As Cane Caldo astutely notes, the Baltimore single mother of 6 being feted by the media as mother of the year for severely disciplining her riotous son would have been seen very differently if she were a father:Is he right? I am out of touch.
…The media and civil authorities would be outraged if there were video of the young man’s father whooping his son’s ass up and down the street; punching him in the face, jerking him around by the hoodie, and pushing him back home. I imagine that cops would take time out fighting for their lives to arrest such a father.
In Ferguson and Baltimore, the Democrat officials, from Pres. Obama on down, have done everything they can to promote race riots. In both cities, they had police ready to stop the riots, but the Democrat orders were to let the blacks riot, destroy, and loot.
I don't get it. Do they really think that people are going to watch these videos and become more sympathetic to black people? Or that voters will blame it all on Republicans in the next election?
I regularly post about destructive anti-family and anti-justice policies, but usually I can at least see some ideological purpose behind the policies, even if insane or evil.
In Baltimore, the liberals are mainly complaining that the mayor called the rioters "thugs". She was forced to retract that statement, but not the statements that she deliberately let the riots loot and destroy.
I am confused here. If anyone can explain it to me, please leave a comment.
A funny cartoonist Bizarro writes:
Families consist (and have always consisted) of virtually every combination of people, places, and things that one can imagine, and yet the world has not spiraled into chaos as a result.It appears that he has not seen the videos of the Baltimore riots.
Dalrock also points out that when the feds collect data on fathers, they count whoever is currently banging the mom, not the biological dad. So the father influence is devalued in the studies that use that data.