meeting with Denmark for saying they are not going to discuss that. Maybe he'll 'outsmart them' and liberate Greenlands citizens in the next few years?
I can't actually believe this last tweet...maybe it's another 'haha he's trolling the world what a master baiter haha' but man...
|
On August 21 2019 08:58 JimmiC wrote:
As far as the environment goes it is a global problem, even if the US magically turned into Norway it would still be too late if others didn't improve their act. It will take a global effort. (A possible one)
That being said it would be nice if the worlds richest country was leading the way instead of talking like it is going to invest in coal....
What would be really cool is if the world put in the kind of effort it did for the space race or whatever. Imagine if China, Russia and the US were all fighting to see who could be the first to solve some of the biggest climate issues.
The problem is that the US has committed to betting on coming out on top when the climate collapses rather than try to lead us away from it.
The US proved Russia right with its first post-treaty missile launch for example while China Is Spending 3 Times as Much as the US on Renewable Energy
|
United States44450 Posts
I'm a little out of the loop. Why is the leader of the free world Twitter feuding with the nation of Denmark because they wouldn't entertain the transfer of the autonomous island of Greenland and its occupants to American control?
Also what is going on with this timeline? Every element of this situation sounds like fiction.
|
On August 21 2019 13:03 KwarK wrote:
I'm a little out of the loop. Why is the leader of the free world Twitter feuding with the nation of Denmark because they wouldn't entertain the transfer of the autonomous island of Greenland and its occupants to American control?
Also what is going on with this timeline? Every element of this situation sounds like fiction.
Except the part where he called out all Jews who didn't vote for him as "disloyal". That part was a bit too real.
|
Maybe he just had a golf appointment that date, and now looked for a reason to cancel the Denmark meeting.
Please, there are natural and easy explanations for everything, only you guys always assume the worst  .
|
Personally I don't recognize a world where we can't even trade the land of people who don't look like us for gold and goodwill anymore. This world used to be great, please make the world great again.
|
On August 21 2019 08:58 JimmiC wrote:
As far as the environment goes it is a global problem, even if the US magically turned into Norway it would still be too late if others didn't improve their act. It will take a global effort. (A possible one)
That being said it would be nice if the worlds richest country was leading the way instead of talking like it is going to invest in coal....
What would be really cool is if the world put in the kind of effort it did for the space race or whatever. Imagine if China, Russia and the US were all fighting to see who could be the first to solve some of the biggest climate issues.
Yes that would not make much difference,norway has a high co2/captiva emission as well. How did Norway get such good reputation in dealing with climate change? They are not better then any other western country,in fact they are one of the worst.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
